[ocr errors][ocr errors]

‘ desirous to seduce mankind, he says, there will be a term ‘ of a thousand years spent in nuptial entertainments.’ ‘

Thi passage, together perhaps with other things in this dispute, said against Cerinthus, and not any particular and distinct book, _I su pose to be what Theodoret refers to, when he says that aius wrote against Cerinthus.

Whether Caius here intends our book of the Revelation, or some other iece, is a disputed point. Mr. Twellsa thinks it ‘ roba le, that Caius s testimony relates to some ‘ forgery oi? Cerinthus, under the name of St. John, and ‘ not to the present book of Revelation.’ And Mr. Jonesb thought this a clear case. But Dr. Grabe says, ‘that ‘ though0 some learned men have concluded, from this ‘ passage of Cains, that the heresiarch Cerinthus published ‘ an Apocalypse; yet it appears to him lain and manifest, ‘ from the words of this passage, that 'aius ascribed the * very A ocalypse of St. John to Cerinthus.’ And Dr. Mill is o 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’, 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'Alexandriae 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 a pear to me very plain, that Cains speaks of our book of t e 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 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 sup osing Caius to have said nothing particularly against it, oes not suit a disciple of Irenaeus. .

‘ 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 Caeterum Cerinthum haeresiarcham apocalypsin quandam edidisse, docti aliqui viii 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 Apocaly'psin Cerintho adscripsisse, non vero aliam ab illa distinctam, a Cerintho su Johannis nomine editam, adstruxisse, &c. Grabe, Spicil. T. i. p. 312.

1 Fuére jam in ecclesia Romana, aliisque, qui Apocalypseos dicta de millenario in Christi regno, ejusque gaudiis, paulo crasius interpretati, missa ferme spe coelestium, in terrestrium horum, ceu propediem venturorum, expectationem toto animo ferebantur. Hoe cum lugerent nonnulli sanctitatis christianae studiosi, et vero dogma, unde, ex prava interpretatione, om esset haec impietas, in Apocalypsi traditum viderent, eo demum lapsi sunt, ut librum istum, qui sub nomine Johannis jam abinitio ferehatur, Cerinthi, aut aliquus alterius impostoris, esse crederent. Mill. Prol. n. 654.

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

voL. n. 2 n

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 be 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 ossibly 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 hasf three assages taken out of a book written against the heresy o 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 byh bisho 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 b these several titles.

This book is by some reckone the work of an unknown writer; others think it to have been written by Caius. Among .these last isi Pearson, who is even ofi'ended at Blondel for calling the author anonymou. But Pearson is a great deal too positive in'this matter. Eusebius’s quota

. f H. E. l v. cap. 28. 8 Hear. Fab. 1. cap. 5.

h Non tantum Nicephorus, lib. iv. cap. 20, afiirmat 'rov Mucpov upnpwov Aafivaflov redarguisse absurditatem Artemonis et Theodoti, quem beatus victor depugnavit ; sed et Theodoretus Hazreticarum 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: 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: ‘ Inm a work of one of these persons, com osed against ‘ the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of amosata 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,'0r 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 u on the book Of the Universe, in which it was observed, ‘ hat it ‘ was° ascribed to several, as also the Labyrinth was to ‘ Origen; whereas really it was b Caius, the same who ‘ composed the Labyrinth.’ And Ighotius 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? modems beside Blondel have done.

[ocr errors]

Though I do not reckon Caius the author of this work, it is fitly enough considered here, being mentioned b 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 ver probable that it was not composed under Victor, but un er Zephyrinus, or his successor, as ha been well shown by‘l Pearson. I may therefore well enough place him in the same year with Caius. ' i l. 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. ‘ Forr they say, that all the ancients, and even the a ostles themselves, received and taught the same things which they now hold: and that the truth of the gos el was preserved, till the time of Victor, the thirteenth ishop 0 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 scri ‘tures did not contradict them; and then also, secondly, t e writings of the brethren more ancient than Victor, which the published in defence of the truth against the Gentiles, an against the heresies of their times.’ The brethren mentioned by name are Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, Irenaeus, 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 a ostles. It likewise assures us, that the persons against whom this author argues, did also aptpeal to the aipostles for the truth of' their opinions, and di not preten to assert any thing contrary to the doctrine of the apostles. . '

1 Pears. ibid. p. 148. 1 v

' (Dam yap reg p.511 wportpsg limwrag, mu avrsg arms-0X89 rapslhnowan re Ian dsdidaxwm room, (‘1 mm oil-rot Xeysai' Kill. rerqpnoeat "11 100795qu re Impuypa-rog pexpi raw Bucropog xpovml fig 11v rpwnatdsmrog avro Herps w ‘Pwpg EWLGKO‘IFOQ' mm 5: rs dulfioxa av-re Zs¢vae rapaxsxapaxfiat rm: aMOuav' ml 5' av rvxov meavov 1'0 heyo'tsvov, a a" wpwrov pw avflvrm'rov auroig at Sam yparpai. Kai adzhgbow 5: Twuw est ypap'iara wpsafiv'repa raw But-rope; XPOIMMI, ('1 EKEH/Ol 'rrpog -ra 20m) inrrp mg ahfiuag, Kai wpog Tore aipeuag sypa'dww. Eus. H. E. l. V. c. 28. p. 195. D.

« 上一页继续 »