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
cometh in the name of the Lord" (xii. 13)--that this Gospel more fully
than any other records how Pilate questioned our Lord respecting His
Kingship, and recognized Him as King, "Behold your King;" and that those
who mocked our Lord are recorded by St. John to have mocked Him as the
"King of Israel."

So that this term King, so far from being contrary to the spirit of the
Fourth Gospel, is not even contrary to its letter.

But this, gross though it seems, is to my mind as nothing to two other
assertions founded on this passage of Justin:--

"If we take the second epithet, the Logos as Priest, which is quite
foreign to the Fourth Gospel, we find it repeated by Justin."

Now, it is quite true that the title "priest" is not given to our Lord
in St. John, just as it is not given to Him in any one of the three
Synoptics, or indeed in any book of the New Testament, except the