Notice, however, must be taken here of a statement which John has made, which is not opposed to the Gnostics in general, but to another class, who may have been tinged in some points with this philosophy. "He (John the Baptist) was not that light," or the bearer of that light. Ver. 8. Had any one said that John the Baptist was that light? It [p. 57] appears So. It appears that a body of men then existed, who believed in John the Baptist as the Messiah, or light of the world.* Against these the Evangelist probably penned verse 8th. This sect, who were called Sabians, which signifies Baptists, are still in existence in the East, holding their peculiar faith.† 3. We have the testimony of Irenæus, that John wrote against the Gnostics in his Introduction. I stated (p. 19) that this Father was the disciple of Polycarp, one of John's immediate followers (p. 16). He believed the deity of Christ, but confessed him to have been inferior to God, his Father (pp. 19, 20). But this belief, whether it induced him or not always to attach personality to the "word" in John's Introduction, does not weaken his testimony to its having been composed in opposition to the Gnostics, for he might have his own view as to the manner of opposition. Irenæus says: 66 John, the disciple of the Lord, desiring by the publication of his Gospel to root out the error which had been sown among men by Cerinthus,‡ and some time before by those who are called Nicolaitans, § who are a branch of that science, which is falsely so called, that he might confute them, and satisfy all that there is one God, who made all things by his word, and not, as they say, one who is the Creator of the universe, and another the Father of the Lord, &c., &c.; the disciple, therefore, of the Lord, wishing to cut off these errors, and to appoint a rule of truth in the Church, that there is One God Almighty, who by his word made all things, visible and invisible; declaring also that by the word by which God finished the creation, by the same word he bestowed salvation upon those who were in the creation, begins his doctrine which is according to the Gospel, 'In the beginning was the word,'" &c. || * Michaelis, Vol. III. Part I. pp. 285, 294, et seq. † Ibid., pp 285, 287. A leader among the Gnostics. § Gnostics. Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitæ, qui sunt II. OF ST. JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE. In mentioning the opinion that John penned certain expressions in his First Epistle against Unitarians, I do not mean to say that this view concerning these expressions was entertained by any one before the end [p. 58] of the second century, or the beginning of the third. Irenæus, between the middle and the end of the second century, wrote a large work against heresy, in which he has quoted St. John's First Epistle, affirming distinctly that the Antichrists which John opposed, and against whom all his expressions of hostility were directed, were the Gnostic Christians. This will appear from a passage in Irenæus, which will be shortly quoted with advantage. It is Tertullian who first states that John opposed two classes of what he esteemed to be heresy, the Gnostic, and that of Ebion,* or the proper Unitarian. He says that when John alluded to those who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, he meant the Gnostics; but that he meant the doctrine of Ebion, when speaking of those persons who thought that Jesus was not the Son of God. † In answer to this view, I ought strictly to confine my remarks to John's allusions to a disbelief in the Son of God, passing by the other controversial expressions as on all hands admitted to have been directed, not against Unitarians, but against the Gnostics. But I must deviate from this course, and consider both cases, for a particular reason. Dr. Horsley, in his controversy with vulsio ejus, quæ falsò cognominatur scientia, ut confunderet eos et suaderet eos, quoniam unus Deus qui omnia fecit per verbum suum, et non quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem Fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini, etc. Omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus Domini, et regulam veritatis constituere in ecclesia, quia est unus Deus omnipotens, qui per verbum suum omnia fecit, et visibilia et invisibilia: significans quoque quoniam per verbum per quod Deus perfecit conditionem in hoc et salutem his qui in conditione sunt præstitit hominibus: sic inchoavit in ea quæ est secundum evangelium doctrina. In principio erat verbum, etc. Adv. Haer. Lib. III. cap. 11. *For an explanation concerning Ebion, see page 83. † At in epistola eos maxime antichristos vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne venisse, et qui non putarent Jesum esse filium Dei. Illud Marcion, hoc Hebion vindicavit. - Hæc sunt, ut arbitror, genera doctrinarum adulterinarum, quæ sub apostolis fuisse ab ipsis apostolis discimus. De Præ. Hær. Sect. 33, 34. Dr. Priestley, admitting that the expressions about Christ's having come in the flesh referred solely to the Gnostics,* nevertheless affirmed that they implied on the part of the writer a belief in the pre-existing divinity of Christ, and a censure on Unitarianism. † 1 John iv. 1, 2, 3: " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." Dr. Horsley thinks that the remarks which occur in these verses concerning Christ's having come in the flesh implied the notion of a pre-existent state, from which Christ might have come in some other way than in the flesh, but from which he actually came in the flesh. Otherwise Dr. Horsley believes that John's phraseology was nugatory. For he argues that no respectable writer, speaking of any one who, as a mere man, did not possess the power of coming otherwise than in the flesh, would have said of this person that he had actually come in the flesh, such an expression [p. 59] being altogether unnecessary concerning a human being, who had not the choice of two different ways of coming. Now, I grant that no respectable writer, that no writer having common sense, would, in ordinary circumstances, have said of any man concerning whom he wrote, that he had come in the flesh, or (which is the same thing) that he was truly a human being. But there is a chance of peculiar circumstances in which this might have been said, not only without censure, but with approval. If it were affirmed by a numerous body of persons, and in the most open and persevering manner, that the object of a writer's memorial, being a man, had not come in the flesh, or was not truly a human being, what should the writer in vindication say concerning him of whom he wrote, but that he was actually a man, that he did actually come in the flesh? But this is precisely the object of John's remarks. The Gnostic Christians denied that Christ had come in the flesh; John censures this erroneous opinion, and in opposition * Dr. Horsley's Tracts, p. 120. ‡ Ibid., p. 123. † Ibid., pp. 120, 121. to it recommends the truth that Jesus Christ was properly a man. Dr. Horsley knew this, and confessed this; yet affirmed nevertheless that John's expressions about Christ's coming in the flesh are not sufficiently accounted for, without involving the condemnation of Unitarianism.* That my readers may know more satisfactorily the weakness of Dr. Horsley's view, I will lay down a few hints on the opinion of the Gnostics concerning Christ. I have already mentioned (at page 61) that the basis of the Gnostic philosophy was a belief that all matter was essentially evil, and an annoyance to whatever was spiritual; but that God was a being entirely free from evil. And as a consequence of this, I mentioned (at page 62) that the Gnostics thought that the world was not made by God himself, a perfectly benevolent Spirit, but by another and less perfect Creator. A second consequence will now be stated, bearing immediately on our present subject. The Gnostics expected that the all-benevolent God would send a Divine messenger, who should be a purely spiritual being, one of the Eons out of his Пnpwμa, or fulness, for the purpose of delivering mankind from their subjection to the evils that result from matter. When, therefore, some of them saw or heard of the miracles of our Saviour, and could not resist the conviction that he was ordained by God, performing wonders by God's power, they found themselves compelled, on confessing his claims as the expected means of their deliverance, either to renounce the opinion which led them to expect a purely spiritual Eon, or else to reconcile our Saviour's circumstances with their preconceived and still loved view. Accordingly they took the latter [p. 60] alternative. They invented the hypothesis, that Jesus of Nazareth, the person who taught, wrought miracles, lived a life of holiness and piety, suffered, died, and rose again, was not actually the Christ, but rather a shrine or receptacle, in which the Christ, a Divine Eon, who was entirely spiritual, dwelt for a certain portion of time. Some of them said that Jesus of Nazareth, the shrine in which the Christ dwelt, was a human being; these were they who, whatever was their name * Dr. Horsley's Tracts, pp. 120, 121. † Drawn up after a comparison of what has been written on this subject by Mosheim, Lardner, Michaelis, Priestley, and Horsley himself: and, among the ancients, by Irenæus. at first, were soon called Cerinthians, after their principal guide, Cerinthus. Others said that Jesus of Nazareth, the mask under which the Christ dwelt, was a phantom, or human being in appearance; these were the Docetes. But both equally denied that the Christ, or Divine Eon, had come in the flesh. Both maintained that the Christ was an invisible spiritual being, while that which was visible, whether a man or a phantom, was only Jesus of Nazareth. Against both parties, most probably, St. John wrote, declaring that Christ had actually come in the flesh, was actually a man, and not a spiritual Eon, which merely dwelt for a short time, whether in connection with a man or with a phantom. Let us now review St. John's commendations of a belief in "the Son of God," commendations which were called forth, as I think, like his other remarks which we have considered, in consequence of the heresy of the Gnostics. 1 John iv. 15: "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." Ch. v. 5: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" Ver. 10: "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; he that believeth not God, hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." Ver. 12: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Both the Cerinthians and the Docetes affirmed that Jesus of Nazareth was a mere receptacle in which the Christ dwelt, as I have said, and not the Christ himself, who was a spiritual being. Now it was to the Christ, thus distinguished from Jesus, that these Gnostics attached all their ideas of glory, including the title of Son of God. It followed, therefore, that they must deny that Jesus, the mere receptacle of the Christ, was the Son of God, confining that name to the Divine Eon. And this denial they certainly made. They said that the Christ was the Son of God, but that Jesus was not; thus provoking the rebuke of the Apostle John, as against persons who were in reality disbelieving the Son of God.* This view is proved by John's Epistle itself, and ecclesiastical history bears it out. That it was those who separated the Christ from Jesus who also denied the Son of God, accord * See Michaelis, Introd., Vol. IV. pp. 409, 410. |