St. John tells us, chap. viii. that JESUS, in his discourse to the Jews, having told them that he was from above, and not of this world, fays to them, "If ye believe not that I am, ye fhall die in your "fins." In our tranflation it is, "that I am he;" but this feems to be improper; the Greek is or eyw ειμι, without any perfonal reference; nor, indeed, had he been saying any thing before, to which, with propriety, it could be referred; and, it is plain the Jews understood the words as having been fpoken without any personal reference, for, immediately after they had heard them, they ask him, Ev tis el! as if they had faid, the words I am convey no manner of information to us: Tell us who thou art? For, as yet, it is evident, that they did not underftand the words in the fenfe in which our LORD meant them. To their enquiry, therefore, he returns no other anfwer, but that he was the fame which he had told them from the beginning. However, he adds, "When ye have lift up the Son of "Man, then fhall ye know that I am," ori εyw sill, οτι εγω ειμι, adhering ftill to the fame form of expreffing himfelf: but the Jews, dull, and not conceiving as yet that the words extended fo far as they really did, heard them without any direct or particular cenfure: at length, however, they were effectually roufed; for, JESUS having told them, that, although they were the children of Abraham, yet, that they did not act as Abraham did; for, fays he, "Your fa"ther Abraham rejoiced to fee my day, and he faw 66 it, "it, and was glad:" and they, mifinterpreting his words, having answered him, "Thou art not yet "fifty years old, and haft thou feen Abraham ?" our LORD replies to them, "Verily, verily, I say "unto you, Before Abraham was I am." This reply ferved effectually to open their eyes, and they faw plainly enough now what it was he meant, when he faid, "If ye believe not that I am ye fhall "die in your fins:" enraged, therefore, to the highest degree, they inftantly took up ftones to have caft at him, and to have ftoned him to death as a blafphemer; but he, by his Divine power, conveyed himself away from them. I am well aware, that in common ufage the words yw au do not always fignify as it is here fuggested, and that in general they only fignify a perfonal prefence; and, if it were poffible to make sense of them by fo interpreting them here, there would be no reafon for departing from the common usage; but in this way there is no making any sense of them, as without farther difcuffion of the fubject may fafely be left to the obfervation of any common reader: for, if interpreted I am he, or it is I, befide the abfurdity of fuch interpretation, the question ftill recurs, Ev sa? but, if interpreted as fpoken by the Συ τις Son of God, in affertion of that Divine nature which is infeparable from him, the whole becomes clear and plain, without the aid of any comment, and the Son of God is GOD. Our Our LORD had been depicturing himself, in his difcourfe to the Jews, as the Good Shepherd, probably not without fome allufion to the twenty-third Pfalm. He had told them, that his fheep heard his voice; that he gave unto them eternal life; and, that no one fhould pluck them out of his hand: " My Father, fays he, who them to me, is greater “than all, and no one is able to pluck them out of 66 66 gave και my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." These words, to a mind unfophifticated with fallacy, appear to be extremely plain and decifives fo plain and decifive, that much artifice has been used to evade their force; and we are told that no unity of fubftance is expreffed by them, only an unity of confent. But, how do the words exprefs unity of confent, rather than unity of fubftance. Eyw nas o Tarp v sop is all that is faid; not a fyllable is faid Πατηρ about confent or any thing elfe; the whole that is expreffed is unity: and, moreover, had it been intended, that the words fhould have been confined in their interpretation to confent only, the expreffion fhould have been as and not v; for, the neuter gender, in this inftance, fignifies every degree of unity that is poffible without perfonal identity. That the word fhould have been in the mafculine gender, had it been intended to exprefs confent only, may be illuftrated by a very appofite example from Ovid, who, fpeaking of the unexampled friendship between Pylades and Oreftes, fays, Qui duo corporibus mentibus UNUS erant who, "who, though diftinct in their bodily fubftance, "were one, in the confent and agreement of their "minds." And, I do not know, that the Greek idiom in this respect differs at all from the Latin, or from the idiom of any other language, wherein the words themselves, by their inflexions, express the gender. If I am mistaken, fome examples may be produced undoubtedly, wherein the words Eveμev, Evo, are expreffive only of mental agreement. The example from 1 Cor. iii. 8. concerning St. Paul and Apollos, does not apply by any means The context plainly thews, that ὁ φεντεύων δε και ὁ OTIV V SV have no relation at all, either to unity of confent or unity of fubftance; but, if I may be allowed to exprefs myself fo, to unity of nothingness. Ωςε οὔτε ὁ φυτεύων εςι τι οὔτε ὁ ποτίζων αλλ' ὁ αυξάνων Θεος ὁ φυτεύων δε και ὁ ποτίζων ἓν εισιν, where v evi8 dently has the force of oudav. However, one decifive proof we have from Galat. iii. 28. that where fubftantial unity is not intended, and mental unity is intended, the word must be as, and not ἑν. Παντες γαρ ύμεις, faith St. Paul, εις εςε εν Χριςω Ιησού. Εἰς ἕν εσμεν, oι εἰς το έν εσμεν, if fuch had been the or Everμev, expreffion, might indeed have favoured the conceit of unity of confent: but as the words now ftand, the conceit is groundless, and without any foundation. It It will avail nothing against what is here advanced to urge what is faid, (John xvii.) where our LORD, praying for his difciples, fays, Πατερ άγιε, τήρησον αυτούς εν τω ονοματι σου, ους δέδωκας μοι, ἵνα ωσιν ἓν και Ows "Holy Father, keep, through thine own "name, those whom thou haft given me, that they 66 66 may be one, as we are." The neuter gender is here used, because the unity intended is a comparative unity, comparative to the substantial unity, between the Father and the Son, and as that unity was neceffarily expreffed by the neuter gender, therefore the comparative unity required to be expreffed by the fame gender likewife. It does not at all follow, that, because it is prayed, "that they may be one as we are," that no other unity fubfifts between the Father and the Son, than what might be among Chriftians; for, if it did, by the fame rule we might fay, that man may have all the perfections of GoD, and that God has none but what men may have alfo, because it is faid, (Matth. v. 48.) "Be ye "therefore perfect, as your Father which is in hea"ven is perfect." But, befide all this, the objection is groundless, on another account, as may be feen in the 22d and 23d verfes of the chapter whence the objection is derived, for there we read, "And the glory "which thou gaveft me I have given them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them, "and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in σε one;” ένα ωσι τετελειωμε οι εις ν; which latter words fix the unity prayed for to a comparative resembling . unity, |