Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection
Translated by the Rev. M. Dods, M.A.
Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and
first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional
introductionary material and notes provided for the American
edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.
Chapter I. The self-evidencing power of truth.
The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall
under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its
hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the
confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God;
wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent
with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof
of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is
God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it
proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when
such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be.
But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so
that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated
why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those
things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself
there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason
hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether
the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer,
giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said
regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be
worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test,
giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is
the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to
us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us
in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this
is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the
faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow
Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him.
But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and
divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their
faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me
necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the
faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak.
Chapter II. Objections to the resurrection of the flesh.
They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the
flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted
and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the
impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous;
and they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only
is the cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our
infirmities also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following
they elaborate: If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and
possessed of all its parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a
want of power on God's part, if some parts could be saved, and others not;
but if all the parts are saved, then the body will manifestly have all its
members. But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the
resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor
are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?"  And the
angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual
intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh. By these
and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men from the faith. And
there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as
spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh:
these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, let us
solve those things which seem to them to be insoluble; then we will
introduce in an orderly manner the demonstration concerning the flesh,
proving that it partakes of salvation.
 Mark xii. 25.
Chapter III. If the members rise, must they discharge the same functions as now?
They say, then, if the body shall rise entire, and in possession of all its
members, it necessarily follows that the functions of the members shall also
be in existence; that the womb shall become pregnant, and the male also
discharge his function of generation, and the rest of the members in like
manner. Now let this argument stand or fall by this one assertion. For this
being proved false, their whole objection will be removed. Now it is indeed
evident that the members which discharge functions discharge those functions
which in the present life we see but it does not follow that they
necessarily discharge the same functions from the beginning. And that this
may be more clearly seen, let us consider it thus. The function of the womb
is to become pregnant; and of the member of the male to impregnate. But as,
though these members are destined to discharge such functions, it is not
therefore necessary that they from the beginning discharge them (since we
see many women who do not become pregnant, as those that are barren, even
though they have wombs), so pregnancy is not the immediate and necessary
consequence of having a womb; but those even who are not barren abstain from
sexual intercourse, some being virgins from the first, and others from a
certain time. And we see men also keeping themselves virgins, some from the
first, and some from a certain time; so that by their means, marriage, made
lawless through lust, is destroyed.  And we find that some even of the
lower animals, though possessed of wombs, do not bear, such as the mule; and
the male mules do not beget their kind. So that both in the case of men and
the irrational animals we can see sexual intercourse abolished; and this,
too, before the future world. And our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a
virgin, for no other reason than that He might destroy the begetting by
lawless desire, and might show to the ruler  that the formation of man
was possible to God without human intervention. And when He had been born,
and had submitted to the other conditions of the flesh, I mean food, drink,
and clothing, this one condition only of discharging the sexual function He
did not submit to; for, regarding the desires of the flesh, He accepted some
as necessary, while others, which were unnecessary, He did not submit to.
For if the flesh were deprived of food, drink, and clothing, it would be
destroyed; but being deprived of lawless desire, it suffers no harm. And at
the same time He foretold that, in the future world, sexual intercourse
should be done away with; as He says, "The children of this world marry, and
are given in marriage; but the children of the world to come neither marry
nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in heaven." 
Let not, then, those that are unbelieving marvel, if in the world to come He
do away with those acts of our fleshly members which even in this present
life are abolished.
 That is to say, their lives are a protest against entering into
marriage for any other purpose than that of begetting children.
 i.e., to the devil. [St. John xii. 31, John xiv. 30, John xvi. 11.]
 Luke xx. 34, 35.
Chapter IV. Must the deformed rise deformed?
Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls;
so that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if
defective in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient.
How truly blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not
seen on the earth blind men seeing again, and the lame walking by His word.
All things which the Saviour did, He did in the first place in order that
what was spoken concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, "that the
blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear,"  and so on; but also
to induce the belief that in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire.
For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body
whole, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh
shall rise perfect and entire. In this manner, then, shall those dreaded
difficulties of theirs be healed.
 Isa. xxxv. 5.
Chapter V. The resurrection of the flesh is not impossible.
But again, of those who maintain that the flesh has no resurrection, some
assert that it is impossible; others that, considering how vile and
despicable the flesh is, it is not fit that God should raise it; and others,
that it did not at the first receive the promise. First, then, in respect of
those who say that it is impossible for God to raise it, it seems to me that
I should show that they are ignorant, professing as they do in word that
they are believers, yet by their works proving themselves to be unbelieving,
even more unbelieving than the unbelievers. For, seeing that all the heathen
believe in their idols, and are persuaded that to them all things are
possible (as even their poet Homer says,  "The gods can do all things,
and that easily;" and he added the word "easily" that he might bring out the
greatness of the power of the gods), many do seem to be more unbelieving
than they. For if the heathen believe in their gods, which are idols ("which
have ears, and they hear not; they have eyes, and they see not"  ),
that they can do all things, though they be but devils, as saith the
Scripture, "The gods of the nations are devils,"  much more ought we,
who hold the right, excellent, and true faith, to believe in our God, since
also we have proofs [of His power], first in the creation of the first man,
for he was made from the earth by God; and this is sufficient evidence of
God's power; and then they who observe things can see how men are generated
one by another, and can marvel in a still greater degree that from a little
drop of moisture so grand a living creature is formed. And certainly if this
were only recorded in a promise, and not seen accomplished, this too would
be much more incredible than the other; but it is rendered more credible by
accomplishment.  But even in the case of the resurrection the Saviour
has shown us accomplishments, of which we will in a little speak. But now we
are demonstrating that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, asking
pardon of the children of the Church if we adduce arguments which seem to be
secular  and physical:  first, because to God nothing is
secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship; and secondly,
because we are conducting our argument so as to meet unbelievers. For if we
argued with believers, it were enough to say that we believe; but now we
must proceed by demonstrations. The foregoing proofs are indeed quite
sufficient to evince the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh; but
since these men are exceedingly unbelieving, we will further adduce a more
convincing argument still, an argument drawn not from faith, for they are
not within its scope, but from their own mother unbelief, I mean, of course,
from physical reasons. For if by such arguments we prove to them that the
resurrection of the flesh is possible, they are certainly worthy of great
contempt if they can be persuaded neither by the deliverances of faith nor
by the arguments of the world.
 Odyssey, ii. 304.
 Ps. cxv. 5.
 Ps. xcvi. 5.
 i.e., by actually happening under our observation.
 exōthen, "without" or "outside," to which reference is made in the
next clause, which may be translated, "because nothing is outside God," or,
"because to God nothing is "without "
 kosmikōn, arguments drawn from the laws by which the world is
Chapter VI. The resurrection consistent with the opinions of the philosophers.
Those, then, who are called natural philosophers, say, some of them, as
Plato, that the universe is matter and God; others, as Epicurus, that it is
atoms and the void;  others, like the Stoics, that it is these
four fire, water, air, earth. For it is sufficient to mention the most
prevalent opinions. And Plato says that all things are made from matter by
God, and according to His design; but Epicures and his followers say that
all things are made from the atom and the void by some kind of
self-regulating action of the natural movement of the bodies; and the
Stoics, that all are made of the four elements, God pervading them. But
while there is such discrepancy among them, there are some doctrines
acknowledged by them all in common, one of which is that neither can
anything be produced from what is not in being, nor anything be destroyed or
dissolved into what has not any being, and that the elements exist
indestructible out of which all things are generated. And this being so, the
regeneration of the flesh will, according to all these philosophers, appear
to be possible. For if, according to Plato, it is matter and God, both these
are indestructible and God; and God indeed occupies the position of an
artificer, to wit, a potter; and matter occupies the place of clay or wax,
or some such thing. That, then, which is formed of matter, be it an image or
a statue, is destructible; but the matter itself is indestructible, such as
clay or wax, or any other such kind of matter. Thus the artist designs in
the clay or wax, and makes the form of a living animal; and again, if his
handiwork be destroyed, it is not impossible for him to make the same form,
by working up the same material, and fashioning it anew. So that, according
to Plato, neither will it be impossible for God, who is Himself
indestructible, and has also indestructible material, even after that which
has been first formed of it has been destroyed, to make it anew again, and
to make the same form just as it was before. But according to the Stoics
even, the body being produced by the mixture of the four elementary
substances, when this body has been dissolved into the four elements, these
remaining indestructible, it is possible that they receive a second time the
same fusion and composition, from God pervading them, and so re-make the
body which they formerly made. Like as if a man shall make a composition of
gold and silver, and brass and tin, and then shall wish to dissolve it
again, so that each element exist separately, having again mixed them, he
may, if he pleases, make the very same composition as he had formerly made.
Again, according to Epicurus, the atoms and the void being indestructible,
it is by a definite arrangement and adjustment of the atoms as they come
together, that both all other formations are produced, and the body itself;
and it being in course of time dissolved, is dissolved again into those
atoms from which it was also produced. And as these remain indestructible,
it is not at all impossible, that by coming together again, and receiving
the same arrangement and position, they should make a body of like nature to
what was formerly produced by them; as if a jeweller should make in mosaic
the form of an animal, and the stones should be scattered by time or by the
man himself who made them, he having still in his possession the scattered
stones, may gather them together again, and having gathered, may dispose
them in the same way, and make the same form of an animal. And shall not God
be able to collect again the decomposed members of the flesh, and make the
same body as was formerly produced by Him?
 to kenon, the void of space in which the infinity of atoms moved.
Chapter VII. The body valuable in Gods sight.
But the proof of the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh I have
sufficiently demonstrated, in answer to men of the world. And if the
resurrection of the flesh is not found impossible on the principles even of
unbelievers, how much more will it be found in accordance with the mind of
believers! But following our order, we must now speak with respect to those
who think meanly of the flesh, and say that it is not worthy of the
resurrection nor of the heavenly economy,  because, first, its
substance is earth; and besides, because it is full of all wickedness, so
that it forces the soul to sin along with it. But these persons seem to be
ignorant of the whole work of God, both of the genesis and formation of man
at the first, and why the things in the world were made.  For does not
the word say, "Let Us make man in our image, and after our likeness?" 
What kind of man? Manifestly He means fleshly man, For the word says, "And
God took dust of the earth, and made man."  It is evident, therefore,
that man made in the image of God was of flesh. Is it not, then, absurd to
say, that the flesh made by God in His own image is contemptible, and worth
nothing? But that the flesh is with God a precious possession is manifest,
first from its being formed by Him, if at least the image is valuable to the
former and artist; and besides, its value can be gathered from the creation
of the rest of the world. For that on account of which the rest is made, is
the most precious of all to the maker.
 Or, "citizenship."
 This might also be rendered, "and the things in the world, on account
of which he was made;" but the subsequent argument shows the propriety of
the above rendering.
 Gen. i. 26.
 Gen. ii. 7.
Chapter VIII. Does the body cause the soul to sin?
Quite true, say they; yet the flesh is a sinner, so much so, that it forces
the soul to sin along with it. And thus they vainly accuse it, and lay to
its charge alone the sins of both. But in what instance can the flesh
possibly sin by itself, if it have not the soul going before it and inciting
it? For as in the case of a yoke of oxen, if one or other is loosed from the
yoke, neither of them can plough alone; so neither can soul or body alone
effect anything, if they be unyoked from their communion. And if it is the
flesh that is the sinner, then on its account alone did the Saviour come, as
He says, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
 Since, then, the flesh has been proved to be valuable in the sight of
God, and glorious above all His works, it would very justly be saved by Him.
We must meet, therefore, those who say, that even though it be the special
handiwork of God, and beyond all else valued by Him, it would not
immediately follow that it has the promise of the resurrection. Yet is it
not absurd, that that which has been produced with such circumstance, and
which is beyond all else valuable, should be so neglected by its Maker, as
to pass to nonentity? Then the sculptor and painter, if they wish the works
they have made to endure, that they may win glory by them, renew them when
they begin to decay; but God would so neglect His own possession and work,
that it becomes annihilated, and no longer exists. Should we not call this
labour in vain? As if a man who has built a house should forthwith destroy
it, or should neglect it, though he sees it falling into decay, and is able
to repair it: we would blame him for labouring in vain; and should we not so
blame God? But not such an one is the Incorruptible, not senseless is the
Intelligence of the universe. Let the unbelieving be silent, even though
they themselves do not believe.
But, in truth, He has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and
promises to it everlasting life. For where He promises to save man, there He
gives the promise to the flesh. For what is man but the reasonable animal
composed of body and soul? Is the soul by itself man? No; but the soul of
man. Would the body be called man? No, but it is called the body of man. If,
then, neither of these is by itself man, but that which is made up of the
two together is called man, and God has called man to life and resurrection,
He has called not a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the body.
Since would it not be unquestionably absurd, if, while these two are in the
same being and according to the same law, the one were saved and the other
not? And if it be not impossible, as has already been proved, that the flesh
be regenerated, what is the distinction on the ground of which the soul is
saved and the body not? Do they make God a grudging God? But He is good, and
will have all to be saved. And by God and His proclamation, not only has
your soul heard and believed on Jesus Christ, and with it the flesh, 
but both were washed, and both wrought righteousness. They make God, then
ungrateful and unjust, if, while both believe on Him, He desires to save one
and not the other. Well, they say, but the soul is incorruptible, being a
part of God and inspired by Him, and therefore He desires to save what is
peculiarly His own and akin to Himself; but the flesh is corruptible, and
not from Him, as the soul is. Then what thanks are due to Him, and what
manifestation of His power and goodness is it, if He purposed to save what
is by nature saved and exists as a part of Himself? For it had its salvation
from itself; so that in saving the soul, God does no great thing. For to be
saved is its natural destiny, because it is a part of Himself, being His
inspiration. But no thanks are due to one who saves what is his own; for
this is to save himself. For he who saves a part himself, saves himself by
his own means, lest he become defective in that part; and this is not the
act of a good man. For not even when a man does good to his children and
offspring, does one call him a good man; for even the most savage of the
wild beasts do so, and indeed willingly endure death, if need be, for the
sake of their cubs. But if a man were to perform the same acts in behalf of
his slaves, that man would justly be called good. Wherefore the Saviour also
taught us to love our enemies, since, says He, what thank have ye? So that
He has shown us that it is a good work not only to love those that are
begotten of Him, but also those that are without. And what He enjoins upon
us, He Himself first of all does. 
 Mark ii. 17.
 Migne proposes to read here kai ou sun autē, "without the flesh,"
which gives a more obvious meaning. The above reading is, however,
defensible. Justin means that the flesh was not merely partaking of the
soul's faith and promise, but had rights of its own.
 It is supposed that a part of the treatise has been here dropped out.
Chapter IX. The resurrection of Christ proves that the body rises.
If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most
forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the
resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their
bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was
requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by
itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but
raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in
the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the
flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether
to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and
doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;" 
and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His
hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was
Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might
thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and
He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there
is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that
it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that
our dwelling-place is in heaven), "He was taken up into heaven while they
beheld,"  as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has
been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no
respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is
the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith,
and seen in works.
 Comp. Luke xxiv. 32, etc.
 Acts i. 9.
Chapter X. The body saved, and will therefore rise.
The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit
dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live. The
body, when the soul forsakes it, is not. For the body is the house of the
soul; and the soul the house of the spirit. These three, in all those who
cherish a sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved.
Considering, therefore, even such arguments as are suited to this world, and
finding that, even according to them, it is not impossible that the flesh be
regenerated; and seeing that, besides all these proofs, the Saviour in the
whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any
longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see
that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that
the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived?
For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned
the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the
soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato
and all their band, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the
glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men. For indeed it was a strange
and new thing for God to promise that He would not keep incorruption in
incorruption, but would make corruption incorruption. But because the prince
of wickedness could in no other way corrupt the truth, he sent forth his
apostles (evil men who introduced pestilent doctrines), choosing them from
among those who crucified our Saviour; and these men bore the name of the
Saviour, but did the works of him that sent them, through whom the name
itself has been spoken against. But if the flesh do not rise, why is it also
guarded, and why do we not rather suffer it to indulge its desires? Why do
we not imitate physicians, who, it is said, when they get a patient that is
despaired of and incurable, allow him to indulge his desires? For they know
that he is dying; and this indeed those who hate the flesh surely do,
casting it out of its inheritance, so far as they can; for on this account
they also despise it, because it is shortly to become a corpse. But if our
physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our
flesh with His own wise and temperate rule, it is evident that He guards it
from sins because it possesses a hope of salvation, as physicians do not
suffer men whom they hope to save to indulge in what pleasures they please.
 [N.B. These fragments are probably genuine.]
Other Fragments from the Lost Writings of Justin
[Translated by the Rev. A. Roberts, D.D.]
The most admirable Justin rightly declared that the aforesaid demons 
resembled robbers. Tatian's Address to the Greeks, chap. xviii.
 [See, on the Resurrection, cap. vi.; and compare,
"And of those demons that are found
In fire, air, flood, or under ground," etc.
Milton, Pens., line 93.]
And Justin well said in his book against Marcion, that he would not have
believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other God than the
Fashioner and Maker [of the world], and our Nourisher. But since, from the
one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains as well as
administers all things, there came to us the only-begotten Son, summing up
His own workmanship in Himself, my faith in Him is stedfast, and my love
towards the Father is immoveable, God bestowing both upon us. Irenæus:
Heresies, iv. 6.
Justin well said: Before the advent of the Lord, Satan never ventured to
blaspheme God, inasmuch as he was not yet sure of his own damnation, since
that was announced concerning him by the prophets only in parables and
allegories. But after the advent of the Lord learning plainly from the
discourses of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire was prepared for him
who voluntarily departed from God and for all who, without repentance,
persevere in apostasy, then, by means of a man of this sort, he, as if
already condemned, blasphemes that God who inflicts judgment upon him, and
imputes the sin of his apostasy to his Maker, instead of to his own will and
predilection. Irenæus: Heresies, v. 26.
Expounding the reason of the incessant plotting of the devil against us, he
declares: Before the advent of the Lord, the devil did not so plainly know
the measure of his own punishment, inasmuch as the divine prophets had but
enigmatically announced it; as, for instance, Isaiah, who in the person of
the Assyrian tragically revealed the course to be followed against the
devil. But when the Lord appeared, and the devil clearly understood that
eternal fire was laid up and prepared for him and his angels, he then began
to plot without ceasing against the faithful, being desirous to have many
companions in his apostasy, that he might not by himself endure the shame of
condemnation, comforting himself by this cold and malicious
consolation. From the writings of John of Antioch.
And Justin of Neapolis, a man who was not far separated from the apostles
either in age or excellence, says that that which is mortal is inherited,
but that which is immortal inherits; and that the flesh indeed dies, but the
kingdom of heaven lives. From Methodius On the Resurrection, in Photius.
Neither is there straitness with God, nor anything that is not absolutely
perfect. From manuscript of the writings of Justin.
We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive
ourselves of His friendship.
The unskilfulness of the teacher proves destructive to his disciples, and
the carelessness of the disciples entails danger on the teacher, and
especially should they owe their negligence to his want of knowledge.
The soul can with difficulty be recalled to those good things from which it
has fallen, and is with difficulty dragged away from those evils to which it
has become accustomed. If at any time thou showest a disposition to blame
thyself, then perhaps, through the medicine of repentance, I should cherish
good hopes regarding thee. But when thou altogether despisest fear, and
rejectest with scorn the very faith of Christ, it were better for thee that
thou hadst never been born from the womb. From the writings of John of
By the two birds  Christ is denoted, both dead as man, and living as
God. He is likened to a bird, because He is understood and declared to be
from above, and from heaven. And the living bird, having been dipped in the
blood of the dead one, was afterwards let go. For the living and divine Word
was in the crucified and dead temple [of the body], as being a partaker of
the passion, and yet impassible to God.
By that which took place in the running  water, in which the wood and
the hyssop and the scarlet were dipped, is set forth the bloody passion of
Christ on the cross for the salvation of those who are sprinkled with the
Spirit, and the water, and the blood. Wherefore the material for
purification was not provided chiefly with reference to leprosy, but with
regard to the forgiveness of sins, that both leprosy might be understood to
be an emblem of sin, and the things which were sacrificed an emblem of Him
who was to be sacrificed for sins.
For this reason, consequently, he ordered that the scarlet should be dipped
at the same time in the water, thus predicting that the flesh should no
longer possess its natural [evil] properties. For this reason, also, were
there the two birds, the one being sacrificed in the water, and the other
dipped both in the blood and in the water and then sent away, just as is
narrated also respecting the goats.
The goat that was sent away presented a type of Him who taketh away the sins
of men. But the two contained a representation of the one economy of God
incarnate. For He was wounded for our transgressions, and He bare the sins
of many, and He was delivered for our iniquities. From manuscript of
writings of Justin.
 See Lev. xiv. 49-53.
 Literally, "living."
When God formed man at the beginning, He suspended the things of nature on
his will, and made an experiment by means of one commandment. For He
ordained that, if he kept this, he should partake of immortal existence; but
if he transgressed it, the contrary should be his lot. Man having been thus
made, and immediately looking towards transgression, naturally became
subject to corruption. Corruption then becoming inherent in nature, it was
necessary that He who wished to save should be one who destroyed the
efficient cause of corruption. And this could not otherwise be done than by
the life which is according to nature being united to that which had
received the corruption, and so destroying the corruption, while preserving
as immortal for the future that which had received it. It was therefore
necessary that the Word should become possessed of a body, that He might
deliver us from the death of natural corruption. For if, as ye  say,
He had simply by a nod warded off death from us, death indeed would not have
approached us on account of the expression of His will; but none the less
would we again have become corruptible, inasmuch as we carried about in
ourselves that natural corruption. Leontius against Eutychians, etc., book
 The Gentiles are here referred to, who saw no necessity for the
As it is inherent in all bodies formed by God to have a shadow, so it is
fitting that God, who is just, should render to those who choose what is
good, and to those who prefer what is evil, to every one according to his
deserts. From the writings of John of Damascus.
He speaks not of the Gentiles in foreign lands, but concerning [the people]
who agree with the Gentiles, according to that which is spoken by Jeremiah:
"It is a bitter thing for thee, that thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord
thy God, that of old thou hast broken thy yoke, and torn asunder thy bands,
and said, I will not serve Thee, but will go to every high hill, and
underneath every tree, and there shall I become dissolute in my
fornication."  From manuscript of the writings of Justin.
 Jer. ii. 19, etc. (LXX.)
Neither shall light ever be darkness as long as light exists, nor shall the
truth of the things pertaining to us be controverted. For truth is that than
which nothing is more powerful. Every one who might speak the truth, and
speaks it not, shall be judged by God. Manuscript and works of John of
And the fact that it was not said of the seventh day equally with the other
days, "And there was evening, and there was morning," is a distinct
indication of the consummation which is to take place in it before it is
finished, as the fathers declare, especially St. Clement, and Irenæus, and
Justin the martyr and philosopher, who, commenting with exceeding wisdom on
the number six of the sixth day, affirms that the intelligent soul of man
and his five susceptible senses were the six works of the sixth day. Whence
also, having discoursed at length on the number six, he declares that all
things which have been framed by God are divided into six classes, viz.,
into things intelligent and immortal, such as are the angels; into things
reasonable and mortal, such as mankind; into things sensitive and
irrational, such as cattle, and birds, and fishes; into things that can
advance, and move, and are insensible, such as the winds, and the clouds,
and the waters, and the stars; into things which increase and are
immoveable, such as the trees; and into things which are insensible and
immoveable, such as the mountains, the earth, and such like. For all the
creatures of God, in heaven and on earth, fall under one or other of these
divisions, and are circumscribed by them. From the writings of Anastasius.
Sound doctrine does not enter into the hard and disobedient heart; but, as
if beaten back, enters anew into itself.
As the good of the body is health, so the good of the soul is knowledge,
which is indeed a kind of health of soul, by which a likeness to God is
attained. From the writings of John of Damascus.
To yield and give way to our passions is the lowest slavery, even as to rule
over them is the only liberty.
The greatest of all good is to be free from sin, the next is to be
justified; but he must be reckoned the most unfortunate of men, who, while
living unrighteously, remains for a long time unpunished.
Animals in harness cannot but be carried over a precipice by the
inexperience and badness of their driver, even as by his skilfulness and
excellence they will be saved.
The end contemplated by a philosopher is likeness to God, so far as that is
possible. From the writings of Antonius Melissa.
[The words] of St. Justin, philosopher and martyr, from the fifth part of
his Apology:  I reckon prosperity, O men, to consist in nothing else
than in living according to truth. But we do not live properly, or according
to truth, unless we understand the nature of things.
It escapes them apparently, that he who has by a true faith come forth from
error to the truth, has truly known himself, not, as they say, as being in a
state of frenzy, but as free from the unstable and (as to every variety of
error) changeable corruption, by the simple and ever identical truth. From
the writings of John of Damascus.
 It is doubtful if these words are really Justin s, or, if so, from
which, or what part, of his Apologies they are derived.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet