>^.4^;'-^3^^C.*^l#?yJ^ K^-Jk ,^f^- i^i:X^ Jl ^ tXoao(j>iav datjiaX^ re Kai (TvfjuJMpov, p. 225 C. Justin gives an interesting account of the manner in which he was induced to study the Prophetic Writings, by the arguments of an aged man, whom he accidentally met' on the sea-shore, p. 219 E. and to whom he appears to allude, p. 241 B. Kripv^ dveXieTv Kal dvarpt^ai povXofiEvoe, Trpwrov fiev r« M.uxry (j>avels, 'i^tj Trpog avTov, iyb> tlfii 6 &v, 'iSti ydp, oifiai, tov apj^ovTa Koi aTpaTr]-r yov TOV TtSv '"Eifiptuiiiv yivouq iataQai fiiWovTa irpiSrov airdv- Tbiv TOV oVTa yiyvbKTKEiv Qeov. Sio Kai tovtw TrpuiTw ^avuQ, ug i]v SwuTov dvOpiin^ ^av^i'ai Qeov, £07J irpbg avTov, kyii eifii 6 &v. ' p. 96 B. ' See also p. 34 C. 36 C. In p. 32 B, the Author says, that the Heathen were induced to represent their Gods under human forms, by the statement in the Book of Genesis, that God made when he assured our first Parents that if they ate of the firuit of the tree of knowledge, they should be as Gods, impressed them with the persuasion that there were other Gods besides the Creator of heaven and earth ; and that they, retaining this persuasion after their expulsion from Paradise, trans- mitted it to their posterity. But in ' the latter pas- sage the statement is, that the Angels, to whom God had committed the superintendence of this lower world, transgressing his commands, became connected with women ; and that from this inter- course sprang Daemons, who were, the authors of Idolatry and Polytheism. The accounts of the Sep- tuagi^t translation in p. 13 D. and in the first Apo- logy p. 72 C. do not appear to me to have proceeded from the same pen; and in ^p. 21 C. the. author of man in his own likeness aiftel: his. image,- from which they inferred that man is in form like unto God ; r^c yip Mwireuc laropiag sk wpoarunov Tov Qeov \eyovtrris, iroiiiaiaiuv AvOpwirov kut eiKova K. T. L See also p. 36 C. Compare this with the mode in which the same text is applied in the Dialogue with Trypho, p, 285 A. In the Fragment of the Tract on the Resurrection, asciihed to Justin, the Author applies this Text to the fleshly man, ^ ydp ov ri(rlv b \6yoe' TzoiiiaiafiEV avOpiajrov icar' elicdva iljXETtpav, KoX Ka& bfioloxriv ; iroiov ; S-qKovoTt aapKiKoy \eyei av- Opuiiroy. Grabe Spicil. T. II. p. 187. ' p. 44 A. Compare Apol. I. p. 55 E. 67 D. 69 C. '^ KaiToi iroXX^E Sia(j)opSe kv tovtolq over}Q, Kara rfiv aiiTOv RXarbivos S6E,av. 6 fxev yap iroirirriQi ovSevoe iripov wpoirSsofxcvoe, ex TTiQ eavTOv Zyvafitiag Kal i^vaias iroiei to Troiov/XEVOV o Se Srijjuovpyoe, Trfv rfje hrijxioilpyiae Svvafiiv ek rrje vKijs eiXriip&tc, KaTaaKevd^ei to yiyvofttvov. the Hortatory Address makes after Plato a distinc- tion between ttojiji-ijc and SrifuovpyoQ — words which Justin uses' indiscriminately. To evade the infer- ence drawn from these discrepancies, it may be said that Bishop Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. 3. C. 2.) has pointed out a coincidence of sentiment in this work and in the second Apology. The Author of thQ ^ former says of Plato, that " ha\dng heard in Egypt that God, when he sent Moses to the Hebrews, said tyw i'lfu o u)v, he (Plato) knew that God had not declared his proper name; since no proper name can be assigned to God. For names are given for the purpose of describing and distinguishing' things, inasmuch as they are many and various. But no one existed before God, who could give him a name ; nor did he deem it right to give himself a name, 1 Thus Apol. I. p. 57 A. /HET-d Qeov tov iravTuv trarpoe Kai Srifiwvpyov, And p. 66 C. tov iravTiav Ttoitir^v Qeov. See also p. 60 C. 66 E. 70 A. B. 92 A. ' aKj)icoi>e yap i-v AlyvTrra tov Qeov t^ Mwaij eipriKevdi, eyiit ifii &v, OTtrjvlKa ■Kpog tovq "Ejipaiove aiiTov airotTTeWeiv eueX- Aev, eyviii oti ov Kvpiov ovo/jia eavrov 6 Qeog Trpbe avTov e'^ij. evSev yap ovo^a ETrt Qeov KvpioXoyelirBac Svvhtov. ra yap ovo- fMTa eiQ SriXacriv Kai Sidyvuxriv r&v vwoKeifieviav KEtrai Trpayud' Tb)v, ■TToWiiv icai Siav ovTiov' Qe^ Se ovre o Tideig ovoua irpovTrijpxcv, ovra airog eavTOv ovofj-d^eiv mtiOt] Se~iv, elg icai fiovog vTrdp-)(0)v, i\oa6(pov Kaiaapo^ TraiSi, oiiSs ry ispo avy- KXriTif) Kpivuc. In the Title it is said to be addressed to the Roman Senate ; in the beginning of the Treatise, as it at present stands, we find the words w 'Pwfiaioi, and, subsequently, the expressions ^^avt- pov vfiiv tariv, t'lSivai vfiag /3ovXo/uac. But we also find ^ aol Tw avTOKparopi, from wMch we might be induced to suppose that it was addressed to the Emperor. It has been inferred, from the expecta- tion expressed by Justin, p. 46 E. that he should ' L. iv. c. 16. Se? the Note of Valesius on c. 17. and the Prolegomena to the Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, Tom. I. c. 17. §.'3. We find in p. 46 C. the expression Movawvwv Se iv wle. KaO'rifiac, but it affords no clue to the date. "p. 47C. B. ' p. 42 C. See also p. 47 B. jiacriKiKQv S" ^y kuI tovto epyov cirj. 16 become the victim of the artifices and calumnies of the Philosopher Crescens, that he composed this Treatise not long before his martyrdom. This is the statement of Eusebius L. iv. c. 16. Lardner supposes that the beginning is lost ; and it appears to be in other respects imperfect ^ It was occa- sioned by the punishment inflicted on three persons at Rome, whom Urbicus, the Prefect of the city, had put to death merely because they were Christ- ians. After exposing the gross injustice of this proceeding, Justin replies to two objections tvhich the enemies of the Gospel were accustomed to urge. ^ The first was, "Why, if the Christians were cer- tain 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, ex- tinguishing the human race. The ' second objection was, " Why, if they werei regarded by God vrith an eye of favour, He suffered them to be exposed to injury and oppression?" Justin replies, that y .The words ■!fpoE(j>riiJ.ev, u)e TrpoifrifiEf occur p. 43 D. 45 A. 46' C. 47 E. Pearson supposes the references to be to the first Apology, p. 58 B. 96 A. (perhaps rather to 68 C. or75 A.) 83 C. 71 C. ' p. 43 C. = p. 43 E. J7 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 Daemons, 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 Chris- tians : 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 vdcked. 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 1 p. 47 D. Some appear also to have urged the different notions of right and wrong entertained by different nations, in confirmation of the belief, that all actions are indifferent, and that there will be neither rewards nor punishments after death, p. 48 A. " p. 48 E. Compare Diet. p. 350 A. ' p. 50 A. Compare Tertullian's Apology, sub. fin. C 18 was himself induced to embrace Christianity, by observing the courage and constancy with which its professors encountered all the terrors of persecution. The Dialogue with Trypho was posterior to the first Apology, to which it contains a ' reference ; but with respect to the precise date, there is the same difference of opinion among the Critics, as in the case of the other treatises. Trypho says ^ of himself, that he resided principally at Corinth, having been obliged to quit Judaea by the war which had just taken place ; in which passage he is usu- ally supposed to allude to the revolt of Barcho- chebas ; though ' Dodwell thinks that the allusion is to a revolt mentioned by Julius Capitolinus in his *life of Antoninus Pius. Scaliger inferred, from the words tov vvv -yivon^vov ttoXejuov, that the Dia- logue was composed during the reign of Adrian. But even if we interpret the word vvv strictly, the fair inference is, that the Dialogue then took place, not that it was then ^ committed to writing ; which ' p. 349 C. ovM yap dirb tov yivovs tov ijjiov, Xiym Sk riov 'SafxapiiMiv , Tivbq ippovTiZa iroiovfievoe, tyypa.o)e KatVapt irpotro- fitXiiiv, eiwov TrXavdcrSot avTOvc Tretdofievovc t(^ kv Tto yevei aiiTbiv jJinyip "SiLfUiivi, ov Qeov vTrepcivo) waarjg cipj(rje koi k'^ovtrtag Kal Svvdfieioe Eivai \iyovai. See Apol. I. p. 69 D. Compare also Apol. II. p. 52 A. ' p. 217 D. Compare p. 227 A. = Diss. Iren. III. § 14. IV. § 42. See the Bibliotheca Vete- rum Patrum. Tom. I. c. 17. Sect. 2. * c. 5. ^ Justin mentions in p. 306 D. his intention of committing the 19 was done some time afterwards, for the information of Justin's friend, ' Marcus Pompeius. The revolt of Barchochebas, however, must have been finally suppressed before the Dialogue took place; since there ^ is a reference to the Decree of Adrian, by which the Jews were prevented from going up to Jerusalem, and they are said no longer to have pos- sessed the power of persecuting the Christians. The word vvv must consequently be interpreted with some degree of latitude. Some critics have sus- pected that Justin's Jew is a fictitious personage, or at least that no such Dialogue actually took place ; nor are there wanting circumstances which give countenance to the suspicion. The introduction looks like an imitation of the introductions to Plato's Dialogues, and to the philosophical Dialogues of Cicero. It is difficult, also to conceive that Jus- tin would have ventured, in a real Dialogue, ' upon conversation to writing, in order to convince the Jews tliat he really entertained the sentiments which he had expressed ; and that he did not put them forth merely for the purpose of making converts of Trypho and his friends. From more than one pas- sage it appears that Justin did not put down all that was actu- aUy said. See p. 229 A. 278 B. 356 B. 357 E. ' p. 371 B. Who this Marcus Pompeius was, is unknown. Thirlby, not without reason, ridicules Grabe's conjecture, that he was a bishop of Jerusalem. ' p. 234 A. C. ' I allude particularly to his derivation of the words Israel, p. 354 D. and Satan, p. 331 B. Jones, however, infers from the latter derivation, that Justin was acquainted with the Syriac. c2 20 the interpretations of Hebrew words which some- times occur; or if he had so ventured, that his opponents would have allowed them to pass uncon- tradicted. The suspicion, however, had never oc- curred to 'Eusebius, who assigns Ephesus as the scene of the Dialogue ; and Le Nourry thinks that he discovers in the interruptions, digressions, &c. proofs of its reality. Whether it was real or not, is immaterial to our purpose; which is only to ascer- tain what were Justin's opinions. If it was real, it occupied two days ; on the latter of which ^ some Jews were present, who did not hear the former day's disputation, and on whose account Justin repeats several arguments which he had before urged. The part containing the end of the first and the beginning of the second day's disputation is lost; as is proved by the 'references, found in On the Canon, Part I. c. 16, Thirlby contends that Justin was acquainted with the Hebrew, or rather that these derivations do not prove the contrary. Note on p. 331 B. • Hist. Eccl. L. iv. c. 18. See p. 237 C. 2 See p. 304 A. 311 D. 320 B. 322 B. 346 D. 351 A. 352 E. The name of one of those who were present only on the second day was Mnaseas, p. 312 B. = See p. 306 A. D. 333 A. 364 A. See, however, p. 288 E. 291. D. and Grabe's remark, Spicil. Tom. II. p. 162. The Benedictine editors deny that there isany thing wanting ; and account for these appearances by saying that, as Justin wrote down his conversation with Trypho from memory, he sometimes forgot to insert passages to which he afterwards referred,' sup- posing that he had inserted them. It has been remarked to me, that I was, in the former Edition 21 the latter part of the Dialogue, to arguments and quotations which no longer appear. of this work, guilty of an omission in taking no notice of the doubt cast upon the genuineness of the Dialogue with Trypho, by Wetstein, in the Prolegomena to his Edition of the Greek Testament. I will now, therefore, supply that omission. Wet- stein's words are — " Ego vero cuperem mihi eximi scrupulum de hujus Dialogi auctore ex diligenti ejus lectione injectum, nimirum, quod non utatur in Veteris Testamenti locis citandis Versione tUv o, sed magis accedat ad Origenis Editionem Hexa- plarem ; quum quae Origenes obelis jugulavit omittat, quibus- que asteriscos apposuit addat etiam : quum idem in Daniele alia Versione, nescio an Symmachi, utatur. Si Justinus mor- tuus est, antequam Symmachi atque Theodotionis Versio ede- retur, et si integro saeculo praecessit Origenem, quomodo potuit istius opere uti ? aut si non usus est, quomodo potuit accidere ut prorsus e'adem verba iisdem in locis adderet vel demeret, ubi ille vel asteriscis quid vel obelis significaverit ? Quare de hoc auctore quid statuendum sit, doctiores videtint ; mihi rem com- pertam proposuisse sat est." In the eighth Chapter of this work I have shown that Justin frequently quoted from memory. No inference, therefore, unfavourable to the genuineness of the Dia- logue, could be drawn from the want of agreement between his quotations and the present- Text of the Septuagint Version ; even if that Text accurately represented the Text as it stood in his day. But that is not the case. It is admitted on aU hands that we possess no pure copy of that Version, as it existed before the time of Origen. Although, therefore, Justin's quotations differ from the present Text, they may have agreed vidth the Text of the Edition of the Septuagint Version (ji Koivii) generally used in his time. The same remark applies to the Hexaplar Edition, as corrected by Origen : we possess no pure copy of that Edition, and cannot infer from the agreement of Justin's quotations vnth the present Hexaplar Text, that they agreed with that Text, as framed by Origen. On the supposition, then, that Wetstein's statements were correct, they would afford very slight ground for questioning the genuineness of the Dialogue ; 22 The remark which was made upon the first Apo- logy applies equally to this work : it is not perspi- ascribed, as it is, expressly to Justin by Eusebius, and contain- ing, as it does, many internal marks of genuineness. But M. Krom, Minister of the Church, and Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the College, of Middleburgh, in a Tract published in 1778 (for the use of which I am indebted to the kindness of Professor Jeremie, of the East India College) denies the correctness of Wetstein's statements. He examines several of Justin's quotations, particularly a very long one from Isaiah cc. 52, 53, 54, and shows that they agree in general with the present Text of the Septuagint Version, even in places in which it differs widely from the Versions of Symmachus and Theodo- tion ; and that neither are the words, marked with asterisks in the Hexaplar Edition, generally inserted, nor those marked with obeli omitted. Thus that which Wetstein denominates res com- perta proves, on a more accurate examination, to be contrary to fact. M. Krom, however, admits that Justin's quotations do occa- sionally differ from the present Text of the Septuagint, and assigns several causes from which the difference may have arisen. Justin may have either quoted from memory, or satis- fied with representing the sense of the passage, may have been careless about the words ; or, as I have already suggested, the Text of the Septuagint Version which he used may have differed from the present Text. One remarkable instance of such a dif- ference occurs p. 348 E, where Justin affirms, that in the Greek Version used by the Jews the reading of Genesis xlix. 10. was ewQ av iX^ri ra diroKslfiEva atirtp, whereas the reading of the Septuagint was ewe av iXdri (S oVd/CEtrat. In our present Text, however, the reading is not w diroKeiTai, but to. diroKetfieva avrip. The passage is twice quoted in the first Apology, and in both instances the reading is o (manifestly an error of the Tran- scriber) diroKeiTai. Another consideration, which ought to ren- der us diffident in drawing conclusions from Justin's quotations is, that in his writings, as well as in those of the other Fathers, the Transcribers appear frequently to have corrected his quota- 23 cuously written, and we have difficulty in discover- ing the train of the Author's reasoning. 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, tions by the Text of the Septuagint Version which they used. This circumstance will account for the instances in which words marked with asterisks, in the Hexaplar Edition, are inserted, or words marked with obeli omitted. With respect to Justin's quotations from Daniel, if (as we suppose) he quoted the Edition of the Septuagint then generally used, his quotations could not but differ from our present Text, which is not the Text of the Septuagint, but of Theodotion. M. Krom, however, denies the existence of that close resem- blance between Justin's quotations and the Version of Symma- chus, which Wetstein professes to have found ; and states, that they approach more nearly to the readings of the Version which was published, under the title Daniel secundum Septuaginta ex Tetraplis Origenis, from the Codex Chisianus. Justin more than once refers to a Greek Version used by the Jews, p. 353 C. 360 C. 367 A, and supposed by some to be the Version of Aquila. In some instances he probably adopted its readings : Symmachus, in framing his Version, may have done the same ; and we may thus account for any occasional agreement which maybe found between. Justin's quotations and the Version of Symmachus. The conclusion, therefore, at which we arrive is, that Wetstein's statements are ii)x;orrect ; and that, even if they were correct, they would furnish very slight grounds for ques- tioning the genuineness of the Dialogue with Trypho. Wetstein appears, on nearly similar grounds, to have' cast doubts on the genuineness of nearly the whole of Philo's works. He was answered by Wesseling in an Epistle to Herman Venema de Aquilae in scriptis Philonis Judsei fragmentis, published in 1748, which has not fallen in my way. The Editor of the Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum has also exa- mined Wetstein's objections in his Prolegomena. 1 From the beginning to p. 225 D. 24 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 Chris- tians 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 should 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. ' p. 225 D. Trypho admits that he did not helieve the hor- rible charges brought against the Christians ; and says, that the Morality of the Gospel was of a character so sublime, that no man could live up to it. p. 227 B. ' p. 227 E. One objection, urged against the Christians was, that they drank hot drinks on the Sabbath. See Thirlby's Note, p. 246 E. ' p. 229 D. See p. 251 C. 287 C. 292 B. 351 B. ♦ p. 229 C. 233 D. 235 E. 236 C. 245 D. 261 D. 341 A. 342 A. 366 D. Justin states that one design of the rite of cir- cumcision was to distinguish the Jews from other people ; par- ticularly in the latter times, when they were to suffer the punish- ment decreed against them for crucifying the Messiah, p. 234 A. 25 'The Ceremonial Law was in truth given to the Jews on account of the hardness of their hearts ; as a mark of God's displeasure at their apostacy, when they made the golden calf in Horeb. All its ordinances, its sacrifices, its sabbath, the prohibition of certain kinds of foods, were designed to counter- act the inveterate tendency of the Jews to fall into idolatry. If, ^ says Justin, we contend that the Ceremonial Law is of universal and perpetual obli- gation, 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 236 B. 238 A, where he quotes Ezech. xx. 1 9.' p. 366 E. Christians had the true circumcision, that of the heart, p. 320 A, The Jews aiHxed a carnal meaning to all the ordinances of the Law. p. 231 D. ' p. 235 E. 237 A. 244 C. E. 263 E. 265 B. 291 D. in p. 247 A. Justin seems to contend that the reasonableness of the Ceremonial Law can only be maintained on this supposition. In p. 263 A. he says that some parts of the Law were designed to enforce piety and justice ; others referred mystically to Christ ; others were directed against the hardness of heart of the Jews. In 263 E. he distinguishes between the authority of the Natural and Ritual Law ; in p. 292 C. between that which is of perpetual and universal obligation (rdg niiiiviag Kal tjivaei SiKawirpa^ias ical evaej3eias. p. 266 B. rd aliivia BiKaiw/iaTa. p. 264 D. see also p. 320 D.), and that which was merely directed against the perverse- ness of the Jewish people. In p. 320 E. he refers to the (j>veriKai ivvoiat, the sense of right and wrong implanted in our nature. See Ap. 2. p. 52 A. ' p. 240 E. See also p. 236 C. 245 B. 261 C. 265 A. 292 A. 319 C. 320 B. ' It has been inferred, as it appears to me erroneously, from 26 testimony to them that they were righteous. Having, as he thinks, satisfactorily proved that the Cere- monial Lavs^ is no longer binding, Justin replies to an argument urged by Trypho — that the Prophecy of Daniel vii. 9. taught the Jevps to expect that the Messiah vpould be great and glorious ; whereas the Messiah of the Christians was unhonoured and in- glorious, 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, 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 Justin's reasoning in this passage, that he believed the first insti- tution of the Sabbath and of the rite of sacrifice to have taken place during the sojourning of the Israelites in the wilderness. I conceive him to have alluded to the peculiar sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, and to the peculiar mode in which the Jews kept the Sabbath. In p. 236 he speaks of the sacrifices offered by Abel. " p. 249 C. See also p. 232 D. 245 D. 247 E. 268 B. Ap. I. p. 87 A. Justin refers, in proof of the two-fold Advent, to Psalm ex. which the Jews interpreted of Hezekiah, p. 250 D. 309 B ; to Psalm Ixxii. which they interpreted of Solomon, p. 251 D. 288 D ; to Genesis xlix. p. 271 C. 272 C; Micah iv. p. 336 A, which the Jews themselves applied to the Messiah. Justin speaks of the personal appearance of Christ as mean — an opinion derived from the literal interpretation of Isaiah liii. 2, 3. p. 255 C. 326 E. 316 C. 311 A. The two goats mentioned in Leviticus xvi. 7- were also types of the two Advents, p. 259 D. 338 A. ^ He refers to Psalm xxiv. p. 310 E. which the Jews applied to Solomon, p. 254 E. or to Hezekiah, Psalm xlvii. and Psalm xcix. p. 255 D. E. Psalm xlv. p. 256 E. Justin also founds an argument on the fulfilment of the predictions of Christ 27 passages of the Old Testament, in which the Mes- siah is called God, and Lord of Hosts. In this part of the Dialogue Justin extracts from the Old Ties- tament 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 Isai. vii. 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 di- himself respecting the false Prophets, who would come in his name. p. 253 B. 1 p. 259 B. " p. 259 E. ' p. 260 D. Exodus xxxix, 25. The number of bells is not mentioned. * Trypho had called upon Justin to give this proof, p. 254 C. 258 E. It was impossible, he contended, that a crucified man should have conversed with Moses and Aaron, p. 256 C. * p. 262 A. The Jews contended that the word translated irapflevoc ought to be translated veavig, and applied the prediction to Hezekiah, p. 291 A. 294 A. 297 D. See also p. 310 C. where Justin contends that the mere fact of a young woman giving birth to a son could not be deemed a sign. « p. 263 C. 28 gression, occasioned by a remark of Trjrpho ' that ' p. 267 B. Trypho here expressly asserts that the Jews ex- pected in their Messiah a mere man whom Elias was to anoint, Kal ydp irdvTEQ f/ficlc tov XpioTOv avdpwKov ii, dvdpioirtav -irpoa- SoKwuev ytvriaEaOai, koX tov 'H\(aj/ ^ptVat.ai/ro v tSBovra, p. 268 A. AUix, in his Judgment of the Jewish Church, c. 25. suh in. had remarked that this was Justin's representation of the expectation of the Jews in his day. A greater objection, he says, than all these may be very naturally made by a judicious reader, concern- ing what I said of the testimonies of the Jews before Christ, about the distinction of the Divine Persons and the Divinity of the AoyoQ. On the one side may he say, you own that the Jems after Christ have opposed the doctrine, as being contrary to the unity of God ; there are plain proofs of it, even in the second century. And it is certain that Trypho did not believe that the Messias was to be any other than a mere man, and so did the Jews believe, as it is witnessed by Origen, Lib. ii. contr. Cels. p. 79. Burgh also had spoken of Trypho as arguing in the very spirit of modern Unitarianism, Vol. I. p. 86. Yet I find in Dr. Burton's " Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,'' p. 41 , (2d. ed. p. 47,) the following statement. " Justin. Dial, cum Trypho. c. Ixviii. p. 166. Ed. Bened. The next passage is important, as showing the opinion which the Jews entertained concerning their Messiah. Justin's words are these : As to the Scriptures which we quote to them (the Jews) which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer and to be worshipped, and that he is God, they are compelled to allow that these were spoken concerning Christ, but they have the presumption to say that this (Jesus) is not the Christ ; but they acknowledge that he was to come, and to suffer, and to be a King, and to be worshipped as God." " According to the opinion of the Jews, therefore, who ought to he the hest interpreters of their own prophecies, the human nature, and the humble condition of Jesus were not the obstacles to their believing him to be the Messiah : and it was their belief, as it is that of Christians, that the Messiah, who was to come, was God. Dr. Priestley was, therefore, entirely at variance with Justin Martyr when he said, that the Jews expected that their Messiah would be a mere man, and even be born as other men are. If Justin reported the opinion of the Jews fairly, 29 the Christian doctrine respecting the pre-exist- ence and Divinity of Christ, and his subsequent their expectations concerning the Messiah were directly opposite to these." (In his second edition the learned Author adds, " And a remarkahle expression of Philo-Judaeus may be quoted in this place, who, when he is speaking of the repugnance felt by the Jews to pay divine honours to Caligula, observes, that they would more easily believe that God would change into man, than a man into God.") " Origen, however, certainly says that all the Jews did not expect their Messiah to come as God or Son of God. We may observe also, that in this and other places already quoted, (See No. 25. p. 37, 2d. ed. p. 42.) Justin expressly says that Christ is to be worshipped as God ; and yet he as plainly says in many places, that there is only one God." " Justin's arguments in this Chapter arise from the follow- ing remark of Trypho,, who said to him. You are attempting to demonstrate a thing which is incredible and almost impossible, that God submitted to be born, and to become Man. Justin, however, acknowledges the proposition, and proceeds to de- monstrate it." In the above statement there are several particulars in which I must be permitted to dissent from the learned author. I can- not allow that the Jews ought to be the best interpreters of their own prophecies : if so, we Christians are sadly in error. But perhaps the learned author meant to say that the Jews ought to be the best interpreters of the meaning which .they themselves affixed to their own prophecies. Again, I cannot allow that, according to Justin's representation of the opinions of the Jews in his day, the humble condition of Jesus was not an obstacle to their believing him to be the Messiah. In p. 249 B. is the fol- lowing passage. Ko( o Tpvipiov, iravaafiivov fiov, elirEv, <3 av- ^pbiTTE, aiirai fifide ai ypaal kul roiavTai 'ivBo^ov Kal fieyav dvajjivciv, tov irapa. tov troKaiov tQv iifiepiav &q vlov dvOpiiirov irapaKfififidvovTa rrfv aiwviov paaiKeiav, dvayKaZovaiv' oZroe Se 6 bfiirepos \Ey6fitvOQ Xpiarbg arifioQ koi aSo^oe yiyovEv, uig Kal rp Ea-)(aTTi xarapq. rij iv tS vofi(f tov Qeov TCEpnrEne'iv' iarav- ptodri yap. And Trypho, when I concluded, said, these and similar passages of Scripture, compel us to look for a glorious 30 assumption of humanity, was monstrous and ab- surd. and great personage ; who, as the Son of Man, is to receive an eternal kingdom from the Ancient of days : whereas he whom you call Christ mas unhonoured and inglorious, so as even to fall under the extreme curse of the Lam ; for he mas crucified. Justin, in answer to this objection, proceeds to show at con- siderable length that the Prophets speak of two Advents of the Messiah ; the one in humiliation, the other in glory. Surely he might have spared himself this trouble, if he had not supposed that the humble condition of Jesus was an obstacle to his being received by the Jews as their Messiah. Lastly, notwithstanding the learned author's statement, I must stiU adhere to the opinion expressed by AUix, that Trypho, whom Justin brings forward as representing the Jews of his day, did not believe that the Messias mas to he any other than a mere man. I observe that Justin takes considerable pains to prove that the ancient Prophets have applied the titles of God and Lord of Hosts to the future Messiah. (See p. 254 E. et sequ.) This was surely an unnecessary waste of time and labour, if the prevalent belief of the Jews of his day was, that the Messiah, mho mas to come, mas God. To what purpose does Trypho quote Isaiah xlii. 8. (p. 289 B.), but in order to prove the ab- solute unity of God, in opposition to Justin's assertions respect- ing the Divinity of the Messiah 1 But to remove all doubt on the subject, let us consider the whole passage, from which the sentence at the commencement of this Note is an extract. Trypho thus addresses Justin, dvaXa^iiv olv k. t. c. p. 267 A. Finish your argument, taking it up from the point where you left off ; for to me it appears strange and wholly incapable of proof. (May I suggest to the learned author, on whose remark I am commenting, the propriety of reconsidering the translation of this sentence in p. 39 N. 27. ? I observe that it is allowed in his second edition, p. 45.) For that you should say that this Christ existed, being God, before all ages, and then submitted to be born and to become a man, and that he mas not a man born of man, appears to me not only strange, but foolish. Justin replies, / know that this doctrine appears strange, and especially to those 13 31 One " argument urged by Trypho, in order to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah, is that of your race, rvho, as God himself exclaims, rvere never milling either to understand or do what God prescribes, hut listen only to your own teachers. But, even if I cannot show that this Jesus pre-existed, being God, the Son of the Maker of the Universe, and became man born of the Virgin ; even then it does not follow that he is not the Christ of God. But as I have shown that he, who- ever he may he, is the Christ of God, though I may not have shown that he pre-existed and submitted, in compliance with the mill of his Father, to he born a man, subject to like passions with us, and having flesh, you ought to say that I am mistaken only in this (latter) respect ; but ought not to deny that he is the Christ, (even) if he appears as a man born of men, and is proved to he elected to the office of the Messiah. ' If Justin thought that he was addressing men who believed that the Messiah, who was to come, was God, he must be allowed to be most unfortunate in the selection of his arguments. Then follows a passage, which has furnished ample matter for discussion ; containing an admission on the part of Justin that there were persons in his day, who confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, but said that he was a mere man. To this reasoning of Justin Trypho replies in the following manner, i/iol fxcv SoKovaiv ol Xiyovreg avdpiowov ytyovivai avrbv, Koi Kar' iicKoy^v Kf)(piaQai, koi \piaTov yi.yo- vivai, TTiOavwrepov vfiSiv \eyetv, tUv ravra ciirep 0^g \cy6vTaeu>Q rov AaftiS Trpoc rflv tov Ovpiov yvvaiKa Trpa^tg, (3 iivSptg, iriv, SetKvviTiv liri oix <^S iropvtvovTEQ iroWag 'i(r)(pv yvvcuKas ol ■iraTpiap')(a.i, a'W oiKovofiia t\q, koX /iuori/pta Tracra li avT&v direTi\uTO. p. 371 A. See p. 364 B. ' p. 351 D. CHAPTER II. THE OPINIONS OP JUSTIN RESPECTING THE AOFOS AND THE TRINITY. Having given the above short account of the genuine works of Justin, which have descended to our times, we will proceed to the examination of his opinions; and will in the first place consider what he has delivered respecting the Aoyoc, and the doctrine of the Trinity. That he asserted the divinity of the Aoyoc, and a real Trinity, is admitted even by those who are most anxious to prove that the early Christians were Unitarians : but they en- deavour to invalidate his testimony by contending that he was the first who openly maintained these doctrines, which were suggested to him by the writings of Plato — in other words, that he was the first who corrupted the Gospel, by endeavouring to engraft the notions of Gentile philosophy upon its sublime but simple truths. That Justin had studied and admired the Platonic philosophy, we know from himself; but that he was indebted to it for the doctrines of the Divinity of the Aoyoc, and of the Trinity, is a position to which we cannot yield our 47 assent ; because, in the first place, no sufficient proof has yet been produced, that even the germ of those doctrines exists in the writings of Plato ; and because, in the next place, his own references to those writings are wholly at variance with the position. The design of his two Apologies is to give an accurate description of the faith of the Christians, and to remove the prejudices which existed against them in the minds of the heathen. One of these prejudices was, that they ' worshipped a crucified man. Not so, he replies ; the object of our worship is the Divine Aoyog, who was content to become incarnate, and to die on the cross for the sake of mankind. Now as Justin's wish was to render the doctrines of Christianity ^ as acceptable as possible to the Gentiles, by pointing out features of resem- blance between them and the tenets of the philo- sophers, it is reasonable to suppose that he would not fail to allege those passages of Plato's writings, which he conceived to afford the strongest confir- ' evravda ydp fiaviav iifxCiv KaTa(j)aivovTai, Sevripav ■)(ae(i>e Xa0(iiv oixoiug tlviv. p. 92 E. But Plato in the place alluded to is speaking of the creation of the soul of the universe, ravrriv oiiv t^v ^vara(nv Tratrav ^iirXfiv Kara firjuoe (T\i(TaQ, /lirrriv irpoc fxea-qv zKarlpav aXK.ij'K.aiQ, olov j^; Trpoa^aX^v, Kariicafii^ev elq kvkKov. p. 36. Tom. III. Ed. Serr. ^ KoX TO tlireiv avTov Tplrov, eneiSri, we wpoEiTrofiev, tirai/fci rHv vSaTwv dviyvii) vvo Mwitewc Eiprinivov eTrupipetrdai to tov Qeov TTvevfia, SevTCpav fiev yap j^iipai' rji wapa Qcov Xoyw, bv K£j^iaV6ai ev tu iravTi 'iv fiaxapiiav rrpoiprjT&v Ktipv^Qtiai, /cat ^t' avrov SiSayf^ BeitTi. p. 267 E. This passage has exercised the ingenuity of the Commentators. The Latin translation in Thirlby's edition is as follows. Sunt enim nonnulli, o amici, dixi, ex genere nostro profitentes ipsum Christum esse, sed hominem ex homi- nibus genitum esse affirmant. Quibus non assentior ; neque id sane multi qui in eadem mecum sententia sunt ^though raSra is in the text, the translator appears to have read Tavra) dixerint. Siquidem jussi sumus, &c. Bull, instead of fifieripov, would read vfieTepov, and understand the expression vfieTspov yivovs of the Jewish Christians : this correction derives support from the ex- pressions aTTO TOV yivovQ tov vfieTepov, diro tov yivovg vfiHv, which are frequently applied by Justin to the Jews. I am inclined, however, to retain rifitTipov, and to translate thus. " For there are some, my friends, of our race (Christians, as opposed to Jews, iifiirepov yevog) who confess that he was the Christ, but affirm that he was a man born of human parents ; with whom I do not agree ; nor should I, even if very many of those who think as I do were to say so ; since we are com- manded by Christ to attend, not' to the doctrines of men, but to that which was proclaimed by the blessed prophets, and taught by himself;" where I understand the words irXeioroi ravra fioi So^daavTeg to mean those who agreed with Justin in professing Christianity. But, whether this translation is correct or not, the word Tiveg, opposed as it is to irXttoroi, is alone sufficient to prove that the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ was the E 2 5S the Unitarian writers, that the majority of Chris- tians in his day regarded Christ as a mere man, born after the manner of men. The passage is not without difficulty ; but the sense put upon it by the Unitarians is at variance with every sound principle of Interpretation. The fact, moreover, that, among the other charges urged against the early Christians, they were accused of worshipping a crucified man, is scarcely compatible vidth the supposition that the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ was the prevalent opinion among them. In a word, the whole tenor of Justin's language is irreconcile- able with the theory, that he invented, or at least first published, the doctrines of the Divinity of the Ao'-yoc and of the Trinity. Some writers, in order to remove from the early Fathers the charge of borrowing their doctrine respecting the AtJ-yoc from Plato, point out the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, the works of Philo, and the traditional Interpretations of Scrip- ture current among the Jews of our Saviour's time, and preserved in the Chaldee Paraphrases, as the opinion of the minority, and that a small minority, in the time of Justin. Wilson, Illustration, &c. p. 152. translates the pas- sage nearly as I do. " There are some of our race who acknow- ledge him to be Christ ; yet maintain that he was a man born of human parents : with whom I do not agree : nor should I, if very many, who entertains the same opinions with myself, were to declare" for this doctrine. 53 sources from which the language of the early Fathers respecting it was derived ; but they are not, as it appears to me, borne out in their opinion by the works of Justin Martyr, A large portion of his Dialogue with Trypho is occupied in proving that, whenever God is said in the Old Testament to have appeared to the Patriarchs, it was, in fact, the Ao-yoc who appeared. How greatly would he have added to the force of his arguments, if he had shown that this interpretation of the passages in Scripture to which he appealed was in strict conforinity with the tradition of the Jewish Church ! But neither he, nor his opponent, seems to have entertained the slightest suspicion that any such traditional intei- pretations existed. J mean not to allege Justin's silence as a proof that they did not exist ; but that, even if they did exist, it is most improbable that he derived his own opinions from them. Having, as we think, satisfactorily replied to the charge which has been brought against Justin, of corrupting the Gospel by an admixture of philoso- phical notions derived from the writings of Plato, we will proceed to consider what he has actually delivered respecting the Aoyoc and the Trinity. In 'the first Apology, Justin, when defending ' p. 60 C. rbv Sr)fiwvpybv rovSe tov Travros irsfi6fiEvoi — tov StSdaKoXov TS TovTiav ytvo/itvov ^juiv Kal els tovto yEvvijdii'Ta 54 the Christians against the charge of Atheism, says that they worshipped the Creator of the Universe, and placed next to him his Son, and honoured in the third place the Prophetic Spirit. In ' another 'Ir/aovv XpitTTOv, tov aravpiiiBivTa. kirl ^ovtiov HCKdrov rov yevojXEvov kv 'lovSalia tov Qtov. And to Irenseus, Lib. ii. c. 55. Semper co-existens Filius Patri olim et ah initio, semper revelat Patrem et Angelis, et Archangelis, et Potestatibus, et Virtutibus, et omnibus quibus' vult revelare Deus. Others, and among them Le Nourry, though a Benedictine, connect koI tov — orparoi/ with raura, and suppose Justin to mean that the Son of God communicated to us these truths (viz. that the dasmons were not Gods) and also the knowledge of the existence of a host of good angels (We find SiSa^avToe Tavra. Apol. II. p. 49 A. kSlSa^E ravTa. Apol. I. p. 99 B.) Others, inste'ad of arparov, would read n-TpaTij- yov, and construct for Justin a sentence, which, careless as he is, we believe him to have been incapable of writing. One thing is certain — that Justin, who expressly states that there were three objects of Christian worship, the Creator of the universe, his Son, and the Prophetic Spirit, could not intend to represent the angelic host as a distinct object of worship. I have sometimes 13 55 place the same statement is made \¥ith reference to the same charge. Again, speaking of the opi- nions of Plato, Justin says '■ Bivrtpav fAv yap yjopav Tt(> irapa Qtov Xoyy, ov KE^ioffSat iv r^ TravTi i^r\, oicwaC T?jv Se Tp/rijv ry Xe'^evti iwiijtipea^ai rt^ vBari TTVsvfiari, iiwtxiv' to. Bh rplra, irepi rov rpirov. And with reference to the rite of Baptism % kir' ovo/uaroc -yap Tov TrnTjOoc; t vBuTl TOTi XoVTpOV TTOlOVVTai. And again,' STTl iraai rt oiQ 7rpoQ Aa>'o)\ EfiifwaEV, dyyiXiav aw avT^ dijiiKvovneviov.' Apol. I. p. 87 B. OTav fiSTd So^ye ti, ovpavZv fiird Trjs dyytXiK^e aijTov arpanae K. t. I. So p. 71 B. Justin, speaking of Satan, says, ov eie to Trip TrcfifOrjarEirOai /icTd Trjs avTov trrpaTidi /cat Tbiv krrofiivtav dv^piiirmv, KoXaadriaofiivovQ tov diripavTov al&va, ■Trpoefirjvvaev 6 Xpioroe. In the Dialogue, p. 264 A. we find iva Std TfJQ o'lKovofiiaQ ravTrie 6 TTOVTipeyadfievoQ Trjv dp)(^^v ov oXutv icai dyivvqTOQ Qeoq. p. 342 A. ° viro dXXov TOV ev to'iq vwEpovpavioie dEi fiivovToe, Kai ov^Evi oipdivTOQ, rj bjxiXijaavTOQ Bi' kavTOv itote, ov iron/r))v tov oXov Kai xarEpa voovjXEV. Dial. p. 275 A. ov tov irotj/riji/ t&v oXmv Kai iraTEpa, KaTaXiirovra ra tuTEp ovpavov awavTa, ev 6Xiy y^e 57 earth or appeared to man, but remained always in the highest heaven. With respect to the second Person in the Trinity, Justin says, that ' in the beginning before all cre- ated things, God begat from himself a certain Rational Power, who is called by the Holy Spirit the Glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son, some- times the Wisdom ; and he illustrates the mode of generation by a comparison borrowed from a fire, which does not diminish the fire from which it is lighted. So this Rational Power was generated without any abscission or division of the Essence or Substance of the Father. Sometimes instead of the word generation, Justin uses ''emission or fiopi^ Trefdvdai tt&c bariaovv, Kav jiiKpov vovv e^jfuiv, TokfiTiaEi tliTEiv. p. 283 B. See also p. 356 E. quoted in Note 1. p. 56. 357 B. ' dpyr^v irpo ndvTiav t&v KTiafiaTUv 6 Qeoq ytyivvr^KE Svvafiiv riva ki, kavTOv Xo.yiKi^v, ^nc kw. S6l,a Kvpiov viro tov irvevfiaros ruv ayiov KoXeTrat, irori Se vIoq, tcote Be (TO(j>ia — Kal oiroiov iirl TTVpog opZfiEV d'Wo yiyvofiEvov, oiiK EKaTTOyfiivov ekeIvov eI, oh r] avoiptc yiyovEV, dXKa rov aiirov jxevovtoq. Dial. p. 284 A. EiTTav Trfv Bvvajiiv ravTriv yEyEVvijadai dirb tov irarpoe BvvdfJtEi KOI l3ov\^ avTOv, dXK' oil Kara dirOTOfivv, s to) diro irvpog dvawTO/iEva irvpd ETEpa bpS)fiEV, ovSev EkaTTOVfiEvov ekeIvov, hi, ol dva(j)dfjvai iroWd SvvavTai, dWd tuvtov jievovtoq, p. 358 D. ^ a'Wct tovto to t^ ovti diro rov waTpog irpofiXridEV yEVvqiia, Ttpo TrdvTiov Twv TTOirifidTbiv avvfiv Ta iraTpi. Kal tovti^ b wariip irpotro/iiKE'i f. irpoffwixiXEi. p. 285 E. vivor\KafiEv ovtu Kal irpb 58 prolation. The general opinion of the Ante-Nicene Fathers appears to have been that, previously to this generation or emission, the Logos subsisted from eternity in a state of most intimate union with the Father, though personally distinct from him ; being his Intelligence and his Counsellor, in devising the plan of Creation. But though we find in Justin's writings nothing decidedly at variance with this opinion, he no where expresses it in clear and explicit terms. For most of the passages, quoted by * Bull and Grabe, in order to prove that TrdvTtoy iroirtixdrbiv, dwb tov irarpoQ Ivvdfiti avTov kw. (iovXrj irpoeXdovra. p. 327 B. on ovK lariv dvQpuiinvov epyov, dWd rrjc PovXijg TOV TrpojSaWoiToc avTov irarpos Tuiy bXwv Qeov. p. 301 B. 1 ovoua Se raJ jravrwv Trarpt Octov, aytvvriTi^ bvTi, ovk tariv. ^ yap av Kal ovofiari (f. ovofiarl ne) irpotrayoptiiriTai, irpsa^v- Tepov tx^t TOV difiEVOv TO bvofia, to Se TraTrjp, Kal &£oq, Kal KTurTrjQ, Kal Kiipioe, Kal SeaTroTrig oiiK ovofiaTO. inriv, akX ek tSiv eviroiiHv KaX tSiv epyojv irpotrprjUEiQ, a Se vlbg ekeivov, o fiovoQ \Ey6uEV0£ Kvpliog v'lbg, b Aoyog irpb tUv ironjfiaTiov Kal avvuiv Kal yevv&fiEvog, ote Trlv ap^'^v Si aiiTov ■stavTa ektioe Kal EKoajXJiaE, XpioTOC fiEv naTCL ro KEj^piffdai Kal KoirfJirjtrai to. iravTa Bi' avTOu TOV Qeov, XlyETUL' bvo/ia Kal avTO iCEpiiyov ayvtaoTov arjfiaaiav' bv rpoTTOv Kal to Qeoq irpoaayopEVixa, ovk bvofia ktsTiv, oKkb. irpaynarog SvaE^riyijTov kfKbvTog Trj v avdpinridv So^a. Apol. II. p. 44 D. translated in p. 9. of this work. On this passage BuU remarks, In his verbis docet Justinus Deo Patri et Filio nullum proprie nomen competere, sed tantum appellationes quasdam, ab ipsorum beneficiis et operibus petitas, ipsis a nobis tribui. Hujus autem assertionis rationem banc affert : quod Deus Pater ingenitus atque setemus sit ; Filius vero ut Verbum ejus ipsi coexistat ; ac proinde uterque neminem habeat se anti- quiorem, qui ipsi nomen imponeret. Q,uin et Christi nomen ejus Divinitati tribuit Justinus, quasi scilicet 6 Aoyog et Filius Dei Deo Patri coexistens et ex ipso ab ceterno nascens (tanquam 59 Justin held the doctrine of the co-eternity of the Logos with the Father, are . capable of a different interpretation, and may be understood merely of an scilicet setemae lucis setemus splendor) turn Christi nomen sortitus fuerit, quum Pater per ipsum .cuncta conformaverit ornaveritque. Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. iii. o. 2. sub. in. With respect to this comment, we may observe in the first place, that Justin does not assert that no name can properly and essentially be given to the Son, but to the Father of all things, an appel- lation uniformly applied by him to the Father, as distinct from the Son ; in the next place, that Justin does not say that the Son existed together with the Father from eternity, but before all created things, irpo tSiv iroitiixariiiv ; and thirdly, that Justin does not say that the Son received the name of Christ, when the Father made all things by him. Grabe accordingly seems not to have been satisfied with Bull's' Interpretation, though he contends that the word (rvvlav implies the eternal existence of the Son with the Father ; referring in support of his opinion to the Dialogue with Trypho, p. 267 B. ■wpovwapx'^^'' Q^ov ovra irpo aii)Vii)V TOVTOV XpitrTOV. p. 276 D. Toy Kal irpo iroiriaEbie Kda/iov ovra Qeov. and to p. 285 E. quoted in note 2. p. 57, of which passages, as well as of p. 264 A. og Kal irpo ibMr(l>6pov Kal atKiivrjQ fiv, it may still be said that they are not decisive ; for Arius appears to have been willing to call Christ, rbv Ik warpoe irpo irdvTwv T&v aiaiviov yeyevxifiivov, Qtov \6yov. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. L. I. c. 26. Waterland also classes Justin among the writers who make the generation of the Son temporary, Vol. I. p. 104. Observe too what he says respecting Bishop Bull in p. 105. There is in p. 302 B. a very remarkable passage, kuI ^aj3iS Se irpo f/Xtov Kal aeKitvriQ ek yatrrpbg yevvridritrEadai avrbv Kara rijv tov irarpog j3ov\rjv EKripv^E. The reference is to Psalm ex. 3. Ev Ta'ig \afnrp6ri]ai rwv kyiiav aov, ek yaarpog irpo eoiir^ii- pov Lyivvnaa. at. Commentators generally understand this verse of the generation of the Son to create the universe : ' but in p. 286 E. Justin refers it to his birth from the Virgin. See p. 82 E. 250 C. 310 A. In p. 309 C. the words ek yaarpog are omitted. 60 existence prior to the creation of all things. The expression which is in appearance most opposed to the doctrine of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father, is in a passage of the Dialogue with Trypho, p. 358 E. where Justin quotes Genesis xix. 24. to prove that the Old Testament recognizes two distinct Lords; one who descended on earth to hear the cry of Sodom ; the other who reniained in heaven, who, Justin goes on to say, is the Lord of the Lord on earth, as being Falser and God, and is the cause of his (the Lord on earth) being both powerful, and Lord, and God. oq Kai rov tin yijc Kvpiov Kvpiog krjTiv, wc Tarrjp Kai Oeoc;, a'lTioQ te avT(^ tov ilvai kai Svvar^, Koi. Kvpiu}, Kai Qew. See BuU's remarks on this passage, Sect iv. c. 1. Def. Fid. Nic. Again, p. 311, B Justin says, oc tan Kvpiog Twv Suvajuetuv Sta TO SeXjjjuo tov Bovtoq avTif) ■Karpoq. Who is the Lord of Hosts by the will of the Father who gam him the dominion. When, however, we find it expressly stated that it was Christ who appeared to Moses, and described himself as the Necessarily Existing ' kyu) iifii o wv, we must conceive Justin to have main- tained the perfect Divinity of Christ, and conse- quently his co-eternity with the Father. This rational power, according to Justin, was begotten or emitted, that he might be the ^ Minis- 1 Apol. I. p. 95 E. ' fisTo. TOV tpaivofXEVov .fitv, Ik tov Trj tov Trarpog jiovXij 61 ter of the Father in. ' creating the universe, an conducting what the Fathers term the ^ (Economy. inrripETciv' Qcov Se, Ik rov elvai tIkpov -irpaTOTOKOv rwv oXwv KTianariDv. Dial. p. 354 D. Compare p. 279 A. 280 D. 283 B. 284 A. 356 C. 357 C. aW c-ireiSfj kvvor)BivTa tov Qeov Siii \6yov rdv Koafiov izovijaai tyvbicrav. Apol. I. p. 97 B. Sare X6y{^ Qeov £k rHiy viroKtiuivuv Kai wpoStjXutdivTuiv ^ta Mfcxrt'ciie yEyEvrjiTOai. tov iravra Kuafiov koX nXarwv, Kai ol ravra \iyovTEQ, Kai r]fj,E~iQ kfiaQoiiEv. p. 92 D, wCTTTEp raWa iravra ^ioa Xdyw Qeov Tfjv apj^jjv tyEvvriOri. Dial, p. 310 C. It has been already observed that Justin applies the expressions, Maker and Creator of all things, to the Father exclusively : the Aoyoc was Ministerial. Justin speaks of the world as created out of matter without form : vXriv &ixop