The one Gospel which bridges the gap more unmistakably than the others is the Fourth. And the reason is obvious, if St. John was its author. He had a foot in both worlds. As the di.sciple whom Jesus loved, he vividly remembered His incomings and outgoings. And in the same capacity, as a disciple who was also an apostle, it fell to him to build up that theology which was the tleliberate expression of what Jesus was to His Church, not in a .section only of His being, the short three years which He had spent among His followers, but in His being as He had revealed it to them as a whole. It is ditticult to think of either function as merely a-ssumed by the writer at second-hand, (in the contrary, we acquire a fresh understanding of the weight and solemnity of his words when we think of these as springing from direct iiensonal contact with Christ, and intense personal conviction of what Chri.st really wa-s, not to himself only, but to the world. In this respect the Fourth Gospel is unique : and the very ex- pansion which it gives of the divine claims of (^hrist prepares us more completely than the other Gospels alone might have done for the transition from them to the Epistles.
It is an especial satisfaction to be able to ouote, in support ol this view of the tlrst-hand ciiaracter of the Vourta 'Jospel, L>r. Loofs In rni,' iv. '2V.
iii. The Christ of the Undivided Church.— Vor the purpose which we have before us we must examine the evidence of the Undivided Church on three distinct jioints. («) What was the estimate of the Person of Christ in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles? (b) Are there any traces of a tradition ilitTerent from this? (c) What is the bearing upon the subject of the creeds and conciliar decisions ?
(a) On the first bead we may .say broadly that the ma.ss of Christian opinion was iii strict con- tinuity with the NT, rarely (as we might expect) rising to an apprehension of its heights and depths, aiiii keeping rather at the average level, but steadily loyal in intention, and showing no signs of recalcitrance.
Ignatius of Antloch has the strongest grip of distinctive features of NT teaching ^ v'lrgin- Birth, pre-exlsleiice. Incarna- tion, Logos, 'i'rhdtarinn langiuLge). Clemens Kotiianus. though much less theological, also has pre-exlstence and a cl»'arly implied Trinity ilvlil. 'i). In the former point Harnaba.s anil Hennas agree, though the latter shows some confusion, not uncommon at Ibis ilate. between Son and Spirit. .Vnd then we have the olM-ning words of 'i Clement which exactly dcseriti« the general temper. ' Hrethreti. we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of Itixl. as of the .lodge i>f <(ulck and dead.'
These, with IVdycarp and .Vrlsthles. who atlopt a sludlar toru-. are the writers. And then, when we look for evidence as to nopular fwllng anil jimcllce, we have the wide prevaii'ni-e of haptism In the ThriM-told Name (/>i*/./r/i/ ami •luslin), and the livmns sung * to Christ as IomI ' (Pliny. Ay*, int Tritjitit. ,\cvl. ; c^ Kns. II K\. xxvlil. .%!. It Is clear thai pnixer was L't-nerallv olTcrisI to Christ. Orlgen's ob|i.<'llon t.i this was a Ibeologlciil retlnement, as he held Ihat the priiper formula was *v\afnij7tly T.p 8cu iid .\. 1. (</e Or.il. l.'M.
The gnmp of .\i>o|oglsls which stands out so rlearly In Uio middle of the 'Jnil century is chanicterl7«Ml chiefly bv'the use that Is nuule i>f the Logos' iloctHnc which was Id'entltled witli the Logos of philosophy. Wilh them begins a more active splrll of n'tlexlon and speculation. The relation of tbe Son to the Katlicr. and Indeisl the whole pr<d>lem of unity anrl dlstlnc- tiiins in the (}<Hlheatl (.lusiln and .Vtbeiiagorast, Is' tM>gli)tilng to 1m' keenly canvassed. .\nd at the same lime it Is clear that the ■luestlon of wh.'tt Mere afterwanls callett the ' Two Natures ' was causing much perplexity. It was this illITlcully which really lies U'ldnd the exiicrimerits of tfiuisticlsm. When we eomc t'o
650
JESrS CHKIST
.TESrS CHRIST
tht' latlcr luilf ;iiul last «(unrter of the ft-ntiiry. «illi Uw theo- Itiu'iuns i»f Aslft Miimr, Irt'niuii!), and Cleiiu'ril of AU'xaridrifi, the fi«iin«Iathins have bei-ii lalU of a thrii^tlan theohi^ry. which aln-ady bears the stain|> that martts it throiiirhout MiccftHllnc rt-nturleR, viz. that it is not frut- speculation, but retlexion ui»on tttiUt given by thi- Uibte.
(6) It was natural, and could not well have been otlierwise. that there was in this reflexion at lirst a considerable tentative element. There was no break, and no conscious diver^jence between it and the canonical writings. But are there no sii;ns (tf such <Iiveri;ence ? Are there no sipis of a tradition diftVrinp; from that embodiment in these writin^^s V I'erhaps we ought to say tliat there are.
The Gnostics bogan by inventing traditions of their own. but they soon fell into the groove, and professed to base their views like the rest on the canonical Scripture?. A cons|»lcuous example of this is lleracleon's coiiiinentary on St. John. But in these circles tliere was what we might call recalcitrance, as when iVrintlms and t'arpoerates rejecte<l the Vlrgln-Hirth as impossible (Iren. tti/r. //<r>: i. xxvl. 1, xxv. 1). The Gnostics, however, are outside the true development of Christianity, and their systems had a ditfercnt origin.