On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
But considering that those poor witlings , as this writer is pleased to describe the Editors of the Improved Version , had no better authority to plead than that of Locke , who ^ knew not how to construe a common Greek sentence , or Dr . Clarke , who was
little better , or of jLindsey and Priestley , who were flimsy lucubrators , or of Sykes , whose authority is not worth notice , or of Wakefield , who is a lame biblical critic , or of Evanson , to whom it is folly and ignorance to appeal , or of Simpson , who is an obscure r&feree , or of Newcome , or of Law , or of Williams , or of Pierce , or of Hallet ,
or of Cappe , and many others , who , in the estimation of this great and self-constituted umpire of critical controversy , are like the notorious Hugh Farmer , mere ephemeral insects delighting in their own buzz ; taking , I
say , all these premises into consideration , one cannot but approve of the short work which this supreme judge in the high court of criticism , this Bentley of theological erudition , has made with the Editors of the
Improved Version , in striking them off at once by summary process , together with all their authorities aforesaid , by Ms own sic volo , sic jubeo , from the rolls of criticism , and consigning them to their proper place and station among Grub-street vagabonds .
3 . In the next Letter , p . 38 , the reverend gentleman suspecting , perhaps , that , whatever he and his ad * mirers might believe , there might be some old-fashioned readers who would not be quite so easily satisfied with his brief and fair way of disposing of the
Editors of the Improved Version , vouchsafes to descend from his lofty station into the arena of debate , and condescends to offer liis arguments , such as they are , to confute the positions and reasonings of the Version , ft is quite needless to enter into the
general question concerning the miraculous conception of Jesus , which has been so ably discussed , and I may say settled by Dr . Priestley , Dr . Williams , Mr . Pope and Dr . John Jones . I shall , therefore , only touch
upon one or two points which are particularl y insisted upon by the author of the Trinitarian ' s Appeal , &c . The Editors have stated , upon the authority of Epiphanius , that Cerinthus and Carpocrates received the
Untitled Article
genealogy of Matthew , though the Ebkmites rejected it . The author of the Appeal , &c , disputes the fact , which in truth is not of the least consequence whatever . There the genealogy stands , at the beginning of Matthew ' s history ; and there is no sufficient reason for rejecting it . But what the Editors maintain , and what
cannot be disproved , is this : that the writer of the genealogy could not be the historian of the miraculous conception , for their intentions were directly opposite—the design of one being to prove that our Lord descended from Abraham and David *
because he was the son of Joseph 5 and the design of the other being to prove that Jesus was not the real but only the reputed son of Joseph . So that if the history of the miraculous conception be true , it would appear to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth
was deficient in an essential qualification of the promised Messiah , viz . the descent from David . Now how does our learned divine get over this difficulty ? In the easiest and handsomest way that can be imaviz 41 tc These i
gined , . p . , men , " . e . the Editors of the Improved Version , ** suppose what they please , and then infer the iron obligation of necessity . There appears indeed to be a necessity—a fatal one—in their logic , their faith and their impudence . The matter is settled , but where ? Only in
the minds of some prejudiced witlings . The generality of commentators believe , and with reason , that Matthew had no such design in his genealogy as they ascribe to him—he expresses himself thu ^ : c And Jacob begat Joseph tlie liusband of Mary , of whom was born Jesus , who is called Christ ;"
a most extraordinary way of shewing his design to prove that Joseph was the father of Christ . Now , Sir , I a in of opinion that there are some persons in the world ,
and perhaps those impudent witlings ^ the Editors of the Improved Version among the rest , who may be simple enough to believe that one of the strongest presumptions that a nvati is the father of a child is , that he is the husband of the mother . This ,
however , according to the reverend gentleman , is a most extraordinary mode of proof . Perhaps he may understand these things better * and may take
Untitled Article
On the Rev . Samuel Newtoris Objections to the Improved Version * 4 $ 1
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1819, page 481, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1775/page/21/
-