PG 6 · cols. 23–106

D. Prudentius Maranus, O.S.B., Praefatio in opera S. Justini, Pars II: In qua multa expenduntur ...

Editors' preface

PG 6:23

PRAEFATIONIS PARS II

Second Part of the Preface

In qua multa expenduntur ad Justini et aliorum religionis defensorum doctrinam spectantia.

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

CAPUT PRIMUM.

Chapter I.

An cognitum Platoni Verbum merito existimavit Justinus? An ipse Justinus hanc de Verbo doctrinam in Platonis schola percepit?

Did Justin rightly consider the Word to have been known to Plato? Did Justin himself learn this doctrine concerning the Word in the school of Plato?

I. Platonis testimonia de ideis et λόγῳ ex Timaeo Locro. ⟨I⟩I. Alia ex Timaeo expenduntur. III. Quid sit apud Platonem unigenitus, Deus genitus, Dei imago. IV. Mundum Plato existimavit perfectam esse Dei imaginem. V. Locus celebris, ubi Plato de Triade loqui visus est, Tetradem Pythagoricam continet. VI. Genitus a Deo fetus scientia est et veritas. VII. Nihil de Verbo apud Platonem viderunt scriptores Justino antiquiores aut aequales. VIII. Justinus hujus doctrinae jejunus ad Ecclesiam accessit.

I. Testimonies of Plato concerning ideas and the λόγος from Timaeus Locrus. II. Other testimonies from the Timaeus are weighed. III. What the only-begotten, the begotten God, and the image of God are in Plato. IV. Plato considered the world to be the perfect image of God. V. The celebrated passage where Plato seemed to speak of the Triad contains the Pythagorean Tetrad. VI. The offspring begotten by God is knowledge and truth. VII. Writers more ancient than Justin or contemporary with him saw nothing concerning the Word in Plato. VIII. Justin came to the Church unacquainted with this doctrine.

Non propositum mihi est quidquid his in scriptis ad doctrinam pertinet, hoc loco colligere (hunc enim in usum copiosus index instructus est), sed ea tantum expendere, quae vel alienos in sensus detorta, vel sua sponte obscura et difficilia in adnotationibus illustrari et explicari non potuerunt. De Christi quidem divinitate uberrima esset disserendi seges, si non hoc labore quam potui accuratissime in notis defunctus essem. Sed superest in hoc genere non contemnenda quaestio, quae mihi maxime videtur mei esse instituti. Qui in Christi divinitatem postremis saeculis impias linguas acuerunt, hi clamitare non desiere λόγον apud Platonem esse personam a summo Deo distinctam, et hanc doctrinam e Platonis schola in Ecclesiam, duce facinoris Platonico Justino, manasse. Joannes Clericus in Epistolis criticis 7, 8, 9, Judaeos ipsos ac in primis Philonem e Platonis fontibus hausisse pronuntiat quidquid de Verbo Dei Filio et omnium opifice docuerunt. In hoc Platonismi in Ecclesiam inducti commento, tanquam in re certa et explorata, nuperrime Laurentius Moshemius fundamenta jecit omnium nugarum, quas in dissertatione De turbata per Platonicos Ecclesia devolvit. Cum ipsa Platonis testimoniorum consideratio videtur legentium animos morari et oblectare posse; tum vero de Christiana doctrina, quam tamen in tanta evidentiae luce fateor opera mea non indigere, bene meriturum me spero, si demonstrem, nec Platonem Christiani de Filio Dei dogmatis ulla prorsus aura perflatum fuisse, nec Justinum ullo Platonis aut Platonicorum beneficio hac in re usum fuisse. Nobis igitur inquirendum est, quid sit apud Platonem idea et λόγος a quibus conditus est mundus, et quid apud eumdem filius Dei et imago Dei significent.

It is not my purpose to collect in this place whatever in these writings pertains to doctrine (for a copious index has been drawn up for this use), but to weigh those things only which, either twisted into foreign senses or of their own accord obscure and difficult, could not be illustrated and explained in the annotations. Concerning the divinity of Christ, indeed, there would be a most abundant harvest for discussion, had I not discharged this labour as accurately as I could in the notes. Yet there remains in this kind a question not to be despised, which seems to me to belong most especially to my design. Those who in recent centuries have sharpened impious tongues against the divinity of Christ have not ceased to cry out that the λόγος in Plato is a person distinct from the supreme God, and that this doctrine flowed from the school of Plato into the Church, with the Platonist Justin as the ringleader of the misdeed. Jean Le Clerc, in his Critical Epistles 7, 8, 9, pronounces that the Jews themselves, and above all Philo, drew from the fountains of Plato whatever they taught concerning the Word, the Son of God and maker of all things. Upon this figment of Platonism introduced into the Church, as upon a certain and established matter, Johann Lorenz von Mosheim has very recently laid the foundations of all the trifles which he unrolls in his dissertation On the Church Disturbed by the Platonists. Not only does the consideration itself of the testimonies of Plato seem able to engage and delight the minds of readers; but I also hope that I shall deserve well of Christian doctrine—which nevertheless in so great a light of evidence I confess does not need my labour—if I demonstrate that neither was Plato breathed upon by any breath whatever of the Christian dogma concerning the Son of God, nor did Justin make use of any benefit of Plato or of the Platonists in this matter. We must therefore inquire what the idea and the λόγος by which the world was founded are in Plato, and what the son of God and the image of God signify in the same author.

De ideis ac de ratione Dei non pauca occurrunt apud Platonem : has autem ideas, hunc logon a summo Deo distinctum fuisse, ut personam ab eo genitam, ne suspicatus quidem videtur. Ipsius sententiam praeclare expressam habemus, cum in

Concerning the ideas and concerning the reason of God not a few things occur in Plato: that these ideas, however, that this logos was distinct from the supreme God as a person begotten by Him, he does not seem even to have suspected. We have his opinion clearly expressed both in

Editors' notes and page, col. 23

Page

running head: 23 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPH
marginal letters: A CAPUT PRIMUM.; B detorta, vel sua; C docuerunt. In hoc; D idea et λόγος
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with embedded Greek words (λόγῳ, λόγον, λόγος); editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I (CAPUT PRIMUM. An cognitum Platoni...); full-width Part II heading and subtitle across cols 23-24 cut off at right edge at top of column not set (PRAEFATIONIS..., In qua multa expenduntur...); damaged first I in ⟨I⟩I.
other: the title of Part II and its subtitle are printed full-width across the head of cols 23–24; editors' matter (Maran's preface), set here as the unit's title. See n24.

PG 6:24

dialogo, qui inscribitur Timaeus, tum in alio libello, in quo dialogorum morem non sequitur Plato, sed ipse refert, quae ex Timaeo Locro, insigni Pythagorico, audierat. Sic incipit hic libellus : Τίμαιος ὁ Λόκρος τάδε ἔφα · Δύο αἰτίας εἶμεν τῶν ξυμπάντων · νόον μὲν τῶν κατὰ λόγον γιγνομένων · ἀνάγκαν δὲ τῶν βίᾳ καττὰς δυνάμεις τῶν σωμάτων. Τουτέων δὲ τᾶς τἀγαθῶ φύσιος εἶμεν, Θεόν τε ὀνομαίνεσθαι, ἀρχάν τε τῶν ἀρχῶν · τὰ δὲ ἑπόμενά τε καὶ συναίτια εἰς ἀνάγκαν ἀνάγεσθαι. Τὰ δὲ ξύμπαντα ἰδέαν, ὕλαν, αἰσθητόν τε, οἷον ἔκγονον τουτέων. Καὶ τὸ μὲν εἶμεν ἀγένατόν τε καὶ ἀκίνατον, καὶ μένον τε καὶ τᾶς ταὐτῶ φύσιος, νοατόν τε καὶ παράδειγμα τῶν γεννωμένων, ὁκόσα ἐν μεταβολᾷ ἐντί. Τοιοῦτον γάρ τι τὰν ἰδέαν λέγεσθαί τε καὶ νοεῖσθαι. Τὰν δὲ ὕλαν ἐκμαγεῖον καὶ ματέρα, τιθάναν τε καὶ γεννατικὰν εἶμεν τᾶς τρίτας οὐσίας..... Δύο ὦν αἵδε ἀρχαὶ ἐναντίαι · ὧν τὸ μὲν εἶδος λόγον ἔχει ἄῤῥενός τε καὶ πατρός · ἁ δὲ ὕλα θήλεός τε καὶ ματέρος. « Timaeus Locrus haec dixit : Duas esse omnium causas : mentem quidem eorum quae secundum rationem fiunt, necessitatem vero eorum quae vi quadam secundum corporum potentias. Harum causarum alteram esse naturae illius, quae boni dicitur; et Deum vocari, ac causam causarum : quae vero consequuntur et tanquam adjuvantes causae accedunt, ad necessitatem referri; tandem omnia esse, ideam, materiam, sensile velut utriusque fetum. Atque illud quidem esse ingenitum et immobile et permanens, et ejus naturae, quae dicitur ejusdem, intelligibile, exemplar genitarum rerum, quaecunque in mutatione versantur. Tale enim quid ideam dici et cogitari. Materiam autem esse expressum rerum simulacrum, et matrem et genitricem tertiae essentiae...... Sunt igitur haec duo contraria principia : quorum idea rationem habet maris et patris, materia vero feminae et matris. » In hac Timaei Locri oratione, mens, Deus, idea, exemplar eodem prorsus sensu usurpantur. Idea principium minime otiosum, sed quod locum habet maris et patris, et ingenitum quidpiam est et immobile et permanens. Nullum hic Verbi a summo Deo distincti vestigium.

the dialogue which is entitled Timaeus, and in another little book in which Plato does not follow the manner of dialogues, but himself reports what he had heard from Timaeus of Locri, a distinguished Pythagorean. Thus begins this little book: Timaeus of Locri spoke these things: That there are two causes of all things together: mind, indeed, of the things that come to be according to reason; and necessity, of the things that come to be by force according to the powers of bodies. And that of these, the one is of the nature of the good, and is named God, and the principle of principles; while the things that follow and are concomitant causes are referred to necessity. And that all things together are idea, matter, and the sensible, which is as it were the offspring of these. And that the first is unbegotten and unmoved, and abiding and of the nature of the same, intelligible and the model of the things that are generated, as many as are in change. For that the idea is said and thought to be some such thing. And that matter is an impression-mould and mother, nurse and generative of the third essence..... These two, therefore, are contrary principles: of which the form holds the relation of male and father, and matter that of female and mother. « Timaeus of Locri said these things: That there are two causes of all things: mind, indeed, of those things which are made according to reason, and necessity, of those things which are made by a certain force according to the powers of bodies. That the one of these causes is of that nature which is called that of the good; and is called God, and the cause of causes: while those things which follow and accede as helping causes are referred to necessity; finally, that all things are idea, matter, and the sensible, as it were the offspring of both. And that the former indeed is unbegotten and immovable and permanent, and of that nature which is called that of the same, intelligible, the model of generated things, whatsoever are engaged in change. For that the idea is said and thought to be some such thing. Matter, however, is the moulded image of things, and mother and begetter of the third essence...... These, therefore, are two contrary principles: of which the idea holds the relation of male and father, and matter that of female and mother. » In this discourse of Timaeus of Locri, mind, God, idea, and model are used in altogether the same sense. The idea is a principle by no means idle, but one which holds the place of male and father, and is something unbegotten and immovable and permanent. There is no trace here of a Word distinct from the supreme God.

Id confirmatur ex his quae sequuntur : Πρὶν ὦν ὠρανὸν γενέσθαι λόγῳ, ἤστην ἰδέα τε καὶ ὕλα · καὶ ὁ Θεὸς δημιουργὸς τῶ βελτίονος. Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ πρεσβύτερον κάῤῥον ἐστὶ τῶ νεωτέρω, καὶ τὸ τεταγμένον πρὸ τῶ ἀτάκτω· ἀγαθὸς ὢν ὁ Θεὸς, ὁρῶν τε τὰν ὕλαν δεχομέναν τὰν ἰδέαν καὶ ἀλλοιουμέναν παντοίως μὲν, ἀτάκτως δὲ, ἔδει τ' εἰς τάξιν αὐτὰν ἄγεν, καὶ ἐξ ἀορίστων μεταβολῶν εἰς ὡρισμέναν καταστᾶσαι, ἵνα ὁμόλογοι ταὶ διακρίσεις τῶν σωμάτων γίγνοιντο, καὶ

This is confirmed from the things that follow: Before, therefore, the heaven came to be in thought, there were idea and matter, and God the craftsman of the better. And since the elder is better than the younger, and the ordered prior to the disordered, God, being good, and seeing matter receiving the idea and being altered in every way indeed, yet disorderly, had need both to bring it into order and to establish it out of indefinite changes into a determinate one, so that the distinctions of bodies might become proportionate, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 24

Page

running head: US PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 24
marginal letters: A dialogo, qui inscribitur; B ἐκμαγεῖον καὶ ματέρα; C et ejus naturae; D ὠρανὸν γενέσθαι λόγῳ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Timaeus Locrus and Latin translation (dialogo, qui inscribitur Timaeus...); full-width Part II heading and subtitle across cols 23-24 cut off at left edge at top of column not set

PG 6:25

μὴ κατ' αὐτόματον τροπὰς δέχοιντο · ἐποίησεν ὦν τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἁπάσας τᾶς ὕλας. « Antequam igitur coelum ratione fieret, erant idea et materia : Deus autem melioris opifex, si quidem antiquius juniore praestat, et quod ordinatum est inordinato. Deus igitur cum sit bonus, et videret materiam capacem ideae esse, ac omnibus quidem modis, sed tamen citra ordinem moveri; cumque opus esset eam in ordinem redigi, et ex infinitis mutationibus ad certam ac definitam constitui, ut corporum divisiones inter se non discreparent, nec temere ac fortuito vicissitudines acciperent; fecit igitur hunc mundum ex tota materia. » Coelum ergo λόγῳ conditur, sed hic λόγος non distinguitur ab idea, nec idea a Deo.

might not receive changes at random: He therefore made this world out of all the matter. « Before, therefore, the heaven was made by reason, there were idea and matter: and God the maker of the better, inasmuch as the more ancient excels the younger, and what is ordered the disordered. Since God, therefore, is good, and saw that matter was capable of the idea, and was moved in all ways indeed, yet without order; and since there was need that it be reduced into order, and established out of infinite changes into a certain and definite one, so that the divisions of bodies might not disagree among themselves, nor receive changes rashly and by chance; He therefore made this world out of the whole of matter. » The heaven, therefore, is founded by λόγος, yet this λόγος is not distinguished from the idea, nor the idea from God.

Non multo post idea vocatur intelligibilis essentia, quae omnia animalia in se complectitur. Κράτιστος δ' ἐστὶ γεννατῶν, ἐπεὶ ὑπὸ τῶ κρατίστω αἰτίω ἐγένετο, ἀφορῶντος οὐκ εἰς χειρόκματα παραδείγματα, ἀλλ' εἰς τὰν ἰδέαν καὶ ἐς τὰν νοατὰν οὐσίαν · ποθ' ἅν περ τὸ γεννώμενον ἀπακριβωθὲν κάλλιστόν τε καὶ ἀπαρεγχείρητον γίγνεται. Τέλειος δ' ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αἰσθητά ἐστιν, ὅτι καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα τῆνο αὐτοῦ περιέχον πάντα τὰ νοατὰ ζῶα ἐν αὑτῷ, οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς ἀπέλιπεν ἄλλο, ὅρος ὢν νοατῶν παντελὴς, ὡς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος αἰσθητῶν. « Optimus autem est mundus omnium rerum genitarum, siquidem ab optima causa factus est, non manu facta exemplaria intuente, sed ideam et intelligibilem essentiam, ad quam accurate expressum id quod fiebat, pulcherrimum est et inexpugnabile. Perfectus autem semper est in rebus sensilibus : propterea quod illius exemplar, quod omnia intelligibilia animalia in seipso complectitur, nihil extra reliquit aliud; quippe cum intelligibilium perfectus sit terminus, quemadmodum hic mundus sensilium. » Nihil aliud igitur est idea, Timaeo judice, quam essentia intelligibilis, quae omnia complectitur, nec otiosi exemplaris partes sustinet in mundo creando, sed matris et patris, utpote ipse Deus.

Not much later the idea is called the intelligible essence, which comprises all living beings in itself. And it is the best of generated things, since it came to be by the best cause, looking not to hand-wrought models, but to the idea and to the intelligible essence; in accordance with which that which is generated, having been accurately wrought, comes to be most beautiful and unassailable. And it is always perfect as regards sensible things, because the model itself also of it, comprising all the intelligible living beings in itself, left nothing else outside, being the complete boundary of intelligible things, as this world is of sensible things. « Now the world is the best of all generated things, inasmuch as it was made by the best cause, looking not to models made by hand, but to the idea and the intelligible essence, according to which that which was made, being accurately moulded, is most beautiful and unassailable. Moreover, it is always perfect in sensible things: because its model, which comprises all intelligible living beings in itself, left nothing else outside; inasmuch as it is the perfect boundary of intelligible things, just as this world is of sensible things. » The idea, therefore, in the judgement of Timaeus, is nothing else than the intelligible essence, which comprises all things, and does not sustain the role of an idle model in creating the world, but of mother and father, as being God Himself.

II. Totus Platonis Timaeus nihil aliud fere est, quam prolixior expositio hujus Timaei Locri doctrinae. In hoc autem dialogo ratio et ideae divinae nusquam ab ipso Deo distinguuntur. Rationem sive λόγον nihil aliud esse, quam Dei cogitationem, patet ex his verbis p. 1052 : Ἐξ οὖν λόγου καὶ διανοίας Θεοῦ τοιαύτης πρὸς χρόνου γένεσιν, ἵνα γεννηθῇ χρόνος, ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ πέντε ἄλλα ἄστρα, ἐπίκλην ἔχοντα πλάνητες, εἰς διορισμὸν καὶ φυλακὴν ἀριθμῶν χρόνου γέγονε. « Ex hac igitur Dei circa temporis creationem ratione et cogitatione, ut tempus crearetur, sol et luna et alia quinque astra, quae cognominantur planetae, ad distinctionem et observationem numerorum temporis facta sunt. » Et p. 1049 : Οὕτως δὴ πᾶς ὄντως ἀεὶ λογισμὸς Θεοῦ περὶ τὸν ποτὲ ἐσόμενον Θεὸν λογισθεὶς, λεῖον καὶ ὁμαλὸν, πανταχῆ τε ἐκ μέσου ἴσον, καὶ ὅλον καὶ τέλεον ἐκ τελέων σωμάτων σῶμα ἐποίησε. « Sic igitur Dei circa futurum aliquando Deum instituta

II. The whole Timaeus of Plato is scarcely anything else than a fuller exposition of this doctrine of Timaeus of Locri. Now in this dialogue the reason and the divine ideas are nowhere distinguished from God Himself. That reason or λόγος is nothing else than the thought of God is clear from these words, p. 1052: From such reason and thought of God, therefore, with a view to the generation of time, in order that time might be generated, the sun and the moon and five other stars, having the surname wanderers, came into being for the distinction and guardianship of the numbers of time. « From this reason and thought of God, therefore, concerning the creation of time, in order that time might be created, the sun and the moon and five other stars, which are surnamed planets, were made for the distinction and observation of the numbers of time. » And p. 1049: Thus indeed the whole calculation of God, truly always calculated concerning the God that was at some time to be, made a body smooth and even, and everywhere equal from the centre, and whole and complete out of complete bodies. « Thus therefore the calculation of God, instituted concerning the God that was at some time to be,

Editors' notes and page, col. 25

Page

running head: 25 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A μὴ κατ' αὐτόματον; B Non multo post; C rimum est et; D λόγον nihil aliud
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Timaeus Locrus and Plato's Timaeus and Latin translations (μὴ κατ' αὐτόματον...)

PG 6:26

ratiocinatio levem illum et aequabilem, et ex medio undequaque aequalem, et totum et perfectum ex perfectis corporibus corpus effecit. »

made him a body smooth and even, and on every side equal from the centre, and whole and perfect out of perfect bodies. »

Immerito hunc postremum locum idoneum fuisse Clericus existimat, qui Christianis persuaderet idem de Verbo Scripturas sanctas ac Platonem docere. Haec enim Dei ratiocinatio, etiam si quis sponte caecutiat, nunquam videri possit persona a Deo distincta, nec aliud est, quam ipsa Dei cogitatio, ut in priore testimonio appellat Plato. Eo autem minus dubium est, quin Plato de sola Dei cogitatione loquatur, quod in utroque loco singularem Deo cogitationem et ratiocinationem attribuat. In primo enim ait tempus creari debuisse, ut quemadmodum mundi exemplar est per omne aevum, sive per omnem aeternitatem; ita mundus esset per omne tempus, et propter hanc Dei cogitationem, factum esse solem. In altero autem hanc rationem affert, cur mundus hac forma donatus sit, quod Deus eum praestantiorem fore duxerit, si sibi ipse sufficeret, nec alienis adminiculis egeret. Eadem loquendi ratio passim occurrit. Sic pag. 1048 : Deus λογισάμενος, « cum cogitasset, » invenit ea quae mentem habent pulchriora iis esse, quae carent, mentem autem sine anima esse non posse, et « propter hanc cogitationem, » διὰ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε, mentem in anima, animam in corpore constituit. Sic etiam 1049 : Cum videret Deus frigus et calorem corpori nocere; διὰ τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε, « propter hanc causam et rationem, » unum totum ex omnibus perfectum, ac senii et morbi expertem mundum constituit.

Undeservedly does Le Clerc consider this last passage to have been suitable to persuade Christians that the sacred Scriptures and Plato teach the same thing concerning the Word. For this calculation of God, even if someone should willingly be blind, could never seem to be a person distinct from God, nor is it anything else than the very thought of God, as Plato calls it in the former testimony. Moreover, there is all the less doubt that Plato speaks of the sole thought of God, because in both passages he attributes to God a particular thought and calculation. For in the first he says that time ought to have been created so that, just as the model of the world exists through all eternity, so the world might exist through all time, and that on account of this thought of God the sun was made. And in the second he brings forward this reason why the world was endowed with this form, because God considered that it would be more excellent if it were sufficient unto itself and did not need foreign supports. The same manner of speaking occurs everywhere. Thus on p. 1048: God λογισάμενος, « having thought, » found that those things which have mind are more beautiful than those which lack it, and that mind cannot exist without soul, and « on account of this thought, » διὰ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε, He established mind in soul, and soul in body. Thus also on 1049: When God saw that cold and heat harm the body, διὰ τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε, « on account of this cause and reason, » He established the world as one whole perfected out of all things, and free from old age and disease.

Nihil moror, quod objicitur ex Epinomide, ubi mundum Plato a λόγῳ creatum dicit his verbis : Ταύτῃ μηδεὶς ἄλλος ποτὲ νομίσῃ πάντων ἡμῶν ὡς οἱ μὲν θεοί εἰσιν αὐτῶν, οἱ δ' οὔ· μηδ' ὡς οἱ μὲν γνήσιοι, οἱ δὲ τοιοῦτοί τινες οἵους οὐδὲ θέμις εἰπεῖν ἡμῶν οὐδενί. Πάντες δὲ δὴ πάντας λέγωμέν τε καὶ φῶμεν ἀδελφούς τ' εἶναι καὶ ἐν ἀδελφαῖς μοίραις· καὶ τιμὰς ἀποδιδῶμεν, μὴ τῷ μὲν ἐνιαυτὸν, τῷ δὲ μῆνα, τοῖς δὲ μήτε τινὰ μοῖραν τάττωμεν, μήτε τινὰ χρόνον, ἐν ᾧ διεξέρχεται τὸν αὑτοῦ πόλον, ξυναποτελῶν κόσμον ὃν ἔταξε λόγος ὁ πάντων θειότατος ὁρατόν· ὃν ὁ μὲν εὐδαίμων πρῶτον μὲν ἐθαύμασεν, ἔπειτα δὲ ἔρωτα ἔσχεν τοῦ καταμαθεῖν ὁπόσα θνητῇ φύσει δυνατά. « Nemo omnino ex nobis existimet alios quidem deos esse, alios vero non; aut alios legitimos, tales vero alios, quales nefas sit dicere. Sed fratres omnes ac in fraternis sortibus esse dicamus, iisque honores adhibeamus, non alii annum, alii mensem, alii vero nullam partem assignemus, nec tempus ullum, in quo circulum suum percurrit, mundum perficiens, quem ratio omnium divinissima visibilem statuit : quem quidem vir beatus primo admiratur, deinde ardet cupiditate ea discendi, quaecunque natura mortalis percipere potest. »

I care nothing for what is objected from the Epinomis, where Plato says that the world was created by λόγος in these words: In this way let no one else of us all ever suppose that some of them are gods, while others are not; nor that some are genuine, while others are such as it is not even lawful for any one of us to utter. But let us all both speak of and declare all to be brothers and in fraternal portions; and let us render honours, not assigning to one a year, to another a month, while to others we appoint neither any portion nor any time in which it traverses its own pole, helping to complete the world which reason, the most divine of all things, appointed to be perceptible: which the happy man first admired, and thereafter conceived a desire to learn thoroughly as many things as are possible for mortal nature. « Let no one at all of us suppose that some indeed are gods, while others are not; or that some are legitimate, while others are such as it is unlawful to say. But let us say that all are brothers and in fraternal lots, and let us pay honours to them, not assigning to one a year, to another a month, while to others we assign no part at all, nor any time in which it runs through its own circle, completing the world, which reason, most divine of all things, established as visible: which indeed the happy man first admires, and next burns with desire to learn those things, whatsoever mortal nature can perceive. »

Haec verba, quem beatus vir primo admiratur, non ad λόγον, sed ad mundum referri debent, cujus

These words, which the happy man first admires, ought to be referred not to the λόγος, but to the world, the

Editors' notes and page, col. 26

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 26
marginal letters: A ratiocinatio levem illum; B per omnem aeternitatem; C σμὸν τόνδε, « propter; D ἔπειτα δὲ ἔρωτα
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Plato's Timaeus and Epinomis and Latin translations (ratiocinatio levem illum...)

PG 6:27

admiratio initia nobis discendi et prima veluti elementa suppeditat, quod de divinae rationis admiratione dici non potest. Ille autem λόγος qui mundum creavit, non magis personam a Deo Patre distinctam hoc loco designat, quam in aliis supra allatis, aut etiam in isto ex Phaedone p. 85 : « Elaborandum est, ut humanarum rationum optimam et quae minime refutari possit, eligentes, ei insideamus, ut illa tanquam rate vecti, vitae istius pericula enavigemus; nisi quis possit certiore tutioreque modo, tutiore videlicet vehiculo, aut divina aliqua ratione traduci atque transmitti, » ἐπὶ βεβαιοτέρου ὀχήματος ἢ λόγου θείου τινος διαπορευθῆναι.

admiration of which supplies us with the beginnings of learning and as it were the first elements, which cannot be said of the admiration of the divine reason. Moreover, that λόγος which created the world no more designates a person distinct from God the Father in this passage than in the others adduced above, or even in this one from the Phaedo, p. 85: « We must labour that, choosing the best of human reasons and the one which can least be refuted, we may embark upon it, so that, borne upon it as upon a raft, we may sail through the perils of this life; unless someone can be carried across and transmitted in a surer and safer way, namely upon a safer vehicle, or by some divine reason, » ἐπὶ βεβαιοτέρου ὀχήματος ἢ λόγου θείου τινος διαπορευθῆναι.

III. Propius accedere videtur ad Christiani instituti similitudinem, in Epistola ad Hermiam, Frastum et Coriscum, quos hortatur, ut amicitiam inter se ineant, eamque hoc jurejurando confirment : Ἐπομνύντας σπουδῇ τε ἅμα μὴ ἀμούσῳ καὶ τῇ τῆς σπουδῆς ἀδελφῇ παιδείᾳ, καὶ τὸν τῶν πάντων Θεὸν ἡγεμόνα τῶν τε ὄντων καὶ τῶν μελλόντων, τοῦ τε ἡγεμόνος καὶ αἰτίου πατέρα κύριον, ἐπομνύντας, ὃν, ἂν ὄντως φιλοσοφῶμεν, εἰσόμεθα πάντες σαφῶς εἰς δύναμιν ἀνθρώπων εὐδαιμόνων. « Jurantes non sine eleganti studio, et sorore studii disciplina, et omnium Deum ducem et eorum quae sunt, et eorum quae futura sunt, ac ducis et causae patrem et dominum testem invocantes : quem quidem, si vere philosophemur, omnes perspicue cognoscemus, quantum fas est hominibus beatis. »

III. He seems to approach nearer to a likeness of Christian teaching in the Epistle to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, whom he exhorts to enter into friendship among themselves, and to confirm it by this oath: Swearing both with an earnestness not uncultured and by the sister of earnestness, education, and swearing by the God of all things, the leader both of things that are and of things that are to be, and the lord Father of the leader and cause, whom, if we truly philosophize, we shall all know clearly according to the power of happy men. « Swearing not without elegant zeal, and by the sister of zeal, discipline, and invoking as witness the God of all things, the leader both of those things which are and of those things which are to be, and the father and lord of the leader and cause: whom indeed, if we truly philosophize, we shall all clearly know, so far as is permitted to happy men. »

Haec de Verbo et Filio Dei dicta videri possent, si id per Platonem liceret, qui omnium ducem Deum et causam ipse sui interpres mundum esse declarat. Sic enim loquitur in Epinomide, p. 1005 : Θεὸν δ' αὐτὸν μᾶλλον ἢ τινὰ τύχην ἡγοῦμαι δόντα ἡμῖν σώζειν ἡμᾶς. Ὃν δὲ Θεὸν ἡγοῦμαι, φράζειν χρὴ, καίπερ ἄτοπον ὄντα, καί πως οὐκ ἄτοπον αὖ. Πῶς γὰρ τῶν ἀγαθῶν αἴτιον ἡμῖν ξυμπάντων, οὐ καὶ τοῦ πολὺ μεγίστου, τῆς φρονήσεως, αἴτιον ἡγεῖσθαι δεῖ γεγονέναι; Τίνα δὲ καὶ σεμνύνων ποτὲ λέγω Θεὸν, ὦ Μέγιλλέ τε καὶ Κλεινία; σχεδὸν οὐρανόν. Ὃν καὶ δικαιότατον, ὡς ξύμπαντες ἄλλοι δαίμονες ἅμα καὶ θεοὶ, τιμᾷν τε καὶ εὔχεσθαι διαφερόντως αὐτῷ. Τὸ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἴτιον ἀγαθῶν πάντων ἡμῖν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι, πάντες ἂν ὁμολογοῖμεν. « Deum autem magis arbitror, quam fortunam aliquam, hoc nobis prudentiae munus ad salutem nostram contulisse. Quem autem Deum existimem dicam vobis, quamvis id absurdum sit, ac rursus aliqua ratione non absurdum. Nam qui omnium nobis bonorum causa est, quomodo non eum longe maximi, id est prudentiae, causam fuisse existimandum est? Quem autem Deum, Megille et Clinia, laudibus effero? Coelum procul dubio; quod quidem aequissimum est, ut quemadmodum alii omnes daemones simul et dii faciunt, ita nos quoque majorem in modum colamus et precemur. Atque illud quidem aliorum omnium bonorum causam nobis exstitisse omnes confitebimur. »

These things might seem to have been spoken concerning the Word and the Son of God, if this were permitted by Plato, who, himself his own interpreter, declares that the God who is the leader of all things and the cause is the world. For thus he speaks in the Epinomis, p. 1005: And I consider that it is God Himself, rather than some fortune, who has given this to us and preserves us. Now what God I consider Him to be, I must declare, although He is strange, and yet somehow not strange in turn. For how must we not consider Him who is the cause to us of all good things together to have been the cause also of by far the greatest, prudence? And what God is it that I ever exalt and speak of, O Megillus and Clinias? Virtually the heaven: which also it is most just, as all the other daemons together and gods do, both to honour and to pray to pre-eminently. And that He has been the cause to us of all other good things as well, we would all agree. « Now I judge that God, rather than some fortune, has conferred upon us this gift of prudence for our preservation. And whom I consider to be God I shall tell you, although this is strange, and again in some way not strange. For He who is the cause to us of all good things, how must He not be considered to have been the cause of by far the greatest, that is, of prudence? And what God, Megillus and Clinias, do I extol with praises? The heaven, without doubt; which indeed it is most just that, just as all the other daemons together and gods do, so we too should worship and pray to in a greater degree. And that it indeed has been the cause to us of all other good things, we shall all confess. »

Editors' notes and page, col. 27

Page

running head: 27 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A admiratio initia nobis; B tuti similitudinem, in; C Haec de Verbo; D γεγονέναι, πάντες ἂν
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Plato's Phaedo, Epistle VI, and Epinomis and Latin translations (admiratio initia nobis...)

PG 6:28

Coeli nomine mundum a Platone designari patet ex his verbis Timaei, p. 1047 : Ὁ δὴ πᾶς οὐρανὸς ἢ κόσμος, ἢ καὶ ἄλλο, ὅ τί ποτε ὀνομαζόμενος μάλιστ' ἂν δέχοιτο, τοῦθ' ἡμῖν ὠνομάσθω. « Hoc autem universum coelum vel mundus, seu quo alio nomine appellari se maxime probet, a nobis appelletur. » Cum ergo mundus hoc loco a Platone omnium bonorum causa et Deus et a caeteris diis et daemonibus coli solitus dicatur; is de quo in superiore testimonio eadem dicuntur, mundus profecto existimandus est. Quin etiam ex posteriore testimonio superius sic videtur emendandum, τὸν τῶν πάντων θεῶν ἡγεμόνα, omnium deorum ducem invocantes, hunc enim omnes alii daemones simul et dii colunt. Mox deesse videtur αἴτιον, ita ut vertendum sit, eorum quae sunt et eorum quae futura sunt, causam. Vocem illam, αἴτιον, excidisse probant sequentia, τοῦ τε ἡγεμόνος καὶ αἰτίου πατέρα.

That the world is designated by Plato under the name of the heaven is clear from these words of the Timaeus, p. 1047: Now let this whole heaven or world, or whatever else it would most gladly accept when named, be so named by us. « Now let this whole heaven or world, or by whatever other name it may most approve of being called, be so called by us. » Since, therefore, the world in this passage is called by Plato the cause of all good things and God, and accustomed to be worshipped by the rest of the gods and daemons, that of which the same things are said in the preceding testimony must assuredly be considered to be the world. Nay more, from the latter testimony the former seems to require emendation thus: τὸν τῶν πάντων θεῶν ἡγεμόνα, invoking the leader of all the gods, for him all the other daemons together and gods worship. Presently αἴτιον seems to be lacking, so that it should be translated, the cause of those things which are and of those things which are to be. That that word, αἴτιον, has dropped out is proved by what follows, τοῦ τε ἡγεμόνος καὶ αἰτίου πατέρα.

Multa alia de mundo in eamdem sententiam dicta reperias. In Timaeo, p. 1049 : Διὰ πάντα δὴ ταῦτα εὐδαίμονα Θεὸν αὐτὸν ἐγεννήσατο. « His omnibus de causis beatum illum Deum genuit. » Et p. 1072 : Αὐτάρκη τε καὶ τελεώτατον Θεὸν ἐγέννα. « Deum sibi ipsi sufficientem et perfectissimum generabat. » Sic dialogum concludit : Θνητὰ γὰρ καὶ ἀθάνατα ζῶα λαβὼν, καὶ ξυμπληρωθεὶς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος, οὕτω ζῶον ὁρατὸν, καὶ ὁρατὰ περιέχων, εἰκὼν τοῦ νοητοῦ Θεοῦ, μέγιστος καὶ ἄριστος κάλλιστός τε καὶ τελεώτατος γέγονεν, εἷς οὐρανὸς ὅδε, μονογενὴς ὤν. « Mortalia enim et immortalia animalia capiens, ac completus hic mundus, sic animal visibile, visibilia comprehendens, intelligibilis Dei imago, sensibilis, maximus, pulcherrimus et perfectissimus exstitit, unum hoc coelum, unigenitus. » Sic etiam initio Timaei Locri, mundus vocatur unus, unigenitus, Deus genitus. Hinc Velleius apud Ciceronem lib. I De nat. deorum, multa jocatur in rotundum Deum Platonis; ac, si mundus est Deus, Dei membra partim ardentia, partim refrigerata esse concludit, propterea quod multae mundi partes aut appulsu solis exarserint, aut obriguerint nive pruinaque longinquo solis abscessu.

You may find many other things spoken concerning the world to the same effect. In the Timaeus, p. 1049: On account of all these things, therefore, He begot it as a happy God. « For all these causes He begot Him as a blessed God. » And p. 1072: He was begetting a God self-sufficient and most complete. « He was generating a God sufficient unto Himself and most perfect. » Thus he concludes the dialogue: For having received mortal and immortal living beings, and having been filled up, this world, thus a visible living being, and comprising visible things, an image of the intelligible God, has become greatest and best, most beautiful and most complete, this one heaven, being only-begotten. « For receiving mortal and immortal living beings, and being completed, this world has thus become a visible living being, comprehending visible things, the sensible image of the intelligible God, greatest, most beautiful, and most perfect, this one heaven, only-begotten. » Thus also at the beginning of Timaeus of Locri, the world is called one, only-begotten, a begotten God. Hence Velleius in Cicero, Book I On the Nature of the Gods, makes many jests against the round God of Plato; and concludes that, if the world is God, the members of God are partly burning, partly chilled, because many parts of the worldeither blaze with the approach of the sun, or are stiff with snow and frost at the distant departure of the sun.

IV. Platonem haec in opinionum commenta et verborum ampullas conjecit ea, quam sibi finxerat, mundi similitudo cum Deo. Egregie ille quidem et luculenter docuit, Deum omnia ad idearum suarum exemplar creasse, nec quidquam esse in mundo, quod non ideae divinae respondeat. At inscienter prorsus et absurde mundum essentiae divinae accuratam esse et omnibus numeris instructam imaginem sibi fingebat, nec quidquam esse in Deo, cujus non aliqua expressa sit in mundo imago. Sic loquitur, p. 1047 : Λέγωμεν δὲ δι' ἥν αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν τόδε ὁ ξυνιστὰς ξυνέστησεν. Ἀγαθὸς ἦν, ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος. Τούτου δ' ἐκτὸς ὢν πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια αὑτῷ. « Dicamus autem quam ob causam mundi auctor generationem atque hoc universum constituerit.

IV. It was that likeness of the world to God which he had fashioned for himself that cast Plato into these figments of opinions and bombast of words. Excellently indeed and lucidly did he teach that God created all things after the model of His own ideas, and that there is nothing in the world which does not correspond to the divine idea. Yet altogether ignorantly and absurdly he imagined for himself that the world is an accurate image of the divine essence, furnished in every detail, and that there is nothing in God of which some image is not expressed in the world. Thus he speaks, p. 1047: Now let us state on account of what cause He who framed generation and this universe framed it. He was good, and in one who is good no envy ever arises concerning anything. And being free from this, He wished all things to become as like Himself as possible. « Now let us say for what cause the author of the world established generation and this universe.

Editors' notes and page, col. 28

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 28
marginal letters: A Coeli nomine mundum; B sunt et eorum; C μονογενὴς ὤν. « Mortalia; D mundi similitudo cum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Plato's Timaeus and Latin translations (Coeli nomine mundum...); stray ink mark over second o in opinionum in para 3 line 1

PG 6:29

Bonus erat; bono autem nulla unquam ulla de re inest invidia. Hujus igitur expers cum esset, voluit omnia sibi quam simillima fieri. »

He was good; and in one who is good no envy ever resides concerning anything. Being free from this, therefore, He wished all things to be made as like Himself as possible. »

In hac de mundo sententia id videbatur inesse incommodi, quod mundus sit creatus, Deus vero sempiternus, nec proinde id quod esse incepit, aeterni imago esse possit. Huic incommodo sic occurrit Plato, p. 1052 : Ὡς δὲ κινηθέν τε αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνενόησε τῶν ἀϊδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατὴρ, ἠγάσθη τε, καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς, ἔτι δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι. Καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ζῶον ἀΐδιον, καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν· ἡ μὲν οὖν ζώου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν· εἰκόνα δ' ἐπινοεῖ κινητήν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι, καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν, ποιεῖ μένοντος αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνι κατ' ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον εἰκόνα, τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον ὠνομακαμεν. « Postquam igitur moveri et vivere animadvertit creatum illud deorum immortalium simulacrum is qui genuit Pater, admiratus ac oblectatus est, magisque exemplari simile perficere cogitavit. Quemadmodum ergo ipsum exemplar est animal sempiternum, ita etiam hoc universum tale, quantum fieri poterat, perficere instituit. Ac animalis quidem natura erat aeterna; id autem rei creatae omnino affingi non poterat. Quamobrem excogitat mobilem quamdam aeternitatis imaginem; et dum coelum exornat, aeternitatis in uno permanentis aeternam imaginem numero progredientem creat; quam tempus vocavimus. » Et non multo post : Χρόνος δ' οὖν μετ' οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, ἵνα ἅμα γεννηθέντες, ἅμα καὶ λυθῶσιν, ἄν ποτε λύσις τις αὐτῶν γένηται, καὶ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα τῆς αἰωνίου φύσεως· ἵν' ὡς ὁμοιότατος αὐτῷ κατὰ δύναμιν ᾖ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ δὴ παράδειγμα, πάντα αἰῶνά ἐστιν ὄν· ὁ δ' αὖ διὰ τέλους τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον γεγονώς τε καὶ ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενός ἐστι μόνος. « Tempus ergo simul cum coelo creatum est, ut simul genita simul dissolvantur, si qua eorum aliquando futura sit dissolutio; tum etiam ut aeternae naturae exemplari, quantum fieri potest, quam simillimus sit mundus. Nam exemplar per omnem est aeternitatem; mundus vero per omne tempus solus fuit, est et erit. »

In this opinion concerning the world there seemed to reside this inconvenience, that the world was created, whereas God is everlasting, and therefore that which began to be cannot be the image of the eternal. Plato meets this inconvenience thus, p. 1052: Now when the Father who begot it perceived it moving and living, having become a shrine of the everlasting gods, He admired it, and being delighted, He took thought to work it out to be still more like the model. Just as that, therefore, happens to be an everlasting living being, so He endeavoured according to power to render this universe also such: now the nature of the living being happened to be eternal, and this indeed it was not possible to attach completely to that which was begotten; so He takes thought to make a certain moving image of eternity, and while ordering the heaven at the same time, He makes of eternity abiding in one an eternal image proceeding according to number, this which we have named time. « After the Father who begot it perceived that created image of the immortal gods moving and living, He admired and was delighted, and took thought to make it more like the model. Therefore, just as the model itself is an everlasting living being, so He resolved to make this universe also such, so far as could be done. Now the nature of the living being was eternal; but this could not be altogether attached to a created thing. Wherefore He devises a certain moving image of eternity; and while He adorns the heaven, He creates an eternal image, proceeding by number, of eternity abiding in one; which we have called time. » And not much later: Time, therefore, came into being together with the heaven, in order that, having been begotten together, they may also be dissolved together, if ever any dissolution of them should come to pass, and after the model of the eternal nature, so that it may be as like it as possible according to its power. For the model indeed is existent through all eternity; whereas it, on the other hand, has been and is and shall be alone throughout the whole of time to the end. « Time, therefore, was created together with the heaven, so that, begotten together, they may be dissolved together, if ever there should be any dissolution of them; and also so that the world may be as like the model of the eternal nature as can be done. For the model exists through all eternity; whereas the world through all time alone was, is, and shall be. »

Sic creato tempore ut mundus perfectissimo et intelligibili animali simillimus, naturam aeternam imitaretur; haec tamen similitudo, Platone judice, inchoata et manca exstitisset, nisi quot animalium species ideis aeterni animalis obversantur, totidem in mundo creatae fuissent. Sic rem exponit : Τῷ δὲ μήπω τὰ πάντα ζῶα ἐντὸς αὐτοῦ γεγενημένα περιειληφέναι, ταύτῃ ἔτι εἶχεν ἀνομοίως. Τοῦτο δὴ τὸ κατάλοιπον ἀπειργάζετο αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ παραδείγματος ἀποτυπούμενος φύσιν· ᾗπερ οὖν νοῦς ἐνούσας ἰδέας τῷ ὅἐστι ζῶον, οἷαί τε ἔνεισι καὶ ὅσαι καθορᾷ, τοιαύτας καὶ τοσαύτας διενοήθη δεῖν καὶ τόδε σχεῖν. « Sed quia nondum omnia animalia intra se

Time having been thus created so that the world, most like the most perfect and intelligible living being, might imitate the eternal nature, this likeness nevertheless, in the judgement of Plato, would have been incomplete and defective, unless as many species of living beings as are present to the ideas of the eternal living being had been created in equal number in the world. Thus he sets forth the matter: And because it had not yet embraced all the living beings generated within it, in this respect it was still unlike. This remainder, therefore, He wrought out for it, moulding it after the nature of the model; accordingly, just as mind beholds the ideas indwelling in that which is Living Being, both of what sort are in it and how many, of such sort and so many He considered that this also ought to have. « But because the world did not yet contain all living beings

Editors' notes and page, col. 29

Page

running head: 29 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A Bonus erat; bono; B νητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν; C nem; et dum; D omnem est aeternitatem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Plato's Timaeus and Latin translations (Bonus erat; bono...); ὅἐστι printed as one word in para 3

PG 6:30

genita mundus continebat, idcirco erat adhuc dissimilis. Quod autem illi deerat, id perfecit Deus naturam exemplaris imitatione exprimens. Quatenus igitur mens insitas ei, quod est animal, ideas cernit, qualesque sunt et quot intuetur, tales et totidem in mundo esse oportere judicavit. » Dicebat supra Timaeus Locrus, mundum esse perfectum, quia illius exemplar, quod omnia intelligibilia in seipso complectitur, nihil extra praetermisit, sed intelligibilium perfectus est terminus, ut hic mundus sensilium.

generated within itself, on that account it was still unlike. Now what was lacking to it, God completed, expressing the nature of the model by imitation. According, therefore, as mind discerns the ideas implanted in that which is the living being, both of what sort they are and how many it beholds, of such sort and so many He judged that there ought to be in the world. » Timaeus of Locri said above that the world is perfect, because its model, which comprises all intelligible things in itself, omitted nothing outside, but is the perfect boundary of intelligible things, as this world is of sensible things.

V. Venio ad celeberrimum ex secunda Platonis epistola testimonium quod et Justinus in Apol. 1, et multi alii post eum citarunt, et Christianis fucum fecisse Clericus existimat. Significaverat Dionysius Platoni per Archedemum sibi non omnino satisfacere institutam a Platone de primi natura demonstrationem. Sic respondet Plato : Φραστέον δή σοι δι' αἰνιγμῶν· ἵν' ἄν τι ἡ δέλτος ἢ πόντου ἢ γῆς ἐν πτυχαῖς πάθῃ, ὁ ἀναγνοὺς μὴ γνῷ. Ὧδε γὰρ ἔχει· περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα πάντα ἐστὶ καὶ ἐκείνου ἕνεκα πάντα· καὶ ἐκεῖνο αἴτιον ἁπάντων τῶν καλῶν. Δεύτερον δὲ περὶ τὰ δεύτερα, καὶ τρίτον περὶ τὰ τρίτα. Ἡ οὖν ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχὴ περὶ αὐτὰ ὀρέγεται μαθεῖν ποῖα ἄττα ἐστὶ, βλέπουσα εἰς τὰ αὑτῆς συγγενῆ, ὧν οὐδὲν ἱκανῶς ἔχει. Τοῦ δὲ βασιλέως πέρι καὶ ὧν εἶπον, οὐδέν ἐστι τοιοῦτο. « Dicendum tibi per aenigmata : ut si quid huic tabellae vel mari vel terra contingat, qui legerit intelligere non possit : sic autem habet. Circa omnium Regem cuncta sunt; ipsius gratia omnia; ipse pulchrorum omnium causa; secundum circa secunda; tertium circa tertia. Humana igitur anima haec qualia sint discere cupit, ad ea respiciens, quae sibi cognata sunt, quorum nullum satis aptum est. At in Rege et iis, de quibus dixi, nihil tale. »

V. I come to the most celebrated testimony from the Second Epistle of Plato, which both Justin in Apology 1 and many others after him have cited, and which Le Clerc supposes to have imposed upon the Christians. Dionysius had signified to Plato through Archedemus that the demonstration instituted by Plato concerning the nature of the First did not altogether satisfy him. Thus replies Plato: It must indeed be told to you through riddles: so that if the tablet should suffer anything in the folds either of sea or of land, he who reads it may not understand. For thus it stands: around the King of all things are all things, and for His sake are all things; and that is the cause of all beautiful things. And the second is around the second things, and the third around the third things. The human soul, therefore, yearns concerning them to learn of what sort they are, looking upon the things akin to itself, none of which is sufficient. But concerning the King and the things of which I spoke, there is nothing of such a kind. « I must speak to you through riddles: so that if anything should happen to this tablet either by sea or by land, he who has read it may not be able to understand: now thus the matter stands. Around the King of all things are all things; for His sake are all things; He Himself is the cause of all beautiful things; the second is around the second things; the third around the third things. The human soul, therefore, desires to learn of what sort these things are, looking to those things which are akin to itself, none of which is sufficiently apt. But in the King and in those things of which I have spoken, there is nothing such. »

Parvi refert hujus loci sententiam investigare, quam ipse Plato quibusdam veluti integumentis consulto obvolvit. Videtur tamen aliud nihil indicare, quam quod saepe alias de variis cognoscendi modis disseruit. In libro VI De rep., duo distinguit entia, visibile et invisibile, et duplicem utriusque cognoscendi modum. In visibili genere ponit imagines sive umbras et simulacra, et ipsas res, quae his imaginibus adumbrantur, ita ut quemadmodum se habet opinio ad scientiam, ita imago ad id cujus est imago. In invisibili genere duos pariter distinguit cognoscendi modos : Unum in quo anima suppositionibus et imaginibus utitur ad speciei invisibilis investigationem; alterum cum animus sine imaginibus ipsas species considerat. His paulo uberius explicatis tandem sic concludit : Καί μοι ἐπὶ τοῖς τέτταρσι τμήμασι τέτταρα ταῦτα παθήματα ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενα λάβε. Νόησιν μὲν ἐπὶ τῷ ἀνωτάτῳ· διάνοιαν δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ· τῷ τρίτῳ δὲ πίστιν ἀπόδος, καὶ τῷ τελευταίῳ εἰκασίαν. « Ad has quatuor proportiones quatuor itidem mentis affectiones accipe. Intelligentiam supremo, cogitationem

It matters little to investigate the meaning of this passage, which Plato himself purposely wrapped up in certain coverings, as it were. Nevertheless, he seems to indicate nothing else than what he often discoursed upon elsewhere concerning the various modes of knowing. In Book VI of the Republic, he distinguishes two beings, the visible and the invisible, and a twofold mode of knowing each. In the visible kind he places images or shadows and reflections, and the things themselves which are shadowed forth by these images, so that just as opinion stands in relation to knowledge, so the image stands to that of which it is the image. In the invisible kind he likewise distinguishes two modes of knowing: one in which the soul uses hypotheses and images for the investigation of the invisible form; the other when the mind considers the forms themselves without images. Having explained these things a little more fully, he finally concludes thus: And take for me, set over the four sections, these four affections arising in the soul: understanding over the highest, and thought over the second; to the third assign belief, and to the last conjecture. « For these four proportions receive likewise four affections of the mind. Assign understanding to the highest, thought

Editors' notes and page, col. 30

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 30
marginal letters: A genita mundus continebat; B Dionysius Platoni per; C qui legerit intelligere; D gines sive umbras
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Plato's Epistle II and Republic VI and Latin translations (genita mundus continebat...)

PG 6:31

secundo, fidem tertio assigna, ultimo assimilationem sive imaginationem. » Eadem docet libr. VII, p. 705.

to the second, belief to the third, and to the last assimilation or imagination. » He teaches the same things in Book VII, p. 705.

Videtur epistola ad Dionysium hos cognoscendi modos indicare. Non enim triadem habet, sed quaternionem. Primum cognoscendi genus, illudque longe praestantissimum in ipsius entis consideratione versatur. Hoc solis sapientibus contingit, qui, ut ait Plato libr. VII De rep., ipsum bonum intuentur, eoque utuntur tanquam exemplari. Secundum cognoscendi genus versatur circa secunda; cum videlicet animus, ut de geometria et aliis ejusmodi artibus observat Plato ibid. lib. VI De rep., imaginibus et suppositionibus ad entis investigationem utitur. Tertium circa tertia versatur, cum in rebus visibilibus non umbras et imagines, sed ipsas res apprehendimus; ex quo fidem effici declarat Plato. Quartum cognoscendi genus, quod εἰπασία sive imaginatio et assimilatio est, non obscure commemoratur in epistola ad Dionysium, ubi mens discendi cupida ad ea tantum respicere dicitur, quae ipsi cognita sunt; quae cognoscendi ratio Platonis judicio caeteris plurimum concedit. Non ergo hic trias quaerenda, sed tetras Pythagorica, quae ex quatuor cognoscendi modis explicatur apud Plutarchum lib. I De placitis philosophorum : Ἡ ἡμετέρα ψυχὴ, φησὶν, ἐκ τετράδος σύγκειται· εἶναι γὰρ νοῦν, ἐπιστήμην, δόξαν, αἴσθησιν, ἐξ ὧν πᾶσα τέχνη καὶ ἐπιστήμη, καὶ ἡμεῖς λογικοί ἐσμεν. « Anima nostra continetur tetrade : est enim mens, scientia, opinio, sensus. Ex quibus ars omnis et scientia ac nos ipsi rationis participes sumus. »

The epistle to Dionysius seems to indicate these modes of knowing. For it does not have a triad, but a quaternion. The first kind of knowing, and that by far the most excellent, is occupied with the consideration of being itself. This falls to the lot of the wise alone, who, as Plato says in Book VII of the Republic, behold the good itself, and use it as a model. The second kind of knowing is occupied with the second things; namely when the mind, as Plato observes there in Book VI of the Republic concerning geometry and other arts of that sort, uses images and hypotheses for the investigation of being. The third is occupied with the third things, when in visible things we apprehend not shadows and images, but the things themselves; from which Plato declares that belief is produced. The fourth kind of knowing, which is εἰπασία or imagination and assimilation, is not obscurely mentioned in the epistle to Dionysius, where the mind desirous of learning is said to look only to those things which are akin to itself; which method of knowing, in the judgement of Plato, yields very much to the others. Therefore, it is not a triad that is to be sought here, but the Pythagorean tetrad, which is explained from the four modes of knowing in Plutarch, Book I On the Opinions of the Philosophers: Our soul, he says, is composed of a tetrad: for it is mind, knowledge, opinion, sensation, from which come every art and science, and we ourselves are rational. « Our soul is contained in a tetrad: for it is mind, knowledge, opinion, sensation. From which every art and science exist, and we ourselves are partakers of reason. »

VI. Praetermittendus non est alius locus ex libr. VI De rep., qui apud Eusebium citatur Praep. evang. lib. II, cap. 21. Sic loquitur Socrates : Ἆρ' οὖν οὐ καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ὄψις μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν, αἴτιος δ' ὢν αὐτῆς ὁρᾶται ὑπ' αὐτῆς ταύτης; Οὕτως, ἦ δ' ὅς. Τοῦτον τοίνυν (ἦν δὲ ἐγὼ) φάναι με λέγειν τὸν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἔκγονον, ὃν τἀγαθὸν ἐγέννησεν ἀνάλογον ἑαυτῷ, ὅ τί περ αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ νοητῷ τόπῳ πρός τε νοῦν καὶ τὰ νοούμενα, τοῦτο τοῦτον ἐν τῷ ὁρατῷ πρός τε ὄψιν καὶ τὰ ὁρώμενα. « Nonne igitur sol ipse visus non est, et cum causa sit visus, ab ipso illo cernitur? Omnino, inquit ille. Sic igitur, inquam, de illo boni fetu, quem sibi similem id quod bonum est genuit, meam accipe sententiam : quale illud est bonum in loco intelligibili cum mente ac rebus mente perceptis comparatum, talem esse solem in visibili, si cum visu et rebus sub visum cadentibus conferatur. »

VI. Another passage from Book VI of the Republic must not be passed over, which is cited in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, Book II, chapter 21. Thus speaks Socrates: Is not the sun also, therefore, not sight indeed, yet being the cause of it, is seen by this very sight? Even so, said he. Say then (said I) that I call this the offspring of the good, which the good begot proportionate to itself: whatever that itself is in the intelligible place in relation both to mind and to the things thought, this the sun is in the visible place in relation both to sight and to the things seen. « Is not therefore the sun itself not sight, and yet, since it is the cause of sight, is seen by that sight itself? Altogether so, said he. Thus therefore, said I, receive my opinion concerning that offspring of the good, which that which is good begot like unto itself: what that good is in the intelligible place when compared with mind and the things perceived by mind, such is the sun in the visible place, if it be compared with sight and the things falling under sight. »

Prima specie videtur Plato filium Deo attribuere, quem Deus sibi similem genuerit : sed si attendamus quae sequuntur, quaeque praecedunt, non de Filio Dei, sed de scientia et veritate, quam Deus in nobis gignit, Platonem loqui constabit.

At first sight Plato seems to attribute a son to God, whom God begot like unto Himself: yet if we attend to what follows and what precedes, it will be established that Plato speaks not of the Son of God, but of the knowledge and truth which God begets in us.

Quidnam sit bonum (quo nomine Deum designari nemo negaverit) explicare non audet Socrates rei difficultate deterritus; sed tamen ejus τόκους, sive partus exponere aggreditur, « et quis sit illius fetus, ipsique simillimus, » ὃς δὲ ἔκγονος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φαίνεται καὶ ὁμοιότατος ἐκείνῳ. Ut hunc τόκον καὶ ἔκγονον,

What the good is (by which name no one will deny that God is designated) Socrates, deterred by the difficulty of the matter, does not dare to explain; nevertheless, he undertakes to set forth its τόκους, or offspring, « and what its fetus is, and most like unto itself, » ὃς δὲ ἔκγονος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φαίνεται καὶ ὁμοιότατος ἐκείνῳ. In order that he may set forth this τόκον καὶ ἔκγονον,

Editors' notes and page, col. 31

Page

running head: 31 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A secundo, fidem tertio; B effici declarat Plato; C et scientia ac; D genuit, meam accipe
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Plutarch and Plato's Republic VI and Latin translations (secundo, fidem tertio...)

PG 6:32

partum et fetum boni exponat, statuit ea quae videntur, minime intelligi, ideas intelligi quidem, sed minime videri : ac omnium quidem sensuum praestantissimum esse visum, et quemadmodum nemo videre potest, nisi affulgeat illa lux, quam solus ex diis coelestibus sol efficit, ita etiam nihil intelligi posse sine illo Dei fetu; quia Deus idem praestat in rebus quae intelliguntur, ac sol in iis quae videntur. Rogatus ut rem clarius explanet, haeret in eodem exemplo, et quemadmodum oculi caecutiunt, cum ad ea vertuntur, quae noctis tenebris operta sunt, secus vero cum ad ea quae sol illustrat; ita de animo judicandum statuit. « Quando enim, inquit, eo fertur, ubi veritas et ipsum ens emicat, intelligit illud, cognoscitque et mentem habere videtur. Quando autem ad id quod tenebris permistum est, quodque nascitur et perit; opinatur et caecutit, sursum deorsum opiniones immutans, ac mentis experti similis est. Quod igitur et veritatem rebus cognoscendis et virtutem praestat cognoscenti, boni ideam esse dicito, scientiae et veritatis, quae mente cognoscitur, causam. »

the birth and offspring of the good, he lays down that those things which are seen are by no means understood, whereas the ideas are understood indeed, but by no means seen: and that of all the senses sight is the most excellent, and just as no one can see unless that light shines forth which the sun alone among the heavenly gods produces, so also nothing can be understood without that offspring of God; because God performs the same thing in the things which are understood as the sun does in those which are seen. Asked to explain the matter more clearly, he cleaves to the same example, and lays down that just as the eyes are dim-sighted when they are turned to those things which are covered by the darkness of night, and otherwise when turned to those which the sun illumines, so we must judge concerning the mind. « For when, he says, it is borne thither where truth and being itself shines forth, it understands and knows it, and seems to have mind. But when it is borne to that which is mingled with darkness, and which is born and perishes, it opines and is dim-sighted, changing its opinions up and down, and is like one devoid of mind. That, therefore, which bestows both truth upon the things to be known and the power upon him who knows, say that it is the idea of the good, the cause of knowledge and of truth, which is known by the mind. »

Nihil aliud ergo est ille Dei fetus, quam scientia et veritas, quae ut lux a sole, ita a Deo gignuntur. Eumdem enim ordinem ponit inter bonum et ipsius partum, veritatem et scientiam, ac inter solem et lucem; et quemadmodum lux et visus sunt quidem ἡλιοειδῆ, id est speciem habent ad solis splendorem accommodatum, nec tamen sunt ipse sol; ita veritatem et scientiam esse quidem ἀγαθοειδῆ, id est boni speciem habere declarat, sed tamen ipsum bonum non esse. Addit quemadmodum sol iis quae videntur, non id solum praestat ut videantur, sed etiam ea generare, augere, nutrire, quamvis ipse non sit generatio; ita bonum iis quae cognoscuntur, non solum largiri ut cognosci possint, sed etiam ipsam essentiam donare, quamvis ipsum minime sit essentia, sed supra essentiam, dignitate et potentia exsuperans.

That offspring of God, therefore, is nothing else than knowledge and truth, which, as light from the sun, so are begotten from God. For he sets the same order between the good and its offspring, truth and knowledge, as between the sun and light; and just as light and sight are indeed ἡλιοειδῆ, that is, have a form adapted to the splendour of the sun, and yet are not the sun itself; so he declares that truth and knowledge are indeed ἀγαθοειδῆ, that is, have the form of the good, and yet are not the good itself. He adds that just as the sun bestows upon those things which are seen not only this, that they may be seen, but also generates, increases, and nourishes them, although it is not itself generation; so the good not only bestows upon those things which are known that they may be known, but also gives them essence itself, although it is itself by no means essence, but above essence, surpassing it in dignity and power.

VII. Ad hanc Platonis interpretandi rationem accedit auctoritas veterum scriptorum, qui in ejus libris maxime versati fuere. Nullam enim de hoc Dei Filio litteram invenias neque apud Ciceronem, neque apud Plutarchum, qui Platonis doctrinam omnibus vestigiis indagarunt, neque apud alios scriptores, qui de philosophorum sententiis pertractant. Nemo omnino commemoratur ex philosophis ethnicis, qui hanc de Verbo Dei Filio sententiam ante exortos recentiores Platonicos aut secutus sit aut impugnaverit. Cicero in libr. II De leg. veram legem existimat mentem esse omnia ratione aut cogentis aut vetantis Dei. Paulo post de eadem lege : « Non tum denique incipit lex esse, inquit, cum scripta est, sed tum cum orta est. Orta autem simul est cum mente divina. Quamobrem lex vera atque princeps, apta ad jubendum et ad vetandum, ratio est recta summi Jovis. » Vides Ciceronem, tum cum sibi Platonem ad imitandum proponit, ne suspicari quidem λόγον sive rationem esse Filium Dei. Plutarchus in libro De placitis philosophorum tria Platonis

VII. To this manner of interpreting Plato is added the authority of the ancient writers who were most versed in his books. For you will find not a letter concerning this Son of God either in Cicero or in Plutarch, who tracked the doctrine of Plato in all its footsteps, or in the other writers who treat of the opinions of the philosophers. No one at all among the pagan philosophers is mentioned who either followed or impugned this opinion concerning the Word, the Son of God, before the more recent Platonists arose. Cicero, in Book II On the Laws, considers the true law to be the mind of God compelling or forbidding all things by reason. A little later, concerning the same law: « Law does not then at last begin to be, he says, when it has been written, but when it has arisen. Now it arose at the same time with the divine mind. Wherefore the true and primal law, fitted for commanding and for forbidding, is the right reason of supreme Jupiter. » You see that Cicero, at the very time when he sets Plato before himself for imitation, does not even suspect that the λόγος or reason is the Son of God. Plutarch, in his book On the Opinions of the Philosophers, three of Plato's

Editors' notes and page, col. 32

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 32
marginal letters: A partum et fetum; B Quando autem ad; C ciem habere declarat; D scriptores, qui de
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with embedded Greek words (ἡλιοειδῆ, ἀγαθοειδῆ, λόγον) (partum et fetum...)

PG 6:33

principia recenset, Deum, materiam et ideam. Ideam autem nihil aliud esse putat, quam essentiam incorpoream ἐν νοήμασι καὶ φαντασίαις Dei exsistentem; in quo valde a Clerico et aliis hujusmodi discrepat, qui ideam apud Platonem substantiam esse volunt a Deo separatam et dissociatam.

God, matter, and idea. Moreover, he thinks that the idea is nothing else than an incorporeal essence existing ἐν νοήμασι καὶ φαντασίαις of God; in which he differs greatly from Le Clerc and others of this sort, who wish the idea in Plato to be a substance separated and dissociated from God.

Celsus apud Origenem Deum ipsum rationem esse omnium rerum pronuntiat, ut patet ex his verbis quae ab Origene referuntur lib. V, pag. 240 : Σάρκα δὴ μεστὴν ὧν οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν καλὸν, αἰώνιον ἀποφῆναι παραλόγως οὔτε βουλήσεται ὁ Θεὸς, οὔτε δυνήσεται. Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ πάντων τῶν ὄντων λόγος· οὐδὲν οὖν οἷός τε παράλογον, οὐδὲ παρ' ἑαυτὸν ἐργάσασθαι. « Carnem vero iis plenam, quae ne appellare quidem decet, aeternam reddere contra rationem nec volet Deus, nec poterit. Ipse enim omnium rerum ratio est : nihil ergo contra rationem, aut contra seipsum facere poterit. » Christianae doctrinae discrimen a Celsi sententia sic exponit Origenes, pag. 246 : Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ τῶν πάντων λόγος ἐστὶ, κατὰ μὲν Κέλσον, αὐτὸς ὁ Θεός· κατὰ δὲ ἡμᾶς, ὁ Υἱὸς αὐτοῦ. « Sed omnium quidem ratio est, secundum Celsum, ipse Deus; secundum nos, ejus Filius. »

Celsus in Origen pronounces that God Himself is the reason of all things, as is clear from these words which are reported by Origen, Book V, p. 240: Flesh indeed full of things which it is not even honourable to utter, God will neither wish nor be able unreasonably to render eternal. For He Himself is the reason of all things that exist; He is able, therefore, to work nothing unreasonable, nor contrary to Himself. « Now flesh full of those things which it is not even fitting to name, God will neither wish nor be able to render eternal contrary to reason. For He Himself is the reason of all things: He will be able, therefore, to do nothing contrary to reason, or contrary to Himself. » Origen sets forth the difference of Christian doctrine from the opinion of Celsus thus, p. 246: Moreover, the reason of all things is, according to Celsus indeed, God Himself; but according to us, His Son. « But the reason of all things is, according to Celsus indeed, God Himself; according to us, His Son. »

Idem Celsus, cum saepe Christianos multa dicat ex Platone hausisse, nusquam eorum de Verbo doctrinam, quam sexcenties exagitat, inter haec furta commemorat. Quin etiam penitus ignorabat Platonem de Filio Dei locutum esse. Ait enim Christianos aliis non belle contemptis, alta et inani spe plenos, quasi magnifica quaedam didicerint, nonnulla ut vera praedicare; sed haec Platonem multo ante docuisse; nec tamen eum prodigialiter loqui, nec volentibus interrogare, quid sit hoc quod promittat, silentium indicere, aut jubere, ut e vestigio credant talem esse Deum, talemque ei esse Filium, eumque huc delapsum secum esse collocutum, pag. 280.

The same Celsus, although he often says that the Christians drew many things from Plato, nowhere mentions among these thefts their doctrine concerning the Word, which he assails six hundred times. Nay more, he was altogether ignorant that Plato had spoken concerning the Son of God. For he says that the Christians, having not fairly despised others, full of high and empty hope, as though they had learned certain magnificent things, proclaim some things as true; yet that Plato had taught these things long before; and yet that he does not speak portentously, nor impose silence upon those wishing to ask what this is that he promises, or bid them believe on the spot that God is such, and that He has such a Son, and that He glided down hither and conversed with them, p. 280.

Non ignorabat Celsus nonnulla apud Platonem legi de Filio Dei; sed filii nomine mundum designari existimat. Sic enim loquitur apud Origenem lib. V, pag. 308 : Ὁπόθεν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐπῆλθεν αὐτοῖς Θεοῦ Υἱὸν καλεῖν σημαίνω. Ἄνδρες παλαιοὶ τόνδε τὸν κόσμον, ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ γενόμενον, παῖδά τε αὐτοῦ καὶ ἠΐθεον προσεῖπον. Πάνυ γοῦν ὅμοιος οὗτος κἀκεῖνος παῖς. « Unde autem et hoc ipsum eis in mentem venerit, ut Filium Dei appellarent, indicabo. Mundum veteres, utpote ex Deo genitum, ipsius Filium et Deo similem vocabant. Bella vero similitudo hujus et illius Filii Dei. »

Celsus was not ignorant that some things are read in Plato concerning the Son of God; but he considers that the world is designated under the name of son. For thus he speaks in Origen, Book V, p. 308: And whence this very thing also came into their mind, to call Him the Son of God, I signify. Ancient men addressed this world, as having come into being from God, both as His child and as a youth. Altogether like, forsooth, are this and that child. « Now whence this very thing also came into their mind, to call Him the Son of God, I shall indicate. The ancients called the world, as begotten from God, His Son and like unto God. A fine likeness indeed of this and of that Son of God! »

VIII. Nondum ergo nati erant vel saltem nondum prodierant, scribente adversus Christianos Celso, novi illi Platonici, qui supremo Deo duas alias longe inferioris substantiae personas adjunxerunt, eisque aliquas in mundi creatione partes commiserunt. Justinus ipse, cum ad religionem Christianam accessit, nondum quidquam a Platone aut Platonicis dictum sciebat, quod cum Christiana de Verbo doctrina quadraret. Nam a sene, qui eum prima religionis elementa docuit, interrogatus, Dialog. n. 3, minime distinguit λόγον ἡγεμονοῦντα πάντων,

VIII. Not yet born, therefore, or at least not yet come forth when Celsus was writing against the Christians, were those new Platonists who adjoined to the supreme God two other persons of a far inferior substance, and committed to them certain parts in the creation of the world. Justin himself, when he came to the Christian religion, did not yet know anything spoken by Plato or the Platonists which squared with the Christian doctrine concerning the Word. For when questioned by the old man who taught him the first elements of religion, Dialogue, n. 3, he by no means distinguishes the λόγον ἡγεμονοῦντα πάντων,

Editors' notes and page, col. 33

Page

running head: 33 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A principia recenset, Deum; B Deus, nec poterit; C ut vera praedicare; D mentem venerit, ut
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Origen Contra Celsum and Latin translations (principia recenset, Deum...)

PG 6:34

« rationem omnibus imperantem » a Deo et cogitatione divina, sed manifeste respicit ad locum Platonis ex Timaeo supra allatum, ubi hortatur Plato, ut humanarum rationum unam aliquam apprehendentes eique insidentes, vitae pericula tanquam rate enavigemus, nisi quis possit firmiore aliquo vehiculo, vel divina aliqua ratione apprehensa tutius traduci.

« the reason ruling over all things, » from God and the divine thought, but manifestly looks to the passage of Plato from the Timaeus adduced above, where Plato exhorts that, laying hold of some one of human reasons and embarking upon it, we should sail through the perils of life as upon a raft, unless someone can be carried across more safely upon some firmer vehicle, or by laying hold of some divine reason.

Justinus in Cohort., quod opus in primordiis conversionis scripsit, Platonem carpit, n. 29 et 30, quod his quae Moysi dicta sunt : Secundum formam tibi in monte monstratam ita facies, lectis quidem sed non intellectis, formam quamdam, sive exemplar eorum quae facta sunt ante id, quod sensibus subjectum est, separatim exsistere existimasset, et praeexsistentem terram, praeexsistens coelum, praeexsistentem hominem admisisset. Eumdem castigat n. 7, quod formam in Dei notionibus recenseat, quam alibi substantiam separatim exsistentem pronuntiat.

Justin in the Exhortation, which work he wrote at the beginning of his conversion, reproves Plato, n. 29 and 30, because, having read indeed but not understood the things which were spoken to Moses: According to the form shown to you on the mount, so shall you make it (Exod. 25:40), he had supposed that a certain form, or model of the things which were made, existed separately before that which is subject to the senses, and had admitted a pre-existent earth, a pre-existent heaven, and a pre-existent man. He chastises the same author in n. 7, because he reckons the form among the thoughts of God, which elsewhere he pronounces to be a separately existing substance.

Ita Justinus, nihil suspicans Platonem de Verbo Dei Filio et Deo degustasse, imo ne ipse quidem in Platonica doctrina (non enim diu cum Platonicis fuerat) multum versatus. Nam Plato exemplar mundi in Dei cogitationibus constanter reponit. Quod si multis post annis visus est sibi Justinus Christianae de Filio et Spiritu sancto doctrinae aliquam, non dico cognitionem, sed, ut ipse ait, imitationem apud Platonem reperire, id cum et sero animadversum sit, et longius tractum, argumento est nunquam haec Justinum observaturum fuisse, nisi et Christiana doctrina imbutus et illius defendendae cupidus fuisset. Quinetiam ex duobus testimoniis, quae citat Apol. 1, n. 60, alterum longe aliter legitur apud Platonem, ut in nota observavi, alterum non potest ad Filium Dei nisi per vim detorqueri.

Thus writes Justin, suspecting nothing of Plato's having tasted anything concerning the Word, the Son of God and God, nay, not even himself much versed in Platonic doctrine (for he had not been long with the Platonists). For Plato constantly places the model of the world in the thoughts of God. And if many years afterwards Justin seemed to himself to find in Plato some, I do not say knowledge, but, as he himself says, imitation of the Christian doctrine concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, since this was both noticed late and fetched from afar, it is a proof that Justin would never have observed these things unless he had been both imbued with Christian doctrine and desirous of defending it. Moreover, of the two testimonies which he cites in Apology 1, n. 60, the one is read far otherwise in Plato, as I have observed in the note, and the other cannot be twisted to the Son of God except by force.

Post tot Platonis et eorum, qui illius doctrinam apprime calluerunt, ac ipsius etiam Justini testimonia, videor mihi pro meo jure statuere posse, fabulam Platonismi a Justino in Ecclesiam inducti inter ea commenta referri debere, quorum nullus unquam auctor exstitisset, aut saltem nullus astipulator, si alius esse posset absurdi erroris defendendi modus.

After so many testimonies of Plato and of those who were thoroughly skilled in his doctrine, and of Justin himself as well, I seem to myself to be able by my own right to lay down that the fable of Platonism introduced into the Church by Justin ought to be reckoned among those figments of which there would never have been any author, or at least any supporter, if there could be any other way of defending an absurd error.

Jam vero si quis objiciat veterum scriptorum judicia, Clementis Alexandrini, Origenis, Eusebii Caesariensis et Cyrilli Alexandrini, qui Justini exemplo Platonem Christianae de Verbo doctrinae testem citarunt; nihil id mihi officiet, cum ab eorum auctoritate mea non multum discedat sententia. Nam Platonica illa Filii Dei descriptio, quem unigenitum, Deum genitum, intelligibilis Dei imaginem, Deum beatum, Deum sibi ipsi sufficientem et perfectissimum, omnium bonorum causam appellat, ita Hebraeorum de aeterno Dei Filio doctrinae congruit, ut eam verisimile sit, non secus ac ea, quae supra de Deo opus suum admirante et de planetis ad distinctionem temporum factis retuli, inde derivatam et inepta cum mundo junctura depravatam fuisse. Platonem negat Justinus intellexisse, quae ex sacris fontibus hauserat.

Now if anyone should object the judgements of the ancient writers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Cyril of Alexandria, who after the example of Justin cited Plato as a witness to the Christian doctrine concerning the Word; that will be no obstacle to me, since my opinion does not depart much from their authority. For that Platonic description of the Son of God, whom he calls the only-begotten, the begotten God, the image of the intelligible God, the blessed God, the God sufficient unto Himself and most perfect, the cause of all good things, agrees so closely with the doctrine of the Hebrews concerning the eternal Son of God that it is probable that, no otherwise than those things which I related above concerning God admiring His own work and concerning the planets made for the distinction of times, it was derived thence and corrupted by an inept conjunction with the world. Justin denies that Plato understood the things which he had drawn from the sacred fountains.

Editors' notes and page, col. 34

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 34
marginal letters: A « rationem omnibus imperantem; B exsistentem hominem admisisset; C nisi et Christiana; D Caesariensis et Cyrilli
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter I concluded (« rationem omnibus imperantem...); in para 1 Timæo is printed where Plato's Phaedo is quoted (cf. col 27)

PG 6:35

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

De materiae creatione nonnulla Justini et Athenagorae loca explicantur.

Certain passages of Justin and Athenagoras concerning the creation of matter are explained.

I. Justini et Athenagorae testimonia ex aliis locis explicantur. II. Non sine causa de materiae creatione interdum silent. III. Sacri et ecclesiastici scriptores eodem modo locuti.

I. The testimonies of Justin and Athenagoras are explained from other passages. II. Not without cause are they sometimes silent concerning the creation of matter. III. The sacred and ecclesiastical writers spoke in the same manner.

I. S. Justinus et Athenagoras de mundi creatione nonnulla dixerunt, quae hoc loco explanare conabimur, ne molestiam legentibus facessant. Initium ducam ab his Justini verbis ex Apol. 1, n. 10 : Καὶ πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἀγαθὸν ὄντα, δημιουργῆσαι αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης δι' ἀνθρώπους δεδιδάγμεθα. « Et cum bonus sit omnia illum ab initio ex informi materia propter homines condidisse scimus. » Plures torsit illud, ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης, quod quidem alii expungendum duxerunt, alii emendandum, alii benignius interpretandum. Quinetiam videtur prima specie Justinus cum Platone consentire de mundi creatione, quamvis ille materiam ex nihilo creatam fuisse ne suspicatus quidem sit. Sic enim loquitur in eadem Apol. 1, n. 59 : Ἵνα δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων διδασκάλων (λέγομεν δὴ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν) λαβόντα τὸν Πλάτωνα μάθητε τὸ εἰπεῖν, ὕλην ἄμορφον οὖσαν στρέψαντα τὸν Θεὸν, κόσμον ποιῆσαι, ἀκούσατε τῶν αὐτολεξεὶ εἰρημένων διὰ Μωσέως τοῦ προδεδηλωμένου πρώτου προφήτου, καὶ πρεσβυτέρου τῶν ἐν Ἕλλησι συγγραφέων· δι' οὗ μηνύον τὸ προφητικὸν Πνεῦμα πῶς τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐκ τίνων ἐδημιούργησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ἔφη οὕτως· Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. Ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου· καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τῶν ὑδάτων. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός· Γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. Ὥστε λόγῳ Θεοῦ ἐκ τῶν ὑποκειμένων καὶ προδηλωθέντων διὰ Μωσέως, γεγενῆσθαι τὸν πάντα κόσμον, καὶ Πλάτων, καὶ οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐμάθομεν καὶ ὑμεῖς πεισθῆναι δύνασθε. « Atque ut a doctoribus nostris, id est a doctrina per prophetas vulgata, acceptum esse intelligatis, quod dixit Plato, Deum, cum materiam informem vertisset, mundum fecisse; audite quid totidem verbis dixerit Moyses, primus prophetarum et scriptoribus omnibus vetustior, ut supra demonstravimus, per quem spiritus propheticus quomodo mundum Deus initio et ex quibus condiderit, declarat his verbis : In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita; et tenebrae super abyssum; et Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquam. Et dixit Deus : Fiat lux, et facta est lux. Verbo igitur Dei ex subjectis et a Moyse designatis rebus mundum universum esse conditum et Plato, et qui eadem ac ille dicunt, et nos ipsi didicimus, vobisque licet idem perspicere. » Et n. 67, nulla materiae creationis facta mentione, Deum ait : « Cum materiam et tenebras vertisset, mundum effecisse »

I. St. Justin and Athenagoras have said certain things concerning the creation of the world, which we shall endeavour to explain in this place, lest they cause trouble to the readers. I shall make a beginning from these words of Justin from Apology 1, n. 10: And we have been taught that He, being good, in the beginning fashioned all things out of formless matter for the sake of men. « And since He is good, we know that He founded all things from the beginning out of formless matter for the sake of men. » That phrase, ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης, has tormented several scholars, which indeed some thought should be expunged, others emended, and others interpreted more favourably. Moreover, at first sight Justin seems to agree with Plato concerning the creation of the world, although the latter did not even suspect that matter was created out of nothing. For thus he speaks in the same Apology 1, n. 59: And so that you may learn that it was from our teachers (we mean the Word that is through the prophets) that Plato took his saying that God, having turned formless matter, made the world, hear the things spoken word for word through Moses, the aforementioned first prophet, and older than the writers among the Greeks; through whom the prophetic Spirit, declaring how in the beginning and out of what things God fashioned the world, spoke thus: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was above the abyss; and the Spirit of God was borne above the waters. And God said: Let there be light, and it became so (Gen. 1:1–3). So that by the Word of God out of the underlying things previously declared through Moses the whole world has come into being, both Plato, and those who say these things, and we ourselves have learned, and you can be persuaded. « And so that you may understand that what Plato said—that God, when He had turned formless matter, made the world—was received from our teachers, that is, from the doctrine published through the prophets, hear what Moses, the first of the prophets and more ancient than all writers, as we have demonstrated above, said in so many words, through whom the prophetic Spirit declares how God in the beginning and out of what things founded the world, in these words: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Now the earth was invisible and uncompounded; and darkness was over the abyss; and the Spirit of God was borne over the water. And God said: Let light be made, and light was made (Gen. 1:1–3). Both Plato, therefore, and those who say the same things as he, and we ourselves have learned that by the Word of God the whole world was founded out of the underlying things designated by Moses, and you may perceive the same thing. » And in n. 67, making no mention of the creation of matter, he says that God, « when He had turned matter and darkness, made the world »

Athenagoras docet in Apolog., n. 10 : Verbum

Athenagoras teaches in the Apology, n. 10, that the Word

Editors' notes and page, col. 35

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: et facta est lux› · call in col 35

Gen. I.

Genesis 1.

(printed under page 24)

Page

running head: 35 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A CAPUT II.; B expungendum duxerunt, alii; C οὕτως· Ἐν ἀρχῇ; D quem spiritus propheticus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter II (CAPUT II. De materiae creatione...), in Latin with Greek quotations from Justin's First Apology and Latin translations

PG 6:36

prodiisse, ut « materialium omnium, quae instar informis naturae et inertis terrae partibus crassioribus commistis cum levioribus, jacebant, idea et actus foret. » Deum et materiam cum opifice et luto comparat, n. 15 : Ὡς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς καὶ ὁ πηλὸς (ὕλη μὲν ὁ πηλὸς, τεχνίτης δὲ ὁ κεραμεύς), καὶ ὁ Θεὸς δημιουργὸς, ὑπακούουσα δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ ὕλη πρὸς τὴν τέχνην. « Quemadmodum enim figulus et lutum (materia quidem lutum, artifex autem figulus), ita Deus opifex, et quae ejus arti obsequitur materia. » Et n. 19 : Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ τεχνίτου καὶ ὕλης τῷ τεχνίτῃ. « Opus est autem et materiae opifex et materia opifici. »

came forth in order that « He might be the idea and actualization of all material things, which like a formless nature and inert earth lay with the thicker parts mingled with the lighter. » He compares God and matter with a craftsman and clay, n. 15: For just as the potter and the clay (the clay indeed being matter, and the potter the craftsman), so also God is the craftsman, and matter obeys Him with a view to His art. « For just as the potter and the clay (the clay indeed being matter, and the potter the craftsman), so God is the craftsman, and matter obeys His art. » And in n. 19: Moreover, matter also has need of the craftsman, and the craftsman has need of matter. « Moreover, both the craftsman is needed for matter and matter for the craftsman. »

Ut solvatur difficultas, si qua insit his testimoniis, illud 1° statuere possumus, Justinum et Athenagoram sic de materiae creatione aliis in locis locutos esse, ut eorum dubia non possit esse sententia. Justinus in Cohort., n. 22, hoc discrimen esse statuit inter factorem et opificem, quod factor nulla re alia indigens, ex sua ipsius virtute et potestate faciat id quod fit; conditor autem accepta a materia operandi facultate construat id quod conditur. In eodem libro Platonem exagitat quod materiam aeternam et increatam putaverit, ut observavimus ad n. 23. Eumdem Platonem ait, n. 30, legisse quidem sed non intellexisse initium libri Genesis, atque illud : Terra autem erat, intellexisse de terra praeexsistente, quia scilicet invisibilis et incomposita dicitur. Docet in Dialogo, n. 5, animam, si increata esset, Deo aequalem futuram, ita ut ne Deus quidem cogere illam et vim inferre possit. Ex quo satis perspicitur, quantum ab illius mente abfuerit absurda materiae increatae opinio. In illo autem Apologiae loco, ubi Platonem laudat, materiae creationem leviter quidem et quasi transiens, sed tamen non obscure indicat. Ait enim his verbis : In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram, ea contineri, ex quibus Deus mundum condidit, quia coelum et terram, ut multi alii, materiam sive, ut ait Augustinus, semen coeli et terrae intelligebat. Athenagoras docet, n. 4, materiam esse creatam et corruptioni obnoxiam; et n. 10, omnia per Verbum creata et ornata.

In order that the difficulty, if any resides in these testimonies, may be solved, we can lay down this in the first place, that Justin and Athenagoras have spoken in other passages concerning the creation of matter in such a way that their opinion cannot be doubtful. Justin in the Exhortation, n. 22, lays down that there is this difference between a maker and a craftsman, that a maker, needing nothing else, makes that which is made out of his own power and might; whereas a framer, having received the capability of working from matter, constructs that which is framed. In the same book he assails Plato because he thought matter eternal and uncreated, as we have observed on n. 23. He says in n. 30 that the same Plato read indeed, but did not understand, the beginning of the book of Genesis, and understood that clause, Now the earth was (Gen. 1:2), of a pre-existent earth, namely because it is called invisible and uncompounded. He teaches in the Dialogue, n. 5, that if the soul were uncreated, it would be equal to God, so that not even God could compel it and bring force to bear upon it. From which it is sufficiently perceived how far from his mind was the absurd opinion of uncreated matter. Moreover, in that passage of the Apology where he praises Plato, he indicates the creation of matter lightly indeed and as if in passing, yet not obscurely. For he says that in these words: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1), are contained those things out of which God founded the world, because by the heaven and the earth, like many others, he understood matter, or, as Augustine says, the seed of heaven and earth. Athenagoras teaches, n. 4, that matter was created and is subject to corruption; and in n. 10, that all things were created and adorned through the Word.

II. Quamvis Justinus et Athenagoras idem de materiae creatione senserint, ac Christiani omnes, interdum tamen nullam vel levem hujus creationis mentionem faciunt, quia id ab eis non postulabat propositi ratio. Justinus ubi Platonem laudat, ethnicos adducere conatur, ut ea non oderint in Christianis, quae in Platone mirantur, eisque Platonicae doctrinae cum Christiana similitudinem, veluti quamdam illecebram praetendit. Quare tunc necesse non erat in Platone ignorationem materiae creationis exagitare, sed satius videbatur illius de mundo Dei sapientia creato sententiam laudare, ut ex Moysis haustam fontibus; quamvis materiam creatam Moyses intelligat, ut Justinus non obscure declarat, increatam Plato. Saepe alias laudatus

II. Although Justin and Athenagoras held the same opinion concerning the creation of matter as all Christians, nevertheless at times they make no mention or only a slight mention of this creation, because the nature of their purpose did not demand this of them. Where Justin praises Plato, he tries to induce the pagans not to hate in Christians those things which they admire in Plato, and holds out before them, like a kind of lure, the likeness of Platonic doctrine to the Christian. Wherefore there was no need at that time to assail in Plato his ignorance of the creation of matter, but it seemed better to praise his opinion concerning the world created by the wisdom of God, as drawn from the fountains of Moses; although Moses understands matter as created, as Justin not obscurely declares, and Plato as uncreated. Often elsewhere is Plato praised

Editors' notes and page, col. 36

Footnotes

(2) ‹anchor: ut ait Augustinus› · call in col 36 (note printed at the foot of col 35)

Contra adv. leg.

Against the Adversary of the Law [and the Prophets].

(printed under page 24)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 36
marginal letters: A prodiisse, ut « materialium; B nagoram sic de; C ut ne Deus; D materiae creatione senserint
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter II continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Athenagoras's Legatio and Latin translations (prodiisse, ut « materialium...); rising space mark before Moysis in para 3

PG 6:37

Plato, quod rejectis aliorum philosophorum somniis mundum a Deo conditum docuerit, ut ad hunc Apologiae 1 locum observavi. In alio loco, ubi Justinus omnia ex informi materia docet a Deo fuisse creata, apte et consequenter ratiocinatur. Probat enim Deum non indigere materialibus hominum donis; omnia enim illum suppeditare..... et cum bonus sit, omnia illum ab initio ex informi materia propter homines creasse. Necesse non erat in ejusmodi argumento materiam conceptis verbis creatam dicere; sed cum illam dispositam et ornatam fuisse ethnici concederent, satis erat hoc principio utentem demonstrare, Deum materialibus hominum donis non indigere. Sic etiam cum ait die solis Christianos convenire, quia haec dies est, in qua Deus tenebras et materiam vertit, ac Christus resurrexit, nihil dicit quod non verissimum sit, et ad Christianorum cultui approbationem conciliandam idoneum.

because, having rejected the dreams of other philosophers, he taught that the world was founded by God, as I have observed on this passage of Apology 1. In another passage, where Justin teaches that all things were created by God out of formless matter, he reasons aptly and consistently. For he proves that God does not need the material gifts of men; for He supplies all things..... and since He is good, He created all things from the beginning out of formless matter for the sake of men. There was no need in an argument of this sort to say in express terms that matter was created; but since the pagans granted that it had been arranged and adorned, it was sufficient, using this principle, to demonstrate that God does not need the material gifts of men. Thus also when he says that the Christians assemble on the day of the sun, because this is the day on which God turned the darkness and matter, and Christ rose again, he says nothing that is not most true and suitable for winning approbation for the worship of the Christians.

Non absimilis causa Athenagoram detinet, quominus materiam conceptis verbis creatam dicat in locis modo allatis. Quod ethnici libenter dabant materiam Deo ad artem obedire et subjici, eamque a Deo ornatam et divisam fuisse, id Athenagoras argumenti loco accipit, n. 15, ut materiam probet Deo adaequandam non esse, ac proinde non colenda simulacra. Statuit, n. 19, opus esse materiam opifici et opificem materiae; sed id statuit, ut aquam non esse omnium principium, nemine repugnante, demonstret. Atque ut Athenagoram pateat quadam veluti ad principia adversariorum accommodatione uti, ut eos facilius refellat; apponam exemplum ex libro De resurrectione mortuorum, ubi Deum ad vitam posse mortuos revocare sic probat, n. 3 : Ἧς γάρ ἐστι δυνάμεως καὶ τὴν παρ' αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην ἄμορφον οὖσαν μορφῶσαι, καὶ τὴν ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀδιακόσμητον πολλοῖς καὶ διαφόροις εἴδεσι κοσμῆσαι..... τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστι καὶ τὸ διαλελυμένον ἑνῶσαι, καὶ τὸ κείμενον ἀναστῆσαι, καὶ τὸ τεθνηκὸς ζωοποιῆσαι πάλιν, καὶ τὸ φθαρτὸν μεταβαλεῖν εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν. « Cujus enim potestatis est informi, ut illi existimant, materiae formam affingere, et specie ac ornatu carentem multis variisque figuris ornare..... ejusdem quoque est et dissoluta coagmentare et jacentia excitare, et mortua ad vitam revocare, et corrupta ad statum corruptionis expertem convertere. » His verbis, informi, ut illi existimant, materiae, satis declarat Athenagoras se de mundi creatione praeclarius quam adversarios sentire, sed tamen argumenta ex ipsius materiae creatione non deducere, cum facile posset; ac iis, quae ab adversariis conceduntur, contentum esse, ut eos validius feriat, ac omnem repugnandi locum praecludat.

A not dissimilar cause keeps Athenagoras from saying in express terms that matter was created in the passages just adduced. Because the pagans gladly granted that matter obeys and is subject to God for His art, and that it was adorned and divided by God, Athenagoras takes this by way of argument, n. 15, in order to prove that matter is not to be made equal to God, and that therefore images are not to be worshipped. He lays down, n. 19, that matter is needed for the craftsman and the craftsman for matter; but he lays this down in order to demonstrate, with no one gainsaying it, that water is not the principle of all things. And so that it may be clear that Athenagoras uses a kind of accommodation, as it were, to the principles of his adversaries in order to refute them more easily, I shall append an example from the book On the Resurrection of the Dead, where he proves thus that God is able to recall the dead to life, n. 3: For to the same power to which it belongs both to give form to that which is supposed among them to be formless, and to adorn with many and diverse forms that which is without form and unordered..... to the same power it belongs also to unite that which has been dissolved, and to raise up that which lies prostrate, and to make alive again that which has died, and to change the corruptible into incorruption. « For to whose power it belongs to fashion form for matter that is formless, as they suppose, and to adorn with many and various figures that which lacks form and ornament..... to the same power it also belongs both to join together what has been dissolved, and to rouse up what lies prostrate, and to recall the dead to life, and to turn the corrupted to a state free from corruption. » By these words, matter that is formless, as they suppose, Athenagoras sufficiently declares that he holds a nobler opinion concerning the creation of the world than his adversaries, and yet does not deduce arguments from the creation of matter itself, though he easily could; and is content with those things which are granted by his adversaries, so that he may strike them more forcibly and shut off every room for contradiction.

III. Justinus et Athenagoras ab usitata sacris et ecclesiasticis scriptoribus loquendi ratione minime discedunt. In libro Sapientiae, cap. 11, v. 18 : Omnipotens Dei manus mundum ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης, « ex informi materia » fecisse dicitur. Omisit haec

III. Justin and Athenagoras by no means depart from the manner of speaking customary among sacred and ecclesiastical writers. In the Book of Wisdom, chapter 11, v. 18, the almighty hand of God is said to have made the world ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης, « out of formless matter » (Wisd. 11:18). These words were omitted by

Editors' notes and page, col. 37

Page

running head: 37 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A Plato, quod rejectis; B Deus tenebras et; C teat quadam veluti; D vitam revocare, et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface Part II Chapter II continued, in Latin with Greek quotations from Athenagoras's De resurrectione and Wisdom 11:18 and Latin translations (Plato, quod rejectis...)

PG 6:38

verba Latinus interpres. (Observat Origenes lib. IV De principiis hoc tantum in Scripturae loco vocabulum materiae hoc sensu usurpari. Citat eumdem locum Augustinus lib. I Contra advers. legis et prophet. ac « Deum observat de materia quidem informi fecisse mundum, sed simul eam concreasse cum mundo. »

the Latin translator the words. (Origen observes in book IV On First Principles that only in this passage of Scripture is the word matter used in this sense. Augustine cites the same passage in book I Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets and observes « that God indeed made the world from formless matter, yet created it together with the world at the same time. »

Gregorius Nazianz. carm. iamb. 18, pag. 205, sic loquitur :

Gregory of Nazianzus, in iambic poem 18, page 205, speaks thus:

Ὁ γὰρ σοφῷ τὰ πάντα 'ποιήσας λόγῳ... Κόσμον τε τάξας τοῦτον ἐξ ἀκοσμίας.

For He Who made all things by His wise Word... And ordered this world out of disorder.

« Sapiente nam qui cuncta Verbo condidit.... inordinatoque ordinem huic mundo dedit. » Et in Orat. 1, pag. 33, comparat turbulentos motus, quorum testis erat, cum indigesta materiae mole antequam Deus ordinem et ornatum, quem conspicimus, induceret. Γέγονε δὲ τὰ πάντα ὡς τὸ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ὅτε οὔπω κόσμος ἦν, οὐδὲ ἡ νῦν εὐταξία καὶ μόρφωσις, ἀλλὰ συγκεχυμένον τὸ πᾶν καὶ ἀνώμαλον ἐδεῖτο τῆς εἰδοποιοῦ χειρὸς καὶ δυνάμεως. « Factaque omnia sunt ut ab initio, cum nondum mundus erat, nec pulchra ea constitutio et formatio, quam nunc cernimus, sed omnia confusa et incondita formatricem manum et potentiam requirebant. » Vid. Orat. 43, p. 699 ; Hieronymus, ep. 82 : « Rudis mundus, necdum sole rutilante, nec pallente luna, nec astris micantibus, incompositam et invisibilem materiam, abyssorum magnitudine et deformibus tenebris opprimebat. » Addit ad commendationem baptismi : « Solus Spiritus Dei in aurigae modum super aquas ferebatur et nascentem mundum in figura baptismi parturiebat. » Observationem mutuatus est Hieronymus a Tertulliano, qui in libro De baptismo, cap. 3, sic loquitur : « Nam et tenebrae totae adhuc sine cultu siderum informes, et tristis abyssus, et terra imparata, et coelum rude : solus liquor, semper materia perfecta, laeta, simplex, de suo pura, dignum vehiculum Deo subjiciebat. » Vid. Athanas. Orat. adv. gent., n. 38, 41, 42. In his testimoniis divina potentia non tam ab ipsa ex nihilo creatione laudatur, quam a mirabili ornatu quem rebus creatis affinxit : quominus miremur, si scriptores in refellendis ethnicis occupati creationem materiae leviter attingunt, ac in considerando mundi ordine et descriptione libentius morantur, quia id magis ad profligandos adversarios appositum videbatur.

« For He Who founded all things by His wise Word... and gave order to this unordered world. » And in Oration 1, page 33, he compares the turbulent commotions, of which he was a witness, with the undigested mass of matter before God introduced the order and adornment which we behold. And all things came to be as at the beginning, when there was not yet a world, nor the present good order and fashioning, but the whole, confounded and uneven, stood in need of the form-giving hand and power. « And all things were made as from the beginning, when the world was not yet, nor that fair constitution and formation which we now discern, but all things confused and unformed required a fashioning hand and power. » See Oration 43, p. 699; Jerome, Epistle 82: « The rude world, with the sun not yet glowing red, nor the moon paling, nor the stars gleaming, weighed down the unarranged and invisible matter with the vastness of the depths and unsightly darkness. » He adds in commendation of baptism: « Only the Spirit of God, after the manner of a charioteer, was borne over the waters and brought forth the nascent world in a figure of baptism. » Jerome borrowed the observation from Tertullian, who in the book On Baptism, chapter 3, speaks thus: « For both the whole darkness was still formless without the array of stars, and the gloomy abyss, and the earth unprepared, and the heaven rude: liquid alone, ever a perfect matter, joyous, simple, pure of itself, furnished a worthy vehicle for God. » See Athanasius, Oration against the Gentiles, nos. 38, 41, 42. In these testimonies the divine power is praised not so much from the creation out of nothing itself as from the wonderful adornment which He attached to created things: so that we should the less wonder if writers occupied in refuting the heathens touch lightly upon the creation of matter, and dwell more willingly on considering the order and arrangement of the world, because that seemed more suited to routing their adversaries.

CAPUT III

Chapter III.

Quo sensu Justinus astra gentibus data ad colendum dixit.

In what sense Justin said that the stars were given to the nations to worship.

I. S. martyris sententia explicatur et adversus Jurium defenditur. II. Iniquus Jurius in alios nonnullos ac praecipue in S. Augustinum.

I. The opinion of the holy martyr is explained and defended against Jurieu. II. Jurieu is unfair towards several others and especially towards St Augustine.

I. Jurius in Historia critica dogmatum et cultuum Ecclesiae, part. IV, p. 711, praeclaram sibi occasionem de Justino detrahendi nactus videtur, quia S. martyr dicit Dialog., n. 121 : Τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ὁ Θεὸς ἐδεδώκει πρότερον εἰς τὸ προσκυνεῖν αὐτὸν ὡς γέγραπται, καὶ οὐδένα οὐδέποτε ἰδεῖν ἔστιν ὑπομείναντα διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον πίστιν ἀποθανεῖν. « Solem quidem Deus dederat prius ad adorandum, sicut scriptum

I. Jurieu, in his Critical History of the Dogmas and Worships of the Church, part IV, p. 711, seems to have found for himself a fine opportunity for disparaging Justin, because the holy martyr says in the Dialogue, no. 121: God indeed had formerly given the sun for the worshipping of it, as it is written, and one can never see anyone who has endured to die on account of faith towards the sun. « God had indeed previously given the sun to be adored, as it is written

Editors' notes and page, col. 38

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 38
marginal letters: A verba Latinus interpres.; B ceret. Γέγονε δὲ; C scentem mundum in; D appositum videbatur.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: verba Latinus interpres., CAPUT III, Quo sensu Justinus, I. S. martyris sententia, I. Jurius in Historia

PG 6:39

est ; nec quisquam unquam exstitit, qui mortem propter fidem in solem oppeteret. » Locus Scripturae a Justino indicatus exstat Deuteronom. IV, 19, ubi sic legitur : Ne forte elevatis oculis ad coelum videas solem et lunam et omnia astra coeli et errore deceptus adores ea et colas quae creavit Dominus Deus tuus in ministerium cunctis gentibus, quae sub coelo sunt. Habent LXX : Ἃ ἀπένειμε Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου αὐτὰ πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι τοῖς ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Justinum igitur exagitat Jurius et alios, quos ei adjungit, nimirum Clementem Alexandrinum, Origenem et Augustinum, quod sibi finxerint Moysen dixisse Deum distribuisse solem et lunam et stellas gentilibus, ut essent eorum dii, ac ea adorarent, sibique reservasse populum Israel. Non in solos Patres iniquus est Jurius, quibus eam sententiam attribuit, quam sensui communi, rationi et religioni ita contrariam esse, ait, ut mirum sit in eam incidisse Christianos ; sed ipsi etiam Moysi injuriam facit, dum fatetur ejus verba hunc sensum suscipere posse.

is; nor has anyone ever existed who met death on account of faith in the sun. » The passage of Scripture indicated by Justin stands in Deuteronomy 4:19, where it is read thus: Lest perhaps, lifting up your eyes to heaven, you see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and deceived by error you adore them and worship the things which the Lord your God created for service to all the nations that are under heaven. The Seventy have: Which the Lord your God apportioned to all the nations that are underneath heaven. Jurieu therefore rails against Justin and others whom he joins to him, namely Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, because they imagined for themselves that Moses said that God distributed the sun and moon and stars to the nations, that they might be their gods and that they might adore them, and reserved for Himself the people of Israel. Not only towards the Fathers is Jurieu unfair, to whom he attributes that opinion which he says is so contrary to common sense, reason, and religion that it is wonderful that Christians fell into it; but he also does injury to Moses himself, while he confesses that his words can admit of this sense.

Sed tamen S. Justini verba aequis animis accepta nullam erroris suspicionem injiciunt : non enim Deum dicit huic cultui veniam dedisse, aut solem et stellas creasse ut adorarentur ; justam potius indicat excaecationem gentium, quae lege et miraculis et prophetarum oraculis deterritae ab hoc cultu, ut Judaei, non fuerunt. Alium habemus in eodem Dialogo locum, qui Justini verba aliter interpretari non sinit. Justinum rogat Trypho, n. 55, ut exsequatur quod se demonstraturum promiserat, alium esse praeter Deum Patrem, qui in Scripturis Deus ac Dominus vocatur ; sed monet ne solem et lunam dicat, quae scriptum est gentibus concessa a Deo fuisse, ut ea tanquam deos colerent. Tum Justinus sic respondet : « Non eram allaturus Trypho, has demonstrationes, quibus eos condemnari scio qui haec et similia colunt, sed eas, quas contra nemo dicere poterit. » Si in verbis Moysis condemnationem eorum, qui solem et stellas colunt, perspiciebat Justinus ; quis dubitet quin illa eodem sensu acceperit, quo haec S. Stephani de ipsis Judaeis dicta accipiuntur (Act. VII, 42) : Convertit autem Deus et tradidit eos servire militiae coeli.

Yet the words of St Justin, when received by fair minds, cast no suspicion of error: for he does not say that God granted pardon to this worship, or created the sun and stars in order that they might be adored; rather, he points out the just blinding of the nations, who were not deterred from this worship, like the Jews, by the law and miracles and the oracles of the prophets. We have another passage in the same Dialogue which does not allow Justin's words to be interpreted otherwise. Trypho asks Justin, no. 55, to carry out what he had promised he would demonstrate, that there is another besides God the Father Who is called God and Lord in the Scriptures; but he warns him not to say the sun and the moon, which it is written were granted by God to the nations, that they might worship them as gods. Then Justin replies thus: « I was not going to bring forward, Trypho, these proofs, by which I know that those who worship these and similar things are condemned, but those against which no one will be able to speak. » If in the words of Moses Justin perceived the condemnation of those who worship the sun and stars, who can doubt that he took them in the same sense in which these words spoken by St Stephen concerning the Jews themselves are taken (Acts 7:42): But God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven.

Non absimili sensu Tertullianus lib. De idololatria, cap. 9, sic loquitur de magia et astrologia : « At enim scientia ista usque ad Evangelium fuit concessa, ut Christo edito nemo exinde nativitatem alicujus de coelo interpretetur. » Et non multo post : « Sed et alia illa species magiae, quae miraculis operatur, etiam adversus Moysen aemulata, patientiam Dei traxit ad Evangelium usque. »

In a not dissimilar sense Tertullian, in the book On Idolatry, chapter 9, speaks thus of magic and astrology: « But indeed that science was permitted up to the Gospel, so that after Christ has been brought forth no one from that time should interpret anyone's nativity from the heaven. » And not much later: « But that other kind of magic also, which works by miracles, having even rivalled Moses, drew out the patience of God right up to the Gospel. »

II. S. Clemens Alexandrinus astra gentilibus data existimat ut ex eorum aspectu ad Creatoris cultum assurgant. Sic enim loquitur Strom. VI, p. 669 : Ἔδωκεν δὲ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τὰ ἄστρα εις θρησκείαν, ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῖς ἔθνεσι, φησὶν ὁ νόμος, ἵνα μὴ τέλεον ἄθεοι γενόμενοι, τελέως καὶ διαφθαρῶσιν. « Dedit solem et lunam et astra ad colendum, quae Deus fecit gentibus, inquit lex, ne omnino

II. St Clement of Alexandria considers that the stars were given to the nations so that from the sight of them they might rise to the worship of the Creator. For thus he speaks in Miscellanies VI, p. 669: And He gave the sun and the moon and the stars for worship, which God made for the nations, says the law, so that they might not, becoming utterly godless, also be utterly destroyed. « He gave the sun and the moon and the stars to be worshipped, which God made for the nations, says the law, lest becoming altogether

Editors' notes and page, col. 39

Page

running head: 39 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A est ; nec quisquam; B iniquus est Jurius,; C præter Deum Patrem,; D concessa, ut Christo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: est ; nec quisquam; word split at end of column: omni- (omnino)

PG 6:40

facti athei, omnino etiam interirent. » Etsi autem deteriores illos putat qui ad simulacrorum cultum delabuntur, eos tamen damnari declarat, qui astra colunt. Ναὶ μὴν κἀκεῖνοι οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἄστρων σεβάσεως μὴ ἐπαναδραμόντες ἐπὶ τὸν τούτων ποιητήν. Ὁδὸς γὰρ ἦν αὕτη δοθεῖσα τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἀνακύψαι πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν διὰ τῆς τῶν ἄστρων θρησκείας. « Sed et illi quoque judicantur, qui ab astrorum cultu non recurrerunt ad eorum Creatorem. Haec enim via data fuit gentibus, ut per cultum astrorum suspicerent Deum. »

godless, they should also altogether perish. » Moreover, although he considers those worse who slip down into the worship of images, yet he declares that those are condemned who worship the stars. Yea indeed, those also who from the veneration of the stars have not run back to the Maker of them. For this was a way given to the nations, to look up towards God through the worship of the stars. « But they also are judged who from the worship of the stars have not had recourse to their Creator. For this way was given to the nations, that through the worship of the stars they might look up to God. »

Origenes, tom. II in Joan., eos qui ante ipsum dixerant solem et lunam et astra iis data esse, qui minus digni sunt, ut Deus deorum, Deus ipsorum sit, in hanc sententiam verba Deuteronomii accepisse ait, ut qui non possunt ad intelligibilem recurrere naturam, rebus corporeis ac sub sensum cadentibus Divinitatem inesse suspicati, vel lubenter in his sisterent, non prolapsi ad idola et daemonia : etsi enim a Deo aberrant, tamen illorum errorem longe praeferendum eorum errori, qui deos vocant opera hominum.

Origen, in tome II on John, says that those before him who had said that the sun and moon and stars were given to those who are less worthy that the God of gods should be their God, took the words of Deuteronomy in this sense: that those who cannot have recourse to the intelligible nature, suspecting that Divinity resides in bodily things that fall under sense, might at least willingly stop at these, not having slipped down to idols and demons; for although they stray from God, yet their error is far to be preferred to the error of those who call the works of men gods.

Eusebius Caesariensis Demonstr. evang. lib IV, c. 8, idem docere hoc loco Moysen existimat ac Paulum in Epist. ad Romanos I, 19, et astra gentibus tradita dicit, ne ad contrarias potestates et daemonia deflecterent : inde enim quodammodo illius, qui invisibilis est, conspectum, veluti per quoddam speculum exhiberi.

Eusebius of Caesarea, in Demonstration of the Gospel, book IV, ch. 8, thinks that Moses in this passage teaches the same thing as Paul in the Epistle to the Romans 1:19, and says that the stars were handed over to the nations lest they should turn aside to contrary powers and demons: for thence in a certain way a view of Him Who is invisible is presented, as though through a mirror.

Praecipue vero in S. Augustinum iniquus est Jurius, quem dum ait ad aliorum errorem proxime accedere, opinionem ei affingit, quam si habuisset Augustinus, longe deterius errasset. Sic interpretatur Deuteronomii locum : « Non ita dictum est, tanquam Deus praeceperit ea coli a gentibus, a solo autem populo suo non coli ; sed aut ita dictum est, quod Deus praescierit gentes culturam exhibituras his coelestibus, et tamen hoc praesciens creaverit ea, eum vero populum suum futurum esse praesciverit, qui ista non coleret ; aut distribuit dictum est, ut intelligatur usus qui commendatur in Genesi, ut sint in signa, etc. » Inexcusabilis Jurius qui haec verba Augustini : Et tamen hoc praesciens creaverit, ita reddit, il n'a pas laissé de les créer, dans cette vue, quasi scripsisset Augustinus : Et tamen eo consilio creaverit ut colerentur.

Especially unfair, however, is Jurieu towards St Augustine, to whom, while he says that he comes very close to the error of the others, he fastens an opinion which, if Augustine had held it, would have been a far worse error. Thus he interprets the passage of Deuteronomy: « It was not so said as though God commanded them to be worshipped by the nations, and by His own people alone not to be worshipped; but either it was so said because God foreknew that the nations would offer worship to these heavenly bodies, and yet foreknowing this He created them, while He foreknew that His own people would be such as would not worship those things; or He distributed was said so that the use which is commended in Genesis might be understood, that they may be for signs, etc. » Inexcusable is Jurieu, who renders these words of Augustine, And yet foreknowing this He created them, thus: il n'a pas laissé de les créer, dans cette vue [He did not refrain from creating them, with this view], as though Augustine had written: And yet with that design He created them, that they might be worshipped.

Statuere ergo possumus neminem ex antiquis Patribus sensisse cultum astrorum Dei concessu permissum fuisse gentibus ; sed omnes hanc superstitionem condemnant et astra gentibus data dicunt, vel ut ad Creatoris contemplationem incitarent, vel ut ministrarent gentibus in signa et tempora, vel quia justa excaecatione derelictae gentes ad hunc cultum prolapsae sunt. Isidorus Pelusiota neminem noverat qui eo errore laborasset aut laboraret, quem venerandis scriptoribus Jurius attribuit ; sed si qui ita sentiant, eos inscitiae nomine condemnat. Εἰ δέ τινες οἴονται ἀπονενεμῆσθαι πρὸς τὸ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτοῖς λαμπρῶς, τὴν οἰκείαν ἀπαι-

We can therefore establish that no one of the ancient Fathers thought that the worship of the stars was permitted to the nations by God's grant; rather, all condemn this superstition and say that the stars were given to the nations either to incite them to the contemplation of the Creator, or to serve the nations for signs and seasons, or because the nations, forsaken in a just blinding, slipped into this worship. Isidore of Pelusium knew no one who had laboured or was labouring under that error which Jurieu attributes to the venerable writers; but if any think thus, he condemns them on the score of ignorance. And if some think that they have been apportioned for worshipping them brilliantly, their own lack of edu-

Editors' notes and page, col. 40

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: Deuteronomii locum› · call in col 40 (note printed at the foot of col 39; numeral faint, read as 3 from the running sequence 1–9 on pp. 24–32)

Quaest. in Deuteronom.

Questions on Deuteronomy.

(printed under page 26)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 40
marginal letters: A no facti athei,; B pisse ait, ut qui; C accedere, opinionem; D consilio creaverit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: no facti athei,; word split at start of column: no (omnino); word split at end of column: ἀπαι- (ἀπαιδευσίαν)

PG 6:41

δευσίαν στηλιτεύουσι. « Quod si qui distributa putant ut adorentur, inscitiam suam ipsi manifeste produnt. » Ipse vero, itidem ut alii Patres, astra gentibus data pronuntiat, in disciplinam et institutionem et cognitionem, ut ex rerum creatarum magnitudine et pulchritudine invisibilis Creator conspiciatur.

cation they pillory. « But if any think that they were distributed in order to be adored, they themselves manifestly betray their own ignorance. » He himself, moreover, just like the other Fathers, pronounces that the stars were given to the nations for discipline and instruction and knowledge, so that from the greatness and beauty of created things the invisible Creator may be beheld.

CAPUT IV.

Chapter IV.

De angelorum cultu.

On the worship of angels.

I. Insignis loci ex Apolog. 1 S. Justini pravae interpretationes refelluntur. II. Athenagoras hunc locum imitatur. III. Nonnulla solvuntur et explicantur.

I. Perverse interpretations of a notable passage from Apology 1 of St Justin are refuted. II. Athenagoras imitates this passage. III. Several points are resolved and explained.

I. Exstat in Apologia 1 S. Justini insignis de angelis locus, qui et sua sponte indiget aliqua explanatione et ex variis interpretationibus, quibus agitatum fuit, in unam aliquam, quae fixa et immota sit, vindicandus est. Sic igitur S. martyr, n. 6 : Καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομιζομένων θεῶν ἄθεοι εἶναι, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀληθεστάτου, καὶ Πατρὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύνης, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν, ἀνεπιμίκτου τε κακίας Θεοῦ· ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνόν τε, καὶ τὸν παρ' αὐτοῦ Υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, Πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα, καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες, καὶ παντὶ βουλομένῳ μαθεῖν, ὡς ἐδιδάχθημεν, ἀφθόνως παραδιδόντες. « Atque atheos quidem nos esse confitemur, si de opinatis ejusmodi diis agatur ; secus vero si de verissimo illo, et justitiae ac temperantiae, ac caeterarum virtutum Patre, nulla admisto vitiositate Deo. Sed eum et Filium, qui ab eo venit ac nos ista docuit, et caeterorum qui illum assectantur, eique assimilati sunt, bonorum angelorum exercitum, et Spiritum propheticum colimus et adoramus, ratione et veritate venerantes, et ut quisque discere voluerit, citra invidiam, ut edocti sumus, impertientes. »

I. There stands in Apology 1 of St Justin a notable passage concerning the angels, which both of its own accord needs some explanation and must be vindicated from the various interpretations by which it has been tossed about into some single meaning that is fixed and unshakeable. Thus, then, the holy martyr in no. 6: And we confess that we are atheists with respect to such supposed gods, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, Who is unmixed with evil; but both Him, and the Son Who came from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like, and the prophetic Spirit we venerate and worship, honouring them in reason and truth, and ungrudgingly handing on to everyone who wishes to learn, as we were taught. « And we confess indeed that we are atheists, if it be a question of supposed gods of that sort; but otherwise if of that most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, unmixed with any wickedness. But Him, and the Son Who came from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who attend Him and are made like unto Him, and the prophetic Spirit we worship and adore, venerating them in reason and truth, and imparting without envy, as we have been taught, as each one may wish to learn. »

Aliter hunc locum interpretantur Protestantes. Quidam, ut Bullus in defensione fidei Nicaenae, p. 118, sic accipiunt quasi dicat Justinus nos ista, nempe quae ad malos angelos persecutionum auctores spectant, ac simul quae ad bonos, a Christo didicisse : sed haec explicatio merito rejicitur a Grabio, qui tamen non valde meliorem affert. Statuit enim sic vertendum, ut nos Christus simulque angelos ista, nempe quae paulo ante de justitiae ac temperantiae ac caeterarum virtutum Patre Deo dicta sunt, edocuisse dicatur. Utraque interpretatio hoc vitio laborat, quod Justini verba mirifice inter se nexa ac in unum et idem propositum pertinentia violenter detorqueat. Praeterea ex prima interpretatione semper sequitur colendos esse bonos angelos. Nam si Christus ista nos docuit, nempe malos esse daemones qui colendi non sunt, ac deinde bonos esse qui Filium Dei assectantur, ejusque imaginem in se ferunt ; annon inde sequeretur

Protestants interpret this passage otherwise. Some, such as Bull in his Defence of the Nicene Faith, p. 118, take it as though Justin were saying that we learnt from Christ those things, namely the things which pertain to evil angels, the authors of persecutions, and at the same time the things which pertain to good ones: but this explanation is deservedly rejected by Grabe, who nevertheless does not offer a much better one. For he determines that it should be translated in such a way that Christ is said to have taught us and at the same time the angels those things, namely what was said a little before concerning God the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues. Either interpretation labours under this fault, that it violently distorts Justin's words, which are wonderfully knit together and pertain to one and the same purpose. Besides, from the first interpretation it always follows that the good angels are to be worshipped. For if Christ taught us those things, namely that the demons are evil who are not to be worshipped, and next that those are good who attend the Son of God and bear His image in themselves; would it not follow thence

Editors' notes and page, col. 41

Page

running head: 41 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A δευσίαν στηλιτεύουσι.; B planatione et ex; C modi diis agatur ;; D res spectant, ac
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: δευσίαν στηλιτεύουσι., CAPUT IV., De angelorum cultu., I. Insignis loci; word split at start of column: δευσίαν (ἀπαιδευσίαν)

PG 6:42

istis honorem et cultum esse adhibendum? Altera interpretatio perabsurde statuit et nos et bonos angelos a Christo ista edoctos esse, nimirum non colendos esse malos daemones. Nihil enim aliud vox ista significat hoc loco.

that honour and worship ought to be paid to them? The other interpretation most absurdly establishes that both we and the good angels were taught those things by Christ, namely that evil demons are not to be worshipped. For the word those things signifies nothing else in this passage.

Quisquis sciet propositum esse S. martyri, ut Christianos probet non esse atheos, fateri cogetur angelorum cultum ab eo praedicari. Id enim plurimum valebat ad propulsandam atheismi criminationem. Neque alio sensu imperatores Justini verba accipere potuerunt ; cum praesertim nihil aliud indicet constructio verborum, Filium et caeterorum, qui illum assectantur, eique assimilati sunt, bonorum angelorum exercitum colimus. Praeterea malis angelis, quos Christiani colere nolunt, opponuntur boni ; iique Filium tanquam famuli assectari, eumque imitari dicuntur, ut merito eos coli et malos rejici pateat.

Whoever knows that it is the purpose of the holy martyr to prove that Christians are not atheists will be compelled to confess that the worship of angels is proclaimed by him. For that availed very much for warding off the charge of atheism. Nor could the emperors take Justin's words in any other sense, especially since the construction of the words indicates nothing else: we worship the Son and the host of the other good angels who attend Him and are made like unto Him. Furthermore, to the evil angels, whom Christians refuse to worship, are opposed the good; and they are said to attend the Son as servants and to imitate Him, so that it is clear that they are deservedly worshipped and the evil rejected.

II. S. Justini vestigia premit Athenagoras in eodem refellendo crimine. Postquam enim unum in tribus personis Deum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum a Christianis coli docuit ; tum vero sic ad angelos transit Legat., n. 10 : Καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸ θεολογικὸν ἡμῶν ἵσταται μέρος· ἀλλὰ καὶ πλῆθος ἀγγέλων καὶ λειτουργῶν φαμεν, οὓς ὁ ποιητὴς καὶ δημιουργὸς κόσμου Θεὸς διὰ τοῦ παρ' αὐτοῦ Λόγου διένειμε καὶ διέταξε περί τε τὰ στοιχεία εἶναι καὶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ τὴν τούτων εὐταξίαν. « Neque his tamen theologiae nostrae ratio continetur ; sed et multitudinem angelorum et ministrorum agnoscimus, quos Creator et opifex mundi Deus per Verbum suum distribuit et ordinavit, ut circa elementa, coelos, mundum et quae in eo sunt, eorumque temperationem versarentur. »

II. Athenagoras treads in the footsteps of St Justin in refuting the same charge. For after he has taught that one God in three Persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is worshipped by Christians, he then passes thus to the angels in the Plea, no. 10: And not at these does the theological part of our teaching stop; but we also affirm a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed through the Word that is from Him to be concerned with the elements and the heavens and the world and the things in it, and the good order of these. « Yet the account of our theology is not confined to these; but we also acknowledge a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Creator and Framer of the world distributed and ordained through His Word, that they might be occupied about the elements, the heavens, the world and the things that are in it, and their regulation. »

Haec angelorum et beneficiorum, quae ab eis accipimus, et obsequii, quod Verbo exhibent, commemoratio eumdem habet usum apud hunc scriptorem ac apud Justinum, nempe ut a Christianis atheismi crimen depellatur. Quin etiam videtur prima specie Athenagoras longius ferri quam Justinus. Theologia enim apud antiquos significare solet naturae divinae praedicationem ; atque hinc ansam arripuit Barbeyracus ad incusandum Athenagoram. Sed hac voce significari potest doctrina divinitus revelata ; vel si divinae naturae cultum significet, non immerito cum hoc divinae naturae cultu Athenagoras honorem angelis adhibitum conjungit, quia ad Deum refertur quidquid honoris angelis exhibemus.

This mention of the angels, and of the benefits which we receive from them, and of the obedience which they render to the Word, has the same use in this writer as in Justin, namely that the charge of atheism may be driven away from Christians. Nay, at first sight Athenagoras even seems to be carried further than Justin. For theology among the ancients is wont to signify the proclamation of the divine nature; and from this Barbeyrac seized a handle for accusing Athenagoras. But by this word can be signified doctrine divinely revealed; or if it signifies the worship of the divine nature, not undeservedly does Athenagoras join the honour paid to angels with this worship of the divine nature, because whatever honour we show to the angels is referred to God.

III. Displicere et molestiam facessere non debet, quod Verbo angelos adjungit Justinus. Adjungit enim ut famulos et sectatores, idque Scripturae consentaneum. Nam in Apocalypsi XIX, 14, de Verbo dicitur : Et exercitus qui sunt in coelo, sequebantur eum in equis albis, vestiti bysso albo et mundo. Neque errandi locum reliquit S. martyr, cum tam aperte declaret quantum intersit inter Filium et

III. It ought not to displease or cause trouble that Justin joins the angels to the Word. For he joins them as servants and followers, and that is agreeable to Scripture. For in Revelation 19:14 it is said concerning the Word: And the armies that are in heaven followed Him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Nor did the holy martyr leave room for erring, since he declares so openly how great a difference there is between the Son and

Editors' notes and page, col. 42

Page

running head: I PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 42
marginal letters: A istis honorem et; B boni ; iique Filium; C logiæ nostræ ratio; D hinc ansam arripuit
old-edition numerals: (none)
signature: 2 (foot of col 42; PATROL. GR. VI. at the foot of col 41)
other: editors' matter: istis honorem et

PG 6:43

angelos : non magis profecto quam S. Ignatius, qui ait in epistola ad Romanos, n. 12 : Πρέπει γὰρ ὑμῖν τοῖς καθ' ἕνα, ἐξαιρέτως καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, ἀναψύχειν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον εἰς τιμὴν Πατρὸς, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων. « Decet enim singulos vestrum, et praecipue presbyteros, refocillare episcopum, in honorem Patris, Jesu Christi et apostolorum. »

the angels: assuredly no more than St Ignatius, who says in the Epistle to the Romans, no. 12: For it is fitting for each one of you, and especially for the presbyters, to refresh the bishop unto the honour of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles. « For it befits each one of you, and especially the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, to the honour of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles. »

Frustra objicitur duplex illud verbum, σέβομεν καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, « colimus et adoramus. » Nam primum quidem ad angelos ipsos refertur, habita ratione discriminis, quod inter Creatorem et rem creatam intercedit. Alterum autem nequaquam angelos necessario comprehendit. Saepe duo verba simul conjuncta non ad unam et eamdem rem, sed ad diversas judicio legentium referuntur : cujus rei exemplum maxime appositum observavi in nota ad quaest. 137 ad orthodoxos.

In vain is objected that double verb, we venerate and worship, « we worship and adore. » For the first indeed is referred to the angels themselves, account being taken of the distinction which intervenes between the Creator and the created thing. The second, however, by no means necessarily includes the angels. Often two verbs joined together are referred not to one and the same thing, but to different things according to the judgement of the readers: a most apposite example of which I have observed in the note on Question 137 to the Orthodox.

CAPUT V.

Chapter V.

Theophili sententia de statu in quo creatus fuit Adamus.

The opinion of Theophilus concerning the state in which Adam was created.

I. Infantiam Adamo tribuit Theophilus vel ob innocentiam, vel ob recentem creationem. II. Multi alii eodem modo locuti sunt. III. Singularis S. Clementis Alexandrini opinio.

I. Theophilus attributes infancy to Adam either on account of innocence or on account of recent creation. II. Many others have spoken in the same way. III. The singular opinion of St Clement of Alexandria.

I. Videtur prima specie Theophilus existimare Adamum in quodam infantiae statu creatum fuisse, ac ea scientia destitutum, quae virili aetati conveniat. Sed ne indicta causa damnetur, illius verba non perfunctorie examinanda. Sic igitur ille lib. II, n. 25 : Οὐ γὰρ ὡς οἴονταί τινες, θάνατον εἶχε τὸ ξύλον, ἀλλ' ἡ παρακοή. Οὐ γάρ τι ἕτερον ἦν ἐν τῷ καρπῷ ἢ μόνον γνῶσις· ἡ δὲ γνῶσις καλὴ, ἐπὰν αὐτῇ οἰκείως τις χρήσηται. Τῇ δὲ οὔσῃ ἡλικίᾳ ὁ Ἀδὰμ ἔτι νήπιος ἦν, διὸ οὔπω ἠδύνατο τὴν γνῶσιν κατὰ ἀξίαν χωρεῖν. Καὶ γὰρ νῦν, ἐπὰν γενηθῇ παιδίον, οὐκ ἤδη δύναται ἄρτον ἐσθίειν, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον γάλακτι ἀνατρέφεται, ἔπειτα κατὰ πρόσβασιν τῆς ἡλικίας, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν στερεὰν τροφὴν ἔρχεται. Οὕτως ἂν ἐγεγόνει καὶ τῷ Ἀδάμ. Διὸ οὐχ ὡς φθονῶν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεὸς, ὡς οἴονταί τινες, ἐκέλευσε μὴ ἐσθίειν ἀπὸ τῆς γνώσεως. Ἔτι μὴν καὶ ἐβούλετο δοκιμάσαι αὐτὸν, εἰ ὑπήκοος γίνεται τῇ ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ. Ἅμα δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον ἠβούλετο ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀκέραιον διαμεῖναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον νηπιάζοντα. Τοῦτο γὰρ ὅσιόν ἐστιν, οὐ μόνον παρὰ Θεῷ, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις, τὸ ἐν ἁπλότητι καὶ ἀκακίᾳ ὑποτάσσεσθαι τοῖς γονεῦσιν. Ἔτι δὲ χρὴ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑποτάσσεσθαι. Εἰ δὲ χρὴ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων ; Ἔτι μὴν καὶ ἄσχημόν ἐστι τὰ παιδία τὰ νήπια ὑπὲρ ἡλικίαν φρονεῖν· καθάπερ γὰρ τῇ ἡλικίᾳ τις πρὸς τάξιν αὔξει, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῷ φρονεῖν. « Neque enim, ut quidam existimant, mortiferum erat lignum, sed mandati praetergressio. Aliud enim non erat in ligno nisi scientia ; bona autem scientia, si quis ea apte utatur. Qua autem aetate erat Adam, adhuc infans erat, necdum idoneus esse poterat, qui scientiam

I. At first sight Theophilus seems to think that Adam was created in a certain state of infancy, and destitute of that knowledge which befits manly age. But lest he be condemned unheard, his words must be examined not perfunctorily. Thus, then, he writes in book II, no. 25: For the tree did not, as some think, hold death, but the disobedience did. For there was nothing else in the fruit than knowledge alone; and knowledge is good, when one uses it fittingly. But by his actual age Adam was still an infant, wherefore he was not yet able to receive knowledge worthily. For now also, when a child is born, it is not yet able to eat bread, but first it is nourished with milk, and then according to the advance of age it comes also to solid food. Thus it would have happened with Adam also. Wherefore it was not as grudging him, as some think, that God commanded him not to eat of knowledge. Furthermore, He also wished to test him, whether he would be obedient to His commandment. At the same time, indeed, He wished man to remain for a longer time simple and uncorrupted while in infancy. For this is holy, not only before God, but also before men, to be subject to parents in simplicity and guilelessness. Moreover, children must be subject to their parents. And if children must be subject to their parents, how much more to the God and Father of all? Furthermore, it is unseemly for infant children to think beyond their age; for just as one grows in age according to order, so also in thinking. « For the tree was not, as some think, deadly, but the transgression of the command. For there was nothing else in the tree save knowledge; and knowledge is good, if one uses it aptly. By the age, however, at which Adam was, he was still an infant, nor could he yet be fit to receive knowledge.

Editors' notes and page, col. 43

Page

running head: 43 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A angelos : non magis; B ad diversas judicio; C non perfunctorie; D μεῖναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: angelos : non magis, CAPUT V., Theophili sententia, I. Infantiam Adamo; word split at end of column: scien- (scientiam)

PG 6:44

perciperet. Nam et nunc infans, cum genitus fuerit, nondum potest panem edere, sed primum lacte nutritur, deinde progrediente aetate etiam ad solidum cibum accedit. Idem quoque Adamo evenisset. Quapropter non invidens ei Deus, ut quidam existimant, interdixit ne de ligno scientiae comederet. Adhuc etiam volebat eum experiri et periclitari utrum sibi dicto auditurus esset. Simul diutius volebat simplicem et sincerum permanere hominem puerascentem. Hoc enim sanctum est non solum apud Deum, sed etiam apud homines, in simplicitate et innocentia subjici parentibus. Quod si pueri submissi esse parentibus debent, quanto magis parenti omnium Deo? Praeterea indecorum est pueros infantes plus sapere quam aetas postulet : quemadmodum enim nemo crescit aetate nisi quibusdam veluti gradibus, ita nec sapientia. »

For now also an infant, when it has been begotten, cannot yet eat bread, but is first nourished with milk, and then as age advances comes also to solid food. The same would have happened to Adam also. Wherefore not envying him, as some think, did God forbid him to eat of the tree of knowledge. Moreover, He wished also to try him and make proof whether he would be obedient to His word. At the same time He wished man, remaining boyish, to continue longer simple and sincere. For this is holy not only before God, but also before men, to be subject to parents in simplicity and innocence. Now if boys ought to be submissive to their parents, how much more to God, the Parent of all? Besides, it is unseemly for infant boys to be wiser than their age demands: for just as no one grows in age save by certain steps, as it were, so neither in wisdom. »

Ecquis non videt, si modo animum advertat, infantiam illam, quae Adamo tribuitur, metaphora non carere? 1º Apparentem hanc infantiam repetit Theophilus tum ex recenti Adami creatione, tum ex medio illo statu, in quo creatus fuerat. Vixdum enim creatus fuerat, cum illum Deus in paradisum transtulit, stimulos ei subjiciens proficiendi, ut augescens et tandem perfectus, imo declaratus deus sic in coelum ascenderet. Medius enim homo natus erat, nec omnino mortalis, nec prorsus immortalis. Inde ergo illa infantia, quod et recens creatus esset, et medius quodammodo creatus. Etsi enim maximarum rerum cognitione instructus erat, infantia videbatur haec scientia cum ea, quae in coelo promittebatur, comparata. Qualem autem scientiam Theophilus Adamo deferat etiam in illo, quem vocat, medio statu, perspici potest ex nominibus, quae omnibus animalibus Adam imposuit. Id enim maximae scientiae indicium esse existimat Theophilus lib. II, n. 13. 2º Puerum quodammodo dicit Adamum, ob simplicitatem et obsequium, quod Deo, ut filius patri, debebat. Hinc praeceptum illi impositum fuisse dicit, ut diu in illa veluti pueritia perseveraret : quod quidem nemo unquam de pueritia dixerit, quae cum imbecillitate animi et corporis conjuncta sit.

Who does not see, if only he turns his mind to it, that that infancy which is attributed to Adam is not without metaphor? 1st, Theophilus traces this apparent infancy both from the recent creation of Adam and from that middle state in which he had been created. For scarcely had he been created when God transferred him into paradise, applying to him spurs for making progress, so that growing and at length made perfect, nay declared a god, he might thus ascend into heaven. For man had been born intermediate, neither altogether mortal, nor wholly immortal. Thence, therefore, comes that infancy, because he was both recently created and created in a certain way intermediate. For although he was furnished with the knowledge of the greatest things, this knowledge seemed infancy when compared with that which was promised in heaven. Moreover, what sort of knowledge Theophilus grants to Adam even in what he calls that middle state can be perceived from the names which Adam imposed upon all the animals. For Theophilus considers that to be a proof of the greatest knowledge in book II, no. 13. 2nd, He calls Adam a boy in a certain way on account of the simplicity and obedience which he owed to God, as a son to a father. Hence he says that the precept was laid upon him that he should persevere long in that boyhood, as it were: which assuredly no one would ever say of a boyhood that is conjoined with weakness of mind and body.

II. Theophilum imitatur S. Irenaeus, nec ab illius sententia recedit. Quod enim ait lib. III, cap. 22, n. 4 : « Erant utrique nudi (in paradiso) et non confundebantur, quoniam paulo ante facti non intellectum habebant filiorum generationis ; oportebat enim illos primo adolescere, dehinc sic multiplicari ; » id explicari potest ex cap. 23, ubi sic de poenitentia Adam loquitur n. 5 : « Quoniam indolem et puerilem amiserat sensum, et in cogitationem pejorum venerat, frenum continentiae sibi et uxori suae circumdedit, timens Deum et adventum ejus exspectans. » Puerilis indoles et sensus, quae peccando amittuntur, quid aliud esse possunt, quam innocentia? Sic etiam Tertullianus in libro De velandis virginibus, cap. 11 : « Nam et principes generis Adam et Eva, quandiu intellectu carebant,

II. St Irenaeus imitates Theophilus, nor does he depart from his opinion. For what he says in book III, chapter 22, no. 4: « They were both naked (in paradise) and were not ashamed, since having been made a little before they had no understanding of the begetting of children; for it behoved them first to grow up, and thereafter thus to be multiplied; » that can be explained from chapter 23, where he speaks thus of Adam's repentance in no. 5: « Since he had lost his natural disposition and childlike sense, and had come into the thought of worse things, he put a bridle of continence around himself and his wife, fearing God and awaiting His coming. » A childlike disposition and sense, which are lost by sinning, what else can they be than innocence? Thus also Tertullian in the book On the Veiling of Virgins, chapter 11: « For the first parents of the race also, Adam and Eve, as long as they lacked understanding,

Editors' notes and page, col. 44

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 44
marginal letters: A tiam perciperet.; B postulet : quemadmodum; C videbatur hæc scientia; D sententia recedit.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: tiam perciperet.; word split at start of column: tiam (scientiam); word split at end of column: care- (carebant)

PG 6:45

nihil agebant. At ubi de arbore agnitionis gustaverunt, nihil primum senserunt quam erubescendum. Itaque sui quoque sexus intellectum tegmine notaverunt. »

did nothing. But when they tasted of the tree of knowledge, they felt nothing first save that they must blush. And so they marked the understanding of their own sex also with a covering. »

Audiendus in eamdem sententiam Gregorius Nazianzenus qui sic loquitur Orat. 38, p. 619 : Θεωρία γὰρ ἦν τὸ φυτὸν, ὡς ἡ ἐμὴ θεωρία, ἧς μόνοις ἐπιβαίνειν ἀσφαλὲς τοῖς τὴν ἕξιν τελεωτέροις, οὐ καλὸν δὲ τοῖς ἁπλουστέροις ἔτι καὶ τὴν ἔφεσιν λιχνοτέροις· ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τροφὴ τελεία λυσιτελὴς τοῖς ἁπαλοῖς ἔτι καὶ δεομένοις γάλακτος. « Contemplatio erat haec arbor, quantum ipse contemplando assequor, ad quam iis solis tutus est ascensus, qui animi habitu perfectiori sunt, haudquaquam autem bona simplicioribus adhuc animis atque appetitu avidiori praeditis, quemadmodum nec perfectus ac solidus cibus iis conducit qui tenera adhuc sunt aetate, lacteque opus habent. » His S. Gregorii verbis utitur ut suis S. Joannes Damascenus lib. II De fide orthodoxa, cap. 11.

Gregory of Nazianzus is to be heard to the same effect, who speaks thus in Oration 38, p. 619: For the plant was contemplation, according to my contemplation, upon which it is safe for those alone to mount who are more perfect in habit, but not good for those who are still simpler and greedier in desire; just as neither is perfect food profitable for those who are still tender and in need of milk. « This tree was contemplation, so far as I myself attain by contemplating, to which the ascent is safe for those alone who are of a more perfect habit of mind, by no means however good for minds still simpler and endowed with a greedier appetite, just as neither is perfect and solid food advantageous to those who are still of tender age and have need of milk. » St John of Damascus uses these words of St Gregory as his own in book II On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 11.

Joannes Chrysostomus, etsi copiose eos refellit homil. 16 in Genesim, qui Adamum, postquam de ligno comedit, acquisivisse scientiam boni et mali dicebant, non tamen eum dubitat vocare tenerum puerum in homil. 14. Ait enim « quemadmodum pater prolis amans tenero filio, » καθάπερ πατὴρ φιλόστοργος παιδὶ νέῳ, moderatam curam imponit, ne otio insolescat, ita Deum Adamo operationem et custodiam paradisi tradidisse. Theodoretus, quaest. 28 in Genesim, sic loquitur : Οὐδὲ τὰ κομιδῇ νέα παιδία ἐρυθριᾷν πέφυκε τῆς ἐσθῆτος γεγυμνωμένα. Κατὰ βραχὺ δὲ τοῦ σώματος αὐξανομένου καὶ τοῦ νοῦ λοιπὸν ἀρχομένου τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν ἐπιδεικνύναι, οὐκ ἔτι λοιπὸν φορητὴ τοῖς μειρακίοις ἡ γύμνωσις, ἀλλ' ἐρυθριῶσι καὶ περιβάλλονται.... Οὕτω καὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀδὰμ εὐθὺς μὲν διαπλασθέντες, οἷα δὴ νήπιοι καὶ εὐθυγενεῖς καὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀμύητοι οὐκ ἠσχύνοντο δίχα περιβολαίων διάγοντες. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν πεῖραν τοῖς φύλλοις ἔνια τοῦ σώματος συνεκάλυψαν μόρια. « Pueri juniores veste nudati erubescere natura non solent ; paulatim autem crescente corpore, cum mens postea propriam naturam exserere coeperit, adulti jam non patienter ferunt se nudari, sed erubescunt et conteguntur.... Ita de Adam et de ejus uxore sentiendum est, qui statim ubi formati sunt, velut infantes et recens nati, ac peccato nondum initiati, non afficiebantur verecundia sine amictu agentes. At post experientiam quasdam partes corporis foliis occultaverunt. » Hic quoque infantia non in ignoratione consistit, sed in innocentia, qua peccato amissa, stimulos concupiscentiae senserunt et pudore suffusi sunt.

John Chrysostom, although in Homily 16 on Genesis he copiously refutes those who said that Adam, after he ate of the tree, acquired the knowledge of good and evil, nevertheless does not hesitate to call him a tender boy in Homily 14. For he says, « just as a father fond of his offspring upon a tender son, » just as an affectionate father upon a young child, imposes a moderate care, lest he grow insolent through idleness, so God handed over to Adam the working and keeping of paradise. Theodoret, in Question 28 on Genesis, speaks thus: Not even very young children are by nature wont to blush when stripped of clothing. But as the body little by little grows and the mind henceforth begins to display its own nature, nakedness is no longer bearable to youths, but they blush and clothe themselves.... So also those around Adam, when first fashioned, inasmuch as they were infants and newly born and uninitiated in sin, were not ashamed while living without coverings. But after the experience they covered over some parts of the body with leaves. « Younger boys stripped of clothing are not by nature wont to blush; but as the body gradually grows, when the mind afterwards has begun to put forth its own nature, once grown up they no longer patiently bear to be stripped, but blush and cover themselves.... So must we think concerning Adam and his wife, who immediately when they were formed, like infants and newly born, and not yet initiated into sin, were not affected with shame while going without clothing. But after experience they hid certain parts of the body with leaves. » Here also infancy consists not in ignorance, but in innocence, which having been lost by sin, they felt the stings of concupiscence and were suffused with shame.

III. Clemens Alexandrinus Protrept., p. 69 : Ὁ πρῶτος ὅτε ἐν παραδείσῳ ἔπαιζε λελυμένος ἐπεὶ (legendum videtur ἔτι) παιδίον ἦν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ὅτε δὲ ὑπέπιπτεν ἡδονῇ.... παρήγετο ἐπιθυμίαις ὁ παῖς, ἀνδριζόμενος ἀπειθείᾳ, καὶ παρακούσας τοῦ Πατρὸς ἠσχύνετο τὸν Θεόν. « Primus homo, quando in paradiso

III. Clement of Alexandria, in the Exhortation, p. 69: The first man, when in paradise he played unbound, since (it seems we should read still) he was a little child of God. But when he fell under pleasure.... the boy was led astray by desires, playing the man in disobedience, and having disobeyed the Father he was ashamed before God. « The first man, when in paradise

Editors' notes and page, col. 45

Page

running head: 45 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO.
marginal letters: A bant, nihil agebant.; B ditis, quemadmodum; C quæst. 28 in Genesim,; D et de ejus uxore
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: bant, nihil agebant.; word split at start of column: bant (carebant); word split at end of column: pa- (paradiso)

PG 6:46

solutus ludebat, erat adhuc Dei puer. Postquam autem succubuit voluptati.... abductus est cupiditatibus puer, vir factus inobedientia, et violato patris praecepto Deum affecit contumelia. »

he played unbound, was still the boy of God. But after he succumbed to pleasure.... the boy was led away by desires, made a man by disobedience, and having violated the Father's precept he treated God with dishonour. »

Eumdem scriptorem suscepta cum haereticis controversia in nonnullas impulit conjecturas, quas hic referre non pigebit. Nam cum haeretici Creatorem ejusque opera vituperarent, ac Adamum et Evam nunquam matrimonio usuros fuisse contenderent, nisi serpentis impulsu ad hanc conjunctionem incitati fuissent ; negat Clemens in eo peccasse primos parentes, quod matrimonio usi fuerint, sed quod ante tempus usi fuerint, utpote adhuc juvenes. Ἐκινήθησαν δὲ θᾶττον ἢ προσῆκον ἦν ἔτι νέοι πεφυκότες ἀπάτῃ παραχθέντες, Strom. III, pag. 470. Idem paulo ante conjiciendo dixerat, nempe pag. 466, hominem non vitio creationis aberrasse, sed amore voluptatis, fortasse quia protoplastus noster tempus praevenerat atque intempestivam matrimonii gratiam appetiverat, Τάχα που προλαβόντος ἡμῶν τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ πρωτοπλάστου καὶ πρὸ ὥρας τῆς τοῦ γάμου χάριτος ὀρεχθέντος. Non ignota fuit S. Augustino haec peccati primorum parentum explicandi ratio. « Visum est et quibusdam, inquit, lib. II De Genesi ad litteram, n. 57, duos illos primos homines nuptias suas furatos fuisse, et ante mistos esse concubitu, quam eos qui creaverat copulasset, quam rem nomine ligni fuisse significatam, unde prohibiti erant, donec opportuno tempore jungerentur. » Hanc opinionem rejicit S. Augustinus, ut ridiculam et a rerum gestarum proprietate discedentem. Lenius agit cum iis qui existimabant festinatione praevertisse illos homines appetitum scientiae boni et mali, et immaturo tempore percipere voluisse, quod eis dilatum opportunius servabatur. Hanc sententiam non improbat, modo veritas historiae non negetur. « Hoc, inquit, si forte lignum illud non ad proprietatem, ut verum lignum et vera poma ejus, sed ad figuram velint accipere, habeat exitum aliquem rectae fidei veritatique probabilem. » Legendum, Nisi forte lignum, aut sensum frustra venabimur.

The controversy undertaken with the heretics impelled the same writer into several conjectures, which it will not be irksome to relate here. For since the heretics disparaged the Creator and His works, and contended that Adam and Eve would never have used marriage had they not been incited to this union by the prompting of the serpent, Clement denies that our first parents sinned in this, that they used marriage, but says that they did so because they used it before the time, inasmuch as they were still young. And they were moved sooner than was fitting, being still young by nature, led astray by deceit, Miscellanies III, page 470. The same writer a little before had said by conjecture, namely on page 466, that man had strayed not by a fault of creation, but through love of pleasure, perhaps because our first-formed father had anticipated the time and had desired the unseasonable grace of marriage, Perhaps because our first-formed father anticipated the season and reached out before the hour for the grace of marriage. This way of explaining the sin of our first parents was not unknown to St Augustine. « It has seemed also to some, he says in book II On Genesis According to the Letter, no. 57, that those two first human beings stole their nuptials, and were mingled in intercourse before He Who had created them joined them together, which thing was signified by the name of the tree from which they were forbidden until they should be joined at a seasonable time. » St Augustine rejects this opinion as ridiculous and departing from the literal truth of the events. He deals more gently with those who thought that those human beings had by haste anticipated the appetite for the knowledge of good and evil, and had wished to receive at an unripe time what was being kept deferred for them more seasonably. He does not disapprove of this opinion, provided the truth of the history be not denied. « This, says he, if perhaps they should wish to take that tree not literally, as a real tree and its real fruits, but figuratively, may have some outcome probable to right faith and truth. » We must read, Unless perhaps that tree, or we shall hunt for the sense in vain.

Videtur e Philonis hausta fontibus haec de matrimonii immaturo usu opinio. Is enim in libro De mundi opificio non modo serpentem interpretatur voluptatem, sed etiam amorem inter Adamum et Evam supervenisse docet, et tanquam unius animalis duo dimidia separata in unum collecta coaptasse, indita utrique cupidine gignendi similem prolem per mutuam consuetudinem. « Haec cupido, inquit, etiam corporum voluptatem genuit, quae est origo iniquitatum et praevaricationum, quandoquidem talis voluptas mortali et misera vita immortalem et beatam commutavit. » Ὁ δὲ πόθος οὗτος καὶ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων ἡδονὴν ἐγέννησεν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀδικημάτων καὶ παρανομημάτων ἀρχὴ, δι' οὗ ὑπαλλάττονται τὸν θνητὸν καὶ κακοδαίμονα βίον ἀντ' ἀθανάτου καὶ εὐδαίμονος.

This opinion concerning the premature use of marriage seems to have been drawn from the springs of Philo. For in the book On the Creation of the World he not only interprets the serpent as pleasure, but also teaches that love came upon Adam and Eve, and fitted together as into one the two separated halves of a single animal, there being implanted in each the desire of begetting like offspring through mutual intercourse. « This desire, says he, also begot the pleasure of bodies, which is the origin of iniquities and transgressions, seeing that such pleasure exchanged an immortal and blessed life for a mortal and wretched life. » And this longing also begot the pleasure of bodies, which is the beginning of wrongs and transgressions, through which they exchange the immortal and happy life for the mortal and wretched life.

Editors' notes and page, col. 46

Page

running head: I PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 46
marginal letters: A radiso solutus; B III, pag. 470.; C opportuno tempore; D monii immaturo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: radiso solutus; word split at start of column: radiso (paradiso)

PG 6:47

CAPUT VI.

Chapter VI.

De peccato originali.

On original sin.

I. Justinus regenerationis necessitatem deducit ex vitio primae generationis. II. Multa alia ejusdem testimonia. III. Tatianus Justinum sequitur et imitatur. IV. Theophilus non minus diserte in eamdem sententiam loquitur.

I. Justin deduces the necessity of regeneration from the fault of the first generation. II. Many other testimonies of the same writer. III. Tatian follows and imitates Justin. IV. Theophilus speaks no less expressly to the same effect.

I. Cum permagni esset momenti eorum errorem refellere, qui homines non libera voluntate, sed natura et necessitate bonos aut malos esse fingebant ; saepe Justinus impio commento catholicam doctrinam opponit. Sed altera ex parte non ignoravit S. martyr, nec tacuit quid de libero arbitrio Adami ruina debilitato, quid de Omnipotentis gratiae necessitate religio doceat. Operosius vestiganda illius doctrina, ut in re variis hominum judiciis exagitata, partim Justinum nulla peccati originalis cognitione imbutum fuisse existimantium, partim absurda illi de Christi gratia et de ethnicorum salute commenta affingentium.

I. Since it was of very great importance to refute the error of those who feigned that men are good or bad not by free will, but by nature and necessity, Justin often opposes the Catholic doctrine to the impious figment. But on the other hand the holy martyr was not ignorant of, nor silent about, what religion teaches concerning free will weakened by Adam's fall, and concerning the necessity of the grace of the Almighty. His doctrine must be traced out more painstakingly, as in a matter tossed about by the various judgements of men, some thinking that Justin was imbued with no knowledge of original sin, others fastening upon him absurd figments concerning the grace of Christ and the salvation of the heathens.

Diserte docet S. martyr baptismo non eas solum labes deleri, quas libere peccando, sed eam etiam, quam nascendo contraximus. Sic enim loquitur Apol. 1, n. 61 : Ἐπειδὴ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν ἡμῶν ἀγνοοῦντες κατ' ἀνάγκην γεγεννήμεθα ἐξ ὑγρᾶς σπορᾶς κατὰ μίξιν τὴν τῶν γονέων πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καὶ ἐν ἔθεσι φαύλοις καὶ πονηραῖς ἀνατροφαῖς γεγόναμεν, ὅπως μὴ ἀνάγκης τέκνα μηδὲ ἀγνοίας μένωμεν, ἀλλὰ προαιρέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης, ἀφέσεώς τε ἁμαρτιῶν ὑπὲρ ὧν προημάρτομεν τύχωμεν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, ἐπονομάζεται τῷ προελομένῳ ἀναγεννηθῆναι, καὶ μετανοήσαντι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἡμαρτημένοις, τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου Θεοῦ ὄνομα. « Quandoquidem primam nostram generationem ignorantes necessitate quadam ex humido semine per mutuam parentum mistionem geniti sumus, atque in pravis moribus et nefariis institutis educati ; ut necessitatis et ignorationis filii non maneamus, sed electionis et scientiae ; et remissionem peccatorum, quae prius commisimus, consequamur in aqua ; super eo qui regenerari voluerit et peccatorum egerit poenitentiam, nomen Parentis universorum et Domini Dei pronuntiatur. » Nascimur ergo in peccato, siquidem ob hanc primam nativitatem egemus baptismo qui nos regeneret. Nascimur filii necessitatis et ignorationis, nec possumus sine baptismo ex hoc miseriae statu emergere. Idcirco enim baptizamur, ut non ignorationis et necessitatis filii maneamus.

Expressly does the holy martyr teach that by baptism are wiped away not only those stains which we have contracted by freely sinning, but that one also which we have contracted by being born. For thus he speaks in Apology 1, no. 61: Since, being ignorant of our first generation, we were begotten of necessity from moist seed according to the union of our parents with one another, and have grown up in bad customs and wicked ways of rearing, in order that we may not remain children of necessity or of ignorance, but of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water forgiveness of the sins in which we previously sinned, there is named over him who has chosen to be regenerated, and has repented of his sins, the name of the Father of all and Lord God. « Since, being ignorant of our first generation, by a certain necessity we were begotten from moist seed through the mutual mingling of our parents, and brought up in depraved morals and wicked practices; in order that we may not remain children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of the sins which we previously committed, over him who has wished to be regenerated and has repented of his sins, the name of the Parent of all and Lord God is pronounced. » We are born therefore in sin, seeing that on account of this first birth we stand in need of baptism to regenerate us. We are born children of necessity and ignorance, nor can we without baptism emerge from this state of misery. For on that account are we baptized, that we may not remain children of ignorance and necessity.

II. In Cohort., n. 21, postquam dixit primos homines, a quibus inducta deorum multitudo, in memoria habuisse antiquam illam fraudem, qua majores ipsorum decipere voluit humani generis hostis daemon, cum illos sic alloqueretur : « Si mihi obsecuti fueritis, eritis sicut dii, » haec addit : « Igitur cum obsecuti fraudulento daemoni homines, ac Dei praeceptum violare ausi essent, e paradiso exierunt : ac deorum quidem nomen in memoria habuerunt,

II. In the Exhortation, no. 21, after he has said that the first men by whom the multitude of gods was introduced held in memory that ancient fraud by which the demon, the enemy of the human race, wished to deceive their ancestors when he addressed them thus: « If you obey me, you shall be as gods, » he adds these words: « Therefore when men had obeyed the deceitful demon, and had dared to violate the precept of God, they went out from paradise: and the name of gods indeed they held in memory,

Editors' notes and page, col. 47

Page

running head: 47 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A CAPUT VI.; B exagitata, partim; C μετανοήσαντι ἐπὶ; D necessitatis et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: CAPUT VI., De peccato originali., I. Justinus regenerationis, I. Cum permagni; word split at end of column: ha- (habuerunt)

PG 6:48

sed non jam amplius a Deo nullos esse deos edocti sunt..... Ejecti igitur paradiso, seque ob eam tantum causam ejectos rati, quod Deo non paruissent, minime vero ob illam etiam, quod deos esse, qui nulli sunt, credidissent, nomen deorum genitis ex se postea hominibus tradiderunt. » Primi illi homines, qui in memoria habuere fraudem majoribus suis Adae et Evae factam, ac posteris suis nomen deorum tradiderunt, quomodo dici possunt daemoni paruisse, praeceptum Dei violasse et e paradiso ejecti fuisse, nisi quia in Adamo peccaverunt? Similia mox proferemus ex Tatiano.

but were no longer taught by God that there are no gods..... Having been cast out of paradise, therefore, and thinking that they had been cast out for this reason only, that they had not obeyed God, and by no means for that reason also, that they had believed that there are gods who do not exist, they handed down the name of gods to the men afterwards begotten from themselves. » Those first men, who held in memory the fraud practised upon their ancestors Adam and Eve, and handed down the name of gods to their posterity, how can they be said to have obeyed the demon, to have violated the precept of God, and to have been cast out of paradise, unless because they sinned in Adam? We shall presently bring forward similar things from Tatian.

In eamdem sententiam loquitur in Dialogo cum Tryphone, n. 88 : « Neque etiam idcirco, inquit, nasci et crucifigi sustinuit Christus, quod his rebus indigeret, sed pro genere humano, quod ab Adamo in mortem et serpentis fraudem inciderat, unoquoque sua culpa improbe agente. » Hic duplex peccati genus distinguitur : alterum omnibus commune ; humanum enim genus serpentis fraudi succubuit, et morte damnatum fuit ob hoc delictum. At alia sunt peccata, quae sua quisque culpa libere committit. Illud ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ posset verti, per Adamum. Sed ab Adamo retinere malim, quia magis conducit proposito Justini, qui videtur demonstrare velle omnes homines, Judaeis non exceptis, in Adamo peccasse. Et n. 100 : « Filius Dei ex Virgine genitus, ut qua via a serpente inobedientia initium accepit, eadem dissolutionem acciperet. Nam cum virgo esset Eva et incorrupta, sermone serpentis concepto, inobedientiam et mortem peperit. Maria autem virgo, cum fidem et gaudium percepisset, nuntianti angelo laetum nuntium respondit : Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. » Christum sine peccato genitum fuisse dicit, n. 23, ut eum ab aliis Adami filiis secernat. « Si enim nec ante Abraham circumcisione, nec ante Moysen Sabbato, feriis et muneribus opus erat ; neque etiam similiter opus est, postquam secundum voluntatem Patris absque peccato ex virgine ab Abraham oriunda genitus est Filius Dei Jesus Christus. »

He speaks to the same effect in the Dialogue with Trypho, no. 88: « Nor yet on this account, says he, did Christ endure to be born and to be crucified, because He stood in need of these things, but for the human race, which from Adam had fallen into death and the fraud of the serpent, each one acting wickedly by his own fault. » Here a twofold kind of sin is distinguished: the one common to all; for the human race succumbed to the fraud of the serpent, and was condemned to death on account of this transgression. But there are other sins, which each one freely commits by his own fault. That phrase from Adam could be translated, through Adam. But I would rather retain from Adam, because it is more conducive to the purpose of Justin, who seems to wish to demonstrate that all men, the Jews not excepted, sinned in Adam. And in no. 100: « The Son of God was begotten of the Virgin, in order that by the same way in which disobedience took its beginning from the serpent, it might also receive its dissolution. For whereas Eve was a virgin and uncorrupted, having conceived the word of the serpent, she brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary, having received faith and joy, answered the angel who announced the glad tidings: Be it unto me according to your word. » He says that Christ was begotten without sin, no. 23, so as to separate Him from the other sons of Adam. « For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, nor of the Sabbath, festival days, and offerings before Moses; neither in like manner is there need now, after the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has been begotten without sin, according to the will of the Father, of a virgin sprung from Abraham. »

Non dubitat S. martyr quin omne hominum genus maledictioni obnoxium fuerit ob hanc peccati originalis labem, idque probat ducto argumento ex iis qui sub lege, et ex iis qui sine lege vixerunt. « Omne hominum genus, inquit Dialog., n. 95, maledictioni obnoxium reperietur. Maledictus enim secundum legem Moysis dictus est, quisquis non permanet in eis quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea. Nemo certe omnia accurate observavit, neque id vos negare audebitis ; sed alii aliis plus aut minus praecepta observarunt : quod si eos, qui sub hac lege sunt, sub maledictione esse patet, quod non omnia observaverint, annon multo magis patebit gentes omnes, quae simulacra colunt, pueris stupra inferunt, et alia nefaria faciunt, sub maledictione esse? »

The holy martyr does not doubt that the whole race of men was subject to a curse on account of this stain of original sin, and he proves this by drawing an argument from those who lived under the law, and from those who lived without the law. « The whole race of men, says he in the Dialogue, no. 95, will be found subject to a curse. For cursed according to the law of Moses is pronounced everyone who does not continue in the things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. Assuredly no one has accurately observed all things, nor will you dare to deny this; but some have observed the precepts more or less than others: now if it is clear that those who are under this law are under a curse because they have not observed all things, will it not be much clearer that all the nations, who worship images, commit outrages upon boys, and do other nefarious things, are under a curse? »

Editors' notes and page, col. 48

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: secundum verbum tuum› · call in col 48 (note printed at the foot of col 47; numeral faint, read as 4 from the running sequence 1–9 on pp. 24–32)

Luc. I, 38.

Luke 1:38.

(printed under page 30)

(5) ‹anchor: ut faciat ea› · call in col 48 (note printed at the foot of col 47; numeral faint, read as 5)

Deut. XXIX, 21.

Deuteronomy 29:21 [as printed; the words quoted are Deuteronomy 27:26].

(printed under page 30)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 48
marginal letters: A buerunt, sed non; B indigeret, sed pro; C sermone serpentis; D iis qui sub lege,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: buerunt, sed non; word split at start of column: buerunt (habuerunt)

PG 6:49

III. Justini vestigia premit Tatianus, et generatim cum omnibus hominibus communicat peccatum Adami. « Ac initio quidem, inquit n. 13, spiritus animae convictor erat, sed eam sequi nolentem deseruit. » Et n. 11 : « Non nati sumus ut moreremur, sed nostra culpa morimur. Perdidit nos libera voluntas ; servi facti sumus qui liberi eramus ; per peccatum venditi sumus. Nihil mali factum est a Deo ; nos ipsi produximus vitiositatem ; eam vero qui produxerunt, denuo etiam repudiare possunt. » Statuit Tatianus ut miserias, quae ex peccato Adami fluxerunt, ita etiam illius peccatum ad nos omnes pertinere. Quemadmodum cum eo perditi et in servitutem redacti et venditi ac mortui sumus, ita etiam cum illo vitiositatem produximus.

III. Tatian treads in the footsteps of Justin, and shares the sin of Adam generally with all men. « And in the beginning indeed, says he in no. 13, the spirit was the companion of the soul, but forsook it when it refused to follow it. » And in no. 11: « We were not born to die, but we die by our own fault. Free will has destroyed us; we who were free have been made slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil was made by God; we ourselves have produced wickedness; and those who have produced it are able also to cast it off again. » Tatian establishes that just as the miseries which flowed from the sin of Adam pertain to us all, so also does his sin. Just as with him we were destroyed and reduced to slavery and sold and died, so also with him we produced wickedness.

Non mirum ergo si Tatianus, magistri Justini vestigiis, primos deorum multitudinis monstratores, paradiso ejectos fuisse ob hoc scelus et mortales factos fuisse dicit : « Verbi autem potentia, inquit n. 7, cum in se praevideret quid esset, non illud quidem fato, sed libera eligentium voluntate eventurum ; futurarum rerum eventus praedicebat, ac nequitiam interdictis prohibebat, eos autem laudabat, qui boni permanerent. Postquam autem homines unum aliquem praeter caeteros, propterea quod primogenitus erat, callidiorem assectati sunt, ac eum etsi legi Dei obluctabatur, pro Deo habuerunt ; tum Verbi potentia et inceptorem profligatae temeritatis et ejus sectatores a sua consuetudine exclusit. Atque is quidem, qui ad imaginem Dei factus erat, discedente ab eo potentiore spiritu, fit mortalis ; ille autem primogenitus propter transgressionem et ignorationem daemon esse incepit. » Mira hic et digna quae observetur rerum confusio. Peccatum Adami cum peccato posteriorum, ac rursus istorum peccatum cum Adami peccato confunditur, quasi unum prorsus esset delictum. Unde illud, nisi quia in Adamo posteri peccarunt, et ab Adamo profluxit illa cordis pravitas, cui homines libere obsequendo cultum deorum induxerunt?

It is no wonder, therefore, if Tatian, in the footsteps of his master Justin, says that the first introducers of the multitude of gods were cast out of paradise on account of this crime and were made mortal: « Now the power of the Word, says he in no. 7, foreknowing in Himself what was going to happen, not indeed by fate, but by the free will of those choosing, foretold the outcomes of future things, and restrained wickedness by prohibitions, and praised those who remained good. But after men followed a certain one who was more subtle beyond the rest because he was the firstborn, and accounted him as God although he strove against the law of God; then the power of the Word excluded both the author of the reckless rashness and his followers from fellowship with Himself. And he indeed who had been made after the image of God, when the more powerful spirit departed from him, becomes mortal; while that firstborn, on account of transgression and ignorance, began to be a demon. » Wonderful here and worthy to be observed is the blending of things. The sin of Adam is blended with the sin of his posterity, and again their sin with the sin of Adam, as though it were altogether a single transgression. Whence comes that, unless because posterity sinned in Adam, and from Adam flowed forth that depravity of heart, by freely obeying which men introduced the worship of gods?

IV. Multa etiam occurrunt apud Theophilum Antiochenum testimonia, in quibus peccatum Adami, ut unum et commune omnibus peccatum describitur. « Ferae autem dicuntur, inquit lib. II, n. 17, ἀπὸ τοῦ θηρεύεσθαι, id est ex eo quod efferatae fuerint : nihil enim mali a Deo factum, sed bona omnia et valde bona ; sed peccatum hominis eas in vitium abduxit. Homine enim de via deflectente, ipsae quoque simul deflexerunt. Quemadmodum enim dominus domus cum praeclare se gerit, necessitatem servis affert recte vivendi ; si vero peccaverit, eadem servi peccabunt ; eodem modo contigit ut homo, qui dominus erat, peccaret et servi una peccarent. Cum autem redierit homo ad id quod secundum naturam est et finem peccandi fecerit, belluae quoque in pristinam mansuetudinem restituentur. » Ut reditus ad justitiam non soli Adamo, ita nec lapsus tribuitur ; sed omnium communis

IV. Many testimonies also occur in Theophilus of Antioch, in which the sin of Adam is described as one sin common to all. « Now wild beasts are so called, says he in book II, no. 17, from being hunted, that is, from the fact that they became wild: for nothing evil was made by God, but all things good and very good; yet the sin of man led them away into vice. For when man turned aside from the way, they also turned aside together with him. For just as the master of a house, when he conducts himself excellently, brings upon his servants a necessity of living rightly, whereas if he sins, the servants will commit the same sins; in the same way it came to pass that man, who was the master, sinned and the servants sinned together with him. But when man returns to that which is according to nature and makes an end of sinning, the beasts also will be restored to their former gentleness. » Just as the return to righteousness is not attributed to Adam alone, so neither is the fall; rather, it is common

Editors' notes and page, col. 49

Page

running head: 49 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO.
marginal letters: A III. Justini vestigia; B Non mirum ergo; C factus erat, discedente; D ἀπὸ τοῦ θηρεύεσθαι,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: III. Justini vestigia; word split at end of column: com- (communis)

PG 6:50

est. In eamdem sententiam ait, n. 26 : « Quemadmodum vas si, postquam confectum fuerit, vitii aliquid habeat, refunditur et refingitur, ut novum et integrum fiat ; idem homini mors affert : quodam enim modo confringitur, ut sanus in resurrectione inveniatur, id est mundus, justus et immortalis. »

to all. To the same effect he says in no. 26: « Just as a vessel, if after it has been made it has some flaw, is melted down and refashioned, so that it becomes new and whole; death brings the same thing to man: for in a certain way he is broken in pieces, so that in the resurrection he may be found sound, that is, clean, just, and immortal. »

Persuasum erat Theophilo nos cum Adamo morte damnatos non esse, nisi quia in Adamo peccavimus ; neque enim Deum innocuis hanc poenam impositurum fuisse ; ne ipse mortis auctor esse videretur. « Si immortalem ab initio fecisset, deum eum fecisset, inquit n. 27 ; rursus si mortalem, videretur Deus causa illius mortis esse. »

Theophilus was persuaded that we were not condemned to death with Adam except because we sinned in Adam; for God would not have imposed this punishment upon the innocent, lest He Himself should seem to be the author of death. « If He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him a god, says he in no. 27; on the other hand, if mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. »

CAPUT VII.

Chapter VII.

De Christi gratia.

On the grace of Christ.

I. Charitas, quae legem adimplet, per fidem impetratur. II. Haec fides charitate animata gratiae donum est. III. Quam potens quamque efficax haec gratia. IV. Unica semper exstitit salutis via, fides charitate animata, quam gratia largitur. V. Quam immerito Justinus salutem aeternam Socratis et Heracliti agnovisse dicatur. VI. Testimonia de Christi gratia ex Epistola ad Diognetum et Tatiani Oratione.

I. Charity, which fulfils the law, is obtained through faith. II. This faith animated by charity is a gift of grace. III. How powerful and how efficacious this grace is. IV. There has always been a single way of salvation, faith animated by charity, which grace bestows. V. How undeservedly Justin is said to have acknowledged the eternal salvation of Socrates and Heraclitus. VI. Testimonies concerning the grace of Christ from the Epistle to Diognetus and the Oration of Tatian.

I. Ut lapsus homo sanetur, unicum remedium agnoscit Justinus, fidem quae per charitatem operatur, eamque gratuitae et omnipotentis gratiae donum esse declarat.

I. That fallen man may be healed, Justin acknowledges a single remedy, faith which works through charity, and declares that it is the gift of gratuitous and omnipotent grace.

Judaei, in quibus flectendis et permovendis mirabiles exstitere charitatis Justini conatus, hanc praecipue moram eruditae illius disputationi attulerunt, quod legem sibi et filiorum Abrahae dignitatem satis magna esse ad salutem praesidia ducerent. Justinum hortatur Trypho initio colloquii, ut primo circumcidatur, deinde observet, ut lege sancitum est, Sabbata et dies festos et neomenias Dei, ac prorsus omnia faciat quae in lege scripta sunt. Sic enim fortasse misericordiam illi a Deo futuram. Miratur Trypho, cur Christiani, cum tanto virtutis colendae studio ferantur, legem Mosis non observent, n. 10. Auctor est eis, ut Christum Deum ex Virgine genitum credere desinant, eumque potius hominem ex hominibus genitum dicant, ac legis accurata observatione consecutum ut Christus esset, n. 67. In hoc errore indormiebant Judaei, a magistris suis decepti et lactati, a quibus hanc etiam stultissimam opinionem acceperant, omnibus ex semine Abrahae secundum carnem editis, etiamsi peccatores et increduli et in Deum contumaces fuerint, regnum aeternum datum iri, n. 140.

The Jews, in bending and moving whom the efforts of Justin's charity were admirable, brought this hindrance above all to his learned disputation, that they deemed the law and the dignity of being sons of Abraham to be safeguards great enough for salvation for themselves. Trypho at the beginning of the discussion exhorts Justin first to be circumcised, then to observe, as is ordained by the law, the Sabbaths and feast days and new moons of God, and in short to do all the things that are written in the law. For thus perhaps there would be mercy for him from God. Trypho wonders why Christians, though carried along by so great a zeal for cultivating virtue, do not observe the law of Moses, no. 10. He advises them to cease believing that Christ is God begotten of a Virgin, and rather to say that He was a man begotten of men, and that He attained to being the Christ by the accurate observance of the law, no. 67. In this error the Jews were lulled to sleep, deceived and flattered by their teachers, from whom they had also received this most foolish opinion, that to all sprung from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, even though they be sinners and unbelievers and contumacious towards God, the eternal kingdom will be given, no. 140.

Cum tanta esset Judaeorum in lege fiducia, non segniter Justinus in hoc minuendo errore elaborat, ac eadem saepe repetere non pigratur. Demonstrat justitiam non in praeputii, sed in cordis circumcisione, non in externa jejuniorum et Sabbatorum observatione positam esse, sed in interioribus animi affectionibus, quas cum externis operibus conjungi prophetae praecipiunt. Hunc in usum testimonia ex Isaia et Mose depromit, n. 14 et 15. Uno verbo nullam agnoscit justitiam, quae non ex charitate

Since the confidence of the Jews in the law was so great, Justin labours not slothfully in diminishing this error, and is not reluctant to repeat the same things often. He demonstrates that righteousness lies not in the circumcision of the foreskin, but of the heart, not in the outward observance of fasts and Sabbaths, but in the inward affections of the soul, which the prophets command to be joined with outward works. For this purpose he draws testimonies from Isaiah and Moses, nos. 14 and 15. In a word, he acknowledges no righteousness which does not proceed from charity.

Editors' notes and page, col. 50

Page

running head: I PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 50
marginal letters: A munis est. In eamdem; B CAPUT VII.; C quod legem sibi; D magistris suis decepti
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: munis est. In eamdem, CAPUT VII., De Christi gratia., I. Charitas, quæ; word split at start of column: munis (communis); word split at end of column: cha- (charitate)

PG 6:51

proficiscatur. « Bifariam igitur, inquit n. 93, distributa omni justitia, in Deum et homines, quicunque, ait Scriptura, diligit Dominum Deum ex toto corde et ex totis viribus et proximum ut seipsum, is vere justus fuerit. » Nullam prorsus ignorationem admittit ne in perditissimis quidem, qua peccati expers sit quidquid fit contra hoc duplex praeceptum. Sic enim ibidem loquitur : « Nam quae semper et ubique justa sunt ac totam justitiam in omni hominum genere exhibet Deus ; nec ullum est genus, quod ignoret adulterium esse malum et fornicationem et homicidium et quaecunque alia similia. Quae quidem etiamsi omnes faciant, non tamen assequuntur ut, cum ea faciunt, inique a se fieri ignorent, iis exceptis, quicunque impuro spiritu pleni, vel prava institutione et malis moribus ac nefariis legibus corrupti, naturales notiones amiserunt, vel potius inhibitas tenent. »

« All righteousness, therefore, says he in no. 93, being divided into two parts, towards God and towards men, whosoever, says Scripture, loves the Lord God with his whole heart and with his whole strength, and his neighbour as himself, he shall be truly just. » He admits no ignorance at all, not even in the most abandoned, whereby anything done against this twofold precept would be free from sin. For thus he speaks in the same place: « For God sets forth in every race of men the things that are always and everywhere just, and all righteousness; nor is there any race which is ignorant that adultery is evil, and fornication, and murder, and all other such things. And even if all men do these things, yet they do not attain to being ignorant, when they do them, that they are acting iniquitously, except those who, filled with an impure spirit, or corrupted by perverse instruction and bad morals and nefarious laws, have lost their natural notions, or rather hold them suppressed. »

Sed charitatem, quae sola legem adimplet, fide comparari docet. « Qui ex gentibus, inquit n. 52, per Christi fidem Dei cultores et justi facti sumus, rursus eum venturum exspectamus. » Hanc fidem charitate animatam eorum propriam esse statuit, n. 13 et 14, « qui non jam hircorum et ovium sanguine expiantur, aut vitulae cinere, similaeve oblationibus, sed fide per sanguinem Christi et mortem ejus, qui ea ipsa de causa mortuus est. » Probat id sanctus martyr ex capite LIII Isaiae, ubi Christus peccata nostra portare, et vulneratus propter delicta nostra dicitur, nosque ejus livore sanari. Ex quo concludit quanta sit baptismi Christianorum sanctitas. « Itaque per lavacrum poenitentiae, inquit, et cognitionis Dei, quod pro peccatis populorum Dei institutum est, ut clamat Isaias, nos credidimus ; et testamur ipsum illud ab eo praenuntiatum baptisma, quod solum poenitentes expiare potest, hanc esse aquam vitae. »

But he teaches that charity, which alone fulfils the law, is acquired by faith. « We from the nations, says he in no. 52, who through the faith of Christ have been made worshippers of God and just, await His coming again. » He establishes that this faith animated by charity belongs properly to those, nos. 13 and 14, « who are no longer expiated by the blood of goats and sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer, or by offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ and His death, Who died for that very cause. » The holy martyr proves this from chapter 53 of Isaiah, where Christ is said to bear our sins and to have been wounded for our transgressions, and we to be healed by His bruise. From which he concludes how great is the holiness of the baptism of Christians. « Therefore through the laver of repentance, says he, and of the knowledge of God, which was instituted for the sins of the peoples of God, as Isaiah cries aloud, we have believed; and we testify that that very baptism foretold by him, which alone can expiate the penitent, is this water of life. »

II. Duplici nomine conversionem cordis Christo attribuit, tum quia gratuita gratia voluntatem praeoccupat, tum quia potenter in nobis operatur velle et perficere. Gratuitam Christi gratiam pluribus locis praedicat. « Quid dicam, inquit Apol. 1, p. 62, innumerabilem eorum multitudinem, qui ex intemperantia conversi sunt, atque haec didicerunt? Non enim justos aut pudicos ad poenitentiam vocavit Christus, sed impios et impudicos et injustos. Sic enim ait : Non veni vocare justos, sed peccatores ad poenitentiam. » Christianos eodem modo ac Abraham vocatos esse pronuntiat Dialog., n. 119, ubi sic loquitur : « Quid igitur amplius hic Abrahae gratificatur Christus? Quod simili vocatione eum vocavit, eum e terra, quam incolebat, exire jussit, ac per illam vocem nos omnes vocavit, et exivimus ex illo instituto, in quo prave communi aliorum terrae incolarum more vivebamus ; et cum Abraham sanctae terrae haeredes erimus, haereditatem in infinitum aevum accipientes, quippe cum filii Abrahae per similem

II. On a twofold account he attributes the conversion of the heart to Christ, both because by gratuitous grace He forestalls the will, and because He powerfully works in us to will and to accomplish. He proclaims the gratuitous grace of Christ in several passages. « Why should I mention, says he in Apology 1, p. 62, the innumerable multitude of those who have been converted from intemperance and have learnt these things? For Christ did not call the just or the chaste to repentance, but the impious and the unchaste and the unjust. For thus He says: I came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance. » He pronounces that Christians were called in the same manner as Abraham in the Dialogue, no. 119, where he speaks thus: « What more, then, does Christ bestow here upon Abraham? That He called him by a like calling, commanded him to go out from the land which he inhabited, and by that voice has called us all, and we have gone out from that way of life in which we lived perversely after the common custom of the other inhabitants of the earth; and with Abraham we shall be heirs of the holy land, receiving the inheritance unto endless ages, inasmuch as we are sons of Abraham through a like

Editors' notes and page, col. 51

Footnotes

(6) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 51 or 52 (not determined; note printed at the foot of col 51)

Matth. XXII, 37.

Matthew 22:37.

(printed under page 32)

(7) ‹anchor: peccatores ad poenitentiam› · call in col 51

Matth. IX, 13.

Matthew 9:13.

(printed under page 32)

(8) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 51 or 52 (not determined; note printed at the foot of col 51, running into col 52)

Jac. II, 23.

James 2:23.

(printed under page 32)

Page

running head: 51 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A ritate proficiscatur.; B ritu pleni, vel; C quo concludit quanta; D enim justos aut
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ritate proficiscatur.; word split at start of column: ritate (charitate); word split at end of column: si- (similem)
other: the word similem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 52

PG 6:52

fidem simus. Quemadmodum enim ille voci Dei credidit et reputatum est ei ad justitiam ; ita et nos postquam voci Dei tum per apostolos Christi denuo praedicatae, tum per prophetas promulgatae credidimus, ad mortem usque omnibus rebus quae in mundo sunt renuntiavimus. » Saepe alias describit deterrimam illam gentilium vitam ac omnibus vitiis cumulatam, qualem Christiani duxerant antequam a Christo vocarentur. Hinc cum sibi conscius esset non meruisse se ut ad fidem perveniret, pro Judaeis precari non dubitabat, quos non modo non mereri, ut a Christo vocarentur, sed etiam omnes furoris sui conatus in Christianorum perniciem convertere videbat : « Nos autem, inquit Judaeis, n. 108, nec vos odimus, nec eos qui talem de nobis opinionem a vobis acceperunt ; sed precamur ut vel nunc saltem poenitentiam agentes, misericordiam consequamini a perhumano et mirum in modum misericorde universorum parente Deo. » Dei judicium admiratur Justinus in hoc Judaeorum et Christianorum discrimine. « Nec frustra nos in eum credidimus, inquit num. 118, nec ab iis, qui ita docuerunt, decepti sumus ; sed et admirabili Dei providentia id contigit, ut vobis, qui Dei amantes et prudentes existimamini, nec estis tamen, prudentiores nos et religiosiores inveniremur per vocationem novi et aeterni testamenti, id est Christi.

faith. For just as he believed the voice of God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness; so we also, after we believed the voice of God both preached anew by the apostles of Christ and promulgated by the prophets, have renounced even unto death all the things that are in the world. » Often elsewhere he describes that worst life of the heathens, heaped up with all vices, such as Christians had led before they were called by Christ. Hence, since he was conscious to himself that he had not deserved to arrive at the faith, he did not hesitate to pray for the Jews, whom he saw not only not deserving to be called by Christ, but even turning all the efforts of their fury to the destruction of Christians: « But we, says he to the Jews in no. 108, neither hate you, nor those who have received such an opinion of us from you; but we pray that even now at least, repenting, you may obtain mercy from the most kindly and wonderfully merciful God, the Parent of all. » Justin admires the judgement of God in this distinction between Jews and Christians. « Neither have we believed in Him in vain, says he in no. 118, nor have we been deceived by those who so taught; but by the admirable providence of God also this has come to pass, that we are found more prudent and more religious than you, who are esteemed lovers of God and prudent, and yet are not, through the calling of the new and eternal covenant, that is, of Christ.

Hanc doctrinam acceperat Justinus ab optimo sene, cujus ex sermone initium habuit Christi cognoscendi. Sic ille discedens a Justino perorat Dialog., n. 7 : « Tibi vero precare ante omnia lucis portas recludi, neque enim haec quisquam intelligere et perspicere possit, nisi cui Deus intelligere dederit et Christus ejus. » Haec autem non de singulari quadam ac sublimiori mysteriorum cognitione, sed de fide accipi debere ex eo perspicitur, quod Justino nondum ad Christum converso non congruebat sublimis illa et extra ordinem mysteriorum cognitio, sed fides et assensus fidei elementis, quae senex ei tradere coeperat. Id confirmatur ex aliis locis. « Nobis igitur, inquit Dialog., n. 100, Christus revelavit omnia, quaecunque ex Scripturis per gratiam ejus intelleximus, eum agnoscentes primogenitum Dei esse et ante res omnes creatas, et patriarcharum filium, ut qui ex Virgine ab eis orta caro factus, informis homo et inglorius et perpessionibus obnoxius fieri sustinuerit. » Et n. 119 : « Putatis futurum unquam fuisse, ut haec in Scripturis intelligere possemus, nisi voluntate illius, qui haec voluit, gratiam accepissemus intelligendi? » Hinc etiam n. 121 : « Nobis datum est, ut eum audiamus et intelligamus, et salvemur per hunc Christum, et res Patris omnes cognoscamus. » Non dubitabat Justinus, quin quos Deus praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui, iis certissima ad salutem auxilia praeparaverit. In Dialogo quem habuit cum Judaeis, molestiam, quam ex illorum percipiebat

Justin had received this doctrine from the excellent old man from whose discourse he had his beginning of knowing Christ. Thus that old man, departing from Justin, concludes his speech in the Dialogue, no. 7: « But for yourself pray above all that the gates of light may be opened to you; for no one can understand and perceive these things save him to whom God and His Christ have given to understand. » Now that these words ought to be taken not of some singular and loftier knowledge of the mysteries, but of faith, is perceived from the fact that to Justin, not yet converted to Christ, that sublime and extraordinary knowledge of the mysteries was not suited, but faith and assent to the elements of faith which the old man had begun to deliver to him. This is confirmed from other passages. « To us therefore, says he in the Dialogue, no. 100, Christ has revealed all things whatsoever we have understood from the Scriptures through His grace, acknowledging Him to be the firstborn of God and before all created things, and the son of the patriarchs, since He was made flesh of a Virgin sprung from them, and endured to become an uncomely and inglorious man and subject to sufferings. » And in no. 119: « Do you think that it would ever have come to pass that we should be able to understand these things in the Scriptures, unless by the will of Him Who willed these things we had received the grace of understanding? » Hence also in no. 121: « To us it has been given to hear and understand Him, and to be saved through this Christ, and to know all the things of the Father. » Justin did not doubt that for those whom God predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son, He prepared most certain helps unto salvation. In the Dialogue which he had with the Jews, the trouble which he felt from their

Editors' notes and page, col. 52

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: reputatum est ei ad justitiam› · call in col 52

Jac. II, 23.

James 2:23.

(printed under page 32)

(9) ‹anchor: imaginis Filii sui› · call in col 52

Rom. VIII, 29.

Romans 8:29.

(printed under page 32)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 52
marginal letters: A milem fidem simus.; B opinionem a vobis; C gnoscendi. Sic ille; D rum filium, ut qui
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: milem fidem simus.; word split at start of column: milem (similem)

PG 6:53

pertinacia, ea spe molliebat, horum aliquem ex eo reperiri posse semine, quod reliquum ad salutem aeternam factum est, n. 32. Et n. 64 : « Nunc autem quia judicium Dei formido, de nullo ex vestro genere praejudico, utrum is non sit ex eorum genere, qui secundum gratiam Domini Sabaoth salvari possunt. Quapropter quamvis non probe agatis ; pergam tamen quidquid a vobis propositum aut contra fuerit dictum, ad id respondere. » Quod gratuita misericordia aliis conceditur, id justo judicio aliis non concedi docet n. 55 : « Non eram, inquam, allaturus, Trypho, has demonstrationes, quibus eos condemnari scio, qui haec et similia colunt, sed eas, quas contra nemo dicere poterit. Novae autem tibi videbuntur, quamvis quotidie a vobis legantur, ut vel ex hoc perspectum habeamus, vobis ob vestram nequitiam a Deo potestatem sapientiae, quae illius verbis inest, intelligendae absconditam fuisse, nonnullis exceptis, quibus secundum summae suae misericordiae gratiam, ut ait Isaias, semen ad salutem reliquit, ne ut Sodomitarum et Gomorrhaeorum, ita et genus vestrum periret. »

obstinacy he softened with the hope that someone of them might be found from that seed which has been left as a remnant for eternal salvation, no. 32. And in no. 64: « But now, because I fear the judgement of God, I prejudge concerning no one of your race whether he be not of the number of those who can be saved according to the grace of the Lord of hosts. Wherefore, although you do not act uprightly, I shall nevertheless go on to reply to whatever is proposed or spoken in opposition by you. » That what is granted to some by gratuitous mercy is by a just judgement not granted to others, he teaches in no. 55: « I was not, I say, going to bring forward, Trypho, these proofs, by which I know that those who worship these and similar things are condemned, but those against which no one will be able to speak. Now they will seem new to you, although they are read by you daily, so that even from this we may see clearly that because of your wickedness the power of understanding the wisdom which is in His words has been hidden from you by God, with the exception of some for whom, according to the grace of His supreme mercy, as Isaiah says, He has left a seed for salvation, lest your race also should perish like that of the Sodomites and Gomorrheans. »

III. Quam potens sit quamque efficax Christi gratia, quae nos ex servitute in libertatem vindicat, ex nonnullis testimoniis modo citatis existimari potest, velut ex iis quae Justino a venerabili sene dicta retuli. Fidem illam in Deum incarnatum, quae nos penitus renovat, ex illius omnipotenti voluntate repetit, qui Filium suum incarnari voluit. « Putatis futurum unquam fuisse, ut haec in Scripturis intelligere possemus, ni voluntate illius qui haec voluit, gratiam accepissemus intelligendi? » Christi potentiam in gentium conversione mirifice elucere docet. « Haec, inquit Apol. II, n. 10, Christus noster propria sua virtute perfecit. » Mox Christianorum constantiam describens, ait : « Haec enim virtus Patris inenarrabilis fecit, non humani sermonis instrumenta. » Christi autem potentiam non tunc solum enituisse existimat, cum et apostolis invictam ad praedicandum Evangelium constantiam afflavit, et eorum qui apostolos audiebant corda aperuit, sed etiam cum magos ad praesepe, in quo infans jacebat, attraxit. Sic enim loquitur Dialog. n. 78 : « Nam et quod dicit Isaias : Accipiet virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae, significabat nefarii daemonis, qui habitabat Damasci, potestatem a Christo statim atque natus esset, victum iri, quod quidem factum esse demonstratur. Magi enim, qui ut spolia rapti fuerant ad malas quasque actiones, ad quas eos ille daemon impellebat, ubi Christum adoratum venerunt, defecere, ut manifestum est, ab ea, quae illos ut spolia rapuerat, potestate, quam nobis arcane Scriptura Damasci habitare indicat. » Et n. 88 : « Atque illud etiam vobis testimonio sit, quod vobis dixi ab Arabiae magis factum, qui cum statim ac puer natus est, venissent, adoraverunt eum. Nam ut in lucem editus est, suam

III. How powerful and how efficacious is the grace of Christ, which delivers us from slavery into liberty, can be judged from several testimonies just cited, such as from the words which I related as spoken to Justin by the venerable old man. That faith in God Incarnate, which thoroughly renews us, he traces to the omnipotent will of Him Who willed His Son to become incarnate. « Do you think that it would ever have come to pass that we should be able to understand these things in the Scriptures, unless by the will of Him Who willed these things we had received the grace of understanding? » He teaches that the power of Christ shines forth wonderfully in the conversion of the nations. « These things, says he in Apology II, no. 10, our Christ accomplished by His own power. » Presently, describing the constancy of the Christians, he says: « For the unspeakable power of the Father did these things, not the instruments of human speech. » Moreover, he considers that the power of Christ shone forth not only when He breathed into the apostles an invincible constancy for preaching the Gospel and opened the hearts of those who heard the apostles, but also when He drew the Magi to the manger in which He lay as an infant. For thus he speaks in the Dialogue, no. 78: « For what Isaiah says: He shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, signified that the power of the wicked demon who dwelt at Damascus would be vanquished by Christ as soon as He was born, which indeed is demonstrated to have been done. For the Magi, who had been carried off as spoils unto all evil actions, to which that demon impelled them, when they came to adore Christ, revolted, as is manifest, from that power which had carried them off as spoils, which Scripture darkly indicates to us as dwelling at Damascus. » And in no. 88: « And let that also be a testimony to you which I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who having come as soon as the child was born, adored Him. For as soon as He was brought forth into the light, His

Editors' notes and page, col. 53

Footnotes

(10) ‹anchor: gratiam accepissemus intelligendi› · call in col 53

Dialog., n. 119.

Dialogue [with Trypho], no. 119.

(printed under page 33)

(11) ‹anchor: et spolia Samariae› · call in col 53

Isa. viii, 4.

Isaiah 8:4.

(printed under page 33)

Page

running head: 53 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO.
marginal letters: A pertinacia, ea spe; B vel ex hoc perspectum; C ligere possemus,; D tem Damasci et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: pertinacia, ea spe

PG 6:54

virtutem habuit. » Quod ergo a daemonibus liberamur et daemones superamus, cum ex vitio ad virtutem emergimus, id Christi potentiae tribuendum est ; non minus profecto, quam cum daemonia ex corporibus pelluntur. Id quoque declarat Justinus. « Adjutorem enim illum, inquit ejusdem Dialog., n. 30, et Redemptorem appellamus, cujus vel nominis potentiam daemonia ipsa perhorrescunt, ac hodie per nomen Jesu Christi sub Pontio Pilato Judaeae praeside crucifixi adjurata subjiciuntur. »

power. » That we are delivered from demons, therefore, and overcome demons when we emerge from vice to virtue, must be attributed to the power of Christ; no less assuredly than when demons are driven out of bodies. This also Justin declares. « For we call Him Helper and Redeemer, says he in the same Dialogue, no. 30, the power of Whose very name the demons themselves dread, and today, when adjured by the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, they are made subject. »

Concessa in deserto curatio his qui serpentum morsibus fuerant vulnerati, imago et figura exstitit salutis, quam a Christo accipimus. « Atque illam etiam figuram, illudque signum, inquit Dialog. n. 91, quod adversus serpentium morsus Israeli institutum est, ad eorum salutem erectum esse liquet, qui jam tum praenuntiatam fuisse credunt et mortem serpenti per eum, qui crucifigendus erat, futuram, et salutem iis qui serpentis morsibus laesi ad eum, a quo crucifixus ille Filius in mundum missus est, confugiunt. »

The healing granted in the desert to those who had been wounded by the bites of serpents was an image and figure of the salvation which we receive from Christ. « And that figure also, and that sign, says he in the Dialogue, no. 91, which was instituted for Israel against the bites of serpents, was clearly set up for the salvation of those who believe that even then there was foretold both death to come upon the serpent through Him Who was to be crucified, and salvation to those who, hurt by the bites of the serpent, flee for refuge to Him by Whom that crucified Son was sent into the world. »

Crucis potentiam, quam unicornis cornibus in Scriptura designari putat, sic ibidem S. martyr praedicat : « Illud autem, His cornibus gentes petet inde usque ab extremo terrae, id quod hodie in omnibus gentibus factum videmus demonstrat. Cornu enim petiti, id est compuncti ex omnibus gentibus ab inanibus simulacris et daemonibus ad Deum conversi sunt. » Charitas, quam Christus diffundit in corda nostra, saepe a Justino depingitur sub imagine circumcisionis : et circumcisionem, quam Josue cultris lapideis peregit, figuram exstitisse putat illius circumcisionis, quam a Christo accipimus. « Praeclare ergo in nobis agitur, inquit Dialog. n. 114, qui cultris lapideis circumcisi sumus secunda circumcisione. Prima enim illa vestra ferro peracta est et peragitur : duro enim corde permanetis. Nostra autem circumcisio, quae secunda numero post vestram instituta est, per lapides acutos, id est per sermones apostolorum summi illius angularis lapidis et sine manibus abscissi, circumcidit nos a simulacrorum cultu et ab omni prorsus pravitate. Quorum corda ita sunt pravitate circumcisa, ut laeti mortem oppetamus propter nomen praeclarae illius Petrae, quae et in eorum corda, qui per ipsum diligunt Patrem universorum, aquam vivam emittit et eos potat, qui aquam vitae sitiunt. »

The power of the cross, which he thinks is designated in Scripture by the horns of the unicorn, the holy martyr proclaims thus in the same place: « And that saying, With these horns he shall push the nations even from the end of the earth, points out that which we see done today in all nations. For pushed by the horn, that is, pricked in heart, men from all nations have been converted from vain images and demons to God. » The charity which Christ pours forth into our hearts is often depicted by Justin under the image of circumcision: and he considers that the circumcision which Joshua performed with knives of stone was a figure of that circumcision which we receive from Christ. « Excellently therefore does it fare with us, says he in the Dialogue, no. 114, who have been circumcised with knives of stone by the second circumcision. For that first one of yours was and is performed with iron: for you remain hard of heart. But our circumcision, which was instituted second in number after yours, by sharp stones, that is, by the words of the apostles of that chief cornerstone cut out without hands, has circumcised us from the worship of images and from all wickedness whatsoever. And our hearts are so circumcised from wickedness that we gladly meet death for the name of that glorious Rock, which also sends forth living water into the hearts of those who through Him love the Father of all, and gives drink to those who thirst for the water of life. »

Mirabilem illam cordis circumcisionem, quam a Christo accipimus, novam quamdam generationem et creationem esse pronuntiat S. martyr Scripturarum auctoritate fretus. « Nos, inquit, n. 135, ex Christi utero recisi verum sumus Israeliticum genus. » Et n. 138 : « Christus cum primogenitus esset omnis creaturae, rursus etiam factus est principium alterius generis ab ipso regenerati per aquam et fidem et lignum, quo mysterium crucis continetur. »

That wonderful circumcision of the heart which we receive from Christ, the holy martyr, relying on the authority of the Scriptures, pronounces to be a certain new generation and creation. « We, says he in no. 135, cut from the womb of Christ, are the true Israelitic race. » And in no. 138: « Whereas Christ was the firstborn of every creature, He has also become again the beginning of another race regenerated by Him through water and faith and the wood, in which the mystery of the cross is contained. »

Editors' notes and page, col. 54

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: cultris lapideis peregit› · call in col 54 (note printed at the foot of col 53)

Josue v, 2.

Joshua 5:2.

(printed under page 33)

Page

running head: I PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 54
marginal letters: A virtutem habuit. »; B stitutum est, ad; C corda nostra, sæpe; D claræ illius Petræ,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: virtutem habuit. »

PG 6:55

Non minus elucet Christi potentia in perseverantiae dono. « Stolam ejus, inquit n. 54, Spiritus sanctus eos vocavit, qui per eum remissionem peccatorum acceperunt, in quibus virtute quidem semper adest, manifeste autem aderit in secundo adventu. » Victores facit Christi gratia ex tentationibus, quibus nos diabolus impugnare non desinit. « Sed ut vobis rationem reddam, inquit n. 116, de revelatione Jesu Christi sancti, repeto sermonem, ac dico hanc quoque revelationem in nos factam esse, qui in Christum summum sacerdotem, hunc crucifixum, credimus ; qui cum in stupris ac omni prorsus sordida actione versaremur, per gratiam a nostro Jesu, secundum voluntatem ipsius Patris, concessam, sordida omnia quibus induti eramus, mala exuimus : quibus diabolus instat semper adversans, ac omnes ad se trahere volens ; sed angelus Dei, id est virtus Dei nobis per Jesum Christum immissa, increpat eum et a nobis discedit. Ac tanquam ex igne extracti sumus, cum prioribus peccatis exuti, tum ex tribulatione eruendi, et ex incendio nobis a diabolo ejusque omnibus ministris immisso ; ex quibus nos etiam rursus se extracturum Jesus Dei Filius, ac praeparatis vestibus nos induturum, si mandata ejus observemus, et regnum aeternum provisurum promisit. »

No less does the power of Christ shine forth in the gift of perseverance. « The Holy Spirit, says he in no. 54, has called His robe those who through Him have received remission of sins, in whom He is indeed always present in power, and will be manifestly present at His second coming. » The grace of Christ makes us victors over the temptations with which the devil does not cease to assail us. « But that I may render you an account, says he in no. 116, of the revelation of the holy Jesus Christ, I resume my discourse, and say that this revelation also was made in relation to us, who believe in Christ the high priest, this crucified One; who, whereas we lived in fornications and every filthy action whatsoever, through the grace granted by our Jesus according to the will of His Father, have stripped off all the filthy evils with which we were clothed: against whom the devil presses hard, ever opposing us and wishing to draw all men to himself; but the angel of God, that is, the power of God sent unto us through Jesus Christ, rebukes him and he departs from us. And we have been plucked as it were out of the fire, both stripped of our former sins and to be rescued from tribulation and from the fiery trial sent upon us by the devil and all his ministers; out of which Jesus the Son of God has promised that He will also pluck us again, and clothe us with prepared garments, if we keep His commandments, and provide an eternal kingdom. »

Ex nova hac generatione, quam a Christo accepimus, sive ex illa charitate quam in corda nostra diffundit, praeclara Justinus argumenta ducit ac defensionem religionis Christianae. « Si ergo novum testamentum, inquit Dialog. n. 11, Deus institutum iri praedicavit, illudque in lucem gentium, videmus autem ac persuasum habemus per nomen ipsius Jesu Christi crucifixi, a simulacris et ab alia nequitia homines ad Deum accedere, ac ne morte quidem proposita a confessione et pietate discedere ; cum ex operibus, tum ex consequentibus miraculis licet intelligere hunc esse novam legem et novum testamentum, et exspectationem eorum qui ex omnibus gentibus a Deo bona exspectant. » Saepe alias Christum esse novam illam legem in vetere promissam contendit, quia scilicet Christus ipse per Spiritum suum in nobis habitat, atque hanc legem in cordibus nostris scribit. Atque in hoc maximum Christiani et Judaei discrimen constituit. Fatetur quae natura praeclara et pia et justa sunt, ea in lege Mosis his qui legi parent, n. 45, facienda praescribi. Legem autem illam, quae post mortem Mosis prodiit, utpote in psalmo XIX memorata, Christianorum propriam esse et in eorum cordibus scriptam sic probat, n. 30 : « Haec autem judicia Domini nobis, quibus sapientiam praestiterunt dulciora super mel et favum videri, ex eo perspicitur, quod ne morte quidem proposita adducamur, ut nomen ejus abnegemus. » Judaeos autem sic compellat, n. 93 : « Vos autem neque in Deum, neque in prophetas, neque in vosmetipsos amorem unquam aut

From this new generation which we have received from Christ, or from that charity which He pours forth into our hearts, Justin draws splendid arguments and a defence of the Christian religion. « If therefore, says he in the Dialogue, no. 11, God proclaimed that a new covenant would be instituted, and that for a light of the nations, and we see and are persuaded that through the name of this very Jesus Christ Who was crucified men come to God from images and from other wickedness, and even when death is set before them do not depart from their confession and piety; both from the works and from the miracles that accompany them one may understand that He is the new law and the new covenant, and the expectation of those from all nations who await good things from God. » Often elsewhere he contends that Christ is that new law promised in the old, because, namely, Christ Himself dwells in us through His Spirit, and writes this law in our hearts. And in this he places the greatest distinction between the Christian and the Jew. He confesses that the things which by nature are noble and pious and just are prescribed in the law of Moses to be done by those who obey the law, no. 45. But that that law which came forth after the death of Moses, inasmuch as it is mentioned in Psalm 18, belongs properly to Christians and is written in their hearts, he proves thus in no. 30: « Now that these judgements of the Lord seem sweeter than honey and the honeycomb to us, to whom they have imparted wisdom, is perceived from the fact that even when death is set before us we are not induced to deny His name. » The Jews, on the other hand, he addresses thus in no. 93: « But you have never shown love or

Editors' notes and page, col. 55

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: in nobis habitat› · call in col 55

Rom. VIII, 11.

Romans 8:11.

(printed under page 34)

Page

running head: 55 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A Non minus elucet; B duti eramus, mala; C testamentum, inquit; D in lege Mosis his
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Non minus elucet

PG 6:56

charitatem declarastis, sed semper, ut manifestum est, et simulacrorum cultores et justorum interfectores vos praebuistis. » Hinc tam saepe observat circumcisionem, Sabbata, ferias et sacrificia Judaeis ob peccata, veluti jugum, imposita fuisse, atque ut eorum reprimeretur improbitas, n. 18, 19, 23, 91 et seqq. Christianorum autem baptismo Spiritum sanctum conferri ; novum testamentum, non ut prius, sed sine metu et tremore et fulguribus institutum fuisse, n. 67, ac duo intelligenda esse Judae semina et duo genera, quemadmodum duas domus Jacob, alterum ex sanguine et carne, alterum ex spiritu, n. 135. Tanti momenti esse ducit legem a gratia distinguere, ut in hac distinctione cognitionem omnium mysteriorum reponere non dubitet, n. 44 ; religionis Christianae proprium esse docet hanc distinctionem demonstrare, n. 67.

charity either towards God, or towards the prophets, or towards yourselves, but have always, as is manifest, proved yourselves both worshippers of images and slayers of the just. » Hence he so often observes that circumcision, Sabbaths, festival days, and sacrifices were imposed upon the Jews on account of their sins, like a yoke, and in order that their wickedness might be restrained, nos. 18, 19, 23, 91 and following; whereas by the baptism of Christians the Holy Spirit is conferred; that the new covenant was instituted not like the former one, but without fear and trembling and lightnings, no. 67, and that two seeds of Judah and two races are to be understood, just as two houses of Jacob, the one of blood and flesh, the other of the Spirit, no. 135. He deems it of such great importance to distinguish the law from grace that he does not hesitate to place the knowledge of all the mysteries in this distinction, no. 44; he teaches that it belongs properly to the Christian religion to demonstrate this distinction, no. 67.

IV. Fidem illam charitate animatam, quae gratuitae et potentis gratiae donum est, semper ad salutem fuisse necessariam, id est sub lege Moysis et ante ipsam legem, pluribus locis luculenter docet Justinus. « Nam et ipse Abraham, inquit n. 23, cum in praeputio esset, per fidem, qua credidit Deo, justificatus et benedictus est. » Vid. n. 92. Nullos prorsus electos agnoscit qui non hanc Abrahae fidem imitati fuerint. Sic enim refellit stultam illam opinionem, qua inflati Judaei salvos se ob deductam ab Abrahamo originem futuros putabant. « Nemo, inquit n. 44, ne ex illo quidem semine quidquam accipere potest, praeter eos, qui animo assimilati fuerint fidei Abrahae, et mysteria omnia cognoverint, id est alia quaedam praecepta ad Dei cultum et justitiae observationem, alia autem praecepta et opera vel ad Christi mysterium, vel ob duritiam cordis populi vestri similiter esse descripta. » Hanc distinctionem praeceptorum requirit ad salutem, quia si quis justitiam in sola circumcisione et Sabbato et feriis positam existimet, et summa legis aeternae oblivione versabitur, nec proinde salvus esse poterit. Justinum autem de illis etiam temporibus loqui, quae ante Incarnationem Domini fluxerunt, manifestum est ex his quae statim addit : « Atque ita sese rem habere Deus apud Ezechielem pronuntiat in haec verba : Si Noe, et Job et Daniel depoposcerint vel filios vel filias, non dabitur eis. » Ipse Justinus paulo post declarat se de iis, qui sub lege fuerunt, haec dixisse. Quaerenti enim Tryphoni num ii, qui legem Mosis servarunt, salvi sint futuri cum justis, qui ante Mosem vixerunt, sic respondet Justinus : « Cum ea protuli, Trypho, quae ab Ezechiele dicta sunt, Etiamsi Noe, Daniel et Job filios et filias suas deprecentur, minime eis concessum iri, sed pro se quemque sua ipsius videlicet justitia salvum fore ; eos quoque qui secundum legem Moysis vixerunt, salvos similiter futuros dixi. »

IV. That that faith animated by charity, which is the gift of gratuitous and powerful grace, was always necessary for salvation, that is, under the law of Moses and before the law itself, Justin clearly teaches in several passages. « For Abraham himself also, says he in no. 23, while he was in uncircumcision, through the faith whereby he believed God, was justified and blessed. » See no. 92. He acknowledges no elect at all who have not imitated this faith of Abraham. For thus he refutes that foolish opinion by which the Jews, puffed up, thought that they would be saved on account of their descent traced from Abraham. « No one, says he in no. 44, not even from that seed, can receive anything, save those who in mind have been made like unto the faith of Abraham, and have known all the mysteries, that is, that certain precepts were ordained for the worship of God and the observance of righteousness, while other precepts and works were in like manner ordained either with reference to the mystery of Christ, or on account of the hardness of heart of your people. » He requires this distinction of precepts for salvation, because if anyone thinks that righteousness lies in circumcision alone and the Sabbath and festival days, he will also live in extreme forgetfulness of the eternal law, and consequently will not be able to be saved. Now that Justin is speaking also of those times which passed before the Incarnation of the Lord is manifest from what he immediately adds: « And that the matter stands thus, God pronounces in Ezekiel in these words: If Noah, and Job, and Daniel should ask for either sons or daughters, it shall not be given them. » Justin himself declares a little later that he said these things concerning those who were under the law. For when Trypho asks whether those who kept the law of Moses will be saved along with the just who lived before Moses, Justin replies thus: « When I brought forward, Trypho, the things spoken by Ezekiel, Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job intercede for their sons and daughters, that it will by no means be granted to them, but that each one will be saved for himself by his own righteousness; I said that those also who lived according to the law of Moses would in like manner be saved. »

Ad ea, quae hoc loco disputat Justinus, infra revocat

To the things which Justin disputes in this passage, below Trypho

Editors' notes and page, col. 56

Footnotes

(14) ‹anchor: justificatus et benedictus est› · call in col 56 (note printed at the foot of col 55)

Jac. II, 23.

James 2:23.

(printed under page 34)

(15) ‹anchor: non dabitur eis› · call in col 56 (note printed at the foot of col 55)

Ezech. XIV, 20.

Ezekiel 14:20.

(printed under page 34)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 56
marginal letters: A charitatem declarastis,; B nis Christianæ; C assimilati fuerint; D tur eis. » Ipse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: charitatem declarastis,; word split at end of column: re- (revocat)

PG 6:57

Tryphonem, qui, n. 64, quasi non meminisset aut parum curaret quae hactenus disputata fuerant, per se licere aiebat Christianis, ut Jesum Christum colant ; at Judaeis Deum ipsum colentibus nihil opus esse ut Christum confiteantur aut adorent. Tum Justinus leniter castigata hac Tryphonis pertinacia ait : « Si igitur animum ad ea, quae ex Scripturis attuli, advertissetis, eos etiam, qui ex vestro genere salvantur, per hunc salvari, atque in ejus parte esse intellexissetis profecto, nec me videlicet ea de re essetis percontati. » Ea ergo revocat in memoriam, quae, n. 44, de justis ante Incarnationem mortuis dixerat.

is recalled by him, when in no. 64, as though he did not remember or cared little for what had hitherto been disputed, he said that it was lawful in itself for Christians to worship Jesus Christ, but that for the Jews, who worship God Himself, there was no need to confess or adore Christ. Then Justin, having gently reproved this obstinacy of Trypho, says: « If therefore you had turned your mind to the things which I brought forward from the Scriptures, you would assuredly have understood that those also of your race who are saved are saved through Him and belong to His portion, and you would not of course have questioned me about that matter. » He therefore recalls to memory what he had said in no. 44 concerning the just who died before the Incarnation.

Causam suam profecto prodidisset Justinus, et arma adversariis ministrasset, si quem sine fide in Christum aeternam salutem assecutum esse concessisset ; sed unam semper ac eamdem salutis viam exstitisse contendit. « Ac nos quidem, inquit, n. 43, qui per Christum ad Deum accessimus, non istam carnis circumcisionem accepimus, sed spiritualem, quam Henoch ejusque similes custodierunt. » Et n. 113 : « Lapideos igitur cultros verba ejus (Christi) intelligemus, per quae tot a praeputio homines, qui in errore versabantur, cordis circumcisione circumcisi sunt, qua quidem ut ii etiam circumciderentur, qui circumcisionem ab Abrahamo initium ducentem habebant, jam tum Deus per Jesum hortatur ; quippe cum eos, qui in sanctam illam terram ingrediebantur, a Jesu circumcisionem cultris lapideis dicat accepisse.

Justin would assuredly have betrayed his own cause and furnished weapons to his adversaries if he had granted that anyone attained eternal salvation without faith in Christ; rather, he contends that there has always been one and the same way of salvation. « And we indeed, says he in no. 43, who have drawn near to God through Christ, have received not that circumcision of the flesh, but the spiritual one, which Enoch and those like him kept. » And in no. 113: « By the knives of stone, therefore, we shall understand His (Christ's) words, through which so many men from uncircumcision, who lived in error, have been circumcised with the circumcision of the heart, with which indeed God even then through Joshua exhorts those also to be circumcised who had the circumcision taking its beginning from Abraham; inasmuch as he says that those who were entering into that holy land received circumcision with knives of stone from Joshua.

Adeo constabat Justino fidem omnibus semper necessariam ad salutem fuisse, ut statuere non dubitet Deum calumniis expositum fore, si lex, quae certis locis et temporibus definita fuit, justificasse dicatur. « Quod si haec, inquit n. 23, fateri nolimus, eveniet nobis ut in absurdas cogitationes incidamus, quasi non idem Deus fuerit temporibus Henoch et aliorum, qui nec circumcisionem carnis habuere nec Sabbata et alia ejusmodi observarunt, quippe cum a Mose instituta fuerint ; vel non eadem justa ab omni semper hominum genere observari voluerit. » Hinc etiam, n. 92, Judaica instituta contemptu digna plurimis visum iri demonstrat, nisi idem ac Christiani respondeant Judaei, si quis ex eis quaerat, cur cum Enoch et Noe cum filiis, et si qui alii ejusmodi, sine circumcisione et Sabbatis Deo placuerint ; tot elapsis aetatibus Deus per alios duces et alia instituta justificari voluerit eos quidem, qui ab Abraham ad Mosem fuerunt, per circumcisionem ; eos autem qui post Mosem, tum per circumcisionem, tum per alia praecepta, id est Sabbatum, victimas, libationes, dona. Num ergo Judaeos, qui justificationem in legis observatione ponebant, ejusmodi argumento confutasset Justinus, nisi ipse fidem, cui justificationem attribuit, ad omnes aetates et conditiones pertinere credidisset?

So certain was it to Justin that faith was always necessary for salvation to all men, that he does not hesitate to establish that God would be exposed to calumnies if the law, which was restricted to certain places and times, were said to have justified. « Now if we should refuse to confess these things, says he in no. 23, it will happen to us that we fall into absurd thoughts, as though it were not the same God in the times of Enoch and the others, who neither had circumcision of the flesh nor observed Sabbaths and other such things, seeing that they were instituted by Moses; or as though He had not willed that the same just things should always be observed by every race of men. » Hence also, in no. 92, he demonstrates that Jewish institutions will seem worthy of contempt to very many unless the Jews make the same reply as the Christians, if anyone asks of them why, whereas Enoch and Noah with his sons, and any others of that sort, pleased God without circumcision and Sabbaths, after so many ages had elapsed God willed that by other leaders and other institutions those indeed who were from Abraham to Moses should be justified by circumcision, and those after Moses both by circumcision and by other precepts, that is, the Sabbath, victims, libations, and gifts. Would Justin, then, have refuted the Jews, who placed justification in the observance of the law, by an argument of this sort, had he not himself believed that faith, to which he attributes justification, pertained to all ages and conditions?

Ad omnes ergo aetates et conditiones referendum quod ait S. martyr, num. 28 : « Quin etiam si quis Scytha sit aut Persa, habeat autem Dei cognitionem

To all ages and conditions, therefore, must be referred what the holy martyr says in no. 28: « Nay, even if anyone be a Scythian or a Persian, yet has the knowledge

Editors' notes and page, col. 57

Page

running head: 57 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A vocat Tryphonem,; B Christum æternam; C Adeo constabat; D ex eis quærat, cur
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: vocat Tryphonem,; word split at start of column: vocat (revocat); word split at end of column: cognitio- (cognitionem)

PG 6:58

et Christi ejus et sempiterna justa observet, circumcisus est praeclara et utili circumcisione, et amicus Deo, ejusque donis et oblationibus Deus delectatur. »

of God and of His Christ, and keeps the everlasting just things, he has been circumcised with a noble and profitable circumcision, and is a friend to God, and God delights in his gifts and offerings. »

V. Postquam Justinus tam accuratum tamque vehementem redemptionis mysterii defensorem se praebuit ; quis credidisset illum ob concessam Socrati et Heraclito et aliis ejusmodi aeternam salutem aut laudari aut vituperari potuisse? Hanc tamen ei opinionem affingunt, non solum laudati in epist. select. 24 Simonii t. III, auctor Nodi praedestinationis soluti et Jacobus Payva in Explicationibus orthodoxis, sed etiam, quod magis mireris, doctissimus Senonensis abbas Dissert. in Epist. Pauli, pag. 67 : « Justinus martyr, inquit, statuit veteres philosophos, qui consentanee rationi vixerunt, jam tum, etsi Jesum Christum non cognoscebant, fuisse Christianos, quia illius praecepta et doctrinam sequebantur, tales fuisse apud Graecos Socratem et Heraclitum et nonnullos alios. »

V. After Justin has shown himself so accurate and so earnest a defender of the mystery of redemption, who would have believed that he could be either praised or blamed on account of having granted eternal salvation to Socrates and Heraclitus and others of that sort? Yet this opinion is fastened upon him not only by those cited in Select Epistle 24 of Simon, vol. III—the author of The Knot of Predestination Untied and James Payva in his Orthodox Explanations—but also, what one may wonder at more, by the most learned Abbot of Sens in his Dissertations on the Epistles of Paul, page 67: « Justin Martyr, says he, establishes that the ancient philosophers who lived agreeably to reason were even then Christians, although they did not know Jesus Christ, because they followed His precepts and doctrine, and that such among the Greeks were Socrates and Heraclitus and several others. »

Locus ad Justini criminationem jactatus exstat Apol. 1, n. 46 : Τὸν Χριστὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι ἐδιδάχθημεν, καὶ προεμηνύσαμεν λόγον ὄντα, οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων μετέσχε· καὶ οἱ μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἂν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησαν· οἷοι ἐν Ἕλλησι μὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι αὐτοῖς· ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραὰμ, καὶ Ἀνανίας καὶ Ἀζαρίας καὶ Μισαὴλ, καὶ Ἠλίας, καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ, ὧν τὰς πράξεις, ἢ τὰ ὀνόματα καταλέγειν μακρὸν εἶναι ἐπιστάμενοι, τανῦν παραιτούμεθα, etc. « Christum primogenitum Dei esse ac rationem illam, cujus omne hominum genus particeps est, didicimus et supra declaravimus. Et qui cum ratione vixerunt, Christiani sunt, etiamsi athei existimati sint, quales apud Graecos fuere Socrates et Heraclitus et eorum similes ; apud barbaros autem Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Misael et Elias, quorum actionibus aut nominibus recensendis, quia longum id esse scimus, nunc supersedemus. Similiter qui olim absque ratione vixere, improbi et Christo inimici fuere, et eorum, qui cum ratione vivebant, homicidae. Qui vero cum ratione vixerunt et vivunt, Christiani sunt et impavidi atque intrepidi. »

The passage bandied about for the accusation of Justin stands in Apology 1, no. 46: We have been taught, and we have declared beforehand, that Christ is the firstborn of God, being the Word of Whom every race of men has partaken; and those who have lived with the Word are Christians, even though they were accounted atheists: such as, among the Greeks indeed, Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them; and among the barbarians Abraham, and Ananias and Azarias and Misael, and Elijah, and many others, whose deeds or names, knowing that it would be long to recount, we at present decline to list, etc. « We have learnt and have declared above that Christ is the firstborn of God and that Reason of which every race of men is partaker. And those who have lived with reason are Christians, even though they were accounted atheists, such as among the Greeks were Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them; and among the barbarians Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, and Elijah, from recounting whose deeds or names, because we know that it would be long, we now forbear. In like manner those who formerly lived without reason were wicked and enemies to Christ, and murderers of those who lived with reason. But those who have lived and do live with reason are Christians, and fearless and undaunted. »

Illud primo observandum nobis est, non id hoc loco expendi a S. martyre, quomodo salutem assecuti sint, qui ante Christum in gentibus vixere, sed quomodo juste damnati. Sic enim ipse sibi hanc quaestionem proponit : Ne qui autem a ratione aberrantes, ad ea quae docuimus detorquenda, Christum dicant ante annos centum et quinquaginta natum a nobis dici sub Cyrenio, ac post illud tempus ea docuisse, quae illum docuisse diximus sub Pontio Pilato ; indeque consequi objiciant, ut insontes sint homines omnes qui ante illud tempus fuere ; dubitationis solutionem occupabimus. Quidquid igitur virtutis Socrati et Heraclito et eorum similibus attribuere videtur, id eo spectat, ut nulla juris naturalis violatio excusationis veniam habeat ; quippe cum Christus ante Incarnationem, quatenus Verbum est, omnibus hominibus

This we must observe first, that the holy martyr is not examining in this passage how those who lived among the nations before Christ attained salvation, but how they were justly condemned. For thus he himself proposes this question to himself: Lest any, however, wandering from reason, in order to distort the things which we have taught, should say that Christ is said by us to have been born one hundred and fifty years ago under Quirinius, and to have taught after that time the things which we have said He taught under Pontius Pilate, and should object that it follows thence that all men who existed before that time are guiltless, we shall anticipate the resolution of the doubt. Whatever virtue, therefore, he seems to attribute to Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them looks to this end, that no violation of the natural law may have the pardon of excuse; inasmuch as Christ before the Incarnation, in so far as He is the Word, held forth to all men

Editors' notes and page, col. 58

Page

running head: I PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 58
marginal letters: A nem et Christi; B philosophos, qui; C « Christum primogenitum; D loco expendi a
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: nem et Christi; word split at start of column: nem (cognitionem)

PG 6:59

lucem suam praetenderit. Idem docet Dialog. n. 93, nempe nihil prorsus praetexi posse ab his qui legem Dei violant, etiamsi perditissimi et corruptissimi sint.

His light. He teaches the same thing in the Dialogue, no. 93, namely that no pretext at all can be alleged by those who violate the law of God, even though they be most abandoned and most corrupt.

2º Si Justinus salutem aeternam philosophis, qui ante Christum fuerant, concessisse dicitur, eadem illi erga eos qui post Christum fuere, ac ipsi Justino aequales erant, lenitas et indulgentia erit attribuenda. Nam de utrisque dicit : Qui cum ratione vixerunt et vivunt, Christiani sunt et impavidi ac intrepidi.

2nd, If Justin is said to have granted eternal salvation to the philosophers who had existed before Christ, the same mildness and indulgence will have to be attributed to him towards those who existed after Christ and were contemporaries of Justin himself. For of both he says: Those who have lived and do live with reason are Christians, and fearless and undaunted.

3º Christianos esse dicit eos, qui vitam rationi consentaneam duxerunt, ut Socratem et Heraclitum ; non quod isti per fidem in Christi sanguinem liberati a peccatis fuerint, sed quia quidquid scientiae et virtutis in eis eluxit, id Christianum est, utpote cum Christianis faciens et a Verbo omnem hominem illuminante donatum. « Quaecunque, inquit Apol. 2, n. 10, praeclare unquam dixere aut excogitavere philosophi aut legum latores, haec invento et considerato aliqua ex parte Verbo elaborarunt. » Et n. 13 : « Quaecunque apud alios omnes praeclare dicta, ea nostra sunt Christianorum. » Sic Tertullianus omnes homines naturaliter Christianos esse dicit, quia, natura duce, nonnulla dicere solent, quae Christiana sunt. Deus magnus et Deus bonus, et quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est. Judicem quoque contestatur illum, Deus videt, et Deo commendo et Deus mihi reddet. O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae ! » Quid mirum ergo si Christianos vocat Justinus eos qui unum Deum esse docuerunt? « Horum omnium, inquit Apol. 2, n. 10, longe firmissimus hac in re Socrates in eadem ac nos crimina vocatus est. Nova enim daemonia dixerunt ab eo induci, et quos civitas existimat deos, ab eo non existimari. » At minime dissimulavit Justinus quid ejusmodi hominibus in Verbum incarnatum non credentibus defuerit, tum in iis, quae ad cognitionem veritatis spectant, tum in iis quae ad vitam et mores. Postquam enim Verbi omne humanum genus particeps esse docuit, protinus revocat in memoriam, quae antea de Incarnationis causa dixerat ; nimirum ut indicet quid intersit inter eos, qui a Verbo aliquam veritatis particulam acceperunt, et eos, qui in idem Verbum incarnatum crediderunt. Hinc in Apol. 2, n. 8 et 10, declarat Christianos non ad partem aliquam disseminatae rationis vitam instituere, sed ad totius, id est Christi cognitionem et contemplationem. Particulam veritatis cognitam fuisse philosophis fatetur, sed obscure, ita ut secum ipsi pugnantia docuerint, n. 13, at eos tantum docet sanari posse, qui in Christum credunt. « Natum enim, inquit, ex ingenito et non enarrabili Deo Verbum secundum Deum adoramus ; quandoquidem propter nos homo factum est, ut perpessionum nostrarum particeps factum medelam illis faceret. »

3rd, He says that those are Christians who led a life agreeable to reason, such as Socrates and Heraclitus; not that they were freed from sins through faith in the blood of Christ, but because whatever knowledge and virtue shone forth in them is Christian, inasmuch as it makes for the Christians and was bestowed by the Word Who enlightens every man. « Whatever things, says he in Apology 2, no. 10, philosophers or lawgivers ever excellently uttered or devised, they worked out by finding and contemplating the Word in some part. » And in no. 13: « Whatever things have been excellently said among all others belong to us Christians. » Thus Tertullian says that all men are naturally Christians, because under the guidance of nature they are wont to say several things which are Christian. God is great and God is good, and what God may grant, is the voice of all. It also calls Him to witness as Judge: God sees, and I commend to God, and God will repay me. O testimony of a soul naturally Christian! » What wonder, then, if Justin calls those Christians who taught that there is one God? « Of all these, says he in Apology 2, no. 10, Socrates, by far the most steadfast in this matter, was arraigned on the same charges as we. For they said that new divinities were introduced by him, and that those whom the city esteems gods were not so esteemed by him. » Yet Justin by no means concealed what was lacking to men of that sort who did not believe in the incarnate Word, both in the things which pertain to the knowledge of the truth and in those which pertain to life and morals. For after he has taught that the whole human race is partaker of the Word, he forthwith recalls to memory what he had said before concerning the cause of the Incarnation; namely, to point out what difference there is between those who received some small portion of truth from the Word and those who believed in the same Word incarnate. Hence in Apology 2, nos. 8 and 10, he declares that Christians frame their life not according to some part of the seminal reason, but according to the knowledge and contemplation of the whole, that is, of Christ. He confesses that a small portion of truth was known to the philosophers, yet obscurely, so that they taught things conflicting with themselves, no. 13, whereas he teaches that those only can be healed who believe in Christ. « For after God, says he, we adore the Word born from the unbegotten and ineffable God; seeing that for our sakes He became man, in order that, having become partaker of our sufferings, He might bring healing to them. »

4º Inest Justini verbis acuta ratiocinatio, quam

4th, There is in Justin's words an acute reasoning, which

Editors' notes and page, col. 59

Page

running head: 59 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A lucem suam prætenderit.; B tiæ et virtutis; C ergo si Christianos; D sit inter eos,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: lucem suam prætenderit.

PG 6:60

observare debuissent qui de illo detraxerunt : statuit malorum daemonum molitione persecutiones in Christianos excitari : quod quidem ne videatur incredibile, ea sumit argumenti loco, quae viris virtutis laude insignibus evenerunt. Vera necne exstiterit illorum virtus non examinat : satis ei est demonstrare, odio habitos fuisse, qui quovis modo secundum rationem vivere et vitium fugere studuerint, Apol. 2, num. 8. Nemo sane dixerit veras virtutes a Justino in athletis laudatas fuisse ; quia tamen honorifica de illis erant hominum judicia, id ad usus suos adjungit ut Christianis, quorum tanta erat in morte oppetenda animi fortitudo, eadem laus non denegaretur. « Qui autem vera bona, inquit Apol. 2, n. 11, ac minime fucata internoscunt, ii virtutis beneficio incorrupti. Quod quidem et de Christianis ac de athletis, iisque qui res ejusmodi gessere quales poetae de celebratis hominum opinione diis scripsere, non insulsissimus quisque existimare debet, hoc ductus argumento, quod mortem, quae videtur fugienda, contemnamus. » Ut de athletis, ita et de philosophis loquitur Justinus : ex opinata utrorumque virtute id excerpit commodi ad defensionem religionis, ut qui de istis honorifice judicant, eos de Christianis non sine summa iniquitate detrahere demonstret.

those who disparaged him ought to have observed: he establishes that persecutions against Christians are stirred up by the contrivance of evil demons; and lest this should seem incredible, he takes by way of argument the things which befell men distinguished by the praise of virtue. Whether their virtue was true or not he does not examine: it is enough for him to demonstrate that those were held in hatred who in any way studied to live according to reason and to flee vice, Apology 2, no. 8. Assuredly no one would say that true virtues were praised by Justin in the athletes; yet because the judgements of men concerning them were honourable, he turns this to his own use, so that the same praise might not be denied to Christians, whose fortitude of soul in meeting death was so great. « Now those who discern true and wholly unfeigned goods, says he in Apology 2, no. 11, remain uncorrupted by the benefit of virtue. And this indeed everyone who is not utterly foolish ought to think both concerning Christians and concerning athletes, and those who performed such deeds as the poets have written concerning the gods celebrated in the opinion of men, led by this argument, that we despise death, which seems to be shunned. » Just as of the athletes, so also does Justin speak of the philosophers: from the supposed virtue of both he extracts this advantage for the defence of religion, that he demonstrates that those who judge honourably of them cannot disparage Christians without the greatest unfairness.

VI. Praestantissimae ad Diognetum epistolae auctor observat tandiu homines in summo miseriae statu relictos fuisse, ut tandem aliquando a Filio Dei redempti immeritos se gratiam accepisse faterentur. « Quandiu igitur, inquit n. 8, prudens suum consilium in mysterio retinebat, neglectui nos habere, nullamque nostri curam gerere videbatur..... Omnia igitur apud se sciebat una cum Filio, oeconomica sua scientia. Caeterum usque ad superius tempus sivit nos pro libito incertis motibus agitari, dum a voluptatibus et cupiditatibus transversi raperemur : non quidem quod ullo modo peccatis nostris gauderet, sed ea tolerans ; neque illud quo injustitia exercebatur tempus approbans, sed mentem justitiae creans, ut cum eo tempore convicti essemus e propriis operibus, vita esse indigni, tunc Dei benignitas nos ea dignaretur. »

VI. The author of the most excellent Epistle to Diognetus observes that men were left so long in a state of extreme misery in order that, when redeemed at length by the Son of God, they might confess that they had received grace undeservedly. « As long, therefore, says he in no. 8, as He kept His wise counsel in mystery, He seemed to neglect us and to take no care of us..... He knew all things, therefore, within Himself together with the Son, by His dispensational knowledge. For the rest, up to the former time He suffered us to be tossed about at will by unruly impulses, while we were carried away headlong by pleasures and lusts: not indeed that He in any way rejoiced in our sins, but tolerating them; nor approving that time in which unrighteousness was practised, but creating a mind of righteousness, so that when in that time we had been convicted from our own works of being unworthy of life, then the kindness of God might vouchsafe it to us. »

Deum hominem factum fuisse probat ex illius adventus dignissimo monumento, cordium conversione et stabili ac firma justitia, quam ab eo Christiani accipiunt. Observat non ministrum aliquem aut angelum a Deo missum fuisse, sed ipsum opificem et Creatorem omnium. « Non vides, inquit n. 7, quo plures suppliciis afficiuntur, tanto majorem aliorum esse numerum? Haec non videntur ab hominibus fieri : haec adventus ejus sunt indicia ? Quis enim ex hominibus omnibus norat quid esset Deus, priusquam ipse venisset ? » Dei voluntati acceptum refert quidquid nobis inest charitatis. Postquam autem, inquit, n. 10, illum cognoveris, quanta te impletum iri laetitia existimas? Aut quantum diliges eum qui prior te ita dilexerit? Cum autem diligere coeperis, imitator benignitatis ejus

He proves that God became man from the most worthy monument of His coming, the conversion of hearts and the stable and firm righteousness which Christians receive from Him. He observes that not some minister or angel was sent by God, but the very Framer and Creator of all things. « Do you not see, says he in no. 7, that the more are subjected to punishments, the greater grows the number of others? These things do not seem to be done by men: are these the tokens of His coming? For who of all men knew what God was, before He Himself came? » He sets down to the will of God whatever charity is in us. And after you have known Him, says he in no. 10, with how great joy do you think you will be filled? Or how greatly will you love Him Who first so loved you? And when you have begun to love Him, an imitator of His kindness

Editors' notes and page, col. 60

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 60
marginal letters: A observare debuissent; B ii virtutis beneficio; C « Quandiu igitur,; D ventus dignissimo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: observare debuissent

PG 6:61

eris. Ac ne mireris posse hominem esse imitatorem Dei. Potest eo volente. »

you shall be. And do not wonder that a man can be an imitator of God. He can, God willing. »

Tatianus, qui nondum acceptam a S. Justino doctrinam projecerat, cum scripsit adversus gentiles, de auxilio Spiritus sancti, quem a Deo incarnato accipimus, nonnulla disserit, quae praetermittenda hoc loco non videntur. « Per se anima, inquit num. 13, nihil aliud est quam tenebrae, nec quidquam in ea luminosum. Atque id ipsum est quod dicitur : Tenebrae lucem non comprehenderunt. Neque enim anima spiritum servavit, sed ab eo servata est et lux tenebras apprehendit. Est autem Verbum divina lux ; tenebrae vero imperita anima. Quapropter si degat solitaria, deorsum ad materiam vergit, una cum carne moriens. Cum divino autem Spiritu copulata, non caret auxilio ; sed eo ascendit quo deducitur a Spiritu. Hujus enim sedes in supernis ; illius generatio in inferioribus locis. Ac initio quidem spiritus animae convictor erat, sed eam sequi nolentem deseruit. » Et, n. 15 : « Ac talis quidem naturae species, si se instar templi habeat, libenter illud incolit Deus per legatum Spiritum. Si vero tale non fuerit tabernaculum, praestat homo belluis sola voce articulata ; caetera vero ejusdem est ac illae vivendi rationis, ut qui non sit similitudo Dei. » Et, n. 20 : « Alae enim erant animae Spiritus sanctus, quem cum peccando projecisset, volavit instar pulli et humi decidit ; coelesti autem convictu delapsa inferiorum commercium appetivit..... Potest autem quisquis nudus est hoc ornamentum consequi et ad veterem cognationem redire. »

Tatian, who had not yet cast away the doctrine received from St Justin when he wrote against the Gentiles, discourses on several points concerning the help of the Holy Spirit, Whom we receive from God Incarnate, which do not seem to be things to be passed over in this place. « Of itself the soul, says he in no. 13, is nothing else than darkness, nor is there anything luminous in it. And this is the very thing that is said: The darkness did not comprehend the light. For the soul did not preserve the spirit, but was preserved by it, and the light laid hold of the darkness. Now the Word is the divine light, while the darkness is the ignorant soul. Wherefore, if it lives solitary, it sinks downwards towards matter, dying together with the flesh. But when joined with the divine Spirit, it is not without help, but ascends thither whither it is led by the Spirit. For the seat of the latter is in the regions above; the generation of the former is in the lower places. And in the beginning indeed the spirit was the companion of the soul, but forsook it when it refused to follow it. » And in no. 15: « Now if such a form of nature keeps itself like a temple, God willingly dwells in it through the Spirit sent as ambassador. But if the tabernacle be not such, man excels the beasts by articulate speech alone, while for the rest he is of the same way of life as they, as one who is not the likeness of God. » And in no. 20: « For the Holy Spirit was the wings of the soul; and when by sinning it had cast Him away, it fluttered like a fledgling and fell to the ground; and having fallen from heavenly fellowship, it coveted intercourse with lower things..... Yet everyone who is naked can obtain this ornament and return to his ancient kindred. »

CAPUT VIII.

Chapter VIII.

Expenditur S. Justini agendi ratio cum Christianis adhuc legem observantibus.

The manner of acting of St Justin with Christians still observing the law is examined.

I. Communicat cum his hominibus Justinus, sed cautiones adhibet. II. Hanc lenitatem ipsum etiam tempus postulabat. III. Non solus ita sensit Justinus.

I. Justin communicates with these men, but applies precautions. II. The time itself also demanded this mildness. III. Justin was not alone in thinking thus.

I. Qui Justinum cum Ebionitis Christi divinitatem negantibus pacem et communionem fovisse et fovendam existimasse volunt, his satis responsum est in observationibus ad n. 48 Dialogi, vel potius satis eos refellit ipsius loci, quo abutebantur, accuratior quam in superioribus editionibus interpretatio. Quod autem spectat ad eos, qui e circumcisione ad Christum conversi, nonnulla Judaica instituta cum accurata in Christum Dominum fide jungebant ; hos constat a S. martyre rejectos non fuisse. Non tamen vituperabitur concessa infirmis hominibus venia, si consideremus cum Tillemontio, quibus eam Justinus conditionibus restringat, quaeque in Ecclesia de ejusmodi hominibus judicia aut paulo ante Justinum facta fuissent, aut tunc etiam fierent.

I. Those who maintain that Justin fostered peace and communion with the Ebionites who denied the divinity of Christ, and thought that it should be fostered, have been sufficiently answered in the observations on no. 48 of the Dialogue, or rather a more accurate interpretation of the passage itself which they abused than that in earlier editions sufficiently refutes them. As regards those, however, who having been converted from the circumcision to Christ joined certain Jewish observances with an accurate faith in Christ the Lord, it is established that these were not rejected by the holy martyr. Yet the indulgence granted to weak men will not be blamed if we consider with Tillemont by what conditions Justin restricts it, and what judgements concerning men of that sort either had been made in the Church a little before Justin, or were even then being made.

Justinum sic interrogat Trypho, n. 46 : « Si qui autem, inquit, etiamnum ita vivere velint, ut Moysis instituta servent, et credant in hunc Jesum Christum

Trypho questions Justin thus in no. 46: « But if some, says he, even now wish so to live as to keep the institutions of Moses, and believe in this Jesus Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 61

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 61 or 62 (not determined; note printed at the foot of col 61; numeral read as 16 from the running sequence)

Joan 1, 5.

John 1:5.

(printed under page 37)

Page

running head: 61 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A eris. Ac ne mireris; D vino autem Spiritu; C mercium appetivit.....; D curatior quam in
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: eris. Ac ne mireris, CAPUT VIII., Expenditur S. Justini, I. Communicat cum; word split at end of column: Chri- (Christum)
other: the word Christum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 62

PG 6:62

crucifixum, agnoscentes eum esse Christum Dei, eique datum esse omnes omnino judicare, ac regnum ejus esse sempiternum ; an ii quoque salvi esse possunt? » Visa est quaestio S. martyri non facilis ad solvendum : examinandum esse putat utrum haec legis observatio ab imbecillitate quadam animi proficiscatur, an a stulta opinione quasi lex necessaria sit ad salutem. Quare breviter repetit quod pluribus antea disseruerat, legis Mosaicae praecepta ob duritiam cordis Judaeorum instituta esse, ut variis hisce rebus admoniti Deum semper ante oculos haberent, sed ne sic quidem illos a simulacrorum cultu revocatos fuisse : contra Christianos ne iis sacrificent, quibus olim sacrificaverant, extrema supplicia perferre, et persuasum habere, quae ob duritiam cordis Judaeorum instituta sunt, ea nihil ad justitiae et pietatis observationem conferre.

crucified, acknowledging that He is the Christ of God, and that it has been given to Him to judge all men without exception, and that His kingdom is everlasting; can they also be saved? » The question seemed to the holy martyr not easy to resolve: he thinks that it must be examined whether this observance of the law proceeds from a certain weakness of mind, or from a foolish opinion as though the law were necessary for salvation. Wherefore he briefly repeats what he had discoursed upon at greater length before, that the precepts of the Mosaic law were instituted on account of the hardness of heart of the Jews, so that admonished by these various things they might always have God before their eyes, and yet not even so were they recalled from the worship of images; whereas Christians, on the contrary, endure extreme punishments rather than sacrifice to those to whom they had formerly sacrificed, and are persuaded that the things which were instituted on account of the hardness of heart of the Jews contribute nothing to the observance of righteousness and piety.

Tum Trypho : « Si quis haec ita se habere sciens, praeterquam quod hunc Christum esse agnoscat eique videlicet credat et obediat, haec quoque instituta servare voluerit ; utrum is salvabitur ? »

Then Trypho: « If anyone, knowing that these things are so, besides acknowledging that this man is the Christ and believing and obeying Him, should wish to keep these institutions also, will he be saved? »

Sic respondet Justinus : « Ut mihi quidem videtur, o Trypho, ejusmodi hominem salvum dico futurum ; si modo caeteris hominibus, id est iis qui ex gentibus per Christum ab errore circumcisi sunt, omnino persuadere non conetur, ut eadem ac ipse observent. Quale est quod et initio disputationis faciebas, cum pronuntiares salvum me non futurum, nisi haec observarem. »

Justin replies thus: « As it seems to me indeed, O Trypho, I say that a man of that sort will be saved, provided only that he does not at all endeavour to persuade other men, that is, those from the nations who have been circumcised from error through Christ, to observe the same things as himself, such as you also were doing at the beginning of the discussion, when you pronounced that I would not be saved unless I observed these things. »

Rursum sic interrogat Trypho : « Cur igitur dixisti : Ut mihi quidem videtur, salvus erit, nisi quia sunt, qui tales negent salvos futuros ? » Respondet Justinus : « Sunt, inquam, o Trypho, quique cum eis nec sermonis, nec hospitii communione conjungi audeant ; quibus ego non assentior. sed si ob animi infirmitatem etiam quaecunque nunc possunt ex iis, quae a Mose propter duritiam cordis populi instituta novimus, cum spe in hunc Christum et aeternorum ac naturalium justitiae et pietatis praeceptorum observatione conjungere voluerint ; modo cum Christianis et fidelibus vivere non recusent, nec iis, ut jam dixi, suadeant, ut similiter ac ipsi circumcidantur, aut Sabbata et alia ejusmodi custodiant, eos suscipiendos esse, et cum iis omnium rerum communionem, ut cum hominibus eodem modo affectis et fratribus tenendam esse censeo. » Si quos tamen ex Christianis Judaei ad legem fidei addendam adduxerint, eorum, qui fuerint decepti, salutem non omnino desperat. « Qui vero ab eis ad legis observationem cum confessione in Christum Dei conjungendam adducti fuerint, eos forsitan etiam salutem adepturos suspicor. » Liquet a Justino iis, quos ut fratres diligendos et omni charitatis ac communionis significatione devinciendos putat, duas tamen imponi conditiones. Prima est ut ne legem ad salutem necessariam existiment. Dat illis

Again Trypho questions him thus: « Why then did you say: As it seems to me indeed, he will be saved, unless because there are some who deny that such men will be saved? » Justin replies: « There are, I say, O Trypho, and who do not dare to join with them in communion either of speech or of hospitality; with whom I do not agree. But if on account of weakness of mind they also wish to join whatever they now can of the things which we know were instituted by Moses on account of the hardness of heart of the people, with hope in this Christ and the observance of the eternal and natural precepts of righteousness and piety, provided only that they do not refuse to live with Christians and the faithful, nor persuade them, as I have already said, to be circumcised like themselves or to keep Sabbaths and other such things, I judge that they ought to be received, and that communion in all things ought to be maintained with them, as with men of the same disposition and brethren. » Yet if the Jews have induced any of the Christians to add the law to faith, he does not altogether despair of the salvation of those who have been deceived. « And those who have been induced by them to join the observance of the law with confession in the Christ of God, I surmise will perhaps also attain salvation. » It is clear that upon those whom Justin thinks ought to be loved as brethren and bound by every token of charity and communion, two conditions are nevertheless imposed by him. The first is that they do not consider the law necessary for salvation. He grants them

Editors' notes and page, col. 62

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 62
marginal letters: A stum crucifixum,; B rant, extrema supplicia; C futurum, nisi hæc; D militer ac ipsi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: stum crucifixum,; word split at start of column: stum (Christum)

PG 6:63

veniam, si ob animi imbecillitatem legem observent ; secus vero, si spem suam in Mosaicis institutis, non in Christi sanguine constituant. Ipse Trypho hanc conditionem acceperat ; nam cum dixisset Justinus, quae ad duritiam cordis instituta sunt, nihil ad justitiae et pietatis observationem conferre ; sic eum excipit Trypho : Quid si quis, cum haec ita se habere sciat, etc. Altera conditio est ut Judaei ad Christum conversi aequabili jure cum Christianis incircumcisis vivant, nec quemquam ad legis observationem adhortentur. Quamobrem non temere in hanc sententiam adductus est Justinus, sed inita subductaque ratione, nec sine provisione incommodorum, quae ex ea consequi poterant.

indulgence if they observe the law on account of weakness of mind; but otherwise if they place their hope in Mosaic institutions, not in the blood of Christ. Trypho himself had accepted this condition; for when Justin had said that the things instituted for hardness of heart contribute nothing to the observance of righteousness and piety, Trypho takes him up thus: What if anyone, knowing that these things are so, etc. The second condition is that Jews converted to Christ live on equal terms with uncircumcised Christians, and do not exhort anyone to the observance of the law. Wherefore Justin was led to this opinion not rashly, but after entering into and casting up the account, and not without foresight of the disadvantages which could follow from it.

II. Sed, quod Justinum maxime tutatur, tum cum haec dissereret, vixdum viginti anni, ut observat Tillemontius, effluxerant, ex quo lex Mosaica in Ecclesia Hierosolymitana desita erat observari. Certa et explorata res est ex Eusebii et Sulpicii Severi testimoniis. Eusebius sic loquitur Hist., lib. IV, c. 5 : « Illud tantum ex veterum scriptorum monumentis didici, ad illam usque obsessionem Judaeorum, quae imperante Adriano contigit, quindecim episcopos continua successione illi Ecclesiae praefuisse, quos omnes origine Hebraeos fuisse memorant, et fidem Christi sincere atque ex animo suscepisse. Adeo ut ab illis, qui de hujusmodi rebus judicium ferre poterant, episcopali officio dignissimi censerentur. Quippe tunc temporis universa Hierosolymorum Ecclesia conflata erat ex Hebraeis fidelibus, qui jam inde ab apostolorum aetate ad illam usque obsidionem permanserant, quo Judaei iterum a Romanis deficientes, maximis praeliis domiti atque expugnati sunt. » Sulpicius Severus de hac loquens extrema obsidione, haec addit : « Quod quidem Christianae fidei proficiebat ; quia tum pene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant. Nimirum id Domino ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate fidei atque Ecclesiae tolleretur. Ita tum primum Marcus ex gentibus apud Hierosolymam episcopus fuit. »

II. But what defends Justin most of all is that at the time when he was discoursing on these things, scarcely twenty years, as Tillemont observes, had elapsed since the Mosaic law had ceased to be observed in the Church of Jerusalem. The matter is certain and established from the testimonies of Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus. Eusebius speaks thus in his History, book IV, ch. 5: « This only have I learnt from the records of ancient writers, that right up to that siege of the Jews which took place in the reign of Hadrian, fifteen bishops in continuous succession presided over that Church, all of whom they record to have been Hebrews by origin, and to have received the faith of Christ sincerely and from the heart; so much so that by those who were able to pass judgement on matters of this kind they were deemed most worthy of the episcopal office. For at that time the whole Church of Jerusalem was composed of faithful Hebrews, who had continued right from the age of the apostles down to that siege, in which the Jews, revolting again from the Romans, were subdued and conquered in very great battles. » Sulpicius Severus, speaking of this final siege, adds these words: « And this indeed was advantageous to the Christian faith, because at that time almost all believed that Christ was God while continuing under the observance of the law. Doubtless this was arranged by the appointment of the Lord, that the bondage of the law might be removed from the liberty of the faith and of the Church. Thus at that time Mark, from the Gentiles, was the first bishop at Jerusalem. »

III. Non solus in lenitatem inclinabat Justinus ; paucos sibi adversari indicat. « Sunt, inquam, o Trypho, quique cum talibus nec colloquii nec hospitii communione conjungi audeant ; quibus ego non assentior. » Lenitatem Justini confirmat Origenes lib. VII in Epist. ad Rom., ubi sic loquitur : « Christus etiamsi incarnatus non fuisset, tamen natura imperium in omnes haberet. Non vult rationabiles spiritus ad obedientiam legis suae violenter inflectere, sed exspectat ut sponte veniant, et voluntate non necessitate bonum quaerant, et docendo magis quam imperando, invitando potius quam extorquendo, persuadeat. Tametsi quis Judaeus, verbi gratia, aut ex his, qui Severiani Tatianique appellantur, velit Christo credere ; putet tamen non parum inesse momenti in observantia continentiae, vel eorum ciborum qui lege prohibentur, vel quos quasi castitati adversantes existimant nonnulli

III. Justin was not alone in inclining to mildness; he indicates that few opposed him. « There are, I say, O Trypho, some who do not dare to join with such men in communion either of conversation or of hospitality; with whom I do not agree. » Origen confirms the mildness of Justin in book VII on the Epistle to the Romans, where he speaks thus: « Even if Christ had not become incarnate, He would nevertheless by nature hold empire over all. He does not wish violently to bend rational spirits to the obedience of His law, but waits for them to come of their own accord, and to seek the good by will, not by necessity, and to persuade by teaching rather than by commanding, by inviting rather than by extorting. Even though some Jew, for instance, or someone of those who are called Severians and Tatianists, wishes to believe in Christ, and yet thinks that there is no small importance in the observance of abstinence either from those foods which are forbidden by the law, or from those which some consider as it were adverse to chastity

Editors' notes and page, col. 63

Page

running head: 63 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A veniam, si ob animi; B hæc dissereret,; C fidelibus, qui; D non assentior. »
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: veniam, si ob animi

PG 6:64

etiam Scripturarum auctoritate declinandos ; hujusmodi hominem si perurgeas ad communes hominum cibos, nec dicas eum aliter posse salvari, vel ad fidem Christi et gratiam pervenire, nisi sumptis his quos refugit cibis, tunc vere bonum spiritalis sententiae blasphematur. » Idem Origenes initio libri II contra Celsum tria distinguit Judaeorum Christianam fidem profitentium genera. Alii pristinos ritus reliquerant, cum eos spiritualiter intelligi debere existimarent ; alii spirituali sensu interpretabantur, nec tamen observare desinebant ; alii denique litterali sensui affixi observabant. Qui cum spirituali explicatione conjungebant ipsam rituum observationem, non alii videntur esse, quam ii, qui legem ad salutem necessariam non esse fatebantur, ac solam spem in Christo ponendam, cujus divinitatem cum aliis omnibus Ecclesiae dogmatibus credebant.

and to be shunned even by the authority of the Scriptures; if you press a man of this sort hard to take the common foods of men, and say that he cannot otherwise be saved or arrive at the faith and grace of Christ unless he takes these foods from which he shrinks, then truly the good of the spiritual understanding is blasphemed. » The same Origen at the beginning of book II Against Celsus distinguishes three kinds of Jews professing the Christian faith. Some had forsaken the ancient rites, since they considered that they ought to be understood spiritually; others interpreted them in a spiritual sense, and yet did not cease to observe them; others finally, fastened to the literal sense, observed them. Those who joined the actual observance of the rites with a spiritual explanation seem to be no other than those who confessed that the law was not necessary for salvation, and that hope was to be placed in Christ alone, Whose divinity they believed along with all the other dogmas of the Church.

Qui Recognitionum libros et Clementinas homilias S. Clementi supposuit, scriptor Justino aequalis aut suppar, videtur ex hoc Nazaraeorum, sive Christianorum legem observantium numero fuisse. Nam cum Christi divinitatem pluribus locis praedicet, eumque Filium Dei et filium hominis, Filium ab initio exsistentem, Filium coeli et terrae constitutorem vocet homil. 18, idem tamen Mosaicae legis retinentior videtur. Hinc Petrus sexcentis locis inducitur lustrationes Judaicas aut ipse usurpans, aut aliis praecipiens, nec cum ethnicis baptismo nondum initiatis comedens. Post epistolam Petri ad Jacobum, inducitur Jacobus graviter sanciens, ut libri Praedicationis Petri, nisi fideli circumciso, nemini committantur. Hunc Pseudo-Clementem eo tempore vixisse, quo legis observatio nondum ab omnibus instar haeresis damnabatur, argumento esse possunt, quae et de Ecclesia et de episcopis praeclare dicta interdum occurrunt. Ecclesiam navi comparat in ep. Clem. ad Jacob. p. 538, cujus proretam episcopum, nautas presbyteros appellat. Debitam episcopis obedientiam commendat pluribus locis, ut Recogn. lib. III, cap. 66, homil. 3, p. 597 et 598.

He who forged the books of Recognitions and the Clementine Homilies under the name of St Clement, a writer contemporary or nearly contemporary with Justin, seems to have been of this number of the Nazarenes, or Christians observing the law. For although he proclaims the divinity of Christ in several passages, and calls Him the Son of God and the Son of Man, the Son existing from the beginning, the Son the Founder of heaven and earth, in Homily 18, yet the same writer seems rather tenacious of the Mosaic law. Hence Peter is introduced in hundreds of passages either himself practising Jewish purifications, or enjoining them upon others, and not eating with heathens not yet initiated by baptism. After the Epistle of Peter to James, James is introduced solemnly ordaining that the books of the Preaching of Peter be entrusted to no one save a circumcised believer. That this Pseudo-Clement lived at a time when the observance of the law was not yet condemned by all as a heresy can be proved by the things excellently said which sometimes occur concerning both the Church and bishops. He compares the Church to a ship in the Epistle of Clement to James, p. 538, the lookout of which he calls the bishop, and the sailors the presbyters. He commends the obedience due to bishops in several passages, as in Recognitions, book III, chapter 66, and Homily 3, pp. 597 and 598.

Laudanda sane eorum animi moderatio, qui Evangelium Mosaicis caeremoniis permiscere desierunt, ubi eas animadverterunt sine aliorum offensione observari non posse. At non defuerunt qui se ab his institutis, in quibus nati fuerant, abstrahi non paterentur. Nondum victa fuerat eorum pertinacia saeculo quarto, ut ex Hieronymo discimus. « Usque hodie, inquit in epist. 80, per totas Orientis Synagogas inter Judaeos haeresis est, quae dicitur Minaeorum et a Pharisaeis usque nunc damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaraeos nuncupant, qui credunt in Filium Dei natum de virgine Maria, et eum esse dicunt qui sub Pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus. Sed dum volunt et Judaei esse et Christiani, nec Judaei sunt nec Christiani. » Non immerito Hieronymus tantam pertinaciam ut haeresim notavit, cum praesertim ejusmodi homines ab Ecclesia catholica discessissent.

Praiseworthy indeed was the moderation of mind of those who ceased to mingle the Gospel with Mosaic ceremonies when they perceived that they could not be observed without offence to others. Yet there were not lacking some who did not suffer themselves to be drawn away from these institutions in which they had been born. Their obstinacy had not yet been overcome in the fourth century, as we learn from Jerome. « Right down to today, says he in Epistle 80, throughout all the synagogues of the East there is a heresy among the Jews which is called that of the Minaeans, and is condemned even now by the Pharisees; whom they commonly call Nazarenes, who believe in the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary, and say that He is the one Who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, in Whom we also believe. But while they wish to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians. » Not undeservedly did Jerome brand such great obstinacy as a heresy, especially since men of that sort had departed from the Catholic Church.

Editors' notes and page, col. 64

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 64
marginal letters: A etiam Scripturarum; B tebantur, ac solam; C citur Jacobus graviter; D sione observari
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: etiam Scripturarum

PG 6:65

Sed cum Justinus hunc Dialogum haberet, id est annis viginti postquam legem nemine interpellante Hierosolymis observaverant, nonne aequius fuit eos lenitate allicere, quam ut haereticos tam cito aversari?

But when Justin held this Dialogue, that is, twenty years after they had observed the law at Jerusalem with no one disturbing them, was it not fairer to win them over by mildness than so quickly to turn away from them as heretics?

CAPUT IX.

Chapter IX.

De sacrosancto eucharistiae sacramento.

On the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

I. Christianam de eucharistia doctrinam clare et nitide exponit Justinus. II. Nulla in illius verbis figurae suspicio. III. Tam certo asseverat panem et vinum fieri carnem et sanguinem, quam Christum habuisse carnem et sanguinem. IV. Omnipotentia Christi aeque mirabilis in utroque mysterio. V. Expenditur quid sibi velit apud Irenaeum eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et coelesti. VI. Quo sensu dixit Tertullianus verba Christi idem valere atque, hoc est figura corporis mei. VII. Athenagoras adversus Allixium defenditur.

I. Justin clearly and lucidly sets forth the Christian doctrine concerning the Eucharist. II. There is no suspicion of figure in his words. III. He affirms as certainly that the bread and wine become flesh and blood as that Christ had flesh and blood. IV. The omnipotence of Christ is equally wonderful in either mystery. V. What is meant in Irenaeus by the Eucharist consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, is examined. VI. In what sense Tertullian said that the words of Christ mean the same as, this is a figure of My body. VII. Athenagoras is defended against Allix.

I. S. martyr cum probe intelligeret mysteria vulgari non debere, sic cum Judaeis in Dialogo disseruit, ut de eucharistia, cujus tunc explicandae nulla suberat necessitas, id tantum diceret, hoc sacrificium a Malachia praedictum esse, panem in eo et vinum adhiberi et Domini passionis memoriam recoli. Verum hac silentii lege astrictum se esse non putabat, cum Christianorum causam apud imperatorem Antoninum ageret. Tunc enim vidit totam rem oculis imperatoris exponendam esse, ut etiam si absurda et incredibilis, saltem non impia, non detestanda et capitali supplicio digna videretur ; ac si minus imperator doctrinae Christianorum assentiretur, saltem dum eos ingenue videt edisserere, quidquid maxime incredibile, maximeque absurdum videri poterat, nihil ab eis dissimulari, nullum in eorum mysteriis scelus admitti intelligeret. Narrat igitur panem ac poculum aquae et vini ei, qui fratribus praeest, post Scripturae lectionem, post adhortationes et preces offerri ; quibus acceptis eum universorum Parenti per nomen Filii et Spiritus sancti gloriam et laudem emittere et eucharistiam prolixe facere ; hoc alimentum sic consecratum a sacerdote eucharistiam vocari, nec fas esse ut quisquam illius particeps fiat nisi qui vera esse credat quae a Christianis docentur, et lavacro ad remissionem peccatorum et regenerationem ablutus sit, atque ita vitam instituat, ut Christus tradidit. Cur autem tanta sit eucharistiae apud Christianos reverentia, sic rationem subjicit : Οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον, οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν· ἀλλ' ὃν τρόπον διὰ Λόγον Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι' εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ' αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται Εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς· τὸν Ἰησοῦν λαβόντα ἄρτον, εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν· Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησίν

I. Since the holy martyr well understood that the mysteries ought not to be divulged, he discoursed with the Jews in the Dialogue in such a way that concerning the Eucharist, for explaining which there was then no necessity, he said only this, that this sacrifice was foretold by Malachi, that bread and wine are employed in it, and that the memory of the Lord's passion is celebrated. But he did not think that he was bound by this law of silence when he pleaded the cause of the Christians before the Emperor Antoninus. For then he saw that the whole matter must be set before the eyes of the emperor, so that even if it seemed absurd and incredible, at least it might not seem impious, detestable, and worthy of capital punishment; and if the emperor did not assent to the doctrine of the Christians, at least while seeing them frankly set forth whatever could seem most incredible and most absurd, he might understand that nothing was concealed by them and that no crime was committed in their mysteries. He relates, therefore, that bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to him who presides over the brethren, after the reading of Scripture, after exhortations and prayers; and having received them, he sends up glory and praise to the Parent of all through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and makes thanksgiving at length; that this food thus consecrated by the priest is called the Eucharist, and that it is not lawful for anyone to partake of it save one who believes that the things taught by Christians are true, and has been washed with the laver for the remission of sins and unto regeneration, and so frames his life as Christ delivered. And why the reverence of Christians for the Eucharist is so great, he subjoins the reason thus: For not as common bread, nor as common drink do we receive these things; but just as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh through the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the word that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by change, is both the flesh and the blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down that it was commanded them: that Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks, said: Do this in remembrance

Editors' notes and page, col. 65

Footnotes

(17) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 65

Luc. XXII, 19.

Luke 22:19.

(printed under page 39)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 65

Ibid.

Ibid. [Luke 22:19 or the same chapter].

(printed under page 39)

Page

running head: 65 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO.
marginal letters: A Sed cum Justinus; B I. S. martyr cum; C sardum videri poterat,; D Christianos reverentia,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Sed cum Justinus, CAPUT IX., De sacrosancto, I. Christianam de

PG 6:66

μου· Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου· καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὁμοίως λαβόντα καὶ εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν· Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου· καὶ μόνοις αὐτοῖς μεταδοῦναι. « Neque enim ut communem panem, inquit Apol. 1, num. 66, neque ut communem potum ista sumimus. Sed quemadmodum per Dei Verbum caro factus Jesus Christus Salvator noster carnem et sanguinem habuit nostrae salutis causa : ita etiam illam, in qua per precem verba ipsius continentem gratiae actae sunt, alimoniam, ex qua sanguis et caro nostra per mutationem aluntur, incarnati illius Jesu et carnem et sanguinem esse edocti sumus. Nam apostoli in commentariis suis, quae Evangelia vocantur, sic sibi mandatum esse tradiderunt : Jesum, accepto pane, cum gratias egisset, dixisse : Hoc facite in meam commemorationem : Hoc est corpus meum : similiter accepto calice cum gratias egisset, dixisse : Hic est sanguis meus ; ac ipsis solis tradidisse. »

of Me: This is My body; and having in like manner taken the cup and given thanks, He said: This is My blood; and imparted it to them alone. « For neither as common bread, says he in Apology 1, no. 66, nor as common drink do we take these things. But just as through the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh, had flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation, so also we have been taught that that food over which thanks have been given through the prayer containing His words, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished by change, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, handed down that it was commanded them thus: that Jesus, having taken bread, when He had given thanks, said: Do this in commemoration of Me: This is My body; and in like manner having taken the cup, when He had given thanks, said: This is My blood; and delivered it to them alone. »

II. Nihil est in hoc testimonio, quod ad figuram pertrahi possit ; nihil quod non astruat diserte mirabilem illam panis et vini conversionem, quam semper docuit Ecclesia. Illud 1º ex Justini verbis perspicitur, quam in sententiam Christiani saeculo secundo verba Christi acciperent. Nemo enim negare possit necesse omnino fuisse, si qua figura in Christi verbis latebat, ut in ea explicanda plurimum operae insumeretur. Nam si idem semper ab omnibus dicebatur, nulla ejusmodi explicatione adhibita ; si sacerdotes docebant panem consecratum esse corpus Christi, quia Christus, accepto pane, dixit : Hoc est corpus meum ; vinum consecratum esse sanguinem Christi, quia Verbum illud incarnatum, accepto calice, dixit : Hic est sanguis meus ; si Christiani omnes nihil aliud ex his Christi verbis concludebant, nisi eucharistiam esse carnem et sanguinem Christi ; nonne in certissimi principii loco statuere possumus, idem veteres Christianos credidisse quod hodie credimus et tenemus ? At quid Christiani saeculo secundo edocti fuerint, quid ex Christi verbis concluserint, an ambiguum esse possit, cum testis locuples Justinus ex eo quod Christus dixerit : Hoc est corpus meum ; hic est sanguis meus, omnes concludere declaret eucharistiam esse carnem et sanguinem Verbi incarnati?

II. There is nothing in this testimony which can be dragged into a figure; nothing which does not expressly establish that wonderful conversion of the bread and wine which the Church has always taught. This, 1st, is perceived from Justin's words, in what sense Christians in the second century took the words of Christ. For no one could deny that it would have been altogether necessary, if any figure lay hid in the words of Christ, that very much labour should be spent in explaining it. For if the same thing was always said by all, without any explanation of that sort being applied; if the priests taught that the consecrated bread is the body of Christ, because Christ, having taken bread, said: This is My body; and that the consecrated wine is the blood of Christ, because that incarnate Word, having taken the cup, said: This is My blood; if all Christians concluded nothing else from these words of Christ than that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ; can we not establish by way of a most certain principle that the ancient Christians believed the same thing that we believe and hold today? And what Christians in the second century were taught, what they concluded from the words of Christ, can that be doubtful, when the trustworthy witness Justin declares that from the fact that Christ said: This is My body; this is My blood, all conclude that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Word?

III. 2º Declarat S. martyr non minus constanter credere Christianos eucharistiam esse carnem et sanguinem Verbi incarnati, quam ipsum Verbum nostrae salutis causa carnem et sanguinem habuisse. Quemadmodum Jesus Christus carnem et sanguinem habuit nostrae salutis causa, ita etiam eam alimoniam incarnati illius Jesu carnem et sanguinem esse edocti sumus. Manifesta comparatio utriusque mysterii, Incarnationis et eucharistiae. Christi carnem tunc impugnabant omnes fere haereses ; ut omittam Deum incarnatum ethnicis semper et Judaeis

III. 2nd, The holy martyr declares that Christians believe no less steadfastly that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Word than that the Word Himself had flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation. Just as Jesus Christ had flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation, so also we have been taught that that food is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. Manifest is the comparison of both mysteries, the Incarnation and the Eucharist. Nearly all heresies at that time assailed the flesh of Christ; not to mention that God Incarnate was always displeasing to the heathens and to the

Editors' notes and page, col. 66

Page

running head: I PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 66
marginal letters: A μου· Τοῦτό ἐστι; B meam commemorationem :; C adhibita ; si sacerdotes; D eucharistiam esse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: μου· Τοῦτό ἐστι; word split at end of column: Ju- (Judæis)
other: the word Judaeis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 67

PG 6:67

displicuisse. At quo majores incredulorum in hoc mysterio evertendo conatus, eo major in defendendo catholicorum constantia. Num ergo antiquae fidei illustrius testimonium requiri possit, quam hoc Justini? Si eucharistiam absentis corporis figuram esse existimasset, an Christianos credere dixisset, panem et vinum post consecrationem esse carnem et sanguinem Domini, quemadmodum Christus non formam et figuram carnis et sanguinis, ut tot haereses fingebant, sed veram carnem verumque sanguinem habuit?

Jews. Yet the greater the efforts of unbelievers in overthrowing this mystery, the greater the constancy of Catholics in defending it. Could therefore a more illustrious testimony of the ancient faith be required than this of Justin? If he had considered the Eucharist to be a figure of an absent body, would he have said that Christians believe that the bread and wine after consecration are the flesh and blood of the Lord, just as Christ had not the form and figure of flesh and blood, as so many heresies feigned, but true flesh and true blood?

IV. 3º Verbi omnipotentiam non minus admiratur S. martyr in eucharistia, quam in Incarnatione. His enim verbis : Per Verbum Dei caro factus Jesus Christus, persona Verbi non separatur ab homine ex Virgine genito, nec ulla hujus erroris in S. martyre suspicio ; sed idem hic docet, quod tot aliis locis, ipsum Verbum sibi in utero Virginis carnem formasse. Quamobrem in eo eucharistiam cum Incarnatione comparat, quod quemadmodum in Incarnatione caro Verbi ab ipso Verbo corpus assumente perfecta est, ita etiam in eucharistia panis et vinum caro et sanguis fiant per precem verba ipsius continentem, id est omnipotentia ejusdem Verbi, cujus verba exhibet precatio. Credebat ergo Justinus carnem Christi eadem omnipotentia, qua in utero Virginis formata est, in eucharistiae sacramento praesentem apponi.

IV. 3rd, The holy martyr admires the omnipotence of the Word no less in the Eucharist than in the Incarnation. For by these words: Through the Word of God Jesus Christ was made flesh, the Person of the Word is not separated from the man begotten of the Virgin, nor is there any suspicion of this error in the holy martyr; rather, he teaches here the same thing as in so many other passages, that the Word Himself formed flesh for Himself in the womb of the Virgin. Wherefore he compares the Eucharist with the Incarnation in this, that just as in the Incarnation the flesh of the Word was perfected by the Word Himself assuming a body, so also in the Eucharist the bread and wine become flesh and blood through the prayer containing His words, that is, by the omnipotence of the same Word Whose words the prayer sets forth. Justin therefore believed that the flesh of Christ is set forth as present in the sacrament of the Eucharist by the same omnipotence by which it was formed in the womb of the Virgin.

4º Justinus imperatores alloquebatur, quos permagni intererat de rebus Christianorum apte et dilucide erudiri ; quippe cum hactenus de Christianis ex iniquo rumore dijudicassent. Quare magna cautio exstitit, ne aut latentem in Christi verbis figuram non viderent, si corpus Christi vere eucharistiae sacramento non continetur, aut, si vere continetur, ne totam rem, ut fabulam anilem, rejicerent. Primo incommodo facile occurri poterat : tantum voces explicaret Justinus, nihil supererat absurdi, sed soluta et expedita erant omnia. Ad alterum autem requirebatur, ut hoc mysterium non sine certissimis argumentis a Christianis credi demonstraret

4th, Justin was addressing the emperors, whom it was of very great importance to instruct aptly and clearly concerning the affairs of the Christians, seeing that hitherto they had judged of the Christians from unfair rumour. Wherefore great caution was needed, lest either they should fail to see the figure latent in the words of Christ, if the body of Christ is not truly contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist, or, if it is truly contained, they should reject the whole matter as an old wives' tale. The first disadvantage could easily be met: had Justin only explained the words, nothing absurd remained, but all was resolved and clear. For the second, however, it was required that he should demonstrate that this mystery is believed by Christians not without the most certain arguments

Utram viam secutus sit in ambiguo esse non potest. Nusquam enim ad eam rei explicandae rationem descendit, quae tam facilis tamque expedita, ac simul tam necessaria fuisset, ut panem et vinum vere corpus Christi non esse, sed ad hoc corpus significandum adhiberi admoneret. Nihil ejusmodi factum a S. martyre ; sed in id totus incumbit, ut hoc mysterium non sine gravissimis causis credi demonstret. Duo requirebantur in re tanti momenti : primo, ut omnipotens sit, qui eam a se perfici dixerat ; deinde ut nulla ejus verbis insit obscuritas. Utroque argumento nititur Justinus, dum Christianorum fidem inde repetit, quod Verbum illud, quod sibi in utero Virginis carnem formavit, accepto pane, dixerit : Hoc est corpus meum ; et, accepto calice : Hic est sanguis meus. Quo sensu nos eucharistia ali doceat, itidem ut alii Patres,

Which way he followed cannot be in doubt. For nowhere did he descend to that manner of explaining the matter which would have been so easy and so ready, and at the same time so necessary, as to admonish them that the bread and wine are not truly the body of Christ, but are employed to signify this body. Nothing of the sort was done by the holy martyr; rather, he bends his whole effort to demonstrating that this mystery is believed not without the weightiest reasons. Two things were required in a matter of such great importance: first, that He Who had said that it was accomplished by Himself be omnipotent; second, that there be no obscurity in His words. Justin relies on both arguments while tracing the faith of Christians from the fact that that Word Who formed flesh for Himself in the womb of the Virgin, having taken bread, said: This is My body; and, having taken the cup: This is My blood. In what sense he teaches, just like the other Fathers, that we are nourished by the Eucharist,

Editors' notes and page, col. 67

Page

running head: 67 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A dæis displicuisse.; B ab homine ex Virgine; C dilucide erudiri ;; D ac simul tam necessaria
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: dæis displicuisse.; word split at start of column: dæis (Judæis); no period after demonstraret in 4º

PG 6:68

vide dissertationem 3 in Iren., art. 7, n. 94 et 95.

see Dissertation 3 on Irenaeus, art. 7, nos. 94 and 95.

V. Si Justino ethnicos alloquenti talem usum praebuit eucharistia ; quanto magis adversus haereticos scribenti arma ministravit, quorum ad errores profligandos maxime apposita est? Negabant illi Christum mundi Creatoris Filium esse : sed Patrem Christi Deum quemdam creatore excelsiorem sibi fingebant. At quomodo Christus aliena et a se non creata ad consecrationem eucharistiae adhibuisset? Negabant carnis resurrectionem. At quomodo caro, quae corpore et sanguine Domini pascitur, aeterno addicta esse possit interitui? Negabant veram carnem a Christo assumptam. Hanc quoque impietatem refellebat eucharistia, quae est communicatio corporis et sanguinis Christi. Sanguis enim non est nisi a venis et carnibus et a reliqua, quae secundum hominem est, substantia, quae vere factum est Verbum Dei, inquit Irenaeus, lib. V, c. 2. Non dubium igitur quin S. martyr haec argumenta ante Irenaeum et Tertullianum frequentaverit tum in libro contra Marcionem, tum in alio adversus omnes haereses scripto. Quare non mihi videbor ab illius defendendae doctrinae proposito discedere, si hoc loco explanare aggrediar duo magni momenti testimonia, alterum S. Irenaei, alterum Tertulliani, quae etsi strenuos defensores habuere, videntur tamen uberiorem lucem ad contextuum intelligentiam requirere. Praeterea hac Irenaei et Tertulliani adversus eos, qui carnem Christi negabant, disputatione in tuto collocabitur Athenagorae doctrina, quem Petrus Allix a corporibus redivivis sanguinem removisse, ac in eucharistia sanguinem Christi non agnovisse contendit.

V. If the Eucharist afforded such a use to Justin when addressing the heathens, how much more did it furnish weapons to him when writing against the heretics, for routing whose errors it is most suited? They denied that Christ was the Son of the Creator of the world, and feigned for themselves as the Father of Christ some God higher than the Creator. Yet how would Christ have employed things foreign to Himself and not created by Himself for the consecration of the Eucharist? They denied the resurrection of the flesh. Yet how can flesh which is fed with the body and blood of the Lord be doomed to eternal destruction? They denied that true flesh was assumed by Christ. This impiety also the Eucharist refuted, which is the communication of the body and blood of Christ. For blood is not save from veins and flesh and from the rest of the substance which is according to man, which the Word of God truly became, says Irenaeus, book V, ch. 2. There is no doubt, therefore, that the holy martyr frequently used these arguments before Irenaeus and Tertullian, both in his book Against Marcion and in the other written Against All Heresies. Wherefore I shall not seem to myself to depart from the purpose of defending his doctrine if in this place I undertake to explain two testimonies of great importance, the one of St Irenaeus, the other of Tertullian, which, although they have had strenuous defenders, nevertheless seem to require fuller light for the understanding of their contexts. Furthermore, by this disputation of Irenaeus and Tertullian against those who denied the flesh of Christ, the doctrine of Athenagoras will be placed in safety, whom Peter Allix contends removed blood from risen bodies and did not acknowledge the blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Sic igitur Irenaeus, lib. IV, c. 18, n. 5 : Πῶς... τὴν σάρκα λέγουσιν εἰς φθορὰν χωρεῖν, καὶ μὴ μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην ; ἢ τὴν γνώμην ἀλλαξάτωσαν, ἢ τὸ προσφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα παραιτείσθωσαν. Ἡμῶν δὲ σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία... βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην... προσφέρομεν δὲ αὐτῷ τὰ ἴδια, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες, καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν. Ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ' εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου· οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μηκέτι εἶναι (ἐστὶ) φθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εις αιῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα. « Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, et non percipere vitam, quae corpore Domini et sanguine alitur ? Ergo aut sententiam mutent aut abstineant offerendo quae praedicta sunt. Nostra autem consonans est sententia eucharistiae, et eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei quae sunt ejus, congruenter communicationem et unitatem praedicantes [Graece confitentes resurrectionem] carnis et spiritus. Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non communis

Thus, then, Irenaeus, book IV, ch. 18, no. 5: How... do they say that the flesh goes into corruption, and does not partake of life, that flesh which is nourished from the body of the Lord and from His blood? Either let them change their opinion, or let them decline to offer the things spoken of. But our opinion is in harmony with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist... confirms our opinion... And we offer to Him the things that are His own, harmoniously proclaiming communion and union, and confessing the raising up of flesh and spirit. For just as bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection unto the ages. « And how again do they say that the flesh comes into corruption, and does not receive life, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord? Therefore either let them change their opinion, or let them abstain from offering the things aforesaid. But our opinion is consonant with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him the things that are His, congruously proclaiming the communication and unity [in the Greek, confessing the resurrection] of flesh and spirit. For just as the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common

Editors' notes and page, col. 68

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 68
marginal letters: A vide dissertationem; B guis enim non est; C hant, disputatione; D χαριστία, ἐκ δύο
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: vide dissertationem; word split at end of column: com- (communis)

PG 6:69

est panis, sed eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et coelesti ; sic et corpora nostra percipientia eucharistiam, jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. » Sola Ecclesia in celebranda eucharistia communicationem et unitatem praedicat, quia sectae non recte dividunt, ut n. 3 dicebat, eam quae est ad proximum communionem. Resurrectio corporis et spiritus sive animae, quam Ecclesia docet, loquendi ratio est apud antiquos usitata, ut observavi ad Theophili Antioch. lib. I.

bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection. » The Church alone in celebrating the Eucharist proclaims communication and unity, because the sects do not rightly divide, as he said in no. 3, the communion which is towards one's neighbour. The resurrection of body and spirit or soul, which the Church teaches, is a customary manner of speaking among the ancients, as I observed on book I of Theophilus of Antioch.

Sed quod praecipue observandum nobis est, in his verbis : Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et coelesti, duo diversi, pro diversis temporibus, eucharistiae status considerantur. Primo res terrena est, sive panis qui est a terra, uno verbo, panis communis, deinde fit eucharistia, hoc est corpus et sanguis Domini. Duplicem illum ex successione statum praeclare in alio etiam loco describit Irenaeus : Καὶ ὅνπερ τρόπον τὸ ξύλον τῆς ἀμπέλου κλιθὲν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ἐκαρποφόρησε, καὶ ὁ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθεὶς, πολλοστὸς ἠγέρθη διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ συνέχοντος τὰ πάντα· ἔπειτα δὲ διὰ τῆς σοφίας εἰς χρῆσιν ἐλθόντα ἀνθρώπων, καὶ προσλαμβανόμενα τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐχαριστία γίνεται, ὅπερ ἐστὶ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα ἐξ αὐτῆς τρεφόμενα, καὶ τεθέντα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθέντα ἐν αὐτῇ, ἀναστήσεται ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῖς χαριζομένου εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός. « Et quemadmodum lignum vitis, inquit lib. V, cap. 2, n. 3, depositum in terram suo fructificat tempore, et granum tritici decidens in terram et dissolutum multiplex surgit per Spiritum Dei, qui continet omnia, quae deinde per sapientiam in usum hominis veniunt et percipientia Verbum Dei eucharistia fiunt, quod est corpus et sanguis Christi ; sic et nostra corpora ex ea nutrita et reposita in terram, et resoluta in ea resurgent in suo tempore, Verbo Dei resurrectionem eis donante, in gloriam Dei Patris. » Non potest hic successio diversorum statuum non animadverti, nisi quis caecutiat. Primo res terrena est, nempe id quod depositum in terram suo fructificat tempore et venit in usum hominum, estque panis communis, deinde corpus et sanguis Christi, sive res coelestis.

But what we must especially observe is that in these words, Eucharist consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, two different states of the Eucharist, according to different times, are considered. First it is an earthly thing, or bread which is from the earth, in a word, common bread; then it becomes Eucharist, that is, the body and blood of the Lord. Irenaeus excellently describes that twofold state by succession in another passage also: And just as the wood of the vine, laid in the earth, bore fruit in its own season, and the grain of wheat falling into the earth and dissolved rose manifold through the Spirit of God, Who holds all things together; and afterwards through wisdom coming into the use of men, and receiving the Word of God, becomes Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, nourished from it, and laid in the earth, and dissolved in it, shall rise in their own season, the Word of God bestowing the rising up upon them unto the glory of God the Father. « And just as the wood of the vine, says he in book V, chapter 2, no. 3, laid in the earth bears fruit in its own season, and the grain of wheat falling into the earth and dissolved rises manifold through the Spirit of God, Who holds all things together, which afterwards through wisdom come into the use of man, and receiving the Word of God become Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies nourished from it, and laid in the earth and dissolved in it, shall rise in their own season, the Word of God granting them resurrection unto the glory of God the Father. » Here the succession of different states cannot fail to be noticed, unless one is blind. First it is an earthly thing, namely that which laid in the earth bears fruit in its own season and comes into the use of men, and is common bread; then the body and blood of Christ, or a heavenly thing.

Ipsa etiam eucharistiae cum duplici corporum nostrorum statu comparatio ante oculos ponit duorum in eucharistia statuum successionem. Comparatur mutatio cum mutatione, res terrena, quae fit res coelestis, sive panis communis, qui fit corpus Christi, cum corpore corruptibili, quod fit corpus incorruptibile. Res autem eodem tempore ac sine ulla successione terrena et coelestis, corruptibilis et incorruptibilis quid afferret momenti ad corporum, quae nunc corruptibilia sunt, futuram incorruptibilitatem?

The very comparison of the Eucharist with the twofold state of our bodies also sets before our eyes the succession of two states in the Eucharist. Change is compared with change: the earthly thing which becomes a heavenly thing, or common bread which becomes the body of Christ, with the corruptible body which becomes an incorruptible body. What weight, however, for the future incorruptibility of bodies which are now corruptible would be brought by a thing that was at the same time and without any succession earthly and heavenly, corruptible and incorruptible?

Illud quidem inest discriminis inter illam mutationem,

There is indeed this difference between that change

Editors' notes and page, col. 69

Page

running head: 69 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO.
marginal letters: A munis est panis,; B panis communis,; C ζομένου εἰς δόξαν; D cat tempore et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: munis est panis,; word split at start of column: munis (communis); word split at end of column: muta- (mutationem)
other: the word mutationem, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 70

PG 6:70

quae fit in eucharistia, et eam quae corporibus nostris promissa est, quod panis substantia mutetur in aliam longe dissimilem, nostris autem corporibus substantiam suam retinentibus qualitas tantum accessura sit. Sed ex hoc discrimine praeclarior evenit comparatio. Probat enim Irenaeus minus miraculum ex majore, ut controversum ex non controverso. Quin etiam absurda esset illius ratiocinatio, nisi substantiam panis penitus mutari ac nullam prorsus superesse dicamus. Quocunque enim honore panis augeatur ; si panis esse non desinat, longe mirabilior erit corporum nostrorum mutatio, quae non solum acquirent incorruptionis decus, sed etiam ex mortuis et dissolutis ac in varias mundi partes dissipatis eadem quoad substantiam fiant corpora, superaddito incorruptibilitatis dono.

which takes place in the Eucharist and that which is promised to our bodies, that the substance of the bread is changed into another far different, whereas to our bodies, retaining their own substance, a quality only is to be added. Yet from this difference the comparison turns out all the more striking. For Irenaeus proves the lesser miracle from the greater, as the disputed from the undisputed. Nay, his reasoning would even be absurd unless we say that the substance of the bread is thoroughly changed and that none at all remains. For with whatever honour the bread may be augmented, if it does not cease to be bread, far more wonderful will be the change of our bodies, which not only will acquire the glory of incorruption, but also from being dead and dissolved and scattered into various parts of the world will become the same bodies as to substance, with the gift of incorruptibility superadded.

Praeterea duas mutationes in pane considerat Irenaeus : primam qua ex tritico decidente in terram et dissoluto multiplex surgit per Spiritum Dei, fitque panis ad hominum usus ; alteram qua percipiens Verbum Dei fit corpus Christi. Posterior mutatio longe mirabilior quam prima. Nam comparantur quidem cum utraque nostra corpora, quae ex eucharistia nutrita, et reposita in terram et resoluta in ea, resurgent suo tempore. At resurrectionis effectrix est sola illa panis in corpus Christi mutatio, quae nulla prorsus erit, si panis supersit substantia.

Furthermore, Irenaeus considers two changes in the bread: the first whereby from wheat falling into the earth and dissolved it rises manifold through the Spirit of God, and becomes bread for the uses of men; the second whereby, receiving the Word of God, it becomes the body of Christ. The latter change is far more wonderful than the first. For our bodies indeed, which nourished from the Eucharist, and laid in the earth and dissolved in it, shall rise in their season, are compared with both. Yet the producer of the resurrection is solely that change of the bread into the body of Christ, which will be none at all if the substance of the bread remains.

VI. Locus Tertulliani legitur in libro IV adv. Marcionem, c. 4, ubi sic loquitur : « Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus illum suum fecit : Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non esset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quae est phantasma figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi fecit, quia corporis carebat veritate ; ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis ut panis pro nobis crucifigeretur. »

VI. The passage of Tertullian is read in book IV Against Marcion, ch. 4, where he speaks thus: « Having therefore professed that with desire He had desired to eat the Passover as His own (for it was unworthy that God should desire anything foreign), the bread which He took and distributed to His disciples He made His own body, by saying: This is My body, that is, a figure of My body. Now there would not be a figure unless there were a body of truth. Otherwise an empty thing, which is a phantom, could not admit of a figure. Or if on that account He made bread His body, because He lacked the truth of a body, then He ought to have delivered bread for us. It suited the vanity of Marcion that bread should be crucified for us. »

Hujus loci aliam explicationem Perronius, aliam auctores Perpetuitatis fidei attulerunt : sed utraque Tertulliani sententiam in tuto posuit et illius testimonio abutendi facultatem adversariis praeripuit. Nihil obstat quominus tertiam afferamus quae eidem proposito communiter conducat.

Du Perron brought forward one explanation of this passage, the authors of The Perpetuity of the Faith another; but either has placed the meaning of Tertullian in safety and snatched from the adversaries the ability to abuse his testimony. Nothing prevents us from bringing forward a third which may jointly conduce to the same purpose.

Figuram intelligit Tertullianus id quod substantiam aliquam exterioribus signis circumscribit ; unde ait : Vacua res, quae est phantasma, figuram capere non posset : solum corpus solidum sub figura latere potest. Quare Christi verbis hunc sensum assignat, Hoc est corpus meum, id est figura quae corpus meum circumscribit, et sacramentum quo mei corporis substantia continetur.

By figure Tertullian understands that which circumscribes some substance with outward signs; whence he says: An empty thing, which is a phantom, could not admit of a figure: only a solid body can lie hid under a figure. Wherefore he assigns this sense to the words of Christ, This is My body, that is, the figure which circumscribes My body, and the sacrament in which the substance of My body is contained.

Cur hanc Christi verbis explicationem subjiciat Tertullianus, facile causa repetitur ex Marcionis errore, quem refellendum susceperat. Christi corpus

Why Tertullian subjoins this explanation to the words of Christ, the reason is easily traced from the error of Marcion, which he had undertaken to refute. The body of Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 70

Page

running head: NI PRÆFATIO. — PARS II. 70
marginal letters: A tionem, quæ fit; B tiam fiant corpora,; C VI. Locus Tertulliani; D Tertulliani sententiam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: tionem, quæ fit; word split at start of column: tionem (mutationem)

PG 6:71

Marcion phantasma esse dicebat, ac carnem humanam indignam prorsus esse sentiebat, quae Dei caro fieret : error impius stare non poterat cum Ecclesiae fide de eucharistiae sacramento. Si corpus animale Christo et carnem coelestem, ut Valentiniani, attribuisset Marcion, non tam absurde secum pugnasset in celebrando eucharistiae sacramento. Sed cum Christi corpus merum phantasma esse contenderet, idem de illo asseverari poterat, quod de haereticis idem sentientibus dixerat S. Ignatius in epist. ad Smyrn., eos non confiteri eucharistiam esse carnem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est.

Marcion said that it was a phantom, and felt that human flesh was altogether unworthy to become the flesh of God: the impious error could not stand with the faith of the Church concerning the sacrament of the eucharist. If Marcion, like the Valentinians, had attributed an animal body and heavenly flesh to Christ, he would not have fought so absurdly with himself in celebrating the sacrament of the eucharist. But since he contended that the body of Christ was a mere phantom, the same thing could be asserted of him as St. Ignatius in the epistle to the Smyrnaeans had said of heretics holding the same view, that they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins.

Sed tamen Marcion, quamvis sibi ipse necessitatem imposuisset idem sentiendi, ac vetustiores illi haeretici, nihil tamen in his, quae ad eucharistiam spectant, turbare audebat : solitus ex Evangelio recidere quidquid cum erroribus suis conciliare posse desperabat, reveritus fuerat verba a Christo in consecranda eucharistia pronuntiata, ut testatur Tertullianus, lib. III, c. 19. Dubius ergo et incertus Tertullianus quonam evadat Marcion, duplici illum nodo constringere conatur, illumque eo redigere, ut vel errorem suum de Christi carne ejuret, si catholicam de eucharistia fidem retinet ; vel si illam abnegat, impietatem suam aperte prodat.

Yet Marcion, although he had imposed upon himself the necessity of feeling the same as those more ancient heretics, nevertheless dared to disturb nothing in those things which pertain to the eucharist: accustomed to cut out from the Gospel whatever he despaired of being able to reconcile with his errors, he had revered the words pronounced by Christ in consecrating the eucharist, as Tertullian testifies, book 3, ch. 19. Doubtful, therefore, and uncertain as to where Marcion may escape, Tertullian endeavours to bind him with a double knot, and to reduce him to this, that he Either abjure his error concerning the flesh of Christ, if he retains the catholic faith concerning the eucharist; or, if he denies it, openly betray his impiety.

Itaque observat Tertullianus corpus Christi in eucharistia non in eo statu nobis exhiberi, in quo exhibitum fuerat, dum in terris ab hominibus videretur, sed in figura, sive in sacramento panis et vini. Inde aptissima ducitur conclusio, solidum corpus, non phantasma Christo tribuendum ; siquidem phantasma figuram capere non potest, res vacua circumscribi non potest signis exterioribus panis et vini, nec quidquam absurdius foret, quam a vacuo hominis phantasmate et vacua corporis humani effigie, aliam effigiem et figuram, sub qua delitescat, assumi.

And so Tertullian observes that the body of Christ in the eucharist is not exhibited to us in that state in which it had been exhibited while He was seen by men on earth, but in a figure, or in the sacrament of bread and wine. Thence is drawn the most fitting conclusion, that a solid body, not a phantom, must be attributed to Christ; since a phantom cannot take on a figure, an empty thing cannot be circumscribed by the exterior signs of bread and wine, nor would anything be more absurd than for another effigy and figure, under which it might lie hid, to be assumed by an empty phantom of a man and an empty effigy of a human body.

Intererat ergo Tertulliani observare et admonere corpus Christi eucharisticum non in ea figura, sive effigie et specie apponi, quam habuit in terris, sed in figura et specie panis. Atque haec illius ratiocinatio non solum Marcionem arctissime premebat, sed etiam duo nobis observanda et concludenda suppeditat ; primo, verum Christi corpus in eucharistia nobis donari, siquidem in hoc sacramento figuram accipere non posset, si res vacua et phantasma esset : deinde nihil panis superesse praeter speciem, sive figuram ; si quidem ex Marcionis sententia sequeretur figuram vacuam sub vacua figura delitescere : quod quidem nunquam observasset Tertullianus, si panis substantiam cum ipsa figura et specie superesse sensisset.

It was therefore in Tertullian's interest to observe and admonish that the eucharistic body of Christ is not set forth in that figure, or effigy and appearance, which He had on earth, but in the figure and appearance of bread. And this reasoning of his not only pressed Marcion most closely, but also supplies two things for us to observe and conclude; first, that the true body of Christ is given to us in the eucharist, since in this sacrament it could not receive a figure if it were an empty thing and a phantom: next, that nothing of the bread remains except the appearance, or figure; since from Marcion's opinion it would follow that an empty figure lies hid under an empty figure: which indeed Tertullian would never have observed if he had felt that the substance of the bread remained together with the figure and appearance itself.

Sed quia verisimile non erat de eucharistia Marcionem ac Ecclesiam sentire, suspicatur Tertullianus Christi verba, Hoc est corpus meum, sic a Marcione intelligi, quasi panem sibi Christus in corpus adoptasset ; unde colligit panem pro nobis tradi et crucifigi debuisse, si Christi verba sic accipiantur,

But because it was not probable that Marcion felt the same as the Church concerning the eucharist, Tertullian suspects that the words of Christ, This is My body, are so understood by Marcion as though Christ had adopted the bread for Himself as a body; whence he gathers that bread ought to have been betrayed and crucified for us, if the words of Christ are so taken,

Editors' notes and page, col. 71

Page

running head: 71 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A Marcion phantasma; B illi haeretici; C vini. Inde; D suppeditat; primo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Marcion phantasma esse dicebat

PG 6:72

ut panis minime mutatus, sed a Christo corporis vice adoptatus dicatur : « Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi fecit, quia corporis carebat veritate : ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis pro nobis crucifigeretur. » Suspicatur, non asseverat Tertullianus ita sensisse Marcionem : sed quid valeat haec suspicio nobis expendendum est. 1° Absurda illa panis in corpus Christi adoptio nunquam Marcioni in mentem venisset, nisi hanc ei necessitatem imposuisset impium phantastici corporis Christi commentum ; non existimasset panis substantiam in eucharistia manere, si suam Christi corpori substantiam reliquisset. Catholici ergo omnes, quibuscum Marcion adversa fronte pugnabat, non panem in eucharistia, sed verum Christi corpus esse credebant. Deinde illud saltem concessisset Marcion, si vera Tertulliani conjectura, Verbum in eucharistia cum pane hypostatice conjunctum adorari. At unde hanc opinionem aut Marcion suscipere, aut Marcioni potuit attribuere Tertullianus, nisi quia uterque verba Christi, Hoc est corpus meum, eo sensu, qui primus menti occurrit, accipiebat, ac inter utrumque conveniebat, clara esse et perspicua verba, rem grandem his verbis promitti et exhiberi ?

that the bread should be said to be by no means changed, but adopted by Christ in place of a body: "Or if for this reason He made bread His body, because He lacked the truth of a body: therefore He ought to have delivered up bread for us. It suited the vanity of Marcion that bread should be crucified for us." Tertullian suspects, he does not assert, that Marcion felt thus: but what weight this suspicion has must be weighed by us. 1st, That absurd adoption of bread into the body of Christ would never have come into Marcion's mind, had not the impious fiction of a phantom body of Christ imposed this necessity upon him; he would not have supposed that the substance of bread remains in the eucharist, if he had left its own substance to the body of Christ. All Catholics, therefore, with whom Marcion fought face to face, believed that in the eucharist there was not bread, but the true body of Christ. Next, Marcion would at least have conceded this, if Tertullian's conjecture be true, that the Word is adored in the eucharist hypostatically conjoined with the bread. But whence could either Marcion take up this opinion, or Tertullian attribute it to Marcion, unless because each took the words of Christ, This is My body, in that sense which first occurs to the mind, and it was agreed between them both that the words are clear and perspicuous, and that a great reality is promised and exhibited by these words?

Tertulliani conjecturam confirmat Euthymius Panopl., part. II, tit. 2. Is enim testatur Armenos, qui unam in Christo naturam admittebant et corpus Christi in divinitatem conversum esse sentiebant, negasse eucharistiam esse corpus Christi, sed divinitatis corpus dicere solitos esse.

Euthymius confirms Tertullian's conjecture in the Panoplia, part 2, tit. 2. For he testifies that the Armenians, who admitted one nature in Christ and felt that the body of Christ was converted into divinity, denied that the eucharist was the body of Christ, but were accustomed to call it the body of the divinity.

VII. Si ne illi quidem, qui Christo phantasticum corpus affingebant, Christum in eucharistia praesentem adorari et sumi negabant ; quanto magis extra suspicionem esse debet egregius religionis defensor Athenagoras, etiamsi, ut contendit Petrus Allixius in dissert. De sanguine D. N. J. C., corpora nostra post resurrectionem sine sanguine futura existimasset ? Quin etiam ipse Allixius inter eos, quos sanguinem in corporibus redivivis negat admisisse, citat Petrum Mansur, qui in epist. inter opera S. Joannis Damasceni tom. I exstante asserit quidem corpus immortale sanguine carere, sed tamen, id quod astute tacuit Allixius, deterrimam hanc sententiam cum catholica de eucharistia fide sic conciliat, ut corpus Christi in eucharistia, non quale in coelo est, sed quale in utero Virginis fuit, apponi declaret. Si qui ergo antiqui scriptores id sensissent, quod eos sensisse pertendit Allixius, non idcirco constaret eos a catholica de eucharistia fide discessisse. At nulla ratio probat Athenagoram hoc de corporibus redivivis errore laborasse. Hoc tantum contendit, ut observat in dissert. advers. Allix. vir doctissimus Jac. Boileau, art. 2, p. 39, sanguinem non, ut in hac mortali vita, ita etiam in immortali obnoxium corruptioni futurum.

7. If not even those who fastened a phantom body upon Christ denied that Christ is adored and received as present in the eucharist; how much more ought the eminent defender of religion, Athenagoras, to be beyond suspicion, even if, as Peter Allix contends in his dissertation On the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, he had supposed that our bodies after the resurrection would be without blood? Nay, even Allix himself, among those whom he denies to have admitted blood in risen bodies, cites Peter Mansur, who in an epistle extant among the works of St. John Damascene, vol. 1, asserts indeed that an immortal body lacks blood, and yet, what Allix shrewdly passed over in silence, reconciles this worst opinion with the catholic faith concerning the eucharist in such a way as to declare that the body of Christ is set forth in the eucharist, not such as it is in heaven, but such as it was in the womb of the Virgin. If, therefore, any ancient writers had felt what Allix insists they felt, it would not on that account be established that they departed from the catholic faith concerning the eucharist. But no reason proves that Athenagoras laboured under this error concerning risen bodies. He contends only for this, as the most learned man Jacques Boileau observes in his dissertation against Allix, art. 2, p. 39, that blood will not be subject to corruption in the immortal life just as it is in this mortal life.

Occurrit Athenagoras in libro De resur. mort., n. 4, iis, qui huic dogmati opponunt corpora humana,

Athenagoras meets, in his book On the Resurrection of the Dead, no. 4, those who oppose to this dogma that human bodies,

Editors' notes and page, col. 72

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 72
marginal letters: A ut panis; B stia, sed; C negasse eucharistiam; D id quod
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ut panis minime mutatus; word split at end of column: hu-
other: the word humana, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 73

PG 6:73

quae a belluis vorata inde in aliorum hominum corpus traducta sunt, vel ipsis hominibus tragico aliquo facinore in escam cesserunt. Ex quo concludunt vel iis, qui sic consumpti fuere, aliquid defuturum, si sua illis caro non restituatur ; vel si restituatur, eorum, qui consumpserant, mancam et imperfectam carnem futuram.

which have been devoured by beasts and thence transferred into the body of other men, or have passed as food to men themselves through some tragic crime. From which they conclude that either something will be lacking to those who were thus consumed, if their own flesh be not restored to them; or if it be restored, the flesh of those who had consumed them will be maimed and imperfect.

Respondet Athenagoras humanam carnem cibum esse alteri homini contra naturam : itaque si quis aut proprio scelere aut aliena fraude humanam carnem comederit, nequaquam fore ut tam contrarius naturae cibus cum partibus comedentis coalescat, sed ut noxium et inimicum rejectum iri. Atque etiam si detur hunc cibum immutari in aliquid humidum aut siccum, aut calidum, aut frigidum, negat Athenagoras ullam earum rerum aut partem esse, aut partis speciem occupare ; imo non semper in partibus alimentum accipientibus permanere, nec cum resurgentibus resurgere, nihil tum ad vitam conferente sanguine, sive pituita, sive bili, sive spiritu. Non ergo sanguinem a resurrectione removet Athenagoras, sed tunc futurum negat, ut vita ex sanguine pendeat, quem idcirco necesse sit variis humoribus temperari. Sic Augustinus, quem Allixius in suas partes trahere conatur, sanguinem minime negat in epist. 205, sed sanguinem vult sine corruptione : « Non, ut opinor, inquit num. 15, dubitandum est, secundum hoc dictum : Caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt, quia non ibi erit corruptio et mortalitas carnis et sanguinis. Secundum enim has qualitates carnem et sanguinem hoc loco nominavit. » Mox de carne idem dicit Athenagoras, nempe etiamsi contraria naturae alimonia ita digeratur, ut ad carnem usque permeet ; ne id quidem difficile ad explicandum fore ; quippe cum nec ipsa caro quae asciscit, eam semper retineat quam ascivit, nec quae ascita est, ibi constanter permaneat quo accessit, sed multam in diversa mutationem accipiat, n. 7. Quis inde colligat carnem Athenagoram in redivivis corporibus non relinquere ? Plura non dicam de illius sententia ; satis est legere quae ab eo dicuntur, n. 3, ut corpora nostra eadem potentia, qua primum fuere a Deo coagmentata, iterum ad vitam post dissolutionem revocatum iri demonstret.

Athenagoras replies that human flesh is food contrary to nature for another man: and so if anyone either by his own crime or by another's deceit should eat human flesh, it will by no means come to pass that food so contrary to nature coalesces with the parts of the eater, but it will be rejected as noxious and hostile. And even if it be granted that this food is changed into something moist or dry, or hot, or cold, Athenagoras denies that any of those things either is a part, or occupies the form of a part; nay, that it does not always remain in the parts receiving nourishment, nor rise again with those rising again, since blood contributes nothing then to life, nor phlegm, nor bile, nor breath. Athenagoras, therefore, does not remove blood from the resurrection, but denies that it will then come to pass that life depends on blood, which for that reason would need to be tempered by various humours. Thus Augustine, whom Allix endeavours to draw over to his side, by no means denies blood in epistle 205, but wishes blood to be without corruption: "It is not, as I think," says he at no. 15, "to be doubted, according to this saying: Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, because corruption and mortality of flesh and blood will not be there. For according to these qualities did he name flesh and blood in this place." Presently Athenagoras says the same thing concerning flesh, namely, that even if nourishment contrary to nature be so digested as to permeate even to the flesh, not even that would be difficult to explain; inasmuch as neither does the flesh itself which takes it in always retain that which it took in, nor does that which was taken in constantly remain there whither it came, but undergoes much change into diverse things, no. 7. Who would gather thence that Athenagoras does not leave flesh in risen bodies? I shall say no more concerning his opinion; it is enough to read what is said by him, no. 3, to demonstrate that our bodies will be recalled again to life after dissolution by the same power by which they were first joined together by God.

CAPUT X.

Chapter X.

Eucharistia verum ac proprie dictum sacrificium, cujus descriptio a Justino exposita consideratur.

The eucharist a true and properly so-called sacrifice, whose description set forth by Justin is considered.

I. Justinus veritatem religionis ex vero sacrificio demonstrat. II. Objecta a Pfaffio testimonia defenduntur. III. Observationes in liturgiam a S. Martyre expositam, ac primum de baptismo. IV. De conventus loco et prima liturgiae parte. V. De secunda liturgiae parte et precibus tam communibus, tum prolixis. VI. De sacra communione et diaconorum perfunctionibus Justini verba explicantur.

1. Justin demonstrates the truth of religion from the true sacrifice. 2. The testimonies objected by Pfaff are defended. 3. Observations on the liturgy set forth by the holy Martyr, and first concerning baptism. 4. Concerning the place of assembly and the first part of the liturgy. 5. Concerning the second part of the liturgy and the prayers, both common and prolix. 6. Justin's words concerning holy communion and the functions of the deacons are explained.

I. Constituta panis et vini in carnem et sanguinem Christi mutatione, qualem a Justino stabilitam vidimus, nihil jam habent difficultatis, quae ad sacrificii

1. Once the change of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ has been established, such as we have seen established by Justin, those things no longer have any difficulty which pertain to the nature of the sacrifice.

Editors' notes and page, col. 73

Footnotes

(19) ‹anchor: Dei non possidebunt› · call in col 73

I Cor. XV, 50.

1 Corinthians 15:50.

(printed under page 43)

Page

running head: 73 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A mana, quae; B gidum, negat; C carnis et sanguinis.; D dissolutionem revocatum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: mana, quae a belluis, CAPUT X., Eucharistia verum, I. Justinus veritatem, I. Constituta panis; words split at start and end of column: mana, sacri-

PG 6:74

rationem attinent. Neque enim aliud causae Lutheranis et Calvinistis stetit, cur eucharistiam sacrificium esse negarent, nisi quod isti Christum omnino in eucharistia non adesse, hi ante usum non adesse pertenderent. At si quis passionem Christi sic in eucharistia repraesentari fateatur, ut ipsa illa victima, quae pro nobis olim occisa est, praesens in altari sistatur, is ambigere non possit, quin Christus in hoc statu sese Patri suo in manibus sacerdotum offerat : minime ergo mirum si S. martyr, qui non magis dubitabat, an eucharistia sit caro et sanguis Christi, quam utrum Filius Dei incarnatus sit, sacrificium Christianorum tot locis commendat.

For no other cause stood in the way of the Lutherans and Calvinists, why they should deny that the eucharist is a sacrifice, except that the latter insisted that Christ is not present in the eucharist at all, and the former that He is not present before the use. But if anyone confesses that the passion of Christ is so represented in the eucharist that that very victim which was once slain for us is set present upon the altar, he cannot doubt that Christ in this state offers Himself to His Father in the hands of the priests: it is therefore by no means wonderful if the holy martyr, who doubted no more whether the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ than whether the Son of God was incarnate, commends the sacrifice of Christians in so many places.

Religionis Christianae praestantiam contra Judaeos ex sacrificii nostri praestantia demonstrat. « Similae quoque, inquit, Dialogi n. 41, oblatio pro iis, qui a lepra purgabantur, instituta, imago erat panis eucharistiae, quem Dominus noster Jesus Christus in passionis recordationem pro his, qui ab omni pravitate purgantur, susceptae fieri praecepit ; ut gratias simul agamus Deo, tum quod mundum et omnia quae in eo sunt, propter hominem creaverit, tum quod nos a nequitia, in qua fuimus, liberaverit, et principatus et potestates funditus deleverit per eum, qui ejus voluntate passibilis factus est. De sacrificiis autem, quae tunc a vobis offerebantur, sic Deus, ut jam dixi, per Malachiam unum ex duodecim loquitur : Non est voluntas mea in vobis, dicit Dominus, et sacrificia non suscipiam de manibus vestris, propterea quod ab ortu solis ad occasum nomen meum glorificatum est in gentibus ; et in omni loco offertur incensum nomini meo et victima pura, quoniam magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus. De iis autem, quae ipsi in omni loco a nobis offeruntur, sacrificiis, id est de pane eucharistiae et de calice similiter eucharistiae jam tum praedicit, illud etiam addens nomen suum a nobis glorificari, a vobis autem profanari. »

He demonstrates the excellence of the Christian religion against the Jews from the excellence of our sacrifice. "The offering of fine flour also," says he, in the Dialogue, no. 41, "which was instituted for those who were being cleansed from leprosy, was an image of the bread of the eucharist, which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to be made in remembrance of the passion which He underwent for those who are cleansed from all wickedness; in order that at the same time we may give thanks to God, both because He created the world and all things that are in it for man's sake, and because He has freed us from the wickedness in which we were, and has utterly destroyed the principalities and powers through Him Who by His will became passible. Moreover, concerning the sacrifices which were then offered by you, God, as I have already said, speaks thus through Malachi, one of the twelve: My will is not in you, says the Lord, and I will not receive sacrifices from your hands, because from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof My name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to My name and a pure victim, because My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord. Now concerning those sacrifices which are offered to Him in every place by us, that is, concerning the bread of the eucharist and concerning the chalice likewise of the eucharist, He even then foretells, adding this also, that His name is glorified by us, but profaned by you."

In hoc testimonio illud 1° observandum est Judaicas oblationes umbram et imaginem fuisse sacrificii Christianorum ; hoc sacrificium purum esse et Deo acceptum, et a Deo per prophetam Malachiam praenuntiatum. Quis ergo verum illud sacrificium esse dubitet, quod et figuris Veteris Testamenti adumbrari, et prophetarum oraculis clare et aperte praenuntiari necesse fuit ?

In this testimony it must be observed, 1st, that the Jewish offerings were a shadow and image of the sacrifice of Christians; that this sacrifice is pure and acceptable to God, and foretold by God through the prophet Malachi. Who, therefore, can doubt that that is a true sacrifice, which needed both to be foreshadowed by the figures of the Old Testament and to be clearly and openly foretold by the oracles of the prophets?

2° Conceptis verbis sacrificium Christianorum appellat panem eucharistiae et calicem eucharistiae. De iis autem, quae ipsi in omni loco a nobis offeruntur sacrificiis, id est de pane eucharistiae et de calice similiter eucharistiae, etc. Quid sit panis et calix eucharistiae supra vidimus, ubi Justinus docet alimoniam εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν, incarnati illius Jesu carnem et sanguinem esse. Est ergo sacrificium Christianorum incarnati Jesu caro et sanguis, quae Deo offeruntur.

2nd, In express terms he calls the sacrifice of Christians the bread of the eucharist and the chalice of the eucharist. Now concerning those sacrifices which are offered to Him in every place by us, that is, concerning the bread of the eucharist and concerning the chalice likewise of the eucharist, etc. What the bread and chalice of the eucharist are we have seen above, where Justin teaches that the food over which thanks have been given is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. The sacrifice of Christians, therefore, is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, which are offered to God.

Editors' notes and page, col. 74

Footnotes

(20) ‹anchor: in gentibus, dicit Dominus› · call in col 74

Malach. I, 10 11.

Malachi 1:10–11.

(printed under page 43)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 74
marginal letters: A ficii rationem; B ex sacrificii; C vestris, propterea; D ficium esse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ficii rationem attinent; word split at start of column: ficii

PG 6:75

3° Panem eucharistiae Dominus noster Jesus Christus in passionis suae recordationem fieri praecepit. Hinc etiam, n. 117, declarat S. martyr Christianos in hoc sacrificio passionis illius, quam propter eos passus est Dei Filius, recordari. At quomodo passio Domini in hoc sacrificio repraesentatur ? Res est ad discendum perfacilis ex Justino. Nam in loco, quem supra deprompsimus ex majore Apologia, postquam dixit alimoniam consecratam esse incarnati Jesu carnem et sanguinem, addit apostolos tradidisse, sic sibi a Christo mandatum, ut hoc facerent in ejus commemorationem. Credebat ergo S. martyr passionem Domini in eucharistia repraesentari, cum ipsius caro et sanguis, per verba ab ipso pronuntiata, in altari sistuntur, et Deo offeruntur.

3rd, Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded the bread of the eucharist to be made in remembrance of His passion. Hence also, at no. 117, the holy martyr declares that Christians in this sacrifice remember that passion which the Son of God suffered for their sake. But how is the passion of the Lord represented in this sacrifice? The matter is very easy to learn from Justin. For in the passage which we drew above from the greater Apology, after he has said that the consecrated food is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, he adds that the apostles handed down that it was thus commanded to them by Christ, that they should do this in commemoration of Him. The holy martyr therefore believed that the passion of the Lord is represented in the eucharist when His flesh and blood, through the words pronounced by Himself, are set upon the altar and offered to God.

Ex his facile refellitur Pfaffii sententia, viri inter Lutheranos doctissimi, sed qui frustra sectae suae patrocinium a sanctis Patribus petit in dissert. De oblatione veterum eucharistica, ubi, n. 27, sic Justinum interpretatur, quasi in ejus testimoniis, vel sola laicorum oblatio episcopo, non Deo facta, vel oblatio sacerdotum consecrationem praeveniens innuatur.

From these things is easily refuted the opinion of Pfaff, a most learned man among the Lutherans, but one who in vain seeks patronage for his sect from the holy Fathers in his dissertation On the Eucharistic Oblation of the Ancients, where, at no. 27, he so interprets Justin as though in his testimonies either the offering of the laity alone made to the bishop, not to God, or the offering of the priests preceding the consecration were intimated.

Sed haec interpretatio longissime abludit a mente Justini. Nam neque oblatio laicorum facta sacerdoti, neque sacerdotalis ante consecrationem oblatio, victima et sacrificium Christianorum dicuntur apud Justinum, nec passionem Christi repraesentant ; sed panis eucharistiae et calix eucharistiae, id est, ut ipse Justinus interpretatur, caro et sanguis Jesu incarnati, sunt victima et sacrificium Christianorum et ex Christi praecepto ad memoriam illius passionis celebrandam fiunt.

But this interpretation is furthest removed from the mind of Justin. For neither the offering of the laity made to the priest, nor the priestly offering before the consecration, is called the victim and sacrifice of Christians in Justin, nor do they represent the passion of Christ; but the bread of the eucharist and the chalice of the eucharist, that is, as Justin himself interprets, the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, are the victim and sacrifice of Christians, and by the command of Christ are made for celebrating the memory of His passion.

Non melius ei succedit in alio Dialogi testimonio, n. 117, ubi Justinus sic loquitur : « Ipse equidem preces et gratiarum actiones, quae dignis peraguntur, sola esse perfecta et Deo accepta sacrificia concedo. Atque haec sola facere Christiani didicerunt, cum per alimoniam suam siccam simul et liquidam passionis illius, quam propter eos Filius Dei passus est, recordationem celebrant. » Ex his duo concludit vir eruditus 1° Oblationem eucharisticam non esse propriam aut perfectam, cum solae preces hoc nomen mereantur. 2° Eamdem a Domino et apostolis non mandatam aut injunctam esse.

No better does he succeed in another testimony of the Dialogue, no. 117, where Justin speaks thus: "I myself indeed grant that prayers and thanksgivings which are performed by the worthy are alone perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. And these alone have Christians learned to make, even when through their dry as well as liquid food they celebrate the remembrance of that passion which the Son of God suffered for their sake." From these things the learned man concludes two things: 1st, That the eucharistic oblation is not proper or perfect, since prayers alone merit this name. 2nd, That the same was not commanded or enjoined by the Lord and the apostles.

Ludit semper in ambiguo Pfaffius, et oblationem eucharisticam intelligit eam, quae aut a laicis sacerdoti, aut ab ipso ante consecrationem fit sacerdote. Sed alimonia sicca et liquida, per quam recordatio passionis Domini celebratur, nihil aliud esse potest, ut satis demonstratum est, quam caro et sanguis Jesu incarnati. Sed tamen ne nobis obtrudat Pfaffius solas preces sacrificii nomen mereri, paucis explicanda Justini sententia.

Pfaff always plays upon ambiguity, and understands by the eucharistic oblation that which is made either by the laity to the priest, or by the priest himself before the consecration. But the dry and liquid food through which the remembrance of the passion of the Lord is celebrated can be nothing else, as has been sufficiently demonstrated, than the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus. Yet lest Pfaff obtrude upon us that prayers alone merit the name of sacrifice, Justin's meaning must be explained in a few words.

II. Non animadvertit Cl. Pfaffius quid Justino propositum sit. 1° Utebatur S. martyr argumento ad refellendos Judaeos maxime apposito, et ex Malachiae vaticinio monstrabat eos verae religionis

2. The illustrious Pfaff did not notice what was proposed by Justin. 1st, The holy martyr was using an argument most suited for refuting the Jews, and from the prophecy of Malachi was showing that they had fallen from the possession of true religion

Editors' notes and page, col. 75

Page

running head: 75 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A 3° Panem; B runtur.; C est, ut ipse; D solae preces
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: 3° Panem eucharistiae

PG 6:76

possessione excidisse, quia eorum sacrificia rejecta sunt, Christianos autem, quorum sacrificium ab ipso Deo commendatur, genus esse sacerdotale. Judaei, ut hoc argumentum eluderent, sic Malachiam interpretari solebant, teste ibidem Justino, ut eorum qui Jerosolymis habitabant, sacrificia a Deo rejici ; eorum autem, qui in gentibus dispersi erant, preces Deo acceptas esse et idcirco sacrificia appellari dicerent. Soli ergo Judaei preces et gratiarum actiones etiam sine sacrificio exteriore ad veram religionem verumque sacrificium sufficere contendunt. At cum eis pugnat Justini sententia, qui hoc ipso in loco objicit eis exterius sacrificium Christianorum, in quo passionis Dominicae sub panis et vini speciebus memoria recolitur. 2° Cum eis concedit preces et gratiarum actiones sola esse perfecta et Deo accepta sacrificia, non ea mente id facit, ut excludat exterioris rei oblationem, sed quia preces et gratiarum actiones cum hac oblatione conjungendas esse noverat, alioquin perfectum non fore sacrificium, nec ullum Deo honorem a nobis perventurum. Simili ratiocinatione Clemens Alex., Strom., IV, pag. 481, concedit haereticis, qui martyrium vituperabant, verum martyrium in Dei cognitione positum esse : Τινὲς δὲ τῶν αἱρετικῶν, τοῦ Κυρίου παρακηκοότες, ἀσεβῶς ἅμα καὶ δειλῶς φιλοζωοῦσι, μαρτυρίαν λέγοντες ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ὄντως ὄντος γνῶσιν Θεοῦ. Ὅσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν. « Quidam haeretici, cum male Dominum intellexerint, impie simul et ignave vitam amant, verum esse testimonium dicentes cognitionem illius, qui vere est Deus : quod quidem et nos confitemur. »

because their sacrifices have been rejected, whereas Christians, whose sacrifice is commended by God Himself, are a priestly race. The Jews, in order to elude this argument, were accustomed so to interpret Malachi, as Justin testifies in the same place, as to say that the sacrifices of those who dwelt in Jerusalem were rejected by God; whereas the prayers of those who were dispersed among the Gentiles were acceptable to God and for that reason were called sacrifices. Only the Jews, therefore, contend that prayers and thanksgivings even without an exterior sacrifice suffice for true religion and true sacrifice. But Justin's view fights against them, who in this very place objects to them the exterior sacrifice of Christians, in which the memory of the Lord's passion is recalled under the appearances of bread and wine. 2nd, When he grants to them that prayers and thanksgivings are alone perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God, he does not do so with the intention of excluding the oblation of an exterior thing, but because he knew that prayers and thanksgivings must be conjoined with this oblation, otherwise the sacrifice would not be perfect, nor would any honour reach God from us. By a similar reasoning Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 4, p. 481, grants to the heretics who disparaged martyrdom that true martyrdom lies in the knowledge of God: And some of the heretics, having misunderstood the Lord, at once impiously and cowardly love life, saying that true testimony is the knowledge of Him Who truly is God. Which very thing we also confess. "Certain heretics, having misunderstood the Lord, at once impiously and cowardly love life, saying that true testimony is the knowledge of Him Who truly is God: which indeed we also confess."

3° Panem eucharisticum, ut jam dixi, conceptis verbis appellat sacrificium, n. 41, eumque distinguit a precibus, per quas consecratur, Apol. 1, n. 66.

3rd, In express terms, as I have already said, he calls the eucharistic bread a sacrifice, no. 41, and distinguishes it from the prayers through which it is consecrated, Apology 1, no. 66.

4° Preces illae, quas Christiani in celebranda passionis Dominicae memoria facere didicerunt, nihil aliud sunt quam oblatio corporis et sanguinis Domini pro vivis et mortuis, ut videre est in antiquissima liturgia lib. VIII Constitut. apostolicarum, eique simillima quam in Apol. 1 describit Justinus. Sic enim habent preces, quae post consecrationem funduntur : Προσφέρομέν σοι, Offerimus tibi pro populo hoc, etc. Non aliae profecto sunt memoratae a Justino preces in omnibus oblationibus pro aeterna vita consequenda. Apol. 1, n. 66.

4th, Those prayers which Christians have learned to make in celebrating the memory of the Lord's passion are nothing else than the oblation of the body and blood of the Lord for the living and the dead, as may be seen in the most ancient liturgy in book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, and the one very similar to it which Justin describes in Apology 1. For thus run the prayers which are poured forth after the consecration: We offer to Thee, We offer to Thee for this people, etc. Assuredly no other are the prayers mentioned by Justin in all oblations for obtaining eternal life, Apology 1, no. 66.

III. Gratum me legentibus facturum puto, si eorum oculis exponam venerandi Christianorum sacrificii descriptionem, qualis a Justino sub finem Apol. 1 summatim texitur. Initium ducit a baptismo. « Quomodo autem nos Deo consecraverimus, inquit, Apol. 1, n. 61, per Christum renovati, id quoque exponemus, ne quid improbe, si hoc praetermittamus, in enarrandis rebus agere videamur. Quicunque persuasum habuerint et crediderint vera esse, quae a nobis docentur et dicuntur, seque ita vivere posse promiserint, ii precari et jejunantes priorum peccatorum veniam a Deo petere

3. I think that I shall do a welcome service to readers if I set before their eyes the description of the venerable sacrifice of Christians, such as is summarily woven by Justin towards the end of Apology 1. He takes his beginning from baptism. "Moreover, how we dedicated ourselves to God," says he, Apology 1, no. 61, "having been renewed through Christ, this also we will set forth, lest, if we pass this over, we seem to act in any way dishonestly in recounting matters. Whoever are persuaded and believe that the things taught and said by us are true, and promise that they are able to live thus, are taught to pray and, fasting, to ask from God forgiveness of their former sins,

Editors' notes and page, col. 76

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 76
marginal letters: A possessione excidisse; B preces et gratiarum; C lexerint, impie; D populo hoc
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: possessione excidisse

PG 6:77

docentur, nobis una precantibus et jejunantibus. Deinde eo ducuntur a nobis, ubi aqua est, et eodem regenerationis modo regenerantur, quo et ipsi sumus regenerati. Nam in nomine parentis universorum ac Domini Dei ac Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi et Spiritus sancti lavacrum in aqua tunc suscipiunt. » Videtur Justinus non ea solum credendi et vivendi praecepta indicare, quae quotidie catechumenis tradebantur, sed ea potissimum, quae cum ipso baptismo jungebantur, nimirum interrogationes et responsiones, abrenuntiationes et professionem fidei. Id confirmat Justinus, n. 65. Ipsa illa verba, Deinde eo ducuntur a nobis ubi aqua est, aliud suspicari non sinunt. Ex quibus illud etiam patet haec omnia in ipsa ecclesia peragi solita fuisse, antequam baptizandus ad sacrum fontem duceretur. Sic etiam jejunia hic memorata baptismum ipsum proxime antecedunt, et ab aliis Christianis una cum baptizando observantur, quale est illud jejunium quod Petrus pridie baptismi indicit in Clementina homil. 13, n. 12. Vid. Constitut. apost., lib. VII, c. 22.

while we pray and fast together with them. Then they are led by us to the place where water is, and are regenerated by the same manner of regeneration by which we ourselves also were regenerated. For in the name of the Parent of all and Lord God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing in water." Justin seems to indicate not only those precepts of believing and living which were daily delivered to the catechumens, but chiefly those which were joined with baptism itself, namely the interrogations and responses, the renunciations and the profession of faith. Justin confirms this at no. 65. Those very words, Then they are led by us to the place where water is, do not allow one to suspect otherwise. From which this also is clear, that all these things were accustomed to be performed in the church itself, before the one to be baptized was led to the sacred font. Thus also the fasts mentioned here immediately precede baptism itself, and are observed by the other Christians together with the one to be baptized, such as is that fast which Peter proclaims on the day before baptism in the Clementine Homily 13, no. 12. See Apostolic Constitutions, book 7, ch. 22.

Nihil hic de sacramento confirmationis Justinus : neque id mirum. Non catholicis scribebat, sed imperatores ethnicos alloquebatur, apud quos minime necessaria erat hujus rei enuntiatio. Deinde vero baptismum ita describit Justinus, ut ipse illum (presbyterum enim fuisse Justinum non levis conjectura est) solebat administrare ; nimirum sine confirmatione, quae episcopis reservata erat. Saepe eveniebant presbyteris baptizandi occasiones, nec maturi baptismo ob fervidam pietatem catechumeni solemnes baptismi dies exspectabant. Unde Tertullianus lib. De baptismo, c. 19 : « Caeterum omnis dies Domini est, omnis hora, omne tempus habile baptismo : si de solemnitate interest, de gratia nihil interest. »

Justin says nothing here concerning the sacrament of confirmation: nor is that wonderful. He was not writing to Catholics, but was addressing pagan emperors, before whom the declaration of this matter was by no means necessary. Next, moreover, Justin so describes baptism as he himself (for it is no slight conjecture that Justin was a presbyter) was accustomed to administer it; namely, without confirmation, which was reserved to bishops. Occasions of baptizing often befell presbyters, nor did catechumens ripe for baptism on account of fervent piety await the solemn days of baptism. Whence Tertullian in his book On Baptism, ch. 19: "For the rest, every day is the Lord's, every hour, every time is suitable for baptism: if there is a difference as to solemnity, as to grace there is no difference."

IV. Necesse non est admonere id quod quisque satis perspicit, baptisma post dimissos catechumenos et poenitentes dari solitum fuisse. Nam, ut patet ex testimonio, quod mox referemus, qui baptizatus fuerat, statim deducebatur ad ecclesiam, et liturgiae preces fiebant. Synaxes, in quibus non dabatur baptismus, sic breviter describit, n. 67 : Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ. Εἶτα παυσαμένου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος, ὁ προεστὼς διὰ λόγου τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν τῆς τῶν καλῶν τούτων μιμήσεως ποιεῖται. Ἔπειτα ἀνιστάμεθα κοινῇ πάντες, καὶ εὐχὰς πέμπομεν· καὶ, ὡς προέφημεν, παυσαμένων ἡμῶν τῆς εὐχῆς, ἄρτος προσφέρεται καὶ οἶνος καὶ ὕδωρ, καὶ ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως καὶ εὐχαριστίας, ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ, ἀναπέμπει, καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων τὸ Ἀμήν· καὶ ἡ διάδοσις καὶ ἡ μετάληψις ἀπὸ τῶν εὐχαριστηθέντων ἑκάστῳ γίνεται, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσι διὰ τῶν διακόνων πέμπεται. « Solis, ut dicitur, die, omnium sive urbes, sive agros incolentium

4. It is not necessary to point out what everyone sufficiently perceives, that baptism was accustomed to be given after the catechumens and penitents had been dismissed. For, as is clear from the testimony which we shall presently cite, he who had been baptized was immediately led to the church, and the prayers of the liturgy were made. The assemblies in which baptism was not given he briefly describes thus, no. 67: On the day called that of the sun, an assembly into the same place is made of all who abide in cities or country districts, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, he who presides makes through a discourse the admonition and invitation to the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise up in common and send up prayers; and, as we said before, when we have ceased from the prayer, bread is brought forward and wine and water, and he who presides sends up prayers likewise and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying the Amen; and the distribution and participation from the things over which thanks have been given is made to each one, and to those who are not present it is sent through the deacons. "On the day of the sun, as it is called, of all who inhabit either cities or country districts

Editors' notes and page, col. 77

Page

running head: 77 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A docentur, nobis; B fuisse, antequam; C eveniebant presbyteris; D τοῦ ἡλίου
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: docentur, nobis una

PG 6:78

in eumdem locum fit conventus, et commentaria apostolorum, aut scripta prophetarum leguntur, quoad licet per tempus. Deinde ubi lector desiit, is qui praeest admonitionem verbis et adhortationem ad res tam praeclaras imitandas suscipit. Postea omnes simul consurgimus et preces emittimus, atque, ut jam diximus, ubi desiimus precari, panis affertur et vinum et aqua, et qui praeest, preces et gratiarum actiones totis viribus emittit, et populus acclamat : Amen, et eorum, in quibus gratiae actae sunt, distributio fit et communicatio unicuique praesentium, et absentibus per diaconos mittitur. » Huic liturgiae simillima est ea, quae in Constitutionibus apostolicis exstat lib. VIII, et quidquid ibi articulate exponitur, id Justinus summatim indicat.

an assembly is made into the same place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, he who presides undertakes with words the admonition and exhortation to imitate things so noble. Afterwards we all rise up together and send forth prayers, and, as we have already said, when we have ceased to pray, bread is brought and wine and water, and he who presides sends forth prayers and thanksgivings with all his might, and the people acclaim: Amen, and of those things over which thanks have been given a distribution and communication is made to each of those present, and to those absent it is sent through the deacons." Very similar to this liturgy is that which is extant in the Apostolic Constitutions, book 8, and whatever is articulately set forth there, Justin summarily indicates.

Ille omnium sive urbes sive agros incolentium in eumdem locum conventus, non sine aliqua exceptione intelligendus. Nam ubi vehemens erat persecutio, id fieri non poterat : unde interrogatus a praefecto Justinus quem in locum Christiani convenirent, respondet eo unumquemque convenire quo velit aut possit. « An, inquit, existimas omnes nos in eumdem locum convenire solitos ? Minime res ita se habet. » Praeterea in magnis civitatibus unus omnes Christianos locus excipere non potuisset. Quinetiam Romae videntur nonnullae exstitisse ecclesiae, in quibus ad commodum eorum, qui ex Oriente Romam veniebant, liturgia Graeco ritu et Graeca lingua celebraretur. Nam interrogatus a praefecto, ut modo vidimus, Justinus declarat se manere prope domum Martini cujusdam ad balneum cognomento Timiotinum, ac per totum tempus, quod Romae traduxit, alium conventus locum non cognovisse. In hac ergo domo mysteria celebrari solebant, idque Graecae Ecclesiae ritu et lingua ; utpote ab ipso Justino, ut verisimile est, celebrata. Atque id causae esse puto, cur liturgia a S. martyre exposita, non Romanae, sed ei, quae est in Constitutionibus apostolicis, similis sit. Qui cum Justino comprehensi sunt et morte damnati, videntur Justinum habuisse animarum suarum rectorem et ex iis locis, ubi Graeca lingua vigebat, Romam venisse. Quaerit enim ex iis praefectus an non eos Justinus Christianos fecerit ? Evelpistus se Justini sermones magna cum voluptate audire solitum dicit. Is e Cappadocia, Hierax Iconio Romam venerat.

That assembly of all who inhabit either cities or country districts into the same place is not to be understood without some exception. For where persecution was vehement, this could not be done: whence Justin, when interrogated by the prefect into what place the Christians assembled, replies that each one assembles whither he wishes or is able. "Or do you think," says he, "that we are all accustomed to assemble into the same place? By no means is the matter so." Besides, in great cities one place could not have received all the Christians. Moreover, at Rome there seem to have existed some churches in which, for the convenience of those who came to Rome from the East, the liturgy was celebrated in the Greek rite and the Greek tongue. For when interrogated by the prefect, as we have just seen, Justin declares that he abides near the house of a certain Martin at the bath surnamed Timiotinum, and during the whole time that he spent at Rome had known no other place of assembly. In this house, therefore, the mysteries were accustomed to be celebrated, and that in the rite and tongue of the Greek Church; inasmuch as they were celebrated, as is probable, by Justin himself. And this I think to be the reason why the liturgy set forth by the holy martyr is similar, not to the Roman, but to that which is in the Apostolic Constitutions. Those who were arrested with Justin and condemned to death seem to have had Justin as the director of their souls, and to have come to Rome from those places where the Greek tongue flourished. For the prefect asks of them whether Justin did not make them Christians? Euelpistus says that he was accustomed to hear the discourses of Justin with great pleasure. He had come to Rome from Cappadocia, and Hierax from Iconium.

Legebantur Scripturae Veteris et Novi Testamenti, atque, ut praescribitur lib. II, c. 57, earumdem Constitut. populum hortabantur singuli presbyteri et postremo episcopus. Cum hoc praescripto non pugnat Justinus, qui summa rerum fastigia enarrat, et idcirco nihil de catechumenis et poenitentibus dimitti solitis ait, ac praeterea eam edisserit liturgiam, quae etiam ecclesiis unum tantummodo presbyterum habentibus conveniebat, ὁ προεστὼς, is qui praeest, sive praesidens saepe apud antiquos episcopum designat, interdum etiam presbyteri hoc donantur nomine, imo clerus generatim comprehenditur,

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were read, and, as is prescribed in book 2, ch. 57, of the same Constitutions, the individual presbyters and finally the bishop exhorted the people. With this prescription Justin is not at variance, who recounts the chief heads of matters, and for that reason says nothing of the catechumens and penitents accustomed to be dismissed, and besides sets forth that liturgy which suited even churches having only one presbyter; he who presides, he who is in charge, or the president, often among the ancients designates the bishop, sometimes presbyters also are gifted with this name, nay, the clergy generally is comprehended,

Editors' notes and page, col. 78

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 78
marginal letters: A in eumdem; B Ille omnium; C a praefecto; D sermones magna
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: in eumdem locum; word split at end of column: comprehendi-

PG 6:79

ut videre est apud Euseb., Hist., lib. VIII, c. 6.

as may be seen in Eusebius, History, book 8, ch. 6.

V. Secundam liturgiae partem indicat his verbis Justinus : Postea omnes simul consurgimus ac preces emittimus. Preces illae vocantur κηρύγματα, sive praedicationes in epist. 155 S. Basilii. Annuntiabat eas diaconus, ut videre est in lib. VIII Constitut. apost., ubi sic describuntur, ut eas facile sit agnoscere in his Justini verbis n. 65 : « Nos autem postquam eum, qui fidem suam et assensum doctrinae nostrae testatus est, sic abluimus, ad eos, qui dicuntur fratres, deducimus, ubi illi congregati sunt, communes preces et pro nobismetipsis, et pro eo qui illuminatus est, et pro aliis ubique omnibus intento animo facturi, ut veritatis cognitionem adepti hac etiam gratia dignemur, ut rectam operibus vitam agentes et praeceptorum custodes inveniamur, quo salutem aeternam assequamur. » Recte dicit Justinus pro aliis ubique omnibus has preces fieri. Nam, ut videre est lib. II Constitut., c. 57, orabant pro universa Ecclesia, pro toto mundo et ejus partibus, et frugibus terrae, pro sacerdotibus et rectoribus, pro summo sacerdote, pro rege ac pace universali. Plura vide lib. VIII, c. 11 et epist. 155 Basil.

5. The second part of the liturgy Justin indicates in these words: Afterwards we all rise up together and send forth prayers. Those prayers are called proclamations, or preachings, in epistle 155 of St. Basil. The deacon announced them, as may be seen in book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, where they are so described that it is easy to recognize them in these words of Justin at no. 65: "But we, after we have thus washed him who has testified his faith and assent to our teaching, lead him to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled, about to make common prayers with intent mind both for ourselves, and for him who has been illuminated, and for all others everywhere, that having obtained the knowledge of the truth we may be counted worthy of this grace also, that living an upright life in works and being keepers of the commandments we may be found, whereby we may attain eternal salvation." Rightly does Justin say that these prayers are made for all others everywhere. For, as may be seen in book 2 of the Constitutions, ch. 57, they prayed for the whole Church, for the whole world and its parts, and for the fruits of the earth, for priests and rulers, for the high priest, for the king and universal peace. For more see book 8, ch. 11, and epistle 155 of Basil.

Consecrationem eucharistiae, quae praecipua pars est liturgiae, sic uberius edisserit n. 65 : Ἀλλήλους φιλήματι ἀσπαζόμεθα παυσάμενοι τῶν εὐχῶν. Ἔπειτα προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος, καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ἀναπέμπει· καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσθαι τούτων παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται. Οὗ συντελέσαντος τὰς εὐχὰς καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων, Ἀμήν. Τὸ δὲ ἀμήν, τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνῇ, τὸ γένοιτο σημαίνει. Εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος καὶ ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ' ἡμῖν διάκονοι, διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου, καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέρουσι. « Invicem osculo salutamus, ubi desiimus precari. Deinde ei, qui fratribus praeest, panis affertur et poculum aquae et vini, quibus ille acceptis, laudem et gloriam universorum parenti per nomen Filii et Spiritus sancti emittit, et eucharistiam, sive gratiarum actionem, pro his ab illo acceptis donis prolixe exsequitur. Postquam preces et eucharistiam absolvit, populus omnis acclamat : Amen. Amen autem Hebraea lingua idem valet ac Fiat. Postquam vero is, qui praeest, preces absolvit et populus omnis acclamavit ; qui apud nos dicuntur diaconi panem, et vinum, et aquam, in quibus gratiae actae sunt, unicuique praesentium participanda distribuunt et ad absentes perferunt. » Non difficile est explicare cur dicat Justinus sacerdotem eucharistiam prolixe exsequi. Erat enim haec oratio multo longior iis, quae praecesserant, ut suis quisque oculis cernere potest lib. VIII Constitut., cap. 12, et quamvis plurima et ante et post consecrationem complecteretur, nullo tamen diaconorum ministerio, nulla interrumpebatur

The consecration of the eucharist, which is the chief part of the liturgy, he sets forth more fully thus at no. 65: We salute one another with a kiss when we have ceased from the prayers. Then there is brought forward to him who presides over the brethren bread and a cup of water and of mixed wine, and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and makes thanksgiving at length for our having been counted worthy of these things from Him. When he has completed the prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people present assent, saying, Amen. Now the Amen in the Hebrew tongue signifies So be it. And when he who presides has given thanks and all the people have assented, those who among us are called deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine and water over which thanks have been given, and carry them away to those who are not present. "We salute one another with a kiss when we have ceased to pray. Then to him who presides over the brethren bread is brought and a cup of water and wine, having received which, he sends forth praise and glory to the Parent of all through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and performs at length the eucharist, or thanksgiving, for these gifts received from Him. After he has completed the prayers and the eucharist, all the people acclaim: Amen. Now Amen in the Hebrew tongue means the same as So be it. Moreover, after he who presides has completed the prayers and all the people have acclaimed, those who among us are called deacons distribute the bread, and wine, and water, over which thanks have been given, to each of those present to be partaken of, and carry them to those who are absent." It is not difficult to explain why Justin says that the priest performs the eucharist at length. For this prayer was much longer than those which had preceded, as everyone can see with his own eyes in book 8 of the Constitutions, ch. 12, and although it embraced very many things both before and after the consecration, yet by no ministry of the deacons, by no admonition was it interrupted,

Editors' notes and page, col. 79

Page

running head: 79 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A tur, ut; B ribus vitam; C πει· καὶ; D nem, pro
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: tur, ut videre; words split at start and end of column: tur, in-

PG 6:80

admonitione, nec populus respondebat Amen, nisi omnino absoluta esset. Utrasque preces, id est, et eas, quae dimissis catechumenis et poenitentibus, et eas, quae ad consecrationem eucharistiae fiebant, indicat S. Firmilianus in epistola inter Cyprianicas 75, ubi de quadam muliere nequissima et prophetiam sibi arrogante sic loquitur : « Etiam hoc frequenter ausa est, ut et invocatione non contemptibili sanctificare se panem et eucharistiam facere simularet, et sacrificium Domino non sine sacramento solitae praedicationis offerret. » Invocatio illa non contemptibilis respondet prolixis ad consecrationem eucharistiae precibus ; sacramentum solitae praedicationis congruit communibus precibus, quas jam dixi a sancto Basilio praedicationes vocari.

nor did the people respond Amen unless it was altogether completed. Both prayers, that is, both those which were made after the catechumens and penitents had been dismissed, and those which were made for the consecration of the eucharist, St. Firmilian indicates in epistle 75 among the Cyprianic epistles, where he speaks thus of a certain most wicked woman who arrogated prophecy to herself: "Even this she frequently dared, that both by an invocation not to be despised she feigned that she sanctified bread and made the eucharist, and offered sacrifice to the Lord not without the sacrament of the customary preaching." That invocation not to be despised corresponds to the prolix prayers for the consecration of the eucharist; the sacrament of the customary preaching agrees with the common prayers, which I have already said are called preachings by St. Basil.

Paulo difficilius ad explicandum videtur, cur Justinus communes preces appellet eas, quae dimissis catechumenis et poenitentibus fiebant, easque hac notione secernat ab iis, quae ad consecrationem eucharistiae pertinent. Utrumque enim precationum genus communiter fiebat Ecclesiae nomine ; ad communes preces diaconus invitabat populum ejusque animi attentionem suscitabat ; ad eucharisticas ipse sacerdos dicendo, Sursum corda. Discrimen inde ortum puto quod populi vox in primo precationis genere audiretur, in altero autem solius sacerdotis : unde S. Dionysius Alexandrinus de quodam laico ait apud Euseb. lib. VII, c. 9, eum frequenter audivisse eucharistiam, sive gratiarum actionem, et respondisse Amen. Sed aliud est, quod in hoc discrimine observando S. martyrem secutum existimo. Sciebat preces illas, quas communes vocat, ex eo esse genere, quod sacerdotalem characterem necessario non requirat ; eucharisticas autem nullo in conventu effectum posse sortiri, nisi per eum celebrentur, qui hoc charactere signatus et impressus sit.

It seems a little more difficult to explain why Justin calls those prayers common which were made after the catechumens and penitents had been dismissed, and by this notion separates them from those which pertain to the consecration of the eucharist. For each kind of prayer was made in common in the name of the Church; to the common prayers the deacon invited the people and aroused the attention of their minds; to the eucharistic prayers, the priest himself by saying, Lift up your hearts. I think the distinction arose thence, that the voice of the people was heard in the first kind of prayer, whereas in the other that of the priest alone: whence St. Dionysius of Alexandria says concerning a certain layman in Eusebius, book 7, ch. 9, that he had frequently heard the eucharist, or thanksgiving, and had responded Amen. But there is another thing which I think the holy martyr followed in observing this distinction. He knew that those prayers which he calls common are of that kind which does not necessarily require the priestly character; whereas the eucharistic prayers cannot obtain their effect in any assembly unless they are celebrated through him who is signed and stamped with this character.

VI. De sacra communione non praetermittenda sunt haec Justini verba : « Atque hoc alimentum apud nos vocatur eucharistia cujus nemini licet esse participi, nisi qui credat vera esse quae docemus, atque illo ad remissionem peccatorum et regenerationem lavacro ablutus fuerit, et ita vivat ut Christus tradidit. » Videtur S. Martyr non solum sacerdotum indicare curam et sollicitudinem ut a communione arcerentur indigni, sed etiam ad ea respicere, quae proxime ante communionem fiebant, cum sacerdos diceret : Sancta sanctis, et populus responderet : Unus sanctus, unus Dominus Jesus Christus.

6. Concerning holy communion these words of Justin are not to be passed over: "And this food among us is called eucharist, of which it is lawful for no one to be a partaker except one who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with that washing for the remission of sins and unto regeneration, and who so lives as Christ handed down." The holy Martyr seems not only to indicate the care and solicitude of the priests that the unworthy should be kept away from communion, but also to look to those things which were done immediately before communion, when the priest said: Holy things for the holy, and the people responded: One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ.

Magno honore diaconos auget Justinus, si utramque speciem consecratam ab eis distribui testatur : qui quidem ritus nec in Romana Ecclesia vigebat, nec in Jerosolymitana, nec in ea cui addictus erat is qui apostolis Constitutiones supposuit. Sed duo loca, in quibus Justinus de eucharistiae distributione loquitur, sic videntur intelligenda, ut panem

Justin exalts the deacons with great honour if he testifies that each consecrated species is distributed by them: which rite indeed neither flourished in the Roman Church, nor in that of Jerusalem, nor in that to which he was attached who forged the Constitutions under the name of the apostles. But the two passages in which Justin speaks of the distribution of the eucharist seem so to be understood, that the bread

Editors' notes and page, col. 80

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 80
marginal letters: A terrumpebatur admonitione; B quas jam; C vidisse eucharistiam; D nerationem lavacro
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: terrumpebatur admonitione; word split at start of column: terrumpebatur

PG 6:81

consecratum diaconi ad absentes pertulisse, calicem praesentibus distribuisse dicantur, quod quidem Ecclesiae consuetudini consentaneum reperietur. Restringi profecto debent S. martyris verba, ubi de absentibus agitur, et de solo pane consecrato intelligendum quod ait : Qui apud nos dicuntur diaconi panem, et vinum, et aquam, in quibus gratiae actae sunt, unicuique praesentium participanda distribuunt et ad absentes perferunt. Ad absentes enim solus panis consecratus perferri solebat. Simili ratione restringendum id quod de praesentibus dicitur ; hi enim ad altare accedebant et primam speciem de manu sacerdotis sumebant ; calix distribuebatur a diaconis. Usitata erat Justino haec duorum verborum ad res diversas pertinentium conjunctio ; exemplum supra vidimus cap. 4, ubi de angelis Justini testimonium expendimus. Aliud habemus his in verbis Dialog., n. 82. « Ne Scripturas et Christum blasphemiis appetatis aut prave interpretari studeatis. » Ut blasphemiae ad Christum, prava interpretatio ad Scripturas referenda, ita in diaconorum muniis eadem adhibenda distinctio, ita ut calicem praesentibus distribuisse, alteram speciem ad absentes pertulisse dicantur. Sic etiam Tertullianus De pudic., c. 1 : Ex metu et voto aeterni ignis et regni. Altero in loco non dicit Justinus eucharistiam praesentibus distribui a diaconis, sed tantum ad absentes ferri, quod quidem facile est de prima specie intelligere. Ait enim : « Eorum, in quibus gratiae actae sunt, distributio fit et communicatio unicuique praesentium, et absentibus per diaconos mittitur. » Allata a Valesio exempla in notis ad Hist. Euseb., p. 136 et 318, de solo calice accipi debent. Quod enim ait auctor libelli De septem gradibus Ecclesiae, t. V Hieronymi, p. 102 : Sicut in sacerdote consecratio, ita in ministro est sacramenti dispensatio... ille oblata sanctificat, hic sanctificata dispensat ; id ipse paulo post de calice exponit, quem post consecrationem omnium sacramentorum a diacono tradi testatur.

consecrated the deacons are said to have carried to the absent, and to have distributed the chalice to those present, which indeed will be found agreeable to the custom of the Church. Assuredly the words of the holy martyr ought to be restricted where it is a question of the absent, and what he says must be understood of the consecrated bread alone: Those who among us are called deacons distribute the bread, and wine, and water, over which thanks have been given, to each of those present to be partaken of, and carry them to those who are absent. For to the absent the consecrated bread alone was accustomed to be carried. In a similar way what is said of those present must be restricted; for these approached the altar and took the first species from the hand of the priest; the chalice was distributed by the deacons. Customary with Justin was this conjunction of two words pertaining to diverse things; we have seen an example above in ch. 4, where we weighed Justin's testimony concerning the angels. We have another in these words of the Dialogue, no. 82: "Do not assail the Scriptures and Christ with blasphemies or strive to interpret them perversely." As blasphemies are to be referred to Christ, and perverse interpretation to the Scriptures, so in the duties of the deacons the same distinction is to be applied, so that they are said to have distributed the chalice to those present, and to have carried the other species to the absent. Thus also Tertullian, On Modesty, ch. 1: From fear and desire of eternal fire and the kingdom. In the other passage Justin does not say that the eucharist is distributed to those present by the deacons, but only that it is carried to the absent, which indeed it is easy to understand of the first species. For he says: "Of those things over which thanks have been given a distribution and communication is made to each of those present, and to those absent it is sent through the deacons." The examples adduced by Valesius in his notes to the History of Eusebius, pp. 136 and 318, ought to be taken of the chalice alone. For what the author of the tract On the Seven Orders of the Church says in vol. 5 of Jerome, p. 102: Just as consecration is in the priest, so the dispensation of the sacrament is in the minister... the former sanctifies the offerings, the latter dispenses the sanctified things; this he himself a little after explains of the chalice, which he testifies is delivered by the deacon after the consecration of all the sacraments.

Diaconos Justinus excludere videtur ab earum rerum dispensatione, quas fideles ad cleri victum et cultum offerebant. Sic enim loquitur, n. 67 : « Qui abundant et volunt, suo arbitrio quod quisque vult largitur, et quod colligitur apud eum, qui praeest, deponitur, ac ipse subvenit pupillis et viduis, et iis qui vel ob morbum, vel aliam ob causam egent, tum etiam iis qui in vinculis sunt et advenientibus peregre hospitibus ; uno verbo omnium indigentium curam suscipit. » Haec tamen sic explicari possunt, ut summa auctoritas penes episcopos fuisse dicatur, administratio episcopali auctoritati subjecta penes diaconos. Nam cum in Constit. apost., lib. II, c. 25, eadem tribuatur episcopo potestas, ac in hac Justini narratione ; postea, c. 31 et 32, praescribitur diaconis ut nihil prorsus injussu episcopi largiantur ; quod argumento

Justin seems to exclude the deacons from the dispensation of those things which the faithful offered for the maintenance and support of the clergy. For thus he speaks at no. 67: "Those who abound and are willing bestow, each according to his own choice, what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with him who presides, and he himself succours orphans and widows, and those who are in want either on account of sickness or for some other cause, and those also who are in bonds and strangers arriving from abroad; in a word, he undertakes the care of all who are in need." Yet these things can be so explained that the supreme authority is said to have been with the bishops, and the administration subject to the episcopal authority with the deacons. For whereas in the Apostolic Constitutions, book 2, ch. 25, the same power is attributed to the bishop as in this narrative of Justin; afterwards, in chs. 31 and 32, it is prescribed to the deacons that they bestow nothing whatever without the order of the bishop; which is a proof

Editors' notes and page, col. 81

Page

running head: 81 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A consecratum diaconi; B junctio; exemplum; C nicatio unicuique; D que vult
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: consecratum diaconi

PG 6:82

est eos dispensandarum oblationum partes aliquas sustinuisse.

that they sustained some part in dispensing the offerings.

CAPUT XI.

Chapter XI.

De animae immortalitate et daemonum ac malorum hominum ante extremum judicium statu.

Concerning the immortality of the soul and the state of demons and wicked men before the last judgement.

I. Justini testimonia de immortalitate animarum. II. Cum his non pugnant quae leguntur initio Dialogi. III. Tatianus defenditur adversus doctissimum abbatem de Longuerue. IV. Scripturae et Patrum testimonia favent Justino et Tatiano. V. Daemones nondum igne torqueri existimat Justinus. VI. De malis hominibus aliud sentit.

1. Justin's testimonies concerning the immortality of souls. 2. What is read at the beginning of the Dialogue is not at variance with these. 3. Tatian is defended against the most learned Abbé de Longuerue. 4. The testimonies of Scripture and of the Fathers favour Justin and Tatian. 5. Justin supposes that the demons are not yet tormented with fire. 6. Concerning wicked men he holds a different view.

I. Postquam disserui de subsidiis a Christo Salvatore ad aeternam vitam concessis, sequitur ut quid Justinus de animarum statu post mortem, quid de justorum resurrectione, sive de regno mille annorum senserit, examinem. Sed quia exstant nonnulla cum apud S. martyrem, tum apud discipulum ejus Tatianum, quae cum animarum immortalitate pugnare non pauci existiment, nihil prius faciendum, quam ut accurate vestigem, quid uterque his de rebus senserit ; an suppliciis animas ita imminutum iri crediderint, ut tandem aliquando ad nihilum redeant.

1. After I have discoursed concerning the helps granted by Christ the Saviour unto eternal life, it follows that I should examine what Justin felt concerning the state of souls after death, and what concerning the resurrection of the just, or the reign of a thousand years. But because there exist some things both in the holy martyr and in his disciple Tatian which not a few suppose to be at variance with the immortality of souls, nothing must be done before I accurately investigate what each felt concerning these matters; whether they believed that souls would be so diminished by punishments that at length they would at some time return to nothing.

Quod spectat ad Justinum, didicerat ab ipso Platone immortalitatem animarum, nec probabile est eum in Christiana religione dedidicisse, si quid boni e Platonicis scholis attulisset. Quin potius aeternitatem poenarum, quae impiis in altera vita infliguntur, ut proprium Christianae religionis dogma, ne Platoni quidem cognitum defendit. « Similiter quidem Plato, dicit in Apologia 1, n. 8, improbos cum ad Rhadamanthum et Minoem venerint, punitum iri ab illis dixit. Nos autem idem illis eventurum dicimus, sed a Christo ; idque exsistentibus in iisdem corporibus una cum suis animabus, ac aeterna poena plectendis, non mille annorum circuitu, ut iste dixit, definita. » Docet, n. 17, Christianos credere et persuasum habere unumquemque pro meritis actionum suarum poenas igne aeterno daturum, tum sic imperatores alloquitur, n. 18 : « Respicite finem cujusque superiorum imperatorum, qui communem omnibus mortem obierunt : quae si in statum sensus expertem evaderet, de lucro esset improbis omnibus. Sed quia sensus manet in iis omnibus qui exstiterunt, ac supplicia aeterna reposita sunt ; ne vos pigeat haec vera esse persuaderi ac credere. » Aeterno igni nullum omnino finem statuere potuit, cum hunc errorem in Platone exagitet, ac improbis de lucro futurum dicat, si in statum sensus expertem evaderent. Haec confirmantur ex n. 52, ubi sic ait : « Quod autem dictum est : Gladius depascet vos, non hanc vim et sententiam habet, ut gladio necandi sint qui non paruerint ; sed gladius Dei ignis est, cujus esca fiunt, qui mala patrare in animum inducunt. Hinc ait : Gladius depascet vos. Os enim Domini locutum est. Quod si de secante et confestim dimittente gladio loqueretur, non diceret, depascet. »

As regards Justin, he had learned the immortality of souls from Plato himself, nor is it probable that he unlearned in the Christian religion whatever good he had brought from the Platonic schools. Nay rather, he defends the eternity of the punishments which are inflicted on the impious in the other life as a dogma proper to the Christian religion, not known even to Plato. "Similarly indeed Plato," says he in Apology 1, no. 8, "said that when the wicked come to Rhadamanthus and Minos, they will be punished by them. But we say that the same thing will happen to them, yet from Christ; and that to them existing in the same bodies together with their souls, and to be punished with eternal punishment, not bounded by a period of a thousand years, as he said." He teaches, at no. 17, that Christians believe and are persuaded that each one will pay the penalty in eternal fire according to the merits of his actions, and then addresses the emperors thus, at no. 18: "Look to the end of each of the former emperors, who died the death common to all: which, if it issued in a state devoid of sense, would be a gain to all the wicked. But because sense remains in all who have existed, and eternal punishments are laid up, do not be reluctant to be persuaded and believe that these things are true." He could set no end at all to eternal fire, since he censures this error in Plato, and says that it would be a gain to the wicked if they issued in a state devoid of sense. These things are confirmed from no. 52, where he speaks thus: "Moreover, what was said: The sword shall devour you, does not have this force and meaning, that those who do not obey are to be slain with a sword; but the sword of God is fire, the food of which those become who resolve in their mind to commit evil. Hence he says: The sword shall devour you. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. Whereas if he were speaking of a sword that cuts and immediately lets go, he would not say, shall devour."

Editors' notes and page, col. 82

Footnotes

(20*) ‹anchor: autem dictum est› · call in col 82 Isai. I, 20.

Isaiah 1:20.

(printed under page 47)

Page

running head: NI PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 82
marginal letters: A est eos; B annorum senserit; C dem Plato; D vos pigeat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: est eos dispensandarum, CAPUT XI., De animae immortalitate, I. Justini testimonia, I. Postquam disserui

PG 6:83

In exordio Apologiae alterius Christianos appellat eos quibus persuasum est improbos et libidinosos aeterno igne excruciatum iri, virtutis autem cultores extra omnem perpessionem cum Deo victuros. Non magis ergo improborum suppliciis finem statuisse dicendus est, quam bonorum praemiis. Ibidem commemorat laudanda mulieris Christianae studia, quae ut maritum e flagitiis retraheret, denuntiabat ei futura libidinose ac praeter rectam rationem viventibus in aeterno igne supplicia.

In the exordium of the second Apology he calls Christians those who are persuaded that the wicked and lustful will be tormented with eternal fire, whereas the cultivators of virtue will live free from all suffering with God. No more, therefore, is he to be said to have set an end to the punishments of the wicked than to the rewards of the good. In the same place he recounts the praiseworthy endeavours of a Christian woman, who, in order to draw back her husband from shameful deeds, declared to him the future punishments in eternal fire for those living lustfully and contrary to right reason.

II. Cum hac Justini doctrina conciliare aggrediar quae in speciem pugnantia leguntur initio Dialogi cum Tryphone, non illa quidem ab ipso Justino disputata, sed a quodam sene Christiano, ex quo audita refert et probat S. martyr. Postquam Justino persuasit senex philosophos in suis de anima disputationibus totos errare, nec quid sit anima explicare posse, haec addit : « Neque etiam immortalis anima dicenda est ; nam si immortalis etiam profecto ingenita. » Tum quaerit ex Justino an mundum ingenitum credat. Negantem collaudat senex, ac ita ratiocinatur : « Quod si mundus genitus est, necesse est animas quoque genitas esse, ac posse non exsistere. Sunt enim factae hominum ac caeterorum animalium causa, si omnino separatim ac non una cum propriis corporibus genitas dices. Non ergo immortales sunt. » Assentitur Justinus et quaerit ex sene utrum idem de animabus dicat, quod Plato de mundo, quem corruptioni obnoxium, quatenus creatus est, sed tamen Dei voluntate permansurum statuit ; an vero haec Platonem et Pythagoram latuisse velit. Tum senex : « Nihil Platonem moror nec Pythagoram, nec quemquam omnino, qui talia opinetur. Sic autem se veritas habet : idque inde perspicies : anima vel vita est, vel vitam habet. Quod si vita est, non ipsa a se, sed aliud ab eo vitam accipit, quemadmodum motus aliud quidpiam movet, quam seipsum. Animam autem vivere nemo negaverit. Sed si vivit, non ideo vivit, quod vita sit, sed quod vitae particeps. Aliud autem id quod alicujus est particeps, aliud id ipsum cujus est particeps. Vitae autem anima est particeps, eo quod eam Deus vivere velit ; similiter particeps aliquando non erit, cum eam Deus vivere nolet. Neque enim ut Dei, ita etiam animae propria vita est. Sed quemadmodum homo non semper constat, neque perpetuo corpus cum anima conjunctum est, sed, cum solvi oportet harmoniam, relinquit corpus anima, nec jam exstat homo ; similiter, quando animam non jam esse oporteat, discedit ab ea spiritus vitalis, nec jam exstat anima, sed unde educta est, eo revertitur.

2. With this doctrine of Justin I shall proceed to reconcile what is read, seemingly at variance with it, at the beginning of the Dialogue with Trypho—things disputed not indeed by Justin himself, but by a certain Christian old man, from whom the holy martyr reports and approves what he heard. After the old man has persuaded Justin that the philosophers err altogether in their disputations concerning the soul, and cannot explain what the soul is, he adds these words: "Nor again is the soul to be called immortal; for if immortal, it is assuredly also unbegotten." Then he asks of Justin whether he believes the world to be unbegotten. When he denies it, the old man praises him, and reasons thus: "But if the world is begotten, it is necessary that souls also are begotten, and are able not to exist. For they were made for the sake of men and the other animals, if you say that they were begotten altogether separately and not together with their own bodies. They are not, therefore, immortal." Justin assents, and asks of the old man whether he says the same concerning souls as Plato says concerning the world, which he pronounces subject to corruption insofar as it is created, and yet destined to endure by the will of God; or whether he means that these things escaped Plato and Pythagoras. Then the old man: "I care nothing for Plato nor Pythagoras, nor anyone at all who holds such opinions. But the truth stands thus, and you will perceive it hence: the soul either is life, or has life. Now if it is life, it would cause something else to live, not itself, just as motion moves something else rather than itself. Yet no one will deny that the soul lives. But if it lives, it lives not because it is life, but because it is a partaker of life. Now that which is a partaker of something is one thing, and that very thing of which it is a partaker is another. Moreover, the soul is a partaker of life because God wills it to live; similarly it will at some time not be a partaker, when God wills it not to live. For life is not proper to the soul as it is to God. But just as man does not always subsist, nor is the body perpetually conjoined with the soul, but when the harmony must be dissolved the soul leaves the body, and man no longer exists; similarly, when it is fitting that the soul should no longer be, the vital spirit departs from it, and the soul no longer exists, but returns thither whence it was drawn."

Si rite attendamus, non favent haec testimonia absurdae opinioni, quam Dodwellus non ita pridem apud Anglos defendit ac sanctis Patribus affinxit, animas eorum qui a Spiritu sancto regenerati per baptismum non fuere, interituras aliquando et in nihilum redituras. Nihil aliud hoc loco Justinus aut senex ille Christianus docent, nisi animas nostras

If we attend rightly, these testimonies do not favour the absurd opinion which Dodwell not so long ago defended among the English and fastened upon the holy Fathers, that the souls of those who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit through baptism will at some time perish and return into nothing. Justin or that Christian old man teaches nothing else in this place than that our souls

Editors' notes and page, col. 83

Page

running head: 83 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A In exordio; B persuasit senex; C ram latuisse; D que enim
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: In exordio Apologiae; word split at end of column: no-
other: the word nostras was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 84

PG 6:84

non a seipsis, sed a Deo immortalitatem accipere. 1° Eam tantum immortalitatem animabus denegat Justinus, quae cum rei creatae conditione consistere non possit. « Neque etiam immortalis anima dicenda. Nam si immortalis, etiam profecto ingenita. » Non eam ergo immortalitatem rejicit, quae ex Dei voluntate pendet, sed eam quam sibi philosophi nonnulli arrogabant, qui, ut antea dicebat, « cum immortalem et incorpoream animam esse ponant, nec poenas daturos se putant, si quid mali fecerint (pati enim non potest quidquid incorporeum est), nec jam Deo, cum immortalis sit anima, quidquam indigent.

receive immortality not from themselves, but from God. 1st, Justin denies to souls only that immortality which cannot consist with the condition of a created thing. "Nor again is the soul to be called immortal. For if immortal, it is assuredly also unbegotten." He does not, therefore, reject that immortality which depends upon the will of God, but that which some philosophers arrogated to themselves, who, as he said before, "since they lay it down that the soul is immortal and incorporeal, think neither that they will pay the penalty if they do any evil (for whatever is incorporeal cannot suffer), nor that they have any further need of God, since the soul is immortal."

2° Haec confirmantur ex his quae addit senex : « Si mundus genitus est, necesse est animas quoque genitas esse, ac posse non exsistere. Non sunt ergo immortales. » In eo ergo immortales animas negat, quod possent non exsistere ; nec futurum statuit, ut aliquando exsistere desinant, sed id fieri posse contendit.

2nd, These things are confirmed from what the old man adds: "If the world is begotten, it is necessary that souls also are begotten, and are able not to exist. They are not, therefore, immortal." He denies that souls are immortal in this respect, that they could not exist; nor does he pronounce that it will come to pass that they at some time cease to exist, but contends that this can happen.

3° Cum animam victuram negat, si Deus eam vivere noluerit, tota disputatio versatur de animae natura, nec magis de malorum animabus disserit senex, quam de justorum ; sed cujuslibet animae sic comparatam esse naturam contendit, ut nec vita sit, nec vita ipsius propria sit. Quamobrem non magis dici potest malorum suppliciis finem statuisse, quam felicitati justorum.

3rd, When he denies that the soul will live if God should will it not to live, the whole disputation turns upon the nature of the soul, nor does the old man discourse any more concerning the souls of the wicked than concerning those of the just; but he contends that the nature of every soul is so constituted that it neither is life, nor is life proper to itself. Wherefore he can no more be said to have set an end to the punishments of the wicked than to the felicity of the just.

4° Conceptis verbis declarat senex nullas animas mori. Sic enim reddenda sunt haec illius verba, ut in notatione ad hunc locum observavi, ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀποθνήσκειν φημὶ πάσας τὰς ψυχὰς ἐγώ, etc. « Non tamen perire dico ullas animas ; vere enim de lucro id esset improbis. Quid igitur ? Piorum quidem animas in meliore loco manere, iniquorum autem et malorum in deteriore, judicii tempus exspectantes. Sic istae cum dignae Deo judicatae fuerint, non jam amplius moriuntur ; hae vero puniuntur quandiu eas esse et puniri Deus voluerit. » Si de lucro esset improbis mori ; nullae ergo animae moriuntur ; nam justis astruitur aeternitas. Usurpata a sene loquendi ratio saepe idem significat ac nullum. Sic apud Paulum, Rom. III, 20 : Ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. Ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro. Quod dixit serpens mulieri : Τί ὅτι εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς, οὐ μὴ φάγητε ἀπὸ παντὸς ξύλου τοῦ παραδείσου ; Cur praecepit vobis Deus ut non comederetis de omni ligno paradisi ? Gen. III, 1, in hoc mentitum esse serpentem existimant Irenaeus, lib. V, cap. 23 ; Tertull., lib. II contra Marcionem, cap. 10 ; Ambros., lib. De parad. ; Chrysost., homil. 16 in Genes., eumque prima avocandae a Deo mulieris tentamenta sic molitum esse, quasi Deus nullius ligni usum concessisset.

4th, In express terms the old man declares that no souls die. For thus are these words of his to be rendered, as I have observed in the note on this passage: Nay, I do not say that any souls die, etc. "Yet I do not say that any souls perish; for truly that would be a gain to the wicked. What then? That the souls of the pious indeed remain in a better place, whereas those of the unjust and wicked in a worse, awaiting the time of judgement. Thus the former, when they have been judged worthy of God, no longer die any more; whereas the latter are punished so long as God wills them to be and to be punished." If it would be a gain to the wicked to die, then no souls die; for eternity is ascribed to the just. The manner of speaking employed by the old man often signifies the same as none. Thus in Paul, Rom. 3:20: By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. By the works of the law every flesh shall not be justified. As to what the serpent said to the woman: Why is it that God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of paradise? Why did God command you that ye should not eat of every tree of paradise? (Gen. 3:1), Irenaeus, book 5, ch. 23; Tertullian, book 2 Against Marcion, ch. 10; Ambrose, in his book On Paradise; and Chrysostom, homily 16 On Genesis, suppose that the serpent lied in this, and that he contrived his first attempts at drawing the woman away from God as though God had granted the use of no tree.

5° Quaesierat Justinus ex sene an non, ut mundum Plato, sic ipse animas sua quidem sponte

5th, Justin had asked of the old man whether, just as Plato said of the world, so he himself would not say that souls of their own nature indeed

Editors' notes and page, col. 84

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 84
marginal letters: A stras non; B que genitas; C 4° Conceptis; D significat ac
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: stras non a seipsis; word split at start of column: stras

PG 6:85

immortales non esse, sed tamen Dei voluntate aeternas fore diceret. Addebat idem Justinus Platonicus solum Deum nec genitum esse nec corruptioni obnoxium, caetera vero post eum genita et corruptioni obnoxia, et talia ut aboleri possint et jam nulla esse, atque hoc ipsum causae esse, cur animae moriantur et puniantur. Nam si ingenitae essent, non futurum ut peccarent, et stultitia redundarent, et ignavae aut feroces essent, aut sua sponte in sues migrarent et serpentes et canes. In hac sententia nihil de animarum immortalitate detrahitur ; sed genitae sunt ac tales ut aboleri possint. Mori autem dicuntur, quatenus mutationi ac vitiis obnoxiae sunt. Hunc corruptionis statum saepe mortem appellari modo videbimus : ipse senex paulo antea dicebat animas justorum, postquam aeternum felicitatis statum adeptae sunt, non jam amplius mori. Nulla ergo residet neque in hoc sene, neque in Justino erroris suspicio. Jam citatis Justini testimoniis illud addere libet ex Dialogo, n. 130. « Ex Isaia didicimus futurum, ut membra praevaricatorum a verme et igne inexstincto vorentur, immortalia permanentia, ita ut spectaculo sint omni carni. » Qui corpori immortalitatem tam asseveranter attribuit, an animae potuit denegare ?

are not immortal, and yet by the will of God will be eternal. The same Platonist Justin added that God alone is neither begotten nor subject to corruption, whereas all other things after Him are begotten and subject to corruption, and such that they can be abolished and no longer be at all, and that this very thing is the reason why souls die and are punished. For if they were unbegotten, it would not come to pass that they would sin, and abound in folly, and be cowardly or fierce, or of their own accord migrate into swine and serpents and dogs. In this opinion nothing is detracted from the immortality of souls; but they are begotten and such that they can be abolished. Moreover, they are said to die insofar as they are subject to change and vices. That this state of corruption is often called death we shall presently see: the old man himself a little before said that the souls of the just, after they have attained the eternal state of felicity, no longer die any more. No suspicion of error, therefore, resides either in this old man or in Justin. To the testimonies of Justin already cited it is pleasing to add this from the Dialogue, no. 130: "From Isaiah we have learned that it will come to pass that the members of transgressors shall be devoured by the worm and unquenchable fire, remaining immortal, so that they shall be for a spectacle to all flesh." Could he who so emphatically attributed immortality to the body deny it to the soul?

III. Tatiani sententiam praeclare expressam habemus in Oratione adversus Graecos, in qua sic loquitur, n. 25 : Σῶμά τις εἶναι λέγει Θεόν· ἐγὼ δὲ ἀσώματον· ἄλυτον εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, ἐγὼ λυόμενον· ἐκπύρωσιν ἀποβαίνειν κατὰ καιροὺς, ἐγὼ δὲ εἰσάπαξ. Κριτὰς εἶναι Μίνω καὶ Ῥαδάμανθον, ἐγὼ δὲ αὐτὸν τὸν Θεόν· ἀπαθανατίζεσθαι μόνην τὴν ψυχὴν, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὸ σὺν αὐτῇ σαρκίον. « Est qui Deum corpus esse dicat, ego incorporeum ; mundum esse indissolubilem, ego dissolvendum ; conflagrationem variis temporibus evenire, ego semel eventuram ; judices esse Minoem et Rhadamanthum, ego Deum ipsum ; solam animam immortalitate donari, ego carnem quoque cum anima. » Sed tamen animae immortalitatem a Tatiano negari censet doctissimus abbas de Longuerue in dissertatione, quae post orationem Tatiani exstat in edit. Oxon. « Tatianus, inquit, indocte juxta ac impie negat animam humanam natura immortalem esse. Pronuntiat enim quorumdam hominum animas mori una cum corporibus ; aliorum vero solvi quidem, sed non mori. Atque hoc commentum novus inconsideratusque magister Graecos docet. » Locus ab erudito viro citatus occurrit, n. 13, ubi sic legitur : Οὐκ ἔστιν ἀθάνατος, ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, ἡ ψυχὴ καθ' ἑαυτὴν, θνητὴ δέ. Ἀλλὰ δύναται ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ μὴ ἀποθνήσκειν. Θνήσκει γὰρ καὶ λύεται μετὰ τοῦ σώματος, μὴ γινώσκουσα τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀνίσταται δὲ εἰς ὕστερον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ κόσμου σὺν τῷ σώματι, θάνατον διὰ τιμωρίας ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ λαμβάνουσα· πάλιν τε οὐ θνήσκει, κἂν πρὸς καιρὸν λυθῇ, τὴν ἐπί-

3. We have Tatian's opinion nobly expressed in his Oration against the Greeks, in which he speaks thus, at no. 25: Someone says that God is a body, but I that He is incorporeal; that the world is indissoluble, I that it is to be dissolved; that a conflagration happens at seasons, but I once for all; that Minos and Rhadamanthus are judges, but I God Himself; that the soul alone is endowed with immortality, but I the flesh also together with it. "There is one who says that God is a body, I that He is incorporeal; that the world is indissoluble, I that it is to be dissolved; that a conflagration happens at various times, I that it will happen once for all; that Minos and Rhadamanthus are judges, I God Himself; that the soul alone is gifted with immortality, I the flesh also with the soul." And yet the most learned Abbé de Longuerue, in the dissertation which is extant after the oration of Tatian in the Oxford edition, judges that the immortality of the soul is denied by Tatian. "Tatian," says he, "ignorantly as well as impiously denies that the human soul is immortal by nature. For he pronounces that the souls of certain men die together with their bodies; whereas those of others are dissolved indeed, but do not die. And this fiction the new and inconsiderate master teaches the Greeks." The passage cited by the learned man occurs at no. 13, where it is read thus: The soul is not immortal in itself, O men of Greece, but mortal. Yet the same is able also not to die. For it dies and is dissolved with the body when it does not know the truth, but rises again afterwards at the consummation of the world with the body, receiving death through punishment in immortality; and again it does not die, even though it be dissolved for a time, when it has acquired the know-

Editors' notes and page, col. 85

Page

running head: 85 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A immortales non; B nex paulo; C μενον· ἐκπύρωσιν; D humanam natura
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: immortales non esse; word split at end of column: ἐπί-

PG 6:86

γνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ πεποιημένη. « Non est immortalis anima, o Graeci, per seipsam, sed mortalis ; potest tamen eadem non mori. Moritur enim et dissolvitur cum corpore veritatis ignara ; resurgit autem postea in fine mundi una cum corpore, mortem per supplicia in immortalitate accipiens. Rursus autem non moritur, etiamsi solvatur ad tempus, Dei cognitione instructa. »

ledge of God. "The soul is not immortal of itself, O Greeks, but mortal; yet the same is able not to die. For it dies and is dissolved with the body when ignorant of the truth; but it rises again afterwards at the end of the world together with the body, receiving death through punishments in immortality. And again it does not die, even if it be dissolved for a time, when instructed in the knowledge of God."

Sed liquet mortis nomine non destructionem et abitionem in nihilum designari, sed miserum animae a Deo alienae statum. Nam ipsam immortalitatem reproborum mortem in immortalitate appellare non dubitat. Quae sequuntur expressiora sunt ad illius mentem perspiciendam : Καθ' ἑαυτὴν γὰρ σκότος ἐστὶ, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτῇ φωτεινὸν, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἄρα τὸ εἰρημένον· « Ἡ σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει. » Ψυχὴ γὰρ οὐκ αὐτὴ τὸ πνεῦμα ἔσωσεν, ἐσώθη δὲ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ φῶς τὴν σκοτίαν κατέλαβεν. Ὁ Λόγος μὲν ἔστι τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ φῶς, σκότος δὲ ἡ ἀνεπιστήμων ψυχή. Διὰ τοῦτο μόνη μὲν διαιτωμένη, πρὸς τὴν ὕλην νεύει κάτω, συναποθνήσκουσα τῇ σαρκί. Συζυγίαν δὲ κεκτημένη τὴν τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀβοήθητος· ἀνέρχεται δὲ πρὸς ἅπερ αὐτὴν ὁδηγεῖ χωρία τὸ Πνεῦμα. « Per se enim anima nihil aliud est, quam tenebrae, nec quidquam in ea luminosum. Atque id ipsum est quod dicitur : Tenebrae lucem non comprehendunt. Neque enim anima spiritum servavit, sed ipsa ab eo servata est, et lux tenebras apprehendit. Est autem Verbum divina lux ; tenebrae vero imperita anima. Quapropter si degat solitaria, deorsum ad materiam vergit, una cum carne moriens. Cum divino autem Spiritu copulata, non caret auxilio, sed eo ascendit, quo deducitur a Spiritu. » Huc ergo redit illa mors animae Dei cognitione destitutae, ut deorsum vergat, nec Spiritus auxilio sursum feratur. At si deorsum vergit et materiam quaerit, non est profecto mortua et destructa. Sine causa ergo vir doctissimus duo animarum genera distinxit apud Tatianum, quarum aliae moriantur, aliae solvantur. Nullas agnoscit Tatianus, quae non solvantur a corpore ; nullas quae moriantur cum corpore.

But it is clear that by the name of death is designated not destruction and passing away into nothing, but the wretched state of a soul alienated from God. For he does not hesitate to call the very immortality of the reprobate death in immortality. What follows is still more explicit for perceiving his mind: For in itself it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it, and this is then that which was spoken: "The darkness does not apprehend the light." For the soul did not itself save the spirit, but was saved by it, and the light apprehended the darkness. The Word indeed is the light of God, whereas the ignorant soul is darkness. On this account, when dwelling alone, it inclines downward towards matter, dying together with the flesh; but having acquired union with the divine Spirit, it is not unhelped, but ascends to the regions whither the Spirit guides it. "For of itself the soul is nothing else than darkness, nor is there anything luminous in it. And this is the very thing that is said: The darkness does not comprehend the light. For the soul did not save the spirit, but was itself saved by it, and the light apprehended the darkness. Now the Word is the divine light; whereas the ignorant soul is darkness. Wherefore if it lives solitary, it inclines downward to matter, dying together with the flesh. But when joined with the divine Spirit, it does not lack help, but ascends thither whither it is led by the Spirit." To this, therefore, comes that death of the soul destitute of the knowledge of God, that it inclines downward, and is not borne upward by the help of the Spirit. But if it inclines downward and seeks matter, it is assuredly not dead and destroyed. Without cause, therefore, did the most learned man distinguish two kinds of souls in Tatian, of which some die and others are dissolved. Tatian acknowledges none which are not dissolved from the body; none which die with the body.

Multis aliis rebus declarat Tatianus animas etiam malorum usque ad resurrectionem permanere. Cum nonnulli animabus corpore solutis ea tribuerent, quae daemonum operatione fieri solent ; sic eorum opinionem refellit, num. 16. « Porro daemones, qui hominibus imperant, non sunt animae hominum. Quo enim pacto efficaces etiam post mortem fierent ? Nisi forte homo, quandiu vivit, insipiens et invalidus est ; mortuus autem efficaciore praeditus facultate creditur. Sed neque res ita se habet, ut alibi demonstravimus ; et perdifficile est existimare animam immortalem, cum e corpore, cujus membris impeditur, migraverit, sagaciorem fieri. » Vides Tatianum hic agere de animabus impiorum, a

By many other things Tatian declares that the souls even of the wicked endure until the resurrection. Since some attributed to souls released from the body those things which are accustomed to be done by the working of demons, he refutes their opinion thus, at no. 16: "Furthermore, the demons who rule over men are not the souls of men. For in what way would they become active even after death? Unless perhaps man, so long as he lives, is foolish and weak, but when dead is believed to be endowed with a more effective faculty. Yet neither is the matter so, as we have demonstrated elsewhere; and it is very difficult to suppose that the immortal soul, when it has migrated from the body by whose members it is hindered, becomes more sagacious." You see that Tatian here treats of the souls of the impious, from

Editors' notes and page, col. 86

Footnotes

(21*) ‹anchor: lucem non comprehendunt› · call in col 86 Joan. I, 5

John 1:5.

(printed under page 49)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 86
marginal letters: A γνωσιν τοῦ; B ἐστιν ἄρα; C hendit. Est; D malorum usque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: γνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ; word split at start of column: γνωσιν

PG 6:87

quibus nonnulli plurima in humanum genus mala proficisci existimabant. Negat Tatianus ejusmodi animas eadem ac daemones praestare, sed in certissimi principii loco statuit eas, cum e corpore migraverint, superesse et immortales esse. Hominem immortalitatis imaginem a Verbo creatum dicit, num. 7.

which some supposed that very many evils proceed against the human race. Tatian denies that souls of this sort perform the same things as demons, but lays it down in the place of a most certain principle that when they have migrated from the body they survive and are immortal. He says at no. 7 that man was created by the Word as an image of immortality.

Non aliam ergo mortem animae suspicatus est Tatianus, praeter eam, quae a peccatis Spiritum sanctum arcentibus proficiscitur. Sic enim statuit hominem, si templum sancti Spiritus non fuerit, sola voce a belluis differre, caetera vero ejusdem esse ac illas conditionis, ut qui non sit similitudo Dei. Minime ergo nimirum si mortuos existimat, qui se a Spiritu sancto abstraxerunt. De ejusmodi morte accipiendum quod ait, n. 9. « Quid est quod ex fato prae avaritia vigilas ? Cur ex fato saepe cupidus saepe moreris ? »

Tatian, therefore, suspected no other death of the soul besides that which proceeds from sins that keep away the Holy Spirit. For thus he lays it down that man, if he be not a temple of the Holy Spirit, differs from the beasts by voice alone, but for the rest is of the same condition as they, as one who is not the likeness of God. It is therefore by no means wonderful if he supposes those to be dead who have withdrawn themselves from the Holy Spirit. Of death of this sort must be taken what he says at no. 9: "Why is it that through fate you lie awake for avarice? Why through fate are you often covetous and often die?"

In eamdem sententiam ait daemones et quotidie mori cum homines peccare docent, et tum maxime morituros, cum in supplicia detrudentur. « Daemones non facile moriuntur, inquit, n. 14, sunt enim carnis expertes, sed viventes mortis instituta exercent ; toties nimirum et ipsi morientes, quoties ad peccandum sectatores suos erudierint. Itaque quod nunc illis praecipuum est, ut similiter ac homines non moriantur, id minime effugient, cum incipient puniri, nec vitae aeternae participes mortem quamdam in immortalitate sortientur. Quemadmodum enim nos, quibus nunc mori facile contingit, postea cum voluptate immortalitatem, vel dolorem cum immortalitate percipiemus ; sic et daemones qui praesenti vita ad peccandum abutuntur, ac per totam vitam moriuntur, rursus immortalitatem habebunt natura quidem eamdem ac dum viverent, supplicii autem ratione similem illorum hominum, qui ex animi sui sententia gessere, quidquid daemones viventibus praescripserant. »

To the same effect he says that demons both die daily when they teach men to sin, and will then above all die when they are thrust down into punishments. "Demons do not easily die," says he at no. 14, "for they are devoid of flesh, but while living they practise the institutions of death; themselves also doubtless dying as often as they instruct their followers to sin. And so what is now their special privilege, that they do not die in the same way as men, they will by no means escape when they begin to be punished, and without being partakers of eternal life they will obtain a certain death in immortality. For just as we, to whom it now easily happens to die, shall afterwards receive either immortality with pleasure, or pain with immortality; so also the demons who abuse the present life for sinning, and die throughout their whole life, will again have an immortality the same indeed by nature as while they lived, but in respect of punishment similar to that of those men who according to the purpose of their own mind have done whatever the demons had prescribed to them while living."

IV. Huc redigi potest tota Justini et Tatiani de animae immortalitate doctrina : hanc negant sua natura immortalem esse, sed tantum Dei voluntate ; mortalem illam dicunt quatenus in vitia labitur. Utraque loquendi ratio usitata apud antiquos. S. Irenaeus animas Dei voluntate, non sua natura immortales esse docet. « Quemadmodum enim coelum, inquit, lib. II, c. 34, n. 2, et reliquae stellae, et omnia ornamenta ipsorum, cum ante non essent, facta sunt, et multo tempore perseverant secundum voluntatem Dei ; sic et de animabus, et de spiritibus, et omnino de omnibus his, quae facta sunt, cogitans quis minime peccabit, quando omnia, quae facta sunt, initium quidem facturae suae habeant, perseverant autem quoadusque ea Deus et esse et perseverare voluerit. » Quod autem spectat ad illam animae mortem, quae ex nequitia et

4. To this can be reduced the whole doctrine of Justin and Tatian concerning the immortality of the soul: they deny that it is immortal by its own nature, and say that it is so only by the will of God; they call it mortal insofar as it falls into vices. Either manner of speaking is customary among the ancients. St. Irenaeus teaches that souls are immortal by the will of God, not by their own nature. "For just as the heaven," says he, book 2, ch. 34, no. 2, "and the rest of the stars, and all their adornments, whereas before they were not, were made, and endure for a long time according to the will of God; so also anyone thinking concerning souls, and concerning spirits, and altogether concerning all these things which have been made, will by no means sin, since all things that have been made have indeed a beginning of their making, but endure so long as God wills them both to be and to endure." Moreover, as regards that death of the soul which is drawn from wickedness and

Editors' notes and page, col. 87

Footnotes

(22) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 87 or 88 (call not visible; note printed under col 87)

Apoc. XX, 14 ; xxi, 8.

Revelation 20:14; 21:8.

(printed under page 50)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 87 or 88 (call not visible; note printed under col 87)

Rom. V, 12.

Romans 5:12.

(printed under page 50)

Page

running head: 87 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHU
marginal letters: A quibus nonnulli; B accipiendum quod; C admodum enim; D Utraque loquendi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: quibus nonnulli plurima

PG 6:88

aeternis cruciatibus ducitur, nihil magis consentaneum Scripturae et Patrum loquendi consuetudini. Nihil aliud sibi vult secunda mors in Apocalypsi pluribus locis memorata. Mors illa, quae per unum hominem intravit, mors est animae et corporis. « Diabolus ad operandam duplam mortem nostram, inquit Augustinus, lib. IV De Trin., n. 15, simplam attulit suam. Per impietatem namque mortuus est in spiritu. » Idem, lib. XIV, n. 6 : « Habet quippe et anima mortem suam, cum vita beata caret. » Et lib. XI, n. 15 : « Ipsa mutabilitas non inconvenienter mortalitas dicitur, secundum quam et anima dicitur mori. » Plura colligere non libet in re manifesta et explorata.

eternal torments, nothing is more agreeable to the usage of speaking of Scripture and the Fathers. Nothing else is meant by the second death mentioned in several places in the Apocalypse. That death which entered through one man is the death of soul and body. "The devil, to work our double death," says Augustine, book 4 On the Trinity, no. 15, "brought his own single death. For through impiety he died in spirit." The same, book 14, no. 6: "For the soul also has its death, when it lacks the blessed life." And book 11, no. 15: "Mutability itself is not unfittingly called mortality, according to which the soul also is said to die." It is not pleasing to collect more in a manifest and established matter.

V. Satis superque monstratum spero nihil Justinum de immortalitate animarum sensisse, quod non Christi martyre dignissimum sit ; at alia non levis superest quaestio, an daemones et malos homines jam nunc igne torqueri crediderit.

5. Enough and more than enough has been shown, I hope, that Justin felt nothing concerning the immortality of souls which is not most worthy of a martyr of Christ; but another not slight question remains, whether he believed that demons and wicked men are even now tormented with fire.

Vix dubium quin Justinus supplicia daemonum ad extremum et generale judicium dilata putaverit. Id diserte docet in locis modo citatis discipulus illius Tatianus, qui nondum a magistri doctrina defecerat, cum orationem adversus Graecos scriberet. S. martyris sententia ex his verbis perspici potest in Apol., 1, n. 28 : « Apud nos enim, inquit, princeps malorum daemonum serpens vocatur et Satanas et diabolus, ut potestis ex litteris nostris scrutando perspicere. Hunc praemonstravit Christus cum ipsius exercitu et assectantibus hominibus in ignem missum iri, ut in infinitum aevum excrucientur. Interposita enim mora, quominus id Deus hactenus perficeret, propter humanum genus contigit. » In eamdem sententiam spectat quod S. martyr Irenaeo teste dicebat, daemonem, antequam Christus veniret, nondum certo scivisse sese damnatum esse, ita ut seipse stulta illa opinione frustraretur, quasi Deum latuisset. « Bene, inquit, lib. V, c. 26, Irenaeus, Justinus dixit quoniam ante Domini adventum nunquam ausus est Satanas blasphemare Deum : quippe nondum sciens suam damnationem. » Observat Petavius, lib. III, De angelis, c. 3 et 4, hanc Justini opinionem quoad ignorationem damnationis secutos esse auctorem carminum in Marcionem, l. I, c. 3 ; Eusebium, lib. IV Hist., c. 18 ; Epiphanium haeres. 39 ; Isidorum Pelusiotam libr. II, epist. 90 ; Oecumenium in cap. ult., I Petr. ; nec immerito inde sequi existimat hos scriptores diaboli in aeterno igne supplicia in extremum judicium dilata credidisse.

There is scarcely a doubt that Justin thought the punishments of the demons were deferred to the last and general judgement. This his disciple Tatian expressly teaches in the passages just cited, who had not yet fallen away from his master's teaching when he wrote his Oration against the Greeks. The holy martyr's opinion can be perceived from these words in Apology 1, no. 28: "For among us," says he, "the prince of the wicked demons is called serpent and Satan and devil, as you can perceive by searching from our writings. Christ foretold that he, with his host and the men who follow him, will be sent into fire, to be tormented for an infinite age. For the delay which has intervened, preventing God from accomplishing this hitherto, has happened for the sake of the human race." To the same effect is what the holy martyr, as Irenaeus testifies, used to say, that the demon, before Christ came, did not yet know for certain that he was damned, so that he deceived himself with that foolish opinion, as though he had escaped God's notice. "Well," says Irenaeus, book 5, ch. 26, "did Justin say that before the Lord's coming Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own damnation." Petavius observes, book 3 On the Angels, chs. 3 and 4, that the author of the poems Against Marcion, book 1, ch. 3; Eusebius, book 4 of the History, ch. 18; Epiphanius, Heresy 39; Isidore of Pelusium, book 2, epistle 90; and Oecumenius on the last chapter of 1 Peter followed this opinion of Justin as regards the ignorance of his damnation; and not without reason does he suppose it to follow thence that these writers believed the punishments of the devil in eternal fire to be deferred until the last judgement.

At quod iisdem Patribus attribuit lib. I, cap. 8, Daemonem spem nonnullam habuisse obtinendae per Christum salutis, id Epiphanio quidem attribui potest ; id enim aperte declarat ; at Justini et eorum, qui illius verba aut retulerunt, ut Irenaeus et

But as for what he attributes to the same Fathers in book 1, ch. 8, That the demon had some hope of obtaining salvation through Christ, that can indeed be attributed to Epiphanius, for he openly declares it; but with Justin and those who either reported his words, as Irenaeus and

Editors' notes and page, col. 88

Page

running head: S PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 88
marginal letters: A aeternis cruciatibus; B V. Satis; C scrutando perspicere.; D c. 3 et 4
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: aeternis cruciatibus ducitur

PG 6:89

Eusebius, aut, ut auctor carminis in Marcionem, Isidorus et Oecumenius, imitati sunt, alia videtur esse causa. Hanc enim rationem affert Irenaeus cur diabolo Justinus nondum de sua damnatione exploratum fuisse dixisset, « quoniam et in parabolis et allegoriis a prophetis sic de eo dictum est. Post autem adventum Domini ex sermonibus Christi et apostolorum ejus discens manifeste, quoniam ignis aeternus ei praeparatus est ex sua voluntate abscedenti a Deo, et omnibus qui sine poenitentia perseverant in apostasia : per hujusmodi homines blasphemat eum Deum, qui judicium importat, quasi jam condemnatus, et peccatum suae apostasiae Conditori suo imputat, et non suae voluntati et sententiae : quemadmodum et qui supergrediuntur leges, et poenas dant, queruntur de legislatoribus, sed non de semetipsis. » Nullum hic vestigium spei in Christum Dominum ; dubitationem Satanae ac sortis suae ignorationem ex eo repetit, quod illius condemnatio non tam aperte in Veteri Testamento, quam in Novo fuisset praedicata. Quin etiam Satanam Irenaeus eo stultitiae existimat pervenisse, ut Deum latere tentaret, non per seipsum, sed per haereticos blasphemando. « Nam ipse per semetipsum, inquit ibidem Irenaeus, nude non audet blasphemare suum Dominum, quemadmodum et initio per serpentem seduxit hominem, quasi latens Deum. » Nunquam ergo Justinus et Irenaeus opinati sunt Satanam sperasse in Christum ; sed potius summam illius stultitiam arguunt, qui se Deum latere posse existimaverit. Quod autem debita illi ignis supplicia ad extremum judicium rejiciunt ; hanc opinionem Petavius, lib. III, De angelis, cap. 4, spectatissimis quibusque Patribus, inter quos recensere poterat Hilarium in Psal. CXLIII, probatam, a S. Thoma sine erroris nota memoratam et a Cajetano sine erroris crimine fuisse propugnatam contendit. « Veterum opinio, inquit, etsi hoc tempore recepta non est, quia daemones damnationis suae poenas omnes expendere, quae quidem essentiales vocantur, theologi fere sentiunt ; non est tamen erroris, nedum haeresis accusandus qui asserat diabolum, et ejus angelos, nondum extremo ac summo supplicio cruciari, sive ignis efficientiam experiri, in qua damnationis illorum, quod ad sensum et perpessionem attinet, summa consistit. » Idem de Cajetano sic loquitur : « Cajetani sententiam catholicae fidei contrariam non esse certum est. Nam neque Scriptura, neque concilium ullum hactenus docuit daemones extrema illa supplicia perpeti, quae parata iis esse ipse judex dicit. » Unde eruditus operum S. Irenaei editor D. Renatus Massuet, dissert. 3, art. 9, captum in manifesta calumnia Grabium et constrictum tenet, Romanam Ecclesiam reprehendere ausum, quod ut in aliis, ita et in hoc a sanctorum Patrum, ipsorumque sui fundatorum, Petri et Pauli, sententia discesserit.

Eusebius, or imitated them, as the author of the poem Against Marcion, Isidore, and Oecumenius, the reason seems to be different. For Irenaeus brings forward this reason why Justin had said that his damnation was not yet ascertained by the devil: "because both in parables and in allegories it was thus spoken of him by the prophets. But after the coming of the Lord, learning manifestly from the discourses of Christ and of His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him who of his own will departs from God, and for all who without repentance persevere in apostasy, through men of this sort he blasphemes that God Who brings in judgement, as being already condemned, and imputes the sin of his apostasy to his Creator, and not to his own will and purpose: just as those also who transgress the laws and pay the penalty complain of the lawgivers, and not of themselves." There is no trace here of hope in Christ the Lord; he traces Satan's doubt and ignorance of his lot to the fact that his condemnation had not been proclaimed so openly in the Old Testament as in the New. Nay, Irenaeus supposes that Satan even reached such a pitch of folly as to attempt to escape God's notice by blaspheming, not through himself, but through heretics. "For he himself by himself," says Irenaeus in the same place, "does not openly dare to blaspheme his Lord, just as in the beginning also through the serpent he seduced man, as though escaping God's notice." Never, therefore, did Justin and Irenaeus suppose that Satan hoped in Christ; but rather they convict him of the utmost folly for having supposed that he could escape God's notice. Moreover, as for their deferring the punishments of fire due to him until the last judgement, Petavius, book 3 On the Angels, ch. 4, contends that this opinion was approved by all the most distinguished Fathers, among whom he could have reckoned Hilary on Psalm 143, was mentioned by St. Thomas without any mark of error, and was defended by Cajetan without any charge of error. "The opinion of the ancients," says he, "although it is not received at this time, because theologians generally hold that the demons suffer all the punishments of their damnation which are called essential; nevertheless he is not to be accused of error, much less of heresy, who asserts that the devil and his angels are not yet tormented with the last and highest punishment, or experiencing the efficacy of fire, in which the sum of their damnation, as regards sense and suffering, consists." The same speaks thus of Cajetan: "That Cajetan's opinion is not contrary to the catholic faith is certain. For neither Scripture nor any council has hitherto taught that the demons suffer those extreme punishments which the Judge Himself says are prepared for them." Whence the learned editor of the works of St. Irenaeus, Dom René Massuet, dissertation 3, art. 9, holds Grabe caught and bound in a manifest calumny for having dared to censure the Roman Church because, as in other things, so in this also it departed from the opinion of the holy Fathers, and of its very founders, Peter and Paul.

Caeterum sancti Patres, dum ignis supplicium

For the rest, the holy Fathers, while they defer the punishment of fire

Editors' notes and page, col. 89

Page

running head: 89 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A Eusebius, aut; B leges, et; C Deum latere; D quod ad sensum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Eusebius, aut

PG 6:90

ad extremum judicium rejiciunt, non idcirco videri debent diabolum interim cruciatu omni eximere. Quod quidem ex his S. Hilarii verbis probatur : « Adventu enim Domini, inquit in psalm. CXLIII, confracta et contrita diaboli potestas est, cum fidei sanctorum hominum subjectus est, non quod non adhuc potentiae suae maximas habeat vires, sed per id quod utcunque subjectus est, praesentis subjectionis conditione ultioni et poenae legitimae praeparatur : ut nunc per hanc eamdem subjectionem tactus fumet, licet nondum totus uratur : sed per id quod interim fumare potuit, et uri posse noscendus est. » His adjungere possumus quod ait idem Hilarius lib. contra Constantium, n. 8, daemones ad martyrum veneranda ossa mugire, et uri sine ignibus : quod quidem multi alii antiqui scriptores testati sunt, ut eruditae ad hunc S. Hilarii locum adnotationes probant.

until the last judgement, ought not on that account to seem to exempt the devil in the meantime from all torment. Which indeed is proved from these words of St. Hilary: "For by the coming of the Lord," says he on Psalm 143, "the power of the devil was broken and crushed, when he was subjected to the faith of holy men; not that he does not still have the greatest strength of his power, but through the fact that he is in some way subjected, by the condition of his present subjection he is prepared for vengeance and lawful punishment: so that now, touched through this very subjection, he smokes, although he is not yet wholly burned; but through the fact that he could smoke in the meantime, he is to be known as able also to be burned." To these things we can add what the same Hilary says in his book Against Constantius, no. 8, that demons roar at the venerable bones of the martyrs, and are burned without fires: which indeed many other ancient writers have testified, as the learned notes on this passage of St. Hilary prove.

VI. S. martyr nequaquam ut daemonum, ita et malorum hominum cruciatus in extremum judicium rejicit. Videri tamen posset rejicere in testimoniis supra allatis, in quibus malos homines cum daemonibus conjungit, et utrisque parata esse ignis supplicia decernit. At alibi diserte declarat malorum animas modo torqueri. Sic loquitur in Cohort., n. 35 : « Nihil enim in majores vestros peccabitis, si nunc in contrariam illorum errori partem ferri velitis ; quos quidem verisimile est nunc in inferno sera poenitentia ductos lugere ; ac si fieri posset ut inde vobis nuntiarent, quae sibi post finem hujus vitae evenerunt, nosceretis profecto quantis vos malis liberatos velint. » Et in Apologia 1, n. 12 : « Vobis autem adjutores omnium hominum maxime et auxiliarii ad pacem sumus, qui haec docemus, fieri omnino non posse, ut Deum lateat maleficus, aut avarus, aut insidiator, aut virtute praeditus, ac unumquemque ad aeternam sive poenam, sive salutem pro meritis actionum proficisci. » Et n. 20 : « Cum autem iniquorum animas puniri sensu etiam post mortem praeditas dicimus, bonorum autem a suppliciis liberatas praeclare se habere, eadem ac poetae et philosophi dicere videbimur. » Liquet Justinum de animarum ante resurrectionem statu agere jamque iniquos cruciatibus addictos pronuntiare. Sic etiam senex ille Christianus, cujus testimonium supra attuli, malorum animas in deteriore loco judicium dicebat exspectare. Quamobrem cum ait Justinus malos homines cum daemonibus post judicium extremum aeterno igni addictum iri, id de novo illo statu accipiendum, in quo non jam sola anima, sed ipsum etiam corpus cum anima torquebitur.

6. The holy martyr by no means defers the torments of wicked men, as he does those of demons, until the last judgement. Yet he might seem to defer them in the testimonies adduced above, in which he conjoins wicked men with demons, and declares that the punishments of fire are prepared for both. But elsewhere he expressly declares that the souls of the wicked are tormented now. Thus he speaks in the Exhortation, no. 35: "For you will sin in no way against your ancestors if you are willing now to be borne in the direction contrary to their error; who indeed it is probable are now mourning in hell, led by a late repentance; and if it were possible for them to announce to you from thence what has befallen them after the end of this life, you would assuredly know from how great evils they wish you to be freed." And in Apology 1, no. 12: "Moreover, we more than all men are your helpers and allies towards peace, who teach these things, that it is altogether impossible for an evildoer, or a covetous man, or a plotter, or one endowed with virtue to escape God's notice, and that each one proceeds either to eternal punishment or to salvation according to the merits of his actions." And at no. 20: "And when we say that the souls of the unjust, endowed with sense even after death, are punished, whereas those of the good, freed from punishments, fare nobly, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers." It is clear that Justin is treating of the state of souls before the resurrection and pronounces that the unjust are already consigned to torments. Thus also that Christian old man whose testimony I adduced above said that the souls of the wicked await the judgement in a worse place. Wherefore, when Justin says that wicked men together with the demons will be consigned to eternal fire after the last judgement, this must be taken of that new state in which no longer the soul alone, but the body itself also will be tormented with the soul.

Ipsa Justini sententia de venturo ad Antichristum debellandum Christo, ac illum et obedientes ei in stagnum ignis, ut ait Irenaeus, lib. IV, cap. 30, missuro, argumento est illum agnovisse inflicta malis hominibus ante extremum judicium ignis supplicia.

Justin's own opinion concerning Christ coming to vanquish Antichrist, and about to send him and those who obey him into the lake of fire, as Irenaeus says, book 4, ch. 30, is a proof that he acknowledged punishments of fire inflicted upon wicked men before the last judgement.

Editors' notes and page, col. 90

Page

running head: NI PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 90
marginal letters: A ad extremum; B sine ignibus; C inde vobis; D tiare. Sic
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ad extremum judicium

PG 6:91

CAPUT XII.

Chapter XII.

De his quae ad regnum mille annorum pertinent.

Concerning those things which pertain to the reign of a thousand years.

I. De animarum statu usque ad resurrectionem sententia Justini. II. De Antichristo. III. De Eliae adventu et Judaeorum conversione. IV. De secundo Christi adventu. Sic loquitur Justinus, quasi statim judicium futurum sit. V. Nihil Justinus admittit, quod redivivis corporibus non congruat.

1. Justin's opinion concerning the state of souls until the resurrection. 2. Concerning Antichrist. 3. Concerning the coming of Elijah and the conversion of the Jews. 4. Concerning the second coming of Christ. Justin speaks as though the judgement were to take place immediately. 5. Justin admits nothing which does not suit risen bodies.

I. Celeberrima Millenariorum sententia, in qua defendenda secundas post Papiam sustinuit Justinus, plura continet opinionum commenta, quorum alia S. martyri affingi non debent, alia ab eo propulsari non possunt. Accusantur Millenarii quod sanctis Dei visionem ante generalem omnium resurrectionem denegent ; quod ante hanc generalem resurrectionem justos omnes in hanc vitam redituros, et mille annis cum Christo Jerosolymis victuros dicant ; quod in hoc terreno Christi regno circumcisionem et Sabbata, summamque voluptatum etiam corporearum copiam somnient. Expendendum nobis est his de rebus quid Justinus statutum habuerit ; nec illud omittendum, an hoc erratum, quod ei cum pluribus Patribus commune est, tanti existimandum sit, ut eorum in aliis rebus testimonii auctoritas minuatur.

1. The most celebrated opinion of the Millenarians, in defending which Justin held the second place after Papias, contains several figments of opinions, of which some ought not to be fastened upon the holy martyr, while others cannot be warded off from him. The Millenarians are accused of denying the vision of God to the saints before the general resurrection of all; of saying that before this general resurrection all the just will return into this life and live for a thousand years with Christ in Jerusalem; and of dreaming in this earthly kingdom of Christ of circumcision and Sabbaths, and the utmost abundance of pleasures, even bodily ones. We must weigh what Justin held as established concerning these matters; nor must this be omitted, whether this error, which is common to him with several Fathers, is to be accounted so great that the authority of their testimony in other matters is diminished.

Quae de sanctorum ante Incarnationem statu dixit Justinus, ea immerito nonnulli existimarunt, de his etiam, qui post Christi ascensionem obierunt, dicta esse. Cum sibi persuasisset S. martyr animam Samuelis vere artis magicae opera evocatam fuisse, inde colligebat animas justorum nondum ab omni malarum virtutum dominatu liberas ante Incarnationem fuisse. « Apparet autem, inquit Dialog., n. 105, animas ejusmodi justorum et prophetarum, sub potestatem talium virtutum cecidisse, qualem virtutem et in ventriloqua illa fuisse rebus ipsis declaratur. » Absurda sane opinio, sed quae multo absurdior foret, si, id quod neque Justino, neque aliis, qui similia dixerunt, affingi debet, is tribueretur malis virtutibus in sanctos dominatus, ut eos arbitrio suo vexarent et multarent. Hoc tantum ex Justini verbis colligitur, id daemonibus interdum, Deo permittente, in sanctorum animas licuisse, quod semel diabolo in ipsius Christi corpus, non sine Christi permissu, licuit.

What Justin said concerning the state of the saints before the Incarnation some have undeservedly supposed to have been said concerning those also who died after the ascension of Christ. Since the holy martyr had persuaded himself that the soul of Samuel had truly been called up by the work of magic art, he gathered thence that the souls of the just were not yet free from all dominion of evil powers before the Incarnation. "Moreover, it appears," says he in the Dialogue, no. 105, "that the souls of such just men and prophets fell under the power of such powers, such a power as is declared by the facts themselves to have been in that ventriloquist woman also." An absurd opinion indeed, but one which would be much more absurd if—what ought to be fastened neither upon Justin nor upon others who said similar things—such dominion over the saints were attributed to evil powers that they might vex and punish them at their own caprice. Only this is gathered from Justin's words, that that was sometimes permitted to demons, by God's permission, against the souls of the saints, which once was permitted to the devil, not without Christ's permission, against the body of Christ Himself.

Quod autem spectat ad sanctos post Christi ascensionem mortuos, vehemens sane exstitit Justinus in haereticis illis refellendis, qui animas, statim atque e corpore solutae essent, in coelorum apsidem evehebant, ita ut nihil prorsus ad beatitudinem accessurum dicerent, nec ullam resurrectionis spem aut desiderium relinquerent. Sic loquitur Dialog., n. 80 : « Si incidistis in nonnullos, qui Christiani quidem vocantur, haec autem minime tenent, sed etiam Deum Abrahae, et Deum Isaac, et Deum Jacob blasphemiis appetere audent, ac nullam esse mortuorum resurrectionem, sed statim atque moriantur, animas suas in coelum suscipi dicunt ; cavete ne eos existimetis Christianos. » Illa de animabus statim in coelum avolantibus opinio

Moreover, as regards the saints who died after the ascension of Christ, Justin was indeed vehement in refuting those heretics who raised souls, as soon as they were released from the body, into the vault of heaven, so as to say that nothing whatever would be added to their beatitude, and to leave no hope or desire of the resurrection. Thus he speaks in the Dialogue, no. 80: "If you have fallen in with some who are indeed called Christians, yet by no means hold these things, but even dare to assail the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob with blasphemies, and say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that as soon as they die their souls are received into heaven, beware lest you account them Christians." That opinion concerning souls flying away immediately into heaven

Editors' notes and page, col. 91

Page

running head: 91 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A CAPUT XII.; B victuros dicant; C ab omni; D sionem mortuos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: CAPUT XII., De his quae, I. De animarum, I. Celeberrima Millenariorum; word split at end of column: opi-
other: the word opinio was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 92

PG 6:92

non videtur Justino praecipuus esse haereticorum error : inde illius potissimum orta indignatio, quod resurrectionis et Creatoris odio haec dicerent. In Actis martyrii S. Justini haec legimus : « Tum praefectus conversus ad Justinum dixit : Audi tu qui eloquens esse diceris, et putas te veram disciplinam tenere. Si flagellis caesus capite plectaris, persuasumne habes fore ut in coelum ascendas ? » Cui Justinus : « Spero, inquit, me habiturum quod habent qui Christi dogmata servaverint, si haec ipsa quae dicis perpessus fuero. Scio enim omnibus qui ita vixerint, divinam gratiam conservari, quoad totus mundus consummetur. » Ad haec praefectus Rusticus : « Ergo futurum opinaris, ut in coelum ascendas, mercedem aliquam recepturus ? Non opinor, inquit Justinus, sed scio et hoc tam certum habeo, ut nihil dubitem. » Difficile non est animadvertere quid intersit inter praefecti interrogationem et responsionem Justini. Praefectus putabat martyres sperare se in coelum statim evolaturos, ac scire avet an Justinus eadem spe teneatur. Justinus non obscure mercedem illam in tempus resurrectionis rejicit, ac divinam gratiam conservari, ait, quoad totus mundus consummetur.

does not seem to Justin to be the chief error of the heretics: his indignation arose chiefly thence, that they said these things out of hatred of the resurrection and of the Creator. In the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Justin we read these words: "Then the prefect, turning to Justin, said: Hear, you who are said to be eloquent, and think that you hold the true teaching. If, beaten with scourges, you are beheaded, are you persuaded that you will ascend into heaven?" To whom Justin: "I hope," says he, "that I shall have what those have who have kept the teachings of Christ, if I endure these very things which you say. For I know that for all who have lived thus the divine grace is preserved until the whole world be consummated." To these things the prefect Rusticus: "Do you therefore suppose that you will ascend into heaven to receive some reward? I do not suppose, says Justin, but I know, and I hold this as so certain that I have no doubt." It is not difficult to notice what difference there is between the interrogation of the prefect and the reply of Justin. The prefect thought that the martyrs hoped they would fly up immediately into heaven, and desires to know whether Justin is held by the same hope. Justin not obscurely defers that reward until the time of the resurrection, and says that the divine grace is preserved until the whole world be consummated.

Sed quocunque in loco animas sanctorum ante resurrectionem collocet Justinus, jam tum eas beatitudine aeterna et Dei visione perfrui non obscure declarat in utraque Apologia. Hanc enim causam affert cur Christiani libenter mortem oppetant pro Christo Apol., 1, n. 8 : « Vivere nolumus obstricti mendacio. Aeternae enim ac purae vitae cupidi ad domicilium cum Deo universorum Patre et opifice promissum contendimus ac properamus ad confitendum, cum persuasum habeamus et credamus haec bona ab illis comparari posse, qui factis suis testati Deo fuerint se illum sectatos esse, ac illud apud eum domicilium adamasse, ubi nulla vitiositas reluctatur. » In capite praecedenti duo alia ex eadem Apologia retuli testimonia, quorum in altero ait ab hac vita unumquemque ad aeternam sive poenam, sive salutem pro meritis actionum proficisci ; in altero animas bonorum e corpore exeuntes beatas esse pronuntiat. In Apol. 2, n. 2, sic de Lucio martyre, abripi jusso ad supplicium, loquitur : « At ille gratias etiam agebat, cum se ab improbis ejusmodi dominis ad Patrem ac regem coelorum proficisci cognosceret. » Vid. n. 4. Non solus inter eos, qui mille annorum regnum admittunt, ita sensit Justinus. Martyres eximios habere videtur Irenaeus. Sic enim de illis loquitur lib. IV, c. 33, n. 9 : « Ecclesia omni in loco ob eam quam habet erga Deum dilectionem, multitudinem martyrum praemittit ad Patrem. » De omnibus sanctis Lactantius lib. III, cap. 12 : « Illi tamen, inquit, qui de immortalitate disputant animi, intelligere debuerunt ideo propositam nobis esse virtutem, ut perdomitis libidinibus, rerumque terrestrium cupiditate superata, purae ac victrices animae ad Deum, id est, ad originem suam revertantur. » S. Methodius, qui

Yet in whatever place Justin locates the souls of the saints before the resurrection, he not obscurely declares in either Apology that even then they enjoy eternal beatitude and the vision of God. For he brings forward this reason why Christians willingly meet death for Christ, Apology 1, no. 8: "We are unwilling to live bound by falsehood. For, desirous of the eternal and pure life, we strive towards the abode promised with God the Father and Maker of all, and hasten to confess, since we are persuaded and believe that these goods can be obtained by those who by their deeds have testified to God that they have followed Him, and have loved that abode with Him where no vice opposes." In the preceding chapter I reported two other testimonies from the same Apology, in one of which he says that from this life each one proceeds either to eternal punishment or to salvation according to the merits of his actions; in the other he pronounces that the souls of the good departing from the body are blessed. In Apology 2, no. 2, he speaks thus concerning the martyr Lucius, ordered to be dragged away to execution: "But he even gave thanks, knowing that from wicked masters of this sort he was setting out to the Father and King of the heavens." See no. 4. Not alone among those who admit the reign of a thousand years did Justin feel thus. Irenaeus seems to hold the martyrs as privileged. For thus he speaks of them in book 4, ch. 33, no. 9: "The Church in every place, on account of the love which she has towards God, sends forward a multitude of martyrs to the Father." Concerning all the saints Lactantius, book 3, ch. 12: "Yet those," says he, "who dispute concerning the immortality of the soul ought to have understood that virtue is proposed to us for this reason, that when lusts have been thoroughly subdued and the desire of earthly things overcome, pure and victorious souls may return to God, that is, to their origin." St. Methodius, who

Editors' notes and page, col. 92

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 92
marginal letters: A nio non; B recepturus? Non; C mendacio. Aeternae; D ille gratias
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: nio non videtur; word split at start of column: nio

PG 6:93

in oratione nona regnum mille annorum adoptat, in octava coelum virginibus e corpore solutis diserte promittit.

in the ninth discourse adopts the reign of a thousand years, in the eighth expressly promises heaven to virgins released from the body.

II. Quod spectat ad regnum mille annorum, nonnulla in hoc perperam exspectato eventu observanda et distinguenda sunt, ut doctrina Justini, quae nequaquam ordine exponitur, sed variis locis inspersa est, colligatur et illustretur.

2. As regards the reign of a thousand years, some things in this wrongly expected event must be observed and distinguished, so that the teaching of Justin, which is by no means set forth in order, but is scattered in various places, may be collected and illustrated.

Antequam Christus gloriose e nubibus veniat, Antichristum in terris crudeliter regnaturum et horribilia in Dei servos mala ac supplicia excogitaturum putabant. Jam illum pro foribus adesse existimabat Justinus, Dialog., n. 32. Ex quo sequitur nequaquam ab eo adventum Christi dilatum fuisse in longum tempus. Nam regnum Antichristi annis tribus et sex mensibus coercebat, ibid. Tunc autem Christum e coelo cum gloria venturum asserit, quando et defectionis homo grandia etiam adversus Altissimum in terris loquens, nefanda audebit in nos Christianos, n. 110. Eadem habemus apud Irenaeum, lib. V, c. 30, num. 4 : « Cum autem vastaverit Antichristus hic omnia in hoc mundo, regnans annis tribus et mensibus sex, et sederit in templo Hierosolymis, tunc veniet Dominus de coelis in nubibus, in gloria Patris, illum quidem et obedientes ei in stagnum ignis mittens ; adducens autem justis regni tempora, hoc est requietionem, septimam diem sanctificatam, et restituens Abrahae promissionem haereditatis : in quo regno, ait Dominus, multos ab Oriente et Occidente venientes, recumbere cum Abraham et Isaac et Jacob. » At inter Antichristi regnum et Christi adventum duo intercedunt memorabiles eventus, Eliae missio et Judaeorum conversio.

Before Christ comes gloriously from the clouds, they thought that Antichrist would reign cruelly on earth and devise horrible evils and punishments against the servants of God. Justin supposed that he was already at the doors, Dialogue, no. 32. From which it follows that the coming of Christ was by no means deferred by him for a long time. For he confined the reign of Antichrist to three years and six months, ibid. Moreover, he asserts that Christ will then come from heaven with glory when the man of apostasy, speaking great things on earth even against the Most High, shall dare unspeakable things against us Christians, no. 110. We have the same things in Irenaeus, book 5, ch. 30, no. 4: "Now when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, reigning for three years and six months, and shall have sat in the temple at Jerusalem, then the Lord shall come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending him indeed and those who obey him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the just the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day, and restoring to Abraham the promise of the inheritance: in which kingdom, says the Lord, many coming from the East and the West shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." But between the reign of Antichrist and the coming of Christ two memorable events intervene, the mission of Elijah and the conversion of the Jews.

Quamvis Judaeis minime dissimulet Justinus quidquid eorum obstinatus in errore animus merito audiebat ; nusquam tamen eis exprobrat extremum illud scelus, quod Antichristum adorando seque illius legibus subjiciendo admissuri ferebantur. Id conceptis verbis declarat Irenaeus, lib. III, c. 25, n. 4 : « Et Dominus autem hoc item non credentibus sibi dicebat : Ego veni in nomine Patris mei et non recepistis me ; cum alius venerit in nomine suo, illum recipietis ; alium dicens Antichristum qui alienus est a Domino, et ipse est iniquus judex, qui a Domino dictus est, quoniam Deum non timebat, neque hominem reverebatur, ad quem fugit vidua oblita Dei, terrena Jerusalem ad ulciscendum de inimico. Quod et faciet in tempore regni sui : transferet regnum in eam et in templo Dei sedet, seducens eos qui adorant eum, quasi ipse sit Christus. » Hieronymo teste, Millenarii Judaeos Antichristum sectaturos, ac postea illum relicturos sentiebant. Illud enim Osee, seducam eam, ex cap. II, 14, referebant ad Antichristi tempus, ut qui Christi non receperint veritatem, illius recipiant mendacium, et postea Christo adveniente salventur.

Although Justin by no means conceals from the Jews whatever their mind, obstinate in error, deservedly heard; yet nowhere does he reproach them with that extreme crime which they were said to be about to commit by adoring Antichrist and subjecting themselves to his laws. Irenaeus declares this in express terms, book 3, ch. 25, no. 4: "And the Lord also said this likewise to those who did not believe in Him: I am come in My Father's name, and ye received Me not; when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive; calling Antichrist another, who is alien from the Lord, and he is the unjust judge who was spoken of by the Lord, because he feared not God, nor regarded man, to whom the widow forgetful of God, the earthly Jerusalem, fled to be avenged of her enemy. Which also he will do in the time of his reign: he will transfer the kingdom to her and sit in the temple of God, seducing those who adore him, as though he himself were the Christ." As Jerome testifies, the Millenarians held that the Jews would follow Antichrist, and afterwards would forsake him. For that saying of Hosea, I will allure her, from ch. 2:14, they referred to the time of Antichrist, that those who did not receive the truth of Christ might receive his lie, and afterwards be saved at the coming of Christ.

Editors' notes and page, col. 93

Footnotes

(24) ‹anchor: suo, illum recipietis› · call in col 93

Joan. V, 43.

John 5:43.

(printed under page 53)

(25) ‹anchor: Deum non timebat› · call in col 93

Luc. XVIII, 2.

Luke 18:2.

(printed under page 53)

Page

running head: 93 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A in oratione; B annis tribus; C bere cum; D alienus est
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: in oratione nona

PG 6:94

III. Haec Judaeorum conversio et Eliae missio ad hoc opus exsequendum diserte a S. Justino memorantur. Declarat Eliam, cum gloria et splendore venturum, ut quemadmodum ejus spiritus in Joanne primi et humilis adventus praecursor exstitit, ita ipse secundi et gloriosi praecursor sit. Cum diceret Trypho nondum venisse Christum, quia nondum venit Elias qui illum uncturus est, respondet Justinus Eliam terribilis et magni diei, id est secundi adventus, praecursorem futurum. « Atque hoc ipsum, inquit, n. 49, Dominus noster inter ea quae docuit, futurum esse tradidit, cum Eliam quoque dixit esse venturum. Quod quidem futurum nos esse scimus, cum e coelis gloriose Dominus noster Jesus Christus venturus est ; cujus quidem primi etiam adventus Spiritus Dei, qui erat in Elia, praeco praecessit in Joanne vestri generis propheta. » Et paulo post : « Quemadmodum cum Moyses adhuc inter homines versaretur, transtulit Deus in Jesum ex eo spiritu, qui erat in Mose ; ita ab Elia in Joannem transferre potuit Deus ; ut quemadmodum Christus priore adventu inglorius apparuit, ita etiam illius spiritus, qui in Elia purus semper et integer manebat, itidem ut Christi inglorius primus adventus intelligeretur.

3. This conversion of the Jews and the mission of Elijah to accomplish this work are expressly mentioned by St. Justin. He declares that Elijah will come with glory and splendour, so that just as his spirit in John was the forerunner of the first and humble coming, so he himself may be the forerunner of the second and glorious one. When Trypho said that the Christ had not yet come, because Elijah, who is to anoint Him, had not yet come, Justin replies that Elijah will be the forerunner of the terrible and great day, that is, of the second coming. "And this very thing," says he, at no. 49, "our Lord among the things that He taught handed down as about to come to pass, when He said that Elijah also was to come. Which indeed we know will come to pass when our Lord Jesus Christ is to come gloriously from heaven; of Whose first coming also the Spirit of God that was in Elijah went before as herald in John, a prophet of your race." And a little after: "Just as, while Moses was still conversing among men, God transferred unto Joshua from that spirit which was in Moses, so God was able to transfer from Elijah unto John; so that just as Christ at His former coming appeared inglorious, so also the coming of that spirit which always remained pure and entire in Elijah might be understood to be inglorious, just like the first coming of Christ."

Hoc Eliae ministerium Judaeorum in primis conversioni destinatum videbatur. Non enim dubium erat Justino, quin Judaeos Christus adveniens suscepturus esset, et cum aliis fidelibus bonorum in urbe Jerusalem promissorum participes facturus. « His verbis, inquit, num. 33, Juravit Dominus et non poenitebit eum ; tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, jurejurando Deus propter incredulitatem vestram interposito, pontificem illum secundum ordinem Melchisedech esse declaravit : hoc est, quemadmodum Melchisedech sacerdos Altissimi fuisse a Mose scriptus est, isque eorum, qui in praeputio, sacerdos erat, ac Abrahamo decimas ipsi in circumcisione offerenti benedixit ; sic Deus aeternum suum sacerdotem qui et Dominus a Spiritu sancto vocatus est, eorum qui in praeputio sacerdotem futurum, et circumcisos quoque ipsos ad eum accedentes, id est in eum credentes et benedictionem ab eo quaerentes suscepturum et illis benedicturum declaravit. » Tertullianus ad hunc locum citatus haec de Judaicae gentis futura conversione intellexit.

This ministry of Elijah seemed destined above all for the conversion of the Jews. For there was no doubt to Justin that Christ at His coming would receive the Jews, and make them partakers with the rest of the faithful of the goods promised in the city of Jerusalem. "By these words," says he, at no. 33, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek, God, interposing an oath on account of your unbelief, declared Him to be high priest according to the order of Melchizedek: that is, just as Melchizedek was written of by Moses as having been priest of the Most High, and was priest of those who were in uncircumcision, and blessed Abraham who in circumcision offered tithes to him; so God declared that His eternal Priest, Who is also called Lord by the Holy Spirit, would be the priest of those in uncircumcision, and would also receive the circumcised themselves approaching Him, that is, believing in Him and seeking a blessing from Him, and would bless them." Tertullian, cited at this passage, understood these things of the future conversion of the Jewish race.

Haec confirmari possunt alio ex loco, ubi Trypho his, quae ex Justino audierat de nova terrestri Jerusalem mirum in modum delectatus, quaerit an vere et ex animo Justinus ita locutus fuerit : Εἰπὲ δέ μοι· ἀληθῶς ὑμεῖς ἀνοικοδομηθῆναι τὸν τόπον Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖτε, καὶ συναχθήσεσθαι τὸν λαὸν ὑμῶν σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἅμα τοῖς πατριάρχαις καὶ τοῖς προφήταις, καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους, ἢ καὶ τῶν προσηλύτων γενομένων πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ὑμῶν τὸν Χριστὸν προσδοκᾶτε, ἢ ἵνα δόξῃς περικρατεῖν

These things can be confirmed from another passage, where Trypho, wonderfully delighted with what he had heard from Justin concerning the new earthly Jerusalem, asks whether Justin spoke thus truly and from the heart: But tell me, do you truly confess that this place Jerusalem will be rebuilt, and do you expect that your people will be gathered together with the Christ, together with the patriarchs and the prophets, and those of our race, or even of those who became proselytes before your Christ came, or in order that you might seem to prevail over

Editors' notes and page, col. 94

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: ordinem Melchisedech› · call in col 94

Psal. CIX, 4.

Psalm 109 (110):4.

(printed under page 53)

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 94
marginal letters: A III. Haec; B primi etiam; C urbe Jerusalem; D pturum et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: III. Haec Judaeorum

PG 6:95

ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς ζητήσεσι, πρὸς τὸ ταῦτα ὁμολογεῖν ἐχώρησας ; « Sed age dic mihi : Vere hunc vos Jerosolymorum locum instauratum iri fatemini ; ac populum vestrum congregatum iri, et cum Christo beate victurum exspectatis una cum patriarchis et prophetis, ac hominibus nostri generis, aut qui, antequam Christus vester adveniat, conversi fuerint ; an ut nos videaris abunde in controversiis superare, eo confugisti ut haec fatereris ? » Credideram haec verba, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ὑμῶν τὸν Χριστόν, de primo adventu dicta esse, ac proinde quae praecedunt, intelligenda de Judaeis eorumque proselytis, qui fide ante Incarnationem salvi facti sunt ; sed re accuratius considerata, Tryphonem locutum esse puto de secundo adventu ac de Judaica gente ad Christum, Eliae ministerio, convertenda, et iis qui se ex illa gente ante generalem illam conversionem Christianis adjunxerant, aut adjuncturi erant. Quod enim concesserat Justinus, id Tryphonem tanta laetitia perfudit, ut vix illud credat : suspicatur Justinum ita egisse fiducia virium suarum, non quod vere et ex animo ita sentiret. At profecto si hoc tantum concessisset Justinus, Jerosolymam quidem instauratum iri, at Judaeos in eam non ingressuros, sed cum Antichristo in summum exitium venturos ; ejusmodi opinio delinire Tryphonem non debuit, sed potius ira et furiis incendere. Sed cum Judaei sperarent se Jerusalem ex captivitate, in quam inciderant, revocatum iri, ibique cum eo quem sibi fingebant Christo, omnibus imperaturos gentibus ; non potuit Tryphoni gratum non accidere quidquid ad hanc sententiam accommodate Justinus et alii Millenarii de Judaeis Jerosolymam revocandis opinati sunt. Deinde vero respicit Trypho ad ea quae Justinus dixerat, n. 28, cum sic Judaeos adhortaretur. « Ne differatis, neve dubitetis mihi, homini incircumciso, credere. Breve enim hoc vobis relinquitur ad nos accedendi tempus. Si Christus venire occupaverit, frustra vos poenitebit, frustra plorabitis ; neque enim vos exaudiet. » Haec in memoria habens Trypho, ita se ad Justini monita accommodat, ut ex Judaeis ante gentis conversionem mortuis aut morituris nullum in novam Jerusalem admittat, nisi qui Christo nomen dederit. Quare ejus verba, ἢ καὶ τῶν προσηλύτων γενομένων, non de Judaeorum ante Incarnationem proselytis accipienda, sed de ipsis Judaeis Christianorum factis proselytis ante secundum adventum atque illam populi Judaici sub Eliae ministerio conversionem.

us in the questionings? "But come, tell me: Do you truly confess that this place of Jerusalem will be restored, and do you expect that your people will be gathered together and live blessedly with Christ, together with the patriarchs and prophets, and men of our race, or those who have been converted before your Christ comes; or did you take refuge in confessing these things so that you might seem abundantly to overcome us in controversies?" I had believed that these words, before your Christ came, were spoken of the first coming, and accordingly that what precedes was to be understood of the Jews and their proselytes who were saved by faith before the Incarnation; but having considered the matter more accurately, I think that Trypho spoke of the second coming and of the Jewish race to be converted to Christ by the ministry of Elijah, and of those from that race who before that general conversion had joined, or were about to join, the Christians. For what Justin had conceded filled Trypho with such great joy that he scarcely believed it: he suspects that Justin acted thus out of confidence in his own strength, not because he truly and from the heart felt so. Yet assuredly, if Justin had conceded only this, that Jerusalem indeed would be restored, but that the Jews would not enter into it, and would come with Antichrist into utter destruction, an opinion of this sort ought not to have soothed Trypho, but rather to have inflamed him with anger and fury. But since the Jews hoped that they would be recalled to Jerusalem from the captivity into which they had fallen, and there, with the Christ whom they fashioned for themselves, would rule over all nations, whatever Justin and other Millenarians held in accommodation to this opinion concerning the recalling of the Jews to Jerusalem could not fail to be welcome to Trypho. Next, moreover, Trypho looks to what Justin had said at no. 28, when he exhorted the Jews thus: "Do not delay, nor hesitate to believe me, an uncircumcised man. For this short time is left to you for coming over to us. If Christ forestalls you by coming, in vain will you repent, in vain will you weep; for He will not hear you." Having these things in memory, Trypho so accommodates himself to Justin's admonitions as to admit into the new Jerusalem none of the Jews who have died or are about to die before the conversion of the race, except one who has given his name to Christ. Wherefore his words, or even of those who became proselytes, are to be taken not of the proselytes of the Jews before the Incarnation, but of the Jews themselves made proselytes of the Christians before the second coming and that conversion of the Jewish people under the ministry of Elijah.

IV. Ut de Antichristi bellis et victoriis, ita et de poenis, quas Christus gloriose e coelo adveniens ab Antichristo et a regibus cum Antichristo conjunctis repetiturus erat, non multa habemus apud Justinum. Vix tamen dubium quin ea senserit quae Irenaeus et Lactantius his de bellis et victoriis scripserunt : ait enim, n. 39, fore ut Christus in glorioso adventu excidat omnes inimicos. « Christum crucifixum, inquit, n. 49, tremunt daemonia

4. Just as concerning the wars and victories of Antichrist, so also concerning the punishments which Christ, coming gloriously from heaven, was to exact from Antichrist and from the kings joined with Antichrist, we do not have much in Justin. Yet there is scarcely a doubt that he felt what Irenaeus and Lactantius wrote concerning these wars and victories: for he says, at no. 39, that it will come to pass that Christ at His glorious coming will cut off all enemies. "At Christ crucified," says he, at no. 49, "the demons tremble,

Editors' notes and page, col. 95

Page

running head: 95 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHU
marginal letters: A ἡμῶν ἐν; B stum, Eliae; C cum eo; D Christo nomen
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς

PG 6:96

et omnes prorsus principatus et potestates terrae. » Et, num. 121 : « Ipsi etiam daemones ejus nomini subjiciuntur, ac principatus omnes et regna nomen ejus supra omnes defunctos reformidant. » Et, n. 11 : « Est enim et erat et erit unius ac solius ista vis, cujus vel nomen principatus omnis reformidat, tabescens quod per illum evertendus sit. » Vid. n. 131.

and all the principalities and powers of the earth whatsoever." And at no. 121: "The demons themselves also are subjected to His name, and all principalities and kingdoms dread His name above all the dead." And at no. 11: "For this power is and was and shall be that of One and One alone, Whose very name every principality dreads, wasting away because it is to be overthrown through Him." See no. 131.

Illud autem maxime observandum est Justinum, etsi mille annos interponit inter secundum Christi adventum, et extremum judicium, sic tamen loqui solere quasi nihil intervalli inter utrumque eventum intercedat. Judaeis, n. 35, salutem aeternam credentibus promittit in secundo adventu, qui gloriosus futurus est ; non credentibus aeternum ignem minatur. Sic etiam, n. 45, futurum ait, ut mors in secundo ipsius Christi adventu ab his, qui in eum credunt et ita vivunt ut ipsi placeant, penitus facessat, nec jam amplius ulla sit, cum alii in judicium et condemnationem ignis perpetuo cruciandi mittentur, alii vero perpessionis, et corruptionis, et doloris expertem statum atque immortalitatem consequentur. Hinc saepe Judaeorum, qui Christum crucifixerunt, seram in secundo adventu poenitentiam et inutiles planctus commemorat. Agit, n. 14, de duplici adventu, quorum in altero plangent Judaei interfectores Christi. Et, n. 32, revocans in memoriam ea quae, n. 14, dixerat, sic loquitur : « Si non exposuissem duplicem illius adventum, alterum in quo agnoscetis in quem pupugistis, et plangent tribus vestrae, tribus ad tribum, mulieres seorsum et viri seorsum ; obscura et incerta dicere viderer. » Planctum Justinus non eum intelligit, quem edent Judaei ad Christum accedentes, sed ploratum, et ejulatus, quos Christum, si venire ocupaverit, exauditurum negat, n. 28. Hortatur Judaeos, n. 118, ut poenitentiam agant, antequam veniat magnus ille judicii dies, in quo plangent quicunque ex illorum tribubus Christum pupugerunt.

Moreover, this above all is to be observed, that Justin, although he interposes a thousand years between the second coming of Christ and the last judgement, is nevertheless accustomed to speak as though no interval intervened between the two events. To the Jews who believe, at no. 35, he promises eternal salvation at the second coming, which will be glorious; those who do not believe he threatens with eternal fire. Thus also, at no. 45, he says that it will come to pass that at the second coming of Christ Himself death will utterly depart from those who believe in Him and live so as to please Him, and will no longer be at all, when some shall be sent into the judgement and condemnation of fire to be tormented perpetually, while others shall obtain a state free from suffering, and corruption, and pain, and immortality. Hence he often recounts the late repentance and unavailing lamentations at the second coming of the Jews who crucified Christ. He treats, at no. 14, of the twofold coming, in the second of which the Jews who slew Christ shall lament. And at no. 32, recalling to memory what he had said at no. 14, he speaks thus: "If I had not set forth His twofold coming, the second in which you shall recognize Him Whom you pierced, and your tribes shall lament, tribe by tribe, the women apart and the men apart, I should seem to say obscure and uncertain things." By lamentation Justin understands not that which the Jews approaching Christ will utter, but the weeping and wailing which he denies that Christ, if He forestalls them by coming, will hear, no. 28. He exhorts the Jews, at no. 118, to repent before that great day of judgement comes, in which all of their tribes who pierced Christ shall lament.

Videtur Justinus idcirco judicium extremum cum secundo adventu conjungere, quamvis utrumque separaret, quia, antequam hanc de regno mille annorum doctrinam adoptaret, ita loqui assueverat, nec eum nova opinio a consuetudine communis sermonis abstraxit. Non enim verisimile est eum duo admisisse judicia, itidem ut Lactantium, lib. VII, c. 20, primum in ipso Christi adventu, in quo judicabuntur ii tantum, qui sunt in Dei religione versati, alterum post mille annos.

Justin seems for this reason to conjoin the last judgement with the second coming, although he separated the two, because before he adopted this doctrine concerning the reign of a thousand years he had been accustomed to speak thus, and the new opinion did not draw him away from the usage of common speech. For it is not probable that he admitted two judgements, just like Lactantius, book 7, ch. 20, the first at the very coming of Christ, in which those only will be judged who have beenversed in the religion of God, and the second after a thousand years.

Valde dubito an hac regni terreni opinione imbutus fuerit Justinus, cum primam Apologiam scripsit. In hac enim nullum hujus commenti vestigium reperio, quamvis multae occasiones occurrerent de his rebus disserendi, praecipue vero de tristi Romani imperii exitu, ex quo terror incuti poterat persecutoribus. Neque is erat Justinus, qui aut metu veritatem dissimularet, aut justam libertatem cum debita imperatori reverentia conciliare non posset. Quin etiam in hac Apologia resurrectionem

I greatly doubt whether Justin was imbued with this opinion of an earthly kingdom when he wrote the first Apology. For in it I find no trace of this figment, although many occasions occurred for discoursing concerning these matters, and especially concerning the sad end of the Roman empire, from which terror could have been struck into the persecutors. Nor was Justin the man either to conceal the truth through fear, or to be unable to reconcile a just liberty with the reverence due to the emperor. Nay more, in this Apology he so conjoins the resurrection

Editors' notes and page, col. 96

Page

running head: S PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 96
marginal letters: A et omnes; B minatur. Sic; C quo agnoscetis; D sermonis abstraxit.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: et omnes prorsus

PG 6:97

bonorum et malorum et judicium extremum cum secundo adventu sic conjungit, ut non sermonem tantum, sed et sententiam communem sequi videatur. « Duos enim illius adventus, inquit, n. 52, praedixerunt prophetae, unum qui jam exhibitus est, tanquam despecti et passibilis hominis ; alterum autem, quando cum gloria, e coelis una cum angelico ipsius exercitu adventurus praedicatur, quando et corpora exsuscitabit omnium, quicunque exstiterunt, hominum, ac dignorum quidem corpora induet incorruptione, iniquorum autem in perpetuo sensu cum pravis daemonibus in ignem aeternum mittet. »

of the good and the wicked and the last judgement with the second coming, that he seems to follow not only the common speech, but also the common opinion. "For the prophets foretold two comings of His," says he, at no. 52, "one which has already been exhibited, as of a despised and passible man; and the second, when He is proclaimed as about to come from heaven with glory together with His angelic host, when also He will raise up the bodies of all men whoever have existed, and will clothe the bodies of the worthy indeed with incorruption, but will send those of the unjust, in perpetual sense, with the wicked demons into eternal fire."

Quonam in loco judicium de omnibus hominibus facturus sit Christus, nec Irenaeus, nec Lactantius dixerunt. At Justinus id non tacuit. Futurum enim ait Dialog., n. 40, ut Judaei in eodem Jerosolymorum loco eum agnoscant, quem contumelia affecerunt.

In what place Christ is to hold judgement concerning all men, neither Irenaeus nor Lactantius has said. But Justin did not pass this over in silence. For he says in the Dialogue, no. 40, that it will come to pass that the Jews will recognize Him Whom they treated with contumely in the very same place of Jerusalem.

V. Non magno conatu opus est, ut a Justino et Irenaeo et aliis ejusmodi propulsemus quidquid regni terrestris opinio habuit maxime vitiosi, Sabbata, sacrificia, circumcisionem et corporeas voluptates. Quia tamen nonnulli, in his Tillemontius tom. II, p. 424, negant eos exclusisse ab hoc statu necessitatem edendi et bibendi ; non leviter praetermittenda res est. Justinus Dialog., num. 51, ait praedixisse Christum, se multa a Scribis et Pharisaeis pati oportere, et crucifigi et tertio die resurgere, ac futurum, ut iterum Jerosolymam veniret, tumque una cum discipulis ederet ac biberet, ac interea dum veniret, in ipsius nomine sacerdotes et prophetae falsi prodirent. Cum Christum lego una cum discipulis edere et bibere, non metuo ne justos redivivos astringat Justinus quotidiana cibi et potus indigentia ; sed spirituales delicias intelligo, quibus Christum in nova Jerusalem justos potaturum existimabat. Spiritualiter enim intelligit illud Christi, n. 120 : Venient enim ab Oriente et Occidente et recumbent cum Abraham, et Isaac, et Jacob in regno coelorum. Vitam ab omni corruptione immunem in hoc terreno regno promittit, num. 24, ubi sic loquitur : « Adeste mihi, omnes, qui timetis Deum, qui bona Jerusalem videre cupitis. Venite, accedamus ad lucem Domini ; liberavit enim populum suum, domum Jacob. Venite, omnes gentes, conveniamus in Jerusalem, quae non amplius expugnatur propter peccata populorum. » Et, n. 139 : « Christus secundum omnipotentis Patris virtutem ipsi traditam advenit, ac in amicitiam, et benedictionem, et poenitentiam, et convictum vocans, futuram in eadem terra sanctorum omnium possessionem, ut jam demonstratum est, promisit. Unde quacunque ex regione sive servi, sive liberi, credentes in Christum, et eorum, quae tum ab ipso, tum a prophetis tradita sunt, veritatem agnoscentes, sciunt se una cum eo in illa terra futuros, et aeterna ac incorrupta bona

5. No great effort is needed to ward off from Justin and Irenaeus and others of this sort whatever was most faulty in the opinion of an earthly kingdom: Sabbaths, sacrifices, circumcision, and bodily pleasures. Yet because some, among them Tillemont, vol. 2, p. 424, deny that they excluded from this state the necessity of eating and drinking, the matter must not be lightly passed over. Justin, in the Dialogue, no. 51, says that Christ foretold that He must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise again on the third day, and that it would come to pass that He would come again to Jerusalem, and then eat and drink together with His disciples, and that in the meantime, until He came, false priests and prophets would arise in His name. When I read that Christ eats and drinks together with His disciples, I do not fear that Justin binds the risen just by a daily need of food and drink; but I understand spiritual delights, with which he supposed that Christ would give the just to drink in the new Jerusalem. For he understands spiritually that saying of Christ, at no. 120: For they shall come from the East and the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. He promises a life immune from all corruption in this earthly kingdom, at no. 24, where he speaks thus: "Come near to me, all you who fear God, who desire to see the good things of Jerusalem. Come, let us approach the light of the Lord; for He has freed His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations, let us assemble into Jerusalem, which is no longer stormed on account of the sins of the peoples." And at no. 139: "Christ came according to the power of the almighty Father delivered to Him, and calling men to friendship, and blessing, and repentance, and fellowship of life, promised that there would be in the same land a possession of all the saints, as has already been demonstrated. Whence from whatever region, whether slaves or free, those who believe in Christ and recognize the truth of those things which have been handed down both by Him and by the prophets know that they will be with Him in that land, and will receive by inheritance eternal and incorruptible goods."

Editors' notes and page, col. 97

Footnotes

(27) ‹anchor: in regno coelorum› · call in col 97

Matth. VIII, 11.

Matthew 8:11.

(printed under page 55)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 97 or 98 (call not visible; note printed under col 97)

Isai. VI, 12.

Isaiah 6:12.

(printed under page 55)

Page

running head: 97 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A bonorum et; B dixerunt. At; C ac futurum; D cem Domini
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: bonorum et malorum

PG 6:98

haereditate accepturos. » Multi opinionem Millenariorum sinistre prorsus interpretati sunt, dum minus animadvertunt Scripturae testimonia, in quibus summa rerum ad victum et cultum pertinentium copia, ac magna filiorum multitudo promittitur, sic intellecta a Patribus fuisse, ut spiritualia bona justis redivivis, corporea iis attribuerent, quos Christus in terra vivos inveniet. Vid. Adnotationem ad n. 81. Manifesta est haec distinctio apud Irenaeum, qui, lib. V, c. 35, n. 1, testimonia Scripturae in resurrectionem justorum, sine controversia dicta esse contendit, quae fit post adventum Antichristi, et illos quos Dominus in carne inveniet, exspectantes eum de coelis, et perpessos tribulationem, qui et effugerunt iniqui manus. Ipsi autem sunt de quibus ait propheta : Et derelicti multiplicabuntur in terra. Haud dubium quin postremis etiam attribuat quae sequuntur apud Isaiam LXV, 21, quaeque paulo ante citata ab Irenaeo fuerant : Et aedificabunt domos, et ipsi inhabitabunt et pastinabunt vineas et manducabunt. Quare quae de justis cum Christo bibentibus de genimine vitis dicit Irenaeus, c. 33, n. 1, non tam mihi videntur quotidianum cibi et potus indicare usum ad fulciendam indigentiam, quam facultatem edendi et bibendi, qualem Christus habuit post resurrectionnem, ad carnis veritatem astruendam.

Many have interpreted the opinion of the Millenarians altogether unfavourably, through failing to notice that the testimonies of Scripture in which the utmost abundance of things pertaining to food and maintenance and a great multitude of children are promised were so understood by the Fathers that they attributed the spiritual goods to the risen just, and the bodily goods to those whom Christ will find alive on earth. See the Note on no. 81. This distinction is manifest in Irenaeus, who, book 5, ch. 35, no. 1, contends that the testimonies of Scripture are spoken without controversy with reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, who have endured tribulation and escaped the hands of the wicked one. Now it is of them that the prophet says: And those who are left shall be multiplied in the earth. There is no doubt that to the latter he also attributes what follows in Isaiah 65:21, and what had been cited by Irenaeus a little before: And they shall build houses, and themselves shall inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them. Wherefore what Irenaeus says, ch. 33, no. 1, concerning the just drinking with Christ of the fruit of the vine seems to me to indicate not so much a daily use of food and drink for relieving want as the faculty of eating and drinking, such as Christ had after the resurrection, for establishing the truth of the flesh.

CAPUT XIII.

Chapter XIII.

De nonnullis in Justino perperam reprehensis ; atque utrum ea quae merito reprehenduntur illius auctoritatem in aliis rebus minuant.

Concerning some things wrongly censured in Justin; and whether those things which are deservedly censured diminish his authority in other matters.

I. Leves nonnullae reprehensiones obiter refelluntur. II. An merito Justinus laudaverit martyres, qui seipsos obtulerunt. III. Nonnulla errata Justini ejus auctoritatem minuere non debent. IV. Frustra ad evertendam traditionem objicitur opinio de regno mille annorum.

1. Some slight censures are refuted in passing. 2. Whether Justin deservedly praised the martyrs who offered themselves. 3. Some errors of Justin ought not to diminish his authority. 4. In vain is the opinion concerning the reign of a thousand years objected in order to overthrow tradition.

I. Tempus terere non libet in nonnullis uberius refellendis, quae censoris malevolum potius animum declarant, quam naevum opportune castigatum arguunt. Justinum vellicat J. Barbeyracus in libro De doctrina morali Patrum Ecclesiae, quod his Christi verbis : Ne juretis omnino, nulla prorsus exceptione restrictis Apol. 1, num. 16, cum ipse in ambiguo reliquerit, utrum jusjurandum etiam gravissima de causa legitimum duxerit, tum gentilibus credendi locum dederit jusjurandum a Christo prorsus sublatum et interdictum fuisse. Magnum sane piaculum a S. martyre admissum, magnique erroris data occasio gentilibus, quod per Jovem jurare solitos non docuerit quibus locis et temporibus jurare liceat, quodque illis persuaserit Christianos Christi praecepto parere, dum ne gravissimis quidem cruciatibus adduci possunt, ut per fortunam Caesaris jurent. Sed tamen Christi verba non videtur Justinus sine ulla prorsus exceptione accipere. Sic enim illius de jurejurando praeceptum refert : Περὶ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ὀμνύναι ὅλως, τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεὶ, οὕτως παρεκελεύσατο· Μὴ ὀμόσητε ὅλως· ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ, ναὶ, καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ, etc. « Ne autem juremus omnino,

1. It is not pleasing to waste time in refuting more fully some things which declare the malevolent mind of the censor rather than prove a blemish seasonably chastised. Jean Barbeyrac carps at Justin in his book On the Moral Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church because, by restricting these words of Christ: Swear not at all, by no exception whatever in Apology 1, no. 16, he both left it in doubt whether he accounted an oath lawful even for the weightiest cause, and gave the Gentiles ground to believe that an oath had been altogether abolished and forbidden by Christ. A great offence indeed committed by the holy martyr, and an occasion of great error given to the Gentiles, that he did not teach men accustomed to swear by Jupiter in what places and at what times it is lawful to swear, and that he persuaded them that Christians obey the precept of Christ while not even by the heaviest torments can they be induced to swear by the fortune of Caesar! And yet Justin does not seem to take the words of Christ without any exception whatever. For thus he reports His precept concerning swearing: And concerning not swearing at all, and speaking the truth always, He exhorted thus: Swear not at all; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, etc. "Moreover, that we should not swear at

Editors' notes and page, col. 98

Page

running head: NI PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 98
marginal letters: A haereditate accepturos.; B propheta : Et; C ritatem in; D tum et interdictum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: haereditate accepturos., CAPUT XIII., De nonnullis, I. Leves nonnullae, I. Tempus terere; word split at end of column: om-
other: the word omnino, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 99

PG 6:99

sed verum semper dicamus, sic praecepit : Ne juretis omnino, sed sit vestrum, Est, est ; non, non, » etc. Non obscure docet Justinus nullum fore jurisjurandi usum, si vera semper homines dicerent, nec ullus esset mendacio locus. Sic enim interpretatur verba Christi, quasi dictum esset : Nolite omnino jurare, sed verum semper dicite. Itaque jusjurandum ob vigentia inter homines mendacia adhiberi statuit : consuetudini jurandi opponit consuetudinem vera in omnibus semper dicendi ; alteram a Christo penitus sublatam putat, sed quatenus alteram Christus sancit et praescribit. Qui ita ratiocinatur, non eam jurisjurandi speciem damnatam existimat, cujus necessitatem nonnunquam imponunt justae suspiciones ex dolis et mendaciis societatem turbantibus exortae.

all, but always speak the truth, He commanded thus: Swear not at all, but let your speech be, Yea, yea; nay, nay," etc. Justin not obscurely teaches that there would be no use for an oath if men always spoke the truth and there were no place for falsehood. For he so interprets the words of Christ as if it had been said: Do not swear at all, but always speak the truth. And so he lays it down that an oath is employed on account of the falsehoods prevailing among men: to the custom of swearing he opposes the custom of always speaking the truth in all things; the former he thinks to have been utterly abolished by Christ, yet insofar as Christ sanctions and prescribes the latter. He who reasons thus does not suppose that kind of oath to be condemned whose necessity just suspicions arising from deceits and falsehoods that disturb society sometimes impose.

Vituperat auctor fragmenti de resurrectione, quod in Appendice edidimus, « iniquum ex cupiditate matrimonium, » τὸν δι' ἐπιθυμίας ἄνομον γάμον. Quomodo hanc sententiam carpere potuit idem scriptor ? Quid enim magis consentaneum huic praecepto, ut omnia in charitate fiant et sive manducamus, sive bibimus, sive aliud quid facimus, omnia in gloriam Dei faciamus ?

The author of the fragment on the resurrection which we have published in the Appendix censures "lawless marriage from lust," lawless marriage through lust. How could the same writer carp at this sentiment? For what is more agreeable to this precept, that all things be done in charity, and whether we eat, or drink, or do anything else, we do all things unto the glory of God?

Quod spectat ad audaciam illius adolescentis qui praefectum Alexandriae libello oblato rogavit, ut medico licentiam daret testes ipsi resecandi ; hoc facto utitur Justinus, Apol. 1, n. 29, ut argumento innocentiae Christianorum ; rem ipsam legi divinae consentaneam esse non dicit ; adolescentem laudat, quod negata hac licentia perpetuam virginitatem coluerit, minime vero quod ipse, ut pravae interpretationes pluribus persuaserant, exsecutus fuisset quod medici negaverant.

As regards the boldness of that youth who presented a petition to the prefect of Alexandria asking that he grant permission to a physician to cut off his testicles, Justin uses this deed, Apology 1, no. 29, as an argument for the innocence of Christians; he does not say that the thing itself is agreeable to the divine law; he praises the youth because, when this permission was denied, he cultivated perpetual virginity, and by no means because, as perverse interpretations had persuaded several, he had himself executed what the physicians had refused.

II. Paulo attentius consideranda S. Justini de martyrio sententia, quae ejusdem eruditi viri censuram non effugit. Probati fuere (non enim dissimulanda res est) S. martyri, qui charitate ferventes et Spiritu sancto repleti, semetipsos, nemine accusante, Christianos esse judicibus nuntiarunt. Horum virtutis admiratione adductum fatetur se esse, ut innocentiam Christianorum agnosceret. « Nam et ipse ego, inquit, Apol. 2, n. 12, cum Platonis doctrina delectarer, ac de criminibus in Christianos conjectis audirem, eos autem ad mortem et ad alia omnia, quae videntur metuenda, impavidos cernerem ; fieri non posse intelligebam, ut in nequitia et in voluptatum amore viverent. Quis enim libidinosus et intemperans, ac humanae carnis epulas in bonis numerans, mortem amplecti possit ut bonis suis careat, ac non potius in hac vita semper versari et magistratus latere conetur ; nedum seipsum deferat morte damnandum ? » Minime ergo mirum si laudes illius in eadem Apol., n. 2, meruere cum Lucius martyr, qui S. Ptolemaeum ad supplicium abripi videns iniquitatem judicis redarguit, et statim confessus se esse Christianum simul abreptus est ; tum

2. A little more attentively must be considered St. Justin's opinion concerning martyrdom, which has not escaped the censure of the same learned man. Approved by the holy martyr (for the matter is not to be concealed) were those who, fervent in charity and filled with the Holy Spirit, announced themselves to the judges as Christians when no one accused them. He confesses that he was led by admiration of their virtue to recognize the innocence of Christians. "For I myself also," says he, Apology 2, no. 12, "when I delighted in the teaching of Plato, and heard of the charges cast against the Christians, capability of seeing them fearless towards death and towards all other things that seem fearful, understood that it was impossible that they lived in wickedness and in the love of pleasures. For what lustful and intemperate man, who counts banquets of human flesh among good things, could embrace death so as to be deprived of his goods, and would not rather endeavour always to abide in this life and to escape the notice of the magistrates, much less denounce himself to be condemned to death?" It is therefore by no means wonderful if in the same Apology, no. 2, both the martyr Lucius—who, seeing St. Ptolemaeus dragged off to execution, rebuked the iniquity of the judge, and straightway confessing himself to be a Christian was dragged off at the same time—merited his praises, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 99

Footnotes

(29) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 99 (call not visible; note printed under col 99)

Matth. V, 38.

Matthew 5:38 [as printed; the oath saying "Swear not at all" is Matthew 5:34].

(printed under page 56)

(30) ‹anchor: in gloriam Dei faciamus› · call in col 99

I Cor. X, 31.

1 Corinthians 10:31.

(printed under page 56)

Page

running head: 99 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHU
marginal letters: A nino, sed; B tatem turbantibus; C quod negata; D conjectis audirem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: nino, sed verum; word split at start of column: nino

PG 6:100

tertius quidam superveniens et eodem supplicio damnatus. Quomodo ejusmodi martyres vituperasset Justinus, qui non solum Christianum se esse a nemine in judicium vocatus ultro professus est, sed etiam Christianorum defensorem, ac ipsos imperatores pro tribunali sedentes adire non dubitavit ?

a certain third man who came up and was condemned to the same punishment. How would Justin have censured martyrs of this sort, he who, called into court by no one, voluntarily professed himself not only a Christian, but also a defender of Christians, and did not hesitate to approach the very emperors sitting on the tribunal?

Fugam in persecutionibus laudabilem esse ac saepe omnino necessariam, res est Scripturae et traditionis praeceptis et exemplis ita certa et explorata, ut nemo refragari possit, nisi quem aut Montanistis aut persecutoribus S. Athanasii adjungi non pudeat. Sed tamen fugae praecepto non omnes semper obstricti tenentur : alioqui nec magnus Polycarpus vituperium effugeret, nec multi alii, qui cum fuga sibi consulere possent, in manus satellitum venire maluerunt. Sic etiam debita tot martyribus, qui seipsos obtulerunt, reverentia, eos tantum notari et culpari sinit, quos temerarius magis impetus, quam charitas impulit.

That flight in persecutions is praiseworthy and often altogether necessary is a matter so certain and established by the precepts and examples of Scripture and tradition that no one can gainsay it, except one who is not ashamed to be joined either with the Montanists or with the persecutors of St. Athanasius. And yet not all are always held bound by the precept of flight: otherwise neither would the great Polycarp escape censure, nor many others, who, when they could have consulted their own safety by flight, preferred to come into the hands of the guards. Thus also the reverence due to so many martyrs who offered themselves allows those only to be marked and blamed whom a rash impulse rather than charity impelled.

Talis exstitit Quintus quidam, de quo Smyrnensis Ecclesia sic judicium suum interponit in epistola de martyrio S. Polycarpi, n. 4 : Εἷς δὲ ὀνόματι Κόϊντος, Φρὺξ, προσφάτως ἐληλυθὼς ἀπὸ τῆς Φρυγίας, ἰδὼν τὰ θηρία ἐδειλίασεν. Οὗτος δὲ ἦν ὁ παραβιασάμενος αὑτόν τε καί τινας προσελθεῖν ἑκόντας. Τοῦτον ὁ ἀνθύπατος πολλὰ ἐκλιπαρήσας ἔπεισεν ὀμόσαι καὶ ἐπιθῦσαι. Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐπαινοῦμεν τοὺς προσιόντας ἑαυτοῖς, ἐπειδὴ οὐχ οὕτως διδάσκει τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. « Quidam vero nomine Quintus, natione Phryx, qui nuper ex Phrygia advenerat, cum vidisset bestias, timore perculsus est. Hic porro erat qui seipsum et alios quodam temerario impetu incitavit, ut ultro accederent. Huic proconsul multis obsecrationibus persuasit jurare et sacrificare. Propter hoc igitur, fratres, non probamus eos, qui sponte se offerunt ; quandoquidem non ita docet Evangelium. » Solus hic Quintus vituperatur, nec cum eo probrum partiuntur, qui illius impetum, non lapsum secuti sunt. Verbum illud παραβιασάμενος sua sponte temerarium impetum declarat ; sed accedit auctoritas Eusebii, qui hujus loci sensum non verba referens Hist., IV, 15, ait hunc hominem προπετέστερον, ἀλλ' οὐ κατ' εὐλάβειαν, « temeritate quadam ac levitate ductum, non cum pio ac religioso motu, una cum aliquot aliis ad tribunal prosiluisse. » Pro eo quod in epistola legitur, οὐκ ἐπαινοῦμεν τοὺς προσιόντας ἑαυτοῖς, observat Eusebius, « non licere talibus hominibus » ῥιψοκινδύνως καὶ ἀνευλαβῶς κατατολμᾷν, « praecipiti audacia ac sine ullo infirmitatis suae respectu periculis se objicere. » Unde haec notavit Cotelerius : « In his enarrandis paulo liberius, nec satis fideliter versatus est Eusebius, metuens, opinor, ne martyribus plurimis, qui se judicibus, Deo instigante, obtulerunt, praejudicium fieret. » S. Clementis Alexandrini sententia, nisi eodem modo explicetur, quo epistolam Smyrnensem explicuit

Such was a certain Quintus, concerning whom the Church of Smyrna interposes its judgement thus in the epistle on the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, no. 4: Now one named Quintus, a Phrygian, who had recently come from Phrygia, when he saw the wild beasts, turned coward. Now this was the man who had forced both himself and some others to come forward voluntarily. Him the proconsul by many entreaties persuaded to swear and offer sacrifice. On this account, therefore, brethren, we do not praise those who give themselves up, since the Gospel does not teach thus. "Now a certain man named Quintus, by nation a Phrygian, who had recently come from Phrygia, when he saw the wild beasts, was struck with fear. Moreover, this was the man who by a certain rash impulse incited himself and others to come forward voluntarily. Him the proconsul by many entreaties persuaded to swear and sacrifice. On this account, therefore, brethren, we do not approve those who offer themselves of their own accord; since the Gospel does not teach thus." Quintus alone is censured here, nor do those share the reproach with him who followed his impulse, not his fall. That word having forced of itself declares a rash impulse; and there is added the authority of Eusebius, who, reporting the sense, not the words, of this passage in History, 4, 15, says that this man, more rashly, and not according to reverence, "led by a certain rashness and levity, not with a pious and religious motion, leaped forward to the tribunal together with some others." Instead of what is read in the epistle, we do not praise those who give themselves up, Eusebius observes that "it is not lawful for such men" to venture recklessly and irreverently, "with headlong audacity and without any regard to their own weakness to expose themselves to dangers." Whence Cotelier noted this: "In recounting these things Eusebius acted a little too freely and not faithfully enough, fearing, I think, lest prejudice should be done to very many martyrs who, at God's instigation, offered themselves to the judges." The opinion of St. Clement of Alexandria, unless it be explained in the same way in which Eusebius explained the Smyrnaean epistle,

Editors' notes and page, col. 100

Page

running head: S PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 100
marginal letters: A tertius quidam; B maluerunt. Sic; C tione Phryx; D ac religioso
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: tertius quidam superveniens

PG 6:101

Eusebius, immoderata videbitur, ac non eos solum vituperare qui seipsos offerunt, sed eos etiam, qui non fugiunt, Strom., V, p. 508. Accuratius videtur S. Petrus Alexandrinus ea de re statuisse. In eis, qui sua sponte prodierant ad confitendum, prudentiam Christi et apostolorum exemplis consentaneam requirit, sed tamen cum eis communicandum declarat, « ut qui in Christi nomine hoc fecerint, » ἅτε δὴ ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ παρερχομένοις εἰς τοῦτο, can. 9.

will seem immoderate, and to censure not only those who offer themselves, but those also who do not flee, Stromata, 5, p. 508. St. Peter of Alexandria seems to have determined more accurately concerning this matter. In those who had come forward of their own accord to confess, he requires a prudence agreeable to the examples of Christ and the apostles, and yet declares that communion is to be held with them, "as having done this in the name of Christ," inasmuch as they come forward to this in the name of Christ, canon 9.

Nonnullae certe exstitere occasiones in quibus seipsum offerre laudabile omnibus videretur ; cum nimirum ii, qui primo certamine superati sacrificaverant, reparatis viribus ad pugnam redirent. Lapsis communionem justo citius poscentibus auctor est S. Cyprianus in epist. 14, ut ad pugnam redeundo optatam pacem consequantur. S. Petrus Alexandrinus, can. 8, eis, qui secundo praelio, ad quod ultro prodierant, victores fuerant, communionem concedit, eorumque actionem perfectissimam poenitentiam esse declarat. Testatur vir doctissimus Eusebius Renaudot Perpet. fid., tom. V, l. III, c. 7, lapsis apud Cophtas et Jacobitas praescribi ut ad certamen redeant. Lenius egerunt sancti Patres nec iis, qui luctuosa infirmitatis specimina dederant, tantum onus imponendum duxerunt. Cur probari non solerent, qui se ultro offerebant, in causa fuit eadem humanae imbecillitatis consideratio, quae nonnunquam in iis, qui sponte ad certamen prodibant, infelices exitus habuerat.

Assuredly there existed some occasions on which to offer oneself seemed praiseworthy to all; namely, when those who had been overcome in the first contest and had sacrificed returned with renewed strength to the fight. To the lapsed demanding communion sooner than was right St. Cyprian counsels in epistle 14 that by returning to the fight they obtain the desired peace. St. Peter of Alexandria, canon 8, grants communion to those who had been victorious in a second battle to which they had voluntarily come forward, and declares that their action is a most perfect repentance. The most learned man Eusèbe Renaudot testifies, Perpétuité de la foi, vol. 5, book 3, ch. 7, that among the Copts and Jacobites it is prescribed to the lapsed that they return to the contest. The holy Fathers acted more leniently, and did not think that so great a burden should be imposed on those who had given mournful proofs of weakness. The reason why those who voluntarily offered themselves were not accustomed to be approved was the same consideration of human weakness, which had sometimes had unhappy issues in those who came forward of their own accord to the contest.

Praecipue vero in Justinum iniquus est idem scriptor, cum eum in eadem Apologia, n. 4, ethnicis Christianos ad mortem sibi ipsis inferendam hortantibus ita respondere ait, ut actionem illam non vituperet. Litigiosum hujus hominis animum agnoscet quisquis locum legere non gravabitur. Conceptis enim verbis declarat Justinus Christianos contra Dei voluntatem venturos, si ita se gerant.

Especially unjust towards Justin, moreover, is the same writer when he says that in the same Apology, no. 4, he replies to the pagans exhorting the Christians to inflict death upon themselves in such a way as not to censure that action. Whoever is not reluctant to read the passage will recognize the contentious mind of this man. For in express terms Justin declares that Christians would act contrary to the will of God if they conducted themselves thus.

III. Sed fatendum est nonnulla esse, in quibus verum Justinus non vidit. Praeter regnum mille annorum, angelos cum mulieribus stupri consuetudinem habuisse, versionem LXX interpretum divinitus inspiratam fuisse existimavit, atque hi naevi communes ei cum pluribus aliis veteribus scriptoribus fuerunt. Quid inde colliget Cl. Barbeyracus ? « Si tam oscitanter labi potuere, inquit, c. 2, p. 14, in ejusmodi rebus ; quid auctoritatis tribuere possumus eorum consensui vel maxime unanimi in aliis rebus, in quibus aeque saltem obnoxii fuere aberrationibus falsae criticae ac deterioris philosophiae ? Vel hoc unum exemplum inspirationis Septuaginta interpretum, quae generatim credita fuit ante S. Hieronymum, ita nexum et colligatum est cum innumerabilibus erroribus, quos inde naturaliter consequi par erat, ut nihil amplius requiratur ad evertendam funditus Patrum et traditionis auctoritatem, quam Scripturae audent adaequare.

3. Yet it must be confessed that there are some things in which Justin did not see the truth. Besides the reign of a thousand years, he supposed that angels had had illicit intercourse with women, and that the version of the Seventy interpreters had been divinely inspired; and these blemishes were common to him with several other ancient writers. What will the illustrious Barbeyrac gather thence? "If they could slip so negligently," says he, ch. 2, p. 14, "in matters of this sort, what authority can we attribute to their consent, even when most unanimous, in other matters, in which they were at least equally subject to the aberrations of false criticism and of a worse philosophy? Even this one example of the inspiration of the Seventy interpreters, which was generally believed before St. Jerome, is so bound up and linked with innumerable errors, which would naturally follow thence, that nothing more is required to overthrow utterly the authority of the Fathers and of tradition, which they dare to make equal to Scripture."

Editors' notes and page, col. 101

Footnotes

(31) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 101 or 102 (call not visible; note printed under col 101)

Rom. V, 5.

Romans 5:5.

(printed under page 57)

Page

running head: 101 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO.
marginal letters: A Eusebius, immoderata; B est S. Cyprianus; C Praecipue vero; D ribus fuerunt.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Eusebius, immoderata videbitur

PG 6:102

Mirae profecto hominis eruditi ratiocinationes ! Sancti Patres criticae praesidio destituti aut malae philosophiae mysteriis initiati in nonnullis rebus erraverunt : nullius ergo ponderis in aliis rebus eorum consensus vel maxime unanimis. Quid absurdius in mentem venire poterat ? Quorum enim dogmatum testes citamus sanctos Patres, ab his quidem avertere potuerunt criticae defectus et vitiosa philosophia : minime vero ad ea excogitanda perducere. Testimonia petimus a sanctis Patribus, ut probemus materiam ex nihilo creatam, unum esse in tribus personis Deum, omnes homines Adami peccato condemnatos, quia omnes in Adamo peccaverunt ; Filium Dei nostrae salutis causa ex Virgine vere genitum, verumque Deum et verum hominem esse ; neminem justificari posse, nisi per fidem quae per charitatem in corda nostra a Spiritu sancto diffusam operatur ; unam prorsus Ecclesiam esse, cujus nec unitas unquam rumpi, nec fides perverti poterit ; extra quam Spiritus sanctus haberi non potest. Haec et alia ejusmodi dogmata ex mentibus elabi poterant, dum aut libri haeretici sub sancti alicujus nomine inscienter leguntur, aut philosophi audiuntur incautius. At quis unquam aut haereticos legendo, aut philosophos audiendo ad hanc doctrinam, cui patrocinium a sanctis Patribus petimus, pervenisse dicetur ?

Wonderful indeed are the reasonings of the learned man! The holy Fathers, destitute of the aid of criticism or initiated into the mysteries of a bad philosophy, erred in some matters: therefore their consent, even when most unanimous, is of no weight in other matters. What more absurd could come into the mind? For from those dogmas of which we cite the holy Fathers as witnesses, the defects of criticism and a faulty philosophy could indeed have turned them away, but could by no means have led them to devise them. We seek testimonies from the holy Fathers to prove that matter was created out of nothing; that God is one in three Persons; that all men were condemned by the sin of Adam, because all sinned in Adam; that the Son of God for the sake of our salvation was truly born of the Virgin, and is true God and true man; that no one can be justified except through faith which works through charity shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit; that the Church is altogether one, whose unity can never be broken, nor her faith perverted, outside of which the Holy Spirit cannot be had. These and other dogmas of this sort could slip from men's minds while either heretical books are unknowingly read under the name of some saint, or philosophers are listened to too incautiously. But who will ever be said to have arrived at this doctrine, for which we seek support from the holy Fathers, either by reading heretics or by listening to philosophers?

Scire etiam velim quaenam sit illa errorum infinita multitudo, quam ex Septuaginta interpretum jactata inspiratione par erat perfluere. Nam cum ipsum Scripturae contextum divinitus inspiratum esse inter omnes conveniret ; periculosius multo non erat interpretationem divinitus inspiratam credere, quam accurate et diligenter elaboratam. In utraque enim opinione sensus, quem interpretatio in aliena lingua repraesentabat, aeque a Deo traditus videri debuit. Non major ergo inducta pernicies ab his qui Septuaginta interpretes a Spiritu sancto afflatos fuisse dixerunt, quam ab his qui illorum in interpretando diligentiam laudarunt.

I should also like to know what is that infinite multitude of errors which was bound to flow from the boasted inspiration of the Seventy interpreters. For since it was agreed among all that the text itself of Scripture was divinely inspired, it was not much more dangerous to believe the translation divinely inspired than accurately and diligently wrought. For in either opinion the sense which the translation represented in another tongue had equally to seem delivered by God. No greater harm, therefore, was brought in by those who said that the Seventy interpreters were inspired by the Holy Spirit than by those who praised their diligence in translating.

IV. Citat etiam cap. 1, idem scriptor ea, quae auctores Europae eruditae ad annum 1718, de regno mille annorum a pluribus ecclesiasticis scriptoribus adoptato sic pronuntiant : « Annôn fieri potuit ut qui cum apostolis vixerunt, eorum sententiam male intellexerint, sibique visi sint ab eis accepisse doctrinam, quae tamen erronea esset ? Hoc profecto fieri potest : non enim desunt exempla similium errorum. Dicebat Papias se ab apostolis accepisse (Euseb., Hist., V, 39), sanctos aliquando in terris regnaturos cum Christo per mille annos ; atque hoc dogma, etsi falsum, adoptatum fuit a praestantissimis Christianismi viris, Justino, Irenaeo, Nepote, Victorino, Lactantio, Sulpicio Severo, Quinto Julio Hilarione, Commodiano, qui illud defendendo videbantur sibi apostolicam traditionem defendere. Operae ergo pretium esset nobis indicare quibus

4. The same writer also cites in ch. 1 what the authors of L'Europe savante for the year 1718 pronounce thus concerning the reign of a thousand years adopted by several ecclesiastical writers: "Could it not happen that those who lived with the apostles misunderstood their meaning, and seemed to themselves to have received from them a doctrine which nevertheless was erroneous? Assuredly this can happen: for examples of similar errors are not lacking. Papias used to say that he had received from the apostles (Eusebius, History, 5, 39) that the saints would at some time reign on earth with Christ for a thousand years; and this dogma, although false, was adopted by the most eminent men of Christianity, Justin, Irenaeus, Nepos, Victorinus, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Quintus Julius Hilarianus, and Commodian, who in defending it seemed to themselves to be defending apostolic tradition. It would therefore be worth while to point out to us by what

Editors' notes and page, col. 102

Footnotes

(31) ‹anchor: diffusam operatur› · call in col 102

Rom. V, 5.

Romans 5:5.

(printed under page 57)

Page

running head: NI PRAEFATIO. — PARS II. 102
marginal letters: A Mirae profecto; B neminem justificari; C jactata inspiratione; D qui cum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Mirae profecto hominis

PG 6:103

notis cognosci possit Patres non errare, cum ea nos docent, quae ab apostolis accepisse se dicunt aut ab apostolicis viris. Ecce enim dogma falsum, traditione maxime venerabili fundatum. » Postquam haec retulit Barbeyracus, de suo addit : « Diu exspectabit auctor Diarii solutionem suae difficultatis. »

marks it can be known that the Fathers do not err when they teach us those things which they say they received from the apostles or from apostolic men. For behold a false dogma, founded upon a most venerable tradition." After Barbeyrac has reported these things, he adds of his own: "Long will the author of the Journal wait for the solution of his difficulty."

Si quod unquam exstitit sophisma, sive quatuor ex terminis constans syllogismus ; hic profecto exstat et manifeste deprehenditur. Falsa reperitur opinio, quam ad se unus aliquis scriptor ab apostolicis viris pervenisse dicit : ergo in suspicionem venire debet tota illa traditio et dogmatum complexio, quam apostoli a Christo acceptam toti Ecclesiae, non privato alicui, praedicandam et omnibus saeculis conservandam commiserunt. Unus ex scriptoribus ecclesiasticis erravit et errorem aliis propinavit, dum nonnulla se accepisse ab apostolicis viris ait ; suspecta ergo universa Ecclesia, dum summo consensu declarat se ab apostolis accepisse doctrinam. Plures ecclesiastici scriptores minus belle ratiocinati sunt, dum unum aliquem antiquiorem sequuntur ducem in rebus obscuris et incertis : nulla ergo illis attribuenda auctoritas, dum in manifestis et certissimis pro universae Ecclesiae fide decertant.

If ever any sophism existed, or a syllogism consisting of four terms, here assuredly it exists and is manifestly detected. An opinion is found to be false which some single writer says reached him from apostolic men: therefore into suspicion must come that whole tradition and body of dogmas which the apostles, having received from Christ, committed to the whole Church, not to some private individual, to be proclaimed and preserved through all ages. One of the ecclesiastical writers erred and passed on the error to others, while saying that he had received some things from apostolic men; suspect, therefore, is the universal Church when with the highest consent she declares that she received her doctrine from the apostles. Several ecclesiastical writers reasoned less felicitously while following some single more ancient leader in obscure and uncertain matters: no authority, therefore, is to be attributed to them when in manifest and most certain matters they contend for the faith of the universal Church.

Haud quidem facile veritas inveniretur, vel potius inveniri omnino non posset, si illam apostoli privatis hominibus commisissent, qui eam arbitrio suo, ut in sectis philosophorum, tractarent : at pretiosum illud depositum Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae tradiderunt. Illud autem depositum, de quo Ecclesia nec detrahi quidquam nec superaddi patitur, non ita semper omnibus suis partibus clarum et perspicuum est, quin difficiles oriantur interdum quaestiones, ac dogmata nonnulla ab his ipsis, qui totius traditionis servantissimi sunt, minus considerate laedantur. Hoc unum ergo quaeri deberet, quibus notis dignoscatur propria cujusque scriptoris opinio ab his, quae commissam Ecclesiae traditionem praedicant. At hunc laborem ipsi nobis sancti Patres minuerunt.

Scarcely indeed would the truth be easily found, or rather it could not be found at all, if the apostles had committed it to private men, who might handle it at their own caprice, as in the sects of the philosophers: but they delivered that precious deposit to the Church spread throughout the whole world. Now that deposit, from which the Church suffers nothing either to be detracted or to be added, is not always so clear and perspicuous in all its parts that difficult questions do not sometimes arise, and that some dogmas are not injured less considerately by those very men who are most observant of the whole tradition. This one thing, therefore, ought to be asked: by what marks the private opinion of each writer may be distinguished from those things which proclaim the tradition committed to the Church. But the holy Fathers themselves have lessened this labour for us.

1° Ipsam dogmatis summam sedulo discernunt sancti Patres ab iis, quae aut ad explicanda Scripturae obscuriora loca aut ad solvendas haereticorum tricas et cavillationes disserunt. Primogenitum omnis creaturae Filium Dei nunc ob naturam humanam, nunc ob divinam dictum existimant ; Arianorum et Eunomianorum sophismata non semper uno et eodem modo ab omnibus solvuntur ; de diei ignoratione nunc hoc, nunc illud dici patiuntur ; modo nihil Christo affingatur, quod Deo indignum sit. Num difficile est in ejusmodi rebus ipsum dogma ab iis, quae ad illius defensionem afferuntur, distinguere ? Origenes, dum conjiciendo luxuriat, nescio quo pacto in Virgine Deipara, quae cruci tam generose tamque constanter astitit, constantiam ac firmam Filio patiente fidem desiderat, homil. 27 in Lucam. Origenem imitatus Basilius, epist. 260, ac nonnulli alii, quos recenset Petavius, lib. XIV De

1st, The holy Fathers carefully discern the very sum of a dogma from the things which they discourse either to explain more obscure passages of Scripture or to resolve the subtleties and cavils of heretics. They suppose that the Son of God is called the Firstborn of every creature now on account of His human nature, now on account of His divine nature; the sophisms of the Arians and Eunomians are not always resolved in one and the same way by all; concerning the ignorance of the day they allow now this, now that to be said, provided nothing be fastened upon Christ which is unworthy of God. Is it difficult in matters of this sort to distinguish the dogma itself from the things which are brought forward in its defence? Origen, while he runs riot in conjecturing, somehow finds wanting in the Virgin Mother of God, who stood by the cross so nobly and so steadfastly, constancy and firm faith while her Son suffered, homily 27 on Luke. Imitating Origen, Basil, epistle 260, and some others whom Petavius reckons in book 14 On the

Editors' notes and page, col. 103

Page

running head: 103 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHU
marginal letters: A notis cognosci; B vit, dum; C bem diffusae; D tricas et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: notis cognosci possit

PG 6:104

Incarn., c. 1. Quis non videt ejusmodi conjecturam eruditis scriptoribus, ut est hominum ingenium, aliud agentibus excidisse? Quinetiam in iis, quae traditioni et Scripturae maxime consentanea disserunt, si tamen res sint nondum ab omnibus cognitae et dijudicatae, non eamdem fiduciam praeeseferunt ac in rebus Ecclesiae judicio firmatis. Consultus ab Honorato episcopo S. Augustinus, num episcopo et clericis fugere liceat, imminente obsidionis aut excidii periculo, regulas statuit in epist. 228, in quibus summa ipsius sapientia enitescit; sed tamen sic desinit : « Haec tibi, quia me consuluisti, frater dilectissime, qua existimavi veritate et certa charitate rescripsi, sed ne meliorem, si inveneris, sequaris sententiam non praescripsi. »

Incarn., chap. 1. Who does not see that a conjecture of this sort slipped from learned writers, as is the nature of human wit, while they were attending to something else? Moreover, in those things which they discuss in closest agreement with tradition and Scripture, if nevertheless the matters are not yet known and adjudicated by all, they do not display the same confidence as in matters established by the judgement of the Church. When St. Augustine was consulted by Bishop Honoratus as to whether it is lawful for a bishop and clerics to flee when the danger of siege or destruction is imminent, he laid down rules in Epistle 228 in which his supreme wisdom shines forth; and yet he concludes thus: "Because you consulted me, most beloved brother, I have written back these things to you with what truth I thought best and with sure charity, yet I have not prescribed against your following a better opinion, should you find one."

2° Qui tam difficile esse putant veras et falsas traditiones internoscere, horum iniquitas eo manifestior, quod ipsi scriptores ecclesiastici, si qua in re aberrent a vero, opinionis commentum longe aliter defendant ac catholicam traditionem defendere solent. Ut pauca de innumeris afferam exempla; num Justinus Septuaginta interpretum eodem modo ac prophetarum inspirationem praedicat? Judaeos in hoc tantum castigat, n. 68, 71, 72, quod elaboratam apud Ptolemaeum interpretationem immutare et vituperare audeant; minime vero, quod divinitus inspiratam non credant. Christianos esse negat eos, qui resurrectionem non credunt, Dial., n. 80. At ibidem regni terrestris commentum sic defendit, ut purae et integrae fidei testimonium adversariis tribuat. Profitetur quidem se et resurrectionem et regnum mille annorum agnoscere, et si qui recte in omnibus sentiunt Christiani, id est in iis etiam, quae obscura et minime decisa. Nam alibi, nempe n. 39, catholicos fatetur totius doctrinae a Christo traditae retinentissimos esse. Quis nescit Cyprianum et Firmilianum in ea concertatione, quam cum Stephano habuerunt, sic propriam opinionem tenuisse, ut aliter sentire fas esse concederent, atque id unum arctissime defenderent, quod ab adversariis non negari quidem, sed tamen suspiciendo haereticorum baptismate laedi et everti putabant, nempe Spiritum sanctum extra Ecclesiam haberi non posse?

2. As for those who think it is so difficult to distinguish true and false traditions, their unfairness is all the more manifest in that the ecclesiastical writers themselves, if in any matter they wander from the truth, defend the figment of an opinion in a far different way from that in which they are accustomed to defend Catholic tradition. To adduce a few examples out of countless ones: does Justin proclaim the inspiration of the Seventy translators in the same way as that of the prophets? He reproves the Jews in nos. 68, 71, and 72 only in this, that they dare to alter and disparage the translation prepared under Ptolemy, but by no means because they do not believe it to be divinely inspired. He denies that those who do not believe in the resurrection are Christians, Dialogue, no. 80. Yet in the same place he defends the fiction of an earthly kingdom in such a way as to grant the testimony of a pure and entire faith to his opponents. He professes indeed that both he and whatever Christians think rightly in all things—that is, even in those matters which are obscure and by no means decided—acknowledge both the resurrection and a kingdom of a thousand years. For elsewhere, namely in no. 39, he confesses that Catholics are most tenacious of the whole doctrine handed down by Christ. Who does not know that Cyprian and Firmilian, in that controversy which they had with Stephen, held their own opinion in such a way as to grant that it was lawful to think otherwise, and defended most strictly that one point which they thought was indeed not denied by their opponents, yet was harmed and overturned by receiving the baptism of heretics, namely, that the Holy Spirit cannot be had outside the Church?

3° Quoties haereses prodiere, magnum semper veritati praesidium in antiquis Patribus positum fuit; nec eorum testimonio auctoritatem detraxit, si quid aliis in rebus aut minus vidissent, aut minus accurate disseruissent. Nonnulla in Origene S. Athanasius non probabat; sed tamen illius testimonium de Verbo consubstantiali, ut telum ineluctabile, in Arianos vibravit, tom. I, p. 232. S. Augustinus in re obscura ac nondum decisa non patitur sibi, Origenis, Didymi, Eusebii Emiseni, Theodori Heracleotae et S. Joannis Chrysostomi testimoniis, legem imponi ac eam libertatem eripi, quae in ejusmodi rebus concedenda est, ep. 82, n. 3 et 23. At in defendenda peccati originalis et gratiae doctrina Pelagianos premit testimoniis Cypriani, Hilarii,

3. Whenever heresies have come forth, a great bulwark for the truth has always been placed in the ancient Fathers; nor has it detracted authority from their testimony if in other matters they either saw less clearly or discoursed less accurately. St. Athanasius did not approve of several things in Origen; yet he brandished his testimony concerning the consubstantial Word against the Arians like an inescapable dart, vol. I, p. 232. St. Augustine, in an obscure and not yet decided matter, does not suffer a law to be imposed upon himself and that liberty which must be granted in matters of this sort to be snatched away by the testimonies of Origen, Didymus, Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Heraclea, and St. John Chrysostom, Epistle 82, nos. 3 and 23. Yet in defending the doctrine of original sin and grace, he presses the Pelagians with the testimonies of Cyprian, Hilary,

Editors' notes and page, col. 104

Page

running head: S PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 104
marginal letters: A Incarn., c. 1.; B 2° Qui tam; C defendit, ut; D 3° Quoties haereses
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (Incarn., c. 1.)

PG 6:105

Gregorii et Ambrosii, eosque sic alloquitur : « Novos haereticos vos antiqua catholica fides, quam modo oppugnare coepistis, a praeclarissimis, qui fuerunt ante nos, doctoribus praedicata demonstrat. » Op. imperf. lib. 1, n. 9. Neque ergo nixa unius aut alterius hominis testimonio traditio fundatam totius Ecclesiae consensu traditionem debilitat, nec de eorum pondere, quae ad catholicae doctrinae defensionem antiqui scriptores docuerunt, detrahere debet leve aliquod in rebus obscuris erratum, aut minus commoda difficilis Scripturae loci interpretatio.

Gregory, and Ambrose, and addresses them thus: "The ancient Catholic faith, which you have just now begun to attack, proclaimed by the most illustrious teachers who were before us, proves you to be new heretics." Opus imperfectum, book 1, no. 9. Therefore neither does a tradition resting on the testimony of one or another man weaken a tradition founded on the consent of the whole Church, nor ought some slight error in obscure matters, or a less fitting interpretation of a difficult passage of Scripture, to detract from the weight of those things which the ancient writers taught for the defence of Catholic doctrine.

4° Si quid sancti Patres minus commode senserint aut dixerint, id neque haereticis tradi debet, neque ab haereticis jure arripi potest. Docuerat Cyprianus baptismum extra Ecclesiam validum non esse : idem senserunt Donatistae et Cypriani nomen erroris sui propugnaculum esse voluerunt. Sed tamen S. martyris testimonium Augustinus eripere Donatistis non dubitat, et secundum De baptismo librum sic exorditur : « Quantum pro nobis, inquit, hoc est pro pace catholica faciant ea, quae tanquam ex auctoritate beati Cypriani adversus nos a parte Donati proferuntur, et quantum sint adversus eos a quibus proferuntur, adjuvante Domino, demonstrare proposui. » Si quis igitur spreto Ecclesiae consensu id nunc defendere audeat, quod olim Justinus de regno mille annorum opinatus est, huic maxime adversabitur Justinus, cui tanto in pretio fuit Ecclesiae auctoritas. Quidquid enim de Christianae religionis ornamentis et donis praedicat, quidquid eum de distinctione novi et veteris testamenti, quidquid de nova illa creatione, quam a Christo accipimus, disserentem in secunda hujus praefationis parte vidimus, id Ecclesiae catholicae, exclusis omnibus sectis, proprium esse ducebat. Id ipse testatur in Dialogo, n. 116, ubi sic loquitur : « Nos qui per nomen Jesu instar unius hominis

4. If the holy Fathers thought or said anything less fittingly, that neither ought to be surrendered to heretics, nor can it be rightfully seized upon by heretics. Cyprian had taught that baptism outside the Church is not valid; the Donatists thought the same and wished the name of Cyprian to be the bulwark of their error. And yet Augustine does not hesitate to wrest the testimony of the holy martyr away from the Donatists, and begins his second book On Baptism thus: "How much those things make for us," he says, "that is, for Catholic peace, which are brought forward against us by the party of Donatus as if from the authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much they are against those by whom they are brought forward, with the Lord's help I have proposed to demonstrate." If anyone, therefore, spurning the consent of the Church, should now dare to defend what Justin once opined concerning the kingdom of a thousand years, Justin himself, to whom the authority of the Church was of such great value, will most of all oppose him. For whatever he proclaims concerning the ornaments and gifts of the Christian religion, whatever we saw him discussing in the second part of this preface concerning the distinction of the New and the Old Testament, whatever concerning that new creation which we receive from Christ, he considered to be proper to the Catholic Church, with all sects excluded. He himself testifies to this in the Dialogue, no. 116, where he speaks thus: "We who through the name of Jesus, like one man,

omnes in Creatorem universorum Deum credimus, per nomen primogeniti illius Filii sordidis vestibus, id est peccatis, exuti et per verbum vocationis inflammati, verum genus sacerdotale Dei sumus. » His autem verbis, instar unius hominis, unitatem Ecclesiae catholicae designari cum per se patet, tum ex aliis locis confirmari potest. Ait, n. 42, pravos homines postquam Christo submissi et dociles facti sunt, omnes instar unius puelli factos esse, ac addit : « Quale est etiam quod in corpore videre licet, cum multa membra numerentur, omnia unum sunt et vocantur corpus. » Eadem de causa, n. 63, Ecclesiam in psalmo XLIV sic compellari observat : Audi, filia, et vide. Adeo autem exploratum erat Justino nec unitatem Ecclesiae rumpi posse, nec traditam ei veritatem ab errore superari, ut quaecunque oriantur sectae, has catholicis non metuendi et haerendi, sed firmius et acrius in fide et unitate perstandi occasionem esse declaret. « Ex eo etiam, inquit Dialog. n. 35, quod ejusmodi exstent homines, qui se esse Christianos profiteantur, et Jesum, qui crucifixus est, Dominum et Christum confiteri, nec tamen illius doctrinam teneant, sed eam, quae est a spiritibus erroris; nos qui verae ac purae Jesu Christi doctrinae discipuli sumus, firmiores in fide et constantiores simus in spe ab eo nuntiata. Quae enim in suo nomine eventura praedixit, ea oculis et effectu ad exitum perducta cernimus. Dixit enim : Multi venient in nomine meo, etc. Et : Erunt schismata et haereses. » Nihil aliud ergo catholicis afferunt schismata et haereses, nisi ut praedictiones Christi ad exitum perduci intelligant et in fide firmiores evadant. Quod si unitas aut veritas in Ecclesia deficere possent, nullus esset error, qui non Ecclesiae doctrinam in discrimen adduceret; nullum schisma, a quo non esset evertendae unitatis periculum.

all believe in God the Creator of all things, having been stripped of filthy garments, that is, of sins, through the name of His first-begotten Son, and set on fire through the word of His calling, are the true priestly race of God." Now that by these words, like one man, the unity of the Catholic Church is designated is both evident of itself and can be confirmed from other passages. He says in no. 42 that wicked men, after they have become submissive to Christ and teachable, have all been made like a single child, and he adds: "Just as one may also see in the body: though many members are counted, all are one and are called a body." For the same reason, in no. 63, he observes that the Church is addressed thus in Psalm 44: Hear, O daughter, and see. Moreover, Justin was so certain that neither can the unity of the Church be broken, nor the truth handed down to her be overcome by error, that whatever sects may arise, he declares these to be for Catholics an occasion not of fearing and hesitating, but of standing more firmly and keenly in faith and unity. "From the very fact too," he says in the Dialogue, no. 35, "that there exist men of this sort, who profess themselves to be Christians, and to confess Jesus, Who was crucified, as Lord and Christ, and yet do not hold His doctrine, but that which is from the spirits of error, we who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ are firmer in the faith and more steadfast in the hope announced by Him. For the things which He foretold would come to pass in His name, those we behold with our eyes and in actual fact brought to fulfilment. For He said: Many shall come in My name, etc. And: There shall be schisms and heresies." Schisms and heresies therefore bring nothing else to Catholics than that they may understand that the predictions of Christ are brought to fulfilment, and may become firmer in the faith. But if unity or truth could fail in the Church, there would be no error that would not bring the doctrine of the Church into jeopardy, and no schism from which there would not be danger of overturning her unity.

Editors' notes and page, col. 105

Page

running head: 105 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A Gregorii et Ambrosii; B esse : idem; C stianae religionis; D CAPUT PRIMUM.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (Gregorii et Ambrosii, CAPUT PRIMUM.); two full-width heading lines across cols. 105-106 above CAPUT PRIMUM (PRÆFATIONIS P... / De gestis et scriptis Justini, Tatiani, Athena...) cut off at column edge and not set; ends mid-word pro- (proponam)
other: a full-width band stands across cols 105/106 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 106 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 105 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column continues with CAPUT PRIMUM. (another unit); not set here

PG 6:106

Editors' notes and page, col. 106

Footnotes

(32) ‹anchor: in nomine meo› · call in col 106

Matth. XXIV, 5.

Matthew 24:5.

(printed under page 59)

(33) ‹anchor: schismata et haereses› · call in col 106

I Cor. XI, 19.

1 Corinthians 11:19.

(printed under page 59)

(34) ‹anchor: avum Bacchium testatur› · call in col 106

Antiq. lib. xi, c. 8.

Antiquities, book 11, chapter 8.

(printed under page 59)

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS III. 106
marginal letters: A omnes in Creatorem; B veritatem ab errore; C schismata et haereses; D ponam quae dubia
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (omnes in Creatorem, ponam quae dubia); two full-width heading lines across cols. 105-106 above D (...IONIS PARS III. / ...tiani, Athenagorae et Theophili Antiocheni.) cut off at column edge and not set; second part begins mid-word ponam (proponam from col. 105)
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 105 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the text of this column below the full-width band belongs to the next unit; not set here (rail-only part)