as liis second Apology, is one of the most interesting remains of Christian antiquity. It is adcb-essed to the emperor Antoninus Pius, and to his adopted sons " Ve- rissimus the PhUosopher," afterwards the emperor M. Aurelius, and " Lucius the Philosopher" (we foUow the common reading, not that of Eusebius), aftenvards the emperor Verus, colleague of M. Aurelius. From the circumstance that Yerissiraus is not styled Caesar, which dignity he acquired in the course of A.D. 139, it is in- ferred by many critics, including Pagi, Neander, Otto, Semisch, and others, that the Apology was written previously, and probably early in that year. Euse- bius places it in the fourth year of Antoninus, or the first year of the 230th Olympiad, A.D. 141, which is rather too late. Others contend for a still later date. Justin himself, in the course of the work (c. 46), states that Christ was born a hundred and fifty years before he wrote, but he must be understood as speaking in round num")ers. However, Tilleraont, Grabe, Fleury, Ceillicr, :Maran, and others, fix the date of the work in A.D. 150. * Its contents," says bishop Kaye, " may be reduced to the following heads: [1] Appeals to the jus- tice of the ruling powers, and expostulations with them on the unfairness of the proceedings against the Chris- tians, who were condemned without any previous inves- tigation into their lives or opinions merely because they were Christians, and were denied the liberty al- lowed to all the other subjects of the Roman empire, of worshii)ping the God whom they themselves preferred. [2] Refutations of the charges of atheism, immorality, and disaffection towards the emperor, which were brought against the Christians- these charges Justin refuted by appealing to the purity of the Gospel pre- cepts, and to the amelioration produced in the conduct of those who embraced Christianity; and by stating that the kingdom to which Christians looked forward was not of this world, but a heavenly kingdom. [3] Direct arguments in proof of the truth of Christianity, drawn from miracles and prophecy. With respect to the former, Justin principally occupies himself in refu- ting the olyection that the miracles of Christ were per- formeil by magical arts. With respect to the latter, he states in forcible terms the general nature of the argu- ment from iirophecy, and shows the accomplishment of many particular prophecies in the person of Jesus; in- firriiig, from their accomplishment, the reasonableness of cndTtaining a firm persuasion that the prophecies yet unfullilk'd— that, for instance, respecting Christ's sec- ond advent— will in due time be accomplished. [4] Justin does not confine himself to defending Christianit}^, but occasionally becomes the assailant, and exposes with success the absurdities of the Gentile polytheism and idolatry. In further confirmation of the innocuous, or, ratlicr, lieneficial character of Christianity, Justin con- cludes tlie treatise with a description of the mode in which proselyios were admitted into the Church, of its other rites and customs, and of the habits and manner of life of the primitive Christians." To this Apology, the larger one of the two, are generally appended three documents: {l)'AO(navov vnep Xpianavuiv iirirrToXt], Adnitin pro ClirUtianis Epistola, or Exemplum Episto- Ue ImiH'iaUiris Adriuni ad Minucium Fundanum, Pro- comnliua A siw. This Greek version of the emperor's let- ter was made and is given by Eusebius (I/ist.Eccks. iv, «j. Justin had subjoined to his work the Latin original (Eusebius, Ilisf. Ecd. iv, 8), which probably is still pre- served by Rufinus in his version of Eusebius, for which, in the work of Justin, the version of Eusebius was after- wards substituted. (2) 'Xvrwvivov tmaroX,) ttooc to Koiyuv rnc 'A(jtag,Anlonini Epistola adCommum Asim. It IS hardly likely that this document was inserted in Its place by Justin himself; it has probably been added since Ins- time, and its genuineness is subject to consid- erable doubt. It is given, but with great variation, by uisebius {Ili.t. Eccles. iv, 13), and was written, ac- conUng to the text of the letter itself, as it appears in Eusebnis.not by Antoninus, but by his successor, M.
Aurelius. (3) MapKov ftaaiXeojQ imaroXfi ttqoq rr/v cvyKkrjTov, tv y ^aprvpei XpiffTiavoiiQ airiovg ytyt- vifcrSrai rtJQ TiKrjq avrihv, Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senatum qua testatur Christianos victorim causam fuisse. This letter, the spuriousness of which is gen- erally admitted (though it is said by Tertidhan, Apolo- getics, cap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was writ- ten by the emperor), relates to the famous miracle of the so-called thundering legion (q. v.). 2. 'AiroXoyia SsvTepa VTrtp riov XpiffriaviLv Trpbc Tijv 'Pwjxai- wv avyKXriTov, Apologia Secunda j^ro Christianis ad Senatum Ronianum. This second and shorter plea for the Christians was addressed probably to the emperors M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus, or, rather, to Aurelius alone, as Verus was engaged in the East in the Parthian war. (See below.) Neander adopts the opinion for- merly maintained by Valesius, that this Apology (placed in the older editions before the longer one just described) was addressed to Antoninus Pius; but Eusebius {Hist. Ecd. iv, 17, 18) and Photius {Bihl. cod. 125) among the ancients, and Dupin, Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, Mosheim, Semisch, and Otto among the moderns, maintain the opposite side. Otto thinks it was written about A.D. 164; others place it somewhat later. Scaliger {Animadv, in Chron. Euseb. p. 219) and Papebroche {A eta Sanctorum, Aprilis, ii, 106) consider that this second Apology of Justin is simply an intro- duction or preface to the first, and that the Apology presented to Aurelius and Verus has been lost, but their opinion has been refuted by several \\Titers, especially by Otto. Granted, then, that this Apology was pre- sented to M. Aurelius, we find it "occasioned by the punishment inflicted on three persons at Rome, whom LIrbicus, the prefect of the city, had put to death merely because they were Christians. After exposing the in- justice of this proceeding, Justin replies to two objec- tions which the enemies of the Gospel were accustomed to urge. The first was, ' Why, if the Christians were certain of being received into heaven, they did not de- stroy 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 woidd contravene the designs of God by diminishing the num.ber of believers, preventing the diffusion of true religion, and, as far as depended upon them, extinguishing the human race. The second objection was, * Why, if they were regarded by God with an eye of favor, he suffered them to be ex- posed to injury and oppression ?' Justin replies that the persecutions with which they then were, and with which many virtuous men among the heathens had before been visited, originated in the malignant artifices of diB- mons, the offspring of the apostate angels, whd were permitted to exercise their power until the designs of the Almighty were finally accomplished. Another ob- jection, of a different kind, appears to have been urged against the Christians : that, in exhorting men to live virtuously, they insisted, not upon the beauty of virtue, but upon the eternal rewards and punishments which await the virtuous and wicked. Justin replies that these are topics on which every believer in the exist- ence of God must insist, since in that belief is involved the further belief that he will reward the good and pun- ish 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 low- est ranks of life, braved danger and death in the cause of the Gospel. Towards the conclusion of the tract,- Justin states that he was himself induced to embrace Christianity by observing the courage and constancy with which its professors encountered aU the terrors of persecution." Two Fragmmta, given by Grabe in his Spicileg. saecul. ii, 173, are supposed by him to belong to the second Apology, in the present copies of which they are'not found ; but the correctness of this supposi- tion is very doubtful. 3. Ylpug Tpvcpuiva 'lovcalov Si-