JUSTINUS MARTYR, ST,

JUSTINUS THE GNOSTIC 687

'and Divine authority of Christ, yet no words fromthe Johannine discourses appear in his work.•This argument has necessarily great weight.On the other hand, any single distinct referenceto St. John must outweigh all the force of sucha negative. Is there, then, any such reference ?

In Dialogue 88 Justin attributes to the Bap-tist himself the words of the prophet, <pwv)\fioHovros, This attribution is one of thoseremarkable distinctions peculiar to St. John’sGospel. We know of no other ground for it.

Twice (in Apol. i. 22, § 68, B, and Dialog. 69,§ 296, a) he speaks of our Lord healing people in-firm 4k yeu€Trjs : the only recorded instance ofthis is the blind man in St. John, 4k yeverris.

In Apol. i. 61, Justin, it can hardly bedoubted, is paraphrasing St. John iii. 3-5. Heis referring to a definite statement of our Lord ;and the statement—a most marked and peculiarone—occurs in St. John, and in no other knownplace. Justin continues to refer to it in a waythat makes it hardly possible not to suppose himacquainted with the continuation in St. John.In its context in the Apology the reference tothe physical impossibility of a literal new birth issingularly awkward (cf. Otto, note in loc .). It maybe also noticed that Justin claims that he isbelieving Christ’s own teaching when he believesin His Divine pre-existence; which would bemore intelligible of St. John than of the otherGospels ( Dialog . 48, § 267, d). There is, again,a notice of our Lord in Dialog. 106, § 333,. which receives its proper interpretation only inSt. John xiii. and xvii.: Christ, says Justin,knew that the Father gave everything to Him,and Himself demanded this. Such are the pos-sible direct references, rare, indeed, but in onecase, at least, remarkably noticeable. In-directly, Justin holds a doctrine of the Word,clear, pronounced, decisive, such as finds nohome or base for itself but in that authoritativerecord of Christ which is laid up for us in thefourth Gospel. This doctrine Justin does notoriginate, he shews little capacity for originalityin subtle speculation : it is the accepted,familiar, Christian faith put forth for the wholebody, as their common belief, without hesitation,apology, anxiety, scruple, or uncertainty. It■ presents the exact features of the Johannineteaching: the universal ism of the Philonic A6yosis identified with, and made concrete by, theliving, vivid individualism of the Incarnate Mes-siah. The synthesis is done, is complete, with-out confusion or doubt. Justin is as definite,as full of sanctioned certainty on the reality ofthis doctrine of the Incarnate Word, as he is ontiie facts and discourses represented by ourSynoptists. There is no line to be drawnbetween the two. The Life of our Lord isalready for him the Life as it is in fusion withthe dogma of the Word—the Life as it is underthe manipulation that is displayed in the fourthGospel. Have we got any cause of sufficientforce to have achieved so decided a result, butthe Gospel of St. John? This is the questionthat rises over against the problem presented byJustin’s prolonged silence: without this Gospelwe have hardly any hypothesis by which to ex-plain his determinate hold on the doctrine of theFlesh-taking Word. (Cf. Thoma, in Zeitsch. furWisscnschaft. Theolog. 4th part, for year 1875,Leipsic: ah elaborate discussion, with conclusion,

“Justin cites only the Svnopt., but he thinks andargues with the Fourth Gospel, evidencing itsexistence, but not its apostolicity; ” but cf. onlast point, Westcott, Canon of New Test. p. 1 j0.)

In connexion with this there must be men-tioned a passage in Dialog. 123, § 353, B, inwhich, if not the Gospel, then the first Epistleof St. John can hardly be supposed absent fremthe writer’s mind. The peculiar conjunction ofKaXovpeda zeal 4ap4v is essentially Johannire(1 John iii. 1, 2): as is the connexion of“sonship” with keeping Tar imo\ds. Justin,again, knows the writings of the Valentinians,and this (according to the evidence of Hippolytusand Irenaeus) must have involved a knowledge ofthe Fourth Gospel. Altogether, the problem pre-sented by his not quoting St. John is far easier tosolve than the problem of his not knowing it.

As to the rest of the canon, Justin mentionsthe Apocalypse by name, attributing it to St.John ( Dialog. 81, § 308, a). He can hardly butbe thinking of the Epistle to the Romans inDialog. 23, § 241, b. He has references to the FirstEpistle to the Corinthians {Dialog. 14, § 231, D ;Apol. 1, 60, § 93; Dialog. Ill, § 333, c), and tothe Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (Dialog.32, § 110). He constantly repeats the ttpwt6tokosird(ri)s Kriffcws, which relates him to the Epistleto the Colossians; he has references which seemto recall the Epistle to the Hebrews (Dialog.13, § 229, d ; Apol. i. 12, § 60, airdo'ToAos . . .TrjcroDs Xpiards ); his words appear in severalplaces to point to the Acts (cf. Apol. 50, § 86, B;Apol. 40, § 79, a). Everywhere he exhibits tracesof St. Paul; and his controversy with Marcionmust have involved a complete acquaintance withthe theology and language of the great apostle.

Throughout Justin claims to possess, and toshew forth, with a certainty attested by sacrificeand death, a solid body of certified doctrine,which apostolic authority sealed and secured ;Christ, as He had been foretold by prophets andannounced to the world by apostles, is theassured ground of his faith (cf. Dialog. 119, §343, a; Apol. i. 39, i. 42). The apostles arethe twelve bells on the border of the highpriest’s garment, with the sound of whoseringing the whole world has been filled ( Dialog.42, § 263, c); the apostles are the evangelicalpreachers in whose persou Isaiah cried, “ Lord,who hath believed our report?” the apostlesare “ the brethren in the midst of whom ” Christgives praise unto God (Dialog. 106, § 333, c).

[H. S. H.]

JUSTINUS (3), a Gnostic writer, authorof several books, only known to us by theabstract which Hippolytus (Ref. Haer. v. 23, p.148) has given of one of them, called the book ofBaruch. The following is the account which thatbook gives of the origin and history of the uni-verse. It has sprung from three underivedprinciples, two male, one female. The first ofthese is the Good Being, and has no other name;he is perfect in knowledge, and is remote fromall contact with the created world, of which,however, he is afterwards described as the ulti-mate cause. It is the knowledge of this GoodBeing which alone deserves the name, and it isfrom the possession of it that these hereticsclaimed the title of Gnostics. The second prin-ciple is called Elohim, the Father of the creation,deficient in knowledge, but not represented ns