« EelmineJätka »
again, who are not of the pure and holy opinion of Christians, do not acknowledge this, I have also signified unto you; for I have declared unto you, that some called Christians, but being indeed atheists and impious heretics, do generally teach blasphemous, and atheistical, and foolish things. But that you might know that I speak not this to you only, I will make a book, as near as I can, of these our disputations, where I will profess in writing that which I say before you; for I resolve to follow not men, and the doctrines of men, but God, and the doctrine of God. For although you chance to meet with some that are called Christians, which do not confess this, but dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; which also say there is no resurrection of the dead, but that as soon as they die, their souls are received into heaven; do not you yet think them Christians: as neither, if a man consider rightly, will he account the Sadducees, and other sectaries and heretics, as the Genista, and the Merista, and Galileans, and pharisees, and Hellenians, and baptists, and other such, to be Jews; but only that they are called Jews, and the children of Abraham, and such as with their lips confess God (as God himself cries out) but have their hearts far from him. But I, and all Christians, that in all things believe aright, both know that there shall be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in Jerusalem restored, and adorned, and enlarged; according as the prophets Ezekiel and Essay, and others do testify: for thus saith Isaiah of the time of this thousand years: "For there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth, and they shall not remember the for
mer," &c. And after: "A certain man amongst us, whose name was John, one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was exhibited unto him, hath foretold-that they which believe our Christ, shall live in Jerusalem a thousand years, and that after the universal and everlasting resurrection and judgment shall be."
I have presumed in the beginning of Justin Martyr's answer to substitute (not) instead of (also) because I am confident, that either by chance, or the fraud of some ill-willers to the millenaries' opinion, the place has been corrupted, and où turned into kai, not into also. For, if we retain the usual reading-But that many, who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians, do not acknowledge this, I have also signified unto you→→ then we must conclude, that Justin Martyr himself did believe the opinion of them, which denied the thousand years to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians: and, if so, why did he not himself believe it? Nay, how could he but believe it to be true, professing it (as he does, if the place be right) to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians? For how a false doctrine can be the pure and holy opinion of Christians, what Christian can conceive? Or, if it may be so, how can the contrary avoid being untrue, unholy, and not the opinion of Christians?
Again, if we read the place thus-That many, who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians, do not acknowledge this, I have also signified-certainly there will be neither sense nor reason, neither coherence nor consequence in the words following-For I have told you of many called Christians, but being indeed atheists and
heretics, that they altogether teach blasphemous, and impious, and foolish things. For how is this a confirmation or reason of, or any way pertinent unto, what went before, if there he speak of none but such as were puræ piæque Christianorum sententiæ, of the pure and holy opinion of Christians? And therefore, to disguise this in consequence, the translator has thought fit to make use of a false translation, and instead of—for I have told you, to make it—besides I have told you of many, &c. Again, if Justin Martyr, had thought this the pure and holy opinion of Christians, or them good and holy Christians that held it; why does he rank them with them that denied the resurrection? Why does he say afterward, Although you chance to meet with some that are called Christians, which do not confess this, do not ye think them Christians? Lastly, What sense is there in saying, as he does, I, and all Christians, that are of a right belief in all things, believe the doctrine of the thousand years; and that the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament teach it; and yet say— That many, of the pure and holy opinions of Christians, do not believe it? Upon these reasons suppose, it is evident, that the place has been corrupted, and it is to be corrected, according as I have corrected it, by substituting où in the place of kai, of not instead of also. Neither need any man think it strange, that this misfortune of the change of a syllable should befal this place, who considers, that in this place Justin Martyr tells us that he had said the same things before, whereas nothing to this purpose appears now in him. And that in Victorinus's comment on the Revelations, wherein (by St. Jerome's acknowledgment)
this doctrine was strongly maintained, there now appears nothing at all for it, but rather against it. And now from the place thus restored, these observations offer themselves unto us.
1. That Justin Martyr speaks not as a doctor, but as a witness of the doctrine of the church of his time. I (saith he) and all Christians, that are of a right belief in all things, hold this. And therefore, from hence, according to Cardinal Perron's rule, we are to conclude, not probably, but demonstratively, that this was the doctrine of the church of that time.
2. That they held it as a necessary matter, so far as to hold them no Christians that held the contrary. Though you chance to meet with some called Christians, that do not confess this, but dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Ja+ cob, &c. yet do not ye think them Christians. Now if Bellarmine's rule be true, that councils then determine any thing as matters of faith, when they pronounce them heretics that hold the contrary sure then Justin Martyr held this doctrine as a matter of faith, seeing he pronounceth them no Christians that contradict it.
3. That the doctrine is grounded upon the Scripture of the Old and New Testament, and the Revelation of St. John, and that by a doctor and martyr of the church, and such a one as was converted to Christianity within thirty years after the death of St. John, when in all probability there were many alive, that had heard him expound his own words, and teach this doctrine. And if probabilities will not be admitted, this is certain out of the most authentical records of the church, that Papias, the disciple of the apostle's disciples,
taught it the church, professing that he had received it from them that learned it from the apostles and if, after all this, the church of those times might err in a doctrine so clearly derived, and authentically delivered, how, without extreme impudence, can any church in after-times pretend to infallibility?
The millenaries' doctrine was overborne, by imputing to them that which they held not; by abrogating the authority of St. John's Revelation, as some did; or by derogating from it, as others; as, cribing it not to St. John, the apostle, but to some other John, they knew not who: which-Dionysius, the first known adversary of this doctrine, and his followers; against the tradition of Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and all the fathers their antecessors; by calling it a Judaical opinion, and yet allowing it as probable, by corrupting the authors for it; as Justin, Victorinus, Severus.
VI.-A Letter relating to the same subject.
I PRAY remember, that if a consent of fathers either constitute or declare a truth to be necessary, or shew the opinion of the church of their time; then that opinion of the Jesuits, concerning predestination upon prescience (which had no opposer before St. Augustine) must be so, and the contrary of the Dominicans heretical; and the present church differs from the ancient, in not esteeming of it as they did.
Secondly, I pray remember, that if the fathers