out of that apostle's sermons. But because Papias is said to agree with Clement, it is by no means necessary to suppose he had delivered every particular contained in that passage of Clement,

3. Of the Acts of the Apostles.

Papias does undoubtedly give some confirmation to the history of the Acts of the Apostles, in what he says of Philip; and especially in what he says of Justus, called Barsabas. But I think it cannot be affirmed, that he did particularly mention, or refer to, the book of the Acts. For I reckon, it is Eusebius himself who adds that quotation out of the Acts, upon occasion of what Papias had written of the before-mentioned Barsabas.

4. Of the Epistles of Peter and John.

1. Papias evidently confirms the genuineness and authority of the first epistle of Peter, and the first of John.

2. Papias had written nothing of the second epistle of Peter, or of the other epistles of John. If he had, Eusebius would certainly have taken notice of it. These epistles were doubted of and contradicted by some in his time. He therefore diligently observed whatever he met with concerning them in ancient writers, and fails not of informing his readers of it.

3. Nevertheless, nothing can be inferred from the silence of Papias to the prejudice of the genuineness of these epistles. He no where designed to give a catalogue of the writings of these apostles. All Eusebius says is, 'Papias 'brought testimonies out of the first epistle of John, and the 'first of Peter likewise.' That he has alleged no passages out of the other is not at all strange. Papias dealt chiefly in unwritten traditions, and had no particular occasion to quote any other epistles of those apostles. He confirms these, therefore, without prejudicing the rest.

5. Of the Revelation.

I think it also highly probable, that Papias had read the book of the Revelation. And this may be confirmed from the passage of Irenæus, where he mentions him. But I apprehend too that it may be fairly concluded from what Eusebius says of the two Johns, that Papias had no where in these five books expressly said, that the Revelation was written by John the apostle. However, I do not take the

silence of Papias in this matter to be any objection to that supposition. Who was the author of that book was well known in his time: but he might have no particular occasion to mention him.

6

we

And it is observable that Andrew, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, who is supposed to have flourished about the year 500, in the preface to his Commentary upon the Revelation, mentions Papias, together with others who had borne testimony to this book, in this manner: But 'judge it needless,' says Andrew, to enlarge on the divine inspiration of this book, to which so many blessed men bear a credible testimony: as Gregory the divine, and 'Cyril, and others more ancient than they; I mean Papias, Irenæus, Methodius, and Hippolytus.'

6

6

6. Of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Papias gives no confirmation to this gospel. Eusebius says, he had a history, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.' The words of Eusebius are remarkable. He does not say, that this story was taken out of that gospel, or that Papias had quoted, or brought testimonies out of it. This gospel seems to have contained several stories and relations, or circumstances of things, added to the gospel of St. Matthew. It is not at all wonderful that Papias, who collected unwritten traditions, should have one story found or contained' in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. When these additions were inserted in that gospel is uncertain: possibly about the time of Papias, possibly after it; and if they were a little before it is not very material. I conclude however that Papias had no where quoted that gospel. And I infer therefore likewise, that when Papias spoke of St. Matthew's gospel, he spoke of his Greek gospel, which he was well acquainted with. He had received some tradition by word of mouth, that it was written originally in Hebrew. But as for any Hebrew gospel of Matthew in his time, he knew nothing of it, being a perfect stranger to that language.

It may be thought that I have been too particular in my remarks upon Papias, a man of small capacity. But I esteem the testimony very valuable, which he has given to

W

▾ Vid. Cav. H. L. T. i. Περι μεντοι τε θεοπνευσε της βιβλι περιττον μηκύνειν τον λογον ἡγεμεθα, των μακαρίων, Γρεγόριο το Θεολογε,προσετι δε και αρχαιοτέρων, Παπις, Ειρηναις, Μεθόδις, και Ιππολυτα, ταύτη προσμαρτυρώντων το αξιοπισον. Andr. Proleg. ad Αpoc. p. 3. B. C. ad calcem. T. 8. Opp. S. Chrys. Ed. Morell.

the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and to the first epistle of St. Peter, and St. John. If Papias had been a wiser man, he had left us a confirmation of many more books of the New Testament.

CHAP. X.

JUSTIN MARTYR.

I. His history. II. His works, with extracts out of the Quæstiones et Responsiones ascribed to him. III. His testimony to the Scriptures of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels. IV. The Acts of the Apostles. V. St. Paul's Epistles. VI. The second Epistle of St. Peter. VII. The Revelation. VIII. Of Apocryphal Scriptures supposed to be quoted by him. IX. The sum of his testimony to the Scriptures of the New Testament. THE history of Justin may be collected partly from his own writings, partly from other ancient authors.

He was born in Flavia Neapolis, anciently called Sichem, a city of Samaria in Palestine. His father's name was Priscus, his grandfather's Bacchius.

He was early a lover of truth, and studied philosophy under several masters: first, under a Stoic, next a Peripatetic, then a Pythagorean, and lastly, a Platonic: whose principles and sentiments he preferred above all other, until he became acquainted with the christian religion, which he then embraced, as the only certain and useful philosophy. Of his conversion to christianity he gives an account in his Dialogue with Trypho. All these particulars we have from himself.

The exact time of his conversion is uncertain. Cave conjectures it happened about the year 132 or 133. Tillemont is of much the same opinion, who supposes he was born in 103, and was about thirty years of age when he embraced christianity, in the reign of Adrian, A. D. 133. • Ταυτην μονην εὑρισκον

a

Apol. i. init. Paris. p. 55.

φιλοσοφίαν ασφαλη τε και συμφορον. p. 225. C. in Dial.

See Justin's Life, sect. v. in Lives of the Primitive Fathers, and Historia Liter. P. 36. d Mem. Ecc. T. 2. Part ii. Vie de Justin

M. Art. ii. Not. 1. et Art. v. Not. 4.

The course of his life after his conversion is thus briefly digested by Cave. In the beginning of the reign of Antoninus the pious he came to Rome, and in the year 140 presented his first Apology to that emperor. Afterwards he went into Asia, where he had the celebrated conference with Trypho the Jew; and then returned again to Rome, where he wrote his second Apology, inscribed to Marcus Antoninus the philosopher, and suffered martyrdom about the year 164. Tillemont is rather inclined to place his death in the year 167 or 168. Fabricius supposes he was born in 89, and suffered martyrdom in the 74th year of his age, A. D. 163. Grabeh is also of the same opinion about the time of his birth, and that his martyrdom happened in the year 163 or 165, the 74th or 76th year of his age.

Justin is mentioned by many ancient christian writers; by his disciple Tatian, by Irenæus, Tertullian, Methodius, Eusebius, Jerom, Epiphanius, Photius, and others. I shall put down some of their testimonies.

Tatian1 calls him an admirable man.' Methodiusm says, he was a man not far removed from the apostles in time or virtue. Eusebius" says, he flourished not long after the times of the apostles. Photius says, he was well acquainted with the christian philosophy, and especially with the heathen; rich in the knowledge of history, and other parts of learning. But he took little care to 'set off the native beauty of philosophy with the orna'ments of rhetoric. For which reason his discourses, though weighty and learned, want those allurements which are apt to attract the vulgar.' He adds: Hep showed himself a philosopher not only in words, but in his actions, and his habits."

6

6

II. Eusebius, beside the accounts he had before given of Justin's books against Marcion, and all heresies, and his Apologies, gives also this distinct enumeration of his works. He says, that Justin left behind him a great number of very useful works, as his Apology to Antoninus the pious, and his sons, and the Roman senate, and another 'to his successor: a book against the Greeks [or Gentiles]: another book against the Gentiles, called Elenchus [or a ↑ Ubi supra, Art. 22. 8 Biblioth. Spicileg. Patrum, T. ïï. p. 146, 147. i Adver. Hær. 1. iv. cap. 6. et lib. v. cap. 26. * Adv. Valent. cap. v. Justinus Philosophus et Martyr. 1 Ο θαυμασιωτατος Issivoc. Cont. Gr. p. 157. c. Apud Phot. cod. 234. p. 921.

e Histor. Lit. Gr. T. v. p. 51, 52.

n H. Ec. 1. 2. c. 13.

• Cod. 125.

και τοις λόγοις, και τῷ βίῳ, και τῳ σχηματι, ibid.
cap. 11, 12, 16,
Cap. 18.

• Φιλοσοφων 4 H. E. l. 4

Confutation]: another of the Monarchy of God: another 'entitled Psaltes: of the Soul: a Dialogue against the Jews, which he had at Ephesus with Trypho. There are also,' says Eusebius, many other books of his, which are in the hands of the brethren.' Jerom's' account of Justin's works agrees with this of Eusebius.

6

6

The principal works of Justin are his two Apologies, and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in two parts.

The first and larger Apology was addressed, as has been already hinted, to Titus Antoninus the pious, Marcus Antoninus, and Lucius Verus, the senate and people of Rome.t Tillemont and Grabe" think it was not presented to the emperor before the year 150. Cave says, in 140: Pagiv and Basnage, in the year 139: Massuet, about 145. The Benedictine editors of Justin's works, in their preface, support Tillemont's opinion in a very plausible manner.

W

The Dialogue with Trypho was written not long after, and according to Pagi and Basnage, in 140; according to Massuet and the fore-mentioned Benedictines, about the year 155.

The second Apology seems to have been presented to Marcus Antoninus in the beginning of his reign, in the year 162.

The larger Apology is still extant entire. The beginning of the second Apology is wanting: as is the conclusion of the first, and beginning of the second part of the Dialogue with Trypho.

Beside these there are two discourses to the Gentiles, which are generally allowed to be Justin's: one called, An Oration to the Gentiles; the other, Пapaiveris, or, An Exhortation to the Gentiles, which is supposed to be the Elenchus mentioned by Eusebius.

The piece we now have of the Monarchy of God seems to be a fragment of the genuine work of Justin with that title.

The epistle to Zena and Serenus is at best doubtful, and I think not Justin's.

The epistle to Diognetus is generally supposed to be Justin's, though it is doubted of by some because the style is more elegant than that of his other pieces. For my own part, I cannot persuade myself to quote it as Justin's;

De Vir. Ill. cap. 23. and note 3.

u

t Vie de Justin, as above, art. 13.

Spicileg. sect. ii. p. 150.
Crit. in Bar. A. D. 148. n. 5.

* Vid. Diss. i. in Irenæ. num. ii. p. xv.
▪ Vid. Grabe, Spic. Patr. T. 2. p. 149.

* Ann. P. E. 139. sect. 5. y Ibid.