Preface

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OF THE AUTHORS AND WORKS CONTAINED IN THIS SIXTH VOLUME.

S. JUSTIN PHILOSOPHER AND MARTYR. Discourse to the Greeks, col. 227 Exhortation to the Greeks, 241 On the Monarchy, 311 First Apology for the Christians, 327 Second Apology, 441 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 471

TATIAN, DISCIPLE OF S. JUSTIN. Discourse against the Greeks, 803

ATHENAGORAS OF ATHENS, CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER. Embassy for the Christians, 890 On the Resurrection of the Dead, 974

S. THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH. Three Books to Autolycus, 1023

HERMIAS THE PHILOSOPHER. Mockery of the Gentile Philosophers, 1176 Appendix to S. Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus, 1181

Conjectures and emendations of Johann Heinrich Nolte on all the writers of this volume.

[index: entries preserved]

PREFACE IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS EDITIONS, THE DOCTRINE OF ST. JUSTIN AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF RELIGION, AND THEIR DEEDS AND WRITINGS ARE DISCUSSED.

Beyond the effort expended in translating these writers, or in illustrating their context with various observations, many things have been intentionally reserved for this preface. For the rationale of my undertaking requires that I say something about the previous editions, and explain what I have attempted in this new one. Another matter follows, of far greater importance, namely the doctrine of these defenders of religion, and especially of St. Justin, which I shall endeavor to illustrate and explain where it is obscure and obstructed by difficulties, and to defend where it has been wrongly attacked. Nor have I deemed it right to spare labor in that category which is both most pleasant in the investigation of antiquity and highly useful for the defense of their dogmas, that is, in the weighing and judging of the deeds and writings of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus. Therefore, this preface will be in three parts: in the first, I will discuss the previous editions of these writers and this latest one of all; in the second, some of the opinions of Justin, as well as those of Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; in the third, their deeds and writings.

FIRST PART. Concerning the previous editions of the works of St. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Hermias.

CHAPTER I. Concerning the Greek editions of the works of St. Justin and various translators.

^A Although the *Exhortation to the Greeks* had appeared in Paris in Greek and Latin in the year 1539, from the press of Guillard, Robert Stephanus had been the first to publish all of the martyr's works in Greek in the year 1551, with royal type, after having unearthed this hidden treasure from the Royal Library. The accurate diligence of that most famous man, which has been ennobled by so many works, also earned him praise in this edition. But, as it is impossible for human nature to avoid every single stain, he published some things—though very rarely—otherwise than they appeared in the manuscript codex, partly inadvertently and partly by design, to soften a sentiment which seemed too harsh to him. Furthermore—which must be attributed to carelessness—he published a certain brief treatise against the Gentiles, or rather a collection of observations, once after the *Confutation of the Dogmas of Aristotle* with sufficient accuracy, and again after the *Questions to the Orthodox* not without gaps and numerous errors.

The works of Justin, as Rob. Stephanus had found them in the manuscript codex, were arranged by him without any selection of material or discrimination between the genuine and the spurious, in this manner: *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus*, *Exhortation to the Greeks*, *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew*, *Apology for the Christians to the Senate*, *Apology to Antoninus*, *On the Monarchy of God*, *Confutation of Some Dogmas of Aristotle*, *Questions of Christians to the Greeks*, *Questions and Answers to the Orthodox*, ^B *Questions of the Greeks to the Christians*. The most learned Fabricius testifies that both *Apologies* had already been published in Greek at Rome by Zanner in octavo, along with some works of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, edited by Hieronymus Bunellus, S.J.

Since the usefulness of Justin's works was closed to those who did not know Greek, some learned men undertook to illustrate him in Latin. In this arena, the first to excel was Joachim Perionius, a man instructed in Greek and Latin letters, a monk of the Cormery monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, and a doctor of theology. His work appeared in the year 1554 in folio, printed by Jacob Dupuis. A brief Life of Justin, collected from his own works, is prefixed to the Latin translation. After individual treatises, notes are appended to illustrate the context. Deceived by the first words of the *Exposition of the Faith*, in which Pseudo-Justin testifies that he had argued sufficiently against the Jews and Gentiles, Perionius thought that the *Dialogue*, the two *Apologies*, the *Exhortation*, and the *Book on the Monarchy* ought to be placed before this *Exposition of the Faith*; then, after the *Exposition of the Faith* or *Right Confession*, he granted a place to the *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus*, various *Questions*, and finally the *Confutation of the Dogmas of Aristotle*. Perionius knew, however, and he observes this himself in the first note to the *Exposition of the Faith*, that Justin had whetted his pen against the Gentiles before he did against the Jews. But he thought he ought to follow the order which he believed was indicated by the holy martyr.

^A Perionius’s translation is more elegant than accurate, such that some scholars have noted him not without barbs. But one must use indulgence toward him who, having no one to follow, led the way for others in this dangerous gamble. Perionius had first decided, as he himself narrates in his *Admonition to the Reader*, not to publish all of Justin’s books at once, but in short installments at different times, in the order he deemed they ought to be assigned. But he changed his plan and gathered all of Justin’s works into one and the same volume, yet in such a way that he did not defraud the distinguished men to whom he had promised to dedicate some of the holy martyr's books. Hence the *Dialogue* is dedicated to Cardinal Otho Castalio, in which he indeed praises the study of theology at the highest level of dignity; for he had considered the pursuit of this science—after he had harvested marvelous fruits from his humanistic studies under the tutelage of Nicholas Beraldus, a most erudite and eloquent teacher—not only pleasant and useful, but also necessary throughout one’s entire life. Perionius describes quite aptly what the state of literary affairs was at that time, when the zeal for discovering ancient books and bringing them to public light was burning, especially since the time of Francis I, who had exerted himself in a wondrous way so that, as Perionius says, a great multitude of Greek and Hebrew books might be brought from Greece and Judea, and had provoked not only many Gauls, but also Italians, Spaniards, and Germans by his most beautiful example.

Both *Apologies* were dedicated to Jean Burgio, Abbot of the Olivetan monastery in Bourges, whom Perionius had long ago taken into his friendship, and whom he did not cease to urge—both to maintain and perpetuate the system of studies and to execute the office of his prefecture in accordance with his own dignity and the utility of his people.

^B Paul had said before: Our ancestors, having completely rejected Platonism, both approved of Aristotelianism in this, the chief of all academies, and wished it to be approved and retained by their own. Thus, he is not so carried away by his love and zeal for Justin that he fails to see that Aristotle is refuted by him. Furthermore, he says, I can truly say that the Aristotelians, if they wish (since Justin refutes him in this place only by his own arguments and principles, for men who are strangers to our religion cannot be moved by the testimonies of divine Scripture), can easily respond to those things which he wishes to prevail against him, once our religion is removed: especially since no system of discipline is so weak and poorly established that its men cannot defend the decrees of their own leader.

In the following year, that is 1555, another translation was published at Basel and reprinted at Paris in the year 1575, prepared by Sigismund Gelenius, who, having died in the very course of his work and left it interrupted, was succeeded by a certain man skilled in Greek and Latin who, as Bishop Nicholas testifies in his *Admonition to the Reader*, not only made the latter books Latin, but also supplemented many passages in the earlier ones—where verses from authors had been cited, which Gelenius had skipped over so as not to delay the course of his translation—in meaning, however, more than in verse, even though he is an excellent poet, displayed... excelling also in many other gifts of God, but especially in the restoration of the corruptions of the writers of both languages: concerning which I shall speak the more sparingly, the more well-known it is to many.

^C The *Exhortation to the Greeks* and the *Book on Monarchy* appear under the name of Francis Boher, Bishop of Saint-Malo, to whom Perionius and his uncle Dionysius Briconetus, Abbot of Cormery and Bishop of Saint-Malo, owed a great deal. For when those who had provided him with everything while he was working on his studies in Paris wished to close their generosity to Perionius, Briconetus, upon learning of this, supported him with his own resources, and on his deathbed recommended him to Francis Boher, whose generosity was no less ^D extensive.

Since Perionius judged the *Exposition of the Faith* to be a genuine work of Justin, and had not noticed the stains of the Nestorian error with which this work is branded, he did not think that he could send any book containing greater or more excellent matters to Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, and he added his *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus*, and the five *Questions of Christians to the Greeks*. The remaining *Questions* are inscribed to Cardinal Francis Tournon. There remained the *Confutation of Aristotle*: he published this in the name of Philibert Babou, Bishop of Angoulême, and quite ingenuously confesses his fear that by the reading of this book others might be deterred from reading Aristotle more than Plato.

The final books, which were left to the learned man to translate, appear to be the *Confutation of Aristotelian Dogmas*, the *Questions to the Orthodox*, and other *Questions of Christians to the Greeks and of Greeks to the Christians*. For these have been rendered more accurately than Gelenius is wont to do. It was worthy of the learned man's name that it should be handed down to posterity: but perhaps it was omitted by the bookseller, so as to spare that man’s modesty. In this edition, the order of the works which Robert Stephanus had observed is retained. In the Paris edition, which appeared in the year 1575, St. Hippolytus’s *Oration on the Consummation of the World and Antichrist, and the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ* translated by Joannes Picus was added.

Joannes Langus Silesius published a third translation in the year 1565 at Basel, with commentaries added. He had finished the work before the labors of Perionius and Gelenius fell into his hands; but, having read them through, he testifies that he not only did not repent of his own efforts, but that he even gained more courage to commit his work more willingly to the judgment of men. His hope did not deceive him; for his translation is preferred to others; but yet, although he does not translate as freely as Gelenius, nor does he err as often as Perionius, he is nevertheless not without his own errors, some of which he would have avoided if he had diligently compared the translations of Perionius and Gelenius with his own; to say nothing of the fact that by imitating them, his own could often have been made clearer and more elegant.

^A Honor was indeed accorded them in subsequent editions, except for the Bibliotheca Patrum of Cologne in the year 1618, in which the interpretation of Perionius was accepted.

As I ponder the work of Langius, it occurs to me to marvel at his view of the controversies that were then burning with great heat. In his dedicatory epistle to Maximilian, King of Bohemia, he laments the dissensions that had arisen some forty years prior in Germany and other places. Yet he is not in the least moved by the consensus that previously existed regarding these matters, and which has ceased to exist among Catholics. He seems to value the holy Fathers highly, and contends that they, as the lamps of the Church, ought to have great authority, not only privately among individuals, but also publicly ^B in sacred assemblies and councils among all mortals, for whom there is nothing more primary and ancient than the name and glory of Christ and their own salvation.

But how poorly this panegyrist of the holy Fathers obeys his own principles and precepts! For while he comments on the notable passage of Justin, Apol. 1, no. 65, where the holy martyr so eloquently and consistently asserts that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, just as the Word Himself became man; what does Langius set against this testimony? He has Valentine Crautwald, a presbyter of Wroclaw, whom he had as a teacher in Greek letters, standing in for all the Fathers. Relying on this monitor and master, and pretexting interpretation and explanation, he does not hesitate to invert the words of Christ, *This is my body, this is my blood*, in this manner: *This is my body*, namely, the bread and spiritual and living food that descends from heaven; *this is my blood*, namely, the spiritual, life-giving, and celestial drink.

^C He attacks putative justification in this way: "Faith of this kind," he says, "consists for the most part in *oieseis* and *doxēsei*, that is, it is conceived in opinion and estimation, lacking substance; and putative justification relies and consists upon this, destined also to have (as is to be feared) a corresponding putative reward and imaginary retribution." And those who are lost in idleness, who call into question whether a Christian has need of good works for salvation—what else are they doing but clearly showing that they are leading the Lord’s and apostolic oracles (I omit the prophetic) into an ambiguous dispute, and casting doubt upon their truth? These things are read in the same epistle.

Memorably, the history of the sedition that arose on account of the controversy over justification is reported by Langius. "It arose," he says, p. 12, "in recent years in a certain territory of Germany, a scholastic contention concerning the justification of man, which then grew into such open discord that almost the entire clergy there defected from the prince." Nor was he able to satisfy his subjects by any other means than by issuing a public edict—which had been decreed from the very foundations of the holy Church—that justification should be taught according to the opinion of the apostle Paul. But to that constitution ^D he added: "and according to the doctrine of certain new doctors, who, as named by him, departed not long ago." For I do not think he could have satisfied them otherwise, as I have said. Nor do I doubt that this prince, endowed with such prudence, would have restored the ancient Fathers, Greek and Latin, instead of these novel writers, had he been permitted to do so by the importunity of seditious men.

In arranging the works of St. Justin, he followed the subject matter and divided Justin into three volumes, the first of which contains the Cohortatio, the Book on Monarchy, two Apologies to which is attached the Legatio of Athenagoras, and finally the Confutation of the dogmas of Aristotle, as in Robert Estienne, and the Questions of the Christians to the Greeks. The second volume is filled by the Dialogue with Trypho, the third by the Exposition of the Faith, the Epistle to Zenas and Serenus, and the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox along with the Questions of the Greeks to the Christians.

Before these interpreters, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola had rendered the Cohortatio to the Greeks into Latin; this interpretation was published among his works at Strasbourg in the year 1507, and Basel 1528, in folio; in Jo. Sichard's Antidotum contra haereses, and in the Micropresbyticon 1550, and the Orthodoxographum 1551, 1569, and again among the works of Jo. Francesco Pico, Basel 1601, in folio; Guillaume Postel translated the Confutation of the dogmas of Aristotle into Latin, Paris, 1553, in 8vo.

Justin also had those who illustrated him in the French language. The complete works published by Robert Estienne were rendered into French by Jean de Maumont in the year 1554, and he dedicated this work—undertaken at the urging of Montluc, Bishop of Valence, and printed by the press of Michel Vascosan—to the Cardinal of Lorraine. This interpretation was printed again in the year 1559 by the same. In the same language, Martin Dupin rendered the Cohortatio to the Greeks in 1580 at Paris; Chanut, the greater Apology in 1670; and P. le Gras, a priest of the Oratory, the Epistle to Diognetus in 1725 at Paris. Since Chanut had hidden under the name of Petri Fondet, this interpretation was printed again in 1686, under the true name of the interpreter. Caspar Hedio illustrated the Cohortatio to the Greeks in German in the year 1530, along with the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Socrates, etc., at Strasbourg in folio; D. Cave recently translated into English the Apologies of Justin, Tertullian, and Minucius Felix for the Christian religion, and the Commonitorium of Vincent of Lérins, and illustrated them with prolegomena and notes, London 1710, 8vo, 2 vol.

Chapter II. On the Greco-Latin editions of the works of St. Justin.

Friderich Sylburg published the works of Justin in Greek and Latin, with the interpretation of Johann Lang, in the year 1693 at Heidelberg by Commelin, adding two works published in 1592 by Henri Estienne, the Oration to the Greeks and the Epistle to Diognetus.

^A To this edition, Sylburg added grace and value, with copious indices as well as various observations, which he appended either in his own name, or those received from Jo. Arcerius, David Hoeschel, and Hieronymus Voltius, or those drawn from the sacred observations of Billius. This edition was reprinted again and again in Paris in the years 1615 and 1636, with Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, and Hermias included in the same volume, along with the dissertation of the Jesuit Lansselius against the Animadversions of Casaubon on Baronius, added to the works of Justin. The Cologne, or Wittenberg, edition of 1686, in addition to what is contained in the Parisian ones, has the Commentaries of Christian Kortholt on Baronius, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Tatian.

The learned English did not fail to ensure that they would not appear to have contributed no effort or study toward illustrating Justin. Most recently, says Fabricius, vol. V, p. 61, the learned man Thomas Creech, to whom Lucretius owes much, applied his hand to a new edition of Justin at Oxford. But soon, poor man, the author of his own lamentable fate, he wished to obliterate even that which he had already accomplished.

Joannes Ernestus Grabe published the greater Apology in octavo at Oxford in the year 1700, with the Latin version of Johann Lang corrected in very many places, with emendations and notes of various others appended, and many new ones added; moreover, with the annotations of Lang and Kortholt added to the end, and Lang’s preface set before it, in which he narrated the sum of this Apology. In the same city and in the same manner appeared in the year 1703 ^C the two Orations against the Greeks, with the Book on Monarchy and the lesser Apology, with the notes of Robert and Henri Estienne, of Grabe, and of others. Appended at the end are the annotations of Lang and Kortholt. The praise for this labor is due to H. Hutchin. Since the Dialogue remained, Samuel Jebb occupied himself in illustrating it in the same way and manner as Grabe and Hutchin in the aforementioned works, except that he appended very few notes, and those almost always taken from Sylburg. The work appeared likewise in octavo in London, in 1719.

There appeared in London in Greek and Latin in 1722 the two Apologies of Justin the philosopher and martyr and the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, with the notes and emendations of Styan Thirlby. The observations of this learned man are occupied with explicating antiquity, with emending the context, and also with comparing the places of Scripture with the editions of the Bibles and the Fathers. Regarding the significant passage about the angels, which we shall treat in the second part of the preface, he warns that he has decided not to touch upon theological controversies in this work. He seems never to depart from this intention.

I have no doubt that a man excellently instructed in Greek and Latin letters would have deserved praise and approval if he had adorned it with a new interpretation; but he declares the reasons why he refrained from this labor. "I was so far," he says, "from thinking that I ought to produce a new version, that nothing could have been closer than my editing none at all: for ^D I have always esteemed the incredible paucity of learned men, and the multitude of half-learned and sciolists—to which, if I am not mistaken, we owe this current state of affairs—to be a mortal enemy; and I have always judged this ridiculous custom of appending Latin interpretations to Greek books to have been the blight and bane of Greek letters. I have had regard for the bookseller’s convenience, to whom I even conceded this: that I would not at least banish the version to the end of the book."

How he proceeded in emending Lang’s version is worth learning from him himself. "In emending," he says, "Lang’s version, I had no regard for the Latinity, for it could be corrected by nothing but a single erasure; nor did I examine the meaning itself with my own weights—which would have been a labor of no less difficulty, and I know not if greater, than making a new version—but I examined it with a kind of popular balance, lightly and remissly, as one unwilling and laboring with difficulty to consume a lowly task."

At the end are appended some annotations of Pearson, unearthed from the royal library at Cambridge, which the learned editor does not think much of. There follow the notes of Davis on the first Apology, which the illustrious Thirlby brought to public light, having received them most courteously from this very learned man, so that they might be a monument both to his own gratitude and to Davis's erudition. The indices of things and words are owed to Sylburg. In the dedicatory epistle, which, inscribed to the most noble man William Lord Craven, takes the place and manner of a preface, the learned editor undertakes the patronage of the reading of the holy Fathers, and discourses on the utility and difficulty of criticism, then interposes his own judgment about Justin, and finally explains the rationale of his work.

He does not tickle with a soft arm those who despise the ancient Fathers. For, he says, "There is another class of men who, although I am not accustomed to dispute with the unlearned, must be refuted in few words. If they do not know theology, they know nothing, and yet they seem to studiously devote themselves to that pursuit: but nevertheless, either from arrogance, or because they really feel what they say, they deem the ancient Fathers unworthy of being read. Truly, these 'good theologians' contend that they rely on Scripture alone, and that it contains whatever it is our interest to know, and whatever is necessary for understanding it: they think that those who feel otherwise are offering a horrible insult to its author, God, and that therefore the Fathers can be of no use, nor can any authority of antiquity, nor should the most ancient interpreters of Scripture be preferred to the most recent ones. What they say concerning the perspicuity of Scripture is, first, very ridiculous and absurd; then—of the very crime of which they ineptly accuse their adversaries—it is also impious. It is absurd that they try to prove that what everyone senses is not perspicuous is in fact perspicuous to everyone. It is impious that they affirm that God either did or did not provide sufficiently for human affairs, when it is manifest that the fact is not so. To no one who loves the truth will this judgment, absurd over the heads of men, be pleasing."

How arduous and difficult a thing criticism is, he demonstrates by this, among other reasons. For what else, he says, is...

the cause that in such a great multitude of men, not only among us and the remaining northern peoples—whom the sun, that true Phoebus, when it stirs the spirit to heat, does not look upon except squint-eyed from afar—but even among those lively and talented Gauls, and those men of divine ingenuity, the Italians, who are either fellow-countrymen or neighbors of all the Muses, scarcely three or four in any single generation have successfully carried out the task, if it be not the incredible magnitude and difficulty of the subject? These things are not mentioned by me with the intention of applauding the things which he does not timorously assert about his own countrymen, nor of displaying what he honors the Gauls for, but so that from these things everyone might perceive how ingenuous and sincere is the liberty of a learned man both in feeling and in saying what he thinks. ^A

CHAPTER III. Concerning the various editions of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Hermias.

The first of all the editions of Tatian's *Oration* is owed to Johannes Frisius, who, having received a manuscript copy of this *Oration* at Venice from Arnoldus Arlenius Peraxylus, together with various readings interspersed from another codex, provided by this safeguard published the *Oration* of Tatian in Greek at Zurich in folio in the year 1546, with Froschover, along with the maxims of Antonius Melissa and Maximus and *Theophilus to Autolycus*. On the margin of this edition are read both those various readings which I mentioned, and also some brief notes of Conrad Gesner, with whom Frisius had shared his codex. In the same year and in the same city, Conrad Gesner published the Latin version of Tatian in folio with a prolegomenous interpretation, which was afterwards frequently reprinted in the *Bibliothecae Patrum*, Paris years 1575, 1589, 1610, Cologne 1618, Lyons 1677. Tatian appeared in Greek and Latin at Basel among the *Orthodoxographa* in the year 1555 and at Paris in the *Auctuarium Bibliothecae Patrum* in the year 1624, with the notes of Ducaeus, and after the works of Justin Martyr in the editions of Paris years 1615 and 1636, and Cologne, or rather Wittenberg, in the year 1686, to which last edition the notes of Kortholt were added. ^B

But the Oxford edition of the year 1700, which we owe to William Worth, Archdeacon of Worcester, surpasses all these editions in the praise of its diligence and learning. He amended the interpretation of Conrad Gesner in certain places, distributed the work into certain chapters, added his own notes to the notes of others, and arranged the various readings, excerpted from three codices, in order between the context and the notes. At the end are placed the observations of George Bull on the divinity of Christ, the notes of Kortholt, and the dissertation of the Benedictine monk, Dom Nicolas le Nourry. There follows the little work of Hermias, which Worth considered should be conjoined with Tatian; then the indices and finally a learned dissertation by the most famous Abbot de Longuerue, which Worth had received from Petro Hallixio after the work was completed, on the law and condition that the learned author of the dissertation should remain concealed.

In the dedication letter, which carries the name of William, Bishop of Worcester and Royal Almoner, the learned editor declares the occasion and cause for undertaking this work to have been that, when controversies concerning the highest articles of faith were raging not long ago in England, and he saw that all the engines of atheism were turned towards this—that, appearing under the guise of cultivating natural religion, a path might be paved for paganism—he had hoped that Tatian's *Oration* would be useful for checking the progress of impiety, inasmuch as it most brilliantly demonstrates that this whole natural religion, as we call it, is a pitiful thing, and has very little power for cultivating the soul and informing morals, unless the light of the Christian law is added as well.

Athenagoras' *Book on the Resurrection of the Dead* appeared before the *Embassy* or *Apology*. This was rendered into Latin by Georgius Valla, whose interpretation was printed at Venice in folio with other works of various authors in the year 1498. Marsilius Ficinus also translated many things from this book, which are read in the second volume of his works. The same work was illustrated with Latin letters by Petrus Nannius, who first published it in Greek with his own interpretation at Paris and Louvain in the year 1541 in 4to. This Greek-Latin edition was repeated at Basel in folio in the year 1550 in the *Micropresbyticon*, and among the *Orthodoxographa* in 1555 in folio. The same work in Latin only is reported from the interpretation of Nannius after the works of Philo Judaeus, rendered into Latin by Gelenius at Basel in 1552 in 8vo. ^C

Three interpreters labored on the *Embassy* (or *Apology*): Conrad Gesner, who published this work in Greek and Latin with notes in 8vo at Zurich in the year 1557 and at Basel in 1558; Joannes Langus, who inserted the *Apology* of Athenagoras, on account of the similarity of the material, among the works of Justin which he himself edited in Latin in folio at Basel in the year 1565; and lastly the third, Suffridus Petri, who, with fuller notes, published the same work rendered into Latin at Cologne in 8vo in the year 1567. The interpretation of Langus was preserved in the Basel edition: honor was shown to Suffridus in the Leipzig editions in the years 1684 and 1685. The others whom we shall number hereafter retained the interpretation of Gesner. ^D

Both works, the *Embassy* and the *Book on the Resurrection of the Dead*, were edited in Latin in the *Bibliothecae Patrum*, Paris years 1575, 1589, 1609; Cologne 1618; Lyons 1677; in Greek and Latin with notes; at Paris in 8vo, year 1657, by Henri Estienne, of whom he [Worth] thought—undeservedly—that he had prepared a new interpretation for the author of the *General History of Sacred and Ecclesiastical Writers*; item at Zurich in 1559 and 1560 in folio among the writings of certain orthodox ancient Greek theologians; in the *Auctuarium Bibliothecae Patrum*, Paris 1624, item after the works of Justin 1615, 1636, 1686; at Oxford in 12mo, with brief notes by Fell, Bishop of Oxford, 1682; at Leipzig in 8vo 1684, 1685, with notes by Rechenberg, who retained the interpretation of Suffridus. Another edition appeared at Oxford in the year 1706 in 8vo.

collate it with the manuscript, adding the notes of the same Gale, who considers Hermias to be junior to Theodorus, and the notes of William Worth at the end of Tatian, Oxford 1700, 8vo.

CHAPTER IV.

I will not keep my readers long with a lengthy speech to explain the rationale of my labor, which, as it is committed to the judgment of the learned, is not as much to be praised or proclaimed by me as it is to be exposed by asking for the indulgence of an apology for the errors and blemishes which, in an arduous and difficult work, I have not sufficiently avoided.

Truly, many great difficulties were met with in these ancient monuments. Great were the wounds inflicted by copyists, whether by omitting some things, or by changing them, or even—as I observed in the entire second chapter of St. Justin’s Apology ^B —by transferring them to a place that was not their own. To this is added a style neither elegant in its choice of words nor accurate in its construction, especially in the Dialogue of St. Justin, who, while burning with the desire to defend the truth, not only discards the ornaments of speech but also pays little heed to the clarity of language. The charms and elegant flourishes of Tatian often cause as much trouble as his unkempt and unadorned speech, so much so that he has appeared to interpreters and critics to be pinning the Cynic Crescens with his barbs while describing mimes in their native colors. ^C Sometimes the explanation of profane matters in these writers is laborious; but I do not know if it would have been more laborious—I do not say to discern what they feel about the divinity of Christ (for truly wonderful is the ardor of their spirit in defending this dogma and clear in proclaiming the testimonies)—but to explain and trace through all their tracks certain arguments which they use in this genre.

For help in resolving these matters, there were manuscript codices, the changing of punctuation, the use of parentheses where there was need, and finally, ^D an attentive consideration of difficult passages and a collation with others by the same or a different writer. However, these things could not be accomplished without many notes, and those sometimes prolix; but nevertheless, care for brevity was taken. I would surely have created boredom for myself and for my readers, and the burden of the volume would have been heavier than it should be, if I had added the commentaries of Langus, Perionius, Kortholtus, and others, if I had chosen to illustrate ecclesiastical and profane matters with commonplaces, and to collect whatever others have interpreted less fittingly or opined less learnedly, and whatever the testimonies cited by Justin and Theophilus have of difference from our Bibles. Among all these, I judged there to be need for a choice: I am accustomed to restraining the labor of annotations within the understanding of the context and the writer’s opinion; the observations of learned men who labored usefully before me, where they are less approved by me, I refute in few words; where they seem worth adopting, I gladly accept them, yet in such a way that they are usually compressed into a shorter form, and no one is cheated of their due praise.

The new interpretation was especially desired

^A after Papebroch, and I published fragments of the lost works of Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus. Both Apologies of Justin, the Book on Monarchy, and the Dialogue, Athenagoras’ Book on the Resurrection, and the three books of Theophilus. It was sufficient in Justin’s Oration to the Greeks, the Epistle to Diognetus, and the short work of Hermias, to emend the interpretation in many places. In this labor, however, my concern was to render word for word as a faithful interpreter, and not to take liberty without a necessary cause. For it would be an equal impiety either to detract anything from the truth through negligence, or to exaggerate it deceitfully, as if it were weak and feeble. Therefore, it will perhaps be annoying to some not to find in this my translation the most illustrious testimonies for the defense of dogmas, which relied only on the authority of translators: such as that one from Justin’s Dialogue, n. 88: "The human race had fallen through Adam into death and the deception and seduction of the serpent; to say nothing meanwhile of the individual guilt of those who act maliciously." That passage of Theophilus from book II was also cited: "But what man had brought upon himself through injury and disobedience, that God now donates to him, through His humanity and mercy making men obedient to Himself." The context was the reason why my translation lacked these testimonies. But this loss, if indeed it must be seen as a loss, will be compensated by many other things, which, being led by certain reasons, I have rendered in such a way that the author’s meaning is placed in the clearest light, and the whole dispute is settled.

I have decided that the order of the works, which had been arranged at will in previous editions, should be governed by chronological notices. Yet the Apologies of S. Justin are not separated. The books falsely attributed to Justin have been relegated to an Appendix, among which the Epistle to Zena and Serenus stands out for the piety of its precepts: but as certain and manifest as it is that it is not Justin’s, it is just as obscure and uncertain at what time it was written. There follow two works, unworthy indeed of the name of the holy martyr because of the poison of their errors, but nevertheless sufficiently suitable to stir up the desire for reading and learning: the Exposition of the Right Confession, in which the Nestorian heresy breathes; and the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, which are marked with Pelagian stains. Other Questions and the Refutation of the Dogmas of Aristotle, by a wonderful similarity of style, refer to the same parent as the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox. The second part of the Appendix was assigned to ^B the Acts of the martyrdom of S. Justin, which I published in Greek and Latin.

Two recent manuscript codices were used, in which all of Justin’s works, both genuine and supposititious, are contained, one from the Royal library, formerly 2270, now 450, the other from the Claromontana. Furthermore, for the Cohortation, very ancient royal codices were employed, now 451 and 174, formerly 2271 and 2919; and the Colbertinus, which is now royal 19. For the Epistle to Zena and Serenus, royal codices 451 and 174, and besides these, two Claromontani, which however are so much twins that each was copied from the same codex or one from the other. The same Claromontani codices, along with royal 938 and 1268 and two Coisliniani, the first of which is believed to be of the tenth century, were useful for emending the Exposition of the Faith. The Refutation of the Dogmas of Aristotle was collated with royal 2153. Athenagoras’ Legation was collated with two royals, 451 and 174, three Romans, of which two are from the Ottoboniana, another from the Vatican library, the Claromontanus, and another from the library of the Oratorian Institution in Paris. The same author’s Book on the Resurrection was collated with the same royal codices 451, 174, 450, and two Claromontani, to which were added various readings formerly collected by the most learned Bigot from a manuscript codex, which are kept in the Saint-Germain library. The third book of Theophilus was collated with royal 887. Hermias with two Romans, one Vatican and the other Ottobonian. For the various readings of the Roman codices, I am indebted to two learned procurators of our congregation in the Roman Curia, D. Etiennot and D. Petro Maloet, the former of whom collated Athenagoras’ Legation with two Ottobonians. The duty of gratitude demands that I also commemorate the exceptional humanity shown to me in assisting me by the most learned custodians of the Royal library, D. Boivin and D. de Targnies, and those who succeeded them. Prolix and beneficial also was the good will toward me of the reverend Father Hardouin, whom no one is unaware of having long been the prefect of the library of the Jesuit College in Paris. For the testimonies of Justin, which are reported by Eusebius, I have used various readings excerpted from manuscript codices, which were communicated to me by one of our own who is preparing a new edition of Eusebius’ History.

PART II OF THE PREFACE

In which many matters are weighed that pertain to the doctrine of Justin and other defenders of the religion.

CHAPTER I

I. Testimonies of Plato concerning ideas and the *logos* from Timaeus Locrus. II. Other things from Timaeus are weighed. III. What is meant by "only-begotten," "begotten God," and "image of God" according to Plato. IV. Plato considered the world to be a perfect image of God. V. The famous passage where Plato is seen to speak of the Triad contains the Pythagorean Tetrad. VI. The offspring begotten by God is knowledge and truth. VII. Writers before or contemporary with Justin saw nothing of the Word in Plato. VIII. Justin came to the Church devoid of this doctrine.

From the dialogue which is inscribed *Timaeus*, and then in another little book, in which Plato does not follow the manner of dialogues, but himself relates what he had heard from Timaeus Locrus, the distinguished Pythagorean. This book begins thus: ^A Timaeus Locrus said this: "There are two causes of all things: the mind of those things which come to be according to reason, and the necessity of those things which happen by force according to the powers of the bodies." Of these, the cause of that which is called good is God, and he is named the origin of origins; but things consequent and co-causes are referred to necessity. All things are idea, matter, and the sensible, which is the offspring of these. And the one is unbegotten and immovable, and remaining in the nature of itself, and is intelligible, and is the exemplar of generated things, insofar as they are in change. For such is the idea said and understood to be. But matter is the impression and mother, the nurse and generative [principle] of the third essence... These, therefore, are two contrary principles: of which the idea has the character of the male and father, but matter [that of] the female and mother.

Timaeus Locrus said this: "There are two causes of all things: mind indeed of those which happen according to reason, but necessity of those which happen by a certain force according to the powers of bodies. Of these causes, one is of that nature which is called good; and it is called God, and the cause of causes: those indeed which follow and join themselves as assisting causes are referred to necessity; finally, all things are idea, matter, and the sensible as the offspring of both. And that [idea] is indeed unbegotten and immovable and permanent, and of that nature which is called the same, intelligible, an exemplar of generated things, whatever are in change. For such a thing is the idea said and conceived to be. But matter is the expressed image of things and mother and generator of the third essence..... These, therefore, are two contrary principles: of which the idea has the character of the male and father, but matter [that of] the female and mother." In this discourse of Timaeus Locrus, mind, God, idea, and exemplar are used in the exact same sense. The idea is a principle by no means idle, but one which holds the place of the male and father, and is an unbegotten thing, immovable and permanent. There is no trace here of a Word distinct from the highest God.

It is not my intention to collect here whatever pertains to this doctrine in these writings (for a copious index has been prepared for this use), but to weigh only those things which, having been distorted into alien meanings, or being obscure and difficult by their own nature, could not be illustrated and explained in the annotations. Indeed, there would be a very rich harvest of discussion concerning the divinity of Christ, had I not discharged this labor with the utmost accuracy possible in the notes. But there remains, in this genre, a question not to be despised, which seems to me to be the greatest part of my undertaking. Those who in recent centuries have whetted their impious tongues against the divinity of Christ have not ceased to clamor that the *logos* in Plato is a person distinct from the highest God, and that this doctrine flowed from the school of Plato into the Church, with the Platonic Justin as the ringleader of the crime. Joannes Clericus, in his *Critical Letters* 7, 8, and 9, pronounces that the Jews themselves, and Philip in particular, drank from Platonic fountains whatever they taught concerning the Word, the Son of God, and the maker of all things. In this fiction of the induction of Platonism into the Church, treated as a certain and explored matter, Laurentius Moshemius has most recently laid the foundations of all the trifles which he unfolds in his dissertation *On the Church Disturbed by Platonists*. Since the consideration of Plato's own testimonies seems to me to be capable of occupying and delighting the minds of readers; but in truth, concerning Christian doctrine—which, however, I confess does not stand in need of my work in such a light of evidence—I hope to deserve well if I demonstrate that Plato was not breathed upon by any aura of the Christian dogma concerning the Son of God, nor did Justin use any benefit of Plato or the Platonists in this matter. We must therefore inquire ^D what "idea" is according to Plato, and by whom the world was founded, and what the "son of God" and "image of God" signify according to him.

Concerning ideas and the reason of God, not a few things occur in Plato; but that these ideas and this *logos* were distinct from the highest God, as a person begotten by him, he does not seem even to have suspected. We have his own opinion clearly expressed, when in the discourse it is confirmed from these things which follow: "Before the heaven was generated by the Word, there were Idea and Matter, and God the creator of the better. But since the older is better than the younger, and that which is ordered [is better] than that which is disordered; God, being good, seeing that matter receives the idea and is changed in every way, yet disorderly, it was necessary to lead it into order and establish it from indefinite changes into a definite [state], so that the distinctions of bodies might become harmonious, and..."

might not receive ^A fortuitous changes at random; he therefore created this world from the whole of matter. For the heaven is established by logical reason (λῷγῳ), yet this reason is not distinct from the Idea, nor the Idea from God.

Not long after, the Idea is called the intelligible essence, which embraces all living creatures within itself. ^B For that which is generated is most excellent, since it was born under the most excellent Cause, looking not toward artificial examples, but toward the Idea and the intelligible essence; so that whatever is generated, being accurately finished, becomes most beautiful and unassailable. It is always perfect in sensible things, because its own archetype, containing all intelligible living creatures within itself, left nothing else outside, being the complete boundary of the intelligible, just as this world is of the sensible. • From the reason and intelligence of God, therefore, for the generation of time, so that time might be born, the sun and moon and five other stars, having the name of planets, were made for the distinction and preservation of the numbers of time. • Thus, every truly everlasting calculation of God, having calculated concerning the god at some time to be, made the body smooth and equal, everywhere equidistant from the center, and whole and perfect from perfect bodies. ^C « Having calculated, « for the sake of this calculation, for the sake of the cause and this calculation, » • In this way, let no one among us ever think that some of them are gods, and others are not; nor that some are legitimate, and others of such a kind that it is not even lawful for any of us to speak of them. But let us all say and declare that all are brothers and in the lots of brothers; and let us pay them honors, not assigning to one the year, to another the month, and to none to whom we assign neither a share nor any time in which it traverses its own pole, completing the world which the most divine reason appointed as visible; which the blessed man first admired, and then felt a desire to understand as much as is possible for mortal nature. »

^D It is not without reason that the Cleric (Le Clerc) considers this latter passage sufficient to persuade Christians that the Holy Scriptures and Plato teach the same thing concerning the Word (Verbum). For this reasoning of God, even if one should be willfully blind, can never appear as a person distinct from God, nor is it anything other than the very thought of God, as Plato calls it in the prior testimony. But it is the less doubtful that Plato is speaking of the sole thought of God, because in both places he attributes to God a singular thought and reasoning. For in the first place, he says that time had to be created, so that just as the world’s archetype exists through all time, or through all eternity, so the world might exist through all time; and that it was for the sake of this thought of God that the sun was made. In the second place, he brings forward this reason for why the world was endowed with this form: because God deemed that it would be more excellent if it were self-sufficient and did not require external aids. The same way of speaking occurs everywhere. Thus, p. 1048: “Deus cum cogitasset [God, when he had thought], he found that those things which have mind are more beautiful than those which lack it, and that mind cannot exist without soul; and ‘propter hanc cogitationem [for the sake of this thought],’ he placed mind in soul, and soul in body.” So too p. 1049: “Cum videret Deus frigus et calorem corpori nocere [When God saw that cold and heat hurt the body]; for this cause and reason, he constituted the world as one whole, perfect from all things, and free from old age and disease.”

I do not linger on the objection brought from the *Epinomis*, where Plato says the world was created by [the Word] in these words: “Nemo omnino ex nobis existimet [Let no one among us at all think that some are gods, while others are not; or that some are legitimate, and others are such as it would be impious to name. But let us say that all are brothers and in the lots of brothers, and let us pay them honors, not assigning to one the year, to another the month, and to none [do we assign] any share, nor any time in which it traverses its own circle, completing the world, which reason, most divine of all, appointed to be visible: which indeed the blessed man first admires, and then burns with the desire of learning whatever mortal nature can perceive].” These words, which the blessed man first admires, must be referred not to the [Word], but to the world, of whose

^A admiration the beginnings for us of learning and, so to speak, the first elements are supplied—a thing which cannot be said of the admiration of divine reason. Now, that Word who created the world does not denote in this place a person distinct from God the Father any more than in the other passages brought forward, or even in that one from the Phaedo (p. 85): “It must be striven that, choosing the best of human reasonings and that which is least capable of being refuted, we may dwell upon it, so that, carried by it as by a raft, we may navigate the dangers of this life; unless one can be carried and transmitted in a more certain and safer way, namely, by a safer vessel, or by some divine reason.” ^B III. This seems to approach more closely to the likeness of the Christian institution, in the letter to Hermias, Frastus, and Coriscus, whom he exhorts to enter into friendship with one another and to confirm it with this oath: “Swearing, not without elegant study and the sister of that study, discipline, and invoking as witness the God of all, the leader both of things that are and things that shall be, and the father and lord of the leader and the cause: whom indeed, if we truly philosophize, we shall all clearly know, as far as is permitted to happy men.”

That by the name of heaven the world is designated by Plato is evident from these words in the Timaeus (p. 1047): “Let this all-heaven or world, or by whatever other name it would most gladly be called, be named by us so.” Since, therefore, it is said in this place by Plato that the world is the cause of all goods and is God, and is accustomed to be worshipped by the other gods and demons, the one of whom the same things are said in the previous testimony must certainly be regarded as the world. Moreover, from the later testimony above, it seems to be in need of emendation thus: “invoking the leader of all the gods,” for this indeed all other demons and gods worship. ^C Soon, a [word] seems to be missing, so that it should be translated: “the cause of those things which are and those things which are to be.” That that word has fallen out is proved by what follows.

These things said concerning the Word and the Son of God could seem to be so, if it were permitted by Plato, who himself as interpreter declares that God and the cause of all things is the world. For he speaks thus in the Epinomis (p. 1005): “I think God, rather than any chance, has given this gift of prudence to us for our salvation. But whom I think God to be, I must say, although it be absurd, and yet how is it not absurd? For how is it necessary not to think that the author of all goods for us is also the author of the greatest, that is, of prudence? But what God do I praise, Megillus and Clinia? Heaven, without doubt; which indeed is most just, so that, just as all other demons and gods together do, we also should worship and pray to it in a greater measure. And that it has been the cause of all other goods for us, we shall all acknowledge.”

IV. Plato threw these things into a heap of opinions and bombast of words, in the resemblance that he had fashioned for himself ^D of the world with God. Indeed, he taught excellently and clearly that God created all things according to the pattern of his ideas, and that there is nothing in the world that does not correspond to the divine idea. But he fashioned for himself, ignorantly and absurdly, the world as an accurate image of the divine essence, equipped with every detail, and that there is nothing in God of which there is not some express image in the world. Thus he speaks (p. 1047): “Let us say, then, for what cause the author of the world constituted the generation and this universe. He was good, and in the good there is never any envy for anything. Being outside of this, he wished all things to become as much as possible like unto himself.”

^A

In this opinion regarding the world, a difficulty seemed to exist: that the world was created, while God is eternal, and therefore that which began to exist could not be the image of the eternal. Plato meets this difficulty in the following way: “After the Father who created it perceived that this created likeness of the immortal gods was moving and living, he was delighted and, being pleased, took thought to make it yet more similar to its model. As, therefore, the model itself is an eternal living being, he attempted to make this universe as much like it as possible. Now, the nature of the living being was eternal, and this quality could not be entirely bestowed upon that which is created. Wherefore, he conceived of making a certain moving image of eternity; and while he was adorning the heaven, he created, in a unity that progresses in number, an eternal image of an eternally abiding eternity, which we have named time.” ^B And not much later: “Time, therefore, was created一緒に with the heaven, so that, born together, they might also be dissolved together, if ever any dissolution of them should occur, and according to the model of the eternal nature, so that it might be as similar to it as possible. For the model is for all eternity, while it in turn, having been created throughout the entire time, both was and is and will be, alone.” ^C

Since it had not yet contained all living beings within itself, in this respect it still remained unlike it. This, then, was the remaining task, for it was being fashioned according to the nature of the model; just as the Intellect perceives the kinds and the numbers of living beings that reside within the living being that truly is, of just such a kind and number it thought it necessary that this one should also have. ^D And mark for me, alongside these four divisions, these four processes occurring in the soul: assign Intelligence to the highest, Understanding to the second, Belief to the third, and to the last, Imagination.

V. I come to the most celebrated testimony from the second letter of Plato, which Justin also cited in his First Apology, as have many others after him, and which Le Clerc supposes to have been a trick played upon the Christians.

It matters little to investigate the meaning of this passage, which Plato himself deliberately wrapped in certain coverings as it were. It seems, however, to indicate nothing other than what he has often discussed elsewhere regarding the various modes of knowing. In the sixth book of his *Republic*, he distinguishes two types of beings—the visible and the invisible—and a twofold mode of knowing for each. In the visible genus, he places images or shadows and likenesses, and the things themselves, which are shadowed forth by these images, so that just as opinion stands toward knowledge, so the image stands toward that of which it is an image. In the invisible genus, he similarly distinguishes two modes of knowing: one in which the soul uses suppositions and images for the investigation of the invisible species; the other when the mind considers the species themselves without images. Having explained these things a little more fully, he finally concludes: “To these four proportions, assign likewise four affections of the mind: Intelligence to the highest, Understanding to the second, Belief to the third, and to the last, Imagination.”

^A Likewise, he instructs us in Book VII (p. 705). The Epistle to Dionysius seems to indicate these modes of cognition. For it does not hold a triad, but a quaternion. The first kind of cognition, and that which is by far the most excellent, consists in the contemplation of Being itself. This happens only to the wise, who, as Plato says in Book VII of the *Republic*, contemplate the Good itself and use it as a pattern. The second kind of cognition concerns secondary things; when, namely, the mind, as Plato observes in the same work, Book VI of the *Republic*, uses images and suppositions for the investigation of being in relation to geometry and other such arts. The third concerns tertiary things, when we apprehend not the shadows and images, but the things themselves in visible objects; from which, Plato declares, belief is produced. The fourth kind of cognition, which is *eikasia* or imagination and assimilation, is not obscurely commemorated in the Epistle to Dionysius, where the mind, desirous of learning, is said to look only to those things which are known to it; which method of cognition, in Plato’s judgment, yields much to the rest. Therefore, a triad is not to be sought here, but a Pythagorean tetrad, which is explained from the four modes of cognition in Plutarch, Book I, *De placitis philosophorum*: “Our soul, he says, is composed of a tetrad; for there are mind, science, opinion, and sensation, from which all art and science proceed, and we ourselves are rational.”

^B VI. Another passage from Book VI of the *Republic*, which is cited in Eusebius (*Præp. evang.*, Book XI, chap. 21), must not be omitted. Socrates speaks thus: “'Is it not true that while the sun is not itself sight, it is nevertheless the cause of sight and is seen by it?' 'It is so,' he said. 'This, therefore,' said I, 'is what I mean by the offspring of the Good, which the Good generated analogously to itself; that what the Good is in the intelligible realm in relation to the mind and the things known, this the sun is in the visible realm in relation to sight and the things seen.' Is the sun, therefore, not itself sight, and although it is the cause of sight, is it seen by that very thing? 'Entirely so,' he said. Thus, therefore, I say, regarding that offspring of the Good which the Good begat similar to itself, receive my opinion: that as that Good is compared in the intelligible place with the mind and things perceived by the mind, such is the sun in the visible realm if it be compared with sight and things falling under sight.” ^C In the first view, Plato seems to attribute a son to God, whom God begat similar to Himself; but if we attend to what follows and what precedes, it will be clear that Plato is not speaking of the Son of God, but of science and truth, which God begets in us. Socrates does not dare to explain what the Good is—by which name no one would deny God is designated—deterred by the difficulty of the matter; but yet he proceeds to explain its *tokous*, or offspring, and what that fetus is, and that which is most similar to it, “which appears as the offspring of the Good and most similar to it.” ^D That he might explain the parturition and fetus of the Good, he determined that those things which are seen are not known, but the ideas are indeed known, yet not at all seen. And that among all the senses, sight is the most excellent, and just as no one can see unless that light shines which the sun alone among the celestial gods produces, so also nothing can be understood without that fetus of God; because God provides the same in things that are understood, as the sun does in things that are seen. Asked to explain the matter more clearly, he persists in the same example, and just as eyes are blinded when they are turned to things that are covered by the darkness of night, but are otherwise when turned to those which the sun illuminates; so he decided that one must judge regarding the mind. For when, he says, it is turned to where truth and Being itself shine, it understands it, and knows, and seems to possess mind. But when it is turned toward that which is mingled with darkness, and which is born and perishes, it opines and goes blind, shifting opinions up and down, and is like one bereft of mind. Therefore, declare that which provides both truth to things to be known and virtue to the knower is the idea of the Good, the cause of science and truth, which is known by the mind.

Nothing else, therefore, is that fetus of God than science and truth, which, like light from the sun, are thus generated by God. For he places the same order between the Good and its offspring, truth and science, as between the sun and light; and just as light and sight are indeed *ēlioeidē*, that is, they have a form accommodated to the splendor of the sun, yet are not the sun itself; so he declares that truth and science are indeed *agathoeidē*, that is, they have the form of the Good, but yet are not the Good itself. He adds that just as the sun provides to those things which are seen not only that they may be seen, but also that they may be generated, grow, and be nourished, although he is not himself generation; so the Good not only grants to things that are known that they can be known, but also bestows essence itself, although it is not itself essence, but exceeds essence, surpassing it in dignity and power.

VII. To this method of interpreting Plato is added the authority of ancient writers, who were most occupied with his books. For you will not find a single letter here concerning the Son of God, neither in Cicero, nor in Plutarch, who sought out the doctrine of Plato with every trace, nor in other writers who treat of the opinions of philosophers. No one at all is recorded among the ethnic philosophers who, before the rise of the recent Platonists, either followed or opposed this opinion concerning the Word, the Son of God. Cicero, in Book II of *De legibus*, considers the true Law to be the mind of God, commanding or forbidding everything by reason. A little later, concerning this same law: “The law does not begin to be,” he says, “when it is written, but when it is born. But it was born simultaneously with the divine mind. Therefore, the true and supreme law, apt for commanding and forbidding, is the right reason of the highest Jove.” You see Cicero, even when he proposes Plato to himself for imitation, not even suspecting that *logos* or reason is the Son of God. Plutarch, in his book *De placitis philosophorum*, the three of Plato...

83 he recounts the principles: God, matter, and form. But he thinks that the form is nothing other than an incorporeal essence existing in the thoughts and fantasies of God; in which he differs greatly from Le Clerc and others of this sort, who wish for the form in Plato to be a substance separate and dissociated from God. Celsus, in Origen, declares that God himself is the reason of all things, as is evident from these words which are cited by Origen, lib. 5, p. 240: "God will neither desire nor be able to render eternal, contrary to reason, flesh full of things which it is not even fitting to name. For He Himself is the *Logos* of all things that exist; therefore He is able to do nothing irrational, nor anything contrary to Himself." Origen explains the distinction of Christian doctrine from the opinion of Celsus thus, p. 246: "But the *Logos* of all things is, according to Celsus, God himself; according to us, His Son." Thus, indeed, according to Celsus, the reason of all things is God himself; according to us, it is His Son.

The same Celsus, although he often says that Christians have borrowed many things from Plato, nowhere mentions their doctrine of the Word—which he attacks six hundred times—among these thefts. Moreover, he was completely ignorant that Plato had spoken about the Son of God. For he says that Christians, having not improperly despised others, are filled with a lofty and empty hope, as if they had learned some magnificent things, and preach some things as true; but that Plato taught these things long before; and yet that he does not speak prodigiously, nor to those wishing to question what this is that they promise, does he impose silence, or order them to believe straight away that God is such, and that He has such a Son, and that He has come down here and conversed with them, p. 280. 84 ^B Celsus was ignorant that some things are read in Plato concerning the Son of God; but he thinks that the world is designated by the name of Son. For he speaks thus in Origen, lib. 5, p. 308: "I will indicate whence this very idea came to them of calling Him the Son of God. The ancients called the world, as having been born from God, both His son and god-like. Truly this son is very similar to that one." Whence, therefore, this very thing came into their mind, that they should call Him the Son of God, I will indicate. The ancients called the world, as born of God, His Son and similar to God. A fine similarity indeed between this and that Son of God.

VIII. The new Platonists, therefore, had not yet been born, or at least had not yet appeared while Celsus was writing against the Christians, who joined to the supreme God two other persons of a far inferior substance, and committed to them certain parts in the creation of the world. Justin himself, when he acceded to the Christian religion, did not yet know anything said by Plato or the Platonists which would square with the Christian doctrine of the Word. For when he was questioned by the old man who taught him the first elements of religion, *Dialog.* n. 5, he by no means distinguishes the *Logos* governing all things and the reason ruling over all things from God and divine thought, but manifestly looks to the passage of Plato from the *Timaeus* brought up above, where Plato exhorts us to take hold of some one of human reasonings and sit firm upon it, that we may sail across the dangers of life as upon a raft, unless one can be carried more safely by some firmer vehicle, or by some divine reason having been grasped.

Justin in the *Cohortatio*, which work he wrote at the beginning of his conversion, criticizes Plato, n. 29 and 30, because he had supposed—having read but not understood those things which were said to Moses: "According to the form shown to you on the mountain, so you shall do"—that a certain form, or exemplar of those things which were made, exists separately before that which is subject to the senses, and he had admitted a pre-existing earth, a pre-existing heaven, and a pre-existing man. He censures the same man at n. 7, because he recounts the form among the notions of God, which elsewhere he declares to be a substance existing separately. Thus Justin, suspecting nothing that Plato had tasted of the Word of God the Son and God, and indeed he himself was not much versed in Platonic doctrine (for he had not been with the Platonists for long). For Plato constantly places the exemplar of the world in the thoughts of God. But if after many years Justin seemed to himself to find in Plato some—I do not say cognition, but, as he himself says, imitation—of the Christian doctrine concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is an argument that this would never have been observed by Justin, as it was both observed late and drawn out for a long time, unless he had been both imbued with Christian doctrine and eager for its defense. Furthermore, from the two testimonies which he cites in *Apol.* 1, n. 60, one is read far differently in Plato, as I observed in the note, the other cannot be twisted to the Son of God except by force.

After so many testimonies of Plato and of those who were deeply skilled in his doctrine, and indeed of Justin himself, I seem to myself to be able to state by my own right that the fable of Platonism having been introduced by Justin into the Church ought to be referred among those fabrications, of which no one would ever have existed as author, or at least no one as an abettor, if there could be another way of defending an absurd error. But now if any one should object to the judgments of ancient writers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Cyril of Alexandria, who by Justin's example cited Plato as a witness for the Christian doctrine of the Word; that will not hinder me at all, since my opinion does not depart much from their authority. For that Platonic description of the Son of God, whom he calls the only-begotten, God begotten, the image of the intelligible God, God blessed, God sufficient to Himself and most perfect, the cause of all good things, so corresponds to the Hebrew doctrine concerning the eternal Son of God, that it is likely that, no differently than those things which I related above concerning God admiring His own work and concerning the planets made for the distinction of times, it was derived from thence and corrupted by an inept conjunction with the world. Justin denies that Plato understood those things which he had drawn from sacred fountains.

^A

CHAPTER II. Some passages of Justin and Athenagoras concerning the creation of matter are explained. I. Testimonies of Justin and Athenagoras are explained from other locations. II. Their occasional silence regarding the creation of matter is not without cause. III. Sacred and ecclesiastical writers have spoken in the same manner.

I. Justin and Athenagoras have said some things concerning the creation of the world, which we shall endeavor to explain in this place, so that they may not cause annoyance to the reader. I shall begin with these words of Justin from Apology 1, n. 10: "That He, being good, fashioned all things from formless matter for the sake of men, we have been taught." Many have been troubled by the phrase "from formless matter," which some have thought should be expunged, others corrected, and others interpreted more benignly. Furthermore, at first glance, Justin appears to agree with Plato regarding the creation of the world, even though he had not even suspected that matter was created from nothing. For he speaks thus in the same Apology 1, n. 59: "That you may learn that Plato took from our teachers (we mean the Word through the prophets) the saying that God, having turned formless matter, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who was the first of the prophets and older than any of the writers among the Greeks; through whom the prophetic Spirit signifies how and from what things God created the world in the beginning, saying thus: 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was upon the abyss; and the Spirit of God was borne upon the waters. And God said, Let there be light, and it was so.' So that by the Word of God, out of the existing things ^B which were foretold through Moses, the whole world was brought into being, as Plato and those who say these things, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also may be convinced." And in n. 67, without making any mention of the creation of matter, he says of God: "When He had turned matter and darkness, He made the world." Athenagoras teaches in his Apology, n. 10: "The Word of God came forth, that all material things, which lay as the parts of formless nature and inert earth mixed with the lighter parts, might become idea and act." He compares God and matter to a craftsman and clay, n. 15: "As the potter and the clay (the clay is matter, the craftsman is the potter), so God is the Maker, and matter is that which obeys His art." As he says, n. 19: "There is need also of a craftsman for matter." And: "There is an artificer of matter and matter for the artificer."

To resolve the difficulty, if any exists in these testimonies, we may 1st establish that Justin and Athenagoras have spoken of the creation of matter in other places in such a way that their opinion cannot be in doubt. Justin, in his *Cohortatio*, n. 22, establishes that there is this distinction between a "maker" and a "craftsman": that a maker, needing nothing else, brings about that which is done by his own virtue and power; but a creator, having received from matter the ability to work, constructs that which is created. In the same book he attacks Plato because he thought matter to be eternal and uncreated, as we observed at n. 23. He says that the same Plato, n. 30, indeed read but did not understand the beginning of the book of Genesis, and that concerning [the words] "the earth was," he understood it to be pre-existent earth, because it is called "invisible and unformed." He teaches in his *Dialogue*, n. 5, that the soul, if it were uncreated, would be equal to God, so that not even God could compel it or force it. From which it is sufficiently evident how far the absurd opinion of uncreated matter was from his mind. However, in that place of the *Apology* where he praises Plato, he indicates the creation of matter—lightly, to be sure, and as if in passing—but nevertheless not obscurely. For he says in these words: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," [meaning] those things contained in them, from which God fashioned the world; because he understood the heaven and the earth, as many others do, as matter, or as Augustine says, the "seed of heaven and earth." Athenagoras teaches at n. 4 that matter is created and subject to corruption; and at n. 10, that all things were created and adorned through the Word.

II. Although Justin and Athenagoras may have thought the same regarding the creation of matter, and as all Christians do, yet they sometimes make no mention, or only a slight one, of this creation, because the nature of their purpose did not demand it of them. Where Justin praises Plato, he attempts to persuade the heathens not to hate in Christians those things which they admire in Plato; and he holds out to them the similarity of Platonic doctrine to the Christian as if it were a kind of bait. Therefore, it was not necessary at that time to attack the ignorance of the creation of matter in Plato, but it seemed better to praise his opinion that the world was created by the wisdom of God, as if drawn from the fountains of Moses; although Moses understands matter to be created, as Justin not obscurely declares, while Plato understands it to be uncreated. ^D Often, when other things are praised...

the Latin interpreter ^A provides the words. Origen observes in book V of his *Apology*, regarding this passage, that the term "matter" is used here in this sense. Augustine cites the same passage in book I of *Contra adversarios legis et prophetarum*, and notes that God indeed made the world from formless matter, but at the same time co-created it with the world.

Gregory Nazianzen, in *Iambic Poem* 18, p. 205, speaks thus: "For He who made all things by the wise Word... And ordered this cosmos out of disorder." ("With the One who wisely made all things by the Word... and arranged this cosmos out of disorder.") And in *Oration* 1, p. 33, he compares the turbulent motions, to which he was a witness, with the indigestible mass of matter before God brought in the order and adornment which we behold. "Everything came to be as from the beginning, when the cosmos did not yet exist, nor the present good order and formation, but the whole was confused and irregular and needed the form-giving hand and power." ("All things were made as from the beginning, when there was no world yet, nor that beautiful constitution and formation which we now see, but all things were confused and unordered and stood in need of the creative hand and power.") ^B See *Orat.* 43, p. 699; Jerome, *Ep.* 82: "A rude world, with the sun not yet glowing, nor the moon pale, nor the stars twinkling, was oppressed by formless and invisible matter, by the magnitude of the abysses and by misshapen darkness." He adds, in commendation of baptism: "The Spirit of God alone, in the manner of a charioteer, was borne over the waters and was bringing forth the nascent world in the figure of baptism." Jerome borrowed this observation from Tertullian, who, in his book *On Baptism*, ch. 3, speaks thus: "For even the darkness was still entirely without the adornment of the stars, and formless, and a sad abyss, and the earth unprepared, and the heaven rude: the liquid alone, always perfect matter, broad, simple, pure in its own nature, was providing a worthy vehicle for God." See Athanasius, *Orat. adv. gent.*, n. 38, 41, 42. In these testimonies, divine power is not praised so much for the creation itself from nothing, as for the wonderful adornment which He affixed to created things; hence we should not wonder if the writers, occupied in refuting the heathens, touch only lightly upon the creation of matter and linger more willingly on the consideration of the world’s order and description, because that seemed more suited to the overthrowing of their adversaries.

A not dissimilar reason keeps Athenagoras from stating in the aforementioned passages that matter was created in explicit terms. Regarding the fact that the heathens willingly granted that matter was subject and obedient to God’s art, and that it had been adorned and divided by God, Athenagoras accepts this as a place for argument (n. 15), to prove that matter is not to be equated with God, and therefore that idols are not to be worshipped. He posits (n. 19) that ^C there is a need for matter by the craftsman and a craftsman by matter; but he posits this so that it might be demonstrated, with no one gainsaying, that it is not the principle of all things. And so that it might be plain that Athenagoras uses a certain accommodation, as it were, to the principles of his adversaries so that he might more easily refute them, I shall append an example from his book *On the Resurrection of the Dead*, where he proves that God is able to recall the dead to life, n. 3: "For He who has the power to give form to that which is in their view formless, and to adorn that which is invisible and unarranged with many and diverse forms... the same has the power to unite that which is dissolved, and to raise up that which is lying prone, and to make alive again that which is dead, and to change that which is corruptible into incorruption." For the power of Him who is able to attach form to matter, as they deem it, and to adorn that which lacks species and beauty with many and various figures... the same power belongs to Him to join together that which is dissolved, and to rouse up jacent things, and to recall the dead to life, and to convert corruptible things to a state exempt from corruption. By these words, as to matter which is, as they hold, formless, Athenagoras sufficiently declares that he thinks of the creation of the world more clearly than his adversaries, but yet does not derive arguments from the creation of matter itself—though he easily could—but is content with those things which are conceded by his adversaries, so that he might strike them more powerfully and preclude any place for disputation.

III. Justin and Athenagoras do not in the least depart from the manner of speaking customary to sacred and ecclesiastical writers. In the *Book of Wisdom*, ch. 11, v. 18: "The almighty hand of God," it is said, "made the world ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης (out of formless matter)." He omitted these ^D words in the Latin translation. Origen observes in book V of his *Apology*—

CHAPTER III

1. The opinion of the holy martyr is explained and defended against Jurius. II. The iniquitous Jurius against several others and especially against St. Augustine.

I. Jurius, in *Historia critica dogmatum et cultuum Ecclesiae*, part IV, p. 711, seems to have found for himself an illustrious opportunity for disparaging Justin, because the holy martyr says in his *Dialogue*, n. 121: "God had given the sun previously to the nations to be worshipped, as it is written, and it is not possible to see anyone who had ever endured to die for his faith in the sun."

^A and that they might not, by becoming completely atheistic, perish utterly." Although he deems those who slip into the worship of idols worse, he nevertheless declares that those who worship the stars are also condemned. "Indeed, even those who, from the worship of the stars, have not returned to the Maker of these things! For this was the way given to the nations: to look up to God through the worship of the stars. But those, too, are judged who have not returned from the worship of the stars to their Creator. For this way was given to the nations, that through the worship of the stars they might suspect God."

Origen, Vol. II in John, says that those before him who had said that the sun and moon and stars were given to those who are less worthy, that God might be the God of gods, the God of them, accepted the words of Deuteronomy in this sense: that those who cannot return to the intelligible nature, having suspected that Divinity is inherent in corporeal things and those falling under the senses, or willingly stopping at these, have not fallen into idols and demons; for even if they wander from God, still their error is far to be preferred to the error of those who call the works of men gods.

Eusebius of Caesarea, *Demonstratio evangelica*, book IV, chapter 8, thinks that Moses teaches the same thing in this place as Paul in the Epistle to the Romans 1, 19, and says that the stars were given to the nations so that they might not turn aside to opposing powers and demons: for from there, in a certain way, the sight of Him who is invisible is exhibited, as if through a certain mirror.

But Jurius is especially unjust toward St. Augustine, whom, while he says he approaches very closely to the error of others, he blames for an opinion which, if Augustine had held it, he would have erred far more gravely. He interprets the place in Deuteronomy thus: "It is not said in such a way as if God had commanded that these things be worshipped by the nations, but not be worshipped by His own people alone; but it is either said in such a way because God foresaw that the nations would offer worship to these celestial bodies, and yet, foreseeing this, He created them, while He foresaw that His own people would be such as would not worship these things; or 'He distributed' is said so that the use which is commended in Genesis be understood, that they may be for signs, etc." Inexcusable is Jurius, who renders these words of Augustine, *Et tamen hoc præsciens creaverit*, as *il n'a pas laissé de les créer dans cette vue*, as if Augustine had written: *Et tamen eo consilio creaverit ut colerentur* (And yet He created them with the intent that they be worshipped).

We can therefore establish that no one among the ancient Fathers has thought that the worship of the stars was permitted to the nations by the concession of God; but all condemn this superstition and say that the stars were given to the nations, either so that they might incite them to the contemplation of the Creator, or so that they might serve the nations for signs and seasons, or because the nations, left behind by a just blinding, have slipped into this worship. Isidore of Pelusium had known no one who had labored or was laboring under that error which Jurius attributes to the venerable writers; but if any think so, he condemns them under the name of ignorance. "And if any think that it was distributed for them to worship these things openly, they manifest their own..."

^A ignorance indeed." He himself, however, just like the other Fathers, declares that the stars were given to the nations for discipline, and for instruction, and for knowledge, so that from the magnitude and beauty of created things the invisible Creator might be contemplated.

CHAPTER IV.

On the worship of angels.

I. In Apology 1, there exists a notable passage concerning the angels, which itself also requires some explanation and, from the various interpretations by which it has been agitated, must be vindicated in favor of one which is fixed and immovable. Thus, therefore, the holy martyr writes, n. 6: "And we confess that we are atheists in regard to those who are thought to be gods, but not in regard to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all evil; but him, and the Son who came from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and resemble Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we reverence and worship, honoring them in reason and truth, and handing them down without grudging to everyone who wishes to learn, as we have been taught." ^B Indeed, we confess that we are atheists if it is a question of such gods as are imagined; but not if it is a question of that most true God, the Father of justice and temperance and the other virtues, with no wickedness at all mixed in. But Him and the Son who came from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the good angels who follow Him and are like Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we honor and worship, reverencing them in reason and truth, and imparting them without grudge to anyone who should desire to learn, as we have been taught.

Protestants interpret this passage differently. Some, like Bull in his *Defense of the Nicene Faith*, p. 118, understand it as if Justin were saying that we learn these things—namely, those things which relate to the evil angels who are the authors of persecutions, and at the same time those which relate to the good ones—from Christ; but this explanation is deservedly rejected by Grabe, who, however, does not offer a much better one. For he decided it ought to be translated so that Christ is said to have taught us both these things, namely, what was said a little before concerning God as the Father of justice and temperance and other virtues, and at the same time the angels. Both interpretations labor under this defect: that they violently distort the words of Justin, which are wonderfully connected among themselves and pertain to one and the same purpose. Furthermore, from the first interpretation it always follows that the good angels must be worshipped. For if Christ taught us these things, namely, that the ones who are not to be worshipped are demons, and then that the ones who follow the Son of God and bear His image in themselves are good, would it not follow from this that they are to be held in honor and worshipped? Another interpretation most absurdly decides that both we and the good angels were taught these things by Christ, namely, that the evil demons are not to be worshipped. For this word signifies nothing else in this place. ^C Whoever knows that it is the purpose of the holy martyr to prove that Christians are not atheists will be compelled to admit that the worship of angels is being preached by him. For this was of great effectiveness in repelling the accusation of atheism. Nor could the emperors have taken the words of Justin in any other sense, especially since the construction of the words admits of nothing else: "we honor the Son and the host of the good angels who follow Him and are assimilated to Him." Furthermore, the good angels are contrasted with the evil ones, whom Christians do not wish to worship; and they are said to follow the Son as servants and to imitate Him, so that it might be evident that they are deservedly to be honored and the evil ones rejected.

II. Athenagoras follows in the footsteps of St. Justin in refuting the same criminal charge. For after he taught that God in three persons—Father and Son and Holy Spirit—is worshipped by the Christians; then indeed he passes on to the angels in *Legat.*, n. 10: "And our theological reasoning does not stop at these points; but we also speak of a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God, the maker and creator of the world, through the Word that is from Him, distributed and arranged to be about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things that are in it, and their good order." ^D Yet the rationale of our theology is not contained by these things; but we also acknowledge a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God, the Creator and artificer of the world, distributed and ordered through His Word, that they might be occupied with elements, heavens, the world, and those things which are in it, and their temperament.

This commemoration of the angels and the benefits which we receive from them, and the service which they render to the Word, has the same use in this writer as it does in Justin, namely, that the crime of atheism be repelled from the Christians. Indeed, at first sight, Athenagoras seems to be carried further than Justin. For "theology" among the ancients was accustomed to mean the preaching of the divine nature; and from this, Barbeyrac seized an opportunity to accuse Athenagoras. But this word can signify doctrine revealed from on high; or if it does signify the worship of the divine nature, Athenagoras does not without reason join with this worship of the divine nature the honor rendered to the angels, because whatever honor we exhibit to the angels is referred to God.

III. It ought not to cause displeasure or vexation that Justin joins the angel to the Word. For he joins them as servants and followers, and this is agreeable to Scripture. For in Revelation xix, 14, it is said concerning the Word: "And the armies which are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." Nor did the holy martyr leave any room for error, when he so openly declares how much difference there is between the Son and

^A angels: indeed, no more truly than S. Ignatius, who says in his epistle to the Romans, no. 12: "It is fitting for each of you, and especially for the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, in honor of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the apostles."

It is in vain that the twofold word, σέβομεν καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, "we honor and we adore," is objected. For the first term is indeed referred to the angels themselves, with due regard for the distinction which exists between the Creator and the created thing. But the second word by no means necessarily comprehends the angels. Often two words joined together are not referred to one and the same thing, but to different things according to the judgment of the readers: an example of which matter I have observed, most aptly, in the note to the Questions to the Orthodox.

CAPUT V.

Theophilus's opinion regarding the state in which Adam was created.

I. Theophilus attributes infancy to Adam, either because of his innocence or because of his recent creation. II. Many others have spoken in the same manner. III. The singular opinion of S. Clement of Alexandria.

1. At first glance, Theophilus seems to think that Adam was created in a certain state of infancy, and was devoid of that knowledge which befits a man of mature age. But so that the cause is not condemned unheard, his words must not be examined perfunctorily. Thus, therefore, he [writes] in book 2, no. 25: "For it was not as some think, that the tree held death, but [it was] disobedience. For there was nothing else in the fruit except knowledge; but knowledge is good, whenever someone uses it appropriately. At the age he was, Adam was still an infant, wherefore he could not yet receive knowledge according to its worth. For even now, when a child is born, it cannot immediately eat bread, but is first nourished with milk, then, according to the progress of age, it arrives at solid food. Thus it would have happened to Adam too. Therefore, it was not as though God were begrudging him, as some think, that He commanded him not to eat from knowledge. Furthermore, He also desired to test him, whether he would become obedient to His commandment. At the same time, He also desired for a longer time for man to remain simple and pure while in infancy. For this is holy, not only before God, but also before men: for [one] in simplicity and innocence to be subject to [his] parents. And it is necessary for children to be subject to their parents. If, however, ^B children must be subject to their parents, how much more to God and the Father of all? Furthermore, it is unbecoming for young children to think beyond their age; for just as one increases in stature toward order, so also [one increases] in understanding."

For even now, when born, indeed, he is not yet able to eat bread, but is first nourished by milk, then, with advancing age, he arrives at solid food. The same would have happened to Adam. Therefore, God, not begrudging him, as some suppose, forbade him to eat from the tree of knowledge. He also still wished to test him and to put him in peril as to whether he would be a hearer of His word. Likewise, He wished for the man, while growing up, to remain simple and sincere for a longer time. For this is holy, not only before God, but also before men, that in simplicity and innocence one should be subject to his parents. But if boys ought to be submissive to their parents, how much more to God, the parent of all? Furthermore, it is indecorous for infant boys to know more than their age demands: for just as no one grows in age except by certain steps, so neither in wisdom.

Who does not see, if only he turns his mind to it, that this infancy, which is attributed to Adam, is not without metaphor? 1° Theophilus repeats this apparent infancy both from the recent creation of Adam and from that middle state in which he had been created. For he had hardly been created when God transferred him into paradise, setting before him the incentives to progress, so that, growing and finally becoming perfect, indeed, declared a god, he might thus ascend into heaven. For he was created as a middle man, neither altogether mortal, nor absolutely immortal. Thence, therefore, that infancy, because he was both recently created and created in a certain way as a middle being. For although he was instructed in the knowledge of the greatest things, this knowledge seemed like infancy when compared with that which was promised in heaven. Now, what kind of knowledge Theophilus bestows upon Adam, even in that which he calls the "middle state," can be understood from the names which Adam imposed upon all the animals. For Theophilus considers that to be the sign of the greatest knowledge, in book 2, no. 13. 2. He says that Adam was, in a certain way, a boy, on account of the simplicity and obedience which he owed to God, as a son to a father. Hence he says that the commandment was imposed upon him, so that for a long time he might persevere in that, as it were, childhood: which, indeed, no one would ever have said of a childhood joined with an imbecility of mind and body.

II. S. Irenaeus imitates Theophilus, nor does he depart from his opinion. For what he says in book 3, cap. 22, no. 4: "Both were naked (in paradise) and were not ashamed, because, having been made a short time before, they did not have the understanding of the generation of children; for it was necessary for them first to grow up, and then to be multiplied;" this can be explained from cap. 23, where he speaks thus concerning the repentance of Adam in no. 5: "Since he had lost his disposition and childlike sense, and had come into the consideration of worse things, he placed a bridle of continence upon himself and his wife, fearing God and awaiting His coming." Childhood disposition and sense, which are lost by sinning, what can they be other than innocence? Likewise also Tertullian in the book *De velandis virginibus*, cap. 11: "For even the princes of the race, Adam and Eve, as long as they lacked the intellect..."

of their own sex, they marked it by a covering."

Listening to the same sentiment is Gregory Nazianzen, who speaks thus in *Orat.* 38, p. 619: ^A "Contemplation was this tree, as is my theory, to which it is safe to ascend only for those who are more perfect in habit, but not good for those who are still simpler and more eager in their appetite; just as neither is perfect food advantageous to those who are still tender and in need of milk." St. John Damascene uses these words of St. Gregory as his own in *De fide orthodoxa*, lib. II, cap. 11.

John Chrysostom, although he refutes them copiously in *Homil. 16 in Genesim*, those who said that Adam, after he ate from the tree, had acquired the knowledge of good and evil, yet he does not hesitate to call him a "tender boy" in *Homil. 14*. For he says, "Just as a father who loves his offspring imposes moderate care on a tender son, the *philostorgos* (lovingly affectionate) to the new child, so that he might not become insolent through idleness," so God entrusted to Adam the work and custody of Paradise. Theodoret, *quæst. 28 in Genesim*, speaks thus: ^B "Not even very young children are naturally accustomed to blush when stripped of their clothing. But as the body gradually grows and the mind begins to show its own nature, nakedness is no longer bearable for adolescents, but they blush and cover themselves... Thus also those around Adam, having been immediately formed, being like infants and newly-born and uninitiated in sin, were not ashamed of living without coverings. But after the trial, they covered some parts of the body with leaves." Pueri juniores veste nudati erubescere natura non solent; paulatim autem crescente corpore, cum mens postea propriam naturam exserere coeperit, adulti jam non patienter ferunt se nudari, sed erubescunt et conteguntur... Thus it must be understood concerning Adam and his wife, that immediately when they were formed, like infants and those newly born, and not yet initiated into sin, they were not affected with modesty while living without a garment. But after the experience, they hid certain parts of the body with leaves. Here too, infancy consists not in ignorance, but in innocence, by which, once sin was lost, they felt the stimuli of concupiscence and were suffused with shame.

III. Clement of Alexandria, *Protrept.*, p. 69: "The first man, when he was in Paradise, played while free, since he was still a child of God. But when he succumbed to pleasure... the boy was led astray by desires, becoming a man through disobedience, and having disobeyed the Father, he was ashamed of God." Primus homo, quando in paradiso solutus ludebat, erat adhuc Dei puer. Postquam autem succubuit voluptati... abductus est cupiditatibus puer, vir factus inobedientia, et violato patris præcepto Deum affecit contumelia. ^C

The same writer, through a controversy undertaken with heretics, was driven into some conjectures which it will not be unpleasant to relate here. For since heretics were disparaging the Creator and His works, and were contending that Adam and Eve would never have engaged in marriage had they not been incited to this conjunction by the impulse of the serpent; Clement denies that the first parents sinned in that they engaged in marriage, but that they used it before the time, being as they were still young. *Strom.* III, p. 470. The same author had said a little earlier by way of conjecture, namely on p. 466, that man did not err by the fault of his creation, but by the love of pleasure, perhaps because our protoplast had anticipated the time and had desired the grace of marriage untimely, *Tacha prolabontos hemon ton kairon tou protoplastou kai pro horas tes tou gamou charitos orechthentos*.

This method of explaining the sin of the first parents was not unknown to St. Augustine. "It has seemed," he says, *lib. II De Genesi ad litteram*, n. 57, "to some, that those two first men stole their own nuptials, and were joined together in intercourse before He who had created them had joined them, which thing was signified by the name of the tree, from which they were prohibited, until they might be joined at an opportune time." ^D St. Augustine rejects this opinion as ridiculous and departing from the reality of the events. He deals more leniently with those who thought that those men had anticipated by haste the appetite for the knowledge of good and evil, and had wished to perceive at an immature time what was being kept for them, to be served more opportunely once delayed. He does not disapprove of this sentiment, provided the truth of history is not denied. "This," he says, "if by chance they wish to take that tree not as a reality, as a true tree and its true fruits, but as a figure, it might have some outcome probable to right faith and truth." *Legendum*, "Nisi forte lignum, aut sensum frustra venabimur."

This opinion concerning the immature use of marriage seems to have been drawn from the fountains of Philo. For he, in the book *De mundi opificio*, not only interprets the serpent as pleasure, but also teaches that love came upon Adam and Eve, and that He joined together as one animal two separate halves, having implanted in each the desire of begetting similar offspring through mutual intimacy. "This desire," he says, "also generated the pleasure of the bodies, which is the origin of iniquities and transgressions, since such pleasure exchanged the mortal and miserable life for the immortal and blessed." [alt-version omitted]

Chapter VI. ON ORIGINAL SIN.

I. Justinus leads the reader to the necessity of regeneration arising from the vice of the first generation. II. Many other testimonies of the same. III. Tatian follows and imitates Justinus. IV. Theophilus speaks no less clearly on the same sentiment.

It was of great moment to refute those who imagined that humans were not good or evil by free will, but by nature and necessity; Justin often opposes the Catholic doctrine to this impious misconception. But on the other hand, the holy martyr was not ignorant of, nor did he remain silent about, what religion teaches concerning free will weakened by the fall of Adam, and the necessity of the grace of the Almighty. His doctrine must be investigated with diligence, as it has been agitated by various human judgments—some believing that Justin was imbued with no knowledge of original sin, while others attribute to him absurd inventions regarding the grace of Christ and the salvation of the heathens. ^A

The holy martyr clearly teaches that in baptism, not only are those stains washed away which we commit by sinning freely, but also that which we have contracted by being born. For he speaks thus in Apol. 1, n. 61: "Since we were born without our own knowledge, by necessity, from the humid seed through the union of parents with one another, and we have been reared in evil customs and wicked upbringings, so that we might not remain children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and knowledge, and might obtain in the water the remission of the sins for which we have previously sinned, the name of the Father of all and Master God is named over him who chooses to be reborn and has repented of his sins." Since we were born, without our choosing, by a certain necessity from a moist seed through the mutual union of parents, and were raised in depraved morals and wicked institutions; so that we might not remain children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and knowledge; and that we might obtain in the water the remission of sins which we before committed; over him who has desired to be regenerated and has done penance for his sins, the name of the Parent of the universe ^B and Lord God is pronounced. We are therefore born in sin, since for this very reason we are in need of baptism which regenerates us. We are born children of necessity and ignorance, and we cannot emerge from this state of misery without baptism. For we are baptized for this cause, that we might not remain children of ignorance and necessity.

II. In the *Cohortatio*, n. 21, after he said that the first humans, by whom a multitude of gods was introduced, kept in memory that ancient fraud, by which the demon, enemy of the human race, desired to deceive their ancestors, when he addressed them thus: "If you obey me, you will be as gods," he adds this: "Therefore, when humans followed the fraudulent demon and dared to violate the commandment of God, they were cast out of paradise. But although they were no longer taught by God that there are no gods, they were cast out of paradise, and they accounted themselves cast out for this sole reason, that they had not obeyed God; they were not taught that they were cast out also because they had believed that gods existed when there are none; and so they handed down the name of gods to the men who were born of them afterwards." Those first humans, who kept in memory the fraud committed upon their ancestors Adam and Eve, and handed down the name of gods to their descendants, how can it be said that they obeyed the demon, violated the commandment of God, and were cast out of paradise, if it were not that they sinned in Adam? We shall presently bring forward similar passages from Tatian. ^C

He speaks to the same effect in the *Dialogus cum Tryphone*, n. 88: "Neither," he says, "did Christ endure to be born and crucified because he had need of these things, but for the human race, which had fallen from Adam into death and the deception of the serpent, while each one acted wickedly by his own fault." Here a twofold kind of sin is distinguished: one common to all; for the human race succumbed to the deception of the serpent, and was condemned to death on account of this transgression. But there are other sins, which each one commits freely by his own fault. That *ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ* could be translated "through Adam." But I would prefer to retain "from Adam," because it is more conducive to the proposal of Justin, who seems to wish to demonstrate that all men, the Jews not excepted, have sinned in Adam. And in n. 100: "The Son of God, born of a Virgin, received the beginning of salvation by the same way whereby disobedience began from the serpent. For when Eve was a virgin and incorrupt, conceiving from the word of the serpent, she brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary, when she had received faith and joy, answered the angel announcing the glad tidings: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word'." He says that Christ was born without sin, n. 23, in order to separate him ^D from the other children of Adam: "For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, nor of the Sabbath, feasts, and offerings before Moses, neither is there need of them now, after Christ Jesus, the Son of God, has been born without sin of a virgin from Abraham, according to the will of the Father."

The holy martyr does not doubt that the whole human race was subject to the curse on account of this hereditary stain of original sin, and he proves this by an argument drawn from those who lived under the law and those who lived without the law. "The whole human race," he says in *Dialogus*, n. 93, "will be found subject to the curse. For cursed is everyone, according to the law of Moses, who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. No one, certainly, has observed all things, nor will you dare to deny this; but some have observed the commandments more or less than others. But if it is evident that those who are under this law are under a curse because they have not observed all things, will it not be much more evident that all the nations who worship idols, inflict outrages on boys, and do other wicked things, are under a curse?"

^A [II.] Tatian follows in the footsteps of Justin, and he shares Adam's sin with all men in general. "In the beginning, indeed," he says, n. 43, "the spirit was a companion of the soul, but it deserted it when it would not follow." And n. 11: "We were not born to die, but we die by our own fault. Free will has ruined us; we who were free have been made slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil was created by God; we ourselves produced wickedness, but those who have produced it can also reject it again." Tatian establishes that just as miseries flowed from Adam’s sin, so too did his sin pertain to us all. Just as with him we were lost, reduced to slavery, sold, and perished, so too have we produced wickedness with him.

It is no wonder therefore if Tatian, following in the footsteps of his master Justin, says that the first authors of the multitude of gods were cast out of paradise because of this crime, and became mortal: "The power of the Word," he says, n. 7, "when it foresaw what would be, did not decree that this would happen by fate, but by the free will of those who chose; it predicted the outcome of future events, and forbade wickedness through its commands, but praised those who remained good. But after men followed one individual above all others, because he was the firstborn and more cunning, and held him to be God, even though he resisted the law of God; then the power of the Word excluded both the initiator of this failed temerity and his followers from its own fellowship. And that man, who had been made in the image of God, became mortal as the stronger spirit withdrew from him; but that firstborn, on account of his transgression and ignorance, began to be a demon."

Strange and worthy of observation is this confusion of things. The sin of Adam is confounded with the sin of his descendants, and again the sin of the latter with the sin of Adam, as if it were one and the same fault entirely. Whence is this, if not because descendants sinned in Adam, and from Adam flowed that depravity of heart to which men, by freely yielding, introduced the worship of false gods?

[IV.] Many testimonies also occur in Theophilus of Antioch, in which the sin of Adam is described as one and a common sin for all. "Beasts are called so," he says in book II, n. 17, "from the fact that they are bestial: for nothing evil was made by God, but all things were good and very good; but the sin of man led them into depravity. For as man turned from the way, they too turned aside with him. For just as when the master of a house behaves himself excellently, he compels his servants to live rightly; but if he sins, the servants will sin in the same way; in the same manner it happened that man, who was the master, sinned, and the servants also sinned. But when man returns to that which is in accordance with nature and puts an end to sinning, the beasts also will be restored to their original tameness." So that the return to justice is not attributed to Adam alone, nor is the fall, but it is common to all. ^B Toward this same opinion he says, n. 26:

"Just as a vessel, if it has any defect after it has been fashioned, is melted down and refashioned so that it may become new and entire, the same thing does death bring to man: for he is broken in a certain way, so that he may be found sound in the resurrection, that is, clean, just, and immortal."

Theophilus was persuaded that we were not condemned to death with Adam, except because we sinned in Adam; for God would not have imposed this punishment upon the innocent, lest He Himself appear to be the author of death. "If He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him a god," he says, n. 27; "on the other hand, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death."

CHAPTER VII.

On the grace of Christ.

Justin acknowledges faith that works through charity, and he declares it to be a gift of gratuitous and omnipotent grace.

The Jews, in whose conversion and persuasion the wonderful efforts of Justin’s charity were spent, brought this objection mainly to his learned disputation: that they considered the law given to them and the dignity of the children of Abraham to be safeguards sufficiently great for salvation. Trypho urges Justin at the beginning of the dialogue to first be circumcised, then to observe, as it is decreed in the law, the Sabbaths, the feasts of God, and the new moons, and to do absolutely everything that is written in the law. For thus, perhaps, would he obtain mercy from God. ^C Trypho wonders why Christians, though they are borne along with such a great zeal for practicing virtue, do not observe the law of Moses, n. 10. He is an author to them that they should cease to believe that Christ was born of a Virgin, who is God, and rather call him a man born of men, and that he attained to being Christ by the accurate observance of the law, n. 67. In this error the Jews were asleep, deceived and nursed by their teachers, from whom they had also received this most foolish opinion, that to all born of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, even if they should be sinners and unbelievers and defiant toward God, the eternal kingdom would be given, n. 140.

Since the Jews’ trust in the law was so great, Justin does not labor sluggishly in diminishing this error, and he does not tire of repeating the same things often. He demonstrates that justice is not placed in the circumcision of the foreskin, but in that of the heart, not in the external observation of fasts and Sabbaths, but in the inner affections of the soul, which the prophets command to be joined with external works. To this end he draws out testimonies from Isaiah and Moses, n. 14 and 15. In one word, he acknowledges no justice that does not proceed from charity.

^A “Dual, therefore,” he says, n. 93, “is the distribution of all justice, toward God and men. Whoever,” says the Scripture, “loves the Lord God with all [his] heart and with all his strength, and his neighbor as himself” [Matt. 22:37], he shall be truly just.” He admits no ignorance whatsoever, not even among the most wretched, by which he might be exempt from sin in anything done against this dual commandment. For he speaks thus in the same place: “For God manifests what is always and everywhere just, and the whole of justice, in every kind of man; nor is there any class that does not know that adultery is evil, and fornication, and homicide, and whatever else is similar. Even if all commit these, they do not manage, when they do them, to be ignorant that they are acting evilly, except for those who, filled with an impure spirit, or corrupted by depraved upbringing, evil habits, and wicked laws, have lost their natural notions, or rather hold them suppressed.”

But he teaches that charity, which alone fulfills the law, is to be compared with faith. “We,” he says, n. 52, “who, from among the Gentiles, have become worshippers of God and just through faith in Christ, we await Him to come again.” He establishes that this faith, animated by charity, is proper to them, n. 13 and 14: “who are no longer expiated by the blood of goats and sheep, or the ashes of a heifer, or similar sacrifices, but by faith through the blood of Christ and His death, who died for this very reason.” The holy martyr proves this from chapter 53 of Isaiah, where Christ is said to bear our sins and to be wounded for our transgressions, and that we are healed by His stripes [Isa. 53:5]. From this he concludes how great the sanctity of the baptism of Christians is. ^B “Therefore,” he says, “through the washing of repentance and the knowledge of God, which was instituted for the sins of the peoples of God, as Isaiah cries out, we have believed; and we testify that this very baptism foretold by Him, which alone can expiate the penitent, is this water of life.”

II. He attributes the conversion of the heart to Christ under a double aspect: both because gratuitous grace anticipates the will, and because it mightily works in us both to will and to perform. He proclaims the gratuitous grace of Christ in many places. “What shall I say,” he says, Apol. 1, p. 62, “of the innumerable multitude of those who have turned from intemperance and learned these things? For Christ did not call the just or the modest to repentance, but the impious and the unchaste and the unjust. ^C For thus He says: I came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance” [Matt. 9:13]. He pronounces that Christians were called in the same manner as Abraham, Dialog., n. 119, where he speaks thus: “What, therefore, does Christ grant Abraham more here? That He called him with a similar calling, ordered him to depart from the land which he inhabited; and through that voice He called us all, and we have departed from that state in which we lived wickedly according to the common custom of the other inhabitants of the land; and with Abraham we shall be heirs of the holy land, receiving an inheritance through infinite ages, inasmuch as we are sons of Abraham by ^D similar faith. For just as he believed the voice of God and it was reckoned to him for justice [Rom. 4:3], so also we, after we have believed the voice of God proclaimed anew both through the apostles of Christ and promulgated through the prophets, have renounced even unto death all things that are in the world.” Frequently he describes elsewhere that most wretched life of the Gentiles, and one burdened with every vice, such as Christians had led before they were called by Christ. Hence, since he was conscious to himself that he had not merited that he should arrive at faith, he did not hesitate to pray for the Jews, whom he saw not only not deserving to be called by Christ, but also turning all the attempts of their fury toward the destruction of Christians: “But we,” he says to the Jews, n. 108, “neither hate you, nor those who have received such an opinion of us from you; but we pray that even now, at least, by doing penance, you may obtain mercy from the most human and wondrously merciful Father of all, God.” Justin expresses wonder at the judgment of God in this distinction between Jews and Christians. “Nor in vain have we believed in Him,” he says, n. 118, “nor have we been deceived by those who thus taught; but it happened by the admirable providence of God, that you, who are considered lovers of God and prudent—yet are not so—we might be found more prudent and more religious through the calling of the new and eternal testament, that is, Christ.”

Justin had received this doctrine from an excellent old man, from whose discourse he had the beginning of knowing Christ. Thus, he, departing from Justin, concludes in Dialog., n. 7: “But you, before all things, pray that the gates of light may be opened to you, for no one can understand and perceive these things, unless it be he to whom God and His Christ have granted to understand.” However, it is clear from this that these things are not to be taken as a singular and more sublime knowledge of mysteries, but as from faith, because the sublime and extraordinary knowledge of mysteries was not appropriate for Justin, not yet converted to Christ, but rather faith and assent to the elements of faith, which the old man had begun to hand on to him. This is confirmed by other places. “Christ, therefore,” he says, Dialog., n. 100, “has revealed to us all things whatsoever we have understood from the Scriptures through His grace, recognizing Him to be the first-begotten of God and before all things created, and the son of the patriarchs, as one who, made flesh through the Virgin born of them, sustained being an unformed man, and inglorious and subject to sufferings.” And n. 149: “Do you think it could ever have happened that we could understand these things in the Scriptures, unless by the will of Him who willed these things, we had received the grace of understanding?” Hence also n. 121: “It has been given to us that we may hear and understand Him, and be saved through this Christ, and know all the things of the Father.” Justin did not doubt that for those whom God predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son [Rom. 8:29], He had prepared most certain aids for salvation. In the Dialogue which he held with the Jews, the annoyance which he perceived from their

^A pertinacity, he mitigated with that hope of finding some among them from the seed which was made a remnant for eternal salvation, n. 32. And n. 64: 'But now, because I fear the judgment of God, I do not judge beforehand concerning any of your race, whether he might not be of those who can be saved according to the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth. Wherefore, although you do not act rightly, I shall nevertheless proceed to answer whatever has been proposed or said against it by you.' That what is granted to some by gratuitous mercy is not granted to others by just judgment, he teaches at n. 55: 'I was not, I say, going to bring forward, Trypho, these demonstrations, which I know condemn those who worship these things and similar ones, but those which no one will be able to speak against. They will seem new to you, although they are read daily by you, so that even from this we may have it perceived that, because of your wickedness, the power of the wisdom which is in His words was hidden from you by God, with the exception of a few, to whom, according to the grace of His supreme mercy, as Isaiah says, He left a seed unto salvation, lest your race should perish, as did that of the Sodomites and Gomorrah.'

III. How powerful and how effective the grace of Christ is, which delivers us from servitude into liberty, can be estimated from some testimonies just cited, even as from those which were said to Justin by the venerable old man. He traces that faith in the incarnate God, which renews us internally, from His omnipotent will, who willed His Son to be incarnate. 'Do you think that we could ever have been able to understand these things in the Scriptures, had we not received by the will of Him who willed these things the grace of understanding?' He teaches that the power of Christ shines forth wondrously in the conversion of the Gentiles. 'These things,' he says, Apol. II, n. 10, 'Christ our Master accomplished by His own power.' And soon, describing the constancy of the Christians, he says: 'For not human instruments of speech, but this power of the ineffable Father accomplished it.' But he thinks that the power of Christ shone forth not only when He breathed invincible constancy into the apostles for preaching the Gospel and opened the hearts of those who listened to the apostles, but also when He drew the Magi to the manger in which the infant lay. For he speaks thus in the Dialogue, n. 78: 'For as to what Isaiah says: He shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, it signified that the power of the demon who dwelt in Damascus was about to be overcome by Christ immediately upon His birth, which indeed it is demonstrated has come to pass. For the Magi, who had been captured as spoils for all evil actions to which they were incited by that demon, when they had come to adore Christ, ceased, as is manifest, from that power which had seized them as spoils, which the Scripture arcane-ly indicates to us to dwell in Damascus.' And n. 88: 'And let that also be a testimony to you, which I said to you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who, as soon as the child was born, came to adore Him. For as He was brought into the light, He had His power from the demon, and we overcome the demons, when we emerge from vice to virtue, this is to be attributed to the power of Christ; not less surely, than when demons are expelled from bodies. This Justin also declares. 'For we call Him helper,' he says, same Dialogue, n. 30, 'and Redeemer, whose power of name the demons themselves shudder at, and even today are subjected when adjured through the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea.'

The healing granted in the desert to those who had been wounded by the bites of serpents was an image and figure of the salvation which we receive from Christ. 'And that figure also,' he says, Dialogue, n. 91, 'and that sign, which was instituted against the bites of serpents for Israel, it is clear was erected for their salvation, who even then believed that both the death of the serpent by Him who was to be crucified would be future, and that salvation would be to those who, wounded by the bites of the serpent, flee to Him, by whom that Crucified Son was sent into the world.'

The power of the Cross, which he thinks is designated in the Scripture by the horns of the unicorn, the holy martyr thus proclaims in the same place: 'That, however, *With these horns He shall strike the nations from one end of the earth to the other*, that which we see today done among all nations, it demonstrates. For by the horn they were struck, that is, pricked, and from all nations were converted from vain idols and demons to God.' Charity, which Christ pours into ^C our hearts, is often depicted by Justin under the image of circumcision: and he thinks that the circumcision, which Joshua ^D performed with knives of stone, was a figure of that circumcision which we receive from Christ. 'It is well done, therefore, in us,' he says, Dialogue, n. 114, 'who have been circumcised with knives of stone by a second circumcision. For that first circumcision of yours was and is performed with iron: for you remain with a hard heart. But our circumcision, which is the second in number after yours, was instituted by sharp stones, that is, by the words of the apostles of that supreme corner stone, and cut without hands, it circumcises us from the worship of idols and from all wickedness whatsoever. Whose hearts are so circumcised from wickedness, that we gladly suffer death for the name of that illustrious Rock, which in the hearts of those who love the Father of the universe, sends forth living water and gives to drink to those who thirst for the water of life.'

The holy martyr pronounces that wondrous circumcision of the heart, which we receive from Christ, to be a certain new generation and creation, relying on the authority of the Scriptures. 'We,' he says, n. 135, 'are cut from the womb of Christ and are the true Israelitic race.' And n. 138: 'Christ, since He was the firstborn of every creature, again also became the beginning of another race regenerated by Himself through water and faith and wood, which contains the mystery of the cross.'

' ^A You have shown yourselves to be not lovers of God, but worshippers of idols and murderers of the just. Hence he observes so often that circumcision, Sabbaths, festivals, and sacrifices were imposed upon the Jews for their sins, as a yoke, and so that their wickedness might be restrained, n. 18, 19, 23, 91 ff. But that the Holy Spirit is conferred by the baptism of Christians; that the new testament was instituted not as the former one, but without fear and trembling and lightnings, n. 67; and that two seeds and two kinds of Jews must be understood, just as two houses of Jacob, the one by blood and flesh, the other by spirit, n. 135. He draws this distinction so that he does not hesitate to place the knowledge of all mysteries in this distinction, n. 44; he teaches that it is proper to the Christian religion to demonstrate this distinction, n. 67.

IV. That faith animated by charity, which is a gift of gratuitous and powerful grace, has always been necessary for salvation—that is, both under the Law of Moses and before the Law itself—Justin teaches clearly in many places. ^B For he says himself, n. 25, that Abraham, when he was in uncircumcision, was justified and blessed through the faith by which he believed in God. See n. 92. He acknowledges no one among the elect who has not imitated this faith of Abraham. For thus he refutes that foolish opinion, by which the Jews, puffed up, thought they would be saved on account of their descent from Abraham. "No one," he says, n. 44, "not even from that seed, can receive anything, except those who in their soul have been assimilated to the faith of Abraham, and have known all the mysteries, that is, that some precepts were prescribed for the worship of God and the observation of justice, but other precepts and works were likewise described either for the mystery of Christ, or because of the hardness of the heart of your people." He requires this distinction of precepts for salvation, because if anyone thinks that justice consists only in circumcision and the Sabbath and festivals, he will live in forgetfulness of the sum of the eternal law, and consequently will not be able to be saved. That Justin is speaking even of those times which elapsed before the Incarnation of the Lord is manifest from these things which he immediately adds: ^C "And thus God declares at Ezekiel the situation to be in these words: 'If Noah, and Job, and Daniel shall ask for either sons or daughters, it shall not be given to them.'" Justin himself declares shortly after that he said these things concerning those who were under the Law. For to Trypho, who asks whether those who kept the Law of Moses shall be saved with the just who lived before Moses, Justin answers thus: "When I brought forward the things which were said by Ezekiel, 'Even if Noah, and Daniel, and Job ask for their sons and daughters,' it shall by no means be granted to them, but each one shall be saved by his own justice; I said that those also who lived according to the Law of Moses shall likewise be saved." ^D Regarding these things which Justin discusses in this place, [it shall be treated] below...

^A regarding the name and his Christ and always observing the just, he calls Trypho, who, in n. 64, as if he did not remember or cared little for what had hitherto been discussed, said that it was allowed for Christians to worship Jesus Christ by themselves; but that there was no need for Jews, who worship God himself, to confess or adore Christ. Then Justin, having mildly chastised this stubbornness of Trypho, says: "If, therefore, you had turned your mind to those things which I brought forward from the Scriptures, you would have understood that those who are saved from your race are also saved through him, and are in his part; in truth, you would not have asked me about that matter." Therefore, he recalls to memory what, in n. 44, he had said about the just who died before the Incarnation.

Justin would certainly have betrayed his cause and provided weapons for his adversaries if he had granted that anyone attained eternal salvation without faith in Christ; but he contends that there has always been one and the same way of salvation. "And we indeed," he says, n. 43, "who have approached God through Christ, have not received that circumcision of the flesh, but the spiritual one, which Enoch and those like him kept." And n. 113: "We understand, therefore, the stone knives as the words of his (Christ's), by which so many men from uncircumcision, who were living in error, have been circumcised with the circumcision of the heart, by which indeed God, even then, through Jesus, exhorts those also who had their beginning of circumcision from Abraham to be circumcised; since he says that those who were entering into the holy land received circumcision from Jesus with stone knives."

It was so certain to Justin that faith had always been necessary for all unto salvation, that he does not hesitate to state that God would be exposed to calumnies if the law, which was defined at certain places and times, were said to have justified. "But if," he says in n. 23, "we do not wish to admit this, it will happen that we fall into absurd thoughts, as if God were not the same in the times of Enoch and others, who had neither the circumcision of the flesh nor observed Sabbaths and other things of this kind, since they were instituted by Moses; or that he did not will the same just things to be observed at all times by every race of humans." Hence also, in n. 92, he demonstrates that Jewish institutions would seem worthy of contempt to many, unless the Jews answer the same as Christians, if anyone should ask them why, when Enoch and Noah with his sons, and if any others of this kind, pleased God without circumcision and Sabbaths; after so many ages had passed, God had willed by other leaders and other institutions to justify those, indeed, who were from Abraham to Moses, by circumcision; but those who were after Moses, by both circumcision and other precepts, that is, Sabbath, sacrifices, libations, gifts. Could Justin have refuted the Jews, then, who placed justification in the observation of the Law, with an argument of this kind, unless he himself believed that the faith, to which he attributes justification, pertains to all ages and conditions?

Therefore, what the holy martyr says in no. 28 must be referred to all ages and conditions: "Indeed, even if someone is a Scythian or a Persian, but has the knowledge of God ^B and of his Christ, and observes the eternal just things, [he is circumcised with the] excellent and useful circumcision, and he is a friend of God, and God delights in his gifts and oblations."

V. After Justin had shown himself such an accurate and vehement defender of the mystery of redemption; who would have believed that he could have been either praised or blamed for the eternal salvation conceded to Socrates and Heraclitus and others of this kind? Yet this opinion is attributed to him, not only by those praised in the select letters of Simonius, vol. III, the author of the *Nodus prædestinationis soluti*, and Jacobus Payva in his *Explicationibus orthodoxis*, but also, what you may wonder at more, the most learned Abbot of Sens in his *Dissert. in Epist. Pauli*, p. 67: "Justin Martyr," he says, "stated that the ancient philosophers, who lived according to reason, were Christians even then, although they did not know Jesus Christ, because they followed his precepts and doctrine; that such were Socrates and Heraclitus among the Greeks and some others."

The passage thrown out for the accusation of Justin exists in *Apol. 1*, n. 46: "We have been taught that Christ is the firstborn of God, and we have declared him to be the Word, of whom every race of men partook; and those who lived with the Word are Christians, even if they were thought to be atheists; such as among the Greeks were Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others, whose actions, or names, we know it would be tedious to recount, we now decline, etc."

"We have learned, and have declared above, that Christ is the firstborn of God, and that Word of whom the whole human race partakes. And they who lived with reason are Christians, even if they have been thought atheists, such as Socrates and Heraclitus among the Greeks and their like; but among the barbarians, Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, and Elias, whose deeds or names we now supersede from listing, because we know it would be tedious. Similarly, those who formerly lived without reason were wicked and enemies to Christ and murderers of those who lived with reason. But those who did and do live with reason are Christians, and fearless and intrepid."

This is the first thing that must be observed by us: that it is not examined here by the holy martyr how those who lived among the Gentiles before Christ attained salvation, but how they were justly damned. For thus he proposes this question to himself: "Lest, however, those who wander from reason, in order to distort the things we have taught, say that we claim Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and after that time taught the things which we said he taught under Pontius Pilate; and from that consequence they object that all men who were before that time are innocent; we shall treat of the solution of this doubt." Whatever, therefore, of virtue he seems to attribute to Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them, it aims at this: that no violation of natural law should have the pardon of excuse; since Christ, before the Incarnation, in so far as he is the Word, ^D [to all] men...

^A shone his light upon the world. He teaches the same in *Dialogus*, n. 93, namely that no excuse whatsoever can be offered by those who violate the law of God, even if they be the most worthless and corrupt.

2. If Justin is said to have granted eternal salvation to the philosophers who lived before Christ, the same leniency and indulgence must be attributed to him regarding those who lived after Christ and were on a par with Justin himself. For he says of both: "Those who lived and live with reason are Christians, and are fearless and undaunted."

3. He says those are Christians who have led a life consistent with reason, such as Socrates and Heraclitus; not because they were liberated from their sins through faith in the blood of Christ, but because whatever of knowledge and virtue shone forth in them is Christian, as being the work of the One who makes the human being, and who bestows illumination upon every man through the Word. "Whatever," he says in *Apologia* 2, n. 10, "the philosophers or lawgivers have ever excellently said or discovered, they elaborated in part by having discovered and contemplated the Word." And in n. 13: "Whatever has been said excellently by all others belongs to us Christians." Thus, Tertullian says that all men are naturally Christian, because, with nature as their guide, they are accustomed to say some things which are Christian. "God is great and God is good, and that which God gives, is the voice of all." He also bears witness that God is Judge: "God sees, and to God I commend [my case], and God will give back to me." O testimony of a soul naturally Christian! What wonder, then, ^B if Justin calls those Christians who have taught that there is one God? "Of all these," he says in *Apologia* 2, n. 10, "the most firm in this regard was Socrates, who was accused of the same crimes as we are. For they said that he introduced new demons, and that he did not regard as gods those whom the state regarded as such." Yet Justin did not in the least attempt to disguise what was lacking to such men who did not believe in the incarnate Word, both in those things which concern the knowledge of truth and in those which pertain to life and mores. For after he taught that the whole human race is a participant in the Word, he immediately recalls to memory what he had said before regarding the cause of the Incarnation; namely, to indicate the difference between those who received a particle of truth from the Word, and those who believed in the same incarnate Word. Hence, in *Apologia* 2, n. 8 and 10, he declares that Christians do not base their life on some portion of scattered reason, but on the whole, that is, on the knowledge and contemplation of Christ. He confesses that a particle of truth was known to the philosophers, but obscurely, so that they taught things at variance with themselves (n. 13); but he teaches that only those who believe in Christ can be healed. "For," he says, "we worship the Word, born of the unbegotten and ineffable God, as second to God; since for our sake He became man, so that by becoming a participant in our sufferings He might bring a remedy for them."

4. There is in Justin's words an acute line of reasoning, which no one should foolishly consider ^C as regarding Christians and athletes, and those who performed deeds like those which poets wrote of regarding gods celebrated by the opinion of men, if guided by this argument: "that we despise death, which seems something to be fled." As he speaks of athletes, so also does Justin speak of philosophers: he extracts from the supposed virtue of both that advantage for the defense of religion, so that he may demonstrate that those who judge honorably of them, in disparaging the Christians, do so not without the greatest injustice.

VI. The author of the most excellent Epistle to Diognetus observes that mankind was so long left in a state of the greatest misery, that at last they might confess that they, undeserving, had received grace from the Son of God. "As long, therefore," he says, n. 8, "as He kept His own counsel in a mystery, He seemed to have no concern for us and to take no care of us... Therefore He knew all things within Himself, along with the Son, by His own providential knowledge. However, until the former time, He allowed us to be carried away by our own impulses to uncertain motions, as we were driven by pleasures and desires—not indeed that He delighted in our sins, but that He tolerated them; nor did He approve that time in which injustice was practiced, but was creating a mind of justice, so that when we had been convicted at that time by our own works, being unworthy of life, then the goodness of God might deem us worthy of it."

He proves that God became man by the most worthy memorial of His coming, the conversion of hearts and the stable and firm justice which Christians receive from Him. He observes that it was not some minister ^D or angel sent by God, but the very Artificer and Creator of all things. "Do you not see," he says, n. 7, "that the more they are punished, the greater the number of others becomes? These things do not seem to be the work of men; these are the signs of His coming. For who among all men knew what God was before He Himself had come?" He attributes whatever charity resides in us to the will of God. "After, however," he says, n. 10, "you have known Him, what joy do you think you will be filled with? Or how much will you love Him who first loved you in this way? But when you have begun to love, [you will be] an imitator of His goodness.

He can do it, if He wills. Tatian, who had not yet rejected the doctrine received from St. Justin ^A when he wrote against the Gentiles, discusses the help of the Holy Spirit, which we receive from the God who became incarnate, on which some points should not be omitted here. "The soul by itself," he says in no. 13, "is nothing but darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it. And this is the very thing which is said: 'The darkness comprehended not the light' (John 1, 5). For the soul did not preserve the spirit, but it was preserved by it, and the light apprehended the darkness. And the Word is indeed the divine light; the darkness, however, is the uninstructed soul. Wherefore, if it dwells in solitude, it inclines downward to matter, dying together with the flesh. But when it is coupled with the divine Spirit, it does not lack help; but it ascends to where it is led by the Spirit. For the seat of the latter is in the heights; the generation of the former is in the inferior places. At the beginning, indeed, the spirit was a witness to the soul, but it deserted it when it would not follow." And, no. 15: "And such indeed is the nature of the species, that if it conducts itself like a temple, God gladly dwells in it through the sent Spirit. But if the tabernacle is not such, man excels the beasts only in articulate voice; the rest of his way of life is the same as theirs, for he is not a likeness of God." And, no. 20: "For the Holy Spirit were the wings of the soul, which, when it cast off through sin, it flew like a chick and fell to the ground; but having slipped from heavenly fellowship, it desired the commerce of lower things..... Yet anyone who is bare can obtain this ornament and return to the old kinship."

CHAPTER VIII.

Those who wish to believe that Justin fostered or thought that peace and communion should be fostered with those who deny the divinity of Christ, have been sufficiently answered in the observations on no. 48 of the Dialogue, or rather, the interpretation of that very place which they abused, more accurate than in previous editions, refutes them sufficiently. Moreover, as regards those who, converted from circumcision to Christ, joined certain Jewish institutions with precise faith in Christ the Lord; it is certain that they were not rejected by the holy martyr. ^C Nevertheless, the indulgence granted to weak men will not be censured if we consider with Tillemont the conditions to which Justin restricts it, and what judgments were made about such men in the Church either shortly before Justin or even at that time.

Trypho puts this question to Justin, no. 46: "But if any," he says, "even now wish to live in such a way as to observe the institutions of Moses, and believe in this Jesus Christ, crucified, recognizing him as the Christ of God, and that to him it has been given to judge all men absolutely, and that his kingdom is everlasting; can they also be saved?" The question did not appear easy for the holy martyr to solve; he thinks it must be examined whether this observation of the law proceeds from a certain weakness of mind, or from the foolish opinion that the law is necessary for salvation. Wherefore he briefly repeats what he had discussed at greater length before, that the precepts of the Mosaic law were instituted because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts, that, admonished by these various things, they might always have God before their eyes, but that not even thus were they recalled from the worship of idols: on the contrary, they endured extreme tortures against Christians so as not to sacrifice to those to whom they had once sacrificed, and were persuaded that the things which were instituted because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews contribute nothing to the observance of justice and piety.

Then Trypho: "If anyone, knowing that these things are so, besides acknowledging that this is the Christ and believing in him and obeying him, should also wish to observe these institutions; will he be saved?"

Thus Justin replies: "As it seems to me, O Trypho, I say that such a man will be saved; provided that he does not attempt at all to persuade other men, that is, those who have been circumcised from error through Christ, to observe the same things as he does. Which is what you were doing at the beginning of the discussion, when you pronounced that I would not be saved unless I observed these things."

"Again Trypho asks thus: Why then did you say: 'As it seems to me, he will be saved,' unless there are those who deny that such will be saved?"

Justin replies: "There are, I say, O Trypho, those who do not dare to hold communion of speech or hospitality with them; to whom I do not assent. But if, because of the weakness of the mind, they wish even now to combine with hope in this Christ and the observance of the eternal and natural precepts of justice and piety, whatsoever of those things we know were instituted by Moses because of the hardness of the hearts of the people; provided they do not refuse to live with Christians and the faithful, and do not, as I have already said, persuade them to be circumcised similarly as they are, or to keep the Sabbaths and other things of that kind, I judge that they should be received, and that communion in all things should be held with them as with men affected in the same way and as brethren." If, however, the Jews bring any from among the Christians to add to the law of faith, he does not altogether despair of the salvation of those who have been deceived. "Those, however, who have been led by them to join the observance of the law with a confession in the Christ of God, I suspect may perhaps also attain salvation." It is clear from Justin that two conditions are nevertheless imposed on those whom he thinks should be loved as brethren and bound by every sign of charity and communion. The first is that they do not think the law necessary for salvation. He gives them

^A forgiveness, if out of weakness of mind they observe the law; but otherwise, if they place their hope in Mosaic institutions, not in the blood of Christ. Trypho himself had accepted this condition; for when Justin had said that things instituted for the hardness of the heart contribute nothing to the observance of justice and piety; Trypho received him thus: "What if someone, knowing that things are so, etc." The other condition is that Jews who have converted to Christ live on equal terms with uncircumcised Christians, and do not urge anyone to the observance of the law. Wherefore Justin was not rashly drawn to this opinion, but entered into it after a calculated reasoning, and not without providing for the inconveniences that could follow from it.

II. But what most defends Justin, when he was discussing these things, is that scarcely twenty years, as Tillemont observes, had elapsed since the Mosaic law had ceased to be observed in the Church of Jerusalem. The matter is certain and explored from the testimonies of Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus. Eusebius speaks thus (Hist., lib. iv, c. 5): "I have learned from the monuments of ancient writers only this, that up to that siege of the Jews which happened under Hadrian, fifteen bishops had presided over that Church in continuous succession, all of whom they record as having been Hebrews by origin, and as having received the faith of Christ sincerely and from the heart. So much so that, by those who were able to pass judgment on such matters, they were considered most worthy of the episcopal office. For at that time the entire Church of Jerusalem was composed of Hebrew believers, who had remained there from the age of the apostles down to that siege, in which the Jews, rebelling again against the Romans, were subdued and conquered in great battles." Sulpicius Severus, speaking of this ultimate siege, adds these things: "Which indeed profited the Christian faith; because then almost all believed in Christ as God under the observance of the law. Naturally this was arranged by the Lord’s providence, so that the servitude of the law might be removed from the liberty of the faith and the Church. Thus it was that then, for the first time, Mark from the Gentiles was bishop at Jerusalem."

III. Justin did not only incline toward lenience; he indicates that few oppose him. "There are, I say, O Trypho, those who do not dare to join in communion of speech or hospitality with such as these; to whom I do not assent." ^D The lenience of Justin is confirmed by Origen (lib. vii in Epist. ad Rom.), where he speaks thus: "Even if Christ had not become incarnate, he would nevertheless have authority over all by nature. He does not wish to bend reasonable spirits violently to the obedience of his law, but awaits that they come of their own accord, and by will, not by necessity, seek the good, and he persuades by teaching more than by restraining, by inviting rather than by extorting." Even if some Jew, for example, or one of those who are called Severians and Tatianists, wishes to believe in Christ; yet he thinks there is no small amount of importance in the observance of continence, or of those foods which are prohibited by the law, or which some think are opposed to chastity—if you were to urge such a man to the common foods of men, and tell him that he cannot be saved otherwise, or arrive at the faith of Christ and grace, unless he partakes of those foods which he shuns, then truly the good of a spiritual judgment is blasphemed. Origen, likewise, at the beginning of his book *Against Celsus*, distinguishes three types of Jews professing the Christian faith. Some had left behind their pristine rites, since they thought they must be understood spiritually; others interpreted them in a spiritual sense, yet did not cease to observe them; others, finally, fixed upon the literal sense, observed them. Those who joined the observance of the rites themselves with a spiritual explanation seem to be none other than those who admitted that the law was not necessary for salvation, and that hope was to be placed solely in Christ, whose divinity they believed in along with all other dogmas of the Church. He who attributed the books of the *Recognitions* and the *Clementine Homilies* to St. Clement, a writer equal or nearly equal to Justin, seems from this to have been among the number of the Nazaræans, or Christians who observed the law. For when he proclaims Christ’s divinity in many places, and calls him the Son of God and son of man, the Son existing from the beginning, the creator of heaven and earth (homil. 18), he nevertheless seems more clinging to the Mosaic law. Hence Peter is introduced in countless places as either using Jewish purifications himself, or commanding them to others, and not eating with Gentiles not yet initiated by baptism. After the epistle of Peter to James, James is introduced gravely ordaining that the books of the *Preaching of Peter* not be entrusted to anyone except a faithful circumcised person. That this Pseudo-Clement lived at a time when the observance of the law was not yet condemned by everyone like a heresy, can be evidenced by the things that occur at times, stated excellently both about the Church and about bishops. He compares the Church to a ship in the ep. *Clem. ad Jacob.* (p. 538), whose pilot he calls the bishop, and the sailors the presbyters. He commends due obedience to bishops in many places, as in *Recogn.* lib. ii, cap. 66, homil. 3, p. 597 and 598.

Truly, the moderation of mind of those who ceased to mix the Gospel with Mosaic ceremonies, when they noticed that they could not be observed without offense to others, is to be praised. But there were not lacking those who would not allow themselves to be drawn away from these institutions, in which they had been born. Their stubbornness had not yet been conquered in the fourth century, as we learn from Jerome. "Even to this day," he says in epist. 80, "throughout all the synagogues of the East, there is a heresy among the Jews which is called the Minæans, and is cursed by the Pharisees even now, whom the common people call Nazaræans, who believe in the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary, and say that he is the one who suffered and rose again under Pontius Pilate, in whom we also believe. But while they want to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians." Not without reason did Jerome mark such stubbornness as a heresy, especially when men of this kind had departed from the Catholic Church.

D. MARANI PREFACE. — PART II.

But since Justin held this Dialogue, that is, twenty years after they had observed the law without anyone interfering at Jerusalem, was it not fairer to entice them with gentleness than to alienate them so quickly as heretics?

CHAPTER IX.

On the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

^A I. The holy martyr, since he well understood that the mysteries ought not to be made public, so discoursed with the Jews in the Dialogue that, concerning the Eucharist, which there was then no necessity to explain, he only said that this sacrifice was predicted by Malachi, that bread and wine were used in it, and that the memory of the Lord’s passion was celebrated. But he did not think himself bound by this law of silence when he was pleading the cause of the Christians before the Emperor Antoninus. For then he saw that the whole matter must be set before the eyes of the Emperor, so that, even if it seemed absurd and incredible, it might at least not appear impious, detestable, or worthy of capital punishment; and if the Emperor did not assent to the doctrine of the Christians, he might at least, since he saw them candidly setting forth whatever could appear most incredible and most absurd, understand that nothing was concealed by them, and that no wickedness was admitted into their mysteries. He relates, therefore, that bread and a cup of water and wine are offered to him who presides over the brethren after the reading of Scripture, and after exhortations and prayers; that upon receiving these, he sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and performs the Eucharist at length; that this nourishment, thus consecrated ^B by the priest, is called the Eucharist, and that it is not lawful for anyone to be a partaker of it unless he believes that the things taught by the Christians are true, and has been washed in the bath for the remission of sins and unto regeneration, and so lives as Christ has delivered. And why there is such reverence for the Eucharist among Christians, he thus assigns the reason: "For we do not take these as common bread or common drink; but in the manner that Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh through the Word of God, both had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the word which is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nurtured by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus delivered that it was commanded to them: that Jesus, having taken bread, and having given thanks, said: "Do this for my remembrance ^C of me; this is my body": and likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, said: "This is my blood": and that He delivered it to them alone. "For," he says, *Apol. 1, num. 66*, "we do not take these as common bread, nor as common drink. But just as Jesus Christ our Savior, made flesh through the Word of God, had flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation; so we have also been taught that the food, in which through prayer the words of Him are contained which result in the giving of grace, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered that it was commanded to them: that Jesus, having taken bread, when He had given thanks, said: Do this in my remembrance: *This is my body*: in like manner, having taken ^D the cup, when He had given thanks, He said: *This is my blood*; and that He delivered it to them alone." II. There is nothing in this testimony which can be drawn into a figure; nothing which does not plainly assert that miraculous conversion of bread and wine which the Church has always taught. That first point is perceived from the words of Justin, as to what sentiment the Christians of the second century gave to the words of Christ. For no one could deny that it would have been entirely necessary, if any figure lay hidden in the words of Christ, that a great deal of effort be spent in explaining it. For if the same thing was always said by all, without any such explanation being used; if the priests taught that the bread was consecrated to be the body of Christ, because Christ, having taken bread, said: *This is my body*; that the wine was consecrated to be the blood of Christ, because that incarnate Word, having taken the cup, said: *This is my blood*; if all Christians concluded nothing else from these words of Christ than that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ; can we not, in place of a most certain principle, establish that the ancient Christians believed the same things that we believe today? And we hold it. But whether it is possible that it be ambiguous what the Christians of the second century were taught, and what they concluded from the words of Christ, when the reliable witness Justin declares that from the fact that Christ said: *This is my body; this is my blood*, all concluded the Eucharist to be the body and blood of the incarnate Word? III. Secondly, the holy martyr declares that the Christians believed no less constantly that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Word, than that the Word Himself had flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation. Just as Jesus Christ had flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation, so also we have been taught that that food is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. A manifest comparison of both mysteries, the Incarnation and the Eucharist. At that time almost all heresies were attacking the flesh of Christ; that I may omit that God incarnate was always [detestable] to the heathens and Jews...

Yet the greater the effort of the unbelievers to overturn this mystery, the greater the constancy of the Catholics in defending it. Can there be, then, a more illustrious testimony of the ancient faith required than this of Justin? If he had thought the Eucharist to be a figure of an absent body, would he have said that Christians believe the bread and wine after consecration are the flesh and blood of the Lord, just as Christ did not have a form and figure of flesh and blood, as so many heresies fabricated, but had true flesh and true blood? ^A

IV. 3. The holy martyr admires the omnipotence of the Word in the Eucharist no less than in the Incarnation. For in these words: *By the Word of God Jesus Christ was made flesh*, the person of the Word is not separated from the man born of the Virgin, nor is there any suspicion in the holy martyr of such an error; but he teaches the same thing here as in so many other places, that the Word himself formed flesh for himself in the womb of the Virgin. Wherefore he compares the Eucharist with the Incarnation in this, that just as in the Incarnation the flesh of the Word is made perfect by the Word himself assuming the body, so also in the Eucharist the bread and wine become flesh and blood through the prayer containing the words of the Word himself, that is, the omnipotence of that same Word whose words the prayer sets forth. Justin therefore believed that the flesh of Christ is made present in the sacrament of the Eucharist by the same omnipotence by which it was formed in the womb of the Virgin.

4. Justin was addressing the emperors, whom it greatly concerned to be instructed aptly and clearly about the affairs of the Christians, since up to that point they had judged Christians based on wicked rumor. Therefore, he was very cautious, lest they either fail to see a hidden figure in the words of Christ, if the body of Christ is not truly contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist, or, if it is truly contained, lest they reject the whole thing as an old wives' tale. The first difficulty could easily have been met: Justin had only to explain the words, and nothing absurd would remain, but all would be resolved and simple. But for the second, it was required that he demonstrate that this mystery was believed by Christians not without the most certain arguments. That he followed this path cannot be in doubt. Nowhere did he descend to a method of explaining the matter that would have been as easy and simple, and at the same time as necessary, as warning that the bread and wine were not truly the body of Christ, but were used to signify this body. Nothing of the sort was done by the holy martyr; but he is wholly intent on demonstrating that this mystery is believed not without the weightiest of reasons. Two things were required in a matter of such great moment: first, that he who said it is perfected by him be omnipotent; second, that there be no obscurity in his words. Justin relies on both arguments, while he traces the faith of the Christians back to the fact that that Word, who formed flesh for himself in the womb of the Virgin, having taken bread, said: *This is my body*; and having taken the cup: *This is my blood.* ^B Let the Eucharist teach us in what sense, just as other Fathers, see dissertation 3 on Irenaeus, art. 7, nn. 94 and 95.

V. If the Eucharist provided such a resource to Justin when addressing heathens, how much more did it furnish weapons against heretics, for whose errors it is most especially adapted to refute? They denied that Christ was the Son of the Creator of the world, but they imagined for themselves a God, a father of Christ, who was more exalted than the Creator. But how would Christ have brought along things that were alien and not created by himself for the consecration of the Eucharist? They denied the resurrection of the flesh. But how could flesh that is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord be consigned to eternal destruction? They denied that true flesh was assumed by Christ. The Eucharist, which is the communication of the body and blood of Christ, refuted this impiety as well. For the blood is nothing other than that which is from the veins and flesh and the remaining substance which is according to man, which truly became the Word of God, says Irenaeus, lib. v, c. 2. There is no doubt, therefore, but that the holy martyr frequently employed these arguments before Irenaeus and Tertullian, both in his book against Marcion and in another written against all heresies. Therefore, it will not seem to me that I depart from the purpose of defending his doctrine if I undertake to explain in this place two testimonies of great importance, one of St. Irenaeus, the other of Tertullian, which although they have had strenuous defenders, still seem to require richer light for the understanding of the contexts. ^C Furthermore, by this disputation of Irenaeus and Tertullian against those who denied the flesh of Christ, the doctrine of Athenagoras will be placed in safety, whom Peter Allix contends removed the blood from the resurrected bodies and did not acknowledge the blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Thus, therefore, Irenaeus, lib. iv, c. 18, n. 5: "How do they say that the flesh goes to corruption and does not partake of life, which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord? Either let them change their opinion, or let them decline to offer the things mentioned. But our opinion is consonant with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist... confirms the opinion... We offer to him the things that are his own, harmoniously announcing the communion and union, and confessing the resurrection of the flesh and spirit. For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two realities, an earthly and a heavenly; so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer ^D corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection unto eternity." "How then do they say again that the flesh comes to corruption, and does not perceive life, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord? Therefore, either let them change their opinion or abstain from offering the things which were mentioned. But our own opinion is consonant for the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our opinion. For we offer to him things that are his, congruently proclaiming [in Greek confessing the resurrection of] the communion and union of flesh and spirit. For just as the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is now no longer common...

bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly; so too our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection. ^A The Church alone, in celebrating the Eucharist, proclaims this communion and union, because the sects do not rightly distinguish—as was said at note 3—that communion which is toward one’s neighbor. The resurrection of the body and of the spirit, or soul, which the Church teaches, is a manner of speaking common among the ancients, as I have observed in the notes to Theophilus of Antioch, book I.

But what we must chiefly observe in these words: *The Eucharist consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly*, is that two different states of the Eucharist are considered for different times. First, it is an earthly thing, or bread which is from the earth—in a word, common bread—then it becomes Eucharist, that is, the body and blood of the Lord. Irenaeus describes that twofold state by succession excellently in another place: *“And just as the wood of the vine, when it is laid in the earth, brings forth fruit in its own time; and the grain of wheat, falling into the earth and being dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, who contains all things; then, by His wisdom, it comes into the use of men and, partaking of the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so too our bodies, fed by it and laid in the earth and dissolved therein, shall rise in their own time, the Word of God granting them resurrection unto the glory of God and the Father.”* “And just as the vine wood,” he says in book v, ch. 2, n. 3, “laid in the earth, bears fruit in its own time, and the grain of wheat falling into the earth and dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, who contains all things, which then by wisdom come into the use of man and, partaking of the Word of God, become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so too our bodies, nourished by it and deposited in the earth, and dissolved in it, shall rise in their own time, the Word of God granting them resurrection, to the glory of God the Father.” One cannot fail to notice here the succession of different states, unless one be blind. First, it is an earthly thing, namely that which is deposited in the earth, fructifies in its own time, and comes into the use of men, and is common bread; then it is the body and blood of Christ, or a heavenly ^B thing.

The comparison of the Eucharist itself with the twofold state of our own bodies also places before our eyes the succession of the two states in the Eucharist. The change is compared with a change: an earthly thing, which becomes a heavenly thing, or common bread, which becomes the body of Christ, with a corruptible body, which becomes an incorruptible body. But if at the same time and without any succession it were both earthly and heavenly, corruptible and incorruptible, what moment would that bring to the future incorruptibility of bodies which now are corruptible? Yet there is this difference between that change promised to our bodies, that the substance of bread is changed into another, far different thing, whereas in our bodies, which retain their substance, quality alone will be added. But from this difference, a more clear comparison arises. For Irenaeus proves the lesser miracle from the greater, so that it may be a matter of agreement from a matter of non-agreement. Moreover, his reasoning would be absurd unless we say that the substance of the bread is entirely changed and that nothing remains. For whatever honor is increased in the bread, if it does not cease to be bread, then the transformation of our bodies will be far more wonderful, for they will not only acquire the beauty of incorruption, but even from being dead and dissolved and scattered into various parts of the world, these same bodies—as regards their substance—will come into being, with the added gift of incorruptibility.

Furthermore, Irenaeus considers two mutations in the bread: the first by which it rises manifold from the wheat falling into the earth and dissolved, through the Spirit of God, and becomes bread for human use; the second by which, partaking of the Word of God, it becomes the body of Christ. The latter mutation is far more wonderful than the former. For our bodies are indeed compared with both, which, nourished by the Eucharist, and laid in the earth and dissolved in it, shall rise in their own time. But the cause of the resurrection is that one mutation of bread into the body of Christ, which would be entirely nothing if the substance of the bread were to remain.

^C VI. A passage of Tertullian is read in book iv *adv. Marcionem*, c. 4, where he speaks thus: *“And having therefore professed that he had desired with desire to eat His passover (for it is unworthy that God should desire that which is foreign), having taken bread and distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body', that is, a figure of my body. But it would not be a figure, unless it were a body of truth. Otherwise an empty thing, which is a phantasm, would not be able to possess a figure. Or if for that reason He made the bread His body, because He lacked the truth of a body; therefore He should have betrayed bread for us. It would have made for the vanity of Marcion if bread were crucified for us.”* Perronius brought forward one explanation of this passage, and the authors of *The Perpetuity of the Faith* another: but both made the opinion of Tertullian secure and snatched away from their adversaries the opportunity of abusing his testimony. Nothing prevents us from bringing forward a third, which may generally serve the same purpose. Tertullian understands by "figure" that which circumscribes some substance with outer signs; whence he says: "An empty thing, which is a phantasm, would not be able to possess a figure: only a solid body can lie beneath a figure." Wherefore he assigns this meaning to the words of Christ, *This is my body*, that is, a figure which circumscribes my body, and a sacrament by which the substance of my body is contained. Why Tertullian should subject this explanation to the words of Christ, the reason is easily found from the error of Marcion, which he had undertaken to refute. The body of Christ

in the Eucharist, he asserted, was not exhibited to us in the state in which it had been exhibited while it was seen by men on earth, but in a figure, or in the sacrament of bread and wine. From this, a very apt conclusion is drawn: that a solid body is to be attributed to Christ, not a phantom; since a phantom cannot take on a figure, and an empty thing cannot be circumscribed by the external signs of bread and wine, nor would anything be more absurd than for an empty phantom of a man and an empty effigy of a human body to assume another effigy and figure under which it might skulk. ^A

It therefore concerned Tertullian to observe and admonish that the Eucharistic body of Christ is not set forth in that figure, or effigy and species, which He had on earth, but in the figure and species of bread. And this reasoning of his not only pressed Marcion very closely, but also provides for us two things to be ^B observed and concluded: first, that the true body of Christ is given to us in the Eucharist, since it could not receive a figure in this sacrament if it were an empty thing and a phantom; second, that nothing of the bread remains besides the species, or figure; since, if Marcion’s opinion were followed, it would result that an empty figure lies hidden under an empty figure: a fact which Tertullian would never have remarked if he had thought that the substance of the bread remained along with that very figure and species.

But because it was not likely that Marcion and the Church held the same view concerning the Eucharist, Tertullian suspects that the words of Christ, *This is my body*, were understood by Marcion as if Christ had adopted the bread for Himself as a body; whence he concludes that the bread must have been handed over and crucified for us, if Christ's words are to be understood in this way, or that bread is said to be adopted in place of the body: «Or if for this reason He made bread His body, because He lacked the truth of a body: therefore He should have handed over bread for us. It would have served the vanity of Marcion, if bread were crucified for us.» Tertullian suspects, he does not assert, that Marcion thought this: but what this suspicion is worth must be weighed by us. 1st: That absurd adoption of bread into the body of Christ would never have entered Marcion’s mind, unless the impious fiction of a Christ of a phantastic body had imposed this necessity upon him; he would not have thought that the substance of the bread remained in the Eucharist if he had left its own substance to Christ’s body. Therefore, all the Catholics, against whom Marcion fought face to face, believed not in bread in the Eucharist, but in the true body of Christ. Then, Marcion might at least have conceded this, if Tertullian’s conjecture is true, that the Word is worshiped in the Eucharist as hypostatically joined with the bread. But from where could Marcion adopt this opinion, or could Tertullian attribute it to Marcion, unless because both took the words of Christ, *This is my body*, in the sense that first occurs to the mind, and it was agreed between both that the words were clear and manifest, and that a grand thing was promised and exhibited by these words?

Tertullian’s conjecture is confirmed by Euthymius Zigabenus (Panopl., part II, tit. 2). For he testifies that the Armenians, who admitted one nature in Christ and thought that the body of Christ had been converted into divinity, denied that the Eucharist was the body of Christ, but were accustomed to call it the body of the divinity. ^C

VII. If not even those who concocted a phantastic body for Christ denied that Christ was adored and received in the Eucharist; how much more must the illustrious defender of religion, Athenagoras, be outside of suspicion, even if, as Peter Allix contends in his dissertation *De sanguine D. N. J. C.*, he believed that our bodies after the resurrection would be without blood? Indeed, even Allix himself, among those whom he says denied that there was blood in resurrected bodies, cites Peter Mansur, who, in an epistle extant among the works of St. John Damascene (vol. 1), does indeed assert that the immortal body lacks blood, but yet—that which Allix shrewdly kept silent about—he reconciles this ^D very bad opinion with the Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist, in that he declares that the body of Christ is set forth in the Eucharist, not as it is in heaven, but as it was in the womb of the Virgin. If, therefore, any ancient writers had thought what Allix pretends they thought, it would not on that account be certain that they had departed from the Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist. But no argument proves that Athenagoras labored under this error concerning resurrected bodies. He only maintains, as the very learned Jacques Boileau observes in his dissertation *adversus Allix* (art. 2, p. 39), that blood will not be subject to corruption in the immortal life, as it is in this mortal life.

Athenagoras meets in his book *De resur. mort.*, n. 4, those who oppose human bodies to this dogma...

^A ...or which, having been devoured by gluttons, have thereupon been transferred into the bodies of other men, or have even served as food for the very people who committed some tragic crime. From this, they conclude that either for those who were thus consumed something will be lacking if their flesh is not restored to them, or, if it is restored, it will be maimed and imperfect.

Athenagoras responds that human flesh is not food for another man according to nature; and therefore, if anyone, whether by his own crime or another's fraud, has eaten human flesh, it will by no means come to pass that food so contrary to nature will coalesce with the parts of the eater, but that it will be cast off as noxious and hostile. And if it were granted that this food is changed into something moist or dry, or hot, or cold, Athenagoras denies that it is a part of any of those things, or that it occupies the place of a part; indeed, that it does not always remain in the parts receiving nourishment, nor rise again with those who rise, since at that time neither blood, nor phlegm, nor bile, nor spirit contributes anything to life. Athenagoras does not therefore remove blood from the resurrection, but he denies that at that time life will depend on blood, which for that reason must needs be tempered by various humors. Thus Augustine, whom Allix attempted to drag to his own side, by no means denies the blood in Epistle 205, but desires the blood without corruption: "It is not to be doubted," he says, no. 15, "according to this statement: *Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God* [I Cor. xv, 50], because there will not be there the corruption and mortality of flesh and blood. For he named flesh and blood in this place according to these qualities." ^B Soon Athenagoras says the same thing about flesh, namely that even if food contrary to nature is so digested that it permeates even to the flesh, not even that would be difficult to explain; since neither the flesh itself which receives it always retains what it has received, nor does that which has been received remain constantly where it has arrived, but it undergoes much diverse mutation, n. 7. Who would gather from that that Athenagoras does not leave flesh in the resurrected bodies? I will not say more concerning his opinion; it is enough to read what is said by him, n. 3, where he demonstrates that our bodies will be recalled to life after dissolution by the same power by which they were first fastened together by God.

CHAPTER X

The Eucharist is a true and properly so-called sacrifice, the description of which is examined as set forth by Justin.

I. The mutation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, which we have seen established by Justin, no longer has any difficulties which pertain to the method of sacrifice. For no other reason has stood in the way for the Lutherans and Calvinists, why they should deny that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, except that the former maintained that Christ was not present in the Eucharist at all, and the latter maintained that He was not present before its use. But if anyone ^C admits the passion of Christ is so represented in the Eucharist, that the very victim that was once slain for us is present upon the altar, he cannot doubt that Christ in this state offers Himself to His Father in the hands of the priests: it is therefore no wonder if the holy martyr, who did not doubt any more whether the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ than whether the Son of God was incarnate, commends the sacrifice of the Christians in so many places.

He demonstrates the excellence of the Christian religion against the Jews from the excellence of our sacrifice. "Likewise also," he says, *Dialogue* n. 41, "the oblation for those who were cleansed from leprosy was an image of the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to be done in remembrance of the passion for those who are being cleansed from all wickedness; that we might at once give thanks to God, both that He created the world and all things in it for man, and that He liberated us from the wickedness in which we were, and destroyed principalities and powers through Him who by His will became subject to suffering. But concerning the sacrifices which at that time were offered by you, God, as I have already said, speaks through Malachi, one of the twelve: *My will is not in you, says the Lord, and I will not receive sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof my name is glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure victim, since my name is great among the Gentiles*, saith the Lord [Malach. 1, 10-11]. But concerning those sacrifices which are offered by us in every place, that is, of the bread of the Eucharist and of the cup of the Eucharist, He already then predicts this, adding also that His name is glorified by us, but profaned by you."

^D In this testimony, one must observe, 1st, that the Jewish oblations were a shadow and image of the sacrifice of the Christians; that this sacrifice is pure and acceptable to God, and was foretold by God through the prophet Malachi. Who, therefore, would doubt that this is the true sacrifice, which it was necessary both to be foreshadowed by the figures of the Old Testament, and to be clearly and openly foretold by the oracles of the prophets?

2nd. In express words he calls the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist the sacrifice of the Christians. *Concerning those sacrifices which are offered by us in every place, that is, of the bread of the Eucharist and of the cup of the Eucharist*, etc. We have seen above what the bread and cup of the Eucharist is, where Justin teaches that the food "eucharistized" is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. Therefore, the sacrifice of the Christians is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, which are offered to God.

^A St. Justin declares, in number 117, that in this sacrifice the Christians call to mind that passion which the Son of God suffered for them. But how is the passion of the Lord represented in this sacrifice? The matter is very easy to learn from Justin. For in the passage which we have extracted above from his greater Apology, after he has said that the consecrated nourishment is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, he adds that the apostles handed down that they had been commanded by Christ to do this in commemoration of Him. The holy martyr therefore believed that the passion of the Lord is represented in the Eucharist, when His own flesh and blood, by the words pronounced by Him, are placed upon the altar and offered to God.

From these [facts], the opinion of Pfaff is easily refuted, a man very learned among the Lutherans, but one who seeks in vain the patronage of his sect from the holy Fathers in his dissertation *De oblatione veterum eucharistica*, where, in number 27, he interprets Justin in such a way as if his testimonies intimated either only an offering of the laity ^B made to the bishop, not to God, or an offering of the priests preceding the consecration. But this interpretation departs very widely from the mind of Justin. For neither the offering of the laity made to the priest, nor the priestly offering before the consecration, are called the victim and sacrifice of the Christians by Justin, nor do they represent the passion of Christ; but the bread of the Eucharist and the chalice of the Eucharist, that is, as Justin himself interprets, the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, are the victim and sacrifice of the Christians and are made by Christ's precept to celebrate the memory of that passion.

He does not succeed better in another testimony of the Dialogue, number 117, where Justin speaks thus: "I truly concede that prayers and thanksgivings, which are performed by the worthy, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. And these alone have Christians learned to perform, when, by their dry and liquid nourishment, they celebrate the remembrance of that passion which the Son of God suffered for them." From these [words], the learned man concludes two things: 1st, that the eucharistic offering is not proper or perfect, since only prayers deserve this name; 2nd, that it was not commanded or enjoined by the Lord and the apostles. Pfaff always plays with ambiguity ^C and understands the eucharistic offering as that which is made either by the laity to the priest or by the priest himself before the consecration. But the dry and liquid nourishment, by which the remembrance of the Lord's passion is celebrated, cannot be anything else, as has been sufficiently demonstrated, than the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus. But yet, lest Pfaff force upon us the idea that only prayers deserve the name of sacrifice, the opinion of Justin must be explained in a few words.

III. The learned Pfaff does not notice what is proposed by Justin. 1st, The holy martyr was using an argument most suited for refuting the Jews, and by the prophecy of Malachi he showed that they were cast off from the true religion, but that the Christians, whose sacrifice is commended by God Himself, were a priestly race. The Jews, in order to evade this argument, were accustomed to interpret Malachi, as Justin himself testifies in the same place, [to mean] that the sacrifices of those who dwelt in Jerusalem were rejected by God; but that the prayers of those who were dispersed among the Gentiles were acceptable to God, and therefore were called sacrifices. Therefore, the Jews contend that only prayers and thanksgivings, even without an exterior sacrifice, suffice for true religion and a true sacrifice. But against them fights the opinion of Justin, who ^D in this very place objects to them the exterior sacrifice of the Christians, in which the memory of the Lord's passion is recalled under the species of bread and wine. 2nd, When he concedes to them that prayers and thanksgivings are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God, he does not do so with the intention of excluding the oblation of an exterior thing, but because he knew that prayers and thanksgivings must be joined with this oblation; otherwise, it would not be a perfect sacrifice, nor would any honor reach God from us. By a similar reasoning Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* IV, page 481, concedes to heretics, who disparaged martyrdom, that true martyrdom is placed in the knowledge of God:

Τινὲς δὲ τῶν αἱρετικῶν, τοῦ Κυρίου παρακηκοότες, ἀσεβῶς ἅμα καὶ δειλῶς φιλοζωοῦσι, μαρτυρίαν λέγοντες ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ὄντως ὄντος γνῶσιν Θεοῦ. Ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν.

[4.] Those prayers which Christians have learned to perform in celebrating the memorial of the Lord's passion are nothing other than the oblation of the Body and Blood of the Lord for the living and the dead, as can be seen in the most ancient liturgy of the eighth book of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, and one very similar to that which Justin describes in *Apol.* 1. For thus the prayers read, which are poured forth after the consecration:

Προσφέρομέν σοι,

III. I think I will do a favor to my readers if I expose to their eyes a description of the venerable sacrifice of the Christians, such as it is summarized by Justin at the end of *Apol.* 1. He leads off from baptism. "But how we have consecrated ourselves to God, having been renewed through Christ," he says, *Apol.* 1, number 61, "we shall also expose, lest, if we omit this, we might seem to act incorrectly in explaining these matters. Whoever have been persuaded and have believed that those things which are taught and said by us are true, and have promised that they can live in this way, they, praying and fasting, are to seek from God the forgiveness of their former sins...»

^A in that same place the gathering takes place, and the commentaries of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has finished, the one presiding takes up the admonition and exhortation with words to imitate such noble things. Afterwards, we all rise together and offer prayers, and, as we have already said, when we have ceased praying, bread is brought and wine and water, and the one presiding sends up prayers and thanksgivings with all his might, and the people shout their assent: Amen, and a distribution and communication is made to each of those present of the things over which thanks have been offered, and it is sent to those absent by the deacons. ^B To this liturgy, that which is extant in the Apostolic Constitutions, book VIII, is very similar, and whatever is articulated there, Justin indicates in summary.

It appears that Justin is indicating not only those precepts of belief and life which were daily handed down to the catechumens, but most especially those which were conjoined with baptism itself, namely, the interrogations and responses, the renunciations and the profession of faith. Justin confirms this in no. 65. Those very words, "Then they are led by us to where there is water," permit one to suspect nothing else. From which it also is evident that all these things were accustomed to be performed in the church itself, before the one to be baptized was led to the sacred font. Thus also the fasts mentioned here immediately precede the baptism itself, and are observed by other Christians together with the person being baptized, such as that fast which Peter ordains the day before baptism in Clementine Homily 13, n. 12. See Apostolic Constitutions, lib. VII, c. 22.

There is nothing here about the sacrament of confirmation from Justin; nor is that surprising. He was not writing to Catholics, but addressing heathen emperors, among whom the enunciation of this matter was not at all necessary. Furthermore, Justin describes baptism in such a way that he himself (for it is no light conjecture that Justin was a presbyter) used to administer it; namely, without confirmation, which was reserved for bishops. Occasions for baptizing often occurred for presbyters, nor did catechumens, on account of their fervent piety, wait for mature baptism on the solemn days of baptism. Whence Tertullian in his book *De baptismo*, c. 19: "For the rest, every day is the Lord's, every hour, every time is suitable for baptism: if it concerns the solemnity, it concerns nothing of the grace."

^B That gathering of all who dwell in the cities or in the country is not to be understood without some exception. For where a vehement persecution existed, this could not happen: whence, being interrogated by the prefect as to the place where the Christians met, Justin replies that each one meets where he wishes or is able. "Do you think," he says, "that we are all accustomed to meet in the same place? The matter is not so at all." Moreover, in great cities one place could not have accommodated all the Christians. Furthermore, in Rome there seem to have existed several churches, in which, for the convenience of those coming to Rome from the East, the liturgy was celebrated according to the Greek rite and in the Greek language. For, being interrogated ^C by the prefect, as we have just seen, Justin declares that he stays near the house of a certain Martin at the bath named Timiotinus, and for the whole time he spent in Rome, he had known no other place of meeting. In this house, therefore, the mysteries were accustomed to be celebrated, and that according to the rite and language of the Greek Church; as one celebrated, it is probable, by Justin himself. And this I think is the reason why the liturgy explained by the holy martyr is similar not to the Roman one, but to that which is in the Apostolic Constitutions. Those who were arrested with Justin and condemned to death appear to have had Justin as the director of their souls and to have come to Rome from those places where the Greek language flourished. For the prefect asks them whether Justin made them Christians? Evelpistus says that he was accustomed to listen to Justin's sermons with great pleasure; he was from Cappadocia, Hierax had come to Rome from Iconium.

IV. It is not necessary to admonish what everyone sufficiently perceives, that baptism was accustomed to be given after the catechumens and the penitents were dismissed. For, as is evident from the testimony which we shall soon relate, whoever had been baptized was immediately led to the church, and the prayers of the liturgy took place. He briefly describes the *synaxes*, in which baptism was not given, in no. 67: "On the day called of the sun, a gathering of all who dwell in the cities or in the country takes place in the same place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as there is room. When the reader has finished, the one presiding ^D makes an admonition and exhortation through a discourse for the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together, and we send up prayers and, as we have said before, when we have ceased from prayer, bread is offered and wine and water, and the one presiding likewise sends up prayers and thanksgivings with all his might, and the people shout their assent, saying: Amen; and the distribution and communication of the things over which thanks have been offered is made to each, and to those not present it is sent by the deacons." On the day, as it is said, of the sun, of all, whether they dwell in the cities or in the fields...

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were read, and, as is prescribed in book II, c. 57 of the same Constitutions, individual presbyters and finally the bishop exhorted the people. Justin does not fight with this prescription, as he recounts the main points of the matter, and therefore says nothing about the catechumens and penitents being accustomed to be dismissed, and furthermore discusses that liturgy which was suitable even to churches having only one presbyter, *ho proestōs*, the one who presides, or the president, often designates the bishop among the ancients; sometimes also presbyters are endowed with this name, indeed the clergy generally are comprehended.

^A It was interrupted by an admonition, nor did the people respond *Amen* until it was entirely finished. That St. Firmilian indicates both sets of prayers—that is, both those that were performed when the catechumens and penitents had been dismissed, and those that were performed for the consecration of the Eucharist—is clear in his 75th epistle among those of Cyprian, where he speaks thus concerning a certain most wicked woman who arrogated prophecy to herself: “She even dared this frequently, that with an invocation not to be despised she might feign to sanctify bread and make the Eucharist, and offer a sacrifice to the Lord not without the sacrament of the customary preaching.” That invocation not to be despised corresponds to the long prayers for the consecration of the Eucharist; the sacrament of customary preaching corresponds to the common prayers, which I have already said are called *prædicationes* by St. Basil.

^C It seems somewhat more difficult to explain why Justin calls the prayers that were performed when the catechumens and penitents had been dismissed "common prayers," and separates them by this notion from those that pertain to the consecration of the Eucharist. For both types of prayers were performed commonly in the name of the Church; to the common prayers the deacon invited the people and aroused their attention; to the Eucharistic ones, the priest himself [invited them] by saying, *Sursum corda* (Lift up your hearts). I think the distinction arose from the fact that the voice of the people was heard in the first type of prayer, but in the other, that of the priest alone: whence St. Dionysius of Alexandria says, in Eusebius (lib. VII, c. 9), concerning a certain layman, that he had frequently heard the Eucharist, or thanksgiving, and had responded *Amen*. But there is another thing, which I believe the holy martyr followed in observing this distinction. He knew that those prayers which he calls "common" were of such a type that they do not necessarily require a sacerdotal character; but that the Eucharistic ones could not have their effect in any assembly unless they were celebrated by one who is marked and impressed with this character.

V. Justin indicates the second part of the liturgy with these words: *Afterwards, we all rise together and offer prayers.* Those prayers are called κηρύγματα (*kērygmata*), or preachings, in the 155th epistle of St. Basil. The deacon announced them, as can be seen in book VIII of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, where they are described in such a way that they are easily recognizable in these words of Justin (n. 65): “But we, after we have thus washed him who has testified to his faith and assent to our teaching, lead him to those who are called brothers, where they are gathered together, and will offer our common prayers with an intent mind—both for ourselves and for him who has been illuminated, and for all others everywhere—that we, having attained the knowledge of the truth, may be deemed worthy by this grace also to be found leading a life of right works and keepers of the commandments, so that we may obtain eternal salvation.” Justin rightly says that these prayers are offered for all others everywhere. For, as can be seen in book II of the *Constitutions* (c. 57), they prayed for the universal Church, for the whole world and its parts, for the fruits of the earth, for the priests and rulers, for the high priest, for the king, and for universal peace. See more in book VIII, c. 11, and epistle 155 of Basil.

He explains the consecration of the Eucharist, which is the chief part of the liturgy, more fully in n. 65: ^D *We greet one another with a kiss when we have finished the prayers. Then there is offered to the president of the brothers bread, and a cup of water and of mixed wine, and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all things through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and he makes the thanksgiving for being deemed worthy of these things from Him for a long time. And when he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people present express their assent by saying, Amen. The word Amen, in the Hebrew tongue, signifies, So be it. And when the president has given thanks and all the people have expressed their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine, and water, over which thanks have been given, and they carry them to those who are not present.* [Latin translation follows in original text: *Invicem osculo salutamus...*] It is not difficult to explain why Justin says the priest performs the Eucharist at length. For this prayer was much longer than those which had preceded it, as anyone can see for themselves in book VIII of the *Constitutions*, cap. 12, and although it might contain many things before and after the consecration, nevertheless, by no ministry of the deacons, by no...

VI. Concerning the holy communion, these words of Justin are not to be overlooked: “And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which it is not lawful for any to partake except him who believes that what we teach is true, and has been washed with that washing for the remission of sins and unto regeneration, and so lives as Christ handed down.” It seems the holy martyr wishes to indicate not only the care and solicitude of the priests that the unworthy should be barred from communion, but also refers to those things which were done immediately before communion, when the priest would say: *Holy things for the holy*, and the people would respond: *One is holy, one is Lord Jesus Christ.*

Justin honors the deacons greatly if he testifies that the consecrated species are distributed by them: a rite which did not prevail in the Roman Church, nor in the Jerusalemite, nor in that to which the one who attributed the *Constitutions* to the apostles was addicted. But the two places in which Justin speaks about the distribution of the Eucharist seem to be understood in such a way that the bread...

^A be said to have been carried by the deacons to those who were absent, and that the chalice was distributed to those who were present; which indeed is found to be consistent with the custom of the Church. The words of the holy martyr must certainly be restricted where it concerns those who were absent, and it must be understood of the consecrated bread alone when he says: "They who are called deacons among us distribute to each of those present the bread, and wine, and water, over which blessings have been pronounced, and carry them to those who are absent." For only the consecrated bread was accustomed to be carried to the absent. By a similar reasoning, that which is said about those who were present must be restricted; for they approached the altar and received the first species from the hand of the priest; the chalice was distributed by the deacons. This joining together of two words referring to different things was customary for Justin; we saw an example above in chapter 4, where we weighed Justin’s testimony concerning the angels. We have another in these words of the Dialogue, n. 82: "Lest you should attack the Scriptures and Christ with blasphemies, or strive to interpret them wickedly." As blasphemies are to be referred to Christ, and wicked interpretation to the Scriptures, so in the duties of deacons the same distinction is to be applied, so that they may be said to have distributed the chalice to those present, and to have carried the other species to those absent. So also Tertullian, *De pudic.*, c. 1: "From the fear and desire of eternal fire and the kingdom." In the other place Justin does not say that the Eucharist is distributed to those present by the deacons, but only that it is carried to the absent, which indeed is easy to understand regarding the first species. For he says: "Of those over whom thanks have been given, the distribution and communication takes place to each of those present, and it is sent to those absent by the deacons." The examples brought forward by Valesius in his notes to Eusebius' *Hist.*, p. 136 and 318, ought to be accepted as referring only to the chalice. For what the author of the booklet *On the Seven Grades of the Church*, Volume V of Jerome, p. 402, says: "As is the consecration in the priest, so in the minister is the dispensing of the sacrament... the former sanctifies the offerings, the latter dispenses the sanctified"; he himself explains this a little later regarding the chalice, which he testifies is handed by the deacon after the consecration of all the sacraments. ^B

Justin seems to exclude the deacons from the dispensation of those things which the faithful offered for the sustenance and maintenance of the clergy. For thus he speaks, n. 67: "Those who have plenty and are willing, give each as he chooses what he himself wishes, and that which is collected is deposited with him who presides, and he provides for orphans and widows, and for those who appear in want through sickness or any other cause, and also for those who are in bonds and for strangers sojourning from afar; and in a word, he takes care of all who are in need." These things, however, can be so explained that the supreme authority is said to reside with the bishops, and the administration, subjected to episcopal authority, with the deacons. For when in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. II, c. 25, the same power is attributed to the bishop as in this narrative of Justin; afterwards, c. 31 and 32, it is prescribed to the deacons that they distribute nothing whatsoever without the order of the bishop; which as ^C an argument is ^D indeed that they were able to bear some parts of the offerings to be dispensed.

CAPUT XI.

On the immortality of the soul and the state of demons and wicked men before the final judgment.

I. Justin's testimonies on the immortality of souls. II. What is read at the beginning of the Dialogue does not conflict with these. III. Tatian is defended against the most learned Abbot de Longuerue. IV. The testimonies of the Scriptures and the Fathers favor Justin and Tatian. V. Justin thinks that demons are not yet tormented by fire. VI. He thinks otherwise concerning evil men.

1. After I have discoursed on the aids granted by Christ the Savior for eternal life, it follows that we examine what Justin thought concerning the state of souls after death, and concerning the resurrection of the just, or the kingdom of a thousand years. But because there exist not a few things both in the holy martyr and in his disciple Tatian, which many suppose to conflict with the immortality of souls, nothing is to be done before accurately tracing what each of them thought about these matters; whether they believed that souls would be so diminished by punishments that they would at length return to nothingness.

As regards Justin, he had learned from Plato himself the immortality of souls, and it is not probable that he unlearned it in the Christian religion, if he had brought any good with him from the Platonic schools. Nay, rather, he defends the eternity of punishments, which are inflicted on the impious in the next life, as a dogma proper to the Christian religion, not even known to Plato. Similarly, indeed, Plato, he says in *Apology* 1, n. 8, said that the wicked, when they shall have come to Rhadamanthus and Minos, would be punished by them. But we say that the same is to happen to them, but by Christ; and that, with them existing in the same bodies together with their souls, and being punished with eternal punishment, not a circuit of a thousand years, as that one said, defined. He teaches, n. 17, that Christians believe and are persuaded that each one will give account for the merits of his actions in eternal fire, then thus he addresses the emperors, n. 18: "Look to the end of each of the former emperors, who died the death common to all: which if it escaped into a state devoid of sensation, it would be gain to all the wicked. But because sensation remains in all those who have existed, and eternal punishments are stored up; let it not irk you to be persuaded and believe these things to be true." He could not set any limit at all to eternal fire, since he attacks this error in Plato, and says it would be gain to the wicked if they escaped into a state devoid of sensation. These things are confirmed from n. 52, where he says thus: "But that which is said: *The sword shall devour you*, has not this force and meaning, that those who have not obeyed are to be killed by the sword; but the sword of God is fire, whose food become they who choose to commit evil in their mind. Hence he says: *The sword shall devour you. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.* But if he were speaking of a sword that cuts and immediately lets go, he would not say, *devour*." Isa. I, 20.

In the beginning of his second Apology, he calls Christians those who are persuaded that the wicked and the licentious will be tormented in eternal fire, while the worshippers of virtue will live in the company of God, beyond all suffering. Nor is he therefore to be said to have set a limit to the punishments of the wicked any more than to the rewards of the good. In the same place he mentions the praiseworthy zeal of a Christian woman, who, in order to reclaim her husband from his shameful deeds, warned him of the punishments in eternal fire awaiting those who live licentiously and contrary to right reason.

II. When I attempt to reconcile this doctrine of Justin with what is read at the beginning of the Dialogue with Trypho, which appear contradictory, it must be noted that those things were not argued by Justin himself, but by a certain Christian old man, whose words the holy martyr reports and approves. After the old man persuaded Justin that philosophers go entirely astray in their discussions about the soul and cannot explain what the soul is, he adds: "Neither should the soul be called immortal; for if it is immortal, it is also surely ingenerate." Then he asks Justin whether he believes the world is ingenerate. The old man praises him for denying it, and reasons thus: "But if the world is generated, it is necessary that souls also are generated, and that they are able not to exist. For they were made for the sake of men and other living beings, if you say they were generated separately and not together with their own bodies. Therefore they are not immortal." Justin agrees and asks the old man if he says the same about souls as Plato says about the world, which he determined was subject to corruption insofar as it was created, but yet would remain by the will of God; or whether he wishes it to be understood that Plato and Pythagoras were unaware of this. Then the old man: "I care nothing for Plato or Pythagoras, nor for anyone at all who opines such things. But the truth stands thus: you will perceive it from this: the soul is either life, or it has life. But if it is life, it does not have it of itself, but receives life from another, just as ^B motion moves something else other than itself. But no one would deny that the soul lives. Yet if it lives, it does not live because it is life, but because it is a participant in life. But that which is a participant in something is one thing, and that which it is a participant in is another. Now the soul is a participant in life, because God wills it to live; similarly, it will not be a participant at some time, whenever God does not will it to live. For the life of the soul is not its own, as God’s life is his own. But just as man does not always consist, nor is the body perpetually conjoined with the soul, but when it is necessary for the harmony to be dissolved, the soul leaves the body, and man no longer exists; similarly, when it is appropriate for the soul no longer to be, the vital spirit departs from it, and the soul no longer exists, but returns to that from whence it was drawn."

1º Justin denies this only to those souls which, being created, cannot consist by the condition of a created thing. Nor is the soul even to be called immortal. For if it is immortal, it is also surely ingenerate. He does not therefore reject that immortality which depends on the will of God, but that which some philosophers arrogated to themselves, who, as was said before, "since they posit an immortal and incorporeal soul, think they will suffer no punishment if they have done any evil (for an incorporeal thing cannot suffer), nor do they have need of God, since the soul is immortal."

2º These things are confirmed by what the old man adds: "If the world is generated, it is necessary that souls also are generated, and that they are able not to exist. Therefore they are not immortal." In this way, therefore, he denies that souls are immortal, in that they could not exist; nor does he establish that they will cease to exist at some time, but he contends that this could happen.

3º When he denies that the soul will live if God does not will it to live, the whole argument revolves around the nature of the soul, nor does the old man discuss the souls of the wicked any more than those of the just; but he contends that the nature of any soul is so constituted that it is neither life, nor is life its own. Wherefore it cannot be said that he set a limit to the punishments of the wicked any more than to the happiness of the just.

4º In plain words the old man declares that no souls die. For these words of his are to be rendered thus, as I observed in the notation on this place: *ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀποθνήσκειν φημὶ πάσας τὰς ψυχὰς ἐγώ*, etc. "Yet I do not say that any souls perish; for truly it would be a gain for the wicked. What then? That the souls of the pious remain in a better place, but those of the unjust and wicked in a worse, awaiting the time of judgment. Thus, when these have been judged worthy of God, they die no more; but those are punished as long as God wills them to exist and to be punished." If it were a gain for the wicked to die, therefore no souls die; for eternity is established for the just. The manner of speaking usurped by the old man often signifies "and nothing." Thus in Paul, Rom. III, 20: *Ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ*. By the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified. What the serpent said to the woman: *Τί ὅτι εἶπεν ὁ Θεός, οὐ μὴ φάγητε ἀπὸ παντὸς ξύλου τοῦ παραδείσου;* Why has God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? Gen. III, 1, in this—that the serpent lied—Irenaeus believes (lib. V, cap. 23), as do Tertullian (lib. II contra Marcionem, cap. 10), Ambrose (lib. De parad.), and Chrysostom (homil. 16 in Genes.), who think that the serpent attempted his first temptations to draw the woman away from God as if God had conceded the use of no tree.

5º Justin had asked the old man whether, as Plato does with the world, he himself does not claim that souls, of their own accord, receive immortality not from themselves, but from God.

The same Justin added that the Platonist claims only God is neither begotten nor subject to corruption, whereas all other things after Him are begotten and subject to corruption, and are such that they can be abolished and cease to be entirely, and that this itself is the cause why souls die and are punished. For if they were unbegotten, it would not happen that they should sin, and abound in folly, and be slothful or fierce, or of their own accord migrate into swine and serpents and dogs. In this opinion, nothing is taken away from the immortality of souls; they are simply begotten and are such that they can be abolished. ^B However, they are said to die insofar as they are subject to change and vices. We shall presently see that this state of corruption is often called death: the old man himself said a little earlier that the souls of the just, after they have attained the eternal state of happiness, die no more. Therefore, no suspicion of error remains in this old man, nor in Justin. Now, to the testimonies of Justin already cited, it is pleasing to add that from the *Dialogue*, n. 130: "We have learned from Isaiah that it will come to pass that the members of transgressors shall be devoured by the worm and unquenchable fire, remaining immortal, so that they may be a spectacle to all flesh." If he so firmly attributes immortality to the body, could he have denied it to the soul?

III. We have the opinion of Tatian clearly expressed in his *Oration against the Greeks*, in which he speaks thus, n. 25: “There is one who says that God is body; I, that He is incorporeal. That the world is indissoluble; I, that it is to be dissolved. That conflagration occurs at various times; I, that it will happen once. That the judges are Minos and Rhadamanthus; I, that it is God Himself. That only the soul is gifted with immortality; I, that the flesh also is [immortalized] with the soul.” But nevertheless, the very learned Abbot de Longuerue, in a dissertation which follows Tatian's oration in the Oxford edition, thinks that the immortality of the soul is denied by Tatian. "Tatian," he says, "ignorantly and impiously denies that the human soul is immortal by nature. He declares that the souls of some men die along with their bodies; ^C but that those of others are indeed dissolved, but do not die. And this new and thoughtless master teaches this conceit to the Greeks." The passage cited by the learned man occurs at n. 13, where it reads thus: “The soul is not immortal by itself, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet the same soul is capable of not dying. For it dies and is dissolved with the body when it does not know the truth; but it rises again later at the end of the world together with the body, receiving as its penalty death in immortality. And conversely, it does not die, even if it is dissolved for a time, if it is instructed in the knowledge of God.”

For by itself the soul is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it, and this is what was said:

“The darkness perceives not the light.”

^As to which some thought that many evils for the human race originated. Tatian denies that such souls are the same as demons, but in a very certain principle he posits that they survive and are immortal after they have migrated from the body. He says that man was created by the Word as an image of immortality, no. 7.

Therefore, Tatian did not suspect any other death of the soul besides that which proceeds from sins that exclude the Holy Spirit. For he thus established that man, if he is not a temple of the Holy Spirit, differs from beasts only in voice, while in all other respects he is of the same condition as them, as one who is not a likeness of God. It is therefore by no means surprising if he considers those to be dead who have withdrawn themselves from the Holy Spirit. Regarding such a death, we must understand what he says, no. 9: “Why is it that you watch out of greed because of fate? Why, because of fate, do you often die while frequently being covetous?”

In the same sentiment, he says that demons both die daily when they teach men to sin, and will die most especially when they are cast into punishments. “Demons do not easily die,” he says, no. 14, “for they are devoid of flesh, but while living they practice the customs of death; surely they die as often as they have instructed their followers to sin. Therefore, that which is currently their primary concern—so that they might not die similarly to humans—they will by no means escape when they begin to be punished; nor, as participants in eternal life, will they escape death of a certain kind in immortality. For just as we, to whom it now happens easily to die, will later receive immortality with pleasure, or ^B immortality with pain; so also demons, who abuse the present life for sinning and die throughout their whole life, will again have immortality—the same in nature as when they were living, but in the manner of their punishment similar to those men who, at the promptings of their own mind, carried out whatever the demons had prescribed to them while alive.

IV. All of Justin’s and Tatian’s doctrine concerning the immortality of the soul can be summarized thus: they deny that it is immortal by its own nature, but only by the will of God; they call it mortal insofar as it falls into vices. Both ways of speaking were customary among the ancients. St. Irenaeus teaches that souls are immortal by the will of God, not by their own nature. “For just as the heaven,” he says, lib. II, c. 34, n. 2, “and the remaining stars, and all their ornaments, although they were not before, were made, and persist for a long time according to the will of God; so also regarding souls, and spirits, and altogether all these things which have been made, one who reflects will by no means sin, since all things which have been made have a beginning of their being made, but they persist for as long as God wills them both to be and to persist.” But what concerns that death of the soul, which comes from wickedness and is led to eternal torments, there is nothing more agreeable to the custom of speaking of Scripture and the Fathers. The second death, mentioned in many places in the Apocalypse, means nothing else. That death, which entered through one man, is the death of both soul and body. “The devil,” says Augustine, lib. IV *De Trin.*, n. 15, “brought a simple death to accomplish our double death. For through impiety he has died in the spirit.” The same, lib. XIV, n. 6: “Indeed, the soul also has its own death, when it lacks the blessed life.” And lib. I, n. 15: “Changeableness itself is not inappropriately called mortality, according to which even the soul is said to die.” It is not pleasing to collect more on a matter that is manifest and explored.

V. I hope it has been shown sufficiently and more than enough that Justin felt nothing regarding the immortality of souls that would be unworthy of Christ’s martyr; but another question of no small weight remains: whether he believed that demons and wicked men are being tormented with fire even now.

There is little doubt that Justin believed the punishments of demons were deferred until the final and general judgment. His disciple Tatian, who had not yet fallen away from his master’s doctrine when he was writing his *Oration against the Greeks*, teaches this plainly in the passages cited just now. The martyr's opinion can be perceived from these words in *Apol.*, I, n. 28: “For among us,” he says, “the prince of evil demons is called the serpent and Satan and the devil, as you may discover by searching our writings. This one Christ has shown will be sent into the fire along with his army and the men who follow him, so that they may be tormented for endless ages. For the delay, by which God has until now prevented this, has happened for the sake of the human race.” To the same sentiment points what the holy martyr was saying, as Irenaeus testifies: that the ^C demon, before Christ came, had not yet clearly known himself to be damned, so that he frustrated himself with that foolish opinion, as if he had escaped God’s notice. “Well,” says Irenaeus, lib. V, c. 26, “did Justin say that before the Lord’s advent Satan never dared to blaspheme God: for he did not yet know his own condemnation.” Petavius observes, lib. I, *De angelis*, c. 3 and 4, that these authors followed Justin’s opinion regarding the ignorance of condemnation: the author of the *Poems against Marcion*, l. I, c. 3; Eusebius, lib. IV *Hist.*, c. 18; Epiphanius, *Hæres.* 39; Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. II, epist. 90; Ecumenius on the last chapter of 1 Peter; and not without merit does he reckon that it follows from this that these writers believed the punishments of the devil in eternal fire were deferred to the final judgment.

But as for what is attributed to the same Fathers, lib. I, cap. 8—that the Demon had some hope of obtaining salvation through Christ—that can indeed be attributed to Epiphanius; for he declares that openly. But ^D of Justin and those who related his words, like Irenaeus and...

Eusebius, or, as the author of the poem against Marcion, Isidore, and Oecumenius did, another cause seems to be at work. ^A For Irenaeus brings forward this reason why Justin said that the devil had not yet been informed of his own condemnation: “because it was spoken of him thus in the parables and allegories of the prophets. But after the coming of the Lord, learning clearly from the words of Christ and his apostles that the eternal fire was prepared for him because of his own will, he having departed from God, and for all who persevere in apostasy without repentance; through such men he blasphemes, as if already condemned, the God who brings judgment, and imputes the sin of his apostasy to his Creator and not to his own will and deliberation; just as those who transgress the laws and pay the penalties complain of the legislators, ^B but not of themselves.” There is no trace here of hope in Christ the Lord; he repeats the hesitation of Satan and his ignorance of his lot from the fact that his condemnation was not preached as openly in the Old Testament as it was in the New. Moreover, Irenaeus thinks that Satan reached such a point of stupidity that he attempted to hide from God, not by himself, but by blaspheming through heretics. “For he himself,” says Irenaeus in the same place, “does not dare to blaspheme his own Lord nakedly, just as in the beginning he led man astray through the serpent, as if hiding from God.” Therefore, Justin and Irenaeus never imagined that Satan had hoped in Christ; but rather they argue his utter stupidity, since he could consider that he might be hidden from God. But the fact that they defer the punishments of the fire owed to him until the final judgment; Petavius, in *De Angelis*, book III, chapter 4, contends that this opinion, approved by all the most venerable Fathers—among whom he could count Hilary in *Psalm* CXLIII—was recorded by St. Thomas without any note of error and was defended by Cajetan without any charge of error. ^C “The opinion of the ancients,” he says, “although it is not accepted at this time, because theologians generally feel that the demons undergo all the punishments of their damnation, which are indeed called essential; yet one ought not to be accused of error, much less heresy, who asserts that the devil and his angels are not yet tormented with the extreme and ultimate punishment, or experiencing the efficacy of the fire, in which the fullness of their damnation, as far as concerns sensation and suffering, consists.” He speaks the same way about Cajetan: “It is certain that Cajetan’s opinion is not contrary to the Catholic faith. For neither Scripture nor any council has hitherto taught that the demons undergo those extreme punishments which the Judge himself says are prepared for them.” Whence the learned editor of the works of St. Irenaeus, Dom René Massuet, in *Dissert.* 3, art. 9, holds Grabe to be caught in clear calumny and cornered, for having dared to reproach the Roman Church because, in this as in other matters, it had departed from the opinion of the holy Fathers and of their own founders, Peter and Paul.

Moreover, the holy Fathers, while they defer the punishment of fire to the final judgment, should not therefore be thought to exempt the devil from all torment in the interim. ^D This is indeed proven by these words of St. Hilary: “For at the coming of the Lord,” he says in *Psalm* CXLIII, “the power of the devil was broken and crushed, since it was subjected to the faith of holy men, not that it does not still have the greatest strength of its power, but by the fact that it is in some way subjected, it is prepared by the condition of its present subjection for vengeance and legitimate punishment: so that now, through this same subjection, being touched it smokes, although it is not yet entirely burnt; but through the fact that it could smoke in the interim, it must be recognized that it can be burnt.” To this we can add what the same Hilary says in his book *Against Constantius*, n. 8, that demons groan at the venerable bones of the martyrs and are burnt without fires; which indeed many other ancient writers have testified, as the scholarly annotations on this place of St. Hilary prove.

VI. The holy martyr does not by any means defer the tortures of wicked men, as he does those of the demons, to the final judgment. Yet it might seem that he does defer them in the testimonies brought forward above, in which he joins wicked men with demons and decrees that the punishments of fire are prepared for both. But elsewhere he clearly declares that the souls of the wicked are tormented even now. He speaks thus in the *Cohortatio*, n. 55: “For you will not sin against your ancestors if you now wish to be carried to the side contrary to their error; the souls of whom it is likely even now, having been led to late repentance in hell, are mourning; and if it were possible that they should announce to you from there what transpired for them after the end of this current life, you would surely know how many evils they wish you had been freed from.” And in *Apology* I, n. 12: “But we are your greatest helpers and allies for peace, who teach these things, that it is entirely impossible for the evildoer, or the greedy, or the conspirator, or the virtuous man to be hidden from God, and that each one proceeds to either punishment or salvation according to the merits of his actions.” And n. 20: “But when we say that the souls of the wicked are punished, even after death, while provided with sensation, and that those of the good are freed from punishments and are in a happy state, we will be seen to say the same things as the poets and philosophers.” It is clear that Justin is dealing with the state of souls before the resurrection, and already declares the wicked to be subject to torments. Thus also that old Christian, whose testimony I cited above, said that the souls of the wicked were awaiting judgment in a worse place. Wherefore, when Justin says that wicked men will be consigned to eternal fire with the demons after the final judgment, this is to be understood of that new state in which not only the soul, but the body itself also will be tormented with the soul. The very opinion of Justin concerning Christ, who is to come to defeat the Antichrist and who is to send him and those who obey him into the lake of fire, as Irenaeus says, book IV, chapter 30, is an argument that he recognized that the punishments of fire were inflicted upon wicked men before the final judgment.

CAPUT XII. De his quæ ad regnum mille annorum pertinent.

^A To Justin, the principal error of the heretics does not seem to be this: from this arose his indignation, that they said these things out of hatred for the resurrection and the Creator. In the *Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Justin* we read: "Then the prefect turned to Justin and said: 'Listen, you who are called an educated man and think you hold the true teaching. If you are scourged and beheaded, do you have the conviction that you will ascend into heaven?' Justin replied: 'I hope that I shall have that which those who have kept the dogmas of Christ shall have, if I endure these very things you speak of. For I know that for all who have lived in such a way, the divine grace is preserved until the whole world is consumed.'" To this the prefect Rusticus replied: "Therefore you suppose that you will ascend to heaven, to receive some reward?" "I do not suppose it," said Justin, "but I know and hold it as so certain that I have no doubt." It is not difficult to notice what the difference is between the prefect's questioning and Justin's response. The prefect thought the martyrs hoped they would fly up to heaven immediately, and he sought to know if Justin was held by the same hope. Justin not obscurely rejects that reward to the time of the resurrection, and says that the divine grace is preserved until the whole world is consumed.

I. The most celebrated sentiment of the Millenarians, in the defense of which Justin stood second only after Papias, contains many fictional notions, some of which should not be attributed to the holy martyr, and some of which cannot be propelled away by him. The Millenarians are accused because they deny the vision of God to the saints before the general resurrection of all; because they say that before this general resurrection all the righteous will return to this life, and will live for a thousand years with Christ in Jerusalem; because they dream of circumcision, Sabbaths, and a sum of corporal pleasures in this earthly kingdom of Christ. We must weigh what Justin had determined concerning these things; nor should it be omitted whether this error, which he shares with many of the Fathers, ought to be considered of such weight that the authority of their testimony in other matters should be diminished.

What Justin said concerning the state of the saints before the Incarnation, some have mistakenly supposed to have been said also of those who died after the ascension of Christ. Since the holy martyr had persuaded himself that the soul of Samuel had truly been evoked by the works of magic arts, from this he concluded that the souls of the righteous were not yet free from all authority of evil powers before the Incarnation. "It appears, however," he says in the *Dialogue*, n. 105, "that the souls of such righteous men and prophets fell under the power of such virtues, of such a nature as the virtue that was in that ventriloquist, as is declared by the things themselves." A truly absurd opinion, but one which would be much more absurd if—as should not be attributed to Justin, nor to others who have said similar things—this domination by evil spirits over the saints were such that they vexed and punished them at their own will. From Justin's words, only this is gathered: that it was permitted to demons, with God allowing it, to have power over the souls of the saints, just as it was once permitted to the devil over the body of Christ itself, not without Christ's permission.

^C But in whatever place Justin locates the souls of the saints before the resurrection, he declares not obscurely in both *Apologies* that even then they enjoy eternal blessedness and the vision of God. For he brings forward this reason why Christians willingly meet death for Christ, *Apol.* 1, n. 8: "We do not wish to live bound by a lie. For, desirous of an eternal and pure life, we strive and hasten to our home with God, the Father and maker of all, and we hasten to confess, since we are persuaded and believe that these good things can be attained by those who have testified to God, by their deeds, that they have followed Him and have loved that home with Him, where no vice resists." In the preceding chapter, I cited two other testimonies from the same *Apology*, in one of which he says that from this life everyone proceeds, according to the merits of their actions, to either eternal punishment or salvation; in the other, he pronounces that the souls of the good leaving the body are blessed. In *Apol.* 2, n. 2, he speaks thus of the martyr Lucius, who was ordered away to punishment: "But ^D he even gave thanks, when he recognized that he was departing from such wicked masters to the Father and King of heaven." (See n. 4).

Justin is not alone among those who admit the kingdom of a thousand years in feeling this way. Irenaeus seems to hold the view of distinguished martyrs. For he speaks thus of them *lib.* IV, 33, n. 9: "The Church in every place, because of the love which it has for God, sends a multitude of martyrs ahead to the Father." Regarding all the saints, Lactantius *lib.* III, cap. 12: "They, however," he says, "who dispute about the immortality of the soul, ought to have understood that virtue was proposed to us so that, with lusts subdued and the desire for earthly things overcome, pure and victorious souls might return to God, that is, to their own origin." St. Methodius, who

in his ninth discourse adopts the reign of a thousand years, and in his eighth explicitly promises heaven to those virgins who are freed from the body.

II. Regarding the reign of a thousand years, some things must be observed and distinguished in this wrongly expected event so that the doctrine of Justin, which is by no means set forth in order but is sprinkled throughout various places, may be collected and illustrated. Before Christ comes gloriously from the clouds, they thought that the Antichrist would reign cruelly on earth and devise horrible evils and punishments for the servants of God. Justin already believed him to be at the doors (Dialog. no. 32). From this it follows that the advent of Christ was by no means thought to have been greatly delayed by him. For he restricted the reign of the Antichrist to three years and six months (ibid.). But he asserts that Christ would then come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy also speaks great things against the Most High on earth and will dare unspeakable things against us Christians (no. 110). We have the same in Irenæus, bk. v, ch. 30, no. 4: "But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, reigning for three years and six months, and shall have sat in the temple at Jerusalem, then the Lord will come from the heavens in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending him and those who obey him into the lake of fire; but bringing to the just the times of the kingdom, that is, the sanctified seventh day of rest, and restoring to Abraham the promise of the inheritance: in which kingdom, says the Lord, many shall come from the East and West and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." But between the reign of the Antichrist and the advent of Christ, ^A two memorable events intervene: the mission of Elijah and the conversion of the Jews.

Although Justin by no means conceals from the Jews whatever their obstinate mind in error deserved to hear, he nowhere reproaches them with that ultimate crime which they were said to be about to commit by adoring the Antichrist and subjecting themselves to his laws. Irenæus declares this in clear words, bk. III, ch. 25, no. 4: "And the Lord also said to those who did not believe him: 'I came in the name of my Father, and you did not receive me; when another shall come in his own name, him you will receive,' calling the Antichrist 'other,' who is a stranger to the Lord, and he is the unjust judge who was called such by the Lord, because he did not fear God, nor did he revere man—to whom the widow fled, having forgotten God, to be avenged of her enemy. Which he will also do in the time of his kingdom: he will transfer the kingdom to her, and sits in the temple of God, seducing those who adore him, as if he himself were Christ." According to Jerome, the Millenarians felt that the Jews would follow the Antichrist, and afterwards would abandon him. For they referred that of Hosea, "I will allure her" (ch. II, 14), to the time of the Antichrist, so that those who had not received the truth of Christ might receive the lie of him, and afterwards be saved when Christ arrives. ^B

III. This conversion of the Jews and the mission of Elijah for the execution of this work are explicitly mentioned by St. Justin. He declares that Elijah will come with glory and splendor, so that just as his spirit existed as a forerunner of the first and humble advent in John, so he himself might be the forerunner of the second and glorious one. When Trypho said that Christ had not yet come because Elijah, who is to anoint him, had not yet come, Justin responds that Elijah is to be the forerunner of the terrible and great day, that is, of the second advent. "And this very thing," he says, no. 49, "our Lord handed down as something that would happen, when he said that Elijah also was to come. And we know that this will indeed happen, when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come gloriously from the heavens; the Spirit of God, which was in Elijah, having preceded his first advent as a herald in John, the prophet of your race." And a little later: "Just as when Moses was still living among men, God transferred from that spirit which was in Moses to Joshua, so could God transfer from Elijah to John; so that just as Christ appeared inglorious at his first advent, so also his Spirit—which always remained pure and integer in Elijah—might be understood as the first, inglorious advent of Christ."

This ministry of Elijah seemed destined primarily for the conversion of the Jews. For there was no doubt in Justin’s mind that Christ, upon arriving, would receive the Jews and make them participants, along with the other faithful, of the promised goods in the city of Jerusalem. ^C "With these words," he says, no. 33, 'The Lord sware and will not repent: Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedech'; God, having interposed an oath on account of your incredulity, declared that priest to be after the order of Melchisedech: that is, just as Melchisedech is written by Moses to have been a priest of the Most High, and he was a priest of those who were in the uncircumcision, and blessed Abraham who offered him tithes in circumcision; so God declared that his eternal priest, who is also called Lord by the Holy Spirit, would be the priest of those in the uncircumcision, and would receive those who come to him—that is, those who believe in him and seek the blessing from him—and would bless them. Tertullian, cited on this passage, understood these things regarding the future conversion of the Jewish race.

These things can be confirmed by another passage where Trypho, delighted in a wonderful manner by the things he had heard from Justin regarding the new earthly Jerusalem, asks whether Justin spoke in this way truly and from the heart: "Tell me, do you truly admit that this place Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, and do you expect that your people will be gathered together with Christ, and with the patriarchs and prophets and those of our own race, and also with the proselytes who became such before your Christ came, or are you saying this to appear to prevail—" ^D

indeed, in your disputations, to admit these things?" ^A Well, tell me, say I: Do you truly confess that this place, Jerusalem, will be restored, and do you expect that your people will be gathered together and live joyfully with Christ, together with the patriarchs and prophets and those of our own race, or those who were converted before your Christ arrived; or did you take refuge in admitting this merely to appear to us to prevail abundantly in these controversies? I had believed these words—"before your Christ comes"—to refer to the first advent, and therefore that what precedes is to be understood concerning the Jews and their proselytes who were saved by faith before the Incarnation; but, having considered the matter more accurately, I think that Trypho was speaking about the second advent and about the Jewish nation that is to be converted at the ministry of Elijah, and about those who, from among that nation, had joined themselves or were to join themselves to the Christians before that general conversion. For what Justin had conceded so filled Trypho with joy that he could scarcely believe it; he suspected that Justin had done so out of confidence in his own powers, not because he truly and sincerely felt this way. Yet, surely, if Justin had only conceded this—that Jerusalem was to be restored, but that the Jews would not enter it, but would come to utter destruction with the Antichrist—such an opinion should not have soothed Trypho, but rather have inflamed him with anger and rage. But since the Jews hoped that they would be recalled to Jerusalem from the captivity into which they had fallen, and that there, with the one whom they imagined to be the Christ, they would rule over all the nations, it could not but be welcome to Trypho that Justin and other Millenarians had thought as they did about the Jews being recalled to Jerusalem. ^B Furthermore, Trypho turns his attention to what Justin had said in section 28, when he thus exhorted the Jews: "Do not delay, nor do you doubt to believe me, a man uncircumcised. For this short time remains for you to come over to us. If Christ forestalls you in coming, you will repent in vain, you will wail in vain; for He will not hear you." Bearing these things in mind, Trypho adapts himself to the admonitions of Justin, so that from among the Jews dead or about to die before the conversion of the nation, he admits no one into the new Jerusalem unless he has given his name to Christ. Wherefore his words, "and of those who have become proselytes," are not to be taken concerning proselytes of the Jews before the Incarnation, but concerning the Jews themselves converted to the Christians before the second advent and that conversion of the Jewish people under the ministry of Elijah.

IV. As regarding the wars and victories of the Antichrist, so too concerning the punishments that Christ, arriving gloriously from heaven, was to exact from the Antichrist and from the kings joined with the Antichrist, we do not have much in Justin. There is little doubt, however, that he felt the same as Irenæus and Lactantius wrote concerning these wars and victories; for he says, in section 39, that it will come to pass that Christ at His glorious advent will destroy all enemies. "The demons tremble," he says, in section 49, "at Christ crucified," ^C and indeed at all the principalities and powers of the earth. And, in section 121: "Even the demons are subject to His name, and all principalities and kingdoms tremble at His name above all the dead." And, in section 11: "For that power is, and was, and shall be of one and of the sole One, whose name even every principality trembles at, withering away because it is to be overthrown by Him." See section 151.

But it is most of all to be observed that Justin, even though he places a thousand years between the second advent of Christ and the final judgment, is nevertheless accustomed to speak as if no interval of time elapsed between the two events. He promises eternal salvation to those who believe in the second advent, which is to be glorious; he threatens eternal fire to those who do not believe. Thus also, in section 45, he says it will come to pass that death at the second advent of Christ himself will utterly disappear from those who believe in Him and so live that they might please Him, and it will no longer exist; while others will be sent to the judgment and condemnation of fire to be tormented forever, and others will obtain immortality and a state free from suffering, corruption, and pain. Hence he often mentions the late repentance and useless wailing of the Jews who crucified Christ in the second advent. He deals, in section 14, with the double advent, in the one of which the Jews who slew Christ shall wail. And, in section 32, recalling to memory those things which he had said in section 14, he speaks thus: "If I had not explained His double advent, the one in which you shall recognize whom you pierced, and the tribes shall wail, tribe by tribe, the women apart and the men apart; I would seem to say things obscure and uncertain." Justin does not understand this wailing to be that which the Jews will make when they come to Christ, but the lamentation and wailing which he denies that Christ will hear if He has already come to judge, section 28. He urges the Jews, section 118, to repent before that great day of judgment comes, in which all of their tribes who pierced Christ shall wail.

Justin appears, for this reason, to join the final judgment with the second advent, although he separated both, because, before he adopted this doctrine of the thousand-year reign, he was accustomed to speak that way, nor did a new opinion draw him away from the habit of the common ^D discourse. For it is not likely that he admitted two judgments, just as Lactantius does, book VII, ch. 20, the first at the very advent of Christ, in which only those who have been occupied in the religion of God will be judged, the second after a thousand years.

I very much doubt whether Justin was imbued with this opinion of an earthly kingdom when he wrote his first Apology. For in this I find no trace of this fiction, although many occasions occurred for discussing these matters, especially concerning the sad end of the Roman empire, from which terror could have been struck into the persecutors. Nor was Justin the man who would either dissimulate the truth out of fear, or who could not reconcile just liberty with the reverence due to the emperor. Indeed, he even in this Apology [mentions] the resurrection

of the good and the bad, and he links the final judgment with the second coming in such a way that he appears to follow not only the common teaching but also the common opinion. ‹For, he says (n. 52), the prophets foretold two comings of Him: one which has already occurred, as that of a man despised and subject to suffering; the other, when He is predicted to come from the heavens with glory together with His angelic host, when He shall also raise the bodies of all men who have ever existed, and shall clothe the bodies of the worthy with incorruption, but shall cast those of the wicked, along with the evil demons, into eternal fire for everlasting punishment. ›

In what place Christ is said to be about to judge all men, neither Irenaeus nor Lactantius mentioned. But Justin did not keep silent about this. For he says in the *Dialogue*, n. 40, that it is destined to happen so that the Jews may recognize Him in the same place in Jerusalem whom they treated with contumely.

V. It requires no great effort for us to repel, from Justin and Irenaeus and others of that kind, whatever had the most vicious opinions regarding an earthly kingdom, such as Sabbaths, sacrifices, circumcision, and fleshly pleasures. However, because some—among these Tillemont, Vol. II, p. 424—deny that they excluded the necessity of eating and drinking from this state, the matter is not to be lightly passed over. Justin, *Dialogue*, num. 51, says that Christ predicted that ^B He would have to suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise on the third day, and that it would come to pass that He would come again to Jerusalem, and then eat and drink together with His disciples, and that in the meantime, while He was to come, false priests and false prophets would arise in His name. When I read that Christ eats and drinks together with His disciples, I do not fear that Justin constrains the resurrected just with the daily need for food and drink; rather, I understand it as the spiritual delights with which he thought Christ would feast the just in the new Jerusalem. For he understands spiritually that saying of Christ, n. 120: *For they shall come from the East and the West and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.* He promises life immune from all corruption in this earthly kingdom, num. 24, where he speaks thus: ‹Be present with me, all you who fear God, who desire to see the good things of Jerusalem. Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has freed His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations, let us gather in Jerusalem, which is no longer besieged due to the sins of the peoples. › And, n. 139: Christ, according to the power of the almighty Father delivered to Him, has come, and calling them into friendship, and blessing, and repentance, and society, He promised a future possession of all the saints in the same land, as has now been demonstrated. Whence, from whatever region they may be, whether slaves or free, believing in Christ and acknowledging the truth of those things delivered by Him and by the prophets, they know that they shall be with Him in that land, and that they shall receive eternal and incorruptible goods. ^A Many have interpreted the opinion of the Millenarians entirely in a sinister way, while they less observe the testimonies of Scripture in which a great abundance of things pertaining to sustenance and worship, and a great multitude of children, is promised, as having been understood by the Fathers to mean that they attributed spiritual goods to the resurrected just, and corporeal goods to those whom Christ will find alive on earth. See the Annotation to n. 81. This distinction is manifest in Irenaeus, who, lib. v, c. 35, n. 1, contends that the testimonies of Scripture regarding the resurrection of the just are directed without controversy to that which happens after the coming of the Antichrist, and to those whom the Lord will find in the flesh, awaiting Him from the heavens and having suffered tribulation, and who have also escaped the hands of the iniquitous. And they are those of whom the ^B prophet says: *And those left behind shall be multiplied on the earth.* There is no doubt that he also attributes to the last times those things which follow in Isaiah lxv, 21, and which had been cited a little earlier by Irenaeus: *And they shall build houses, and they themselves shall inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat.* Wherefore, what Irenaeus says in c. 33, n. 1, concerning the just drinking with Christ of the fruit of the vine, does not seem to me to indicate so much a daily use of food and drink for the support of necessity, as the ability to eat and drink, such as Christ had after the resurrection, to establish the reality of the flesh.

CHAPTER XIII.

I. Some light criticisms are refuted in passing. II. Whether Justin rightly praised the martyrs who offered themselves voluntarily. III. Some errors of Justin should not diminish his authority. IV. The opinion of the thousand-year reign is objected to in vain for the sake of overturning tradition.

1. It is not pleasing to waste time in refuting some things which declare the malevolent mind of the critic rather than argue a fault timely chastised. J. Barbeyrac carps at Justin in the book *On the Moral Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church*, because, by these words of Christ: *Do not swear at all*, restricted [in the original] by no exception whatsoever (Apol. 1, num. 16), he himself left it in ambiguity whether he considered an oath legitimate even for a very grave reason, and at the same time gave the gentiles an occasion to believe that the oath had been entirely abolished and forbidden by Christ. A truly great sacrilege admitted by the holy martyr, and a great occasion of error given to the gentiles, because he did not teach in what places and times it is permitted to swear, and because he persuaded them that Christians obey the precept of Christ, although they cannot be led even by the most grave tortures to swear by the fortune of Caesar. But yet, Justin does not seem to accept the words of Christ without any exception at all. For he thus refers to His precept concerning swearing: περὶ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ὀμνύναι ὅλως, τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεὶ, οὕτως παρεκελεύσατο· Μὴ ὀμόσητε ὅλως· ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ, ναὶ, καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ, etc. ‹But that we should not swear at all...›

but always speak the truth, he thus commanded: Do not swear at all; but let your Yes be Yes, and your No, No, etc.› ^A Not obscurely does Justin teach that there would be no use for an oath if men always spoke the truth, and there were no place for a lie. For thus he interprets the words of Christ, as if it had been said: Do not swear at all, but always speak the truth. Therefore, he determines that the oath is employed because of the lies existing among men: he opposes the custom of swearing with the custom of saying what is true in all things always; he thinks the former is entirely abolished by Christ, whereas Christ sanctions and prescribes the latter. He who reasons in this way does not consider that species of oath to be condemned, the necessity for which is sometimes imposed by just suspicions arising from deceits and lies that trouble society.

The author of the fragment on the resurrection, which we have published in the Appendix, censures an iniquitous marriage born of lust, « τὸν δι᾽ ἐπιθυμίας ἄνομον γάμον. » How could the same writer criticize this sentiment? For what could be more agreeable to this precept, that all things be done in charity, and whether we eat or drink, or whatever else we do, we do all to the glory of God? [*]

Regarding the boldness of that youth who petitioned the prefect of Alexandria by a supplication that he might be granted leave to have his testicles removed by a physician; Justin uses this act in *Apol. 1*, n. 29, as an argument for the innocence of Christians; he does not say the thing itself is agreeable to divine law; he praises the youth because, having been denied this leave, he cultivated perpetual virginity, but by no means because he had intended to carry out, as wicked interpretations had persuaded many, what the physicians had refused.

II. S. Justin’s view on martyrdom must be considered more carefully, as it has not escaped the censure of that same learned man. There have been approved ^B S. martyrs who, burning with charity and filled with the Holy Spirit, announced themselves to be Christians to the judges without anyone accusing them. He confesses that he was moved by an admiration for their virtue so that he might recognize the innocence of the Christians. «For even I myself,» he says, *Apol. 2*, n. 12, «when I took delight in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the charges cast against Christians, while seeing them unafraid of death and all other things that are deemed fearful, I understood it to be impossible that they should live in wickedness and the love of pleasures. For who that is lustful and intemperate, and counts the feasts of human flesh among his goods, could embrace death so as to lose his goods, and not rather strive to stay in this life always and hide from the magistrates; let alone betray himself to be condemned to death?» It is not, therefore, surprising if the praises of that same *Apol. 2* were earned by the martyr Lucius, who, seeing S. Ptolemy being dragged to punishment, rebuked the iniquity of the judge, and, having immediately confessed that he was a Christian, was seized along with him; then ^C a certain third person arriving and being condemned to the same punishment. How could Justin have disparaged such martyrs—Justinus, who, when called into judgment, not only voluntarily professed himself to be a Christian but also did not hesitate to approach the emperors themselves while they sat upon their tribunal to act as a defender of the Christians?

That flight in persecutions is praiseworthy and often absolutely necessary is a matter so certain and established by the precepts and examples of Scripture and tradition that no one can gainsay it, unless one who might not be ashamed to be joined to the Montanists or the persecutors of S. Athanasius. Yet, not everyone is always bound by the precept of flight: otherwise, the great Polycarp would not have escaped censure, nor many others who, though they could have looked to their own safety by flight, preferred to come into the hands of the soldiers. Thus, also, is the respect due to so many martyrs, who offered themselves up, allowed only to note and blame those whom a rash impulse, rather than charity, drove on.

Such was a certain Quintus, regarding whom the Church of Smyrna thus interposes its judgment in the letter concerning the martyrdom of S. Polycarp, n. 4: « Εἷς δὲ ὀνόματι Κοΐντος, Φρύξ, προσφάτως ἐληλυθὼς ἀπὸ τῆς Φρυγίας, ἰδὼν τὰ θηρία ἐδειλίασεν. Οὗτος δὲ ἦν ὁ παραβιασάμενος αὐτόν τε καί τινας προσελθεῖν ἑκόντας. Τοῦτον ὁ ἀνθύπατος πολλὰ ἐκλιπαρήσας ἔπεισεν ὁμόσαι καὶ ἐπιθῦσαι. Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐπαινοῦμεν τοὺς προσιόντας ἑαυτοῖς, ἐπειδὴ οὐχ οὕτως διδάσκει τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. » ‹ "But one, Quintus by name, a Phrygian, who had recently arrived from Phrygia, when he saw the beasts, was struck with fear. Now this was the man who had forced both himself and some others to come forward of their own accord. The proconsul, after many entreaties, persuaded him to swear and to sacrifice. Therefore, brothers, we do not praise those who present themselves, since the Gospel does not teach us to do so." › ^D Only this Quintus is censured, and those who followed his impetus, not his fall, do not share in the shame with him. That word *parabiasamenos* declares his own voluntary rash impulse; but the authority of Eusebius is added, who, relating the sense of this passage and not the words in *Hist.*, iv, 15, says this man was *propetesteron, all' ou kat' eulabeian*, "led by a certain rashness and levity, not with a pious and religious movement, and had rushed to the tribunal together with some others." For what is read in the letter, "we do not praise those who present themselves," Eusebius observes that it is not permitted for such men *parakindynos kai aneulabos katatolman*, "to expose themselves to dangers with precipitous audacity and without any regard for their own infirmity." Whence Cotelerius noted these things: "In recounting these, Eusebius acted a little too freely and not faithfully enough, fearing, I suppose, that prejudice might be caused to the many martyrs who, at God’s instigation, offered themselves to the judges." The sentiment of S. Clement of Alexandria, unless it be explained in the same way that he explained the Smyrnan letter

^A of Eusebius, will appear immoderate; for he censures not only those who offer themselves, but even those who do not flee (Strom. V, p. 508). S. Peter of Alexandria seems to have determined this matter more precisely. In those who had come forward of their own accord to confess, he requires a prudence consistent with the examples of Christ and the apostles, but nevertheless declares that one must commune with them, as those who did this in the name of Christ, as it is written in Canon 9: "for they are those who pass through to this in the name of Christ."

There were certainly many occasions in which it seemed laudable for a person to offer himself; namely, when those who had been overcome in the first struggle and had offered sacrifice returned to the fight with renewed strength. S. Cyprian is authority in Epistle 14 for those seeking communion sooner than is just, that by returning to the fight they might obtain the hoped-for peace. S. Peter of Alexandria, in Canon 8, grants communion to those who were victorious in the second battle, to which they had come forward of their own accord, and declares their action to be most perfect penance. The most learned man, Eusebius Renaudot, testifies in *Perpet. fid.* (vol. V, lib. III, c. 7) that it is prescribed among the Copts and Jacobites that the lapsed return to the struggle. The holy Fathers acted with more leniency and did not think such a heavy burden should be imposed on those who had given such sorrowful proofs of infirmity. The reason why those who offered themselves of their own accord were not usually approved was the same consideration of human weakness which had sometimes led to unfortunate outcomes for those who had come forward to the struggle of their own will.

Most especially, however, the same writer is unjust toward Justin, when he claims that in the same Apology (no. 4) he answered the pagans, who were urging Christians to bring death upon themselves, in such a way that he did not censure that action. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the passage will recognize the contentious spirit of this man. For in chosen words, Justin declares that Christians would act against the will of God if they were to behave in such a way.

^B Miraculous, truly, are the reasonings of this learned man! The holy Fathers, destitute of the safeguard of criticism or initiated into the mysteries of bad philosophy, erred in some matters; therefore, their consensus, even where it is most unanimous, is of no weight in other matters. What more absurd thought could have come to mind? For the dogmas that we attest by citing the holy Fathers: could the defects of criticism and vicious philosophy avert them from these, or rather, could they have led them to invent them? We seek testimonies from the holy Fathers to prove that matter was created from nothing; that God is one in three persons; that all men were condemned by the sin of Adam, because all sinned in Adam; that the Son of God was truly born of a Virgin for the sake of our salvation, and is true God and true man; that no one can be justified except through the faith which operates in our hearts through the love diffused by the Holy Spirit; that there is one Church whose unity can never be ruptured, nor its faith corrupted; outside of which the Holy Spirit cannot be had. Could these and other such dogmas slip from their minds while they were heedlessly reading heretical books under the name of some saint, or listening to philosophers too incautiously? But who will ever say that by reading heretics or listening to philosophers, one arrives at this doctrine, for which we seek patronage from the holy Fathers?

^C I would also like to know what that infinite multitude of errors is, which was supposed to overflow from the boasted inspiration of the Seventy interpreters. For since it was agreed among all that the very context of Scripture was divinely inspired, was it not much more dangerous to believe that an interpretation was divinely inspired than that it was accurately and diligently elaborated? For in either opinion, the meaning that the interpretation represented in a foreign language should have been deemed equally handed down by God. No greater harm, therefore, was brought about by those who said the Seventy interpreters were moved by the Holy Spirit than by those who praised their diligence in interpreting.

III. But it must be admitted that there are some things in which Justin did not see the truth. Besides the reign of a thousand years, and the belief that angels had intimate relations with women, he thought that the version of the LXX interpreters was divinely inspired, and these flaws were common to him and many other ancient writers. What will the learned M. Barbeyrac conclude from this? ^D "If they could slip so carelessly," he says (c. 2, p. 14), "in such matters, what authority can we attribute to their consensus, even if it is most unanimous, in other matters in which they were at least equally liable to aberrations of false criticism and inferior philosophy?" If even this one example of the inspiration of the Seventy interpreters, which was generally believed before S. Jerome, is so bound up and connected with innumerable errors that it was naturally bound to follow, then nothing more is needed to overthrow the authority of the Fathers and of tradition, which they dare to equate with Scripture.

IV. The same writer also cites in chapter 1 those things which the authors of the learned Europe declared in the year 1718 regarding the reign of a thousand years adopted by many ecclesiastical writers: "Could it not be that those who lived with the apostles misunderstood their opinion and seemed to themselves to have received from them a doctrine which was nevertheless erroneous? This can certainly happen, for there is no lack of examples of similar errors. Papias said he had received from the apostles (Euseb., Hist., v, 39) that the saints would one day reign on earth with Christ for a thousand years; and this dogma, although false, was adopted by the most outstanding men of Christianity: Justin, Irenaeus, Nepos, Victorinus, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Quintus Julius Hilarion, Commodian, who by defending it seemed to themselves to be defending the apostolic tradition." It would be worth our while, therefore, to indicate to us by whom

it might be possible to know that the Fathers do not err, when they teach us the things which they say they received from the apostles or from apostolic men. For behold a false dogma, founded upon most venerable tradition. After Barbeyrac has reported these things, he adds of his own: "The author of the *Diary* will long wait for the solution of his difficulty."

If ever there existed a sophistry, or a syllogism consisting of four terms; here it surely exists and is manifestly detected. A false opinion is found, which some single writer says came to him from apostolic men: therefore, that whole tradition and complex of dogmas, which the apostles received from Christ and committed to the whole Church—not to any private individual—to be preached and preserved for all ages, must fall into suspicion. One of the ecclesiastical writers has erred and has offered the error to others, while he said that he had received certain things from apostolic men; therefore, the whole Church is suspect, while it declares with the highest consensus that it received the doctrine from the apostles. Many ecclesiastical writers have reasoned less well, while they follow some one older guide in obscure and uncertain matters: therefore, no authority is to be attributed to them, while they contend for the faith of the universal Church in manifest and most certain matters.

Indeed, truth would not be found easily, or rather could not be found at all, if the apostles had committed it to private men, who might handle it according to their own judgment, as in the sects of the philosophers: but they handed down that precious deposit to the Church diffused throughout the whole world. That deposit, however, concerning which the Church allows neither anything to be taken away nor added, is not always so clear and perspicuous in all its parts, that difficult questions do not sometimes arise, and that some dogmas may be less carefully handled by those very persons who are most observant of the whole tradition. Therefore, this one thing should be sought: by what marks may the opinion of each individual writer be distinguished from those things which proclaim the tradition committed to the Church. But the holy Fathers themselves have lessened this labor for us.

^C 1° The holy Fathers carefully distinguish the very substance of a dogma from those things which they discuss either to explain the more obscure passages of Scripture or to solve the puzzles and cavils of heretics. They think the Son of God, the Firstborn of all creation, is spoken of now on account of his human nature, now on account of his divine; the sophisms of the Arians and Eunomians are not always solved by all in one and the same way; they allow one thing or another to be said concerning the ignorance of the day; they allow that nothing should be attributed to Christ that is unworthy of God. Is it difficult in matters of this kind to distinguish the dogma itself from those things which are brought forward for its defense? Origen, while he luxuriates in conjecture, I know not by what means, in the Virgin Mother of God, who stood by the cross so generously and so constantly, desires constancy and faith for her suffering Son, homil. 27 on Luke. Following Origen, Basil, epistle 260, and some others, whom Petavius enumerates, lib. xiv De ^D Incarn., c. 1. Who does not see that such a conjecture may have escaped erudite writers, as is the nature of human talent, while they were concerned with something else? Moreover, in those things which they argue are most agreeable to tradition and Scripture, if, however, the matters are not yet known and judged by all, they do not bring forward the same confidence as in matters confirmed by the judgment of the Church. When consulted by Honoratus the bishop, St. Augustine, whether it is permitted for a bishop and clergy to flee, with the danger of a siege or destruction impending, set down rules in epistle 228, in which his supreme wisdom shines forth; but yet he concludes thus: "These things to you, because you have consulted me, most beloved brother, I have written back with the truth and certain charity as I thought, but I have not prescribed, in case you find a better opinion, that you should not follow it."

2° As for those who think it difficult to distinguish true and false traditions, their iniquity is the more manifest in that these same ecclesiastical writers, if they err in some matter from the truth, defend the fabrication of their opinion in a way far different from how they are accustomed to defend catholic tradition. To bring forward a few out of innumerable examples: does Justin proclaim the inspiration of the Seventy interpreters in the same way as that of the prophets? He censures the Jews in this only, n. 68, 71, 72, because they dare to change and disparage the interpretation elaborated under Ptolemy; but by no means because they do not believe it divinely inspired. He denies that those are Christians who do not believe in the resurrection, Dial., n. 80. But in the same place he defends the fabrication of an earthly kingdom in such a way that he attributes the testimony of pure and integral faith to his adversaries. He indeed professes that he acknowledges both the resurrection and the kingdom of a thousand years, and if any Christians who think rightly in all things, that is, even in those things which are obscure and by no means decided. For elsewhere, namely n. 39, he confesses that the catholics are the most tenacious of the whole doctrine handed down by Christ. Who does not know that Cyprian and Firmilian in that contention, which they had with Stephen, held their own opinion in such a way that they conceded it was right to think otherwise, and defended that one thing most strictly, which they thought was not indeed denied by their adversaries, but nevertheless was injured and overturned by the surrendering of the baptism of heretics, namely that the holy Spirit cannot be had outside the Church?

3° As often as heresies arise, a sure bulwark for the truth has always been placed in the ancient Fathers; nor did he detract from their authority by their testimony, if they had seen less or argued less accurately in other matters. St. Athanasius did not approve of some things in Origen; but yet he hurled his testimony concerning the consubstantial Word, like an inescapable weapon, against the Arians, tom. 1, p. 232. St. Augustine, in an obscure matter not yet decided, does not suffer that a law be imposed upon him by the testimonies of Origen, Didymus, Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Heraclea, and St. John Chrysostom, and that that liberty be taken away which must be granted in matters of this kind, ep. 82, n. 3 and 23. But in defending the doctrine of original sin and grace, he presses the Pelagians with the testimonies of Cyprian, Hilary,

of Gregory and Ambrose, and addresses them thus: "You heretics, the ancient Catholic faith, which you have recently begun to attack, demonstrates that it was proclaimed by the most illustrious doctors who were before us." Op. imperf. lib. 1, n. 9. Therefore, neither does a tradition rooted in the testimony of one or another man weaken the tradition founded on the consensus of the whole Church, nor should any slight error in obscure matters, or a less than apt interpretation of a difficult passage of Scripture, detract from the weight of those things which ancient writers taught for the defense of Catholic doctrine.

^B 4. If the holy Fathers have thought or spoken anything less than fittingly, this should neither be handed over to heretics, nor can it rightly be seized upon by heretics. Cyprian had taught that baptism outside the Church was invalid; the Donatists thought the same and wished the name of Cyprian to be the bulwark of their error. But yet Augustine does not hesitate to rescue the testimony of the holy martyr from the Donatists, and begins the second book of his *De baptismo* thus: "How much," he says, "those things which are brought forward by the party of Donatus as if by the authority of the blessed Cyprian against us make for us—that is, for Catholic peace—and how much they are against those by whom they are brought forward, I have purposed to demonstrate, with the Lord's help." If, therefore, anyone, spurning the consensus of the Church, should now dare to defend that which Justin once opined regarding the kingdom of a thousand years, Justin himself will most strongly oppose him, for whom the authority of the Church was held in such high regard. For whatever he proclaims concerning the ornaments and gifts of the Christian religion, whatever we saw him discussing in the second part of this preface concerning the distinction between the New and Old Testaments, and concerning that new creation which we receive from Christ—these he considered to be the property of the Catholic Church, all sects excluded. He himself testifies to this in his *Dialogue*, n. 116, where he speaks thus: "We who, through the name of Jesus, like one man, ^A all believe in God the Creator of all things, cast off through the name of that firstborn Son the filthy garments, that is, our sins, and inflamed by the word of his calling, are the true priestly race of God." With these words, moreover, he demonstrates that the unity of the Catholic Church is to be signified as if by one man, which is patent both in itself and can be confirmed from other places. He says, n. 42, that wicked men, after they have been submitted to Christ and become docile, have all been made like one boy, and adds: "Just as it is also to be seen in a body, when many members are numbered, all are one and are called a body." For the same reason, n. 63, he observes that the Church is thus addressed in Psalm 44: "Hear, O daughter, and see." And so certain was it to Justin that neither could the unity of the Church be broken nor the truth handed down to it be overcome by error, that he declares that whatever sects arise, these are an occasion for Catholics not to fear or to cling to them, but to stand more firmly and keenly in faith and unity. "From this," he says (*Dialog*. n. 55), "that there are men of such a kind who profess themselves to be Christians, and confess Jesus, who was crucified, to be Lord and Christ, and yet do not hold His doctrine, but that which is from the spirits of error; we who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ are firmer in faith and more constant in the hope announced by Him. For we see the things which He predicted in His name would happen, brought to an end by our eyes and their effect. For He said: 'Many shall come in my name,' etc. And: 'There shall be schisms and heresies.'" Therefore, schisms and heresies bring nothing else to Catholics but that they may understand the predictions of Christ being brought to their end and may become firmer in the faith. But if unity or truth could fail in the Church, there would be no error that would not bring the Church's doctrine into danger; no schism from which there would not be a peril of unity being overthrown.

PRAEFATIONIS PARS III.

CHAPTER FIRST.

I. S. Justinus in Palæstina gentilis natus. II. Circa annum 114 natum conjicimus. III. De ejus studiis ac magistris. IV. Mirabilis conversionis modus. V. Qua in urbe et quo anno conversus.

1. Since the opinions of the learned are so many and so discrepant regarding the deeds and writings of St. Justin, I easily understand that I am moving in a slippery and difficult place. Therefore, I will endeavor to manage and treat the whole matter in such a way that I will neither assert what is doubtful and uncertain, nor relegate what is most probable to frivolous reasoning. ^D If, however, anything certain and verified should occur, this is to be used as a principle, both for refuting the figments of opinions and for confirming those things which had been less beautifully called into doubt.

The holy martyr, at the beginning of his *Major Apology*, calls his homeland Flavia Neapolis of Syria-Palestine, and testifies that his father was Priscus and his grandfather was Bacchius*: "Justin, son of Priscus, grandson of Bacchius, a citizen of Flavia Neapolis in Syria-Palestine." This city,

which was once called Sichem, and, as ^A Josephus testifies, had been part of Samaria in the time of Alexander the Great, seems to have received the name and legal status of a city from Flavius Vespasian. For a colony was not led there by his sons, since it was already called Neapolis shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, as can be seen from the books of Josephus on the Jewish War, written about that time. One of these colonists was Bacchius, the grandfather of Justin. He calls the Samaritans his countrymen, not because he had adopted any part of their customs, but because he was born in this city of Greek colonists. For throughout his writings he counts himself among those who have been converted to Christ from paganism; he declares in the *Dialogue with Trypho* that he is uncircumcised. "Do not doubt," he says, no. 28, "to believe me, an uncircumcised man." Hence also in ^B *Apol.* 1, no. 53: "We ourselves see that there are more and truer Christians from the nations than from the Jews and Samaritans." Epiphanius, therefore, would have been seriously mistaken if he had supposed that Justin was converted to the Christian religion from a Samaritan schooling. But Scaliger and Petavius have unjustly attributed this opinion to him. For he speaks as follows: "Tatian enjoyed the company of the most holy and religious man Justin, the philosopher, who had passed from the Samaritans to the faith of Christ." For Justin was a Samaritan by birth. Therefore, he counts Justin among the Samaritans, not because he followed their customs, but because he was born within that race. In this sense Justin himself calls the Samaritans his genus, or race, in *Dialog.* no. 120, and in *Apol.* 2, no. 15, his nation.

II. We can conjecture, but not affirm, in what year Justin was born. Much light would be cast by Epiphanius, if his words were either free of errors or appropriately amended. He speaks as follows in *Haer.* 46: "For this Justin was a Samaritan by race, who had believed in Christ, and having been greatly trained and having shown a life of virtue, he attained, at the end, the perfect crown by witnessing for Christ under the Roman Prefect, under the Prefect Rusticus and Emperor Hadrian, being thirty years of age, in a firm and stable maturity." For here Justin is a Samaritan by race, when he had believed in Christ, and had been greatly ^C exercised and had professed a holier life, at length, having fulfilled his martyrdom for Christ, he attained the perfect crown at Rome under the Prefect Rusticus, in the reign of Hadrian, at a firm and constant age, to wit, the thirtieth year. Two errors occur here: the first, that it was under Hadrian; the second, that Justin is said to have suffered in his thirtieth year. It is not probable that Epiphanius supposed Justin had suffered at the age of thirty, since he was not ignorant of the many books written by him, and he indicates not obscurely that he had been long and greatly exercised in a holier life. It is less surprising that he places his martyrdom under Hadrian; for he is not always accurate in chronological matters. Papebrochius attempts to remove this double error. He declares that the last words fell out of their place through the negligence of copyists, and ought to refer to the conversion of Justin, not to his martyrdom; but for the part which Petavius interprets "under the Prefect Rusticus, in the reign of Hadrian," he himself renders it thus: "Under the Consuls Rusticus and Emperor Hadrian." Whence this opinion is concocted: that Justin, when he had believed in Christ, under the consulship of Rusticus and Hadrian, was thirty years old, of a firm age, etc. It follows from this method of interpreting and amending that Justin reached his thirtieth year in the year 119, when Hadrian and Rusticus were consuls, and consequently that he was born in the year 89.

But I cannot agree with Papebrochius. This interpretation, ἐπὶ Ῥουστικοῦ ἡγεμόνος καὶ Ἀδριανοῦ βασιλέως, "under the Prefect Rusticus and Emperor Hadrian," is entirely repugnant, although it is vehemently approved by Grabe and Dodwell. And even if it could be confirmed by some example, none certainly can be brought forward, as Tillemont observes, in which an emperor is placed before a colleague in the consulship. Many other things concur to diminish Papebrochius's opinion. It is much more credible that Justin's martyrdom was recorded by the notation of the prefect than that his conversion was noted by the consuls. We see for certain from the *Acts* that he suffered under the Prefect Rusticus; we read nowhere that he was converted under the consuls Rusticus and Hadrian: finally, his conversion must be placed later, if we follow the leader Eusebius, than whom we truly have no one safer in these matters. Therefore it is better to admit that Epiphanius erred while placing Justin's martyrdom under Hadrian, than to interpret his words absurdly. The other error seems more curable; yet there is no need to transfer these words, "in a firm and constant age, in the thirtieth year of his age," to a higher point, as if they pertained to his conversion, and had been cast out of their place by the ^D copyists. Nothing surely prevents Justin from being said to have poured out his life for Christ while still of a firm age; nor is there anything troublesome in this testimony of Epiphanius: only this much defect occurs in his words, that Justin is said to have suffered in the thirtieth year of his age. But it was easy for the copyists to err in the numeral signs, and to put thirty for fifty; especially since the difference between the letters lambda and nu, which are used to designate these numbers, would not have escaped eyes that were not very attentive. If therefore Justin suffered at about the age of 50 or 54 (for Epiphanius did not recall these things too strictly to calculations), we shall easily understand why he is said to have suffered at a "firm and constant age," that is, not yet an old man, and then also in what year he was born, not long after the year 114. For many historical arguments assign his martyrdom to the year 168.

III. Justin spent his youth in the study of letters; and he applied his labor to the poets, orators, and historians, as

was his custom, providing in doing so a useful exercise for future refutation of the heathens. You would say he was not particularly studious of the rhetorical art if you consider most of his writings, in which, while he defended the truth neither without firmness nor without the greatest force of intellect, he nevertheless deemed no ornaments of speech whatsoever to be necessary for its defense. Yet, what he was capable of in this genre is shown by his *Cohortatio ad Graecos*, which shines with a more elegant manner of speaking than his other works. But he burned with greater fervor for the studies of philosophy than ^A for any other discipline; and when I consider the exceptional love of truth which he manifested in endangering the sects of the philosophers, I admire the divine Providence which so inclined his soul to love the truth that, when he had sought for it in vain among the philosophers, he eagerly seized upon the gift of Christ shining before his eyes gratuitously, and constantly defended it.

He had as his first master of philosophy a certain Stoic, and he spent a sufficient amount of time with him. But when he noticed that he learned nothing more about God (for the Stoic himself did not know, nor did he think this knowledge necessary), he left him and betook himself to another, whom they called a Peripatetic, a man, as he himself seemed, of great keenness. But after a few days he sent him packing, when he began to bargain for his fee, not thinking him even a ^B philosopher. Not deterred, however, by the fact that he had little success in frequenting two masters, he fled to a most renowned Pythagorean, a man very boastful of his wisdom. But he imposed this condition upon Justin: that before he could ascend to the consideration of the Good itself and the Beautiful itself, he must occupy himself with music, astronomy, and geometry. This was very troublesome to Justin, who, since he did not want to waste time on these disciplines, approached the Platonists, and committed himself to the training of a prudent man who, he says, had recently arrived in our city.

IV. Justin made great progress in this pursuit; but his advances in contemplating incorporeal things were such that he seemed to himself to have become wise, and in his foolishness he came into the hope of reaching the vision of God immediately. Certainly, the decrees of Plato would not have been more profitable to him than the sects of other philosophers for the recognition of interior corruption and the amendment of vices, had not Christ called him to a sounder philosophy. How this happened we know from the beginning of our Dialogue, as well as those things which I have just narrated.

Elated by the contemplation of ideas, Justin set out into a field not far from the sea for the sake of meditation; and as he was approaching a spot where he would be alone without interruption while fleeing the footsteps of men, it happened, contrary to his expectation, that a certain old man, in whose countenance sat a genial gravity, followed him at a small interval. Justin turned and stopped, and fixed his eyes more sharply upon him. Then the old man said: “Do you know me?” Justin denied it. “Why then,” said he, “do you contemplate me so?” Justin replied that he was surprised that he had met him there, where he hoped he would be seen by no one. “I am anxious,” said the old man, “about some of my household: they have gone abroad for me; wherefore I have come to see if they will show themselves to me from any quarter. But what do you do here?” After Justin demonstrated that he was a student of philosophy and had come there for the purpose of meditation; then the old man, the occasion having been offered, discussed those things which Justin reported as heard from him at the beginning of the Dialogue with Trypho. The conversation was too long for me to recount in this place. It is enough to observe the exceptional prudence of the old man, who, when he saw Justin entertaining overweening thoughts about the philosophers, handled his soul such that he first showed the emptiness of that science in which he was so boastful; then he taught from what sources truth is to be drawn. For after Justin had learned that neither Pythagoras nor Plato had arrived at the knowledge of the truth, he asked the old man which masters, then, ought to be used, if not even these had seen the truth. Wherefore the old man, having entered upon a splendid field of discourse, demonstrates that the truth must be sought from the prophets, and he praises and commends them for their antiquity, in which they far surpass the philosophers; for the Holy Spirit through whose breathing they prophesied; for the fulfillment of predicted events; for the greatest freedom and constancy in delivering their oracles; for the miracles by which they confirmed their prophecies; and finally, by the very sanctity of their oracles, which uniquely celebrate God the creator of the world and his Christ. ^C Finally, departing, he exhorts Justin to pursue these things by meditating, and to ask for their understanding from God; for they can be perceived and understood by no one, unless God and his Christ have given him to understand.

Justin did not see this old man again, but he confesses that he was led by his conversation to give his name to the Christian philosophy. “These things,” he says in the Dialogue, “and many other things he having said, which it is not the time to relate, he went away, and commanded me to pursue them by meditating; nor did I see him again. But immediately a fire was kindled in my soul, and a love for the prophets and for Christ’s friends seized me. And when I turned his words over in my mind, ^D I found this philosophy alone to be safe and useful. In this manner and for this cause, I am a philosopher.” The old man had therefore discussed many other things which Justin does not judge should be related here; and he had not spoken of Christ generally and obscurely, as Tillemont thinks; but he had descended to an accurate exposition of religion, so that Justin does not hesitate to attribute to him what he demonstrates by exquisite arguments in the Dialogue, namely that salvation proceeds not from the works of the law, but from the grace of the incarnate Son of God, Dialog. n. 23.

Halloixius suspected that some angel had appeared to Justin in the form of an old man. Tillemont declares that this should seem most similar, if one considers that sudden and unforeseen encounter of the man in a place trodden by no human footsteps, of no conversation.

regarding very grave matters; for that encounter does not seem to have been so much a matter of chance as of intention and deliberate seeking, and the outcome of the conversation was most desired, with Justin being led from superstition to true religion, and from the admiration of philosophy to the love of Christ. But what the old man said about being anxious regarding some of his own who had departed for foreign lands, the same Tillemont considers to be a sign of the solicitude of ministers sent by God, so that they might lead men, who are pilgrims and fugitives from God, from the various paths in which they wander aimlessly, back to truth and to their homeland. That, indeed, should not seem incredible: that Justin arrived at the knowledge of religion by a certain miracle, since the same has happened to many others in these times.

^B Some refer this event, among them the learned author of the dissertation just praised, to the persecution of Hadrian, that is, to the year 126. But Eusebius thoroughly overturns their opinion, for after he has spoken of the consecration of Antinous, he immediately adds concerning Justin: "At this time also, Justin, a true lover of true philosophy, was still occupied with the discourses practiced among the Greeks." Eusebius therefore clearly declares that Justin did not give his name to the Christian religion before Hadrian enrolled Antinous in the order of the gods. Tillemont proves by many arguments (note 9 on Hadrian) that Antinous was consecrated in the year 132; therefore, Justin’s conversion, which followed this consecration, is wrongly placed before the year 126.

There is no doubt that Justin considered it his first duty to do what the old man had enjoined upon him, namely, to devote himself entirely to prayer and the meditation of the Scriptures. Another thing confirmed his inflamed mind: the consideration of the constancy of the Christians in enduring tortures; whether the old man had brought up this proof of religion among others, or whether Justin himself witnessed the matter with his own eyes after the old man’s departure. "For even I myself," he says in *Apology 2*, n. 12, "when I delighted in the doctrine of Plato, and heard the charges brought against the Christians, yet saw them fearless when faced with death and all those things that are considered terrible; I understood that it was impossible for them to live in wickedness and the love of pleasures. For who that is lustful and intemperate, and counts the consumption of human flesh as a good, could embrace death so as to be deprived of his goods, and not rather seek to live always in this life, and keep himself hidden from the magistrates, let alone give himself up to death to be condemned?"

V. In what city Justin was converted from philosophy to Christ while seeking a place near the sea, or in what year such great happiness befell him, is not easily established. What he says about the Platonic master: "Who had recently arrived in our city," persuaded all those whom I know to have examined his affairs that he studied philosophy in his homeland, that is, at Neapolis in Syria Palaestina, and embraced the Christian religion. But since a walk in a place near the sea provided the occasion for Justin’s conversion; and since Flavia Neapolis is situated in central Palestine, as the most learned abbot de Longuerue observes in his manuscript dissertation on the Acts of Justin, and would have been devoid of such walks; it is far more probable that Justin came to some distinguished city for the sake of his studies, and there became a Christian. In the *Cohortatio ad Graecos*, a work which he wrote not long after his conversion, he mentions the things he had seen at Alexandria, and it is not improbable that he devoted himself to literary studies in that city.

Justin seems to have reached his man’s estate, or at least to have nearly reached it, when he came to know Christ. For he had already made many advances in philosophy, and having tasted many of the sects of the philosophers, he had fixed his studies on Platonism. That he was converted under Hadrian is attested by Zonaras: Eusebius speaks of this conversion under the same emperor, and there is sufficient agreement among the learned on this matter. However, there is no single opinion as to in what year of Hadrian this happened.

This event is attributed by some, including the learned author of the aforementioned dissertation, to the persecution of Hadrian, that is, to the year 126. But Eusebius thoroughly overturns their opinion, who, after he has spoken of the consecration of Antinous, immediately adds concerning Justin: ^B "At this time also, Justin, a true lover of true philosophy, was still occupied with the discourses practiced among the Greeks." Consequently, Eusebius declares distinctly that Justin did not give his name to the Christian religion before Hadrian enrolled Antinous in the order of the gods. Tillemont proves by many arguments (note 9 on Hadrian) that Antinous was consecrated in the year 132; wherefore Justin's conversion, which followed this consecration, is ill-placed before the year 126.

Led by this testimony, Tillemont delayed the conversion of Justin until the year 133. But it seems it should be delayed a little longer, namely, until about the year 137. For Justin did not suffer for Christ until he was an old man, as we said above, having believed in Him at a mature age. Therefore, not so many years are to be counted between his conversion and martyrdom as are counted by Tillemont, who refers his conversion to the year 133, and his martyrdom to the year 168. Furthermore, no monument of Justin exists which proves he was converted so quickly. The *Cohortatio ad Graecos*, which breathes the early beginnings of his conversion, must be placed after Hadrian, as we shall see presently. Finally, Eusebius speaks ^C of the Jewish war*, which was finished around the year 136, before he speaks of Justin’s conversion; and after he said that Justin had devoted himself to the disciplines of the Gentiles at the same time that Antinous was consecrated, he then mentions the Jewish war, which he says was waged at that time, that is, when Justin was still detained by the disciplines of the Gentiles.

Tillemont places Justin’s conversion before the Jewish war because at that time there was leisure for assiduous writing, and a certain freedom for walking, which would not have been at all consistent with the tumults of war and the perturbation of all things. But to omit that Justin was away from Neapolis when he was converted, the reasoning of Tillemont is equally valid for the conversion being delayed after the war.

Those who wish Justin to have been converted in the persecution of Hadrian, that is, before the year 126, use this argument, that Justin ^D says he recognized the innocence of the Christians...

^A when he saw them fearless in the face of death and all things considered terrible.

1. Even if the persecution subsided in the year 126, it could still have happened, as has often occurred elsewhere, that governors, either moved by the clamor of the people or incited by hatred of the Christian religion, raged against Christians without an order from the emperor. 2. Even if there had been absolutely no martyrdom when Justin was converted, he could still have recognized and praised the constancy of Christians under torture, not only because the recent memory of those who had suffered in the persecution conferred this praise upon them in the judgment of all, but also because, even in times of peace, they bore a fearless spirit, professing a religion that had always been subjected to the most serious storms. Hence, in the Dialogue which he held with the Jews during a time of peace, Justin constantly praises the steadfastness of Christians in facing death, and does not hope that princes will ever cease to harass this religion (n. 30). Trypho himself is compelled to admit (n. 45) that this constancy of the Christians is wondrous; he even mocks them (n. 7) for perishing miserably for the sake of Christ. It should not appear strange, therefore, if Justin recognized this virtue in Christians during a time of peace.

CAPUT II. On Justin’s manner of living, his priesthood, and his first writings against the Gentiles.

I. It seems Justin was an ascetic and a presbyter. II. Two orations against the Greeks are attributed to him. III. The time when the Cohortatio was written. IV. Casimir Oudin is refuted. V. Another oration appears to be less correctly attributed to Justin. VI. The book On the Monarchy is by no means mutilated. The passage of Eusebius, which had convinced some it was mutilated, is explained by a new interpretation.

I. After the holy martyr was initiated into the mysteries of the Christians, he did not fail to labor in studying the Holy Scriptures, and in acquiring that knowledge of Christian doctrine which would be appropriate not just to any of the common run of Christians, but to a man of learning and one born for the defense of religion. How much use he made of Holy Scripture is declared by his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, in which he brings forth an almost immense forest of testimonies, which indeed had to be recited from memory in the very encounter and conversation, and he interprets Scripture itself in such a way as to break down Jewish stubbornness. There are not wanting, however, those who think little of the holy martyr in this regard, and who find his understanding of Scripture lacking because he indulges too much, as they think, in allegorical interpretations. I would surely not deny that some things occur in Justin which seem to be drawn out too far; but among these shadows, many other things stand out and shine which wonderfully confirm, in the judgment of most learned men, what the holy martyr testifies for the sake of gratitude: that this grace was granted to him by God, to understand His Scriptures (Dialog. n. 58).

Justin shone no less for the holiness of his life than for his doctrine. The words of Epiphanius ^A clearly indicate he was one who, alongside the common precepts of all Christians, added certain private observances of a more austere life, as Origen testifies (Lib. V against Celsus). The whole life of Justin, which was consumed in writing, teaching, and augmenting the interests of the Church, and could not be submerged in civil waves, sufficiently conforms to the testimony of Epiphanius. Perhaps that cloak which Justin wore was a sign of this more austere life. For Trypho and other Jews judged him to be a philosopher from this attire when he was walking in the colonnades of the Xystus in Ephesus about twenty years after his conversion. Tillemont observes that the philosopher's cloak was not unusual for those professing an austere life—as it was for Tertullian, or for the martyr Porphyry, according to Eusebius (De mart. Palæst., cap. 11). If anyone, however, wishes to claim that Justin used this garment as a sign of philosophy, the same writer denies that this can be criticized, and brings forward the great Heraclas, Patriarch of Alexandria, as a follower of Justin in this matter, who combined the philosophical cloak with the priesthood of Christ. Jerome testifies in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers that the same thing was done before Justin by St. Aristides.

Tillemont supposes that Justin was a presbyter because he describes the ceremonies of baptism in such a way that he appears to have held the office of administering it. "For we," he says (Apol. 1, n. 65), "after we have thus washed him who has believed and given his assent, bring him to those who are called brethren, to the place where they are gathered, to offer common prayers with intent minds." Justin was, therefore, of the number of those who baptized, and who led the baptized person to the place where the brethren were assembled. In another place, he ranks himself among the leaders of the Christian people, and confesses that he differs greatly in the execution of this office from the leaders of the Jewish people. "And we therefore," he says (Dialog. n. 82), "moved by fear, strive to discuss matters according to the Scriptures, but not out of a desire for money or glory, or a love of pleasure. For there is no one of these vices of which anyone can accuse us. For we do not wish to live in the same way as the leaders of your people, to whom God objects this reproach: 'Your leaders are partners of thieves, loving gifts, pursuing retribution.'" The priesthood of Justin can be confirmed from his Acts, from which at least this much is gathered: that the church was in the very house in which he lived, and that he was not accustomed to attend any other place of assembly as long as he was at Rome. For when the prefect asked into what place the Christians assembled, and where Justin gathered his own disciples, Justin replied that he knew of no other place of assembly besides the house in which he was staying. The prefect himself seems to recognize the priestly dignity in Justin, when he questions his associates thus: "Has Justin made you Christians?" That the grace of his priesthood was not empty in Justin is declared by his exceptional services to the Church, which he served not only with living voice and writings breathing piety, as many

^A other Fathers, defended and adorned, but also—in what it fell to very few to accomplish—in a most grievous time, afflicted and devastated by the extremity of turmoil of affairs, while he placated the Emperor with an apology he offered, he restored it, for his part, to the haven of tranquility. But because there are many and great questions concerning most of his works, whether they are the genuine offspring of him, whether they have reached us intact, and at what time they were brought to light; it is worthwhile, if I am able, to spend time in explaining and illuminating these matters.

^B II. Besides the two Apologies, of which we are now speaking, two other dissertations of the holy martyr against the heathens exist, of which one—and that the shortest—is inscribed *Oration against the Greeks*; the other, much longer, *Exhortation to the Greeks*. As many books against the heathens, besides the two Apologies, are attributed to Justin by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius; but whether the very same ones exist today as were once recorded by the ancients, must be examined. Thus speaks Eusebius concerning these two books: «Καὶ ἄλλος ὁ πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐν ᾧ μακρὸν περὶ πλείστων παρ' ἡμῖν τε καὶ τοῖς Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφοις ζητουμένων κατατείνας λόγον, περὶ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων διαλαμβάνει φύσεως, ἃ οὐδὲν ἂν ἐπείγοι τανῦν παρατίθεσθαι. Καὶ αὖθις ἕτερον πρὸς Ἕλληνας εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλήλυθεν αὐτοῦ σύγγραμμα, ὃ καὶ ἐπέγραψεν Ἔλεγχον. » "There is also another book of his against the Gentiles, in which, after he has discoursed most copiously on very many questions, which are wont to be agitated as much by our people as by the philosophers of the Gentiles, he sets forth his own opinion concerning the ^C nature of demons, which indeed there is no need to insert here. Furthermore, another book of his against the Gentiles has reached us, which he inscribed *Confutation*." Similarly Jerome in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*: "His other volume against the Gentiles also exists, where he also discourses on the nature of demons; and a fourth against the Gentiles, to which he prefixed the title *Elenchus*." And Photius, cod. 125: «Τέσσαρας δὲ πραγματείας κατὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνέταξε.... ἐν δὲ τῇ τρίτῃ περὶ φύσεως δαιμόνων διείλεκται. Ὁ δὲ τέταρτος αὐτῷ λόγος ὁμοίως κατὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συγκείμενος, Ἔλεγχος ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχει.» "Moreover he composed four treatises against the Gentiles... in the third he discoursed on the nature of demons. The fourth book also, composed by him against the Gentiles, is titled *Confutation*."

Of the two orations of Justin against the Gentiles that have reached us, neither is inscribed *Confutation*, and neither discourses on the nature of demons. The one that is shorter was not noted, or at least not mentioned, by Eusebius: for it deals with neither the nature of demons nor the other questions indicated by Eusebius. It acutely agitates the gods of the Gentiles; but it does not expressly confute their opinions. Therefore, it is not that *Elenchus* praised by Eusebius. It is not surprising, however, if it escaped his diligence, since it is very short. No one adjudges it away from the holy martyr; nor indeed ^D is it to be judged as belonging to someone else. It is conjectured that it was written not long after the conversion of Justin, from its very beginning, which stands thus: "Do not think, Greeks, that I have deserted your rites without any reason or without any judgment."

But as regards the longer oration, which is now inscribed *Exhortation to the Greeks*, that it was known to the ancients and is to be numbered among the most genuine writings of Justin is demonstrated by many reasons. In it, indeed, nothing is read concerning the nature of demons, nothing concerning the questions wont to be agitated as much among our people as among the Gentile philosophers. Wherefore it cannot be the same as that dissertation which discoursed on the nature of demons. But nothing prevents it from being exactly the same as that which used to be inscribed *Elenchus* or *Confutation*. Besides the fact that the titles of books have undergone so many changes by the license of scribes that nothing can be concluded from the variety of titles; certainly, from the subjects treated in this oration, it is perceived that it could most well have been inscribed *Elenchus* or *Confutation*. For it does nothing else but strive to overthrow the Gentiles with domestic arguments, and, from their own writers, to demonstrate the vanity and insanity of Gentile superstition and the antiquity of the true religion. Everyone sees how aptly the title of *Elenchus* or *Confutation* harmonizes with this method of discourse. Hence, when Stephanus Gobarus the Tritheite, who was writing in the sixth century, had cited some opinion of the holy martyr which is read in this oration, and was abusing it in a strange manner, Photius refutes him from the purpose of St. Justin, whom he demonstrates in this location to be attacking the *Elenchus* or *Confutation* of Plato, the *Elenchus* of the heathens. It seems, therefore, that this very oration is the one that the ancients call the *Elenchus*, and they commemorate it in the fourth place among the writings of Justin against the heathens.

Moreover, that Stephanus Gobarus is a witness that this oration was numbered among the genuine works of the holy martyr in the sixth century. But what most contains the cause and matter, the oration itself provides not a few points from which you may recognize Justin as its parent. It was written by one who had converted from the superstitions of the heathens to the Christian religion; for he objects to the heathens what he had previously learned when he was living among them. "I think it proper," he says in no. 11, "to bring forward now at the right time those things which I previously heard among you concerning these matters." But what is read concerning Moses and the prophets in Langus’s interpretation, no. 1: "Our ancestors, divine men," could persuade some that the author of this oration was of Jewish origin. But the Greek words «οἱ ἡμέτεροι κατὰ Θεὸν πρόγονοι», ought to be rendered thus: "Our ancestors in divine matters"; from which words it is perceived that the prophets are not called such by this writer because he was born of their race, but because they were the teachers of our religion, as he himself testifies in no. 10.

It is also very consistent with Justin that the author of this work narrates that he saw in Alexandria the remains of the cells in which the seventy translators were said to have worked, and in Cumae in Campania, the shrine of the Sibyl. Since Justin was born in Palestine and, as we have seen, traveled for the sake of his studies, he could easily have gone to Alexandria, and it would have been no more difficult to visit Cumae while traveling to Rome. Moreover, in the whole oration he demonstrates that the knowledge of truth is to be sought not from pagan writers, but from the prophets; could anything be more appropriate for Justin, who had been converted to the Christian religion when he suddenly heard these same things from an old man he encountered? This work was written at Rome, since Justin had traversed Italy and had consequently arrived at Rome. But after the holy martyr arrived at Rome, he only left this city once, as we shall soon see, and that was after his first Apology, which is ^B later than this work.

If one considers the style more closely, he will confess that it agrees entirely with the other works of Justin, as Bull observes and Tillemont agrees. Yet there is a certain polish in this oration that one might miss in the other writings of Justin. But why should it be surprising if Justin, who wrote this oration not long after his conversion, sought a more polished style of speaking in these early days? Furthermore, his purpose in this work was not the same as in the Apologies that he presented to the emperors. Here he disputes gently with the pagans and deals with subjects that allowed for elegance of speech. The Apologies, however, are contained not in gentle dispute, but in the sharpest complaints; nor did Justin, in that grief which he felt from the most painful time of the Church, labor greatly to speak elegantly and ornately.

III. From this method of arguing, one may judge at what time the oration was written. It appears that no persecution was raging at that time. For, if the blood of Christians had been shed daily, there would have been neither leisure nor inclination for the holy martyr to discourse so copiously on the dissension between Plato and Aristotle and other such matters, and to snatch away the praise of antiquity from pagan writers, without meanwhile making any mention of the sufferings of the Christians. It is likely, therefore, that this oration was written in the first years of Antoninus, before the persecution which afflicted the Church under this emperor excited Justin’s more rigorous efforts in defense of the religion. It certainly can hardly be doubted that this work was written before the Apologies, because it seems to be a sort of skirmish against the pagans rather than a full defense of religion; and while he quite cleverly turns profane erudition toward refuting the pagans, he does not dwell on explaining the principles of the Christian religion. As for why I refer it to the times of Antoninus rather than those of Hadrian, I use this argument: that Sibylline verses are cited in it. For what is read in no. 38, that the books of the Sibyl are guarded throughout the whole world, and that they clearly and openly foretell the future coming of the Savior and all the things that he was about to do—this point indicates the Sibylline books as they exist today, in which there is such a clear prediction that it is hard for anyone not to believe that it was forged from the events, even if he does not admit it today. But since in several places there are Sibylline verses, especially in Book VIII, and Marcus Antoninus, who was adopted by Hadrian in the year 138, and M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus were adopted in the same year by Antoninus, that they might be designated as the successors of Hadrian; it is clear that these books were not forged before the year 138, which was the last year of Hadrian; and therefore the work of Justin, in which these books are said to be preserved throughout the world, is to be referred to the reign of Antoninus rather than that of Hadrian.

IV. Neither the consensus of all the critics nor the many signs by which Justin is recognized as the author of this oration have deterred Casimir Oudin from pronouncing it supposititious to the holy martyr in his commentary *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*. He relies on five arguments, on which the learned reader will have to judge. 1° He denies that it is consistent with Justin, who was born of pagan parents, that the author of this oration says that he follows the sacred rites and piety of his divine ancestors. But Oudin was deceived by the less accurate translation of Lang, as we have already observed.

2° He observes that in his *Dialogue*, Justin objects to the Jews that they reject the interpretation of the Seventy and have corrupted it; but the author of the *Paraenetic Oration* maintains that the version of the Seventy interpreters was preserved uncorrupted in the Jewish synagogues, was acknowledged by the Jews, and was used against any adversaries whatsoever. But could it not have happened that Justin, when he wrote this oration, had not yet heard anything about the Jews' wickedness? Indeed, it is likely that the Jews had not yet given the occasion for the accusations with which Justin confronts them in the *Dialogue*: for there, in no. 73, he declares their deed to be recent.

The third and fourth reasons are of no greater weight. He offers by way of argument that, in his *Apology*, Justin complains that the reading of Hystaspes and the Sibyls and the prophets is forbidden on pain of capital punishment, whereas he praises Plato excessively in all his works; in contrast, the author of the *Paraenetic Oration* slightingly treats and attacks Plato, and not only testifies that the Sibylline books are scattered throughout the world, but even that it is easy for those who are unwilling to read the holy Scriptures to learn the beginnings of our religion from the Sibyl’s poem. Hence, he even encourages everyone therein to read them.

I fear I may seem to be wasting my time while refuting such petty arguments. Justin, as in his other works, so also in this oration, praises in Plato some similarities of his sentences with the doctrine of Moses.

He also teaches the same in *Apol.* n. 8 and 60. Moreover, he confesses at the beginning of the *Dialogue* that Plato and Pythagoras saw nothing in those matters about which Justin was then disputing with the old man. Concerning the Sibylline books, the *Cohortatio* agrees wonderfully with the *Apology*. For in the former, Justin testifies that these books are kept throughout the whole world, namely by Christians; in the *Apology*, however, he testifies that they are constantly read by Christians.

Finally, in the fifth place, he reasons thus: "Tatian, Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius observe that Justin discoursed in a *Parænetical oration to the Gentiles* about the nature of demons; yet no traces of such an argument exist in [that] discourse." ^C Tatian cites some one statement of Justin about demons; but he does not say it was taken from a *Parænetical* oration. Nor were Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius, when they said Justin had discoursed on the nature of demons, speaking of the oration which is now in our hands, but of another, about which we must now speak a few words.

V. That oration in which Eusebius testifies that Justin discoursed on the nature of demons and on many matters commonly debated both among us and among the pagan philosophers seems to be nothing other than the book *De Universo*, which Photius attributes to a certain presbyter Caius, but which he confesses is attributed by others to Justin, and by some to Irenaeus and Josephus. That book *De Universo*, just like the oration which Eusebius attributes to Justin, was written against the Greeks, as is evident from a fragment which in the notes of Hoeschel begins thus: ^D "Of Josephus from the discourse to the Greeks titled *Against Plato on the Cause of the Universe*." From Josephus' oration to the Greeks, which is inscribed *Against Plato on the Cause of the Universe*.

2. The author of the book *De Universo* discoursed about the nature of demons, as is evident from the beginning of the Hoeschelian fragment: "And thus indeed the section about demons..." — that is, "Thus far has the discussion concerning demons proceeded." 3. He also disputed various questions that were wont to be posed both among us and among the philosophers, such as the nature of the soul, the seat and state of souls after death, and this is evident both from what Photius reports in cod. 48, and from the Hoeschelian fragment. Therefore, that book *De Universo* contained whatever Eusebius had noted in that oration which he attributes to Justin: and since that book had the name of Justin in some copies, Eusebius, as is likely, was deceived having seen some copy of that kind, and persuaded Jerome and Photius that some work had been written by Justin against the Gentiles in which he discoursed on the nature of demons.

VI. After the two orations to the Greeks, the book *De Monarchia*, or *On the Singularity of God*, is listed by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius, about which book there is no small controversy among more recent scholars, although there is none among the ancients. ^A Scultetus thinks this little book should be judged as among the doubtful; Tillemont, whom most others have followed, thinks either that it is by someone else entirely than the one whom Eusebius declares to consist of sacred and profane testimonies, or if it is the same, at least that that part which related the testimonies of Scripture has entirely perished, since no trace of it exists. Halloixius quite wittily suspects that Eusebius did not see the testimonies of Scripture in this book, but thought he saw them.

^B Although Eusebius has cast learned men into this variety of opinions, if, however, we interpret his words as is proper, he vindicates this whole book for Justin, nor does he allow its integrity to come into doubt. He speaks thus in book iv, ch. 18: "Besides these, there is another *On the Monarchy of God*, which he establishes not only from the Scriptures among us, but also from Greek books." Valesius rendered it thus: "Besides these books, there is also another *On the Monarchy of God*, which he asserts not only by the authority of the sacred volumes among us, but also by the testimonies of pagan writers." But I maintain, having been led by many reasons and examples, that it must be interpreted thus: "Besides these books, there is also another *On the Monarchy of God*, which he asserts not only NOT from the sacred Scriptures among us, but even from the very books of the pagans."

1. The meaning in this interpretation is clearer than in the first. For Eusebius praises something singular and by no means common. But if Justin had attacked the Gentiles with the authority of Scripture and profane writers, he would have done nothing at which we would be very surprised, nothing contrary to his own or others' custom. But if, with Scripture omitted, the Gentiles were defeated by him with their own arms, the confidence in this victory and the novelty of the work will be justly praised.

2. Most learned grammarians often observe among the ancients that the phrase "not only" (οὐ μόνον) can mean "not only NOT," as in this example from Cicero's book ii *De Officiis*: "As soon as they began to be young men, they ought to look to great things and strive for them with upright studies. Which they will do with a firmer mind, because not only is that age not envied, but it is actually encouraged." Muretus collects other examples of this kind in *Var. lect.*, lib. x, ch. 7. It is likely that the Latins took these from the Greeks, among whom it is established that οὐχ οἷον has the same force as "not only not." But because perhaps there will not be lacking those who do not easily induce themselves to believe that οὐ μόνον among the Greeks sometimes sounds the same as οὐ μόνον οὐ, the matter seems to need illustration by the apposition of examples. A twin to this passage of Eusebius occurs in Justin himself in *Cohort.*, n. 9, where, instituting the demonstration of the antiquity of Moses, he speaks thus: "For I do not attempt to prove these things solely from the divine histories among us.... But from your own histories, which in no way differ from our religion." Since Justin proves the antiquity of Moses not from sacred writers but from profane ones, I have not doubted rendering his words thus: "For I do not undertake to demonstrate these things solely from the divine histories among us..."

but also from yours and those which are not pertinent to our religion." ^A Why should we doubt that Eusebius interprets in the same way, in both sense and wording? If we find citations of Scripture lacking in the book *On the Monarchy*, a similar lacuna must be imagined in the *Cohortation to the Greeks*; no one would say that this work is mangled and imperfect.

In the *Dialogue* of St. Justin, no. 17, that it should be read as *ou monon metenoēsate* ("not only did you repent"), for *ou monon ou*, is proven by the most ancient codices of the *History* of Eusebius, which cited this passage of Justin in Book IV, chapter 18. Athenagoras, *Legat.* no. 1, speaks thus of the Christians: "We have learned not only not to strike back, nor to go to law with those who lead and plunder us; but, for those who strike us ^B even on the side of the head with a blow, to offer the other side; and if they take away our tunic, to give them our cloak as well." We have learned "not merely not to retaliate, nor to summon our attackers and plunderers to court, but even to offer the other side of our head to be struck if they inflict a blow; and if they have taken our tunic, to offer our cloak in addition."

Tatian, no. 36: "Assuming Homer is not only not later than the Iliadic events, but let him be taken as existing in the very time of the war." Yes, let Homer be not only not later than the Iliadic events, but even contemporary with the war itself. St. Cyprian did not entrust the letter received from St. Firmilian—which is among the 75 letters of Cyprian—to anyone else to be translated into Latin, but, as can be perceived from the style, he took on this labor himself. ^C The faithful interpreter retained not a few Hellenisms, from which I will cite one that is most suitable to the matter at hand. St. Firmilian speaks thus of the angels: "Certainly they are saddened when they see the diverse minds and divided wills of certain men, as if they were not all calling upon one and the same Lord together, but were so separated and divided from one another that there could no longer be conversation or common speech between them." The sense is: "So that they do not call upon one and the same Lord together, but," etc. It seems in the Greek context it was *hōs ou monon*.

3ª Neither in the beginning nor in the conclusion is any design or intent found to object the holy Scriptures to the heathens. ^D Furthermore, the holy martyr begins his little book in such a way that he promises he will use arguments gathered entirely from the ancient poetry of Greek history; he concludes by exhorting the Greeks to embrace that true and immutable name, proclaimed not only by his own voice, but also by the voices of those who introduce the first elements of letters. What wonder, then, if this booklet is entirely interwoven with verses that the ancient history of the Greeks—that is, the ancient literature of the Greeks—provided, and he draws nothing from the holy Scriptures?

Chapter 3. On Justin's zeal for propagating the truth and his writings against heretics.

1. Justinus Romæ occupatur in docendo. II. Amore veritatis incensus est. III. Scribit contra Marcionem et adversus omnes hæreses. IV. De operibus deperditis. V. De epistola ad Diognetum.

I. Since, as we have already said, no small space of time passed from Justin's *Cohortation* to his first *Apology*, the whole of that time he spent in Rome, and devoted it to teaching and writing. Hence Eusebius says of the holy martyr (*Hist.* lib. IV, cap. 11): "For he used to perform his discourses in Rome." He had his residence in the city of Rome. Where he lodged, and what he did at home, we learn from the *Acts* of his own martyrdom. "I," he says, "have stayed up to this point near the house of a certain Martin, at the bath named Timiotinus. And I have come to the city of Rome for the second time. I know no other place of meeting than the one I have mentioned; and if any wished to come to me, I shared with him the doctrine of truth." One of those who suffered with Justin, named Evelpistus, testifies that he heard the discourses of Justin with great pleasure. Even the prefect himself knew of Justin's zeal in teaching his disciples. For he asks in what place Justin might meet and gather his disciples. Then, turning to the companions of his confession and martyrdom: "Has Justin made you Christians?" he says.

II. The holy martyr performed this duty, as one committed by God, with such ardor of heart, such observation and diligence, that he thought himself destined to be judged for a great sin if he had let slip any opportunity offered for teaching, should it have happened by his own fault that someone lacked the light of the truth. That this opinion was deeply rooted in his mind we see from many places. "It is therefore our duty," he says (*Apol.* I, no. 3), "that we provide to all a means of examining our life and doctrine, lest for those who seem to be ignorant of our affairs we ourselves owe the penalty of those things which they, being blind, have sinned." He says that it is clear and certain to him (*Dial.* no. 82): "Whoever can speak the truth and does not, he will be judged by God." See nos. 38 and 44. He speaks thus at no. 58: "I will recount the Scriptures to you, and I do not wish to use an apparatus of words to show off a mere art; for I do not have such ability; but only the grace conceded to me by God, that I might understand His Scriptures, of which grace I exhort all to become freely and abundantly participants, lest I be condemned for this very reason in judgment." Indeed, Justin's charity was most broadly extended; he was always prepared to teach, hoping that among those he addressed some might be found from the number of the elect; and as happened to him when disputing with the Jews at Ephesus, that he bore for two days their obstinacy in contradicting and denying those things they had previously conceded, so he declares he uses the same gentleness and patience toward everyone of every kind of human race, no. 64. That Justin's patience and charity

^A no importunity of men could retard, and that no dangers could break his constancy and strength of mind, is clearly enough declared by the Apologies which he offered plainly and openly, as we shall soon see, in most trying times. He depicts himself excellently in these words, Dial. n. 128: "And these things indeed I have said, because I am so disposed in my mind that I have said nothing at all, in which I care for anything other than to speak the truth, fearing no one, even if I should have to be torn to pieces on the spot by you."

III. Justin had not dedicated his efforts to Jews and Gentiles alone, but a great part of his labors concerned heretics. He attempted to draw them back from error not only through conversations, as he himself testifies in Dial. n. 84, but he also confuted all heresies with learned writings, and attacked Marcion with a singular work, who had architected his heresy around the year 145 while Justin was living in Rome and devoting himself entirely to the expansion of the benefits of the Church. St. Irenæus cites a testimony from Justin's book against Marcion, which we have placed in the Appendix. This work is called by Jerome, "remarkable volumes against Marcion"; by Photius, cod. 125, ἀναγκαῖοι λόγοι. Now Justin had completed this study when he offered his first Apology to the emperor; and this is indicated not obscurely by Eusebius, who speaks thus of Justin in lib. IV, cap. 11: "Who indeed also having written a treatise against Marcion, mentions him as a man known to be living at the time he was composing it." ^B Since he had also written a work against Marcion, he mentions the man as still existing among the living when he was writing. Then Eusebius brings forward that statement of Justin from 1 Apol., n. 26: "Moreover, we know of a certain Marcion from Pontus, who is still living even now." Valesius rendered those earlier words, ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας, thus: "Who in the book against Marcion, etc.," and Nicephorus understood them in no other way, who thinks the testimony of Justin cited by Eusebius was taken from the book against Marcion. Hence some conjecture that the memory of Eusebius had slipped, and others that Justin spoke the same things about Marcion both in the Apology and in the book against Marcion. But Eusebius clearly distinguishes the book from which he took that testimony from the work against Marcion. For that [phrase], ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας, does not mean the same as "writing," but rather: "Who, when he had also written a work against Marcion," or, "after he also wrote a work against Marcion." And therefore Eusebius distinguishes two works of Justin here; one against Marcion, another in which Justin was speaking about him ^C as still existing. Those very words, "Moreover we know of one Marcion," belong to a man not refuting Marcion in an entire book, but noting him in passing. But what Eusebius adds—that Justin adds after a few words: "There is also a book composed by us against all the heresies that have ever been, which book we shall hand over for you to read, if you so desire"—makes it manifest that Eusebius is indicating the work in which Justin was addressing the emperors. That work against heretics, whether written before the book against Marcion or not, I cannot determine; but certainly both works are older than the Apologies.

IV. Eusebius lists another work of Justin, of which he speaks thus: "And another scholastic [work] concerning the soul, in which, having proposed various questions regarding the problem of the subject, he sets forth the opinions of the philosophers among the Greeks; to which he promises he will also offer replies, and that he will set forth his own opinion in another work." A book of excerpts concerning the soul, in which, various interrogations having been proposed, which pertain to that argument, he brings forward the sentiments of the gentile philosophers: to which he also promises he will reply, and will set forth his own sentiment on these in another work. Whether ^D Justin kept his promises, Eusebius does not make us more certain, nor does he himself seem to have had it clearly in view. I remain uncertain whether I should think this work was studied out at the beginning of his conversion or toward the end of his life. For both that time of Justin was distinguished by disputations against philosophers. This book would not inappropriately be referred to the beginnings, which seems to have been a light exercise against philosophers rather than a work repeated from the middle of his religious life. But because after Justin returned to Rome, he had a very grave war with the philosophers; perhaps he composed this work at that time, and death prevented him from finishing it. Before this book, the *Psaltes* is listed by Eusebius, another study of Justin's, about which nothing seems able to be decided. Concerning the works supposed to be under Justin's name, which have been rejected into the Appendix, the admonition prefixed to each explains my opinion. But in the time of Eusebius many genuine works were extant, which are neither listed by Eusebius nor have reached us. For he speaks thus: "But many other monuments of his labor are carried among many brothers." Among these I would not count the explanation of the Apocalypse (for Justin and Irenæus are said to have interpreted this, because they explained some places when the opportunity was given), nor the commentary on the *Hexaëmeron*, nor the book *On the Resurrection*, about which we have treated in the second part of the Appendix, nor the *Tractate on Providence and Faith against Euphrasius the Sophist* cited by St. Maximus, tom. II, page 154.

V. But the same cannot be said about the most excellent epistle to Diognetus, which not a few learned men attribute to Justin, while others resist and object to the difference of style and times. For my part, although I concede to no one a greater desire to add honor to Justin's name through this excellent work, I would not attribute it to him as confidently as I would other works, which are both mentioned by the ancients and of their own accord bear many marks characterisitc of their parent. Nor, however, would I agree with those who entirely judge this epistle unworthy of Justin, as if it were closer to the apostolic age. If the dissimilarity of style is excepted, the other things, both the sentiments and the time, correspond sufficiently. Not only is the opening of the epistle to Diognetus almost the same as the *Cohortatio ad Græcos*, but also

^A a few other things occur in numbers 6 and 7, to which we have pointed out similar passages in Justin.

Tillemont, who first adjudicated this epistle away from Justin, was led to this opinion not only by the dissimilarity of style, but by not a few things of a note superior to Justin’s time, such as that question of Diognetus, no. 1: "Why this new kind or practice of the Christians has begun to come into usage now and not before?" Then also the fact that the Jews are said to think, no. 3, that they offer sacrifices to God through blood and smoke and burnt offerings and adorn Him with these honors. Finally, that very title, "disciple of the apostles," which the author of the epistle assumes for himself, no. 11.

A more accurate interpretation will be ours if we render it thus: "Having become a disciple of the apostles, I become a teacher of the Gentiles." The title of "teacher of the Gentiles," as also that of "disciple of the apostles," ought not be understood in a strict sense. Just as he does not call himself a teacher of the Gentiles on account of the dignity of his office, but on account of his zeal for preaching the doctrine, so, having received the discipline from the apostles, he does not signify that title of honor which was of great value at that time, but one common to all who, having spurned the philosophers, have embraced the faith preached by the apostles. For the author of the epistle invites all to obtain the same benefit and honor. "What has been delivered to me, I minister to those who become worthy disciples of the truth." In no other sense does the author of the 355th epistle of Basil (who I do not think is Basil) profess himself to be a disciple of the fishermen. It was permitted for Justin to profess the same. Therefore, there is nothing in this epistle that does not square with the time of Justin; rather, the title of "apostle," under which Paul is designated ^B by a tacit name in number 12, cannot be referred to the apostolic age. Tillemont suspects, without any reason at all, that this passage—indeed the very last part of the epistle—from the words *οὗτος ὁ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς* ("He who from the beginning"), was appended by another; although he does not make this conjecture his own, but refers it as accepted by a learned man whom he does not name.

It is not difficult to solve the things that the most learned man objects to in order to prove that this epistle is older than Justin. For why would the Christian religion not appear entirely recent in Justin's age, when Tertullian has said, "We are of yesterday" (Apol. cap. 37)? Justin himself in *Apol.* 1, no. 63, uses the same manner of speaking. For he says that Jesus Christ, while He was previously the Word, and had been seen now in the guise of fire, now in an incorporeal image: "now by the will of God for the sake of the human race has become man," *νῦν δὲ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος*.

^B The same most learned writer thinks that, even if those things he objected to be solved, the discrepancy of style itself would be argument enough as to why this work should not be attributed to Justin. I will not say, indeed, that I am lightly moved by this difficulty; and therefore, since I remained uncertain, ^C I neither separated the epistle from the works of Justin, nor placed it in that position which would have had to be attributed to it if it were most certainly a work of Justin. For if anyone wishes to maintain that Justin, just as he followed a more elegant style of speaking in the *Cohortatio* than in his other works, also followed a most elegant and most sublime style in this epistle, it must be referred to the beginnings of his conversion and considered older than the *Apologies*, in which, inflamed by the zeal of defending religion, he does not at all seek the ornaments of discourse. The conjecture of Halloix is approved by many learned men; he thought that Diognetus, to whom the epistle was written, was that very person whom Marcus Aurelius used as a master of painting and of other much better things.

Sacrifices truly ceased being offered by the Jews after the collapse of the city and temple in the year 70. But yet, when the author of the epistle explains what the difference is between Jews and Christians, he not undeservedly disdains in the Jews those bloody animal sacrifices, which were both an eminent part of the Jewish cult, and which the Jews, having been forcibly deprived of them, retained in mind and will if not in use. It happened to many others to rail against the Jews in the same way; S. Phileas the martyr speaks thus of the Jews, *Act. mart.*, p. 444: "It had been enjoined upon the Jews alone to sacrifice to God alone in Jerusalem. Now, however, the Jews sin by celebrating their solemnities in other places." Eusebius in *Psalm LXV*, no. 15, mocks the silly fables of the Jews, namely that God is delighted by burnt offerings that move the sense of incense, or by the blood of rams, oxen, and goats. Julian, in S. Cyril of Alexandria, lib. IX, p. 305, asks why Christians do not at least sacrifice to God. He argues that the Jews still sacrifice in their own houses and pray before they sacrifice, and give the right shoulder as first fruits to the priests; but being deprived of the temple and altar, or, as they commonly call it, the sanctuary, they are hindered from offering to God the first fruits of victims. Hilary ^D speaks thus of the same in *Psalm LVIII*, no. 12: "Through diverse [ways] they imitate the appearance of that legitimate priesthood and of burnt offering and of circumcision: although these things are only legitimate if established within Jerusalem."

Tillemont incorrectly thinks these words of the epistle: "Since I have been a disciple of the apostles, I become a teacher of the Gentiles," are of a man who was instructed by the apostles themselves and

CHAPTER IV.

On the first Apology of S. Justin and the origin of the three crimes charged to the Christians.

I. The hatred of the Christian religion, repressed under Hadrian, always resided in the minds of the heathens, and violently erupted under Antoninus. It did not rage by any decree of the best emperor against the edition of our Epistle, to which we have assigned its place among the writings of the Fathers of the 1st century, which the second volume of our collection comprises. EDIT. PATR.

^A persecution, but it seems that popular tumults kindled it, as we shall presently see from the letters of Antoninus, and primarily the calamities that arose in various parts of the empire, which they foolishly hoped could be averted by the blood of the Christians. Complaints were brought to Antoninus by the Christians from many quarters; nor was access to his ears for so just a cause difficult. The zeal of Justin, who lived in Rome, shone forth in this matter, for he offered a notable Apology on behalf of all Christians to the emperor, his adopted sons, and to the Roman senate and people.

But before we examine in what year this Apology was presented, it is worth the effort to discuss briefly the calumnies devised against the Christians, and to inquire by which authors and at what time they were spread abroad. For thus we shall illuminate certain testimonies of the holy martyr which the narrowness of the notes did not allow to be explained. Three crimes in particular were attributed to the Christians: that they were atheists, that they indulged in promiscuous debauchery, and that they devoured the flesh of a slaughtered infant in their mysteries. Great is the notoriety of these three crimes, both among the Greek and Latin defenders of religion, to such an extent that there is no region whatsoever that does not seem to have resounded with these fabrications. To these widespread calumnies, others were sometimes added. For, to say nothing of magic, in whose name Celsus accuses the Christians (as we see in Origen, Lib. VI, p. 301), it was claimed that they worshipped either a cross or even an ass's head as God, at least in Africa, as we learn from Tertullian, *Apologeticum*, c. 7, and Lib. I *ad Nationes*, and from Minucius Felix. These words of Tertullian would indicate a new type of calumnia if they were sound and complete: "Therefore," he says in Lib. I *ad Nat.*, c. 7, "to our age not yet, in the year 250, so many wicked men meanwhile, so many crosses have attained divinity, etc." But in these words, *tot iniqui*, there is a flaw and corruption, and no trace of such an accusation exists. Wherefore it should be read: *Tot onagri interea, tot cruces divinitatem consecutæ*, etc., and this is evident from chapter 11 of the same book, where the invention of divinity attributed to crosses is preceded by the accusation of an ass-headed God, which Tertullian thinks originated from Cornelius Tacitus. "This," he says, "Cornelius Tacitus gave rise to as a suspicion. For he relates that... the Jews, laboring in a desert place during an expedition from a shortage of water, were led by wild asses, which were thought to be going to seek water from pasture, to discover springs; and so, as a favor for that, they worshipped the image of a similar beast. From this I suppose it was presumed that we, too, as being close to the Jewish religion, were initiated into the same figure."

^B II. Who the authors of this most atrocious fable were, and at what time they attempted such wickedness, we perceive from two places in the *Dialogue with Trypho*. For thus the holy martyr addresses the Jews, n. [17]: "For the other nations are not so involved in this injustice against us and against Christ, as you are, who are the authors of the evil prejudice against the Just One and us who have sprung from Him. For after you crucified that only blameless and just man, ^C through whose stripes healing comes to those who through Him approach the Father, since you knew Him to have risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, as the prophecies foretold would happen, you not only did not repent of the evil things you did, but you even chose select men from Jerusalem and then sent them out into all the earth, saying that a godless heresy of Christians had arisen, and recounting those things which all who do not know us say against us. So that you are not only the cause of injustice to yourselves, but to all other men as well. . . Therefore, against the only blameless and just light sent to men by God, you strove to have bitter, dark, and unjust things recounted in every land. ^D "And not only did you not repent... but as I said before, having appointed select men, you sent them into all the inhabited world, proclaiming that a certain godless and lawless heresy had arisen from a certain Jesus, a Galilean deceiver; whom we crucified, but his disciples having stolen him by night from the tomb, where he had been laid after being taken down from the cross, deceive the people saying that he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven; and they have taught these things which you say are godless and lawless and impious against those who confess Christ to be both teacher and Son of God, to every race of men. Furthermore, even after your city was taken and your land laid waste, you do not repent, but even dare to curse Him and all who believe in Him. And we do not hate you and those who have assumed such things against us because of you, but we pray that even now all of you, having repented, may obtain mercy from the compassionate and all-merciful Father of all, God." "And not only did you not repent," he says in n. 108, "but you even appointed select men, and through them you sent out to the whole inhabited world..."

spreading abroad among all men, that there was a certain impious and lawless sect arisen from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, ^A whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he had been laid after being unfastened from the cross, and they deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. You have also added that he taught those impious and wicked and detestable crimes which you circulate against all those who confess him to be Christ and a teacher and Son of God, among every race of men. Besides this, when your city was captured and your land was devastated, you did not repent, but you even dared to curse him and all who believe in him. But we neither hate you, nor those who received such an opinion about us from you; rather, we pray that now at least, by repenting, you may all obtain mercy from the all-benign and wondrously merciful Father of all, God." ^B We have in these two testimonies the source of this foolish and impious fable. In both instances the sect of the Christians is called "atheist"; in both they designate those bitter, dark, impious, and unspeakable crimes—Thyestean feasts and Oedipean intercourse—which the Jews invented that Christ himself had taught. In one word, Justin attributes to the wickedness of the Jews whatever was consistently said by those who were ignorant of this religion against the Christians.

The testimonies of the holy martyr are confirmed by Tertullian. For thus he speaks of the Jew, by whom the God of the Christians had been publicly portrayed with the ears of an ass, in a toga, with a book, and with one foot having a hoof. The common people believed the Jew, he says in *Ad Nationes*, lib. i, cap. 14: "For what other genus is the seedbed of our infamy!" He teaches the same in *Adversus Marcionem*, lib. i, cap. 25: "Since then from the perseverance of your madness the name of the Lord was blasphemed by you, as it is written: 'Because of you my name is blasphemed among the nations' (for from them began the infamy), and in the time between Tiberius and Vespasian you did not grasp repentance, your land has become desolate." ^C

Thus also Origen, lib. vi *Contra Celsum*, n. 27: "It seems to me that Celsus has done the same as the Jews, who at the beginning of the Christian proclamation spread evil rumors about the doctrine of the Christians, as if they were eating the flesh of a sacrificed child, and again as if those 'of the Word,' ^D wishing to perform the deeds of darkness, extinguish the light, and each man unites with any woman he happens upon. This calumny, having long and irrationally prevailed, persuading those who were strangers to the Word that the Christians were such people, still leads astray some even now, preventing them through such things from coming even into the communion of simpler discourse with Christians."

[Regarding the Eusebian Testimony]

III. The testimony of Eusebius is of the greater weight because it seems that he read the same history not only in Justin but also in other writers, from whom he accepted that which is not mentioned by Justin: that the Jews gave letters to those whom they sent into the whole world. But although the authority of this history is great, since there are nevertheless ancient and recent writers who wish the triple crime not to have originated from the beginnings of religion, but to have been born under Hadrian and, from the depraved habits of the heretics who appeared under this emperor, to have overflowed onto all Christians, the matter must be examined a little more accurately.

In stated terms Eusebius declares, lib. iv, c. 7, that the nefarious heretics—Basilides, Saturninus, Carpocrates, and others of that kind—provided ample material for slandering and calumniating the Gospel, and that from this it happened that certain absurd and impious things were...

^A rumored abroad among the infidels of that time concerning us, as if we were accustomed to indulge in shameful intercourse with sisters and mothers and to partake of execrable banquets. Irenaeus, lib. 1, c. 25, witnesses the same thing; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., iv, p. 428; Origen, tom. ii, on the Epistles of Paul; Epiphanius in the heresy of the Carpocratians. These things seem at first sight to clash with Justin, and it is no wonder if Dodwell, with Tillemont agreeing, tom. ii, p. 245, pronounces that all this infamy of crimes was cast upon the Christian name by the Carpocratians and other heretics of that sort, who burst forth under Hadrian.

^B But the opinions of the ancients, which appear to differ, can be reconciled, so that the origin of the calumnies may be traced partly to the wickedness of the Jews and partly to the flagitious behavior of the heretics. Both Jews and heretics promoted this most iniquitous business; the heretics by living in the most wretched manner, and the Jews by seizing upon their crimes as an occasion for fabricating things against Christ's doctrine and the Christians, which they themselves could not have been ignorant were abhorred by all who lived in the most holy discipline of Christ. Indeed, the perfidy of the Jews did more harm than the flagitious acts of the heretics. For just as it is difficult to purge some heretics of promiscuous intercourse, so is infant-killing hardly to be believed. The crime of atheism was strengthened by the contempt of the gods which Christians openly displayed. Likewise, the heresies that appeared under Hadrian added a new flame to the envy against Christians, yet these stole the occasion from older ^C heretics—the Jews, especially from the Nicolaitans and the disciples of Menander. The former of these seem to have given the material for the rumor of promiscuous gatherings; the latter, however, being devoted to magic, derived from this the invidiousness of the crime—from which it was easy to suspect infant-killing—onto all Christians, as Eusebius testifies, Hist., iv, 26. Thus, if the origin of the evil is traced back to the first heretics, and its increase to the later ones, we shall explain how Jews and heretics conspired to the disgrace of the Christian name.

IV. The words of Justin require us to say that the apostles were sent out by the Jews before the city was captured by Titus. For he reproaches the Jews with two things: that they sent out apostles to scatter calumnies, and that, moreover, after the city was taken, they began to curse the Christians with dire imprecations. Now, since they were sent by the Jerusalem priests, this is evidence that the Jews had not yet lost the splendor of their priesthood and their city. Eusebius attributes the same deed to the Jerusalem priests. Tertullian, cited just now, says the infamy originated from the Jews before the capture of Jerusalem.

The things received from the Jerusalem priests the Jews did not cease to scatter among the whole human race, as Justin witnesses; and they had already long before—even before the heretics who arose under Hadrian—preoccupied the minds of the Gentiles with these depraved opinions concerning the Christian religion, as is clear from the testimonies of Pliny and ^D of Cornelius Tacitus. For why, in the letter which Pliny wrote to Trajan in the year 104, does he describe so accurately what the Christians did in their assemblies; why does he say that it was their custom to meet for taking food, although common and harmless, if not because their "agapes" were already ablaze with the evil rumors of infant-killing? Cornelius Tacitus also believed that the Christians were called into these crimes even under Nero. "Therefore," he says, "in order to abolish the rumor, Nero substituted defendants, and afflicted with the most exquisite punishments those whom the vulgar, hating them for their flagitious crimes, called Christians. An exitiable superstition was again breaking out, not only through Judaea, where the origin of that evil was, but even through the City, to which all things atrocious or shameful flow together and are celebrated." Saint Melito, in the Apology offered to Marcus Aurelius, observes that Nero and Domitian wished to brand the Christian religion with the marks of crimes, and that from them it arose that the calumny against the Christians was spread by the foolish habit of lying and by the custom of being alien to reason. *From which it happened that the slander of such things flowed forth against them by senseless habit,* as in Eusebius, iv, 26.

Therefore, the crime of the Jews must be placed before the siege of Jerusalem; yet it must not be placed too long before, if we wish to admit that the heretics gave the material for these crimes. For Hegesippus, in Eusebius, Hist., iv, 22, testifies that those nefarious heresies, from which others were sown in succession, began to arise at Jerusalem when Saint Simeon was chosen bishop of Jerusalem. It is not to be taken strictly that Justin says envoys were sent by the Jews after they knew that Jesus had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. For thus he says in Apol. 1, num. 29, that after Christ's ascent into heaven, Simon, Menander, and Marcion were sent out by demons.

V. These inventions have always seemed incredible to all right-thinking men: Trypho the Jew confesses they are abhorrent to the truth, Dialog., n. 10. "Most people temper their belief in such things," says Tertullian, 1 ad Nat., c. 2. But nonetheless they possessed momentum, if not credibility; and though refuted a hundred times, they did not cease to be brought up. In the time of Origen, as is evident from the testimony cited above, they were not indeed deceiving as many as they once did, but yet they were still deceiving some; nor do they seem to have been entirely buried in oblivion and silence—if we believe Lactantius—until Constantine held the reins of the empire. For thus he writes, lib. v, c. 26: "Truly they accuse this silence of ours as a bad conscience: from which they even fabricate certain execrable opinions concerning the chaste and innocent, and willingly believe those things which they have invented. But now, most holy Emperor, all those fabrications have been lulled to sleep, from the time when the supreme God raised you up to restore the home of justice and for the protection of the human race." Eusebius seems to think these calumnies withered away before Constantine, and this is gathered from those things which are read lib. iv, c. 7:

"The calumny, he says, which had been cast upon our entire religion has been extinguished by the passage of time... so that from that time even to our own day no one has dared to cast any stain of infamy upon our faith (that no one up to the present brings shameful calumny against our faith) or to bring any such calumny as those old enemies of our religion were accustomed to boast." ^A

CHAPTER V

I. The longer Apology of Justin, which in all editions, except the London one, follows the shorter one, is acknowledged by the consensus of all to be the first. Justin himself, as he testifies in the *Dialogue*, n. 120, offered this to the acts and requested that it be inscribed in the public records. He says, indeed, that he approached the Caesar *in writing*. I have observed this force and meaning of the word *εγγράφως*; but moreover, the author Justin himself is the one who interprets it in this way, which fact exhibits a specimen of a not timid spirit; because, indeed, he dared to accuse the Samaritans in the writing offered to the acts and publicly preserved, without fearing their wrath. In the Apology itself, n. 26, he requests from the emperor that the senate and the Roman people be made cognizant of this suppliant libellus. In the second Apology, as we shall see below, he cites the first as known and publicly preserved; which indeed is an argument that Antoninus had not delayed at all in fulfilling a just petition.

What is read in this Apology declares no less Justin’s constancy and the fortitude of a spirit fervent with charity, than the very manner of offering it. He does not hesitate to warn the emperor and his sons that, from the judgment which they will render after reading this Apology regarding the Christians, it will be estimated whether they are truly pious, philosophers, guardians of justice, and lovers of doctrine. Although he was not ignorant of how immoderate Antoninus had been in his expressions of affection toward Hadrian, he nevertheless objects to the Gentiles that which brought eternal infamy to Hadrian's name: the consecration of Antinous among the gods. ^B But Antoninus was not one whom such freedom would offend. Rather, it seems that an extraordinary sincerity of spirit—which shines through the whole work—as well as a sincere and accurate exposition of the dogmas of the Christian religion, of the precepts of Christ, of the prophecies which events had confirmed, of the virtues which Christians cultivated, and finally of the rites and ceremonies which they observed in their mysteries, led him to think justly of the Christians and to adorn their piety with due praises.

II. Zonaras testifies that this Apology of S. Justin had the result that Antoninus suppressed the persecution. This testimony is confirmed by many things. For Justin alone offered an Apology, by which he could teach the emperor regarding the affairs of the Christians. Some brothers from Asia indeed brought their complaints to Antoninus; but from complaints of this kind, it does not seem that the knowledge of the Christian religion could be grasped to the extent that it shines forth in the letters of Antoninus. To Justin alone it was reserved to act for the cause of the Church by accurately explaining its dogmas and institutions. Furthermore, such is the consensus of the emperor's decree with the Apology of Justin, that it seems constructed according to the sentiment of the holy martyr. Justin demonstrates that Christians are not atheists, and that no class of men is more alien to other crimes, which were falsely attributed to them. Thus also the emperor in his letter given to the commonalty of Asia pronounces that Christians are unjustly called atheists, and are brought into disdain due to other crimes which cannot be proven. Justin prays that the same form of judgment be maintained for Christians as for other men. Thus also Antoninus decreed that no trouble should be offered to such men, unless they were found to be plotting something against the Roman empire. Justin had appended to his Apology the letter of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus. Antoninus commemorates the decree of Hadrian and boasts that he follows in his footsteps. Justin declares that Christians can indeed be killed, but not injured; for it is desirable for them to meet death, so that they may attain those things for which they hope. Antoninus attributes the same testimony to them. ^C Justin does not request that the accusers of the Christians be punished, or rather he pleads for their punishment to be in some way omitted. But the emperor, while he orders them to be punished, seems more to have considered, just as Hadrian did, what justice commands to be decreed against nefarious men, than what the Christians sought for themselves to be pardoned by their enemies. That he says, however, that the Gentiles are ignorant of the manner of worshipping God, and on that account envy those who do worship Him and persecute them even to death—it is easy to perceive how consistent these things are with Justin's Apology. For this was no small part of his work, to demonstrate that Christians were brought into disdain by the machinations of demons on account of their worship of the true God. See n. 12 and 46. There is one thing in the emperor's letter regarding which Justin does not seem to have treated: namely, the earthquakes, the cause of which the Gentiles were tracing to the contempt for the worship of the gods on the part of the Christians. But when Justin was writing these things, it seems these calamities had not yet arisen.

III. It must not be concealed that these letters to the commonalty of Asia seem to many learned writers, such as Scaliger, Valesius, Grabe, and others, not to be of Antoninus, but of Marcus Aurelius. But their opinion is completely improbable. For, to briefly recount the moments of the arguments of Tillemont, who vindicates them for Antoninus: 1º The authority of Eusebius, who attributes them to Antoninus, ought to be of the greatest weight. 2º They suit only Antoninus, who alone could call Hadrian his father. ^D

their parent, and who alone in that age showed favor to the Christians. For it is certain that he wrote them to the states, and specifically to the Larissaeans, to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and in short to all the Greeks—which is what is read in the letter to the Common Council of Asia—namely, that they should not devise anything new against the Christians. But Marcus was always hostile to the Christians.

Indeed, in the title of the letter to the Common Council of Asia, one reads “Marcus Aurelius,” but it is a blemish—an ancient one, it is true, since it appears so in Rufinus, but a blemish nonetheless; for it should be “Aelius,” as in Justin. It was easy for scribes to err in words so similar.

^A Julius Capitolinus testifies that he was given to Annius and Sextus. But as to that phrase, *erastos paideias*, “lover of learning,” which they deny accords with the title of philosopher, we have observed in the note to this passage that it fits well enough; and even if it designated erudition rather than philosophy, could Justin not have attributed both praises to Lucius?

Justin says the Lord was born ^B 150 years before his time, to which calculation something might be missing or in excess, but not so much that it is docked by eleven or twelve years; for Justin would not have escaped the shameful mark of this error if he had written in the year 138 or 139.

By these arguments, Tillemont shows that the heresy of Marcion could not have appeared earlier than the year 142. For we understand how much progress this heresy had made when Justin wrote his Apology from these words: “We know also of a certain Marcion of Pontus, who still survives and teaches his disciples to acknowledge some other god greater than the creator of the world. He, through the help of the demons, has accomplished in every race of men that many have burst forth into blasphemies, and have denied that the Creator God is the Father of Christ, and have confessed that some other being, as if greater, has accomplished greater things than He.”

It is in vain that the silence of Melito is objected. For, although among the letters written by Antoninus on behalf of the Christians he does not specifically recount those which were given to the Common Council of Asia, nonetheless, from Eusebius it must be agreed that the time of Justin’s Apology is confirmed by them. For after he has set forth these letters, he immediately adds: “That these things were done in this way, Melito, Bishop of the Church of Sardis, who flourished in the same times, clearly testifies in that long and most useful Apologetic which he wrote to the Emperor Verus on behalf of our religion.” How can Melito be said to have been silent about that which Eusebius asserts he clearly testified to? Therefore, either Melito mentioned that letter to the Common Council of Asia in other places, or, as I would prefer, Eusebius thought it was embraced generally in those which were sent to the states and to all the Greeks, seeing that they were all written to the same effect, and the letter to the Common Council of Asia cannot be referred to another time or another event.

IV. Moreover, there is no single opinion among the learned as to the year in which Justin’s Apology was written. Dodwell and Pagi think it was written in 138; Petavius, before the end of the year 139; others in 145; Tillemont around the year 150.

The things we have said about Justin’s Cohortation force us to reject 139 entirely. For the Cohortation, which could not have been written until after the year 140, was followed by many other works of great importance before Justin wrote his first Apology. Petavius ^C and those who agree with him paid little attention to how awkwardly Lucius Verus, who was an eight-year-old boy in 139, is called a philosopher and lover of learning by Justin. For it is written thus in the inscription: “To Lucius the philosopher, son of Caesar by nature, but adopted by Pius, lover of learning.” They object in vain that one should read *philologon* and not *philosophon*, so that it is not Lucius who is called a philosopher, but his father, who was made Caesar by Hadrian. But Lucius Verus is called a philosopher in both Apologies of Justin, in Rufinus, and in four manuscript codices of Eusebius. Therefore, the editions of Eusebius, which are contradicted by so much, should not be preferred. The title of philosopher, which we do not see having been conferred upon Lucius Caesar, is not badly attributed to his son, whom the philosophers—

The letters to the Common Council of Asia, which I said have a great affinity with Justin’s Apology, prove that the Apology was written around the year 150. For they are dated to the fifteenth year of the tribunician power of Antoninus, which indeed corresponds to the year 152, seeing that the power was conferred upon Antoninus on the 25th of February in the year 138. But I confess that I do not put much trust in the numbers noted in the inscription of this letter. For they were completely corrupted in the text of Justin, where it read: *Demarchikes exousias hypatos id’* (from which Sylburgius made *to d'*) *pater patridos to ka'*. Therefore, since the manuscript codices of Eusebius agreed on these numbers, I thought this authority should be preferred to those which were so corrupt in Justin. Yet, in this number in Eusebius, *hypatos to g'*, there is clearly an error, which, however, does not seem to have been introduced through carelessness, but on purpose, so that this number would square with Marcus Aurelius, whose name appears in the inscription in Eusebius. For he only held the consulship three times. But since Antoninus, to whom so many things attribute this letter, is usually called consul for the fourth time in the inscriptions, one should read in the inscription of this ^D letter *hypatos to d'*. And another suspicion arises regarding the years of the tribunician power: I fear that they were adapted on purpose to M. Aurelius. They fall very conveniently into the first year of his reign, namely 161. For this tribunician power was conferred upon him in the year 147. Wherefore, if it had been written *id'* or *ie'*, it would have done no harm to the name of Antoninus; but it was necessary to write—

not «*id'* or *ie'*» but «that Marcus Aurelius might appear to be the author of the epistle». If as much weight were attributed to the Chronicles of Eusebius as to his History, a not insignificant difficulty would stand in the way of rejecting this Apology to about the year 150. For in the Chronicles it is said to have been offered in the year 141. But it would be older than the Marcionite heresy, which, however, the History of Eusebius does not allow to be placed before the year 142.

Petavius objects that Marcus Aurelius is called *Verissimus* in this Apology, a name which, according to Capitolinus, he laid aside after he assumed the toga virilis; and that he is not called *Caesar*, which is an argument that this Apology was written in the year 139, before Marcus had been named *Caesar* by Antoninus. The title *Verissimus* adds nothing to the matter. For Marcus Aurelius had assumed the toga virilis before the year 139, in which year Petavius himself admits he was so named by Justin. And the name *Caesar* Justin either omitted through carelessness, or it fell out through the fault of the copyists; or for *Antonino Pio Augusto Caesare et Verissimo filio*, one should read *Caesari Verissimo filio*, as Sylburgius noted.

It seems more difficult for Tillemont to resolve what is objected by the same Petavius and many others, that Justin speaks in this Apology of the Jewish war, which was finished in the year 136, as of a matter very recent and newly done, as is clear from these words, no. 31, ἐν τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ Ἰουδαϊκῷ πολέμῳ. But I have already observed that *nyn* is sometimes used for things done long ago, and that the Christian religion is said to have recently arisen in the Epistle to Diognetus, and Christ is said to have just been incarnate in this Apology. In the same Apology, Antinous, whom Hadrian consecrated among the gods in the year 132, is said to have just existed, no. 23.

V. Subjoined to the Apologies of St. Justin are the epistles of three emperors, Hadrian, Antoninus, and M. Aurelius, on behalf of the Christians. ^B That the first was subjoined by Justin himself is certain: for he himself is the witness and monitor of this fact. Scaliger, in *Animadversions on Eusebius* (ad an. MM. CLXXXIX), thinks the second was transferred here from Eusebius's History; but the third he declares to be the work of a more recent Greek, ignorant of Roman affairs, from below the century of the Emperor Justinian.

There does not seem to be any room for doubt that there once existed letters of M. Aurelius in which it was testified that both he and his army, when they were hard-pressed and surrounded by enemies, escaped both dangers through the prayers of the Christians. Eusebius had not seen these letters when he was writing his Chronicles, nor did he have anything concerning them except by hearsay. But Jerome so renders this passage of Eusebius as to pronounce that they did exist. Eusebius himself, *Hist.* lib. v, cap. 5, considers the matter certain and verified from the testimony of Tertullian. For thus says Tertullian, *Apol.*, cap. 5: «But we, on the contrary, produce a protector; if the letters of Marcus Aurelius are requested, in which he testifies that that German thirst was dispelled by the rain obtained through the prayers of the Christian soldiers.» Just as he did not publicly remove the punishment from such men, so in another way he publicly ^C cast it out, having added a penalty against the accusers of the Christians, and indeed a more terrible one.

Relying on these words, Scaliger and Tillemont (the former denying that Tertullian had seen these letters, the latter asserting it with far better right) argue. For how would he have appealed to these letters against the enemies of the Christian name unless he had verified the matter? How could he have described so accurately what is contained in these letters? The letters of M. Aurelius which are read after Justin’s Apology are not those of which Tertullian and Jerome spoke: but we must observe in what matters they agree and in which they differ.

And first, concerning the sum of the miracle itself, no discrepancy occurs. For everywhere, thirst gathered over a long time, the terror of the surrounding enemy, the prayers of the Christians, the rain salvaging for the Romans, and the lightning unto the enemies are mentioned. The condemnation added in Tertullian against the accusers of the Christians, and indeed a more terrible one, agrees sufficiently with the letters extant after Justin, in which Marcus mandates that such informers be burned alive. Although Eusebius, *Hist.* lib. v, cap. 5, thinks that with Tertullian’s words a capital punishment is designated in general; yet I could hardly believe that by «more terrible condemnation» some most grievous punishment is not meant. Furthermore, there is something difficult in the words of Tertullian which seems able to be illustrated from the letters preserved after Justin’s Apology. For that phrase, «by the prayers of the Christian soldiers, perhaps [forte],» ^D appears to Tillemont to signify a doubtful and uncertain mind—not indeed of Tertullian, but of Marcus, fearing that by speaking assertively he might harm Gentile superstitions. But it becomes very unlikely that Marcus took pains to appear as though he doubted. For what would a doubtful and uncertain testimony have profited Tertullian for the defense of the cause? Moreover, Eusebius refers to Tertullian’s words in such a way that no sign of doubt resides in the emperor. But I would perhaps more willingly believe that *forte* is equivalent to «by some chance»; not that Marcus relegates the rain obtained by the prayers of the Christians to chance, but that he believed it had happened to him by some chance, so that he might summon the Christians, of whom he had previously thought nothing, intent upon praying to the gods.

But if in some respect these letters are similar to the genuine ones, they differ greatly in many others. They attribute the miracle to the Christians called from the entire army; on the contrary, among the ancients, one legion earns the praise for this event, which, from then on, with a name fitting to the event, is testified by Apollinaris to have been named *Fulminea* («the Thundering») by the emperor, *apud* Eusebius, lib. v, cap. 5. The letters with which we are concerned drive away all punishment entirely from one who is accused merely by the name of the Christian religion. But that is entirely at odds with Tertullian, and with the examples of the martyrs of Vienne and Apollonius, the former of whom, when they had been called into judgment, were condemned to death, with Marcus himself ordering it: the latter, indeed, when he had been called into judgment by a certain most wicked man, the accuser was immediately, his shins being broken...

and he was put to death; he himself, however, was condemned by a capital sentence. Euseb., v, 21.

Scaliger jokes at length about the maker of the epistle, because he enlisted Christians without arms and weapons into the Roman armies. But I have attempted to explain this passage. The same man observes that it was not customary for emperors to address the sacred senate, and to send laurelled letters to the people and the senate, but only to the senate: he thinks these things were taken from the beginning of the Apology of St. Justin. Thus is that supposititious epistle inscribed in Baronius: *Imp. Caesar, M. Aurelius, Antoninus, Augustus, Parthicus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, pontifex maximus, of the tribunician power XXVIII, imp. VII, cos. III, Father of the fatherland, proconsul. S. P. Q. R. S. D.*

CHAPTER VI.

I. We can examine in this place whether it was established by capital punishment by the heathen emperors that no Christian should read the books of Hystaspes, the Sibyl, and the Prophets. For Baronius gathers this from these words of St. Justin, *Apol. 1, n. 44*: "By the operation of the wicked demons, death was decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets, so that through fear they might turn people away from receiving the knowledge of good things, and keep them enslaved to themselves; which in the end they could not accomplish. For fearlessly we not only read them, but, as you see, we offer them to you for your inspection, knowing that they will appear acceptable to all." The malefic operation of the demons established death for those who read the books of Hystaspes or the Sibyl or the Prophets; partly that they might deter men by fear from attaining the knowledge of good things by reading them; partly that they might keep them as their own slaves: a thing which, however, they could not do forever. For we, fearlessly, not only read them, but as you see, we offer them to you to be inspected, since we know that they will eventually appear grateful to all.

The words of the martyr have given room for this observation of Baronius: "How numerous," he says, *Apparat. ad Annal., num. 20*, "were the Christians in reading the Sibylline books, and how much they strove to acquire for themselves strength and authority from them for convincing the Gentiles, can be easily understood from the fact that it was necessary for the law to deter them from their reading with the penalty of death: which the martyr Justin testifies to with these words." Casaubon attacks this opinion of Baronius, *Exercit. 11*, and denies that that prohibition properly pertained to the Christians. But because Justin joins the books of the Prophets and the Sibylline books, he asserts that the pious martyr did this because, having come upon certain ^A prophecies of the Sibyls, true or false, regarding Christ, he thought the whole volume of the Sibylline poem, which was kept with such study at Rome, and from whose reading all were excluded except the Quindecimviri, was of the same subject matter.

But while Casaubon refutes one error in Baronius, he attributes several others to Justin. Certainly the sentiment of Baronius cannot stand, nor does that law, which he thinks was specifically established for Christians, exist in any trace. The words of the holy martyr signify something else entirely, who, while he proposes the oracles of the prophets for the emperor to consider, is confident that he will be doing something pleasing to him and to all others, far from thinking that death was ordained for Christians reading these oracles. For how, if so severe a law had been enacted against the Christians, would Justin have hoped that he would find favor by violating it? Furthermore, Justin says that the demons devised that law with the intention that they might turn men away from the knowledge of good things and keep them serving themselves. That law, therefore, did not target the Christians so much as those who were still subject to the demons. Finally, from the testimony of Aurelian Augustus, which we shall refer to presently, it is perceived that the heathens had judged the Christians in such a way that they thought the Sibylline poem was hateful to them, far from it appearing that their study of reading this book needed to be restrained by laws. And these things are concerning the opinion of Baronius.

But did Casaubon, the critic of Baronius, see more acutely in explaining Justin? If we listen to him, the martyr believed that the Sibylline books, which were kept by the Quindecimviri, were of the same ^B subject matter as those which were forged in the second century under the name of the Sibyl; he did not know that these books were accustomed to be consulted on the methods of appeasing the gods; he imagined to himself that they spoke most clearly about the Word of God the Son, and his Incarnation, miracles, death, and resurrection; and that was the reason that he supposed the penalty established for the reading of the Sibylline poem pertained even to the reading of the Prophets. A great error indeed and hardly credible. But behold another one not less serious. For it is necessary that he should have believed this similarity of subject matter, which he thought existed in the books kept at Rome with others speaking openly of Christ and with the prophets themselves, was so known to everyone that the same penalty prohibited reading them all. Besides, if Justin was led by such an error, how did he think that what he believed was forbidden and hated solely because of them would be pleasing to the Christians alone?

II. Therefore, another explanation of this passage must be sought, but not one that must be sought afar. Only two things are to be observed, I would like to say, in the words of Justin. That capital penalty deterred the heathens from reading the books of Hystaspes, the Sibyl, and the Prophets; but it moved the Christians so little that they openly showed that they were devoted to reading these books, and they trusted that they would come to no offense by producing the oracles of the prophets. What, then, is that law, so much to be feared by the heathens, but harming the Christians not at all? Surely no other seems to be assignable

^A than that which prohibited the curious investigation of future events. For this was by far the greatest crime in those times, and it seemed to imply an interest in new things and the forming of wicked counsels, if anyone inquired for prophecies concerning the life of the emperor. Whence Tertullian (Apol. 35), to prove that Christians are unjustly called public enemies because they do not offer to the emperors vain, feigned, or reckless honors, observes that those who show great zeal in offering these to Caesar are often not his true friends, and that they consult astrologers concerning his life—a suspicion which does not fall upon Christians. "They pay the same duties," he says, "as those who consult astrologers, augurs, aruspices, and magicians concerning the life of the Caesars—arts which are born of the fallen angels and forbidden by God, and which the Christians do not employ even for their own needs." Lucian, in his *Alexander*, relates the clever artifice of this man, who, when he was consulted from all sides by means of written petitions, if any of the rich consulted him regarding matters of great moment, did not return their petitions, but kept them for himself, so that when they realized they were captured and tied down, they might redeem the danger into which they had foolishly cast themselves with great gifts.

It was therefore established by capital law that no one should inquire into matters regarding Caesar or the future of the state, or unroll books in which future events were predicted. Justin thinks this law was fixed by the cunning and artifice of demons, namely, that men might be deterred from reading the Prophets; his own experience could teach him that many had been restrained by this fear, and thus dared not touch the writings of the prophets. But for the Christians, another cause existed. It was known to all that they abhorred everything pertaining to omens and augury, and deemed it a great sin to consult demons; nor did they bring forth the prophets in matters pertaining to the administration of the state, but only in those that concerned eternal salvation; nor did they do so to curiously know the future, but rather to show that the things which had happened to Jesus Christ and the Christians had been foreseen and predicted many centuries before. From men thus disposed, there was nothing to be feared by the Caesars; they could safely unroll the books of the Sibyl, of Hystaspes, and of the Prophets; there was no suspicion that they were inquiring into the future events of the state; and Aurelian, ^B in a letter to the senate which Vopiscus has handed down to us, quite wittily said: "I wonder at you, holy Fathers; that you have hesitated so long to open the Sibylline books, as if you were debating in the Church of the Christians, and not in the temple of all the gods." It is no wonder, therefore, if the heathens could not read the writings of the prophets and other similar works without danger, while the Christians read them without suspicion; and by showing that the things predicted had arrived at their fulfillment, they excited a grateful admiration in the minds of their hearers.

III. The matter of what Justin says in the same Apology concerning the statue erected to Simon Magus has given rise to no small controversy. For thus he says, num. 26: "The demons inspired a certain Samaritan, Simon from the village of Gitton, who under the Emperor Claudius performed in your royal city of Rome magical miracles through the art of the demons working in him, and was considered a god and honored by you as a god with a statue: which statue was erected on the island in the Tiber between the two bridges, having this Roman inscription: *Simoni deo sancto*." And num. 56: "The demons inspired the Samaritans Simon and Menander, who, by performing magical miracles, deceived many, and even now keep them deceived. For when, as I have said, during the reign of Claudius Caesar, Simon was active in your royal city of Rome, he so struck the sacred senate and the Roman people with admiration that he was considered a god, and a statue was presented to him, just as to others who are worshipped by you as gods. Wherefore we pray that the sacred senate and the Roman people may, together with you, become examiners of this our suppliant petition, so that if anyone is entangled in his doctrine, having learned the truth, he may be able to escape his error; and, if it pleases you, cast down the statue."

The history related by Justin had always been held in esteem and honor, and Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and Theodoret had added weight to it, by whom the same is asserted as testimony, until a certain statue discovered under Gregory XIII detracted ^C from its credit and authority among not a few scholars. "Five years ago, I think," says Baronius at the year 44, "under Pope Gregory XIII, a stone was dug up from the ruins on the same island of the Tiber, marked with such an inscription: SEMONI SANGO DEO FIDIO SACRUM SEX. POMPEIUS S. P. E. COL. MUSSIANUS QUINQUENNALIS DECUR. BIDENTALIS DONUM DEDIT. The stone itself presents a base upon which a statue might have been placed, but it is small: nor does it seem capable, being very narrow, of any image resembling a human stature." There is a certain similarity of names between this inscription and that which is reported by Justin; the place also agrees: for a statue of the god Semo Sancus was found on the island in the Tiber, where Justin relates that Simon the holy god was consecrated. Hence arose for many scholars not only a suspicion, but even a firm persuasion that Justin had been deceived through an ignorance of the Latin language, and that he had fashioned "Simon the holy god" out of the "Semo Sancus god." But on the other hand, other critics, not obscure, among them Tillemont, protest, to whose arguments it is difficult not to assent.

IV. Those who wish to maintain that the nodding Justin erred rely upon a single argument: namely, the similarity of names. For it is of the lightest moment what Valesius objects (in his notes on Eusebius, book II), that the Romans were not accustomed to attribute divinity to living men, or to call gods "holy." To omit the examples that are not wanting of men ascribed to the gods before their death, such as Neryllinus in Athenagoras (num. 26), it is enough to remember that Claudius was reigning at that time, under whose empire nothing was so absurd ^D that it could not be obtained and performed.

And S. Augustine and Theodoret have said these things about this statue, of whom Justin was not the author for them. For one testifies that it was erected to Simon and Helena, the other that it was brazen, neither of which Justin had said. These arguments, which Baronius and Tillemont have for the most part supplied, restrain me from esteeming as more than an uncertain conjecture that which other learned men have confidently pronounced. ^A For they had consecrated Simon of the Samaritans, and by their suffrage he had arrived at Rome as a god, and it is no wonder if there he obtained the same honors, where, as Tacitus says, "all things atrocious and shameful flow together from all sides and are celebrated." Tillemont observes that the appellation of gods was attributed to them in many inscriptions of Gruter. There is nothing, therefore, that can press Justin except the similarity of the inscription mentioned by him with that which was discovered many centuries later. But both are in many things diverse. Indeed, the name of Simion of Rome could be confused with Semon: but neither could the god Semon Sangus Fidius be taken for the holy god Simon by a man skilled in reading, nor by a healthy man could "Sex. Pompeius S. P. E., col. Mussianus," etc., be taken for the emperor and the senate, nor could the image of the god Sangus be taken for the image of Simon by one who had seen this latter in Samaria. ^B

Furthermore, it must be observed that it was not rashly and inconsiderately that Justin petitioned the emperor to remove this statue of Simon Magus. For a great danger threatened the petitioner from the Samaritans, and he himself in the *Dialogue*, n. 120, in order to prove that he had no other care but to speak the truth, even if it were necessary to be torn apart on the spot, puts forward an example of a fearless spirit, when, appealing to Caesar in the writing deposited for the Acts, he said that the Samaritans were deceived by error, who have faith in Simon, the Magician of their own people, whom they call a god above all principality and power and virtue. If Justin did not set about this except with considered and viewed danger, which was to be feared from the Samaritans; there is hardly a doubt but that the matter was certain and explored for him. Moreover, he asks the emperor to associate the senate and the people as witnesses of this matter and to tear down the statue. ^C The Samaritans themselves seem to have known of the statue and to have thought highly of it. For in this their fury was to be feared, because the destruction of the statue could not have escaped them if Justin had obtained that it be destroyed. But it was difficult that what Justin wrote about Simon in passing should reach their knowledge.

V. Even if Justin had erred in this matter, at least he ought to have recognized the error, either of his own accord while walking through the city he found many other statues of Semon Sangus (for it is consistent that many existed in Rome), or warned by friends, or corrected by enemies. His first *Apology* had fame and celebrity. How, therefore, did such a notable error, and one so suitable for striking the eyes, remain so hidden that in the *Dialogue* and in the *Apology* 2, he confirms with confidence and safety what he had said in the first? He was accustomed to fight for the Christian religion with learned men. Why, therefore, did no one avenge the blows received from him, and not even that Crescens whom he declares he had broken and convicted (*Apol.* 2, num. 3)? How did so many venerable writers, who said the same things as Justin, not at all detect the error? ^D Moreover, as Tillemont observes, *Annal.*, lib. xv.

CHAPTER VII. De Dialogo cum Tryphone.

That he had a domicile in Rome is not to be understood as if Justin had spent his life in this city. For he seems to have been absent for a long time after the *Apology* was offered to the emperor and to have stayed in other regions. For he says in the *Acts of the Martyrdom*: "I came to the city of Rome, a second time: ἐπεδήμησα δὲ τῇ Ῥω μαίων πόλει τοῦτο δεύτερον." By which words he signifies that he had returned after a long interval; for indeed, if he had left for a short time, the continuity of his stay would not have been interrupted. But what causes dragged the holy martyr into the provinces, and what he did while absent, we can judge from his occupations in the city itself.

Tillemont thinks that Justin imitated those excellent disciples of the apostles whom Eusebius narrates to have fulfilled the office of evangelists in various regions, partly by preaching the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it; partly by visiting the Churches which the apostles had founded, so that he might confirm them in faith and truth. Quadratus had shone before Justin in this type of praise; but after Justin, according to Eusebius, lib. v, cap. 10, many such evangelists appeared, among whom Pantaenus was famous, and at the beginning of the third century, Caius, whom Photius testifies to have been ordained bishop of the Gentiles. The same excellent writer thinks that Justin performed this office of evangelist in Campania and Egypt, which regions Justin himself testifies to have traveled in his *Cohortatio ad Graecos*; then also in Asia, where Eusebius narrates that he had been and held the *Dialogue* with Trypho and other Jews at Ephesus. The dignity of bishop or presbyter, with which the same Tillemont conjectures Justin was adorned, supports this opinion. These conjectures show nothing that would conflict, nothing that would not seem to be thought of fittingly and conveniently; but yet they are to be adopted not without some discrimination.

1* Tillemont thinks less accurately that Campania and Egypt were traveled by Justin for the sake of preaching the Gospel. For it is not improbable that in Egypt itself the Christian religion…

^A was embraced, and that he did not stay in Cumae in Campania, but rather lodged there while on his way to Rome; or if he traveled through these regions, it certainly happened before his arrival in Rome, before his *Exhortation to the Greeks* was written, and consequently while he was still fresh from his conversion and not yet mature for the office of an evangelist.

2. Nor can it be determined whether Justin, upon leaving Rome, traveled through various regions or sought a specific place for the purpose of residing. This much only we know, and nothing more, that after he left Rome, he discoursed at Ephesus for two days with Trypho and other Jews. This was the occasion of the *Dialogue*.

^B II. A few days before Justin was to depart, while he was walking in the morning in the spaces of the Xystus, a certain Jew named Trypho met him, along with others from the same race, and signified that he was a student of philosophy, and for this reason was desirous of conversing with him. Justin asks whether Moses and the prophets would not be of much more use to him than the philosophers; and being asked by him what he felt about God, and what philosophy he followed, he tells them how, being devoted to Platonic philosophy, he had learned from a certain old man, into whom he had chanced to run, that the truth was to be sought not from the philosophers, but from the prophets who prophesied about Christ the Son of God. Trypho's companions laugh; Trypho pities Justin’s lot, because, having forsaken the philosophers, he places his hope in a man, deceived by empty tales. Justin promises that he will demonstrate, if they are willing to listen, that Christians have believed not in fables, but in the most certain arguments.

^C Again, the companions of Trypho laugh and clamor indecorously; Justin seeks to depart; he is held back by Trypho, but on the condition that his companions either leave or listen in silence. Then Justin and Trypho come into the middle of the Xystus stadium, and there sit down on stone benches placed on either side, when two of Trypho’s companions had departed. These were the preludes to a longer disputation, which, being interrupted at the close of the day, was resumed the following day, as is probable, at an appointed hour, with the return of Trypho together with his companions and some others who had not been present the day before.

After those things which were argued over the space of two days, the series of which we have woven together in the analysis prefixed to the work; Justin and Trypho departed not without refined signs of friendship. ^D Trypho declares that he had been pleased to a greater degree by this meeting; nor does he doubt that his companions had been affected with the same mind. For they had found more than they expected, or than could ever be expected. He signifies a desire to converse more often; he prays for a prosperous voyage for Justin: Justin says that he can pray for nothing greater for them than that, thinking the same as the Christians, they might believe in Christ.

Justin dedicated the work to Marcus Pompeius, whom, since he calls him most friendly in n. 8 and at the end, one may not undeservedly conjecture to have been a Christian and a worshiper of truth. But to conjecture with Langus that he was Marcus 146 the Jerusalemite, would be to abuse one's leisure.

III. The sincere mind of Justin, and his lover of truth, is depicted in all his works; but he imposed upon himself in this *Dialogue* the necessity of accurately reporting whatever he had discoursed upon with the Jews. For lest any suspicion should remain in the minds of the Jews, he had promised them (n. 80) that he would commit this disputation to writing, nor would he dissemble his own opinion regarding the restoration of Jerusalem, which he confessed was displeasing to many. He kept his promises, and having returned to Rome (for he had his domicile there), he composed this work, although I would not dare to say whether under the Emperor Antoninus or Marcus. But that the *Dialogue* was held under Antoninus is gathered from these words (48): Οὐ γὰρ ἐξουσίαν ἔχετε αὐτόχειρες γενέσθαι ἡμῶν διὰ τοὺς νῦν ἐπικρατοῦντας· ὁσάκις δ' ἂν ἐδυνήθητε, καὶ τοῦτο ἐπράξατε. "For you do not have the power to lay your hands upon us because of those who now hold the reins of affairs; but as often as you have been able, you have done even this." Therefore, the emperor was then favorable to the Christians, and under his patronage they were safe from the snares of their enemies. For if any persecution had raged, the Jews would not have lacked the faculty of satisfying their hatred, if not by killing Christians themselves, at least by joining themselves to the pagans, as they often did, and inciting their fury against the Christians. If Justin said that this power was snatched from the Jews, which they held at the time when they were defending their own affairs with arms and camps, he should have said that it was suppressed not by those who then held the reins of power, but by Hadrian, by whom they were utterly crushed and despoiled of all things. Although the Jews played the tyrant cruelly against the Christians under their leader Barchocheba, as Justin testifies, *Apol.* 1, n. 31, this persecution was not long-lasting: but the Jews did not cease to vex the Christians whenever the pagans moved a persecution. They observed the feast days of the Christians, and rushed into the church with the pagans, as St. Hippolytus witnesses, and dragged some who were seized to the tribunals. Hence in the *Acts* of the martyrs they cry out much more vehemently than the Gentiles themselves. See the *Acts of St. Polycarp*, n. 12, and *St. Philip* Her., n. 6. Justin himself in another place of the *Dialogue* describes the union of the Jews with the pagans against the Christians thus (30): "As much as is in you and all other men, not only is every one of the Christians driven from his own possessions, but even from the whole world, nor do you leave any Christian a life of freedom." Therefore, that he says the power of doing harm was snatched from the Jews by those who then held the reins of power, he does not designate Marcus Aurelius, who, always devoted to the enemies of the Christians, was never a friend to the Christians, but Antoninus, whose bounty appears not yet to have been stripped from the Christians by the change of empire when Justin was discussing these things.

IV. Trypho was a Hebrew and circumcised and...

had come to Greece, having fled from the war which had been waged under Hadrian. At Argos he had heard the Socratic Corinthian, and he was accustomed to spend his time in those days in Greece and Corinth. Tillemont interpreted these words of Trypho, "having fled the war now occurring," less accurately as regarding a certain war which Antoninus Pius had with the Jews. To omit that the war was an obscure and minor expedition, and that the Jews were not scattered into various places under Pius, but under Hadrian; Trypho signifies that a long time had flowed by since that war from which he was a refugee. For from the time he had fled his homeland, he had devoted himself to the study of philosophy and usually spent his time in Greece and Corinth, which is an argument that he did not always stay in this city. These words, "the war now occurring," cannot therefore be understood of a war raging at that time. I have already observed that this *nun* (now) is used of events passed many years before, and it should not seem a wonder if it is used by Trypho of a war finished perhaps twenty years prior.

Neither was probity lacking to Trypho, nor a certain love of truth, but an immoderate zeal for the Law seems to have deprived him of the fruits which he could have gained from Justin's colloquy. He did not believe what false rumor had spread among the common people concerning the Christians; he judged it unworthy of faith (n. 10); he blamed them only for this, that while they professed the highest piety, they held neither festival days, nor sabbaths, nor circumcision, and placed their hope in a crucified man. After Justin had proved at his request by excellent arguments that the Law was given not for righteousness, but on account of sins, he is not therefore moved (n. 18). Justin presses again and asks why God did not impose circumcision and sabbaths on the righteous before Abraham and Moses; then indeed Trypho candidly confesses his ignorance (n. 28). He seems to shudder in mind (n. 38) when he hears that Christ is He who spoke with Moses and Aaron in the pillar of cloud; he shows himself more amenable to the arguments brought forth by Justin to prove that the Son was begotten of God before the ages; he confesses that the matter is excellently demonstrated (n. 57 and 63), asking only this of Justin, that he prove that this Son of God wished to be born, crucified, resurrected, and ascended into heaven. You would say that Trypho was almost won over (n. 89), when he admits that whatever testimonies of Scripture had been praised by Justin harmonize with Christ: one thing deters him, the punishment of the cross, upon which the Law inflicted a curse. Justin brings together many fine points for the explanation of this matter, but yet he does not seem to have overcome the hearts of the Jews, although he seems to have moved them at times. For after so many and such great arguments of religion, when Justin was proceeding to a certain passage of Isaiah, which he said ought to be understood regarding Christ and the nations illuminated by Him, some of them who had arrived the previous day raised a clamor in a disorderly fashion, as in a theater (n. 129).

Eusebius testifies that Trypho was the most celebrated of all the Hebrews of that time. For he speaks thus of Justin’s Dialogue in *Hist. Eccl.*, Bk. iv, c. 18: "He also composed a Dialogue against the Jews, which he held at Ephesus with Trypho, the most celebrated of the Hebrews of that time." Grabius thinks that by these words of Eusebius the conjecture of Cave is confirmed, who thinks this Trypho is the same as Rabbi Tarphon, a man of great name among the Jews and commonly called the rich priest. But if Trypho was numbered among the rabbis, he did not attain to this honor until after this Dialogue with Justin. For at the beginning of the colloquy, when Trypho had said that Christ, if He has already been born and exists somewhere, is utterly unknown and unknown even to himself, nor endowed with any power, until Elias comes who shall anoint Him and show Him to all; Justin signifies that he pities Trypho, who is deceived by the rabbis who blurt out whatever comes into their mind. Throughout the course of the Dialogue, he deals with Trypho and his companions as with men following the rabbis as leaders, after the manner of the blind; and departing from them, he urges that they prefer Christ to the rabbis. Trypho himself signifies that he was submissive to the rabbis when he says (n. 38): "We would do excellently if, complying with our teachers, who have forbidden any of you to enter into discourse, we did not even have the communion of these words with you." To Justin’s question (n. 56), whether they imagined that the name of God and Lord was given by the Holy Spirit to any other than God the Father and Christ, Trypho replies in the name of the others that they are unprepared for such dangerous questions, and that never had he heard anyone who would discourse on these matters. He might also appear simpler when he becomes angry and accuses Justin of blasphemy because he attributes to the Creator of all those evil virtues which lapsed from God, which had been mentioned in section 70. But yet, among his associates, those who heard Justin with him were already distinguished by authority and knowledge, and it is not improbable that he subsequently attained the name and fame of a rabbi. He had devoted himself to the study of philosophy under a gentile master, and, which proves him to have been studious of learning, he testifies that he had read the holy books of the Christians (Dialog., n. 10).

Justin at times seems to depart from his gentleness in instructing the Jews, and often burdens them with the greatest reproaches. But yet, where he uses harsher words, he does not rebuke those who were listening so much as the nation, obstinate in every crime, as when he says in n. 93: "For since you have the abundance of understanding from the signs performed by Moses that this is the Christ, not only do you not wish it, but also, thinking that we might be cast into straits, you pose whatever questions come to mind, nor yet do you yourselves have what you might say if you encountered some firmer Christian." To this example many other things can be thought of by which Justin lashes the Jewish nation, so that the Jews hearing him might be called back from the most foolish opinion which they possessed concerning their nation and their synagogues.

^A His patience shines forth when Trypho calls him a fool, n. 39, or when he points out that his mind is vehemently abhorrent to Christian doctrine, or when he rejects what he had previously conceded, n. 67. In these places, Justin moderates his just indignation, nor does he remit anything of his zeal for teaching the truth, since he fears the judgment of God if he should withhold the truth, while also hoping that among those who were listening, someone might be found who is of the number of the elect; and he testifies that he is accustomed to act thus with all men, whoever might wish to question him.

Trypho, with six companions, met Justin on the first day. For since two had departed, of those who remained, Justin counts the fourth, n. 66, p. 152. On the following day, the company of Trypho was more numerous. For besides those who had been present the day before, others arrived, such as Mnaseas, of whom n. 85, and another, n. 94. Furthermore, Justin says, as I have already mentioned, n. 122, that some of those who had come on the following day had raised a disorderly clamor, as in a theater.

V. But it is a difficult question and one of great importance for us to examine whether this excellent work has reached us in its entirety, or whether a sufficiently long part is missing, as has seemed to learned men who have treated of the writings of Justin. Assuredly, there seem to be no light reasons for us to suspect some great gap. For since Justin spent two days in discussion, and since he sometimes repeats on the following day what had been discussed the day before for the sake of those who had not been present, as in n. 78, 84, 92, 118, yet nowhere do you detect the conclusion of the former discussion, nor the beginning of the latter; there is no greeting at all of those departing when night compelled them, nor of those returning on the next day. These things, if they have fallen out of the writing of Justin, then a gap must necessarily be placed between n. 70 and 78. For Justin, n. 78, repeats what was discussed the day before concerning the mysteries of Mithras for the sake of those who were not present. But these things are read at n. 70. Whence it is necessary that in the interval between the two pages, the end of the yesterday’s colloquy and the beginning of the latter must be placed. The passage cited from n. 82 in St. John Damascene, Parallel., p. 754, is said to be taken *ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς Τρύφωνα β' λόγου*, from the second Dialogue with Trypho, that is, as the learned editor observes, from the second part of the Dialogue.

But yet if we consider the order and sequence which Justin follows in dispensing all his arguments, we shall set a limit to the longing for the lost part of the Dialogue, and the pain induced by the supposed gap will vanish. 1º The series of the whole Dialogue, while other questions are born from others, coheres wondrously, nor is the discussion from n. 70, where the mysteries of Mithras are treated, to n. 78, where the commemoration of yesterday’s Mithraic mysteries is repeated because of those who were not present the day before, interrupted ^B. For after Justin took the occasion from a passage of Isaiah, which he says the priests of Mithras imitated, to chastise the proud ignorance of the Jews in interpreting the Scriptures, and to complain that they dare to criticize the Septuagint translation and have removed some testimonies from it; then indeed he comes to the promised explanation of the words of Isaiah, *Behold a virgin shall conceive*, which he admits had not been removed by the Jews, but that it is rendered thus: *Behold a young woman shall have in the womb*. Trypho interrupts, and desires to know what testimonies the Jews had removed from the Scriptures. Justin complies, and when he had said that the Jews had removed from these words, *The Lord has reigned from the wood*, that *from the wood*, he prepares to refute Trypho, who contended that this whole psalm was spoken not of the suffering Christ, but of God the creator of all, and he proves with many testimonies of Scripture that the majesty of the kingdom is joined in Christ with the ignominy of the passion. Trypho admits that these things are of great moment for persuasion, but demands from Justin the so-often-promised explanation of the words of Isaiah, which indeed, while Justin is executing, he takes the occasion offered to repeat what he had said the day before about the mysteries of Mithras.

2º From these things it is evident that they have wasted their labor who, at n. 74, at the words *ὡς καὶ διὰ τῆς γῆς*, placing the end of the first day and the beginning of the next, have attempted to fill the supposed void either with invented sentences or with those repeated from St. John Damascene. ^C Very few words are missing, and the discussion always dwells on the same argument, as has been observed in the notes.

3º Justin has woven the whole Dialogue in such a way that he has no regard at all for that intermission which the night brought, but comprehends everything in the same series; whether it seemed more convenient to him, and he did not wish to interrupt the reader with a narration of a thing not necessary, or he did not report everything in the same order in which it had been discussed, but as they came to mind, or as they could be recalled to certain types. The matter is easily placed before the eyes. Trypho asks Justin, n. 56, p. 155, that, as he sees the day advancing, he should more quickly finish what he had undertaken to prove, namely, that besides God the Father, there is another who is to be called His Son and God. Justin discusses these things at greater length: Trypho testifies that he has satisfied him, n. 63, and proposes a most ample field of discussion to Justin, upon which almost all that remains of the Dialogue will be spent, namely, concerning the incarnation, cross, resurrection, and ascension of this Son, whom Justin had demonstrated to be God. Justin willingly accepts the burden. How then did oblivion take hold ^D of the day advancing? For these things were requested by Trypho and promised by Justin before n. 70, that is, before the end of the first day could be observed. Furthermore, after Justin began to prove Christ from the Virgin de

^A birth, he wove many things into this disputation, partly at the urging of Trypho, partly of his own accord, so that in one and the same colloquy, promised and not interrupted by night, he is thus recalled by Trypho. For thus says Trypho, n. 77: "I agree with you that there is enough weight in so many and such great arguments to persuade; but I would have you know that I am requesting of you that Scripture which you have often promised to demonstrate." This method of discourse is proof that Justin did not wish to distinguish accurately what was disputed on the first day and what on the second, but had comprehended everything in one and the same series.

4° Some things occur in the latter part of the Dialogue which are sought in vain in the former, although they had been spoken of on the previous day. Justin says, n. 85, that he had previously used these words of the Psalm: Praise the Lord from the heavens, and n. 105, that he had demonstrated that souls remain ^B after death. These things are not read elsewhere. Toward the end of the Dialogue, Trypho testifies that Justin had said he would solve them shortly. However, we should not suspect that these had fallen out from the places interspersed between n. 70 and 78. For we have demonstrated that there is nothing empty or gap-filled here. But it is not at all surprising if Justin mentions in another place some things which had not occurred to the memory of the writer. Thus also what Justin says, n. 80, that he had previously confessed that many of his own kind, and those from that class of Christians who follow a pious and pure opinion, do not agree concerning the restoration of Jerusalem; since this nowhere occurs before, it is by no means to be blamed on the copyists, but rather the diligence of the writer is to be praised, who aptly recalls in the second part things either omitted by intent in the first part, or slipped from memory.

Justin seems to have done the same in the true Dialogue as Plato did in the fictitious ones, who introduces Socrates unfolding ten books on the Republic in a single series, with no consideration whatever of the interruptions which it was fitting should occur from time to time. I will use another example which seems more apposite. The Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom held between Bishop Palladius and the deacon Theodore was produced up to the fourth day, as is evident from p. 162, where Palladius mentions some things, concerning which he testifies that he had spoken the day before yesterday, *οὗτοί εἰσι περὶ ὧν τρίτην ἡμέραν διηγησάμεθα*. Yet such is the continuity of the Dialogue that, although it was interrupted and resumed, you would notice no trace of either the end of one colloquy or the beginning of the next.

CHAPTER VIII. On the second Apology of St. Justin.

1. That he returned to Rome, we cannot know: there is no doubt that while he stayed in the city, the most ^C grave persecution was raging under M. Aurelius. The most excellent prince had not ordered that Christians be vexed; but, as Athenagoras observes, since he did not repel injury from them, nor deflect upon them any part of that paternal solicitude with which he protected all citizens of the Roman empire, they were exposed to all the injuries of enemies, and no kind of damage or punishment was absent from them. This manner of acting in so excellent an emperor declares the highest hatred of the Christian religion; for he never would have closed his patronage to them if he had felt anything fair regarding them. But the nefarious counsels of philosophers, and the love of Roman ceremonies, counted for more with him than the examples of grandfather and father, and the elements of justice and equity implanted in all. When, therefore, the Christians were destitute of all help, the most grave tempests arose against them from every side. Justin testifies that everywhere in the world, if anyone from among the Gentiles is accused by a Christian father or neighbor, or son or friend or brother or husband, or wife because of an offense, he immediately gives effort to summon his accuser to a capital trial. If anyone, however, confessed that he was a Christian, the judges had sufficient cause why they should immediately condemn him to death.

II. Certainly, no time must have brought more sorrow to anyone than to the holy martyr Justin, both because of his exceeding love for the Church, with which he seems to have burned entirely, and because, when he had obtained peace for the Church from Antoninus to the best of his ability, he saw his labors overturned by demons. But since he knew well that Christians, while being killed in this way, were departing from wicked lords to the best Father, God, he did not hesitate to throw himself into the middle of the danger, and to refute the philosophers, who seemed to be the torch of this conflagration, he incited all the strength of his soul: preaching the truth, he refuted them of gluttony and fraud, according to Tatian, n. 19. Especially when he joined battle with the Cynic Crescens, a man notorious for every vice, in the hearing of many, and left no one in doubt of the sum of those things which he asserted, either the ignorance of those things which he knew, or the dissimulation of those things which he knew, when he foresaw, that which happened in practice, that the most proud man would expiate the received blows with the blood of the victor. The fame of this colloquy seems to have spread more widely; ^D and Justin himself doubts whether it even reached the ears of the Emperor. But if the disputation did not reach them, he signifies that he is prepared to pose questions to Crescens again in their hearing. If, however, the interrogations and responses were known to them, he has no doubt that they understood that Crescens either knew nothing of Christian matters, or, if he knew, was a cowardly dissimulator of those things which he knew. For thus was the concertation between Justin and Crescens carried out: while Crescens publicly proclaimed that Christians were atheists and impious, Justin interrogated him, and he responded, and his responses [were] thus...

^A refuting him, so that he might not press upon him the charge of either an unknown or dissembled Christian doctrine. Those who think that Crescens was convicted of complete ignorance of all things are hallucinating. For the controversy was not about matters usually discussed among philosophers, but about the Christian religion; nor does Justin declare that Crescens was ignorant of all things, but [only] of our affairs. Not one nor two, but many, were the occasions Justin had for contending with Crescens. The battle was often repeated. Crescens did not cease to harass Justin and Tatian. "But which of the philosophers," says Tatian (no. 19), "was he accustomed to harass, if not us alone?" Eusebius testifies that Crescens was frequently defeated by Justin in the Dialogues in the presence of many listeners, ^B "many times in the Dialogues, with hearers present, [Justin] demanded an accounting from him" (Hist., IV, 16).

III. Beyond the general persecution of all Christians, a certain notable specimen of cruelty was produced at Rome, which added spirit to Justin, so that he might offer a second Apology to the Emperor M. Aurelius. A Christian woman, having a husband devoted to all vices, left nothing untried to recall him to a saner mind. But when he brought no hope of a better life, the wife finally repudiated him. He immediately accuses her of being a Christian. But the woman obtains from the emperor that it be permitted her to provide for her house before she responds to the summons. Then the husband turns his fury against Ptolemy, who had instructed his wife in the Christian religion. He acts through a centurion, whose friend he was, to arrest Ptolemy, and to question him on this one point: whether he is a Christian; and, if he confesses, to enclose him in irons. The centurion complies with his wish. Ptolemy professes himself a Christian, and after having been long afflicted in prison, he is finally brought before the prefect Urbicus; he confesses again, and is condemned to death. Then, as he was being led to his execution, a certain Lucius encounters them and reproaches Urbicus for an unjust judgment. The prefect then said to him: "You also seem to me to be of this class of men." Lucius replies: "Most certainly." And at once he is dragged off by order of the prefect along with Ptolemy. A third person who supervened was subjected to the same sentence. These things are narrated by the holy martyr in his second Apology, which, although it is placed first in the editions of Justin's works, is nevertheless so clearly the later one that it would be idle to discourse on that matter. ^D

IV. This address is inscribed to the Senate; it could have been added, as in the first, "and to the Roman people." Justin himself addresses the Romans at the beginning; but thereafter, he addresses solely the emperors: from which it can be gathered that it was offered to the emperors after the example of the first, so that those who were examiners of the supplicatory petition might, as he speaks in the first, associate themselves with the Senate and the Roman people. But it is surprising to wonder why Justin does not demand in this Apology that Christians enjoy the same rights as the rest of men; why he does not hold up to the emperors the letters of Antoninus in favor of the Christians. ^A For it seems to me that Justin omitted these things because he believed that Marcus was mindful of the first Apology, and that there was no need for these things to be called to his memory, rather than that he considered his malevolent mind should be treated gently, and not wounded by a commemoration of the laws and precedents of Antoninus, from which he was departing knowingly and wittingly. And so he deals with him as if no fault of his, and no [official] mandate, were fueling the persecution. He asks this one thing of the emperors, that they approve this supplicatory petition with their authority; for then it would be the case that he would show it to everyone: for it had been his objective that those who do not know the Christians, yet are not excusable for harassing them, might be able to be freed from this ignorance of good things, and to escape the ruin which they bring upon themselves. It could be doubted whether Justin asks that the petition be promulgated once sent to the judges. For these words can be received in this sense: *protheinai touti to biblidion, ean touto prograpsēte.* But Justin himself seems to reveal his own mind; he explains the manner of promulgating the petition with these words: *hupograpsantas to hymin dokoun*, "subscribing what pleases you." If they promulgate the petition in this way, he himself will show it to everyone. *Ean de hymeis touto programpsēte, hēmeis tois pasi phaneron poiēsaimen*, "If you promulgate it [subscribing what pleases you], we will expose it to the eyes of all."

But to which of the emperors it was offered, whether to Antoninus or M. Aurelius, some have called this into the controversy of the learned. Valesius contended that it was offered to Antoninus; those who wish for Justin to have suffered under Antoninus impose upon themselves the necessity of holding this opinion. Papebrochius, at April 13th, whose lead Scaliger had followed in *Not. ad Chron. Euseb.*, p. 219, confesses that Justin offered the Apology to M. Aurelius, but asserts that it is not extant today; but that one which is currently in our hands is nothing other than a preface prefixed by Justin to the major Apology, which he offered to Antoninus.

These figments of opinion collapse with the testimony of Eusebius, who explicitly declares that Justin pleaded the cause of the Church before the Emperor M. Aurelius, and cites from that Apology those things which we read in this our own; then also by the internal marks of judgment which are drawn from the speech itself. For 1. Justin touches upon many things in this second Apology which he indicates he has already discussed elsewhere, weaving in these words: *hōs proeipomen*, "as we have already said," just as when he speaks of the Incarnation of Christ (n. 6), or of Heraclitus (n. 8), or of the creation of the world for the sake of men (n. 4). But if this Apology were a kind of preface to a larger one, Justin should have said, "as we are about to say," by no means, however, "as we have already said." Yet why, in citing the first Apology, Justin uses only these words, "as we have already said," and does not call by name the work in which he had discussed these things, is a cause that has existed...

^A in silence and oblivion, but lay deposited in the public records and clung to the minds of men, especially of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, whom it could not escape that Antoninus had assented to Justin kindly and liberally. For this same reason he did not inscribe his name on the short Apology, although he had not omitted it in the larger one; because, clearly, he was known both from that very work, which had achieved such desired success, and from the fame which he had gained for himself among philosophers by learned disputations.

2º Since Justin was offering a brief Apology, the hatred of Crescens toward him was already seething; day by day he was expecting to be summoned to a capital trial by Crescens, n. 4, nor did that expectation deceive him, as Eusebius testifies, book iv, c. 16. Wherefore, from this Apology to the death of Justin, not as much time could have elapsed as from the first one, since many events followed Justin’s life.

3º If each Apology is a distinct and different work, as is evident from the reasons brought forward, it is necessary to admit that one was written under Antoninus, and the other under M. Aurelius. For it is not probable that a most equitable edict sent by Antoninus into all the provinces would have been so spurned and violated at Rome under the eyes of that same emperor that Justin would be forced to offer a new Apology.

4º It is manifest that there is a distinction of time between the two Apologies, as there is of subject matter. For Justin shows more sorrow and passion in the second than in the first, a fact which appears sufficiently from the preface of each. He commemorates crueler crimes committed against the Christians; and although in the first he had said that no Christian had confessed to crimes afflicting this name, but if anyone was condemned for a crime, he was not condemned as a Christian; in the second he narrates that the gentiles ^B burned with such fury that they forced the servants or boys or little women of the Christians to confess those fabulous crimes under the most grievous tortures. Such times, so hostile to the Christians, savor not of the rule of Antoninus, who favored them, but of the rule of M. Aurelius, who, not even provoked by the greatest kindness, showed himself equitable to them.

Lucius the emperor, colleague of Marcus, is designated in this Apology in the same way as in the first. For thus the martyr Lucius addresses Urbicus: "You judge, Urbicus, not as befits the pious emperor, not as befits the philosopher son of Caesar, not the sacrosanct senate." If in these words we cannot but recognize Lucius; in the title of Pius, which is attributed to the other emperor, one should not recognize Antoninus, but Marcus, to whom, although the senate had not yet decreed the honor of this name, it nevertheless should not appear strange or improper if it is offered to him by private men, such as were Lucius and Justin.

One emperor is addressed in this Apology, where there is talk of a woman summoned to judgment by her husband: "And she indeed, having offered a petition to you, emperor, requested that it might be permitted to her to provide for her own house first... And you indeed assented to that." Hence Valesius gathers that this Apology was offered to Antoninus: but altogether undeservedly. For Justin, n. 3, 14 and 15, addresses several as endowed with royal power. So also in the Acts of St. Justin the prefect says to Justin, n. 1: "Believe first in the gods and obey the emperors." But the same man mentions one when he pronounces the capital sentence: "Those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the order of the emperor, let them be beaten with lashes and led away to capital punishment." It seems, therefore, that at this time emperors were accustomed to be named now one, now several; and consequently there is no need, with Tillemont, to suspect that this Apology was offered either before the return of Lucius from the East or after his death.

Valesius repeats another argument from the name of Urbicus, whom he contends was Prefect of the City under Antoninus from the Apology of Apuleius offered to Antoninus. But besides the fact that he who condemned the aforementioned martyrs of Justin's Apology could have been the praetorian prefect; nothing forbids that the same man was Prefect of the City under Antoninus and Marcus. The Apology of Apuleius, as Tillemont observes, was written under Marcus rather than under Antoninus, whom he calls divine. ^C

CHAPTER IX. De Justini martyrio.

I. Nothing more desirable could have happened to Justin than, after so many labors and dangers, to pour out his very life for Christ. The constancy of the Christians in enduring tortures had moved him in great part to embrace the Christian religion, and had persuaded him that they were innocent and pure of the crimes which were falsely ascribed to them. In defending religion, he very often uses this argument, namely the constancy of Christians in enduring tortures, so that he may show the distinction between the new and the old law, and demonstrate that the testament which God had once promised is fulfilled and visible to all.

In a word, the whole life of Justin was a certain meditation on martyrdom. He let slip no opportunity to teach the truth, always hoping that he would find good soil, and fearing the judgment of God if, through him, it should be that anyone failed to reach the knowledge ^D of the truth. Revering no one, even if it had been necessary to be torn to pieces on the spot, he had one study, that he should speak the truth in all things. When he was offering his Apology for the brethren, and boldly asked that it be deposited with the Acts; besides the danger which hung over him from this noble action, he cast himself into another, by publicly and openly accusing the Samaritans, which was a wicked race and ready for any villainy, because they gave the title and honor of the supreme God to a human magician. But I do not know if the greatest proof of his fearless spirit

^A appeared when Justinus attacked the philosophers. For when they incited the emperor's mind against the Christians, and by the name of philosophy and the masks of virtues procured authority for their most wicked slanders, Justinus stripped off their skin and demonstrated that they were inwardly most vile, given over to fraud and gluttony. Therefore, at that time, when anyone throughout the whole world who had been reproved by a Christian for his faults would very easily remove an inconvenient monitor by denouncing him by name, Justinus had to expect that he would be called into judgment by some one of those he had reproved. He himself reveals his mind in Apol. 2, no. 3: "I also expect to be plotted against and fixed to the stake by some one of those I have spoken of, or at least by Crescens, that lover of clamor and ostentation."

II. Of the various punishments that were accustomed to be inflicted upon Christians, Justinus designates one, the stake, to indicate in a general way that he would lose his life through the snares of his enemies. Thus Tertullian comprehends various punishments under one, namely the fire: "Otherwise," he says, "if we knew from our conscience, by which we know that the name of God and of the Lord and of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit is appropriate, to name them gods and lords, we would have extinguished our lights even toward the martyrs, more cowardly, for whom also an opportunity for escaping would lie open, swearing immediately by the gods and lords, as some heretics do, whose gods are many." The same was done here by Justinus; he signifies that martyrdom was expected by him, and he names one or another of many punishments. They were accustomed to be bound to the stake, both those who were to be burned, as I observed in the note to this place, and those who were delivered to the beasts. Whence Tertullian, lib. De pudic., c. 22, speaks thus: "Think now under the sword, with head positioned; think on the gallows, with head now hung; think at the stake, now abandoned to the lion; think on the axe, now with the pyre built up; in the security and possession of martyrdom, I say, who permits a man to give what is reserved for God?" On the same axe they were bound to the stake who were to be burned, as is manifest from another testimony of Tertullian, which I cited in the note. See Act. S. Polycarpi, n. 14, and S. Philippi Heracl., n. 13. Eusebius understood the words of Justinus in no other way, ^B who, to prove that what Justinus had foreseen and predicted had indeed happened, asserts that he was crowned with martyrdom, and uses the testimony of Tatian, who only says that Crescens plotted death for Justinus. From which it is clear by these words, τῷ ξύλῳ ἐμπαγῆναι, that death is most certainly designated, not merely scourging or the rack; and the kind of punishment is named as an example, so that martyrdom is signified in a general way.

Tertullian, Apol., c. 5, lists Marcus Aurelius among those emperors by whom laws against the Christians had not been sanctioned. But yet it seems that he had given secret mandates to the judges, so that they might compel Christians to sacrifice, or at least that they might hope to do something grateful to him if they said that they had these mandates from him. For thus the prefect Rusticus was saying to Justinus: "First believe in the gods and obey the emperors." After he perceived that his labor was in vain concerning Justinus and his companions, he commanded that those who had refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor's mandate, τῷ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος προστάγματι, be led away to capital punishment.

Under an emperor so hostile to the Christians, it was enough to denounce the name of Christian for one to be killed immediately, if he confessed himself to be a Christian. Yet it seems that Crescens had more trouble in killing Justinus than if he had attacked one of many. For Tatian indicates a certain machination and secret plots, when he says that Crescens "plotted death for Justinus as a great evil," ὡς καὶ Ἰουστῖνον καθάπερ μεγάλῳ κακῷ τῷ θανάτῳ περιβαλεῖν πραγματεύσασθαι. Perhaps the fame of his virtue and learning had procured for Justinus some favor, and made the minds of the emperor and the judges slower in removing from the midst such a man, whom they did not ignore was a Christian.

III. Eusebius testifies that the martyrdom of Justinus followed the second Apology at a very short interval. He says indeed that he had predicted in this Apology the end of his life just as it was about to happen to him shortly, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἔμελλεν ὅσον οὔπω περὶ αὐτὸν συμβήσεσθαι. Tillemont thinks Justinus suffered around the year 168, because Eusebius reports his martyrdom after the passion of St. Polycarp, which many moments of reason compel to be referred to the year 166, and before the death of Anicetus, which Eusebius himself judged should be referred to the year 168. I assent to the learned man the more willingly because his opinion accords perfectly with the whole series of things done by Justinus.

The Acts of the martyrdom of St. Justinus and his companions are counted by the learned among those which are most sincere and pure. If you except the first four lines, which were added like a preface, you will find no crime of a bolder hand. Some things from these were transferred into the Menaion of the Greeks, but three verses are to be entirely rejected, which ineptly crept into the context of the Menaion:

ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΝ ΚΩΝΕΙΟΝ ΗΡΕΝ ΕΚ ΒΙΟΥ· ΩΣ ΕΙΘΕ ΠΡΩΤΟΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΙΕΙΝ ΔΕΔΩΚΟΤΑΣ. ΠΡΩΤΗ ΙΟΥΝΙΟΥ ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΝ ΕΛΛΕΒΟΡΙΖΕΙ, CICUTA MORTEM SÆVA JUSTINO ATTULIT. SI ERIBISSENT, QUI PRÆBUERUNT, PRIUS. JUSTINUM JUNI PERSANAVERE KALENDÆ.

Halloix rendered these verses thus, but we will render the last verse more accurately if we interpret that ἑλλεβορίζει as "he killed with poison." The Kalends of June killed Justinus with hellebore. He is certainly to be censured

^A who inserted those most absurd verses into a text that was otherwise excellent in all its parts, and dared to cast a stigma upon the most splendid martyrdom of Justin. For whatever is said in the *Menaea* concerning Justin and his companions corresponds marvelously with the Acts of the martyrdom, except for those verses. Justin, however, should no longer be held in honor as a martyr if he had voluntarily taken poison, but rather the disgrace of being his own homicide would have to be branded upon him; or if he had been secretly removed by poison, he would not have possessed the splendor of martyrdom to the extent that all antiquity has proclaimed. There is no doubt, therefore, that those three verses were the impious act of an absurd man. Halloix attempted to remedy this difficulty, thinking that the hemlock which destroyed Justin was a poison of malice that impelled Crescens to plot the death of Justin. But the second of those verses ^B does not suffer this interpretation: "O that they who offered it had drunk it first!"

From this concocted story about the death of Justin, an occasion arose for inventing two Justins: one a philosopher and excellent writer, who was supposedly removed by poison; and the other one who suffered with his companions Chariton, Charitina, Paeon, Liberianus (read Valerianus in the *Menaea*), Evelpistus, and Hierax. But the Acts themselves, in which Justin is said to have been trained in every kind of discipline, to have had disciples, to have communicated the doctrine of truth to all who approached him, and to have come to Rome twice, so contradict this opinion that one is no less inclined to refute it deliberately than what Apponius, an author of the seventh century, said 10 about Justin, when he claimed he was killed by philosophers, because he had been craftily called into their secret circle.

The matters which could be objected against these Acts now seem for the most part explained and resolved: namely, that only one emperor is mentioned, although two ruled the Roman empire at that time; that he is said to have issued an edict against the Christians, although it is not recorded that Marcus issued any; and that Iconium is located in Phrygia. I have already addressed the first two difficulties. As regards the third, there are not wanting those who would substitute Pisidia for Phrygia (for so Iconium is called a city of Pisidia in Basil, *ep.* 138), or Lycaonia for Iconium. And this response ought to satisfy fair-minded judges of these matters, even if it were not clear from other sources that errors of this kind in designating the location of cities often crept into the text from notes added in the margins.

To what I have corrected in the Latin interpretation of the Greek Acts, there is one thing I would like to add. The Prefect says to Justin, no. 4: "Ἄκουε ὁ λεγόμενος Λόγιος" — "Hear, you who are said to be eloquent." I would prefer, "you who are said to be learned."

CAPUT X.

On Tatian, and first on his literary studies and conversion.

^A I. Tatianus gives himself to all the disciplines. II. How he became a Christian. III. His fervor under Justin as master. He is called a Syrian by Epiphanius, *Haer.* 46, and in the *Indiculus*, p. 231, he says he was born in Mesopotamia. Theodoret 7 also called Tatian a Syrian. It was not unusual for those who inhabited Palestine to be called Assyrians; an example of this is provided by Themistius in *Orat.* 7, where he asserts that the text of Scripture, "The heart of the king is in the hand of God 11," was taken from the books of the Assyrians. Therefore, it cannot be determined ^B whether Tatian was born in Syria or in Assyria properly so-called, or, as Epiphanius believed, in Mesopotamia, since the name "Assyrians" is attributed even to the Hebrews themselves.

Tatian's primary occupation was superstition and a vehement study of all literature. He himself teaches 12 that he labored under such superstition that he became a partaker of the mysteries in various places and explored religions everywhere. Yet, for one traversing so many regions, his aim was not only to be initiated into the mysteries, but even more to collect diverse erudition. For he speaks thus of what he had learned while traveling, no. 35: "Ταῦτα μὲν οὐ παρ' ἄλλου μαθὼν ἐξεθέμην, πολλὴν ἐπιφοιτήσας γῆν, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν σοφιστεύσας τὰ ὑμετέρα, τοῦτο δὲ τέχναις καὶ ἐπινοίαις ἐπικυρήσας πολλαῖς." "I have set forth these things, having learned them from no other, having traveled over much land, and in part having been trained in your disciplines, and in part having come upon many arts and inventions." What Tatian says, that he was trained in the disciplines of the Greeks, Eusebius expresses by imitation when dealing with Tatian. "Τατιανός," he says 13, "ἀνὴρ τὸν πρῶτον αὐτοῦ βίον σοφιστεύσας ἐν τοῖς Ἑλλήνων μαθήμασι." "Tatian, a man who in the first calling of his life was trained in the disciplines of the Greeks." Ruffinus translates that *sophisteusas* as "a teacher of eloquence": hence Jerome also says that Tatian, while first teaching oratory, acquired no small glory for himself from the art of rhetoric, and Theodoret says he was a sophist. But Valesius, who in translating Eusebius into ^D Latin followed these guides, departs from them in his annotations, and observes that the term *sophisteusas* pertains to nothing regarding eloquence, but encompasses all Greek wisdom and the liberal disciplines. He adds that Tatian, from his travels, is more of a philosopher than a professor of eloquence; and from the fact that he wrote without order or method, he argues that he was little trained in the art of speaking. The author of the dissertation on Tatian, which is read after the published *Oration* of Tatian at Oxford (who is the most learned abbot de Longuerue), agrees with Valesius, and confirms his opinion with these words of Tatian 14: "Ὁ κατ' Ἐπίκουρον σοφιστεύων," "who according to Epicurus..."

follows a sophistical way of life." ^A It is not without reason that those learned men reject the claim that Tatian taught rhetoric, and that Jerome and Rufinus should have said, not very aptly, that he was a sophist. For Tatian himself makes clear, not obscurely, that he was a philosopher before he became a Christian. For thus he addresses the philosophers, no. 26: "Δημοσίᾳ μὲν γὰρ πομπεύετε," "For you parade in public, but hide your discourses in corners. We have parted from you, having recognized what you are, and we no longer touch your affairs, but follow the word of God. Who among the philosophers is it that is used to persecute us alone, if not us?"

From this it is evident that Tatian was a philosopher; yet he was so devoted to philosophy that he appears to have spent no less labor and study on reading the poets and orators and in investigating all antiquity. Nor can I agree with the learned men who refer the passage of Eusebius to philosophy in such a way that they adjudge to Tatian not only the profession of rhetoric but even the praise of eloquence. His knowledge of antiquity is declared by the *Oration against the Greeks*, which abounds in recondite learning; that he was a student of poets and orators is shown by his style of speaking, colored with the most polished images and poetic graces, and distinguished by the lights and ornaments of words. Furthermore, we perceive that the disciplines of the Greeks, in which we learn from Eusebius and even from Tatian himself that Tatian had been trained, must be understood to include not only philosophy but other arts as well, from the beginning of the *Oration against the Greeks*, where Tatian speaks thus, no. 1: "We have sent back word to your wisdom, even if we seemed to excel greatly in it... For you have established rhetoric for injustice and calumny... and poetry so that you might compose battles, the loves of gods, and the corruption of the soul. For what noble thing have you brought forth by philosophizing, or who among those who have been held most excellent has been found free from arrogance?" ^B Both parties therefore seem to have erred: both those who attributed the profession of rhetoric to Tatian, and those who denied him the honor of philosophy alone.

II. But all these trifles of the heathens could soothe Tatian but could not satisfy his desire of knowing the truth. He grew disgusted with the religions of the Greeks, after he saw them, as he himself narrates, managed by effeminates and catamites, and learned that Jupiter Latiaris among the Romans delighted in human blood, and that Diana not far from Megalopolis, and other demons elsewhere, were appeased by such wickedness. Even the disciplines themselves caused him weariness—the Attic style, the sorites of the philosophers, geometry, astronomy, and the laws sanctioned for managing public affairs. At length, by divine benefit—to which, however, he proved ungrateful and degenerate—the truth shone into his eyes while he chanced upon the sacred Scriptures of the Christians. ^C He explains the matter thus, no. 29: "When I had collected myself, I inquired how I might find the truth. And as I was turning over in my mind the best of all institutions, it happened that I met with some barbaric writings, older than the doctrines of the Greeks and more divine than their errors. I was persuaded by these because of the simplicity of the language, the lack of affectation of the writers, the easy comprehension of the creation of the whole, the foreknowledge of things to come, the excellence of the precepts, and the rule of all by the One."

That also which chiefly induced Tatian to admire the Christian religion was his understanding that through it man is liberated from servitude and is restored to his pristine state, from which we have miserably fallen. For thus he continues, ibid.: "Theodidaktou de mou genomenēs tēs psychēs synēka," etc. Thus, my mind being divinely taught, I understood that those things are akin to condemnation, but that by these, that servitude which is in the world is dissolved, and we are delivered from many princes and infinite tyrants, and are enriched with a gift, not one that was not granted elsewhere, but one which error had prevented us from retaining once we had received it. ^D Tatian appears to have embraced the Christian religion at Rome. For when, having traveled through many regions...

he had attained this benefit, that by investigating false religions everywhere he sought the truth and embraced it when it was known in the books of the Christians, it is likely that Rome was the end of his travels, as well as of his errors and superstitions. To this also points what he says, n. 35: ^A «Wherefore, having said farewell to the vainglory of the Romans and the frigid learning of the Athenians with their incongruous dogmas, I have betaken myself to the barbarian philosophy of our people.» Farewell, therefore, to the boastfulness of the Romans and the cold discourse of the Athenians, and to their poorly mended opinions, for I have embraced our barbarian philosophy.

It appears that Tatian had not professed the name of Christian long before the death of Justin. For in the *Oration* which he wrote after the martyrdom of Justin, he encounters these complaints of the Greeks, n. 35: «Tatian, above the Greeks and above the infinite multitude of those who philosophize, introduces new barbarian dogmas.» Tatian is a new follower of the barbarian doctrine, above the Greeks and above the infinite multitude of philosophers. Innovation is reproached in this place, not against the barbarian doctrine, as interpreters have thought, but against the intent of Tatian, who followed this doctrine; and Tatian’s answer confirms this, for to his own defense he applies this saying of Solon: ^B Γηράσκω δ᾽ ἀεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος. *I grow old ever learning many things.*

III. Tatian certainly put forth very excellent beginnings, and when he had betaken himself to Justin at Rome, to a man whom he himself calls truly admirable, he seems to have progressed not a little in this discipline of holiness and doctrine. He was not only his disciple but also his assistant, so that in defending the religion and in refuting the philosophers, he appeared to be second to none. For when Crescens the Cynic left nothing untried in order to destroy Justin—by whom, in the hearing of many, he had been convicted of ignorance—he was preparing the same designs for the destruction of Tatian: he was meditating wicked attempts of his fury against both men. For so Tatian writes, n. 19: «But he who holds death in contempt was so afraid of death that he strove to bring death, as though it were some evil, upon Justin just as he did upon me... And whom of the philosophers was he accustomed to pursue, if not us alone?» How great was Tatian’s zeal for defending religion is perceived from this hatred of Crescens toward him. ^C

Justin succumbed happily to the snares of Crescens; Tatian escaped, but not without great harm to himself. But as he had been the companion and associate of his master’s labors, so also he seems to have been his heir in every respect. For this...

Chapter XI. On the heresy into which Tatian fell and the sect of the Encratites formed by him. I. At what time Tatian became a heretic. II. Those errors common to others. III. Whether he taught that Christ's flesh was putative. IV. He denied the salvation of Adam. V. On the sect of the Encratites.

I. The precepts and examples of Justin did not immediately fade from Tatian’s memory: he proclaims the excellent deeds and sayings of his master in his *Oration against the Greeks*, and he argues concerning the divinity and Incarnation of Christ, and concerning the creation of the world, in the very same opinion as Justin, and sometimes in the same words. But nevertheless, not long after, having lost the lights of doctrine and the patterns of a holier life which he had possessed in Justin, like a blind man deprived of his guide, he cast himself headlong into the most wicked errors and, from being a defender of the truth, became an artificer of an impious heresy. Irenæus attributes this ruin of a man who had deserved well of the Church to pride, and he speaks thus of Tatian, lib. 1, c. 28: «After his (Justin’s) martyrdom, he departed from the Church, and being puffed up and elated with the conceit of a teacher, as if he were superior to the rest, he formed a peculiar cast of doctrine.» ^D Now we must examine at what time he departed from the Church, and what errors he chiefly followed.

Epiphanius relates that Tatian began to establish a new sect in Mesopotamia around the twelfth year of the Emperor Antoninus, surnamed Pius. It would hardly be right to depart from this opinion for those who believe Justin suffered under Antoninus; and while this indeed pleases the learned author of the dissertation cited above, he agrees with Epiphanius in those things which pertain to Tatian, yet in such a way that he interprets the twelfth year of Antoninus not as the current year, but as the completed one, and refers Tatian's heresy to the year of Christ 151. But by the same reasons by which it was argued above that Saint Justin the martyr suffered under M. Aurelius, it is concluded that Tatian could not have fallen into heresy under Antoninus. But it is pleasing to offer some things in this place which are more specific to Tatian.

At the time when Tatian was writing, the profession of the Christian religion was exposed to constant danger of death; and since some were advising Tatian to avoid death by lying, he thus repels their counsels: «Why do you advise me to lie about my way of life? Why, while you say you hold death in contempt, do you proclaim that I should flee from it by means of deception? I, for my part, do not have the heart of a deer.» «Why do you counsel me to

avoid it with craft? But I do not have the heart of a deer. ^A Although in these matters the gentle rule of Antoninus is recognized less than the hostile disposition of Marcus toward the Christians, I still do not use this as an argument; because, as I observed above, the peace granted under Hadrian and Antoninus were certain truces ^B which neither brought about an oblivion of the Christians' constancy during their torments, nor removed the fear of future persecutions. A more certain argument is provided by Eusebius, who in his enumeration of writers who arose under Marcus Aurelius, includes Tatian and also Musanus, by whom he says the heresy of Tatian was vanquished as soon as it had arisen. And of Musanus, whom we have enumerated in the preceding pages, there is a most reformatory discourse extant, written to certain brothers who had turned aside to the so-called heresy of the Encratites, which was just then beginning to sprout, introducing a strange and corrupting false doctrine into life. The discourse holds Tatian to be the leader of this deviation. The same Eusebius in his *Chronicle* places the heresy of Tatian at the twelfth year of Marcus Aurelius.

Furthermore, Irenaeus, who wrote almost forty or at least thirty years after the year 151 of Christ, commemorates the heresy of Tatian as recent and newly invented. “They contradict also,” he says in Book I, chapter 28, “his salvation who was first formed; and this is a new invention among them: Tatian being the first to introduce this blasphemy.”

In the *Oration* of Tatian, written before his heresy, there exists a certain not unrefined sting against Peregrinus or Proteus, which cannot be reconciled with that opinion which we are refuting. For that Cynic is so badgered by Tatian, that even then he seems to have been known to all as having burned himself alive—which indeed he did at the Olympic games in the year 165—or at least under the name of Proteus, which had been imposed upon him toward the end of his life. Thus speaks Tatian, n. 25: ^C “And although they say they are in need of nothing, yet, according to the fashion of Proteus, they need a tanner for their bag, a weaver for their cloak, a woodcutter for their stick, and, because of the gluttony of the wealthy, a cook.” That Tatian casts the imitation of Proteus as a disgrace upon the philosophers is proof that he was even then a fable, because of the various events of his life and especially because of his most foolish manner of death. That much, at least, necessarily follows from the words of Tatian: that by then the cognomen of Proteus had been given to Peregrinus by the consensus and fame of all. But that did not obtain in Egypt, as Tillemont less elegantly conjectures, nor in Italy, into which he came having left Egypt, but in Greece, into which he received himself after being driven from Italy, and that quite late, as Aulus Gellius testifies. “We have seen,” he says, *lib. XII, c. 11*, “a philosopher by the name of Peregrinus, to whom the cognomen Proteus was later given, a grave and constant man, when we were in Athens, living in a certain hovel outside the city.”

Tatian could not, therefore, have spread his heresy in the year 151 of Christ, and it is most likely that Epiphanius, for the twelfth year of M. Aurelius, in which Eusebius declares this heresy to have emerged, had placed the twelfth year of Antoninus. Since the authority of Eusebius in questions of this kind is greater than that of Epiphanius, and since his opinion accords best with the deeds of Tatian and Justin, we must allow some time for Tatian teaching in Rome after Justin; and he did not begin to preach his heresy as soon as he left Rome, since the *Oration against the Greeks*, which he wrote after his departure from Rome, is free from the stain of heresy. Wherefore, since Justin poured out his life for Christ around the year 167 or 168, the heresy of Tatian may not inappropriately be referred to the year 170. For as for what Eusebius thinks in his *Chronicles* about its emergence in 172, he either did not state it as a fixed date or stated it less accurately. For the Montanists, who clearly emerged in the year 171 based on very weighty reasons, seem somewhat more recent than Tatian, and are counted after him, both in Tertullian in his book *De praescriptionibus* and in Epiphanius, although he places too great an interval between Tatian and the Montanists. ^D

It does not escape me that the origin of the Montanists is placed much earlier by Blondel and Marets, who contend that the Sibylline verses, which we have comprised in eight books, are the concoction of Montanus. A man whom I have mentioned more than once, Lud. Dufour de Longuerue, assents to them. In truth, the Montanists would be much older if the Sibylline verses were the crime of Montanus, which a false prediction regarding the death of each declares to have been fabricated not only before the death of Lucius Verus, but even before the death of Hadrian. For three future emperors after Hadrian are predicted: “The third will rule late over all,” Ὁ δὲ τρίτος ὀψὲ κρατήσει ἁπάντων. But the rope will destroy Hadrian himself, Ὁ δὲ λίνος αὐτὸν ὀλεῖται. From these, that same most learned man rightly concludes that this lying writer was basely mistaken, because he did not have, as in other matters, a history of events to serve as his guide, but conjectured that Hadrian would perish by a rope because of the most acute pains, among which he wished to take his own life. It was likely that Lucius Verus, who was of very tender age, would outlive M. Aurelius. These books, therefore, were written before the death of Hadrian. But that their parent was...

^A Montanus, no considerations of reason prove, nor the praises of Phrygia, nor the vehement ecstasy of the Sibyl, nor finally the prediction of imminent calamities themselves. For in these things there is nothing that is proper solely to the sect of Montanus. With better right, some one of the circumcised Christians who kept the Law might be considered the author of the Sibylline verses. For he exhorts to Jewish lustrations (book IV) and says that it will happen that the righteous, at the second coming of the Lord, will wash their bodies daily with water upon rising from bed (book III).

II. Thus Tatian architected his heresy, so that while he borrowed one thing from one heretic and another from another, he agreed neither with them nor with himself. In explaining the creation of the world, he seems to have compiled the ravings of Valentinus. The Valentinians said that all things were created by the true God through His Word, yet with the ministry of the Demiurge or Creator—whom, indeed, they pretended was so ignorant of the operation of the divine Wisdom that he seemed to himself to be the sole Creator. Tatian was a little different, but no less impiously, in a certain testimony which I have recorded in the appendix, he said that the word of Scripture, *Let there be light*, ^B was the word of one desiring and praying, not of one commanding. He also invented, according to Irenaeus, certain invisible Aeons for the explanation of the world. Hence, in Tertullian (*Praescr.*, cap. 52): "He is said to be wholly according to Valentinus in his wisdom."

As with Valentinus, so also Tatian rejected the Mosaic Law, pronouncing it to have been instituted not by the true God but by the Demiurge, according to Clement of Alexandria (*Strom.* III, p. 460). Yet the Severians used the Law and the prophets, as Eusebius says, who declares that Tatian was the first author and founder of them. Tatian himself used a certain testimony of the prophet Amos to forbid wine. It was not necessary for such heretics to remove the Old Testament from their use entirely, since, according to Eusebius in the same place, they took for themselves such a license of interpreting it that there was nothing that could not be evaded.

Clement of Alexandria speaks of Tatian as if he had given his name to the school of Valentinus and then separated from it in order to form his own sect. For it is scarcely possible to interpret these words about Tatian in *Strom.* III, p. 465, in any other way: *ὁ ἐκ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου ἐξεφοίτησε σχολῆς*. Yet, however, Irenaeus, in the testimony I just mentioned, declares that Tatian departed from the Church with the intention of establishing a new sect.

The opinion of Valentinus, although it was a injury to God the Creator of the world and was devised to overthrow the faith of the resurrection, was nevertheless milder in this respect than that of Marcion, because it did not entirely take away the flesh of Christ, nor impose the necessity of detesting those things which he confessed were created by the Demiurge from the true God. But Tatian did not hesitate to borrow from Marcion what seemed to be lacking in Valentinus for total impiety. Marriages, says Irenaeus, he asserted were corruption and fornication, just as Marcion and Saturninus ^C had declared. Furthermore, he seemed to Clemens of Alexandria to refer the institution of marriage to the devil. For he interpreted Paul in such a way as to contend that by permitting the use of marriage, Paul had prohibited it and had forbidden it as a work addicted to fornication and the devil. We have the words of Tatian in the *Append.*, Part II.

Tatian had also received from Saturninus and Marcion, as Theodoret testifies (*Haret. fab.*, lib. 1, cap. 20), the view that he should abominate not only nuptials but also the use of animals and wine. He abused the authority of the prophet Amos for the defense of his impiety: "From this place," says Jerome in Amos, cap. 2, "Tatian, the prince of the Encratites, strives to construct his heresy, asserting that wine should not be drunk, since it was commanded by the Law that the Nazarites should not drink wine, and now they are accused by the prophet, who offer wine to the Nazarites." In celebrating the mysteries, he wanted only water to be used: "Similarly," says Epiphanius, "he instituted certain mysteries in imitation of the holy Church, but he used nothing in them except water."

III. It may not unreasonably be asked whether Tatian attributed a putative flesh to Christ, and in this matter, as in many others, passed from the ranks of Valentinus to the camp of Marcion. For we read these things said about him in Jerome's *Comment. in cap. vi ad Galat.*: "Tatian, who, introducing a putative flesh of Christ, considers all union of male with female to be unclean—the most bitter arch-heretic of the Encratites—used this argument against us under the occasion of the present testimony, etc." Led by this testimony, Tillemont believes that Tatian taught the same as Marcion regarding the flesh of Christ. But the learned editor of the works of St. Jerome warns us in the ancient Cluniac codex, and in the royal codex 3758, that "Tatian" is not read, but "Cassian." Indeed, I have strongly approved the reading preserved in these codices. It was easy and natural that the name of Tatian, being far more celebrated, should slip in for Cassian, who was known to almost no one except Clement of Alexandria. But it is much more difficult to believe that copyists would put Cassian for Tatian. Moreover, the testimony of Jerome which I just mentioned fits best with Cassian. He felt the same way about marriage as Tatian, as Clement explicitly testifies (*Strom.* III, p. 465). Therefore, he could not unworthily be called the most bitter arch-heretic of the Encratites. Furthermore, in the same place he is called by Clement the prince of the Docetae—that is, of those who feigned a putative flesh of Christ—ὁ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων. Which indeed was a consequence regarding Christ’s flesh from his opinion on the creation of the world. For Cassian said in his book *On Continence*: "If this arrangement were from the God toward whom we hasten, He would not have called the eunuchs blessed." If this constitution of the body were from that God indeed, towards whom we proceed...

^A Adam is not saved, nor is the mass, nor any part of the mass. If Adam has in no way attained salvation, this is in a certain sense the very mass of the race; and no particle of this mass will be able to be saved. I can find almost nothing that could have driven Tatian to blurt out these things, except for an absurd longing for novelty, as Irenæus thought. For the Valentinians and almost all other Gnostics, since they said that their Sophia had injected a spiritual seed into Adam, who was fashioned by the hands of the Demiurge, and since they presumed that no one adorned with this seed could fall away from holiness and salvation, imposed upon themselves the necessity of acknowledging Adam's salvation. Furthermore, Tatian himself, as Epiphanius observes, the more he hated marriage, the more equitable he should have been toward Adam, who was created without marriage.

From these things it is clear that Cassianus did not, like Valentinus, think that all things were created by the true God through the Demiurge, but clearly, like Marcion, that he deprived the true God of the creation of the world, or at least of the human body. And therefore it is no wonder if he left absolutely no flesh to Christ. But Tatian, in those matters which relate to creation, is entirely a Valentinian; nor does anyone report that he thought the same thing about the flesh of Christ as did those men and Marcion. Irenæus, Clemens, and Epiphanius accurately collect what Tatian added to the hallucinations of the Valentinians, thought up by his own device, and what he derived from the sources of Saturninus and Marcion. But nothing should have been mentioned sooner or more importantly than this opinion about the flesh of Christ, if Tatian had agreed with it. Moreover, the sect of the Docetae ought not to have been separated from the Encratites, but considered one and the same, and its leadership should not have been assigned to Cassianus, as we have seen done by Clemens, but to Tatian, whom it is established was more famous, and whom Clemens indicates, not obscurely, was older, while he lists him before Cassianus and declares that Cassianus agreed with him regarding marriage. It seems, therefore, that the copyists did some damage to this passage of Jerome; and even if it is considered intact, I do not know if less should be attributed to Jerome in this matter than to other Fathers, who not only were silent about this error of Tatian—which, however, they should have particularly mentioned—but also distinguished the Docetae from the heresy of the Encratites, and assigned to the one Cassianus, and to the other Tatian, as leader and standard-bearer.

But perhaps, to prevent us from substituting the name of Cassianus for Tatian in Jerome, the crime of Tatian will be objected, who cut out the genealogies from the Gospel and all other things which, as Theodoret says, show the Lord to have been born of the seed of David according to the flesh. But there is no need to have recourse to phantom flesh to explain this crime of Tatian. The heresy of the Valentinians, which taught that Christ had taken nothing from Mary, but had obtained flesh elsewhere, and had passed through Mary as if through a conduit, could have provided him with sufficiently strong incentives to dare such a thing.

IV. Tatian seemed to himself to deserve no small amount of praise if, having added the doctrines of Saturninus and Valentinus to his own uses, he did not also produce something that seemed new and properly his own. And so, in order to commend his name to posterity, he denied the salvation of Adam, which had occurred to no one before him. This error of his, as an impiety, was detested by Irenæus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and Theodoret. Irenæus, however, refutes this heresy in Book III, c. 23, in such a way that he denies that other men are saved if Adam is not saved, and that the devil was conquered and overcome by Christ, if he whom the devil had conquered and cast into chains was not snatched by Christ from his hands and vindicated into liberty. Likewise Tertullian, in his book *De praescriptione*, chapter 52, contends that the root is saved if the branches are made safe. And Epiphanius, Heresy 46: ^B And if Adam is not saved, the mass, nor anything of the mass is saved. ^C It seems, however, that the impious opinion concerning marriage led him to show himself unfair to Adam. For detractors of marriage, as Clemens Alexandrinus testifies, *Strom.* III, p. 470, interpreted the use of marriage, which they feigned was forbidden by the Creator, as the tasting of the tree. Whence they said that the author of marriage was not the Creator, but the devil, who had seduced Adam and Eve. But yet, even if Adam had violated the ordinance of the Creator, that should not have stood in the way of Christ—who was, as those babblers said, far more powerful than the Creator—rescuing him. But Tatian seems to have vomited forth his poison against the initiator of marriage out of hatred for marriage, and to have feigned that he was in no way liberated by Christ, but left to the judgment of the angry Creator (for they said that no one is condemned by Christ).

In Tertullian, in the place already cited, Tatian is said to have taught that Adam could not attain salvation; but that comes down to the same thing as what other writers have said about Tatian. For given that that fabricated spiritual seed had not been injected into Adam, which Achamoth, or Wisdom, secretly injected into the souls of the elect, apart from the Creator; Adam could not now attain salvation.

V. The followers of Tatian are called Tatiani and Tatianitae, Encratites, Severiani, Hydroparastatae, Apotactitae, Saccophori, Apostolici, by which names partly the sect of Tatian itself, and partly others torn away from it, are designated. Epiphanius distinguished the Tatiani from the Severiani and the Encratites, and thinks that Severianus anticipated Tatian, and Tatian the Encratites. ^D But Irenæus, Clemens, Eusebius, and Theodoret have called Tatian the parent and author of the sect of the Encratites. Eusebius adds that not long after, a certain Severus, when he had added strength and force to the aforementioned heresy, was the cause why the men of that sect were called Severiani from his own name. Therefore, the heresy of Tatian flowed widely; nor does Epiphanius justly confine it to the borders of Antioch, Cilicia, and Pisidia, since the Encratites, by his own admission, were propagated not only in these regions, but also in burning Phrygia, in Isauria, Pamphylia, and Galatia, and even in the Roman tract. Epiphanius was also led by this of the Tatianitae and Encratites mi-

-^Anutely with accurate distinction, so as to believe that Tatian’s sect had perished in the fourth century. But since it is evident from Epiphanius himself that the Encratites existed in this century, and especially from Basil, in whom not a few things are read concerning their baptism, it necessarily follows that the sect instituted by Tatian, which is none other than that of the Encratites, has persevered to this time. Basil, although he was accustomed to rebaptize heretics, nevertheless, considering the great utility, waived the custom for two bishops from this sect, Zoinus and Saturninus, received them into the episcopal chair, and held valid not only their baptism but also their ordination.

Epiphanius seems to suspect that the Encratites, while making a show of chastity, did not so much abhor pleasures as they sought out hiding places for secret wickednesses. Thus he speaks of Tatian (Haeres. 46): ^B "Under the pretense of continence and a continent character, he possessed a crafty mode of life; like a ravening wolf donning the sheep’s fleece, and deceiving the deceived by a temporary pretense." And of the Encratites (Haeres. 47): "They pride themselves on their alleged restraint, acting dangerously in all things, being found in the midst of women, and deceiving women from every side, and living together, and being served by such persons; they are outside the truth, keeping a mere form but denying the very power of piety."

Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria brought no such charge against Tatian, who, if we are to believe them, did not display an unconsidered study of chastity for a time, as Epiphanius pleases to think, but retained it pertinaciously. What Epiphanius therefore reproves in the Encratites seems to have been brought into this sect in the flux of time, when their elders had professed a form of chastity that was indeed impious, yet constant. Irenaeus opposes them to other heretics who sinned in the opposite direction and attributed every license to wickedness. For after he has spoken of Tatian, he thus passes to others (Lib. I, c. 28): "Others again, taking occasions from Basilides and Carpocrates, introduced indiscriminate intercourse, many marriages, and negligence of those things which are offered to idols, to be eaten; saying that God does not greatly care for these things." Similarly, Clement of Alexandria refutes those two heresies, as being opposed to one another in their fronts ^C as they fight in the whole of the third book of the *Stromata*: "Come, let us divide all heresies into two, and let us answer them: for either they teach how to live indifferently, or else, having progressed beyond measure, they proclaim continence through impiety and hatred."

Epiphanius no more agrees with these two writers when he testifies that the Encratites believe in the resurrection of the dead. For thus they interpret the resurrection in Clement, as if they had already attained it, and therefore say that they must flee from marriages. Whence Clement strikes them thus: "If therefore they have received the resurrection, as they themselves say, and for this reason abolish matrimony, let them neither eat nor drink. For the Apostle said that the belly and foods would be destroyed in the resurrection." Irenaeus, from among the heretics who reject the Creator, excludes no one at all who admits the resurrection, and in this matter departs from their wicked principles concerning creation (Lib. I, c. 22).

Chapter XII. De scriptis Tatiani.

I. Concerning the lost works of Tatian. II. The *Oration against the Greeks* was not delivered but written, and that after he departed from Rome. III. It is proved that it was written before his heresy, against the most learned Abbot of Longuerue. IV. Concerning the audacity of Tatian in perverting the Scriptures. V. His Gospel does not exist. VI. It seems to be the same as the Gospel which St. Epiphanius attributes to the Ebionites. VII. The same also as that which was called *According to Peter*.

1. Out of the vast number of books which Eusebius and Jerome testify were left by Tatian, few have come to our knowledge; one only has fallen into our hands. He had written, as Clement of Alexandria testifies (*Strom.* III, p. 460), a book *On Perfection According to the Saviour*. In the *Oration against the Greeks* (no. 15), he cites a book written by himself *On Animals*. Perhaps in this book he had ^D treated of what he says elsewhere he had demonstrated, that certain miraculous effects ought not to be attributed to the souls of dead men, but to demons. In the same *Oration* he mentions a book against pagan writers who had rashly judged of the institutions and sacred histories of the Christians and Jews. For he speaks thus (n. 40): "But concerning our institution, and the history of our laws, whatever the learned among the Greeks have spoken, and how many and who they are that have made mention of these things, will be shown in the work against those who have passed judgment on the things concerning God." But concerning our institution, and the history of our laws, what matters the learned among the Greeks have said, and how many and what kind of persons they have been who have made mention of these things, in—

particular, it will be demonstrated ^A that it was written by Justin against those, namely the Greeks, who have spoken assertively about divine matters. I shall not suppress the fact that in these words, "those who have spoken assertively" (*πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναμένους*), a meaning is added by the author of the dissertation, which has been praised more than once. For he translates it as "against those who detract from faith in divine matters." Tillemont understood it in the same way. But that word *ἀποφηναμένους* does not seem to allow for this interpretation. I have attempted in the annotation to this passage to explain whom Tatian proposed to refute in this work. Gesner thinks that Tatian intended to refute those who deal with God and divine matters through demonstrations—that is, the Catholics, who confirmed and proved by arguments the faith that Apelles, according to Eusebius (*Hist.*, v, 13), denies ought to be examined. ^B Rhodon, a distinguished ecclesiastical writer who had been taught by Tatian at Rome, related in his books against the Marcionites, as Eusebius testifies, that a book of *Problems*, or *Questions* on Holy Scripture, had been composed by Tatian. "He says," Eusebius remarks, "and Tatian was diligent about the book of *Problems*, through which he promised to set forth what is unclear and hidden in the holy Scriptures; but Rhodon himself in his own work promises to provide the solutions to those problems of his." He also reports that a book of *Questions* was composed by Tatian, through which, when Tatian had set out to demonstrate that the Scriptures are obscure and hidden, Rhodon himself promises that he would publish in a separate work the solutions to the *Questions* of Tatian. It seems that the heretic Tatian wrote these things, and was for that reason refuted by Rhodon; because, clearly, he maintained that the Scriptures were obscure and hidden, so that he might defend his own license in distorting and perverting them.

[H] Of all Tatian's works, in the judgment of Eusebius and Jerome, the most celebrated and flourishing was the *Oration against the Greeks*. Tillemont conjectures that this oration was delivered before pagans; and he suspects that this is the reason why it appears neither sufficiently elaborated nor arranged with art and order. In truth, he does seem to address listeners at times; as when he says: "I speak and you listen," n. 5. "Listen to me as one crying from a high place," n. 17. But no one is ignorant that it is a solemn practice for those who write to address the reader thus, as if they were using real voices. Tatian himself attributes the role not of an orator but of a writer to himself. For he says, n. 35: "How our philosophy is older than your traditions, since I had begun writing, but had delayed it on account of an urgent dispute, now, when there is time, I shall proceed to speak of its decrees." And in the peroration: "These things, O Greeks, I, Tatian, who have become addicted to barbarian philosophy, have composed for you." ^C The same most excellent Tillemont rightly observes that this oration [conceived] when Cresens was dead from his snares [is thought to have been] written by Justin; but that this cannot stand with Tatian's words. For Tatian, mocking the statues among the Greeks, which were erected partly to harlots and impure men, and partly to the memory of most absurd things, thus gives credit to his own judgment: "These things, then, I have not set forth having learned them from another, having traveled over much land, and having on one hand practiced sophistry in your matters, and on the other hand having been acquainted with many crafts and inventions, and finally having stayed in the city of the Romans, and having learned the varieties of statues brought there from you. For I do not attempt, as is the custom of the multitude, to strengthen my own views with the opinions of others; but I desire myself to compose the writing of all those things whose apprehension I shall renounce." "These things indeed," he says, n. 35, "I have set forth, not having received them from another, having traveled through many regions, and having been trained partly in your disciplines, and having encountered many arts and discoveries, and finally having tarried in the city of the Romans, I saw the varieties of statues transported there by you. For I do not, as most are wont, confirm my own [views] with alien opinions, but whatever I have seen, I set out to commit to writing." This narrative of things which Tatian had seen at Rome is that of a man not staying in Rome. The things we reported above [as] spoken against Cresens: "That Cresens, therefore, who had made a nest in the great city, surpassed all in the love of boys, etc.," similarly prove that Tatian was absent from Rome at that time, or at least, if he was dead, from Rome.

The author of the dissertation added to the Oxford edition believes the work was elaborated in some city of Greece. I believe the cause for so learned a man to think thus was that Tatian addresses the Greeks in this oration. But could he not also address those Greeks who were in the East? Wherefore nothing seems to be established with certainty regarding that matter.

III. But there is another point in which the author of the same dissertation seems to stray further from the truth. He admits that Tatian in this little work nicely blunts the edge of his adversaries. But he declares that in the same [work], he detects the juice of black cuttlefish and mere verdigris. "For the errors," he says, "which Tatian had long since sown in his mind, drawn from the store of the Gnostics, and before the death of Justin had kept hidden out of reverence for his teacher, he did not blush to defend openly." And below: "In this little work, while he teaches most absurd errors in the open, we do not doubt that he was at that time very far removed from the form of Christian truth and the evangelical rule. And he hands down in the first place that man is formed as if from three natures: *ἐκ τῆς ὕλης*, 'from matter'; *ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς*, 'from the soul which takes its origin from matter'; and *ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος*, 'from the spirit which takes its beginning from God or the heavens.'" That distinction too, in Tatian, of two spirits, of which one is called soul, while the other is more excellent, displeases the learned writer.

^A He judged the bodily nature as unworthy, which they thought the Son of God took on. They attributed to Him an animal body, not assumed from Mary, but transmitted through Mary, just as through a certain conduit. But it is not a matter of shame to Tatian that God was born in the form of man. Οὐ γὰρ μωραίνομεν, ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, οὐδὲ λήρους ἀπαγγέλλομεν, Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ μορφῇ γεγονέναι καταγγέλλοντες. «For we are not mad, O Greeks, nor do we report nonsense, in proclaiming that God was born in the form of man.»

But the abolition of man's liberty, which had precipitated the Valentinians into the height of moral corruption, when they said that they themselves were saved in every way not by operation, but because they were naturally spiritual (Iren., lib. I, c. 6). But Tatian declares that there is nothing evil in created things. ^B Ἐπεὶ αὐτὸς μὲν πᾶν τὸ εὖ πως ἔχον ἐδημιούργησεν· ἡ δὲ τῶν δαιμόνων ἀσωτία, τοῖς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πρὸς τὸ κακοποιεῖν ἐχρήσατο. «God, he says, created all things well, but the intemperance of the demons misused the things that are in the world for evil doing.» Following the footsteps of his master Justin, he teaches that men and angels were created free by God. Ὁ μὲν φαῦλος δικαίως κολάζηται δι' αὐτὸν γεγονὼς μοχθηρός· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος χάριν τῶν ἀνδραγαθημάτων ἀξίως ἐπαινῆται. «That the evil man may deservedly be punished, having become wicked by himself, but the just man, on account of his noble deeds, may worthily be praised.» He teaches that the things predicted come to pass by the free will of those who choose; nor does he trace the origin of evil elsewhere than from free will. Οὐκ ἐγενόμεθα πρὸς τὸ ἀποθνήσκειν, ἀποθνήσκομεν δὲ δι' ἑαυτούς. Ἀπώλεσεν ἡμᾶς τὸ αὐτεξούσιον· δοῦλοι γεγόναμεν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι, διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐπράθημεν. Οὐδὲν φαῦλον ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεποίηται, τὴν πονηρίαν ἡμεῖς ἀνεδείξαμεν. ^C Οἱ δὲ ἀναδείξαντες, δυνατοὶ πάλιν παραιτήσασθαι. «We were not made to die, but we die by ourselves. Our free will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves, we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been made by God; we have manifested wickedness. But those who have manifested it are able to reject it again.» Just as all men were affected by the sin of Adam, so also, as we saw in the second part, he teaches that the help of the Holy Spirit is necessary for everyone, so that the image of God may be restored in them, far from believing that anyone is spiritual by nature.

Tatian rightly mocks the marriages among the gods, but he never blames marriages legitimately contracted among men. He praises Christian virgins, who recited ^D the divine oracles, not to prescribe this institution as a law for all, but to repel the slanders of the heathens, who claimed that Christians spent their time among women and adolescents, among virgins and old women. Thus he also repels the crimes falsely attributed to the Christians, and objects to the heathens the unjust condemnation based on the name alone, as a defender of the Catholic Church, and one especially exposed to the arrows of the persecutors, far from being occupied at that time among the heretics, whom either

persecution was not wont to touch, or whom he eluded by denial, would be believed to be proclaimed by the Apostle. He describes the customs of the Catholic Church when he says, section 32: "Philosophers are not just the wealthy, but even the poor enjoy instruction for free... Whoever may wish to hear, we admit them all in this way, even if they are old women, even if they are adolescents; and in every way whatsoever, every age finds honor among us, but lasciviousness is far removed." The precepts of Justin, whom he calls a man to be admired above all, still clung to Tatian’s mind when he wrote this, but so did those remarkable impulses of piety which he had long ago felt when he admired the doctrine opposed to the heretics in the sacred books, the explanation of the entire creation that was easy to grasp, and the singular sovereignty of all things.

Immeritedly, the same very learned man finds fault with what is said by Tatian concerning body, soul, and spirit, and the distinction between two spirits. Even if Tatian were to compose man from body, soul, and spirit, this should not be reproached in the slightest, since the soul is often called spirit, and the gift of the Holy Spirit is often called man's spirit. But Tatian distinguishes the soul from the Holy Spirit, as the temple from the indwelling God, n. 15. In this, the Valentinians erred most gravely, because they said that the seed of their soul was injected by Sophia, by whose benefit they trusted that eternal salvation could not be snatched from them even by the greatest and most perpetual crimes. Nothing similar can be objected against Tatian. Moreover, he is to be praised in this, that he distinguishes the Holy Spirit, whom he calls perfect God, from the spirit pervading matter. A similar distinction is in Theophilus, book 1, n. 5 and 7.

IV. Tatian defends very wicked errors by the common path of the heretics, and he thought nothing was forbidden to himself regarding the Sacred Scriptures. He did indeed receive most Scriptures, even if he interpreted them wrongly. For, as we saw above, he would blather that the passage in Genesis, *Let there be light*, was of one praying, not of one commanding; he argued that wine was forbidden by a certain testimony of Amos, and marriage by another of Paul. He even attempted, as Irenaeus testifies, to use repeatedly such things as are constantly said by Paul: *Because in Adam all die*. He set much store by the Epistle to Titus; but although he deemed many things of Paul suitable for his own purposes, he nevertheless rejected some of that epistle, with the hope removed of eluding and quibbling. We learn these things from Jerome, who speaks thus in his preface to the commentary on the Epistle to Titus: "But Tatian," he says, "the patriarch of the Encratites, who himself also rejected some of Paul's Epistles, this one especially, believed that it should be proclaimed by the Apostle to Titus, making little of Marcion and others who agree with him in this part." Some sayings also of the Apostle, says Eusebius, lib. IV, cap. 29, he is reported to have dared to express in other words, as if correcting their composition.

V. But the primary deed of Tatian shone forth in putting together one from four Gospels, which for this reason he called

Diatessaron

From these it is clear that the Gospel Harmony which exists under the name of Tatian in the *Biblioth. Patr.* is not Tatian's; seeing that it contains the genealogies ^Dremoved by Tatian. Yet Victor of Capua attributed this to Tatian in the sixth century. But on that matter there is no longer any dissension among the learned. But Baronius and Cave raised a dispute concerning another Harmony attributed to Ammonius in the same *Bibliothecae Patrum*, which indeed they contend is not Ammonius' but Tatian's. But that latter work is the most genuine offspring of a Latin writer, nor does it have any mark at all from [the]

^A the Latin version recognizing it as having been rendered from Greek. Nor, in truth, does it consult Tatian’s heresy in any matter at all, but so commends the Law of Moses, and that in words not present in Scripture (nor is it wont to use the very words of Scripture), that it cannot be attributed to Tatian.

VI. Since the fame of this Gospel has spread so widely, we must investigate more accurately what the ancients said of it. This is to be observed above all, which Epiphanius says, that this Gospel of Tatian is called by some "according to the Hebrews." It is scarcely credible, indeed, that those Hebrews—some of whom, namely the Nazarenes, joined the observance of the Law with the doctrine of the Catholic Church; while others, namely the Ebionites, said that Christ was a simple man born of a Virgin, or even begotten by Joseph—should have used the Gospel of Tatian, which had been fabricated for the sake of instilling most dissimilar errors. And concerning the Nazarenes, it is indeed not at all in doubt that they did not adopt for their own use the Gospel of Tatian, but that one which St. Jerome illustrated with Greek and Latin letters. But as regards the Ebionites, the Gospel which Epiphanius attributes to them in heresy 56, which is that of the Ebionites, seems to be the very same as that Diatessaron of Tatian.

1° In the Gospel they possess, which Epiphanius attributes to the Ebionites, the genealogies had been cut off: "In their Gospel, at any rate, which is called 'according to Matthew'—though it is not whole and complete, but falsified and mutilated, and this they call the Hebrew—it is contained, etc." Therefore, in the Gospel of Matthew which is among them, he says in chapter 13, although they do not even have that entire, but adulterated and mutilated—and this same they call Hebrew—it is so written, etc. And further below: "Cerinthus and Carpocrates, using the same Gospel which they claim is theirs, from the beginning of the Gospel according to Matthew, through the genealogy want to show that Christ is from the seed of Joseph and Mary. But these others [the Ebionites] think other things. For cutting away the genealogies that are in Matthew, they begin to make the beginning, as I said before." For Cerinthus and Carpocrates, relying on the same Gospel of Matthew, as indeed they want [us to think], strive to prove from its beginning and the genealogy of Christ that Christ was begotten from the seed of Joseph and Mary. They [the Ebionites], on the other hand, maintain something entirely different. For with every genealogy cut away, they begin from there ^B whence we said. In that Gospel according to the Hebrews, therefore, the genealogies were lacking, which Theodoret testifies, lib. 1 Hæret. fab., c. 20, had been cut away from the Gospel of the Diatessaron, as things that were inconvenient for the heresy of Tatian.

2° In the same Gospel of the Ebionites, or "according to the Hebrews," many other things occurred, adapted to the errors of Tatian concerning the Law of Moses and the use of animals. Thus spoke Christ in this Gospel: "That I have come to abolish the sacrifices, and if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath of God will not cease from you." For what John says, that he ate *akridas*, that is, locusts, they had substituted *egkridas*, honey-cakes. That word of Christ in Luke: *With desire I have desired to eat this Pascha with you*, is thus inverted in the Gospel of the Ebionites: when the disciples asked: "Where do you wish that we prepare for you to eat the Pascha?" thus answered Christ: "Did I desire with [carnal] desire to eat this flesh, the Pascha, with you?" It is possible to recognize in these things not only the ravings of Tatian, but also his audacity in perverting the Scriptures to his own will, of which Eusebius speaks, Hist., iv, 29.

3° The Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was known to Epiphanius, was not, like that which Jerome interpreted, contained by the context of Matthew alone; but clearly, as the Gospel of Tatian *Diatessaron*, consisted of other parts of the evangelists cunningly stitched together. The matter is clear both from the words of Luke, which we have just seen maliciously twisted in this Gospel, and from another testimony, which was cited by Epiphanius, n. 13, composed partly from the words of Matthew, partly from those of Mark and Luke.

4° In the same Gospel according to the Hebrews, the baptism of Christ is described, as in that of Tatian’s master, Justin: the voices of the Father are narrated as having been heard: "Today I have begotten thee": a great light is said to have shone in the Jordan.

Epiphanius perceived that there were many things in this Gospel that were in conflict with the Ebionites. For since he knew that Christ was esteemed by them as a simple man, he could not wonder enough why they employed these words of Christ: *Who is my mother and my brothers?* for the purpose of proving that Christ was not a man, but he thought that they were in conflict with themselves. But such inconstancy is incredible, that they should say the same one is both a man born of men, and deny that he is a man. Many other things Epiphanius attributes to the Ebionites that are in complete conflict with that opinion which all antiquity confirms concerning them. He declares that they detested all the prophets, n. 15. Yet these are the prophecies that, if we trust Irenæus, lib. 1, c. 26, they strove to explain with curiosity. Epiphanius adds that they abstain from all living creatures, because they are born of sexual intercourse, that they use only water in celebrating ^C the mysteries, and that they place a distinction between Jesus and Christ, so that they say that Christ, the Son of God, descended upon Jesus. I would rather believe, indeed, that the Ebionites were confused by Epiphanius with Cerinthus or Carpocrates or other sects of this kind, which indeed did say that Jesus was a man born of men, but because they maintained that Christ was impassible, and the God of the Old Testament and the Creator...

For we have been able, by using those who have practiced this Gospel—that is, the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae (for most of its tenets belong to their teaching)—to examine it, and we found that most of it was consistent with the right doctrine of the Savior, but some things were distorted, which we have also submitted to you. ^B And Philip of Side says in the twenty-fourth discourse: "Athenagoras was the first to preside over the school in Alexandria, having flourished during the times of Hadrian and Antoninus, to whom he also addressed a petition on behalf of the Christians; a man professing the Christian religion while still wearing the philosopher's cloak, and presiding over the Academic school. Desiring, before Celsus, to write against the Christians, he perused the divine Scriptures in order to fight more accurately, and so was he seized by the all-holy Spirit that, like the great Paul, he became a teacher of the faith he had persecuted instead of a persecutor." Philip says that Clement the compiler of the *Stromata* was a disciple of his, and Pantaenus was a disciple of Clement.

CHAPTER XIII De gestis et scriptis Athenagorae

1. That Athenagoras was an Athenian and a philosopher, the title of his works indicates. ^C Regarding his deeds, there is not a very rich harvest of information, since oblivion has almost wiped away his name. For if you except the martyr Methodius and Philip of Side—of whom one cites a single opinion of Athenagoras in Epiphanius (*Haeres.* 64) and Photius (*Cod.* 224), and the other has spoken of him briefly and as if in passing—there is profound silence about this excellent writer throughout all antiquity. Yet his fame ought to have spread more widely if what Philip of Side reports is true, that he presided over the school of Alexandria, and that Clement succeeded him in this office. This testimony of Philip of Side is reported in a certain fragment, which is read at the end of Dodwell’s dissertations on Irenaeus, excerpted, as Dodwell conjectures, from the works of Nicephorus Callistus. What is said there about Athenagoras is as follows: ^D "Philip of Side says in his sermon: Athenagoras was the first to preside over the Alexandrian school, who flourished during the times of Hadrian and Antoninus, to whom he also addressed an oration on behalf of the Christians; a man who professed the Christian religion in his very cloak, and was prefect of the Academic school. When, before Celsus, he had the intention of writing against the Christians, by reading the divine Scriptures in order to fight more accurately, he was so seized by the Holy Spirit that, in the manner and way of the great Paul, he became a teacher of the doctrine he was attacking, instead of a persecutor. Philip says that Clement of Alexandria was his disciple, and Pantaenus was the disciple of Clement."

Although the authority of Philip is not very great, and Socrates (book 7, chapter 27) judges his work, which he entitled *Christian History*, to be useless to the learned and unlearned alike—a view in which Photius (cod. 35) concurs—nonetheless, Dodwell thinks he should be preferred even to Eusebius himself in this testimony concerning Athenagoras and the other masters of the Alexandrian school, because he was a disciple of Rhodon, who...

was after Didymus in charge of the school, and translated that same school to the city of Side, where, according to the author of the excerpt cited—whether it be Nicephorus or someone else—Philip tells us he heard him. I would not indeed deny the validity of Dodwell’s reasoning, that if Philip relates anything that does not conflict with the best authorities, it should be accepted. But Dodwell will never persuade me that an author of no great weight—who was on a par with Proclus and Sisinnius, and served in the office of deacon under John Chrysostom—should be preferred to Eusebius, who is both older and more accurate, and who had seen many more monuments of the Alexandrian school, and many more learned men who were either in charge of it or educated within it. Therefore, to omit the fact that Philip is far from the truth when he thinks that the Apology of Athenagoras was inscribed to the emperors Hadrian and Antoninus, many things are read in that same testimony that are partly not very probable, and partly false and downright absurd. I would not willingly believe that Athenagoras was in charge of the Alexandrian school. For how could his writings have lain so hidden in such a high and sublime place that no whisper of them reached Eusebius at all? Certainly, what Philip says, that Athenagoras was the first to be in charge of this school, cannot be maintained. For Eusebius relates plainly that “the school of sacred letters had been established in the city of Alexandria from ancient times, before Pantaenus was in charge of it.”

Not less absurdly, the same Philip maintains that Athenagoras was the teacher of Clement of Alexandria, and Clement the teacher of Pantaenus. It cannot be doubted that Clement of Alexandria was not the teacher of Pantaenus, but his disciple. He recalls the doctrine received from Pantaenus with a grateful heart in his *Hypotyposes*. Eusebius testifies to the matter (Hist., v, ch. 11): “He mentions Pantaenus by name in the *Hypotyposes* which he composed, as being his teacher.” Clement explicitly mentions Pantaenus as his master in the books he wrote for instruction. And Photius, in cod. 109, says the same regarding Clement: “A disciple, as he himself says, of Pantaenus.” He was, therefore, just as he himself testifies, a disciple of Pantaenus. Philip, therefore, deserves no credence, since he deviates so greatly from Clement himself regarding Clement’s own affairs. And hence it can also be perceived that Eusebius was not relying on a hollow conjecture, as it seemed to Dodwell, but on firm evidence when he concludes that this teacher, whom Clement listed last in order and time, but by merit far the foremost in Egypt, was Pantaenus. For since Clement devoted his efforts in Egypt to only one teacher, as he himself testifies, and since Pantaenus taught in Egypt and had Clement as a hearer, is it an empty conclusion that the teacher whom Clement alone (Strom., I, p. 271) heard in Egypt is none other than Pantaenus? Such a history, therefore, reeks of fable. Yet I would not reject equally that part of the testimony of Philip Sidetes regarding the conversion of Athenagoras and his profession of the Christian religion while wearing the philosopher’s mantle. For these things are by no means contradictory; but they would be more certain if Philip had shown greater trustworthiness and diligence in writing history.

^B II. Most distinguished men, Baronius and Tillemont, suspect that Athenagoras is the same person as St. Athenogenes the martyr, whose hymn—which Basil praises in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, ch. 29—was left by the holy martyr and his disciples like a kind of amulet when he was about to be burned with fire. In truth, apart from the similarity of the name, which could have deceived the copyists, Athenogenes appears to have flourished in learning and disciples, which indeed fits the Athenian philosopher no less aptly. No monuments of history attest that Athenagoras suffered for Christ. But just as his writings lay almost in oblivion, so could his martyrdom have remained hidden. Nor, indeed, would I marvel if he had poured out his life for Christ, for he, under an emperor under whom a denounced Christian did not escape capital punishment, not only dared to come forward but even defended the Christian religion in such a way that, addressing an emperor most addicted to superstition, he compared the holiness of Christian worship and the unblemished morals of the Christians with the shameful sacrifices and idols of the Gentiles and their most corrupt life. But, as was observed regarding the cited passage of Basil, it is more probable that the Athenogenes mentioned by St. Basil is the one whom the Martyrologies testify suffered with several others at Sebaste in Armenia under Diocletian on the 16th of July.

^D III. Since there are no further sources from which we might discuss the circumstances of Athenagoras, we must come to his writings, of which the most outstanding by far is the *Legatio*, or *Apology for the Christians*. Baronius, Petavius, and Tillemont believe it was offered to M. Aurelius and his son Commodus, and that in the year 177. Labbé, Pagi, and Dodwell contend that it was inscribed to the emperors M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus; Dodwell indeed in the year 168, Pagi in the year 166. In this variety of opinions, a deliberation is not difficult as to whom to follow. For the following words of Athenagoras set forth the opinion of Baronius and Tillemont in the clearest light: “For who are more worthy to obtain what they ask than those who pray for your empire, that the son, as is most just, may receive the kingdom from the father, and that your power may receive increase and growth, as all things are becoming subject to you?” These words, indeed, cannot refer to M. Aurelius and L. Verus. Both had been adopted by Antoninus; neither was the father of the other; nor was it “most just” that Lucius...

should at some time receive the kingdom from his father, but rather that, as the son of Marcus, he should eventually receive the reign from his father. ^A To the same effect are these lines, no. 18: “Consider for yourselves the heavenly kingdom; for as all things are placed in subjection to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom from above (for ‘the king’s soul is in the hand of God,’ says the prophetic Spirit), so to one God and the Word proceeding from Him, the Son understood as inseparable, all things are subject.” Verily, a most brilliant comparison, if it concerns M. Aurelius and Commodus, especially since Athenagoras sufficiently indicates what is the difference between divine and human generation, while he declares that the Son of God cannot be separated from the Father. But it would have been an altogether unworthy and absurd comparison if Athenagoras had been speaking of M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus, whose relationship as brothers he could not have ignored. And even if he had imagined Lucius Verus to have been adopted by M. Aurelius, nothing was more contrary to his other principles concerning the Trinity than to compare the eternal Son of God with an adopted son.

^C Furthermore, the *Oration* is inscribed in all codices to the emperors M. Aurelius Antoninus and L. Aurelius Commodus, Armeniacs, Sarmatians, and, what is most significant, philosophers. Moreover, Lucius—from the time he received the name of Verus with the empire—was never called Commodus, unless perhaps by Jerome, and not without grave hallucination, which does not befall a contemporary writer. Nor does the surname Sarmaticus fit Lucius Verus, which even M. Aurelius himself did not assume before the year 170, or perhaps even 174. As for what Athenagoras says, that Proteus burned himself *peri tēn Olympián*, Dodwell takes this as if it meant “in this Olympiad.” But even if Athenagoras had designated the Olympic games by this term, he would not have designated the Olympiad in which he was writing: no more certainly than when he says, no. 14, of the slaughter perpetrated by Theagenes *peri tēn Olympiáda*. By such terms, the ancients denoted now the city itself, now the games themselves in the city. ^D Thus Philostratus, *Vit. Apol.*, IV, 8: *óntōn Olympíōn*; ch. 9, *en Olympíai*, *kat' Olympían*; and ch. 11, *metà tēn Olympían*; Aelian, lib. IV, c. 9, *en Olympíai*; and lib. X, c. 54, *eis Olýmpia*.

IV. That this work could not have been written before the year 176 or 177 is proven by that absolute peace which Athenagoras says reigned throughout the world, no. 1. For, as Baronius and Tillemont observe, in the whole of M. Aurelius’ reign one can scarcely find any time, except for the years 176 and 177, completely free of wars. Tillemont prefers the year 177, because Commodus had not obtained the title of emperor, which Athenagoras confers upon him, before the month of November of the year 176. But since it is manifest that the paternal titles were shared with Commodus on account of the name of son and the right of inheritance accepted by nature, why could the title of emperor not have been attributed to him before he received it by solemn decree? Thus, even when Athenagoras says: “To you, father and son, all things are subject,” he does not mean that Commodus had been admitted into the society of the empire (for although he was made Augustus in the year 177, it is not credible that, as long as his father lived, he sustained most of the parts of conducting state affairs), but expresses the affection of citizens, who joined the son to the father in all obedience and observance. Therefore, the reason brought forward by Tillemont does not seem to be of such weight that we should assign this Apology to the year 177. But the necessity of referring it to the year 176 seems to be imposed by the journey M. Aurelius undertook in this year to Greece, Syria, and Egypt. For whether Athenagoras lived in Athens, as could be gathered from the title of “Athenian philosopher,” or in Alexandria, the presence of the emperor in these places offered a very convenient occasion for presenting the Apology—and I do not think anyone would say that Athenagoras, having missed this occasion, came to Rome the following year in order to offer this specimen of his love for the Church.

Baehr in the *Historical Lexicon* published in French, says Fabricius, thinks it was never offered to the public in the name of the Christian, but only written privately by Athenagoras, just as in France from the year 1684 many among the Reformed, who had suffered persecution, wrote and published such suppliant libels and apologies to the king, which were never presented to the king. That this is an unjust opinion concerning Athenagoras will be admitted by anyone who weighs the Apology itself more accurately. The title itself teaches that Athenagoras was discharging the duty of a legate. His whole speech aims at this: to reconcile the emperor’s benevolence toward the Christians; he dissembles that the emperor’s hatred of the Christians is the cause of the persecution, but says that the Christians are harassed and killed because the emperor does not protect them with his patronage; in the exordium and conclusion and in many other places he elevates his praises to the stars with full hands, and asserts that the Christians are attached to him and his household with the greatest zeal and obedience. As many arguments as he uses, he uses as many opportunities to soothe the emperor and address him most honorably. Who does not see that for the writer, arguing in this way—just as for Justin and Tatian in their *Orations against the Greeks*, for Clement in his *Protrepticus*, for Origen in his books against Celsus—the purpose is not only to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion and refute the errors of the gentiles, but also, and most especially, to obtain an end to the persecution? He seems to have proposed to himself for imitation the Apologies of S. Justin, by whose example he neither [leaves] atheism together with the worship of the holy Trinity, nor other supposed crimes together with the morals and doctrine of Christi—

Christianity, he proves, can be consistent. It seems he follows Justin as a leader when he complains that the mere name of Christian is condemned, num. 2; when he demands that the same form of trial be observed for them as for other men; when he declares that persecutions arise from nothing other than the ancient struggle of vice against virtue, num. 3; when he teaches that Christians set out from this life to another, far better, with God and before God, num. 12; and when he speaks of the fall of the angels, num. 24.

Athenagoras far surpasses Justin in a polished style of speaking, in elegance of order, and in very sharp circumlocutions to win over the good will of his hearers. For Justin is simpler and more sparing in his praise. But if Athenagoras does not repeat as many things from the Scriptures and the mysteries of Christ as occur in these matters in Justin, it appears he preferred to demonstrate the uniqueness of God and the foolishness of the worship of idols and to dwell on these, because he hoped this method of disputation would be more agreeable to the ears of the philosopher emperor. But while he is occupied in these things, he seems to Petavius (lib. 1, *De Deo*, p. 85) to admit accidents in God. He indeed calls the attributes of God ^A *tà epinymbebēkota* (accidents), and says that the good is in God *kata symbebēkos* (accidentally), but since he himself opens up his own mind, it does not seem to him that the word should be attacked where the sentiment is secure. Similar indulgence must be used toward Tertullian, in whom the attributes of God are called "appendages" in the same sense, lib. 1 *in Marc.*, cap. 25.

V. We can infer that Athenagoras wrote many things from the beginning of the book *On the Resurrection*, where he testifies that he sometimes puts forth discourses for the truth on those matters which are held concerning the truth, and that he determined to do this in that book. At what time this work was written, I cannot determine; but nevertheless the *Apology* seems to be later, which he concludes in such a way that it appears he had not yet undertaken a disputation on the resurrection, but was deferring it to another time. For he speaks thus: *All’ anakeisthō men ho peri tēs anastaseōs logos*. "But let this discourse concerning the resurrection be deferred." Although there is no doubt but that this disputation was not spoken but written, he speaks thus, num. 23, as if it were his purpose to indicate in summary fashion to those who have gathered what is to be thought about the resurrection, and to adapt the arguments upon which this dogma rests to the capacity of his audience. Although the arguments used in this work strike even the heretics themselves, yet it appears he wished to refute the philosophers above everyone else. For whatever is objected by his adversaries is contained in little rational arguments: whatever arguments Athenagoras uses, he repeats them from the nature of man and the justice of God. Whence also, num. 3, the matter is called "informis" (unformed), as those—namely, the philosophers—think. But he does not touch upon those things which Catholics brought from the Scriptures and the mysteries of Christ to prove this dogma, and which heretics brought to overturn it. Under the name of ^B Athenagoras there appeared in the year 1569 a work *On the True and Perfect Love*, in words indeed made into French from Greek, but in reality fabricated by an impostor named Fumée, whose mask is excellently unmasked; see Fabricius, tom. V, *Biblioth. Gr.*, p. 88.

Petavius was displeased that Athenagoras says in this book *On the Resurrection*, n. 11, or at least that he seemed to the most learned theologian to say, that God can [do] what He wills, and that He fully wills what He can; *kai to dynaton boulētēn kai tō Theō boulēton pantōs einai dynaton*. But no difficulty remains if the place is accurately weighed. For Athenagoras does not say *boulēton* (willed) as that which God has decreed He will do, but as that which He can will. Thus previously, n. 10, he understands by *aboulēton* (unwilled) that which God cannot will. For he says it is *aboulēton* for this reason, because it is either unjust or unworthy of God. *To gar aboulēton, ē hōs adikon autō estin aboulēton, ē hōs anaxion*. And so I have not doubted to interpret *aboulēton* as that which does not fall into ^C the will of God, and *boulēton* as that which He can will. Athenagoras refutes those in this book who not at all inquired whether God promised the resurrection to men or not, but contended that it could not happen at all. Wherefore Athenagoras determines that they, if they wish to be incredulous with any color of reason, ought to demonstrate that the resurrection falls neither into God’s power nor into His will.

CHAPTER XIV.

1. A question not of little moment for Athenagoras and for ecclesiastical antiquity is to be examined. Tillemont, whose equity in judging ancient matters is no less to be praised than his erudition in gathering and collecting [texts], suspects that Athenagoras was a Montanist. "I do not know," he says, t. II, p. 350, "whether the manner of speaking used by him both concerning the prophets, at the time when the ecstasies of Montanus were beginning to disturb the Church, and concerning second marriages, affords a place for fearing that he was involved in these parts." Concerning the prophets, Athenagoras speaks thus, *Apol.*, num. 9: *Hoi kath’ ekstasin tōn en autois logismōn, kinēsantos autous tou theiou Pneumatos, ha enērgounto exēphōnēsan; synchrēsamenou tou Pneumatos hōsei kai aulētēs aulon empneūsai*. "Who, being rapt out of themselves in mind and spirit, by the impelling of the Holy Spirit, spoke those things which were inspired in them, the Holy Spirit using them as if a piper should blow into a pipe." But concerning second marriages we have these things, n. 33: *Ou gar meletē logōn, all’ epideixei kai didaskalia ergōn ta hēmetera; ē hoios tis etethē, menein, ē eph’ heni gamō. Ho gar deuteros euprepēs*

adulterium. For whoever, he says, dismisses his wife and marries another commits adultery; [giving permission neither to dismiss her whose virginity one has put an end to, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his former wife, even if she is dead, is a concealed adulterer, transgressing the hand of God, because in the beginning God fashioned one man and one woman; and dissolving the flesh into flesh, according to the union for the purpose of procreation into the communion of the race.] “For our affairs are not contained by the meditation of words, but by the demonstration and discipline of deeds, that each should remain as he was born, or in a single marriage. For second marriages are a decorous adultery. For whoever,” he says, “dismisses his wife and marries another, commits adultery; and he allows neither her to be dismissed, whose virginity one has ended, nor another to be married in addition. For he who strips himself of his first wife, even if she be dead, is in a certain hidden sense an adulterer; both because he transgresses the law of God (for in the beginning God fashioned one man and one woman), and because he dissolves the conjunction of flesh with flesh, bound together as it were by a certain bond for the mixing of the race.” ^B Those things which are read in Tertullian concerning second marriages seem to agree too much with these. If he says in *De pudicitia*, ch. 1, that these are different from the work of adultery and fornication by nuptial and dowry tablets. As he observes that neither divorce nor a plurality of marriage existed from the beginning in *De monogamia*, cap. 9. Thus he speaks, cap. 14: “Nor did the law remove divorce; it had what it might remove: the new prophecy [removes] the second marriage, [and] no less the divorce of the first.”

He says this in his book *De fuga*, c. 9, where he also relates two testimonies of Montanus, which contain an exhortation to martyrdom, but by no means condemn flight. The Montanists abolished second marriages, with an audacity surely new and unheard of, yet in the beginning they were so moderate that they did not hesitate to communicate with digamists in the Church. For how they conducted themselves in this matter can be seen from their way of acting in other things. I do not know by what means a custom had been introduced into some Churches, contrary to the Apostle’s precept, that virgins should cast off their veils in church. Virgins addicted to the new prophecies kept the veil, but nevertheless were not troublesome to others who lacked the veil, until these [prophetesses] obtained that this discrimination, which burned them, should be removed. Tertullian thus narrates the matter, lib. *De velandis virginibus*, cap. 3: “Among us, up until very recently, communion was granted quite tolerably to both customs. The matter was left to one’s own judgment, so that each woman could have chosen either to be covered or to be uncovered, just as she could choose to marry: which itself is neither compelled nor forbidden. ^C She was content to reach an agreement of truth with custom, so that she might silently, under the name of custom, enjoy [her liberty] at least in part; but since the acknowledgment [of these prophecies] had begun to advance, so that through the license of both customs an indication of the better part might emerge; immediately that adversary of good things, and of many institutions, did his work. They beset the virgins of men against the virgins of God, aroused to rash audacity with a face openly bare... ‘We are scandalized,’ they say, ‘because others walk differently... Why do these not rather complain that they are scandalized by the petulance and impudence [of the lack] of a veil on the virgins?’”

II. But yet if we consider by what stages the Montanists arrived at the point where they were condemned by all; we shall not find Athenagoras at the end of their open heresy; nor indeed even their supporters, who in the beginning felt more moderately. For not immediately after Montanus appeared did he dare to impose fasts like a law, to forbid flight in times of persecution, or to brand second marriages with the marks of adultery. He managed the matter much more cunningly. He did not impose fasts on those who were listening then for the sake of any cause, nor on the whole Church for the perpetual cycle of returning years. “The Holy Spirit,” says Tertullian, *De jejuniis*, c. 13, “when he preached when and through whom he wished in the lands in which he wished, according to the providence of impending [events], or of ecclesiastical temptations, or of worldly plagues, as the Paraclete, that is, the advocate, for the sake of entreating the judge, mandated the remedies of offices of this kind. ^D Consider now, for the exercise of the discipline of sobriety and abstinence, we necessarily observe also what he then established.” Nor did he entirely condemn flight in persecutions. Tertullian testifies that he encouraged [people] to martyrdom; he does not dare to say that flight was entirely forbidden by him. “But if you consult the Spirit, what does that Spirit approve more in that speech? He exhorts almost all to martyrdom.”

That Montanus had concealed his heresy in the beginning under some veneer of leniency is also argued by the fact that there were varied and discrepant opinions among Catholics concerning his prophecies. For as he began to arrogate to himself the office and name of prophet, many believed him to be endowed with such gifts, as Eusebius attests, which at that time were not rare in the Church. But if he had immediately vomited out those things which he afterward blurted out, there could have been no reason for hesitation among the Catholics. Their ecstasies would not have brought delay to his anathema, if he had opened himself and immediately said that which Tertullian reports to have been said by him or by his women in *De pudicitia*, cap. 21: “The Church can forgive sin; but I will not do it, lest others also commit sin.”

III. It is worth the trouble to observe that many years elapsed from the beginning of the sect before the Montanists either ceased to be tolerated, or voluntarily separated themselves from all Churches. In the year 177, that is, six years from the beginning of the sect, the confessors of Lyon and Vienne, whether consulted by the brethren of Asia and Phrygia concerning this dissension, or moved by their own charity, partly wrote to the brethren dwelling in Asia and Phrygia, says Eusebius, *Hist.*, lib. v, c. 3, and partly to Eleutherus, the bishop of the city of Rome, acting as it were as a legation for the peace of the Churches.

schism, but a vehement dissension, the hope of settling which was shining forth. ^A

The Montanists attempted to win for themselves the communion and approval of three Roman pontiffs, but they labored in vain. We learn the fact from these words of Tertullian against Praxeas, c. 1: "The same (Praxeas) at that time, when he had found the Roman bishop already acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and on account of that acknowledgement bringing peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, by asserting false things about the prophets themselves and their Churches, and by defending the authorities of his predecessors, compelled him both to revoke the letters of peace already issued and to desist from his purpose of receiving the charisms." The predecessors of this bishop, who was almost deceived by the Montanists, can be no others in this place than Soter, under whom the sect arose, and Eleutherus, whom Victor succeeded in the year 192. And so, while Victor was governing the Roman Church, or at least in the beginnings of his pontificate—that is, twenty years and more after the beginnings of Montanus—the Montanists had not yet departed from the Church, nor had they yet been cast out from it. It is likely that these proud men did not bear this rejection patiently; but nevertheless, many years passed from this event before the schism broke forth openly and manifestly. For Tertullian, who it is likely was in Rome when these things were happening, became a Montanist in this city, if we give credence to Jerome, which does not seem to be denied to him in this matter. For he recounts in his book *De script. eccles.* that Tertullian lapsed into the dogma of Montanus due to the envy and insults of the clergy of the Roman Church. He returned, however, to Africa not yet a schismatic: for he was mixed among the Catholics, and while they were listening to Praxeas, who had come from Italy to Africa and was spreading his error there, he broke and refuted him, and forced him to abjure his heresy; only then was the schism formed. He narrates the whole matter thus himself, c. 1 in *Prax.*: "The tares of Praxeas had sprouted, sown here also while many were sleeping in the simplicity of doctrine; having been subsequently exposed by whom God willed, they seemed even to have been rooted out. Finally, the former doctor had provided for his own amendment: and his written record remains among the psychics, among whom the matter transpired at that time: silence thereafter." And as for us, it was the subsequent acknowledgement of the Paraclete and his defense that separated us from the psychics. Accurate is Tertullian’s manner of speaking: not the mere acknowledgement of a false Paraclete, but chiefly the defense of him separated him from the Catholics. Assuredly, he had acknowledged him before he defended him schismatically.

IV. That Tertullian did not separate from the external communion of the Church as soon as he became a Montanist is evidenced by his book *De velandis virginibus*, the occasion for the writing of which, as we have already seen, arose from a dissension between the virgins of the Montanists and those of the Catholics in the same churches and under the same pastors. It is necessary that both were attending the churches and were obedient to the same authority; when some were not veiled, others were annoyed that their companions were veiled, and therefore they acted among those who held authority that the veil might be removed. The whole matter was being conducted within the Church, and Tertullian had not yet departed from it. "Among us, until very recently, there was communion with both customs." Moreover, in this book he opposes to his adversaries outsider churches, with whom he declares both himself and his adversaries to be joined together in communion. "We cannot," he says, c. 2, "reject a custom which we cannot condemn, as not being alien, because it is not of aliens, with whom we share the law of peace and the name of brotherhood. One is the faith for us and for them, one God, one Christ, the same hope, the same sacraments of the bath. I would say once: we are one Church." How dissimilar are these things to the impious and dishonest invectives which Tertullian afterwards, retaining neither measure nor judgment, poured into the Church: such as when he says in the book *De pudicitia*, c. 1: "There will be, therefore, this title also against the psychics, against the society of my own opinion back among them, so that they might the more object this to me as a mark of fickleness. Never is the rejection of a society a prejudice of an offense, as if it were not easier to err with the many, when truth is loved by the few." He says that the Scripture of the Shepherd, c. 11, is referred to among the apocrypha by "every council of the Churches even of your own," he says, addressing the Catholics. He denies that the Holy Spirit is in the Catholics because they do not acknowledge Him in Montanus. ^B "Therefore," he says, "these who received another Paraclete in the apostles and through the apostles, whom they do not acknowledge in their own prophets, now neither do they possess in the apostles, come now, let them teach, even from the apostolic instrument, that the stains of the flesh splashed on after baptism can be washed away by repentance." And c. 21: "What now regarding the Church, and indeed your own, O psychic?"

Tillemont, who thinks that the Montanists were a sect severed from the Church before Tertullian gave it a name, accepted this opinion from these words of the book *De fuga*: "For you say that we assemble in an unorganized manner, that we assemble together and many of us run together into the Church; we are sought out by the nations, and we fear that the nations might be disturbed," c. III. This most learned man thought that the synaxes of the Montanists were being described here: but Tertullian brings in the Catholics themselves, by whom he had been consulted, saying these things, and he brings this forward as the cause why there should be flight, and why one should abstain from the meetings, because, forsooth, if Christians hold their customary synaxes, this multitude is easily detected by the Gentiles. Whence Tertullian adds: "Do you not know that God is the Lord of all? And if God wishes, then you will endure persecution; but if He does not wish, then the nations will be silent." From this, he is also an advocate to the one who was consulting him, that if he cannot [attend] by day, he should at least meet by night and with a few, if it is not lawful [to meet] with a multitude. "Finally, if you cannot gather by day" ^{C D}

you have the night, made luminous by the light of Christ against it. You cannot run through individuals; let the Church among the three be yours. ^A In this book, therefore, in which he cites his Paraclete, and is so addicted to the ravings of Montanus that he thinks it better to deny [Christ] amidst torments than to flee, he nevertheless revered ecclesiastical gatherings, and thought that Christ presided over them. For in this place, the Church "among the three" is nothing else but a gathering of the faithful in whom dwells the Holy Spirit, even if they be few. Add to these the fact that Fabius, who had consulted Tertullian, was a Catholic; nor are the "psychics" called Catholics in this book: he only blames them for the fact that in many things they ought to be hesitant and uncertain, because they do not accept the oracles of the Paraclete. "But the examination must be managed by you, if by chance, by not accepting the Paraclete as the leader of all truth, you are deservedly still also hindered [perhaps: liable—ed.] by other questions," c. 1. Nor should the honorable commemoration of the holy martyr Rutilius in this book be overlooked, whom Tertullian, c. 5, calls a most holy martyr, although he had fled persecution many times from place to place, and even redeemed the danger, as he thought, with money.

^B From these, those can be refuted both who repel the brand of heresy from Tertullian, because he seems to retain unity even as a Montanist, and those who wish his principles on authority and unity to be of no weight, because they think he debated these points when already a schismatic. Both err gravely. He will not be innocent and pure from the crime of schism for the reason that he fell into this most sad ruin by certain degrees, as it were. They press upon him, they do not defend, the signs of unity retained for a time when compared with the ^C later manifest marks of schism. But as to the weight and moment [of these arguments]—by what arguments he demonstrated the unity and infallibility of the Church—did the subsequent schism have to take away from them? ^D Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, they did not dissolve Jesus Christ, nor did they overturn any rule of faith or hope; but [Tertullian claims] that they clearly teach fasting more often than marrying. But Tertullian had not so cast off all shame that, even in the schism itself, he did not attribute to himself communion with the apostolic Churches. He judged the consensus of the universal Church against the Montanists as if a few were fighting against the many, and not rather a minute sect against the universal Church. "Never," he says, "is a repudiation of society a prejudice of guilt, as if it were not easier to err with the many, when truth is loved with the few." But in the book *De praescriptione*, the Montanists, who had abandoned the apostolic doctrine concerning second marriages, concerning penance, and indeed even concerning the authority of the Church, he defeated just as he did others with this most excellent sentiment: "Come now, let all have erred. Is it probable that so many and such great [churches] have erred into one faith?" In this most excellent book, many other things occur that are deeply at odds with what Tertullian taught, already a Montanist, though not yet a schismatic: that first thing, which he amply proves in the book *De praescriptione* that nothing remains to be sought by Catholics, seeing that they have found the truth, or at least it is to be sought in the Church and from the brethren. But in the book *De velandis virginibus* he attributes all authority in resolving questions to the fictitious Paraclete, and in the book *De fuga* he pronounces the Catholics to be liable to many questions because they do not receive the Paraclete, the leader of all truth. Therefore, one may conclude that the book *De praescriptione* was written not only before the schism, but even before the dreams of Montanus were adopted.

V. Much light would be added to this question if we could determine in what year the Montanists fully fell away from the Church. The schism was already fully forged when Tertullian was writing his fourth book against Marcion, that is, in the year, as he himself declares, of the fifteenth year of the emperor Severus. For there he declares that the controversy between the Montanists and the "psychics" was about ecstasy, c. 22. This is confirmed by St. Clement of Alexandria, who was writing under the same emperor. For when he was composing the fourth book of the *Stromata*, the Montanists were beginning to call the Catholics "psychics." For thus Clemens writes concerning them, p. 511: "For now even these (the Phrygians) call those who do not attend to the 'new prophecy' 'psychics' (animal-souled)..." For they already also call those who do not attend to the "new prophecy" "animal-souled." The same in *Stromata*, VII, p. 765, calls the Montanists a heresy named from their people. An ancient writer in Eusebius, *Hist.*, v, 16, testifies that the Montanists were condemned and excommunicated in many councils of Asia; but he does not at all declare at what time these councils were held. It could have happened that in some Churches they were condemned sooner, in others later. Irenaeus calls those [people] false prophets, and [treats] them as...

^A claiming for themselves the badges of prophecy without the prophetic grace, in book IV, chapter 33, paragraph 6. Yet he does not say that the sin of schism was attached by them to false prophecy. Nevertheless, there would be no doubt that they were schismatics if the following statement of Irenaeus referred to them: "Others, however, in order to frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in the last times has been shed forth upon the human race according to the good pleasure of the Father, do not admit that aspect [of the gift] which is according to the Gospel of John, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but they repel at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit." I am astonished that the learned Tillemont and the author of the latest edition have seen fit to say that Irenaeus is speaking of the Montanists. For how could they have rejected the Gospel of S. John because of the promise of the Holy Spirit, when it is agreed that in those passages of John where the Spirit is promised, they established the chief bastion ^B of their sect? The words that follow confirm that Irenaeus is not speaking of the Montanists, even though they increase the difficulty of determining exactly whom he is attacking. For he adds: "Truly unhappy are they, who wish to be false prophets, but who repel the prophetic grace from the Church; suffering things similar to those who, because of those who come in hypocrisy, even abstain from communion with the brethren. It is understood, however, that such persons do not receive even the Apostle Paul." We learn from these words that there were some who withdrew from communion lest they should communicate with hypocrites. He compares with these those who rejected the Gospel of S. John, because it is in this Gospel especially that the Holy Spirit is promised. Both parties, therefore, sinned through an inconsiderate hatred of those who abuse holy things; and just as those who withdrew from communion behaved as they did because they were more hostile than was equitable to those who communicated with hypocrites, so it is necessary to say that those who rejected the Gospel of John and the promise of the Holy Spirit did so because of those who abused the Gospel and the promise. Wherefore the Montanists are not to be said to have rejected the Gospel of S. John, but rather that by abusing it for the defense of their own cause, they gave to their excessive adversaries the opportunity of rejecting it.

If we can less easily determine the time at which the Montanists were most particularly schismatics, it is at least allowable to assert that, when Athenagoras was writing the Apology and for many years afterwards, they had not yet departed from the Catholic Church.

VI. I have endeavored to examine these matters carefully, so that we may have a basis for determining our position regarding the faith of Athenagoras. And, 1st, we can indeed assert that second marriages were by no means condemned by him. For how could he have condemned them, when not even Montanus dared to condemn them at that time? 2nd, even if Athenagoras had attached himself to the party of Montanus, the stain of schism should not, for all that, adhere to his name, since in the year 176, in which he was writing, and for many years after that, they had not yet reached that extremity of schism ^D to which the sin and wickedness of the Montanists eventually arrived.

3rd, Nor is it even probable that Athenagoras was joined to Montanus by any intimacy or agreement in doctrine. For what he laid down regarding second marriages, he deduced by subtle reasoning from the words of Christ: "Whoever shall dismiss his wife and marry another, commits adultery" (Matt. XIX, 9); but the authority of the new prophecy never entered his mind. And in this his disagreement with the Montanists is manifest. For they did not acknowledge that "only marriages" were prescribed by Christ or the apostles, but by the Paraclete, whom they said was given by Christ to Montanus and Priscila and Maximilla, so that—since human mediocrity could not grasp everything at once—their discipline might be gradually directed and ordered and led to perfection by that vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit (Tertull. *De vel. virg.*, c. 1). Athenagoras denotes nothing of the sort; he relies solely on the words of Christ. Nor does he speak of the Montanists, but of Christians, at number 33: "everyone remaining as he was born, or [being content] with the single marriage."

VII. A more just cause for accusing Athenagoras is not derived from his words about the ecstasy of the prophets. For 1st, even if he had not been of the number of those who immediately observed what defect there was in the ecstasies of the Montanists and foresaw the evils that would arise from these men, he could not on that account be said to be addicted to Montanus, I will not say to his schism, but even to his doctrine. For in that dissension which Eusebius (*Hist.*, IV, 3) narrates as having arisen among Catholics concerning the Montanists, whoever did not condemn, or even approved of the prophecies of Montanus, did not on that account put themselves under the rule of Montanus; and as long as the Montanists were mingled with Catholics, there is no doubt that many praised them and were praised by them, without however following their methods of living and thinking. From which it also appears how unfair and how absurd it would be to reproach the Catholic Church with the cult of the women addicted to the sect of Montanus, just because the Acts of Saint Perpetua and Saint Felicitas were collected by a man who, like the prophecies—as is stated in the preface—also acknowledged and honored new visions. It is difficult to begrudge the Montanists a writer who speaks in such a way of the new prophecies at that time: Valesius contends that he was a follower of Montanus; Ruinart denies it. But if he were a Montanist, the holy martyrs should not on that account be surrendered to the Montanists; or certainly the same mark will not escape the holy martyr Rutilius, whom Tertullian, although he despised Montanus, nevertheless adorned with great praises (lib. *De fuga in persec.*, c. 5).

2nd, it cannot even be said that the Montanists were not rejected and condemned by Athenagoras. For S. Clement of Alexandria counts this sect among the heresies, yet he acknowledges that the prophets, just as Athenagoras [does], spoke in ecstasy, and that all the false prophets who were before Christ were thieves.

He proves this, because they truly prophesied in ecstasy, with the devil, of course, imitating and pilfering prophetic ecstasy. See St. Ambrose on Ps. 39.

3. There is nothing here of Athenagoras with the Montanists: his entire disputation is with the heathens. He says that the prophets were caught outside themselves, not because he believed it necessary that a person established in the Spirit should, as Tertullian says, lose his senses—being over-shadowed, that is, by divine power—but because, since ecstasy was held to be a sign of divine inspiration in the oracles of the Gentiles, he wished to prove by an argument suitable for moving them that the prophets were divinely inspired. Justin spoke not much differently in his *Cohortatio*, where he even praises the powerful inspiration of the Sibyl. So too does Theophilus, Book II, no. 9. The same seems to have been Philo’s intention when he speaks of the ecstasy of the prophets, namely, to extol their glory and dignity and to prove their inspiration. See Book II, *Legis allegoriae*, p. 52, and the book, *Quis rerum divinarum heres*.

Chapter XV. Regarding the deeds and writings of Saint Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch.

1. Theophilus was born and instructed in the darkness of heathen superstitions; and the same thing happened to him as Justin and Tatian testify happened to themselves, and Philippus Sidetes testifies of Athenagoras, that he was converted to the Christian religion by reading the Scriptures. He himself narrates the matter thus towards the end of the first book *To Autolycus*: “Do not, therefore, be skeptical, but rather believe. For I myself did not believe that there would be a resurrection; but now I believe, after having considered these things more attentively; and at the same time, because I happened upon the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who by the Holy Spirit spoke of both past events just as they transpired, and present events as they now unfold, and future events in the same order as they will be accomplished. Since, therefore, things that have come to pass and that were predicted long ago offer me a demonstration, I am not skeptical, but I believe, obeying God.”

This Theophilus, whom we shall refute below, Dodwell dared to remove too far from the apostolic age and to strip of his episcopal dignity; some others, along with him, have confused him—not well—with the one to whom the *Acts of the Apostles* was inscribed. Far removed from this Theophilus is our own, who, after Eros, the fifth bishop of Antioch, had died, around the eighth year of M. Aurelius, that is, the year of Christ 168, was placed in charge of the Antiochene see. For Eusebius testifies that in the eighth year of this emperor, Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome, and Agrippinus succeeded Celadion at Alexandria; and he immediately adds: ^A “At that time, Theophilus was known as the sixth from the apostles in the Church of the Antiochenes.” And so at that time Theophilus flourished in the Church of Antioch as the sixth from the apostles. By which words it does not seem to me that those three patriarchs are indicated as having been elected in the same year of M. Aurelius, but only that they governed the Church at the same time. For if Eusebius’ words are taken strictly, it would rather follow from them that Theophilus was already flourishing at Antioch when Soter succeeded Anicetus, and Agrippinus succeeded Celadion. ^B

II. Besides the daily burden of labor and solicitude which is imposed upon all bishops, the heresies which were then attacking the Church added no small amount of trouble to our Theophilus. His vigilance and watchfulness for the sheep committed to him can be seen from the zeal which he displayed in routing out heretics and keeping them away from his flock. For thus Eusebius wrote of him: “But regarding the heretics, there was nothing worse than their harming the pure seed of apostolic doctrine; and at that time, the shepherds of the churches everywhere, keeping them away like wild beasts from the sheep of Christ, would ward them off: at one time by admonitions and exhortations to the brothers; at another, by exposing them more openly through unwritten examinations and refutations; and already, too, by means of written accounts, directing their arguments with most precise proofs. And truly, Theophilus, having campaigned against them along with the others, is shown to be such by a certain work of his against Marcion, composed not unnobly, which itself, among others we have mentioned, has been preserved even until now. After him, the seventh from the apostles, Maximinus succeeds to the Church of the Antiochenes.” ^C

“Furthermore, since the heretics were nevertheless also in this period undermining the sincere seed of apostolic doctrine like weeds, the shepherds of the churches throughout the world were hastening to chase and ward off those wild and monstrous beasts from the fold of Christ; partly by exhorting and admonishing the brothers, partly by fighting bravely against the heretics themselves: whom they refuted and confuted either by putting forward questions in person, viva voce, or by accurately written books, by refuting and rejecting their opinions. Theophilus, therefore, fought against those heretics together with the others, as is evident from a certain book of his, by no means to be despised, which he produced against Marcion, which book, along with others I have related, still exists.” ^D

Theophilus had also written, as Eusebius and Jerome witness, another book against the heresy of Hermogenes, in which he used testimonies taken from the Apocalypse of John. Along with these ruminations against the heretics, other books of his perished, in which he had set forth the elements of the faith, as Eusebius testifies: “And other catechetical books of his,” or, as Jerome interprets, “brief and elegant treatises pertaining to the edification of the Church.” Perhaps among these treatises are to be numbered the books which Theophilus testifies he himself wrote. In book II *To Autolycus* he cites first the book *On Histories*—

in which he had dealt with the generations of the first men. He speaks thus, no. 30: “For already in part a discourse has been produced by us in another work, as we have mentioned above, where the order of the genealogy is in the first book *On Histories*.” For since we have already in some part instituted this discussion in another work, as we said above, namely the series of the genealogy in the first book *On Histories*. A little later he says that in the same book he had dealt with the affairs of Noah. Those books of *Histories*, in the first of which Theophilus wove the series of genealogy, seem to have been entitled ^A *Genesis of the World*. For he says, no. 28, that he passes over a discussion about the demon because the discourse is long, and he has dealt with that matter elsewhere. Presently, no. 29, he speaks thus: “The matters concerning them contain more history, yet also the economy of exposition; wherefore the book itself which is entitled *Genesis of the World* can teach the matters of history more accurately.” And those things which pertain to them (Abel and Cain) possess much history, indeed the economy of the narrative: wherefore the book itself, which is inscribed *Genesis of the World*, can more accurately instruct students of this history. ^B It seems at first glance that the first book of the Pentateuch is indicated here, which the learned Wolf observes is called *Genesis of the World* in the Alexandrian manuscript and in Epiphanius in the book *On Weights and Measures*. These expressions, "the book itself," aptly designate Genesis itself as the source from which all discussion of these matters is deduced. Yet, since the first book of the Pentateuch is not usually titled *Genesis of the World*, but only *Genesis*, nothing prevented Theophilus from entitling his own work *Genesis of the World*; and since a little earlier he had said that in another work he had dealt with the demon that tempted Adam and Eve, he could shortly thereafter dismiss those eager to learn to that very book. But that which imposed upon me the necessity of attributing this book, which was inscribed *Genesis of the World*, to Theophilus—since Theophilus says, no. 30, that a book in which he dealt with genealogies had already been cited by him—no other passage occurs in which he cites this work except the one in which he dismisses those studious of reading to the *Genesis of the World*. Since he declares that in the same book he dealt with the affairs of Noah, he does not seem to indicate another in the third book, no. 19, where he says that he has demonstrated elsewhere that the Ark was constructed not by Deucalion, but by Noah, whose name sounds the same as rest.

III. Regarding the commentary of Theophilus on the Gospel and on Proverbs, Jerome speaks thus in the book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*: “I have read under his name commentaries on the Gospel and on the Proverbs of Solomon, which to me do not seem to harmonize with the elegance and phrasing of the former volumes.” The same author, in his epistle to Algasia, quest. 6, uses a certain testimony of Theophilus of Antioch, which we refer to in the Appendix. But Jerome declares from which work of Theophilus it was taken. ^C “Theophilus,” he says, “the seventh bishop of the Church of Antioch after Peter, who gathered the sayings of the four evangelists into one work, left us monuments of his talent; he spoke about this parable in his commentaries.” Theophilus therefore labored at two tasks: first, he collected the sayings of the evangelists, and he wove together those which were similar as if they were one work. Then he added his own commentaries. This work is truly far different from that which Tatian produced; and Valesius did not rightly suspect that Jerome had suffered a lapse of memory and had attributed the work of Tatian to Theophilus. For Tatian had not added commentaries to the sayings of the evangelists. Elsewhere Jerome narrates that he read the commentaries of Theophilus.

From this observation it also becomes manifest that those brief commentaries cannot be attributed to our Theophilus, which under his name have been published in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* and expound each of the evangelists separately in four books. Moreover, who would not recognize a Latin writer in these words? “Through *iota*, he signifies the Old Testament, in which the Decalogue is contained; for *iota* stands for ten among the Greeks. But the *apex*, having four letters, signifies the New Testament through the fourfold Gospel.” Add to this that in these commentaries some things occur which are taken from Latin Fathers; from Jerome, four causes why Christ was born of an espoused woman; from the epistle of St. Cyprian to Magnus, a notable passage about the Body and Blood of the Lord; from the same Jerome, a Latin interpretation of those things concerning the parable of the steward. ^D With entirely useless labor, Grabe opines that these were borrowed from Theophilus by St. Cyprian and St. Jerome. But if Theophilus had written these in Greek, I would not willingly believe that his translator went on such an accurate hunt for the passages cited by the Latin Fathers, so as to transfer their very words into his own interpretation. Furthermore, if Jerome had received from Theophilus those four causes for why Christ was born of an espoused woman, why does he ascribe the fourth to St. Ignatius, and absolutely none to St. Theophilus?

IV. Now, concerning the three books *To Autolycus*, we must examine what their reason for being written was, and at what time particularly they were written. Autolycus seems to have been joined to our Theophilus by friendship. For Theophilus calls him his friend toward the end of the first book, and invites him to frequent conversation toward the end of the second. In this man were not insignificant ornaments of pagan virtues, and an untiring study of reading. Theophilus greets him as a noble man and attributes to him the praise of prudence: he testifies that he has read many things, and that he is occupied with such zeal in every branch of learning—or, as he himself calls it, in all laborious trifles—that he did not hesitate to consume his nights in the libraries. But these praises of Autolycus were completely overwhelmed by his character, which was unworthy of a learned man in every way.

^A

Tillemont supposed that a work written by Autolycus against the Christians provided the occasion for this study of ours by Theophilus. But there is no trace whatsoever of this book against the Christians. Autolycus had struck Theophilus with frivolous talk, peddling gods that were invented and painted; he had thrown the name of Christian at him as a reproach; and finally, he had requested that he show him his God. But these taunts, which Theophilus refutes in the first book, were not, as Tillemont supposed, committed to writing, but were cast out in a certain conversation, as we perceive from the beginning of the second book, where Theophilus, briefly reviewing what had passed between them up to that point, says: "Since before these days a discussion took place between us, O most excellent Autolycus, when you asked who my God was, and for a short while lent your ears to our conversation, I set forth for you concerning the worship of God; and further, having said farewell to one another, we departed with the greatest friendship, each to his own house, even though you had been harsh toward us at first; for you know and remember that you considered our discourse to be foolishness."

From this it is clear that Autolycus had mocked God and the name of the Christians not in writing, but in mere conversation, in such a way that he provoked Theophilus to refute these trifles. It appears, therefore, that the first book to Autolycus was not composed with the deliberate intent of refutation so much as for committing to writing those things which Theophilus had already answered to Autolycus. Hence, at the exhortation of Autolycus, Theophilus begins the second book as if he had written nothing deliberately before: ^B "Now, however, at your exhortation, even though I am unskilled in speaking, I wish nevertheless by this little book to demonstrate more accurately to you the vanity and the empty superstition in which you are held, but also, by a few of the histories according to you—which you perhaps read, but do not yet understand—to set the truth before your eyes." Theophilus invites Autolycus to frequent conversation; and this he seems not to have neglected; but since, even after these meetings, he still regarded the truth as a delusion, and imagined that our writings were recent, Theophilus proceeded in the third book to demonstrate their antiquity.

V. These books provide no obscure indications by which we may judge the time when they were written. For in the third book, Theophilus weaves the chronology from the origin of the world up to M. Aurelius, who he testifies reigned for 19 years and 10 days. He also cites Chryseros, the freedman of M. Aurelius, who, as our Theophilus testifies, had described the series of times from the founding of the City up to the death of his master, the emperor M. Aurelius. From this it is evident that these books were written under Commodus, and could not have been composed later or earlier; for there can be no other reason why Theophilus, having promised a description of the times up to his own age, does not recount the years of Commodus, unless it is because he was still reigning at that time.

In which year of Commodus the work should be placed, however, is not easily determined. We shall place it not long after the beginning of the reign of Commodus, if we follow the author Nicephorus, who assigns thirteen years of episcopacy to Theophilus. For since Eusebius, as we saw above, testifies that he succeeded Eros around the year 168; if we grant him 13 years of episcopacy with Nicephorus, it follows that he died around the year 181, and consequently that this final work was composed much like the others, not long before his death, under the beginnings of the Emperor Commodus. Eutychius reports that Theophilus presided over the Antiochene see for 21 years, from which it would follow that he died around the year 188. But Nicephorus is more ancient, as Tillemont observes, and of greater authority than Eutychius. Moreover, that Maximus is said in the Chronicles of Eusebius to have succeeded our Theophilus in the year 177 or 178, this is a manifest error. ^C

Another argument why this work should not be relegated to the final years of Commodus is provided by Irenaeus, who borrowed some things from our Theophilus. Irenaeus was writing the third book against heresies under Commodus and Eleutherus, and consequently before the year 192, in which Commodus was killed and Victor succeeded Eleutherus. Furthermore, Irenaeus did not publish the five books against heresies all at once, but, as is agreed among all, some space passed between the first two and those that followed, although perhaps the interval was not great. Moreover, there exists in the second book a certain sentiment which I believe I perceive, by no uncertain indications, to have been culled from Theophilus. Thus Irenaeus refutes the ruminations of the heretics concerning the God who is creator, but who is ignorant of the true and supreme God: "Or is it the case that those who are under the rule of the Romans, although they have never seen the emperor, but are widely separated from him by land and by sea, recognize him because of his lordship, and he who holds the greatest power of the principate; who..." ^D

[those who are] above us are the angels, or he whom they call the maker of the world, will they not know the Almighty? › Thus, however, Theophilus, book 1, no. 5: « Then indeed a terrestrial king is believed to exist, although he is not seen by all, but he is known by his laws and ordinances, and powers, and forces, and images. Do you not wish for God to be known through His works and powers? » ^A The similarity of sentiment in both writers is manifest; but that Irenaeus borrowed from Theophilus, and not Theophilus from Irenaeus, is evident from the fact that in Theophilus it is clear and splendid, while in Irenaeus it is somewhat enervated and obscure: which are faults that imitators are not accustomed to avoid. For it is much more excellent that Theophilus says the emperor is known by laws and mandates, by principalities and powers (that is, by leaders and prefects), and by images, than what Irenaeus says about being known by lordship. In this, indeed, I would believe the interpreter of Irenaeus, as often happens elsewhere, to have been deceived in this place by the error of one letter, reading *di' exousian* for *di' exousion*, and rendering it "by lordship," instead of what he ought to have rendered, "by powers," or "by leaders and prefects." Furthermore, the comparison employed by both seems more fitting against the Gentiles, who did not recognize God from the conspicuous works in this world, than against the heretics, who imagined that the supreme God was unknown to the Creator of this world and His angels. Irenaeus also imitated what is read in our Theophilus in the second book concerning the childish state of Adam: the testimonies of both can be examined and compared with one another in the Preface, part 1. It will not be ambiguous which is the imitator of the other, since Theophilus defends this sentiment with great effort, while Irenaeus proposes it as if in passing. From these things we conclude that the books to Autolycus do not stand far from the beginnings of Commodus, since Irenaeus, who was writing under Commodus, transferred some things from them into his own work.

But against the things that we have established, it may be objected that these books to Autolycus do not savor either of a man practiced in writing, nor of a bishop entangled in most grave cares; wherefore it seems better to suppose that this work was brought to light by Theophilus not yet advanced in age, and afterwards augmented by him with those things that are read concerning the death of Marcus Aurelius. Invited to write by Autolycus, Theophilus acknowledges himself unskilled in speaking, nor does he approach the burden without the greatest timidity. Would he speak thus, one might object, who already has carried off many triumphs over the heretics, and has considerable experience in writing, ^B qualities that Theophilus ought then to have possessed, if he were writing this last work shortly before his death? Perhaps also the secular erudition with which this work is filled, so many testimonies of the poets, such recondite disputes concerning the opinions of the philosophers and chronology, frequent conversations with a man of letters, might seem less fitting for a bishop of so great a see, occupied as he is with the most grave affairs.

But it is not at all strange if the bishop, feeling humbly about himself, considers himself unskilled, and if a man of great erudition discourses on many secular matters, because they contributed to his purpose; although Theophilus draws most things from the midst of the Christian religion. That frequent conversation with Autolycus was not of a man abounding in leisure, but of a bishop fervent in charity, who considered it his primary charge to lead the erring to the truth.

I would not indeed deny that the books to Autolycus, as Grabe observes in *Spicileg.* tom. II, did not appear all at once; but I contend that a very short space of time intervened. For in the beginning of the second book he commemorates a conversation held some days previously with Autolycus, which conversation was the subject matter of the first book. Toward the end of the second book, he urges Autolycus to confer with him often; and when he had conferred with Theophilus yet had not surrendered to the truth, Theophilus brought to light a third ^C book, so that he might eradicate the preconceived opinions that had settled in his mind. Such, therefore, is the series and connection of the three books, that they ought not to be torn apart and dissociated. But that they were written in the order in which they are now held, it is evident from the fact that in the third, the first is designated, no. 3; and the second is cited by name, no. 19. Nor ought the things that are read in the third book concerning the empire of M. Aurelius to be seen as superadded. For since all the calculations of numbers, which are set forth by Theophilus, end at the conclusion of this reign, as if at a common point; there is nothing in the whole book that should be less suspected.

VI. I shall not dwell on refuting Dodwell, who, seeking a knot in a bulrush, proclaims that the three books about which we are now speaking were not written by Theophilus, the bishop of Antioch, but by another Theophilus of Antioch, whom he contends wrote under Severus.

Eusebius and Jerome speak out against this fiction: Irenaeus, who used these books for his own purposes under Commodus, speaks out against it. What reasons, therefore, drove Dodwell, a man indeed most learned, to go against the consensus of antiquity? But they are so slight, or rather so much of nothing, that they stirred up the indignation of Tillemont, whose great moderation of spirit is known to all, and forced him to brand Dodwell with the mark of rashness. The first little reason is taken from the fact that the author of the books to Autolycus cites Chryseros, who could not have written before the year 180. But what forbids Theophilus, writing under Commodus, to have cited those who had written before him under the same emperor? Dodwell objects in the second place that these books [were written] while ^D

been written during a persecution. For Theophilus says that Christians are daily vexed by the heathens, and that those who hasten toward virtue and exercise themselves in a holier life ^A have in part been overwhelmed with stones, in part killed, and in part subjected to the most cruel floggings. But no persecution arose from Marcus up to Septimius Severus; nor did any other than Severus persecute the Proselytes and Ascetics, who are designated here.

Dodwell does not touch upon any part of the truth. It is denied that Severus raged only against the Ascetics and Proselytes. It is denied that the Proselytes and Ascetics are indicated by Theophilus; and finally, it is denied that a singular persecution is indicated by Theophilus; but we have observed the same thing entirely in many other authors, who, although no persecution was raging at the time they were writing, nevertheless, because of an inveterate hatred toward Christians and frequent persecutions, said that the Church did not cease to be shaken and vexed. To this, add that it could have happened that the persecution, from which there was no relaxation under Marcus, was not quieted the moment Commodus took the reins of power. That Marcia, who reconciled the mind of Commodus to the Christians, was not loved by him the moment he began his reign, but in the third year of his empire.

TO THE READER

In the year 1842, a new edition of the works of St. Justin appeared at Jena, under the editorship of the esteemed Johann Karl Theodor Otto, Doctor of Philosophy, which the illustrious D. L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius, professor at the Academy of Jena, commends to readers at the beginning of the work. We have collated the text of this most recent recension, not without profit, with the edition of Dom Prudence Maran. We have frequently employed the annotations of the Editor, choosing to present them sometimes in a contracted form and sometimes in their entirety, as they are worthy of high regard. However, so that the sources from which the esteemed Otto drew may be known to the reader, we have selected this part of his Prolegomena to be presented here, in which he enumerates the editions of Justin and inventories the manuscript codices existing in the various most noble libraries of Europe, with whose aid he adorned his edition. Nevertheless, we shall communicate to our readers at the end of the volume a more accurate account of all the Parisian codices from the description of Dr. Nolte. ^B EDIT. PATR.

I. ON THE PUBLISHED CODICES OF JUSTIN

(The writings of St. Justin the philosopher and martyr saw the light of day long after the revival of letters and the introduction of the printing art. For at last in the year 1539, in quarto, there was issued: *D. Justini admonitorius ad gentes liber*, in Greek, at Paris in the house of Carolus Quillard; printed by Joannes Lodoicus. It has not been our good fortune to obtain this book ourselves.

However, almost all the works of Justin (genuine and supposititious) were first edited in Greek from the Royal library and by royal printing presses by Robert Estienne, royal printer, at Paris in the year 1551, in folio: OF ST. JUSTIN THE PHILOSOPHER AND MARTYR, TO ZENA AND SERENUS. EXHORTATION TO THE GREEKS. DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO THE JEW. APOLOGY I FOR THE CHRISTIANS TO THE ROMAN SENATE. APOLOGY II FOR THE CHRISTIANS TO ANTONINUS THE PIOUS. ON THE MONARCHY OF GOD. EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH CONCERNING THE TRUE CONFESSION, OR CONCERNING THE HOLY AND CONSUBSTANTIAL TRINITY. REFUTATION OF CERTAIN DOCTRINES OF ARISTOTLE. CHRISTIAN QUESTIONS TO THE GREEKS, AND GREEK ANSWERS, AND REFUTATIONS OF THE SAME ANSWERS. ANSWERS TO THE ORTHODOX CONCERNING CERTAIN NECESSARY QUESTIONS. CHRISTIAN QUESTIONS TO THE GREEKS CONCERNING THE INCORPOREAL, AND CONCERNING GOD, AND CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND CHRISTIAN ANSWERS TO THE SAME QUESTIONS. For the works are arranged in that order in the manuscript codex of the Royal Library, now marked with the number 450, which, as Nic. le Nourry (Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam veterum Patrum, etc. Paris, 1703, fol., p. 1, p. 468) observed, Stephanus took care to have copied with extraordinary diligence; he printed only a few things otherwise than they existed in the manuscript codex, partly by design and partly through oversight. ^C Furthermore, at the end of the edited work he added annotations of passages which are read, or appear to be read, in other codices differently than they are printed. The *symbolum* of this first and elegant edition is: *A king both good and mighty spearman* (1).

But since that most celebrated man had omitted the *Oration to the Greeks* and the *Epistle to Diognetus*, Henri Estienne, the son of Robert, printed them at Paris in the year 1592 (2), in quarto, with a Latin version and annotations. The same man added a judgment of Johannes Jacobus Beurerus concerning the interpretation or emendation of certain passages; furthermore, he annexed the work of Tatian.

^A This Sylburgian edition was reprinted under the care of Federic Morel, royal professor, at Paris with Michael Sonnius (other copies are inscribed: with Claud Morel), on the Rue Saint-Jacques at the sign of the Basle Shield, in the year 1615, folio, and thereafter with Claud Sonnius (in other copies with Carol Morel), on the Rue Saint-Jacques, at the sign of the Basle Shield, in the year 1636, folio (three volumes in one). Added to both editions is the *Dispunctio animadversionum in Justinum* of Petrus Lansselius, a priest of the Society of Jesus from Gravelines, which Isaac Casaubon had inserted into his *Exercitationes* against Baronius. Furthermore, the treatises of Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tatian, and Hermias are added as corollaries. Prefixed is a certain likeness of Justin with this motto:

Behold the head of Justin, crowned with a twofold diadem, Of heavenly wisdom and of holy martyrdom.

The Parisian copy issued in 1636 is entirely reproduced by the edition which was published at Cologne, or rather at Wittenberg, by Jeremiah Schrey and Henry J. Meyer in 1686, folio (three volumes in one). More complete than the previous ones is the commentary of Christian Kortholt, professor at Kiel, on Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tatian, which was first made public separately at Kiel in 1675, folio. This very widespread Cologne edition teems with countless mistakes, lacunae, and mutilated sentences. And these are the notes regarding those editions of Justinian works which followed the Stephanus reading. ^B

The splendid Benedictine edition displays a new recension, etc. ^C

The Maranian edition, with the pages slightly altered, was repeated at Venice with Augustin Savioli, in 1747, large folio. But very many typographical errors are found in this book. The *Opera* in Greek and Latin were reprinted from that same copy in the *Opera Patrum Græcorum* (under the care of Frid. Oberthür), volumes I-III, at Würzburg from the Stabelian bookstore, 1777-1779, octavo, in such a way that volume I contains the *Oration to the Greeks*, the *Cohortatio to the Greeks*, the *Book on Monarchy*, and both *Apologies*; volume II contains the *Dialogue with Trypho*; and volume III, pages 2-23, contains the *Epistle to Diognetus*.

From that time of Maranus for one hundred years our Justin lacked a new editor. There were only those who, as was done by some before that time, also afterward published his individual books or several of them combined. ^D

selected from all of them. These editors we shall now review. ^A

The *First Apology for the Christians to Antoninus Pius* of St. Justin, philosopher and martyr, with the Latin version of Johann Lange corrected in very many places; with the appended emendations and notes of Robert and Henri Estienne, Perionius, Billius, Sylburgius, Scaliger, Halloix, Casaubon, Montagu, Grotius, Salmasius, Valesius, Cotelier, and many new additions; with the annotations of Lange and Kortholt added in addition at the end, and with Lange’s preface—in which he recounted the summary of this Apology—prefixed; edited by Johann Ernst Grabe, at Oxford, from the Sheldonian Theatre, A.D. 1700. Another title: *Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου Ἀπολογία πρώτη ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς Ἀντωνῖνον τὸν Εὐσεβῆ*. From the Theatre at Oxford, in the year of the divine birth 1700. In the preface, that most distinguished man laments that those manuscripts were not at hand, of which very few copies survive. Wherefore he took care to have the Stephanus text reprinted; he himself contributed to the understanding of the writer to the best of his ability. — J. Alb. Fabricius provided some observations on this edition in his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, ed. Harles, vol. VII (Hamburg 1801, 4), p. 59 sqq. ^B

Conformed in all things to the Grabian edition is the following: The *Second Apology for the Christians*, the *Exhortatory Address*, the *Address to the Greeks*, and the book *On Monarchy* of St. Justin, philosopher and martyr: with the Latin version of J. Lange corrected in very many places; with the appended emendations and notes of Robert and Henri Estienne, Perionius, Billius, Sylburgius, J. Ern. Grabe, J. Potter, and many others added; with the annotations of Lange and Kortholt added at the end, and with Lange’s prefaces—in which he recounted the summary of those things contained in this volume—prefixed: edited by H. Hutchin, A.M., from Christ Church, Oxford, from the Sheldonian Theatre, 1703, 8vo. The other title: *Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου Ἀπολογία δευτέρα ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν, Λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας, Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας, Περὶ μοναρχίας*. From the Theatre at Oxford, in the year of the divine birth 1703. At the expense of Tho. Bennet, at the sign of the Half Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard, London. Grabe contributed much to this book, the editor contributed little of his own. Regarding the *Parænesis*, as he reports in the preface, two manuscripts of the Royal Library of Paris (today, as I have discovered by careful inquiry, marked nos. 451 and 174; he calls the former ms. Reg. 1, and designates the latter with the words ms. Reg. 2) provided readings which Michael Lequien had sent to Thomas Creech, who was preparing an edition of Justin Martyr: after whose death, when they had come into the hands of Robert Bartholomew, a fellow of Lincoln College, he communicated them to Hutchin. But the latter was so far from utilizing the readings of the oldest manuscripts to correct the text that he relegated them to the annotations. ^C

To the works of Justin sent to the press at Oxford, this edition is also conformable: The *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew* of St. Justin, philosopher and martyr, with the Latin version of Johann Lange corrected in very many places; with the appended emendations and notes of Robert Estienne, Perionius, Sylburgius, Halloix, Montagu, Drusius, Colomiès, Cave, Bull, Grabe, and many new additions; with the annotations of Lange and Kortholt added in addition at the end; and with the preface of Lange, in which he recounted the summary of this Dialogue, and the *Acts* of the martyrdom of St. Justin and his companions prefixed. Edited by Samuel Jebb. London: at the expense of William and John Innys, London booksellers, 1719, 8vo. The learned man entered on the path of Grabe and Hutchin in editing this Dialogue; he differs from them only in that he added very few notes, and those almost always taken from Sylburgius. In the preface, he briefly discusses the time when the dialogue took place, and at the end of the volume (p. 405 sqq.) he translated fragments of lost works from Grabe’s *Spicilegium SS. Patrum* of the second century (Oxford 1700, 8vo), p. 171 sqq., though the fragment on the resurrection was omitted. ^D

After this, the two *Apologies* and the *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew* of Justin, philosopher and martyr, appeared in new attire. With notes and emendations by Styan Thirlby. London, at the expense of Richard Sare, near the south gate of Gray’s Inn, in the street called Holborn, 1722, large folio. That I may bring his very words here: "There are no manuscript codices of these writings of Justin in England," he says in the preface, "nor anywhere else in the world, so far as I know, except in France, where there are two, the accurate collation of both of which I had promised myself; otherwise I certainly never would have set my hand to this work. But it happened, by the untimely death of one of the two most learned men whose services I was going to use for that purpose, and by the lack of time of the other, that nothing more could be obtained than that certain select passages should be compared with one of them. In which very thing this misfortune was added in addition, that this one (whether by chance or error I do not know, unless I recognize my own fate) was the one from which Robert Estienne’s edition was expressed, so that it is no wonder if that collation did not profit us all that much (5-6). Deprived, therefore, of the hoped-for aid of manuscripts, I decided to present the edition of Stephanus with the greatest fidelity and diligence." The learned man added the version of Johann Lange, but much altered. He further expended great labor in comparing passages of Scripture with editions of the Bibles and the Fathers. Furthermore, he joined the notes of others to the text, with the annotations of Pearson and Johann Davis added in addition at the end; those of Pearson now appeared for the first time from the Royal Library of Cambridge, those (on the first Apology) had been sent by Davis of his own accord, so that they might be published at the same time. Thirlby, however, far exceeding the other Anglican editors of Justin,

(5-6) That manuscript codex which the V.D. caused to be consulted was the Claromontanus, most similar to the Regius described in type by Stephanus.

^A In his edition, he produced much that was excellent in terms of doctrine, and he brought forth documents that were of no common kind; although he approached the task unassisted by any manuscript codices, he nevertheless ingeniously corrected at times, and removed, the faults of the Stephanian exemplar: but being led by too great a desire to heal, he frequently attempted even intact passages, which, before he understood them to be sound, he dared to correct as if they were corrupt. However, he touched upon theological controversies nowhere, and with excellent reason. According to Harles in Fabricius's *Bibliotheca Graeca* (l. c., p. 58), there are those who suspect that the name "Thirlby" concealed Markland, a most celebrated philologist. Animadversions on Justin Martyr's *Apology I* and *Dialogue with Trypho*, from the Thirlbian edition, are provided by an anonymous writer in *Miscellanea observationum in auctores veteres et recentiores*, vol. I, tom. III (Amsterdam 1732, 8vo), p. 363 et seqq. Cf. T. Row, "Critique on Thirlby's Justin Martyr" in *Gentleman's Magazine for the year 1783*, month of September, p. 750 et seqq.

In Andrea Gallandi's *Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum*, vol. I (Venice 1765, large fol.; from the press of J. Bapt. Albritius, son of Hieron), p. 411 et seqq., he contains Justin's *Apologies*, *Dialogue*, and *Fragments* in Greek and Latin with Maran's annotations, to which that learned priest of the Oratory congregation added a few others, especially Thirlbian ones.

The following are the convenient and compendious editions of the *Apologies*: *S. Justini mart. Apologiae e recensione Grabiana, var. lect. et conjecturas VV. DD. et suas addidit Christianus Guil. Thalemannus, A. M. et s. theol. Baccal.* Leipzig, apud J. Chr. Langenhemium, 1755, 8vo. He curated this edition for the use of lectures; wherefore he provided very few notes. The Grabian exemplar was preferred for the reason that it was divided into smaller sections and thus was more accommodated to readings. It seemed best, however, to present the bare Greek text without a version, both so that the booklet might be more accessible, and so that the diligence of those who wished to engage in its reading and explanation might be sharpened and stirred. He prefixed arguments for both *Apologies*, taken from the Benedictine monk's edition, and added a short index of words and phrases. He rarely departed from the vulgate reading.

*S. Justini phil. et mart. Apologiae duae pro Christianis. Graece et Latine*, interpretationem Lat. ad Graeca aptius accommodavit et adnotationes adjecit Carolus Ashton. Cambridge, 1768, 8vo. This edition I have not been permitted to examine at all; therefore, I have nothing to report concerning it.

*Justinus des Märtyrers zweite Apologie und Beweis der Alleinherrschaft Gottes. Griech. u. teutsch mit erläuternden Anmerkungen. Nebst einem Anhange über das Leben, die Schriften und Lehren dieses Kirchenvaters für junge Freunde der Theologie* von Joh. Adam Göz, Conrektor der Sebalder Schule zu Nürnberg. Nuremberg and Altdorf, by J. C. Monath and J. F. Kussler, 1796, 8vo. He refers (Preface, p. 1 sqq.), in writing out the text of the *Second Apology*, to having followed the Thirlbian edition and the Stephanian one in the book *De Monarchia*. Concerning the *Apology*, however, he adopted several of Thirlby's and Maran's conjectures.

*S. Justini mart. et phil. Apologiae*. Edited by J. Wil. Jos. Braun, professor publicus extraordinarius at the Friedrich Wilhelm University of the Rhine, Bonn on the Rhine, at the expense of T. Habicht, 1850, 8vo. The text of this learned edition is expressed according to Maran's exemplar; Braun's and others' animadversions are added, with a variety of readings and an index of subjects, and Prud. Maran's summaries were prefixed. This edition is especially regarded in the *Animadversions on the First Apology of S. Justin M.*, which J. Ign. Ritter, the new rector, made public at Breslau at the University press in 1836, 4to, indicating it for his solemn inauguration. ^B

^C Let these things be said concerning the editions. Let it now be permitted to add a few things concerning the *Epistle to Diognetus*, the long fragment *On the Resurrection*, and the *Martyrology* (i.e., the Acts of the Martyrdom) of Justin.

The *Epistle to Diognetus* passed from Maran's edition into the Gallandi *Bibliotheca*, tom. I, p. 320 et seqq., and it is also extant, furnished with a brief annotation, in *Opuscula Patrum selecta* [ed. Georg. Bohl], p. 124 et seqq., and also in *Patrum apostolicorum Opp.*, edited by Carolus Josephus Hefele, doctor of theology and P. P. extr. in the same academy at Tübingen (Tübingen, in the bookstore of Henr. Laupp, 1839, 8vo), p. 125 et seqq.

The fragment on the *Resurrection of the Flesh*, preserved by S. John Damascene in the *Sacra Parallela*, first saw the light in Latin in the Damascene's *Works* from the edition of Jacques Billi, Paris, 1619, fol. Not long after, Petrus Halloix, in *S. Justini phil. et mart. Vita et documentis* (Douai 1622, fol.), and included in *Illustrium Ecclesiae Orientalis scriptorum, qui sanctitate juxta et eruditione secundo Christi saeculo floruerunt, vitis et documentis* (ibid., from the printing office of Petrus Bogardus, 1636, fol.), p. 299 et seqq., took care to have that fragment printed in Greek with a Latin version from that same *Parallela* codex, which Cardinal François de La Rochefoucauld had donated to the library of the Parisian College of the Society of Jesus. Near to this time, J. Ern. Grabe repeated it in his *Spicilegium SS. Patrum saeculi II* (Oxford 1700, 8vo), p. 177 et seqq. From thence, from that Rochefoucauld codex, Michael Lequien edited it in Greek and Latin among other *Parallela* in *Joannis Damasc. Opp.*, tom. II (Paris 1712, fol.), p. 756 et seqq. Dav. Humphreys published it in Greek and English with notes (A curious Fragment of Justin Martyr on the Resurrection, not published in his Works, with the original Greek, done into English, with Notes) together with his version of Athenagoras. London, 1714, 8vo. In the Benedictine edition it is read in the Appendix, p. 588 et seqq. It was of use to Maran, as he himself says on p. 588, note b, ^D

EXCERPTA EX PRÆFATIONE EDITORIS IENENSIS.

citation, "the most ancient Coislin codex, unless I am greatly mistaken, marked 276: it is vellum, about the tenth century, 278 folios; it belonged to the Laura of St. Athanasius on Mount Athos, deposited there among the catechumens by the monk Sophronius, as is stated on folio 271 verso. Cf. Bernard de Montfaucon: *Bibliotheca Coisliniana, formerly Segueriana, or an accurate description of all the Greek manuscripts contained therein*, etc. (Paris 1715, fol.), p. 389 sq." It appeared separately with a Latin version: *Justin Martyr's Proof of the Resurrection of the Flesh. A fragment on the solemnity of Easter, published in the year of Christ 1766 with historico-critical observations by Guil. Abrah. Teller. Helmstedt at the academy press, see Schnorrie; with J. D. G. Schnorrius.* He provided the Maranian text, preserving the Grabian ^A in only three or four places. Finally, that fragment is found in Greek only in: *Patristic Chrestomathy, adorned for the use of those who wish to learn more accurately the history of Christian dogmas, by J. Christ. Guil. Augusti. Vol. 1 (Leipzig with J. Theoph. Dykium 1812, 8), p. 3 sqq.*

The Acts of the martyrdom of Justin and his companions, from the Latin interpretation of Cardinal Guilielmus Sirletus, were first published for June 12th by Aloysius Lipomanus in *Lives of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, p. 11* (Rome 1558, 4), p. 184; the editor reports that all the Lives contained in that part of the volume were found partly described, partly collected, in the monastery of Crypta Ferrata. The Sirletian version of the Justinian Acts was subsequently reprinted in Laurentius Surius's *Lives of the Saints* for June 12th, already mentioned above, the day on which Metaphrastes has it (Cologne 1618, fol.), p. 182 sq., and in Caesar Baronius's *Ecclesiastical Annals*, for the year 165, vol. II (new ed. Cologne 1685, fol.), p. 163 sqq., and more freely in Petrus Halloixius's *Life and Documents of St. Justin, philosopher and martyr*, l. c., p. 181 sqq. But from that manuscript codex of Crypta Ferrata, through the kindness of Emmanuel Schellstratius, the librarian of that ^B collection, the Acts of the passion of Justin were first published for the Calends of June in Greek, with annotations, by Daniel Papebrochius in the *Acts of the Saints for June*, illustrated by Godofredus Henschenius, Daniel Papebrochius, Franc. Bærtius, and Conradus Janningus, vol. I (Antwerp 1695, fol.), p. 20 sq., with that Sirletian translation placed alongside. Theodoricus Ruinartus also included this, differing only in a few points, in his *Sincere and Select Acts of the First Martyrs* (Amsterdam 1713, fol.), p. 58 sqq. Samuel Jebb took it from Baronius's *Annals* and prefixed it to the *Dialogue with Trypho*, published in London in 1719. In the Benedictine edition, they exist in the Appendix, p. 11, p. 585 sqq. These Acts—Maranus says (p. 584)—do not now appear in Greek for the first time, but were nevertheless accurately copied from the Vatican codex 655 by the hand of an erudite colleague, Mr. Petrus Maloët, formerly proctor of our congregation at the Roman Curia. ^C Doubtless this is the same manuscript codex that was formerly kept in the library of Crypta Ferrata. From the Benedictine edition, the martyrdom passed into Andreas Gallandius's *Library of Ancient Fathers*, etc., vol. I, p. 624 sqq. But Alexius Symmachus Mazochius edited it best: *Commentary on the ancient marble Calendar of the Neapolitan Church* (Naples 1763), vol. II, p. 443 sqq. (reprinted in Gallandius's *Library*, l. c., p. 711 sqq.). He followed the Greek exemplar of the Bollandists, from which J. A. Göz (Justin. d. Märt. zweite Apol., etc., p. 143 sqq.) also repeated the text, adding a German version, and since the old (Sirletian) interpretation often hunts for meanings rather than words, he presented a new, purer, and simpler interpretation, which we also have translated, having changed it only in a very few places; furthermore, he endeavored to illustrate the martyrdom with lengthy notes and dissertations.

Excerpts from Justin's writings are in J. F. Burgius's *Patristic Greek Chrestomathy, fasc. 1* (Wrocław 1756, 8), p. 1 sqq.; more, but in Latin, are found in Franciscus Rous's *Mella Patrum*, etc. (London 1650, 8), p. 21 sqq.

II. — ON THE CODICES OF JUSTIN TRANSLATED INTO OTHER LANGUAGES

Shortly after the princely edition of Stephanus, since those who were ignorant of Greek were unable to approach Justin, Latin interpretations of the Justinian works appeared, by the authors Joachim Perionius, a Benedictine of Cormery, who also added observations to illustrate the text, published in Paris with Jacob Dupuys 1554, fol., vol. II in 4 volumes (reprinted in the *Great Library of the Ancient Fathers*, Cologne 1618, fol., vol. II, p. 1 sqq.); and Sigismund Gelenius, a Bohemian, in Basel with Hieronymus Froben 1555, fol., and from there in Paris with Guilielmus Julianus 1575, 8, and Joannes Langus, a Silesian, who also added commentaries and indices, in Basel by Ambrosius and Aurelius, the Froben brothers, 1565, fol., vol. III in 1 volume (reprinted without commentary in the *Max Library of the Ancient Fathers*, Lyon 1677, fol., vol. II, p. 11, p. 5 sqq.). This version, although it is far superior to both of the others, which were more elegant than accurate, nevertheless teems with errors of every kind; many of which Langus would have avoided, had he compared the elucidations of Perionius and Gelenius.

He had already finished the work before those came into his hands, as he narrates in his dedicatory epistle, p. 26.

But before those three translators, who followed the Stephanus text, Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola translated the *Cohortatio ad Graecos* into Latin (from a certain ancient manuscript codex); which translation was published in the *Opera* of Pico; Strasbourg, 1507, and again at Basel, 1601, fol., in Johann Sichard’s *Antidotum contra diversas omnium fere saeculorum haereses, etc.* (Basel, 1528, fol.), p. 112 ff.; in the *Micropresbytericon* of certain theologians (Basel, 1550, fol.), p. 31 ff.; and in Johann Jakob Grynaeus’s *Monumenta SS. Patrum orthodoxographa, h. e. theologiae sacrae ac fidei doctt.* LXXXV, etc. (Basel, 1559, fol.), p. 1947 ff. Separately: *Justini phil. et mart. admonitorius gentium liber, Latine, Joann. Francisc. Pico, Mirandulae domino, interprete, nunc denuo ad exemplar Graecum collatus et qua licuit fide recognitus*. Paris, at the house of Carolus Guillard, 1538, in-4°.

These things needed to be noted concerning the Latin translations (10); furthermore there exist:

French: *Les Œuvres de saint Justin, philosophe et martyr, mises de grec en françois par Jean de Maumont, avec brièves annotations et emendations de faultes*. Paris, from the press of Michel de Vascosan, 1554, fol. This translation was reprinted, with improvements, by the same publisher in 1559. *Exhortation aux Grecs, traduite en françois par Martin Dupin*. Paris, 1580, in-8°. *Seconde Apologie de saint Justin pour les Chrétiens, traduite en françois par Pierre Fondet*. Paris, at the house of the widow of Charl. Savreux, 1670, in-12. After Chanut had hidden under his name, this translation was reprinted in 1686 under the true name of the translator. *Epistre à Diognet, attribuée à saint Justin, dans laquelle l'auteur, sur les ruines de l'idololâtrie et du judaisme, établit les fondemens de la religion chrestienne; traduite de l'original grec [par P. Le Gras]*. Paris, at the house of Nic. Pierre Armand, 1725, in-12. ^C

This work provides not so much a complete version as excerpts: *Les Pères de l'Eglise, traduits en français, ouvrage publié par M. de Genoude et dédié à Monseigneur l'archevêque de Paris*. Tom. 1. (Paris, at the house of Sapia, bookseller and publisher, rue de Sèvres, 16, and du Doyenné, 12, 1837, in-8º), p. 305 ff.

English: *The Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Minucius Felix in defense of the christian religion, with the Commonitory of Vincentius Lirinensis, concerning the primitive rule of faith, translated from their originals with notes for the advantage chiefly of english readers and a preliminary discourse upon each author. Together with a prefatory A dissertation about the right use of the Fathers. By William Reever, M. A. Rector of Cranefort in Middlesex. London, printed for A. and J. Churchill at the Black-Swan in Pater-Noster-Row. 1710, in-8°. Voll. II. Eadem interpretatio ibid. a. 1716 recusa est.* *Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; translated from the greek into english, with notes, chiefly for the advantage of english readers, a preliminary dissertation and a short analysis. By H. Brown, M. A. Vicar of Ther-swell in Glocestershire. Rivington, 1755, in-8°. Voll. II.* *St. Justin, the Philosopher and Martyr, his Exhortations to the gentiles; translated from the greek by the Rev. Thom. Moses. London, Hitch. 1757, in-8º.* ^B

German: *Das Buch Justini, eines Philosophi und Martyrs, an die Heiden. In welchem er erma- net, dieweil sy den waren Gotsdienst von irn Poeten und Philosophen nit lernen mögen, das sy Mosi, den Propheten und Christo glauben sollen*, in: *Chronica der alten Christlichen Kirchen auss Eusebio, Ruffino, Sozomeno, Theodoreto, Tertulliano, Justino, Cypriano und Plinio durch D. Caspar Hedio verteutscht* (Strasb. 1529, fol.), p. ccxciv b. ff. Just as he illustrated not Eusebius, but Rufinus in German, so in rendering the *Cohortatio* he undoubtedly followed the translation of Pico. *S. Justini zwey Briefe an Diognetum, Zenam una Serenum, verteutscht durch Joh. Otto Glüsing*, in his: *Briefe und Schriften der Apostol. Männer* (Hamb. 1723, in-8º), p. 425 ff. *S. Justini Brief an den Diognet, aus dem Griechischen übersetzt durch Augustin Gabriel Gehlen*, in: *Bremer und Verdensche Biblioth. Vol. 1*, p. 11 (Hamb. 1753, in-8º), p. 221 ff. The same epistle was translated by J. M. Sailer: *Briefe aus allen Jahrhunderten der christl. Zeitrechnung*, fasc. 1 (Monac. 1800, in-8º), p. 39 ff. *Justins des Märtyrers, eines christl. Philosophen aus dem Anfang des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Gespräch von der Wahrheit und Göttlichkeit der christl. Religion mit dem Juden Tryphon. Aus dem Griech. übersetzt und mit einer Vorrede nebst dem Leben Justins begleitet von N. von Brunn, Pfarrer zu St. Martin. Basel 1822, in-8º.* The book *Tryphon und Justin oder vom Judentum. Mit einer Vorrede an Herrn Moses Mendelssohn von Franz Güssmann* (Wien 1785, in-8º) provided almost nothing but the title of the Dialogues. *Des heiligen Weisen und Blutzeugen Justinus (I.) Schutzschrift für die Christen*, in: *Denkmale der christl. Glaubens-u. Sittenlehre aus allen Jahrhunderten gewählt und übersetzt von J. M. Denis. T. 1, fasc. 11* (Vindob. 1795, in-8º), p. 21 ff. *Justinus des Märtyrers zweite Apologie und Beweis* (Paris. 1661, 4), p. 1 ff., and: *S. Justini mart. Eversio falsorum Aristotelis dogmatum, Latine, Guil. Postello, in tenebrarum Babylonicarum dispulsionem interprete. Paris. apud Sebast. N vellium 1552, 16.*

217 EXCERPTA EX PRÆFATIONE EDITORIS IENENSIS 218

[...of] the sole sovereignty of God. Greek and German, by Joh. Adam Göz. See above, col. 214. — Excerpts from both Apologies, the Dialogue with Trypho, and the fragment On the Resurrection, provided in German and illustrated with notes by Christ. Frid. Rössler: *Library of the Church Fathers in translations and excerpts*, vol. I (Leipzig 1776, 8º), p. 201 ff. — Italian: *St. Justin Martyr, translated with some reflections by Giov. Bapt. Galliccioli*. Venice 1799, 8º. Volumes II.

III. ON THE MANUSCRIPT CODICES OF JUSTIN

It is very much to be regretted that only a few manuscript codices of the works of Justin remain in libraries; most of these contain either the *Exhortation to the Greeks* or supposititious treatises. I shall, however, report on those manuscripts of genuine books of Justin that I have found by most diligent inquiry.

In France and Paris, indeed, many are kept in the Royal Library, as the *Catalogue of the Royal Library, the second part, comprising the Greek manuscripts* (from the Royal Press, 1740, fol.) attests, besides Maran, who expounded upon them too briefly. I shall now present what has been observed in these catalogues, but, further, I shall add here and there what Carolus Benedictus Hase, fellow of the Royal Institute of France, professor in the Royal Polytechnic School and in the special school for Oriental languages, and keeper of that part of the Royal Library containing the manuscripts, has most kindly communicated to me. I cannot but mention with gratitude the kindness of this most distinguished man in assisting me.

1. *Codex Regius CDL*, formerly numbered 1428, later noted as 2270, paper, small folio, 461 folios, in which (see the *Catalogues*, p. 63; compare Nic. le Nourry, *Apparatus*, vol. I, p. 467) are contained: 1º Saint Justin, philosopher and martyr, *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus* (it begins on fol. 6 b with the words: ‘Ἐκ παρασκευῆς ἀνδραγαθεῖν· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦ νῦν αἰῶνος [p. 408 C. ed. Maran.], whence it appears that it is by no means complete, as the scribe himself saw, not filling out a half-page with letters; it ends, however, on fol. 16 b: Εἴη μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν). Preceding this (fol. 1-5 b) are excerpts from Photius’ *Myriobiblos* on the writings of St. Justin, and from Eusebius’ *Ecclesiastical History* on the saints Justin, Polycarp, and Irenaeus. 2º His *Parænetic Discourse to the Greeks* (fol. 17-50). 3º His *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew concerning the truth of the Christian religion* (fol. 50-193). 4º His *two Apologies for the Christians*, one briefer one to the Roman Senate (fol. 193-201), the other more prolix to Antoninus Pius (fol. 201-238 b). There follow three Epistles, the same as those published (fol. 238 b-241). 5º His book *On the Monarchy or the Unity of God* (fol. 241-247). 6º His *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* (fol. 247-261). 7º His *Confutation of Certain Aristotelian Dogmas* (fol. 261-300 b). Explicit: Καὶ γίνονται ἐξ ἀλλήλων [p. 583 E. ed. Maran.]; but immediately there follow in the manuscript codex: β'. Ἡ φύσις ἡ ποιοῦσα ^B τὰ φυσικά, etc. [p. 533 B. ed. Maran.] up to fol. 502 b: Ἀγένητα ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ [p. 535 D. ed. Maran.]). 8º His *Questions and Answers to the Greeks* (fol. 302 b-433, where, as in Maran, p. 547 E, they end with the words: τῆς ἀλόγου αὐτῶν ἀπιστίας). This is followed by the book of Athenagoras, *On the Resurrection of the Dead*, whose beginning is: Παντὶ δόγματι καὶ λόγῳ, etc., and the end: τιμῆς ἀληθοῦς δίκης, as in Maran, ed. *Opp. Just.*, p. 315 A and 336 E. — This codex was written in the year 1364; for it closes, as also Bernard de Montfaucon observed in *Palæograph. Gr.* (Paris 1708, fol.), p. 71, with this note: Ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον ἐπὶ ἔτους ςωοδ'. Ἰνδ. β'. ἐν μηνὶ Σεπτεβρίῳ ια', that is: This book was completed in the year 6872 (Christ 1364), second indiction, the 11th day of the month of September. This is the same codex that, with very few changes, Robert Estienne had printed in his *editio princeps* of the works of Justin ‘from the Royal Library’. In order to use brevity according to my custom, I have indicated it with Maran in the *Exhortation to the Greeks* by the abbreviated note *Cod. Reg. 3*, but in the other writings by the note *Cod. Reg.* ^C by way of excellence.

II. *Codex Regius CDLI*, formerly under numbers 1169 and 2271, parchment, in folio, consisting of 403 leaves, in which (see the *Catalogues*, l. c.) are contained: 1º Clement of Alexandria’s *Admonitory Discourse to the Greeks*. There are also marginal scholia, and these not to be despised, both on this treatise and on others that follow (fol. 1-56 b). 2º His *Pedagogue*, divided into three books. The first ten chapters and the beginning of the eleventh of the first book are wanting (fol. 57-154 b). 3º Justin’s epistle to the brothers Zenas and Serenus (fol. 154 b-163 b: Ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν). 4º His *Parænetic Oratory to the Greeks* (fol. 163 b-187 b. The last words: Οἱ δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτόν; for there are missing in the manuscript codex four quaternions [τετράδια], that is, thirty-two folios or sixty-four pages, which were already missing in the fourteenth century, as is clear from the words written at that time: Ἐντεῦθεν ἐλλείπουσι τετράδια ^D δ'). 5º The first five books of Eusebius Pamphili’s *Evangelical Preparation* (the book is missing at the beginning: ἡμῖν [therefore three words are missing] μετὰ χεῖρας ἐκπονείται πρόθεσις, etc., see the edition of Viger. Colon. 1688, fol., p. 7 A; it ends on fol. 322, in the same way as in Viger. p. 234 C). 6º Athenagoras the Athenian’s *Legation for the Christians*, Hamburg 1801, in-4º, vol. VII, p. 68 ff.

^A (fol. 322 b – 348). 7º The same, *On the Resurrection of the Dead* (fol. 348 b – 367 b). 8º Eusebius Pamphili’s book *Against Hierocles* (fol. 368 – 401 b). 9º An anonymous fragment concerning the place from which the Savior obtained the ass (another scribe, who according to the conjecture of Hasius, a man highly skilled in ancient diplomacy, lived in the tenth century, added this fragment [fol. 402 sq.] written in smaller uncial letters (12)). This codex was written by the hand of Baanes, a notary to Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea, in the year of Christ 914; for at the end (fol. 401 b) it has: *Written by the hand of Baanes, notary to Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, in the year of the world 6422 (a.D. 914).* Certain learned men, such as Hutchin (in the preface to his edition of the *Apology*, etc.) and Nourry (l. c., p. 468), erroneously read *Baanes notou*, a thing which Bernard de Montfaucon (l. c., p. 275, col. p. 35 and 43) has already criticized. He also provided an example from this codex of excellent note, using the same extremely elegant character in which it was written (l. c., p. 274, n. III). It seems, as Hasius observes, that this *notarios*, i.e., calligrapher, had a good knowledge of the Greek language, so that the errors everywhere obvious are to be imputed to the codex he transcribed. However, Hutchin and Maran, whom we designate as Cod. Reg. 1, had already used this excellent manuscript book, whose authority we have decided to follow before others, as is proper, for the *Cohortatio*.

III. Codex Regius CLXXIV, formerly 1358, then 2919, parchment, square in shape, *Fonteblandensis*, i.e., originating from the Royal library formerly kept in the castle of Fontainebleau. It has 190 leaves. Included therein (see catalogs p. 27 sq.) are: 1º Olympiodorus’ *Commentary on Ecclesiastes*. 2º *Scholia on the Proverbs of Solomon*, excerpted from the writings of Basil, Diadochus, Didymus, Evagrius, Hippolytus, and Palladius. Aristotle is also cited. 3º A passage of Athanasius on the Psalms. 4º The ten commandments of the Old Law. 5º Maximus the Confessor’s *Questions, interrogations and shorter responses*; also a select explanation of various difficult chapters. 6º *Scholia on the prophet Ezekiel*, excerpted from the writings of Apollinaris, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Polychronius, and Theodoret. 7º *Scholia on Daniel*; here Africanus, Ammonius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Hippolytus, and Polychronius are frequently cited. 8º *Excerpts from Theodoret’s three Dialogues*, between the *Eranistes* and the Orthodox [believer]. 9º Saint Justin Martyr’s *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus* (fol. 85-92; the first and last words are read as in Maran, p. 408 A – 417 B). 10º The same’s *Exhortation/Parenetic Oration to the Greeks*. Brief scholia hitherto unpublished are set in the margin (fol. 92-112). These, in the judgment of Hasius, ^B contain nothing but headings, i.e., indexes of matters treated in the text, or contain brief grammatical-ascetic notes, and are hardly worthy of being printed in our time. To provide an example, which I do not know if it serves as a representative of them all, on fol. 108, at the words (Cohort. c. 31): *And he rode upon the Cherubim*, it is annotated: *And the text, "He rode upon the Cherubim and did fly, and he did fly upon the wings of the wind"; is it not clearer?* And shortly after: *The Lord was not in the wind.* This is written in the divine vision according to Elijah; as if He were not manifesting Himself to men in the Spirit of God, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire. For the soul of man, having begun to occupy itself with the contemplation pertaining to God, is raised towards this as if by some violent wind, away from all things that creep upon the earth. 11º Tatian’s *Oration to the Greeks*. Added are somewhat richer scholia, not at all unworthy of seeing the light of day. Various readings of that codex of the *Oration* are represented in the Oxford edition of the year 1700. 12º Athenagoras the Athenian philosopher’s *Legation for the Christians*, with similar scholia. 13º The same’s treatise *On the Resurrection of the Dead*. 14º Eusebius Pamphili’s book *Against Hierocles*. This codex, a specimen of which Bernard de Montfaucon provided (l. c., p. 279, n. I), seems to have been written in the eleventh century (13) by various hands, which nevertheless are all of roughly the same time. At the end (fol. 190 b) this note of ownership is found, betraying a later age: *This book belongs to the humble custodian, George Skleratos, deacon of Paphos.* That is indeed a sign of the cross, which, as Hasius saw in Greece four years ago, people of advanced age and pious men also place in our own times, whenever they are about to write something; they invoke *Lord, help me.* But that codex of the *Parenetic Oration*, which, as is evident from its amazing agreement, is of the same family as Reg. 1 (n. 451), we have designated as Cod. Reg. 2, of Hutchin and Maran.

IV. Codex Regius XIX, formerly Colbertinus 3581; since the year 1732, when the grandson of Colbert, the Count of Seignelay, had sold the manuscript books inherited by him to Louis XV, it was numbered Regius 2854, paper, square in shape. Contained therein (see catalogs p. 9) are: 1º Job. 2º Justin the philosopher and martyr’s *Exhortation to the Greeks*. 3º The Apocalypse. This codex, whose pages are not numbered, seems to have been written in the sixteenth century, and this, as Hasius admonishes, by some European, i.e., an inhabitant of Western land, whether Italy or France, who perhaps wished in this way to prepare for himself some exercise in the Greek letters; for it is thought that these two leaves were written by Baane as practice or for his own amusement in uncial character. He judges that this codex was written in the eleventh century (13). For, he says, "I have come across a few codices of the same form, bearing a date, which are all written in that same century." Here, the dative is ascribed, as in *epistole*, which is observed in a few exemplars; in more it is omitted. Accents are not marked with such accuracy everywhere, but they are not rarely neglected, and similarly the breathings, which are generally described in an ancient form.

^A and used a pen, not a writing-reed, which alone, or perhaps bronze pens, the Greeks used right up to the fall of the empire. I have called this manuscript, which although it has many unique readings, undoubtedly flows from the same source as Reg. 2 (no. 174), not—as Maranus did—the Colbertine, but Cod. Reg. 4.

V. Codex Regius CXC. (See *Supplément grec*, as this supplement contains those manuscripts that arrived at the Royal Library after 1740), written on ordinary paper in the seventeenth century, consisting of 340 folios. This octavo manuscript, containing excerpts from Epiphanius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other ecclesiastical Fathers, offers a few collections (fol. 286–304b) from St. Justin, with short Latin annotations added; however, Hasius has provided assurance that this manuscript contributes nothing of value for the emendation of the text. Let it be added immediately

VI. Codex Claromontanus, so called by Maranus because the library of the Paris College of the Society of Jesus provided it. However, when the Jesuits were expelled from France (in 1764) and the books of that library were sold publicly, that manuscript fell into the hands of Meerman. Upon his death, it passed to England (in 1824) with other writings, to be joined to the library of the most illustrious Thomas Phillipps, established at the village of Middlehill near the town of Broadway (located in the county of Worcestershire). See *Catalogus manuscriptorum codicum collegii Claromontani* (Paris, 1764, 8vo), p. 25 ff., no. LXXXII, and *Bibliotheca Meermaniana*, or the catalogue of printed books and manuscripts which Joannes Meerman left behind at his death, vol. IV (The Hague, 1824, 8vo), p. 7, no. LVII; cf. Gust. Hänel, *Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum, etc.* (Leipzig, 1830, 4to), p. 894. This paper manuscript, in folio, comprising 377 folios, was written in the sixteenth century ^B and contains: 1° The *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus* of Justin the philosopher and martyr. Preceded by some items concerning Justin from Suidas, Photius, and others. 2° *Paræneticus ad gentes*. 3° *Dialogue with Trypho*. 4° Both *Apologies* for the Christians, with the letters of Emperors Antoninus and Marcus. 5° *On the Monarchy*. 6° *Exposition of the Faith, or On the Holy Trinity*. 7° *Refutation of the Dogmas of Aristotle*. 8° *Christian Questions to the Gentiles*. 9° *Responses to the Orthodox concerning necessary questions* and a *Treatise against the Gentiles*. 10° *Greek Questions to the Christians regarding the Incorporeal, God, and the Resurrection of the dead*. 11° *Christian Responses to the aforementioned questions, from the piety of natural reasoning*. 12° Athenagoras, *On the Resurrection of the dead*. 13° Justin’s ^C *Epistle* (the same as above) *to Zenas and Serenus*. 14° *Exposition* (the same as above) *of the orthodox confession*. This manuscript is very similar to the one marked with the Royal number 450; for indeed, not only does it contain the works in the same order, but the *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus*, located in the first place, is truncated at the beginning. Added to this is the fact that its readings for the most part so agree with the Regius, that both appear to have been transcribed from the same manuscript, or one from the other. Sirmondus, according to Nourrius (*l. c.*, p. 468), examined the Claromontanus manuscript with the greatest diligence, and with his own hand supplied the mutilated beginning of the *Epistle to Zenas and Serenus*, prefacing it with a list of all the works it contains. This is the same manuscript that Thirlbius saw to it that certain selected passages were collated with. In Gaul, besides the manuscripts mentioned above, only one other is found, which I have personally used first; for it is ^D

VII. Codex Argentoratensis, written on cotton paper (*ex charta gossypina*; see Hänel, *l. c.*, p. 466), in small folio, whose folios were numbered in more recent times as 260. It once belonged to Joannes Reuchlin, as an inscription indicates, made by his hand on the inner side of the wooden cover (*Liber Græcus Johannis Reuchlin Phorcen.*); afterwards, it arrived at Maurimonasterium (Maurmünster) located in Upper Alsace (*Ex. libb. Abb. Maurimonast. 1560*), and finally, through the violent conversion of the French kingdom, arrived at the public library of Strasbourg. It was, however, considerably gnawed by mice making a nest for themselves in it, but only its other half suffered damage. This manuscript contains: 1° St. Justin the philosopher and martyr's *On the Monarchy*. 2° *Exhortatory Discourse to the Greeks*. 3° *Exposition of the Faith concerning the right confession, or concerning the Trinity*. 4° *To the Greeks*. 5° *To Diognetus*. By another and more recent hand there were added: 6° The *Erythraean Sibyl's Verses* (containing only three pages). 7° *Oracles of the Greek gods*. However, by the prior hand are: 8° Athenagoras' *Embassy* and 9° His book *On the Resurrection*. Finally, the writings of Cyril of Alexandria and the later tract against Armenians, Ishmaelites, and others which follow clearly betray a more recent hand. The part of the manuscript is written earlier than the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The most venerable man Eduard Cunitz, a doctor of theology at Strasbourg, kindly communicated those observations to me. Now, the rest of what he wrote to me about this manuscript, I shall report in his own exact words: "Die Zeilen, in dem Theile der Justin enthält, sind vorgezeichnet durch in das starke Baumwollenpapier eingeritzte Linien, unter welche die Buchstaben geschrieben sind. Die..."

Verschränkungen und Zusammenziehungen der Buchstaben sind meistens dieselben wie in den Stephanischen Drucken (und unter anderem fehlt zum Beispiel das in letzteren so häufige ^A oder ^B), aber bei Weitem nicht durchgängig angewandt; dasselbe ist der Fall mit den eigentlichen Abkürzungen, die auch ganz die bei Stephanus eingeführten sind (von einigen jedoch erinnere ich mich nicht, ob sie bei Stephanus vorkommen: ¦ = ας und Ϛ = ους; erstere wird von unserem Scriba besonders oft gebraucht. Beinahe durchweg bedient er sich auch der bekannten ἄν = ἄνθρωπος, οὐ = οὐρανός, πρᾳ, πρὸ = πνεῦμα etc., θῦ = θεοῦ; letzteres findet sich nur ausnahmsweise). Übrigens hat bei dem Allem die Schrift nichts weniger als ein currentes Aussehen wegen ihres gedehnten, ins Breite gezogenen, immer noch alterthümlichen Charakters. Was andere Merkzeichen betrifft, so wenig genau Bestimmtes sich auch daraus ziehen lässt, so mag das Hauptsächlichste Folgendes sein: Die Schrift ist durchweg ziemlich gleichförmig und sorgfältig gehalten; auffallend sind die unleserlichen Stellen, die gerade mit den in dem gedruckten Texte vorkommenden Lücken zusammenfallen, obgleich meistens sich noch erkennen lässt, dass sie ursprünglich beschrieben waren; doch sind, im Allgemeinen, besonders die ersten Blätter sehr verblichen und auch auf manchen folgenden die Schlusswörter der Zeilen und auch die oberen Ecken der Seiten oft sowohl durch Feuchtigkeit als auch durch ^C Reibung sehr verwischt. Die Randglossen, die übrigens in unseren Büchern nicht sehr häufig vorkommen, sind von der Hand des ursprünglichen Librarius, aber mit rother Tinte, wie auch die Titel. Das α, wo es nicht angehängt ist, hat gewöhnlich die Gestalt ɑ. Das β wird oft durch ϐ versetzt. Das ι subscriptum fehlt durchweg. Meistens wird die Form ς, seltener ϲ gebraucht. Für κ findet sich öfters auch k. Die sehr auffallende Übereinstimmung unseres Straßburger Codex mit den Lesarten des Beurerischen Apographon, welche in den Noten Sylburgs angegeben sind, ließen mich anfangs glauben, unsere Handschrift sei dieses Apographon selbst, da es sich leicht denken ließ, dass der Freiburger Professor von dem Codex zu Maursmünster Kenntniss hatte; aber es finden sich doch auch manche ausdrückliche Abweichungen, die wohl hinreichen, die Verschiedenheit dieser Handschriften zu beweisen. Übrigens wurde unser Codex oder wenigstens die drei ersten darin enthaltenen Bücher (De Monarchia, der Paræneticus und die Ekthesis) schon früher verglichen, wie daraus erhellt, dass bei diesen Schriften die Varianten des gedruckten Textes ziemlich sorgfältig am Rande angegeben sind (im Adv. πρὸς Ἕλληνας und im Brief an Diognet ist dies nicht der Fall). Jedoch scheint diese frühere Collation nicht zu etwas Weiterem gedient zu haben oder das Resultat davon bekannt gemacht worden zu sein. Nunc viri plurimum reverendi Cunitzius Cohortationem et Orationem ad Græcos Epistolamque ad Diognetum, Eduardus Reuss vero, theologiæ professor Argentoratensis, De monarchia tractatum summa diligentia cum illo codice msto contulerunt, omnes scripturas ab editionis Benedictinæ textu diversas quam fieri poterat accuratissime descripserunt mihique edendas concesserunt. Qua de re quid mihi jucundius esse potest, quam his viris de re litteraria optime meritis justas ac debitas agere gratias? Subjungam quæ præterea ad Galliam pertinent:

VIII. Manuscriptus Stephani a me appellatur variarum ad Cohortationem ad Græcos et librum De monarchia lectionum farrago, quam Rob. Stephanus editionis suæ (Lutet. 1551) calci adjecit. Pleræque fere omnes ex codicibus Parisinis desumptæ sunt. ^D Ad Apologias et Dialogum interdum lectiones affert Codicis Regii oræ marginali ascriptas.

IX. Manuscriptus Pici a me Cohortationis ad Græcos translatio vocatur, quam Pico Mirandulano debemus. Adhibuit procul dubio mstum quemdam codicem ad conficiendam illam, quippe quæ jam prius quam editio Stephani princeps, Argentorati (a. 1507) lucem viderit. Tales vero versiones critico respiciendas esse constat. Ac Picus quamvis interdum summo verterit arbitrio, tamen sæpe efficit, de genuina Justini lectione ut queat recte judicari. Codex autem mstus quem usurpavit ad antiquiores eosdemque meliores referendus est; pertinet nimirum ad familiam Codd. Reg. 1, 2, 4 et Argentor.

In Germania et Helvetia frustra inquisivi in permultas easque copiosissimas bibliothesas. Reperitur tantum

X. Codex Vimariensis, membranaceus, formæ quadratæ, sæculo decimo quinto sextove eleganter exaratus, cujus folia, numeris a scriba non insignita a me numerantur 50. Fuit olim cujusdam Antonii Mauclercy, posthac Cornelii a Maersche, Lugd. Bat. (a. 1673), ut cognoscitur ex nota in fronte libri collocata. Ibidem aureo charactere scriptum est: Divi Justini philosophi et martyris Oratio ad Græcos. Ejusdem de monarchia Dei liber. Atramento adjungitur: Dominicus Lampsonus vertit. Uterque enim liber, et Cohortatio ad Gr. (fol. 1-40 b) et de monarchia tractatus (fol. 41-50 a), haud dubie ex Græco quodam msto codice in linguam Latinam conversus est. Quare codicem contuli ex eoque scripturæ dedi discrepantiam, in quantum fieri poterat; nam versio ipsa, elegans et oratoria, interdum liberior est, ut, quæ exemplaris Græci verba fuerint, neutiquam possis divinare. Cæterum codex mstus, quo Lampsonus usus est, ad recentiorem videtur familiam pertinere, cujus sunt codd. Regius 3 et Claromontanus bonitate Regiis 1, 2, 4 et Argentoratensi cedentes.

X bis. Beureri apographon, Orationem ad Græcos et Epistolam ad Diognetum continens. Siquidem Beurerus, professor Friburgensis, eumdem descri-

- he examined the codex and H. Stephanus (see above), and besides that he inspected no one else, namely either the one which is preserved today at Strasbourg or one certainly very similar to it; for he very often filled in the gaps, which are obvious in Stephanus's copy, in the transcript with the same words which exist in the Strasbourg Codex from the first hand. But we do not know where this transcript, whose various readings Stephanus and more accurately Sylburgius copied out, is preserved today. Perhaps at Glasgow (see below, no. XII)? Certainly the Epistle to Diognetus was also called by the name of an oration, which appears from Stephanus's edition of this epistle, p. 104. As far as the Netherlands is concerned, it is found ^A

XI. The Leiden Codex, on paper, of square format, which was once in the possession of Isaac Vossius (in England), but later arrived in Leiden. In it, along with the witness of the Catalogs of the manuscript books of England and Ireland (Oxford 1697, fol. vol. II, p. 1, p. 60, no. 2205), to which the Catalog of books both printed and manuscript of the public library of the University of Leiden (Leiden, 1716, fol., p. 396, no. 30; cf. Bern. de Montfaucon: Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum nova, Paris 1739, fol. vol. I, p. 676) agrees, the Epistle to Diognetus is contained, I asked by letter the most excellent prefect of the Leiden library, Jacob Geel, to send me various readings extracted from that manuscript codex. The most learned man, whose benevolence towards me must be praised, replied among other things: "By diligently exploring, I persuaded myself that Justin Martyr's Epistle to Diognetus, ^B which the Vossian codex 30 (Catal. p. 396) contains along with many other writings, is the very copy which Henr. Stephanus described from I know not what codex, and which served the first edition (1592). It is Stephanus's hand, unless I am greatly mistaken; in the margin are written the same conjectures which later editors of Justin testify that Stephanus made (for I do not have the 1592 edition itself at hand); but what settles the matter: in the codex after the Epistle to Diognetus follows the Exhortation to the Greeks, which Stephanus published separately together with the Ep. to Diognetus. I partially compared it with the Paris 1742 edition. — There is no difference. Therefore I do not see what the inspection of the written copy could profit you."

In England also there is nothing to help Justin. Indeed, besides the Claromontanus Codex (Cf. above no. VI.) there exists ^C

XII. The Glasgow Codex, on parchment, of square format, and written in the year 1453, which according to Haenel (l. c., p. 790) contains Justin's Orations, but since I have received no news about it yet, I do not know indeed which writings of Justin are meant by the word Orations. Certainly in manuscript codices the Epistle to Zenas and Serenus is also called by the name of an Oration.

I was expecting some help from Italy. For Friedericus Blume gave me great hope, reporting (cf. Bibliotheca librorum manuscriptorum Italica; Göttingen 1834, 8, p. 137) that Justin and Athenagoras are held in Rome in the Angelica library (S. Agostino (17)): fol. B. 1, 10. Immediately, with the recommendation of Goettling, my dearest teacher, I approached Emil Braun, secretary of the Archaeological Institute which is in Rome, by letter, that he might kindly take care to have that codex diligently compared. The most learned man, whose goodwill towards me must be celebrated, writes back that he has inspected the said codex, but that it contains only the spurious Epistle to Zenas and Serenus. In the Vatican library he found indeed five handwritten codices, but they by no means pertain to the genuine works of the martyr. Only the Queen's library offers a manuscript codex (35, f. 232, a. t.), containing ᾿Αποσπάσματα ἐν τῇ δογματικῆ πανοπλίᾳ Εὐθυμίου τοῦ Ζιγαβηνοῦ; but those are of little importance. ^D

There are altogether three manuscript codices of the true Justin in Italy and they pertain only to the Exhortation, whose readings or corrections, however, it has not yet been possible to fetch from there to be collected. For they are

XIII. The Florentine Codex XXXII, no. IX, plut. X, in the Laurentian Medicean Library: Exhortatory Sermon to the Gentiles. Cf. Ang. Mar. Bandinius: Catal. Codd. mss. bibliothecæ Med. Laurent, containing various works, vol. I (Florence 1764, fol.) p. 496.

XIV. The Bologna Codex in the library of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, in which are contained: 1° Athenagoras's Embassy. 2° The same's On the Resurrection of the Bodies. 3° Justin Martyr's moral oration: Περὶ μὲν τῆς κατὰ πρόβλημά τινων ἀλογίστου, etc. (= Epistle to Zenas and Seren.). 4° The same's Parænesis to the Greeks. 5° The same's On the Right Faith. 6° Origen's Epistle to Africanus. 7° Cleomedes's On the Circular Theory of Meteors. 8° Heron on War Machines: by the scribe Valeriano Albino. The codex seems to be of better quality. Cf. Joann. Mabillon: Museum Italicum, or collection of old writings from Italian libraries, vol. I, p. 1. (Paris 1687, 4), p. 196; add. Bern. de Montfaucon: Diarium Italicum, or notices of old monuments of libraries, museums, etc. (Paris 1702, 4), p. 407 sq.

XV. The Modena Codex in the Ducal library. 1° Clement of Alexandria's Exhortation. 2° The same's Instructor and Hymn, as in the editions. 3° Justin's to Zenas. 4° The same's Against the Greeks. 5° Athenagoras's Embassy. 6° Tatian's Oration. 7° On the Sibyls. A most elegant manuscript codex of the tenth century on parchment, to which the codex in the Royal Parisian library marked with the number 451 is very similar, according to Montfaucon, l. c., p. 31.

Finally, concerning the manuscript codices pertaining to the fragment On the Resurrection, and to the Acts of the martyrdom of Justin, you should consult what I have set forth above on p. XXIII, (col. 212.) seq.