[Footnote 402: Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: [Greek: kai gar ego epistoun touto esesthai, alla nun katanoesas auta pisteuo, hama kai epituchon hierais graphais ton agion propheton, hoi kai proeipon dia pneumatos Theou ti progegonota o tropo gegonen kai ta enestota tini tropo ginetai, kai ta eperchomena poia taxei apartisthesetai. Apodeixin oun labon ton ginomenon kai proanapephonemenon ouk apisto]; see also II. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: III. 10, 11, 17. Theophilus merely looks on the Gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. Of Christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the Logos (Pneuma), which has operated from the beginning. To Theophilus the first chapters of Genesis already contain the sum of all Christian knowledge (II. 10-32).] [Footnote 403: See II. 8: [Greek: hupo daimonon de empneusthentes kai hup' auton phusiothentes ha eipon di' auton eipon].] [Footnote 404: The unknown author of the work _de resurrectione_, which goes under the name of Justin (Corp. Apol., Vol. III.) has given a surprising expression to the thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. ([Greek: O men tes aletheias logos estin eleutheroste kai autexousios, upo medemian basanon elegchou thelon piptein mede ten para tois akouousi di' apodeixeos exetasin hupomenein. To gar eugenes autou kai pepoithos auto to pempsanti pisteuesthai thelei]). He inveighs in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all truth originates with revelation, since God himself and God alone is the truth. Christ revealed this truth and is for us [Greek: ton olon pistis kai apodeixis]. But it is far from probable that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical conclusion (Justin, Dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). He wishes to meet his adversaries "armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered" (c. 1, p. 214), but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. Among these he regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, that is, about God and matter, held by the "so-called sages," Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoics, the assumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, p. 228 f.). Some of these, viz., Pythagoras and Plato, also acknowledged the immortality of the soul. But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, "for if the Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made known by Pythagoras, Plato, and the band of their adherents?" (c. 10, p. 246.) This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body.