صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

under the reign of two emperors, and seemed for a season, to bid fair to become the dominant religion, especially in the East, where it prevailed far more generally than in the West. At length, Trinitarianism gained a complete victory, and the cause of Arius was suddenly extinguished. Trinitarianism became the order of the day, from the reign of Justinian, down through all the dark ages, until the time of the reformation.'

[ocr errors]

66

On what the gentleman has now said, a few brief remarks may be made. It is very true, that Arianism spread its baleful wings over the christian world, almost entirely; and, with a rapidity that was mournful, as well as “astonishing." My opponent says—" It seemed for a season, to bid fair to become the dominant religion." The Arians, no doubt, then anticipated an everlasting triumph of their deleterious cause. But, it was only " for a season," that this smoke of the pit, darkened the christian horizon. The gentleman's expression "a season," is very indefinite. Its duration, however was, above one half of the fourth century, the whole of the fifth, and more than half of the sixth century; according to his own calculation; for, the emperor Justinian, died in the year 566. This season, therefore, was more than two hundred years.

It seems to be the object of my opponent, in calling the reign of Arianism "a season," to impress the mind with such a view of its shortness, that no advantage could have been taken, of erasing the text in debate, from the manuscripts and versions of Scripture then in use, nor in forming others, in which it might have been omitted. He appears to keep his eye on this point, as a thing of the first importance to his cause. But, immediately after the Nicene council, which was in the 25th year of the fourth century, Arianism prevailed to such a degree in the Roman empire, that Athanasius, who is called "the champion of Or

N

thodoxy," was banished. The Nicene creed, therefore, with the men, and those parts of Scripture which supported it, must have experienced much opposition, through a period of time, not less than two hundred and fifty years. The exertions of men, on that side, to silence the sacred passages which are against them, we fully understand; and we may be well assured that their predecessors have been animated with the same spirit.

The gentleman, closes his statement with these words; "Trinitarianism became the order of the day, from the reign of Justinian, down through all the dark ages, until the time of the reformation."

As he says, it was a time of great darkness indeed; and long, being upwards of one thousand years. But, if the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, gave that era its sable aspect, the present day is not very luminous; for, the reformed churches as fully believe it now, as the church of Rome ever did. It seems to be my opponent's opinion, that such a long period of darkness, gave a fine opportunity to forge, insert and impose the text in debate. The doctrine of the Trinity, however, is not of Papal origin. 'It was firmly believed in the earliest times of christianity, and when the church was in her greatest purity; being supported by what was deemed "sufficient evidence;" and therefore, the Roman Hierarchy were not under the necessity of fabricating evidence in its favor. It does not appear, that it was ever the desire of the Roman clergy to multiply manuscripts, or versions of the Scriptures; but, to keep them wholly out of the sight of the laity. If we take into view the nature of their scheme, we may easily see, that they were under a greater temptation to erase some part of the decalogue, than to forge and insert the text in dispute. By the account which my opponent has given us, the doctrine of the Trinity was not opposed in

the dark ages: and, of course, there was no need of forging Scripture for its support. He acknowledges, however, that "it became a subject of violent controversy throughout the christian world," from the days of Arius to the commencement of the Papal reign. If the disputed text be a forgery, there can be no doubt, that the crime was committed in the Arian period of time; for then, such a passage was necessary; and no one supposes that it was forged since the reformation. We may be well assured, that the Arians were heavily pressed with the arguments of the Orthodox; and, therefore, they had as great need to spike the artillery which was in operation against them, as their opponents had to forge such "a cannon of war," as the text under consideration.

The gentleman in opposition, goes on to draw some inferences from the arguments which he has advanced.

His first conclusion is;-" Now the argument stands thus-Had 1 John, 5. 7, been known, or contained in John's epistle, this was the time when it was wanted."

This, I cheerfully admit; for " the time" to which he alludes, is the Arian period. My opponent, seems to press me with this supposed difficulty, namely;-If the text had existed then, it would have been largely quoted by the writers of that time-they did not use it;-and, therefore, it was not known by them. In my sermons on the passage, it was shown, that Jerom cited it in the beginning of the fifth century, and Vigilius at the close of it. Agustine, Marcus, Celedensis, and Phebadius, used it in the fourth century; and, if we may rely on historical testimony, it was cited by Athanasius. It was left as a testimony against the Arians, at the conference held at Carthage, in the fifth century.

No doubt, the writings of those ancient fathers, have suffered greatly by the lapse of ages; and perhaps by the

[ocr errors]

hands of men. When the Arians had the christian world so long under their controul, they had some opportunity to alter the works of the early fathers, as well as to mutilate the Scriptures. If it should be said-These things cannot be proved against the Arians; my answer is, neither can forgery be supported against the Orthodox; yet, the one or the other of these evils has taken place.

The next conclusion of my opponent, is, that the Arians, for the reason which he has assigned, could not have altered the Scriptures, nor the writings of the fathers, if they had been so disposed. He says, "So barefaced an attempt could neither have escaped detection, nor fail of forming a notorious item of depravity in the history of that abominable period."

The gentleman, undoubtedly, means the Arian "period;" and, why he should call it "abominable," is really mysterious:-But I have no desire to oppose him on that ground. I am fully convinced, that, if in the age in view, they could not have been guilty of erasure, nor of omissions, they have of forgery and insertion; and either of these cases must form such "a notorious item of depravity in their history" as he thinks to be impossible. His argument goes on the ground, that erasures and omissions, were crimes that would have stained the character of that age that these things were so difficult, that they could not have been done; and, that the Anti-Trinitarians were so upright, they would not have attempted them. In respect to omitting and erasing, he says-" There is no such charge exhibited against the Arians, in either the historical or theological writers of that age." This stands acknowledged; but, does it certainly follow, that no such crimes ⚫ were committed? There is no charge of forging and inserting any text in our translation "exhibited against the"

Orthodox, "by the historical and theological writers of that age," nor of any age antecedent to the fifteenth century; yet, it is acknowledged by my opponent himself, that the text in debate was quoted seven hundred years before; and, therefore, according to his mode of reasoning we may infer, that it was never forged.

[ocr errors]

In my sermons on this subject, it has been clearly shown that, adding is as great a sin as omitting; and, far more difficult to be done without detection. If the gentleman's arguments on this head have weight, they prove that 1 John 5. 7, has neither been erased, omitted nor forged; →yet, he says, “It is a vile interpolation," and lashes the supposed forger, as "a hotheaded Trinitarian zealot." Certainly, such reasoning is inadmissible; and far beneath the talents of my acute and learned opponent.

[ocr errors]

Notwithstanding the mysterious silence of "the historical and theological writers" of ancient times, the text in dispute, must have been either inserted, or erased from the sacred manuscripts; and the impartial mind must be convinced, that one of these crimes must have been committed in that very period of time, in which the controversy about the Trinity agitated the christian world.

In respect to erasing or omitting the text in question, my opponent says, that, after the reign of Justinian, down to the reformation in the sixteenth century, " Anti-Trinitarians have been in a condition altogether inauspicious for so wild an undertaking." But, if that be admitted; surely, the Trinitarians were not then under any necessity of forging a passage, to support their cause against a fallen enemy. It was in the Arian period of time, therefore, that the mischief must have been done in relation to the text under consideration, which ever of the contending parties has been guilty.

« السابقةمتابعة »