Annotations on the Epistles: Being a Continuation of Mr. Elsley's Annotations, and Principaly Designed for the Use of Candidates for Holy Orders, Volume 2 (1816)
James Slade
https://books.google.com/books?id=pMYKB4YoBtsC&pg=PA441
Now, although it is scarcely possible to reconcile this, on any ground, with the plain rules of grammar ; yet the error may be accounted for, by supposing it to have proceeded from a repetition of the phraseology of the disputed passage ; or from, what grammarians call, the figure of attraction. See Port Royal Gr. Grammar. ...
Monthly Review (1820)
http://books.google.com/books?id=vEMFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA40
suggests that the smaller grammar of August Heinrich Matthiae gives abstractum pro concreto (constructio ad sensum) that Nolan, Hales and Burgess overlooked. However, he ends up taking situations with masculine nouns and neuter grammar, clearly not relevant.
Christian Remembrancer (1822)
John Oxlee contra Nolan
https://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA138
"There is, I think, a high degree of inconsistency in the espousers of the Heavenly Witnesses, when they argue against its possible personification of the earthly witnesses in the eighth verse, in order to bring in the seventh...., if we may not be permitted to personify the spirit, the water, and the blood, when the seventh verse is omitted, how, I ask, shall we be any more at liberty to do so when it is actually thrust in? I am aware that the learned Bishop of St. David's has said, by an attraction ; but to that I may reply in one word, that the Greek tongue acknowledges no such attractions as this, nor any other tongue whatever, with which I am in the least acquainted..
Christian Remembrancer (1822)
Frederick Nolan
https://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA460
(Marsh and false grammar)
Quarterly Review (1822)
http://books.google.com/books?id=LXrQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA330
Review of Burgess book - Vindication
(various weaknesses in the argumentation)
Christian Advocate (1825)
William Craig Brownlee
https://books.google.com/books?id=_tk2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA70
.... The criticks of the German school, it is true, though they do not venture to contravene the text quoted above. do nevertheless permit themselves to use unjustifiable liberties with the sacred style; particularly with that of John. And I am not quite sure that Griesbach can wash his hands of this sin.
But we may fearlessly say that no scholar can impeach the grammar of an inspired writer: or can convict him of a gross solecism. A priori, thething is impossible. It is enough to say that the Holy Spirit was with him. He who gave the gift of tongues, would not give it in imperfection: far less with the drawback of palpable blemishes; still less would he bestow a gift involving false grammar, and absurdities which would expose to the ridicule of men his venerable apostles, employed in discoursing on the most grave subjects. Such an idea involves the purest absurdity—if not something even more than absurdity. The apostles did speak—they did write as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, Be our plain answer this.
But if our opponents choose to decide in this matter by a dictate ex cathedra—if they prefer the decision of a council of scholars—we are most willing. We too have our scholars. Without deducting the least item from the well earned and glorious laurels of the very learned Griesbach.and Michaelis, and Marsh, and Porson—we can name, on our side, men to whom we gravely say, they, on the opposite side, can select no equal from their ranks. We have—(to pass by a multitude)—we have Matthaei, Ernesti, and arch-bishop Eugenius—the first of Greek scholars. The fact is, we are indebted to the last mentioned Greek scholar, (Greek was as familiar as his mother tongue to him, who translated the Georgies into classick Greek.)—We are indebted to this Eugenius for the first detection of this anomaly of our opponents’ false Greek. He thus expresses himself in a letter to Matthsei—Speaking of our opponents’ proposed reading, by leaving out our verse, he says: .. continues through p. 72
Christian Advocate (1827)
Review of the argument in behalf of the text of the Heavenly Witnesses
William Craig Brownlee
https://books.google.com/books?id=BLgQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA336
p. 336-339
Thomas Horne
http://books.google.com/books?id=yjM...J&pg=RA1-PA243 (1821)
http://books.google.com/books?id=fcemqilY3F0C&pg=PA374 (1841)
Lectures on Theology, Volume 1 (1850)
By John Dick, Andrew Coventry Dick
https://books.google.com/books?id=TCw7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA293