« PreviousContinue »
considering the scopeof the Apostle's fectually disposes of the evidence of reasoning, or the connection of his the Greek Church, in annihilating sense, the structure of his language the negative testimony, which it requires them to be inserted, as ne- bears on the subject of the disputed cessary to obviate a barbarously so- passage. It is, in fact, not to be licestic construction. Ondiscarding controverted, and remains undis. them, masculine adjectives (opeis oi puted, that this peculiar discipline maplupãiles) are forced into concord- existed in the ancient Church, all ance with neuter substantives, (rò of whose members were solemnly πνεύμα και το ύδωρ και το αίμα :) on re. bound by it to suppress those nysplacing them, this objection va- teries, in silence, of which the connishes, those adjectives finding suit- tested verse enbraces the highest. able substantives in the Heavenly As the elaborate investigations of Witnesses, lo matha xj ở háryos, xej se its impugners end in simply proving TV a abylov.) Without availing our- the silence of the Eastern Church selves of the allowable licence of respecting that text, they have efaccommodating the context of the fected little more than a coufirma. Greek to the Latin, by a strictly tion of the preceding solution of grammatical translation, for which this difficulty in her testimony. It high authority might be pleaded; is curious to find Mr. Professor we have, I believe, the authority of Porson confirming the argument Matthäi, and of Porson himself, thus deducible from the Disciplina (p.51), most certainly that of Eu. Arcani, by a confession as voluntary genius, for asserting, that the intro- and decisive as that drawn from duction of the Heavenly Witnesses Bishop and Professor Marsh on the removes every grammatical objec- internal evidence of the contested tion to the context of the Apostle. passage. While that accurate critic That the suppression of them creates professes to collect every thing an insuperable objection to it, may which has been opposed to the disbe referred to the decision of a puted text, he leaves the former judge whose sentence none will árgument, (as he likewise does the deny to be impartial, and few dis. succeeding, standing without an pute to be competent. “But what," effort to weaken its force. Having observes Bishop Marsh*, in reference acknowledged (p. 285,) that if the to the epistle before us," shall we principle is acknowledged, the consay to readings, which when con- clusion follows of course, which is nected with the context make false deduced from it, he tbus records his grammar? What shall we say to a incapacity to shake it: “ I have verb singular, &c....to a masculine declined ihe consideration of the adjective referring to a neuter sub- Disciplina Arcari, nor shall I restantive ? Now the question to be sume it. It is a dangerous hypoasked is, is it possible, that. Velez thesis,” &c. (p. 391.) But the found this, and the other readings danger imputed to this argument of the same stamp, in a Greek ma- obviously diminishes nothing of its nuscript ?" “ Even a man,” he truth; and is indeed no more than elsewhere reasons, “ who learnt a bugbear childishly intended. to Greek by mere usage and conversa- deter us from using a weapon the tion, without being taught its first weight of which has beep sensibly principles, could not possibly have felt. The polemic who has no better written" as St. John is proyed to defence to make against this objechave written, by those who rejecttion to the silence of the Easter the disputed text from his epistle. Church,conspires with the disputant, 2. The Disciplina Arcani, as ef- who confirms that to the solecisin in ground from which the other pru- ples, as possessed of a verbal force, dently retreats, but both leave the require the case of their verbs, and field in the possession of the advo. Maplugów, by a luckless chance, and cates of the Heavenly Witnesses. the usage of Greek, requires the
her testimony, which convicts it of Lett. to Travis, Append. ill. p. 270. an intentional omission. The one 194. comp. Pref. p. i, n. 1.
indeed magnaniniously cedes the
These arguments, it must be dative, wbile papluçõiles is now pregranted, have little effect if two fixed to the accusative. The ellipvery pretty expedients, contrived by tical construction with xatà belongs a new assailant, who figures in this to adjectives, because, as wanting a Journal, be entitled to any atten. verbal force, they can only govern tion. By this polemic we are by the intervention of a preposition; gravely assured, 1st, that the neuter but in the proposed construction, substantives are not taken in con- we have the governed case rather cordance with the masculine adjec- curiously connected with a particitives, but dependent upon them, by ple, which takes the dative when an ellipsis of xalà; and that by this the preposition is understood, and happy device, the solecism of the requires the genitive in the sense context is effectually avoided. Again, of bearing witness against, where. we are instructed (2) how to dispose xatà is inserted. By such creditof the positive testimony of the able objections (at which he must Latin Church to the disputed verse, be a hardened school-boy who by the intervention of Vigilius Tapwould not be overwhelmed with sensis. It is at length fortunately shame) we are, I trust, exonerated discovered that this father disposed from the humiliating task of pursuthat Church to receive the verse as ing these observations from the authentic text, by inserting it structure of the text, to its sense as the testimony of St. John, in and connection. These and all such several tracts," which he imposed objections, when they are proposed, upon them “under the names of the author of this exposition is, in Athanasius, Augustinus, and Ida. his own estimation at least, fully cius."
competent to dissipate, by a few 1. To enable us to appreciate the whisks of his “triple lash" over the former happy contrivance for solv- heads of his hardy opponents. ing the grammatical difficulties in Until he has so far contributed to the Apostle's context, it is much their amusement as to make the to be regretted its author has attempt, the construction which he not favoured the world with a new
proposes, may, without further cesystem of Greek Accidence ;
remony, be dismissed, to take its the first principles of the language, proper place among the other sugare unfortunately violated by his gestions of its proposer. That expedient for removing the diffi- it is not to be reconciled with sense culties of the construction. If the
or grammar, may be assumed, withreceived system of grammar be not out further proof, on the simple altogether erroneous, as it is now grounds of its having been overlook. hardly safe to doubt, adjectives, ed, for so many centuries, by every when taken in the masculine with- reader, translator, and expositor of out substantives, require “ men" to St. John, however competent to deagree with them, to which sense (if cide on the Evangelist's reasoning this word may be here used without and language. an offensive negative particle) we 2. The author's rival expedient are rather awkwardly led by “the for disposing of the external testiwitness of men," which immediately mony to the disputed text, in tracing follows; “the witness of God” re- it to “ the tracts put forth by Vi. ferring to “ the Spirit which wit. gilius,” has been already set forth nesseth” preceding. The saine for the reader's edification; and a principle being assumed : partici- just estimate given, in a former re
view, of its claims to the respect of by what legerdemain is the plea to, every dabbler in the present con- be withdrawn from this part of the troversy, howerer inforined in its
sentence in which the charge is merits. In the defence which he conveyed; the conclusion of which makes to the charge of incompe- takes it to itself, by every rule of tency, by which he has been assailed, interpretation by which it is approhe again submits himself to the or- priated by its commencement ? deal; and the entertainment which The case of the African Church he furnishes, in once more appearing being thus prudently abandoned, a on the stage, derives not a little of stand is made upon “ the tracts put its zest from the new method which forth under the names of Athanahe reveals of “crushiug,” as shall be sius;" for Augustine and Idacius soon publicly proved, a smatterer
very quietly withdraw from the disin theological science, who,” to bor- pute, having been doubtless thrust row an expression from his own into it by
a most wilful misreprecourtly phrase, “ impudently im. sentation" of the printer. Of this poses on the world."
ground the respondent makes choice, From the main point in dispute, « for the purpose of making manithe testimony delivered by the Afri- fest on whose side the ignorance can Church in its confession of lies;” and somewhat pleasantly, lays faith, be now deems it prudent to the foundation of his proof, in an retire without further opposition. avowal, “ that the Athanasii Opera He indeed affects to cover his re- which he has is a Latin version treat by discharging a flying shaft only, printed at Paris in 1603.” The at his opponent, who is charged advantages, derived by the author with “a most wilful misrepresenta- of this confession, in transferring tion of his meaning.” In truth, the charge of “ignorance” to the what honest mind njust not feel its side of his opponent, cannot be indignation rise, that so foul a con- more appositely expressed than in struction should be put upon his the words of an umpire, to whom words, while it is obvious, that "in he appeals in the present dispute. stating Vigilius drew up that con “ You ought to be told, Sir," de. fession in the name of the African clares Mr. Porson, on a like occa. bishops, he intended nothing more sion of appealing from
an exploded than that he composed it by the di- edition, to one by the Benedictines, rection and with the concurrence of " that when correct editions are those prelates.” To beat down this published, on the faith of MSS., no unabashed confidence to the ground, critic is allowed to argue from the and exhibit in its natural colours, old and corrupt readings," (p. 293.) the respect for equity and truth much less from the old and spurious which advances this defence of his additions. error, in a charge of wilful misre- After this peroration to his depresentation against his opponent, fence, the author enters into his it is only necessary to propound one proof of the charge against Vigilius, or two questions to be solved at his which consists in returning on our
Are we to include in this in- hands, as his composition, the genuous apology the latter part of Books ad Theophilum, which I forthe charge urged against Vigilius; merly mentioned, as ascribed by the and to conclude, that “the several Benedictines to Idacius, and clearly tracts which he put forth under the proved by them not to have been names of Athanasius, Augustinus, composed by Vigilius. It is far and Idacius,” were also “ composed from
intention to enter on the by the direction and with the con- nugatory task, of seriously refuting sent of those prelates ?” Or if this the thoughts and suppositions which absurdity be too gros to get downl, the respondent opposes to the facls
and reasons of the editors of Atha- dence of assertion once more under nasius. But it may not be deemed foot, it is only necessary to produce unedifying, to trace him through the following extract from the the windings and doublings which writer, who has supplied the subhe is driven to take, in making out stance as well of his theory as of its the semblance of a case against that present defence. “Jam de Vigi- . African Prelate. At one turn, we lio," says Dr. Griesbach, “obser. are given to understand, that the vandum est, .... quod libellos suos, books, addressed to Theophilus, are sub nominibus fictis Athanasii, Auascribed by his Latin editor to Alha- gustini, et Idacii, maluit in lucem nasius ; but by a quick retrograde emittere, quam suum nomen promovement are soon informed, that fiteri.” This extract, I, on the conon the judgment of Bengel, Gries- trary assert, will be amply sufficibach and Porson, they should be ent to shew “ on what grounds" ascribed to Vigilius. While, by the original charge was advanced every rule of fair reasoning, either against Vigilius. My proof of the of these contradictory propositions charge, which is thus retorted on must destroy its opposite; they are the respondent, is founded not ingeniously clubbed into one autho- merely on the fact, that all the in·rity, and from one half of it the formation with which it is accompaproof left to be extracted, that nied is adopted without the cere. these books were put forth under mony of an acknowledgmert, from the name of Athanasius, and from the same writer: nor yet on the the other that they were put forth circumstance that an exact coinciby Vigilius. After so much labour dence, even to the spelling of Idato blink the point in dispute, can cius's name exists, between this ex. it be now deemed within the bounds tract from Griesbach and the charge of credibility, that Mr. Porson, to against Vigilius; but mainly on the whose judgment a reference is thus consideration, that Augustine and confidently made, after recapitulat- Idacius's names, however associated ing the arguments of the Benedic. in the extract, equally disappear tines respecting the author of these from the defence, and that no strainbooks, joins issue in their sentence, ing or distorting will ever include that they cannot be ascribed to them in any defence which is built Vigilius" In short,” he observes, on the respondent's Gothic Atha"Vigilius's claims to either of these nasius. publications,” the books ad Theo
sense of the result philum, or contra Varimadam, “are to which the discussion was thus only supported by some weak and only calculated to lead, a man gratuitous conjectures of Chifflet," of ordinary nerves would have p. 339.
sought a way to escape from a dis. Where my opponent now lies, pute, which he had unluckily rewith his “triple lash," and “tracts vived, without forecasting the conput forth by Vigilius,” it is need- sequences. But the respondent, less to point out. But wbile jus- seeng no
appearance could be tice remains to be done to his vera- saved, after another brandish of his city, he must not be suffered to rise “triple lash,” coolly wipes his front, and retire with the reputation which and discharging a second volley of he has earned for information. courtly phrases against “smatterers “This," he observes, in closing his who inpudently impose upon the
“ will be sufficient to prove world,” faces his opponent with a on what grounds I have charged charge, to which his conscience Vigilius with having composed cer- must have given a proper direction. tain tracts under the name of Atha- “ But as to the Disputatio Atha. nasius," To beat down this confi- nasii cum Ario," he observes, in
taking his leave of the question, insert 1 John v. 7. as the testimony “ which my antagonist rises up like of St. John,” is reserved for Dr. a scholar fully prepared to vindi. Griesbach to announce, in dropping cate as the production of Vigilius, the curtain on the last scene of our I am bound to congratulate him on entertainment. Quicquid est non the possession of a treasure, to profit-tur hoc dictum . wbich both / and the editor of (my quidem, ubi auctor eo carere vix Gothie] Athanasius were equally potest." strangers, and hope it may be of The consequences entailed by service, in extricating him out of this sad concession, upon the authose difficulties in which the pre- thor's
learned and no less sacipitancy of his conduct has in- gacious liypothesis, have been long volved him." I waste no time in in- set before the reader. And to the quiring how far this, bis last con. decision even of the least informell fession, of being a stranger to Vi- among those who come under the gilius's works, helps its author out, denomination, it is now referred, in shifting the imputation of " igno- whether it is not this polemic's good rance” to the side of his opponent. fortune to be ever put down by his But, may I venture to ask how it is own witnesses : whether he is not to be turned, in averting the charge as cruelly betrayed by Porson and which he is ever substantiating Griesbach, in liis present distress, agains this own veracity? Whatever as by Facundus and Vigilius in his strangers himself and his editor may former embarrassment. I have taken have been to this tract and its au- this summary course with his dethor, we have yet to learn how both fence, and have declined a direct escaped being introduced to him attack upon his information, notby the informant, to whom he is in- withstanding the fertile sources of debted for the whole of the know- amusement which it affords, in other ledge he has been able to muster respects, besides that of ascribing in the present controversy. For, the first and ninth of the books ad can it be again deemed within the Theophilum to the same author, bounds of credibility, that Dr. though not even composed in the Griesbach deals by the Disputatio same language. For what doubt Athanasii, precisely as Mr. Porson could be indulged, even among deals by the books ad Theophilum, readers of his own range of readaud, after summing up the evidence ing, of the true character of that of the Benedictines respecting it, disputant's pretensions, who is rethus adds his acquiescence in their duced, at the present day, to the sentence? “ Altercatio autem ... woful plight of bolstering up a de. Arii et Athanasii, recte tribui vide- fence by Latin versions, spurious tur Vigilio, cum auctor se contra works, and exploded editions ? That Varimadum scripsisse fatetur, quem- task I have accordingly waved, and admodum Vigilius, Lib. V. contr. have directed my care to the offenEutych. se Altercationem .... scrip- sive object of doing justice to his sisse testatur, sub Athanasii no- veracity. To this disgusting office mine.” Thus at length comes forth I have descended, with the view of the whole truth, without shufiling exhibiting the purity of the source or evasion; this being the only from whence the imputation issues, work on which the charge can be when with the shameless acknowfor a moment sustained, that “Vi. ledgment of having not even in. gilius put forth tracts under the spected his opponent's authorities, name of Athanasius." But what he convicts him on suspicion, of countenance this work lends to the “reporting a falsehood." remainder of the charge, that in The controversy being freed from these tracts “he scrupled not to the impertinencies with which it