Ptolemaeus

ON SS. PTOLEMAEUS, LUCIUS, AND ANOTHER COMPANION, MARTYRS,

ABOUT THE YEAR 165.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Ptolemaeus, martyr at Rome. (S.)

Lucius, martyr at Rome. (S.)

A companion, martyr at Rome. (S.)

B. B.

§ I. The Acts from St. Justin and the Martyrologies. On the twofold Apology of St. Justin. The later one, which coincides with the year of the martyrdom of SS. Ptolemaeus and Lucius, was offered to Marcus Aurelius.

Acts taken from the Apology of St. Justin. Ruinart, in the prefatory Admonition to those Acts Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta, p. 52. Amsterdam edition, 1713., says: "It would be useless to discourse at greater length on the genuineness or authority of this narrative, since it is enough to have advised the reader that it is taken from the first Apology of St. Justin Martyr, which the learned agree ought to be called the second, inasmuch as it was written after the other, and a little before the passion of Justin himself." And further down: "The memory of Ptolemaeus and his companions is celebrated by the common Martyrologies of Usuard, Ado, Notker, together with the twofold Roman, namely that of Rosweyde (which is usually called the Little Roman) and that of Baronius, at the 19th day of October."

[2] The Martyrologies do not agree in every respect. Ado. Since certain things needing correction occur in those Martyrologies, it will not be out of place to set down here the chief of them, beginning with Ado, who at the 14th day before the Kalends of October has the following: "Likewise on the same day, of blessed Ptolemaeus, and also of blessed Lucius, martyrs. This blessed Ptolemaeus, arrested by a certain centurion, was asked whether he was a Christian. Ptolemaeus, as a lover of truth, by no means concealing the glory of his profession, confessed to his questioner that he was a Christian. The centurion straightway cast him into chains, and, after he had long been wasted by the squalor of prison, at last brought him before the judge Urbicius. By him in like manner he was asked this alone, whether he was a Christian; and he, again conscious of so great a good, openly professed the divine religion, and bore witness by public confession to the teaching of Christ and to the institutions of all good. For he who denies what he is, without doubt judges that which he denies to be blameworthy. Straightway therefore, after his confession, he was ordered by Urbicius to be led away. But a certain Lucius, a Christian man, seeing a sentence so rashly passed, said to Urbicius: 'What, I ask, is the reason that you have ordered a man to be led to death who is neither an adulterer, nor a seducer, nor a murderer, nor a robber or plunderer, nor guilty of any other crime whatever, but only for the Christian name, because he confessed that he was called by this name? These things which you do, Urbicius, are not worthy of a pious emperor, nor of the most wise boy, his son, nor of the sacred senate.' But he, inquiring into nothing else, said to Lucius: 'You too seem to me to be a Christian.' And when Lucius had answered, 'That I plainly am,' he ordered him too to be led to death. He said, 'I give thanks that you release me from most wicked masters and send me back to the good and best Father and King, the Lord of all.' And a certain Tertius also, using like freedom, was punished with like sentence. These blessed martyrs suffered under Antoninus surnamed Pius and his son, and were buried at Alexandria, the metropolis of Egypt."

[3] The slips of Ado are noted. Thus Ado, after his manner, at great length, following St. Justin, but also adding certain things of his own. His Martyrology, published at Rome in the year 1745 by the labour and study of Domenico Giorgi, has at this day Page 536. the following note appended: "Ptolemaeus and Lucius, martyrs, are venerated on this day by the author of the Little Roman (on this Martyrology see Sollerius in the Preface to Usuard Chapter 2, pp. XX–XXXVIII.) in these words: 'And of Ptolemaeus, who is handed over by a certain centurion to the judge Urbicius; and of Lucius and Tertius, beheaded together, who were buried at Alexandria.' Our Ado treats of these at length; he errs, however, as Sollerius remarks, in this, that he adds to these martyrs a companion whose name is Tertius, who in Eusebius, book IV, chapter XVIII, is indeed third in order, but nameless; and further in that he relates these martyrs to have been under Antoninus Pius and buried at Alexandria, the metropolis of Egypt, whereas they suffered at Rome and under M. Aurelius." So Domenico Giorgi, adding moreover that the Martyrology of Fulda also treats of these martyrs, from Ado.

[4] Usuard; in what he differs from Ado. Usuard, as is his custom, having contracted Ado's encomium, sets it down thus: "At Alexandria, the metropolis of Egypt, the birthday of the holy martyrs Ptolemaeus and Lucius, under Antoninus surnamed Pius; of whom the former, after being long wasted by the squalor of prison, and at last bearing witness by public confession to the teaching of Christ, was ordered to be led to death. The next also, when he most freely confessed himself a Christian, received a like sentence." Usuard differs both from Ado and from the Little Roman in that he treats of only two martyrs, Ptolemaeus and Lucius, omitting that third nameless one of whom memory is made in the former. On this passage of Usuard Sollerius notes Martyrology of Usuard, p. 611. that the name Phtolomeus is written in diverse ways among the older writers, to wit, Phtolomei, Tholomei, Ptolomaei, etc. "We," he says, "have followed the simple inflection of most of the codices, although we think Ptolemaei should be read." We have accordingly followed this last reading, being led moreover by this reason, that this manner of writing has so prevailed that whoever used another would scarcely escape the mark of singularity.

[5] Observation of Sollerius, correcting Usuard's encomium. Then Sollerius sets down this Observation: "As we said above more than once, it is admitted among men skilled in these matters that the author of the Little Roman (Martyrology) compiled his Martyrology chiefly from the Eusebius of Rufinus; so this is manifestly clear today, when he has the following of Ptolemaeus and his companions: 'And of Ptolemaeus, who is handed over by a certain centurion to the judge Urbicius, and of Lucius and Tertius, beheaded together, who were buried at Alexandria.' These words certainly, if you except the last particles, are evidently taken from Eusebius, book IV, chapter 17, and were amplified by Ado from the same place, two things being preserved which are altogether displeasing in the words cited. The first is that Tertius seems to be taken for a proper name... The other, that they are said to have been buried at Alexandria who, it is established from the source of this history, the apologetic of Justin (namely), in Halloix, p. 48, suffered at Rome. The martyrologist of Vienne (Ado) added besides that they suffered under Antoninus surnamed Pius; but it is clear, says Halloix in the notes, p. 361, that these things happened under Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher, son of Pius. The first error, about Tertius, our author (Usuard) avoided (or rather passed over), but he falls into a more shameful one when he begins the Annunciation, 'At Alexandria, the metropolis of Egypt,' which he found neither in Ado nor elsewhere, unless perhaps he supposed in good faith that the martyrs suffered there where he found them buried. I will not deny, however, that the place of martyrdom is left rather doubtful in Eusebius, nay that from the whole context a handle is given for understanding that Ptolemaeus and his companions suffered elsewhere, and especially at Alexandria; but all these things Baronius most rightly corrected in the modern Roman, from the Apology of Justin itself."

[6] The Roman Martyrology, with the note of Baronius. And in very truth it is today set down in the said Martyrology in this manner: "At Rome, the birthday of the holy martyrs Ptolemaeus and Lucius under Marcus Antoninus: of whom the former, as Justin Martyr writes, when he had converted an unchaste woman to the faith of Christ and had taught her to practise chastity, was accused by an impure man before the prefect Urbicius, was long wasted by the squalor of prison, and at last, bearing witness by public confession to the teaching of Christ, was ordered to be led to death. Lucius also, when he disapproved the sentence of Urbicius and freely confessed himself a Christian, received a like sentence; to whom also another, a third, was joined, who too was condemned to the same punishment." Here Baronius notes: "Of Ptolemaeus and Lucius. Of these on this day Bede, Usuard, Ado and other more recent writers, who, when they have it that they suffered at Alexandria, are known to err: for St. Justin Martyr, who in his oration to the Roman Senate narrates their martyrdom, shows that they were crowned at Rome. Of these likewise Eusebius, book IV, chapter XVI (read XVII), Nicephorus, book III, chapter XXXIII, and all the others on the authority of Justin." And this in the Martyrology of Baronius at the 19th day of October, note 1. Here let us remark in passing that the more correct editions of Bede's Martyrology make no mention of these Saints

neither in the text of Bede, which is blank at this day, nor in the Auctaria which are commonly attributed to Florus [See Acta Sanctorum, volume II of March, where at the beginning is found the Martyrology of Bede edited by Henschen and Papebroch.]. Where Baronius read the names of SS. Ptolemaeus and his companions in Bede, I do not know, nor is it worth the trouble to inquire [Compare the Acts of St. Aquilinus, in this very volume and at the 19th day of October, Preliminary Commentary, no. 19.].

[7] SS. Ptolemaeus, Lucius, and another, whose name is unknown, suffered at Rome. From what has been said so far we gather, first, that all the critics of better note agree on this, that the martyrdom took place at Rome; secondly, that the third companion of Ptolemaeus and Lucius is unknown by name. The latter is evidently had from the words of Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XVII. From the edition of Valesius.: καὶ ἄλλος δὲ τρίτος ἐπελθῶν κολασθῆναι προσετιμήθη, "and another, a third, coming forward, was condemned to the same punishment." In the Greek text or phrase not even one jot is found which would indicate in the least that a martyr named Tertius is here in question; the words καὶ ἄλλος δὲ τρίτος ἔπελθῶν manifestly indicate the order of the passion, not the name of the sufferer. That they suffered at Rome and not at Alexandria is established from St. Justin, who has the original narrative of this martyrdom, from which also, as we shall presently say, the occasion arose for him to compose his second or Shorter Apology, which he begins thus: "The things which yesterday and in recent days have happened in your city, O Romans, under Urbicius (Οὐρβίκου, Urbicus), and the things which are likewise done everywhere by the governors contrary to all reason, have laid upon me this necessity, that I should compose this oration on behalf of us, who are subject to the same affections and sufferings as you, and who (although you do not know it, and on account of the splendour of the dignities which you hold do not wish it) are your brothers." And after a few words interposed he proceeds thus: "But that the whole case which was conducted under Urbicius may be manifest, I will set forth the matter itself. A certain woman..." and the rest of the narrative of the martyrdom, which we give entire below. There is therefore no doubt that they suffered at Rome, provided Justin keeps his credit, who, being an eyewitness, will not easily be rejected.

[8] On the occasion of this martyrdom Justin wrote an Apology; Since Justin writes that he was impelled above all else to undertake this apologetic discourse of his by the cruelty which Urbicius had used against the holy martyrs Ptolemaeus and Lucius, it follows that this writing of his coincides with their death; and accordingly, the time at which it was published being known, the time also will be known at which that martyrdom took place. Here therefore the things which pertain to this Apology of Justin come to be inquired into; the more so because not a few difficulties have been raised about it, and that by men most eminent in learning, among whom is numbered our Papebroch at the 13th of April, where he illustrated the Acts of St. Justin Acta Sanctorum, volume II of April, pp. 104–119..

[9] [about which, in order to fix the time of the martyrdom, three things must be examined:] First we shall inquire whether only one, or rather two or even three Apologies of St. Justin are to be counted; then whether the one which is shorter precedes the longer in date; finally to which of the emperors this shorter one was inscribed, whether to Titus Antoninus Pius, as Henri Valois held, or rather to Marcus Aurelius, which is today commonly held by the learned. These things being cleared up, an easy way will be laid open to determining the time of the martyrdom.

[10] Whether Justin wrote only one, or rather two or even more Apologies. As to the first: "That any genuine Apology of Justin at all survives was denied by Hardouin, who has already been refuted by Dupin and others. So too Kortholt, in his book On the Persecutions of the primitive Church and the Tortures of the ancient Martyrs..., examined at length and rejected the opinion of Scaliger (in the Animadversiones Eusebianae, p. 201) that the second Apology no longer exists. Henri Valois also... teaches that Scaliger is far mistaken." So Harles [Bibliotheca graeca of Fabricius, volume VII, p. 55, note h. Hamburg edition, 1801.]. For the rest, I should think there is no one of the learned today who denies that the writings which in all editions of his works come under the name of the Apologies are genuine writings of St. Justin. But they disagree in this, that some would have the Shorter one, which begins with these words, "The things which yesterday and in recent days in your city, O Romans," to be a preface to the other, longer one, so that from those two compositions only one Apology is made. And this is the opinion of Papebroch, who in the Preliminary Commentary to the Acts of St. Justin Volume II of April, p. 106, no. 13. says: "It is a preface, or a kind of introduction, for preparing the minds of the emperor, the senate and the people, by the exposition of a most unjust action exercised against the Christians, on the occasion of which he wrote the Apologetic oration." This indeed, says Harles As above., Dan. Papebroch persuaded himself of, not others.

[11] That Justin wrote two is expressly handed down by Eusebius, And in very truth Eusebius expressly asserts that two Apologies were written by Justin; for after he had said Historia Ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XI.: "The same Justin moreover, besides the little works which he most learnedly composed against the gentiles, also dedicated other books, which contain a defence of our faith (καὶ ἑτέρους λόγους ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας πίστεως ἀπολογίαν ἔχοντας), to the emperor Antoninus surnamed Pius and to the Roman senate," he writes in the same place chapter XVI.: "At the same times Justin too, of whom we made mention above, when he had offered a second (δεύτερον) book in defence of our faith to the emperors mentioned above"; and again Chapter XVII.: "The same Justin moreover, in the former Apologetic (ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἀπολογίᾳ), makes mention also of others who a little before him had undergone martyrdom, in these words." Thus no doubt can remain that Eusebius acknowledged two Apologies of Justin offered to the emperors at different times.

[12] likewise St. Jerome and others. St. Jerome agrees with Eusebius in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers [Works, volume IV, part II, p. 110. Catalogue, no. XXIII. Martianay edition, Paris, 1706.]: "Justin the Philosopher ... laboured very much for the religion of Christ, so far that he gave to Antoninus Pius also, and to his sons and the senate, a book written against the gentiles, and did not blush at the ignominy of the cross, and another book to the successors of the same Antoninus, M. Antoninus Verus and L. Aurelius Commodus." So too Photius in the Bibliotheca: "Moreover," he says, "he (Justin) composed four treatises against the gentiles, of which he offered the first to Antoninus surnamed Pius, to his sons and to the Senate; the second likewise to his successors. In the third he discoursed on the nature of demons. The fourth, finally, likewise written against the gentiles, bears the title Elenchus" Bibliotheca of Photius, no. CXXV, p. 303. Rouen edition, 1653.. As many among the ancients as treated of the ecclesiastical affairs of that epoch likewise record two Apologies of Justin, which for that reason also come in all editions of this holy Martyr under the name of the first and second. Nor does our Papebroch altogether dissent, who himself also admits that two apologies were written by Justin, but would have one to consist of two parts as it were, namely the preface and the apology properly so called; the other he denies to have come down to us, nay ever to have been made public. For he says Volume II of April, place cited, Preliminary Commentary, no. 14.: "It is gratuitously assumed by Valesius that Eusebius had no other reason for deferring the martyrdom of St. Justin to the times of Antoninus Verus and Aurelius Commodus than that he had falsely persuaded himself that Justin offered to those same emperors a second book in defence of our faith.

[13] [Papebroch makes one out of those two; he denies that the other has come down to us;] "This indeed he truly did (for how, in a fact so recent, should Eusebius and Jerome and all the writers following after have been so blind?). But the second book, not being received with the same favour and success as the first, was either suppressed by the gentile princes and not permitted to be published, or at any rate exists nowhere today, which is the opinion of Scaliger in the Animadversiones Eusebianae, p. 201. That it was suppressed is suggested by the deep silence about it among the ancients, none of whom is found to have cited anything from the apologies of Justin which is not found in the first Oration, or in what we have called the Preface to it. Eusebius, moreover, not only takes the Preface and the Oration for one and the same first Apology, when in chapter XVI he adduces from the said Preface a notable passage against Crescens the Cynic, 'to be read in the published apology' (ἐν τῇ δεδηλωμένῃ ἀπολογίᾳ), but also seems to insinuate that the first Apology alone came out in public.

[14] and in this sense he interprets Eusebius. "For what is δεδηλωμένη? Valesius, favouring his own conjecture (namely, that the other is truly an Apology of Justin, which Papebroch assumes to be only a preface), translates it 'the aforesaid,' so that the second book should be understood, of which Eusebius had spoken immediately before. Christophorson, far more aptly to the mind of the author and to the truth, translates 'which we mentioned long ago,' so that the passage should be understood as taken, not from the second book, but from the first Apology, of which he had treated in chapter VIII. But if the word itself be looked into more deeply, it will signify nothing else than 'published' or 'made manifest,' so as thus to be distinguished from that which, suppressed by the emperors, did not come out in public. Nor let anyone be disturbed that in the version of Valesius, in the said chapter of Eusebius, 'most august emperors' are addressed, so that two co-reigning ones, Verus and Commodus, should be understood: for those words are absent from the Greek, even in Valesius himself, and only ὑμᾶς is found, that is, 'You,' namely those to whom the discourse is addressed, the emperor and the sons, the Caesars. There were those who thought that the Embassy for the Christians which exists under the name of Athenagoras, offered to Verus and Commodus a little after the year CLXXV, is the second Apology of Justin: but Halloix solidly refutes them, both from the very great difference of style, and from a passage of the same Embassy which is cited with the very words and name of Athenagoras by Proilus, a contemporary of Origen, in Epiphanius, heresy 64, which is excellently corrected on this occasion." Thus far Papebroch.

[15] Papebroch is refuted, But, by leave of so great a man, we would say that his arguments are not such as to compel assent. For as to none of the ancients citing anything which is not contained in the two surviving Apologetic discourses of Justin, what could anyone legitimately infer from that except that a work of which no traces are found with anyone never existed? To conclude otherwise, it would certainly have to be solidly proved before all else that Justin, besides those apologies which we have, wrote another; but this Papebroch does not prove. The argument which he draws from the word δεδηλωμένῃ is weak, or rather none at all. For that word is not necessarily correlative with another which would indicate the suppression or denial of another work. For, as Ceillier rightly observes

Auteurs ecclésiastiques, volume II, p. 19, Paris, 1730., the Greek word δεδηλωμένὴ which Eusebius uses signifies nothing else than that mention of that apology which he cites in the said place (chapter XVII) has already occurred above.

[16] to which Eusebius is manifestly opposed. The context of the whole discourse manifestly proves this, especially since in the same place he uses the same word to indicate the emperors of whom he had spoken in the preceding chapters. It will help to set down here the beginning of chapter XVII from book VI of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius: "At the same times Justin too, of whom we made mention above, when he had offered a second book in defence of our faith to the emperors mentioned above (τοῖς δεδηλωμένοις ἄρχουσι), was adorned with a sacred martyrdom, through the fraud and machinations of Crescens the philosopher, who strove after a manner of life wholly fitting and answering to the name of Cynic. When Justin, disputing with him in the hearing of very many, had refuted him, he at length obtained by martyrdom the reward of that truth which he had preached. And this end of his life the same most zealous follower of true wisdom openly foretells, as it was presently to befall him, in the above-mentioned apologetic (ἐν τῃ δεδηλωμένῃ ἀπολογίᾳ), in these words: 'I too expect to be set upon by the plots of one of those who are called philosophers, and to be fastened in the stocks: perhaps by Crescens himself,' etc." So Eusebius, in the version of Valesius.

[17] Therefore two Apologies of Justin have come down to us. And from these things it sufficiently appears what the mind of Eusebius is, both as regards the word δεδηλωμενὴ, and as regards that second book in defence of our faith, which can be no other than the Shorter Apology, from which those words are taken, "I too expect," etc. It is no wonder, therefore, that Papebroch has had scarcely one follower among the learned here, and that almost all to a man have acknowledged two different Apologies of Justin, written at different times.

[18] The said Apologies come in reversed order in the common editions of Justin. What we proposed to inquire in the second place, namely which Apology precedes the other in date, we shall easily dispatch. "It must be known," says Bellarmine in On Ecclesiastical Writers, "that the former Apology, as we have it in our books, is in reality the later." And more explicitly Henri Valois in the Notes to book VI, chapter XVII [The ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, etc. Edited by William Reading, Cambridge, 1720, volume I, p. 176, note 2.]: "Eusebius reckons up the Apologies of Justin in another order than that in which they are now published. For the one which in the common editions is entitled the second, Eusebius calls the former, as may be seen in chapter XII of book IV, and in chapter XVIII of the same book. And also in book II, chapter XIII, where he introduces Justin speaking of Simon Magus, he brings forward a passage from his former apologetic which today is read in the 2nd Apology of Justin. But the one which in the common editions is called the first Apology ... Eusebius calls the Second, as may be seen in chapter XVI, and says in chapters XVI and XVIII that it was offered by Justin to M. Aurelius Antoninus after the death of the emperor Pius. I indeed, so far as concerns the order of the Apologies of Justin, readily agree with Eusebius; and I grant that the one which is commonly inscribed to the senate is the later: especially since I see that the same has pleased most learned men, Bellarmine, Baronius and those whom I mentioned above. And Gregory Syncellus too in the Chronicle, and his interpreter Anastasius the Librarian, at the year of Christ 46, entirely agree with Eusebius."

[19] The Shorter Apology follows the longer in order of time. The order, therefore, in which the Apologies of Justin have been printed in the common editions is reversed; the shorter, which is there called the first, is in reality the second, while the longer, which is commonly entitled the second, is the first, and precedes the shorter in date, as abundantly appears from Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XVIII., who writes thus: "This man (Justin), moreover, has left us very many monuments of his genius and learning and of his zeal intent on divine things, full of manifold usefulness. Content to have designated by their titles those of them which have come to our knowledge, we shall refer the studious to them. The first place, then, among his books is held by the Oration to Antoninus surnamed Pius, and to his children and the Roman senate, written on behalf of our religion. And another Oration of his, likewise containing a defence of our faith, was dedicated to Antoninus Verus, successor of the aforesaid emperor (πρὸς τὸν τοῦ δεδηλωμένου αὐτοκράτορος διάδοχόν τε καὶ...)." From which again it appears what the interpretation of Papebroch noted above is worth, and of the namesake whose times we are at present setting forth. "It is evident," says Ceillier Auteurs ecclésiastiques, volume II, p. 19. Paris, 1730., "that Eusebius distinguished those two Apologies which have come down to us: since he refers the first to the year 141, under the reign of Antoninus Pius; that is, 20 years before the reign of Marcus Aurelius, to whom he refers the second. And that by this he means that shorter one is clear from the passage which he cites concerning Crescens the philosopher, which passage is still read today in the shorter Apology." Likewise Tillemont, having collected various testimonies from Eusebius and compared them with one another, concludes thus [Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, volume II, p. 650. Quarto edition, Paris, 1701.]: "It is beyond doubt, according to Eusebius, that the longer Apology is first in order, since he expressly affirms it; nor does he speak of the Lesser, from which he quotes certain passages, until after he has treated of the Greater; this he calls in express words the first; the other, the second; he declares that the Lesser was offered to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, who held the empire from the year 161." These things, deduced clearly and neatly, no one will fail to acknowledge. A little before, in the same place, the same Tillemont had remarked that the very brevity of this Apology sufficiently presupposes another writing in which many things are developed more fully which in the Shorter are only touched upon. And in fact there are various things which Justin notes only in passing and as it were through a lattice, adding, as we have already said, not in order to refer to other places of the same writing, in which nothing more is found, but to his first or longer Apology, which was in everyone's hands.

[20] Whence arose the reversed order in the common editions of Justin. Fr. Halloix S.J. gives this reason why the Apologies come in reversed order in the common editions of Justin: "The whole occasion of the error was partly one faulty passage of Eusebius; partly the version of Christophorson, less accurate in some places; partly the opinion of certain persons that three Apologies were written by Justin, so that the one which they place first is to the senate, the other two to the emperors, the former to Antoninus Pius, which still survives, the latter to his successors M. Aurelius and L. Verus, which has perished. But that none of these things is well said will appear shortly afterwards." So Halloix [Lives and documents of the illustrious writers of the Eastern church who flourished in the second century of Christ, volume I, p. 289. Douai, 1636.]. "The faulty passage of Eusebius, then," the praised writer proceeds, "is the one which in book IV of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter XVI, reads thus: 'This very man (Justin) before his own contest makes mention of others who suffered martyrdom before him, in the former (ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ) Apology.' From this they gather that that Apology is the former in which mention of them is made, and where that example is found which he adds there about the woman, from whom the first handle of the martyrdoms flowed. And they would gather so most rightly, if the passage of Eusebius were not faulty, and were to be taken as it lies. But it is certain that in place of ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ we must correct ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ; and the very words of Eusebius immediately preceding sufficiently intimate that it should be so read, namely these, πρὸ οὗ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀγῶνος, 'before his own contest,' or before his own martyrdom, which amounts to the same as 'a little before his own martyrdom he makes mention of others who suffered before him': which likewise is to be understood, 'a little before'... 2. It is proved from the following chapter of Eusebius, where he weaves together the list of the books of Justin and reckons only two Apologies: one to Antoninus Pius, the other (which he most expressly calls the second) which was offered to his successors: of a further Apology, however, neither he, nor St. Jerome, nor Photius makes mention anywhere." Halloix in the same place. Where he further notes Page 290. that this second one was not dedicated but only offered to the emperors: "for nowhere does he address the emperors, but from the beginning he puts, ὦ Ρωμαιοι; and lower down, of the woman: καὶ μέν βιβλίδιον τῷ αὐτοκράτορι ἀναδέδωκε, 'and she herself offered a petition to the emperor.' — The Paris edition, when it writes thus, σοὶ τῳ αὐτοκράτορι, 'to you the emperor,' commits a manifest error: for no one speaks so; but rightly: 'she offered to you, O emperor,' and in Greek σοὶ, ὦ αὐτοκράτορ, ἀναδέδωκε. Hence the corrected Latin interpretation reads thus: 'she offered a petition to the emperor.' — Finally Eusebius, book II, chapter XII, where he calls the Apology to Antoninus the former, cites a passage which is found in the great one." Thus again Halloix. Moreover, the passage which is last pointed to here is read in the version of Henri Valois at book II, chapter XIII, and runs thus: "This man (Justin), then, in the former apologetic which he wrote on behalf of our doctrine to the emperor, speaks thus." There follows the text from the greater Apology of Justin, where the discourse is of Simon Magus and of the statue erected to him with the inscription: TO SIMON THE HOLY GOD. And from these things it is demonstrated in what order the two Apologies of Justin come: namely, the longer precedes the shorter in date.

[21] The Shorter Apology of Justin was offered to M. Aurelius. These things being cleared up, the third point remains to be inquired into, namely to which of the emperors this shorter Apology was offered. From the testimonies brought forward so far, it does not seem that any doubt can be raised but that it was published in the times of Marcus Aurelius, and accordingly inscribed primarily to him. And so also Eusebius, Jerome, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Photius and very many writers who flourished after them determine. But Henri Valois, in the Notes to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, undertook to prove that it was offered to Antoninus Pius. Papebroch, who makes only one out of both, passed over to the same opinion. "But that we may not be able to doubt," he says, "whether it is Pius or Verus whom he (Justin) addresses in this writing, the rebuke of the Christian Ptolemaeus to Urbicius establishes it, reproaching him with judging οὐ πρέποντα Εὐσεβεῖ Αὐτοκράτορι, οὐ Φιλοσόφῳ, Καίσαρος παιδὶ (not as befits a Pious Emperor and a Philosopher, the son of Caesar), namely Marcus Aurelius, adopted by Antoninus Pius, while he was still Caesar, by order of Hadrian. So Valesius at greater length in the Annotations to chapter XVII of Eusebius: with whom in an evident matter we cannot thus far but agree. But that, following the crowd of those who went before, he took that writing as an Apology other than the Oration already mentioned, and consequently as the one which, believing it dedicated to the successor of Antoninus

Eusebius shamefully went astray, in this we cannot agree with him" Volume II of April, p. 106, no. 13.. What is to be thought of Papebroch's opinion we have sufficiently seen above. Wherefore it will suffice to have examined the difficulties raised by Valesius. Let us hear, then, Pagi at the year 162 (Baronius's 164), where, says Ruinart Acta Martyrum sincera, p. 53. Observation, no. 2, at the end., he invincibly proves that this Apology was offered to Marcus.

[22] H. Valesius is refuted. His first reason. "Valesius" (the words are Pagi's [Annals of Baronius with the Critica of Pagi, volume II, p. 221, no. II of Pagi. Lucca edition, 1738.]) "in the Notes to book IV of Eusebius, chapter XVII, contends that Eusebius was deceived, and that that apologetic was dedicated not to M. Aurelius but to Antoninus Pius. But the arguments which he brings forward to prove it by no means establish the matter. This is his first reason. At the beginning of the Apologetic, he says, Justin says that that Christian woman, when she had been accused by her husband, gave a petition to the emperor: 'And she indeed,' he says, 'having offered a petition to you, most sacred emperor, requested,' etc. But if that apologetic had been dedicated to Marcus and Lucius, as Eusebius would have it, Justin would have spoken in the plural number. For Marcus and Verus were both Augusti together. Thus Valesius. But the most learned man could have seen in the letter of the church of Smyrna to the churches of Pontus, written after the martyrdom of Polycarp (which took place when Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were reigning), that even while several were administering the empire, mention was often made of one only in public acts. For Herod the Irenarch and his father Nicetes said to Polycarp: 'What harm is there in saying these words, Lord Caesar, and sacrificing, and so escaping unharmed?' In the same place it is narrated that the Proconsul once and again pressed Polycarp with these words: 'Swear by the genius of Caesar.'

[23] [Although several were Augusti at the same time, mention of one only occurs rather often.] "The martyrs of Lyons suffered martyrdom while Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus were reigning together with the father; and yet in the letter written by the people of Lyons and Vienne to the Christians of Asia and Phrygia, which Eusebius reports in book V, chapter I, it is said: 'It had been written back by Caesar' (namely Marcus Aurelius) 'that those who confessed should be put to the sword, but those who denied should be dismissed unharmed.' For the same and equal reason, although several were governing the Roman empire, peace, for example, established by all, is attributed to one on the Coins, namely in the year CLXVI, in which the Roman world was at peace, or in which Marcus and Lucius Verus were emperors, and in the year CLXXVII, in which Marcus was reigning with his son Commodus. For on a Coin of Lucius Verus in Mediobarbus is read: TR. P. VI. COS. II. PAX. AUG. And on a Coin of Marcus Aurelius marked with the tribunician power XXXI is had: PAX AETERNA AUG., whereas on both coins it would have had to be said PAX AUGG., that is, the Peace of the Augusti, if any account were to be taken of Valesius's argument. Besides that Lucius Verus was perhaps absent from Rome when that petition was presented. But if Eusebius and the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle relate that this second Apology was offered to Marcus and Lucius Verus, they seem to mean nothing else than that it was written and presented while they were reigning. Nay, Eusebius, who in book IV, chapter XVI, states that it was offered to Marcus and Verus, in chapter XVIII, making no mention of Verus, says that it was dedicated to Marcus." For the rest, this first reason of Valesius must almost be called a cavil. For, as Johann Karl Otto rightly remarks, "if the apology was really presented to Pius, the plural would in like manner be wanted, since from the year CXLVII he had associated M. Aurelius with himself as colleague in the empire. If anyone should perhaps say that it was offered before that year, let him read chapter III, p. 47 B; chapter XIV, p. 51 E, and chapter XV, p. 52 C, where there is no reason either why we should be offended by that singular number (σοι τῷ αὐτ.). For in the Acts of Justin the prefect now names one emperor, now several; to this is added that that woman, when Verus had set out for the Parthian war and was far away, could certainly present a petition to one emperor only, namely Marcus." Thus the praised Otto De Justini Martyris scriptis et doctrina, Jena, 1841, p. 18.

[24] The second reason of Valesius will be set out, "The second reason of Valesius. Justin writes that a certain Lucius, when he saw the Christian Ptolemaeus being led to punishment, addressed the judge in these words: οὐ πρέποντα εὐσεβεῖ αὐτοκράτορι, οὐδὲ φιλοσόφου Καίσαρος παιδὶ, 'these things do not befit the emperor Pius, nor the son of Caesar the Philosopher.' In Eusebius, at chapter XVII of book IV, says Valesius, there is more correctly read οὐδὲ φιλοσοφῳ, that is, 'nor the Philosopher': which reading the manuscript codices confirm. Who then is there who does not see that Antoninus Pius is here designated? For both the surname itself, εὐσεβεῖ, sufficiently indicates it, and what follows about the Philosopher, son of the emperor, manifestly confirms our opinion. Someone will perhaps say that by the name of the emperor Pius Marcus is designated, inasmuch as he assumed the surname of his father. But if this is granted, who will that Philosopher, son of Caesar, be? Why would Justin have omitted Lucius Verus Augustus here, when in the former Apologetic he makes mention of him? Does it not appear clearer than light that Antoninus Pius is here designated by Justin, to whom he inscribed his Apologetic? Thus Valesius, who had not observed that Marcus Aurelius was commonly called Antoninus Pius, an error which he has in common with many most learned men.

[25] and it is refuted. M. Aurelius not seldom called Antoninus Pius. "Scaliger, in the Animadversiones Eusebianae at no. 2199, speaking of that wonderful rain which took place in the time of Marcus Aurelius, says that Themistius, otherwise a most weighty writer, manifestly erred in writing that this happened under Pius, not under Marcus, and the same judgment was passed by the distinguished Hardouin in the Notes to the XVth Oration of Themistius, On royal virtue, to the emperor Theodosius. But that Marcus Aurelius was called now simply Antoninus, now Antoninus Pius, now Marcus Antoninus, is clear from the Coins in Mediobarbus. And to speak only of the surname Pius, on p. 228 Coins are shown on which is read: DIVUS M. ANTONINUS PIUS, on the reverse: CONSECRATIO. On p. 271, Severus, who had inserted himself into the family of M. Aurelius, is called on many Coins DIVI M. PII F., that is, son of the Deified Marcus Pius. Spon in the Miscellanea Eruditae Antiquitatis reports an inscription of the emperor Commodus which exists at Rome in the Antonine Baths, the beginning of which is

DIVO COMMODO DIVI PII F

COH. VII VIGIL. L. ANTONINUS

AURELIANUS PRAEF. etc.

[To the Deified Commodus, son of the Deified Pius, L. Antoninus Aurelianus, prefect of the VIIth cohort of the Watch, etc.]

that is: To the Deified Commodus, son of the Deified Pius, the prefect of the VIIth cohort [Miscellanea Eruditae Antiquitatis, Section VIII, columns 1185 and 1186. In Poleni, volume IV.]. Wherefore it is not to be doubted that Themistius in the Oration cited, where he says, 'When the army of Antoninus, emperor of the Romans, to whom the surname was given from that same piety, was suffering from thirst,' etc., and Justin in the place praised, are to be understood of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, not of Antoninus Pius.

[26] [The words 'the Philosopher, son of Caesar,' are to be understood not of M. Aurelius but of Lucius Verus.] "But the second part of the passage of Justin cited is to be explained not of Marcus, as Valesius wrongly does, but altogether of Lucius, reigning with Marcus, and the passage is to be read, not as it stands corruptly in Justin, but as it is had in Eusebius, in this way: οὐ πρέποντα εὐσεβεῖ αὐτοκράτορι, οὐδὲ φιλοσόφῳ καίσαρος παιδὶ, οὐδὲ (τῇ) ἱερᾳ συλαλήτῳ κρίνεις ὧ Οὐρβίκη, 'You judge, Urbicius, not as befits the emperor Pius, not as befits the Philosopher, son of Caesar, not as is fitting to the most sacred senate.' The article τῆ is absent from the edition of Eusebius; and in the edition of Justin φιλοσόφου is wrongly written, as may be seen in the place cited by Valesius and transcribed above. Justin therefore addresses Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus and the Roman Senate, and both in this and in the former Apologetic he frequently alleges the names of Philosophy and Piety, in order to render the emperors, Marcus Aurelius, surnamed Pius, and Lucius his colleague, whom in the former apology also he calls the Philosopher, and who was the son of Aelius Caesar, more equitable and more favourably inclined towards the piety and philosophy of the Christians. For it was not fitting that he should make mention of Marcus and the Roman Senate, but not of Lucius. Moreover, that Lucius was the son of Caesar, namely his natural son, who was called Caesar without addition, is clear from the inscription of Aelius Caesar his father, which in its place" (the words are Pagi's) "we reported when speaking of his adoption. Whence also in the life of Lucius written by Capitolinus is read now, 'and his father Caesar having died'; now, 'his body was carried into the tomb of Hadrian, in which also Caesar, his natural father, was buried.' From this passage, therefore, in which discourse is held of Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus and the Roman Senate, to all of whom that apology was dedicated, our opinion is rendered certain, and it becomes manifest that Valesius was deceived, who thinks that by the name of Pius Antoninus is to be understood, and by the word Philosopher M. Aurelius. For neither was M. Aurelius anywhere called the son of Caesar, nor would Justin, who in the former apology makes mention of Antoninus Pius, M. Aurelius and Lucius, have passed this one over if the second apology, like the former, had been dedicated to Antoninus Pius. Nor is there reason for Valesius to lay stress on the word Philosopher; since Lucius (the martyr), both in the former apology of Justin and in the embassy of Athenagoras for the Christians, calls Lucius the Philosopher, not by reason of his learning, but on account of his more austere form of life: to which twofold notion of Philosophy Valesius did not turn his mind." And these things almost word for word from Pagi Annals of Baronius, as above, no. III..

[27] [It is shown that M. Aurelius could have been called Pius by the Martyrs for various reasons.] Before we proceed further in citing Pagi, let us observe certain things concerning this second reason of Valesius. He would conclude, then, from the word εὐσεβεῖ that Titus Antoninus Pius is here in question, since the surname Pius does not suit M. Aurelius. But it would be incumbent on Valesius to show that the said word alludes to the surname; for if that word designates only a certain quality, there will then be no reason why it should be denied that it could belong to M. Aurelius also. "Add," says Ruinart As above, p. 53., "that Marcus was then called Pius by Justin, not because it was his proper name, but in order to call him, who affected the name of a most gentle prince, away from the persecution of innocent Christians." Further, granted that in the word εὐσεβεῖ there is an allusion to the surname, it would not yet follow from this that M. Aurelius is not here in question: for although the name Pius had not then been given him by the Senate, no one will deny that it could have come into use for another reason. "That Marcus, however, was called Pius by Lucius the Martyr, is no wonder," says Ruinart again

Ibid., p. 53., "since emperors were very often presented with the name of their predecessors; and this could be confirmed by six hundred examples, were not the matter too evident to need proving." And the already praised Otto, disputing against Valesius, first cites from Maran these words: "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, it ought not however to seem strange or unfitting if it is bestowed on him by private men, such as Lucius and Justin were." Then he adds: "And that Marcus Aurelius was in fact called by the name of Antoninus Pius is clearly attested not only by Themistius in the narrative of that wonderful rain, by Suidas and others, but also by coins and the inscriptions of stones Gruter, Inscriptiones antiquae totius orbis Romani, p. 258." Otto, De Justini Martyris scriptis et doctrina, pp. 18 and 19.. But if Valesius will not have M. Aurelius called Pius because he was not distinguished with this name by the Senate, for the same reason he will not be able to call him Philosopher either: for the senate never decreed anything about this name; and accordingly the deduction will collapse which the same Valesius uses to establish that M. Aurelius is designated by "the Philosopher, son of Caesar." With easy labour, therefore, the difficulty raised by Valesius is dissolved, which accordingly can by no means shake the testimony of Eusebius and St. Jerome, who expressly assert that the second or shorter Apology of Justin was offered to M. Aurelius.

[28] Lucius Verus is most aptly called the Philosopher, son of Caesar. From these things, moreover, it manifestly appears that by the words "the Philosopher, son of Caesar" M. Aurelius is by no means designated, as Valesius supposes (for he does not prove it). Nay, says Tillemont Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, volume II, p. 655., everything persuades that Lucius Verus is in question, since Justin designates him in altogether the same words at the beginning of his greater Apology. And in very truth the title of son of Caesar fits no one more aptly than L. Verus, whose father (Lucius Aurelius Ceionius Commodus, to which names Verus is commonly added) met his death while he was only Caesar, with which dignity the emperor Hadrian had presented him. We shall not deny, however, that Verus departed from the precepts of the philosophers in ordering his life; but he used to read their books, constantly enjoyed their company, and from time to time affected a graver and more severe discipline: which indeed abundantly sufficed for the name of Philosopher to be attributed to the prince. It can also be said that his morals were corrupt more in private than in public.

[29] [In vain does Ruinart contend that the son of M. Aurelius is designated by the aforesaid words] Ruinart disagrees with Tillemont and Pagi where he says As above, p. 53.: "He who is here called the son of Caesar the Philosopher is Commodus himself, the son of Marcus. For, as Capitolinus relates in the life of Marcus, Lucius (Augustus, colleague of M. Aurelius in the empire), on returning from Syria, asked that the sons of Marcus should be called Caesars." But Baronius is to be heard here (at the year 164, no. 14), where he relates things which overturn Ruinart's opinion. "Since the second or shorter Apology of Justin is said" (the words are Baronius's) "to have been written to the same emperors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, let no one wonder if in St. Jerome the name Commodus is added to Lucius: nor let anyone think this Lucius Aurelius Commodus to be the son of Marcus, who did not begin to reign with his father until the sixteenth year of his reign: for St. Justin had undergone martyrdom long before: for it has been said above that Lucius Verus was also called Commodus because he was the son of Lucius Commodus, whom Hadrian had adopted as his son." Compare Tillemont Histoire des Empereurs, Marcus Aurelius, article V., where it is established that Lucius Commodus was adopted by Antoninus together with M. Aurelius; that when Antoninus died the senate conferred the empire on M. Aurelius alone; but that he made Commodus partner of his reign, created him Augustus, and gave him the name Verus in place of Commodus. But as concerns the son of M. Aurelius: he was born in the year 161, at the beginning of his father's reign; was created Caesar in the year 166; Augustus in the year 177, that is, the 16th of M. Aurelius; succeeded in the place of his dead father in the year 180; and finally perished by strangling on the last night of the year 192.

[30] The third reason of Valesius is explained; Let us return to Pagi dissolving the objections of Valesius. "The third reason of Valesius," he says As above, no. IV.. "That prefect Urbicus, whom Justin mentions in the same place, lived under Antoninus Pius. For he is Lollius Urbicus, who as the Emperor's legate subdued the Britons, as Capitolinus relates in the Life of Antoninus. That he was prefect of the City in the reign of Pius Apuleius teaches in the Apology near the beginning. For since Apuleius delivered that oration under Pius, as he himself testifies in it, it must be said that Lollius Urbicus also, prefect of the City, by whom he says Aemilianus was condemned, was under the same Pius. Concerning the same Q. Lollius Urbicus, prefect of the City, an ancient inscription exists in Gruter, p. XXXVIII. For the rest, from what I have said it can be gathered that Justin underwent martyrdom under Antoninus Pius, and not under Marcus. For Eusebius had no other reason for placing the martyrdom of Justin in the times of M. Aurelius except that he dedicated the second Apologetic to Marcus. But I have shown by most certain arguments that that Apologetic was dedicated to Pius: Eusebius's reasoning and opinion therefore falls to the ground entirely. What of the fact that Eusebius himself in the Chronicle, and Georgius Syncellus following him, seem to ascribe the martyrdom of Justin to the times of Antoninus Pius? And so Michael Glycas expressly puts it in the Annals. Thus Valesius.

[31] and it is shown to be no more solid than the two preceding. "But what prevents Urbicus, whose sentence passed upon the Christians Ptolemaeus and Lucius gave occasion to this Apologetic of Justin, from having held the City prefecture while Antoninus Pius was reigning, and again the same dignity while Marcus was administering the empire? Finally, if Justin had suffered while Antoninus was governing the Roman state, there is no doubt that Justin would have written the second Apology under the same. But since it is established from the Acts of his Martyrdom praised by Baronius that he was put to death when Junius Rusticus was prefect of the City, it must be certain and undoubted that that Apology was offered to M. Aurelius, and not to Antoninus Pius. Ulpian, D. 49 L. I, On Appeal, cites a rescript of M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus to Junius Rusticus, prefect of the City, who on ancient stones is also called Urban Praetor. Several inscriptions are recited by Gruter on p. 221, in which is read: Q. JUN. RUSTIC. PR. URB., and again on p. 222. Nor can it be said that the Rusticus of whom the Acts of Justin speak was prefect of the City under Antoninus Pius; since, besides that this would be asserted gratuitously, it is established that during the reign of Marcus a certain Rusticus exercised the prefecture of the City and, as we said at the beginning of this year from Capitolinus, could do everything with him. This Q. Junius Rusticus, moreover, is different from the Junius Rusticus consul in this year; since Junius Rusticus is not called prefect of the City by Capitolinus in the place praised, where he enumerates his dignities. Nor is it true that Eusebius in the Chronicle records the martyrdom of Justin under Antoninus Pius, as we showed at the year CXLVIII, no. 6" (the discussion of the Chronicle will recur below). "Nay, since the Ecclesiastical History was composed by Eusebius after the books of the Chronicles, if he had written in them that Justin suffered under Antoninus Pius, since he teaches the contrary in the History, what is written in it would have to be followed, as Valesius observes in a similar case in the Notes to book IV, chapter I. As for Michael Glycas, he is in no way to be heard against Eusebius, Jerome in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, and the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, who relate that Justin presented the second Apology to M. Aurelius." Thus far, and again almost word for word, Pagi. From which we think it abundantly established that the reasons of Valesius are of little solidity, nay more or less cavilling, and in no way prevail over the authority of Eusebius and St. Jerome.

§ II. Gallandi and Longuerue are refuted concerning the Second Apology of St. Justin. At what time he was crowned with martyrdom. The year in which SS. Ptolemaeus and his Companions suffered.

Gallandi, following Longuerue, partly renewed the opinion of Valesius. The almost obsolete opinion of Valesius was renewed towards the end of the past century by the most learned Andrea Gallandi, priest of the Congregation of the Oratory, in the Prolegomena to his Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, Venice, 1765. Although he departs from Valesius in certain things, he nevertheless made his chief tenets his own. Wherefore we deem it necessary to set down here certain things from Gallandi, both on account of the authority of the learned man, and because Lumper [St. Gottfried Lumper, Benedictine monk, Historia theologico-critica, Part or Volume 2, pp. 73–82. Augsburg edition, 1784.] embraced his opinion towards the end of the century just elapsed, contending that the second or shorter Apology of Justin was offered to Titus Antoninus Verus, notwithstanding the express assertions of Eusebius and Jerome to the contrary. What we subjoin is excerpted from the Prolegomena, Chapter XVII, On Justin, Philosopher and Martyr Volume I, p. LXXXII and following.. "The more prolix Apology," he says, "which in the common editions, if you except the London one of Thirlby and the Paris one of Maran, is placed after the shorter, is held by the consent of all the learned, Baratier alone contradicting, to have been the first committed to writing by Justin, who also, to use the words of Jerome, delivered it to Antoninus Pius and his sons and the Senate.

[32] He says the more prolix Apology was offered to Antoninus Pius; "Concerning the year, however, in which the holy Martyr wrote or offered this Apology I, various judgments of learned men are put about. We side with those who judge that it happened about the beginning of Antoninus Pius, or about the year of Christ CXXXIX. So indeed Scaliger, Petau, Dodwell, Pagi, but above all the distinguished abbé de Longuerue, in whose words accordingly we think it enough to support this opinion." There follow the words of the praised writer from his Dissertation on the Life of St. Justin Martyr, § XXII Pages 220, 242, 243, 278., which it would be superfluous to set down here.

[33] [He judges it more probable that the shorter was likewise offered to the aforesaid emperor,] And again Prolegomena, p. LXXXVII.: "That after the Dialogue held in Asia with Trypho the Jew, St. Justin, having returned thence to Italy and staying at Rome, inscribed the Shorter Apology II to the Roman Senate, as is commonly reported, is agreed among all; but at what time, there is not one opinion of learned men. Valesius indeed before the others, and Longuerue, to whom Pearson adds himself, think that this Apology was offered by Justin while Antoninus Pius was reigning; but Pagi, Tillemont and others, when Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were in power. We embrace the former opinion, because it seems to us to rest on firmer weights of reasons, which it pleases us also to set forth in the words of the eminent Longuerue." And these things he then subjoins from the above-praised Dissertation of the latter on the Life of St. Justin Martyr.

[34] citing the words of Longuerue; "While the heathen everywhere raged against the Christians, and the butchery of the worshippers of the Lord Jesus broke out afresh under the prefect of the City Lollius Urbicus, St. Justin, who was then living at Rome, in order to meet the spreading evil, offered another Apology, which all the ancients call the second, to the Roman princes and nobles, that he might soothe their exasperated minds and dissolve the crimes and calumnies laid against the Christians, and that he might demand from the emperors a place for a contest with Crescens, the Cynic pseudo-philosopher.

[35] according to whom the Acts manifestly indicate Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius. "And those emperors were none other than Antoninus Pius Augustus and Marcus Aurelius Caesar the Philosopher, son-in-law and adopted son of Pius: which Valesius also thinks. For these words of a certain Christian Lucius, reported by Justin, prove it, which Eusebius reads thus: οὐ πρέποντα Εὐσεβεῖ αὐτοκράτορι, οὐδε φιλοσόφῳ Καίσαρος παιδὶ, οὐδὲ ἱερᾷ συγκλήτῳ, κρίνεις, ὦ Οὐρβίκιε. 'You do not decree, Urbicus, things consistent with the emperor Pius, nor with the Philosopher, son of the Augustus, nor with the sacred Senate.' In these set words are presented the emperor Pius, who is the elder Antoninus, and the Philosopher son of the Augustus, who is the same as Marcus Aurelius or the younger Antoninus; and who, while Pius his father-in-law lived, was called Aurelius Caesar, son of Augustus Pius, as is clear from the coins." But here the distinguished Abbé assumes what has to be proved. For the whole question turns precisely on this, whether that Emperor Pius is the elder Antoninus, and whether the Philosopher son of Caesar is Marcus Aurelius.

[36] [Longuerue asserts, but does not prove, that M. Aurelius was nowhere called Pius while he lived.] "Nor should you object," Longuerue proceeds, "that Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was called Pius in exactly the same way in which the elder Antoninus obtained this denomination. For this is found nowhere except in Themistius, who, as the learned judge, since he wrote as the IVth century was ebbing and was a rhetorician, not very skilled in ancient history, transferred the things which pertained to Marcus the Philosopher to Pius, altogether ineptly; nor did he understand Marcus as another prince, but only the elder Pius Antoninus. For otherwise Themistius would have wished to be understood by no one, since among all the historians, the jurists, and in the constitutions of the emperors, the elder Antoninus is always called the Deified Pius, but his son-in-law the Deified Marcus; or whenever they associate Lucius with him as colleague, they call both the Deified brothers." The whole reasoning of the distinguished Abbé collapses if one says that it is not necessary that M. Aurelius should have been called Pius in exactly the same way in which the elder Antoninus obtained this denomination. For it suffices that it be for any other reason. Compare no. 27. As regards Themistius, whom Longuerue makes a Rhetorician not very skilled in ancient history, we oppose first that this same Themistius is held by Scaliger to be a most weighty writer; next, it would have to be proved that his words, when he treats of that wonderful rain obtained by the prayers of the Thundering Legion, must necessarily be referred to Antoninus and not to Marcus Aurelius. Which the distinguished Abbé by no means proves. It could be added that in the IVth century the times of Justin Martyr were not so very ancient.

[37] Whatever Longuerue may say, the argumentation of Pagi stands intact. "Further, on coins struck while Marcus was living he is never called Pius." Be it so. What follows from that? Have all the coins struck in his honour, then, come down to us? Or, although it was not used on coins, could that surname not be commonly employed? Or, especially in the IVth century, in which Themistius flourished, was not the name Pius commonly claimed for Marcus Aurelius? Was it not, moreover, a matter most well known to all that that wonderful rain fell while M. Aurelius was reigning? Why then would Themistius the Rhetorician have wished to be understood by no one when he pointed to M. Aurelius by the name of Antoninus, emperor of the Romans, to whom the surname was given from that same piety? Nay rather, if he meant another than M. Aurelius, it will have to be confessed that he was blind in the light of noonday; which will not easily be admitted in one whom Scaliger himself holds a most weighty writer. "But," says Longuerue, "after this emperor was dead, after he had been consecrated and enrolled among the Deified, then at last he was also called Pius, while Commodus was living. And this man, although he was impious, wished also to be called Pius, but not for the same reason as Pius Augustus. For just as all the emperors after Augustus Caesar were called Augusti, although the true name Augustus was his alone, so almost all the other princes after Commodus and Caracalla were called Pii and Felices, although they were very often impious and most unfortunate. The inscriptions, moreover, which are cited in testimony by our adversaries either pertain manifestly to Caracalla, who was called Marcus Antoninus Pius, or were carved when Marcus was already dead. The inscription which Spon reports, where the father of Commodus is called the Deified Pius, the name of Marcus being omitted, is worth nothing, and is to be emended by the authority of the other inscriptions, which all agree; not Spon, who never read this inscription, but the copyist of the Barberini papers, or at least of the exemplar transmitted to Spon, is to be blamed: unless someone should say that the first copyist of this epigraph did not see the fleeting letter M, which, as in the others, ought to have been placed before the word Pius." There is no need to show at length here that the arguments of Pagi drawn from coins and inscriptions plainly stand, notwithstanding the reasons of Longuerue. For neither is Pagi directly refuted, nor would his arguments lose their force even if it were granted to be established (which, however, we by no means grant) that those coins were struck after the death of M. Aurelius. For it would not follow from this that he was not commonly called by the name Pius while he lived, although it had not been claimed for him by decree of the senate.

[38] [In vain is Longuerue indignant that Lucius Verus is called the Philosopher by us. It is a question of fact.] "Further, our adversaries contend that in that place Lucius alone was called Philosopher: for one at least is called Philosopher, and this one, as they would have it, is Lucius. Nay, Marcus alone would have been called αὐτοκράτωρ, although Lucius, with equal honour and power, was emperor Augustus: which is absurd and false." (These are mere words, to which, unless proof is added, no one will assent.) "And what is more false, Marcus is not called Philosopher by Lucius the Martyr, but his colleague is. Is it so? That Marcus, who assiduously frequented the schools, listened to philosophers, lived a truly philosophical and Stoic life, published philosophical books, was not called philosopher; but with this appellation was adorned that Lucius, who neither learned philosophy nor cared for philosophers, but for mimes, charioteers, buffoons, harlots; wholly intent on theatrical and circus games, a glutton, voracious, unchaste; he, I say, is believed to have been adorned with this honourable title, of which he was altogether unworthy?" To what end that pathetic oration? Granted that M. Aurelius deserved the name of Philosopher by a better right; does it follow from that that Lucius could by no reason have been designated by the same name, and was not in fact designated by it? This is the whole question. Compare no. 28.

[39] He is the only one who would render Καίσαρος παῖς as 'son of the Augustus.' "But Καίσαιρος παῖς is the son of the Augustus: for the Roman emperor Augustus is commonly, and in that most usual manner, called absolutely Καῖσαρ. Lucian In the Lucius, p. 600 b., who was then alive, teaches us that the protection of the emperor was customarily invoked with this word, ὦ Καῖσαρ (not ὦ σεβαστέ). It is no wonder, then, if Lucius the martyr calls the son of the Augustus Καίσαρος παῖδα. Lucius the martyr here names a single emperor, as does Justin also: for Pius alone was emperor Augustus; but he did not forget the son of the Augustus, namely Marcus, because Pius while living had shared the government of the state with Marcus his son-in-law, and that in the year of Christ CXLVII, which is clear from Capitolinus: 'He married Faustina,' he says (the daughter of Pius, in the year CXLVI), 'and, a daughter having been born to him (Lucilla, in the year CXLVII), he was presented with the Tribunician power and the proconsular command outside the City, with the right of the fifth motion added.' And a little after: 'With Pius' (whispering against Marcus) 'availed nothing at all. So great was the probity of Marcus, and so great his modesty in the imperial principate.'" Thus far Longuerue. — There will not be, I should think, a single one of the learned who will make much of this note, since it bears the appearance of a cavil. Which is established even from this, that it occurred to no one before the distinguished Abbé to render the words Καίσαρος παῖς in Latin as "son of the Augustus"; all to a man put "son of Caesar," and rightly indeed. Otherwise the word Καίσαρος would be referred to Antoninus, of whom in the same line is read εὐσεβει αὐτοκράτορι. This is not Justin's manner of writing. If, according to the mind of Longuerue, M. Aurelius were understood as the Philosopher, Justin would rather have used this or a similar expression: "These things do not befit the emperor Pius nor the Philosopher his son." Johann Karl Theodor Otto, already once and again praised, ten years ago published a Commentation on St. Justin, publicly honoured, as is had from the Title, in the literary contest of the citizens of the Academy of Jena on the 5th day of September MDCCCXL, a prize having been offered by the munificence of the Princes; where I find these things to our purpose De Justini Martyris scriptis et doctrina, p. 19.: "Nowhere in the monuments of the ancients is M. Aurelius called Καίσαρος παῖς; and if we were to believe that the Apology was delivered to Antoninus Pius, that surname would be imposed on Marcus by Lucius contrary to custom. But in fact Verus had already received this title from Justin at the beginning of the former Apology: Καὶ Λουκίῳ φιλοσόφῳ Καίσαρος (and to Lucius the Philosopher, of Caesar, that is, of L. Aelius Verus, who, adopted by Hadrian, as Capitolinus narrates, was the first to be called Caesar) φύσει ὑίῷ (son by nature). What further? It would by no means have been fitting that Justin, if Apology II had been offered to Pius, should make mention of Marcus indeed and of the Roman Senate, but not of Lucius Verus, whom in the former Apology he names in clear words. These things being so, we shall have to rest in the common opinion, already put forward by the ancients, according to which this Apologetic was presented to M. Aurelius and L. Verus."

[40] A capital fault lies hidden in the argumentation of the adversaries. And let these things suffice to show that the arguments of Longuerue are of little firmness. In this whole disputation a radical fault lies hidden. No one will deny that Eusebius and Jerome affirm in express words that the Shorter Apology of Justin was offered to Marcus Aurelius. The capital question, therefore, and that a most simple one, is this: namely, whether those two lights of ecclesiastical history erred in affirming this? If that should hold, it must be demonstrated by positive testimonies. But an altogether different way is taken by the adversaries. They take up certain difficulties arising either from words or from passages here and there admitting a doubtful or less clear sense, and from these more obscure things they interpret the clearer: whereas, according to the rules of sound interpretation, darkness should be dissolved by light.

[40] On the year of the Martyrdom of St. Justin It remains that we weigh another kind of argument, which, borrowed from the same Longuerue,

Gallandi presses above the others in the Prolegomena, chapter XIX As above, p. XCV and following.. He inquires, namely, in what year Justin suffered. He praises Mazzocchi, who indeed illustrated the acts of the holy Martyr most learnedly, and presented the Greek text with a new interpretation, abandoning the version of Sirleto, which the Bollandists and Ruinart had followed; whom, however, he judges to have erred in determining the epoch of the martyrdom: for Mazzocchi wavers between the years CLXV, CLXVII, CLXIX and CLXX; whereas to Gallandi it seems that the martyrdom of Justin should be bound to the year of Christ CL. To establish this he first assumes that the shorter Apology was offered to Titus Antoninus, briefly repeating the arguments brought forward by Valesius. Then he proceeds in this way Ibid., no. 11, p. XCV.: "Nor indeed do the Acts disagree with the later Apologetic of Justin. For in them mention is made of one Caesar, and the edict of one emperor will be set forth." (What these things are worth we have shown above from Pagi, no. 23.) "Near the beginning of the same acts, indeed, the prefect is reported to have addressed Justin thus: ὑπάκουσιν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, 'Obey the Emperors.' But in order that everything may at last be consistent, that βασιλεῦσιν seems altogether to be referred to all the princes of the past, as many as promulgated edicts against the Christians, as Mazzocchi himself rightly interprets." (And from these a new reason is added why Pagi seems to us to have interpreted the foregoing rightly too.)

[41] which Gallandi refers to the year of Christ CL. "Therefore Justin suffered under Antoninus Pius, not under M. Aurelius, and that in the year of Christ CL, a little after Apology II was offered. It is proved from the words of Justin" (the passage is cited where Justin says that he expects plots, nay even the punishment of the cross, from Crescens). "From Tatian, disciple of Justin: 'That Crescens, then,' says Tatian, 'had made his nest in the great City ... and, a despiser of death, he so feared death that he tried by machinations to inflict it, as some evil, on Justin no less than on me; because Justin, preaching the truth, convicted the Philosophers of gluttony and fraud.' Nor otherwise" (so Gallandi proceeds) "did Eusebius take Justin and Tatian. But if that Bishop of Caesarea relates that the holy Martyr suffered while M. Aurelius was reigning, we know that he judged so on this ground alone, that he thought the second Apologetic had been offered to Marcus. And, as Valesius rightly argues, it has been proved by most certain arguments that that Apologetic was dedicated to the elder Antoninus. Eusebius's reasoning and opinion therefore falls to the ground entirely." (If these things were proved as solidly as they are confidently put forward, we would certainly hold up our hands as conquered. But since the learned writer adduces nothing new, it will be permissible for us to persist in our opinion, and that the more firmly the more clearly we perceive that the patrons of the opposite opinion contend not with reasons but with words, and those very sonorous.) "What of the fact that Eusebius himself in the Chronicle, in the year MMCLXVI from the birth of Abraham, the XIIIth of Antoninus Pius current, that is, the Dionysian year CL, committed to writing that Justin was taken away by Martyrdom? So that accordingly the Eusebian histories (in order that they may be consistent with themselves) would seem to need emending from the chronicles of the same author." Why not his chronicles emended from the history? But it is worth while to look more deeply into the argument drawn from the chronicles.

[42] Gallandi asserts that the Chronicles of Eusebius contradict his history; And first it can be asked whether the chronicles of Eusebius do in fact contradict his ecclesiastical history? Eusebius writes in the latter book of the chronicles, at the year of Abraham MMCLXVI: "Crescens the Cynic is recognized, who stirred up persecution against Justin, a philosopher of our doctrine, because he convicted him of being a glutton and a prevaricator against philosophy, in which persecution he gloriously shed his blood for Christ" [See Thesaurus temporum Eusebii Pamphili, by the study of Joseph Scaliger, p. 45. Amsterdam edition, 1658.]. So Eusebius in the interpretation of St. Jerome. "Nor," adds Gallandi Ibid., no. IV, p. XCVII., "does the same Eusebius speak otherwise in the former book of the chronicles; since, consistent with himself, in that place too he reckons the martyrdom of Justin among the things done under Antoninus Pius." Now in the praised chronicle it reads thus: "Antoninus Pius, thirteenth emperor of the Romans, reigned 22 years, 3 months. To him Justin the philosopher, of our doctrine, rendered a book written on behalf of our religion; against whom Crescens the cynic, because he convicted him of being a glutton and a prevaricator against philosophy, stirred up a persecution in which he gloriously shed his blood for Christ" Thesaurus Temporum Eusebii Pamphili, p. 168..

[43] from which he concludes that Justin suffered in the year CL. This difficulty, sought from the twofold passage of Eusebius, Pagi long since solved, and, in our opinion at least, entirely removed, whatever Gallandi with Longuerue may have devised to the contrary. "But what," they say, "does Pagi say to this? Eusebius, he says, intends to speak of Crescens the philosopher, and, as is his custom, recites in one course the death which he caused to be inflicted on St. Justin. Is it so? Did the ecclesiastical chronographer, and after him Jerome, wholly forgetting the epoch of the martyrdom of Justin, turn their minds only to the stinking Crescens? In vain indeed do they labour who think so; nor will that violent effort profit them. For, though they protest in vain, it will stand ratified, on the authority of Eusebius and Jerome in the Chronicle, that our holy Martyr was slain in the year of Abraham MMCLXVI, the XIIIth of the emperor Pius current, that is, in the year of the Christian era CL" Gallandi, as above, p. CXVII.. Which again are mere words and sounds, and do not touch the reasoning, or rather the explanation, of Pagi in the least.

[44] It is shown by various examples that this is undeservedly concluded. For no one who has run through even cursorily the later part of the chronicles of Eusebius (to treat of this first) will deny that it is customary for him to note the year in which a philosopher, or a rhetorician, or a writer, or anyone else became famous (this could be shown by six hundred examples), not seldom adding certain things in particular by which he acquired his fame for himself, although these happened only in the following years. So at the year of Abraham MMLXVII, of Christ LII, is read: "Claudius sent Felix as procurator of Judaea, before whom Paul the apostle, accused, pleads in his own defence" [Thesaurus Temporum, p. 160. In agreement, the Chronicon bipartitum of Eusebius Pamphili, Greek-Armenian-Latin, part II, p. 153. Venice edition, 1818.]. Will Gallandi say that Paul pleaded his cause before him in the first year in which Felix came into Judaea, when it is admitted by all that this took place long after (according to Tillemont, in the eighth or ninth year after Histoire ecclésiastique, volume I, p. 276. Paris, 1702.)? And yet here too it could be objected: Is it so? Did the ecclesiastical chronographer, and after him Jerome, wholly forgetting Paul, turn their minds only to the stinking Felix? Nothing accordingly is effected in historical matters by little questions of this sort. Again, at the year of Abraham MMXCI, of Christ LXXVI, is read in the chronicle of Eusebius: "Q. Asconius Pedianus, the historical writer, is held famous: who, deprived of his sight in the LXXIIIrd year of his age, grew old for XII years afterwards in the highest honour of all" In Scaliger, p. 163. Lacking in the Greek-Armenian-Latin.. These things certainly do not all fall in the same year. But the time at which that man became known being noted, the other things which pertain to him are recited in one course. Why should we not determine the same of Crescens the philosopher? especially since Eusebius himself in his ecclesiastical history (which he wrote many years after the Chronicles, and from which accordingly the chronicles, if there were need, should rather be emended than the history from the chronicles) places the martyrdom of Justin in the times of Marcus Aurelius, as even Gallandi himself confesses openly enough.

[45] Nor does the other passage of Eusebius favour Gallandi more. But as regards the passage transcribed from the former part of the Chronicles, neither does this create a greater difficulty. And in the first place it is true that Justin the Philosopher, of our doctrine, rendered to Antoninus Pius a book written on behalf of our religion (namely the former or more prolix Apology); nor do we deny either the persecution stirred up by Crescens against Justin, in which he gloriously fell for Christ; but at the same time we contend that it cannot be concluded from the words of Eusebius that this persecution is to be referred to the times of Titus Antoninus. For just as in the later part Eusebius took occasion from the occurring mention of Crescens to treat of the persecution moved against Justin, so in the former part he slips from the mention of Justin thrown in to Crescens. The difference between the two passages of Eusebius lies in this, that in the one Crescens brings in the memory of Justin, in the other Justin that of Crescens. But from neither is anything determined as to the time of the Martyrdom. In no way, therefore, does Eusebius contradict himself: in the ecclesiastical history he expressly affirms that the shorter or second Apology was offered to Marcus Aurelius, and that shortly after Justin shed his blood for Christ; in the Chronicles he treats only incidentally of the Martyrdom and determines nothing about its epoch. We must accordingly stand by the rule which pronounces that determinate, certain, clear things are not to be weakened by obscure and indeterminate ones.

[46] With what right Gallandi appeals to Georgius Syncellus, Gallandi passes to another kind of argument. He says As above, p. XCVI. that Syncellus, Cedrenus, Glycas and the Anonymous of Vossius in Pearson favour him, likewise St. Prosper in the Chronicle and especially St. Epiphanius. Let us transcribe the words of each, which, however, Gallandi judged it superfluous to set down. Georgius Syncellus writes in the chronography at the year of the world 5629, of the Divine Incarnation 130 [Corpus historiae Byzantinae, Bonn, 1829. Georgius Syncellus, volume I, pp. 662 and 663.]: "The 13th Emperor of the Romans, Titus Antoninus surnamed Pius, together with his sons Aurelius and Lucius, 23 years." Having recounted other things which pertain to his reign, he has the following to our purpose: "Justin too obtained the name of Philosopher; who offered to Antoninus a book in defence of our right faith." And lower down: "Crescens the cynic philosopher, branded with the gluttony of the cynics and reproved by Justin, was the author of death by martyrdom to the divine man professing philosophy among us." These things are no more explicit as to the epoch of the Martyrdom than in the Chronicles of Eusebius. It is not rightly said, therefore, that Syncellus altogether favours the opinion of Gallandi.

[47] to Cedrenus, Cedrenus has the following: "Under him (Titus Antoninus) Polycarp, disciple of John the Evangelist, and Justin the Philosopher, and Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, were put to death for the profession of the divine truth" Ibid. Georgius Cedrenus, Historiarum compendium, volume I, p. 439.. What credit Cedrenus deserves shines out even from this, that he puts the passion of SS. Justin and Polycarp in the same year, whereas it is certain that the latter suffered under M. Aurelius, in the year of Christ 166, as Tillemont would have it, or in the year 169, as Baronius holds. "Valesius in the Notes to book IV of Eusebius thinks with this writer (namely Eusebius) that the martyrdom of St. Polycarp took place in this year (of Christ 167)": so, in the critique at Baronius's year 169, Pagi, who himself however judges the year of this martyrdom obscure, although he by no means doubts that it took place under M. Aurelius, and indeed towards

the times assigned by the praised writers. As concerns St. Dionysius, it is beyond doubt that he flourished at Corinth under the same M. Aurelius. Eusebius treats of him at length Historia ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XXIII., praising seven letters written by him; and in the Chronicles at the year of Christ 172 (according to Scaliger's recension) these words are read: "Dionysius, Bishop of the Corinthians, is held famous" In the later Chronicle, p. 170.. Antiquity has handed down nothing else pertaining to his life and death. But these things suffice to see how much the authority of Cedrenus is to be esteemed, and how prudently Gallandi would have abstained from his testimony.

[48] to Glycas and the Anonymous of Vossius, Nor does Glycas profit him more; although his annals are esteemed more highly by the learned than the compendium of Cedrenus, he nevertheless stumbled into almost the same error, as will be clear from the words cited: "After Hadrian, Antoninus, surnamed Pius on account of the kindliness of his character, reigned 28 years: under whom Justin the Philosopher and Dionysius, prelate of Corinth, lost their lives that they might be witnesses to the Christian doctrine. Marcus Antoninus succeeded him." So Glycas Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, Glycas, Annals, part III, p. 449.. For the rest, let us note that Syncellus, Cedrenus and Glycas are much more recent than Eusebius and cannot be compared with him in respect of learning, and that in the judgment of all the learned. There is no leisure to inquire what that Anonymous of Vossius in Pearson wrote; for since he is Anonymous, and moreover his works are scarcely named or cited by anyone, it is plain that his testimony is not to be esteemed of great weight.

[49] and to St. Prosper. There follows in Gallandi the divine Prosper, whom also he makes favourable to himself. With what right the reader shall judge. Towards the end of the reign of T. Antoninus, under the consulship of Tertullus and Sacerdos, St. Prosper writes in his full Chronicle: "Crescens the Cynic stirred up a persecution against Justin, a Philosopher of our doctrine, by whom he was convicted of being, on account of his excessive gluttony, a prevaricator against Philosophy; in which persecution he gloriously shed his blood for Christ" St. Prosper, Complete Works, Paris, 1711, column 712.. It is evident that these things are drawn from the Chronicles of Eusebius; for they are the same, with the style a little changed; nor accordingly do they prove more than in Eusebius.

[50] Nor does Epiphanius help Gallandi more. There remains St. Epiphanius, whom Gallandi strives in every way to claim for himself. "First," says Epiphanius Heresy XLVI, § I., "he (Tatian) undertook to found a new sect in Mesopotamia about the XIIth year of Antoninus surnamed Pius." On this text Gallandi reasons thus: "Since it is plainly ascertained that Tatian fell away from the Christian religion a little after the martyrdom of Justin, it must altogether be gathered from this that the most blessed Justin obtained the crown of martyrdom about the year of Christ CL. For the Epiphanian words περὶ τὸ δωδέκατον ἔτος, 'about the twelfth year,' says the learned man (Longuerue), can be understood not only of the current year but also of the completed one; so that the beginning of the Tatianist heresy may be assigned to the year of Christ CLI, when Antoninus was passing the XIIIth year of his reign." It is surely to be wondered at that a man otherwise learned should put so much effort into deducing consequences from the text of Epiphanius. As if it were not a most well-known matter that that Saint, otherwise most deserving of the catholic cause, is by no means accurate in historical matters and especially in distinguishing times.

[51] The slight authority of St. Epiphanius in chronological matters. "What Melchior Cano left in writing," says our Possevino, "is true, that Epiphanius was not accustomed to follow any weighty authors in the reckoning of events and times, and in these is sometimes deceived" Apparatus sacer, Cologne, 1608, volume I, p. 511.. So too Oudin [Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis antiquis, Leipzig, 1722, volume I, column 539.]: "From these things, then, which Epiphanius wrote, it is established that he was neither especially learned in ecclesiastical antiquities, little accurate in distinguishing times, too credulous in narratives, no examination being applied: of all which the narratives of the Meletian and Arian heresies alone can be witnesses, concerning which Denis Petau (who, as is known, laboured very much in translating and illustrating the books of St. Epiphanius) in the animadversions on heresy LXIX, of the Arians, p. 286. For he is almost continually engaged in correcting or softening the slips of Epiphanius. Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia litteraria, Geneva, 1720, p. 147. 'What is to be thought of the Meletian acts and the whole history of the Schism which Epiphanius here proposes is explained in the Baronian annals at the year 306, no. 45, to which I most gladly subscribe.' This is Petau against Epiphanius on the schism of the Meletians. Melchior Cano, the distinguished Theologian, in book 2 of the Loci Theologici, p. 477, discloses how little he esteemed Epiphanius in historical matters in these words: 'The opinion of Epiphanius,' he says, 'which is set against the faith of history, ought not to move us at all: since in the reckoning of events and times he is not accustomed to follow any weighty authors' Bibliotheca Graeca, Hamburg, 1802, volume VIII, p. 267.. Cesare Baronius in the Annals, especially in volume 3, had no other opinion of Epiphanius, whom he was compelled everywhere to abandon, nay to refute, in fabulous and old-wives' matters." Thus far Casimir Oudin, from whom his professed opponent William Cave does not dissent. "Epiphanius was a man," he says Historia ecclesiastica, century IV, chapter VI, article XXVIII, no. VI., "most adorned with piety and the other Christian virtues; learned in Hebrew, Syriac, Egyptian, Greek and Latin, whence he is called πεντάγλωττος by Jerome; most expert in ecclesiastical antiquities; yet too credulous in admitting little narratives without any examination, little accurate in distinguishing times; of which the history of the Arian heresy alone gives us proof." Likewise Fabricius also Bibliotheca Graeca, Hamburg, 1802, volume VIII, p. 267.: "Petau warns in the notes, p. 16, that in chronology he (Epiphanius) almost always treads in the footsteps of Eusebius; yet the same observes in more than one place that he not seldom confuses and hallucinates." The same things are handed down by Natalis Alexander [Historia ecclesiastica, century IV, chapter XVI, article II, no. XXVI, p. 684, Paris, 1740.], Ceillier [Auteurs ecclésiastiques, volume VIII, chapter XVI, article II, no. XXVI, p. 684, Paris, 1740.] (and others commonly. So that one may say with Tillemont Mémoires, volume II, p. 666, Paris, 1701.: "We are not accustomed to consult St. Epiphanius where the question is of Chronology."

[52] Nothing, therefore, can be deduced from the aforesaid writers against Eusebius. Far too much, therefore, do Gallandi and his standard-bearer Longuerue attribute to Epiphanius, when from certain incidental words of his, not even altogether precisely framed, they would have the express testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome destroyed. And from these things one may see what the authors are worth whom they affirm to be in agreement with themselves. Some indeed can with equal prudence be said to favour us; others speak obscurely or bring forward things that conflict with one another.

[53] A new difficulty in Gallandi's opinion, from the name of Rusticus, But even if it were granted to Gallandi and Longuerue that Justin suffered under Titus Antoninus, a difficulty arising from the very acts of the holy Martyr (which both admit as genuine) would remain to be dispelled. All the copies relate that this martyrdom took place under the prefect of the city Rusticus, who exercised this office while M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus were reigning, as is established from their rescript recited by Ulpian Digest, book XLIX, title I, no. 1.. This difficulty did not escape Gallandi, as appears even from the very manner in which he undertakes to solve it. "Since," he says Prolegomena, as above, p. XCVI., "from what has just been disputed I hold it ascertained, and surely by right as my opinion bears" (let the reader determine what that right can be), "that St. Justin underwent Martyrdom under the elder Antoninus, I am easily led to believe that the name of Rusticus crept into the text of the Acts in place of Urbicus from a corrupted passage of Epiphanius." It is a sacred thing for Gallandi to follow Epiphanius as guide in historical and chronological matters, however much all the learned who have existed up to now protest.

[54] [which Gallandi solves by supposing both the text of Epiphanius and that of the acts corrupted.] However that may be, let us subjoin the words which are here resorted to. Epiphanius, heresy 46, §1, writes that Justin underwent martyrdom for Christ ἐπὶ Ρωστικοῦ ἡγεμόνος, "under Rusticus the prefect," which agrees with the acts. Therefore Epiphanius is here against Gallandi. But it matters little. By making a twofold supposition all difficulty vanishes. First, then, Gallandi supposes that the text of Epiphanius was corrupted; next, that from this depraved text a similar adulteration crept into the Acts of St. Justin. The reader rightly expects by what reasoning these things are proved. The first, concerning the adulteration of the Epiphanian text, Gallandi assumes as certain, nor does it seem to him to need proof. The second he unfolds thus (for he does not prove it): "Some copyist (perhaps Metaphrastes himself ...) may have known that Epiphanius had handed down that Justin underwent martyrdom for Christ under Rusticus the prefect; and so, moved by the authority of Epiphanius, contrary to the faith of the exemplar which he was copying, setting aside the name of Urbicus, may have written Rusticus instead; conjecturing that, because of the sameness (ταυτότητα) of letters occurring almost in both, the scribe could easily have been led into error. The same copyist, whoever he was, may moreover have known that it was handed down by Eusebius that Justin was taken away by Martyrdom while M. Aurelius was reigning, under whom likewise Rusticus had been adorned with the urban prefecture. To these is added that the name of Rusticus was far better known from the consular fasti, in which Urbicus nowhere appears. All these things may have been the cause why he thought that the slip of the scribe, as he himself supposed, committed in copying the Acts of Justin, should be corrected, superimposing the name of Rusticus wherever Urbicus occurred. Now further, since learned men hold it ascertained that on the one hand the wounds of the Epiphanian passage, whether through the importunate licence of copyists or through the supine carelessness of scribes, are altogether incurable, and on the other that Eusebius nowhere sinned more gravely than in narrating the deeds of the Antonines, whom he everywhere absurdly confuses: for that reason indeed the name of Rusticus is to be deleted in the Justinian Acts, and Urbicus restored in its place." He then adds, using the words of Longuerue: "For," says the distinguished Abbé, "no other prefect of the City is to be recognized who condemned Justin than L. Lollius Urbicus, who at the time when our Philosopher offered Apology II was harassing the Christians with various punishments, as he himself testifies in these words: Καὶ τὰ χθὲς δὲ καὶ πρώην ἐν τῇ πόλει ὑμῶν γενόμενα ἐπὶ Οὐρβίκου, ὦ Ρωμαῖοι, 'the things which yesterday and in recent days happened in your city, O Romans, under Urbicius.' For scarcely had he (Justin) offered that Apologetic when, at the instigation chiefly of Crescens the Cynic, he was crowned with martyrdom, as is ascertained from what was said above." Thus far Gallandi with Longuerue Ibidem..

[55] How preposterous and rash the argumentation of Gallandi is. It must be confessed that if it were permitted to argue thus in historical matters, it would be easy to transform any text which did not square with our tenets. But the adulteration of a book or writing is not proved in this way. Rather, the beginning is drawn from a comparison of several copies,

and if these differ among themselves, then at last a solid foundation is had on which we may rely in proving an adulteration. But if all the copies, whether older or more recent, agree among themselves, who would admit that agreement of this kind arises from the ignorance or carelessness of copyists or scribes, rather than from the act of the author himself, who published the book or writing so? Granted that one or another corrupt copy may be spread abroad in public; but it cannot happen that no trace of the sincere and genuine text is found. Finally, if such little reasonings, drawn not from the vitals of the case but from the store of one's own genius or even fancy, were to hold, there will now be no text which cannot be shaken, changed and turned upside down at pleasure. It is truly to be wondered at that a man otherwise learned, such as Gallandi beyond controversy is, should have taken refuge in trifles of this sort. But good Homer sometimes nods.

[56] Longuerue is censured. But as for what Longuerue says, that no other prefect of the City is to be recognized who condemned Justin than Urbicius: this indeed is what he himself does not prove and what we deny, relying on the reasons enumerated above, and in particular on the Acts of the holy Martyr himself, in which that prefect under whom he suffered is constantly called Rusticus. Nor does the reason hold that is sought from the fact that Justin underwent martyrdom a little after Apology II was written or offered. For it is not inconsistent that, after the harassments inflicted by Lollius Urbicus, of which Justin complains, or for any other cause unknown to us, another should have succeeded in the office of the prefecture; which also is established from the often-mentioned Acts to have happened.

[57] Therefore the second or Shorter Apology of Justin was offered to M. Aurelius. There remains, therefore, in our opinion, unshaken the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, by which it is made out that the second or Shorter Apology of Justin was offered to Marcus Aurelius; which is moreover confirmed from the Acts of St. Justin, which, in order to be consistent with themselves, are to be referred to the times of the same emperors, as becomes sufficiently manifest even from the very suppositions, which one might almost call absurd, to which Gallandi and Longuerue are compelled to take refuge in order to establish their opinion.

[58] And accordingly SS. Ptolemaeus, Lucius, etc. suffered under the same Emperor, Finally let us come to that at which the whole preceding disputation aims, namely that the epoch or time of the martyrdom of SS. Ptolemaeus and his Companions may be determined. "The opinion of Eusebius standing, then," says Ruinart Acta Martyrum sincera, as above, p. 53., "since Justin wrote this Apology on the occasion of the death of Ptolemaeus and his Companions, it must be inferred that those martyrs suffered under the principate of M. Aurelius. Nor let anyone oppose the authority of certain Martyrologies in which these martyrs are said to have undergone death under Antoninus Pius and his son. For the writers of these Martyrologies are convicted of not having read the Apology of Justin accurately even from this, that they thought their martyrdom took place at Alexandria, whereas Justin asserts in express words that it was consummated at Rome, beginning the Apology thus: 'The things which yesterday and in recent days happened in your City, O Romans, under Urbicius,' etc. That this happened about the year of Christ 166, and the 5th of the Emperor Marcus, we gather from the death of St. Justin, which is recorded in the following year. For it is certain that Justin suffered a little after these Martyrs: since in the praised Apology he foretells that he would shortly perish by the plots of Crescens the cynic philosopher. 'I,' he says, 'expect to be set upon by the plots of one of those who are called Philosophers, and to be fastened in the stocks: perhaps by Crescens himself,' etc. That this in fact happened Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XVI, and other authors report from Tatian, disciple of the same blessed Justin." Thus far Ruinart.

[56] whose martyrdom falls between the years CLXIV and CLXVII. As regards the year in which Justin was crowned with martyrdom, there is not complete agreement among the writers, although they differ little among themselves. Tillemont puts the year CLXVII or CLXVIII; Butler CLXVII; Baronius with the Alexandrian Chronicle CLXV. From these, then, will have to be determined the year in which Ptolemaeus and his Companions suffered, which accordingly will fall between the year LXIV and LXVII of the second century: assuming, namely, that their passion preceded the martyrdom of St. Justin by about one year. "I should believe," says Otto De Justini scriptis et doctrina, p. 19., "that the Apology was offered not so very long before the death of Justin, perhaps in the year 164: for that what he himself had expected in Ap. II, chapter III, p. 46, namely that he would shortly be called to trial on a capital charge by Crescens, did happen, is confirmed, besides Tatian, Eusebius, Photius, also by the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, whose testimony is by no means to be despised." Now in the aforesaid Paschal Chronicle it is read thus at Olympiad CCXXXVI, year of Christ 164 and 165: Ἰουστίνος φιλόσοφος τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς λόγου δεύτερον ὑπὲρ τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς δογματων βιβλίον ἀναδοὺς Μάρκῳ Αὐρηλίῳ καὶ Αντωνίνῳ βήρῳ τοῖς αὐτοκράτορσι θείῳ καατακοσμεῖται, οὐ μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ στεφάνῳ τῷ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, Κρήσκεντος αὐτὸν ὑποβάλλοντος: "Justin the Philosopher, when he had delivered a second book on our behalf and for the confirming of our doctrines to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus, not long after, being denounced by Crescens, is adorned with the divine crown of Martyrdom" [Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, Chronicon Paschale, volume I, p. 482, Bonn edition, 1832.]. From which, besides the matter here intended by us, we have also the second Apology, and that offered to Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus. As concerns this latter name, it will help to remember from Tillemont [Histoire des Empereurs, volume II, article 5, p. 145. Brussels edition, the year 1732, in folio.] that Marcus Aurelius, when he had presented Lucius Commodus with the name of Augustus, wished him thereafter to be called Verus, so that from then on he was no longer called L. Commodus but Lucius Verus; nay, he also gave to Verus the name of Antoninus, which M. Aurelius himself too had assumed.

[60] Papebroch retracted what he had written elsewhere about Justin; Before we put an end to this commentary of ours, it will not be out of place to set down certain things from Acta Sanctorum, volume I of June, where Papebroch corrects what he had written in the month of April about St. Justin, of which we too have touched on some things above. "Therefore, whatever I disputed to the contrary in April" (the words are Papebroch's Acta Sanctorum, volume I of June, p. 18, no. 8) "let the reader take thus, and so that, as far as I am concerned, he may be free here to follow the Baronian opinion, and to fit to the Philosopher himself the following acts (which we too have had regard to in this whole commentary) ... because they fit the Philosopher excellently ... he subscribes to the Baronian Acts; and (as Baronius says) genuine, not surrounded with any paraphrases, but as they were copied from the public acts... It no longer seems strange to me, however, that in those acts nothing is read of Justin's earlier life, nothing of the machinations of Crescens: because, namely, the author's only care was to render faithfully into Greek the confession of the martyrs which he found so authentically copied; adding only a few lines at the beginning and end, by which, as I said, the form of a history might be introduced."

[61] he admits that Justin offered the second Apology to M. Aurelius, And below, treating of the Prefect of the City who is named Rusticus in the acts, Papebroch proceeds thus Ibid., no. 9.: "The prefecture of Rusticus can very well be reconciled with those times at which Eusebius, book 4, chapter 16, writes that Justin offered his second apology, that is (as is said at the end of chapter 14), when, Antoninus Pius having died, Marcus Aurelius his son succeeded with his brother Lucius. He succeeded, moreover, in the year CLXI, and they reigned together up to the year CLXIX. In the meantime, that Rusticus held the prefecture of the city becomes most certain from the rescript of the deified brothers (M. Aurelius and Lucius) already named, which Ulpian alleges in book I On appeals, and which is reported in book 19 of the Digest, title 1, no. 3 Papebroch cites wrongly; read Digest, book XLIX, title I, no. 1.. The words of the rescript are these: 'Since you say that it was done through error that you appealed from the judge whom you had received by our rescript from the most distinguished consuls, to Junius Rusticus our friend, prefect of the City,' etc. Rusticus, therefore, was prefect of the City. But in what year of the nine noted above (in which, namely, the deified brothers reigned together)? Not the first; because then he held the ordinary consulship with Vettius Aquilinus: nor yet many years after; since Eusebius himself, in his chronicle, ascribes the martyrdom of SS. Polycarp and Pionius, related in chapter 15" (supply: of the Ecclesiastical History), "to the VIIth year of the aforesaid emperors, which was the year of Christ CLXVII: while the chronicle ascribes the second Apology offered by Justin to the VIth year of those emperors, or rather the Vth: for the first of those years is wrongly doubled in the said chronicle together with the consulship, which however they held jointly only once: and this year V agrees with the XIIIth indiction and the consulship of Pudens and Orphitus, wrongly combined with the year VI: and all together mark the year of Christ CLXV."

[62] Here, however, Papebroch evidently slips: for none of these things is read about Justin in the chronicle of Eusebius; but, as to substance at least, they are found in his ecclesiastical history, book 4, [but what he says is found in the Chronicle of Eusebius is to be sought in his history.] chapter 16, in Valesius, yet without express indication of chronology, as is known to anyone who is not altogether a stranger in the history of Eusebius. The chronological notes, therefore, which Papebroch here renders were not affixed by Eusebius, but by another, through comparison and coordination of the facts with one another. Perhaps too Papebroch read those notes in the copy of the ecclesiastical history which he had in hand, not indeed for the present use, since he speaks of the chronicle; which he certainly did not consult in this question any more than the history. Therefore he either recited these things from memory, or copied them from another who went astray before him.

[63] These things being noted, let us follow up the rest which Papebroch hands down in the same place. "And since the same chronicle" (read: ecclesiastical history) "says that Justin, οὐ μετ᾽ οὐ πολύ, 'not after much time'" (these words are not read in Eusebius, In what year Papebroch relates that Justin suffered. though what is indicated by them is; another argument, accordingly, that Papebroch wrote here from memory), "was adorned with the divine laurel of martyrdom, it will not be unfittingly said that this was done in one of the years immediately following, say CLXVII, or CLXVIII, or even CLXVI... Nor let it seem strange to anyone that he who is said to have been Consul at the beginning of the aforesaid reign afterwards held the Prefecture of the City. For how familiar it was in that age for Prefects of the City to become Consuls, and for those who had discharged an annual or three-month Consulship to become again Prefects of the City, the series of both, laid out from the year CCLIV in Bucher, p. 236, will teach, where up to the reign of Diocletian

nothing is more frequent." Thus far Papebroch, by which he sufficiently indicates that he changed in most respects the opinion which he had defended elsewhere about Justin.

THE MARTYRDOM OF SS. PTOLEMAEUS, LUCIUS AND ANOTHER, ANONYMOUS.

From the Apology of St. Justin Martyr, in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XVII. Edition of Valesius.

Ptolemaeus, martyr at Rome. (S.)

Lucius, martyr at Rome. (S.)

A companion, martyr at Rome. (S.)

FROM THE APOLOGY OF ST. JUSTIN.

Chastity among the Christians. A certain woman had an intemperate husband. She herself also had formerly behaved very wantonly: but after she had received the saving doctrine of Christ, she at once became more modest, and strove also to persuade her husband to live more chastely, suggesting to him the Christian precepts, and the punishment of eternal fire prepared for those who had lived obscenely and without right reason. But he, persevering always in the same wantonness, did things which wholly estranged his wife's mind from him. For the woman, judging it wicked to be joined in the fellowship of the bed with a man who, against the laws of nature and beyond what is right, sought out ways of lust from every quarter, determined to depart from him. But when the woman's relatives counselled her to remain still in the marriage, and gave her hope that her husband would at length return to better ways, the woman, obeying their counsels and doing violence to herself, remained with her husband. But after her husband, having set out for Alexandria ^a, was reported to be defiling himself with still graver crimes, she, fearing lest she should be a partaker of his wickedness and impiety if she remained in marriage with him and continued the sharer of his board and bed, sent him a bill of divorce and departed ^b.

[2] The Christian woman denounced But that good husband, who ought to have rejoiced that his wife did none of those things which she had formerly been accustomed licentiously to commit with servants and hirelings, poured out upon wine and every kind of vice, but even strove to lead her husband away from crimes of this kind, accused the woman, who had left him for this reason, that he himself would not obey her when she counselled rightly, and denounced her as a Christian. And she, having offered a petition to you ^c, most sacred Emperor, requested that she might first be given leave to look after and administer her household affairs; and then, her domestic affairs being rightly settled, promised that she would answer the accusation. And this you granted to the woman.

[3] St. Ptolemaeus is set before the judge. But the husband, who at that time could say nothing against her ^d, turned his attack upon a certain Ptolemaeus, who had instructed the woman in the precepts of the Christian religion, in this way. He persuaded a certain centurion, a friend of his, to arrest Ptolemaeus and, casting him into chains, to ask him this one thing, whether he was a Christian. And when Ptolemaeus, as being a great lover of truth and averse from all fraud and falsehood, had confessed himself a Christian, the centurion committed him to custody and afflicted him long in prison. Ptolemaeus, brought ^e at length before Urbicius the judge, was likewise asked this one thing, whether he was a Christian. And he, who understood that through the doctrine of Christ he had obtained all good things, again confessed that school of heavenly and divine virtue. For he who denies that he is a Christian denies it either because he disapproves of that religion, or certainly because he knows himself unworthy of and alien from its rule of life. Neither of which can befall one who is truly a Christian.

[4] To him, when condemned, St. Lucius and another, a third, join themselves. But when Urbicius had ordered Ptolemaeus to be led to punishment, a certain Lucius, who himself also was a Christian, hearing so unjust a sentence, addressed Urbicius thus: "What is the reason," he said, "that you have condemned a man convicted neither of adultery, nor of debauchery, nor a murderer, nor a thief, nor a robber, nor guilty, in a word, of any crime, but only confessing the name of Christian? This form of judgment does not befit the times of the Emperor Pius, nor of the Philosopher, son of Caesar, nor the Roman Senate." ^f Then Urbicius, deigning the man no other answer, addressed him thus: "You too," he said, "seem to me to be a Christian." And when Lucius had answered that so it was, he too was ordered to be led to punishment. And at once he professed that he owed great thanks to Urbicius, inasmuch as, freed, as he said, from such evil masters, he was about to pass to the best Father and King. And a certain third ^g, when he had come forward, was condemned to the same punishment.

ANNOTATIONS.