On the contrary, we a.s.sert 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 PRINc.i.p.aL WITNESS ON OUR LORD AS KING, PRIEST, AND ANGEL.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" quotes the pa.s.sage in Dial.

x.x.xiv.:--

"For Christ is King, and Priest, and G.o.d, 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 a.s.surance 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 t.i.tle "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 a.s.sertions founded on this pa.s.sage 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 t.i.tle "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 of the Priesthood? Is it not Mediation and Intercession, and the Fourth Gospel more than all sets forth Christ as Mediator and Intercessor? As Mediator when He says so absolutely: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me;"

"As my Father sent me so send I you; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them."

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 a.s.serts, where he writes (vol. ii. p. 352):--

"The representation of Jesus as the Lamb of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d and Man, then we find that the whole New Testament is pervaded with the idea, and it culminates in the Fourth Gospel.

The next a.s.sertion of the author of "Supernatural Religion" on the same pa.s.sage 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 a.s.serts:--

"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 G.o.d'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: apelthonton de ton angelon Ioannou], 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 G.o.d'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 a.s.sumed, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d," _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 G.o.d about forty times. [84:1] In one discourse alone, that in John vi., Jesus a.s.serts no less than six times that He is sent of G.o.d, or that G.o.d 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 PRINc.i.p.aL WITNESS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" a.s.serts:--

"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 G.o.d 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 a.s.serting in different places the G.o.dhead 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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d moved over the waters.' For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sages 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 a.s.sert 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.