Page images

From the Epistles of St. John, I need select only one paffage, which is direct in its assertion, and decidedly conclusive. John, v. 20. “And we " know that the Son of God is come, and hath “ given us an understanding, that we may know him “ that is true. And we are in him that is true, even os in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, " and eternal life.” 'Ouros 6510 ó aangevos O:05, MO! ζωη αιωνιος. Now, whether you refer δυτος to yoς του Ceov, to armsovoy, or to Inocu Xpigw, it makes no manner of difference: if to the first of these, then the Apostle says, that " the Son of God is GOD " indeed:” if to the second, then he that is true is God indeed; but he that is true (he says) is JESUS CHRIST the Son of God; therefore, Jesus CHRIST the Son of God, is ó canSuvos 6:05, God indeed. After so very plain and so very explicit a declaration of the beloved Disciple and Apostle, will any one say, that the Divinity of the Son of God is no doctrine of the New Testament? By what arguments, by what perverse contortion of words, is this testament i of St. John to be evaded ? Outos is hic demonstrative, and it refers to JESUS CHRIST, and therefore he is και αληθινος Θεος ; and he muft be totally ignorant of the Greek language, who attempts to refer it otherwise. The word this, in our English translation, does not seem to be quite right; it would have been better, if it had been rendered, “ the fame is truly “ God;" for, the article ó is prefixed to aanbevos merely in consequence of the word óvros, and there


fore ó camorros ought not to be construed the true, .but, adverbially, truly or indeed.

The Epistle of St. Jude affords a very strong testiinony likewise in the words which have been already cited on a different account, ver.4. “ For, “there are certain men crept in unawares, who “ were before of old ordained to this condemnation, “ ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into “ lasciviousness, and denying the only LORD God, " and our LORD JESUS CHRIST." From these words, I cannot help taking notice, first, of the peculiarity of the expression tnv Tou Oscu juar X2p1V METQτιθεντες εις ασελγειαν : why doth the Sacred Writer fay

sou ý uwy? The expression is not very frequent or common; sometimes, indeed, 'it is used by the other Writers of the New Testament, but then, as it should seem, always with a marked significance. 1 Cor. vi. 2. Anda amshoubQoOs, annoe øyeco Ents, αλλα εδικαιωθητε εν τω ονοματι του Κυριου Ιησου, και εν τω W VEUMOTI TOU Osou ruw. So also, I.Theff. ii. 2. Etapρησιασαμεθα εν τω Θεω ημων λαλησαι προς υμας το ευαγgeometov Osou. And, 2 Theff. i. 12. St. Paul uses the very fame expression with St. Jude, KOTA TNU Xceprve TOU Osov ruce noun Kupiou Ingou Xp1500. In all which instances, the expression is used with an evident design of distinguishing the God of Christians from the God acknowledged by the rest of the world. The first instance refers to the God of Christians, into whose name they were baptized; and therefore,

I 2

, the

the Apostle very properly uses the expression sou Kuwv; inasmuch as no others acknowledged the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be the one God. In the second instance, wherein he speaks of the boldness and courage wherewith he preached the Gospel, encountering all difficulties, he was endued with it by our God, sv TW Osw nuwe, by the God in whom we Christians believe. The third instance fpeaks plainly enough for itself; and, there

necessary to point out its propriery. Let us then attend to what St. Jude says, and the propriety of his using the same expression will appear evident. By the way, however, I cannot help first remarking, that Ignatius, who was the Disciple of St. John, uses the same expression, and in a very remarkable manner. ` In his Epistle to the Ephesians, xviii. he says, 'O yop Ozos in pcr Inuous ó X21505 Exuo@oρηθη υπο Μαριας, κατα οικονομιαν Θεου, εκ σπερματος ΔαErd, wvevpatos de cylov; which mode of expression occurs more than once in his Epistles. St. Jude's words are, “ For, there are certain men crept in un“ awares, who were before of old ordained to this “ condemnation, ungodly men, wo:GELS, TNV TOU CU s incorpociv usTATUETTES ELS o:Ayslov, impiously ma“ king a jest of the grace of our God, i. e. of the God of “ us Christians, and (as impiously) denying him " who hath the sole dominion, tov uovov do Totny, our os God and Lord Jesus CHRIST, Osov nu X e plov co viu av IngoUv Xp150v." I must here be forgiven, if I once more object to our English translation in this


instance. The words certainly do not appear to be rendered properly by “ the only LORD God and “ our LORD.” A£T TOTNU is not an adjective, but a substantive in concord with its adjective Movov; and therefore in construction is limited to that; but, in the translation, its power is transferred, as if it was in agreement with Osov, and as if it had an adjective signification, which it certainly has not. Castalio translates it Solum Herum Deum; what kind of language this is I undertake not to determine; but it is strange that the manifest impropriety of it did not strike him; such language seems rather to be burlesque than any thing else; others, perhaps, may have translated the words as erroneously, but in what manner I stay not to enquire. The error of the translation seems most probably to have arisen from its having been supposed that MONON d.o750TNV could not with truth be applied to Jesus CHRIST. But, it should have been remembered, what is really the truth of the Gospel is truth, " that all power was given to Jesus Christ, both in Heaven and Earth.” It should have been remembered, what our LORD himself assures us, that " the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed " all judgement to the Son;" and, if these things had been remembered, the translators would have had no difficulty in rendering the words “ denying him, “ who hath the fole dominion, our God, and “ LORD, JESUS CHRIST;" for, such, according to all the rules of construction, seems to be the only true interpretation of the Greek words. I 3



[ocr errors]

· St. Jude concludes his Epistle in terms no less strongly attesting the Divinity of the Son of God, when he ascribes to him Glory and Majesty, Dominion and Power, both now, and ever. Mor ocľW Θερ σωτηρι ημων δοξα και μεγαλωσυνη, κρατος και εξουσια, YOL YUV HAL EIS TE CLUTOLS TOUS Cleves. Aunu. He that can find out a consistent and true mode of applying these words otherwise than to our acknowledged Saviour, let him do it.

Here then I shall conclude my enquiry into the evidence that may be brought, from the New Testament, in proof of the Divinity of the Son of God; not because more could not have been produced ; for, the whole is full of evidence; but because sufficient has been already produced to satisfy any reafonable enquiries, and because, if what has been al. ready produced is ineffectual for that purpose, neither would a farther accumulation of similar evidence prove effecțual.

That which I undertook to prove was, that, if we are not mistaken in our conclusion, that Jesus is God, because he is declared to be the Son of GOD; then would the Sacred Writings of the New Testament afford us as clear evidence to the truth of this conclusion as they do to the truth of our conclufion that he is man, because he is called the Son of man. The evidence is now before the reader, from the Evangelists, from St. Paul, St. Peter, St.


« PreviousContinue »