CAIUS of Rome and the ALOGI. — Eusebius found in the library of Jerusalem the works of Berillus of Bostra, of Hippolytus (without geographical indication), and of C. All three authors are described as men of letters (γρ́αμματοειδείς) and men of the church (ἐκκλησιαστικοί; V. Hist. eccl., VI, 20, 1). Of C., Eusebius knew of a dialogue, written or delivered, under Pope Zephyrinus in Rome against the Montanist Proclus: op. cit., VI, 20, 3). From the citations: II, 25, 6; III, 28, 1; III, 31, 4; VI, 20, 3 of Eusebius we see that C. polemicized against the new writings of the Montanists, that he fought their millenarianism, that he rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, and that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not found in his canon of the Pauline Epistles. From Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 28, 4 and VII, 25, 1) it can be deduced that Dionysius of Alexandria knew the dialogue of C. It seems that for C. the Apocalypse of St. John was the work of Cerinthus (Eusebius, op. cit., III, 28, 1. 2). Against the Montanists who boasted of the tombs of Philip and his prophetic daughters, C. emphasized the possession of the tombs of Peter in the Vatican and of Paul on the Via Ostiensis (Eusebius, op. cit., II, 25, 7).
The polemic of C. against the Apocalypse thus resembles that of the so-called Alogi: a large part of scholars has denied the existence of a distinct sect of Alogi, declaring that they would in reality be only C. The name "Alogi" is an invention of Epiphanius, who in Panar. haeret., 51 (CB, 31, p. 248 ff.), treats at length of this polemic against the writings of John, describing the adversaries as "alogoi," because they denied the Logos in the Johannine writings. On the criticism of the "Alogi," Ed. Schwartz has treated in a better way in Der Tod der Söhne Zebedaei (Abhandlungen der Götting. Ges. der Wissensch. Phil. Hist. Kl., new series, 7, v [Berlin 1904], p. 30 ff.), but this scholar also felt the difficulties that oppose the identification of the Alogi with C. (op. cit., p. 41 ff.), because in this case Irenaeus would already have polemicized (Adv. Haer., III, 11, 9: ed. A. Stieren, I, Leipzig 1848, p. 473) against C., and the date given by Eusebius for the dialogue (around 200) would be impossible; moreover, it seems unlikely that Eusebius, who read the dialogue, would not have denounced the heretical character of an author who denied the authenticity of the Gospel of St. John. Also the possibility discussed by Schwartz (op. cit., p. 42), of supposing that the dialogue was anonymous and C. the name of one of the participants in the dialogue, seems unsustainable in light of Eusebius' words. On the other hand, it cannot be said that C. accepted only part of the criticism of the Alogi, namely that concerning the Apocalypse, because from the fragments of a work of Hippolytus against C., preserved in Dionysius bar Salibi (Commentar. in Apocalypsim: Corp. Scr. Chr. Or., 2nd series, vol. 161, p. 4, 4 ff.; 11, 16 ff.; 12, 24 ff.; 13, 17 ff.; 14, 10 ff.; 25, 3 ff.; CB, i, p. 241 ff. and Commentary on the Gospel of John) it results that C. had also denied the authenticity of the Gospel of John. It is now evident that the chapter of Epiphanius on the Alogi depends largely on Hippolytus. According to Ebedjesu (d. 1318), Hippolytus would have written Capitia against Caius and an Apology for the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John the Apostle and Evangelist (J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, III, 1, Rome 1725, p. 15). It is debated whether this refers to one or two works of Hippolytus. In any case, the second title is also found in the list of works of Hippolytus on his statue. From these findings it follows that both the question of the date of the dialogue and that of Eusebius' favorable judgment on C. remain unresolved. C., the adversary of Hippolytus, in tradition became a substitute for Hippolytus (cf. Ed. Schwartz, Zwei Predigten Hippolyte, in Sitzungsberichte der Bayr. Akademie, Philos.-histor. Abt., Munich 1936, fasc. III, p. 36 ff.); the reasons for this substitution remain equally unknown.