That the gofpels, however, and efpecially that of John, are unfavourable to this principle of the Gnoftics, is very evident; and Chryfoftom reprefents it as "the "first and principal reason why Christ is "exhibited with all the weakneffes and "infirmities of human nature, to prove that he had real flesh, and that he meant that "all perfons who then lived, and all who "fhould come after him, fhould believe "that he was no apparition, or mere visible 66 appearance, but the truth of nature,” i. e. a real man *. Chrift being fo frequently called a man in the gospel history, is, on this account, very properly urged by the chriftian Fathers, as an argument against this doctrine of the Gnoftics. Thus, in anfwer to Valentinus, who held that Chrift had a kind of spiritual flesh, Tertullian obferves, that then he would not have been called a man, as he repeatedly is, or have been fo deno * Πρώτη μεν εν αιτια και μεγιση, το βαρκα αυλον περιβέβλησθαι, καὶ βέλεσθαι και τας τελε, και τις μελα ταύλα πιςωσασθαι πανίας, ότι 8 σκια τις εσιν, έδε σχημα απλώς το ορωμενον, αλλ' αληθεια φυσεως. Hom. 32. vol. I. p. 408. minated minated by himself; as when he faid, ye feek to kill me, a man, who has told you the truth * This argument of Tertullian makes equally against any doctrine that supposes Chrift to have been, in any respect, different from, or more than, another man, and therefore would have carried him farther than he intended. Bafil fays, "there 66 was no occafion for his being born of a virgin, if the flesh which was to con"tain God was not to be of the mafs of "Adam +." But the most serious objection to this part of the Gnoftic fyftem is, that if Christ had not proper flesh and blood, and therefore was not properly a man, he had not not the feelings of a man, and therefore he *Licuit et Valentino ex privilegio hæretico, carnem Chrifti fpiritalem comminifci. Quidvis eam fingere potuit, quifquis humanam credere noluit; quando (quod ad omnes dictum eft) fi humana non fuit, nec ex homine; non video ex qua fubftantia ipfe fe Chriftus hominem et filium hominis pronunciarit. Nunc autem vultis occidere hominem, veritatem ad vos loquutum. De Carne Chrifti fect. 14, Opera, p. 319. 7. Τις δε χρεια της αγιας παρθένε, ει μη εκ τε φυραμαίος τε Αδαμ εμελεν η θεοφορος σαρξ προσλαμβάνεσθαι. Εp. 65. Opera, vol. 3: p. 104. is no proper example to us, especially in his fufferings and death, with respect to which his example is more particularly proposed to us; and in time of perfecution this confideration was of the greatest confequence. As Origen fays, "if Chrift "fuffered nothing in his death, how can his "example be of any use to those who suffer "for righteousness fake, if he only seemed "to fuffer, but really felt nothing*. " Sometimes, therefore, the whole fcheme of christianity is fpoken of as defeated by this doctrine of the Gnoftics, fo that they are ranked with unbelievers, merely in confequence of not believing the reality of Christ's fufferings and death. Thus in the epiftles afcribed to Ignatius, he says, . If, as fome atheists, that is, unbelievers, fay, "he fuffered in appearance only, it being 66 only an appearance, why am I bound, "why do I glory in fighting with beasts? * Αλλα και ει, ως φησιν ο Κελσ@ μην αλγεινον τι μην αναιρον τω Ιησε καλα τον καιρον τελον εγιγνετο, πως αν οι μελα ταυλα παραδειγματι το υπομένειν τα δι ευσέβειαν επίπονα εδύναντο χρησασθαι Ιησε, μη παθόντι μεν τα ανθρωπινα, μονον δε δοξαλι πεπονθέναι, Ad Celf. lib. 2. P. 77. "I die in vain *." Alluding to the fame doctrine, he likewife fays, I endure all things, he who is a perfect man ftrength"ening me" meaning, probably, that he strengthened himself by the example of Christ. Accordingly, we find that, in general, the Gnoftics avoided perfecution. But before I confider their maxims and conduct in this refpect, I fhall cite what we find in the New Teftament against the opinion of Chrift's not having a real human body. In whatever light the apoftles faw this doctrine, it is evident, that they were much alarmed at it. This is particularly clear with respect to the apostle John; but Paul feems to allude to this tenet of the Gnoftics in 2 Cor. xi. 4. where he speaks of the false teachers as preaching another Jesus than him that he had preached. For in this sense the same phrase is used by some of the * Ει δε ωσπερ τινες αθεοι ούλες, τέλεσιν απισοι, λεγεσιν το δοκείν πεπονθέναι αύλον, αυλοι ογίες το δοκειν εγω τι δεδεμαι· τι δε ευχομαι θηριομαχησαι· δωρεαν ἐν αποθνησκω. Ad. Trall feet. 1o. p. 24. + Πανα υπομένω, αύτε με ενδυναμε, τα τέλεια ανθρωπος γενοMev. Ad. Smyrn. fect. 36. p. 36. early early christian writers, and indeed it does not appear that he could have any other meaning; as in no other fenfe did any perfons ever preach what could be called another Jefus. But a Jefus not confifting of flesh and blood, or a Jefus whose foul had been a superangelic fpirit, was indeed a very different Jefus from him that Paul had preached, viz. a man like himself, and only diftinguished by the peculiar prefence and power of God accompanying him. Also, what could Peter mean by faying that those who brought in damnable herefies, 2 Pet. ii. 1. denying the Lord that bought them, but the fame that Paul meant by preaching another Jefus, which implied a denial of the true Jefus? If these persons had been apoftates from christianity, they would not have been claffed with heretics, or have been mentioned as intermixed with chriftians. There can be no doubt, however, with respect to the meaning of the apostle John; as the bare recital of the paffages from his writings will evince. The doctrine of the Gnoftics concerning the perfon of Chrift was fo offenfive to him, and it was so much upon |