for being a zealous anti-Calvinist; but he would have consulted his reputation by suppressing such flippant annotation as the following.

A

2 Tim. ii. 10. διὰ τοῦτο] • On this consideration. Διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς, i. e. those who were called to receive the Gospel, especially the Gentiles, of whom St. Paul was especially the Apostle. On this sense, the best Commentators, antient and modern, are agreed; and it is well observed by Benson, that the Apostle often intimates that unless he had laboured and suffered, and they persevered in virtue and piety, both he and they would miss of salvation. See 1 Thes. iii. 5 compared with Thes. i. 4. Of course it is implied, and especially in the next words, that their salvation was not certain; and therefore excludes the doctrine of election, which some Calvinists of more zeal than judgement would here introduce.'

That is, excludes the doctrine of the xviith Article of the Church of which the Author is a minister ! 'Of course it is ' implied', and we need not waste many words in proving it, that Dr. Bloomfield does not understand either what Calvinists hold, or what his own Church teaches, or he would not have hazarded the ridiculous remark, that the passage in question militates against the doctrine he impugns.

In reviewing the learned Author's Synopsis, we took occasion to notice a few similar hallucinations. In reference to Rom. xi. 22, he remarks, that, in the interpretation of the clause, lav ἐπιμείνης τῇ χρηστότητι, “ the Calvinists are put to great straits, 6 are reduced to miserable shifts, and compelled to resort to 'sophistical and metaphysical distinctions'; and he immediately. proceeds to cite the authority of BEZA for what he considers ast the sound interpretation! In the note on this passage in the present volumes, we find him still citing Beza against the Calvinists, although he has softened down his language of vituperation.

'i. e. as Beza, Crell., Vorst., Grot., and Whitby explain, "if thou remain in that state in which thou hast been placed by the goodness of God, through faith in Christ, by which this goodness is retained; if thou retainest God's goodness to thee, by continuing to endeavour to be worthy of it, and improving this advantage." This explanation is confirmed by the Greek Commentators. At all events, the present passage excludes the Calvinistic notion of irresistible grace, as the words following, xal ixeïvos—¡yxevt. do that of arbitrary and irrespective election or reprobation.'

Calvin remarks on this passage: Quia autem de singulis 'electis non disputat, sed de toto corpore, additur conditio, Si in lenitate permanseris. We do not particularly admire the whole of his annotation; but every one who examines the passage with attention, must admit that he correctly represents it to relate to the election or calling of the Gentiles as a body, in 3 G

VOL. VIII.-N.S.

contradistinction from the Jews. Now that national election is 'arbitrary,' (the term is objectionable, but it is not ours,) antiCalvinists have been forward to admit. All members of the Church ' of Christ,' remarks Archbishop Whately, in treating of Election, ' are called and elected by God, and are as truly his people, and under his especial government, as even the Israelites ever were. And though they do not consist of any one nation in particular, they are arbitrarily selected and called to this privilege, out of the rest of the world, according to God's un"searchable will, for reasons known to Him alone, no less than the Israelites were of old.'* According to non-Calvinistic authorities, then, the passage does not exclude arbitrary election. And as to irresistible grace,' it is quite evident, that a writer who understood either the Calvinistic notion, or the meaning of the terms, would not have described the language of Beza as at variance with that doctrine.

These specimens will suffice to shew that Dr. Bloomfield is not to be trusted as a theological commentator; nor is his judgement as a critic always unimpeachable. We feel, however, under too great obligations to him for the important services he has rendered to Biblical Criticism, both in this valuable edition of the Sacred Text, and in his "Recensio Synoptica," to have any wish to dwell upon the flaws in his divinity, or the slight drawbacks upon the substantial utility and importance of his meritorious and erudite labours. But we have felt it to be our duty to point out these defects, in the hope that the Author may be induced to reconsider his expressions, and to expunge from his work, in the next edition, every uncalled for aspersion on the opinions of those from whom he differs.

Our readers may be curious to know what course has been adopted, in these editions, with regard to the famous passage, 1 John v. 7. In the text of each, the controverted clause, iv T οὐρανῷ — ἐν τῇ γῇ, is very properly printed between brackets. Mr. Valpy affixes to it the mark of possible spuriousness and expunction,' but, in a note, seems inclined to support its genuineness; citing the reasoning of Ernesti and Nolan in its favour, and very slightly noticing either the arguments or the critical authorities on the other side. Dr. Burton has a note upon the passage, which we shall transcribe.

'7, 8. There is great reason to think, that all the words from i, T oùgavy to iv tỷ y are an interpolation. The 7th verse, as printed in our modern editions, is not to be found in any existing MS. The passage is only found in two MSS., both of which are very recent, and both contain variations. It is not quoted by any Greek writer for several centuries. Cyprian is supposed to have quoted it in the third

Whately on the Difficulties in St. Paul's Writings. p. 96.

century: but it is not certain whether he did not mean to allegorize the 8th verse; and this will perhaps explain its introduction into the Latin copies.

If we exclude the suspected passage, we shall then read, örɩ Tęs εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα. For there are three things which testify his being the Son of God, the Spirit, his baptism, and his birth; and these three tend to prove the unity of Jesus and Christ.

• Ibid. εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. In the suspected passage we read which gives a very different meaning: but S. John probably did not mean to say that these three things are one, but that they prove Jesus and Christ to be one person.'

Dr. Burton (with Michaelis) conceives the whole passage to have been directed against the Cerinthians, who separated 'Jesus from Christ, and said, that Christ was united to Jesus, when the Spirit descended upon him at his baptism.' And he accordingly interprets d'aiuatos in ver. 6., as implying at his 'birth. In support of this singular and violent rendering, he adduces, however, no authorities. Dr. Bloomfield is of opinion, with Wells and Carpzov, that, by the water and blood, St. 'John intended to advert to the sacraments, by water meaning the laver of regeneration, and by blood, the Lord's Supper.' This, of all the interpretations proposed of this difficult passage, seems to us the least intelligible. Bp. Horsley agrees with Calvin and those who consider the words as alluding to the fact recorded John xix. 34; of which the learned Prelate offers a singular explanation, deeming it both miraculous and mystical. Calvin's comment may be acceptable to some of our readers. Neque dubito quin ad veteres Legis ritus alludat in vocibus Aquæ 'et Sanguinis Sub his duabus totam sanctitatis et justitiæ perfectionem Apostolus designat Apte igitur 'probat Johannes Jesum esse Christum Domini, olim promissum, quia secum attulit quo nos omni ex parte sanctificet.' The words, "by water," he thinks, can have no reference to baptism, but express 'the fruit and effect' of the miraculous fact recorded by St. John. Wetstein's comment recognizes an allusion to this fact, but with a different meaning: Probavit se non phantasma, 'sed verum hominem esse, qui ex spiritu, sanguine, et aquâ seu humore constaret. Grotius, who is followed by Lardner, thinks that the Water denotes the innocence of our Lord's life, the blood his death, the spirit his miracles:- AQUA est puritas 'vitæ Christianæ, quæ simul cum martyrio, et miraculis, ' testimonium reddit veritati dogmatis. (Grot. Ann. in Joh. iii. 5.) This gloss comes from a suspicious quarter, although it may deserve attention.

There is yet another explanation of the words, which we will venture to submit. In John i. 31, we meet with expressions

which forcibly recall those of the passage under consideration:διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι βαπτίζων· καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης, Meyv. Our Lord is said to have come ' daros, but the expression is changed in the next clause to v T dati. Suppose an ellipsis, and that our Lord's coming with water implies his coming baptizing with water, the meaning will be, that He came, not only as a "Teacher sent from God," but also, tậ aiuati àviáŝev, as a high-priest who by his own blood has procured eternal redemption for us. Comp. Heb. ix. 12. But how then are we to understand the three-fold testimony of the spirit, the water, and the blood? Bp. Burgess, who is cited with great deference by Dr. Bloomfield, would interpret it of our Lord's last breath on the Cross, and the blood and water that issued from his side.' Such a rendering of rò πveμa, had it been proposed by a less orthodox person, would have probably excited severe condemnation it appears to us utterly inadmissible. Understanding the word as denoting the Holy Spirit, we have to inquire, in what sense the water and the blood are the concurrent testimony of the Father to the Son. The sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in a sense bear testimony to Christ: but how can they be said to be the testimony of God? They are rather the perpetual testimony of the Church. Calvin refers us to 1 Pet. i. 2, and remarks, that St. John here adduces the Spirit as a witness together with the water and the blood, because it is his proper office to cleanse our consciences with the blood of Christ. 'Porro Dei testimonium vocat non modò quod Spiritus cordibus nostris reddit, sed quod etiam habemus ab aqua et sanguine.' If this is not satisfactory, it may at least guard our readers against hastily adopting any crude interpretation of the very difficult passage.

In reference to the disputed clause, Dr. Bloomfield inclines to the opinion' that it is genuine; or, as he cautiously expresses himself, he regards the authenticity of the verses as, though doubtful, yet verging to probability.' But he assigns no reason for his opinion, which seems adopted more in compliment to the very learned and venerable Bishop of Salisbury', than as the result of an independent examination of the evidence. In fact, when we find a writer postponing a decision indefinitely, under the idea that the rapid advance in Biblical Criticism, may at some future period lead to the discovery of evidence which has hitherto eluded all research, and opposing this vague expectation of possible evidence to the force of existing document, the soundest canons of criticism, and all the rules of evidence,—we cannot be mistaken in inferring that his judgement must be under a very strong bias, that disqualifies him, as our Author remarks of Griesbach, for holding the critical scales true.' Yet, in his Synopsis, Dr. B. admits, that the clause, if genuine, will not

decidedly prove the doctrine of the Trinity, and that by far too much anxiety about the determination of the question has been felt and expressed by the Orthodox in general. Mr. Valpy very properly introduces a similar observation.

It has been a question with many, whether too pertinacious, at least too warm a zeal has not been shewn by some, to secure the authenticity of this text, as if the doctrine it contained rested solely on its authority. For, as Bentley observes, if the fourth century knew that text, let it come in, in God's name: but if that age did not know it, then Arianism at its height was beat down without the help of that verse; and let the fact prove as it will, the doctrine is unshaken.'

6

We must briefly advert to a few other important texts. At 1 Tim. iii. 16., the reading, eòs, is retained in the text of each of these editions, but with a different punctuation and division of the context. Mr. Valpy, who gives os vel as an "inferior reading', begins a new paragraph at the words, Erúnos καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας; thus referring them, not to ἐκκλησία or to aids, but to the following clause *. Dr. Bloomfield objects against this interpretation, that it overloads the sentiment, has a very frigid air, and would suppose an anti-climax, no where else found in St. Paul.' Dr. Burton begins a paragraph with καὶ ὁμολογουμένως; remarking, that the preceding words στύλος ἀληθείας are connected by Origen, in five places, with ἐκκλησία, as also by Athanasius and Epiphanius. Dr. Bloomfield has no break in the text, but closes the period with aλntɛías, and connects the two following clauses thus :-μυστήριον —Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. There may, he remarks, seem an abruptness, by a sort of a hiatus between the words μvσT. and Eòs, not uncommon in the writings of St. Paul. His annotation on the various readings, we have not room to transcribe; nor does it exhibit a complete view of the evidence. Dr. Henderson's Tract might have claimed notice among the Author's authorities; while Dr. Pye Smith's remarks, in his invaluable Scripture Testimony, ought to have precluded the uncandid and erroneous representation that s is a reading favoured only by Socinians. Dr. Smith follows Dr. J. A. Cramer and Berriman, in connecting the os with Oɛou CvTOS, including the intervening words in a parenthesis. Against this construction, we have intimated our strong objections +; and our readers are aware that we regard the preponderating evidence as supporting the common reading. At the same time, we cannot

This construction has been adopted by Erasmus Schmidt, Le Clerc, Bengelius, Schöttgenius, Doddridge, Michaelis, Storr, Griesbach, Knapp, Vater, and Stolz.

+ See Ecl. Rev. 2d Series, Vol. IV. pp. 178-187; and 1b. 3d Series, Vol. V. Pp. 38-53.