verfion. 3. That it is quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian Marcus Celedenfis, Phabadius, Jerome, Eucherius and Vigilius between the second and the fifth centuries. 4. That it was appealed to in a proteft, entered by the diffentient party in the Arian council of Carthage, held in the year 484.-The objections of thofe, who controvert the authenticity of the text, undergo a ftrict investigation from Mr. Travis, and the refult seems to be as follows.

"

In the first inftance, no doubt every one would be apt to feel a decided preference for the teftimony of his fenfes. The evidence of Valla, Stephens and Beza can never be put upon a par with it; becaufe on this fide there is a previous queftion, that of their veracity, which may be more or less involved. The "honeft bigotry" as Mr. Gibbon styles it, of former ages, is apt to force itself upon our minds; and we recollect the various frauds, which to do God fervice" have been palmed upon the world. The queftion however, that lay before thefe critics, is of a very direct and precife nature; and we can fcarcely refufe credit, particularly to the indefatigable accuracy and the difinterefted exertions of Robert Stephens.-But how comes it, it will be asked, that all thefe manuscripts, that contained the verfe in question, are now loft? To this Mr. Travis gives an answer, in part fatisfactory, by showing that there was a middle period, between that of the first printed editions of the New Testament, and the more enlightened and insatiable curiofity of a latter age, when manufcripts being conceived to have done their duty, were thrown by as ufelefs lumber, and perished by thousands without animadverfion. And he argues; fince the manufcripts of Stephens, Ximenes and Valla were felected at random as it were from the boundless multitude; that it is plain, that the bulk of the manufcripts then existing read the difputed text.-What would Mr. Travis fay, if fome unlucky antagonist were to rejoin: Since all the manufcripts that can now be found, with the exception of two, do not read the disputed text; it is plain, that the bulk of the manufcripts, of which they are the remnant, were alfo without it? There arofe, no Arian Conftantius, no Vandal Huneric upon the revival of letters, to decide the preference; and it can at beft only be faid, that the argument is exactly of the fame value, whichever way you take it.

With respect to the moft confiderable of the ancient verfions, Mr. Travis demonftrates, that the Syriac and the Coptic are extremely erroneous, and that the Arabic, the Ethiopic and the Perfic are only copies of the Syriac.

The validity of the third objection, from the paffage not

being

being quoted by the bulk of the more ancient fathers, is in fome measure admitted, But our author endeavours to diminifh its force, by obferving; that a part only of their works remains; the text may have been cited in the part which is loft. It happens however, that in the works which remain the quotation would have been apt and natural. True, fays Mr. Trayis, if the fathers in queftion were of opinion that the unity fpoken of was an unity of nature; but if they thought it meant an unity of teftimony only, the moft obvious method was to pass it over in filence. But this obfervation is rather unfortunate. The fathers were full of myfticifm and allegory. Many a text have they forced into a fervice for which nature never defigned it; but it would be difficult to fhow, where they have been induced to give up an appofite and well-founding paffage, through a critical refinement upon the direct fcope of its Author.

This filence however of the majority is further confirmed with the direct evidence of others. The ftrefs of the queftion here lies upon Tertulian and Cyprian, as the more ancient. Mr. Travis feems fufficiently to have established a quotation in the cafe of Cyprian; in that of Tertullian he has failed, The words "three are one," are too obvious and unavoidble a form of expreffing the doctrine of the Trinity, for it to be at all neceffary for us to believe them borrowed from St. John. The fame obfervation applies to the supposed quotations of Marcus Celedenfis and Phabadius. The authenticity of the preface of Jerome, which has been alledged in this controverfy, is doubtful.

The last objection of the oppugners of the text seems to be of too vague a nature to deferve much attention. It is well known that the apoftles did not conftruct their com pofitions by the rules of Ariftotle and Cicero. When a great and ftriking truth occurred to them in the course of their performance, they feldom fcrupled to fufpend their argument though it were for a longer fpace than that of a fingle verfe, to imprefs it upon their readers. The two lat

ter of the terreftrial witnefles, (the water and the blood. v. 8.) are ufually interpreted of the ichor flowing from our Saviour's wounded fide. From fuch a paffage it will fcarcely be denied that fome obfcurity is infeparable. And how easy is it in that cafe, for a man of any ingenuity, to discover a thousand links of poffible connection, which, if they would never have occurred to the illiterate reader, cannot however be refuted by the moft fubtle? Accordingly in this very cafe a paraphrafe, in our opinion perfectly adequate to the difficulty, is given by the ingenious Mr. Travis, the

idea

idea of which is borrowed from the more ingenious Eraf

mus.

The performance before us is entitled to confiderable applaufe. There runs through it an accuracy of arrangement, a juftnefs of difcrimination, and a folidity of judgment, that have feldom been excelled. Nor is the ftyle merely that of a logician; it is also various, energetic, and even rhetorical. It intrenches unexpectedly upon the unappropriated borders of the poetical art; and the nervous and fpirited manner, in which his antagonifts are fometimes arraigned, might well communicate unpleasant feelings to the boldett breaft. In a word, the colder fubjects of theology have feldom been treated in fo mafterly a manner; and the barren regions of polemics have rarely worn fo beautiful an at

tire.

And here, and with fome extract, by which we fhould have been able amply to confirm fo favourable a decifion had we confulted only our feelings for Mr. Travis, we fhould have clofed our account. But it will not be. Mr. Travis is a diftinguished and an atrocious criminal. Juftice, moderation, benignity, and every confideration that em, braces the general weal of the literary republic, forbid that he fhould efcape with impunity. To borrow the language of a recent publication (and it may be applied with the greatest juftice in the example before us) "few inftances of the kind fo ftriking can be produced, at leaft in the prefent century."

Our readers, we are perfuaded, are not to be informed of the confideration and respect that is due from us, to the ancient and illuftrious champions of intellectual merit, to the great reftorers of learning, to the men (fome of them poffeffed of very fuperior abilities) who fubmitted to the la borious tafk of clearing away the rubbish of literature, that we might "enter into the fruits of their labours." It is fometimes however defirable, that men fhould be reminded of duties, of which they are not abfolutely ignorant. For the prefent we will devolve the task upon another; and it cannot be placed in better hands than thofe of Mr. Travis.

It has been difputed, in our opinion, with plaufibility, not with folidity, whether the manufcripts of Robert Stephens did really contain the verse in queftion. Mr. Gibbon, who, upon a fubject fo little analogous to the general courfe of his ftudies, we imagine rather followed the excellent fcholars who had already difcuffed the controverfy, than went to the original authorities himself, talks of the "typographical fraud, er error, of Robert Stephens, in the

placing

placing a crotchet; and the deliberate falfehood, or ftränge mifapprehenfion of Theodore Beza." The charge is thus parried by our Author.-Thefe great men either retained the verfe" on purpose, or by miftake. Not by mistake," as may well be concluded from their fingular accuracy; and the exact agreement of all their editions." The confequence is inevitable: They retained it on purpose."

"And, unless we are now, at length to fuppofe, that Robert Stephens first advanced an intentional falfehood in the face of the whole Chrif tian world, as to the existence of this verfe in his MSS, and, that afterwards, Beza, who had thofe very MSS put into his hands which enabled him to detect the falsehood, did, inffead of betraying, abet, and fupport, him in it; unless we are now, at length, to defpoil them both of thofe characters of learning, and worth, of probity, and honor, with which their memories have been fo long adorned, and confecrated, and to conclude that they confpired to act, in concert, the infamous (and, in the prefent cafe, impious) part of cheats, and impoftors: Unlefs we are now become defperately determined to speak, and act, in contradiction to the voice of all Europe, in defiance of the teftimony of ages, paft, and prefent, as well as in utter fubverfion of every principle of literary candor, and Chriftian charity, we must feel ourfelves, of neceffity, compelled to acknow ledge, that what Robert Stephens thus did intentionally, he alfo did confcientiously; that he, and Theodore Beza, have a right to command our full affent, when they only affirm a plain fact, which lay within their own knowledge, and which, therefore, they were compleatly competent to afcertain; that Robert Stephens did not place the latter femi-circle wrong, either by miftake, or on purpose :—and that when it is affected to teach us, either by Dr. Benson, or by Mr. Gibbon, of the "typographical fraud or error, of Robert Stephens," in the prefent inftance, at leaft; or of the deliberate falsehood, or frange mifapprehenfion of Theodore Beza;" fuch teaching is in vain!"

.66

For the character of that great philologift, Robert Stephens we profefs, in common with Mr. Travis, the profoundest veneration. But there is a name belonging to the fame period, that stands higher, infinitely higher, than that of Stephens. There is a man who was to the body of that great adventure, by which the human mind was for ever freed from its fhackles, the informing foul.. This man joined to the brightest genius and the most unrivalled wit, an unwearied industry. His temper was fo mild, his genius fo humane and conciliating, his manners fo fimple and candid, that he won the affection and good will of all mankind. Without the refolution of a martyr, and without the courage of a hero, by the luftre of his abilities, the pointedness of his fatire, and the honeft policy of his conduct, he did more to fubferve the beft interefts of mankind, than either Luther and Calvin. If then the Character of Stephens be treat

ed

ed with this commendable tendernefs and confideration, what is not due to Erafmus?

Erasmus was the first person, who "caft the public imputation of impofture" on the difputed verfe. In the two first editions of his Greek teftament the verse was not inferted; it made its appearance in his third edition. Upon this occafion he declared," as his apology for having left it out of the two former, that he had not found it in five Greek MSS, which he had then confulted; but that he had now replaced it, because he found that it did exist in a very ancient Greek MS. in England." "It appears however," fays Benson," that he had a bad opinion of this MS. For he fais, Quanquam et hunc Jupicor ad Latinorum codices cafigatum fuiffe. And he planely acknowledges, that what induced him to infert the difputed text, was, ne fit anfa "ne calumniandi, thathe might not give an handle to any, to call him an Arian, or fufpe&t him of hærefie." This conduct Mr. Gibbon had ftyled "the prudence of Erafmus." It is thus treated by Mr. Travis.

"It feems impoffible to account for the behaviourof Erafmus in this matter, taking the whole of it into contemplation at once, but more upon one of thofe fuppofitions: Either he could not produce the five MSS, in which he had alledged the verfe to be omitted; or he had other authorities, much fuperior to the teftimony of a fingle MS, for replacing the verfe, which he was not, however, ingenious enough to acknowledge. Upon the face of his own apology, then, the conduct of Erafmus, in this instance, was mean; upon the fuppofition (which however, exhibits the real folution of the affair) of his having kept back from the world his true motives of action, it was highly disingenuous, and grofly unworthy.

"Let me however, Sir, try to agree with you in afcribing the conduct of Erafmus to its true fource. His "prudence" you affirm has contributed, among other caufes, to "eftablish the three" (viz. heavenly) "avitnefes in our Greek Teitament." Perhaps it may. But when your communications had proceeded thus far, it would have been well if they had taken one ftep more, and not left, to me, the unwelcome task of pointing out the nature, the fort, of that prudence, which governed Erafmus upon this occafion. It was not merely, a prudent fear of being "fufpected of hærefie," as Dr. Benfon afferts,

but a more awakened fear, a fear of this discovery; it was not the bare apprehenfion of being called an Arian," but the ferious dread of flanding proved guilty of difhoneft concealments, in order to ferve the cause of Arianism; which "induced him to infert this difputed text" in his edition of A. D. 1522. It was prudence, then, Sir, if you will have it fo, which governed the mind of Erafmus in this matter. But it was a prudence, which will reflect no honour upon those who practife it. It was a prudence, which was difingenu

ous