Изображения страниц

fifteenth of Hadrian: in other passages, to the Jewish war, &c. Barchochab's persecution of the Christians; the destruction of Jerusalem; and the consequences of the war to the Jews; all as still recent events". That war was brought to a close U. C. 888, or 889.

In other passages, the heretic Marcion of Pontus is spoken of as still living, and still disseminating his doctrines, when Justin was writing the Apology. He speaks also of a work of his own against all the heresies, which up to that time had appeared in the Christian world, to which he refers the emperors t. That Marcion's heresy was included among the rest, may very probably be collected both from the title of the work, and because Justin's treatise against Marcion is quoted pnrs by Irenæus ".

The precise time of the rise of the heresy of Marcion, may be doubtful; further than that the most ancient authorities make it contemporary with the reign of Antoninus Pius, and with the bishopric of Hyginus, whom Eusebiusw places in the first of Antoninus, and supposes to have sate only four years. Tertullian, Contra Marcionem x, i. 19, says indeed: Quoto quidem anno Antonini Majoris de Ponto suo exhalaverit aura canicularis, non curavi investigare: de quo tamen constat, Antoninianus hæreticus est, sub Pio impius. Yet just before he says: Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de cœlo manare dignatus est, spiritus salutaris; Marcionis salutis, qui ita voluit: (where he is speaking according

r P. 49. 1. 27: 70.31-71.8: 78. 15. s P. 43. l. 1: 85. 15-30. Cf. Eusebius, E. H. iv. 11. 125. B. t P. 44. T. u Lib. iv. xiv. 300. 14. Cf. v. xxvi. 441. 21. which Eusebins, E. H. iv. 18. 141. A. shews to be a quotation from it also. Vide also Tertullian, Operum ii. 149. Adversus Valentinianos, 5: Hieronymus, de SS. Ecclesiasticis, cap. 23: Photius, Bibl. Codex 125. w E. H. iv. 10. 11. 125. A. y Cf. Irenæus, i. xxviii. 103. xxix. 104: iii. iii. 204: iv. 206. 1. 9: Clemens Alex. ii. 898. Strom. vii. 17: Cyprian, Operum 211. Ep. lxxiv. Cf. Ep. lxxv. p. 219: Epiphanius, i. 299. C: 303. D. 364. C. D: Theodorit, Operum iv. 314. Hæreticarum Fabularum i. xxiv: Eusebius and Jerome, Chronica, ad annum Abrahami 2156. Antonini Pii iii.

x Operum i. 33.

to the opinions of Marcion; as we learn from lib. iv. 7. p. 197: Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberii, proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilææ Capharnaum: which was probably the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel according to Marcion.) Immediately after, he continues: A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoninum anni fere CXV et dimidium anni, cum dimidio mensis: tantumdem temporis ponunt inter Christum et Marci


I think this computation is intended to bear date from Tiberii xv. U. C. 781-782, the time of the manifestation of Christ according to Marcion; in which case, 116 current years bring us to U. C. 896-897: as the age most probably intended by Tertullian for Marcion himself. For, as this interval of time cannot possibly hold good between the beginning of the reign of Tiberius and that of Antoninus Pius; nor between the close of the one, and the beginning or the end of the other, respectively—of what must it be understood, if not of the manifestation of the Christ on the one hand, and the appearance of Marcion on the other? On this principle, there would still be time for Justin to have written against Marcion, though he presented his Apology U. C. 899: especially as the doctrines of Marcion were broached at Rome, where the Apology was presented *, and where, according to Epiphanius, loc. cit. Marcion became the disciple of Cerdo, immediately after Hyginus' death, which Eusebius places U.C.895.†

* For some more particulars concerning Marcion, see Tertullian, Operum ii. 35. De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, p. 30. It is however to be observed, that Jerome, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, loco citato, distinguishes the work against Marcion from that against heresies in general.

There is no reason, therefore, why the former might not have been written after the latter.

+ Both Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, and Jerome, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, mention a multitude of writers against Marcion; the time of all of whom accords to the suppo

In the second Apology of Justin, as it is commonly called, there are fewer notes of time than in the first. Jerome, and Photius, speak of this as presented to the successors of Antoninus Pius, which means, to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: but Justin himself, in one passage of ita, apostrophizes the reigning emperor, in the second person; and consequently shews it to be some one person, in particular, who was king, even though others in some sense might be associated with him: in which case the Apology was presented either to Antoninus Pius, or to Marcus Aurelius after the death of Verus; that is, not before the ninth or tenth year of his reign *.

There is no allusion in this second Apology, to the first; which may justly be considered surprising if it was really written after it: for we find Justin referring in the Dialogus, (a work which was probably composed in the reign of Hadrian',) to some address of his, which had been presented to the reigning emperor -who in that case must have been Hadrian; in which he had not spared his own countrymen the Samaritans. I should be disposed to believe that this Apo

sition that the heresy in question first appeared under Antoninus Pius. These writers flourished principally in the reign of his successor, the first of them, next to Justin Martyr, being Theophilus bishop of Antioch. The heretic Marcion was known to Celsus the Epicurean; the date of whose work, answered by Origen, was early in the reign of Antoninus Pius. The anecdote

recorded by Irenæus, of Polycarp and him, if true, proves that Marcion's heresy was older than Polycarp's martyrdom, A. D. 164, and probably than his visit to Rome, under Anicetus. Irenæus, iii. cap. iii. 204, &c.

* Eusebius, E. H. iv. 18. 140. A. accordingly supposes it to be addressed to Antoninus Verus, the successor of Antoninus Pius.

z Photius, Codex 125. p. 94. Hieronymus, Operum iv. pars iia. 110. De SS.

Ecclesiasticis, 23. Cf. 656. ad principium. a P. 109. 1. 3. b Cf. Pars i. 137.

21. 155. 6. 169 2. Add to which, that, 153 3. 436. 32. the work is dedicated to Marcus Pompeius; whom Grabe conjectures to be the same Marcus who was the first Gentile bishop of Jerusalem; that is, after the close of the Jewish war. See Eusebius, E. H. iv. 6. 119. A. v. 12. 176. D. c Page 397. 4.

logy, though commonly considered the second, was in reality something prior to the former. It is, as we now possess it, manifestly an imperfect production; the beginning of which has been lost, though the conclusion is probably entire. And there is at the end of it a very significant allusion to Antoninus Pius, and his two sons-both of whom the first Apology designates by the title of Philosophers; which is sufficient to prove, that these three were reigning in conjunction at the time of this address, as well as at that of the former: εἴη οὖν καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀξίως Εὐσεβείας καὶ Φιλοσοφίας τὰ δίκαια ¿πèρ έavтôv кρîvaid. A plurality of rulers, too, is implied in the following passage, just before: kai vμâs ovv ἀξιοῦμεν ὑπογράψαντας τὸ ὑμῖν δοκοῦν προθεῖναι τουτὶ τὸ Bißxidiove: notwithstanding which, some one of them might still be addressed as the supreme governor, or emperor as such; which is the case in the passage referred to above*.

There is mention made in this treatise of Musonius the philosopher, ev Tоîs кať ηuâs f; that is, as a contemporary of the writer's: which can scarcely be understood of the philosopher of that name, whom Tacitus, Philostratus, Suidas, and others †, prove to have

* If, indeed, this second Apology was written soon after the matter of fact happened, which gave occasion to it, (see 106. i. sqq.) then 110. 21-25. in the course of that narrative, seems clearly to recognise Antoninus Pius, as the reigning emperor ; and only one other person as associated in the mention with him, whom it calls piλorópov or piλoσópa Kaiσapos maidí. This must be M. Aurelius as such: whether before or after he was invested with the tribunitia po

d P. 135. 2.

testas, may be doubtful. Why should not this second apology, as it is called, have been written and presented to Antoninus Pius, about the fourth of his reign, U. C. 894, where Eusebius and Jerome, in Chronico, place the first? and the first about the ninth, U. C. 899. where Cassiodorus places it?

+ Cf. Dio, lxvi. 13. Pliny, Epp. iii. 11. vii. 31. (which together ascertain his name to have been C. Musonius Bassus; though Jerome, Chronicon, ad

[blocks in formation]

flourished in the reigns of Nero and Vespasian*. But Origen also contra Celsums, speaks of a Musonius, whom he describes as one τῶν χθὲς καὶ πρώην γεγονότων : who was, most probably, this contemporary of Justin's t. The Apology begins with an abrupt reference

Titi ii. calls him Musonius Rufus. So Dio lxii. 27.)—Julian Opera, 265. C. D. ad Themistium: Eusebius and Jerome in Chronico: Eunapius, vitæ Sophistarum, Procemium, p. 3. The sect which this Musonius followed was the Cynic.

* Suidas, voce Kopvoûτos, in his account of Cornutus the philosopher of Leptis in Africa, says he was put to death by Nero, along with the abovementioned Musonius; and he repeats this statement of Musonius' being put to death by Nero, under Μουσώνιος. But the truth is, that Nero did not put either Cornutus or Musonius, his contemporary, to death, but only banished them, see Dio, lxii. 27, and 29. and Jerome, Chronicon, 162, ad Neronis xiv: as might be collected indeed from Suidas'very account, in the extract from Julian, in the last of these instances. The same conclusion would follow from the history of Cornutus, in conjunction with that of Persius, the satirist, whose preceptor he was : see Satira v. Suidas, voce Пwλiov, Asinius Pollio, whose acme is placed in the time of Pompey the Great, is yet made a contemporary of Musonius the philosopher, if not later than he: the former of which is barely possible, but the latter is impossible. Another Pollio, how. ever, is mentioned directly after.

† Philostratus, in his Life of Herodes Atticus, Vitæ Sophistarum ii. 555. B. mentions Mu

sonius the Tyrian, as the preceptor of Lucius, the philosopher, one of the contemporaries and friends of Herodes; who must have been contemporary with Justin. Aristides, also, 'Iepov λóywv. Oratio xxviii. 551. mentions a Musonius, apparently as one of his contemporaries-who was probably the same person.

It appears in fact from Suidas, Ερμογένης, that Hermogenes of Tarsus was the preceptor of a Musonius, the philosopher, who must have been contemporary with the emperor Marcus, because Marcus himself also was among the hearers of Hermogenes; who yet, it appears, could have had no hearers or disciples after he was twenty-five years of age. Cf. the Vita Sophistarum of Philostratus, ii. 575. Hermogenes,-from whom Suidas quotes his account of the Hermogenes in question. We may conclude that this Musonius was Musonius the Tyrian, as well as the contemporary of Justin. The Musonius mentioned by Eunapius, Vitæ Sophistarum, 92. Proæresius, as a contemporary of Proæresius, must have been a totally different person. Of this Musonius, also, see Suidas, in Movσwvios, and Valesius, ad Ammianum Marcellinum, xxvii. 9: whence it appears that the date of his death was A. D. 368, in the reign of Valentinian the First.

g Lib. iii. 66. Operum i. 491. B.


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »