and that it would bear this construction; yet this would be a mere conjecture of their own, not depending upon any particular knowledge of the Greek language: and there being no doubt at all, that it will also bear the construction of one thing, because it is actually used in that sense continually, and it is the most obvious and natural sense,-the question will immediately arise, in which of these senses our Saviour used it, or, which is the same thing, the corresponding term in the language he spoke in. You state, that my rendering (meaning the latter) cannot at all be admitted as proper for a creature like ourselves, as Jesus is supposed to be, to say 'I and the Deity are one thing :' and yet if we turn to the seventeenth chapter of the same gospel, ver. 11, we find our Saviour, not only using the very same words again, but alluding to his former use of them, and applying them as perfectly proper to creatures like ourselves: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one (v), as we are." Now it is so manifest, that it is impossible to doubt it, that our Saviour could not by & here mean one being, but one thing; inasmuch as all his disciples could not constitute one being; for which reason it is obvious, that he could only design to use the word, meaning one thing, in a figurative sense in both places, as we speak of very intimate friends, or of man and wife, or principal and agent, whose interests, sentiments, and pursuits are the same; that they are one, or one and the same thing, denoting unity of design and sentiment, though not of person or of being: and he prays that his disciples may be one, or one and the same thing, as he and his Father were one, or one and the same thing; shewing that he used the word in the same sense as applied to both; from which it follows, that he and his Father were one and the same thing in the same sense that he prayed that his disciples might be one; and consequently were not one in being or in deity, but one in design and purpose. This is so extremely plain, and depends so little upon any niceties of language, but upon the obvious nature, and tendency of the expressions themselves, in whatever language they are proposed to us, that the conjectures of these good fathers—that the design of the speakers was different-will have but little weight with any one who will be at the trouble of forming a judgement for himself. Nor must it be supposed that there were not in their times persons as conversant in the language as themselves, who put quite a different construction upon the words, as will be shewn hereafter. But to return to the words of our Saviour,-which, whether for the explanation of his meaning, or for any other purpose, are of more importance than the opinions of all the fathers put together,—we find at ver. 20: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word; that they all may be one (), as thou, Father, " art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one (v) in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one (§), even as we are one (¿v).” It has been sometimes urged, that our Lord's divinity is proved by his being in the Father, and the Father in him' but from this passage it appears demonstrably, that such is not the meaning, as he requests that his disciples may be also in his Father. The nature of the glory which his Father had given him,-probably the power of working miracles, or of cooperating with his Father in his great plan for the deliverance of mankind from the dominion of sin and death,—has been also misunderstood; for he informs us, that the very same glory had been communicated by him to them. It is observable likewise, that he mentions every thing he had, as having been given to him by his Father; and claims nothing, nor seems to have been conscious of having any thing, in his own right, or from the Holy Ghost: for when he says in another place, "I have power to lay down my life, and have power to take it up again ;" in order to exclude all idea of his having such power originally, or independently of the Father, he immediately adds, "This commission I have received from my Father;" meaning evidently, that his authority was delegated and subordinate, exercised by virtue of a commission,or, as the common version renders it still more strongly, a command,—received from a superior. After a mature consideration of all this, I am at a loss to conceive why it should be improper for our blessed Lord, though originally a man like ourselves, to say, 'I and the Deity are one thing, or one and the same thing,' when he expressly states, that they were so in the very same sense in which he prayed that all his disciples also might be one thing. And I cannot coincide in opinion with you, that unless the words be taken in what is called the Orthodox sense, they do not suit the train of his argument, as it appears to me that they suit it exactly. He had before said, "I give to my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand;" and he assigns as a reason for no one's plucking them out of his hand, " my Father who gave them me is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand: I and my Father are one," or one and the same thing. The meaning of which is clear upon my construction, namely, My Father, out of whose hand no one is able to pluck the sheep, having given them to me, and being united with me in the same plan for their preservation, the plucking them out of my hand would be one and the same thing with plucking them out of his, which no one can do. We are both agreed that our blessed Lord did not, and could not, use the word sis (because it could not be his intention) to represent his Father and himself as one person. Our difference is upon the words, 1 ΤΟ ΤΟ which I am content to take as it stands, but which You say, that we are only assured of our preserva tion by the power of Christ, from the consideration that he is one in power and authority with the Father. If nothing more is meant by this, than the kind of unity mentioned above, I subscribe to it; but if it be meant, that he has any proper power or authority of his own, I must dissent, as it is contrary to the gene |