תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

the Evangelist have declared, to prevent misunderstanding, that there was a much closer and more intimate union between the Father and the Son, than that union of feeling and purpose, which he prayed might exist among his disciples,-even an union of nature,-a mutual participation of the same Divinity? I am confident that he would.

With one quotation more, I will close this examination of texts. In the twentieth chapter, thirty-first verse, John declares his purpose in writing his gospel. 'These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name.' If one great object in writing this gospel was to establish the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, why is it not mentioned here? Surely not because that was a subordinate and unimportant object. At least it is not so regarded by modern Trinitarians. Had this formed a part of his design, I cannot doubt that it would have been mentioned here. I conclude therefore, that this was not his purpose.

Modern Trinitarians explain many of the passages I have been considering, by saying that our Saviour had two natures, a human and a divine; and that he might affirm of himself in one nature, what would not be true of the other. It seems to me, as it has seemed to many others, that this would be charging the Saviour with equivocation. It would suppose him to have made mental reservations, which those who heard him knew nothing of. It leads us away from our usual mode of interpreting language, according to which, when any person speaks of himself, we understand him as meaning the whole of himself, and not some unspecified part,

which we must find out by conjecture. Besides, if this were the true explanation, why has not the Apostle told us so? Why has he not given his readers this key, which, if the Deity of Christ be a doctrine of the Bible, is indispensable to the right understanding of his writings? It was what was wanted to silence his supposed adversaries. It would have saved much controversy in his own and subsequent times. Since the Apostle has not told us so, I conclude that this is not the true explanation, even were there no other reason against it.

In this examination, that it might not be tedious, I have passed over many passages, which, equally with the foregoing, seem inexplicable on the supposition that John wrote to confute an Unitarian heresy. It is a very remarkable fact also, that there is no book in the New Testament, from which so many arguments can be drawn, to prove the inferiority and dependence of Christ. These considerations, I think, are sufficient to authorize the belief that John's design in his gospel, and particularly in his proem, was not such as Trinitarians have generally supposed; that if he intended to oppose any heretics, it could not have been those who question the Deity of Christ; and that in explaining this contested passage, we must apply to it some meaning, consistent with the entire and unshared Supremacy of the Father.

H. A,

GALLIO.

This ominous name has long been used as a term of reproach among Christians. When any one is indifferent to things that ought to interest him, he is called a Gallio; as if in the well-filled treasuries of human malediction, no worse name could be found. But justice to an injured name, requires, that we should explain the incident which has brought upon Gallio a charge which he by no means deserved; for this person, who is so highly spoken of by heathen historians, was in truth a good example for any magistrate or any man. It is time to read scripture with more understanding, and to place no reliance on traditional impressions without ascertaining whether they are just and true.

The history of the transaction is this. When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, St Paul determined to preach the gospel in Corinth, then perhaps the most refined of the Grecian cities. There were many Jews in the place, who, intolerant and exclusive though they always were, maintained their own worship under the liberal indulgence of the Romans. When the Apostle came, all their national enmity to Christianity was awakened; they seized him, carried him before the judgment seat, and accused him of worshipping God contrary to the law. He was about to repel the charge, but he soon found that it was unnecessary. The proconsul saw, that, allowing he had broken the Hebrew law, he had not violated the Roman, which only he was bound to administer, and he declares as much to the Jews. 'If,' says he, 'it was a matter of wrong or in

jurious license, then it would be reasonable that I should bear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and concerns your own law, you must settle it among yourselves, for I will undertake no jurisdiction in things of that kind' so saying he dismissed them. But the Corinthians, provoked that the Jews who were themselves merely tolerated, should be so illiberal to others, took one of the rulers of the synagogue and beat him; and Gallio, willing perhaps that the Jews should be made sensible of the unworthy part they had acted, refused to interfere, or as the historian says 'cared for none of these things.'

In this narrative there are some things particularly worthy of observation. The first is the disposition of the Jews, which affords a singular exhibition of human nature. They were in a city where the tastes and habits of the people were decidedly against them; and there, however disliked by the Corinthians, they were allowed to enjoy their religion in peace. But this was not enough. They must needs interfere with others, and exercise that guardianship over others which should have been given to their own hearts. Never has this propensity been so strangely exhibited as in the case of peculiar opinions; not in the form of manly argument, gentle persuasion, or affectionate warning, which are certainly the means which those who really take an interest in others employ to convert them. No, for these are too mild for the zealot. He thunders vengeance against the unbeliever. He stuns instead of convincing. He drags the offender, as he calls him, before earthly tribunals when he can, and threatens to confront him at the judgment seat of God. Now if the

Christian magistrate had taken example from the heathen, the history of the church would have been less deeply stained than it is with blood. He cared for none of these things. They made no part of his public concern, because they were no part of his public duty. And why should any one care for the faith of another, except as a friend for a friend, or a man for a man? No terrors can force a mind from its convictions. Confession may be wrung from the lips perhaps, but power cannot reach the heart. assume that man can believe as he will.

It is folly to

He must be

lieve according to the evidence as it affects his mind; and he could not help doing this, even if the zealot's vision should be realized, and he should see the preparatory smoke of his torment ascending beyond the grave.

We may next remark the sarcastic address of Gallio to the Jews. 'If it be a question of words and names, I will be no judge of such matters.' Though probably not much acquainted with the Jewish or Christian religions, he was safe in assuming that there was less difference in their opinions than in their use of words. He knew how any truth might be darkened by words without knowledge-how often it was impossible for many to discern the right, through the bewildering arguments of able and interested men. Had Christians followed his example, how much blood might have been spared, which now dishonors the history of the church, and sits heavy on the souls of those by whom it was shed. It is not yet too late; for if the reign of insane oppression is passing away, the kingdom of benevolence is not yet come. How many sects and

« הקודםהמשך »