Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

he used was genuine and authentic, and that other copies had been interpolated and corrupted. And whether he was well-informed or not, I see no reason to believe that he was insincere. His copy did not contain the history of the miraculous conception: this narrative therefore he rejected: though there was nothing in his system that we know of which was inconsistent with it. And he like other philosophers of his day would have been glad to have redeemed christianity from the reproach of deriving its origin from a despised and crucified Nazarene.

But what says my worthy friend to rebut this testimony of Marcion? First, he was "an ancient heretic." Good! This argument may very probably have its weight with my friend, whose reputation for orthodoxy must be much raised by his late publication. And certainly it will appear fully convincing to the mass of readers. For, who would believe any thing because an old heretic had affirmed it? But as to myself, whose orthodoxy is not in such high repute, I confess I cannot feel quite satisfied with the objection; but on the contrary I must acknowledge a consciousness of something like a bias in favour of a heretic, whether ancient or modern.

But Marcion, it should seem, was a notorious, obstinate and irreclaimable heretic: "who rejected all the Old Testament, the whole of St. Paul's writings, and perverted several other passages of scripture." (p. 118.)

All this and a great deal more may, for any thing I know, be true of Marcion and his followers. But where does my friend learn this account of Marcion and his tenets? Not from Marcion himself: for none of his writings are now extant. But from the representation of him and his principles by his orthodox antagonists. But surely my friend will not call this a very impartial rule of judgment. I will put a case, that shall bring the matter home to my worthy friend's own feelings, to his own business and bosom. Suppose that fifteen or sixteen centuries from this time, the Unitarians and their works should all be extinct, and that nothing should be known concerning a sect which at present challenges some distinction, but what might be learned from a book which had been published early in the nineteenth century entitled Lectures on the works of Creation and the Doctrines of Revelation, by the Rev. B. Carpenter, in which the author undertakes to combat the opinions of that obnoxious sect. What idea would posterity in the thir tieth century entertain of the Unitarians from reading this book, written in professed hostility to their opinions? From this work, which would indeed appear to be the production of a very respectable author, who sets out with great professi

ons of candour and moderation, they would learn, that the Unitarians of the eighteenth century were a set of daring innovators in religion, "to whom the novelty of a doctrine was a recommendation to their acceptance," and who were "most bold when they were most blind;" who held doctrines which, "if they were true, men not only deceived themselves but were deceived by their Maker:" that they professed indeed to believe in christianity, and some eminent writers among them "published many tracts to prove its divine origin, but it may be questioned whether they did not make as many unbelievers as converts." That while they assumed the name of christians, "they took no inconsi derable pains to lessen the Author of our religion," not merely in his personal dignity, but in his moral excellences, and his qualifications as a teacher sent from God," and that the followers of Mahomet entertain a higher respect and veneration for their supposed prophet, than these disciples of Jesus do for their Lord and Master." That "they so lowered their ideas of inspiration as to allow only a small part of the scriptures to be inspired of God, and to have left it uncertain where that part is to be found." That "they call in question the genuineness" of large portions of the New Testament," principally because they contain" a narative which they dislike. And that they alleged "certain vague and general charges of interpolations and mistranslations of the scripture, the tendency of which was to lessen that value and veneration for them which it is the duty and interest of every christian to indulge," and all this because they were "conscious that the plain and obvious language of the sacred writings was not favourable to their system." My worthy friend may, and no doubt does think this to be a very fair and unexaggerated description of his Unitarian contemporaries, but I can assure him that the Unitarians themselves will by no means subscribe to the correctness of the representation. And if posterity a thousand years hence should know no more of Unitarians than they would learn from my friend's book, I have no hesitation in saying that they would labour under a gross misconception both of their principles and their character. Let us then make some allowance for that "ancient heretic" Marcion, and let us believe, as in all reason and candour we ought, that he might have something more to say for himself and for his principles than his opponents and revilers have said for him.

The worthy author proceeds (p. 118.) to draw the following

conclusion, which in the present state of critical knowledge will, I will venture to say, be regarded by well-informed persons as not a little extraordinary." So that I am clearly convinced, after examining the subject, that nothing which has been advanced by the enemies of christianity, or its well-meaning friends, is sufficient to shake our faith in the inspiration of the New Testament, or the genuineness of any part of it, except it be a single verse." If my well-meaning friend is speaking of the universal inspiration of the New Testament, he has himself shaken that doctrine as some will think sufficiently-if he means partial inspiration, he subjects himself to his own charge, (p. 96.)" of allowing only a part of the scriptures to be inspired, and leaving it uncertain where that part is to be found." And I believe that if he will take the trouble of re-examining the subject, with the assistance of the learned, accurate and indefatigable Griesbach, he will be satisfied that more than one sentence in the received text of the New Testament is liable to the suspicion of interpolation. It would indeed be truly miraculous if in a course of fifteen hundred years any existing manuscripts of the New Testament should have been perfectly free from error and it would he still more extraordinary if these unmutilated, uncorrupted manuscripts should by mere accident have come into the possession of Robert Stephens at Paris, Erasmus at Basle, and Beza at Geneva, to whose united labours we are indebted for our present text, in which no improvement has been made by public authority for the last two hundred and fifty years, though ten times the number of manuscripts have been since collated with the greatest care beyond what the original editors ever possessed. And yet my friend after examining the subject maintains an unshaken faith in the integrity, not of the New Testament, for that is not the question, but of the received text, as exhibited in the cditions of Stephens, Erasmus and Beza, founded on the authority of about twenty manuscripts to which they happened to have access, most of which are of little repute, and were very cursorily collated by Henry Stephens, the son of Robert, a youth of eigh

teen.

My friend observes, (p.119.) that much has been said concerning the interpolations and mistranslations of scripture.” He adds, that "persons who have been disposed to lay great stress upon such declarations, and are themselves unacquainted with the original languages of the Old and New Testament, will perhaps be surprised when they are told that there are not above three or four passages of this nature which can affect their doc

trinal system." I will venture to add without fear of contradiction, that those who are well acquainted with the subject will be still more astonished at my friend's broad assertion. Does this worthy gentleman really think that the only instances of mistranslation or interpolation which occur in the scriptures relating to points of doctrine, are the three which he has produced? Isaiah ix. 6. Phil. ii. 6. and the notorious text of the heavenly witnesses, 1 John v. 7? Did he never hear of Acts xx. 28. the church of God which he purchased with his own blood: an expression at which Athanasias himself revolted, and declared that none but Arians would endure? Was he not informed that the expression 1 Tim. iii. 15. " God manifest in the flesh," was never quoted by the early writers in the Arian controversy? a manifest proof that it had then no existence? And, to add no more, that at Rev. i. 11. "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:" which Dr. Doddridge solemnly records in his note upon the passage as having done more than any other in the bible towards preventing him from giving into the scheme which would make our Lord Jesus Christ no more than a deified creature," is plainly proved to be an interpolation, and as such is left out in the corrected text of Griesbach, and the version of archbishop Newcome.

After all, I am ready to admit that the number of corrupted doctrinal texts is less than many would suppose: but the rea son is that the number of texts which in the least degree countenance the doctrines of the pre-existence or the divinity of Christ, is very small in proportion to what many, who have not enquired into the subject, imagine, and of those a very considerable proportion are interpolations, and the rest are by the bulk of professing christians greatly misunderstood: of this assertion I may perhaps take occasion, with your permission, to offer some proofs in a subsequent letter, and in the mean time I remain, Sir, &c.

Hackney, July 15, 1807.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

T. BELSHAM.

Our Lord's Agony in the Garden. Two Discourses. By the late Rev. W. Turner, of Wakefield.

DISCOURSE.1.

(Concluded from p. 321.)

WHEN they were come to the garden, Jesus desired the rest of the disciples to wait there, probably at the outside

[blocks in formation]

of the door, while he went in to pray; only he took with him Peter, and James, and John, who had been witnesses of his transfiguration on the mount. But, ah! how dif ferent a spectacle were they now to behold from that illustrious display of his heavenly majesty and glory.

When he was advanced a little way into the garden, he began to be sorrowful and very heavy, or in great distress. Mark expresseth it-to be sore amazed and very heavy. The appearance of his countenance, and every action denoted a violent agitation of body and mind. And he said to the three apostles, "My soul is exc eding sorrowful, even unto death: . . I suffer an inward anguish and distress, that very nearly overpowers and extinguisheth all the functions of animal life: tarry ye here and watch with me. He then went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." Or, as St. Mark. "He prayed, that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee, take away this cup from me. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt." Or, as St. Luke. "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my wil, but thine be done."

Having offered up this prayer to his Father, he returned to his disciples, and found them asleep, and with affectionate earnestness thus rebuked them, especially Peter, who but an hour or two before had declared so warmly his determined attachment to him, and resolution never to deny him, though he should die with him. "What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" Or, as St. Mark hath it: "Simon, sleepest thou? Couldest not thou watch one hour?" He adds; "Watch and nray, lest ye enter into temptation; i. e. be overcome by it."

He found by experience, that it was an hour of temptation, or trial, indeed; severely such to himself. Perhaps, his dependance on, and resignation to the will of his Father had never suffered such an attack before. Possibly, they did not afterwards endure so hard a struggle under the pains of the cross and in the agonies of death, as they did now under the present violent perturbation of his bodily frame, and the agony of his spirit consequent thereon. He knew also, that his disciples would be exposed to a very severe and similar trial of their duty, fidelity and trust in God and in himself; and therefore he so repeatedly and

« PredošláPokračovať »