InthewritingsofJustinMartyrJesusisforthefirsttimeidentifiedwiththePhilonianLogosor“WordofGod。“AccordingtoJustin，animpassableabyssexistsbetweentheInfiniteDeityandtheFiniteWorld；theonecannotactupontheother；purespiritcannotcontaminateitselfbycontactwithimpurematter。Tomeetthisdifficulty，GodevolvesfromhimselfasecondaryGod，theLogos，——yetwithoutdiminishinghimselfanymorethanaflameisdiminishedwhenitgivesbirthtoasecondflame。Thusgenerated，likelightbegottenoflightlumendelumine，theLogoscreatestheworld，inspirestheancientprophetswiththeirdivinerevelations，andfinallyrevealshimselftomankindinthepersonofChrist。YetJustinsedulouslyguardshimselfagainstditheism，insistingfrequentlyandemphaticallyupontheimmeasurableinferiorityoftheLogosascomparedwiththeactualGodgroontwsqeos。
WehaveherereachedverynearlytheultimatephaseofNewTestamentspeculationconcerningJesus。ThedoctrinesenunciatedbyJustinbecameeventually，withslightmodification，theofficialdoctrinesoftheChurch；yetbeforetheycouldthusbereceived，somefurtherelaborationwasneeded。Thepre-existingLogos-ChristofJustinwasnolongerthehumanMessiahofthefirstandthirdgospels，bornofawoman，inspiredbythedivinePneuma，andtemptedbytheDevil。TherewasdangerthatChristologicspeculationmightbreakquiteloosefromhistorictradition，andpassintothemetaphysicalextremeofDocetism。
Hadthiscometopass，theremightperhapshavebeenafatalschismintheChurch。TraditionstillremainedEbionitish；dogmahadbecomedecidedlyGnostic；howwerethetwotobemouldedintoharmonywitheachother？Suchwastheproblemwhichpresenteditselftotheauthorofthefourthgospel
Revilleobserves，“ifthedoctrineoftheLogoswerereallytobeappliedtothepersonofJesus，itwasnecessarytoremodeltheevangelicalhistory。“Traditionmustbemouldedsoastofitthedogma，butthedogmamustberestrainedbytraditionfromrunningintoDoceticextravagance。Itmustbeshownhistoricallyhow“theWordbecameflesh“anddweltonearthJohni。14，howthedeedsofJesusofNazarethwerethedeedsoftheincarnateLogos，inwhomwasexhibitedthepleromaorfulnessofthedivineattributes。Theauthorofthefourthgospelis，likeJustin，aPhilonianGnostic；buthediffersfromJustininhisboldandskilfultreatmentofthetraditionalmaterialssuppliedbytheearliergospels。TheprocessofdevelopmentinthetheoriesandpurposesofJesus，whichcanbetracedthroughouttheMessianicdescriptionsofthefirstgospel，isentirelyobliteratedinthefourth。HereJesusappearsattheoutsetasthecreatoroftheworld，descendedfromhisglory，butdestinedsoontobereinstated。Thetitle“SonofMan“haslostitsoriginalsignificance，andbecomesynonymouswith“SonofGod。“Thetemptation，thetransfiguration，thesceneinGethsemane，areomitted，andforthelatterissubstitutedaPhilonianprayer。
Nevertheless，theauthorcarefullyavoidstheextremesofDocetismorditheism。NotonlydoesherepresentthehumanlifeofJesusasreal，andhisdeathasatrulyphysicaldeath，buthedistinctlyassertstheinferiorityoftheSontotheFatherJohnxiv。28。Indeed，asM。Revillewellobserves，itispartoftheverynotionoftheLogosthatitshouldbeimperfectrelativelytotheabsoluteGod；sinceitisonlyitsrelativeimperfectionwhichallowsittosustainrelationstotheworldandtomenwhichareincompatiblewithabsoluteperfection，fromthePhilonianpointofview。TheAthanasiandoctrineoftheTrinityfindsnosupportinthefourthgospel，anymorethanintheearlierbookscollectedintheNewTestament。
Thefourthgospelcompletesthespeculativerevolutionbywhichtheconceptionofadivinebeingloweredtohumanitywassubstitutedforthatofahumanbeingraisedtodivinity。WehaveheretravelledalongdistancefromtherisenMessiahofthegenuinePaulineepistles，orthepreacherofrighteousnessinthefirstgospel。YetitdoesnotseemprobablethattheChurchofthethirdcenturywasthoroughlyawareofthediscrepancy。TheauthorsofthelaterChristologydidnotregardthemselvesasaddingnewtruthstoChristianity，butmerelyasgivingafullerandmoreconsistentinterpretationtowhatmusthavebeenknownfromtheoutset。Theyweresocompletelydestituteofthehistoricsense，andsostrictlyconfinedtothedogmaticpointofview，thattheyprojectedtheirowntheoriesbackintothepast，andvituperatedashereticsthosewhoadheredtotraditioninitsearlierandsimplerform。Examplesfrommorerecenttimesarenotwanting，whichshowthatwearedealingherewithaninveteratetendencyofthehumanmind。Newfactsandnewtheoriesareatfirstcondemnedashereticalorridiculous；butwhenoncefirmlyestablished，itisimmediatelymaintainedthateveryoneknewthembefore。AftertheCopernicanastronomyhadwontheday，itwastacitlyassumedthattheancientHebrewastronomywasCopernican，andtheBiblicalconceptionoftheuniverseasakindofthree-storyhousewasignored，andhasbeen，exceptbyscholars，quiteforgotten。Whenthegeologicevidenceoftheearth’simmenseantiquitycouldnolongerbegainsaid，itwassuddenlyascertainedthattheBiblehadfromtheoutsetassertedthatantiquity；andinourowndaywehaveseenanelegantpopularwriterpervertingthetestimonyoftherocksanddistortingtheElohisticcosmogonyofthePentateuch，untilthetwainhavebeenmadetofurnishwhatBaconlongagodescribedas“ahereticalreligionandafalsephilosophy。“NowjustasinthepopularthoughtofthepresentdaytheancientElohistisaccreditedwithaknowledgeofmoderngeologyandastronomy，sointheopinionofthefourthevangelistandhiscontemporariesthedoctrineoftheLogos-ChristwasimplicitlycontainedintheOldTestamentandintheearlytraditionsconcerningJesus，andneededonlytobebroughtintoprominencebyafreshinterpretation。Hencearosethefourthgospel，whichwasnomoreaconsciousviolationofhistoricdatathanHughMiller’simaginativedescriptionofthe“MosaicVisionofCreation。“ItsmetaphysicaldiscourseswerereadilyacceptedasequallyauthenticwiththeSermonontheMount。ItsPhiloniandoctrineswereimputedtoPaulandtheapostles，thepseudo-Paulineepistlesfurnishingtheneedfultexts。TheEbionites——whoweresimplyJudaizingChristians，holdinginnearlyitsoriginalformthedoctrineofPeter，James，andJohn——wereejectedfromtheChurchasthemostperniciousofheretics；andsocompletelywastheirhistoricpositionmisunderstoodandforgotten，that，inordertoaccountfortheirexistence，itbecamenecessarytoinventaneponymousheresiarch，Ebion，whowassupposedtohaveledthemastrayfromthetruefaith！
TheChristologyofthefourthgospelissubstantiallythesameasthatwhichwasheldinthenexttwocenturiesbyTertullian，ClementofAlexandria，Origen，andArius。WhenthedoctrineoftheTrinitywasfirstannouncedbySabelliusA。D。250-260，itwasformallycondemnedasheretical，theChurchbeingnotyetquitepreparedtoreceiveit。In269theCouncilofAntiochsolemnlydeclaredthattheSonwasNOTconsubstantialwiththeFather，——adeclarationwhich，withinsixtyyears，theCouncilofNikaiawasdestinedassolemnlytocontradict。TheTrinitarianChristologystruggledlongforacceptance，anddidnotfinallywinthevictoryuntiltheendofthefourthcentury。Yetfromtheoutsetitsultimatevictorywashardlydoubtful。ThepeculiardoctrinesofthefourthgospelcouldretaintheirintegrityonlysolongasGnosticideaswereprevalent。WhenGnosticismdeclinedinimportance，anditstheoriesfadedoutofrecollection，itspeculiarphraseologyreceivedofnecessityanewinterpretation。
ThedoctrinethatGodcouldnotactdirectlyupontheworldsankgraduallyintooblivionastheChurchgrewmoreandmorehostiletotheNeo-Platonicphilosophy。Andwhenthistheorywasonceforgotten，itwasinevitablethattheLogos，asthecreatoroftheworld，shouldberaisedtoanequalityoridentitywithGodhimself。Intheviewofthefourthevangelist，theCreatorwasnecessarilyinferiortoGod；intheviewoflaterages，theCreatorcouldbenoneotherthanGod。AndsotheveryphraseswhichhadmostemphaticallyassertedthesubordinationoftheSonwereafterwardinterpretedasassertinghisabsolutedivinity。TotheGnosticformula，lumendelumine，wasaddedtheAthanasianscholium，DeumverumdeDeovero；andtheTrinitariandogmaoftheunionofpersonsinasingleGodheadbecamethustheonlyavailablelogicaldeviceforpreservingthepurityofmonotheism。
ThesecommentsonMr。HenryRogers’sreviewofM。Renan’sLesApotres，containedinalettertoMr。Lewes，wereshortlyafterwardspublishedbyhimintheFortnightlyReview，September15，1866，ItisthelotofeverybookwhichattemptstotreattheoriginandprogressofChristianityinasoberandscientificspirit，tomeetwithunsparingattacks。Criticsinplentyarealwaystobefound，who，possessedwiththeideathattheentiresignificanceandvalueoftheChristianreligionaredemolishedunlessweregarditasasortofhistoricalmonstrosity，areonlytooeagertosubjecttheoffendingworktoascathingscrutiny，displayingwithalamodicumofrighteousindignationattheunblushingheresyoftheauthor，notunmixedwithalittlescornfulpityathisinabilitytobelieveverypreposterousstoriesuponverymeagreevidence。“Conservative“polemicsofthissorthavedoubtlesstheirfunction。Theyservetopurgescientificliteratureoftheawkwardandcarelessstatementstoooftenmadebywritersnotsufficientlyinstructedorcautious，whichintheabsenceofhostilecriticismmightgetacceptedbytheunthinkingreaderalongwiththetruthswhichtheyaccompany。Mostscientificandphilosophicalworkshavetheirdefects；anditisfortunatethatthereissuchathingasdogmaticardourintheworld，eversharpeningitswitstotheutmost，thatitmayspyeachlurkinginaccuracyandruthlesslydragittolight。Butthisusefulspiritiswonttoleadthosewhoareinspiredbyittoshootbeyondthemark，andafterpointingouttheerrorsofothers，tocommitfreshmistakesoftheirown。IntheskilfulcriticismofM。Renan’sworkontheApostles，inNo。29ofthe“FortnightlyReview“thereisnowandthenavulnerablespotthroughwhichacontroversialshaftmayperhapsbemadetopierce。
ItmaybetruethatLordLyttelton’stractontheConversionofSt。Paul，asDr。JohnsonandDr。Rogershavesaid，hasneveryetbeenrefuted；butifImayjudgefrommyownrecollectionofthework，Ishouldsaythatthismustbebecausenocompetentwritereverthoughtitworthhispainstocriticizeit。Itsargumentcontainsaboutasmuchsolidconsistencyasadistendedballoon，andcollapsesasreadilyatthefirstpuncture。Itattemptstoprove，first，thattheconversionofSt。Paulcannotbemadeintelligibleexceptontheassumptionthattherewasamiracleinthecase；andsecondly，thatifPaulwasconvertedbyamiracle，thetruthofChristianityisimpregnable。Now，ifthefirstofthesepointsbeestablished，thedemonstrationisnotyetcomplete，forthesecondpointmustbeprovedindependently。Butifthefirstpointbeoverthrown，thesecondlosesitsprop，andfallslikewise。
GreateffortsarethereforemadetoshowthatnonaturalinfluencescouldhaveintervenedtobringaboutachangeinthefeelingsofPaul。Hewasviolent，“thorough，“unaffectedbypityorremorse；andaccordinglyhecouldnothavebeensocompletelyalteredashewas，hadhenotactuallybeheldtherisenChrist:
suchistheargumentwhichMr。Rogersdeemssoconclusive。IdonotknowthatfromanyofPaul’sownassertionsweareentitledtoaffirmthatnoshadeofremorsehadevercrossedhismindprevioustothevisionnearDamascus。Butwaivingthispoint，I
domaintainthat，grantingPaul’sfeelingstohavebeenasMr。
Rogersthinkstheywere，hisconversionisinexplicable，evenonthehypothesisofamiracle。Hethatisdeterminednottobelieve，willnotbelieve，thoughoneshouldrisefromthedead。
TomakePaulabeliever，itwasnotenoughthatheshouldmeethisLordfacetofacehemusthavebeenalreadypreparedtobelieve。Otherwisehewouldhaveeasilyfoundmeansofexplainingthemiraclefromhisownpointofview。Hewouldcertainlyhaveattributedittothewilesofthedemon，evenasthePhariseesaresaidtohavedonewithregardtothemiraculouscuresperformedbyJesus。A“miraculous“occurrenceinthosedaysdidnotastonishasitwouldatpresent。“Miracles“wererathertheorderoftheday，andinfactwerelavishedwithsuchextremebountyonallhands，thattheirconvincingpowerwasveryslight。
Neithersideeverthoughtofdisputingtherealityofthemiraclessupposedtobeperformedontheother；buteachsideconsideredthemiraclesofitsantagonisttobetheworkofdiabolicagencies。Suchbeingthecase，itisuselesstosupposethatPaulcouldhavedistinguishedbetweenatrueandafalsemiracle，orthatarealmiraclecouldofitselfhavehadanyeffectininducinghimtodepartfromhishabitualcourseofbeliefandaction。AsfarasPaul’smentaloperationswereconcerned，itcouldhavemadenodifferencewhetherhemetwithhisfutureMasterinperson，ormerelyencounteredhiminavision。ThesolepointtobeconsiderediswhetherornotheBELIEVEDintheDivinecharacterandauthorityoftheeventwhichhadhappened。Whattheeventmighthavereallybeenwasofnopracticalconsequencetohimortoanyoneelse。Whathebelievedittobewasofthefirstimportance。Andsincehedidbelievethathehadbeendivinelysummonedtoceasepersecuting，andcommencepreachingthenewfaith，itfollowsthathisstateofmindmusthavebeenmoreorlessaffectedbycircumstancesotherthanthemerevision。Hadhenotbeenripeforchange，neithershadownorsubstancecouldhavechangedhim。