to the thirteenth century.* And Por- | tum. son's conjecture that it was forged about the year 1520, to impose our verse on Erasmus, is now given up, I believe, even by his friends! Erasmus was the first who raised this storm of disputation on the text of the heavenly witnesses. This he did by leaving the verse out of the first edition of his Greek Testament, printed in the year 1516. The verse had been quoted by Latin and by Greek fathers (as shall be shown in its place) from a remote antiquity. On the page of one Latin father, who lived near the apostolic age, we find it distinctly quoted. It was also quoted by Cyprian. It was in the pages of the Holy Scriptures, in current use in the western church for FOURTEEN CENTURIES! Not one enemy had appeared against it even to question its authenticity, during those centuries. Not a writer of the orthodox side-not a writer from the lists of the heretics, had uttered a word or written a sentence against it. We invite our opponents to contradict this. We invite our learned antagonists to show us one opposer before the omission of it by Erasmus, in the year 1516. We do it with the most perfect respect. If they can produce a sentence or a writer against our verse, they will have effected more than our advocates during three hundred years, from Stunica to Burgess, have been able to do. Stunica failed in this.* Erasmus professed himself willing to insert the text into the next edition, if a single MS. of any respectable antiquity could be shown to contain the verse. The codex Britannicus (now the Dublin or Montfortianus) was produced. Erasmus yielded to the polyglot of Complutum, and the codex Britannicus: and the famous text appeared in his third and fourth editions of the Greek New Testament, in the year 1522 and 1527.† From the days of Erasmus, the controversy continued, at intervals, to the year 1689. The advocates of the verse were men of illustrious attainments. The most conspicuous of them were Bellarmine, Gerhardus, Selden, Hammond, Calovius, Sebastian, Schmidt. They were giants compared to their opponents. In the year 1689, father Simon renewed the controversy, when it had almost entirely ceased by the discomfiture of the enemies of the verse. Simon gave a new turn to the dispute. He produced a quotation from Facundus, in which that ancient writer was found to give a forced and mystical interpretation of the eighth verse; and to refer it to the Holy Trinity. And thence, Simon argued that the seventh verse must have been utterly unknown to Facundus, and to every other man, who could thus mystically The omission by Erasmus created a great sensation. Many antagonists * It is now a settled point, I believe, that "drew the battle blade." Stunica, these parchment MSS. had, after the lamentand his learned coadjutors, in their ed death of Himenes, been disposed of, by a scandalous and unpardonable mismanage"Annotations" defended the reading ment, to a rocket-maker, of the name of Toof the famous polyglot of Complutum. ryo. When Professor Moldenhawer went And Edward Lew (or Lee) an Eng- to Alcala to seek for these parchments, he lishman, though far inferior to Stuni- discovered that this was the melancholy fact. The receipt given to Toryo for his ca, did ably defend the verse.† Eras- purchase, was actually put into the Profesmus was candid. He demanded of sor's hands. Butler's Hor. Bibl. p. 92, Stunica to produce the MSS. used in vol. 1. composing the polyglot of Complu * See Bp. Burgess's Vind. of 1 John, v. 7. p. 141, 142, Edit. 2d. Kettneri Hist. &c. p. 190.-C. Butler's in our view, no solid foundation. He mereThe conjectures of Dr. Adam Clark have, ly theorises against a statement of factsneither impossible nor contradicted by any one. † Kettner, p. 190. interpret the eighth and refer it to the Trinity.* tin and Twells were triumphant. Twells replied to Mace, who shortly after retired from the conflict. Martin's last tract silenced Emlyn. survived its publication twenty-two years, and made no reply.* He Mill, and Maffei, and Buddeus, (in This idea, weak as it does appear to the advocates of the verse, has been actually seized upon, and played off with various success from the year 1689, to this day. During the Porsonian controversy, we discover diffe-his Isagoge,) were conspicuous advorent specimens of the use of this hint cates of our verse, a century ago. from father Simon. "I reassert," The first of these published his Greek says Porson, (Letters, p. 311.) "that New Testament and his Prolegomeno man, in his perfect mind, could na, after spending thirty years of close possibly adopt this allegorical exposi-study on it. The learned know how tion of the eighth verse, if the se- to appreciate the opinions of such a venth were extant in his copy." man, on a question of this kind. The opinion which this great man pronounced on this verse, was the following. "Nullo modo de suo loco movendus," &c. "By no means is to be removed from its place. By whatever means it disappeared for a time, it certainly existed in the autograph of St. John; and in those exemplars copied after it," &c. This is a species of argument from our learned opponents, which is not bottomed on any solid basis. It has for its foundation a supposition of what is proper or improper, in their view of interpretation. But we reply to Porson and his able coadjutors, by simply adducing a fact-and a fact which the Greek professor ought to have known. The learned archbishop In 1734, Bengel distinguished himEugenius of Cherson, has actually self in this controversy. He was interpreted the eighth verse in this conspicuous for his learning, his cansame mystical manner, and has re-dour, and the force of his arguments. ferred it, we think indeed, rather absurdly, to the Trinity; and yet he quotes and defends the seventh verse.† Hence, this new idea of father Simon, which Porson has borrowed, and has brandished over the head of Travis so unmercifully, is actually found to be an erroneous conjecture, and nothing more! He wrote a great deal on many subjects. The following was the deliberate opinion of this scholar on our verse. "Quod sol est in mundo," &c. "What the sun is in the world, what the needle is in the mariner's compass, what the heart is in the body, that this seventh verse of the fifth of 1 John is, in this epistle."† The attack of Simon called forth, We are indebted to Burgess for the on our side, some writers of distin-character of several other eminent guished name. The most able were defenders. Bern. Maria de Rubeis, Smith, Ittigius, Martiany, Maius, is mentioned with great respect. He Mill, Pfaffius, Kettnerus. Their la- appeared against Samuel Crellius, in bours were attended with the happiest 1756, in a dissertation on the three success, among scholars and Chris-witnesses, published at Venice. Dortians. In 1715, Emlyn, a Presbyterian minister, renewed the contest. It continued with spirit till 1720. Mace was his able coadjutor. Calamy was one of their antagonists. But Mar *See Simon's Histoire Critique du Text, du N. T. par. i. cap. 18, and par. ii. cap. 9. † See his letter to Matthæi, and Burges. Pref. p. 5. hout's "Animadversiones" appeared in 1768, with great applause.-C. F. Schmidt, in 1775. Knittel appeared in 1785. He wrote a work against Semler, with great effect. It made a considerable noise in Germany. That distinguished antagonist, Michaelis, * See Bp. Burgess, p. 2. † Bengelii Gnomon, p. 1184. Burgess's Vind. p. 2. remarked, after having read him: same Magazine for 1788. This con"learned and specious as his 'new troversy continued between these criticisms' are, they have not convin-eminent men down to the year 1794. ced me that Semler is mistaken." The professor's letters exhibit great "This" as Bishop Burgess has learning, sagacity, and wit. The latshrewdly observed"this is saying ter quality perhaps is frequently illevery thing but, "do tibi manus timed, and occasionally much misplaPlato!"* ced. His review of the argument We look back on the Porsonian controversy with regret and pain. We do not pretend to have made thereby any advance. "Considering Travis,' says Butler, "was a mere novice in Biblical criticism, when he first engaged in this controversy, he performed wonders. In our slender enumeration, we taken by our writers from the testimust not be so ungrateful as to omit mony of the African Bishops, exhithe following names, men whose me- bits a proof of this.* Bishop Burmory is inscribed on the rolls of death-gess has shown that Professor Porless fame. They successfully de- son has not advanced an original obfended our verse at different periods jection against the verse. They are -Beza, Mosheim, Grabe, Ernesti, all borrowed from Sir Isaac Newton, (a truly accomplished critic.) In Whiston, Emlyn, and Dr. Benson.T England, we enumerate Bishop Pearson, ("qualis quantusque vir!") Stillingfleet, Wallis, Bull, Waterland, and Horsley; names to which the pious and learned look up with veneration; and in whose presence professor Porson ought to have carried himself with more modesty and diffidence. It ill became the Greek professor to talk as he has done, in the presence of such men, of "fresh ex-be the correct idea of it. amples of forgery," "of pious frauds and childish credulity, ""and of reviving stale and exploded reasons!" Was such language befitting the presence of Pearson, or Bull, or Horsley? But it was his misfortune to combat giants." Bishop Burgess gives us, what our side conceives to "Though Travis was laudable in his zeal, and successful in many points of the inquiry, and abundant in the collection of evidences, yet, by his inexperience and his inaccuracy, he gave such an advantage to the wit and erudition of the Greek professor, as threw the controversy back more than half a century!" Bishop Marsh distinguished himself also in this dispute. He published a translation of Michaelis, with copious notes. And in 1795, he commenced his letters to Travis. He and the writer in the Eclectic Review of 1810, and the present writer in the Quarterly Review, have been the last and ablest writers against the authenticity of the verse. The last renovation of this controversy (and that which is still carried on) was provoked by a singular note on the pages of the historian Gibbon (see his Rome, chap. 37. Note 119.) This note, remarkable for its sneer at good men, and its light and unsustained assertions on a very important subject, attracted first the attention of Archdeacon Travis. He animadverted on the sentiments of Gibbon, and defended the sacred text, in letters first published in the Gentleman's Magazine, in the year 1782. They Nolan occupied the field of conwere afterwards corrected and pub-flict in the year 1815. His profound lished in a volume, in 1786. Mr. pro-and very interesting work on the "Infessor Porson was the antagonist of Travis. His letters appeared in the *Burgess, do. p. 77. Edit. 2d. Porson's Letters, p. xxv. and 226.-And Burgess's Vindication, p. 10, Pref. * Compare Porson's sentiments with C. Butler's reply to this part of his argument. Bibl. Horæ, vol. i. p. 403-405, †See Burgess, p. 57. Burgess do. p. 4. tegrity of the Greek Vulgate, or re- The reviewer, if we may judge from ceived text of the New Testament," his manner, was not in the best possiattracted great and merited attention ble train of feelings. He gives the in Europe and America. He has good Bishop a great many uncalledcombatted with success the theory of for cautions and exhortations, against Griesbach, and has set aside his pro- hard names and reproachful language, posed plan of classing MSS. He There cannot possibly be a more pohas established the fact that that lite writer than Dr. Burgess. But the class of MSS. to which Griesbach reviewer, it would appear, mistook and his followers give the preference, the hard knocks of the Bishop's unis derived from the corrupted texts of answered arguments, for hard names Egypt and Palestine. (Section VI. and reproaches. A second edition &c.) He has, with equal success, came out in April, 1822. He has re established the fact of "the verbal touched his argument against Greisintegrity of the received text, or the bach: in his "advertisement" he reGreek vulgate, by the separate and plies to the Bishop of Peterborough: distinct testimony of the oldest wit-in a "preface" of sixty-eight pages he nesses the primitive Italic version, answers fully every objection of the and the primitive Syriac version;" (Sec. V.) And he has, in an able manner, established the authenticity of the three famous texts, Acts xx. 28.-1 Tim. iii. 16.-1 John v. 7. (pp. 276-280; and pp. 511-572.) An idea of the character which this volume sustains in England, may be formed from the following remark of Grier (himself a distinguished writer) in his "Reply to Dr. Milner's End of Religious Controversy,"*-after having noticed the "invincible arguments of Nolan," he proceeds to state their influence on his own mind in relation to our verse. "I feel compel led to abandon my former prejudices against the verse; and to think that a person should almost as soon doubt the genuineness of the rest of St. John's epistle, as that of the disputed passage."+ The distinguished advocate of our verse at present on the field, and occupying the attention of Britain, is Bishop Burgess, of St. David's. He published his "Vindication of 1 John v. 7," in 1821. In this first edition he has thoroughly answered, in our view of it, the different objections of Griesbach. He was reviewed in the Quarterly Review of March, 1822. * Published in London, in 1821. See Burgess, p. 75. Quarterly Review; and Professor Porson has received, in the preface and the body of the book, so close and well sustained an attack, that, in our view, nothing of his hostility remains to gall any believer in our verse except it be only the flashes of his wit.-"Vox et præterea nihil!" An appeal is now made to the literary world in behalf of our cause. Griesbach was eternally the burden of the song; and next to him Porson "adibat ad astra." The Unitarians too, who have not lent the least aid, and who have not produced themselves one single original objection against our verse, have sung the praises of Griesbach and Porson-and they number Griesbach and Porson (though these great men were themselves orthodox) among the champions of their cause. "It is not our business"—says my old classmate, Dr. Lant Carpenter, who has lately, in a melancholy manner, thrust himself forward into the ranks of Unitarianism in England-" It is not our business to refute them, but their business to refute Griesbach,"&c.* In his book, Bishop Burgess points out distinctly the two pillars on which Griesbach has erected the whole of his system. And we rest our cause * Se his "Unitarianism," &c., and his Reply to Dr. M'Gee, p. 416. with the candid of the literary world, to judge if the Bishop has not completely torn down each of them. That profound scholar and theologian has done it. He speaks as one who knows that he has done it. And in his usual frankness he tells the Unitarians "that he has done it," and bids them go and look out for other aids to maintain their anti-christian cause!"* Of ny.) Hence the whole of the negative evidence may be considered as reduced to this item-it is not found in certain MSS.-We reply, it is even so. And these MSS. on which you rely, are traced to the corrupt source of Eusebius's codices, through the Egyptian and Palestine editions, as you do actually, with the learned Griesbach, avow. In fine, Burgess shows that the negative evidence in faIn the refutation of Porson, I per-vour of our verse is much stronger than ceive one severe rebuke, which, were the negative evidence against it.* the Greek Professor alive, he would this we shall make our use afterfeel the sorest. Porson, in opposing wards. the famous Montfortian MS. actually permits himself to say, that our verse, as it stands in that very ancient MS. is bad Greek, because "it wants the Greek articles before the terms for Father, Word," &c. The Bishop shows, what every scholar knows, that the classics and the New Testament writers very often omit the articles, and that the purest Greek very often wants them. And, no doubt, the learned Professor must have been in the habit of communicating to his pupils, this very doctrine about the articles, ex cathedra, every day. We have frankly admitted, that, by the inexperience and inaccuracy of Travis, and by the mode in which Porson has managed the controversy, our cause was thrown more than fifty years back. But now, the advocates of the verse feel that they have not only regained all that was lost, but what is more, in England our cause is gaining a brilliant triumph. And from the nature of our opponents' argument, it would appear, that they have gained the summit of their objec tions; and perhaps the extent of their materials. But for us, such is the kind of the evidence of our text (it being positive) that we may still look forward to the disclosures of time, for fresh resources. Facts bear us out in this anticipation. I may add, that in the year 1823, Bishop Burgess published his "Second Part, in answer to the objections of Sir Isaac Newton and Michaelis"which we shall notice afterwards. I am your affectionate brother. The Bishop shows in a satis-nature and factory manner, that even our opponents being witnesses, there is no positive evidence against our verse; that on the contrary, all the positive evidence is in its favour; that all the evidence collected by the industry of its enemies, is entirely negative; and by themselves called negative; and it is simply this-it is not in certain MSS.; it is not quoted by the Greek fathers (which we now positively de Miscellaneous Articles, &c. No. I. Traits of Primitive Character. "A wit's a feather, and a chief's a rod: * Page 82. + See Burgess, p. 59. W. C. B. |