Page images
PDF
EPUB

that it is his, especially as he hath fufficiently difcovered himself to be an apostle, by affirming in the beginning of the epistle, that he was an eye and ear witness, of the things which he hath written concerning the living Word.

2. The style of this epiftle, being the fame with the style of the gofpel of John, it is, by that internal mark, likewife thewed to be his writing.-In his gospel John doth not content himself with fimply affirming or denying a thing, but to ftrengthen his affirmation he denieth its contrary. In like manner to strengthen his denial of a thing, he affirms its contrary. See John i. 20. iii. 36. v. 24. vi. 22. The fame manner of expreffing things ftrongly, is found in the epiftle. For example, chap. ii. 4. He who faith I have known him, and doth not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.-Ver. 27. The fame unction teacheth you concerning all things, and is truth, and is no lie.Chap. iv. 2. Every Spirit, which confeffeth Jefus Chrift hath come in the flesh, is from God. 3. And every fpirit, which doth not confefs Jefus Chrift hath come in the flesh, is not from God.

In his gofpel likewife, John, to exprefs things emphatically, frequently uses the demonftrative pronoun, This.-Chap. i. 19. Aurn, This is the teftimony.—iii. 19. Aurn, This is the condemnation, that light, &c.-vi. 2q. Taro, This is the work of God.-ver. 40. T8T0, This is the will of him.-ver. 50. 'Ouros, This is the bread which came down from heaven.-xvii. 3. Aurn, This is the eternal life —In the epiftle, the fame emphatical manner of expression is found, chap. i. 5. ii. 25. This is the promise.—iii. 23. Aurn, This is his commandment.-v. 3. Aurn, This is the love of God.-ver. 4. This is the victory.-ver. 6. 'Ouros, This is he who came by water.—ver. 14. This is the boldness which we have with him.

Such is the internal evidence, on which all Chriftians, from the beginning, have received the first epiftle of John, as really written by him, and of divine authority, although his name is not mentioned in the infcription, nor in any part of the epistle.

SECT. III. Of the State of the Chriftian Church, at the Time John wrote his First Epiftle; and of his Defign in writing it.

The apostle John, having lived to fee great corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, introduced into the church, by many

who

who profeffed themselves the difciples of Chrift, employed the laft years of his life in oppofing these corruptions. For he wrote his three epiftles, to establish the truths concerning the perfon and offices of Chrift, and to condemn the errors then prevailing contrary to thefe truths. Alfo to reprefs the lewd practices, for the fake of which thefe errors were embraced.→ Befides, he confidered that his teftimony to the truths concerning the perfon and offices of Chrift, together with his direct condemnation of the oppofite errors, publifhed to the world' in his infpired writings, would be of fingular use in preserving the faithful from being feduced by the falfe teachers and other corrupters of Chriftianity, who in future ages might arife and trouble the church. See the preface to James, Sect. 4.

[ocr errors]

The heretical teachers who infefted the church in the first age, finding Meffiah called in the Jewish feriptures, God, and the Son of God, thought it impoffible that he could be made flesh. In this fentiment, these teachers followed the Jewish chief priests, elders, and fcribes, who being affembled in full council, unanimously condemned Jesus as a blafphemer, because being a man, he called himself Christ the Son of the bleffed God. See 1 John v. 5. note. Upon this decifion, one clafs of the ancient falfe teachers founded their error concerning the person of Chrift. For, while they acknowledged his divinity, they denied ́ his humanity; that is, the reality of his appearing in the flesh. (See 1 John iv. 2, 3. v. 1.) and contended, that his body was only a body in appearance; that he neither fuffered nor died; and that he did none of the things related of him in the gospel. He feemed indeed to do these things, which, in their opinion, was a fufficient foundation for the evangelifts to relate them as done by him. But their reality as matters of fact, they absolutely denied. More particularly, having affirmed that he died only in appearance, they denied his having made a propitiation for the fins of the world by his death, chap. ii. 2. They likewife denied, that he aròfe from the dead and afcended into heaven. In short, according to them, the things afcribed to Jefus in the gofpels, were altogether imaginary. This was the opinion of Bafilides, and of all the heretics in the first age to whom the

fathers

fathers have given the name of Docete, or Phantoffie; but who by the apostle John are more emphatically called, antichrifts, chap. iv. 3. because they were oppofers of Chrift as come in the flesh. By pretending that Chrift suffered death only in appearance, the Doceta endeavoured to avoid the ignominy of the crucifixion of their Mafter, and to free themfelves from that obligation to fuffer for their religion, which was laid on them both by Christ's precept and example.

On the other hand, the Cerinthians and Ebionites adopted a doctrine concerning the Chrift, which, though contrary to that just now described, was equally erroneous. They acknowledged the reality of the things written in the gofpels concerning Jefus. But like many in modern times, who admit nothing as true which they are not able to comprehend, they denied that Jefus was the Chrift or Son of God, chap. ii. 22. becaufe they could not reconcile the things which happened to him, with their idea of the Son of God. This clafs of heretics were faid by the fathers Ave Tov Ins8v, to diffolve Fefus. See chap. iv. 3. note 1. end For they affirmed, that Chrift entered into Jefus at his baptism in the form of a dove, but flew away from him before his paffion.-B. Horsley, in let. xiv. to Dr. Priestley faith, "The Cerinthians held, that Chrift being restored to Jefus after "his refurrection, it rendered the man Jefus an object of di"vine honours." They believed it seems that Jesus was originally and effentially a man; and that whatever divinity he poffeffed was adventitious, confequently was feparable from

him.

The former fort of falfe teachers having denied the humanity, and the latter the divinity of our Lord, the apostle John to confirm all the disciples in the belief of the truth concerning the perfon and offices of Christ, wrote this his first epistle, in which he exprefsly afferted that Jefus Chrift is the fon of God, chap. i. 3. 7. iv. 15. and that he came in the flesh. See chap. iv. 2.

note.

Here let it be observed, that the opinions of the Docete, on the one hand, and of the Cerinthians on the other, concerning the person and offices of Chrift, make it probable that the apostles taught, and that the first Chriftians believed Chrift to be both God

[ocr errors]

God and man. For if the Docetæ had not been taught, the divinity of Christ, they had no temptation to deny his humanity. And if the Crinthians had not been taught the humanity of Chrift, they would have been under no neceffity of denying his divinity. But fancying it impoffible that both parts of the apostle's doctrine concerning the Chrift could be true, the one clafs of heretics to maintain his divinity, thought themselves obliged to deny his humanity, and the other to maintain his humanity, supposed it neceffary to deny his divinity.-To this argument by which it is rendered probable that the apostles taught, and the first Christians believed Jefus Christ to be both God and man, the Socinians perhaps will reply, that the mem bers of the church of Jerufalem being called Ebionites by the ancients, is a proof, not only that the church of Jerufalem held the opinion of Ebion concerning the mere humanity of Christ, but that the apoftles who planted and inftructed that church held the fame opinion; because it is natural to fuppofe that the faith of the teachers and of the difciples on this article was the fame, confequently that the apostles themselves were Unitarians. Nevertheless, from the account which Origen hath given of the brethren of the church of Jerufalem, who he tells us were called Ebionites by the ancients, it appears that this name, as applied to the Hebrew Chriftians, by no means leads to these conclufions. For in his fecond book against Celfus, fect. 1. in anfwer to the Jew, who alleged that the Jewish Christians, being deceived by Chrift, had forfaken the laws and inftitutions of their fathers, and gone over to a different name and manner of living, Origen affirmed, "That they had not forfaken the law "of their fathers, but lived according to it, being named from "the poorness of the law; (he means, named Ebionites) for a "poor perfon is called by the Jews, Ebion. Hence, thofe of "the Jews who received Jefus, are called Ebionites." The Jewish believers therefore, according to Origen, were called Ebionites, not because they held the opinion of Ebion concerning the mere humanity of Chrift, but because they adhered to the law of Mofes, and expected only the poor temporal rewards which were promifed in that law. Whereas the proper Ebionites were those who had a low opinion of the perfon of Christ. So

Eufebius

Eufebius informs us, E. H. lib. 3. c. 27. "The ancients called them "Ebionites, who entertained a poor and low notion of Christ; "for they thought him only, Aтov na novov, a fimple and common "man."-Farther, admitting that the argument taken from the appellation of Ebionites, which was given by the ancients to the members of the church of Jerufalem, were well founded, it would not prove that all, or even the greatest part of them, held the doctrine of the mere humanity of Chrift. For in comprehending the whole body of the Hebrew Chriftians under the appellation of Ebionites, Origen himself acknowledgeth in the third fection of the fame second book, that he wrote incorrectly, fince he there diftinguishes the Hebrew Chriftians into three fects, one of which, he tells us, difcarded the law entirely; confequently they were not Ebionites, but orthodox Chriftians. The fame diftinction Jerome hath made in his commentary on Isaiah ix. 1, 2, 3. where he fpeaks of Hebrews believing in Christ, and as a clafs of people diftinct from them mentions Nazarenes, who observed the law, but defpifed the traditions of. the Pharifees, thought highly of Paul, and held the doctrine of our Lord's divinity. See alfo his Comment. on Ifaiah viii. 14.21.-More than this, although it were granted, for argument's fake, that the brethren of the church of Jerufalem, generally believed the doctrine of Chrift's mere humanity, it will not prove that the apostles by whom they were inftructed were of the fame opinion, unless we think the Hebrew Chriftians could not be enticed by falfe teachers to forsake their first faith. This, it is prefumed, no one will affirm who recollects that the Laodiceans are an example of a whole church declining from its first faith, even in the days of the apostles, Rev. iii. 14.-18.-Laftly, in this question it is of importance to know that the doctrine of the proper Ebionites concerning the mere humanity of Chrift, was deemed heretical by the church in the days of Ireneus, who wrote his books againft herefies in the year 176 or 177. For in the lift which he hath given of heretics, lib. 1. he places the Ebionites between the Cerinthians and the Nicolaitans, both of them acknowledged heretics. And in his third book he refutes, by teftimonies from the fcriptures, the opinion of those

who

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »