It appears worthy of notice however, that the attempt to find difference of treatment according to difference of country almost entirely fails. If applied as a principle of classifying manuscripts, or modes of exegesis, or liturgical uses, sufficient variety is exhibited to prove that the Christian church was a collection of provincial churches, each possessing its national peculiarity, each contributing to swell the general harmony by uttering its own appropriate note; but, when applied to the subject of apologetic, the method fails to show a difference in the method of defence which was simultaneously used in the great Christian army; which [pg 454] forms a proof of the facility of intercourse between different churches, and of the uniformity in the character of the attack directed simultaneously on the church in different lands. The change in the character of the Evidences with the growth of time, according to the alteration of attack described above, is apparent, but not the variation at the same date in different parts of the world. We shall therefore merely present a list, in which the apologists are arranged according to place and date, without attempting to draw inferences which cannot be supported.
The recent publication of Pressensé's work, where the spirit of the apologies is given, together with an analysis of their contents, renders it unnecessary to offer here a full analysis of them, as had been intended. Other works indeed partially supplied the need previous to his. Such, for example, were Houtteville's Introduction to La Religion Chrétienne prourée par des Faits, containing an account of the authors for and against Christianity (translated 1739); Schramm's Analysis Patrum, 1780; Scultetus's Medullœ. Patr. Syntagma, 1631; and for the Apostolic Fathers, the Introduction to Mr. Woodham's edition of Tertullian's Apology.
It will be sufficient accordingly to give a list of the writers, with a very brief mention of the object of their treatises,[1075] and to enumerate the literary sources from which further information may be obtained in respect to them.
Table of the Early Apologists, according to Date and Place.
| A.D. | Rome and Western Provinces. | Africa. | Athens. | Alexandria. | Syria. |
| 150 | [Aristides 130]; [Quadratus]; Justin? 150; Tatian; Athenagoras; Hermias? | ||||
| 200 | Tertullian; Minucius Felix? 230 | Clement 190 | Theophilus 180 | ||
| Cyprian; Commodian | Origen 240 | ||||
| 300 | ArnobiusLactantius | [Methodius]; Eusebius | |||
| Jul. Firmicus; Ambrose; Prudentius | Athanasius | Chrysostom | |||
| 400 | Orosius; Salvian | Augustin | Cyril | Jerome? Theodoret |
N. B. The names in brackets are of authors whose apologies are almost wholly lost; those in italics are the ones which alone are usually mentioned in a list of apologists. To the above ought perhaps to have been added for completeness, Maternus, A.D. 350; Ephraim the Syrian; and Apollinaris of Asia Minor, who replied to Julian. The names marked with a note of interrogation denote those in reference to which the reader may demur to the classification. Justin Martyr wrote at Rome; but he wrote in Greek, and was a Greek philosopher in spirit. Of Hermias little is known. Jerome lived much in Syria, and leaned to the Syrian school of exegesis, so that he has been classed with the Syrian church, though his intimacy with Augustin and his writing in Latin might rather have caused him to be classed with the western. Also Minucius Felix ought perhaps rather to be classed with the Roman than the African church.
We shall next state the purpose of the treatises of those Apologists, whose names are printed in italics in the table.
The first group consists of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hermias, and Theophilus; the first three of whom may be considered to express the defence of Christian philosophers, who were striving to explain the nature of Christianity, partly with a view to plead for toleration, partly to make converts.
Justin has left two apologies; one against the Jews, the other against the heathens; (a second against the heathens is a fragment.) In both he adopted the same plan, of first repelling prejudices, and then assaulting his opponent. That which is directed against the Jews is analysed in Kaye's Justin, c. xi. In that which was directed against the heathens, he first repelled the charges made against Christians, such as atheism, Thyestean banquets, and treason against the state; and next, those made against Christianity, especially those which related to its late introduction, the person of Christ, and the doctrine of the resurrection. In proceeding to assault heathenism, he endeavoured to show that it did not possess religious truth, and claimed that the points of agreement with Christian truth were borrowed; and after having thus shown the superiority of Christianity to heathenism, he endeavoured to show its divinity, by the internal evidence of its doctrines and effects, and by the external evidence of miracles and prophecies.