4.17.1
XVII. ‘O δ’ αὐτὸς ἀνὴρ πρὸ τοῦ κατ’ αὐτὸν ἀγῶ. νος ἑτέρων πρὸ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρησάντων ἐν τῆ προτέρᾳ μνημονεύει ἀπολογίᾳ, χρησίμως τῆ ὑποθέσει καὶ ἴ’ ταῦτα ἱστορῶν· γράφει δὲ ὧδε· “γυνἠ τις συνεβίου ἀνδρὶ ἀκολασταίνοντι, ἀκολασταίνουσα καὶ αὐτὴ πρότερον· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ διδάγματα ἔγνω, ἐσωφρονίσθη, καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα ὁμοίως σωφρονεῖν πείθειν ἐπειρᾶτο, τὰ διδάγματα ἀναφέρουσα τήν τε μέλλουσαν τοῖς οὐ σωφρόνως καὶ μετὰ λόγου ὀρθοῦ βιοῦσιν ἕσεσθαι ἐν αἰωνίῳ πυρὶ κόλασιν ἀπαγγέλλουσα. ὁ δὲ ταῖς αὐταῖς ἀσελγείαις ἐπιμένων, ἀλλοτρίαν διὰ τῶν πράξεων ἐποιεῖτο τὴν γαμετήν· ἀσεβὲς γὰρ ἡγουμένη τὸ λοιπὸν ἡ γυνὴ συγκατακλίνεσθαι ἀνδρὶ παρὰ τὸν τῆς Φύσεως νόμον καὶ παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον πόρους ἡδονῆς ἐκ παντὸς πειρωμένῳ ποιεῖσθαι, τῆς συζυγίας Χωρισθῆναι ἐβουλήθη. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐξ- εδυσωπεῖτο ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῆς, ἔτι προσμένειν συμβουλευόντων ὡς εἰς ἐλπίδα μεταβολῆς ἥξοντός ποτε τοῦ ἀνδρός, βιαζομένη ἑαυτὴν ἐπέμενεν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ ταύτης ἀνὴρ εἰς τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν πορευθείς, χαλεπώτερα πράττειν ἀπηγγέλθη, ὅπως μὴ κοινωνὸς τῶν ἀδικημάτων καὶ ἀσεβημάτων γένηται μένουσα ἐν τῇ συζυγίᾳ καὶ ὁμοδίαιτος καὶ ὁμόκοιτος γινομένη, τὸ λεγόμενον παρ’ ὑμῖν ῥεπούδιον δοῦσα ἐχωρίσθη . ὁ δὲ καλὸς κἀγαθὸς ταύτης ἀνήρ, δέον αὐτὸν χαίρειν ὅτι ἃ πάλαι μετὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν καὶ τῶν μισθοφόρων εὐχερῶς ἔπραττεν μέθαις χαίρουσα καὶ κακίᾳ πάση, τούτων μὲν τῶν πράξεων πέπαυτο καὶ αὐτὸν τὰ αὐτὰ παύσασθαι πράττοντα ἐβούλετο, μὴ βουλομένου ἀπαλλαγείσης , κατηγορίαν πεποίηται, λέγων αὐτὴν Χριστιανὴν εἶναι. καὶ ἡ μὲν βιβλίδιόν ἀοῖ τῷ αὐτοκράτορι ἀνέδωκεν, πρότερον συγχωρηθῆναι αὐτῇ διοικήσαθαι τὰ ἑαυτῆς ἀξιοῦσα, ἔπειτα ἀπολογήσασθαι περὶ τοῦ κατηγορήματος μετὰ τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτῆς διοίκησιν, καὶ συν- εχώρησας τοῦτο· ὁ δὲ ταύτης ποτὲ ἀνὴρ πρὸς ἐκείνην μὲν μὴ δυνάμενος τὰ νῦν ἔτι λέγειν, πρὸς Πτολεμαῖόν τινα, ὃν Οὐρβίκιος ἐκολάσατο, διδάσκαλον ἐκείνης ἐκείνης τῶν Χριστιανῶν μαθημάτων γενόμενον, ἐτράπετο διὰ τοῦδε τοῦ τρόπου. ἑκατόνταρχον εἰς δεσμὰ ἐμβαλόντα τὸν Πτολεμαῖον, φίλον αὐτῷ ὑπάρχοντα, ἔπεισε λαβέσθαι Πτολεμαίου καὶ ἀνερωτῆσαι εἰ, αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον, χριστιανός ἐστιν. καὶ τὸν Πτολεμαῖον, φιλαλήθη ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀπατηλὸν οὐδὲ ψευδολὀγον τὴν γνώμην ὄντα, ὁμολογήσαντα ἑαυτὸν εἶναι Χριστιανόν, ἐν δεσμοῖς γενέσθαι ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος πεποίηκεν, καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺν χρόνον ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ ἐκολάσατο· τελευταῖον δὲ ὅτε ἐπὶ Οὐρβίκιον ἤχθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁμοίως αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον ἑξητάσθη, εἰ εἴη Χριστιανός· καὶ πάλιν, τὰ καλὰ ἑαυτῷ συνεπιστάμενος διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ διδαχήν, τὸ διδασκαλεῖον τῆς θείας ἀρετῆς ὡμολόγησεν. ὁ γὰρ ἀρνούμενος ὁτιοῦν ἢ κατεγνωκὼς τοῦ πράγματος ἔξαρνος γίνεται ἢ ἑαυτὸν ἀνάξιον ἐπιστάμενος καὶ ἀλλότριον τοῦ πράγματος τὴν ὁμολογίαν φεύγει· ὧν οὐδὲν πρόσεστιν τῷ ἀληθινῷ Χριστιανῷ. καὶ τοῦ Οὐρβικίου κεΛεύσαντος αὐτὸν ἀπαχθῆναι, Λούκιός τις, καὶ αὐτὸς ὢν Χριστιανός, ὁρῶν τὴν ἀλόγως οὕτως γενομένην κρίσιν, πρὸς τὸν Οὐρβίκιον ἔφη ‘ τίς ἢ αἰτία τοῦ μήτε μοιχὸν μήτε πόρνον μήτε ἀνδροφόνον μήτε λωποδύτην μήτε ἅρπαγα μήτε ἁπλῶς ἀδίκημά τι πράξαντα ἐλεγχόμενον, ὀνόματος δὲ Χριστιανοῦ προσωνυμίαν ὁμολογοῦντα, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ἐκολάσω; οὐ πρέποντα Εὐσεβεῖ αὐτοκράτορι οὐδὲ φιλοσόφῳ Καίσαρος παιδὶ οὐδὲ ἱερᾷ συγκλήτῳ κρίνεις, ὦ Οὐρβίκιε.’ καὶ ὅς, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἀποκρινάμενος , καὶ πρὸς τὸν Λούκιον ἔφη δοκεῖς μοι καὶ αὖ εἶναι τοιοῦτος, ’ καὶ τοῦ Λουκίου φήσαντος ‘ μάλιστα,’ πάλιν καὶ αὐτὸν ἀπαχθῆναι ἐκέλευσεν· ὁ δὲ χάριν εἰδέναι ὡμολόγει· πονηρῶν γὰρ δεσποτῶν τῶν τοιούτων ἀπηλλάχθαι ἐπεῖπεν καὶ παρὰ ἀγαθὸν πατέρα καὶ βασιλέα τὸν θεὸν πορεύεσθαι. καὶ ἄλλος δὲ τρίτος ἐπελθὼν κολασθῆναι προσετιμήθη. ’’ τούτοις ὁ Ἰουστῖνος εἰκότως καὶ ἀκολούθως ἃς προεμνημονεύσαμεν αὐτοῦ φωνὰς ἐπάγει λέγων “ κἀγὼ οὖν προσδοκῶ ὑπό τινος τῶν ὠνομασμένων ἐπιβουλευθῆναι ’’ καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
XVII. The same writer mentions in his first Apology that before his own contest others had been martyrs before him. He narrates this profitably to our subject, and he writes thus: “A certain woman lived with a dissipated husband, and at first she too was dissipated, but when she knew the doctrine of Christ she reformed, and tried to persuade her husband to reform likewise, relating the doctrine to him, and announcing the punishment in eternal fire which will be the lot of those who do not live soberly and in accordance with right teaching. But he remained in his dissoluteness, and through his acts broke up his marriage, for his wife thought it was wicked to continue consorting with a husband who tried every kind of pleasure contrary to the law of nature and to righteousness, and wished to be separated from wedlock. Owing to the importunity of her family, who counselled her to stay with him because there was always a hope that the husband would change, she constrained herself to stay with him; but when her husband went to Alexandria, and she heard that he was behaving worse, in order not to be a partner of wickedness and impiety by remaining in wedlock and sharing in his board and bed, she gave him what you call a writ of divorce and was separated. But though her noble husband ought to have rejoiced that she, who had formerly light-heartedly engaged with servants and hirelings in drunken pleasure and in all vice, had given up these habits and wished him too to give up following them, he disliked her conversion and brought an accusation alleging that she was a Christian. She filed a petition with you, as emperor, begging that she be allowed first to settle her affairs and then to answer the accusation after the settlement of her affairs. This you granted. But her former husband, being now unable to attack her, turned in the following way against a certain Ptolemy, who had been her teacher in Christian doctrines and was punished by Urbicius. He persuaded a centurion who was a friend of his to arrest Ptolemy, and to ask him this one thing, whether he was a Christian. And Ptolemy, being a lover of the truth, and not deceitful nor of false disposition, confessed that he was a Christian. The centurion caused him to be put in prison and tortured him for a long while in the jail. Finally, when the man was brought before Urbicius he was similarly asked only this same question, whether he was a Christian, and again, conscious of the good which came to him because of the teaching of Christ, he confessed the school of divine virtue. For he who denies anything either condemns the fact and rejects it, or, knowing that he is himself unworthy and alien from the fact, avoids confession; and neither of these is the case with the real Christian. When Urbicius ordered him to be executed, a certain Lucius, who was himself a Christian, seeing the verdict which was thus given contrary to all reason, said to Urbicius, ‘What is the reason for punishing this man who has not been convicted of adultery or fornication or murder or theft or robbery or, in a word, of having done anything wrong, but merely confesses that he bears the Christian name? Your judgement, Urbicius, is not fitting for a pious emperor, nor for the philosopher son of Caesar, nor for the sacred Senate.’ And he made no other reply except to say to Lucius, ‘You seem to me to be a Christian yourself.’ And when Lucius said, ‘Certainly,’ he ordered him to be executed also. Lucius expressed his gratitude, for he said he was being removed from wicked lords like these and going to God, the good Father and King. A third man, who also came forward, Urbicius ordered to be punished.” To this Justin, in a manner both probable and fitting, adds the words which we quoted above, saying, “And so I expect myself to be plotted against by one of those named,” and the rest.