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 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. 6 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 Casarea 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.

6

Z

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 re'velations, as if written by some great apostle, imposes upon us monstrous relations of things of his own inven'tion, as shown him by an angel, says, that after the resurrection 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

* Και εν τῳ Γαϊς δε 8 μικρῳ προσθεν εμνήσθημεν διαλογῳ, Προκλος, προς δν εποιείτο την ζητησιν, περι της Φιλιππε και των θυγατέρων αυτ8 τελευτης συναδων τοις εκτεθεισιν ούτω φησιν· Μετα τουτο δε προφητιδες τεσσαρες αἱ Φιλιππε γεγενηνται εν Ιεραπόλει τη κατα την Ασίαν· ὁ τάφος αυτών εσιν εκεί, και ὁ τε πατρος αυτων ταυτα μεν οὗτος. Η. Ε. 1. iii. c. 31. p. 103. Α. Β.

* Γαϊος, οὗ φωνας ηδη προτερον παρατεθειμαι, εν τη φερομενη αυτε ζητήσει ταυτα περι αυτ8 γραφει Αλλα και Κηρινθος ώ δι' αποκαλύψεων ὡς απο μεγαλε αποτολε γεγραμμενων, τερατολογιας ἡμιν ὡς δι' αγγελε αυτῳ δεδειγμένας ψευδομενος επεισαγει λεγων, μετα την αναςασιν επιγειον ειναι το βασίλειον τε Χρισε, και παλιν επιθυμίαις και ἡδοναις εν Ιερεσαλημ την σαρκα πολιτευομένην δελεύειν. Και εχθρος ὑπαρχων ταις γραφαις τε Θες αριθμον χιλιονταετίας εν γαμῳ ἑορτης 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.

6

6

c

6

6

Whether Caius here intends our book of the Revelation, or some other piece, is a disputed point. Mr. Twells 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 But Dr. Grabe says, that thought this a clear case. though 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. Mill is of the same opinion, 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.

6

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

a

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 illa distinctam, a Cerintho sub Johannis nomine editam, adstruxisse, &c. Grabe, Spicil. T. i. p. 312.

d Fuêre jam in ecclesiâ Romanâ, aliisque, qui Apocalypseos dicta de millenario in Christi regno, ejusque gaudiis, paulo crassius interpretati, missâ ferme spe cœlestium, in terrestrium horum, ceu propediem venturorum, expectationem toto animo ferebantur. Hoc cum lugerent nonnulli sanctitatis christianæ studiosi, et vero dogma, unde, ex pravâ interpretatione, orta esset hæc impietas, in Apocalypsi traditum viderent, eo demum lapsi sunt, ut librum istum, qui sub nomine Johannis jam ab initio ferebatur, Cerinthi, aut alicujus alterius impostoris, esse crederent. Mill. Prol. n. 654.

Eus. H. E. 1. iii. cap. 28. p. 100. B. C.

VOL. II.

2 D

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.

6

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 three passages taken out of a book written against the heresy of Artemon. It is evidently the same with that which is called by 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 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 have been written by Caius. Among these last is 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 quotai, f H. E. 1 v. cap. 28. 8 Hær. Fab. 1. ii. cap. 5.

h Non tantum Nicephorus, lib. iv. cap. 20, affirmat Tov Miкpor nuevo Aaßupivov 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.

i Hunc anonymum vocat Blondellus, cum constet eum Caium fuisse. Pearson, ibid. p. 147.

6

6

19

k

6

6

tions of this book are introduced in this manner: There 'are,' says 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: at1 the same 'time they are unknown to us, because the treatises have 'not affixed to them the names of the authors.' He goes on: In 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. Theodoret quotes 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.

6

κ Ὧν εδε τας προσηγορίας καταλεγειν ἡμιν δυνατον. Eus. l. v. cap. 27. p. 195. B. Αδηλων δ' ὅμως ἡμιν, ότι μη την προση

1

γορίαν επάγεται των συγγραψαμενων. Ibid.

n

Τετων εν τινος σπουδασματι κατα της Αρτέμωνος αἱρέσεως πεπονημένῳ. K. λ. Ibid. c. 28. in.. Κατά της τέτων αἱρέσεως ὁ Σμικρος συνεγραφη Λαβυρινθος, ὃν τινες Ωριγενες ὑπολαμβανεσι ποιημα αλλ' ὁ χαρακτηρ ελεγχει τις λεγοντας. Ειτε δε εκείνος, είτε αλλος, συνεγραψε, ToLovde ev avty dınyeirai dinynpa. Fab. 1. ii. cap. 35. De Theodoto.

• Ώσπερ και τον Λαβυρινθον τινες υπέγραψαν Ωριγενες επει Γαις επι ποιημα τη αληθεια, αυτό συντεταχοτος τον Λαβυρινθον. Ap. Phot. Cod. 48. P Eruditissimus vero ille anonymus, &c. Dallæus, de Scriptis Dionys. Areop, &c. l. 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. Ewoivos. 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 Pearson. I may therefore well enough place him in the same year with Caius.

6

r

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.

a Pears. ibid. p. 148.

Φασι γαρ τες μεν πρότερες ἅπαντας, και αυτές αποτολες παρειληφέναι τε και δεδιδαχεναι ταυτα, & νυν οὗτοι λέγεσι και τετηρησθαι την αλήθειαν τε κηρυγματος μεχρι των Βίκτορος χρονων ὁς ην τρισκαιδέκατος απο Πετρε εν Ρωμη επισκοπος" απο δε τε διαδοχες αυτε Ζεφύρινε παρακεχαραχθαι την αληθειαν ην δ' αν τυχον πιθανον το λεγόμενον, ει μη πρωτον μεν αντεπιπτον αυτοις αἱ νειαι γραφαί. Και αδελφων δε τινων εςι γραμματα πρεσβυτερα των Βίκτορος χρόνων, ὁ εκείνοι προς τα εθνη ύπερ της αληθείας, και προς τοτε aipɛσeç eɣpalav. Eus. H. E. l. v. c. 28. p. 195. D.