תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

“The result, then, of the whole, is,-that the verse in question, seems, beyond all degree of serious doubt, to have stood in this epistle, when it originally proceeded from the pen of St. John.

"In the Latin, or Western church, the suffrages of Tertullian, and Cyprian, of Marcus Celedensis, and Phabadius, in its favor, aided by the early, the solemn, the public appeal to its authority, by the African Bishops under Huneric; the preface, Bible, and conscripta-fides, of Jerom; the frequent, and direct citations of the verse by Eucherius, Augustine, Fulgentius, Vigilius, and Cassiodorius:-these, supported, as to the Greek, or Eastern churches, by the dialogue between Arius and Athanasius, as well as by the synopsis of this epistle-by the Armenian version, which was framed from Greek manuscripts, by the very early, and constant use of the Apostolos in the same Greek church, and by its public confession of faith: All these evidences, arising within the limit of the sixth century, to pass over the immense accumulation of testimony which has been produced subsequent to that era, offering themselves to the test of the judgment, combined in one point of view, unchecked by a single negation, unrebuked by any positive contradiction, unresisted by the smallest direct impeachment of the authenticity of the verse, throughout all the annals of all antiquity: All these circumstances seize the mind, as it were, by violence, and compel it to acknowledge the verity, the original existence of the verse in question." Travis's works, page 344-346.

To the evidence which has been advanced by Mr. Travis, I will add a brief statement of facts, from the writings of Dr. Gill. He says, "Concerning this text, there has been a dispute whether it is genuine or not. It is objected, that some of the ancient fathers did not quote it.

But what then? others did; and a sufficient number of them to prove it genuine. It is quoted by Fulgentius against the Arians in the beginning of the sixth century, without the least scruple or hesitation. It is found in Jerom's translation, which was made near the close of the fourth century. It is quoted by Athanasius, about the fourth, and by Cyprian about the middle of the third century. It is manifestly referred to, by Tertullian, in the beginning of the third, and by Clemens of Alexandria, toward the close of the second century. Thus it is to be traced up within one hundred years, or less, of the time when the epistle was written. This ought surely, to satisfy any one, that the passage is genuine. There never was any dispute about it, until Erasmus left it out, in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of an old British copy, put it into another edition of his translation." The Dr. adds, "Yea, the Socinians themselves, did not dare to leave it out, in their German Racovian version, which was made in 1630." See Dr. Gill's body of divinity, vol. 1, page 198.

It will be readily perceived, that Dr. Gill, has only given us a condensed view of the evidence, adduced by Mr. Travis; with the additional testimony of Clemens; and the Socinians, feeling the necessity of retaining the text in debate, in their own version. But, as Clemens lived in the close of the second century, his quoting the words, is a solid proof that they are genuine.

[ocr errors]

The Rev. Caleb Alexander says, in the appendix of his 'essay on the Deity of Christ," "We are very happy that it is in our power to produce very direct and peremptory testimonies, to establish the originality and authenticity of this disputed text. For these testimonies we are indebted to the judicious and learned works of the Rev.

George Travis, A. M. Prebendary of Chester, and Vicar of Eastham, who, in his letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq. has rescued this text from the hands of its adversaries, and conferred on the church an obligation of the liveliest gratitude and love." Alexander's Essay on the Deity of Christ, page 62.

Thus, I have now, my hearers, laid before you the evidence I intended, relative to the divinity of 1 John, 5. 7. The inferences, naturally arising from the subject, must necessarily be omitted, until the next occasion. They will be sufficiently interesting and copious, to form an entire discourse. I shall, therefore, close this sermon, with that apostolical injunction, "Contend earnestly for the faith, which was once delivered to the saints."

G

SERMON IV.

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.

[ocr errors]

IN the three preceding Sermons, the general propositions which were deduced from this passage, have been discussed. In illustrating them, we have seen the doctrine which the text contains-its agreement with the Scriptures at large-and the evidence of its divine authority. It only remains, to close the subject with an appropriate improvement. And,

1. In the light of what has been said, I think, we are fully warranted to receive 1 John, 5. 7, as the real word of God. The evidence alleged against it, that it is not found "in many of the ancient versions and manuscripts," has, in some measure, been accounted for; and, as we have seen positive proof of its existence in every age, up to the very period, in which, St. John lived, we may rest fully satisfied. It has been shown, that "the Italic version, which was made in the first century, contained this text, and was for many centuries, used by all the Latin churches in Europe, Asia and Africa. The text in question, must have had a being when it was put into the ver

sion under consideration. If it had been forged, the iniquity must then have been at once detected by the original manuscript; and, even, by the voice of its author, who was probably, still alive.

It is inadmissible to suppose, that the Latin churches would have received a text as inspired, which was not to be found in the apostle's autograph, nor in the manuscripts used in the Greek churches. Its being referred to by Cyprian and Clemens, in the third and second centuries, very fully shows, that it was received by the Christian world then, as the pure word of God. The want of this text,

in a thousand manuscripts and versions, which have been made subsequent to the third and fourth centuries, cannot destroy this positive testimony in its favor. As it contains a doctrine, clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures; it is also a strong proof of its authenticity, to an orthodox mind. No evidence, however, arises from that consideration, in the view of those, who do not allow that the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, are truths revealed in the Bible. It is no wonder, that with such sentiments, they should doubt the inspiration of 1 John 5. 7, nor, that they should exert themselves to prove it spurious.

If a text were to be found in the Scriptures, opposite to their express doctrines, we would undoubtedly, on that very account, question its authority. Men, therefore, who

think, that this is the only passage, which speaks of a Trinty in Unity; will naturally consider its very contents, as being evidence of its spuriousness. Nothing short of positive testimony can convince them of its divine original. That, however, has, I think, been fully exhibited. I shall, therefore, consider myself justified in quoting the text, as evidence of a Triune God; unless greater proof of its fallacy can be made to appear, than I have ever yet seen. In itself, it bears the characteristics of inspiration, strongly

« הקודםהמשך »