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 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 connexion 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, according to John, is proved by two

* See Michaelis' Introd. vol. iv. pp. 409, 410.

verses in his Epistle, chap. v. ver. 1. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:" ver. 5. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" It is evident from these two verses that a belief, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and not a different person, was thought by John to be synonymous with the belief, that Jesus was the Son of God and not a different person. This view is also suggested by chap. ii. ver. 22. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son."

I shall now quote from Irenæus the passage which I before promised, to prove that in his opinion those persons who denied that Jesus was the Christ were the same with those who denied that he was the Son of God, being the Gnostics, who separated the Christ, the Son of God, from Jesus; and also to prove that those who denied Jesus to be the Christ, and to be the Son of God, were the same with those who disbelieved that the Christ, the Son of God, had come in the flesh, being the same Gnostics who separated their Eon Christ, the Son of God, from Jesus of Nazareth. Irenæus thus writes: "The Gospel acknowledges no other Son of Man, except him who was born of Mary, and who suffered. It knows nothing of the Christ' flying from Jesus previous to his passion. It knows only him who was born, viz. Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, who, still the same person, suffered and rose again from the dead; as John the disciple of the Lord confirms, saying, 'But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name ;'* guarding against those blasphemous doctrines which DIVIDE the Lord as much as possible, affirming him to consist of this substance and of the other. On which account, also he (John) hath testified in his Epistle: Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.' + 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?' This is antichrist.- -That homicidal opinion of theirs, which diminishes and DIVIDES into pieces the Son of God, was what the Lord forewarned us to beware of, and what his Apostle John, in his epistle, enjoins us to shun, saying, 'For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves that (ye) lose not those things which (ye) have wrought.' § And again, in his epistle, he says: ' many false prophets are gone out into the

* John xx. 31.

† 1 John ii. 18, 19.

+ Ver. 22.

§ 2 John ver. 7, 8.

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 DIVIDES Jesus Christ is not of God, but of antichrist. On which account he again says in his epistle: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,'† well knowing that Jesus the Christ is ONE and the SAME, to whom the gates of heaven were opened ;-who shall also in the very same flesh in which he suffered come again, revealing the glory of his Father."

Only one other subject connected with John's writings remains to be considered. My readers may inquire, why do I not recollect the important verse in John's First Epistle: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," (1 John v. 7.)? Is not this, it may be asked, a clear and undeniable proof of the Trinity? Perhaps it was on account of this verse, containing so expressive a declaration of the Trinity, that the orthodox fathers held John in esteem above the other sacred writers, in whose works

* I John iv. 1, 2.

+ 1 John v. 1.

Non ergo alterum filium hominis novit evangelium, nisi hunc qui ex Maria, qui et passus est. Sed neque Christum avolantem ante passionem ab Jesu, sed hunc qui natus est Jesum Christum novit Dei Filium, et eundem hunc passum resurrexisse, quemadmodum Joannes Domini discipulus confirmat dicens: Hæc autem scripta sunt ut credatis, quoniam Jesus est Christus Filius Dei, et ut credentes vitam æternam habeatis in nomine ejus: providens has blasphemas regulas quæ dividunt Dominum quantum ex ipsis attinet, ex altera et altera substantia dicentes eum factum. Propter quod et in epistola sua sic testificatus est nobis: Filioli, novissima hora est, et quemadmodum audistis, quoniam Antichristus venit, nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt, unde cognoscimus quoniam novissima hora est. Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; si enim fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum; sed ut manifestarentur quoniam non sunt ex nobis. Cognoscite ergo quoniam omne mendacium extraneum est, et non est de veritate. Quis est mendax, nisi qui negat, quoniam Jesus non est Christus. Hic est Antichristus, etc. etc. Sententia enim eorum homicidialis Deos quidem plures confingens, et Patres multos simulans, comminuens autem et per multa dividens Filium Dei; quos et Dominus nobis cavere prædixit, et discipulus ejus Joannes in prædicta epistola fugere eos præcepit, dicens: Multi seductores exierunt in hunc mundum, qui non confitentur Jesum Christum in carne venisse. Hic est seductor et Antichristus. Videte eos, ne perdatis quod operati estis. Et rursus in epistola ait: Multi pseudo-prophetae exierunt de seculo; in hoc cognoscite spiritum Dei. Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse ex Deo est. Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum Christum, non est ex Deo, sed ex Antichristo est. Hæc autem similia sunt illi quod in Evangelio dictum est, quoniam verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis. Propter quod rursus in epistola clamat: Omnis qui credit, quia Jesus est Christus, ex Deo natus est, unum et eundem sciens Jesum Christum, cui apertae sunt portae cœli, propter carnalem ejus assumptionem; qui etiam in eadem carne, in qua passus est, venit, gloriam revelans Patris. Adv. Haer. Lib. iii. c. 18.

AGAINST THE GENUINE]

The spuriou

Ver. 7.-For there are three that bear record [in heaven, t witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood; a The only genuine words of St John in this passage are as one," that is, they agree together in their testimony concernin The evidence, to prove that the text included within brackets is spu I. This text is not to be found in any Greek MS.* earlier than the some rather think, in any Greek MS. earlier than the sixteenth centu containing St John's first epistle, and omitting this text, amounte TWELVE, when Mr Porson wrote against Archdeacon Travis. || Seve been discovered, all of them agreeing in the same omission. The only the advocates for this text have urged in its defence are three, two of w be of the fifteenth century, if not rather of the sixteenth, and the thi century.

II. The text is not to be found in any Latin MS. earlier than the n omitted in many of the later Latin MSS. In those MSS. in which variations of this verse; there are frequent additions, omissions, and alte in some cases the verse precedes the present 8th verse, and in other ca it is not written in the text but in the margin; sometimes by the same whole manuscript; sometimes by a later hand; sometimes it occurs aft gives rise to the suspicion of forgery. In three MSS. which Bishop B text, coming after the present 8th, was joined by the phrase 'just as' that it was at first a marginal commentary, and then a textual addition 'For there are three that bear witness (in earth), &c., JUST AS there are heaven,' &c. ‡‡

III. This text did not occur in any of the other ancient versions be found in the MSS. (1) of the old Syriac, (2) of the later Syriac by P Syriac revised by Thomas Heracleensis; nor (4) in the Coptic version; Arabic versions; nor (7) in the Ethiopic version; nor (8) in the Sclavo nian; nor (10) in the Sahidic version.§§

IV. This text was never quoted by any of the Greek fathers,|||| whet high opinions, concerning the Trinity. Various other passages of Scrij ted to prove the existence of three persons in one God; but this verse although it is the only text in Scripture that is actually to the point in is the commonplace proof of modern Trinitarian systems.

V. This text was not quoted by any Latin authority, before the end

• Manuscript.

Professor Porson's Letters to Archdeacon Travis, pp. 117, 126. Bengel, a c was of this opinion. See Michaelis's Introd. vol. iv. p. 417.

+ Belsham's

§ Manuscript tt Ibid. p. 148, Belsham, p. 237.