On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
eittth 9 ^ hW > & , s * # 9 f . & ofyectiaus , Jt be stUl g $ nuw $ , no ' part of scripture can be proved either spurious or genuine ; ana Satan for
has been permitted , very many centuries , miraculously to banish the finest passage in the New Testament from the eyes and memories of almost all the Christian authors , translators and transcribers . " *
On this passage trie learned Mr . Evans exclaims , " Vain are the subtleties of sophistry , and even the surmises of probability , in comparison with the positive facts of this
historical deduction . " This summary is remarkable for two thing ' s—^ the facts are palpably misstated , and the very foundation of all bis reasoning is ^ a gross misconception . The passage is the finest in the New Testament for
proving the Trinity , and yet the Fathers , all of whom were Trinitarians , have not quoted it : therefore the verse is spurious , or Satan has been permitted to banish it from the eyes aod memories of mea for m&ny
centuries . All thut Satan has clone in this instance was to dictate the articles of the Church of Eng 4 an . cl , which Mr .-Porson , in this case , implicitly believed , % x \ d thus deprived him of his usual sagacity . Had he , as a critic , taken the verse and examined it
m connexion with the facts which called it forth , he would then have seen that the Apostle intended it not to prove the Trinity , but to preclude the foundation of the Trinity by setting aside the divinity of Christ . This \ W known to the Greek and Latin
fathers from first to last * The true statement then is this : the Christian writers did not quote a verse which , # they had fairly and fully quoted , could aot fail , on the authority of an apostle , to erase their own system to
the ground . Behold , to what depth of degradation implicit authority or early prejudice reduces the mind of t&an ! Mx , Porson might boast of Ulenta even to classical inspiration ; l > ut here we see him on a level with lhe meanest driveller that ever turned
Nor is it true , as an historical fact , that all the Greek and Latin fathers w ~\ # ¦» - _ _
f ** ve preserved deep and dead silence ** regard to the verse ; for it is demo nstrable tlmt above twenty of ttjjm have quoted it partly or to-7 > and that within the space of V - xxi . 5 k
Untitled Article
tfcs first six centuries . Tba ^ assertion of JVJr . Porson here is indeed flagrantly falsq , and will remain a stigma on his mej » # ry for ever . With equal
confidence lie and Griesbach and the Quarterly Reviewer assert , that the verse was unknown to the Venerable Bede j yet whoever will take the trouble to examine his work will 6 nd that
Bede comments upon it , though for the purpose of disguise he has put it out of its proper place . This single instance shews that no dependence can be put in the statement of facts given by Mr , Porson and his coadjutors .
But the Greek MISS-, whose authority can alone decide the question , negative the v ^ rse . This i $ an appeal to fact , and all reasoning" against it is nugatory . This I allow is an
argument of graye importance ^ and irmst be answered . A MS . containing a passage bespeaks its authenticity only 30 far as to shew that that passage was extant when the said MS . was
written , being , in all probability , copied like the rest from an antecedent original . Three of the oldest Greek MSS . reach , it is supposed , back to the fifth century ; and tke absence of the text from them implies that it was not ttien in existence . This is
the inference that I have to set aside , and the following facts prove that the verse wa « in existence and known to frll the learned , 1 . The writings of Tertullian ,
Cyprian , Athauasius , Busil , 'Cyril ,- ac , from the second to the fiFtb century , shew to a moral certainty that they were acquainted with the verse , xukI that they felt some powerful restraint against quoting it fully aud fairly ,.
2 . In the beginning * of the fourth century the verse became a subject of violent controvers y ; representatives of all tlae Christian churches in Christendouri then assembled to decide on its gleaning . These men were in possession of the Greek MSS . which had descended from the times
of the apostles , and probably the very autograph of the Apostle John ; and the absence of the slightest suspicion of its spuriousness ou their part , proves that there was no ground for
such suspicion , that its , pro yes that it was extant in every authentic document within their kjaowtedgp , ^ 3 . S ome few year ^ aftejr this , tkirtyseven biahopa ,, who drew up the Anti-
Untitled Article
Heaven ly , ijKitnesses , in Reply io th $ Strictures of the Rev * J ¥ . Evans . 757
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1826, page 757, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2555/page/57/
-