صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

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 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

[ocr errors]

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 rot; 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

been numerous. Every hearer must see the force of this reply. I am not prepared to say, however, that my opponent has originated the objection; but no candid mind can allow it to have any weight. It is not my design to defend this, or any other part of our translation, only on the ground of fair reasoning.

In my sermons on the text, I have explicitly acknowledged that its authenticy has been doubted, by some gentlemen of candor and intelligence, and have stated their reasons; but I must weigh those reasons for myself and not abandon the passage, until I am convinced of its spuriousness. It was to give you, my hearers, an opportunity of judging the merits of this debate, that my discourses on the text were delivered. We must give an account unto God for our conclusions on the subject; and therefore, we must not be improperly swayed, either by the influence or assertions of men, who have no claim to infallibility.

But I must not overlook any of the grounds which my opponent has taken. He proceeds, as if the case was clearly proved, saying, that some wicked Trinitarian has forged the text; using these words, "this Trinitarian forger." He tells us also of his motive in this action; "namely, to have in scripture one solitary passage at least, which might declare in plain language, the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, or that the three are numerically distinct, yet one God only." He adds;-"In every age the Trinitarians have been called on to produce at least one plain passage of Scripture, which like the orthodox creeds, asserts the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, or of three persons in one God; and they have appeared to great disadvantage in the eyes of their adversaries, that they have never been able to do it. Unquestionably, therefore, it must have been the design of the forger to wipe off this aspersion, and to introduce a plain proof text."

That the Trinitarians "have appeared to great disadvantage in the eyes of their adversaries," may be true; but, that they have ever felt themselves to be greatly pressed on this ground, I am not prepared to admit. My own mind has never been embarrassed on that account; neither have I known of any other Trinitarians, suggesting the thing as a difficulty. It does not appear to have been the design of God, to have a system of doctrines comprised in any single text, or to have them arranged in any part of the Scriptures, in the order of a creed. This demand of our opponents, we must consider as being captious and unreasonable. It may easily be retorted upon themselves, by requiring them, "to produce at least one plain passage of Scripture, asserting" their opinion that Christ is a mere man, and the natural son of Joseph and Mary. This is their creed, as really as the doctrine of the Trinity is our's-but, if the truth of it could be made to appear from a combined view of the Scriptures, we would never think of calling upon them to produce a complete statement of it in a single passage to command our belief. If any farther reply be thought necessary, the enquirer is referred to the 4th inference of the fourth sermon; which is, in my opinion, a complete answer to this formidable objection of my opponent.

But I must now proceed in answering his subsequent objections to the authority of the text in debate.

He refers us to the memorable prayer of Christ, recorded in the 17th chap. of John, to convince us that the Greek word", & v. one, signifies unity of harmony in the same cause, instead of identity of essence.

That this is the meaning of the expression, in the place to which we are referred, there is no doubt. The nature of the subject warrants this construction. We fully believe that Christ is one with the Father" in the same K

cause;" and in that sense, men, through divine grace, may be one with them; but, that is no proof that the Greek word Ev is capable of no other signification. Particular modes of expression, are applied to different things in every language; but the sense of them must be determined by the nature of the subjects to which they relate. If the Greek word Ɛ, be capable of no other import but " unity of harmony in the same cause," all the learned worldmust have always known it; and, therefore, the text in question would never have been cited by any classical writers, as a proof of the Unity of the divine essence. With this answer, I shall consider my opponent's objection sufficiently removed.


But the gentleman in opposition, after charging the supposed forger, with a barbarism in language, "The term,Ɛ V, is the most unfortunate, that he could have selected for his purpose. The declarationThese three are one, meaning one God, is something worse than wandering from his subject; it is a deadly assault upon the argument. What means this parade of a multitude of witnesses, but to establish more firmly the fact to which they testify? grounded on several independent witnesses, who must of course be distinct and separate beings, or consciousnesses, in order to corroborate and confirm the testimoof each other. Therefore, to say these three witnesses are one God, one being only, is striking away the corner stone of the argument, and demolishing at a stroke the foundation of the superstructure erected. Let me illustrate this case. Suppose I tell you that a certain fact was sworn to by a colonel, by a judge, and by a lawyer, three persons of distinguished veracity. You say, at once, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. I proceed then (to answer a purpose best known to myself) to state, that these three are one man, one being, one


« السابقةمتابعة »