interlined in the text with red-lead: and a few which retain it, add "in Christo Jesu." 6. The older MSS., especially such as add the passage in the margin, ex emendatione, have it with so many alterations, interpolations, omissions, and additions, that nil fuit unquam tam dispar sibi; and your Correspondent may exclaim, Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?

V. The Greek Fathers who do not cite 1 John v. 7. amount to twenty-seven: among them are Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil and Gregory Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen, with his two commentators Elias Cretensis and Nicetas, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Damascenus. The Latin writers who omit it, are twenty-one in number: and among then we reckon Hilary, the real Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Leo Magnus, Eucherius, Facundus, Ven. Bede, Gregory, Arnobius Junior, and Pope Eusebius.

VI. The internal evidence may perhaps be neutral; it is claimed by both parties: but it appears rather to favor the expunction than the retention of the verse.

The witnesses in behalf of the received reading are these:

I. Two Greek MSS. both written in the small character, and one on paper: the Cod. Montfortii or Dubliniensis, really, the Codex Britannicus of Erasmus: it is said by competent judges to be as late as the xvth century: the other is the Cod. Ravianus, which is manifestly a transcript from the Complutensian Edition: it has all the marks of novelty; it sometimes follows the Complut. in errors of the press the variations from it, which occur, are chiefly found in the Gospel of St. Matthew. And the same remark has been made on the Dublin MS.

II. All the common editions of the N. T.

III. The printed Armenian interpolated from the Latin; and the later editions of the Slavonic version.

IV. The Vulgate in most MS. copies: but those in general the least ancient and most incorrect: their testimony also is rendered doubtful by great diversity in the expression.

V. Three Greek authors: Euthymius Zigabenus, in the edition printed at Tergovisto in 1710, where the 7th and 8th verses are formally quoted, together with part of the 6th and 9th. The context, however, shows him to have been ignorant of the contested passage, as translated by Mr. Porson,' he reasons thus: "See now again how

! Letters to Mr. Travis, p. 224.

the preacher of truth calls the spirit by nature God, and of God, for having said that it is the spirit of God that witnesseth, a little onward he adds, the witness of God is greater. How then is he a creature? &c." Euthymius clearly derives the strength of his argument from the close connexion of the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses, which is destroyed by the insertion of the seventh. Secondly, all these autho rities were derived from Cyril's Thesaurus, where the passage is entirely omitted. Thirdly, the verse is omitted in three Moscow MSS. of Euthymius collated by Matthai, with which agree one in the Bodleian Library, and another in Trinity College, Cambridge, examined by Porson. Lastly, it was unknown to the Latin translator of Euthymius. The other witnesses are Emanuel Calecas, and Joseph Bryennius. 3 Calecas lived about the middle of the xivth, and Bryennius at the beginning of the xvth century. "Bryennius," says Porson, “manifestly borrows from the Latin version. He reads ὁ Χριστὸς in the 6th verse, instead of τὸ πνεῦμα, and omits the final clause of the 8th. And since he quotes Thomas Aquinas in another place, I doubt not that he also was indebted to him for this piece of information."

2

VI. The verse is referred to by Pseudo-Jerome, in a Prologue written purposely to drag it into notice; and by a host of Latin writers who lived after the xth century, among whom are Bernard of Clair. veaux, Lombard, and many more.

VII. To all these may be added Hebediesu, who, as stated before, lived about the year 1400.

I consider myself justified in reckoning Clemens Alexandrinus, among those Fathers who do not quote the passage: and Diodorus of Tarsus ought not to have been produced as an evidence in the case, because the work is lost. Certainly what is said by Suidas does not authorise us to suppose that " he had seen a copy of St. John's first Epistle," containing our verse: by the behaviour of his Pupils we are not countenanced in the belief that he was more enlightened than they; but it seems rather more reasonable to believe that he was ignorant of it, as were his contemporaries. But if the solution given before should not be satisfactory, I shall have no objection to consider the subject again at some future opportunity.

This, then, I believe to be an accurate statement of the evidence re

'S. Cyril. Op. tom. v. pt. i. p. 363.

3 Tom. i. p. 241. Ed. Lips. 1768.

5 Tom. i. p. 322.

2 P. 217. Ed. Coteler. 4 Letters to Travis, p. 241.

specting the verse: and it will easily be seen, what degree of credit is to be given to the "Parish Priest," when he asserts, that the defenders of the verse "have full as large a share of authorities (i. e. MSS., versions, and Fathers,) in their favor," as those who would reject it.

To conclude: the evidence detailed above first induced me to believe the text spurious: and the arguments adduced by the "Country Clergyman," in favor of the contrary opinion, appear by no means conclusive. I hope it will be needless to add, that for himself I entertain the highest respect; although on mature deliberation I do not think with him: indeed, the more I consider the subject, the more I am convinced that the verse is not genuine. This declaration proceeding from an individual might seem arrogant, were it not supported by the most learned and orthodox members of our venerable church. When entering on the subject, I made no professions of fidelity in detailing facts: such a declaration is implied in the circumstance of becoming an Author. Some errors, doubtless, I have committed; and I entreat the reader to pardon them, because they have proceeded from want of ability, but not of industry; and because they are the offspring of infirmity, but not of inclination.

Permit me to add that I am firmly persuaded of the truth of the doctrine of our church on the subject, which is supported by so many other passages in scripture, that the question on the authenticity of this cannot affect it.

M.

November 5, 1813.

P. S. In addition to the accounts given of Diodorus Tarsensis by the ecclesiastical historians, I have since met with another by Hebediesu so often mentioned above. I shall transcribe the passage, together with the Latin version.

1

.JAX

! Catalog. Lib. Chald. p. 24. edit. 1653.

"Diodorus Tarsensis composuit Libros numero sexaginta, quos combusserunt Ariani; remanserunt verò ex illis quos sum commemoraturus. Liber Politicorum, Lib. destructionis Astrologiæ, et quem composuit contra Eunomianos, item illum alium adversùs contentiosum, et quem composuit adversùs Judæos, et quem adversùs Manichæos, et adversùs Apollinarium et expositionem in partem Matthæi." Here the commentary, εἰς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ̓Ιωάννου τοῦ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ, is not mentioned: but Hebediesu seldom has given a full catalogue of the works written by the authors he has mentioned.

II. Since I wrote the passage on the supposed quotation of the verse by Cyprian, an argument has occurred, which will prove nearly to demonstration, that he did not quote the passage but used the allegorical interpretation of the earthly witnesses. The common reading of the 7th verse in the Vulgate, is "Pater et VERBUM:" but Cyprian reads, "De Patre et FILIO, &c. scriptum est." If he had quoted the heavenly witnesses, I think he would have given the usual reading: for the reading Verbum is found only in a very few copies of the Vulgate, and probably is not the genuine reading of the interpolation. This conjecture, (for it is nothing more,) I must submit to the reader's judgment; and I shall be thankful to any of your learned friends who may either confirm or destroy it.

III. The reference made by Clemens to the O. T. appears rather to be to Deut. xix. 15. than to xvii. 6. The words, supposed by Potter to be quoted, are certainly very dissimilar to the citation: 'Enì duoiv μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθανεῖται ὁ ἀποθνήσκων κ.τ.λ. certainly is very unlike the sentence of Clemens: yet xix. 15. requires only a few omissions and transpositions to be made in unimportant parts; and it then gives precisely what we are in quest of: the passage in the Septuagint is, ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων, καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων, σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα. This, however, is only an unimportant point of criticism: for the general hypothesis will remain unaffected.

RICHARDI BENTLEII ORATIUNCULA.

THE following is a speech delivered by Doctor Bentley in the Senate-House at Cambridge during the commencement (as it is termed) in the year 1725. It was occasioned by the ceremony of admission to the degree of Doctor in Divinity. Whatever comes

from the pen of that very acute and able scholar cannot fail of being well received by the readers of the Classical Journal. It is printed in the edition of Terence, edited by Dr. Bentley.

RICHARDII BENTLEII,

CUM SEPTEM IN

THEOLOGIA DOCTORES CREARET,

ORATIUNCULA;

CANTABRIGIÆ IN COMITIIS HABITA,

JULI VI, MDCCXXV.

Domine Procurator: Venerande Pater, Ad Creationem.

AD Creationem vocas? Ego vero, dignissime Procurator, volens obtempero eo minus gravate hoc Creandi munus obiturus, quod tot et tales hos Filios meos almæ Matri Academiæ sisto. Nam superioribus quidem temporibus, prope summa votorum Decessori meo erat, ut singulis apud vos aunis jus Trium liberorum obtinere posset: Mihi vero felicitas illa perpetua obtingit, ut septem pluribusve liberis quotannis fiam auctior.

Unde vero et qui factum est, ut antiqua Parens nostra, quam non ita pridem quasi senio defectam et effetam merentes adspeximus, jam vetere sua fecunditate denuo revirescat? Quid tandem est, quod hanc nobis alumnorum frequentiam, hanc Matri nostræ vim et juventam redintegrat? quod non modo Tironum catervas insolita multitudine huc allicit, sed et Veteranos nostros accendit ad amplissimam apud nos dignitatem capessendam?

ENIMVERO, Academici, Sapientissimi Regis GEORGI1 clementiæ quidem et bonitati erga omnes, voluntati vero in vos et munificentiæ singulari totum hoc acceptum refertur. ILLE hujus, quicquid et quantumcumque est, auctor, inceptor, perfector: ILLE pridem Bibliothecam vestram infinita librorum copia linguisque emortuis locupletavit; nunc autem, quod unum vobis defuit, ad viventium spirantiumque linguarum studia, certissima præmiorum spe adolescentes invitat: ILLE et devictis perduellibus veniam, et capite damnatis vitam, et extorribus patriam, et rerum omnium egenis patrimonia concessit: ILLE omnem discordiarum et delictorum memoriam, perpetuo Edicto sepultam, oblivione delevit : ILLE et foris potentiæ gloriæque Britannorum, et domi opulentiæ securitatique prospicit.