tion not very consistent with the supposition that he was to revise the text) fifty copies of the scriptures, in order that they might be, read in his new churches. As to the power of selection, which Mr. Nolan finds in the last clause of the sentence above quoted, the words certainly appear to convey no such meaning. The following is Dr. Cave's translation :- It seemed good to me to intimate to your wisdom that you cause fifty copies of the holy scriptures, the use whereof you know to be absolutely necessary to the: church, to be fairly transcribed in parchment, by antiquaries accurately dextrous in that art; such as may be easily read, and carried up and down for that purpose.' The words in italics correspond to the last clause of the quotation; and, in our opinion, represent its meaning with accuracy. Mr. Nolan's translation of the same clause is namely, of the sacred scriptures, whereof chiefly you know the preparation and use to be necessary to the doctrine of the church.' In order to obtain, even from his own translation, the meaning which he wishes to establish, by the expression the sacred scriptures,' we must understand those parts of the sacred scriptures, which Eusebius might deein the most useful. We are inclined to think that few Greek scholars will agree with Mr. Nolan in his interpretation of the passage. But allowing it to be correct, the power vested in Eusebius could only be that of selecting such books of scripture as he considered the best fitted for general use; not that of omitting such passages in those books as appeared to militate against his peculiar notions. Yet on so slight a foundation does Mr. Nolan build his charge against Eusebius of expunging 1 John, v. 7. from the sacred text. Had Eusebius committed the fraud of which Mr. Nolan accuses him, it is scarcely possible that some notice should not have been taken of it, by the defenders of the orthodox faith. If Mr. Nolan's supposition be correct, all the MSS. of St. John's epistle, of a date previous to this edition of Eusebius, contained the disputed verse. What then are we to think of the vigilance of the maintainers of the Homoüsian doctrine; who allowed so important a text to be withdrawn from the sacred volume, without exclaiming against the mutilation? Where was Athanasius? He must have been conversant with MSS. which contained the perfect text; and if the edition of Eusebius was circulated with the rapidity which Mr.. Nolan pretends, must also, in his travels, have met with copies of that edition. Would he not have eagerly seized the opportunity of denouncing Eusebius as a falsifier of scripture? Would Jerome, who calls Eusebius the standard-bearer of Arianism, have overlooked a fraud of so deep a dye? Again, Eusebius was condemned at the second council of Nice: was the charge of mutilating the scriptures scriptures then advanced against him?-Never, surely, was so serious an accusation supported by evidence so unsatisfactory. But Mr. Nolan refers to a passage in the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, (lib. vii. cap. 37.) in which the historian asserts, that some persons, who wished to separate the divinity of Christ from his humanity, had corrupted 1 John iv. 3. He at the same time gives the true reading, as it was found in the ancient MSS.; which coincides precisely with the reading of the Vulgate.* If, then, the Vulgate has preserved the true reading of 1 John iv. 3., why may it not also have preserved the true reading of 1 John v. 7.? But the latter verse, according to Mr. Nolan, is not less adverse than the former, to the opinion of those who would separate the human and divine natures of Christ. If, therefore, Socrates had been aware of any corruption of 1 John v. 7., is it not highly probable, is it not certain, that he would have mentioned it? His silence under such circumstances affords the strongest presumptive evidence that he was ignorant of any such mutilation. Of this, at least, we may be very sure, that he did not suspect Eusebius of having corrupted 1 John iv. 3.; for he immediately subjoins a passage from the Life of Constantine, by Eusebius, in which the union of the divine and human natures is affirmed in as explicit terms as language can furnish. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὁ Παμφίλου Ευσέβιος ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ λόγῳ τῷ εἰς τὸν βίον Κωνσταντίνου, κατὰ λέξιν ταῦτα φησί· καὶ γὰρ καὶ γέννησιν ὑπομένειν ὁ μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν θεὸς δι ̓ ἡμᾶς ἠνέσχετο· παὶ τόπος αὐτοῦ τῆς ἐνσάρκου γεννήσεως ὀνομαστὶ παρ Εβραίοις ἡ Βηθλεὲμ ἐκηρύττετο. (Socrat. Eccl. Hist. lib. vii. cap. 32.) But to return to the author of the tract under review. After some remarks upon the supposed quotation by Cyprian, to which we shall hereafter call the reader's attention, his lordship proceeds to consider the internal evidence for the verse; the point on which he seems disposed to lay the greatest stress. Our opinion is, that, whether we insert or omit the seventh verse, the passage presents considerable difficulties. Bishop Horsley says, that the sense absolutely requires the insertion of the seventh verse: Sir Isaac Newton, that the connexion is best preserved by expunging it. Here we find great names opposed to each other. A late commentator+ suggests, that the sense would be rendered more perspicuous by the omission both of the seventh and eighth verses. The fact seems to be, that in pronouncing upon the internal, writers have been determined by the view which they have taken of the external evidence. If the seventh verse be omitted, the language, according to the * Mr. Gibbon was inclined to think the reading of the Vulgate the true reading, (vol. viii. p. 270. ed. 8vo.): but Mr. Porson pronounces his opinion to be very uncritical, (p. 388.) + Slade on the Epistles, in loco. Y 3 learned learned prelate, is solocistical: three neuter nouns being connected with a masculine participle. Is then the solocism removed by the insertion of the seventh verse? No: 'but in the seventh verse, we have the three witnesses, already recorded by St. John in his gospel,` and at the same time, language of legitimate construction. For TVEDμ being by signification masculine, though by form neuter, and being one of the three pagrugouvτes in verse 7, retains its construction in the eighth, and associates with it the other neuter nouns, which follow its construction.' (p. 24.) Or, according to Mr. Nolan, by the insertion of i ang nai ó λóyos, to the masculine adjectives τρεῖς ὁι μαρτυροῦντες are ascribed suitable substantives ; and by the figure attraction, which is so prevalent in Greek, every objection is removed to the structure of the context.' (p. 260.) Until, however, Mr. Nolan produces some instances of the use of the figure attraction, which bear a nearer affinity to the disputed verse than those which he has produced in page 565, we must beg leave to question the force of the argument founded upon it. Bengelius, to whose authority the Bishop of St. David's justly ascribes great weight, thought that the seventh verse ought to follow the eighth. If he is correct in his opinion, what becomes of the argument from attraction? The bishop says, that the three who bear record, are persons; distinguished as persons by the masculine participle. But does St. John never use a neuter participle, when speaking of persons? What shall we say to the fourth verse of this very chapter, when compared with the fifth? "OT Tãv tò yeyevinμένον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον—τίς ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον, εἰ μὴ ὁ πιστεύων, κ. τ. ἑ. The objection urged by Bishop Middleton, that the article Tò before in the eighth verse, necessarily implies a reference to something which has gone before, appears to us to have some weight; though, to be strictly correct, there should be an identity in the subject, and not a similarity only. Still a doubt may be reasonably entertained, whether, in the language of St. John, rò ev is not used as equivalent to Tò xŮTò, as it is in Phil. ii. 2.; in which case no reference to any preceding expression would be implied. To this we may add, that if the Vulgate preserves the true reading, the translators must have supposed the siç rò av of the eighth verse, to be equivalent to the v of the seventh; for all the MSS. which retain the concluding clause of the eighth verse, (a very large portion of them omitting it,) read tres unum sunt, as in the seventh verse. But, it is observed, 'the mode of thinking and diction is peculiar to St. John. No other evangelist or apostle speaks of the witness of the Father and the Holy Spirit, as he does in his gospel.' (p. 26.) In support of this observation, we are referred to John v. 31-97.; viii. 13-18.; xv. 26. Allow to this argument all the weight that can possibly be ascribed to it, still it can only prove that St. John might have written the disputed verse. Let our readers, however, examine the texts above enumerated, and they cannot fail, we think, to be convinced how little they conduce to the establishment of the controverted reading. Before we quit this part of the subject, we will venture to make a few remarks upon what we are obliged to consider a most unguarded statement of the right reverend prelate. Without the seventh verse, there is no reason to be given why the evidences of Christ's incarnation are limited to three in the eighth verse: for he is proved to be the Son of God incarnate, by all the predicted circumstances of his birth, life, miracles and sufferings, which are verified in the gospel. Without the seventh verse, therefore, instead of three, there might be thirty witnesses. But with the three witnesses of the seventh verse, the limitation to three witnesses in the eighth followed by a natural and obvious parallelism. If the seventh verse had not preceded, it is probable that the water and the blood would not have been mentioned as witnesses; for they are not so recorded in the gospel, nor so styled in verse 6.' (p. 25.) What then, we would ask, are the water and the blood adduced as witnesses, not because the train of the apostle's reasoning required the mention of their testimony, but merely for the sake of a parallelism? Can it for an instant be supposed, that St. John was less attentive to the meaning, than to the structure of his sentences? Let us take care, that in our eagerness to establish the genuineness of a single passage, we have not recourse to arguments which tend to subvert the authority of the whole sacred volume. We come now to the external testimony. The right reverend author observes, that the relative strength and weakness of the external evidence will be best seen by dividing it into three periods. The first, from the death of St. John to the end of the third century. (2.) From the beginning of the fourth century to the end of the ninth. (3.) From the beginning of the tenth century to the date of the first printed edition of the Greek text of the New Testament in the sixteenth.' (p. 28.) The propriety of this division is not very apparent. Why should the whole interval, between the beginning of the fourth century and the end of the ninth, form one period? How different in point of authority, is a MS. of the fourth century and a MS. of the ninth? But to proceed with the argument. "The first period (A.D. 101-300.) contains no evidence against the verse, but much for it. There is no Greek manuscript of the New Testament of this period. The oldest Greek copy extant is of much later date than the ancient Latin version of the Western Church.' 6 But where, we may ask, is the ancient Latin version of St. John's epistle to be found? Can any one furnish us with a copy? No: but Tertullian and Cyprian made use of the old Latin version;' and they quote the verse in question. Tertullian, in his treatise against Praxeas, has these words: Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero; qui tres unum sunt, non unus: quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad substantiæ unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem.? With regard to this passage, we are compelled to confess that we participate in the feeling of Professor Porson; who says (p. 140.) as often as I read this sentence, so often I am astonished that the words tres unum sunt should ever be urged as a quotation.' Is it probable, that if Tertullian had 1 John v. 7. in his thoughts, he would have appealed for the true meaning of the expression, tres unum sunt, not to that verse, but to John x. 30.? Yes, contends Mr. Nolan; for the reading of 1 John v. 7. is not Pater, Filius et Spiritus, but Pater, Verbum et Spiritus; and therefore contains as just a description of the doctrine of Praxeas as that heretic could have given. (p. 298.) If then this passage of Tertullian be a proof of the existence of 1 John v. 7. we must suppose that he referred his adversary to the very text which that adversary would urge as most accurately representing his own opinion. The next authority appealed to, is that of Cyprian, 'upon whom,' as Mr. Porson justly observed, the whole labour of supporting the verse is devolved.' In the treatise De Unitate Ecclesia, by that father, we read as follows: Dixit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.' This passage presents by far the strongest evidence that has been adduced in favour of the verse. The expression, 'scriptum est,' certainly implies that the words which follow, Et hi tres unum sunt,' were extant in scripture; and, connected as they are with the mention of the three persons of the Trinity, the natural conclusion seems to be, that reference is made to the seventh verse of this chapter. Yet all who are conversant with the writings of the fathers, must be well aware that their scriptural quotations are, for the most part, made from memory, and without that formal exactness which we now require. In the present instance, Cyprian may have had the above cited passage of his master Tertullian in his mind, especially as he uses Filius (as Tertullian did) and not Verbum; he may therefore easily have confounded the qui tres unum sunt,' of that passage, with the 'hi tres unum sunt,' of the eighth verse; under the impression that Tertullian interpreted the eighth verse of the Trinity. It is 6 |