The Lost Gospel and Its Contents by Michael F. Sadler (most popular ebook readers TXT) 馃摉
Download in Format:
- Author: Michael F. Sadler
Book online 芦The Lost Gospel and Its Contents by Michael F. Sadler (most popular ebook readers TXT) 馃摉禄. Author Michael F. Sadler
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: sarkopoi锚theis.]
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: s么matopoi锚sasthai]. 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: genn锚th锚nai
anthr么pon genomenon hypemeinen] by a Virgin, or he uses variously
the expressions: [Greek: anthr么pos gegone, anthr么pos genomenos,
genesthai anthr么pon.]" (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: sarkopoi锚theis], or the phrase, [Greek: sarka echein], or the infinitive, [Greek: s么matopoi锚sasthai], or the expression, [Greek: anthr么pos 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: sark么thenta] and [Greek: enanthr么p锚santa]. [91:1] Again, the supposed critic would urge, they applied to our Lord the phrase [Greek: genn锚thenta pro pant么n t么n ai么n么n], 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: genn锚ma pro pant么n t么n poi锚maton], and [Greek: apo tou Patros t么n hol么n genn锚theis.] 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: genn锚theis], 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.
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 asserts:--
"It is certain, however, that both Justin and Philo, unlike the
prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place the Logos in a secondary
position to God 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 God,
holding Him in the Second Place [Greek: en deutera ch么ra 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
God. Justin speaks of the Word as the 'first born of the unbegotten
God' ([Greek: pr么totokos t么 agenn锚t么 The么]), and the distinctive
appellation of the 'unbegotten God,' 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 God, and the Son as the Begotten God, 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 assertions 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 identity 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 assertions as "The Word was with God," "The Word was God," "My Lord and My God," "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 asserted in such statements as
God "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).
"I am come in my Father's name" (v. 43).
"Him [the Son of Man] hath God the Father sealed" (vi. 27).
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: sarkopoi锚theis.]
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: s么matopoi锚sasthai]. 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: genn锚th锚nai
anthr么pon genomenon hypemeinen] by a Virgin, or he uses variously
the expressions: [Greek: anthr么pos gegone, anthr么pos genomenos,
genesthai anthr么pon.]" (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: sarkopoi锚theis], or the phrase, [Greek: sarka echein], or the infinitive, [Greek: s么matopoi锚sasthai], or the expression, [Greek: anthr么pos 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: sark么thenta] and [Greek: enanthr么p锚santa]. [91:1] Again, the supposed critic would urge, they applied to our Lord the phrase [Greek: genn锚thenta pro pant么n t么n ai么n么n], 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: genn锚ma pro pant么n t么n poi锚maton], and [Greek: apo tou Patros t么n hol么n genn锚theis.] 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: genn锚theis], 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.
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 asserts:--
"It is certain, however, that both Justin and Philo, unlike the
prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place the Logos in a secondary
position to God 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 God,
holding Him in the Second Place [Greek: en deutera ch么ra 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
God. Justin speaks of the Word as the 'first born of the unbegotten
God' ([Greek: pr么totokos t么 agenn锚t么 The么]), and the distinctive
appellation of the 'unbegotten God,' 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 God, and the Son as the Begotten God, 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 assertions 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 identity 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 assertions as "The Word was with God," "The Word was God," "My Lord and My God," "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 asserted in such statements as
God "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).
"I am come in my Father's name" (v. 43).
"Him [the Son of Man] hath God the Father sealed" (vi. 27).
Free ebook 芦The Lost Gospel and Its Contents by Michael F. Sadler (most popular ebook readers TXT) 馃摉禄 - read online now
Add a comment
Comments (0)