forests, and the rainy season, they would speedily and surely accomplish.

The Burmans, however, did not act thus; they met us bravely and resolutely, disputed every foot of their territory, and checked effectually the progress of the invading army, which in twelve months was unable to push forward twelve miles. They are, indeed, not only a brave, they are also an intelligent race, and in a higher degree of civilization than the people of any of the surrounding nations; in disposition they are the very reverse of the quiet and tranquil Hindoo; impatient of insult, yet by no means disinclined to listen to reason and argument. The Indian government had a memorable instance of this in the year 1795, when three notorious robbers fled for refuge to the province of Chittagong. The emperor ordered an officer, with three or four thousand men, to march into the province, and not to leave it, on any account, without bringing back the delinquents, dead or alive. Ă A force was immediately dispatched from Calcutta to prevent this, under the command of General Erskine. The Burman chief, on crossing the river, had informed the magistrate of Chittagong, that he had no intention of commencing hostilities against the English, but that he was determined not to depart until the fugitives were given up, and, to confirm this menace, he surrounded his camp with a stockade.

On the approach of General Erskine, the Burman chief sent in a flag of truce, stipulating for the surrender of the robbers. The general replied, that he could enter into no terms so long as the Burmans continued on British ground, but that as soon as they had retired within their own position he would listen to their complaints, and that if they did not retreat within a limited time, recourse must be had to force. On this the Burman chief, with a manly confidence, came in person to the general, and the whole business was at once amicably arranged; it was observed that the retreat of their troops was conducted in the most orderly manner, nor was a single act of violence committed in the course of it, or during their continuance on the British territories. It is greatly to be lamented that, previously to the present hostilities, the commander of the British forces had not been instructed, as General Erskine was, to try what negociation might effect, instead of rushing into a war which, splendid as have been the achievements of our troops, and to whatever termination they may lead, can confer no advantage on either party, and has inflicted a deplorable loss on both.

ART.

4

ART. III.-1. A Vindication of 1 John v. 7. from the Objections of M. Griesbach. The Second Edition, to which are added, a Preface in Reply to the Quarterly Review, and a Postscript in

By

Answer to a recent Publication entitled Palæoromaica. Thomas Burgess, D.D. F.R.S. F.A.S. and F.R.S.L. Bishop of St. David's.

2. A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's, on a Passage of the Second Symbolum Antiochenum of the Fourth Century, as an Evidence of the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7. By the Bishop of St. David's.* 1825.

3. Three Letters addressed to the Editor of the Quarterly Review, in which is demonstrated the Genuineness of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7. By Ben David. 1825.

WE

E wish to inform our readers, in the outset of this Article, that the greater part of it was written a considerable time ago; and has lain by us unpublished, from a reluctance to persevere in controversy with a prelate of our own church. The Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's,' and the Three Letters to the Editor of the Quarterly Review,' having very recently fallen into our hands, the subject on which they treat has again engaged our serious attention. We have, in consequence, once more determined to avow our sentiments on the matter in

debate, and this we shall do fully and finally. Our hope is, that what we have now stated, as well as the great importance of the subject, will be accepted as an apology for the extent of our observations.

'There cannot be better service done to the truth, than to purge it of things spurious; and therefore, knowing your prudence and calmness of temper, I am confident I shall not offend you by telling you my mind plainly: especially since it is no article of faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture, which I am going to write about.'— Such was the dignified language in which Sir Isaac Newton addressed his friend, when sending him a treatise, On the Testimony of the Three in Heaven.' We earnestly request that the Bishop of St. David's will do us the honour to accept this sentence, from the pen of our great philosopher, as an indication of the disposition of mind in which we would endeavour to state the result of our inquiries into the same subject. Something, we fear, like

*We have to congratulate Bishop Burgess, and the public, on his lordship's translation to the see of Salisbury. These works, however, having been published, and almost the whole of this article written, previous to his translation, we have retained the title of the Bishop of St. David's, in preference to that of the Bishop of Salisbury.

a feeling

a feeling of displeasure may be traced in the manner in which he has replied to our remarks upon his Vindication of 1 John v. 7.' The respect, however, which we have long entertained for his character has not, on that account, undergone the slightest diminution; and in the observations which we are now about to offer the world, we should be sorry to let fall a single expression, which might be justly thought offensive. We shall certainly, we trust, write temperately and respectfully, though we must write firmly, in what we believe to be the cause of truth.

Since the publication of our first remarks on the Vindication,' his lordship has collected into one volume various dissertations on the disputed verse, by Mill, Wetstein, Bengelius, Sabatier, Selden, and other eminent writers. These dissertations are, for the most part, in favour of its authenticity. The volume contains also a few remarks from the pen of the right reverend editor. We mention it principally for the purpose of introducing some observations on the sentiments of Dr. Bentley with regard to the subject under discussion. The bishop is anxious-and very naturallyto strike out the name of that great critic from the list of those against whom he must contend in support of the authenticity of the verse.

In a letter which is reprinted in the volume just mentioned, Dr. Bentley, after giving a short account of his projected edition of the New Testament, proceeds in the following manner :

'Now in this work I indulge nothing to any conjecture, not even in a letter; but proceed solely upon authority of copies, and fathers of that age (the age of Jerome). And what will be the event about the said verse of John, I myself know not yet; having not used all the old copies that I have information of.

But by this you will see that, in my proposed work, the fate of that verse will be a mere question of fact. You endeavour to prove (and that is all you aspire to) that it may have been writ by the Apostle, being consonant to his other doctrine. This I concede to you; and if the fourth century knew the text, let it come in, in God's name.". (Adnotationes ad 1 Joan. v. 7. p. 203.)

To this part of Dr. Bentley's letter, Bishop Burgess subjoins the following note:

Dr. Bentley's judgment here, and his preference (in a letter to Wetstein) of the most ancient Latin copies even to the Greek, (hujusmodi Latinos veterrimos vel Græcis ipsis prætulerim), are much more in favour of the verse than against it; for the verse was certainly known to the Latin Fathers of the fourth century. Yet Mr. Porson says that " Dr. Bentley read a lecture to prove this verse spurious."-(Preface to Letters, p. viii.) If Dr. Bentley expressed himself in his lecture so decidedly as Mr. Porson supposes, the lecture and letters must have been very much at variance. Whether the lecture be still extant or not; and, if extant, what

VOL. XXXIII. NO. LXV.

E

what were its contents, we shall soon be informed by Professor Monk, in his life of Dr. Bentley, from which we may expect a large and interesting addition to the literary history of our country.'

6

From Dr. Bentley's preference of the most ancient Latin copies to the Greek,' nothing, we apprehend, can be justly inferred in favour of the verse. In some of the very old MSS. which give both the Greek text and a Latin version (such as the Beza MS. at Cambridge), the Greek and the Latin correspond almost word for word in the ordo verborum. Bentley, relying upon this, believed that, if he could completely ascertain the old Latin version, he should be enabled to settle the Greek text with the utmost accuracy. The general opinion among the learned, we believe, is, that the great critic expected more advantage from the Latin version than he would have obtained. Be that however as it may, the disputed verse is not contained in any of the ancient Latin copies' to which he alluded; and, as we shall soon perceive, his own declared principles forbid us to suppose that he would have introduced it, on the authority of the more recent Latin manuscripts.

It is moreover to be observed, that Bentley's letter, above cited, bears the date of Jan. 1, 1717; and that his election to the Regius Professorship of Divinity, on which occasion his lecture was delivered, took place on the 2d day of May, in the same year. Now whatever was ultimately the decision of Dr. Bentley on the subject, it is not easy to imagine how the Lecture and the Letters can have been very much at variance.' In his letter, he mentions the reception or rejection of the verse as a question of fact, the grounds of which he had not then completely ascertained. After further inquiry, for which the interval afforded ample time to a critic of his learning and acuteness, he determines that the verse is spurious. There is surely no inconsistency in this.

The sentiments of Dr. Bentley, on the disputed verse, excited great attention at the time. In an Address to the Bishops and Clergy, by a Layman,* is the following declaration- We have of late been alarmed with reports that a very learned critic, a member of the lower house, Dr. Bentley, Master of Trinity College, being an Archdeacon, is upon an edition of the Greek Testament, and intends to omit that text.' And that his Prælection was altogether opposed to its genuineness, is a fact as well attested as any in literary history. Mr. Whiston—a man well acquainted with the proceedings at Cambridge, and, however eccentric in his opinions, of great integrity—has on several occasions alluded to the subject.

See the quotation by Emlyn, at the close of his Inquiry into the Authority of 1 John v. 7."

In his Memoirs of Dr. Clarke,' (p. 61. ed. 1730.) he mentions Dr. Bentley's famous Lecture'-' wherein he entirely gave up the text, and publicly proved it to be spurious. I have been also informed,' continues Whiston, that when Dr. Waterland was asked, whether Dr. Bentley's arguments did not convince him;—he replied, no, for he was convinced before. Nor does the doctor, I think, ever quote that text as genuine in any of his writings. Which in so zealous and warm a Trinitarian deserves to be taken notice of, as a singular instance of honesty and impartiality.' On this anecdote the learned and excellent Bishop of Llandaff makes the following observations, in his valuable Review of the Life and Writings of Dr. Waterland.'

'The correctness of this anecdote, to which much importance has been attached by those who relate it, appears to be somewhat questionable. It is asserted with great confidence, and with some degree of triumph, by Whiston, in his Memoirs of Dr. Clarke; and probably has been repeated after him by others, without further inquiry. Few authorities, however, on a matter like this, are less to be depended upon than that of Whiston; who readily caught up any current story which might furnish a ground of sarcasm on those who opposed his own opinions. Waterland has not, in any of his writings, disputed the genuineness of this text. On the contrary, in his Sermon on the Doctrine of the Trinity, published many years afterwards, he says, "that though a disputed text, it is yet not without very many and very considerable appearances of being truly genuine." And in one of his letters to Mr. Loveday, he takes notice of this anecdote related by Whiston, and treats it as a weak device or misrepresentation, for the purpose of charging him with inconsistency. But even if the statement were correct, it can be of little weight, unless the occasion and circumstances were distinctly known. It might be, that the arguments used by Bentley were such as Waterland was already well acquainted with, and brought no more conviction to his mind than what he had received before: and it might also be, that Bentley himself went no farther than to state the considerations which rendered the matter questionable, without inferring a positive conclusion that the text was spurious; to all which Waterland might accede, and yet deem the evidence insufficient to warrant its omission. And this is the more probable, since it appears that Bentley himself, in his proposal for a new edition of the Greek Testament, about four years afterwards, considered the point as still open to discussion.'-(pp. 25, 26.)

We have not, in this instance, the good fortune to agree with the Bishop of Llandaff; Whiston, as it appears to us, tells the story relating to Dr, Waterland, as he had heard it; he says nothing of any change of sentiment in him; and he praises him sincerely for not having quoted the text as genuine. At all events, from the statement, given in his own words, our readers will be enabled to judge whether the anecdote be related either with

E 2

great