From the above comparison of the first epistle of John with his gospel, there appears such an exact agreement of sentiment in the two writings, that no reader who is capable of discerning what is peculiar in an author's turn of thinking, can entertain the least doubt of their being the productions of one and the same writer. Farther, since John hath not mentioned his own

name in his gospel, the want of his name in the epistle, is no proof that it was not written by him; but rather a presumption that it is his, especially as he hath sufficiently discovered himself to be an apostle, by affirming in the beginning of the epistle, that he was an eye and ear witness, of the things which he hath written concerning the living Word.

2. The style of this epistle, being the same with the style of the gospel of John, it is, by that internal mark, likewise shewed to be his writing.-In his gospel John doth not content himself with simply affirming or denying a thing, but to strengthen his affirmation he denieth its contrary. In like manner to strengthen his denial of a thing, he affirms its contrary. See John i. 20. iii. 36. v. 24. vi. 22. The same manner of expressing things strongly, is found in the epistle. For example, chap. ii. 4. who saith I have known him, and doth not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.-Ver. 27. The same unction teacheth you concerning all things, and is truth, and is no lie.Chap. iv. 2. Every spirit, which confesseth Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is from God. 3. And every spirit, which doth not confess Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is not from God.

In his gospel likewise, John, to express things emphatically, frequently uses the demonstrative pronoun, This.-Chap. i. 19. Avrn, This is the testimony.iii. 19. Avτn, This is the condemnation, that light, &c.-vi. 29. T&To, This is the work of God.-ver. 40. T&T, This is the will of him.-ver. 50. 'Ovros, This ist he bread which came down from heaven.—xvii. 3. Avrn, This is the life eternal. In the epistle, the same emphatical manner of expression is found, chap. i. 5. ii. 25.—This is the promise.—iii. 23. Avrn, This is his commandment.-v. 3. Avrn, This is the love of God. ver. 4. This is the victory.-ver. 6. 'Ovros, This is he who came by water.—ver. 14. This is the boldness which we have with him.

Such is the internal evidence, on which all Christians, from the beginning, have received the first epistle of John, as really written by him, and of diving authority, although his name is not mentioned in the inscription, nor in any part of the epistle.

SECTION III.

Of the State of the Christian Church, at the Time John wrote his First Epistle; and of his Design in writing it.

The apostle John, having lived to see great corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, introduced into the church, by many who professed themselves the disciples of Christ, employed the last years of his life in opposing these corruptions. For he wrote his three epistles, to establish the truths concerning the person and offices of Christ, and to condemn the errors then prevailing contrary to these truths. Also to repress the lewd practices, for the sake of which these errors were embraced.— Besides, he considered that his testimony to the truths concerning the person and offices of Christ, together with his direct condemnation of the opposite errors, published to the world in his inspired writings, would be of singular use in preserving the faithful from being seduced by the false teachers and other corrupters of Christianity, who in future ages might arise and trouble the church. See the preface to James, Sect. 4.

The heretical teachers who infested the church in the first age, finding Messiah called in the Jewish scriptures, God, and the Son of God, thought it impossible that he could be made. flesh. In this sentiment, these teachers followed the Jewish chief priests, elders, and scribes, who being assembled in full council, unanimously condemned Jesus as a blasphemer, because being a man, he called himself Christ the Son of the blessed God. See 1 John v. 5. note. Upon this decision, one class of the ancient false teachers founded their error concerning the person of Christ. For, while they acknowledged his divinity, they denied his humanity; that is, the reality of his appearing in the flesh, (See 1 John iv. 2, 3. v. 1.) and contended, that his body was only a body in appearance; that he neither suffered nor died; and that he did none of the things related of him in the gospel. He seemed indeed to do these things, which, in their opinion, was a sufficient foundation for the evangelists to relate them as done by him. But their reality as matters of fact, they absolutely denied. More particularly, having affirmed that he died only in appearance, they denied his having made a propitiation for the sins of the world by his death, chap. ii. 2. They likewise' denied, that he arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. In short, according to them, the things ascribed to Jesus in the

gospels, were altogether imaginary. This was the opinion of Basilides, and of all the heretics in the first age to whom the fathers have given the name of Doceta, or Phantasiasta ; but who by the apostle John are more emphatically called, antichrists, chap. iv. 3. because they were opposers of Christ as come in the flesh. By pretending that Christ suffered death only in appearance, the Docetæ endeavoured to avoid the ignominy of the crucifixion of their Master, and to free themselves from that obligation to suffer for their religion, which was laid on them both by Christ's precept and example.

On the other hand, the Cerinthians and Ebionites adopted a doctrine concerning the Christ, which, though contrary to that just now described, was equally erroneous. They acknowledged the reality of the things written in the gospels concerning Jesus. But like many in modern times, who admit nothing as true which they are not able to comprehend, they denied that Jesus was the Christ or Son of God, chap. ii. 22. because they could not reconcile the things which happened to him, with their idea of the Son of God. This class of heretics were said by the fathers Avery Toy Intay, to dissolve Jesus. See chap. iv. 3. note 1. end. For they affirmed, that Christ entered into Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove, but flew away from him before his passion.-B. Horsley, in let. xiv. to Dr. Priestley, saith, "The Cerinthians held, that Christ being restored to Jesus after "his resurrection, it rendered the man Jesus an object of divine "honours." They believed it seems that Jesus was originally and essentially a man; and that whatever divinity he possessed was adventitious, consequently was separable from him.

The former sort of false teachers having denied the humanity, and the latter the divinity of our Lord, the apostle John to confirm all the disciples in the belief of the truth concerning the person and offices of Christ, wrote this his first epistle, in which he expressly asserted that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, chap. i. 3. 7. iv. 15. and that he came in the flesh. See chap. iv. 2. note.

Here let it be observed, that the opinions of the Docetæ, on the one hand, and of the Cerinthians on the other, concerning the person and offices of Christ, make it probable that the apostles taught, and that the first Christians believed Christ to be both God and man. For if the Docetæ had not been taught the divinity of Christ, they had no temptation to deny his humanity.

And if the Cerinthians had not been taught the humanity of Christ, they would have been under no necessity of denying his divinity. But fancying it impossible that both parts of the apostle's doctrine concerning the Christ could be true, the one class of heretics to maintain his divinity, thought themselves obliged to deny his humanity, and the other to maintain his humanity, supposed it necessary to deny his divinity. To this argument by which it is rendered probable that the apostles taught, and the first Christians believed Jesus Christ to be both God and man, the Socinians perhaps will reply, that the members of the church of Jerusalem being called Ebionites by the ancients, is a proof, not only that the church of Jerusalem held the opinion of Ebion concerning the mere humanity of Christ, but that the apostles who planted and instructed that church held the same opinion; because it is natural to suppose that the faith of the teachers and of the disciples on this article was the same, consequently that the apostles themselves were Unitarians. Nevertheless, from the account which Origen hath given of the brethren of the church of Jerusalem, who he tells us were called Ebionites by the ancients, it appears that this name, as applied to the Hebrew Christians, by no means leads to these conclusions. For in his second book against Celsus, sect. 1. in answer to the Jew, who alleged that the Jewish Christians, being deceived by Christ, had forsaken the laws and institutions of their fathers, and gone over to a different name and manner of living, Origen affirmed, "That they had not forsaken the law "of their fathers, but lived according to it, being named from "the poorness of the law; (he means, named Ebionites) for a poor person is called by the Jews, Ebion. Hence, those of "the Jews who received Jesus, are called Ebionites." The Jewish believers therefore, according to Origen, were called Ebionites, not because they held the opinion of Ebion concerning the mere humanity of Christ, but because they adhered to the law of Moses, and expected only the poor temporal rewards which were promised in that law. Whereas the proper Ebionites were those who had a low opinion of the person of Christ. So Eusebius informs us, E.H. lib. 3. c. 27. "The ancients called them "Ebionites, who entertained a poor and low notion of Christ; "for they thought him only, atov xa xevov, a simple and common ❝ man."—Farther, admitting that the argument taken from the appellation of Ebionites, which was given by the ancients to the