按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
od （gr o ontws qeos）。
We have here reached very nearly the ultimate phase of New Testament speculation concerning Jesus。 The doctrines enunciated by Justin became eventually； with slight modification； the official doctrines of the Church； yet before they could thus be received； some further elaboration was needed。 The pre…existing Logos…Christ of Justin was no longer the human Messiah of the first and third gospels； born of a woman； inspired by the divine Pneuma； and tempted by the Devil。 There was danger that Christologic speculation might break quite loose from historic tradition； and pass into the metaphysical extreme of Docetism。 Had this come to pass； there might perhaps have been a fatal schism in the Church。 Tradition still remained Ebionitish； dogma had become decidedly Gnostic； how were the two to be moulded into harmony with each other？ Such was the problem which presented itself to the author of the fourth gospel （A。 D。 170…180）。 As M。 Reville observes； 〃if the doctrine of the Logos were really to be applied to the person of Jesus； it was necessary to remodel the evangelical history。〃 Tradition must be moulded so as to fit the dogma； but the dogma must be restrained by tradition from running into Docetic extravagance。 It must be shown historically how 〃the Word became flesh〃 and dwelt on earth （John i。 14）； how the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth were the deeds of the incarnate Logos； in whom was exhibited the pleroma or fulness of the divine attributes。 The author of the fourth gospel is； like Justin； a Philonian Gnostic； but he differs from Justin in his bold and skilful treatment of the traditional materials supplied by the earlier gospels。 The process of development in the theories and purposes of Jesus； which can be traced throughout the Messianic descriptions of the first gospel； is entirely obliterated in the fourth。 Here Jesus appears at the outset as the creator of the world； descended from his glory； but destined soon to be reinstated。 The title 〃Son of Man〃 has lost its original significance； and become synonymous with 〃Son of God。〃 The temptation； the transfiguration； the scene in Gethsemane； are omitted； and for the latter is substituted a Philonian prayer。 Nevertheless； the author carefully avoids the extremes of Docetism or ditheism。 Not only does he represent the human life of Jesus as real； and his death as a truly physical death； but he distinctly asserts the inferiority of the Son to the Father （John xiv。 28）。 Indeed； as M。 Reville well observes； it is part of the very notion of the Logos that it should be imperfect relatively to the absolute God； since it is only its relative imperfection which allows it to sustain relations to the world and to men which are incompatible with absolute perfection； from the Philonian point of view。 The Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity finds no support in the fourth gospel； any more than in the earlier books collected in the New Testament。
The fourth gospel completes the speculative revolution by which the conception of a divine being lowered to humanity was substituted for that of a human being raised to divinity。 We have here travelled a long distance from the risen Messiah of the genuine Pauline epistles； or the preacher of righteousness in the first gospel。 Yet it does not seem probable that the Church of the third century was thoroughly aware of the discrepancy。 The authors of the later Christology did not regard themselves as adding new truths to Christianity； but merely as giving a fuller and more consistent interpretation to what must have been known from the outset。 They were so completely destitute of the historic sense； and so strictly confined to the dogmatic point of view； that they projected their own theories back into the past； and vituperated as heretics those who adhered to tradition in its earlier and simpler form。 Examples from more recent times are not wanting； which show that we are dealing here with an inveterate tendency of the human mind。 New facts and new theories are at first condemned as heretical or ridiculous； but when once firmly established； it is immediately maintained that every one knew them before。 After the Copernican astronomy had won the day； it was tacitly assumed that the ancient Hebrew astronomy was Copernican； and the Biblical conception of the universe as a kind of three…story house was ignored； and has been； except by scholars； quite forgotten。 When the geologic evidence of the earth's immense antiquity could no longer be gainsaid； it was suddenly ascertained that the Bible had from the outset asserted that antiquity； and in our own day we have seen an elegant popular writer perverting the testimony of the rocks and distorting the Elohistic cosmogony of the Pentateuch； until the twain have been made to furnish what Bacon long ago described as 〃a heretical religion and a false philosophy。〃 Now just as in the popular thought of the present day the ancient Elohist is accredited with a knowledge of modern geology and astronomy； so in the opinion of the fourth evangelist and his contemporaries the doctrine of the Logos…Christ was implicitly contained in the Old Testament and in the early traditions concerning Jesus； and needed only to be brought into prominence by a fresh interpretation。 Hence arose the fourth gospel； which was no more a conscious violation of historic data than Hugh Miller's imaginative description of the 〃Mosaic Vision of Creation。〃 Its metaphysical discourses were readily accepted as equally authentic with the Sermon on the Mount。 Its Philonian doctrines were imputed to Paul and the apostles； the pseudo…Pauline epistles furnishing the needful texts。 The Ebioniteswho were simply Judaizing Christians； holding in nearly its original form the doctrine of Peter； James； and Johnwere ejected from the Church as the most pernicious of heretics； and so completely was their historic position misunderstood and forgotten； that； in order to account for their existence； it became necessary to invent an eponymous heresiarch； Ebion； who was supposed to have led them astray from the true faith！
The Christology of the fourth gospel is substantially the same as that which was held in the next two centuries by Tertullian； Clement of Alexandria； Origen； and Arius。 When the doctrine of the Trinity was first announced by Sabellius （A。 D。 250…260）； it was formally condemned as heretical； the Church being not yet quite prepared to receive it。 In 269 the Council of Antioch solemnly declared that the Son was NOT consubstantial with the Father；a declaration which； within sixty years； the Council of Nikaia was destined as solemnly to contradict。 The Trinitarian Christology struggled long for acceptance； and did not finally win the victory until the end of the fourth century。 Yet from the outset its ultimate victory was hardly doubtful。 The peculiar doctrines of the fourth gospel could retain their integrity only so long as Gnostic ideas were prevalent。 When Gnosticism declined in importance； and its theories faded out of recollection； its peculiar phraseology received of necessity a new interpretation。 The doctrine that God could not act directly upon the world sank gradually into oblivion as the Church grew more and more hostile to the Neo…Platonic philosophy。 And when this theory was once forgotten； it was inevitable that the Logos； as the creator of the world； should be raised to an equality or identity with God himself。 In the view of the fourth evangelist； the Creator was necessarily inferior to God； in the view of later ages； the Creator could be none other than God。 And so the very phrases which had most emphatically asserted the subordination of the Son were afterward interpreted as asserting his absolute divinity。 To the Gnostic formula； lumen de lumine； was added the Athanasian scholium； Deum verum de Deo vero； and the Trinitarian dogma of the union of persons in a single Godhead became thus the only available logical device for preserving the purity of monotheism。
February； 1870。
V。 A WORD ABOUT MIRACLES。＇24＇
＇24＇ These comments on Mr。 Henry Rogers's review of M。 Renan's Les Apotres； contained in a letter to Mr。 Lewes； were shortly afterwards published by him in the Fortnightly Review； September 15； 1866；
It is the lot of every book which attempts to treat the origin and progress of Christianity in a sober and scientific spirit； to meet with unsparing attacks。 Critics in plenty are always to be found； who； possessed with the idea that the entire significance and value of the Christian religion are demolished unless we regard it as a sort of historical monstrosity； are only too eager to subject the offending work to a scathing scrutiny； displaying withal a modicum of righteous indignation at the unblushing heresy of the author； not unmixed with a little scornful pity at his inability to believe very preposterous stories upon very meagre evidence。 〃Conservative〃 polemics of this sort have doubtless their function。 They serve to purge scientific literature of the awkward and careless statements too often made by writers not sufficiently instructed or cautious； which in the absence of hostile criticism might get accepted by the unthinking reader along with the truths which they accompany。 Most scientific and philo