differently marked in the two editions in many cases. The only effect of this should be to induce the reader, where he finds any difficulty, to consult the large edition for the authorities.

Here we hoped to close our remarks, as far as relates to the vindication of Griesbach; but the Panoplist, in another number, has called our attention to the verse of the three heavenly witnesses, and thinks, indeed, "that it is worse than rashness to speak so contemptuously on this subject as we have done." In reading the remarks of the reviewer on this, as well as the other texts, we have been often reminded of a passage quoted by Marsh from Bengel; " male strenuos ii se praebent in bellis Domini, qui ita animum inducunt: Dogmati elenchoque meo opportunus est hic textus: ergo me ipse cogam ad eum protinus pro veró habendum, et omnia quae pro eo corradi possunt obnixe defendam.

It seems that these gentlemen think, that the controversy on the authenticity of this verse is not yet settled; and particularly, that the "matter is brought anew upon the tapis," by some late "investigations" of Mr. Butler and Dr. Middleton. We were not ignorant of what had been said on this text, by' both these modern scholars; but notwithstanding the opinion of the Quarterly Reviewers, and of the Panoplist itself, we are not sure, that any increase of probability has been gained for this interpolation. It has been the fate of this memorable verse, to have its advocates successively driven from all the intrenchments, in which they hoped to make a final stand; and we are much inclined to suspect that the argument from the African Confession, and from the use of the Greek article, which Messrs. Butler and Middleton seem disposed to maintain, will share the same fate with Stephens' semicircle, the MSS. of Valla, the Codex Ravianus, and other auxiliaries, which have successively been put to flight, or have been turned against their employers.

Charles Butler, Esq. whose letter to Professor Marsh the reviewers in the Panoplist have printed as containing a new view of the argument for the controverted verse, drawn from the Confession of African Bishops, is an English Roman Càtholick, of learning and candour; but it is easy to see, that his reluctance to give up the text is in a great measure owing to

the bias of his communion in favour of the Vulgate which contains it, and of which it is, if the expression may be allowed, a favourite child. What reply Dr. Marsh may choose to make to his letter, we know not. We have not yet heard of his having given it any publick notice; but any man who is acquainted with the controversy will perceive, that Butler has brought forward no new facts; nor, as we can discover, has he presented the old ones in any stronger light. He professes, indeed, to give the arguments of the opposers of the verse, against the fact in question; but any one who reads Porson's and Griesbach's observations on it, will see, that he has stated their arguments neither fully nor fairly. Proceeding as he does upon the presumption, that the catholick bishops without doubt actually read, signed, and presented the confession containing a quotation of the disputed verse, according to the relation of Victor Vitensis, he asks triumphantly, "now, is it probable the catholick bishops would have exposed themselves to such indelible infamy ?" i. e. as to quote the verse if it were really spurious.

There is not a single argument in Mr. Butler's letter, which had not been already brought forward by Travis, and considered by Porson and Griesbach-and it would really be tedious to transcribe, or to abridge the replies of these learned men on this article. We will only observe, that, before this African confession can be offered as good authority for the existence of the verse in the Latin copies at the end of the 5th century, the advocates for the verse must give some answer to the following questions. 1. Is the authority of Victor, whose history is full of absurdities, to be depended on, especially as he contradicts himself and the edict of Hunneric in his statement of this very transaction? 2. Who was the author of this confession? Victor does not say. Gennadius attributes it to Eugenius, the head of the bishops; but internal evidence makes it probable to have been a forgery of Vigilius Thapsensis, a famous fabricator of treatises under fictitious names, and the suspected forger of the Athanasian creed about the beginning of the sixth century. 3. What proof is there that the confession which has been published as that of the African bishops, was subscribed by them? Victor, the author of the rest of the story, is entirely silent on the subject of subscription. (See

Griesbach's Diatribe on the 1 John. v. 7. p. 20.) Lastly: how is it possible, if the text of the three heavenly witnesses was at that time truly quoted from John's epistle, that Eucherius was ignorant of it fifty years before, and Facundus equally ig norant of it fifty years after? When all or any of these questions are fairly answered by the Panoplist, we doubt not that we shall be ready to answer Mr. Butler's to the satisfaction of these reviewers; and till this be done we shall continue "to speak as contemptuously as we have done" on the subject of this verse, without any "trembling solicitude" for our own reputation.

But it seems that the cause is not yet to be given up; for Dr. Middleton, "in his masterly essay on the Greek article, has proved that it is an established rule of construction in the Greek language, that the article must subserve the purpose of reference or hypothesis; and as hypothesis is here out of the question, it remains to inquire, to what iv in the 8th verse refers. If it does not refer to is in the 7th verse, and thus come under the rule respecting renewed mention, above described, we acknowledge ourselves unable to divine to what it does refer."And what then? Does this render it any more probable that the 7th verse is authentick? Does it prove any thing more than that Middleton has found an example which he cannot fairly reconcile with his theory of the article?

We have read (we do not profess to have made ourselves thoroughly masters of) the elaborate work of Dr. Middleton on the Greek article. The application of his theory to some passages of the New Testament promised some new aid to the cause of orthodoxy, at which, as well as at Mr. Sharpe's rule about the article, its friends have eagerly caught. We are by no means competent to judge of Middleton's theory. This only we know; that it wants one characteristick of truth, that is, simplicity. But if the reviewer in the Panoplist will take any recommendation from us, we entreat him, before he leans on this new reed, to ponder well an examination of Middleton's work on the article, contained in the Monthly Review for May, June, July, and August, of the last year. It is written by one of the first Greek scholars in England, who has other requisites for criticism than mere research; a perspicacious and philosophical mind. If this criticisin should not diminish

the reviewer's estimation of Middleton's work, it may render him less confident in the application of this theory, as well as of the rule of Mr. Sharpe, to particular texts.

But whether Middleton's theory of the article be true or not, the reading ro v in the 8th verse will not give even a shadow of probability to the interpolated seventh, if either of these two things can be shown ;-that similar cases of the article occur in the New Testament, or elsewhere, where no reference is discoverable ;—or (if ro v must refer to something) that the reference may be explained from the preceding or following unsuspected verses.

Now, though we do not profess to be thoroughly versed in the doctrine of the Greek article, we think that an examination of Schmidius' Concordance has furnished us with one example at least, where precisely the same phrase occurs, and where we venture to say no more reference is discoverable, than of the To v in the 8th verse of John. It is the clause ro Ev Opovevres in Philip. ii. 2. thinking the same thing. Dr. Middleton, we find, was aware, that this was a stubborn text, which would hardly bend to his theory. Now let any one attend to the manner in which he endeavours to get rid of the difficulty here, and judge whether it is not quite as easy to explain the article in this 8th verse, without calling up the 7th verse from the dead. By Middleton's own concession, the article prefixed to

, or any similar word, may refer to something following, as well as to something which precedes; why may it not refer then το μαρτυρίαν in the following verse? It is no objection that mapτυρίαν is of a different gender, as any one may satisfy himself, who attends to Middleton's explanation of his doctrine of reference.

If too we may be allowed to judge of Middleton's theory from the view given of it by the critick in the Monthly Review, it seems just as proper to say, of the English translation of to iv povytes, thinking the same thing, that there must be a reference to some particular thing previously or subsequently mentioned, as that the same phrase in Greek must of necessity have a reference.

Dr. Middleton, in the first part of his work, which contains his theory, with the exceptions, and with the examples to justify it, says of some cases, which he adduces, "in these cases

το

the reference of the article is more obscure, than in the case of renewed mention strictly so called; but yet is explicable on the same principle: for in all of them it is to something which is easily recognized, though not hitherto particularly mentioned.” We are not sure, that this observation will not serve to explain the instance in question. If we were urged to say to what does the Toy of the 8th verse answer except the iv in the 7th verse," we might reply that it refers to the testimony, (μaptvplov) implied in the 6th verse; where, after the water and the blood have been mentioned, it is said, "also the spirit bears testimony" το πνεύμα επί μαρτυράν—and then it is added in Greek, as we should say in English, "therefore there are three witnesses, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in the same [testimony.]" Whether this is a satisfactory explanation, others must judge. In any case, it ought not to be forgotten, that it is far more probable, that the article and the clause in the 8th verse are spurious than that the 7th is genuine. Dr. Middleton allows that they may be ; Grotius thought they were.

We wish that we had room to discuss the text in Hebrews i. 8. But our publishers warn us, that it is time for the Anthology and our review to come to a close. We cannot leave the subject, however, without observing, that whatever interpretation the analogy of the Greek language in this text may be supposed to require, (and we are inclined to agree with our reviewer as to this analogy) the original Hebrew is unquestionably ambiguous. Whether the Hebrew be translated, thy throne, O God, or, God is thy throne, we are entirely of Calvin's opinion, that the 14th Psalm, from which the quotation is taken, originally and literally refers to Solomon. If the mystical meaning relates to Christ, then Christ is called by a title, (05) which is also given to Solomon. Let any man read this Psalm for the first time, without having been informed, that any part of it had been applied by way of accommodation to Christ, and we venture to say, that he would discover in it no more of the marriage of Christ and the church, than in Solomon's Song. We hope the reviewers will not call this an "indecent" allusion.

It is not so clear a case as they suppose, that all the ancient Jewish Rabbies applied the Psalm solely to the Messiah : Gro