who does not want, cares for that which is hunted: and he who out of modesty often acts reluctantly toward such a one, or who refuses to accept benefits so as not to become burdensome or annoying to another, and who finally prefers to endure his own sad circumstances grievously, so as not to bring any business or anxiety upon anyone; he who is full of charity beseeched him to endure and to submit—as if being wronged—to receiving aid, and to grant the greatest thanks to another, not to himself, for the cessation of his own evil through him. A
Eusebius, *Eccl. Hist.*, bk. VII, ch. 20: “Besides the aforementioned epistles,” he says, “the same Dionysius wrote those paschal epistles which we have at that time, weaving into them encomia and panegyric discourses on the paschal festival. One of these he inscribed to Flavius, another to Domitius and Didymus.—He [wrote] another epistle also to the fellow-presbyters of the Church of Alexandria, etc.” To whom, furthermore, or to whom indeed was the fourth paschal epistle of Dionysius inscribed, from which the compiler of the *Parallels* extracts such a fragment? Who might teach me? GALL.
See the *Exegetica in sacram Scripturam* of St. Dionysius at the end of the volume.
ANNO DOMINI CCLXX?
MACARIUS MAGNES
HISTORICAL-THEOLOGICAL DISSERTATION
IN TWO PARTS
Presenting the notice and the *theologoumena* of Macarius Magnes, derived from the fragments of his work, hitherto lost, *Apocritica*, written for the Christian religion against the Gentiles, and illustrated for better understanding by a continuous parallelism of the writings of Porphyry against the diverse doctrines [of the Church], B
BY
MAGNUS CRUSIUS, PROFESSOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY, PUBLIC AND ORDINARY. (Göttingen 1737–1745. — From the Munich library.)
—
DISSERTATION 1,
Presenting a historical-critical notice of the life and writings of Macarius Magnes.
—
§ 1. Occasion of the argument and purpose of the institution.
Among the oldest monuments of the Christian Church, the memory of which either the injury of time itself, or the envy and malice of the enemies of the Church, seems to have obliterated, with equal right one should count in the highest degree, though they be fewer in number, the very rare fragments of Macarius Magnes, taken from his own books, the *Apocritica* against Theosthenes, who was slandering the Gospels against the Gentiles. I mention an author who is almost unknown and for a long time sufficiently neglected in so vast an orbit of ecclesiastical and literary history; I have already touched upon him briefly in a place certainly not his own, as a writer speaking in Greek.
B whose name, writings, and merits, however, it is of the greatest importance for all learned men, and especially for those who love the truth of the Christian religion strenuously defended, to know thoroughly. Therefore, I thought that I would be doing a service not ungrateful to the learned on this solemn occasion—which invites me to write and hold a disputation, [the occasion] of the imminent inauguration of our Augusta Georgia Academy—if I [were to present] what pertains to the elucidation of the name and the *theologoumena* of that very ancient author, from books as well published and rarely met with, as from manuscripts (a copy of which reached me from Leipzig in 1728).
[Latin text translated]
A ...the most rich libraries of the learned world (the Royal Library of Paris, the Colbertine, and the Coislinian of Saint-Germain) supplied me, beyond all others, and I have set them forth, prompted by the greatest eagerness, and collected into one. Indeed, I cannot but proclaim with deserved praise the name of the most renowned Joannes Boivarius, most deserving as regards literary and ecclesiastical antiquity, who once with great acclaim managed the Royal Library of manuscripts in Paris; for by his singular benefit, I was aided in obtaining not only an easy access to the inner sanctuaries of that incomparable and truly royal treasury, but he himself, with that most rare kindness that distinguished him, frequently recommended to me writings that were lurking in the same place, and did not refuse to share benevolently with me his own observations, which had been collected with great effort on the fragments of Macarius Magnes; I ingenuously profess that I have profited not a little from these, and have clung further to the sources pointed out by him. The dignity of this new argument, as well as the nature of the present time and of this institute, demands that I divide the whole treatise into two parts: the former will elicit a historical-critical notice concerning Macarius Magnes, his age, and his writings, from various published and unpublished monuments of ecclesiastical history; the latter will demonstrate the *theologoumena* of the author as well as his errors, from his own writings.
§ II. The unjust judgments of the moderns concerning Macarius Magnes are weighed.
"What has this promiser brought forth, worthy of such a gaping mouth? He has poured forth windy bombast, unpublished books and authors, which neither are at hand, nor can be: the sermons of Eusebius (if you please) the Alexandrian, Eusebius of Caesarea against Marcellus, Hippolytus the Martyr and the Theban, Magnes against Theosthenes, Theodotus of Ancyra, etc.—he has cited them, indeed of great reading, but of the most brazen face and of the most tenuous judgment." How precipitous, however, this judgment of a man otherwise most learned has been, is apparent from the fact that most of these authors, whom Blondel believed to be fake, are now in everyone’s hands and are confirmed by the calculation of the most skilled critics of our age. B Edmund Albertinus agrees with Blondel in book II of *De sacramento Eucharistiæ*, p. 420 (7), who, with a judgment more dictatorial than critical, distrusting the truth of the cause, since he could not refute by any probable reason the testimony of Magnes produced by Turrianus and others, preferred to laugh at it, and petulantly attempted to explode it in this manner: "Turrianus is the first of all (as far as I know) to have brought forth in his writings these words, from I know not whence taken, from Magnes against Theosthenes... But these are baubles for the crowd. For who of the ancients, or even of the moderns, for nine or ten centuries, has remembered this Magnes even by name? He is an author entirely fictitious, or at least some new and recent little Greek, whose certainty of writings rests entirely with Turrianus, a man of meager judgment and of highly suspect faith. And do the adversaries dare to bring such trifles into the light as monuments of the ancients without any shame? By the faith of God and man!" Although these things were said by him quite rashly and arrogantly, I see that they have not been refuted by anyone yet, because nothing has hitherto been established by the ancients concerning Magnes, the author of the *Apocriticus*; on which account there will be a place to explode the empty cavils of Albertinus and the futility of his arguments later on, when the fragments of Magnes themselves are examined. Meanwhile, B. Jo. Alb. Fabricius (8) judges very rightly: "There is no doubt that an injury is done to Turrianus by these words, and I would have much preferred that someone bring the books of Magnes to light for the good of the Church; whether they have as their author that Jerusalemite presbyter Magnes, or Macarius Magnes." No less does Christoph. Sandius in his *Tractatus De veteribus scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, p. 19, pronounce Magnes a heretic without any indication of even the lightest argument: "Turrianus," he says, "in *Constit. Clem. Rom.* alleges book III of the *Apologies* of Magnes."
C But who and of what sort our Macarius Magnes was, and at what time he flourished, and when he wrote his most excellent monuments of genius and learning, must now be inquired into for the first time, from the evidence of proven antiquity; so that his proper credit may be restored to the genuine author, which some of the more recent critics dared to rashly derogate, when they read that nothing had been handed down by ancient writers concerning this author of the *Apocriticus*. Indeed, when Franciscus Turrianus, that great glutton of manuscript codices (4) and no negligent inquirer of ecclesiastical antiquity (5), had made mention of this most ancient author here and there in his various writings, and among other things had also brought forward a brilliant testimony of his concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist and the real presence of the body and blood of Christ (which must be examined and defended in the other part of the Dissertation); David Blondel, first because of the suspect faith of Turrianus, D and at the same time concerning Magnes against (or more correctly, *to*) Theosthenes, as an author hitherto unknown, did not fear to audaciously refer him among the unpublished books and authors, which neither are at hand, nor can be. For thus he did in his *Pseudo-Isidorus*...
A for the Gospel against the Gentile Theosthenes; although the author is considered by Turrianus to be an ecclesiastical writer close to the time of the apostles, to me he is a certain heretic. Doubtless this unfortunate follower of Socinus for that reason brands our author with a certain mark of heresy, because he asserted in express terms that the only-begotten Son of God is equal in power and a hypostatic Word to his Father. Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel, in the second part of his *Exercitationes selectae*, p. 235 foll., carried away by the authority of Albertinus, allowed himself to be deceived too easily, while he judges that Natalis Alexander, in the dissertation opposed to Albertinus, did not even dare to whisper against those things which we have produced above from Albertinus. With greater modesty and candor of mind, William Cave reflects in his *Historia litteraria scriptorum ecclesiasticorum*, at A.C. 350: "Certainly," he says, "concerning such writings it is better to restrain one’s judgment, until the authors themselves come forth into public, so that it may be permitted to pass judgment on them." Although the same author, in the second part of this work at A.C. 265, confuses our Magnes with the presbyter Magnes of Jerusalem, whom he gathers from the manuscript *Dogmaticum* of the patriarch of Constantinople Germanus to Anthimus to have been present at the Council of Antioch held against Paul of Samosata in A.C. 265.
§ III. Whether the name of Macarius is proper to our author, or appellative. If we seek the proper name of our author, it will be necessary to investigate first whether the word *Makarios* is a title of honor, which is usually prefixed to the monuments of most ancient authors, or whether it is a peculiar name of the person. And indeed, fragments are found which bear the title of *tou Makariou Magnētou* before them, so that from this the appellative name of the blessed Magnes would seem to consist. In others, the ambiguous inscription *Makariou Magnētos* is read, which can be understood in a proper no less than an appellative sense. But from the most ancient codices which we have used, the title *tou hagiou Makariou* is more rightly confirmed, which designates the holy Macarius by his proper name. For so we read in the *Antirrhetica* of Nicephorus, which contain the lost fragments of our author: "The subscription of the usage thus runs: Of Saint Macarius from the fourth book of the *Apocriticus*. Indeed, it is from the very inscription of this wise and clever scribe that one can perceive the fraud and malice, A for he, having only set forth the name—as if he envied the dignity of the author himself—did not declare who this Macarius was; whether he was distinguished by the insignia of the priesthood? or moved to the helm of some city? or was he, while perhaps assigned to some other lot, nevertheless a Christian and one holding fast to the doctrine of piety? etc." The text indeed of the testimony is this: *Saint Macarius from the fourth book of the Apocriticus.* B It is easy from the very inscription of this crafty and stale scribe to detect the fraud and malice. For having only set forth the name, as if he envied the dignity of the author himself, he did not declare who this Macarius was; whether he was distinguished by the insignia of the priesthood? or moved to the helm of some city? or was he perhaps serving in some other, though not ecclesiastical, office, yet nonetheless a Christian and one who professed the doctrine of the orthodox faith? etc. Moreover, a long series of ecclesiastical authors who had this name in common with our author could have been recounted here with little effort; were it not certain that the Reverend U. G. Siber, a most celebrated professor at Leipzig, had long ago composed a special *History of the 42 Macarii*, C and likewise that B. J. A. Fabricius in his *Bibliotheca Graeca* vol. VII, p. 495, had already observed more than 50 Macarii in the writings of the ancients.
§ IV. The name of Magnes, descriptive of a tribe. But as far as the name of Magnes is concerned, various historical monuments testify that it can both be attributed to a certain entire tribe and also be the proper name of a man. For there were two famous cities in Asia Minor called Magnesia; one in Caria at the river Maeander, the other in Phrygia at Mount Sipylus. Conon, in Photius, cod. 186, narrat. 19, says the former was so called from the Magnetes who dwelled at the Peneus River and Mount Pelion, and who fought against the Trojans under the leadership and auspices of Prothous. But the author Antoninus Liberalis, *Metam.* cap. 25, asserts that this Magnesia of Thessaly took its name from Magnes, son of Argus. Claudius Ptolemy also, in *Geography* book V, expressly distinguishes Magnesia on the Maeander in Caria from the city of Magnesia in Lydia and Maeonia near Sipylus. Therefore, from these cities the Magnetes... D
are called citizens or peoples of this region, of whom Lucan says in book VI:
*And Magnetes, a tribe known for their oars.*
Women are called *Magnesiæ* or *Magnessæ*; for thus Horace says in *Carm.*, lib. iii, ode 7:
*Fleeing Magnessan Hippolyte, she remains abstinent.*
In the *Tesoro Britannico* of Nicolaus Franciscus Haym, published in London 1720, vol. II, p. 255, a very elegant coin is listed, minted under Gordian Pius, with this inscription: Μαγνήτων ἑβδόμη τῆς Ἀσίας, "The seventh of Asia of the Magnetes," because, to be sure, Magnesia was one of the thirteen principal cities of Asia, in which of old Diana Leucophryne was especially worshipped. To this also pertains a very rare coin minted by the Magnetes in memory of Cicero, when he was proconsul of Cilicia, which Lucas Holstenius mentions (*l. c.*, p. 195). Indeed, Cicero writes to his brother Quintus: "Mention of you by the Magnetes from Sipylus has been made honorably, when they said that you alone resisted the petition of L. Pansa." B Thereafter, that the inhabitants of the aforementioned cities were called Magnesians or Magnetians is clear from the epistles of St. Ignatius, both genuine and interpolated, which we read were written to them.
§ V. The proper name of a man, Magnes.
Indeed, that this was also the proper name for certain men, by which they distinguished themselves from others, is shown by the examples of Magnes, son of Argus, founder of Magnesia in Thessaly; Magnes, the Athenian comic poet from the city of Icaria; Magnes, the Smyrnean poet; Magnes, a presbyter of Jerusalem, and others, some of whom Suidas mentions in his *Lexicon* under the entry Μάγνης, and many of whom Fabricius lists throughout his *Bibliotheca Graeca*. To these it deserves to be added that in the Greek manuscript *Lexicon* of the Coislinian codex 177, from which many entries in Suidas were restored, and from which not a few others are thought to be capable of being supplemented by the celebrated Montfaucon (17), fol. 247, the following is read: Μάγνης, ὄνομα κύριον, *Magnes, a proper name* (18). From these, therefore, that which has been said receives light from the words of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was indignant that the name of Magnes had been deliberately omitted by the Iconoclasts when they brought forward his testimony against the holy images, so as to persuade them that this was a different author; whence, in the judgment of the orthodox bishops concerning the words of Macarius Magnes, which the Iconoclasts had impiously usurped against the holy images, he restored the true name of the author. Regarding which I shall append here the words of Nicephorus himself from the unpublished manuscript codex which we have used: "And the priest of which city, and of those..." C D
A in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431; of Leontius, bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander, in the second Ephesine synod, A.D. 449, and in the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, and in the Roman synod, A.D. 503; of Patricius, bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander, a city of the Asian region, in the sixth ecumenical, or third Constantinopolitan council, A.D. 681; of Stephanus, bishop of Magnesia of the Aemilii (where *Aemilii* is read for *Sipyli*), a province, in the sixth Trullan synod, A.D. 706; of Basilius, bishop of Magnesia in the seventh ecumenical, or second Nicene council, A.D. 787; and we discover the names of very many others of a later age preserved in the subscriptions of councils. A remarkable passage of Photius occurs here, most worthy of our consideration, who, in codex LIX, page 53, where he treats of the Synod of the Oak, which was illegally convened against St. John Chrysostom, mentions that in that same synod Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus, was accused by Macarius, bishop of the Magnetes. The words of Photius are these: "The proceedings were carried out in thirteen [sessions]; but twelve were against the saint; the thirteenth contains the matters concerning Heraclides, who was ordained by him for Ephesus, whose deposition they were not even able to complete, some others preventing it. And the accuser of Heraclides was the bishop of the city of the Magnetes, by name Macarius." Idem: "This (Synod) was finished in thirteen actions: twelve indeed against St. Chrysostom, the thirteenth against Heraclides, whom he had ordained bishop for the Ephesians; however, they were in no way able to render his deposition valid, as B some others prohibited it. The accuser of Heraclides was a certain Macarius by name, bishop of the Magnetes." I am of the opinion, however, that this Macarius mentioned by Photius was different from our Macarius Magnes, about whom the whole dispute is now being instituted. For our own, as Nicephorus witnesses along with the remaining orthodox prelates, who were very concerned in investigating and examining the writings of Macarius Magnes, followed Origen in certain doctrines, and among other things embraced this dogma: "The punishment threatened and prepared by God for wicked men in the time to come will one day have an end, which punishments God threatened and prepared for impious men." But that Photian Macarius, bishop of the Magnetes, is so far from having been an Origenist that he rather accused Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus, of Origenism; from which head of accusation the crime was intended against Chrysostom himself.
§ VII. That Macarius was a bishop.
Furthermore, that our Macarius Magnes was likewise a bishop, the title of *hierarch* (priest) given to him, among other things, indicates, which was common to bishops of old; since ecclesiastical writers are accustomed to call the leaders and rectors of the Christian flock *hiereis* and priests, but *hierarchs* and *archpriests* C (bishops) themselves, either because they had become accustomed to these terms before the adoption of the Christian religion, or because they thought the style of the Old Testament should be imitated in that matter, or because they found no more apt general term for the sake of brevity of speech. Of many, let this single testimony of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* lib. V, c. 24, suffice, in which he calls the evangelist John a hierarch and high priest, who wore the pontifical plate. For although I am not unaware that Stephanus le Moyne is wrongly critical of the faith of Polycrates in this regard, to serve his own hypothesis, that the terms *high priest* and *priest* do not occur among the approved authors of the first and second centuries; yet he admits (p. 30) that these terms, borrowed from the heathens, had already been introduced into the Christian Church at the beginning of the third century. Indeed, that bishops were honored with this title in the first centuries of Christianity can be established from Tertullian alone, who, in his book *De baptismo*, cap. 17, writes: "The right of giving (baptism) indeed belongs to the high priest, who is the bishop, then to the presbyters, etc." And no long time after, in the second Council of Carthage, this canon XXVI was made: "That the bishop of the first see be not called prince of the priests, or high priest, or anything of that kind, but only bishop of the first see." But that all bishops were called hierarchs only in a later age, and held functions common with the high priests, Isaac Habert has proved everywhere among others in his *Pontifical of the Greek Church*, page 341 sq., who also treated of the function of a hierarch or bishop, which is called *autourgia* D by St. Dionysius, in his special observation IV. Thus, therefore, do the orthodox prelates testify regarding our Macarius Magnes, a hierarch and bishop.
A The book of Macarius is inscribed with his name, but its degree is that of a hierarch; which not only the inscription shows, but likewise the very image of this Macarius, most elaborately fashioned in the folds of that most ancient book, displays more distinctly. For it reveals him clothed in the vestment of a priest, just as we often see the author decorously depicted in other books. Therefore, the book bears the name of Macarius, and also his dignity, namely, that of pontiff. And this is indicated not only by the title, but the very effigy of this Macarius, elegantly impressed on the outer covering of the most ancient book, proves it more evidently. For it shows him clad in priestly vestments, just as we often see the author elegantly depicted in other books. Regarding these words, Tillemont—with whom Boivin once shared the fragments of Magnes—comments in his *History of the Emperors*, specifically in *The Life of Constantine the Great* (25), in this manner: "For, since they assure us that the manuscript they had found was very ancient, this would be more considerable if its image had not been dressed as a bishop. For surely that does not belong to the IV century, nor likely to the v." But besides the fact that from the outer coverings of the book and the artfully depicted image and episcopal habit of Magnes one cannot judge the genuine antiquity of the work or the age of the author—since old paintings and writings are accustomed to refer to even Christ himself, the apostles, and most ancient clerics as wearing tunics and pallia—nothing prevents us from understanding by the term long and ankle-length garment that which agrees approximately with the B or pallium of the high priest of the Hebrews, so that in its likeness the episcopal tunic was gradually introduced into the Christian Church (26). That this *himation* (which ecclesiastical writers otherwise call *diploida*, that is, a double garment, which wraps around the whole body as if doubling it) was also worn by our Savior (27) is not doubted by those who have written on the subject of ancient vestments; among whom one should read primarily Joan. Braunius, *De vestitu sacerdotum Hebræorum*, lib. II, cap. 2, p. 379, and cap. 5, p. 445 sqq. What of the fact that even that bronze statue at Paneas, which Eusebius, a most illustrious and eyewitness, testifies as having stood at Caesarea Philippi until his own age, represented Christ the Lord C as dressed properly in a *diploïda*, that is, a double garment—namely a tunic and pallium—indented decorously, according to the common opinion of that age and the manner of dressing (28): to such an extent that this kind of garment was by no means foreign to the first centuries of the Christian Church. There is, therefore, no reason sufficient for why Tillemont should judge that long episcopal vestments, if we set aside other vestmental ornaments introduced gradually, must be referred to times no earlier than the IV or v centuries. The contrary could perhaps be gathered even from the aforementioned epistle of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, lib. V, c. 24, in which he records that St. John the apostle wore the *petalon*, or golden plate, as a sign of priestly habit (29), seeing that Henry Valesius, in his notes to this place, thinks that the first pontiffs of the Christians imitated this as an honorific badge following the example of the Jewish pontiffs. But since some (30) prefer these things to be understood metaphorically—not that John was truly a priest, or that he was accustomed to go about in priestly ornaments, but because he surpassed the Levitical priests in gifts, merits, virtue, and holiness, and in the sublimity of his knowledge so raised and lifted himself that he seemed to have penetrated the heavens themselves and the Holy of Holies—setting aside that testimony for a little while, it will be more forcefully permitted to appeal to the panegyrical oration of Eusebius of Caesarea on the building of churches, dictated to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, in A.D. 313; in which he addresses Paulinus and the other bishops present from the very beginning in this manner: "Ω φίλοι Θεοῦ καὶ ἱερεῖς, οἱ τὸν ἅγιον ποδήρη, καὶ τὸν οὐράνιον τῆς δόξης στέφανον, τό τε χρίσμα τὸ ἔνθεον, καὶ τὴν ἱερατικὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος στολὴν περιβεβλημένοι, κ. τ. λ." "Friends and priests of God, who are clothed in the sacred ankle-length tunic, and are decorated with the heavenly crown of glory, and are anointed with divine unction, and are invested with the priestly vestment of the holy Spirit, etc." (31) If one were to accept these words again, following the opinion of Moiny, only tropologically and by allusion to the pontifical habit of the Old Testament, and not at the same time look to the current episcopal vestiture of that time, it would be as D to be feared that the entire historical fact concerning the temple built in the city of Tyre might be converted in a similar manner into a certain metaphorical fact (32).
Regarding Heraclas, presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, who later became bishop of the same place, Origen already at that time, in Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, lib. vi, c. 19, p. 221), testifies that, having previously used ordinary clothing, he laid it aside and assumed the philosophical habit (that is, the pallium with the tunic), and that he later retained that pallium (33). When Christian affairs were at peace, a distinctive dress for priests became more prevalent. Theodoret (34) relates that a priestly stole woven with gold was donated by Constantine the Great to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, so that clad in it he might perform the ministry of the divine baptism. From this passage, it appears how ancient is the custom of sacred vestments in the Church, as Henry Valesius judges in his annotations to this place. Socrates records in *Hist. eccl.*, lib. ii, cap. 43, that Eustathius, Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, was deposed by his father Eulalius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, because he was wearing a garment unbefitting the priesthood, that is, a garment not at all suited to a priest. Sozomenus (35) clarifies the matter further, mentioning that Eustathius, after holding the Council of Gangra in which he was condemned, changed his garment and proceeded in a manner conformable to the rest of the priests. From this it is clearly evident that the bishops of that time, having cast off the philosophical pallium, had already assumed a distinctive habit. To this also pertains the tunic which the presbyter Nepotianus used in the ministry of Christ, which Jerome writes in his letter on his death to Heliodorus had been left to him. I pass over other matters, which Cardinal Bona meticulously collected from ecclesiastical antiquity regarding pontifical vestments and the individual sacred garments of bishops, both common and peculiar, in *Rerum liturgicarum*, lib. i, cap. 24, and Hugo Menard in his notes to Pope Gregory’s *Librum sacramentorum*, p. 361 seqq., where he at the same time exhibits an icon of St. Remigius, Bishop, clothed in sacred vestments (36).
§ VIII. *Regarding the age of Macarius Magnes. It is proven that he lived in the third century.*
Regarding the age of our author, and the time when his books of *Apocritica* were written, various judgments are brought forward by the learned. Franc. Turrianus in his *Dogmatico de justificatione* (which he brought to the press at Rome under Antonio Blado in the year 1551 (37)) does not fear to call this Magnes a most weighty and most ancient author, whom he believes to have lived before one thousand four hundred years (that is, A.C. 150). Therefore, Sandius also, in his tract *De veteribus scriptoribus eccles.*, p. m. 19, receives him with this censure: "Although the author, according to Turrianus, is an ecclesiastical writer close to the times of the apostles, to me he is nevertheless a certain heretic." Therefore, the mind of Turrianus was not carefully expressed by William Cave in *Historia litteraria script. eccl.*, p. m. 114, writing: "Magnes, a very obscure writer, lived (if Turrianus and Scribonius correctly place his age) around the year 350." For Turrianus had made him two hundred years older, referring his age not to A.C. 550, but to the year 150. Antonio Possevinus in *Apparatu sacro* (38), tom. II, p. m. 50, thinks that Magnes flourished around the year 308, while he calls the same a very ancient author who wrote books of evangelical apology in Greek against Theosthenes, a calumniator of the Gospel, before one thousand three hundred years. Thomas Bozius Eugubinus, a presbyter of the Congregation of the Oratory, set him as a writer of the fifth century when, in his work *De signis Ecclesiae Dei*, lib. xiv, p. 51 (39), he writes: "Hear now Magnes, who lived one thousand two hundred years ago, and his writings are in the Venetian Library."
Much more certain evidences than we have had hitherto are provided to us by the *Libri antirrhetici* of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in which is contained a disputation that is entirely occupied with the testimony of Macarius Magnes, which had been produced by the Iconoclasts against the veneration of images. Now, it is certain that this disputation was edited at the beginning of the ninth century by the orthodox bishops, over whom presided the Patriarch Nicephorus. In the beginning of which, a certain age is assigned to our author, while Macarius Magnes is said to have flourished there "more than three hundred years from the first preaching of the Gospel, that is, three hundred years after the death of Christ." Behold the very words of the manuscript codex: "We find the man to have flourished more than three hundred years after that from which the apostolic and divine preaching shone forth. Of what city he was a priest, and whom he governed as citizens, we do not yet say, until the name of Magnes shall be more accurately understood by us being examined, etc. … three hundred years from when the light of the first apostolic and divine proclamation shone forth. Of what city, however, he was the pontiff, and whom he ruled as citizens, that we do not yet define, until we are more certain regarding the name of MAGNETIS, etc." B It is evident from this how much they are mistaken who slander our Magnes as some new and recent Greekling, when, with the writers of the ninth century, C once all circumstances have been well explored, it will already be sufficiently manifest that this author bears the appearance of the third century or the beginning of the fourth century. Nor is there cause for those things which are established concerning the antiquity of this author in the aforementioned disputation to be suspect to his adversaries. For it was advantageous for the defenders of images to carp at and undermine the faith, to diminish the antiquity no less than the authority, of that writer D who appeared to be against their own opinions.
A nus, the Emperor, is brought forward in our Macarian fragments as an example of a Greek philosopher disputing about the divine monarchy, in order that he might deduce a principle of divine monarchy similar to the human mode of governing. This provides room for the conjecture that the philosopher with whom Macarius contends was not removed by a very long interval from the age of Hadrian. And I see Tillemont, that pre-eminent investigator of ecclesiastical antiquity, supporting this opinion; he, in the place cited, thus approves and bolsters the judgment of the orthodox prelates regarding the age of our Macarius: "They teach us that the design of this work was to combat the pagans, particularly an Aristotelian philosopher who recognized one sovereign God, but as the head of several other gods, and who employed all the splendor of his eloquence and all the subtlety of his dialectic against the simplicity of the Christian religion. This is favorable for making this author even older than they say, and for placing him in the time of the persecutions, since neither the philosophers nor the apologists have treated this subject much at all since Constantine struck down paganism and made the Church dominant. This philosopher, wishing to provide an example of a monarch, takes the one of Hadrian. And that leads one naturally to believe that he was not very removed from the time of that prince."
§ X. This conjecture concerning the age of Macarius Magnes is confirmed by the narrative regarding the statue in Paneas.
C There is added, for the purpose of establishing the antiquity of our author, new strength from the tenth fragment of his work, in which he refers to the woman of Edessa, or Paneas, as described by Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, lib. VII, cap. 18), who was freed from a flow of blood and cured by the saving touch of a hem of the Savior’s garment, and he reports that an image of that event cast in bronze, or a statue erected in perpetual memory of the miracle, was still intact in his own time, "as if it had happened recently, not long ago," so that the matter might appear to have occurred not long since, but today. But indeed, that this statue had already been removed by the tyrant Maximin, who ruled shortly before Constantine the Great, is taught by Asterius, Bishop of Amasea, who shows himself to be a contemporary of Julian in his oration against avarice (43), where he notes very many survivors who had been led by him to deny the faith. Photius exhibits the words of Asterius from his homily on Jairus and the woman with the flow of blood in his *Bibliotheca*, cod. CCLXXI, p. 1507, and Francis Combefis published them in the *Auctarium novum Bibliothecae Patrum*, tom. I, from which p. 276 seq.
the following most pertinently belong: "And nothing prevented the statue from being preserved even until now, and demonstrating both things, both the miracle of God and the gratitude of her who had been benefited; had not that Maximinus, who, shortly 44 before Constantine, had presided over the Roman empire 45, a man an idolater and wicked, and jealous of Christ in the statue, taken away the bronze of the little town only, not the memory of the events." Nor did anything prevent it from being safe up to this time, and showing both things, namely the miracle of God and the gratitude of the woman who had been benefited by the favor; had not that Maximinus, who shortly before Constantine wielded the scepter of the Roman empire, a man an idolater and impious, and begrudging Christ in the image, carried off the bronze statue itself alone from the town, not the memory of the deeds. In another place the same Asterius asserts B that the impiety of Maximinus, who had already begun to rage against this Paneaden monument at that time, was likewise imitated in his own age by Julian: "Having envied whom, and having imitated his impiety, the Julian of our own day did similar things regarding the likenesses of Christ." Whence also Gregory Nazianzen justly in Orat. 1 against the Emperor Julian, regarding the statues and images of them cast down, compares Julian with Maximinus. Although therefore Philostorgius 46, Sozomen 47 and other writers wish to attribute the destruction of this statue rather to Julian the Apostate, or even to the Paneadenses themselves: yet it follows spontaneously from the cited testimony of Asterius that our Macarius lived before the age of Constantine the Great, and, according to the faith of other writers, lived before the times of Julian, and wrote his books *Apocriticos*. The nature of our undertaking does not permit us to dwell longer on this discussion concerning the true origin of the Paneaden monument, and to examine individually the arguments by which Theodorus Hasæus, a man, while he lived, 48 sought to demonstrate with the greatest zeal that it was not erected in memory of the miracle performed by Christ for the woman with the flow of blood, but was consecrated to the Emperor Hadrian by the city of Paneas itself. But that it is certain, both from the cited testimonies of Macarius, Eusebius, Asterius, Photius and others, and from the act itself of Julian or the Paneadenses, that in those sufficiently ancient times it was held at least by the common opinion of men to be an image of Christ 49. To say nothing of the fact that it seems hardly credible that the Emperor Julian would have ordered a statue of such a kind, which was honored so often in the splendid eulogy of the Restorer, an honor to a prince so pious, just, and benevolent, Aelius Hadrian, to be adorned, and once placed, to be pulled down by most unworthy means, dragged through the city and broken, and his own image to be put in its place; which, however, having fallen from heaven, was immediately destroyed by fire, but the remains of the statue set up for Christ were collected by the Christians of his age in their church and preserved for some time, as Philostorgius, Sozomen, Glycas, Theophanes, Nicephorus, and many others report.
§ XI. The objections of Tillemont are refuted, 1° from the mention of Christian temples.
Nevertheless, one must not overlook the doubts which likewise occur in the writings of our Magnes, and which will seem to not a little infringe upon his antiquity hitherto proven to some; such as even the most celebrated Tillemont himself seemed to himself to have observed, when from the mention made of Christian temples he concludes thus: "Nevertheless, since he remarks that the Christians were building large churches then, he cannot have written at the earliest before the middle of the third century." This objection rests upon these words, which are found in the arguments of the Greek philosopher in favor of idolatry: "But even the Christians, imitating the construction of temples, build very large houses, into which they gather and pray, although no one prevents them from doing this in their homes, the Lord clearly hearing from everywhere." I.e.: "But even the Christians, imitating the custom of building temples, construct very large houses, into which they gather and pray, although no one hinders them from doing so at home, since God is of course heard everywhere." But indeed, from the words of the cited fragment it appears sufficiently clearly that this is the speech of an ethnic philosopher, who calls the temples of his own nations *naous*, but the sacred houses of the Christians only *oikous*, and established that in that comparison a great difference still existed, to be removed gradually by some imitation. For the Christians of that age certainly had their own sacred houses, basilicas, and temples, but not consecrated in the ethnic manner, nor raised with lofty summits: just as the public place of this kind, with the permission of Alexander Severus, was occupied by the Christians, and destined for sacred use, as Lampridius testifies in his *Life*; and the Nicomedian temple in Bithynia, which at the beginning of the persecution stirred up by Diocletian was razed to the ground, is recorded by Lactantius in *De mortibus persecutorum*, cap. 12 50. Therefore, that argument is far too light which is taken from the denomination of the sacred houses constructed by Christians to diminish the antiquity of our writer: for by *oikous* he does not mean temples constructed splendidly after the fashion of the gentiles, but
larger houses in which gatherings for the sake of prayer were instituted; it is evident that these had been erected by Christians as early as the third century. Eusebius makes mention of them everywhere, calling them *oikous* of prayer, sacred houses, and *ekklesias* (churches); in other places, *oikous* in which they gathered together, their houses in which meetings were held; and finally *oikous ekklesion*, houses of the churches (51). Moreover, the same Eusebius in *Ecclesiastical History*, Book VII, chap. 30 (52), clearly relates that the Emperor Aurelian, having been petitioned by the Christians, ordered that the heretic Paul of Samosata be expelled from the house of the church, *tes ekklesias oikou*, and that this house be turned over to those to whom the Italian prelates of the Christian religion and the Roman bishop should write. It cannot be denied, however, that the *tes ekklesias oikon*, the place in which the ancient Christians gathered for the sake of divine worship, was scarcely ever designated by the name of a temple before the times of Constantine the Great; as Dav. Blondel rightly observes in *De episcopis et presbyteris*, sect. III, page 254 et seq.
§ XII. 2. Concerning the description of royal insignia. Tillemont raises another difficulty from the sermons of Macarius Magnes on Genesis, in which he introduces the first man created in the image of God as conspicuous for a kind of royal dignity, and in the same place the author attributes the adornment of the purple, the diadem, and the scepter to kings: which, however, the monuments of ancient writers testify to have scarcely been in use among the Roman emperors before the age of the fourth century. Let us hear Tillemont’s own words: "He represents the first man as a king, although his royalty was not marked by the purple, by the diadem, nor by the scepter. These were, therefore, the marks of royalty in his time. And since we do not see that the Roman emperors commonly used the diadem until after Diocletian, or shortly before him, it can be a proof that this author did not write before that time. But I do not see that either then or for a long time afterward there is mention of a scepter: and Macarius may have intended to indicate what was done either among the Romans or among other peoples." It is clear from these words that Tillemont himself has already most correctly answered this doubt, since he considers that Macarius was regarding the custom not only of the Romans but also of other peoples, among whom the purple, the diadem, and the scepter were numbered among the primary insignia of royal dignity. In like manner, we read that Tertullian, a writer of the second century, had already mentioned the diadem and the royal scepter in his book *De pallio*, chap. 5: "Yet you say, so from the toga to the diadem and the scepter? What then if also from the diadem and the scepter? Did Anacharsis change otherwise, when he preferred philosophy to the kingdom of Scythia?" What of the fact that when the Roman empire was reduced to a monarchy, the princes themselves, who were also called emperors (since the name 'king' was ill-omened and hateful at Rome), nevertheless kept the purple as an imperial insignia? As Capitolinus is the authority in *Maximus and Gordian*, and also Lampridius in the *History of Alexander Severus*, chap. 51. Likewise, Herodian, speaking of the inauguration of Gordian into the empire (Book VI, chap. 5 [53]), writes that the youths, having made a rush into the house, found Gordian resting upon a bed, and the surrounding crowd clothed the old man in purple and saluted him with Augustan honors (54). But it is beyond all doubt that the diadem—which Suidas interprets as *to basilikon endyma* (the royal garment) and Hesychius as *stemma basileos* (the crown of the king)—has been used among the imperial and royal ornaments of very many nations since the most ancient times. For Herodian (*History*, Book VI, chap. 2, p. 257) relates that Artabanus, king of the Parthians, used a double diadem; just as we read in the sacred pages among the royal adornments of Mordecai the *diadema byssinon porphyroun* (purple byssus diadem) in Esther VIII, 15. Indeed, in the monuments of the Romans, and especially in Ammianus Marcellinus, it is noted not without serious cause that it was a source of envy for Pompey B that he walked around with a bandage wrapped around his leg on account of an ulcer, as if it were a presage of a desire for new things (55). Suetonius is witness in his *Life*, chap. 79, that Julius Caesar also arrogantly affected this insignia of royalty, and when someone from the crowd had placed a laurel crown bound with a white fillet onto his statue, he ordered the tribunes of the people to remove the fillet from the crown and to lead the man into chains. And Caligula was not far from having used a diadem, and would have converted the appearance of the principate into the form of a kingdom, had not the reason of prudent men in the Roman court suggested to the emperor, who was affecting these royal insignia, that he had exceeded the limit of both princes and kings (56). Although, therefore, because the Romans abhorred the name of king, and consequently the proper insignia of kings, their emperors did without the diadem, or very rarely used it: nevertheless, we see that that sort of diadem, which refers to a laurel crown bound by a white fillet, is sometimes used on the ancient coins of the Augusti of the beginning of the empire (57). Whence also, "Casting a royal purple upon him, they proclaim him emperor." D
A Horace, in the very age of Augustus, describes that royal diadem in this manner (Carm. lib. 11, od. 2):
*The kingdom and the safe diadem* *Bestowing on one, and his own laurel.*
In the declining age of the empire, Aurelius Victor in his Life (cap. 35) records that Aurelian was the first to be adorned with this diadem in a public and solemn manner. Although Jornandes (58) attributes this public custom first to Diocletian. Finally, while Tillemont thinks that the royal use of the scepter was much later than the age of Diocletian among the Romans, that most learned man, otherwise well-versed in the monuments of ancient history, seems herein to be not a little mistaken. Concerning the kings of the Romans, it is established from the testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (59) that Tarquin, having the royal insignia transmitted to him by the Etruscans—namely, a golden crown and an ivory scepter having an eagle on its summit—was accustomed to wear them, as were his successors. Thus also the same writer records for memory concerning the Roman people, that in order to confirm the power of foreign kings, it was their custom to send them scepters and diadems. For power, fortune, and the efficacy of royal auspices and counsel, derived from God, ought to be denoted by the symbol of the scepter; B of which, as of a royal ornament, writers famous in the golden age of Augustus make no less mention. For thus among the insignia of Priam, king of the Trojans, with which he was equipped when giving laws to the called peoples, Virgil (60) enumerates the scepter as well:
*This was the burden of Priam, when he gave laws* *To the called peoples, the scepter, and sacred tiaras,* *And the labor of the Iliads, and garments...*
And what do the coins of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Alexander Severus, the Augusti, confirm more, in which Justice is represented in a sitting posture, holding a rod in her left hand, but bearing a patera in her right? Surely the scepter designates the empire of the world and the administration of the republic; for which cause she also bears the rod: but the patera signifies Divinity, as interpreted by Antonio Agostino in Dialogue 2 of *Roman Antiquities*, in the coins of the ancients, p. 19. I shall add yet one example of Gordian, bearing the name and dress of an emperor, in whose procession and royal retinue Herodian (61) commemorates rods repeatedly crowned with laurel; for by this insignia princes are distinguished from private citizens. From all C of which it is sufficiently clearly concluded that the royal description by Macarius Magnes brought forward above is by no means foreign to the customs and manners of his century; since it suffices for us that in that age kings were conspicuous with the purple, the diadem, and the scepter as royal ornaments.
§ XIII. 3rd: From the silence of Eusebius and Jerome.
It perhaps has a great appearance, that which is still objected, that neither Eusebius, the most diligent investigator of the writers of his own age, nor Jerome in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers*, nor the rest of the writers of this sort, ever made any mention of Macarius Magnes, but that his silence is found deep everywhere. But besides the fact that not all the monuments of the ancient Church reached the hands of Eusebius and Jerome, D that many other writers also of ancient times and of least doubtful faith—for example, Hymenaeus and Athenagoras—were passed over in silence by the same will be evident to anyone reading more accurately. Wherefore Bellarmine also, in *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, observes concerning Athenagoras: "It is wonderful, however, why Eusebius, the most diligent investigator of writers, did not mention this author." But that St. Jerome omitted this writer is not so wonderful, since it is sufficiently well known that St. Jerome's catalogue was taken from the history of Eusebius, as far as those writers are concerned who preceded Eusebius. Therefore the same reason will also hold in this place, and it is no wonder if neither was any mention of Macarius Magnes made by Eusebius and Jerome; since even Eusebius himself (62) confesses that he did not know all things that were observed in his own day by many as monuments of laudable diligence from the writings of ancient ecclesiastics; and that the works of many also came to him, whose very names he could not even recount, and whose authors, although they were orthodox and ecclesiastical, were nevertheless obscure and unknown to Eusebius, because the books themselves did not bear the names of the authors. Moreover, that even in the age of Nicephorus of Constantinople this author and his doctrine and writings were not yet sufficiently known is perceived from the indignation of the orthodox bishops against the one who had excerpted the mutilated testimonies of Magnes: "We do not know [they say] what we should do concerning the excerpts that have just been produced; for we are greatly astonished and struck with amazement, whoever he may be who collected these, as he did not send the books themselves. Whether he begrudged us, who are desirous and eager for this, the knowledge and teaching of the author? Or whether he wished to conceal the purpose and the theme, as though it were direct and immediately apparent to those who encountered it from the first reading, and from there to escape the refutation of the things that have been fabricated." That is: As far as the produced testimonies are concerned, it was not sufficiently established for us what we should do. For we wonder greatly and are astonished, whoever that person is who excerpted them, why he did not send the books themselves. Or is it because he begrudged us, who desire and long for the science and doctrine of that praised writer? Or is it because [he wished to hide] the intention...
of the author and the substance of the work, which would have been evident and manifest to readers from the very outset, and thus wanted to avoid the proof and conviction of his own crimes? etc. But if, finally, we should wish to inquire a little more carefully into the origin of those errors which are imputed to our Macarius Magnes, and about which there will be an opportunity to discourse subsequently—perhaps various indications might be gathered of an even greater antiquity than the reason of a century nearing its end allows, which would add no little strength to the preceding arguments. Necessity, however, requires that we conclude this disquisition on the age of our author with the judgment of the most fair and sufficiently proven Cl. Joannes Boivinus, which, surviving after the man’s death from his own autograph, we think it not unpleasant to append in this place: truly, if it be established that Magnes flourished before the times of Origen, as some have supposed, it is necessary that he flourished in that very age in which there was no lack of great authors for those errors. But meanwhile, until certain arguments for such great antiquity are supplied to us, it will be safer, with Nicephorus the Patriarch and other adversaries of the Iconoclasts, to set Macarius Magnes a whole century younger, so that he may be considered more recent than Origen and Tertullian indeed, but equal to Athanasius and the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea.
§ XIV. The Writings of Macarius Magnes.
We now proceed to a review of the writings of Macarius Magnes, of which there has hitherto existed hardly any memory among the learned, let alone any certain information; for we have already indicated above that they had hitherto lain hidden through the injury of time among the lost monuments of the most ancient authors. And although his complete works have not yet reached our hands today, we greatly rejoice that many precious fragments and other excerpts from the same writer, most useful for ecclesiastical teaching, have finally been happily discovered in our age in the most excellent libraries, and have emerged from the darkness of so many centuries. We read that the work itself of this very ancient author, titled *Evangelical Apology to Theosthenes against the Gentile Calumniators of the Gospel*, is noted by Zacharias of Crete, Turrianus, Possevinus, and others more recent; and it is established especially from Turrianus that there were five books of *Apocriticus*, or *Responses*, written by the hierarch Magnes. This is also confirmed by the testimony of a much older writer in a manuscript of the Royal Library of Paris of excellent quality and antiquity, number 3502, fol. 205, in which these few words regarding the books written by Macarius Magnes are found written in red in the margin of the codex, which, as to the final words, we found almost completely obliterated by the defect of age: "Of Macarius Magnes, and another composition [found] in five books divided [among the Greeks... in the arguments...]"
In the *Antirrhetics* of Nicephorus of Constantinople, from which we have chiefly taken the fragments of our author, the following inscription is held: "Of the holy Macarius, from the fourth book of the *Apocriticus*, (Sancti Macarii ex quarto libro Apocriticorum)." In other manuscripts, the *Apocriticus* of Macarius is cited; just as this apologetic work also enjoys the following title in Codex Regius 1986, fol. 237, as well as in Codex 2935: "Of Macarius Magnes, from his *Apocriticus* to the Greeks," that is, *Of Macarius Magnes, from his Responses to the Greeks.* Concerning which title it is pleasant to hear Nicephorus himself speaking thus: "But the term *Apocriticus* in the inscription, because it is applied to various meanings, sufficiently perplexed the understanding of those who heard it; yet it provided this sense to the reader, that it is introduced as if upon certain accounts previously proposed or brought forward for investigation, declaring the solution or examination of them, etc." The term *Apocriticus*, however, which occurs in the title, because it is derived for various meanings, did not a little trouble the minds of the audience: yet it gave the reader this suspicion, that there had been certain questions previously contested, or proposed for discussion, to which that term pertained, and of which it indicated either the solution or the examination, etc.
§ XV. Notice of the Manuscripts of the Macarian Work.
The entire apologetic work of Magnes, consisting of five books, existed long ago among the manuscripts of the Venetian Library, which codex Turrianus professes to have used elsewhere, while he published various excerpts thence, printed partly in Greek, partly in Latin only. I shall cite only one place of his from the treatise for the apostolic canons against the Magdeburg Centuriators, lib. iv, p. m. 317: "It will not be tedious to repeat here," he says, "what I translated into Latin in our *Dogmatico* concerning justification from the fifth book of Magnes against Theosthenes, when I was discussing the faith of Abraham. If anyone wishes to compare the Greek, let him seek it there. This author wrote five apologetic books for the Gospel fourteen hundred years ago, which are preserved to this very day in the Venetian library." If anyone rejects this testimony as slight and suspect, let them at least believe the ancient catalogs of the Venetian library, from which it is perceived that those books were indeed kept in the library of St. Mark, and noted with the number A. 14, and that on papyrus and without boards, that is, without a binding. The learned Boivinus testifies that he saw similar catalogs confirming this very thing, one in the Royal Library of Paris, another in the Colbertine; and therefore he does not doubt that those books, if they are not found today, have either perished by theft, as many others have, or have been consumed by neglect.
A of those which were not used sincerely against the sacred images.
§ XVI. The Scope of the Writings of Magnes
The scope of the entire work of our Macarius, concerning which I remember some things were already noted above in § 9, I consider best judged by that description which Patriarch Nicephorus, with the remaining prelates, who had the task of perusing this writing of Magnes with the greatest care and, by no means perfunctorily, examining it, set forth in the following manner in his Antirrhetici: *He addresses [it] to a certain Theosthenes, one of his very close well-wishers and friends, and as if a corrector and judge of his words; but his purpose in the treatise is directed against the Greeks, and he directs his refutations especially against those who are from the school of Aristotle, [a man] who held the opinion of those who profess monarchy, yet possessed a haughty mind puffed up with secular wisdom, and who dreadfully raised his brow against the sacred dogmas, and with the sophistries and persuasions of his own art, mocked the simplicity of the mystery which is among us.* That is to say: Macarius Magnes dedicates his writing to a certain Theosthenes, most beloved and dearest, and as it were the corrector and judge of his books. But the scope of the work undertaken is directed against the Greeks, and among all, he strives to refute one especially who was imbued with Aristotelian discipline, a supporter of that opinion which asserts monarchy B, yet swollen with profane doctrine, and raising a terrible eyebrow against sacred dogmas, and mocking the simplicity of our faith with the fallacious little conclusions and probable arguments of his own art. From this, therefore, it is first of all clear that Theosthenes was not an adversary of Macarius Magnes with whom he contended in his disputation, but a dearest friend, to whom, as an excellent judge, he inscribed and dedicated his Apology for Christian doctrine against the Gentiles who slandered the Gospels. Therefore, Turrianus is mistaken, both in his preface to the *Apostolic Constitutions* and in his book against the epistles of the popes, cap. 3, p. m. 120 b, who wrongly joins that Theosthenes, as a Peripatetic philosopher, to Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, enemies of the Christian name: and at the same time, Blondel, Albertin, Cave, Sandius, and Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel D were led into the same error by Turrianus, asserting that the Christian Magnes wrote against a Gentile Theosthenes, who noted a discrepancy between the evangelists and raised other objections against the Christians. But Zacharias the Cretan correctly cites the *Apology of the Gospel towards Theosthenes* of Magnes, whom Antonius followed.
A Possevinus, in his *Apparatus sacri*, tom. II, p. m. 50, writing about Magnes, says: "He wrote books of Evangelical Apology in Greek addressed to Theosthenes against the gentile calumniators of the Gospel." Furthermore, the scope of the work is directed toward refuting the Greeks, and specifically toward confuting a certain celebrated philosopher of his age, whom Nicephorus names for that reason as being steeped in Aristotelian discipline, because he had derived his insane study of dialectic from Aristotle, and had harried the simplicity of the Christian faith with many logical subtleties. That this philosopher was none other than Porphyry the Syrian, or Tyrian, a most bitter enemy of the Christians, is suggested—beyond the exact agreement in age and doctrine—by many judgments occurring in the fragments of the writings of Macarius Magnes, which certainly ought not to be cast aside. For if we attend to the account of his age, it has already been demonstrated above that our Magnes lived around the middle or at least the end of the third century of the Christian era. And regarding Porphyry, it is likewise established that, being 30 years old in the year of Christ 263, he was at Rome a pupil of the Platonic philosopher Plotinus, and that he died there after reaching the age of seventy in the year of Christ 303 (69). Although, therefore, Porphyry flourished in the year after the death of Hadrian 120, he nevertheless brings forward that emperor most especially in his disputation *On Divine Monarchy* as an example of a ruling monarch, since at that time the memory of Hadrian was still vigorous, especially among the philosophers, whom he was the first to introduce into the court, and whom he held in the greatest intimacy. Among the characteristics of that philosopher with whom our Magnes is concerned, Nicephorus observes that he had been imbued with Aristotelian philosophy; which, however, does not seem to fit Porphyry, the Platonic philosopher, at all. But Porphyry excelled with such a devotion to truth that he did not rashly cling to any one school as if to a cliff, nor did he swear by the words of any master. Meanwhile, he had chosen two leaders above all others whose footsteps he would follow: Plato and Aristotle, whom he had undertaken in a lengthy work to prove were in agreement on the principal chapters of doctrine (70-71). For thus reports Suidas: that Porphyry defended that there was one school of Plato and Aristotle; whence, since he was equally skilled in both philosophies, he everywhere mixed Aristotelian tenets with Platonic ones. This is also testified to by Proclus, bk. 1 *in Timaeum*, p. 18, where he says that Porphyry «Περιπατητικὰς ἀποδόσεις παρεσφέροντα λύειν τὰς Πλατωνικὰς ἀπορίας». And this very free method of philosophizing, which had been introduced a little earlier by Ammonius of Alexandria, Porphyry had most approved, and thus he preferred to be referred to the class of Eclectics, even if C they might favor that Plato before others, and affect the reputation of being either Platonists or Pythagoreans (72). Furthermore, when Nicephorus designates that philosopher, against whom Macarius wrote, with this character, that he was "swollen with profane doctrine and lifting a terrible brow against sacred dogmas," it is sufficiently apparent from the writings of his that survive that Porphyry possessed not only a sublime and powerful mind, but one that was vehement and mixed with a certain fury. For which reason he is also said by Eusebius (73) «τοιαῦτα κατακομήσας», that is, because he composed his words for the sake of pride and ostentation; and he is heard by St. Cyril (74) as «ὁ θρασὺς καθ' ἡμῶν Πορφύριος». I would not say there was any other cause (as Holstenius writes very aptly, l. c. p. 234) for that rabid hatred, with which he raged against the Christian religion above others, than that his mind, swelling with the ferment of black bile and inflated with an excessive abundance of erudition, could not contain itself. Our opinion is confirmed by a comparison of the doctrine that Porphyry handed down with the tenets of the philosopher of Macarius. For his doctrine concerning divine monarchy, which Macarius Magnes impugns, consists in this: that God cannot properly be called monarch unless he rules over gods; for that befits divine majesty and a celestial and supreme dignity: but those who are called angels by the Christians, who by their nature can neither suffer, nor die, nor be corrupted, are called gods by the gentiles because they are closer to the Divinity. And these things exactly agree with the sentiment of Porphyry, who, along with other philosophers, venerated polytheism [πολυθείαν] of this kind, by which, to use the words of Maximus of Tyre (75), he maintained that God is one, King of all and Father, but that many other gods were added as assistants, who might be sons of that supreme one, and as it were colleagues in the empire. Let the words of Porphyry be read from the book *On Abstinence*, p. m. 30, of the Florentine Greek edition, and Eusebius *On Evangelical Preparation*, bk. IV, cap. 19, p. m. 166; with which it is helpful to compare what Huetius brought forward on this matter from the remaining writings of Porphyry in his *Alnetan Questions*, p. m. 108 seqq. These things will have to be treated more extensively in a special work, when we examine the *Theological Matters* [Θεολογούμενα] of Magnes. A similar consensus of the words of Porphyry in *On the Images of the Gods* (76), such as Eusebius (77) brought forward from him, it will be possible to observe with those things which are found in the argumentation of the Greek philosopher in favor of idolatry in the disputation of our Macarius. Nor less do those things which Macarius Magnes discusses in the book *Apocriticus* [Ἀποκριτικός] concerning sacrifices and demons perfectly conspire with the oracle of Apollo, which Eusebius related from Porphyry's book *On the Philosophy of Oracles* [λογίων φιλοσοφίας] (78). Nothing is more clear than that which concerns the tenets of Porphyry.
A He who almost alone among the philosophers of the Gentiles undertook to investigate the origins of sacrifices, and he himself eventually strangled the vulgar error of the Gentiles, while he proclaimed sacrifices and slaughters to be alien to true piety, and that the demons were crude and material, who seek after the putrid vapor and smell of sacrificial victims; as Theodoret testifies in *Therapeutica*, sermon 7. Furthermore, it is added that the philosopher with whom Macarius contends was well versed in the Christian religion and in the Holy Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments. Frequently we see him challenging the testimonies of Holy Scripture, and among others appearing specifically at Matt. xxii, 29, 30; Exod. xxxi, 18; Gen. xviii, 16 sqq.; Exod. xxii, 28; by which he attempted to draw a veil, as it were, over the idolatry of the Gentiles. But who does not know that Porphyry was among the philosophers of his time most experienced in the sacred writings? That he was not only familiar with Moses but had scrutinized the entire Holy Scripture by constant reading, and had vehemently exercised his talent in subverting the divine oracles, is testified in more than one place by Eusebius (79), Theodoret (80), and Jerome (81). Nor is it so surprising that he should have accused the sacred history of the Gospels of falsehood, inconsistency, and contradiction, and slandered it as having proceeded not from God, but from men: a fact which those few fragments from his books written against the Christians confirm, which Lucas Holstenius collected, l. c. ch. 11, p. 274 sqq. Whence I have no doubt that those things also which Magnes wrote in books ii and v of the *Apocriticus* against the Gentile, objecting to the discrepancy of the Evangelists and other things falsely in the Gospel, were opposed to this same Porphyry.
§ XVII. Analysis of the unedited fragments. Since the Reverend Father Anselmus Bandurius B has only touched with a light brush upon the general chapters of this unedited treatise (82), it will not be amiss if we subjoin a succinct analysis of this dispute, which comprises the fragments of our Magnes, so that we may look a little more closely at the author's own *theologoumena*, and from which books of the *Apocriticus* they were taken. In the prologue, it is warned that one should not rashly believe in every doctrine, but only that which is congruent with the Holy Scriptures. Where, at the same time, it is discussed concerning the bad faith of the Iconomachs, who had sent to Nicephorus truncated and mutilated testimonies, with the authors barely indicated. Ch. 1 deals specifically with Macarius' *Apocriticus*, and the testimonies taken from it. Where, first, it is inquired into concerning the very ancient manuscript codex in which the *Apocriticus* of Macarius was contained, then concerning the author himself, whose he was, and at what time he lived, as well as the scope of his work directed against the Greeks. Ch. 2 proposes the first fragment from the *Apocriticus* of Macarius, which contains the words of the Greek philosopher and idolater to Macarius concerning divine monarchy, inasmuch as he [the philosopher] favored the polyarchy of the Gentile gods, while attempting to reconcile the monarchy of the supreme Divinity with this reason, that he is not a monarch who is alone, but who commands alone; nor should God properly be called a monarch, unless he commanded the gods who had the same nature with him. Ch. 3 comprises fragment ii, or the response of Macarius to those things which the Greek philosopher had disputed concerning divine monarchy: namely, that the truth of the thing depends not on the name, but the truth of the name on the thing, and that the apostle Paul, I Cor. viii, separates true divinity from homonymy, while he asserts that the true God in essence is properly the Lord, but others are called gods improperly and by name only. Ch. 4 exhibits fragment iii, in which is presented the Greek philosopher's argumentation for idolatry, taken from the testimonies of Holy Scripture, and specifically from the place in Matthew ch. xxii, 29, 30, and Exod. xxxi, 18, from which he concluded that angels or gods have a divine nature, while God has fingers. Ch. 5 subjoins fragment iv, in which Macarius vindicates the objected places of Scripture, and explains the nature of the incorruptibility and immortality of the angels, because he also sets forth their similarity to the supreme Divinity. And that the fraud of the Iconomachs was particularly invested in perverting this testimony of Macarius Magnes, Nicephorus relates at length. Ch. 6 brings forward fragment v, in which our most praiseworthy author, by ridiculing and exploding the foolishness of idolaters, who offer prayers to a mute figment, or even who determine that the Deity resides in stone and wood, declares C the pure faith of the Christians and that it is immune from the worship of any creature; and asserts that Christians rather exert themselves so that they may imitate the angelic life, and not have their minds fixed on images fashioned from wood and stone and other matter. From which words the orthodox prelates together with Nicephorus refute the Iconomachs, that the discourse is not for our author concerning sacred images, but concerning the idols of the Gentiles. In which matter ch. 8 observes yet another fraud brought to this testimony of Magnes by the adversary, namely that after those words of the writer: *But not fashioning images of them*, he again subtracted from the oration that formula, ὡς φῂς αὑτός, *as you say yourself*; by which indeed he does not introduce himself speaking, but challenges the opinion of the Greek philosopher. D For the Iconomachs had brought forward a mutilated and truncated testimony of Macarius, suppressing whatever did not seem to conduce to their proposed goal: hence they had omitted some things in the middle and some things at the end of the oration, which the defenders of sacred images thought fit to supply with solicitous care. Ch. 8 produces fragments 6 and 7, in which a question is agitated concerning Abraham and the angels seen by him. Although for the most part they appeared at one time in human form, yet they were not that very thing which appeared; but what they were, that was visible. Wherefore Abraham of those who were seen, neither expressed their appearance, nor the similarity...
A nor did he carve an idol, nor draw a representation on a tablet; since it would not be fitting for the patriarch, the friend of God, to have been addicted to the error of the men of that age, when idolatry was just beginning. Fragment VIII succeeds on the same subject, in which Macarius reproaches the Greeks for the most shameless acts of their gods and their idols, just as is brought forward in chapter 9: Fragment IX, in which the author proves that neither the elements of the world—earth, water, air—can be called gods; nor is their worship to be preserved for the stars, but for God, who suspends them from the heavens; and much less is divine honor to be rendered to idols or statues, since inanimate things can receive no sense of either honor or insult. Where, at the same time, he vindicates the words of Moses, "You shall not revile the gods," as meaning that this cannot apply to gods devoid of sense. From all of which Nicephorus shows that the entire disputation of our Macarius does not pertain to the images of Christ or the saints, but to the profane images of the gods of the Gentiles. Chapter 10 further subjoins the last fragment of Macarius, taken from the sixth chapter of the first book of the *Apocriticus*, in which Nicephorus reports him to be dealing with the miracles which were performed by Christ; and specifically, he brings forward his testimony concerning Berenice, who suffered from an unclean issue of blood, and was miraculously healed by the Savior through the salutary touch of His garment, an image of which fact the woman, having cast it in bronze, handed down to posterity (83). Chapter 11 sets forth the judgment of the prelates of the Church under whom Nicephorus governed regarding the doctrine of Macarius, namely, that he was not orthodox in all the sacred dogmas of the Church, but held some errors in common with the Manichaeans, the Arians, and Origen, and specifically this one: that the punishments which God has threatened and prepared for impious men will one day have an end. Chapter 12 contains the epilogue of the disputation, in which the orthodox prelates distinguish the Christian worship, which they offer to sacred images, from the profane worship of the Gentiles, in this way: that from the images they are led by the hand, as it were, to an infinite notion of the archetypes, and the memory of them is excited the more splendidly, and is fixed all the more deeply in the minds of those who love ardently and believe with sincere faith.
XVIII. Summary of the fragments edited from the work of Magnes.
With these fragments of the *Apocriticus* of Macarius Magnes, hitherto inedited, of which we have just exhibited a brief analysis, there must now be counted the remaining *apospasmata* [fragments] of this lost work, which have been edited by Franc. Turrianus, Thomas Bozius, Jod. Coccius, and certain other more recent writers, partly in Latin only, partly in both languages, and are read scattered here and there. Of the first book of the *Apocriticus*, no testimony of our Magnes exists in my reading; except that among the *anecdota* just indicated, fragment X is referred to as extracted from the sixth chapter of the first book of the same *Apocriticus*. From books II and III of the *Apocriticus*, Turrianus (84) cites Magnes's words, by which he refutes the Gentile philosopher who objected to Christians the discrepancy of the evangelists, and specifically reconciles the sayings of the New Testament Scripture: Matt. xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 23; Luke xxiii, 36; John xix, 29, thinking that the evangelical history would be free from all suspicion, if the letter of the history were found to be not curious [inquisitive/distorted], but simple. From book III, various and most memorable monuments of Macarius Magnes have been preserved for us, among which conspicuously stands his most lucid testimony concerning the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist: "The Eucharist is not a type [or figure] of the body and blood, as some, whose minds are blinded, have fabulated, but rather the body and blood." The entire context of this passage, however, was exhibited not only by Turrianus from a manuscript of the Venetian library in various books, but also Thomas Bozius Eugubinus, a priest of the Congregation of the Oratory, in *De signis Ecclesiae Dei*, tome II, book XIV, p. 71 (85), produced the same passage, having changed some words here and there, from another source of the library of Achilles Statius; which Jodocus Coccius in the *Thesaurus Catholicus*, book VI, and likewise Julius Caesar Bulengerus in *Diatribe 3* against the *Exercitations* of Is. Casaubon against Baronius, and others, have followed. From the same book III of the *Apocriticus* is a notable passage concerning the sacrifices slaughtered for the demons of the Gentiles; to which the same Turrianus, in his book *pro Canonibus apost.* against the *Centuriators of Magdeburg*, book I, chap. 5, p. m. 15, appeals, and brings forward in Latin only the very words of Magnes, by which he explains the apostolic decree of Acts xv, 20, concerning blood and things strangled. To which, furthermore, must be added those testimonies of Magnes which Turrianus published in Greek in the *Scholia apologetica* on the *Apostolic Constitutions* of Clement of Rome, edited in Greek at Venice in 1563, p. m. 182. From book IV of the *Apologies* of Magnes, likewise, Turrianus preserved an *apospasmation* in *Pro epist. pontificum*, book II, c. 13, p. m. 154, where Macarius provides a reason why Paul enumerated himself as living among the dead (or rather, those who are to live in the day of judgment) (86) in 1 Thess. iv, 17: "For so, he says, if someone is a friend of his associates, and of those of the same rank, he seems to love his kinship"—that is: For so it happens, that a person appears to love his friends among whom he counts himself, and those who are of his own rank. With which testimony when Turrianus was abusing it to vindicate the authenticity of the pseudo-Clementine epistle to James the bishop.
[LATIN COLUMN] as though it were immaterial whether one be numbered among the living who is already dead, or among the dead who is living. David Blondel, in his work on the Pseudo-Isidore and the beatings of Turrianus, p. 33, replies to these A words of Macarius Magnes: "We do not approve the opinion of this author, hitherto unknown, and there is no help for Turrianus in it; for Paul did not number the dead among the living, nor the living among the dead, which is what we refute in the Pseudo-Clement."
Finally, from his fifth book, there is a lengthy fragment of Macarius Magnes, *On the Faith of Abraham*, in which he discusses the very close bond between faith and works; Turrianus inserted this into his dogmatic work *On Justification*, published in Rome in 1551, in both Greek and Latin. This later on occupies no mean place among the *Theologoumena* of our author regarding the article of faith and justification: B where, at the same time, the individual fragments just quoted must be brought back into their classes and defended against the objections of adversaries.
§ XIX. The unpublished sermons of Macarius Magnes on Genesis.
Besides those five books, the *Apocriticus* to Theosthenes against the gentile calumniators of the Gospel, of which we have hitherto given certain excerpts, Macarius Magnes had also written commentaries, or, as the title indicates, sermons on Genesis, which also have been unknown to scholars until this present time. The Reverend Father Stephanotius caused fragments of these sermons, taken from a manuscript codex of the most eminent Cardinal Ottoboni, to be transmitted to the most laudable M. Boivin, custodian of the Royal Library of Paris; he had determined to edit these, having translated them into Latin and corrected them, along with other fragments of the same author, had not premature death placed an obstacle before this undertaking. These commentaries of Magnes do not extend beyond the history of the creation and the fall of man, in which, among C other things, he demonstrates the excellence of man from the fact that, after the deliberation of the supreme Creator, he was made not merely by a word, as were the rest of the creatures. He declares, however, that the only-begotten Son of God—whom he asserts to be equal in power to the Father, and the substantial Word—was that counselor whom the Father used in the formation of man. Furthermore, when he writes that the first man was introduced into the world as a king and was made in the image of God, he does not seek this likeness of a king in purple and scepter and diadem, but places it in the adornment of incorruptibility, immortality, and virtue; so that, for the sake of brevity, I pass over the rest in silence. From the seventeenth sermon on Genesis, there comes into the count a singular explanation by our Macarius concerning the garments of skins with which Adam and Eve were clothed after the fall; he judged these words to signify not a historical, but an allegorical meaning, in agreement with other ancients; concerning which opinion more must be said below.
§ XX. Conclusion of the dissertation.
It had been determined, indeed, to present the *Theologoumena* of Macarius Magnes itself, which could be collected from the fragments of the same rescued from oblivion, in this inaugural dissertation, reduced to their own classes, so that from them it might be possible to perceive some nexus of the theological doctrine of this author. But since, beyond expectation, such an abundance of things to be said has arisen for me, which seems already to have exceeded the narrow limits of the dissertation, and since in a subject hitherto occupied by no scholar the individual circumstances had to be repeated somewhat more deeply and weighed by their own importance, D I shall not refuse to discuss [them] in Greek and Latin in a second dissertation, or, if it shall seem more convenient, to fulfill the public desire of scholars by dealing with the special treatment of the dogmas and errors of our author, together with the fragments of the lost work themselves, like planks saved from a shipwreck.
DISSERTATION II
Which sets forth the *Theologoumena* of the author from his own writings.
PREFACE. If you ask the reasons, kind reader, for the interrupted labor that is spent in explaining the *Theologoumena* of Macarius Magnes, perhaps this alone will suffice: that I had hitherto been expecting some more certain [information] concerning the monuments of this lost author from the regions of Italy; but now, having been sufficiently informed both by the most celebrated J. Lamius in *Deliciae eruditorum* published at Florence in 1738, and by the splendid *Catalogus bibliothecae Venetae D. Marci*, which was recently produced in 1740 by the order of the Venetian Senate by the work of M. Ant. Zanetti and Antonius Bonojoannis, that nothing at all of the integral work of Magnes is found anymore at Venice, but that it is a probable conjecture that that codex which Franc. Turrianus once used was transferred to Spain. For thus the praised Lamius, after he had said in the preface to the fourth volume of his *Deliciae*, p. 19, that Turrianus was indeed worthy of no pardon, because he did not publish the work of Magnes which he had read, nor indicate the place where it existed, later changed his opinion in the preface to the ninth volume (in which the letters of Maximus Margunius are contained), p. 29, writing thus: "But is the Jesuit Turrianus a liar? Far from it. But if he is not a liar, certainly certain codices of the Venetian library..."
A are lost. He also is worthy of pardon; for if he did not publish the work of Magnes which he had read, he nevertheless said that it existed in the Venetian library, which was contrary to what I myself once supposed. But I will now only say that I suspect that this most desired work of Magnes was transferred from the Venetian library to the Spanish library of S. Lorenzo del Escorial, along with other codices which I have learned were once sent there. Perhaps among those codices were these books of Macarius Magnes, which the ambassador to Spain, Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, took from the Venetian library; concerning which Domenicus Molino complains gravely in a letter written at Venice to Johannes Meursius in 1622, which is found among the letters of Marquard Gude edited by the celebrated Peter Burmann, pp. 130, 131. The following words pertain especially to this matter: "I will see to it that as soon as possible a catalogue of the Greek books which are found in the public library reaches you; which, however, are not all those that were left by Cardinal Bessarion to the Most Serene Republic, because many of the best are found to have been transported to Spain and placed in the royal library of the Escurial, stolen by a wicked and infamous Spanish ambassador named Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, who, having obtained courteous permission from the lords to whom the care of the library was entrusted, to be able to enter and exit at his pleasure in order to read and study, not being assisted by ministers because it was not supposed that a man of his station could possess such baseness, on several occasions removed the chained codices from the tables and replaced them with scrap paper, carrying off the good and the best; without anyone noticing it at that time or for some time afterward, nor would the theft committed by him have perhaps been believed, if the fault itself did not reveal it—and it still reveals it even now, both now and forever to his eternal infamy, while the codices with the name and seal of Bessarion are seen in the library of the Escurial."
Since, therefore, I saw that no hope was left for me to rescue the complete work *Apocritica* from the shadows, I again girded myself to assemble those many fragments of his, which I had gathered here and there from three manuscript codices of the patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, and also from another Italian manuscript codex of Cardinal Ottoboni. Just as I had provided their historical and critical notice in the previous Dissertation, I now also took care to weave together the theological and polemic [aspects] in two sections; the first of which will deal with the dogmas proposed or defended by Macarius Magnes, and the second, in a separate work, with the errors and blemishes either truly or falsely imputed to him. But when B the restricted limits of a disputation would not suffice for explaining individual dogmatic arguments, and some of the doctrine of Macarius Magnes concerning faith and justification, concerning the Eucharist—to be brought to examination—concerning the resurrection and eternal life still remain, the first place will be given to these in the following Dissertation III, which will absolve Macarius from the errors and blemishes of Manichaeism, Arianism, Origenism, and Nestorianism, of which he was accused.
§ I. Regarding the excerpts from the *Apocritica* of Macarius Magnes. — § II. The title of Theologian vindicated for Magnes by Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. — § III. The doctrine concerning the divine authority of Sacred Scripture vindicated against Porphyry.
We deservedly begin with the authority and divinity of Sacred Scripture, which our writer recognizes in very many places of the more divine Scripture cited (89), and calls it explicitly "the divine Scripture" (90) and "the Word of God" (91), and excellently vindicates its divine oracles against the calumnies of gentile philosophers. Wherefore he is also justly and deservedly praised by the patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople and the remaining orthodox bishops as a writer who honors the evangelical doctrine and fosters it most zealously; indeed, as one who, performing the duty of a teacher, manfully proscribed and exposed to infamy the pride and stupidity of those who dare to pronounce against the divine Gospel: "This writer," he says, "if he is seated in the place of a teacher, would rightfully denounce, against those who dare to make an attack upon the divine Gospel, that pride and madness" (92). C Since, moreover, the gentile philosophers of that age, and especially Porphyry from their number, were most accustomed to argue that the sacred history of the Gospels was one of falsehood and contradiction in order to overturn the authority of Sacred Scripture, the very inscription *Apocritica* testifies that Macarius Magnes wrote an apology of the Gospel against gentile calumnies, since Francis Turrianus expresses the Greek title of this work thus (93): "As Magnes, a most ancient writer, says in the third book of the *Apologies for the Gospel* against Theosthenes." And that he settled among other things such discrepancies of the evangelists as were objected to by the enemies of the Gospel, we have discovered not unsuccessfully in this work. An example of which thing is provided by those things which Francis Turrianus [sets forth] in *Defensio pro canonibus apostolorum et epistolis pontificum*, book II, ch. 3, p. 120, [which he edited] in Greek at Venice, 1563, p. 182. D
A And so, an injustice is here done to Macarius Magnes by Turrianus.
§ IV. On the method of interpreting Holy Scripture, against the same Porphyry.
Having now proposed an exegetical specimen of Macarius Magnes, in which he attempted, with no unhappy labor, to remove from the divine book of Holy Scripture the discrepancy of the evangelists objected to by Porphyry, we further remark briefly that Porphyry—that most bitter enemy of the Christian discipline—when he could not tear asunder the sacred letters themselves, repeatedly condemned the method of interpretation used by Christian writers, by which they were accustomed to explain various oracles of Scripture, full of hidden mysteries, in a sense that was at times mystical and allegorical. That Porphyry gravely censured this kind of commentary by means of typical and allegorical expositions among Christians, is testified by Eusebius in that most luminous passage which he brought forward from Porphyry’s third book *Against the Christians* in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book VI, ch. 19. There is clearly no doubt that our Macarius, in his complete work *Apocritica*, also exposed this ignorance of sacred matters in his most cunning adversary, whom otherwise it could not have escaped that the sacred rites of the Gentiles themselves were for the most part filled with abstruse senses; although in his surviving fragments there is nothing obvious that can be referred to the treatment of this argument, except that our author in discourse 17 on Genesis, when he deals with the coats of skins of our first parents, asserts not obscurely that there are some things found in Holy Scripture which do not admit of historical interpretation, but require an allegorical method: C “Since,” he says, “the account concerning the tunics escapes historical understanding and demands a method of anagoge,” etc.
§ V. The doctrine concerning God, and the true nature of the divine monarchy, against the polytheism of the Gentiles.
In fragment II of his work *Apocritica*, he most correctly describes God, stating that He alone is ‹unbegotten and the master of those who are begotten,› not begotten, and having dominion over those who are begotten; and explaining his mind a little later more clearly, he adds: ‹But God alone is the ruler and possesses monarchy; in truth He has dominion over the begotten, being unbegotten; He governs the creatures,› D for that which is written, and which is positioned on the very front of the words, is meant and said, but all those hidden things are understood by allegorical and secondary senses. And so, he who says, “Jupiter lay with his mother,” does not signify incestuous or shameful couplings of Venus, but names Jupiter as rain, and Ceres as the earth, etc. Cf. Theodoret, *Against the Greeks*, discourse III, p. 44 sqq.; Julius Firmicus, *On the Error of Profane Religions*, and others. Indeed, that Porphyry himself taught in more than one book that the fables of Homer were coverings for more excellent things, in which dogmas concerning God and celestial things might lie hidden, is shown by his *Homeric Questions*, his booklet *On the Cave of the Nymphs*, and his *Moral Interpretation of the Wanderings of Ulysses*; nay, even his own specific volume *On the Allegorical Theology of the Greeks and Egyptians*, if faith is to be placed in Eusebius. Cf. Cudworth in his *Intellectual System*, p. 371.
A being uncreated and without beginning, He does not rule over those who are similar, but over those who are dissimilar, caring for them. He is the only true ruling God; the blessed and only Potentate, from whom the blessed Apostle repeats the phrase and idea of the Supreme Divinity in 1 Tim. vi, 15, 16, where God is called "Potentate," by which words the Holy Apostle provides an argument for true deity, omnipotence, and divine monarchy. And this is the very thing which our Macarius, along with other Fathers of the primitive Church, calls the monarchy of God, namely, the unity and supremacy of the true and essential God, in opposition to the *polytheia* or multitude of false gods among the Gentiles.
§ VI. Continuation of the same argument, from the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. viii, 5, 6.
Since, therefore, this Greek philosopher disputes with our Macarius, affirming on the comparison of Hadrian’s monarchy with God’s monarchy that God is not properly called monarch unless He rules over gods who were of the same nature as He, B and that those whom Christians call angels are named gods by the Gentiles and are sharers of the divine nature; Macarius Magnes vindicates the true character of the divine monarchy against the sophisms of this philosopher, and demonstrates that the truth of something depends not on its name, but on the reality of the thing. For thus he responds in Fragment II of his work *Apocriticus*: "Nor does Reason demonstrate to us that things sharing the same name are identical in nature... Nor does the appellation of a name make a thing what it is called, but the very nature of the thing confirms the truth of the name." He rules, therefore, and dominates over the gods, and holds them subject to Himself, not as if He were one of them by virtue of sharing a name, but because He alone is unbegotten, and rules over generated things, etc. And so, that the Apostle might teach the true Divinity, and distinguishing substance from homonymy, might refute (the error) and indicate to his disciples the one who is God by essence and properly Lord, and those who are gods and lords only by position and not by title, he says: "For even if there are gods, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things." You see how he speaks, "For even if there are gods" (meaning, gods in name only, not strictly gods), "yet for us there is one God," that is, the One who is truly God, C to whose divinity the very reason of substance bears witness.
§ VII. Application of the foregoing to the tenets of Porphyry.
Nor is it worth mentioning Porphyry's distribution of gods into celestial, terrestrial, aerial, aquatic, and subterranean, to whom sacrifices of different kinds were to be offered. For, says Macarius Magnes in Book III of the *Apocriticus*, different sacrifices were offered to aerial spirits, others to terrestrial, others to subterranean. To the spirits of the air were offered birds: to the terrestrial, black quadrupeds, because the earth is naturally black in color: to the subterranean, likewise black quadrupeds in pits or trenches. By these words, he is beyond any doubt referring to that passage of Porphyry, *On the Cave of the Nymphs*, fol. 1: "As for the Olympian gods, they set up temples and altars; for the chthonic and heroes, hearths; and for the subterranean, pits and D cellars." Id est: Just as they placed temples, shrines, and altars for the celestial gods, and hearths for the terrestrial and for heroes, so they placed pits and cellars for the infernal ones.
A § VIII. On the false divinity of the sun, moon, stars, and elements of the world, Macarius Magnes’ judgment.
Our Macarius, in fragment IX of the *Apocriticus*, gravely refutes the falsely alleged divinity of the sun, moon, stars, and even the elements of the world. It states: "Let us not call the elements of the world—earth, water, air—gods; nor let us deify the stars, even if they run and traverse infinite spaces. For just as no one crowns the running horses, but rather their driver and charioteer, so let us not offer our worship to the stars, but truly to God, who suspended them in the heavens."
B § IX. The opinion of Magnes on the images and idols of the gods.
Our Macarius proceeds to the idolatry of the Gentiles, concerning the images and idols of the gods, regarding which he speaks in fragment IX, stripping away from them every appearance of divinity and exploding their foolish cult: "Even if images," he says, "should speak in voice and appearance, we should not offer them worthy honor... But men, thinking vain thoughts, having cast gold and fashioned bronze, have demanded oracles from them by the divinity, being senseless in their mind and blind in their understanding. Nor, by the insensibility of the stone statues, are they moved to shame, nor do they judge and rightly consider that which is inanimate, that it receives no perception of honor, nor of reproach; it does not honor the one who blesses it, nor does it defend itself with punishments against the one who speaks ill of it. It speaks to a shadow and rejoices in a phantasm, conversing with inanimate materials as if they were animate, gladdening itself with the sight of dead features, offering its petition to a voiceless creation. It legislates for the divinity to dwell in stone and wood, imagining the uncontainable material to be held in bronze and iron; it aims to hunt the unseen in a dead, irrational contemplation, falsely imagining it."
C [He continues] "...feeding its mind on the sight of dead features; offering prayers to a mute figment; establishing the Divinity to dwell in stone and wood; dreaming that the incomprehensible substance is contained by bronze and iron; and finally, hoping to grasp that which cannot be seen at all by the contemplation of a dead object."
Some derive the origin and proper nature of this cult of images from the principles of Platonic philosophy, who, according to the mind of Plato, considered this world to be an image of the gods: a matter which they gather in the first place from Plato’s *Timaeus*, where Plato narrates that this world is an image of divinity, in whose movement God delighted: "When that Father who had begotten it observed that this beautiful image of the eternal gods had been set in motion and was living, he was delighted with his work." To this visible world, moreover, and to that which includes visible things, another responds from the opinion of Plato from eternity, or a world perceptible only to the mind, to whose pattern this visible universe of things was prepared by God (6). To this point tend these words of the *Timaeus*, in which the philosopher describes the world thus: "The world is a visible living creature, containing visible things, an image of the intelligible God, sensible, greatest, and invisible (7)." From this principle, therefore, concerning the world as an image of the invisible God, that Greek philosopher—or whoever it was, Porphyry, with whom our Macarius was disputing—strove to establish a relative cult of images, and to argue in this way on behalf of the idolatry of the Gentiles: "Since it is agreed that the angels participate in the divine nature, those who pay fitting worship to the gods do not consider the wooden, stone, or bronze object from which the statue is prepared to be God, nor, if any part of the image were broken off, do they judge that the power of God is removed; for it was for the sake of D reminder that the statues and temples were founded by the ancients, so that those who came there might be brought into the thought of God, or, by spending their time [at worship] and remaining pure from other things, might use prayers and supplications, asking from them what each person needs. For indeed, if anyone were to construct an image of a friend, he would surely not think that his friend is in it, nor that the parts of that body are enclosed within the parts of the painting, but that the honor paid to the friend is shown through the image. And the sacrifices offered to the gods are not so much to bring honor to them as they are a sign of the intent of those who worship, and that they are not ungratefully disposed toward them. It is fitting that the figures of the statues are in human form, since man is believed to be the most beautiful of living creatures and an image of God."
§ X. *The passages of Porphyry regarding images are examined.*
If we now compare these very things with what Eusebius (8) has recorded from Porphyry’s lost work *On the Statues of the Gods*, and what J. Stobaeus (9) has likewise preserved from the same writing, it will be easy to discern an exact agreement in sentiment and an interpretation not much different from the words of the philosopher Macarius. For he explains the rationale of the whole undertaking there, saying that he will set forth the meanings and intentions of divine wisdom, by which those who expressed invisible things in visible images—for the sake of those who had learned to recite the primary teachings about the gods from statues as if from books—indicated God and the manifold power and authority of God in ways congruent with the senses. "It ought not to seem surprising," he continues, "if the most ignorant people consider wood and stone to be the images of the gods, just as the foolish among those who occupy themselves with letters look upon stelae as stones, tablets as wood, and woven papyrus as books."
§ XI. *Magnes’s response to the objection taken from Exod. XXII, 28.*
Therefore, when the Greek interlocutor sought a new defense for the senseless opinion regarding the cult of images within the Holy Scriptures; our Macarius, having rejected the idols of the A demons and condemned the pagan cult commonly offered to them, vindicates the words of Moses, *Thou shalt not revile the gods* (Exod. XXII, 28), from the distorted interpretation of his adversary, and demonstrates that they are in no way to be understood as concerning the images of the gods: for one cannot revile gods who lack sense, nor does an inanimate thing honor one who blesses it, nor exact vengeance upon one who reviles it. The following words of our Magnes pertain to this: "Even if images appear to speak and think, let us not offer them fitting honor; nor, if Moses says, *Thou shalt not revile the gods*, should we think that this is said about these things or refers to them. For those are gods to whom the Word of God has come, just as those are warm that fire has warmed. But the Word of God has never sounded in stones or wood, nor has it granted sense to insensible B things." Moses, therefore, does not say that gods who lack sense are to be reviled. For what is insensible will never be pained by being reviled by anyone? And who is so senseless, empty-headed, and foolish as to revile that which is unable—because of the deadness of its material—to discern the insult of the reviling? Whence also gods who possess no sense will not be affronted, nor will they avenge anyone, being dead by nature and motionless.
As for images, however, even if they seem to be endowed with voice and to reason, we should accord them no true honor: nor, if Moses says: "Thou shalt not revile the gods," ought we to think that this is said of these things or of them themselves. For those are gods to whom the word of God has been delivered, just as those things are hot which fire has heated. But the word of God has never sounded in stones, nor in woods, and it has not bestowed sense upon things that are insensible. C And after a few things interspersed, he adds: "the immovable." Moses, therefore, does not judge that it is possible to revile gods who lack sense. For that which lacks sense, how is it to be pained if someone reviles it? And who is so stupid, fatuous, and foolish as to revile that thing which, because it consists of dead matter, cannot understand the insult of a malediction? Wherefore neither will gods who lack sense suffer insults, nor will they avenge anyone, since they are dead and immovable by their nature.
Julianus Apostata, who is known to have frequently read the footprints of Porphyry and to have firmly adhered to his principles, seems to have attributed the same D absurd meaning to the Mosaic words, *Thou shalt not revile the gods*, when he complains that the Christians had perverted the intent of the legislator, and with detestable wickedness and audacity had wished to strip all religion from the multitude, since from the fact that it is not permitted to serve the gods, they have established that it is a consequence that the gods are to be reviled (10). But apart from the fact that the divine legislator is most clearly speaking of magistrates—[such as] "God from gods; Zeus indeed is the whole world, an animal composed of animals, and a divinity composed of divinities; Jupiter is also the supreme mind, producing all things, since all things are works of the mind, etc." which words Eusebius himself in *Praeparatio evangelica*, lib. III, c. 9, p. 401, attributes to Porphyry as author—
A Indeed they have sufficiently harmed themselves, when they imposed the name of the first, immortal, and incorrupt substance upon base materials. Since, therefore, demons would at one time simulate the persona and countenances of noble spirits, and at another take on the species and form of celestial gods or heroes; is it any wonder if they also took their names, and divided that fictitious feigning of divinities into many classes? Yet all these, since they contained nothing at all of divine properties, subjected the most august appellation of God to the injuries and calumnies of mortals. Those who worshipped the figures of the sun, moon, fire, earth, and sea, displayed in human form, and who honored those things as images of living gods by imposing the names of Vesta, Ceres, Neptune, or another; must they not be judged to hold views abhorrent to the true religion, which consists entirely of true, serious, and heavenly things, and corresponds to the divine perfections of the supreme Deity? B Macarius had already well said in the fragment: "God does not begrudge that many be called gods and lords, provided that they, drawing near and approaching Him, coalesce with the nature of the divinity." And a little later: "God, since He is monarch and eternal by His own nature, does not prevent angels from being called gods, deifying them, clearly, by the addition of divinity (not innate); but He does not divide His own substance with them, nor has he granted them any portion of His nature."
§ XII. *On the various names and kinds of Gentile gods.* That the truth of a thing does not depend on its name, but the name on the truth, Macarius Magnes has already demonstrated above. From this principle, he now also proposes to judge the various names of the Gentile gods, which do not correspond to the very substance of divinity. For although the Gentiles have imposed the names of gods upon such inanimate things, which can receive no sense of either honor or insult, nevertheless, Macarius our teacher asserts that by this very fact nothing at all is taken away from the supreme Deity by their fault, but rather their own extreme ignorance is revealed in this manner: C Quod si deorum nomina—(for if they possess the names and appellations of gods, they do not thereby injure the divine, just as dogs adorned with the names of men do not harm the men). And so, many have more freely imposed divine names upon profane things, neither saddening the Deity in this, but merely revealing their own stupidity. For if anyone is called a god, and has nothing divine, he insults the calling and slanders the name, incurring an inexcusable and irreparable fault; but do not imagine that in this the almighty God is saddened or vexed, even if some foolish men have dragged the divine name down to the very reptiles themselves; for they have sufficiently harmed themselves, who have elevated the first and immortal and pure substance to base D materials.
Thus, the impious opinion of Porphyry collapses at the same time, who was not afraid to boldly assert that the substance of the supreme Deity and His infinite operations are expressed under the various names of the Gentile gods, and that nothing else is understood by them but the same divinity: since he argues with his Plato that all gods are certain emanations and disseminations of the first and second principle. It is likewise inferred that such was the mind of the Greek philosopher disputing with our Magnes, because he attributed to his gods not only communion of name, but also of divinity itself with the true God, and opined that they participate in the honor of those august names, of incorruptibility, immortality, and impassibility, and that they are partners of the same nature as God.
§ XIII. *The doctrine of Magnes concerning Christ the only-begotten Son of God, and His incarnation and miracles.* To the Creator of all things, Supreme and sole monarch, to the unborn [uncapitalized in original]...
A and self-subsistent Word, which in no way differs from Him in image and possesses equal power. The antiquity of this argument, which Macarius used in this place to establish the divinity of Christ, may first be recognized from the fact that St. Barnabas, or at least another writer of the apostolic age, is read to have already proved, by the same reasoning in the apostolic century, the pre-existence of the Son of God before the world was founded. For in the Catholic Epistle, formerly lauded by the ancient Fathers of the Church under the name of the apostle Barnabas, according to the ancient Latin version in chapter 4 (16) (where the Greek text is wanting), he speaks thus of our Savior: "And for this the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, though He is the Lord of the whole earth, to whom He said (that is, God the Father (17), since to Him Moses in the primordial creation attributed these words spoken) before the foundation of the world: 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness.'" B Whom very ancient Fathers (18) subsequently followed in proving the pre-existence, excellence, and divinity of the Son of God, and especially Theophilus of Antioch *To Autolycus*, book II, chapter 28, p. 158: "He said *Let us make*, he says, not to any other, but to His own Word and His own wisdom." In which words many of the Fathers, whom Dionysius Petavius cites in *Dogmata theologica*, book II, *On the Trinity*, ch. 7, § 4 sqq. (19), supposed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be designated. Since, therefore, Macarius Magnes asserts that God the Father used His only-begotten Son as a counselor in the formation of man, as a living and self-subsistent Word having equal power with Him: there is no doubt at all that the most manifest note of divinity is contained in this description; especially since in Holy Scripture God is read to have consulted only with the other divine Persons, nor could He have entered into any counsel with creatures, C which did not yet exist in the nature of things, in the primordial creation of all things. To this also points that illustrious passage of *Hermas the Shepherd*, book III, similitude 9, chapter 12, where that most ancient writer declares the pre-existence of the Son of God with these words: "For the Son of God is older than every creature, so that He was present in counsel with His Father to found the creature" (20). Furthermore, Magnes attributes the divine work of the creation of all things, and indeed of man himself, to the Son of God in the [following] sayings, which are alleged in this manner: "Just as also the divine Scripture testifies, saying that God [spoke] to the only-begotten Christ: 'Let us make man,' etc." D
Fragment X, which is preserved from the first book of the *Apocriticus* (in the sixth chapter of which Nicephorus of Constantinople reports that he discoursed especially on the miracles which were performed by Christ in the examination of the words of Macarius Magnes); and he handed down that an image of that memorable deed, embossed in bronze, had been preserved in Mesopotamia down to his own age: concerning which matter it has already been discussed in the previous Dissertation, § 10.
§ XIV. Magnes' doctrine on creation, and the pointlessly fabricated eternity of the world.
In the article on creation, from what was adduced above, it is already clear that Macarius Magnes makes the noble confession that God alone, possessing rule and monarchy, presides ingenitally over those who are generated, and in his power holds the creatures—himself uncreated and lacking a beginning—and provides for them not as likes, but as unlikes B. Nevertheless, he treats this argument more brilliantly and more conveniently for his purpose in his commentary on the creation of Adam, at chapter 1 of Genesis, where he contends that all creatures were produced by the Word of God alone: “And the rest of the creatures were produced by a word only.” Furthermore, in what follows, he both establishes the principle of matter and places the form of creation and the action of God creating in the fact that God produced all things from most free will, and indeed from nothing, by command alone, by which he called that which was not so that it might be (Apoc. IV, 11; Rom. IV, 17). To this return those words of our Magnes in the cited place: “For He who established so great a magnitude of heaven and earth and sea by a word, is much more capable of planting a paradise by a word, and by a word of rooting a blessed region; but as has been said, on account of the honor toward man, he also becomes a cultivator in a mystical sense, by a mystical word, tirelessly leading this world from non-being into being by his will.” For He who had founded so great a mass of heaven, earth, and sea by a word, could much more plant a garden by a command, and attach a most blessed foundation by a word. But just as it was said, so that he might accord honor to man, he became the cultivator of even the trees by a certain secret reason, he who without any labor had brought this world from non-existence to existence by his will alone.
Finally, from the miracles which were performed by Christ the Saviour, he confirms the divinity of the Son of God, when, for the sake of an example on the occasion of that miracle in the healing of the woman who had labored under a long-standing flow of blood, he recognizes the character of His divine power in the fragment of the *Apocriticus* in these words: “Thus also power went forth from Christ, C and it drove away the diseases of the sick, and while remaining with Christ it was not at all separated from him.” There is no reason that compels us here to understand by “power going forth” some corporeal quality, or some salutary drug derived from Christ's body, since it is agreed among all that "power" in the Scripture of the New Testament most often denotes a miracle (Mark VI, 5): and thus a divine work or miracle performed by Christ is indicated here rather; from the stunning effects and incredible virtue of which, in no way diminished in our Saviour, all were deservedly bound to acknowledge and venerate His divinity. In which sense our Macarius referred this very history of the holy woman with the issue of blood to the divine miracles of Christ D.
§ XV. Magnes’ doctrine concerning the angels and the worship of images.
Specifically concerning the creation of the angels, whom Arnobius, among the enumeration of the miracles of Christ, brilliantly dilutes by the sole power and invocation of his name without any force of incantations, or juices of herbs and grasses, or clearly any human arts, and from thence proves the true divinity of our Saviour: “Desist,” he says, “O ignorant ones, from turning such great matters into curses... Nothing, remember, that is magical, nothing human, nothing tricky or deceitful, nothing of fraud lay hidden in Christ... That God was sublime, God from the deepest root, God from unknown realms, and God the Savior was sent by the prince of all, etc.”
A
Macarius Magnes places the most excellent creatures in the first position, and he discusses them in such a way that he exalts their spiritual, incorrupt, and immortal nature with these words, which are read in Fragment IV of the *Apocriticus*: “Furthermore, we shall speak on the topic concerning the angels and their incorruptibility... so that someone among those who are sensible, having heard of a rational substance in heaven celebrating with the discourse of immortality, that is to say, of the blessed and incorporeal powers, might as far as possible regulate his life according to them, and emulate their worthiness in his own deeds, etc.”
Next, we shall treat the question concerning angels and their incorrupt nature... But every wise man, when he hears that there is a rational substance in heaven which enjoys the gift of immortality (namely, the blessed and incorporeal virtues), will align his life as much as is possible with an imitation of them, and will strive for their glory by his actions, etc. It is clear from this that angels are described here: 1°) as spiritual and incorporeal substances, *asōmatous dynameis*, which are opposed in the preceding discourse to men, who have their origin from carnal and corporeal generation: who took their substance from the unclean germination of bodies, and being born, flourish and quickly fall away like leaves; whereas, on the contrary, angels are *sōmatikōn pathōn kai desmōn apallagentes*, free from corporeal affections and bonds: just as in Fragment II, he explains an angel as an *asōmaton tina tagmatos anōpherous, theon tēn thesin ou tēn physin hyparchonta*, that is, a certain incorporeal being of a superior order, who is God by adoption, not by nature. B Whence also, later in Fragment VI, Macarius attributes to the angels an invisible, and therefore immaterial, nature, saying: *Ei gar kai ta malista en andreiō schēmati angelloi pote ephanēsan, all' ou to phan en ēsan, all' hoper ēsan, aoraton esti*. That is: For even if angels did at times appear in human form, they were not what they appeared to be; but what they truly were is invisible.
When, however, the doctors of the ancient Church laid it down as a principle that those things which had a beginning must necessarily have an end (just as our Macarius, in his comparison of blessed resurrected men with the blessed state of the angels, predicates the same thing of them: *kai teleutēn mēketi mēde genesin echontes*, no longer having either origin or end), and concluded from this that angels are immortal not by nature, but by grace: they at least wished to indicate that only God is immortal independently, absolutely, and in such a way that He can by no means have an end (1 Tim. vi, 16); but that angels, as created spirits, are immortal dependently and by the will of God, in such a way that, although their nature viewed in itself is not subject to corruption, they could nevertheless have an end if God so willed. And that grace by which angels are said to be immortal consists in this, that they are preserved by God; whereas otherwise they would return to the nothingness from which they arose. Hence Aeneas of Gaza (25), fearing that nothing might be detracted from the immortality of souls by this doctrine, brings that principle—that everything which began to be is subject to destruction—back to a clearer meaning, and shows that the rational soul, just like the angels, is not of its own nature mortal: “For He,” he says, “who granted that they should exist, granted also to our souls that they should always exist, and that gift is now nature itself.” Angels, therefore, have within themselves, just as the rational soul does, that by which they are immortal, since they have been allotted such a nature from the Author of things (26). C
Macarius adds in the same fragment: *Ou mēn eikonas ekeinōn typōsas tō schēmati*, not, however, fashioning images of them (27). Macarius did not oppose these words in vain to the Greek philosopher with whom he was dealing, when the latter had bragged that the angels were similar in nature to his own gods, so that from this he might appear able to define their divine worship by a kind of just title. Macarius rightly condemns this idolatrous opinion, adding, *hōs phēs autos*, as you (the philosopher) yourself say, who indeed exhibit the likenesses and statues and images of the gods for abominable worship. Regarding which matter he subjoins the following concerning the apparitions of angels: *Ei gar kai ta malista en andreiiō schēmati angelloi pote ephanēsan, all' ou to phan en ēsan, all' hoper ēsan, aoraton esti*. That is: For even if angels did at times appear in human form...
2°) Angels are described as intelligent substances, when Macarius calls the angel a *logikēn ousian en ouranō*, a rational substance in heaven; so as to distinguish it both from rational substances on earth—men, who are endowed with soul and body—and from purely material or corporeal substances, to which the power of thinking, understanding, and reasoning cannot be attributed. D
Finally, 3°) angels are described as blessed substances, and in their spiritual nature and heavenly perfection free from all change, corruption, and mortality. For this was the goal of the Macarian exposition, that by the example of the angels, *tōn makariōn dynameōn*, he might wish to indicate the blessedness of those men to whom it has fallen to inhabit the heavenly region, and who [have entered] into the communion of the angelic life.
A ...and that they were not that very thing which appeared, but that which they were, was invisible.
And, putting in a few things between, he further confirms his opinion, that angels are by no means proposed to holy men for adoration, by the example of Abraham, who received the angels he saw with no idolatrous worship. For after Macarius had discussed the question concerning Abraham and the angels seen by him, he concludes his discourse in this manner in fragment VII: [Greek text] Id est: That is: To those who are evidently and truly perfect, Abraham neither expresses the appearance of those who were seen, nor carves an image, nor paints a likeness on a tablet, thinking that he beholds those whom he received in hospitality as present; for it was not fitting that the patriarch, a friend of God, should be led astray by the error of the men of that time, at the beginning, as it were, of the foundation of the erection of idols.
Of this history, in the age of Eusebius of Caesarea, there existed a certain public image, but not set up for worship and veneration, which Eusebius himself mentions in his *Demonstratio Evangelica*, book V, chap. 9, in such a way that he proves from it that our Lord and Savior was in the midst of those three guests of Abraham, who, at that time sowing the seeds of piety among men, having put on human appearance and form, revealed to the friend of God and ancient patriarch Abraham who he was, and delivered the counsel of his Father. For this reason, therefore, our Macarius willed that images of angels should by no means be fashioned in any form, lest an opening be given to idolatrous error through the worship of images.
Yet the same Macarius Magnes in fragment X of his *Apocriticus* celebrated a certain image fashioned in memory of that miracle which our Savior had performed by divine power in the woman with the issue of blood; which statue, exhibiting the image of Christ, he testifies to have existed safe and sound in Mesopotamia even in his own time in these words: [Greek text] Id est: That is: The woman indeed handed down the memory of the fact itself by a bronze image, so that the thing might seem not done long ago, but done today. Of all the examples of antiquity, that is the most expressive and most illustrious monument of sacred images, which Eusebius of Caesarea likewise related, adorned with several circumstances, and which he testifies to have remained even to his own times, and to have been seen by his own eyes, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book VII, chapter 18.
Finally, regarding what remains to be observed concerning the doctrine of our Magnes about the angels, B he disproves that aid is to be expected from an angel, and that the blessedness of true virtue is to be sought from him: which Macarius demonstrates from this, that he is not God by nature, but only by grace and adoption has a certain likeness of divinity, which he illustrates with some elegant comparison (28): [Greek text] Id est: That is: Therefore, he is held blessed who worships Him who is God by nature; but he who worships one by adoption is much deceived, and reaps no lasting fruit from that worship. For as he who for the sake of heat embraces fire itself, is heated by it at once and is illuminated by its brightness; but he who seeks matter heated by fire, such as bronze or iron, in order to get warm, misses the mark; since that matter, having feigned the nature of fire for a short time, returns to the nature proper to its substance, and having nothing of this in its heat, it has helped him nothing, nor has it provided him any bright ray. Thus, he who wishes to receive the blessedness of pure virtue, if he asks this of God who is so by nature, is not deceived; but asking from an angel, or from some incorporeal creature of a superior order, who is god by adoption, not by nature, he receives great harm, wishing to receive that which, if the one who possesses it gave it, he would necessarily despoil himself of virtue.
§ XVI. The Doctrine of Magnes on the creation and preservation of celestial bodies.
Macarius demonstrates that the celestial bodies were created by God, and that God suspended them from the sky, and bends their course and mutations by his own will. To this refer these words of fragment IX: [Greek text] Id est: That is: Let us not worship the stars themselves as gods, even if they run and revolve eternally. For as no one has ever crowned running horses, but rather their driver and charioteer: so let us offer our worship genuinely not to the stars, but to God, who suspended them from heaven.
A Generally, our Macarius thinks so regarding the preservation of created things, that he affirms that God, who holds all creatures in his power and provides for their government (29), also preserves all those things whose substance he created. For he explains his own mind in the fragment with these words: "And as for those things, God himself created their substance; but they did not grasp the beginning of their existence in him; and he knows how to save those whom he rules, but they, being subjects, contribute nothing to him."
§ XVII. Doctrine concerning the creation of man, his divine image, immortality of the soul, and freedom.
Macarius feels so magnificently regarding the creation of man that he contends his entire formation was completed by a special counsel and deliberation of the Holy Trinity, in preference to other creatures. Thus he proclaims the same in the fragments of his *Commentary on Genesis*: "And as for other creatures, they were produced by a word alone; but man had something exceptional in his creation, for he was created after a preceding consultation, so that from this it might be shown that he is a precious creature. For the phrase, *Let us make man in our image and likeness*, manifests nothing else than that the Father employed his only-begotten Son as a counselor in his construction—him who is the radiance of his glory, according to the Apostle, and the imprint of his essence...." Since, therefore, as has been said, man was introduced into the world as a king, he was logically made according to the image of God. For it was fitting that one who was to rule over others should possess, as a kind of living image, a likeness of the King, B not displaying this dignity in purple and scepter and diadem (since the archetype itself did not consist in these things), but in being adorned with incorruptibility, immortality, and virtue. For, adorned with these, man preserves the form expressed by the similitude of the prototype. And since freedom itself also demonstrates the royal and eminent dignity of human nature and its most evident likeness to the divine image, on this account also man is the work of the hands of God, because of the excellence of his formation: for that entire work is one of counsel. Theophilus of Antioch uses the same argument in book II *Against Autolycus*, ch. 28, p. 158 sq., when he places the excellence of man in the fact that, while God constituted and, as it were, created all other things as a secondary work, he deemed the creation of man alone to be work worthy of his own hands. Macarius Magnes extols the nature of man primarily on account of the divine image concreated with him, and he seeks it not in the body (30), but in the mind of man, because he had an innate knowledge of good and evil. The words of Genesis, ch. III, are the argument itself: *Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.* C He comments on this passage in this way: "That is: Not as if he had progressed in the knowledge of virtue and vice, but because he had been formed such from the beginning. For the Scripture had said before: *And God made man in the image of God.*" Hence it is clear that he held the knowledge of good and evil implanted in his nature beforehand. Therefore, he contends that man from the beginning was created whole and upright in every knowledge of virtue and vice, clearly according to the sense of Holy Scripture, Eccles. VII, 50; and indeed, in the preceding sections, he states that by the transgression he lost that pristine innocence, which had brought it about that our first parents had no reason for their nakedness: D that this dignity in some way overflowed, while he asserts that the whole human being was made according to the image of God, and above all, in his discourse on Genesis, he contends that the body of the first-formed was, before the transgression of the commandment, more subtle and splendid, and more prompt and ready for the perception of divine forms.
A From which it is apparent that our Macarius judged that the divine image consisted primarily in the internal gifts of the soul, and those that were connate with it, not in the external form of man; in which sense that philosopher, with whom he was disputing, indeed vaunted that man was the fairest of animals and the image of God.
§ XVIII. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul. § XIX. The doctrine of the fall of Adam and its effect, namely, mortality introduced through sin.
For the law was given to him as to one who knew both, both good and evil, and both obedience and disobedience. Thus knowledge preceded the law. But the law was given so that man, who, as we have said, was moved by free will and had the license to pluck fruit from the other trees, and was commanded by the law to abstain from only one, might know this: that he was subject to the Lord, to Him, namely, who had also given the law. Then, inserting the history of the serpent’s seduction, and how the enemy of our nature, envying such great honor in man, undertook a war against him, and by his lying brought it about that both became contemners of God, he sets forth the most sad effect of the fall from the perception of their own nudity and the terror of divine justice, which they had provoked to deserved punishment, so that the pleasant seat of paradise was instantly changed for them into a bitter tribunal and a dread judgment-seat. B Id est: After that bold crime, their fall being understood, they are struck by providential fear, and they attempt to hide from the eye whom nothing can elude, and they refuse to come forth and shrink from being set face to face.
Macarius Magnes describes the fall of Adam in the fragments of the *Commentary on Genesis* thus, that by abusing his liberty he neglected the condition of obedience due to the Creator and, through the transgression of the divine precept, lost his innocence of manners and introduced the mortality of sin. The following words of his declare this sentiment: id est: When therefore they were in the paradise of pleasure, God for the sake of bestowing a benefit gives them a law, that He might show that the nature of men is indeed free, in that it is its own master; yet that He might demonstrate that they are under a Lord and guardian. Thus, however, he says: « Of every tree that is in the garden, you shall eat of it by eating: but of the tree of knowing good and evil you shall not eat of it. But on the day you eat of it, you shall die by death, » that is, you shall be mortals. For thus Symmachus interpreted it: « But on the day you shall eat of the tree, you shall be mortal. » But let no one suppose that the tree was of such a nature as to provide knowledge of good and evil C. For there was nothing harmful in paradise. But a boundary was set in the plant for the exercise of liberty. And that the tree did not become the cause of knowledge to Adam is clear. For the commandment was given as to one knowing both, both good and evil, obedience and disobedience; so that knowledge preceded the commandment. But it was given because, as has been said, man, being moved by his own free will, and having the liberty to partake of all the other trees, but being ordered by law to abstain from one alone, might know this, that he is under a Lord who also gave the commandment. Id est: Thus, that man might not be an evil immortal, God rendered him mortal, clothing him with deadness. For this is what the skins of beasts signify, from the word concerning the death of animals: so that through the dissolution of the body and its binding, all sin might be thoroughly rooted out. In that he says skins of beasts, he means death. For he says concerning Adam: "Whom he..."
§ XX. The opinion of Magnes concerning the skins of beasts.
Although Macarius Magnes otherwise understands the history of the fall described by Moses in a proper and literal sense, yet the skins of beasts, with which after the sin the protoplasts were clothed to cover the nudity of the body, he expounds not so much historically as allegorically into a symbol of mortality introduced by sin; as is understood from the words cited at the end of the previous §. D Which interpretation receives no little light from those things which Photius in his *Bibliotheca*, cod. ccxxxiv, p. m. 909, excerpted from the oration of S. Methodius *De resurrectione*: to have been, to believe. We shall cite his words to the very text of Macarius. Those whom Magnes touches upon are certain [writers] in Theophilus of Antioch, I. *Ad Autolycum*.
which was prefigured by the skin of a lamb from the very beginning of the world to signify an expiatory sacrificial offering. Cf. Rev. XII, 8; Zech. III, 4; Isa. LXI, 3, 10. That Irenaeus also appears to have had this meaning in mind, see book III *Adversus haereses*, ch. 37: "Since," he says, "that which he had from the Spirit, the robe of holiness, he lost through disobedience... The Lord, who is merciful, clothed them in skins of skins instead of fig leaves."
God the Almighty, seeing the immortal evil that had been produced from deceit, just as the devil who deceived him actually was, for this reason fashioned the tunics of skin, as if clothing him in mortality, so that through the dissolution of the body every evil that had been produced in it might die. That is: by the tunics of skin He understands death. For he relates concerning Adam: when God Almighty had made him immortal, knowing him to have become evil from the snares of the devil, just as he also was the devil who had deceived him, for this reason He fashioned for him garments of skin, as if clothing him in mortality, so that through the dissolution of the body all that was evil in him might die. B Whether Methodius received these things from Macarius Magnes, or indeed Magnes from Methodius, could indeed be disputed; were it not that Origen and Hippolytus had already agreed on the same opinion before them both. For the former, in his sixth homily on Leviticus (33), when he deals with the Levitical garments of the high priest and priests, establishes this comparison: "I would like to compare those unhappy garments, with which the first man was clothed when he sinned, with these holy and faithful garments." And indeed it is said that God made them: "For God," he says, "made coats of skins and clothed Adam and his wife." Those tunics, therefore, were taken from the skins of animals. For it was fitting for the sinner to be clothed with such things, with tunics of skin, I say, which were an indication of the mortality which he had received for sin, and of his frailty which came from the corruption of the flesh (34).
Furthermore, Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus, in a fragment hitherto unpublished, which we have extracted from two Royal Parisian manuscript codices, 1825 and 1888, elegantly appends this method of interpretation: "For He made a dead covering for the one who had died through sin; for the skin signified corruption regarding the body in a man surrounded by dead sins." C That is: He made a dead covering for man who died through sin, since the skin signifies corruption regarding the body in a man surrounded by dead sins. From these testimonies already adduced, it is clear that our Magnes was not the author of this allegorical or mystical interpretation (35); which, as regards the very nature of the thing, is certainly not destitute of its foundation, namely that a garment fashioned from the skins of dead animals should remind the first men of the guilt of death, and that they should be warned that, in place of the lost garment of created innocence, a garment of justice must be prepared by the hand of God.
We should not, however, conceal that we can with the same right attribute to our Macarius a fluctuation almost similar to that which Huet (loc. cit., p. 168) rebukes in Origen on this question: for in a special discourse (the seventeenth) which he institutes on this subject in his *Literal Explanation of Genesis*, he mocks with such effort [the idea] that the protoplasts were clothed with the hides of brute animals, that he calls this invention of sluggish men and of the unlearned choir a fable. Hence he slips into another opinion, namely that before the transgression, the body of man was more subtle and more splendid, not delayed by any denser mass, but like a mirror most beautiful and lucid, evidently unbesmirched by any stain from without, nor dulled by matter (36); but after the fall, he was surrounded by a thicker, fleshy body, which he thinks is to be understood by that tunic of skin, and he draws the evidence for his opinion most strongly from the words of Job, ch. X, 11, where, recounting the evidence of creation, he addresses the Creator thus: "Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh," signifying by that thing with which we are surrounded, the fleshy body. D This exposition had indeed already taken root among the most ancient heretics, which Irenaeus (37), Tertullian (38), Clement of Alexandria (39), and others—cited by Huet in the *Origeniana*, loc. cit., and by J. Rod. Wetstein in his notes on Origen's *Dialogue against the Marcionites*, p. 88 sq.—reprehend in the errors of the Valentinians. To these we now add at least Procopius of Gaza, in his commentary on chapter three of Genesis, who also refers to the oration of Justin Martyr *On the Resurrection* among those monuments of the Holy Fathers by which the exposition of Adam's tunics of skin, invented by heretics, concerning the flesh of the human body, is rejected (40). Since, however, the heretics were engaged in that error—that God, by making coats of skin for men, clothed them for the first time with bodies, as if before the fall Adam and Eve had been incorporeal—there are nevertheless Fathers who more rightly...
A understood the bodies of men. That is: He had indeed, even before he sinned, flesh, but not so thick, nor mortal, but such as the bodies of men are to have in the resurrection. There is, however, that which can rightly be opposed to this opinion also, since the qualities of glorified bodies are not the same as those of the body of Adam, still constituted in a state of temptation. For the first man was made of dust and earth for natural life; but a certain greater subtlety and spirituality is attributed to bodies glorified in the resurrection by the apostle Paul in I Cor. xv, 44 seqq., which cannot be affirmed of the non-glorified body of Adam: otherwise there would be no difference between the state of integrity and that of eternal glory.
Those who have, in a certain way, approved that mystical exposition of the coats of skin—even if with a sense very different from that of the heretics—mean that, beneath the historical narrative of the letter, it is also signified that the first men, after the sin, were clothed with a mortal and fragile body, surrendered to the pleasures of the flesh, and rendered subject to countless evils and miseries. To this point refer the words of Gregory Nazianzen in his thirty-eighth oration on the Nativity of Christ: "And He clothed them with coats of skin, perhaps the denser flesh, and mortal, and the antitype, and by this [man] first knows his own shame, and is hidden from God. Yet here also he gains something: death, and the interruption of sin, so that evil might not be immortal. And the punishment becomes an act of philanthropy." That is: *And He put on coats of skin, this is, perhaps, a denser flesh, and mortal and refractory: and first he knows his own disgrace and shame, and hides himself from God. And yet here also he brings about death and the cutting off of sin, lest evil should be immortal. Thus the punishment itself passed into mercy.* The same things are still repeated in his second oration on Pascha, p. m. 257. Nicetas Serronius interprets the opinion of Gregory thus (41): *Even the coats of skin, which the Lord made for Adam and his wife, signify mortality and the thickness of the flesh. For the body of Adam was in the beginning thinner and softer, and not altogether mortal, but of a certain middle condition between mortal and immortal. But after the transgression, just as skin is thick, and dead, and hard, so also the flesh became thick, and gross, and mortal, and hard and refractory* (42). Besides Origen, who in his commentary on Gen. iii, 21, judged this opinion indeed quite probable, though not evidently true (43), Methodius also, in the place cited above, said that those garments were not indeed a mortal body, but signified the dissolution of the body that was previously immortal, but afterwards became mortal. To this refer likewise those things which I remember having read on this subject in the manuscript of the Royal Library of Paris, codex 1998, "What kind of flesh man had before he sinned": *For he had flesh even before he sinned, but not thick, nor mortal, but such as they shall have in the resurrection* B of the bodies of men.
Macarius's interpretation, accepted in a sounder sense, is supported by the very notion of Holy Scripture, if we compare the words of the Blessed Jude in his Epistle, v. 23, where the Apostle gravely exhorts the faithful to keep their minds in faith, prayer, love, and hope, and to guard against the stains of earthly life: *hating*, he says, *the garment spotted by the flesh*, that is, hating that tunic which is defiled by the flesh. Although that explanation of our interpreters, who here look to the external habits of living and acting, by which wicked men wrap themselves as if to suit the fashion of the age, is indeed fitting for the Apostle's purpose, the origin of this phrase seems to be traceable to something deeper, namely, those coats of skin with which the corrupted flesh of our first parents was surrounded. This was that carnal tunic with which sinners, following their own flesh and its vicious desires after the fall, were clothed, and which must be pursued with all hatred by the faithful in the state of regeneration and put off by the power of the Spirit of grace, Eph. iv, 22.
§ XXI. The doctrine of Magnes concerning original sin propagated through natural generation.
From the foregoing treatment, therefore, it is gathered of its own accord what Macarius thought concerning original sin: namely, that man, created in the image of God, through the abuse of liberty lost the original knowledge of virtue and vice, in which he had been formed from the beginning (§ 17), together with his pristine holiness, and C brought forth unto D the propagation of humanity.