turbata. V. 17. Vulgo Λυδίανδε. De permutatis a et @ vid. Schweig hauser ad Athen. xiv. c. x. de is et δὲ vide Butler ad Prom. 713. V. 18. Χώραν huc reposui, quod sedem alienam habebat, vice της in ἂν mutatum, cui subjungitur ὕδασιν. De istis vulgo Monostrophicis, quæ reliqua cantûs pars exhibere solet, monui ad Troad. Append. p. 150. qua ratione in carmina Antistrophica redigi possint.

V. 1. Vulgo "Ηκουσα τάς Θεσπιώδου κόρας. Inepte. Nondum Chorus audiverat Theonoæ vaticinia, de quibus Helenam in scenam adeuntem mox sciscitatur. Ex interpolatore provenit κόρας. V. 2. Erui ἃ χρὴ γνοῦσ ̓ ἐφάνης ex ἃ χρήζουσ ̓ ἐφάνη. V. 19. Vice γᾶς dedi γιάς. et correxi παντοδαπας. Nam γυής est Masculini generis. Vid. Etymol. Μ. V. Κύμης.

Quæ præcedunt Anamœostropha in Antistrophica redegi in Append. Troad. p. 164. feliciori fortasse successu quam quo Seidlerus redigere conatus est in libro de Vers. Dochm. p. 358.

ὣς σὲ τὸν ἄθλιον ἄρκυσι, πάτερ, ἔγωγε κατακλαίομαι

20

λουτρὰ πανύσταθ ̓ ὑ
δρανάμενον χρόα,
δροίτῃ ἐν οἰκτροτά-
τα θανατοῦ σοῦ.

V. 1. Vulgo ἀοιδάν. Error venit e compendio. Vid. Interpretes ad Hesych. v. Πολυέλικτον. Exstat αοίδιμον infr. 471. V. 6. Delevi τὸ: cf. Troad. 400. Αεὶ κατ' ἦμαρ. V. 16. Pro δολίοις reposui δόλοις. Hoc quidem loco nimis tautologum esset δολίοις ἕρκεσι βρόχων. Ε contra apodosis sententiæ vix intelligi potest absente έρκεσι : quam vocem trajeci et mutavi in ἄρκυσι. Collatis Hesychio gl. "Αρκυσι, δικτύοις et Æschyl. Agam. 1118. άρκυς ή ξύνευνος Choeph. 998. Αρκυν δ' ἂν εἴποις. Herc. F. 729. ἀρκύων βρόχοισιν. V. 23. κοίτα tuetur Soph. Εl. 194. αὐδὲ Οικτρὰ δ ̓ ἐν κοίταις πατρώαις. Sed δροίτα usurpat Æschylus, quem sequi amat Euripides, in Agam. 1549. Choëph. 997. Eum. 630.

V. 8. Vulgo ἀλέχεα. Reposui & λοχαῖα. Hesych. Λοχαΐα, κρυφαῖα. De Clytemnestra insidiis cf. Agam. 1231. et 1232. qui locus sic legendus est. Οὐκ οἶδεν οἷα γλῶσσα μισήτης κυνός Λέξασα καὶ σύνασα φαιδρόνους, δίκην "Ατης λαθραίου, δήξεται· κακῇ τέχνῃ Τοιαῦτα τολμᾶ θῆλυς ἄρσενος φονεύς. Quibus causis movear ut hæc emendem alias docebo. Γ. 11. Ε θανάτοισι καν erui θανάτους δίκαι. Quam facile σι et δι per

mutari possint, ii probe sciunt, qui Codices scriptos inspexerint. V. 12. Vice φόνιον reposui δαφοινῳ.

V. 10. Vice πημάτων dedi αἱμάτων. Vid. Classical Journal N. IX. p. 23. Inter reliqua carmina Epodica Euripidea tredecim tantummodo exstant, quæ hodie quidem ad hanc formam redigere nequeo, mox fortasse certius aliquid de istis dicturus. Ea reperiet lector in Hec. 647. Orest. 829. Alcest. 276. Suppl. 1088. Iph. A. 573, 1080. Bacch. 900, 1015. Heracl. 372. Ion. 492, 711, 911. Herc. F. 131. Sed, ut verum fatear, non verisimile videtur hæc in Antistrophica vel Epodica redigi posse. Hactenus de Euripideis. Alio tempore Eschylea et Aristophanea persequar.

Dabam Etona Kalend. Januar. A. S. 1814.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM :

On 1 John, v. 7.

NO. II.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

I HAVE thus considered the objections of your Correspondent, to "the proposed expunction of the passage;” and have, I hope, sufficiently obviated them. I now have only to return my thanks to him for the obliging manner in which he noticed my late essay; to assure him that I conceive myself much honored by his attention, and replied to his letter only because the side, which I originally had taken, still appeared to be the true one. I now proceed to make some remarks on an article by "A Country Parish Priest," printed in No. IV. of your Journal. I notice his paper rather to show the fallacy of his reasoning than to refute it: I desire only to show the unfairness of his statements, for of argument there is scarcely any thing which has not repeatedly been answered.

The paragraph which contains the argument drawn from the Homoioteleuton shall be considered last; as it consists very much of misrepresentations, which will confute themselves, when the evidence for and against the passage is fairly summed up and laid before you.

The Author of the Letter, in No. IV. p. 869, thinks, that "if the former" (i. e. the 7th)" verse, did not precede, and should be rejected as spurious, it will be hard to account for the use of the masculine gender; and we should rather be inclined to suspect that the words would have been τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα, as all the termns that follow to denote the earthly energies or attestations, are of the neuter gender; and therefore, the accuracy of construction, or the strict rules of grammar must favor the present text." (p. 871.) Now, it is evident, that this argument may be set aside in the following manner: First, the idea is evidently taken from witnesses giving evidence in a court of judicature; the Sanhedrim for instance, as most familiar to the recollection of St. John. Secondly, when the Apostle represented the water and blood, as witnesses to the truth of the Christian Religion, it became necessary to personify them; for as bearing witness is a personal act, it would have been absurd to attri

bute it to things inanimate unless they were personified. Thirdly, personification could have been effected only by giving them a masculine or feminine participle: so that τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες is equi valent to τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μάρτυρες: so Matth. xiii. 3. we find ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπείρειν; where ὁ σπείρων has precisely the same meaning that σTOGEUS TS would have conveyed. The same usage, it is well known, is common in Hebrew: thus Ps. cxxix. 7. we read,

שלא מלא כפו קוצר וחצנו מעמר:

Where the LXX. render p by begiwv, and the Hebrew is adequately expressed. Fourthly, if we put together the consequences of what has been advanced, we shall be presented with a complete and sufficient reply to any argument which may be drawn from the imaginary false concord; and your Correspondent's conjecture" tenues evanescit in auras."-But the writer in No. XV. of the Journal says, "it is further to be observed, that the Apostle, in a preceding verse, has actually conformed to the requisite grammatical accuracy. At verse 6. he actually writes (not καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ὁ μαρτυρῶν, but) καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά εστι ΤΟ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΥΝ.” He should have told us on what principle the contrary could have been expected: although the Greek word expressing spirit is in the neuter gender, it did not become necessary to make any alteration in that of the participle attached to it, in the present case; because spirit is a living and intelligent principle, and to such it is by no means unusual to attribute personal acts; indeed nothing is more common either in the Old or New Testament. Thus an instance occurs in the account of the Creation; for notwithstauding the assertions of certain critics, the words cannot without violence be understood of any thing, but the Holy Spirit of God: at least it seems so to have been understood by the Fathers, especially by Cyprian. In the N. T. we may instance Luke iii. 22.—καταβῆναι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει, ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐπ ̓ αὐτόν. A more satisfactory example than that just produced can hardly be desired, as it proves two important points: first, that personal acts are attributed by the writers of the N. T. to the Holy Spirit; secondly, that it is possible for a spirit to assume a visible form.-If then personal acts are ever attributed to the Holy Spirit, it is certain that nothing less could have been asserted in the present case: and hence it may be regularly deduced that in the 6th verse of St. John's v. chapter, it was not necessary to make any change in the gender of the participle. Thus, therefore,

1 Gen. i. 2.

2

2 Concil. Carthag. p. 230, edit, Fell.