صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

on what is it founded? The gentleman goes on to tell; namely, that by the words, "the Spirit of God is degraded to the rank of an earthly witness, in contradistinction from heavenly witnesses, and placed on a level with water and blood." He adds, "the force of the contrast, introduced by the words "in heaven and on earth," necessarily impels to the conclusion, that there are two sorts of witnesses; the one celestial, and the other terrestrial. The abomination is therefore obvious. The Spirit of God is degraded to an earthly character, and made to be of earthly origin." This passage, he says, "bears the mark of the beast on its very forehead-changing the glory of the incorruptible Spirit to that of a witness belonging to this world."

Surely this is high sounding language! But what is there in all this, so degrading to the divine Spirit? My opponent says, that he is made to be an "earthly witness." The writer of the text, however, conveys no such idea. There is an obvious difference between bearing witness" on earth, and being of an earthly origin and character. This sense is forced upon the text by the objector; for, it is not its natural and obvious import. The writer, does not say that there are three earthly witnesses; but, that there are three that bear witness in or on earth. "The water and blood," are divine ordinances; and, therefore, it is no dishonor to the Spirit to accompany his own institutions with the evidence of his special and saving operations. This is infinitely far from being "on a level" with these things. The statement of the writer, instead of being "an absurdity, a contradiction, and an abomination," is a lucid exhibition of the only way of eternal life.

The judgment of Dr. Doddridge, is widely different from the opinion of my opponent in relation to this text; and, he is considered by Anti-Trinitarians themselves pre

eminent in candor, piety and learning. He says, "I am persuaded the words contain an important truth." See his " Family Expositor," vol. 6. page 311. It is really surprising, that so great and good a man as Dr. Doddridge, should speak so favorably of the meaning of the text, if the gentleman in opposition to me can with propriety appeal so solemnly "to every man's conscience and common sense," concerning its "absurdity, contradiction, and abomination." Can it be supposed, that Dr. Doddridge was destitute of conscience, and void of common sense? If this is true, it is time for our opponents to take back many things which they have said in honor of his memory. But, in the view of what has been said, I think, the three prominent marks of forgery, which have been mentioned by my opponent, disappear. The ground of my opinion in this respect, must, however, abide your judgment; for which you are not responsible to me but to God.

But the gentleman in opposition, proceeds to another internal mark of the spuriousness of the text in question, which is, its ungrammatical construction. He says, "the Greek word Ev translated one, "is neuter gender, and cannot be applied to the word eos or God, which is always of the masculine gender." But allowing this to be correct, the conclusion which he draws from it, that it proves the passage to be a forgery, may, I think, be consistently denied. It may be thought to affect the received meaning of the text; but it can have no bearing against its authenticity; for, he himself acknowledges that, in respect to harmony of design and action, it is grammatically accurate. He gives us an instance of this, from 1 Cor. 3. 8. "He that planteth and he that watereth are one." To argue the forgery of the text from this consideration is, therefore, inadmissible.

The weight of the gentleman's argument appears to be

this: The neuter gender cannot be applied to persons, for that would be such a confounding of genders, as to form a barbarism in language. The pronoun it is in the neuter gender, and yet it is frequently applied to persons, by writers of classical eminence; as, for instance, "it was I, it was he, or it was they." Both the neuter and the masculine genders are applied to the Spirit, where the word evidently signifies God. See Rom. 8. 16. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." John 16. 13. "When he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth." Able scholars in the Greek language say, that the neuter gender, as applied to God in our text, instead of being a barbarism, gives greater force and dignity to the sentence, than to have used the masculine gender.

The gentleman's grammatical criticisms appear to have no effect in overthrowing the exposition of the text which was given in my first sermon; nor in proving it to be a forgery. Some reasons have been offered, and more will be added.

1. The grammatical situation of the text, has not prevented the learned world, in general, from understanding it in the very sense in which it has been explained in the preceding sermons. 2. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the sacred writers, is not bound to conform his words to human views of grammatical rules. 3. The apostle, in John 10. 30, uses the very same phraseology, in which the text in dispute is written, concerning the unity of persons in the Godhead; namely, "I and my Father are one.

But my opponent and his brethren in opinion say, that in the text referred to, "Christ speaks of the unity of agreement, or harmony in the same cause, between the Father and himself." This construction, however is far from being the real meaning of the sacred writer, as we

may easily see by the connection. In that place our Lord is not speaking of unity of cause, or harmony of testimony, as his main object; but of similarity of nature, equality in perfections, and unity in power. This will appear, on a careful examination of what is said, in connection with the words under consideration. The subject commences with the 23d verse.

"And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them to me, is greater than all: and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

In the paragraph that has been cited, our Lord speaks of power, in distinction from other things-a power to give eternal life; to preserve his people from every enemy, internal and external; and to preserve them forever. He asserts with a divine solemnity, "and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” No mere creature can, "give eternal life;" for it "is the gift of God." Rom. 6. 23. A sacred writer says concerning the preservation of the saints, "Ye are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.” 1 Pet. 1. 5.

But if Jesus Christ gives eternal life unto his people, and preserves them from final ruin-and no one can do these things but God; it is an irresistible inference, that He is God. This shows his meaning clearly in the words, “I and my Father are one." In this, the Jews, certainly un

derstood him as claiming real divinity; for as soon as the words had dropped from his lips, they "took up stones to stone him." This led him to say, "Many good works have I showed you from my Father: for which of these works do you stone me." The Jews answered for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man makest thyself God." Hence we see, that they understood his words in the very sense, in which we understand 1 John 5. 7. But instead of informing them that they had mistaken his meaning, he persisted in his claims to divine honor; saying, "I am the Son of God:-the Father is in me, and I in him." John 10. 30, and 1 John 5. 7, are, therefore, perfectly similar, both in sense and phraseology. If the first be a genuine text, no evidence can arise from the words of the other as to grammatical order, that it is a forgery.

There is no intimation in the gospel, of St. John, that the Jews mistook Christ's meaning in respect to equality with God, either through prejudice, or any other cause. In the words in view, he undoubtedly, means, that Jesus is one with the Father, in a sense in which, no created being can claim unity with God. This is, I think, a sufficient answer to the grammatical difficulty raised by my opponent against the text in dispute.

4. If the supposed barbarism is such a powerful evidence that the text in question is an insertion, it is very strange that other Anti-Trinitarian writers have not availed themselves of the argument. It is the first time that I have ever seen it advanced in opposition to the text before us. The gentleman, whose objection I am answering is, I grant, a man of handsome talents, natural and acquired; but thousands of consummate scholars on both sides of the question, must have seen the difficulty, if it is one; and, of course, attacks and defences on that ground, must have

« السابقةمتابعة »