ous in its motive, and deceitful in its purpofe. It was that fort of prudence, which belongs to the children of this world; whofe only praise is, but it is at the fame time their condemnation, that they are," in their generation, wifer than the children of light."

Erafmus being thus chaftifed with the preceptorial fceptre of Mr. Travis, it is but just that he fhould trample upon other men, who ftand in the way of his hypothefis. We will therefore not stay to record all the victories he has won, and all the trophies he has erected. We will only detain the reader for a moment upon the cafe of Dr. Benson, as this is in fome measure paramount, and perhaps the ne plus ultra of Mr. Travis himself.

Dr. Benfon was a man of learning and good fense, laborious in investigation, fcrupulous at least upon one fide of the hiftorian's duty, the ne quid falfi, and delivering nothing as a fact which he did not ferioufly believe. It is neceffary indeed in reading this Author, if you would form an impartial judgment, that you fhould compare him with the writers on the oppofite fide: but, alas! how flender is the band of polemical writers, of whom this must not be affirmed! For this human frailty however, he is most liberally chaftifed by our Author. We will felect one example from a group of fifty!

Thus far, Sir, for thofe objections of Dr. Benfon, which appropriate themselves to particular objects, and may be met by particular anfwers. And thus I beg leave to difmifs, for the prefent, at least, his differtation which for INTREPIDITY of affertion, disingenuousnefs of quotation, and defectiveness of conclufion has no equal-ftands. ALOOF beyond parallel, as far as my reading extends, either in ancient, or in modern, times!"

Thus much too for the fplendida bilis, the furor ecclefiaftica of Mr. Travis. As we really entertain a respect for this gentleman, we should be happy to contribute fomething, to liberate him from fo difgraceful and peftilent a distemper.. We truft, it has been fufficiently feen, that we are ourselves ftrongly difpofed to the fuppreffion of controverfial rancour and illiberality *. For a moment however, we will endeavour to imitate the ftyle of our Author, and hold up to him "his own form and preffure."

Our Printer however, in a late inftance, (Review for October, p. 305. 1. 13) has pushed this matter for us, a degree farther than we ever intended. We were by no means heroical enough, to declare war against all "Mr. Hume's antagonists." We have even a divine in our eye, who has treated that great man with perfect politeness and candour. The word that fhould have stood was antagonist," and the individual intended was a certain dignitary of the church, whofe performance fell under our confideration, Review for July, p. 31.

"The

66

"The paffage of Tertullian, in which he is fuppofed to have quoted the difputed text, is thus ftated early in the prefent performance. The connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Holy Spirit, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which Three are One." It were much to be wifhed, that Mr. Travis had been more candid in his extracts, and more faithful in his quotations. The words above cited are a part only of the expreffions of Tertullian, fome very material words being unfairly paffed by and omitted. The whole paffage taken together ftands thus:

Jefus Chrift, fpeaking of the Holy Ghoft, faid, He Shall take of mine; as he himself had taken of the Father. Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in in the Holy Spirit, makes an unity of thefe three one with another; qui Tres Unum funt, non Unus; quomodo dictum eft, Ego et Pater unum fumus."

Let this fentence be analized. Tertullian afferts, that the connexion of the three perfons is equal and entire in all its parts: he backs this affertion with a proof. Jefus Chrift faid, fpeaking of the Holy Ghoft, He shall take of mine; as he himself had taken of the Father." Again, he afferts that the three are 66 unum non unus,' one in effence, not in perfon': this affertion has alfo its proof. "As it is faid, Ego et Pater UNUM fumus." When an Author thus repeats his own form of expreffion a second time in the fame period, what, but the groffeft difingenuity can mifreprefent his meaning? In the former cafe Tertullian exhibited an affertion, backed with a proof; what then did he do in the latter? The inference needs not be mentioned. It follows too clofely to be miftaken or evaded.

66

"But if we implicitly receive his teftimony in the mutilated, curtailed condition, in which Mr. Travis has thought fit to ftate it, we may be led to a directly oppofite conclufion; we may be induced to convert into a proof from holy writ," the very thing intended to be proved. As a Theologian then, our Author is here chargeable with grofs ignorance, or intentional difponefly. If he did not know, what were the concluding words of the very period, part of which he thought proper to quote, the former part of the alternative falls upon him. If he faw the words, and yet suppressed them, he could not be an honest man. Let him chufe his alternative: So ftrange an ofcitancy renders him unfit for the office of a polemic: fo grofs a deception makes him unworthy of it. They are difqualifications, very different indeed in their nature; but they alike reject him from fitting in judgment upon the authenticity of the verfe in queftion.

"Both alternatives are thus offered to the reader; but he

will

will perhaps foon perceive on which of them he ought to fix. Having milled his reader with this mangled extract, and filled him with the idea that Tertullian did certainly quote the paffage; he thought he might venture a step farther. Fearful of detection, fheltered beneath thefe precautions, fome fourteen pages farther he has brought forward the whole paffage accompanied with a commentary of his own, in which he has endeavoured to twift it clean contrary to its obvious meaning. So fyftematical a fraud, fo practifed an impofture, we thank God will meet with but few examples to countenance it.

"Mr. Travis evidently appears in the character of a pre judiced fectarist, rather than of an indifferent commentator; and acts the part of a hired advocate, rather than of an unbiaffed judge."

66

We scarcely need inform the reader that the train of argument, and even the form of almost every expreffion in the four laft paragraphs are Mr. Trayis's. But the drefs fits too uneafily upon us. We might otherwife have gone on and applied it to where he tranflates Jerome's "Novum Teftamentum fidei Græca reddidi," by an entire adherence to "the Greek MSS [in the plural];" to where he infers the date of the dialogue between Arius and Athanafius, from the time in which the dialogue is fuppofed to have paffed; to where he has implicitly copied a blunder of Martin, upon which the celebrated Wetstein has thus remarked; Circa bunc codicem [the Dublin MS.] non unum errorem commifit D. Martin: illum imprimis valde ridiculum, quod, cum in hoc codice in fine Evangelii Marci adderetur, Marcum Evangelium fuum edidiffe a dexa xpains, decem annis, poft afcenfionem Chrifti, Martinus, annos in fæcula con "vertendo, et Marcum in librarium qui hunc codicem exaravit, codicem hunc attribuit fæculo undecimo;" in a word, to all those inftances, which human inadvertency, and human prejudices fo naturally bring forward in the compafs of a five fhilling pamphlet. But we must shake off the task. We will leave it to the reader to apply, as he can, the language of the following paffage; which would deferve to be cited for its eloquence, were it not ftill more confpicufor its acrimony.

66

66

46

"As to what Victor Vitenfis has faid, adds Benfon, towards "the conclufion of the fifth century; or others in later ages, it cannon "be of much moment. And therefore, I shall fay nothing to fucio "late teftimonies,"-viz. in favor of the Verfe in question. And yet, in oppofition to the Verfe, the Doctor foon afterwards cites Bede of the eighth, and Oecumenius of the eleventh century! The "fin," then it feems," which fo eafily befets" the teftimony of this African bishop, in the mind of Dr. Benfon, is-its being ci

VEN

VEN IN FAVOR OF THIS VERSE! Had his teftimony been ad verfe to the Verfe, it had been well; and Dr. Benfon would have "praifed his faying." Had it amounted to no more than to a meré omiffion in a commentator, ftill it had been well; for that of Bede and Oecumenius, is no more. Had it been barely negative, and had its only merit been that of affording matter for conjecture, as theirs was,-still it would have been well; and the name of Victor Vitenfis would have been found, in the Differtation of Dr. Benfon in proud precedency to thofe of Oecumeniusz and the Venerable Bede. Ill-fated Victor! Thou who relatest a plain hiftory of plain facts; who givest an unadorned account of what was feen, and heard by thee, in the unequal contest, at Carthage, between truth, and tyranny, between a few bishops, "fhod" only" with the preparation of the gofpel peace," and the armed band of the defpotic Huneric; thou, whose narrative was written whilft Arianifm fat triumphant on the throne, and therefore must be circumfpect; in the face of exafperated ene-. mies, and therefore must be accurate; which was published whilst the parties, fpoken of in it, were living, and therefore must be faithful; which recorded a tranfaction known through all the dominions of Huneric, and therefore must be true, because the smallest deviation from truth would have been followed by instant detection; a narrative, confequently, which alone, weighs down all the fophifms of a thoufand fuch argumentators as Dr. Ben fon, and needs only to be read in order to compel conviction : Quauta de fpe decidifti! Into what hands art thou fallen! Why is thy teftimony rejected, which is thus plain, thus pointed, thus pofitive, when the mere omiffions of Bede and Oecumenius, are conjured up into fomething like negative evidence and dreffed out in all the mock majefty of Ixion's Juno? Alas! in the language of Shylock, Thy deeds be on thy head." There is but one answer to be given for thee, "So can I give no other reafon, nor I will not." -which is, thou art not on Dr. Benfon's fide.'

66

Early in our article we delivered what appeared to us to be a fair ftate of the evidence for and against the authenticity of the verfe. We will now fhow the reader in two words how our Author fums up the evidence ; and we beg he will not believe, that Mr. Travis is capable, like Dr. Benson, "of acting the part of an hired ad"vocate, or a prejudiced fectarist.

"The evidenees, that have been enumerated," fays our author, "offering themselves to the teft of the judgment, combined in one point of view, unchecked by a single negative, unrebuked by any contradiction, unrefifted by any the smallest, direct, impeachment of the authenticity of the Verfe throughout all the annals of all antiquity:-ALL THESE CIR CUMSTANCES feize the mind, as it were by violence, and compel it to acknowledge the verity, the original exiftence, of the verse in queftion." Again, "THE RESULT THEN FROM THE WHOLE, is, that the Verfe, in quef

tion

tion, feems, beyond all degree of SERIOUS doubt, to have stood in this epiftle when it originally proceeded from the pen of St. John.'

Some of our readers will be difpofed to fmile, at seeing fo long and minute a piece of theological difquifition addressed to Mr. Gibbon. If we were to quote fome of the expreffions, into which this form of address has led our Author, we are apprehenfive it would not tend to compofe their features.--Certain manufcripts were found by a Father le Long in the king of France's library, marked with the fame fignatures, as those which Robert Stephens received from that library; but they were not found to contain the difputed text. Mr. Travis through fome pages of his work controverts their identity. At length he returns to Mr. Gibbon.

66

And now, Sir, will you contend for Father Le Long, (who cannot now answer for himfelf) that you are "fatisfied of the identity of thefe MSS. ?" Or will you fay, with Dr. Benfon, that these are the MSS. of Robert Stephens, and that, on the "stricteft examination, they are found to want this difputed paffage"? "You will not venture to do either. I DARE, I DO,-call upon you for your affirmative. But you DARE not put it to the hazard'.

In the conclufion of his pamphlet Mr. Travis descends to fome miscellaneous animadverfions on Mr. Gibbon's Hiftory, which, are wrought up with his ufual fpleen and acrimony. Through these we are not at leifure to follow him. In one inftance he produces a paffage, in which, probably through an overfight and hafte, of which he is feldom guilty, Mr. Gibbon quotes an author, in a sense exactly oppofite to what the author intended.

M.

ART. III. The Hiftory of Great Britain, from the Firft Invafion of it by the Romans under Julius Cæfar. Written upon a New Plan. By Robert Henry, D. D. One of the Minifters of Edinburgh, Member of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, and of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Volume the Fifth. 4to. l. 1s. bds. Edinburgh. Sold by the Author. London, Cadell and Longman.

IN

N his former volumes Dr. Henry has diftinguished himfelf by a rigid adherence to opinions which are now al, most obfolete, and by a very unneceffary and illiberal panegyrick on prerogative: Notwithstanding the pofitive teftimony of the Anglo-Saxon laws, he will not allow that the people were reprefented antiently in our parliaments. He confiders their condition as little better than that of flaves; and he has prefumed to deride the antiquity of the trial by juries. He pertinaciously contends that the feudal law was unknown to our Saxon ancestors; and yet is certain from indubitable monuments, that every step in its progreffion Eng. Rev. vol. V.Mar. 1785. M

was