« PoprzedniaDalej »
latter name was fictitious, no such person being known there; and the book was, in fact, one of those fabrications, which, as they en deavour to pass for what they pretend to be, cannot be too severely stigmatized. The real history of the Reductions is, that after the espulsion of the Jesuits, ihey went rapidly to ruin. The seven Uruguay towns were taken possession of by the Portugueze in 1801, and retained by them upou the plea thạt no mention of them was made in the treaty of peace; and that the court of Rio de Janeiro had resolved upon adding the rest to its enormous territory, and making the Paraguay its boundary, appears, by the Corografia Brazilica of P. Manoel Ayres de Cazal, printed at the Rio io 1817, wherein, under the title of the Province of Parana, the whole of Paraguay is included. This object would, with little difficulty, have been effected, if the Brazilians had escaped the endemic revolutionary fever. But they have taken the disease, and are now, it is to be feared, to learn by miserable experience, that a bad government is infinitely better than none.
· This very singular and interesting book is worthy to be placed beside Mr. Mariner's account of the Tonga Islands. We have dwelt chiefly upon the personal adventures of the author. That portion of his work, however, which relates to the manuers and opinions of the savages, is not less curious,-it is, perhaps, the most complete and extraordinary description of savage life that has ever yet been published. It contains, also, many remarkable facts in natural history, and much incidental information concerning the state of the Spanish inhabitants,—who had certainly not improved in any respect when Azara wrote his account of the country, forty years afterwards. That country affords, at this time, an important subject for consideration. It is yet to be seen whether the civilizing influence which Buenos-Ayres, as a great and free commercial city, may exercise over the interior, will be able to counteract the tendency of barbarous independence. As long ago as the days of Philip de Comines, the evils of revolution, even of such revolutions as extend only to a violent change of rulers, were clearly perceived by all wise men. That sagacious writer says : -aucune mutation ne peut estre en un royaume qu'elle ne soit bien douloureuse pour le pluspart: et combien qu' aucuns y gagnent, encores en y a-il cent fois plus qui y perdent : et faut changer mainte coustume et forme de vivre à celle mutation. This is certain, that all the miseries which Spanish America has sụffered during the last ten years, might have been spared. If the colonists could have had patience to await the course of events in the mother-country, they would immediately have enjoyed ihe commercial advantages of independence; and the separation which has already cost so many crines, and produced such extensive ruin, would now have been taking place without a struggle.
Art. II.- A Vindication of 1 John, v. 7. from the Objections
of M. Griesbach : in which is given a new View of the External · Evidence, with Greek Authorities for the Authenticity of the
Verse, not hitherto adduced in its Defence. By the Bishop of
St. David's. London. 1821. W E must confess that, when we read an advertisement announ
cing the publication of a work which promised to give 'Greek authorities for the authenticity of 1 John, v. 7, not hitherto adduced in its defence,' we felt no slight degree of surprize and curiosity. After the labour bestowed by so many learned and ingenious men as have written on this controverted verse, nothing seemed to remain for future disputants but to re-state, and place in new lights, the facts which had been transmitted to them. When, therefore, we saw new authorities promised, we were anxious to know by what singular felicity the Right Reverend Prelate had been led to the discovery of evidence which had escaped the researches of all preceding inquirers.
The result of the controversy between Professor Porson and Archdeacon Travis—the last regular controversy on the subject of 1 John, v. 7.—had proved in a very high degree unfavourable to the opinion of the genuineness of that passage. The great majority of learned men, whatever were their sentiments respecting the important doctrine of the Trinity, agreed in pronouncing the verse to be spurious. Within these few years, however, some persons of distinguished talents and learning have re-asserted its claims to . a place in the sacred text. Among others, Mr. Nolan, of whose principal argument on the subject we shall hereafter have occasion to speak, maintains its genuineness, in his Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate; and the Bishop of St, David's, in the publication now before us, enrols himself in the number of its advocates. In expressing our candid opinion of the arguments employed by the Right Reverend author, we shall be anxious not to be thought to violate the respect due to his exalted station and his literary character. To say the truth, we are induced to offer the following remarks to the consideration of our readers, not merely, because we think those arguments inconclusive, but also because we have serious objections to the mode of argument wbich has been sanctioned by his lordship’s authority. We apprehend that it may have a tendency to escite, in many minds, something like a feeling of uncertainty with regard to the sacred text in general. Beyond doubt, in the estimation of the Bishop of St. David's, it cannot have that tendency : for, if it had, we are quite certain that he would be one of the last persons living to adopt it. Of the
purity, indeed, of his lordship’s intentions, and of the zeal and ability with which he has for many years defended the orthodox faith against its opponents, we are fully sensible; and having long". ago taken the field-as, we trust, our readers cannot fail to recollect—in the same good cause, we feel pain and grief when recourse is had to a plan of warfare in which we find it impossible to cooperate.
The first chapter of the Bishop's tract is occupied in showing that the judgment which Mr. Griesbach has passed on the controverted verse of St. John, is precipitate, partial, contrary to his own rules of criticism, and untenable. Even if this position had been fully established, although Griesbach's authority would have been destroyed, yet we think that the learned prelate would have made but little progress towards his main object--the proof of the genuineness of 1 John, v. 7. To vanquish one opponent, while so many remained in array against him, could give but small hopes of final victory. Professor Porson's formidable objections to the verse would be still untouched. But let us examine the arguments by which the Bishop has endeavoured to prove that Griesbach's judgment is untenable.—Griesbach affirms that the seventh verse was first quoted by Vigilius Tapsensis, in the fifth century. To this . assertion, his lordship opposes some remarks of Mr. Porson ; who says, in one place, that the whole labour of supporting the verse is devolved upon Cyprian ;' and, in another, that the chief support of this contested verse, is the authority of the Vulgate.' 'Here,' observes the Bishop, we ascend to the end of the second century, the age of Tertullian, who appears from his writings to have found the verse in his copy of the Latin version. The fair inference from this statement of his lordship appears to be, that Mr. Porson admitted the verse to have been quoted by Tertullian and Cyprian; whereas, in one of his letters to Archdeacon Travis, he takes great pains to show that neither of them has quoted it. Whether, indeed, the verse has really been quoted by Eucherius, or by Cyprian, or by Tertullian, is a disputed point: and, therefore, before the Bishop pronounced Griesbach's opinion' untenable, it was incumbent upon him, distinctly to prove that the verse had been so quoted.
Griesbach has asserted that the verse in question is found only in one Greek MS. and that a MS. of the 15th or 16th century. To this assertion, the learned prelate opposes the opinion of Dr. Adam Clarke, who conceives that the MS. is more likely to have been the production of the 13th, than either of the 11th (as Mr. Martin imagined) or the 15th century.' For our own parts, if we may judge from the fac-simile prefixed to the present tract, we should VOL. XXVI. NO. LII.
be inclined to assign to the MS. a very recent date. As, however, there is reason to believe that, in the 19th century, the seventh verse was extant in a majority of the copies of the Latin Vulgate, a Greek MS. of that age may easily have been interpolated from those copies. The Bishop proceeds— if the verse has not yet been found in any other Greek MS. it may hereafter. The hymn to. Ceres had been lost for sixteen centuries, when it was discovered in a manuscript at Moscow, and that manuscript written as late as the end of the fourteenth century. We are here obliged to confess, which we do with great reluctance, that we cannot perceive the slightest, resemblance between the circumstances of the hymn to Ceres, and those of 1 John, v. 7. In order to make out a case similar to that of the Moscow manuscript, we ought to suppose that a Greek father, of the second or third century, had quoted a passage from the first epistle of St. John, of which epistle no MS, had been discovered till the fourteenth century; when one was found, purporting to be the Epistle of St. John, and containing the passage quoted by that father. This would, indeed, be a case exactly similar to that of the hymn to Ceres. But because the hymn to Ceres, of the existence of which we were assured on the authority of respectable writers of antiquity, has, after a lapse of centuries, been discovered in a MS. at Moscow, are we therefore to deem it probable that a MS. may be discovered containing the disputed verse in St. John, though all the known Greek MSS. excepting one, which appears under very suspicious circumstances, omit that verse ?---What hidden things the revolution of ages may bring to light, we pretend vot to conjecture. Should such a MS. at length appear, it will certainly add much to the weight of testimony in favour of the disputed verse; but, until it is actually produced, we suspect that little importance will be attributed to the supposition of its existence. The argument may be placed in a somewhat different point of view. That the hymn to Ceres had once existed, was evident from the quotations of ancient authors. Where then lay the improbability that a MS, of it might at last be discovered ? But thence to infer the probability that a Greek MS. containing the controverted verse will hereafter be found, is to take for granted the point in dispute, and to assume that the verse actually proceeded from the pen of St. John.
After these preliminary remarks, the object of which is rather to weaken the authority of Griesbach than to establish the genuineness of the verse, the Right Rev. Author proceeds to the main question; and is met at the outset by what we had always considered a very serious difficulty :-'if the verse be genuine, how is its absence from the Greek MSS. to be accounted for ?' But, to our surprize,
the the Bishop answers it is not at all necessary that the defenders of the verse should be able to account for its absence; nor would such inability be any proof of want of evidence in its support.' Surely the defenders of the verse may fairly be expected to assign some plausible reasons at least, for its absence from the Greek MSS. Were not the MSS. we now have, transcribed from MSS. of an earlier date; and those from others, till we ascend to the autograph of St. John ?--and is not the absence of the verse from our MSS. a strong presumptive evidence that it was wanting also in those earlier MSS. and consequently in the original Epistle?The truth is that, notwithstanding this opinion of the learned prelate, other defenders of the verse have thought it necessary to give what they considered to be a probable account of its omission. Some have had recourse to the disciplina arcani; of which Mr. Porson very properly observes that it is a dangerous hypothesis ; and if admitted, instead of strengthening particular passages, would weaken the authority of the whole New Testament. Mr. Nolan supposes that the verse was suppressed by Eusebius, in the edition of the New Testament which he revised under the sanction of Constantine the Great. As this supposition is, we believe, entirely new, and is, in fact, the principal support of Mr. Nolan's system, it may be worth while to enter into a somewhat minute examination of the arguments by which it is maintained. · In the life of Constantine, by Eusebius, (lib. iv. cap. 36.) we find a letter addressed by that Emperor to Eusebius, then Bishop of Cæsarea ; in which, after stating that, in consequence of the vast accession of converts to the Christian faith, he had given orders for the fitting up of additional churches, the Emperor proceeds as follows:- πρέπον γαρ κατεφάνη το δηλώσαι τη ση συνέσει, όπως αν πεντηκοντα σωμάτια εν διφθέραις εγκατασκεύoις, ευανάγνωστά τε και προς την χρήσιν ευμετακόμιστα, υπό τεχνιτών καλλιγράφων και ακριβώς την τεχνην επισταμένων, γραφήναι κελεύσειας των θείων δηλαδή γραφών, ων μάλιστα την τ’ επισκευής και την χρήσιν τώ της εκκλησίας λόγω åvacyraian elven yováo xeis. We must confess that we are utterly at a loss to conceive what support this passage affords to Mr. Nolan's assertion that Eusebius was commissioned by the Emperor to prepare a new edition of the sacred scriptures, with a discretionary power of selecting such parts of them as he might think necessary for the edification of the church. Constantine directs Eusebius to prepare, with as much speed as possible, * (an injunc