Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

he acknowledged the patriarchs, and some of the earlier prophets: but not the later ones, nor the whole of the Pentateuch 82. Like Cerinthus, he is said to have believed in a millenniumy; and his moral practice has been stated to have been equally licentious but if it be true, that he abstained from eating animal food, it might be thought that the accounts of his sensuality are exaggerated or misrepresented". With respect to the difference of opinion between Cerinthus and Ebion, we are not bound to suppose it to have been great, though they are named as leaders of two distinct sects. They both differed from the rest of the Gnostics in not believing Jesus to be a phantom: and it is certain that the Ebionites were divided among themselves in their notion concerning Jesus. Some of them believed with Cerinthus that he was a mere man, born of human parents: while others, though they do not appear to have believed his preexistence, taught that he was conceived miraculously of the Virgin Mary. It is not unlikely that Ebion himself maintained this latter doctrine, and this may account for his

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

holding so conspicuous a place in the list of heretics. It has been observed, that he ascribed the creation of the world to God, while Cerinthus supposed it to be the work of Angels: but we know too little of Ebion's philosophy to put this distinction in a strong light and I should rather make the difference between them to have consisted in their notion concerning Jesus. It seems probable that the first Ebionites believed in the miraculous conception, though not in the full sense which was attached to those words by the orthodox Christians. The Cerinthians believed Jesus to be born in the ordinary way and I should suspect that in course of time many of the Ebionites came over to that opinion, so as to leave little or no difference between them; but some still adhered to the original notion that Jesus was born of a Virgin, though they denied that he was the Son of God 84.

In speaking of the doctrines of these heretics, we must be careful always to observe their distinction between Jesus and Christ. Concerning the person of Jesus they differed, but concerning the descent of Christ upon Jesus at his baptism they were perfectly agreed. They therefore made Jesus and Christ two distinct persons; and they would neither have said that Christ was born, nor that Jesus was the Son of God. Unless we bear this in mind, we shall not see the full force of some of the expressions in St. John's First Epistle. There he says, Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (ii. 22.) And again, Whosoever shall confess that JESUS is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (iv. 15.) I have already observed,

that there is much in this Epistle which refers to the Docetæ but the two passages which I have just quoted may perhaps be considered as directed rather against Cerinthus or Ebion. Whatever St. John might say against the notion of Christ descending upon Jesus at his baptism, would apply to these two heretics as well as to the Docetæ: for in that point they were all agreed: and the words which I have chosen for my text contain, as I imagine, a direct allusion to that doctrine.

The passage in the fifth chapter, concerning the water and the blood, is justly held to be obscure: and I am aware of the mystical allusions which have been traced between the water and blood in this place, and the same substances flowing from our Saviour's side, and the two sacraments of the Christian Church. The Fathers were fond of such allusions as these. But I say it with deference, that such exercises of the imagination are more suited to the infancy of biblical criticism than to the more profound and rational speculations of the present day. Without examining any of these interpretations, I shall proceed to consider whether we cannot refer the whole passage much more satisfactorily to the Gnostic notion concerning Christ.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The fifth chapter begins with these words, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. It will perhaps be allowed, that to be born of God means to be a Christian, to have that faith which Christ requires when he admits a person into his covenant. St. John therefore here says, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has the true faith of a Christian; from which it follows, that whosoever does not believe that Jesus is the Christ, has not the true faith of a Christian. Now this was precisely the point which all the Gnostics, whether Cerinthians or Docetæ, refused to believe. They would not say that Jesus is the Christ, at least they would not say that he was the Christ at his birth, or before his baptism. They held that Jesus was one person, and Christ another. The two were united for a time, when Christ had descended upon Jesus at his baptism: but they had existed separately before his baptism, and they were again separated before his crucifixion. It was with good reason therefore that St. John made this point the test of a Christian's belief: it was necessary for him to say explicitly that Jesus is the Christ: and St. John is only proposing a similar test, when he says in the fifth verse, Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of

d I cannot imagine what Mosheim could mean by asserting that " no Gnostics de"nied Jesus to be the Christ." (Instit. Maj. p. 314.) He supposes St. John to have alluded to two different descriptions of heretics, those who denied Jesus to be the Christ, (ii. 22.) and those who denied that Je

sus came in the flesh. (iv. 3.) He conceived the first to be Jews, who denied our Saviour's divine nature; and the second to be Gnostics. But no Gnostic, whether a Docetist or no, believed Jesus to be the Christ before his baptism; and therefore I consider both expressions to refer to the Gnostics.

I butir verse he had explained what

vercoming the wurid. This is the vicT. Muc wercometh the world, even our Teercome the world and to be born I 20 VS. Jom i he same thing, for tette euch IC is sy for a Christian ie aus stereo than the true Chriseleve at Jesus & fu Christ, and that

.

So The Grustic would have trist was me Jesus at his baptism, e round are attaching his own meaning GPS tass was the Son of God: but Lunette des pertet and evasive confeswurde rue is to say unetasus a te rist and that Jesus fe ten contemnes, This is he

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

sou, en Jesus Christ: "enter and blood: and it es, because the Spirit

had heard in the

his time they had

Js, that when Jesus rose

v. Sunt scended upon him like

VALE WAS Teat. winch said. This is "his was the foundation upon

de muss nuit their doctrine concerning Christ They had that the Sut, which descended a dove, was Neue 1000 the water

the Ens called Christ: that cher a delusive phanor a mere human being fun that when he came

the water. Christ was residing in him. St. denies this in the verse which I have read :

e, he says fut came by water and blood, Christ: t Jesus only, nor Christ only,

[graphic]
« AnteriorContinuar »