Page images
PDF
EPUB

The providence of God, involving this text in a degree of uncertainty, as some consider it to be, is no more proof of its spuriousness, than the burying of the only copy of the law in the rubbish of the temple, proved, that no such book was ever given to Israel. We think, that we are no more disposed to believe, independently of evidence, than our opponents.

I shall pass over a considerable part of the gentleman's discourse, as answering it would be a recapitulation of arguments, which I have already endeavored to meet. I will just apprise you, however, that mention is made of Mr. Travis, as "a blundering copyist of a French author, called Martyn;" but I intend to make some remarks on Mr. Travis hereafter; and, therefore, I shall drop the matter at present.

There is an observation in what is passed over, in regard to Athanasius; calling him "the god-father of Trinitarianism," the reducer of it "to its present orthodox form." A reply, however, is not deemed necessary; for it has been largely shown that the doctrine of the Trinity in unity, was understood and firmly believed by the church of Christ, long before the days of Athanasius, even up to the time of the apostles.

In the gentleman's next paragraph, some anathemæs appear against the text in question; and a prediction, that it is soon to be annihilated from the book of God. He calls its supporters also "enthusiastic devotees ;" but, as these things are not arguments, they require no answer. This discourse may, therefore, be closed with that apostolic injunction; "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." AMEN.

SERMON VIII.

I JOHN, V. 7.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are

one.

THE gentleman in opposition, has been followed through the greater part of his arguments against the Divine authority of this passage;-but the closing part of his discourse, remains to be answered. As he seems to place great reliance on what he has yet to say, a more particular reply is requisite.

He says, "One more short argument, and I will relieve your patience." It is an "argument which cannot fail of its becoming influence with all those, who, as they do not profess to be versed in Biblical criticism, must of course, depend, in these matters, upon the united decisions of the learned."

By "the learned," on whose "united decisions," the unlettered part of mankind "must depend," my opponent seems to mean, such writers as have signalized themselves in their critical opposition to the text; for, if the suffrage of "the learned" were to be taken, we cannot doubt, but the majority would be in its favor. If "the united decisions of the learned," were against the passage, it ought to

be given up by common readers, and be printed no more in any of the subsequent translations and editions of the New-Testament. It rather appears, however, to be the opinion of my opponent, that all who undertake in favor of the text, are so deficient in oriental learning, critical ability, close investigation, and theological integrity, that no confidence can be placed in their judgment.

If this be the case, it is highly necessary that this class of "the learned,” should immediately produce a corrected translation of the Scriptures, that the illiterate and dependent part of mankind, may be rescued from the base idolatry of worshipping Jesus Christ; and, from the crime of resting on his atonement for salvation, instead of their own merits. If Trinitatarian forgery, and their imposition in "manufacturing authority for vile interpolations," has led to such a departure from the pure worship of God, it is high time that some efficient measures should be taken with the Scriptures. But, alas! the "united decisions" of the Anti-Trinitarians appear to have little effect in reforming the world; for they do not seem to "commend" themselves to the "conscience in the sight of God."

I shall now proceed to examine my opponent's "short," but powerful argument. He commences with saying,— "The passage of the three heavenly witnesses, in 1 John, 5. 7, namely, these words," In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one; and there are three that bear record on earth," is a passage now admitted by the most eminently learned divines in Europe, of various denominations, Trinitarians as well as others, to be a vile forgery; and so notoriously is this the fact, that there is not a learned man, at this day, in Europe, whether divine or civilian, who would degrade his character as a Biblical critic, by venturing on the defence of it."

In this strong sentence, the first thing to be noticed, is,

[ocr errors]

1

that all the "learned Trrinitarian divines in Europe, admit” this text "to be a vile forgery." This statement is distinctly denied by me; and, in doing it, the following reasons may be offered.

1. The late Rev. Claudius Buchannan, D. D. who held a high rank in England as a pious divine, and a pre-eminent orientalist, whose praise is in the churches, has unequivocally declared, that he fully believed 1 John, 5. 7, to be a genuine text of Scripture. For this fact, I appeal to all who have read his Christian Researches in Asia.

2. The late Dr. Scott, also, who both as a divine and a scholar is well known, has given his opinion in favor of the text, as has been clearly shown in my sermons.

3. The Rev. Ralph Wordlaw, who is a very learned and distinguished divine in Scotland, in speaking of this text, suggests no belief of its being "a vile forgery." In respect to its authenticity, I have acknowledged, that he expressed some degree of doubt; but, that is very far from admitting it to be "a vile interpolation."

[ocr errors]

4. There is a case, that is obvious to every one, the consideration of which, must reflect great light on this subject. It is this:-New editions of the Scriptures are constantly appearing from the presses of Europe in general, and England in particular, which all contain the verse in question. If the learned, throughout Europe and Great Britain, all know that the text in dispute is “ a vile forgery," why have they not prevented its appearance in every edition of the Bible that has been published, since this conviction has taken place in their minds? Bible Societies are very extensive in that section of the globe; and by their exertions, the Scriptures have been recently translated into many languages, and largely circulated throughout the world; but, we have no account that the text has been left out of any edition or translation what

ever. If the gentleman's bold assertion be correct, what can we think of the orthodox divines of Europe? Will they impose "vile forgeries," on the poor heathen, for the word of the living God, when they not only know, but have admitted that they are such? My opponent's assertion, I think, must be questioned on sober reflection, and, doubtless, he would not have ventured it, unless he had received such communications from the British Anti-Trinitarians; but it is surprising, that he should either rely on such information himself, or hold it up to the world as deserving credit.

In his mind, however, this difficulty may be surmounted, by a belief, that no Trinitarian divines are entitled to the honor of being learned, who do not appear in opposition to the text; and that the number of those is so small, that they find themselves incapable of correcting the wilfulness and ignorance of the others. The Anti-Trinitarian divines, seem to flatter themselves with the idea, that they are all learned and great; and that the Trinitarian clergy, are almost universally deficient in these respects. The public mind, however, may differ with them in this matter. Self complacency is natural.

The second thing to be noticed in my opponent's sweeping statement, is-"That there is not a learned man, at this day in Europe, whether divine or civilian, who would degrade his character as a biblical critic, by venturing on a defence of this text." He says further-" The learned Porson, in his reply to Travis, has settled this controversy forever."

But, to this assertion, my reply is-If by "this day," be meant strictly the present one; it is neither in the gentleman's power, nor in mine, to determine the case. If. however, by "this day," be meant, any time past in this enlightened century, he is certainly incorrect in his assertion; for, Dr. Scott, in his note on the text, has ventured

Q

« PreviousContinue »