*

said at that time to have been the most numerous and flourishing; but it would not appear to have sent forth the most determined assailants of Christianity, which is quite in keeping with its character of voluptuous indifference. Celsus, the first writer against the Christians, has indeed been called an Epicurean, but with what justice it is hard to say. Certainly he was not a follower of Ammonius, as Mosheim says, for he appeared much earlier, though not so far back as Origen places him, in the reign of Hadrian; most probably he wrote about the close of Justin's life. In the ordinary encounters of the time, the Cynics were the bitterest enemies of our faith, as might be expected from the pride, sarcastic temper, and bullying violence by which they were distinguished. They were the philosophers of the mob, and swarmed in populous cities, where they drew attention by their singular appearance and noisy harangues. According to the description of Lucian, they wandered about, begrimed with dirt, bearing a large knapsack, one half of their body naked, the cloak being thrown carelessly over one shoulder, with their hair and beard long and shaggy, and their nails like wild beast's claws. They carried with them their weapons,-in one hand a book written on the back; and in the other, what supplied all deficiences of reason, learning, or eloquence, a formidable cudgel. Their general insolence was equalled by their fawning servility to the powerful; and their professed love of wisdom was only a cloak to gluttony, avarice, and the most shameless unchastity. This description may be fully applied to that member of the sect, Crescens, whom Justin opposed at Rome, and to whose virulent enmity he probably owed his death. But there was another form of Gentile wisdom, more respectable and dignified in its character, from which the church had more to fear and to suffer. This was the Stoic philosophy. The proud elevation of virtue to which its disciples aspired, made them look with contempt on the Christian doctrine, so far as they knew it; but they felt it to be their rival, and a rival that boasted of power to dignify the illiterate and the mean with a higher wisdom than their own; while the stern sense of duty which they professed, led them to maintain an uncompromising hostility to the disloyal and illegal conduct of the Christians in abandoning the worship of their fathers. This hostility found a fit instrument and leader in the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who with unimpassioned but persevering earnestness caused the christians to be sought out and brought to punishment as criminals against the state, whose professed religious association was but a cunningly

* See our author, vol. i., p. 45, note.

contrived conspiracy. Thus the philosophy of the heathen world, even when secretly mocking its religion, stood forth as its most valorous ally and defender; indeed, without such aid, Polytheism could have made no stand at all, having no resources of its own but the avarice of the priests and craftsmen, and the superstition of the vulgar. And what gives a special interest to the age of Justin, is this: that,-whereas, in the first century, Christianity was too insignificant and little known to do more than rouse occasional persecution, and that oftenest through the interference of the Jews,-it now began of itself, the power of the Jews being broken, to excite attention and alarm generally as a distinct and peculiar system, having numerous and widely-ramified societies, and animated by principles which, whatever they were, tended to spread with a success, and to act with an energy that were inexplicable. Hence the opposition that arose, which, at first confused and undefined, gradually shaped itself into a distinct and formidable array, in which the New Platonists stood forth as foremost combatants. But the first brunt of the contest was met, and boldly met, by Justin, whose courage merits an admiration that should be proportioned not only to the dangers and difficulties, but also to the novelty of the warfare. How he discharged his part in it, we can judge in some measure by his writings, and also by the esteem and admiration with which he is spoken of by all subsequent authors in the church.

We shall now take notice of some of the defects that appear in his productions. His acquaintance with Greek learning, especially in the department of philosophy, was very extensive; but in his reading he seems to have been too much biassed by an exclusive search for what related to the object of his labours. Hence his views are often deficient in fairness of estimation and comprehensiveness. His mind also constantly betrays the want of that strict discipline which is so salutary to its powers; the very defect for which the Pythagorean teacher rejected him. Of the necessity of logical sequence in arguing, he appears quite forgetful; and often rambles on, interweaving parentheses of any length in his sentences, and episodes that have the very slightest connexion with the main subject. The structure of his periods thus becomes perplexed and inaccurate, and the strain of his composition confused and tiresome. This negligence arose in great part from the purposed indifference to style, which most of the early fathers thought a duty; but the irregularity of Justin's education will account for more. His learning, great as it was, did not extend to the knowledge of Hebrew, which he must have regarded as unnecessary, since he believed the Septuagint version to be a literal and inspired

rendering of the original. Relying on that version with unsuspicious confidence, he finds arguments in passages that really afford no foundation for them. But indeed in passages, where his confidence was not misplaced, he is not an expositor that may be safely followed, as may be seen from some specimens which we have given already, when proving another point. His fundamental error is the following. Being persuaded of the eternal harmony and immutability of revealed truth, he mistakenly endeavours to exhibit it as possessing these qualities, by pointing out in every lineament of the Old dispensation a significant token of the New. That Christ and his doctrine may not appear to disadvantage as novelties, he must find them everywhere in the records of the Jewish history and religion. In doing this, he has certainly many to countenance him even in modern times, though perhaps few would follow his track in the instances which we shall here give as examples.

'The circumcision of children on the eighth day after birth, as appointed by the law, Gen. xvii. 12, Lev. xii. 3, he considers to be a symbol of the spiritual circumcision of Christians by Christ, who rose on the eighth day, according to one method of computation. In the twelve golden bells which were fastened to the border of the high priest's robe, he finds a type of the twelve apostles, since they were dependent on the power of Christ, the eternal High Priest, and their announcement of the grace and glory of God and of Christ, had resounded throughout the globe. The double marriage, and other occurrences in Jacob's life, he viewed as a typical representation of certain events relating to Jesus. Leah signified the Jewish nation, and Rachel the Christians. Christ still performs service for both, as well as for the two handmaids; for since Noah predicted that the posterity of his third son would be in subjection to his two other sons, so has Christ appeared for the restoration both of the free children and of their bondsmen. All who obey his commands, will partake of the same glory, even as Jacob granted equal privileges to all his children, whether they were the offspring of his two wives or of their handmaids. Moreover, as Jacob served Laban for the ring-straked, speckled and grisled' cattle, (Gen. xxxi. 35; xxxi. 8—12,) so Christ was obedient even to the death of the cross for men of all nations, whom he won for himself by his blood, and the mysterious power of his cross. The eyes of Leah were weak, and the spiritual sight of the Jews is also weak. Rachel stole Laban's gods, and hid them; while Gentile christians have given up their fathers' gods of wood and stone; Jacob was the object of his brother's constant hatred; and Christ and believers are hated by the Jews and the rest of mankind, though all are, by nature, brethren; Jacob received the name of Israel, and Christ is called Israel.' Dial., c. Tr., c. 134, 140.-vol. i. pp. 304, 305.

But the same principle whose operation was thus exemplified, and which was indeed an anxiety to convince the opposite side

that their own system supplied the foundation and outlines for the theory of truth which they were urged to adopt, led him into a far greater and more injurious mistake when disputing with heathens. His anxiety to win them over was sometimes more ardent than wisely regulated; for he seeks to find all the points of correspondence that an ingenious fancy can detect between their fables and the histories and prophecies of the Bible; alleging that the demons who personated the gods of heathenism had stolen the latter, and delivered them in a distorted form to their votaries, to be applied to their own glorification. Again, he gives their philosophers credit for being acquainted with much of divine truth, though they had expressed it in an imperfect and perverted manner; and this he attributes partly to their acquaintance with the writings of the prophets, and partly to the seed of the divine Logos dwelling in them. To the adoption of such notions he must have been the more inclined, from his great credulity, a characteristic failing of the christians of his age. In the tale of the Cumean Sybil and in the forged prophecies bearing her name, as well as in the fable of the seventy interpreters shut up in seventy separate cells, and there miraculously producing identical versions, he put implicit faith. Connected with the latter, he shows also his ignorance of history, for he speaks of a Herod reigning in Judæa at the time of the occurrence.

In these erroneous notions, and in other defects, Justin was simply influenced by the general belief of his brethren at the time. In their mistakes and weaknesses he shared. If in any point of morality he is to be blamed, it is in agreeing with them in an undue estimation of celibacy, and an improper depreciation of marriage. He is unjustly represented as a leader in error, for he had neither the vanity nor the originality to strike out what was new. That his mode of thinking and expression on difficult subjects, such as that of the Logos, should savour of philosophy, was unavoidable; for any man who proceeds to speculate and argue on these must borrow the means of representation from the same quarter, and Justin does not seem to have been more unsuccessful than others. That he adulterated christian doctrine with Platonic notions is an unfair and groundless charge, which has often been brought against him, but is well refuted by our author.

To conclude our short sketch of Justin, we shall give a brief view of the sentiments expressed in his writings concerning the Godhead. He maintains the unity of God, and denounces the absurdities of Polytheism with the greatest earnestness. He regards the simple idea of the being of a God as innate in the human mind; and the idea of his unity as equally so, though

mons.

lost throughout the heathen world by the delusions of deHe represents God as unutterable,* and consequently as nameless; though not in the sense in which Plato and Philo affirm this, namely, that God is simple existence, devoid of all qualities; but because of his infinite perfection. Nor does he refine on this idea so as to deny him substantiality; but, on the whole, gives a just and scriptural view of the Divine Being. In maintaining the divinity of Christ, which he strenuously does, he felt himself, as an apologist, in danger of being charged by his opponents partly with worshipping a man, partly with advancing the doctrine of two Gods. To avoid the first charge, he insists on the scripture doctrine of the Aéyes; but, influenced by the ambiguity of the term, and by impressions received from Philo's views, he does not confine himself to the simplicity of scripture statements, but enters on explanations which mar the truth. As we have shown from a passage already quoted, his belief was far from being that of the Nicene creed, for he regarded the Logos as originally dwelling in the divine mind, and sent forth by God from himself, at a certain epoch, as a δύναμις λόγικη by which he created all things, which thenceforth existed as an individual person, ruling over creation as God-the same who was manifested to the patriarchs and prophets, and became incarnate as Jesus for our redemption. This Logos he calls the only-begotten Son of God, because of his origin; and while very frequently styling him God, he often gives him the designation of yévvua, and once that of spyaria. He guards against the second charge, by maintaining his unity of essence, character, and will, with the Father; and illustrates this by comparing him to speech and flame, which being the same in nature and properties with the source whence they proceed, do not diminish it by their separation. To the Logos dwelling in believers, he attributes all inward enlightenment and sanctification. He thus gives him the place of the Holy Spirit, and is consequently at a loss how to speak of the latter, concerning whom his language is often indefinite and obscure; but this is certain, that though he makes the Spirit subordinate to, and dependent on both the Father and the Son, he maintains his personality and divinity. He does not, as Neander thinks, represent him as created, and merely the highest of the angels. He describes the angels as created ministering spirits-altogether dependent-liable to sin-and possessed of bodies, which, though very fine in substance, are nourished by manna. Strange to say, in one passage he includes them with the Trinity as objects of christian adoration. How that adoration should be modified in their case, he does not say; but the

* ὁ ἄῤῥητος πατήρ passim.