« ПретходнаНастави »
Barnabas, as Tertullian did, and possibly divers others, at that time, or to some other person, we cannot be positive. It may be reckoned very probable, that this epistle was not unknown to Caius. But it appears to me not unlikely, that, in all his reading and conversation, he had never met with any who ascribed this epistle to Paul: and that, when he had enumerated his thirteen epistles, he supposed he had mentioned all the writings of that apostle.
3. In another place, Eusebius having cited part of a letter of Polycrates bishop of Ephesus to Victor bishop of Rome, concerning the death of John and Philip, also one of the twelve apostles, adds: “And in the Dialogue y of • Caius, which we mentioned just now, Proculus, with
whom that disputation was held, agreeing with what we • have here put down concerning the death of Philip and • . his daughters, says: “ After this the four prophetesses, • daughters of Philip, lived in Hierapolis in Asia, where is • both their and their father's sepulchre.” 'Thus he. And,' adds Eusebius, · Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, makes * mention of the daughters of Philip, which had the gift
of prophecy, who then lived with their father in Cæsa• rea of Judea, saying these words: “ And we came unto • Cæsarea, and entered into the house of Philip the evan
gelist, ,"; Acts xxi. 8, 9. Whether Proculus referred to the book of the Acts we cannot say.
4. Once more, Eusebius, speaking of Cerinthus, says: • And Caius, whom we quoted before, in his Disputation,
writes thus of him. And Cerinthus also, who by his revelations, as if written by some great apostle, imposes upon us monstrous relations of things of his own inven
tion, as shown hinn by an angel, says, that after the resur• rection there shall be a terrestrial kingdom of Christ ; and that men shall live again in Jerusalem, subject to
sensual desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to • the divine scriptures, [literally, 'scriptures of God,'] and
Y Και εν τω Γαϊε δε μικρή προσθεν εμνησθημεν διαλογή, Προκλος, προς ον εποιειτο την ζητησιν, περι της Φιλιππ8 και των θυγατερων αυτ8 τελευτης συναδων τους εκτεθεισιν ούτω φησιν· Μετα τουτο δε προφητιδες τεσσαρες αι Φιλιππο γεγενηνται εν Ιεραπολει τη κατα την Ασιαν: ο ταφος αυτων εσιν εκει, και ο τ8 πατρος αυτων ταυτα μεν ούτος. Η. Ε. 1. iii. c. 31. p. 103. Α. Β.
* Γαϊος, ου φωνας ηδη προτερον παρατεθειμαι, εν τη φερομενη αυτο ζητησει ταυτα περι αυτο γραφει: Αλλα και Κηρινθος ώ δι' αποκαλυψεων ως απο μεγαλε απο ολα γεγραμμενων, τερατολογιας ημιν ως δι' αγγελα αυτο δεδειγμενας ψευδομενος επεισαγει λεγων, μετα την ανασασιν επιγειον ειναι το βασιλειον τα Χρισ8, και παλιν επιθυμιαις και ηδοναις εν Ιερεσαλημ την σαρκα πολιτευομενην δελευειν. Και εχθρος υπαρχων ταις γραφαις τε θεε αριθμον χιλιον-. ταετιας εν γαμω εορτης θελων πλαναν λεγει γινεσθαι. Η. Ε. 1. iii. c. 28. p. 100. A.
• desirous to seduce mankind, he says, there will be a term of a thousand years spent in nuptial entertainments.'
This passage, together perhaps with other things in this dispute, said against Cerinthus, and not any particular and distinct book, I suppose to be what Theodoret refers to, when he says that Caius wrote against Cerinthus.
Whether Caius here intends our book of the Revelation, or some other piece, is a disputed point. Mr. Twells á thinks it probable, that Caius's testimony relates to some
forgery of Cerinthus, under the name of St. John, and • not to the present book of Revelation. And Mr. Jones b thought this a clear case. But Dr. Grabe says, that • thougho some learned men have concluded, from this passage of Caius, that the heresiarch Cerinthus published an Apocalypse ; yet it appears to him plain and manifest, • from the words of this passage, that Caius ascribed the
very Apocalypse of St. John to Cerinthus.' And Dr. Misl is of the same opinion,d that there were at that time some catholic christians, who ascribed the Revelation, which from the beginning had been owned for St. John's, to Cerinthus, or some other impostor. This they did out of an abhorrence of those bad consequences which some drew from this book, not rightly understood.
And it must be owned that Dionysius of Alexandria e affirms, that some before him had ascribed the Revelation, called St. John's, to Cerinthus. And he may be thought to refer to our Caius: nevertheless it does not appear to me very plain, that Caius speaks of our book of the Revelation. His description does not suit it: unless he is to be supposed to ascribe to that book itself the false and sensual notions which some had of the expected Millennium. Nor does
* See a Critical Examination of the late New Text and Version of the N. T. Part iii. p. 99, &c.
b New and Full Method, &c. vol. i. p. 224, &c. c Cæterum Cerinthum hæresiarcham apocalypsin quandam edidisse, docti aliqui viri collegerunt ex verbis Caii, presbyteri Romani in dissertatione adversus Proculum, apud Eus. H. E. 1. iii. cap. 28.-Verum ex ipsis hisce verbis planum atque apertum mihi videtur, Caium ipsam S. Joannis Apocalypsin Cerintho adscripsisse, non vero aliam ab illâ distinctam, a Cerintho sub Johannis nomine editam, adstruxisse, &c. Grabe, Spicil. T. i. p. 312.
Fuêre jam in ecclesiâ Romanâ, aliisque, qui Apocalypseos dicta de millenario in Christi regno, ejusque gaudiis, paulo crassius interpretati, missä ferme spe coelestium, in terrestrium horum, ceu propediem venturorum, expectationem toto animo ferebantur. Hoc cum lugerent nonnulli sanctitatis christianæ studiosi, et vero dogma, unde, ex prava interpretatione, orta esset hæc impietas, in Apocalypsi traditum viderent, eo demum lapsi sunt, ut librum istum, qui sub nomine Johannis jam ab initio ferebatur, Čerinthi, aut alicujus alterius impostoris, esse crederent. Mill. Prol. n. 654.
e Eus. H. E. I. iii. cap. 28. p. 100. B. C. VOL. II.
St. John, or whoever is the author of this book, here give himself expressly the title and character of apostle. However it must be allowed to be very probable, that Caius said nothing in favour of the book we now have with the title of the Revelation; if he had, Eusebius would not have failed to give us at least a hint of it. A bare silence about St. John's Revelation, even supposing Caius to have said nothing particularly against it, does not suit a disciple of Irenæus.
5. We have now observed four passages of the Dialogue written by Caius, and we have seen in them marks of a high respect for the ancient scriptures generally received by christians, which he also calls divine scriptures, or
scriptures of God;' and his detestation of all attempts to bring any other into a like esteem with them, or to mislead men from the true sense and meaning of them. Thirteen epistles of Paul he reckoned up in his dispute, but did not name that to the Hebrews. It is highly probable that in the same place he mentioned other books of the New Testament, and possibly of the Old likewise: but it is very likely that he did not receive the book of the Revelation, if he did not think it an imposture of Cerinthus.
II. Eusebius has f three passages taken out of a book written against the heresy of Artemon. It is evidently the same with that which is called by8 Theodoret the Little Labyrinth; what he takes thence being for substance the same with what Eusebius quotes out of the book against Artemon. This opinion is also confirmed by Nicephorus, as has been observed by h bishop Pearson, and Cave. Photius indeed, in his article of Caius, mentions distinctly
the Labyrinth,' as he calls it, and the book' against the heresy of Artemon. But what he says can be of little weight against so much good evidence, that one and the same book is to be understood by these several titles.
This book is by some reckoned the work of an unknown writer; others think it to bave been written by Caius. Among these last isi Pearson, who is even offended at Blondel for calling the author anonymous. But Pearson is a great deal too positive in this matter. Eusebius's quota1, f. H. E. I v. cap. 28.
8 Hær. Fab. I. ii. cap. 5. ḥ Non tantum Nicephorus, lib. iv. cap. 20, affirmat tov Mikpov eloqjevov Aaßvpıyoov redarguisse absurditatem Artemonis et Theodoti, quem beatus victor depugnavit; sed et Theodoretus Hæreticarum Fabularum, lib. ii. cap.5, trium pericoparum apud Eusebium summam ex Parvo Labyrintho deducit de Theodoto agens. Pearson, Op. Post. p. 148.
Hunc anonymum vocat Blondellus, cum constet eum Caium fuisse. Pearson, ibid. p. 147.
tions of this book are introduced in this manner: There * are,' says k he,' beside these, treatises of many others, whose
names we have not been able to learn ; orthodox and * ecclesiastical men, as the interpretations of the divine
scriptures given by each of them manifest : at the same • time they are unknown to us, because the treatises have • not affixed to them the names of the authors.' He
goes on: ‘Inm a work of one of these persons, composed against
the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata has * endeavoured to revive in our time, is a relation very much • to our purpose.' St. Jerom, in his chapter of Caius, in his book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, as it is also often called, takes no notice of any other work of his, but the dispute with Proculus. Theo doretquotes this book thus : Against their heresy [that • is, the heresy of Artemon and his followers] was written the Little Labyrinth, which some think to be a work of Origen, but the style is sufficient to show their mistake. • But whether it was written by him, or some other, there • is in it the following relation:' without so much as making a conjecture at the author. As for Photius, on whom Pearson chiefly relies, he had seen the note upon the book Of the Universe, in which it was observed, • That it
was ascribed to several, as also the Labyrinth was to Origen; whereas really it was by Caius, the same who
composed the Labyrinth.' And Photius may have been of the same opinion with the writer of this note, though I think he does not expressly say so.
But since the more early writers, Eusebius, Jerom, Theodoret, appear not to have known the author of this work, it is best to consider him as anonymous, as I find some other learned p moderns beside Blondel have done.
ΚΩν εδε τας προσηγοριας καταλεγειν ημιν δυνατον. Εus. 1. ν. cap. 27. p. 195. B.
Αδηλων δ' όμως ήμιν, ότι μη την προσηχοριαν επαγεται των συγγραψαμενων. Ιbid.
m Teτων εν τινος σπουδασματι κατα της Αρτεμωνος αιρεσεως πεπονημενη. K. N. Ibid. c. 28. in.
Κατα της τετων αιρεσεως και Σμικρος συνεγραφη Λαβυρινθος, όν τινες Ωριγενες υπολαμβανεσα ποιημα αλλ' ο χαρακτηρ ελεγχει τις λεγοντας. Έιτε δε εκεινος, ειτε αλλος, συνεγραψε, TOLOvde ev avty denyertai denynua. Fab. l. ii. cap. 35. De Theodoto.
“Ωσπερ και τον Λαβυρινθον τινες υπεγραψαν Ωριγενες επει Γαιε εσι ποιημα τη αληθεια, αυτε συντεταχοτος τον Λαβυρινθον. Αp. Phot. Cod. 48.
p Eruditissimus vero ille anonymus, &c. Dallæus, de Scriptis Dionys. Areop. &c. 1. i. c. 2. p. 10. Genevæ, 1666. Vetus auctor apud Eusebium, libro v. Hist. Ecc. cap. 28. Jacob Sirmond. not. ad Facundum, lib. iii. cap. 2. Nec aliter scriptor antiquus contra Artemonis hæresin, ap. Euseb. "Hist. Ecc Cave, Dissertat. de Libris et Officiis ecclesiasticis Græcorum, p. 42. V. Ewbivos. ad calcem. part ii. Hist. Lit.
Though I do not reckon Caius the author of this work, it is fitly enough considered here, being mentioned by Eusebius in his account of matters about the time of the emperors Commodus and Severus. Indeed, as he did not know the name of the author of this work, so he might not exactly perceive the time of it. However, from the things and
persons mentioned in the passages quoted by Eusebius, it is very probable that it was not composed under Victor, but under Zephyrinus, or his successor, as has been well shown by 9 Pearson. I may therefore well enough place him in the same year with Caius.
1. The design of the first passage of this work is to show the novelty of that heresy, that our Saviour was a mere man; whereas the persons against whom the author writes, asserted its antiquity. For they say, that all the ancients,
• and even the apostles themselves, received and taught the same things which they now hold : and that the truth of the gospel was preserved, till the time of Victor, the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter; but by his successor [or, “ from the time of his successor'] Zephyrinus, the truth has been corrupted. And possibly, what they say might have been credited, if, first of all, the divine scriptures did not contradict them; and then also, secondly, the writings of the brethren more ancient than Victor, which they published in defence of the truth against the Gentiles, and against the heresies of their times. The brethren mentioned by name are Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, Irenæus, Melito, with a general appeal to many more not named, and to ancient hymns composed by the faithful in honour of Christ.
This shows plainly that there were scriptures called divine, which were esteemed to be of higher authority than the writings of the most early christian writers, who lived so near the time of the apostles. It likewise assures us, that the persons against whom this author argues, did also appeal to the apostles for the truth of their opinions, and did not pretend to assert any thing contrary to the doctrine of the apostles. 9 Pears. ibid.
148. * Φασι γαρ τeς μεν προτερος άπαντας, και αυτος αποσολος παρειληφέναι τε και δεδιδαχεναι ταυτα, α νυν ουτοι λεγεσί' και τετηρησθαι την αληθειαν το κηρυγματος μεχρι των Βικτορος χρονων ος ην τρισκαιδεκατoς απο Πετρε εν “Ρωμη επισκοπος" απο δε τε διαδοχι αυτο Ζεφυρινα παρακεχαραχθαι την αληθειαν ην δ' αν τυχον πιθανον το λεγομενον, ει μη πρωτον μεν αντεπιπτον αυτοις αι θειαι γραφαι. Και αδελφων δε τινων εσι γραμματα πρεσβυτερα των Βικτορος χρονων,
προς τα εθνη υπερ της αληθειας, και προς τοτε aipegels eypayav. Eus. H. E. 1. v. c. 28. p. 195. D.