Justin surnamed the Philosopher, or, more generally, the Martyr, of whom Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 1, 4, c. 11) says that he overshadowed all the great men who illuminated the 2d century by the splendor of his name, was born towards the close of the apostolic age, that is, the beginning of the 2d century. He was the son of a wealthy Greek, Priscius, who had, in all probability, come to reside at Flavia Neapolis (erected on the site of the ancient Sichem), in Samaria, with the Roman colony sent by Vespasian to the city that bore his name. But little is known of his personal history. From one of his works, the Dialogues with Tryphon (c. 2 sq.), we learn that he traveled much in his youth, and studied ardently the various systems of philosophy prevalent in his day, searching after some knowledge which should satisfy the cravings of his soul. The myths and absurd worship of the heathen had failed to satisfy the youthful soul longing to know God and the relations of God to man, and in turn Stoic and Peripatetic, Pythagorean and Platonist, were examined to set his mind at rest upon the vital question. By the Stoic he was told that, in philosophical speculation, the subject which he seemed to consider the most important was only of subordinate rank. A Peripatetic, at the end of a few days, informed him that the most important thing for him to attend to was to afford the philosophic instructor security for his tuition. By the Pythagorean he was rejected, outright, because he confessed himself ignorant of music, astronomys and geometry, which that school considered a necessary introduction to the study of philosophy, and so he turned in despair to the Platonists, at this time in high repute in the place in which Justin resided. At last he seemed to have gained the haven of peace; the Platonic doctrine of ideas could not fail to inspire young Justin with the hope that he "should soon have the intuition of God," for is not this the aim of Platonic philosophy? "Under the influence of this notion," he relates himself, "it occurred to me that I would withdraw to some solitary place, far from the turmoil of the world, and there, in perfect self collection, give myself to my own contemplations. I chose a spot by the seaside." Whether Justin still resided at this time at Flavia Neapolis — and in that case the quiet resort must have been the shores of the Dead Sea, perhaps the valley of the Jordan, north of this sea (Otto), or on some unfrequented spot of Lake Genesareth or whether, as seems more probable, he then resided at Ephesus, is a matter of dispute. In favor of Ephesus are Schröckh, Tillemont, Hilgenfeld, Dorner, etc. But, be the name of the place Flavia Neapolis or Ephesus, it was in his resort by the shore of the resounding sea attracted to it, no doubt, chiefly by the grandeur of the object he was seeking to solve, and the loveliness of the spot that we find him one day, while wrapped up in thought, pacing up and down by the side of the sea, which moaned in melancholy unison with his reflections, accosted by a man of venerable aspect, sage and grave, and soon the two are engaged in earnest converse on the subject ever uppermost in young Justin's mind. Somewhat enamored of the Platonic philosophy, he argues in its favor with the appositely present senior, and contends that at some future day it will conduct him into that nearer acquaintance with God, or, in the Platonists' term, afford him the "vision of divinity." But the meek old man, who is a Christian, contends that the goal which he is seeking to gain cannot be reached by any philosophical school or by unaided mind even of the highest order; the fallacy of Plato is proved in some two or three points of doctrine belonging to that system, and finally the doubting and indocile disciple is visited with the curt and not gentle apostrophe, You are a mere dealer in words, but no lover of action and truth; your aim is not to be a practicer of good, but a clever disputant, a cunning sophist." Once more the inquiring youth is baffled in his attempt to lay hold of the truth; he is again convinced that even from the foremost of heathen philosophers he cannot obtain the pearl for which he is seeking so earnestly. But with this intelligence there comes also the direction, "Search the Scriptures;" study the Hebrew prophets; men who, guided by the Spirit of God, saw and revealed the truth, and even foretold events future to their day; read the last and heroic words of the disciples of him who came to raise a fallen world, and to restore it to eternal and imperishable felicity. "Pray," ended the venerable Christian, "that the gates of light may be opened to thee, for none can perceive and comprehend these things except God and his Christ grant them understanding." Justin was impressed; he had often heard the Platonists calumniate the Christians, but he had always discredited the statements. He had frequently observed the tranquillity and fortitude with which these followers of Jesus encountered death and all other evils which appear terrible to man, and he could never condemn as profligates those who could so patiently endure. He had long believed them innocent of the crimes imputed to these consistent martyrs. He was now, prepared to think that they held the truth. He reflected on the words of the venerable stranger, and was convinced that they inculcated the "only safe and useful philosophy." From this time (the exact date is doubtful; the Bollandists place it in A.D. 119; it is generally believed, with Cave, Tillemont, Ceillier, and others, that it occurred in A.D. 133) his personal history becomes obscure, as he has but little to relate of himself hereafter, and as from other sources we cannot gather much on which we can depend. Certain it is that he at once enlisted in active service in behalf of the new cause. Retaining the garb of a philosopher, he ardently devoted himself, as is evinced by his works, to the propagation of Christianity by writing and otherwise. Tillemont argues, from the language of Justin (Apolog. Prima, c. 61, 605), that he was a priest, but this inference is not borne out by the passage, and, though approved by Maran, is rejected by Otto, Neander, and Semisch. That he visited many places in order to diffuse the knowledge of the Christian religion is probable (comp. Cohortat. ad Groec. c. 13, 34), and he appears to have made the profession of a philosopher subservient to this purpose (Dialog. cum Tryph. init.; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4, 11; Photius, Bibl. cod. 125). According to what is commonly deemed the ancient record of his martyrdom (though Papebroche regards this as narrating the death of another Justin), he visited Rome twice. On his second visit he was apprehended, and brought before the tribunal of Rusticus, who held the office of praefectus urbi; and as he refused to offer sacrifice to the gods, he was sentenced to be scourged and beheaded, which sentence appears to have been immediately carried into effect. Several other persons suffered with him. Papebroche rejects this account of his martyrdom, and thinks his execution was secret, so that the date and manner of it were never known. The Greek Menoea (s. d. 1 Junii) state that he drank hemlock. His death is generally considered to have taken place in the persecution under the emperor Marcus Antoninus; and the Chronicon Paschale (1, 258, ed. Paris; 207, ed. Venice;: 482, ed. Bonn), which is followed by Tillemont, Baronius, Pagi, Otto, and other moderns, places it in the consulship of Orphitus and Pudens, A.D. 165; Dupin, Semisch, and Schaff place it in A.D. 166; Fleury in A.D. 167; and Tillemont and Maran in A.D. 168. Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, April 2, 107), assigning the Apologia Secunda of Justin to the year 171, contends that he must have lived to or beyond that time. Dodwell, on the contrary, following the erroneous statement of Eusebius in his Chronicon, places his death in the reign of Antoninus Pius; and Epiphanius, according to the present reading of the passage (adv. Hoeres. 46, 1), which is most likely corrupt, places it in the reign of the emperor Hadrian or Adrian, a manifest error, as the Apologia Prima is addressed to Antonisus Pius, the successor of Hadrian, and the Secunda probably to Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus, who succeeded Antoninus. The death of Justin has been very commonly ascribed (compare Tatian, Contra Groecos c. 19; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4, 1, and Chron. Paschale) to the machinations of the Cynic philosopher Crescens. The enmity of Crescens and Justin's apprehension of injury from him, are mentioned by Justin himself (Apolog. Secunda, c. 3). He has been canonized by the Eastern and Western churches; the Greeks celebrate his memory on the 1st of June, the Latins, on the 13th of April. At Rome, the Church of St. Lorenzo without the walls is believed to be the resting place of his remains; but the Church of the Jesuits at Eysstadt, in Germany claims to possess his body: there is, however, no reason to believe that either claim is well founded. The more common epithet added to the name of Justin by the ancients is that of "the philosopher" (Epiphanius, 1.c.; Eusebius, Chronicon, lib. 2; Jerome, De Viribus Illustr. c. 23; Chronicon Paschale. l.c.; George Sylicellus, p. 350, 351, ed. Paris; p. 279, ed. Venice; Glijcas, Annal. pars 3, p. 241, ed. Paris; p. 186, ed. Venice; p. 449, ed.
Bonn); that of "the martyr," now in general use, is employed by Tertullian (Adv. Valent. c. 5), who calls him "philosophus et martyr;" by Photius (Biblioth. cod. 48, 125, 232), and by Joannes Damascenus (Sacra Parall. 2, 754, ed. Lequien), who, like Tertullian, conjoins the two epithets.
Works. — It remains for us to consider the writings of Justin Martyr, which, although not very voluminous, so far as they are known to be or to have been extant, are among the most important that have come down to us from the 2d century, not so much because they are apologetic as because they are the earliest Christian apologies extant. In their classification we follow closely, with Smith (Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biog. s.v.), one of the latest editors of the works of Justin Martyr, J.F.C. Otto, who makes four distinct classes.
(1.) Undisputed Works. —
1. Α᾿πολογία πρώτη ὑπέρ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς Α᾿ντωνῖνον τὸν Εὐσεβῆ, Apologia prima pro Christianis ad Antoninum Pium, mentioned in the only two known MSS. of the Apologies, and in the older editions of Justin, e.g. that of Stephens (Paris, 1551, fol.) and that of Sylburg (Heidelberg, 1593, folio), as his second Apology, is one of the most interesting remains of Christian antiquity. It is addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius, and to his adopted sons "Verissimus the Philosopher," afterwards the emperor M. Aurelius, and "Lucius the Philosopher" (we follow the common reading, not that of Eusebius), afterwards the emperor Verus, colleague of M. Aurelius. From the circumstance that Verissimus is not styled Caesar, which dignity he acquired in the course of A.D. 139, it is inferred by many critics, including Pagi, Neander, Otto, Semisch, and others, that the Apology as written previously, and probably early in that year. Eusebius places it in the fourth year of Antoninus, or the first year of the 230th Olympiad, A.D. 141, which is rather too late. Others contend for a still later date Justin himself, in the course of the work (c. 46), states that Christ was born a hundred and fifty years before he wrote, but he must be understood as speaking in round numbers. However, Tillemont, Grabe, Fleury, Ceillier, Maran, and others, fix the date of the work in A.D. 150. "Its contents," says bishop Kaye, "may be reduced to the following heads:
 Appeals to the justice of the ruling powers, and expostulations with them on the unfairness of the proceedings against the Christians, who were condemned without any previous investigation into their lives or opinions merely because they were Christians, and were denied the liberty allowed to all the other subjects of the Roman empire, of worshipping the God whom they themselves preferred.
 Refutations of the charges of atheism, immorality, and disaffection towards the emperor, which were brought against the Christians these charges Justin refuted by appealing to the purity of the Gospel precepts, and to the amelioration produced in the conduct of those who embraced Christianity; and by stating that the kingdom to which Christians looked forward was not of this world, but a heavenly kingdom.
 Direct arguments in proof of the truth of Christianity, drawn from miracles and prophecy. With respect to the former, Justin principally occupies himself in refuting the objection that the miracles of Christ were performed by magical arts. With respect to the latter, he states in forcible terms the general nature of the argument from prophecy, and shows the accomplishment of many particular prophecies in the person of Jesus, inferring, from their accomplishment, the reasonableness of entertaining a firm persuasion that the prophecies yet unfulfilled that, for instance, respecting Christ's second advent — will in due time be accomplished.
 Justin does not confine himself to defending Christianity bus occasionally becomes the assailant, and exposes with success the absurdities of the Gentile polytheism and idolatry. In further confirmation of the innocuous, or, rather, beneficial character of Christianity, Justin concludes the treatise with a description of the mode in which proselytes were admitted into the Church, of its other rites and customs, and of the habits and manner of life of the primitive Christians." To this Apology, the larger one of the two, are generally appended three documents: (1) Α᾿δριανοῦ ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν ἐπιστολή, Adriani pro Christianis Epistola, or Exemplum Epistoloe Imperatoris Adriani ad Minucium: Fundanum Proconsulum Asioe. This Greek version of the emperor's letter was made and is given by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 4:8). Justin had subjoined to his work the Latin original (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4:8), which probably is still preserved by Rutinus in his version of Eusebius, for which, in the work of Justin, the version of Eusebius was afterwards substituted. (2) Α᾿ντωνίνου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Α᾿σίαςt A;iac, Antonini Epistola ad Commune Asioe. It is hardly likely that this document was inserted in its place by Justin himself; it has probably been added since his times and its genuineness is subject to considerable doubt. It is given, but with great variation, by Eusebius. (Hist., Eccles. 4, 13), and was written, according to the ext of the letter itself, as it appears in Eusebius, not by Antonius, but by his successor, M. Aurelius. (3) Μάρκου βασιλέως ἐπιστολὴ προς τὴνσύγκλητον, έν ῃ μαρτυρεῖ Χριστιανοὺς αἰτίους γεγενῆσθαι τῆς νίκης αὐτῶν Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senatum qua testatur Christianos victorioe causam fuisse. This letter, the spuriousness of which is generally admitted (though it is said by Tertullian, Apologetics, cap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was written by the emperor), relates to the famous miracle of the so called thundering legion (q.v.).
2. Α᾿πολογίαδευτέρα ὑπὲρ τῶν Χριστιανῶν πρὸς τὴν ᾿Ρωμαίων σύγκλητον, Apologia Secunda pro Christianis ad Senatum Romanum. This second and shorter plea for the Christians was addressed probably to the emperors M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus, or, rather, to Aurelius alone, as Verus was engaged in the East in the Parthian war. (See below.) Neander adopts the opinion formerly maintained by Valesius, that this Apology (placed in the older editions before the longer one just described) was addressed to Antoninus Pius; but Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 4, 17,18) and Photius (Bibl. cod. 125) among the ancients, and Dupin, Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, Mosheim, Semisch, and Otto among the modems, maintain the opposite side. Otto thinks it was written about A.D. 164; others place it somewhat later. Scaliger (Animadv. in Chron. Euseb. p. 219) and Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis 2, 106) consider that this second Apology of Justin is simply an introduction or preface to the first, and that the Apology presented to Aurelius and Verus has been lost, but their opinion has been refuted by several writers, especially by Otto. Granted, then that this Apology was presented to M. Aurelius, we find it "occasioned by the punishment inflicted on three persons at Rome, whom Urbicus, the prefect of the city, had put to death merely because they were Christians. After exposing the injustice of this proceeding, Justin replies to two objections which the enemies of the Gospel were accustomed to urge. The first was, Why, if the Christians were certain of being received into heaven, they did not destroy themselves, and save the Roman governors the trouble of putting them to death? Justin's answer is, that, if they were so to act, they would contravene the designs of God by diminishing the number of believers, preventing the diffusion of true religion, and, as far as depended upon them, extinguishing the human race. The second objection was, 'Why, if they were regarded by God with an eye of favor, he suffered them to be exposed to injury and oppression?' Justin replies that the persecutions with which they then were, and with which many virtuous men among the heathens had before been visited, originated in the malignant artifices of demons the offspring of the apostate angels, who were permitted to exercise their power until the designs of the Almighty were finally accomplished. Another objection, of a different kind, appears to have been urged against the Christians that, in exhorting men to live virtuously, they insisted, not upon the beauty of virtue, but upon the eternal rewards and punishments which await the virtuous and wicked. Justin replies that these are topics on which every believer in the existence of God must insist, since in that belief is involved the further belief that he will reward the good and punish the bad. With respect to direct arguments to prove the divine origin of Christianity, that which Justin principally urges is drawn from the fact that no man ever consented to die in attestation of the truth of any philosophical tenets; whereas men, even from the lowest ranks of life, braved danger and death in the cause of the Gospel. Towards the conclusion of the tract, Justin states that he was himself induced to embrace Christianity by observing, the courage and constancy with which its professors encountered all the terrors of persecution." Two Fragmenta, given by Grabe in his Spicileg. saecul. 2, 173, are supposed by him to belong to the second Apology, in the present copies of which they are not found; but the correctness of this supposition is very doubtful.
3. Πρὸς Τρυφῶνα Ι᾿ουδαῖον δίάλογος, Cum Tryphone Judoeo Dialogus. This dialogue, in which Justin defends Christianity against the objections of Trypho, professes to be the record of an actual discussion, held, according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 4, 18), at Ephesus Trypho describes himself as a Jew; "flying from the war now raging, probably occasioned by the revolt under Barchochebas, in the reign of Hadrian A.D. 132-134. But, though the discussion probably took place at the time, it was not committed to writing, at least not finished, till some years after, as Justin makes a reference to his first Apology, which is assigned, as we have seen, to A.D. 138 or 139, It has been conjectured that Trypho is the Rabbi Tarphon of the Talmudists, teacher or colleague of the celebrated Rabbi Akiba, but he does not appear as a rabbi in the dialogue. The dialogue is perhaps founded upon the conversation of Justin with Trypho rather than an accurate record of it. After an introduction, in which Justin gives an account of the manner of his conversion to Christianity, and earnestly exhorts Trypho to follow his example, Trypho replies to the exhortation by saying that Justin would have acted more wisely in adhering to any one of the philosophical sects to which he had formerly been attached than in leaving God, and placing all his reliance upon a man. In the former case, if he lived virtuously, he might hope to obtain salvation; in the latter he could have no hope. His only safe course, therefore, was to be circumcised, and comply with the other requisitions of the Mosaic law. Justin answers that the Christians had not deserted God, though they no longer observed the ceremonial law. They worshipped the God who brought the forefathers of the Jews out of the land of Egypt, and gave the law, but who had plainly declared by the prophets that he would give a new law — a law appointing a new mode of purification from sin, by the baptism of repentance and of the knowledge of God — and requiring a spiritual, not a carnal circumcision. The ceremonial law was, in truth, given to the Jews on account of the hardness of their heart, as a mark of God's displeasure at their apostasy, when they made the golden calf in Horeb. All its ordinances, its sacrifices, its Sabbath, the prohibition of certain kinds of food, were designed to counteract the inveterate tendency of the Jews to fall into idolatry. If, says Justin, we contend that the ceremonial law is of universal and perpetual obligation, we run the hazard of charging God with inconsistency, as if he had appointed different modes of justification at different times; since they who lived before Abraham were not circumcised, and they who lived before Moses neither observed the Sabbath nor offered sacrifices, although God bore testimony to them that they were righteous. Having, as he thinks, satisfactorily proved that the ceremonial law is no longer binding, Justin replies to an argument used by Trypho, that the prophecy of Da 7:9 taught the Jews to expect that the Messiah would be great and glorious; whereas the Messiah of the Christians was unhonored and inglorious, and fell under the extreme curse of the law, for he was crucified. Justin's answer is, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament speak of two advents of the Messiah, one in humiliation and the other in glory; though the Jews, blinded by their prejudices, looked only to those passages which foretold the latter. He then proceeds to quote passages of the Old Testament in which, the Messiah is called God, and Lord of Hosts. In this part of the dialogue Justin extracts from the Old Testament several texts in which he finds allusions to the Gospel history. Thus the paschal lamb was a type of Christ's crucifixion; the offering of fine flour for those who were cleansed from the leprosy was a type of the bread in the Eucharist; the twelve bells attached to the robe of the high priest, of the twelve apostles. Justin next undertakes to prove that the various prophecies respecting the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus; but, having quoted Isaiah 7 to prove that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin, he first runs into a digression caused by an inquiry from Trypho, whether Jews who led holy lives, like Job, Enoch, and Noah, but observed the Mosaic law, could be saved; and afterwards into a second digression, occasioned by a remark of Trypho's that the Christian doctrine respecting the pre existence and divinity of Christ, and his subsequent assumption of humanity, was monstrous and absurd. Combating these points, Trypho next inquires" of Justin whether he really believes that Jerusalem would be rebuilt, and all the Gentiles, as well as the Jews and proselytes, collected there under the government of the Messiah; or whether he merely professed such a belief in order to conciliate the Jews. Justin, in answer, admits that the belief was not universal among the orthodox Christians, but that he himself maintained that the dead would rise again in the body, and live for a thousand years in Jerusalem, which would be rebuilt, and beautified and enlarged. He appeals in support of his opinion to Isaiah, and to the Apocalypse, which he ascribes to John, one of Christ's apostles. Justin then concludes the interview by debating the conversion of the Gentiles. He contends that the Christians are the true people of God, inasmuch as they fulfill the spiritual meaning of the law, and do not merely conform, like the Jews, to the letter. They have the true circumcision of the heart; they are the true race of priests dedicated to God, and typified by Jesus, the high priest in the prophecy of Zechariah; they offer the true spiritual sacrifices which are pleasing to God, agreeably to the prophecy of Malachi; they are the seed promised to Abraham, because they are actuated by the same principle of faith which actuated Abraham; they are, in a word; the true Israel. The dialogue with Trypho appears to be mutilated, but to what extent is a matter of dispute. "Two fragments are assigned to it by Grabe (Spicilegium, saec. 2, 175), but it is doubtful with what correctness. "It is to be observed," says Smith (Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography), "that, although Otto ranks the Dialogus cum Tryphone among the undisputed works of Justin, its genuineness has been repeatedly attacked. The first assault was by C.G. Koch, of Apenrade, in the duchy of Sleswick (Justini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone... νοθεύσεως... convictus), but this attack was regarded as of little moment. That of Wetstein (Proleg. in. Nov. Test. 1, 66), founded on the difference of the citations from the text of the Sept. and their agreement with that of the Hexaplar edition of Origen, and perhaps of the version of Symmachus, which are both later than the time of Justin, was more serious, and has called forth elaborate replies from Krom (Diatribe de Authentia Dialog.
Justini Martyr. cum Tryph.; etc., 1778, 8vo), Eichhorn (Einleitung in das A.T.), and Kredner (Beiträge zur Einleitung, etc.). The attack was renewed at a later period by Lange, but with little result. An account of the controversy is given by Semisch (book 2, sect. 1, ch. 2), who contends earnestly for the genuineness of the work. It may be observed that the genuineness even of the two Apologies was attacked by the learned but eccentric Hardouin."
(2.) Disputed or Doubtful Works.-
4. Λὸγος πρὸς ῾῏Ελληνας, Oratio ad Groecos. "If this is indeed a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful, it is probably that described by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 4, 18) as treating περὶ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων φύσεως (compare Photius, Bibl. cod. 125), and by Jerome (De Vir. Illustr. c. 23) as being "de Daemonum nature;" for it is a severe attack on the flagitious immoralities ascribed by the heathens to their deities, and committed by themselves in their religions festivals. Its identity, however, with the work respecting daemons is doubted by many critics. Cave supposes it to be a portion of the work next mentioned. Its genuineness has been on various grounds disputed by Oudin, Semler, Semisch, and others, and is doubted by Grabe, Dupin, and Neander. The grounds of objection are well stated by Semisch (book 2, sect. 2, c. 1) but the genuineness of the piece is asserted by Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave, Maran, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, and by Otto, who has argued the question, we think with very doubtful success. If the work be that described by Eusebius, it must be mutilated, for the dissertation on the nature of the daemons or heathen deities is said by Eusebius to have been only a part of the work, but it now constitutes the whole.
5. Λᾠγος Παραινετικὸς πρὸς ῾῏Ελληνας, Cohortatio ad Groecos. This is, perhaps, another of the works mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius (1. c.), namely, the one said by them to have been entitled by the author" ῎Ελεγχος, Confutatio, or perhaps Τοῦ Πλατῶνος ἔλεγχος, Platonis Confutatio (Photius, Bibl. cod. 232), though the title has been dropped, Others are disposed to identify the work last described with the Confutatio. The genuineness of the extant work has been disputed, chiefly on the ground of internal evidence, by Oudin and by some German scholars (Semler, Arendt, and Herbig); and is spoken of with doubt by Neander; but it has generally been received as genuine, and is defended by Maran, Semisch (book 2, sect. 1, c. 3), and Otto. It is a much longer piece than the Oratio ad Groecos.
6. Πεπὶ μοναρχίας, De Monarchia. The title is thus given in the MSS. and by Maran. A treatise under nearly the same title, περὶ θεοῦ μοναρχίας, De Monarchia Dei, is mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius (l.c.). The word Θεοῦ is contained in the title of the older editions of the extant treatise, which is an argument for Monotheism, supported by numerous quotations from the Greek poets and philosophers. As, according to Eusebius, Justin had used citations from the sacred writings which are not found in the extant work, it is probable that, if this be the genuine work, it has come down to us mutilated. Petavius and Tillemont in a former age, and Herbig and Semisch in the present day, doubt or deny the genuineness of this treatises and their arguments are not without considerable force but the great majority of critics admit the treatise to be Justin's, though some of them, as Cave, Dupin, and Ceillier, contend that it is mutilated. Maran, understanding the passage sin Eusebius differently from others, vindicates not only the genuineness, but the integrity of the work. Some of the passages quoted from the ancient poets are not found in any, other writing, and are on that account suspected to be spurious additions of a later hand."
7. Ε᾿πιστολὴ πρὸς Διόγνητον., Epistola ad Diognetum. This valuable relic, of antiquity, which describes the life and worship of the early Christians, is by some eminent critics, as Labbe, Cave, Fabricitus, Ceillier, Baumgarten-Crusius; and others, ascribed to Justin by others, as Tillemont, Le Nourry, Oudin, Neander, and Semisch, it is ascribed to some other, but unknown writer, who is supposed to have lived earlier than Justin. Grabe, Dupin, Maran, and Otto, are in doubt as to the author ship. Both Otto and Semisch give a lengthened statement of the arguments on the question those of Semisch, derived chiefly from a comparison of the style and thoughts of the author with those of Justin in his undisputed works, clearly point to some other person as its author." Comp. especially Pressense, Early Years of Christianity, 2, (Martyrs and Apologists), p. 591, footnote (N.Y. 1871, 12mo). (The fragment of Justin on the Resurrection is noticed under lost works.)
(3.) Spurious Works.-
8. Α᾿νατροπὴ δογμάτων τινῶν Α᾿ριστοτελικῶν, Quorundam Aristotelis Dogmatum Confutatio. "Possibly this is the work described by Photius (Bibl. cod. 125) as written against the first and second books of the Physics of Aristotle. Its spuriousness is generally admitted; scarcely any critics except Cave, and perhaps Grabe, contend that it belongs to Justin; but its date is very doubtful, and its real authorship unknown.
9. ῎Εκθεσις τῆς ὀρθῆς σμολογίας, Expositio rectoe Confessionis. Possibly this is the work cited as Justin's by Leontius of Byzantium, in the 6th century; but it was little known in Western Europe till the time of the Reformation when it was received by some of the reformers, as Calvin, as a genuine work of Justin, and by others, as Melancthon and the Magdeburg centuriators placed among the works of doubtful genuineness. But it is now generally allowed that the precision of its orthodoxy, and the use of various terms not in use in Justin's time, make it evident that it was written at any rate after the commencement of the Arian controversy, and probably after the Nestorian, or even the Eutychian controversy. Grabe, Ceillier, and some others ascribe it to Justinus Siculus.
10. Α᾿ποκρίσεις πρὸς τοὺς ὀρθοδόξους περὶ τινῶν ἀναγκαίων ζητημάτων, Responsiones ad Orthodoxos de quibusdam Necessariis Quoestionibus. This is confessedly spurious.
11. Ε᾿ρωτήσεις Χριστιανικαὶ πρὸς τοὺς ῾῏Ελληνας, Quoestiones Christianoe ad Groecos, and Ε᾿ρωτήσεις ῾Ελληνικαὶ πρὸς τοὺς Χριστιανούς, Quoestiones Groecoe ad Christianos. Kestner alone of modern writers contends for the genuineness of these pieces. It is thought by some that either these answers, etc., or those to the Orthodox just mentioned, are, the Αποριῶν κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβέιας κεφαλαιώδεις ἐπιλύσεις, Brief Resolutions of Doubts unfavorable to Piety, mentioned by Photius (Bibl. cod. 125).
12. Epistola ad Zenams et Serenum, commencing; Ι᾿ουστῖνος Ζηνᾶ'/ καὶ Σερήνῳ τοῖς ἀδελφῖς χαίρειν, Justinus Zenee et. Serenofratribus salutem. This piece is by the learned (except Grabe, Cave, and a few others) rejected from the works of Justin Martyr, Halloix, Tillemont, and Ceillier ascribe it to a Justin, abbot of a monastery near Jerusalem, in the reign of the emperor Heraclius, of whom mention is made in the life of St. Anastasius the Persian; but Maran considers that as doubtful."
(4.) Lost Works. —
13. Σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶνγεγενημένων, Liber contra omnes Hoereses, mentioned by Justin himself in his Apologia Prima (c. 26, p. 70, ed. Maran: 1, 194, ed. Otto), and therefore antecedent in the time of its composition to that work.
14. Λόγοοι, Εύγγραμμα κατὰ Μαρκίωνος, Πρὸς Μαρκίωνα, Contra Marcionem (Irenaeus, Adv. Hoeres. 4, 6, conf. 5, 26; Jerome, De Vir. Illustribus, c. 23; Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. 4, 11; Photius, Bibl. cod. 125). "Baumgarten Crusius and Otto conjecture that this work against Marcion was a part of the larger work, Contra omnes Hoereses, just mentioned; but Jerome and Photius clearly distinguish them." The fragment De Resurrectione Carnis, preserved by Joannes Damascenus (Sacra Parall. Opera, 2, 756, etc., ed. Lequien), and usually printed with the works of Justin, is thought by Otto to be from the Liber contra omnes Hoereses, or from that against Marcion (supposing them to be distinct works), for no separate treatise of Justin on the Resurrection appears to have been known to Eusebius, or Jerome or Photius but such a work is cited, by Procopius of Gaza, In Octateuch. ad Genes. 3, 21. Semisch, however (book 2, sect. 1, c. 4) who, with Grabe and Otto, contends for the genuineness of the fragment, which he vindicates against the objections of Tillemont, Le Nourry, Maran, Neander, and others, thinks it was an independent work."
15. ψάλτης,Psaltes, a work the nature of which is not known; and,
16. Περὶ ψυχῆς, De Anima — both mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 4, 18) and Jerome (l.c.), Besides these works Justin wrote several others, of which not even the names have come down to us (Eusebius, 4, 18), but the following are ascribed to him on insufficient grounds.
17. Υπομνήματα εἰς Ε᾿ξαήμερον., Commentarius in Hexaemeron, a work of which a fragment, cited from Anastasius Sinaita (In Hexaem. lib. 7), is given by Grabe (Spicil. SS. Patr. vol. s. saec. 2, p. 195) and Maran (Opp. Justin.). Maran, however, doubts it is Justin's, and observes that the words of Anastasius do not imply that Justin wrote a separate work on the subject.
18. Πρὸς Εὐφράσιον σοφιστὴν περὶ προνοίας καὶ πίστεως, Adversus Euphrasium Sophistam, de Providentia et Fide, of which a citation is preserved by Maximus (Opus. Polemica, 2, 154, ed. Combefis). This treatise is probably the work of a later Justin.
19. A Commentary on the Apocalypse. The supposition that Justin wrote such a work is probably founded on a misunderstanding of a passage in Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c 9), who says that "Justin Martyr interpreted the Apocalypse," but without saying that it was in a separate work. The authorship of the work Περὶ τοῦ παντός, De Universo, mentioned by Photius (Bibl. cod. 48), was, as he tells us, disputed, some ascribing it to Justin, but apparently with little reason. It is now assigned to Hippolytus (q.v.).
Nearly all the works of Justin, genuine and spurious (viz. all enumerated above in the first three divisions, except the Oratio ad Groecos and the Epistola ad Diognetum), were published by Robert Stephens, Paris, 1551, fol. This is the editio princeps of the collected works but the Cohortatio ad Groecos had been previously published, with a Latin version, Paris, 1539, 4to. There is no discrimination or attempt at discrimination in this edition of Stephens between the genuine and spurious Works. The Oratio ad Groecos, and the Epistola ad Diognetum, with a Latin version and notes, were published by Henry Stephens, Paris, 1592, 4to, and again in 1595. All these works, real or supposed, of Justin were published, with the Latin version of Langus, and notes by Fred. Sylburgius, Heidelberg, 1593, fol.; and this edition was reprinted, Paris, 1615 and 1636, fol., with the addition of some remains of other early fathers; and Cologne, (or rather Wittenberg), 1686, fol., with some further additions. A far superior edition, with the remains of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Hermias the Philosopher, with a learned preface and notes, was published, opera et studio unius ex Monachis congreg. S. Mauri," i.e. by Prudentius Maranus, or Marani (Paris, 1742, fol.). In this the genuine pieces, according to the judgment of the editor (Nos. 1-6 in our enumeration), are given in the body of the work, together with the Epistola ad Diognetum, of the authorship of which Maran was in doubt. The two Apologies were placed in their right order for the first time in this edition. The remaining works, together with fragments which had been collected by Grabe (who had first published in his Spicilegium SS. Patrum the fragment on the Resurrection from Joannes Damascenus) and others, and the Martyrum S. Justini, of which the Greek text was first published in the Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis, vol. 2, were given in the Appendix. From the time of Maran, no complete edition of Justin. was published until that of Otto (Jena, 1842-44, 2 vols. 8vo; new edition, 1847-50, 3 vols. 8vo). The first volume contains the Oratio et Cohortatio ad Groecos, and the Apologia Prima and
Apologia Secunda. The second contains the Dialogus cum Tryphone, the Epistola ad Diognetum, the fragments, and the Acta Martyrii Justini et Sociorum. Numerous valuable editions of the several pieces appeared, chiefly in England. The Apologia Prima was edited by Grabe (Oxford, 1700, 8vo); the Apologia Secunda, Oratio ad Groecos, Cohortatio ad Groecos, and De Monarchia, by Hutchin (Oxford, 1703, 8vo); and the Dialogus cum Tryphone, by Jebb. (Lond. 1 719, 8vo). These three editions had the Latin version of Langus, and variorum notes. The Apologia Prima, Apologia Secunda, and Dialogus cum Tryphone, from the text of Robert Stephens, with some corrections, with the version of Langus, and notes, were edited by Thirlby and published, Lond. 1722, folio. It has been conjectured that this valuable edition, though published under the name of Thirlby, was really by Markland. The Apologia Prima, Apologia Secunda Dialogus cum Tryphone, and the fragments, are given in the first volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland. We do not profess to have enumerated all the editions of the Greek text, and we have not noticed the Latin versions. Full information will be found in the prefaces of Maran and Otto. There are English translations of the Apologies by Reeves, of the Dialogue with Trypho by Brown, and of the Exhortation to the Gentiles by Moses."
Theological Views. — Of the more striking peculiarities of Justin's theological system, we present the reader a short but faithful summary from the pen of the late professor C. E. Stowe: "There is in every man a germ of the divine reason, a seed of the Logos, whereby man is related to God, and becomes capable of forming an idea of God. By this spark of the divine intelligence the better men among the pagan philosophers were illuminated; but more especially, and far beyond these, the prophets and inspired men of the Old Testament. Still this revelation was only fragmentary and partial. Only in Christ was the Logos, the diving reason, perfectly revealed. The Logos, the Word, is himself God, yet from God; the Word the First-begotten, the Power, the primitive Revelation of God. He is the only-begotten of God, yet without any dividing or pouring forth of the divine substance, but begotten solely by the will of the Father. The Son was with God before the creation; the Word of the Father, and begotten when God by him in the beginning created and ordered all things. As to his personal subsistence, he is distinct from God, but numerically only, not essentially; and subordinate to the Father, but only insomuch as he has his origin and being from the counsel of the paternal will. As he is the first revelation of the Father, so he is the medium of all the subsequent revelations of the divine light and life. He is the Creator and Governor of the world, the universal reason. He dwells in every reasonable being, in different measure, according to the susceptibility of each individual; and he was the leader and bearer of the Old Testament theocracy. He is the God who appeared to Moses and to the patriarchs. He it is who said, I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob; and he was with such heathen as Socrates, though not with those who were ungodly. When the fullness of time had come, this Word, through the, Virgin, became flesh, according to the will of the Father, that he might participate in and bear our infirmities, and take away from us the curse of the law. In him were united and made objective the human reason and the divine intelligence; he was in the flesh both man and God incarnate, and thus the Savior of fallen men. This is the true and the only safe and saving philosophy; in comparison with this, all other philosophy has only a subordinate value; this alone works salvation, and here only can we recognize the divine, and attain to God. He who is filled with the spirit of Christ derives not his knowledge from the erring, and imperfect, and fragmentary reason, but from the fullness and perfection of reason, which is Christ himself" (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1852, p. 829 sq.). As a whole, the works of Justin Martyr everywhere attest," says Dr. Schaff (Ch. Hist. 2, 484), his honesty and earnestness, his enthusiastic love for Christianity, and his fearlessness in its defense against all assaults from without and perversions from within. Justin was a man of very extensive reading, enormous memory, inquiring spirit, and many profound ideas, but wanting in critical discernment. His mode of reasoning is often ingenious and convincing, but sometimes loose and rambling, fanciful and puerile. His style is easy and vivacious, but diffuse and careless. He is the first of the Church fathers to bring classical scholarship and Platonic philosophy in contact with the Christian theology. He found in Platonism many responses to the Gospel, which he attributed in part to the fragmentary, germ like revelation of the Logos before the incarnation, and in part to an acquaintance with the Mosaic Scriptures. With him Christ was the absolute reason, and Christianity the only true philosophy. His sources of theological knowledge are partly the living Church tradition, partly the Holy Scriptures, from which he cites most frequently, and generally from memory, the Old Testament prophets (in the Sept.), and the Memorials of the Apostles, as he calls the canonical gospels. He expressly mentions the revelation of John. But, like the Pastor Hermae, he nowhere notices Paul, though several allusions to passages of his epistles can hardly be mistaken, and Justin's position towards heathenism was anything but the Ebionistic, and was far more akin to that of Paul. Any dogmatical inference from this silence is the less admissible, since in the genuine writings of this father not one of the apostles or evangelists is expressly named, but reference is always made directly to Christ. Justin's exegesis of the Old Testament is typological and Messianic throughout, finding references everywhere to Christ." See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 4, 8-13, 16-18; Jerome, De Vir. Illust. c. 23; Phot. Bibl. cod. 48, 125, 232, 234; Martyrium s. Acta Martyrii Justinii, apud Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. 2; and apud Opera Justini, edit. Maran and Otto; Halloix, Illustrium Eccl. Orient. Scriptorum "Vitoe, saecl. 2, p. 151, etc.; reprinted, with a Comment. Proevius and Notoe by Papebroche, in the Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. 2; Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patrum, 2, 133; Baronius, Annales, ad annos 130, 142, 143, 150, 164, 165; Pagi, Critioe in. Baronium; Cave, History of Literature, 1. 60, ed. Oxf. 1740-43; the ecclesiastical histories of Tillemont, 2, 344, etc.; Fleury, 1, 413, etc., 476, etc.; Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliotheque, etc.; Ceillier, Des Auteurs Sacres, 2, etc.; Lardner, Credibility, etc.; Otto, De Justini Martyris Scriptis; Fabricius, Biblioth. Groec. 7, 52, etc.; Semisch, Justin der Martyrer (Breslau, 1840-2; translated by Ryland in the Biblical Cabinet); Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog. and Mythology, 2, 682 sq.; Bp. Kaye, Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr (2d ed., revised, Lond. 1836, 8vo); Kitto, Journal Sacred Lit. 5, 253 sq.; Roberts and Donaldson, Ante- Nicene Christian Lib. (Edinb. 1867, T. and T. Clark), vol. 2; Neander, Church History, 1, 661 sq.