น

?

vanced, as reasons by which we are to decide on controverted doctrines, I am thrown into a state of perplexity. I involuntarily begin to muse on the motives which impel men to action, and the principles by which their conduct is directed. Here is misrepresentation, obvious to a child, with regard to a passage which must have been read with some attention. Did the misrepresentation arise from inadvertency, or from design? I know not. Happy, at all events, is the man, whose cause needs not the support of the kind of criticism here employed by Dr Wiseman... Without farther remark, let us now proceed to the other instance cited by the learned author. It is that of John xv. 1-8. nob 12 of m

1. I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2. Every branchin me that beareth not fruit he taketh away and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear

fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye,

except ye abide in me. 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without meyer can do nothing. 6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a

as a branch and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7. If ye If ve abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples."

In commenting on the foregoing passage, Dr Wiseman affirms that, from v. 1 to v. 4 inclusive,

"the consequences of not being united to" Christ are unfolded. If so, how did the learned author

66

interpret the latter clause of v. 2-" Every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit"? He also affirms that "the fruits produced by those who do abide in" Christ are dwelt upon, from v. 5 to the end. If so, how did he interpret v. 6" If a man abide NOT in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered"? In short, a more visionary distinction was never devised, by imagination uncontrolled by judgment, than that which has been made by Dr Wiseman, with respect to the first and second portions of John xv. 1-8. In this case however, as well as in that which was last discussed, Dr Wiseman has recourse to the hypothesis of the existence of merely incidental and parenthetic" matter. His conjecture, in the note p. 42, is, that the latter part of v. 5 ought to be connected with the sixth verse; and thus form that portion, which he is pleased to deem "incidental and parenthetic." The passage, according to this plan, will assume the following appearance:

66

"I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit ...[For, or because, without me ye can do nothing, if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered]...If ye abide in me, &c."

In Dr Wiseman's opinion, "the reasoning," if the ordinary punctuation be adopted, "seems hardly

conclusive” He that abideth in me-bringeth forth much fruit, because without me, ye can do nothing. The reasoning is of this kind "He that abideth in me-bringeth forth much fruitand only in that case for without me ye can do nothing"...... and such reasoning I should, for my own part, be reluctant to deem "hardly conclusive," from the mouth of Him who "spake as one having authority." But what is to be said of the reasoning which distinguishes the sentence proposed by Dr Wiseman? "Because without me ye can do nothing, if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered.". Could the learned author have really persuaded himself that, by such a change, he had amended the reasoning of the passage as usually read? In all the editions and versions which I have consulted and I have referred to several-the ordinary punctuation is preserved. The Spanish; Version of Cypriano de Valera gives the clause→→→ "for without me ye can do nothing"-in a parenthesis. Even the Latin Vulgate the Authentic Bible of the Roman Catholic Church-and the Douay or Rhemish Version, are opposed to Dr Wiseman. But this is not all. According to the received punctuation, we have a striking antithesis between the sixth and seventh verses :v. 6. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth, &c. ;" v. 7.

ask what ye will,

"If ye abide in me-ye shall and it shall be done unto you."

1

Now allow Dr Wiseman to attach the words, "For without me ye can do nothing," to the sixth verse -and the antithesis, which our Lord manifestly designed, is utterly lost. Still farther: The statement of a fact, with the reason subjoined-as in the case under review-is eminently characteristic of St John's style: Thus, "He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me;" ""And of his fulness have all we received,

and grace for grace: for the law was given by Moses,

دو

but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ;' "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God;" and so on. Passages of this kind, in the Gospel, the first Epistle and the Apocalypse, are too numerous, not merely for citation, but for reference. The instances, in which the reason precedes the statement-in conformity with Dr Wiseman's construction-seldom occur in the writings of the same Apostle; and where they do occur, assume a character from which that construction can derive no countenance. Thus we read: "Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou" or "thou believest;" "Because I live, ye shall live also;”"Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not;"-"Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." In these cases, and in the few others which might be adduced, (John xvi. 6;

-

xx. 29; Apoc. iii. 10) the reason is given and then the fact; without any intermediate condition whatever. The consequence is that, when Dr Wiseman required us to believe that the Apostle wrote in the following manner" Because without me ye can do nothing, if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth" he certainly should have presented us with at least one instance, of a similar construction, from the same source. These arguments are most assuredly sufficient to show the futility of the proposed change of punctuation. To say the truth, there is not a single principle, that ought to guide us in enquiries of this nature, which is not directly opposed to its adoption. Although, as Dr Wiseman has admonished us, "we owe our present division [of the New Testament] into verses to the elder Stephanus, who made it, for his relaxation inter equitandum," the learned printer certainly executed his work better than Dr Wiseman would have done, if we may judge from these specimens. I may finally observe, on the subject of John xv. 18, that A new version of the Gospels,' (1836) by a Roman Catholic, who is one of the learned author's admirers, retains the common punctuation; and that, in Bowyer's Critical Conjectures-a work in which almost every change of punctuation is attempted, which the most perverse ingenuity can suggest the change proposed by Dr Wiseman is not found. There is, indeed, a change proposed in Bowyer's volume; and it seems to have