the contrary hypothesis left everything to the uncertain vehicle of oral tradition.

The publication of the Translation of Michaelis involved Marsh in a controversy as to the three witnesses in I John V, 7-8. Michaelis said that this passage was not found in any Greek manuscript, but was interpolated into the Latin text, having been, first written in the margin. Erasmus refused to insert it in the two first editions of his Greek Testament, but promised to do so in the third, if it could be shown to exist in any old Greek manuscript. Such a manuscript was said to exist in England. A transcript of the passage was sent to him and lest the Church of Rome should have any cause of complaint, it appeared in all subsequent editions. Luther refused to admit it into his translation of the Bible. Marsh defended Michaelis which brought him into controversy with Archdeacon Travis who had already written 'Letters to Gibbon,' concerning his note on the subject in the 'Decline and Fall.'1 Travis had already been proof against the arguments of Porson, and after that was not likely to be convinced by any one.

Marsh said that the only Greek manuscript now extant containing the passage was not older than the fourteenth century. No Greek Father quotes it nor is it found in any of the old versions nor in the text of the old Latin manuscripts. Some had it in the margin or interlined by a later hand, and where it is found it has no fixed place, sometimes before, sometimes after, the eighth verse. It is a well-known matter of history that it came from the Latin into the Greek. It was quoted from the Vulgate in the Acts of the Lateran Council of 1215, which were written originally in Latin but translated into Greek and sent to the Greek Church in the hope of promoting the union of the two Churches. About a hundred years after this, the passage was first quoted by the Greek Church.

The note in Gibbon, is The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testament by the prudence of Erasmus, the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors, the fraud or error of Robert Stevens in the placing of a crotchet, and the deliberate falsehood or strange misinterpre

tation of Theodore Beza.' The Archdeacon defended these writers but the 'crotchet' of Robert Stevens formed the main subject between him and Marsh. In the disputed passage which begins with in heaven' and ends with 'earth' Stevens put a semicircle after 'heaven' and an obelus before 'in' to signify that these words were omitted in seven Greek manuscripts which he had consulted. After Stevens' New Testament was published, a critic suspected that the compositor had made a mistake and put the semicircle after 'heaven' instead of after 'earth' so that instead of making the whole passage an interpolation he only made the first three words. No one had ever seen a Greek manuscript with merely these three words omitted. Those who defended the passage considered the 'crotchet' as evidence for the genuineness of the rest, but when of the seven manuscripts, four, which were in the Royal Library in Paris, were examined they were found to be without the whole of the disputed passage. Travis went to Paris and examined the manuscripts for himself, but as he was determined not to be convinced he gave it as his opinion that these did not belong to the seven to which Stevens had referred. Marsh found one in the University of Cambridge which had no trace of the interpolation either in whole or in part. This he believed to be one of the seven, but this also Travis did not admit.

Marsh had made a great stride in the matter of criticism and free handling of the Scriptures, but in all other respects, he was incapable of progress. He was among the first to oppose the Bible Society because it circulated the Bible without the Prayer Book. They had always been sent out together by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, but in this new society, the Bible was to go alone, and Dissenters were to have equal power with Churchmen. He recommended. that both parties should have their own society, and with the Bible circulate comments inculcating their own special theology. It was his wish not to limit freedom of opinion, either in doctrine or worship, but religious dissensions led to political, and it was imprudent for Churchmen to throw the strength of the Established Church into a society which consisted largely of Dissenters. Churchmen who did not agree with Marsh said that they yielded to none in their allegiance to the Church

and their appreciation of the Prayer Book, but 'the Bible and the Bible alone was the Religion of Protestants.' To circulate the Bible without the Prayer Book showed no want of fidelity to Church principles. So long as we had religious freedom there would be Dissent, and therefore it must be accepted as a necessity. Though we cannot always get unity of opinion we may have union of hearts.

This opposition provoked Marsh to write in self-defence. He published' An Enquiry into the Consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer Book to the People.' It left them to interpret the Bible for themselves, and so in danger of being led away by the Dissenters who professed to draw their distinctive theology from the Bible. The Church's interpretation should always accompany the Bible. This was intended by the Reformers who gave us both Bible and Prayer Book. To omit the latter would be dangerous both for Church and State, especially in the education of children. Chillingworth's generalised Protestantism bore its fruit in the Long Parliament, when the Liturgy was abolished, and we may see the same fruit again.

The principle that the Church's interpretation should always accompany the Bible brought Marsh into collision with new enemies, or rather into alliance with unknown friends. A Roman Catholic priest' expressed his gratitude to the Cambridge Professor for advocating the side of the Catholic Church against her many foes. Catholics had always rested on the Bible, and the Church's interpretation was only given for the benefit of the poor and the unlearned. The professor was compared to the dove which could find no place to rest the sole of its foot till it returned to the ark. Chillingworth's principle dispensed with creeds, but now there was a healthy tendency to return to the bosom of the Church.

The priest's congratulations evoked a defence in 'A Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome.' Marsh complained that he had been misunderstood. He entirely repudiated the idea of tradition as an authority, and virtually adopted the Protestant principle of Chillingworth. His advocacy of the circulation of the Prayer Book did not rest on any doctrine of the authority of tradition but was

He only

solely in the interests of the Established Church. meant that as the Bible is the test of a Christian so is the Prayer Book of a Churchman.

As a bishop, Marsh continued to retrograde. He resolved to drive from the Church all who held the doctrines of Calvin, which, at that time, meant substantially the Evangelical party. He was not content with pouring out his episcopal wrath in a Charge but had recourse to other measures. An Evangelical rector had nominated a curate. Before giving the licence, the Bishop examined the curate as to his views of regeneration in baptism. The latter took the view that it might precede or follow the symbolical rite. The Bishop in the circumstances had little difficulty in persuading the curate that a real regeneration always accompanied baptism. After the curate had come over to the Bishop's view, the licence was granted. The rector soon found that his curate was not teaching the doctrines he had agreed to teach before his nomination and wished to dismiss him, but the Bishop refused to sanction the dismissal.

The Bishop now determined to be beforehand with the whole of that race of the clergy. He formulated a series of eighty-seven questions, bearing on the most abstruse points connected with Calvinistic theology, and required from those who were to be licensed a full and explicit answer to every one. A curate, nominated by an Evangelical rector, refused to answer and denied the Bishop's right to exact from him any more minute account of his doctrine than was required by the Thirty-nine Articles. The Bishop said he was bound by the fifty-eighth canon to know what his clergy were to teach, and such was the variety of interpretation put on the Articles that mere legal subscription was not sufficient.

It was finally decided that a bishop had no right to make any test of doctrine beyond the Articles of Religion. Sydney Smith wrote 'The early Reformers leant to Calvinism and would, to a man, have answered the Bishop's questions in a way that would have induced him to refuse them ordination or curacies, and those who drew up the Thirty-nine Articles would in all probability have given an interpretation

and their appreciation of the Prayer Book, but the Bible and the Bible alone was the Religion of Protestants.' To circulate the Bible without the Prayer Book showed no want of fidelity to Church principles. So long as we had religious freedom there would be Dissent, and therefore it must be accepted as a necessity. Though we cannot always get unity of opinion we may have union of hearts.

This opposition provoked Marsh to write in self-defence. He published' An Enquiry into the Consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer Book to the People.' It left them to interpret the Bible for themselves, and so in danger of being led away by the Dissenters who professed to draw their distinctive theology from the Bible. The Church's interpretation should always accompany the Bible. This was intended by the Reformers who gave us both Bible and Prayer Book. To omit the latter would be dangerous both for Church and State, especially in the education of children. Chillingworth's generalised Protestantism bore its fruit in the Long Parliament, when the Liturgy was abolished, and we may see the same fruit again.

The principle that the Church's interpretation should always accompany the Bible brought Marsh into collision with new enemies, or rather into alliance with unknown friends. A Roman Catholic priest' expressed his gratitude to the Cambridge Professor for advocating the side of the Catholic Church against her many foes. Catholics had always rested on the Bible, and the Church's interpretation was only given for the benefit of the poor and the unlearned. The professor was compared to the dove which could find no place to rest the sole of its foot till it returned to the ark. Chillingworth's principle dispensed with creeds, but now there was a healthy tendency to return to the bosom of the Church.

The priest's congratulations evoked a defence in 'A Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome.' Marsh complained that he had been misunderstood. He entirely repudiated the idea of tradition as an authority, and virtually adopted the Protestant principle of Chillingworth. His advocacy of the circulation of the Prayer Book did not rest on any doctrine of the authority of tradition but was