reader, as Sir Isaac's tract is not in many hands, his paraphrase of the verses in which the words alleged to be spurious have been inserted. It is, at least, a plausible interpretation of a very difficult passage. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God; that Son spoken of in the Psalms, where he saith, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. This is He that, after the Jews had long expected him, came, first in a mortal body, by baptism of water, and then in an immortal one, by shedding his blood, being the Son of God, as well by his resurrection from the dead (Acts xiii. 33.) as by his supernatural birth of the Virgin. (Luke i. 35.) And it is the Spirit also, that, together with the water and blood, beareth witness of the truth of his coming; because the Spirit is truth; and so a fit and unexceptionable wit ness. "For there are three that bear record of his coming, the Spirit which he promised to send, and which was since shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and in various gifts. The baptism of water, wherein God testified, This is my beloved Son; and the shedding of his blood, accompanied with his resurrection, whereby he became the most faithful martyr, or witness of this truth. And these three, the Spirit, the baptism, and Passion of Christ, agree in witnessing one and the same thing, (namely, that the Son of God is come,) and therefore their evidence is strong for the law requires but two consenting witnesses, and here we have three: and if we receive the witness of men, the threefold witness of God, which he bare of his Son, by declaring at his baptism, This is my beloved Son; by raising him from the dead, and by pouring out his Spirit on us, is greater. "This is the sense, plain and natural, and the argument full anl strong; but, if you insert the testimony of the three in heaven,’ you interrupt and spoil it. For the whole design of the Apostle being here to prove to men, by witnesses, the truth of Christ's coming, I would ask, how the testimony of the three in heaven' makes to this purpose. "If their testimony be not given to men, how does it prove to them the truth of Christ's coming? If it be, how is the testimony in heaven distinguished from that on earth? It is the same Spirit which witnesses in heaven and in earth. If in both cases it witnesses to us men; wherein is the difference between its witnessing in heaven, and its witnessing in earth? If, in the first case, it does not witness to men, to whom does it witness? And to what purpose? And how does its witnessing make to the design of St. John's discourse? Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none."* In 1756, the second edition of Dr. Benson's Work on the Catholic Epistles was published. In the second volume of this learned and valuable Commentary, there is a Dissertation "Concerning the Genuineness of 1 John v. 7, 8." Dr. Benson, as might be expected, took decided part against the reading. His Dissertation does not contain much that is original; but gives a very lucid view of the substance of the evidence on which Dr. Benson formed his opinion. He begins with the Fathers, and * Newton's Letters to Le Clerc, pp. 74-76. this work as "a Paraphrase of the GosMr. Butler strangely characterises pels." See Horæ, Bib. I. p. 378. shows, that while Tertullian, Cyprian, and Jerome have been referred to, no satisfactory evidence exists in their writings, that any of them had read this passage. He next notices the Greek MSS., and alleges that they furnish no authority for the insertion of the passage. The ancient versions, he maintains, are all on the same side. The evidence against the text is next produced, and "the sum of the whole matter" is thus given by the Doctor, in the way of accounting for the introduction of the passage. "To sum up the whole matter. The true state of the case seems to have been this. 'As these words were not written by St. John himself, they were not in any ancient MS. or Version; or known to any of the ancient fathers. But Tertullian, applying these words of ver. 8. (These three are one), to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Cyprian took that for the mystical interpretation of ver. 8. By him, Facundus, Eucherius, Fulgentius, Austin, and others, were led into that interpretation. And, very probably, Cyprian himself, or rather some of his admirers, wrote that interpretation, in the margin, overagainst ver. 8. as a glosse. And by some future transcriber, it was incorporated into the text itself. There are, at this day, several MSS., both Greek and Latin, which have it in the margin. And such insertion of explanatory words, or phrases, from the margin, into the text, are common in MSS. Jerome, in one of his letters, says, that an explanatory note, which he himself had made, in the margin of his psalter, had been incorporated by some transcriber into the text. And Dr. Mill points out many similar in stances. "The English Polyglot, and six other editions of the Syriac Version, has not the seventh verse. Tremellius likewise observes the same thing. But in a marginal note, he has translated the seventh verse into Syriac; though he dared not insert it into the text in his edition. However, Gutbirius inserted it, contrary to the authority of all the Syriac copies, both printed and manuscript. And, after him, Schaaf, without the authority of one MS. copy of the New Testament in Syriac, hath likewise, in his edition of the Syriac New Testament, boldly, without any apology, and without any mark of distinction, inserted Tremellius' translation into the text. Thus we see, by what steps it might be at first brought into the text. Some zealous men have called it a grand forgery. And Gutbirius and Schaaf cannot easily be excused. But it is possible, that the transcriber who first inserted it in the text, might apprehend, that as he found it interlined, or in the margin, it had been omitted by the former copyist. And that, therefore, he did well in supplying that omission. Others, again, copied after him. And thus it got into some few (but not into the generality) of Latin copies. "From those Latin copies, or quotations from thence, it was very probably translated into Greek, and inserted into the text in some modern manuscripts, and interlined, or put in the margin of MSS. of an older date. As it is now found to be in several MSS., Greek and Latin, in both public and private libraries. "To make it spread, some busybody, about the eighth or ninth century, by a pious fraud, forged the preface to the Catholic Epistles, under the name of Jerome. And to give it the authority of antiquity, ascribed the restoring of this disputed text, in the Latin copies, to that learned Father; at the same time, complaining of the unfaithfulness of the Latin translators, for leaving it out. From thence it appears, that when that preface was forged, the disputed text was in very few Latin copies. But such a preface, under the name of Jerome, would induce many for the future to insert it. Thus it may be accounted for, why it is not quoted by the primitive fathers; why it appears more early, in the Latin, than in the Greek MSS. And how it comes to be, in our printed copies at this day.' In the second edition of Bowyer's Conjectures on the New Testament, 4to. 1784, there is a note of some length on the passage, which shows that the opinions of the learned printer were unfavourable to its authority. All the reasons which he assigns are adduced at greater length by one or other of the writers in the controversy, and therefore do not require to be distinctly noticed. (To be continued.) REMARKS ON THE DISCIPLINE OF THE FIRST CHURCHES. No. III.-The Office of Deacon. As I have already noticed the election of Matthias to the Apostolic office, and the mode of worship instituted in the church at Jerusalem, I have now to consider the appointment of the seven deacons to their office, as it is related in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In this narrative it is stated, that a murmuring arose among the Hellenists, (considerable numbers of whom having assembled at Jerusalem to solemnize the passover, furnished a large proportion of the first converts to Christianity,) against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution to the poor. An appeal being made to the Apostles, they convened the multitude of the disciples, that is, the whole church, and stated the impropriety of neglecting the more important duties of their office, in order to attend to secular business. They direct the members of the church in the following words, "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men, of honest report, full of the Holy N. S. No. 50. Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word." This proposal being agreeable to the people, they chose seven brethren, who, with the concurrence of the Apostles, were either appointed to their office, or qualified for it, by prayer and the imposition of hands. The first inquiry which arises out of this narrative is, was this the institution of the office, or was it merely the appointment of seven deacons in addition to certain persons who had previously filled that office in the church at Jerusalem. The latter opinion, supported by Mosheim, Kuinoel, and others, seems to me to be the more probable, for the following, among other reasons. There was, previous to this period, a daily distribution, in which the Hellenists thought themselves aggrieved. There must have been some persons to manage this distribution. Who were they? In this deaconship, this diakovia, for so * Benson's Paraphrase, Vol. ii. p. 643, 644. M it is called, who were the deacons? Certainly not the Apostles, for there was an appeal to their authority, rather than a complaint of their conduct. The words, "it is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables," imply that the Apostles neither had charged themselves with the onerous duties of the daily distribution, nor were at this time willing to undertake them. There must have been, therefore, some other distributors, some deacons at an earlier period in the church at Jerusalem, and probably from the time of its formation. Again, the seven persons now chosen had, without an exception, Greek names; we may, therefore, fairly infer, that they were all Hellenists. Would this have been agreeable to the Hebrews if they had no deacons, who were acquainted with their own language, and friendly with their own poor? Does not this suggest an explanation of the whole passage? Is it not likely that there were earlier deacons of the Hebrew nation, to oversee the daily ministration? It is possible that these deacons might give the preference to the Hebrew poor: it is probable that they might not be so well acquainted with the distress and poverty of the Hellenists. Hence the murmuring arose; and the best means of silencing it was devised; that of adding to the Hebrew deacons, seven Hellenists of high character for wisdom and piety. No one, therefore, has any right to assert, that the office of deacons did not exist until it arose out of this emergency. It probably existed from the very formation of a Christian church; if it did not, it was certainly instituted at this early period. We have earnestly to intreat some of our ministers to consider, that no an cient church mentioned by inspired or ecclesiastical writers, was without its deacons ; in fact, that the office of deacons is established by the same authority, and recommended by the same evidence, as that of pastors. Bishops and deacons appear every where, in the venerable remains of ecclesiastical antiquity, as the two orders of ministers in the primitive church. Instructions respecting the character and qualifications of the latter are as clearly laid down in the New Testament, as they are respecting those of the former. The Christian ministry is of divine authority, but it is the ministry both of pastors and of deacons. Men, moved by the Holy Ghost, have appointed one order to conduct the religious worship of the church, and another order to manage its secular business; and, since even the Apostles, with all the advantage of their influence and wisdom, found their spiritual duties too momentous and pressing to leave time for temporal matters, I think that the minister who ventures to suggest to his people that they might do without the inconvenience of deacons, almost calls for the uncourteous reply that the church might do without the expense of the pastor. His own office rests upon the same authority as that which he seeks to abrogate. The practice of the primitive church is forcibly expressed by Ignatius, who says, without deacons no church has the name of a church, or, according to a fuller text, "there is no true church, no collection of saints, no assembly of the pious;" and by Epiphanius, " χωρις τέτων εκκλησια ἐκλεκτη ἐκ ἐσιν ἐ συναφθροισμα ἁγιων, συναγωγη ὁσιων.—Ig. Epis. ad Tral. § 3. who says, "it is impossible for a bishop to be without a deacon."* I do not, by any means, intend these remarks to apply to those churches who intrust secular business to the more active and useful members, without giving to them their common and appropriate designation. We see nothing unscriptural here. These men are really and virtually deacous. We are only very curious to know their objection to the common appellation. But if this business go out of the church into the hands of worldly men, or if it be assumed by church-members, without the approbation of their brethren; then, as we shall soon see, there is an inexcusable dereliction of scriptural principles. It is evident, from the narrative before us, that these seven deacons were elected by the church. We have shown, in a former paper, and hope to show more at large, in a succeeding communication, that all the officers of the primitive church were elected by the people, and that the deprivation of the laity of this " divine right," was among the last, as it was the worst of ecclesiastical corruptions. We shall not, therefore, at present travel out of the passage before us. The words are, "the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them;" again, "wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report ;' and, again, "the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen," &c. To a man who has not a party purpose to serve, nothing can be more evident than the meaning of these expressions. It is surprising how they have been tortured by some commentators, who would have us believe, that a multitude is but a few, and the whole multitude but a small part of the church. The expressions have been made to denote the first hundred and twenty believers, who have been considered as presbyters-or, sometimes, certain representatives of separate congregations, into which the church is said to have been distributed. The objection frequently urged against the obvious meaning of the passage is, the impossibility, or, at least, the difficulty of convening so many persons in one place, for the orderly dispatch of business; but, I think, this is obviated by a fact adverted to in a former paper, that the church often assembled in Solomon's porch, those magnificent cloisters of the temple, which would conveniently accommodate as large a proportion of the first Christians, as we have any reason to suppose were in Jerusalem at one time able to attend a meeting for business. That the election was by the multitude present, notwithstanding the attempt of Hammond and others to restrict the expressions, as if the multitude did little more than testify to the character of the deacons, by pointing out the men of good repute, is surely so evident from the passage itself, as to require no further remarks. The words of the Apostles are plain and conclusive," Look ye out among you." It is amusing that Whitby should coolly begin an annotation on this passage, "Here seemeth to be nothing in this relation, which favours the authority of the laity in choosing persons to sacred offices." The next inquiry is, into the nature of the office. For what purpose were deacons appointed in the Christian church? We answer, they were appointed princi * άνευ δε διακονε ἐπισκοπον ἀδυ- pally to manage the secular busi νατον έιναι.—Hær. 75, § 5. ness of the church, though it was |