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

/> 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