6

charges of this writer. It is plain he is credulous, and indulges his passion, and declaims. I have no occasion to add a comment, by way of proof of these particulars; they are apparent from the passages here produced; so that every one may perceive as much by reflecting upon what we have transcribed. Besides, he blames these persons against whom he writes for things in which there is no fault. He censures them for studying geometry,' and for admiring Aristotle and Theophrastus.' Then it is likely he aggravates some things, as when he says, they left the scriptures to study Euclid's geometry.' Possibly they only joined together these two studies. He insinuates too, that some of them adored Galen,' which is very improbable. Considering all these things, it is reasonable to suppose that he has magnified the fault of these men; that is, in some measure misrepresented what they performed upon the scriptures. A writer of this character might censure a truly critical performance, as such things since have been often suspected and condemned by others.

4.) Upon the whole, then, we have seen in this writer a reference or two to the gospels of St. Matthew and St. John, and St. Peter's first epistle. There were scriptures in the hands of christians which they respected as sacred and divine, dictated by the Holy Spirit, and the rule of their faith, and particularly of superior authority to the writings of the christian brethren next in succession after the apostles; and they esteemed it a daring crime, of a high nature, to make any alterations in them. This writer also bears witness to the followers of Artemon, that they made appeals to the writings of the apostles and the brethren for the truth and antiquity of their sentiments. He adds, and loudly complains of it, that they had attempted to correct and alter (that is, corrupt) the copies of the divine scriptures; but he has not particularly informed us, what copies: it appears to be most probable, that he means only the copies of a Greek version of the Old Testament. And there is reason to think, likewise, that in what he has said relating to this matter, he has been guilty of some mistake or misrepresentation, and has aggravated things beyond the truth.

5.) I do not despise any work or fragment of this early antiquity, tending to illustrate the scriptures, or any practices of the christian church. These passages are useful in several respects; but I could have spared a part of them for the sake of the passage or passages of Caius, concerning St. Paul's epistles, and the other ancient scriptures.

And I heartily wish that Eusebius had made room in his Ecclesiastical History for more of that eloquent man.

d

III. The third piece, which by some has been reckoned the work of Caius, is entitled, Of the Universe,' as likewise Of the Cause of the Universe,' and 'Of the Nature of the Universe;' as we are informed by Photius, in whose time it had inscribed, in some copies, the name of Josephus. But he had seen a note in it, wherein it was said to be written by Caius, a presbyter who dwelt at Rome. By some, he says, it was ascribed to Justin Martyr, and by others to Irenæus. As for himself, Photius argues that it can hardly be esteemed a work of Josephus, because the author gives our Saviour the title of, the Christ,' and speaks rightly enough of his divinity: and also expresses himself unexceptionably of our Lord's ineffable generation by the Father.

e

As this work has been ascribed to so many, and neither Eusebius nor Jerom have taken any notice of it in their accounts of Caius, I think there is no sufficient reason to reckon it his. Consequently bishop Bull has been too hasty in placing Caius among the Antenicene fathers who held the Nicene faith upon the sole foundation of what is said in this book. And it is now the general opinion of learned men, that it is Hippolytus who has the best title to this treatise.

It is not now extant entire: but we have a large fragment, which has been published by several learned men, and in particular not long since by Fabricius, in his edition of Hippolytus.

I shall give a short account of the references which there are in this Fragment to the books of the New Testament, which is all that can be expected in this place. I must take some farther notice of it in the chapter of Hippolytus.

Here are then made use of, in explaining the christian doctrines, several scripture phrases, as fire unquenchable,' h Abraham's bosom,' Luke xvi. 22, 26. And it is said that between the good and bad there is a great and

d Cod. 48.

Vid. Geo. Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. cap. viii. sect. ii. Utcunque autem de vero hujus operis auctore inter antiquos non convenit, neoterici Indiculi hujusce auctoritate, stylo et argumentationis genere, aliisque adhuc argumentis freti, Hippolyto id adjudicant; et in his novissimus Steph. Le Moyne, qui Latinâ versione instructum fragmentum ejus ab Hæschelio olim editum recudi fecit inter Varia Sacra. Cave, Hist. Lit. P. i. in Hippolyto.

Avn vos aoßess. Apud Hippolytum, ex editione Fabricii, p. 220.

Τετῳ δε ονόματι κικλησκομεν κολπον Αβρααμ. Ibid. p. 221.

1 Χαος γαρ Βαθυ και μέγα ανα μέσον ετήρικται, ώτε μη δικαιον συμπαθη

deep gulph [or chaos] fixed, so that no righteous man, if he were in compassion desirous so to do, could get thither; nor is there any unrighteous man that can pass, though he should attempt it.' The author says, that all men, just and unjust, shall be brought before God the Word: for to him has the Father given all judgment.' Here is at least a reference to John v. 22. He has also the words' of 1 Cor. ii. 6, and probably takes them thence, though they are also in Isa. Ixiv. 4. He seems to allude to several things in the Revelation, in a passage too long to be inserted here; where he says, That in the kingdom of heaven, to which the righteous shall be brought, there is no night nor day measured by time,-nor sun,-nor moon,'-aud what follows: Compare Rev. xxi. 23; xxii. 5. This does not suit Caius, who is supposed to have rejected the Revelation.

m

CHAP. XXXIII.

ASTERIUS URBANUS.

EUSEBIUS has made large extracts out of a treatise in three books against the Montanists, composed by one of those many eminent persons whom Divine Providence raised up at that time to defend the truth. But our historian has here expressed himself so obscurely, that it has been much doubted who is the author of this work; whether Asterius Urbanus, or Apollinaris of Hierapolis, or Apollonius, or Rhodon, or some other person whose name is unknown. However, Cave thinks it probable, from some words of Eusebius, among the citations of this work, that the author is Asterius Urbanus. Valesius too is of this

σαντα προσδέξεσθαι, μητε αδικον τολμήσαντα διελθειν. Ibid.
γαρ, δικαιοι και αδικοι, ενωπιον το θεο λόγο αχθήσονται. Τετῳ γαρ
την κρισιν πασαν δεδωκε. p. 222.

Ibid.

k

Πάντες ὁ Πατηρ

m Ουδε νυξ εδε ήμερα χρονῳ μετρεμενη, εχ ήλιος—8 σεληνη.-Ibid. * Αλλως τε συν αυτῳ [Απολλιναριῳ] πλειες των τηνικάδε λογίων ανδρων, ή της αληθειας υπερμαχος ανιση δυναμις. Η. Ε. I. v. cap. 16. in.

b Vid. Cav. H. L. in Asterio Urbano, p. 51. Vales. ad Eus. 1. v. cap. 16.

Tillemont, Mem. Ecc. T. ii. P. iii. Les Montanistes, not. 7.

• Και μη λεγετω εν τῳ αυτῳ λόγῳ τω κατα Ασεριον Ουρβανον το δια Μαξ εμιλλης πνευμα, κ. λ. Eus. ib. p. 182. Α.

d Εν τῳ αυτῳ λόγῳ κατα Απερίον Ουρβανον.] Hæc verba scholion esse mihi videntur, quod vetus quidam scholiastes, seu Eusebius ipse, ad marginem

opinion; though it seems to be somewhat doubtful whether those words are not interpolated.

Asterius Urbanus is placed by Cave at the year 188. Tillemont, who agrees with him as to the author of the treatise, concludes that it was written about the year of Christ 232, the eleventh of the emperor Alexander; because Maximilla is here said to have been dead between thirteen and fourteen years, whom the same learned man computes to have died in 218 or 219. It is doubtful whether this author was a bishop or a presbyter; and absolutely unknown of what place. I ought to observe, that Dodwell, who once took this writer to be Asterius Urbanus, afterwards altered his mind, not thinking the argument of Cave before mentioned sufficient to determine the point; and supposing that Eusebius's words are capable of another sense. Fabricius agrees with Dodwell, and

thinks this treatise was written some time after 212.

Nevertheless I am not unwilling to agree with those who suppose Asterius Urbanus to be the author of this treatise; and Tillemont's argument for the time of it appears to me probable. According to that computation, our extracts out of this work should be deferred somewhat longer. But because the subject matter of it has an affinity with that of some foregoing chapters, as concerning the Montanists; and because we would not be too confident in our opinion about the author or time of this performance, we choose to speak of it in this place.

It appears from the preface to this work, preserved in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, that the author upon some occasion was at Ancyræ in Galatia: and finding the church there disturbed with the new prophecy, as it was called, of Montanus, he disputed publicly upon that subject for several days; so as to comfort and establish the church, and confute the enemies of the truth. The presbyters of that place entreated him to draw up in writing the substance of what he had said upon that occasion; which he declined to do for some time, but at length com

libri sui annotaverat ad ea verba quæ paulo ante præcesserunt, avoig de ev Ty avry pηoi λoyw. Porro ex his verbis elicitur, Asterium Urbanum auctorem esse horum trium librorum adversus Cataphrygas, non autem Apollinarem, ut credidit Rufinus et Christophorsonus. Vales. in notis, p. 98.

* See Tillemont, as before, Montanistes, art. 12. p. 70.

* Πλείω γαρ η τρισκαιδεκα ετη εις ταυτην την ἡμέραν, εξ οὗ τετελευτηκεν ἡ youn. Ap. Euseb. ib. c. 16. p. 182. C. Vid. et cap. 17. p. 184. A.

Tillemont, Les Montanistes, art. v. p. 45.

Dodw. Diss. Iren. iv. sect. 38.

Ap. Eus. ibid. cap. 16. p. 179. C. D.

Bib. Gr. T. v. p. 190.

plied, at the request of Abercius Marcellus, to whom the work is inscribed.

I. The author then, in his preface, says to Abercius Marcellus: I have hitherto deferred to perform your request, fearing lest I should seem to some to add to the doctrine of the new covenant of the gospel, or to give new ordinances beside those there prescribed. To which it is as impossible that any thing should be added, as it is that any thing should be taken away from it, by one who has determined to govern himself according to the same gospel.'

Possibly it may be questioned by some, whether the author here expressly speaks of the writings of the New Testament, or only of the christian doctrine; for which reason I have aimed at a literal translation of this passage: though I am of opinion, that he intends the scriptures of the New Testament; the rather, because he was afraid of seeming, by writing,' to add any thing to the doctrine of the gospel. If the author be understood to speak of the scriptures of the New Testament, which appears most probable, this passage affords evidence of the high respect which this catholic christian had for them.

For the farther satisfaction of some of my readers, I shall put down a part of this passage, as it has been translated by m Tillemont in his Ecclesiastical Memoirs. I have hitherto deferred to comply with your request, because

'I was apprehensive that some might accuse me of a design to add something to the divine scriptures, and to the 'rules which are prescribed to us by the word of the New 'Testament and of the gospel.' Valesius translates thus: Lest I should seem to some, by writing, to add any thing 'to the evangelical doctrine of the New Testament, and to 'make farther determinations of my own.'

II. Afterwards, in his accounts of the rise of the pretended prophecies of Montanus, he says, that at Ardaba, a village in Mysia near Phrygia, when Montanus uttered his prophecies, some discouraged him, being mindful" of the premonition and caution of the Lord to beware of false prophets when they appeared. But others,' he says, forgetting the premonition given by the Lord, encouraged that

1 Δεδιως δε και εξευλαβεμενος, μη πη δόξω τισιν επισυγγράφειν η επιδιατασ σεσθαι τῳ της τε ευαγγελια καινης διαθηκης λογῳ ᾧ μητε προσθείναι μητ' αφελειν δυνατον, τῳ κατά το ευαγγελιον αυτό πολιτεύεσθαι προηρημένῳ. Eus. ibid. p. 179. C. m As before, art. xii. p. 70.

n

Επετίμων, και λαλειν εκωλυον μεμνημένοι της τε Κυρις διαςολής τε και απειλής, προς το φυλαττεσθαι την των ψευδοπροφητων εγρηγορότως παρεσίαν, . λ. Eus. cap. 16. p. 180. B. C.