JUS 
nius, in relating the luftory of the Athenian philofopher 
fent by Mithridates to Athens to fecure it in his intereft, 
and who, from an outrageous demagogue, came to be the 
tyrant of that city, has given us an example of what fome- 
tiines happens when philofophers are placed at the head-of 
affairs. And, laftly, as to what concerns the two lad 
books, the forty-third and forty-fourth, the former of 
which contains the firft times of Rome and of Marfeilles, 
it is probable that they are taken from DiocVes of Pe- 
paretlius, a writer about the time of the fecond Punic war ; 
but we cannot exactly point out the fources of the lalt 
book on Spain ; M. Heeren is of opinion that Trogus has 
here again followed Pofidonius. Thefe details Ihow what 
interetting writers, all Greeks, (for he has not confulted 
Roman authors,) Trogus has copied from, and what trea- 
fure we (hould poffefs if we ftill had his work. We muff 
take the extrafts of Juftin for what he gives them, fora 
felerition of amufing and inftructive paflfages, which he has 
taken from Trogus, but not at all for an hiftorical abridg¬ 
ment. Hence it is that we find fo many detailed narra¬ 
tions, which fieem copied almoft word for word from Tro¬ 
gus, and afterwards meet with concife extracts,. which 
were only intended to connect the parts. With this in¬ 
tention before our eyes, we may be eafily qualified to ap¬ 
preciate the labour of Juftin. He writes with confidera- 
ble purity ; his narration is clear, his reflections are fen- 
fible though obvious, his ftyle occafionally rifes to elo¬ 
quence. He cannot, however, rank among the great hif- 
torians ; and his book is chiefly uied as an elegant com¬ 
pendium for young Latin fcholars. Some of the belt edi¬ 
tions of this author are the Delphin, Par. 4to. 1677 ; 
Hearne’s, Oxf. 8vo. 1703 ; and Gronovius’s, Lugd. Bat. 
8 vo. 1719, and 1760. VcJJii Hi/}. Lat. and Heeren s Memoirs 
on Trogus and his Abridger JuJtin. 
JUS'TIN, furnamed the Martyr, one of the earlieft 
and moft learned writers of the Chriltian church, was the 
fon of Prifcus, a Greek by nation, of the Gentile religion, 
and born at Flavia Neapolis, anciently called Sichem, a 
city ot Samaria in Paleftine, towards the clofe of the firft, 
or the commencement of the fecond, century. He was 
educated in the religion of his ancestors, and in all the 
learning and philofophy of the times; not only attending 
the ableft inftrufiors in his native country, but being fent 
for further improvement into foreign parts, particularly 
Egypt, the grand feat of the more recondite and myfteri- 
ous religion and literature. He was an early lover of truth, 
and ftudied, firft the Stoic, and afterwards the Peripatetic, 
philofophy, under different matters. Not finding, however, 
in either of thefe fchools the fatisfaction which he wiflied 
concerning the divine nature, and having been refufed 
admiffion to the Pythagorean fchool, for want of the ne- 
ceffary preparatory inftruiffion and difeipline, he determi¬ 
ned to addict himfelf to the ftudy of the do< 5 trine of Plato. 
Under the direction of an able and judicious Platonift of 
Alexandria, he profecuted this ftudy with great delight; 
and, that he might proceed in it without interruption, he 
withdrew to a place of retirement near the fea. He had 
not been long in this fituation, when, in one of his foli- 
tary walks, he was accofted by an old man of a venerable 
appearance, whom forne fuppoie to be Polycarp ; a fuppo- 
fition which Juftin favours, by calling himfelf a difciple 
of the apoftles, which feems to imply that he had beenin- 
ftrufted by fome apoftolic man. Whoever he was, this old 
man difeovered in his converfation with Juftin no flight 
acquaintance with the Platonic philofophy ; for he made 
ufe of the Platonic principles and language, to which he 
found Juftin attached, in order to conduct him to the 
knowledge of a more pure and perfect fyftem. The dif- 
courle of this reverend preceptor infpired Juftin with an 
earneft defire of perufing the writings of the prophets and 
apoftles; and, when he had read them, he confelfed, that 
the Gofpel of Chrift was the only certain and ufeful phi¬ 
lofophy. 
Juftin embraced the Chriltian faith, moft probably, about 
the year 1.33, under the reign of Adrian s ftill? however. 
T I N. 571 
retaining the habit of a philofopher. About the begin¬ 
ning of the reign of the emperor Antoninus Pius he went 
to Rome, where he diligently employed himfelf in promo¬ 
ting and defending the Chriltian caufe, and in oppofing 
the heretics of the age, particularly Marcion, againlt whom 
he wrote and publilhed a book. The feverity of persecu¬ 
tion to which the Chriftians were at this time expofed, by 
rigoroufly putting in force againlt them the edicts of pre¬ 
ceding emperors, induced Juftin to draw up his firft Apo¬ 
logy for them ; in which he Ihows the cruelty and injuftice 
of the proceedings againlt them, proves their innocence of 
the crimes laid to their charge, and gives an exaft account' 
of their doCtrines, manners, and ceremonies. The Apo¬ 
logy was prefented to the emperor in the year.140, accord¬ 
ing to Cave and Lardner; though fome critics give it an 
earlier, and others a later, date. After this, Juftin went' 
into Alia, and at Ephefus became acquainted with Try- 
pho, a Jew of confiderable note and learning, with whom 
he held a difpute, which lafted two days, on the evidence 
furnilhed by the Old Teftament to prove that Jefus is the 
Melfiah. Of this difpute he afterwards wrote an account, 
entitled, A Dialogue with Trypho. From Ephefus, Juf¬ 
tin returned to Rome, where he had frequent dil'putes 
with Crefcens, a cynic philofopher, who was a malignant 
enemy to the Chriftians, and embraced every opportunity 
of mifreprefenting and traducing the principles of their 
religion. He had alfo the pain of witnefling the cruel per¬ 
fection by which his brethren were haraffed, in conie- 
quence of the calumnies propagated by fuch wicked men. 
This determined him to write his fecond Apology; in 
which he complains of the injuries, which were unjuftly 
offered to the Chriftians, and expofes the malignity of Cre¬ 
fcens, whom he had convifted of the groflelt ignorance, 
and of the moft vicious and depraved morals. This Apo¬ 
logy feems to have been prefented to the emperor Marcus. 
Antoninus in the year 162. Inftead, however, of pro¬ 
ducing any mitigation of that feverity againlt which it re- 
monltrates, it had the effeft only of exalperating Crefcens - 
to feek a bloody revenge againlt the man with whom he’ 
was unable to contend in argument. For this purpofe he 
preferred againlt him an acculation of impiety, or of ne¬ 
glecting the pagan rites, of which the emperor was a ftrift 
obferver. This charge occafioned Juftin to be imprifoned,, 
and tried before the prefect of the city, who, upon his re- 
fufal to facrifice to the gods, condemned him to be firfir 
fcourged, and then beheaded. This fentence was put into 
execution about the year 164, when he is fuppofed to have 
been in the feventy-fourth or feventy-fifth year of his age. 
Juftin is fpoken of in high terms of praife by ancient 
Chriltian writers. Tatian calls him an admirable man. 
Methodius fays, that he was not far removed from the 
apoftles in time or in virtue. Eufebius fays, that he flou-- 
riflied not long after the time of the apoftles. Photiusr 
thus fpeaks of him : “ He was well acquainted with the 
Chriltian philofophy, and efpecially with the Heathen 
rich in the knowledge of hiltory, and other parts of learn¬ 
ing. But he took little care to fet off the native beauty 
of philofophy with the ornaments of rhetoric ; for which 
reafon, his dilcourfes, though weighty and learned, want 
thofe allurements which are apt to attract the vulgar.''* 
He adds, “he Ihowed himfelf a philofopher not only in 
words, but in his actions and his habit.” Juftin, after 
his converfion, retained a ftrong attachment to the Plato¬ 
nic fy.ltem, and applied his knowledge of this fyftem to 
the explanation and defence of the Chriltian doctrine. 
Imagining that there was in many particulars an agree¬ 
ment between Platonifm and Chriltianity, he concluded; 
that whatever was valuable in the former had either been 
communicated to Plato, by infpiration, from the Logos, 
or firft emanation of the divine nature, or had been tranf- 
mitted by tradition from Moles and the Hebrew prophets, 
and might therefore be juftly claimed as belonging to di¬ 
vine revelation, and incorporated into the Chriltian creeds 
All good doftrine, according to him, proceeds from the Lo¬ 
gos, and, on thataccount, wherever it is found^of right-he- 
‘long? 
