(2.) Disputed or Doubtful Works. — 4. Aoyoc ffpot,- "EWiji'ac, Oratio ad Grcucos. " If this is indeed a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful, it is probably that described by Eusebius (IJist.L'ccl. iv, 18) as treat- ing TTspl rj}c TUiV caifiovojv (pvfftwg (compare Photius, Bibl. cod. 125), and by Jerome {De Vii: Illustr. c. 23) as being " de Dremonum natura ;" for it is a severe attack on the flagitious immoralities ascribed by the heathens to their deities, and committed by themselves in their religious festivals. Its identity, however, with the work respecting diemons is doubted by many critics. Cave supposes it to be a portion of the work next mentioned. Its genuineness has been on various grounds disputed by Oudin, Semler, Semisch, and others, and is doubted by Grabe, Dupin, and Neander. The grounds of objec- tion are well stated by Semisch (book ii, sect, ii, c. i) ; but the genuineness of the piece is asserted by Tille- mont, CeiUier, Cave, Maran, De Wette, Baumgarten-Cru-
JUSTIX
1108
JUSTIN
eius, and others, and by Otto, who has argued the ques- tion, wc thmk, with very doubtfid success. If the work be that described by Eusebius, it must be mutUated, for the dissertation on the nature of the demons or heathen deities is said by Eusebius to have been only a part of the work, but it now constitutes the whole. 5. AoyoQ UapaivtTLKig izpoQ "E\\i]vag, Cohortatio ad Grwcos. This is, iierhaps, another of the works mentioned by Eu- sebius, Jerome, and Photius (/. c), namely, the one said bv them to have been entitled by the author "E\£7x:oc, ConfuUttio, or perhaps ToS UXutwvoq iXtyxoC, Plato- nis 'Confutatio (Photius, Bibl cod. 232), though the title has been dropped. Others are disposed to identify the . work last described with the Confutatio. The genuine- ness of the extant work has been disputed, chiefly on the ground of internal evidence, by Oudin, and by some German scholars (Semler, Arendt, and Herbig) ; and is spoken of with doubt by Neander; but it has generally been received as genuine, and is defended by Maran, Semisch (book ii, sect, i, c. iii), and Otto. It is a much longer piece than the Oratio ad Grcecos. 6. Ilfpi fiov- ai)\ictr, l)e Monorchia. The title is thus given in the ^iss. and by JIaran. A treatise under nearly the same title, llf()( kiiov i^iovapxiag, Be Monarchia Dei, is men- tioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius {I. c). The word BfoD is contained in the title of the older editions of the extant treatise, which is an argument for Mon- otheism, supported by numerous quotations from the Greek poets and philosophers. As, according to Euse- bius, Justin had used citations from the sacred writings which are not found in the extant work, it is probable that, if this be the genuine work, it has come down to us mutilated. Petavius and Tillemont in a former age, and rierbig and Semisch in the present day, doubt or deny the genuineness of this treatise, and their argu- ments are not without considerable force ; but the great majority of critics admit the treatise to be Justin's, though some of them, as Cave, Dupin, and Ceillier, con- tend that it is mutilated. Maran, understanding the passage in Eusebius differently from others, vindicates not only the genuineness, but the integrity of the work. Some of the passages quoted from the ancient poets are not found in any other writing, and are on that account suspected to be spurious additions of a later hand." 7. fin-icrroA// ttooc Ai6yvr)Tov, Epistola ad Dioc/netum. This valuable relic of antiquity, which describes the life and worsliiji of the early Christians, is by some eminent critics, as Labbe, Cave, Fabricius, Ceillier, Baumgarten- C'rusiiis, and others, ascribed to Justiai; by others, as Tillemont, Lc Nourry, Oudin, Neander, and Semisch, it is ascribed to some other, but unknowi writer, who is sui)posod to have lived earlier than Justin. Grabe, Dupin, Maran, and Otto, are in doubt as to the author- >liip. Both Otto and Semisch give a lengthened state- ment of the arguments on the question : those of Se- misch, derived chiefly from a comparison of the style and tlioughts of the author with those of Justin in his iUKhsputcd works, clearly point to some other person as us am hor." Comp. especially Pressense, Early Years of Clirisliiinil,/, ii (Mitrtijrs ami Apologists), p. 591, foot- note ( X. V. 1«71, 12m(.). (The fragment of Justin on the liesiirrfciion is noticed under lost works.)
(S.) .Spurious Works. — 8. 'AvarpoTrri Soyfiarujv ti-
rt7,p XmrrroTiXiKuiv, Quonmdam Aristotelis Dor/matum
( Confutaiio. " Possibly this is the work described "by Pho-
_ tuw ( liM. cod. 12r)) as written against tlie first and sec-
1 ond IxM.ks of the Physics of Aristotle. Its spuriousness
w. IS generally admitted ; scarcely anv critics except Cave,
' ■ ■•uul perhaps Grabe, contend that it belongs to Justin;
'ut us date^ is very doubtful, and its real authorship un-
l.nown. 9. EK5iiaiqTr]Q op^lJQ bno\oyiac,Expositio rec-
t'e Confessionu. Possibly this is the work cited as Jus-
t ni 8 by Lcontuis of Byzantium, in the Gth century ; but
It was httle known in Western Europe tiU the time of
' ttic hcformation, when it was received by some of the
rolormcrs. as Calvin, as a genuine work of Justin, and
by others, as Melaucthon and the Magdeburg centuria-