mention baptism. So, consequently, Justin would have to have said, "If
you refer to one of our Memoirs you will find certain words which lay
down the necessity of being born again, and seem to connect this birth
in some way with water, and if you look into another Memoir you will see
how this can be, for you will find a direction to baptize with water in
the name of the Godhead, and if you put these two passages together you
will be able to understand something of the nature of our dedication,
and of the way in which it is to be performed, and of the blessing which
we have reason to expect in it if we repent of our sins."

Well, instead of such an absurd and indirect way of proceeding, which
presupposes that Antoninus Pius was well acquainted with the Diatessaron,
he simply reproduces the substance of the doctrine of St. John, and
interweaves with it the words of institution as found in St. Matthew.
I shall afterwards advert to the hypothesis that this account was
taken from an apocryphal Gospel.

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who, in apparent allusion to the
devout and spiritual reception of the Inward Part of the Lord's Supper,
speaks of it as eating the Flesh of Christ, and drinking His Blood; the
Synoptics and St. Paul in I Cor. x. 11, always speaking of it as His
_Body_ and Blood. Now Justin, in describing the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, uses the language peculiar to St. John as well as that of the
Synoptics:--

"So likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by
the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by
transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus
Who was made flesh. For the Apostles, in the Memoirs composed by
them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was