greater, and more to be depended on, in that they are the truth itself, and cannot possibly deceive us.' P. 91.

The Letters are accompanied with illustrative notes, in the twelfth of which the author undertakes the "perfectly easy" task of refuting the several arguments of Bishop Burgess for the authenticity of the disputed text, as they are summed up at the end of the Preface to the second Edition of his Lordship's Vindication, and proceeds to recapitulate those reasons which, says he, "ought to convince every honest and unprejudiced mind, that the passage is spurious." This, like every other part of Mr. Oxlee's work, displays great learning and superior acuteness; at the same time we must declare our conviction that his observations would have lost nothing of their effect, if they had been accompanied with less hauteur, less self-confidence, and less bitterness.

In a far different and more amiable spirit the learned, the indefatigable, and the excellent Bishop Burgess has again taken the field in defence of the authenticity of John v. 7. Whether the argument advanced in the Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's will stand the test of examination or not, it evinces a well-stored and well-disciplined mind, which every scholar must admire, and a Christian meekness, which every reader must venerate. In conjunction with Dr. Hales and Mr. Nolan, this Apostolical Prelate has been the main instrument of stopping the current of public opinion against the genuineness of the verse, which had been set in motion by the immense erudition and talent of a Griesbach, a Porson, and a Marsh. The additional testimony in favour of the verse which his Lordship in the present publication has brought forward, and so ingeniously defended, most certainly merits, as no doubt it will receive, the candid attention of the learned. A brief abstract of it may not be unacceptable to our readers.

66

Early in the fourth century (A.D. 341.) the second Symbolum Antiochenum was drawn up by a Council held at Antioch, consisting of 97 bishops, of whom nearly half were Arians. After the declaration of faith in one God, one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, the Creed adds ὡς ειναι τῇ μεν ὑποστασει ΤΡΙΑ τη δε συμφωνιᾳ Ἐν, so that they are three in person, and one in consent," or (without the explanatory terms,) "so that the three are one." This, it must be allowed, bears a very striking resemblance to the clause of 1 John v. 7.; but the principal question is, whether it be a quotation from it. The words of the Creed are not precisely the same as the words of the controverted verse, but his Lordship contends that they may, nevertheless, be a quotation from it. In the quotations from the Old Testament in

the New, there is often as great, or greater variation, where there is no doubt of one being the original of the other. It is not indeed declared to be a quotation from St. John; but such tacit quotation is not uncommon even in this Creed, in which we have πρωτοτοκον πασης κτίσεως, and εξ οὗ τα παντα, and δὶ ἐν τα παντα and the anathema, Ει τις αλλο διδασκει η ευαγγελίζεται παρ ỏ Tаρeλoßoμεv, avalɛμa eσrw, from St. Paul, without his name, or any notice of quotation, and in the last instance with some variation from his words.

But further, the whole Creed is declared, in its commencement and conclusion, to be from Scripture, and from Scripture only, as delivered by Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles; and that not by a general conformity with the doctrine of Scripture, but every article is professed to be from Scripture. Hence, his Lordship concludes, that the passage in the Creed is a quotation from Scripture, because it is an article of a Creed professing to consist of παραδεδομενα ύπο των αποστόλων, though, like other quotations in the same Creed, and elsewhere, the words are not precisely the same as in the original; and that it is from the final clause of 1 John v. 7., because there is no other passage of Scripture, in which it is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that the three are one. Besides the expression τη μεν συμφωνια ἓν is peculiarly applicable to the passage of St. John, as being one of the meanings of the word &v, expressly resulting from the Apostle's argument from concurrence of testimony. The expression seems to have been adopted by the Council, as being both founded on Scripture, and at the same time not offensive to those who constituted almost half of the Council.

The remainder of the letter presents many very valuable observations; but as they are chiefly illustrative of the testimony of the Fathers, and as the force of the argument from the second Symbolum Antiochenum is given above, we shall pass over them to the Postscript, which is longer than the original Letter itself.

In this part of the work the Right Rev. author adduces evidence from Euthymius, and Socrates's account of the origin of the Arian controversy, which, combined with the language of the Symbolum Antiochenum, and of Gregory, appears to leave no doubt that the verse was known to the Greek Fathers of the fourth century. The Scriptural character of the Antiochian profession of faith is so evident that we have no hesitation in conceding to his Lordship, that "it amounts to this: we believe and follow all things delivered in the Scriptures, and nothing but what is delivered in the Scriptures; and only as is there

delivered." (P. 45.) The words of Euthymius, to which the learned Prelate appeals, are, "The word one is applied to things that are consubstantial, where there is a sameness of nature, but difference of persons, as, for instance, Kaι τa τρiα Ex, and the Three are One." Porson brought all the acuteness of his powerful mind against this passage; (Letters, p. 219. et seq.) and ridicules the idea that such expressions in the Fathers as Three in One could only proceed from 1 John v. 7.; but Bishop Burgess strongly urges, on the contrary, that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, being confessedly one of the great "mysteries of God," it is not likely that "the ministers and stewards" of those mysteries should have derived it but from those "oracles of God" which were committed to them. In reference to the passage of Euthymius, just cited, he contends that it is derived from the disputed text.

of

"The words are not precisely the same as the text of St. John, but may nevertheless be derived from it, as is evident from the common usage of quotation or allusion in ancient and modern writers. Indeed the Και τα τρια ἑν of Euthymius and Gregory,the Τα τρια εις ἑν γενόμενα of Origen,—the Και ταυτα τα τρια εις ένα Χριστον of Ecumenius,—and Ὡς ειναι τρια έν, οι τα τρία ἐν of the Symbolum Antiochenum have so near a resemblance to the controverted passage St. John, being literal versions, in neuter terms, of Kai oi тpes έv, or εις έν, and Και οὗτοι οἱ τρεις ἑν εισι, that we might venture to say of all, what is indisputable of Origen's and Ecumenius's, that they must have proceeded from one or two other of the two verses. Of the words of Ecumenius there can be no doubt, because they are his paraphrase upon the 8th verse; or of Origen's, for they are expressly quoted by him from that verse. One point, therefore, is certain, that Tа тρiа εis Ev is a quotation from Scripture, being a quotation or expression of the clause of the 8th verse, though not precisely in the words of St. John. And why should not Kai ra rpia έv be a quotation of the clause of the 7th verse? Mr. Porson is of opinion, and has made it probable, that Euthymius had the words immediately from Gregory. Admitting them to be Gregory's, why should they not be derived by him from the 7th verse, as well as Origen's Tа тρia Els v from the 8th? If it should be said that neuter terms were admissible in a quotation of the 8th verse, because πvενμα, vdwp, and aiua are all neuters, that will be fully obviated if the Greek Fathers were accustomed to speak of the three persons of the Trinity, in neuter terms. That they did so express themselves, is clear, from the passages quoted in the preceding letter. It cannot, therefore, I think, be reasonably doubted that Gregory's Kai ra тpia ir, and the ὡς είναι τρια ἑν, or τα τρια ἑν of the Symbolum Antiochenum, were derived from the clause of the seventh verse, though not quoted in the name of St. John, nor precisely in his words." P. 47.

A large proportion of the Postscript is occupied with strictures upon Mr. Oxlee's Three Letters to Mr. Nolan, in which the Right Rev. Prelate touches with a masterly hand upon several points connected with the controversy respecting the Heavenly Witnesses in St. John's Epistle. We cannot afford space for any extracts, but they every where bespeak the acute critic and sound divine; and the tone of Christian mildness which breathes throughout forms a delightful contrast to the intemperate language of Mr. Oxlee's Letters.

Upon the whole, the present publication is every way calculated to add to the reputation of Bishop Burgess. We are resolved to abstain from taking any part in the controversy relative to the disputed verse; neither do we presume to decide as to the validity of the line of argument which we have been reviewing; at the same time we must honestly declare that we deem it too imposing in itself, and too ably supported by his Lordship to be lightly regarded by any one pretending to the character of a Biblical critic. No words are sufficiently strong to reprobate that rashness which dares to garble the received text on trivial or precarious grounds. So much has been already adduced in favour of the controverted text as should repress all precipitancy of judgment. More light, it may be expected, will yet be thrown upon the subject of the labours of the learned; perhaps the researches of Dr. Scholz, the result of which is so anxiously looked for by the public, may produce new and important evidence. If the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. has not hitherto been established with certainty, enough at least has been done to induce the cautious divine to pause and hesitate in admitting so great an interpolation of the received text as its spuriousness implies.

We now proceed to the new defence of the text in question by Ben David ;-and new it is in every sense of the word. The author of the Three Letters to the Editor of the Quarterly Review, under this Israelitish name, proposes to prove that the disputed verse forms the sum and substance of the whole Epistle, and that the true sense places its genuineness beyond all reasonable suspicion, and serves to account for every defect in its external evidence. (p. 3.) The pamphlet in which this vast plan is pursued consists of three Letters, in the first of which Ben David explains the object of the First Epistle General of St. John, which object, as he asserts, was to check the heresy of the Gnostics, who maintained that the Creator is an evil, imperfect Being, and that Christ was a God, either dwelling for a season in the man Jesus, or an empty phantom in his shape. (p. 4.) It was the design of St. Jolin, in this epistle, to op

pose these dogmas, and consequently that "the object of it is to set aside the divinity of Christ as an artifice to undermine the Gospel." (p. 11.) We had formerly believed, with Dr. Macknight that "some false teachers having denied the humanity, and others the divinity of our Lord, the apostle John, to confirm all the disciples in the belief of the truth concerning the person and offices of Christ, wrote this his first Epistle, in which he expressly asserted that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, chap. i. 3. 7. iv. 15., and that he came in the flesh, chap. iv. 2." (Pref. to 1 John.) But this, it seems, is a great error, for by the new light which irradiates under the mystic covering of Ben David we are taught to believe that St. John's design was to deny the doctrine of the divine nature of our Lord as the mere heretical opinion of vulgar credulity!

In the second Letter our critic explains what he conceives to be the scope and sense of the disputed verse: "There are three bearing testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

"The meaning then is," says he, "that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, which are in heaven, bear testimony; and these three testimonies are one testimony; or, as it is expressed by the parallelism in the next verse, agree in one testimony. The testimony meant, is that which it is the burden of this Epistle to prove; namely, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST: meaning, in opposition to the Antichristian teachers, that the man Jesus, and not a god dwelling in the man Jesus, or in the empty form of the man Jesus, is the Christ." P. 12.

Thus the scope of 1 John v. 7., as well as of the whole Epistle, is to establish the simple humanity of Christ!!,

The design of the third Letter is to prove the authenticity of the verse in question, and to account for the defect of its external evidence; and the author, in meeting the overwhelming evidence against the verse, frankly confesses that he has "little novelty to produce." With respect to that evidence, by which alone, either the genuineness or spuriousness of the text can be established, he has, indeed, produced little or nothing that is new; yet, his mode of defending it is certainly a "novelty." It mainly rests upon two propositions, which we shall state in his own words.

"First: a verse which sets aside the divinity of Christ could not be the forgery of any man, or any body of men, who in after times believed in his divinity. Such were all the Greek and Latin Fathers, through whose hands the verse descended to us.