“Qui credit in Filium, habet vitam æternam ; qui autem incredulus est Filio, non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum.”
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him.””
“One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won’t see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.””
“He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
The eternal Father loved the world, Joh 3:16, but he loved the Son with a more singular and peculiar love; so that all things were by the Father delivered to him, Mat 11:27, all power in heaven and earth, Mat 28:18; to give eternal life to as many as the Father had given him, Joh 17:2; the keys of hell and of death, Rev 1:18. So as every man hath reason to receive and embrace Christ and his testimony, and to believe in him.
The divinity of the Son is in this chapter proved as clearly as in 1 John v. 7. “There are three who give testimony in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” Which verse is entirely omitted by Luther in his version; for which omission he is severely reproved by Keckerman. But while Catholics and Protestants deduce from this and many other places in Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, as an indubitable and irrefragable consequence, how may learned Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians read the same texts, and deduce quite contrary consequences? How clearly does this prove that the Bible only cannot prove the exclusive rule of faith. With reason does the Cambridge divinity professor, Dr. Herbert Marsh, ask in his late publication on this subject, p. 18, “Are all Protestants alike in their religion? Have we not got Protestants of the Church of England, Protestants of the Church of Scotland, Protestants who hold the profession of Augsburgh? Have we not both Arminian and Calvinistic Protestants? Are not the Moravians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Quakers, and even the Jumpers, the Dunkers, the Swedenborgians, all Protestants? Since, then Protestantism assumes so many different forms, men speak quite indefinitely, if they speak of it without explaining the particular kind which they mean. When I hear of a Swedish or a Danish Protestant, I know that it means a person whose religion is the Bible only, as expounded by the Synod of Dort. In like manner a Protestant of the Church of England, is a person whose religion is the Bible only; but the Bible as expounded by its Liturgy and Articles. How, therefore, can we know, if we give the Bible only, what sort of Protestantism well be deduced from it?” — In the same publication, Dr. Herbert Marsh, p. 21, adds, “Protestants of every description, however various and even opposite in their opinions, claim severally for themselves the honour of deducing from the Bible irrefragable and indubitable consequences. The doctrine of conditional salvation is an indubitable consequence to the Arminian. The doctrine of absolute decree, an indubitable consequence to the Calvinist. The doctrines of the trinity, the atonement and the sacraments, which the Church of England considers as indubitable consequences of the Bible, would not be so, if the Unitarians and Quakers were right in the consequences which they draw from the Bible. But the consequences which they deduce appear indubitable to them.” This the professor properly styles protestantism in the abstract, or generalized, and nearly allied to apostacy from Christianity: a system, p. 16, “by which many a pilgrim has lost his way between the portal of the temple and the altar—disdaining the gate belonging only to the priests, and approaching at once the portals of the temple, they have ventured without a clue, to explore the inmost recesses; and have been bewildered in their way, till at length they have wandered to the devious passage, where Christianity itself becomes lost from the view.” See his Inquiry into the consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer-Book with the Bible.
Verses 22-36 John was fully satisfied with the place and work assigned him; but Jesus came on a more important work. He also knew that Jesus would increase in honour and influence, for of his government and peace there would be no end, while he himself would be less followed. John knew that Jesus came from heaven as the Son of God, while he was a sinful, mortal man, who could only speak about the more plain subjects of religion. The words of Jesus were the words of God; he had the Spirit, not by measure, as the prophets, but in all fulness. Everlasting life could only be had by faith in Him, and might be thus obtained; whereas all those, who believe not in the Son of God, cannot partake of salvation, but the wrath of God for ever rests upon them.