The Lost Gospel and Its Contents, Michael F. Sadler [great novels to read .TXT] 📗

contained in certain words in the exordium of the Fourth Gospel: "That [Word] was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

This passage embodies a truth which is unique in Scripture: that in the Word was Life, that the Life was the Light of men, and that that Light was (even before the Incarnation) the true Light which lighteth every man.

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 God, 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 biôsantes]) are Christians, even though they
have been thought Atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and
Heraclitus, 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 noble passage:--

"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 God, 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 PRINCIPAL 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
God 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 God 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 God, 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 assertion 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 passage 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 Godhead, and if you put these two passages 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 institution 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
transmutation 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. lxxxviii.)

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 circumcise 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 God wish the priests to sin when they offer the
sacrifices on the Sabbaths? or those to sin who are circumcised, or
do circumcise, 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 circumcised?" (Dial. ch. xxvii.)

Again, St. John represents our Lord, when similarly harassed by the Jews, as appealing to the upholding of all things by God 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
God 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