Caecilius
at the close, "as being necessary to a perfect training."
1540
541
We have therefore no right
to infer from this silence that the author was ignorant of the deeper mysteries of faith.
1541
542
His philosophic stand-point is eclectic with a preference for Cicero, Seneca, and Plato.
Christianity is to him both theoretically and practically the true philosophy which teaches the only
true God, and leads to true virtue and piety. In this respect he resembles Justin Martyr.
1542
543
IV. The literary form of Octavius is very pleasing and elegant. The diction is more classical
than that of any contemporary Latin writer heathen or Christian. The book bears a strong resemblance
to Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, in many ideas, in style, and the urbanity, or gentlemanly tone. Dean
Milman says that it "reminds us of the golden days of Latin prose." Renan calls it "the pearl of the
apologetic literature of the last years of Marcus Aurelius." But the date is under dispute, and depends
in part on its relation to Tertullian.
V. Time of composition. Octavius closely resembles Tertullian’s Apologeticus, both in
argument and language, so that one book presupposes the other; although the aim is different, the
former being the plea of a philosopher and refined gentleman, the other the plea of a lawyer and
ardent Christian. The older opinion (with some exceptions
1543
544) maintained the priority of
Apologeticus, and consequently put Octavius after a.d. 197 or 200 when the former was written.
Ebert reversed the order and tried to prove, by a careful critical comparison, the originality of
Octavius.
1544
545
His conclusion is adopted by the majority of recent German writers,
1545
546
but has
also met with opposition.
1546
547
If Tertullian used Minucius, he expanded his suggestions; if
Minucius used Tertullian, he did it by way of abridgement.
It is certain that Minucius borrowed from Cicero (also from Seneca, and, perhaps, from
Athenagoras),
1547
548 and Tertullian (in his Adv. Valent.) from Irenaeus; though both make excellent
1540
C. 40: "Etiam nunc tamen aliqua consubsidunt non obstrepentia veritati, sed perfectae institutioni necessaria, de quibus
crastino, quod iam sol occasu declivis est, ut de toto (oret die toto)congruentius, promptius requiremus."
1541
Renan (p. 402) takes a different view, namely that Minucius was a liberal
Christian of the Deistic stamp, a man of the world
"qui n’empêche ni la gaieté, ni le talent, ni le goût aimable de la vie, ni la recherche, de l’élégance du style. Que nous sommes
loin de l’ébionite ou méme du juif de Galilée! Octavius, c’est Cicéron, ou mieux Fronton, devenu chrétien. En réalité, c’est par
la culture intellectuelle qu’il arrive au déisme. Il aime la nature, il se plaît a la conversation des gens biens élevés. Des hommes
faits sur ce modèle n’auraient créé ni l’Évangile ni l’Apocalypse; mais, réciproquement, sans de tels adhérents, l’Évangile,
l’Apocalypse, les épItres de Paul fussent restés les éscrits secrets d’une secte ferméé, qui, comme les esséens ou les théapeutes,
eut finlement disparu." Kühn, also, represents Minucius as a philosopher rather than a Christian, and seems to explain his silence
on the specific doctrines of Christianity from ignorance. But no educated Christian could be ignorant of Christ and His work,
nor of the prophets and apostles who were regularly read in public worship.
1542
On the philosophy of Minucius, see the analysis of Kühn, p. 21 sqq.; 58 sqq.
1543
Blondel (1641), Daillé (1660), Rösler (1777), Russwurm (1824), doubted the priority of Tertullian. See Kühn, l.c., p. v.
1544
In his essay on the subject (1866), Ebert put Octavius between 160 and the close of the second century; in his more recent
work on the History of Christ. Lat. Lit. (1874), vol. I., p. 25, be assigns it more definitely to between 179 and 185 (" Anfang
oder Mitte der achtziger Jahre des 2. Jahrh."). He assumes that Minucius used Athenagoras who wrote 177.
1545
Ueberweg (1866), Rönsch (
Das n. T. Tertull. 1871), Keim (1873), Caspari (1875, III. 411), Herzog (1876), Hauck (1877),
Bonwetsch (1878), Mangold (in Herzog
2
1882), Kühn (1882), Renan (1882), Schwenke (1883). The last (pp. 292 and 294) puts
the oral dialogue even so far back as Hadrian (before 137), and the composition before the death of Antoninus Pius (160).
1546
Hartel (1869), Jeep (1869), Klussmann (1878), Schultze (1881), and Salmon (1883). Hartel, while denying that Tertullian
borrowed from Minucius, leaves the way open for an independent use of an older book by both. Schultze puts Minucius down
to the reign of Domitian (300-303), which is much too late.
1547
Renan (p. 390) calls Minucius (although he puts him before Tertullian) a habitual plagiarist who often copies from Cicero
without acknowledgment. Dombart (p. 135 sqq.), and Schwenke (p. 273 sqq.) prove his dependence on Seneca.
522
Philip Schaff
History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene
Christianity. A.D. 100-325.
use
of their material, reproducing rather than copying it; but Tertullian is beyond question a far
more original, vigorous, and important writer. Moreover the Roman divines used the Greek language
from Clement down to Hippolytus towards the middle of the third century, with the only exception,
perhaps, of Victor (190–202). So far the probability is for the later age of Minucius.
But a close comparison of the parallel passages seems to favor his priority; yet the argument
is not conclusive.
1548
549
The priority of Minucius has been inferred also from the fact that he twice
mentions Fronto (the teacher and friend of Marcus Aurelius), apparently as a recent celebrity, and
Fronto died about 168. Keim and Renan find allusions to the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius
(177), and to the attack of Celsus (178), and hence put Octavius between 178 and 180.
1549
550
But
these assumptions are unfounded, and they would lead rather to the conclusion that the book was
not written before 200; for about twenty years elapsed (as Keim himself supposes) before the
Dialogue actually was recorded on paper.
An unexpected argument for the later age of Minucius is furnished by the recent French
discovery of the name of Marcus Caecilius Quinti F. Natalis, as the chief magistrate of Cirta
(Constantine) n Algeria, in several inscriptions from the years 210 to 217.
1550
551
The heathen
speaker Caecilius Natalis of our Dialogue hailed from that very city (chs. 9 and 31). The identity
of the two persons can indeed not be proven, but is at least very probable.
Considering these conflicting possibilities and probabilities, we conclude that Octavius was
written in the first quarter of the third century, probably during the peaceful reign of Alexander
Severus (A. D. 222–235). The last possible date is the year 250, because Cyprian’s book De Idolorum
Vanitate, written about that time is largely based upon it.
1551
552
§ 199. Cyprian.
Comp. § § 22, 47 and 53.
(I.) S. Cypriani Opera omnia. Best critical ed. by W. Hartel, Vindob. 1868–’71, 3 vols. oct. (in the
Vienna "Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiast. Latinorum "); based upon the examination of 40 MSS.
Other edd. by Sweynheym and Pannartz, Rom. 1471 (ed. princeps), again Venice 1477; by Erasmus,
Bas. 1520 (first critical ed., often reprinted); by Paul Manutius, Rom. 1563; by Morell, Par.
1548
The crucial test of relative priority applied by Ebert is the relation of the two books to Cicero. Minucius wrote with Cicero
open before him; Tertullian shows no fresh reading of Cicero; consequently if the parallel passages contain traces of Cicero,
Tertullian must have borrowed them from Minucius. But these traces in Tertullian are very few, and the inference is disputable.
The application of this test has led Hartel and Salmon (in Smith and Wace, III. 92) to the opposite conclusion. And Schultze
proves 1) that Minucius used other works of Tertullian besides the Apologeticus, and 2) that Minucius, in copying from Cicero,
makes the same kind of verbal changes in copying from Tertullian.
1549
Chs. 29, 33, 37. I can find in these passages no proof of any particular violent persecution. Tortures are spoken of in ch.
37, but to these the Christians were always exposed. Upon the whole the situation of the church appears in the introductory
chapters, and throughout the Dialogue, is a comparatively quiet one, such as we know it to have been at intervals between the
imperial persecutions. This is also the impression of Schultze and Schwenke. Minucius is silent about the argument so current
under Marcus Aurelius, that the Christians are responsible for all the public calamities.
1550
Mommsen, Corp. Lat. Inscript. VIII. 6996 and 7094-7098; Recueil de Constantine, 1869, p. 695. See an article by Dessau
in "Hermes, " 1880, t. xv., p. 471-74; Salmon, l.c., p. 924;
and Renan, l.c., p.’090 sq. Renan admits the possible identity of this
Caecilius with the friend of Minucius, but suggests in the interest of his hypothesis that he was the son.
1551
V. Schultze denies Cyprian’s authorship; but the book is attester by Jerome and Augustin.
523
Philip Schaff
History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene
Christianity. A.D. 100-325.