The Lost Gospel and Its Contents - Michael F. Sadler (books to read for 12 year olds .txt) 📗

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."