[Footnote 340: Edition by Otto, 9 Vols., 1876 f. New edition of the Apologists (unfinished; only Tatian and Athenagoras by Schwarz have yet appeared) in the Texte und Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. IV. Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, 1st part, 1805; id., Der Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Ehlers, Vis atque potestas, quam philosophia antiqua, imprimis Platonica et Stoica in doctrina apologetarum habuerit, 1859.]

[Footnote 341: It is intrinsically probable that their works directly addressed to the Christian Church gave a more full exposition of their Christianity than we find in the Apologies. This can moreover be proved with certainty from the fragments of Justin's, Tatian's and Melito's esoteric writings. But, whilst recognising this fact, we must not make the erroneous a.s.sumption that the fundamental conceptions and interests of Justin and the rest were in reality other than may be inferred from their Apologies.]

[Footnote 342: That is, so far as these were clearly connected with polytheism. Where this was not the case or seemed not to be so, national traditions, both the true and the spurious, were readily and joyfully admitted into the _catalogus testimoniorum_ of revealed truth.]

[Footnote 343: Though these words were already found in the first edition, Clemen (Justin 1890, p. 56) has misunderstood me so far as to think that I spoke here of conscious intention on the part of the Apologists. Such nonsense of course never occurred to me.]

[Footnote 344: Note here particularly the att.i.tude of Tatian, who has already introduced a certain amount of the "Gnostic" element into his "Oratio ad Graecos," although, he adheres in the main to the ordinary apologetic doctrines.]

[Footnote 345: Since the time of Josephus Greek philosophers had ever more and more acknowledged the "philosophical" character of Judaism; see Porphyr., de abstin. anim. II. 26, [Greek: hate philosophoi to genos ontes.]]

[Footnote 346: On the relation of Christian literature to the writings of Philo, of Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, p. 303 f.]

[Footnote 347: It is very instructive to find Celsus (Origen, c. Cels.

I. 2) proceeding to say that the Greeks understood better how to judge, to investigate, and to perfect the doctrines devised by the barbarians, and to apply them to the practice of virtue. This is quite in accordance with the idea of Origen, who makes the following remarks on this point: "When a man trained in the schools and sciences of the Greeks becomes acquainted with our faith, he will not only recognise and declare it to be true, but also by means of his scientific training and skill reduce it to a system and supplement what seems to him defective in it, when tested by the Greek method of exposition and proof, thus at the same time demonstrating the truth of Christianity."]

[Footnote 348: See the section "Justin und die apostolischen Vater" in Engelhardt's "Christenthum Justin's des Martyrers," p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte I. p. 329 ff.). Engelhardt, who on the whole emphasises the correspondences, has rather under- than over-estimated them. If the reader compares the exposition given in Book I., chap. 3, with the theology of the Apologists (see sub. 3), he will find proof of the intimate relationship that may be traced here.]

[Footnote 349: See Euseb., H. E. IV. 3. Only one sentence of Quadratus'

Apology is preserved; we have now that of Aristides in the Syriac language; moreover, it is proved to have existed in the original language in the Historia Barlaam et Joasaph; finally, a considerable fragment of it is found in Armenian. See an English edition by Harris and Robinson in the Texts and Studies I. 1891. German translation and commentary by Raabe in the Texte und Untersuchungen IX. 1892. Eusebius says that the Apology was handed in to the emperor Hadrian; but the superscription in Syriac is addressed to the emperor t.i.tus Hadria.n.u.s Antoninus.]

[Footnote 350: See Hermas, Mand I.]

[Footnote 351: With reservations this also holds good of the Alexandrians. See particularly Orig., c. Cels. I. 62.]

[Footnote 352: Semisch, Justin der Martyrer, 2 Vols, 1840 f. Aube, S Justin, philosophe et martyre, 2nd reprint, 1875. Weizsacker, Die Theologie des Martyrers Justin's in the Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin's, 1878; id, "Justin," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. Stahlin, Justin der Martyrer, 1880 Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen Eudamonismus in Justin's Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des Christenthums Justin's des Martyrers, 1893.

Duncker, Logoslehre Justin's, 1848. Bosse, Der prae istente Christus des Justinus, 1891.]

[Footnote 353: Apol. I. 2, p. 6, ed. Otto.]

[Footnote 354: Apol. I. 2, p. 6, sq.]

[Footnote 355: See the numerous philosophical quotations and allusions in Justin's Apology pointed out by Otto. Above all, he made an extensive use of Plato's Apology of Socrates.]

[Footnote 356: Apol. I. 4. p. 16, also I. 7, p. 24 sq: I. 26.]

[Footnote 357: Apol. I. 4, p. 14.]

[Footnote 358: Apol. I. 5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.: [Greek: ou sophistes huperchen alla dunamis Theou ho logos autou en.]]

[Footnote 359: L.c.: [Greek: ou gar monon en h.e.l.lesi dia Sokratous hupo logou elegchthetauta, alla kai en barbarois hup' autou tou logou morphothentos kai anthropou kai Iesou Christou klethenos.]]

[Footnote 360: Celsus also admits this, or rather makes his Jew acknowledge it (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31). In Book VI. 47 he adopts the proposition of the "ancients" that the world is the Son of G.o.d.]

[Footnote 361: See Apol. II. 10 fin.: [Greek: Sokratei oudeis epeisthe huper toutou tou dogmatos apothneskin Christo de to kai hupo Sokratous apo merous gnosthenti ... ou philosophoi oude philologoi monon epeisthesan.]]

[Footnote 362: The utterances of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian portion of mankind has only a [Greek: sperma tou logon] as a natural possession, or whether this [Greek: sperma] has in some cases been enhanced by the inward workings of the whole Logos (inspiration). This ambiguity, however, arises from the fact that he did not further discuss the relation between [Greek: ho logos] and [Greek: to sperma tou logou] and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to [Greek: to emphuton panti genei anthropon sperma tou logou] (Apol. II. 8), the [Greek: meros spermatikou logou] (ibid) which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human [Greek: heuresis kai theoria] depend (II. 10). In this sense it may be said of them all that they "in human fashion attempted to understand and prove things by means of reason;" and Socrates is merely viewed as the [Greek: panton eutonoteros] (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-Christian systems, being a [Greek: philosophia anthropeios] (II. 15). But on the other hand Christ was known by Socrates though only [Greek: apo merous]; for "Christ was and is the Logos who dwells in every man." Further, according to the Apologist, the [Greek: meros tou spermatikou theiou logou] bestows the power of recognising whatever is related to the Logos ([Greek: to sungenes] II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said: [Greek: hosa para pasi kalos eiretai hemon, ton Christianon esti]

(ibid.), but, on the strength of the "partic.i.p.ation" in reason conferred on all, it may be a.s.serted that all who have lived with the Logos ([Greek: meta logou])--an expression which must have been ambiguous--were Christians. Among the Greeks this specially applies to Socrates and Herac.l.i.tus (I. 46). Moreover, the Logos implanted in man does not belong to his nature in such a sense as to prevent us saying [Greek: upo logou dia Sokratous elegchthe k.t.l.] (I. 5). Nevertheless [Greek: autos ho logos] did not act in Socrates, for this only appeared in Christ (ibid). Hence the prevailing aspect of the case in Justin was that to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd Apology (II.

15: alongside of Christianity there is only _human_ philosophy), and which, not without regard for the opposite view, he thus formulated in II. 13 fin.: All non-Christian authors were able to attain a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by means of the seed of the Logos naturally implanted within them. For the [Greek: spora] and [Greek: mimema] of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one's receptivity, are quite different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession and imitation.]

[Footnote 363: "For the sake of man" (Stoic) Apol. I. 10: II. 4, 5; Dial. 41, p. 260, Apol I. 8: "Longing for the eternal and pure life, we strive to abide in the fellowship of G.o.d, the Father and Creator of all things, and we hasten to make confession, because we are convinced and firmly believe that that happiness is really attainable." It is frequently a.s.serted that it is the Logos which produces such conviction and awakens courage and strength.]

[Footnote 364: Justin has destroyed the force of this argument in two pa.s.sages (I. 44, 59) by tracing (like the Alexandrian Jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philosophers to borrowing from the books of the Old Testament (Moses). Of what further use then is the [Greek: sperma logos emphuton]? Did Justin not really take it seriously? Did he merely wish to suit himself to those whom he was addressing? We are not justified in a.s.serting this. Probably, however, the adoption of that Jewish view of the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were in Justin's estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the [Greek: sperma logos emphuton] when left to its own resources; and therefore regarded truth and prophetic revelation as inseparable. But this view is not the essential one in the Apology. That a.s.sumption of Justin's is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst his real opinion was more "liberal."]

[Footnote 365: Compare with this the following pa.s.sages: In Apol. I. 20 are enumerated a series of the most important doctrines common to philosophers and Christians. Then follow the words: "If we then in particular respects even teach something similar to the doctrines of the philosophers honoured among you, though in many cases in a divine and more sublime way; and we indeed alone do so in such a way that the matter is proved etc." In Apol. I. 44: II. 10. 13 uncertainty, error, and contradictions are shown to exist in the case of the greatest philosophers. The Christian doctrines are more sublime than all human philosophy (II. 15). "Our doctrines are evidently more sublime than any human teaching, because the Christ who appeared for our sakes was the whole fulness of reason" ([Greek: to logikon to holon], II. 10). "The principles of Plato are not foreign ([Greek: allotria]) to the teaching of Christ, but they do not agree in every respect. The same holds good of the Stoics" (II. 13). "We must go forth from the school of Plato"

(II. 12). "Socrates convinced no one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine proclaimed by him; whereas not only philosophers and philologers, but also artisans and quite common uneducated people have believed in Christ" (II. 10). These are the very people--and that is perhaps the strongest contrast found between Logos and Logos in Justin--among whom it is universally said of Christianity: [Greek: dunamis esti tou arretou patros kai ouchi anthropeiou logou kataskeue] (see also I. 14 and elsewhere.)]

[Footnote 366: In Justin's estimate of the Greek philosophers two other points deserve notice. In the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal philosophers. By the latter he specially means the Epicureans. They are no doubt referred to in I. 4, 7, 26 (I. 14: Atheists). Epicurus and Sardanapalus are cla.s.sed together in II. 7; Epicurus and the immoral poets in II. 12; and in the conclusion of II, 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. But according to II. 3 fin. ([Greek: adunaton Kuniko, adiaphoron to telos prothemeno, to agathon eidenai plen adikphorias]) the Cynics also seem to be outside the circle of real philosophers. This is composed princ.i.p.ally of Socrates, Plato, the Platonists and Stoics, together with Herac.l.i.tus and others. Some of these understood one set of doctrines more correctly, others another series. The Stoics excelled in ethics (II. 7); Plato described the Deity and the world more correctly.

It is, however, worthy of note--and this is the second point--that Justin in principle conceived the Greek philosophers as a unity, and that he therefore saw in their very deviations from one another a proof of the imperfection of their teaching. In so far as they are all included under the collective idea "human philosophy," philosophy is characterised by the conflicting opinions found within it. This view was suggested to Justin by the fact that the highest truth, which is at once allied and opposed to human philosophy, was found by him among an exclusive circle of fellow-believers. Justin showed great skill in selecting from the Gospels the pa.s.sages (I. 15-17), that prove the "philosophical" life of the Christians as described by him in c. 14.

Here he cannot be acquitted of colouring the facts (cf. Aristides) nor of exaggeration (see, for instance, the unqualified statement: [Greek: ha echomen eis koinon pherontes kai panti deomeno koinonountes]). The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the "[Greek: philois panta koina]." Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations in his description. Justin's reference to the invaluable benefits which Christianity confers on the state deserves notice (see particularly I.

12, 17.) The later Apologists make a similar remark.]

[Footnote 367: Dialogue 8. The dialogue takes up a more positive att.i.tude than the Apology, both as a whole and in detail. If we consider that both works are also meant for Christians, and that, on the other hand, the Dialogue as well as the Apology appeals to the cultured heathen public, we may perhaps a.s.sume that the two writings were meant to present a graduated system of Christian instruction. (In one pa.s.sage the Dialogue expressly refers to the Apology.) From Justin's time onward the apologetic polemic of the early Church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method. This consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the Greeks the form of an introduction to Christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction still further in those directed against the Jews.]

[Footnote 368: Dial. 2. sq. That Justin's Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue.]

[Footnote 369: Dial. 8: [Greek: houtos de kai dia tauta philosophos ego].]

[Footnote 370: Dial., l.c.: [Greek: parestin soi ton Christon tou Theou epignonti kai teleio genomeno eudaimonein].]

[Footnote 371: See particularly the closing chapter.]

[Footnote 372: Suppl. 2,]

[Footnote 373: Suppl. 4.]

[Footnote 374: Suppl. 5-7.]

[Footnote 375: Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13).]

[Footnote 376: Suppl, 7 fin. and many other places.]

[Footnote 377: _E.g._, Suppl. 8. 35 fin.]

[Footnote 378: The Crucified Man, the incarnation of the Logos etc. are wanting. Nothing at all is said about Christ.]

[Footnote 379: Suppl. 7.]

[Footnote 380: Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init.]

[Footnote 381: Suppl. 11.]

[Footnote 382: Suppl. 23.]

[Footnote 383: Suppl. 18, 23-27. He, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon theory in detail.]

[Footnote 384: The Apology which Miltiades addressed to Marcus Aurelius and his fellow-emperor perhaps bore the t.i.tle: [Greek: huper tes kata Christianous philosophias] (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as [Greek: he kath' hemas philosophia] (l.c., IV. 26. 7). But, while it is undeniable that this writer attempted, to a hitherto unexampled extent, to represent Christianity as adapted to the Empire, we must nevertheless beware of laying undue weight on the expression "philosophy." What Melito means chiefly to emphasise is the fact that Christianity, which in former times had developed into strength among the barbarians, began to flourish in the provinces of the Empire simultaneously with the rise of the monarchy under Augustus, that as foster-sister of the monarchy, it increased in strength with the latter, and that this mutual relation of the two inst.i.tutions had given prosperity and splendour to the state.

When in the fragments preserved to us he twice, in this connection, calls Christianity "philosophy," we must note that this expression alternates with the other "[Greek: ho kath' hemas logos]", and that he uses the formula: "Thy forefathers held this philosophy in honour along with the other cults" [Greek: pros tais allais threskeichis]. This excludes the a.s.sumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christian as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called "[Greek: to ton theosebon genos]"). He also wrote a treatise [Greek: peri ktiseos kai geneseos Christou]. In it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch) he called Christ [Greek: Theou logos pro aionon].]