Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN THE LIBRARY THE UNIVERSITY OF CAL [FORNIA LOS ANGELES PORSON VINDICATED BY CRITO CANTABRIGIENSIS. 3T PREFACE. IT is almost needless to observe, that the statements and opinions of Mr. Person, which have been noticed by Bishop Burgess, are to be found in the * Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis.' The animadversions of the learned Prelate, which form the subject of the present volume, are dispersed through the publications here enumerated. A Vindication of 1 John v. 7. from the objections of M. Griesbach. The second edition ; to which are added a preface in reply to the Quarterly Review, and a postscript, in answer to a recent publication entitled Palaeoromaica. By Thos. Burgess, D.D. F.R.S. F.A.S. and P.R.S.L. Bishop of St. David's, 1823. (The first edition, in 1821, is also occa- sionally referred to.) A Selection of Tracts and Observations on 1 John v. 7. 1824. By the same. (This selection contains Bishop Barlow's Letter to Mr. Hunt ; Bishop Small- brooke's to Dr. Beutley ; Two Anonymous Letters to Dr. Bentley, with Bentley's answer; together with extracts from Martin, Hammond, Whitby, and Dr. Adam Clarke.) 11 PREFACE. A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's, on a passage of the second Symbol um Antiochenum of the fourth century, as an evidence of the Authen- ticity of 1 John v. 7. 1825. By the same. Adnotationes Millii, auctae ex Prolegomenis suis, Wet- stenii, Bengelii, et Sabaterii, ad 1 Joan. v. 7. Una cum duabis epistolis Richardi Bentleii, et Obser- vationibus Joannis Seldeni, C. M. Pfaffii, I. F. Bud- dei et C. F. Schmidii de eodem loco : Collectae et edits a Thoma Burgess, Episcopo Menevensi. 1822. Throughout the following pages, great care has been taken to express Mr. Person's deci- sions, as well as the learned prelate's objec- tions, in the terms employed by the authors themselves. In all cases of importance, more- over, the circumstances attending them have been minutely described. By these means, the reader will be spared the vexation of a con- tinual reference, for information essential to the question before him, to works which may, or may not, be in his possession. Mr. Person's high character, for knowledge and impartiality, may justly excite a desire to ascertain how far that character has been ren- dered questionable by Bishop Burgess. Let PREFACE. Ill the reader, however, be entreated to bear in mind, that the subject involves considerations of much deeper moment than the character of an individual. To vindicate Mr. Porson is, in many instances, to maintain those sound principles of criticism which appear to afford us the best assurance of the integrity of Scrip- ture. In one part of the present volume, the author has mentioned his intention to subjoin, as an Appendix, an Inquiry into the rise and progress of the text of the Heavenly Witnesses in the Latin Church. He has, in- deed, collected and partly arranged the mate- rials for such a work; but, to confess the truth, the volume has become so much larger than he expected, that he is deterred from carrying his intention into effect. In the course of time, however, the Inquiry may perhaps be published The little leisure, which the author may henceforward enjoy will be assiduously devoted to the study of Christian antiquity ; a study to which he has long been fondly attached, although unfortunately but the past cannot be recalled. Should he, IV PREFACE. therefore, perceive, on the part of the public, a disposition to give him credit for the honesty to describe, as well as the capacity to observe, whatever may be presented to his view, he will hold himself engaged to lay before the world the result of his researches. The name of the author of this volume is not given, for the following reasons : 1. He has an aversion to appear, personally, as an opponent of an English Bishop : 2. His con- clusions depend solely upon the evidence ad- duced: and 3. Supposing the character of Mr. Person to be effectually vindicated, he deems it of little consequence to whom the work may be assigned : he is not a candi- date for literary reputation. As every one, however, ought to be responsible for his own errors, the author employs no arts of con- cealment ; and he has the satisfaction of think- ing that the mistakes into which he may have fallen will be attributed to the right person. Bishop Burgess's remarks have been dis- cussed with the most perfect freedom; but at the same time it is hoped with the PREFACE. V courtesy which is due to that very learned and respectable prelate. The author thinks it but fair to avow his conviction that the contested verse is spu- rious; and he begs leave to express his sen- timents on the whole matter, in the language of Bishop Barlow, which the reader will pro- bably not like the less, for its antique cha- racter and obsolete spelling. The passage ap- pears in a Letter to Mr. Hunt, published by Bishop Burgess, in his * Selection of Tracts and Observations,' from a Manuscript in the Library of Queen's College, Oxford. * The doctrine of the Trinity I really be- lieve, and am abundantly convinced that Socinus his positions against the blessed Tri- nity may be evidently overthrowne, though not by this text, yet by plaine Scripture- proofes : onely I could heartily wish that or- thodox men would not build good conclusions upon bad principles, nor lie the weight of such great positions on such weak proofes ; for a bad defence makes a good cause sus- pected ; and when the adversary finds the pre- VI PREFACE. mises false (as the Socinians often doe) they are soe far from being confuted, that they are confirmed in their errors, believing noe better arguments can, because noe better are brought.' CONTENTS, Pa INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION I. Age of the Dublin MS 5 Bad Greek of the MS 12 Disingenuous quotations 29 SECTION II. Ignorance of Greek Fathers 37 Misrepresentations of Euthymius Zigabenus 50 Internal evidence 69 Inquiries after Greek MSS 86 Valla's MSS. and Erasmus 102 SECTION III. Old Latin Version, Tertullian and Cyprian 126 Latin Vulgate 133 Prologue to the Canonical Epistles 1 82 Walafrid Strabo 209 Supplement Bentley's Letters, &c 219 SECTION IV. Augustine 230 Eucherius 247 Fulgentius 270 Cassiodorus 279 Leo the Great .284 Viii CONTENTS. SECTION V. Pag* Bishop Smallbrooke 289 Dr. Mill 294 Bengelius 303 State of the controversy 315 Proceedings of Theologians 321 CONCLUSION. Mr. Person's Treatment of Mr. Travis 332 His Qualifications as a Scripture Critic 341 INTRODUCTION. IN the year 1821, Dr. Burgess, at that time Bishop of St. David's and now Bishop of Salisbury, presented to the world * A Vindica- tion of 1 John v. 7. from the objections of M. Griesbach.' A defence of the genuineness of that much-controverted text could scarcely be written without some notice of the late Professor Person's * Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis.' As might therefore have been ex- pected, the * Vindication of 1 John v. 7.' con- tained several references to Mr. Person's work ; and from the general tendency of the Bishop's remarks, it was quite clear that the volume was not held by his Lordship in very .high estimation. A critique, on the learned prelate's Vindi- cation of the contested verse, appeared in the Quarterly Review for March 1822; in which there was more than one allusion to the im- A portance of Mr. Person's observations on the subject in dispute. In 1823, the Bishop of St. David's, on the occasion of a second edition of his Vindication, renewed his animadversions on the Professor's Letters : stating at the same time that it was his intention to publish a second part of his Vindication, " in answer to the objections of Sir Isaac Newton and Michaelis;" and then to appropriate a third part to " an examination of the whole of Mr. Person's objections, and of his management of the controversy with Mr. Travis." I am not aware that either the second or the third part of the Vindication has yet appeared. The learned prelate, however, has in two or three subsequent publications more especially in * A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's' (1825) pointed out, as a sort of warning to the unwary, a variety of mistakes and misrepresentations which, as he imagines, he has discovered in the Letters of Mr. Porson. Bishop Burgess's great object, in this pro- ceeding, unquestionably is to destroy the credit of Mr. Person's critical labours on the Greek Testament. 3 To examine the validity of charges ad- vanced by an eminent prelate of our Church against an illustrious scholar who can no longer answer for himself charges which are designed to raise doubts of his integrity as well as to call in question his accuracy and knowledge is to do nothing more than truth and justice imperiously demand. " A fallible being," as old Samuel Johnson well observed, "will fail somewhere;" and this maxim will, I trust, be borne in mind by those who may do me the honour to peruse the following pages. Let me fairly confess that I do not suppose Mr. Person to have acquired unlimited knowledge ; or to have possessed an attention which never flagged; or to have had a memory which never deceived him. For my own part I am not prone to implicit confidence. I have not been content with a bare admiration of Professor Person's great learning and acuteness. Having in many instances had occasion to trace him to the sources of his information, the result of my inquiries has at last led me to place all A 2 the reliance which is due to man upon his accuracy and integrity. Let me observe that, on the present occa- sion, I have' no intention to engage in the controversy respecting 1 John v. 7. My, only concern is, to examine the grounds of those statements of Mr. Porson which have been objected to by Bishop Burgess ; and to ascer- tain whether they are. such as might have been honestly taken by a man of sense, who was well acquainted with the subject under discussion. SECTION I, On the decisions of Mr. P or son respecting THE CODEX BRITANNICUS of Erasmus; cited also by the titles of THE MONTFORT MANUSCRIPT, and THE DUBLIN MANUSCRIPT. THERE appear to be three counts in the indictment against Mr. Person, so far as re- gards the Dublin manuscript: 1. a mistake with respect to its age 2. an erroneous de- cision with respect to the badness of its Greek 3. disingenuous quotations in support of his opinions on the subject. I will consider each of these particulars in its order. 1. Mr. Person's mistake as to the date of the Dublin manuscript. This alleged mistake is occasionally men- tioned in the Bishop's various publications on the disputed text ; but it is nowhere, I believe, brought forward so prominently as in the fol- lowing passage. ' In this period (A. D. 901 1522) we have a Greek manuscript containing the controverted verse; and the manuscript is considerably more ancient than Michaelis, Griesbach, or Mr. Person supposed it to be. Griesbach asserts it to be of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. Michaelis assigns it to the sixteenth. He says it was written in England after the year 1500. Mr. Person fixes its date ; and says, " it was pro- bably written about the year 1520, and interpo- lated in this place for the purpose of deceiving Erasmus." (Letters, p. 117.) In this conjecture Mr. Person was undoubtedly mistaken. Mr. Martin of Utrecht supposed the Montfort manu- script to be of the eleventh century. Dr. Adam Clarke, who examined the manuscript in the year 1790, and has described it in his Succession of Sacred Literature, says, " the manuscript is more likely to have been the production of the thirteenth than either of the eleventh or the fifteenth century."' (Vindication, 1st ed. pp. 49, 50 ; or, 2nd ed. p. 141.) Mr. Person, who, as the learned are aware, was intimately conversant with Greek manu- scripts, has employed thirteen pages (105 117) of his volume, in discussing the merits of the manuscript in question ; and, whether he was mistaken or not, it is clear, from the intelli- gence he displays, that he was entitled to pronounce an opinion on the subject. In the course of his discussion, he treats of certain characteristics in the hand-writing, (such as points over the vowels) by which its age had been conjectured. " Now I have seen," he proceeds, " many manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with plenty of double points over the vowels. I have also seen two imitations of the spurious verse, as it is written in this very manuscript ; and though they are not so exact as I wish, I see that the Dublin manuscript is certainly not earlier than the fifteenth, and possibly as late as the sixteenth century." He finally adopts the opinion attri- buted to him by Bishop Burgess, in the pre- ceding extract : viz. " that it was probably written about the year 1520, and interpolated for the purpose of deceiving Erasmus." The question at issue can with propriety be decided only by persons accustomed to examine antient manuscripts. Of such persons, the Bishop has fairly mentioned Michaelis and Griesbach, as nearly agreeing with Mr. Porson ; and he might have added Wetstein and Marsh among the opponents of the verse, and Mill and Bengelius among its advocates, as holding sentiments of the same kind. But, alas, it is in vain that the judgement of Mr. Porson, in assigning the origin of the manuscript to the fifteenth or the sixteenth century, is confirmed by that of Michaelis and Griesbach, Wetstein and Marsh, Mill and Bengelius : according to Bishop Burgess, he was undoubtedly mistaken. And how does it appear that he was mis- taken? Mr. Martin of Utrecht has attributed it to the eleventh, and Dr. Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century. Such is the reasoning of the learned prelate in proof of his as- sertion. It certainly looks well to produce a critic who maintains that the Codex Britannicus is a manuscript of the eleventh century. But, taking all circumstances into account, I doubt whether it was worth while to revive the opinion of Mr. Martin. His zeal indeed for the authority of the manuscript was very great ; and he resolved not to abate a single year, in point of antiquity, which could pos- sibly be claimed for it. Finding that it con- tained the prologues of Theophylact, who lived in the eleventh century, he immediately con- cluded that it was written towards the end of that century ; and he was confirmed in his opinion by a date found in the manuscript itself. He imagined that the manuscript pro- fessed to have been written ten ages after the ascension of Christ ; and this, he said, pointed distinctly to the eleventh age. Unfortunately for Mr. Martin, what the notice really indi- cated was that the Gospel according to St. 9 Mark was originally written ten years after the ascension. Founded upon so ridiculous a blunder as this, Mr. Martin's hypothesis fell at once, as might be expected, into universal disrepute. There is probably not a single critic of any celebrity besides Mr. Travis who has ventured to speak a word in its favour. Dr. Adam Clarke is a person of whom I can never think or write but with respect. His sentiments on the Dublin manuscript are well worthy of attention ; being marked by learning, intelligence and candour. After con- sidering all the information concerning the Dublin manuscript which I have been able to collect, and examining the readings in Dr. Barrett's publication 1 , I agree with Dr. Clarke in his opinion that " it was not written with an intention to deceive." On this point there- fore I do not agree with Mr. Person. But I will not, on that account, affirm that Mr. Person was " undoubtedly mistaken." His conclusion was not formed without strong 1 Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ex Codice Rescripto in Bibliotheca Collegii SSae Trinitatis juxta Dublin : De- scriptum opera et studio Johannis Barrett, S. T. P. Soc. Sen. Trin. Coll. Dublin. Cui adjungitur Appendix Collalioncm Codicis Monifortiani complectens. 4to. Dublin, 1801. 10 reasons for it. The circumstances attending the first appearance of the manuscript almost unavoidably excite suspicions of foul play. It really is strange that the only manuscript with any pretensions to antiquity, which contains the verse, should have presented itself just at the very moment when there was so feverish an anxiety that such a manuscript should be found 1 . Besides, the singular character of the manuscript may easily be thought to confirm such suspicions. So far, however, as I can judge, this character may be satisfactorily accounted for, without the supposition of fraudulent intention. With Dr. Clarke, " I am rather inclined to think it the work of an unknown bold critic, who formed a text from one or more manuscripts in conjunction with the Vulgate; and was by no means sparing of his own conjectural emendations, for it con- tains many readings which exist in no manu- script yet discovered." If I may be allowed to state my own conjecture as to the century 1 While recording my opinion of the Dublin manuscript, I cannot help recollecting a story which is told respecting Oliver Goldsmith. Soon after the publication of his beautiful poem, The Traveller, he was met in company by a literary person ; who, after witnessing for some time the excessive folly of his conversation, said to his friend ( Well, after all, I do believe this man wrote the Poem; and that, let me tell you, is believing a great deal.' 11 in which the manuscript was written, I think the evidence, on the whole, is in favour of the fifteenth ; and in this conjecture I am more nearly in agreement with Mr. Person than with Dr. Adam Clarke. From the last- named learned person one may venture to differ, without drawing down his resentment. At the conclusion of his account of the Dublin manuscript, he uses language which I will here transcribe ; happy, indeed, to adorn my page with so just and liberal a sentiment. " On a subject of so much difficulty, where critics of the first rank have been puzzled, I should be sorry to hazard any more than an opinion, which the reader is at liberty to consider either true or false, as may seem best to his own judgement." In fine, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Person's conclusions in this matter were the result of a careful examination of the circumstances of the case ; and* when it is considered how nearly his conclusions agree with those of Mill, and Bengelius, and Wetstein, and Michaelis, and Griesbach, and Marsh it will probably be thought that Bishop Burgess was not quite warranted in asserting that Mr. Porson was " undoubtedly mistaken" in his conjecture. 12 2. Mr. Person's erroneous judgement, as to the bad Greek of the Dublin manuscript. This is a topic on which Bishop Burgess repeatedly expatiates, and, as it should seem, with great satisfaction. I give the following passages from different publications. ' In p. 50 of his Letters, Mr. Person says that the Complutensian editors, by the addition of the articles and putting e-m TW 7*7? instead of ev Tr\ 7>7, " made good Greek of their Latin ; a task to which the translator of the Lateran Decrees, and the writer of the Dublin manuscript were unequal" Again, p. 60, " Stephens differs from Erasmus in adding the article thrice, and in transposing the word ayiov : and in these four differences he followed the Complutensian edition, and the genius of the language" I will here shew that Mr. Person's objection to the bad Greek of the Codex Britannicus is unfounded, and that the omission of the articles, the use of ev Ty yrj for eTrt TIJS y;s, and the position of ayiov after Tri/eu/xa, are not contrary to the genius of the Greek language.' (Vindication, 2nd ed. pp. 58, 59.) Again, ' Though the authenticity of the con- troverted verse does not depend on the antiquity or the character of the Montfort manuscript, yet it may not be improper to add, that, when the Greek of this verse is called a bungling transla- 13 tion from the Latin, on account of the omission of the articles usually prefixed to HaTtjp, Ytos, and ITi/ey/txa, a passage before quoted from Clemens Alexandrinus (Day py/ma urrernai eTrt ovo /cat Tpiwv fJLapTVp(t)V, TTl HaTpOS, Kdl YiOl/, Kdl dyiOV TlvV- Ataros) is sufficient to authorize the omission; to which may be added the following words ascribed to Origen : AoyAot Kvpiwv, riaT|009 /cat Yiou, -n-vevjuia. /cat o"o)/ua : also, Oi aTrepiepyws TriaTevovTes ety 0eov /cat Aoyov /cat Hvev/ma, /utai/ ovcrav QeorrfTa /cat fjLOvrjv irpoaKvvrjTiKrjv. (Basil, adv. Ennom. L. V.) and, Ai/ra -ra Tpia, YlaTr/p /cat Ytos /cat ayiov YLvevfjia, ev TavTo. TO. r/ota. (The Nomocanon published by Colelerius).' (Vind. 1st ed. p. 50. or 2nd ed. p. 142.) Again, ' As a proof that the omission of the article before IIaT>//o, Yto?, and Uvev/uia, in the Codex Britannicus, is not contrary to the genius of the Greek language, I will add a few more passages from the New Testament, and the Fathers. Matt, xxvii. 43. " For he said, I am the Son of God," Enre yap, OTI Qeov et/JLi vio$. Luke iv. 9- " If thou art the Son of God," et i/tos et rov Qeov. In the Hymnus Vespertinus Graeco- rum : 'Y/ui/Of/iei; \\a-repa, /cat Ytoi/ /cat aytov YlvevfJia. So in Gregory Naz. Orat. 23. p. 422. Ihov e, ayevvrjaia' Ylou oe, T] yevvrjcris' Ili/eu- ts. Neither is the position of ayiov after irvev/na contrary to the genius of the Greek language. In Matt. i. 18. we have an example of Trveu/ma without the article, and ayiov after Trvev/jLa, EvpeOtj ev yao-rpi e^ovcra e/c ayiov. So Mark i. 8. Ba7rret v/mas ev 14 aytoy. John vii. 39- Ovirto yap v\v Tlvevfjict ayiov. The Bishop of Peterhorough (Marsh's Letters to Travis, pp. xvi xviii.) says that ev ovpavw, with- out the article, is " a bungling translation" from the Latin. Yet we find ev ovpavw in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi. 10. ws ev ovpavip /cat e-n-t XT/? yn$) and Matt, xxviii. 18. ev ovpavip Km eiri 7>/s, where both nouns are without the article. Emlyn was equally mistaken in his objections to ev vr\ yy, as a Latinism, translated from the Vulgate in terra. That ev TY\ 7*7 is quite as good Greek as 67ri T>;? 7>/9, will appear from the following pas- sages. Apoc. V. 13. Tlav /crtayxa o e ovpavqi, Kcti ev Trj yy, Kat vTroKarto Ttjs yrjs, KUI eiri Trjs 9a\aa i o'r)$ a e 0e< /cai irarpi. 1 Cor. XV. 24. TOV Qeov /cat Trarepa TO? Kvpiov ry/uwi/. Rom. xv. 6. By the use of the abstract terms o' Trarrip, TOV Trarpos &c. the language of St. John, in particular, becomes striking and emphatic in the highest degree. Take the following instances I aTrayyeXXo/uLev vfuv Trjv ^wtjv Ttjv a'uovtov, ^rt? fjv TTjOO? TOV TTdTepa. 1 John i. 2. Kal rj Koivoavia t] q/meTepa /ueTa TOU TraTpos /cat /u.Ta TOV vlov O.VTOV. 1 John i. 8. < 7rapa.K\rjTov e^o/uei/ irpos TOV iretTepa. 1 John ii. 1. Can any one read sentences like these from the pen of St. John, and have so little perception of his style as to think it possible that, if the dis- puted verse had proceeded from the same source, we should have found TTOT^O and not Again, of Xo'7os instead of o Xo709, the Bishop has said nothing. St. John, when writ- ing of The Word, always prefixes the article. As an equivalent, however, for Xo7os, the learned prelate has substituted i/loV, and given two instances of its occurring without the article. To those instances others may be added. In the account of the Temptation 17 given by St. Matthew (iv. 3, 6.), and by St. Luke (iv. 3, 9.)> the Evil Spirit twice addresses our Lord in the terms, ei vlos el TOV Oeov. After our Lord had stilled the tempest, as recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. Matthew, " They that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, dXriOw? Oeov vios t" When attacked by his enemies for " mak- ing himself God," this is part of his reply, " Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasptyemest ; because I said, vioV TOV Oeov el/ju?" (John x. 36.) The charge brought by the Jews against our Lord at his trial was, on eavrov vlov TOV Oeov e-n-oitjaev. (Matt, xxvii.) With this he was repeatedly reproached in his last moments : " ei i/2os el TOV Oeov, come down from the cross ;" " He trusted in God ; let him deliver him now, if he will have him : for he said, 'On Oeov e'mi vios" And when the Centurion wit- nessed the marvellous events which attended the Crucifixion, he bore testimony to the validity of that claim which he had heard derided, by his avowal, "Truly this man was Oeov vtoV." It 1 From the whole tenor of the Evangelical history, it is plain that, by our Lord's assumption of the character implied by the expression Son of God, I/UK TOV Qeov, he was considered as arrogating to himself the nature of God; and yet, the expression r> 18 thus appears that, in those cases in which our Lord's divine nature in its very highest ac- ceptation is not designed to be specifically enforced, we generally find the expression vlos TOV Oeov. But when our Lord is conversing with his own disciples, he constantly speaks of himself as o vlos, or o v\os TOV Oeov. When Peter declares his faith in Jesus, it is in these terms : expression has certainly a less determinate signification than 6 vim TOV 6eov. Our Lord claimed for himself the title of Son of God, vloi TOV 6eov, at a moment when the minds of the people were much irritated against him. There is something very striking in the mode in which the expression was seized, and treasured up., and urged at his trial, as an offence to be expiated only by death. There is truth itself in the account of the change which took place in the conduct of the people, after his con- demnation. They had triumphed ; and what before was accu- sation is now turned into mockery. Again and again, he is hailed in derision as Son of God ; and is scornfully reminded of his own claims. He expires upon the cross, amidst many portentous appearances of nature. The Roman Centurion, who had calmly watched the event, compares the taunts he had heard with the signs he is witnessing ; and, overcome by what he beholds, he is convinced that, notwithstanding all the evil that had befallen him, the sufferer really was as he had declared himself to be Son of God. The expression, 9eov vios, in the mouth of a Roman soldier, appears very strange if considered simply by itself; but when considered in relation to what he had heard of our Lord's pre- tensions, we feel at once that it is perfectly natural. Nor is the word a\/0w? ('A\;0(oavep(t>9r) 6 vlo$ TOV Oeov. 111. 8. 'O iraTijp a.Treo-Ta\K TOV vlov. iv. 14. In fact, if it is al- lowable to reason from vio$ to \6yos, let any one read the Epistle of St. John, with a view to the point under consideration, and then say whether it does not pass the bounds of human credulity to believe that the expression ira-r^p /cat \oyos can have proceeded from the pen of that Apostle. 20 With regard to TCI/CUMO, I readily grant that it is, without the article, frequently used in the New Testament, to designate The Holy Spirit. If, however, we consider the position of irvevfia in the disputed verse, it is manifest that the presence or absence of the article will depend upon its presence or absence in the case of Trartjp and \<>7os. Even the writer of the Dublin manuscript after he had thought proper not to prefix it to those words could scarcely be so absurd as to prefix it to irvevna. On Trvevti.a, when connected with aytov, I shall offer some remarks by and by. Let me observe, in passing, that although cv ovpavtp, which Marsh objects to as derived from the Latin in caelo, occurs now and then in the New Testament, yet the prevalent use of the article with ovpavos sufficiently declares the genius of the language. St. John, whose phraseology is more particularly to be re- marked, has used ovpavos in its different cases above seventy times, and always with the ar- ticle, except in an instance or two. In his Gospel, in which we do not find either ev ovpavio or ev Ttf ovpavy, he has e ovpavov once, and K rov ovpavov fifteen times. In the Apo- calypse we meet with ev T ovpavy in seventeen instances ; which indeed are all the instances 21 in that book, if on very good authority we read, with Bengelius, ev T< ovpavtp, in Apoc. xi. 19. 1 The instances in which ev Trj yfi is to be found in the New Testament are so very rare, and the recurrence of eirl TTJS yrjs is so very frequent, that it seems difficult to ima- gine how the Bishop can think the former expression " quite as good Greek" as the latter. Of the two examples produced by his Lordship, one of them (ev T< ovpavy, Kal ev rfi yrj. Apoc. v. 13.) depends merely upon the common editions of the Greek Testament. Bengelius, on the authority of manuscripts and early editions, very properly reads ev T< ovpavtp Kal CTTI Tijs 7*79. \Vith regard to St. John indeed it is pretty clear that the phrase ev TJJ 77} has no right to a place in his writ- ings at all. On the whole, it appears that Mr. Porson had as strong reasons as can be ex- pected in cases of this kind, for concluding that the ev rj/ yf) of 1 John v. 8. is a direct and ill-considered translation of the in terra of the Latin Vulgate. 1 It ought to be stated that the Dublin manuscript does read ev reu/(Aa ical aw/aa.' iraioicrKrj oe icvpias, TOV ayiov TrveJjwaTOS, rj ifarfcj.. TO. oe Tpia Kvpios o Oeos rifjicav effTiv, ol yap -rpeis TO ev eicrtv. The Spirit and the body are servants to their masters, the Father and the Son ; the soul is maiden to her mistress, the Holy Ghost ; the three is (or are) our Lord God ; FOR THE THREE ARE ONE. The critical chemistry that could extract the doctrine of the Trinity from this place, must have been exqui- sitely refining: Andreas Cretensis : Kal TO. Tpia ef? 0eos, TO. ev of? >/ 9eoTrjs taken from Gregory Nazianzen above quoted : The Nomocanon pub- 31 lished by Cotelerius aura TO. Tpia, "Trartjp - ev TO. T/o/a.' (Letters to Travis, pp. 233, 234.) The advocates of the verse are, it seems, not easily pleased. Mr. Porson, observing the deplorable condition of the opposite ranks, kindly pointed out a few recruits as not unde- serving of regard. The recruits are joyfully inlisted; and then Mr. Porson is reviled, for not having presented them in full uniform. Let us consider the state of the case. " I am astonished," says Porson to Travis, " that you would not accept the additional testimonies of- fered by Bengelius, &c." It appears, therefore, that the testimonies enumerated were volun- tarily mentioned. The argument did not require the most distant allusion to them. Now, if Mr. Porson had such a dread, as the Bishop imagines, lest his readers should discover any instances of TraTtjp, vios, &c. without the articles, surely he may be allowed to have had pru- dence enough to avoid even a reference to such instances. He would not have quoted, without necessity, the scholion on the 123rd Psalm; in which we find the expression Trarpos /ecu viov. But the truth is that his volume con- tains ample proofs that the Greek Professor felt no solicitude on the. subject. 32 So much for general remarks. Of Bishop Burgess's two specific objections, the first is, that Mr. Porson, when giving a passage of Basil, quoted it " not quite fairly," in a Latin translation ; thereby concealing an instance of Oeos, \6yos . and Trvevjua, without the articles. To this first objection the answer is this : that Mr. Porson was adducing a testimony which had been brought forward by Bengelius; and he quoted it in Latin, as it had been quoted by Bengelius himself. The passage of Bengelius may be found in the second edition of his Apparatus Criticus in the 23rd Section of the note on 1 John v. 7. I mention the second edition, because the reference to Basil is not found in the first edition, published with his Greek Testament in 1734. Bishop Burgess's second objection is, that there is " a sup- pression of words" in Mr. Porson's quotation of the Nomocanon avrd Ta Tpia, TraTijp - ei/ by which, the omission of the articles is concealed, as before. To this ob- jection I will only reply, that if there be a single person, capable of reading Greek, who is so dull as either not to perceive the nature of the omission, or not to be able to supply it he had much better not waste his time in critical inquiries of this kind. 33 With regard to the instances which have now been considered, enough, I trust, has been stated to clear Mr. Person from all suspicion of the meanness and folly of disin- genuous quotation. There is, however, an- other sentence of the learned prelate, relating to the paragraph lately cited, which demands a few observations. It is this. ' The words of Basil (quoted p. 30.) Mr. Person says are very like the verse of St. John ; adding, " If this be a quotation from 1 John v. 7. no verse has greater plenty of evidence." ' ( Vind. 2nd ed. pp. 39, 40.) " Very like the verse of St. John." These are certainly not Mr. Person's words; nor do they at all convey his meaning. Let us refer to his own language. " Bengelius wishes to draw over to his party Irenasus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athenagoras, and Basil; but they are so shy, that he is obliged to use violence ; and even then they perform their work in a very awkward manner. The place from Basil looks most like our verse." There is surely no obscurity here. Mr. Person is ob- serving, in his own peculiar style, how little can be extracted from those Greek authorities, in favour of the verse. His notions are of this kind. The evidence is all unsatisfactory; C 34 but of that evidence, Basil's is the best : the alleged quotations have all as slight a re- semblance as they well can have ; but " the place of Basil is most like our verse." It is exceedingly strange that the learned prelate should have imagined that Mr. Person had here acknowledged a positive resemblance be- tween the passage of Basil and the disputed text. And yet his Lordship has again and again endeavoured to persuade his readers that Mr. Person had made such an acknowledge- ment 1 . But to proceed : " If this (passage of Basil) be a quotation of 1 John v. 7. no verse has greater plenty of evidence." Un- doubtedly these are Mr. Person's words. The only question is, as to their signification. The Bishop seems to draw from them a meaning in favour of the verse. His Lordship is pro- bably of opinion that Mr. Person's style, being somewhat lax and diffuse, is improved by compression and abridgement. As however the privilege of abbreviation, has in this instance, been rather boldly exercised, it is but fair to the great critic to allow him an opportunity of expressing his own opinion in his own way. This then is the sentence as Mr. Porson printed 1 Vindication, 2nd eel. pp. xli. xlii. Letter to Clergy of St. David's, p. 69. 35 it. " If tliis (passage of Basil) be a quotation of 1 John v. 7. no verse has greater plenty of evidence to boast ; for it is quoted by every ancient writer who has expressed his belief in three persons and one God." When the sen- tence is thus completed, there must be some very singular mode of analysis employed, be- fore it will yield an opinion in the slightest degree favourable to the evidence for the verse. In fact, this is Mr. Person's method of de- claring that he held the evidence which could be drawn from those Greek writers, in the very lowest estimation. By a process of de- duction similar to that of the learned prelate that is, by taking the beginnings of sentences and omitting the endings the Greek Professor might easily be converted into a sturdy cham- pion of the controverted text. For example : " I allow," says the critic, " that two Greek writers do quote this verse in full and express terms Emanuel Calecas, and Joseph Bryennius both eminent for antiquity and fidelity." This is, beyond doubt, a most exhilarating concession. But then, he goes on " Calecas wrote about the middle of the fourteenth cen- tury, and Bryennius at the beginning of the fifteenth." The consequence is that, in an instant, we perceive what he means by " anti- quity and fidelity ; " and feel that language c 2 36 of this kind is not calculated to strengthen the evidence for 1 John v. 7. Let me, in conclusion, request the reader to recollect that it is upon the passage in the Letters to Mr. Travis, which presents the evidence of Basil, that Bishop Burgess has founded charges against Mr. Porson of quoting not quite fairly and of suppressing words. I am not aware that Mr. Person's opinions, respecting the Dublin manuscript, can need any defence beyond what has been made for them in the preceding pages. That he had good reasons for his opinions I trust I have shewn; and that he did not support them by dishonourable means will, I am persuaded, be admitted by every one whose judgement is worthy of regard. SECTION II. Mr. Parson's zcant of knowledge of the Greek Fathers his misrepresentations of Euthymius Zigabenus his opinions of internal evidence his inquiries after the Greek manuscripts which have been alleged as vouchers for the disputed verse his assertions relating to Valla's manuscripts and Erasmus. 1. MR. Person's want of knowledge of the Greek Fathers is exhibited by Bishop Burgess in the following manner. ' Mr. Person says, (p. 220.) " I know no Greek writer who has used (rpia for -r/oets) in either of the verses." Mr. Person's knowledge of the Greek Fathers was evidently not so exten- sive as his knowledge of the Greek dramatic poets. The neuter Tpia is used by Origen, in quoting the eighth verse, in his Commentary on John i, 27, 28. p. 133. ed. Colon. To Uvev/ma Kai TO vSwp KCU TO at/no. a.veypa\l/ TO. Tpia ew ev yevo/^eva. The neuter form is also quoted from the same verse by Gregory Nazianz. Vol. I. p. 603. ed. Colon. In the same terms (Ecumenius explains the eighth verse : Keu TO.VTO. TO Tpia ets eva XpicrTov io~i, TOV- T(TTl, Tr\V TTCpt TOV XptCTTOU fJittpTVpiaV The words of both those passages (of Origen and Gregory) vary from the common text, and yet 38 they are expressly quotations of the eighth verse ; and in both passages the masculines are turned into neuters.' (Letter to Clergy of St. David's, pp. 26, 28.) If a scholar like Mr. Person has made a mistake, let it be fairly pointed out; and all who prefer truth, to an individual or a party, will be thankful for the information. But the learned prelate, not content with pointing out a mistake, has thought fit to suggest the in- ference to be drawn from it. " Mr. Person's knowledge of the Greek Fathers was evidently not so extensive as his knowledge of the Greek dramatic poets." This inference was, perhaps, more immediately designed for the instruction of the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's. Their Bishop might wish- them to form a just estimate of the nature of Mr. Person's attainments in the Greek language ; and exercise due caution in placing reliance upon his authority. To ordinary minds, how- ever, there is something exceedingly perplexing in the reasoning adopted by the learned pre- I late so remote is it from all the usual modes of thought. The remains of the Greek drama, when disencumbered of annotations, would form about five or six volumes of very moderate size; but to how many volumes, of the same size, the Greek Fathers would extend, is a 39 problem which I will not venture to solve. Was it then necessary to prove, by means of a mistake, that Mr. Porson not a Theologian by profession, and, at the time of writing his Letters to Archdeacon Travis, a young man was less intimately conversant with the Greek Fathers in all their extent, than with the Greek dramatic poets? Much has been said of Mr. Person's severity to Mr. Travis and others. He was, beyond doubt, extremely impatient of the blunders of those whom he found engaged in inquiries for which they were wholly unqualified; but it would not be easy, I believe, to point out an instance, in which he has employed the mistakes of a real scholar, as an argument against the solidity of his acquirements. In the course of the Letters to Travis, Mr. Porson has occasion to quote Virgil, Eel. V. 27, 28 : Daphni, tuum Poenos etiam ingemuisse leones Interitum, montesque feros, silvasque loquuntur And, even after the work is printed, he is careful to give the following addendum. " Add this note on ( montesque feros ;' I follow Mark- land's emendation, which Mr. Heyne has mis- represented. He imputes to Markland an absurd reading, montesque, f eras, silvasque; and condemns the emendation for its awkward arrangement of the mourners, in putting the wild beasts between the mountains and the woods. I mention this oversight merely to strengthen an opinion, which I have long en- tertained and shall always resolutely defend, THAT ALL MEN ARE LIABLE TO ERROR." Thus did Mr. Porson protect the English Markland then no more against the Got- tingen Professor. He knew that Heyne was a scholar. But to return to Bishop Burgess. Is it his opinion that absolute immunity from error must constitute the criterion of a man's know- ledge, in matters of great extent and com- plexity? Let us, then, consider a case drawn from a department which is confined within much narrower limits than the range of in- quiry presented by the Greek Fathers. In the Advertisement (p. vi.) to the second edi- tion of a certain ' Vindication of 1 John v. 7.' published in 1823, we find the following pas- sage. ' In the second chapter of this (first) Epistle (of St. John) verse 23, the words lie that acknow- ledgeth the Son hath the Father also, are printed in italics in the common version, because they are not in the received text. It is no longer ago than the year 1782, that they were first admitted into the text by Matthaei, in his edition of the New Testament, on the authority of manuscripts.' 41 With the argument which is built upon this foundation I have no concern. My busi- ness is, to lay bare to the reader's observation the foundation itself. According to the learned prelate, the words, o o/u.oXo'yuJv . TOV v\ov, KCU TOV Trarepa e^e<, corresponding to the words above printed in italics, were first admitted into the text by Matthsei in 1782. On reading this account, almost three years ago, a suspicion was excited that all was not quite right ; and it is singular enough that the first edition to which I referred that of Theodore Beza in 1588, in constant use should have presented in the text the clause under consideration. I can also state, from actual inspection, that the clause is derived from Beza's third edition in 1582 ; and is continued in the fifth (Cambridge) edi- tion of 1642. Beza, in the edition of 1582, informs his readers that he had inserted it on the authority of good manuscripts. And thus, at the very outset of our inquiry, we find three editions, of very frequent occurrence and of no small repute, contradicting the assertion, that the clause was first introduced by Matthaei in 1782. Moreover, in the rare and valuable edition of Colinseus (1534), printed from manu- scripts, the same clause is preserved. A small London edition also (1664) following, most probably, one of the later editions of Beza 42 retains the clause; which is likewise found in Dr. Harwood's edition of 1776. The list of editions which give this reading might possibly be extended; but the editions now enumerated having been accessible at the moment, and sufficient for the purpose in hand, I have ab- stained from any farther researches into the subject. It is, however, still worthy of remark that all these editions, with the exception of the two last mentioned, are described by Wetstein (in loc.) as containing the clause in question. So much for the statement that the words o ofjioXoyw v K.T.e. were first admitted into the text by Matthagi, in 1782. Now, would it be fair to the author of this state- ment, to infer any thing to the disadvantage of his critical knowledge of the Greek Testa- ment, in comparison with his knowledge of other matters? Surely not. It is a mistake. That is all. MEN ABE LIABLE TO ERROR. These remarks are preliminary to the con- sideration of Mr. Person's want of knowledge of the Greek Fathers ; to which we must now proceed. In treating of Euthymius Zigabenus, a Greek evidence of the twelfth century in favour of the contested verse, Mr. Porson 43 wrote thus : " Eucherius indeed reads the eighth, and Etherius both the seventh and eighth verses, with tria in the neuter ; but I know no Greek writer who has done the same in either of the verses." (p. 220.) This sentence, without being at all dogmatical in its form for it merely expressed what Mr. Person had himself observed was sufficiently hazardous ; and I am rather surprised that so little should have been produced in opposition to it. That Mr. Porson, however, did not rely upon the argument, as absolutely conclusive against the alleged quotation of the verse by Euthymius Zigabenus, is manifest from his next sentence. " Though this I think might be a sufficient objection, unless Euthymius had formally declared his quotation to be a part of Scripture, I shall not think much to examine more deeply into the matter." He then enters upon a distinct inquiry into the alleged evi- dence of Euthymius ; the result of which is, in his estimation, so decided, that, although he is not apt to suppose Mr. Travis to be very open to conviction, he thus concludes his remarks : " I believe that Mr. Travis himself will excuse me from any farther examination of this authority." If, therefore, it be thought of importance to ascertain the correctness or incorrectness of the conjecture that no Greek 44 writer, in quoting the seventh or eighth verses, has substituted T P ia for rpeis it must be so because it is Mr. Person's; for it is manifest that no great stress was laid upon the opinion, in the controversy with Mr. Travis. My library contains neither Origen's Com- mentary on the Gospel of St. John, nor the Commentaries of (Ecumenius ; and therefore I cannot instantly turn to the passages which the learned prelate has quoted from those works. Nor, to say the truth, do I feel any anxiety on the subject. I am willing to admit, with- out examination, that the extracts are fairly given ; that they are directly opposed to Mr. Person's conjecture ; and consequently, that Mr. Porson had not seen them, or, if the reader should prefer the supposition, that they had escaped his recollection. With regard to Gregory Nazianzen, however, the case is some- what different. In the first place, the learned prelate has not quoted the words of Gregory, as he has done in the instances of Origen and (Ecumenius. He merely refers to the pas- sage : " the neuter form is also quoted from the same verse by Gregory Nazianzen, Vol. I. p. 603. ed. Colon." In the second place, I should be ashamed to think that the works of GREGORY THE DIVINE were out of reach in 45 my studious moments. And lastly, I am re- luctant to acknowledge, except " on compul- sion," that Mr. Person can be convicted of a mistake, from the pages of Gregory Nazianzen ; an author who, as he was well aware, was the constant delight of an eminent Regius Professor of Divinity, of his own College > and for whom he has himself more than once avowed his fondness. On turning to Gregory Nazianzen, I cer- tainly find a quotation of 1 John v. 8. in the 603rd page ; and therefore I conclude that Bishop Burgess has made no mistake in men- tioning the page to which he intended to refer. That indeed is, I believe, the only page in the volume, in which the verse is quoted at all. It appears, therefore, that the learned prelate and myself have the same passage in view. Having stated this, I am obliged to confess that I feel myself in so unpleasant a situation, that, in truth, I scarcely know how to proceed with my observations. On a cursory inspection of the page referred to, I could per- ceive nothing like what I was led to expect; and having, as a security from error, care- fully perused the whole page again and again, and also looked over the annexed Latin version, I am at last compelled to declare that 46 I cannot discover one single expression, which has the slightest tendency to confirm the Bishop's assertion, that, " in the passage of Gregory, the masculine (r/jeTs) is turned into the neuter (r/o/a)." On the contrary, in the passage of Gregory, I read the following words : Tt $cu o 'Ifc>ai>i/7S, TPEID elvai row9 jmapTvpovvTas Xeywv, ev TCUS /ca0oXi/cais, TO trvevfia, TO vocap, TO al/ma : and the reasoning, which immediately follows, rests entirely on the fact that St. John had used the masculine TpeTs, and not the neuter Tpia, although it was instantly suc- ceeded by three nouns, TO irvev^a, TO vSwp, TO all in the neuter gender. When two statements, from the same pas- sage, are thus directly opposed to each other, the easiest method of enabling the reader to decide between them will be, to place the entire passage before him. This, therefore, I shall do, at the risk of exciting alarm by the appearance of so much Greek. The passage relates to the Trinity. It is curious, and shews considerable acuteness. In a note, I shall give the Latin version, just as I find it. e ^vvapiOfJLGiTcn, 0J7S, TO. ofjLoovffia. TO. tie oy^ OVTWS e-^ovTa /uovaci/c^v e^et TJ/I/ c^Xwatv. TloOev o~oi TOVTO, Kal Trapa Ttvwv coyju.a.Tia'Tcov Kdl t) ayvoels, oVt 7ra9 apiO/uos Ttjs TTOGOTIJTOS TWV fjLevwv euTi ctjXaoTiKOS, ov Tt/9 (fivcreu)? TWV eyw oe OUTOJ9 dp-^aiws e^a>, yuaXXoi; oe d/maQws, ware rpia /ULCV ovojud^w Ta TocravTa. Ttjj dpiOjuiw, Kq.v cteffTrjKe TTfv TG^vo\oyiav, TOGOUTOV aXX^Xaw aTrepprjyfjLeva ra?9 y X|oet9 IIeT|Oot, /cat T/oet9 DayXot, /cat Iwai'i/at TOCTOUTOI \eyovTai. o ydp crv TTtjpiiKa.s 7Tl TWV yCVlKWTepWV OVOfJLCtTWVj TOVTO KOI rjfJLC^S aTTat- eVt TWV eloiKWTepwv /cara TJ/f o~r]v aVaTrXacrti/. >) otooy9 oirep e'iXr]7 /caraX- X;\ttJ9 e^wv cnnjitTricrev, aXXa TO TPEIS appeviK, /cat TO afca, dveypa^/e ets ev yevo/meva, and CEcume nius, when explaining the &th verse, Kal Tavra TO. -rpia ets eva Xpi&TOV etcrt he Would have thought those instances, even when combined, to afford but an indifferent proof that Euthy- mius, when not expressly referring to Scripture, had quoted the seventh verse. Mr. Porson, however, afterwards (pp. 222 224) traced the two phrases used by Euthymius, in exemplifi- cation of his meaning, to Gregory Nazianzen : it ought, indeed, to be stated that Euthymius in this part of his work refers to Gregory. " For the Godhead is one in three, And the three are one, *Ev yap ev rpialv rj Oeortj?, Kal TO. Tpla ev" (Opp. p. 630.) " Paul says, * the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory;' the God indeed of Christ, but the Father of Glory ; for although they are both together one; they are one, not by nature but by their Conjunction : TIavXov \eyovTos o 0eos TOV Kvpiov }/ua>i' 'IrjGov XpiaTov* o TraTtjp Ttjs oo^'y. XptaTov /u.ev 0eos, T^S $e $o]*T]S TraTtjp. Et yap Kal TO vwa/JifyoTepov ev' o'\X' ov Trj (f)vGi 3 Trj oe avvooM TOVTWV." (Opp. p. 582.) Such are the passages of Gregory from which Euthymius drew his two illustra- 54 tive phrases. There is nothing, in Gregory's manner of introducing the expressions, which indicates an intention of quoting the Sacred Writers. It is not pretended, indeed, that /cat TO awafjifyoTepov ev is a Scriptural quotation ; and I will venture to say that no good reason can be assigned why /cat TO. -rpia ev, in the one case, should be thought a scriptural quo- tation, any more than /cat TO arvva^orepov ev, in the other. To conclude this part of the subject ; let the reader peruse once more the passage of Euthymius Zigabenus which has drawn forth the preceding remarks. " The word one is applied to things homousian, where there is a sameness of nature but a difference of per- sons ; as in the phrase, And the three are one (ical rd Tpia ev) : and also to things heteroiisian, where there is a sameness of persons but a difference of natures ; as in the phrase, And both together are one (/ca2 TO a-vva^oTepov ev)" And now, can any one possibly persuade himself that Euthymius adduced the phrase, /cat TO* Tpia ev, as a passage of Scripture 1 ? 1 Mr. Person's notions on this passage of Euthymius are alluded to also, p. 10, and discussed from p. 46 to p. 50, in the Letter to the Clergy of St. David's. But as I cannot find any thing in the learned prelate's observations which is not implied in the passage, from pp. 27, 28, already before the reader, I content myself with thus referring to them. 55 In treating of the origin of the expression, teal TO. Tpia ev, there is another observation of Mr. Porson, which I will take this opportunity to state; giving at the same time the learned prelate's comments upon it, together with such reflections as may appear requisite. " The de- fenders of the verse," says Mr. Porson, " catch greedily at every place where the Fathers use the expression of Three in One, as if such expressions could not but proceed from this verse; whereas it is infinitely more probable, that the verse proceeded from such expressions of the Fathers." (Letters, pp. 221, 222.)" The doctrine of the Trinity," the Bishop replies, being confessedly one of the great " mysteries of God," whence were the ministers and stewards of those mysteries likely to have de- rived it, but from those " Oracles of God" which were committed to them ? The preva- lence, therefore, of such an expression concern- ing the Deity as Three are One, in the writings of the Fathers, is a presumptive evidence that it was derived from the clause of 1 John v. 7. even by Mr. Person's concession before men- tioned." (Letter to Clergy, p. 51.) Here, then, I would ask these questions : May not the doctrine' of a Trinity in Unity be deduced from undoubted passages of Scripture ? If the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity was derived from 56 1 John v. 7. why was that text never distinctly and incontrovertibly quoted by the Fathers (of v the fourth century, for instance), in proof of the doctrine? Where is the wisdom of attri- buting to a text, which holds its place by so precarious a tenure, the great prevalence of one of the leading tenets of the Church? " It might as well be supposed," the Bishop proceeds, " that our Saviour's testimony of him- self, / and my Father are one, originated from the writings of the Fathers." Why, no ; not as well : for, in addition to its having been quoted by the Fathers, the testimony is found in the manuscripts of the Gospels. Has the learned prelate almost persuaded himself that it is a matter of little or no consequence whether a text be found in the manuscripts of Scripture, or not? But the Bishop goes on : ' The fact, I am persuaded, is, that the whole verse of 1 John v. 7. proceeded from Christ's declarations in St. John's Gospel (v, 32, 36 ; viii. 18 ; xv. 26.) For there we find the three Heavenly witnesses, and there the proof of their unity." This might perhaps be ac- cepted as an account of the origin of the text in after-ages ; but who can endure to think of an inspired Apostle, first, by a process of minute reasoning, deducing a result for him- self ; and then stating it, as a matter of faith 57 for others ? Into what strange opinions does the attempt to establish the genuineness of the disputed verse, betray its learned advocates ! But it is now time to return to Euthymius Zigabenus ; for there is yet somewhat to be stated in relation to the Imperial favourite. A copy of the Greek edition of this author having been lent to Mr. Person, he seems to have perused it with some attention; and hav- ing discovered a passage with which he knew that Mr. Travis would be greatly delighted, he thus recommended it to his notice. * Since I have promised to produce every argu- ment that to my knowledge has been or may be urged against me, I must not conceal that in the same edition of Euthymius, fol. 112, col. 1, a part of the Epistle of John is thus quoted. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear record on earth] the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the wit- ness of God is greater. See now again, how the preacher of truth calls the Spirit by nature God and of God ; for having said that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little onward he adds, the witness of God is greater. How then 58 is he a creature (who is declared to be God with the Father of all things, and completive of the Trinity, TO TWV o\v Xafjiftdvo/jiev, tj fiapTvpiu TOV deov fjifi^tav effTt. 0ea Se ird\iv f OTI Tt]<: a\t]6ela<: o Kijpv dfov Te Kai CK Qeov 0i/criKaK TO Hvevfjia Ka\e"i. EJ'P;KCO? yap, OTI TO irvevfjia eVn TOV Qeov TO fj.apTvpovv, fjnicpov TI irpoeXdiav, eiTHpepet, rj papTvpia TOV Qeov peiljav ecr-ri. Oa>? ovv effTt iroitjfJia, (TO Tu waTpi (Tuv8eo\o'yovfj.evov ai Trj<; a'yia? TpidS 59 I observe, first, that an author who adopts this reasoning" (that is, without the clause omitted by Mr. Person) " must have been ignorant of the seventh verse. How could he otherwise have missed the opportunity of insisting upon the con- numeration of the three persons," (which in the untranslated clause he does not miss) " the asser- tion of their joint testimony and of their unity? Euthymius's reasoning at present receives all its vigour from the close conjunction of the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses, and is only clogged by the insertion of the seventh."' (Vind. 2nd ed. p. xxxvi.) The reader ought here to be informed, that, independently of the preceding observations, there are very strong grounds, as will hereafter appear, for thinking that the text of the heavenly witnesses, found in the printed edi-' tion of Euthymius, is an interpolation. With regard to the reasoning employed, it is obvious that the premises from which the conclusion is drawn are contained in the sixth and ninth verses of the fifth chapter: (v. 6.) It is the Spirit that witnesses ; but (v. 9.) this is the witness of God: therefore the Spirit is God. So that if Euthymius referred at all to the seventh verse, it must have been when he enunciated his conclusion, How then is he a Creature, TO TWV bXwv TraTpl avvOeoXoyov/uLevov, KOI ayias Tpidcos re KUI e/c 0eoy 61 conveys a declaration of the divinity of the Spirit which is not contained in the sixth and ninth verses ; much less in the eighth, which relates solely to the human nature of Christ. God, of God must mean two distinct persons. But the Spirit is not distinguished from the Father, and connumcrated with him, except in the seventh verse.' (pp. xxxvi, xxxvii.) The Bishop here contends, if I rightly understand him, that although the Spirit is proved to be God, without the seventh verse the Spirit cannot, without that verse, be proved to be of God, by nature, etc Qeov, (five-news. Now, it really does appear to me that the person must have wonderful talents for discovery, who can find any thing like an affirmation, that the Spirit is of God, by nature in the seventh verse. The truth is, that Euthymius Zigabenus or rather Cyril of Alexandria, whom he copied did not there use the ex- pression, 0eos Kal K Oeov (f)variK9 e\ov (pvaei, jrXaviavTtav v/uots. KUI vfjt.e"iTf<: SicaKToi Geou (Is. liv. 13.) "On TO'IVVV ol tria"re\i TO?J TrpcHprjrats \oyov 0eo? apa TO wevfjia u \ i j\.ai o Tt]p(av Tas fvTO\ar]Tov 0r/o-(V. "On evoiKt'jcru) ev aJro?9, Kai e/UTf/J'TaTtjcra), Ka effofjiai auTiov 0eds* KO,\ el 0eo? pi\fso- Kivevvws OTI yevrjTov eij \eyuv, Ttjv altaviov eK/3r]/V fjLapTvpiav Ttov avOpwTrwv Xamftavo/uev, >/ (MapTvpia TOU Oeou fjLei^wv eo-T/* quod ad Spiritum refert, cujus ante facta mentio." And thus, alas, writes Ben- gelius : " Neque citant (sc. versum septimum), id quod maxime notandum, Gregorius Nazian- xenus, et Cyrillus Alexandrinus ; qui Spiritum Sanctum esse Deum et esse adorandum, probant ex vv. 6, 8, 9, pratermisso versu septimo 1 ." 1 Mill, Annot. ad 1 John v. 7- p. 741. ed. Ox. 1707: Bengelius, ad eundem locum, p. 751. ed. 1734. E 66 It must, no doubt, be a grievous sight to the learned prelate, to behold Mill and Ben- gelius conspiring with Erasmus and Porson, against this venerable witness for his favourite text. Having myself, I confess, joined the confederacy, I will state, in part at least, the reasons which induced me to do so. With this view, I shall adduce two passages of Cyril ; which I recommend to the attention of those who may still fancy that they perceive, in the sentence which Mr. Porson abbreviated, an indication of the seventh verse. ' The man, he (Paul) says, ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God ; and he afterwards affirms that the woman is the glory of the man. (1 Cor. xi.) It is, I think, plain to all that the man is so called because he partici- pates of the divine spirit, and by him becomes a partaker of the divine nature, so as thence also to be filled with the glory of God. Paul calls the woman, the glory of the man, because she was formed of his substance. As therefore the woman is called the glory of the man because she was framed out of a portion of him so man is called the glory of God, because he is a partaker of His substance, by the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. These things being so, it fol- lows of necessity that the Holy Spirit was not made or created, but is of the substance of God: to be worshipped as God, with the Father 67 and the Son, according to the identity of na- ture 1 .' ' Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature : old thing's are passed away ; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God. (2 Cor. v. 17.) Since, therefore, when Christ reneweth us, and transformeth us to new- ness of life, the Spirit is said to renew us, accord- ing to that saying of the Psalmist, Send forth thy Spirit and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth, we must of necessity confess that the Spirit is of the substance of the Son. For, as being of him by nature, and sent by him to the creature, he effects the renovation being the completion of the Holy Trinity (a-v/u.Tr\j- pa)/ma T7s ayias virdp^ov iyxa&>s). If SO, then the Spirit is both God and of God, and not a creature 2 .' 1 'Avtjp nev, (pt]a-}v, OVK o(pei\ei KO.To.K.aXv'irTeffQai TIJV Kea\tjv, tiKiov KCtl Sea Qeov virdp^tav eira TIJV 'yvvaiKO. $oav dvcpds eivai 3iV'1To<: ^(arjv, TO irvev^ia dvaKaivi^ov \eyerat, wra TO ev \//-aAyuo?s dlo/j.et>ov ea7roo-Ta\e?. It would be easy to adduce many instances of the same kind. 69 verse is not in the text of Cyril, it ought to be there. " This conclusion," he says, " being drawn from the controverted passage of St. John, necessarily requires the seventh verse, as its premises. We have here, then, a Greek authority of the fifth century for the verse." On this method of obtaining a Greek authority of the fifth century, I shall only remark if, after what has now been said, any one can possibly be deceived by it dedpiatur. On the whole, the charge against Mr. Person, in relation to Euthymius Zigabenus, is, the want of good faith ; and I will venture to say that a more unfounded charge was never advanced against a man of learning. 3. Mr. Person's opinions respecting Inter- nal Evidence 1 . It has already been stated that the passage of Euthymius Zigabenus, last under considera- tion, was avowedly taken from Cyril of Alex- andria. Now in Cyril, the quotation from the fifth chapter of St. John's Epistle contains 1 The observations under this head are in fact a continua- tion of those which have preceded. My design is to shew, more distinctly, the bearing of those observations upon Internal Evidence. 70 the 6th, 8th and 9th verses in continuation, Without the words ev Ttp ovpavy, o irarrip, K. T. e. ev T) 7j : and thus agrees exactly with the manuscripts of the New Testament. There is not, so far as I know, any variation, in this respect, in the manuscripts of Cyril. When, therefore, we perceive, in the only edition of the Greek text of Euthymius, the passage of Cyril, with the clause, ev T

; 7*7." A 1'opposite de ces mots, OTJ rpe?s eiaiv ol napTupouvTes ev TIJ yrj, TO Trvevjjia Kai TO {!8o>p KU\ TO aifjLd, is the expression of Simon, in the preceding extract. There is no reason to believe that he ever thought of the words ev TJJ 7*7, in particular. 1 ' Veruntamen haec Scholia vel ex Augustino, vel ex ipsis codicibus Latinis versum 7mum exhibentibus, esse desumpta, liquet: nam Codex ille Regius, ev Ty jrj, quod codices mere Greed non habent, habet ex Latinis: et cum Regio, Colber- tinus 94 But " Mr. Porson doubts the accuracy of Simon." As the learned prelate has not given the reasons which induced Mr. Porson to en- tertain doubts on the subject, I will here take the liberty to present them. ' Simon, indeed, mentions No. 2247, as having the words ei> T*} 7*7 ; but it seems a mistake, com- mitted in the hurry of copying; and to have proceeded from the idea of the vulgar reading which was then present to his mind : 1. Because F. Le Long (Emlyn, Vol. II. p. 277.) testifies that, having looked over all the MSS. quoted by Simon, he could find ev Ty yy in none of them : 2. Because Mr. Griesbach, who has re-examined the same MSS. with a particular view to this pas- sage, sets down No. 2247, as in perfect harmony with the rest, without taking notice of any varia- tion.' (Letters, p. 27.) Let me now ask two questions : 1. Can stronger evidence than this be necessary to tinus aperte conspirat. Bengelius ad Loc. Sect. 24. The last expression alludes, I suppose, to the resemblance between the Scholia, in the two manuscripts. The reader can hardly have failed to consider the preceding Scholia as palpable Glosses on the 8th verse, and mystical interpretations of its doctrine. He ought, however, to be informed that the Bishop (Vind. p. 30.) holds them to be clear indications of the 7th. Whether they are more like the fragments of a verse that had perished, or the elements of a verse that was hereafter to be constructed, shall be left to the decision of the judicious. 95 prove Simon's inaccuracy ? 2. Did Bishop Burgess, when he mentioned Mr. Person's " doubts" in the manner which we have seen, enable his readers to form any thing like a correct judgement on the subject to which he had drawn their attention? The second edi- tion of Mr. Travis's Letters to Mr. Gibbon (p. 339.) contains the following statement. " In some erroneous copies, the words ec T/ 7*7 are also omitted in the eighth verse. But that seems to have been the case with a few of them, only." After a severe but well-merited castigation of Mr. Travis, for so flagrant a de- reliction of truth, Mr. Porson thus brings the matter to issue : " Be this assertion of your's owing to fraud or to ignorance, I defy you to specify a single Greek MS. that omits the seventh verse, and retains these words." He then gives the preceding account of Simon's inaccuracy. Mr. Travis had the sense to cor- rect his error ; although he had not the candour to acknowledge it. In his third edition (p. 449.) he silently omits his former unwarrantable statement ; and intimates that the reading under discussion is not to be found in any Greek MS. now extant 1 . 1 All this evidence, against the reading ev -rfj yfj, must have been perfectly well known to the learned prelate ; and yet we find him writing, in the Advertisement to the 2nd edition of his 96 Besides what has been already quoted from Mr. Person, there is a passage near the end of his volume (p. 393.) which treats of the reading ev rfj 7*7. This passage, which may probably have been overlooked by the learned prelate, is of itself sufficient to satisfy the minds of all but those who refuse to place any re- liance upon human testimony. * Those words (ev rfi 7*7) are in no Greek MS., in no version, in no Greek author that quotes the eighth verse ; and almost all the Latin MSS. and Fathers that omit the heavenly witnesses, omit too all mention of the earth. I have before referred to Simon's seeming assertion that a Greek MS. retained the words ev Ty 7*7, but I have there given my reasons, why he is mistaken. Newton had already hinted the same suspicion. I now dare boldly affirm that those words were no more in that MS. than in any other. For Abbe Roger, in his Dissertation on 1 John v. 7. transcribes the eighth verse from this very MS., and omits the words ev Ty 7*7.' But the time, it appears, has at last arrived, when, even the learned prelate being judge, Mr. his ' Vindication,' in the following manner. ' Some Greek copies retain an evidence of their loss by the words ev -ry 7*7, still extant in the text, according to Hesselius ad loc. Whatever number of Greek or Latin copies have ev Ty yy, or in terra, they contain an evidence of an absent verse, with its relative ev ovpavia.' The natural effect of such language, under such circumstances, is to excite a feeling of distrust. 97 Person's doubts are turned into certainties. Bishop Burgess, in his * Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's', has given a fac- simile of that page, of the MS. marked 2247, which contains the eighth verse: AND THE WORDS, EN TH TH, ARE NOT THERE ! " The fac-simile," as his Lordship expresses it, " sets that dispute concerning the text of this MS. at rest." That dispute, indeed, was at rest, before. The favour of the fac-simile, however, requires a public acknowledgement. I was about to ask whether, on such an occasion as the present, some slight reference, to the injus- tice previously done to Mr. Person, might not have been expected from the learned prelate but I forbear. MR. PORSON is AMPLY VINDI- CATED. From the Greek ei/ -rfi 7*7, I pass to the Latin in terra; which brings me to the se- cond particular to which I shall direct the reader's attention. Bede in his Commentary on 1 John v. explains the 8th verse, without the slightest notice of the 7th. The Bishop (Tracts, p. vii.*) considers his reading in terra, in the 8th verse, as an indication of the 7th, with the expression in ccelo, having preceded it ; but his Lordship neglects to state that there is evidence of the strongest kind to shew that G 98 the words in terra are an interpolation. Of this let the reader judge. ' Newton had suspected that the words in terrd were not written by Bede, because he so particularly explains the rest of the verse, with- out taking any notice of them. Erasmus had already observed that a MS. omitted these words, though a much later hand had added in the margin the three heavenly witnesses. Emlyn tells us, upon hearsay, that the MSS. of Bede omitted in terrd. Martin answered, that he had seen those words with his own eyes in a MS. at Utrecht. I fully believe this assertion ; for I my- self have seen them in a MS. at Oxford, but very modern, and of little value. All the other ten that I collated omit in terrd, without any rasure in the text or note in the margin. Several of them boast a decent antiquity, but the oldest carries its own date, A. C. 818.' (Letters to Travis, p. 385.) This is a mode of writing which commands confidence ; and it really seems impossible to avoid the conclusion, that the words in terrd are an interpolation. One thing, at all events, is quite certain : the words ought not to have been employed in argument, without some intimation of their very dubious origin. The last particular, which I shall notice, occurs in p. xvi. of the Preface to the * Tracts.' 99 * Amelotte asserted that he had seen the (seventh) verse in a MS. in the Vatican. If he ever saw it there, the MS., it seems, has dis- appeared, like Stephens's iy, which has been lately discovered in the Public Library at Cambridge. A similar discovery which should verify Amelotte's assertion, would happily put an end to all further inquiry after the verse.' I may just remark that the learned prelate appears rather unfortunate in his allusion to the MS. 17, which clearly proved that Stephens had misplaced his semicircle ; and so, destroyed the argument, in favour of the verse, which was founded on the assumption of its right position. My concern, however, is with Fa- ther Amelote. In opposition to the state- ment of Erasmus, that an extremely antient IMS. in the Vatican did not contain the tes- timony of the heavenly witnesses, Father Amelote asserted point blank that he had himself read the passage in the oldest MS. in the Vatican. Mr. Travis, in the first edition of his Letters, commenced his proofs of the genuineness of the verse, with this testimony of Aaielote. He informs us, in his second edition, that he had omitted the testimony of Amelote, adduced in the former edition, " because many learned and worthy men had expressed doubts of his veracity" He G 2 100 says, indeed, a few words in behalf of Amelote ; but he gives him up as a witness, " because this text does not seem to stand in need of any precarious support." In his third edition, Mr. Travis very wisely made no mention whatever of Amelote 1 , and thus the man and his communications were most completely and most deservedly forgotten ; when lo, after an interval of thirty years, Father Amelote is once more revived by Bishop Burgess. On this subject I will not enlarge, for I write with a feeling of sorrow and mortification not to be described. How could the learned pre- late condescend to refer to any thing which had fallen from that vain-glorious and unprin- cipled character, as if it were entitled to one moment's consideration? Some centuries after Johanna Southcote's Shiloh shall have appeared, it is possible that Father Amelote's manuscript 1 The second edition of Mr. Travis's Letters was published in 1785, and the third in 1794: between these, in 1790, Mr. Person's Volume appeared; from which Mr. Travis derived more information than he has thought proper to acknowledge. He seems to have taken a hint from Mr. Porson, touching this same Amelote. " Even Amelote's testimony was urged as an argument in the first edition, but omitted in the second, at the desire perhaps of some cautious friend, who feared it would be too bare-faced an insult upon any tolerably well-informed reader." Letters to Travis, p. 3. After this, the Archdeacon would not be very fond of recording his previous reliance on Father Amelote. ici may be discovered 1 . But it is now time to consider the last particular mentioned at the head of the present section 2 . 1 Father Amelote published (1666 1668) a French ver- sion of the New Testament. For the satisfaction of those who may be unacquainted with his merits, I will subjoin an extract from Simon's Hist. Crit. du N. T. p. 346. ' II peche centre la modestie, et meme centre la verite, lorsqu'il parle de ces venerables et augustes manuscrits, dont il pretend avoir fait une recherche si exacte, qu'on n'avoit rien vu de semblable auparavant. J'ay apporte, dit-il, une diligence dont on n'avoit point ouy parler Jusqu'icy, pour montrer la con- formite du Latin avec le Grec ancien, et avec le premier Original. J'ay fait une exacte recherche de tons les MSS. d'au dessus de mille ans qui se conservent dans toute la Chreliente et fay obtenu des extraits de tons. J'en ay eu plus de vingt de la France; tons ceux du Vatican et des celebres Bibliotheques d' Italic; seize d'Espagne, sans compter les autres dont le Car- dinal Ximenes s'etoit servy pour donner la perfection a sa Bible d'Alcala ; ceux d'Angleterre et des pays du Nord, et beaucoup du fond de la Grece, avec ceux de chacun des anciens Peres.' ' II n'y a personne qui ne croye en lisant ces paroles, que ce Pere a eu entre ses mains tous ces Exemplaires dont il fait mention, au moins des extraits pris des manuscrits. Mais tout ce long discours n'est qu'une figure de Rhetorique dont il se sert pour parler plus noblement du sujet qu'il traitoit, et dont il avoit con9u une grande idee. C'est ce qu'il avoiia a un de ses Confreres, a qui il montra sa Preface en manuscrit, et qui luy conseilla de la reformer, surtout dans 1'endroit ou il faisoit le recit de ses manuscrits. II ne fit point d'autre reponse la- dessus a son Confrere, qui lui montra en meme temps ses diverses Ie9ons imprimees, sinon que la matiere dont il parloit demandoit qu'il s'expliquat d'une maniere noble, pour faire plus d'impression dans 1'esprit de ceux qui liroient son ouvrage. Ainsi tous ces venerables et augustes MSS. que le P. Amelote a consulles ne sont autre chose qu'une Jigure de Rhetorique.' 2 The Bishop (Tracts, p. xviii.) wishes to have it thought that Erasmus had seen the Codex Britannicus ; and also tliat the 102 5. Mr. Person's assertions relating to Valla's manuscripts and Erasmus. I shall in this instance adhere to the plan which I have hitherto followed, as most likely to be satisfactory to the reader, of first stating the learned prelate's objections, and then the remarks which they may seem to require. ' Valla's Varice Lectiones have been considered by some, as affording probable evidence of a Greek MS. or MSS. in his possession, which had the seventh verse. Erasmus says of these Varige Lectiones : Quid Laurentius ( Valla) legerit, non satis liquet ; " plainly intimating," says Mr. Porson, in one place (p. 36.) " that it was not clear, whether Valla had that text in his MSS. or not." If then, Erasmus, who published the Varise Lectiones from Valla's manuscript, doubted, are we authorized to say with Mr. Porson, in another place (p. 34.) that " it is clear and cer- tain, that Valla's Greek MSS. wanted the verse ?" especially as we have not only Erasmus's non liquet, but his subsequent acknowledgement, fieri potuisse, ut Codex Laurentii Vallce haberet, quod ipsius (Erasmi) Codices non hdbebani 1 ? (Tracts, pp. xix, xx.) the Codex Britannicus is a different copy from the Dublin MS. These notions are, I conceive, altogether erroneous ; but the learned prelate has fairly stated that they do not accord with the opinions of other scholars. 1 See J. Gerhardi Commentatio uberior ad loc. p. 24. ed. 1721. Bishop Burgess. I find this reference to Erasmus 103 The Bishop had no small satisfaction, I can easily believe, in bringing together, from Mr. Person's volume, two sentences which appear to be somewhat at variance. This inconsistency however, if so it must be called, is not peculiar to Mr. Porson ; nor is it confined to the op- ponents of the verse. A critic who was well acquainted with the declaration of Erasmus, and to whose decisions the learned prelate justly attaches great importance, had arrived at the same conclusion with Mr. Porson. " Vattam? he observed, " in Grascis suis codicibus legisse Dictum, ex ejus silentio sine ulld ratione con- jicitur 1 ." Bishop Burgess, indeed, seems fre- Gerhard's Dissertatio ex dicto 1 John v. 7- ; which forms one of his Disputationes Theologicae, Jena 1625. For the satisfaction of those who may wish to know something more of Gerhard's sentiments on this subject, I will give two specimens of his opinions. 1. ' Dictum 1 John v. 7- Ariani, ex quibusdam Codicibus abstulerunt ; sed piorum Ecclesiae Doctorum vigi- lans industria illud restituit.' 2. ' Hie Codex Britannicus ob vetustatem tantce fuit apud Erasmum autoritatis, ut versiculum ilium in prioribus editionibus omissum, in posterioribus accu- ratissima curd (ut ipse scribit) recognilis restitueret. Ex hoc Brilannico Codice (inquit) reposuimus quod in noslro dicebatur deesse, ne cui sit ansa calumniandi :' (so far he was a pius Ecclesiae doctor) ' mox tamen ad ingenium rediens, subjicit, tametsi suspicor Codicem ilium ad noslros esse correctum. Sed hujus suspicionis causa nulla.' Ohe, jam satis ! 1 The critic goes on to assign some good reasons for doubt- ing Valla's extreme accuracy in pointing out the variations between the Greek and the Latin copies. " Praeteriit Valla, etiam versu 6, insignem differentiam ; ubi Greece est TO trvevna, Latinc Christits: et capite ii. priorem partem versus 14, qua Latini 104 quently disposed to attribute, to Mr. Porson singly, opinions very generally held by those who have written on the controverted text. That, in the present instance, the sentiments of Mr. Porson were in agreement with those of the critic above cited, must have been well known to his Lordship ; for the sentence which he has quoted in part, appears, when completed, in the following form: " But that his (Valla's) Greek MSS. wanted it (the 7th verse), is clear and certain, and fairly admitted by BENGELIUS." This name will entirely acquit Mr. Porson of any thing like partiality in his decision ; and afford at least a presumptive proof that his judgement did not rest upon slight grounds. It might be asked, as a matter of curiosity, Why were the five words, expressing the opinion of Bengelius, omitted ? In fact, while reading the publications of the learned prelate on this subject, there is one question which almost constantly presents itself to the mind What is the author's object ? It can hardly be to state things as they really are: it must be to make out a case, at all adventures. The two sentences, however, which have Latini carent, sine dubio Graece legerat Valla, et tamen in pausa est. Oppido parcas in hanc Epistolam notulas dedit.' Annot. ad 1 John v. 7. Sect. vi. ed. 2. 105 been thus brought into contrast, may appear to require a few additional remarks. In the midst of much virulent abuse of Erasmus, Mr. Travis had taxed him with " having given up the whole contest, formally and finally, but in a most uncheerful and disingenuous manner" from a secret fear of " the argument deducible from Valla's MSS." Mr. Porson replied, that far from wishing to keep those MSS. out of sight, Erasmus had affirmed to the last, Quid Laurentius legerit, non satis liquet ; " plainly meaning that it was not clear whether Valla had this text in his MSS. or not." Erasmus had been grievously annoyed by the hostility which his Greek Testament had excited ; and having, on the authority of the Codex Britan- nicus, inserted the verse in his third edition, he would naturally wish to allay the violence of controversy, rather than increase it. When, therefore, we consider the number of zealots who were on the watch for whatever could be turned to his disadvantage, his language conveyed stronger doubts respecting the read- ings of the Complutensian, as well as of Valla's MSS. than could perhaps have been expected. But Bengelius and Porson were under no re- straint. They could declare without hesitation the conclusions to which they were led by the circumstances of the case. And thus, although 106 Erasmus might think it prudent to express himself with some uncertainty, they ventured to give a decided opinion. Laurentius Valla is called, by Bellarmine, the precursor of the Lutheran Heresy. Be this as it may, he might certainly with great pro- priety be denominated the precursor of Erasmus. After the revival of letters, he was the first scholar who wrote critical notes on the New Testament. A fastidious judge of Latin com- position his main object appears to have been, to expose the barbarous phraseology of the Vulgate the text to which he adapted his Commentary. In some parts of his under- taking, he manifests due diligence ; while, in others, his work seems to have been but negli- gently executed. His remarks upon St. John's Epistle, in particular, are quite desultory look- ing as if they had been put down by mere accident. On the fifth chapter he has but three notes. The first is on the words, Et hi tres unum sunt ; on which he observes " Gr. Et hi tres in unum sunt, eis TO ei/ ert." Here, then, is an indication of a difference between the readings of the Greek and the Latin. On examination, we actually find, in the Greek copies, the expression eis TO ev eto-t, and in the Latin copies unum sunt. Now, unless we are 107 resolved to deprive the Art of Criticism of all admixture of common sense, the conclusion is unavoidable, that these are the corresponding passages to which Valla referred. We find these corresponding phrases at the close of our eighth verse; and they are the only phrases which we can find, answering to Valla's account of them. On what principle, then, are we to enter upon any farther speculations on the subject? Why are we to indulge in wild conjectures whether Valla's manuscripts may not have been altogether different from our own? Why are we to suppose that the note refers to a verse which, in the Greek, is the crea- ture of imagination ? Yet so it is. If the note were on the eighth verse, " there could be no doubt? says the learned prelate in allusion to the non satis liquet of Erasmus, " how Valla read the Greek of the eighth verse." Allowing this to be true, there might still be doubts respecting the seventh verse, the subject under consideration. But " it appears," says his Lord- ship, " to follow from Valla's silence, that the seventh verse was in his Greek MSS. as well as in the Latin." If we are to take Valla's silence as a proof of the agreement between his Greek and Latin copies, he certainly pos- sessed the most extraordinary set of manu- scripts that ever fell to the lot of man. But, 108 to say the truth, it would be injustice to sup- pose that those persons who infer an agreement in the reading, where Valla does not indicate a difference, are very conversant with Valla's Annotations 1 . 1 Valla's Commentary was first published, by Erasmus, in 1505. For the convenience of those who may feel some interest in the subject, I will here give the whole of his Notes on the first Epistle of St. John. 1 JOHN i. 1. Quod fuit ab initio. Cur non Quod er at, ijv } sicut in Evangelic, i. 1. In principle erat Verbum, iiv? 1 JOHN ii. 4. Qui dicit se nosse Deum. Aliquis confidens hunc emen- davit locum, pro eum scribens Deum. Nam Graece ita est, Qui dicit, Novi eum, eyi/toKcc av-rov. 14. Scribo vobis, infantes, quia cognovistis Patrem. Quis ad infantes scribit ? Cur non potius, Scribo vobis, pucri, aut Scribo vobis, Jilii, aut Jilioli, irailia, quemadmodum paulo post transfert, Filioli, novissima hora est, TraiB/a ? iQ. Et superbia vitce. Non minus apte transferri posset facultatum, /3'iov. Nam nunc non ea vita qua spiritum ducimus intelligenda est, sed quam postea idem transfert aliter in hac Epistola, iii. 17. Qui habuerit substantiam mundi, fiiov. Fa- cultates et substantia nunc idem sunt. 18. Quia Antichristus venit. Praesentis temporis est venit, 21. Non scripsi vobis quasi ignorantibus veritatem, sed quasi scientibus earn. Gr. Non scripsi vobis quia nescitis veritatem, sed quia scitis earn, on oT3arf. Hoc annotavi propter illud quasi secundo loco male positum. 27- Unctionem quam accepistis ab eo, maneat in vobis. Unctio dicendum fuit : nam Greece nominativus casus est, etsi propter neutralitatem generis anceps, ^pia-pa. 1 JOHN iii. 1. Ut Jilii Dei nominemur, et simus. Non legitur Graece et simus. 1 John 109 In the second edition of his Letters, Mr. Travis had stated, as an undoubted fact, that Valla's note was written upon the close of the seventh verse. From Mr. Person's remarks on this point, he seems to have acquired other notions. He rectified the mistake into which he had fallen ; and, in this instance, stepping beyond the bounds within which he had usually confined himself, he resolved, by the public confession of an error, to secure the praise of magnanimity. " The substitution," he proclaims in the preface to his third edition, " of the 1 JOHN iv. 3. Et omnis spiriius qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est : et hie est Antichristus, de quo audistis quoniam venit. Greece non est solvit, sed non confitelur, nrf dfjLoXoye?. Nee Antichristus, sed Antichristi ; videlicet hie spiritus, quod Graece est neutri generis, KO.\ TOVTO C sen Vetus Italica, to collect, from the earliest of the Latin Fathers and other sources, the Old Latin Ver- sion of the Scriptures. On arriving at the fifth chapter of the Epistle of St. John, he gave the seventh and eighth verses from Vigilius Tapsensis 1 , who lived towards the end of the fifth century. At the close of a long note, containing the usual arguments in favour of the disputed text, we find him writing in the following manner. " Nunc ad textum Latinum 1 Sabatier of course availed himself of what he considered the earliest and best authority for the passage which he held to be genuine. The learned prelate, however, is extremely discontented with the preference shewn to Vigilius Tapsensis. ' Sabatier has very injudiciously composed the text of the con- troverted passage from Vigilius Tapsensis, who not only inverts the order of the two verses, but gives the eighth dis- figured by caro and in nobis ; instead of taking Eucherius as his guide for the order of the verses, and the Pseudo-Cyprian, or Ambrosius, or Augustine, for the reading of the eighth verse.' (Tracts, p. 1.) As an authority for a Scriptural read- ing, Vigilius is not to be boasted of; but, at any rate, he is as good as Eucherius, considering the state in which the works of Eucherius have come down to us. 113 redeo, prolatum scilicet e Vigilio Tapsensi : His duobus versiculis Grcecum hodiernum sic respondet ; "'Ort T^eTs etcrti/ ol /mapTvpovvTes ev T(p ovpavtf, o TraTijp, o \oyos, /cat TO ayiov irvevna' KCU OVTOI o\ Tpeis ev eiai. Deinde ; Kal Tpei? elo~tv o't fiapTvpovvTCS ev Ttj < y7, TO Trvevfia, Kal TO vcwp, Kal TO af/ia' Kal ol Tpets eis TO ev eiatv. In Bibliis Philippi Secundi ; "OTI T/oets ...... o TraTtjp, KUI o Kal ol Tpeis eis TO ev eiai. Kat Tpets . . 67TI T/9 '/??* TO TTVCU/Ha ...... Kttl TO al/na. Reliqua desunt." It appears, there- fore, that after stating from what source he had derived the passage of St. John, Sabatier informs his readers what is the corresponding Greek text. Now the Greek text appears in two forms that of the Common Greek Testa- ments, and that of the Complutensian edition. He gives the first of these forms complete ; and then, the latter from the Antwerp Poly- glot with such omissions, of words common to both, as would render the variations most obvious. On this plan, we have first o TTUT^, Ao'yos, then o TroTtjp Kal o Xoyos I first, Kal OVTOI 01 TpeTs- ev elfft, then Kat ot Tpeis ets TO ev etat '. first, ev Ty yfj, theil 7rt Tjjs yfjs : first, Kai ol t's TO ev eicrti', then Reliqua desunt. It is not in the power of man to deduce more than has now been deduced, from the H 114 passage of Sabatier. What, then, is the con- sequence? In a moment, ah imaginary dia- mond is converted into an ordinary pebble ; a visionary manuscript, containing the seventh verse, is metamorphosed into the substantial Antwerp Polyglot. And thus, we are once more led to lament, with Mr. Porson, that while there are so many real, visible, tangible, legible manuscripts which want the verse, those aerial scrolls which are thought to contain it ungratefully beguile their votaries at a dis- tance nee mortales dignantur visere ccetus, Nee se contingi patiuntur lumine claro. The truth of the matter, however, in the case just considered, is most palpable. It could be mistaken only by a mind more than usually affected by that hallucination, which seems to haunt the advocates of the controverted text. When writing the note in page 94, I had no intention to enter upon the consideration of the Greek Scholia there mentioned ; but, on second thoughts, I will here give a very few remarks upon them, and thus bring to a close these observations on Greek manuscripts and Greek writers. 115 In the note just referred to, we find that Bengelius, conceiving from Simon's account that the eighth verse, as it appeared in the MS. num- bered 2247, contained the words ev Ty 7*7, con- cluded that it had been interpolated from the Latin. His conclusion, which partly originated in his opinion that the Greeks had not applied the eighth verse to the Trinity, was not un- fairly drawn ; and he very plausibly conjectured that the two marginal Scholia on the verse might have been derived from the same source. As, however, the words ev T^ 7*7 do not exist in the MS. these inferences at once fall to the ground. Simon, although unable to discover the seventh verse in any Greek MS. which he had examined, seems to have thought that it might possibly be found in some of the later copies. He had, besides, a great unwil- lingness to admit that the Greek MSS. had been interpolated from the Latin. Hence arose his notion that the verse, after having been modelled from the marginal Scholia on the eighth, had at last found its way into the text 1 . " Mill," according to Bishop Burgess, " was of opinion, that instead of the text originating in the Scholia, the Scholia were fragments of the lost text." This opinion, if 1 See p. 93. H 2 116 clearly expressed in his Prolegomena, or the note on 1 John v. 7. has escaped my observa- tion 1 ; but it is of little consequence. Mill indeed appears to have been somewhat em- barrassed by his own hypothesis respecting the verse. He supposed that it was wanting in all the MSS. used by the Greek Churches, from the time of St. John till one or two centuries after the age of Athanasius ; when it was quoted by a Pseudo- Athanasius Maximus, or some one else in this manner : TT/OOS 5e TOVTOIS 7rdets TO ev eicr*. How then did Maximus become acquainted with the text ? The autograph of St. John, it seems, was preserved in Parthia, or somewhere in Asia; from which a very few perfect copies were taken. Of these one or two migrated into Africa; as appears from the quotations of the verse in Tertullian and Cyprian. Maximus indeed, if Cave may be trusted, was but a doating Monk. With respect to this matter, however, he achieved more or had better fortune than Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen, put 1 Mill thus declares his notions on the subject : ' Certe Scholia de quibus agit ejusmodi sunt quae nequaquam admitti poterant in contextum. Notulae sunt fateor ex quibus formare posset studiosus aliquis hujusmodi versiculum. Sed a nemine repertum usquam puto Codicem Graecum qui pericopen hanc integram repraesentarit in margine.' (Not. ad 1 John v. 7. p. 748. ed. 1707.) 117 together. In the course of his travels for travel he did he met with one of the perfect copies of St. John's Epistle. If, indeed, I may be allowed to throw out a conjecture of my own he hit upon it during his five years' sojourn in Africa. The thing to be lamented is, that after he had found the verse, he did not quote it more fully, and more accurately, and to better purpose. That he quoted the verse if he really did quote it neither fully nor accurately, is manifest : " John says, And the three are one" or, " the one ;" /cat ol Tpeis TO ei; etcn. This was the second and, if truth may be told, the best of the four Greek authorities for the verse, produced by Mr. Travis. In his remarks on this authority, Mr. Porson said that the final clause of the seventh verse being KOI OVTOI ol r/oets ?/ eio-i, and that of the eighth, Kal ol r/oets- ets TO ei/ ei, as stubbornly as its compeer the Moscow MSS." I for some time understood the learned pre- late to mean MSS. of the Greek Testament ; but I found all the Moscow MSS. agreeing in the common reading of the clause. Indeed it is remarkable how nearly all the Greek MSS. agree in that reading. Griesbach gives ee? ev ela-tv, as the final clause of the eighth verse. I will take this opportunity to point out a mistake in page 65 : a mistake from mere inadvertency. The extract from Mill which is correctly printed gives KOI oi rpeTs edid not strike me when transcribing the passage ; nor did it occur to me when correcting the press. So easily may things somewhat similar be mistaken for each other, when the mind is not attending to their specific differences. 119 Benedictine edition of A. D. 1698 already cited. So that if there be a single edition of the works of this Father, in which this passage is read ol T/oets TO ev ei produced Martin's Examen de la reponse de M. Emlyn, 1719; and Emlyn's Reply to Martin's Examination, 1720, was followed by Martin's Veritt du Texte 1 fean v. 7- 1721 with which the controversy terminated. Martin's tracts were translated into English by Dr. Samuel Jebb. Emlyn was also opposed by Dr. Edmund Calamy, a Dissenter, in a Volume of Discourses, 1722. 2 Even in more recent times, we may discover notions of a similar kind. ' In the year 1750,' says Michaelis, ' when I published the first edition of this Introduction, the opinion that 1 John v. 7- was spurious did not so generally prevail as it does at present : and my defence of this opinion, though it belongs only to the province of the critic, did not fail to procure me enemies, who regarded me as a heretic, in spite of the most solemn protestations that, though I believed the passage to be spurious, I did not doubt the doctrine contained in it.' Introd. to N. T. Vol. xy. p. 412. After alluding to the suspicions attached to those whose opinions were not very favourable to the verse, Mr. Porson proceeds : ' You see, Sir, what a mistake I have made, in taking my side of the ques- tion. But there is no help : it is too late to recant. Forlem hoc animum tolerare jubebo, Et quondam majora iuli' Letters, p. 19. If report may be believed, this language of Mr. Porson was more appropriate than he was at the time aware of. It is stated that he lost a handsome legacy, by his Letters to Mr. Travis. Tantum Relligio potuit suadere malorum. 153 Considering the feverish anxiety which then prevailed amongst the Orthodox, to support its credit, there is reason to wonder that so little should have been written in its defence. " We flattered ourselves," says a contemporary ob- server of the events of that time when address- ing the Bishops and Clergy, " some one or other of your learned and most venerable order would have given an answer to that Inquiry (of Emlyn) ; but instead of that, we have of late been alarmed with reports that a very learned critic, a member of the Lower House, Dr. Bentley, Master of Trinity College, being an Archdeacon, is upon an edition of the Greek Testament, and intends to omit that text. And we see nothing in defence thereof but a short letter written on that occasion to the Doctor by a Layman 1 ". Now in the year 1716, when the Letter here alluded to was written, Dr. Bentley had been long engaged in collecting materials for an edition of the New Testament. 1 The Layman's Address to the Bishops and Clergy. See Emlyn's Works, Vol. n. p. 166. The Letter alluded to was published, with a Reply by Dr. Bentley, and another Letter, as a rejoinder to the Doctor. These Letters first appeared in 1717- That of Bentley will be printed at the end of this Section; together with two of his Letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The three Letters, taken in con- nection with his ' Proposals' (the main part of which the reader will also find) afford a distinct view of his purposes in undertaking an edition of the New Testament ; and they are well worthy of attention. 154 We may therefore conclude that he would be attentive to every thing that might throw light upon the contested passage; and that many persons would be eager to ascertain the opinion of the first critic of the age, on a question so much in debate. Dr. Bentley's language seems to have confirmed the judgement of Emlyn. At least, a very strong feeling seems to have generally prevailed that the text would be condemned in the promised edition. Dr. Bentley could not be ignorant of the senti- ments which were entertained on this point ; arid probably conceived that a formal discussion of the matter was expected of him. And thus, he selected 1 John v. 7. as the subject of his Preelection, on his appointment to the Divinity Chair, in May 1717. We have now to inquire whether he decided against the verse. Mr. Whiston, in a letter to a friend (1724), mentions Dr. Bentley " who read a very learned Lecture at Cambridge, to prove 1 John v. 7. to be spurious." " But he dares not now," continues Whiston, " wholly omit it in the text of his edition of the New Testament which he has promised:" a proof of the jealousy with which Dr. Bentley's proceedings were watched. On another occasion, Mr. Whiston writes to the same effect : " This treatise 155 (Emlyn's Full Inquiry), as I have been in- formed, was alluded to by Dr. Bentley in his famous Lecture at Cambridge, when he stood candidate for the Chair of Regius Professor of Divinity, wherein he also gave up that text, and publicly proved it to be spurious 1 ." Dr. Middleton, at the very time a resident member of the University, asserts the same thing, as a matter perfectly notorious. " He (Bentley) has already, we know, determined against the genuineness of the famous passage, 1 John v. 7 2 ." Such are the accounts which were de- livered by the best-informed of Dr. Bentley's contemporaries ; and have, till now, been re- ceived as true, by persons not at all remarkable for credulity. In what way then are these statements to be set aside? Antient testimony is opposed by modern argument, after the following fashion. Dr. Bentley observed, in a Letter, that, in his intended edition of the New Testament, he should make great use of old Latin MSS. ; that, not having seen all the old copies he had information of, he knew not at that time what would be the fate of the text in question ; and that if he found the text to have existed in the fourth century, 1 Whiston's Memoirs of his own Life, p. 314, (1749) and Memoirs of Dr. Clarke, p. 6l, (1730). 8 Farther Remarks on Bentley's Proposals, (1721). Mid- dleton's Works, Vol. m. p. 362. 8vo. 156 he would admit it. And thus, because Dr. Bentley, in this letter, gave no opinion touch- ing the verse, and attributed great importance to the old Latin MSS. it is inferred that if he " read a Lecture to prove this verse spu- rious" "the Lecture and the Letter must have been very much at variance 1 ." Now, in answer to all this, I would humbly suggest three things. 1. That a person, who will not decide a question before inquiry, is by no means incompetent to do so afterwards : 2. That, as the Letter was written on the first of January 1 ' Dr. Bentley 's judgement here/ (if the fourth century knew that verse, let it come in, in God's name) ' and his pre- ference of the most antient Latin copies to the Greek (Latinos veterrimos vel Grcecis ipsis prcetulerim) are much more in favour of the verse than against it; for the verse was certainly known to the Latin Fathers of the fourth century. Yet Mr. Porson says that " Dr. Bentley read a Lecture to prove this verse spu- rious" If Dr. Bentley expressed himself in his Lecture so decidedly as Mr. Porson supposes, the Lecture and the Letters must have been very much at variance.' Bishop Burgess's note, Adnotationes Millii, &c. p. 203, 204. On Dr. Bentley's alleged preference of the Latin copies to the Greek I shall speedily offer some remarks It is easy to affirm that ' the verse was certainly known to the Latin Fathers of the fourth century ;' but let it be pointed out in their works. Why is the purport of Dr. Bentley's Lecture stated to be as Mr, Porson supposes? Mr. Porson stated the fact as all literary men had stated it from the time of Dr. Bentley to his own. Dr. Hey, for example, numbers Dr. Bentley among the Trinitarians who thought the verse spurious. Lectures, Vol. u. p. 280 If the evidence that the verse existed in the fourth century were half as strong as the evidence that Bentley deemed it spurious, there would be no dispute on that subject. 157 and the Lecture delivered about the first of May following. Dr. Bentley may have examined his MSS. and made up his mind during the interval: and 3. That, as we know not how Dr. Bentley reasoned, we ought to receive the conclusion at which he arrived, on the informa- tion of his contemporaries. In truth, take the argument above-mentioned as an argument upon a mere hypothetical case, and its weak- ness is excessive; but consider its conclusion as in direct opposition to a fact stated on evi- dence, and it disappears, like a bubble, the instant it is touched. There is not a circum- stance recorded of Dr. Bentley which may not, in the same manner, be called in question. It is related, for instance, that when Master of Trinity College, he was suspended from his Degrees, by the University. " The Author's party," observes the writer of the reply to Dr. Middleton's ' Remarks on Bentley's Pro- posals,' " is discovered in the title page ; where our blaster is named plain Richard Bentley, without the honour of his Degree." " This indeed," Middleton rejoins, " is a charge which I cannot deny to be true: my very title page discovers that I belong to an University which has deprived him of his Degrees 1 ." Evidence of this kind appears to have some weight ; but 1 Middleton's Works, Vol. in. p. 338- 8vo. 158 it is not secure from the objections of a con- troversialist. " Dr. Bentley was a great and wise man ; and Dr. Middleton was his enemy. Let us distinguish truth from calumny. Can it possibly be supposed that Dr. Bentley, when Master of Trinity College, could conduct him- self so indiscreetly as to incur a punishment which is inflicted only on the gravest offenders ? The tale is somewhat Apocryphal : Credat Judceus Apella." In this manner may antient evidence be combated by modern argument 1 ; but for my own part, I shall stand by the former. For the purpose of ascertaining the tendency of a Lecture read in 1717, I must be excused for trusting to the testimony of Conyers Middleton who lived on the spot, at the time when the Lecture was delivered in preference to the most ingenious conjectures of the present day, although sanctioned by the high authority of the Bishops of Durham and Salisbury. 1 We are thus presented with a system of Logic by which any event recorded in History may be shewn to be doubtful. By dwelling upon the improbabilities of facts, according to our notions of improbability, even the facts upon which Revelation depends have been represented as incredible. This method of procedure has been very properly dealt with, in a pleasing little tract, entitled Historic doubts relative to Napoleon Buona- parte, 1819- There is something happy in the author's idea of following up the principles of scepticism to their conse- quences ; and his purpose has been fully carried into effect. 159 I now proceed to consider the principles of criticism contained in Dr. Bentley's Letter already alluded to. Dr. Bentley, as a Scrip- ture critic, was very far in advance of his own times; and his labours in that capacity were in consequence misunderstood and mis- represented. An avowal that the much -valued verse was to be tried by the test of external evidence a hint that it might possibly be re- jected was sufficient to raise an outcry, amongst persons who estimated the genuineness of a text mainly by its theological uses. On this subject there is reason to believe that the critic felt rather sore. The letter now treated of was written in answer to a correspondent, who having been told by * common fame' that Bent- ley intended to omit the verse, urged the evidence in its favour afforded by the context. Bentley informs his correspondent, that it was his intention to restore the whole New Tes- tament, both in the original Greek and in the Latin version, to the state in which it existed in the fourth century. This he hoped to accomplish by means of MSS. 'of a thou- sand years ago, or above' proceeding * solely upon authority of copies, and Fathers of that age.' In this manner he expected that, at last, the Greek and Latin would 'agree exactly like two tallies, or two indentures ;' and he 160 assured his anxious friend that if, when all was thus adjusted, the verse made its appear- ance, it would of course be received as Scripture. With this assurance, he probably expected that his correspondent would be ,at ease for the future. At ease, however, he was not; for he immediately dispatched a letter, manifest- ing great dislike of Bentley's mode of criticism, and avowing the most determined reliance upon his own. " Permit me to add," says this cham- pion of internal evidence, " that the authority of all MSS. besides the Autographon, is at best but conjecture ; whereas the evidence I have alleged from the passage itself is decisive, if I understand the passage 1 ." Again, "The question is of a fact; but not, Whether the fourth century read that text, but Whether the Apostle wrote it? which 1 think I have proved beyond contradiction." This is the trans- cendental style of criticism ; which would, of course, secure the person who adopted it from any farther observations from the pen of Dr. Bentley. In the first place, then, it is mani- fest that Dr. Bentley rejected internal evidence, as the ground of admitting the contested verse 1 This expression, If I understand the passage, is not unworthy of remark. Indeed it may be strongly recom- mended to the consideration of all those who rely upon internal evidence in the case before us. 161 into the canon of Scripture. Mr. Porson did the same. On the contrary, Bishop Burgess lays the greatest stress upon the internal evi- dence; and thus, the learned Prelate is no less at variance with Dr. Bentley, than with M. Griesbach and Mr. Porson. In the second place, Dr. Bentley finding that the .oldest Greek and Latin MSS. 'gave mutual proof, and even demonstration to each other,' had the utmost confidence in the results to be deduced from them. Nor can I perceive that Mr. Porson was, ' in this respect, unlike his great master.' Bishop Burgess, however, dissatisfied with the evidence of existing Greek MSS. appeals from the few that remain, to 'the hundreds, per- haps thousands, that are lost 1 .' In the last place, as the Greek and Latin Testaments were to correspond word for word to ' agree exactly like two tallies, or two indentures' and as not one of his Greek MSS. contained the 1 'All the Greek manuscripts extant of this period omit the verse. But they are so few (not more than four) as to bear no proportion to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, that are lost; many of which might have contained it, as some, we know did.' (Find. pp. 123, 124.) That some MSS. \ contained it the learned Prelate demonstrates by means of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. There is a ques- tion which I have often been inclined to ask : Why is the genuineness of this verse to be determined on different princi- ples from that of any other passage which claims to be part of the Now Testament? L 162 disputed text 1 it is clear that the said text could not possibly have appeared in his in- tended edition. But the learned Prelate has an argument still in reserve; and thus it is urged : 'Dr. Bentley's main object in his projected edition of the New Testament, was to restore the Vulgate to the state in which it was left by Jerome, and to apply it as the criterion of the true reading of the Greek text. " It was plain to me," he says in his Letter to the Arch- bishop of Canterbury, " that when that copy came from that great Father's hands, it must agree exactly with the most authentic Greek exemplars ; and if now it could be retrieved, it would be the best test and vouclier for the true reading, out of several pretending ones." In his Letter to Wetstein, he expresses himself with the same deference to the most antient copies of the Latin version. Hujusmodi Latinos veterrimos vel Gratis ipsis prcetulerim. Semler, in a note on this Letter in his edition of Wetstein's Prole- gomena, is nearly of the same opinion : Sum fere in eadem hceresi, non quod sic intelligam statim 1 Had the Dublin MS. by some accident fallen into Bent- ley's hands, it would undoubtedly have been flung aside as one of the most worthless of those ' scrubb MSS. and scoundril copies, which OUR MASTER scorned even to look into.' See the Pamphlet in Reply to Middleton's ' Remarks/ by a Member of Trinity College ; supposed to be Bentley him- self, and I think we may discover the lion's claw, Middleton's Works, Vol. III. p. 344. 16S terum atque ingenuum esse, quicquid exstat in Latinis vetustis codicibus ; sed quod ad dete- gendam Scripturam primam plus conferunt quam plerique Greed libri* (Vind. pp. 8, 9.) It is, then, the opinion of Bishop Burgess, that Dr. Bentley's preference of the Latin MSS. to the Greek, would have led him to retain the disputed verse, on the authority of the former. Now, even supposing that Dr. Bent- ley had settled the readings of the Latin ver- sion by the Latin MSS. alone, there is little reason to conclude that the verse would have been retained; for it is most frequently want- ing in those very antient MSS. on which he depended. But his intention was not, as the learned Prelate imagines, first to decide upon the Latin reading, and then 'apply it as the criterion of the true reading of the Greek text.' The Greek text was to be, at least, as much a criterion of the Latin, as the Latin of the Greek 1 . In the Proposals for his edition of 1 It was, indeed, to be more, if we may trust the Member of Trinity College who was either Dr. Bentley himself, or some person writing under his direction. Dr. Middleton, in the true style of controversial misrepresentation, had objected ' And is not our author here saying and doing much the same thing which we justly condemn in the Church of Rome undervaluing the credit of the Greek copies ad- vancing and authorizing the Vulgar Latin and proving it to be the best means we can use of finding out the exemplars of the ancients ?' ' Our Master,' it is replied, ' before he uses L 2 tne 164 the New Testament, this point is clearly stated. " The Greek and Latin MSS. by their mutual assistance, do so settle the Original Text to the smallest nicety, as cannot be performed now, in any Classic author whatever." When therefore, Dr. Bentley described the Latin ver- sion as * the best test and voucher for the true reading,' he meant not to introduce, on its sole authority, an entire verse at once. What he really meant was this that, if a passage was differently read in different Greek MSS., either as to particular words, or the order of words, the Latin version would enable him to deter- mine the true reading, out of ' the several pre- tending ones' In the case of 1 John v. 7. there are no 'pretending readings,' whatever. The Greek MSS. are all in exact agreement with each other. In fact, I maintain that Dr. Bent- ley assigned no superiority to the Latin over the Greek MSS 1 . But what, it may be asked, the Vulgate, corrects it from better MSS. than -they (the Popes) either had, or knew how to use, in thousands of places. He takes it only as an assistant, directing us to dis- cover the genuine Greek. He never once makes the genuine Greek bend to the Latin; nor deserts that to comply rviih this.' Such was Dr. Bentley's mode of proceeding; which, in truth, it is not easy to misunderstand. 1 Wetstein's representation of the consilium Autoris (sc. Bentleii} may be taken as an impartial account of the matter. 'Profitetur 1. se in editione N. T. Graeco-Latina prsecipue usurum Codicibus Greeds et Latinis, mille annorum vetus- -tatem superantibus. 2. ex -Codicibus Latinis ordinem ver- borum is the object of his declaration^ Hujusmodi Latinos veterrimos vel Greeds ipsis prcetulerim, borum in Graecis emendaturum et restiturum. 3. ex Graecis, qui cum Latinis consentirent, Latinorum lectionem, et vicissim ex Latinis Graaca confirmaturum ; atque -textum alterum ex altero ita correcturum, ut per omnia consentiant.' Proleg. p. 154. or p. 396. Ed. Semler. As Wetstein's Prolegomena now lie open before me, I ob- serve a sentence which, to speak plainly, Bishop Burgess has entirely misapplied. The Bishop thus writes : ' Mill and Bengelius admitted all the external evidence against our verse, and yet were convinced of its authenticity by its own positive evidence. Ernesti admitted all the evidence of MSS. against the verse; but was of opinion that MSS. alone were not sufficient to determine the question, and was decided in favour of the verse by the tenor of the context. Wetstein was of the same opinion as to the insufficiency even of the most ancient MSS. alone: "Tarn multa Codicibus vetustissimis Graecis et Latinis objici possint, quae illorum testimonium infirmant atque elevant, ut ex illis soils vix quicquam certi confici possit." Wetstein exemplified his opinion of the in- sufficiency of external evidence alone, by defending the au- thenticity of the Syriac Epistles of Clemens Romanus, on the ground chiefly of their internal evidence, against the silence of the Fathers, and the non-existence of Greek MSS.' (rind. p. xxix.) Now every reader will conclude that when Wetstein wrote the sentence just quoted, he was comparing the authority of MSS. with that of internal evidence. But it was far otherwise. He was expressing some disapprobation .of Bentley's plan of depending solely upon the oldest M.SS. to the neglect of the more modern : a plan, however, to which he observed that Bentley had not very strictly adhered m his published specimen. ' Taceri tamen non debet, si ex specimine judicandum sit, Bentleium non vetustissimos tantum codices, sed etiam multo juniores magno numero undique conquisitos, consulturum; atque adeo plus quam promiserat praestiturum fuisse.' As to the Syriac Epistles of Clemens Romanus, Wetstein began with the external evidence in their favour. Having made the most of the little he could find, he 166 which has been already quoted? Dr. Semler and Bishop Burgess consider it as a positive assertion of Dr. Bentley's reliance upon the Latin rather than the Greek MSS. in his cri- tical inquiries. Of the same opinion also is a modern writer of considerable note. " Even Hardouin himself," this learned person observes, "could scarcely have expressed himself differ- ently 1 ." If, then, I venture to dispute the just- ness of the interpretation which has been given to Dr. Bentley's words, I shall have to contend single-handed against a formidable triumvirate 'the immortal Semler,' the learned Bishop of Salisbury, and the paradoxical author of Palce- oromaica. Even a man with more of the ' robur et aes triplex circa pectus' than I can boast of might whisper to himself, when going forth to such an encounter, * Quo moriture ruis, majo- raque viribus audes?' In order that the reader may form a due estimate of Dr. Bentley's expression, Hujus- modi Latinos veterrimos vel Greeds ipsis prce- tulerim, it will be necessary to lay before him he betook himself, of course, to the internal evidence. With what success he did this I will not say, for I have not well examined the question. JLardner wrote a long disser- tation to shew that these Syriac Epistles were spurious. 1 Palaeoromaica, p. 364. 167 the entire Letter to Wetstein, in which it appears; and I trust that he will attentively peruse the whole. Clarissimo viro et jucundissimo Amico suo Jo. Jacobo Wetstenio S.P.D. Richardus Bentleius. Literas tuas accepi, Basilese datas vii. Jan. 1718, pro quibus gratias tibi ago quam maximas. Eodem die quo eas acceperam scripsi ad cognatos tuos Wetstenios Amstelodami, ut codicem ilium Paulinarura Epistolarum Graeco-Latinum mihi venundarent, quo vellent pretio aestimandum. Illi statim rescripsemnt, sibi librum ilium con- stitisse 250 florenis Hollandicis, sed ob beneficia a me partim accepta partim adhuc sperata, se eodem pretio sine ullo lucro mihi vendituros. Misi igitur illis earn nummorum summam Amste- lodamum, et librum intra paucos dies exspecto. Beasti ergo me, ut vides, cum illo tuo nimtio : et si quid ejusmodi veterrimas notae in aliis re- gionibus tibi innotucrit, quaeso ut me facias cer- tiorem. Gratissimum est, quod Correctiones Bibliae descripsisti ; vix tamen crediderim eundem esse auctorem cum Lucse Brugensis illo, quern Epanorthoten vocat. Magno sane emerim, ipsum ilium Lucae librum nancisci : nam et longe opti- mus est, et, ut nosti, Lucas in notandis Lectioni- bus ultra 4. Evangelia non procedit. Opus est mihi igitur Lectionibus quae supcrsunt, ad Acta et Epistolas. Quod in Reuchlini codice jam occu- patus sis, gaudco : etsi aetatem ejus non memo- raveris. Jam autem illud unice cxpeto, ut si quos Latinos veteris notai Acttium, Epistolarum 168 ct Apocalypseos codices apud vos repereris, eos accuratissime tarn ad verba quam ad verborum ordinem cum Papae editione conferas: hujusmodi Latinos veterrimos vel Greets ipsis prtetulerim: In Evangeliis autem tarn uberem MSS. copiam penes me habeo, ut nihil amplius optem. Vale et me ama. Dabam Cantabrigiae x. Julii, 1718 1 . This is a letter of business entirely. Dr. Bentley states that he had bought the MS. pointed out to him expresses his anxiety to possess the Correctiones Biblise, mentioned by Lucas Brugensis and declares his satisfaction at Wetstein's literary employment. He then proceeds "What I now wish is, that if you should find any very old Latin MSS. of the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, you would collate them most accurately, both as to words and the order of words, with the common Vulgate. I should prefer the oldest Latin MSS. of this kind, even to the Greek. As to the Gospels, I have already so many MSS. that I wish for no more of them." In a word, unwilling to give Wetstein any unnecessary trouble, Dr. Bentley described the 1 Wetstein's Prolegomena, p. 153; or p. 393. Ed. Semler; or Adnotationes Millii, &c. Ed. Burgess The learned Prelate has extracted this Letter from Wetstein's Prolegomena, for the sole purpose of shewing Dr. Bentley's preference of Ike Latin MSS. to the Greek, in his critical operations on the New Testament. It is clear, however, from the note in . 164, that Wetbtein himself discovered no such preference. 169 kind of collations, which at the time of writing he most wanted; and these were collations of parts of the New Testament, from the oldest Latin MSS. that could be met with. This explanation of Dr. Bentley's expression appears so certain and obvious, that I do not, without reluctance, subjoin a few additional remarks on the subject. " The MSS. of the Greek Testament have been enumerated and described with great ac- curacy and minuteness ; but of the MSS. of the Latin version little comparatively is known 1 ." Thus writes Bishop Burgess with a view to the present times ; and the same language might have been employed with still greater propriety in the days of Bentley. As to the state of the Latin MSS. he had every thing to learn ; while, from the labours of his pre- decessors, he was in possession of most valuable information concerning the Greek. Moreover, his plan required a complete knowledge of the readings of the Latin copies ; for his edition of the New Testament was to comprise the Latin version, as it came from the hands of Jerome. And thus, we see why he directed Wetstein's at- tention to the Latin rather than the Greek MSS. On the whole, it is unwarrantable to look for 1 Tracts and Observations, p. ii.* 170 a general principle of criticism in a letter, treat- ing entirely on matters of business : The letter itself affords no reason for attributing Dr. Bentley's wish at that time, to obtain extracts from Latin rather than Greek MSS., to a sys- tematic preference of the Latin to the Greek : It is quite intolerable that a casual expression in any author should be converted into a notion at variance with the opinions which in other instances he avowedly maintains. In fine, not- withstanding Semler's note, I really am sur- prised that Bishop Burgess should have repub- lished this Letter, as a proof of Dr. Bentley's intention to compel the Greek MSS. to yield to the Latin 1 . Dr. Bentley's intention, then, was to deduce, from the oldest Greek and Latin MSS. with 1 There is one particular in Dr. Bentley's Letter to which I wish to direct the reader's attention: his solicitude to obtain a very antient Correctorium Bibliorum, made use of by Lucas Brugensis. Of this Correctorium Lucas gives the fol- lowing account. { Habuimus ab Hunnaeo et Breviarium per- vetustum, quod quandoque citamus; denique praeter alia, id quod maxime facimus, Manuscriptum Bibliorum Correctorium, ab incerto auctore, quern Epanorthoten aut Correctorem fere vocamus, magna diligentia ac fide contextum, secuto, uti opportet, antiques nostrae editionis codices, eosque cum He- braeis, Graecis, et veterum Patrum commentariis sedulo collates.' With respect to 1 John v. 7. Lucas Brugensis thus writes : ' Epanorthotes, deesse hacc eadem Graecis libris, et antiquis Latinis, annotat.' Notationes in Sacra Biblia, Antverp. 1580. 171 the collateral aid of the early Fathers, a Greek and a Latin Testament which should coincide, word for word. The plan was magnificent, and worthy of its inventor; but the verse 1 John v. 7. would certainly have disappeared in carry- ing it into effect. We are told, however, by Bishop Burgess, that Mr. Person, ' unlike his great master,' laboured to subvert the authority of the Vulgate ; which, we must therefore con- clude, Dr. Bentley endeavoured to support. Of the correctness of this representation the reader shall be enabled to judge, by means of an extract from a Sermon of Dr. Bentley's, preached before the University of Cambridge on the fifth of No- vember 1715, and consequently not long before the Letters just considered were written. * And HOW, ri irpiaTov, T'I c? eTreira ? What can I better begin with, than what our text sug- gests ; their enhancing the authority of the vulgar Latin above the Greek original : so that we must search for St. Paul's meaning here, not in the notion of KcnrtjXevovres, but of Adulterantes ; not of Ol TroXXot, but of Multi without it's article ; an original defect in the Latin tongue. Now can any thing be more absurd, more shocking to com- mon sense, than that the stream should rise above the fountain? that a verbal translation, which, were the author of it inspir'd, must yet from the very nature of language (as has appear'd above) have several defects and ambiguities ; that such 172 a translation, I say, by a private unknown person not pretending to inspiration, should be rais'd and advanc'd above the inspir'd Greek ? Is it possible those that enacted this, could believe it them- selves? Nor could they suggest, that the first Greek exemplar had been more injured by the transcribers and notaries, than that of their ver- sion. More antient MSS. were preserv'd of this, than they could shew for the Latin. There were more, and more learned Commentators to guard it ; no age of the Eastern empire without eminent scholars : while the West lay sunk many centuries under ignorance and barbarity. And yet, in de- fiance of all this, the Latin is to be the umpire and standard; and the Apostles to speak more au- thenticly in that conveyance, than in their own words. Nay, a particular edition shall be legiti- mated and consecrated, with condemnation of all various readings ; and two Popes, with equal pre- tense to infallibility, shall each sanctify a different copy with ten thousand variations. These things are unaccountable, in the way of sincerity: but if you view them on the foot of politic, as an acquest of power, authority, and preeminence, the Council of Trent knew then what they did.' (Sermons, pp. 347, 348. ed. 6. 1735.). And now, let the reader compare the for- bearance of Person with the indignation of Bentley. Their purposes were the same ; but in one case we are only permitted to hear the thunder at a distance while, ill the other, 173 *ve witness the destruction that attends the falling of the bolt. Dr. Bentley's opinions concerning the Latin version have led to a discussion somewhat ex- tended indeed, but it is hoped, neither unim- portant nor uninteresting. A few reflections connected with the subject yet occur to me, which I beg leave to offer as a kind of moral to the whole. A passage, which appears to sanction an important Theological tenet, is of some au- thority in the Western Church ; but, not being found in Greek MSS. of the New Testament, has not that evidence for its being a part of Scripture which is invariably required in other cases. To establish its claim in this point of view, many Orthodox persons have recourse to the following expedient. They represent the Greek MSS. as very few, compared with the vast numbers which have perished in the lapse of ages ; as having come down to us mutilated and corrupted in various ways more especially by the Arians during their ascendency in the Eastern Church : and thus, as presenting, under the name of Scripture, only what the heretics of old have suffered to remain. The passage in question, they contend, must have been 174 exceedingly offensive to the Arians ; and there- fore they decide that it is genuine Scripture, in spite of its absence from the Greek MSS 1 . To those who argue in this manner, it is not unnatural to offer the following remarks. * You have taken upon you to disparage the Greek MSS. ; you have reviled the Greek Church, and described the records proceeding from that quarter as in a great measure unworthy of confidence : but do you consider the tendency of your proceedings ? If you shake the credit of those writings, how are we to ascertain what Christianity is; and where shall we find the foundations on which it rests ? Let us suppose that an honest sceptic overhears the opinions which you have just delivered. He will pro- bably reason thus. The original writings re- lating to the Christian Religion were con- fessedly composed in the Greek language ; and from them, as I am willing to believe, the 1 ' If then it be borne in mind that the Western copies contain the verse, and the Eastern omit it; and that the Western Churches professed the Homo-ousian doctrine, and the Eastern rejected it ; we may, perhaps, in this difference of opinion, discover a cause sufficient to account, in some measure, for the difference between the Eastern and Western texts in this passage of St. John.' Letter to Clergy of St. David's, p. 72. If facts be deserted for the sake of arguing on what may have been, there is no end of dispute. The preceding statement furnishes just as strong reasons for supposing that the verse was interpolated in the Latin, as that it was omitted in the Eastern copies. ITS present Greek MSS. were derived. Now, it is obvious to common sense that these Greek MSS. and the works of that series of Greek authors who read and quoted Greek MSS. from the earliest ages, constitute the main evi- dence for our Religion. If then this evidence be as defective as you represent, it seems hope- less to inquire into the subject.' Marvellous is the effect of these statements. In an in- stant, the scene is changed. The barren desert becomes a fruitful garden. In all probability, the aforesaid Orthodox persons will now main- tain the following positions. ' Our Greek MSS. are, many of them, of great age, and present striking marks of integrity. Collected from various regions of the earth, their general agreement manifests the care with which they have been written. Heresies, it is confessed, prevailed in the Eastern Church ; but the evil has been productive of good, inasmuch as it has afforded an effectual security against muti- lation and corruption. The machinations of the Arians would have been instantly detected and exposed by the Orthodox Fathers. More- over, a succession of Greek writers from the earliest times, attests the purity of our present copies.' This shifting of principles, according to the immediate ends to be attained, can hardly be discussed without stronger language than I have any wish to employ; and there- fore, being persuaded that there is no need to point the reader's indignation against it, I shall leave the subject without farther com- ment 1 . Neither Greek MSS., nor Greek Fathers, nor Antient Versions afford any support to the passage we are speaking of; but as some evidence in its favour may be discovered in the Latin Church, on that its claims are founded. Now to rest Scripture, either in the whole or in part, upon one portion of Christian Anti- quity, seems pretty much like an attempt to give stability to a pyramid by placing it upon its vertex. But let that pass. The learned persons already mentioned, are induced to rely upon the authority of the Latin Church, in consideration of the purity of its faith, and the scrupulous exactness with which its Scrip- 1 Matthaei, a divine of well-known orthodoxy, is above all temporizing policy as a critic. ' Positum sit ergo hoc/ he writes, 'primuni et purissimum et saluberrimum fontem, unde litterarum sacrarum puritas et integritas hauriatur, esse et manere Codices Manuscriptos Graecos, vetustate et dili- gentia praestantes. Caetera enim omnia, quae extrinsecus assu- muntur, istis semper auctoritate cedant, necesse est.' Prcef. ad N. T. p. xxii. Adhering to these principles, he receives 9eoc, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, because it is found in the Greek MSS. and bears the tests by which Scripture must be tried; and he rejects 1 John v. 7- because it is not found in the Greek MSS. and will not bear those tests. 177 tares have been preserved. And, undoubtedly, this mode of thinking is sanctioned by scholars and divines of no small celebrity. Erasmus at first omitted the text of the Heavenly Wit- nesses; but he afterwards avowed his reliance, in that as well as other points, on the decision of the Latin Church. * In prima siquidem Novi Testamenti editione tantum haec anno- taram nee praferens Graecam lectionem, nee nostram (Latinam) tax an s. Quin et in poste- rioribus editionibus, hujus rei judicium Ecclesiae defero, cui meum sensum semper submittam, simulatque claram ejus vocem audieroV Father Simon's declaration touching this matter is well known. ' II n'y a que 1'autorit^ de 1'Eglise qui nous fasse aujourd'hui recevoir ce passage 1 Adversus Monachos quosdam Hispanos. Op. Vol. X. p. 1031. Ed. Lugd. Bat. It seems, however, as if he made a distinction between Erasmus the Critic, and Erasmus the Theologian. As a Theologian he bowed to the decision of the Church ; but as a Critic he vindicated the Greek reading. Erasmus is thus addressed by his opponent Sepulveda. ' Nam quod ais, Graecam lectionem ex Graecis auctoribus esse peten- dam, diceres aliquid si rationem Graeci sermonis affirmares a Graecis commodius quam a Latinis explicari : at libros ar- chetypos, fundamenta nostrse religionis continentes, cur non credamus sanctius, gravius et incorruptius asservatos esse in scriniis ac bibliothecis Ecclesiae Romanae, quae caput est Christianorum, et semper fuit norma catholicae pietatis, quam in Graacia, quae saspe fuit haereticorum et levissimorum homi- num fraudibus et motu rerum novarum agitata.' See Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. II. pp. 170172. M 178 comme authentiqueV These, indeed, are the sentiments of men whose adherence to the tra- dition of the Latin Church is to be expected; but it is rather singular, as Wetstein has re- marked, that Protestants should have adopted the same principle. ' In primis vero urgetur auctoritas Vulgatce Versioms Latinee. Quod si ab illis fieret, qui Concilii Tridentini decreto nixi illam authenticam esse statuunt, mirum non esset ; at cum inter protestantes plurimi viri docti hoc prascipue telo pro tribus testibus pug- nent, parum sibi ipsis constare videntur, qui alias aperte et vehementer pro Gratis codicibus l Hist. Crit. du N. T. p. 21?. And in the Histoire des Versions, p. 109, Simon truly observes that Zegerus, an old Commentator, holds similar language. This language, how- ever, is exceedingly offensive to the Benedictine Martianay, who thus expresses his dislike of it. ' Non sine aliquo animorum moerore videre possumus auctorem communionis Catholicae omnibus nervis contendentem, ut probet haec verba (1 John v. 7-) addita temeritate librariorum veterum, nee ab Auctore Hagiographo fuisse conscripta. Proh dolor ! siccine additamenta librariorum, pro textu sacro nobis obtruderet Ecclesia Dei, columna et firmamentum veritatis ; in iis maxime Scripturae Sacrae sententiis, unde pendet fides Sanctissimae Trinitatis ? Sed Ecclesiae, inquit, auctoritas hodie nobis in- gerit testimonium illud, ut authenticam Scripturam. Quasi vero aliqua Ecclesiae Christi auctoritas corruptelas, inter- polationes, et caetera librariorum additamenta, in verbum Dei et in Canonicam Scripturam possit convertere.' (Adnot. in Prol. Can. Ep.) On this I shall merely observe, that, although the authority of the Church might induce Simon to receive the verse, the same authority could not convert bad evidence into good. 179 contra Latinos, et pro fontis puritate contra rivulos decertantV In very truth, it is strange to observe the same persons at one time valiantly tilting against the strong tower which has so long frowned defiance upon the Protestant world; and at another, laboriously employed in strengthening the buttress that supports the fabric. A plan of operation more agreeable to the garrison within, could not, I believe, be easily devised: Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridae. Wetstein, in the preceding extract, has alluded to the opinions, respecting the autho- rity of the Vulgate, which were maintained at the Council of Trent; and the account of those opinions, given by the great Historian of the Council, is well deserving the reader's perusal. * The major part of the Divines said that it was necessary to account that trans- lation, which formerly hath beene read in the Churches and used in the Schooles, to be divine and authenticall ; otherwise they should yeeld the cause to the Lutherans, and open a gate to innumerable heresies hereafter, and conti- nually trouble the peace of Christendome. That the doctrine of the Church of Rome, 1 Annot. in 1 John v. 7- p- 725. M 2 180 mother and mistresse of all the rest, is in a great part founded by the Popes and by schoole Divines, upon some passage of Scrip- ture; which if every one had liberty to ex- amine whether it were well translated, running to other translations, or seeking how it was in the Greeke or Hebrew, these new Gram- marians would confound all, and would be made judges and arbiters of faith : and instead of Divines and Canonists, Pedantics should be preferred to be Bishops and Cardinals' To these notions some few objections were raised; but, as we are informed, 'the difficulties were not so great but that the Vulgar Edition was approved almost by a generall consent, the discourse having made deepe impression in their mindes, that Grammarians should take upon them to teach Bishops and Divines*? The 'principle avowed at the Council of Trent that Critics ought not to interfere with the text of Scripture has been in operation in subsequent times. It defeated the purposes of Bentley, and deprived the world of all the advantages which would certainly have been derived from his edition of the New Testa- ment. He had expended large sums of money 1 Brent's Translation of Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent, pp. 156, 159- Ed. 1629. 181 in collecting materials for his undertaking, and had devoted to it several years of his life; but he was driven from his design by the force of calumny. When writing to his friend Dr. Clarke, he alludes in very striking terms to the treatment which he had expe- rienced a treatment which I will venture to call disgraceful to the age in which he lived. Bitter must have been the feelings which ex- torted the following sentence from a man of Bentley's character. * Nothing will now satisfy them but I must be put by the Professor's chair: AND THE CHURCH is IN GREAT DAN- GER FROM MY NEW TESTAMENT 1 .* As for those learned Protestants, whom we find vindicating the authority of the Vulgate, when it happens to favour their own opinions although they cannot claim the merit of con- sistency, they may be allowed the praise of good 1 The Letter, which is found in Dr. Burney's Collection, bears the date of Nov. 18, 1719- It ought to be stated, that the violence, with which Dr. Bentley was assailed, was greatly increased by political considerations. He de- scribes himself as exposed to ' the fury of the whole dis- affected and Jacobite party.' Dr. Bentley never finished his Remarks on Free-thinking. With a strong expression of disgust, which the reader will perhaps recollect, he stopped all at once, and avowed his determination to write no more. And thus did religion and learning sustain another loss. 182 intentions. Their object as to protect the cause of Orthodoxy. But they ought to reflect, that as a cause strong in itself, needs not any precarious methods of defence, so is it injured in the public estimation whenever recourse is had to such methods. Far from our thoughts be the notion, that all who wish well to the temple of our Faith are required to come, each man with his wooden prop, for the purpose of placing it against the walls of the edifice. Such means of support communicate to the building nothing but an appearance of weak- ness and deformity. Let every thing of the kind and much there is be cleared away ; and let no one be afraid of the consequences. The structure is ponderibus librata suis " by its own weight made stedfast and immove- able." 3. Mr. Person's opinions respecting the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. The writer of this Prologue takes no small credit to himself, for arranging the Canonical Epistles (as he calls them) in their proper order: one Epistle of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. He intimates, that if they were as correctly translated as they had been justly placed, they would present no 183 ambiguity to the reader. He then particularly refers to the first Epistle of St. John ; and con- demns the unfaithful translators who, while they inserted the testimony of the water, the blood, and the Spirit, had omitted that of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. The entire form of composition, and the concluding address to Eustochium, are manifestly designed to leave an impression that the Prologue was written by Jerome. For more than a century past, all Scrip- ture critics of any account (not excepting the advocates of 1 John v. 7.) 1 have agreed in as- signing this production to a period long sub- sequent to the age of Jerome. That it pro- ceeded from the pen of that Father, even Bishop Burgess does not venture to maintain; although he is reluctant to allow that it did not. The learned Prelate employs the language of doubt, in relation to this subject : " If the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles be Jerome's (and I think it has never yet been proved to be not his) it is of very great importance, &c. 2 " 1 The class of critics here mentioned does not comprise M. Martin, Mr. Travis, et id genus omne ; who, as a matter of course, deem every thing genuine, which is favourable to the disputed text. 2 Tracts and Observations, p. xliv. 184 Now, undoubtedly, this * has never been proved' as a proposition in Euclid is proved ; but it has been shewn by such evidence as can alone be adduced in cases of this kind. In fact, I should as soon expect to find a man of learning em- ployed in defending the authenticity of the Epistles erroneously ascribed to Phalaris, as in defending that of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. Moreover, when the learned Prelate refers to this Prologue which he frequently does he seldom fails to remind his readers of the eminent persons who have thought it gen- uine. Among these, he, again and again, men- tions Erasmus, Socinus, Sir Isaac Newton, and Le Clerc 1 . " And did these eminent persons" I would ask, as Mr. Porson asked on another occasion " give their opinion, after a careful examination? Did they persist in their opi- nion, after doubts had been hinted?" "When a critic detects a forgery that has for some 1 Walafrid Strabo, also; but to him I have devoted the next division of the present Section. I here give a few passages from Bishop Burgess's Vindication. ' Sir Isaac New- ton says that Jerome was the first that inserted the verse in the Latin Version/ p. 7- ' Erasmus, Socinus, and Sir Isaac Newton, ascribe the Prologue to Jerome,' p. 48. ' Admitting with Walafrid (Strabo), Erasmus, and Sir Isaac Newton, the Prologue to be Jerome's/ p. 51. 'Neither Mill indeed, nor Bengelius ascribe the Prologue to Jerome. These are, no doubt, great authorities. But so are Erasmus and Le Clerc, who think that it was written by Jerome.' Tracts and Ob- servations, p. xlviii. 185 time imposed upon the world, his discovery casts no imputation upon those learned men who have been hitherto deceived 1 ." Such is the liberal sentiment of Mr. Person; which I record for the advantage of those who in former times may have taken it for granted that the Prologue in question was the work of Jerome. But let us briefly consider the circumstances of the individuals mentioned by the learned Prelate. And first, with regard to Erasmus: In his note on 1 John v. 7. and other disquisitions on the same subject, he cer- tainly reasoned on the Prologue, without ex- pressing any doubts of its authenticity. Whe- ther he had examined its pretensions in this point of view is not stated. Perhaps he took the composition as he found it, from a wish to contend with his adversaries on their own ground. At all events, he treated the Prologue with but little ceremony. Had he, indeed, thought it a fabrication of the eighth or ninth century, he could scarcely have treated it with less. He manifestly considered its most im- portant part the account, which by implica- tion it conveys, of Greek manuscripts as fabulous. Of all the Latin Fathers, Jerome was the favourite of Erasmus; who, somewhat early in life, formed an intention of publish- 1 Person's Letters, p. 119- 186 ing his works. Accordingly, the editio princeps of Jerome issued from the Basil press in 1516, under the care of Erasmus. He appears to have printed whatever the MSS. presented as the works of Jerome; but at the same time formed into distinct classes the treatises which he deemed genuine, dubious, and spurious. The MSS. works of Jerome not having contained the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, it was not published in the editio princeps. Erasmus put forth a second (corrected) edition of Jerome in 1526, and a third in 1533 ; but, although his attention had in the mean while been par- ticularly directed to the Prologue, it was still omitted. There is consequently strong ground for supposing that Erasmus did not really assign it to the pen of Jerome. So much for Eras- mus, and his alleged support of the Prologue. It is, besides, not unworthy of remark, that Marianus Victorius a true son of the Church, who regarded Erasmus as a sesqui-heretic at best, and devised every possible means of at- tacking him laid nothing to his charge on account of the omission. Indeed, Victorius himself, in 1566, published the works of Je- rome, without the Prologue ; and for more than a century afterwards, the successive editions of Jerome were equally destitute of that re- commendation. We see, therefore, in what low 187 estimation the Prologue was held by the learned of those times. Of Socinus I shall say but little ; for, from what I have observed of his writings, I con- clude that he was a man without skill, or pretensions to skill, in matters of criticism. With regard to the Prologue, he referred to Erasmus as his authority; and finding that Erasmus had reasoned upon it as the work of Jerome, he was content to do the same. In short, on this point, he is merely Erasmus at second hand; and an echo has no claim to attention on the score of originality 1 . 1 The most zealous advocate of the controverted text, cannot be more adverse than myself to the leading Theological tenets of his Heresiarch; but as I have spoken somewhat slightingly of him as a critic, let me commend him as a writer in defence of Christianity. Not to mention other works, his treatise De auctorilate Sacras Scriptures contains much excellent matter in a small space; and, considering the early age in which it appeared, possesses peculiar merit. So far as it extends, it has more substance than the far- famed work of Grotius. That I may not seem quite singular in my praise, I will state the opinion of Bishop Smallbrooke ; who says that ' Grotius, in the composure of his book of the Truth of the Christian Religion, was, among several other authors, more especially assisted by the valuable performance of a writer otherwise justly of an ill-fame, viz. Faustus Soci- nus' s little book de auctoritate S. Scriptures, A. l6ll. Ed. Vorst.' Charge to Clergy of St. David's, 1729- This treatise of Socinus had great celebrity for a time. It was re-pub- lished by a Jesuit under a feigned name ; re-edited by Conrad Vorstius; and translated into Dutch, French, and English. 188 In the year lb'53, Selden published the second book of his treatise de Synedriis; in which, for some reason or other, he went out of his way to defend the genuineness of the disputed verse. Aware that the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, if Jerome's, would be good evidence in its favour, he laboured hard to persuade himself that it really was Jerome's ; but, I suspect, without success. He writes very doubtfully on the subject; confesses that many editions of the Vulgate, which contained Je- rome's acknowledged prologues, did not con- tain the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; and also mentions its absence from the works of Jerome. Whatever may have been pre- viously thought of the prologue, the indecisive language of Selden would naturally tend to lessen its credit; but how far it had that effect is uncertain. We know, at least, that, in 1670, Sandius declared the prologue to be spurious; and, from the mode of expression he employed, there is some reason to suppose that he had been led to his conclusion by the statements of Selden 1 . After this, Simon when discuss- 1 ' At praefatio ilia non est genuina Hieronymi ; nee legitur vel in operibus Hieronymi, vel in Bibliis vulgatis correctis.' Interp. Paradox, p. 383. Let me here observe, that Bp. Fell, in his edition of Cyprian (1682) laments the absence of the Prologue from the current editions of the Vulgate (p. 109.) He seems to have thought this prologue of great consequence in 189 ing the claims of 1 John v. 7. in his Histoire Critique (1689, 1690.) adduced a variety of arguments to shew that the prologue could not justly be ascribed to Jerome. In 1693, appeared the Benedictine edition of the works of Jerome, under the superintendance of Mar- tianay. The first volume of this edition con- tained the Bibliotheca Divina, or Jerome's ver- sion of the Old and New Testaments, as derived from very old manuscripts e vetustissimis manu- scriptis codicibus ; and prefixed to the Catholic Epistles is found the prologue in question. And thus did this notable composition gain admission, for the first time, into the collected writings of Jerome. Why it was then inserted is not very clear, for Martianay condemned it as a spurious work. The principles, indeed, on which he condemned it, were designedly different from those of Simon; to whom he seems to have entertained an extreme aversion. He states that all the Apostolic Epistles were printed from a copy in the Vatican 1 ; but when enumerating, in opposition to Simon, several antient MSS. of the Latin version which con- in the question respecting 1 John v. 7- Bp. Fell was a good scholar ; but ' his vein of criticism,' as Bp. Hurd rather invidiously remarked of a much greater man, ' was not above the common.' 1 'Omnes Epistolas Apostolorum summa fide editac sunt juxta Exemplar Vaticanum.' p. 1591. 190. tained the prologue, he does not mention the Vatican copy as one of them. Again, Mar- tianay contradicts Simon whenever an oppor- tunity is presented; but although Simon had affirmed that none of the MSS. of Jerome's works contained the prologue, Martianay does not assert that they did. It was, therefore, not in consequence of any newly discovered MSS. either of the Latin version, or the works of Jerome, that the prologue appeared in the Benedictine edition 1 . 1 Let me here perform an act of justice to the learned Selden. Although defending Mr. Porson, I am happy to throw my shield over a person who thought differently from him on the disputed verse; and if, in protecting Selden, I were not still opposed to Bishop Burgess, my satisfaction would be without alloy. When treating of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, Selden remarked 'At vero quam- plurimse sunt Vulgatae editiones quae prologo illo prorsus carent, etiam dum alios Hieronymi habent. Neque inter Hieronymi opera prologo illi locus.' Now it is manifest, that when Selden thus connected the editions of the Vul- gate with the works of Jerome, he could mean only the printed works of that Father. To Selden's remark, however, the Bishop has subjoined the following note: 'Fallitur vir ex- imius, cum Simonio aliisque. E vetustissimus MSS. codicibus editus est a Martianaeo.' (Adnot. Millii, &c. p. 208.) His Lordship therefore could not understand it in that sense; for as Selden published his remark in 1653, and died in 1654, his ignorance of Martianay's edition of Jerome (1693) was not a mistake; and a pretty good defence might be made for Simon. Even if we suppose that, by the works of Jerome, the learned Prelate understood the manuscript works, there is no evidence that Selden was wrong. Selden himself had before discussed the MSS. of the Latin version ; and Mar- 191 We now proceed to NEWTON; who, as we are told, 'ascribed the Prologue to Jerome.' "Between the years 1690 and 1700, Sir Isaac Newton wrote a dissertation upon 1 John v. 7. ; in which he collected; arranged, and strength- ened Simon's arguments, and gave a clear, exact, and comprehensive view of the whole ques- tion 1 ." This dissertation affords, I believe, the only means of ascertaining the opinion of Newton, on the subject under consideration; and we there find the following passages. "The first upon record that represented the testimony of the Three in heaven is Jerome, if the preface to the Canonical Epistles, which goes under his name, be Ms" " From all these (Translators, Writers and Scribes) it will ap- pear that the testimony of the Three in heaven was wanting in the Greek MSS. from whence Jerome, or whoever was the author of that pre- face to the Canonical Epistles, PRETENDS to have borrowed it" " It is not once to be met with in all the disputes, epistles, orations, and other writings of the Greeks and Latins, in the times tianay does not say that he had published the Prologue from the MS. tvorks of Jerome. The learned Prelate was misled, I suspect, by the words, e vetustissimis manuscriptis codicibus, in the title page to the Bibliotheca Divina. 1 Person's Letters to Travis, p. ii. This is the language of one great man writing of another, who had discussed the subject upon which he was himself employed. 192 of those controversies (about the Trinity); no, not in Jerome himself, if his version and pre- face to the Canonical Epistles be excepted 1 ." Now passages of this kind must at least be understood to imply the existence of doubts on the writer's mind, respecting the origin of the Prologue in question; and therefore, it cannot be quite correct to represent Newton as positively ascribing it to Jerome. The spu- riousness of the work having been but recently maintained, and consequently, the notion not being, at that time, very prevalent, Newton might be satisfied with throwing out his sus- picions on the subject, and then reasoning from it as if it were genuine: but that he had a strong impression that it was a forgery, must, I think, be very manifest to any one who will read his dissertation on 1 John v. 7. On the whole, that Bishop Burgess should have enrolled NEWTON among the writers who attribute the Prologue to Jerome, is certainly 'a thing to wonder at.' The last on the Bishop's distinguished list 1 Horsley's Newton, Vol. V. pp. 501, 503, 505. The fact here hinted at that the genuine works of Jerome, volu- minous as they are, never allude to the text, while it forms the prominent subject of the Prologue forms an argument against the Prologue, ait Jerome's, which, I believe, can never be got over. 193 is Le Clerc the personification of caution itself. That Le Clerc never did ascribe the Prologue to Jerome, I will not absolutely affirm, because I have not read the whole of his very miscel- laneous writings: but if he did so, I will ven- ture to pronounce, in the first place, that it was before he had well considered the subject and in the next, that he completely changed his opinion. In his Ars Critica, I find the following passage. ' Unum dumtaxat addemus exemplum insignia fraudis, hanc in rem. Cum, nimirum, deessent in antiquioribus Latinis exemplaribus verba quae antea adtulimus (1 John v. 7.) n n modo a The- ologis illata sunt recentioribus MSS. sed et an- tiquiores Interpretes malae fidei sunt incusati. Quod ut aliqua cum veri specie, quae null a erat, fieri posset ; fictus est, a pio scilicet impostore, Prologus in septem Epistolas Canonicas. Ne quisquam suspicaretur Prologum non esse Hieronymi, additum est in ultimo periodo nomen Eustochii : Sed tu virgo Christi Eustochium, &c.' (Vol. II. pp. 240, 241. Ed. 1712.) Moreover, in his Comment on 1 John v. 7. he thus writes. * Hieronymi nomen prsefert quidem praefatio in Epistolas Catholicas ; sed ejus non esse ostendit Ric. Simonius in secunda parte Hist. Crit. N. T. ; et Monachi Benedictini, qui nuper Hieronymi N 194 opera Parisiis edere cceperunt, licet Simonio in- fensissimi, ejus rationes confirmarunt : ita ut per- tinaciae os occlusisse videanturV When the crude notions of the boy are fairly " put away," let them not be quoted as the deliberate opinions of the man. This I say, in case it should appear that Le Clerc, in the earlier part of his life, referred to the prologue, as the composition of the real Jerome : al- though I am not aware that he did so. In short, when the learned prelate mentioned Le Clerc as favourable to the authenticity of the prologue, I suspect that he relied upon the report of some venturous advocate of the dis- puted verse, whose zeal was more remarkable than his information shall I say, or his in- tegrity ? With regard to the credit attached to this 1 While Le Glare's Latin translation of Hammond on the New Testament is before me, I will transcribe his sen- timents touching the external and internal evidence in the case of the disputed verse. ' Miror eum (Hammondum) tarn multis quaesivisse nexum versus 7mi testimonium cum illo, (sc. vers. 6ti) et sensum verborum unum sunt, vel in unum sunt, antequam ostendisset, aut conatus esset ostendere, hunc versum et ea verba esse genuina. De hujusmodi ordine possis dicere avw -rroTantav -^tapova-t -jrajai.' Although no match for Bentley more especially in metrical knowledge Le Clerc was a critic whose opinions are always worth knowing. He was born in 1657; published his Ars Critica in 1696, and his Translation of Hammond in 1698; and died in 1736. His literary labours were prodigious. 195 famous prologue, the case seems to be that, from the age of Erasmus to the date of Mar- tianay's edition of Jerome, not a single scholar perhaps can be found who, after a regular in- quiry into the subject, stood by it as genuine ; and that, from the date of that edition to the present time, the learned have fairly abandoned it. Mr. Porson, in his controversy with Arch- deacon Travis, adopted and enforced the senti- ments which had long been common to the great critics and the small, in this matter ; and even now, Bishop Burgess does not avow senti- ments of a contrary kind. It might therefore be expected that the learned prelate could have no quarrel with Mr. Porson on this point. But it is far otherwise. Opinions which are harmless when entertained by others seem to become per- fectly malignant when promulgated by that critic ; and thus, there is hardly a position occu- pied by Mr. Porson which Bishop Burgess does not shew at least a disposition to attack. Let us now consider an instance of the learned pre- late's method of proceeding. ' Mr. Porson gets rid of the authority of the Prologue, in a very summary and extrajudicial way. " If Jerome had told us that his Greek MSS. contained the three heavenly witnesses, he would have told a notorious falsehood." The Reviewer will, I think, hardly place this assertion N 2 196 amongst Mr. Person's " formidable objections 1 .'' If the author of the Prologue be a competent and credible witness, his testimony is as admissible for the Greek copies, as against the Latin. Mr. Person admits it against the Latin. " In fact it appears" (says the Professor, on the authority of the Prologue) " that whenever this Prologue was written, most of the Latin copies wanted 1 John v. 7." He could not, therefore, consistently refuse his testimony for the Greek.' ( Vind. pp. 42, 43. See also pp. 81, 125. for the same opinion). Whether Mr. Person's assertion is to be placed amongst his * formidable objections' or not, there is manifestly nothing very formidable in the reply that has been given to it. The learned prelate seems to think that if any credit be allowed to the prologue, it is as trust-worthy with regard to the Greek MSS. as the Latin. This is by no means a certain consequence. We will suppose that a witness, of very dubious character, presents himself to be examined. He pretends to a name which no one believes to be his own ; and it is diffi- 1 ' The Reviewer' "formidable objections" ' The Reviewer' means, I suppose, him of ' The Quarterly/ already alluded to in this work ; and " formidable objections" may be an ex- pression applied by the Reviewer aforesaid to Mr. Person's remarks. In the second edition of his Vindication and in other subsequent works, the learned prelate tempers the severity of argument by a pleasant iteration of the term " formidable objections ;" indicating thereby how peculiarly inappropriate it is to the criticisms of Mr. Person. cult to ascertain his age or calling. The witness deposes to two distinct particulars : one of them, he may have personally observed the other, he most probably knew only from report. His testimony, in the one case, is confirmed by a mass of circumstantial evidence; and, in the other, it is opposed to all extraneous testi- mony. Now I maintain that, on all rational principles of judgement, we are bound, in the former case, to receive the witness's evidence; and in the latter to reject it. Apply this to the author of the prologue. The pretended Jerome complains of unfaithful translators, who had omitted the text of the heavenly witnesses. He knew therefore that it was absent from the Latin MSS. ; a fact which is attested by many of the oldest copies yet remaining, and con- firmed by appearances in early Latin writers. In this instance, then, his testimony may be depended upon. But his complaint of unfaithful translators implies also that the text of the heavenly witnesses was read in the Greek MSS. : a fact which no antient Greek MS. can be brought to attest, nor any early Greek writer to confirm, in the slightest degree. In truth, as far as it is possible in any case to prove absence by testimony, the absence of the text from the Greek MSS. is proved. Here, therefore, we are compelled to believe that the author 198 of the prologue, whether aware of it or not, insinuated what was not true. There is, moreover, a consideration, of some importance in the case before us, which the Bishop has not condescended to notice. It was not, as his Lordship imagines, merely because the prologue complained of unfaithful transla- tors, that Mr. Person concluded that the text of the heavenly witnesses was absent from the Latin MSS. of those times; but also because the very existence of the prologue itself cannot be accounted for, on any other supposition. The purpose for which it was written could only have been, to introduce the text into the Latin MSS. ; in which it must therefore have been previously wanting. If the text already existed in the Latin MSS. why was the pro- logue written at all? In a word, Mr. Person does not reason on the authority of the prologue, as the learned prelate states ; but upon its exist- ence. He does not merely say, as Bishop Burgess has quoted him, " In fact it appears that when- ever this prologue was written, most of the Latin copies wanted 1 John v. 7. :" but he says, " In fact it is apparent that, whenever this prologue was written, most of the Latin copies wanted 1 John v. 7. and that it was written for the express purpose of providing a remedy for 199 this defect 1 " The learned prelate may be as- sured that it was not Mr. Person's plan of writing to occupy attention with words desti- tute of signification; and therefore that, in order to convey his full meaning, it is necessary to give his sentences entire. And now, let us once more consider the opening of the extract lately presented to the reader. ' Mr. Person gets rid of the authority of the prologue in a very summary and extrajudicial way. " If Jerome had told us that his Greek MSS. con- tained the three heavenly witnesses, he would have told a notorious falsehood." The Reviewer will, I think, hardly place this assertion amongst Mr. Person's formidable objections.' Every one, I believe, who reads the preced- ing paragraph must naturally conclude that the assertion there commented upon was put forth without the slightest attempt to explain or enforce it : And yet, Mr. Person thus dwells upon the subject. * If Jerome had told us that his Greek MSS. contained the three heavenly witnesses, he would have told a notorious falsehood. That all the Greeks before his time and all for many ages after it, should know nothing of this text, or entirely 1 Letters to Travis, p. 303. 200 neglect it ; that all the visible Greek MSS. which have survived to the present day, should omit it ; and yet that Jerome found a cluster of Greek MSS. all of which retained it ; this, according to the common course of things, is incredible and im- possible. What a strange revolution, as Erasmus justly observes, that in Jerome's time the Latin copies should be defective and the Greek perfect, when at present the Latin have repaired their loss and the Greek are become defective.' (pp. 301, 302.) 'You tell us, and with great truth I be- lieve, that all Jerome's MSS. are lost. But how happens it that they differed so widely from all others ? What pity that all the orthodox MSS. after being once collated, should withdraw them- selves, and neither listen to the invitation of their friends nor the challenge of their enemies ! ' (p. 304.) An estimate may now be formed of the degree of fairness with which Bishop Burgess has treated Mr. Person's argument. But waving all reflections on that subject, I shall merely remark that the opinions of these learned per- sons are here directly opposed to each other. That Jerome's Greek MSS. contained the text of the heavenly witnesses appears to Mr. Person, under all the circumstances of the case, incre- dible and impossible ; while to Bishop Burgess the same thing appears both possible and cre- dible. Which of these two opinions is the better entitled to the praise of correctness shall be left entirely to the judgement of the reader. 201 The learned prelate, in his Selection of Tracts and Observations on 1 John v. 7- (pp. xliv xlviii.), resumes the subject of the prologue. He twice quotes Mr. Person's assertion, * If Jerome had told us, &c. ;' and twice adduces Dr. Bentley as holding contrary opinions. In fact, the greater part of the discussion appears to be an expansion of the paragraph already considered ; and therefore the reader will readily excuse me if I trouble him with but few re- marks upon it. " Mr. Person calls the prologue to the Ca- nonical Epistles the weightiest evidence. But he gives no credit to the assertion, which it contains, respecting the Greek copies." Mr. Porson assigned many reasons, some of which we have seen, why he refused credit to the statements of the prologue. What then did he mean by the weightiest evidence ? The evi- dence afforded by the writings of Jerome was the subject of discussion. Mr. Porson having just touched an argument, drawn from that Father by Mr. Travis, which dissolved in its own weakness, thus went on : " But the weightiest evidence remains, the prologue to the Canonical Epistles." It was indeed " the weightiest evidence" derived from Jerome ; but if its bearing be considered with reference to 202 the disputed verse, the mention of its weight is a bitter irony. I am aware that there is something awkward in explanations of this kind; but I know no other means by which such misconceptions of Mr. Person's mode of writing can be rectified 1 . The author of the prologue " does not assert that he restored the verse, as must be evident to any one who will read the prologue. Mr. Porson admits that the author * does not posi- tively affirm that he restored that verse upon the authority of Greek MSS. but, in order to 1 'At the request or command of Pope Damasus,' Mr. Porson continues, ' Jerome revised the Latin translation, and corrected it upon the faith of the Greek MSS. Did he there- fore replace the three heavenly witnesses at this revision, or not ? If he did, why did he not then write his preface to inform the world of his recovered reading ? But after Damasus was dead, Eustochium, it seems, a young lady, at once devout, handsome, and learned, requests him once more to revise the Catholic Epistles, and correct them by the Greek. Jerome undertakes the task, and having completed it, advertises her in this prologue, that other inaccurate translators had omitted the testimony of the three heavenly witnesses, the strongest proof of the Christian faith. Such a story as this carries its own condemnation upon its forehead.' (p. 289, 290.) An amusing essay might be written on the mistakes which have arisen from interpreting in sober seriousness, expressions which Mr. Porson meant to be understood as solemn irony. His notes on Euripides, as well as his Letters to Mr. Travis and other works, are remarkable for expressions of that kind. Mr. Kidd has just broached this subject, in his Volume of Parson's 2'iacts, pp. liv, Iv. 203 possess the reader with that belief, he envelopes his meaning in a cloud of words.' Jerome cer- tainly did not restore the verse to the Latin version, for it existed in the old Italic, &c." Here again Mr. Person appears to be misun- derstood. He is not laying any stress, as the Bishop supposes, upon the word restored 1 ; but examining the testimony of the prologue to the existence of Greek MSS. containing the verse. " It is also observable," says the critic, " that though the main drift of the author was to give currency to his favourite verse of the three heavenly witnesses, he is afraid to affirm directly that it was in the Greek MSS. and only insinuates that falsehood in cautious and perplexed language." Mr. Person immediately translates, and comments upon, that absurd medley of words which constitute the prologue ; and then proceeds, " Besides, the author does not positively affirm that he has restored the verse upon the authority of Greek MSS. but in order to possess the reader with that belief, 1 According to Dr. Benson, the author of the prologue affirmed that ' he had restored the verse.' Mr. Travis replied, that the prologue ' does not suppose any restoration,' because ' the verse had never been lost.' On this quibbling about words Mr. Person remarked (p. 157-) ' Surely an editor may be said to restore a passage, that was only in a part of the copies, and consequently in danger of being lost.' Even after this we are presented with arguments that turn upon the word restore ! 204 envelopes his meaning in a cloud of words." There is here, surely, nothing ambiguous in Mr. Person's mode of writing. " Mr. Person says (p. 151.) of the Greek MSS., * Produce two actually existing Greek MSS. five hundred years old, containing the verse, and I will acknowledge your opinion of its genuineness to be probable.' If we apply this rule of probability to the Latin MSS., we can produce more than two hundred MSS. of that age, which contain the verse ; and some of nearly twice that age. It was consequently in Jerome's version, and therefore in the Greek text." Mr. Porson was not laying down ri- gorous rules of criticism in the preceding ex- tract ; or stating the exact laws of probability. He was merely reasoning with the man Mr. Travis. With this intimation I shall give the following extracts from the * Letters;' and so, leave the reader to form his own judgement of the whole matter. * I have hitherto been arguing as if all the Latin MSS. had the disputed verse in some shape or other ; which you know, Sir, is not the case. You say indeed, p. 210, that " there is a greater number beyond all comparison in which this text is found." I have already allowed you the full benefit of your majority. Make the most of this 205 concession ; for it would be unkind to deprive you of an advantage which you so seldom enjoy. But take care of this argument ; for, if you push it too forcibly, it will pierce the heart of your own cause. If the majority of Latin copies be a good proof that this verse was early in the Latin version, the majority of Greek MSS. is as good a proof that it never was in the original. However, I will make what I think a fair proposal. Produce two actually existing Greek MSS. five hundred years old, con- taining this verse, and I will acknowledge your opinion of its genuineness to be probable. If you are unable to do this, and I produce you above twenty Latin MSS. all greatly exceeding that age, you cannot, I think, in common decency, refuse to be a convert to my opinion.' * To which side shall we give credit, to age or to numbers ? On one side the witnesses are grave, elderly persons, who lived nearer the time when the fact happened which they assert, and they are all consistent in their testimony ; while the other party, though vastly superior in numbers, yet lived too late to be competently acquainted with the cause: many carry a brand of perjury on their front; and, after all their collusion and suborna- tion, their testimonies frequently clash, and con- tradict one another. In short, the few Latin MSS. that reject the verse, are as much superior to the herd of incorrect and modern copies that retain it, as a small well-trained band of soldiers to a nu- merous rabble destitute of discipline or unanimity.' " Mr. Person says, that ' in some MSS. the 206 Preface is added; yet the heavenly witnesses omitted.' (p. 292.). Such omissions and incon- sistencies are not uncommon in MSS." Very true: and while they shew the want of dis- crimination with which the Latin MSS. have been put together, and the negligence with which they have been revised, they certainly detract greatly from the authority of the vaunted prologue. Mr. Person having said that * If there were no other objection to the prologue, the style alone would determine it not to be Jerome's' Bishop Burgess objects that * the perception of style is so much a matter of taste, that a decision formed upon it is not likely to be satisfactory.' The Bishop also mentions Mill, who, although he placed the writer of the prologue after the time of Bede, considered the composition not unlike that of Jerome. Notwithstanding what the learned prelate has said on the subject; I wish he had given his own opinion, on the style of this production. He is, I am persuaded, too well aware of its defects to believe that Jerome, even under the most unfavourable circumstances, could have written any thing so bad. Of all the authors, perhaps, that ever lived, Jerome has had the greatest multitude of compositions at- 207 tributed to him, with which he had no con- cern; but it would, I conceive, be difficult to select from the whole, a work so unworthy of his pen as the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. Let us then suppose, with many learned men, that the prologue was first published in the eighth century 1 . As it professed to be the work of Jerome, it must have been taken to represent the state of things in Jerome's days ; but its very existence points out to us some important particulars relating to its own time. A few Latin MSS., probably, contained the text of the heavenly witnesses ; but unless the generality of them had wanted it, it is self- evident that the prologue would never have 1 About the year 735 died Venerable Bede, the most learned man of the age in which he lived. He wrote a regular com- mentary on the Canonical Epistles, in which he noticed neither the disputed verse nor its patron-prologue. This is a very remarkable fact. If he knew them not, it is a proof of their extreme obscurity at that time; if he knew and neglected them, it is a proof that he thought them spurious. What is here stated, although in a note, is an important part of the history of the text and the prologue. An old MS. of Bede in the Library of Caius College, Cambridge, contains a prologue to the Canonical Epistles by Bede himself. It was transcribed by the learned Henry Wharton, and published by Dr. Cave. (Hist. Lit. Vol. i. p. 6l 4.). This prologue, according to a MS. note of Arch- bishop Tenison, is cited by Clemens Lanthoniensis in a MS. Comment on the Catholic Epistles in the Library at Lambeth. been written. The state, then, of the Latin MSS. in the eighth century would confirm the pretended Jerome's account of the MSS. in times past. Should the Greek MSS. indeed, by some accident, be examined, the text could not be found in them ; and this circum stance might lead to inquiries respecting the Greek MSS. of preceding times, which must, according to the prologue, have contained the text. But to inquiries of this kind the answer was easy. The MSS. alluded to by Jerome were all lost. " Either they had been burned, or eaten by the worms, or gnawed in pieces by the rats, or rotted by the damps, or destroyed by the Arians." As to any subsequent copies, the scribes had all made the same mistake, in the same place; deceived by the homceoteleuton, they had omitted the text of the heavenly witnesses. And thus, there was the clear au- thority of Jerome against the evidence of cor- rupted MSS. Such, we may imagine, would be the account given by the friends of the prologue, should any one have ventured, at that time, to question the statements which it contained. In general, however, it would be gladly received, as furnishing a new and powerful argument in favour of the orthodox faith. Proceedings which tended to advance that good cause, although they might be not 209 altogether free from a degree of moral obli- quity, were in those days connived at, not to say, applauded. The prologue would therefore have to encounter no very rigid scrutiny. Knowledge indeed, requisite for the under- taking, would not easily be found; and few, I suspect, would care to expose themselves to the suspicion of heresy, by throwing out re- flections to its disadvantage. In fine, the writer of the prologue formed a very ingenious plan ; and if, when he took pen in hand, he had discovered a less perplexed understanding and a more correct style of composition, modern critics might have had some trouble in detect- ing the Pseudo-Jerome. As it is, there is hardly to be found in antiquity a production of less weight than the Prologue to the Ca- nonical Epistles. 4. Mr. Person's opinions concerning Wala- frid Strabo. The reader can scarcely fail to be aware that the Glossa Ordinaria, which appears in the printed copies with a variety of prefatory matter, is usually cited as the compilation of Walafrid Strabo, or Strabus, who flourished in the ninth century 1 . From a passage in one 1 The Glossa Ordinaria consists of two parts : a short com- ment inserted between the lines of the text, and thence called O Glossa 210 of those preliminary discourses which was assumed as a matter of course to have been written by Walafrid Strabo Mr. Travis deduced consequences highly favourable, in his estima- tion, to the point he wished to establish. Mr. Person, in reply, was satisfied with discussing the merits of the passage itself; without for- mally opposing its claim to authority, as the production of Walafrid Strabo. In process of time, Bishop Burgess again enforced Mr. Travis's deductions from the passage assuming it to have been written by Walafrid Strabo, and with- out expressing a doubt on the subject. A writer in the Quarterly Review for March 1822, finding that the conclusions which had been before drawn from the passage were still maintained as stoutly as ever, resolved, as it should seem, to put an end at once to that part of the dispute; by examining the degree of authority to which the passage was really entitled on Glossa Interlinearis ; and a larger comment, called Glossa Marginalis. The Glossa Interlinearis appears to have been compiled by Anselmus Laudunensis, about the year 1100. Cave does not write very clearly or consistently on this sub- ject; but see his Hist. Lit. Vol. H. p. 187 Under Walafrid Strabo, he says, ' Glossa Ordinaria Interlinearis in S. Scripturam, ex antiquis patribus collecta, et ab aliis postea aucta, Straboni nostro vulgo ascribitur.' This is a very fair account of the matter, supposing Cave to have meant Marginalis, when, by some accident, he used the word Interlinearis. It is, indeed, quite certain that the Glossa Ordinaria contains the comments of writers long posterior to Walafrid Strabo. 211 the ground of antiquity. With this view, he distinctly proved that, instead of having pro- ceeded from Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century, the preface in which the passage ap- pears must have been written later than the twelfth century, and most probably in the fifteenth. Convinced by the Reviewer's state- ments, Bishop Burgess, in the second edition of his Vindication (p t 44.) fairly admits that the preface was not the production of Walafrid Strabo. He seems indeed rather pleased with the discovery ; and straightway adduces it as an evidence of Mr. Person's slight acquaintance with Ecclesiastical antiquity. Mr. Person's im- perfect knowledge on the subject of the Glossa Ordinaria, the learned prelate contrasts, in the following manner, with the more accurate in- formation of Dr. Hody. " Mr. Person, in his Letters, pp. 356, 357, argues at some length, without any suspicion that Mr. Travis had ascribed to Walafrid what does not belong to him. Hodius (de Textibus Originalibus) quotes it as from Strabo, but has the precaution to say, si modo illius ea sit" Now allowing that Mr. Person expressed no doubts as to the author of the preface alluded to, is it quite proper to hint that he was ignorant that such doubts might justly be entertained ? Does it, I would ask, become the character of a scholar 02 212 like Bishop Burgess so to treat the character of a scholar like Mr. Person? But not to keep the reader any longer in suspense, I have a fact to produce which will supersede the necessity of many comments on the Bishop's innuendo. At the close, then, of the Letter in which the case of Walafrid Strabo and the Glossa Ordinaria is considered, there appears, from the pen of Mr. Person, the following very remarkable POSTSCRIPT. " / know that the right of Walafrid Strabo to THE PREFACE and the Glossa Ordinaria is EXCEEDINGLY QUESTIONABLE ; but I have allowed it, that the dispute might be cut somewhat shorter." The subject under discussion contains matter sufficiently curious to be entitled to a few more observations. In the first edition of his Vindication, Bishop Burgess, adopting the reasoning of Mr. Travis, referred, twice at least, to the preface in question. " Walafrid Strabo, who lived in the ninth century, wrote a comment on the verse, and on the Prologue to the Epistles. He could not therefore be ignorant either of the defects which the author 213 of the prologue imputes to the Latin copies of his day, or of the integrity of the Greek, as asserted by him ; and lie directs his readers to correct the errors of the Latin by the Greek." (p. 34.) " That the Latin Church was in pos- session of the Greek text, we know .... from Walafrid Strabo's references, in the ninth cen- tury, to the Greek text as the standard for cor- recting the imperfections of the Latin 1 ." (p. 49.) The force of the argument we are now con- cerned with depends entirely upon the truth of this assumption that the preface, containing directions for correcting the Latin by the Greek, was written in the ninth century by Walafrid Strabo ; and on that point, as I have before stated, the learned prelate did not express any doubts. In that part of the before-mentioned article in the Quarterly Review, in which this subject is examined, we find the following sentence : ' It is well known to the learned in these matters, and may be easily ascer- tained by those who will take the trouble to inquire, that the title of Walafrid Strabo to be considered as the author of the Glossa Ordinaria is, to use Mr. Porsoris phrase, " ex- 1 These passages are repeated in the second edition of the Vindication, pp. 124, 140. They have been suffered to remain by accident I suppose ; inasmuch as the inaccuracy of the state- ment has been acknowledged in the preface to this edition. 214 ceedingly questionable.'" Here certainly was a warning to be cautious ; and it really is strange that, after the subject was freed from its obscurity, the Bishop should have ventured to throw out a reflection on Mr. Person's want of information. By so doing, however, he has brought himself into a dilemma. When the learned prelate first argued from the preface, either he knew its dubious character, or he knew it not. If he knew it, why did he not state that the argument rested on somewhat precarious ground? If he knew it not, why did he afterwards employ the information he had acquired, to the disadvantage of another? The proceeding undoubtedly furnishes a re- markable proof of the readiness with which his Lordship can avail himself of a supposed oversight, to detract from the reputation of Mr. Person. Bede, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, and Wala- frid Strabo were for a considerable period the brightest luminaries of the Western world. Bede, as already observed, died about the year 735 ; leaving behind him his disciple Alcuin, who found a patron in Charlemagne. To Alcuin succeeded his scholar Rabanus Maurus. This learned man seems to have outlived his pupil Walafrid Strabo, whose death is placed 215 in the year 849. The main evidence for the text of the heavenly witnesses being derived from the Western Church, and of that evi- dence the prologue to the Canonical Epistles forming a prominent part, the neglect either of the text or the prologue, by Latin writers considerable for their fame and antiquity, is severely felt by the advocates of that languish- ing cause. Bede's silence on the subject, more especially in a formal commentary on the Canonical Epistles is an appalling circum- stance. In the emergency which has thus arisen, the only resource seems to be, to make up for the silence of Bede by the testimony (if it can be found) of Walafrid Strabo. And thus the case is argued : The Glossa Ordinaria, which was compiled by Walafrid Strabo, con- tains a comment on the disputed text. The text itself appears there, on the authority of Greek MSS. : for Walafrid Strabo, in the preface to the Glossa, declares that the Latin is to be corrected by the Greek. Moreover the pro- logue to the Canonical Epistles is honoured, in the Glossa Ordinaria, with a Commentary from the pen of Walafrid Strabo, who ascribed it to Jerome 1 . Such are the notions which 1 ' Walafrid Strabo, who lived in the ninth century, wrote a comment on the verse, and on the prologue to the Epistles. He could not therefore be ignorant either of the defects which the 216 Bishop Burgess has adopted from other writers, If I were personally addressing the learned prelate, I might here employ the simple lan- guage of antient times "EX Tl K ^y^ rotate o-oTs evavriov Aoyoiffiv e'nreiv : for my love of aCCU-< racy in literary history induces me to offer a few brief remarks, which are, I confess, alto- gether adverse to the opinions just stated. , 1. The Latin version of Scripture, which appears in the Glossa Ordinaria, undoubtedly contains, as it is now read, the disputed verse ; but at what period before the publication of the editio princeps the verse was first inserted, is, I believe, in the present day impossible to be ascertained 1 . 2. Walafrid Strabo has never, since the revival of learning (nor before, indeed) the author of the prologue imputes to the Latin copies of his day, or of the integrity of the Greek, as asserted by him ; and he directs his readers to correct the errors of the Latin by the Greek.' Vind. p. 43. ' The importance of Walafrid's testi- mony will be seen in the following passages of Bengelius and C. F. Schmidius. " Neque enim Lyranus solum, sed etiam Walafridus in prologum commentatur" So Schmidius speaking of the prologue, " in quam tanquam vetustam, ineunte seculo ix. Walafridus jam commentatus est" Walafrid's testimony, there- fore, is not a " supposed" but a substantial testimony to this inquiry. He who commented on the prologue ascribed it to Jerome; and thus Jerome certifies for the existence of the seventh verse in Greek copies of his time.' Vind. p. 49. 1 My meaning is, that we cannot from the present existence of the verse in the printed copy of the Glossa Ordinaria infer its existence in the time of Walafrid Strabo. 217 been considered the sole, scarcely the chief, com- piler of the Glossa Ordinaria; which, in fact, exhibits the labours of many succeeding ages 1 . 3. There is no reason whatever to suppose that the note upon the disputed verse was written by Walafrid Strabo; for his name is subjoined to the notes which have been deemed his own.; and to that note no name is subjoined 2 . 4. The preface to the Glossa Ordinaria, which declares that the Latin is to be corrected by the Greek, was written, not by Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century, but certainly after the twelfth century, and probably in the fifteenth 3 . 5. The commentary upon the prologue to the Canonical Epistles was written, not by Walafrid Strabo, 1 It is useless to refer to authorities in proof of this point. Every critic, I think, who has examined the matter holds the opinion stated above. 2 To great numbers of the notes it would be quite a hope- less attempt to assign a name or a date. 3 That this preface was not written by Walafrid Strabo has been since allowed by Bishop Burgess. The proof of this point depends upon a minute circumstance. (Quarterly Re- view, March 1822, p. 336.). The preface mentioned a person under the title of Magister in Historiis. Now Magister Sententiarum would have at once appeared equivalent to Peter Lombard; but Magister in Historiis did not probably so readily suggest Peter Comestor, who flourished in the latter part of the twelfth century. Peter Comestor however was the man. After his time, therefore, the preface must have been written ; and consequently several centuries after the age of Walafrid Strabo. 218 but by Prater Brito in the fourteenth century 1 . So much for the evidence of Walafrid Strabo, in favour of the disputed verse, and the pro- logue to the Canonical Epistles. I now close my review of the opinions, on the Latin version and subjects connected with it, which are maintained by Mr/ Porson and opposed by Bishop Burgess. The next Section will be appropriated to the considera- tion of certain passages in the Latin Fathers, concerning which the sentiments of those learned persons are equally at variance. 1 Beyond doubt, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the prologue was, with several other prologues genuine and spurious, ascribed to Jerome, and commented upon as the work of that Father. On those prologues Brito was the Commentator General. For some farther account of these matters, see Quarterly Review, December 1825, pp. 71 74. 219 SUPPLEMENT TO SECTION III. 1 HERE give Dr. Bentley's two Letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury 1 , his Letter to an anonymous correspondent, and the principal part of his Proposals for a New Edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Version. The reader will thus be enabled to take a distinct view of the plan of proceeding in this great undertaking, as delineated by the Critic him- self. The Reverend Dr. RICHARD BENTLEY to the Right Reverend the ARCHBISHOP of CAN- TERBURY. * May it please your Grace, ( 'Tis not only your Grace's station and general cha- racter, but the particular knowledge I have of you, which encourages me to give you a long letter about those unfashionable topics Religion and Learning. Your Grace knows, as well as any, what an alarm has been made of late years with the vast heap of Various Lections found 1 Dr. Wake. He became Archbishop in January 1710. 220 in MSS. of the Greek Testament. The Papists have made a great use of them against the Protestants, and the Atheists against them both. This was one of Collins' topics in his discourse on free-thinking, which I took off in my short answer, and I have heard since from several hands, that that short view I gave of the causes, and necessity, and use of various lections, made several good men more easy in that matter than they were before. But since that time, I have fallen into a course of studies that led me to peruse many of the oldest MSS. of Gr. Test, and of the Latin too of St. Jerom, of which there are several in England, a full 1000 years old. The result of which has been that I find I am able (what some thought impossible) to give an edition of the Gr. Test, exactly as it was in the best examples at the time of the Council of Nice. So that there shall not be 20 words nor even particles difference ; and this shall carry its own demonstration in every verse, which I affirm cannot be so done of any other ancient book, Greek or Latin. So that that book which, by the present management, is thought the most uncertain, shall have a testimony of cer- tainty above all other books whatever, and an end be put at once to all Var. Lectt. now or hereafter. I'll give your Grace the progress which brought me by degrees into the present view and scheme that I have of a new edition. ' Upon some points of curiosity, I collated one or two of St. Paul's Epistles with the Alexandrian MS. the oldest and best now in the world ; I was surprised to find several transpositions of words, that Mills and the other collators took no notice of; but I soon found their M'ay was to mark nothing but change of words; the collocation and order they entirely neglected ; and yet at sight I discerned what a new force and beauty this new order (I found in the MS.) added to the sentence. This encouraged me to collate the whole book over, to a letter, with my own hands. ' There is another MS. at Paris of the same age and character with this; but, meeting with worse usage, it was so decayed by age, that 500 years ago it served the Greeks for old vellum, and they writ over the old brown capitals a book of Ephraim Syrus, but so that even now, by a good eye and a skilful person, the old writing may be read under the new. One page of this for a specimen is printed in a copper cut in Lamie's Harmony of the Evangelists. 1 Out of this, by an able hand, I have had above 200 lections given me from the present printed Greek; and I was surprised to find that almost all agreed, both in word and order, with our noble Alexandrian. Some more experiments in other old copies have discovered the same agreement : so that I dare say take all the Greek Testa- ments surviving, (that are not occidental with Latin, too like our Bezas, at Cambridge) and that are 1000 years old, and they'l so agree together that of the 30,000 pre- sent Var. Lectt. there are not there found 200. e The western Latin copies, by variety of translations, without public appointment, and a jumble and heap of all of them, were grown so uncertain, that scarce two copies were alike, which obliged Damasus, then Bishop of Rome, to employ St. Jerom to regulate the best received translation of each part of the New Testament to the original Greek, and so set out a new edition so castigated and corrected. This he declares in his preface he did, ad Gracam veritatem ad exemplaria Graca, sed vetera ; and his learning, great name, and just authority, extin- 222 guished all the other Latin versions, and has been con- veyed down to us, under the name of the Vulgate. 'Twas plain to me that when that copy came first from that great Father's hands, it must agree exactly with the most authentic Greek exemplars, and if now it could be re- trieved, it would be the best test and voucher for the true reading out of several pretending ones. But when I came to try Pope Clement's Vulgate I soon found the Greek of the Alexandrian and that would by no means pary. This set me to examine the Pope's Latin by some MSS. of 1000 years old, and the success is, that the old Greek copies and the old Latin so exactly agree (when an able hand discerns the rasures and the old lections laying under them,) that the pleasure and satisfaction it gives me is beyond expression. ' The New Testament has been under a hard fate since the invention of printing. ' After the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very ordinary MSS. it has become the property of book- sellers. Rob. Stephens' edition, set out and regulated by himself alone, is now become the standard. That text stands, as if an apostle was his compositor. ' No heathen author has had such ill fortune. Terence, Ovid, &c. for the first century after printing, went about with 20,000 errors in them. But when learned men undertook them, and from the oldest MSS. set out correct editions, those errors fell and vanished. But if they had kept to the first published text, and set the Var. Lections only in the margin, those classic authors would be as clogged with variations as Dr. Mills' Testament is. c Sixtus and Clemens, at a vast expence, had an assembly of learned divines to recense and adjust the 223 Latin Vulgate, and then enacted their new edition au- thentic ; but I find, though I have not discovered any thing done dolo malo, they were quite unequal to the affair. They were mere Theologi, had no experience in MSS. nor made use of good Greek copies, and followed books of 500 years before those of double that age. Nay I believe they took these new ones for the older of the two ; for it is not every body that knows the age of a MS. ' I am already tedious, and the post is a going. So that to conclude In a word, I find that by taking 2000 errors out of the Pope's Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephens', I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under 900 years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures can agree better. ' I affirm that these so placed will prove each other to a demonstration : for I alter not a letter of my own head without the authority of these old witnesses. And the beauty of the composition (barbarous, God knows, at present) is so improved, as makes it more worthy of a revelation, and yet no one text of consequence injured or weakened. * My Lord, if a casual fire should take either his Majesty's library or the King's of France ; all the world could not do this. As I have therefore great impulse. and I hope not dOeel to set about this work immediately, and leave it as a Ket/uj/Xtof to posterity, against Atheists and Infidels : I thought it my duty and my honour to first acquaint your Grace with it ; and know if the extrinsic expence to do such a work compleatly (for my labour 224 I reckon nothing) may obtain any encouragement, either from the Crown or Public. ' I am, with all duty and obedience, ' Your Grace's most humble Servant, * Ri. BENTLEY.' Trin. Coll. April the 15th, 171 6. The Reverend DR. RICHARD BENTLEY to the Right Reverend the ARCHBISHOP of CAN- TERBURY. Trin. Coll. Sunday Evening. * May it please your Grace, ' This minute I had the honour of your Grace's letter; indeed when I saw by the prints that your Grace was in full Convocation, and had addressed his Majesty upon so just an occasion, and consequently was immersed in busi- ness of the highest importance ; I condemned myself, that I should be so immersed here in books, and privacy, as not to know a more proper occasion of address to your Grace. On a due consideration of all which, I gave over expecting any answer, and designed to wait on you in person, when I came to London, where already my family is. But I see your Grace's goodness and public spirit is MI periour to all fatigues ; and therefore I thank you parti- cularly for this present favour; as what was (justly) above my expectation. The thought of printing the Latin in a column against the Greek (which your Grace puts to the common) I doubt not is your own. My 225 Lord, it is necessary to do sa: and without that, all my scheme would be nothing. It was the very view, that possessed me with this thought which has now so ingaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, that vat mihi, unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end. I leave the rest to the time of the Westminster election : with my hearty prayers and thanks, being * Your Grace's most obedient * And obliged humble Servant, *'Ri. BENTLEY.' ' I was told, a month ago, that your Grace (when you was at Paris) had made a whole transcript of the Clermont copy, Greek and Latin, which I hope is true.' The Rev. DR. BENTLEY to Trin. Coll. Jan. 1, 17". 'SiR, c Yours of December the 20th came safely to my hands, wherein you tell me from common fame, that in my designed edition of the New Testament, I purpose to leave out the verse of John's Epistle I. chap. 5. v. 7. ' About a year ago, reflecting upon some passages of St. Hierom, that he had adjusted and castigated the then Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exemplars, and had kept the very order of the words of the original : I form'd a thought, a pribri, that if St. Jerom's true Latin Ex- emplar could now be come at, it would be found to agree exactly with the Greek text of the same age ; and so the P 226 old copies of each language (if so agreeing) would give mutual proof, and even demonstration to each other. Whereupon rejecting the printed editions of each, and the several manuscripts of seven centuries, and under, I made use of none but those of a thousand years ago, or above, (of which sort I have 20 now in my study, that one with another make 20,000 years 1 .) I had the pleasure to find, as I presaged, that they agreed exactly like two tallies, or two indentures ; and I am able from thence to lead men out of the labyrinth of 60,000 various lections ; (for St. Jerom's Latin has as many varieties as the Greek) and to give the text, as it stood in the best copies, in the time of the Council of Nice, without the error of 50 words. e Now in this work I indulge nothing to any conjec- ture, not even in a letter, but proceed solely upon au- thority of copies, and Fathers of that age. And what will be the event about the said verse of John, I myself know not yet ; having not used all the old copies that I have information of. * But by this you see, that in my proposed work, the fate of that verse will be a mere question of fact. You endeavour to prove, (and that's all you aspire to,) that it may have been writ by the Apostle, being consonant to his other doctrine. This I concede to you ; and if the fourth century knew that text, let it come in, in God's name : but if that age did not know it, then Arianism in its height was beat down, without the help of that verse : ''MSS. that one with another make 20,000 years !' As genuine nonsense as ever appeared in print. Surely our Master must have under-rated his correspondent's intellect. I am glad that he did not use this language when addressing his Grace of Canterbury. 227 and let the fact prove as it will, the doctrine is un- shaken. * Yours, ' Ric. BENTLEY.' Extract from Dr. Bentley's ' Proposals for a new edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Version.' * The Author of this Edition, observing that the printed copies of the New Testament, both of the Original Greek and Antient vulgar Latin, were taken from manuscripts of no great antiquity, such as the first editors could then procure ; and that now by God's providence there are MSS. in Europe, (accessible, though with great charge) above a thousand years old in both languages ; believes he may do good service to common Christianity, if he publishes a new edition of the Greek and Latin, not according to the recent and interpolated copies, but as represented in the most antient and venerable MSS. in Greek and Roman Capital letters.' ' The Author, revolving in his mind some passages of St. Hierom ; where he declares, that (without making a New Version) he adjusted and reform'd the whole Latin Vulgate to the best Greek Exemplars, that is, to those of the famous Origen ; and another passage, where he says, that a verbal or literal interpretation out of Greek into Latin is not necessary, except in the Holy Scriptures, Ubi ipse verborum ordo mysterium est, where the very- order of the words is a mystery ; took thence the hint, that if the oldest copies of the Original Greek and P2 228 Hierom's Latin were examined and compared together, perhaps they would be still found to agree both in word* and order of words. And upon making the Essay ; he has succeeded in his conjecture, beyond his expectation or even his hopes.' ' The Author believes, that he has retriev'd (except in very few places) the true Exemplar of Origen, which was the standard to the most learned of the Fathers at the time of the Council of Nice and two centuries after. And he is sure, That the Greek and Latin MSS. by their mutual assistance, do so settle the original text to the smallest nicety ; as cannot be perform'd now in any Classic Author whatever : and that out of a labyrinth of thirty thousand various readings, that croud the pages of our present best editions, all put upon equal credit to the offence of many good persons ; this clue so leads and ex- tricates us, that there will scarce be two hundred out of so many thousands that can deserve the least considera- tion/ ' To- confirm the Lections which the Author places in the text, he makes use of the old Versions, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic and JEthiopic, and of all the Fathers, Greeks and Latins, within the first five centuries ; and he gives in his notes all the various readings (now known) within the said five centuries. So that the reader has under one view what the first ages of the Church knew of the text ; and what has crept into any copies since, is of no value or authority.' ' The Author is very sensible, that in the Sacred Writings there's no place for conjectures or emendations. Diligence and fidelity, with some judgment and expe- rience, are the characters here requisite. He declares therefore, that he does not alter one lettefr in the text 229 without the authorities subjoin'd in the notes. And to leave the free choice to every reader, he places under each column the smallest variations of this edition, either in words or order, from the receiv'd Greek of Stephanas, and the Latin of the two Popes Sixtus V. and Clemens VIII. So that this edition exhibits both it self, and the common ones.' ' If the Author has any thing to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant ; he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena ; in which will be a large account of the several MSS. here u ed, and of the other matters which contribute to make this edition useful. In this work he is of no sect or party ; his design is to serve the whole Christian name. He draws no consequences in his notes ; makes no oblique glances upon any disputed points, old or new. He consecrates this work, as a Kei/mqXiov, a KTtj/jia ecraei, a Charter, a Magna Charta, to the whole Christian Church, to last when all the antient MSS. here quoted may be lost and extinguish'd.' SECTION IV. Mr. Parson's observations on certain passages in the Writings of AUGUSTINE EUCHERIUS FULGEN- TIUS CASSIODORUS and LEO THE GREAT. 1. AUGUSTINE. THE testimony of this Father, with regard to the text of the heavenly witnesses, is on many accounts entitled to great consideration. His acquaintance with Holy Writ, in the Latin version at least, appears to have been of the most intimate kind; and his works are so voluminous and replete with Scriptural quotations, that almost the whole of the New Testament might be collected from them. Being, besides, a Bishop of the African Church, and flourishing about the end of the fourth century, he lived in the very region and in the very age in which, if the text existed at all, he must have been well aware of its existence. Moreover, he engaged in con- troversies in which the text would have ren- dered him valuable assistance : for instance, he wrote at great length against Maximin the Arian, and composed a distinct treatise in defence of the Trinity. In short, if the text was read as Scripture in Augustine's time, 231 there is every reason to expect that it should be found in his works. It seems, however, to be agreed on all hands that the works of this Father do not present us with the text of the heavenly witnesses. He who can induce himself to believe that the text existed although unknown to Augustine, or was known to him although not quoted may smile at difficulties, as the grounds for incredulity. Cyprian in the third century has been alleged as evidence for the text of the heavenly wit- nesses. Now, if Cyprian cited the text, Au- gustine must have been aware of it ; for he was thoroughly conversant with the writings of the great Bishop and Martyr. The Donatists, indeed, adduced the authority of Cyprian for their opinions respecting baptism by Heretics; and Augustine, who wrote very copiously against the Donatists, was in this instance obliged to oppose the sentiments of Cyprian. But this is done with the utmost reverence for his character. Augustine can hardly touch upon the mistakes of Cyprian without alluding to the errors of St. Peter 1 . In a word, the 1 ' Quapropter ita hoc Cypriani non accipio, quamvis in- ferior incomparabiliter Cypriano; sicut illud Apostoli Petri, quod gentes Judaizare cogebat, nee accipio nee facio, quamvis inferior mcomparabfliter Petro.' Contra Cresconium, 1. ii. o. 40. 232 tract de Unitate Ecclesice and the Epistle to Jubaianus, in which Cyprian is supposed to have referred to the contested verse, are par- ticularly discussed in Augustine's treatises contra Donatistas and contra Cresconium. If then Augustine, as can hardly be doubted, knew nothing of the verse, can it be supposed that Cyprian quoted it? Let us now cast a single glance at the times subsequent to those of Augustine. In the con- fession of faith said to have been presented at the Council of Carthage (484), and in the works of a few African writers of the sixth century, the text is cited as Scripture. But, on what authority did these writers, some of them of very dubious character, quote as Scripture a passage unknown to the age of Augustine? Are we warranted in receiving for Scripture the words of writers who neither by their repu- tation, nor their condition, nor their antiquity, are entitled to particular credit, even in matters of no great moment ? In fine, shall we go forth in the dusk of the evening for the purpose of searching for what we cannot find at mid- day ? There are two particulars which appear to give the absence of the disputed text from 233 the works of Augustine almost the force of a demonstration that it was unknown to him. The former of them I shall state without com- ment in the language of Mr. Charles Butler, a friend but certainly a very candid friend of the verse : the latter will bring into view the conflicting opinions of Mr. Person and Bishop Burgess, and will therefore require somewhat of a formal discussion. * Sabatier,' says Mr. Butler, * was so fortunate as to find, in different parts of the works of St. Augustine, a sufficient number of quotations to form the whole of the four first chapters, and like- wise the beginning of the fifth. But, when he comes to the seventh verse, this very voluminous Father, who wrote not less than ten treatises on the Epistle in question, suddenly deserts him ; though immediately after this critical place, he comes again to his assistance. This chasm, there- fore, Sabatier fills up by a quotation from Vigilius Tapsensis, who wrote at the end of the fifth cen- tury.' (Hora Biblkfs, pp. 395, 396.) The second particular to be recorded is, Augustine's mode of interpreting 1 John v. 8. which he understands, mystically, of the Trinity. According to Mr. Person, Augustine's method of interpretation proves that he could have had no knowledge of the seventh verse; while Bishop Burgess, without holding it to be very 234 good evidence for the contrary, takes every opportunity to intimate his discontent at Mr. Person's conclusion. On this subject the learned prelate thus writes : * Augustine was the first of the African Fathers who interpreted the eighth verse mystically. But it does not follow from such interpretation that he had not the seventh verse in his copy ; because it was impossible for him to interpret it literally, consistently with the meaning which he ascribed to unum, namely, unity of essence. Yet his alle- gorical interpretation of the eighth verse, according to Mr. Person's argument, implies that he had not the seventh verse in his copy. " The argument from Augustine's allegory is so full and strong, that Beza fairly says, Non legit Augustinus." This argument would have more strength than it has, if Augustine had not understood by " unum" unity of essence. It could not be said that the Spirit, the water, and the blood, are one in essence. He therefore applied it, not absurdly, non absurde, as he thought, to the only three that are one in essence, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The literal meaning being, in his sense of it, impossible, he necessarily had recourse to allegory ; and applied the passage to the Trinity. Non potuit non ad cdlegoriam confugere, says Ben- gelius ; who did not " avoid the argument," as Mr. Person says, but met it with a full conviction that Augustine read the seventh verse in his copy. Sane dictum adeo non ignoravit tit totam sententiam, et sentential periphrasin disertam i line re ret, VEUBI etiam nomine adlrihito? (Vind. pp. 136 138 1 ). It is impossible for the reader completely to understand the merits of the case now under consideration, without perusing Augustine's own account of his mystical interpretation of the eighth verse. The following extract is longer than I could have wished, but my plan requires that it should be given. * Sane falli te nolo in epistola Johannis Apostoli, ubi ait, Tres sunt testes, spiritus, et aqua, et san- guis, et tres unum sunt. Ne forte dicas spiritum 1 The Bishop frequently recurs to the allegorical interpre- tation of the eighth verse and the inference which has been drawn from it. See Find- pp. xvii, xxiii, 5, 27, 133; also Letter to Clergy of St. David's, pp. 31 34. In this last passage the learned prelate has thus quoted ' Mr. Person's several observations' on the above-mentioned allegorical inter- pretation. ' P. 286 he says : " It is self-evident that no man, who had before him a clear passage for the doctrine of the Trinity, a passage where the three persons are distinctly named, would quote the adjacent sentence, and explain it mystically of the same doctrine, unless he were determined to turn the Scripture into needless tautology, and weaken the force of his own reasoning." Again p. 307, " It is not likely that any body, seeing the doctrine of the Trinity clearly re- vealed in the seventh verse, should extract it from the eighth by an unnatural interpretation." Again p. 311, " I do re-assert, that no writer in his perfect mind could possibly adopt this allegorical exposition of the eighth verse, if the seventh verse were in his copy."' The Bishop's principal arguments against Mr. Porson are contained in the extract given above, in the text ; such additional observations,, however, as I can find. T shall take cart- to notice. 236 et aquam et sanguinem diversas esse substantial, et tamen dictum esse, tres unum sunt : propter hoc admonui ne fallaris. Haec enim sacramenta sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper adtenditur: quoniam signa sunt rerum, aliud ex- sistentia, et aliud significantia. Si ergo ilia quse his significantur, intelligantur, ipsa inveniuntur unius esse substantial ; tamquam si dicamus, Petra et aqua unum sunt, volentes per petram significare Christum : per aquam Spiritum-sanctum : quis dubitat petram et aquam diversas esse naturas ? Sed quia Christus et Spiritus-sanctus unius sunt ejusdemque naturae; ideo cum dicitur, Petra et aqua unum sunt ; ex ea parte recte accipi potest, qua istae duae res quarum est diversa natura, aliarum quoque signa sunt rerum quarum est una natura. Tria itaque novimus de corpore Domini exisse, cum penderet in ligno: primo spiritum, unde scriptum est, Et inclinato capite tradidit spiritum : deinde quando latus ejus lancea perforatum est, sanguinem et aquam. Quse tria si per se ipsa intueamur diversas habent singula quaeque sub- stantias : ac per hoc non sunt unum. Si vero ea, quae his significata sunt, velimus inquirere, non absurde occurrit ipsa Trinitas, qui unus, solus, verus, summus est Deus, Pater et Filius et Spi- ritus-sanctus, de quibus verissime dici potuit, Tres sunt testes, et tres unum sunt 1 : ut nomine spiritus 1 When Augustine writing of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, says ' de quibus verissime dici potuit, Tres sunt testes, et tres unum sunt' his mode of expression shews that he knew no place in Scripture in which it was actually so said : that is, he knew nothing of the seventh verse. And thus it appears 237 significatum accipiamus Deum Patrem : de ipso quippe adorando loquebatur Dominus, ubi ait, Spiritus est Deus. Nomine autem sanguinis Fi- lium : quia Verbum caro factum est. Et nomine aquae Spiritum-sanctum : cum enim de aqua lo- queretur Jesus, quam daturus erat sitientibus, ait Evangelista, Hoc autem dixit de Spiritu, quern accepturi erant credentes in eum. Testes vero esse Patrem et Filium et Spiritum-sanctum, quis Evangelic credit, et dubitat, dicente Filio, Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de me, et testi- monium perhibet de me qui misit me Pater. Ubi etsi non est commemoratus Spiritus -sanctus, non tamen intelligitur separatus. Sed nee de ipso alibi tacuit, eumque testem satis aperteque monstravit. Nam cum ilium promitteret, ait, Ipse testimonium perhibebit de me. Hi sunt tres testes: et tres unum sunt, quia unius substantial sunt. Quod autem signa quibus significati sunt, de corpore Domini exierunt, figuraverunt Ecclesiam prsedi- cantem Trinitatis unam eamdemque naturam: quoniam hi tres qui trino modo significati sunt, unum sunt ; Ecclesia vero eos praedicans, corpus est Christi. Sic ergo tres res quibus significati snnt, ex corpore Domini exierunt : sicut ex corpore Domini sonuit, ut baptizarentur gentes in nomine appears that, whatever expressions of this kind may be found in his writings, must be considered either as his own phrases, or as applications of the eighth verse to the Trinity. This is all that needs to be said in reply to Bishop Burgess's observa- tion ' There are passages in the works of Augustine (such as Pater, et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unum sunt ; and Tres enim sunt persons, Pater et Filius et Spirilus Sanctus ; et hi Ires, quia unius substantial stint, unum sunt) which appear evidently taken from the seventh verse.' Vind. p. 137- 238 Patris et Filii et Spiritus-sancti. In nomine, non in nominibus : hi enim tres unum sunt, et hi tres unus est Deus. Si quo autem alio modo tanti sacramenti ista proftmditas, quae in epistola Jo- hannis legitur, exponi et intelligi potest secundum catholicam fidem, qua? nee confundit nee separat Trinitatem, nee abnuit tres personas, nee diversas credit esse substantias, nulla ratione respuendum est. Quod enim ad exercendas mentes fidelium in Scripturis sanetis obscure ponitur, gratulandum est, si multis modis, non tamen insipienter exponitur.' (Contra Maximinum, Arianum, 1. ii. c. 22.) From the preceding passage it appears that Augustine considered the spirit, the water and the blood, mentioned in the eighth verse, to be, literally, the breath yielded up by our Lord on the cross, and the water and the blood which flowed from his side; but these not being in essence one thing (unum} must be understood figuratively : and, so understood, they may, not improperly, signify the Persons of the Trinity. The spirit, or breath, then indicates the Father ; the blood, the Son; and the water, the Holy Spirit. That the spirit may indicate the Father is proved from John iv. 24 ; and that the blood and the water may indicate the Son, and the Holy Spirit, from John i. 14, and John vii. 39. It yet remains to be shewn that the three Persons are witnesses, and that they are one (unum). Augustine proves that the Father, the 239 Son and the Holy Spirit are witnesses, from John viii. 18. and John xv. 26. ; and he proves that they are together one from Matt, xxviii. 19. the command to baptize being in the (one) name, not in the names, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. From the natural body of our Lord, he also remarks, proceeded the spirit, the water and the blood ; and this is a type of his mystical body, the Church, bap- tizing in the name of the Trinity. In this manner he establishes his method of interpreting the eighth verse. If the seventh verse had existed in Au- gustine's time, it would have placed before him all that he wanted for the purpose of establish- ing his interpretation of the eighth. It men- tions the three persons of the Trinity ; it de- clares them to be witnesses; and affirms that they are one (unum). In a word, it proved exactly what he wished to prove. Now, human credulity does not go to the extent of believing that he would not have availed himself of that verse, in confirmation of his view of the sub- ject, if it had been in his power to do so. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is, that the text of the heavenly witnesses was un- known to Augustine. It is objected, however, that Augustine being driven, by his mode 240 of limiting the meaning of umtrn to unity of essence, to interpret the eighth verse of the Trinity may still have been acquainted with the seventh. If Augustine had not confirmed his explanation of the eighth verse in a manner which destroys all probability of his knowledge of the seventh, this objection would have had some weight. But, taking circumstances as we find them, it is, in itself, not worth a moment's consideration; and I shall discuss the subject solely with reference to the opinions of Bishop Burgess and Mr. Porson. Mr. Porson struck, apparently, by a perusal of Augustine's account of his interpretation of the eighth verse, with the excessive absurdity of attributing to him any knowledge of the seventh seems to have given himself but little trouble to express his sentiments on the subject. His observations, taken together, are sufficient to convince any one, who is capable of con- viction, that Augustine was not acquainted with the text of the heavenly witnesses ; but it is clear that Augustine adopted his mystical interpretation of the eighth verse, less for the sake of a new evidence for the Trinity, than for the purpose of obviating an objection to his notions with regard to unum: and there- fore, so far as Mr. Porson neglected to consider 241 this point and I think he did neglect it his argument is defective. There was not, how- ever, a difficulty which he avoided. He only missed an opportunity of strengthening his own position ; of which, if he had thought it worth while, he would have availed himself with great effect. Augustine had recourse to his mystical interpretation, either in defence of the meaning assigned to unum, or in proof of the Trinity. In the former case, we have already seen that he must have been ignorant of our seventh verse; and in the latter, he would never have sought out his mystical proof, if a literal proof had been afforded by the verse preceding. " It is," as Mr. Porson says, " self-evident, that no man who had before him a clear passage for the doctrine of the Trinity, a passage where the three persons are distinctly named, would quote the adjacent sentence, and explain it mystically of the same doctrine, unless he were determined to turn the Scripture into needless tautology, and weaken the force of his own reasoning." Much inconclusive reasoning, and many strange applications of Scripture, may be found in the Theological works of antient and of modern times; but I doubt whether, in the whole list of such productions, any folly can be detected equal to that of adducing a mystical interpretation of the eighth verse, in Q 242 behalf of the Trinity, when the seventh is received as Scripture. Mr. Person's language, when writing on this subject, is surely not too strong. " I do re-assert, that no writer, in his perfect mind, could possibly adopt this allegorical exposition of the eighth verse, if the seventh were extant in his copy." But the learned Prelate finds fault with Mr. Person's manner of referring to Bengelius ; and thus writes : ' Non potuit non ad allegoriam confugerej says Bengelius ; who did not " avoid the argument," as Mr. Person says, but met it with a full conviction that Augustine read the seventh verse in his copy. Sane dictum adeo non ignoravit ut totam ejus sententiam, et sententice periphrasin disertam insereret, VERBI etiam nomine adkibito 1 .' Mr. Person's expres- sion is 'Bengelius avoids the argument, by the Disciplina Arcani' It is certain that Ben- gelius, being, in reality, reluctant to lose Jerome and Augustine as witnesses for the verse, writes somewhat unsteadily, and therefore not very wisely, on the subject of their testimony. He supposes, for instance, that Augustine was at 1 In what way the Word is introduced, appears from what immediately follows. ' Nomine SANGUINIS, inquit (Augus- tinus) significntum accipiamus FILIUM : quia Verbum caro factttm est (Joh. i. 14)'. See the original passage, p. 237. first, when in Italy, acquainted only with copies wanting the verse; and that afterwards, when in Africa, meeting with copies which contained it, he entertained doubts of its genuineness. He also affects to say, that if Jerome and Augustine knew the verse, its authority is not much increased ; and that if they knew it not, its authority is not diminished 1 ! Every honest inquirer must read notions like these, in the works of a man of character, with regret. Not- withstanding all my anxiety and it is very great to think highly of Bengelius, there are several passages in the note on 1 John v. 7. which almost shake my confidence in his sin- cerity. But to proceed. By "avoiding the argument by the disciplina arcani? I under- stand Mr. Porson to mean, what, I think, he only could mean that Bengelius accounted for Augustine's apparent neglect of the seventh verse, by considering it as a studied omission of a passage which expressed the doctrine of the 1 'Valde verisiraile fit, Augustinum, post conversionem, in Italia codicibus Dicto carentibus assuevisse; deinde in Africa, quum codices Dictum habentes nactus esset, de ejus germanitate dubitasse et dubium mansisse.' ' Quanquam auctoritas Dicti, si scierunt (Hieronymus et Augustinus) non valde augetur; si nescierunt, multo minus tollitur.' Annot. in 1 Joh. v. 7. Sect. 20. ad fin. If the testimony of Jerome and Augustine who must ever be placed amongst the greatest of the Fathers may be thus disposed of, to what purpose do we spend time in examining the records of antiquity ? Q2 244 Trinity in a manner too esoterical for the gene- rality of the faithful. In this sense I main- tain that Bengelius did "avoid the argument." There is an entire section on the subject; at the head of which appears the following title: * Augustinus, vel etiam Hieronymus, potius dis- simulanter tractaverunt hoc Dictum, quam ig- noraverunt :' and the following decision towards the end: 'Denique Augustinum, et Hierony- mum, et alios, ratio ilia (sc. Disciplina Arcani] a Dicto, etiamsi id scirent, aperte amplectendo, videtur deterruisse.' Then conies, as a climax to the whole, the notable observation, that it is of little moment whether Augustine and Jerome were acquainted with the verse, or not. On second thoughts, I am inclined to believe that, in this part of the investigation, Bengelius was fairly lost, amidst the mazes of his own system. Mr. Person held, as we have seen, that no person in his right mind would deduce the doctrine of the Trinity from an allego- rical interpretation of the eighth verse, while he was in possession of the seventh. In op- position to this opinion, Bishop Burgess states the fact, that Eugenius, Archbishop of Cherson, the correspondent of Matthsei in 1780 being a believer in the genuineness of the seventh 245 verse did so interpret the eighth. Now, a proceeding may appear to the learned Prelate very wise, because it is the Archbishop of Cherson's ; while to others it may seem very unwise, although sanctioned by his authority. And thus, the Archbishop is exhibited in rather an awkward position. Mr. Porson, I believe, would have enjoyed this ; and with a few remarks, conveyed in a tone of grave humour, would have dismissed the subject. But for myself, sensible that I should extremely dis- like to be pointed out as the man who had done what Mr. Porson thought could not be done by any one in his right mind, I wish to befriend the suffering party. Let me, there- fore, endeavour to extricate from his disagree- able situation, Eugenius, Archbishop of Cher- son; who, as it is generally observed when his name is mentioned, * published Joseph Bry- ennius and translated Virgil's Georgics into Greek hexameters.' In the first instance, how- ever, it will be proper to state Bishop Burgess's argument in his own words. It is a favourite argument, I presume ; for the learned Prelate has enforced it I know not how often. ' As to the question of fact, whether any writer in his perfect mind could interpret the eighth verse allegorically, who had the seventh verse before him, \ve know that at least one 246 very learned man, EUGENIUS, the Archbishop of Cherson, who translated Virgil's Georgics into Greek hexameters, and was a defender of the seventh verse, has interpreted the eighth verse allegorically of the Trinity, in his Letter to Mat- thaei; in which he accounts for the origin of the apparent solecism of the eighth verse from the expression of the preceding seventh verse? (Let- ter to Clergy of St. David 's, p. 34.) The case is this. Eugenius was a strenuous defender of the seventh verse; and maintained that there is a solecism in the language of the eighth, (the neuters TO Trveu/ua, TO vStop, TO , af/xa being connected with the masculine T/oeT?) which can be accounted for only by supposing the seventh verse to have preceded it 1 . His notion was, that the witnesses of the eighth verse were the same as those of the seventh, and bore the same testimony ; so that T^OC? s, which had been properly applied to the witnesses of the seventh verse, was afterwards with equal propriety applied to those of the eighth. And in this way he was led to interpret the eighth verse symbolically of the Trinity 2 . But it by 1 The passage from Gregory Nazianzen, discussed pp. 45 48, shews that HE gave himself no concern about the solecism in question. But then, he knew nothing of the seventh verse. That was a discovery reserved for other times and regions. The passage of Gregory is deserving of attention, with a view to the text of the heavenly witnesses. 2 'Tres igitur qui in ccelo testimonium perhibent primo positi sunt versu septimo. Deinceps vero immediate adducti, tidem 247 no means follows that, in discussion, he would have adduced the eighth verse, in preference to the seventh, as evidence for the Trinity; so that neither do the sentiments of the Arch- bishop, so far as they are declared, tend to convict Mr. Porson of a mistake, nor does the decision of Mr. Porson affect the intellectual character of the Archbishop. I now proceed to the second name on the list Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, who is placed about the year 440. 2. EUCHERIUS. The first question, relating to this writer, which appears to require con- sideration, is whether or not he, individually, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiara testimonium idem confirmant, per tria haec symbola, versu octavo.' Prcef. in Ep. Cath. Ed. Matthaei, p. Ixi. Knappius, it seems, said that Eugenius, repudiata codicum auctoritate, defended the authen- ticity of the verse hoc uno argumento. To this Bp. Burgess replies : ' There is no end of misrepresentations in the contro- versy on this verse! EUGENICS does not defend the authen- ticity of the seventh verse from the solecism of the eighth, but accounts for that solecism from the expression of the seventh which had preceded it. And so far is he from defending the verse by that argument alone (hoc uno argu- mento} that he employs not less than twelve other vouchers for its authenticity.' Eugenius accounts for the solecism of the eighth verse by the expression of the seventh ; but then it is for the purpose of defending the authenticity of the seventh. His object is to shew 'ut ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septimus praecederet.' He employs this, and, as the learned prelate observes, not less than twelve other vouchers for its authenticity. It is not likely that Knappius meant to represent Eugenius as neglecting the common arguments in its defence. 248 applied the eighth verse to the Trinity. On this point Mr. Person and Bishop Burgess are completely at issue. The former affirms that he did; the latter maintains that he did not. * Eucherius,' says the learned Prelate, * applied the three terms (spiritus, aqua, sanguis} to Christ's suffering on the cross, and not to the Trinity, as Mr. Person supposed. This misinterpretation and misapplication of the pas- sage of Eucherius is one of the chief grounds of opposition to the seventh verse.' (Vind. p. 27.) In the note will be found the passage of Eucherius just referred to, as it has been given by the learned Prelate. It is upon the meaning attached to it that the question be- fore us entirely depends 1 . 1 INTERROG. Item in epistola sua Johannes ponit: Tria sunt, quae testimonium perhibent, aqua, sanguis, et spiritus. Quid in hoc indicatur ? RESP. Simile huic loco etiam illud MIHI videtur, quod ipse in Evangelic suo de passione Christi loquitur dicens : Unus militum lancea latus ejus aperuit ; et continue exivit sanguis et aqua; et qui vidit, testimonium perhibuit. In eodem ipse de Jesu supra dixerat: inclinato capite tradidit spiritum. QUIDAM ergo ex hoc loco ita dis- putant : aqua baptismum, sanguis videtur indicare martyrium, spiritus vero ipse est, qui per martyrium transit ad Dominum. PLURES tamen hie ipsam interpretatione mystica intelligunt Trinitatem, eo quod perfecta [f. perfectum] ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo : aqua Patrem indicans [[indicante] quia ipse de se dixit, Me dereliquerunt fontem aquae vivae : san- guine Christum demonstrans |[demonstrante] utique per pas- sionis cruorem; spiritu vero spiritum sanctum manifestans manifestante.] Haec autem tria de Christo ita perhibent, ipao in Evangelio loquente: ego sum, qui testimonium per- hibeo 249 With regard to the passage of Eucherius, Mr. Porson makes the following remarks. * Eucherius in his Questions, after saying that in 1 John v. 8. there seems to be a reference to the Gospel xix. 30. thus proceeds : " Some there- fore think that by the water, is meant baptism; by the blood, martyrdom ; by the spirit, the person who passes through martyrdom to the Lord. Yet the majority here understands the Trinity itself by a mystical interpretation, because it bears wit- ness to Christ ; by the water indicating the Father, for he says of himself, Jer. ii. 13. they have left me, the fountain of living water ; by the blood demonstrating Christ, and referring to his passion ; by the Spirit manifesting the Holy Ghost. Now these three thus bear witness of Christ. He him- self says in the Gospel, viii. 18. / bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears hibeo de me ipso ; et testimonium perhibet de me, qui misit me, Pater. Et item : cum venerit Paracletus, quern ego mittam vobis, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me. Perhibet vero testimonium Pater, cum dicit: Hie est filius meus dilectus. Filius, cum dicit : Ego et Pater unum sumus. Spiritus sanctus cum de eo dicitur : Et vidit Spiritum Dei descendentem, sicut columbam venientem super se. Euckerii Opera, p. 86. Basil, 1530. ' Plures tamen hie ipsam, interpretatione mystica, intel- ligunt Trinitatem, eo quod perfecta (f. perfectum) ipsa per- hibeat testimonium Christo.' The substitution of perfectum for perfecta, in this passage, is I think quite right ; but I very much question the justness of the learned prelate's explanation given in a note to the second edition of the Vindication : ' Perfectum testimonium ob numeri ternarii rim :' for the numerus ternarius applies to every mode of interpretation whether literal or mystical. 250 witness of me. And again, xv. 26. When the Comforter is come he shall bear witness of me. The Father therefore bears witness when he says, Matt. xvii. 5. This is my beloved Son. The Son, when he says, John x. 30. / and my Father are one. The Holy Spirit when it is said of him, Matt. iii. 16. And he saw the Holy Spirit de- scending, &c." From this laboured illustration, and the pains taken to fortify it, Eucherius plainly shews that he himself is one of the many (plures) who embraced the mystical doctrine. Martin (who does not easily miss any error that lies in his way) insists that plures means no more than some or several (plusieurs). I wonder not that Emlyn was sick of disputing with so wretched a sophist. If plures might elsewhere admit of either sense, here it can only mean a majority, because it is opposed to quidam, and tamen added.' (Letters, pp. 308310.) I now give Bishop Burgess's observations on the same passage. ' Eucherius states three opinions respecting the interpretation of the eighth verse : his own, re- ferring it to the crucifixion ; that of certain others, who understood it of baptism, &c. ; and lastly, the opinion of the plures, who interpreted it mystically of the Trinity. MIHI videtur QUI- DAM ergo PLURES tamen. Whoever these quidam and plures were, it is clear that Eucherius was not one of the plures, who embraced the mystical interpretation? (Vind. p. 136.) 251 It is, then, the opinion of Bishop Burgess, that Eucherius, in the passage already cited, meant entirely to exclude himself from the mystical interpreters the plures, as well as the quidam. To this opinion I cannot assent; for reasons which I shall now assign. First, the literal sense is always made the ground- work of mystical interpretation. Augustine as the reader must have observed, and as the learned Prelate has himself allowed 1 gave the literal sense of the eighth verse, before he stated his mystical exposition; and the literal sense, as given by Augustine, accords exactly with that of Eucherius. Eucherius, therefore, may have adopted a mystical interpretation not unlike that of Augustine. Secondly, Euche- rius does not manifest, by the grammatical structure of the passage in question, any inten- 1 ' Augustine, after giving the primary and natural mean- ing of the words, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis says, Si vero ea, quse his significata sunt, velimus inquirere, &c.' Vind. p. xxiii. Let the reader compare the literal signification, as given by Augustine and Eucherius. ' Tria itaque novimus de corpore Domini exisse, cum penderet in ligno: primo spiritum, unde scriptum est, Et inclinato capite tradidit spi- ritum ; deinde quando latus ejus lancea perforatum est, san~ guinem et aquam.' (Augustine) 'Simile huic loco (1 John v. 8.) etiam illud mihi videtur, quod ipse in Evangelio suo de passione Christi loquitur, dicens : Unus militum lancea latus ejus aperuit; et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua. In eodem ipse de Jesu supra dixerat, Inclinalo cttpilc Irtidiilit spiritum.' (Eucherius.) 252 tion of excluding himself from the two sub- sequently-mentioned classes. The learned Pre- late, indeed, has attempted to deduce something like a design, on the part of Eucherius, to contra-distinguish his own opinion, from the opinions of the quidam, and the plures. ' Mihi videtur quidam ergo plures tamen.' Now his Lordship must be well aware that ERGO is not the word which would have been em- ployed for such a purpose. We should have most probably found vero, or autem : ' Mihi quidem videtur quidam vero, &c.' The use of the word ergo, after a statement of the literal meaning of the verse, shews that Eu- cherius intended to represent the two mystical interpretations, as consequences which had been drawn from the literal meaning. " The account of the crucifixion, in which mention is made of the spirit, the water, and the blood, appears to me very similar to this verse. Some tJiere- fore think, &c. While the greater part, &c." I regard it, then, as quite certain, that Eu- cherius did not exclude himself from the number of mystical interpreters ; and if the reader will take the trouble to peruse the whole passage once more, and consider the brevity with which he dispatches the exposition of the quidam, and the care with which he illustrates and enforces that of the plures, it will be manifest, I con- 253 ceive, that Eucherius adapted the opinions of the latter. Mr. Person, as we may infer from his manner of writing, never supposed that the passage could possibly lead to any other conclusion. I wish to direct attention to the present subject, because the learned Prelate has be- stowed uncommon pains in clearing it from what he considered the misrepresentations of his predecessors. He accuses Griesbach of hav- ing "incorrectly quoted" the passage of Eu- cherius; and states that "the entire passage is not quoted by Griesbach, Mr. Person, Mr. Travis and Dr. Hales 1 ." With regard to Gries- bach, the complaint is, that he omitted "the important word mihi, at the beginning of the passage; which distinguishes Eucherius's own opinion, from the two other opinions which are afterwards mentioned." Instead of quoting the passage, Griesbach gives this account of its contents: "Ad quastionem quid signifi- cetur Joannis verbis, Tria sunt quse testimonium perhibent, aqua, sanguis et spiritus respon- detur: Videri Joannem respicere ad locum Evangelii xix. 34. Quosdam, &c." From the statement " it is answered, John seems to refer to the Gospel" every intelligent reader must 1 See Vindication of I John v. 7- pp. 134136. 254 perceive that it so seemed to Eucherius ; and will probably excuse Griesbach for not being aware of the great importance of the word mihi. In like manner, Mr. Porson, having mentioned, as the statement of Eucherius, that " in 1 John v. 8. there seems to be a reference to the Gos- pel" may be allowed to have presented the substance of that part of the passage, although he did not quote the words. Mr. Travis, in the first and second editions of his Letters, took no notice of this passage of Eucherius; but afterwards finding that Mr. Porson had availed himself of it for a purpose which will be mentioned by and by, he began to consider in what manner he might convert it to his own advantage. Then was discovered the im- portance of the word mihi. Whether the learned prelate lays claim to originality in this matter, I know not. He says "the entire passage is not quoted by Mr. Travis." It certainly is not quoted; but it is translated; and afterwards commented upon: as the following extract from the Letters will testify. * Question. Also St. John writes in his Epis- tle : There are three that bear witness, the water, the blood, and the spirit: What is signified hereby ? Answer. This passage seems TO ME to be similar to that part of St. John's Gospel where he speaks of the sufferings of Christ, &e.' 255 * These are the words of Eucherius. It is hardly needful to add, that their true meaning is some persons interpret the eighth verse of haptism, &c. ; more of the Trinity ; but / my- self interpret it as a proof that Christ had assumed our nature, when he died upon the cross/ (pp. 115, 116. Ed. 3.) As for Dr. Hales, he seldom hesitates to accept what Mr. Travis has the kindness to offer. Concerning this passage of Eucherius, Dr. Hales thus delivers his opinion. * Euche- rius, although he notices the mystical inter- pretation, prefers the natural : " John seems to me to refer to that passage of his Gospel, xix. 34. 1 "' With this, however, Dr. Hales is not satisfied; for he immediately adds: 'Gries- bach in his citation dishonestly suppresses the term mihi, which marked Eucherius's opinion.' I find Bishop Burgess writing of Griesbach in another strain; and, although I do not think that the following apology is needed, I record it with pleasure. ' Griesbach does not appear to have taken his quotation immediately from the original, but from some other source, which seems to have misled him, and the other op- ponents of the verse, into the opinion that Eucherius applied the eighth verse allegorically to the Trinity.' On the whole, it must, I think, 1 Hales on the Trinity, Vol. 11. p. 221. (Ed. 1818). 256 be confessed that the learned prelate's criticism, on this passage of Eucherius, is by no means secure from exceptions. If a plain man may use an expression drawn from country affairs, his Lordship is not very particular in winnow- ing his corn, before he sends it to market. But to proceed with business. In what manner a mystical application of the eighth verse to the Trinity was first sug- gested at what period it was first publicly maintained and to what extent it ultimately prevailed are points of some moment; con- cerning which Ecclesiastical antiquity affords us, I fear, but scanty information. The little that has occurred to me on these points, I will state. My observations on the first will be found in the Appendix to the present work. On the second and third I shall briefly remark, in this place. With regard to the period at which this mystical interpretation first appeared, the common opinion, as I am inclined to think, may be expressed in the words of Bishop Burgess. ' It is clear, from the manner in which he proposes it, that Augustine was the first who ventured on the use of this strange interpretation. This, indeed, the learned pre- late (Dr. Marsh, the present Bishop of Peter- borough) admits in his statement, "At the 257 end of the fourth century, Augustine was in- duced to compose a gloss upon the eighth verse. Augustine gives it professedly as a gloss upon the words of the eighth verse." Augustine, therefore, who composed the gloss, was evi- dently the inventor of it 1 .' This, I confess, was for some time my own opinion on the 1 Bishop Burgess's Vindication, p. xviii. See also Bishop Marsh's Lectures in Divinity, Part VI. Lect. 27. pp. 19 22. Bishop Burgess calls the mystical interpretation of the eighth rerse a "strange" one; nor shall I undertake to defend it. There is, however, a learned advocate of the seventh verse, who places the mystical interpretation in a very dif- ferent light. 'However paradoxical,' observes Mr. Nolan, 'the assertion may in the first instance appear, it is not- withstanding the fact, that a stronger argument was deducible from the testimony of the earthly witnesses in favour of the Catholic doctrine (viz. of the Trinity) than from that of the heavenly witnesses.' The Sabellians denied a distinction of persons in the unity of the Godhead; and the heretical text 1 John v. 7. was altogether on their side, if the same writer may be believed. 'In whatever form Sabellianism presents itself, we are compelled to acknowledge that it absolutely derives support from the testimony of the heavenly witnesses. These heretics, adhering to the very letter of the text, asserted that the "Word" and "Spirit" were in God, as the reason and soul are in man: a stronger tes- timony in their favour than this of the heavenly witnesses could not easily be fabricated.' Inquiry into the Greek Vul- gate, pp. 538, 547 If this text was apparently so adverse to the true Catholic doctrine, why did the Orthodox neg- lect to point out its real bearing? How happened it that the text never was the subject of discussion during the Sabellian controversies. " Oh, it was even then a dubious text." Why then was not that point considered ? The truth is, the text was never quoted, either by orthodox or heretic, because it did not exist. R 258 Subject ; but subsequent reflection has produced some doubts of its correctness. There are two sorts of texts which a controversialist is natu- rally expected to notice: those which appear to favour his tenets, and those which appear to oppose them. The latter, however, it is occasionally convenient to forget. It had long been stated, as an objection to the alleged testimony of the heavenly witnesses, that so orthodox a text could not, if known, have been left for ages unquoted when certain of its advocates informed us that, in fact, it con- tains arrant Sabellianism, and is fraught with I know not what heretical pravity; and thus, we need not wonder that it was forgotten or peradventure studiously kept out of sight by the friends of the true Catholic faith. But that, after the canon of Scripture was com- plete, more than a millennium should have passed away, during which no Greek writer, whatever might be his creed, brought the text under consideration no disputant quoted it from choice, or had it forced upon him by the clamours of an adversary at this, I think we may wonder. That, for more than four centuries, the Latins should have shunned the text, if it really existed, as something that could scarcely be touched without contamina- tion that the same text should at last be osten- 259 tatiously cited against the Arians in Africa, as making the Catholic faith " clearer than the day," while, as we are told, it would have been most injudiciously produced against the Arians of the East at this, again, I think we may wonder. But, as I said before, it is occasionally convenient to a controversialist to forget a text which appears to thwart his opi- nions; and thus, Augustine might have left 1 John v. 8. without a comment. He deter- mined, however, to shew that the word unum. there found, bore the signification which he had assigned to it in other cases. Had Augus- tine's mystical interpretation been altogether unknown in his own time, he would probably have hesitated to employ what, he must have been aware, would look like a mere contrivance to support his own system; but suppose the interpretation to have prevailed in some de- gree, and there is sufficient reason for the use he made of it. The interpretation would ren- der assistance to Augustine; and Augustine's adoption of it would give new authority to the interpretation. We can have no doubt that, soon after the age of Augustine, the eighth verse was applied to the Trinity in different ways sometimes, for example, the spirit, and sometimes the water, was under- stood to represent The Father : and, if I do 260 not mistake, Augustine himself, when explain- ing his interpretation of the verse, alluded to different methods of applying the same prin- ciple, as existing even at that period. In his estimation, the verse seems to ^have been, as a matter of course, symbolical of the Trinity ; and he disclaimed all intention of quarrelling with any mode of application, however dif- ferent from his own, provided that it neither confounded the Persons of the Trinity, nor divided the substance 1 . From these consider- ations I infer that an allegorical mode of in- terpreting the eighth verse had been gaining ground in the African Church, to the time 1 ' Si quo autem alio modo tanti sacramenti ista profun- ditas, quae in Epistola Johannis legitur, exponi et intelligi potest secundum Catholicam fidem, quae nee confundit nee separat Trinitatem, nee abnuit tres personas, nee diversas credit esse substantias, nulla ratione respuendum est. Quod enim ad exercendas mentes fidelium in Scripturis Sanctis obscure ponitur, gratulandum est si multis modis, non tamen insipienter exponitur.' The continuance of this mode of in- terpretation, in the African Church, is proved from a well- known passage of Facundus, in the sixth century. This writer dwells upon the mode of interpretation for a con- siderable time ; and supposes it to be sanctioned by the authority of Cyprian. Cyprian's expression is,