66

So far from the story of the rocket-maker, as glanced at in the Manifesto, being an instance of falsehood or audacity; or falsely represented as resting on the authority of eminent authors; it is an instance of the most heedful fidelity and punctilious accuracy. The reader has only, once for all, to observe what the plan of the Manifesto is, and how much matter was to be compressed into how small a compass; and he will see that no full, or extensive account of any matter was there intended, or, indeed, possible; but an index only of the fact itself, was given, with a reference to the work, volume and page, where the full and extensive account of it would be found. And so heedfully faithful was the Author of the Manifesto, that even the so many words as indicated the fact, were not without their authority but taken from the eminent authors of the Unitarian Version, in their Introduction, Sect. 3, entitled, Brief account of the received text, &c. where the reader will see, (page viii., line 1,) the words "The manuscripts from which it was published, are now irrecoverably lost, having been sold by the librarian, to a rocket-maker, about the year 1750. And so punctiliously accurate was the Author of the Manifesto, that, not content even with the authority of the Editors of the Unitarian Version, when they spoke so loosely, as to say merely, that the "librarian sold the manuscripts," without saying by what right;* and " to a rocket-maker," without saying what sort of rockets; and "about the year 1750," without naming the year exactly. The Author of the Manifesto indagated the high source from which the Unitarian Editors themselves had derived their information; and from that indisputable fountain of learning and authority, giving the most accurate reference to work, volume, and page, he supplied the more precise statement, by which the reader understands, that the librarian was a thief; that the rockets were skyrockets; and that it was in the year 1749. Nay, I have been more punctilious than Dr. Smith had the means of being; for whereas he, on the authority of this great critic, decries the Complutensian Polyglot, which is the basis of the received text, and endeavours to show that the manuscripts from which it was formed were few, of no great antiquity, and of little value; in order to make it appear that they might be very well spared, and that it was of no consequence; yet for all this (strongly as it savours of the sour-grape reasoning) he has only the authority of the Bishop of Peterborough, as far as it will serve him, in the edition from which he quotes, which is the edition of 1793, whereas, in the later edition, which is that from which I quote, (the edition of 1819) he will find that the good Bishop has changed his mind on this subject, and set him an example, which best becomes a wise and good man, safe enough from the

* By what right?-STOLEN, Says the Manifesto. So villainously purloined (p. 30,) says the Answerer of the Manifesto.

imitation of a Dissenterian Theologue, an example of willingness to acknowledge the force of superior reasoning.

"Though I was of a different opinion," says the candid bishop, "when I published the second edition of this introduction, I am thoroughly persuaded, at present, that Goeze is in the right; nor do I consider it as a disgrace to acknowledge an error into which I had fallen, for want of having seen the edition itself. With respect to Wetstein, though he is a declared enemy of this edition, yet what has frequently excited my astonishment, the readings which he has preferred to the COMMON text, are, in most cases, found in the Complutensian Greek Testament. He degrades it, therefore, in words, but honours it in fact." Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Bishop Marsh, vol. 2, part 1, chap. xii. sect. 1. page 439, line 83, THE THIRD EDITION. London, 1819.

2. "Now I appeal to the ingenuous reader," says Dr. Smith, "and ask how dishonourable, base, and wicked must be that man's soul, &c. who can, from this transaction, tell the public that the manuscripts from which the received texts of the New Testament were taken were thus made away with. If he really believed what he wrote, how miserably incompetent-and how dishonest!"

AVAST! AVAST! Here is more railing than any man who had truth on his side, or who but thought he had, would have had any occasion for.

The reader will only be pleased to observe, that Dr. Smith gives no definition of what the received text is, and therefore reserves his opportunity of evasion from a complete demonstration of the truth of the Manifesto, by his coarse and abusive flat denials of the most palpable and apparent evidence: but as 'tis with the reader only that I have to deal, I beg leave to refer him to the Introduction to the Unitarian New Version, where he will find fully set forth, the facts, which I thus abridge.

1. The received text of the New Testament, is that which is in general use. Sect. 3, vii.

2. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, Cardinal Ximenes printed, at Alcala, in Spain, a copy of the New Testament in Greek, which was made from a collation of various manuscripts which were then thought to be of great authority, but which are now known to be of little value ;* this edition is called the

* But the reader must observe, that the editors of the Unitarian Version, published in 1808, had not the advantage of Bishop Marsh's later and more correct opinion, and of the excellent reasons which he gives for that later and more correct opinion, in his edition of 1819, or they would, in all probability, have altered their own judgment of an edition which now holds to itself the high character of a Codex Criticus. He will observe, too, with what complacent philosophy even Unitarian Divines play Fox with us, and take upon themselves to give us their word for it, that the manuscripts, which 'tis certain they know nothing about, "are now known to have been of little value.”

Complutensian Polyglot. They were the manuscripts from
which this Complutensian Polyglot was formed, that were thus
disposed of.

3. But it was this Complutensian Polyglot (which was not li-
censed for publication till A. D. 1522, though it had been printed
many years before) of which Robert Stephens availed himself
for the formation of his splendid edition, published A, D. 1550.
4. And it was this edition of Robert Stephens, which became the
basis of the Elzevir edition, published at Leyden, A.D. 1624.
5. And this Elzevir edition constitutes the received text. There-
fore, if the reader hath but logic enough to connect the first and
last link of a Sorites, so as to perceive, that whatever was the basis
of A, after B had been built upon A, and C had been built upon
B, would be the basis of C. also: he must see that the manu-
scripts from which the Complutensian Polyglot was taken, are
the manuscripts from which the received text was taken.
it being undeniably true, that the manuscripts from which the
Complutensian Polyglot was taken, were sold by the librarian,
who had no right to sell them (to Toryo, the rocket-maker,) the
truth of the terms of the Manifesto are involved in that truth.
And it is incontrovertibly true, that the manuscripts from which
the received text was taken, were stolen by the librarian, and sold
to a sky-rocket maker in the year 1749,* as stated in the
Manifesto.

And

The alternative of dishonour, baseness, and wickedness, if it
could not have been suspended by charity, and by that reluctance
which good men generally feel to draw so harsh a conclusion, is
superseded now, by the verdict of evidence itself.-NOT GUILTY!

For the alternative of miserable incompetence, I leave the
scales of decision between the Doctor's literary pretensions and
mine, entirely in the hand of the reader, not caring on which
side the preponderance may be, nor feeling any apprehension or
envy of the unapparent and unknown learning, which the Doc-
tor may in the back-ground really possess; but weighing what

* The Unitarian editors seem not to have a much better opinion of the received
text, than those who have the worst, since they say of it:"From the few ad-
vantages which were possessed, and from the little care which was taken by the
early editors, it may justly be concluded, not only that the received text is not a
perfect copy of the apostolic originals, but that," &c. (Unitar. New Version In-
trod. London Edit. 1808, section 3, page 9, line 39 from the top, 4 from the
bottom.) Let them say on! and let Dr. John Pye Smith say that they say no such
thing as is imputed to them, but indeed the very contrary, that it is an impudent
forgery, and an unblushing falsehood. The reader has, by this time, learned how
Dr. Smith's accusations are to be estimated! and his own morals will have received
no ill lesson from the demonstration that his treatise supplies, that the greatest
disposition to give the lie, is generally the concomitant of the least ability to prove
it. It is due however, to historical fidelity, to state, that there are much better
editions than that of the received text, supplied and enriched by manuscripts that
were not in the possession of the Complutensian editors. And that TORYO, the
rocket-maker, of course destroyed those manuscripts of both Testaments only,
which had been used for that edition. But that edition being the basis of the
received text, the fact could not, in an INDEX, which is all that the Manifesto
purports to be, have been more accurately stated.-It is truth itself.

appears, and judging by what can be judged, the reader will observe that the temple of Minerva has been as open to the Manifesto Writer as to the Doctor of Divinity, and that where the Doctor quotes an eminent author, the Manifesto Writer quotes that same author, after he had become more eminent than when the Doctor knew him: and had revised and corrected those opinions, for the better and more competent information of the Manifesto Writer; that did well enough as they were, for the Doctor of Divinity. Neither is any reader in the world the less competent, or likely to reap the less fruit of substantial learning from his reading, for exercising his own judgment, and taking no author for infallible or entirely and in every thing to be relied on; but sifting what he reads, and finding out not merely what was meant to be made known, but what was meant to be concealed. As perhaps he would be none the more competent, nor ultimately the wiser, for reading upon Dr. Smith's plan, of either swallowing all he reads, without examination, or not suffering himself to see in what he reads, any thing that shall contravene his own conceit: and so setting bars against improvement, by calling those who know no better than himself, paragons of learning, and "princes of critics;" and calling those who do know better, just what he pleases to call them.

END OF SECTION VI.

SECTION

VII.

LIBERTIES TAKEN WITH THE SCRIPTURES BY ERASMUS.

"For the book of Revelation, there was no original Greek at all, but Erasmus wrote it himself, in Switzerland, in the year 1516.-Bishop Marsh, vol. 1, page 320."-Manifesto.

1. "After what we have already seen, the reader will not be surprised at being assured that this also is a gross falsehood, and that the pretended reference to the learned Bishop is another impudent forgery," page 32.

No, indeed, the reader will not be surprised at any intensity of abuse, virulence of vituperation, and excess of triumph, which this good Christian Divine would exhibit upon an unguarded position left to his conquest, after having exhausted the whole artillery of accusation without reaching the outermost lines of our defence. Not the shadow of a falsehood, not an iota of a forgery has he yet discovered; and if that name, and no other, must be given to an INDEX referring to a fact, and to the authority, where the fullest exposition of that fact would be found, because, from

the extreme necessity of abbreviating its terms, it had abbreviated itself of some, that were absolutely necessary to its sense, or to its accuracy, but which would be supplied the moment the authority referred to was consulted; yet, where certainly it is the only incorrectness, it cannot be called another forgery-where it is the first error, it cannot be also a falsehood-but

If in the line "for the book of the Revelation there was no original Greek at all, but Erasmus," &c. had been supplied the words, 66 FOR THE MOST ESSENTIAL PASSAGE IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION there was no original Greek at all”—this filling up of the ellipsis, absolutely necessary to the understanding of an INDEX, would have removed all ground of fair objection, while it would hardly have led to any stronger impression of this monk's recklessness of truth and honesty, than the passage as it stands imputes to him, and his whole character in life fully confirms. The passage which Erasmus thus audaciously interpolated, and added of his own invented Greek, to that which he represented as contained in his manuscript, contains the words, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book," &c. This entire passage, from the 18th verse (Rev. xxii.) to the end was first put forth to the world under a false pretence, and rested solely on the Greek which Erasmus had made from the Latin Vulgate. The reader might thus have been put in possession of a more explicit, and I admit, a more accurate statement; but the Manifesto, instead of being an Index, would have become a treatise; instead of referring the reader to the sources of more explicit information, it would have supplied that information itself-and its language, instead of being in every instance, See there! should have been, See here! -instead of its style running, "If these things can be denied, or disproved, your ministers and preachers are earnestly called on to do so!" the reader would not have been surprised at being assured, that it was as the Index gave him to understand, and called upon to take the matter it only glanced at, as truth, upon the only principle on which Dr. Smith's matter can be taken for truth, namely, looking no further into it.

Had no reference been given to have enabled the reader to acquaint himself more accurately with the matter referred to; or if, on referring to the works of that Bishop, no information on that subject was to have been found, the Manifesto certainly would have been chargeable with an air of dogmatism, and would, in this instance, have failed of the fidelity to be expected from every work of the character which it purports to sustain, which is, that of an Index Indicatorius; with which dogmatism it is not chargeable-of which fidelity it hath not failed.

Let the reader glance his eye over the index to any great and extensive work: I know of none in which he shall not frequently and continually find, that when he turns to the matter which the

E