been really a man, but one in appearance only. You cannot but perceive how offensive such a doctrine must be to the venerable apostle, who,

given in English: that these men did not confess, or denied, that Jesus, who came in flesh, was the Christ. For this see a letter of Limborch to Mr. Locke, where he points out the mistake of a French translation of 2 John 7, the same as in our own, and that it ought not to be as in our present translation, Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh-but who confess not that Jesus who came in flesh is the Christ: and he observes, that in like manner, the rendering of 1 John iv. 2, 3, should be altered. Locke's Works, Vol. IV. p. 425, Bishop of Carlisle's edition.

There is a difficulty in coming at the exact meaning of these first innovators and corrupters of the true doctrine of the Scriptures concerning Christ. We find that they separated the Christ from Jesus, because they would not have it supposed that the Christ was a man, which Jesus confessedly was. They seem to have thought that the Christ was an enianation of the Deity, the first-begotten of the Father, who descended upon Jesus at his baptism, when he wrought miracles, and declared the will of the unknown Father; and which afterwards continued to be united in Jesus, but no farther than was necessary for the discharge of his great office; and that when his ministry was finished, the Christ being spiritual, and incapable of suffering, left him, and Jesus was taken, and put to death on the cross, and raised again to life. See Beausobre's Hist. de Manich. p. 28, and his notes on the epistle of St. John; and Lardner's Hist. of Heretics, in Basilides, Cerinthus, and Marcion; a curious, valuable work, unique in our language,

in perfect agreement with the other apostles and evangelists, constantly speaks of Christ as a man, liable to sufferings and death, as others were; and describes the ill treatment and opposition he met with in the cause of divine truth, especially the distress and pain he underwent, before, and at the time of his death, as most grievous to him, and appointed by God, as for other ends, so particularly for the trial of his obedience: and his patience, fortitude, and resignation under them, are mentioned as the things for which he was worthily exalted to honour by the Supreme Father, and are continually held forth as an example and encouragement to his followers under their trials. As these great ends of the gospel were wholly defeated by the groundless conceit of these men concerning Christ, we cannot wonder to see the disciple, whom Jesus shewed an especial affection for, and who could not but be well acquainted with him, in his letter upon this subject, striking abruptly, all at

*

*« That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life. For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you, that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen and heard," &c. 1 John i. 1-3.

once as it were into it, in the very beginning; and maintaining by a variety of strong expression and argument, that he had the most absolute, undeniable evidence and conviction, that his divine Master, the great Teacher of eternal life from God, was really a man. He afterwards takes up the subject again and again, in the course of this his first epistle, and also in the second; and through the whole shews himself exceedingly hurt and disturbed, that he should live to see any so obstinate and shameless as to call it in question.

Eusebes. I should be glad to be informed, Artemon, if there be any collateral testimony of ancient authors, to corroborate this account which you give of St. John's design in writing. these epistles; and which shews that these first Christians are justly chargeable with so gross an error concerning Christ, as you here impute to them?

Artemon. There is scarcely any point in so remote antiquity of which we are better assured. Ignatius, Irenæus, Jerome, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Augustin, speak of it very particularly, and condemn it. And the learned moderns, who have been most conversant in these matters, take notice of it; Petavius, Cotelerius, Le Clerc, Tillotson, Beausobre, Lardner. Indeed it cannot be justly doubted, or denied. And whatever other antichrist there may be in the world, the

F

chief antichristian error of those early times, and that which is stigmatized as such by our apostle, was, the denying Christ to have been really a man, subject to infirmities, suffering and death.

Eusebes. What, I pray, was the farther progress of this corruption of the true doctrine concerning Christ?

Artemon. Such an immediate, open and direct confutation and condemnation of it, by an apostle of Christ, seems to have given such a check to it, that it died away of itself in the course of a few years; and we hear no more of any that were so absurd as to maintain it. But the seeds of it, alas! still remained, and produced the most lasting and fatal corruption of the true doctrine of the Scriptures concerning Christ, which con tinues wide spread to this day. For these learned heathen converts to Christianity, were still ashamed of the cross of Christ; and not content with such a Saviour as the Scriptures held forth to them. And therefore, as it was the doctrine of their schools, before they embraced the gospel, that there was one Supreme God over all, and a†

* Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not, that Jesus, who came in flesh, is the Christ. is a deceiver, and an antichrist." 2 John 7.

This

Justin Martyr, in his Second Apology, (Paris ed. 1615, pp. 92, 95,) asserts that "Moses, and Plato, and the Chris

second God, an inferior spirit, made by him, and his under-agent, in creating the world; they took it for granted, from some expressions of the gospel ill understood, particularly in the entrance of St. John's gospel, that Christ was the second God of their philosophy, who took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and became a man. And from this they went on to assert, that it was he that made the world, who appeared to the patriarchs,

tians, were all agreed about the creation of the world by the word of God." And in the same place he remarks, that "Plato received from Moses what he utters in his Timæus, nonoorning the Son of God, or the power next to the chief God," as he there terms it. A II པ་ལ་་

work, he had said, p. 74, "The first power, next after God the Father, and sovereign Lord of all, is the word and Son; but in what manner, being made flesh, he became a man, I shall shew hereafter." How much better would it have been if this worthy man had abstained from blending Plato's philosophy with the gospel; and instead of maintaining that a mighty pre-existent Spirit, next to God, and the subordinate creator of all things, was born of the Virgin Mary, in the state of an helpless infant; had contented himself with what was the obvious meaning of the Scriptures on this head, viz. that by the Holy Spirit, or miraculous power of God, Christ was produced and born of Mary, a virgin, out of the ordinary course of generation, as Adam was first created by the same power!

*This most strange doctrine of Christ being the agent Deity of the Old World, is considered at large in ch, vi. of