chia, the ancient Laodicea) more than a mile of the country is covered with ruins of sepulchres of hewn stones, with inscriptions and foliages engraved on one side of most of them. They are entirely open, and dug out of the solid rock.-Parson's Travels, p. 25.

2 Maccabees i. 19.

"When our Fathers were led into Persia the priests that were then devout took the fire of the altar privily and hid it in a hollow place of a pit without water, where they kept it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men."

In the margin of an old Bible, once in the possession of Milton, and now the property of a respectable clergyman in Yorkshire, are several notes in MSS. by the Poet: on the above passage he observes, "Perhaps the reason why the Persians worship fire to this day."

See further account of these passages in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lxii. part 2, p. 615.

Hasselquist, p. 136, mentions the superstitious veneration which the modern Greeks and Armenians, still have for this sacred fire. He says, "At 2 o'clock (at Jerusalem) in the afternoon, we went to see the famous sacred fire, one of the most remarkable rites to be seen at any place of divine worship. All the Christians of these denominations believe that on Easter Eve a supernatural fire comes up out of the Holy Sepulchre, and this they call holy or sacred. They believe that their priests by a miracle, call it

down from Heaven on this day. One priest of each sect goes down into the Holy Sepulchre at 2 o'clock. The Greek priest goes into the innermost apartment, and the others into another chapel, behind that apartment belonging to the Coptites; they there say prayer by themselves, and to those the common people ascribe the coming of the fire...... At 4 o'clock all the three nations began a procession, and a little while after a lamp was brought out of the grave, which they believed to have been lighted at the sacred fire. There was such a fighting with torches and flambeaux, because every one was desirous of lighting his at the sacred fire...... The Franks, or Latins, look with disdain on this superstition, and those who think rationally do the same, but here the stupid vulgar must be kept in the superstitious imagination they have long had; besides, it is certain, that of one thousand pilgrims who now yearly arrive, not ten would come were it not for the sacred fire. To let it go over their faces, and the women over their breasts, to let some of their whiskers and beards be burnt in order to sanctify themselves."

Mariti, in describing the same scene, gives their reasons for thus exposing themselves to the flame, and burning their flesh, hoping that it will thereby sanctify more efficaciously their hearts, their minds, and their souls. Mariti's Travels, vol. ii. p. 384.

To the Editor of the Remembrancer. Sir,

THE Rector of Scawton, as I stated in my former letter, has given the following test of the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. "If the advocates of the

verse can point out to me any one authentic and important passage of the New Testament, which has been equally passed over in silence by all the Greek and Latin fathers, I will acquiesce in the reasonableness of admitting the whole verse into the

sacred canon." I have produced one such passage in my former let ter. I will now add another, the celebrated verse of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 16. of which Sir Isaac Newton says, (speaking of the writers of the first five centuries, both Greeks and Latins.) "In all their discourses to prove the Deity of the Son, they never allege this text." The two passages which I have produced, have been more than equally passed over in silence by the ancient fathers; and yet there is no doubt of their authenticity; and, as such, are fully adequate to satisfy the learned Rector's

test.

The Rector has given another clear and determinable test of authenticity: "If the advocates of the verse can adduce from any genuine voucher of the first four hundred years of the Christian Church the words, There are three that bear record in heaven, &c. I will acquiesce, &c." Sufficient evidence of this criterion may be adduced; but, as the two tests are independent of each other, if the Rector acquiesces in the admissibility of the controverted verse, on the ground of the passages before quoted, I need not encroach further on your valuable pages,

March 16.

T. M.

It was my object to prove, by a laboured induction, that as the Greek and Latin Churches, were the first depositories, they were the natural guardians of the sacred trust, and that their testimony to its integrity was irresistibly conclusive.

As subsidiary to this paramount object, I endeavoured to shew, that, to whatever account the testimony of other Churches might be turned, in the classification of manuscripts, their evidence on any contested doctrinal point, was wholly undeserving of credit; and that the principle which gave weight to that testimony, as far as it rested on the assumption, that the witnesses were ancient and separate, supplied every person who was but moderately versed in the history of the Sacred Text, with meet subject of derision.

It is, I hope, at present unnecessary to enter particularly into a subject, which is elsewhere handled in detail, and which is now mentioned principally with a view to stating, that from the comparative testimony of the two Churches, who were the accredited vouchers for the inspired Word, the defence of the Heavenly Witnesses had arisen. I should need a little of that fondness for repetition, with which your patience has been latterly tried, to enable me to recapitulate, gravely and methodically, all the particulars, arising from their comparative testimony, which led to the confirmation of the disputed passage. I shall again venture to believe,it is only necessary to state, that having attained, in support of the contested verse the direct testimony of one of the vouchers, and having found, that the entire weight of the

internal evidence confirmed its tes

timony, while it neutralized the evidence of the other witnesses, all that could be deemed necessary to the perfect defence of the contested verse might be comprised in two particulars. If, in fact, the positive testimony of the Latin version D d

could be sufficiently confirmed by the concurring testimony of the Latin Fathers; and if the negative testimony of the Greek Text could be satisfactorily accounted for, and an adequate cause assigned for the silence of the Greek Fathers: no plea could be advanced of sufficient weight to warrant a proscription of the Heavenly Witnesses, or justify their exclusion from Canonical Scripture.

A late correspondent in your Journal, however he may agree with me in principle, stands at issue with me in the conclusion. I willingly consider his observations in this light, as it is my wish to diminish the differences which appear to be between us; and I console myself with the belief, that they are really less than may be at first imagined. When his pains are employed, as I must observe, they commonly are, in contending for that, which no person is now disposed to contest, I am necessarily prepared to grant the utmost which he can require. If his purpose be that alone which I can conceive, -the desire of making a display of his reading; I am forward to admit that learning loses nothing of its intrinsic weight, from the consideration of the source from whence it is derived: and I know that I may sadly err in supposing, that by its last transfusion it has become diluted and vapid, and brings little credit where it is stolen or borrowed. But however we may differ on these points, or stand at issue on the main conclusion, I am at least resolved, that he shall have no reasonable ground of objection to the mode in which all that is in dispute shall be finally settled. If, in fact, the argument which he has revived may be subverted, and its upholder put down, by the testimony of the witnesses, to whom he appeals in its support, he can surely take no just exception to the method of reply by which he is answered.

The cardinal points on which the controversy turns, are, as I conceive, the testimony borne by the

Greek and Latin Church on the subject of the disputed passage; the one giving a direct evidence in its favour, the other apparently negativing it, by its silence. In the choice of difficulties which the controversy presents, for when the evidence of the Latins is disposed of, that of the Greeks internally possesses enough to exercise the skill of the objector, his force is directed against the positive argument, in subversion of which two witnesses are accordingly summoned. By the assistance of Facundus the testimouy of the Latin Fathers, comprizing that of the African Church, is soon annihilated. And they being fairly placed out of the dispute, the assistance of Vigilius, backed by Fulgentius, is easily converted to the purpose of proving the corruption of the Latin Version.

With respect to that of Facundus, to which the first place is assigned, it is rather inauspicious, that on the first glance, it should exhibit a deviation from what the objector conceives the test and standard of truth. In the testimony of this Father, from which he derives such important results, the context of the disputed verse is quoted with an unlucky interpolation, which fully reveals the extent of Facundus's knowledge, respecting the original. In every manuscript of this Father's works, the attendant Witnesses, are thus cited, "tres sunt qui testificantur IN TERRA, Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt;" and this interpolation, of IN TERRA, which is acknowledged by no manuscript of the Greek or Latin, that does not retain the Heavenly Witnesses, is six times repeated in Facundus's context.

The value of the testimony of a witness who states more than the truth, even the vulgar reader is able to appreciate. It is only from such keen observers as the objector that we can hope to learn its entire importance; and, to give him his due, by his acute observation on the

omission of the identical terms, "in earth," by Gutbier, we are taught the full value of this various reading in Facundus. If the force of the objector's remark is at all admitted, it is thence only to be inferred, that in the text from which Facundus quoted, the complete antithesis, which turns upon the terms "in heaven" and "in earth," was preserved, and consequently, that the copy from which he quoted, differed in nothing from that used by his African brethren. Of the advocate who bears this unwilling testimony to the existence of the disputed passage, by a partial quotation, a further use may be made: The zeal which he manifests, in labouring to weaken its force, and subvert its authority, furnishes abundant proof of the true light in which the text was regarded, by the polemics of the same period, by whom it is expected, that it shall be produced, on every controversial emer

gency.

The true influence of the firstcited witness on the point at issue, is therefore, I believe, simply as follows. His testimony is either so far corrupted as to be entitled to no respect; or if it is unsophisticated, (as the whole tenor and object of the controversy in which it is of fered irrefragably prove,) it entitles its author to his proper place, among those Fathers of the African Church who have referred to the contested passage. While it thus subverts the object for which it is adduced, by the objector to the Text of the Heavenly Witnesses; it somewhat curiously confirms the positive and negative argument, which its advocate advances in its favour. It corroborates the positive testimony of the Latin Church, by an accidental quotation of part of the disputed text; and accounts for the negative testimony of the Greek Church, by an intentional suppression of the remainder.

Before we proceed to the consideration of Vigilius's testimony, an

observation bestowed, by way of episode, on that of Eucherius, may not be wholly misapplied; as the want of the disputed verse in his copy is, in the objector's opinion, sufficient to lay the question of its authenticity at rest. As we are not favoured with the mode of induction by which he infers, from the ab. sence of the verse in Eucherius's works, that it was omitted in Eucherius's Bible, we are precluded the opportunity of passing upon it any remark; though it may be hinted to him by the way, if he does not learn from the case of Facundus, he may be soon taught by that of Vigilius, that the disputed verse might have retained its situation in the one place, while it missed an introduction into the other. But not to insist any further on this point, if we may be allowed to take the safer course, and, adopting the converse of the proposition, may conclude, from the existence of the verse in Eucherius's works, that it existed in his Bible; we have sufficient authority for the assumption in the printed and manuscript copies of his writings. By one decisive objection, at least in the estimation of Dr. Griesbach, who is the real mover of the difficulties with which I contend, the true character of his testimony is, however, put out of dispute. In a passage, adduced from his Questions on the Old and New Testament, observes this objector, Eucherius sums up the texts by which the doctrine of the Trinity is proved, and omits all mention of the Heavenly Witnesses. But this decisive evidence of his ignorance of the disputed passage unfortunately fails in one important respect; while it omits the Heavenly, it uncautiously overlooks the Earthly Witnesses, from which the doctrine of the Trinity is not merely proved by Eucherius, but proved in the passage of his writings which is at present in dispute. Whether the deficiency in the passage, with which his testimony to the verse is confronted, is

to be filled up from those copies of his works which are more or less full, is a point which a knowledge of the state of early controversies respecting the Trinity will soon enable us to determine. In its present state, the testimony of Eucherius must, I believe, take its place beside that of Facundus; for as the one unluckily advances too much, the other, as unfortunately, advances too little. That some expedient may not be devised, for making up the deficiency of the one from the superabundance of the other, I will not pretend to decide; but until Eucherius, by this or some such expedient, is reconciled with himself, and it is made apparent, that he declares the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, there is, I conceive, as little to be deduced as apprehended from his testimony.

In the case of Vigilius, to which we now proceed, if we are but surprized with the reproduction of an old objection of Griesbach's, it must be confessed it comes attended with a few improvements which that diligent critic would not have willingly acknowledged. To soften the enormity of the charge, which makes Vigilius the author of so extraordinary an interpolation of the Inspired Text, we are assured that it was done through" undesigning mistake." On the perfect innocence of Vigilius, in respect to "the confession of faith which he drew up, and put forth in the name of the African Bishops," it is sufficient to observe, that if it cannot be easily deduced from this gentle insinuation, it may be, without doubt, readily extracted from one consequence, which it necessarily implies. For if this charge were substantiated, it would convict this "undesigning" impostor, of having not only forged the signatures of about four hundred prelates to this confession of faith; but of having committed one of the grossest literary frauds that has been ever practised on the Christian world.

On the minor charge, that "he

put forth several tracts under the names of Athanasius, Augustinus, and Idatius," it is unnecessary to engage in a dispute: so destitute of all appearance of truth, is the accusation, that "he scrupled not to insert in them the contested text, as the testimony of St. John," that in these tracts, by whomever composed, the disputed passage is unaccountably omitted. How this circumstance, which has excited so much of his informant Griesbach's surprize, could have escaped his observation, I stop not to enquire; it is now offered in illustration of the diligence employed in the present attack upon the Heavenly Witnesses. The contested passage is indeed noticed in one tract, which passes under the name of Idatius; but if the Benedictine Fathers' opinion is deserving of attention, and, as it is unwarped by any sinister considerations, it will not be easily set aside, for the allegation of the text in this tract, Vigilius has nothing to answer. After exposing the silly grounds upon which it is ascribed to him by Chifflet, their sentence is, "liquido constat, immerito adscribi libros Idatii Clari Vigilio Tapsensi Afro." P. 603.

As Vigilius's reputation, however, is compromised in the imputation, that he put forth tracts, under the name of Athanasius," the charge deserves some further notice; for as far as it affects Augustine, though I perceive that it is taken on the word of Dr. Griesbach, as I know not on what evidence it is hazarded, I must be pardoned in passing it over unnoticed. The grounds of this mild imputation of Vigilius, are no where to be found, unless they are discovered in the collections, which the Benedictine editors have made with their usual diligence, and inserted in their supplementary volume to the works of Athanasius. In them indeed we find, under the title of "Disputatio Athanasii cum Ario," a long tract, to which the