II. Св. Иустин мученик

Creations of St. Justin provides far from numerous data for the history of the dogmatic teaching on the sacraments. He speaks in some detail about only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist; about others, he either does not mention it at all (about anointing, priesthood and consecration of oil), or speaks so generally (about repentance and marriage) that it does not make it possible to draw any conclusion from his words. With all that, his works, in the history of the development of both the entire dogmatic teaching in general, and in particular the teaching about the sacraments, are of great importance. Justin the philosopher is rightly considered the first of the church fathers who began to scientifically reveal the truths of faith, and therefore, in the sense of the first scientific theologian, he can be called the father of theological science, just as Origen is the father and creator of the first dogmatic system, who applied the introduced St. Justin applied the method to the entire body of church dogmatic teaching. In this case, regarding the doctrine of the sacraments, St. Justin is the first to draw a parallel between the Christian sacraments and the pagan mysteries. I. About baptism. The most important passage relating to baptism must undoubtedly be recognized as that place in the first apology, where, in contrast, without a doubt, to the pagan mysteries, which introduced the pagans to the possession of the highest pagan religious perfection, St. the father points to two Christian sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist, which introduce those who believe in Christ into the community of Christians, into the possession of everything that Christianity gives. In accordance with this goal, limiting his story about what is happening in Christian assemblies to a story about the manner of performing baptism and the Eucharist, St. Justin says the following about the first. Those who believe in Christ, after prayers for the remission of previous sins and fasting, “we bring to where there is water and they are reborn through the same method of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn; for they then wash themselves in water in the name of the Father of all and the Lord God and our Savior I. Christ and the Holy Spirit.” Why God chose water for rebirth is explained as follows: “since we, not knowing our first birth, were necessarily born from a moist seed (ἐξ ὑγρᾶς σπορᾶς) through the mutual copulation of parents and grew up in bad morals and in an evil way of life, so that we should not remain children of necessity, also of ignorance, but of freedom and knowledge, and so that in the water they may receive remission of previously committed sins - the name of the Father of all and the Lord God is named over those who wish to be reborn and repent of their sins. This very thing is only said by those leading to the font of this one who has to wash himself; for no one can say the name of the ineffable God... This washing is called enlightenment (τοῦτο λουτρὸν φωτισμὸς), since those who know it are enlightened by the mind. And in the name of I. Christ... the enlightened one is washed (ὀ φωτιζόμενος)” 157 . Then St. Justin again turns to water and notes that washing with water, borrowed by demons from Old Testament prophecies, was widely used in pagan cults - either in the form of sprinklings, or in the form of complete ablutions, when entering temples and when making libations and incense 158. In all this reasoning, St. Justina, in addition to the comparison of baptism with pagan rites and an image of expression akin to ancient classical mystical language, draws attention to the rapprochement between birth from a wet seed and rebirth in water. The comparison of birth and washing leads to the following conclusion: if water in rebirth is the same as a seed in birth, and the seed has vital force within itself, then, apparently, according to the thought of St. Justina, and water, must contain and therefore communicate to the baptized the spirit of life or the grace of the life-giving Spirit inherent in it. If we understand this place this way, then it contains an indirect indication of the close connection of water and the grace of St. Spirit 159. As for the distinction between baptism, understood in a broad sense, into two separate and independent acts, that is, baptism in the narrow sense and confirmation, we do not find in the works of St. Justin has a clear indication of this 160. II. About the Eucharist. The teaching of St. Justin is very remarkable about this sacrament. Of the many places related here, the most important is that place in the apology, which is a continuation of the above passage about baptism. Having described the celebration of the liturgy following baptism, St. Justin continues: “We call this food the Eucharist, and no one else is allowed to participate in it except (only) the one who believes that what he has been taught by us is true, who has been washed for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and who lives as Christ betrayed. For we accept this not as ordinary bread and ordinary drink, but as Jesus Christ, our Savior, incarnate through the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, in the same way we are taught that this food - over which thanksgiving is made through the word of prayer from Him (given), the food from which our blood and flesh is nourished through transfiguration - is the blood and flesh of the same incarnate Jesus 161. For the Apostles, in the stories they wrote, which are called the Gospels, so betrayed what Jesus commanded them, that He, taking the bread and giving thanks, said: Do this in remembrance of Me, this is My body, and that - in the same way - taking the cup and giving thanks, He said: This is My blood and gave it to them alone. Evil demons, imitating, betrayed to do the same in the mysteries of Mithras; for you know or can find out that when the initiate is introduced into the mysteries, along with some additional words, bread and water are required” 162. The purpose of this whole comparison, undoubtedly, is to show the pagans that the Eucharist, neither in its essence nor from the formal side, represents anything contrary to morality and inconsistent with state laws. The apologist shows that the slander spread by the enemies of Christians is unfair, that they eat human flesh, 163 that Christians do not drink or eat human flesh; they don't kill people; They give bread instead of flesh, and a cup of wine instead of blood. True, they do not consider both to be ordinary food and drink, but the body and blood of Christ: but this is a completely different matter. This food - at the beginning simple - is not made simple, but the body and blood of Christ only after the word of prayer, and when after this Christians eat it, they eat something that has already been changed and therefore turns into our juices, just like ordinary flesh and blood. In the words of Justin, the expression “the word of prayer from Him” is especially noteworthy. This prayer produces the fact that the Eucharistic food becomes not simple food, but the true flesh and blood of Christ. The Word of His prayer does the same thing as the Word during the incarnation. The Word was not made flesh by the power of St. Spirit, but with his own 164; with the help of its omnipotent power It became incarnate, took on flesh and blood and appeared as Christ, having flesh and blood. In the same way, through the almighty action of the word of prayer, food becomes body through the blood of the incarnate Jesus. There is the omnipotence of the Word of God: here is the omnipotence of the word of prayer, which is from Him 165. So St. Justin showed that Christians are unfairly accused of killing people, of eating human flesh and drinking blood, and at the same time that they eat the true body and blood of the Lord. It’s hard to do better than St. father, - to achieve two goals that are quite different to the point of opposition: to prove that in the Eucharist Christians do not eat the body and do not drink the blood of ordinary people like themselves and do not kill them for this purpose, and at the same time that they eat the true body and drink the true blood of the incarnate Christ. Having proved the absence of anything criminal in the very essence of the Eucharist, namely murder and manifestations of fanaticism, and at the same time not at all denying the belief of Christians in the real presence, in the images of bread and wine, of the true body and blood of Christ, St. Justin turns to the formal side, namely to the permissibility of the Eucharist, as one of the acts of accepting those wishing to become Christians into Christian society. And from this side the Eucharist, according to St. apologist, does not represent anything out of the ordinary for the society of that time. On the contrary, being the conclusion of baptism, it has complete, of course external, similarity with the final act of the mysteries (τελεταῖς) of Mithra; and here and here the bread and the cup 166. Thus, there is no doubt that St. Justin, wishing in the passage under discussion to justify Christians in the murders attributed to them and for this purpose, recognizing the need to introduce pagans into the inner meaning of the Christian sacrament, explains how, in the absence of the crime of infanticide among Christians, they can partake of the true flesh and true blood of Christ. He does not deny that this is not simple bread and wine; he only states that obtaining such body and blood does not occur through the killing of infants; it occurs in the same way as the flesh of Christ appeared in the incarnation; there the Word descended on St. The virgin conceived a body in her womb: here the word of prayer produces something similar. If with all his reasoning St. the father only wanted to say that it is in vain to accuse Christians of infanticide, that although they partake of the body and blood of Christ, this body and this blood are nothing more than symbols of the incarnate Christ - in this case, the apologist would have no reason to give himself the extra and, moreover, not easy work of explaining to the pagans the way by which the Eucharistic elements become the true body and blood of the Lord. A direct statement about Christians’ understanding of the Eucharist as a symbol only of the body and blood of Christ, saving the apologist from unnecessary work, would also lead him the closest way to his main goal, to the defense of Christianity, and would make even more obvious and unfounded the accusations leveled against Christians of murder and of eating human flesh and drinking human blood. But he did not do this - although all the circumstances of that time disposed him to do so - and through this he gave indisputable evidence of his own and the general church belief in the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. In numerous other places related to the Eucharist, St. Justin speaks of it as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for all the good deeds of God to the human race, 167 as a sacrifice offered in remembrance primarily of the Incarnation 168 and the suffering of the Savior, 169 as a perfect sacrifice, replacing the Old Testament sacrifices and therefore having the character of a propitiatory sacrifice. The Eucharist is called a perfect sacrifice, replacing the Old Testament ones, in the following place. Convincing Tryphon that God “is pleased with all the sacrifices in His name that Christ commanded to perform, that is, which are performed by Christians in the Eucharist of bread and cup in every place on earth; and the sacrifices made (by the Jews) ... He rejects”, St. Justin then responds to Tryphon’s objection that the words of St. Malachi (1:10–12), quoted by St. father, as proof of the rejection of Jewish sacrifices and the acceptance of pure sacrifices of other peoples, refer not to Christians, but to Jews only living in dispersion, “whose prayers God calls sacrifices” 170. St. the father agrees that “prayers and thanksgivings performed by worthy (people) are the only sacrifices that are perfect and pleasing to God. For only such, he continues, have Christians accepted to perform, and (moreover) in remembrance of dry and liquid food, in which they also remember the suffering suffered for them by the Son of God" 171 . He further denounces Tryphon for the fact that this Jew falsely interprets the words of the prophet, applying them to persons from his people who were in dispersion, and claiming that God calls “pure and pleasant their prayers for sacrifices in every place.” What about the concept of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, St. Justin combined the idea of ​​​​sacrifice, which in itself has value in the eyes of God, regardless of the subjective attitude of believers towards it; this does not follow quite clearly from the above passage, as well as from other similar places, but it necessarily follows from his teaching stated above about this sacrament, not as simple bread and wine, but as the true body and blood of Christ. Thus, at St. Justin's thought about the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is expressed through the contrast of the Eucharistic elements with ordinary bread and wine, especially through an indication of the very close similarity, almost identity, of what happened in the Incarnation with what happens in the Eucharist. This sacred act is attributed the character of a sacrifice pleasing to God, propitiating Him. III. About other sacraments. We have already noticed that regarding other sacraments, the creations in question do not provide clear data. The reason why St. Justin speaks in his works about performing only baptism and the Eucharist was probably not so much a deliberate desire to hide the remaining most important sacred rites from the gaze of pagans and unbelieving Jews, but rather the absence of immediate and urgent reasons to talk about these latter. There was no urgent need to communicate to the pagans the concepts of repentance, priesthood, marriage and the consecration of oil, since these sacred rites were not the subject of attack by the pagans and did not represent a close parallel with pagan institutions. It was unnecessary to talk about these sacraments to Tryphon, since this Jew doubted the divine dignity of the Person of I. Christ, and therefore he had to first be persuaded to believe in Christ. Moreover, institutions akin to repentance, priesthood, marriage and the consecration of oil were partly in liturgical practice, partly in the folk custom of the Jews (for example. anointing the sick with oil) and therefore the acceptance of these sacraments, with faith in Christ, could not in any way complicate Tryphon’s transition to Christianity. Of these four sacraments, about two: about repentance 172 and marriage 173, however, remarks are made in places by St. Justina; but these remarks are too general. IV. The scope of the concept of “sacrament” in St. Justina. It is remarkable that despite the comparison of baptism and the Eucharist with pagan mysteries, St. the father nowhere applies the word μυστήριον to any of the Christian sacraments. This word appears in him very often, but 1) either in the general meaning of something hidden, or 2) more specifically in the meaning of the symbolic, transformative, and therefore mysterious revelation of God in the Old Testament and 3) in the meaning of something incomprehensible in the works of the New Testament economy of God about the salvation of man. We find a lot of cases of the use of μυστήριον in the general meaning of everything that is covered or a veil imposed on the manifestation of the thought or revelation of God in the works of St. Justina. So, according to his words, in the book. Exodus Moses secretly (ἐν μυστηρίῳ) announced that the name of God himself was Jesus 174. The Magi, who came to worship Christ, thereby showed that they rebelled against the power of the evil one, the power “which the word hidden (ἐν μυστηρίῳ) designated as dwelling in Damascus. It is also good that this power, sinful and unrighteous, is called Samaria” 175. St. loved him even more. Justin uses the said word as a synonym for τύπος and σύμβολον. Between other places 176 the following ones stand out especially. Discussing the prophecy of Isaiah (behold the Virgin shall receive with child), he notes that “since the prophecy itself was spoken to the house of David, what God said to David is mysterious (ἐν μυστηρίῳ = hidden). Isaiah explains how it must be fulfilled. Don't you know... that many sayings spoken in secret and in parables or sacraments (μυστηρίοις) or in symbolic actions were explained by prophets who were after (already) those who spoke or did 177. Here μυστήριον is found as a synonym for παραβολὴ, σύμβολον, with a connotation, however, as it seems to us, τύπος 178. Μυστήριον, both in the sense of a prototype and a simple symbol, is found in the following remarkable place. “The symbol of two goats symbolically (διὰ συμβόλου... συμβολικῶς) predicted the two comings of I. Christ. Symbolically (συμβολικῶς) Moses and I. foreshadowed Christ by their actions. Naveen"; they both did their own thing, one stood with outstretched arms, and the other fought, “because one of them could not imagine both sacraments (ἀμφότερα τὰ μυστήρια); I mean the prototype of the cross and the prototype of the name (τύπον... τύπον)” 179. Places in which the word μυστήριον is used in the works of St. There is a lot of Justin in the sense of either a prototype or a symbol 180. St. Justin was the first to set an example of such an extensive use of the said word in this sense - a use very beloved by subsequent fathers. And from such a use there is only one step to the use of μυστήριον in the sense of the entire Old Testament faith. When looking at the Old Testament as a preparation for Christ, it really is a collection of parables, types and symbols or - which is also - sacraments, and therefore the content of the Old Testament teaching can be designated by the word μυστήρια, which is exactly what St. Justin is in the next place. Convincing Tryphon and the Jews who were with him that they are waiting in vain for the benefits promised by God through Christ, he notes that none of the Jews will receive anything, since these benefits are the property of those who “have become like the faith of Abraham and have known its mysteries (τὰ μυστήρια πάντα); I mean that some commandments are given for piety and right life, and other commandments and actions are prescribed for a similar purpose (όμοίως) or in the type of Christ (ῆ ἐις μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ) due to hardness of heart yours" 181. To call upon all the sacraments means thus to understand the whole meaning of the Old Testament - to understand what in it has an ordinary and what has a transformative, higher meaning. This passage contains in germ the usage of words that we find in the school of the Alexandrian fathers and in Tertullian and Cyprian (sacramenta = μυστήρια in application to the entire Old Testament). To designate individual objects of Christian doctrine, the word μυστήριον is used by St. Justin in the following senses: 1) To designate the trinity of Persons in God. In his First Apology, he remarks about the pagans: “they declare us insane, saying that we give second place after the unchangeable and ever-existent God to crucified man, but do not know the mystery contained in this (τὸ ἐν τούτῳ μυστήριον)” 182; 2) to denote embodiment 183; 3) suffering 184; 4) the future coming of I. Christ 185 and other items. So, the works of St. Justin the Martyr is represented in relation to the disclosure and formulation of the dogmatic teaching on the sacraments as follows: 1) Justin the Martyr. the first takes the path of bringing the Christian sacraments closer to the pagan mysteries and, among other things, treats baptism and the Eucharist as two parts of one act of accepting those who believe in Christ into the Church of Christ. 2) Draws a parallel between the Eucharist and the Incarnation; he reveals the doctrine of the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist in a new way, thanks to which the church’s faith in this great sacrament is expressed more clearly in him than in the works of the apostolic men. 3) The doctrine of other sacraments does not clarify, probably due to a lack of incentives to reveal it. 4) He is the first to begin to use the word μυστήριον on an extensive scale, exclusively, however, in the direction given by St. Scripture regarding the use of this expression, so that it does not yet apply this name to the sacraments in the proper sense (even to baptism and the Eucharist). 1 Apol. c. 62–64. Moreover, the demons, having learned from the legends of Moses that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters and that God thought to create the world with His Word, “prompted to place an idol of the so-called Kore at the sources of water, calling her the daughter of Zeus,” and in a similar way they invented Athena, the second daughter of Zeus, who was “called the first thought” (p. 64). We do not cite numerous other passages relating to baptism, since they do not bring anything special to the disclosure of the dogmatic teaching on baptism. See Dial. cum Triph. (σωτήριον λουτρὸν c. 18, τὀ ὕὸωρ τῆς ζωῆς c. 14. 19, etc.). We find some, but very unclear, hint of a special act different from baptism. place Dial. cum Triph. Explaining the descent of St. Spirit on the Savior in that it was needed not for I. Christ himself, but in order to show that the gifts of St. The Spirit departed from the Jews and rested on Him, and so that He could share them with the believers (p. 87), notes: “and you can see among us women and men who have gifts from the Holy Spirit. (p. 88).” However, St. Justin could mean here extraordinary gifts, for example. gift of tongues; in any case, he does not indicate how and when these persons received the gifts of St. Spirit. The reference to the example of the Savior thus remains the only, but, understandably, not a clear reference to the special liturgical act of bringing forth the grace of St. that took place after baptism. Spirit upon believers. Οὐ γἀρ ώς κοινὸν ἄρτὸν οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβἀνομεν̀ ἀλλ̀ ὅν τρόπον διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὀς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καἰ σἁρκα καἰ αῖ̓μα ὑπὲρ σωτηρἰας ήμῶν ἔσχεν, ὀύτως καἰ τἠν δ ι ̔ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παῤ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφἠν, ἐξ ῆ̔ς αῖ̔μα καἰ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρἑφονται ἡμῶν ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθἑντος Ἰησοῦ καἰ σάρκα καἰ αῖ̔μα ἐδιδἀχθημεν εῖ̔ναι. 1 Apol. c. 66. Ὅπερ καἰ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις... Ὅτι γὰρ ἄρτος καἰ ? επἰλόγων τινῶν... For these slander see Dial. c. Triph. c. 10. 1 Apol. c. 26. 2 Apol. c. 12. This is how we understand the words: διἀ Λὀγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεἰς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὀς. By “Word of God” we do not mean the will of God the Father, but the hypostatic Word of God, the Son of God. The following, extremely clear and decisive passage, which indicates how St. Justin represents the incarnation. Explaining the gospel of the Archangel to the Blessed Virgin, St. father writes: νοῆσαι θέμις, ἤ τὸν Λόγον, δς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ Θεῷ ἐστι... Καὶ τοῦτο, ἐλθὸν ἐπὶ τὴν Παρθένον καὶ ἐπισκιάσαν, οὐ διἀ συνουσἰας, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως, ἐγκύμονα κατἐστησε (1 Apol. c.33). So, according to the literal meaning of this place, “under the Spirit and power” that overshadowed St. The Virgin about the conception of the Savior, “one must understand nothing other than the Word, which is the first-born with God.” One more place should be compared with the passages discussed (p. 66), as well as with the passages just given (p. 33) (ibid. p. 46). In this latter, having said that “Christ is the firstborn (Son) of God”, that “He is the Word in whom the whole human race is involved,” therefore identifying Christ with the Word, St. Justin notes about this very Person that “a wise man can understand from what has been said why πἀντων καὶ Δεσπότου Θεοῦ βουλὴν, διἀ Παρθένου ἀνθρώποις ἀπεκυήθη...". So Christ - the firstborn Word - was born from the Virgin, according to the will of God the Father, by the power of the Word, that is, by his own, Himself, as the Spirit, overshadowing the Holy One. Virgo. From all the places cited, it thus appears that St. Justin eliminated the participation of the third Person of St. Trinity in the incarnation of the second Person; he considered the words “Spirit and power” to be other only expressions used in Scripture to designate the Son of God or the Word, which Himself overshadowed the Holy One at its conception. Virgo. Western theologians, as far as we at least know, do not pay attention to such a clearly and directly expressed representation of St. Justin on the Incarnation; Meanwhile, it is of very great importance in relation to the understanding of not only St. himself. Justin, but also other fathers. It gives the key to solving the question of why the Word is often called the Spirit by other fathers: St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. I. V p. 1 n. 2, 3), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. I. III p. 16. Apolog. p. 21), Clement Alex. (Paed. 1. I p. 6, etc.). And the solution to this question, in turn, leads to the clarification in the patristic works of some important, but very obscure places related to the Eucharist (especially in Clement Alex.), which are usually left without explanation in the Western literature existing on our subject. Under “δἰ εὐχῆς λόγου” St. Justin, one might think, understood the entire Eucharistic prayer, and not only the words of the establishment of the sacrament, both because they cannot be called prayer, and even more so because, in a parallel place (1 Apol. p. 13), he makes it clear that he means a more or less lengthy prayer related to the consecration of gifts: λόγῳ εὐχῆς καὶ εὐχαριστίας... ὅση δύναμις αἰνοῦντες. As for adding to the “word of prayer” the expression τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, St. With this addition, Justin, in all likelihood, wanted to show that the offering of the Eucharist is performed in the manner commanded by Christ and the method handed down by the Apostles, who received the commandment about this from the Lord himself; or maybe he wanted to point out that the word of the Eucharistic prayer borrows its power from the same Word that once overshadowed St. Virgin and that is why the Eucharistic elements, due to the overshadowing of this Word, cease to be simple bread and simple wine. It is wonderful that St. Justin, having made a description of the Eucharist (1 Apol. p. 66), then repeats this description again (ibid. p. 66). Through a secondary description of the Eucharist, he wanted to show how this same sacred act, which arouses such rumors among the pagans that are unfavorable for Christians, is performed in ordinary times, when there are no re-enterers into Christian society. See 1 Apol. c.13. 65. 67 and the passage below from Dial. c. Triph. c. 41. Dial. c. Triph. c. 70. Explaining the prophecy of Isaiah (33:13–19), St. Justin notes: “It is obvious that this prophecy speaks of the bread that our Christ gave us to create εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ τε σωματοποιήσασθαι αὐτὀν, for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He suffered and - about the cup - which He gave to those celebrating the Eucharist εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. In addition to the above place and others, see also Dial. With. Triph. With. 41. This bread “was given over to be made by our Lord I. Christ in remembrance of the suffering that He endured for people, cleansing souls from all evil, and at the same time so that we would thank God both for the fact that He created the world with everything that (exists) in it for man, and for the fact that He freed us from the sin in which we find ourselves.” καὶ τὰς εὐχὰς αὐτῶν θυσίας καλεῖν. Dial. With. Triph. Ὅτι... καὶ εὺχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριστίαι ύπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γενομέναι, τέλειαι μόναι καὶ εὐαρεστοί εἰσι τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός φημι. Ταῦτα γὰρ μόνα καὶ χριστιανοὶ παρέλαβον ποιεῖν καὶ ἐπ ̔ ἀναμνήσει δὲ τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν ξηρᾶς καὶ ύ γρᾶς, ἐν ᾖ καὶ το πάθους, ὅ πέπονθε δἰ αὐτοὺς ό Ύιὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ μέμνηται. According to St. Justin, repentance is able to atone for even such a guilt as apostasy from Christ (Dial. p. Triph. p. 47). Repentance is absolutely necessary for everyone; if David’s sin was forgiven no earlier than after his repentance and contrition, then how can the unclean and completely lost, if they neither grieve, nor exhaust themselves, nor repent, have hope that the Lord will not impute sin to them (ibid. p. 141). But in these places nothing is said either about the participation of the hierarchy in the act of repentance, much less about the sacramental meaning of priestly absolution. Trying to prove to the pagans that Christians are not at all prone to debauchery, St. Justin points out the respect with which virginity is enjoyed by them, and also says the following: “Our Teacher considers those who commit second marriages to be sinners according to the law of man” (1 Apol. p. 15). Elsewhere he notes: “with us unbridled copulation is not a sacrament” (ibid. p. 29). What does St. mean? Justin under a second marriage (whether cohabitation with two wives, as Maran thinks, or a second marriage after divorce, allowed by Roman laws, as Otto and others believe, see Min's note to this place), is not important for us; What is more important for us is the opposition of human law to God’s law; but St. Unfortunately, the father does not clarify what he means by the law of God. The idea that copulation is not a sacrament cannot serve as proof that he considered marriage an unimportant matter, since with the expression ἀνέδην μἰξις he showed quite clearly what was at stake. Dial. With. Triph. With. 65. That ἐν μυστηρίῳ is used here in this particular sense is clear from the further reasoning of St. Justin (see p. 76), where this word is replaced by the word παρακεκαλυμμένως, as an expression equivalent to the first. Ibid. With. 78. The following connection of μυστήριον with παραβολῇ is also remarkable (p. 97): David in Psalm. 21 spoke in a mysterious parable (ἐν παραβολῇ μυστηριώδῃ) about suffering on the cross. This kind of place can be found in Dial. With. Triph. “The sacrament of the Passover lamb (τὀ μυστήριον τοῦ προβάτου) was a prototype (τύπος) of Christ... this lamb, which was commanded to be baked, was a symbol (σύμβολον) of the suffering of the cross” (p. 40). The offering of wheat flour was also a type (τύπος) of the Eucharist; circumcision precisely on the 8th day was a prototype (τύπος) of true circumcision through Christ risen one from the Sabbaths, i.e. on day 8 (p. 41). That is why the eighth day contained something more mysterious (μυστήριόν τι εἴχε μάλλον) than the seventh day (p. 24). Dial. With. Triph. With. 68: ἀποκεκαλυμμένως, καὶ ἐν ταῖς παραβολαῖς, ἤ μυστηρίοις, ἢ ἐν συμβόλοις ἔργων. Μυστήριον, in the latter case, is used, one might think, instead of τύπος, which is not in this place, while all the other favorite terms of Justin are listed. Ibid. With. 111. The stone on which Moses stood was a symbol (σύμβολον) of Christ (p. 90). “In the flood there was a type (μυστήριον) of people being saved... Noah with other people... numbering eight was a symbol (σύμβολον) of the eighth day, and in power of the whole first, in which our Christ rose from the dead.” The tree on which Noah was saved was a type (μυστήριον) of the cross; further on, these prototypes are called symbols during the flood (τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ κατακλισμοῦ τῶν συμβόλων). Noah's blessing of the sons of Shem and Japheth and the curse of Ham and, in the person of the latter, his son Canaan was also a type (μυστήρίον p. 139). That Christ will be the winner is predicted in the type of the struggle (διὰ τοῦ μυστηριου πάλης p. 123). Through the copper serpent on the banner, God proclaimed the prototype (μυστήριον p. 94). None of the kings of the Jews “died through this sacrament (διὰ τούτου τοῦ μυστηρίου), that is, crucifixion, except this Jesus alone” (p. 97). To the Jews God “gave in advance all the types (πάντα μυστήρια) before their times” both in the snakes and in the type (διὰ τύπου) of the outstretched hands of Moses (p. 131). The sawing of Isaiah with a wooden saw “was a type (μυστήριον) of Christ having to divide your (Jewish) people into two” (p. 120). One cannot understand the serpent and so on otherwise than as symbols (σύμβολα); It was not out of forgetfulness of God that Moses commanded to make a copper serpent; “this was done and said by the great prophet μετὰ πολλοῦ νοῦ καί μυστηρίου (p. 112). The blessing of Joseph and Judas was foreshadowed about Christ (ἐν μυστηρίῳ p. 100). Daniel, with a stone torn off without hands, symbolically (ἐν μυστηρίῳ) designated the Son of God (p. 76); Christ in many places of Scripture is symbolically called a stone (σύμβολικῶς p. 86). The patriarchs had many wives not for the sake of fornication, but because through them some economy and all the prototypes were accomplished (μυστήρια πάντα p. 141; cf. οἰκονομίαι τινἐς μεγάλων τῶν μυστηρίων p. 134: ); so Jacob, who entered into cohabitation with two slaves, was a prototype of Christ (τύπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ p. 140; cf. p. 134). Dial. With. Triph. With. 33. Intending to reveal, on the basis of the Old Testament, the doctrine of the birth of the Savior, St. Justin anticipates his listeners that he will talk about the mystery of the birth of the Savior (περἰ νοῦ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ μυστηρίου), which persistently provokes reflection. Ibid. With. 106. Christ knew everything. He exhorted “all who fear God to praise God for having mercy on all who believe and (moreover) through the sacrament of this Crucified One τούτου)". Christians are called by God through the sacrament of the cross (διὰ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ ibid. p. 131). The psalms command that “the people of the whole earth who have known this saving sacrament (τὸ σωτηρίον τοῦτο μυστήριον), i.e. Christ’s suffering, they did not stop singing to God and the Father of all” (p.74). Christ purchased people with his blood and the sacrament of the cross (διὰ… μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ p. 134). See also p.91. I. Christ commanded us to love our enemies, which was announced through Isaiah in many words, where, among other things, the mystery of our rebirth (τὸ μυστήριον πάλιν τῆς γενέσεως) and of all those awaiting the appearance of Christ in Jerusalem (Ibid. p. 85). You might be interested in: