considering the scope of the Apostle's reasoning, or the connection of his sense, the structure of his language requires them to be inserted, as necessary to obviate a barbarously solicestic construction. On discarding them, masculine adjectives (pis o papluples) are forced into concordance with neuter substantives, (rò πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα :) on re placing them, this objection vanishes, those adjectives finding suitable substantives in the Heavenly Witnesses, (ὁ πατὴς καὶ ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πVEDμа άyor.) Without availing ourselves of the allowable licence of accommodating the context of the Greek to the Latin, by a strictly grammatical translation, for which high authority might be pleaded; we have, I believe, the authority of Matthäi, and of Porson himself, (p. 51), most certainly that of Eugenius, for asserting, that the introduction of the Heavenly Witnesses removes every grammatical objection to the context of the Apostle. That the suppression of them creates an insuperable objection to it, may be referred to the decision of a judge whose sentence none will deny to be impartial, and few dispute to be competent. "But what," observes Bishop Marsh*, in reference to the epistle before us, "shall we say to readings, which when connected with the context make false grammar? What shall we say to a verb singular, &c.....to a masculine adjective referring to a neuter substantive? Now the question to be asked is, is it possible, that Velez found this, and the other readings of the same stamp, in a Greek manuscript ?" "Even a man," he

elsewhere reasons, "who learnt Greek by mere usage and conversation, without being taught its first principles, could not possibly have written" as St. John is proved to have written, by those who reject the disputed text from his epistle.

2. The Disciplina Arcani, as ef

*Lett. to Travis, Append. iii. p. 276. sqq. comp. Pref. p. i. n. 1.

fectually disposes of the evidence of the Greek Church, in annihilating the negative testimony, which it bears on the subject of the disputed passage. It is, in fact, not to be controverted, and remains undis. puted, that this peculiar discipline existed in the ancient Church, all of whose members were solemnly bound by it to suppress those mysteries, in silence, of which the contested verse embraces the highest. As the elaborate investigations of its impugners end in simply proving the silence of the Eastern Church respecting that text, they have effected little more than a confirmation of the preceding solution of this difficulty in her testimony. It is curious to find Mr. Professor Porson confirming the argument thus deducible from the Disciplina Arcani, by a confession as voluntary and decisive as that drawn from Bishop and Professor Marsh on the internal evidence of the contested passage. While that accurate critic professes to collect every thing which has been opposed to the disputed text, he leaves the former argument, (as he likewise does the succeeding,) standing without an effort to weaken its force. Having acknowledged (p. 285,) that if the principle is acknowledged, the conclusion follows of course, which is deduced from it, he thus records his incapacity to shake it: "I have declined the consideration of the Disciplina Arcani, nor shall I resume it. It is a dangerous hypothesis," &c. (p. 391.) But the danger imputed to this argument obviously diminishes nothing of its truth; and is indeed no more than a bugbear childishly intended to deter us from using a weapon the weight of which has been sensibly felt. The polemic who has no better defence to make against this objection to the silence of the Eastern Church, conspires with the disputant, who confirms that to the solecism in her testimony, which convicts it of an intentional omission. The one indeed magnanimously cedes the

view, of its claims to the respect of every dabbler in the present controversy, however informed in its merits. In the defence which he makes to the charge of incompetency, by which he has been assailed, he again submits himself to the ordeal; and the entertainment which he furnishes, in once more appearing on the stage, derives not a little of its zest from the new method which he reveals of "crushing," as shall be soon publicly proved, a smatterer in theological science, who," to boran expression from his own courtly phrase," impudently imposes on the world.”

row

From the main point in dispute, the testimony delivered by the African Church in its confession of faith, he now deems it prudent to retire without further opposition. He indeed affects to cover his retreat by discharging a flying shaft at his opponent, who is charged with "a most wilful misrepresentation of his meaning." In truth, what honest mind must not feel its indignation rise, that so foul a construction should be put upon his words, while it is obvious, that "in stating Vigilius drew up that con fession in the name of the African bishops, he intended nothing more than that he composed it by the direction and with the concurrence of those prelates." To beat down this unabashed confidence to the ground, and exhibit in its natural colours, the respect for equity and truth which advances this defence of his error, in a charge of wilful misrepresentation against his opponent, it is only necessary to propound one or two questions to be solved at his ease. Are we to include in this ingenuous apology the latter part of the charge urged against Vigilius; and to conclude, that "the several tracts which he put forth under the names of Athanasius, Augustinus, and Idacius," were also " composed by the direction and with the consent of those prelates ?" Or if this absurdity be too gross to get down,

by what legerdemain is the plea to be withdrawn from this part of the sentence in which the charge is conveyed; the conclusion of which takes it to itself, by every rule of interpretation by which it is appropriated by its commencement ?

The case of the African Church being thus prudently abandoned, a stand is made upon "the tracts put forth under the names of Athanasius;" for Augustine and Idacius very quietly withdraw from the dispute, having been doubtless thrust into it by a most wilful misrepre sentation" of the printer. Of this ground the respondent makes choice, "for the purpose of making manifest on whose side the ignorance lies;" and somewhat pleasantly, lays the foundation of his proof, in an avowal," that the Athanasii Opera which he has is a Latin version only, printed at Paris in 1603." The advantages, derived by the author of this confession, in transferring the charge of "ignorance" to the side of his opponent, cannot be more appositely expressed than in the words of an umpire, to whom he appeals in the present dispute. "You ought to be told, Sir," declares Mr. Porson, on a like occa. sion of appealing from an exploded edition, to one by the Benedictines, "that when correct editions are published, on the faith of MSS., no critic is allowed to argue from the old and corrupt readings," (p. 293.) much less from the old and spurious additions.

After this peroration to his defence, the author enters into his proof of the charge against Vigilius, which consists in returning on our hands, as his composition, the Books ad Theophilum, which I formerly mentioned, as ascribed by the Benedictines to Idacius, and clearly proved by them not to have been composed by Vigilius. It is far from my intention to enter on the nugatory task, of seriously refuting the thoughts and suppositions which the respondent opposes to the facts

and reasons of the editors of Athanasius. But it may not be deemed unedifying, to trace him through the windings and doublings which he is driven to take, in making out the semblance of a case against that African Prelate. At one turn, we are given to understand, that the books, addressed to Theophilus, are ascribed by his Latin editor to Athanasius; but by a quick retrograde movement are soon informed, that on the judgment of Bengel, Griesbach and Porson, they should be ascribed to Vigilius. While, by every rule of fair reasoning, either of these contradictory propositions must destroy its opposite; they are ingeniously clubbed into one authority, and from one half of it the proof left to be extracted, that these books were put forth under the name of Athanasius, and from the other that they were put forth by Vigilius. After so much labour to blink the point in dispute, can it be now deemed within the bounds of credibility, that Mr. Porson, to whose judgment a reference is thus confidently made, after recapitulating the arguments of the Benedic. tines respecting the author of these books, joins issue in their sentence, that they cannot be ascribed to Vigilius?" In short," he observes, "Vigilius's claims to either of these publications," the books ad Theophilum, or contra Varimadum, “are only supported by some weak and gratuitous conjectures of Chifflet," p. 339.

Where my opponent now lies, with his "triple lash," and "tracts put forth by Vigilius," it is needless to point out. But while justice remains to be done to his veracity, he must not be suffered to rise and retire with the reputation which he has earned for information. "This," he observes, in closing his defence, "will be sufficient to prove on what grounds I have charged Vigilius with having composed certain tracts under the name of Athanasius." To beat down this confi

dence of assertion once more under foot, it is only necessary to produce the following extract from the writer, who has supplied the substance as well of his theory as of its present defence. "Jam de Vigilio," says Dr. Griesbach, "observandum est,.... quod libellos suos, sub nominibus fictis Athanasii, Augustini, et Idacii, maluit in lucem emittere, quam suum nomen profiteri." This extract, I, on the contrary assert, will be amply sufficient to shew " on what grounds" the original charge was advanced against Vigilius. My proof of the charge, which is thus retorted on the respondent, is founded not merely on the fact, that all the information with which it is accompanied is adopted without the ceremony of an acknowledgment, from the same writer: nor yet on the circumstance that an exact coincidence, even to the spelling of Idacius's name exists, between this extract from Griesbach and the charge against Vigilius; but mainly on the consideration, that Augustine and Idacius's names, however associated in the extract, equally disappear from the defence, and that no straining or distorting will ever include them in any defence which is built on the respondent's Gothic Atha nasius.

Under a sense of the result to which the discussion was thus only calculated to lead, a man of ordinary nerves would have sought a way to escape from a dispute, which he had unluckily revived, without forecasting the consequences. But the respondent, seeng no appearance could be saved, after another brandish of his "triple lash," coolly wipes his front, and discharging a second volley of courtly phrases against "smatterers who impudently impose upon the world," faces his opponent with a charge, to which his conscience must have given a proper direction. "But as to the Disputatio Athanasii cum Ario," he observes, in

taking his leave of the question, "which my antagonist rises up like a scholar fully prepared to vindi. cate as the production of Vigilius, I am bound to congratulate him on the possession of a treasure, to which both and the editor of [my Gothic] Athanasius were equally strangers, and hope it may be of service, in extricating him out of those difficulties in which the pre. cipitancy of his conduct has involved him." I waste no time in inquiring how far this, his last con. fession, of being a stranger to Vi, gilius's works, helps its author out, in shifting the imputation of "ignorance" to the side of his opponent. But, may I venture to ask how it is to be turned, in averting the charge which he is ever substantiating agains this own veracity? Whatever strangers himself and his editor may have been to this tract and its author, we have yet to learn how both escaped being introduced to him by the informant, to whom he is indebted for the whole of the knowledge he has been able to muster in the present controversy. For, can it be again deemed within the bounds of credibility, that Dr. Griesbach deals by the Disputatio Athanasii, precisely as Mr. Porson deals by the books ad Theophilum, and, after summing up the evidence of the Benedictines respecting it, thus adds his acquiescence in their sentence?" Altercatio autem .... Arii et Athanasii, recte tribui videtur Vigilio, cum auctor se contra Varimadum scripsisse fatetur, quemadmodum Vigilius, Lib. V. contr. Eutych. se Altercationem.... scripsisse testatur, sub Athanasii nomine." Thus at length comes forth the whole truth, without shuffling or evasion; this being the only work on which the charge can be for a moment sustained, that "Vigilius put forth tracts under the name of Athanasius." But what countenance this work lends to the remainder of the charge, that in these tracts "he scrupled not to

insert 1 John v. 7. as the testimony of St. John," is reserved for Dr. Griesbach to announce, in dropping the curtain on the last scene of our entertainment. "Quicquid est non profitetur hoc dictum... ne tum quidem, ubi auctor eo carere vix potest."

The consequences entailed by this sad concession, upon the author's very learned and no less sagacious hypothesis, have been long set before the reader. And to the decision even of the least informed among those who come under the denomination, it is now referred, whether it is not this polemic's good fortune to be ever put down by his own witnesses: whether he is not as cruelly betrayed by Porson and Griesbach, in his present distress, as by Facundus and Vigilius in his former embarrassment. I have taken this summary course with his defence, and have declined a direct attack upon his information, notwithstanding the fertile sources of amusement which it affords, in other respects, besides that of ascribing the first and ninth of the books ad Theophilum to the same author, though not even composed in the same language. For what doubt could be indulged, even among readers of his own range of reading, of the true character of that disputant's pretensions, who is reduced, at the present day, to the woful plight of bolstering up a de fence by Latin versions, spurious works, and exploded editions? That task I have accordingly waved, and have directed my care to the offensive object of doing justice to his veracity. To this disgusting office I have descended, with the view of exhibiting the purity of the source from whence the imputation issues, when with the shameless acknowledgment of having not even in spected his opponent's authorities, he convicts him on suspicion, of reporting a falsehood."

The controversy being freed from the impertinencies with which it