the unseen world and other essays-第28章

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；