« AnteriorContinuar »
when he speaks of him with respect to his divine nature ?
In page 66, he begins to insult Dr. Waterland for quoting 1 John v. 7. “ He puts upon us,” says this gentleman, “ a spurious text, as before he gave us a “ spurious Creed.” The Creed has come under consideration before, and will, I question not, still be accounted genuine, notwithstanding his attempts against it. With regard to the text, he first civilly applies to the doctor Rev. xxii. 18. that “ he may be “ sensible of the danger of wilfully adding to the “ word of God.” But were it not his way to pick unconnected scraps out of authors, just so far as they seem to serve a present turn, he might have cast his eye upon the next verse; where he would have found as severe a penalty denounced against those who wilfully take away from it. He has no advantage here then; let us see what he offers next.
-“ Our reformers printed it in a different charac“ ter, to signify its being wanting in the original.” What original? the particular copy or copies which they made use of were to them the original : and supposing it to have been wanting in this original, what then? might it not be in other originals ? and was the state of criticism so perfect at that time, that the copies, which our reformers had, should fix the standard with regard to all others, and supersede future discoveries? The case seems to have been no more than this, that our reformers doubted of ihe genuineness of the place for a few years, upon the authority of Erasmus; but as he reand died, then God must have died; replies—“Quis non intelli“gat, quod impassibilis sit divinitas, passibilis vero sit humana “ fragilitas ?" Ed. Welchman, p. 93.
stored it in his third edition, so our reformers soon got over their scruples, and printed it like the rest in some very early editions 8. But “it has since been “ shewn to be an interpolation,” &c.—Shewn! where, and by whom? this matter was debated between Mr. Martin and Mr. Emlyn. If the reader will be at the pains to go through the controversy, give him leave to judge for himself. He perhaps by this time may not be disposed to take things upon trust from other people's words, where he has been able to discover no extraordinary marks either of a sincere mind or a sound judgment. Since that, it has been attacked by an impious confederacy of men, (as it is supposed,) who have burlesqued the word of God, in a most infamous manner, by a vile and ludicrous version; and who deserve, not less than did the author of the Discourse of Freethinking, “ to be de“ nied the common benefits of air and water b.” If it be those worthies whom our author means, he must give me leave to refer to one who has repelled their impotent and malicious assaults; viz. Mr. Twells of Marlborough, in his Critical Examination of their New Text and Version, part ii. c. 3. “ It “ does not appear in any one Greek manuscript ex“ tant, that is genuine, or known to be older than “ printing.” I am so little acquainted with the learning and state of MSS. that I will not pretend to contradict this report; nor have I always met with that regard to truth in this writer's management of this controversy, as with entire acquiescence to believe it. If it appear in no MSS. extant,
8 Wickliffe's New Testament by Lewis, pref. 101. in Guardian, vol. i. No. 3.
up above the age specified, pray what is become of 3: them? It did appear in several to Laurentius Valla,
to the editors of Complutum, to Erasmus, to R. Stein phens, to Beza, to the Louvain divines, to Father - Amelotte i. If they are perished since by age or acscident, we cannot help it : all MS. at last must share the same fate; and must we then give up our Bibles ? But possibly these MSS. (some of them at least) may still be in being, and only lie concealed in
corners. It appears too in a MS. extant at Dubtulin k; will our author prove it (saying is nothing) to
be later than the invention of printing? And as to the Latin MSS. far the greater number of those that have been hitherto collated retain it! To go on; “it is not once cited by any ancient Greek “ or Latin writer.” What, the whole verse, I suppose, is not cited by any ancient Greek or Latin writer; is this his evasion? or is he here contra
dicting plain matter of fact? But see the authors and just referred to m. “A scholar-might be ashamed E F " to allege it.” No scholar, that is a Christian, will
be ashamed to allege it, while it stands in the text
of St. John's Epistle ; and where, I question not, it puti will for ever stand, unless men lose all regard for
i See Mr. Martin's Critical Dissertation upon this passage, chnp. viii. &c.; Examination of Mr. Emlyn's Answer to the Dissertation, chap. x. &c.; Genuineness of the Text, &c. part If. chap. ii. iii. &c.; Bishop Smalbroke's Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian edition, passim ; Mr. Twells, ubi sup. * Martin's Genuineness, &c. chap. xii.
Bishop Smalbroke's Enquiry, &c. p. 52. " To whom I may here add Dr. Wade; who, in the Appendix to his Short Enquiry into the Doctrine of the Trinity, has made it appear probable enough that the passage was read by Clement of Alexandria, p. 87, &c.
what the same St. John says, Rev. xxii. 19. “ Nor “ is this all in Dr. Waterland's case. I have good “ reason to believe that he was convinced, that St. “ John really wrote no such text, when he first en“ tered into this controversy," &c. For fear his readers should think now that he really had some good reason to himself, he here gives us a silly bad one; viz. the doctor “ did not allege it in his (con“ troversial) writings.” The doctor had good reason for not alleging it then, as he knew it was contested, and would only give his adversaries a handle for running out perhaps forty or fifty pages upon a bypoint, which his cause did not stand in need of; and which too was debated by others, viz. Mr. Martin and Mr. Emlyn. And as for the new light which our author talks of the doctor's receiving since, that might cause him to change his former sentiments, it is all a dream of his own, or borrowed from Mr. Whiston's Memoirs, p. 101. It happens unluckily for them both, that the doctor gave his judgment of this text (the same that he gives in the Importance) in the year 1723, in a Sermon then printed n Did our author know this ? if he did, “ I should be sorry, “ if to serve a present purpose” he “ stifled it against “ the conviction of his conscience: this would be," &c.—But I am not obliged to transcribe the abuses in his book into mine.
“ Nothing further,” he says, “in this long chapter
n These three are one, 1 John v. 7. “Which though a disputed “ text, is yet not without very many and very considerable ap“ pearances of being truly genuine.” A Familiar Discourse upon the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity; preached upon Trinity-Sunday, by Daniel Waterland, D. D.
of the doctor's remains to be observed, but his - “ saying,” &c. p. 319. Yes, sure, there remained the
testimonies of nine or ten Ante-Nicene Fathers, all
confirming both the truth and importance of the - doctrine opposed by this writer; and whose testi*monies therefore he should have considered and reeplied to. But he finds it much easier to call impere tinently for Ante-Nicene witnesses, where their evi
dence is not alleged, than to answer it where it is. 2. His boasts of the Fathers, and mighty pretensions
to the writings of the ancient church, cannot de
ceive any man that will read ; and I must not be alGb ways transcribing and repeating what has been fre
quently and unanswerably offered by superior writmers. Let the reader only consider and compare
what Dr. Waterland has urged under the second - Query of his Second Defence, in the fifth chapter of - his Third, and Sermon VIIIth, and he will imme
diately see, that our author's scraps, considered as counter-evidence, will be as little able to stand before it, as a loose disconcerted rabble to oppose a regular well-disciplined army. Dr. Waterland has answered the objection of tritheism; Dr. Waterland has told him what Arianism is 0; what then? He cannot open the ears of the deaf, or the eyes of the blind; and if men wilfully refuse either to hear or see, they are proof against all instruction. The seventh chapter of his Importance is designed to shew the “ use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity in con
“troversies of faith.” This, says our sagacious au* thor,“ might have been of some service to his cause,
“ had he shewn before, that the Fathers of the an
• Defence, p. 204, 205, 220, 221, &c. VOL. II. HORBERY.