Ximenes, and accordingly I find it inserted, in the Latin vulgate, published at Paris, by the widow of Thielman Kerver, fo early as the year 1526, which is also in my poffeffion.

If interpolations in the facred Writings, were not productive of confequences too alarming and ferious to admit treating them as fubjects of ridicule, it would be diverting to trace the gradual progrefs of an interpolation, from its first rife, through its intermediate ftate, to its final establishment. "Nemo repente fuit turpiffimus," fays the Roman hiftorian, Salluft. Thus the interpolator arrives at confummate impudence, not tout-à-coup, or inftantaneously, but pedentetim, or by gradation. His forgery makes its first appearance, with timidity, under the fpecious difguife of a marginal reading, or, in the rabbinical phrase, a p Keri, afterwards, bolder grown, it obtrudes itself on the text, but in the modeft form of a diminutive parenthesis; till at length, cafting off all fear and fenfe of fhame, it lays afide this nice diftinction, with fuperlative audacioufnefs invades, and deftroys the context, and ufurps the right of being

regarded

regarded as equally authentic with it, thus completely constituting itself a portion of Scripture, or, Hebraice an Cetib.

I

It is faid, that we are indebted to the aforefaid worthy Cardinal for another interpolation, in the aforefaid Epistle, viz. 1 John, iii. 16. Even the printed Greek of this paffage, in every edition to the present day runs thus, Εν τυτῷ εγνώκαμεν την αγάπην, ότι εκείνος ύπες ήμων την ψυχην αυτω εθηκε; and, agreeably hereto, in the old English translation, these words are rendered, hereby perceive we love, that he gave his life for us;' but in the Latin vulgate we read, in hoc cognovimus charitatem Dei, quoniam ille animam fuam pro nobis pofuit; and in our prefent, and only publicly authorized verfion, we read, 'hereby perceive we thelove of God, because he laid down his life for us.' Thus, without any authority from the Greek, and, perhaps, by the fame human. authority, is obtruded upon the Christian world, the word Dei, and the corresponding expreffion of God is inferted in our English translation, thereby to infinuate that Christ is God, or the fupreme Being, and that God, or the fupreme Being, who is impaffible,

impaffible, fuffered in the flesh for man; fie, fie, how long muft Popish forgeries be fuffered to difgrace a Proteftant verfion of the Christian Scriptures!

To thefe curfory remarks on interpolations I fhall fubjoin this obvious truth, that an interpretation ought not to be affixt to any one paffage of the New Testament, relating to the perfon or effence of Christ, which is not perfectly coherent with the prophecies, which went before, concerning him.' If a man fhould once argue that fuch a doctrinal point respecting his effence may be true, notwithstanding the filence of the prophets on the subject, there can be no end to fanciful and chimerical human inventions in this matter. St. Paul lays fo great a ftrefs on your ancient prophetic descriptions of the perfon, character, and office of your Meffiah, that in the 17th chapter of the Acts of the Apftoles, he commends thepeople of Beræa, for

fearching the Scriptures' (the prophecies of the Old Teftament) daily, whether those things were fo;' whether the Jefus crucified and rifen again, whom he preached unto them, was the Chrift' foretold by Mo

fes

fes and the prophets,and corresponded to the representation of him given by them. But, when modern Chriftians, after the example of the ancient Chriftian Platonifts, once forfake the dictates of common sense, and the fure word of prophecy,' which exactly correfpond, they incur the groffeft metaphyfical errors, fupplant the word of God,

by the words of man's wisdom,' and amufe, or oftner vex, themselves and others with the most monftrous folly and abfurdity, in their fentiments; while in their practise, are too frequently displayed, the most bitter anathemas againft, and virulent perfecution, of each other, according as the favorers of. this or that nonfenfical opinion are reputed orthodox, by the civil magiftrate, and armed. with power by him, for the execution of their diobolical purposes. How much more profitably would their time and pains be employed, if they would rationally labour the point of your converfion, by establishing, on the folid foundation of a perfect harmony, between your Mofes and their Evangelifts, the ftrict literal manhood of Jefus, begotten by a man on the body of a Mofes fays, God fhall raife up of your brethren, a prophet like

woman.

unto you

unto

unto me;' and the evangelist John declares, 'I have found him, of whom Mofes and the prophets did write, Jefus of Nazareth, the fon of Jofeph. These two paffages breathe the fame language. The expreffion of your brethren, in the firft, implies, in general terms, that the prophet, the Meffiah, should be the fon of a man; and the latter in particular, informs us in the expreffion, the fon of Jofeph,' that Jofeph was his father.

Now this ftri&t literal manhood of Jefus, which alone can intitle him, or any man, to the denomination of a man, fince the creation of Adam, is confirmed by innumerable paffages of genuine Christian Scripture. I fhall, for your fatisfaction, cite two, which moft readily occur to my memory, viz. "The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head,' and, The Son of Man is not come to deftroy mens lives, but to fave them.' Again, as being the Son of Man, he is repeatedly ftiled a man; 'There is one mediator between God and man, the Man, Chrift Jefus,' 'God fhall judge the world by that Man, whom he hath ordained,' 'Jesus, a Man approved of God, among you, by wonders and figns;' 'Never

man