Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

strongly admitting the Doctor's vast superiority in talents, and in variety and extent of attainments,) yet-I am bold enough to think, that on such points, even "a chattering jay" (to use Mr. Yates's polite comparison) is a sufficient match for this "bird "of Jove," with all the terrors of his beak, and talons, and forked thunderbolt :-or, to change the allusion,-that against this Goliath of the Socinian host, the sling and the stone, seconded by Him who was David's help, are weapons of sufficient power, even although "the staff of his spear be like "a weaver's beam;"-and although too, as on the present occasion," one bearing a shield goes before him."

CHAPTER III.

As I have no wish to lengthen out this Reply, either by enlarging on ground on which my adversary and myself are agreed, or by seizing, with hypercritical captiousness, on every minute point of difference, and every thing that is not expressed in the ipsissima verba which I might myself have chosen, I shall make no remarks on the general principles laid down in Mr. Yates's third chapter, " on the proper "method of ascertaining the sense of Scripture."-So far as relates to the simple statement of principles and rules, his observations on the three points treated of in the chapter"the correctness of the Greek text; the mode of translating it "into English; and the mode of interpreting that transla"tion;"—are such as cannot be found fault with, but ought to be impressed on the minds of all especially who are desirous of discharging their duty with fidelity as interpreters of

the word of God to others. To the entire contents of the chapter, however, I cannot give my unqualified approbation.

In the course of it Mr. Yates bestows a well-merited tribute of applause on Professor Griesbach, and his edition of the Greek New Testament. Every scholar, although he may not adopt all the results of this eminent critic's learned and laborious researches, will yet most heartily unite in grateful commendation; as well as in the compliment paid by Mr. Yates, in a previous chapter, to the Duke of Grafton, for his exemplary munificence, in defraying the expenses necessary to render the labours of the critic accessible to the religious public.-The correctness of the general principles of that particular classi-fication of manuscripts which Griesbach has employed as the ground-work of all his critical emendations of the received Text, has, indeed, lately been called into question, by a competitor of no contemptible name in similar researches; * and so far as I am able to judge, not without grounds that are more than plausible. Dr. Laurence illustrates the difference between Griesbach's principle of classification and his own, by an application of both to the disputed text in 1 Tim. iii. 16.; where his own produces a conclusion precisely the reverse of that which had been yielded by Griesbach's. It were the height of unpardonable presumption in me to intrude into a field of discussion, in which men so eminent in Biblical learning differ in their decisions, and which I have neither ability nor opportunity to explore. It is not in the least degree necessary to my argument, that the authority of Griesbach should be shaken. Without expressing any conviction that he was right in the conclusion to which he had come with regard to the principal

* Dr. Richard Laurence, in a Tract entitled "Remarks on the Systematical "Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his Edition of the Greek "Testament."

disputed texts on the subject of our Lord's Divinity, I formerly proceeded on the supposition of his being so; for the sake of showing that these texts were not at all indispensable to the solid foundation of the orthodox faith. I wish still to occupy the same ground. Before proceeding, however, to notice Mr. Yates's strictures both on my spirit and accuracy respecting these texts, I must beg the reader's particular attention, to the effect produced on the mind of Griesbach himself, by those alterations which he felt himself constrained in conscience to adopt, by those canons of criticism, according to which his inquiries were directed, and his decisions formed. Considering the deservedly high opinion which Mr. Yates expresses of the judgment and candour of this eminent critic, the following most explicit and solemn declaration will surely be weighed by him with becoming seriousness. "Interim uni "tamen dogmati, eique palmario, doctrinæ scilicet de vera "Jesu Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri "posset nonnullis qui non solum locum illum celebratissimum "1 Joh. v. 7. e textu ejectum, verum etiam lectionem vulga"rem loci 1 Tim. iii. 16. (ut et Act. xx. 28.) dubitationi sub"jectam et lectorum arbitrio permissam, invenient. Quare, "ut iniquas suspiciones omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, "et hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam præripiam, pri"mum publice profiteor atque Deum testor, neutiquam me de "veritate istius dogmatis dubitare. Atque sunt profecto tam "multa et luculenta argumenta et scripturæ loca, quibus vera dei"tas Christi vindicatur, ut ego quidem intelligere vix possem, ❝ quomodo, concessa scripturæ sacræ divina auctoritate, et ad“missis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a 86 quoquam vocari possit."* "Meantime it may appear to some 66 persons that I have not a little impaired the evidence of one

* Quoted in Laurence's Remarks on Griesbach's Systematical Classification of Manuscripts, pages 3, 4.

"doctrine, and one too of prime excellence, the doctrine I mean " of the proper divinity of Jesus Christ, when they find not only "the celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7. thrown out of the text, "but also the received reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. (as well as of "Acts xx. 28.) brought into doubt, and left to the judg❝ment of the reader. Wherefore, that, as far as possible, "I may remove all unfair surmises, and deprive ill-dispos❝ed men of every handle for calumny, I first of all pub❝licly declare, and take God to witness, that I entertain "no doubt whatever respecting the truth of that doctrine. "And indeed the arguments and passages of Scripture by "which the proper deity of Christ is established, are so nu"merous and so clear, that I am truly at a loss to conceive, "how any person, granting the Divine Authority of the Holy "Scriptures, and adopting just rules of interpretation, can "call this doctrine into question."

Such, then, was the value at which these reductions of evidence were appreciated in the mind of this critic himself, who was not indeed, by any means, the first to question the genuineness of the passages referred to in the above quotation, but to whose authority in setting them aside so much deference has been paid by the literary world in general, and especially, as might have been expected, by those of the Unitarian school. I feel highly gratified, in having it thus in my power to confirm the ground on which I proceeded in all my former reasonings, by a declaration from such a quarter, so full, so solemn, and so decided.

In speaking of the perpetual appeal of Unitarians to the authority of Griesbach, by which ignorant readers might naturally be led to conceive that Griesbach's New Testament was something entirely different from the one they were accustomed to use, I particularly stated, with a view to prevent any such mistaken conception, that there were

only three texts relative to the great question of our blessed Lord's divinity which Griesbach had set aside; viz. 1 John v. 7. as an interpolation, and 1 Tim. iii. 16. and Acts xx. 28. as erroneous readings; and that, as I had declined insisting on these texts, to show that I did not consider my cause as at all requiring their aid, there was not one of all the passages which I had adduced that was "in the slightest degree touched "by this high and vaunted authority."

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Yates objects both to the spirit and the accuracy of this passage. In the previous part of the sentence, I had admitted the text of Griesbach to be " on all hands acknowledged the "most perfect." But the acknowledgment, says my opponent, is accompanied" with an angry sneer, which shows that he ill "endures to see the implicit deference paid to the decisions of "Griesbach by competent judges of all parties, and will never forgive him, for having, in obstinate conformity to his stu"pid rules, thrown down three main pillars of the Trinitarian system."-While I am perfectly confident, that no candid reader of my work will discover in it any such anxious concern about these disputed passages, any such deadly resentment at finding my judgment compelled to relinquish them (which, in truth, I am far from being ready, with regard to all of them at least, to do) as will justify the sarcastic severity of this remark;-I must, at the same time, assure Mr. Yates, that he is entirely mistaken as to the object of what he is pleased to term my angry sneer." I am not going to assert the perfect purity of the feeling which dictated the expression under censure. But, instead of being directed towards Griesbach, the immediate objects of it were Mr. Yates himself and his brethren ; and it chiefly consisted, I honestly confess, of indignant disdain of that provoking, yet pitiful disingenuousness, which is for ever, in the ears of the uninformed, vaunting of the autho

66

E

« AnteriorContinuar »