maintenance of a severe economy. The King complimented him as, in this respect, a better manager of the national income than Sir Robert Walpole. He seems to have completed all his arrangements; and he was, probably, congratulating himself on the consummation of his plans, and on the perfection of his machinery, when he was struck by mortal disease, and, on March 6, 1754, died,-only a few days after declaring that he was 'never better in his life.'

We are not aware that, after these comments on Mr. Pelham's measures, added to our previous estimate of his character, it can be necessary to sum up, in any other than a brief and general manner. We see no reason for doubting the entire rectitude of his intentions throughout his career; and, so far as we can perceive, few men have passed through life with less compromise of political consistency. His cardinal rule was a sound one; to keep, as far as possible, his country from the waste and suffering attendant on a military policy and in his maintenance of this principle, he manifested both firmness and ability. In the private and social relations, his character appears to have been without a stain; and, altogether, if he cannot be ranked among the greatest ministers who have presided over the destinies of England, he may be cited as one of the most unexceptionable in character and conduct among them all.

We have already given our opinion of the work itself, and we shall only add the expression of our regret, that the decease of its Author has closed a useful, if not brilliant series of investigations of the modern history of Great Britain. He has done respectably, that which those who could have done better, declined to undertake. His facts, whatever we may think of his comments, are highly valuable, laboriously searched out, distinctly stated, and by no means unskilfully compacted.

By

Art. VI. 1. New Criticisms on the celebrated Text, 1 John v. 7. Francis Antony Knittel. Translated from the original German, by William Alleyn Evanson, M.A. 8vo. pp. li. 263. London.

1829.

2. Remarks upon Mr. Evanson's Preface to his Translation of Knittel's New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7. By Clemens Anglicanus. 8vo. pp. 46. London. 1829.

MR. EVANSON, we presume from the introductory obser

vations which he has prefixed to this English edition of Knittel's New Criticisms, is a candidate for the honours which Biblical literature, sedulously cultivated and usefully applied, Confers upon those scholars who are devoted to this branch of study. With what success he may hereafter seek after the dis

tinctions to which he aspires, it is not for us to say; but in the pages before us, we find more than one reason for the opinion which we reluctantly entertain, that his present service will not entitle him to that species of reward which consists in the approbation of discreet and learned persons, competent to judge of the questions which he has brought under their notice. We forbear to criticise his Dedication, as every writer has an undoubted right to choose his patron, and to select the topics of his encomiastic address; but we must remark, that the language in which Mr. Evanson has conveyed the sentiments to which he there gives utterance, has no tendency to induce a favourable estimate of his qualifications as a Biblical critic. Among these, we must ever rate highly, that sound and healthy mental temperament which enables a scholar to proceed dispassionately and without prejudice towards the objects in relation to which we wait the decisions of his judgement. A man who strives for masteries, is not crowned, unless he strive lawfully; and in the field into which Mr. Evanson has ventured, wisdom is as necessary a qualification as learning.

This is certainly an extraordinary age'; but, comparing it with other times, we should perhaps find some difficulty in selecting a period that might better please us. We see something of the world, and must confess that it is much worse than we could wish it to be; but Mr. Evanson's picture of it is quite appalling. 'The lessons of history and the cracles of the living God are equally disregarded'; the presidency of 'God among the nations of the earth, is scouted as the dream of an enthusiast'; and they whose eyes are open may, it seems, look on the melancholy spectacle of a nation's apostacy'! We have not been accustomed to this manner of writing in the works of the critical scholars whose names we honour. But if all this be true, Mr. Evanson might have been better employed than in translating Knittel's New Criticisms.' We have referred to the style of Mr. Evanson's Dedication', but we shall have to notice other instances of his indiscreet expressions, before we dismiss this Translation'.

Mr. Evanson, at the conclusion of his Preface, referring to an article in our Journal on a work which, by its superior merits, was entitled to very ample commendation, has represented us as having taken up the cause of Crito Cantabrigiensis, a determined opponent of 1 John v. 7. Our acquaintance with the controversy on this celebrated text, is certainly not of yesterday's date; nor has it been reserved to the occasion of noticing the admirable Vindication of Professor Porson' in our Number for last June, for our readers to n our opinion of the pretensions which have been put for

6

ward in favour of the claims of the passage to a place in the genuine writings of the Apostle John. From the very commencement of its existence, the Eclectic Review has opposed itself to the intrusion of a passage into the Greek text of the New Testament, the admission of which would require the surrender of the soundest principles of criticism, and leave us no longer in the possession of those rules of evidence which enable us to determine the genuine readings of ancient writings. We have not seen any reason, in our latest examination of the arguments and representations urged by the advocates of the verse, to alter our judgement in respect to its character. But while they have left us to retain, without change or abatement, our view of the whole subject, some of the publications put forth in defence of the rejected passage, have furnished us with very sufficient ground for remarking, that other arguments have been used in its support, than those which could be derived from the application of critical learning. Neither the New Criticisms' of Knittel, nor the prefatory observations of his Translator are faultless in this respect.

Of a very different description are the Remarks' of Cle'mens Anglicanus'. In the few pages which comprise them, there is the most entire absence of all unnecessary and inappropriate disputation. His appeals are always directed to our knowledge and our reason; never to our prejudices or our passions. We never find occasion either to question his learning, or to complain of his temper, but receive from his criticisms the convictions and impressions which an upright and candid writer never fails at aiming to produce. The tract before us is one of those publications which, proceeding from minds of a superior order, commend themselves to the reader's approval, and leaving him to regret nothing but their brevity, induce him to wish for more enlarged opportunities of being instructed and gratified by the Author's talents.

The Criticisms' of Knittel were first published at Brunswick in 1785. They are noticed by Bishop Burgess in his 'Tracts and Observations', as, unfortunately, a sealed book to the generality of readers for want of an English translation. That want is now supplied by Mr. Evanson's publication, which comprises not only a version of Knittel's work, but a series of remarks relative to the controversy, by the Translator. As these are inserted in the Preface, and as the Remarks' of Clemens Anglicanus' are limited to them, we shall bring them under our readers' notice, before we proceed to the work of the German Professor itself. The Preface commences with the following paragraph.

One of the most powerful opponents of the authenticity of 1 John, v. 7, among the German critics of the eighteenth century, was Dr. Semler,

VOL. III.-N.S.

S

in his "Historical Collections," quoted by Michaelis in his Introduction to the New Testament (Vol. IV. p. 425, Eng. Tr.). "To Semler's argument," says Michaelis, "Knittel has made some learned and specious objections, in his New Criticisms: but, specious and learned as they are, they have not convinced me that Semler is mistaken."

This character of Knittel's Work, by an opponent of the controverted verse, excited an earnest wish, repeatedly expressed in the course of the controversy on the verse, that the English reader might be put in possession of it, by a translation of it from the German."

On this paragraph Clemens Anglicanus remarks:

From Mr. Evanson's mode of expression we naturally infer, that Michaelis, in the passage above quoted, was giving a general character of Knittel's work. Bishop Burgess had before led the way to such a notion. After citing the observation of Michaelis-" specious and learned as Knittel's objections are, they have not convinced me that Semler is mistaken "-the Bishop adds-" which is saying every thing but Do tibi manus, Plato." * The truth is, that Michaelis is there discussing a part of the subject which had been treated by Knittel; viz. the evidence of Cyprian, and other Fathers of the African Church and his account of Knittel's objections relates only to those found in p. 32, &c. of Knittel's work-according to the reference of Michaelis himself. Michaelis had given his sentiments, as to the general character of Knittel's criticisms, in his "Previous remarks on the subject of 1 John v. 7," in the following words :-" This is a valuable work, and much useful information may be derived from it: but in the principal point, the author has totally failed." Mr. Evanson indeed has quoted this account of Knittel's work, as presented" in a former passage of the Introduction"; and expresses his dissatisfaction with the decision, respecting Knittel's total failure," which Michaelis has so authoritatively pronounced." But whether Michaelis was right or wrong in that decision, it is not my present object to inquire.' Remarks, pp, 2, 3.

The history of this controversy would exhibit, probably, as many singular and instructive incidents as could be presented by the account of any literary question which has been agitated since the revival of learning. The advocates of the verse have, by their misapprehensions and misconstructions, betrayed a

* Vindication of 1 John v. 7, p. 77, second edit. Bishop Burgess states also, in his "Letters to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's ", (p. 7.) that to Knittel's Criticisms, Michaelis made no reply in the last edition of his Introduction, though published three years after the appearance of that work.' Michaelis, however, had noticed Knittel's New Criticisms-as he himself informs us (Introd. Vol. IV. p. 443.)-in a review of the work in the Neue Orientalische Bibliothek, No. XXXIII.

strange aptitude to give their cause the benefit of alliances which could not otherwise be procured for it. That Michaelis should be numbered with the almost persuaded', who are withheld from consenting with the advocates of the verse, by only some slight difference of opinion, is surprising enough; but it is, after all, not the most remarkable of the examples which might be cited from the pages of Bishop Burgess, of a mode of treating evidence, which no one would wish to see in a writer of credit. Michaelis has referred to Knittel's 'New 'Criticisms' in more than one instance, in his Introduction'; he has distinctly noticed his allegation respecting the insertion of 1 John v. 7, in Luther's Version, (Introd. iv. 440.), where he again refers to his review of Knittel's work in the New Orient. Bibl. The next passage of Mr. Evanson's Preface, on the evidence of the Greek Manuscripts, we shall lay before our readers.

6

The entire evidence against the authenticity of 1 John v. 7, is resolvable into its absence from the majority of Greek Manuscripts, hitherto discovered and collated, which contain the First Epistle of St. John. The number of such may be, at the utmost, 150. Of these, there are only two of very high antiquity; namely, the Codex Alexandrinus *, in the British Museum; and the Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican Library at Rome. These are supposed, by some, to have been of the fourth century. All other Greek manuscripts, as yet discovered, are later than the ninth century. Those two omit the disputed clause. But that omission is only a negative testimony at the best; and it is suspicious testimony, as being contemporary with the prevalence of the Arian heresy, which unquestionably originated in the meaning severally attached to that verse by Alexander and by Arius, in the fourth century.' Mr. Evanson's Preface, pp. ix. x.

We subjoin the corresponding portion of the 'Remarks,' by Clemens Anglicanus.

Whoever reads the foregoing extract, must admire the facility with which Mr. Evanson disposes of the evidence of all the Greek manuscripts of St. John's Epistle which have yet been discovered." The number may be, at the utmost, 150 ;-only two are of very high antiquity, being assigned to the fourth century;-the rest are later. than the ninth century."-If this language were employed by some critic who wished to destroy the credit of Scripture entirely, I should

"The Codex Alexandrinus is notoriously a Latinized version. Wetstein was prohibited, by the Authorities at Amsterdam, from printing his Greek Testament from that Codex, because it conformed to the Papal Vulgate in many important passages." (See Goezen's Vertheidigung der Complutensischen Bibel, &c. &c. Preface, p. xiii.) '