This, I say, is a truth which is not, that I am aware of, to be found, except by very remote implication, in the rest of Scripture. And yet it is continually reproduced by Justin in a way which shows that he had drunk it in, as it were, and he used it continually as the principle on which to explain the vestiges of truth which existed among the heathen.

Thus:--

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of G.o.d, and we have declared above that He is the Word of Whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably (or with the Logos, [Greek: hoi meta logou biosantes]) are Christians, even though they have been thought Atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and Herac.l.i.tus, and men like them." (Apol. I. ch. xlvi.)

Again:--

"No one trusted in Socrates so as to die for this doctrine, but in Christ, Who was partially known even by Socrates (for He was and is the Word Who is in every man)," &c. (Apol. II. ch. x.)

Again, in a n.o.ble pa.s.sage:--

"For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic Divine Word, [51:1] seeing what was related to it. But they who contradict themselves in the more important points appear not to have possessed the heavenly wisdom, and the knowledge which cannot be spoken against. Whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians." (Apol. II. xiii.)

There cannot, then, be the smallest doubt but that Justin's mind was permeated by a doctrine of the Logos exactly such as he would have derived from the diligent study of the fourth Gospel. But may he not have derived all this from Philo? No; because, if so, he would have referred Trypho, a Jew, to Philo, his brother Jew, which he never does.

The speciality of St. John's teaching is not that he, like Plato or Philo, elaborates a Logos doctrine, but that once for all, with the authority of G.o.d, he identifies the Logos with the Divine Nature of our Lord. No other Evangelist or sacred writer does this, and he does.

SECTION IX.

THE PRINc.i.p.aL WITNESS.--HIS FURTHER TESTIMONY TO ST. JOHN.

We now come to Justin's account of Christian Baptism, which runs thus:--

"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to G.o.d when we had been made new through Christ, lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat G.o.d with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of G.o.d, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all." (Apol. I. ch. lxi.)

Now, taking into consideration the fact that St. John is the only writer who sets forth our Lord as connecting a birth with water [except a man be born of water and of the Spirit]; that when our Lord does this it is (according to St. John, and St. John only) following upon the a.s.sertion that he must be born again, and that St. John alone puts into the mouth of the objector the impossibility of a natural birth taking place twice, which Justin notices; taking these things into account, it does seem to me the most monstrous hardihood to deny that Justin was reproducing St.

John's account.

To urge trifling differences is absurd, for Justin, if he desired to make himself understood, could not have quoted the pa.s.sage verbatim, or anything like it. For, if he had, he must have prefaced it with some account of the interview with Nicodemus, and he would have to have referred to another Gospel to show that our Lord alluded to baptism; for, though our Lord mentions water, He does not here categorically mention baptism. So, consequently, Justin would have to have said, "If you refer to one of our Memoirs you will find certain words which lay down the necessity of being born again, and seem to connect this birth in some way with water, and if you look into another Memoir you will see how this can be, for you will find a direction to baptize with water in the name of the G.o.dhead, and if you put these two pa.s.sages together you will be able to understand something of the nature of our dedication, and of the way in which it is to be performed, and of the blessing which we have reason to expect in it if we repent of our sins."

Well, instead of such an absurd and indirect way of proceeding, which presupposes that Antoninus Pius was well acquainted with the Diatessaron, he simply reproduces the substance of the doctrine of St. John, and interweaves with it the words of inst.i.tution as found in St. Matthew.

I shall afterwards advert to the hypothesis that this account was taken from an apocryphal Gospel.

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who, in apparent allusion to the devout and spiritual reception of the Inward Part of the Lord's Supper, speaks of it as eating the Flesh of Christ, and drinking His Blood; the Synoptics and St. Paul in I Cor. x. 11, always speaking of it as His _Body_ and Blood. Now Justin, in describing the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, uses the language peculiar to St. John as well as that of the Synoptics:--

"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 by trans.m.u.tation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh. For the Apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do ye in remembrance of me. This is my body,'"

&c. (Apol. I. ch. lxvi.)

This, of course, would be a small matter itself, but, taken in connection with the adoption of St. John's language in regard of the other sacrament a very short time before, it is exceedingly significant.

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who records our Lord's reference to the brazen serpent as typical of Himself lifted up upon the Cross.

Justin cites the same incident as typical of Christ's Death, and, moreover, cites our Lord's language as it is recorded in St. John, respecting His being lifted up that men might believe in Him and be saved:--

"For by this, as I previously remarked, He proclaimed the mystery, by which He declared that He would break the power of the serpent which occasioned the transgression of Adam, and [would bring] to them that believe on Him by this sign, i.e., Him Who was to be crucified, salvation from the fangs of the serpent, which are wicked deeds, idolatries, and other unrighteous acts. Unless the matter be so understood, give me a reason why Moses set up the brazen serpent for a sign, and bade those that were bitten gaze at it, and the wounded were healed." (Dial. ch. xciv.)

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who records that the Baptist "confessed, and denied not, but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.'"

Justin cites these very-words as said by the Baptist:--

"For when John remained (or sat) by the Jordan ... men supposed him to be Christ, but he cried to them, 'I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying,'" &c. (Dial. ch. lx.x.xviii.)

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who puts into the mouth of our Blessed Lord, when He was accused of breaking the Sabbath, the retort that the Jews on the Sabbath Day circ.u.mcise a man ... that the law of Moses should not be broken. (John vii. 22) And Justin also reproduces this in his Dialogue:--

"For, tell me, did G.o.d wish the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices on the Sabbaths? or those to sin who are circ.u.mcised, or do circ.u.mcise, on the Sabbaths; since He commands that on the eighth day--even though it happen to be a Sabbath--those who are born shall be always circ.u.mcised?" (Dial. ch. xxvii.)

Again, St. John represents our Lord, when similarly hara.s.sed by the Jews, as appealing to the upholding of all things by G.o.d on the Sabbath as well as on any other day, in the words, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (John v. 17.) And Justin very shortly after uses the same argument:--

"Think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbath, since G.o.d directs the government of the universe on this day, equally as on all others; and the priests on other days, so on this, are ordered to offer sacrifices." (Dial. ch. xxix.)

It is very singular that Justin, whilst knowing nothing of St. John, should, on a subject like this, use two arguments peculiar to St. John, and not to be found in disputes on the very same subject in the Synoptics.

Again, St. John alone records that Jesus healed a man "blind from his birth," and notices that the Jews themselves were impressed with the greatness of the miracle. (John ix. 16, 32) Justin remarks, "In that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind."

(Apol. I. ch. xxii.)

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 pa.s.s 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 G.o.d predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pa.s.s, in order that, when they came to pa.s.s, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction." (Apol. I. ch.

x.x.xiii.)

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 circ.u.mcised 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 G.o.d." (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 G.o.d:--

"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 G.o.d 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.