ced by Professor Porson, as second in the list of the Greek Fathers, "who cannot be persuaded to quote the three beavenly witnesses." I shall preface any observations which I may find it necessary to make, by stating, that in the Index locorum scripturæ, prefixed to the Cologne edition of Clement's works, fol. 1688, 1 John, v. 7, is not mentioned; nor does it occur in the index of Potter. Considering then the ease with which this marvellous verse was detected in the writings of the Fathers, even where the mystical interpretation was used, or perhaps, the words were not meant as a quotation by the author, the silence of the editors certainly is a proof that they did not believe that our verse was cited by Clemens. Stronger arguments, however, may be drawn from the passage itself; and I believe that the words of the Father do not refer to the Epistle of John: if they do, it can only be in a slight degree, and even then, not to the 7th verse.

2

The passage referred to by your correspondent is as follows: πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτυρῶν, ἐπὶ πατρὸς, καὶ υἱοῦ, καὶ ἁγιοῦ πνεύματος ἐφ ̓ ὧν μαρτυρῶν καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντόλαι λεγόμενοι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν. The more I consider these words, the more I am astonished that they should have been urged as a citation of 1 John, v. 7. Potter translates the passage thus: "[Omne verbum firmatur in duobus vel tribus testibus:] 3 hoc est, in Patre, in Filio, et Spiritu Sancto; quibus testibus et adjutoribus, quæ mandata vocantur, observari debent." I must protest against those who adduce any passages from the Fathers as evidence for this verse, which do not contain something, at least, similar to it. The words of Diodorus, indeed, were produced with some appearance of reason for the expression is ✪eòs év tgíadı, might to an imagination heated with the belief that our verse was genuine have appeared to be an allusion to it; but the Clergyman's present client has not even this circumstance in its favor. If there be any similitude, it is only in the mention of three μágrupo, who are i πατὴς, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, but we are not told that οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι : they are only μάρτυροι, ἐφ ̓ ὧν πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται. Your correspondent, on considering the passage, will doubtless be convinced, that the expression refers only to the exact fulfilment and confirmation of prophecy, with regard to the divine persons: in this sense,

ων

'Letters to Travis, p. 363.

2 S. Clementis Alexandrin. Op. Tom. ii. p. 992, edit. Potter, fol. Oxon. 1715. The xy are not printed in the Cologne edit. 1688.

3 The words which I have enclosed in brackets, are marked by Potter as a quotation of Deut. xvii. 6. But see more of this in the conclusion of this article.

they all were μάρτυροι ἐφ ̓ ὧν μαρτυρῶν καὶ βοηθῶν πᾶν ῥῆμα (τῶν θείων γραφῶν) ἵσταται ; and by their evidence the truth and divine origin of the Christian Religion is fully proved.

The circumstance on which the usefulness of this passage to the cause of 1 John, v. 7, wholly depends, seems to be the use of the term μáprugo: and it must be admitted, that if the words of Clemens could not be explained of the paprúpov borne by the divine witnesses to the inspiration or truth of Scripture, it would be reasonable to conclude that some allusion was made to the Epistle of John. On the supposition, however, that Clemens referred to the Epistle, unless a direct appeal were made to the "three that bear record in heaven," I think it might be concluded that he referred only to the Sth verse, and applied it to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by the mystical interpretation. This, as has been before remarked, was the uniform practice of the Christian writers; and the conjecture is not a little strengthened by the alteration of the reading. The words of our verse are, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ ΛΟΓΟΣ, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεύμα; while Clemens reads, ἐπὶ Πατρὸς, καὶ ΥΙΟΥ,καὶ TIOT,xaìày. Iv. If, however, it be contended still, that the contested passage was alluded to or quoted by St. Clement, we must believe that he alone made use of it, even where he had but little occasion for it, while every other Father most unaccountably preferred the theological chemistry, which with so much labor yielded the doctrine of the Trinity, after an aukward analysis of the 8th verse. Without intending to speak but with the utmost reverence of sacred things, I cannot but rank such a process with the story of Simeon's miracles.

Again, if the words of Clemens were meant as a quotation of the New Testament, they might be taken from the formula directed by our Lord to be used in the baptismal ceremony: the converts were to be baptized,— εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Ilveμatos or the reference may be to the benediction of St. Paul; 3 ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. But it may be the mode in which Clemens, an orthodox Father, as appears from a passage in his Stromata, would have expressed himself.

4

I shall now direct your attention to a passage, which may hereafter, when all other evidence shall have failed, be made use of in defence of the verse it certainly appears much more like a quotation of the

passage than some others which have been cited. It is the epigraph of Hebediesu's Catalogue of Chaldaic Authors:

join la?co? Ino; o |;ao lal scen

"In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God." I have too high an opinion of your Correspondent's skill, to suppose that he will ever make use of an argument so feeble; but if it should be esteemed valuable by the " Country Parish Priest," who favored us with a defence of the three heavenly witnesses printed in No. IV. of your Journal, or by Mr. C. Butler, I hope that they will not make any scruple of citing it; κοινὰ γὰρ τὰ τῶν φίλων. I shall state the circumstances which attend it, and the unprejudiced reader will decide whether any credit can be given to such an authority.

2

Hebediesu, then, lived in the latter end of the xiiith and beginning of the xivth century. He was made Bishop of Sigara and Arabia, about the year of Christ 1295, and died in 1318. He had been by persuasion a Nestorian, and as we learn from Ecchellensis, wrote many books," ad Nestorianam stabiliendam confirmandamque Hæresim; at divinâ tandem affulgente gratiá, ad meliorem rediit mentem, Romamque jam senex profectus est sub Julio III. summo Pontifice, ubi Nestorianis abjuratis erroribus, Catholicam professus est fidem." With his religious opinions we have no immediate concern; but the point under consideration is, can he fairly be made an evidence for the authenticity of 1 John, v. 7.? It is generally conceded, that the passage existed in the Vulgate Version, two whole centuries before the time of Bernard, Abbot of Clairveaux, who quotes it in some of his Orations. It might, then, be alluded to by this Ilebediesu; and if citations of the verse made in the 14th century can prove it to be genuine, its defenders may proclaim, Io triumphe; they may be addressed in the words of the Grecian war song;

— ὦ παῖδες τῶν ̔Ελλήνων, ̔Ο καιρος τῆς δόξης ἦλθεν.

I shall not now take notice of the grammatical argument, but consider it in the course of some remarks which I shall proceed to make on the criticism by the "Country Parish Priest," in No. IV. of your Journal. It remains, therefore, only to examine the hope expressed by your present correspondent and Mr. C. Butler, 3 respecting the future appearance of MSS. by which "this important Text may be established."

3

Ed. Rom. 12mo. 1653.

2 Præfat. ad Catalog. Lib. Chaldæor. p. 14.

3 Hor. Biblic, vol. ii. p. 288.

TÒ

It will only be necessary, in order to show how ill founded is this hope, to consider the number of Greek MSS. which contain the Catholic Epistles, and omit the contested passage. Professor Porson' says, that "the only genuine words of 1 John, v. 7, 8, are these: ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ oi Tgeis eis Tò év elow. This," he adds, " is the reading of all the Greek τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν. MSS. above an hundred and ten, and nearly thirty of the oldest Latin.” But this, as will be shown hereafter, is not the whole evidence against the passage. To "establish," therefore, the authenticity of this verse, we must have, at least, twenty MSS. of reasonable antiquity; fewer, perhaps, will not satisfy the opposers of the passage on the heavenly witnesses; and it will not be unnecessary that they should exhibit the words nearly in their present state, without many, or at least, important variations from the received Text. That this will ever be the case, your learned correspondent will concede, is improbable; and many degrees of improbability are almost equal to an impossibility. We have hitherto found no MSS. (two only excepted, of which I shall speak hereafter,) but such as omit 1 John, v. 7. This has been the case during the greatest part of three hundred years; for the copies used by R. Stephens, in his famous Edition of the New Testament printed in 1550, certainly omit the whole passage. Among the omitting MSS. we rank the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS, which in the judg. ment of Grabe was written A. C. 396, or perhaps a short time after that period: the CODEX VATICANUS also rejects it; and I believe that we may refer it to the same time. On the whole, I am content, if any defender of the verse should require it, that the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS should be ascribed to some time about the year 420; but Grabe, (ut suprà) is inclined to doubt, whether it may not be earlier even than the year 396. It should, however, be recollected that he was an author, and edited the MS. and we well know that such men are sometimes apt to exaggerate. Perhaps the COD. VATICANUS, which appears to be more recent, may have been written twenty years afterwards. It will be reasonable, therefore, to require four MSS. of the tenth century, which contain the verse written à primâ manu: these may perhaps render the ALEXAND. and VATIC. evidence doubtful in its effect. At any rate, your correspondent's hopes concerning MSS. yet undiscovered, scarcely

2

Letters to Travis, p. 399.

2 Prolegomena, C. 1, §. 5. edit. Oxon. 1707, 8vo.

deserve consideration; but it should be acknowledged, that he is not the only scholar who has taken refuge in this saving possibility. Bengelius, it appears, "had hoped, that in due time, if not St. John's own autograph, yet some very ancient Greek MSS. containing the verse, may be found hidden in the shelves of divine Providence." This, it must be admitted, affords high authority in favor of such an argument: I can only reply with Wetstein, in the words of CICERO: "Hic tu desideras Tabulas Heracliensium publicas, quas Italico Bello, incenso tabulario, interisse scimus omnes. Est ridiculum ad ea quæ habemus nihil dicere; quærere quæ habere non possumus.”

[To be concluded in our next.]

M.

As the Grenville Edition of HOMER is at present scarce, and not accessible to every scholar, we are induced to present our Readers with the COLLATION OF THE HARLEIAN MS. OF THE ODYSSEY, which is annexed to the end of the Second Volume, and which was made by Professor Porson, and enriched with his Observations.

COLLATIO

CODICIS HARLEIANI 5674

CUM

ODYSSEA EDITIONIS ERNESTINE 1760.

ANTEQUAM ad varias lectiones enotandas accedemus, non abs re fortasse erit quædam de codicis habitu et indole præfari.

Codex est membranaceus, forma, quam in folio vocant, minori ; quod ad altitudinem scilicet et latitudinem attinet, Aldino Herodoto similis. Membrana crassa est et firma, sed aliquando pinguis; unde fit, ut scholia quædam lectu difficiliora sint, quædani minus eleganter scripta. Plerumque vero et textus et scholia nitide sunt exarata. Totus primo, ut opinor, uno tenore textus absolutus est; deinde scholia addita, eademne an diversa manu, non certo dixerim. Neque id sane multum refert, cum satis constet, unius jussu et consilio totum MS. concinnatum esse. Pauca quædam bonæ notæ margini insunt,