and particularly that of Cerinthus; and that in opposing their doctrines he availed himself of their own terms.-See his Nov. Test. Pref. to John. But many reasons induce us to think that John did not professedly write either against Cerinthus or the Nicolaitans, or indeed any heresies. The accounts given by the ancients concerning Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans are imperfect and unsatisfactory, some certainly fabulous. (See Lard. Hist. Heret. ch. iv.)* Nor is it by any means certain that the errors of Cerinthus had risen when John wrote his gospel. It is very probable that if John in his gospel meant to oppose the errors of Cerinthus, or the Gnostics, he would name or designate them in specific terms, as in his epistles and the Revelation. The manner of opposing them by silently adopting their terms in a different meaning, which is not specified, savours of a policy and refinement, which scarcely became the Apostolic character. The writings of John, though highly figurative in expression, are characterized by such a simplicity of manner and purpose, that he could scarcely be actuated by the refined policy ascribed to him. And it is very probable, too, that if he wrote for the detection and correction of errors, he would specify in what they consisted, and would exhort a retractation of them. If John wrote his gospel before the year 80; especially if he wrote it, according to Michaelis's opinion, about 68, it was probably previous to his knowledge of Cerinthus. *It is evident that, from the expressions used, "quæ est vulsio ejus, quæ falso cognominatur scientia," (which is a part of that which is falsely called gnosis, or knowledge,) Irenæus meant the opinions of the Gnostics. It is to be observed also, that from two other extracts from Irenæus, in Lardner, it is difficult to determine whether John opposed actual heresies, or cautioned against future ones, which he foresaw. b The terms, which John is asserted to have borrowed from the heretics, are often used by the other writers of the New Testament, except μovoyens; and that is used in the Septuagint. The expression-"the word of God," that is, God himself-occurs often in the Old Testament. It was very unnecessary for John to derive it [20yos] from the heretics, when it was in frequent use long before.—See Lard. vol. iii. p. 241. 4to. ed. If Eusebius has given us a correct account of the errors of Cerinthus, John very partially, if at all, controverts them. For instance, it is said to have been a tenet of Cerinthus, that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary. How can John be imagined to contradict this by calling Jesus the son of Joseph? (John i. 46.) Again, Cerinthus is supposed to have held, that the world was not created by God, but by a divine Virtue. I cannot see how this is contradicted in the beginning of John's gospel, if we admit the orthodox interpretation. Is it not rather confirmed? We shall learn best from John himself what his motive was, at least his principal motive, for adding another narration of the official life of Christ. John xx. 30, 31. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye might have life in his name.” Here no hint escapes him about the error of the heretics, or the mischief to be apprehended from them. The great object of the writers of the Gospel, to which they strictly confined themselves, was to record the actions, doctrines and precepts of Christ. Acts i. 21, 22. "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." With the object here distinctly expressed, the inti "And mations given by John perfectly accord. (ch. xix. 35.) he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe." (xxi. 24.) "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." Lardner has satisfactorily shewn, by a minute investigation of the whole of John's gospel, that its main object was this"that they who believe might be confirmed in their faith; and that all others, who yet believe not, may believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and obtain that life, which he promised to those who believe in him, and obey him." To Το this more obvious design of the evangelist, he subjoins another, which was also avowed; that is, to make "a strong, but just and true representation of the heinousness of the guilt of the Jewish people." "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not had sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father." To the above I beg to add another remark of Lardner: "Considering this method of all the evangelists in their histories of our Lord and Saviour," [i. e. their entering into no details of what passed after the ascension of Christ,] "it appears to me probable, that though St. John had not written his gospel before the year 96 or 97, as some have supposed, he would not have taken notice of heretics, or vouchsafed to argue with them. St. John did not write the history of the apostles, as is evident: how then could he take notice of heretics."-See Lardner's Works, vol. iii. pp. 330, 233, 240. 4to. ed. The particular design of the proem is to assert the divine origin of Christianity. It is pronounced to be derived from God himself, and to be effected by that same word, instrumentally, by which all the works of creation, and all the regu lations of Providence since, were produced and are conducted. This was a natural and pertinent introduction to the history of the divine mission of Christ; and it is perfectly in accordance with all the rest which follows, for Christ, on numerous occasions, ascribed both his words and his works to the Father. How could this, even with the aid of the notable scheme of hostatical the hypothetical union, be consistent with truth, if he was himself the God, to whom they were all to be ascribed in his own right? This view is fully confirmed by a remarkable passage in Irenæus, of which I here give a literal translation: Therefore, the disciple of the Lord intending to record all such things, and to constitute a rule of truth in the church, that there is one God omnipotent, who by his word made all things, both visible and invisible; signifying also, that by the word, by which God made the creation, in, or by, this also he effected salvation for those men who are in the world, thus began in that doctrine which is according to his gospel—“ In the beginning was the word.'"-Iren. Oper. lib. iii. c. xi. We ought not entirely to overlook the ancient interpretation of this passage; and it is to be observed that it was applied to Christ in conjunction often with Prov. viii. 22, et seq., with no difference in the application; λoyos, a word; and ropia, wisdom; being regarded as synonymous appellations of Christ; and, if not proper, at least indirect, personifications. The first instance where I have observed this, is Ignatius's interpolated Letters; on which, however, being undoubtedly much corrupted, no reliance can be placed. We have no satisfactory proof that the Arian interpretation preceded Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140;* and the Athanasian was not * It may at first sight appear extraordinary to fix the date of Arianism before Arius. The fact, however, is, that the notions previously current since the time of Justin, took their denomination from Arius, not because they originated with him, but because he maintained them so strenuously, perhaps, indeed, with some modifications, against the encroachments of the Athanasian novelties. firmly established until about the middle of the fourth century. It was common to both to understand the term word as a personal denomination of Jesus Christ, and that he preexisted; but the two parties differed much in other respects. Justin Martyr held that Jesus Christ, as the logos of God— that is, as a subordinate divine person, (for he believed in two Gods, the one supreme, and the other subordinate,) existed before the creation of the world, being the voluntary production of the Father; but the Athanasians maintained that logos was a denomination of the Son, as the second person in the Godhead, equal in all respects to the Father. It is, then, a historical fact that Athanasianism was a noveltytook its rise-in the fourth century. And it is very apparent, that the change from Arianism to Trinitarianism was gradual; and that the former naturally led to the latter, by successfully setting the example-too closely followed-of mixing up Christianity with extraneous opinions, and accommodating it to the taste and prejudices of various converts from Heathenism; for which purpose, a most unwarrantable and arbitrary method of interpreting the Scriptures was common to both.* * We observed above that Arianism originated with Justin Martyr; at least it commenced about his time. That it was then, and for some time after, a novelty, is apparent, by internal evidence, from the extant works of Justin, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and from subsequent writers. The extraordinary efforts exhibited to prove, that the logos of God, in their sense of the expression, became a man, and their endless recurrence to this topic, are a decisive proof, if there were no other, which an attentive reader can scarcely resist, that their doctrine was new, and required extraordinary efforts and zeal to establish it. There is indeed the same kind of evidence of the novelty of Athanasianism in the fourth century. Even in the works of Basil, we find that the doctrine of the Trinity was not a generally settled point when he wrote. The exact date of the commencement of doctrines whose rise was gradual, cannot be exactly assigned. What much increases the difficulty, is, that the works of those who were |