The writer of "Supernatural Religion" asserts that Justin derived his Logos doctrine from Philo, and also that his doctrine was identical with that of Philo and opposed to that of St. John.

But respecting this assertion two questions may be asked.

From whom did Philo derive his doctrine of the Logos? and

From whom did Justin derive his identification of the Logos with Jesus?

The Christian, all whose conceptions of salvation rest ultimately upon the truth that "The Word was God," believes (if, that is, he has any knowledge of the history of human thought), that God prepared men for the reception of so momentous a truth long before that truth was fully revealed. He believes that God prepared the Gentiles for the reception of this truth by familiarizing them with some idea of the Logos through the speculations of Plato; and he also believes that God prepared His chosen people for receiving the same truth by such means as the personification of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs, and in the Apocryphal moral books, and, above all, by the identification of the active presence and power of God with the Meymera or Word, as set forth in the Chaldee paraphrases.

Both these lines of thought seem to have coalesced and to have reached their full development (so far as they could, at least, apart from Christianity) in Alexandrian Judaism, which is principally known to us in the pages of Philo; but how much of Philo's own speculation is contained in the extracts from his writings given by the author of "Supernatural Religion" it is impossible to say, as we know very little of the Alexandrian Jewish literature except from him. He seems, however, to write as if what he enunciated was commonly known and accepted by those for whom he wrote.

There are two reasons which make me think that Justin, if he derived any part of his Logos doctrines from Alexandrian sources (which I much doubt), derived them from writings or traditions to which Philo, equally with himself, was indebted.

One is that, in his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, he never mentions
Philo, whose name would have been a tower of strength to him in
disputing with a Jew, and convincing him that there might be another
Person Who might be rightly called God besides the Father.

Surely if Justin had known that Philo had spoken of God

"Appointing His true Logos, his first begotten Son, to have the care of this sacred flock as the substitute of the great King" (quoted in p. 274);

and that—

"The most ancient Word is the image of God" (p. 274);

and that

"The Word is the image of God by which the whole world was created" (p. 275);

surely, I say, he would have used the name of one who had been in his day such a champion of the Jewish people, and had suffered such insults from Caligula on their account. [100:1]

Nothing seems more appropriate for the conversion of Trypho than many of the extracts from Philo given by the author of "Supernatural Religion." Herein, too, in this matter of Philo and Justin, the author of "Supernatural Religion" betrays his surprising inconsistency and refutes himself. He desires it to be inferred that Justin need not have seen—probably had not seen, even one of our present Gospels, because he does not name the authors, though there is abundant reason why the names of four authors of the Memoirs should not be paraded before unbelievers as suggesting differences in the testimony; whereas it would have been the greatest assistance to him in his argument with Trypho to have named Philo; and he does not. We would not infer from this, as the author of "Supernatural Religion" does most absurdly in parallel cases, that Justin "knew nothing" of Philo; had not even seen his books, and need not have heard of him; but we must gather from it that Justin did not associate the name of Philo with the Logos doctrine in its most advanced stage of development. Many other facts tend to show that Justin made little or no use of Philo. In the extracts given by the author of "Supernatural Religion" from Philo, all culled out to serve his purpose, the reader will notice many words and phrases "foreign" to Justin; for instance, [Greek: deuteros Theos, organon de Logon Theou, di' hou sympas ho kosmos edÊmiourgeito]. More particularly the reader will notice that such adjectives as [Greek: orthos, hieros (hierÔtatos)] and [Greek: presbys (presbytatos)] are applied to the Word in the short extracts from Philo given by the author of "Supernatural Religion," which are never applied to the Second Person of the Trinity in Justin. In fact, though there are some slight resemblances, the terminology of Philo is, to use the words of "Supernatural Religion," "totally different from" and "opposed to" that of Justin, and the more closely it is examined, the more clearly it will be seen that Justin cannot have derived his Logos doctrine from Philo.

The other question is, "from whom did Justin derive his identification of the Logos with Jesus?"

Not from Philo, certainly. We have shown above how St. John lays down with authority the identity of the Logos with the pre-existent Divine Nature of Jesus, not in long, elaborate, carefully reasoned philosophical dissertation, but in four short, clear, decisive enunciations. "In the beginning was the Word"—"The Word was with God"—"The Word was God"—"The Word was made flesh."

We have seen how these were the manifest germs of Justin's teaching. Now, if at the time when Justin wrote the Fourth Gospel, as we shall shortly prove, must have been in use in the Church in every part of the world, why should Justin be supposed to derive from Philo a truth which he, being a Jew, would repudiate? Justin himself most certainly was not the first to identify the Logos with Jesus. The identification was asserted long before in the Apocalypse, which the author of "Supernatural Religion" shows to have been written about A.D. 70, or so. In fact, he ascertains its date to "a few weeks." Supposing, then, that the Apocalypse was anterior to St. John, on whose lines, so to speak, does Justin develope the Logos doctrine? Most assuredly not on Philo's lines (for his whole terminology essentially differs from that of the Alexandrian), but on the lines of the fourth Gospel, and on no other.

Let the reader turn to some extracts which the author of "Supernatural Religion" gives out of Philo. In p. 265, he gives some very striking passages indeed, in which Philo speaks of the Logos as the Bread from heaven:—

"He is 'the substitute ([Greek: hyparchos]) of God,' 'the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul,' 'the bread from heaven.' In one place he says, 'and they who inquire what nourishes the soul … learnt at last that it is the Word of God, and the Divine Reason' … This is the heavenly nourishment to which the Holy Scripture refers … saying, 'Lo I rain upon you bread ([Greek: artos]) from heaven' (Exod. xvi. 4). 'This is the bread ([Greek: artos]) which the Lord has given them to eat.'" (Exod. xvi. 15)

And again:—

"For the one indeed raises his eyes to the sky, perceiving the Manna, the Divine Word, the heavenly incorruptible food of the longing soul." Elsewhere … "but it is taught by the initiating priest and prophet Moses, who declares, 'This is the bread ([Greek: artos]), the nourishment which God has given to the soul.' His own Reason and His own Word which He has offered; for this bread ([Greek: artos]) which He has given us to eat is Reason." (Vol. ii. p. 265.)

Now the Fourth Gospel also makes Jesus speak of Himself as the "Bread of Life," and "given by the Father;" but what is the bread defined by Jesus Himself to be? Not a mere intellectual apprehension, i.e. Reason, as Philo asserts; but the very opposite, no other than "His Flesh;" the product of His Incarnation. "The bread that I will give is My Flesh," and He adds to it His Blood. "Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you."

Now this also Justin reproduces, not after the conception of Philo, which is but a natural conception, but after the conception of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, which is an infinitely mysterious and supernatural one.

"In like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our Salvation, 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 are by transmutation nourished is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh." (Apol. I. ch. lxvi.)

I trust the reader will acquit me, in making this quotation, of any desire to enunciate any Eucharistic theory of the presence of Christ's Flesh in the Eucharist. All I have to do with is the simple fact that both Philo and St. John speak of the Word as the Bread of Life; but Philo explains that bread to be "reason," and St. John makes our Lord to set it forth as His Flesh, and Justin takes no notice of the idea of Philo, and reproduces the idea of the fourth Gospel.

And yet we are to be told that Justin "knew nothing" of the Fourth
Gospel, and that his Logos doctrine was "identical" with that of Philo.