τυρούν ότι το πνευμα
εστιν η αληθεια οτι
τρεισ εισιν οιμαρτυρου

τεσ' το πνεύμα και
το υδωρ και το αιμα

και οι τρεισ εισ το εν εισῖν·

ει την μαρτυριαν τῶ
ανθρωπων λαμβανομε

η μαρτυρια κ.τ.λ.

We had thought this verse had been by this time given up by everybody, but a valorous champion for its authenticity has just appeared in the person of Rev. Charles Forster, B.D., author of A New Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses.' No one who has read that gentleman's romantic theory of the Israelitish origin of the Inscriptions on the Rocks of Sinai will wonder at this new work-a goodly octavo, of above 300 pages. Seldom has a volume come into our hands giving more the impression of labour misspent than the one now before us. Logical power is by no means Mr. Forster's forte. He is more at home in the field of imagination than that of reason; in fanciful interpretations of strange, uncouth, stone carvings, than in calmly weighing evidence for and against a Scripture reading. The work is certainly creditable to the industry and research of the author. It bristles with quotations from the Greek and Latin Fathers. But there is scarcely a single passage amount. ing to anything like evidence that the disputed verse was ever seen by these ancient writers. He represents the text as having been quoted wherever a Greek Father uses such a phrase as These three are one God, or the Three are One;' although there be no express reference to Scripture at all, and the expression is manifestly employed to convey the doctrine of the individual and of the Church. As well might we argue that the Athanasian Creed is a quotation of the Epistle of John.

Eighty years ago Porson, in his celebrated Letters to Travis, laid down and demonstrated the following propositions:

1. That the verse is not quoted by any of the Fathers, Greek or Latin, through the first six centuries.

2. That it is not found in any extant Greek MSS., save one, the Codex Montfortianus, Dublin-a MS., as he avers, dating from the sixteenth century, and in his opinion interpolated in this place" for the purpose of deceiving Erasmus."

Now, how does Mr. Forster meet these allegations? With regard to the first proposition, he replies:

'I meet and crush this objection in the threshold by the fact, that if the seventh verse is not quoted by any of the Fathers, neither (with the solitary exception of Origen) is the eighth, which never has been questioned. The one omission is the measure of the other. And to press the former omission, and suppress the latter, is simply dishonesty. With the fact before him, that the two verses, as regards quotation, stand (with a single exception) precisely in the same category, no critic can henceforth urge the objection from omission as Porson has urged it, without writing himself down a dishonest man.' *

But does not this gentleman see that the two passages cannot by any means be classed together? The one being wanting in all extant MSS. of the Greek Testament, save one of the sixteenth century; and the other being found in all MSS., Greek and Latin. Patristic quotation is essential to our admission of the one as a part of the Word of God. It is altogether needless in the case of the other. Mr. Forster's reasoning proceeds on the assumption that no part of the Greek Testament is to be received, unless it has received the imprimatur of the Fathers of the Church-a doctrine which would go far to set aside three-fourths of that inspired volume.

Mr. Forster proceeds:―

'While granting, for the sake of argument, that the seventh verse is nowhere formally cited by the Fathers, I maintain, with its learned advocates, that it is often, very often, virtually cited by them all; for the Patristic expressions, δι τρεις, and τὰ τρία, τὰ τρία ἕν, are so many tacit quotations of this text.'

But why are these expressions quotations from Scripture? They are merely words which might be expected to occur in any writer treating of the Trinity. Does not our Lord say, I and my Father are one?' Mr. Forster may rest assured that the verse in question will never be received by the Christian Church on the ground of what he calls tacit quotations of the Fathers.

The fact that the text is wanting in all the MSS. of the Greek Testament (save one), Mr. Forster designates negative evidence. This remark is almost too ridiculous to notice. What other evidence could possibly exist against the authenticity of a passage? Taken together with the fact of its not occurring as a positive quotation in the writings of the early Fathers, the argument against its genuineness is absolutely overwhelming. In the fourth century of the Christian era, the Church was long convulsed by a fierce controversy respecting the Deity of Christ-the one party unequivocally affirming His Godhead, and the other as vehemently denying it. Now, is it

P 47.

not a marvellous thing that the one passage of the New Testament which so plainly asserts the Trinity of the Deity was never once quoted by the defenders of the Orthodox Faith? The only explanation is, the passage did not then exist. It formed no part of the 1st Epistle of John.

Mr. Forster represents the Latin Vulgate as containing the disputed verse. This statement requires some modification. It certainly is found in the Clementine edition of the Latin, but it does not occur in the ancient MSS. of that version. The famous Codex Amiatinus knows nothing of it. It is wanting also, according to Tregelles, in the following versions: the Peshito and the Harcleian Syriac, the Memphitic, the Thebaic, the Armenian (Zoh), as well as the MSS. of the Ethiopic.

In laying down Tischendorf's beautiful edition of the Vatican MS., we are desirous of adding a few words in reference to the value of the work. And here the uppermost thought is, admiration of the marvellous industry and perseverance which has enabled this prince of critics to add one more to the long list of works bearing on Biblical Criticism which have been already published by him. We have now before us a volume which immeasurably transcends every previous attempt to represent the text of the Vatican Codex. The numerous discrepancies in the collations of Bartolocci, Rulotta, Mico, Birch, and Hug; as well as in the editions of Mai and Vercellone, are all set rightthe readings of the original scribe, for the first time, are carefully distinguished from those of the various revisers of the text-and readings illegible to all besides have been at last deciphered. It is impossible to speak too highly of the extraordinary ability displayed by this illustrious scholar in the execution of the work.

Still, whilst freely admitting that this edition of Tischendorf's is incomparably the best representation of the Vatican text which has ever appeared, it must be added that it is by no means perfect-it leaves something yet to be desired. As already mentioned, before the critic had finished the Gospels, the volume was snatched from his hands, and in all that follows the Gospel of Luke, as well as a part of that document, Tischendorf was only allowed to consult the MS. where discrepancies existed. Fortunately, he had already taken transcripts of several whole pages of the Codex which appeared in his work. It must be evident, therefore, that as regards more than half of the Testament, the text of Tischendorf's edition is not, strictly speaking, copied from the MS. itself. Nor can we exonerate the critic from being guilty of some degree of misrepresentation. The expression, ex ipso codice,' in the title-page, is certainly calculated to mislead. It is only true of a portion of the work, 'ex ipso codice edidit.'

ART. IV. (1.) The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri. Translated by HENRY WADSWORTH LONGFELLOW. London: George Routledge & Sons; New York: 416, Broome Street. 1867.

(2.) The Vita Nuova of Dante. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by THEODORE MARTIN. London: Parker, Son, & Bourne, West Strand. 1862.

(3.) The Early Italian Poets, from Ciullo D'Alcamo to Dante Alighieri (1100-1200-1300), in the Original Metres, together with Dante's 'Vita Nuova.' Translated by D. G. ROSSETTI.

London Smith, Elder, & Co., Cornhill. 1861.

(4.) The Early Life of Dante Alighieri, together with the original in parallel pages. By JOHN GARROW, A.M. Florence: printed by Felix Le Monnier. 1846.

(5.) Dante's Divine Comedy; the Inferno: a literal Prose Translation, with the text of the Original. By JOHN A. CARLYLE, M.A. London: Chapman & Hall. 1867.

EACH century in half a decade of centuries bears so much resemblance to the others as almost to warrant the inference that since the dawn of Christianity, the development of the human race has proceeded in cycles of five hundred years; and yet it were an error to suppose each century of the cycle to have so much resembled those that preceded and followed it as to make the amount of difference inappreciable. We cannot, therefore, approve the usual statement that Dante and Chaucer occupy the same position, the one in English and the other in Italian literature. Dante died in 1321, Chaucer in 1400. One represents the thirteenth, the other the fourteenth century. Now, it is true that English literature is of somewhat later date than Italian, and is partly indebted to it; yet the spirit of the age in both countries had advanced many important steps, and the protest against the abuses of the Church had accumulated such strength at the opening of the fourteenth century that in these respects Chaucer inherited advantages to which Dante was a stranger. He had, indeed, an immense advantage in Dante himself having been for so many years his predecessor. Poetic Art, with other things, had made progress; and the grotesque, which in Dante was blended in intimate union with the beautiful and sublime, no longer appears in Chaucer, who is also less classical than Dante, and more natural and familiar in the choice and treatment of his subjects. Chaucer had benefited not only by Dante, but by Petrarch and Boccaccio.

The element of the grotesque is abundant in the old mysteries and moralities, in which the popular mind made its earliest efforts at poetry in the vernacular. They were gross in manners, language, and sentiment. Their writers thought it possible to

represent Deity on the mimic scene, and embodied the Adversary in the most ludicrous forms. The latter fulfilled the office of Vice, Fool, or Clown, whose duty was to make sport for others, and to receive more spurns than thanks for his labour. Very different was the notion of Milton, who has modelled his Satan on ideas of beauty, and invested with grandeur his person and his office. But this exercise of taste was not permitted to Dante. In his poetry and that of his time, the classical and gothic are blended, as are likewise the profane and sacred. Hence,' says one of Dante's translators, we must expect, as in the imposing Italian architecture of the Middle Ages, that parts of the fabric will offend, though the effect of the whole is pro'ductive of delight; and in order to excuse the poet occasionally for an apparent abuse of the thoughts and language of Scripture, it is necessary to call to mind the taste of the age, and 'the habits induced by the ceremonies and practice of the 'Catholic Church.'

But not only had Dante not eliminated the grotesque; he had not, as just hinted, yet separated the classical from the Christian, but made use of Greek and Latin mythology indiscriminately, not perceiving any incongruity between their inventions and the sacred names and events of the Hebrew Scriptures, or of the narrative and doctrine of the New Testament. The early Fathers had done the same even in their controversial writings, and the studies to which Dante was accustomed had not yet enabled him to make the distinction. His religious faith was as broad as his poetical taste, and the scholastic philosophy had not taught him how to purify his theology, whether from the Judaic or the Pagan element. The wheat and the tares grew together; and they continued to do so up to the time and long after the commencement of the Protestant Reformation. A cardinal example of Dante's practice occurs in the 'Purgatorio' (6 canto, 118-120):