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" asserts 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: sarkopoiêtheis]." (Vol. ii. p.
276.)
Again, with reference to the word [Greek: monogenês], 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: hôs monogenous para patros],
&c.) In Justin he is 'the Only-begotten of the Father of all'
([Greek: monogenês tô Patri tôn holôn)], 'and He became man'
([Greek: anthrôpos 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 passage 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 passages [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 passages 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: sarkopoiêtheis.]
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: sômatopoiêsasthai]. 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: gennêthênai
anthrôpon genomenon hypemeinen] by a Virgin, or he uses variously
the expressions: [Greek: anthrôpos gegone, anthrôpos genomenos,
genesthai anthrôpon.]" (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], substitutes for it the participle, [Greek:
sarkopoiêtheis], or the phrase, [Greek: sarka echein], or the
infinitive, [Greek: sômatopoiêsasthai], or the expression, [Greek:
anthrôpos 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 assertions 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 analogous
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: sarkôthenta] and [Greek: enanthrôpêsanta]. [91:1] Again, the
supposed critic would urge, they applied to our Lord the phrase [Greek:
gennêthenta pro pantôn tôn aiônôn], 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: gennêma pro pantôn
tôn poiêmaton], and [Greek: apo tou Patros tôn holôn gennêtheis.] Again,
the critic would urge that instead of calling the Son "God" absolutely,
as in the sentence "the Word was God," they confess Him only as [Greek:
Theos ek Theou], and this because He is [Greek: gennêtheis], 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 God, and God 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.