Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

every age, to preserve them from corruption. The Lord of Hosts, is "the Shepherd and the Stone of Israel ;" and, "he doth, neither slumber nor sleep," in guarding the concerns of his kingdom, and securing the honor of his own glorious and eternal name.

5. The entire silence of Anti-Trinitarians, in ancient times, in relation to the spuriousness of the text in question, is an argument of great weight, in favor of its authenticity.

We must believe, that if the text in debate, be an interpolation, it is not of modern date.

Mr. Emlyn, in his "Enquiry into the original authority of 1 John 5. 7," states, that the christian world, “had it not in their Bibles, for above 700 years." If this be a fact, it must have been inserted in some copy, or copies, of the sacred writings, as early as the beginning of the eighth century. On this calculation, it must have existed for as long as 1000 years. This is a sufficient proof of my argument, that if the passage has been inserted, it is an ancient crime. If there was no debate among christians at that time, about the doctrine of the Trinity, to insert such a text, was unnecessary: but, if that thing was then disputed, those, who did it, would, undoubtedly, have proclaimed to the world its spuriousness. Justice to themselves, must have forbidden their silence. If such an event had transpired, there would have been some account of it transmitted down to us. A learned debate, on the authority of this passage, as far back as the 8th or 9th century, would throw great light on the subject.

Many ancient manuscripts, existed then, which have since perished by the devouring hand of time. It is very possible, that the autograph of St. John, might have been then produced. No doubt the church, would have preserved that, as an authentic copy, and as a memorial, of

one of the dearest servants of our Lord Jesus Christ. A sight of the original, must have settled all controversy on the subject at once. As the Scriptures then, were all in manuscripts, and not very ancient, the difficulty might have been canvassed with more certainty, than it can be now, Perhaps, it was on that very account, that Anti-Trinitarians chose to let the matter rest, until a more auspicious age, should favor the undertaking. If they could show by authentic records, when this text was inserted, by what hands, and for what purpose, the victory would be their's. If the thing were as they pretend, this could be done; but, as no one attempts it, we have a right to consider this controverted passage, as being genuine, until it is proved to be otherwise, by positive testimony, In examining this subject, it will be made to appear, that the evidence, on which, they set aside, the words in question, is purely negative; and, to this, I hope, to be able to oppose much positive proof, in my next discourse,

E

SERMON III.

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.

ON a former occasion, two discourses were delivered from this celebrated text. The general arrangement which was adopted in the outset of the subject was, to explain the doctrine contained in this passage-to show its agreement with the Scriptures at large-and then, adduce evidence for the divine authority of the text itself.

The two first heads have been discussed, and some attention has been given to the third and last. Under that, it was argued.

1. That the divine authority of the text, appears from its strict connection with what precedes and follows it, in the chapter where it stands.

2. From the similarity of the style and doctrine, with the style and doctrine of St. John's other writings.

3. That there does not appear to have been any necessity on the part of the Orthodox, of committing such a forgery.

4. That to have forged the passage would have been a heinous crime, and attended with great danger.

5. That the entire silence of Anti-Trinitarians, in ancient times, in respect to the spuriousness of this text, is

1

an argument of great weight in favor of its authenticity.

The way is, therefore, prepared, to proceed to a further train of testimony, in favor of the divinity of 1 John 5. 7. In doing this, it will be proper to show,

6. The grounds on which this passage is rejected, from the oracles of God.

In attending to this point, I shall endeavor to observe candor and accuracy, as far as I have obtained light on the subject. It has been noticed already, that it is on the ground of negative proof, that this text is declared to be spurious. On that account, its enemies have been very confident; and, by their triumphant language, many of the Orthodox have been, I think, unnecessarily shaken, in respect to its divine authority.

The main evidence which lies against the text in question, is this: It is wanting in many of the ancient manuscripts, and especially the Greek; and it is omitted in many of the earlier versions of the Holy Scriptures.

This fact we are not disposed to deny; neither do we consider the argument derived from it as unanswerable; and to this the attention of my hearers is now to be directed.

The most famous manuscripts existing at present are only transcripts of more ancient ones, which have perished in the lapse of ages. It is very easy, therefore, to see, that transcribers might have left out this text through inadvertence, or with a wicked design of embarrassing the doctrine of the Trinity. An omission in one manuscript, might have occasioned the want of this text in many others which were subsequently written. No doubt, many manuscripts and versions of the Scriptures, have been formed from the Alexandrian and Vatican copies, in which, this text, from some reason or other, has been omitted. It is a fact, well authenticated, that some of the ancient manu

scripts have had this text in them, and that others have ap peared, and still appear without it.

The Rev. William Jones, author of "The Catholic doctrine of a Trinity," in page 224 of "the first American edition," observes, "The divines of Lovain, having compared many Latin copies, found this text wanting but in five of them; and Robert Stephens found it retained in nine out of sixteen ancient manuscripts which he used." The probability is surely as great, that where this text is wanting in the ancient manuscripts and versions of Scripture, it might have been omitted through inadvertence, or erased with design, as that it was inserted in the copies where it was or is found. It is a fact, well known from ancient history, that many Anti-Trinitarians appeared very early in the Christian Church, whose hearts were highly embittered against the doctrine of the Trinity, and the supreme Deity of Christ. Ebion, Cerinthus, and Marcion, who had many followers, lived in and near the days of the apostles; and they were violent opposers to the doctrines which have been mentioned. Milner, in his Church History, observes concerning them, "While they acknowledged the excellence of the character of Jesus Christ, they considered him a mere man, descended from Mary and her husband Joseph. With such low ideas of the Redeemer's person, they denied the virtue of his atoning blood, and labored to establish justification by the deeds of the law. To be consistent with themselves, they rejected the divine authority of St. Paul's Epistles, and accused the apostle of being an Antinomian." See "Townsend's abridgment of Milner, page 56. Men of this description were full as likely to have erased 1 John, 5. 7. from the ancient manuscripts, as the orthodox Christians were to have inserted such a text. I am, however, of the opinion, that it was neither omitted nor inserted in that

« AnteriorContinua »