 |
Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who makes our Lord to say, "Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass ye may believe." (John xiii. 19; xiv. 29; xvi. 4) And Justin adopts and amplifies this very sentiment with reference to the use of prophecy:—
"For things which were incredible, and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction." (Apol. I. ch. xxxiii.)
Again, St. John alone of the Evangelists records that our Lord used with the unbelieving Jews the argument that they believed not Moses, for, had they believed Moses, they would have believed Him, for Moses wrote of Him. (John, v. 46, 47) And Justin reproduces in substance the same argument:—
"For though ye have the means of understanding that this man is Christ from the signs given by Moses, yet you will not." (Dial. xciii.)
Again, St. John is the only sacred writer who speaks of our Lord "giving the living water," and causing that water to flow from men's hearts, and Justin (somewhat inaccurately) reproduces the figure:—
"And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the Good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life." (Dial. ch. cxiv.)
Again, St. John alone records that Christ spake of Himself as the Light, and Justin speaks of Him as "the only blameless and righteous Light sent by God." (Dial. ch. xvii.)
Again, St. John alone speaks of our Lord as representing Himself to be the true vine, and His people as the branches. Justin uses the same figure with respect to the people or Church of God:—
"Just as if one should eat away the fruit-bearing parts of it vine, it grows up again, and yields other branches flourishing and fruitful; even so the same thing happens to us. For the vine planted by God and Christ the Saviour is His People." (Dial. ch. cx.)
Again, St. John alone represents our Saviour as saying, "I have power to lay [my life] down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (John x. 18) And Justin says of Christ that, in fulfilment of a certain prophecy,—
"He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the Crucifixion, and this He has obtained from the Father." (Dial. ch. c.)
Some of these last instances which I have given are reminiscences rather than reproductions; but like all other reminiscences they imply things remembered, sometimes not perfectly correctly, and so not applied as applied in the original; but they are all real reminiscences of words and things to be found only in our fourth Gospel.
SECTION X.
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.—HIS TESTIMONY SUMMED UP.
From all this it is clear that Justin had not only seen and reverenced St. John's Gospel, but that his mind was permeated with its peculiar teaching.
I hesitate not to say that, if a man rejects the evidence above adduced, he rejects it because on other grounds he is determined, cost what it may, to discredit the Fourth Gospel.
Let us briefly recapitulate.
Justin reproduced the doctrine of the Logos, using the words of St. John. He asserted the Divine and human natures of the Son of God in the words of St. John, or in exactly similar words. He reproduced that peculiar teaching of our Lord, to be found only in St. John, whereby we are enabled to hold the true and essential Godhead of Christ without for a moment holding that He is an independent God. He reproduced the doctrine of the Logos being, even before His Incarnation, in every man as the "true light" to enlighten him.
He reproduces the doctrine of the Sacraments in terms to be found only in the Fourth Gospel. He reproduces, or alludes to, arguments and types and prophecies and historical events, only to be found in St. John's Gospel.
It seems certain, then, that if Justin was acquainted with any one of our four Gospels, that Gospel was the one according to St. John.
What answer, the reader will ask, does the author of "Supernatural Religion" give to all this? Why, he simply ignores the greater part of these references (we trust through ignorance of their existence), and takes notice of some three or four, in which, to use the vulgar expression, he picks holes, by drawing attention to discrepancies of language or application, and dogmatically pronounces that Justin could not have known the fourth Gospel.
Well, then, the reader will ask, from whom did Justin derive the knowledge of doctrines and facts so closely resembling those contained in St. John?
Again, we have reference to supposed older sources of information which have perished. With respect to the Logos doctrine, the author of "Supernatural Religion" asserts:—
"His [Justin's] doctrine of the Logos is precisely that of Philo, and of writings long antecedent to the fourth Gospel, and there can be no doubt, we think, that it was derived from them." ("Supernatural Religion," vol. ii. p. 297.)
It may be well here to remark that, strictly speaking, there is no Logos doctrine in St. John's Gospel,—by doctrine meaning "scientifically expressed doctrine," drawn out, and expounded at length, as in Philo. The Gospel commences with the assertion that the Logos, Whoever He be, is God, and is the pre-existent Divine nature of Jesus; he does this once and once only, and never recurs to it afterwards.
The next passage referred to is the assertion of the Baptist, "I am not the Christ," and the conclusion of the author is that "There is every reason to believe that he derived it from a particular Gospel, in all probability the Gospel according to the Hebrews, different from ours." (Vol. ii. p. 302.)
The last place noticed is Justin's reproduction of John iii. 3-5, in connection with the institution of baptism. After discussing this at some length, for the purpose of magnifying the differences and minimizing the resemblances, his conclusion is:—
"As both the Clementines and Justin made use of the Gospel according to Hebrews, the most competent critics have, with reason, adopted the conclusion that the passage we are discussing was derived from that Gospel; at any rate it cannot for a moment he maintained as a quotation from our fourth Gospel, and it is of no value as evidence for its existence." ("Supernatural Religion," vol. ii. p. 313.)
We have now tolerably full means of judging what a wonderful Gospel this Gospel to the Hebrews must have been, and what a loss the Church has sustained by its extinction.
Here was a Gospel which contained a harmony of the history, moral teaching, and doctrine of all the four. As we have seen, it contained an account of the miraculous Birth and Infancy, embodying in one narrative the facts contained in the first and third Gospels. It contained a narrative of the events preceding and attending our Lord's Death, far fuller and more complete than that of any single Gospel in the Canon. It contained a record of the teaching of Christ, similar to our present Sermon on the Mount, embodying the teaching scattered up and down in all parts of SS. Matthew and Luke, and in addition to all this it embodied the very peculiar tradition, both in respect of doctrine and of history, of the fourth Gospel.
How could it possibly have happened that a record of the highest value, on account both of its fulness and extreme antiquity, should have perished, and have been superseded by four later and utterly unauthentic productions, one its junior by at least 120 years, and each one of these deriving from it only a part of its teaching; the first three, for no conceivable reason, rejecting all that peculiar doctrine now called Johannean, and the fourth confining itself to reproducing this so-called Johannean element and this alone? It is only necessary to state this to show the utter absurdity of the author's hypothesis.
But the marvel is that a person assuming such airs of penetration and research [63:1] should not have perceived that, if he has proved his point, he has simply strengthened the evidence for the supernatural, for he has proved the existence of a fifth Gospel, far older and fuller than any we now possess, witnessing to the supernatural Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus.
The author strives to undermine the evidence for the authenticity of our present Gospels for an avowedly dogmatic purpose. He believes in the dogma of the impossibility of the supernatural; he must, for this purpose, discredit the witness of the four, and he would fain do this by conjuring up the ghost of a defunct Gospel, a Gospel which turns out to be far more emphatic in its testimony to the supernatural and the dogmatic than any of the four existing ones, and so the author of this pretentious book seems to have answered himself. His own witnesses prove that from the first there has been but one account of Jesus of Nazareth.
SECTION XI.
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON OUR LORD'S GODHEAD.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" has directed his attacks more particularly against the authenticity of the Gospel according to St. John. His desire to discredit this Gospel seems at times to arise out of a deep personal dislike to the character of the disciple whom Jesus loved. (Vol. ii. pp. 403-407, 427, 428, &c.)
On the author's principles, it is difficult to understand the reason for such an attack on this particular Gospel. He is not an Arian or Socinian (as the terms are commonly understood), who might desire to disparage the testimony of this Gospel to the Pre-existence and Godhead of our Lord. His attack is on the Supernatural generally, as witnessed to by any one of the four Gospels; and it is allowed on all hands that the three Synoptics were written long before the Johannean; and, besides this, he has proved to his own satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of the Reviewers who so loudly applauded his work, that there existed a Gospel long anterior to the Synoptics, which is more explicit in its declarations of the Supernatural than all of them put together.
However, as he has made a lengthened and vigorous attempt to discredit this Gospel especially, it may be well to show his extraordinary misconceptions respecting the mere contents of the Fourth Gospel, and the opinions of the Fathers (notably Justin Martyr) who seem to quote from it, or to derive their doctrine from it.
The first question—and by far the most important one which we shall have to meet—is this: Is the doctrine respecting the Person of Jesus more fully developed in the pages of Justin Martyr, or in the Fourth Gospel? We mean by the doctrine respecting the Person of Jesus, that He is, with reference to His pre-existent state, the Logos and Only-begotten Son of God; and that, as being such, He is to be worshipped and honoured as Lord and God; and that, in order to be our Mediator, and the Sacrifice for our sin, He took upon Him our nature.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" endeavours to trace the doctrine of the Logos, as contained in Justin, to older sources than our present Fourth Gospel, particularly to Philo and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The latter is much too impalpable to enable us to verify his statements by it; but we shall have to show his misconceptions respecting the connection of Justin's doctrine with the former. What we have now to consider is the following statement:—
"It is certain, however, that, both Justin and Philo, unlike the prelude to the Fourth Gospel (i. 1), place the Logos in a secondary position to God the Father, another point indicating a less advanced stage of the doctrine."
From this we must, of course, infer that the author of "Supernatural Religion" considers that Justin does not state the essential Godhead of the Second Person as distinctly and categorically as it is stated in the Fourth Gospel. And as it is assumed by Rationalists that there was in the early Church a constantly increasing development of the doctrine of the true Godhead of our Lord, gradually superseding some earlier doctrine of an Arian, or Humanitarian, or Sadducean type; therefore, the more fully developed doctrine of the Godhead of our Lord in any book proves that book to be of later origin than another book in which it is not so fully developed.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" cannot deny that Justin ascribes the names "Lord" and "God" and Pre-existence before all worlds to Jesus as the Logos, but he fastens upon certain statements or inferences respecting the subordination of the Son to the Father, and His acting for His Father, or under Him, in the works of Creation and Redemption, which Justin, as an orthodox believer who would abhor Tritheism, was bound to make, and most ignorantly asserts that such statements are contrary to the spirit of the Fourth Gospel.
I shall now set before the reader the statements of both St. John and Justin respecting the Divine Nature of our Lord, so that he may judge for himself which is the germ and which the development.
The Fourth Gospel once, and once only, sets forth the Godhead and Pre-existence of the Logos, and this is in the exordium or prelude:—
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The Fourth Gospel once, and once only, identifies this Word with the pre-existent nature of Jesus, in the concluding words of the same exordium:—
"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we behold His Glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
Except in these two places (and, of course, I need not say that they are all-important as containing by implication the whole truth of God respecting Christ), there is no mention whatsoever of the "Word" in this Gospel.
The Fourth Gospel gives to Jesus the name of God only in two places, i.e. in the narrative of the second appearance of our Lord to His apostles assembled together after His Resurrection, where Thomas is related to have said to Him the words, "My Lord and my God;" and in the words "The Word was God" taken in connection with "the Word was made flesh." The indirect, but certain, proofs by implication that Jesus fully shared with His Father the Divine Nature are numerous, as, for instance, that He wields all the power of Godhead, in that "whatsoever things [the Father] doeth these doeth the Son likewise"—that He is equal in point of nature with the Father, because God is His own proper Father ([Greek: idios])—that He raises from the dead whom He wills—that He and the Father are One—that when Esaias saw the glory of God in the temple he saw Christ's glory; and, because of all this, He is the object of faith, even of the faith which saves.
But, as my purpose is not to show that either Justin or St. John hold the Godhead of our Lord, but rather to compare the statements of the one with the other; and, inasmuch as to cite the passages in which Justin Martyr assumes that our Blessed Lord possesses all Divine attributes would far exceed the limits which I have proposed to myself, I shall not further cite the passages in St. John, which only imply our Lord's Godhead, but proceed to cite the direct statements of Justin (or rather some of them) on this head.
Whereas, then, St. John categorically asserts the Godhead of our Lord in one, or, at the most, two places, Justin directly asserts it nearly forty times. The following are noticeable:—
"And Trypho said, You endeavour to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing; [namely] that God endured to be born and become man. [69:1] If I undertook, said I, [Justin] to prove this by doctrines or arguments of men, you should not bear with me. But if I quote frequently Scriptures, and so many of them, referring to this point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hard-hearted in the recognition of the mind and will of God." (Dial. ch. lxviii.)
Again:—
"This very Man Who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God and Man, and as being crucified and as dying." [69:2] (Dial. ch. lxxi.)
Again, Justin accuses the Jews of having mutilated the Prophetical Scriptures, by having cut out of them the following prophecy respecting our Lord's descent into hell:—
"The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own Salvation." (Dial. ch. lxxii.)
Again:—
"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory." (Dial. xxxiv.)
Again:—
"Now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God, and Lord of Hosts, and Jacob in parable, by the Holy Spirit." (Dial. ch. xxxvi.)
Again, Justin makes Trypho to say:—
"When you [Justin] say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born, and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish. And I replied to this, I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God." (Dial. ch. xlviii.)
Again, Justin makes Trypho demand:—
"Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; [70:1] and then you will show [further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin.
"I replied, Give me permission first of all to quote certain passages from the Prophecy of Isaiah which refer to the office of forerunner discharged by John the Baptist." (Dial. I.)
Lastly:—
"Now, assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone, Who is called an Angel, and Who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses.... Even so here, the Scriptures, in announcing that the angel of the Lord appeared unto Moses, and in afterwards declaring Him to be Lord and God, speaks of the same One, Whom it declares by the many testimonies already quoted to be minister to God, Who is above the world, above Whom there is no other." (Dial. ch. lx.)
In order not to weary the reader, I give the remainder in a note. [71:1]
The reader will observe that the assertions of Justin, which I have given, are the strongest that could be made by any one who holds the Godhead of Christ, and yet holds that that Godhead is not an independent Divine Existence, but derived from the Father Who begat Him, and, by begetting, fully communicated to His Son or Offspring His own Godhead.
From these extracts the reader will be able to judge for himself whether the doctrine of St. John is the expansion or development of that of Justin, or the doctrine of Justin the development of that of St. John.
He will also be able to judge of the absurdity of supposing that after the time of Justin the cause of Orthodoxy demanded the forgery of a Gospel, in order to set forth more fully the Divine Glory of the Redeemer.
SECTION XII.
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
We have now to compare Justin's doctrine of the Logos with that of the Fourth Gospel.
The doctrine or dogma of the Logos is declared in the Fourth Gospel in a short paragraph of fourteen verses, a part of which is occupied with the mission of the Baptist.
The doctrine, as I have said before, is rather oracular enunciation than doctrine; i.e. it is not doctrine elaborately drawn out and explained and guarded, but simply laid down as by the authority of Almighty God.
It is contained in four or five direct statements:—
"In the beginning was the Logos."
In the beginning—that is, before all created things—when there was no finite existence by which time could be measured; in that fathomless abyss of duration when there was God only:—
"The Logos was with God."
Though numerically distinct from Him, [73:1] He was so "by" or "with" Him as to be His fellow:—
"The Logos was God."
That is, though numerically distinct, He partook of the same Divine Nature:
"All Things were made by Him."
Because, partaking fully of the nature, He partook fully of the power of God, and so of His creating power.
"That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
"The Logos was made flesh."
He was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
The first enunciation, then, of St. John is that—
"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD."
In Justin we read:—
"His Son, Who alone is properly called Son, the Word, Who also was with Him, and was begotten before the works." (Apol. ii. ch. vi.)
Again:—
"When you [Justin] say that this Christ existed as God before the ages." (Dial. ch. xlviii.)
Again:—
"God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [74:1] [who was] a certain rational Power from Himself, Who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos." (Dial. ch. lxi.)
Now it is to be here remarked, that though the Logos is continually declared to be "begotten of," "derived from," "an offspring of" the Father, yet in no case is He declared to be "created" or "made," anticipating the declaration which we confess in our Creed, "The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten."
St. John proceeds:—
"THE WORD WAS WITH GOD."
In Justin we read:—
"This Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him." (Dial. ch. lxii.)
Again, a little before, in the same chapter:—
"From which we can indisputably learn that God conversed with some One who was numerically distinct from Himself."
Again:—
"The Word, Who also was with Him." (Apol. ii. ch. vi.)
Again, Trypho says:—
"You maintain Him to be pre-existent God." (Ch. lxxxvii.)
Again:—
"I asserted that this Power was begotten from the Father, by His Power and Will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided; and for the sake of example I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it," &c. (Dial. cxxviii.)
"THE WORD WAS GOD."
Justin writes:—
"The Word of Wisdom, Who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things" (Dial. ch. lxi.) (See previous page.)
Again:—
"They who affirm that the Son is the Father are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the Universe has a Son; Who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." (Apol. I. ch. lxiii.)
Again:—
"It must be admitted absolutely that some other One is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him Who is considered Maker of all things." (Dial. ch. lvi.)
But it is useless to multiply quotations, seeing that all those in pages 69-71 are the echoes of this declaration of the Fourth Evangelist.
St. John writes:—
"ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM."
And Justin writes:—
"Knowing that God conceived and made the world by the Word." (Apol. I. ch. lxiv.)
Again:—
"When at first He created and arranged all things by Him." (Apol. II. ch. vi.)
Again St. John writes:—
"THAT (i.e. THE WORD) WAS THE TRUE LIGHT THAT LIGHTETH EVERY MAN THAT COMETH INTO THE WORLD."
I have given above (p. 51) sufficient illustrations from Justin of this truth. I again draw attention to:—
"He is the Word of Whom every race of men were partakers." (Apol. I. ch. xlvi.)
Again:—
"He was and is the Word Who is in every man." (Apol. II. ch. x.) "For whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Word. But since they did not know the whole of the Word which is Christ, they often contradicted themselves." [77:1] (Apol. II. ch. x.)
Again:—
"These men who believe in Him, in whom [Greek: en hois] abideth the seed of God, the Word." (Apol. I. ch. xxxii.)
Again:—
"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.
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 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 Epistle to the Hebrews: yet, notwithstanding this, of all the books of the New Testament, this Gospel is the one which sets forth the reality of Christ's Priesthood. For what is the distinguishing function of the Priesthood? Is it not Mediation and Intercession, and the Fourth Gospel more than all sets forth Christ as Mediator and Intercessor? As Mediator when He says so absolutely: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me;" "As my Father sent me so send I you; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them."
Again, the idea of Priesthood is actually inherent in the figure of the good Shepherd "Who giveth His Life for the sheep;" for how does He give His life?—not in the way of physical defence against enemies, as an earthly "good shepherd" might do, but in the way of atoning Sacrifice, as the author of "Supernatural Religion" truly asserts, where he writes (vol. ii. p. 352):—
"The representation of Jesus as the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world is the very basis of the Fourth Gospel."
Again, in the same page:—
"He died for the sin of the world, and is the object of faith, by which alone forgiveness and justification before God can be secured."
Again, with reference to His Intercession, we have not only the truth set forth in such expressions as "I will pray the Father," but we have the actual exercise of the great act of priestly Intercession, as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of the Fourth Gospel. If we look to words only (which the author of "Supernatural Religion" too often does), then, of course, we allow that the epithet "priest" is quite foreign not only to the Fourth Gospel, but to every other book of the New Testament, except the Epistle to the Hebrews; but if we look to the things implied in the idea of Priesthood, such as Mediation and Intercession, in fact Intervention between God and Man, then we find that the whole New Testament is pervaded with the idea, and it culminates in the Fourth Gospel.
The next assertion of the author of "Supernatural Religion" on the same passage betrays still more ignorance of the contents of St. John's Gospel, and a far greater eagerness to fasten on a seeming omission of the letter, and to ignore a pervadence of the spirit. He asserts:—
"It is scarcely necessary to point out that this representation of the Logos as Angel, is not only foreign to, but opposed to, the spirit of the Fourth Gospel." (Vol. ii. p. 293)
Now just as in the former case we had to ask, "What is the characteristic of the priest?" so in order to answer this we have only to ask, "What is the characteristic of the angel?"
An angel is simply "one sent." Such is the meaning of the word both in the Old and New Testament. The Hebrew word [Hebrew: mlakh] is applied indifferently to a messenger sent by man (see Job i. 14; 1 Sam. xi. 3; 2 Sam. xi. 19-20), and to God's messengers the Holy Angels, that is, the Holy Messengers, the Holy ones sent. And similarly, in the New Testament, the word [Greek: angelos] is applied to human messengers in Luke vii. 24, [Greek: apelthonton de ton angelon Ioannou], also in Luke ix. 52, and James ii. 25. That the characteristic of the angel is to be "sent" is implied in such common phrases as, "The Lord sent His Angel," "I will send mine angel," "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister?" &c.
Now one of the characteristic expressions of the Fourth Gospel—we might almost have said the characteristic expression—respecting Jesus, is that He is "sent." To use the noun instead of the verb, He is God's special messenger, His [Greek: angelos], sent by Him to declare and to do His will: but this does not imply that He has, or has assumed, the nature of an angel; just as the application of the same word [Greek: angelos] to mere human messengers in no way implies that they have any other nature than human nature. Just as men sent their fellow-men as their [Greek: angeloi], so God sends One Who, according to Justin, fully partakes of His Nature, to be His [Greek: angelos].
This sending of our Lord on the part of His Father is one of the chief characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, and the reader, if he cannot examine this Gospel for himself, comparing it with the others, has only to turn to any concordance, Greek or English, to satisfy himself respecting this matter.
Jesus Christ is said to be "sent of God," i.e. to be His [Greek: angelos], only once in St. Matthew's Gospel (Matthew x. 40: "He that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me"), only once in St. Mark (ix. 37), only twice in St. Luke (ix. 48; xx. 13), but in the Fourth Gospel He is said to be sent of God about forty times. [84:1] In one discourse alone, that in John vi., Jesus asserts no less than six times that He is sent of God, or that God sent Him; so that the dictum, "This representation of the Logos as angel is not only foreign to, but opposed to, the spirit of the Fourth Gospel," is absolutely contrary to the truth.
SECTION XIV.
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" asserts:—
"The Fourth Gospel proclaims the doctrine of an hypostatic Trinity in a more advanced form than any other writing of the New Testament." [85:1]
This is hardly true if we consider what is meant by the proclamation of the doctrine of a Trinity.
Such a doctrine can be set forth by inference, or it can be distinctly and broadly stated, as it is, for instance, in the First Article of the Church of England, or in the Creed of St. Athanasius.
The doctrine of the Trinity is set forth by implication in every place in Scripture where the attributes or works of God are ascribed to two other Persons besides The Father. But it is still more directly set forth in those places where the Three Persons are mentioned together as acting conjointly in some Divine Work, or receiving conjointly some divine honour. In this sense the most explicit declarations of the doctrine of the Trinity are the Baptismal formula at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, and the "grace," as it is called, at the end of St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
St. John, by asserting in different places the Godhead of the Word, and the Divine Works of the Holy Ghost, implicitly proves the doctrine of the Trinity, but, as far as I can remember, he but twice mentions the Three adorable Persons together: Once in the words, "I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter." And again, "But the Paraclete, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father shall send in My name, He shall teach you all things."
Now, in respect of the explicit declaration of the doctrine of the Trinity, the statements of Justin are the necessary [86:1] developments not only of St. John's statements, but of those of the rest of the New Testament writers.
I have given two passages in page 10.
One of these is in the First Apology, and reads thus:—
"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, Who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the Second place, and the Prophetic Spirit in the Third, we will prove." (Apol. I. ch. xiii.)
Again, he endeavours to show that Plato held the doctrine of a Trinity. He is proving that Plato had read the books of Moses:—
"And, as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, 'that the Spirit of God moved over the waters.' For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he (Plato) said, was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, 'and the third around the third.'" (Apol. I. ch. lx.)
Now unquestionably, so far as expression of doctrine is concerned, these passages from Justin are the developments of the Johannean statements. The statements in St. John contain, in germ, the whole of what Justin develops; but it is absurd to assert that, after Justin had written the above, it was necessary, in order to bolster up a later, and consequently, in the eyes of Rationalists, a mere human development, to forge a now Gospel, containing nothing like so explicit a declaration of the Trinity as we find in writings which are supposed to precede it, and weighting its doctrinal statements with a large amount of historical matter very difficult, in many cases, to reconcile perfectly with the history in the older Synoptics.
SECTION XV.
JUSTIN AND ST. JOHN ON THE INCARNATION.
Two further matters, bearing upon the relations of the doctrine of Justin to that of St. John, must now be considered. The Author of "Supernatural Religion" asserts that the doctrine of Justin respecting the Incarnation of the Word is essentially different from that of St. John:—
"It must be borne in mind that the terminology of John i. 14, 'And the Word became flesh ([Greek: sarx egeneto]) is different from that of Justin, who uses the word [Greek: sarkopoietheis]." (Vol. ii. p. 276.)
Again, with reference to the word [Greek: monogenes], he writes:—
"The phrase in Justin is quite different from that in the Fourth Gospel, i. 14, 'And the Word became flesh' ([Greek: sarx egeneto]) and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father' ([Greek: hos monogenous para patros], &c.) In Justin he is 'the Only-begotten of the Father of all' ([Greek: monogenes to Patri ton holon)], 'and He became man' ([Greek: anthropos genomenos]) 'through the Virgin,' and Justin never once employs the peculiar terminology of the Fourth Gospel, [Greek: sarx egeneto], in any part of his writings." (Vol. ii. p. 280.)
Again:—
"He [Justin] is, in fact, thoroughly acquainted with the history of the Logos doctrine and its earlier enunciation under the symbol of Wisdom, and his knowledge of it is clearly independent of, and antecedent to, the statements of the Fourth Gospel." (Vol. ii. p. 284)
This passage is important. I think we cannot be wrong in deducing from it that the Author of "Supernatural Religion" considers that the Gospel of St. John was published subsequently to the time of Justin Martyr, that is, some time after A.D. 160 or 165.
Again:—
"The peculiarity of his terminology in all these passages [all which I have given above in pages 73-78], so markedly different, and even opposed to that of the Fourth Gospel, will naturally strike the reader." (Vol. ii. p. 286.)
Again, and lastly:—
"We must see that Justin's terminology, as well as his views of the Word become man, is thoroughly different from that Gospel. We have remarked that, although the passages are innumerable in which Justin speaks of the Word having become man through the Virgin, he never once throughout his writings makes use of the peculiar expression of the Fourth Gospel: 'The word became flesh' ([Greek: ho logos sarx egeneto]). On the few occasions on which he speaks of the Word having been made flesh, he uses the term, [Greek: sarkopoietheis.] In one instance he has [Greek: sarka echein], and speaking of the Eucharist, Justin once explains that it is in memory of Christ being made body, [Greek: somatopoiesasthai]. Justin's most common phrase, however, and he repeats it in numberless instances, is that the Logos submitted to be born, and become man [Greek: gennethenai anthropon genomenon hypemeinen] by a Virgin, or he uses variously the expressions: [Greek: anthropos gegone, anthropos genomenos, genesthai anthropon.]" (Vol. ii. p. 296.)
Here, then, we have the differences specified by which the Author of "Supernatural Religion" thinks that he is justified in describing the terminology and views of Justin respecting the Incarnation as "markedly different and even opposed to," and as "thoroughly different from," those of the Fourth Gospel.
So that, because Justin, instead of embodying the sentence, [Greek: ho logos sarx egeneto], substitutes for it the participle, [Greek: sarkopoietheis], or the phrase, [Greek: sarka echein], or the infinitive, [Greek: somatopoiesasthai], or the expression, [Greek: anthropos gegone] he holds views thoroughly different from those of St. John respecting the most momentous of Christian truths.
This is a fair specimen of the utterly reckless assertions in which this author indulges respecting the foundation truth of Christianity.
If such terms, implying such divergences, can be applied to these statements of Justin's belief in the Incarnation, what words of human language could be got to express his flat denial of the truth held in common by him and by St. John, if he had been an unbeliever? If Justin, with most other persons, considers that being "in the flesh" is the characteristic difference between men and spirits such as the angels, and expresses himself accordingly by saying that the Word "became man," what sense is there in saying that he "is opposed to the spirit of the Fourth Gospel," in which we have the Word not only as the "Son of Man," but possessing all the sinless weaknesses of human nature, so that He is weary, and weeps, and groans, and is troubled in spirit?
And now we will make, if the reader will allow, a supposition analogous to some which the author of "Supernatural Religion" has made in pages 360 and following of his first volume. We will suppose that all the ecclesiastical literature, inspired and uninspired, previous to the Council of Nice, had been blotted out utterly, and the Four Gospels alone preserved. And we will suppose some critic taking upon himself to argue that the Gospel of St. John was written after the Nicene Creed. On the principles and mode of argument of the author of "Supernatural Religion," he would actually be able to prove his absurdity, for he would be able to allege that the doctrine and terminology of the Fathers of the first General Council was "opposed to" that of the Fourth Gospel; and so they could not possibly have acknowledged its authority if they had even "seen" it. For he (the critic) would allege that the words of St. John respecting the Incarnation are not adopted by the Creed which the Nicene Fathers put forth; instead of inserting into the Creed the words [Greek: ho logos sarx egeneto], which, the critic would urge, they must have done if they would successfully oppose foes who appealed to the letter of Scripture, they used other terms, as the participles [Greek: sarkothenta] and [Greek: enanthropesanta]. [91:1] Again, the supposed critic would urge, they applied to our Lord the phrase [Greek: gennethenta pro panton ton aionon], a phrase "so markedly different and indeed opposed to that of the Fourth Gospel," as the author of "Supernatural Religion" urges with respect to [Greek: gennema pro panton ton poiematon], and [Greek: apo tou Patros ton holon gennetheis.] Again, the critic would urge that instead of calling the Son "God" absolutely, as in the sentence "the Word was God," they confess Him only as [Greek: Theos ek Theou], and this because He is [Greek: gennetheis], and so he would say, with the author of "Supernatural Religion," "This is a totally different view from that of the Fourth Gospel, which in so emphatic a manner enunciates the doctrine, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word;'" and so our supposed critic will exclaim, "See what abundant proof that these Fathers had 'never even seen' the Fourth Gospel;" and according to all rules of Rationalistic criticism they had not, or, at least, they thought nothing of its authenticity; whilst all the time this same Gospel was open before them, and they devoutly reverenced every word as the word of the Holy Ghost, and would have summarily anathematized any one who had expressed the smallest doubt respecting its plenary Inspiration.
SECTION XVI.
JUSTIN AND ST. JOHN ON THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON.
The second matter connected with the relations of the doctrine of Justin Martyr to that of St. John, is the subordination of the Son to the Father.
I have already noticed this truth (page 49), but, owing to its importance it may be well to devote to it a few further remarks. The author of "Supernatural Religion" does not seem to realize that in perfect Sonship two things are inherent, viz., absolute sameness (and therefore equality) of nature with the Father, and perfect subordination in the submission of His will to that of the Father.
He consequently asserts:—
"It is certain, however, that both Justin and Philo, unlike the prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place the Logos in a secondary position to God the Father, another point indicating a less advanced stage of the doctrine. Both Justin and Philo apply the term [Greek: theos] to the Logos without the article. Justin distinctly says, that Christians worship Jesus Christ as the Son of the True God, holding Him in the Second Place [Greek: en deutera chora echontes], and this secondary position is systematically defined through Justin's writings in a very decided way, as it is in the works of Philo, by the contrast of the begotten Logos with the unbegotten God. Justin speaks of the Word as the 'first born of the unbegotten God' ([Greek: prototokos to agenneto Theo]), and the distinctive appellation of the 'unbegotten God,' applied to the Father, is most common in all his writings." (Vol. ii. p. 291)
Now, when Justin speaks of holding Christ "in the Second Place," he does no more nor less than any Trinitarian Christian of the present day, when such an one speaks of the Son as the Second Person of the Trinity, and as the only begotten Son and the Word of the Father.
When we speak of Him as being the Second Person, we necessarily rank Him in the second place in point of numerical order. When we speak of Him as being the Son, we naturally place Him as, in the order of conception, second to, or after, Him that begat Him; [94:1] and, when we speak of Him as the Word, we also place Him in order of conception as after Him Who utters or gives forth the Word.
Justin says no more than this in any expression which he uses.
When he speaks of the Father as the unbegotten God, and the Son as the Begotten God, he does no more than the most uncompromising believer in the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity in the present day does, when, in the words of the Creed of St. Athanasius, that believer confesses that
"The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
"The Son is of the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten."
But we have not now so much to do with the orthodoxy of Justin as with the question as to whether his doctrine is anterior to St. John's, as being less decided in its assertions of our Lord's equality.
Now there are no words in Justin on the side of our Lord's subordination at all equal to the words of Christ as given in St. John, "My Father is greater than I."
The Gospel of St. John is pervaded by two great truths which underlie every part, and are the necessary complements of one another; these are, the perfect equality or identity of the nature of the Son with that of the Father, because He is the true begotten Son of His Father; and the perfect submission of the Will of the Son to that of the Father because He is His Father.
The former appears in such assertions as "The Word was with God," "The Word was God," "My Lord and My God," "I and the Father are one," "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," "The glory which I had with Thee before the world was," "All things that the Father hath are mine," &c.
The latter is inherent in the idea of perfect Sonship, and is asserted in such statements as
God "gave His only begotten Son" (iii. 16).
"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hands" (iii. 35).
"The Son can do nothing of Himself" (v. 19).
"The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth" (v. 20).
The Father hath "given to the Son to have life in Himself" (v. 26).
The Father "hath given Him authority to execute judgment also" (v. 27).
"I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father" (v. 30).
"The works which the Father hath given me to finish" (v. 36).
"I am come in my Father's name" (v. 43).
"Him [the Son of Man] hath God the Father sealed" (vi. 27).
"I live by the Father" (v. 57).
"My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me" (vii. 16).
"He that seeketh His glory that sent Him, the same is true" (vii. 18).
"I am from Him, and He hath sent me" (vii. 29).
"I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things" (viii. 28).
"Neither came I of myself, but He sent me" (viii. 42).
"I have power to take it [my life] again; this commandment have I received of my Father" (x. 18).
"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all" (x. 29).
"I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in His love" (xv. 10).
I have read Justin carefully for the purpose of marking every expression in his writings bearing upon the relations of the Son to the Father, and I find none so strongly expressing subordination as these, and the declarations of this kind in the works of Justin are nothing like so numerous as they are in the short Gospel of St. John.
The reader who knows anything about the history of Christian doctrine will see at a glance how impossible it would have been for a Gospel ascribing these expressions to Jesus to have been received by the Christian Church long before Justin's time, except that Gospel had been fully authenticated as the work of the last surviving Apostle.
SECTION XVII.
JUSTIN AND PHILO.
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 edemiourgeito]. More particularly the reader will notice that such adjectives as [Greek: orthos, hieros (hierotatos)] 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.
SECTION XVIII.
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ST. JOHN AND THE SYNOPTICS.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" devotes a large portion of his second volume to setting forth the discrepancies, real or alleged, between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel.
In many of these remarks he seems to me to betray extraordinary ignorance of the mere contents of the Fourth Gospel. I shall notice two or three remarkable misconceptions; but, before doing this, I desire to call the reader's attention to the only inference respecting the authorship of this Gospel which can be drawn from these discrepancies.
St. John's Gospel is undoubtedly the last Gospel published; in fact, the last work of the sacred canon. The more patent, then, the differences between St. John and the Synoptics, the more difficult it is to believe that a Gospel, containing subject-matter so different from the works already accepted as giving a true account of Christ, should have been accepted by the whole Church at so comparatively recent a date, unless that Church had every reason for believing that it was the work of the last surviving Apostle.
Take, for instance, the [apparent] differences between St. John and the Synoptics respecting the scene of our Lord's ministry, the character of His discourses, the miracles ascribed to Him, and the day of His Crucifixion, or rather of His partaking of the Paschal feast. The most ignorant and unobservant would notice these differences; and the more labour required to reconcile the statements or representations of the last Gospel with the three preceding ones, the more certain it is that none would have ventured to put forth a document containing such differences except an Apostle who, being the last surviving one, might be said to inherit the prestige and authority of the whole college.
It would far exceed the limits which I have prescribed to myself to examine the Fourth Gospel with the view of reconciling the discrepancies between it and the Synoptics, and also of bringing out the numberless undesigned coincidences between the earlier and the later account, of which the writer of "Supernatural Religion," led away by his usual dogmatic prejudices, has taken not the smallest notice.
The reader will find this very ably treated in Mr. Sanday's "Authorship of the Fourth Gospel" (Macmillan).
My object at present is of a far humbler nature, simply to show the utter untrustworthiness of some of the most confidently asserted statements of the writer of "Supernatural Religion."
I shall take two:
1. The difference between Christ's mode of teaching and the structure of His discourses, as represented by St. John and the Synoptics respectively.
2. The intellectual impossibility that St. John should have written the Fourth Gospel.
1. Respecting the difference of Christ's mode of teaching as recorded in St. John and in the Synoptics, he remarks:—
"It is impossible that Jesus can have had two such diametrically opposed systems of teaching; one purely moral, the other wholly dogmatic; one expressed in wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the other in long, involved, and diffuse discourses; one clothed in the great language of humanity, the other concealed in obscure, philosophic terminology; and that these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the Synoptics, on the one hand, and the Fourth Gospel on the other. The tradition of Justin Martyr applies solely to the system of the Synoptics, 'Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by Him: for He was no Sophist, but His word was the power of God.'" [106:1] (Vol. ii. p. 468)
To take the first of those assertions. So far from its being "impossible" that Jesus "can have had two such diametrically opposite modes of teaching," it is not only possible, but we have undeniable proof of the fact in that remarkable saying of Christ recorded by both St. Matthew and St. Luke: "All things are delivered unto Me of My Father, and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." (Matth. xi. 27). The author of "Supernatural Religion" has studied the letter of this passage very carefully, for he devotes no less than ten pages to a minute examination of the supposed quotations of it in Justin and other Fathers (vol. i. pp. 402-412); but he does not draw attention to the fact that it is conceived in the spirit and expressed in the terms of the Fourth Gospel, and totally unlike the general style of the discourses in the Synoptics. [107:1] The Fourth Gospel shows us that such words as these, almost unique in the Synoptics, are not the only words uttered in a style so different from the usual teaching of our Lord—that at times, when He was on the theme of His relations to His Father, He adopted other diction more suited to the nature of the deeper truths He was enunciating.
Then take the second assertion:—
"One [system] expressed in wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the other in long, involved, and diffuse discourses."
Again:—
"The description which Justin gives of the manner of teaching of Jesus excludes the idea that he knew the Fourth Gospel. 'Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by Him, for He was no Sophist, but His word was the power of God.' (Apol. I. 14) No one could for a moment assert that this description applies to the long and artificial discourses of the Fourth Gospel, whilst, on the other hand, it eminently describes the style of teaching with which we are acquainted in the Synoptics, with which the Gospel according to the Hebrews, in all its forms, was so closely allied." (Vol. ii. p. 315)
Now I assert, and the reader can with very little trouble verify the truth of the assertion, that the mode of our Lord's teaching, as set forth in St. John, is more terse, axiomatic, and sententious—more in accordance with these words of Justin, "brief and concise were the sentences uttered by Him," than it appears in the Synoptics.
To advert for a moment to the mere length of the discourses. The Sermon on the Mount is considerably longer than the longest discourse in St. John's Gospel (viz., that occupying chapters xiv., xv., xvi.). This is the only unbroken discourse of any length in this Gospel. The others, viz., those with Nicodemus, with the woman at Sychem, with the Jews in the Temple, and the one in the Synagogue at Capernaum, are much shorter than many in the Synoptics, and none of them are continuous discourses, but rather conversations. And, with respect to the composition, those in St. John are mainly made up of short, terse, axiomatic deliverances just such as Justin describes.
Take, for instance, the sentences in the sixth chapter:—
"I am the bread of life."
"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
"I am that bread of life."
"This is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man should eat thereof and not die."
"My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
"It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing."
And those in the tenth:—
"I am the door of the sheep."
"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine."
Then, if we compare parables, the passage in the Fourth Gospel most resembling a parable, viz., the similitude of the Vine and the branches, is made up of detached sentences more "terse" and "concise" than those of most parables in the Synoptics.
The discourses in St. John are upon subjects very distasteful to the author of "Supernatural Religion," and he loses no opportunity of expressing his dislike to them; but it is a gross misrepresentation to say that the instruction, whatever it be, is conveyed in other than sentences as simple, terse, and concise as those of the Synoptics, though the subject-matter is different.
We will now proceed to the last assertion:—
"One [system of teaching] clothed in the great language of humanity, the other concealed in obscure philosophic terminology."
What can this writer mean by the "philosophic terminology" of our Lord's sayings as reported in the Fourth Gospel? If the use of the term "Logos" be "philosophic terminology," it is confined to four sentences; and these not the words of Jesus Himself, but of the Evangelist. I do not remember throughout the rest of the Gospel a single sentence which can be properly called "philosophical."
The author must confound "philosophical" with "mysterious." Each and every discourse in the fourth Gospel is upon, or leads to, some deep mystery; but that mystery is in no case set forth in philosophical, but in what the author of "Supernatural Religion" calls the "great language of humanity." Take the most mysterious by far of all the enunciations in St. John's Gospel, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you." What are the words of which this sentence is composed? "Eat," "flesh," "blood," "Son of man," "life." Are not these the commonest words of daily life? but, then, their use and association here is the very thing which constitutes the mystery.
Again, take the salient words of each discourse—"Except a man be born again"—"be born of water and of the Spirit." "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst." "As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself." "All that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth." "The bread that I will give is My flesh." "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins." "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father." "I am the Resurrection and the Life." "Whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, that will I do." "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you but: if I depart, I will send Him unto you."
It is the deepest of all mysteries that one in flesh and blood can say such things of Himself; but it is a perversion of language to speak of these sayings as "philosophical terminology." They are in a different sphere from all more human philosophy, and, indeed, are opposed to every form of it. Philosophy herself requires a new birth before she can so much as see them.
I must recur, however, to the author's first remark, in which he characterizes the discourses of the Synoptics as "purely moral," and those of St. John as "wholly dogmatic." This is by no means true. The discourses in the Synoptics are on moral subjects, but they continually make dogmatic assertions or implications as pronounced as those in the Fourth Gospel. In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, the preacher authoritatively adds to and modifies the teaching of the very Decalogue itself. "Ye have heard that it was said TO them of old time" (for so [Greek: errhethe tois archaiois] must properly be translated); "but I say unto you." Again, Jesus assumes in the same discourse to be the Object of worship and the Judge of quick and dead, and that His recognition is salvation itself, when He says, "Not every one that saith unto Me Lord, Lord, shall enter," &c. "Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord," &c., "then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me all ye that work iniquity."
Take the following expressions out of a number of similar ones in St. Matthew:—
"I will make you (ignorant fishermen) fishers of men" (implying, I will give you power over souls such as no philosopher or leader of men has had before you). (iv. 21.)
"Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you for My sake." (v. 11.)
"If they have called the master of the house (i.e. Jesus) Beelzebub, how much wore shall they call them of His household." (x. 25.)
"He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of me" (so that the holiest of human ties are to give way to His personal demands on the human heart). (x. 37.)
"He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it." (x. 39)
"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father." (xi. 27.)
"In this place is One greater than the temple." (xii. 6.)
"The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath Day." (xii. 8.)
"In His (Christ's) Name shall the Gentiles trust." (xii. 21.)
"In the time of harvest I will say to the reapers," i.e. the angels. (xiii. 30.)
"The Son of man shall send forth his angels." (xiii. 41.)
"I will give unto Thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (xvi. 19.)
"Where two or three are gathered together in My Name there am I in the midst of them." (xviii. 21.)
"He, [God], sent His servants—He sent other servants—Last of all He sent unto them His Son, saying, they will reverence My Son." (xxi. 37.)
These places assert, by implication, the highest dogma respecting the Person of Christ. Who is He Who has such power in heaven and earth that He commands the angels in heaven, and gives the keys of the kingdom of God to His servant on earth? What Son is this Whom none but the Father knoweth, and Who alone knoweth the Father, and Who reveals the Father to whomsoever He will? What Son is this compared with Whom such saints as Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and Daniel are "servants?" Those dogmatic assertions of the first Gospel suggest the question; and the Fourth Gospel gives the full and perfect answer—that He is the Word with God, that He is God, and the Only-begotten of the Father. The Epistles assume the answer where one speaks of "Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be tenaciously grasped to be equal with God," and another speaks of God's own Son, and another compares Moses the servant with Christ the Son; but the fullest revelation is reserved to the last Gospel. And herein the order of God's dealings is observed, Who gives the lesser revelation to prepare for the fuller and more perfect. The design of the Gospel is to restore men to the image of God by revealing to them God Himself. But, before this can be done, they must be taught what goodness is, their very moral sense must be renewed. Hence the moral discourses of the Synoptics. Till this foundation is laid, first in the world, and then in the soul, the Gospel has nothing to lay hold of and to work upon; so it was laid first in the Sermon on the Mount, which, far beyond all other teaching, stops every mouth and brings in all the world guilty before God; and then the way is prepared for fuller revelations, such as that of the Atonement by the Death of Christ as set forth in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the revelation culminates in the knowledge of the Father and the Son in the Fourth Gospel.
With respect to the assertion of the author of "Supernatural Religion," that the discourses in this Gospel are, as compared with those in the Synoptics, wholly dogmatic, as opposed to moral, the reader may judge of the truth of this by the following sayings of the Fourth Gospel:—
"Every one that doeth evil hateth the light."
"He that doeth truth cometh to the light."
"God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
"They that have done good [shall come forth] to the Resurrection of Life."
"How can ye believe who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh of God only?"
"If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God."
"The truth shall make you free," coupled with
"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."
"If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet."
"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you."
"He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me."
These sayings, the reader will perceive, embody the deepest and highest moral teaching conceivable.
One more point remains to be considered—the impossibility that St. John, taking into account his education and intellect, should have been the author of the Fourth Gospel. This is stated in the following passage:—
"The philosophical statements with which the Gospel commences, it will be admitted, are anything but characteristic of the son of thunder, the ignorant and unlearned fisherman of Galilee, who, to a comparatively late period of life, continued preaching in his native country to his brethren of the circumcision.... In the Alexandrian philosophy, everything was prepared for the final application of the doctrine, and nothing is more clear than the fact that the writer of the Fourth Gospel was well acquainted with the teaching of the Alexandrian school, from which he derived his philosophy, and its elaborate and systematic application to Jesus alone indicates a late development of Christian doctrine, which, we maintain, could not have been attained by the Judaistic son of Zebedee." (Vol. ii. p. 415)
Again, in the preceding page:—
"Now, although there is no certain information as to the time when, if ever, the Apostle removed into Asia Minor, it is pretty certain that he did not leave Palestine before A.D. 60. ... If we consider the Apocalypse to be his work, we find positive evidence of such markedly different thought and language actually existing when the Apostle must have been at least sixty or seventy years of age, that it is quite impossible to conceive that he could have subsequently acquired the language and mental characteristics of the Fourth Gospel."
This, though written principally with reference to the diction, applies still more to the philosophy of the author of the Fourth Gospel. And, indeed, from his using the words "mental characteristics," we have no doubt that he desires such an application.
Now, what are the facts? We must assume that St. John, though "unlearned and ignorant," compared with the leaders of the Jewish commonwealth, at the commencement of his thirty years' sojourn in the Jewish capital, was a man of average intellect. Here, then, we have a member of a sect more aggressive than any before known in the promulgation of its opinions, taking the lead in the teaching and defence of these opinions in a city to which the Jews of all nationalities resorted periodically to keep the great feasts. If the holding of any position would sharpen a man's natural intellect and give him a power over words, and a mental grasp of ideas to which in youth he had been a stranger, that position would be the leading one he held in the Church of such a city as Jerusalem.
In the course of the thirty years which, according to the author of "Supernatural Religion," he lived there, he must have constantly had intercourse with Alexandrian Jews and Christians. It is as probable as not that during this period he had had converse with Philo himself, for the distance between Jerusalem and Alexandria was comparatively trifling. At Pentecost there were present Jews and proselytes from Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene. There was also a Synagogue of the Alexandrians. Now I assert that a few hours' conversation with any Alexandrian Jew, or with any Christian convert from Alexandrian Judaism, would have, humanly speaking, enabled the Apostle, even if he knew not a word of the doctrine before, to write the four sentences in which are contained the whole Logos expression of the Fourth Gospel.
St. John must have been familiar with the teaching of traditional interpretation respecting the Meymera as contained in the Chaldee paraphrases; indeed, the more "unlearned" and "ignorant" he was, the more he must have relied upon the Chaldee paraphrases for the knowledge of the Old Testament, the Hebrew having been for centuries a dead language. We have a Chaldee paraphrase of great antiquity on so early and familiar a chapter as the third of Genesis, explaining the voice of the Lord God by the voice of the Meymera, or Word of the Lord God (Genesis iii.).
The natural rendering of this word into Greek would be Logos. I repeat, then, that, humanly speaking, if he had never entertained the idea before, a very short conversation with an Alexandrian Jew would have furnished him with all the "philosophy" required to make the four statements in which he simply identifies the Logos with the Divine Nature of his Lord.
Of course, I do not for a moment believe that the Apostle was enabled to write the exordium of his Gospel by any such inspiration. There is not a more direct utterance of the Holy Spirit in all Scripture than that which we have in the prelude to the Fourth Gospel.
But in the eyes of a Christian the grace of the Holy Spirit is shown in the power and explicitness, and above all in the simplicity of the assertions which identify the human conception, if such it can be called, of Platonism, or Judaism, with the highest divine truth.
I believe that if the Apostle wrote those sentences at the time handed down by the Church's tradition, that is, when Cerinthian and other heresies respecting our Lord's nature were beginning to be felt, the power of the Holy Spirit was put forth to restrict him to these few simple utterances, and to restrain his human intellect from overloading them with philosophical or controversial applications of them, which would have marred their simplicity and diminished their power. [117:1]
SECTION XIX.
EXTERNAL PROOFS OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF OUR FOUR GOSPELS.
We have now shown that Justin Martyr, the principal witness brought forward by the author of "Supernatural Religion" to discredit the Four Evangelists, either made use of the very books which we now possess, or books which contain exactly the same information respecting our Lord's miraculous Birth, Death, Resurrection, and moral teaching. We have seen, also, that Justin gives us, along with the teaching of the Synoptics, that peculiar teaching respecting the pre-existent Divine nature of Jesus which, as far as can be ascertained, was to be found only in the Fourth Gospel, and which is consequently called Johannean; and that, besides this, he refers to the history, and adopts the language, and urges the arguments which are to be found only in St. John.
We have also shown that there are no internal considerations whatsoever for supposing that Justin did not make use of the Fourth Gospel. Instead, for instance, of the doctrine of St. John being a development of that held by Justin Martyr, the facts of the case all point to the contrary.
We must now see whether there is external evidence which makes it not only probable, but as certain as any fact in literary history can be, that Justin must have known and made use of our present Evangelists; that if he was a teacher in such an acknowledged centre of ecclesiastical information or tradition as Rome, and appears to quote our Gospels (with no matter what minor variations and inaccuracies), he did actually quote the same and no other; and if his inaccuracies, and discrepancies, and omissions of what we suppose he ought to have mentioned, were doubled or trebled, it would still be as certain as any fact of such a nature can be, that he quoted the Four Evangelists, because they must have been read and commented on in his day and in his church as the Memoirs of the Apostles, which took their place by the side of the prophets of the Old Testament in the public instruction of the Church. In order to this I shall have to examine the external evidence for the Canon of the New Testament—so far, that is, as the Four Gospels are concerned.
In doing this I shall not take the usual method of tracing the evidence for the various books in question downwards from the Apostolic time—the reader will find this treated exhaustively in "Dr. Westcott on the Canon"—but I shall trace it upwards, beginning at a time at which there cannot be the smallest doubt that the New Testament was exactly the same as that which we now possess.
For this purpose I shall take the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius as the starting-point. The reader is, of course, aware that he is the earliest ecclesiastical writer whose history has come down to us, the historians who wrote before his time being principally known to us through fragments preserved in his book. He was born of Christian parents about the year A.D. 270, and died about 340. He probably wrote his history about or before the year 325.
The reader, though he may not have read his history, will be aware, from the quotations from it in "Supernatural Religion," that Eusebius carefully investigated the history of the Canon of Scripture, and also the succession of ecclesiastical writers. His history is, in fact, to a great extent, a sketch of early Church literature. In dealing with the history of the Canon, he particularly notices whether a large number of writers have quoted certain books of Scripture, of whose acceptance by the whole Church doubts were entertained. This is important, as it shows that not only himself, but the Church, during the three ages whose history he has recorded, did not receive books of Scripture except upon what they deemed to be sufficient evidence, and that evidence was the reception of each book from Apostolic times by the whole Church. I will now give the testimony of Eusebius to the authenticity of the Four Gospels.
First of all he describes the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark in the following words:—
"So greatly, however, did the splendour of piety enlighten the minds of Peter's hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of the Gospel of God, but they persevered, in every variety of entreaties, to solicit Mark as the companion of Peter, and whose Gospel we have, that he should leave them a monument of the doctrine thus orally communicated, in writing. Nor did they cease with their solicitations until they had prevailed with the man, and thus become the means of that history which is called the Gospel according to Mark. They say also, that the Apostle (Peter), having ascertained what was done by the revelation of the Spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardour expressed by these men, and that the history obtained his authority for the purpose of being read in the Churches. This account is given by Clement in the Sixth Book of his Institutions, whose testimony also is corroborated by that of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis." (Bk. ii. chap. xv. Cruse's translation.)
This is narrated as having taken place in the reign of Claudius, i.e., between A.D. 41 and A.D. 54.
The next Gospel whose origin he describes is that of St. Luke, in the following words:—
"But Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician, being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest of the Apostles, has left us two inspired books, the institutes of that spiritual healing art which he obtained from them. One of these is his Gospel, in which he testifies that he has recorded, 'as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,' delivered to him, whom also, he says, he has in all things followed. The other is his Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, not from what he had heard from others, but from what he had seen himself. It is also said that Paul usually referred to his Gospel, whenever in his Epistles he spoke of some particular Gospel of his own, saying, 'according to my Gospel.'" (Bk. iii. ch. iv. Cruse's translation.)
Further on, he describes the publication of the First and Fourth Gospels, thus:—
"Of all the disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity. Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels they say that John, who, during all this time, was proclaiming the Gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three Gospels previously written had been distributed among all, and also handed to him; they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ among the first of His deeds, and at the commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth. For it is evident that the other three Evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and intimated this in the very beginning of their history. For after the fasting of forty days, and the consequent temptation, Matthew indeed specifies the time of his history in these words, 'But, hearing that John was delivered up, he returned from Judea into Galilee.' Mark in like manner writes: 'But, after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before he commenced the deeds of Jesus, in much the same way designates the time, saying, 'Herod thus added this wickedness above all he had committed, and that he shut up John in prison.' For these reasons the Apostle John, it is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account of the time not recorded by the former Evangelists, and the deeds done by our Saviour, which they have passed by (for these were the events that occurred before the imprisonment of John), and this very fact is intimated by him when he says, 'This beginning of miracles Jesus made,' and then proceeds to make mention of the Baptist, in the midst of our Lord's deeds, as John was at that time 'baptizing at Aenon, near to Salim.' He plainly also shows this in the words, 'John was not yet cast into prison.' The Apostle, therefore, in his Gospel, gives the deeds of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three Evangelists mention the circumstances after that event," &c. (Bk. iii. c. xxiv.)
The last extract which I shall give is from the next chapter, when he mentions "The sacred Scriptures which are acknowledged as genuine, and those that are not:"—
"This appears also to be the proper place to give a summary statement of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. And here among the first must be placed the Holy Quaternion of the Gospels; these are followed by the Book of the Acts of the Apostles; after this must be mentioned the Epistles of Paul, which are followed by the acknowledged First Epistle of John, also the First of Peter to be admitted in like manner. After these are to be placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall offer the different opinions in due time. These, then, are acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although they are well known and approved by many, is reputed that called the Epistle of James and [that] of Jude. Also the Second Epistle of Peter, and those called the Second and Third of John, whether they are of the Evangelist, or of some other of the same name. Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called the Acts of Paul, and that called Pastor, and the Revelation of Peter. Besides these, the books called the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Institutions of the Apostles. Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, the Revelation of John, which some, as before said, reject, but others rank among the genuine. But there are also some who number among these the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly delighted." (Bk. iii. ch. xxv.)
Such are the statements of the oldest ecclesiastical historian whose work has come down to us.
With respect to the Gospels, he knows but four as canonical, and has never heard of any other as accepted by the Church. He mentions Apocryphal and disputed books. Amongst the latter he mentions the Gospel to the Hebrews as acceptable to a local church; but he is wholly ignorant of any doubt having ever been cast upon the authority of the four in any branch of the Catholic Church.
Now let the reader remember, that however Eusebius, like all other writers, might be liable to be mistaken through carelessness, or prejudice, or any other cause of inaccuracy; yet that each of these statements respecting the authorship of the various Gospels is, on all principles of common sense, worth all the conjectural criticisms of the German and other writers, so copiously cited in "Supernatural Religion," put together.
For, in the first place, Eusebius flourished about 1500 years nearer to the original source of the truth than these critics, and had come to man's estate within 200 years of the publication of the Fourth Gospel.
Now, at a time when tradition was far more relied upon, and so much more perfectly preserved and transmitted than in such an age of printed books and public journals as the present, this alone would make an enormous difference between a direct statement of Eusebius and the conjecture of a modern theorist. But far more than this, Eusebius had access to, and was well acquainted with, a vast mass of ecclesiastical literature which has altogether perished; and the greater part of which is only known to have existed through notices or extracts to be found in his work. For instance, in a few pages he gives accounts of writings which have perished of Papias (iii. c. 39), Quadratus and Aristides (iv. ch. 3), Hegesippus (iv. ch. 8 and 22), Tatian (iv. ch. 16), Dionysius of Corinth (iv. ch. 23), Pinytus (iv. ch. 23), Philip and Modestus (ch. 25), Melito (ch. 26), Apollinaris (ch. 27), Bardesanes (ch. 30).
These are all writers who flourished in the first three quarters of the second century, and I have only mentioned those whose writings, from the wording of his notices, Eusebius appears to have seen himself.
It is clear, I repeat, that the evidence of such an one on the authorship of the Gospels is worth all the conjectures and theories of modern critics of all classes put together.
We shall pass over very briefly the first sixty years of the third century, i.e. between A.D. 200 and the time of Eusebius. During these years flourished Cyprian, martyred A.D. 257; Hippolytus, martyred about A.D. 240; and Origen, died A.D. 254.
Respecting the latter, it appears from Eusebius that he published commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Of the latter Eusebius says the first five books wore composed at Alexandria, but of the whole work on St. John only twenty-two books have come down to us. (Bk. vi. ch. 24.) Now Origen was born a few years (at the most twenty) after the death of Justin; and we have seen how the author of "Supernatural Religion" evidently considers the works of Justin to be anterior to the Fourth Gospel. Is it credible, or oven conceivable, that a man of Origen's intellect, learning, and research should write twenty or thirty books of commentaries on a false Gospel which was forged shortly before his own time?
He expressly states that the Church knew of but four Gospels:—
"As I have understood from tradition respecting the four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who, having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained to him, whom he [Peter] also acknowledged as his son in his general epistle, saying, 'The elect Church in Babylon salutes you, as also Mark, my son.' And the third according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles; and, last of all, the Gospel according to John." Extract from Origen's first book of his commentaries on St. Matthew, quoted by Eusebius (vi. 25)
As regards Cyprian, the following quotation will suffice:—
"The Church, setting forth the likeness of Paradise, includes within her walls fruit-bearing trees, whereof that which does not bring forth good fruit is cut off and is cast into the fire. These trees she waters with four rivers, that is, with the four Gospels, wherewith, by a celestial inundation, she bestows the grace of saying baptism." Cyprian, Letter lxxii. to Jubaianus.
As regards Hippolytus I have counted above fifty references to St. Matthew and forty to St. John, in his work on the "Refutation of Heresies," and "Fragments." I append in a note a passage taken from his comment on the Second Psalm, preserved to us by Theodoret. The reader will be able to judge from it from what sources he derived his knowledge of Christ. I give it rather for its devotional spirit than its evidence for the four. [126:1]
We now come to the conclusion of the second century. Between the years 180 and 200 or 210 A.D., there flourished three writers of whom we possess somewhat voluminous remains. Irenaeus, who was born about 140 at the latest, who was in youth the disciple of Polycarp, who was himself the disciple of St. John. Irenaeus wrote his work against heresies about the year 180, a little after he had succeeded Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons, and was martyred at the beginning of the next century (202).
Clement of Alexandria, the date of whose birth or death is uncertain, flourished long before the end of the second century, for he became head of the catechetical school of Alexandria about the year 190.
Tertullian was born about 150, was converted to Christianity about 185, was admitted to the priesthood in 192, and adopted the opinions of Montanus about the end of the century.
I shall first of all give the testimony of these three writers to the universal reception of the Four Gospels by the Church, and consider to what time previous to their own day their testimony upon such a subject must, of necessity, reach.
First of all, Irenaeus, in a well-known passage, asserts that—
"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are."
He then refers to the four zones of the earth, and the four principal winds, and remarks that, in accordance with this,
"He Who was manifest to men has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."
Then he refers to the four living creatures of the vision in the Revelation, and proceeds,—
"And, therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ is seated. For that according to John relates His original effectual and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, 'In the beginning was the word,' &c.... But that according to Luke, taking up His priestly character, commences with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew again relates His generation as a man, saying, 'The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham;' and also, 'The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.' This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity, for which reason it is, too, that the character of an humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with a reference to the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,' pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel: and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character." (Iren., Bk. iii. ch. xi.) |
|
