Asterius Urbanus

should receive, that they may be found to be Christians in full: because when the Holy Spirit is infused ^A, the faithful heart is enlarged unto prudence and constancy. From the Holy Spirit we receive that we may be made spiritual: because the natural man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God. From the Holy Spirit we receive that we may know how to discern between good and evil, to love just things, to reject unjust things, that we may resist malice and pride, and foul and unworthy desires. From the Holy Spirit we receive that, kindled by the love of life and the ardor of glory, we may be able to raise our mind from earthly things to those which are supernal and divine. Given on the Nones of September, that is, on the fifth day of the same month, in the consulship of the most distinguished men, Antoninus and Alexander. ^B

The anointing of the holy oil, which perfects, imparted by the Holy Spirit. Similar things have been written about this matter by two Clements, one Roman in his books of Apostolic Constitutions, the other Alexandrian, by Justin Martyr, and many others, long before the times of Pope Urban regarding this most sacred sacrament. How, therefore, could this seal of the Lord and this sacred ointment have been instituted by Urban, seeing that by the testimony of the aforesaid it was instituted by Christ, and used by the apostles, and delivered to the universal Church? See Bellarmine, book II *De confirm.*, ch. 5 and 6, and IV *De Roman. pontif.*, ch. 8. SEV. BIN.

ANNO DOMINI CCXXXII.

ASTERIUS URBANUS. NOTITIA

(Galland., *Veterum Patrum Biblioth.*, Proleg., III, XI.)

1. The author of the three books against the Cataphrygians is asserted to be Asterius Urbanus. II. It is demonstrated that he was a bishop. He seems to be the one anciently called a bishop, and sometimes a presbyter; Zoticus Otrenus; others think him a Comanense. III. The time when the author wrote is investigated. The unfair censure of a learned man is refuted.

1. As regards the opinion held by the ancients concerning the author of the three books against the Cataphrygians, which Eusebius mentions under the name of Avircius Marcellus, we find that there is not one. For Jerome reports that that work was penned now by Rhodon, now by Apollonius. Rufinus and Nicephorus claim it as Claudius Apollinaris, having, of course, understood Eusebius’s mind less correctly. But that such opinions are not to be admitted, we have explained more fully elsewhere. Now, indeed, following most learned men—Valesius, Tillemont, Longuerue, and Dodwell (who, however, later changed his opinion)—we hold Asterius Urbanus to be the author of those books.

It may indeed be objected that the writer of this work makes mention of Asterius Urbanus; and thus, that our Asterius himself was not the author. For he says thus: "And let him not say in the same discourse, in the [discourse] against Asterius Urbanus, the spirit that is through Maximilla." But who does not see that the intermediate words disturb the sequence of the discourse, and that it should be transcribed: "And let not he who says it talk about the spirit that is through Maximilla"? Hence Valesius rightly judged that those words which are inserted, "in the same discourse, in the [discourse] against Asterius Urbanus," are a scholion which some ancient scholiast, or if you prefer, Eusebius himself, had placed in the margin of his book, at the words which occur a little before, "And again he says in the same discourse." Which scholion, as is wont to happen, was subsequently inserted by scribes into the text: an importunate one indeed, but at least convenient for this reason, that from this point at last we may conclude with that learned man that Asterius Urbanus must be considered the author of the three books against the Cataphrygians, and not Claudius Apollinaris, as many have held after Rufinus. ^B

^A Furthermore, the conjecture of Valesius is held to have pleased Tillemont [(12)] more than others, as well as Pearson [(15)].

II. But who or of what kind our Asterius may have been is not clear. Yet that he was a bishop, those things which are known to have been performed by him in Ancyra of Galatia seem to satisfy in suggesting. For when he had discovered the Church of that city to be troubled by the pseudoprophecies of Montanus and his women, he gathered an assembly of the faithful, discoursed for many days, and greatly strengthened them in the truth of the faith, while he put to flight the adversaries and enemies of God [(14)]: for a man distinguished in the first place by episcopal honor was bounden to discharge such an office.

^B Moreover, the author [(15)] testifies that Zoticus of Otrenus, whom he calls his fellow-presbyter, was present while he was speaking; indeed, he also mentions Zoticus of Comana and Julianus of Apamea, ἄνδρας δοκίμους καὶ ἐπισκόπους, men approved and adorned with episcopal dignity: so that for this reason Asterius appears not only to have been co-opted into the college of presbyters, but also to have been a bishop himself, who, with three other bishops standing by, delivered words to the people in the church. Nor is there anyone who could rightly conclude that our Asterius, and likewise Zoticus of Otrenus, were merely placed in the rank of presbyters because he calls this same Zoticus his fellow-presbyter: for it is not unusual in the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity for bishops to be accustomed to being called presbyters. I shall bring forward one example, and one emphasized three times, from the letter of Irenaeus to Victor [(16)]: "But those presbyters also," he says, "who presided over the Church before Soter, which you now govern." And soon after: "Truly, the presbyters who preceded you." And after a few words have intervened, speaking of Anicetus: "When he," he says, "stated that the custom of the presbyters who were before him ought to be kept," etc. Καὶ οἱ πρὸ Σωτῆρος πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ προστάντες τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἧς ἀφηγῇ . . . . ἀλλ᾽ οἱ πρὸ σοῦ πρεσβύτεροι λέγοντα (τὸν ᾿Ανίκητον) τὴν συνήθειαν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ πρεσβυτέρων ὀφείλειν κατέχειν. ^C Suicerus [(17)] will provide more, whom it truly surprises me to find has passed over this illustrious passage.

Furthermore, I should not myself, with the learned Lequien [(18)], believe that Zoticus of Otrenus and [Zoticus] of Comana were one and the same person, of whom the author makes mention separately: since it seems inconsistent that one should have been entrusted with two Churches far distant from one another. For Otrys is located by Strabo in the borders of Bithynia; but the city of the Comani (to pass over here the Pontic Comana) is attributed to Cappadocia, as Ptolemy testifies. In the catalogues of episcopal sees, the former is considered of the Asian diocese, the latter of the Pontic.

III. Now, however, those remnants from the three books of Asterius declare the age in which he was writing. For thus he says [(19)]: "From the death of Maximilla until this day, more than thirteen years have already passed: and yet there has been no particular war or universal one on earth. Indeed, through a certain special mercy of God, a stable and firm peace has remained for the Christians." And again [(20)]: "Let them (the Cataphrygians) show us which of them have succeeded Montanus and the women: for the Apostle is witness that the gift of prophecy must remain in every Church until the final coming of the Lord. But they are able to show absolutely none, even though this fourteenth year is now passing since the death of Maximilla." From which words, indeed, with the calculations made, Tillemont [(21)] concludes that Asterius wrote these things around the year of the Lord 231, in the eleventh year of the reign of Alexander. And rightly so; for Alexander, as Herodian testifies [(22)], εἰς τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατον ἐλάσας τῆς βασιλείας ἔτος, ἀναιρωθείς γε, ruled for fourteen years without bloodshed: so that in consequence, the Christians were permitted to live in quiet during his reign; and thus that peace, which the Church enjoyed under Antoninus Caracalla, under Macrinus, and also under Elagabalus, remained likewise stable and firm under the reign of Alexander, as our author writes.

^D From those things, moreover, which we have discussed up to this point concerning Asterius Urbanus, and especially concerning his keen zeal in defending the Christian religion from the frauds of heretics; who finally could bear with an even mind that a man of critical judgment could have proceeded so far as not to hesitate to write [(23)] that the things reported by Eusebius from Apollonius, Asterius, Miltiades, and other attackers of the Montanists of that age are so full of declamatory vanity that they possess less credibility the more they affirm? Is it so, truly? Thus indeed that man thinks; whereby, to be sure, he either purges or praises Montanus, and consequently his own Tertullian, separated from the unity of the Church and addicted to the Montanists.

FRAGMENTA EX LIBRIS III CONTRA MONTANISTAS AD ABERCIUM MARCELLUM

^A For a long time now, my dearest Abercius Marcellus, have you burdened me with the charge of composing some work against the heresy of Miltiades, yet I have hesitated, in doubt and uncertainty of mind, until this moment. This was not because I was in any way unable to refute falsehood or to stand in defense of the truth; but rather I feared and shrank from the possibility that I might seem to some to be adding something in my writing to the evangelical doctrine of the New Testament, or to be defining it anew, when it is unlawful to add anything to it or to take anything away—especially for one who has resolved to live according to the precepts of the Gospel.

Recently, however, when I was in Ancyra in Galatia, and discovered the Church of that place to be troubled by that "new" prophecy—not as they themselves say, but as will hereafter be demonstrated, ^B by a pseudo-prophecy—I discoursed, as far as I was able, with the Lord's help, upon these matters and upon all the rest that was put forward by them, speaking individually in the church for many days. The result was that the Church was affected with incredible joy and was greatly confirmed in the truth of the faith, while the adversaries were at that time put to flight, and the enemies of God were not a little...

^A grieved. When, therefore, the presbyters of the place requested that I should leave behind a written memorial of what had been said against the adversaries of the truth, with the presence also of our fellow-presbyter Zoticus Otrenus, I did not indeed perform this; but I promised that, God giving [the grace], I would write it down here and send it to them with all haste.

II. From Book I.

Their opposition, therefore, and the recent heresy of the schism against the Church, had this cause. There is a village called in Mysia, bordering on Phrygia, by the name of Ardaba; in which, they say, a certain Montanus, one of those who had recently been enrolled in the number of the faithful, being seized by an immoderate desire for the first place, first gave the adversary spirit an entrance into himself, under Gratus, proconsul of Asia; and being filled with a demon, he began suddenly to be agitated by a certain fury and excess of mind, and to utter certain new and unheard-of things; prophesying and predicting things to come, contrary to the custom and institution of the Church ^B handed down from the beginning and propagated by continuous succession thereafter. Moreover, of those who at that time had heard the adulterous words of the man, some, as if he were possessed and demoniacal and acting by a spirit of error, and stirring up mobs among the people, indignantly rebuked him and prohibited him from speaking further; for they kept in mind the distinction predetermined by the Lord, and the threats by which we are commanded to watch vigilantly and carefully for the advent of false prophets. Others, however, as if puffed up and swollen in a wonderful way by the Holy Spirit and the gift of prophecy, and having utterly forgotten the distinction of the Lord, challenged that spirit—which was harmful, sycophantic, and an impostor of the people—to speak; being charmed and led astray by him, so that they were no longer prevented from being silent. But by a certain art, or rather by such a method of wickedness, the devil ^C having contrived the destruction of those who were disobedient to the Lord's words, and being undeservedly honored by them, incited and further inflamed their slumbering spirits against those who did not listen to the Lord’s words, who had not been properly [instructed in the truth]. ^D

As he had raised up two other women and filled them with a spurious spirit, so that they too, like the one mentioned above, spoke insane, importunate, and bizarre things. That spirit used to proclaim those who were delighted by this and puffed up as blessed, and inflated them beyond measure by the magnitude of its promises. Sometimes, however, using conjectures and proofs worthy of confidence, it would condemn them openly, so that it might appear as if it had the power to rebuke. Very few were those among the Phrygians who were deceived; for that brazen spirit taught them to revile the universal Church dispersed under heaven, because the pseudo-prophetic spirit found in it neither honor nor access. For when the faithful who were in Asia had frequently gathered in many places in Asia for this reason, and had examined those recent claims and declared them profane and rejected the heresy, they were thus pushed out of the Church and barred from communion. ^B

III. Ex libro II.

Since, therefore, they called us killers of the prophets, because we did not accept their loquacious prophets (for they affirm that these are the ones whom the Lord promised He would send to His people), let them answer us, by God: is there any one of them, from the time when Montanus and the women began their chatter, who was persecuted by the Jews or put to death by the impious? Certainly none. Nor was any one of them ever arrested for the Name ^C and crucified; nor was any woman among them ever whipped in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned. Nowhere, in truth, not ever. Nay, Montanus and Maximilla are said to have perished by a far different kind of death. For they say that both, incited by a spirit of madness, broke their own necks with a noose; not indeed together, but each at the time of their own death, and thus ended their lives, in the manner of Judas the traitor. Just as that wonderful man, the first—or rather the procurator—of what they call their prophecy. ^D

^A is reported by many to have been carried off in a false ecstasy of mind, as if he were being lifted up and assumed into heaven; and since he had abandoned himself entirely to a most fraudulent spirit, they say that after being tossed on high by it, he perished in a miserable end. And they narrate that this is indeed what happened. But because we ourselves have not seen it, we do not by any means think that we can know anything of these things for certain. For perhaps in this way, or perhaps in another way, Montanus and Theodotus and the aforementioned woman have died.

IV. And let not that spirit of Maximilla now say (as it is related in the same book of Asterius Urbanus): «I am driven like a wolf from the sheep. I am not a wolf; I am the word, the spirit, and the power.» But let it clearly show and prove that power in the spirit, and let it force those who were present at that time to acknowledge and consent through the spirit, so that they might address and examine that garrulous spirit; ^B [let it present] upright men endowed with episcopal dignity, namely Zoticus of the village of Comana and Julian of Apamea, whose mouths Themiso and others stopped, refusing to allow the false and people-seducing spirit to be refuted by them. And how has this lie not already become manifest? For more than thirteen years have now passed since the day when that woman died; and there has been no war, either private or universal, upon the earth; but rather, by the particular mercy of God, a stable and firm peace has remained for the Christians.

^C Among the Montanists there was a certain chest into which the brethren would cast their contributions for the support of the prophets. Theodotus was the first to manage this chest, and for this reason the writer here calls him the procurator of the prophecy, because he managed their revenues and estates. Moreover, Montanus himself was a great extortioner with his prophetesses, a man who would gather money from everywhere under the guise of an offering, and was even accustomed to pay salaries to those who would preach his doctrine, as Apollonius writes in Eusebius, book V, chapter 17. It was necessary, therefore, that he have a chest or public treasury, and a procurator of the treasury who would count out the salaries, that is, the money, to those to whom Montanus had decreed it.

FRAGMENTS AGAINST THE MONTANISTS

VII. Hence it is that whenever those who have been called from the Church to undergo martyrdom for the sake of the truth of the faith happen to meet with some of those who are called martyrs from the heresy of the Phrygians, they part ways with them and, choosing not to be in communion with them, they meet their end, because they do not wish to consent to the spirit channeled through Montanus and the women. And that this is true is clear from what happened in our own times in the city of Apamea on the Maeander, in the case of Gaius and Alexander from Eumenia who suffered martyrdom.

VIII. Finding these things in one of their writings opposing the work of our brother Alcibiades ^C, in which he demonstrates that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasis, I summarized them.

IX. But the false prophet is in a state of *parekstasis* [aberration]; ^D whose companions are license and audacity, beginning from a voluntary...

Miltiades, On the fact that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasis

On Miltiades, On the fact that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasis