except the Passionei, which has not been sufficiently examined, and whose evidence, therefore, on this point, is not before the public. It is also found in the Parisinus 14, and the Upsapublic. liensis, both small letter MSS. of the xith or xiith century. Versions: the Coptic of Sais reads s. Both the Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Armenian, and the Arabic of Erpenius, have the pronominal prefix; so that it is impossible to be determined whether they read ôs who, or which. Fathers: as far as can be ascertained, the Greek fathers (with the exception mentioned above) appear to have read os or 8. Of the Latins, qui (s) appears only in Jerome on Is. liii. 11. and the Acts of the II. Council of Constantinople. 3. O is found in only one Greek MS. but that an Uncial one, the Clermont. Versions: the old Latin, and the Vulgate. Fathers all the Latins, and some of the Greeks. On this statement it is to be observed; (1.) That eos is found only in the more recent Manuscripts, the offspring of the latest of the three ancient recensions, the Byzantine: and it is supported by no evidence from the Fathers earlier than the close of the ivth century, nor from the Versions earlier than the ixth. (2.) That the greatest weight of external evidence is in favour of s. (3.) That is the more smooth and easy reading, and agrees with the immediate antecedent por 8109. It was, therefore, most probably substituted by some, who, not adverting to the remote antecedent, fancied the construction of os ungrammatical. (4.) That if ec were the original reading, it is to the last degree difficult to conceive that it could have degenerated into Oc, and that so important a word as ec should not have been made prominent by the Fathers of the first three centuries. But, to any one versed in the appearance of Uncial manuscripts, it will appear easy and probable that ec should have grown out of Oc. The learned and unbiassed reader must form his own judgement: we confess that ours is in favour of ős. But we object strongly to the rendering in the Improved Version, "He who was manifested in the flesh was justified by the Spirit," &c. The editors have followed Abp. Newcome in supposing that os may be put elliptically for ouros os. This supposition, we apprehend, ουτος ὅς. is quite unauthorized and erroneous. for ouros and autós. It also not unusually supplies the place of "Os is frequently put the partitive oris: but in that case we think it is always followed by a particle, as Te, ye, dn, av, yàg; as in the passages adduced in the Archbishop's note for sanctioning this construction, and which consequently are irrelevant. Till some better support is adduced for this assumed ellipsis, we must reject it as false Greek. In the place before us, os is undoubtedly a relative; and its natural and proper antecedent has been pointed out by the learned Professor Cramer, distinguished thus: —ήτις ἐστιν ἐκκλησία ΘΕΟΥ ζῶντος (στύλος καὶ ἐδραίωμα της ἀληθείας, καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα, ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς ευσεβείας μυστήριον) ὃς ἐφανερώθη κ. τ. λ. "Which is the church of the living GOD (the pillar and support of the truth, and confessedly great, is the mystery of godliness) who was manifested," &c. The last of these three observable passages is the celebrated 1 John v. 7, 8. Upon this we need not spend many words. It is found in NO Greek MS. ancient or recent, except one to which we shall presently advert ;-in no ancient Version, being interpolated only in the later transcripts of the Vulgate. Not one of the Greek Fathers recognizes it, though many of them collect every species and shadow of argument, down to the most allegorical and shockingly ridiculous, in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity,-though they often cite the words immediately contiguous both before and after,—and though, with immense labour and art, they extract from the next words the very sense which this passage has in following times been adduced to furnish. Of the Latin Fathers, not quoted it, till Eucherius of Lyons in the middle of the vth century; and in his works there is much reason to believe that it has been interpolated. has Under these circumstances, we are unspeakably ashamed that any modern divines should have fought pedibus et un guibus for the retention of a passage so indisputably spurious. We could adduce half a dozen or half a score passages of ample length, supported by better authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed edition and translation. One Greek MS., we have said, contains the clause. This is the Dublin, or Montfortianus: a very recent MS. glaringly interpolated from the modern copies of the Vulgate, and distributed into the present division of chapters. Hence some of the best critics have assigned it to the xvth or xvith century. But no one appears to have examined it with so much as Dr. Adam Clarke;+ and to him we are indebted for a very accurate description of it, and a fac-simile of care * It has been attempted to be shewn that Tertullian and Cyprian have cited the last clause of v. 7. Our readers may be satisfied, on this subject, by referring to Griesb. Nov. Test. vol. ii. App. p. 13-15; or Porson's Letters to Travis, 240-282; or Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. 421-424. See also, for a lamentable contrast, Travis's Letters, 3d. ed. 82, 53, 75 128. + See his Succession of Sacred Literature." the passage under consideration. He is disposed to give it an antiquity as high as the xivth, or even the xiiith, century. But, with deference to that learned and respectable author, we will observe, that his arguments do not prove any more than that the Dublin MS. may be of that age as the highest supposition, but by no means that it must indubitably be so. Giving it, however, every advantage, it is still modern: and the testimony of a single witness, and that of so exceptionable an internal character, can be of no value in opposition to all other evidence.-It is hardly necessary to state that we estimate as nothing the Berlin or Ravian MS; for its conviction is decisive, as an impudent forgery of the xvith century. We have thought it right to enter thus minutely into the literary history of these texts, both from that regard to truth which is our first duty to the public, and because we believe that many good men have felt considerable anxiety on account of the exploded readings. Such anxiety is to the last degree unnecessary. Surely those excellent persons will reflect that Truth,-Divine Truth,-can never suffer from honest investigation; and that no injury can be inflicted upon it by its bitterest enemies, comparable to the adduction of unsound arguments by its professed friends. In the great and general benefits which accrue to Scriptural Truth from these investigations, all the component parts of that truth must respectively participate, and, in an eminent degree, that capital one of the Deity of Christ. Its adversaries have, indeed, affected to raise a triumph on the result of the discussions connected with the three texts; but with how much right, let the impartial judge. The first passage is rescued from countenancing the antiscriptural sense of passible Deity, the error of those ancient heretics whom Athanasius so zealously refuted. Of the second, though the reading is changed, the sense remains the same. And with regard to the last, they are, in our esteem, the best advocates of the Trinitarian doctrine, who join in exploding such a gross interpolation, and in protesting against its being still permitted to occupy a place in the common copies of the New Testa ment. The proofs of our Lord's true and proper Godhead remain unshaken; deduced from the prophetic descriptions of the Messiah's person in the Old Testament,-from the ascription to him of the Epithets, the Attributes, the Works, and the Homage, which are peculiar to the Deity,-and from those numerous and important relations which he is affirmed in Scripture to sustain toward his holy and universal church and toward each of its true members. This last head of argument, VOL. V. U in particular, derives some accessions from the purifying fire of just criticism through which the text of the Christian Scriptures has passed. E. g, Acts xvi. 7. "They attempted to go into Bithynia; but the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not." Rom. xv. 29," the fulness of the blessing of Christ." Eph. v. 21. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ." Col. iii. 15. "Let the peace of Christ preside in your hearts" 2 Thess. ii. 8."-whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the breath of His mouth." These texts now form an addition to those numerous ones that attribute to our Blessed Redeemer an exuberance of grace and goodness, a plenitude of authority, and an invincible universality of influence, which, in the judgement of unprejudiced reason, are totally incompatible with the powers of any other than the Infinite Being, the God of all grace. These texts are translated, as we have quoted them, in the Improved Version.' The editors have given in their text what they found in the well authenticated original; but in their notes have made some aukward attempts to escape the obvious inferences. It remains for us to state, that in the Improved Version' there are three portions, of considerable length, marked as of dubious authenticity: Matt. i. 17.-ii. 23; Luke i. 5.-ii. 52; and 2 Pet. ii. 1.-22. These portions are admitted by Wetstein, Griesbach, and other editors of the Greek Testament, without any scruple or intimation of doubt. They are found in all existing MSS. (mutilations excepted); in all the ancient versions; and plentifully in the citations of the Fathers at least as high as Justin Martyr, with regard to the two first of the passages. At the same time it must be confessed, that upon the testimonies of Jerome and Epiphanius there is some defect in the external evidence for the portions of Matthew and Luke. There are, also, certain other difficulties from chronology, bistory, and internal evidences, which we cannot regard as inconsiderable. A bare statement without discussion would be unsatisfactory and useless; and it would be totally impracticable to compress the requisite discussion within moderate limits. It is scarcely necessary to remind our readers, that any evidence, however slight, against the passages in question, would be extremely acceptable to opposers of the doctrine, which, though it might readily dispense with their suffrages, they have on various occasions been called upon to support, As for the chapter in 2 Peter, we are not convinced, by the reasoning of Bishop Sherlock, that it is a citation from some ancient Jewish writing., Is it supposable that, after the explicit and cautious declarations on the origin and authority of prophecy in ch. i. 19-21, the apostle should instantly adduce a large citation, expressly as a divine prophecy, from any apocryphal work?-Besides; the 20th verse of ch. ii. itself strongly militates against the hypothesis. The difference of style may be accounted for, from the awful sublimity and grandeur of the subject. From v. 19. the writer appears to descend to his more plain and usual manner; and again in various parts of ch. iii. to rise to the same elevation and solemnity. A difference of style, equal or greater, may be observed between the satires and some of the odes of Horace, and in many other instances. The unforeseen length to which this branch of our discussion has extended, though we have reduced it as much as we could, compels us, notwithstanding extreme reluctance, to defer the remainder till the next number. ART. VI. Anniversary Oration, delivered March 8, 1808, before the Medical Society of London; on the General Structure and Physiology of Plants compared with those of Animals, and [on] the mutual Convertibility of their organic Elements. Published at the unanimous Request of the Society. By John Mason Good, F. R. S. Senior Secretary to the Medical Society. 8vo. pp. 56. Price 2s. Longman and Co. 1808. THE HE author of this tract has been long known to the public as a man of various and extensive acquirements, of refined taste, and of indefatigable industry. He has distinguished himself as an advocate in the cause of philanthropy, as a constitutional politician, as a biographer, as an accurate and elegant translator of a heathen poet*, as an equally elegant and perspicuous translator of a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures, and as an acute biblical critic. In the dissertation before us, Mr. Good assumes a very different function, which he discharges however with no little. ability; and, though he was unexpectedly called to the task, and had but a short time to prepare himself, he has presented the public with such a luminous statement of important facts and inferences, as we know not where else to look for, in any thing like so narrow a compass. Our ingenious and learned author first examines the general structure of the vegetable system; he then proceeds to point out its resemblance to an animal frame; and he closes with various striking and original observations on the mutual convertibility of their organic elements.' We * See Ecl. Rev. Vol. 11. pp. 603, 686. |