Theological Dissertation on the Theologoumena of Macarius Magnes

( 2 )

and refute the heresies contrary to it that were arising at that time." To this last class, therefore, I would attribute the fragments of MACARIUS MAGNES, a most ancient writer of the third century, whose historical and critical notice I presented in the prior Dissertation. His Apokritika Apocriticus/The Answerer addressed to Theosthenes against the Gentiles who slander the Gospels—hitherto unpublished—are most fitting, since he most strongly opposes the dogmas of the most holy Christian religion both to the superstitious idolatry of the Gentiles and to the audacity of the heretics of the ancient age; although he also occasionally follows the footsteps of the Christian Apologists not unsuccessfully.

Equipped with these most precious monuments of Macarius Magnes, as if they were boards left from a shipwreck, we finally approach the investigation of our Author’s Θεολογούμενα Theological Propositions, as far as it will be possible to do so through the brief and scattered sentences—though not lacking their own connection—and the arguments culled from the fragments. For NICEPHORUS of Constantinople complains in his Antirrhetici original: "in Antirrheticis" that the Iconoclasts had so mutilated that writing of Magnes that the paper sent to the orthodox Prelates was nothing more than a fragment of a fragment, not an entire testimony: "for having described from there the most critical part, they made the sent paper nothing other than a cutting of a cutting, and not a full usage." It is unjust, however, for some recent Critics to desire an entire System of sacred truths in such lost writings, of which only a few fragments are left to us, and on that account to wrongly accuse their authors of being ignorant and crude in Theological science, not thinking how much such a method of treatment differs from the genius of the older century, and how such a thing cannot be expected given the scarcity of monuments from the ancient age.

§. II. The title of Theologian vindicated for Magnes by Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople.

No one will easily deny that the title of THEOLOGIAN is due to our MAGNES in every respect, who will have considered that he is called by the judgment of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the orthodox Prelates, a σοφὸν γραμματέα καὶ τῶν τηλικούτων ἐπιχειρημάτων ἐργάτην πολυπειρότατον wise scribe and a most experienced workman of such great undertakings. Whence we doubt not that the dogmas of the Christian religion were strenuously defended by this writer, and solidly and clearly enough explained in the entire lost work. This is gathered even from those things which have been left to us from his long-desired writings regarding the doctrine of the authority of Sacred Scripture, of God and His divine Monarchy, of Christ the only-begotten Son of God, of the creation and the vainly fabricated eternity of the world, of Man, and his fall and congenital stain, of Faith and Justification, of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, of the resurrection and eternal life. For who is so novice and devoid of all reason, asks the same NICEPHORUS, to whom it does not become easily manifest upon knowing, that this Writer, when he mocks and explodes the stupidity of the idolaters, declares the pure faith of the Christians and asserts it to be immune from all worship of the creature? Nay, rather, he attributes the praise of Theological erudition and most apt skill in disputing to this Master, who had learned to oppose an apt refutation to each argument proposed by the adversary, and to perform the duty of a master remarkably well: especially since he was dealing with the most acute Greek Philosopher PORPHYRY original: "PORPHYRIO", 1) whose principal labor is known to have consisted in subverting the authority of sacred Scripture, that is, the foundation upon which the Christian religion leaned.