"Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divinitatis esse cum Patria et Filio, Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelista testimonio comprobatur; ait namque, Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in cœlo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt. Such is the passage in the African Confession, as it appears in the printed editions of Victor Vitensis. It is easy to conceive the mode in which these words may have been derived into the text from Augustine's interpretation of the eighth verse; it is not easy to conceive that they could have existed, as Scripture, unquoted, till the close of the fifth century, and then be, all at once, advanced as an argument to make everything luce clarius. Perhaps it may be objected that Augustine enumerates Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, as the witnesses, while the Confession mentions Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. This apparent discrepancy may be removed. There are in the Colbertine Library, at Paris, three manuscripts of Victor Vitensis, which Mr. Butler, whose attention has been drawn to the controversy, caused to be examined. A manuscript of the thirteenth century reads Verbum in this place, and a manuscript of the fifteenth century reads Filius. The oldest of the three, a manuscript of the tenth century, reads Filius, with this note in the margin, In Epistola Beati Joannis ita legendum. It is probable, therefore, that Filius is the true reading in the Confession, that is, the original reading, and that Verbum was an after thought. That word would appear to render the passage peculiarly St. John's; he being the only apostle who has written distinctly of the Logos. Moreover there is an expression in Augustine, which might suggest the substitution of Verbum for Filius. To show that by the Blood we are to understand the Son, he observes, Nomine autem sanguinis Filium significatum accipiamus; quia Verbum caro factum est. On the whole, therefore, it is probable that the verse originated in the interpretation of St. Augustine. It seems to have existed for some time on the margins of the Latin copies, in a kind of intermediate state, as something better than a mere dictum of Augustine, and yet not absolutely Scripture itself. By degrees it was received into the text, where it appears in by far the greater number of Latin manuscripts now in our hands. When, to use Newton's expression, the ignorant ages came on,' all further inquiry was at an end, and when the verse was fairly established in the text, it gained the protection of the Romish church; and thus, at the period of the Reformation, few doubts were entertained on the subject. Such, in brief, is its history from the Council of Hanneric to the time of Erasmus." 66 Porson's conclusion of his Letters is this: "In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek manuscripts except two;" [that of Dublin, and the forged one found at Berlin ;] one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book;" [the Berlin manuscript coincides exactly with the Complutensian edition ;] "notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, even from many of the best and oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth, and of most of the Latins down to the middle of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever can be proved either spurious or genuine; and Satan has been permitted for many centuries miraculously to banish the finest passage in the New Testament," as Martin calls it, "from the eyes and memories of almost all the Christian authors, translators, and transcribers." "At last, Sir, I see land. I have so clearly explained my sentiments concerning the authority of the disputed verse, and the merits of your book, in the progress of these Letters, that it will be needless to add anything upon either of these topics. As I was persuaded that Mr. Gibbon would never condescend to answer you, I have been bold enough to trouble you with my objections to your facts and arguments. The proofs of the spuriousness of 1 John v. 7, that I have enumerated, are, in my opinion, more than sufficient to convince any reasonable man. But whatever success I may have had in the main question, there is another point which I have proved to demonstration, that Mr. Travis is radically ignorant of the subject which he has undertaken to demonstrate. You may therefore reply, Sir, or not, as shall seem good to you. If you think proper not to expose yourself again, which, to speak as a friend, I should think your wisest plan, I shall attribute your silence to a consciousness of your own weakness. You will call it contempt of your adversary, and I cannot deny the retaliation to be fair enough, considering with how small respect I have treated an author, who has vindicated the authenticity of that important passage (1 John v. 7) in a superior way, so as to leave no room for future doubt or cavil." [These words are from a pamphlet called "An Apology for the Liturgy and Clergy of the Church of England."]"But if you reply, I shall not think myself bound to continue the debate, unless both your matter and style much excel your letters to Mr. Gibbon, and still more that crambe recocta which you called a defence of Stephens and Beza," published in the "Gentleman's Magazine," for March, 1790. "Such replies will carry their own refutation with them to all readers that are not eaten up with prejudice; and others it would be folly to expect to satisfy. I shall therefore be perfectly silent, unless you can disprove the charges that I have brought against you, of ignorance and misrepresentation. In case of conviction, I dare not promise to retract publicly (for I know how frail are the vows of authors and lovers), but I promise to try. If you confess the charges, and yet maintain that the errors you have committed are venial and consistent with a knowledge of the subject, I shall excuse myself from the controversy, and consider you as degraded from that rank of literature which entitles one writer to challenge another." What is most displeasing in cessive virulence of their style. after page too much railing at these Letters is the exThere appears in page Mr. Travis's ignorance and presumption. The epistles would have been in finitely more agreeable to the reader if Porson had treated Travis as he treated Sir John Hawkins, or as Bentley treated Boyle, exhibiting the ease and good humour with which a higher mind can expose the folly and weakness of a lower; an exercise of which the finest specimen in our language is Johnson's critique on Jonas Hanway's "Eight Days' Journey." As it is, the Letters were not improperly said, by Dr. Rennell, to be "such a book as the devil would write, if he could hold a pen."* * Rogers's Table Talk, "Porsoniana," p. 307. CHAP. VI. 66 PARR, BISHOP VINDI CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM ON THE LETTERS TO TRAVIS." 66 GIBBON.—A REMARK OF FOX ON GIBBON'S QUOTATIONS. TRAVIS'S attack upon Gibbon has been characterised as violent. But it is mildness itself when compared with Porson's attack upon Travis. He said that, facit indignatio versum, he was stimulated by indignation to overcome his dislike of writing, and that "he could not treat the subject in any other manner if he treated it at all. To peruse such a mass of sophistry," he observed, "and to write remarks upon it, without sometimes giving way to laughter, and sometimes to indignation, was, to me at least, impossible. persuaded that every attentive reader, who believes me right in the statement of my facts, and the tenor of my argument, will allow that even harsher expressions would in such a case be justified. Besides, I confess I never much admired that mock politeness which expresses a strong charge in a long-winded periphrasis of half a dozen lines, when the complete sense might be conveyed in as many words."† * Letters to Travis, Preface, p. xxii. I am |