ページの画像
PDF
ePub

but a brief sentence. But, whatever was the reason for choosing these three different words, it is important to be aware, that St. John goes through his argument with one. Whether the translation would be better if all were "witness," or all "testimony," or all "record," does not now require to be decided. Any of the three would do, provided it went through the whole. "Witness," perhaps, is the best of the three; and, therefore, in the citation of the passage, as given at the head of this paper, the word "witness" is put into a parenthe sis, in the three instances in which the translators have employed a change of expression. Something not only of the force, but of the meaning, of St. John, will be found to depend on the repetition of the same word which he was led to employ; and the reader will do well, before he proceeds any further, to refer to the text as above quoted, reading it so as to supply the words in parenthesis for those which they severally follow. If thus he reads the passage,-slowly and thoughtfully, the repetition which he finds, instead of being unpleasant, will arrest his attention, and convince him, in the very first instance, that it indicates, and was intended to indicate, something of great moment.

The language of St. John is thus before us. Its meaning is now to be ascertained; and, for that purpose, the leading principles of the paragraph must be sought out.

"If we receive the witness of men.” -The phrase is argumentative, not expressive of doubt. The reference is plain. We do "receive the witness of men;" and we receive it according to a most important law of our rational nature; the influence of which, whenever circumstances call it into action, is found wherever we find man. We are so constituted, that we receive testimony, and act upon it; that we even seek for it, in order that we may be governed by it. It is not necessary that we now inquire particularly into the origin of this law, nor into all its operations. It is sufficient

for our present object, that we clearly perceive the fact itself, that such a law does exist,-exist naturally, exist universally. Its manifestations are very decided in child

ren.

It is seen, in their case, intimately united to another principle, tendency, instinct, of our mental constitution; namely, curiosity. Children are naturally inquisitive. The very term that is usually employed to characterize the disposition, expresses the combination just mentioned. They are curious, and they are inquiring: they desire to know, and therefore they ask questions; that is, they seek for testimony, and are satisfied with it. The answer they receive is added— adds itself, were the better expression,-to what they consider as their stock of knowledge. In fact, so strong is this instinctive reliance on testimony, that childhood is proverbially credulous, believing almost everything that is thus communicated. The law then acts in its full force, unregulated (as it is designed to be in maturer life) by the other parts of our mental constitution. As we grow older, we discover much evil and error; and thus, gradually, we are led to examination. But the examination does not destroy the original law. Where testimony proceeds from integrity, and competent ability, it is at once received; and if all men actually were what innocent and unsuspecting childhood supposes them to be, the reception of testimony would be what our nature essays to make it,-general and prompt: the effort being hindered, and entire success being prevented, not by the discovery that the supposed law is only an irra tional prejudice, but by the conviction, forced upon us by experience, that the moral condition of man materially affects his intellectual developements; and that human ignorance and human wickedness exist too extensively, to allow of that unlimited and affectionate confidence, which man was evidently intended to repose in his fellow.

Such, however, is man, and such human society, that both social and individual well-being require the

communication and reception of testimony. We not only find the law in ourselves, disposing us to receive the witness of man, but we find that our position is such as to require its constant exercise. We begin with trusting. We trust before we know, and we trust that we may know. After all the guards and checks that we may institute, we must go on trusting, as long as we wish to go on in the acquisition of knowledge. The law in question had been a superfluous one, had every man been able to obtain for himself all the knowledge necessary for the preservation of his existence, and the improvement of his nature. But it is not

80.

No law of our nature is more evidently adapted to our actual circumstances than this.

The practice of our courts of justice is an illustration of the whole subject. That the law may speak forth its decisions by its appointed ministers, the facts of the case to be adjudicated must be ascertained, and placed before them. And for this, in the very first instance, witnesses are called into court, and duly examined. It is assumed that we receive the witness of men, if it be found to possess the proper recommendations. Are they who deliver the testimony honest men ? Are they acquainted with the circumstances to which it professes to relate? They may have neither honesty nor competency; and that is one extreme. They may indubitably have both; that is the other. Between them, is a wide space for the exercise of a wise judgment. Various degrees of doubt will arise, as the competency, or the honesty, or perhaps both, may be suspected. In the first case, the testimony is rejected. But why? Because we ought not to receive the witness of men ? No. But because we had discovered, that these were not the men whose witness we ought to receive. In the second case, the testimony was admitted, because examination had shown us that there was no rational objection to it. "We receive the witness of men."

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.”—

This is one of those simply-expressed phrases found in the Epistles of John, which have sometimes been mistaken for superficial obviousness of meaning. All who understand the terms, will assent to the propo sition; but we may perceive the direct meaning of the terms, without pausing to inquire into the significance that is implied. The whole philosophy of evidence is here suggested. Human testimony now comes to us often clogged with difficulties, and sometimes we are obliged to reject it. And yet it is true, that we receive the witness of men, because our nature, antecedent to all reasoning, disposes us to admit the communications that are dictated by competency and integrity. If, therefore, we receive the witness of men,-although, among men, both incompetency and dishonesty are only too frequently found,-much more readily shall we receive the witness of God, with which no incompetency, no dishonesty, can be associated.

:

"The witness of God is greater." The wise man is not infallible, the honest man is not impeccable. The witness of man is that of a creature, who may change and yet we receive it. With the most beautiful precision, St. John says,-not "much more shall we receive the witness of God," (though that had been true; yet, still, it would have confined the expression to our own mental convictions, to our greater readiness to receive the testimony of God,) but he says what carries us beyond this, to the value of the divine testimony,-" The witness of God is greater." From perfect equity and holiness,-from unlimited knowledge, and unerring wisdom, —what can proceed, but undoubted and important truth? The greatness and majesty of God will not allow us to suppose, that he would testify that which it little concerned man to know. When it pleases Him to condescend to hold communion with man, and, as in words that man may hear, to give utter ance to his testimonies, we may be assured that the subjects of the communication are as valuable as they are

[ocr errors]

true. "The testimony of the Lord is" not only "sure," but is calculated for "making wise the simple;" and, therefore, more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb." "The witness of God is greater."

The principles to which the Apostle thus refers, he applies to the particular case of "the witness of God, which he hath testified of his Son." He first states the fact, that God has testified concerning his Son, and then declares, that this divine testimony concerning Christ is possessed by every genuine believer. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." The nature of the testimony is, in the next place, particularly stated: "And this is the record," (or witness,) "that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." As, therefore," he that hath the Son hath life," this possession of the life which is God's gift to us in his Son, is the possession of the witness which God hath witnessed concerning his Son. The paragraph closes by a declaration of the design of the argument which it contains ; namely, the established happiness and strengthened confidence of the Christian, through this particular medium, his clearer perception of the various bearings and results of the life of God in his soul. Christian experience, therefore, in the ordinary use of the expression, among those who "know the grace of God in truth," is, not accidentally, but of set purpose and design, God's witness concerning his Son; that is, a real testimony to the truth of Christianity itself.

For the examination of the entire subject, the testimony of God concerning his Son-"This is the record," (witness,) "that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son "-must be considered first.

And that we may the better understand this, let us endeavour to place ourselves among the first Christian Preachers, and listen to the various facts which they asserted, as well as to the conclusions

which they represented those facts as establishing. We need not, in the first instance, form any judgment, either on the facts or the inferences, any farther than to be convinced of the mere fact, that such statements were made, and that such doctrines were taught.

And we have every facility for thus coming to the very fountainhead of the system, whether it be true or false. We have the existence of the records and documents of this primitive Christianity,-this Christianity of our Lord and his Apostles,-proved to us by the most overpowering testimony. Whether the Apostles were true men, or whether they were deceivers of the people, thus they taught. This is the religion which they delivered, and which their own hearers received, the religion, that is to say, of the first Christian churches, as planted and superintended by the Apostles themselves. The New Testament may be a record of "cunningly-devised fables; " but to doubt that it is the designed and faithful record of apostolic Christianity,-if we will only be consistent in our doubts, and apply their principle to every question that we examine, as, in this case, we apply it to the Christian question, should abandon ourselves to the darkest, wildest, most unlimited scepticism. What we call the sacred books of the religion, can be traced up, in one unbroken succession of reverence and acknowledgment, to the very times to which they refer, and the authors to whom they are ascribed. now claiming for them the credit of common history; but even thus, they are abundantly sufficient to show us what the Apostles taught, and what their converts and disciples believed. And, in the present stage of the argument, this is all we want to collect from them.

we

We are only

And let it be, in the very first place, noted, that they do not bring before us the religion which they teach, as the discovery of man, however cautiously and wisely reasoned out from principles supposed and assumed to be just; but as a directly

divine communication, received, in the first instance, from the God that made heaven and earth, and made known to man by those whom he had chosen for that purpose. The religion thus given to mankind is represented as true, not merely as in perfect agreement with right reason, (properly understood,) and depending for its authority on the force of a just, undeniable ratiocination; but as coming directly from God, as being an immediate declaration of his will, and binding, in that character, and for that cause, on the consciences of all to whom it is proposed. The opening sentences of the Epistle to the Hebrews express, in effect, what may be regarded as the language of the Christian religion itself, addressing men as the creatures of God, and the subjects of his government; and claiming, for that reason, to be received and obeyed. O God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." The Gospel, therefore, is not a discovery inade by human sagacity, an evolution of the human reason, but a supernatural revelation; a system which, by its own showing, "at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him: God also bearing them witness, both with signs, and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will."

[ocr errors]

This, in fact, is implied in the distinguishing name which the system has received from its Author. It is the Gospel; a direct message to man from God himself.

Nor, in this inquiry, must the general character of the message, with the cause from which it flows, be overlooked. Paradoxical as the assertion may appear, yet it is most true, that that which, in one sense, we well know, is often that of which, in another, we are profoundly ignorant. Who knows not that

gospel means "glad tidings? Yet how many are there who never investigated the idea expressed by the word, never sought to acquaint

themselves with the reasons to be assigned for it! To know these reasons, however, is essential to our present purpose. The suitableness of the means can only be perceived when the end is understood. Nor is this a task of difficulty. The "lively oracles" give us no ambiguous answer, when we question them concerning the characteristic of the Gospel. The very term, in this its consecrated application, was first employed by the angel who announced to the shepherds of Bethlehem the birth of the Messiah: "I bring you good tidings" (I preach to you the Gospel) “of great joy;

FOR UNTO YOU IS BORN THIS DAY

A SAVIOUR." The Christian religion, as a divine communication, is described as a message from God; and, as unfolding to us the provision made by the wisdom and goodness of God for the salvation of men, it is called "the Gospel," the message which is benevolent as well as divine.

Such being the general character of the Christian religion, as first taught, and first believed, we may now notice such of its particular statements as bear directly upon the argument of St. John.

1. The first Preachers of the Gospel uniformly represented mankind as needing a Saviour. They who listened to the instructions of Paul would hear him say, "There is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God:" or of St. John, the same melancholy fact would be brought before them, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." Nor was this described as being merely a universal combination of personal departures from God, but as resulting from the transgression, by our first parents, of the law under which they, and mankind in them, were placed. "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." 66 By one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

2. They represented all men as objects of the divine compassion, considered as fallen. Repeating the words of their great Master, they

said, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Or, echoing them, they exclaimed, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." With them, "God is rich in mercy," doing very great things for us miserable sinners, because of "the great love wherewith he hath loved us."

3. Yet this love of God they never described as bearing even the remotest resemblance to that conception of mingled wickedness and folly, to which the sacred name of benevolence is so often applied, but which is only that worse than indifference to moral distinction, against which the anathema of Scripture is unchangeably directed: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil." The same discourse that proclaims, "God is love," declares, likewise, that " God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." And when St. Paul had instructed the Athenians to look on God as their Father, he proceeded to show them that he was now their moral Governor, and would, after death, be their final Judge.

4. In fact, it was to this united manifestation of righteousness and mercy, that the Apostles pointed, as constituting the distinctive character of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The great doctrine of a propitiatory atonement is represented as exhibiting the righteousness of God in that act of mercy,—the forgiveness of sins. Nor is this a passing allusion to a subject in itself only subordinate. To the finite mind, the infinite perfections of God can only be seen by the combination of the several aspects under which they may, from time to time, be viewed. We thus speak of Him as the Author of nature, as the Preserver of our life; but, in the New Testament, there is what we might almost call a central view, to which all the others are to be referred, and around which they are all to be arranged. Be this central view cor

rect or incorrect, right or wrong, its existence in the records of the Christian religion is indubitable. Whatever of glorious perfection is conceivable, is in the Scriptures attributed to God; but his distinguishing character is, the union of the holy and righteous Sovereign, with the tenderly-compassionate Father: a union, the maintenance of which in harmonious operation and unsullied glory, is secured by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Not as seated on the circle of the heavens, are we required to approach him for mercy and grace: his seat, viewing him as the hearer of prayer, is the throne of grace, by which, making intercession for us, our great HighPriest, Jesus, the Son of God, perpetually stands.

These are the grand themes of the Gospel: "Behold," said its herald, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And the Apostle to the Gentiles, of whose labours we have the most detailed and extended account, declares, "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord." "We preach Christ crucified." To Him the preaching of all the Apostles referred; in Him it all terminated. They described the incarnation as intended to bring the Son of God within the capacity of suffering : "Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." And they speak of him as having most perfectly fulfilled the design for which he came into the world: "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." In consequence of this, they proclaim him as seated "on the right hand of the Majesty on high," having obtained a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow."

But the saving work of Christ is so far from being closed by his death, as a propitiatory sacrifice, that then, in an important sense, it might be said to begin. The distribution of redemption into that which

« 前へ次へ »