“I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians.  For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic Word.” [77:2] (Apol.  II. ch. xiii.)

Lastly, St. John writes:—­

    “THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH.”

And Justin writes:—­

    “The Logos Himself, Who took shape and became man and was called
    Jesus Christ.” (Apol.  II. ch. v.)

Again:—­

    “The Word, Who is also the Son; and of Him we will in what follows
    relate how He took flesh, and became Man.” (Apol.  II. ch. xxxii.)

“Jesus Christ is the only proper Son Who has been begotten by God, being His Word, and First-begotten, and Power, and becoming man according to His Will He taught us these things,” &c. (Apol.  I. ch. xxiii.)

Again:—­

    “In order that you may recognize Him as God coming forth from above,
    and Man living among men.” (Dial. lxiv.)

Again:—­

    “He was the Only-begotten of the Father of all things, being
    begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having
    afterwards become Man through the Virgin.” (Dial. ch. cv.)

After considering the above extracts, the reader will be able to judge of the truth of some assertions of the author of “Supernatural Religion,” as, for instance:—­

“We are, in fact, constantly directed by the remarks of Justin to other sources of the Logos doctrine, and never to the 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.