The works of Nathaniel Lardner - The Christian Researcher - Home

Methodius. A. D. 290. 187
and, it" the homily or tract, to ho hereafter mcntionetl, concerning'
Simeon and Anna be his, Ave have another instance
of his ill-will to Origen. This is one of the arguments of
Combetis for the gennineness of that^ work, that the author
opposeth Origen: but supposing this not to be written by
Methodius, we have nevertheless a good deal of evidence of
his aversion to that eminent person : and I think this must be
allowed to make a kind of Apology for Eusebius ; thoug'li I
heartily Avish he had not carried his resentment so far as he
seems to have done. He had good reason, we will su[)pose,
to be displeased Avith Methodius, and he might w^ell censure
and blame him for treatino- Oriaen as he did : nevertheless,
he should have given Methodius a place among other ancient
worthies in his Ecclesiastical History.
9. Theodoret" has quoted a passage of Methodius out of
a piece entitled, A Discourse of 3Iartyrs, of which there is
nothing else remaining. I shall take notice of that passage
hereafter.
10. Nor have we any thing of the dialogue called Xeno,
which we before observed to be taken notice of by Socrates.
11. I think 1 have now put down the titles of all the works
of Methodius, expressly mentioned by the ancients: however,
it is not improbable that he wrote more; for .Jerom
says there were many other beside those mentioned by him.
Eusebius's passage above cited from Jerom seems to imply,
that Methodius had written some good number of books
before he became an enemy to Origen : and he might after-
Avards also write some other, which we are not acquainted
Avith.
12. And there are actually several other'' things noAv
extant Avhich are ascribed to him : such as, a Homily concerning
Simeon and Anna; another Homily upon our Saviour's
entrance into Jerusalem ; and Revelations, and a
Chronicle.
These tAvo last 1 think are generally rejected as not genuine.
The second likewise 1 suppose is defended by very fcAv.
But the first homily, concerning Simeon and Anna, has
more patrons. Not only> Combetis, and some others, bvit^
Fabricius likeAvise pleads its genuineness. On the other
hand Tillemont* alloAvs, there is no good reason to take it
' Vid. Method. Combefis. p. 427, 469. 473, not. 42.
" Vid. Theodoret. Dial. i. p. 37.
* See Tillem. Mem. Ec. T. v. P. iii. as before, p. 144, et notes 6 et 7, sur
St. Melhode. Vid. etiarn Fabric, ut supra, p. 2.57, 258.
y Vid. Combef. in Method, p. 469. ^ Fabr. ut supra, p. 257.
* Tillem. as before, p. 136, 144, note vi.