صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

But my opponent, after showing that the Anti-Trinitarians could not have erased nor omitted the text, proceeds to what he seems to consider as invincible conclusions against its authenticity. Through divine assistance, therefore, I shall endeavor to meet them in the next discourse; for which, may the Lord prepare us. AMEN.

SERMON VII.

1 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.

As my answer to the gentleman, in opposition, is not yet completed, I must proceed with it.

He seems to be very confident, that the Anti-Trinitarians, could not have been guilty of erasing this passage from the scriptures, nor of omitting it in their transcriptions. Some reasons for thinking otherwise have been given, and more will be offered.

One of my opponent's formidable conclusions, runs in the following summary manner:-"So, we may not only expect, but be absolutely sure, that, on the supposition of the genuineness of the three heavenly witnesses, the passage must, and undoubtedly does, appear in the best and most ancient Greek manuscripts-in the most ancient and respectable versions-in the controversial writings of the Trinitarian fathers of every age-and in the orthodox creeds and catechisms which have regulated the faith of Christendom."

Some of these objections have been fully answered; and others have been passed by, to which I shall make my re

served replies.

This method has been adopted, to preserve, as far as possible, a correct arrangement, and avoid repetition.

The gentleman, after closing his supposed invincible conclusions, proceeds to mourn over the fallen text, in the following plaintive expressions ;-"Alas! for the famous passage, it is not contained in any Greek manuscript of respectability, early or late now in existence!"

But to this, my reply is ;-If it is not contained" in any respectable Greek manuscript, this seems to be an acknowledgment that, it may be found in some which my opponent is unwilling to honor with that elevation of character. Allowing, that there are no such Greek manuscripts now in being, does that fairly prove, that there never have been any such manuscripts on earth? Are we bound wholly to overlook in this case, historical testimony? There are no such cities as the ancient Babylon, Nineveh and Tyre, now to be found on the globe; is it therefore, a just conclusion, to say, that no such cities ever existed? In my third sermon on the text, it was made to appear, that, "Laurentius Valla, an Italian nobleman of great erudition, undertook a correction of the Greek manuscripts of the New-Testament, in the 14th century; which was 100 years before the days of Erasmus. If the historical testimony which I have adduced, may be relied on, he, “by assiduous and long continued exertions, obtained seven Greek manuscripts; and "the text in debate" was found in them all." Since that event, five hundred years have elapsed; and, therefore, those manuscripts, like many others, are lost with time.

It is acknowledged by my opponent himself, that " 132 manuscripts have been examined by the learned with a particular reference to this passage, and have all been found silent in relation to the three heavenly witnesses." He

says likewise, that there are but 109 of these to be found now. According to his statement, we may see, that 23 of his own boasted manuscripts have perished since the days of Erasmus; for, he has told us himself, that, from the reign of Justinian to the reformation, the subject was laid asleep; and, therefore, during that time, no manuscripts would have been examined. We need not be surprised, if our seven Greek manuscripts have been lost in the lapse of 500 years; seeing, that 23 of his have perished in 400 years. We have as good reason to believe that those seven Greek manuscripts, which history says were in our favor, once existed, as he has that the twenty-three have had a being, which testified against us. It is not to be doubted, that there have been many of both kinds of manuscripts, which are now lost with time. The evidence of history in such cases, is not to be discarded.

In what I have said of Laurentius Valla, the truth of it is admitted by M. Simon, who was an enemy to the text in question. History says, that the Glossa Ordinaria was made by Walefrid Strabo, in the ninth century, and from Greek manuscripts, some of which were more ancient than any now in being. The character of his commentary, stands very high in the opinion of an eminent Anti-Trinitarian writer; and, therefore, it may be consistently esteemed by Trinitarians. The number of Greek manuscripts, which the writer of the Glossa Ordinaria had under his eye, cannot be ascertained by me; but, it seems that he felt himself warranted to insert in that work, the text in question. Our text is likewise found in Jerom's Version. It was made in the beginning of the fifth century; and in doing it, he solemnly asserts, that he was guided by the Greek manuscripts. He says, that the text "had been adulterated, mistranslated and omitted on purpose to elude the truth."

The Rev. William Jones, observes with great propriety that Jerom "had a better opportunity of examining the true merits of the cause than we can have at this distance of time." As he was convinced of its authenticity, we may repose great confidence in his opinion, on the ground of his abilities, excellent character, and early standing in the Christian church.

Robert Stephens, found the text contained in nine of his sixteen Greek manuscripts, according to the the testimony of William Jones.

When the Emperor Charlemagne furnished the divines of his age with all the manuscripts which could then be procured in his dominion; it appears, that they felt themselves authorized to retain this passage in their correctorium.

Thus, we have an authentic account of sixteen Greek manuscripts, in which the text in debate was found; namely, the seven used by Laurentius Valla, in the fourteenth century, and the nine in the possession of Robert Stephens; who lived since the time of the reformation, which commenced in the early part of the sixteenth century. We have the testimony of historians, that Walafrid Strabo used Greek manuscripts in the ninth century, in forming his Glossa Ordinaria; and Jerom likewise, in the fifth century, in making his Versions. Allowing that those manuscripts have all perished, and that there are, as my opponent says, 109 Geeek manuscripts now in being, without the disputed text; I cannot see that it would destroy the evidence which has been produced. The want of the passage in the manuscripts which have been mentioned, has in some measure been explained, and, therefore, need not be repeated.

My opponent's next conclusion is,-if the text in question were genuine, it would appear "in the most ancient

« السابقةمتابعة »