e Fourth Gospel,
with which his tone and terminology in no way agree." (Vol. ii. p.
293)

Again:--

"We must see that Justin's terminology, as well as his views of the
Word become Man, is thoroughly different from that Gospel." (Vol.
ii. p. 296)

Also:--

"It must be apparent to every one who seriously examines the
subject, that Justin's terminology is thoroughly different from, and
in spirit opposed to, that of the Fourth Gospel, and in fact that
the peculiarities of the Gospel are not found in Justin's writings
at all." (!!) (P. 297.) [78:1]

On the contrary, we assert that every Divine Truth respecting the Logos,
which appears in the germ in St. John, is expanded in Justin. St. John's
short and pithy sentences are the text, and Justin's remarks are the
exposition of that text, and of nothing less or more.

So far from Justin's doctrine being contrary to the spirit of St. John's,
Justin, whilst deviating somewhat from the strict letter, seizes and
reproduces the very spirit. I will give in the next section two or three
remarkable instances of this; which instances, strange to say, the
author of "Supernatural Religion" quotes for the purpose of showing the
absolute divergence and opposition between the two writers.

SECTION XIII.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON OUR LORD AS KING, PRIEST, AND ANGEL.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" quotes the passage in Dial.
xxxiv.:--

"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and
Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born," &c.

And he remarks, with what I cannot but characterize as astonishing
effrontery, or (to use his own language with respect to Tischendorf) "an
assurance which can scarcely be characterized otherwise than an
unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers." (Vol. ii.
p. 56.)

"Now these representations, which are constantly repeated throughout
Justin's writings, are quite opposed to the spirit of the Fourth
Gospel." (Vol. ii. p. 288.)

He first of all takes the title "King," and arbitrarily and unwarrantably
restricts Justin's derivation of it to the seventy-second Psalm,
apparently being ignorant of the fact that St. John, in his very
first chapter, records that Christ was addressed by Nathanael as "King
of Israel"--that the Fourth Gospel alone describes how the crowd on His
entry into Jerusalem cried, "Osanna, Blessed be the King of Israel, Who