ing of the sacred text, while the readings of MSS. preserved by that very church are not in unison with the confession, is a very clumsy mode of establishing the point. That Eusebius possessed the power, or the disposition, to alter the sacred text; or that any alteration made by him should have found its way into all existing Greek MSS. is altogether improbable, or at least destitute of any adequate support. Although I consider that Mr. Nolan fails in maintaining the common reading in 1 John, v. 7, and in supporting his hypotheses generally, it is due to him to say, that his work contains much that is worthy of attention from the biblical scholar, and is written throughout in a very commendable spirit of moderation and candour. That I may not be considered as keeping back any thing which belongs to the other side of the question from what I espouse, I extract the following note, in which Mr. Nolan gives some account of the reading of the ancient French and Waldensian versions.

"Of the old versions which have

been published in French, two were made by the Waldenses; vid. Le Long. Bibl. Sacr. Tom. I. p. 313, col. 2. e. Morland on the Church of the Valleys. p. 14. But one copy of this version has fallen into my hands, which was printed at the native place of Peter Waldo; 'Au Lyon, l'an de grace 1521.' The following is the reading of 1 Joh. v. 7, 8. fol. clxiv. b. Trois choses sont qui donnent tesmoing au ciel, le pere le filz et le sainct esperit, et ces trois sont une chose. Et trois choses qui donnent tesmoing en terre, esperit eaue et sang. This testimony would be of little importance until the character of the translation was investigated, by a comparison with other French Versions and the old Italic and modern Latin Vulgate; were it not

for the following considerations: (1.) It differs from the Latin Vulgate; as it reads le filz' for Verbum.' (2.) It agrees in this reading with an antient Confession of Faith, used by the Waldenses. Leger. Hist. Gen. des Eglis. Vaudois. P. I. ch. viii. p. 50. ed. Leyd. 1669. 'Eschant. v. de la Doctrine des Vaudois, contenant la fidele traduction de l'Exposition qu'ils ont donné au Symbole des Apôtres-où ils en prouvent tous les Articles par passages exprées de la S. Ecriture.—' Lequel Dieu est un Trinité, comme il est ecrit en la Loy, O Israel écoute,' &c.—Et S. Jean, Il y en a trois qui rendent témoinage au ciel, le Pere, le Fils, et le S. Esprit, et ces trois sont un. The original of this passage, as far as I can gather from M. Leger, may be found in le Sieur du Perrin, Hist. des Vaudois et Albigeois, chap. v. p. 201. sqq. The proof appears to me to be so far complete, that this passage was adopted in the authorised text used by the Waldenses. The following considerations seem adequate to evince, that it existed in the Latin Version revised by St. Eusebius of Verceli, who published the old translation which prevailed in the Italic Diocese. (1.) In reading Filius,' it agrees with Tertullian and Cyprian, against the common testimony of the Modern Vulgate, and the Latin Fathers; vid. infr. p. 291. n. sqq. (2.) St. Eusebius might have hence adopted this reading, as he has adopted other readings from those fathers, in his revisal: vid. infr. p. 146. n. (3.) The French version agrees with the old Italic in possessing other readings derived from the same source: in the Lord's Prayer, we find, instead of 'ne inducas nos in temptationem.' Lat. Vulg.ne nous mene mye mye en temptacion, cest a dire ne souffre mye que nous syonz temptez: conformably to

Tertullian and Cyprian: vid. infr. p. 330. n. (4.) The disputed passage, as read in the Waldensian Confession, and the French Version, is accommodated to the state of religious opinion which prevailed in the age of St. Eusebius. By changing Verbum to Filius, in vers. 7. the Sabellian evasion of the passage was obviated: vid. infr. p. 539. n. By cutting off'et hi tres (in) unum sunt,' in vers. 8. the Arian evasion of the passage was equally obviated. For this phrase furnished some countenance to the notion of those heretics who asserted, that unum sunt' signified an unity, not of substance, but of will and testimony. As these are coincidences which the Waldenses cannot be supposed to have created, I thence conclude, that 1 John v. 7. not only existed in the revisal of the old Italic Version made by Eusebius Vercellensis; but that the peculiar reading of this text, which is found in the French Version, and which has excited M. Porson's notice, has been thus remotely adopted from St. Cyprian: vid. Porson. Lett. to Trav. p. 377. It thus easily made its way into Wicklef's translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses; vid. Pors. ibid. Morl. ub. supr. p. 184."

The work of Mr. Nolan occasioned a controversy in the Christian Remembrancer for 1822, between that gentleman and the Rev. John Oxlee. It was carried on, as discussions of this nature in periodical works usually are, with a good deal of warmth, but without the names of the parties appearing. It led at last to the publication of the following pamphlet: "Three Letters addressed to the Rev. Frederic Nolan, Vicar of Prittlewell, on his erroneous Criticisms and Mis-statements in the Christian

* Pref. pp. xviii. xix. N. S. NO. 54.

Remembrancer, relative to the Text of the Heavenly Witnesses; in which are contained, also, Strictures on the Vindication of the spurious Passage by the Bishop of St. David's: together with a new Translation of the Genuine Text, proposed and defended from every Cavil. By the Rev. John Oxlee, Rector of Scawton, and Curate of Stonegrave." York. 1825.

At present I shall postpone any notice of the debate with Dr. Burgess, till we come to that period of the controversy in which the Bishop is more particularly concerned, when Mr. Oxlee again appears; nor shall I say any thing of the style in which Mr. Oxlee has treated his opponent. His language is that of unmeasured severity and contempt. To this he appears to have been provoked by some things said by Mr. Nolan; but scarcely any thing can justify the language which he has, in several places, employed. He writes, however, like a man thoroughly at home in the whole debate; to whom the vast range both of oriental and occidental learning is familiar. He meets the views of his opponent on the testimony of the African Church, and likewise his reasoning on the French and Waldensian versions, in the most triumphant manner, leaving not the shadow of argument unanswered. The reasonings for the authenticity of the prologue to the Catholic Epistles, on which so much stress has been laid, he also very ably refutes. In his third letter he brings forward a new which he endeavours to defend and translation of the genuine text, illustrate. Mr. Oxlee, like many other ingenious and able men, succeeds better in overthrowing the system of others than in sustaining his own. On a passage, however, which involves so many difficulties, and which is of hard interpretation, independently of what may be reЗА

garded as the true reading, it becomes us to be modest, whether in objecting to the views of others or maintaining our own. I am sorry I cannot give Mr. Oxlee's arguments in support of his new translation at full length; but it is due to him to give the principal passage.

"The connexion of what is now the eighth, with the sixth verse, is so close, that there is no understanding their import, without furnishing the whole context. This I shall do, according to the Alexandrine Manuscript, which is supported in its reading of the sixth verse, not only by Cyrillus Alexandrinus, but by the latter Syriac, the Armenian, the Coptic, and the Ethiopic versions. It is here given with the amended translation subjoined. Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν διὰ ὕδατος και αἵματος και πνέυματος, Ἰησᾶς Χριστός· ἐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι και ἐν τῷ πνέυματι και τὸ πνευμά ἐστι τὸ μαρτυρῶν ὅτι τὸ πνευμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια : Οτι τρεις εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυρώντες τὸ πνευμα και τὸ ὕδωρ και τὸ αἷμα και οἱ τρεις εἰς τὸ ev elov. This is he who came by water, and blood, and spirit, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the spirit: and the spirit is that which beareth witness; for the spirit is the truth. For there are three who attest or bear witness of the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are for one thing.' The Armenian version of the sixth verse is as follows: This is he who came with water, and with spirit, and with blood, Jesus Christ; not with water only; but with blood and water: and the spirit is that which beareth witness; for the spirit is truth.' The Coptic reads thus:-"This is he who came by water, and blood, and spirit, Jesus the Christ: not with the water alone, but with the water and the blood; and the spirit beareth witness, for the spirit is the truth.' The Philoxenian, or later

Syriac version, as edited by Professor White, agrees with the Coptic. The Ethiopic version of this verse, in its present corrupt state, is evidently ungrammatical, and in the London Polyglott very inaccurately translated; but by omitting the prefix, Beth, before the repetition of the term, Manfes, Spirit, it will then, with the context, yield the following grammatical and consistent sense:-'And who is he that overcometh the world, except him who believes that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God; Wacama, and that he came by water, and by spirit, and by blood, Jesus Christ; and not by water only, but by water and by blood; and it is the spirit, which beareth witness.'-That St. Cyrill, in the place above alledged, read the verse as it now stands in the Alexandrine Manuscript, is demonstrable from this circumstance, that, though he is made to cite it first as it stands in the generality of the modern Greek manuscripts; yet he soon after subjoins, Αλλὰ καὶ ἐν αἴματι και ἐν πνέυματι; But, also, with blood, and with spirit; which is intelligible only on the supposition, that he had in the verse all the three terms, water, blood, and spirit, as they appear in that manuscript. It deserves to be remarked, too, that in the text of the Witnesses, instead of "Ori rpels eioiv oi μaρrupevтes, For there are three who bear witness; he has, "Ori Tρēls μaprupo, For three bear witness; which, on being compared with the Latin version of the same verse, Quia tres testimonium perhibent, in the tract, De Baptismo Hæreticorum; warrants the conclusion, that, in some of the best Greek manuscripts of those early times, this reading was prevalent which we now find in St. Cyrill. So far as concerns the New Translation, it is perfectly immaterial, which of the two readings should be preferred.”*

* Oxlee's Letters, pp. 86-88.

The critical, grammatical, and theological objections to this version, Mr. Oxlee endeavours to meet. With what success, must be left to the judgment of the reader of his pamphlet.

The learned author of this reply to Mr. Nolan possesses very considerable acquaintance with several of the Oriental languages. It is evident both from this pamphlet, and from his "Three Letters to the Archbishop of Cashel, respecting his Grace's Apocryphal Publications," that he has a profound knowledge of the Rabbinical writings. He is also well acquainted with the Armenian version, which is rather an uncommon attainment in this country. The following passage contains valuable information respecting the reading in 1 John v. 7. of the MSS. of this version and its present state.

66

There is no trace of it in the Armenian version, which, as we now have it handed down to us, was made from Greek manuscripts of the Origenean or Eusebian recension at Constantinople, about the year 432, during the episcopate, and with the liberal assistance of the Constantinopolitan patriarch, Maximianus. In the first edition, indeed, of the Armenian Scriptures by Uscan, printed at Amsterdam in 1666, the text of the Heavenly Witnesses is inserted; but for this, as well as many other passages, Uscan has been severely handled by succeeding editors; as having attempted to corrupt the text from the Latin vulgate, contrary to the authority of the Armenian manuscripts. In the edition of the New Testament, printed at Venice in 1789, both the Earthly and the Heavenly Witnesses are included in a parenthesis; with the annotation in the margin, That thus much is otherwise in the manuscripts. Then, again, at the end of the volume, in their Advertisement to

the reader, where they take occasion to explain their use of the parenthesis; the editors further inform us, that, in respect of the passage under dispute, all their manuscripts, above ten in number, in conformity with the old Greek text, as well as with the Syriac and Arabic versions, exhibit the text in this short form. Because the Spirit indeed is truth. These three there are who bear testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are one. If we admit the testimony, &c. That what was thus wanted in the great majority of the manuscripts, and without any tendency to illustrate the context, they had included within a parenthesis, as wholly obstructing the sense of St. John. In the critical edition, however, of the whole Bible, printed at Venice in 1805, the spurious passage is wholly omitted; and the text restored, as above, according to the reading of the manuscripts. Since very few of my countrymen can boast of possessing this edition of the Armenian Scriptures, and still fewer, perhaps, of the ability to read it: I shall be doing, probably an acceptable service to the English scholar, if I translate the whole annotation of the editors on the place, which is as follows:- Here, as well as in many other places, Uscan hath interpolated and altered the Armenian text from the Latin version, in this manner. Who testifieth that Christ is truth. For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three which bear witness on earth, spirit, water, and blood; and the three are one. If we admit the testimony of men, &c. But out of about eighteen manuscript copies that we have, ancient as well as modern, not to mention two commentaries of universal reception; one alone, which

was transcribed in the year 1656, about ten years before the printed edition of Uscan, exhibits the text in this form. For the Spirit indeed is the truth. These are the three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three which testify on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood. If we admit the testimony of men, &c. Though there was also another manuscript copy, which on the surface had an equal and similar reading with this; yet the original or first reading had evidently been erased, and the intermediate space thus exactly filled up in smaller characters by a more recent scribe. But all the rest of our manuscripts, of whatever description, equally, and in accordance with a multitude of the more ancient Greek manuscripts, uni

formly exhibit the text according to what we have found in our duty to give in the foregoing place.' Thus in the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Armenians have happily rescued the printed text of their Scriptures from this audacious and manifest corruption of the language of St. John; and I have little doubt, that, could the authorized English version be again duly revised, the falsified text of which we complain, would experience the same fate. In the interim, it is the duty of the clergy of the Church of England not to be more culpably negligent than others in vindicating the purity of the Holy Scriptures; and, if they cannot immediately remove from their version the spurious passage, at least not to be afraid to give publicity to the fraud."* * Pp. 130-132.

To the Editors.-PERMIT me to make a few observations on a passage in one of the articles of your magazine for the last month. I wish to be understood, in doing this, to do it rather in the spirit of inquiry, than of censure. The passage to which I refer, occurs in an extract from the life of the Rev. J. Townsend. It is this: "Dissenting ministers willingly take the humble station of servants to the church of Christ." question with me is, in what sense the Scriptures warrant the application of this term to the pastor of a Christian society? In what sense he is justified in applying it to himself? and in what sense the people ought to regard him, as sustaining this character, and occupy ing this" humble station?"

The

That I may not be misunderstood in proposing such questions for discussion, allow me to re

mark, in the first place, that I entertain a decided and conscientious hostility against any thing like priestly pride, and ministerial assumption; that I believe the most attractive virtue in the minister, as in the private Christian, is humility, -a likeness to his Master, who was "lowly in heart,”—a cultivation of" the meekness and the gentleness of Christ." But, in the second place, I observe, that it should never be forgotten, that humility, properly so called, consists not in thinking falsely, but justly, of our state, character, actions, or office, and in corresponding displays of feeling and conduct. Thus defined, humility is a virtue by no means limited to this world, or to our species. It has existed ever since the first created mind was made, and it will exist for ever. It belongs to all worlds, and to all classes of virtuous