not against me the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions." And the penitent Ephraim, bemoans himself, I was ashamed, yea even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth." O! be assured the offences and delinquencies of youth, will sooner or later be the occasion of unfeigned sorrow: either of bitter repentance in this world, or of unavailing, everlasting anguish in the world to come. The Lord Jesus Christ will one day "be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel." It is a desperate determination to yield to present indulgence at the expense of "treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath."

And all this, you are required to consider, and to regard, as it becomes creatures to whom God has given understanding and conscience, and the revelation of his will. And, to choose, or refuse that which is presented to you, according to the standard which will, at last, decide the character of human action-the law of God.

Beware, O! beware of putting off for future attention the claims of religion, of eternity, of God.

Religion is the "one thing needful;" and, "Behold, now is the accepted time, and now is the day of salvation."

Before even the days of youth shall have passed, you may be hurried to the judgement-seat of Christ. We have seen the young in their prime and vigor suddenly cut down, and witnessed their amazement of heart, and terror of conscience.— And we have heard their lamentations over opportunities neglected, time squandered, follies indulged!

We have heard from the lips of dying youth, "Once my soul was impressed with a sense of the importance of religion. I suffered the impression to be effaced; I have been a careless, thankless, wretched sinner. O! pray once more for my salvation before I appear at the bar of God." It was a moment when worlds would have been given for a single smile of His countenance, whose service had throughout life, been neglected. And such may speedily be your condition. Neglectful of the only Saviour; strangers to forgiveness; every unholy thought and desire; every idle word; every sinful act, is seen, is registered; will be produced; must be met where crime is inseparable from infamy and horror!

VOL. II.-18.

Are you prepared to meet the summons which may come both suddenand unexpectedly? Resist it when it comes, you cannot. Have you a solitary scriptural warrant to conclude that in your present condition and character, if called to your final account, you shall stand acquitted? If not, will you venture even till the close of this day, to persevere in your present course?

O! "who can dwell with everlasting burnings!" "Forsake the foolish and live, and turn ye into the way of understanding." "Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him

Review, and illustration of the argument in behalf of the text of the Heavenly Witnesses. No. VIII.

"There are three that bear record in Heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."

We finished in No. VII. (See Vol. I. p. 336,) our exhibition of the Internal evidence of the authenticity of this portion of Holy Writ. We cannot dismiss this subject, without some few exhibitions of the External evidence. And this, we trust, being something more than barren details, such as those we had to enter into, will be more acceptable to our readers, as it is also more pleasant to the writer. I have a few remarks, however, to make, before I enter on the external evidence.

In a question of this kind, it is not proper to omit the opinion of the internal evidence in behalf of our verse-expressed by as able men and criticks as the world has yet seen; such as Mill, Bengel, Ernesti, Matthäi, Horsley, Eugenius. They did admit all the kind of external evidence which their opponents brought against the authenticity of the verse, and yet expressed, in strongest terms, their belief in its authenticity. "Tantum abesse," says Eugenius, the archbishop of Cherson, in his letter to Matthäi, in A.D. 1781. "So far is it from being the case that this 7th verse crept in by interpolation, that the 8th verse could, with no propriety, be retained, unless the 7th did precede it." To these, I ought, in gratitude, to add the following names, who expressed themselves quite as strongly-Pearson, Hammond, Owen, Wallis, Selden, Bull, Stillingfleet, and Grabe. And really, when one casts his eyes over the names of these great men, and can single out from them, some of the very first of scholars and criticks; some who had spent fifteen years; some twenty; and some, like Mill, thirty years in their researches, and commentaries on the New Testament; and when we hear them teaching, with solemnity, and force of argument, the authenticity of our verse; we can scarcely refrain from smiling, when we hear those new names, (novi homines,) Dr. Carpenter,

See Burgess, p. 56.

and Mr. Worsly, talking of "Gross interpolations of the verse;" "Palpable forgeries!"* And we can not help feeling indignant at Griesbach's telling us "of doubtful, and suspected, and trifling arguments ;"tor at Porson's strangely forgetting himself, and descending to "the most arbitrary and unbecoming insult over his antagonist, archdeacon Travis ;" and exhibiting "feelings," as Burgess justly observes, "which preclude the exercise of temperate, and impartial criticism;" and replying to an argument which he could not overthrow, nor shake off, in this style-"If Jerome had told us that his Greek MSS. contained the three Heavenly Witnesses, he would have told us a notorious falsehood!"§ "Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis tempus eget."

In the singular discrepancy existing in the opinions of our opponents, relative to their supposed origin of our verse, we can perceive no trifling proof of their incorrectness. We can hardly find two of them enjoying the same opinion. Each new writer brings a new theory. Father Simon is confident that the seventh verse originated in a Greek scholium. No, says Dr. Marsh, it certainly took its birth from a Latin scholium. Sandius is sure that it was not quoted before the third century. Socinus, and Erasmus (I am sorry to put Erasmus into such bad company,) are just as sure that it was not quoted before the fourth century. Griesbach has no doubt that it was not quoted before the close of the fifth century. The Quarterly Review (Review of Burgess, March, 1822,) is confident that every body is wrong, who thinks that it has been quoted before the sixth century. The fact is, they are all equally confident; and they are all equally right!

External Evidence.-1st. We have nega tive external evidence in favour of our verse. Our opponents can not produce the author ity of MSS. against our text, older than the beginning of the fourth, or the fifth, or even perhaps the sixth century. The Vatican and

* See Dr. Carpenter's Reply to the Bishop of Raphoe, p. 415. and Bishop Burgess' Vind. p. 107. I know Lant Carpenter well enough. He and I sat on the same bench in Glasgow University. He will make a very indifferent "HEAD" to the "headless trunk of Socinianism" in England.

† Gries. Diatriba.

See his Letter to Travis, pp. 404-406; and Burgess, p. 63.

§ See his Letters, p. 303, and Burgess, p. 43. Travis, in the enlarged edition of his Letters, has disdained to pay any particular He pays

attention to Professor Porson. attention only to his objections, which are almost entirely copied from Sir Isaac New ton. Burgess has refuted these in his book, part ii.

See Burgess, p. 36, &c.

Alexandrine codices, I believe, are admitted by all, to be among the oldest, if not the oldest. And I am not aware that it has been decided whether these codices are to be dated from the fourth, or fifth, or sixth centuries. They are certainly not older than the fourth century. Now, we have evidence

of an unquestionable kind, that MSS. of this late date did suffer from the hands of men. Nolan has established this point beyond controversy, in reference to the codices of, Eusebius, and those copied from them: namely, the Palestine and Alexandrine codices, as we have shown before.Burgess is of opinion, that the MSS. were not mutilated; but that they suffered much by the inattentions of transcribers. Now, it is well known to the parties on both sides of our question, that whilst there are no MSS. earlier than the fourth century, there are only two MSS. existing (namely, A. B. of Burgess, p, 145,) of a date as late as the fourth. Woide places them in the fourth century. Wetstein and Mill, in the fifth; and Michaelis, in the sixth century. There are none of the seventh, none of the eighth, and two of the ninth century (namely, G.g. Burgess, p. 145.) All the rest are of a later

date.

*

Now these four MSS. which want our text, can be traced to a corrupted source.Griesbach will not refuse that they are of the Alexandrine, or Palestine source. He even advocates that class. And we refer our readers to what we have already established in relation to MSS. of this source. Hence we can distinctly perceive that the whole materials, whence the external evidence against our text is derived, are no older than the fourth century; or in the opinion of Michaelis, no older than the sixth century. Here the opponents of our verse must begin to draw all the matter of their arguments against us. The four or the six centuries preceding this period, offer them no resources. But we can go back, under the clear light of unquestionable quotations out of Phoebadius, and Cyprian, Tertullian, and the testimony of almost the whole Western churches, till we arrive near to the primitive and apostolical times, when the litera authentica, or the autographs of the inspired penmen, were in existence in the church. And this distinct testimony existed in the western churches; (fully equal in its testimony, nay, superior, as we shall see in its place, to the Greek church, in a question of this kind,) it existed in the Western churches for centuries before the defective MSS. of our antagonists had an existence.

2d. There is another branch of negative external evidence, which seems to me to merit some notice. There is not an objec

*See No. IV. in our Vol. I. pp. 114, &c. And also Nolan's Inquiry, p. 545, &c.

tion recorded on all the pages of the Greek and Latin fathers, against our verse. In the struggle with the Photinians, not an objection can be found on either side. In the severe and protracted controversy with the Arians, not an objection is recorded against it. It was distinctly quoted on a publick and interesting occasion, by the African bishops in the year 485, against the Arian bishop and his priests, supported by king Hunneric; but not a murmur, not an objection against its authenticity was heard, or is recorded.And we have authentic evidence, not only that it was quoted by these bishops, but that it was before their eyes, in the version in general use in the Western churches. * And what deserves our most particular attention, no Greek writer has recorded an objection, or even a doubt against our verse. Let no man say that the members of the Greek church had never seen it, never heard of it. They did see it, they did hear of it. If in no other way, and on no other page, they had heard of the African bishops quoting it publickly before king Hunneric, when called, at the peril of their lives, to defend the faith against Arianism. They saw it; they heard of it; they knew it on the pages of the version of the Latin Church. No man in the sober use of his reason can say, that in this perfect publicity of our text, in the Western churches, it could be unknown to a minister, or a writer, in the Greek church. To suppose them ignorant of it under these circumstances, is to suppose an absurdity, an utter impossibility. Now, is it possible that any man can persuade himself that this verse could have been interpolated without the knowledge of the Greeks? Is it supposa

ble that a Greek comment, or a Latin comment could have crept in, and become the seventh verse, without resistance on the part of the faithful? It was quoted before them, at a time when the report of the proceedings of the African churches and bishops rang, not only over the plains of Africa, and over the hills and vales of Greece, but over all the East, and over all the West. The whole Christian world heard and knew that our text was quoted at that time. Now, no historian, no polemick, no practical expositor, Greek or Latin, has recorded one murmur, one doubt, one suspicion against this verse. We all know how the Greeks remonstrated, and fiercely contended with the Latin church, against her insertion of one word [" Filioque,"] into the Latin copy of the Nicene creed. Long and severe was this war, about the insertion of Filioque," into their creed. Now, is it

66

*See Burgess, p. x. 42. 46. 80. 81.

†The Greeks held that the Holy Ghost proceeded a Patre,' fromthe Father. The Latins, more orthodox, held that he proceeded from the Father ['Filioque,'] and from the Son. Hence their adding of' Filioque:'

supposable that they would have kept silence, and not merely have allowed the insertion, but the interpolation of a whole sentence, and that not into a creed, but into the page of God's holy Book! Or is it supposable that the fact of the Latin version containing our text, would be less known than the fact of the Latin church having the Nicene creed with "Filioque" in it? I earnestly profess that I cannot conceive how all this silence, and consequent approbation on the part of the Greeks, as well as of Latins; and hereticks, as well as orthodox, can be accounted for, on any other supposition whatsoever than this; that our verse was before the fathers, and writers of both churches, and that it was sustained by such unquestioned, and unquestionable evidence, that every scruple was removed, and that its authenticity was acknowledged by all, with the most perfect confidence. To deny this, would be to bring up a greater difficulty than-I do not say one-but all the difficulties presented against our verse by our opponents. There are on record, many instances of the most scrupulous attention of the primitive christians, in watching over their bishops or pastors, and in putting down innovations. Augustine, in his 71st Epistle, (tom. ii. c. 161.) has recorded a striking instance. St. Jerom's new version of the Scriptures, of as carly a date as the year of our Lord, 384, was introduced by an African bishop, and read in his church. This version was made from the Hebrew. A new turn was given to a sentence in the book of Jonah, which was not according to the hearing and memory of his audience, and somewhat different from the version sanctioned by many ages. So great a tumult was made by the people, chiefly by the Greeks, accusing the bishop of this innovation, that to still them, he was compelled to demand to his aid, the testimony of the Jews of that state, to bear him out in the new reading.-(Nolan, p. 120, Note.)

Here, then, is a point which, I humbly presume, must be considered as clearly gained. And we hold it up again and again to the view of the church. From the days of St. John, down to Erasmus, no one single doubt, or objection, or even suspicion, existed, or is recorded against our verse.

It

was well known; it was frequently quoted; it was often alluded to; it was in the Bible universally current in the western churches. Nothing can be opposed to this, from the fourth to the ninth century, but four defective MSS.-not to say with Nolan-four mutilated MSS. At length the verse gained a currency: not in the Western churches; it never ceased to have a currency there. We have two distinct testimonies of this; the Latin version, long current in Africa, before Jerom's version, and next to that Jerom's version; these and they are two distinct

witnesses-these declare decisively thatfour verse was always in currency in the Western churches.* But it gained a currency in other parts of the church, where the corruptions, or oversight of transcribers, had for a season, withdrawn it from the eyes of many. And, at last, in the circling ages of time, it took its own proper place silently, firmly, publickly, and immoveably. As a noble and venerable prince, unhappily excluded, in some dark hour of trouble, from his own dwelling place, by some shameful jea lousy, or by some foul conspiracy; he, at last, is brought back; he comes in; the whole of the guilty rise up before him; all recognise his rights; not a tongue utters discontent; he sits down in his place and power, and all do him homage, in silence, with a returning sense of duty and propriety. Even so our verse took its place, in those manuscripts, and versions from which it had lost its place for a season. It took its place where the hand of John had placed it. And none stirred an objection, till Erasmus, in the year 1516, ventured to leave it out of his printed edition of the New Testament. And let criticks name any other subject of criticism, which brings, in its defence, such another strength of negative external evidence, as this verse does, feebly as we have here stated its outlines.

3d. We have positive external evidence in favour of our text. We shall collect, in detail, quotations of our text, by different au thors and churches; beginning, not at the earliest periods, (as Burgess does,) but with the latest testimonies, and so trace it back to. wards the apostolical times.

It is admitted by all as far as I can discover, that our verse was generally received in the sixteenth century, by the most learned criticks, by evangelical churches and universities. The industrious Kettner, of the Lutheran church, gave a full and very interesting sketch of its gradual, and general reception in the churches of all Eu rope.†

In the early part of the sixteenth century appeared the celebrated Polyglott of Ximenes. It was printed off, in the year 1517, but owing, I presume, to the lamented death of the Cardinal

Ximenes, it was not published until 1522. Up

ployed by the Cardinal on it, for more than wards of eight very valuable criticks were emtwelve years. The fourth and last volume contains the New Testament, in the Greek text, and Latin version only. Óur verse is found in its place in this Polyglott. The gentlemen on the other side, have raised an objection against the authority of this Polyglott. They deny that Ximenes possessed any MSS. of value or antiquity. And they have even ventured to say he had no MSS. to sustain him in inserting the

*

that

See Bengel, and Bentley, and Burgess's views on this. Burg. Vind. p. 7.

193.

Kettneri Hist. Dicti Johannei, &c. pp. 190

Butler's Hor. Bibl. vol. i. p. 90.

text of the Heavenly Witnesses; that he caused it to be translated into Greek from the Latin version. In reply, we have to say, that the very learned scholars, together with Ximenes, tell us, that no pains, nor expense was spared, to procure from all parts, the most correct and most ancient MSS. in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; and that the Greek exemplars were from the Vatican Library of Rome; and moreover, they bear ample testimony to the value of the MSS. which they use. And although this must be taken with limitations, in those infantine days of Biblical criticism, we may, at least, boldly set up their statements against the proofless conjectures of their opponents. *

To the other portion of the above charge, we have to reply, that Ximenes and his coadjutors used the Latin vulgate version; the only version which Catholicks acknowledge to possess any authority. But the Greek text of the Heavenly Witnesses, as it stands in the Complutum Polyglot, differs in some particulars, from the Vulgate. In the latter, our verse runs thus, as in other copies:-"Hi tres unum sunt.' The Complutum Polyglott has it thus :

No

σε Οι

τρεις εις το ἑν εισι.”

one, therefore, can suppose the latter to be a translation from the former. Besides, the most learned of the criticks against us, have vindica

ted the Polyglott from this charge of some of their associates; for instance, Michaelis, and Eichorn, and Goez, and Marsh.‡

In the warm contest between Stunica, and Erasmus, the former reproached the latter for his impiously omitting, in his Greek edition of the New Testament, the text of the Heavenly Witnesses. Erasmus hurled back the reproach, and defied Stunica to produce a single MS. containing the verse; and he added, however, that if any MS. of respectability could be produced, containing the text, he would insert it in his next edi

tion.

Stunica could not produce the MSS. required they had totally disappeared. An unfavourable opinion was formed against Stunica and his associates, who composed the Polyglott. But the fate of these parchment MSS. has at last been ascertained. Ximenes died very soon after the printing of the Polyglott. The same cause which retarded the publication for several years, produced, ultimately, no doubt, the destruction of the parchments-I mean the confusion and desolation produced in a Catholick priest's house by his death-For they possess none of the endearing, affectionate, and attentive relations, which grow out of the married life. They have none to care for them; none disinterested enough to take care of, or to preserve their valuable papers and collections; as for instance, in this case of the Cardinal Ximenes, the ancient and valuable MSS. which had been used in the formation of the Polyglott of Complutum.

I have already stated, that they had been sold to a Rocket maker, and had been used up by him in his vocation. But this must have been long after the death of Ximenes. It was in the

In

In the year 1519, the annotations of Stunica appeared, containing his own labours, and those of his profound associates, in defence of the Polyglott; and particularly of our verse. In 1520, Edward Lew (or Lee) attacked Erasmus. 1527, Erasmus states, that he had then for the first time seen the Complutum Polyglott. He had yielded to the force of the evidence of the Codex Britannicus (now the Dublin MS.,) and had put the verse into his third edition of 1522. And though he may have done it "causa ne cui sit calumniandi" yet after seeing the Polyglott, and weighing the evidence of the Codex Brittanicus, he continued to support the verse, in his fourth edition of 1527, and in his fifth of 1535.†

In the fifteenth, fourteenth, and thirteenth centuries, the verse had become familiar to all the Greek writers. This will appear from the currency given to it in the Greek church, by the quotation of it in the acts of the council of the Lateran. The gentlemen on the other side do indeed, gravely tell us, that the first Greek writers who quoted it, are Manuel Calecas, in the fourteenth century; and Bryennius in the fifteenth. This, I presume, is a gratuitous assertion; or, in the style of Professor Porson to Archdeacon Travis, "a mere invention of their own." They add, that when the 7th verse appeared, it presented itself in almost as many different shapes as it did in its appearance among the Latins. To this we have one brief reply; that even admitting the statement of the thing as thus magnified, it is really no evidence against the authenticity of the verse. It exhibits a proof indeed, of the carelessness of transcribers; but no evidence against the authenticity of the verse. A sufficient proof is drawn from the facts connected with the appearance of the 8th verse, in the existing copies. None of our opponents have questioned the authenticity of the 8th verse.And they all know, and Burgess has clearly demonstrated, from quotations, that the 7th verse has actually less multiformity than the 8th verse! Let them draw the conclusion.

The great council of the Lateran was held in the year 1215. In the acts of this council, our verse is distinctly quoted, together with the 8th verse; and "it is quoted in the Greek."§Among the members of this council were the patriarchs of Jerusalem, and Constantinople; and also the proxies of the patriarchs of Alexandria, and of Antioch; in short, the representatives of the Eastern churches. They all concurred in the acts of the council. These acts were rendered