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" a.s.serts 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages [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 pa.s.sages 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], subst.i.tutes 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 a.s.sertions 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 a.n.a.logous 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 "G.o.d" absolutely, as in the sentence "the Word was G.o.d," 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 G.o.d, and G.o.d 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 a.s.serts:--

"It is certain, however, that both Justin and Philo, unlike the prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place the Logos in a secondary position to G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. Justin speaks of the Word as the 'first born of the unbegotten G.o.d' ([Greek: prototokos to agenneto Theo]), and the distinctive appellation of the 'unbegotten G.o.d,' 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 G.o.d, and the Son as the Begotten G.o.d, 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 a.s.sertions 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 ident.i.ty 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 a.s.sertions as "The Word was with G.o.d," "The Word was G.o.d," "My Lord and My G.o.d," "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 a.s.serted in such statements as

G.o.d "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).