On this page
- Text (2)
written serpentibus cincti . I can account for this mistake only by supposing that Virgil ' s cinctam serpentibus Hydram was indistinctly present to my mind . Had I thought of the Greek at the time , or recollected that
the Giants ( to speak with Apollodorus ) £ i % ov Taq toca-etq cfro \ i $ a <; tip&KOj / Tay , association would not have got the better of my eye sight . A curious instance of the power of association is produced by a late eminent critic in the Classical Journal , No . XVII . p .
49 . * ' A letter , " says he , " is inserted in the Gentleman ' s Magazine for 1798 , ( p . 839 , ) with the following title : An Original Letter from Dr . Thomas Moore , of Norwich . This letter is signed Tho . Browne , and appears to have been written by the celebrated Sir Thomas Browne , There
is no resemblance between Browne and Moore , but the transition from Sir Thomas Browne to Sir Thomas More is extremely easy . " On the Homeric yevro spoken of by Dr . Jones , p . 727 > see Heyne ' s Homer , Vol . V . p . 421 .. E . COGAlNL
Sir , t I THE Three Letters addressed by _ JL me to the Editor of the Quarterly Review are noticed in the last Number . In this notice the Reviewer
declines entering on the argument for the genuineness of the text . I regret this much , especially as no man living is better qualified to do justice to his side of the question or to refute my views , if not founded in truth . * ' The
world /* he says , " will conclude that he ( Ben David ) has ventured far into the region of paradox . ' I observed that by proving the genuineness of the verse , " the orthodox faith will receive a shock which shall shatter
its very foundations , and bring it at no distant period completely to the ground . " The Reviewer in reply to this writes , " The orthodox faith does not rest on a spurious or disputed verse : it is built , and well built , upon the genuine word of God , and thus secured , it will endure for ever . "
The discussion of the controverted text being thus excluded from the Quarterly Review , a Journal the most ably conducted , the most widely circulated , and the most powerfully influential of any that has ever ap-
Sen David on 1 John v . ?• 16
peared in the republic of letters , I purpose communicating to the Month * ly Repository a brief statement of the arguments which shall put aix end for ever to ail doubts respecting the authenticity of 1 John v , 7- These arguments are comprehended in the following propositions :
1 . The context supposes the genu ineness of the disputed verse , and is even a dead letter without it . 2 . The supposed spurious verse is a summary of the evidence of Christianity ; and though John wrote it , Jesus Christ is virtually its author .
3 . It is written by the Apostle in direct opposition to men who asserted the divinity of Christ , and could not therefore be the forgery of those in after ages who perverted it in support of the Trinity . 4 . The circumstances under which
John wrote his Epistle being known and retained in the memories of men during the first three centuries , the orthodox were unable to conceal the true meaning of the verse without concealing the verse itself . They therefore erased it from the
manuscripts and copies in general use , omitted it in their versions , and carefully avoided to quote it in their writings . Their conduct in this- respect is the cause of its absence from the Greek manuscripts and versions which have descended to our days . 5 . As the controverted passage ,
containing , as it does , the sum and substance of Christianity , presents a triangular figure corresponding in shape to the base of the orthodox faith , it was diverted from its original object and made the foundation of the Trinity . The Greek and Latin Fathers with this view mutilated the
verse , mystified it , transposed it , and always accompanied it with their own interpretation , and thus left to future ages unequivocal proofs of its being in the manuscripts , which they possessed .
6 . Though the verse is not found in the Greek manuscripts now known , there is evidence to conclude that it existed in all those which descended from the Apostolic age to the fifth
century . 7 . In the fifth century Unitarianism was extinguished , and Orthodoxy triumphed over Arianism , and the supporters of the Trinity thought they
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1826, page 15, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2544/page/15/