SECT. II. INFORMATION FROM THE EPISTLES OF JOHN. I. Legislative authority of Christ. - II. Implications of preexistence. III. Intimation of unity with the Father.-Chap. v. 7, 8.-IV. Investigation of the sense of Chap. v. 20. In the preceding Section we commented on the commencing paragraph of the first epistle of John; and if we have not greatly failed in its interpretation, we found in it very plain recognitions of the preexistent state and the divine nature of the Messiah, coinciding in terms and meaning with the more ample declarations of the Introduction to the Gospel. There are also, in the Epistles of this Apostle, some incidental and allusive expressions, which, though they may not be independent evidences of a Divine Nature in the Person of the Messiah, appear to be most rationally and easily understood on the admission of that doctrine. I. Obedience to his commandments is spoken of in a way which seems more to flow from the idea of a reference to the One Supreme Lawgiver, than to that of a merely human messenger, however accredited and inspired. The reader is requested to connect the following passage with some observations made in a former part of this work.' By this we "know that we rightly regard him, if we keep his "commandments. He who saith I rightly regard him,' and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, "and the truth is not in him. But whosoever keepeth "his word, truly in him the love of God is accomplished. By this we know that we are in him. He who "saith that he abideth in him, ought himself also so to "act, even as he acted."? How solemn and weighty are these expressions; the very repetition of the highest language of demand and attribution of moral obedience, which we find given to Jehovah, in the Old Testament! And that they are used by the Apostle John in this strong and distinctive sense, may well be argued from his employing the same in a most marked connexion with the acknowledged Divine Name.* 3 II. Expressions occur which strongly imply that the Saviour's existence among men was an act of 2 Chap. ii. 3-6. The well known differences in the use of YvwσKELY warrant this varying the translation; which is indeed. absolutely necessary to express the sense. The meaning of TETEλɛiwTai is justly given by Diodati; it is when ("la gratia di Dio giugne al suo vero segno, e produce il suo sovrano effetto, quale puo essere in questo mondo,) the grace of God arrives at its proper point, and produces its own sovereign effect, so far as can be in the present world." Michaelis translates the clause: "He that observes his doctrines, is a grown person in the love of God;" and he adds the observation, "This is improperly translated perfect. It is an allusion to the appellation which was given to those who were pupils of the inner school, and initiated in the mysteries. (Anmerk. in loc.) The Grecian philosophers, especially the Pythagoræans, applied this name to those advanced pupils, to distinguish them from the general multitude of auditors, or the pupils who were on probation.” Anmerk. zu Matt. xix. 21.-To walk is the Hebrew phrase for performing the conduct and actions of life. 3 See the very numerous instances, in any concordance, under the phrase, keep the commandments. See chap. iii. 22; v. 2, 3. condescension from a previous state. Christ [as] having come [as] come in the flesh. "of God was manifested, that he might destroy the "works of the devil. In this was manifested the love "of God to us, that God sent his Only-begotten Son "into the world, that we may live through him: 5 he sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our "sins: the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour "of the world." Dr. Priestley, Mr. Lindsey, and Mr. Belsham understand the phrase to come in the flesh, as merely expressing "the real and proper humanity of Christ, in opposition to the doctrines of the Doceta-that Christ was a man in appearance only." On this we remark: (1.) That had the intention of the Apostle been what is here affirmed, the more proper expression would have been to be flesh, or to be in the flesh,' rather than to come, or to be manifested, in the flesh. (2.) That we have no evidence of the existence of the opinion referred to, till a period later than the life of the Apostle John. The earliest imputation of this notion is to Saturninus and Basilides, about the year 120 and Lardner does not place entire reliance on the testimonies of the fathers to this effect.8 5 Chap. iv. 2, "spirit," i. e. teacher professing the knowledge of spiritual things. 2 Ep. 7. Chap. iii. 8; iv. 9, 10, 14. 66 See Lardner's Hist. Her. pp. 69, 80, 81. 'Hujus erroris demonstrari non potest tantam esse antiquitatem, ut Joannis ætatem III. The ensuing declaration is very intelligible, on the admission that Christ and the Father are ONE, in nature, perfections, and honour: but I do not see how its assertion can be sustained, in any fair and rational way, upon the opposite hypothesis. Supposing the confession of the Son to signify only the receiving of him as a divine messenger, it appears far from impossible that a virtuous Jew might be a true worshipper of God, and yet have no faith in the claims of the Nazarene prophet. "Who is a liar, if "he be not who denieth that Jesus is the Messiah? "This is the antichrist, he that denieth both the "Father and the Son. Every one who denieth the Son, hath not the Father. He who confesseth the "Son, hath also the Father."" 66 If the evidence allowed us to regard the celebrated text concerning the "three that bear witness in heaven," as genuine, I should not be able to adduce any thing from it, with absolute satisfaction, but a unity of testimony. It is not, therefore, necessary to enlarge upon it.10 attingat: neque ullum est in commentariis de vitâ Jesu, ceterisque in libris Novi Testamenti, vestigium ex quo appareat, jam tum extitisse qui dubitarent Jesum in cruce mortem vère oppetiise.”—“ It cannot be shown that this error was as old as the age of John: nor is there in the memoirs of the Life of Jesus, or in the other books of the New Testament, any trace of the existence of persons who doubted whether Jesus actually died upon the cross." Knappii Scripta Varii Argumenti, tom. i. p. 182. 10 I beg to refer the reader, if he has not already satisfied himself upon this question, to Mr. Porson's Letters to Archdeacon Travis, 1790, and to Bishop Marsh's Letters to the same person, 1795: works which, independently of the particular argument, are eminently worthy of being read, for the other information which they IV. There is another passage in the first Epistle, the interpretation of which is attended with considerable difficulty. "We know that the Son of God is contain, for their brilliancy of talent, and for their being specimens of the most masterly processes in criticism. To which the studious inquirer should by all means add the Vindication of Porson, by Dr. Turton, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, 1827: and now Dean of Peterborough. A comprehensive view of the evidence may be seen in the Eclectic Review, for Jan. and Feb. 1810; in the Rev. T. H. Horne's very valuable Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. iv. pp. 448-471; and in a series of able Disquisitions (by the late Rev. William Orme), in the Congregational Magazine for 1829, which give a critical history of the whole controversy. Some have lately attempted to revive an argument to this purport; that the masculine gender in the genuine context (rpɛīs ɛiow οἱ μαρτυροῦντες—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν·) is irreconcileable with the belief that the nouns referred to were all neuters; that consequently the two masculine nouns in the rejected portion of the paragraph are necessary to the construction: and that, this being admitted, the whole of that portion must come in likewise. But this. argument proceeds upon overlooking the fact, that the neuter nouns are, by the composition of the sentence, personified: so that a word understood, μáprupes, is strictly that with which the others agree. Bishop Middleton, with distinguished judgment and candour, largely discusses a difficulty, which accrues upon the rejection of the passage, from the insertion of rò before ev in ver. 8, and which, if the reading be authentic, appears to him to be insuperable. It is but just to this long-agitated controversy, to cite the concluding paragraph of his note. "I am not ignorant that, in the rejection of the controverted passage, learned and good men are now, for the most part, agreed; and I contemplate, with admiration and delight, the gigantic exertions of intellect which have established this acquiescence. The objection, however, which has given rise to this discussion, I could not, consistently with my plan, suppress. On the whole, I am led to suspect that, though so much labour and critical acuteness have been bestowed on these celebrated verses, more is yet to be done before the mystery, in which they are involved, can be wholly developed." On the Greek Article, p. 653. That some learned writers have of late professed themselves |