{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/201/2010501.htm","path":"chr/ecf/201/2010501.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/201/2010501.htm","text":"Chapter LVI.\u2014He prays that All may be Christians, but compels None.\n\u201cMy own desire is, for the common good of the world and the advantage of all mankind, that thy people should enjoy a life of peace and undisturbed concord. Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquillity which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul desires. Only let men of sound judgment be assured of this, that those only can live a life of holiness and purity, whom thou callest to a relip. 514 ance on thy holy laws. With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples 3202 of lies: we have the glorious edifice of thy truth, which thou hast given us as our native home. 3203 We pray, however, that they too may receive the same blessing, and thus experience that heartfelt joy which unity of sentiment inspires.\n[\u1fce\u039f\u03bd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2. The clause is thus rendered by Valesius: \u201cNos splendidissimam domum veritatis tu\u00e6, quam nascentibus nobis donasti, retinemus.\u201d This seems almost as unintelligible as the original. The translation above attempted yields, perhaps, a sense not inconsistent with the general scope of the passage.\u2014Bag.] 1709 renders \u201caccording to nature.\u201d Molzberger has \u201cthrough no merit on our part.\u201d Stroth renders \u201ccharacteristically\u201d or \u201cas our own natural possession\u201d (i.e. eigenth\u00fcmlich), and is confirmed by Heinichen, while Christophorson has \u201cnatura\u201d and Portesius \u201ca natura.\u201d The last is the best translation \u201cby nature.\u201d As a matter of interpretation Bagster is probably wrong and Stroth substantially right. Whether Constantine had the Epistle to the Romans in mind or not, he had the same thought as Paul that men \u201cby nature\u201d have the \u201ctruth of God,\u201d but exchange this for a lie (Rom. 1:25, Rom. 2:14, Rom. 11:21, 24Rom. i. 25; ii. 14; cf. xi. 21 and 24). This suggests, however, another possible meaning, that the truth is known \u201cthrough the things that are made\u201d (Rom. i. 20). For various philosophical usages of \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, compare interesting note in Grant, Ethics of Aristotle, 1 (Lond. 1885), 483, 484.","title":"Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol I: The Life ...","type":"page"}