« PreviousContinue »
deliberate falsehood, and the other of the grossest corruption, need not be specifically stated. Such is the object to which the Dean of Cork directs his peculiar attention; and the clear, full, and unanswerable substantiation of both counts in this c!arge, constitutes the great value of the supplementary volume with which the learned writer has enlarged “Tue DiscouRSES ON ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE." “ The reverse of the affirmative," says the author,
peremptorily made by both (editors and their defenders,] is noto. riously the fact; and a fact which presents itself in such a form, that, although the compilers of this new version are entitled to take credit for much of precipitancy and carelessness on many points, yet they cannot be allowed to claim the unqualified benefit of that excuse upon this. Of the numerous examples which might be cited in support of the assertion here made, I shall adduce a few, which will abundantly suffice to shew what degree of reliance is to be placed on the accuracy of these Unitarian editors: and which, as vitally affecting some of the great doctrines of Christianity, will clearly manifest, how far “honour and honesty” have been followed in “making open acknowledgment” of every departure from the Version professed to be held in view.” P. 479.
With a view to substantiate this charge, half a dozen instances are selected, (p. 480.) from the most reinarkable of those texts of Scripture, which are contested by the Orthodox and the Unie tarians; Luke i. 35. John i. 12. Ibid. iii. 13. Rom. ix. 5. 2 Cor. viii. 9. Heb. xii. 25, 26. The various readings of these passages, as contained in Archbishop Newcome's revisal, and the Unitarian's Version, are confronted; and upon these, taken as so many theses, the author divides bis subject, and pursues bis discussion. (pp. 482-727.) As supplementary to the main object of his work, the objections to the introductory chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, arising from the testimony of the Ebionites and Marcionites, are reconsidered, (pp. 727–787); : and some attention is, in conclusion, bestowed on the chronological error fastened upon the Evangelists, in determining the time of Herod's death, and of our Lord's nativity. P. 788,
Having thus stated the object of the learned author, and the scope of his discussion, we will indulge ourselves in the pleasure of following him through the various topics on wbichi, le has enlarged. We do not, in Iced, profess to detail the nume. sous authorities which he has accumulated from the wide range of ancient and modern theology, or to pursue his arguments through their various ramifications, in illustrating and establish, ing the truth, in detecting and chastising the errors of its oppoDents. To form an adequate idea of the author in this respect, the reader must be referred to the work itself. Investigations pursued through that range of inquiry, and with that accuracy of research, which distinguish writers of the class now before us, will not admit of abridgement; and were the task feasible in itself, it would be wholly impracticable within the limits which we have prescribed to ourselves.
The first instance of unfaithfulness charged against the Unitarian cditors, (p. 482.) is taken from Luke i 35, in which they have substituted." a Son of Gud,” for “ the Son of God;" oinitting all mention of this dereliction of their professions, and deviation from their standard version. Collateral observations are added, on Rom. i. 4. Luke xxii. 70, and other parallel texts, relative to the eternal filiation of the Son of God; the crrors and inconsistencies of the editors, in their use of the de. finite and indefinite forms of applying the article, find their merited exposure and castigation ; and the true force of the passages, which they have perverted, is determiued, by an appeal to the highest authorities.
Some share of the gratification and iustruction which we have derived from the discussion prosecuted through these subjects, we wish to impart 10 our readers. In investigating the force of the titles, “Son of God,” and “ Son of Man," we formerly confronted the cpinion of Mr. Jones with that of Mr. Bryant ; the more careful inquiries and comprehensive views of our author, present us with the following full and accuraie view of the subject.
" Before I dismiss the subject it is worth remarking, that of the two titles, Son of God, and Son of Man, applied to our Lord in the New Testament, each of them more than eiglity times, the former is a title used famiiarly of our Lord by all; but the latter is a name applied only by himself, excepting in Acts vii. 56, where he is said to be seen by St. Stephen, in the heaven, after his ascension; and in Heb. ii. 6. and Rev. i. 13. xiv. 14. the first of which is a quotation from the Psalms, and the other two refer, as the version of St. Stephen did, to that exaltation in the heavens, which, with our Lord's dying words he declared, awaited the Son of Man: so that, in truth, except when our Lord himself assumes it, as an appellation, it is never used concerning him in the New Testament, save only to establish the fact of his having ascended into heaven; which, to mortal eye, could have been represented only in his bodily form; in that form, in reference to which he had designated himself as the Son of Man." P. 498. R.
In the second instance of malversation and bad faith, charged against the editors, p. 516; the plurase " he gave authority to be the children of God," is substituted for “ he gave power to become children of God." The importance wbich the editors ennex to this alteration is then shewn from their observations on the force of the term “ authority;” and from the effect which the exploded reading possesses, as “ threatening the destruction of the Unitarian hypothesis.” In the course of the obser. vations, on this head, the false glosses, the ignorant and dishonest misrepresentations of the Unitarians, are, with our author's usual power and perspicuity, again exposed and refuted; and the full force of the disputed passages determined, from an accurate examination of authorities, original as well as secondary.
Of the most offensive charge urged against the disciples of the new theological and critical school, we wish our readers should possess some favourable specimen : we accordingly present them with the following, selected from the works of Mr. Thomas Belsham, whom common fame has placed at the head of the Unitarian apostolate. Some instances of the learning of that oracle of his sect have been already put in record; the following instance of his honesty is commended by “the wise men of the Britisli Critic” to the circle of their readers.
“ The word na Brit," observes our author, “ this writer and the editors had found it convenient, (after Mr. Wakefield), to render *receive' [John i. 17, 18.] in place of the usual reading, 'take;' and to justify this, Mr. Belsham subjoins a note, assigning the meanings given to the Greek word by Schleusner. “Aquebáow, manu aliquid capio, Matt. xiv. 19. aliâ quacunque ratione accipio, reçupero, Matt. xix. 29. John xiii. 12.'" Schleusner. See Calm Inquiry, p. 173. Here is the quotation, from Schleusner, in the precise form in which Mr. Belsham has given it, even to the inverted commas."
“ Now, in the first place, it is surely a gross falsification of his author, to give, as one continued quotation from him, (as the established meaning of the form here employed by Mr. Belsham, unequivocally implies,) that, which is an arbitrary selection of words drawn violently together from various parts of a lengthened context, in the present case amounting to more than an entire column of close printing. But, even this is pardonable, compared with what yet remains to be noticed. Will any one believe it possible, that between the words “recupero' and Matt. xix. 29,' which are presented as immediately joined in the quotation from Schleusner, given to us by Mr. Belsham, there are found in the original, the words that follow-resumo, i. q. Toénoy aqubára. (John x. 17)-that is, the decidedly active signification assigned by Schleusner to the word aaßeš in the very passage now under consideration, is actually cut out by Mr. Belsham, and the parts on each side adjoining stitched together, so that all now appears one continued texture : and Schleusner's name is made to meet the eye of the reader as an authority for the sense of a passage going directly to the divine nuture of our Lord, the direct contrary of which sense Schleusner had assignerl to it, in the part which is purloined. Now what shalf be said of such conduct as this? Is it too much to charge writers who are guilty of it with direct and deliberate falsehood. Yet this is, in fact, the prevailing practice with Unitarian writers." P. 523. n.
In the third instance of bad faith, selected from John iii. 13, “ the Son of Man who was in heaven," is substituted for “ the Son of Man who is in hearon." (P. 540). No marginal acknowledgment is made of this alteration : but a typographical mark is applied to the phrase " who is in heaven," intimating, that the clause is probably spurious, while no notification whatever is apparent in Newcome, no similar notification is apparent in Griesbach. After a suitable comment upon this falsification of Scripture, the learned author enters into a defence of the received reading, as genuine; and lays open to merited contempt the false glosses and perversions of the Unitarian expositors
. The parallel passages. John i. 18. iji. 31. &c. to the text before us, relating to our Lord's heavenly origin, are collected, and the common version and Unitarian gloss, confronted in parallel columns, are subjoined to the original. The learned author, without descending to the useless task of proving the inefficiency of the commentary, wlrich is, indeed, sufficiently palpable; or as** suming the unnecessary office of vindicating the genuine sense of the adduced passages, which has been long established be yond the power of “ the unlearned and sophistical critics of the Unitarian school," to disturb them: proceeds to hold up to merited derision aud contempt, "the absurdity of the criticisms, and the incompetency of the critics."
With fcelings of peculiar pleasure do we dwell upon the jealous care with which the able aod zealous writer before us watches over the sacred deposit committed to the Church, in the inspired Scriptures; in defending those venerable readings which are cousecrated by an immemorial prescription, and in refuting the ineffectual, though specious, objections, urged against them by their inspugners. In defence of the received reading of the text before us, nothing of importance remains for us to add to the learned author's judicious observations.
“ First, as a reason for affixing the mark of highly probable spuriousness, [to “who is in heaven,” Jolm ii. 13j the note states, that the clause is wanting in some of the best copies." Now to come to direct matter of fact; how many and what are the copies? The editors have not chosen to put'us in possession of this knowledge. Upon the whole, three; and of these, one being so late as the 11th or 12th century, the testimony reduces nearly to the two remaining MSS. or, perhaps, more properly speaking,
(one of these being not earlier than the 8th, or probably the 9th) to the single authority of the Vatican, a manuscript undoubtedly of high antiquity.'. (P. 542.) In a note it is observed, The clause is wanting also in one Version, the Ethiopic, and one of the Fathers, Greg. Nuz. in a part of his works, whose genuineness has been questioned. Every other Version, however, and every other Fa. ther, who cites the passage, has the clause.”
With respect to the difficulty which arises from the internal evidence, it amounts to nothing; as it occurs in Johu i. 18. a text which has never been questioned. It will, however, abundantly account for the omission of the disputed clause in the three MSS. and one Version and Father, which have been cited; the speediest mode of disposing of the difficulty of a test, in which our Lord, while on earth, asserts that he is in heaven, lying in the suppression of the clause, which gave offence to the translator or transcriber. But the insertion of a passage, containing this difficulty, in all the authorities which may be cited in its support; including the old Italic and Syriac Versions, the testimony of Origen in the East *, and of Hilary in the West t, not to mention other fathers, and the entire body of Greek MSS. is utterly inexplicable, on any principle of clasa sification or correction, which has been suggested by inodern critics. In addition to these considerations, which place the received reading far above the reach of every objection, it remains to be observed, that the Ethiopic abounds in similar omissions I, and that the disputed reading is found in the Coptic, of which, it is conceived, the Ethiopic is a translation. It is superfluous to offer a word to invalidate the testimony of the solitary father quoted, after the objection made by our author : it is, however, deserving of notice, that Greg. Nazianzene did not fullow the Alexandrine or Palestine text, which exists in the three MSS. quoted against the Greek Vulgate ; and that his agreement with these texts, merely in omitting the disputed clause, must be of course considered accidental. And as to the three MSS. on which the entire onus of supporting the corrected reading now devolves, even on the testimony of the last reviser ll, it appears,
Orig. in. Gen. Hom. iv. Tom. II. p. 72. d. Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. Tom. IV.
Hil. in 11. Ps. 11. col. 32. c. in cxXXVIII. Ps. col. 514. de Trin. Lib. X. $ xvi. col. 1045. c. 1 Vid. Travis Lett. to Gibbon. p. 193. sqq. ed. Lund. 1785.
Renaudot, ap. Wetst. Prolegom. Nov. Test. p. 110. Griesb. Prolegomm. Nov. 'l'est. Sect. II. p. I. Conf. Symb. Grit. Tom. I. p. clxix, n.