why a rule which is applied to the whole, with supposed success, should be inapplicable to a part, and not sufficient to support its authority, is to me, mysterious.

There is one thing in the quotation from Griesbach, that is rather enigmatical. It is this,-" And I would undertake, if it were worth while, to defend six hundred notoriously spurious and universally rejected readings by testimonies and arguments, far more numerous and powerful, than any which are used by the patrons of this verse."

Does this saying, look like a man, who feels a tender regard for the honor of God's word? like a holy fear of unhinging the minds of people in respect to that invaluable Book, which was given "to make them wise unto salvation.' Let him be ever so highly honored by the learned world, I think his statement is sanguine and alarming. It sounds like infidelity, rather than a humble faith in the Oracles of God. If there be "six hundred notoriously spurious and universally rejected readings" in our translation, it must be a very uncertain guide to the common reader; and, to proclaim such a thing in the ears of those, who hate the Scriptures, and wish to deny their authority, appears to be a rash and unguarded step. Even allowing Griesbach to be a Christian and a Trinitarian, this assertion cannot fail in having its effect, in enlarging the ranks of unbelievers.

But as this celebrated critic announces, that these "six hundred spurious readings" may be defended "by more numerous and powerful arguments" than 1 John, 5. 7, I am inclined to think that they are entitled to our confidence.

It seems, however, to have been Griesbach's object, to deter every one from venturing any more to support the text in debate, by saying: The "acute Krittelius, the sagacious Hazelius, and the zealous Travis," have labored

in this desperate 'case, "angrily and in vain." But if they have failed in supporting the cause of that passage, they have shown much regard to an important gospel doctrine; and, therefore, they might have expected more lenity from this Biblical critic, if he is a Trinitarian, than to say that they have been "severely castigated by Porson and Marsh, and labored angrily and in vain."

No doubt, Griesbach is a scholar, an able critic, and has some claim to respect; but I think his orthodoxy is questionable.* There is no need, however, of denying learning and merit to any gentleman, because he differs from us in theological opinion. Men of small parts and learning may have correct views of divine subjects, while men of extensive learning and capacity may adopt the wildest theories in relation to these things. But, Anti

*The authority of Griesbach is not universally submitted to, by the learned in Europe. Richard Lawrence, L. L. D. Rector of Mershem, England, published a pamphlet in 1814, which was reviewed in the Christian Observer, vol. 13. page 573, in which he makes some objections against Griesbach's method of deciding on the authenticity of the various readings, of different manuscripts, and makes some statements which are calculated very much to shake our confidence in any of Griesbach's decisions. He states, that Griesbach admits that there were five or six classes of manuscripts, but confined himself to the examination of three classes only; that he adopted a mode of deciding on the classification of manuscripts, which was merely arbitrary and which yet had an important influence in forming his ultimate decisions. He declares that very material inaccuracies were committed by Griesbach in his enumeration of the various readings, and points out some instances, of decisions directly contrary to his own rules. The result of Dr. Lawrence's examination, appeared to be a full conviction in his mind that no reliance was to be placed in Griesbach's authority, and that his classification of manuscripts, by which his decisions were supported, was principally made to subserve the purpose of critical conjecture. Thus much for the undisputed authority of Griesbach. One word as to his orthodoxy. He indeed professes to believe in the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. But while he makes this profession, one of the rules by which he decides on the various readings is singular enough. It is in these words; "Amongst various readings that which beyond the rest manifestly favors the tenets of the orthodox is deservedly sus pected." (The above note was communicated to the author by a learned friend.)

Trinitarians seem to think that our incorrectness in doctrine must originate from a want of talents; and, therefore, they are constantly holding up the idea of Trinitarian weakness. We have no need of denying these endowments to them, to account for their deficiency in the knowledge of divine truth; for we believe it to be of a moral nature. It is said by Jesus Christ, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God." His apostle says likewise, "The world by wisdom knew not God." "Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called.” The doctrines of the cross were, to the learned Greeks, foolishness. We must, therefore, "become fools" in the view of learned sinners, to be made wise unto salvation."

The gentleman, after giving us an account of Griesbach's rejecting the text in debate from his purified Greek Testament, and his remarks on its spuriousness; proceeds to give his opinion of Mr. Travis, from whose works, part of the historical evidence in favor of its authority has been taken.

He says, "Of this Travis, who is so puffed off here in America, by those, who know nothing of the man, and who are totally unacquainted with the state of this controversy, the celebrated professor Michaelis justly observes; he is indisputably half a century behind hand in critical knowledge, and consequently, unacquainted with matter now universally known."

I would just remark, that whenever my opponent has occasion to speak of Mr. Travis, he invariably uses the language of indignity and contempt. In the outset of his discourse, he has once condescended to call him Mr. Travis; but, after his mind became warmed with argument, no terms of tenderness or gentility are any more admitted. The very next time he speaks of him, it is in

R

a highly degrading manner:-saying, "notwithstanding the pretence of Travis, and Martyn the Frenchman, from whom this same Travis has copied, without giving credit for it." We see, my hearers, that the original is treated with as little ceremony as the copyist. The Americans, who are said to "puff off" this feeble writer, are mentioned in a way not very flattering to their feelings. They are represented as not knowing how inferior Mr. Travis is, and of being entirely ignorant of the true grounds of the controversy respecting the text in question. He contemptuously calls them, "enthusiastic devotees," and speaks of their mocking at the invincible arguments adduced against an "evident interpolation," on which, "the mene tekel of God and man is inscribed; and which is, in a little time, to be "blotted out of the book of life, and consigned to the abodes of annihilation.'

To these reveries of the gentleman, I shall not reply. They are not of the most conciliating kind; but divine rule forbids us to "render evil for evil.”

When my opponent, however, has occasion to speak of the writers who stand opposed to the text, he gives incontestible proof of his knowledge of refinement. Then he can say "The pre-eminently learned, and Trinitarian Michaelis the most learned orientalist that Europe ever produced-the most deeply versed in Biblical criticism— and one of the wisest and worthiest of men." Such pleasing adjectives, also, as "celebrated, famous, learned, and highly respectable, are applied by my opponent to Griesbach, Porson and Marsh. It is, no doubt, to shake our confidence in the knowledge and veracity of the Rev. George Travis, that he is mentioned by the gentleman in such a degrading manner. As this appears to be the case, it becomes necessary for me to make some observations in regard to his standing.

We have no right to view him as being deficient, either in learning, or uprightness. If my opponent had allowed these endowments to any other writers in opposition to his scheme, we should have more reason to repose confidence in his opinion of Mr. Travis. As this is not the case, we may believe, that he is, on such accounts, as respectable as any other Trinitarian authors. With respect to Mr. Travis, a learned divine says, in his defence of 1 John, 5. 7. "For these testimonies, we are indebted to the judicious and learned works of the Rev. George Travis, A. M. Prebendary of Chester, and Vicar of Eastham, who in his letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq. has rescued this text from the hands of its adversaries, and conferred on the church an obligation of the liveliest gratitude and love."

Mr. Travis, it seems, was an Episcopalian divine, of some eminence, and possessed the degree of A. M. in the department of learning. As he undertook a defence of the text in question, it is a proof of his soundness as to the doctrine of the Trinity; and, we may think, no inconsiderable evidence of his piety. In appearing as an auther, he made himself responsible to the world for the truth of his statements. This was a powerful motive to deter him from the most distant approach to falsehood; and, therefore, we may conclude, that he has not tarnished his character by taking such a wicked and dangerous stand.

It is a vain attempt in my opponent, to think of invalidating the historical testimony of Mr. Travis, in favor of the text; for the Rev. W. Jones and Dr. Gill, have, in substance, given the same historical account. The Rev. James Sloss preached eighteen sermons on this text, in Nottingham, England, in 1736, and he gives the very same historical account of its authenticity, that is given