This subject in relation to an important passage in John is explained in a most able manner in the letters of the Reverend Henry Ware, jr. now one of the Government of Harvard College, addressed to the Reverend Mr. McLeod, in 1823, on account of his use of a disputed verse in the common version of the Scriptures, as a text for a sermon. Here is an extract from Mr. Ware's letters:
It is not my object to make any general defence of the faith against which you have been preaching; much less to complain at your taking an opportunity to warn your people against what you esteem a dangerous error. Your duty to your conscience and to them required it of you; and I would be the last to advocate any abridgement of the liberty of speech in the pulpit. It is not because you have defended Trinitarianism that I ask to be heard; that, you had an unquestionable right to do; but because you defended it upon ground which it appears to me, you had no right to take. When I went up to worship in your church on the evening of the last Sabbath in April, nothing could exceed my astonishment at hearing you announce as your text, that celebrated verse— There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (1 John, 5:7.) I did not readily recover from my surprise. The opinion which is universally expressed by the learned respecting this verse, came fresh to my recollection; and it was with difficulty I could persuade myself, that I had heard it quoted as a part of the Christian Scriptures in that sacred place. It was true, I had been told, that some ministers had lately quoted it as authentic; but I had taken it for granted they must be uninformed and ignorant men; for I had never yet seen reason to doubt the assertion of an able theologian, "that no man of tolerable learning or fairness, at the present day, would think of using it." But now I found it adduced by one to whom I could attribute neither ignorance nor unfairness; and what, then, should relieve my wonder?
My surprise at your use of this text has not ceased. The learned of the present day, throughout the religious world, have agreed, after a long and laborious examination, in pronouncing it no part of the original Scriptures. All who are most competent to judge, Trinitarians as well as Unitarians, with one voice, and with scarcely any reserve, declare it to be an unauthorized addition to the Epistle of John; so that it is, with one consent, thrown out of the Trinitarian controversy. I may well, therefore, be astonished, as I am ignorant of the reasons upon which you have made up your mind, that you should argue from it as genuine.
I do not forget that you told us, that it had been your object in a preceding discourse, "to establish its genuineness as a part of Scripture." I could not suspect you, indeed, of omitting, as some have done, so important a consideration; and I cannot but regret that I had not the opportunity of hearing it discussed. For I acknowledge I am at a loss to conjecture whence you could have gathered sufficient proof to outweigh all those circumstances of evidence, which have for so long a time put the question at rest. It would be wrong, however, to deal in mere assertion on this subject. I beg leave, therefore, to lay before you the language of a few respectable writers—all Trinitarians—whose decisions on this subject, of which they were well able to judge have been thought conclusive.
Let me first ask your attention to the Electic Review, the religious character of which is unsuspiciously orthodox. The passage has been frequently quoted, but the very honorable and decided stand which it takes in behalf of the purity of the sacred text, renders it worthy of perpetual remembrance.
"Upon this," says the writer, "we need not spend many words. It is found in No Greek manuscript, ancient or modern, except one, to which we shall presently advert; in no ancient Version, being interpolated only in the later transcripts of the Vulgate. Not one of the Greek fathers recognises it, though many of them collect every species and shadow of argument, down to the most allegorical and shockingly ridiculous, in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, though they often cite the words immediately contiguous both before and after; and though, with immense labor and art, they extract from the next words the very sense which this passage had in following times been adduced to furnish. Of the Latin fathers, not one has quoted it, till Eucherius, of Lyons, in the middle of the fifth century; and in his works there is much reason to believe that it has been interpolated."
After this summary of the evidence, the writer proceeds in the following striking and decided tone. "Under these circumstances, we are Unspeakably Ashamed that any modern divines should have fought, pedibus et unguibus, for the retention of a passage so Indisputably Spurious. We could adduce half a dozen, or half a score passages of ample length, supported by better authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed edition and translation."
The learned Griesbach, another believer in the Trinity, whose ability to judge in questions of this nature will be universally acknowledged, makes use of language equally strong with that just quoted. "If it were worth while," he says, "I would undertake to defend six hundred of the most futile and universally rejected readings by testimonies and arguments equally numerous and valid, nay, in general, more numerous and valid than those which the advocates of this passage adduce; nor would the defenders of a genuine text have so many and weighty arguments to oppose to such an absurd attempt, as have been produced against the defenders of this verse. I wish those would seriously consider this, who may in future undertake to defend this text."
Bishop Lowth, another learned Trinitarian, is equally decided. "We have some wranglers in theology," he says, "sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to defend any thing, however absurd, should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who would be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse, 1 John, 5:7."
Michaelis, in his most learned and valuable Introduction to the New Testament, says, "It is very extraordinary that any man should think of opposing tBe testimony" in favor of this verse to the testimony against it. And again he says, "One would suppose that no critic, especially if a Protestant, would hesitate a moment to condemn as spurious, a passage," supported by such feeble evidence as this. To each of these sentences he adds a summary of the evidence, which it is unnecessary to quote here.
Dr. Middleton, in his elaborate work on the Greek article, tells us, that this passage is "now pretty generally abandoned as spurious;" and that if any one will study the controversy, "the probable result will be, that he will close the examination with a firm belief that the passage is spurious." He adds afterward—"in the rejection of the controverted passage, learned and good men are now for the most part agreed; and I contemplate with admiration and delight, the gigantic exertions of intellect which have established this acquiescence."
Rosenmuller observes, "It is the opinion of most critics at the present day, that these words are spurious."
Mr. Wardlaw, a late zealous and eloquent defender of the doctrine of the Trinity, is no less positive. "Certainly," he says, "this text should have been entitled to hold the first place, had its genuineness not been disputed, as that of many texts has been, on slight grounds. I freely acknowledge, however, that the evidence of the spuriousness of this celebrated passage, even if it were much less conclusive, than, in my mind, it appears to be, would be quite sufficient to prevent me from resting upon it any part of the weight of this argument."
To the same purpose the Bishop of Lincoln, in his 'Elements of Christian Theology,' says, "I must own, that after an attentive consideration of the controversy relative to that passage, I am convinced that it is spurious."
Prof. Stuart undoubtedly holds the same opinion respecting this verse; for in adducing the texts in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, he omits all mention of this—whereas if he thought it genuine, he must have given it a conspicuous place. He probably alludes to it, with others, when he says, he shall "select only those texts, the language of which appears to be genuine, and above the condemnation of textual criticism."
In this place may be added the fact, that the Great Reformer, Luther, uniformly rejected his verse from this Translation of the New Testament. He did not admit it to a place in the edition which was publishing at the time of his death; and "he concluded his preface to that edition," says Charles Butler, "with what may be termed his dying request, that upon no account his translation should be altered in the slightest instance;" which of course, implies his firm persuasion, that this verse does not belong to the Bible.
To these names, some of them amongst the most honored in the church, might be added many more equally well known; it is enough to mention those eminent biblical critics, Simon, and Wetstein; Benson, Grotius, and Semler, (who, says Micbaelis, "not only confuted all the arguments which had been used in favor of this verse, but wrote the most important work which we have on this subject,") Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Herbert Marsh, Archbishop Newcome, and the distinguished Methodist, Dr. Adam Clarke; and, finally, that illustrious scholar, Porson, whose letters, by which the controversy concerning the verse was brought to a final conclusion, "are an eternal monument of his erudition, critical sagacity, and wit."
To the extracts already made, others might be added, if I were in a situation to have access to the necessary books. I have not made them under the idea that you are unacquainted with them; but simply, that it might be seen how strong and unqualified is the conviction produced upon the minds of the most competent judges, by the evidence against this verse.
No comments:
Post a Comment