JUSTIN us. stitutes the whole. 5. ASyos UapaiveTiKos ■irp6s"EK- ATjva?, Cohortatio ad Graecos. This is, perhaps, another of the works mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome and Photius {11. cc.) ; namely, the one said by them to have been entitled by the authorEA,67xos, Confu- tation or perhaps Toi? YlKaTwvos cKcyxos^ Platonis Confutatio (Phot. Bihl. cod. 232), though the title has been dropped. Others are disposed to identify the work last described with the Confutatio. The genuineness 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 has been generally received as genuine, and is defended by Maran, Semisch (b. ii. sect. i. c. 3), and Otto. It is a much longer piece than the Oratio ad Graecos. 6. Ilepl /xovapxias, De Mofiarchia. The title is thus given in the MSS. and by Maran. A treatise under nearly the same title, Ilept @eov /jLouapxias, De Monorchia Dei, is mentioned by E'ftsebius, Jerome, and Photius (11. cc). The word ©eou is contained in the title of the older editions of the extant treatise, which is an argument for Monotheism, supported by numerous quotations from the Greek poets and philosophers. As, according to Eusebius, 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 Herbig and Semisch, in the present day, doubt or deny the genuineness of this treatise, and their arguments 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, contend 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 the spurious additions of a later hand. 7. 'ETTiOToA?) 7r/,os Ai6yvT)Tov, Epis- tola ad Diognetum. This valuable remain of an- tiquity, in which the writer describes the life and worship of the early Christians, is by some eminent critics, as Labbe, Cave, Fabricius, Ceillier, Baum- garten-Crusius, and others, ascribed to Justin : by others, as Tillemont, Le Nourry, Oudin, Neander, and Semisch, it is ascribed to some other, but un- known writer, whom some of these critics suppose to have lived at an earlier period than Justin. Grabe, Dupin, Maran, and Otto, are in doubt as to the authorship. Both Otto and Semisch give a length- ened statement of the arguments on the question : those of Semisch, derived chiefly from a com- parison of the style and thoughts of the author with those of Justin in his undisputed works, seem decisive as to the author being a diflPerent person from him. The fragment of Justin on the Resurrection is noticed below under No. 14, among the lost works. III. Spurious Works. 8. 'ArarpoirT} S07/X0- Toji/ TivSiv "^ApuTTonKiKuv, Quoruudam Artsiotelis Dogmatum Confutatio. Possibly this is the work described by Photius {Bibl. cod. 125) as written against the first and second books of the Physics of Aristotle. Its spuriousness is generally admitted ; scarcely any critics except Cave, and perhaps Grabe, contend that it belongs to Justin ; but its date is very doubtful, and its real authorship unknown. JUSTINUS. 085 9. E/cGecris ttjs opdrjs 6/.i.ooyias, E<rposiiio rcctae Confessio?iis. Possibly this is the work cited as Justin's by Leontius of Byzantium, in the sixth cen- tury ; but it was little known in Western Europe till the time of the Reformation, when it was received by some of the reformers, as Calvin, as a genuine work of Justin, and by others, as Melancthon and the Magdeburg Centuriators, placed anidng the works of doubtful genuineness. But it is now generally allowed that the precision of its orthodoxy and the use of various terms not in use in Justin's time, make it evident that it was written at any rate after the commencement of the Arian contro- versy, and probably after the Nestorian, or even the Eutychian controversy. Grabe, Ceillier, and some others ascribe it to Justinus Siculus [No. 3]. 10 'AiroKpiacis Tvpds rovs op6od6^ov9 irepl rivwv dvay- Ka'icov ^rjTTj^aToji/, Responsibnes ad Ortliodoxos de quilmsdam Necessariis Quaedioiiibus. This is con- fessedly spurious. 11. 'EpwT^frets XpLariaviKoi irpos roils "EAAtjj/os, Quaestiones Chriatianae ad Graecos, and 'Epwrv/uets 'EWrjviKol -npos tovs Xpi(Triavo6s, Quuesliones Graecae ad Christianos, Kestner alone of modern writers contends for the genuineness of these pieces. It is thought by some, that either these Answers, &c., or those to the Orthodox just mentioned, are the 'Airopicou Kara rrjs evaeSeias Kecpahaicodeis imXvaeis, Brief Resolutions of Doubts unfavourable to Piety, men- tioned by Photius {Bibl. cod. 125). 12. Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum, commencing 'IovcttIvos Zrjva Kal l,€pT]vcf) Tols dSfAcpois x«^pe"'5 Justinus Zenae el Sereno fratribus salutem. This piece is by the learned (except by Grabe, Cave, and a few others), rejected from the works of Justin Martyr. Halloix, Tillemont, and Ceillier, ascribe it to a Justin, abbot of a monastery near Jerusalem, in the reign of the emperor Heraclius, of whom mention is made in the life of St. Anastasius the Persian ; but Maran con- siders this as doubtful. IV. Lost Works. — 13. ^wTay/na Kard ■traaaiu toov y^yevqixivuv alpecrewv. Liber contra omnes Haereses, mentioned by Justin himself in his Apologia Prima (c. 2(>, p. 70, ed. Maran. vol. i. p. 194, ed. Otto), and therefore antecedent in the time of its composition to that work. 1 4. A.6yoi s. ^vyy pap-ixa Kara MapKiwpos, or Upds Mapni- ciova. Contra Marciofiem. (Irenaeus, Adv. I lucres. iv. 6, conf. V. 26 ; Kieron. de Viris Illustr. c. 23 ; Euseb. //. E. iv. 11; Phot. Bibl. cod. 125.) Baum- garten-Crusius and Otto conjecture that this work against Marcion was a part of the larger work. Contra omnes Haereses, just mentioned ; but Jerome and Photius clearly distinguish them. The frag- ment De Resurrectione Carnis preserved by Joannes Damascenus {Sacra Parall. Opera, vol; ii. p. 756, &c.,ed. Lequien),andusually printed with the works of Justin, is thought by Otto to be from the Liber contra omnes Haereses, or from that against Mar- cion (supposing them to be distinct works), for no separate treatise of Justin on the Resurrection appears to have been known to Eusebius, or Jerome, or Photius : but such a work is cited by Procopius of Gaza, In Octateuch. ad Genes, iii. 21. Semisch, however (Book ii. Sect. i. c. 4), who, with Grabe and Otto, contends for the genuineness of the fragment, which he vindicates against the ob- jections of Tillemont, Le Nourry, Maran, Neander, and others, thinks it was an independent work. 15. "Vdhrris, Psaltes, a work, the nature of which is not known ; and 16. Tlepi y^vx^s, De Anima,
