Chapter 6

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: apelthontôn de tôn angelôn Iôannou], 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: sarkopoiêtheis]." (Vol. ii. p. 276.)

Again, with reference to the word [Greek: monogenês], 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: hôs monogenous para patros], &c.) In Justin he is 'the Only-begotten of the Father of all' ([Greek: monogenês tô Patri tôn holôn)], 'and He became man' ([Greek: anthrôpos 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: sarkopoiêtheis.] 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: sômatopoiêsasthai]. 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: gennêthênai anthrôpon genomenon hypemeinen] by a Virgin, or he uses variously the expressions: [Greek: anthrôpos gegone, anthrôpos genomenos, genesthai anthrôpon.]" (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: sarkopoiêtheis], or the phrase, [Greek: sarka echein], or the infinitive, [Greek: sômatopoiêsasthai], or the expression, [Greek: anthrôpos 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: sarkôthenta] and [Greek: enanthrôpêsanta]. [91:1] Again, the supposed critic would urge, they applied to our Lord the phrase [Greek: gennêthenta pro pantôn tôn aiônôn], 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: gennêma pro pantôn tôn poiêmaton], and [Greek: apo tou Patros tôn holôn gennêtheis.] 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: gennêtheis], 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 chôra 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: prôtotokos tô agennêtô Theô]), 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