"And, by this Apostle, Rev. chap. xvii. in characters no "lesse evident. Though I cannot find, that in Scripture, he "is, any where, expressly called, by the name of Antichrist, " and in this place, (chap. ii. 22.) St. John does not seem "to have been prophesying of that corrupt Church; but "describing the false Teachers, who were then sprung up, " in the Church." See Benson on 1 John, ii. 22. Dr. Macknight's Note on 1 John ii. 18. is as follows"The word Antichrist is no where found but in John's "First and Second Epistles. It may have two meanings. "For, if the preposition in (the word) Antichrist, denotes, "in place of, the name will signify one who puts himself "in the place of Christ; consequently Antichrist is a false Christ. But if the preposition denotes opposition, Anti-, christ is one who opposeth Christ.-The persons to whom "this Epistle was written, had heard of the coming of Antichrist, in both senses of the name. For the first sort of "Antichrists were foretold by our Lord, Matt. xxiv. 5.. Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many. The second sort were foretold Matt.' 66 ❝ xxiv. 11. Many false Prophets will arise, and deceive * many. From what John hath written, ver. 22. of this "chapter, and chap. iv. 3. and 2d Epist. ver. 7. I am in"clined to think that by Antichrist, he means those false 66 Prophets, or Teachers, who were foretold by our Lord to "arise about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and "who were now gone abroad; some of these denied the hu"manity of Jesus Christ, others of them denied his divinity; and as both sorts opposed Christ, by denying the redemp❝tion of the world through his death, I suppose it is of "them chiefly that John speaks in his Episles.--When the "Apostle mentions these false Teachers collectively, he calls "them the Antichrist in the singular number, as St. Paul "called the false Teachers collectively, of whom he prophe"sied, 2 Thess. ii. 3. The Man of Sin. But when John "speaks of these Teachers as individuals, he calls them many "Antichrists, in the plural number." Let it not here be supposed, that it is meant to deny that the Church of Rome has discovered an Antichristian Spirit The judicious Reader will observe that both sorts haye, a direct and exclusive relation to the destruction of Jerusalem. much much less to assert, that the corruptions of that church are no where predicted in the New Testament. The only thing here contended for is, that the Apostle used the word Antichrist of those exclusively who had been predicted, as appearing prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Bishop Hurd, by introducing a typical meaning of the word Antichrist has deviated entirely from the meaning of the Apostle. * Bishop Hurd has borne very hard upon the reputation of Grotius, for having endeavoured to prove that the Pope was not Antichrist. "The "character of Hugo Grotius," says the Bishop, "is well known. He is "justly esteemed among the ablest and most learned men of an age that "abounded in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his "acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of Scripture, "profound And yet, with two such requisites for unlocking the true "sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook to prove "in form, that the Pope was not Antichrist. "The account of this mischance is as extraordinary, as the mischance "itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable, than "his intellectual: and in these qualities, we shall find the true spring of his "unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us. "He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme "degree; and the experience of an active turbulent life, had but fortified "him the more in a love of these pacific virtues. He was, on principle, 66 a sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently, impressed with a due "sense of that exalted charity, which is the characteristic of that religion : "but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs, which proceed from theological quarrels: and thus every thing concurred to make him a friend "to peace, and, above all, to peace among Christians. "An union of the Catholic and Protestant churches seemed necessary to "this end; and the apparent candour, whether real or affected, of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the church of Rome, "drew him into the belief, that such a project was not impracticable. "Henceforth, it became the ruling object of his life; and permitting him "self too easily to conclude, that the Protestant doctrine of Antichrist was "the sole, or principal obstruction to the union desired, he bent all the "efforts of his wit and learning to discredit and overthrow that doctrine. "Thus was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral Poet can "be so justly applied to any other-- "Insani sapiens nomen ferat, æquus iniqui, Hor. 1. Ep. vi. 15. See Bishop Hurd on the Prophecies, Vol. II. pages 61---64. 5th Edition. This is a most curious account of the origin of Grotius's attempt to prove that the Pope was not Antichrist; upon which it is only necessary to make one single remark, viz. that Bishop Hurd would deservedly think himself very ill treated, if his endeavours to prove that the Pope was Antichrist, were to be ascribed to any other motive, than to a conviction of the truth of that doctrine! Besides Besides the evidence which has already been adduced, that the Apostles language, when speaking of the Antichrists, in chap. ii. 18. had a reference to the great controversy between the Jews and our Lord, concerning the character of the Mes siah-may be added, what he has said in the subsequent part of the chapter. Thus, ver. 22, he says-Who is a liar if not he who denieth that Jesus is THE CHRIST or the Messiah. He is ANTICHRIST who denieth the Father and the Son. And this the Apostle explains in the following verse-Whosoever denieth the Son-the same hath not the Father. And, in the 26th verse, he expressly declares, what was the prin cipal cause of his writing to them upon this subject. These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you i. e. who endeavour to persuade you that Jesus is not the Messiah, and that he is yet to come. In the ivth chapter, the Apostle returns ágain to the same subject, and expresseth himself, in such a particular and unequivocal manner, as to render it impossible for any one who attends to the Gospel, as an history of the great controversy concerning the true nature of the Messiah's character, to misunderstand him. V. 1. Beloved, believe not every Spirit -but try the Spirits whether they are of God. And the reason which he gives for this trial of the Spirits is, that many FALSE PROPHETS were gone out into the world, as he had before asserted in ch. ii. 18. But how was this trial to be made? Why, says the Apostle, v. 2. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God -or rather, as the argument seems to require, the Spirit which is of God. Every Spirit-or every person, who confesseth that Jesus Christ-or the Messiah, is come in the flesh, is of God. And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ—or the Messiah, is come in the flesh is not of God. This the judi cious Reader will observe, is equivalent to what the Apostle had said, chap. ii. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. The Apostle then adds, in the closest connection with these declarations-that they had a rule by which they were to be guided, in the trial of the Spirits. V. 3. And this is that Spirit of ANTICHRIST, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world, agreeable to his former declaration, chap. ii. 18. that they had heard that ANTICHRIST should come, and that even now there were many ANTICHRISTS, whereby they knew that it was the last time. Is it possible not to perceive that the the whole of this language has an immediate and direct reference to the controversy concerning the nature of the Mes siah's character, and particularly to our Lord's prediction of the coming of false Christs and false Prophets, who would, if possible, deceive the very Elect, and induce them to follow those who should assume his character! In addition to this argument, the Apostle adds another, which has so evident an allusion to the controversy concerning the nature of the Messiah's character, that it is, if attentively considered, scarcely to be resisted. V. 4, 5. Ye are of God little children and have overcome them, viz. the false Prophets you have seen through and got the better of their artifices because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. They are of the world and the world heareth them. The Messiah which they looked for, was a temporal Prince, who was to raise them to a distinguished pre-eminence in the world, and they who spoke of the world, were listened to with extreme avidity. They savored not, as our Lord had formerly told his Disciples, THE THINGS OF GOD but THE THINGS OF MEN. It should seem, likewise, that St. John had a particular reference to the prevalence of this worldly disposition, when he says, chap. ii. 15. Love not THE WORLD, neither the things of THE WORLD. If any man love THE WORLD, the love of the Father is not in him; for all that is in THE WORLD the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of THE WORLD. And THE WORLD passeth away, and the lust thereof-but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. It seems the more probable, that the Apostle had this worldly disposition particularly in view, as it respected the nature of the coming of the Messiah, as it is in this connection that he speaks of its being the last time, and that there were MANY ANTICHRISTS, whereby they knew that it was THE LAST TIME. Dr. Lardner has indeed said, that "the phrase the world "passeth away and the lust thereof, are only general expres "sions, representing the uncertainty of all earthly things, and "therefore afford no any argument that the Apostle had "therein a regard to affairs in Judea. For if he had, his expressions would have been more distinct and particular.” See Lardner's History of the Apostles, Vol. III. pages 270, 271. But this does not appear to be said with his usual judgment; judgment; for it was surely not necessary to be more particular than to connect this language with the coming of false Christs and false Prophets, It is however still more remarkable, that in his observations concerning the time when St. John wrote this Epistle, he appears not to have taken the smallest notice of his language with respect to the coming of Antichrist, having a reference to that of our Lord, though St. John has again and again particularly spoken of them, With respect to the second Epistle; it seems only necessary to observe that the Apostle, by making use of the same language which he had adopted, in his former Epistle, evidently refers to that of our Lord, in the xxivth of Matthew and the parallel chapters, and that, in fact, by this reference; it is not only in the most pointed and decided manner, ascertained that they were both written BEFORE the destruction of Ferusalem but that by the term Antichrist, he only meant to describe the false Christs and false Prophets, who, according to our Saviour's prediction, were to precede that event. Many other very important and interesting observations might be made, upon these Epistles, and particularly upon the former-but as they would have no particular relation to the great design of this work, they must be omitted; observing only, that in the beginning of his first Epistle, he tells those to whom he wrote, that the subject matter of his letter, had a relation to what they were personal witnesses of to what they had seen and heard, i. e. to what they had been eye and ear witnesses of. Chap. i. 1, 2, 3. 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, I say, which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us :. And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you that your joy-arising from the evidence of the facts of which we have been the eye and ear witnesses, and particularly of that im portant fact, that Jesus the Messiah is come in the fleshmay be full! If from the two Epistles of St. John, the Reader will turn his attention to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he will find the Hh 2 Writer |