Thefe teftimonies are thofe of Laurentius Valla, Nicholas de Lyra, St. Thomas, Durandus, Lombard, Rupert, St. Bernard, Radulphus Ardens, Hugo Victorinus, Scotus, Walafrid Strabo, Anfbert, Etherius, Beatus, Caffiodorus, Fulgentius, [A. D. 508,] Vigilius Tapfenfis, [484,] Eucherius, [434,] Jerome, [379,] St. Auftin, [396,] Marcus Celedenfis, [one of Jerom's correfpondents,] Phæbadius, [359], Cyprian, [248] Tertullian, [192.] To the evidence, furnished by these writers, the author fubjoins the testimony of councils, and other collective bodies of men. With regard to the preceding teftimonies it may be faid, that the authority of writers, or even manufcripts, of a thoufand or thirteen hundred years antiquity, is fallacious; becaufe the verfe in queftion, fuppofing it to be an interpolation, was most probably inferted in fome copies of St. John's Epistle, in the fourth or fifth century, by fome orthodox zealot *. In treating of Jerome's tellimony, our author fays: When the pious Jerome, who died A. D. 42, had completed that great' work of correcting the Latin verfion of the Old, and fettiing the text of the New Tellament, which he undertook at the request of pope Damafus, he clofed the ar-` daous task with the folemn proteftation, that in revifing the New Testament he had adhered entirely to the Greek MSS."Novum Teftamentum Græcæ fidei reddidi." And in Jes rome's Teftament, this verfe of St. John is read without any doubt of its authenticity." The learned author fuppofes that Jerome tranflated all the New Teftament. But how is this to be proved? Jerome indeed fays, Novum Teftamentum Græcæ fidei reddidi.' But it is moit probable, that Jerome's tranflation was not fo extenfive. Jerome wrote his Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers, in which these words occur, in the year 392. Yet St. Austin, in a letter to him, which could not be written earlier than 395, after he was bishop of Hippo, returns him thanks for tranflating Evangelium ex Græco;' and Jerom in answer, styles his work, Novi Teftamenti emendatio f.' We, therefore, cannot conclude from the words Novum Teftamentum, or the correfponding Greek in Jerome's Catalogue, Kaw Alanan, that he tranflated the apoftolical epiftles, or corrected the ancient Latin verfion of the whole New Teftament. But granting that he did, where fhall we find this tranflation or emendation? Mr. Travis tells us, page 93, Jerome * Arius was condemned in the Nicene Council, A. D. 325. was the author of that tranflation of the Bible, which is now called the vulgar Latin or the Vulgate in which translation this verfe has always had a place.' Erafmus places this tranflation among the 16ft works of Jerome, and fays, Novum Teftamentum Græcæ fidei reddidit; qui labor, fi extaret, aut non fuiffet nobis eâdem in re laborandum, aut certè illius ftudio plurimùm fuiffemus adjuti.' And in his commentary on the words Evangelium ex Græco,' he fays: Hieronymus dicit fe caftigaffe magis fenfum quàm verba, quanquam nec illum habemus caftigationem.' Poole, in the Preface to his Synopfis, fpeaks of the Vulgate in the following terms: Vulgata Latina verfio, eadem ferè quæ Hieronymi, fed variè immutata atque interpolata, et decreto Romani pontificis firmata; quam alii miris laudibus extollunt; nec alii minùs vituperant; alii verò eam facrum texum modò optimè, modò etiam peffimè, plerumque verò mediocriter, reddere fentiunt.' p. iv. It may be obferved, that neither Bellarmine nor F. Labbé, include a tranflation or caftigation of the New Teftament among the works of Jerome. What Cave fays upon this fubject, feems to be the real truth. Quicquid ex iis [libris] extat in Vulgatis Bibliis confervatur, cum antiquâ verfione Latinâ ex Græco facta, permixtum ac confufum; adeo ut quænam fint Hieronymi, quænam antiquæ verfionis, vix ac ne vix dignofci queat *.' If we likewife confider the various corruptions, which this Latin tranflation has undergone in later ages, we cannot by any means agree with our author in believing, that we have at present Jerome's version of the text in dispute. One of the most important teftimonies which the writinga of Jerome afford, is the following paffage in a preface to the canonical Epiftles, which paffes under his name. Et prima earum una Jacobi, Petri duæ, Johannis tros, & Judæ una, Quæ fi, ut ab eis digefta funt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideater in Latinum verterentur eloquium, nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent, nec fermonum fefe varietas impugnaret; illo præcipuè loco, ubi de Unitate Trinitatis in prima Johannis epiftolâ pofitum legimus. In quâ etiam ab infidelibus tranflatoribus multùm erratum effe à fidei veritate comperimus; trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc eft, Aqua, Sanguinis, & Spiritûs, in fuâ editione ponentibus; & Patris, Verbique ac Spiritus teftimonium omittentibus, in quo maximè & fides catholica roboratur, et Patris, ac Filii, ac Spiritûs una divinitatis fubftantia comprobatur †. Cave, Hift. Literaria. Vide Apparat. Biblic. by F. Lamy, lib. ii. cap. 8. There The There are feveral circumftances in this preface, which though they do not abfolutely prove that it is a forgery, have at leaft a fufpicious appearance. We fhall mention cne or two. preference, which is afcribed fo carefully and officiously to St. Peter, Jeems as if it came from the pen of an advocate for the fupremacy of the Roman pontiff.-The author of the preface vehemently exclaims against the infideles tranflatores, and fays, that by the varfe in question, maxime fides catholica roboratur. Yet the pious Jerome' never fully or explicitly appeals to this important text, in any part of his works! This, we will venture to fay, is unaccountable. It may alfo be prefumed, that if St. Jerome thought this paffage the ftrongeft confirmation of the Catholic faith, it would have been conftantly cited by the Trinitarians. But it is not. The earliest teftimony which our author produces, and indeed the earliest which can be produced, is that of Tertullian. In those days, fays Mr. Travis, arofe in Afia, the heretic Praxeas, who maintained, that there was no plurality of perfons in the godhead; but that the Father fuffered on the cross. Against the opinions of this man Tertullian wrote a treatise, in the twenty-fifth chapter of which, he thus alleges this paffage of St. John. The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Holy Ghoft, makes a unity of thefe three, one with another, which three are, one." The Latin is, qui tres unum funt:" a literal quotation of the verse in queftion. And the teftimony of Tertullian, feems to carry ir refiftible conviction with it to every unprejudiced mind, not only from its proximity to the age of the apoftles, but becaufe he teftifies, that in thofe times, their authentic epiftles were actually read to the churches, not through the medium of the Latin, or of any other tranflation, but in the original Greek, to which criginals Tertullian himself directly appeals *.' This teftimony of Tertullian, when viewed in the original, does not seem to carry that irresistible conviction with it which our author apprehends. Ita connexus, fays that father, Patris in Filio, & Filii in Paracleto, tres efficet cohærentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum fint, non unus. Quamodò dictum eft, ego & Pater unum fumus t.' The paffage to which he here very manifeftly refers, is John x. 30, yw nai ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν εσμεν, I and my father are one.' This, he obferves, is afferted in Scripture, ‹ dictum eft.' If the former words, qui tres unum fint,' had been in St. John's Epiftle, Tertullian would undoubtedly have appealed to his authority. But he does not; nay, fo far from it, he ufes very different * Tertull. de Præfcript. Hæret. c. 36. Monog. c. 11. Edit. Rigaltii, 1675. p. 515. terms, namely, filius and paracletus.' We are therefore inclined to think, that Tertullian took his form of expreffion unum fint,' from v tσy, in the verfe above cited; and that he might have expreffed himself as he has done, if the controverted paffage in St. John's Epiftle had never exifted. It is very certain, that both the Greek and Latin writers interpreted the eighth verfe, in a myflical fenfe, of the Trinity, understanding by the fpirit, God the Father; by the blood, the Son; and by water, the Holy Ghoft. It is, therefore, molt probable, that the paffages in St. Cyprian, St. Auftin, and others, which by fome are thought to be quotations from the feventh verfe, are, in reality, nothing more i than gloffes on the eighth. Our author having alleged and enforced all the foregoing teftimonies, proceeds to examine the most material objections which have been urged against the originality of this verfe, and to his examination fuperadds fome reflections, which feem to arise from an attentive confideration of the whole fubject. Sandius, M. Simon, and Mr. Emlyn, among the more early opponents of this verfe; and Dr. Benfon, fir Ifaac Newton, Mr. Griefbach, and Mr. Bowyer, among its more modern adverfaries, feem to have been the most diffufe in the variety of their remarks, and the most determined in their oppofition. But as the four laft mentioned writers have collected, into one point of view, all, or nearly all, the objections that have at any time been urged against the originality of the verfe in queftion; and as their works are more generally known than thofe of Sandius, Simon, or Emlyn, this learned writer confiders them as fpeaking the fenfe of their fellow-advocates, and ftates their objections in their own words. In this part of his work, and indeed in every other, our author displays indefatigable industry, extenfive reading, and uncommon acutenefs, in maintaining his hypothefis. Yet, notwithstanding all that he has advanced, when it is confidered that this verfe does not exist in the beft and moft ancient manuscripts; and that it does not appear to have been fairly and expressly quoted by any Greek or Latin writer in the four firft centuries of the church, in their warm difputes with the Arians and other ancient Antitrinitarians, the dif cerning reader will ftill perhaps entertain his doubts, and be rather pleafed with the learning and ingenuity of this able writer, than convinced by his arguments. Travels Travels in the Tavo Sicilies, by Henry Swinburne, Efq. (Con tinued, from Page 87.J DURING URING a refpite from rain, Mr. Swinburne made fome excursions from Palermo into the neighbouring country; and the fanctuary of St. Rofalia, the peculiar patronefs of the city, was the firft place he vifited. It ftands on Monte Pellegrino, anciently Erta, which, about a mile from the gates, rifes abruptly, quite detached from all other mountains. Towards the clofe of the first Punic war, to preferve a free communication with the fea, this mountain was fortified by Hamilcar Barcas, who maintained the poft for five years, notwithstanding the fuccefs of his enemies against all the other Carthaginian generals. To facilitate the approach to the faint's grotto, a road has been made up the fide of the mountain; for defraying the execution of which work, a tax was levied upon meat by the fenate of Palermo. The fanctuary is a fpacious cavern, having its entrance clofed with a convent and portico. It is fo full of fprings, that leaden pipes are laid along the roof to catch the drops and convey them into a cistern. A rich altar is erected over the marble effigy of the faint, which, lying at full length, is covered with a filver veft, the gift of his prefent Catholic majesty. The traveller's fecond day's route lay along the shore, towards the Eaft, through a rich well-inclofed plain, bounded by very high mountains. The little river Ammiraglio, anciently Orethus, on the banks of which Metellus defeated the Carthaginians, has worn its way deep into the ftony ftratum. under the vegetable covering. This ftream flows through paftures and orchards, which, even in December, display a lively profpect of young corn, pulfe, and the rich foliage of a variety of ever-green fruit-trees. Continuing his route, Mr. Swinburne rode about ten miles by the edge of the bay, between hedges of aloe and Indian fig. On the wafte, afparagus, oleander, palma Chrii, and' palmetto, or dwarf-palm, over-run the surface of the ground. The road rifes gradually to La Bagaria, a hill covered with villas belonging to the nobility. Thofe houfes are built with a coarie porous breccia, of a dufky yellow caft, which is extremely unfit for the purposes of ornamental architecture, as it moulders away by being expofed to wind and rain. The firft of the villas is built in an agreeable tafte, and the ornaments are chafe and light; but the fecond, or that of Palagonia, is reprefented as extremely diffimilar. |