PG 6 · cols. 105–206

D. Prudentius Maranus, O.S.B., Praefatio in opera S. Justini, Pars III: De gestis et scriptis Justini, Tatiani, Athenagorae et Theophili Antiocheni

Editors' preface

PG 6:105

PRAEFATIONIS PARS III.

Part III of the Preface.

De gestis et scriptis Justini, Tatiani, Athenagorae et Theophili Antiocheni.

On the deeds and writings of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

Chapter I.

De Justini patria et ortu, institutione puerili et conversione.

On Justin's native land and birth, boyhood education, and conversion.

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

I. St. Justin born a Gentile in Palestine. II. We conjecture that he was born around the year 114. III. On his studies and teachers. IV. The wonderful manner of his conversion. V. In what city and in what year he was converted.

I. De plerisque S. Justini gestis et scriptis, cum tam multae sint tamque discrepantes eruditorum sententiae, facile intelligo me in lubrico et difficili loco versari. Quapropter totam rem sic administrare et pertractare conabor, ut nec asseveranter proponam

I. Since concerning most of the deeds and writings of St. Justin the opinions of the learned are so many and so discordant, I easily understand that I am moving on slippery and difficult ground. Wherefore I shall endeavour so to manage and treat the whole matter that I neither positively put

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 word proponam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 106
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at CAPUT PRIMUM.

PG 6:106

quae dubia et incerta sunt, nec quae maxime probabilia levibus ratiunculis posthabeam. Si quid autem certi et explorati occurrat, id instar principii adhibendum erit, tum ad refellenda opinionum commenta, tum ad confirmanda, quae minus belle in dubium vocata fuerant.

forward things that are doubtful and uncertain, nor set aside what is most probable on account of slight quibbles. But if anything certain and well-established occurs, that will have to be employed as a principle, both for refuting the figments of opinions and for confirming those things which had with little fairness been called into doubt.

S. martyr initio majoris Apologiae patriam appellat Flaviam Neapolim Syriae Palaestinae, ac patrem sibi Priscum fuisse, avum Bacchium testatur : Justinus Prisci filius, Bacchii nepos, Flaviae Neapolis in Syria Palaestinae civium. Haec civitas,

The holy martyr at the beginning of the greater Apology calls his native city Flavia Neapolis of Syria Palaestina, and testifies that his father was Priscus and his grandfather Bacchius: Justin, the son of Priscus, the grandson of Bacchius, of the citizens of Flavia Neapolis in Syria Palaestina. This city,

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)

PG 6:107

quae olim Sichem dicebatur, et, teste Josepho, caput Samariae fuerat Alexandri Magni tempore, Flaviae Neapolis nomen ac jus civitatis videtur accepisse a Flavio Vespasiano. Neque enim colonia illuc deducta est ab ejus filiis, cum jam Neapolis vocata fuerit paulo post excidium Hierosolymitanum, ut ex libris Josephi de bello Judaico sub hoc tempus scriptis perspicitur. Unus ex his colonis fuit Bacchius, cujus nepos Justinus. Samaritanos populares suos appellat, non quod ullam partem eorum instituti attigisset, sed quod in hac urbe ex Graecis colonis natus esset. Ubique enim sese inter ethnicos ad Christum conversos numerat; incircumcisum se esse declarat in Dialogo cum Tryphone. « Ne dubitetis, inquit, num. 28, mihi homini incircumciso credere. » Hinc etiam in Apolog. 1, n. 53 : « Nos ipsos cernimus ex gentibus plures ac veriores esse Christianos, quam ex Judaeis et Samaritanis. » Graviter ergo errasset Epiphanius, si Justinum a Samaritano instituto ad religionem Christianam conversum fuisse existimasset. Sed hanc ei opinionem immerito Scaliger et Petavius affinxerunt. Sic enim loquitur : Tatianus Justini philosophi sanctissimi ac religiosissimi viri consuetudine usus est, qui e Samaritanis ad Christi fidem transierat. Erat enim Justinus genere Samaritanus. Numerat ergo Justinum inter Samaritanos, non quod eorum instituta sectatus esset, sed quia in hac gente natus erat. Quo sensu ipse Justinus Samaritanos vocat in Dialogo, n. 120, genus suum, et in Apol. 2, n. 15, gentem suam.

which was formerly called Sichem, and on the testimony of Josephus had been the capital of Samaria in the time of Alexander the Great, seems to have received the name of Flavia Neapolis and the right of citizenship from Flavius Vespasian. For a colony was not led thither by his sons, since it was already called Neapolis shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, as is clearly seen from the books of Josephus on the Jewish War written around this time. One of these colonists was Bacchius, whose grandson was Justin. He calls the Samaritans his fellow-countrymen, not because he had touched any part of their religious observance, but because he had been born in this city from Greek colonists. For everywhere he numbers himself among the Gentiles converted to Christ; he declares that he is uncircumcised in the Dialogue with Trypho. "Do not hesitate," he says in no. 28, "to believe me, an uncircumcised man." Hence also in Apology 1, no. 53: "We ourselves see that there are more and truer Christians from the Gentiles than from the Jews and Samaritans." Epiphanius therefore would have erred gravely if he had supposed that Justin had been converted to the Christian religion from the Samaritan observance. But Scaliger and Petau undeservedly fastened this opinion upon him. For he speaks thus: Tatian enjoyed the companionship of Justin the philosopher, a most holy and most religious man, who from the Samaritans had passed over to the faith of Christ. For Justin was a Samaritan by race. He therefore numbers Justin among the Samaritans, not because he had followed their institutions, but because he had been born among this people. In this sense Justin himself calls the Samaritans in the Dialogue, no. 120, his race, and in Apology 2, no. 15, his nation.

II. Quo anno natus sit Justinus conjicere possumus, non asseverare. Plurimum lucis afferret Epiphanius, si ejus verba aut naevis carerent, aut apte emendarentur. Sic autem loquitur in haeres. 46 : Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Ἰουστῖνος Σαμαρείτης ἦν τὸ γένος, εἰς Χριστὸν πεπιστευκὼς, καὶ μεγάλως ἐξασκηθεὶς, ἀρετῆς τε βίον ἐνδειξάμενος, τὸ τέλος ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ μαρτυρήσας τελείου στεφάνου καταξιοῦται ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων, ἐπὶ Ῥουστικοῦ ἡγεμόνος καὶ Ἁδριανοῦ βασιλέως, ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὑπάρχων ἐν καθεστώσῃ ἡλικίᾳ. « Hic enim Justinus genere Samaritanus, cum in Christum credidisset, ac magnopere exercitatus et sanctiorem vitam professus esset, tandem pro Christo martyrio perfunctus, perfectam coronam adeptus est Romae sub Rustico praefecto, Adriano imperante, firma et constanti aetate, anno videlicet tricesimo. » Duo hic occurrunt naevi : primus quod sub Adriano; alter quod anno aetatis tricesimo passus dicitur Justinus. Verisimile non est ut Justinum Epiphanius anno aetatis tricesimo passum opinatus sit, cum tot libros ab eo scriptos haud ignoraret, eumque non obscure indicet in sanctiore vita diu multumque exercitatum. Minus mirum quod illius martyrium sub Adriano collocet; non enim semper accuratus est in rebus chronologicis.

II. In what year Justin was born we can conjecture, not positively assert. Epiphanius would bring very much light if his words either lacked blemishes or were aptly emended. Now he speaks thus in Heresy 46: For this Justin was a Samaritan by race, who, having believed in Christ, and having greatly practised asceticism, and having displayed a life of virtue, at the end bore witness for Christ and was deemed worthy of the perfect crown in the land of the Romans, under Rusticus the prefect and Hadrian the emperor, being thirty years of age in settled maturity. "For this Justin, a Samaritan by race, when he had believed in Christ, and had been greatly exercised and had professed a holier life, at length having suffered martyrdom for Christ, obtained the perfect crown at Rome under Rusticus the prefect, when Hadrian was emperor, at a firm and settled age, namely in his thirtieth year." Two blemishes occur here: the first, that Justin is said to have suffered under Hadrian; the second, that he is said to have suffered in the thirtieth year of his age. It is not probable that Epiphanius supposed Justin to have suffered in the thirtieth year of his age, since he was by no means ignorant that so many books had been written by him, and not obscurely indicates that he had been exercised long and much in a holier life. It is less surprising that he places his martyrdom under Hadrian, for he is not always accurate in chronological

Editors' notes and page, col. 107

Footnotes

(35) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 107 (inferred; call not visible)

Lib. v, c. 4.

Book 5, chapter 4.

(printed under page 60)

(36) ‹anchor: Sic enim loquitur› · call in col 107

Haeres. 46.

Heresies 46.

(printed under page 60)

Page

running head: 107 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A quae olim Sichem; B log. 1, n. 53; C n. 120, genus suum; D exercitatus et sanctiorem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (quae olim Sichem); ends mid-word chronolo- (chronologicis)

PG 6:108

Papebrochius duplicem naevum tollere conatur; postrema verba librariorum negligentia loco suo excidisse, et ad conversionem Justini non ad martyrium referri debere pronuntiat; pro eo autem quod interpretatur Petavius, sub Rustico praefecto, Adriano imperante, ipse sic reddit : Consulibus Rustico et Adriano imperatore. Unde haec conflatur sententia : Justinus cum in Christum credidisset sub consulatu Rustici et Adriani, annos natus triginta, aetate firma, etc. Sequitur ex hac interpretandi et emendandi ratione Justinum anno 119, quo Adrianus et Rusticus consules fuerunt, annum aetatis tricesimum attigisse, ac proinde anno 89 in lucem editum fuisse.

matters. Papebroch endeavours to remove the double blemish; he pronounces that the last words fell out of their proper place through the negligence of copyists, and ought to be referred to the conversion of Justin, not to his martyrdom; and instead of what Petau translates, under Rusticus the prefect, when Hadrian was emperor, he himself renders it thus: When Rusticus and the Emperor Hadrian were consuls. Whence this sentence is put together: Justin, when he had believed in Christ under the consulship of Rusticus and Hadrian, being thirty years old, of firm age, etc. It follows from this manner of interpreting and emending that Justin in the year 119, in which Hadrian and Rusticus were consuls, reached the thirtieth year of his age, and accordingly was brought into the light in the year 89.

Sed assentiri non possum Papebrochio. Haec interpretatio, ἐπὶ Ῥουστικοῦ ἡγεμόνος καὶ Ἁδριανοῦ βασιλέως, sub cs. Rustico et Adriano imperatore, penitus repugnat, quamvis Grabio et Dodwello vehementer probetur. Atque etiamsi quo exemplo firmari posset, nullum sane afferri possit, ut observat Tillemontius, in quo imperatori consuli collega praeponatur. Multa alia concurrunt quae Papebrochii opinionem minuant. Credibilius multo est Justini martyrium praefecti notatione consignatum fuisse, quam conversionem ex consulibus notatam. Eum certe sub Rustico praefecto passum ex Actis perspicimus; sub cs. Rustico et Adriano conversum nullibi legimus : denique illius conversio serius ponenda, si ducem Eusebium sequamur, quo profecto his in rebus tutiorem nullum habemus.

But I cannot assent to Papebroch. This interpretation, ἐπὶ Ῥουστικοῦ ἡγεμόνος καὶ Ἁδριανοῦ βασιλέως, under the consuls Rusticus and the Emperor Hadrian, is wholly repugnant, even though it is strongly approved by Grabe and Dodwell. And even if it could be supported by some example, certainly none could be adduced, as Tillemont observes, in which his colleague is placed before an emperor who is consul. Many other considerations concur to weaken Papebroch's opinion. It is much more credible that Justin's martyrdom was recorded by the notation of the prefect than that his conversion was marked by the consuls. That he suffered under Rusticus the prefect we certainly see clearly from the Acts; that he was converted under the consuls Rusticus and Hadrian we read nowhere; finally, his conversion must be placed later if we follow Eusebius as our guide, than whom we surely have none safer in these matters.

Igitur satius est fateri Epiphanium errasse, dum Justini martyrium sub Adriano collocat, quam illius verba absurde interpretari. Sanabilior videtur alter naevus; nec tamen necesse est haec verba, firma et constanti aetate, anno aetatis tricesimo, altius transferre, quasi ad conversionem pertineant, et loco suo a librariis dejecta fuerint. Nihil sane prohibet, quominus Justinus aetate adhuc firma vitam pro Christo profudisse dicatur; neque huic Epiphanii testimonio quidquam inest incommodi : id tantum vitii occurrit in ejus verbis, quod Justinus anno aetatis tricesimo passus dicatur. At facile fuit librariis errare in notis numeralibus, et triginta pro quinquaginta ponere; cum praesertim litterarum Λ et Ν quae his numeris designandis adhibentur, dissimilitudo oculos non valde attentos latere potuerit. Si ergo Justinus anno aetatis circiter 50 aut 54 passus est (neque enim haec Epiphanius nimium stricte ad calculos revocabat) cum facile intelligemus, cur aetate firma et constanti passus dicatur, id est nondum senex, tum etiam quo anno natus sit, nimirum non multo post annum 114. Nam illius martyrium multa rationum momenta addicunt anno circiter 168.

Therefore it is better to confess that Epiphanius erred in placing Justin's martyrdom under Hadrian than to interpret his words absurdly. The other blemish seems more curable; nor yet is it necessary to transpose these words, at a firm and settled age, in the thirtieth year of his age, higher up, as though they pertained to his conversion and had been dislodged from their place by copyists. Nothing indeed prevents Justin from being said to have poured forth his life for Christ while still of firm age; nor is there anything unsuitable in this testimony of Epiphanius: this fault alone occurs in his words, that Justin is said to have suffered in the thirtieth year of his age. But it was easy for copyists to err in numeral signs, and to put thirty instead of fifty, especially since the dissimilarity of the letters Λ and Ν, which are used to designate these numbers, could escape eyes that were not very attentive. If therefore Justin suffered around the 50th or 54th year of his age (for Epiphanius did not reckon these things too strictly), we shall easily understand both why he is said to have suffered at a firm and settled age, that is, not yet an old man, and also in what year he was born, namely not long after the year 114. For many weighty reasons assign his martyrdom to around the year 168.

III. Traduxit adolescentiam Justinus in litterarum studiis; ac poetis, oratoribus et historicis, ut

III. Justin spent his youth in literary studies; and to poets, orators, and historians, as

Editors' notes and page, col. 108

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 108
marginal letters: A gicis. Papebrochius; B terpretatio, ἐπὶ Ῥουστικοῦ; C mus.; D ginta pro quinquaginta
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (gicis. Papebrochius); begins mid-word gicis (chronologicis)

PG 6:109

mos erat, operam dedit utilem aliquando ad ethnicos refellendos futuram. Rhetoricae artis non valde studiosum fuisse dicas, si pleraque illius scripta consideres, in quibus veritatem non ille quidem sine nervis, nec sine summa vi ingenii defendit; at nulla prorsus orationis ornamenta ad illius defensionem adhibenda existimavit. Quid tamen in hoc genere posset, indicio est Cohortatio ad Graecos, quae elegantiori, quam alia ejus opera, dicendi genere splendescit. At nullius disciplinae vehementius quam philosophiae studiis exarsit : et cum eximium amorem veritatis considero, quem periclitandis philosophorum sectis declaravit, divinam Providentiam admiror, quae sic illius animum ad amandam veritatem inclinabat, ut cum eam frustra apud philosophos quaesiisset, gratuito Christi dono ad ipsius oculos affulgentem arriperet avide, constanter defenderet.

was the custom, he devoted effort that would one day be useful for refuting the Gentiles. You would say that he was not very studious of the art of rhetoric, if you consider most of his writings, in which he defends the truth not indeed without vigour, nor without the highest force of intellect, yet thought that no ornaments of speech at all should be employed for its defence. What he could do in this kind, however, is shown by the Exhortation to the Greeks, which shines with a more elegant style of speaking than his other works. Yet he burned with enthusiasm for the studies of no discipline more vehemently than those of philosophy; and when I consider the extraordinary love of truth which he declared in making trial of the sects of the philosophers, I admire divine Providence, which so inclined his mind to loving the truth that, when he had sought it in vain among the philosophers, he eagerly seized upon it when by the free gift of Christ it shone before his eyes, and steadfastly defended it.

Primum philosophiae magistrum habuit Stoicum quemdam, ac satis diu cum eo versatus est. Sed cum se nihilo plura de Deo scire animadverteret (nam nec sciebat ipse Stoicus, neque hanc scientiam necessariam putabat), ab eo discessit, seque ad alium contulit, quem Peripateticum dicebant, hominem, ut sibi ipse videbatur, peracutum. Sed eum paucis post diebus de mercede agentem missum fecit, ne philosophum quidem existimans. Non tamen deterritus, quod sibi in duobus magistris adeundis parum successisset, confugit ad celeberrimum Pythagoreum, hominem de sapientia valde gloriantem. Sed is hanc conditionem Justino tulit, ut antequam ad ipsius boni, ac ipsius pulchri considerationem assurgeret, musicae, astronomiae et geometriae daret operam. Permolestum id accidit Justino, qui cum tempus in his disciplinis conterere nollet, Platonicos adiit, seque viro prudenti, qui recens, inquit, in urbem nostram advenerat, in disciplinam tradidit.

As his first teacher of philosophy he had a certain Stoic, and spent a fairly long time with him. But when he noticed that he knew nothing more about God (for the Stoic himself neither knew, nor thought this knowledge necessary), he departed from him, and betook himself to another, whom they called a Peripatetic, a man, as he seemed to himself, most acute. But after a few days, when he negotiated about a fee, he dismissed him, not even considering him a philosopher. Not deterred, however, because he had had little success in approaching two teachers, he had recourse to a most celebrated Pythagorean, a man who boasted greatly of his wisdom. But he laid down this condition for Justin, that before rising to the contemplation of the good itself and the beautiful itself, he should devote study to music, astronomy, and geometry. This proved very irksome to Justin, who, since he was unwilling to waste time in these disciplines, went to the Platonists, and gave himself over for instruction to a prudent man who had recently, he says, arrived in our city.

IV. Plurimum proficiebat in hoc instituto Justinus; sed illius in contemplandis rebus incorporeis progressus eo redibant, ut sapiens sibi ipse videretur evasisse, ac prae stoliditate in spem videndi protinus Dei veniret. Non ei profecto magis Platonica decreta, quam aliorum philosophorum sectae ad interioris corruptelae cognitionem, ad vitiorum emendationem profuissent, nisi eum Christus ad saniorem philosophiam vocasset. Quomodo id contigerit ex initio Dialogi, quemadmodum et ea quae modo narravi, cognoscimus.

IV. Justin made very great progress in this course; but his advances in contemplating incorporeal things came to this, that he seemed to himself to have become wise, and out of folly came into the hope of forthwith seeing God. Assuredly the Platonic doctrines would have profited him no more than the sects of the other philosophers towards the knowledge of inward corruption and towards the amendment of vices, had not Christ called him to a sounder philosophy. How this happened we learn from the beginning of the Dialogue, just as we also learn the things which I have just narrated.

Elatus idearum contemplatione Justinus, commentandi causa in agrum non remotum a mari profectus est; cumque fugiens hominum vestigia ei loco propinquaret, ubi secum ipse sine interpellatione versaturus esset; praeter illius exspectationem contigit, ut eum modico intervallo assectaretur senex quidam, cujus in vultu comis residebat gravitas. Conversus Justinus substitit, ac in eum oculos acrius defixit. Tum senex : « Mene, inquit, cognoscis? » Negavit Justinus. « Quid me igitur, inquit

Elated by the contemplation of ideas, Justin set out for the sake of meditation into a field not far from the sea; and as, shunning the footsteps of men, he was approaching that place where he was about to commune with himself without interruption, contrary to his expectation it happened that at a short distance there followed him a certain old man, on whose countenance dwelt a gracious gravity. Turning round, Justin stopped and fixed his eyes rather intently upon him. Then the old man said: "Do you know me?" Justin said he did not. "Why then," said

Editors' notes and page, col. 109

Page

running head: 109 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A mos erat, operam; B stra apud philosophos; C valde gloriantem.; D interioris corruptelae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (mos erat, operam)

PG 6:110

senex, ita contemplaris? » Mirari se respondit Justinus, quod ibi potissimum sibi occurrisset, ubi se a nemine visum iri sperabat. « Sollicitus sum, inquit senex, de meorum nonnullis : hi peregre mihi abierunt; quamobrem spectatum veni an sese mihi alicunde ostensuri sint. Tu vero quidnam hic rerum geris? » Postquam demonstravit Justinus se philosophiae studiosum esse ac meditandi causa illuc venisse; tum senex oblata occasione ea disserit, quae ex eo audita retulit Justinus initio Dialogi cum Tryphone. Longius colloquium quam ut illud hoc loco referam. Satis est observare eximiam senis prudentiam, qui cum Justinum videret de philosophis inflatius sentientem, sic ejus animum pertractavit, ut primo illius scientiae, de qua tantopere gloriabatur, inanitatem ostenderet; deinde quibus ex fontibus haurienda sit veritas edoceret. Postquam enim Justinus nec Pythagoram nec Platonem ad veri cognitionem pervenisse cognovit, quaesivit ex sene quibus tandem magistris utendum sit, si verum ne isti quidem viderint. Quare senex praeclarum dicendi campum ingressus, veritatem a prophetis petendam esse demonstrat, eosque laudat et commendat ab antiquitate qua philosophos longe superant, a Spiritu sancto quo afflante vaticinati sunt, ab eventu praedictarum rerum, a summa in edendis oraculis libertate et constantia, a miraculis quibus vaticinia sua confirmarunt, ab ipsa denique oraculorum sanctitate Deum mundi creatorem ejusque Christum unice celebrantium. Tandem discedens Justinum hortatur, ut haec meditando persequatur, eorumque intelligentiam a Deo postulet; a nemine enim perspici et intelligi posse, nisi cui Deus intelligere dederit et Christus ejus.

the old man, "do you gaze at me so?" Justin replied that he wondered that he had met him in that very place where he hoped he would be seen by no one. "I am anxious," said the old man, "about some of my household: they have gone away from me on a journey; wherefore I have come to look whether they will show themselves to me from anywhere. But what business are you carrying on here?" After Justin showed that he was a student of philosophy and had come thither for the sake of meditating, the old man, seizing the opportunity offered, discoursed on those things which Justin reported as heard from him at the beginning of the Dialogue with Trypho. The conversation is too long for me to recount in this place. It is enough to observe the extraordinary prudence of the old man, who, seeing Justin thinking somewhat boastfully about the philosophers, so handled his mind as to show first the emptiness of that knowledge of which he boasted so greatly, and next to teach from what fountains the truth must be drawn. For after Justin recognized that neither Pythagoras nor Plato had arrived at the knowledge of the truth, he asked of the old man what teachers then one must use, if not even these saw the truth. Wherefore the old man, entering upon a noble field of discourse, demonstrates that the truth is to be sought from the prophets, and praises and commends them from the antiquity wherein they far surpass the philosophers, from the Holy Spirit by Whose inspiration they prophesied, from the outcome of the things foretold, from their supreme freedom and constancy in uttering their oracles, from the miracles whereby they confirmed their prophecies, and finally from the very holiness of the oracles celebrating uniquely God the Creator of the world and His Christ. At length, departing, he exhorts Justin to pursue these things in meditation, and to ask for the understanding of them from God; for they can be perceived and understood by no one, save him to whom God and His Christ have granted to understand.

Non amplius vidit hunc senem Justinus, sed se ejus colloquio adductum fatetur, ut Christianae philosophiae nomen daret. « Haec ille, inquit in Dialogo, et multa alia cum dixisset, quae referre non est hujus temporis, abiens praecepit ut ea meditando persequerer : neque illum amplius vidi. Mihi vero statim in anima ignis exarsit, meque amor prophetarum et Christi amicorum invasit. Cumque illius sermones apud animum proponerem, hanc solam reperiebam philosophiam, quae quidem tuta et utilis foret. Ad hunc ego modum atque hac de causa philosophus. » Multa igitur alia disseruerat senex, quae Justinus hoc loco referenda non judicat; nec generatim et subobscure, ut existimat Tillemontius, de Christo locutus fuerat; sed ad accuratam descenderat religionis expositionem, ita ut Justinus ei acceptum referre non dubitet, quod in Dialogo exquisitis rationibus demonstrat, non ab operibus legis, sed ab incarnati Filii Dei gratia salutem proficisci, Dialog. n. 23.

Justin did not see this old man any more, but confesses that he was led by his conversation to enrol in the Christian philosophy. "When he had said these things," he says in the Dialogue, "and many others, which it is not the time to recount now, as he went away he bade me pursue them in meditation; and I did not see him any more. But straightway a fire was kindled in my soul, and a love of the prophets and of the friends of Christ took hold of me. And as I revolved his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. In this manner and for this cause I am a philosopher." The old man had therefore discoursed on many other things which Justin judges not necessary to be recounted in this place; nor had he spoken of Christ generally and somewhat obscurely, as Tillemont supposes, but had descended to an accurate exposition of religion, so that Justin does not hesitate to credit to him what he demonstrates in the Dialogue with choice arguments, that salvation proceeds not from the works of the law, but from the grace of the incarnate Son of God, Dialogue, no. 23.

Suspicatus est Halloixius angelorum aliquem sub forma senis Justino visum fuisse. Id vero simillimum videri debere pronuntiat Tillemontius, si consideretur subitus ille et improvisus hominis occursus in loco nullis hominum vestigiis trito, colloquium

Halloix suspected that one of the angels had appeared to Justin under the form of the old man. And Tillemont pronounces that this ought to seem most probable, if one considers that sudden and unforeseen meeting with the man in a place trodden by no footsteps of men, a conversation

Editors' notes and page, col. 110

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS III. 110
marginal letters: A senex, ita contemplaris?; B tur, inanitatem; C C (between lines: que Christum / dens Justinum); D lis foret. Ad hunc
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (senex, ita contemplaris?)

PG 6:111

de rebus gravissimis, quod non tam casu oblatum, quam consilio susceptum et quaesitum videatur, optatissimus denique exitus colloquii, Justino a superstitione ad veram religionem, a philosophiae admiratione ad Christi amorem traducto. Quod autem aiebat senex sollicitum se esse de suorum nonnullis, qui peregre abierant, designari existimat idem Tillemontius ministrorum a Deo missorum sollicitudinem, ut homines a Deo peregrinantes et fugitivos, ex variis semitis, in quibus errabundi vagantur, ad veritatem et ad patriam reducant. Illud profecto videri non debet incredibile, Justinum miraculo quodam ad religionis cognitionem pervenisse, cum his temporibus idem multis aliis evenerit.

on the weightiest matters, which seems not so much offered by chance as undertaken and sought by design, and finally the most wished-for outcome of the conversation, Justin being led over from superstition to true religion, from the admiration of philosophy to the love of Christ. Moreover, as to what the old man said, that he was anxious about some of his household who had gone away on a journey, the same Tillemont supposes that there is designated the solicitude of the ministers sent by God to lead men who are wandering abroad and fugitives from God, out of the various paths in which they roam astray, back to the truth and to their fatherland. That assuredly ought not to seem incredible, that Justin arrived at the knowledge of religion by a kind of miracle, since in these times the same thing happened to many others.

Minime dubium est, quin Justinus illud in primis faciendum sibi duxerit, quod ei senex praeceperat, ut se precibus ac meditandis Scripturis totum daret. Inflammatum illius animum alia res confirmavit, consideratio constantiae Christianorum in cruciatibus perferendis; sive senex hoc religionis argumentum inter alia protulerit, sive ipse Justinus post senis discessum rem oculis suis spectaverit. « Nam et ipse ego, inquit in Apologia 2, n. 12, cum Platonis doctrina delectarer, ac de criminibus in Christianos conjectis audirem, eos autem ad mortem et ad ea omnia, quae terribilia existimantur, impavidos viderem; fieri non posse intelligebam, ut in nequitia et voluptatum amore viverent. Quis enim libidinosus et intemperans, et humanae carnis epulas in bonis numerans, mortem amplecti possit, ut bonis suis careat, ac non potius semper in hac vita versari et magistratus latere conetur, nedum se ipse morte damnandum deferat? »

There is no doubt at all that Justin considered that he ought first of all to do what the old man had commanded him, namely, to give himself wholly to prayers and to meditating on the Scriptures. Another thing confirmed his inflamed mind: the consideration of the constancy of the Christians in enduring torments, whether the old man brought forward this argument for religion among others, or Justin himself after the old man's departure beheld the reality with his own eyes. "For I myself too," he says in Apology 2, no. 12, "when I delighted in the doctrine of Plato, and heard of the charges cast against the Christians, bit saw them fearless in the face of death and of all those things which are accounted terrible, understood that it was impossible that they were living in wickedness and the love of pleasures. For what lustful and intemperate man, who counts banquets on human flesh among good things, could embrace death so as to be deprived of his goods, and would not rather strive always to remain in this life and to escape the notice of the magistrates, much less denounce himself to be condemned to death?"

V. Quanam in urbe Justinus, dum locum mari proximum petit, a philosophia ad Christum conversus sit, aut quo anno tanta illi felicitas obtigerit, non facile statuitur. Quod ait de magistro Platonico : Qui recens in urbem nostram advenerat, persuasit omnibus, quos quidem sciam de illius rebus pertractasse, eum in patria sua, id est Neapoli in Syria Palaestinae studuisse philosophiae et Christianam religionem amplexum esse. Sed cum deambulatio in loco mari proximo occasionem Justini conversioni dederit; cumque Flavia Neapolis in meditullio Palaestinae sita, ut observat doctissimus abbas de Longuerue in dissert. ms. de Gestis Justini, ejusmodi deambulationibus careret; longe probabilius est Justinum in insignem aliquam urbem studiorum causa venisse, ibique factum esse Christianum. In Cohortatione ad Graecos, quod opus scripsit non multo post conversionem, meminit eorum quae Alexandriae viderat, nec improbabile est eum in hac urbe litterarum studiis operam dedisse.

V. In what city Justin, while making for a place nearest the sea, was converted from philosophy to Christ, or in what year so great a happiness befell him, is not easily established. What he says of his Platonic teacher, Who had recently arrived in our city, has persuaded all, at least whom I know to have treated of his affairs, that he studied philosophy and embraced the Christian religion in his native land, that is, at Neapolis in Syria Palaestina. But since a walk in a place nearest the sea gave the occasion to Justin's conversion, and since Flavia Neapolis, situated in the interior of Palestine, as the most learned Abbot de Longuerue observes in his manuscript dissertation On the Deeds of Justin, lacked walks of that sort, it is far more probable that Justin came to some notable city for the sake of his studies, and there became a Christian. In the Exhortation to the Greeks, a work which he wrote not long after his conversion, he mentions the things which he had seen at Alexandria, nor is it improbable that he devoted effort to literary studies in that city.

Videtur aetatem virilem attigisse Justinus aut saltem ad eam prope accessisse, cum Christum cognovit.

Justin seems to have reached manhood, or at least to have approached close to it, when he came to know

Editors' notes and page, col. 111

Page

running head: 111 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A de rebus gravissimis; B Minime dubium est; C enim libidinosus; D versioni dederit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (de rebus gravissimis); ends mid-word cogno- (cognovit)
other: the word cognovit. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 112

PG 6:112

Jam enim multos in philosophia progressus habebat, et cum plures philosophorum sectas gustasset, studia sua in Platonica fixerat. Eum sub Adriano conversum fuisse testatur Zonaras : de hac conversione Eusebius sub eodem imperatore loquitur, satisque ea de re inter eruditos convenit. Quo autem Adriani anno id contigerit, non una est sententia.

Christ. For he already had made many advances in philosophy, and after tasting several sects of the philosophers, had fixed his studies upon the Platonic. That he was converted under Hadrian, Zonaras testifies; Eusebius speaks of this conversion under the same emperor, and there is sufficient agreement on this matter among the learned. In what year of Hadrian this happened, however, there is not one single opinion.

Hunc eventum nonnulli, in his eruditus auctor dissertationis modo laudatae, referunt ad persecutionem Adriani, id est ad an. 126. Sed eorum opinionem penitus evertit Eusebius, qui postquam de Antinoi consecratione locutus est, statim addit de Justino : Κατὰ τοῦτον δὲ καὶ Ἰουστῖνος γνήσιος τῆς ἀληθοῦς φιλοσοφίας ἐραστὴς ἔτι τοῖς παρ' ἕλλησιν ἀσκούμενος ἐνδιέτριβε λόγοις. « Eodem tempore Justinus, verae philosophiae amator sincerissimus, adhuc in gentilium litteris exercebatur. » Diserte ergo pronuntiat Eusebius Justinum religioni Christianae nomen non dedisse, antequam Antinoum Adrianus ordinibus deorum ascriberet. Antinoum anno 132 consecratum fuisse multis rationibus probat Tillemontius, not. 9 in Adr.; quamobrem Justini conversio, quae hanc consecrationem subsecuta est, male collocatur ante annum 126.

Some, among them the learned author of the dissertation just praised, refer this event to the persecution of Hadrian, that is, to the year 126. But Eusebius wholly overturns their opinion, since after speaking of the deification of Antinous, he immediately adds concerning Justin: And at this time Justin also, a genuine lover of the true philosophy, was still busying himself in being trained in the learning of the Greeks. "At the same time Justin, a most sincere lover of true philosophy, was still exercising himself in the literature of the Gentiles." Expressly, therefore, does Eusebius pronounce that Justin had not given his name to the Christian religion before Hadrian enrolled Antinous in the ranks of the gods. That Antinous was deified in the year 132, Tillemont proves by many arguments, Note 9 on Hadrian; wherefore the conversion of Justin, which followed after this deification, is wrongly placed before the year 126.

Hoc testimonio adductus est Tillemontius, ut conversionem Justini usque ad annum 133 differret. Sed paulo amplius videtur differenda, nempe usque ad annum circiter 137. Nam Justinus nondum senex, ut supra diximus, pro Christo passus est, in quem aetate jam matura crediderat. Quare non tot anni inter conversionem et martyrium videntur numerandi, quot a Tillemontio numerantur, qui conversionem refert ad annum 133, martyrium ad annum 168. Praeterea nullum exstat Justini monumentum, quod eum tam cito conversum probet. Cohortatio ad Graecos, quae conversionis primordia redolet, post Adrianum collocanda, ut modo videbimus. Denique Eusebius ante de bello Judaico, quod circa annum 136 confectum est, quam de Justini conversione, loquitur; et postquam dixit Justinum eodem tempore gentilium disciplinis operam dedisse, quo Antinous consecratus; tum mentionem injicit de bello Judaico, quod tunc temporis gestum fuisse dicit, id est cum Justinus adhuc gentilium disciplinis detineretur.

By this testimony Tillemont was induced to defer the conversion of Justin until the year 133. But it seems that it must be deferred a little further, namely until around the year 137. For Justin was not yet an old man, as we said above, when he suffered for Christ, in Whom he had believed at an already mature age. Wherefore there do not seem to be so many years to be counted between his conversion and his martyrdom as are counted by Tillemont, who refers his conversion to the year 133 and his martyrdom to the year 168. Furthermore, there exists no monument of Justin which proves that he was converted so early. The Exhortation to the Greeks, which savours of the first beginnings of his conversion, must be placed after Hadrian, as we shall presently see. Finally, Eusebius speaks of the Jewish War, which was finished around the year 136, before he speaks of Justin's conversion; and after saying that Justin devoted effort to the disciplines of the Gentiles at the same time as Antinous was deified, he then introduces mention of the Jewish War, which he says was waged at that time, that is, while Justin was still detained in the disciplines of the Gentiles.

Justini conversionem idcirco ante bellum Judaicum collocat Tillemontius, quia tunc suppetebat otium assidue commentandi, et quaedam deambulandi libertas, quae belli tumultibus ac omnium rerum perturbationi minime congruisset. Sed ut omittam Justinum Neapoli abfuisse, cum conversus est; certe Tillemontii ratio pariter valet, ut conversio post bellum differatur.

Tillemont places the conversion of Justin before the Jewish War for this reason, that there was then available the leisure for constant meditation and a certain freedom of walking about, which would by no means have suited the tumults of war and the upheaval of all things. But leaving aside the fact that Justin was away from Neapolis when he was converted, certainly Tillemont's argument avails equally for deferring his conversion until after the war.

Qui Justinum in persecutione Adriani, id est ante annum 126, conversum fuisse volunt, hoc utuntur argumento, quod Justinus innocentiam

Those who maintain that Justin was converted during the persecution of Hadrian, that is, before the year 126, use this argument, that Justin says he recognized the innocence

Editors' notes and page, col. 112

Footnotes

(36*) ‹anchor: de bello Judaico› · call in col 112 Lib. iv, c. 8.

Book 4, chapter 8.

(printed under page 62)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 112
marginal letters: A vit. Jam enim; B ἀσκούμενος ἐνδιέτριβε; C nex, ut supra; D fuisse dicit, id est
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (vit. Jam enim); begins mid-word vit (cognovit)

PG 6:113

Christianorum agnovisse se dicat, cum eos ad mortem et ad omnia quae terribilia existimantur, impavidos videret.

of the Christians when he saw them fearless in the face of death and of all things that are accounted terrible.

Sed 1° etsi persecutio resedit anno 126, fieri tamen potuit, quod saepe alias factum est, ut praesides vel populi clamoribus adducti, vel odio Christianae religionis incitati, in Christianos injussu imperatoris saevirent. 2° Etiamsi nullum prorsus exstitisset martyrium, cum Justinus conversus est, Christianorum constantiam in cruciatibus agnoscere et laudare potuit, non solum quia recens memoria eorum, quae in persecutione passi fuerant, hanc eis laudem omnium judicio tribuebat; sed etiam quia in ipsa pace impavidum prae se animum ferebant, religionem illam profitentes, quae gravissimis semper objecta erat procellis. Hinc Justinus in Dialogo, quem cum Judaeis habuit pacis tempore, constantiam Christianorum in morte perferenda perpetuo laudat, nec futurum sperat ut hanc religionem principes aliquando vexare desinant, n. 30. Ipse Tryphon fateri cogitur, n. 15, mirabilem esse hanc Christianorum constantiam; quinetiam in eos jocatur, n. 7, quod Christi causa misere pereant. Mirum ergo videri non deberet, si Justinus pacis tempore hanc in Christianis virtutem agnovisset.

But 1. although the persecution subsided in the year 126, nevertheless it could happen, as often happened at other times, that governors, either led by the clamours of the populace or incited by hatred of the Christian religion, raged against the Christians without the command of the emperor. 2. Even if no martyrdom at all had occurred when Justin was converted, he could recognize and praise the constancy of the Christians in torments, not only because the fresh memory of the things which they had suffered in the persecution assigned this praise to them in the judgement of all, but also because in peace itself they displayed a fearless spirit, professing that religion which was always exposed to the heaviest storms. Hence Justin in the Dialogue, which he held with the Jews in a time of peace, continually praises the constancy of the Christians in enduring death, nor does he hope that rulers will ever cease to harass this religion, no. 30. Trypho himself is forced to confess, no. 15, that this constancy of the Christians is wonderful; nay more, he jests at them, no. 7, because they perish miserably for the sake of Christ. It ought not therefore to seem surprising if Justin had recognized this virtue in the Christians during a time of peace.

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

De Justini vivendi genere, sacerdotio et primis adversus gentiles scriptis.

On Justin's manner of life, priesthood, and first writings against the Gentiles.

I. Videtur Justinus asceta et presbyter fuisse. II. Astruuntur illi duae adversus Graecos orationes. III. Quo tempore scripta Cohortatio. IV. Refellitur Casimirus Oudinus. V. Alia oratio minus belle Justino videtur attributa. VI. Liber De monarchia minime mutilus. Eusebii locus, qui mutilum esse persuaserat, nova interpretatione explicatur.

I. Justin seems to have been an ascetic and a presbyter. II. Two discourses against the Greeks are vindicated for him. III. At what time the Exhortation was written. IV. Casimir Oudin is refuted. V. The other discourse seems with little reason attributed to Justin. VI. The book On Monarchy is by no means mutilated. The passage of Eusebius, which had persuaded men that it was mutilated, is explained by a new interpretation.

I. Postquam S. martyr Christianorum mysteriis initiatus est, non segnem operam posuit in evolvendis Scripturis sacris, et ea Christianae doctrinae cognitione comparanda, quae non cuivis e Christianorum vulgo, sed homini erudito et ad religionis defensionem nato congrueret. Quantum habuerit usum Scripturae sacrae, declarat illius cum Judaeo Tryphone Dialogus, in quo et immensam propemodum testimoniorum silvam depromit, quam quidem memoriter in ipso congressu et colloquio necesse fuit recitari, et Scripturam ipsam sic interpretatur, ut Judaicam pertinaciam perfringat. Non desunt tamen qui sanctum martyrem in hoc genere parvi faciant, et Scripturae intelligentiam in eo desiderent, propterea quod allegoricis interpretationibus nimium, ut ipsi existimant, indulgeat. Haud equidem negavero nonnulla apud Justinum occurrere, quae longius tracta videantur; sed inter has umbras eminent atque enitescunt alia plurima, quae mirifice comprobant, hominum doctissimorum judicio, id quod S. martyr grati animi causa testatur, hanc gratiam sibi a Deo concessam esse, ut illius Scripturas intelligeret, Dialog. n. 58.

I. After the holy martyr was initiated into the mysteries of the Christians, he devoted no slothful effort to unrolling the sacred Scriptures and acquiring that knowledge of Christian doctrine which would suit not anyone from the common crowd of Christians, but a learned man born for the defence of religion. How great a familiarity with sacred Scripture he had is declared by his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in which he both brings forth an almost immense forest of testimonies, which indeed had to be recited from memory in the meeting and conversation itself, and so interprets Scripture itself as to shatter Jewish obstinacy. Yet there are not lacking those who hold the holy martyr in low esteem in this kind, and find wanting in him an understanding of Scripture, because he indulges too much, as they suppose, in allegorical interpretations. I would indeed by no means deny that several things occur in Justin which seem somewhat far-fetched; but among these shadows very many other things stand out and shine forth which wonderfully confirm, in the judgement of the most learned men, that to which the holy martyr testifies out of gratitude, that this grace was granted to him by God, that he might understand His Scriptures, Dialogue, no. 58.

Non minus vitae sanctitate quam doctrina micuit Justinus. Non obscure indicant Epiphanii verba,

Justin shone no less by the holiness of his life than by his learning. The words of Epiphanius not obscurely indicate,

Editors' notes and page, col. 113

Page

running head: 113 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO —
marginal letters: A Christianorum agnovisse; B in Dialogo, quem; C pore scripta Cohortatio.; D pretatur, ut Judaicam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (Christianorum agnovisse, CAPUT II.)

PG 6:114

μεγάλως ἐξασκηθεὶς, eum ex ascetarum numero fuisse, qui communibus Christianorum omnium praeceptis propria quaedam austerioris vitae instituta adjungebant, ut testatur Origenes, lib. V contra Celsum. Cum Epiphanii testimonio satis consentit tota Justini vita, quae in scribendo et docendo ac augendis Ecclesiae utilitatibus consumpta civilibus undis mersari non potuit. Forte hujus vitae austerioris insigne fuit pallium illud, quod Justinus gerebat. Illum enim annis post conversionem circiter viginti in Ephesini Xysti spatiis ambulantem ex hoc ornatu philosophum esse Trypho et alii Judaei judicarunt. Observat Tillemontius non insuetum fuisse pallium austeriorem vitam profitentibus, ut Tertulliano, ut martyri Porphyrio apud Eusebium De mart. Palaest., cap. 11. Si quis tamen Justinum hoc indumento, ut philosophiae signi usum esse velit; negat idem scriptor id posse reprehendi, ac Justini hac in re imitatorem profert magnum Heraclam, Alexandrinum patriarcham, qui philosophicum pallium cum Christi sacerdotio conjungebat. Idem ante Justinum a S. Aristide factum testatur Hieronymus in libro De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis.

having been greatly trained in asceticism, that he was of the number of the ascetics, who to the common precepts of all Christians joined certain special observances of a more austere life, as Origen testifies, book V Against Celsus. With the testimony of Epiphanius the whole life of Justin sufficiently agrees, which, spent in writing and teaching and advancing the interests of the Church, could not be plunged into the waves of civil affairs. Perhaps the badge of this more austere life was that cloak which Justin wore. For when he was walking in the colonnades of the Ephesian Xystus about twenty years after his conversion, Trypho and other Jews judged from this attire that he was a philosopher. Tillemont observes that the cloak was not unusual for those professing a more austere life, such as Tertullian, and the martyr Porphyrius in Eusebius, On the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11. Yet if anyone should maintain that Justin used this garment as the badge of philosophy, the same writer denies that this can be blamed, and brings forward as an imitator of Justin in this matter the great Heraclas, Patriarch of Alexandria, who joined the philosophic cloak with the priesthood of Christ. That the same thing was done before Justin by St. Aristides, Jerome testifies in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers.

Presbyterum fuisse Justinum opinatur Tillemontius, propterea quod baptismi caeremonias sic describit, ut illius administrandi munus sustinuisse videatur. « Nos autem, inquit Apol. 1, n. 65, postquam eum, qui credidit et assensus est, sic abluimus, ad eos qui dicuntur fratres, in locum ubi congregati sunt, adducimus, communes preces animo intento facturi. » Erat ergo Justinus ex eorum numero qui baptizabant, et baptizatum deducebant ad locum ubi fratres congregati erant. Alio in loco recenset se inter principes populi Christiani, seque in hoc perfungendo munere a principibus populi Judaici longe discrepare profitetur. « Et nos igitur timore adducti, inquit Dialog. n. 82, sermones secundum Scripturas conferre studemus, minime autem pecuniae aut gloriae cupiditate, aut amore voluptatis. Nullum enim ex his est vitiis, cujus nos quisquam arguere possit. Neque enim similiter ac principes populi vestri vivere volumus, quibus Deus hoc probrum objicit : Principes vestri socii furum, diligentes munera, persequentes retributionem. » Sacerdotium Justini ex ejus Actis confirmari potest, ex quibus illud saltem colligitur ecclesiam in ea domo, in qua degebat, fuisse, nec eum, quandiu Romae fuit, alium conventus locum obire solitum fuisse. Quaerenti enim praefecto quem in locum Christiani convenirent, et suos Justinus discipulos congregaret, respondet Justinus se nullum alium conventus locum cognoscere praeter domum in qua manebat. Videtur ipse praefectus sacerdotalem in Justino dignitatem agnoscere, dum ejus socios sic interrogat : Christianos vos fecit Justinus? Gratiam sacerdotii in Justino vacuam non fuisse declarant eximia in Ecclesiam merita, quam non solum et viva voce et scriptis pietatem spirantibus, ut multi

Tillemont is of the opinion that Justin was a presbyter, because he describes the ceremonies of baptism in such a way that he seems to have borne the office of administering it. "And we," he says in Apology 1, no. 65, "after we have thus washed him who has believed and given his assent, lead him to those who are called brethren, to the place where they are assembled, in order to make common prayers with intent mind." Justin was therefore of the number of those who baptized, and who led the baptized person to the place where the brethren were assembled. In another passage he counts himself among the rulers of the Christian people, and professes that in discharging this office he differs widely from the rulers of the Jewish people. "And we therefore, led by fear," he says in the Dialogue, no. 82, "strive to hold discourses according to the Scriptures, and by no means out of greed for money or glory, or love of pleasure. For there is none of these vices of which anyone could convict us. Nor indeed do we wish to live like the rulers of your people, against whom God casts this reproach: Your rulers are companions of thieves, loving bribes, pursuing reward." The priesthood of Justin can be confirmed from his Acts, from which at least this is gathered, that there was a church in that house in which he dwelt, and that as long as he was at Rome he was not accustomed to frequent any other place of assembly. For when the prefect asks to what place the Christians assemble and where Justin gathers his disciples, Justin replies that he knows no other place of assembly beside the house in which he remained. The prefect himself seems to recognize a priestly dignity in Justin when he questions his companions thus: Did Justin make you Christians? That the grace of the priesthood was not in vain in Justin is declared by his extraordinary services to the Church, which not only both by the living voice and by writings breathing piety, like many

Editors' notes and page, col. 114

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO — PARS III. 114
marginal letters: A μεγάλως ἐξασκηθεὶς; B De mart. Palaest.; C gregati sunt, adducimus; D diligentes munera
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (μεγάλως ἐξασκηθεὶς)

PG 6:115

alii Patres, defendit et ornavit, sed etiam, id quod perpaucis contigit, molestissimo tempore afflictam et vastatam, ex summa rerum perturbatione, dum imperatorem oblata apologia placat, in portum tranquillitatemque pro sua parte restituit. Sed quia de plerisque illius operibus multae magnaeque sunt quaestiones, an genuinus sint illius fetus, an integra ad nos pervenerint, et quo tempore in lucem edita; operae pretium est in his rebus, si qua ratione possim, explicandis et illustrandis immorari.

other Fathers, but also—what has fallen to the lot of very few—when in a most troubled time she was afflicted and laid waste, out of the utmost upheaval of affairs, while appeasing the emperor by the apology which he presented, for his part restored her to haven and tranquillity. But since concerning most of his works there are many great questions—whether they are his genuine offspring, whether they have come down to us entire, and at what time they were published—it is worthwhile to dwell upon explaining and illustrating these matters, if in any way I can.

II. Praeter duas Apologias, de quibus modo agemus, duae aliae exstant S. martyris adversus ethnicos elucubrationes, quarum altera eaque brevissima inscribitur Oratio adversus Graecos; altera multo longior, Cohortatio ad Graecos. Totidem Justino adversus ethnicos libri, praeter duas Apologias, tribuuntur ab Eusebio, Hieronymo et Photio; sed utrum iidem hodie exstent, qui olim a veteribus commemorati sunt, examinandum. Sic loquitur Eusebius de his duobus libris : Καὶ ἄλλος ὁ πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐν ᾧ μακρὸν περὶ πλείστων παρ' ἡμῖν τε καὶ τοῖς Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφοις ζητουμένων κατατείνας λόγον, περὶ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων διαλαμβάνει φύσεως, ἃ οὐδὲν ἂν ἐπείγοι τανῦν παρατίθεσθαι. Καὶ αὖθις ἕτερον πρὸς Ἕλληνας εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλήλυθεν αὐτοῦ σύγγραμμα, ὃ καὶ ἐπέγραψεν Ἔλεγχον. « Est et alius ejus liber adversus gentiles, in quo postquam de plurimis quaestionibus, quae tam a nostris, quam a gentilium philosophis agitari solent, uberrime disputavit, suam de natura daemonum sententiam exponit, quam quidem hic inserere nihil necesse est. Alius praeterea ejusdem liber adversus gentiles ad nos pervenit, quem ille Confutationem inscripsit. » Similiter Hieronymus in libro De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis : « Exstat ejus et aliud volumen contra gentes, ubi de daemonum quoque natura disputat; et quartum adversus gentes, cui titulum praenotavit Ἔλεγχος. » Et Photius, cod. 125 : Τέσσαρας δὲ πραγματείας κατὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνέταξε.... ἐν δὲ τῇ τρίτῃ περὶ φύσεως δαιμόνων διείλεκται. Ὁ δὲ τέταρτος αὐτῷ λόγος ὁμοίως κατὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συγκείμενος, Ἔλεγχος ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχει. « Porro quatuor adversus gentes tractatus composuit.... in tertio de daemonum natura disseruit. Quartus etiam contra gentes ab eo compositus inscribitur Confutatio. »

II. Besides the two Apologies, with which we shall presently deal, there are extant two other treatises of the holy martyr against the Gentiles, of which the one, and that very brief, is entitled Discourse against the Greeks, and the other, much longer, Exhortation to the Greeks. Just as many books against the Gentiles, besides the two Apologies, are attributed to Justin by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius; but whether the same ones are extant today as were formerly mentioned by the ancients must be examined. Eusebius speaks thus of these two books: And another is that Against the Greeks, in which, after drawing out a long discourse concerning very many questions investigated both among us and among the philosophers of the Greeks, he treats of the nature of demons, which there is no urgency to set forth at present. And again another treatise of his Against the Greeks has come down to us, which he entitled Refutation. "There is also another book of his against the Gentiles, in which, after disputing most copiously concerning very many questions which are wont to be debated both by our own people and by the philosophers of the Gentiles, he sets forth his opinion on the nature of demons, which indeed there is no need to insert here. Furthermore, another book of the same author against the Gentiles has come down to us, which he entitled Refutation." Similarly Jerome in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers: "There is extant also another volume of his against the Gentiles, where he disputes also about the nature of demons; and a fourth against the Gentiles, to which he prefixed the title Ἔλεγχος." And Photius, cod. 125: And he composed four treatises against the Gentiles.... and in the third he has discoursed on the nature of demons. And his fourth discourse, likewise composed against the Gentiles, has the title Refutation. "Moreover, he composed four treatises against the Gentiles.... in the third he discoursed on the nature of demons. The fourth, also composed by him against the Gentiles, is entitled Refutation."

Ex duabus Justini adversus gentes orationibus, quae ad nos pervenerunt, neutra inscribitur Confutatio, neutra disserit de natura daemonum. Quae brevior est, Eusebio nota aut saltem memorata non fuit : nam neque de natura daemonum, neque de aliis quaestionibus ab Eusebio indicatis tractat. Deos gentilium acute exagitat; sed eorum opiniones data opera non confutat. Quare non est ille Ἔλεγχος ab Eusebio laudatus. Mirum autem non est, si illius diligentiam fugit, cum sit brevissima. Nemo illam abjudicat S. martyri; nec profecto videtur

Of the two discourses of Justin against the Gentiles which have come down to us, neither is entitled Refutation, and neither discourses on the nature of demons. The one which is shorter was not known to, or at least not mentioned by, Eusebius: for it treats neither of the nature of demons nor of the other questions indicated by Eusebius. It sharply attacks the gods of the Gentiles, but does not refute their opinions of set purpose. Wherefore it is not that Ἔλεγχος praised by Eusebius. Nor is it surprising if it escaped his diligence, since it is very brief. No one denies it to the holy martyr; nor assuredly does it

Editors' notes and page, col. 115

Page

running head: 115 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A alii Patres; B multo longior; C gentilium philosophis; D ab eo compositus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (alii Patres); ends mid-word vi- (videtur)
other: the word videtur was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 116

PG 6:116

abjudicanda. Scriptam fuisse non multo post conversionem Justini conjicitur ex ipso primordio, quod sic habet : « Ne existimate, Graeci, nulla me cum ratione aut nullo cum judicio a vestris ritibus descivisse. »

seem that it should be denied to him. That it was written not long after the conversion of Justin is conjectured from the very opening, which runs thus: "Do not suppose, O Greeks, that I have departed from your rites with no reason or with no judgement."

Quod autem spectat ad longiorem orationem, quae nunc inscribitur, Cohortatio ad Graecos, eam et antiquis notam fuisse et in germanissimis Justini scriptis numerandam multis rationibus demonstratur. Nihil in illa quidem legitur de daemonum natura, nihil de quaestionibus tam apud nostros, quam apud gentiles philosophos agitari solitis. Quare eadem esse non potest ac illa pertractatio, quae de daemonum natura disserebat. At nihil vetat eamdem prorsus esse ac eam, quae Elenchus sive Confutatio inscribebatur. Praeterquam quod librorum tituli tot mutationes librariorum licentia experti sunt, ut ex tituli varietate nihil concludi possit; certe ex rebus in hac oratione pertractatis perspicitur eam optime inscribi potuisse Elenchum sive Confutationem. Nihil enim aliud agit, nisi ut gentiles domesticis argumentis profliget, et ex eorum scriptoribus inanitatem et insaniam ethnicae superstitionis, antiquitatem verae religionis demonstret. Nemo non videt quam apte congruat huic disserendi rationi Elenchi sive Confutationis titulus. Hinc cum Stephanus Gobarus Tritheita, qui saeculo sexto scribebat, unam aliquam S. martyris sententiam citasset, quae in hac oratione legitur, eaque mirum in modum abuteretur, refellit eum Photius ex proposito S. Justini, quem hoc loco Elenchum sive Confutationem Platonis, Elenchum ethnicorum aggredi demonstrat. Videtur ergo haec ipsa esse oratio quam antiqui Elenchum appellant, et quarto loco inter Justini contra ethnicos scripta commemorant.

As for what concerns the longer discourse, which is now entitled Exhortation to the Greeks, that it was both known to the ancients and is to be numbered among the most genuine writings of Justin is demonstrated by many arguments. Nothing indeed is read in it about the nature of demons, nothing about the questions wont to be debated both among our own people and among the Gentile philosophers. Wherefore it cannot be the same as that treatise which discoursed on the nature of demons. Yet nothing forbids its being altogether the same as that which was entitled Elenchus or Refutation. Apart from the fact that the titles of books have experienced so many changes through the licence of copyists that nothing can be concluded from a variation of title, certainly from the matters treated in this discourse it is clearly seen that it could very well have been entitled Elenchus or Refutation. For it does nothing else than rout the Gentiles by arguments from their own household, and demonstrate from their own writers the emptiness and madness of pagan superstition and the antiquity of the true religion. Everyone sees how aptly the title of Elenchus or Refutation suits this manner of discoursing. Hence, when Stephen Gobarus the Tritheite, who wrote in the sixth century, had cited a certain sentence of the holy martyr which is read in this discourse, and abused it in a strange manner, Photius refutes him from the purpose of St. Justin, whom in this passage he shows to be undertaking an Elenchus or Refutation of Plato, an Elenchus of the Gentiles. This very discourse, therefore, seems to be that which the ancients call Elenchus, and which they mention in the fourth place among the writings of Justin against the Gentiles.

Testis autem est Stephanus ille Gobarus hanc orationem sexto saeculo inter genuina S. martyris opera numeratam fuisse. Sed quod rem causamque maxime continet, ipsa oratio non pauca suppeditat ex quibus parentem Justinum agnoscas. Scripta est ab homine ab ethnicorum superstitionibus ad Christianam religionem converso; objicit enim ethnicis, quae prius didicerat, cum inter eos versaretur. « Consentaneum arbitror, inquit n. 11, quae prius apud vos his de rebus audivi, ea nunc in tempore contra vos depromere. » Quod autem de Moyse et prophetis dictum legitur in Langi interpretatione, n. 1 : Majores nostri divini homines, persuadere nonnullis posset auctorem hujus orationis ortum ex Judaeis esse. Sed Graeca verba οἱ ἡμέτεροι κατὰ Θεὸν πρόγονοι, sic reddi debent : Nostri in rebus divinis majores; quibus ex verbis perspicitur prophetas non idcirco ab hoc scriptore sic appellari, quod ex eorum gente ortus esset, sed quod religionis nostrae, ut ipse n. 10 testatur, magistri fuerint.

Moreover, that Stephen Gobarus is a witness that in the sixth century this discourse was numbered among the genuine works of the holy martyr. But what most of all contains the heart of the matter and the case, the discourse itself supplies not a few indications from which you may recognize Justin as its father. It was written by a man converted from the superstitions of the Gentiles to the Christian religion; for he casts against the Gentiles the things which he had previously learned while he lived among them. "I think it fitting," he says in no. 11, "to bring forth seasonably against you now the things which I previously heard among you concerning these matters." Now what is read concerning Moses and the prophets in Lang's translation, no. 1, Our ancestors, divine men, might persuade some that the author of this discourse was sprung from the Jews. But the Greek words οἱ ἡμέτεροι κατὰ Θεὸν πρόγονοι ought to be rendered thus: Our ancestors in things divine; from which words it is clearly seen that the prophets are called thus by this writer not because he was sprung from their race, but because they were the teachers of our religion, as he himself testifies in no. 10.

Editors' notes and page, col. 116

Footnotes

(36***) ‹anchor: refellit eum Photius› · call in col 116 Cod. 232.

Codex 232.

(printed under page 64)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 116
marginal letters: A detur abjudicanda.; B futatio inscribebatur.; C eaque mirum in modum; D saretur. « Consentaneum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (detur abjudicanda.); begins mid-word detur (videtur)

PG 6:117

Pariter in Justinum optime convenit, quod auctor hujus operis vidisse se narrat Alexandriae vestigia cellularum, in quibus Septuaginta interpretes elaborasse ferebantur, et Cumis in Campania sacellum Sibyllae. Cum natus esset in Palaestina Justinus ac praeterea studiorum causa, ut vidimus, peregrinatus sit, perfacile potuit Alexandriam proficisci, nec difficilius Cumas invisere, cum Romam peteret. Quod autem in tota oratione demonstrat veritatis cognitionem non ab ethnicis scriptoribus, sed a prophetis petendam esse; an quidquam Justino magis congruat, qui ad religionem Christianam conversus fuerat, cum eadem ex sene subito occurrente audiisset?

Likewise it suits Justin excellently that the author of this work relates that he saw at Alexandria the traces of the cells in which the Seventy translators were said to have laboured, and at Cumae in Campania the shrine of the Sibyl. Since Justin was born in Palestine and moreover travelled abroad for the sake of his studies, as we have seen, he could very easily set out for Alexandria, and with no more difficulty visit Cumae when making for Rome. And as for the fact that throughout the whole discourse he demonstrates that the knowledge of the truth is to be sought not from Gentile writers, but from the prophets—could anything be more suited to Justin, who had been converted to the Christian religion when he had heard the very same things from the old man who suddenly met him?

Stylum si quis consideret attentius, omnino cum aliis Justini operibus consentire fatebitur, ut observat Bullus probante Tillemontio. Inest tamen huic orationi quidam nitor, quem in aliis Justini scriptis desideres. Sed quid mirum, si Justinus, qui hanc orationem non multo post conversionem scripsit, expolitius dicendi genus in his primordiis persecutus est? Deinde vero idem illi propositum non fuit in hoc opere ac in Apologiis, quas obtulit imperatoribus. Hic leniter disputat cum ethnicis, et ea pertractat, quae sermonis concinnitati locum dabant. Apologiae autem non mansueta disputatione, sed acerrimis querelis continentur; nec Justinus in illo dolore, quem ex molestissimo Ecclesiae tempore capiebat, valde laborabat, quam eleganter et ornate diceret.

If anyone considers the style more attentively, he will confess that it agrees altogether with the other works of Justin, as Bull observes with Tillemont's approval. Yet there is in this discourse a certain elegance which one misses in the other writings of Justin. But what wonder if Justin, who wrote this discourse not long after his conversion, pursued a more polished style of speaking in these first beginnings? In the next place, he did not have the same purpose in this work as in the Apologies which he presented to the emperors. Here he disputes gently with the Gentiles, and treats those matters which gave room for neatness of speech. The Apologies, on the other hand, consist not of a mild disputation, but of the sharpest complaints; nor did Justin, in that grief which he felt from the most troubled time of the Church, take great pains over how elegantly and ornately he spoke.

III. Ex hac autem disserendi ratione existimare licet quo tempore scripta fuerit oratio. Videtur nulla tunc saeviisse persecutio. Neque enim, si quotidie fusus fuisset Christianorum sanguis, otium aut voluntas fuisset S. martyri de Platonis et Aristotelis dissensione, ac de aliis ejusmodi rebus tam copiose disserendi, et antiquitatis laudem ethnicis scriptoribus praeripiendi, nulla interim de Christianorum suppliciis facta mentione. Verisimile ergo est hanc orationem scriptam fuisse primis Antonini annis, antequam persecutio, quae sub hoc imperatore Ecclesiam afflixit, acriora Justini studia ad religionis defensionem excitaret. Illud certe vix dubitari possit, ante Apologias hoc opus elucubratum esse, quod quaedam potius adversus ethnicos velitatio, quam plena religionis defensio esse videtur, et satis quidem scite profanam eruditionem ad ethnicos refellendos convertit, at in explicandis religionis Christianae principiis non immoratur. Cur autem illud ad Antonini potius quam ad Adriani tempora referam, hoc utor argumento, quod citentur in eo Sibyllini versus. Quod enim legitur, n. 38, Sibyllae libros toto orbe servari, eamque de futuro Salvatoris adventu et de omnibus rebus quas gesturus erat, clare et aperte praenuntiare, his verbis Sibyllini, quales hodie exstant, libri indicantur, in quibus tam aperta est rerum a Christo gerendarum

III. Moreover, from this manner of discoursing one may judge at what time the discourse was written. No persecution seems to have been raging then. For if the blood of Christians had been shed daily, the holy martyr would have had neither the leisure nor the inclination to discourse so copiously on the disagreement of Plato and Aristotle and on other matters of that sort, and to snatch away the praise of antiquity from Gentile writers, while making no mention in the meantime of the punishments of the Christians. It is probable, therefore, that this discourse was written in the first years of Antoninus, before the persecution which afflicted the Church under this emperor roused the keener efforts of Justin for the defence of religion. This certainly could scarcely be doubted, that this work was composed before the Apologies, since it seems to be a kind of skirmish against the Gentiles rather than a full defence of religion, and turns profane learning skilfully enough to refuting the Gentiles, yet does not dwell upon explaining the principles of the Christian religion. Now as to why I refer it to the times of Antoninus rather than to those of Hadrian, I use this argument, that the Sibylline verses are cited in it. For what is read in no. 38, that the books of the Sibyl are preserved throughout the whole world, and that she clearly and openly foretells the future coming of the Saviour and all the things that He was to do—by these words the Sibylline books, such as they are extant today, are indicated, in which the prediction of the things to be done by Christ is so open

Editors' notes and page, col. 117

Page

running head: 117 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A Pariter in Justinum; B aliis Justini operibus; C III. Ex hac autem; D tum esse, quod
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (Pariter in Justinum)

PG 6:118

praedictio, ut eam ex eventis fictam fuisse vix quisquam hodie non fateatur. Sed cum pluribus locis versuum Sibyllinorum, praesertim vero lib. VIII, M. Antoninus, qui ab Adriano adoptatus est anno 138, et M. Aurelius et Lucius Verus eodem anno ab Antonino adoptati, ut Adriani successores designentur; liquet hos libros ante annum 138, qui postremus fuit Adriani, fabricatos non fuisse; ac proinde elucubrationem Justini, in qua hi libri toto orbe asservari dicuntur, ad Antonini potius quam ad Adriani imperium esse referendam.

that scarcely anyone today does not confess that it was forged after the events. But since in several passages of the Sibylline verses, and especially in book VIII, Marcus Antoninus, who was adopted by Hadrian in the year 138, and Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, adopted in the same year by Antoninus, are designated as the successors of Hadrian, it is clear that these books were not fabricated before the year 138, which was the last year of Hadrian; and accordingly that the treatise of Justin, in which these books are said to be preserved throughout the whole world, is to be referred to the reign of Antoninus rather than to that of Hadrian.

Romae scriptum est hoc opus, siquidem Justinus Italiam peragraverat, ac proinde Romam venerat. At S. martyr postquam Romam advenit, semel tantum ex hac urbe egressus est, ut modo videbimus, idque post primam Apologiam, quae hoc opere posterior est.

This work was written at Rome, inasmuch as Justin had travelled through Italy, and accordingly had come to Rome. Now the holy martyr, after he arrived at Rome, went out from that city only once, as we shall presently see, and that after the first Apology, which is later than this work.

IV. Nec criticorum omnium consensus, nec tot notae quibus Justinus hujus orationis parens dignoscitur, Casimirum Oudinum deterruerunt, quominus in suo De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis commentario suppositum S. martyri pronuntiaret. Quinque rationibus nititur, de quibus judicium erit eruditi lectoris. 1° Negat in Justinum ex parentibus ethnicis natum convenire, quod ait auctor hujus orationis se divinorum majorum sacra et pietatem sequi. At Oudinum decepit minus accurata Langi, ut jam observavimus, interpretatio.

IV. Neither the consensus of all critics, nor so many marks whereby Justin is recognized as the father of this discourse, deterred Casimir Oudin from pronouncing it in his commentary On Ecclesiastical Writers to be spuriously attributed to the holy martyr. He relies on five arguments, concerning which the learned reader will judge. 1. He denies that it suits Justin, born of Gentile parents, that the author of this discourse says he follows the sacred rites and piety of his divine ancestors. But the less accurate translation of Lang, as we have already observed, deceived Oudin.

2° Observat Justinum in Dialogo Judaeis objicere, quod interpretationem Septuaginta rejiciant, eamque corruperint; auctorem vero Paraeneticae orationis statuere versionem Septuaginta interpretum incorrupte in Judaeorum synagogis asservatam, a Judaeis agnitam fuisse, et contra adversarios quoscunque adhibitam. Sed annon fieri potuit ut Justinus, cum hanc orationem scriberet, nondum quidquam audiisset de Judaeorum facinore? Quinetiam verisimile est nondum Judaeos dedisse materiam criminationibus quibus eos in Dialogo premit Justinus : ibi enim, n. 73, recens esse eorum facinus declarat.

2. He observes that Justin in the Dialogue reproaches the Jews with rejecting the translation of the Seventy and corrupting it, whereas the author of the Paraenetic Discourse states that the version of the Seventy translators was preserved uncorrupted in the synagogues of the Jews, was acknowledged by the Jews, and was employed against any opponents whatever. But could it not have happened that Justin, when he wrote this discourse, had not yet heard anything of the misdeed of the Jews? Nay more, it is probable that the Jews had not yet given occasion for the charges with which Justin presses them in the Dialogue: for there, in no. 73, he declares that their misdeed is recent.

Non majoris ponderis tertia et quarta ratio. Sumit argumenti loco quod Justinus in Apologia lectionem Hystaspis et Sibyllarum et prophetarum capitali supplicio interdictam queritur, quod Platonem in omnibus operibus laudat impendio; contra auctor Paraeneticae orationis Platonem floccifacit et insectatur, ac non modo libros Sibyllinos per totum orbem sparsos esse testatur, sed etiam facile esse illis, qui sacras Scripturas legere nollent, ex Sibyllae carmine primordia nostrae religionis addiscere. Unde etiam omnes ibidem ad illorum lectionem hortatur.

Of no greater weight are the third and fourth arguments. He takes as an argument that Justin in the Apology complains that the reading of Hystaspes and the Sibyls and the prophets is forbidden on pain of capital punishment, and that he praises Plato exceedingly in all his works; whereas on the contrary the author of the Paraenetic Discourse counts Plato as naught and inveighs against him, and not only testifies that the Sibylline books are spread throughout the whole world, but also that it is easy for those who are unwilling to read the sacred Scriptures to learn the first principles of our religion from the song of the Sibyl. Whence he also exhorts all in the same place to read them.

Vereor ne otio abuti videar, dum ejusmodi ratiunculas refello. Justinus ut in aliis operibus, ita etiam in hac oratione laudat in Platone nonnullarum sententiarum cum Moysis doctrina similitudinem.

I fear lest I seem to abuse my leisure while refuting quibbles of this sort. Justin, just as in his other works, so also in this discourse praises in Plato the similarity of several opinions with the doctrine of Moses.

Editors' notes and page, col. 118

Footnotes

(36****) ‹anchor: rationibus nititur› · call in col 118 Cohort., t. I, p. 187

Cohortatio, volume 1, page 187.

(printed under page 65)

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS III. 118
marginal letters: A praedictio, ut eam; B mus, idque post; C C (between lines: 2° Observat Justinum / cere, quod); D capitali supplicio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (praedictio, ut eam); ends mid-word similitudi- (similitudinem)
other: the word similitudinem. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 119

PG 6:119

Sed quod ait in Cohortatione Platonem secum pugnare nec belle accepisse, quae ex Moysis fontibus hauserat, idem docet in Apol. n. 8 et 60. Quinetiam fatetur initio Dialogi, nihil Platonem, nihil Pythagoram vidisse in iis rebus, de quibus tunc Justinus cum sene disputabat. De Sibyllinis libris mirifice consentit Cohortatio cum Apologia. In prima enim Justinus hos libros toto orbe servari, a Christianis videlicet; in Apologia autem constanter a Christianis legi testatur.

But as for what he says in the Exhortation, that Plato contradicts himself and did not rightly understand what he had drawn from the fountains of Moses, he teaches the same in the Apology, nos. 8 and 60. Moreover, he confesses at the beginning of the Dialogue that Plato saw nothing and Pythagoras saw nothing in those matters concerning which Justin was then disputing with the old man. Concerning the Sibylline books, the Exhortation agrees wonderfully with the Apology. For in the former Justin testifies that these books are preserved throughout the whole world, namely by the Christians; and in the Apology, that they are constantly read by the Christians.

Quinto denique loco sic ratiocinatur : « Observant Tatianus, Eusebius, Hieronymus et Photius Justinum in Oratione paraenetica ad gentiles de daemonum natura disseruisse; cujus tamen argumenti nulla in hoc sermone vestigia exstant. »

Finally, in the fifth place, he reasons thus: "Tatian, Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius observe that Justin discoursed on the nature of demons in the Paraenetic Discourse to the Gentiles; yet of this subject no traces exist in this discourse."

Citat Tatianus unum aliquod Justini de daemonibus dictum; at sumptum esse ex Paraenetica oratione non dicit. Neque etiam Eusebius, Hieronymus et Photius, cum Justinum de natura daemonum disseruisse dicerent, de ea, quae nunc in manibus est, oratione loquebantur, sed de alia, de qua nunc paucis agendum nobis est.

Tatian cites a certain saying of Justin concerning demons; but he does not say that it was taken from the Paraenetic Discourse. Nor again were Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius, when they said that Justin had discoursed on the nature of demons, speaking of that discourse which is now in our hands, but of another, with which we must now briefly deal.

V. Oratio illa, in qua Justinum Eusebius de natura daemonum disputare testatur et de pluribus rebus tum apud nos, tum apud gentiles philosophos agitari solitis, nihil aliud videtur esse, quam liber De universo, quem Photius Caio quidem presbytero proprium tradit, sed tamen Justino ab aliis, Irenaeo et Josepho a nonnullis tribui fatetur. 1° Liber ille De universo, itidem ut Oratio, quam Eusebius Justino tribuit, contra Graecos scriptus erat, ut patet ex fragmento quod in notis Hoeschelii sic incipit : Ἰωσήπου ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγου τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου κατὰ Πλάτωνα περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας. « Ex Josephi in Graecos oratione, quae inscribitur contra Platonem de universi causa. » 2° Auctor libri De universo disserebat de natura daemonum, ut patet ex initio fragmenti Hoescheliani : Καὶ οὕτως μὲν ὁ περὶ δαιμόνων τόπος, « Atque hic quidem de daemonibus locus, » id est hactenus de daemonibus pertractatum. 3° De variis etiam quaestionibus tum apud nos, tum apud philosophos poni solitis disputabat, velut de animae natura, de animarum post mortem sede et statu, idque patet tum ex his, quae refert Photius cod. 48, tum ex fragmento Hoescheliano. Continebat ergo liber ille De universo quidquid Eusebius in ea oratione, quam Justino attribuit, animadverterat : et cum liber ille Justini nomen in nonnullis exemplaribus haberet, Eusebius, ut verisimile est, viso aliquo ejusmodi exemplari deceptus est, ac Hieronymo et Photio persuasit opus aliquod a Justino scriptum esse contra gentiles, in quo de natura daemonum disserebat.

V. That discourse in which Eusebius testifies that Justin disputes about the nature of demons and about many matters wont to be debated both among us and among the Gentile philosophers seems to be nothing else than the book On the Universe, which Photius indeed hands down as belonging to Caius the presbyter, yet confesses is attributed by others to Justin, and by some to Irenaeus and Josephus. 1. That book On the Universe, just like the Discourse which Eusebius attributes to Justin, was written against the Greeks, as is clear from the fragment which in Hoeschel's notes begins thus: From the discourse of Josephus against the Greeks, which is entitled Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe. "From the discourse of Josephus against the Greeks, which is entitled Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe." 2. The author of the book On the Universe discoursed on the nature of demons, as is clear from the beginning of the Hoeschelian fragment: And such indeed is the section concerning demons, "And this indeed is the section concerning demons," that is, thus far has the subject of demons been treated. 3. He also disputed concerning various questions wont to be propounded both among us and among the philosophers, such as on the nature of the soul, and on the abode and state of souls after death; and this is clear both from what Photius reports in cod. 48 and from the Hoeschelian fragment. That book On the Universe therefore contained whatever Eusebius had noticed in that discourse which he attributed to Justin; and since that book bore the name of Justin in several copies, Eusebius, as is probable, having seen some copy of that sort, was deceived, and persuaded Jerome and Photius that a certain work had been written by Justin against the Gentiles in which he discoursed on the nature of demons.

VI. Post duas in Graecos orationes recensetur ab Eusebio, Hieronymo et Photio liber De monarchia, sive De singularitate Dei, de quo libro non levis est inter recentiores controversia, quamvis nulla sit inter antiquos. Hunc libellum Scultetus inter dubios

VI. After the two discourses against the Greeks, there is listed by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius the book On Monarchy, or On the Sole Rule of God, concerning which book there is no slight controversy among modern scholars, although there is none among the ancients. Scultetus numbers this little book among the doubtful ones;

Editors' notes and page, col. 119

Page

running head: 119 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A nem. Sed quod ait; B nibus dictum; C stino tribuit, contra; D tum ex his, quae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (nem. Sed quod ait); begins mid-word nem (similitudinem)

PG 6:120

numerat. Natalis Alexander Justino ab eruditis existimat abjudicari; Tillemontius, quem plerique alii secuti sunt, aut alium prorsus ab eo esse, quem Eusebius ex sacris et profanis testimoniis constare declarat, aut si idem sit, saltem illam partem, quae Scripturae testimonia referebat, totam periisse, cum nullum illius exstet vestigium. Satis lepide Halloixius Eusebium in hoc libro Scripturae testimonia non vidisse, sed videre se putasse suspicatur.

Noël Alexandre supposes that it is denied to Justin by the learned; Tillemont, whom most others have followed, thinks either that it is altogether different from the one which Eusebius declares to consist of sacred and profane testimonies, or, if it is the same, that at least that part which recounted the testimonies of Scripture has wholly perished, since no trace of it exists. Wittily enough, Halloix suspects that Eusebius did not see testimonies of Scripture in this book, but thought he saw them.

Quamvis Eusebius eruditos viros in hanc varietatem sententiarum conjecerit; si tamen illius verba, ut par est, interpretemur, totum hunc librum Justino vindicat, nec illius integritatem in dubium venire patitur. Sic loquitur lib. IV, cap. 18 : Παρὰ τούτους ἄλλος περὶ Θεοῦ μοναρχίας· ἣν οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν Γραφῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν συνίστησι βιβλίων. Sic reddidit Valesius : « Praeter hos libros est etiam alius De monarchia Dei, quam quidem non solum auctoritate sacrorum apud nos voluminum, sed gentilium etiam scriptorum testimoniis asserit. » Sed sic interpretandum esse multis rationibus et exemplis adductus contendo : « Praeter hos libros, est etiam alius De monarchia Dei, quam quidem non modo non ex sacris apud nos Scripturis, sed etiam ex ipsis gentilium libris asserit. »

Although Eusebius has cast learned men into this variety of opinions, nevertheless, if we interpret his words as is fitting, he vindicates this whole book for Justin, and does not suffer its integrity to come into doubt. He speaks thus in book IV, chap. 18: Besides these there is another On the Monarchy of God, which he establishes not only [not] from the Scriptures among us, but even from the Greek books. Valois rendered it thus: "Besides these books there is also another On the Monarchy of God, which he asserts not only by the authority of the sacred volumes among us, but also by the testimonies of Gentile writers." But led by many arguments and examples, I contend that it must be translated thus: "Besides these books, there is also another On the Monarchy of God, which indeed he asserts not only not from the sacred Scriptures among us, but even from the very books of the Gentiles."

1° Sententia in hac interpretatione praeclarior quam in prima. Laudat enim Eusebius singulare aliquid ac minime quotidianum. Quod si gentiles Justinus Scripturae et profanorum scriptorum auctoritate oppugnasset, nihil fecisset quod valde miraremur, nihil praeter suam et aliorum consuetudinem. Sed si omissa Scriptura, suis gentiles armis ab eo profligati, in hoc victoriae fiducia et operis novitas merito laudabuntur.

1. The thought in this translation is nobler than in the first. For Eusebius praises something singular and by no means everyday. Now if Justin had attacked the Gentiles by the authority of Scripture and of profane writers, he would have done nothing at which we should greatly wonder, nothing beyond his own custom and that of others. But if, setting Scripture aside, the Gentiles are routed by him with their own weapons, in this the confidence of victory and the novelty of the work will deservedly be praised.

2° Observarunt doctissimi grammatici saepe apud veteres non modo idem valere ac non modo non, ut in hoc exemplo ex Ciceronis lib. II De officiis : « Hi simul ac juvenes esse coeperunt, magna spectare et ad ea rectis studiis debent contendere. Quod eo firmiore animo facient, quia non modo invidetur illi aetati, verum etiam favetur. » Alia ejusmodi exempla colligit Muretus Var. lect., lib. X, cap. 7. Haec autem Latinos de Graecis verisimile est sumpsisse, apud quos constat οὐχ οἷον idem valere ac non modo non. Sed quia fortasse non deerunt qui in animum non facile inducant οὐ μόνον apud Graecos interdum idem sonare ac οὐ μόνον οὐ, videtur exemplorum appositione res illustranda. Huic Eusebii loco gemellus occurrit apud ipsum Justinum in Cohort., n. 9, ubi antiquitatem Moysis demonstrare instituens sic loquitur : Οὐ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν θείων καὶ παρ' ἡμῖν ἱστοριῶν μόνον ταῦτα ἀποδεῖξαι πειρῶμαι.... Ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τῶν ὑμετέρων καὶ μηδὲν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ θρησκείᾳ διαφερουσῶν ἱστοριῶν. Cum Justinus antiquitatem Moysis non ex sacris scriptoribus, sed ex profanis demonstret, illius verba sic reddere non dubitavi : « Nam non modo haec ex divinis apud nos historiis demonstrare non aggredior,

2. The most learned grammarians have observed that among the ancients non modo often has the same force as non modo non, as in this example from Cicero's second book On Duties: "As soon as these have begun to be young men, they ought to look to great things and strive towards them by upright pursuits. Which they will do with all the firmer courage, because that age not only is [not] envied, but is even favoured." Muret collects other examples of this sort in Variarum lectionum, book X, chap. 7. Moreover, it is probable that the Latins took this usage from the Greeks, among whom it is established that οὐχ οἷον has the same force as non modo non. But since perhaps there will not be lacking those who cannot easily bring themselves to believe that οὐ μόνον among the Greeks sometimes means the same as οὐ μόνον οὐ, it seems that the matter should be illustrated by adducing examples. A twin to this passage of Eusebius occurs in Justin himself in the Exhortation, no. 9, where, undertaking to demonstrate the antiquity of Moses, he speaks thus: For I endeavour to prove these things not only [not] from the divine histories among us.... but from your own histories, which have no concern at all with our religion. Since Justin demonstrates the antiquity of Moses not from sacred writers, but from profane ones, I have not hesitated to render his words thus: "For not only do I not undertake to demonstrate these things from the divine histories among us,

Editors' notes and page, col. 120

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 120
marginal letters: A numerat. Natalis; B ἐκ τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν; C ctoritate oppugnasset; D psisse, apud quos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (numerat. Natalis); ends mid-word aggre- (aggredior)
other: the word aggredior, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 121

PG 6:121

sed etiam ex vestris et ad religionem nostram nihil pertinentibus. » Cur Eusebium in re et verbis simillimis eodem modo interpretari dubitemus? Si Scripturae testimonia in libro De monarchia desideremus, similis fingenda erit lacuna in Cohortatione ad Graecos; quod opus mancum et imperfectum esse nemo dixerit.

but even from your own and those that pertain not at all to our religion." Why should we hesitate to interpret Eusebius in the same way in a most similar subject and phrasing? If we should miss testimonies of Scripture in the book On Monarchy, a similar lacuna will have to be imagined in the Exhortation to the Greeks—a work which no one would say is mutilated and incomplete.

In Dialogo S. Justini, num. 17, legendum esse οὐ μόνον μετενοήσατε, pro οὐ μόνον οὐ, probant vetustissimi codices Historiae Eusebii, qui hunc Justini locum citavit lib. IV, cap. 18. Athenagoras, Legat. n. 1, de Christianis sic loquitur : Οὐ μόνον τὸ ἀντιπαίειν, οὐδὲ μὴν δικάζεσθαι τοῖς ἄγουσι καὶ ἁρπάζουσιν ἡμᾶς, μεμαθηκότες· ἀλλὰ, τοῖς μὲν, κἂν κατὰ κόῤῥης προπηλακίζωσι, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον παίειν παρέχειν τῆς κεφαλῆς· τοῖς δὲ, εἰ τὸν χιτῶνα ἀφαίροιντο, ἐπιδιδόναι καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον. « Qui non modo non repercutere, nec invadentibus et rapientibus diem dicere, sed istis, etiamsi colaphum inflixerint, alteram capitis partem percutiendam praebere; his autem, si tunicam abstulerint, pallium superaddere didicimus. » Tatianus, n. 36 : Πλὴν Ὅμηρος ἔστω μὴ μόνον ὕστερον τῶν Ἰλιακῶν, ἀλλὰ κατ' ἐκεῖνον αὐτὸν ὑπειλήφθω τὸν τοῦ πολέμου καιρόν. « Sit sane Homerus non modo non junior Iliacis rebus, sed ipsi bello aequalis. » S. Cyprianus acceptam a S. Firmiliano epistolam, quae est inter Cyprianicas 75, nemini Latine reddendam commisit, sed ipse hunc laborem, ut ex stylo perspici potest, suscepit. Hellenismos autem non paucos fidus inte⟨r⟩pres retinuit, ex quibus unum ad id, quod in manibus est, maxime idoneum apponam. Sic loquitur de angelis S. Firmilianus : « Utique contristantur, quando vident diversas quorumdam mentes et scissas voluntates, quasi non tantum unum et eumdem Dominum simul invocent, sed separatis et divisis ab invicem nec confabulatio jam possit esse, nec sermo communis. » Sensus est : Ita ut non modo non unum et eumdem Dominum simul invocent, sed, etc. Videtur in Graeco contextu fuisse, ὡς οὐ μόνον.

In the Dialogue of St. Justin, no. 17, that one must read οὐ μόνον μετενοήσατε instead of οὐ μόνον οὐ is proved by the oldest manuscripts of the History of Eusebius, who cited this passage of Justin in book IV, chap. 18. Athenagoras, Plea, no. 1, speaks thus of the Christians: Having learned not only [not] to strike back, nor indeed to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to some, even if they buffet us on the jaw, to offer the other side of the head also to be struck, and to others, if they take away our tunic, to give besides our cloak also. "We who have learned not only not to strike back, nor to bring an action at law against those who assail and rob us, but to the former, even if they have dealt us a blow, to offer the other part of the head to be struck, and to the latter, if they have taken away our tunic, to give our cloak besides." Tatian, no. 36: However, let Homer be not only [not] later than the Trojan events, but let him be supposed contemporary with that very time of the war. "Grant indeed that Homer is not only not younger than the Trojan events, but contemporary with the war itself." St. Cyprian entrusted to no one for translation into Latin the letter which he received from St. Firmilian, which is no. 75 among the Cyprianic letters, but himself undertook this labour, as can be clearly seen from the style. Now the faithful translator retained not a few Hellenisms, one of which, most suited to the matter in hand, I shall set down. St. Firmilian speaks thus of the angels: "Assuredly they are grieved when they see the diverse minds and divided wills of certain men, as though they not only invoke one and the same Lord together, but, separated and divided from one another, can now have neither conversation nor common speech." The sense is: So that they not only do not invoke one and the same Lord together, but, etc. It seems that in the Greek text there stood ὡς οὐ μόνον.

3° Neque in exordio neque in clausula consilium aut voluntas ulla deprehenditur objiciendae ethnicis sacrae Scripturae. Quinetiam libellum sic S. martyr orditur, ut se argumentis omnino usurum promittat ex vetusta Graecorum historiae poesi repetitis : sic perorat ut Graecos adhortetur, ad complectendum verum illud et immutabile nomen non sua solum voce praedicatum, sed etiam eorum qui in prima litterarum elementa introducunt. Quid mirum ergo si hoc opusculum ex versibus, quos vetusta Graecorum historia, id est vetustae Graecorum litterae suppeditarunt, totum est intertextum, nec quidquam delibat de sanctis Scripturis?

3. Neither in the opening nor in the conclusion is any design or intention detected of setting sacred Scripture before the Gentiles. Nay more, the holy martyr begins the little book in such a way as to promise that he will use arguments drawn altogether from the ancient historical poetry of the Greeks; and he concludes in such a way as to exhort the Greeks to embrace that true and unchangeable name proclaimed not by his voice alone, but also by the voice of those who introduce men into the first elements of literature. What wonder, therefore, if this little work is wholly interwoven with verses which the ancient history of the Greeks, that is, the ancient literature of the Greeks, supplied, and culls nothing from the holy Scriptures?

Editors' notes and page, col. 121

Page

running head: 121 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A dior, sed etiam; B παρέχειν τῆς κεφαλῆς; C suscepit. Hellenismos; D orditur, ut se
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (dior, sed etiam); begins mid-word dior (aggredior)

PG 6:122

CAPUT III.

Chapter III.

De Justini veritatis propagandae studio ejusque adversus haereticos scriptis.

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

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

I. Justin is occupied in teaching at Rome. II. He is kindled with love of the truth. III. He writes against Marcion and against all heresies. IV. On his lost works. V. On the Epistle to Diognetus.

I. Cum temporis spatium, ut jam diximus, non modicum a Justini Cohortatione usque ad primam Apologiam effluxerit, totum illud tempus Romae traduxit, et in docendo ac scribendo insumpsit. Unde Eusebius de S. martyre Hist. lib. IV, cap. 11 : Καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥώμης τὰς διατριβὰς ἐποιεῖτο. « Nam in urbe Roma domicilium habebat. » Ubinam cubaret, et quid domi ageret, ex ipsius martyrii Actis discimus. « Ego, inquit, prope domum Martini cujusdam ad balneum cognomento Timiotinum hactenus mansi. Veni autem in urbem Romam secundo. Neque alium quempiam conventus locum, nisi quem dixi, cognosco; ac si quis ad me venire voluit, communicavi cum illo veritatis doctrinam. » Unus ex illis, qui cum Justino passi sunt, Evelpistus nomine, testatur se Justini sermones magna cum voluptate audivisse. Ipsi etiam praefecto notum erat Justini studium in discipulis edocendis. Quaerit enim quem in locum conveniant et discipulos suos congreget Justinus. Deinde conversus ad illius confessionis et martyrii socios : An, inquit, Christianos vos fecit Justinus?

I. Since a not inconsiderable space of time, as we have already said, elapsed from Justin's Exhortation down to the first Apology, he spent all that time at Rome, and consumed it in teaching and writing. Whence Eusebius says of the holy martyr in History, book IV, chap. 11: For indeed he held his school in Rome. "For he had his dwelling in the city of Rome." Where he lodged, and what he did at home, we learn from the Acts of his martyrdom. "I," he says, "have hitherto remained near the house of a certain Martinus, by the bath called Timiotinum. And I have come to the city of Rome for the second time. Nor do I know any other place of assembly save that which I have said; and if anyone wished to come to me, I shared with him the doctrine of the truth." One of those who suffered with Justin, Euelpistus by name, testifies that he heard the discourses of Justin with great pleasure. To the prefect himself also Justin's zeal in instructing disciples was known. For he asks to what place they assemble and where Justin gathers his disciples. Then, turning to the companions of his confession and martyrdom, he says: Did Justin make you Christians?

II. Hoc munus S. martyr, ut a Deo commissum, tanto animi ardore, tanta observatione et diligentia gerebat, ut grandis peccati reum se in judicio futurum putaret, si quam docendi oblatam occasionem praetermisisset, si ipsius culpa contigisset, ut veritatis luce aliquis careret. Hanc illius animo sententiam insedisse perspicimus ex pluribus locis. « Nostrum igitur munus est, inquit Apol. 1, n. 3, ut vitae et doctrinae nostrae inspiciendae copiam omnibus faciamus, ne pro iis, qui res nostras sibi videntur ignorare, poenam eorum, quae caecutientes peccaverint, ipsi debeamus. » Perspectum sibi et exploratum esse dicit Dialog. n. 82 : Quicunque verum possit dicere nec dicat, eum a Deo judicatum iri. Vid. num. 38 et 44. Sic loquitur n. 58 : « Scripturas vobis referam, nec apparatum verborum ad solam artem ostentare volo; neque enim est mihi ejusmodi facultas; sed tantum gratia mihi a Deo concessa, ut ejus Scripturas intelligam : cujus gratiae omnes adhortor ut gratis et copiose participes fiant, ne vel hac de causa condemner in judicio. » Latissime nimirum patebat Justini charitas : semper paratus ad docendum erat, sperans inter eos quos alloquebatur aliquem ex electorum numero inventum iri; et quod ei contigit Ephesi cum Judaeis disputanti, ut per biduum eorum in contradicendo et iis, quae prius concesserant, negandis pertinaciam ferret, eadem se lenitate et patientia in omnes omnino ex omni hominum genere uti declarat, n. 64. Ut Justini patientiam et charitatem

II. This office the holy martyr, as entrusted to him by God, discharged with such ardour of spirit, with such care and diligence, that he thought he would be guilty of a great sin in the judgement if he let slip any opportunity offered for teaching, or if through his fault it happened that anyone lacked the light of the truth. That this conviction was settled in his mind we see clearly from several passages. "It is our duty, therefore," he says in Apology 1, no. 3, "to afford to all the opportunity of inspecting our life and doctrine, lest for those who seem to themselves to be ignorant of our affairs we ourselves should owe the penalty of the sins which they commit in their blindness." He says in the Dialogue, no. 82, that he has clearly seen and ascertained that whoever is able to speak the truth and does not speak it will be judged by God. See nos. 38 and 44. He speaks thus in no. 58: "I shall recount the Scriptures to you, nor do I wish to display an array of words for mere art; for I have no faculty of that sort, but only grace has been granted to me by God to understand His Scriptures: of which grace I exhort all to become partakers freely and abundantly, lest even on this account I be condemned in the judgement." Very widely indeed did the charity of Justin extend: he was always ready to teach, hoping that among those whom he addressed someone of the number of the elect would be found; and what befell him at Ephesus when disputing with the Jews, that for two days he bore with their obstinacy in contradicting and denying the things which they had previously granted, he declares in no. 64 that he practises with the same gentleness and patience towards all without exception out of every race of men. Just as no rudeness of men retarded Justin's patience and charity,

Editors' notes and page, col. 122

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS III. 122
marginal letters: A CAPUT III.; B discimus. « Ego; C II. Hoc munus; D pturas vobis referam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (CAPUT III.)

PG 6:123

nulla hominum importunitas retardabat, ita constantiam et animi fortitudinem nulla pericula infringebant : quod quidem satis declarant oblatae palam et aperte, ut modo videbimus, molestissimis temporibus Apologiae. Praeclare seipsum depingit his verbis, Dialog. n. 128 : « Atque haec quidem dixi, quia ita sum affectus animo, ut nihil prorsus dixerim, in quo aliud curem, quam ut verum dicam, neminem reveriturus, etiamsi e vestigio discerpi a vobis oporteat. »

so no dangers broke his constancy and fortitude of soul: which indeed the Apologies, presented publicly and openly in the most troubled times, as we shall presently see, sufficiently declare. Excellently does he depict himself in these words, Dialogue, no. 128: "And these things indeed I have said because I am so disposed in mind that I have said nothing at all in which I have any other care than to speak the truth, without standing in awe of anyone, even if I must on the spot be torn in pieces by you."

III. Non Judaeis solis atque ethnicis operam suam dicaverat Justinus, sed illius laborum magna pars haeretici fuerunt. Hos non solum colloquiis ab errore retrahere conabatur, ut ipse testatur Dialog. n. 84, sed etiam eruditis scriptis omnes haereses confutavit, ac singulari opere aggressus est Marcionem, qui, Justino Romae degente ac totum se augendis Ecclesiae utilitatibus tradente, haeresim suam architectatus est circa annum 145. S. Irenaeus ex Justini adversus Marcionem libro testimonium citat quod apposuimus in Appendice. Hoc opus vocatur ab Hieronymo, contra Marcionem insignia volumina; a Photio, cod. 125, ἀναγκαῖοι λόγοι. Hanc autem elucubrationem Justinus perfecerat, cum Apologiam primam obtulit imperatori; idque non obscure declarat Eusebius, qui de Justino sic loquitur lib. IV, cap. 11 : Ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας κατὰ Μαρκίωνος σύγγραμμα μνημονεύει ὡς καθ' ὃν συνέταττε καιρὸν γνωριζομένου τῷ βίῳ τἀνδρός. « Qui quidem cum etiam opus adversus Marcionem scripsisset, meminit hominis, ut adhuc inter vivos exstantis cum scriberet. » Tum profert Eusebius illud Justini ex 1 Apol., n. 26 : « Praeterea Marcionem quemdam Ponticum novimus, qui etiamnum superest. » Priora illa verba, ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας, sic reddidit Valesius : Qui in libro adversus Marcionem, etc., neque aliter ea intellexit Nicephorus, qui testimonium Justini ab Eusebio citatum ex libro contra Marcionem depromptum esse putat. Unde alii Eusebio memoriam effluxisse, alii Justinum eadem de Marcione et in Apologia et in libro adversus Marcionem dixisse conjiciunt. Sed Eusebius librum, ex quo illud testimonium deprompsit, manifeste distinguit ab opere adversus Marcionem. Illud enim, ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας, non idem valet ac scribens, sed idem ac : Qui cum etiam scripsisset opus adversus Marcionem, vel, postquam etiam opus scripsit adversus Marcionem : ac proinde duo Justini opera hic distinguit Eusebius; alterum contra Marcionem, alterum in quo Justinus de illo, ut adhuc exstante, loquebatur. Ipsa illa verba, Praeterea Marcionem quemdam novimus, hominis sunt Marcionem non toto libro refellentis, sed obiter notantis. Quod autem addit Eusebius Justinum paucis interjectis subjungere : Est etiam liber a nobis compositus adversus omnes, quae unquam fuerunt, haereses, quem librum vobis, si ita videbitur, legendum trademus, inde manifestum est ab Eusebio indicari opus, in quo imperatores alloquebatur Justinus. Illud opus adversus haereses

III. Not to Jews and Gentiles alone had Justin dedicated his effort, but heretics were a great part of his labours. These he not only endeavoured by conversations to draw back from error, as he himself testifies in the Dialogue, no. 84, but also by learned writings he refuted all heresies, and in a special work attacked Marcion, who, while Justin was dwelling at Rome and giving himself wholly to advancing the interests of the Church, contrived his heresy around the year 145. St. Irenaeus cites a testimony from Justin's book Against Marcion which we have set down in the Appendix. This work is called by Jerome notable volumes against Marcion; by Photius, cod. 125, ἀναγκαῖοι λόγοι, necessary discourses. Now Justin had completed this treatise when he presented the first Apology to the emperor; and Eusebius not obscurely declares this, speaking thus of Justin in book IV, chap. 11: Who indeed, having also written a treatise against Marcion, mentions the man as being alive and well known at the time when he was composing it. "Who indeed, when he had also written a work against Marcion, mentions the man as still living when he wrote." Then Eusebius brings forward that passage of Justin from 1 Apology, no. 26: "Furthermore, we know a certain Marcion of Pontus, who even now is still alive." Those former words, ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας, Valois rendered thus: Who in his book against Marcion, etc., nor did Nicephorus understand them otherwise, thinking that the testimony of Justin cited by Eusebius was drawn from the book Against Marcion. Whence some conjecture that Eusebius's memory failed him, others that Justin said the same things about Marcion both in the Apology and in the book Against Marcion. But Eusebius manifestly distinguishes the book from which he drew that testimony from the work against Marcion. For that phrase, ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας, does not mean the same as writing, but the same as: Who, when he had also written a work against Marcion, or, after he also wrote a work against Marcion; and accordingly Eusebius here distinguishes two works of Justin: the one Against Marcion, the other in which Justin spoke of him as still alive. Those very words, Furthermore, we know a certain Marcion, are the words of a man not refuting Marcion throughout a whole book, but noting him in passing. And from what Eusebius adds, that Justin after a few intervening words subjoins: There is also a book composed by us against all the heresies that have ever been, which book, if it seems good to you, we will hand over to you to read, it is manifest that Eusebius indicates a work in which Justin was addressing the emperors. That work against here-

Editors' notes and page, col. 123

Page

running head: 123 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A nulla hominum; B cionem, qui, Justino; C psisset, meminit; D ac : Qui cum etiam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (nulla hominum); ends mid-word hae- (haereses)
other: the word haereses was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 124

PG 6:124

utrum ante librum adversus Marcionem scriptum necne fuerit, statuere non possum; sed certe utrumque opus Apologiis antiquius.

whether it was written before the book Against Marcion or not, I cannot determine; but certainly both works are older than the Apologies.

IV. Aliud Justini opus recenset Eusebius, de quo sic loquitur : Καὶ ἄλλο σχολικὸν περὶ ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ διαφόρους πεύσεις προτείνας κατὰ τοῦ περὶ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν προβλήματος, τῶν παρ' Ἕλλησι φιλοσόφων παρατίθεται τὰς δόξας· αἷς καὶ ἀντιλέξειν ὑπισχνεῖται, τήν τε αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ δόξαν ἐν ἑτέρῳ παραθήσεσθαι συγγράμματι. « Alius item excerptorum liber de anima, in qua propositis variis interrogationibus, quae ad illud argumentum pertinent, gentilium philosophorum affert sententias : quibus etiam se contradicturum, suamque de his sententiam in alio opere prolaturum esse pollicetur. » Utrum promissis steterit Justinus nec certiores nos facit Eusebius, nec ipse videtur perspectum habuisse. Incertus haereo utrum hoc opus in primordiis conversionis an sub vitae finem elucubratum putem. Utrumque enim illud tempus Justini adversus philosophos disputationibus insigne exstitit. Non incommode ad initia referretur hic liber, qui videtur levis potius contra philosophos exercitatio fuisse, quam opus e media religione repetitum. Sed quia postquam Justinus Romam rediit, gravissimum cum philosophis bellum habuit; forte eo tempore hoc opus composuit, illudque mors absolvere prohibuit.

IV. Eusebius lists another work of Justin, of which he speaks thus: And another scholastic work On the Soul, in which, after propounding various inquiries concerning the problem under consideration, he sets forth the opinions of the philosophers among the Greeks; which he also promises to refute, and to set forth his own opinion in another treatise. "Another book of excerpts also On the Soul, in which, after propounding various questions which pertain to that subject, he adduces the opinions of the Gentile philosophers, which he also promises that he will refute, and that he will bring forward his own opinion on these matters in another work." Whether Justin stood by his promises Eusebius neither informs us, nor seems himself to have ascertained. I remain uncertain whether to think that this work was composed in the first beginnings of his conversion or towards the end of his life. For both of those periods were marked by Justin's disputations against the philosophers. Not unfittingly might this book be referred to the beginnings, since it seems to have been a light exercise against the philosophers rather than a work drawn from the heart of religion. But because after Justin returned to Rome he had a most severe conflict with the philosophers, perhaps he composed this work at that time, and death prevented him from finishing it.

Ante hunc librum recensetur ab Eusebio Psaltes, alia Justini elucubratio, de qua nihil videtur statui posse. De suppositis nomini Justini operibus, quae in Appendicem rejecta sunt, praefixa unicuique admonitio quid sentiam exponit. Sed Eusebii tempore multa genuina exstabant, quae nec ab Eusebio recensentur, neque ad nos pervenerunt. Sic enim loquitur : Πλεῖστα δὲ καὶ ἕτερα παρὰ πολλοῖς φέρεται ἀδελφοῖς τῶν αὐτοῦ πόνων. « Exstant et alia plurima apud multos fratres illius laboris monumenta. » In his nec Apocalypsis explicationem numerandam duxerim (hanc enim Justinus et Irenaeus interpretati dicuntur, quia nonnulla loca occasione data explanarunt), nec commentarium in Hexaemeron, nec librum De resurrectione, de quibus in Appendicis secunda parte egimus, nec citatum a S. Maximo, tom. II, pag. 154, Tractatum de Providentia et fide adversus Euphrasium sophistam.

Before this book there is listed by Eusebius The Psalmist, another treatise of Justin, concerning which it seems that nothing can be determined. Concerning the works spuriously attributed to the name of Justin, which have been relegated to the Appendix, the admonition prefixed to each sets forth what I think. But in the time of Eusebius many genuine works were extant which neither are listed by Eusebius nor have come down to us. For he speaks thus: And very many other works of his labours are in circulation among many brethren. "There are extant also very many other monuments of his labour among many brethren." Among these I should consider that one ought to number neither an explanation of the Apocalypse (for Justin and Irenaeus are said to have interpreted this because they explained several passages as occasion offered), nor the commentary on the Hexaemeron, nor the book On the Resurrection, with which we have dealt in the second part of the Appendix, nor the Treatise on Providence and Faith against Euphrasius the Sophist cited by St. Maximus, vol. II, p. 154.

V. At idem dici non potest de praestantissima ad Diognetum epistola, quam Justino tribuunt eruditi non pauci, aliis refragantibus et styli ac temporum discrimen objicientibus. Equidem etsi nemini concedo, qui magis aveat Justini nomini decus hoc eximio opere addere, non ei tam asseveranter illud tribuerim, quam alia opera, quae et ab antiquis memorata sunt, et sua sponte plurimas parentis sui notas referunt. Neque etiam illis assentiar qui hanc epistolam Justino, ut aetati apostolicae propiorem, penitus abjudicant. Si styli dissimilitudo excipiatur, caetera satis congruent, et sententiae et tempus.

V. Yet the same cannot be said of the most excellent Epistle to Diognetus, which not a few learned men attribute to Justin, while others oppose this and object the difference of style and of times. For my part, although I yield to no one in desiring more eagerly to add lustre to the name of Justin by this choice work, I would not attribute it to him so positively as the other works which both have been mentioned by the ancients and of themselves bear very many marks of their father. Nor yet would I assent to those who wholly deny this epistle to Justin as being nearer to the apostolic age. If dissimilarity of style be excepted, the rest will agree well enough, both the thoughts and the time.

Non solum epistolae ad Diognetum idem fere est exordium ac Cohortationis ad Graecos, sed etiam

Not only is the opening of the Epistle to Diognetus almost the same as that of the Exhortation to the Greeks, but also

Editors' notes and page, col. 124

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 124
marginal letters: A reses utrum ante; B terit Justinus nec; C in Appendicem rejecta; D et fide adversus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (reses utrum ante); begins mid-word reses (haereses)

PG 6:125

nonnulla alia occurrunt num. 6 et 7, quibus similia indicavimus Justini loca.

several other things occur in nos. 6 and 7 to which we have pointed out similar passages of Justin.

Tillemontium, qui primus hanc epistolam Justino abjudicavit, in hanc sententiam adduxerunt praeter styli dissimilitudinem, nonnullae aetatis Justino superioris notae, velut illa Diogneti quaestio, n. 1 : Cur novum hoc genus aut institutum Christianorum in consuetudinem venire nunc coeperit ac non prius : deinde etiam quod existimare Judaei dicuntur, n. 3, se per sanguinem et nidorem et holocausta facere Deo sacrificia et his eum honoribus ornare : ipse denique apostolorum discipuli titulus, quem sibi auctor epistolae sumit, n. 11.

Tillemont, who first denied this epistle to Justin, was led to this opinion, besides the dissimilarity of style, by several marks of an age earlier than Justin, such as that question of Diognetus in no. 1: Why this new race or way of life of the Christians has begun to come into usage now and not earlier; then also because the Jews are said in no. 3 to suppose that by blood and the savour of burnt fat and whole burnt offerings they offer sacrifices to God and adorn Him with these honours; and finally the very title of disciple of the apostles, which the author of the epistle assumes to himself in no. 11.

Non difficilia sunt ad solvendum quae vir doctissimus objicit, ut hanc epistolam Justino antiquiorem esse probet. Cur enim Justini aevo religio Christiana non admodum recens videretur, cum Tertullianus dixerit, Hesterni sumus (Apol. cap. 37)? Justinus ipse in Apol. 1, n. 63, eadem loquendi ratione utitur. Ait enim Jesum Christum, cum antea Verbum esset, ac modo in specie ignis, modo in imagine incorporea visus esset : « nunc voluntate Patris pro hominum genere hominem factum, » νῦν δὲ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος.

The objections which the most learned man brings forward to prove that this epistle is older than Justin are not difficult to resolve. For why in the age of Justin should the Christian religion not seem very recent, when Tertullian said, We are of yesterday (Apol. chap. 37)? Justin himself in Apology 1, no. 63, uses the same manner of speaking. For he says that Jesus Christ, whereas previously He was the Word, and had appeared now in the form of fire, now in an incorporeal image, "has now by the will of the Father been made man for the race of men," νῦν δὲ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος.

Sacrificia quidem Judaei offerre desierunt post urbis et templi anno 70 excidia. Sed tamen cum auctor epistolae quid intersit Judaeos inter et Christianos exponat, non immerito in Judaeis aspernatur cruenta illa animalium sacrificia, quae et Judaici cultus pars erant insignis, et sibi per vim erepta Judaei, si minus usu, saltem animo et voluntate retinebant. Pluribus aliis contigit Judaeos eodem modo exagitare. S. Phileas martyr de Judaeis sic loquitur, Act. mart., p. 444 : « Solis Judaeis praeceptum fuerat sacrificare Deo soli in Hierosolyma. Nunc autem peccant Judaei in locis aliis solemnia sua celebrantes. » Eusebius in psalm. LXV, n. 15, Judaeorum irridet ineptas fabulas, Deum scilicet holocaustis, thymiamatis sensum moventibus, aut arietum, boum et hircorum sanguine delectari. Julianus apud S. Cyrillum Alex., lib. IX, p. 305, quaerit cur Christiani non saltem Deo sacrificent. Contendit Judaeos etiamnum sacrificare in domibus suis et precari antequamificent, et dextrum armum primitias dare sacerdotibus; sed orbatos templo et altari, aut, ut vulgo appellant, sanctuario, impediri quominus Deo victimarum primitias offerant. Hilarius sic de iisdem in psalm. LVIII, n. 12 : « Per diversa speciem sacerdotii illius legitimi et holocausti et circumcisionis imitantur : cum haec tantum [f. tamen] nonnisi intra Hierosolymam sint legitima constituta. »

The Jews indeed ceased to offer sacrifices after the destruction of the city and temple in the year 70. Yet when the author of the epistle sets forth what difference there is between Jews and Christians, not undeservedly does he spurn in the Jews those bloody sacrifices of animals, which both were a notable part of Jewish worship and, though wrested from them by force, the Jews retained, if not in practice, at least in mind and will. It happened to several others to attack the Jews in the same way. St. Phileas the martyr speaks thus of the Jews, Acts of the Martyrs, p. 444: "To the Jews alone had it been commanded to sacrifice to God alone in Jerusalem. But now the Jews sin in celebrating their solemnities in other places." Eusebius on Psalm 65, no. 15, mocks the foolish fables of the Jews, namely, that God is delighted with whole burnt offerings, with incense moving the sense, or with the blood of rams, oxen, and goats. Julian in St. Cyril of Alexandria, book IX, p. 305, asks why the Christians do not at least sacrifice to God. He contends that the Jews even now sacrifice in their houses and pray before they sacrifice, and give the right shoulder as first-fruits to the priests, but that, deprived of temple and altar, or, as they commonly call it, the sanctuary, they are prevented from offering the first-fruits of victims to God. Hilary speaks thus of the same on Psalm 58, no. 12: "In various places they imitate the appearance of that lawful priesthood and whole burnt offering and circumcision, whereas these things only [perhaps: nevertheless] were established as lawful nowhere save within Jerusalem."

Immerito Tillemontius haec epistolae verba : Cum apostolorum fuerim discipulus, fio gentium doctor, hominis esse putat ab ipsis apostolis instituti ac Justino

Undeservedly does Tillemont think that these words of the epistle, Having been a disciple of the apostles, I become a teacher of the Gentiles, are the words of a man instructed by the apostles themselves and

Editors' notes and page, col. 125

Page

running head: 125 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A nonnulla alia occurrunt; B rem esse probet.; C illa animalium; D tequam sacrificent
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (nonnulla alia occurrunt); ends mid-word Ju- (Justino)
other: the word Justino was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 126

PG 6:126

antiquioris. Accuratior erit interpretatio, si ita reddamus : Factus apostolorum discipulus, fio gentium doctor. Ut doctoris gentium ita et discipuli apostolorum titulus stricte intelligi non debet. Ut doctorem se gentium non dicit ob muneris dignitatem, sed ob studium praedicandae doctrinae, ita accepta ab apostolis disciplina, non illum honoris titulum significat, qui tunc magno in pretio erat, sed omnibus communis est quicunque spretis philosophis praedicatam ab apostolis fidem amplexi sunt. Omnes enim invitat auctor epistolae, ut idem beneficium et honorem consequantur. « Quae tradita sunt mihi subministro iis qui discipuli fiunt digni veritate. » Non alio sensu epistolae Basilii 355 auctor, quem Basilium esse non puto, piscatorum discipulum se esse profitetur. Idem profiteri licuit Justino. Nihil ergo in hac epistola, quod cum aetate Justini non quadret; imo ad apostolicam aetatem referri non potest apostoli titulus, sub quo Paulus nomine tacito designatur num. 12. Sine ulla prorsus ratione hunc locum, imo extremam epistolae partem ab his verbis οὗτος ὁ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ab alio assutam suspicatur Tillemontius; quanquam hanc conjecturam non suam facit, sed erudito viro, quem non appellat, acceptam refert.

older than Justin. The translation will be more accurate if we render it thus: Having become a disciple of the apostles, I become a teacher of the Gentiles. Like the title of teacher of the Gentiles, so too that of disciple of the apostles ought not to be understood strictly. Just as he calls himself a teacher of the Gentiles not on account of the dignity of an office, but on account of his zeal for proclaiming the doctrine, so too the instruction received from the apostles does not signify that title of honour which was then of great value, but is common to all who, having spurned the philosophers, have embraced the faith proclaimed by the apostles. For the author of the epistle invites all to obtain the same benefit and honour. "The things which have been handed down to me I minister to those who become disciples worthy of the truth." In no other sense does the author of Epistle 355 of Basil, whom I do not think to be Basil, profess himself to be a disciple of the fishermen. It was lawful for Justin to profess the same. There is nothing, therefore, in this epistle which does not square with the age of Justin; nay more, one cannot refer to the apostolic age the title of the Apostle, under which Paul is designated without mention of his name in no. 12. Without any reason at all Tillemont suspects that this passage, nay, the last part of the epistle from these words, οὗτος ὁ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, was stitched on by another; although he does not make this conjecture his own, but credits it to a learned man whom he does not name.

Existimat idem doctissimus scriptor, etiamsi ea solvantur quae objecit, ipsam styli discrepantiam satis argumenti futuram, cur hoc opus Justino non tribuatur. Haud dicam equidem me hac difficultate leviter moveri : et idcirco cum incertus haererem, neque de operibus Justini epistolam disjunxi, neque eo loco collocavi, qui ei tribuendus fuisset, si certissimum esset Justini opus. Si quis enim Justinum, ut in Cohortatione magis elegans dicendi genus, quam in aliis operibus, secutus est, ita in hac epistola maxime elegans ac maxime sublime secutum esse velit; referenda erit ad primordia conversionis, et antiquior existimanda quam Apologiae, in quibus studio religionis defendendae inflammatus ornamenta dicendi minime sectatur. Pluribus eruditis probata Halloixii conjectura, qui Diognetum, ad quem scripta est epistola, ipsum illum esse existimavit, quo M. Aurelius et pingendi magistro et aliarum rerum longe meliorum hortatore usus est.

The same most learned writer supposes that, even if the objections which he brought forward are resolved, the very discrepancy of style will be a sufficient argument why this work should not be attributed to Justin. I would indeed by no means say that I am lightly moved by this difficulty: and for that reason, since I remained uncertain, I neither severed the epistle from the works of Justin, nor placed it in that position which would have had to be assigned to it if it were a most certain work of Justin. For if anyone should maintain that Justin, just as in the Exhortation he followed a more elegant style of speaking than in his other works, so in this epistle followed a most elegant and most sublime style, it will have to be referred to the first beginnings of his conversion, and considered older than the Apologies, in which, inflamed with zeal for defending religion, he by no means pursues ornaments of speech. Approval has been given by several learned men to the conjecture of Halloix, who supposed that Diognetus, to whom the epistle was written, was that very man whom Marcus Aurelius used both as a teacher of painting and as an encourager to other far better things.

CAPUT IV.

Chapter IV.

De prima S. Justini Apologia et trium criminum Christianis affictorum origine.

On the first Apology of St. Justin and the origin of the three charges falsely fastened upon the Christians.

I. De praecipuis Christiano nomini affictis criminibus. II. Justinus missos refert a Judaeis post ascensionem Domini legatos, qui hos rumores spargerent. III. Alii id ortum esse dicunt ex flagitiosa haereticorum vita. Conciliantur dissidentes in speciem sententiae. IV. Ante captam Jerosolymam collocanda criminum origo. V. Quandonam haec crimina desiere jactari.

I. On the chief charges falsely fastened upon the Christian name. II. Justin reports that envoys were sent by the Jews after the ascension of the Lord to spread these rumours. III. Others say that this arose from the shameful life of the heretics. The seemingly discordant opinions are reconciled. IV. The origin of the charges is to be placed before the capture of Jerusalem. V. When these charges ceased to be bandied about.

I. Odium Christianae religionis sub Adriano Christianis favente compressum, semper in animis ethnicorum residebat, ac violenter erupit sub Antonino. Nullo sane optimi imperatoris edicto saeviit

I. Hatred of the Christian religion, repressed under Hadrian, who favoured the Christians, always dwelt in the minds of the Gentiles, and broke out violently under Antoninus. Assuredly by no edict of the excellent emperor did the persecution

Editors' notes and page, col. 126

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: esset Justini opus› · call in col 126

Reipsa certissimum non est Justini opus, imo certissime, unanimi fere editorum consensu qui post D. Maranum hoc opusculum recudendi curam susceperunt, ab ipso abjudicandum. Vide Prolegomena ad editionem nostram hujus Epistolae, cui locum suum assignavimus inter scripta Patrum saeculi I, quos complectitur collectionis nostrae tomus secundus. Edit. Patr.

In fact it is certainly not a work of Justin; rather, by the almost unanimous agreement of the editors who after Dom Maran have undertaken to reprint this little work, it is most certainly to be denied to him. See the Prolegomena to our edition of this Epistle, to which we have assigned its place among the writings of the Fathers of the first century, contained in the second volume of our collection. The editors of the Patrologia.

(printed under page 69)

Page

running head: I PRÆFATIO. — PARS III. 126
marginal letters: A stino antiquioris.; B esse profitetur.; C leviter moveri : et; D tore usus est.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (stino antiquioris., CAPUT IV.); begins mid-word stino (Justino)

PG 6:127

persecutio, sed eam videntur incendisse populares tumultus, ut modo videbimus ex litteris Antonini, in primis vero exortae in variis imperii partibus calamitates, quas stulte Christianorum sanguine averti posse sperabant. Pluribus ex locis delatae Antonino a Christianis querelae; nec difficilis fuit ad illius aures tam justae causae aditus. Enituit hac in re studium Justini, qui cum Romae domicilium haberet, imperatori ejusque filiis adoptivis, et senatui populoque Romano insignem pro omnibus Christianis Apologiam obtulit.

rage, but popular tumults seem to have kindled it, as we shall presently see from the letter of Antoninus, and above all the calamities that arose in various parts of the empire, which they foolishly hoped could be averted by the blood of the Christians. Complaints were brought to Antoninus by the Christians from several places; nor was access to his ears difficult for so just a cause. In this matter shone forth the zeal of Justin, who, having his dwelling at Rome, presented to the emperor and his adopted sons, and to the senate and people of Rome, his notable Apology on behalf of all Christians.

Sed antequam examinemus quo anno haec oblata Apologia, morae pretium videtur de calumniis contra Christianos excogitatis pauca disserere, et a quibus auctoribus et a quo tempore sparsae fuerint inquirere. Sic enim nonnulla S. martyris testimonia illustrabimus, quae notarum angustiae explanare non siverunt. Tria potissimum crimina Christianis afficta : quod athei essent, quod promiscuis flagitiis indulgerent, quod infantis occisi carnes in mysteriis suis vorarent. Magna est trium illorum criminum celebritas tum apud Graecos, tum apud Latinos religionis defensores, adeo ut nulla prorsus regio his commentis non personuisse videatur. Ad has pervulgatas calumnias aliae nonnullae interdum accesserunt. Nam, ut omittam magiam, cujus nomine Christianos accusat Celsus apud Origenem, lib. VI, p. 301, crucem vel etiam asini caput pro Deo colere ferebantur, saltem in Africa, ut ex Tertulliani Apologet., c. 7, et lib. I ad Nat., et ex Minucio Felice discimus. Novum calumniae genus indicarent haec Tertulliani verba, si sana essent et integra : « Igitur, inquit lib. I ad Nat., c. 7, aetati nostrae nondum, an. 250, tot iniqui interea, tot cruces divinitatem consecutae, etc. » Sed his vocibus, tot iniqui, vitium inest et coruptela, nec hujus accusationis ullum exstat vestigium. Quare legendum : Tot onagri interea, tot cruces divinitatem consecutae, etc., idque perspicitur ex ejusdem libri cap. 11, ubi divinitatis crucibus attributae commentum praecedit asinini Dei criminatio, quam quidem ex Cornelio Tacito ortam existimat Tertullianus. « Hanc, inquit, Cornelius Tacitus suspicionem fecit. Is enim... Judaeos refert in expeditione vastis in locis aquae inopia laborantes, onagris, qui de pastu aquam petituri aestimabantur, indicibus, fontibus usos evasisse; ita ob eam gratiam consimilis bestiae superficiem a Judaeis coli. Inde arbitror praesumptum nos quoque, ut Judaicae religionis propinquos eidem simulacro initiari. »

But before we examine in what year this Apology was presented, it seems worth while to discourse briefly concerning the calumnies devised against the Christians, and to inquire by what authors and from what time they were spread. For thus we shall illustrate several testimonies of the holy martyr which the narrow limits of the notes did not allow us to explain. Three charges above all were falsely fastened upon the Christians: that they were atheists, that they indulged in promiscuous debaucheries, and that in their mysteries they devoured the flesh of a slaughtered infant. Great is the notoriety of those three charges among both Greek and Latin defenders of religion, so much so that no region at all seems not to have resounded with these fictions. To these widespread calumnies several others were sometimes added. For, to pass over magic, on the score of which Celsus accuses the Christians in Origen, book VI, p. 301, they were reported to worship a cross or even an ass's head as God, at least in Africa, as we learn from Tertullian's Apologeticum, chap. 7, and book I To the Nations, and from Minucius Felix. These words of Tertullian would indicate a new kind of calumny, if they were sound and uncorrupted: "Therefore," he says in book I To the Nations, chap. 7, "to our age not yet 250 years, so many unjust men meanwhile, so many crosses have attained divinity, etc." But in these words, tot iniqui, there is a fault and corruption, nor does any trace of this accusation exist. Wherefore one must read: Tot onagri interea, tot cruces divinitatem consecutae, So many wild asses meanwhile, so many crosses have attained divinity, etc., and this is clearly seen from chap. 11 of the same book, where the fiction of divinity attributed to crosses is preceded by the charge of an ass-god, which Tertullian supposes to have arisen from Cornelius Tacitus. "Cornelius Tacitus," he says, "created this suspicion. For he... relates that the Jews in an expedition, suffering from lack of water in desert places, escaped by using springs with wild asses, which were judged to be about to make for water after pasture, as their guides; and thus in gratitude for that service the likeness of a similar beast is worshipped by the Jews. Thence, I suppose, it was presumed that we also, as akin to the Jewish religion, are initiated to the same image."

II. Quinam auctores teterrimae fabulae exstiterint, et quo tempore tantum nefas aggressi fuerint, ex duobus Dialogi cum Tryphone locis perspicimus. Sic enim Judaeos alloquitur S. martyr, n. 17 : Οὐχ οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἄλλα ἔθνη εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἀδικίαν τὴν εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐνέχονται, ὅσον ὑμεῖς, οἳ κἀκείνοις τῆς κατὰ τοῦ δικαίου καὶ ἡμῶν τῶν ἀπ' ἐκείνου κακῆς προλήψεως αἴτιοι ὑπάρχετε. Μετὰ γὰρ τὸ σταυρῶσαι ὑμᾶς ἐκεῖνον τὸν μόνον ἄμωμον καὶ δί-

II. Who were the authors of the foulest fable, and at what time they embarked upon so great a wickedness, we see clearly from two passages of the Dialogue with Trypho. For the holy martyr addresses the Jews thus in no. 17: For the other nations are not so guilty of this injustice towards us and Christ as you, who even for them are the authors of the evil prejudice against the Righteous One and against us who are from Him. For after you crucified that only blameless and righ-

Editors' notes and page, col. 127

Page

running head: 127 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A persecutio, sed eam; B strabimus, quae notarum; C Felice discimus.; D aquam petituri
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (persecutio, sed eam); ends mid-word δί- (δίκαιον)

PG 6:128

καιον ἄνθρωπον, δι' οὗ τῶν μωλώπων ἴασις γίνεται τοῖς δι' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Πατέρα προσχωροῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ ἐγνώκατε αὐτὸν ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ἀναβάντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, ὡς αἱ προφητεῖαι προεμήνυον γενησόμενον, οὐ μόνον οὐ μετενοήσατε ἐφ' οἷς ἐπράξατε κακῶς, ἀλλὰ ἄνδρας ἐκλεκτοὺς ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐκλεξάμενοι τότε ἐξεπέμψατε εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, λέγοντες, αἵρεσιν ἄθεον Χριστιανῶν πεφηνέναι, καταλέγοντές τε ταῦτα ἅπερ καθ' ἡμῶν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες ἡμᾶς πάντες λέγουσιν. Ὥστε οὐ μόνον ἑαυτοῖς ἀδικίας αἴτιοι ὑπάρχετε, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἁπλῶς ἀνθρώποις. . . . . Κατὰ οὖν τοῦ μόνου ἀμώμου καὶ δικαίου φωτὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πεμφθέντος παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὰ πικρὰ καὶ σκοτεινὰ καὶ ἄδικα καταλεχθῆναι ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ἐσπουδάσατε. « Non enim injuriae nobis et Christo illatae tanta in aliis gentibus culpa residet, quanta in vobis, qui illis etiam anticipatae de justo et de nobis, qui ab eo orti sumus, malae opinionis auctores estis. Postquam enim solum illum inculpatum et justum hominem, cujus vulneribus sanantur qui per eum ad Patrem accedunt, cruci affixistis; cum eum sciretis ex mortuis resurrexisse et in coelum ascendisse, ut prophetiae futurum praedicebant, non modo poenitentiam admissorum scelerum non egistis; sed etiam selectos viros tunc Hierosolymis in universum orbem misistis, impiam Christianorum haeresim prodiisse dicentes, eaque spargentes, quae in nos ab iis omnibus quibus noti non sumus, dicuntur. Itaque non vobis solum iniquitatis causa estis, sed aliis etiam omnibus prorsus hominibus. . . . . . . Itaque id vobis studio habuistis, ut in solam illam inculpatam et justam lucem, quae hominibus a Deo missa fuerat, acerba et tenebricosa et injusta in toto terrarum orbe jactarentur crimina. » Eadem postridie repetiit S. martyr in gratiam eorum qui pridie non adfuerant. Καὶ οὐ μόνον οὐ μετενοήσατε... ἀλλ' ὡς προεῖπον, ἄνδρας χειροτονήσαντες ἐκλεκτοὺς, εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐπέμψατε, κηρύσσοντας ὅτι αἵρεσίς τις ἄθεος καὶ ἄνομος ἐγήγερται ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ τινος Γαλιλαίου πλάνου· ὃν σταυρωσάντων ἡμῶν, οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κλέψαντες αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ μνήματος νυκτὸς, ὁπόθεν κατετέθη ἀφηλωθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, πλανῶσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους λέγοντες ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀνεληλυθέναι· κατειπόντες δεδιδαχέναι καὶ ταῦτα ἅπερ κατὰ τῶν ὁμολογούντων Χριστὸν καὶ διδάσκαλον καὶ Υἱὸν Θεοῦ εἶναι, παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων ἄθεα καὶ ἄνομα καὶ ἀνόσια λέγετε. Πρὸς τούτοις, καὶ ἁλούσης ὑμῶν τῆς πόλεως, καὶ τῆς γῆς ἐρημωθείσης, οὐ μετανοεῖτε, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταρᾶσθαι αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν πιστευόντων εἰς αὐτὸν πάντων τολμᾶτε. Καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς καὶ τοὺς δι' ὑμᾶς τοιαῦτα καθ' ἡμῶν ὑπειληφότας οὐ μισοῦμεν, ἀλλ' εὐχόμεθα κἂν νῦν μετανοήσαντας πάντας ἐλέους τυχεῖν παρὰ τοῦ εὐσπλάγχνου καὶ πολυελέου Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων Θεοῦ. « Non modo poenitentiam non egistis, inquit n. 108, sed etiam delectos homines constituistis, ac per eos in totum orbem terrarum missos praedicastis

teous man, through Whose stripes healing comes to those who approach the Father through Him, when you knew that He had risen from the dead and had ascended into heaven, as the prophecies foretold would come to pass, not only did you not repent of the evils you had committed, but having chosen picked men from Jerusalem you then sent them out into all the earth, saying that a godless heresy of Christians had appeared, and recounting those things which all who do not know us say against us. So that you are the authors of iniquity not only for yourselves, but also for all other men without exception. . . . . Against the only blameless and righteous Light sent to men from God, therefore, you were zealous that bitter and dark and unjust things should be recounted in all the earth. "For of the injury done to us and to Christ so great a guilt does not reside in other nations as in you, who are the authors even for them of the preconceived evil opinion concerning the Righteous One and concerning us who are sprung from Him. For after you fastened to the cross that only blameless and righteous man, by Whose wounds those are healed who come to the Father through Him, when you knew that He had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, as the prophecies foretold would come to pass, not only did you not repent of the crimes you had committed, but you even sent chosen men at that time from Jerusalem into the whole world, saying that an impious heresy of Christians had come forth, and spreading those things which are said against us by all those to whom we are not known. And so you are the cause of iniquity not only to yourselves, but also to all other men without exception. . . . . . . And so you made it your study that against that only blameless and just Light, which had been sent to men by God, bitter and dark and unjust charges should be bandied about in the whole world." The holy martyr repeated the same things on the next day for the sake of those who had not been present on the day before. And not only did you not repent... but, as I said before, having appointed chosen men, you sent them into all the inhabited earth, proclaiming that a godless and lawless heresy has been raised up by a certain Jesus, a Galilean deceiver; Whom when we had crucified, His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb where He had been laid when unnailed from the cross, and deceive men by saying that He has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven; accusing Him of having taught those things also which, against those who confess Him to be Christ and Teacher and Son of God, you tell every race of men as godless and lawless and unholy. In addition to these things, even when your city has been captured and your land laid waste, you do not repent, but even dare to curse Him and all who believe in Him. And we do not hate you and those who because of you have conceived such notions against us, but we pray that even now all may repent and obtain mercy from God, the compassionate and most merciful Father of all. "Not only did you not repent," he says in no. 108, "but you even appointed chosen men, and through them, sent into the whole world, proclaimed

Editors' notes and page, col. 128

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 128
marginal letters: A καιον ἄνθρωπον; B injuriae nobis et; C vobis solum iniquitatis; D γοντες ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (καιον ἄνθρωπον); begins mid-word καιον (δίκαιον), ends mid-word prae- (praedicastis)

PG 6:129

impiam quamdam et exlegem sectam a plano quodam Jesu Galilaeo excitatam esse, et cum illum a nobis crucifixum discipuli ex monumento, in quo, refixus e cruce, depositus fuerat, noctu subripuerint, decipi ab illis homines, dum eum ex mortuis resurrexisse et in coelum ascendisse dictitant. Quinetiam docuisse illum addidistis impia illa et nefanda ac detestabilia facinora, quae adversus eos, qui illum Christum et doctorem et Filium Dei profitentur, apud omne hominum genus spargitis. Ad haec capta urbe vestra, et terra vastata poenitentiam non agitis : sed illum etiam ac omnes, qui in illum credunt, diris devovere audetis. Nos autem nec vos odimus, nec eos qui talem de nobis opinionem a vobis accepere; sed precamur ut nunc saltem poenitentiam agentes, misericordiam omnes consequamini a perbenigno et mirum in modum misericorde universorum parente Deo. » Habemus in his duobus testimoniis stultae et impiae fabulae evolutam originem. In utroque loco secta Christianorum ἄθεος dicitur; in utroque Thyesteas coenas et Oedipodeos concubitus designant acerba illa et tenebrosa, impia et nefanda facinora, quae Christum ipsum docuisse Judaei fingebant. Uno verbo Judaeorum nequitiae attribuit Justinus quidquid de Christianis dictitabant ii, quibus haec religio cognita non erat.

that a certain impious and lawless sect had been raised up by a certain impostor, Jesus a Galilean, and that, after His disciples had stolen Him by night—when He had been crucified by us—out of the tomb in which He had been laid when unfastened from the cross, men are deceived by them when they keep saying that He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Nay more, you added that He taught those impious and unspeakable and detestable crimes which you spread among every race of men against those who profess Him to be the Christ and Teacher and Son of God. In addition to this, now that your city has been captured and your land laid waste, you do not repent, but even dare to curse Him and all who believe in Him. Yet we hate neither you nor those who have received such an opinion of us from you; but we pray that now at least, repenting, you may all obtain mercy from God, the most kindly and wonderfully merciful Father of all." We have in these two testimonies the origin of the foolish and impious fable unfolded. In both passages the sect of the Christians is called ἄθεος, godless; in both, Thyestean banquets and Oedipodean unions are designated by those bitter and dark, impious and unspeakable crimes which the Jews feigned that Christ Himself had taught. In a word, Justin attributes to the wickedness of the Jews whatever those to whom this religion was not known kept saying about the Christians.

S. martyris testimonia confirmat Tertullianus. Sic enim de Judaeo loquitur, a quo Christianorum Deus publice propositus fuerat cum auribus canteriorum, et in toga, cum libro, altero pede ungulato depictus. « Credidit vulgus Judaeo, inquit lib. I ad Nat., cap. 14 : Quod enim aliud genus seminarium est infamiae nostrae! » Idem docet lib. III in Marcionem, cap. 23 : « Dehinc cum ex perseverantia furoris et nomen Domini per ipsos blasphemaretur sicut scriptum est : Propter vos nomen meum blasphematur in nationibus (ab illis enim coepit infamia) et tempus medium a Tiberio usque ad Vespasianum, non poenitentiam intellexissent, facta est terra eorum deserta. »

Tertullian confirms the testimonies of the holy martyr. For he speaks thus of a Jew by whom the God of the Christians had been publicly exhibited depicted with the ears of pack-asses, and in a toga, with a book, and with one foot hoofed. "The crowd believed the Jew," he says in book I To the Nations, chap. 14: "For what other race is the seed-plot of our infamy!" He teaches the same in book III Against Marcion, chap. 23: "Thenceforth, since out of the persistence of their madness the name of the Lord also was blasphemed through them, as it is written: Because of you My name is blasphemed among the nations (for from them began the infamy), and in the intervening time from Tiberius until Vespasian they had not understood repentance, their land was made desolate."

Sic etiam Origenes, lib. VI contra Celsum, n. 27 : Καὶ δοκεῖ μοι παραπλήσιον Ἰουδαίοις πεποιηκέναι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ διδασκαλίας κατασκεδάσασι δυσφημίαν τοῦ λόγου· ὡς ἄρα καταθύσαντες παιδίον μεταλαμβάνουσιν αὐτοῦ τῶν σαρκῶν· καὶ πάλιν ὅτι οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ λόγου τὰ τοῦ σκότους πράττειν βουλόμενοι σβεννύουσι μὲν τὸ φῶς, ἕκαστος δὲ τῇ παρατυχούσῃ μίγνυται. Ἥτις δυσφημία παραλόγως πάλαι μὲν πλείστων ὅσων ἐκράτει πείθουσα τοὺς ἀλλοτρίους τοῦ λόγου, ὅτι τοιοῦτοί εἰσι Χριστιανοί· καὶ νῦν δὲ ἔτι ἀπατᾷ τινας, ἀποτρεπομένους διὰ τὰ τοιαῦτα κἂν εἰς κοινωνίαν ἁπλουστέραν λόγων ἥκειν πρὸς Χριστιανούς. « Videtur mihi Celsus idem fecisse ac Judaei, qui initio Christianae praedicationis malos rumores de Christianorum doctrina sparserunt, quasi de immolati

So too Origen, book VI Against Celsus, no. 27: And he seems to me to have done something similar to the Jews who at the beginning of the teaching of Christianity spread abroad defamation of the word: that forsooth, having sacrificed an infant, they partake of its flesh; and again, that the followers of the word, wishing to do the works of darkness, extinguish the light, and each man has intercourse with the first woman he meets. Which defamation unreasonably in former times prevailed over very many, persuading those who were strangers to the word that Christians are such; and even now it still deceives some, who are turned away by such tales from coming even into the simplest fellowship of conversation with Christians. "Celsus seems to me to have done the same as the Jews, who at the beginning of the Christian preaching spread evil rumours concerning the doctrine of the Christians, as though of a sacrificed

Editors' notes and page, col. 129

Footnotes

(37) ‹anchor: blasphematur in nationibus› · call in col 129

Isa. lii, 5.

Isaiah 52:5.

(printed under page 71)

Page

running head: 129 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A dicastis impiam; B ut nunc saltem; C teriorum, et in toga; D δασκαλίας κατασκεδάσασι
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (dicastis impiam); begins mid-word dicastis (praedicastis)

PG 6:130

pueri carnibus sumerent, et tenebrosa flagitia perpetrare volentes, lumen exstinguerent, et cum obvia quaque unusquisque misceretur. Quae quidem absurda criminatio olim quamplurimos detinebat, extraneis persuadens tales esse Christianos; nunc vero nonnullos adhuc decipit, ejusmodi commentis deterrens, quominus cum Christianis vel simplicis colloquii communionem ineant. »

boy's flesh they partook, and, wishing to perpetrate dark debaucheries, extinguished the light, and each man mingled with the first woman that came in his way. Which absurd accusation indeed formerly held fast very many, persuading outsiders that Christians were such; and even now it still deceives some, deterring them by fictions of this sort from entering into fellowship of even simple conversation with Christians."

Sed Justini sententiae praecipuum pondus addit Eusebius, qui non solum Justini verba ex Dialogo excerpta refert Hist. lib. IV, c. 18, sed etiam illud Isaiae explanans : Qui mittit in mare obsides et epistolas biblinas super aquam, sic loquitur : Εὕρομεν ἐν τοῖς τῶν παλαιῶν συγγράμμασιν, ὡς οἱ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ οἰκοῦντες τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ἱερεῖς καὶ πρεσβύτεροι γράμματα διαχαράξαντες εἰς πάντα διεπέμψαντο τὰ ἔθνη τοῖς ἁπανταχοῦ Ἰουδαίοις διαβάλλοντες τὴν Χριστοῦ διδασκαλίαν, ὡς αἵρεσιν καινὴν, καὶ ἀλλοτρίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, παρήγγελλόν τε δι' ἐπιστολῶν μὴ παραδέξασθαι αὐτήν . . . οἵ τε ἀπόστολοι αὐτῶν ἐπιστολὰς βιβλίνας κομιζόμενοι ὑπεράνω τε τῶν ὑδάτων ναυτιλλόμενοι καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν ἐμπλέοντες ἁπανταχοῦ γῆς διέτρεχον, τὸν περὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐνδιαβάλλοντες λόγον. Ἀποστόλους δὲ εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν ἔθος ἐστὶν Ἰουδαίοις ὀνομάζειν τοὺς ἐγκύκλια γράμματα παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτῶν ἐπικομιζομένους. « In veterum scriptis reperimus Hierosolymitanos Judaicae gentis sacerdotes et seniores litteras in omnes gentes misisse ad omnes ubique Judaeos, quae Christi doctrinam traducerent, ut novam et inimicam Deo sectam, ac epistolis monuisse ne illam reciperent. . . . apostolique eorum epistolas biblinas deferentes ac supra dorsum aquarum et in mari navigantes, ubique terrarum discurrebant, famam Servatoris nostri calumniis vellicantes. Apostolos vero etiam nunc Judaei nuncupare solent eos, qui circulares principum suorum litteras circumquaque deportant. »

But Eusebius adds especial weight to the opinion of Justin, since he not only reports the words of Justin excerpted from the Dialogue in History, book IV, chap. 18, but also, in explaining that passage of Isaiah, Who sends hostages into the sea and papyrus letters upon the water, speaks thus: We have found in the writings of the ancients that the priests and elders of the nation of the Jews who dwelt in Jerusalem wrote letters and sent them abroad into all the nations to the Jews everywhere, slandering the teaching of Christ as a new heresy and alien to God, and charged them by letters not to receive it. . . . and their apostles, carrying papyrus letters and sailing over the waters and voyaging upon the sea, ran to and fro everywhere on earth, slandering the word concerning our Saviour. And even to this day it is still the custom for the Jews to name as apostles those who convey circular letters from their rulers. "In the writings of the ancients we find that the priests and elders of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem sent letters into all nations to all the Jews everywhere, to traduce the doctrine of Christ as a new sect and hostile to God, and warned them by letters not to receive it. . . . and their apostles, carrying papyrus letters and sailing over the back of the waters and on the sea, ran to and fro everywhere on earth, traducing the reputation of our Saviour with calumnies. Moreover, even now the Jews are accustomed to call apostles those who carry round the circular letters of their rulers."

III. Eusebii testimonium eo majoris est ponderis, quod eamdem historiam non apud Justinum tantum legisse videatur, sed etiam apud alios scriptores, a quibus accepit id, quod a Justino non memoratur, Judaeos litteras iis dedisse, quos in universum orbem mittebant. Sed quamvis magna sit hujus historiae auctoritas; quia tamen non desunt scriptores antiqui ac recentes, qui triplex illud crimen non a primordiis religionis, sed sub Adriano natum, atque ex pravis haereticorum moribus, qui sub hoc imperatore prodierunt, in universos Christianos redundasse velint; paulo accuratius examinanda res est.

III. The testimony of Eusebius is of all the greater weight because he seems to have read the same history not in Justin alone, but also in other writers, from whom he received what is not mentioned by Justin, that the Jews gave letters to those whom they sent into the whole world. But although the authority of this history is great, nevertheless, since there are not lacking ancient and modern writers who maintain that this threefold charge arose not from the first beginnings of religion, but under Hadrian, and overflowed upon all Christians from the depraved morals of the heretics who came forth under that emperor, the matter must be examined a little more accurately.

Conceptis verbis declarat Eusebius, lib. IV, c. 7, nefarios haereticos, Basilidem, Saturninum, Carpocratem et alios ejusmodi amplam obtrectandi et calumniandi Evangelii materiam subministrasse, atque hinc factum esse ut absurda quaedam et impia

In express terms Eusebius declares, book IV, chap. 7, that the wicked heretics, Basilides, Saturninus, Carpocrates, and others of that sort, supplied ample matter for disparaging and calumniating the Gospel, and that hence it came to pass that a certain absurd and impious

Editors' notes and page, col. 130

Footnotes

(38) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 130 (inferred; call not visible)

Isa. xviii, 2.

Isaiah 18:2.

(printed under page 71)

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS III. 130
marginal letters: A pueri carnibus; B ρεῖς καὶ πρεσβύτεροι; C ad omnes ubique; D universum orbem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (pueri carnibus)

PG 6:131

de nobis opinio apud infideles tunc temporis spargeretur, quasi nefario concubitu cum sororibus et matribus misceri, et exsecrandis dapibus vesci soleremus. Idem testantur Irenaeus, lib. I, c. 25; Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., IV, pag. 428; Origenes, tom. III in Epistolas Pauli; Epiphanius in haeresi Carpocratianorum. Videntur haec prima specie pugnare cum Justino, nec mirum si Dodwellus, assentiente Tillemontio, tom. II, p. 245, a Carpocratianis et aliis ejusmodi haereticis, qui sub Adriano eruperunt, aspersam nomini Christiano tot scelerum infamiam pronuntiat.

opinion concerning us was spread at that time among unbelievers, as though we were wont to mingle in nefarious intercourse with sisters and mothers, and to feed on execrable banquets. The same is testified by Irenaeus, book I, chap. 25; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, IV, p. 428; Origen, vol. III on the Epistles of Paul; and Epiphanius on the heresy of the Carpocratians. These things seem at first sight to conflict with Justin, nor is it surprising if Dodwell, with Tillemont's assent, vol. II, p. 245, pronounces that the infamy of so many crimes was spattered upon the Christian name from the Carpocratians and other heretics of that sort who broke out under Hadrian.

Sed conciliari possunt dissidentes in speciem sententiae veterum, ita ut calumniarum origo partim ex Judaeorum improbitate, partim ex flagitiosis haereticorum moribus repetatur. Utrique rem iniquissimam, haeretici et Judaei, promoverunt; haeretici deterrime vivendo; Judaei ex eorum sceleribus ansam arripiendo ea in Christi doctrinam et Christianos fingendi, quae quidem ignorare non poterant omnibus in sanctissima Christi disciplina viventibus detestata esse. Imo plus nocuit Judaeorum perfidia, quam flagitia haereticorum. Nam ut difficile est haereticos nonnullos a promiscuo concubitu purgare; ita vix credibile infanticidium. Atheismi crimen roboravit contemptus deorum, quem Christiani praeseferebant. Sic etiam invidiae Christianorum novam flammam adjecerunt haereses, quae sub Adriano prodiere, sed ex vetustioribus haereticis occasionem rapuerunt Judaei, praesertim ex Nicolaitis et Menandri discipulis, quorum primi videntur promiscuorum concubituum rumori materiam dedisse; alteri autem cum magiae essent dediti, hujus sceleris invidiam, ex quo proclive fuit infanticidium suspicari, in omnes Christianos, teste Eusebio, Hist., III, 26, derivarunt. Itaque si a primis haereticis originem mali, a posterioribus incrementa repetantur, explicabimus quomodo Judaei et haeretici ad dedecus Christiani nominis concurrerint.

But the seemingly discordant opinions of the ancients can be reconciled, so that the origin of the calumnies is traced partly from the malice of the Jews, partly from the shameful morals of the heretics. Both parties, heretics and Jews, promoted a most iniquitous affair: the heretics by living most vilely, the Jews by seizing a handle from their crimes to feign against the doctrine of Christ and against the Christians things which indeed they could not be ignorant were detested by all living in the most holy discipline of Christ. Nay more, the perfidy of the Jews did more harm than the shameful deeds of the heretics. For while it is difficult to clear some heretics of promiscuous intercourse, infanticide is scarcely credible. The charge of atheism was strengthened by the contempt for the gods which the Christians displayed. Thus also the heresies which came forth under Hadrian added new fuel to the hatred against the Christians, whereas the Jews seized their occasion from older heretics, especially from the Nicolaitans and the disciples of Menander, the former of whom seem to have given matter for the rumour of promiscuous unions, while the latter, since they were addicted to magic, diverted upon all Christians, as Eusebius testifies, History, III, 26, the odium of this crime, from which it was easy to suspect infanticide. And so, if the origin of the evil be traced from the first heretics and its growth from the later ones, we shall explain how Jews and heretics concurred to the disgrace of the Christian name.

IV. Postulant Justini verba, ut apostolos a Judaeis ante captam a Tito urbem missos fuisse dicamus. Duo enim Judaeis exprobrat, et quod apostolos ad spargendas calumnias miserint, et quod praeterea urbe capta Christianos diris devovere coeperint. Deinde vero cum missi fuerint a sacerdotibus Hierosolymitanis, id argumento est nondum Judaeos sacerdotii splendorem et urbem amisisse. Eusebius idem facinus attribuit sacerdotibus Hierosolymitanis. Tertullianus modo citatus infamiam a Judaeis ortam dicit ante captam Hierosolymam.

IV. The words of Justin demand that we say that the apostles were sent by the Jews before the capture of the city by Titus. For he reproaches the Jews with two things: both that they sent apostles to spread calumnies, and that furthermore, after the city was captured, they began to curse the Christians. In the next place, since they were sent by the priests at Jerusalem, that is a proof that the Jews had not yet lost the splendour of the priesthood and the city. Eusebius attributes the same deed to the priests at Jerusalem. Tertullian, just cited, says that the infamy arose from the Jews before the capture of Jerusalem.

Quae a sacerdotibus Hierosolymitanis acceperant Judaei, ea spargere in omne humanum genus non desierunt, ut testatur Justinus; ac gentilium animos his de Christiana religione pravis opinionibus jam dudum ante exortos sub Adriano haereticos praeoccupaverant, ut patet ex testimoniis Plinii et

The things which the Jews had received from the priests at Jerusalem they did not cease to spread among the whole human race, as Justin testifies; and they had preoccupied the minds of the Gentiles with these depraved opinions concerning the Christian religion long before the heretics arose under Hadrian, as is clear from the testimonies of Pliny and

Editors' notes and page, col. 131

Footnotes

(39) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 131 (inferred; call not visible)

Annal. lib. xv.

Annals, book 15.

(printed under page 72)

Page

running head: 131 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A de nobis opinio; B sis haereticorum moribus; C ex vetustioribus; D urbe capta Christianos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (de nobis opinio)

PG 6:132

Cornelii Taciti. Cur enim Plinius in epistola, quam Trajano scripsit, an. 104, tam accurate describit, quid Christiani in coetibus suis agerent; cur ait morem illis fuisse coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium, nisi quia jam flagrabant eorum agapae malis infanticidii rumoribus? Cornelius Tacitus etiam sub Nerone Christianos in haec crimina vocatos fuisse existimabat. « Ergo abolendo rumori, inquit, Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat non modo per Judaeam originem ejus mali, sed per Urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. » S. Melito in Apologia M. Aurelio oblata observat Neronem et Domitianum voluisse religionem Christianam criminum notis inurere et ab his ortum esse ut calumniae contra Christianos mendacium consuetudine a ratione aliena diffunderetur. Ἀφ' ὧν καὶ τὸ τῆς συκοφαντίας ἀλόγῳ συνηθείᾳ περὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ῥυῆναι συμβέβηκε, apud Euseb., IV, 26.

Cornelius Tacitus. For why does Pliny, in the letter which he wrote to Trajan in the year 104, describe so accurately what the Christians did in their assemblies; why does he say that it was their custom to come together to take food, yet ordinary and harmless food, unless because their love-feasts were already burning with evil rumours of infanticide? Cornelius Tacitus supposed that even under Nero the Christians had been accused of these crimes. "Therefore, toscotch the rumour," he says, "Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, those whom, hated for their abominations, the crowd called Christians. The deadly superstition was breaking out again not only through Judaea, the origin of that evil, but through the City also, whither all atrocious or shameful things flow together from all sides and are practised." St. Melito, in the Apology presented to Marcus Aurelius, observes that Nero and Domitian wished to brand the Christian religion with the marks of crimes, and that from them it arose that the falsehood of calumny against the Christians was spread abroad by an unreasonable custom: From whom also it happened that the falsehood of calumny flowed down against such men by an unreasonable custom, in Eusebius, IV, 26.

Collocandum ergo ante obsidionem Hierosolimitanam facinus Judaeorum; sed tamen non multo ante collocandum, si fateri volumus haereticos his criminibus materiam dedisse. Testatur enim Hegesippus apud Eusebium, Hist., IV, 22, nefarias illas haereses, ex quibus aliae deinceps proseminatae sunt, Hierosolymis nasci coepisse, cum S. Simeon episcopus Hierosolymorum electus fuit. Non stricte sumendum quod ait Justinus legatos a Judaeis missos fuisse, postquam Jesum ex mortuis resurrexisse et in coelos ascendisse cognoverunt. Sic enim ait in Apol. 1, num. 29, post Christi in coelum ascensum immissos fuisse a daemonibus Simonem, Menandrum et Marcionem.

The misdeed of the Jews, therefore, must be placed before the siege of Jerusalem; yet it must be placed not long before, if we wish to confess that the heretics gave matter for these charges. For Hegesippus testifies in Eusebius, History, IV, 22, that those nefarious heresies, from which others were successively propagated, began to spring up at Jerusalem when St. Simeon was elected Bishop of Jerusalem. What Justin says—that envoys were sent by the Jews after they knew that Jesus had risen from the dead and ascended into the heavens—must not be taken strictly. For thus he says in Apology 1, no. 29, that after the ascension of Christ into heaven Simon, Menander, and Marcion were sent in by the demons.

V. Incredibilia omnibus cordatis semper visa sunt haec commenta : fatetur ea a vero abhorrere Trypho Judaeus Dialog., n. 10. « Plerique fidem talium temperant, » inquit Tertullianus 1 ad Nat., c. 2. Sed tamen jactationem habebant, si minus fidem; et centies refutata exprobrari non desinebant. Tempore Origenis, ut patet ex testimonio supra allato, non jam quidem plurimos ut olim, sed tamen nonnullos adhuc decipiebant; nec videntur omnino, si Lactantio credimus, oblivione et silentio sepulta fuisse, nisi postquam Constantinus imperii gubernacula tenuit. Sic enim ille, lib. VII, c. 26 : « Verum illi hanc taciturnitatem nostram, veluti malam conscientiam, criminantur : unde etiam quasdam exsecrabiles opiniones de pudicis et innocentibus fingunt, et libenter his quae finxerunt credunt. Sed omnia jam, sanctissime imperator, figmenta sopita sunt, ex quo te Deus summus ad restituendum justitiae domicilium et ad tutelam generis humani excitavit. » Videtur Eusebius existimare has calumnias ante Constantinum exaruisse idque ex his colligitur quae leguntur lib. IV, c. 7 :

V. These fictions always seemed incredible to all men of sense: Trypho the Jew confesses in the Dialogue, no. 10, that they are abhorrent to the truth. "Most men moderate their belief of such things," says Tertullian, 1 To the Nations, chap. 2. And yet they were bandied about, even if they were not believed; and though refuted a hundred times, they did not cease to be cast up as reproaches. In the time of Origen, as is clear from the testimony adduced above, they no longer indeed deceived very many as formerly, yet they still deceived some; nor do they seem, if we believe Lactantius, to have been altogether buried in oblivion and silence until after Constantine held the helm of the empire. For he speaks thus, book VII, chap. 26: "But they accuse this silence of ours as though it were an evil conscience: whence they even feign certain execrable opinions concerning the chaste and innocent, and gladly believe the things which they have feigned. But now, most holy emperor, all fictions have been laid to rest, ever since the Supreme God raised you up to restore the dwelling-place of justice and for the protection of the human race." Eusebius seems to suppose that these calumnies dried up before Constantine, and this is gathered from what is read in book IV, chap. 7:

Editors' notes and page, col. 132

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 132
marginal letters: A Cornelii Taciti.; B turque. » S. Melito; C sumendum quod ait; D omnino, si Lactantio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (Cornelii Taciti.)

PG 6:133

« Exstincta est, inquit, temporis lapsu calumnia illa, quae universae religioni nostrae afficta fuerat.... adeo ut exinde nemo ad nostra usque tempora ausus sit ullam infamiae labem fidei nostrae aspergere (ὡς μηδένα τῶν εἰς νῦν αἰσχρὰν ἐπιφέρειν ἡμῖν κατὰ τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν δυσφημίαν) aut aliquam ejusmodi calumniam inferre, qualem veteres illi nostrae religionis hostes jactare consueverant. »

"That calumny," he says, "which had been falsely fastened upon our whole religion was extinguished by the lapse of time.... so much so that thenceforth no one right down to our own times has dared to spatter any stain of infamy upon our faith (ὡς μηδένα τῶν εἰς νῦν αἰσχρὰν ἐπιφέρειν ἡμῖν κατὰ τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν δυσφημίαν) or to bring forward any calumny of the sort that those ancient enemies of our religion were accustomed to bandy about."

CAPUT V.

Chapter V.

Quomodo et quo successu prima Apologia oblata et quo potissimum tempore.

How and with what success the first Apology was presented, and at what time in particular.

I. Justinus Apologiam apud Acta deponi postulat. II. Consensus edicti imperatoris cum hac Apologia. III. Vindicatur Antonino hoc decretum. IV. Videtur circa annum 150 scripta. V. De epistola M. Aurelii.

I. Justin demands that the Apology be deposited among the public Acts. II. Agreement of the edict of the emperor with this Apology. III. This decree is vindicated for Antoninus. IV. It seems to have been written around the year 150. V. On the letter of Marcus Aurelius.

I. Apologia prolixior Justini, quae in omnibus editionibus, excepta Londinensi, post breviorem volvitur, omnium consensu prima agnoscitur. Hanc Justinus, ut ipse testatur in Dialogo, n. 120, ad Acta obtulit, ac petiit ut commentariis publicis inscriberetur. Ait enim se ἐγγράφως adiisse Caesarem. Vocis ἐγγράφως hanc vim et sententiam esse observavi; sed praeterea ut ita interpretarer auctor ipse Justinus fuit, qui hoc factum, ut animi non timidi specimen exhibet; quod nimirum ausus esset Samaritanos in scripto ad Acta oblato et publice asservato summae impietatis, non formidata illorum iracundia, accusare. In ipsa Apologia, n. 26, postulat ab imperatore ut senatum populumque Romanum hujus libelli supplicis cognitores asciscat. In secunda Apologia, ut infra videbimus, primam ut notam et publice asservatam citat; quod quidem argumento est justae petitioni nullam moram attulisse Antoninum.

I. The longer Apology of Justin, which in all editions except the London one is placed after the shorter, is acknowledged by the consent of all to be the first. This Justin, as he himself testifies in the Dialogue, no. 120, presented for the public Acts, and requested that it be enrolled in the public records. For he says that he approached Caesar ἐγγράφως, in writing. That this is the force and meaning of the word ἐγγράφως I have observed; but furthermore, Justin himself was my authority for so interpreting it, since he exhibits this deed as a proof of an unafraid spirit—namely, that he had dared, without fearing their anger, to accuse the Samaritans of the highest impiety in a writing presented for the public Acts and publicly preserved. In the Apology itself, no. 26, he requests of the emperor that he associate the senate and people of Rome with himself as judges of this petition. In the second Apology, as we shall see below, he cites the first as known and publicly preserved; which indeed is a proof that Antoninusinterposed no delay to his just request.

Quae in hac Apologia leguntur, non minus Justini constantiam et animi charitate fervidi fortitudinem declarant, quam ipsa offerendi ratio. Monere non dubitat imperatorem ejusque filios ex judicio, quod de Christianis lecta hac Apologia ferent, utrum vere pii et philosophi et justitiae custodes et doctrinae amatores sint, aestimatum iri. Quamvis non ignoraret quam immoderatus fuisset Antoninus in grati erga Adrianum animi significationibus; objicit tamen gentilibus id quod Adriani nomini sempiternam infamiam inussit, Antinoi inter deos consecrationem. Sed non is erat Antoninus, quem ejusmodi libertas offenderet. Quin potius, ut de Christianis aequa sentiret, ac eorum pietatem debitis laudibus ornaret, adduxisse eum videntur, eximius animi candor, qui in toto elucet opere, ac dogmatum Christianae religionis, praeceptorum Christi, prophetiarum quas eventus confirmaverat, virtutum quas Christiani colebant, rituum denique et caeremoniarum, quas in mysteriis suis observabant, sincera et accurata expositio.

The things that are read in this Apology declare Justin's constancy and the fortitude of a soul fervent with charity no less than does the very manner of presenting it. He does not hesitate to warn the emperor and his sons that from the judgement which they pass upon the Christians after reading this Apology it will be estimated whether they are truly pious and philosophers and guardians of justice and lovers of learning. Although he was not ignorant how immoderate Antoninus had been in expressions of gratitude towards Hadrian, nevertheless he casts against the Gentiles that which branded everlasting infamy upon the name of Hadrian, the deification of Antinous among the gods. But Antoninus was not the man to be offended by freedom of this sort. Nay rather, the extraordinary candour of soul which shines forth in the whole work, and the sincere and accurate exposition of the dogmas of the Christian religion, of the precepts of Christ, of the prophecies which the outcome had confirmed, of the virtues which the Christians cultivated, and finally of the rites and ceremonies which they observed in their mysteries, seem to have induced him to think fairly of the Christians and to adorn their piety with due praises.

II. Testatur Zonaras hunc Apologiae S. Justini fructum fuisse, ut persecutionem Antoninus comprimeret. Pluribus rebus confirmatur hoc testimonium.

II. Zonaras testifies that this was the fruit of the Apology of St. Justin, that Antoninus repressed the persecution. This testimony is confirmed by several considerations—

Editors' notes and page, col. 133

Footnotes

(40) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 133 or 134 (call not visible; column uncertain)

Vitae Anton. p. 206.

Life of Antoninus, page 206.

(printed under page 73)

Page

running head: 133 D. MARANI PRÆFATIO. —
marginal letters: A « Exstincta est; B I. Apologia prolixior; C In secunda Apologia; D Sed non is erat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (« Exstincta est, CAPUT V.); ends mid-word testimo- (testimonium)
other: the word testimonium. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 134

PG 6:134

Solus enim Justinus Apologiam obtulit, quae de Christianorum rebus imperatorem edocere posset. Nonnulli quidem ex Asia fratres querelas suas apud Antoninum detulerunt; sed ex ejusmodi querelis non videtur tanta religionis Christianae cognitio percipi posse, quanta in litteris Antonini elucet. Soli Justino reservatum fuit Ecclesiae causam dogmatibus et institutis accurate exponendis agere. Quinetiam tantus est decreti imperatoris cum Justini Apologia consensus, ut in sententiam S. martyris constructum videatur. Demonstrat Justinus atheos non esse Christianos, nec ullum hominum genus ab aliis criminibus, quae ipsis affingebantur, magis esse alienum. Sic etiam imperator in litteris ad commune Asiae datis Christianos immerito atheos vocari pronuntiat, et aliis criminibus, quae probari non possunt, in invidiam adduci. Orat Justinus ut in Christianos eadem judiciorum forma ac in alios homines servetur. Sic etiam Antoninus statuit nihil negotii exhibendum esse talibus hominibus, nisi quid adversus imperium Romanum moliri deprehendantur. Apposuerat Justinus Apologiae suae epistolam Adriani ad Minucium Fundanum : Antoninus decretum Adriani commemorat, seque illius vestigia premere gloriatur. Declarat Justinus Christianos occidi quidem posse, laedi vero nequaquam; optabile enim illis esse mortem oppetere, ut ea quae sperant consequantur. Idem illis testimonium tribuit Antoninus. Non postulat Justinus, ut delatores Christianorum puniantur, vel potius poenam illis quodammodo deprecatur. At imperator, dum eos puniri jubet, magis videtur, itidem ut Adrianus, considerasse quod justitia in homines nefarios decerni jubeat, quam quid Christiani inimicis suis peterent condonari. Quod autem ait gentiles Dei colendi rationem ignorare, et idcirco iis, qui illum colunt, invidere et ad mortem usque insectari, facile est quam consentanea haec sint Justini Apologiae animadvertere. Haec enim illius operae non minima pars exstitit, ut Christianos ob veri Dei cultum, daemonum machinatione, in invidiam vocari demonstraret. Vid. n. 12 et 46.

For Justin alone presented an Apology which could instruct the emperor concerning the affairs of the Christians. Some brethren from Asia indeed brought their complaints before Antoninus; but from complaints of that sort there does not seem able to be gained so great a knowledge of the Christian religion as shines forth in the letter of Antoninus. To Justin alone was it reserved to plead the cause of the Church by accurately setting forth her dogmas and institutions. Nay more, so great is the agreement of the emperor's decree with the Apology of Justin that it seems to have been framed according to the thought of the holy martyr. Justin demonstrates that the Christians are not atheists, and that no race of men is more alien from the other crimes which were falsely fastened upon them. So too the emperor, in his letter given to the Diet of Asia, pronounces that the Christians are undeservedly called atheists, and are brought into odium by other charges which cannot be proved. Justin prays that the same form of judicial proceedings be observed towards the Christians as towards other men. So too Antoninus decrees that no trouble is to be given to such men, unless they be found to be plotting something against the Roman empire. Justin had subjoined to his Apology the letter of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus: Antoninus mentions the decree of Hadrian, and glories in treading in his footsteps. Justin declares that the Christians can indeed be killed, but by no means harmed; for it is desirable for them to meet death, in order that they may obtain the things for which they hope. Antoninus assigns the same testimony to them. Justin does not demand that the accusers of the Christians be punished, or rather in a way deprecates punishment for them. But the emperor, while ordering them to be punished, seems, just like Hadrian, to have considered rather what justice bids be decreed against wicked men than what the Christians asked to be pardoned to their enemies. And as for what he says, that the Gentiles are ignorant of the manner of worshipping God, and therefore envy those who worship Him and persecute them even unto death, it is easy to notice how agreeable these words are to the Apology of Justin. For this was not the least part of his labour, to demonstrate that the Christians, on account of the worship of the true God, were brought into odium through the machination of the demons. See nos. 12 and 46.

Unum est in litteris imperatoris, de quo non videatur egisse Justinus, nimirum terraemotus, quorum causam repetebant gentiles ex contempto a Christianis deorum cultu. Sed cum haec scriberet Justinus, nondum videntur hae calamitates exortae fuisse.

There is one thing in the letter of the emperor of which Justin does not seem to have treated, namely the earthquakes, the cause of which the Gentiles traced to the contempt of the worship of the gods by the Christians. But when Justin was writing these things, those calamities do not seem yet to have arisen.

III. Non dissimulandum est has ad commune Asiae litteras videri pluribus eruditis scriptoribus, ut Scaligero, Valesio, Grabio et aliis, non Antonini esse, sed Marci Aurelii. Sed eorum improbabilis prorsus opinio. Nam ut Tillemontii, qui eas Antonino vindicat, rationum momenta breviter referam. 1° Eusebii auctoritas, qui eas Antonino tribuit, maximi debet esse ponderis. 2° Soli Antonino conveniunt, qui Adrianum solus appellare potuit parentem

III. It must not be concealed that this letter to the Diet of Asia seems to several learned writers, such as Scaliger, Valois, Grabe, and others, to belong not to Antoninus, but to Marcus Aurelius. But their opinion is altogether improbable. For, to recount briefly the weighty arguments of Tillemont, who vindicates it for Antoninus: 1. The authority of Eusebius, who attributes it to Antoninus, ought to be of the greatest weight. 2. It suits Antoninus alone, who alone could call Hadrian his father

Editors' notes and page, col. 134

Footnotes

(40) ‹anchor: apud Antoninum detulerunt› · call in col 134

Vitae Anton. p. 206.

Life of Antoninus, p. 206.

(printed under page 73)

(41) ‹anchor: Declarat Justinus› · call in col 134

N. 2, 8, 11 12, 17.

Nos. 2, 8, 11, 12, 17.

(printed under page 73)

(42) ‹anchor: Non postulat Justinus› · call in col 134

N. 7.

No. 7.

(printed under page 73)

(43) ‹anchor: Eusebii auctoritas› · call in col 134

Hist. iv, 26.

History IV, 26.

(printed under page 73)

Page

running head: PRÆFATIO. — PARS III. 134
marginal letters: A nium. Solus enim; B immerito atheos; C C (between lines: stulat Justinus / niantur, vel); D rum causam repetebant
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (nium. Solus enim); begins mid-word nium (testimonium), ends mid-word pa- (parentem)
other: the word parentem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 135

PG 6:135

suum, ac solus post Adrianum illa aetate favit Christianis. Hunc enim constat ea ad civitates ac nominatim ad Larissaeos, ad Thessalonicenses, ad Athenienses, ad universos denique Graecos scripsisse, quae in litteris ad commune Asiae leguntur, nempe ne quid novi adversus Christianos molirentur. At Marcus semper Christianis iniquus fuit.

father, and alone after Hadrian in that age favoured the Christians. For it is established that he wrote to the cities, and by name to the Larissaeans, to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and finally to all the Greeks, the things which are read in the letter to the Diet of Asia, namely, that they should attempt no new measures against the Christians. Marcus, on the other hand, was always hostile to the Christians.

Legitur quidem in titulo epistolae ad commune Asiae Μάρκος Αὐρήλιος, sed naevus est, antiquus ille quidem, cum sic habeat Ruffinus, sed tamen naevus; pro Αἴλιος, ut apud Justinum. Proclive fuit librariis in vocibus adeo similibus errare.

There is read indeed in the title of the letter to the Diet of Asia Μάρκος Αὐρήλιος, Marcus Aurelius, but it is a blemish—an ancient one indeed, since Rufinus has it thus, yet nevertheless a blemish—instead of Αἴλιος, Aelius, as in Justin. It was easy for copyists to err in words so similar.

Frustra objicitur silentium Melitonis. Is enim, etsi inter epistolas ab Antonino pro Christianis scriptas, non eas nominatim recenset, quae ad commune Asiae datae sunt, ab Eusebio tamen testis citatur harum Antonini litterarum. Postquam enim has litteras apposuit, statim addit : « Haec ita gesta esse Melito Sardensis Ecclesiae episcopus, qui iisdem temporibus floruit, perspicue testatur in Apologetico illo longe utilissimo, quem ad imperatorem Verum pro nostra religione conscripsit. » Quomodo id tacuisse dicitur Melito, quod eum perspicue testatum esse asseverat Eusebius? Vel ergo illam ad commune Asiae epistolam aliis in locis commemoravit Melito, vel, quod malim, illam Eusebius iis, quae ad civitates et ad universos Graecos missae fuerant, generatim comprehendi existimavit, quippe cum in eamdem omnes sententiam scriptae fuerint, nec ad aliud tempus aut alium eventum ea, quae est ad commune Asiae, referri possit.

In vain is the silence of Melito objected. For although among the letters written by Antoninus on behalf of the Christians he does not list by name that which was given to the Diet of Asia, nevertheless he is cited by Eusebius as a witness to this letter of Antoninus. For after setting down this letter, he immediately adds: "That these things were so done, Melito, Bishop of the Church of Sardis, who flourished at the same time, clearly testifies in that most useful Apologetic which he wrote on behalf of our religion to the Emperor Verus." How is Melito said to have passed over in silence that to which Eusebius positively asserts that he clearly testified? Either, therefore, Melito mentioned that letter to the Diet of Asia in other passages, or, as I should prefer, Eusebius supposed it to be included generally among those which had been sent to the cities and to all the Greeks, inasmuch as all were written to the same purport, nor can that which is addressed to the Diet of Asia be referred to another time or another event.

IV. Quo autem anno scripta sit Apologia Justini non una eruditorum opinio est. Scriptam anno 138 existimant Dodwellus et Pagius; Petavius ante exitum anni 139; alii anno 145; Tillemontius circa annum 150.

IV. Now as to the year in which the Apology of Justin was written, there is not one single opinion among the learned. Dodwell and Pagi suppose that it was written in the year 138; Petau, before the end of the year 139; others, in the year 145; Tillemont, around the year 150.

Quae de Cohortatione Justini diximus annum 139 omnino rejicere cogunt. Cohortationem enim, quae scribi non potuit nisi post an. 140, multa alia magni momenti opera subsecuta sunt, antequam Justinus Apologiam primam scriberet. Petavius et qui ei astipulantur, minus attenderunt, quam incommode Lucius Verus, qui anno 139 puer octennis erat, a Justino philosophus et doctrinae amator vocetur. Sic enim in inscriptione legitur : Lucio philosopho, Caesaris natura filio, Pii autem adoptivo, doctrinae amatori. Frustra objiciunt legendum esse φιλοσόφου non φιλοσόφῳ, ita ut non Lucius philosophus dicatur, sed ipsius pater, qui Caesar ab Adriano creatus fuit. At Lucius Verus et apud Justinum in ⟨u⟩traque Apologia et apud Ruffinum et in quatuor mss. codicibus Eusebii philosophus appellatur. Praeferri ergo non debent editiones Eusebii, quibus tam multa refragantur. Titulus philosophi, quem Lucio Caesari delatum fuisse non videmus, non male tribuitur ejus filio, quem philosophis Apollonio

What we have said concerning the Exhortation of Justin compels us altogether to reject the year 139. For after the Exhortation, which could not have been written until after the year 140, many other works of great importance followed before Justin wrote his first Apology. Petau and those who agree with him paid too little heed to how unfittingly Lucius Verus, who in the year 139 was a boy of eight years, would be called by Justin a philosopher and lover of learning. For thus we read in the address: To Lucius the philosopher, by nature son of Caesar, and by adoption of Pius, a lover of learning. In vain do they object that one must read φιλοσόφου, not φιλοσόφῳ, so that not Lucius is called a philosopher, but his father, who was created Caesar by Hadrian. But Lucius Verus is called a philosopher both in Justin in each Apology, and in Rufinus, and in four manuscript codices of Eusebius. The printed editions of Eusebius, therefore, which so many witnesses oppose, ought not to be preferred. The title of philosopher, which we do not see to have been conferred upon Lucius Caesar, is not unfittingly attributed to his son, who, as Julius Capitolinus testifies, was devoted to the philosophers Apollonius

Editors' notes and page, col. 135

Footnotes

(44) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 135 or 136 (call not visible; column uncertain)

Hist. iv, 13.

History 4.13.

(printed under page 74)

(45) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 135 or 136 (call not visible; column uncertain)

N. 461.

No. 461.

(printed under page 74)

(46) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 135 or 136 (call not visible; column uncertain)

N. 26.

No. 26.

(printed under page 74)

Page

running head: 135 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A rentem suum, ac solus; B commune Asiae datae; C eventum ea, quae; D cetur. Sic enim
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (rentem suum, ac solus); begins mid-word rentem (parentem), ends mid-word Apollo- (Apollonio); u lost in ⟨u⟩traque
other: the word Apollonio was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 136

PG 6:136

et Sexto deditum fuisse testatur Julius Capitolinus. Illud autem, ἐραστῇ παιδείας, doctrinae amatori, quod cum philosophi titulo congruere negant, satis congruere observavimus in adnotatione ad hunc locum; atque etiamsi eruditionem potius quam philosophiam designaret; annon potuit Justinus utramque laudem Lucio deferre?

and Sextus. Moreover, that phrase, ἐραστῇ παιδείας, lover of learning, which they deny to agree with the title of philosopher, we have observed in our note on this passage to agree well enough; and even if it designated erudition rather than philosophy, could not Justin confer both praises upon Lucius?

Natum Dominum dicit Justinus ante annos 150, cui quidem calculo aliquid deesse aut superesse potest, non ita tamen ut undecim aut duodecim annis decurtatus sit; non enim hujus errati turpem notam effugeret Justinus, si an. 138 aut 139 scripsisset.

Justin says that the Lord was born 150 years before—a reckoning to which indeed something may be lacking or in excess, yet not so as to be shortened by eleven or twelve years; for Justin would not escape the shameful brand of this error if he had written in the year 138 or 139.

Quibus argumentis ostendit Tillemontius haeresim Marcionis citius an. 142 prodire non potuisse, iisdem constare debet Apologiae Justini tempus. Quantos enim progressus haberet haec haeresis, cum Justinus Apologiam scriberet, intelligimus ex his verbis : « Marcionem etiam quemdam Ponticum novimus, qui etiamnum superest ac discipulos docet alium quemdam agnoscere majorem mundi opifice Deum. Hic in omni hominum genere daemonum adjumento perfecit, ut multi in blasphemias erumperent, ac universi Creatorem Deum Christi Patrem esse negarent, et alium quemdam, utpote majorem, majora quam illum perfecisse profiterentur. »

By the same arguments whereby Tillemont shows that the heresy of Marcion could not have come forth earlier than the year 142, the time of Justin's Apology ought to be established. For what great advances this heresy had made when Justin was writing the Apology, we understand from these words: "We know also a certain Marcion of Pontus, who even now is still alive and teaches his disciples to acknowledge a certain other God greater than the Maker of the world. He, across every race of men, with the help of the demons has brought it about that many have broken out into blasphemies, and deny that God the Creator of the universe is the Father of Christ, and profess that a certain other, as being greater, has accomplished greater things than He."

Litterae ad commune Asiae, quibus cum Apologia Justini magnam affinitatem esse dixi, probant Apologiam circa annum 150 scriptam fuisse. Sunt enim consignatae anno XV tribunitiae potestatis Antonini, qui quidem congruit cum an. 152, quippe cum Antonino delata fuerit potestas die 25 Februarii anno 138. Sed tamen fateor me numeris in inscriptione hujus epistolae notatis non plurimum confidere. Erant enim perversissimi apud Justinum, ubi sic legebatur : Δημαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας ὕπατος πδʹ, (ex quo fecit Sylburgius τὸ δʹ) πατὴρ πατρίδος τὸ καʹ. Itaque cum Eusebii codices mss. in his numeris consentirent, praeferendam duxi hanc auctoritatem iis quae tam corrupta erant apud Justinum. Sed tamen in hoc apud Eusebium numero, ὕπατος τὸ γʹ, manifestum est erratum, quod quidem non videtur incuria inductum fuisse, sed data opera, ut cum Marco Aurelio, cujus nomen exstat in inscriptione apud Eusebium, hic numerus quadraret. Is enim tertium tantummodo habuit consulatum. Sed cum Antoninus, cui hanc epistolam tam multa vindicant, consul IV in inscriptionibus dici soleat, legendum in inscriptione hujus epistolae ὕπατος τὸ δʹ. Sed alia suspicio in annos tribunitiae potestatis exoritur : vereor enim ne de industria nomini M. Aurelii fuerint aptati. Peropportune cadunt in primum illius imperii annum, nempe 161. Huic enim delata potestas tribunitia anno 147. Quare si scriptum fuisset ιγʹ, aut ιδʹ, nihil id nocuisset nomini Antonini; at necesse fuit scribere

The letter to the Diet of Asia, which I have said has a great affinity with the Apology of Justin, proves that the Apology was written around the year 150. For it is dated in the 15th year of the tribunician power of Antoninus, which indeed agrees with the year 152, inasmuch as the power was conferred upon Antoninus on the 25th day of February in the year 138. And yet I confess that I do not place very great confidence in the numbers noted in the address of this letter. For they were most corrupt in Justin, where it was read thus: Δημαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας ὕπατος πδʹ, Of tribunician power, consul 84 (out of which Sylburg made τὸ δʹ, for the 4th time), πατὴρ πατρίδος τὸ καʹ, father of his country for the 21st time. And so, since the manuscript codices of Eusebius agreed in these numbers, I considered that this authority should be preferred to what was so corrupt in Justin. Yet in this number in Eusebius, ὕπατος τὸ γʹ, consul for the 3rd time, there is a manifest error, which indeed seems to have been introduced not by carelessness, but on purpose, so that this number might square with Marcus Aurelius, whose name stands in the address in Eusebius. For he held only a third consulship. But since Antoninus, for whom so many considerations vindicate this letter, is accustomed to be called consul IV in inscriptions, one must read in the address of this letter ὕπατος τὸ δʹ, consul for the 4th time. Yet another suspicion arises against the years of the tribunician power: for I fear lest they were purposely adapted to the name of Marcus Aurelius. Very opportunely do they fall in the first year of his reign, namely 161. For the tribunician power was conferred upon him in the year 147. Wherefore if there had been written ιγʹ, 13th, or ιδʹ, 14th, that would have done no harm to the name of Antoninus; but it was necessary to write

Editors' notes and page, col. 136

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 136
marginal letters: A nio et Sexto; B iisdem constare debet; C enim consignatae; D ut cum Marco Aurelio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dom Maran's preface (nio et Sexto); begins mid-word nio (Apollonio)

PG 6:137

se, ut Marcus Aurelius epistolae auctor videretur.

so that Marcus Aurelius might seem to be the author of the epistle.

Si tantum tribueretur Chronicis Eusebii, quantum illius Historiae, non levis difficultas obstaret, quominus Apologia haec ad annum circiter 150 rejiciatur. Nam in Chronicis oblata dicitur an. 141. Sed antiquior Marcionis haeresi foret, quam tamen Eusebii Historia ante annum 142 collocare non sinit.

If as much weight were attributed to the Chronicles of Eusebius as to his History, no slight difficulty would stand in the way of this Apology being referred to about the year 150. For in the Chronicles it is said to have been presented in the year 141. Yet it would be more ancient than the heresy of Marcion, which nevertheless the History of Eusebius does not allow to be placed before the year 142.

Objicit Petavius Marcum Aurelium in hac Apologia Verissimum vocari, quod nomen, teste Capitolino, post virilem togam deposuit; Caesarem autem non vocari, quod argumento est hanc Apologiam anno 139 scriptam, antequam Marcus ab Antonino Caesar appellatus fuisset.

Petavius objects that Marcus Aurelius in this Apology is called Verissimus, which name, on the testimony of Capitolinus, he laid aside after assuming the manly toga; and that he is not called Caesar, which is a proof that this Apology was written in the year 139, before Marcus had been called Caesar by Antoninus.

Verissimi titulus nihil ad rem facit. Nam Marcus Aurelius virilem togam sumpserat ante annum 139, quo anno ipse Petavius ita eum a Justino appellatum fatetur. Caesaris autem nomen vel imprudens omisit Justinus, vel librariorum culpa excidit; vel pro Antonino Pio Augusto Caesare et Verissimo filio, legendum, et Caesari Verissimo filio, ut admonuit Sylburgius.

The title of Verissimus is nothing to the purpose. For Marcus Aurelius had assumed the manly toga before the year 139, in which year Petavius himself confesses that he was so called by Justin. Moreover, Justin either inadvertently omitted the name of Caesar, or it fell out through the fault of the copyists; or instead of to Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar and Verissimus his son, there should be read, and to Caesar Verissimus his son, as Sylburg advised.

Difficilius Tillemontio ad solvendum videtur, quod ab eodem Petavio et pluribus aliis objicitur, Justinum in hac Apologia de bello Judaico, quod anno 136 confectum est, ut de re admodum recenti et nuper gesta loqui, ut patet ex his verbis, n. 31, ἐν τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ Ἰουδαϊκῷ πολέμῳ. Sed jam observavi illud νῦν de rebus dudum gestis interdum usurpari, ac religionem Christianam in Epist. ad Diognet. νῦν exortam, Christum νῦν incarnatum dici in hac Apologia. In eadem Apologia Antinous, quem Adrianus inter deos consecravit anno 132, νῦν dicitur exstitisse, n. 23.

It seems to Tillemont more difficult to resolve what is objected by the same Petavius and several others, that Justin in this Apology speaks of the Jewish war, which was finished in the year 136, as of a very recent matter and one lately transacted, as is clear from these words, num. 31, in the Jewish war that has now taken place. But I have already observed that that word νῦν is sometimes used of things done long ago, and that the Christian religion in the Epistle to Diognetus is said to have arisen νῦν, and Christ to have been incarnate νῦν in this Apology. In the same Apology Antinous, whom Hadrian consecrated among the gods in the year 132, is said to have existed νῦν, num. 23.

V. S. Justini Apologiae subjunguntur epistolae trium imperatorum, Adriani, Antonini et M. Aurelii, in gratiam Christianorum. Primam quidem ab ipso Justino subjunctam fuisse constat : ipse enim hujus rei testis est et monitor. Alteram ex Eusebii Historia huc translatam fuisse existimat Scaliger in Animadversionibus ad Euseb. an. MM. CLXXXIX; tertiam autem recentioris Graeci, rerum Romanarum ignari facinus esse pronuntiat, infra saeculum Justiniani imperatoris.

V. To the Apology of St. Justin are subjoined the epistles of three emperors, Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus Aurelius, in favour of the Christians. That the first indeed was subjoined by Justin himself is established: for he himself is the witness and recorder of this fact. The second Scaliger, in his Animadversions on Eusebius at the year 2189, considers to have been transferred hither from the History of Eusebius; while the third he pronounces to be the fabrication of a more recent Greek, ignorant of Roman affairs, below the age of the Emperor Justinian.

Non videtur ambigi posse an olim exstiterint litterae M. Aurelii, quibus et se et exercitum, cum siti premerentur ab hostibus circumdati, utrumque periculum precibus Christianorum effugisse testabatur. Has litteras non viderat Eusebius, cum Chronica scriberet, nec de illis praeter auditum quidquam habebat. At Hieronymus ita hunc Eusebii locum reddit, ut illas exstare pronuntiet. Ipse Eusebius, Hist. lib. V, c. 5, rem ex testimonio Tertulliani certam et exploratam habet. Sic enim Tertullianus, Apol., cap. 5 : « At nos e contrario edimus protectorem; si litterae Marci Aurelii requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur. Sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus poenam dimovit, ita alio modo palam dispersit,

It does not seem that it can be doubted whether there once existed a letter of Marcus Aurelius, in which he testified that both he and his army, when pressed by thirst while surrounded by the enemy, had escaped both dangers through the prayers of the Christians. Eusebius had not seen this letter when he wrote his Chronicles, nor did he have anything concerning it beyond hearsay. Yet Jerome renders this passage of Eusebius in such a way as to pronounce that it is extant. Eusebius himself, History book V, ch. 5, holds the matter as certain and established from the testimony of Tertullian. For thus says Tertullian, Apology, ch. 5: "But we on the contrary produce a protector, if the letter of Marcus Aurelius be sought, in which he attests that that German drought was dispelled by a shower obtained through the prayers of soldiers who chanced to be Christians. Just as he did not openly remove the penalty from men of this kind, so in another way he openly dispelled

Editors' notes and page, col. 137

Page

running head: 137 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A se, ut Marcus; B 139, quo anno; C dici in hac; D litterae M. Aurelii
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed (except short Greek quotation and νῦν); editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (se, ut Marcus Aurelius...); begins with fragment se from column 136; ends with di- split across column 137-138 break

PG 6:138

adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione, et quidem tetriore. »

it, adding a condemnation also for their accusers, and indeed a more dreadful one."

His verbis freti Scaliger et Tillemontius, primus quidem negat Tertullianum has litteras vidisse, alter longe potiori jure asseverat. Quomodo enim ad has litteras provocasset inimicos Christiani nominis, nisi rem exploratam habuisset? Quomodo tam accurate quid his litteris contineatur edissereret? Quae post Justini Apologiam leguntur litterae M. Aurelii, non eae sunt de quibus Tertullianus et Hieronymus locuti : sed observandum nobis est quibusnam in rebus consentiant et in quibus discrepent.

Relying on these words, Scaliger and Tillemont, the former indeed denies that Tertullian saw this letter, while the latter with far better right affirms it. For how would he have appealed to this letter before the enemies of the Christian name, unless he had held the matter as ascertained? How would he have set forth so accurately what is contained in this letter? The letter of Marcus Aurelius which is read after the Apology of Justin is not that of which Tertullian and Jerome spoke: but we must observe in what matters they agree and in what they differ.

Ac primo quidem de ipsa miraculi summa nihil occurrit discriminis. Ubique enim sitis ex longo collecta, hostium circumstantium terror, preces Christianorum, imber Romanis salutaris, fulmen in hostes memorantur. Adjecta apud Tertullianum damnatio accusatoribus Christianorum, et quidem tetrior, satis quadrat cum litteris post Justinum exstantibus, in quibus sancit Marcus ut ejusmodi delatores vivi comburantur. Quamvis Eusebius, Hist. lib. V, cap. 5, Tertulliani verbis capitalem poenam generatim designari putet; vix tamen crediderim damnatione tetriore non gravissimum aliquod supplicium significari. Quinetiam inest verbis Tertulliani aliquid difficile, quod videtur ex litteris post Justini Apologiam servatis illustrari posse. Illud enim, Christianorum forte militum precationibus, significare Tillemontio videtur dubium et incertum animum, non quidem Tertulliani, sed Marci metuentis, ne asseveranter loquendo noceret superstitionibus gentilibus. Sed parum verisimile fit Marcum operam dedisse, ut dubitare videretur. Quid enim profuisset Tertulliano ad causae patrocinium dubia et incerta testificatio? Deinde vero sic Tertulliani verba refert Eusebius, ut nulla in imperatore resideat dubitationis significatio. Sed illud forte libentius crediderim idem valere ac casu quodam; non quod in casum rejiciat Marcus impetratum precibus Christianorum imbrem, sed quod casu quodam sibi evenisse crederet, ut Christianos evocaret, de quibus antea nihil cogitabat, diis precandis intentus.

And first indeed concerning the main point itself of the miracle no difference occurs. For everywhere the thirst gathered from a long time, the terror of the surrounding enemies, the prayers of the Christians, the rain saving to the Romans, and the thunderbolt against the enemies are recounted. The condemnation added in Tertullian for the accusers of the Christians, and indeed a more dreadful one, squares well enough with the letter extant after Justin, in which Marcus ordains that informers of this sort be burned alive. Although Eusebius, History book V, ch. 5, thinks that by the words of Tertullian capital punishment in general is designated, yet I could scarcely believe that by a more dreadful condemnation some most severe punishment is not signified. Moreover, there is in the words of Tertullian something difficult, which seems capable of being illustrated from the letter preserved after the Apology of Justin. For that phrase, through the prayers of soldiers who chanced to be Christians, seems to Tillemont to signify a doubtful and uncertain mind, not indeed of Tertullian, but of Marcus fearing lest by speaking affirmatively he might harm the Gentile superstitions. Yet it becomes little probable that Marcus took pains that he might seem to doubt. For what would a doubtful and uncertain testimony have profited Tertullian for the defence of his cause? Furthermore, Eusebius reports the words of Tertullian in such a way that no signification of doubt resides in the emperor. Rather, I would more gladly believe that that word forte has the same force as by a certain chance; not that Marcus refers to chance the rain obtained by the prayers of the Christians, but that he believed it had happened to him by a certain chance that he summoned the Christians, of whom previously he was thinking nothing while intent on praying to the gods.

Sed si qua in re genuinis similes sunt hae litterae, longe discrepant in pluribus aliis. Christianis ex universo exercitu evocatis miraculum attribuunt; contra apud veteres laudem hujus rei reportat una legio, quam exinde congruo rei vocabulo Fulmineam ab imperatore cognominatam esse testatur Apollinaris apud Eusebium, lib. V, cap. 5. Litterae, de quibus agimus, omnem prorsus poenam a Christiano religionis tantum nomine accusato propulsant. At id penitus pugnat cum Tertulliano, et cum exemplis martyrum Viennensium et Apollonii, quorum primi cum in judicium vocati fuissent, morte damnati sunt, ipso jubente Marco : postremus vero cum in judicium a perditissimo quodam homine vocatus fuisset, accusator quidem confestim fractis cruribus

But if in any respect this letter is similar to the genuine one, it differs widely in several others. It attributes the miracle to the Christians summoned out of the whole army; on the contrary, among the ancients one legion carries off the praise of this event, which Apollinaris in Eusebius, book V, ch. 5, testifies was thence surnamed Thundering by the emperor with a word suited to the fact. The letter of which we are treating wards off altogether every penalty from a Christian accused only in the name of religion. Yet this conflicts utterly with Tertullian, and with the examples of the martyrs of Vienne and of Apollonius, the former of whom, when they had been summoned to judgement, were condemned to death by the command of Marcus himself; while the latter, when he had been summoned to judgement by a certain most abandoned man, had his accuser indeed immediately put to death with his legs broken,

Editors' notes and page, col. 138

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 138
marginal letters: A spersit, adjecta etiam; B collecta, hostium circumstantium; C significare Tillemontio videtur; D Sed si qua
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (spersit, adjecta...); begins with fragment spersit from dispersit split across col 137-138 break; ends with cruri- split across col 138-139 break

PG 6:139

occisus est; ipse vero capitali sententia damnatus. Euseb., V, 21.

whereas he himself was condemned by a capital sentence. Eusebius, V, 21.

Pluribus jocatur Scaliger in artificem epistolae, quod Christianos sine armis et telis in Romanis exercitibus conscripserit. At hunc locum explicare conatus sum. Idem observat non solere imperatores sacrum senatum appellare, ac laureatas litteras populo et senatui mittere, sed tantum senatui : haec autem desumpta putat ex initio Apologiae S. Justini. Sic inscribitur apud Baronium supposititia illa epistola : Imp. Caesar, M. Aurelius, Antoninus, Augustus, Parthicus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, pontifex maximus, tribunitiae potestatis XXVIII, imp. VII, cos. III, Pater patriae, procos. S. P. Q. R. S. D.

At greater length Scaliger jests against the fabricator of the epistle, because he enrolled Christians without arms and weapons in the Roman armies. But I have endeavoured to explain this passage. The same scholar observes that emperors are not accustomed to call the senate sacred, and to send laureate letters to the people and the senate, but only to the senate: and these things he thinks were taken from the beginning of the Apology of St. Justin. Thus is that supposititious epistle inscribed in Baronius: Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, Parthicus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, Pontifex Maximus, of tribunician power the 28th time, acclaimed Imperator the 7th time, Consul the 3rd time, Father of the Fatherland, Proconsul, to the Senate and Roman People sends greeting.

CAPUT VI.

Chapter VI.

An merito Justinus Prophetarum lectionem a Romanis prohibitam, et Simoni Mago statuam ut deo erectam dixerit.

Whether Justin rightly said that the reading of the Prophets was forbidden by the Romans, and that a statue was erected to Simon Magus as a god.

I. Lex a Justino memorata minus belle intellecta Baronio et Casaubono. II. Videtur de curiosa futurorum inquisitione intelligenda. III. Narrata a Justino historia de Simonis statua quomodo in suspicionem venit. IV. Non videtur errasse Justinus. V. Aut saltem erratum emendaturus non fuisse.

I. The law mentioned by Justin less rightly understood by Baronius and Casaubon. II. It seems that it should be understood of the curious inquiry into future things. III. How the history related by Justin concerning the statue of Simon came into suspicion. IV. Justin does not seem to have erred. V. Or at least would not have failed to correct the error.

I. Convenienter huic loco examinare possumus, an capite sancitum fuerit ab ethnicis imperatoribus, ne quis Christianus Hystaspis et Sibyllae et Prophetarum libros legeret. Id enim colligit Baronius ex his verbis S. Justini, Apol. 1, n. 44 : Κατ' ἐνέργειαν δὲ τῶν φαύλων δαιμόνων θάνατος ὡρίσθη κατὰ τῶν τὰς Ὑστάσπου, ἢ Σιβύλλης, ἢ τῶν Τροφητῶν βίβλους ἀναγινωσκόντων, ὅπως διὰ τοῦ φόβου ἀποστρέψωσιν ἐντυγχάνοντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῶν καλῶν γνῶσιν λαβεῖν, αὐτοῖς δὲ δουλεύοντας κατέχωσιν· ὅπερ εἰς τέλος οὐκ ἴσχυσαν πρᾶξαι. Ἀφόβως γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἐντυγχάνομεν αὐταῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑμῖν, ὡς ὁρᾶτε, εἰς ἐπίσκεψιν φέρομεν, ἐπιστάμενοι πᾶσιν εὐάρεστα φανήσεσθαι. « Malorum autem daemonum operatione sancita mors est in eos qui legunt Hystaspis aut Sibyllae aut Prophetarum libros; tum ut metu homines deterreant, quominus his legendis bonarum rerum cognitionem assequantur; tum ut eos sibi servos retineant : quod quidem in perpetuum efficere non potuerunt. Impavide enim non solum illos legimus, sed vobis etiam, ut videtis, inspiciendos offerimus, cum futurum sciamus, ut grati omnibus videantur. »

I. Suitably to this place we can examine whether it was ordained on pain of death by the heathen emperors that no Christian should read the books of Hystaspes and the Sibyl and the Prophets. For Baronius gathers this from these words of St. Justin, Apology 1, num. 44: By the working of the wicked demons death was decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets, so that through fear they might turn away men who light upon them from receiving a knowledge of good things, and keep them in slavery to themselves; which indeed they did not prevail to accomplish to the end. For fearlessly we not only read them, but also, as you see, bring them to you for inspection, knowing that they will appear well-pleasing to all. "By the operation of evil demons death has been ordained against those who read the books of Hystaspes or the Sibyl or the Prophets; both that by fear they may deter men from attaining the knowledge of good things by reading them, and that they may retain them as slaves to themselves: which indeed they could not effect for ever. For fearlessly we not only read them, but also, as you see, offer them to you to be inspected, since we know that it will come to pass that they will seem acceptable to all."

S. martyris verba locum dederunt huic Baronii observationi : « Quam frequentes, inquit, Apparat. ad Annal., num. 20, fuerint Christiani in legendis libris Sibyllinis, quantamque ad convincendos gentiles ex iis vim et auctoritatem sibi comparare studuerint, ex eo facile potest intelligi, quod poena mortis ab eorum lectione eos absterrere legibus oportuerit : quod his verbis Justinus martyr testatur. » Hanc Baronii sententiam exagitat Casaubonus, exercit. 11, ac negat proprie ad Christianos illam prohibitionem pertinuisse. « Sed quod libros Prophetarum et Sibyllinos jungit Justinus, pium martyrem propterea id fecisse, quia nactus quaedam

The words of the holy martyr gave occasion to this observation of Baronius: "How frequent," he says, Apparatus to the Annals, num. 20, "the Christians were in reading the Sibylline books, and how great a force and authority for convincing the Gentiles they studied to procure for themselves from them, can easily be understood from this, that it was necessary by laws to deter them from reading them by the penalty of death: which Justin Martyr testifies in these words." Casaubon assails this opinion of Baronius, Exercitation 11, and denies that that prohibition properly pertained to the Christians. "But as for the fact that Justin joins the books of the Prophets and the Sibylline books, the pious martyr did so for this reason, because having lighted upon certain

Editors' notes and page, col. 139

Page

running head: 139 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A bus occisus est; B An merito Justinus; C βίβλους ἀναγινωσκόντων, ὅπως; D offerimus, cum futurum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with embedded Greek quotation from Justin Apol. 1, n. 44; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (bus occisus est... CAPUT VI...); begins with fragment bus from cruribus split across col 138-139 break

PG 6:140

vaticinia Sibyllarum, vera an falsa, de Christo, putavit totum volumen carminis Sibyllini, quod tanto studio Romae servabatur, et a cujus lectione omnes arcebantur praeter Quindecimviros, ejusdem esse argumenti. »

prophecies of the Sibyls, true or false, concerning Christ, he thought that the whole volume of the Sibylline poem, which was preserved at Rome with such great care, and from the reading of which all were barred except the Quindecimvirs, was of the same subject."

Dum unum errorem in Baronio refellit Casaubonus, plures alios Justino affingit. Non potest sane Baronii stare sententia, nec illa lex, quam nominatim Christianis positam fuisse putat, ullo exstat vestigio. Quidvis aliud significant verba S. martyris, qui dum prophetarum oracula imperatori consideranda proponit, gratum se illi ac caeteris omnibus facturum confidit, nedum mortem constitutam putaret Christianis haec oracula legentibus. Quomodo enim, si tam severa lex sancita in Christianos fuisset, gratiam se illa violanda Justinus initurum sperasset? Deinde vero ait Justinus daemones hac mente legem illam machinatos esse, ut homines a bonarum rerum cognitione averterent, ac sibi servientes detinerent. Non tam ergo Christianos petebat illa lex, quam eos qui adhuc daemonibus emancipati erant. Denique ex testimonio Aureliani Augusti, quod modo referemus, perspicitur ethnicos ita de Christianis judicasse, ut invisum illis carmen Sibyllinum crederent, nedum illorum studia hujus libri legendi coercenda legibus viderentur. Atque haec quidem de Baronii sententia.

While Casaubon refutes one error in Baronius, he fastens several others upon Justin. Certainly the opinion of Baronius cannot stand, nor does that law, which he thinks was laid down expressly for the Christians, exist in any trace. The words of the holy martyr signify anything else rather than this, who while he sets forth the oracles of the prophets to be considered by the emperor, trusts that he will do what is pleasing to him and to all others, much less would he think that death was appointed for Christians reading these oracles. For how, if so severe a law had been enacted against the Christians, could Justin have hoped that he would win favour by violating it? Furthermore, Justin says that the demons contrived that law with this intention, that they might turn men away from the knowledge of good things, and detain them serving themselves. Therefore that law aimed not so much at the Christians as at those who were still enslaved to the demons. Finally, from the testimony of Aurelian Augustus, which we shall presently report, it is perceived that the heathens judged thus of the Christians, that they believed the Sibylline poem hateful to them, much less would their zeal for reading this book seem to need to be restrained by laws. And so much indeed concerning the opinion of Baronius.

Sed Baronii animadversor Casaubonus an acutius vidit in explicando Justino? Si eum audimus, S. martyr credidit Sibyllinos libros, qui a Quindecimviris asservabantur, ejusdem esse argumenti ac eos qui secundo saeculo suppositi Sibyllae fuerunt; nescivit hos libros consuli solitos esse de placandorum deorum modis; finxit sibi eos de Verbo Dei Filio, ejusque Incarnatione, miraculis, morte et resurrectione apertissime loqui; atque id causae exstitit, cur poenam lectioni carminis Sibyllini constitutam ad ipsam etiam Prophetarum lectionem pertinere existimaret. Magnum sane erratum et vix credibile. Sed ecce aliud non levius. Necesse est enim ut hanc similitudinem argumenti, quam libris Romae asservatis inesse cum aliis de Christo aperte loquentibus et cum ipsis etiam prophetis putabat, ita omnibus cognitam esse crederet, ut horum omnium lectio eadem poena prohiberetur. Praeterea si ita ducebatur errore Justinus, quomodo illud gratum in solis Christianis futurum putabat, quod ob eos solos vetitum et invisum credebat?

Yet did Baronius's critic Casaubon see more acutely in explaining Justin? If we listen to him, the holy martyr believed that the Sibylline books which were kept by the Quindecimvirs were of the same subject as those which in the second century were forged under the name of the Sibyl; he did not know that these books were accustomed to be consulted concerning the ways of appeasing the gods; he imagined to himself that they spoke most openly of the Word the Son of God, and of His Incarnation, miracles, death, and resurrection; and this was the reason why he supposed that the penalty appointed for the reading of the Sibylline poem pertained also to the very reading of the Prophets. A great error indeed, and scarcely credible. But behold another no lighter. For it is necessary that he should believe this similarity of subject, which he thought was present in the books kept at Rome with the others speaking openly of Christ and even with the prophets themselves, to be so known to all that the reading of all these was forbidden by the same penalty. Besides, if Justin was thus led by error, how did he think that that would be acceptable in Christians alone which on account of them alone he believed to be forbidden and hateful?

II. Alia ergo quaerenda hujus loci explicatio, nec tamen longe quaerenda. Duo tantum observentur velim in verbis Justini. Poena illa capitalis ethnicos deterrebat a legendis Hystaspis, Sibyllae et Prophetarum libris : at Christianos tam parum movebat, ut se his legendis libris deditos esse prae se ferrent, ac proferendis prophetarum oraculis nemini in offensionem venturos confiderent. Quaenam ergo illa lex, tam ethnicis metuenda, Christianos vero nihil laedens? Non alia profecto videtur assignari

II. Another explanation of this passage must therefore be sought, and yet not sought far off. Two things only I should wish to be observed in the words of Justin. That capital penalty deterred the heathens from reading the books of Hystaspes, the Sibyl, and the Prophets; yet it moved the Christians so little that they openly professed themselves devoted to reading these books, and trusted that by producing the oracles of the prophets they would come into offence with no one. What then was that law, so dreadful to the heathens, yet harming the Christians not at all? Assuredly no other seems able to be assigned

Editors' notes and page, col. 140

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 140
marginal letters: A vaticinia Sibyllarum, vera; B enim, si tam; C martyr credidit Sibyllinos; D cognitam esse crederet
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (vaticinia Sibyllarum...)

PG 6:141

posse, praeter eam quae futurorum curiosam inquisitionem prohibebat. Erat enim hoc crimen longe maximum illis temporibus, ac novis rebus studere et nefaria consilia intendere videbatur, si quis de salute imperatoris responsa peteret. Unde Tertullianus, Apol. 35, ut probet immerito Christianos vocari publicos hostes, quia imperatoribus, neque vanos, neque mentientes, neque temerarios honores dicant, observat eos, qui in his Caesari deferendis magna studia significant, saepe animo esse Caesari non amico et astrologos de illius salute consulere, cujus rei suspicio in Christianos non cadit. « Eadem officia dependunt, inquit, et qui astrologos et augures et aruspices et magos de Caesarum capite consultant, quas artes ab angelis desertoribus proditas et a Deo interdictas ne suis quidem causis adhibent Christiani. » Refert Lucianus in Alexandro callidum hujus hominis artificium, qui cum undique per libellos consuleretur, si qui ex divitibus de rebus magni momenti consulerent, non reddebat eorum libellos, sed apud se retinebat, ut cum illi captos se et constrictos intelligerent, periculum, in quod se ipsi stulte conjecerant, magnis muneribus redimerent.

except that which forbade the curious inquiry into future things. For this was by far the greatest crime in those times, and anyone seemed to be eager for revolution and to be aiming at nefarious designs if he sought responses concerning the safety of the emperor. Whence Tertullian, Apology 35, in order to prove that Christians are undeservedly called public enemies because they dedicate to the emperors neither vain, nor lying, nor rash honours, observes that those who signify great zeal in paying these to Caesar are often of a mind unfriendly to Caesar and consult astrologers concerning his safety, the suspicion of which thing does not fall upon Christians. "The sameduties are paid," he says, "also by those who consult astrologers and augurs and haruspices and magicians concerning the life of the Caesars, which arts, betrayed by deserter angels and forbidden by God, Christians do not employ even for their own causes." Lucian in his Alexander relates the cunning artifice of this man, who when he was consulted from all sides by means of tablets, if any of the rich consulted him concerning matters of great moment, did not return their tablets, but retained them with himself, so that when they understood themselves to be caught and bound fast, they might buy off with great gifts the danger into which they themselves had foolishly cast themselves.

Erat ergo capite sancitum ne quis de rebus Caesari aut reipublicae eventuris inquireret, ac libros evolveret, in quibus futura praedicuntur. Hanc legem Justinus daemonum astu et molitione fixam fuisse existimat, nimirum ut homines a legendis Prophetis deterrerentur : sua illum experientia docere potuit, multos hoc metu detentos fuisse, quominus prophetarum scripta tangere auderent. At Christianorum alia exstitit causa. Notum omnibus erat eos detestari quidquid ad auguria et aruspicinam pertinet, ac grande piaculum arbitrari daemones consulere; nec prophetas proferebant in iis quae ad reipublicae administrationem pertinent, sed in iis quae ad salutem aeternam; neque ut futura curiose cognoscerent, sed potius ut ea, quae Jesu Christo et Christianis evenerant, multis ante saeculis praevisa et praedicta demonstrarent. Ab hominibus sic animo affectis, nihil Caesaribus metuendum erat : impune poterant Sibyllae et Hystaspis et Prophetarum libros evolvere; suspicio non erat futuros reipublicae eventus ab eis inquiri; satisque lepide Aurelianus in epistola ad senatum, quam Vopiscus nobis prodidit, dicebat : « Miror vos, Patres sancti, tam diu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris, quasi in Christianorum ecclesia, non in templo deorum omnium tractaretis. » Non mirum ergo si prophetarum scripta et alia his similia gentiles sine periculo legere non poterant; Christiani vero et sine suspicione ea legebant, et res praedictas ad exitum perductas esse ostendendo, gratam admirationem in animis excitabant.

It was therefore ordained on pain of death that no one should inquire concerning things about to happen to Caesar or the commonwealth, or unroll books in which future things are foretold. This law Justin considers to have been established by the craft and contrivance of the demons, namely that men might be deterred from reading the Prophets: his own experience could teach him that many had been held back by this fear from daring to touch the writings of the prophets. But the case of the Christians was different. It was known to all that they detested whatever pertains to auguries and haruspicy, and deemed it a great sin to consult demons; nor did they bring forward the prophets in those things which pertain to the administration of the commonwealth, but in those which pertain to eternal salvation; nor in order that they might curiously know future things, but rather that they might demonstrate that those things which had happened to Jesus Christ and the Christians had been foreseen and foretold many ages before. From men thus disposed in mind, nothing was to be feared by the Caesars: with impunity could they unroll the books of the Sibyl and Hystaspes and the Prophets; there was no suspicion that future events of the commonwealth were being inquired into by them; and wittily enough Aurelian in his epistle to the senate, which Vopiscus has handed down to us, said: "I wonder, holy Fathers, that you have hesitated so long about opening the Sibylline books, just as if you were debating in a church of the Christians, not in the temple of all the gods." No wonder therefore if the Gentiles could not read the writings of the prophets and other things like them without danger; whereas the Christians both read them without suspicion, and by showing that the things foretold had been brought to fulfilment, aroused a grateful admiration in men's minds.

III. Controversiae non levi materiam dederunt, quae a Justino in eadem Apologia de statua Simoni Mago erecta dicuntur. Sic enim, num. 26 : « Daemones immiserunt Simonem quemdam Samaritanum

III. Matter for no slight controversy has been given by the things which are said by Justin in the same Apology concerning a statue erected to Simon Magus. For thus he writes, num. 26: "The demons sent forth a certain Simon, a Samaritan

Editors' notes and page, col. 141

Page

running head: 141 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A posse, praeter eam; B ditas et a; C minus prophetarum scripta; D ros reipublicae eventus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (posse, praeter eam...); ends with Samarita- split across col 141-142 break

PG 6:142

e vico Gittum dicto, qui sub Claudio Caesare, cum magica miracula, daemonum in eo operantium arte, in regia vestra urbe Roma edidisset, deus existimatus est et a vobis tanquam deus statua honoratus : quae statua erecta est in insula Tiberina inter duos pontes, habens hanc Romanam inscriptionem : Simoni deo sancto. » Et num. 56 : « Daemones immiserunt Simonem et Menandrum Samaritanos, qui magicis miraculis editis multos deceperunt, atque etiamnum deceptos tenent. Nam cum apud vos in regia urbe Roma, ut jam dixi, imperante Claudio Caesare, Simon versaretur : et sacrum senatum et populum Romanum ita admiratione perculsit, ut deus existimaretur, et statua velut alii, qui a vobis coluntur, dii donaretur. Quapropter oramus, ut et sacrum senatum et populum Romanum una vobiscum hujus nostri supplicis libelli cognitores asciscatis, ut si quis ejus doctrina implicatus sit, veritate cognita, errorem possit effugere; et statuam, si ita vobis placet, dejicite. »

from a village called Gittum, who under Claudius Caesar, when he had performed magical miracles by the art of the demons operating in him in your royal city of Rome, was considered a god and honoured by you as a god with a statue: which statue was erected in the Island of the Tiber between the two bridges, having this Roman inscription: To Simon the holy god." And num. 56: "The demons sent forth Simon and Menander, Samaritans, who by performing magical miracles deceived many, and even now hold them deceived. For when Simon was sojourning among you in the royal city of Rome, as I have already said, while Claudius Caesar was emperor, he struck both the sacred senate and the Roman people with such admiration that he was considered a god, and was presented with a statue like the other gods who are worshipped by you. Wherefore we pray that together with yourselves you admit both the sacred senate and the Roman people as judges of this our suppliant petition, so that if anyone be entangled in his doctrine, having learned the truth, he may be able to escape the error; and as for the statue, if it so pleases you, cast it down."

Narrata a Justino historia semper in pretio et honore exstiterat, eique pondus addiderant Tertulliani, Eusebii, Cyrilli Jerosolymitani, Augustini et Theodoreti, a quibus idem asseveratur, testimonia, donec fidem et auctoritatem apud eruditos non paucos detraheret inventa sub Gregorio XIII quaedam statua. « Ante annos puto quinque, inquit ad annum 44 Baronius, Gregorio XIII pontifice, in eadem insula Tiberina, e ruderibus lapis est effossus, tali inscriptione notatus :

The history related by Justin had always stood in value and honour, and weight had been added to it by the testimonies of Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and Theodoret, by whom the same thing is affirmed, until a certain statue discovered under Gregory XIII detracted from its credit and authority among not a few learned men. "Five years ago, I think," says Baronius at the year 44, "when Gregory XIII was pontiff, in the same Island of the Tiber, a stone was dug up out of the rubbish, marked with such an inscription:

SEMONI SANGO DEO FIDIO SACRUM SEX. POMPEIUS S. P. E. COL. MUSSIANUS QUINQUENNALIS DECUR. BIDENTALIS DONUM DEDIT.

Sacred to Semo Sangus Deus Fidius. Sextus Pompeius Mussianus, son of Sextus, of the Colline tribe, quinquennial decurion of the bidental, gave this gift.

Praesefert lapis ipse basim, super quam statua locata esset, sed exiguam : nec enim cum valde angusta sit, capax esse videtur alicujus simulacri humanae staturae similis. » Nominum quaedam est similitudo inter hanc inscriptionem et eam, quae a Justino refertur; congruit etiam locus : reperta enim statua Semonis Sangi dei in insula Tiberina, in qua Simonem deum sanctum narrat Justinus fuisse consecratum. Inde nata pluribus eruditis non suspicio solum, sed etiam firma persuasio deceptum fuisse Justinum ignoratione Latinitatis, et ab eo Simonem deum sanctum ex Semone Sango deo fabricatum fuisse. Sed parte ex alia reclamant alii non ignobiles critici, imprimis Tillemontius, quorum rationibus, difficile est non assentiri.

The stone itself displays a base upon which a statue might have been placed, but a small one: for since it is very narrow, it does not seem capable of holding any image similar to human stature." There is a certain similarity of names between this inscription and that which is reported by Justin; the place also agrees: for the statue of the god Semo Sangus was found in the Island of the Tiber, in which Justin relates that Simon the holy god was consecrated. Thence arose in several learned men not only a suspicion, but even a firm persuasion that Justin had been deceived through ignorance of Latinity, and that Simon the holy god had been fabricated by him out of the god Semo Sangus. But on the other side other not undistinguished critics protest, especially Tillemont, to whose reasons it is difficult not to assent.

IV. Unico prorsus argumento nituntur qui Justinum oscitantem errasse volunt, nempe nominum similitudine. Levissimi enim momenti est quod objicit Valesius (not. in Euseb. lib. II) non solere Romanos divinitatem hominibus vivis tribuere, aut deos appellare sanctos. Ut omittam exempla non deesse hominum ante mortem diis ascriptorum, ut Neryllini apud Athenagoram, num. 26, satis est meminisse tunc imperasse Claudium, cujus sub imperio nihil tam absurdum fuit, quod non impetrari et perfici

IV. Those who will have it that Justin carelessly erred rely on one argument altogether, namely the similarity of the names. For it is of the slightest moment what Valesius objects (note on Eusebius book II), that the Romans were not accustomed to attribute divinity to living men, or to call the gods holy. Not to mention that examples are not lacking of men enrolled among the gods before death, such as Neryllinus in Athenagoras, num. 26, it is enough to remember that Claudius was then reigning, under whose rule nothing was so absurd that it could not be obtained and accomplished.

Editors' notes and page, col. 142

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 142
marginal letters: A num e vico; B oramus, ut et; C SEMONI SANGO DEO; D ceptum fuisse Justinum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (num e vico...); begins with fragment num from Samaritanum split across col 141-142 break

PG 6:143

potuerit. Consecraverant Simonem Samaritae, eorumque suffragio Romam deus advenerat, nec mirum est, si ibi eosdem honores consecutus est, quo, ut ait Tacitus, cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Sanctorum appellationem diis tributam fuisse observat Tillemontius in pluribus apud Gruterum inscriptionibus. Nihil est ergo quod Justinum premere possit praeter inscriptionis ab eo memoratae cum ea, quae multis post saeculis reperta est, similitudinem. At utraque in multis diversa. Potuit quidem Simonis nomen cum Semone confundi : at neque Semon Sangus deus Fidius pro Simone deo sancto ab homine legendi perito sumi potuit, nec ab homine sano Sex. Pompeius S. P. E., col. Mussianus, etc., pro imperatore et senatu, nec imago dei Sangi pro imagine Simonis ab eo, qui hanc postremam in Samaria viderat.

The Samaritans had consecrated Simon, and by their vote he had arrived at Rome a god, nor is it any wonder if he obtained the same honours there, whither, as Tacitus says, all things atrocious or shameful flow together from all sides and are celebrated. That the appellation of holy was attributed to the gods is observed by Tillemont in several inscriptions in Gruter. There is nothing therefore that can press Justin except the similarity of the inscription mentioned by him with that which was found many ages afterwards. Yet the two differ in many respects. The name of Simon could indeed be confused with Semo: yet neither could Semo Sangus Deus Fidius be taken for Simon the holy god by a man skilled in reading, nor by a sane man could Sextus Pompeius, son of Sextus, of the Colline tribe, Mussianus, etc., be taken for the emperor and senate, nor the image of the god Sangus for the image of Simon by one who had seen this latter in Samaria.

Praeterea observandum est nec temere et inconsiderate Justinum postulasse ab imperatore, ut hanc Simonis Magi statuam tolleret. Haec enim petenti magnum periculum imminebat a Samaritanis, ac ipse in Dialogo, n. 120, ut probet nihil aliud sibi curae esse nisi ut verum dicat, etiamsi e vestigio discerpi oporteat; exemplum animi non timidi a se editum profert, cum Caesarem deposito ad Acta scripto compellans dixit Samaritanos errore decipi, ut qui Simoni gentis suae Mago fidem habeant, quem deum supra omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem esse dicunt. Si id Justinus non aggressus, nisi considerato et perspecto periculo, quod ei a Samaritanis metuendum erat; vix dubium quin certa illi et explorata res fuerit. Quinetiam imperatorem rogat, ut senatum et populum hujus rei cognitores asciscat et statuam dejiciant. Videntur ipsi Samaritani statuam novisse et magni fecisse. In hoc enim metuendus fuit eorum furor, quod illos statuae dejectio latere non potuisset, si impetrasset Justinus ut dejiceretur. At difficile fuit, ut quae Justinus de Simone obiter scribebat, ea ad illorum cognitionem pervenirent.

Besides, it must be observed that Justin did not rashly and inconsiderately demand of the emperor that he should remove this statue of Simon Magus. For as he asked these things a great danger threatened him from the Samaritans, and he himself in the Dialogue, num. 120, in order to prove that he had nothing else at heart except to speak the truth, even if he must be torn in pieces on the spot, brings forward an example of a fearless mind given by himself, when addressing Caesar in a writing deposited among the Acts he said that the Samaritans are deceived by error, inasmuch as they put faith in Simon the Magician of their own nation, whom they say to be God above every principality and power and virtue. If Justin did not undertake this save after considering and surveying the danger which was to be feared by him from the Samaritans, there is scarcely a doubt that the matter was certain and ascertained to him. Moreover, he asks the emperor that he admit the senate and people as judges of this matter and that they cast down the statue. The Samaritans themselves seem to have known the statue and valued it highly. For in this was their fury to be feared, because the casting down of the statue could not have lain hidden from them if Justin had obtained that it should be cast down. Yet it was difficult for the things which Justin wrote in passing concerning Simon to come to their knowledge.

V. Etiamsi errasset hac in re Justinus, saltem erratum agnoscere debuit, vel sua sponte dum per urbem incedens plures alias Semonis Sangi statuas reperit (plures enim Romae exstitisse constat), vel monitus ab amicis, vel ab inimicis castigatus. Prima illius Apologia famam et celebritatem habuit. Quomodo ergo tam insigne erratum tamque ad feriendos oculos idoneum ita latuit, ut in Dialogo et in Apologia 2 fidens et tutus confirmet quod in prima dixerat? Cum eruditis viris pro Christiana religione pugnare solitus erat. Cur ergo acceptas ab eo plagas nemo ultus est, ac ne ille quidem Crescens quem a se fractum et convictum declarat, Apol. 2, num. 3. Quomodo erratum minime subodorati tot venerandi scriptores, qui idem ac Justinus dixere? Quinetiam, ut observat Tillemontius,

V. Even if Justin had erred in this matter, at least he must have recognized the error, either of his own accord while walking through the city he found several other statues of Semo Sangus (for it is established that several existed at Rome), or warned by friends, or reproved by enemies. His first Apology had fame and celebrity. How then did so notable an error and one so suited to strike the eyes lie so hidden that in the Dialogue and in the second Apology he confidently and securely confirms what he had said in the first? He was accustomed to contend with learned men on behalf of the Christian religion. Why then did no one avenge the blows received from him, and not even that Crescens whom he declares to have been broken and convicted by him, Apology 2, num. 3? How did so many venerable writers, who said the same thing as Justin, not scent out the error in the least? Moreover, as Tillemont observes,

Editors' notes and page, col. 143

Footnotes

(47) ‹anchor: not in view on the foot image› · call in col 143 or 144 (call not visible; column uncertain)

Annal., lib. xv.

Annals, book 15.

(printed under page 78)

Page

running head: 143 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A potuerit. Consecraverant Simonem; B pro imperatore et; C aggressus, nisi considerato; D monitus ab amicis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (potuerit. Consecraverant...)

PG 6:144

ea S. Augustinus et Theodoretus de hac statua dixere, quorum illis auctor non fuit Justinus. Primus enim Simoni et Helenae erectam fuisse, alter aeream fuisse testatur, quorum neutrum dixerat Justinus. Hae rationes, quas magna ex parte Baronius et Tillemontius suppeditarunt, detinent me quominus id quod alii eruditi viri asseveranter pronuntiarunt, pluris esse quam conjecturam incertam existimem.

St. Augustine and Theodoret said those things concerning this statue for which Justin was not their authority. For the former testifies that it was erected to Simon and Helen, the latter that it was of bronze, neither of which Justin had said. These reasons, which in great part Baronius and Tillemont have supplied, hold me back from considering that which other learned men have affirmatively pronounced to be of more value than an uncertain conjecture.

CAPUT VII.

Chapter VII.

De Dialogo cum Tryphone.

On the Dialogue with Trypho.

I. De Justini peregrinationibus. II. Dialogi occasio, quem Ephesi per biduum cum Tryphone ejusque sociis habuit. III. Quo id tempore contigerit inquiritur. IV. De Tryphone ejusque sociis, ac Justini disputandi ratione nonnullae observationes. V. An Dialogus primae diei fine et secundae initio mutilus sit examinatur.

I. On the travels of Justin. II. Occasion of the Dialogue which he held at Ephesus for two days with Trypho and his companions. III. At what time this happened is inquired into. IV. Some observations on Trypho and his companions, and on Justin's method of disputing. V. Whether the Dialogue is mutilated at the end of the first day and the beginning of the second is examined.

I. Quod ait Eusebius, lib. IV, c. 11, Justinum Romae domicilium habuisse, non ita accipiendum est, quasi Justinus vitam suam hac in urbe traduxerit. Diu enim abfuisse post oblatam imperatori Apologiam et in aliis regionibus commoratus videtur. Ait enim in Actis martyrii : Veni autem in urbem Romam secundo : ἐπεδήμησα δὲ τῇ Ῥωμαίων πόλει τοῦτο δεύτερον. Quibus verbis rediisse se longo intervallo significat; neque enim, si ad breve tempus discessisset, interrupta perpetuitas commorationis fuisset. Quaenam autem causae S. martyrem in provincias traxerint, et quid absens egerit, ex illius in ipsa urbe occupationibus dijudicare possumus.

I. What Eusebius says, book IV, ch. 11, that Justin had his dwelling at Rome, is not so to be taken as though Justin spent his whole life in this city. For he seems to have been absent for a long time after presenting his Apology to the emperor and to have sojourned in other regions. For he says in the Acts of his Martyrdom: Moreover I came into the city of Rome a second time: ἐπεδήμησα δὲ τῇ Ῥωμαίων πόλει τοῦτο δεύτερον. By which words he signifies that he returned after a long interval; for if he had departed for a brief time, the continuity of his sojourn would not have been interrupted. Now what causes drew the holy martyr into the provinces, and what he did while absent, we can judge from his occupations in the city itself.

Existimat Tillemontius Justinum imitatum esse eximios illos apostolorum discipulos, quos narrat Eusebius evangelistarum munus variis in regionibus obiisse, partim Evangelio his, qui nondum illud audierant, praedicando; partim Ecclesiis, quas apostoli fundaverant, invisendis, ut eas in fide ac veritate confirmarent. Enituerat ante Justinum in hoc laudis genere Quadratus; post Justinum autem, teste Eusebio, lib. V, cap. 10, multi ejusmodi evangelistae prodierunt, quos inter insignes fuere Pantaenus et saeculo tertio ineunte Caius, quem Photius gentium episcopum ordinatum fuisse testatur. Hoc evangelistae munere Justinum idem eximius scriptor perfunctum fuisse censet in Campania et Aegypto, quas regiones peragrasse se Justinus ipse testatur in Cohort. ad Graecos; tum etiam in Asia, ubi eum versatum fuisse et Ephesi Dialogum cum Tryphone et aliis Judaeis habuisse narrat Eusebius. Adjuvat hanc opinionem episcopi aut presbyteri dignitas, qua Justinum ornatum fuisse conjicit idem Tillemontius. Nihil prae se ferunt hae conjecturae quod repugnet, nihil quod non apte et commode cogitatum videatur; sed tamen non sine aliquo delectu adoptandae.

Tillemont considers that Justin imitated those eminent disciples of the apostles whom Eusebius relates to have discharged the office of evangelists in various regions, partly by preaching the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it, partly by visiting the Churches which the apostles had founded, so that they might confirm them in the faith and truth. Quadratus had shone forth before Justin in this kind of praise; and after Justin, on the testimony of Eusebius, book V, ch. 10, many evangelists of this sort came forth, among whom were conspicuous Pantaenus and, at the beginning of the third century, Caius, whom Photius testifies to have been ordained bishop of the nations. This office of an evangelist the same eminent writer judges Justin to have discharged in Campania and Egypt, which regions Justin himself testifies in the Exhortation to the Greeks that he traversed; and then also in Asia, where Eusebius relates that he sojourned and held the Dialogue at Ephesus with Trypho and other Jews. The dignity of bishop or presbyter, with which the same Tillemont conjectures Justin to have been adorned, aids this opinion. These conjectures display nothing that is repugnant, nothing that does not seem aptly and suitably thought out; nevertheless they are not to be adopted without some selection.

1° Minus accurate Tillemontius Campaniam et Aegyptum a Justino Evangelii praedicandi causa peragratas fuisse putat. Neque enim improbabile est eum in ipsa Aegypto Christianam religionem

1st, Less accurately does Tillemont think that Campania and Egypt were traversed by Justin for the sake of preaching the Gospel. For neither is it improbable that he, in Egypt itself, the Christian religion

Editors' notes and page, col. 144

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 144
marginal letters: A ea S. Augustinus; B I. Quod ait; C eximios illos apostolorum; D ubi eum versatum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotation from Acta martyrii; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (ea S. Augustinus... CAPUT VII...)

PG 6:145

amplexum esse, ac Cumis in Campania minime commoratum, sed diversatum cum Romam peteret; aut si has regiones peragravit, id profecto contigit ante illius Romam adventum, ante scriptam ad Graecos Cohortationem, ac proinde cum recens esset a conversione, necdum evangelistae muneri maturus.

and did not sojourn at all at Cumae in Campania, but stopped there while he was making for Rome; or if he traversed these regions, this assuredly happened before his arrival at Rome, before the Exhortation to the Greeks was written, and accordingly when he was fresh from his conversion, and not yet ripe for the office of an evangelist.

2° Nec illud statui potest utrum Justinus Roma discedens varias regiones peragraverit, an certum locum commorandi causa petierit. Hoc tantum scimus, nihil amplius, eum, postquam Roma discessit, Ephesi per duos dies cum Tryphone et aliis Judaeis disseruisse. Hujus autem Dialogi haec fuit occasio.

2nd, Nor can it be determined whether Justin on departing from Rome traversed various regions, or made for a certain place for the sake of sojourning. This only we know, nothing more, that after he departed from Rome he discoursed at Ephesus for two days with Trypho and other Jews. Now of this Dialogue the occasion was as follows.

II. Paucis diebus ante quam Justinus discederet, ambulanti mane in Xysti spatiis occurrit Judaeus quidam, Trypho nomine, cum aliis ex eadem gente, seque philosophiae studiosum esse significat, et idcirco cum eo colloquendi cupidum. Quaerit Justinus annon multo plus ei Moses et prophetae, quam philosophi prodessent; et ab eo rogatus quid de Deo sentiat, quam philosophiam sectetur, narrat eis quomodo philosophiae Platonicae deditus a quodam sene, in quem forte inciderat, veritatem non a philosophis, sed a prophetis de Christo Dei Filio praedicantibus petendam didicisset. Rident socii Tryphonis; dolet Trypho sortem Justini, quod philosophis relictis spem in homine constituat, inanibus commentis deceptus. Spondet Justinus demonstraturum se, si audire velint, non fabulis Christianos, sed certissimis argumentis credidisse. Iterum socii Tryphonis rident et indecore clamant; discedere quaerit Justinus; retinetur a Tryphone, sed ea lege ut socii aut abeant, aut silentio audiant. Tum Justinus et Trypho in medium Xysti stadium veniunt, ibique in sedilibus lapideis ex utraque parte positis consident, cum duo ex sociis Tryphonis abiissent. Haec proludia fuere longioris disputationis, quae decedente die interpellata, postridie redeunte Tryphone cum sociis et aliis nonnullis, qui pridie non adfuerant, hora, ut verisimile est, composita repetita est.

II. A few days before Justin departed, as he was walking in the morning in the walks of the Xystus, a certain Jew, Trypho by name, met him with others of the same nation, and signified that he was a student of philosophy, and on that account desirous of conversing with him. Justin asks whether Moses and the prophets would not profit him much more than the philosophers; and being asked by him what he thinks concerning God and what philosophy he follows, he relates to them how, when devoted to the Platonic philosophy, he had learned from a certain old man, upon whom he had chanced to light, that the truth was to be sought not from the philosophers, but from the prophets who preach concerning Christ the Son of God. The companions of Trypho laugh; Trypho laments the lot of Justin, because having left the philosophers he places his hope in a man, deceived by vain fictions. Justin promises that he will demonstrate, if they are willing to listen, that Christians have believed not fables, but most certain arguments. Again the companions of Trypho laugh and shoutebecomingly; Justin seeks to depart; he is held back by Trypho, but on this condition, that his companions either depart or listen in silence. Then Justin and Trypho come into the middle stadium of the Xystus, and there sit down on stone seats placed on either side, after two of the companions of Trypho had departed. These were the preludes of a longer disputation, which, interrupted by the declining day, was resumed on the following day when Trypho returned with his companions and some others who had not been present on the day before, at an hour, as is probable, agreed upon.

Postquam ea per biduum disputata sunt, quorum seriem in praefixa operi analysi texuimus; Justinus et Trypho non sine perpolitis amicitiae significationibus discesserunt. Declarat Trypho se hoc congressu majorem in modum delectatum esse; nec dubitare quin eodem animo affecti sint socii. Plus enim invenisse se quam exspectabant, aut quam exspectari unquam possit. Desiderium saepius colloquendi significat; prosperam navigationem Justino precatur : Justinus nihil majus se illis precari posse ait, quam ut idem ac Christiani sentientes in Christum credant.

After those things had been disputed for two days, the series of which we have woven in the analysis prefixed to the work, Justin and Trypho departed not without very polite expressions of friendship. Trypho declares that he has been delighted in a very great degree by this meeting, and does not doubt that his companions are affected with the same mind: for they had found more than they expected, or than could ever be expected. He signifies a desire of conversing more frequently, and prays for a prosperous voyage for Justin: Justin says that he can pray for nothing greater for them than that, thinking the same as the Christians, they may believe in Christ.

Opus dedicavit Justinus Marco Pompeio, quem cum amicissimum vocet, n. 8 et sub finem, Christianum fuisse et veritatis cultorem non immerito conjicimus. Sed eum cum Lango conjicere Marcum

Justin dedicated the work to Marcus Pompeius, whom, since he calls him most friendly, num. 8 and towards the end, we not undeservedly conjecture to have been a Christian and a cultivator of the truth. But to conjecture with Lang that he was that Marcus

Editors' notes and page, col. 145

Footnotes

(48) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 145 or 146 (above the rendered foot)

N. 16.

No. 16.

(printed under page 79)

Page

running head: 145 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A amplexum esse, ac; B quidam, Trypho nomine; C Iterum socii Tryphonis; D tionibus discesserunt. Declarat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (amplexum esse...)

PG 6:146

illum fuisse a quo profligati Judaei, vel cum Grabio Marcum Jerosolymitanum, otio abuti esset.

by whom the Jews were routed, or with Grabe that he was Marcus of Jerusalem, would be to abuse leisure.

III. Sincerus Justini animus ac veritatis amans in omnibus operibus depingitur; sed ipse sibi in hoc Dialogo necessitatem imposuit accurate referendi quidquid cum Judaeis disseruerat. Ne quid enim suspicionis in Judaeorum animis resideret, promiserat eis, n. 80, se litteris mandaturum hanc disputationem, nec suam dissimulaturum de Jerosolymorum restitutione sententiam, quam multis minus placere fatebatur. Promissis stetit, et Romam, ut verisimile est, reversus (ibi enim domicilium habebat) hoc opus composuit, utrum Antonino an Marco imperante haud equidem dixerim. At sub Antonino Dialogum habitum fuisse colligitur ex his verbis : Οὐ γὰρ ἐξουσίαν ἔχετε αὐτόχειρες γενέσθαι ἡμῶν διὰ τοὺς νῦν ἐπικρατοῦντας· ὁσάκις δ' ἂν ἐδυνήθητε, καὶ τοῦτο ἐπράξατε. « Neque enim ea vobis est potestas, ut manus nobis inferatis, propter eos qui nunc rerum potiuntur; quoties autem adfuit, rem confecistis. » Tum ergo favebat Christianis imperator, ejusque patrocinio tuti erant ab inimicorum insidiis. Si qua enim saeviisset persecutio, non defuisset Judaeis facultas odii sui explendi, si minus per se occidendo Christianos, saltem se ethnicis, ut saepe fecerunt, adjungendo et eorum furorem in Christianos incitando. Si eam Judaeis ereptam potestatem diceret Justinus, quam tunc habuere, cum res suas armis et castris tuerentur, eam non ab iis, qui tunc rerum potiebantur, sed ab Adriano repressam dicere debuisset, a quo penitus profligati et omnibus rebus spoliati sunt. Etsi Judaei sub Barchocheba duce crudeliter in Christianos saevierint, ut testatur Justinus, Apol. 1, n. 31, haec persecutio diuturna non fuit : at Judaei Christianos vexare non desierunt, quoties persecutionem ethnici moverunt. Dies festos Christianorum observabant, et cum ethnicis in ecclesiam irruebant, teste S. Hippolyto, ac nonnullos apprehensos ad tribunalia trahebant. Hinc in Actis martyrum multo vehementius clamant, quam ipsi gentiles. Vid. Act. S. Polycarpi, n. 12, et S. Philippi Her., n. 6. Ipse Justinus in alio Dialogi loco conjunctionem Judaeorum cum ethnicis adversus Christianos sic describit : « Quantum in vobis est et caeteris omnibus hominibus, non solum ex propriis possessionibus unusquisque Christianorum pellitur, sed etiam ex toto terrarum orbe, nec ulli Christiano vitam liberam relinquitis. » Quod ergo nocendi potestatem ereptam Judaeis dicit ab his, qui tunc rerum potiebantur, id non Marcum Aurelium, qui semper inimicis Christianorum deditus, nunquam amicus Christianis fuit, sed Antoninum designat, cujus beneficium nondum videtur, cum haec dissereret Justinus, Christianis eripuisse imperii mutatio.

III. The sincere and truth-loving mind of Justin is depicted in all his works; but in this Dialogue he imposed upon himself the necessity of accurately reporting whatever he had discoursed with the Jews. For lest any suspicion should reside in the minds of the Jews, he had promised them, num. 80, that he would commit this disputation to writing, and would not conceal his own opinion concerning the restoration of Jerusalem, which he confessed was less pleasing to many. He stood by his promises, and having, as is probable, returned to Rome (for there he had his dwelling), he composed this work, whether while Antoninus or Marcus was emperor I would not indeed say. Yet that the Dialogue was held under Antoninus is gathered from these words: For you do not have power to lay hands upon us yourselves because of those who now hold sway; but as often as you were able, you did this too. "For neither do you have that power, that you may lay hands upon us, because of those who are now in control of affairs; but as often as it was present, you accomplished the matter." At that time therefore the emperor favoured the Christians, and by his patronage they were safe from the plots of their enemies. For if any persecution had raged, the Jews would not have lacked the opportunity of satisfying their hatred, if not by killing the Christians by themselves, at least by joining themselves to the heathens, as they often did, and inciting their fury against the Christians. If Justin were speaking of that power snatched away from the Jews which they had at the time when they defended their affairs with arms and camps, he ought to have said that it was repressed not by those who were then in control of affairs, but by Hadrian, by whom they were utterly routed and despoiled of all things. Although the Jews under the leader Barcochba raged cruelly against the Christians, as Justin testifies, Apology 1, num. 31, this persecution was not lasting: yet the Jews did not cease to harass the Christians as often as the heathens stirred up persecution. They observed the feast days of the Christians, and rushed with the heathens into the church, on the testimony of St. Hippolytus, and dragged some whom they had seized to the tribunals. Hence in the Acts of the Martyrs they shout much more vehemently than the Gentiles themselves. See Acts of St. Polycarp, num. 12, and of St. Philip of Heraclea, num. 6. Justin himself in another passage of the Dialogue thus describes the conjunction of the Jews with the heathens against the Christians: "As far as lies in you and in all other men, not only is each one of the Christians driven out of his own possessions, but even out of the whole world, nor do you leave a free life to any Christian." As for his saying, therefore, that the power of harming was snatched away from the Jews by those who were then in control of affairs, this designates not Marcus Aurelius, who, always devoted to the enemies of the Christians, was never a friend to the Christians, but Antoninus, whose benefit the change of rule does not yet seem to have snatched away from the Christians when Justin was discoursing these things.

IV. Trypho Hebraeus erat et circumcisus atque

IV. Trypho was a Hebrew and circumcised and

Editors' notes and page, col. 146

Footnotes

(49) ‹anchor: teste S. Hippolyto› · call in col 146

In Susannam apud Combefis. Auct., p. 53.

On Susanna, in Combefis's Auctarium, p. 53.

(printed under page 79)

(50) ‹anchor: Christianos sic describit› · call in col 146

N 110.

No. 110.

(printed under page 79)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 146
marginal letters: A illum fuisse a; B ex his verbis; C rentur, eam non; D Christianos sic describit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotation from Justin Dialogus; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (illum fuisse...)

PG 6:147

ex bello, quod sub Adriano gestum fuerat, profugus, in Graeciam venerat. Argis audierat Corinthum Socraticum, ac in Graecia et Corinthi ex illo tempore degere solebat. Minus belle Tillemontius haec Tryphonis verba, φυγὼν τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον, de bello quodam, quod Antoninus Pius cum Judaeis habuit, interpretatus est. Ut omittam illud bellum obscuram et levem fuisse expeditionem, nec sub Pio, sed sub Adriano Judaeos in varias partes dispersos fuisse; significat Trypho ab eo bello, ex quo profugus erat, longum tempus effluxisse. Ex quo enim patriam fugerat, philosophiae operam dederat, et in Graecia ac Corinthi ut plurimum degebat : quod argumento est eum non semper in hac urbe commoratum. Non possunt ergo haec verba, τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον, de bello tunc temporis flagrante intelligi. Jam observavi illud νῦν de rebus ante multos annos peractis usurpari, nec mirum videri debet si a Tryphone de bello ante annos forte viginti confecto usurpetur.

a fugitive from the war which had been waged under Hadrian, had come into Greece. At Argos he had heard Corinthus the Socratic, and from that time was accustomed to live in Greece and at Corinth. Less aptly has Tillemont interpreted these words of Trypho, having fled the war that has now taken place, of a certain war which Antoninus Pius had with the Jews. Not to mention that that war was an obscure and slight expedition, and that not under Pius, but under Hadrian were the Jews dispersed into various parts; Trypho signifies that a long time had elapsed since that war from which he was a fugitive. For since the time when he had fled his country, he had devoted his efforts to philosophy, and lived for the most part in Greece and at Corinth: which is a proof that he did not always sojourn in this city. Therefore these words, the war that has now taken place, cannot be understood of a war blazing at that time. I have already observed that that word νῦν is used of things accomplished many years before, nor ought it to seem wonderful if it is used by Trypho of a war finished perhaps twenty years before.

Tryphonem Eusebius omnium tunc temporis Hebraeorum celeberrimum fuisse testatur. Sic enim de Justini Dialogo loquitur lib. IV Hist., c. 18 : Καὶ διάλογον δὲ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους συνέταξεν, ὃν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἐφέσου πόλεως πρὸς Τρύφωνα τῶν τότε Ἑβραίων ἐπισημότατον πεποίηται. « Composuit etiam Dialogum adversus Judaeos, quem apud Ephesum habuit cum Tryphone Hebraeorum tunc temporis celeberrimo. » His Eusebii verbis confirmari existimat Grabius conjecturam Cavei, qui hunc Tryphonem eumdem esse putat ac rabbi Tarphonem magni apud Judaeos nominis, et vulgo כהן העשיר sacerdotem divitem appellatum. Sed si Trypho inter rabbinos numeratus fuit, ad hunc honorem non pervenit nisi post hunc cum Justino Dialogum. Nam initio colloquii, cum dixisset Trypho Christum, si jam natus est et alicubi exstat, ignotum prorsus esse ac ne sibi quidem ipsi cognitum, aut ulla potestate praeditum, donec veniat Elias, qui illum ungat et omnibus ostendat; significat Justinus misereri se Tryphonis a rabbinis quidquid in mentem venit effutientibus decepti. In toto Dialogi decursu ita cum Tryphone et sociis agit, ut cum hominibus rabbinos duces more caecorum sequentibus; et discedens ab eis hortatur, ut Christum rabbinis anteponant. Ipse Trypho rabbinis submissum se esse significat cum ait, n. 38 : « Praeclare faceremus, si magistris nostris morem gerentes, qui vestrum cuiquam venire in colloquium lege vetuerunt, ne horum quidem sermonum communionem tecum haberemus. » Interroganti Justino, n. 56, an cuiquam existimarent Dei et Domini nomen, nisi Deo Patri et Christo, deferri a Spiritu sancto, respondet Trypho aliorum nomine, imparatos se esse ad tam periculosas quaestiones, nec unquam a se auditum quemquam qui his de rebus dissereret. Videri etiam possit simplicior, cum irascitur et blasphemiae Justinum accusat, quod is malas virtutes, quae a Deo defecerunt,

Eusebius testifies that Trypho was the most celebrated of all the Hebrews of that time. For thus he speaks concerning the Dialogue of Justin in book IV of his History, ch. 18: And he also composed a dialogue against the Jews, which he held in the city of Ephesus with Trypho, the most distinguished of the Hebrews of that time. "He composed also a Dialogue against the Jews, which he held at Ephesus with Trypho, the most celebrated of the Hebrews of that time." By these words of Eusebius Grabe considers the conjecture of Cave to be confirmed, who thinks that this Trypho is the same as Rabbi Tarphon, of great name among the Jews, and commonly called כהן העשיר the wealthy priest. Yet if Trypho was numbered among the rabbis, he did not arrive at this honour until after this Dialogue with Justin. For at the beginning of the colloquy, when Trypho had said that the Christ, if He has already been born and exists anywhere, is altogether unknown and not even known to Himself, nor endowed with any power, until Elijah comes, who shall anoint Him and show Him to all; Justin signifies that he pities Trypho for being deceived by the rabbis blurting out whatever comes into their mind. In the whole course of the Dialogue he deals with Trypho and his companions as with men following the rabbis as guides after the manner of the blind; and on departing from them he exhorts them to prefer Christ to the rabbis. Trypho himself signifies that he is submissive to the rabbis when he says, num. 38: "We should do admirably if, obeying our masters, who have forbidden by law to come into colloquy with any of you, we did not have fellowship with you even in these discourses." When Justin asks, num. 56, whether they thought that the name of God and Lord is given by the Holy Spirit to anyone except God the Father and Christ, Trypho replies in the name of the others that they are unprepared for such perilous questions, and that they had never heard anyone who discoursed concerning these matters. He might even seem rather simple when he grows angry and accuses Justin of blasphemy because he had mentioned evil powers which revolted from God,

Editors' notes and page, col. 147

Page

running head: 147 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A ex bello, quod; B haec verba, τὸν; C nem eumdem esse; D tibus; et discedens
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotations and Hebrew phrase כהן העשיר (first word printed resembling כחן); editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (ex bello...)

PG 6:148

commemorasset, num. 70. Sed tamen inter socios, qui cum eo Justinum audierunt, jam tum auctoritate et scientia eminebat, nec improbabile est eum postea nomen et famam rabbini assecutum. Philosophiae operam dederat sub magistro gentili, et quod eum discendi studiosum fuisse probat, sacros Christianorum libros legisse se testatur, Dialog., n. 10.

num. 70. Nevertheless, among the companions who heard Justin with him, he already excelled at that time in authority and knowledge, nor is it improbable that he afterwards attained the name and fame of a rabbi. He had devoted his efforts to philosophy under a Gentile master, and, what proves that he was eager to learn, he testifies that he had read the sacred books of the Christians, Dialogue, num. 10.

Nec probitas deerat Tryphoni nec veritatis amor quidam, sed immoderatum legis studium videtur ei fructus praeripuisse, quos ex Justini colloquio percipere potuisset. Non credebat quae de Christianis falsus rumor in vulgus sparserat; fide indigna judicabat, n. 10; hoc tantum in eis vituperabat, quod cum summam prae se pietatem ferrent, nec festos dies, nec sabbata, nec circumcisionem tenerent, et spem in homine crucifixo ponerent. Postquam ejus rogatu Justinus probavit eximiis argumentis legem datam esse non ad justitiam, sed propter peccata; non idcirco movetur, n. 18. Urget iterum Justinus et quaerit cur justis ante Abraham et Mosem circumcisionem et sabbata Deus non imposuerit; tum vero Trypho ingenue ignorationem suam confitetur, n. 28. Animo horrescere videtur, n. 38, ubi Christum audit eum esse qui cum Mose et Aaron in columna nubis locutus est; aequiorem se praestat argumentis a Justino allatis, ut Filium a Deo ante saecula genitum probet; rem egregie demonstratam fatetur, n. 57 et 63, hoc tantum petit a Justino, ut hunc Dei Filium nasci et crucifigi voluisse ac resurrexisse et in coelum ascendisse probet. Pene victum diceres Tryphonem, n. 89, ubi fatetur Christo congruere quidquid testimoniorum Scripturae a Justino laudatum fuerat : una res eum deterret, supplicium crucis, cui lex maledictionem inflixit. Justinus multa praeclare congerit ad hujus rei explicationem, sed tamen corda Judaeorum superasse non videtur, quamvis eos interdum videatur permovisse. Nam post tot ac tanta religionis argumenta, cum pertenderet Justinus locum quemdam Isaiae de Christo et illuminatis ab eo gentibus accipi debere, nonnulli eorum, qui postridie venerant, incondite ut in theatro clamorem ediderunt, n. 122.

Neither probity nor a certain love of truth was lacking to Trypho, yet an immoderate zeal for the law seems to have snatched away from him the fruits which he could have reaped from the colloquy of Justin. He did not believe the things which false rumour had spread abroad among the multitude concerning the Christians; he judged them unworthy of credit, num. 10; this only did he blame in them, that while they displayed the highest piety, they kept neither feast days, nor sabbaths, nor circumcision, and placed their hope in a crucified man. After Justin at his request proved by eminent arguments that the law was given not for righteousness, but on account of sins, he is not moved on that account, num. 18. Justin urges again and asks why God did not impose circumcision and sabbaths upon the righteous before Abraham and Moses; then indeed Trypho candidly confesses his ignorance, num. 28. He seems to shudder in mind, num. 38, when he hears that Christ is He Who spoke with Moses and Aaron in the pillar of cloud; he shows himself more favourable to the arguments adduced by Justin to prove that the Son was begotten by God before the ages; he confesses the matter to have been admirably demonstrated, num. 57 and 63, and asks this only of Justin, that he prove that this Son of God willed to be born and crucified, and rose again and ascended into heaven. You would call Trypho almost vanquished, num. 89, where he confesses that whatever testimonies of Scripture had been cited by Justin agree with Christ: one thing deters him, the punishment of the cross, upon which the law inflicted a curse. Justin admirably heaps up many things for the explanation of this matter, yet he does not seem to have overcome the hearts of the Jews, although at times he seems to have moved them deeply. For after so many and so great arguments of religion, when Justin insisted that a certain passage of Isaiah ought to be taken of Christ and the nations illuminated by Him, some of those who had come on the following day raised an unruly shout as in a theatre, num. 122.

Videtur Justinus interdum a sua lenitate in docendis Judaeis discedere, eosque maximis probris saepe onerare. Sed tamen ubi durioribus verbis utitur, non tam eos qui audiebant, quam obstinatam in omni scelere gentem compellat, velut cum ait num. 93 : « Nam cum ex signis a Mose factis intelligendi copiam habeatis hunc esse Christum, non modo non vultis, sed etiam in angustias nos conjici posse existimantes, quaestiones ponitis quaecunque in medium veniunt, nec tamen ipsi habetis quid dicatis, si quem firmiorem Christianum offenderitis. » Ad hoc exemplum existimari possunt plurima alia, quibus Justinus Judaicam gentem perstringit, ut Judaeos audientes a stultissima opinione, quam de gente sua et Synagogis suis habebant,

Justin seems at times to depart from his gentleness in teaching the Jews, and often to load them with the greatest reproaches. Nevertheless, where he uses harsher words, he addresses not so much those who were listening as a nation obstinate in every wickedness, as when he says, num. 93: "For while from the signs wrought by Moses you have the means of understanding that this is the Christ, not only are you unwilling, but also, supposing that we can be cast into straits, you put whatever questions come in your way, and yet you yourselves do not have anything to say if you meet with some firmer Christian." After this example can be judged very many other passages in which Justin censures the Jewish nation, so that he might recall the listening Jews from the most foolish opinion which they held concerning their own nation and their Synagogues,

Editors' notes and page, col. 148

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 148
marginal letters: A commemorasset, num. 70.; B festos dies, nec; C et 63, hoc; D Videtur Justinus interdum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (commemorasset, num. 70...); ends with ha- split across col 148-149 break
other: the word habebant, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 149

PG 6:149

ad verum Israelem et Dei populum agnoscendum revocaret. Enitescit patientia Justini cum eum desipere ait Trypho, n. 39, vel cum animum a doctrina Christiana vehementer abhorrentem significat, aut ea rejicit quae antea concesserat, num. 67. His in locis Justinus justae indignationi moderatur, nec de studio veritatis docendae quidquam remittit, cum Dei judicium metuens si verum subtrahat, tum etiam sperans inter eos, qui audiebant, reperiri aliquem posse, qui e numero electorum sit; seque testatur ita agere cum omnibus hominibus solere, quicunque illum sciscitari voluerint.

to acknowledging the true Israel and people of God. The patience of Justin shines forth when Trypho says that he is out of his senses, num. 39, or when he signifies a mind vehemently abhorring Christian doctrine, or rejects the things which he had previously granted, num. 67. In these passages Justin moderates his just indignation, and remits nothing of his zeal for teaching the truth, both fearing the judgement of God if he should withhold the truth, and also hoping that among those who were listening someone might be found who is of the number of the elect; and he testifies that he is accustomed to deal thus with all men, whoever wish to question him.

Trypho cum sex sociis primo die occurrit Justino. Nam cum duo abiissent, eorum, qui remanserant, quartum numerat Justinus, n. 66, p. 152. Postridie frequentior fuit comitatus Tryphonis. Nam praeter eos, qui pridie adfuerant, alii supervenerunt, ut Mnaseas, de quo, n. 85, et alius, n. 94. Praeterea Justinus ait, ut jam dixi, n. 122, nonnullos ex iis, qui postridie venerant, inconditum ut in theatro clamorem edidisse.

Trypho met Justin on the first day with six companions. For after two had departed, Justin counts a fourth of those who had remained, num. 66, p. 152. On the following day the company of Trypho was more numerous. For besides those who had been present on the day before, others came up, such as Mnaseas, concerning whom see num. 85, and another, num. 94. Moreover, Justin says, as I have already mentioned, num. 122, that some of those who had come on the following day raised an unruly shout as in a theatre.

V. Sed difficilis et magni momenti nobis examinanda quaestio est, utrum integrum hoc eximium opus ad nos pervenerit, an satis longa pars desideranda sit, ut visum est eruditis viris, quotquot de Justini scriptis pertractarunt. Videntur sane non leves causae subesse, cur magnam aliquam lacunam suspicemur. Nam cum duos dies in disserendo insumpserit Justinus, cumque pridie disputata interdum repetat in gratiam eorum, qui non interfuerant, ut num. 78, 84, 92, 118, nusquam tamen prioris disputationis conclusionem, nusquam initium posterioris deprehendas; nulla prorsus et nocte cogente discedentium, et postridie redeuntium salutatio. Quae quidem si exciderunt ex scripto Justini, lacuna necessario collocanda est intra n. 70 et 78. Nam Justinus, n. 78, pridie disputata de Mithrae mysteriis repetit in gratiam eorum qui non adfuerant. Haec autem leguntur, n. 70. Unde necesse est medio inter utramque paginam intervallo hesterni colloquii finem, posterioris initium collocari. Locus ex n. 82 citatus apud S. Joan. Damascenum Parallel., p. 754, dicitur desumptus, ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς Τρύφωνα βʹ λόγου, ex secundo Dialogo cum Tryphone, id est, ut eruditus editor observat, ex secunda parte Dialogi.

V. But a difficult question and one of great moment must be examined by us, whether this eminent work has come down to us entire, or whether a rather long part is to be regretted as lost, as has seemed to all the learned men who have treated of the writings of Justin. Certainly no slight causes seem to underlie our suspecting some great lacuna. For whereas Justin spent two days in discoursing, and whereas he sometimes repeats the things disputed on the day before for the sake of those who had not been present, as at num. 78, 84, 92, 118, yet nowhere can you detect the conclusion of the former disputation, nowhere the beginning of the latter; there is no salutation at all either of those departing when night compelled them, or of those returning on the following day. And if indeed these things fell out of the writing of Justin, the lacuna must necessarily be placed between num. 70 and 78. For Justin, num. 78, repeats the things disputed on the day before concerning the mysteries of Mithras for the sake of those who had not been present. Now these things are read at num. 70. Whence it is necessary that in the middle interval between the two pages the end of yesterday's colloquy and the beginning of the later one be placed. A passage from num. 82 cited in St. John of Damascus, Parallels, p. 754, is said to be taken ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς Τρύφωνα βʹ λόγου, from the second Dialogue with Trypho, that is, as the learned editor observes, from the second part of the Dialogue.

Sed tamen si ordinem et seriem consideremus, quam Justinus in omnibus argumentis dispensandis sequitur, amissae Dialogi partis desiderio modum ponemus, ac injectus ex opinata lacuna dolor evanescet.

Nevertheless, if we consider the order and series which Justin follows in arranging all his arguments, we shall set a limit to our regret for the lost part of the Dialogue, and the grief inspired by the supposed lacuna will vanish.

1° Totius Dialogi series, dum aliae ex aliis quaestiones nascuntur, mirifice cohaeret, neque a n. 70, ubi de Mithrae mysteriis agitur, ad n. 78, ubi hesterna Mithrae mysteriorum commemoratio propter eos, qui pridie non adfuerant, repetitur, disputatio

1st, The series of the whole Dialogue, while questions arise one out of another, coheres wonderfully, nor from num. 70, where the mysteries of Mithras are treated of, to num. 78, where yesterday's mention of the mysteries of Mithras is repeated on account of those who had not been present on the day before, does the disputation

Editors' notes and page, col. 149

Footnotes

(51) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 149 or 150 (above the rendered foot)

Isa. VII, 14.

Isaiah 7:14.

(printed under page 81)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 149 or 150 (above the rendered foot)

Hymn. Eccles. in Domin. Palm., ex Psal.

Hymn of the Church for Palm Sunday, from the Psalm.

(printed under page 81)

Page

running head: 149 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A bebant, ad verum; B quartum numerat Justinus; C tata interdum repetat; D tur desumptus, ἐκ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek phrase; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (bebant, ad verum...); begins with fragment bebant from habebant split across col 148-149 break; ends with disputa- split across col 149-150 break

PG 6:150

videtur interrumpi potuisse. Postquam enim Justinus ex loco Isaiae, quem Mithrae sacerdotes imitatos esse dicit, occasionem cepit castigandae Judaeorum in Scripturis interpretandis superbae imperitiae, et querendi, quod Septuaginta interpretationem vituperare audeant, et ex ea nonnulla testimonia sustulerint; tum vero ad promissam venit explicationem Isaiae verborum, Ecce virgo concipiet, quae fatetur a Judaeis sublata non fuisse, sed tamen ita reddi, Ecce adolescentula in utero habebit. Interpellat Trypho, ac scire avet quaenam testimonia ex Scripturis Judaei sustulerint. Morem gerit Justinus, et cum ex his verbis, Dominus regnavit a ligno, Judaeos illud a ligno abstulisse dixisset, Tryphonem, qui totum hunc psalmum non de Christo passibili, sed de Deo omnium creatore dictum esse contendebat, refellere aggreditur, et majestatem regni in Christo cum passionis ignominia conjunctam esse probat pluribus Scripturae testimoniis. Fatetur Trypho haec magni esse ad persuadendum momenti, sed a Justino reposcit toties promissam Isaiae verborum explicationem, quam quidem dum exsequitur Justinus, data occasione repetit quae pridie dixerat de Mithrae mysteriis.

seem to have been able to be interrupted. For after Justin, from a passage of Isaiah which he says the priests of Mithras imitated, took occasion to chastise the proud unskilfulness of the Jews in interpreting the Scriptures, and to complain that they dare to blame the translation of the Septuagint, and have removed some testimonies from it; then indeed he comes to the promised explanation of the words of Isaiah, Behold, a virgin shall conceive (Isa. 7:14), which he confesses were not removed by the Jews, yet are rendered thus: Behold, a young woman shall be with child. Trypho interrupts, and is eager to know what testimonies the Jews have removed from the Scriptures. Justin complies with him, and after he had said that from these words, The Lord has reigned from the tree (Ps. 95:10), the Jews had taken away that phrase from the tree, he undertakes to refute Trypho, who contended that the whole of this psalm was spoken not of a passible Christ, but of God the Creator of all things, and proves by several testimonies of Scripture that the majesty of the kingdom in Christ was joined with the ignominy of the passion. Trypho confesses that these things are of great moment for persuading, but demands back from Justin the so often promised explanation of the words of Isaiah, in executing which Justin, as occasion is given, repeats what he had said on the day before concerning the mysteries of Mithras.

2° Ex his patet operam perdidisse qui, n. 74, ad haec verba ὡς καὶ διὰ τῆς γῆς finem primae diei et initium sequentis collocantes, opinatum vacuum aut excogitatis sententiis, aut ex S. Joanne Damasceno repetitis explere conati sunt. Verba desunt paucissima ac disputatio in eodem semper argumento versatur, ut in notis observatum est.

2nd, From these things it is clear that those have lost their labour who, at num. 74, at these words ὡς καὶ διὰ τῆς γῆς placing the end of the first day and the beginning of the following, have endeavoured to fill up the supposed void either with devised sentences or with sentences repeated from St. John of Damascus. Very few words are wanting and the disputation always turns upon the same subject, as has been observed in the notes.

3° Sic totum Dialogum pertexit Justinus, ut intermissionis illius, quam nox attulit, nullam prorsus rationem habeat, sed omnia eadem serie comprehendat; sive id commodius ei visum est, nec lectorem rei non necessariae narratione interpellare voluit, sive non omnia eodem ordine, quo fuerant disputata, retulit, sed ut memoriam subibant, vel ut ad certa quaedam genera revocari poterant. Res ante oculos facile ponitur. Rogat Justinum Trypho, num. 56, p. 155, ut, cum diem procedere videat, citius absolvat quod probandum susceperat, nempe praeter Deum Patrem, alium esse qui ejus Filius et Deus dicendus sit. Pluribus ea de re disserit Justinus : sibi illum satis fecisse testatur Trypho, n. 63, ac amplissimam disserendi segetem Justino proponit, in quam fere insumetur quidquid Dialogi reliquum est, nempe de hujus Filii, quem Justinus Deum esse demonstraverat, incarnatione, cruce, resurrectione et ascensione. Onus libenter suscipit Justinus. Quomodo ergo utrumque cepit oblivio diei procedentis? Haec enim a Tryphone postulata et a Justino promissa ante n. 70, id est antequam finis primae diei observari possit. Quinetiam postquam Justinus probare coepit Christum ex Virgine debuisse

3rd, Justin weaves the whole Dialogue in such a way that he takes no account at all of that intermission which night brought, but comprises all things in the same series; whether this seemed more convenient to him, and he did not wish to interrupt the reader with the narration of an unnecessary matter, or whether he did not report all things in the same order in which they had been disputed, but as they occurred to his memory, or as they could be reduced to certain definite heads. The matter is easily set before the eyes. Trypho asks Justin, num. 56, p. 155, that since he sees the day advancing, he would more quickly finish what he had undertaken to prove, namely that besides God the Father there is another Who is to be called His Son and God. Justin discourses at greater length concerning that matter: Trypho testifies that he has satisfied him, num. 63, and proposes to Justin a most ample field of discourse, upon which almost whatever remains of the Dialogue will be spent, namely concerning the incarnation, cross, resurrection, and ascension of this Son Whom Justin had demonstrated to be God. Justin gladly undertakes the burden. How then did forgetfulness of the advancing day seize both of them? For these things were demanded by Trypho and promised by Justin before num. 70, that is, before the end of the first day can be observed. Moreover, after Justin began to prove that Christ ought to be born of a Virgin,

Editors' notes and page, col. 150

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 150
marginal letters: A tio videtur interrumpi; B psalmum non de; C Damasceno repetitis explere; D pe praeter Deum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek phrase; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (tio videtur...); begins with fragment tio from disputatio split across col 149-150 break; ends with de- split across col 150-151 break
other: the word debuisse was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 151

PG 6:151

nasci, atque huic disputationi, partim interpellante Tryphone, partim sua sponte multa intexuit, ad eam, ut in uno et eodem colloquio promissam, ac nocte minime interruptam, ita a Tryphone revocatur. Sic enim Trypho, num. 77 : « Equidem tibi assentior satis inesse tot ac tantis rationibus ad persuadendum momenti : sed scias velim me a te Scripturam illam, quam saepe demonstraturum pollicitus es, reposcere. » Argumento est haec disserendi ratio noluisse Justinum accurate distinguere quid primo, quid secundo die disputatum sit, sed omnia una et eadem serie comprehendisse.

and wove many things into this disputation, partly as Trypho interrupted, partly of his own accord, he is recalled to it by Trypho as though promised in one and the same colloquy, and not at all interrupted by night. For thus says Trypho, num. 77: "I indeed assent to you that there is enough weight for persuading in so many and so great reasons: but I would have you know that I demand back from you that Scripture which you have often promised to demonstrate." This method of discoursing is a proof that Justin did not wish to distinguish accurately what was disputed on the first day and what on the second, but comprised all things in one and the same series.

4° Nonnulla occurrunt in posteriore Dialogi parte, quae frustra in priore quaerantur, quamvis pridie dicta fuerint. Ait Justinus, n. 85, se antea usum esse his Psalmi verbis : Laudate Dominum de coelis, et, n. 105, se demonstrasse animas post mortem manere. At ea alibi non leguntur. Sub finem Dialogi testatur Trypho Justinum dixisse se brevi soluturum. Haec autem suspicari non debemus ex locis inter num. 70 et 78 interjectis excidisse. Nihil enim hic vacui et hiulci esse demonstravimus. Sed minime mirum si nonnulla Justinus alio loco commemorat, quae suo non occurrerant memoriae scribentis. Sic etiam quod ait Justinus, n. 80, se antea confessum esse multos sibi eosque ex illo Christianorum genere, quod piam et puram sequitur sententiam, non assentiri de restitutione Jerosolymorum, id cum nusquam antea occurrat, nequaquam in librarios culpa rejicienda, sed laudanda potius est scriptoris diligentia, qui res in prima parte vel de industria omissas, vel memoriae elapsas apte in secunda commemorat.

4th, Some things occur in the latter part of the Dialogue which would be sought in vain in the former, although they were spoken on the day before. Justin says, num. 85, that he had previously used these words of the Psalm: Praise ye the Lord from the heavens (Ps. 148:1), and, num. 105, that he had demonstrated that souls remain after death. Yet those things are not read elsewhere. Towards the end of the Dialogue Trypho testifies that Justin had said that he would shortly set sail. Now we ought not to suspect that these things fell out from the passages interposed between num. 70 and 78. For we have demonstrated that there is nothing void and gaping here. Rather, it is not at all wonderful if Justin in another place mentions some things which had not occurred in their own place to the memory of the writer. Thus also as for what Justin says, num. 80, that he had previously confessed that many, and those of that class of Christians which follows a pious and pure opinion, did not agree with him concerning the restoration of Jerusalem, since this occurs nowhere previously, the fault is by no means to be cast upon the copyists, but rather the diligence of the writer is to be praised, who aptly mentions in the second part things either purposely omitted in the first part or slipped from his memory.

Idem fecisse Justinus in vero Dialogo videtur, ac in fictis Plato, qui Socratem decem de republica libros una serie devolventem inducit, nulla prorsus intermissionum, quas identidem fieri par erat, habita ratione. Utar alio exemplo quod magis appositum videtur. Dialogus de Vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi inter Palladium episcopum et Theodorum diaconum habitus, usque ad diem quartum productus fuit, ut patet ex p. 162, ubi Palladius nonnullos commemorat, de quibus se nudiustertius egisse testatur, οὗτοί εἰσι περὶ ὧν τρίτην ἡμέραν διηγησάμεθα. Ea tamen est Dialogi continuatio, ut quamvis intermissus et repetitus fuerit, nullo vestigio aut finem unius colloquii animadvertas aut initium sequentis.

Justin seems to have done the same thing in a real Dialogue as Plato in fictitious ones, who introduces Socrates unrolling ten books on the Republic in one series, with no account at all taken of the intermissions which it was natural should repeatedly take place. I shall use another example which seems more apposite. The Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom held between Bishop Palladius and the deacon Theodore was prolonged until the fourth day, as is clear from p. 162, where Palladius mentions some persons concerning whom he testifies that he had treated three days before, οὗτοί εἰσι περὶ ὧν τρίτην ἡμέραν διηγησάμεθα. Yet such is the continuation of the Dialogue that, although it was interrupted and resumed, by no trace can you perceive either the end of one colloquy or the beginning of the following.

CAPUT VIII.

Chapter VIII.

De secunda Apologia S. Justini.

On the Second Apology of St. Justin.

I. Persecutio sub Marco. II. Justini concertationes cum Crescente. III. De martyribus in secunda Apologia laudatis. IV. Hanc Marco Aurelio et Lucio Vero probatur oblatam fuisse.

I. Persecution under Marcus. II. Contests of Justin with Crescens. III. On the martyrs praised in the second Apology. IV. It is proved that this was presented to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.

I. Quo anno Romam reversus sit Justinus, statuere non possumus : minime dubium, quin hac in

I. In what year Justin returned to Rome we cannot determine: there is no doubt at all that he sojourned in this

Editors' notes and page, col. 151

Footnotes

(53) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 151 or 152 (above the rendered foot)

Psal. CXLVIII, 1.

Psalm 148:1.

(printed under page 82)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 151 or 152 (above the rendered foot)

Apol. n. 1.

Apology, no. 1.

(printed under page 82)

(55) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 151 or 152 (above the rendered foot)

Apol. 2, n. 1,

Second Apology, no. 1.

(printed under page 82)

Page

running head: 151 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A buisse nasci, atque; B esse his Psalmi; C potius est scriptoris; D μεθα. Ea tamen
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotation from Palladius; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (buisse nasci... CAPUT VIII...); begins with fragment buisse from debuisse split across col 150-151 break

PG 6:152

urbe commoratus sit, cum gravissima persecutio sub M. Aurelio grassaretur. Non jusserat praestantissimus princeps vexari Christianos; sed, ut observat Athenagoras, dum injuriam ab eis non propulsat, dum nullam partem in eos derivat paternae illius sollicitudinis, qua universos imperii Romani cives tuebatur, omnibus inimicorum injuriis expositi fuere, nec ullum ab illis abfuit damnorum et suppliciorum genus. Haec agendi ratio in optimo imperatore summum odium declarat Christianae religionis; nunquam enim suum illis patrocinium clausisset, si quid de illis aequi sensisset. Sed plus apud eum et nefaria philosophorum consilia, et Romanarum caeremoniarum amor, quam avi et patris exempla, et insita omnibus justitiae et aequitatis elementa valuerunt. Cum ergo omni ope destituti essent Christiani, gravissimae in eos undique exortae tempestates. Testatur Justinus ubique terrarum si quis ex gentilibus a Christiano patre aut vicino, aut filio aut amico aut fratre aut marito, aut uxore ob delictum reprehendatur, statim eum operam dare, ut censorem suum in judicium capitis arcessat. Si quis autem fateretur se esse Christianum, satis causae judices habebant, cur eum statim morte damnarent.

city when a most severe persecution was raging under Marcus Aurelius. The most excellent prince had not ordered the Christians to be harassed; but, as Athenagoras observes, while he does not ward off injury from them, while he diverts to them no part of that paternal solicitude wherewith he protected all the citizens of the Roman empire, they were exposed to all the injuries of their enemies, nor was any kind of losses and punishments absent from them. This manner of acting in the best of emperors declares a supreme hatred of the Christian religion; for he would never have closed his patronage to them if he had thought anything equitable concerning them. But both the nefarious counsels of the philosophers and the love of Roman ceremonies prevailed more with him than the examples of his grandfather and father and the elements of justice and equity implanted in all. Since therefore the Christians were destitute of all help, most severe storms arose against them from all sides. Justin testifies that everywhere in the world, if anyone of the Gentiles is reproved for a fault by a Christian father or neighbour, or son or friend or brother or husband or wife, he immediately takes pains to summon his censor to a capital trial. And if anyone confessed that he was a Christian, the judges had sufficient cause to condemn him immediately to death.

II. Nemini sane tristissimum tempus plus doloris afferre debuit, quam S. martyri Justino, tum ob eximium Ecclesiae amorem, quo totus videtur arsisse, tum quia cum pacem Ecclesiae ab Antonino pro sua virili parte impetrasset, labores suos a daemonibus everti videbat. Sed cum probe sciret Christianos, dum sic occiduntur, ab improbis dominis ad optimum patrem Deum proficisci, non dubitavit in medium discrimen sese conjicere, et ad confutandos philosophos, qui hujus incendii fax esse videbantur, omnem animi sui vim incitavit : Veritatem praedicans, gulae et fraudis illos arguebat, teste Tatiano, num. 19. Praecipue cum Cynico Crescente, homine omnibus vitiis notatissimo, gradum contulit multis audientibus, ejusque summam eorum, quae asseverabat, ignorationem aut eorum, quae sciebat, dissimulationem nemini dubiam reliquit, cum provideret, id quod usu evenit, superbissimum hominem acceptas plagas sanguine victoris expiaturum. Videtur latius manasse hujus colloquii fama; ac dubitat ipse Justinus annon etiam ad aures imperatoris pervenerit. Quod si minus ad eos disputatio perlata, paratum se esse significat rursus illis audientibus Crescenti quaestiones ponere. Sin autem eis cognitae interrogationes et responsiones, non dubitat quin Crescentem aut nihil Christianarum rerum scire, aut si sciat, ignavum eorum, quae scit, dissimulatorem esse intellexerint. Sic enim peragebatur Justinum inter et Crescentem concertatio : cum publice praedicaret Crescens atheos esse et impios Christianos, interrogabat eum Justinus : respondebat ille et responsiones ejus sic

II. Certainly to no one must that saddest time have brought more grief than to the holy martyr Justin, both on account of his eminent love for the Church, wherewith he seems to have burned wholly, and because after he had for his own part obtained peace for the Church from Antoninus, he saw his labours overturned by the demons. Yet since he knew full well that Christians, while they are thus slain, depart from wicked masters to the best Father, God, he did not hesitate to cast himself into the midst of danger, and stirred up all the force of his mind to confute the philosophers, who seemed to be the torch of this conflagration: Preaching the truth, he convicted them of gluttony and fraud, on the testimony of Tatian, num. 19. Especially with the Cynic Crescens, a man most notorious for all vices, did he come to close quarters while many listened, and left doubtful to no one his supreme ignorance of the things which he affirmed or his dissimulation of the things which he knew, while foreseeing, what actually happened, that the most arrogant man would expiate the blows he had received with the blood of his conqueror. The fame of this colloquy seems to have spread more widely; and Justin himself doubts whether it has not also reached the ears of the emperor. And if the disputation has not been reported to them, he signifies that he is ready again in their hearing to put questions to Crescens. But if the questions and answers are known to them, he does not doubt that they have understood Crescens either to know nothing of Christian matters, or, if he knows, to be a cowardly dissembler of the things which he knows. For thus was the contest between Justin and Crescens conducted: when Crescens publicly proclaimed that the Christians were atheists and impious, Justin questioned him; he replied, and his replies Justin so

Editors' notes and page, col. 152

Footnotes

(56) ‹anchor: animi sui vim incitavit› · call in col 152

Apol. 2, n. 3.

Second Apology, no. 3.

(printed under page 82)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 152
marginal letters: A urbe commoratus sit; B essent Christiani, gravissimae; C stianos, dum sic; D bitat ipse Justinus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (urbe commoratus...)

PG 6:153

refellebat Justinus, ut eum aut ignoratae aut dissimulatae Christianorum doctrinae crimine premeret. Hallucinati sunt qui Crescentem summae omnium rerum ignorationis convictum fuisse putant. Non enim de rebus inter philosophos agitari solitis controversia erat, sed de Christiana religione; nec Crescentem Justinus omnium rerum ignarum esse declarat, sed rerum nostrarum. Non una aut altera exstitit tantum Justino cum Crescente certandi occasio. Saepe iteratum praelium. Crescens insectari Justinum et Tatianum non desinebat. « Quosnam autem philosophorum, inquit Tatianus, num. 19, nisi nos solos insectari solebat? » Testatur Eusebius saepe in Dialogis victum a Justino multis audientibus Crescentem, πλεονάκις ἐν Διαλόγοις ἀκροατῶν παρόντων εὐθύνας αὐτόν. Hist., IV, 16.

refuted as to press him with the charge of either ignoring or dissembling the doctrine of the Christians. Those have erred who think that Crescens was convicted of a supreme ignorance of all things. For the controversy was not concerning things accustomed to be debated among philosophers, but concerning the Christian religion; nor does Justin declare Crescens to be ignorant of all things, but of our affairs. Not one or two occasions only did Justin have of contending with Crescens. The battle was often repeated. Crescens did not cease to pursue Justin and Tatian. "Now which of the philosophers," says Tatian, num. 19, "save us alone was he accustomed to pursue?" Eusebius testifies that Crescens was often vanquished in Dialogues by Justin while many listened, πλεονάκις ἐν Διαλόγοις ἀκροατῶν παρόντων εὐθύνας αὐτόν. History, IV, 16.

III. Praeter communem omnium Christianorum persecutionem, insigne quoddam crudelitatis specimen Romae editum est, quod Justino animos addidit, ut alteram Apologiam imperatori M. Aurelio offerret. Christiana mulier, cum virum haberet omnibus vitiis deditum, nihil intentatum reliquit, ut eum ad saniorem mentem revocaret. Sed cum nullam spem vitae melioris afferret, tandem illum uxor repudiat. Ille statim eam accusat, quod sit Christiana. At mulier ab imperatore impetrat, ut sibi liceat domui providere, antequam vadimonio respondeat. Tum maritus in Ptolemaeum, qui ipsius uxorem in Christiana religione erudierat, furorem suum convertit. Agit cum centurione, cui erat amicus, ut Ptolemaeum comprehendat, idque unum interroget an Christianus sit, et confitentem in carcerem includat. Morem ei gerit centurio. Ptolemaeus Christianum se esse profitetur, et in carcere diu afflictus, tandem coram Urbico praefecto sistitur; iterum confitetur, et morte damnatur. Tum cum ad supplicium duceretur, occurrit Lucius quidam et Urbico injustum judicium exprobrat. Tum praefectus ad eum : « Tu quoque ex hoc hominum genere esse mihi videris. » Lucius respondet : « Maxime; » ac simul cum Ptolemaeo jussu praefecti abripitur. Tertio cuidam supervenienti eadem poena irrogatur. Haec a S. martyre narrantur in secunda Apologia, quam quidem, etsi in editionibus Operum Justini prima collocatur, ita tamen constat posteriorem esse, ut ea de re otiosum sit disserere.

III. Besides the common persecution of all Christians, a certain notable specimen of cruelty was exhibited at Rome, which added courage to Justin to present a second Apology to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. A Christian woman, having a husband given over to all vices, left nothing untried in order to recall him to a sounder mind. But when he offered no hope of a better life, at length his wife repudiates him. He immediately accuses her of being a Christian. Yet the woman obtains from the emperor that she be permitted to set her house in order before answering to her bail. Then the husband turns his fury against Ptolemaeus, who had instructed his wife in the Christian religion. He arranges with a centurion, whose friend he was, that he should arrest Ptolemaeus, and ask him this one thing, whether he is a Christian, and upon his confessing it shut him up in prison. The centurion complies with him. Ptolemaeus professes that he is a Christian, and after being long afflicted in prison, is at length set before the prefect Urbicus; again he confesses, and is condemned to death. Then, as he was being led to execution, a certain Lucius meets him and reproaches Urbicus with the unjust judgement. Then says the prefect to him: "You also seem to me to be of this class of men." Lucius replies: "Most certainly;" and together with Ptolemaeus he is hurried away by order of the prefect. Upon a third man who came up the same penalty is inflicted. These things are related by the holy martyr in the second Apology, which indeed, although in the editions of the Works of Justin it is placed first, is nevertheless so well established to be later that it would be superfluous to discourse concerning that matter.

IV. Inscribitur senatui haec oratio; addi potuisset, ut in prima, et populo Romano. Ipse Justinus initio Romanos compellat; deinceps autem solos imperatores : ex quo colligi potest ad exemplum primae oblatam fuisse imperatoribus, ut libelli supplicis cognitores secum, quemadmodum in prima loquitur, asciscerent senatum populumque Romanum. Illud autem mirari subit, cur non postulet Justinus in hac Apologia, ut Christiani eodem sint jure ac reliqui homines; cur non imperatoribus objiciat Antonini litteras in gratiam Christianorum.

IV. This address is inscribed to the senate; there could have been added, as in the first, and to the Roman people. Justin himself at the beginning addresses the Romans, but thereafter only the emperors: from which it can be gathered that after the example of the first it was presented to the emperors, so that they might admit the senate and Roman people together with themselves as judges of the suppliant petition, just as he speaks in the first. Yet it occurs to one to wonder why Justin does not demand in this Apology that Christians be under the same law as the rest of men; why he does not set before the emperors the letter of Antoninus in favour of the Christians.

Editors' notes and page, col. 153

Footnotes

(57) ‹anchor: saniorem mentem revocaret› · call in col 153

Apol. 2, n. 2.

Second Apology, no. 2.

(printed under page 83)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 153 or 154 (above the rendered foot)

N. 14 et 15

Nos. 14 and 15.

(printed under page 83)

Page

running head: 153 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A refellebat Justinus, ut; B όντων εὐθύνας αὐτόν.; C cus, ut Ptolemaeum; D locatur, ita tamen
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotation from Eusebius; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (refellebat Justinus...)

PG 6:154

Ita enim se gesserat in prima Apologia. Non tam mihi videtur haec omisisse Justinus, quod Marcum primae Apologiae memorem esse crederet, nec egere ut haec ei in memoriam revocentur, quam quod malevolum illius animum molliter tractandum esse duceret, nec Antonini legum et exemplorum, a quibus prudens et sciens discedebat, commemoratione laedendum. Itaque sic cum eo agit, quasi nulla illius culpa, nullo mandato persecutio saeviret. Hoc unum petit ab imperatoribus, ut supplicem hunc libellum auctoritate sua comprobent; tunc enim fore ut eum omnibus ostendat : quippe cum id propositum sibi fuerit, ut qui Christianos non norunt, nec tamen eos vexando excusabiles sunt, ab hac bonarum rerum ignoratione liberari possint, et perniciem, quam sibimetipsis inferunt, effugere. Dubitari possit annon petat Justinus, ut scripto aliquo ad judices misso libellus supplex promulgetur. Hanc enim in sententiam accipi possunt haec verba, προθεῖναι τουτὶ τὸ βιβλίδιον, ἐὰν τοῦτο προγράφητε. Sed videtur Justinus ipse mentem suam aperire; promulgandi libelli rationem exponit his verbis, ὑπογράψαντας τὸ ὑμῖν δοκοῦν, subscribentes quod vobis placet. Si libellum hoc modo promulgent, ipse illum omnibus ostendet. Ἐὰν δὲ ὑμεῖς τοῦτο προγράψητε, ἡμεῖς τοῖς πᾶσι φανερὸν ποιήσαιμεν. « Si illum promulgetis [subscribentes quod vobis placet], omnium illum oculis exponemus. »

For thus had he conducted himself in the first Apology. Justin seems to me to have omitted these things not so much because he believed Marcus to be mindful of the first Apology, and not to need that these things should be recalled to his memory, as because he deemed that his ill-disposed mind ought to be gently handled, and not offended by the mention of the laws and examples of Antoninus, from which he was knowingly and wittingly departing. Accordingly he deals with him as though the persecution were raging through no fault of his, by no command of his. This one thing he asks of the emperors, that they approve this suppliant petition by their authority; for then he will show it to all: inasmuch as this was his purpose, that those who do not know the Christians, and yet are not excusable in harassing them, may be freed from this ignorance of good things, and escape the ruin which they bring upon themselves. It might be doubted whether Justin is not asking that the suppliant petition be promulgated by some writing sent to the judges. For in this sense can these words be taken, προθεῖναι τουτὶ τὸ βιβλίδιον, ἐὰν τοῦτο προγράφητε. Yet Justin himself seems to lay open his own mind; he sets forth the manner of promulgating the petition in these words, ὑπογράψαντας τὸ ὑμῖν δοκοῦν, subscribing what pleases you. If they promulgate the petition in this manner, he himself will show it to all. Ἐὰν δὲ ὑμεῖς τοῦτο προγράψητε, ἡμεῖς τοῖς πᾶσι φανερὸν ποιήσαιμεν. "If you promulgate it [subscribing what pleases you], we will expose it to the eyes of all."

Utri autem oblata sit imperatori, Antonino an M. Aurelio, id in controversiam eruditorum nonnulli vocarunt. Valesius Antonino oblatam fuisse contendit; cujus opinionis tenendae necessitatem sibi imponunt, qui Justinum sub Antonino passum esse volunt. Papebrochius ad 13 April., cui praeiverat Scaliger in not. ad Chron. Euseb., p. 219, fatetur Justinum obtulisse M. Aurelio Apologiam, sed eam hodie negat exstare; illam autem, quae nunc in manibus est nihil aliud esse quam praefationem a Justino praefixam majori Apologiae, quam obtulit Antonino.

Now to which emperor it was presented, Antoninus or Marcus Aurelius, some learned men have called into controversy. Valesius contends that it was presented to Antoninus; the necessity of holding which opinion those impose upon themselves who will have it that Justin suffered under Antoninus. Papebroch at the 13th of April, whom Scaliger had preceded in his notes on the Chronicle of Eusebius, p. 219, confesses that Justin presented an Apology to Marcus Aurelius, but denies that it is extant today; and says that that which is now in our hands is nothing else than a preface prefixed by Justin to the greater Apology which he presented to Antoninus.

Ruunt haec opinionum commenta cum Eusebii testimonio, qui diserte declarat Justinum apud imperatorem M. Aurelium Ecclesiae causam egisse, et ex illa Apologia ea citat, quae in hac nostra legimus; tum etiam interioribus judicandi notis quae ex ipsa oratione ducuntur. Nam 1° Justinus in hac secunda Apologia multa tangit, quae jam alias sese indicat pertractasse, has voces intexens, ὡς προέφημεν, ut jam diximus, velut cum de Christi Incarnatione loquitur, n. 6, aut de Heraclito, n. 8, aut de mundi propter homines creatione, n. 4. Quod si haec Apologia quaedam veluti praefatio majoris fuit, dicere debuit Justinus, ut modo dicemus, nequaquam autem, ut jam diximus. Cur autem primam Apologiam citans Justinus his tantum vocibus utatur, ut jam diximus, nec nominatim appellat opus in quo haec pertractaverat, id causae exstitit :

These figments of opinions collapse both by the testimony of Eusebius, who expressly declares that Justin pleaded the cause of the Church before the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and cites from that Apology the things which we read in this one of ours; and also by the internal marks of judgement which are drawn from the address itself. For 1st, Justin in this second Apology touches upon many things which he indicates that he has already treated of elsewhere, weaving in these words, ὡς προέφημεν, as we have already said, as when he speaks of the Incarnation of Christ, num. 6, or of Heraclitus, num. 8, or of the creation of the world for the sake of men, num. 4. Now if this Apology had been a sort of preface to the greater one, Justin ought to have said, as we shall presently say, and by no means, as we have already said. And as for why Justin in citing the first Apology uses only these words, as we have already said, and does not call by name the work in which he had treated of these things, this was the reason:

Editors' notes and page, col. 154

Footnotes

(78) ‹anchor: persecutio saeviret› · call in col 154

N. 14 et 15

Nos. 14 and 15.

(printed under page 83)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 154
marginal letters: A Ita enim se; B perniciem, quam sibimetipsis; C Aurelio, id in; D mus; tum etiam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotations from Justin Apol. 2; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Ita enim se...)

PG 6:155

Apologia prima in silentio et oblivione non jacebat, sed in tabulariis publicis deposita erat ac hominum mentibus haerebat, praesertim imperatoris Marci Aurelii, quem latere non poterat Antoninum Justino benigne et liberaliter annuisse. Eadem de causa nomen suum brevi Apologiae non inscripsit, cum id in majore non omisisset; quia scilicet notus erat tum ex ipso illo opere, quod tam optatos habuerat successus, tum ex fama, quam ipse sibi inter philosophos eruditis disputationibus pepererat.

The first Apology did not lie in silence and oblivion, but had been deposited in the public archives and clung to the minds of men, especially of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, from whom it could not be hidden that Antoninus had kindly and liberally granted Justin's request. For the same reason he did not inscribe his name upon the brief Apology, whereas he had not omitted it in the greater one; namely because he was known both from that work itself, which had had such wished-for success, and from the fame which he himself had won for himself among the philosophers by his learned disputations.

2° Cum brevem Apologiam offerret Justinus, jam tum Crescentis in eum odia fervebant; diem ex die exspectabat, ut a Crescente in judicium capitis vocaretur, n. 4, nec sua illum decepit exspectatio, teste Eusebio, lib. IV, c. 16. Quare ab hac Apologia ad Justini mortem non tantum temporis, quantum a prima, quam multae res gestae Justini consecutae sunt, effluere potuit.

2nd, When Justin presented the brief Apology, the hatred of Crescens against him was already boiling at that time; day after day he was expecting to be summoned by Crescens to a capital trial, num. 4, nor did his expectation deceive him, on the testimony of Eusebius, book IV, ch. 16. Wherefore not so much time could elapse from this Apology to the death of Justin as from the first, which many deeds of Justin followed.

3° Si utraque Apologia distinctum ac diversum opus, ut ex allatis rationum momentis patet, necesse est alteram sub Antonino, alteram sub M. Aurelio scriptam fateamur. Neque enim verisimile fit missum ab Antonino in omnes provincias aequissimum edictum ita Romae sub ejusdem imperatoris oculis spretum et violatum fuisse, ut novam Apologiam Justinus offerre cogeretur.

3rd, If each Apology is a distinct and different work, as is clear from the weight of the reasons adduced, it is necessary that we confess the one to have been written under Antoninus, the other under Marcus Aurelius. For neither does it become probable that the most equitable edict sent by Antoninus into all the provinces was so despised and violated at Rome under the eyes of the same emperor that Justin was compelled to present a new Apology.

4° Manifestum est inter utramque Apologiam ut materiae, ita etiam temporum discrimen. Plus enim doloris et animi Justinus in secunda significat, quam in prima, id quod ex utriusque exordio satis apparet. Crudeliora commemorat in Christianos facinora; et cum in prima dixisset, nullum ex Christianis confessum esse de criminibus huic nomini affictis, sed si quis ob scelus damnatus sit, non ut Christianum condemnatum esse; narrat in secunda gentiles tanto furore arsisse, ut Christianorum servos aut pueros aut mulierculas gravissimis cruciatibus fabulosa illa crimina cogerent confiteri. Tam inimica Christianis tempora non Antonini qui illis favit, sed M. Aurelii imperium redolent, qui ne maximo quidem beneficio provocatus aequum se illis praebuit.

4th, Manifest between the two Apologies is the difference as of subject matter, so also of times. For Justin signifies more grief and spirit in the second than in the first, which appears sufficiently from the exordium of each. He recounts more cruel deeds against the Christians; and whereas in the first he had said that no one of the Christians had confessed concerning the crimes fastened upon this name, but that if anyone was condemned on account of a crime, he was not condemned as a Christian; he relates in the second that the Gentiles burned with such great fury that by the most severe tortures they compelled the slaves or boys or weak women of the Christians to confess those fabulous crimes. Times so hostile to the Christians savour not of the rule of Antoninus, who favoured them, but of that of Marcus Aurelius, who not even when challenged by the greatest benefit showed himself equitable to them.

Lucius imperator, Marci collega, eodem modo in hac Apologia designatur ac in prima. Sic enim Lucius martyr alloquitur Urbicum : « Non ut decet Pium imperatorem, non ut philosophum Caesaris filium, non ut sacrosanctum senatum, judicas, Urbice. » Si his in verbis non possumus Lucium non agnoscere; in titulo Pii, qui alteri imperatori tribuitur, non Antoninus agnoscendus est, sed Marcus, cui etsi nondum senatus hujus nominis honorem decreverat, mirum tamen aut incommodum videri non debet, si ei a privatis hominibus, quales erant Lucius et Justinus, defertur.

The Emperor Lucius, colleague of Marcus, is designated in the same manner in this Apology as in the first. For thus the martyr Lucius addresses Urbicus: "Not as befits the Emperor Pius, not as befits the philosopher the son of Caesar, not as befits the sacrosanct senate, do you judge, Urbicus." If in these words we cannot fail to recognize Lucius, in the title of Pius, which is attributed to the other emperor, not Antoninus is to be recognized, but Marcus, to whom although the senate had not yet decreed the honour of this name, yet it ought not to seem wonderful or unsuitable if it is given to him by private men, such as Lucius and Justin were.

Unus compellatur imperator in hac Apol., ubi de muliere in judicium a marito vocata dicitur : « Atque illa quidem libello tibi, imperator, oblato

One emperor is addressed in this Apology where concerning the woman summoned to judgement by her husband it is said: "And she indeed, having presented a petition to you, Emperor,

Editors' notes and page, col. 155

Footnotes

(59) ‹anchor: cum in prima› · call in col 155

N. 2, 7, 8.

Nos. 2, 7, 8.

(printed under page 84)

(60) ‹anchor: narrat in secunda› · call in col 155

N. 12.

No. 12.

(printed under page 84)

Page

running head: 155 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A Apologia prima in; B ad Justini mortem; C ret. Crudeliora commemorat; D cius martyr alloquitur
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Apologia prima...)

PG 6:156

postulavit, ut sibi prius domui suae prospicere liceret.... Atque id quidem annuisti. » Inde Valesius hanc Apologiam Antonino oblatam colligit : at prorsus immerito. Nam Justinus, n. 3, 14 et 15, plures compellat, ut regia potestate praeditos. Sic etiam in Actis S. Justini praefectus dicit Justino, n. 1 : « Primo diis crede et imperatoribus obsequere. » At idem unum commemorat, dum sententiam capitalem profert : « Qui diis sacrificare et imperatoris praecepto parere noluerunt, flagello caesi ad capitalem poenam abducantur. » Videntur ergo nunc unus, nunc plures nominari imperatores soliti fuisse; nec proinde necesse est cum Tillemontio hanc Apologiam aut ante Lucii reditum ex Oriente aut post illius mortem oblatam suspicari.

requested that she might first be permitted to look after her own house.... And this indeed you granted." Thence Valesius gathers that this Apology was presented to Antoninus: yet altogether undeservedly. For Justin, num. 3, 14, and 15, addresses several as endowed with royal power. Thus also in the Acts of St. Justin the prefect says to Justin, num. 1: "First believe in the gods and obey the emperors." Yet the same man mentions one while pronouncing the capital sentence: "Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the command of the emperor be scourged and led away to capital punishment." Therefore now one emperor, now several seem to have been accustomed to be named; nor accordingly is it necessary with Tillemont to suspect that this Apology was presented either before the return of Lucius from the East or after his death.

Aliud argumentum repetit Valesius ex Urbici nomine, quem sub Antonino praefectum Urbis fuisse ex Apologia Apuleii Antonino oblata contendit. At praeterquam quod is, qui memoratos Justini Apologia martyres damnavit, praetorii praefectus esse potuit; nihil vetat eumdem Urbis praefectum fuisse sub Antonino et Marco. Apologia Apuleii, ut observat Tillemontius, sub Marco potius scripta quam sub Antonino, quem divum appellat.

Another argument Valesius draws from the name of Urbicus, whom he contends to have been Prefect of the City under Antoninus from the Apology of Apuleius presented to Antoninus. Yet besides the fact that he who condemned the martyrs mentioned in the Apology of Justin could have been Praetorian Prefect, nothing forbids the same man to have been Prefect of the City under Antoninus and Marcus. The Apology of Apuleius, as Tillemont observes, was written under Marcus rather than under Antoninus, whom he calls deified.

CAPUT IX.

Chapter IX.

De Justini martyrio.

On the Martyrdom of Justin.

I. De Justini in oppugnandis philosophis constantia. II. Praedicit eos sibi insidiaturos, idque evenit. III. De tempore et Actis martyrii.

I. On the constancy of Justin in attacking the philosophers. II. He foretells that they will lay snares for him, and this happens. III. On the time and Acts of his martyrdom.

I. Nihil Justino optatius evenire poterat, quam post tot labores et pericula vitam ipsam pro Christo profundere. Illum constantia Christianorum in cruciatibus perferendis magna ex parte permoverat ad amplectendam religionem Christianam, eique persuaserat eos insontes et puros esse a criminibus, quae illis affingebantur. In defendenda religione saepissime hoc argumento utitur, nempe Christianorum in cruciatibus perferendis constantia, ut discrimen novae ac veteris legis ostendat, et testamentum, quod olim Deus promiserat, impletum et omnibus conspicuum esse demonstret. Uno verbo tota Justini vita meditatio quaedam exstitit martyrii. Nullam docendae veritatis occasionem praetermittebat, semper sperans bonam se terram inventurum, ac Dei judicium metuens, si per ipsum stetisset, quominus aliquis ad veritatis cognitionem perveniret. Neminem reveritus, etiamsi e vestigio discerpi oportuisset, unum id studio habebat, ut verum in omnibus diceret. Cum Apologiam offerret pro fratribus, atque audacter peteret ut ad Acta deponeretur; praeter periculum, quod illi ab hac egregia actione imminebat, in aliud se ipse conjiciebat, Samaritanos, quae gens improba erat et ad omne facinus parata, palam et aperte incusando, quod homini mago summi Dei titulum et honorem deferrent.

I. Nothing more desirable could happen to Justin than after so many labours and dangers to pour forth his life itself for Christ. The constancy of the Christians in enduring tortures had in great part moved him to embrace the Christian religion, and had persuaded him that they were innocent and pure from the crimes which were fastened upon them. In defending religion he very often uses this argument, namely the constancy of the Christians in enduring tortures, in order to show the difference between the new and the old law, and to demonstrate that the covenant which God had promised of old was fulfilled and conspicuous to all. In a word, the whole life of Justin was a sort of meditation on martyrdom. He let slip no occasion of teaching the truth, always hoping that he would find good ground, and fearing the judgement of God if it should be owing to him that anyone failed to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. Fearing no one, even if he must be torn in pieces on the spot, he had this one thing as his study, that he should speak the truth in all things. When he presented his Apology on behalf of the brethren, and boldly asked that it be deposited among the Acts, besides the danger which threatened him from this noble action, he cast himself into another, by openly and publicly accusing the Samaritans, which nation was wicked and ready for every crime, because they gave the title and honour of the supreme God to a magician.

Sed haud scio an impavidi animi maximum specimen

Yet I know not whether the greatest specimen of a fearless mind

Editors' notes and page, col. 156

Footnotes

(61) ‹anchor: In defendenda religione› · call in col 156

Apol. 2, n. 12.

Second Apology, no. 12.

(printed under page 84)

(62) ‹anchor: titulum et honorem deferrent› · call in col 156

Dialog. n. 120.

Dialogue, no. 120.

(printed under page 84)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 156
marginal letters: A postulavit, ut sibi; B Aliud argumentum repetit; C I. Nihil Justino; D terram inventurum, ac
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (postulavit, ut sibi... CAPUT IX...); ends with spe- split across col 156-157 break
other: the word specimen was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 157

PG 6:157

ediderit Justinus, cum philosophos adortus est. Hi cum imperatoris animum in Christianos incenderent, ac philosophiae nomine et virtutum simulacris auctoritatem iniquissimis criminationibus conciliarent; detraxit illis pellem Justinus ac introrsum turpissimos, fraudique et gulae deditos esse demonstravit. Itaque eo tempore, quo per totum orbem quisquis a Christiano reprehensus ob delicta fuerat, incommodum monitorem perfacile, nomine illius deferendo, tollebat, exspectandum fuit Justino ut ab eorum, quos reprehenderat, aliquo in judicium vocaretur. Sic ipse mentem suam aperit, Apol. 2, num. 3 : « Ego etiam exspecto, ut ab eorum quos dixi aliquo insidiis appetar et ad stipitem affigar, aut certe ab illo strepitus et ostentationis amatore Crescente. »

was not given by Justin when he attacked the philosophers. When these men were inflaming the mind of the emperor against the Christians, and procuring authority for the most iniquitous accusations by the name of philosophy and the semblances of virtues, Justin stripped off their skin and demonstrated that inwardly they were most base, and given over to fraud and gluttony. Accordingly, at that time when throughout the whole world whoever had been reproved for his faults by a Christian very easily removed his troublesome monitor by denouncing his name, Justin had to expect that he would be summoned to judgement by someone of those whom he had reproved. Thus he himself lays open his mind, Apology 2, num. 3: "I also expect that by someone of those whom I have mentioned I shall be attacked by snares and fixed to the stake, or at least by that lover of noise and ostentation, Crescens."

II. Ex variis suppliciis, quae Christianis infligi solebant, unum aliquod Justinus, stipite, designat, ut generatim indicet se inimicorum insidiis vitam amissurum. Sic Tertullianus varia supplicia uno appellato, nimirum igne, comprehendit : « Caeterum, inquit, si ex conscientia, qua scimus Dei nomen et Domini et Patri et Filio et Spiritui convenire, deos et dominos nominaremus, exstinxissemus faces nostras etiam ad martyria timidiores, quibus evadendi quoque pateret occasio jurantibus statim per deos et dominos, ut quidam haeretici, quorum dii plures. » Idem hoc loco factum a Justino; martyrium a se exspectari significat, ac unum aut alterum de multis supplicium nominat. Solebant enim ad stipitem alligari et qui igne, ut in adnotatione ad hunc locum observavi, comburendi erant, et qui bestiis tradebantur. Unde Tertullianus, lib. De pudic., c. 22, sic loquitur : « Puta nunc sub gladio, capite librato; puta in patibulo, jam capite expanso; puta in stipite, jam leone concesso; puta in axe, jam incendio astructo; in ipsa dico securitate et possessione martyrii, quis permittit homini donare quae Deo reservanda sunt? » In ipsa axe alligabantur ad stipitem qui comburendi erant, ut ex alio Tertulliani testimonio, quod in adnotatione retuli, manifestum est. Vid. Act. S. Polycarpi, n. 14, et S. Philippi Heracl., n. 13. Justini verba haud aliter intellexit Eusebius, qui ut probet id quod providerat Justinus ita evenisse ut praedixerat, martyrio illum coronatum fuisse asseverat, et Tatiani testimonio utitur, qui hoc tantum dicit, mortem Justino Crescentem machinatum fuisse. Ex quo patet his verbis, τῷ ξύλῳ ἐμπαγῆναι, mortem certissime designari, non flagella tantum aut nervum; ac supplicii genus exempli causa nominari, ut martyrium generatim significetur.

II. Out of the various punishments which were accustomed to be inflicted upon the Christians, Justin designates some one, by the stake, in order to indicate in general that he would lose his life through the snares of his enemies. Thus Tertullian comprises various punishments by naming one, namely fire: "For the rest," he says, "if from the consciousness whereby we know that the name of God and of Lord belongs to the Father and to the Son and to the Spirit, we named gods and lords, we should have extinguished our torches, being more timid also towards martyrdoms, when an opportunity of escaping too would lie open to us by swearing immediately by the gods and lords, like certain heretics whose gods are many." The same thing is done in this place by Justin; he signifies that martyrdom is expected by him, and names one or another punishment out of many. For both those who were to be burned with fire, as I have observed in the note on this passage, and those who were delivered to the beasts were accustomed to be bound to a stake. Whence Tertullian, book On Modesty, ch. 22, speaks thus: "Suppose him now under the sword, with his head poised; suppose him on the gibbet, with his head already stretched out; suppose him at the stake, with the lion already let loose; suppose him on the axle, with the fire already piled up; in the very security, I say, and possession of martyrdom, who permits a man to forgive the things which are to be reserved to God?" On the axle itself those who were to be burned were bound to a stake, as is manifest from another testimony of Tertullian which I have reported in the note. See Acts of St. Polycarp, num. 14, and of St. Philip of Heraclea, num. 13. Not otherwise did Eusebius understand the words of Justin, who in order to prove that what Justin had foreseen happened just as he had foretold, affirms that he was crowned with martyrdom, and uses the testimony of Tatian, who says this only, that Crescens contrived death for Justin. From which it is clear that by these words, τῷ ξύλῳ ἐμπαγῆναι, to be fixed to the wood, death is most certainly designated, not scourges only or the stocks; and that a kind of punishment is named by way of example, so that martyrdom in general may be signified.

Marcum Aurelium recenset Tertullianus, Apol., c. 5, inter eos imperatores, a quibus leges adversus Christianos sancitae non fuerunt. Sed tamen videtur aut secreta judicibus dedisse mandata, ut

Tertullian reckons Marcus Aurelius, Apology, ch. 5, among those emperors by whom laws were not enacted against the Christians. Nevertheless, he seems either to have given secret orders to the judges that

Editors' notes and page, col. 157

Footnotes

(63) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 157 or 158 (above the rendered foot)

Tat., n. 19.

Tatian, no. 19.

(printed under page 85)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 157 or 158 (above the rendered foot)

Apol. 2, n. 1.

Second Apology, no. 1.

(printed under page 85)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 157 or 158 (above the rendered foot)

Adv. Prax., c. 13.

Against Praxeas, ch. 13.

(printed under page 85)

(66) ‹anchor: intellexit Eusebius› · call in col 157

Lib. IV, c. 16.

Book 4, ch. 16.

(printed under page 85)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 157 or 158 (above the rendered foot)

Act. n. 1.

Acts, no. 1.

(printed under page 85)

(68) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 157 or 158 (above the rendered foot)

N. 4

No. 4.

(printed under page 85)

Page

running head: 157 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A cimen ediderit Justinus; B tationis amatore Crescente.; C unum aut alterum; D ut probet id
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek phrase; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (cimen ediderit...); begins with fragment cimen from specimen split across col 156-157 break

PG 6:158

Christianos sacrificare cogerent, aut saltem judices gratum se illi facturos sperasse, si se ab eo haec mandata habere dicerent. Sic enim Rusticus praefectus Justino dicebat : Πρῶτον πείσθητι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ὑπάκουσον τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν· « Primo diis crede et imperatoribus obsequere. » Postquam se in Justino et sociis ejus operam ludere animadvertit, praecepit ut qui diis sacrificare, et imperatoris praecepto, τῷ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος προστάγματι, parere noluerant, ad capitale supplicium abducerentur.

they should compel the Christians to sacrifice, or at least the judges seem to have hoped that they would do what was pleasing to him if they said that they had these orders from him. For thus the prefect Rusticus said to Justin: Πρῶτον πείσθητι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ὑπάκουσον τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν· "First believe in the gods and obey the emperors." After he perceived that he was wasting his labour upon Justin and his companions, he commanded that those who had refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the command of the emperor, τῷ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος προστάγματι, should be led away to capital punishment.

Sub tam infenso Christianis imperatore satis erat Christiani nomen deferre, ut statim necaretur, si se confiteretur esse Christianum. Videtur tamen Crescens in occidendo Justino plus negotii habuisse, quam si unum e multis aggressus fuisset. Machinationem enim quamdam et occultas molitiones indicat Tatianus, dum ait Crescentem « Justino mortem instar ingentis mali machinatum fuisse, » ὡς καὶ Ἰουστῖνον καθάπερ μεγάλῳ κακῷ τῷ θανάτῳ περιβαλεῖν πραγματεύσασθαι. Forte virtutis et eruditionis fama aliquid gratiae Justino conciliaverat, et imperatoris ac judicum animos ad tantum virum, quem Christianum esse non ignorabant, e medio tollendum tardiores faciebat.

Under an emperor so hostile to the Christians it was enough to denounce the name of a Christian for him to be immediately put to death if he confessed that he was a Christian. Nevertheless Crescens seems to have had more trouble in killing Justin than if he had attacked one of the multitude. For Tatian indicates a certain plot and secret contrivances when he says that Crescens "contrived death for Justin as a great evil," ὡς καὶ Ἰουστῖνον καθάπερ μεγάλῳ κακῷ τῷ θανάτῳ περιβαλεῖν πραγματεύσασθαι. Perhaps the fame of his virtue and learning had won some favour for Justin, and rendered the minds of the emperor and judges slower to remove from their midst so great a man, whom they were not ignorant to be a Christian.

III. Testatur Eusebius martyrium Justini secundam Apologiam proximo intervallo subsecutum esse. Ait enim illum in hac Apologia praedixisse exitum vitae suae prout erat ipsi propediem eventurus, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἔμελλεν ὅσον οὔπω περὶ αὐτὸν συμβήσεσθαι. Passum Justinum circa annum 168 existimat Tillemontius, quia Eusebius illius martyrium refert post S. Polycarpi passionem, quam multa rationum momenta ad annum 166 referre cogunt, et ante Aniceti mortem, quam ipse Eusebius ad annum 168 referendam duxit. Eo libentius assentior erudito viro, quod illius sententia cum tota rerum a Justino gestarum serie praeclare quadrat.

III. Eusebius testifies that the martyrdom of Justin followed the second Apology after a very brief interval. For he says that in this Apology he foretold the end of his life just as it was shortly about to happen to him, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἔμελλεν ὅσον οὔπω περὶ αὐτὸν συμβήσεσθαι. Tillemont considers that Justin suffered about the year 168, because Eusebius relates his martyrdom after the passion of St. Polycarp, which many weighty reasons compel us to refer to the year 166, and before the death of Anicetus, which Eusebius himself thought should be referred to the year 168. All the more gladly do I assent to the learned man because his opinion squares admirably with the whole series of things done by Justin.

Acta martyrii S. Justini ejusque sociorum inter ea numerantur ab eruditis, quae maxime sincera ac pura sunt. Si excipias quatuor priores lineas, quae instar praefationis additae fuerunt, nullum reperies manus audacioris facinus. Ex his nonnulla translata in Menaeum Graecorum, sed penitus rejiciendi tres versus, qui inepte in contextum Menaei irrepserunt :

The Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Justin and his companions are numbered by the learned among those which are most genuine and pure. If you except the first four lines, which were added by way of preface, you will find no work of a bolder hand. From these Acts some things were transferred into the Menaeum of the Greeks, but utterly to be rejected are three verses which absurdly crept into the text of the Menaeum:

ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΝ ΚΩΝΕΙΟΝ ΗΡΕΝ ΕΚ ΒΊΟΥ· ΩΣ ΕΙΘΕ ΠΡΩΤΟΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΙΕΙΝ ΔΕΔΩΚΟΤΑΣ. ΠΡΩΤΗ ΙΟΥΝΙΟΥ ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΝ ΕΛΛΕΒΟΡΙΖΕΙ.

Hemlock took Justin out of life: O would that it had first taken those who gave it to him to drink! The first of June doses Justin with hellebore.

CICUTA MORTEM SAEVA JUSTINO ATTULIT. O SI EBIBISSENT, QUI PRAEBUERUNT, PRIUS. JUSTINUM JUNI PERSANAVERE KALENDAE.

Cruel hemlock brought death to Justin. O if those who offered it had drunk it up first! The Kalends of June thoroughly cured Justin.

Hos versus ita reddidit Halloixius, sed accuratius ultimum versum reddemus, si illud ἐλλεβορίζει interpretemur veneno occidit. Justinum Juni elleboro occidere Kalendae. Vituperandus profecto

Thus did Halloix render these verses, but we shall render the last verse more accurately if we translate that word ἐλλεβορίζει as kills with poison: The Kalends of June killed Justin with hellebore. To be blamed assuredly is he

Editors' notes and page, col. 158

Footnotes

(69) ‹anchor: ita reddidit Halloixius› · call in col 158

Vit. S. Just., p. 188.

Life of St Justin, p. 188.

(printed under page 85)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 158
marginal letters: A Christianos sacrificare cogerent; B Crescens in occidendo; C turus, ὥσπερ οὖν; D lata in Menaeum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotations and three Greek verses from Menaeum; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Christianos sacrificare...)

PG 6:159

qui in contextum omnibus suis partibus praeclare absolutum ineptissimos illos versus inseruit, et splendidissimo Justini martyrio probrum ausus est aspergere. Nam quidquid in Menaeo de Justino ejusque sociis dicitur, mirifice cum Actis martyrii consentit, exceptis illis versibus. Justino autem non jam honor habendus esset, ut martyri, si venenum sponte sumpsisset, sed ut sui homicidae dedecus inurendum esset; aut si clam veneno sublatus foret : non tantum habuisset martyrii splendorem, quantum tota antiquitas praedicavit. Haud dubium ergo quin tres illi versus hominis absurdi facinus exstiterint.

who inserted those most absurd verses into a text admirably complete in all its parts, and dared to cast a reproach upon the most splendid martyrdom of Justin. For whatever is said in the Menaeum concerning Justin and his companions agrees wonderfully with the Acts of his Martyrdom, except those verses. Now honour ought no longer to be paid to Justin as a martyr if he had taken poison of his own accord, but disgrace ought to be branded upon him as his own murderer; or if he had been secretly removed by poison, he would not have had such great splendour of martyrdom as all antiquity proclaimed. There is no doubt therefore that those three verses were the work of an absurd man.

Conatus est huic incommodo mederi Halloixius, ac cicutam, quae Justinum sustulit, venenum invidiae esse existimavit, quae Crescentem ad necem Justino moliendam impulit. Sed hanc interpretationem non patitur versus ille secundus : O si ebibissent, qui praebuerunt, prius!

Halloix endeavoured to remedy this difficulty, and considered that the hemlock which took off Justin was the poison of envy, which impelled Crescens to contrive death for Justin. Yet that second verse does not admit this interpretation: O if those who offered it had drunk it up first!

Ex hoc de Justini morte commento nata est occasio duos Justinos fingendi, alterum philosophum et eximium scriptorem, eumque veneno sublatum : alterum cum sociis Charitone, Charitina, Paeone, Liberiano (legitur Valeriano in Menaeo), Evelpisto et Hierace passum. Sed huic opinioni ipsa Acta, in quibus Justinus in omni disciplinarum genere exercitatus fuisse, discipulos habere, cum omnibus adeuntibus doctrinam veritatis communicare, ac bis Romam venisse dicitur, ita reclamant, ut eam non magis libeat data opera refellere, quam quod Aponius scriptor saeculi septimi de Justino dixit, eum a philosophis occisum, cum callide in secreto vocatus ab eis fuisset.

From this fiction concerning the death of Justin arose the occasion of inventing two Justins, the one a philosopher and eminent writer, and removed by poison; the other having suffered with his companions Charito, Charitina, Paeon, Liberianus (Valerianus is read in the Menaeum), Euelpistus, and Hierax. But against this opinion the Acts themselves, in which Justin is said to have been trained in every kind of learning, to have disciples, to communicate the doctrine of the truth to all who came to him, and to have come twice to Rome, protest so strongly that one is no more inclined to refute it on purpose than what Aponius, a writer of the seventh century, said concerning Justin, that he was killed by the philosophers when he had been cunningly called by them in secret.

Magna jam ex parte explicata et soluta videntur, quae adversus haec Acta objici possint, nimirum quod unus memoratur imperator, quamvis duo Romanum imperium tunc regerent; quod edictum in Christianos dedisse dicitur, quamvis nullum Marcus tulisse perhibeatur; quod Iconium in Phrygia collocatur. Duabus primis difficultatibus jam occurri. Quod spectat ad tertiam, non desunt qui pro Phrygia Pisidiam (sic enim apud Basilium, ep. 138, Iconium Pisidiae civitas dicitur), aut pro Iconio Lycaoniam reponant. Atque haec responsio aequis rerum aestimatoribus satisfacere deberet, etiamsi non aliunde constaret ejusmodi in designando urbium situ errata saepe ex notis margini appositis in contextum obrepsisse.

In great part the things which might be objected against these Acts seem already explained and resolved, namely that one emperor is mentioned, although two then ruled the Roman empire; that he is said to have issued an edict against the Christians, although Marcus is reported to have enacted none; and that Iconium is placed in Phrygia. The first two difficulties I have already met. As regards the third, there are not lacking those who for Phrygia substitute Pisidia (for thus in Basil, Epistle 138, Iconium is called a city of Pisidia), or for Iconium substitute Lycaonia. And this reply ought to satisfy fair judges of matters, even if it were not established from other sources that errors of this sort in designating the situation of cities have often crept into the text from notes placed in the margin.

His quae in Graecorum Actorum Latina interpretatione emendavi, unum est quod adjicere libeat. Praefectus dicit Justino, n. 4 : Ἄκουε ὁ λεγόμενος λόγιος· « Audi tu qui eloquens esse diceris. » Malim, « qui doctus diceris. »

To the things which I have emended in the Latin translation of the Greek Acts, there is one thing which I should like to add. The prefect says to Justin, num. 4: Ἄκουε ὁ λεγόμενος λόγιος· "Hear, you who are said to be eloquent." I should prefer, "who are said to be learned."

Editors' notes and page, col. 159

Footnotes

(70) ‹anchor: de Justino dixit› · call in col 159

Biblioth. Patr., t. I, p. 279.

Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. 1, p. 279.

(printed under page 86)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 159 or 160 (above the rendered foot)

N. 42.

No. 42.

(printed under page 86)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 159 or 160 (above the rendered foot)

Prov. XXI, 1.

Proverbs 21:1.

(printed under page 86)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 159 or 160 (above the rendered foot)

N. 29.

No. 29.

(printed under page 86)

Page

running head: 159 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A qui in contextum; B diæ esse existimavit; C nius scriptor sæculi; D æstimatoribus satisfacere deberet
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotation from Acta S. Justini; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (qui in contextum...)

PG 6:160

CAPUT X

Chapter X.

De Tatiano ac primum de illius studiis litterarum et conversione.

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

I. Tatianus omnibus disciplinis dat operam. II. Quomodo factus Christianus. III. Ejus fervor sub Justino magistro

I. Tatian devotes his efforts to all branches of learning. II. How he became a Christian. III. His fervour under Justin his master.

I. Tatianus in Assyriorum terra natum se esse testatur : Syrum vocat Epiphanius, haeres. 46, et in indiculo, pag. 231, e Mesopotamia oriundum esse dicit. Syrum etiam appellavit Tatianum Theodoretus. Non inusitatum erat ut Assyrii vocarentur qui Palaestinam incolebant; cujus rei exemplum suppeditat Themistius in Orat. 7, ubi illud Scripturae : Cor regis in manu Dei, ex Assyriorum libris depromptum esse asserit. Statui ergo non potest utrum in Syria, an in Assyria proprie dicta, aut, ut credidit Epiphanius, in Mesopotamia natus sit Tatianus, cum Assyrii nomen ipsis etiam Hebraeis tribuatur.

I. Tatian testifies that he was born in the land of the Assyrians: Epiphanius calls him a Syrian, Heresy 46, and in the summary, p. 231, says that he originated from Mesopotamia. Theodoret also called Tatian a Syrian. It was not unusual for those who inhabited Palestine to be called Assyrians; an example of which fact Themistius supplies in Oration 7, where he asserts that that saying of Scripture, The heart of the king is in the hand of God (Prov. 21:1), was drawn from the books of the Assyrians. It cannot therefore be determined whether Tatian was born in Syria, or in Assyria properly so called, or, as Epiphanius believed, in Mesopotamia, since the name of Assyrian is attributed even to the Hebrews themselves.

Primum Tatiani institutum superstitio fuit et vehemens omnis litteraturae studium. Docet ipse tanta se superstitione laborasse, ut variis in locis mysteriorum particeps fieret ac ubique religiones exploraret. Nec tamen tot regiones obeunti id solum propositum erat, ut mysteriis initiaretur, sed illud etiam maxime, ut multiplicem eruditionem colligeret. Sic enim loquitur de iis quae peregrinando cognoverat, n. 35 : Ταῦτα μὲν οὐ παρ' ἄλλου μαθὼν ἐξεθέμην, πολλὴν ἐπιφοιτήσας γῆν, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν σοφιστεύσας τὰ ὑμέτερα, τοῦτο δὲ τέχναις καὶ ἐπινοίαις ἐπικυρήσας πολλαῖς. « Haec non ab alio accepta exposui, qui multas invisi regiones, ac partim vestris in disciplinis exercitatus sum, partim in artes et inventa multa incidi. » Quod ait Tatianus se in Graecorum disciplinis exercitatum fuisse, id Eusebius de Tatiano agens imitatione expressit. Τατιανὸς, inquit, ἀνὴρ τὸν πρῶτον αὐτοῦ βίον σοφιστεύσας ἐν τοῖς Ἑλλήνων μαθήμασι. « Tatianus, vir primo vitae suae instituto in Graecorum disciplinis exercitatus. » Ruffinus illud σοφιστεύσας magistrum eloquentiae vertit : hinc etiam Hieronymus Tatianum primum oratoriam docentem non parvam sibi ex arte rhetorica gloriam comparasse, Theodoretus sophistam fuisse dicit. Sed Valesius, qui hos duces in Eusebio latine reddendo secutus fuerat, ab eis discedit in suis adnotationibus, ac illud σοφιστεύσας nihil ad eloquentiam pertinere, sed omnem Graecorum sapientiam et liberales disciplinas complecti observat. Addit Tatianum ex peregrinationibus philosophum magis, quam professorem eloquentiae; ex eo autem quod sine ordine ac methodo scripserit, parum in dicendo exercitatum argui. Auctor dissertationis in Tatianum, quae post Orationem Tatiani editam Oxonii legitur (is autem est doctissimus abbas de Longuerue) assentitur Valesio, ejusque sententiam confirmat his Tatiani verbis : Ὁ κατ' Ἐπίκουρον σοφιστεύων, « qui Epicuri

The first pursuit of Tatian was superstition and a vehement zeal for all literature. He himself teaches that he laboured under such great superstition that in various places he became a partaker of the mysteries and everywhere explored religions. Yet as he traversed so many regions this was not his only purpose, that he should be initiated into the mysteries, but this also most of all, that he should collect manifold learning. For thus he speaks concerning the things which he had learned in his travels, num. 35: Ταῦτα μὲν οὐ παρ' ἄλλου μαθὼν ἐξεθέμην, πολλὴν ἐπιφοιτήσας γῆν, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν σοφιστεύσας τὰ ὑμέτερα, τοῦτο δὲ τέχναις καὶ ἐπινοίαις ἐπικυρήσας πολλαῖς. "These things I have set forth not having learned them from another, I who have visited many lands, and partly have practised your branches of learning, partly have lighted upon many arts and inventions." What Tatian says, that he practised the branches of learning of the Greeks, Eusebius in treating of Tatian expressed by imitation. Tatian, he says, a man who in his first course of life practised the branches of learning of the Greeks. "Tatian, a man in the first pursuit of his life trained in the branches of learning of the Greeks." Rufinus translated that word σοφιστεύσας as master of eloquence: hence also Jerome says that Tatian, at first teaching oratory, won for himself no small glory from the rhetorical art, and Theodoret says that he was a sophist. Yet Valesius, who had followed these guides in rendering Eusebius into Latin, departs from them in his notes, and observes that that word σοφιστεύσας pertains not at all to eloquence, but comprises all the wisdom and liberal studies of the Greeks. He adds that from his travels Tatian is proved to have been a philosopher rather than a professor of eloquence, while from the fact that he wrote without order and method he is proved to have been little trained in speaking. The author of the dissertation on Tatian which is read after the Oration of Tatian published at Oxford (now he is the most learned Abbot de Longuerue) assents to Valesius, and confirms his opinion by these words of Tatian: Ὁ κατ' Ἐπίκουρον σοφιστεύων, "he who follows the

Editors' notes and page, col. 160

Footnotes

(74) ‹anchor: Τατιανὸς, inquit› · call in col 160

Hist., IV, 16.

History, 4.16.

(printed under page 86)

(75) ‹anchor: bis Tatiani verbis› · call in col 160

N. 15.

No. 15.

(printed under page 86)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 160
marginal letters: A CAPUT X; B potest utrum in; C σοφιστεύσας τὰ ὑμέτερα; D duces in Eusebio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotations from Tatian and Eusebius; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (CAPUT X...)

PG 6:161

philosophiam sectatur. » Non immerito sane rejiciunt eruditi illi viri quod Tatianum Hieronymus et Ruffinus rhetoricam docuisse, Theodoretus sophistam fuisse parum belle dixerant. Nam ipse Tatianus non obscure philosophum se antequam Christianum fuisse declarat. Sic enim philosophos alloquitur, n. 26 : Δημοσίᾳ μὲν γὰρ πομπεύετε, τοὺς δὲ λόγους ἐπὶ γωνίας ἀποκρύπτετε. Τοιούτους ὑμᾶς ἐπιγνόντες καταλελοίπαμεν καὶ τῶν ὑμετέρων οὐκέτι ψαύομεν, Θεοῦ δὲ λόγῳ κατακολουθοῦμεν. « In publico pompas agitis; sermones autem in angulis occultatis. Missos vos fecimus, cum tales cognosceremus; nec jam de rebus vestris quidquam attingimus, sed verbum Dei sectamur. » Quinetiam Tatianus, etsi his verbis se Graecorum philosophiam missam fecisse indicat, videtur tamen in ipsa religione Christiana, Justini magistri exemplo, nomen philosophi ac ipsa etiam fortasse insignia retinuisse. Nam sese cum Justino inter philosophos numerat, cum de structis utrique a Crescente Cynico insidiis sic loquitur, n. 19 : Τίνας δὲ ἂν καὶ διῶξαι τῶν φιλοσόφων εἰ μὴ μόνους ἡμᾶς εἴωθεν; « Quosnam autem philosophorum nisi nos solos insectari solebat? »

philosophy of Epicurus." Not undeservedly indeed do those learned men reject what Jerome and Rufinus had less aptly said, that Tatian taught rhetoric, and Theodoret, that he was a sophist. For Tatian himself not obscurely declares that he was a philosopher before he was a Christian. For thus he addresses the philosophers, num. 26: Δημοσίᾳ μὲν γὰρ πομπεύετε, τοὺς δὲ λόγους ἐπὶ γωνίας ἀποκρύπτετε. Τοιούτους ὑμᾶς ἐπιγνόντες καταλελοίπαμεν καὶ τῶν ὑμετέρων οὐκέτι ψαύομεν, Θεοῦ δὲ λόγῳ κατακολουθοῦμεν. "In public you make a parade, but your discourses you hide in corners. Knowing you to be such, we have left you, and no longer touch anything of yours, but follow the Word of God." Moreover, although by these words Tatian indicates that he had dismissed the philosophy of the Greeks, yet in the Christian religion itself, after the example of his master Justin, he seems to have retained the name of philosopher and perhaps even the insignia themselves. For he numbers himself with Justin among the philosophers when concerning the snares laid for both by the Cynic Crescens he speaks thus, num. 19: Τίνας δὲ ἂν καὶ διῶξαι τῶν φιλοσόφων εἰ μὴ μόνους ἡμᾶς εἴωθεν; "Now which of the philosophers save us alone was he accustomed to pursue?"

Ex his patet philosophum fuisse Tatianum; sed tamen ita philosophiae deditus fuit, ut non minus operae et studii in poetis et oratoribus perlegendis, ac omni antiquitate investiganda posuisse videatur. Neque enim assentiri possum eruditis viris Eusebii locum ita ad philosophiam referentibus, ut non solum rhetoricae professionem, sed etiam eloquentiae laudem Tatiano abjudicent. Illius antiquitatis cognitionem declarat Oratio adversus Graecos recondita eruditione abundans; studiosum poetarum et oratorum fuisse demonstrat dicendi genus limatissimis picturis et poeticis venustatibus coloratum, ac verborum luminibus et ornamentis distinctum. Quinetiam disciplinas Graecorum, in quibus Tatianum exercitatum fuisse ex Eusebio atque etiam ex ipso Tatiano discimus, non philosophiam solum, sed alias etiam artes intelligi oportere perspicimus ex initio Orationis adversus Graecos, ubi Tatianus sic loquitur, n. 1 : Ἀπεταξάμεθα τῇ παρ' ὑμῖν σοφίᾳ, κἂν εἰ πάνυ σεμνός τις ἦν ἐν αὐτῇ.... Ῥητορικὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐπ' ἀδικίᾳ καὶ συκοφαντίᾳ συνεστήσασθε.... ποιητικὴν δὲ μάχας ἵνα συντάσσητε καὶ θεῶν ἔρωτας καὶ ψυχῆς διαφθοράν. Τί γὰρ σεμνὸν φιλοσοφοῦντες ἐξηνέγκατε; τίς δὲ τῶν πάνυ σπουδαίων ἀλαζονείας ἔξω καθέστηκεν; « Sapientiae vestrae nuntium remisimus, etiamsi plurimum in ea excellere videremur.... Nam et rhetoricam ad injustitiam et calumniam instituistis.... poeticam vero ut pugnas describeretis et deorum amores, et animae corruptelam. Quid enim philosophando praeclari protulistis, aut quis ex iis, qui praestantissimi habiti sunt, extra arrogantiam constitutus fuit? » Videntur ergo utrique errasse et qui Tatiano rhetoricae

From these things it is clear that Tatian was a philosopher; nevertheless he was so devoted to philosophy that he seems to have spent no less labour and zeal in reading through the poets and orators, and in investigating all antiquity. For neither can I assent to the learned men who refer the passage of Eusebius to philosophy in such a way as to deny to Tatian not only the profession of rhetoric, but even the praise of eloquence. His knowledge of antiquity is declared by his Address against the Greeks, abounding in recondite learning; that he was a student of the poets and orators is demonstrated by his style of speaking, coloured with the most polished pictures and poetic graces, and adorned with the lights and ornaments of words. Moreover, that by the branches of learning of the Greeks, in which we learn from Eusebius and also from Tatian himself that Tatian was trained, not philosophy alone, but other arts also ought to be understood, we perceive from the beginning of the Address against the Greeks, where Tatian speaks thus, num. 1: Ἀπεταξάμεθα τῇ παρ' ὑμῖν σοφίᾳ, κἂν εἰ πάνυ σεμνός τις ἦν ἐν αὐτῇ.... Ῥητορικὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐπ' ἀδικίᾳ καὶ συκοφαντίᾳ συνεστήσασθε.... ποιητικὴν δὲ μάχας ἵνα συντάσσητε καὶ θεῶν ἔρωτας καὶ ψυχῆς διαφθοράν. Τί γὰρ σεμνὸν φιλοσοφοῦντες ἐξηνέγκατε; τίς δὲ τῶν πάνυ σπουδαίων ἀλαζονείας ἔξω καθέστηκεν; "We have bidden farewell to the wisdom that is among you, even though anyone was very boasted in it.... For rhetoric you have established for injustice and calumny.... and poetry that you may compose battles and the loves of the gods and the corruption of the soul. For what noble thing have you brought forth by philosophizing, or who of those who were held most eminent has stood outside arrogance?" Both therefore seem to have erred, both those who fastened upon Tatian the profession

Editors' notes and page, col. 161

Footnotes

(76) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 161 or 162 (above the rendered foot)

N. 29.

No. 29.

(printed under page 87)

(77) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 161 or 162 (above the rendered foot)

N. 27.

No. 27.

(printed under page 87)

Page

running head: 161 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A philosophiam sectatur. »; B missam fecisse indicat; C solum rhetoricæ professionem; D κὴν μὲν γὰρ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations from Tatian; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (philosophiam sectatur...); ends with rhe- split across col 161-162 break

PG 6:162

professionem affinxerunt, et qui solam philosophiae laudem detulerunt.

of rhetoric, and those who accorded him the praise of philosophy alone.

II. Sed haec omnia ethnicorum instituta animum Tatiani inanibus studiis demulcere poterant, cupiditatem veri cognoscendi satiare non poterant. Fastidivit Graecorum religiones, postquam eas, ut ipse narrat, ab effeminatis et cinaedis procurari vidit, et Jovem Latiarem apud Romanos sanguine humano delectari, ac Dianam non procul Megalopoli, et alios alibi daemones ejusmodi sceleribus placari cognovit. Ipsae etiam disciplinae taedium illi moverunt, stylus Atticus, philosophorum sorites, geometria, astronomia, leges in publicis rebus administrandis sancitae. Tandem divino beneficio, cui tamen ingratum se et degenerem exhibuit, veritas ad ejus fulsit oculos, dum in sacras Christianorum Scripturas incidit. Sic ipse rem edisserit, n. 29 : Κατ' ἐμαυτὸν γενόμενος ἐζήτουν ὅτῳ τρόπῳ τἀληθὲς ἐξευρεῖν δύναμαι. Περινοοῦντι δέ μοι τὰ σπουδαῖα συνέβη γραφαῖς τισιν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, πρεσβυτέραις μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὰ Ἑλλήνων δόγματα, θειοτέραις δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων πλάνην. Καί μοι πεισθῆναι ταύταις συνέβη διά τε τῶν λέξεων τὸ ἄτυφον, καὶ τῶν εἰπόντων τὸ ἀνεπιτήδευτον, καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ποιήσεως τὸ εὐκατάληπτον, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ προγνωστικὸν, καὶ τῶν παραγγελμάτων τὸ ἐξαίσιον, καὶ τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν. « Cum me ipse collegissem, quomodo verum invenire possem inquirebam, cumque animum per optima quaeque instituta versarem, in quosdam barbaricos libros incidi, antiquiores quam ut cum Graecorum disciplinis, diviniores quam ut cum eorum erroribus conferantur. Usu mihi evenit ut his fidem haberem propter dicendi genus minime arrogans, scriptorum ingenium artificii expers, universi creationis explicationem captu facilem, futurorum praecognitionem, praeceptorum excellentiam, ac singularem universorum principatum. »

II. Yet all these institutions of the heathens could soothe the mind of Tatian with vain studies, but could not satisfy his desire of knowing the truth. He grew disgusted with the religions of the Greeks after he saw them, as he himself relates, administered by effeminate men and catamites, and learned that Jupiter Latiaris among the Romans delighted in human blood, and that Diana not far from Megalopolis, and other demons elsewhere, were appeased by crimes of this sort. The branches of learning themselves also moved him to weariness: the Attic style, the sorites of the philosophers, geometry, astronomy, and the laws enacted in administering public affairs. At length by the divine kindness, towards which he nevertheless showed himself ungrateful and degenerate, the truth shone upon his eyes when he lighted upon the sacred Scriptures of the Christians. Thus he himself sets forth the matter, num. 29: Κατ' ἐμαυτὸν γενόμενος ἐζήτουν ὅτῳ τρόπῳ τἀληθὲς ἐξευρεῖν δύναμαι. Περινοοῦντι δέ μοι τὰ σπουδαῖα συνέβη γραφαῖς τισιν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, πρεσβυτέραις μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὰ Ἑλλήνων δόγματα, θειοτέραις δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων πλάνην. Καί μοι πεισθῆναι ταύταις συνέβη διά τε τῶν λέξεων τὸ ἄτυφον, καὶ τῶν εἰπόντων τὸ ἀνεπιτήδευτον, καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ποιήσεως τὸ εὐκατάληπτον, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ προγνωστικὸν, καὶ τῶν παραγγελμάτων τὸ ἐξαίσιον, καὶ τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν. "When I had retired into myself, I inquired how I might be able to find the truth, and while I was turning my mind through all the best institutions, I lighted upon certain barbaric writings, too ancient to be compared with the doctrines of the Greeks, too divine to be compared with their errors. And it happened to me that I put faith in these on account of the unassuming character of the expressions, the artless nature of the speakers, the easy comprehension of the creation of the universe, the foreknowledge of future things, the excellence of the precepts, and the sole government of the universe."

Illud etiam Tatianum maxime adducebat, ut Christianam religionem miraretur, quod per eam hominem ex servitute liberari, et in pristinum statum, ex quo misere decidimus, vindicari intelligeret. Sic enim pergit, ibid. : Θεοδιδάκτου δέ μου γενομένης τῆς ψυχῆς συνῆκα, ὅτι τὰ μὲν καταδίκης ἔχει τρόπον, τὰ δὲ ὅτι λύει τὴν ἐν κόσμῳ δουλείαν, καὶ ἀρχόντων μὲν πολλῶν, καὶ μυρίων ἡμᾶς ἀποσπᾷ τυράννων, δίδωσι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐχ ὅπερ μὴ ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλ' ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθημεν. « Itaque mente mea divinitus edocta intellexi ista quidem condemnationi affinia esse, ab his autem servitutem illam quae in mundo est dissolvi, nosque a multis principibus et infinitis tyrannis liberari, ac dono augeri non illo quidem alias non concesso, sed quod acceptum retinere error non siverat.

This also most of all led Tatian to admire the Christian religion, that through it he understood man to be freed from slavery and restored to the original state from which we miserably fell. For thus he continues, ibid.: Θεοδιδάκτου δέ μου γενομένης τῆς ψυχῆς συνῆκα, ὅτι τὰ μὲν καταδίκης ἔχει τρόπον, τὰ δὲ ὅτι λύει τὴν ἐν κόσμῳ δουλείαν, καὶ ἀρχόντων μὲν πολλῶν, καὶ μυρίων ἡμᾶς ἀποσπᾷ τυράννων, δίδωσι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐχ ὅπερ μὴ ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλ' ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθημεν. "Accordingly, when my soul had been taught of God, I understood that those former things have the character of condemnation, whereas these dissolve that slavery which is in the world, and tear us away from many rulers and ten thousand tyrants, and give to us not what we had not received, but what after receiving we had been prevented by error from keeping."

Romae Tatianus Christianam religionem videtur amplexus esse. Nam cum se multis regionibus peragratis

At Rome Tatian seems to have embraced the Christian religion. For since he says that after traversing many regions

Editors' notes and page, col. 162

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 162
marginal letters: A toricæ professionem affinxerunt; B ritas ad ejus; C ricos libros incidi; D ἔχει τρόπον, τὰ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations from Tatian; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (toricae professionem...); begins with fragment toricae from rhetoricae split across col 161-162 break; ends with per- split across col 162-163 break
other: the word peragratis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 163

PG 6:163

tandem in hac urbe commoratum esse dicat; cumque ex peregrinationibus, ut modo vidimus, id perceperit commodi, ut exploratis ubique falsis religionibus veritatem inquireret, ac in Christianorum libris cognitam amplecteretur, verisimile est Romam, ut peregrinationum, ita etiam errorum et superstitionum finem fuisse. Huc etiam spectat quod ait, n. 35 : Διόπερ χαίρειν εἰπὼν καὶ τῇ Ῥωμαίων μεγαλαυχίᾳ, καὶ τῇ Ἀθηναίων ψυχρολογίᾳ, δόγμασιν ἀσυναρτήτοις, τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀντεποιησάμην. « Vale igitur dicto et Romanorum jactantiae et frigido Atheniensium sermoni, male sartis opinionibus, barbaram nostram philosophiam complexus sum. »

he at length sojourned in this city; and since from his travels, as we have just seen, he reaped this advantage, that after exploring false religions everywhere he inquired into the truth, and embraced it when known in the books of the Christians, it is probable that Rome was the end as of his travels, so also of his errors and superstitions. To this also points what he says, num. 35: Διόπερ χαίρειν εἰπὼν καὶ τῇ Ῥωμαίων μεγαλαυχίᾳ, καὶ τῇ Ἀθηναίων ψυχρολογίᾳ, δόγμασιν ἀσυναρτήτοις, τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀντεποιησάμην. "Having therefore bidden farewell both to the boasting of the Romans and to the frigid talk of the Athenians, incoherent doctrines, I laid hold of our barbaric philosophy."

Videtur Tatianus non diu ante mortem Justini nomen inter Christianos professus esse. Nam in Oratione, quam scripsit post martyrium Justini, his occurrit Graecorum querelis : Τατιανὸς ὑπὲρ ἕλληνας, ὑπὲρ τὸ ἄπειρον τῶν φιλοσοφούντων πλῆθος, καινοτομεῖ τὰ βαρβάρων δόγματα. « Tatianus supra Graecos, supra infinitam philosophorum multitudinem, novus est barbarorum doctrinae sectator. » Novitas exprobratur hoc loco non barbarorum doctrinae, ut existimarunt interpretes, sed Tatiani hanc doctrinam sequentis consilio; idque confirmat Tatiani responsio, qui ad defensionem suam adhibet illud Solonis :

Tatian seems to have professed his name among the Christians not long before the death of Justin. For in the Oration which he wrote after the martyrdom of Justin, he meets these complaints of the Greeks: Τατιανὸς ὑπὲρ ἕλληνας, ὑπὲρ τὸ ἄπειρον τῶν φιλοσοφούντων πλῆθος, καινοτομεῖ τὰ βαρβάρων δόγματα. "Tatian, above the Greeks, above the infinite multitude of philosophers, is a new follower of the doctrine of the barbarians." Novelty is reproached in this place not against the doctrine of the barbarians, as the translators supposed, but against the resolution of Tatian in following this doctrine; and this is confirmed by the reply of Tatian, who for his defence employs that saying of Solon:

Γηράσκω δ' ἀεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος.

I grow old ever learning many things.

Semper ego addiscens multa senesco simul.

Ever learning many things, I grow old at the same time.

III. Praeclarissima sane edidit initia Tatianus, et cum se Romae ad Justinum contulisset, virum, ut ipse appellat, in primis admirandum, non parum videtur in hac sanctitatis et doctrinae disciplina profecisse. Illius non solum discipulus erat, sed etiam adjutor, ita ut in defendenda religione, ac in philosophis refellendis secundas ferre videretur. Nam cum Crescens Cynicus nihil intentatum relinqueret, ut Justinum, a quo multis audientibus ignorationis convictus fuerat, e medio tolleret; eadem consilia de Tatiani pernicie instruebat : in utrumque nefarios furoris sui conatus meditabatur. Sic enim Tatianus, n. 19 : Θανάτου δὲ ὁ καταφρονῶν, οὕτως αὐτὸν ἐδεδίει τὸν θάνατον, ὡς καὶ Ἰουστῖνον καθάπερ καὶ ἐμὲ οἷον κακῷ τῷ θανάτῳ περιβαλεῖν πραγματεύσασθαι... Τίνας δὲ ἂν καὶ διῶξαι τῶν φιλοσόφων, εἰ μὴ μόνους ἡμᾶς εἴωθεν; « Iste autem mortis contemptor, ita mortem metuebat, ut eam veluti malum aliquod Justino, non secus ac mihi, machinationibus suis inferre conatus sit... Quosnam autem philosophorum nisi nos solos insectari solebat? » Quantum fuerit Tatiani studium religionis defendendae, ex hoc Crescentis in illum odio perspicitur.

III. Most noble beginnings indeed did Tatian put forth, and when he had betaken himself at Rome to Justin, a man, as he himself calls him, most admirable of all, he seems to have made no small progress in this school of holiness and doctrine. He was not only his disciple, but also his helper, so that in defending religion and in refuting the philosophers he seemed to bear the second part. For when the Cynic Crescens left nothing untried in order to remove from their midst Justin, by whom he had been convicted of ignorance while many listened, he drew up the same designs for the ruin of Tatian: against both he meditated the nefarious attempts of his fury. For thus says Tatian, num. 19: Θανάτου δὲ ὁ καταφρονῶν, οὕτως αὐτὸν ἐδεδίει τὸν θάνατον, ὡς καὶ Ἰουστῖνον καθάπερ καὶ ἐμὲ οἷον κακῷ τῷ θανάτῳ περιβαλεῖν πραγματεύσασθαι... Τίνας δὲ ἂν καὶ διῶξαι τῶν φιλοσόφων, εἰ μὴ μόνους ἡμᾶς εἴωθεν; "And he who despised death so feared death itself that he endeavoured to compass both Justin and me with death as with an evil... Now which of the philosophers save us alone was he accustomed to pursue?" How great was Tatian's zeal for defending religion is perceived from this hatred of Crescens against him.

Crescentis insidiis feliciter succubuit Justinus; non sine magno suo malo evasit Tatianus. Sed ut magistri laborum consors et socius fuerat, ita etiam illius ex asse haeres videtur fuisse. Haec enim veluti

To the snares of Crescens Justin happily succumbed; not without his own great evil did Tatian escape. Yet just as he had been the sharer and companion of his master's labours, so also he seems to have been his sole heir. For this school, so

Editors' notes and page, col. 163

Footnotes

(78) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 163 or 164 (above the rendered foot)

N. 35.

No. 35.

(printed under page 88)

(79) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 163 or 164 (above the rendered foot)

N. 35.

No. 35.

(printed under page 88)

Page

running head: 163 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A agratis tandem in; B nomen inter Christianos; C et cum se; D τῶν φιλοσόφων, εἰ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations from Tatian and verse of Solon; ἕλληνας printed with lowercase initial epsilon; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (agratis tandem...); begins with fragment agratis from peragratis split across col 162-163 break; ends with vel- split across col 163-164 break
other: the word veluti was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 164

PG 6:164

schola, quam Justinus Romae instituerat, illius morte ad Tatianum rediit, ut conjicimus ex Rhodone insigni saeculi secundi scriptore, qui se Romae a Tatiano eruditum fuisse testatus est, ut narrat Eusebius, Hist. lib. V, c. 13.

to speak, which Justin had established at Rome, returned upon his death to Tatian, as we conjecture from Rhodon, a distinguished writer of the second century, who testified that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian, as Eusebius relates, History book V, ch. 13.

CAPUT XI.

Chapter XI.

De haeresi in quam lapsus est Tatianus et de secta Encratitarum ab eo conflata.

On the heresy into which Tatian fell and on the sect of the Encratites formed by him.

I. Tatianus quo tempore haereticus factus. II. Errores illi cum aliis communes. III. An putativam Christi carnem docuerit. IV. Salutem Adami negavit. V. De Encratitarum secta.

I. At what time Tatian became a heretic. II. Errors common to him with others. III. Whether he taught a putative flesh of Christ. IV. He denied the salvation of Adam. V. On the sect of the Encratites.

I. Justini praecepta et exempla non statim e memoria Tatiani effluxere : magistri praeclare facta et dicta praedicat in Oratione adversus Graecos, ac de Christi divinitate et Incarnatione, de mundi creatione in eamdem prorsus ac Justinus sententiam, nonnunquam in eadem verba disputat. Sed tamen non multo post amissa doctrinae lumina, et vitae sanctioris specimina, quae in Justino habuerat, veluti caecus ductore destitutus praecipitem se in errores nequissimos dedit, et ex veritatis defensore factus est impiae haeresis artifex. Hanc hominis de Ecclesia bene meriti ruinam superbiae attribuit Irenaeus, qui de Tatiano sic loquitur, lib. I, c. 28 : Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν ἀποστὰς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς καὶ τυφωθεὶς, ὡς διαφέρων τῶν λοιπῶν ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο. « Post vero illius (Justini) martyrium absistens ab Ecclesia, et praesumptione magistri elatus et inflatus, quasi prae caeteris esset, proprium characterem doctrinae constituit. » Nunc examinandum nobis est quo tempore ab Ecclesia defecerit, quosque potissimum secutus sit errores.

I. The precepts and examples of Justin did not immediately slip from the memory of Tatian: he proclaims the noble deeds and sayings of his master in the Address against the Greeks, and concerning the divinity and Incarnation of Christ and the creation of the world he disputes in altogether the same sense as Justin, and sometimes in the same words. Nevertheless, not long after losing the lights of doctrine and models of a holier life which he had had in Justin, like a blind man destitute of a guide he cast himself headlong into the most wicked errors, and from a defender of the truth became the framer of an impious heresy. This ruin of a man who had deserved well of the Church Irenaeus attributes to pride, who speaks thus concerning Tatian, book I, ch. 28: Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν ἀποστὰς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς καὶ τυφωθεὶς, ὡς διαφέρων τῶν λοιπῶν ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο. "But after his (Justin's) martyrdom, departing from the Church, and elated and puffed up by the presumption of a teacher, as though he were superior to the rest, he established his own peculiar stamp of a school." Now we must examine at what time he revolted from the Church, and what errors he chiefly followed.

Narrat Epiphanius Tatianum in Mesopotamia novam sectam condere incoepisse circa annum duodecimum imperatoris Antonini, cognomento Pii. Vix integrum sit ab hac sententia discedere, his qui Justinum sub Antonino passum volunt; quod quidem cum arrideat erudito auctori dissertationis supra citatae, Epiphanio in his, quae ad Tatianum attinent, astipulatur, ita tamen ut annum duodecimum Antonini non currentem, sed exactum interpretetur, ac Tatiani haeresim ad annum Christi 151 referat. At quibus rationibus supra pugnatum est S. martyrem Justinum sub M. Aurelio passum esse, iisdem efficitur Tatianum ad haeresim sub Antonino deficere non potuisse. Verum hoc loco nonnulla proferre libet, quae magis propria sint Tatiani.

Epiphanius relates that Tatian began to found a new sect in Mesopotamia about the twelfth year of the Emperor Antoninus, surnamed Pius. Scarcely would it be open to those who will have it that Justin suffered under Antoninus to depart from this opinion; and since this pleases the learned author of the dissertation cited above, he agrees with Epiphanius in those things which pertain to Tatian, yet in such a way that he interprets the twelfth year of Antoninus as not current, but completed, and refers the heresy of Tatian to the year of Christ 151. Yet by the same reasons whereby it was contended above that the holy martyr Justin suffered under Marcus Aurelius, it is proved that Tatian could not have revolted to heresy under Antoninus. But in this place it is pleasing to bring forward some things which are more peculiar to Tatian.

Quo tempore scribebat Tatianus, perpetuo mortis periculo exposita erat Christianae religionis professio; et cum auctores nonnulli essent Tatiano, ut mortem mentiendo subterfugeret, sic eorum consilia repellit : Τί μοι συμβουλεύεις ψεύσασθαι τὴν πολιτείαν; τί δὲ λέγων θανάτου καταφρονεῖν, διὰ τέχνης φεύγειν αὐτὸν καταγγέλλεις; Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἔχω καρδίαν ἐλάφου. « Qnid mihi auctor es ut

At the time when Tatian was writing, the profession of the Christian religion was exposed to perpetual danger of death; and when some advised Tatian to evade death by lying, he repels their counsels thus: Τί μοι συμβουλεύεις ψεύσασθαι τὴν πολιτείαν; τί δὲ λέγων θανάτου καταφρονεῖν, διὰ τέχνης φεύγειν αὐτὸν καταγγέλλεις; Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἔχω καρδίαν ἐλάφου. "Why do you advise me to

Editors' notes and page, col. 164

Footnotes

(80) ‹anchor: Narrat Epiphanius› · call in col 164

Haeres. 46

Heresies, 46.

[Note: a call (81) at the foot of col 164 ("auctor es") has no note on this page; the note is not printed in this page's foot.] (printed under page 88)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 164
marginal letters: A uti schola, quam; B creatione in eamdem; C elatus et inflatus; D S. martyrem Justinum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations from Irenaeus and Tatian; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (uti schola... CAPUT XI...); begins with fragment uti from veluti split across col 163-164 break

PG 6:165

meum institutum mentiar? Et qui mortem a te contemni dictitas; cur hortaris, ut eam astu declinem? At ego cor cervi non habeo. » Etsi in his non tam Antonini lene imperium, quam iniquus Marci in Christianos animus agnoscitur; non tamen hoc utar argumento; quia, ut supra observavi, paces sub Adriano et Antonino concessae, induciae quaedam fuerunt, quae nec Christianorum in cruciatibus constantiae oblivionem inducerent, nec futurarum persecutionum metum tollerent. Certius argumentum suppeditat Eusebius, qui inter scriptores sub Marco Aurelio exortos Tatianum recenset ac etiam Musanum, a quo haeresim Tatiani, statim atque exorta est, debellatam fuisse dicit : Καὶ Μουσάνου δὲ, ὃν ἐν τοῖς φθάσασι κατελέξαμεν, φέρεταί τις ἐπιστρεπτικώτατος λόγος πρός τινας αὐτῷ γραφεὶς ἀδελφοὺς, ἀποκλίναντας ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν λεγομένων Ἐγκρατιτῶν αἵρεσιν, ἄρτι τότε φύειν ἀρχομένην, ξένην τε καὶ φθοριμαίαν ψευδοδοξίαν εἰσάγουσαν ἐν τῷ βίῳ. Ἧς παρεκτροπῆς ἀρχηγὸν καταστῆναι Τατιανὸν λόγος ἔχει. « Sed et Musani, cujus supra meminimus, elegantissimus quidam exstat liber ad quosdam fratres, qui ad Encratitarum haeresim desciverant : quae tunc primum exorta novum quemdam ac perniciosum errorem orbi invexit. Hujus sectae auctorem perhibent fuisse Tatianum. » Idem Eusebius in Chronic. ad annum duodecimum M. Aurelii collocat haeresim Tatiani.

belie my way of life? And you who repeat that death is despised by you, why do you exhort me to shun it by craft? But I do not have the heart of a stag." Although in these words not so much the mild rule of Antoninus as the hostile mind of Marcus against the Christians is recognized, yet I shall not use this argument; because, as I have observed above, the peaces granted under Hadrian and Antoninus were a sort of truces, which neither induced forgetfulness of the constancy of the Christians in tortures, nor removed the fear of future persecutions. A more certain argument is supplied by Eusebius, who among the writers arisen under Marcus Aurelius reckons Tatian and also Musanus, by whom he says that the heresy of Tatian was combated as soon as it arose: Καὶ Μουσάνου δὲ, ὃν ἐν τοῖς φθάσασι κατελέξαμεν, φέρεταί τις ἐπιστρεπτικώτατος λόγος πρός τινας αὐτῷ γραφεὶς ἀδελφοὺς, ἀποκλίναντας ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν λεγομένων Ἐγκρατιτῶν αἵρεσιν, ἄρτι τότε φύειν ἀρχομένην, ξένην τε καὶ φθοριμαίαν ψευδοδοξίαν εἰσάγουσαν ἐν τῷ βίῳ. Ἧς παρεκτροπῆς ἀρχηγὸν καταστῆναι Τατιανὸν λόγος ἔχει. "Moreover of Musanus also, whom we reckoned among the foregoing, there is extant a certain most persuasive discourse written by him to certain brethren who had turned aside to the heresy of the so-called Encratites, which had just then begun to spring up, and was introducing into life a strange and corrupting false opinion. Of this aberration report holds that Tatian stood forth as the leader." The same Eusebius in his Chronicle at the twelfth year of Marcus Aurelius places the heresy of Tatian.

Deinde vero Irenaeus qui annis pene quadraginta aut saltem triginta post annum Christi 151 scribebat, haeresim Tatiani, ut recentem ac nuper inventam commemorat. Contradicunt quoque, inquit, lib. I, c. 28, ejus saluti qui primus plasmatus est; et hoc nuper inventum est apud eos : Tatiano quodam primo hanc introducente blasphemiam.

Furthermore, Irenaeus, who wrote almost forty or at least thirty years after the year of Christ 151, mentions the heresy of Tatian as recent and lately invented. They also contradict, he says, book I, ch. 28, the salvation of him who was first formed; and this has lately been invented among them, a certain Tatian first introducing this blasphemy.

In Oratione Tatiani ante haeresim scripta exstat non illepidus quidam in Peregrinum sive Proteum aculeus, qui cum ea opinione, quam refellimus, conciliari non possit. Sic enim ille Cynicus exagitatur a Tatiano, ut jam tum sese vivum combussisse, quod quidem ab eo factum est in ludis Olympicis anno 165, aut saltem sub Protei nomine, quod ei sub finem vitae impositum fuit, cognitus omnibus fuisse videatur. Sic loquitur Tatianus, n. 25 : Καὶ λέγοντες μὲν δεῖσθαι μηδενός· κατὰ δὲ τὸν Πρωτέα σκυτοδέψου μὲν χρήζοντες διὰ τὴν πήραν, ὑφάντου δὲ διὰ τὸ ἱμάτιον, καὶ διὰ τὸ ξύλον δρυοτόμου, διὰ δὲ τὴν γαστριμαργίαν τῶν πλουτούντων καὶ ὀψοποιοῦ. « Nullius quidem se egere dicunt philosophi, sed tamen Protei more modoque indigent coriario propter peram, textore propter vestem, lignario propter baculum, divitibus propter ingluviem et coquo. » Quod Tatianus imitationem Protei ut probrum objicit philosophis, id argumento est jam tum illum fabulam fuisse ob varios vitae eventus ac praesertim ob stultissimum mortis genus. Illud saltem ex verbis Tatiani necessario constat, jam

In the Oration of Tatian written before his heresy there is extant a certain not ungraceful barb against Peregrinus or Proteus, which cannot be reconciled with that opinion which we are refuting. For that Cynic is so assailed by Tatian that he seems already at that time to have burned himself alive, which indeed was done by him at the Olympic games in the year 165, or at least to have been known to all under the name of Proteus, which was given to him towards the end of his life. Thus speaks Tatian, num. 25: Καὶ λέγοντες μὲν δεῖσθαι μηδενός· κατὰ δὲ τὸν Πρωτέα σκυτοδέψου μὲν χρήζοντες διὰ τὴν πήραν, ὑφάντου δὲ διὰ τὸ ἱμάτιον, καὶ διὰ τὸ ξύλον δρυοτόμου, διὰ δὲ τὴν γαστριμαργίαν τῶν πλουτούντων καὶ ὀψοποιοῦ. "The philosophers indeed say that they need nothing, yet after the manner and fashion of Proteus they need a leather-dresser on account of their wallet, a weaver on account of their cloak, and a woodcutter on account of their staff, and on account of their gluttony the rich and a cook." The fact that Tatian objects the imitation of Proteus as a reproach to the philosophers is a proof that he was already at that time a talk of the town on account of the various events of his life and especially on account of his most foolish kind of death. This at least is necessarily established from the words of Tatian, that already

Editors' notes and page, col. 165

Footnotes

(82) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 165 or 166 (above the rendered foot)

Chronic.

Chronicle.

(printed under page 89)

Page

running head: 165 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A meum institutum mentiar?; B ἐπιστρεπτικώτατος λόγος πρός; C bebat, hæresim Tatiani; D n. 25 : Καὶ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations from Eusebius and Tatian; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (meum institutum...)

PG 6:166

tum Protei cognomen omnium consensu et fama tributum Peregrino fuisse. At illud nec in Aegypto obtinuit, ut minus belle conjicit Tillemontius, nec in Italia in quam relicta Aegypto venit, sed in Graecia, in quam se Italia pulsus recepit, idque admodum sero, ut testatur Aulus Gellius. Philosophum nomine Peregrinum, inquit, lib. XII, c. 11, cui postea cognomentum Proteus factum est, virum gravem atque constantem vidimus, cum Athenis essemus, diversantem in quodam tugurio extra urbem. Non potuit ergo Tatianus haeresim suam anno Christi 151 spargere, veroque simillimum est Epiphanium pro anno M. Aurelii duodecimo, quo Eusebius hanc haeresim prodiisse declarat, duodecimum Antonini posuisse. Cum Eusebii major est in ejusmodi quaestionibus auctoritas quam Epiphanii, tum vero illius sententia cum Tatiani et Justini rebus optime consentit. Dandum enim aliquod tempus Tatiano post Justinum Romae docenti; nec statim ac Roma discessit, haeresim coepit praedicare, cum Oratio adversus Graecos, quam post suam Roma discessionem scripsit, haeresis nota careat. Quamobrem cum Justinus circa annum 167 aut 168 vitam pro Christo profuderit, non incommode Tatiani haeresis ad annum 170 referetur. Quod enim Eusebius in Chronicis anno 172 exortam putat, id aut praefinito non dixit aut minus dixit accurate. Nam Montanistae, quos anno 171 prodiisse gravissimis rationibus patet, paulo recentiores Tatiano videntur, et post eum recensentur, tum apud Tertullianum in libro De praescriptionibus, tum apud Epiphanium quanquam posterior nimium spatii inter Tatianum et Montanistas interponit.

at that time the surname of Proteus had by the consent and report of all been attributed to Peregrinus. Yet he obtained it neither in Egypt, as Tillemont less aptly conjectures, nor in Italy, into which he came after leaving Egypt, but in Greece, into which he betook himself when driven from Italy, and that very late, as Aulus Gellius testifies. We saw a philosopher by name Peregrinus, he says, book XII, ch. 11, to whom afterwards the surname Proteus was given, a grave and constant man, when we were at Athens, lodging in a certain hut outside the city. Tatian could not therefore spread his heresy in the year of Christ 151, and it is most probable that Epiphanius put the twelfth year of Antoninus instead of the twelfth year of Marcus Aurelius, in which Eusebius declares this heresy to have come forth. Not only is the authority of Eusebius greater in questions of this sort than that of Epiphanius, but also his opinion agrees best with the affairs of Tatian and Justin. For some time must be given to Tatian teaching at Rome after Justin; nor did he begin to preach his heresy as soon as he departed from Rome, since the Address against the Greeks, which he wrote after his departure from Rome, is free from the mark of heresy. Wherefore, since Justin poured forth his life for Christ about the year 167 or 168, not unsuitably will the heresy of Tatian be referred to the year 170. For as for the fact that Eusebius in his Chronicles thinks that it arose in the year 172, he either did not say this with precision or said it less accurately. For the Montanists, whom it is clear from the weightiest reasons to have come forth in the year 171, seem a little more recent than Tatian, and are reckoned after him both in Tertullian in the book On Prescriptions and in Epiphanius, although the latter interposes too much space between Tatian and the Montanists.

Non me latet Montanistarum originem citius multo collocari a Blondello et Maresio, qui versus Sibyllinos, quos octo libris comprehensos habemus, Montani commentum esse contendunt. His assentitur vir a me non semel laudatus, Lud. Dufour de Longuerue. Revera antiquiores multo essent Montanistae, si versus Sibyllini facinus essent Montani, quos non solum ante Lucii Veri, sed etiam ante Adriani mortem fabricatos fuisse declarat falsa de utriusque morte praedictio. Nam tres post Adrianum futuri imperatores praedicuntur : Tertius sero omnium dicitur potiturus, Ὁ δὲ τρίτος ὀψὲ κρατήσει ἁπάντων. Ipse autem Adrianus reste periturus, Ὁ δὲ λίνος αὐτὸν ὀλεῖται. Ex his merito concludit idem vir eruditissimus mendacem hunc scriptorem turpiter lapsum esse, quia non habebat, ut aliis in rebus, historiam rerum gestarum, quam ducem sequeretur, sed Adrianum reste periturum conjiciebat ex doloribus acutissimis, inter quos sibi ipse mortem consciscere volebat. Verisimile erat Lucium Verum, qui tenera admodum aetate erat, M. Aurelio superfuturum. Scripti ergo hi libri ante mortem Adriani. At eorum parentem esse

It does not escape me that the origin of the Montanists is placed much earlier by Blondel and Desmarets, who contend that the Sibylline verses, which we have comprised in eight books, are a fiction of Montanus. To these assents a man praised by me more than once, Louis Dufour de Longuerue. In truth the Montanists would be much more ancient if the Sibylline verses were the work of Montanus, which the false prediction concerning the death of both declares to have been fabricated not only before the death of Lucius Verus, but even before that of Hadrian. For three future emperors after Hadrian are foretold: the third is said to gain control of all things late, Ὁ δὲ τρίτος ὀψὲ κρατήσει ἁπάντων. And Hadrian himself is said to perish by a cord, Ὁ δὲ λίνος αὐτὸν ὀλεῖται. From these things the same most learned man rightly concludes that this lying writer slipped shamefully, because he did not have, as in other matters, the history of events to follow as a guide, but conjectured that Hadrian would perish by a cord from the most acute pains amid which he wished to inflict death upon himself. It was probable that Lucius Verus, who was of a very tender age, would survive Marcus Aurelius. These books were therefore written before the death of Hadrian. Yet that their parent was

Editors' notes and page, col. 166

Footnotes

(83) ‹anchor: Blondello et Maresio› · call in col 166

Apud Gallaeum dissert., p. 20.

In Gallaeus, dissertation, p. 20.

(printed under page 89)

(84) ‹anchor: Dufour de Longuerue› · call in col 166

In dissert. ms.

In a manuscript dissertation.

(printed under page 89)

(85) ‹anchor: imperatores praedicuntur› · call in col 166

Lib. V et VIII.

Books 5 and 8.

(printed under page 89)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 166
marginal letters: A tum Protei cognomen; B Antonini posuisse. Cum; C centiores Tatiano videntur; D Adrianum futuri imperatores
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotations from Sibylline Oracles; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (tum Protei...)

PG 6:167

Montanum nulla probant rationum momenta, non Phrygiae laudes, non vehemens Sibyllae exstasis, non ipsa denique calamitatum imminentium praedictio. In his enim nihil est quod sectae Montani proprium sit. Potiori jure auctor versuum Sibyllinorum existimaretur aliquis ex Christianis circumcisis et legem retinentibus. Nam hortatur ad Judaicas lustrationes, lib. IV, et futurum dicit ut justi in secundo adventu Domini corpus quotidie aquis lavent e lecto surgentes, lib. III.

Montanus no weighty reasons prove, not the praises of Phrygia, not the vehement ecstasy of the Sibyl, nor finally the very prediction of impending calamities. For in these things there is nothing that is peculiar to the sect of Montanus. With better right would someone of the circumcised Christians who retained the law be considered the author of the Sibylline verses. For he exhorts to Jewish lustrations, book IV, and says that it will come to pass that at the second coming of the Lord the righteous will wash their body daily with water upon rising from bed, book III.

II. Sic haeresim suam architectatus est Tatianus, ut dum aliud ex aliis haereticis mutuatur, nec cum istis, nec secum ipse consentiret. Videtur in explicanda mundi creatione Valentini deliria compilasse. Dicebant Valentiniani omnia a vero Deo per ipsius Verbum fuisse condita, adhibito tamen Demiurgi sive Creatoris ministerio, quem quidem ita ignorasse fingebant operationem divinae Sapientiae, ut sibi solus Creator esse videretur. Paulo aliter Tatianus, sed non minus impie in quodam testimonio, quod in appendice retuli, illud Scripturae : Fiat lux, optantis et precantis esse dicebat, non praecipientis. Fingebat etiam ad mundi explicationem, teste Irenaeo, Aeones quosdam invisibiles. Hinc apud Tertullianum Praescr., cap. 52 : Totus secundum Valentinum sapere dicitur.

II. Tatian constructed his heresy in such a way that while borrowing one thing from one heretic and another from another, he agreed neither with them nor with himself. In explaining the creation of the world he seems to have pillaged the ravings of Valentinus. The Valentinians said that all things were created by the true God through His Word, yet by employing the ministry of the Demiurge or Creator, whom indeed they feigned to have been so ignorant of the operation of the divine Wisdom that he seemed to himself to be the sole Creator. Slightly otherwise, yet no less impiously, Tatian, in a certain testimony which I have reported in the appendix, said that that word of Scripture, Let there be light (Gen. 1:3), was the word of one wishing and praying, not commanding. He also feigned for the explanation of the world, on the testimony of Irenaeus, certain invisible Aeons. Hence in Tertullian, Prescriptions, ch. 52, he is said to savour wholly of Valentinus.

Ut Valentinus, ita etiam Tatianus legem Mosaicam rejiciebat, non a vero Deo, sed a Demiurgo institutam pronuntians, teste Clemente Alexandrino, Strom. III, p. 460, sed tamen lege et prophetis utebantur Severiani, ut ait Eusebius, qui primum auctorem et institutorem illorum fuisse Tatianum declarat. Ipse Tatianus utebatur quodam prophetae Amos testimonio, ut vinum prohiberet. Non erat necesse ejusmodi haereticis Vetus Testamentum ab usu suo penitus removere, cum eam sibi, teste ibidem Eusebio, licentiam interpretandi sumerent, quae nihil non posset eludere.

Like Valentinus, so also Tatian rejected the Mosaic law, pronouncing that it was instituted not by the true God, but by the Demiurge, on the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III, p. 460; nevertheless the Severians used the law and the prophets, as Eusebius says, who declares that Tatian was their first author and founder. Tatian himself used a certain testimony of the prophet Amos (Amos 2:12) in order to forbid wine. It was not necessary for heretics of this sort to remove the Old Testament utterly from their use, since, on the testimony of Eusebius in the same place, they took to themselves such licence of interpreting as could evade anything whatever.

De Tatiano sic loquitur Clemens Alexandrinus, quasi is Valentini scholae nomen dedisset ac inde abscessisset, ut propriam sectam conflarel. Vix enim aliter interpretari liceat haec verba de Tatiano, Strom. III, pag. 465 : Ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου ἐξεφοίτησε σχολῆς. Sed tamen Irenaeus in testimonio quod modo retuli, Tatianum declarat ea mente ab Ecclesia discessisse, ut novam sectam conderet.

Concerning Tatian Clement of Alexandria speaks in such a way as though he had enrolled his name in the school of Valentinus and had departed thence in order to form his own sect. For scarcely otherwise may one interpret these words concerning Tatian, Stromata III, p. 465: Ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου ἐξεφοίτησε σχολῆς. Nevertheless Irenaeus in the testimony which I have just reported declares that Tatian departed from the Church with this intention, that he might found a new sect.

Valentini opinio, etsi in Deum mundi creatorem injuria erat et ad evertendam resurrectionis fidem excogitata, in hoc tamen lenior erat quam Marcionis, quod nec carnem Christi omnino tolleret, nec necessitatem imponeret ea detestandi, quae per Demiurgum a vero Deo creata fatebatur. At Tatianus mutuari ex Marcione non dubitavit, quae deesse Valentino ad summam impietatem videbantur. Nuptias, inquit Irenaeus, corruptionem esse et fornicationem similiter ut Marcion et Saturninus praedicavit.

The opinion of Valentinus, although it was injurious to God the Creator of the world and devised to overthrow the faith of the resurrection, was nevertheless milder in this respect than that of Marcion, that it neither altogether took away the flesh of Christ, nor imposed the necessity of detesting the things which it confessed to have been created by the true God through the Demiurge. Yet Tatian did not hesitate to borrow from Marcion the things which seemed to be lacking to Valentinus for supreme impiety. Marriage, says Irenaeus, he preached to be corruption and fornication similarly to Marcion and Saturninus.

Editors' notes and page, col. 167

Footnotes

(86) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 167 or 168 (above the rendered foot)

Gen. I, 3.

Genesis 1:3.

(printed under page 90)

(87) ‹anchor: ut vinum prohiberet› · call in col 167

Amos. II, 8.

Amos 2:8.

(printed under page 90)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 167 or 168 (above the rendered foot)

Strom., III, p. 463.

Stromata, book 3, p. 463.

(printed under page 90)

Page

running head: 167 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A Montanum nulla probant; B Verbum fuisse condita; C bantur Severiani, ut; D nio quod modo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotation from Clement of Alexandria; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Montanum nulla...); ends with prae- split across col 167-168 break
other: the word praedicavit. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 168

PG 6:168

Quinetiam matrimonii institutionem diabolo acceptam referre visus est Clementi Alexandrino. Nam Paulum sic interpretabatur, ut eum matrimonii usum permittendo prohibuisse et ut opus fornicationi et diabolo addictum interdixisse contenderet. Verba Tatiani habemus in Append., part. II

Moreover, to Clement of Alexandria he seemed to attribute the institution of marriage to the devil. For he interpreted Paul in such a way as to contend that by permitting the use of marriage he forbade it, and interdicted it as a work devoted to fornication and the devil. We have the words of Tatian in the Appendix, part II.

Illud etiam a Saturnino et Marcione Tatianus acceperat, teste Theodoreto, lib. I Haeret. fab., cap. 20, ut animalium et vini usum, non modo nuptias, abominaretur. Abutebatur auctoritate Amos prophetae ad impietatis defensionem : « De hoc loco, inquit Hieronymus in Amos, cap. 2, haeresim suam Tatianus Encratitarum princeps struere nititur, vinum asserens non bibendum, cum et lege praeceptum sit, ne Nazaraei bibant vinum, et nunc accusentur a propheta, qui propinant Nazaraeis vinum. » In mysteriis celebrandis solum aquam adhiberi voluit : « Similiter et mysteria quaedam, inquit Epiphanius, » ad Ecclesiae sanctae imitationem instituit, sed ad ea tamen nihil « praeter aquam adhibuit. »

This also Tatian had received from Saturninus and Marcion, on the testimony of Theodoret, book I of Heretical Fables, ch. 20, that he abominated the use of animals and wine, not only marriage. He abused the authority of the prophet Amos for the defence of his impiety: "From this passage," says Jerome on Amos, ch. 2, "Tatian the chief of the Encratites strives to build up his heresy, asserting that wine is not to be drunk, since both by the law it was commanded that the Nazarites should not drink wine, and now those are accused by the prophet who give the Nazarites wine to drink." In celebrating the mysteries he wished water alone to be employed: "Similarly also certain mysteries," says Epiphanius, he instituted in imitation of the holy Church, yet for them he "employed nothing save water."

III. Quaeri non immerito possit annon putativam Christo carnem attribuerit Tatianus, et hac in re, ut in multis aliis, a Valentini partibus ad Marcionis castra transfugerit. Haec enim de illo apud Hieronymum dicta legimus in Comment. in cap. VI ad Galat. « Tatianus qui putativam Christi carnem introducens omnem conjunctionem masculi ad feminam immundam arbitratur, Encratitarum vel acerrimus haeresiarches, tali adversum nos sub occasione praesentis testimonii usus est argumento, etc. » Hoc testimonio adductus Tillemontius Tatianum de Christi carne idem ac Marcionem docuisse existimat. Sed monet nos eruditus editor operum S. Hieronymi in perantiquo codice Cluniacensi, et in codice regio 3758, non Tatianum legi sed Cassianum. Equidem valde probaverim asservatam his in codicibus lectionem. Facile fuit et proclive, ut pro Cassiano, qui vix cuiquam praeter Clementem Alexandrinum, cognitus fuit, nomen Tatiani longe celeberrimum obreperet. At multo difficilius ut pro Tatiano Cassianum librarii ponerent. Porro in Cassianum optime convenit Hieronymi testimonium. Is de matrimonio idem sentiebat ac Tatianus, ut diserte testatur Clemens, Strom. III, pag. 465. Quare non immerito vocari potuit Encratitarum vel acerrimus haeresiarches. Praeterea ibidem Docetarum, id est eorum, qui putativam Christi carnem fingebant, princeps a Clemente appellatur, ὁ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων. Quod quidem de Christi carne commentum illius de mundi creatione opinioni consequens erat. Dicebat enim Cassianus in libro De continentia : Εἰ γὰρ ἦν παρὰ Θεοῦ εἰς ὃν σπεύδομεν ἡ τοιαύτη διασκευὴ, οὐκ ἂν ἐμακάρισε τοὺς εὐνούχους. « Si ab eo Deo, ad quem tendimus, esset haec corporis constitutio,

III. It might not undeservedly be asked whether Tatian did not attribute a putative flesh to Christ, and in this matter, as in many others, desert from the party of Valentinus to the camp of Marcion. For we read these things said concerning him in Jerome in his Commentary on ch. 6 to the Galatians: "Tatian, who introducing a putative flesh of Christ deems every conjunction of male with female unclean, the very fiercest heresiarch of the Encratites, used such an argument against us on the occasion of the present testimony, etc." Induced by this testimony, Tillemont considers that Tatian taught the same thing as Marcion concerning the flesh of Christ. Yet the learned editor of the works of St. Jerome advises us that in the very ancient Cluniac manuscript, and in the royal manuscript 3758, not Tatian is read, but Cassian. For my part I should strongly approve the reading preserved in these manuscripts. It was easy and natural that instead of Cassian, who was known to scarcely anyone except Clement of Alexandria, the far most celebrated name of Tatian should creep in; whereas it was much more difficult for the copyists to put Cassian instead of Tatian. Moreover, the testimony of Jerome suits Cassian admirably. Concerning marriage he thought the same as Tatian, as Clement expressly testifies, Stromata III, p. 465. Wherefore he could not undeservedly be called the very fiercest heresiarch of the Encratites. Besides, in the same place he is called by Clement the chief of the Docetae, that is, of those who feigned a putative flesh of Christ, ὁ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων. Which fiction indeed concerning the flesh of Christ was consequent upon his opinion concerning the creation of the world. For Cassian said in his book On Continence: Εἰ γὰρ ἦν παρὰ Θεοῦ εἰς ὃν σπεύδομεν ἡ τοιαύτη διασκευὴ, οὐκ ἂν ἐμακάρισε τοὺς εὐνούχους. "For if this constitution of the body were from that God to Whom we hasten,

Editors' notes and page, col. 168

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 168
marginal letters: A dicavit. Quinetiam matrimonii; B ptum sit, ne; C minam immundam arbitratur; D nymi testimonium. Is
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek quotations from Clement of Alexandria and Cassian; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (dicavit. Quinetiam...); begins with fragment dicavit from praedicavit split across col 167-168 break

PG 6:169

non sane beasset eunuchos. » Ex quibus patet Cassianum non, ut Valentinum, omnia a vero Deo per Demiurgum creata sensisse, sed plane, ut Marcionem, vero Deo creationem mundi, aut saltem humani corporis abjudicasse. Nec proinde mirum est, si nullam prorsus carnem Christo relinquebat. At Tatianus in his quae ad creationem spectant, totus est Valentinianus; nec quisquam de Christi carne idem illum ac Marcionem sensisse perhibet. Accurate colligunt Irenaeus et Clemens et Epiphanius quid Valentinianis somniis suo marte excogitatum addiderit, quid ex Saturni et Marcionis fontibus derivaverit. At nihil prius aut potius commemorari debuit, quam haec de Christi carne opinio, si modo ei astipulatus est Tatianus. Quinetiam Docetarum secta ab Encratitis secerni non debuit, sed una et eadem existimari, ejusque principatus non Cassiano deferendus erat, ut factum a Clemente vidimus, sed Tatiano, quem celebriorem fuisse constat, antiquiorem non obscure indicat Clemens, dum eum ante Cassianum recenset, eique Cassianum de matrimonio declarat assentiri. Videntur ergo librarii aliquid vulneris fecisse huic Hieronymi loco; atque etiamsi integer existimetur, haud tamen scio an minus hac in re Hieronymo tribuendum sit, quam aliis Patribus non modo hunc Tatiani errorem tacentibus, quem tamen maxime commemorare debuerant, sed etiam ab Encratitarum haeresi Docetas distinguentibus, et alteri Cassianum, alteri Tatianum ducem et signiferum assignantibus.

He would certainly not have pronounced eunuchs blessed." From which it is clear that Cassian did not, like Valentinus, hold that all things were created by the true God through the Demiurge, but plainly, like Marcion, denied to the true God the creation of the world, or at least of the human body. Nor accordingly is it any wonder if he left no flesh at all to Christ. Yet Tatian in those things which relate to creation is wholly Valentinian; nor does anyone report that concerning the flesh of Christ he held the same as Marcion. Irenaeus and Clement and Epiphanius accurately collect what he added of his own invention to the Valentinian dreams, and what he derived from the sources of Saturninus and Marcion. Yet nothing ought to have been mentioned earlier or rather than this opinion concerning the flesh of Christ, if indeed Tatian assented to it. Moreover, the sect of the Docetae ought not to have been separated from the Encratites, but considered one and the same, and its leadership ought to have been assigned not to Cassian, as we have seen done by Clement, but to Tatian, whom it is established to have been more famous, and whom Clement not obscurely indicates to have been more ancient when he reckons him before Cassian and declares that Cassian agreed with him concerning marriage. The copyists therefore seem to have inflicted some wound upon this passage of Jerome; and even if it be considered entire, yet I know not whether less weight ought to be attributed in this matter to Jerome than to the other Fathers, who not only are silent concerning this error of Tatian, which nevertheless they ought most of all to have mentioned, but also distinguish the Docetae from the heresy of the Encratites, and assign Cassian as leader and standard-bearer to the one, and Tatian to the other.

Sed forte quominus Cassiani nomen Tatiano apud Hieronymum substituamus, objicietur Tatiani facinus, qui ex Evangelio amputavit genealogias et alia omnia, quae Dominum, ut ait Theodoretus, ex semine David secundum carnem natum ostendunt. At necesse non est ad phantasticam carnem confugere, ut hoc Tatiani scelus explicemus. Satis magnos illi stimulos ad id audendum subjicere potuit Valentinianorum haeresis, quae Christum nihil ex Maria sumpsisse, sed carnem aliunde habuisse, et per Mariam veluti per canalem docebat transiisse.

Yet perhaps, to prevent our substituting the name of Cassian for Tatian in Jerome, there will be objected the deed of Tatian, who cut out from the Gospel the genealogies and all other things which, as Theodoret says, show the Lord to have been born of the seed of David according to the flesh. Yet it is not necessary to have recourse to a phantom flesh in order to explain this crime of Tatian. Sufficiently great incentives for daring this could have been supplied to him by the heresy of the Valentinians, which taught that Christ took nothing from Mary, but had flesh from elsewhere, and passed through Mary as through a channel.

IV. Videbatur sibi Tatianus non multum laudis mereri, adjunctis ad usus suos Saturnini et Valentini commentis, nisi etiam aliquid pareret, quod novum ac proprie suum videretur. Itaque ut nomen suum posteris commendaret, salutem Adami negavit, quod ante illum nemini in mentem venerat. Hunc illius errorem, ut impietatem, detestati sunt Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustinus et Theodoretus. Sic autem refellit hanc haeresim Irenaeus, lib. III, c. 23, ut caeteros homines salvari, si Adam non salvatus sit, ac diabolum Christo victum et superatum neget, si is, quem diabolus vicerat, et in vincula conjecerat, a Christo non sit ereptus ex ejus manibus et in libertatem vindicatus. Sic etiam Tertullianus in libro De praescr., cap. 52, radicem salvam esse contendit, si rami salvi fiunt. Et Epiphanius, haeres. 46 : Καὶ εἰ ὁ

IV. Tatian seemed to himself not to deserve much praise by having adjoined to his own uses the fictions of Saturninus and Valentinus, unless he also brought forth something which might seem new and properly his own. Accordingly, in order to commend his name to posterity, he denied the salvation of Adam, which had come into the mind of no one before him. This error of his, as an impiety, Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and Theodoret detested. Now Irenaeus, book III, ch. 23, refutes this heresy in such a way as to deny that other men are saved if Adam was not saved, and that the devil was vanquished and overcome by Christ if he whom the devil had vanquished and cast into chains was not snatched by Christ out of his hands and restored to liberty. Thus also Tertullian in the book On Prescriptions, ch. 52, contends that the root is saved if the branches become saved. And Epiphanius, Heresy 46: Καὶ εἰ ὁ

Editors' notes and page, col. 169

Page

running head: 169 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A non sane beasset; B una et eadem; C gnantibus. Sed forte; D tini commentis, nisi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with short Greek fragment from Epiphanius at end; editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (non sane beasset...); Saturni printed for Saturnini

PG 6:170

Ἀδὰμ οὐ σώζεται, τὸ φύραμα, οὐδέ τι τοῦ φυράματος σώζεται. « Si Adamus salutem minime est adeptus, hoc est ipsa quodammodo generis massa; nec ulla hujus massae particula servari poterit. » Vix sane quidquam reperio quod Tatianum ad haec effutienda impulerit, praeter ineptum novitatis aucupium, ut existimavit Irenaeus. Nam Valentiniani et alii pene omnes Gnostici, cum sophiam suam Adamo Demiurgi manibus formato semen spirituale dicerent injecisse, cumque neminem hoc semine ornatum sanctitate et salute excidere posse autumarent, necessitatem sibi imponebant agnoscendae Adami salutis. Praeterea ipse Tatianus, ut observat Epiphanius, quo magis nuptias oderat, eo in Adamum sine nuptiis creatum aequior esse debuit.

Adam is not saved, the lump, nor is any part of the lump saved. « If Adam has by no means obtained salvation, that is, in a certain manner the very mass of the race; neither will any particle of this mass be able to be saved. » Scarcely indeed do I find anything which impelled Tatian to blurt out these things, except an absurd hunting after novelty, as Irenaeus supposed. For since the Valentinians and almost all the other Gnostics said that their Sophia had injected a spiritual seed into Adam when formed by the hands of the Demiurge, and since they affirmed that no one adorned with this seed could fall away from sanctity and salvation, they imposed upon themselves the necessity of acknowledging the salvation of Adam. Moreover, Tatian himself, as Epiphanius observes, the more he hated marriage, the more equitable ought he to have been towards Adam, who was created without marriage.

Videtur tamen impia de matrimonio sententia illum adduxisse ut iniquum se Adamo praeberet. Nam obtrectatores matrimonii, ut testatur Clemens Alex., Strom., III, p. 470, gustum ligni vetit⟨i⟩ interpretabantur usum matrimonii, quem a Creatore vetitum fingebant. Unde matrimonii non Creatorem, sed diabolum, qui Adamum et Evam pellexerat, auctorem dicebant. Sed tamen etsi Adamus praeceptum Creatoris violaverat, id obstare non debebat quominus eum Christus, longe, ut nugatores illi dicebant, potentior Creatore, eriperet. At matrimonii odio videtur Tatianus in matrimonii incoeptorem virus suum evomuisse, eumque a Christo minime liberatum, sed irati Creatoris judicio (neminem enim a Christo damnari dicebant) relictum finxisse.

Nevertheless, his impious opinion concerning matrimony seems to have induced him to show himself unjust towards Adam. For the detractors of matrimony, as Clement of Alexandria testifies, Stromata, III, p. 470, interpreted the tasting of the forbidden tree as the use of matrimony, which they feigned to have been forbidden by the Creator. Whence they said that not the Creator, but the devil, who had enticed Adam and Eve, was the author of matrimony. Yet even if Adam had violated the precept of the Creator, that ought not to have stood in the way of Christ, who was far more powerful than the Creator, as those triflers said, rescuing him. But out of hatred of matrimony Tatian seems to have vomited forth his venom against the beginner of matrimony, and to have feigned that he was by no means freed by Christ, but left to the judgement of the angry Creator (for they said that no one is condemned by Christ).

Apud Tertullianum in loco jam citato docuisse dicitur Tatianus Adam nec salutem consequi posse; sed id eodem redit ac quod de Tatiano alii scriptores dixerunt. Posito enim injectum non fuisse Adamo commentitium illud semen spirituale, quod Achamoth, sive Sapientia, animabus electorum clam Creatore injiciebat; non jam salutem Adamus assequi poterat.

In Tertullian in the passage already cited, Tatian is said to have taught that Adam cannot even obtain salvation; but this comes back to the same thing as what the other writers have said concerning Tatian. For once it was laid down that there had not been injected into Adam that fictitious spiritual seed which Achamoth, or Wisdom, injected into the souls of the elect secretly from the Creator, Adam was no longer able to attain salvation.

V. Tatiani sectatores appellantur Tatiani et Tatianitae, Encratitae, Severiani, Hydroparastatae, Apotactitae, Saccophori, Apostolici, quibus nominibus partim ipsa Tatiani secta, partim aliae ex ista avulsae designantur. Distinxit Epiphanius Tatianos a Severianis et Encratitis, ac Severianum Tatiano, Tatianum Encratitis praelusisse censet. At Irenaeus, Clemens, Eusebius et Theodoretus Encratitarum sectae parentem et auctorem Tatianum dixerunt. Addit Eusebius non multo post Severum quemdam, cum supradictae haeresi robur ac vires addidisset, in causa fuisse, cur illius sectae homines ex ipsius vocabulo Severiani dicerentur. Late ergo manavit haeresis Tatiani; nec eam merito Antiochiae et Ciliciae et Pisidiae finibus coercet Epiphanius, cum Encratitae, ipso fatente, non solum in his regionibus, sed etiam in Phrygia adusta, in Isauria, Pamphylia et Galatia atque etiam in Romano tractu propagati fuerint. Adductus est etiam Epiphanius hac Tatianitarum et Encratitarum minus

V. The followers of Tatian are called Tatians and Tatianites, Encratites, Severians, Hydroparastatae, Apotactites, Saccophori, and Apostolics, by which names partly the sect of Tatian itself, and partly others torn away from it, are designated. Epiphanius distinguished the Tatians from the Severians and Encratites, and judges that Severianus played the prelude to Tatian, and Tatian to the Encratites. But Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius, and Theodoret called Tatian the parent and author of the sect of the Encratites. Eusebius adds that not long afterwards a certain Severus, when he had added strength and force to the aforesaid heresy, was the reason why the men of that sect were called Severians from his own name. Widely, therefore, did the heresy of Tatian spread; nor does Epiphanius rightly confine it within the borders of Antioch and Cilicia and Pisidia, since the Encratites, as he himself confesses, were propagated not only in these regions, but also in Phrygia Paroreia, in Isauria, Pamphylia, and Galatia, and even in the Roman district. Epiphanius was also led by this less

Editors' notes and page, col. 170

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 170
marginal letters: A Ἀδὰμ οὐ σώζεται; B Videtur tamen impia; C bant) relictum finxisse.; D tianos a Severianis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Ἀδὰμ οὐ σώζεται...); final i of vetiti lost at right margin in gustum ligni vetit⟨i⟩; mi- split at column break
other: the word minus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 171

PG 6:171

accurata distinctione, ut Tatiani sectam saeculo quarto interiisse crederet. At cum Encratitas hoc saeculo exstitisse ex ipso Epiphanio pateat, et maxime ex Basilio, apud quem non pauca de illorum baptismate leguntur, necessario sequitur institutam a Tatiano sectam, quae non alia est quam Encratitarum, ad hoc tempus perseverasse. Basilius, etsi haereticos solebat rebaptizare, duos tamen ex hac secta episcopos, Zoinum et Saturninum, magnae utilitati consuetudinem posthabens, in episcopalem cathedram suscepit, ac eorum non solum baptisma, sed etiam ordinationem ratam habuit.

accurate distinction of the Tatianites and Encratites to believe that the sect of Tatian had perished in the fourth century. Yet since it is clear from Epiphanius himself that the Encratites existed in this century, and especially from Basil, in whom not a few things are read concerning their baptism, it necessarily follows that the sect instituted by Tatian, which is no other than that of the Encratites, persevered down to this time. Basil, although he was accustomed to rebaptize heretics, nevertheless received into the episcopal chair two bishops from this sect, Zoinus and Saturninus, subordinating custom to great utility, and held not only their baptism, but also their ordination to be valid.

Suspicari videtur Epiphanius Encratitas, dum castitatem prae se ferunt, non tam a voluptatibus abhorruisse, quam latebras occultis flagitiis quaesivisse. Sic enim loquitur de Tatiano, haeres. 46 : Ἐν τῷ προσχήματι τῆς ἐγκρατείας καὶ τοῦ ἐγκρατητικοῦ ἤθους κυβευτικὴν ἔσχε τὴν ἀγωγήν· ὡς λύκος ἅρπαξ ἐνδυόμενος προβάτου κωδίον, καὶ πλανῶν τῷ προσκαίρῳ προσχήματι τοὺς ἀπατωμένους. « Continentiae ac pudicitiae specie, velut illecebra proposita, homo vafer obrepsit; tanquam rapax quidam lupus ovem pellis induens, eoque cultu, quem ad tempus induerat, miseros homines in fraudem pelliciens. » Et de Encratitis, haeres. 47 : Σεμνύνονται δὲ δῆθεν ἐγκράτειαν σφαλερῶς τὰ πάντα ἐργαζόμενοι, μέσον γυναικῶν εὑρισκόμενοι, καὶ γυναῖκας πανταχόθεν ἀπατῶντες, καὶ συνδιαιτώμενοι, καὶ ἐξυπηρετούμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν τοιούτων, ἔξω μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας ὄντες, μόρφωσιν δὲ μᾶλλον κεκτημένοι, τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς τῆς εὐσεβείας ἠρνημένοι. « Quod vero continentiam jactitant, lubricum est illorum quidem ac periculi plenum facinus. Nam inter mulierculas versantur assidue, quas undecunque pelliciunt : cum iis iter faciunt, ac communiter vivunt, earumque ministeriis utuntur. Quare cum a veritate longius absint, nihil praeter ementitam illius speciem ostentant; vim ipsam sincerae pietatis abnegant. » Nihil simile Irenaeus et Clemens Alexandrinus Tatiano objecerunt, qui, si eis credimus, inconsideratum castitatis studium non ad tempus ostentavit, ut placet Epiphanio, sed pertinaciter retinuit. Quod ergo reprehendit Epiphanius in Encratitis, id temporum flexu in hanc sectam inductum videtur, cum eorum majores impiam illam quidem, sed tamen constantem castitatem professi fuissent. Opponit eos Irenaeus aliis haereticis in contrariam partem peccantibus ac omnem licentiam flagitio tribuentibus. Postquam enim de Tatiano locutus est, sic ad alios transit. « Alii autem rursus a Basilide et Carpocrate occasiones accipientes, indifferentes coitus, et multas nuptias induxerunt, et negligentiam ipsorum, quae sunt idolothyta ad manducandum; non valde haec curare dicentes Deum. » Similiter Clemens Alexandrinus duas illas haereses, ut adversis frontibus inter se

Epiphanius seems to suspect that the Encratites, while making a show of chastity, did not so much shrink from pleasures as seek hiding-places for secret shameful deeds. For thus he speaks of Tatian, Haeres. 46: Under the pretext of continence and of a continent character he had a dice-player's conduct; like aravening wolf putting on a sheep's fleece, and leading astray by his temporary pretext those who were deceived. « Having set forth the appearance of continence and modesty as an allurement, the crafty man crept in; like some rapacious wolf putting on a sheep's skin, and by that garb, which he had put on for a time, enticing wretched men into deceit. » And concerning the Encratites, Haeres. 47: They boast forsooth of continence while doing all things deceitfully, being found in the midst of women, and deceiving women on every side, and living together with them, and being ministered to by such women, being indeed outside the truth, and possessing rather an outward form, while they have denied the power of godliness itself. « But as for their boasting of continence, their conduct is indeed slippery and full of peril. For they associate constantly among silly women, whom they entice from every quarter: they journey with them, and live in common, and use their ministries. Wherefore, since they are very far from the truth, they display nothing except a counterfeited appearance of it; they deny the very power of sincere piety. » Nothing similar did Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria object against Tatian, who, if we believe them, did not display an inconsiderate zeal for chastity merely for a time, as Epiphanius pleases to think, but pertinaciously retained it. What Epiphanius reproves in the Encratites, therefore, seems to have been introduced into this sect in the course of time, whereas their predecessors had professed that chastity which was impious indeed, yet constant. Irenaeus opposes them to other heretics sinning in the contrary direction and granting every licence to shameful conduct. For after he has spoken of Tatian, he passes thus to the others. « Others again, taking occasions from Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced indiscriminate intercourse, and manifold marriages, and negligence regarding the eating of things offered to idols, saying that God does not greatly care about these things. » Similarly Clement of Alexandria refutes those two heresies as fighting against one another

Editors' notes and page, col. 171

Footnotes

(89) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 171 or 172 (above the rendered foot)

Epist. 188.

Letter 188.

(printed under page 92)

(90) ‹anchor: ad alios transit› · call in col 171

Lib. I, c. 28.

Book 1, ch. 28.

(printed under page 92)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 171 or 172 (above the rendered foot)

Pag. 448.

Page 448.

(printed under page 92)

(92) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 171 or 172 (above the rendered foot)

Haeres. 47, c. 1.

Heresies, 47, ch. 1.

(printed under page 92)

(93) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 171 or 172 (above the rendered foot)

Strom., III, p. 446.

Stromata, book 3, p. 446.

(printed under page 92)

(94) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 171 or 172 (above the rendered foot)

I Cor. VI, 13.

1 Corinthians 6:13.

(printed under page 92)

Page

running head: 171 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A nus accurata distinctione; B Sic enim loquitur; C μιν αὐτῆς τῆς; D quidem, sed tamen
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (nus accurata distinctione...); begins with fragment nus from minus split across col 170-171 break

PG 6:172

pugnantes refellit in toto libro tertio Stromatum : Φέρε εἰς δύο διελόντες πράγματα ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις, ἀποκρινώμεθα αὐτοῖς. Ἢ γὰρ τὸ ἀδιαφόρως ζῇν διδάσκουσιν, ἢ τὸ ὑπέρτονον ἄγουσαι, ἐγκράτειαν διὰ δυσσεβείας καὶ φιλαπεχθημοσύνης καταγγέλλουσι. « Age, inquit, bifariam dividamus omnes haereses, eisque respondeamus : vel enim indifferenter vivere docent; vel ultra modum progressae continentiam per impietatem et odium profitentur. »

with opposing fronts throughout the whole third book of the Stromata: Come, dividing all the heresies into two classes, let us answer them. For either they teach to live indifferently, or, setting an overstrained pitch, they proclaim continence through ungodliness and love of enmity. « Come, he says, let us divide all heresies into two parts, and answer them: for either they teach to live indifferently; or, having advanced beyond measure, they profess continence through impiety and hatred. »

Non magis consentit cum his duobus scriptoribus Epiphanius cum testatur Encratitas resurrectionem mortuorum credere. Sic enim apud Clementem resurrectionem interpretantur, ut jam se illam adeptos esse, et idcirco a nuptiis refugere dicant. Unde illos sic verberat Clemens : Ει γὰρ οὖν τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἀπειλήφασιν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀθετοῦσι τὸν γάμον, μηδὲ ἐσθιέτωσαν μηδὲ πινέτωσαν· καταργεῖσθαι γὰρ ἔφη τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ τὰ βρώματα ὁ Ἀπόστολος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει. « Si ergo resurrectionem acceperunt, ut ipsi dicunt, et idcirco matrimonium abrogant, nec manducent nec bibant. Nam dixit Apostolus ventrem et cibos destructum iri in resurrectione. » Irenaeus ex haereticis Creatorem rejicientibus nullum prorsus excipit, qui resurrectionem admiserit, et hac in re a nefariis suis de creatione discesserit principiis, lib. I, c. 22.

No more does Epiphanius agree with these two writers when he testifies that the Encratites believe in the resurrection of the dead. For thus in Clement do they interpret the resurrection, that they say they have already obtained it, and on that account flee from marriage. Whence Clement lashes them thus: For if indeed they have received the resurrection, as they themselves say, and on this account reject marriage, let them neither eat nor drink; for the Apostle said that the belly and meats shall be abolished in the resurrection. « If therefore they have received the resurrection, as they themselves say, and on that account abrogate matrimony, let them neither eat nor drink. For the Apostle said that the belly and meats will be destroyed in the resurrection. » Among the heretics who reject the Creator, Irenaeus excepts none at all as having admitted the resurrection and departed in this matter from his nefarious principles concerning creation, book I, ch. 22.

CAPUT XII.

Chapter XII.

De scriptis Tatiani.

On the writings of Tatian.

I. De operibus Tatiani deperditis. II. Oratio adversus Graecos non pronuntiata sed scripta, idque postquam Roma abiit. III. Scriptam ante haeresim fuisse probatur adversus doctissimum abbatem de Longuerue. IV. De audacia Tatiani in Scripturis pervertendis. V. Non exstat illius Evangelium Διατεσσάρων. VI. Videtur idem esse ac Evangelium quod Ebionaeis attribuit S. Epiphanius. VII. Idem etiam ac illud quod dicebatur secundum Petrum.

I. On the lost works of Tatian. II. The Address against the Greeks was not delivered orally but written, and that after he departed from Rome. III. That it was written before his heresy is proved against the most learned Abbé de Longuerue. IV. On the audacity of Tatian in perverting the Scriptures. V. His Gospel Diatessaron is not extant. VI. It seems to be the same as the Gospel which St. Epiphanius attributes to the Ebionites. VII. The same also as that which was called according to Peter.

I. Ex maximo librorum numero, quem Eusebius et Hieronymus a Tatiano relictum testantur, pauci ad cognitionem nostram, unus tantum in manus nostras pervenit. Scripserat, teste Clemente Alexandrino, Strom., III, pag. 460, librum De perfectione secundum Salvatorem. In Oratione adversus Graecos, num. 15, citat librum a se scriptum De animalibus. Forte in hoc libro pertractaverat, quod se alibi demonstrasse dicit mirabiles quosdam effectus, non in animas hominum mortuorum, sed in daemones refundi debere. In eadem Oratione promittit librum adversus ethnicos scriptores qui de Christianorum et Judaeorum instituto et sacris historiis temere judicaverant. Sic enim loquitur, n. 40 : Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς πολιτείας, ἱστορίας τε τῆς κατὰ τοὺς ἡμετέρους νόμους, ὅσα τε εἰρήκασιν οἱ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν λόγιοι, καὶ πόσοι καὶ τίνες εἰσὶ μνημονεύσαντες, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναμένους τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ δειχθήσεται. « Sed de instituto nostro, et de legum nostrarum historia quaenam apud Graecos eruditi dixerint, quamque multi et quales fuerint qui his de rebus meminere, in

I. Out of the very great number of books which Eusebius and Jerome testify were left by Tatian, few have come to our knowledge, and only one into our hands. He had written, as Clement of Alexandria testifies, Stromata, III, page 460, a book On Perfection according to the Saviour. In the Address against the Greeks, num. 15, he cites a book written by himself On Animals. Perhaps in this book he had treated what he says he had demonstrated elsewhere, that certain marvellous effects ought to be referred not to the souls of dead men, but to demons. In the same Address he promises a book against the Gentile writers who had rashly judged concerning the way of life and sacred histories of the Christians and the Jews. For thus he speaks, n. 40: Concerning our polity, therefore, and the history according to our laws, and all that the learned among the Greeks have said, and how many and who they are that have made mention of them, shall be shown in the work Against Those Who Have Pronounced Discourse Concerning God. « But concerning our way of life, and concerning the history of our laws, what things the learned among the Greeks have said, and how many and of what sort were those who have made mention of these matters, in

Editors' notes and page, col. 172

Footnotes

(95) ‹anchor: in hoc libro pertractaverat› · call in col 172

N. 10.

No. 10.

(printed under page 92)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 172
marginal letters: A pugnantes refellit in; B στασιν ἀπειλήφασιν, ὡς; C audacia Tatiani in; D mittit librum adversus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (pugnantes refellit... CAPUT XII. De scriptis Tatiani...)

PG 6:173

libro a⟨d⟩versus eos (Graecos videlicet) qui de rebus divinis asseverarunt, demonstrabitur. » Non dissimulabo praeclarum his verbis, πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναμένους, sensum adjungi ab auctore dissertationis non semel laudatae. Vertit enim, adversus eos qui rebus divinis fidem detrahunt. Sic etiam intellexit Tillemontius. Sed illud verbum ἀποφηναμένους non videtur hanc interpretationem pati. Quosnam refellendos sibi in hoc opere proponeret Tatianus in adnotatione ad hunc locum explicare conatus sum. Perabsurde Gesnerus meditatum putat esse Tatianum eos refellere, qui de Deo et rebus divinis demonstrationibus agunt, hoc est Catholicos, qui fidem, quam Apelles apud Eusebium, Hist., V, 13, examinandam esse negat, argumentis probabant et confirmabant.

the book against those (namely the Greeks) who have made assertions concerning divine things, it shall be demonstrated. » I will not conceal that an admirable sense is attached to these words, πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναμένους, by the author of the dissertation praised more than once. For he translates: against those who detract faith from divine things. So also did Tillemont understand it. Yet that word ἀποφηναμένους does not seem to admit of this interpretation. Whom Tatian proposed to himself to refute in this work, I have endeavoured to explain in the note on this passage. Most absurdly does Gesner think that Tatian intended to refute those who treat of God and divine things by demonstrations, that is, the Catholics, who proved and confirmed by arguments the faith which Apelles in Eusebius, History, V, 13, denies ought to be examined.

Rhodon, insignis scriptor ecclesiasticus, qui Romae a Tatiano eruditus fuerat, in libris adversus Marcionitas referebat, Eusebio teste, elucubratum fuisse a Tatiano librum Problematum, sive Quaestionum in Scripturam sacram. Φησὶ δὲ, inquit Eusebius, καὶ ἐσπουδάσθαι τῷ Τατιανῷ προβλημάτων βιβλίον, δι' ὧν τὸ ἀσαφὲς καὶ ἐπικεκρυμμένον τῶν θειῶν Γραφῶν παραστήσειν ὑποσχομένου τοῦ Τατιανοῦ, αὐτὸς ὁ Ῥόδων ἐν ἰδίῳ συγγράμματι τὰς τῶν ἐκείνου προβλημάτων ἐπιλύσεις ἐκθήσεσθαι ἐπαγγέλλεται. « Refert etiam elucubratum esse a Tatiano librum Quaestionum, per quas quidem cum Tatianus obscuras esse et reconditas Scripturas demonstrare instituisset, ipse Rhodon solutiones Quaestionum Tatiani peculiari opere editurum se esse pollicetur. » Videtur haec haereticus scripsisse Tatianus, et idcirco profligatus fuisse a Rhodone; quia scilicet Scripturas obscuras et reconditas dicebat, ut suam in eis detorquendis et pervertendis licentiam defenderet.

Rhodon, an eminent ecclesiastical writer who had been instructed by Tatian at Rome, related in his books against the Marcionites, as Eusebius testifies, that there had been composed by Tatian a book of Problems, or of Questions on Sacred Scripture. And he says, says Eusebius, that there was also elaborated by Tatian a book of problems, whereby Tatian having promised to set forth what is obscure and hidden in the divine Scriptures, Rhodon himself in a work of his own promises that he will set forth the solutions of that man's problems. « He relates also that there was composed by Tatian a book of Questions, through which indeed, since Tatian had undertaken to demonstrate that the Scriptures are obscure and abstruse, Rhodon himself promises that he will publish the solutions of the Questions of Tatian in a special work. » Tatian seems to have written these things as a heretic, and on that account to have been routed by Rhodon; because, namely, he said that the Scriptures were obscure and abstruse in order that he might defend his own licence in twisting and perverting them.

II. Omnium Tatiani operum, Eusebii et Hieronymi judicio, celeberrimum et florentissimum fuit, Oratio adversus Graecos. Conjicit Tillemontius hanc orationem coram ethnicis pronuntiatam fuisse; idque causae esse suspicatur, cur nec satis elaborata, nec arte et ordine dispensata videatur. Revera auditores interdum alloqui videtur; velut cum ait : « Ego loquor et vos auditis, n. 5. Audite me tanquam ex loco excelso clamantem, n. 17. » At nemo nescit solemne esse his, qui scribunt, sic interdum lectorem compellare, quasi veris vocibus uterentur. Tatianus ipse non oratoris sed scriptoris partes sibi attribuit. Ait enim, n. 35 : « Quomodo nostra philosophia vestris antiquior sit disciplinis, cum scribere incoeperim, sed propter urgentem disputationem distulerim, nunc, cum tempus est, de illius decretis dicere aggrediar. » Et perorans : « Haec vobis, o Graeci, ego Tatianus barbarae philosophiae addictus composui. »

II. Of all the works of Tatian, in the judgement of Eusebius and Jerome, the most celebrated and most flourishing was the Address against the Greeks. Tillemont conjectures that this address was delivered orally before the Gentiles; and he suspects that this is the reason why it seems neither sufficiently elaborated nor arranged with art and order. In truth he sometimes seems to address hearers; as when he says: « I speak and you hear, n. 5. Hear me as one crying aloud from a lofty place, n. 17. » Yet everyone knows that it is customary for those who write thus at times to address the reader as if they were using actual voices. Tatian himself assigns to himself the part not of an orator, but of a writer. For he says, n. 35: « How our philosophy is more ancient than your disciplines, although I began to write of it, yet put it off on account of the urgent disputation, now, when it is time, I shall proceed to speak concerning its decrees. » And in his peroration: « These things for you, O Greeks, I, Tatian, devoted to the barbarian philosophy, have composed. »

Recte observat idem praestantissimus Tillemontius hanc orationem mortuo Crescentis insidiis

Rightly does the same most distinguished Tillemont observe that this address was written after Justin had died through the plots of Crescens;

Editors' notes and page, col. 173

Footnotes

(96) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 173 or 174 (above the rendered foot)

Lib. V, c. 13.

Book 5, ch. 13.

(printed under page 93)

Page

running head: 173 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A libro a⟨d⟩versus eos; B confirmabant.; C demonstrare instituisset, ipse; D tanquam ex loco
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (libro adversus eos...); d of adversus damaged in first line libro a⟨d⟩versus

PG 6:174

Justino scriptam esse; sed quod Romae pronuntiatam existimat, id cum Tatiani verbis consistere non potest. Ridens enim Tatianus statuas apud Graecos partim meretricibus et hominibus impuris positas, partim ad memoriam rerum perabsurdarum erectas, sic fidem facit sui judicii : Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οὐ παρ' ἄλλου μαθὼν ἐξεθέμην, πολλὴν ἐπιφοιτήσας γῆν, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν σοφιστεύσας τὰ ὑμέτερα, τοῦτο δὲ τέχναις καὶ ἐπινοίαις ἐγκυρήσας πολλαῖς, ἔσχατον δὲ τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἐνδιατρίψας πόλει, καὶ τὰς ἀφ' ὑμῶν ὡς αὐτοὺς ἀνακομισθείσας ἀνδριάντων ποικιλίας καταμαθών. Οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἀλλοτρίαις δόξαις τἀμαυτοῦ κρατύνειν πειρῶμαι· πάντων δὲ ὧν ἀποποιήσομαι αὐτὸς τὴν κατάληψιν, τούτων καὶ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν συντάσσειν βούλομαι. « Haec equidem, inquit, n. 35, non ab alio accepta exposui, qui multas regiones peragravi, ac partim in vestris exercitatus sum disciplinis, partim in artes et inventa multa incidi, ac tandem in Romanorum urbe commoratus, statuarum varietates eo a vobis exportatas vidi. Non enim, ut plerique solent, alienis opinionibus mea confirmare, sed quaecunque vidi, litteris mandare aggredior. » Haec narratio eorum quae Romae Tatianus viderat, hominis est Romae non commorantis. Quae supra retulimus in Crescentem dicta : Crescens igitur ille, qui in magna urbe nidum posuerat, puerorum quidem amore superabat omnes, etc., similiter probant Tatianum tunc a Crescente, aut saltem, si is mortuus erat, Roma abfuisse.

but as for his thinking that it was delivered at Rome, that cannot stand together with the words of Tatian. For Tatian, deriding the statues among the Greeks, some set up to courtesans and impure men, others erected to the memory of most absurd things, thus establishes the credibility of his judgement: These things, therefore, I have set forth not after learning them from another, having traversed much land, and on the one hand having practised your sophistries, and on the other having met with many arts and devices, and finally having sojourned in the city of the Romans, and having observed the varieties of statues brought away from you to them. For I do not, as is the custom with most men, endeavour to strengthen my own views by the opinions of others; but of all the things whereof I myself have acquired the apprehension, of these I wish also to compose the record. « These things indeed, he says, n. 35, I have set forth not as received from another, I who have travelled through many regions, and partly have been trained in your disciplines, partly have fallen in with many arts and inventions, and at length, having sojourned in the city of the Romans, have seen the varieties of statues exported thither from you. For I do not, as most men are wont, undertake to confirm my own statements by the opinions of others, but to commit to writing whatsoever things I have seen. » This narrative of the things which Tatian had seen at Rome is that of a man not residing at Rome. The words spoken against Crescens which we have reported above: That Crescens, therefore, who had made his nest in the great city, surpassed all men indeed in the love of boys, etc., similarly prove that Tatian was then absent from Crescens, or at least, if he was dead, absent from Rome.

Elaboratum opus in Graeciae aliqua urbe existimat auctor dissertationis Oxoniensi editioni additae. Cur ita sentiret vir longe doctissimus, id credo exstitisse causae, quod Graecos in hac oratione alloquatur Tatianus. Sed an non potuit eos etiam Graecos, qui erant in Oriente, alloqui? Quare nihil ea de re videtur certo posse constitui.

The author of the dissertation added to the Oxford edition thinks that the work was elaborated in some city of Greece. Why that most learned man so thought, I believe the reason was this, that Tatian addresses the Greeks in this oration. Yet could he not also address those Greeks who were in the East? Wherefore nothing seems able to be established for certain concerning that matter.

III. Sed aliud est, in quo ejusdem dissertationis auctor longius videtur a vero aberrare. Fatetur Tatianum in hoc opusculo adversariorum mucronem belle retundere. Sed ibidem nigrae lolliginis succum aeruginemque meram deprehendi pronuntiat. « Nam errores, inquit, quos Tatianus a Gnosticorum penu depromptos dudum animo inseverat, et ante Justini mortem propter magistri reverentiam dissimulaverat, aperte defendere non erubuit. » Et infra : « Hoc in opusculo cum errores perabsurdos in propatulo doceat, eum a Christianae veritatis forma et evangelica regula id temporis quam longissime abfuisse non ambigimus. Et cum primis hominem ex tribus veluti naturis conflatum tradit : ἐκ τῆς ὕλης, « ex materia; » ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς, « ex anima quae a materia originem ducit; » et ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, « ex spiritu qui a Deo seu a coelis primordia capit. » Displicet etiam erudito scriptori illa apud Tatianum distinctio duorum spirituum, quorum alter anima vocatur, alter vero praestantius

III. But there is another point in which the author of the same dissertation seems to wander further from the truth. He confesses that Tatian in this little work finely blunts the sword-point of the adversaries. Yet he pronounces that in the very same place the juice of the black cuttlefish and pure verdigris are detected. « For the errors, he says, which Tatian had drawn forth from the storehouse of the Gnostics and long since implanted in his mind, and had dissembled before the death of Justin out of reverence for his master, he did not blush to defend openly. » And below: « Since in this little work he teaches most absurd errors in the open, we do not doubt that at that time he was as far removed as possible from the form of Christian truth and the evangelical rule. And first of all he hands down that man is compounded of three natures, as it were: ἐκ τῆς ὕλης, « from matter; » ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς, « from a soul which draws its origin from matter; » and ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, « from a spirit which takes its beginnings from God or from heaven. » Displeasing also to the learned writer is that distinction in Tatian of two spirits, of which the one is called soul, but the other is more excellent

Editors' notes and page, col. 174

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 174
marginal letters: A Justino scriptam esse;; B λομαι. « Haec equidem,; C Roma abfuisse.; D verat, et ante
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Justino scriptam esse...)

PG 6:175

est anima, imago scilicet et similitudo Dei. Videtur sibi in his verbis dilucide perspicere distinctionem τοῦ ὑλικοῦ et τοῦ πνευματικοῦ, quam Tatianus mutuatus est a Gnosticis et praesertim a Valentino. Tatiano alios attribuit errores, nempe adversus animae immortalitatem et simplicitatem, et Verbi aeternitatem; ac ne cui in mentem veniat Tatiani patrocinium suscipere, sic concludit : « Nec mirum si male et improbe de augustioribus Christianae religionis mysteriis sentiebat ille, qui conspiraverat jam cum Gnosticis, impiis consceleratisque hominibus, et a vera in Deum religione alienissimis. Sane quidem laterem lavabit, si quis ejus generis nugatores a culpa velit eximere; et singulatim Tatianum nemo purgare poterit, qui Valentini insanas de Aeonibus opiniones animo imbiberat. »

than the soul, namely the image and likeness of God. He seems to himself in these words clearly to perceive the distinction between τοῦ ὑλικοῦ and τοῦ πνευματικοῦ, which Tatian borrowed from the Gnostics and especially from Valentinus. He attributes other errors to Tatian, namely against the immortality and simplicity of the soul, and the eternity of the Word; and lest it should come into anyone's mind to undertake the defence of Tatian, he concludes thus: « Nor is it any wonder if that man entertained evil and wicked opinions concerning the more august mysteries of the Christian religion, who had already conspired with the Gnostics, impious and villainous men, and most alien from true religion towards God. Truly indeed will anyone wash a brick, if he should wish to exempt triflers of that sort from blame; and in particular no one will be able to clear Tatian, who had imbibed in his mind the insane opinions of Valentinus concerning the Aeons. »

Sententiam Tatiani de immortalitate animae ejusque natura, et de Verbi aeternitate satis explanatam puto in secunda parte praefationis et in adnotationibus. Neque etiam in eo refellendo immorandum quod ait vir eruditissimus, Tatianum etiam sub Justini disciplina nefariam haeresim esse meditatum : neque enim argumentis refellendum, quod sine ullo prorsus argumento profertur. Quod autem spectat ad ipsum opusculum Tatiani, multa in eo reperio cum Valentiniana haeresi pugnantia, nullum prorsus hujus erroris vestigium, ne in iis quidem quae objiciuntur ab auctore dissertationis.

The opinion of Tatian concerning the immortality of the soul and its nature, and concerning the eternity of the Word, I consider sufficiently explained in the second part of the preface and in the notes. Nor need we linger in refuting what the most learned man says, that Tatian even under the discipline of Justin meditated his nefarious heresy: for that need not be refuted by arguments which is put forward without any argument at all. But as regards the little work of Tatian itself, I find many things in it fighting against the Valentinian heresy, and no trace at all of this error, not even in those things which are objected by the author of the dissertation.

Fons et origo Tatiani errorum, ut supra vidimus, prava exstitit de mundi creatione sententia. Inde manarunt Aeones, inde Demiurgus non lucem faciens, sed ut fiat optans et orans; inde de Christi carne, de resurrectione et de libero arbitrio stultissima commenta. At in Oratione adversus Graecos materiae creationem data opera defendit. Aequalem Deo futuram contendit si increata esset. Οὔτε γὰρ ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ὁ Θεὸς, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον ἰσοδύναμος τῷ Θεῷ· γεννητὴ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα, μόνου δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δημιούργου προβεβλημένη. « Non enim caret initio materia, quemadmodum Deus; nec Deo, ut principii expers, parem habet potestatem : verum creata est, nec ab alio facta; sed a solo universorum opifice producta. » Feriunt haec verba Valentinianos, eorumque de materiae aeternitate ac vero supra creatorem Deo somnia. Ut Valentinianos materia increata, et Deus a creatore diversus eo ducebat, ut corpus humanum nec vero et sublimi Deo curae esse, nec ab opifice restitui posse crederent; ita Tatianus ex eo quod materia creata sit, et a solo universorum opifice creata, corporum resurrectionem astruit. Addit enim protinus : Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ σωμάτων ἀνάστασιν ἔσεσθαι πεπιστεύκαμεν. « Propterea etiam corporum resurrectionem futuram credimus. » Humanam carnem, utpote ab inferiore deo ex materia increata conditam Valentiniani

The fount and origin of the errors of Tatian, as we have seen above, was a perverse opinion concerning the creation of the world. Thence flowed the Aeons, thence a Demiurge not making light, but wishing and praying that it be made; thence the most foolish figments concerning the flesh of Christ, concerning the resurrection, and concerning free will. Yet in the Address against the Greeks he purposely defends the creation of matter. He contends that it would be equal to God if it were uncreated. For neither is matter without beginning like God, nor on account of being without beginning is it of equal power with God; but it is generated, and has not come into being by another, but has been projected by the Demiurge of all things alone. « For matter does not lack a beginning, just as God does; nor, as being devoid of beginning, does it have power equal to God: but it is created, and not made by another, but produced by the sole framer of the universe. » These words strike the Valentinians, and their dreams concerning the eternity of matter and a true God above the creator. Just as uncreated matter and a God diverse from the creator led the Valentinians to believe that the human body is neither an object of care to the true and sublime God, nor able to be restored by the framer; so Tatian, from the fact that matter was created, and created by the sole framer of the universe, establishes the resurrection of bodies. For he immediately adds: And on this account we have believed that there will also be a resurrection of bodies. « On this account we believe that there will also be a resurrection of bodies. » Human flesh, as having been fashioned by an inferior god out of uncreated matter, the Valentinians

Editors' notes and page, col. 175

Footnotes

(97) ‹anchor: si increata esset› · call in col 175

N. 5.

No. 5.

(printed under page 94)

(98) ‹anchor: Addit enim protinus› · call in col 175

N. 6.

No. 6.

(printed under page 94)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 175 or 176 (above the rendered foot)

N. 21.

No. 21.

(printed under page 94)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 175 or 176 (above the rendered foot)

N. 17.

No. 17.

(printed under page 94)

Page

running head: 175 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS E
marginal letters: A est anima, imago; B sanas de Aeonibus; C Fons et origo; D fice producta. » Feriunt
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (est anima, imago...); Valenti- split at column break

PG 6:176

indignam judicabant, quam Filius Dei susciperet. Corpus illi tribuebant animale non ex Maria assumptum, sed per Mariam traductum, veluti per canalem quemdam. At pudori non est Tatiano Deus sub hominis forma natus. Οὐ γὰρ μωραίνομεν, ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, οὐδὲ λήρους ἀπαγγέλλομεν, Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ γεγονέναι καταγγέλλοντες. « Non enim desipimus, o Graeci, nec nugas praedicamus, Deum sub hominis forma natum nuntiantes. »

judged unworthy for the Son of God to assume. They attributed to Him an animal body not assumed from Mary, but passed through Mary as through a kind of channel. Yet God born under the form of man is no matter of shame to Tatian. For we do not play the fool, O men of Greece, nor do we report idle tales, in proclaiming that God has come to be in the form of man. « For we do not dote, O Greeks, nor do we preach trifles, in announcing that God was born under the form of man. »

Praecipue vero in summam morum corruptelam Valentinianos praecipites dederat sublata hominis libertas, cum semetipsos non per operationem, sed eo quod sint naturaliter spiritales, omnimodo salvari dicerent, Iren., lib. I, c. 6. At Tatianus nihil in rebus creatis natura malum esse declarat. Ἐπεὶ αὐτὸς μὲν πᾶν τὸ εὖ πως ἔχον ἐδημιούργησεν· ἡ δὲ τῶν δαιμόνων ἀσωτία, τοῖς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πρὸς τὸ κακοποιεῖν ἐχρήσατο. « Deus, inquit, omnia bene se habentia creavit, sed daemonum intemperantia iis, quae in mundo sunt, ad male agendum abusa est. » Justini magistri vestigiis homines et angelos a Deo liberos docet fuisse creatos. Ὅπως ὁ μὲν φαῦλος δικαίως κολάζηται δι' αὐτὸν γεγονὼς μοχθηρός· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος χάριν τῶν ἀνδραγαθημάτων ἀξίως ἐπαινῆται. « Ut malus merito puniatur per se improbus factus, justus autem ob recte facta jure laudetur. » Quae praedicta sunt, libera eligentium voluntate docet evenire; nec mali originem aliunde repetit quam ex libero arbitrio. Οὐκ ἐγενόμεθα πρὸς τὸ ἀποθνήσκειν, ἀποθνήσκομεν δὲ δι' ἑαυτούς. Ἀπώλεσεν ἡμᾶς τὸ αὐτεξούσιον· δοῦλοι γεγόναμεν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι, διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐπράθημεν. Οὐδὲν φαῦλον ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεποίηται, τὴν πονηρίαν ἡμεῖς ἀνεδείξαμεν. Οἱ δὲ ἀναδείξαντες, δυνατοὶ πάλιν παραιτήσασθαι. « Non facti sumus ut moreremur : perdidit nos libera voluntas; servi facti sumus qui liberi eramus; per peccatum venditi sumus. Nihil mali factum est a Deo; nos ipsi improbitatem produximus. Eam vero qui produxerunt, denuo repudiare possunt. » Quemadmodum homines omnes peccato Adami vitiatos fuisse, ita etiam omnibus, ut in secunda parte vidimus, necessarium esse Spiritus sancti auxilium docet, ut Dei imago in eis restituatur, nedum quemquam natura spiritualem esse crederet.

Above all, however, the taking away of human liberty had cast the Valentinians headlong into the utmost corruption of morals, since they said that they themselves are saved in every way not through action, but because they are naturally spiritual, Irenaeus, book I, ch. 6. But Tatian declares that nothing among created things is evil by nature. Since He Himself framed everything that is in a good state; but the profligacy of the demons made use of the things in the world for evil-doing. « God, he says, created all things well-disposed, but the intemperance of the demons abused the things that are in the world for doing evil. » In the footsteps of his master Justin, he teaches that men and angels were created free by God. In order that the base man may justly be punished, having become wicked through himself; whereas the righteous man may worthily be praised for the sake of his upright deeds. « In order that the evil man may deservedly be punished, having become wicked of himself, while the just man may rightly be praised on account of his right deeds. » The things that were foretold, he teaches, come to pass by the free will of those who choose; nor does he trace the origin of evil from any other source than from free will. We were not born to die, but we die through ourselves. Free will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; through sin we have been sold. Nothing base has been made by God; we ourselves have displayed wickedness. And those who have displayed it are able again to renounce it. « We were not made that we should die: free will has destroyed us; we have become slaves who were free; through sin we have been sold. Nothing evil was made by God; we ourselves have produced wickedness. But those who have produced it are able again to repudiate it. » Just as he teaches that all men were corrupted by the sin of Adam, so also he teaches, as we have seen in the second part, that the help of the Holy Spirit is necessary for all in order that the image of God may be restored in them, far from believing that anyone is spiritual by nature.

Nuptias in diis merito irridet Tatianus, n. 8, at in hominibus legitime contractas nusquam vituperat. Virgines Christianas laudat, quae divina oracula circum cola recitabant, non ut hoc institutum instar legis omnibus praescribat, sed ut repellat dicteria ethnicorum, qui Christianos dictitabant inter mulieres et adolescentes, inter virgines et anus nugari. Sic etiam afficta Christianis crimina propulsat, iniquam ob solum nomen condemnationem objicit ethnicis, ut catholicae Ecclesiae defensor, ac persecutorum telis praecipue expositus, nedum tunc inter haereticos versaretur, quos aut

Marriages among the gods Tatian deservedly derides, n. 8, but those legitimately contracted among men he nowhere blames. He praises the Christian virgins who recited the divine oracles around their distaffs, not in order to prescribe this practice like a law for all, but to repel the scoffs of the Gentiles, who kept saying that the Christians trifled among women and youths, among virgins and old women. Thus also he repels the crimes falsely fastened upon the Christians, and objects against the Gentiles their unjust condemnation on account of the name alone, as a defender of the Catholic Church and one especially exposed to the darts of the persecutors, far from then associating among the heretics, whom either

Editors' notes and page, col. 176

Footnotes

(2) ‹anchor: docet fuisse creatos› · call in col 176

N. 7.

No. 7.

(printed under page 94)

(3) ‹anchor: ex libero arbitrio› · call in col 176

N. 11.

No. 11.

(printed under page 94)

(4) ‹anchor: Virgines Christianas laudat› · call in col 176

N. 33

No. 33.

(printed under page 94)

(5) ‹anchor: crimina propulsat› · call in col 176

N. 27.

No. 27.

(printed under page 94)

Page

running head: HILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 176
marginal letters: A niani indignam judicabant,; B in rebus creatis; C πρὸς τὸ ἀποθνήσκειν,; D tualem esse crederet.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (niani indignam judicabant...); begins with fragment niani from Valentiniani split across col 175-176 break

PG 6:177

persecutio tangere non solebat, aut negando eludebatur. Ecclesiae catholicae mores describit cum ait, n. 32 : Φιλοσοφοῦσί τε οὐ μόνον οἱ πλουτοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ πένητες προῖκα τῆς διδασκαλίας ἀπολαύουσι..... Τοὺς δὲ ἀκροᾶσθαι βουλομένους πάντας οὕτως προσιέμεθα, κἂν πρεσβύτιδες ὦσι, κἂν μειράκια· πᾶσά τε ἁπαξαπλῶς ἡλικία παρ' ἡμῖν τυγχάνει τιμῆς. Τὰ δὲ τῆς ἀσελγείας πόῤῥω κεχώρισται. « Philosophantur non solum divites, sed et pauperes gratuito doctrina perfruuntur.... Quicunque autem audire voluerint, omnes hoc modo admittimus, etiam si anus, etiam si adolescentes fuerint, ac omni prorsus aetati suus est apud nos honor, sed longe abest lascivia. » Haerebant adhuc animo Tatiani, cum haec scriberet, non solum Justini praecepta, quem virum in primis admirandum vocat, sed etiam praeclari illi pietatis motus, quos olim persenserat, cum miraretur in libris sacris doctrinam haereticis oppositam, universae creationis explicationem captu facilem, ac singularem universorum principatum.

persecution was not wont to touch, or else was eluded by denial. He describes the morals of the Catholic Church when he says, n. 32: And not only the rich philosophize, but the poor also enjoy the teaching free of charge..... And all those who wish to hear we admit in this manner, whether they be aged women or striplings; and every age without exception obtains honour among us. And the things of licentiousness are removed far away. « Not only the rich philosophize, but the poor also enjoy instruction free of charge.... And whosoever wish to hear, we admit them all in this way, even if they be old women, even if they be youths, and among us every age altogether has its own honour, while lasciviousness is far distant. » There still cleaved to the mind of Tatian, when he wrote these things, not only the precepts of Justin, whom he calls a man above all admirable, but also those noble movements of piety which he had once deeply felt, when he marvelled in the sacred books at the doctrine opposed to the heretics, the easily grasped explanation of the universal creation, and the sole sovereignty of the universe.

Immerito vituperat idem vir doctissimus quae apud Tatianum de corpore, anima et spiritu, ac duorum spirituum distinctione dicuntur. Etiamsi Tatianus hominem ex corpore, anima et spiritu componeret, minime id reprehendi deberet, cum anima saepe spiritus vocetur, ac Spiritus sancti donum saepe hominis spiritus dicatur. At Tatianus animam distinguit a S. Spiritu, ut templum ab inhabitante Deo, n. 15. In hoc gravissime errabant Valentiniani, quod animae suae semen a Sapientia injectum dicerent, cujus beneficio salutem aeternam sibi ne maximis quidem et perpetuis flagitiis eripi posse confidebant. Nihil simile Tatiano objici potest. Quinetiam in hoc laudandus quod Spiritum sanctum, quem Deum perfectum vocat, a spiritu materiam pervadente distinguat. Similis distinctio apud Theophilum, lib. I, n. 5 et 7.

Undeservedly does the same most learned man blame the things that are said in Tatian concerning body, soul, and spirit, and the distinction of two spirits. Even if Tatian composed man of body, soul, and spirit, that ought by no means to be reproved, since the soul is often called spirit, and the gift of the Holy Spirit is often called the spirit of man. Yet Tatian distinguishes the soul from the Holy Spirit as a temple from the indwelling God, n. 15. In this the Valentinians erred most gravely, that they said a seed had been injected into their soul by Wisdom, by the benefit of which they trusted that eternal salvation could not be snatched away from them even by the greatest and perpetual shameful deeds. Nothing similar can be objected against Tatian. Nay more, he is to be praised in this, that he distinguishes the Holy Spirit, whom he calls perfect God, from the spirit pervading matter. There is a similar distinction in Theophilus, book I, n. 5 and 7.

IV. Nequissimos errores Tatianus pervulgata haereticorum via defendit, nec quidquam sibi in violandis Scripturis duxit impermissum. Recipiebat ille quidem plerasque Scripturas, licet prave interpretaretur. Nam, ut supra vidimus, illud Genesis : Fiat lux, precantis esse, non jubentis effutiebat : vinum ex quodam Amos testimonio, matrimonium ex alio Pauli interdictum esse contendebat. « Tentabat etiam, teste Irenaeo, subinde uti hujusmodi a Paulo assidue dictis : Quoniam in Adam omnes moriuntur. » Plurimi faciebat Epistolam ad Titum; sed quamvis multa Pauli ad usus suos idonea duceret, nonnullas tamen illius epistolas rejecit, spe sublata eludendi et cavillandi. Haec discimus ex Hieronymo, qui sic loquitur prooem. comment. in Epist. ad Titum. « Sed Tatianus, inquit, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli Epistolas rejecit, hanc vel maxime,

IV. Tatian defended his most wicked errors by the well-worn way of heretics, nor did he deem anything unpermitted to himself in violating the Scriptures. He received indeed most of the Scriptures, although he interpreted them perversely. For, as we have seen above, he blurted out that that saying of Genesis, Let there be light, was the word of one praying, not of one commanding; he contended from a certain testimony of Amos that wine was forbidden, and from another of Paul that matrimony was forbidden. « He attempted also, as Irenaeus testifies, repeatedly to make use of sayings of this sort constantly uttered by Paul: Forasmuch as in Adam all die. » He valued very highly the Epistle to Titus; yet although he deemed many things of Paul suitable for his own uses, he nevertheless rejected some of his epistles, when hope of eluding and cavilling at them was taken away. These things we learn from Jerome, who speaks thus in the proem of his commentary on the Epistle to Titus: « Yet Tatian, he says, the patriarch of the Encratites, who himself also rejected some Epistles of Paul, most of all believed that this one,

Editors' notes and page, col. 177

Footnotes

(6) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 177 or 178 (above the rendered foot)

Ibid.

In the same place.

(printed under page 95)

(7) ‹anchor: lib. I, n. 5 et 7› · call in col 177

N. 15.

No. 15.

(printed under page 95)

(8) ‹anchor: Fiat lux› · call in col 177

Gen. I, 3.

Genesis 1:3.

(printed under page 95)

(9) ‹anchor: ex quodam Amos testimonio› · call in col 177

Amos II, 8.

Amos 2:8.

(printed under page 95)

(10) ‹anchor: in Adam omnes moriuntur› · call in col 177

I Cor. XV, 22.

1 Corinthians 15:22.

(printed under page 95)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 177 or 178 (above the rendered foot)

Lib. IV, c. 29.

Book 4, ch. 29.

(printed under page 95)

Page

running head: 177 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A persecutio tangere non; B cepta, quem virum; C Valentiniani, quod animae; D nium ex alio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (persecutio tangere...); rising space mark before illius in nonnullas tamen illius epistolas

PG 6:178

hoc est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum, qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt, assertionem. » Nonnulla etiam Apostoli dicta, inquit Eusebius, lib. IV, cap. 29, aliis verbis exprimere ausus esse fertur, quasi eorum compositionem emendans.

that is, to Titus, should be pronounced to be the Apostle's, making light of the assertion of Marcion and of others who agree with him in this matter. » Some sayings of the Apostle also, says Eusebius, book IV, ch. 29, he is reported to have dared to express in other words, as though emending their composition.

V. Sed praecipuum Tatiani facinus enituit in uno ex quatuor Evangeliis compingendo, quod idcirco Διατεσσάρων appellabat. Συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως τῶν Εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς, τὸ Διατεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. Ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. « Catenam, inquit Eusebius, et collectionem nescio quam Evangeliorum contexuit, quam Διατεσσάρων nominavit : quod opus a quibusdam etiamnum habetur. » Et Epiphanius, haeres. 46 : Λέγεται δὲ τὸ Διατεσσάρων Εὐαγγέλιον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὅπερ κατὰ Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι. « Ferunt opus illud, quod ex quatuor Evangeliis contextum est, quodque secundum Hebraeos nonnulli vocant, ab eo esse conscriptum. « Plura narrat Theodoretus, ex quibus hoc Evangelium quale fuerit intelligi potest. Οὗτος καὶ τὸ Διατεσσάρων καλούμενον συντέθεικεν Εὐαγγέλιον, τάς τε γενεαλογίας περικόψας, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγενημένον τὸν Κύριον δείκνυσιν. Ἐχρήσαντο δὲ τούτῳ οὐ μόνοι οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου συμμορίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς ἑπόμενοι δόγμασι, τὴν τῆς συνθήκης πανουργίαν οὐκ ἐγνωκότες, ἀλλὰ ἁπλούστερον ὡς συντόμῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Εὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ πλείους ἢ διακοσίας βίβλους τοιαύτας ἐν ταῖς παρ' ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμημένας, καὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεθέμην, καὶ τὰ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον Εὐαγγέλια. « Hic Evangelium, inquit, quod Diatessaron dicitur, composuit, amputatis genealogiis et aliis omnibus, quae Dominum ex semine David secundum carnem natum ostendunt. Eoque usi sunt, non modo qui ejus erant sectae, sed ii etiam qui apostolica dogmata sequebantur, compositionis fraudem non cognoscentes, sed simplicius tanquam compendiario libro utentes. Nactus sum etiam ipse libros hujusmodi supra ducentos in honore habitos in Ecclesiis nostris, quos omnes in unum congestos seposui, et pro his quatuor evangelistarum Evangelia introduxi. »

V. But the chief exploit of Tatian shone forth in his putting together one Gospel out of the four, which on that account he called Diatessaron. Having composed a certain combination and collection, I know not how, of the Gospels, he named this the Diatessaron. Which even until now is current among some. « He wove together, says Eusebius, a catena and I know not what collection of the Gospels, which he named Diatessaron: which work is even now possessed by some. » And Epiphanius, Haeres. 46: And the Diatessaron Gospel is said to have been made by him, which some call according to the Hebrews. « They say that that work, which was woven together out of the four Gospels, and which some call according to the Hebrews, was written by him. » Theodoret relates more things, from which it can be understood of what sort this Gospel was. This man also composed the Gospel called Diatessaron, having cut away the genealogies and all the other passages which show that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. And not only those of his own faction used this book, but those also who followed the apostolic dogmas, not recognizing the craftiness of the compilation, but using the book more simply as a compendious one. And I myself also found more than two hundred such books held in honour in the churches among us, and having gathered them all together I put them aside, and introduced in their stead the Gospels of the four evangelists. « This man, he says, composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, having cut off the genealogies and all the other things which show that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. And it was used not only by those who were of his sect, but also by those who followed the apostolic dogmas, not knowing the fraud of the composition, but using it more simply as a compendious book. I myself also found more than two hundred books of this sort held in honour in our churches, all of which I gathered together and laid aside, and in place of these I introduced the Gospels of the four evangelists. »

Ex his patet Harmoniam evangelicam, quae exstat sub nomine Tatiani in Biblioth. Patr. non esse Tatiani; quippe cum genealogias a Tatiano sublatas contineat. Hanc tamen Tatiano attribuebat sexto saeculo Victor Capuanus. Sed ea de re nulla jam inter eruditos dissensio. At Baronius et Caveus litem moverunt de alia Harmonia Ammonio in iisdem Patrum Bibliothecis tributa, quam quidem non Ammonii sed Tatiani esse contendunt. Sed postremum illud opus Latini scriptoris est germanissimus fetus, nec ullam prorsus notam habet, ex

From these things it is clear that the Evangelical Harmony which is extant under the name of Tatian in the Bibliotheca Patrum is not Tatian's; inasmuch as it contains the genealogies removed by Tatian. Yet in the sixth century Victor of Capua attributed this to Tatian. Concerning that matter, however, there is no longer any disagreement among the learned. But Baronius and Cave have raised a dispute concerning another Harmony attributed to Ammonius in the same Bibliothecae Patrum, which indeed they contend is not Ammonius's, but Tatian's. Yet that latter work is the most genuine offspring of a Latin writer, nor does it have any mark at all from

Editors' notes and page, col. 178

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: Hic Evangelium, inquit› · call in col 178

Haeret. Fab., lib. I, c. 20.

Compendium of Heretical Fables, book 1, ch. 20.

(printed under page 95)

(13) ‹anchor: in Biblioth. Patr.› · call in col 178

Edit. Paris., tom. VII; Lug., tom. II.

Paris edition, vol. 7; Lyons, vol. 2.

(printed under page 95)

(14) ‹anchor: Patrum Bibliothecis tributa› · call in col 178

Edit. Paris. t. VII Lug., t. III.

Paris edition, vol. 7; Lyons, vol. 3.

(printed under page 95)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 178
marginal letters: A hoc est ad; B haeres. 46 : Λέγεται; C βίβλους τοιαύτας ἐν; D Ex his patet
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (hoc est ad Titum...)

PG 6:179

qua Latinum e Graeco factum agnoscas. Deinde vero nulla prorsus in re Tatiani haeresi consulit, sed legem Mosis sic commendat, idque verbis in Scriptura non exstantibus (neque enim uti solet ipsis Scripturae verbis) ut Tatiano affingi non possit.

which you might recognize it as made into Latin from Greek. Moreover, it consults the interest of the heresy of Tatian in nothing at all, but so commends the law of Moses, and that in words not extant in Scripture (for it is not wont to use the very words of Scripture), that it cannot be falsely ascribed to Tatian.

VI. Cum tam late manaverit hujus Evangelii fama, accuratius investigandum nobis est, quid de eo veteres dixerint. Illud in primis observandum est, quod ait Epiphanius, hoc Tatiani Evangelium a nonnullis secundum Hebraeos vocari. Vix profecto credibile est Hebraeos illos, quorum alii, nempe Nazaraei, legis observationem cum Ecclesiae catholicae doctrina jungebant; alii vero, nempe Ebionaei, Christum simplicem hominem ex Virgine, vel etiam ex Josepho genitum dicebant, Evangelio Tatiani, quod ad dissimillimos errores insinuandos fabricatum fuerat, usos fuisse. Ac de Nazaraeis quidem minime dubium, quin ad usus suos asciverint non Tatiani Evangelium, sed illud quod S. Hieronymus Graecis ac Latinis litteris illustravit. At quod spectat ad Ebionitas, Evangelium quod eis attribuit Epiphanius in haeresi 30, quae est Ebionitarum, idem prorsus videtur esse ac illud Tatiani diatessaron.

VI. Since the fame of this Gospel spread so widely, we must investigate more accurately what the ancients said concerning it. First of all must be observed what Epiphanius says, that this Gospel of Tatian is called by some according to the Hebrews. Scarcely indeed is it credible that those Hebrews, of whom some, namely the Nazaraeans, joined the observance of the law with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, while others, namely the Ebionites, said that Christ was a mere man born of the Virgin, or even of Joseph, made use of the Gospel of Tatian, which had been fabricated to insinuate the most dissimilar errors. And concerning the Nazaraeans indeed there is not the least doubt that they adopted for their own uses not the Gospel of Tatian, but that which St. Jerome illustrated in Greek and Latin letters. But as regards the Ebionites, the Gospel which Epiphanius attributes to them in Heresy 30, which is that of the Ebionites, seems to be altogether the same as that Diatessaron of Tatian.

1° In Evangelio, quod Epiphanius Ebionitis proprium tradit, amputatae erant genealogiae. Ἐν τῷ γοῦν παρὰ αὐτοῖς εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ὀνομαζομένῳ, οὐχ ὅλῳ δὲ πληρεστάτῳ, ἀλλὰ νενοθευμένῳ, καὶ ἠκρωτηριασμένῳ, Ἑβραϊκὸν δὲ τοῦτο καλοῦσιν, ἐμφέρεται, κ. τ. λ. « Igitur in eo quod penes illos est Matthaei Evangelio, inquit cap. 13, quanquam ne integrum quidem illud habent, sed adulteratum ac mutilum, idque ipsum Hebraicum vocant, ita scriptum est, etc. » Et infra : Κήρινθος καὶ Καρπόκρας τῷ αὐτῷ χρώμενοι δῆθεν παρ' αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγελίῳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγελίου, διὰ τῆς γενεαλογίας βούλονται παριστᾷν ἐκ σπέρματος Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίας εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν. Οὗτοι δὲ ἄλλα τινὰ διανοοῦνται. Παρακόψαντες γὰρ τὰς παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ γενεαλογίας, ἄρχονται τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιεῖσθαι, ὡς προεῖπον. « Cerinthus enim et Carpocrates eodem Matthaei, ut quidem volunt, Evangelio freti, ex ejus initio Christique genealogia probare nituntur, Christum e Josephi et Mariae semine esse procreatum. Illi (Ebionitae) contra omnino statuunt. Nam omni genealogia amputata inde, unde diximus, initium ducunt. » Deerant ergo in illo secundum Hebraeos Evangelio genealogiae, quas ex Evangelio Διατεσσάρων, ut quae Tatiani haeresi incommodarent, amputatas fuisse Theodoretus testatur, lib. I Haeret. fab., c. 20.

1. In the Gospel which Epiphanius hands down as peculiar to the Ebionites, the genealogies had been cut off. In the Gospel among them, therefore, which is named according to Matthew, yet is not whole and most complete, but falsified and mutilated—and they call this the Hebrew Gospel—there is contained, etc. « Therefore in the Gospel of Matthew which is among them, he says in ch. 13, although they do not even have it entire, but adulterated and mutilated, and call this very one the Hebrew Gospel, it is thus written, etc. » And below: Cerinthus and Carpocrates, using forsooth the same Gospel among them, from the beginning of the Gospel according to Matthew through the genealogy wish to establish that Christ is of the seed of Joseph and Mary. But these men have other thoughts in mind. For having cut off the genealogies in Matthew, they begin to make their beginning, as I said before. « For Cerinthus and Carpocrates, relying on the same Gospel of Matthew, as indeed they wish, strive to prove from its beginning and the genealogy of Christ that Christ was procreated from the seed of Joseph and Mary. Those men (the Ebionites) maintain the exact contrary. For having cut off the whole genealogy, they take their beginning from the point of which we have spoken. » The genealogies, therefore, were wanting in that Gospel according to the Hebrews, which Theodoret testifies were cut off from the Gospel Diatessaron as being inconvenient to the heresy of Tatian, book I of Haereticarum fabularum compendium, ch. 20.

2° In eodem Ebionitarum sive secundum Hebraeos Evangelio multa alia occurrebant ad Tatiani de lege Mosis et de animalium usu errores accommodata. Sic loquebatur Christus in hoc Evangelio : Ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς θυσίας, καὶ ἐὰν

2. In the same Gospel of the Ebionites, or according to the Hebrews, many other things occurred accommodated to the errors of Tatian concerning the law of Moses and the use of animals. Thus spoke Christ in this Gospel: I came to abolish sacrifices, and unless

Editors' notes and page, col. 179

Footnotes

(15) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 179 or 180 (above the rendered foot)

Cap. 12 et 13.

Chs. 12 and 13.

(printed under page 96)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 179 or 180 (above the rendered foot)

Haeres. 46, c. 1.

Heresies, 46, ch. 1.

(printed under page 96)

(17) ‹anchor: amputatae erant genealogiae› · call in col 179

Haeres. 36, c. 13.

Heresies, 36 [so the scan appears to read; the Ebionites are Heresy 30], ch. 13.

(printed under page 96)

(18) ‹anchor: Et infra› · call in col 179

N. 14.

No. 14.

(printed under page 96)

(19) ‹anchor: in hoc Evangelio› · call in col 179

N. 22.

No. 22.

(printed under page 96)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 179 or 180 (above the rendered foot)

Luc. XXII, 15.

Luke 22:15.

(printed under page 96)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 179 or 180 (above the rendered foot)

Matth. XXVI, 17.

Matthew 26:17.

(printed under page 96)

Page

running head: 179 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS E
marginal letters: A qua Latinum e; B Tatiani, quod ad; C est Matthaei Evangelio,; D procreatum. Illi (Ebionitae)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (qua Latinum e Graeco...)

PG 6:180

μὴ παύσησθε τοῦ θύειν, οὐ παύσεται ἀφ' ὑμῶν ἡ ὀργή. « Ego ad abroganda sacrificia veni, et nisi sacrificare desieritis, Dei in vos ira non cessabit. » Pro eo quod Joannes dicitur ἀκρίδας, id est locustas comedisse, isti ἐγκρίδας Epichyta mellita posuerant. Illud Christi apud Lucam : Desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum, sic invertebatur in Evangelio Ebionitarum : quaerentibus discipulis : Ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? sic Christus respondebat : Μὴ ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα κρέας τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν; « Nunquid desiderio desideravi carnem hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum? » In his agnoscere licet non solum Tatiani deliria, sed etiam illius in pervertendis ad arbitrium Scripturis audaciam, de qua Eusebius, Hist., IV, 29.

you cease from sacrificing, wrath shall not cease from you. « I have come to abrogate sacrifices, and unless you cease to sacrifice, the wrath of God against you will not cease. » Instead of John being said to have eaten ἀκρίδας, that is, locusts, those men had put ἐγκρίδας, honey-cakes. That saying of Christ in Luke: With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you, was thus inverted in the Gospel of the Ebionites: when the disciples asked: Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover? Christ answered thus: Did I with desire desire to eat this flesh, the Passover, with you? « Did I with desire desire to eat flesh at this Passover with you? » In these things one may recognize not only the ravings of Tatian, but also his audacity in perverting the Scriptures at will, concerning which see Eusebius, History, IV, 29.

3° Evangelium secundum Hebraeos, quod Epiphanio notum fuit, non, ut illud quod Hieronymus interpretatus est, solo Matthaei contextu continebatur; sed plane ut Evangelium Tatiani Διατεσσάρων, ex aliis evangelistarum locis callide assutis constabat. Perspicua res est tum ex Lucae verbis, quae modo in hoc Evangelio maligne detorta vidimus, tum ex alio testimonio, quod ab Epiphanio appositum, n. 13, partim ex Matthaei, partim ex Marci et Lucae verbis conflatum est.

3. The Gospel according to the Hebrews which was known to Epiphanius was not, like that which Jerome translated, contained in the text of Matthew alone; but altogether like the Gospel Diatessaron of Tatian, it consisted of other passages of the evangelists cunningly patched together. The matter is clear both from the words of Luke, which we have just seen maliciously distorted in this Gospel, and from another testimony which, adduced by Epiphanius, n. 13, is compounded partly of the words of Matthew, and partly of those of Mark and Luke.

4° In eodem secundum Hebraeos Evangelio baptismus Christi describitur, ut apud magistrum Tatiani Justinum : hae Patris voces auditae narrantur : Ego hodie genui te : magnum lumen in Jordane dicitur affulsisse.

4. In the same Gospel according to the Hebrews the baptism of Christ is described as in Tatian's master Justin: these words of the Father are related to have been heard: This day have I begotten Thee: a great light is said to have shone forth in the Jordan.

Sensit Epiphanius multa esse in hoc Evangelio cum Ebionitis pugnantia. Nam cum Christum ab eis simplicem hominem existimari sciret, mirari satis non poterat, cur haec Christi verba : Quae est mater mea et fratres mei? in hunc usum adhiberent, ut Christum probarent hominem non esse, sed eos putabat secum ipsos pugnare. At incredibilis est tanta inconstantia, ut eumdem et hominem ex hominibus genitum dixerint, et hominem esse negaverint. Multa alia Ebionitis attribuit Epiphanius, cum ea opinione, quam de illis tota antiquitas confirmat, omnino pugnantia. Detestatos illis esse omnes prophetas declarat, n. 15. At quae sunt prophetiae, si Irenaeo credimus, lib. I, c. 26, curiosius exponere nitebantur. Addit Epiphanius eos ab omnibus animatis, propterea quod e concubitu genita sunt, abstinere, aqua tantum in mysteriis celebrandis uti, ac inter Jesum ac Christum id discriminis ponere, ut Christum Dei Filium in Jesum descendisse dicant. Credere equidem malim Ebionaeos ab Epiphanio cum Cerinthi aut Carpocratis aut aliis ejusmodi sectis confundi, quae Jesum quidem hominem ex hominibus genitum esse dicebant, sed cum Christum impassibilem esse statuerent, ac Deum veteris testamenti et Creatorem

Epiphanius perceived that there were many things in this Gospel conflicting with the Ebionites. For since he knew that Christ was deemed by them a mere man, he could not wonder enough why they employed these words of Christ: Who is My mother and My brethren? for this purpose, that they might prove that Christ was not a man, and he thought that they contradicted themselves. Yet such inconstancy is incredible, that they should have said that the same person was both a man born of men, and denied that He was a man. Epiphanius attributes many other things to the Ebionites altogether conflicting with that opinion which all antiquity confirms concerning them. He declares that all the prophets were detested by them, n. 15. Yet the things which are prophecies, if we believe Irenaeus, book I, ch. 26, they strove to expound rather curiously. Epiphanius adds that they abstain from all animate things because they are generated from sexual union, use water alone in celebrating the mysteries, and place this distinction between Jesus and Christ, that they say Christ the Son of God descended into Jesus. For my part I should prefer to believe that the Ebionites are confounded by Epiphanius with the sects of Cerinthus or Carpocrates or others of that sort, which said indeed that Jesus was a man born of men, but since they held that Christ was impassible, and turned away from the God of the Old Testament and Creator

Editors' notes and page, col. 180

Footnotes

(22) ‹anchor: Ego hodie genui te› · call in col 180

Act. XIII, 33.

Acts 13:33.

(printed under page 96)

(23) ‹anchor: cum Ebionitis pugnantia› · call in col 180

Haeres. 30, n. 14.

Heresies, 30, no. 14.

(printed under page 96)

(24) ‹anchor: et fratres mei› · call in col 180

Matth. XII, 48.

Matthew 12:48.

(printed under page 96)

Page

running head: HILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 180
marginal letters: A μὴ παύσησθε τοῦ; B Hist., IV, 29.; C Jordane dicitur affulsisse.; D prophetiae, si Irenaeo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (μὴ παύσησθε...)

PG 6:181

mundi aversarentur, plurimum affinitatis cum Tatiano habuerunt, ac ejus Evangelio non incommode ad errores suos uti potuerunt.

of the world, had very much affinity with Tatian, and were able to use his Gospel not inconveniently for their own errors.

VII. Facile crediderim illud etiam Evangelium, quod secundum Petrum dicebatur, Tatiani Evangelio diversum non esse. Tempus et res ipsae mirifice conveniunt, ut discimus ex testimonio Serapionis Antiocheni episcopi apud Eusebium, VI, 12. Is antequam illud Petri Evangelium per se ipse examinasset, permiserat ut legeretur in paroecia Rhossensi, ne forte discordiae, quibus materiam dederat illud Evangelium, graviores fierent. Sed postquam illud perlegit, in gratiam eorum, qui decepti fuerant, librum composuit, in quo sic loquebatur : Ἐδυνήθημεν γὰρ παρ' ἄλλων τῶν ἀσκησάντων τοῦτο τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, τουτέστι παρὰ τῶν διαδόχων τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ, οὓς Δοκητὰς καλοῦμεν (τὰ γὰρ πλείονα φρονήματα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας) χρησάμενοι παρ' αὐτῶν διελθεῖν· καὶ εὑρεῖν τὰ μὲν πλείονα τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου τοῦ Σωτῆρος, τινὰ δὲ προσδιεσταλμένα, ἃ καὶ ὑπετάξαμεν ὑμῖν. « Mutuati enim supradictum Evangelium ab iis, qui illud usu et exercitatione promoverunt, id est a successoribus eorum qui illud incoeperunt, quos Docetas vocamus (sunt enim pleraeque sententiae ex eorum doctrina) legendi copiam nacti sumus, et deprehendimus quidem in plerisque rectam Salvatoris doctrinam, sed tamen detorta esse nonnulla, quae et vobis subjecimus. » Serapion, qui Ecclesiam Antiochenam rexit ab anno 190 usque ad annum 211, degebat cum Tatiani successoribus. Ut Tatiani diatessaron, ita illud etiam, quod Petri dicebatur, Evangelium tanta arte concinnatum erat ut Catholicis non doctissimis fucum faceret : utrumque ab eruditis episcopis, Theodoreto et Serapione, admoniti e manibus projecerunt. Praeterea Docetarum usu terebatur Evangelium secundum Petrum : at pleraque commenta a Tatiano Docetae acceperant, nec video cur non illud etiam Evangelium ab eo acceperint, aut cur novi architectandi operam susceperint, cum communibus erroribus satis providisset Tatianus, ac etiamsi quid inter eos de carne Christi non conveniret, in hoc tamen utrisque in commune genealogiis recisis consuluisset.

VII. I could easily believe that that Gospel also which was called according to Peter was not different from the Gospel of Tatian. The time and the matters themselves agree wonderfully, as we learn from the testimony of Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in Eusebius, VI, 12. Before he had examined that Gospel of Peter for himself, he had permitted it to be read in the parish of Rhossus, lest perchance the discords to which that Gospel had given occasion should become more serious. But after he read it through, for the sake of those who had been deceived he composed a book, in which he spoke thus: For we were able from others who practised this very Gospel, that is, from the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae (for most of the sentiments belong to their teaching), having borrowed it from them, to go through it; and to find that most things indeed belong to the right word of the Saviour, but that some things are added besides, which we have also subjoined for you. « For having borrowed the aforesaid Gospel from those who promoted it by use and practice, that is, from the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae (for most of the opinions are from their doctrine), we obtained the opportunity of reading it, and we found indeed in most parts the right doctrine of the Saviour, yet that some things had been distorted, which we have also subjoined for you. » Serapion, who governed the Church of Antioch from the year 190 until the year 211, lived among the successors of Tatian. Like the Diatessaron of Tatian, so also that Gospel which was called Peter's had been put together with such art as to deceive Catholics who were not very learned: being admonished by the learned bishops Theodoret and Serapion, they cast both out of their hands. Moreover, the Gospel according to Peter was worn by the use of the Docetae: now the Docetae had received most of their figments from Tatian, nor do I see why they should not have received that Gospel also from him, or why they should have undertaken the labour of framing a new one, when Tatian had sufficiently provided for their common errors, and even if there was some disagreement between them concerning the flesh of Christ, yet in this he had consulted the common interest of both by cutting off the genealogies.

Neque illud omittendum, quod testatur Theodoretus, Haeret. fab., lib. II, cap. 2, Evangelium Petri usui fuisse Nazaraeis. Id profecto incredibile : nam Nazaraei id unum peccabant, quod legem Mosis obstinate retinerent. Sed cum Nazaraei saepe confundantur cum Ebionitis, quos scribit Epiphanius Tatiani Evangelio usos fuisse, inde videtur errandi occasio oblata Theodoreto.

Nor must that be omitted which Theodoret testifies, Haereticarum fabularum compendium, book II, ch. 2, that the Gospel of Peter was used by the Nazaraeans. That is assuredly incredible: for the Nazaraeans sinned in this one thing, that they obstinately retained the law of Moses. But since the Nazaraeans are often confounded with the Ebionites, whom Epiphanius writes made use of the Gospel of Tatian, thence an occasion of erring seems to have been offered to Theodoret.

Editors' notes and page, col. 181

Page

running head: 181 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A mundi aversarentur, plurimum; B σάντων τοῦτο τὸ; C Antiochenam rexit ab; D utrisque in commune
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (mundi aversarentur...)

PG 6:182

CAPUT XIII

Chapter XIII.

De gestis et scriptis Athenagorae.

On the deeds and writings of Athenagoras.

I. Testimonium Philippi Sidetae de Athenagora expenditur. II. An idem Athenagoras ac Athenogenes. III. Apologia ab eo oblata M. Aurelio ejusque filio Commodo. IV. Oblata anno 176, nec solum scripta. V. De alio illius libro, qui est de resurrectione mortuorum.

I. The testimony of Philip of Side concerning Athenagoras is examined. II. Whether Athenagoras is the same as Athenogenes. III. The Apology offered by him to Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. IV. Offered in the year 176, and not merely written. V. On his other book, which is on the resurrection of the dead.

I. Athenagoram Atheniensem ac philosophum fuisse indicat ejus operum titulus. De rebus illius gestis non uberrima est dicendi seges, cum ipsius nomen pene oblivio deleverit. Nam si Methodium martyrem et Philippum Sidetam excipias, quorum alter unam aliquam Athenagorae sententiam apud Epiphanium haeres. 64, et Photium cod. 224 citat, alter de illo breviter et quasi transiens locutus est, altum de hoc eximio scriptore in tota antiquitate silentium. Debuit tamen illius fama latius manare, si vera sunt quae perhibet Philippus Sideta, praefuisse illum scholae Alexandrinae, eique in hoc munere discipulum Clementem successisse. Refertur hoc testimonium Philippi Sidetae in quodam fragmento, quod ex Nicephori Callisti, ut conjicit Dodwellus, operibus excerptum ad calcem dissertationum Dodwelli in Irenaeum legitur. Sic habent quae de Athenagora ibi dicuntur : Καί φησι Φίλιππος ὁ Σιδητὴς ἐν λόγῳ κδʹ· « Τοῦ διδασκαλείου τοῦ ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ Ἀθηναγόρας πρῶτος ἡγήσατο, κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ἀκμάσας Ἁδριανοῦ καὶ Ἀντωνίνου, οἷς καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν πρεσβευτικὸν προσεφώνησεν· ἀνὴρ ἐν αὐτῷ χριστιανίσας τῷ τρίβωνι καὶ τῆς Ἀκαδημαϊκῆς σχολῆς προϊστάμενος. Οὗτος πρὸ τοῦ Κέλσου κατὰ Χριστιανῶν γράψαι προθυμηθεὶς, ἐντυχὼν ταῖς θείαις Γραφαῖς εἰς τὸ ἀκριβέστερον ἀγωνίσασθαι, οὕτως εἵλετο τῷ παναγίῳ Πνεύματι, ὥστε διδάσκαλον, κατὰ τὸν μέγαν Παῦλον, ἀντὶ διώκτου γενέσθαι τῆς πίστεως ἧς ἐδίωκεν. » Τούτου μαθητὴν γενέσθαι φησὶν ὁ Φίλιππος τὸν στρωματέα Κλήμεντα καὶ Πάνταινον τοῦ Κλήμεντος. « Ait Philippus Sideta in serm. 24 :— Scholae Alexandrinae primus praefuit Athenagoras, qui temporibus Adriani et Antonini floruit, quibus etiam legatoriam orationem pro Christianis inscripsit; vir Christianam religionem in ipso pallio professus, ac scholae academicae praefectus. Is cum ante Celsum in animo haberet adversus Christianos scribere, legens divinas Scripturas ad accuratius pugnandum, sic Spiritu sancto captus est, ut more ac modo magni Pauli pro persecutore doctor fieret illius doctrinae, quam insectabatur.— Hujus discipulum fuisse ait Philippus Clementem Alexandrinum et Pantaenum Clementis. »

I. That Athenagoras was an Athenian and a philosopher is indicated by the title of his works. Concerning his deeds there is no very abundant harvest for discourse, since oblivion has almost blotted out his very name. For if you except Methodius the martyr and Philip of Side, of whom the one cites a certain single sentiment of Athenagoras in Epiphanius, Haeres. 64, and Photius, cod. 224, and the other spoke of him briefly and as if in passing, there is deep silence concerning this eminent writer throughout all antiquity. Yet his fame ought to have spread more widely, if the things which Philip of Side relates are true, that he presided over the school of Alexandria, and that his disciple Clement succeeded him in this office. This testimony of Philip of Side is reported in a certain fragment which, excerpted from the works of Nicephorus Callistus, as Dodwell conjectures, is read at the end of Dodwell's dissertations on Irenaeus. Thus stand the things that are said there concerning Athenagoras: And Philip of Side says in book 24: « Over the catechetical school in Alexandria Athenagoras first presided, having flourished in the times of Hadrian and Antoninus, to whom he also addressed his Plea for the Christians; a man who embraced Christianity in his very philosopher's cloak and while presiding over the Academic school. This man, before Celsus, having been eager to write against the Christians, and having perused the divine Scriptures in order to contend more accurately, was so captivated by the all-holy Spirit that, like the great Paul, instead of a persecutor he became a teacher of the faith which he was persecuting. » His disciple, says Philip, was Clement the Stromatist, and Pantaenus was Clement's. « Philip of Side says in book 24: — Over the school of Alexandria Athenagoras first presided, who flourished in the times of Hadrian and Antoninus, to whom also he inscribed his ambassadorial oration for the Christians; a man who professed the Christian religion in the philosopher's cloak itself, and was prefect of the Academic school. When before Celsus he had it in mind to write against the Christians, reading the divine Scriptures in order to fight more accurately, he was so captivated by the Holy Spirit that, after the manner and fashion of the great Paul, instead of a persecutor he became a teacher of that doctrine which he was persecuting. — His disciple, Philip says, was Clement of Alexandria, and Pantaenus was Clement's. »

Quamvis non maxima sit auctoritas Philippi, ejusque opus, quod Historiam Christianam inscripserat, doctis pariter et indoctis inutile judicet Socrates, lib. XVII, cap. 27, cui assentitur Photius, cod. 35, eum tamen Dodwellus ipsi etiam Eusebio in hoc de Athenagora et aliis Alexandrinae scholae rectoribus testimonio anteponendum putat, propterea quod Rhodonis discipulus fuit, qui Alexandrinae

Although the authority of Philip is not very great, and Socrates, book XVII, ch. 27, with whom Photius agrees, cod. 35, judges his work, which he had entitled Christian History, useless to the learned and the unlearned alike, nevertheless Dodwell thinks that he should be preferred even to Eusebius himself in this testimony concerning Athenagoras and the other rectors of the school of Alexandria, because he was a disciple of Rhodon, who presided over the Alexandrian

Editors' notes and page, col. 182

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 182
marginal letters: A CAPUT XIII; B altum de hoc; C τῆς Ἀκαδημαϊκῆς σχολῆς; D sum in animo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (CAPUT XIII De gestis et scriptis Athenagorae...); Alexan- split at column break

PG 6:183

scholae post Didymum praefuit, et eamdem scholam in urbem Sidam transtulit, ubi eum a se auditum narrat Philippus teste excerpti modo laudati auctore, sive is Nicephorus sit, seu quilibet alius. Haud equidem negaverim Dodwelli rationem id valere, ut si quid narret Philippus, quod cum optimis monumentis non pugnet, id probetur. At nunquam impetrabit Dodwellus, ut scriptor non magni ponderis, Proclo et Sisinnio aequalis ac diaconi munere sub Joanne Chrysostomo perfunctus, Eusebio, qui et antiquior et accuratior est, ac multo plura scholae Alexandrinae monumenta, pluresque eruditos viros aut ei praefectos aut in ea institutos viderat, anteponatur. Quare ut omittam longe a vero aberrare Philippum, cum Apologiam Athenagorae imperatoribus Adriano et Antonino inscriptam putat; multa in eodem testimonio leguntur partim haud valde probabilia, partim falsa prorsus et absurda. Non libenter crediderim Athenagoram Alexandrinae scholae praefuisse. Quomodo enim in tam alto et sublimi loco ita illius scripta latuere, ut nulla prorsus ad Eusebium aura perveniret? Illud certe dici non potest quod ait Philippus Athenagoram huic scholae primum praefuisse. Nam diserte testatur Eusebius litterarum sacrarum scholam jam inde a priscis temporibus, antequam ei praeesset Pantaenus, in urbe Alexandrina institutam fuisse.

school after Didymus, and transferred the same school to the city of Side, where Philip relates that he was heard by him, according to the witness of the author of the excerpt just cited, whether he be Nicephorus or anyone else at all. For my part I would by no means deny that Dodwell's reasoning avails to this extent, that if Philip relates anything which does not conflict with the best monuments, it may be approved. Yet Dodwell will never obtain his point, that a writer of no great weight, a contemporary of Proclus and Sisinnius and one who discharged the office of deacon under John Chrysostom, should be preferred to Eusebius, who is both more ancient and more accurate, and had seen far more monuments of the school of Alexandria, and more learned men either set over it or trained in it. Wherefore, to pass over the fact that Philip wanders far from the truth when he thinks that the Apology of Athenagoras was inscribed to the emperors Hadrian and Antoninus, many things are read in the same testimony that are partly not very probable, and partly altogether false and absurd. I would not readily believe that Athenagoras presided over the school of Alexandria. For how could his writings have lain so hidden in so lofty and sublime a post that no breath of them at all reached Eusebius? That certainly cannot be said which Philip affirms, that Athenagoras presided over this school first. For Eusebius expressly testifies that the school of sacred letters had been established in the city of Alexandria already from ancient times, before Pantaenus presided over it.

Non minus absurde idem Philippus Athenagoram Clementis Alexandrini, Clementem Pantaeni magistrum fuisse statuit. Dubitari non potest quin Clemens Alexandrinus non magister Pantaeni sed discipulus fuerit. Acceptam a Pantaeno doctrinam grato animo memorabat in Hypotyposibus. Rem testatur Eusebius, Hist., V, cap. 11 : Ὃς δὴ καὶ ὀνομαστὶ ἐν αἷς συνέταξεν Ὑποτυπώσεσιν ὡς ἂν διδασκάλου τοῦ Πανταίνου μέμνηται. « Clemens in Institutionum libris a se conscriptis diserte Pantaeni ut magistri meminit. » Et Photius, cod. 109, de eodem Clemente : Μαθητὴς δὲ, ὡς αὐτός φησι, γέγονε Πανταίνου. « Fuit autem, quemadmodum ipse testatur, discipulus Pantaeni. » Fidem ergo non meretur Philippus, cum de rebus Clementis tantopere discrepat ab ipso Clemente. Atque hinc etiam perspici potest non inani conjectura, ut visum est Dodwello, sed firmis indiciis Eusebium niti, cum magistrum illum, quem Clemens ordine et tempore ultimum, at merito longe principem in Aegypto audierat, Pantaenum fuisse concludit. Nam cum Clemens uni tantum magistro, ut ipse testatur, operam in Aegypto dederit, cumque Pantaenus in Aegypto docuerit, et auditore usus sit Clemente, an inanis conclusio est magistrum illum, quem solum Clemens (Strom., I, p. 271) in Aegypto audivit, non alium esse Pantaeno? Fabulam itaque redolet ejusmodi historia. Nec tamen in Philippi Sidetae testimonio pariter rejecerim, quae de mirabili Athenagorae

No less absurdly does the same Philip maintain that Athenagoras was the master of Clement of Alexandria, and Clement of Pantaenus. It cannot be doubted that Clement of Alexandria was not the master of Pantaenus, but his disciple. He commemorated with a grateful mind in his Hypotyposes the doctrine he had received from Pantaenus. Eusebius testifies to the fact, History, V, ch. 11: Who indeed also by name, in the Hypotyposes which he composed, makes mention of Pantaenus as his teacher. « Clement in the books of Institutions written by himself expressly makes mention of Pantaenus as his master. » And Photius, cod. 109, concerning the same Clement: And he became, as he himself says, a disciple of Pantaenus. « Now he was, just as he himself testifies, a disciple of Pantaenus. » Philip therefore does not deserve credence when concerning the affairs of Clement he differs so greatly from Clement himself. And hence also it can be perceived that Eusebius relies not on an empty conjecture, as seemed to Dodwell, but on firm proofs, when he concludes that that master whom Clement had heard in Egypt last in order and time, yet deservedly far the first in merit, was Pantaenus. For since Clement devoted himself to only one master in Egypt, as he himself testifies, and since Pantaenus taught in Egypt and had Clement as a hearer, is it an empty conclusion that that master whom alone Clement (Stromata, I, p. 271) heard in Egypt is no other than Pantaenus? Such a story therefore smacks of fable. Yet I would not equally reject in the testimony of Philip of Side the things that are related concerning the wonderful conversion of Athenagoras,

Editors' notes and page, col. 183

Footnotes

(25) ‹anchor: testatur Eusebius› · call in col 183

Hist., lib. V, c. 10.

History, book 5, ch. 10.

(printed under page 98)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 183 or 184 (above the rendered foot)

Baron. ad 18 Jan.

Baronius, at 18 January.

(printed under page 98)

Page

running head: 183 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A drinae scholae post; B inscriptam putat; multa; C magistrum fuisse statuit.; D sed firmis indiciis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (drinae scholae...); begins with fragment drinae from Alexandrinae split across col 182-183 break; Athena- split at column break

PG 6:184

conversione, et Christianae religionis in ipso pallio professione narrantur. Haec enim minime repugnant; sed certiora essent, si Philippus majorem in historia scribenda fidem ac diligentiam declarasset.

and his profession of the Christian religion in the philosopher's cloak itself. For these things are by no means contradictory; yet they would be more certain if Philip had shown greater trustworthiness and diligence in writing history.

II. Suspicantur viri praestantissimi, Baronius et Tillemontius Athenagoram eumdem esse ac S. Athenogenem martyrem, cujus hymnum quemdam laudavit Basilius in libro De Spiritu sancto, cap. 29, compositum a S. martyre et discipulis relictum instar cujusdam amuleti, cum igne jamjam comburendus esset. Revera praeter nominis similitudinem, quae fucum librariis facere potuit, videtur Athenogenes eruditione ac discipulis floruisse, quod quidem non minus apte in philosophum Atheniensem convenit. Athenagoram passum esse pro Christo nulla perhibent historiae monumenta. Sed ut ejus scripta pene in oblivione jacuerunt, ita et martyrium latere potuisset. Nec profecto mirarer si vitam pro Christo profudisset, qui sub eo imperatore, sub quo delatus Christianus poenam capitalem non effugiebat, non modo seipsum deferre ausus est, sed etiam Christianam religionem sic defendere, ut imperatorem superstitioni addictissimum alloquens, Christiani cultus sanctitatem et intaminatos Christianorum mores cum turpibus gentilium sacrificiis et simulacris ac vita corruptissima compararet. Sed, ut observatum est ad laudatum Basilii locum, verisimilius est Athenogenem illum a S. Basilio memorari, quem sub Diocletiano Martyrologia ad diem 16 Julii cum nonnullis aliis passum esse Sebastiae in Armenia testantur.

II. Those most distinguished men, Baronius and Tillemont, suspect that Athenagoras is the same as St. Athenogenes the martyr, a certain hymn of whose Basil praised in his book On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, composed by the holy martyr and left to his disciples like a kind of amulet when he was on the very point of being burned with fire. In truth, besides the similarity of name, which could have played a trick on copyists, Athenogenes seems to have flourished in learning and disciples, which indeed suits no less aptly the Athenian philosopher. No monuments of history record that Athenagoras suffered for Christ. Yet just as his writings lay almost in oblivion, so his martyrdom also could have lain hidden. Nor assuredly should I wonder if he poured forth his life for Christ, he who under that emperor under whom a Christian when denounced did not escape capital punishment, dared not only to denounce himself, but also so to defend the Christian religion that, addressing an emperor most devoted to superstition, he compared the sanctity of Christian worship and the unstained morals of the Christians with the base sacrifices and idols and most corrupt life of the Gentiles. Yet, as has been observed at the cited passage of Basil, it is more probable that that Athenogenes is commemorated by St. Basil whom the Martyrologies at the 16th day of July testify to have suffered under Diocletian with several others at Sebaste in Armenia.

III. Cum plura non suppetant, quae de rebus Athenagorae disseramus, veniendum ad illius scripta quorum longe praestantissimum Legatio, sive Apologia pro Christianis. Oblatam fuisse M. Aurelio ejusque filio Commodo idque anno 177 Baronius, Petavius et Tillemontius existimant. Contra Labbaeus, Pagius et Dodwellus, imperatoribus M. Aurelio et Lucio Vero inscriptam contendunt; Dodwellus quidem anno 168, Pagius vero anno 166. In hac sententiarum varietate non difficilis deliberatio est utros sequamur. Baronii enim et Tillemontii sententiam in clarissima luce exponunt haec Athenagorae verba : Τίνες γὰρ καὶ δικαιότεροι ὧν δέονται τυχεῖν, ἢ οἵτινες περὶ μὲν τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς ὑμετέρας εὐχόμεθα, ἵνα παῖς μὲν παρὰ πατρὸς κατὰ τὸ δικαιότατον διαδέχησθε τὴν βασιλείαν, αὔξησιν δὲ καὶ ἐπίδοσιν ἡ ἀρχὴ ὑμῶν, πάντων ὑποχειρίων γιγνομένων, λαμβάνῃ; « Quinam enim digniores, qui ea quae petunt impetrent, quam qui pro imperio vestro precamur, ut filius a patre, prout aequissimum est, regnum accipiatis, et accessionibus ac incrementis imperium vestrum, omnibus ditioni vestrae subjectis, augeatur? » Haec profecto ad M. Aurelium et L. Verum referri non possunt. Ambo adoptati fuerant ab Antonino; neuter alterius pater; nec aequissimum erat ut Lucius

III. Since no further materials are at hand for us to discourse concerning the affairs of Athenagoras, we must come to his writings, by far the most excellent of which is the Plea, or Apology for the Christians. Baronius, Petavius, and Tillemont think that it was offered to Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, and that in the year 177. On the contrary, Labbe, Pagi, and Dodwell contend that it was inscribed to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus; Dodwell indeed in the year 168, but Pagi in the year 166. In this variety of opinions the deliberation is not difficult as to which of the two we should follow. For these words of Athenagoras set the opinion of Baronius and Tillemont in the clearest light: For who are even more righteous to obtain the things which they ask, than we who pray indeed for your government, that you may succeed to the kingdom as son from father according to what is most just, and that your government, with all men becoming subject to your hand, may receive increase and advancement? « For who are worthier to obtain those things which they ask, than we who pray for your empire, that as son from father, according as is most equitable, you may receive the kingdom, and that your empire, with all men subjected to your dominion, may be increased by accessions and increments? » These things assuredly cannot be referred to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Both had been adopted by Antoninus; neither was the father of the other; nor was it most equitable that Lucius

Editors' notes and page, col. 184

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: Baronius› · call in col 184

Baron. ad 18 Jan.

Baronius, at 18 January.

(printed under page 98)

(27) ‹anchor: Athenagorae verba› · call in col 184

N. 37.

No. 37.

(printed under page 98)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 184
marginal letters: A gorae conversione, et; B Christo nulla perhibent; C aliis passum esse; D τῆς ὑμετέρας εὐχόμεθα,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (gorae conversione...); begins with fragment gorae from Athenagorae split across col 183-184 break

PG 6:185

a M. Aurelio, quicum pari jure jam tum imperabat, sed potius ut Marci filius regnum a patre aliquando acciperet.

from Marcus Aurelius, with whom he already then ruled with equal right, but rather that the son of Marcus should receive the kingdom from his father.

In eamdem sententiam haec leguntur, n. 18 : Ἔχοιτε ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐπουράνιον βασιλείαν ἐξετάζειν· ὡς γὰρ ὑμῖν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ πάντα κεχείρωται, ἄνωθεν τὴν βασιλείαν εἰληφόσιν (βασιλέως γὰρ ψυχὴ ἐν χειρὶ Θεοῦ, φησὶ τὸ προφητικὸν Πνεῦμα), οὕτως ἑνὶ Θεῷ καὶ τῷ παρ' αὐτοῦ Λόγῳ, Υἱῷ νοουμένῳ ἀμερίστῳ, πάντα ὑποτέτακται. « Licet autem ex vobismetipsis regnum coeleste spectetis. Quemadmodum enim vobis patri et filio, parent omnia, quippe cum sursum regnum acceperitis (Anima enim regis in manu Dei, inquit spiritus propheticus), sic uni Deo ejusque Verbo, quem Filium ejus nunquam separabilem intelligimus, subjecta sunt omnia. » Praeclara sane comparatio, si de M. Aurelio et Commodo agatur, cum praesertim satis indicet Athenagoras, quid intersit inter divinam et humanam generationem, dum Filium Dei a Patre separari non posse declarat. At indigna prorsus et absurda comparatio fuisset, si de M. Aurelio et Lucio Vero locutus fuisset Athenagoras, quos fratres fuisse non potuit ignorare. Atque etiam si sibi finxisset Lucium Verum a M. Aurelio adoptatum fuisse; nihil tamen magis pugnabat cum aliis ejus de Trinitate principiis, quam ut aeternum Dei Filium cum adoptivo filio compararet.

To the same effect are read these words, n. 18: You may from yourselves also examine the heavenly kingdom; for as all things have been subjected to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom from above (for the king's soul is in the hand of God, says the prophetic Spirit), so to one God and the Word from Him, understood as Son inseparable, all things are subordinated. « Now you may from your own selves behold the heavenly kingdom. For just as all things obey you, father and son, inasmuch as you have received the kingdom from above (For the soul of the king is in the hand of God, says the prophetic spirit), so to one God and His Word, whom we understand to be His Son never separable, all things are subject. » A noble comparison indeed, if Marcus Aurelius and Commodus be in question, especially since Athenagoras sufficiently indicates what difference there is between divine and human generation when he declares that the Son of God cannot be separated from the Father. Yet it would have been an altogether unworthy and absurd comparison if Athenagoras had spoken of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, whom he could not have been ignorant were brothers. And even if he had imagined to himself that Lucius Verus had been adopted by Marcus Aurelius, yet nothing conflicted more with his other principles concerning the Trinity than that he should compare the eternal Son of God with an adoptive son.

Huc accedit quod Oratio in omnibus codicibus inscribitur imperatoribus M. Aurelio Antonino, et L. Aurelio Commodo, Armeniacis, Sarmaticis et, quod maximum est, philosophis. Porro Lucius, ex quo Veri nomen cum imperio accepit, nunquam Commodus appellatus est, nisi forte ab Hieronymo non sine gravi hallucinatione, quae in scriptorem aequalem non cadit. Neque etiam Lucio Vero congruit Sarmatici cognomen, quod ne ipse quidem M. Aurelius ante annum 170 aut forte etiam 174 assumpsit. Quod ait Athenagoras Proteum semetipsum περὶ τὴν Ὀλυμπίαν combussisse, id ita accipit Dodwellus, quasi idem valeret ac in hac Olympiade. At, etiamsi Olympicos ludos designasset hac voce Athenagoras, non eam Olympiadem designasset in qua scribebat : non magis profecto quam cum ait, n. 14, caedem a Theagene Ὀλυμπιάσι perpetratam. Ejusmodi vocibus antiqui nunc ipsam urbem, nunc cum urbe ipsos ludos designant. Sic Philostratus, Vit. Apol., IV, 8 : Ὄντων Ὀλυμπίων· cap. 9, ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ, κατ' Ὀλυμπίαν, et c. 11, μετὰ τὴν Ὀλυμπίαν· Aelianus, lib. IV, c. 9, ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ, et lib. IX, cap. 34, εἰς Ὀλύμπια.

Added to this is the fact that the Oration in all the codices is inscribed to the emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci, Sarmatici, and, what is greatest, philosophers. Moreover, Lucius, from the time when he received the name of Verus together with the empire, was never called Commodus, unless perhaps by Jerome not without a grave blunder, which does not fall upon a contemporary writer. Neither does the surname Sarmaticus suit Lucius Verus, which not even Marcus Aurelius himself assumed before the year 170, or perhaps even 174. As for what Athenagoras says, that Proteus burned himself περὶ τὴν Ὀλυμπίαν, Dodwell takes this as if it meant the same as in this Olympiad. Yet even if Athenagoras had designated the Olympic games by this word, he would not have designated that Olympiad in which he was writing: no more assuredly than when he says, n. 14, that a murder was perpetrated by Theagenes Ὀλυμπιάσι. By expressions of this sort the ancients designate now the city itself, and now along with the city the games themselves. Thus Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, IV, 8: Ὄντων Ὀλυμπίων; ch. 9, ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ, κατ' Ὀλυμπίαν, and ch. 11, μετὰ τὴν Ὀλυμπίαν; Aelian, book IV, ch. 9, ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ, and book IX, ch. 34, εἰς Ὀλύμπια.

IV. Hoc opus ante annum 176 aut 177 scribi non potuisse probat summa illa pax, quam toto orbe regnare ait Athenagoras, num. 1. Nam, ut observant Baronius et Tillemontius, in toto M. Aurelii imperio vix ullum tempus, praeter annum 176 et 177, a bellis vacuum reperias.

IV. That this work could not have been written before the year 176 or 177 is proved by that profound peace which Athenagoras says reigns throughout the whole world, num. 1. For, as Baronius and Tillemont observe, in the whole reign of Marcus Aurelius you may scarcely find any time free from wars except the years 176 and 177.

Editors' notes and page, col. 185

Footnotes

(28) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Prov. XXI, 1.

Proverbs 21:1.

(printed under page 99)

Page

running head: 185 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A a M. Aurelio,; B parabilem intelligimus, subjecta; C L. Aurelio Commodo,; D cum ait, n. 14,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (a M. Aurelio...)

PG 6:186

Placet Tillemontio annus 177, quia Commodus imperatoris titulum, quem ei Athenagoras defert, ante mensem Novembrem anni 176 non est adeptus. Sed cum paternos titulos manifestum sit cum Commodo communicari ob filii nomen et jus haereditatis a natura acceptum; cur non etiam ei imperatoris titulus tribui potuit, antequam illum solemni decreto acciperet? Sic etiam cum ait Athenagoras : Vobis patri ac filio parent omnia, non ascitum esse in imperii societatem Commodum significat (etsi enim Augustus factus est anno 177, non tamen credibile est eum, quandiu vixit pater, gubernandarum rerum plurimas partes sustinuisse), sed civium affectum exprimit, filium patri in omni obsequio et observatione adjungentium. Tanti ergo esse non videtur allata a Tillemontio ratio, ut hanc Apologiam anno 177 addicamus. Sed illius ad annum 176 referendae necessitatem imponere videtur susceptum hoc anno iter a M. Aurelio in Graeciam, Syriam et Aegyptum. Sive enim Athenis vixerit Athenagoras, ut ex philosophi Atheniensis titulo colligi posset, sive Alexandriae; imperatoris praesentia his in locis percommodam attulit occasionem offerendae Apologiae : nec quemquam dicturum puto Athenagoram praetermissa hac occasione Romam anno sequenti venisse, ut hoc sui in Ecclesiam amoris specimen ederet.

The year 177 pleases Tillemont, because Commodus did not obtain the title of Imperator, which Athenagoras bestows upon him, before the month of November of the year 176. Yet since it is manifest that his father's titles are shared with Commodus on account of the name of son and the right of inheritance received from nature, why could not the title of Imperator also be attributed to him before he received it by a solemn decree? Thus also when Athenagoras says: All things obey you, father and son, he does not signify that Commodus had been admitted into partnership in the empire (for although he was made Augustus in the year 177, yet it is not credible that, so long as his father lived, he sustained very many parts in governing affairs), but he expresses the affection of the citizens, joining the son to the father in all allegiance and respect. The reason adduced by Tillemont, therefore, does not seem to be of such weight that we should assign this Apology to the year 177. Rather, the journey undertaken in this year by Marcus Aurelius into Greece, Syria, and Egypt seems to impose the necessity of referring it to the year 176. For whether Athenagoras lived at Athens, as might be gathered from the title of Athenian philosopher, or at Alexandria, the presence of the emperor in these places brought a very convenient occasion for offering the Apology; nor do I think anyone will say that Athenagoras, having let slip this occasion, came to Rome in the following year in order to give forth this proof of his love towards the Church.

« Baelius in Lexico historico Gallice edito, inquit Fabricius, nunquam oblatam publico Christianorum nomine putat, sed tantum scriptam privatim ab Athenagora, perinde ut in Gallia ab anno 1684 multi e reformatis persecutionem passis libellos ejusmodi supplices et apologias ad regem scripserunt edideruntque, regi nunquam oblatas. » Iniquam esse hanc de Athenagora opinionem fatebitur quisquis ipsam Apologiam accuratius expendet. Ipse titulus Athenagoram legati quodam munere perfungi docet. Eo spectat tota illius oratio, ut imperatoris benevolentiam Christianis conciliet; dissimulat imperatoris in Christianos odium causam esse persecutionis, sed Christianos vexari et occidi ait, quia illos non tuetur patrocinio suo imperator : in exordio et conclusione et pluribus aliis in locis illius laudes plena manu in astra tollit, eique ac ejus domui Christianos maximo studio et obsequio affixos esse asseverat. Quot adhibet argumenta, totidem utitur occasionibus deliniendi imperatoris et perhonorifice appellandi. Quis non videt ita disserenti scriptori idem ac Justino et Tatiano in Orationibus adversus Graecos, Clementi in Protreptico, Origeni in libris contra Celsum, propositum non esse, ut veritatem religionis Christianae tantummodo demonstret ac errores gentilium arguat, sed illud etiam maxime ut persecutionis finem impetret? Videtur sibi ad imitandum proposuisse Apologias S. Justini, cujus exemplo nec atheismum cum sanctae Trinitatis cultu, nec alia facinora cum moribus et doctrina Christianorum

« Bayle in his Historical Dictionary published in French, says Fabricius, thinks that it was never offered in the public name of the Christians, but only written privately by Athenagoras, just as in France from the year 1684 many of the Reformed who suffered persecution wrote and published suppliant petitions and apologies of that sort to the king, which were never offered to the king. » Whoever examines the Apology itself more accurately will confess that this opinion concerning Athenagoras is unjust. The very title teaches that Athenagoras discharges a kind of office of ambassador. His whole oration looks to this end, that he may win the goodwill of the emperor for the Christians; he dissembles the fact that the hatred of the emperor against the Christians is the cause of the persecution, and says that the Christians are harassed and slain because the emperor does not protect them with his patronage; in the exordium and conclusion and in several other places he extols his praises to the stars with a full hand, and protests that the Christians are attached with the greatest zeal and allegiance to him and to his house. As many arguments as he employs, so many occasions does he use for soothing the emperor and addressing him most honourably. Who does not see that a writer discoursing thus does not have the same purpose as Justin and Tatian in their Addresses against the Greeks, Clement in the Protrepticus, and Origen in his books Against Celsus, merely to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion and refute the errors of the Gentiles, but above all this also, that he may obtain an end of the persecution? He seems to have set before himself for imitation the Apologies of St. Justin, after whose example he demonstrates that neither atheism can consist with the worship of the holy Trinity, nor other crimes with the morals and doctrine of the Christians.

Editors' notes and page, col. 186

Footnotes

(29) ‹anchor: inquit Fabricius› · call in col 186

Biblioth. Gr., tom. V.

Bibliotheca Graeca, volume V.

(printed under page 99)

(30) ‹anchor: obsequio affixos esse asseverat› · call in col 186

N. 4 et 38.

Sections 4 and 38.

(printed under page 99)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 186
marginal letters: A Placet Tillemontio annus; B detur allata a; C Athenagora, perinde ut; D asseverat. Quot adhibet
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Placet Tillemontio...); Chri- split at column break

PG 6:187

consistere posse demonstrat. Ducem sequi Justinum videtur, cum queritur, quod solum nomen in Christianis damnetur, num. 2, cum postulat ut eadem in illos ac in alios homines judicii forma servetur; cum persecutiones non aliunde oriri declarat, quam ex antiqua vitii cum virtute pugna, num. 3, cum Christianos ab hac vita ad aliam longe meliorem cum Deo et apud Deum traducendam proficisci docet, num. 12, et cum de angelorum lapsu loquitur, num. 24.

He seems to follow Justin as his leader when he complains that the name alone is condemned in the Christians, num. 2; when he demands that the same form of trial be observed towards them as towards other men; when he declares that persecutions arise from no other source than from the ancient struggle of vice with virtue, num. 3; when he teaches that Christians depart from this life to pass another far better one with God and in the presence of God, num. 12; and when he speaks of the fall of the angels, num. 24.

Justinum longe superat Athenagoras expolito dicendi genere, ordinis venustate et peracutis ad captandam benevolentiam circuitionibus. Simplicior enim Justinus et parcior in laudando. Quod si non tam multa e Scripturis et Christi mysteriis repetit Athenagoras, quam multa apud Justinum his de rebus occurrunt : videtur petitis ex ratione argumentis singularitatem Dei, et simulacrorum cultus stultitiam demonstrare maluisse et in his immorari, quia hanc disputandi rationem philosophi imperatoris auribus gratiorem futuram sperabat. Dum autem in his occupatur, visus est Petavio (lib. I, De Deo, pag. 85) accidentia in Deo admittere. Vocat ille quidem Dei attributa τὰ ἐπισυμβεβηκότα, ac bonum Deo inesse dicit κατὰ συμβεβηκός, sed cum ipse mentem suam aperiat, non videtur ei ob verbum lis impingenda, ubi sententia in tuto est. Simili indulgentia utendum in Tertullianum, apud quem eodem sensu attributa Dei vocantur appendices, lib. I in Marc., cap. 25.

Athenagoras far surpasses Justin in his polished style of speaking, elegance of arrangement, and very acute turns of phrase for winning goodwill. For Justin is simpler and more sparing in praising. And if Athenagoras does not draw so many things from the Scriptures and the mysteries of Christ as occur in Justin concerning these matters, he seems to have preferred to demonstrate the oneness of God and the folly of the worship of idols by arguments sought from reason, and to dwell upon these, because he hoped that this manner of disputing would be more pleasing to the ears of the philosopher emperor. While he is occupied in these matters, however, he seemed to Petavius (book I, On God, page 85) to admit accidents in God. He calls indeed the attributes of God τὰ ἐπισυμβεβηκότα, and says that the good is in God κατὰ συμβεβηκός; yet since he himself opens his mind, a quarrel does not seem to be fastened upon him on account of a word, where the meaning is safe. Similar indulgence ought to be used towards Tertullian, in whom in the same sense the attributes of God are called appendages, book I Against Marcion, ch. 25.

V. Athenagoram multa scripsisse conjicere possumus ex initio libri De resurrectione, ubi testatur, se nonnunquam sermones pro veritate iis, quae de veritate habentur, praemittere, idque illo in libro facere statuisse. Quo tempore hoc opus scriptum fuerit, statuere non possum; sed tamen Apologia posterius videtur, quam sic absolvit, ut disputationem de resurrectione nondum suscepisse, sed in aliud tempus differre videatur. Sic enim loquitur : Ἀλλὰ ἀνακείσθω μὲν ὁ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγος. « Sed hac de resurrectione disputatione supersedeamus. » Quamvis minime dubium sit quin haec disputatio non pronuntiata sed scripta fuerit, sic tamen loquitur, n. 23, quasi ei propositum sit summatim his, qui convenere, indicare quid de resurrectione sentiendum sit, et argumenta, quibus hoc dogma nititur, ad audientium facultatem accommodare. Quamvis adhibita in hoc opere argumenta ipsos etiam haereticos feriant, videtur tamen philosophos potissimum voluisse refellere. Nam quidquid objicitur ab adversariis, id ratiunculis continetur : quidquid argumentorum adhibet Athenagoras, id ex hominis natura et Dei justitia repetit. Unde etiam, n. 3, informis, ut illi existimant, nempe philosophi, materia dicitur. At ea non tangit quae ex Scripturis et Christi mysteriis Catholici ad probandum hoc dogma, et haeretici ad evertendum ducebant. Sub nomine Athenagorae

V. That Athenagoras wrote many things we can conjecture from the beginning of his book On the Resurrection, where he testifies that he sometimes prefixes discourses on behalf of the truth to those which are held concerning the truth, and that he had resolved to do this in that book. At what time this work was written, I cannot determine; nevertheless it seems posterior to the Apology, which he concludes in such a way that he seems not yet to have undertaken the disputation concerning the resurrection, but to defer it to another time. For thus he speaks: But let the discourse concerning the resurrection be laid aside for the present. « But let us forbear for the present from this disputation concerning the resurrection. » Although there is not the least doubt that this disputation was not delivered orally, but written, yet he speaks thus, n. 23, as if it were his purpose summarily to indicate to those who have assembled what ought to be thought concerning the resurrection, and to accommodate to the capacity of the hearers the arguments on which this dogma rests. Although the arguments employed in this work strike the heretics themselves also, yet he seems to have wished chiefly to refute the philosophers. For whatever is objected by the adversaries is contained in petty reasonings; whatever arguments Athenagoras employs, he draws from the nature of man and the justice of God. Whence also, n. 3, matter is called formless, as those men think, namely the philosophers. Yet he does not touch upon those things which the Catholics drew from the Scriptures and the mysteries of Christ to prove this dogma, and the heretics to overthrow it. Under the name of Athenagoras

Editors' notes and page, col. 187

Footnotes

(31) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

N 23 et 24.

Sections 23 and 24.

(printed under page 100)

Page

running head: 187 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A stianorum consistere posse; B Athenagoras, quam multa; C V. Athenagoram multa; D convenere, indicare quid
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (stianorum consistere...); begins with fragment stianorum from Christianorum split across col 186-187 break; Athe- split at column break

PG 6:188

prodiit anno 1569 opus De vero et perfecto amore, verbis quidem e Graeco sermone Gallicum factum, sed revera a personato interprete Fumaeo fabricatum, cui larvam egregie detractam vide apud Fabricium, tom. V, Biblioth. Gr., p. 88.

there appeared in the year 1569 a work On True and Perfect Love, in words indeed made French from the Greek tongue, but in reality fabricated by the masked translator Fumée, the mask finely stripped from whom see in Fabricius, vol. V, Bibliotheca Graeca, p. 88.

Displicuit Petavio quod ait Athenagoras in hoc De resurrectione libro, n. 11, aut saltem quod doctissimo theologo visus est dicere, « quod Deus potest id eum velle, et quod vult id omnino posse, » καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν βουλητὸν καὶ τὸ τῷ Θεῷ βουλητὸν πάντως εἶναι δυνατόν. Sed nihil superest difficultatis si locus accurate expendatur. Non enim illud βουλητόν dicit Athenagoras, quod Deus facturum se decrevit, sed quod velle potest. Sic antea, n. 10, ἀβούλητον intelligit id quod Deus velle non potest. Ait enim idcirco ἀβούλητον esse, quia vel injustum est vel indignum Deo. Τὸ γὰρ ἀβούλητον, ἢ ὡς ἄδικον αὐτῷ ἐστιν ἀβούλητον, ἢ ὡς ἀνάξιον. Itaque ἀβούλητον interpretari non dubitavi id quod in Dei voluntatem non cadit, et βουλητόν id quod velle potest. Quos refellit hoc in libro Athenagoras, hi minime inquirebant utrum resurrectionem Deus necne promiserit hominibus, sed eam fieri omnino non posse contendebant. Quare Athenagoras statuit eos, si cum aliquo rationis colore increduli esse velint, demonstrare debere resurrectionem vel in Dei potestatem, vel in ejus voluntatem non cadere.

It displeased Petavius what Athenagoras says in this book On the Resurrection, n. 11, or at least what he seemed to the most learned theologian to say, « that what God can do, that He wills, and what He wills, that He altogether can do, » both that what is possible is willed, and that what is willed by God is altogether possible. Yet nothing of difficulty remains if the passage be accurately weighed. For Athenagoras does not call βουλητόν that which God has decreed that He will do, but that which He is able to will. Thus previously, n. 10, by ἀβούλητον he understands that which God cannot will. For he says that it is ἀβούλητον on this account, because it is either unjust or unworthy of God. For the unwilled is unwilled to Him either as unjust or as unworthy. Accordingly, I have not hesitated to translate ἀβούλητον as that which does not fall within the will of God, and βουλητόν as that which He is able to will. Those whom Athenagoras refutes in this book by no means inquired whether God has promised the resurrection to men or not, but contended that it cannot take place at all. Wherefore Athenagoras maintains that, if they wish to be unbelieving with some colour of reason, they must demonstrate that the resurrection falls neither within the power of God nor within His will.

CAPUT XIV.

Chapter XIV.

An Athenagoras Montani sectae adhaeserit.

Whether Athenagoras adhered to the sect of Montanus.

I. Athenagorae loca ex quibus nata suspicio. II. Res dijudicanda ex primordiis Montanistarum. III. Multi anni fluxere antequam schisma conflarent. IV. Tertullianus ante Montanista quam schismaticus. V. Difficile est statuere quo tempore absolutum schisma. VI. Athenagoras eorum nec schismatis nec doctrinae particeps. VII. Illorum exstases probatas ei fuisse nullo patet argumento.

I. Passages of Athenagoras from which the suspicion arose. II. The matter must be judged from the beginnings of the Montanists. III. Many years flowed by before they stirred up a schism. IV. Tertullian was a Montanist before he was a schismatic. V. It is difficult to determine at what time the schism was completed. VI. Athenagoras was a sharer neither of their schism nor of their doctrine. VII. That their ecstasies were approved by him is clear by no argument.

I. Examinanda nobis quaestio non parvi et ad famam Athenagorae et ad antiquitatem ecclesiasticam momenti. Tillemontius, cujus non minus laudanda in antiquis rebus dijudicandis aequitas, quam in comportandis et colligendis eruditio, suspicatur Athenagoram Montanistam fuisse. « Haud scio, inquit, t. II, p. 330, an adhibita ab eo et de prophetis, quo tempore exstases Montani Ecclesiam perturbare incipiebant, et de secundis nuptiis loquendi ratio, metuendi locum afferat ne his partibus implicatus fuerit. » De prophetis sic loquitur Athenagoras, Apol., num. 9 : Οἳ κατ' ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς λογισμῶν, κινήσαντος αὐτοὺς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, ἃ ἐνηργοῦντο ἐξεφώνησαν· συγχρησαμένου τοῦ Πνεύματος ὡσει καὶ αὐλητὴς αὐλὸν ἐμπνεύσαι. « Qui mente et animo extra se rapti, impellente Spiritu sancto, quae ipsis inspirabantur, ea sunt locuti, utente illis Spiritu sancto, velut si tibiam inflet tibicen. » De secundis autem nuptiis haec habemus, n. 33 : Οὐ γὰρ μελέτῃ λόγων, ἀλλ' ἐπιδείξει καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ ἔργων τὰ ἡμέτερα· ἢ οἷός τις ἐτέχθη, μένειν, ἢ ἐφ' ἑνὶ γάμῳ. Ὁ γὰρ δεύτερος εὐπρεπής

I. We must examine a question of no small moment both for the reputation of Athenagoras and for ecclesiastical antiquity. Tillemont, whose equity in judging ancient matters is no less to be praised than his learning in bringing them together and collecting them, suspects that Athenagoras was a Montanist. « I know not, he says, vol. II, p. 330, whether the manner of speaking employed by him both concerning the prophets, at the time when the ecstasies of Montanus were beginning to disturb the Church, and concerning second marriages, gives ground for fearing lest he was entangled in this party. » Concerning the prophets Athenagoras speaks thus, Apology, num. 9: Who in an ecstasy of the thoughts within them, the divine Spirit moving them, uttered aloud the things which they were wrought upon to speak; the Spirit making use of them just as a flute-player might breathe into a flute. « Who, rapt out of themselves in mind and soul as the Holy Spirit impelled them, spoke those things which were inspired in them, the Holy Spirit using them just as if a flute-player should blow a flute. » And concerning second marriages we have these words, n. 33: For our affairs consist not in the study of words, but in the exhibition and teaching of deeds: either to remain such as one was born, or in a single marriage. For the second is a specious

Editors' notes and page, col. 188

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 188
marginal letters: A nagorae prodiit anno; B enim idcirco ἀβούλητον; C I. Athenagorae loca; D metuendi locum afferat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (nagorae prodiit... CAPUT XIV. An Athenagoras Montani sectae adhaeserit...); begins with fragment nagorae from Athenagorae split across col 187-188 break

PG 6:189

ἐστι μοιχεία. Ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἀπολύσῃ, φησὶ, τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· οὔτε ἀπολύειν ἐπιτρέπων ἧς ἔπαυσέ τις τὴν παρθενίαν, οὔτε ἐπιγαμεῖν. Ὁ γὰρ ἀποστερῶν ἑαυτὸν τῆς προτέρας γυναικὸς, καὶ εἰ τέθνηκε, μοιχός ἐστι παρακεκαλυμμένος, παραβαίνων μὲν τὴν χεῖρα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ Θεὸς ἕνα ἄνδρα ἔπλασε καὶ μίαν γυναῖκα· λύων δὲ τὴν σάρκα πρὸς σάρκα κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν πρὸς μίξιν εἰς τοῦ γένους κοινωνίαν. « Neque enim meditatione sermonum sed demonstratione et disciplina actionum res nostrae continentur, ut quisque vel qualis natus est, maneat, vel unicis in nuptiis. Secundae enim decorum adulterium. Quicunque enim dimiserit, inquit, uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, moechatur; nec eam dimitti sinens, cujus virginitati finem quis imposuit, nec aliam insuper duci. Nam qui se ipse prima uxore spoliat, etiamsi mortua sit, occulta quadam ratione est adulter; tum quod manum Dei transgrediatur (nam initio Deus unum hominem finxit ac unam mulierem), tum quod carnis cum carne conjunctionem quodam veluti vinculo ad commiscendum genus colligatam dissolvat. » Cum his nimium videntur congruere quae apud Tertullianum leguntur de secundis nuptiis. Has nuptialibus et dotalibus si forte tabulis a moechiae et fornicationis opere diversas esse ait De pud., c. 1. Ut neque repudium, ita nec matrimonii numerum ab initio fuisse observat De monogam., cap. 9. Sic loquitur, cap. 14 : « Neque lex abstulit repudium; habuit quod auferret : nova prophetia secundum matrimonium, non minus repudium prioris. »

adultery. For whosoever puts away his wife, He says, and marries another, commits adultery; neither permitting a man to put away her whose virginity he has ended, nor to marry another besides. For he who deprives himself of his former wife, even if she has died, is a cloaked adulterer, transgressing on the one hand the hand of God, because in the beginning God formed one man and one woman, and dissolving on the other hand the union of flesh with flesh for intercourse unto the fellowship of the race. « For our affairs are contained not in the study of words, but in the demonstration and discipline of actions, that each one should remain either such as he was born, or in a single marriage. For a second marriage is a specious adulterium. For whosoever puts away his wife, He says, and marries another, commits adultery; neither permitting her to be put away to whose virginity anyone has put an end, nor another to be married in addition. For he who despoils himself of his first wife, even if she be dead, is in a certain hidden manner an adulterer; both because he transgresses the hand of God (for in the beginning God fashioned one man and one woman), and because he dissolves the conjunction of flesh with flesh bound together as by a kind of bond for mingling the race. » With these words seem all too much to agree the things that are read in Tertullian concerning second marriages. He says that these differ from the work of adultery and fornication only perchance by nuptial and dotal tablets, On Modesty, ch. 1. That just as divorce was not from the beginning, so neither was plurality of marriage, he observes in On Monogamy, ch. 9. Thus he speaks, ch. 14: « Neither did the law take away divorce; it had something to take away: the new prophecy takes away second marriage, no less a divorce of the former one. »

II. Sed tamen si consideremus quibus gradibus Montanistae eo pervenerint, ut ab omnibus damnarentur; nec apertae illorum haeresis affinem reperiemus Athenagoram; imo ne eorum quidem fautorem, quae in primordiis moderatius sentiebant. Non enim statim atque prodiit Montanus, jejunia instar legis imponere, fugam in persecutionibus vetare, secundas nuptias adulterii notis ausus est inurere. Rem multo callidius administravit. Jejunia his, qui illum audiebant, ad alicujus causae occasionem, non toti Ecclesiae ad perpetuam annorum redeuntium vicem imponebat. « Spiritus sanctus, inquit Tertullianus De jejun., c. 13, cum in quibus vellet terris et per quos vellet praedicaret, ex providentia imminentium, sive ecclesiasticarum tentationum, sive mundialium plagarum, qua Paracletus, id est advocatus, ad exorandum judicem, hujusmodi officiorum remedia mandabat. Puta nunc, ad exercendam sobrietatis et abstinentiae disciplinam, hunc qui recipimus, necessario etiam quae tunc constituit observamus. » Neque etiam fugam omnino in persecutionibus damnabat. Testatur Tertullianus eum hortatum esse ad martyrium; fugam ab eo penitus prohibitam dicere non audet. « Spiritum vero si consulas, quid magis sermone illo Spiritus probat? Omnes pene ad martyrium exhortatur. »

II. Nevertheless, if we consider by what steps the Montanists arrived at such a pitch as to be condemned by all, we shall find Athenagoras neither implicated in their open heresy, nor indeed even a supporter of those things which in their beginnings they held more moderately. For Montanus did not immediately upon his appearance dare to impose fasts like a law, to forbid flight in persecutions, and to brand second marriages with the marks of adultery. He managed the affair much more cunningly. He imposed fasts upon those who heard him on the occasion of some particular cause, not upon the whole Church for a perpetual cycle of returning years. « When the Holy Spirit, says Tertullian, On Fasting, ch. 13, was preaching in whatever lands He wished and through whomsoever He wished, out of foresight of impending trials, whether temptations of the Church or plagues of the world, in His capacity as Paraclete, that is, advocate for appeasing the Judge, He enjoined remedies of observances of this sort. Suppose now that, for exercising the discipline of sobriety and abstinence, we who receive Him necessarily observe also the things which He then appointed. » Nor did he altogether condemn flight in persecutions either. Tertullian testifies that he exhorted to martyrdom; that flight was utterly forbidden by him he does not dare to say. « But if you consult the Spirit, what does the Spirit approve more than that saying of the Spirit? He exhorts almost all to martyrdom. »

Editors' notes and page, col. 189

Footnotes

(32) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Matth. XIX, 9.

Matthew 19:9.

(printed under page 101)

Page

running head: 189 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A ἐστι μοιχεία. Ὃς; B nem quis imposuit,; C non minus repudium; D terris et per
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (ἐστι μοιχεία...)

PG 6:190

Haec ille in libro De fuga, c. 9, ubi etiam duo refert testimonia Montani, quae exhortationem habent ad martyrium, at fugam minime condemnant. Secundas nuptias abstulerunt Montanistae, nova sane et inaudita audacia, sed tamen in primordiis ita moderate, ut cum digamis in Ecclesia communicare non dubitarent. Quomodo enim se hac in re gesserint, spectari potest ex eorum in aliis rebus agendi ratione. Nescio quo pacto inducta fuerat in aliquas Ecclesias non consentanea praecepto Apostoli consuetudo, ut virgines in ecclesia velum excuterent. Virgines novis prophetiis addictae velum servarunt, sed tamen aliis velo carentibus molestae non erant; donec istae impetrarunt, ut hoc discrimen, quod eas urebat, tolleretur. Sic rem enarrat Tertullianus, lib. De vel. virg., cap. 3 : « Tolerabilius apud nos usque proxime utrique consuetudini communicabatur. Arbitrio permissa res erat, ut quaeque voluisset aut tegi aut prostitui, sicut et nubere : quod et ipsum neque cogitur neque prohibetur. Contenta era⟨t⟩ veritatis pacisci cum consuetudine, ut tacite sub consuetudinis nomine frueretur se vel ex parte, sed quoniam coeperat agnitio proficere, ut per licentiam utriusque moris indicium melioris partis emergeret; statim ille adversarius bonorum, multoque institutorum, fecit opus suum. Ambiunt virgines hominum adversus virgines Dei, nuda plane fronte in temerariam audaciam excitatae.... Scandalizamur, inquiunt, quia aliter aliae incedunt... Cur non magis hae querantur scandalo sibi esse petulantiam, impudentiam ostentatitiae virginitatis? »

These things he says in the book On Flight, ch. 9, where he also reports two testimonies of Montanus which contain an exhortation to martyrdom, yet by no means condemn flight. The Montanists took away second marriages with a novel and unheard-of audacity indeed, yet in their beginnings so moderately that they did not hesitate to communicate with digamists in the Church. For how they bore themselves in this matter can be seen from their manner of acting in other matters. I know not how there had been introduced into some Churches a custom not conformable to the precept of the Apostle, that virgins should cast off their veil in church. The virgins devoted to the new prophecies kept the veil, yet were not troublesome to the others who lacked a veil; until those others obtained that this distinction, which galled them, should be removed. Thus does Tertullian relate the matter, book On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 3: « More tolerably among us until very recently communion was maintained with both customs. The matter was left to free choice, that each virgin might choose either to be covered or to be exposed, just as also to marry, which itself also is neither compelled nor forbidden. Truth was content to make a compact with custom, that tacitly under the name of custom it might enjoy itself at least in part; but since knowledge had begun to make progress, so that through the licence of both customs the indication of the better part emerged, immediately that adversary of good things, and much more of good institutions, did his work. The virgins of men go canvassing against the virgins of God, stirred up with a quite bare brow to rash audacity.... We are scandalized, they say, because others walk otherwise... Why should not these rather complain that the petulance, the impudence of an ostentatious virginity is a scandal to them? »

Suam Montanum haeresim in primordiis aliquo lenitatis fuco dissimulasse, illud etiam argumento est, quod de ejus prophetiis variae ac discrepantes fuere Catholicorum sententiae. Nam ut prophetae munus ac nomen sibi arrogare coepit, multi illum, teste Eusebio, ejusmodi donis ornatum esse crediderunt, quae tunc rara in Ecclesia non erant. At si statim ea vomuisset, quae postea effutiit, nulla esse potuisset inter Catholicos ambigendi ratio. Illius anathemati moram non attulissent exstases, si sese aperiens statim dixisset, id quod ab eo aut ab ejus mulieribus dictum refert Tertullianus De pudic., cap. 21 : « Potest Ecclesia donare delictum; sed non faciam ne et alia delinquant. »

That Montanus dissembled his heresy in its beginnings under some disguise of lenity is proved by this also, that concerning his prophecies the opinions of Catholics were varied and discordant. For when he began to arrogate to himself the office and name of prophet, many, as Eusebius testifies, believed that he was adorned with gifts of that sort, which were not rare in the Church at that time. Yet if he had immediately vomited forth those things which he afterwards blurted out, there could have been no ground for doubt among Catholics. His ecstasies would not have brought any delay to his anathema, if, disclosing himself, he had immediately said that which Tertullian, On Modesty, ch. 21, reports to have been said by him or by his women: « The Church can forgive a sin; but I will not do it, lest others also sin. »

III. Operae pretium est observare multos annos ab initio sectae effluxisse, antequam aut tolerari desinerent Montanistae, aut se ultro ab omnibus Ecclesiis abscinderent. Anno 177, id est, sex annis a sectae primordio, confessores Lugdunenses et Viennenses, vel a fratribus Asiae et Phrygiae consulti de hac dissensione, vel charitate propria incitati, partim ad fratres in Asia et Phrygia degentes, inquit Eusebius, Hist., lib. V, c. 3, partim ad Eleutherum Romanae urbis episcopum scripserant, pro pace Ecclesiarum quasi legatione fungentes. Nullum hic

III. It is worthwhile to observe that many years flowed by from the beginning of the sect before the Montanists either ceased to be tolerated, or of their own accord cut themselves off from all the Churches. In the year 177, that is, six years from the beginning of the sect, the confessors of Lyons and Vienne, either consulted concerning this dissension by the brethren of Asia and Phrygia, or incited by their own charity, had written partly to the brethren dwelling in Asia and Phrygia, says Eusebius, History, book V, ch. 3, and partly to Eleutherus, bishop of the city of Rome, discharging as it were an embassy for the peace of the Churches. Here there was no

Editors' notes and page, col. 190

Footnotes

(33) ‹anchor: teste Eusebio› · call in col 190

Hist., v, 3.

Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter 3.

(printed under page 101)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 190
marginal letters: A Haec ille in; B nus, lib. De; C petulantiam, impudentiam ostentatitiae; D cap. 21 : « Potest
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Haec ille in libro De fuga...); t of erat damaged in Contenta era⟨t⟩

PG 6:191

schisma, sed vehemens dissensio, cujus sedandae spes affulgebat.

schism, but a vehement dissension, for the appeasing of which hope shone forth.

Trium Romanorum pontificum communionem et approbationem sibi conciliare conati sunt Montanistae, sed operam luserunt. Rem discimus ex his Tertulliani verbis contra Prax., c. 1 : « Idem (Praxeas) tunc episcopum Romanum agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ex ea agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et Ecclesiis eorum asseverando, et praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit et litteras pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. » Hujus pontificis, qui pene a Montanistis deceptus fuit, praecessores indicati hoc loco alii esse non possunt, quam Soter sub quo secta prodiit, et Eleutherus cui Victor successit anno 192. Itaque Victore Ecclesiam Romanam regente aut saltem in primordiis illius pontificatus, id est annis viginti et amplius post Montani primordia, nondum Montanistae ab Ecclesia discesserant, nondum ab ea erant ejecti. Verisimile est homines superbos repulsam hanc non tulisse patienter; sed tamen plures anni ab hoc eventu effluxerunt, antequam schisma palam et aperte erumperet. Nam Tertullianus, quem verisimile est Romae, cum haec agerentur, fuisse, in hac urbe Montanista factus est, si eam Hieronymo fidem habemus, quae illi hac in re non videtur deneganda. Is enim in libro De script. eccles. narrat Tertullianum invidia et contumeliis clericorum Ecclesiae Romanae ad Montani dogma delapsum. Rediit tamen in Africam nondum schismaticus : nam Catholicis permistus erat, iisque audientibus Praxeam, qui ex Italia in Africam venerat, ibique errorem suum spargebat, fregit et convicit, atque haeresim coegit ejurare; tum demum schisma conflatum. Totam rem sic ipse narrat, cap. 1 in Prax. : « Fruticaverant avenae Praxeanae, hic quoque superseminatae, dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinae; traductae dehinc per quem Deus voluit, etiam avulsae videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua : et manet chirographum apud psychicos, apud quos tunc gesta res est : exinde silentium. Et nos quidem postea agnitio Paracleti et defensio disjunxit a psychicis. » Accurata est Tertulliani ratio loquendi : non illum sola agnitio falsi Paracleti, sed maxime defensio disjunxit a Catholicis. Nimirum agnoverat antequam schismatice defenderet.

The Montanists endeavoured to win for themselves the communion and approbation of three Roman pontiffs, but they wasted their labour. We learn the fact from these words of Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. 1: « The same man (Praxeas), by asserting falsehoods concerning the prophets themselves and their Churches, and by defending the authorities of his predecessors, compelled the then Roman bishop, who was already acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and on the strength of that acknowledgment was bringing peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, both to recall the letters of peace which he had already sent out, and to desist from his purpose of receiving the charisms. » The predecessors of this pontiff, who was almost deceived by the Montanists, indicated in this passage cannot be others than Soter, under whom the sect appeared, and Eleutherus, whom Victor succeeded in the year 192. Therefore, while Victor was governing the Roman Church, or at least in the beginnings of his pontificate, that is, twenty years and more after the beginnings of Montanus, the Montanists had not yet departed from the Church, nor had they yet been cast out from her. It is probable that proud men did not bear this repulse patiently; nevertheless several years flowed by from this event before the schism broke out openly and publicly. For Tertullian, who was probably at Rome when these things were being done, became a Montanist in this city, if we give that credit to Jerome which, it seems, ought not to be denied to him in this matter. For in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers he relates that Tertullian lapsed into the dogma of Montanus through the envy and insults of the clergy of the Roman Church. Yet he returned to Africa not yet a schismatic: for he was mingled with the Catholics, and in their hearing he crushed and convicted Praxeas, who had come from Italy into Africa and was spreading his error there, and compelled him to abjure his heresy; then at length was the schism stirred up. He himself relates the whole matter thus, ch. 1 Against Praxeas: « The tares of Praxeas had shot up, sown over the wheat here also, while many slept in simplicity of doctrine; exposed thereafter through whom God willed, they even seemed to have been plucked up. In short, the teacher had given security for his amendment to his former state, and his handwriting remains among the psychics, among whom the matter was then transacted; thenceforth silence. And as for us, the acknowledgment and defence of the Paraclete afterwards separated us from the psychics. » Accurate is Tertullian's manner of speaking: not the mere acknowledgment of the false Paraclete, but above all the defence separated him from the Catholics. Doubtless he had acknowledged him before he schismatically defended him.

IV. Tertullianum non statim ac Montanista factus est, ab Ecclesiae communione exteriore discessisse testis est liber De velandis virginibus, cujus scribendi occasio, ut jam vidimus, exstitit orta inter Montanistarum et Catholicorum virgines in iisdem ecclesiis et sub iisdem pastoribus dissensio. Necesse est enim utrasque in easdem convenisse

IV. That Tertullian did not depart from the outward communion of the Church immediately upon becoming a Montanist is witnessed by the book On the Veiling of Virgins, the occasion of writing which, as we have already seen, was the dissension that arose between the virgins of the Montanists and of the Catholics in the same churches and under the same pastors. For it is necessary that both groups assembled into the same

Editors' notes and page, col. 191

Page

running head: 191 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A schisma, sed vehemens; B secta prodiit, et; C num invidia et; D et defensio disjunxit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (schisma, sed vehemens...)

PG 6:192

ecclesias et eidem auctoritati paruisse; cum aliae non velarentur, aliae socias suas velari moleste ferrent, et idcirco apud eos, qui auctoritate praeerant, agerent ut velum detraheretur. Tota res in Ecclesia agebatur, nec dum ab ea Tertullianus discesserat. « Apud nos usque proxime utrique consuetudini communicabatur. » Quinetiam in hoc libro opponit adversariis suis exteras ecclesias, quibuscum et se et adversarios communione conjunctos esse declarat. « Non possumus, inquit, cap. 2, respuere consuetudinem, quam damnare non possumus, utpote non extraneam, quia non extraneorum, cum quibus scilicet communicamus jus pacis et nomen fraternitatis. Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, unus Christus, eadem spes, eadem lavacri sacramenta. Semel dixerim una Ecclesia sumus. » Quam dissimilia haec sunt impiis et inhonestis conviciis, quae postea Tertullianus nec modum ullum nec consilium retinens in Ecclesiam effudit : velut cum ait in libro De pudicitia, cap. 1 : « Erit igitur et hic adversus psychicos titulus, adversus meae quoque sententiae retro penes illos societatem, quo magis hoc mihi in notam levitatis objectent. Nunquam societatis repudium delicti praejudicium est, quasi non facilius sit errare cum pluribus, quando veritas cum paucis ametur. » Scripturam Pastoris ait, cap. 11, inter apocrypha referri, ab omni concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum, inquit, Catholicos alloquens. Negat Catholicis inesse Spiritum sanctum quia illum in Montano non agnoscunt. « Itaque isti, inquit, qui alium Paracletum in apostolis et per apostolos receperunt, quem nec in prophetis propriis agnitum, jam nec in apostolis possident, age nunc vel de apostolico instrumento doceant maculas carnis post baptisma respersae, poenitentia dilui posse. » Et cap. 21 : « Quid nunc et ad Ecclesiam, et quidem tuam psychice? »

churches and obeyed the same authority; since some were not veiled, while others took it ill that their companions were veiled, and on that account pleaded before those who presided in authority that the veil should be pulled off. The whole matter was being transacted within the Church, nor had Tertullian yet departed from her. « Among us until very recently communion was maintained with both customs. » Nay more, in this book he opposes to his adversaries foreign churches, with which he declares both himself and his adversaries to be joined in communion. « We cannot, he says, ch. 2, reject a custom which we cannot condemn, inasmuch as it is not foreign, because it does not belong to foreigners, with whom namely we share the right of peace and the name of brotherhood. One faith is ours and theirs, one God, one Christ, the same hope, the same sacraments of the laver. Let me say it once for all, we are one Church. » How dissimilar are these words to the impious and dishonourable revilings which Tertullian afterwards, keeping neither any measure nor prudence, poured out against the Church: as when he says in the book On Modesty, ch. 1: « This title also, therefore, shall stand against the psychics, against the fellowship of my own opinion too which formerly was among them, so much the more may they cast this up against me as a mark of levity. Never is the repudiation of fellowship a prejudgement of fault, as though it were not easier to err with the majority, when truth is loved in the company of the few. » He says, ch. 11, that the writing of the Pastor is reckoned among the apocrypha by every council of the Churches, even of your own, he says, addressing the Catholics. He denies that the Holy Spirit is in the Catholics because they do not acknowledge Him in Montanus. « Therefore let those men, he says, who have received another Paraclete in the apostles and through the apostles, whom, not acknowledging Him even in His own prophets, they no longer possess even in the apostles—come now, let them teach even from the apostolic instrument that stains of the flesh bespattered after baptism can be washed away by repentance. » And ch. 21: « What now has this to do with the Church, and with your Church indeed, O psychic? »

Tillemontius, qui Montanistas existimat sectam ab Ecclesia abscissam fuisse antequam ei nomen daret Tertullianus, hanc opinionem accepit ab his libri De fuga verbis : « Dicitis enim, quoniam incondite convenimus, simul convenimus et plures concurrimus in Ecclesiam; quaerimur a nationibus et timemus ne turbentur nationes, » cap. III. Existimavit vir doctissimus hic describi synaxes Montanistarum : at ipsos Catholicos, a quibus consultus fuerat, haec dicentes inducit Tertullianus, atque hanc causam afferentes, cur fugiendum sit, et a conventibus abstinendum, quia nimirum, si Christiani solitas synaxes obeant, haec multitudo facile deprehendatur a gentilibus. Unde Tertullianus addit : Annon scitis quod Deus omnium sit Dominus? Et si velit Deus, tunc persecutionem patieris; si vero noluerit, tunc silebunt nationes. » Hinc etiam auctor est ei qui consulebat, ut si interdiu non potest, saltem nocte et cum paucis conveniat, si non licet cum multitudine. « Postremo, si colligere interdiu non

Tillemont, who thinks that the Montanists were a sect cut off from the Church before Tertullian gave his name to it, took this opinion from these words of the book On Flight: « For you say, because we assemble disorderly, assemble together, and run together in great numbers into the church, we are sought out by the heathens, and we fear lest the heathens be stirred up, » ch. III. The most learned man supposed that the assemblies of the Montanists are described here: whereas Tertullian introduces the Catholics themselves, by whom he had been consulted, as saying these things, and alleging this reason why one ought to flee and abstain from assemblies, because namely, if the Christians attend the customary assemblies, this multitude is easily detected by the Gentiles. Whence Tertullian adds: Do you not know that God is Lord of all? And if God wills, then you will suffer persecution; but if He does not will, then the heathens will keep silence. » Hence also he advises him who was consulting him that, if he cannot assemble by day, at least he should assemble by night and with a few, if it is not permitted to do so with a multitude. « Finally, if you cannot hold an assembly by day, you

Editors' notes and page, col. 192

Footnotes

(34) ‹anchor: Itaque isti, inquit› · call in col 192

Cap. 12.

Chapter 12.

(printed under page 102)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 19
marginal letters: A ecclesias et eidem; B sacramenta. Semel dixerim; C « Itaque isti, inquit,; D starum : at ipsos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (ecclesias et eidem...); final digit 2 of column number 192 missing in running head

PG 6:193

potes, habes noctem luce Christi luminosam adversus eam. Non potes discurrere per singulos; sit tibi et in tribus Ecclesia. » In hoc igitur libro, in quo Paracletum suum citat, ac Montani deliriis ita addictus est, ut negare inter tormenta satius esse putet quam fugere, reverebatur tamen ecclesiasticos conventus, eisque praeesse Christum putabat. Nihil enim aliud est hoc loco Ecclesia in tribus, nisi fidelium, quibus inest Spiritus sanctus, etiamsi pauci sint, conventus. His adde Fabium, qui Tertullianum consuluerat, catholicum fuisse; nec psychicos in hoc libro Catholicos appellari : hoc tantum in eis culpat, quod in multis rebus haerere et incerti esse debeant, quia Paracleti oracula non recipiunt. « Procuranda autem examinatio penes vos, si forte Paracletum non recipiendo deductorem omnis veritatis, merito adhuc etiam aliis quaestionibus obnixi (forte obnoxii) estis, cap. 1. Nec praetereunda est S. Rutilii martyris honorifica in hoc libro commemoratio, quem Tertullianus, c. 5, sanctissimum martyrem vocat, quamvis toties fugisset persecutionem de loco in locum, etiam periculum ut putabat nummis redemisset.

have the night luminous with the light of Christ against it. You cannot run about among individuals; let a Church be for you even in three. » In this book, therefore, in which he cites his Paraclete, and is so devoted to the ravings of Montanus that he thinks it better to deny amid torments than to flee, he nevertheless revered the ecclesiastical assemblies, and thought that Christ presided over them. For nothing else is a Church in three in this passage than an assembly of the faithful in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, even though they be few. Add to these things that Fabius, who had consulted Tertullian, was a Catholic; and that the Catholics are not called psychics in this book: this only does he blame in them, that they must hesitate and be uncertain in many matters because they do not receive the oracles of the Paraclete. « But an examination must be seen to among you, whether perchance by not receiving the Paraclete, the guide into all truth, you are deservedly still entangled in (perhaps: subject to) other questions also, ch. 1. Nor must the honourable commemoration in this book of St. Rutilius the martyr be passed over, whom Tertullian, ch. 5, calls a most holy martyr, although he had so many times fled persecution from place to place, and had even, as he supposed, bought off danger with money.

Ex his refelli possunt et qui a Tertulliano haeresis notam propulsant, quia unitatem videtur etiam Montanista retinere, et qui illius de auctoritate et unitate principia nullius volunt esse ponderis, quia haec eum jam schismaticum disseruisse putant. Utrique errant graviter. A schismatis crimine non idcirco insons et purus erit, quia quibusdam veluti gradibus in hoc tristissimum exitium lapsus est. Premunt illum, non tuentur, unitatis aliquandiu retentae indicia cum posterioribus manifesti schismatis notis collata. Quibus autem argumentis Ecclesiae unitatem et infallibilitatem demonstravit, de eorum pondere et momento an detrahere debuit superveniens schisma.

From these things can be refuted both those who repel the brand of heresy from Tertullian because he seems even as a Montanist to retain unity, and those who wish his principles concerning authority and unity to be of no weight because they think that he discoursed of these things when already a schismatic. Both err gravely. He will not on this account be guiltless and pure of the crime of schism, because he slipped by certain steps, as it were, into this most sad ruin. The indications of unity retained for some time, when compared with the subsequent marks of manifest schism, press hard upon him rather than defend him. And as for the arguments by which he demonstrated the unity and infallibility of the Church, ought the supervening schism to have detracted from their weight and moment?

Non dissimulandum est Tertullianum etiam in libris, quos schismaticus scripsit, Ecclesiae apostolicae auctoritate ad refellendos haereticos uti. « Soleo, inquit, lib. V, in Marcionem, cap. 19, in praescriptione adversus haereses omnes de testimonio temporum compendium figere, priorem vindicans regulam nostram omni haeretica posterioritate. » Idem argumentum tangit lib. I, cap. 1; lib. IV, c. 4, et adv. Praxeam, c. 2. Atque in his quidem locis objicit haereticis auctoritatem Ecclesiarum apostolicarum : at nequaquam, ut in iis quae schisma praecesserunt, communione junctum se illis Ecclesiis esse gloriatur, non jus pacis et unitatis unamque Ecclesiam praedicat. Libenter utebatur praescriptionis argumento, quia nihil illud sectae Montani officere putabat, utpote antiquam symboli fidem retinenti; necesse esse putabat, ut ante quis de Deo haereticus sit et tunc de instituto. Paracleto controversiam fieri, et propter hoc novas prophetias recusari dicebat, non quod alium Deum praedicent

It must not be concealed that Tertullian, even in the books which he wrote as a schismatic, uses the authority of the apostolic Church to refute heretics. « I am accustomed, he says, book V, Against Marcion, ch. 19, in my prescription against all heresies to fix a compendious argument from the testimony of times, claiming our rule as prior to all heretical lateness. » He touches upon the same argument in book I, ch. 1; book IV, ch. 4, and Against Praxeas, ch. 2. And in these passages indeed he objects against the heretics the authority of the apostolic Churches; yet by no means, as in those works which preceded the schism, does he boast that he is joined in communion with those Churches, nor does he proclaim the right of peace and unity and one Church. He gladly used the argument of prescription because he thought that it in no way told against the sect of Montanus, as retaining the ancient faith of the creed; he thought it necessary that a man should first be a heretic concerning God, and then concerning discipline. He said that controversy was raised against the Paraclete, and on this account the new prophecies were rejected, not because Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla preach another God,

Editors' notes and page, col. 193

Footnotes

(35) ‹anchor: necesse esse putabat› · call in col 193

De monogam., c. 2; De jejun., c. 1.

On Monogamy, chapter 2; On Fasting, chapter 1.

(printed under page 103)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

De pudic., c. 1.

On Modesty, chapter 1.

(printed under page 103)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

De praescript., c. 11, 12, 13, 14.

On the Prescription of Heretics, chapters 11, 12, 13, 14.

(printed under page 103)

Page

running head: 193 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A potes, habes noctem; B si forte Paracletum; C idcirco insons et; D Idem argumentum tangit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (potes, habes noctem...)

PG 6:194

Montanus et Priscilla et Maximilla, nec quod Jesum Christum solvant, nec quod aliquam fidei aut spei regulam evertant : sed quod plane doceant saepius jejunare quam nubere. At pudorem adeo non projecerat Tertullianus, ut in ipso schismate communionem sibi cum apostolicis Ecclesiis attribueret. De universae Ecclesiae contra Montanistas consensu ita dijudicabat, quasi pauci cum pluribus ac non potius minuta secta cum universa Ecclesia pugnaret. « Nunquam societatis repudium, inquit, delicti praejudicium est, quasi non facilius sit errare cum pluribus, quando veritas cum paucis ametur. » At in libro De praescript. Montanistas, qui apostolicam de secundis nuptiis, de poenitentia, imo et de Ecclesiae auctoritate doctrinam deseruerant, aeque ac alios profligabat hac praeclarissima sententia. « Age nunc omnes erraverint. Ecquid verisimile est ut tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint? » In hoc praestantissimo libro multa alia occurrunt cum iis penitus pugnantia, quae Tertullianus jam Montanista, licet nondum schismaticus, docuit : illud in primis quod in libro De praescript. diserte probat Catholicis nihil jam quaerendum superesse, quippe qui veritatem invenerint, aut saltem in Ecclesia et a fratribus quaerendum. At in libro De velandis virginibus auctoritatem omnem commentitio Paracleto attribuit in solvendis quaestionibus, et Catholicos in libro De fuga multis quaestionibus obnoxios esse pronuntiat, quia non recipiunt Paracletum deductorem omnis veritatis. Statuere ergo licet librum De praescriptionibus non modo ante schisma, sed etiam ante adoptata Montani somnia scriptum fuisse.

nor because they dissolve Jesus Christ, nor because they overthrow any rule of faith or hope, but plainly because they teach to fast more often than to marry. Yet Tertullian had not so far cast off shame as in the schism itself to attribute to himself communion with the apostolic Churches. Concerning the consensus of the universal Church against the Montanists he judged in such a way as if a few were fighting with the many, and not rather a tiny sect with the universal Church. « Never is the repudiation of fellowship, he says, a prejudgement of fault, as though it were not easier to err with the majority, when truth is loved in the company of the few. » Yet in the book On Prescriptions he routed the Montanists, who had deserted the apostolic doctrine concerning second marriages, concerning repentance, and indeed also concerning the authority of the Church, equally with the others by this most noble maxim: « Come now, suppose that all have erred. Is it at all probable that so many and so great Churches should have erred into one and the same faith? » In this most distinguished book many other things occur altogether conflicting with those which Tertullian taught when already a Montanist, though not yet a schismatic: this above all, that in the book On Prescriptions he expressly proves that nothing further remains for Catholics to seek, inasmuch as they have found the truth, or at least that it must be sought in the Church and from the brethren. Whereas in the book On the Veiling of Virgins he attributes all authority in solving questions to the fictitious Paraclete, and in the book On Flight he pronounces that the Catholics are subject to many questions because they do not receive the Paraclete, the guide into all truth. One may therefore conclude that the book On Prescriptions was written not only before the schism, but also before he adopted the dreams of Montanus.

V. Plurimum lucis huic quaestioni accederet, si statuere possemus quo potissimum anno Montanistae ab Ecclesia penitus defecerint. Jam schisma penitus conflatum erat, cum scriberet Tertullianus quartum adversus Marcionem librum, id est anno, ut ipse declarat, decimo quinto imperatoris Severi. Ibi enim declarat inter Montanistas et psychicos controversiam esse de exstasi, cap. 22. Id confirmat S. Clemens Alexandrinus qui sub eodem imperatore scribebat. Nam, cum is librum quartum Stromatum componeret, Catholicos Montanistae psychicos vocare incipiebant. Sic enim de illis Clemens, p. 511 : Ἤδη γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι (Φρύγες) τοὺς τῇ νέᾳ προφητείᾳ μὴ προσέχοντας ψυχικοὺς καλοῦσι.. « Jam enim ii quoque eos, qui novae prophetiae non attendunt, animales appellant. » Idem in Strom., VII, p. 765, Montanistas vocat haeresim ex gente denominatam. Testatur antiquus scriptor apud Eusebium, Hist., V, 16, damnatos fuisse et excommunicatos in multis Asiae conciliis Montanistas; sed quo tempore haec concilia habita fuerint, minime declarat. Fieri potuit ut citius in nonnullis Ecclesiis, serius jn aliis damnarentur.

V. Very much light would be added to this question if we could determine in what particular year the Montanists utterly revolted from the Church. The schism was already thoroughly stirred up when Tertullian wrote his fourth book Against Marcion, that is, as he himself declares, in the fifteenth year of the emperor Severus. For there he declares that between the Montanists and the psychics there is a controversy concerning ecstasy, ch. 22. St. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote under the same emperor, confirms this. For when he was composing the fourth book of the Stromata, the Montanists were beginning to call the Catholics psychics. For thus speaks Clement concerning them, p. 511: For already these men also (the Phrygians) call those who do not give heed to the new prophecy psychics.. « For already these men also call those who do not attend to the new prophecy animal men. » The same writer in the Stromata, VII, p. 765, calls the Montanists a heresy named from a nation. An ancient writer in Eusebius, History, V, 16, testifies that the Montanists were condemned and excommunicated in many councils of Asia; but at what time these councils were held, he by no means declares. It could have happened that they were condemned sooner in some Churches, and later in others.

Pseudoprophetas illos vocat Irenaeus, eosque ut

Irenaeus calls them false prophets, and finely depicts them as

Editors' notes and page, col. 194

Footnotes

(36) ‹anchor: repudium, inquit› · call in col 194

De pudic., c. 1.

On Modesty, ch. 1.

(printed under page 103)

(37) ‹anchor: in libro De praescript. diserte› · call in col 194

De praescript., c. 11, 12, 13, 14.

On Prescription, chs. 11, 12, 13, 14.

(printed under page 103)

(38) ‹anchor: De velandis virginibus› · call in col 194

Cap. 1.

Chapter 1.

(printed under page 103)

(39) ‹anchor: in libro De fuga› · call in col 194

Cap. 1.

Chapter 1.

(printed under page 103)

Page

running head: RAEFATIO. — PARS III. 194
marginal letters: A Montanus et Priscilla; B alios profligabat hac; C cletum deductorem omnis; D nistae psychicos vocare
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (Montanus et Priscilla...); rising space marks before librum (cum is librum) and multis (in multis Asiae)

PG 6:195

prophetiae insignia sine prophetica gratia sibi arrogantes egregie depingit, lib. IV, cap. 33, n. 6. At schismatis scelus falsae prophetiae adjunctum ab eis fuisse non dicit. Non tamen dubium esset quin tunc schismatici fuerint, si de illis dictum esset illud Irenaei : « Alii vero ut donum Spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quae est secundum Joannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit; sed simul et Evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum. » Miror eruditis viris Tillemontio et novissimae editionis auctori visum esse Irenaeum de Montanistis loqui. Quomodo enim S. Joannis Evangelium ob sancti Spiritus promissionem rejecissent, quos constat in illis Joannis locis, ubi Spiritus promittitur, praecipuum sectae suae praesidium constituisse? Quae sequuntur Irenaeum de Montanistis non loqui confirmant, etsi augent difficultatem dignoscendi quosnam potissimum exagitet. Addit enim : « Infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetae quidem esse volunt, propheticam vero gratiam repellunt ab Ecclesia; similia patientes his qui propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum communione se abstinent. Datur autem intelligi, quod hujusmodi neque apostolum Paulum recipiant. » Discimus ex his verbis nonnullos exstitisse, qui a communione sese removerent, ne cum hypocritis communicarent. Cum his comparat eos qui S. Joannis Evangelium rejiciebant, quia in hoc maxime Evangelio promittitur Spiritus sanctus. Utrique ergo peccabant inconsiderato eorum qui sanctis rebus abutuntur, odio; atque ut ii, qui a communione abscedebant, ita se gerebant, quia plus aequo infensi erant hypocritis communicantibus; ita necesse est ut eos qui Evangelium Joannis et promissionem sancti Spiritus rejiciebant, id fecisse dicamus propter eos qui Evangelio et promissione abutebantur. Quare non Montanistae Evangelium S. Joannis rejecisse dicendi sunt, sed potius dum eo, ad causae suae defensionem abutuntur, illius rejiciendi ansam immoderatis adversariis dedisse.

arrogating to themselves the badges of prophecy without prophetic grace, book IV, ch. 33, n. 6. Yet he does not say that the crime of schism was joined by them to false prophecy. There would be no doubt, however, that they were then schismatics, if that passage of Irenaeus had been spoken concerning them: « But others, in order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in the last times according to the good pleasure of the Father has been poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect which is according to the Gospel of John, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but at the same time they repel both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. » I wonder that it seemed to those learned men, Tillemont and the author of the newest edition, that Irenaeus is speaking of the Montanists. For how would those men have rejected the Gospel of St. John on account of the promise of the Holy Spirit, who, as is well known, established the chief bulwark of their sect in those passages of John where the Spirit is promised? The words which follow confirm that Irenaeus is not speaking of the Montanists, although they increase the difficulty of discerning whom in particular he is assailing. For he adds: « Wretched men truly, who wish indeed to be false prophets, but repel prophetic grace from the Church; suffering things similar to those who, on account of those who come in hypocrisy, abstain even from communion with the brethren. Now it is given to be understood that men of this sort do not receive the apostle Paul either. » We learn from these words that there were some who withdrew themselves from communion lest they should communicate with hypocrites. With these he compares those who rejected the Gospel of St. John because in this Gospel above all the Holy Spirit is promised. Both groups, therefore, sinned through an inconsiderate hatred of those who abuse holy things; and just as those who withdrew from communion bore themselves thus because they were more hostile than was right to hypocrites who communicated, so we must say that those who rejected the Gospel of John and the promise of the Holy Spirit did this on account of those who abused the Gospel and the promise. Wherefore the Montanists are not to be said to have rejected the Gospel of St. John, but rather, while abusing it for the defence of their own cause, to have given a handle for rejecting it to immoderate adversaries.

Si minus statuere possumus quo potissimum tempore Montanistae schismatici fuerint; illud saltem asseverare licet, scribente Apologiam Athenagora et multis post annis, nondum eos ab Ecclesia catholica discessisse.

If we are less able to determine at what particular time the Montanists became schismatics, this at least we may assert, that when Athenagoras was writing his Apology, and for many years afterwards, they had not yet departed from the Catholic Church.

VI. Haec accurate explorare conatus sum, ut habeamus quid de fide Athenagorae statuamus. Ac 1° quidem asseverare possumus secundas nuptias ab eo minime damnatas fuisse. Quomodo enim illas damnasset, quas ne Montanus quidem tunc temporis condemnare audebat? 2° Etiamsi Athenagoras Montani partibus se addixisset, non tamen illius nomini labes schismatis inhaerere deberet, cum anno 176 quo scribebat, ac pluribus postea elapsis annis nondum ad extremum illud schismatis

VI. I have endeavoured to explore these things accurately in order that we may know what to determine concerning the faith of Athenagoras. And 1. indeed we can assert that second marriages were by no means condemned by him. For how would he have condemned those marriages which not even Montanus at that time dared to condemn? 2. Even if Athenagoras had attached himself to the party of Montanus, yet the stain of schism ought not to cleave to his name, since in the year 176, in which he was writing, and after several years had elapsed thereafter, the wickedness of the Montanists had not yet arrived at that extreme crime of schism.

Editors' notes and page, col. 195

Footnotes

(40) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Lib. iii, c. 11, n. 9.

Book III, chapter 11, section 9.

(printed under page 104)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Matth. XIX, 9.

Matthew 19:9.

(printed under page 104)

Page

running head: 195 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A prophetiae insignia sine; B locis, ubi Spiritus; C quia in hoc; D severare licet, scribente
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (prophetiae insignia...); schisma- split at column break
other: the word schismatis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 196

PG 6:196

scelus nequitia Montanistarum pervenerit. 3° Ne illud quidem probabile est Athenagoram ulla cum Montano consuetudine aut doctrinae consensione conjunctum fuisse. Nam quod de secundis nuptiis statuit, id ex Christi verbis, Quicunque dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, moechatur, subtiliter ratiocinando deducit : at novae prophetiae auctoritas minime illi in mentem venit. Atque in hoc manifesta est illius a Montanistis dissensio. Isti enim unicas nuptias neque a Christo neque ab apostolis praescriptas fatebantur, sed a Paracleto, quem a Christo datum Montano et Priscillae et Maximillae dicebant, ut quoniam humana mediocritas omnia semel capere non poterat, paulatim dirigeretur et ordinaretur et ad perfectum perduceretur disciplina ab illo vicario Domini Spiritu sancto, TERTULL. De vel. virg., c. 1. Nihil simile Athenagoras designat; solis Christi verbis nititur. Neque etiam de Montanistis, sed de Christianis ait, num. 33, unumquemque vel qualis natus est manere, vel unicis in nuptiis.

3. Not even this is probable, that Athenagoras was joined with Montanus by any intimacy or agreement in doctrine. For what he lays down concerning second marriages, he deduces by subtly reasoning from the words of Christ, Whosoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery; whereas the authority of the new prophecy by no means came into his mind. And in this his disagreement with the Montanists is manifest. For those men confessed that single marriages were prescribed neither by Christ nor by the apostles, but by the Paraclete, whom they said had been given by Christ to Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, in order that, since human mediocrity could not take in all things at once, discipline might be gradually directed and ordered and brought to perfection by that vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 1. Athenagoras indicates nothing similar; he relies on the words of Christ alone. Nor does he say of the Montanists, but of the Christians, num. 33, that each one remains either such as he was born, or in a single marriage.

VII. Non justior accusandi Athenagorae causa ex illius de prophetarum exstasi dictis ducitur. Nam 1° etiamsi non fuisset ex illorum numero, qui statim animadverterunt quid vitii inesset exstasibus Montanistarum et oritura ex his hominibus mala prospexerunt; non idcirco Montani non dico schismati, sed vel doctrinae addictus dici posset. In illa enim dissensione, quam de Montanistis inter Catholicos exortam narrat Eusebius, Hist., IV, 3, quicunque prophetias Montani non damnabant vel etiam probabant, non idcirco Montano regendos se committebant : et quandiu Catholicis permisti fuere Montanistae, haud dubium quin multi eos laudaverint et ab eis laudati fuerint, nec tamen eorum vivendi et sentiendi rationes secuti sint. Ex quo etiam patet quam iniquum quamque absurdum foret, exprobrare Ecclesiae catholicae cultum mulierum Montani sectae addictarum, quia scilicet sanctae Perpetuae et sanctae Felicitatis Acta collecta sunt ab homine sicut prophetias, ut est in praefatione, ita et visiones novas agnoscente et honorante. Difficile est Montanistis invidere scriptorem ita illis temporibus de novis prophetiis loquentem : Montani sectatorem fuisse contendit Valesius, negat Ruinartius. Sed si is Montanista fuit, non idcirco Montanistis sanctae illae martyres tradendae; aut certe eamdem notam non effugiet S. Rutilius martyr, quem quidem, etsi Montanum sperneret, magnis tamen laudibus ornavit Tertullianus, lib. De fuga in persec., c. 5.

VII. No more just a cause for accusing Athenagoras is drawn from his words concerning the ecstasy of the prophets. For 1. even if he had not been of the number of those who immediately noticed what fault lay in the ecstasies of the Montanists and foresaw the evils that would arise from these men, he could not on that account be called devoted I do not say to the schism, but even to the doctrine of Montanus. For in that dissension which Eusebius, History, IV, 3, relates to have arisen among Catholics concerning the Montanists, whosoever did not condemn or even approved the prophecies of Montanus did not on that account commit themselves to be governed by Montanus; and so long as the Montanists were mingled with the Catholics, there is no doubt that many praised them and were praised by them, and yet did not follow their ways of living and thinking. From which it is also clear how unjust and how absurd it would be to reproach the Catholic Church with the veneration of women devoted to the sect of Montanus, because, namely, the Acts of St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas were collected by a man who, as stands in the preface, acknowledged and honoured new visions just as he did prophecies. It is difficult to begrudge the Montanists a writer speaking thus in those times concerning new prophecies: Valois contends that he was a follower of Montanus, Ruinart denies it. Yet if he was a Montanist, those holy martyrs are not on that account to be handed over to the Montanists; or else St. Rutilius the martyr will certainly not escape the same brand, whom indeed, although he spurned Montanus, Tertullian nevertheless adorned with great praises, book On Flight in Persecution, ch. 5.

2° Ne illud quidem dici potest Montanistas ab Athenagora rejectos et damnatos non fuisse. Nam S. Clemens Alex. hanc sectam inter haereses recenset, sed tamen prophetas, itidem ut Athenagoras, in exstasi locutos agnoscit, et pseudoprophetas omnes, qui ante Christum fuerant, fures

2. Not even this can be said, that the Montanists were not rejected and condemned by Athenagoras. For St. Clement of Alexandria reckons this sect among the heresies, and yet acknowledges that the prophets, just as Athenagoras says, spoke in ecstasy, and proves that all the false prophets who had been before Christ were thieves,

Editors' notes and page, col. 196

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 195
marginal letters: A tis scelus nequitia; B retur disciplina ab; C quicunque prophetias Montani; D Montani sectatorem fuisse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (tis scelus nequitia...); begins with fragment tis from schismatis split across col 195-196 break; running head misprints column number as 195 for 196

PG 6:197

fuisse probat, quia revera prophetabant in exstasi, nimirum imitante et suffurante diabolo propheticam exstasim. Vide S. Ambrosium in psal. XXXIX.

because they truly prophesied in ecstasy, the devil namely imitating and stealing prophetic ecstasy. See St. Ambrose on Psalm 39.

3° Nihil hic Athenagorae cum Montanistis : tota illi cum ethnicis disputatio. Prophetas extra se raptos fuisse dicit, non quod necesse esse crederet, ut in spiritu homo constitutus, ut ait Tertullianus, excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina, sed quia cum exstasis in gentilium oraculis divinae inspirationis nota haberetur, prophetas divinitus fuisse inspiratos argumento ad permovendos gentiles idoneo probare volebat. Non multo aliter locutus in Cohortatione Justinus, qui etiam Sibyllae potentem afflatum laudat. Sic etiam Theophilus, lib. II, n. 9. Idem Philoni videtur propositum fuisse, cum de prophetarum exstasi loquitur, nempe ut gloriam et decus eorum extollat ac inspirationem probet. Vid. lib. II, Legis allegor., p. 52, et librum : Quis rerum divinarum haeres.

3. Athenagoras has nothing to do here with the Montanists: his whole disputation is with the Gentiles. He says that the prophets were rapt out of themselves, not because he believed it necessary that a man placed in the spirit, as Tertullian says, should lose his senses, overshadowed namely by the divine power, but because, since ecstasy in the oracles of the Gentiles was held to be a mark of divine inspiration, he wished to prove that the prophets had been divinely inspired by an argument suitable for moving the Gentiles. Not very differently spoke Justin in the Exhortation, who also praises the powerful inspiration of the Sibyl. So also Theophilus, book II, n. 9. The same purpose seems to have been before Philo when he speaks of the ecstasy of the prophets, namely that he may extol their glory and honour and prove their inspiration. See book II, Allegories of the Law, p. 52, and the book: Who is the Heir of Divine Things.

CAPUT XV.

Chapter XV.

De gestis et scriptis sancti Theophili Antiocheni episcopi.

On the deeds and writings of St. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch.

I. De conversione et episcopatu S. Theophili. II. De illius deperditis operibus. III. Theophili non sunt commentarii in Evangelia. IV. Qua occasione scripti ad Autolycum tres libri. V. Sub Commodi imperio scripti. VI. Refellitur Dodwellus qui alium Theophilum excogitavit.

I. On the conversion and episcopate of St. Theophilus. II. On his lost works. III. The commentaries on the Gospels are not by Theophilus. IV. On what occasion the three books to Autolycus were written. V. Written under the reign of Commodus. VI. Dodwell, who invented another Theophilus, is refuted.

I. Natus est ac institutus Theophilus in superstitionum ethnicarum tenebris; idemque illi contigit, quod de se ipsi Justinus et Tatianus, de Athenagora Philippus Sideta testantur, ut legendis Scripturis ad Christianam religionem converteretur. Rem ipse sic narrat sub finem libri primi ad Autolycum : « Ne sis igitur incredulus, sed potius crede. Nam et ipse non credebam resurrectionem futuram; sed nunc credo, postquam haec attentius consideravi; simul quod in sacras Scripturas incidi sanctorum prophetarum, qui per Spiritum sanctum et praeterita eodem quo gesta sunt modo, et praesentia eodem quo geruntur praedixerunt, et futura eodem ordine quo perficientur. Cum igitur ea quae eveniunt et praedicta olim demonstrationem mihi exhibeant; non sum incredulus, sed credo obtemperans Deo.

I. Theophilus was born and educated in the darkness of Gentile superstitions; and the same thing happened to him which Justin and Tatian testify of themselves, and Philip of Side testifies of Athenagoras, that by reading the Scriptures he was converted to the Christian religion. He himself relates the matter thus towards the end of the first book To Autolycus: « Be not therefore unbelieving, but rather believe. For I myself also did not believe that there would be a resurrection; but now I believe, after I have considered these things more attentively; and at the same time because I fell in with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who through the Holy Spirit foretold both past things in the same manner in which they were done, and present things in the same manner in which they are being done, and future things in the same order in which they will be accomplished. Since, therefore, the things which come to pass and were foretold of old afford me a demonstration, I am not unbelieving, but I believe, obeying God.

Hunc Theophilum Dodwellus, quem infra refellemus, justo longius ab apostolica aetate removere et episcopali dignitate spoliare ausus est; alii nonnulli cum eo, cui Actus apostolorum inscripti, minus belle confudere. Longe ab hoc Theophilo distat ille noster, qui mortuo Erote quinto Antiochiae episcopo, circa annum M. Aurelii octavum, id est annum Christi 168, Antiochenae sedi praefectus fuit. Testatur enim Eusebius anno hujus imperatoris octavo Romae Soterem Aniceto, Alexandriae Celadioni Agrippinum successisse; ac statim addit : Τηνικαῦτα καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀντιοχέων Ἐκκλησίας Θεόφιλος ἕκτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγνωρίζετο. « Tunc autem et in Antiochena Ecclesia sextus ab apostolis Theophilus florebat. » Quibus verbis

This Theophilus, Dodwell, whom we shall refute below, dared to remove further than is right from the apostolic age and to despoil of episcopal dignity; some others have less aptly confounded him with that Theophilus to whom the Acts of the Apostles were inscribed. Far distant from this Theophilus is ours, who after the death of Eros, the fifth bishop of Antioch, about the eighth year of Marcus Aurelius, that is, the year of Christ 168, was set over the see of Antioch. For Eusebius testifies that in the eighth year of this emperor Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome, and Agrippinus succeeded Celadion at Alexandria; and he immediately adds: At that time also in the Church of the Antiochenes Theophilus was known as the sixth from the apostles. « And at that time also in the Church of Antioch Theophilus flourished as the sixth from the apostles. » By which words

Editors' notes and page, col. 197

Footnotes

(42) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Strom., i, p. 349.

Stromata, book I, page 349.

(printed under page 105)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

L. iv in Marc., c. 22.

Against Marcion, book IV, chapter 22.

(printed under page 105)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

N. 9 et 37.

Sections 9 and 37.

(printed under page 105)

(45) ‹anchor: ac statim addit› · call in col 197

Hist., lib. iv, c. 19 et 20.

Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapters 19 and 20.

(printed under page 105)

(46) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Hist., iv, 24.

Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter 24.

(printed under page 105)

Page

running head: 197 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A fuisse probat, quia; B nempe ut gloriam; C tur. Rem ipse; D et episcopali dignitate
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (fuisse probat... CAPUT XV. De gestis et scriptis sancti Theophili...)

PG 6:198

non id mihi videtur indicari tres illos patriarchas eodem M. Aurelii anno electos fuisse, sed tantum eodem illos tempore Ecclesiam gubernasse. Nam si Eusebii verba stricte sumantur, ex his illud potius sequetur, jam tum Antiochiae floruisse Theophilum, cum Soter Aniceto, Agrippinus Celadioni successit.

it does not seem to me to be indicated that those three patriarchs were elected in the same year of Marcus Aurelius, but only that they governed the Church at the same time. For if the words of Eusebius be taken strictly, from them this will rather follow, that Theophilus already flourished at Antioch at the time when Soter succeeded Anicetus, and Agrippinus succeeded Celadion.

II. Praeter quotidianum laboris ac sollicitudinis pensum, quod omnibus episcopis impositum, haud parum negotii haereses, quae tunc Ecclesiam oppugnabant, Theophilo nostro addiderunt. Illius vigilantia et excubiae pro commissis ovibus spectari possunt ex studio, quod in profligandis haereticis et a grege suo avertendis significavit. Sic enim de illo Eusebius : Τῶν γε μὴν αἱρετικῶν οὐδὲν χεῖρον καὶ τότε ζιζανίων δίκην λυμαινομένων τὸν εἰλικρινῆ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς διδασκαλίας σπόρον, οἱ πανταχόσε τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ποιμένες, ὥσπερ τινὰς θῆρας ἀγρίους τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ προβάτων ἀποσοβοῦντες αὐτοὺς ἀνεῖργον· τοτὲ μὲν, ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς νουθεσίαις καὶ παραινέσεσι· τοτὲ δὲ, πρὸς αὐτοὺς γυμνότερον ἀποδυόμενοι, ἀγράφοις τε εἰς πρόσωπον ζητήσεσι καὶ ἀνατροπαῖς· ἤδη δὲ καὶ δι' ἐγγράφων ὑπομνημάτων τὰς δόξας αὐτῶν ἀκριβεστάτοις ἐλέγχοις διευθύνοντες. Ὅ γέ τοι Θεόφιλος σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις κατὰ τούτων στρατευσάμενος δῆλός ἐστιν ἀπό τινος οὐκ ἀγεννῶς αὐτῷ κατὰ Μαρκίωνος πεπονημένου λόγου, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς μεθ' ὧν ἄλλων εἰρήκαμεν, εἰσέτι νῦν διασέσωσται. Τοῦτον μὲν οὖν ἕβδομος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τῆς Ἀντιοχέων Ἐκκλησίας διαδέχεται Μαξιμῖνος. « Porro cum nihilominus hac etiam tempestate haeretici zizaniorum instar sinceram apostolicae doctrinae sementem labefactarent, Ecclesiarum toto orbe pastores, eos tanquam feras atque immanes belluas ab ovili Christi fugare atque arcere properabant; partim hortando et commonendo fratres, partim adversus ipsos haereticos fortiter colluctando : quos vel propositis cominus interrogationibus viva voce, vel libris accuratissime scriptis, opiniones eorum refellendo, confutabant. Theophilus igitur una cum caeteris adversus illos haereticos depugnavit, ut constat ex quodam illius libro haudquaquam spernendo, quem contra Marcionem elaboravit, qui liber cum aliis quos retuli etiamnum exstat. » Scripserat etiam Theophilus, Eusebio et Hieronymo testibus, alium adversus Hermogenis haeresim librum, in quo testimoniis ex Joannis Apocalypsi desumptis utebatur. Cum his adversus haereticos elucubrationibus interiere alii ejusdem libri, in quibus elementa fidei exposita fuisse testatur Eusebius : Καὶ ἕτερα δέ τινα κατηχητικὰ αὐτοῦ βιβλία, sive, ut interpretatur Hieronymus, breves elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pertinentes.

II. Besides the daily task of labour and solicitude which is laid upon all bishops, the heresies which then assailed the Church added no small trouble to our Theophilus. His vigilance and watchings on behalf of the sheep entrusted to him can be seen from the zeal which he showed in routing the heretics and turning them away from his flock. For thus speaks Eusebius concerning him: Moreover, since the heretics no less even then like tares were spoiling the pure seed of the apostolic teaching, the pastors of the Churches everywhere, driving them away like wild beasts from the sheep of Christ, held them back, at one time by admonitions and exhortations to the brethren, at another stripping more openly against them in unwritten face-to-face disputations and refutations, and now also through written memoirs correcting their opinions with the most accurate proofs. And that Theophilus along with the others waged war against these men is clear from a certain discourse not ignobly elaborated by him against Marcion, which itself also, along with the others of which we have spoken, has been preserved even until now. Him, then, Maximinus succeeds as the seventh from the apostles over the Church of the Antiochenes. « Moreover, since none the less at this time also the heretics like tares were ruining the pure seed of apostolic doctrine, the pastors of the Churches throughout the whole world hastened to put them to flight and ward them off like wild and savage beasts from the sheepfold of Christ, partly by exhorting and warning the brethren, partly by contending bravely against the heretics themselves, whom they confuted either by proposing questions hand to hand with the living voice, or by refelling their opinions in most accurately written books. Theophilus, therefore, together with the rest fought it out against those heretics, as is clear from a certain book of his by no means to be despised, which he elaborated against Marcion, which book along with the others that I have mentioned is even now extant. » Theophilus had also written, as Eusebius and Jerome testify, another book against the heresy of Hermogenes, in which he made use of testimonies drawn from the Apocalypse of John. Along with these works against the heretics there perished other books of the same author, in which Eusebius testifies that the elements of the faith were expounded: And certain other catechetical books of his, or, as Jerome translates it, brief and elegant treatises pertaining to the edification of the Church.

Forte in his pertractationibus numerandi sunt libri, quos a se scriptos testatur Theophilus. In lib. II Ad Autolycum citat primum De historiis librum,

Perhaps among these treatises are to be numbered the books which Theophilus testifies were written by himself. In book II To Autolycus he cites the first book On Histories,

Editors' notes and page, col. 198

Page

running head: I PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 198
marginal letters: A non id mihi; B καὶ τότε ζιζανίων; C μῖνος. « Porro cum; D Eusebio et Hieronymo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (non id mihi videtur...); li- split at column break
other: the word librum, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 199

PG 6:199

in quo de generationibus primorum hominum egerat. Sic autem loquitur, num. 30 : Καὶ γὰρ ἐκ μέρους ἤδη γεγένηται ἡμῖν λόγος ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ ὡς ἐπάνω προειρήκαμεν, τῆς γενεαλογίας ἡ τάξις ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ βίβλῳ τῇ περὶ ἱστοριῶν. « Jam enim a nobis aliqua ex parte instituta est haec disputatio in alio opere, ut supra diximus, nempe genealogiae series in primo De historiis libro. » Ait paulo post se in eodem libro egisse de rebus Noe. Libri illi Historiarum, quorum in primo Theophilus genealogiae seriem texebat, inscripti videntur fuisse Genesis mundi. Ait enim, n. 28, se disputationem de daemone praetermittere, quia longa est oratio, ac ea de re alibi egit. Mox, n. 29, sic loquitur : Τὰ μὲν οὖν κατ' αὐτοὺς πλείω ἔχει τὴν ἱστορίαν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τῆς ἐξηγήσεως· διὸ τὰ τῆς ἱστορίας δύναται ἀκριβέστερον διδάξαι αὐτὴ ἡ βίβλος ἥτις ἐπιγράφεται Γένεσις κόσμου. « Ac ea quidem, quae ad illos spectant (Abelem et Cain) plurimam habent historiam, imo narrationis oeconomiam : quare discendi cupidos accuratius potest de hac historia liber ipse, qui Genesis mundi inscribitur, edocere. » Videtur prima specie hic indicari primus Pentateuchi liber, quem eruditus Wolfius Genesim mundi observat appellari in ms. Alexandrino et apud Epiphanium in libro De ponderibus et mensuris. Hae voces, liber ipse, ipsam Genesim apte designant, ut fontem ex quo omnis de his rebus disputatio deducitur. Sed tamen cum primus Pentateuchi liber non soleat inscribi, Genesis mundi, sed tantum Genesis, nihil prohibebat Theophilum quominus opus suum inscriberet Genesim mundi; et cum paulo ante dixisset se in alio opere egisse de daemone, qui Adam et Evam tentavit, mox discendi cupidos ad ipsum librum dimittere potuit. Sed quod mihi necessitatem imponit hujus libri, qui inscribebatur Genesis mundi, Theophilo attribuendi; cum Theophilus dicat, n. 30, a se jam citatum fuisse librum in quo de genealogiis agebat; nullus alius occurrit locus, in quo hoc opus citet praeter eum, in quo legendi studiosos dimittit ad Genesim mundi, Cum de rebus Noe declaret se in eodem libro egisse, non alium videtur indicare in libro tertio, num. 19, ubi ait se alibi demonstrasse arcam non a Deucalione, sed a Noe, cujus nomen idem sonat ac requies, constructam fuisse.

in which he had treated of the generations of the first men. Now thus he speaks, num. 30: For in part we have already held discourse in another discourse, as we have said above, the order of the genealogy in the first book On Histories. « For already this disputation has been in some part undertaken by us in another work, as we have said above, namely the series of the genealogy in the first book On Histories. » He says a little after that in the same book he treated of the affairs of Noah. Those books of Histories, in the first of which Theophilus wove the series of the genealogy, seem to have been entitled Genesis of the World. For he says, n. 28, that he passes over the disputation concerning the demon because the discourse is long, and he has treated of that matter elsewhere. Presently, n. 29, he speaks thus: The matters concerning them, therefore, have a fuller history, and not only so, but also the arrangement of the exposition; wherefore the book itself which is entitled Genesis of the World can teach more accurately the matters of the history. « And those things indeed which pertain to them (Abel and Cain) have a very large history, nay, an economy of narration: wherefore the book itself which is entitled Genesis of the World can instruct more accurately concerning this history those who are eager to learn. » At first sight there seems here to be indicated the first book of the Pentateuch, which the learned Wolf observes is called Genesis of the World in the Alexandrian manuscript and in Epiphanius in his book On Weights and Measures. These words, the book itself, aptly designate Genesis itself, as the fountain from which every disputation concerning these matters is drawn. Nevertheless, since the first book of the Pentateuch is not accustomed to be entitled Genesis of the World, but only Genesis, nothing hindered Theophilus from entitling his own work Genesis of the World; and since he had said a little before that he had treated in another work of the demon who tempted Adam and Eve, he could presently refer those eager to learn to that very book. But what imposes upon me the necessity of attributing this book, which was entitled Genesis of the World, to Theophilus, is that whereas Theophilus says, n. 30, that the book in which he treated of the genealogies had already been cited by him, no other passage occurs in which he cites this work except that in which he refers those studious of reading to the Genesis of the World. Since he declares that he treated of the affairs of Noah in the same book, he seems to indicate no other in the third book, num. 19, where he says that he had demonstrated elsewhere that the ark was built not by Deucalion, but by Noah, whose name sounds the same as rest.

III. De commentario Theophili in Evangelium et in Proverbia sic loquitur Hieronymus in libro De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis : « Legi sub nomine ejus in Evangelium et in Proverbia Salomonis commentarios, qui mihi cum superiorum voluminum elegantia et phrasi non videntur congruere. » Idem in epistola ad Algasiam, quaest. 6, utitur testimonio quodam Theophili Antiocheni, quod in Appendice referimus. Quo autem ex opere Theophili desumptum sit, Hieronymus declarat. « Theophilus, inquit, Antiochenae Ecclesiae septimus post Petrum

III. Concerning the commentary of Theophilus on the Gospel and on Proverbs, Jerome speaks thus in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers: « I have read under his name commentaries on the Gospel and on the Proverbs of Solomon, which do not seem to me to agree in elegance and diction with the preceding volumes. » The same writer in his epistle to Algasia, quest. 6, makes use of a certain testimony of Theophilus of Antioch, which we report in the Appendix. And from what work of Theophilus it was taken, Jerome declares: « Theophilus, he says, the seventh bishop of the Church of Antioch after Peter

Editors' notes and page, col. 199

Footnotes

(47) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Prolog. in Matth.

Prologue to the commentary on Matthew.

(printed under page 106)

(48) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col (not visible; above the rendered foot)

Lib. i.

Book I.

(printed under page 106)

Page

running head: 199 S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A brum, in quo; B ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν; C di, sed tantum; D strasse arcam non
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (brum, in quo...); begins with fragment brum from librum split across col 198-199 break

PG 6:200

apostolum episcopus, qui quatuor evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens, ingenii sui nobis monumenta dimisit, haec super hac parabola in suis commentariis est locutus. » Duo ergo navavit Theophilus : primo evangelistarum dicta collegit, et quae similia erant ita contexuit, quasi unum essent opus. Deinde commentarios suos adjunxit. Opus profecto longe ab eo diversum quod Tatianus elaboravit; nec merito suspicatus est Valesius memoria lapsum esse Hieronymum, et Theophilo attribuisse opus Tatiani. Nam Tatianus commentarios non adjunxerat evangelistarum dictis. Narrat alibi Hieronymus legisse se commentarios Theophili.

the apostle, who in putting together the sayings of the four evangelists into one work left us monuments of his genius, spoke these things upon this parable in his commentaries. » Theophilus therefore accomplished two things: first he collected the sayings of the evangelists, and so wove together those that were similar as if they were one work. Next he adjoined his own commentaries. A work assuredly far different from that which Tatian elaborated; nor did Valois rightly suspect that Jerome had slipped in memory and attributed to Theophilus the work of Tatian. For Tatian had not adjoined commentaries to the sayings of the evangelists. Jerome relates elsewhere that he had read the commentaries of Theophilus.

Ex hac observatione illud etiam manifestum fit, Theophilo nostro attribui non posse breves illos commentarios, qui sub ejus nomine in Bibliothecis Patrum editi singulos evangelistas separatim libris quatuor exponunt. Praeterea quis Latinum scriptorem non agnoscat his in verbis? « Per iota, Vetus significat Testamentum, quo Decalogus continetur; iota enim pro decem est apud Graecos. Apex autem quatuor litteras habens, per Evangelium quadruplex, Testamentum indicat Novum. » His adde nonnulla in his commentariis occurrere ex Latinis Patribus desumpta; ex Hieronymo quatuor causas, cur ex desponsata Christus natus sit, ex S. Cypriani epistola ad Magnum insignem locum de corpore et sanguine Domini; ex eodem Hieronymo interpretationem Latinam eorum quae Theophilus de parabola oeconomi disseruerat. Inutili prorsus labore Grabius haec S. Cyprianum et S. Hieronymum a Theophilo mutuatos esse opinatur. Sed si haec Theophilus Graece scripsisset, haud libenter crediderim interpretem illius tam accurate venatum esse citata a Latinis Patribus loca, ut eorum verba in suam interpretationem transferret. Praeterea si Hieronymus a Theophilo acceperat quatuor illas causas, ob quas Christus ex desponsata natus, cur quartam S. Ignatio, nullam prorsus S. Theophilo acceptam refert?

From this observation this also becomes manifest, that there cannot be attributed to our Theophilus those brief commentaries which, published under his name in the Bibliothecae Patrum, expound the individual evangelists separately in four books. Moreover, who would not recognize a Latin writer in these words? « By iota, he signifies the Old Testament, in which the Decalogue is contained; for iota stands for ten among the Greeks. And the apex having four letters, through the fourfold Gospel, indicates the New Testament. » Add to these things that several passages occur in these commentaries taken from the Latin Fathers: from Jerome four reasons why Christ was born of an espoused virgin; from the epistle of St. Cyprian to Magnus a notable passage concerning the body and blood of the Lord; from the same Jerome a Latin translation of the things which Theophilus had discoursed concerning the parable of the steward. With altogether useless labour Grabe opines that St. Cyprian and St. Jerome borrowed these things from Theophilus. Yet if Theophilus had written these things in Greek, I would by no means readily believe that his translator hunted out the passages cited by the Latin Fathers so accurately as to transfer their words into his own translation. Moreover, if Jerome had received from Theophilus those four reasons on account of which Christ was born of an espoused virgin, why does he credit the fourth to St. Ignatius, and none at all to St. Theophilus?

IV. Nunc de tribus ad Autolycum libris examinandum nobis est quae fuerit illorum scribendorum causa, et quo potissimum tempore scripti fuerint.

IV. Now concerning the three books To Autolycus we must examine what was the cause of writing them, and at what particular time they were written.

Videtur Autolycus amicitia cum Theophilo nostro conjunctus fuisse. Amicum enim illum vocat Theophilus sub finem libri primi, et ad frequens colloquium invitat sub finem secundi. Inerant huic homini non parva ethnicarum virtutum ornamenta, et indefessum legendi studium. Optimum illum salutat Theophilus eique prudentiae laudem tribuit : plurima legisse testatur, ac in omni eruditione, sive, ut ipse appellat, in omnibus operosis nugis tanto studio versari, ut noctes in bibliothecis consumere non dubitaret. Sed has Autolyci laudes penitus obruebat indigna homine docto in omne simulacrorum

Autolycus seems to have been joined in friendship with our Theophilus. For Theophilus calls him a friend towards the end of the first book, and invites him to frequent conversation towards the end of the second. There were in this man no small ornaments of Gentile virtues, and an untiring zeal for reading. Theophilus greets him as most excellent and bestows upon him the praise of prudence: he testifies that he has read very many things, and is engaged with such zeal in all learning, or, as he himself calls it, in all laborious trifles, that he did not hesitate to spend his nights in libraries. Yet these praises of Autolycus were utterly overwhelmed by a piety unworthy of a learned man towards every kind of idol,

Editors' notes and page, col. 200

Footnotes

(49) ‹anchor: Latinis Patribus desumpta› · call in col 200

Lib. ii et iii.

Books II and III.

(printed under page 106)

(50) ‹anchor: mutuatos esse opinatur› · call in col 200

Spicileg., p. CCXXI.

Spicilegium, page 221.

(printed under page 106)

Page

running head: PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 200
marginal letters: A apostolum episcopus, qui; B Theophilo nostro attribui; C Hieronymo interpretationem Latinam; D fuerint.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (apostolum episcopus...); si- split at column break
other: the word simulacrorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 201

PG 6:201

genus pietas, et periniqua de Christianis ex rumore populari opinio. Nam qui caeterarum rerum diligens erat indagator, Christianos negligenter audiebat, eosque malesanis commentis credulus cum sororibus misceri, et carnes humanas vorare existimabat. Talem nobis Autolycum variis in locis depingit Theophilus.

and a most unjust opinion concerning the Christians drawn from popular rumour. For he who was a diligent investigator of other matters heard the Christians negligently, and, credulous of insane figments, supposed that they mingled incestuously with their sisters and devoured human flesh. Such does Theophilus depict Autolycus to us in various places.

Opinatus est Tillemontius scriptum ab Autolyco adversus Christianos librum Theophilo nostro hujus elucubrationis occasionem ministrasse. At nullum omnino hujus adversus Christianos libri vestigium. Obtuderat Theophilum Autolycus inanibus sermonibus, fictos ac pictos deos venditans; Christiani nomen instar probri objecerat; ac tandem quaesierat ut Deum suum ostenderet. Sed haec dicteria, quae Theophilus in primo libro refellit, non scripto fuisse consignata, ut visum est Tillemontio, sed in quodam colloquio jactata, ex initio libri secundi perspicimus, ubi Theophilus breviter recensens quae inter eos hactenus intercesserant, ait : Επειδὴ πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐγένετο λόγος ἡμῖν, ὦ ἀγαθώτατε Αὐτόλυκε, πυθομένου σου τίς μου ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ δι' ὀλίγου παρασχόντος σου τὰ ὦτα τῇ ὁμιλίᾳ ἡμῶν, περὶ τῆς θεοσεβείας μου ἐξεθέμην σοι· ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἀποταξάμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, μετὰ πλείστης φιλίας ἐπορεύθημεν ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οἶκον, καίπερ σκληρῶς τὰ πρῶτα ἔχοντος (σοῦ) πρὸς ἡμᾶς· οἶδας γὰρ καὶ μέμνησαι, ὅτι ὑπέλαβες μωρίαν εἶναι τὸν λόγον ἡμῶν. « Cum ante hos dies sermonem inter nos, optime Autolyce, haberemus; quaerenti tibi quisnam meus esset Deus, ac disputationi meae aures aliquandiu praebenti religionem meam exposui. Ita tum discessimus, ut amicissimi domum rediremus, quamvis antea duriuscule mecum egisses. Nosti enim et meministi stultitiam tibi videri nostram doctrinam. »

Tillemont opined that a book written by Autolycus against the Christians furnished our Theophilus with the occasion of this work. Yet there is no trace at all of this book against the Christians. Autolycus hadimportuned Theophilus with empty discourses, crying up his feigned and painted gods; he had cast up the name of Christian as a reproach; and finally he had asked that he should show him his God. But that these scoffs, which Theophilus refutes in the first book, were not committed to writing, as seemed to Tillemont, but bandied about in a certain conversation, we perceive from the beginning of the second book, where Theophilus, briefly reviewing what had passed between them thus far, says: Since before these days a conversation took place between us, O most excellent Autolycus, when you inquired who my God was, and when for a little while you lent your ears to our discourse, I expounded to you concerning my godliness; and furthermore, having bidden farewell to one another, we departed with the greatest friendliness each to his own house, although at first you bore yourself harshly towards us; for you know and remember that you supposed our word to be foolishness. « When some days ago we held discourse between ourselves, most excellent Autolycus, to you inquiring who my God was, and lending your ears for some time to my disputation, I expounded my religion. We then parted in such a way that we returned home on the friendliest terms, although previously you had dealt rather harshly with me. For you know and remember that our doctrine seemed to you to be folly. »

Ex his liquet Autolycum non scripto sed mero sermone sic in Deum ac nomen Christianorum jocatum esse, ut Theophilum ad has nugas refellendas incitaret. Videtur ergo primus ad Autolycum liber non tam ad refellendum data opera compositus, quam ad ea litteris consignanda, quae Theophilus Autolyco jam responderat. Hinc librum secundum hortatu Autolyci sic exorditur Theophilus, quasi nihil antea de industria scripsisset : Κἂν ἰδιώτης ὦ τῷ λόγῳ, πλὴν βούλομαί σοι καὶ νῦν διὰ τοῦδε τοῦ συγγράμματος ἀκριβέστερον ἐπιδεῖξαι τὴν ματαιοπονίαν καὶ ματαίαν θρησκείαν ἐν ᾗ κατέχῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι' ὀλίγων τῶν κατὰ σὲ ἱστοριῶν, ὧν ἀναγινώσκεις ἴσως καὶ οὐδέπω γινώσκεις, τὸ ἀληθὲς φανερὸν ποιῆσαι. « Nunc autem hortatu tuo, inquit, quamvis imperitus sim dicendi, volo tamen hoc quoque libello accuratius tibi demonstrare inutilem laborem et inanem superstitionem qua detineris; imo ex vestrarum historiarum nonnullis, quae a te leguntur quidem, forte autem nondum intelliguntur, verum tibi ante oculos ponere. » Invitat Autolycum

From these things it is clear that Autolycus had jested against God and the name of the Christians not in writing, but in mere conversation, in such a way as to incite Theophilus to refute these trifles. The first book To Autolycus, therefore, seems to have been composed not so much on purpose to refute him as to commit to writing those things which Theophilus had already answered to Autolycus. Hence Theophilus begins the second book at the exhortation of Autolycus in such a way as if he had written nothing on purpose previously: Even though I be unskilled in speech, nevertheless I wish for you now also through this treatise to show more accurately the vain labour and vain religion in which you are held fast, and also through a few of the histories according to you, which you read perhaps and do not yet understand, to make the truth manifest. « And now at your exhortation, he says, although I am unskilled in speaking, I wish nevertheless by this little book also to demonstrate to you more accurately the useless labour and empty superstition by which you are held fast; nay more, from some of your own histories, which are read by you indeed, but perchance are not yet understood, to set the truth before your eyes. » Theophilus invites Autolycus

Editors' notes and page, col. 201

Page

running head: 201 D. MARANI PRAEFATIO. —
marginal letters: A mulacrorum genus pietas,; B dicteria, quae Theophilus; C tibi quisnam meus; D quasi nihil antea
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (mulacrorum genus...); begins with fragment mulacrorum from simulacrorum split across col 200-201 break; Auto- split at column break

PG 6:202

Theophilus ad frequens colloquium; idque videtur iste non neglexisse; sed cum adhuc post hos congressus veritatem instar delirii haberet, ac recentes esse litteras nostras sibi fingeret, eorum antiquitatem Theophilus in libro tertio demonstrare instituit.

to frequent conversation; and he seems not to have neglected this; but since even after these meetings he still accounted the truth as madness, and imagined to himself that our writings were recent, Theophilus undertook in the third book to demonstrate their antiquity.

V. Suppeditant hi libri non obscuras notas, quibus dijudicare possimus, quo tempore scripti fuerint. Nam chronologiam in libro tertio pertexit Theophilus ab origine mundi usque ad M. Aurelium, quem 19 annos, dies 10, imperasse testatur. Citat etiam Chryserotem M. Aurelii libertum, qui, teste Theophilo nostro, temporum seriem ab Urbe condita usque ad obitum patroni sui imperatoris M. Aurelii descripserat. Ex his patet hos libros sub Commodo scriptos esse, nec serius aut citius collocari posse; si quidem aliud causae esse non potest, cur Theophilus temporum descriptionem ad suam usque aetatem pollicitus, annos Commodi non recenseat, nisi quia is adhuc imperabat.

V. These books supply no obscure marks by which we may judge at what time they were written. For in the third book Theophilus weaves a chronology from the origin of the world down to Marcus Aurelius, whom he testifies to have reigned 19 years and 10 days. He also cites Chryseros, the freedman of Marcus Aurelius, who, as our Theophilus testifies, had described the series of times from the founding of the City down to the death of his patron, the emperor Marcus Aurelius. From these things it is clear that these books were written under Commodus, and cannot be placed later or earlier; since indeed there can be no other reason why Theophilus, after promising a description of the times down to his own age, does not recount the years of Commodus, except because he was still reigning.

Quo autem Commodi anno collocandum sit opus, non facile statuitur. Non longe ab initiis Commodi collocabimus, si auctorem sequamur Nicephorum, qui tres et decem episcopatus annos Theophilo tribuit. Cum enim Theophilum Eusebius, ut supra vidimus, Eroti circa annum 168 successisse testetur; si cum Nicephoro annos 13 episcopatus ei demus; sequetur circa annum 181 mortuum esse, ac proinde extremum hoc opus, ut non longe ante mortem, ita sub Commodi imperatoris initia elucubrasse. Theophilum Eutychius Antiochenae sedi annos 21 praefuisse refert, ex quo sequeretur eum circa annum 188 obiisse. Sed antiquior Nicephorus, ut Tillemontius observat, ac majoris quam Eutychius auctoritatis. Quod autem in Eusebii Chronicis Maximus Theophilo nostro dicitur anno 177 aut 178 successisse, id manifestum est erratum.

In what year of Commodus the work is to be placed, however, is not easily determined. We shall place it not far from the beginnings of Commodus if we follow Nicephorus as our authority, who assigns thirteen years of episcopate to Theophilus. For since Eusebius, as we have seen above, testifies that Theophilus succeeded Eros about the year 168, if with Nicephorus we give him 13 years of episcopate, it will follow that he died about the year 181, and accordingly elaborated this last work, as not long before his death, so near the beginning of the reign of the emperor Commodus. Eutychius relates that Theophilus presided over the see of Antioch 21 years, from which it would follow that he died about the year 188. Yet Nicephorus is more ancient, as Tillemont observes, and of greater authority than Eutychius. As for what is said in the Chronicle of Eusebius, that Maximus succeeded our Theophilus in the year 177 or 178, that is a manifest error.

Aliud argumentum cur hoc opus ad extrema Commodi tempora rejici non debeat, ab Irenaeo, qui nonnulla e Theophilo nostro mutuatus est, suppeditatur. Scribebat Irenaeus librum tertium contra haereses sub Commodo et Eleuthero, ac proinde ante annum 192 quo Commodus occisus, Eleuthero Victor successit. Porro quinque libros adversus haereses non simul vulgavit Irenaeus, sed, ut inter omnes convenit, aliquid spatii intercessit inter duos priores, et eos qui consecuti sunt, licet forte non magnum fuerit intervallum. Exstat autem in libro secundo quaedam sententia, quam mihi videor e Theophilo decerptam non incertis indiciis perspicere. Sic refellit Irenaeus haereticorum commenta de Deo creatore verum ac supremum Deum ignorante : « Aut nunquid hi qui sub Romanorum imperio sunt, quamvis nunquam viderint imperatorem, sed valde et per terram et per mare separati ab eo, cognoscent propter dominium eum, qui maximam habet potestatem principatus; qui

Another argument why this work ought not to be pushed back to the latest times of Commodus is supplied by Irenaeus, who borrowed several things from our Theophilus. Irenaeus was writing his third book Against Heresies under Commodus and Eleutherus, and accordingly before the year 192, in which Commodus was slain and Victor succeeded Eleutherus. Moreover, Irenaeus did not publish the five books Against Heresies all at once, but, as is agreed among all, some space of time intervened between the first two and those which followed, although perhaps the interval was not great. Now there is extant in the second book a certain sentiment which I seem to myself to perceive by no uncertain proofs to have been plucked from Theophilus. Thus does Irenaeus refute the figments of the heretics concerning the Creator God being ignorant of the true and supreme God: « Or will those who are under the empire of the Romans, although they have never seen the emperor, but are widely separated from him both by land and by sea, know on account of his dominion him who has the greatest power of sovereignty; while those who

Editors' notes and page, col. 202

Footnotes

(51) ‹anchor: Deum ignorante› · call in col 202

Lib. ii, c. 6, n. 2.

Book II, chapter 6, section 2.

(printed under page 107)

Page

running head: PRAEFATIO. — PARS III. 202
marginal letters: A lycum Theophilus ad; B Commodo scriptos esse,; C mortem, ita sub; D adversus haereses non
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Maran's preface continued (lycum Theophilus...); begins with fragment lycum from Autolycum split across col 201-202 break

PG 6:203

autem super nos erant angeli, vel ille, quem mundi fabricatorem dicunt, non cognoscent omnipotentem? » Sic autem Theophilus, libro I, num. 5 : Εἶτα βασιλεὺς μὲν ἐπίγειος εἶναι πιστεύεται, καίπερ μὴ πᾶσιν βλεπόμενος, διὰ δὲ νόμων καὶ διατάξεων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξουσιῶν, καὶ δυνάμεων καὶ εἰκόνων νοεῖται· τὸν δὲ Θεὸν οὐ βούλει σὺ νοεῖσθαι διὰ ἔργων καὶ δυνάμεων; « Deinde vero terrenus rex exsistere creditur, quamvis ab omnibus non videatur, sed per leges et mandata, et principatus et potestates, et imagines cognoscitur. Deum vero ex ejus operibus et potestatibus non vis intelligere? » Manifesta est in utroque scriptore sententiae similitudo; sed illam Irenaeum e Theophilo, non Theophilum ex Irenaeo mutuatum esse inde patet, quod apud Theophilum clara et splendida est, apud Irenaeum vero enervata quodammodo et subobscura : quae vitia imitatores effugere non solent. Multo enim praeclarius quod ait Theophilus imperatorem per leges et mandata, per principatus et potestates (id est per duces et praefectos), ac per imagines cognosci, quam quod Irenaeus propter dominium cognosci. In quo quidem crediderim Irenaei interpretem, ut saepe alias, ita etiam hoc loco unius litterae errore deceptum legisse δι' ἐξουσίαν pro δι' ἐξουσιῶν, et reddidisse propter dominium, pro eo quod reddere debuisset per potestates, sive per duces et praefectos. Quinetiam adhibita ab utroque comparatio magis apposita videtur adversus gentiles, qui Deum ex conspicuis in hoc mundo operibus non agnoscebant, quam adversus haereticos, qui hujus mundi Creatori et angelis ejus supremum Deum fingebant ignotum fuisse. Imitatus est etiam Irenaeus, quae de puerili Adami statu apud Theophilum nostrum in libro secundo leguntur : utriusque testimonia in Praefat. I parte inspici et inter se conferri possunt. Ambiguum non erit uter imitator alterius, cum Theophilus magno conatu hanc sententiam tueatur, Irenaeus quasi transiens proponat. Ex his concludimus libros ad Autolycum procul ab initiis Commodi non distare, cum ex eis Irenaeus, qui sub Commodo scribebat, nonnulla in opus suum transtulerit.

were the angels above us, or even he whom they call the maker of the world, ignorant of the Omnipotent?" And thus Theophilus, in Book I, no. 5: "Then an earthly king is believed to exist, even though he is not seen by all, and is perceived through his laws and ordinances, and authorities, and forces, and statues; yet are you unwilling that God should be perceived through His works and mighty deeds? (Then indeed an earthly king is believed to exist, although he is not seen by all, yet he is known through laws and commands, and principalities and authorities, and images. But are you unwilling to understand God from His works and powers?)" The similarity of thought in both writers is manifest; but that Irenaeus borrowed it from Theophilus, and not Theophilus from Irenaeus, is clear from the fact that in Theophilus it is clear and brilliant, whereas in Irenaeus it is somewhat weakened and rather obscure—faults which imitators do not usually escape. For what Theophilus says, that the emperor is known through laws and commands, through principalities and authorities (that is, through commanders and prefects), and through statues, is much nobler than what Irenaeus says, that he is known because of his dominion. In this indeed I should believe that the translator of Irenaeus, as often elsewhere, so also in this passage was deceived by the error of a single letter and read δι' ἐξουσίαν instead of δι' ἐξουσιῶν, and rendered "because of dominion" instead of what he ought to have rendered, "through authorities", or through commanders and prefects. Moreover, the comparison employed by both seems more suitable against the Gentiles, who did not acknowledge God from His visible works in this world, than against the heretics, who feigned that the supreme God was unknown to the Creator of this world and his angels. Irenaeus also imitated what is read in our Theophilus in the second book concerning the childlike state of Adam: the testimonies of both can be examined and compared with one another in Part I of the Preface. There will be no doubt as to which is the imitator of the other, since Theophilus defends this view with great effort, whereas Irenaeus puts it forward almost in passing. From these things we conclude that the books To Autolycus are not far removed from the beginning of the reign of Commodus, since Irenaeus, who wrote under Commodus, transferred several things from them into his own work.

Sed adversus ea quae statuimus objici possit hos ad Autolycum libros nec hominis in scribendo exercitati, nec episcopi gravissimis curis implicati fetum redolere; quamobrem satius esse hoc opus a Theophilo nondum aetate provecto elucubratum, ac postea ab ipso iis, quae de M. Aurelii morte leguntur, auctum existimare. Invitatus ad scribendum ab Autolyco Theophilus imperitum se dicendi fatetur, nec sine summa timiditate oneri succedit. An sic loquatur, objiciet aliquis, qui jam multos ex haereticis triumphos reportarit, ac plurimum scribendi usum habeat, qualem tunc habere debuit Theophilus, si extremum hoc opus paulo ante mortem scribebat? Forte etiam eruditio profana qua

Yet against what we have established it might be objected that these books To Autolycus savour neither of the offspring of a man practised in writing, nor of a bishop involved in the weightiest cares; wherefore it is better to consider that this work was composed by Theophilus when not yet advanced in age, and was afterwards enlarged by him with the things that are read concerning the death of Marcus Aurelius. Invited to write by Autolycus, Theophilus confesses himself unskilled in speaking, and takes up the burden not without the greatest diffidence. Would a man speak thus, someone will object, who had already won many triumphs over the heretics, and had very great experience in writing, such as Theophilus must have had at that time, if he wrote this last work shortly before his death? Perhaps also the profane learning with which

Editors' notes and page, col. 203

Footnotes

(52) ‹anchor: in Praefat. i parte› · call in col 203

Cap. 5.

Chapter 5.

(printed under page 108)

Page

running head: S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS
marginal letters: A autem super nos; B apud Theophilum clara; C agnoscebant, quam adversus; D citati, nec episcopi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: autem super nos erant angeli

PG 6:204

hoc opus refertum est, tot poetarum testimonia, tam reconditae de philosophorum sententiis ac de chronologia disputationes, frequentia cum homine litterato colloquia, episcopo tantae sedis, gravissimis rebus occupato, minus convenire videantur.

this work is filled, so many testimonies of the poets, such abstruse discussions of the opinions of the philosophers and of chronology, and frequent conversations with a man of letters, might seem less fitting for the bishop of so great a see, occupied with the weightiest affairs.

Sed minime mirum si et de seipso demisse sentiens episcopus imperitum se existimat, et de rebus profanis multa vir eruditus disserit, quia illius proposito conducebant; quanquam plurima Theophilus e media religione Christiana repetit. Frequentia illa cum Autolyco colloquia non hominis erant otio abundantis, sed episcopi charitate ferventis, qui hoc praecipue impositum sibi ducebat, errantes ad veritatem adducere.

Yet it is not at all surprising if the bishop, thinking humbly of himself, regards himself as unskilled, and as a learned man discusses many profane matters because they served his purpose; although Theophilus draws most things from the heart of the Christian religion. Those frequent conversations with Autolycus were the mark not of a man abounding in leisure, but of a bishop fervent in charity, who considered this above all laid upon him, to lead those in error to the truth.

Haud equidem negaverim libros ad Autolycum, ut observat Grabius Spicileg. tom. II, non simul prodiisse; at brevissimum temporis spatium intercessisse contendo. Nam initio libri secundi commemorat sermonem a se ante aliquot dies cum Autolyco habitum, qui sermo libri primi materia fuit. Sub finem libri secundi hortatur Autolycum ut saepe congrediatur secum; cumque is congressus esset cum Theophilo nec tamen veritati manus dedisset, tertium librum elucubravit Theophilus, ut anticipatas opiniones, quae ejus animo insederant, radicitus evelleret. Ea est ergo trium librorum series et junctura, ut divelli ac dissociari non debeant. Eo autem scriptos fuisse ordine, quo nunc habentur, inde patet, quod in tertio primus designetur, num. 3; secundus vero nominatim citetur, num. 19. Neque etiam superaddita videri debent, quae in tertio libro de M. Aurelii imperio leguntur. Nam cum omnes numerorum rationes, quae a Theophilo expenduntur, in hujus finem imperii, veluti in commune punctum desinant; nihil est in toto libro quod minus suspectum esse debeat.

I would not indeed deny that the books To Autolycus, as Grabe observes in Spicilegium, vol. II, did not appear at the same time; but I maintain that a very brief space of time intervened. For at the beginning of the second book he mentions a conversation held by him some days before with Autolycus, which conversation was the subject matter of the first book. Towards the end of the second book he exhorts Autolycus to meet with him often; and when he had met with Theophilus and yet had not yielded to the truth, Theophilus composed the third book in order to pluck up by the roots the preconceived opinions that had settled in his mind. Such, therefore, is the sequence and connexion of the three books that they ought not to be torn apart and separated. Moreover, that they were written in the order in which they are now held is clear from the fact that in the third book the first is indicated in no. 3, while the second is cited by name in no. 19. Nor again ought the things that are read in the third book concerning the reign of Marcus Aurelius to seem added later. For since all the calculations of numbers that are weighed by Theophilus end at the close of this reign as if at a common point, there is nothing in the whole book that ought to be less suspected.

VI. Non immorabor in refellendo Dodwello, qui nodum in scirpo quaerens, tres libros, de quibus nunc agimus, non a Theophilo Antiochiae episcopo scriptos fuisse pronuntiat, sed ab alio Theophilo Antiocheno, quem sub Severo scripsisse contendit.

VI. I shall not linger in refuting Dodwell, who, looking for a knot in a bulrush, pronounces that the three books of which we are now treating were written not by Theophilus the bishop of Antioch, but by another Theophilus of Antioch, whom he maintains to have written under Severus.

Reclamant huic commento Eusebius et Hieronymus : reclamat Irenaeus, qui sub Commodo hos libros ad usus suos adjunxit. Quaenam ergo Dodwellum rationes virum sane doctissimum impulerunt, ut contra antiquitatis consensum veniret? At eae tam leves, vel potius tam nihil sunt, ut Tillemontio, cujus summa animi moderatio omnibus nota, stomachum fecerint, et temeritatis notam Dodwello inurere coegerint. Prima ratiuncula inde ducitur, quod auctor librorum ad Autolycum Chryserotem citet, qui ante annum 180 scribere non potuit. At quid vetat quominus Theophilus sub Commodo scribens eos citaverit, qui sub eodem imperatore ante illum scripserant?

Eusebius and Jerome cry out against this figment; Irenaeus cries out against it, who under Commodus adapted these books to his own uses. What reasons, then, impelled Dodwell, a very learned man indeed, to go against the consensus of antiquity? Yet they are so slight, or rather so utterly nothing, that they provoked the indignation of Tillemont, whose supreme moderation of mind is known to all, and forced him to brand Dodwell with the mark of rashness. The first paltry argument is drawn from the fact that the author of the books To Autolycus cites Chryseros, who could not have written before the year 180. But what prevents Theophilus, writing under Commodus, from citing those who had written before him under the same emperor?

Objicit secundo loco Dodwellus hos libros vigente

In the second place Dodwell objects that these books were written while

Editors' notes and page, col. 204

Footnotes

(53) ‹anchor: sub Severo scripsisse contendit› · call in col 204

D'ssert. 2, Iren., n. 44, p. 171.

Dissertation 2 on Irenaeus, section 44, page 171.

(printed under page 108)

Page

running head: S. JUSTINUS PHILOSOPHUS ET MARTYR. 204
marginal letters: A hoc opus refertum; B ut observat Grabius; C gnetur, num. 3; D rationes virum sane
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: hoc opus refertum est

PG 6:205

persecutione scriptos fuisse. Ait enim Theophilus Christianos ab ethnicis quotidie vexari, et eos qui ad virtutem festinant ac in sanctiore vita exercentur, partim lapidibus obrutos fuisse, partim interfectos, ac etiamnum crudelissimis plagis affici. At nulla persecutio a Marco usque ad Severum orta est; nec alius quam Severus Proselytos et Ascetas, qui hic designantur insectatus est.

a persecution was raging. For Theophilus says that Christians are daily harassed by the pagans, and that those who hasten towards virtue and practise a holier life have partly been stoned, partly put to death, and even now are subjected to the cruellest blows. Yet no persecution arose from Marcus until Severus; nor did anyone other than Severus persecute the Proselytes and Ascetics who are indicated here.

Nullam veri partem attingit Dodwellus. Negatur ei Severum in solos Ascetas et Proselytos saeviisse. Negatur Proselytos et Ascetas a Theophilo designari; negatur denique singularem persecutionem

Dodwell touches no part of the truth. It is denied to him that Severus raged only against Ascetics and Proselytes. It is denied that Proselytes and Ascetics are indicated by Theophilus; finally it is denied that a special persecution

a Theophilo indicari; sed idem prorsus facit, quod a multis aliis scriptoribus factitatum observavimus, qui, quamvis nulla persecutio saeviret tum cum scriberent, tamen ob inveteratum in Christianos odium, ac frequentes persecutiones, Ecclesiam exagitari et vexari non desinere dixerunt. His adde fieri potuisse, ut persecutio, a qua sub Marco nulla fuit relaxatio, non statim ac Commodus gubernacula tenuit, sedaretur. Marcia illa, quae Commodi animum Christianis conciliavit, non statim ac ille regnavit ab eo amata est, sed tertio imperii ejus anno.

is indicated by Theophilus; rather, he does precisely the same thing that we have observed was frequently done by many other writers, who, although no persecution was raging at the time when they wrote, nevertheless said that because of the inveterate hatred against Christians and the frequent persecutions, the Church did not cease to be harassed and troubled. Add to these things that it could have happened that the persecution, from which there was no relaxation under Marcus, was not calmed immediately when Commodus took the helm. That famous Marcia, who won over the mind of Commodus to the Christians, was loved by him not immediately when he began to reign, but in the third year of his reign.

Editors' notes and page, col. 205

Footnotes

(printed under page 109)

Page

running head: EXCERPTA EX PRAEFATIONE
marginal letters: A persecutione scriptos fuisse; B S. Justini philosophi; C Σύγκλητον. ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ βʹ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only (with Greek book titles quoted), no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: persecutione scriptos fuisse, S. Justini philosophi; full-width headings and notice LECTORI., Ienae anno 1842..., I. DE JUSTINI CODICIBUS EDITIS, S. Justini, philosophi et martyris Opera... between persecutionem and S. Justini philosophi cut off at right edge, not set; last word ζητημά- split across column break
other: a full-width band stands across cols 205/206 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 206 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 205 (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 S. Justini philosophi et martyris scripta (another unit); not set here

PG 6:206

Editors' notes and page, col. 206

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: κρατερῷ τ' αἰχμητῇ› · call in col 206

J. Alb. Fabricius (Biblioth. Graec. cur. Harles. vol. VII. Hamb. 1801, 4, p. 61) utramque refert Apologiam Graece pridem Romae (in-8°) impressam esse a Zannero una cum Gregorii Thaumaturgi, Athanasii, Basilii M., Gregorii Naz. et J. Chrysostomi nonnullis, curante Hieronymo Bunello, S. J. At vero de hac editione valde dubitandum est.

J. A. Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, edited by Harles, vol. VII, Hamburg 1801, quarto, p. 61) reports that both Apologies were printed in Greek long ago at Rome (in octavo) by Zannerus, together with some works of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom, under the care of Hieronymus Bunellus, S.J. But this edition is very much to be doubted.

(printed under page 109)

(2) ‹anchor: Parisiis a. 1592› · call in col 206

De alia editione a. 1595 jam Mich. Maittaire (Annall. typograph. Hagae Comit. 1725, 4, tom. III, p. ii, p. 810, not. b) dubitavit.

Michel Maittaire (Annales typographici, The Hague 1725, quarto, vol. III, part ii, p. 810, note b) already doubted another edition, of 1595.

(printed under page 109)

Page

running head: EXCERPTA EX PRAEFATIONE EDITORIS IENENSIS. 206
marginal letters: A a Theophilo indicari; B των. ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΙΣ Ἑλληνικαὶ; C symbolum : Βασιλεῖ
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only (with Greek book titles and motto quoted), no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: a Theophilo indicari, των. ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΙΣ; full-width headings and notice LECTORI., perum editio..., I CODICIBUS EDITIS, it Joan. Carol. Theod. OTTO... between anno. and των. cut off at left edge, not set; first word των. continues ζητημά- from column 205
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 205 (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)