But after all, has not too much stress been laid upon the passage? The text, even in the received reading, would not justify the expression blood of God', since the obvious sense would be:-" feed the church of Him who is God, which he has purchased with his own blood;" implying an assertion at once of the deity and the humanity of our Lord, without necessarily connecting the words so and aiuatos, or confounding the two natures. On the other hand, the phrase, "Church of the Lord," equally denotes the divinity of the Proprietor and Redeemer of the Church, the Object of its worship, who has "given himself for it, that he might sanctify it, and present it to himself—iva παραστήσῃ αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν—a glorious church.” Eph. v. 27. Dr. Burton has a note upon this last passage, which is worth transcribing. We should rather have expected T

6

E:

'but S. Paul uses taur on account of the union of the Father ' and the Son.' Of this remarkable passage, Dr. Bloomfield has overlooked the force, and his annotation partially explains it away. Yet, in our judgement, the use of aur in such a connexion, is a far more striking and direct proof of the divinity of the Lord Jesus, than the occurrence of the word ɛou in the former passage. Nor ought it to have escaped notice, that the words nai o Kúpos Thy Exxλnoíav occur in the following verse (ver. 29); which, though not the same as ἐκκλησία τοῦ Κυρίου, must be admitted to come very near it.

An Editor of the New Testament ought assuredly to divest himself, as far as possible, of the temper of the polemic. Dr. Bloomfield has not always succeeded in doing this. It will be seen, that, in the preceding note, he charges Griesbach, Wetstein, and Kuinoel with unfairness as well as inaccuracy, with acting the part of eager advocates for a false reading. These imputations savour too much of arrogance; and they are especially out of place in such a work. We regret to say, this is not a solitary instance. Dr. Bloomfield's exegetical notes are for the most part very inferior to his critical and philological ones, proving that an accomplished scholar and Biblical critic may be at the same time a very ill furnished divine. We do not quarrel with him

for the second and sixth without violent and improbable suppositions. In particular, it is impossible to imagine, if ou were the primitive reading, that Kuglov should have been introduced into the most ancient and independently derived authorities; (recollecting, however, the perplexing exception of the Vatican ;) and yet, that the Fathers of the first four centuries, and every document of Ecclesiastical History, should have been silent upon so signal an innovation.' Smith's Scrip. Test. vol. iii. pp. 66, 7. It will be seen from this extract, that Dr. Bloomfield is quite inaccurate in classing Dr. Pye Smith with those critics who retain the common reading.

for being a zealous anti-Calvinist; but he would have consulted his reputation by suppressing such flippant annotation as the following.

2 Tim. ii. 10. Sià TOUTO] On this consideration. Διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς, i. e. those who were called to receive the Gospel, especially the Gentiles, of whom St. Paul was especially the Apostle. On this sense, the best Commentators, antient and modern, are agreed; and it is well observed by Benson, that the Apostle often intimates that unless he had laboured and suffered, and they persevered in virtue and piety, both he and they would miss of salvation. See 1 Thes. iii. 5 compared with Thes. i. 4. Of course it is implied, and especially in the next words, that their salvation was not certain; and therefore excludes the doctrine of election, which some Calvinists of more zeal than judgement would here introduce.'

That is, excludes the doctrine of the xviith Article of the Church of which the Author is a minister! Of course it is ' implied', and we need not waste many words in proving it, that Dr. Bloomfield does not understand either what Calvinists hold, or what his own Church teaches, or he would not have hazarded the ridiculous remark, that the passage in question militates against the doctrine he impugns.

In reviewing the learned Author's Synopsis, we took occasion to notice a few similar hallucinations. In reference to Rom. xi. 22, he remarks, that, in the interpretation of the clause, sav ἐπιμείνης τῇ χρηστότητι, ' the Calvinists are put to great straits, are reduced to miserable shifts, and compelled to resort to 'sophistical and metaphysical distinctions'; and he immediately proceeds to cite the authority of BEZA for what he considers as the sound interpretation! In the note on this passage in the present volumes, we find him still citing Beza against the Calvinists, although he has softened down his language of vituperation.

i. e. as Beza, Crell., Vorst., Grot., and Whitby explain, "if thou remain in that state in which thou hast been placed by the goodness of God, through faith in Christ, by which this goodness is retained; if thou retainest God's goodness to thee, by continuing to endeavour to be worthy of it, and improving this advantage." This explanation is confirmed by the Greek Commentators. At all events, the present passage excludes the Calvinistic notion of irresistible grace, as the words following, nal insïvoi―iynevt. do that of arbitrary and irrespective election or reprobation.'

Calvin remarks on this passage: 6 Quia autem de singulis 'electis non disputat, sed de toto corpore, additur conditio, Si in lenitate permanseris. We do not particularly admire the whole of his annotation; but every one who examines the passage with attention, must admit that he correctly represents it to relate to the election or calling of the Gentiles as a body, in

VOL. VIII.-N.S.

3 G

6

contradistinction from the Jews. Now that national election is 'arbitrary,' (the term is objectionable, but it is not ours,) antiCalvinists have been forward to admit. All members of the Church ' of Christ,' remarks Archbishop Whately, in treating of Election, ' are called and elected by God, and are as truly his people, and 'under his especial government, as even the Israelites ever were. And though they do not consist of any one nation in 'particular, they are arbitrarily selected and called to this privilege, out of the rest of the world, according to God's unsearchable will, for reasons known to Him alone, no less than the Israelites were of old.'* According to non-Calvinistic authorities, then, the passage does not exclude arbitrary election. And as to 'irresistible grace,' it is quite evident, that a writer who understood either the Calvinistic notion, or the meaning of the terms, would not have described the language of Beza as at variance with that doctrine.

6

These specimens will suffice to shew that Dr. Bloomfield is not to be trusted as a theological commentator; nor is his judgement as a critic always unimpeachable. We feel, however, under too great obligations to him for the important services he has rendered to Biblical Criticism, both in this valuable edition of the Sacred Text, and in his "Recensio Synoptica," to have any wish to dwell upon the flaws in his divinity, or the slight drawbacks upon the substantial utility and importance of his meritorious and erudite labours. But we have felt it to be our duty to point out these defects, in the hope that the Author may be induced to reconsider his expressions, and to expunge from his work, in the next edition, every uncalled for aspersion on the opinions of those from whom he differs.

Our readers may be curious to know what course has been adopted, in these editions, with regard to the famous passage, 1 John v. 7. In the text of each, the controverted clause, iv tậ οὐρανῷ. Ev Tv, is very properly printed between brackets. Mr. Valpy affixes to it the mark of possible spuriousness and expunction,' but, in a note, seems inclined to support its genuineness; citing the reasoning of Ernesti and Nolan in its favour, and very slightly noticing either the arguments or the critical authorities on the other side. Dr. Burton has a note upon the passage, which we shall transcribe.

6

TW

7, 8. There is great reason to think, that all the words from ovgavy to iv tỷ y are an interpolation. The 7th verse, as printed in our modern editions, is not to be found in any existing MS. The passage is only found in two MSS., both of which are very recent, and both contain variations. It is not quoted by any Greek writer for several centuries. Cyprian is supposed to have quoted it in the third

* Whately on the Difficulties in St. Paul's Writings. p. 96.

century but it is not certain whether he did not mean to allegorize the 8th verse; and this will perhaps explain its introduction into the Latin copies.

If we exclude the suspected passage, we shall then read, orɩ Tgeïs εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα. For there are three things which testify his being the Son of God, the Spirit, his baptism, and his birth; and these three tend to prove the unity of Jesus and Christ.

• Ibid. εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. In the suspected passage we read, which gives a very different meaning: but S. John probably did not mean to say that these three things are one, but that they prove Jesus and Christ to be one person.'

Dr. Burton (with Michaelis) conceives the whole passage to have been directed against the Cerinthians, who separated 'Jesus from Christ, and said, that Christ was united to Jesus, 'when the Spirit descended upon him at his baptism.' And he accordingly interprets diaparos in ver. 6., as implying at his 'birth. In support of this singular and violent rendering, he adduces, however, no authorities. Dr. Bloomfield is of opinion, with Wells and Carpzov, that, by the water and blood, St. 'John intended to advert to the sacraments, by water meaning the laver of regeneration, and by blood, the Lord's Supper." This, of all the interpretations proposed of this difficult passage, seems to us the least intelligible Bp. Horsley agrees with Calvin and those who consider the words as alluding to the fact recorded John xix. 34; of which the learned Prelate offers a singular explanation, deeming it both miraculous and mystical. Calvin's comment may be acceptable to some of our readers. Neque dubito quin ad veteres Legis ritus alludat in vocibus Aquæ et Sanguinis . Sub his duabus totam sanctitatis et Apte igitur

6

6

6

justitiæ perfectionem Apostolus designat probat Johannes Jesum esse Christum Domini, olim promissum, quia secum attulit quo nos omni ex parte sanctificet.' The words, "by water," he thinks, can have no reference to baptism, but express 'the fruit and effect' of the miraculous fact recorded by St. John. Wetstein's comment recognizes an allusion to this fact, but with a different meaning: Probavit se non phantasma, sed verum hominem esse, qui ex spiritu, sanguine, et aquá seu humore constaret. Grotius, who is followed by Lardner, thinks that the Water denotes the innocence of our Lord's life, the blood his death, the spirit his miracles:- AQUA est puritas 'vitæ Christianæ, quæ simul cum martyrio, et miraculis, 'testimonium reddit veritati dogmatis. (Grot. Ann. in Joh. iii. 5.) This gloss comes from a suspicious quarter, although it may deserve attention.

6

There is yet another explanation of the words, which we will venture to submit. In John i. 31, we meet with expressions

:

which forcibly recall those of the passage under consideration: διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι βαπτίζων καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης, Aɛyv. Our Lord is said to have come daros, but the expression is changed in the next clause to iv Tudat. Suppose an ellipsis, and that our Lord's coming with water implies his coming baptizing with water, the meaning will be, that He came, not only as a "Teacher sent from God," but also, r aïμatı àviáŝwv, as a high-priest who by his own blood has procured eternal redemption for us. Comp. Heb. ix. 12. But how then are we to understand the three-fold testimony of the spirit, the water, and the blood? Bp. Burgess, who is cited with great deference by Dr. Bloomfield, would interpret it of our Lord's last breath on 'the Cross, and the blood and water that issued from his side.' Such a rendering of Tò veuμa, had it been proposed by a less orthodox person, would have probably excited severe condemnation: it appears to us utterly inadmissible. Understanding the word as denoting the Holy Spirit, we have to inquire, in what sense the water and the blood are the concurrent testimony of the Father to the Son. The sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in a sense bear testimony to Christ: but how can they be said to be the testimony of God? They are rather the perpetual testimony of the Church. Calvin refers us to 1 Pet. i. 2, and remarks, that St. John here adduces the Spirit as a witness together with the water and the blood, because it is his proper office to cleanse our consciences with the blood of Christ. 'Porro Dei testimonium vocat non modò quod Spiritus cordibus nostris reddit, sed quod etiam habemus ab aqua et sanguine.' If this is not satisfactory, it may at least guard our readers against hastily adopting any crude interpretation of the very difficult passage.

6

6

6

6

6

In reference to the disputed clause, Dr. Bloomfield inclines ' to the opinion' that it is genuine; or, as he cautiously expresses himself, he regards the authenticity of the verses as, though doubtful, yet verging to probability.' But he assigns no reason for his opinion, which seems adopted more in compliment to the very learned and venerable Bishop of Salisbury', than as the result of an independent examination of the evidence. In fact, when we find a writer postponing a decision indefinitely, under the idea that the rapid advance in Biblical Criticism', may at some future period lead to the discovery of evidence which has hitherto eluded all research, and opposing this vague expectation of possible evidence to the force of existing document, the soundest canons of criticism, and all the rules of evidence,- -we cannot be mistaken in inferring that his judgement must be under a very strong bias, that disqualifies him, as our Author remarks of Griesbach, for holding the critical scales true.' Yet, in his Synopsis, Dr. B. admits, that the clause, if genuine, will not

6