« AnteriorContinuar »
distinct citation of it appears. We personified in the eighth verse, because should think that it needed no pro- in the sixth we read kai to sveŪUG found knowledge of the art of criti- lsito raptup v; but, in the first place, cism, but only a little of that common there is no reason that an author sense which learning unfortunately should always personify, because he cannot teach, to see that such a pas- sometimes does it; and, in the second sage must be spurious, or that there place, the constructions have no anais an end of all critical certainty. The logy; to Maptupey, in the sixth verse, Bishop of St. David's thinks he can is the predicate of the proposition, in set all this evidence aside, and these which it would certainly have been a are his arguments : that the sense is harsh, though by no means unauthoimperfect and the construction sole- rized, construction, to have departed cistic, if the seventh verse be taken from the gender of the subject; the away; that our Greek MSS. of this neuters in the eighth verse, instead of Epistle are comparatively modern, being either the predicate or the suband, therefore, cannot prove what was ject, are apposed, exegetically, to si the reading of the early ages : that faptup@YTES, the subject. The logical the Latin Fathers quote it as early as order of the words is this ; Te ei Tertullian ; that Mr. Nolan, in his papTupãYTES (TO Tyallua. %. 7. a.) ios *profound and interesting Inquiry specs. This distinction either Bishop into the Integrity of the Greek Vul Burgess and his oracles, Mr. Nolan gate," has made it probable that Eu- and Dr. Hales, have overlooked, or sebius struck out the Heavenly Wit- they mean to maintain, that in all nesses in the days of Constantine : cases nouns in apposition must be in lastly, that Mr. Porson declared his the same gender as those which they willingness to come over to Mr. Tra. are introduced to explain. Let us vis' opinion, if two Greek MSS., 500 hear the opinion of a much better years old, could be produced, con- grammarian than any of the three. taining the verse, and that Dr. Adam “The apposed substantive shonld in Clarke thinks that one, the Dublin strictness be of the same number and MS., is more likely to have been gender as the first; but they are often written in the thirteenth century than different, especially when the apposed in the fifteenth. Let us examine these word is an abstractum pro concreto." arguments separately.
(Matthiä, $ 431 of the smaller gram1. The harshness of construction mar; for the passage is not contained and solecism, produced by the omission in the larger, translated by E. V. of the seventh verse, consists in this; Blomfield.) He quotes, as examples, that To Thellua kai To Towprai to aina, Eur. Troad. 429, duéxoquisk TÁYKOLVAY in the eighth verse are all neuters; Bporois oi Tepi Tupávveç kai bhas ÚTYand yet the apostle says of them, tpeis PETO. Hes. Scut. Herc. 296, 313, slov oi uaptUp YTES. Assuming it, pxas, (Tpítos,) kautà &pya Fepí poros therefore, to be a rule of Greek con-. 'Hoaiçoio. Will it be said that Matstruction, (for his argument implies thiä's examples are all from poets ? this, though he does not expressly In the book of Proverbs, xxx. 29, state it,) that nouns in apposition we read, Tpía su à évódws TOPEÚETAI must be of the same gender as those kal TÉTAPTOY & Kanās aaBaiveto CKÚUxos to which they are apposed, the Bishop Léovtoç kai dréxtup ka Tpányos Kai argues that St. John could never have Bao iheus. Here are four masculine fallen into such a solecism, as to use nouns in the enumeration, but the the masculine in the eighth verse, but relative and numerals are neuter; for the circumstance of his having the while, in the passage in John, the moment before used oi MapTUPÖYTES in nouns in the enumeration are neuter, the seventh, in connexion with ó 750e and the numeral and participle masThe è dóyos, vai Tó áy.oy TVEŰua, culine. No doubt, had the author of where the masculine is graipmatically the Proverb chosen, he might have correct. Now it is very obvious to said, tpeis sign oi, and the author of reply to this, as Dr. J. P. Smith has the Epistle, opía OTIY à but the done, (Scrip. Test. II. 545,) that the former wished to make his predicate masculine is used because the words as indefinite as possible, and the latter are personified. Bishop Burgess, in- to make his as definite and personal deed, objects that TveŪMC cannot be as he could; and we humbly maintain
that neither of them has written in induced the learned and pious Bishop " defiance of grammar.”
of St. David's to have furnished the But there is another reason why infidels with such an argument as this. the serenth verse must be retained. No external evidence, it seeins, as deWolfius and the Bishop of Calcutta rived from MSS., can be of higher have observed, that without the cy of date than the MSS. themselves. Now, the seventh verse, the toy of the it is pretty generally admitted that our eighth is unaccountable. Let us see, present copies of the Hebrew Scripthen, what sense we get by making tures are not older than the tenth the top of the eighth refer to the é v century; consequently there is an inof the seventh. " There are three terval, from the time of Moses, of which bear witness in heaven, the 2500 years, during which we have no Father and the Word and the Holy external evidence of the eristence of Spirit, and these three are one thing; the Pentateuch. It is vain to talk of and there are three which bear wit- the collateral evidence of translations, ness on earth, the Spirit, the water and &c. ; nemo dat quod non habet ; they the blood, and these three are to that all exist in MSS. equally recent with one thing.” What meaning can be those of the Hebrew Scriptures, and attached to these words we cannot having no evidence themselves, they imagine. There is no need of any can lend none to others. But to add new theory of the Greek article, to inconsistency to absurdity, the Bishop explain the use of tó before y; it goes on to say, that the oldest Greek marks more emphatically the absolute MS. extant is of much later date unity of purpose of the Three Wit- than the Latin Version of the Western aesses. Unquestionably this might Church.” Has, then, this version have been expressed by Elsiy, but le$3 come down to us on some tablet of foreibly. So the Apostle, I Cor. xii. brass or marble, while the Greek ori11, might have contented himself with ginal is only to be found in modern saying, ly kai to AUTO TEVEūna, but he and perishable parchment ? Jf not, has chosen to say to dy.
then we have as little external evi2. Bishop Burgess allows, that all dence of the one as of the other, not the Greek MSS., save one, (the Codex only during the first period, but down Pavienus he abandons to its fate,) to the time when our present MSS. omit the seventh verse; but not at of each were written. "We may be all dismayed by this circumstance, he thought, perhaps, to pay a poor comsets himself to prove, by a most expliment to the sagacity of our readers, traordinary process, that this is no even by observing, in passing, that as Teason for doubting its authenticity. MSS. are not created, En ytwy, He divides the whole time, from the but copied from each other, the MS. composition of the Epistle to the in- of the fourth century, which is still vention of printing, into three periods, preserved, is external evidence-not the first extending to the end of the demonstration, but evidence-of the third century, the second to the end existence of its text in the preceding of the ninth; and he observes, that centuries, the MSS. of which have during the first period there is no er- perished, and that thus the chain is ternal evidence against the verse, be- carried up to the autograph of the aucause none of our present MSS. are thor. Allowances must be made for as old as the third century. If this the human infirmities of transcribers, remark had proceeded from some one and as these are repeated with every deroid of every tincture of critical act of copying, the oldest MSS. are knowledge, the confusion of ideas reasonably considered as the most which it indicates, might be explain- valuable : but if, according to Bishop ed; if a Toland or a Collins had Burgess's principle, there could be thrown it out as an insinuation against no external evidence of the existence the evidence of the authenticity of of a text, before the time when the Scripture, the motive would have been existing MSS. of it were written, the intelligible: but, surely, nothing ex-. scepticism of Harduin was moderate cept the blind zeal which leads a man and rational. to demolish the bulwarks of our com But, on what ground does our aumon faith, if he thinks he can bury an thor so confidently, and without giradversary under the ruin, could have ing his reader the smallest hint that
the matter is doubtful, speak of the est, probably, of all the translations Latin Version as having contained this of the New Testament, and all the verse during his first period? Did he other oriental versions, which are not not know that this very point is most known to have been corrupted from strenuously contested by the opponents the Latin in very recent times. Here of the verse! Did he not know that is no discordaney of MSS., as in the the greatest critic of the age had pro- case of the Latin Version; their testinounced the Latin MSS. which omit mony is clear and consistent, and the the verse, to be infinitely superior to absence of the disputed text is to be the herd in which it is found? (See accounted for in no other way than the passage quoted from Porson be- its absence in the Greek MSS, from fore.) Is he prepared to deny this? which they were made. What are we He knows himself, we apprehend, to say of the dead silence of the better than to venture to oppose him- Greek fathers, who never once, durself on such a point to such an autho- ing this period, quote the verse in rity. He has dealt most disingenu- question Bishop Burgess will not ously by Porson, in representing him allow that a defender of the text is as allowing that the verse in dispute bound to explain this. It is an apwas in the Latin Version, even from proved method of getting rid of a the end of the second century. How toublesome claimant, to deny the could he, unless the clearest of heads debt; but this silence of the fathers had become all at once as confused as will remain an invincible argument that of certain defenders of ortho- of spuriousness till it is explained, doxy, admit that a text was in the and that too in some better way than Latin Version, at this early period, the disciplina arcani, or Mr. Nolan's and yet condemn the copies which dream of the erasure of the text by contain this text as a worthless rab- Eusebius. It is true, the Bishop does ble? Porson is arguing for the mo- make a feeble effort to prove that the ment upon a supposition (Letters, Greek original must have contained it p. 143) which, in the whole of his in the two first centuries. The Alogi subsequent reasoning, he refutes, that were a set of heretics, who rejected this text had been in the Vulgate the writings of St. John, on aecount from the end of the second century, of their denial of his doctrine of the and maintains, tliat even in that case, Logos. Now, it has been thought, its authenticity would not be certain: that as the divinity of the Logos is the very next paragraph (p. 144) be- taught in no part of the first Epistle, gins with these words : " Thus I but in the text of the Heavenly Witshould argue if all the MSS. con- nesses, they could have had no reason sented in the received reading.” We for quarrelling with it, had this text confess it to be a very difficult stretch not been found in it from the earliest of our charity to believe, that Bishop times. The reader will perceive, that Burgess mistook so common a phrase this argument can have no force as « allowing that it had been,” for whatever, unless we are assured that “I allow that it was ;" at any rate, the Alogi rejected the first Epistle, as the man who can so misunderstand a well as the other works of the Aposplain sentence of his mother tongue, tle. But the proof of this completely must excuse us if we do not attach fails. Epiphanius, who gives this acmuch value to his judgment, when he count of the Alogi, only says, that talks of the internal evidence which they rejected the Gospel and the Apoarises from the connexion of an au- calypse. “0, but," says the Bishop, thor's ideas and the coherence of his “they must have rejected the Epistle, arguments.
because the doctrine of Christ's divi Again, before we quit the subject nity is inuch more clearly taught in it of this first period, we must ask, is the Vulgate Latin Version the only
* “ Negativum argumentum in tali one of this age which exists? A rea- quæstione repudiari nequit ; nil id valet der of Bishop Burgess might natu- de uno alterove scriptore, valet de perrally suppose that it was; for we do
multis, dietam tam insigne, ad contronot recollect that he enters into the versias decidendas singulariter opportuslightest explanation, why I John v. num prætereuntibus." Bengelius Guom, 7, is wanting in the Syriac, the earli. ad 1 Joan. v. 7.
than in the Gospel or the Apocalypse." the Greek. See, now, the advantage Taught where? In other passages of of the skilful construction of a period. the Epistle, or in the text of the Hea- Had he said that till the eighth cenvenly Witnesses ? If in other pas- tury, to which this respectable testisages, then the Alogi, on the Bishop's mony belongs, there was no proof of the own shewing, had their reasons for existence of the text of the Heavenly rejecting the Epistle, though the dis. Witnesses in the Greek, even his orthoputed text never made a part of it; dox readers would have been startled ; if in this text itself, we shall have a but by speaking of the whole 606 beautiful specimen of the argument in years as a period, he hoped that they a circle; the text is gemuine, because would forget that his argument (such the Alogi rejected the Epistle; and as it is) applied only to the latter part the Alogi must have rejected the of it, and agree with him that, in this Epistle because the text is genuine.* period, there is positive evidence of The bishop himself is not only azonos the existence of the text in the Greek. but heywiátos. On the whole, he has And of what kind is this testimony? been as completely foiled as his pre. The author of it comes before us with decessors have been in the attempt to a lie in his mouth ;* for he pretends produce even a tittle of evidence, that that he is St. Jerome, a falsehood so this verse existed in the earliest copies glaring, that even the Bishop of St. of the New Testament..
David's gives him up; and he does It is not without reason that he not after all assert, but only insinuate, makes his second period to extend that the verse was found in Greek from A. D. 300 to 900, a division of MSS. If, then, in spite of the disciwhich we did not at first discern the plina arcani and the Arian erasures motive. In this period, the external of Eusebius, this occidental forger evidence, even according to his own found the Heavenly Witnesses in the Fery original definition, begins to Greek text, in the eighth century, press hard upon his favourite text. what is become of those orthodox
The oldest MSS. of the Greek Testa. MSS.? A false witness, not unfrement fall within this period, perhaps quently, by some casual concession, not far from the commencement of ruins the cause which he is produced it, and they with one consent omit to support, and such is the case with the Heavenly Witnesses; no version the Pseudo-Jerome. When he reexcept the Latin, and that only in the proaches the Latin copies with the most modern and corrupted copies, omission of the Heavenly Witnesses, exhibits them; no Greek father quotes he plainly shews, that in his time them as a proof of the Trinity. What that version did not generally contain can be set against these proofs of spu- them; and what, then, becomes of riousness? The Bishop finds, that its testimony to their having been in towards the end of what he makes his the Greek, in the age succeeding that second period, after the Latin fathers of the Apostles ? As to Walafrid had begun to use the words as Scrip- Strabus, in the ninth century, who, ture, a Latin writer, (a forger of a in a Latin commentary, glosses on prologue in the name of Jerome) this verse, there is no proof that he speaks of the verse as being exant in had compared the Latin and Greek
texts together, nor does he himself
profess to have done it. That he in• The fact is, that Epiphanius says cludes 1 John v. 7 in his commentary, expressly (Hær. li. 34), “ that the Alogi only shews, that in the ninth century rejected the Gospel of John and the it had gained a footing in the Latin Apocalypse, perhaps, also, (taxa de ka.,) MSS. The reader of Bishop Burgess the Epistles, because they harmonize with would. indeed, conclude, froin the the Gospels and the Apocalypse." It is artful arrangement of his words, that evident that he had no other reason for Holofrid believing that they did reject the Epis
Walafrid Strabus had asserted the cles, than this conjecture of his own; aud of a multitude of authors who men.
* * Ut libere dicam quod sentio, testion the Alogi as rejecting the Gospel timonio illo (sc. prologi) auctoritatem and the Apocalypse, not one mentions the textui conciliare velle nihil aliud esse Epistles. See Michaelis Introd. Ch. xxx. puto quam, úto Toll yeúdous tay anhelay $5.
oughoao la.” Millius ad loc.'.
superior authority of the Greek to words qui tres unum sunt of the Fa: the Latin in this passage. “ He could ther, Son, and Spirit, meant to quote not be ignorant either of the defects | John v. 7, though there is not a which the author of the Prologue at- word of allusion to St. John, and tributes to the Latin copies of his though Tertullian justifies his own day, or of the integrity of the Greek expression by the words of Christ, as asserted by him; and he directs Ego et Pater unum sumus. This liis readers to correct the errors of point has been so amply discussed in the Latin by the Greek.” Who would the course of the controversy, that it * not suppose that Strabus had directed is unnecessary to dwell upon it. Cyhis readers to insert 1 John v. 7 from prian, it is acknowledged, says, “ De the Greek ?-No such thing; this is Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriponly a general recommendation to his tum est Et Tres Unum Sunt." See reader to apply to the Greek and He- Griesb. ad loc. I Jo. v. 7, p. 13. And brew; having no reference to this pas. we do not wonder that any one who sage; and it does not appear that he considers this passage alone, and is himself understood either, unless it accustomed to the more accurate way be argued that an author has always of speaking of modern times, should tried himself every practice which he regard this as a proof, that Cyprian's recommends to his reader. Epipha- copy of the Epistle contained the nius and the Alogi appear again upon Three Heavenly Witnesses. But how the stage, but with as little benefit as was this passage of Cyprian underbefore to the Bishop's cause, and very stood by those who lived near his little credit to his fairness. " Epi- own time, and who must, therefore, phanius, who lived in the fourth cen- have been the best judges of the tury, says, that the Epistles agree meaning of his phrases? Facundus, in with the Gospel and the Apocalypse' the sixth century, quoting this pas. in the doctrine of the Logos, and as- sage from Cyprian, says expressly, signs this agreement as the reason for that Cyprian had understood the thinking that the Alogi rejected the words of the Apostle respecting the Epistles as well as the other writings Spirit, the water and the blood, of of St. John.” The reader, whom the Father, the Son, and the Holy previous experience has put on his Spirit. Now, the stronger the words guard, will perhaps perceive, that the of Cyprian are the more decisive is words“ in the doctrine of the Lo- the proof, that the copy which Fa. gos," on which the whole force of the cundus used did not contain the argument depends, are those of the seventh verse; for who would ever Bishop, not of Epiphanius; but most have referred Cyprian's words to an persons, certainly, would understand allegory of the eighth verse, if they them as if Epiphanius himself had expressed the literal sense contained stated this as the point of agreement. in the seventh? It must, however, We have already seen that there is no be admitted, that some MSS. of the proof whatever that the Alogi re- Latin, even in this age, did contain jected the Epistles of John; but if the seventh verse ; for Fulgentins, they did, and on the ground of the writing against the Arians, quotes it, term Logos being applied to Christ, and explains Cyprian's words as an they may have taken offence at the allusion to it. But as Fulgentius very first verse, “ That which was in lived after Vigilius Tapsensis, who the beginning, &c.,. concerning the clearly quotes the seventh verse, his word of life." So far is it from being evidence adds nothing to the antiquity true, that the Gospel and Epistle of the reading; and Facundus is a correspond only in the controverted sufficient proof, that the words of Cy. verse.
prian do not necessarily imply that it 3. We are next to accompany the was extant in Cyprian's time. Bisliop in his inquiry into the citations We pass over two or three authors of the Latin Fathers, the only part of who use the phrase tres unum sunt, the argument which affords even the which only expresses a doctrine unshadow of a reason for maintaining questionably then prevalent in the - the authenticity of the common read- church, but are no proof of a quotaing. He asserts that Tertullian, be- tion to reach Eucherius, Bishop of cause (C. Praxean, 25) he uses the Lyons, in the fifth century. The