That this Marcellinus, a leader of the Roman race, was a man of the highest and greatest integrity, has already become almost evident from those trials and perils by which many times the faith and constancy of soul of certain servants of the Lord, being tested, could scarcely resist. Nay rather, most mortals thought they gained glory and honor for themselves when, allured by the hope of obtaining greater honor, authority, and dominion, indulging their own advantages and not blushing to despise and violate the rights of justice and equity, they were able to turn another's property to their own. For the Palmyrenes, bearing too grievously the devastation of their cities, and then the dishonor and captivity of Queen Zenobia, were trying to withdraw themselves from the tyranny of the emperor Aurelian;
and therefore an offer was made to Marcellinus, that he should revolt from the obedience and allegiance of the emperor, and, having entered into a treaty of alliance with them, should claim for himself the whole kingdom both of Mesopotamia and of the East. But when Marcellinus's mind had resisted these counsels and flatteries, he most steadfastly refused to have the supreme dominion of that people given to him, rather inquiring more diligently how, with all zeal for defection set aside, they might serve the Roman empire by which they had been subdued. He nevertheless reported the matter to Aurelian, lest, as popular sedition daily grew greater, they should break the yoke of servitude by which they were held. It could therefore have been (Beausobre concludes) that Marcellinus was inclined toward the Christians and their religion.
He then proceeds to the second supposition which Beausobre had premised, and asserts that it wavers exceedingly. For who could imagine to himself that Roman soldiers, under the discipline of those who are wont to command armies, were so savage that they should have wished to destroy an unarmed multitude of children and women, which was obedient to the commonwealth? It is equally devoid of probability that they should have led captive persons who were free and innocent. For if these had been of the Persian race, the soldiers could have suspected them to be gathered there in the field, as enemies, in order to invade with the sword lands now existing under the Roman empire.
Wherefore, since the innocence of those captives had afterwards been proved, the supreme administrator of that province ought to have ordered that they be restored to their former liberty without any payment of money. As for the third supposition—namely, whether it was a question of the Persians' supplications celebrated with superstitious worship—Beausobre first judged that Mr. Hyde had wished to indicate this. Namely, when he had described certain ceremonies of the magi bearing some likeness to ours, to the rites of baptism and the Eucharist, being led by a testimony which is wrongly attributed to Chrysostom. This testimony he subjoined in the notes, to wit:
In their sacred rites also the followers of Mithras had washings, as it were of regeneration, in which he too (namely the priest) baptizes certain of his believers, and his faithful, and promises expiation of sins by a washing; and thus he still initiates them into Mithras. Concerning this it is read in Justin Martyr and in Chrysostom. These men, therefore, every year, after the threshing of the harvest, used to ascend a certain mountain which is called, in their language, the Mount of Victory, having in it a certain little cave in the rock, most delightful with springs and choice trees; and ascending into it and washing, they offered themselves, and prayed in silence to God for three days. Beausobre asserts that this structure is not badly constructed.
But he contends that the foundation on which it rests utterly totters and falls to ruin, since neither Justin Martyr nor Chrysostom affirmed it. Nay rather (he says), the testimony just praised is taken from the author of the 'Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum' (the Unfinished Work on Matthew), which work is stuffed with nothing but fabulous little tales. For in it there is no mention at all of the supplications of the magi, but rather there is a discussion of a certain tradition generally approved by Christians of the Eastern communion, concerning which he promises he will speak more fully when he shall dispute concerning the apocryphal writings of the Manichaeans. Wherefore he gradually turns his pen even against Mr.
但他主張，它所依靠的根基徹底動搖並崩塌，因為無論游斯丁殉道者還是屈梭多模都未曾如此斷言。他甚至說，剛才所讚許的那項見證，乃取自《馬太福音未竟註釋》（Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum）的作者，而此作除了虛構的小故事之外別無所有。因為其中根本沒有提到術士的祈禱，反倒是論及某個為東方教會團契的基督徒普遍認可的傳統；關於此傳統，他允諾在辯論摩尼教徒（Manichaeans）的偽經時，將更詳盡地論述。因此他漸漸把筆鋒也轉向海德先生，
Hyde, admonishing the readers not to subscribe, without diligent examination, to the testimonies of the ancients, even to those praised by learned men; who, although in their works they proposed neither to lie nor to sell words, nevertheless in praising and annotating such passages labored under a delusion. I have had to describe these things somewhat more fully, intending afterwards to judge whether Beausobre wished to trifle, or whether, with all party zeal set aside—as he boasts—he pursued the truth. And first indeed, as regards Justin, I am compelled to confess that either Beausobre ran through his Works drowsily, or at least surveyed them with bleary eyes.
For the holy martyr spoke chiefly in three places about the rites, mysteries, and ceremonies of the Persians, and recounted those things which Mr. Hyde noted from Chrysostom concerning the ancient religion of these people. His first testimony is read in the Apology for the Christians, which is commonly called the Second; in which, making mention of the eucharistic sacrament, he proves its truth by the evangelical words of Christ, adding then: 'Which indeed the wicked demons also taught to be done, by imitation, in the mysteries and initiations of Mithras.' The Persians therefore, taught by demons, strove in their supplications and solemn initiations to imitate the sacred table of the Christians.
Yet with this distinction preserved (as the same Justin adds), namely that bread and a cup of water are placed in the sacrifices, or divine rite of the one being initiated, with certain words added—as you assuredly either know, or can learn. That the Manichaeans too were accustomed to do this, we shall more opportunely observe in its place from Leo the Great—namely, in chapter 9 of the second book of this history. Again, that the Persians celebrated supplications and unspeakable mysteries in caverns and caves, especially when the initiations of Mithras were celebrated, the same Justin explained in his Dialogue with Trypho in these words:
然而其中保留了這一分別（正如這同一位游斯丁補充的），即在受入教者的獻祭或聖禮中，擺上餅和一杯水，並加上某些話語——正如你們必定或已知曉、或能學得。摩尼教徒也習慣如此行，這一點我們將在合適之處，從大良（Leo the Great）那裡更適切地觀察，即在本歷史第二卷第九章。此外，波斯人在洞穴與巖洞中舉行祈禱與不可言說的奧祕，尤其在舉行密特拉入教禮之時，這同一位游斯丁在《與特里風的對話》中用以下這些話解釋道：
Moreover, those who hand down the initiations of Mithras relate that he was born from a rock, and they name 'cave' or 'grotto' the place where they say those who believe in him are initiated. Finally, speaking of the nativity of Christ the Lord in Bethlehem, he narrates how Joseph, since he had no place to lodge, withdrew into a certain grotto near the village; and while they were there, Mary brought forth Christ, and laid Him in a manger, where the magi coming from Arabia found Him. Then, a few words interposed, he added: 'For this reason, those who initiate into the mysteries of Mithras, stirred by the devil's instigation, initiate their own and perform their secret rites in the place which among them is called a grotto or cave.'
These rites and ceremonies, therefore, the Persians and the magi practiced in caverns and caves, being led as it were by this design—that they might serve the devil, abusing the Scriptures of the New and Old Testament, by which they feigned to conform themselves to the divine institutions and mysteries of the Christians. Not therefore does that foundation collapse from which the preceding narrative was taken. Rather it ought to stand more firmly, since the writers who flourished after Justin borrowed, perhaps from his sayings and authority, the rites, ceremonies, and supplications of the Persians. But could anyone contend that Chrysostom made no mention at all of these Persian rites? For what then?
Could Chrysostom's silence perhaps stand in the way of the testimonies of Justin Martyr? For Justin flourished when the religion of the Persians and the magi still greatly held sway in Mesopotamia and the rest of those provinces, and the name of Christ had not yet, or scarcely, been announced to those inhabitants. On the contrary, in Chrysostom's age, although the Christian religion had been propagated here and there in that same region, to the destruction of magic and idolatry, yet this had not everywhere been wholly abolished, on account of the fierceness of those nations, which, following the institutions of their forefathers, did not shrink from paying the highest honors to the sun alone, as Chrysostom himself testifies in his eleventh homily to the people of Antioch. Nor, finally, ought Beausobre to have assailed Mr.
Hyde for having praised the 'Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum' as though it were a product of Chrysostom. For most of the ancients adjudged it to Chrysostom; and the old editors caused it to be printed in the second volume of his Works, since in codices and manuscripts homilies of this kind are commonly ascribed to him. Wherefore, when more recent scholars, wishing with more diligent study to inquire into the author of these homilies, had found in the aforesaid homilies certain blemishes of Arian doctrine, and had observed that they had been dislocated by various interpolations, corruptions, and additions, they judged with better judgment that they had been composed by a Latin writer, and by a man of impaired faith stuffed with the same blemishes and additions.
Yet none of these dared to affirm that pure and utter fables are contained in them, as Beausobre confessed. Now indeed Beausobre proceeds to the letter of Manes which he took care to send to Marcellus through Turbo, which he rendered whole into French, not blushing to praise a work of this kind as written in the style of the apostles, and everywhere stuffed with the phrases and turns of speech of the Apostle St. Paul. Which two things can by no means agree in a neophyte man, versed for a few months in perusing the sacred Scriptures; or in a fierce, barbarous, and impious man, such as the ancient writers affirmed Manes to have been.
He then subjoins that the Manichaeans venerate St. Paul, wrongly persuading themselves that from the writings of this holy apostle they can draw foundations for proving both the existence of two principles and the natural corruption of man, especially since Paul, among his other contemporary apostles, labored more to free the Church of the Christians from the yoke of the Mosaic law. These things, therefore, and many others of the sort, Beausobre heaped up in expounding the Manichaean epistle and in describing the heretical man's disputation with Archelaus, bishop of Cascar. Since it shames us to relate some of them, we have deemed it necessary to cover them over entirely in silence;
but the rest, since they pertain rather to Manichaean philosophy, morals, worship, and discipline, we, having resolved to preserve the order of things, shall try to explain or refute each in its proper place.