be

?

Though it were granted, that John alluded to the falle doctrines of the Gnoftics concerning their cons, and defigned to correct them, it would not follow that he meant to shew that the Logos, whom they reckoned among their aons, was an attribute. The vanity of this pretence appears from what has been formerly obferved. For the apoftle would never have said that the Logos was God, and then that he was with God. He must have known that the Gnoftics could not have wished a better prop for their fabric. For as they afferted that these aons were originally emanations from God, in this fense would they moft probably explain his language, when he declares that the Logos was God. But then," would they fay, "the E"vangelist still acknowledges the truth of our doctrine. "For he also fhews that the Logos exifted diftinctly, by

66

adding, The fame was in the beginning with God. And "he leaves his system in this state; which he would not "have done, had he meant to oppose ours, as far as it re"lates to the diftinct existence of the Logos." Indeed, thefe famous Gnoftics, the Valentinians, made the greatest ufe of this Gofpel, in proof of their doctrine *. According to our author's hypothefis with refpect to the defign of the Evangelift, it will also be fomewhat difficult for him to fhew, how "an attribute of the Father," in other words, the Father bimfelf, could be faid to be only-begotten, or to be begotten in any sense?

If John wished to fhew that the Word was merely an attribute, he must have meant that it was in God; and he must also have used a term that would clearly exprefs his idea. If he meant to fignify that there was no diftinction

* Hi autem qui a Valentino funt, eo, quod eft fecundum Johannem [Evangelio] pleniffime utentes, ad oftenfionem conjugationum fuarum, r. Iren. lib, iii, c. 11. f. 7.

tion of perfons in the divine effence, would not as, in, have been far more proper than προς, with?

Does not that repetition, The fame was in the beginning with God, take away all the fuppofed force of the preceding affertion, The Word was God?

If John meant to fhew that the Logos was not a perfon, was not his conduct very unaccountable, in retaining the perfonification, after changing the defignation of his fubject?

Did he not give the greatest countenance to the very error which, it is faid, he meant to oppofe, by not only perfonifying the Light, but by doing so, after he had spoken of it without any figure, in these words, The life was the light of men?

As it is granted that many, in that age, believed that Christ was the Word; as the terms Word and Light denote the same subject; as it cannot be supposed that, when this Gospel was written, any continued to reckon John the Light; if the Evangelift meant to fhew that Jefus was not the Word, but that this was fimply an attribute, would it not have been far more natural and proper, to have faid that Jefus Chrift was not that Light, than to fay that this character did not belong to John?

Had the Evangelift meant to fhew that the Word was merely an attribute, is it not natural to suppose that he would have told what particular attribute was intended by this metaphorical term?

Did he mean to fhew that this was power? How, then, instead of taking the least notice of this, does he particularly mention two other attributes?

According to the design afcribed to the Evangelift, was it not extremely odd, that he should retain the metaphorical name, and the figure of perfonification, in the most critical part of his narrative, faying; The Word was made flesh?

Would

Would it not have answered the pretended purpose far better to have faid, "The power of God refided in Jefus "Chrift?"

If it was the apoftle's defign to put thofe right who had fatally erred from mifunderstanding the language of allegory, would not such a simple declaration as the following have been more proper than all that he fays? "Jefus Chrift is not "that Word of God, by which all things were made. For "the Word is a divine perfection. But Jefus is a mere man, "who owes his being to this Word." Could the Evangelift be excufable, confidering the fuppofed circumftances, in facrificing perfpicuity to figure, or truth to elegance of diction?

If there be any fuch thing as inspiration, can it be fuppofed that the Holy Spirit would have fuffered the Evangelift to have erred fo far from his scope, or to have left men ftill in the dark about the very fubject of his discourse; nay, even while it was his defign to reclaim them from the supposed error, would have allowed him to go fuch lengths for confirming them in it?

But as the Evangelift all along speaks of the Word in language proper to a perfon, afcribes existence to it, prefence with another, creation, the refidence of life, communication of light; diftinguishes it from a human perfon mentioned; afcribes to it coming, property, rejection, reception, the grant of power. a name, incarnation, habitation among others, the glory of a perfon, and fullness of perfections; though there were no other test by which we could judge of the writer's defign, than this very introduction, would it not appear to ordinary reason, most natural to conclude, that, instead of writing to contradict and convince those who believed that the Word was a Perfon, he had written expressly to confirm their doctrine?

I fhall only add, that the teftimony of the ancients with respect to the defign of John, in writing his Gospel, is of VOL. I.

по

no inconfiderable weight. Irenæus declares, that "John "defigned by his Gospel to remove that error which was "fown among men by Cerinthus *." The truth of this Dr P. admits + But it is only that he may turn it his own way. The apostle wrote to contradict the Gnostic idea of the perfonality and pre-existence of the Logos. He wrote in fupport of the Unitarian doctrine. But Jerom declares that John had the Ebionites especially in his eye. "Laft "of all," he says, "at the request of the bishops of Afix, "he wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus and other heretics, "and especially against the doctrine of the Ebionites, then "beginning to appear, who say that Chrift did not exist be"fore Mary ." Is it objected that Jerom was too late? But the teftimony of Irenæus must be understood with the fame latitude. For, as he fays that John wrote his Gospel, that he might" confound and perfuade them (the heretics) "that one God made all things by his Word," if we receive his testimony, it must be understood according to his own ideas of the Word. Now, it cannot be refused that he uses this term as denoting a Perfon ||. If any doubt of this remain, let his own words be confulted, which at the fame time exprefs his conviction as to the apostle's defign in writing: "John declaring the one God Almighty, and "the one only-begotten Chrift Jefus, by whom all things "were made, afferts that this Perfon is the Son of God, "that this Perfon is the only-begotten, that this is the "Maker

* Lib. iii. c. II.

Hift. of Cor. vol. i. p. 12.

Noviffimus omnium fcripfit Evangelium, rogatus ab Afiæ epifcopis adverfus Cerinthum, aliosque hæreticos, et maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma confurgens, qui afferunt Chriftum ante Mariam non fuiffe. Unde et compulfus eft divinam ejus nativitatem edicere. Catalog. Script. Ecclef. in Joan.

| Iren. ibid.

66

"Maker of all things, that this is the true Light who lighteth every man, that this is the Maker of the world, that this "is he who came to his own, that this very Person was “made flesh, and dwelt among us *.

Now, though we were at a lofs as to John's defign, which is abundantly evident from his own language, it is hardly conceivable that Irenæus, the difciple of Polycarp, the dif ciple of John, could be so far a stranger to it, as to suppose it to be the very reverse of what it really was. And this must have been the cafe, if John wrote to fhew that the Word is merely an attribute.

CHA P. II.

Of the Defign of the First Epistle of John.

R PRIESTLEY afferts that John, in his first Epistle, cen

DR

fures thofe "who believed Christ to be man only in appearance; and that this was the only herefy that gave "him any alarm +." Our author elsewhere enters into a particular proof of this. "The doctrine of the Gnoftics," he fays, "concerning the Perfon of Chrift, was fo offenfive "to him, and it was fo much upon his mind, that he begins "his first Epistle feemingly in a very abrupt manner, with "the strongest allufions to it. That which was from the beginning ‡," &c. Thus he tries to wreft one of the

66

L 2

weapons

* Τα γαρ Ιωάννη ένα Θεον παντοκρατερα, και ενα μονογενη Χρισον Ιησούν κηρυσσοντος, δι' ε τα παντα γεγονέναι λέγει, τύτον υιον Θεό τέτον μονογενή, Τότον παντων ποιητην, τητων φως αληθινόν, φωτίζοντα παντα νθρωπον, Τόσον κόσμο ποιητην, τύτον εις τα ίδια εληλυθοτα, τύτον αυτόν σαρκα γεγονότα, και δικηνωκότα εν ημιν. Lib. 1. c. I. p, 38.

Hift. of Corrupt. vol. i. p. 1o.

Earl. Opin. vol. i. p. 190, 191.