Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

122

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

to say many things in its defence. Are we to think he is not "a learned man," a "divine," nor a "civilian ?" He had the vanity to think, when he was an Anti-Trinitarian, that few could equal him in mental endowments; which he has freely acknowledged in a book, called, "The Force of Truth," which is an account of his life and conversion.

I cannot say, however, that there has been any elaborate treaties recently written in defence of the text in debate. It is very probable, the European divines on the side of Orthodoxy, may be of the opinion that the passage has been sufficiently vindicated by the writers of former times. But, if the learned Trinitarians of Europe, dare not 66 venture their character as Biblical critics," in "defence” of the passage; to act an ingenuous part, they ought to abandon it; but this, they have never done.

My opponent says "The learned Porson, has settled this controversy forever." If this be in fact the case, Dr. Scott must have known it; and, instead of vindicating the words, he ought to have announced their spuriousness. These considerations must have weight with candid people; and evince the vanity of my opponent's triumphant assertions. What "the learned Porson" has done, I cannot say; but, we may fairly suppose, that the grand arguments on that side of the question have been exhibited by the gentleman himself, the examination of which, is now in progress. We see the difficulties, therefore, with which the orthodox European divines and civilians, would have to contend. I cannot see yet, that they are insuperable; nor how any man would have to "sacrifice his character as a Biblical critic," in facing them.

The next thing in the gentleman's discourse, is, "The celebrated Griesbach, whose critical and purified Greek Testament is now used as the standard in the European Colleges, and is taking the same rank in the literary institutions of this country, has left out this passage from his text."

This stands acknowledged. That, however, does not positively prove that the text is an interpolation; unless the infalibility of that learned critic can be maintained. It is no new thing for great men to undertake against truth, and to influence the, public mind on the side of error, to a high degree.

The reasons are before us, which led him to renounce the text in question; namely, the want of it in the Greek manuscripts. He, undoubtedly, felt himself justified as a learned critic, to relinquish it on that ground; and, being probably disposed to do it, he might think, that the evidence he acted on, would be a sufficient apology, in the view of the world. We, however, have a right to judge for ourselves concerning the evidence on which he decided. His "purified Testament," as my opponent calls it, is corrected in conformity to some of the Greek manuscripts; but, I really believe their accuracy is very questionable, and my reasons for this opinion have been assigned.

In respect to Griesbach's Testament, my opponent says, with an air of exultation, that, "it is now used as the standard in the European colleges, and is taking the same rank in the literary institutions of our country." But to this I reply, although his Testament may have its excellencies, it must be allowed, that, like all other human productions, it may have also its defects.

With all the boasted accuracy of Griesbach, his reading of 1 Tim. 3. 16; "and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: he who was manifested in the flesh;" iustead of "God was manifest in the flesh," as it is in our translation, is boldly disputed by Mr. Wakefield, who is himself an Anti-Trinitarian. Mr. W. contends for the correctness of the English New-Testament in this respect; that instead of "He who," it ought to be," God was manifest in the flesh;" but, he endeavors to effect an escape from the meaning of the passage, by an Anti-Trinitarian exposition.

But, there are two considerations in respect to Griesbach's performance, which make me feel some apprehension of danger. The first is-Anti-Trinitarians seem to be anticipating a complete victory over the Orthodox; and his Greek Testament, appears to be one ground on which their hope of this is founded. The second consideration is-The learned, on the Orthodox side of the question, seem not to be apprehending any danger from that quarter. But what the event of these high anticipations on the one hand, and such apparent security on the other, will finally amount to, time only can determine. I have some fear; but my prayer is, that it may be groundless. The great Head of the Church, says in one of his instructive parables, that it was "while men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." The learned are liable to their peculiar prejudices, and exposed to alarming changes, under the operation of certain causes, as well as the illiterate, and less discerning part of men. It was by some such means, undoubtedly, that in the Arian period of time, the learned, as well as others, were enveloped with the sable cloud of théological delusion. We must admit, on the principle of analogical reasoning, that such painful scenes may be realized again, in this fallen and God-opposing world. With due deference to, and confidence in the learned among the Orthodox, it behoves the Church to watch, and to take the alarm, whenever the grand doctrines of the gospel are attacked, directly or indirectly. The great adversary is not asleep; and he may invent ways of leading the scholar, as well as the unlettered Christian, into the devious paths of heresy and danger. To pollute the fountains of religious knowledge, is the most direct method that can be adopted, to defile all the streams which issue from them. In this case, however, our hope must be placed in God; for he is the tower of

defence, both in relation to his written word and redeemed people.

But, my hearers, what is the grand object of such a tremendous and unremitting opposition to 1 John, 5. 7, and all the other sacred passages of a similar import?

The Rev. Theophilus Lindsey expressly says,-" The tendency of the whole is to show, that the bulk of Christians, for many ages, have been worshipping two new Gods, who are no Gods at all, Jesus and the Holy Spirit; putting them on an equality with the Supreme Father and Sovereign Lord of all."

We may see, therefore, that the grand design of every writer in this school is, to remove the belief of Christ's Deity, and the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost from our mind; and, on that very account, it becomes us to look well to their criticisms, before we renounce the passages of Scripture, which support these fundamental truths of the Christian system.

But, the feelings of Griesbach, in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity may be learned, by a view of the following paragraph, selected from his essay on 1 John, 5. 7. It is contained in my opponent's discourse, and was delivered in this house, with a high tone of approbation and triumph. The paragraph in view, runs in this manner,"If witnesses so few, so recent, so suspicious, and arguments so utterly frivolous, as are produced in defence of this passage, are competent to establish the genuineness of a reading, in opposition to such a multitude of unanswerable testimonies and arguments-there can be no criterion of truth and falsehood, in criticism, and the whole text of the New-Testament, is unsubstantiated and dubious-and I would undertake, if it were worth while, to defend six hundred notoriously spurious and universally rejected readings, by testimonies and arguments far more numerous and powerful, than any which are used by the

patrons of this verse-and I wish these things may be well considered by those, who may think proper to come forward in a cause, in which the acuteness of a Krittelius, the sagacity of a Hazelius, and the zeal of Travis (but not according to knowledge, and, therefore, severely castigated by the learned Porson and Marsh) have labored angrily and in vain.'

[ocr errors]

To say the least of this, I think, it is far from bearing the complexion of Trinitarian language. But the arguments which this writer calls "few, recent, suspicious, and frivolous," some of them have been laid before you, and their strength or imbecility is submitted to your judg

ment.

What this gigantic Biblical critic, is pleased to call "unanswerable testimonies and arguments," the gentleman in opposition to me, has, doubtless, presented us with some of them, in his elaborate discourse. But, if they be "unanswerable," then all I have said, falls to the ground, as far as it relates to the authenticity of the text in dispute.

The case, my hearers, is now submitted to your candid decision, in respect to the orthodoxy of Griesbach.

[ocr errors]

I must say, that I cannot see how such arguments as have been advanced, in my discourses on the text in question, would destroy the "criterion of truth and falsehood in criticism," and leave " the whole text of the New-Testament unsubstantiated and dubious." In my humble opinion, there is an important rule in determining the divinity of a given text, which seems to have been overlooked by Griesbach, and, perhaps, by many others; namely, its internal character, and agreement with the other parts and doctrines of the Scriptures. According to this rule, the text in debate stands firm. The internal evidence of the Bible at large, has been considered by divines of the first eminence, as a proof of its authenticity; and

« ZurückWeiter »