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
tfer ntaUtt ja dpubtfi ** > apeiuc of Ite verse dqnne &is first period ? Did he not know th » t this very point is most of the tei ^? Did he not know < that tie greafc » t critic of the age had pronouncedT the Latin MSS . which omit
the verse , to fee infinitely superior to the herd in which it is found ? ( See die ' passage quoted from Porson be * ftre . ) Is he prepared to deny tibia ? He knows himself , we apprehend , better , than to venture to oppose himself on such a point to such an
authority * He has dealt moat disingenuously by Porson , in representing him as allowing that the verse in dispute was in the Latin Version , even from the end of the second century . How could he , unless the clearest of heads
had become all at once as confused as that of certain defenders of orthodoxy , admit that a text was in the Latin Version , at this early period , and yet condemn the copies which
contain this text as a worthless rabble ? Porson is arguing for the moment upon a supposition ( Letters , p . 143 ) which , in the whole of his subsequent reasoning , he refutes , that
this text had been in the Vulgate from the end of the second century , and maintains , that even in that cage , its authenticity would not be certain : the very next paragraph ( p . 144 ) begins with these words : " Thus I should argue if all the MSS .
consented in the received reading . " We confess it to be a very difficult stretch of our charity to believe , that Bishop Burgess mistook so common a phrase as " allowing that it had been , " for 44 I allow that it was ; " at any rate , the man who can so misunderstand a
plain sentence o £ his mother tongue , must excuse us if we do not attach much value to his judgment , when he talks of the internal evidence which arises from the connexion of an author ' s ideas and the coherence of his
arguments . . . Again , before we quit the subject qt tEU first period , we must ask , is the Vulffate Latin Vewion the only one or this age which exists ? A reader pf Bishop BuFge&g jxjight natunl ^ rsuppose that it was ; for we do not fecoliect that be enters into the slightest explanation , why 1 John v . 7 , w wwitibg in the Syrim , the earli ~
Untitled Article
« sti |>* obaMy ; of all the tttodafi of the NewTeaiament ^ . ^ wii ^^ mother oriental versions * w ) && mmmtA known to have been eoi ^ Sfft ^ fafo jtite ^ Uttin in very recent < fSm&i M& is no discordancy of ; MS& ^ ftsyin ; thfe
case of the Latin Version ; their le ^ many ia clear and consistent ; : a&Hfes absence of the disputed tex * is to he accounted for in no others way than its absence in the Greek MSS . from
which they were made . What are we to say of the dead eilence of the Greek fathers , who never oace , during this period , quote the verse ia question ? Bishop Burgess will not allow that a defender of the text is
bound to explain this . It is an approved method of getting rid of » toublesome claimant , to deny the debt ; but this silence of the rathera will remain .- an invincible arpufient of spuriousness till it is explaiQed and that too in some better way ^ AB the disewtina arceni , or Mr . Nvbtfo
dream of the erasure of the text # y Eusebius . It is true , the Bishop 4 oo make a feeble effort to prove ttet Ae Greek original umst have coattinod it in the two first centuries . ^^ ie Aif ^ i were a set of heretic ^ wh 0 ^ rejected the writings of St . John , on account of their denial of his doctrine tif lite
Logos . Now , it -has been ^ thought , that as the divinity of the l ^ ogps is taught in no part of the fitet > Epistle , but in the text of the Heavenly Wit nesses , they could have had no reason £ pr quarrelling with it , had this text not been found in it from the earliest
times . The reader will perceive , that this argument can have no force whatever , unless we are assured that the Alogi rejected the first Epistle , as well as the othet ? works of tne Apos tle . But die proof of this completely
fails . Epi p hanius , who gives ibis account of the Alogi , only says , that they rejected the Gospel artd the Apo calypse . * ' O , bttl / 9 say ^ the BiatoPt ** they must have rejected the W $ * k * because the doctrine of Ghristfs dirinity is much more clearly faugh * ^
¦ «• , ¦ ¦ . _ - ^ ^ _^ > # " Negath ^ um ai ^ faeit t \ im to ** & qiuestione reptidlArt ^ qniif nil B view de uuo ^ lt ^ r » ove scHptoW , vaJiet dt pertnnltA * , dicttlrti tttrti iWdigft ^ i ad ^> o «^
versias < deeidettda * trngtittftiMt ?<( && ** mun pmt ^ reutitibuB" . BcteleliriiJW * " ^ ad 1 Joau ^ v , f . , •¦< ^
Untitled Article
42 itetnewmSisktip of gfc &a * i # * on Three Wt&esses * Ttik . m i
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1822, page 42, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2508/page/42/
-