Caius the Roman Presbyter

^A II. Of the ordination of presbyters and deacons. Perform the ordinations of presbyters and Levites at a fitting time and in the presence of many, solemnly, and promote to this work men who are proven and learned, so that you may greatly rejoice in their society and assistance. Place your hearts unceasingly in the power of God, and proclaim these and other divine words to future generations, since he is our God forever, and he himself will rule us throughout the ages. Given on the 7th of the Ides of November, in the year when Saturninus and Gallicanus were the most illustrious consuls.

ANNO DOMINI CCXIV. CAIUS PRESBYTER ROMANUS NOTITIA. (Galland, Biblioth. Patrum, vol. II, Proleg., p. xxviii.)

I. Was Caius, the companion of Saint Irenaeus, a Corinthian by birth? Dodwell and Fabricius appear to have held an incorrect opinion concerning the presbyterate and episcopate of Caius. Bacchinius is more correct. II. As to the time when the author, a most eloquent man, flourished. He wrote a disputation against Proclus, a follower of the Cataphrygians. According to the opinion of the ancients and the moderns, the work is attributed to him, inscribed *The Little Labyrinth*. III. Caius is also thought to have written *On the Canon of Holy Scriptures*: perhaps in that disputation which he held against Proclus the Montanist. A fragmentary and headless portion of this argument, published not long ago, is adduced; and it is attributed by various conjectures to the editor, the distinguished Muratori, whose warning note is provided. IV. Certain observations are subjoined, both on the fragment presented and on the Muratorian warning note.

I. That Caius, or Gaius, lived with Saint Irenaeus, and "associated with Irenaeus," is presumed from the subscription of the Acts of the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp. ^B From this subscription, Moyne conjectures that he was a Corinthian by birth, and that he set out for Rome with Irenaeus: but this is beside the point, as the learned authors of the *Histoire littéraire de la France* believe. It is more certain from Photius that Caius was a presbyter of the Roman Church, and was ordained a bishop of the Gentiles. "They say that this Gaius became a presbyter of the Church in Rome; but that he was ordained bishop of the Gentiles." It is certainly strange that Dodwell conjectured that Caius was called a presbyter of the Roman Church on account of the very traditions which he preserved: since, besides the testimony of Photius, Eusebius also calls him an ecclesiastical man (*ecclesiasticum virum*). Nor is it less surprising that Fabricius thought that, in Photius, one ought to read "bishop of the Athenians" instead of "bishop of the Gentiles," in such a way that, were this reading confidently admitted, one might safely pronounce Caius to have been bishop of the Athenians. Who, furthermore, is unaware that it was established from the beginning of the Christian cause, by the custom and institution of our ancestors, that bishops were created who did not preside over any fixed Church? In Churches established only among the Gentiles (the words are those of the distinguished Bacchinius), Peter and his successor pontiffs observed it as a settled rule that bishops were created before the Gentiles over whom they were to preside were converted. This is clearly evident from ancient and more sincere monuments of the Churches. Many were sent, marked with the episcopal character by Peter and his successors, into the regions of Italy, Spain, Britain, Africa, and Gaul, who were to constitute Churches for themselves once the Gentiles had been converted to the light of truth. Thus, in the East, where Jews dwelt in large numbers, bishops were given from those converted from both circumcision and uncircumcision: whereas in the West, where Jews were either rare or non-existent, bishops...

^A bishops created to convert the Gentiles. There they received the bishops of the Churches: here the bishops founded the Churches which they were to rule. Therefore, we know that in the first times of the Church in the West, not only were bishops ordained for a specific nation that ought to be instructed in the faith, but also bishops were created for no specific nation or specific region, who, preaching to the Gentiles, would found a fixed seat for themselves wherever they settled. Photius provides certain proof of this matter, which was established in customs even after apostolic times, and which flowed without doubt from the apostles. It had indeed obtained from the beginning that by such emissaries of the Gospel, the world of the Gentiles would be converted to Christ, who would found colonies in the West as if from the Roman see as a metropolis, concerning which Innocent, in his epistle to Decentius of Eugubium, has these things: Let them read if any other of the Apostles is found in these provinces, or is read to have taught. But if they do not read, because it is nowhere found, it behooves them to follow that which the Roman Church guards, from which it is not doubtful that they received their beginning. So far the learned man. But I would wish you to consult Tillemont also on this matter.

II. Caius, a most eloquent man, λόγιος ἀνήρ, ^B flourished under Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, as Saint Jerome hands down after Eusebius, in the reign of Antoninus Caracalla, that is, at the beginning of the 3rd century, or about the year 212 of the common era. Among his writings, the Disputation against Proclus, a follower of Montanus, is celebrated, which the greatest Doctor calls very distinguished; Photius calls it accurate, σπουδαίαν: the fragments of which we have described from Eusebius.

It is also reported from the monuments of the ancients that Caius sharpened his style against the heresy of Artemon, and inscribed his work the Little Labyrinth. Eusebius has indeed preserved for us three distinguished fragments of this writing; who, however, keeps silent both about the name of the author and the title of the work. Hence, some are known to have wrongly attributed the work to Origen in Theodoret. For thus he says: Κατὰ τῆς τούτων αἱρέσεως ὁ σμικρὸς συνεγράφη Λαβύρινθος, ὅν τινες Ὠριγένους ὑπολαμβάνουσι πόνημα· ἀλλ' ὁ χαρακτὴρ ἐλέγχει τοὺς λέγοντας. «Against the heresy of these (Artemon and Theodotus the tanner) was written the Little Labyrinth, which some think to be the work of Origen: but the style refutes those who say this.» Nor does Photius say otherwise. Most of the moderns, however, recognize Caius as the genuine parent of the offspring ^C. And Pearson seems to have settled the matter with these words: «There should be no doubt that the writer who wrote against the heresy of Artemon under Zephyrinus was the same as he who, under Antoninus the son of Severus, entered into a disputation with Proclus the Montanist, namely Caius.» For although Eusebius does not mention the name of the author nor the title of the book from which he transcribed the excerpts verbatim, we nevertheless know the title of the book to have been the Little Labyrinth. For not only does Nicephorus affirm that the so-called Little Labyrinth refuted the absurdity of Artemon and Theodotus, which the blessed Victor fought against; but Theodoret also deduces the sum of the three pericopes in Eusebius from the Little Labyrinth, dealing with Theodotus. Moreover, Photius recognizes this Little Labyrinth as the work of Caius, τῇ ἀληθείᾳ αὐτοῦ συντεταχότος, which he truly composed, who also published a dialogue against Proclus the Montanist. So far the learned man. I would not, however, have you omit what the most learned men, Tillemont, the authors of the French Literary History, and also Wesseling, observe to the same effect.

III. From three Eusebian excerpts of this work.

τι- ^A ni existimatur τοῦ Ἀποστόλου esse: he recounts only thirteen Epistles of the divine Apostle, not numbering the one inscribed "to the Hebrews" with the rest. Indeed, this epistle is even now not believed by some Romans to be the Apostle's. Saint Jerome, speaking of this Caius in almost the same words, rendered the opinion of Eusebius, except that he adds that the disputation held by Caius was under Zephyrinus, bishop of the Roman city, that is, under the son of Antoninus Severus; and therefore, according to him, Caius wrote these things around the year of the common era 212. He also adds regarding the same epistle: "But even among the Romans up to this day it is not held as Paul the Apostle's"; although Eusebius had only written "among some Romans." Photius also, in the place cited, is an authority that Caius enumerated only thirteen Epistles of the blessed Paul, not having received the one to the Hebrews into the count. He too drew these things from Eusebius. However, it is not the place here to recount by what authors and arguments the Epistle to the Hebrews was later rightly received by all into the Canon of the sacred Scriptures, regarding which the same Saint Jerome, writing to Evagrius, says: "Which all the Greeks receive and some of the Latins." Thus, most learned men have already long since debated and illustrated this question, so that to wish to agitate it again would be superfluous.

^B regarding the others, they come. For Eusebius relates the Apocalypse of Peter among the doubtful books, yet he does not reject it as a monster of heretics. According to his testimony also, Clement of Alexandria used the same Apocalypse, no less than the Epistle of Barnabas. Sozomen likewise warned us that this Apocalypse was, until his time, read once every year in some churches of Palestine. During the times of Caius himself, there was circulated a spurious epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans, exploded by Saint Jerome and Theodoret, which the heresiarch Marcion used as a subsidy for his delirium, as Saint Epiphanius teaches us. But besides this, we now learn from the fragment itself that another was falsely attributed to Paul, specifically to the Alexandrians, of which I know not if anyone else has made mention. But since this writer does not at all include the Apocalypse of Paul, mentioned by Augustine and Sozomen; the opinion of John Ernest Grabe is confirmed, who judged that this imposture only erupted in the fourth century of the Christian Church. Here also you may see noted the book of Psalms elaborated by the heresiarch Valentinus. Tertullian alone, so far as I know, indicated these, writing: "For us also, the Psalms will provide patronage in this regard, not indeed the Psalms of the apostate, heretic, and Platonist Valentinus, but of the most holy and received prophet David." As to who that heretic Miltiades may have been, or the Miltiades of whom there is mention in this fragment, let others divine. Certainly, it would not be Miltiades the rhetor, praised by Eusebius and Jerome, who wrote much for the Catholic Church under Antoninus Commodus. But come now, let us bring forward the fragment itself, extracted from the most ancient Ambrosian codex, and submit it to the examination of all learned men, omitting nothing from the errors with which the ignorance of scribes has saturated and defiled the writing, although they do not prevent us from understanding the value of the matter. So far the most learned Muratori.

^C That which pertains to me, I seize upon. Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, a contemporary of the aforementioned Caius, as witnessed by Photius, felt that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not by Paul the Apostle. Indeed, not even in the days of Saint Jerome had the Roman Church received it among the canonical Epistles of Paul the Apostle. Since, therefore, Caius the Roman presbyter, a most ancient writer, omitted it while recounting the others, it seems likely that the fragment to be published below, in which you may see the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly omitted, is to be attributed to the same Caius. And another more robust argument is added. This writer mentions the famous book of Hermas, inscribed with the title *The Shepherd*, in these words: *The Shepherd* WAS WRITTEN MOST RECENTLY IN OUR TIMES in the city of Rome, by Hermas, while his brother, Pius, was seated on the episcopal chair of the city of Rome. It is now agreed among the learned that Hermas flourished around the middle of the second century after Christ was born. And certainly, if Pope Pius I held the Roman chair at that time, his brother, he is to be said to have written the book of *The Shepherd* around the year 150. But we saw above that Caius the Roman presbyter lived around the year 196, and nothing prevents him from having written this earlier. But when the author of the fragment testifies that ^D Hermas wrote the book of *The Shepherd* "most recently in our times," whom more conveniently can you suspect to be the parent of this very fragment than the same Caius? Finally, the author of the fragment writes: "The Apocalypse of John and Peter, we also receive, which some of our people do not want to be read in the church." These are rightly connected to the times of Caius.

IV. After the judgment of such a man, may it be permitted also for us to add some observations by which his opinion may be the more strengthened. And first, we note that the author of the fragment, from the fact that he does not recount the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, refers primarily to either a companion or disciple of Irenaeus, namely Caius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, as we showed above. Indeed, that bishop of Lyons, as witnessed by Stephen Gobarus the Tritheite in Photius, did not admit the same Epistle either. However, it should not be omitted that from the earliest times of the Christian religion, Clement of Rome was a co-worker of Paul the Apostle, and thus the Roman Church acknowledged the canonical authority of his Epistle: which I am surprised sacred interpreters have hitherto passed over. If a fragment of this kind had been brought to light at the beginning of this century, I have no doubt that it would have been turned by them for their own uses.

Moreover, ^A that which the learned Humphrey Hody [*] had passed over while he was striving to weave together the number and order of biblical books according to the sequence of the centuries is also worthy of note.

It also occurs that this is worthy of observation, as our editor was recently warning, that the writer of the fragment in section IV makes mention of the heretic Miltiades; and that, for this reason, it would be fair to consider that this excerpt pertains to that disputation which Gaius instituted against Proclus, a supporter of the Cataphrygians. For Asterius Urbanus, in Eusebius [*], near the very beginning of the work which he composed against the Cataphrygians, names the heresy of Miltiades. Whence the reading of Eusebius is confirmed, as is that of Nicephorus, who transcribes it—a reading which was questioned by Valesius and Lango, who think that Alcibiades should be substituted in place of Miltiades. Nor does Dodwell [*] think otherwise, although he enters into another cause and reason for this passage.

There are, furthermore, things quite worthy of note ^B which the author of the fragment recorded in the same section IV: "Hermas," he says, "very recently, in our own times, in the city of Rome, wrote the *Pastor*, while his brother Pius occupied the chair of the Church of the city of Rome." The most learned editor has rightly judged that there is very great force in these words. But, to speak truly, there is something in Muratori's interpretation of this passage which I do not sufficiently ascertain. For he himself seems to have accepted the words cited as referring to Hermas the apostolic man, and to have looked to his work which still survives, inscribed with the title of *Pastor*. But I am led to this opinion primarily by the fact that the honorable gentleman calls that book of Hermas "famous," as indeed the work of the *Pastor*—whose author is Hermas—is, [being] celebrated by the ancient Fathers with the highest praises. If such is the sense and opinion of Muratori, his more robust argument vanishes into nothing: since the apostolic Hermas was neither the brother of Pius I, nor did he flourish until the middle of the second century from the birth of Christ; he who, moreover, is found to have lived a hundred years before, under the pontificate of Clement of Rome, as we stated in the first volume of our *Bibliotheca* [*]. Therefore, some other Hermas or Hermes must be sought, who ^C was famous in the second century, was the brother of Pius I, and who wrote the book under the title of *Pastor*: which once established, it becomes certain that Gaius is the author of the acephalous fragment. Now, however, the man outstanding in erudition, Justus Fontaninus, clearly shows [*] that Hermes, the brother of Saint Pius, is something entirely different from Hermas, who consigned the work inscribed *Pastor* to letters. Fontaninus therefore teaches, from the Bucherian Catalogue, Anastasius, and others, that Hermes, the brother of Pius, wrote a book, now lost, concerning the celebration of Easter on a Sunday, in which there was contained a mandate which an Angel had commanded him [to carry out] when he came to him in the garb of a shepherd. Whence, from the angelic Shepherd whose vision he narrated in his book on Easter, the nickname later attached to him, and he was called from that time "Angelical Shepherd," because he spoke the words handed down, as the most ancient writer of the poem against Marcion sings toward the end of book III. This and much more in support of the same opinion [is asserted by] the cited learned man. We have, therefore, Hermes, brother of Pius I, by the nickname *Pastor*, who wrote the book on Easter.

But indeed, the author of the fragment does not call him "Hermas, to whom the name *Pastor* was given," but "Hermas, the writer of the *Pastor*." To this objection, indeed, so that it may be satisfied, we reply with that one thing which we remember to have said elsewhere about the *Pastor* of Hermas. Naturally, just as that work of the apostolic man was called *Pastor* or the *Book of the Pastor* by the ancient Fathers, from which [there was] perhaps derived a denomination of this kind, because in almost the whole work the *Pastor* is introduced addressing and instructing Hermas: so too it might have happened that the book of Hermes on Easter was also, at least by some, called *Pastor*; because its author wrote of those things which an Angel instructed him to [do/write], when he came to him in the garb of a Shepherd, as the II Henschenian Catalogue has it: whence the name of *Pastor* adhered not only to the writer, but also to his book. These things we have for the present, by which we may meet the proposed difficulty. But the matter is left to be defined at the judgment of the learned. Moreover, I truly regret that a fragment of this kind is deformed by foul errors. But, to speak with the great Baronius [*], whatever antiquity offers, whether it be corroded or faulty, it is nevertheless accustomed to be received with a grateful mind.

Concerning the other work, *On the Substance of the All*, which Gaius attests at the end of the *Labyrinth* to have been written by himself, as cited above in Photius, aside from those things which are to be said below where it concerns the writings of Hippolytus, I would desire you to consult Tillemont [*] over others, and also the authors of the *Histoire littéraire de la France* [*], but especially Dodwell [*].

FRAGMENTS OF CAIUS THE ROMAN PRESBYTER

Fragments from the Dialogue or Disputation against Proclus, patron of the Cataphrygian sect.

I. Apud Eusebium Hist. eccl. lib. II, cap. 25.

^A I, for my part, can show you the trophies of the Apostles. For if you wish to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.

II. Idem, lib. III, cap. 28.

But Cerinthus, likewise, by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle, introduces us to monstrous tales in the guise of things shown to him by angels, asserting that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be on earth, and that our flesh will dwell once more in Jerusalem, subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scriptures of God, and wishing to deceive, he says that a period of a thousand years will be spent in wedding festivities. ^B

III. Ibid., cap. 31.

After this, the four daughters of Philip were prophetesses in Hierapolis in Asia; their tomb is there, and that of their father, Philip.

FRAGMENTS OF CAIUS THE ROMAN PRESBYTER, AS IT SEEMS

Fragments from the Little Labyrinth or the book Against the Heresy of Artemon.

I. Apud Eusebium Hist. eccl. lib. V, cap. 28.

They affirm, indeed, that all the ancients, and the Apostles themselves, ^C received and taught those things which these men now say;

^A and that the truth of the proclamation was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop from Peter in Rome; but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth was corrupted. And what they say might perhaps be credible, if the divine Scriptures did not first contradict them, and also the writings of certain brothers older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the nations and against the heresies of their time on behalf of the truth; I refer to Justin, and Miltiades, and Tatian, and Clement, and many others, in all of whom Christ is proclaimed as God. For who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus, and Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ to be both God and man? And as many psalms and canticles as were written from the beginning by the faithful brethren celebrate Christ, the Word of God, by ascribing divinity to him. How, therefore, since the ecclesiastical teaching has been proclaimed for so many years, is it possible that those up to the time of Victor have preached as these men say? And how are they not ashamed to speak such falsehoods against Victor, knowing well that Victor excommunicated from communion the cobbler Theodotus, the leader and father of this god-denying apostasy, who first said that Christ is a mere man? For if Victor held the same opinion according to them, as their blasphemy teaches, how would he have cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy; ^B and the one who teaches their impiety, why did he remove Theodotus, the author of that heresy, from the Church?

II. Id. Ibid.

Facinus nostra ætate gestum, multis fratrum ^C nostrorum in memoriam revocabo: quod quidem si Sodomis admissum fuisset, ipsos, ut arbitror, incolas ad poenitentiam provocare potuisset. Erat quidam Natalis nomine, confessor, qui non ita pridem, sed nostra ætate vixit. Hic forte in fraudem inductus est ab Asclepiodoto, et altero quodam Theodoto argentario. Ambo autem isti discipuli erant Theodoti illius coriarii, qui primus ob hanc ^D sententiam, vel potius amentiam, a communione a Victore segregatus est.

I will recall to the memory of many of our brethren a deed done in our own time, which, had it been committed in Sodom, could, I think, have provoked even its inhabitants to repentance. There was a certain man named Natalis, a confessor, who lived not long ago, but in our own time. He was drawn by chance into deceit by Asclepiodotus and another, a certain Theodotus who was a money-changer. Both of these were disciples of that cobbler Theodotus, who was the first to be separated from communion by Victor for this opinion, or rather, madness.

^A And Natalis was persuaded by them to be appointed bishop of this heresy, on the condition that he would receive a salary of one hundred and fifty denarii per month from them. Having joined them, he was frequently admonished by the Lord in visions; for the most compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ did not wish a man who had been a witness of His own sufferings to perish outside the Church. But when Natalis neglected to heed these visions, being swayed by the hope of occupying the first seat among them and by that greed for filthy lucre (which is the destruction of many mortals), he was finally scourged by holy angels and beaten most severely for the whole night; so that at daybreak he arose, put on sackcloth, and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears cast himself down before Zephyrinus the bishop, rolling under the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; ^B and he moved the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ to tears by his lamentations. And having used many entreaties, and having shown the welts of the blows he had received, he was with difficulty admitted to communion.

III.

They have fearlessly corrupted the Divine Scriptures; they have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and ^C they have Christ...

^A himself ignored; for they do not ask what the Holy Scriptures say, but they diligently train themselves to see what logical figure may be found for the establishment of their impiety; and if anyone proposes a word of Divine Scripture to them, they examine whether it can form a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism. And, abandoning the holy Scriptures of God, they apply themselves to geometry; for, being from the earth and speaking from the earth, they are ignorant of Him who comes from above. Euclid, therefore, is studied with great zeal by some of them; Aristotle and Theophrastus are received with the greatest admiration; and Galen is perhaps even worshipped by some. What, then, must one say of those who abuse the arts and disciplines of the infidels for the maintenance of their heretical opinion, and who, with the subtle cunning of impious men, adulterate the very simple faith of the Divine Scriptures, seeing that they are not even near to faith? For this reason, they have audaciously laid their hands upon the Divine Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them. And that I do not lie about them in saying this, anyone who wishes may learn. For if anyone will collect the copies of each of them and examine them against one another, he will find that they differ greatly among themselves. Certainly, the copies of Asclepiodotus do not agree with those of Theodotus. Many such copies can be obtained, because their disciples have zealously copied that which their masters—as they themselves call them—have "corrected," that is to say, destroyed. Again, these do not agree with those of Hermophilus. For the copies of Apollonius do not even agree with themselves. ^B For it is possible to compare...

^C ...who interpret it as conjunctive and disjunctive, thinking there to be two kinds of syllogisms. For my part, I prefer the former distinction.

(17) *He who comes from above.* Christophorsonus translates: "Christ who is to come from heaven," is entirely ignorant. I do not, however, condemn that interpretation. For the holy Fathers are accustomed to speak thus of the supreme advent of Christ, by which He is to judge the world; not as of the future, but as of the present: He comes to judge the living and the dead. Thus Hegesippus in the martyrdom of Saint James, and others cited passim by Eusebius. These words can, however, also be understood of the first advent of Christ, in the way Rufinus accepted them.

(18) (19) *Galen is even worshipped by some.* For Galen had written books on the figures of syllogisms and on the whole of philosophy, as we learn from the index of his books. And this testimony regarding Galen is illustrious, since it is from a very ancient author, and one almost contemporary with Galen. Nor is it possible to gather this from this writer alone, but also from many others who did not hesitate to rank Galen with Aristotle and Theophrastus, and even with Plato himself. Certainly, Alexander of Aphrodisias, in the eighth book of his Topics, not far from the beginning, sufficiently indicates that all were of this opinion concerning Galen. For after he had taught that some problems are reputable, some disreputable, and indeed that they are in a twofold difference—that some are simply reputable, some specifically reputable, and that some are those which follow certain reputable things: as, for instance, Plato, or Aristotle, or Galen.

(20) *Of Asclepiodotus, for the works of Apollonius, of Apollonides.* As Nicephorus writes, just as Rufinus also reads. A little further on, where it is read... must be restored from Theodoret in the book *Heretical Fables*, ch. 5, and from Nicephorus and Rufinus.

^A ...what they previously fashioned, and later again distorted, and that they are far from agreeing. That this is a sin of great audacity, it is likely that even they themselves are not ignorant. For do they not believe that the divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and are they [therefore] unbelievers? Or do they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit? And what is this but demonic possession? For they cannot deny that this is their own daring act, since the things are written by their own hand; nor can they show copies from which they transcribed them, having not received such Scriptures from those by whom they were instructed 22. And some among them did not even deign to corrupt them, but, simply by rejecting the Law and the Prophets, under the pretext of grace, they have slipped down into the lowest abyss of destruction ^B.

OF THE SAME CAIUS

AS IT APPEARS

Fragment of an acephalous work on the Canon of Sacred Scriptures 24.

1. ...to whom he was present, and so he set it forth. ^C ...that it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, as they were going over all things, that John should describe all things in his own name. And therefore, although different principles are taught in the individual books of the Gospels, it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by one guiding Spirit all things have been declared in all of them concerning His nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent—the first, in lowliness ^D of condition, which was despised; the second, in royal power, which is to come. What is there to wonder at, then, if John so constantly sets forth individual points even in his Epistles...