A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Miltiades; The two Apollonii; And two Anony∣mous Authors, who wrote against the Heresies of Mon∣tanus and Artemo.

'TIS not known neither what was the Country, nor the Profession of Miltiades; he wrote a Book against the Montanists, wherein he particularly maintains, That a Prophet ought * 1.1 not to speak in an Ecstasy or Fury a 1.2. Eusebius affirms, that he has left evident Proofs of his Skill, and the Pains which he took in the Study of the Holy Scripture, in those Books which he wrote against the Gentiles and the Jews, each of which was divided into two Volumes. And that besides these Discourses, he wrote an Apology for the Christian Philosophy, Dedicated to the Governors of the Provinces b 1.3. This Author lived under the Emperor Commodus.

There were at the same time two different Authors, both of which were called Apollonius. The false is a Greek Author, who wrote against the Sect of the Montanists, wherein he Confutes their last Prophecies step by step, and Censures the Practice and Manners of those Hereticks. Eusebius gives us a Fragment of it in Book V. Chap. 18. where he describes the Exorbitances of Montanus and his Prophetesses; he accuses them for taking Sums of Money and Presents. He particularly repre∣hends two Persons of this Sect, who boasted of their being Martys. Besides, Eusebius observes, that Apollonius says in this Book, that it was forty years since Montanus invented his Prophecies; that he makes mention of Thraseas, who was a Martyr in his time, and that he mentions a Tradition, that Jesus Christ had given Orders to his Apostles not to go out of Jerusalem for twelve years.

The second Apollonius was of Rome, a Senator of that City, if we may believe S. Jerome c 1.4. He was accused in the time of the Emperor Commodus for being a Christian, and was brought into the Judgment-Hall before Perennis the Praefectus Praetorio. His Accuser was Condemned d 1.5 according to the Law of the Emperor, which punished the Accusers of the Christians with Death, and Apollonius was sent back to justifie himself before the Senate; where he appeared, and made a very Eloquent Oration in Defence of his Religion, tho' notwithstanding that he was condemned to Death, because there was an Ancient Law which ordain'd, That those Christians, who were once judicially accused for their Religion, should not be acquitted if they did not forsake it. S. Jerome says, that he Com∣posed this Oration to Present to the Senate. But Eusebius assures us on the contrary, that he spoke it before them. But whether he wrote it with a design to speak it, or that the Christians had taken care to preserve it, it was extant in Eusebius's time among the ancient Acts of the Sufferings of the Martyrs.

The same Esebius gives us a Fragment of an Anonymous Author against the Heresie of Monta∣nus. This by some is attributed to Apollinarius, and by S. Jerome, sometimes to Rhodon, and some∣times to Apollonius. Tho' it was not written by either of these Authors, but by one more modern, who lived, as we have said, after the Death of Montanus and his Prophetesses. It was divided into five Books. Eusebius relates some Passages taken from the First, Second, and Third. In that which is taken from the first Book, the Author describes the furious Transports of Montanus and his Prophe∣tesses, and those who pretended to Prophecy. In the Passages taken from the second Book, he says, That Montanus and Maximilla killed themselves; that Theodotus likewise threw himself down head-long; and that very Holy Bishops, as Zoticus of Comana, and Julian of Apamia, being willing to Convict the Prophecies of Maximilla of Imposture, were hindred by some who favoured that Sect. He adds, that Maximilla foretold, before she died, Wars and Persecutions, and yet that after her Death both Church and State enjoyed perfect Peace and Tranquility. In the Passage taken from the

third Book, he says, That the Martyrs, of which they boast, cannot justifie themselves, since even the Marcionites likewise have made the same Pretences: But that the Martyrs of the Church do care∣fully avoid Communicating with those of this Sect, as has been practised in the City of Apamia by the Martys named Alexander, and Caius, who were of Eumenia. Moreover in the following Chap∣ter Eusebius relates a Passage taken from the same Book, where he says, That all the Prophets which have been since the time of the New Testament, such as Agabus, Judas, Silas, the Daughters of Phi∣lip, Quadratus, were not agitated by the same Spirit of Prophecy as Montanus and Maximilla, whose False and Lying Prophecies were made in a sudden Heat, accompanied with Lewdness and Impu∣dence, which took its Rise from Ignorance, and ended in Involuntary Folly: But that in the anci∣ent Prophecies, nothing like this was to be found. That since the time of Maximilla and Monta∣nus, there has not been any Person of this Sect, who could boast of being a Prophet, whereas the true Gift of Prophecy ought to be always in the Church.

The other Author, whereof Eusebius gives us a Fragment without naming him, in the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 28. had written a Discourse against the Heresie of Artemo, who believed, that Jesus Christ was only a meer Man. It is related in this Fragment, that those of this Sect affirmed, that till Victor's Days the true Apostolical Doctrine was preserved, but that it was corrupted from the time of Zephirinus.

Which possibly may be somewhat probable, (says this Author) if what they assert had not been first confuted by the Holy Scripture; and secondly, by the Writings of those Christians who were more ancient than Victor, such as Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, and several others that maintain in their Discourses the Divinity of Jesus Christ. For who can be ignorant of the Writings of Irenaeus and Melito, who have taught, that Jesus Christ was God and Man at the same time. And even those Hymns and Psalms written by the Faithful since the begin∣ning of Christianity, extol the Word of God, attributing Divinity thereto. So that since the Do∣ctrine of the Church has been Preached for so many years, how can they say, that till Victor's time the whole Church was of their Opinion? Are they not-ashamed to invent this Calumny against Victor, who knew very well that Theodotus the Currier, who was the first Author of the Sect of those that deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, was turned out of the Church by Victor himself? For if this Bishop had been of the same mind with Theodotus, how comes it to pass that he Excommu∣nicated him upon the account of his Doctrine? And what probability is there, that Zephirinus, who succeeded Victor, and continued in the See of Rome for ten years, should make an alteration in the Doctrine of the Church?

And thus it is that this Author confutes the General Principle of all Hereticks that ever were, or ever shall be, giving us an infallible Rule to convince them, which has been, and shall always be, the Custom in the Church of God. For there was never any Age, where∣in the Hereticks did not say, that the Church had changed its Doctrine, nor was there ever any time wherein they were not confuted first by Scripture, and secondly by Tradition, that is to say, by the Testimony of Authors, who lived before the Rise of those Heresies. Eusebius adds another Frag∣ment from the same Author, where he speaks of the Penance of a Confessor called Natalis, who suf∣fering himself to be abused by Asclepiodotus, and Theodotus the Goldsmith, the Disciple of Theodo∣tus the Currier, was Tormented for several Nights as a Punishment for his Fault, and afterwards did publick Penance for the same in the Pontificate of Zephirinus, and so was Reconciled to the Church. To conclude, in this last Passage he describes the Character of these Hereticks, and he says, that they have corrupted the Scriptures, and overthrown the Rule of Faith; that when we object to them any Passages of Scripture, they try whether they can make thereof any Compound or Disjunctive Syllogisms; that they study Geometry and Logick, and that they pervert the simplicity of the Faith taught in the Holy Scriptures, by their false Subtilties, which is the Common Character of all He∣reticks. We do not know who this Author is, nor what was the Title of his Book e 1.6: But this Fragment set down by Eusebius plainly discovers, that he was a Learned Man, and well skilled in the Controversie, and understood how to Reason closely against the Hereticks, and to give admirable Rules for their Conviction.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Miltia∣des, &c.
• a 1.2

  In an Ecstasie or fury.] This is taken from the Author against the Heresies of the Montanists, in Eusebius, Book 5. Chap. 17. and the meaning of it is, that true Prophets ought never to deliver them∣selves in a Fury, nor to be out of their right Senses, as the Montanists were. This likewise is the Rule which S. Chrysostom gives for distinguishing the False Prophets from the True. Homil. 29. in Epist. ad Co∣rinth. 8. And S. Jerom, in his Preface upon Nahum, Non enim loquimur in Extasi, ut Montanus, & Pris∣ca, Maximillaque delirant, sed quod Prophetat liber est visionis intelligentis. S. Jerom here uses the Term Ecstasie in the same sense with the Anonymous Author.
• b 1.3

  To the Governors of the Provinces.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eusebius and S. Jerom under∣stood these Words of Emperors; but since there was but one in this Author's time, it is more natural to explain this Expression by Governors of Provin∣ces.
• c 1.4

  If we believe S. Jerom. Eusebius does not say, that Apollonius was a Senator, but S. Jerom affirms it in his Catalogue to Magnus. We cannot tell whe∣ther he knew it certainly, or whether it be onely by Conjecture that he says so. But it is likely, that it was upon the account of his being a Senator, that the Praefectus Praetorio sent him back to the Senate to be Tryed there.
• d 1.5

  His accuser was condemned.] It was his Slave, if we may believe S. Jerom, and 'tis very probable, for he was condemned to have his Bones broken, the ordinary Punishment of Slaves.
• e 1.6

  We do not know who this Author is, nor what was the Title of his Book] Nicephorus calls it the La∣byrinth, and Theodoret, Lib. 2. Haeret. Fabul. con∣firms this Title. Photius, Cod. 48. attributes the Book of the Labyrinth to Caius, and others ascri∣bed it to Origen.