THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON OUR LORD'S GODHEAD.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" has directed his attacks more
particularly against the authenticity of the Gospel according to
St. John. His desire to discredit this Gospel seems at times to arise
out of a deep personal dislike to the character of the disciple whom
Jesus loved. (Vol. ii. pp. 403-407, 427, 428, &c.)
On the author's principles, it is difficult to understand the reason for
such an attack on this particular Gospel. He is not an Arian or Socinian
(as the terms are commonly understood), who might desire to disparage
the testimony of this Gospel to the Pre-existence and Godhead of our
Lord. His attack is on the Supernatural generally, as witnessed to by
any one of the four Gospels; and it is allowed on all hands that the
three Synoptics were written long before the Johannean; and, besides
this, he has proved to his own satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of
the Reviewers who so loudly applauded his work, that there existed a
Gospel long anterior to the Synoptics, which is more explicit in its
declarations of the Supernatural than all of them put together.
However, as he has made a lengthened and vigorous attempt to discredit
this Gospel especially, it may be well to show his extraordinary
misconceptions respecting the mere contents of the Fourth Gospel, and
the opinions of the Fathers (notably Justin 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.