It is not printed in Erasmus's first edition, published in 1516, | but (as he says) "to avoid calumny." It is found indeed in the nor in his second edition, in 1519; nor in the editions of Aldus, Greek text, and in the Vulgate Latin version of the Compluten1518; Gerbelius, 1521; Cephalæus, 1524; and of Colinæus, 1534.sian Polyglott, of which a fac-simile is given in the annexed Erasmus, it is true, inserted it in his third edition published in engraving, which is accurately copied from the exemplar pre 1522, on the faith of the Codex Britannicus or Montfortianus served in the library of Sion College, London. above mentioned, .ot from any conviction of its genuineness, On this tac-simile it is to be observed, 1. That the first five | it is in the margin of this text. In 1 Cor. xv. there is noticed in es, both of the Greek and Latin, are at the top of the opposite page to that on which the other four lines are found; and 2. That the alphabetical letters, intermingled with the Greek text, refer to the corresponding words in the Latin text, which is printed in a parallel column in the Complutensian edition, and marked with the same letters, in order to ascertain more easily the corresponding Greek and Latin words. As the size of our page does not admit of the Greek and Latin texts being disposed in parallel columns, they are necessarily placed one below the other. this margin a notable variation in the Greek reading. In Matt. vi. 13., where they, in their edition, recede from the Greek copies and correct it by the Latin, they make a marginal note to jus tify their doing so. And so here, where the testimony of the Three in heaven' is generally wanting in the Greek copies, they make a third marginal note, to secure themselves from being blamed for printing it. Now, in such a case as this, there is no question but they would make the best defence they could; and yet they do not tell of any various lections in the Greek manu. But the Complutensian Polyglott, however rare and valuable scripts, nor produce any one Greek manuscript on their side, but in other respects, is in this case of no authority beyond that of have recourse to the authority of Thomas Aquinas."—"Thomas, any common Greek Testament, any further than it is supported say they, in treating of the three which bear witness in heaven, by ancient MSS. The editors of the Complutensian Greek teaches, that the words these Three are one,' are subjoined for Testament, indeed, profess to have followed the best and most insinuating the unity of the Essence of the Three Persons. ancient manuscripts of the Vatican: but in that age copies, two And whereas one Joachim interpreted this unity to be only ove or three hundred years old, were considered as ancient. It is, and consent, it being thus said of the Spirit, Water, and Blood, however, most certain that they did not consult the celebrated in some copies, that these Three are one:' Thomas replied, that Codex Vaticanus, which is reputed to be one of the most ancient this clause is not extant in the true copies, but was added by the MSS. if it be not the most ancient manuscript extant (for that Arians for perverting the sense." Thus far, this annotation. manuscript has not the disputed clause); and that they have not "Now this plainly respects the Latin copies (for Aquinas u only departed from its readings in many places, but have also derstood not Greek), and therefore part of the design of this varied from the order of things in point of time and place. Wet-annotation is to set right the Latin reading. But this is not the stein, Semler, and Griesbach are unanimously of opinion that the MSS. used by the Complutensian editors were neither ancient nor valuable for they scarcely ever consent with the most ancient copies or fathers, except in conjunction with modern copies, and they almost always agree with the modern copies where these differ from the more ancient. Because the Complutensian editors admitted the disputed passage into their text of the New Testament, it has been supposed that they found it in their MSS.; but it is more probable, that they inserted it upon the authority of the Latin Vulgate Version. For, (1.) In the first place, It is not usual-indeed it forms no part of the plan of the Complutensian edition-to insert notes in the margin of the Greek text. Not more than three instances of such notes occur throughout this edition: " and therefore," as Sir Isaac Newton has forcibly argued, "there must be something extraordinary, and that in respect of the Greek, because Mace's Greek and English edition, 1729, in that of Harwood, 1776, in whose Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arrianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum Hec beatus Thomas ubi supra." main design. For so the annotation should have been set in the margin of the Latin version. Its being set in the margin of the Greek text shows, that its main design is to justify the Greek by the Latin thus rectified and confirmed. Now to make Thomas thus, in a few words, do all the work, was very artificial: and in Spain, where Thomas is of apostolical authority, it might pass for a very judicious and substantial defence of the printed Greek. But to us, Thomas Aquinas is no apostle. We are seeking for the authority of Greek manuscripts." (2.) Secondly, We have a further proof that this text was not extant in Greek, but was inserted from the Latin Vulgate (and consequently translated into Greek), in the fact that when Stunica, one of the four editors of the Complutensian Polyglott, on censuring Erasmus for omitting it, was challenged by him to produce his authority for inserting it, he never appealed to Greek manuscripts. On the contrary, he affirmed that the Greek copies were corrupt, but that the Latin contained the very truth. Now this declaration is of great importance; as it amounts to a confession that none of the manuscripts procured for that edition by the great influence of Cardinal Ximenes contained the disputed passage. celebrity to his gloss; and in a short time it was generally adopted. It appeared, indeed, under different forms; but it was still the gloss of Augustine, though variously modified. The gloss having once obtained credit in the Latin church, the pos sessors of Latin manuscripts began to note it in the margin, by the side of the eighth verse. Hence the oldest of those Latin manuscripts, which have the passage in the margin, have it in a different hand from that of the text. In later manuscripts we find margin and text in the same hand; for transcribers did not venture immediately to move it into the body of the text, though in some manuscripts it is interlined, but interlined by a later hand. After the eighth century the insertion became general. For Latin manuscripts written after that period have generally, though not always, the passage in the body of the text. Further, when the seventh verse made its first appearance in the Latin manuscripts, it appeared in as many different forms, as there were forms to the gloss upon the eighth verse. And though it now precedes the eighth verse, it followed the eighth verse, at its first insertion, as a gloss would naturally follow the text upon which it was made."s Many mauuscripts of the Vulgate version, and also the printed 3. It is contained in the manuscripts of no other ancient ver- text, even that of Pope Clement VIII., have the final clause of sion besides the Latin.3 It is wanting in the manuscripts of the Old Syriac version, executed at the beginning of the second, if not in the first century; and also in those of the Philoxenian Syriac, a version made in the fifth century. It is wanting in the manuscripts of the Coptic, a version in the dialect anciently spoken in Lower Egypt, which is referred to the fifth century; and in those of the Sahidic, a version in the dialect anciently spoken in Upper Egypt, which is considered as having been made in the second century. It is wanting in the manuscripts of the Ethiopic version, executed in the fourth century; and in those of the Armenian version, which is referred to the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. It is wanting in all the manuscripts of all the known Arabic versions; and it is absent from all the manuscripts of the Sclavonic or old Russian version, executed in the ninth century. 4. Not all the manuscripts, even of the Latin version, contain this clause, which is wanting in the most ancient manuscripts of that version. The Vulgate Latin version is justly valued as an important relic of Christian antiquity, and, generally speaking, as a good and faithful translation: but, in its passage from the fifth to the fifteenth century, it has undergone many corruptions and interpolations. The disputed clause does not appear in any manuscripts written before the tenth century. It is wanting in considerably more than forty of the OLDEST Latin manuscripts; in others it occurs only in the margin; and in others it is interlined by a later hand. "At the end of the fourth century, the celebrated Latin Father Augustine, who wrote ten treatises on the first Epistle of Saint John, in all of which we seek in vain for the seventh verse of the fifth chapter, was induced in his controversy with Maximin to compose a gloss upon the eighth verse. Augustine gives it professedly as a gloss upon the words of the eighth verse, and shows by his own reasoning that the seventh verse did not then exist. The high character of Augustine in the Latin church soon gave Sir Isaac Newton's History of Two Texts. (1 John v. 7, 8. and 1 Tim. iii. 16.) Works, vol. v. pp. 520-522. Sir Isaac Newton's Works, vol. v. pp. 522, 523. The expression, "manuscripts of all other versions," is here designedly used: for the disputed clause has been inserted in some printed editions of the Syriac and Armenian versions, in opposition to the Syriac and Armenian manuscripts. See Bp. Marsh's Letters to Archdeacon Travis. Preface, notes 8, 9, 10, 11.; and also Mr. Oxlee's Three Letters to the Rev. F. Nolan, pp. 130, 131. We are informed by Dr. Buchanan, that it is not to be found in a Peschito or Syriac manuscript which belonged to the Syrian church in India above a thousand years, nor in any copy of the Syriac Scriptures which he had seen. (Christ. Researches in Asia, p. 118.) This manuscript is now in the Public Library at Cambridge. Nor is it in any of the ancient Syriac MSS. brought from the East by the late Mr. Rich, which are preserved in the British Musenm. Marsh's Letters to Travis, Preface, p. xi. note. Augustine, in his Treatise contra Maximinum Arianum, lib. ii. cap.22. (tom. viii. col. 725. ed. Benedict), thus quotes the words of the eighth verse: "Tres sunt testes, spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt." He then makes various remarks on the words, spiritus, aqua, sanguis, and proceeds thus: "Si vero ea, quæ his significata sunt velimus inquirere, non absurde occurit ipsa Trinitas, quæ unus, solus, verus, summes est Deus, Pater et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, de quibus verissime dici potuit, 'Tres sunt testes et tres unum sunt: ut nomine spiritùs sig. nificatum accipiamus Deum Patrem-nomine autem sanguinis Filium-et nomine aquæ Spiritum Sanctum." The gloss which Augustine here puts on the eighth verse, very clearly shows, that he knew nothing of the seventh verse, which appears also from the fact that he has never quoted ЗА that verse. VOL. II the eighth verse, tres unum sunt, which is manifestly a corruption final clause. Some add, in Christo Jesu; some read Filius from the homoioteleuton, TPEIZEIZ: while others omit that instead of Verbum; some omit Sanctus; others transpose quoniam and et; and the more ancient of those, which have the passage, put the eighth verse before the seventh. This uncertainty and fluctuation is, itself, a most suspicious mark of inthat the seventh verse originated in a Latin gloss upon the eighth terpolation. "It is not, therefore, a matter of mere conjecture, verse: it is an historical fact, supported by evidence which cannot be resisted."10 5. The clause in question is NOT ONCE quoted in the genuine works of any one of the Greek Fathers, or early Ecclesiastical Writers, even in those places where we should most expect it. For instance, it does not occur in the Exposition of Faith printed with the works of Justin Martyr, nor in the works of Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hippolytus against Noëtus, Dionysius Alexandrinus in the epistle addressed to Paul of gory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cæsarius, Chrysostom, Proclus, AlexSamosata, Athanasius, Didymus, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Greander or Alexandria, the author of the Synopsis of Scripture, Andreas Cæsariensis, Joannes Damascenus, Elias Cretensis, GerZigabenus, Nicetas, in six different catena cited by Simon. and manus of Constantinople, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Euthymius one cited by Matthæi, nor in the Greek Scholia of various manuof them wrote professedly on the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, scripts. But the bare silence of these writers is not all. Many and of the Holy Spirit; their unity, equality, consubstantiality, &c.: and in order to prove these points, they diligently examined the entire Bible; and, in particular, they have frequently cited the preceding verse, as well as that which immediately follows. «The manuscripts which were used by Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria could not have been written later than the second century. The manuscripts used by Origen could not have been written later than the third century. The manuscripts used by the Greek fathers, who attended the Nicene council, could not have been written later than the fourth century. In this manner we may prove that the Greek manuscripts, in every century were destitute of the passage, until we come to the period The various forms, in which the seventh verse made its first appear ance in the Latin MSS. may be seen on consulting the notes of Erasmus, Mill, and Sabatier, to 1 John v. 7. Simon, Hist. des Versions, chap. ix. and Porson's 6th Letter. Bengel Appar. Crit. pp. 467. ed. 2da. It is so placed also by Vigilius Tapsensis, who quotes thus: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, sanguis, et caro; et tres in nobis sunt: et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in cœlo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part vi. pp. 19-22. That is, the recurrence of the same word at the end of two contiguous clauses. 10 Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part vi. p. 22. Bishop Burgess has endea oured to obviate the above very forcible arguments by stating that, although the seventh verse is wanting in some of the "more ancient" manu scripts, yet it is found in some of the "most ancient," for instance, in the Vauxcelles Bible of the eighth century, and in three MSS. containing the Catholic Epistles, which are in the library at Verona, of the same century, in one of which the eighth verse is wanting. (Vindication of 1 John v. 7. p. 54.) But his observations are shown to be inapplicable by "Crito Cantabrigiensis." Vindication of Porson's Literary Character, pp. 138. et seq. 11 In the sixth volume of the Christian Observer, for 1807, pp. 285-289. there is a neat abstract, with English translations, of the principal passages of the most eminent Greek fathers, who must have quoted the disputed clause, had it been extant in their copies of the New Testament its appearance in the Latin, which would scarcely have happened if it had been derived from the autograph of St. John. when the oldest of our existing manuscripts were written. Now, that the Greek fathers should not avail themselves of so strong and apposite a text in their controversies with the Arians and 6. The disputed clause is NOT ONCE quoted by any of the other sectaries, as an additional confirmation of the doctrine Latin Fathers, even where the subject of which they were treat of the Holy Trinity, is utterly inexplicable, on any other sup-ing required it, and where we should expect to see it cited position than that of its not being in existence. Bishop Burgess, indeed, contends that it is quoted in the second Symbolum Antiochenum, or creed drawn up at the council which was convened at Antioch A. D. 341, and which consisted of ninety-seven bishops, of whom nearly one half were Arians, and who professed in that creed to follow "the evangelical and apostolical tradition." After declaring their belief in one God the Father, in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, they add the following sentences:-"The Father being truly a Father, and the Son truly a Son, and the Holy Ghost truly a Holy Ghost, the names being given not vainly and unmeaningly, but accurately expressing the subsistence, order, and glory of each of the persons named; so that they are THREE in substance, and ONE in consent, ως αναι τη μεν υποστάσει ΤΡΙΑ, τη δε συμφωνια EN : or, without the explanatory terms, as uvas reize, so that the three are one." These expressions the learned prelate considers as a quotation from St. John: they are not, he admits, precisely the same as the words of 1 John v. 7., but he is of opinion that they may nevertheless be a quotation from it.2 There is, doubtless, some similarity between this passage and 1 John v. 7. but similarity and identity are very different things.3 And it is (we apprehend) as plain as possible that the words in the Antiocheian Creed are not a quotation from the disputed text, not only from the total silence of the Greek fathers of that particular period concerning the disputed text, which they must have cited during their keen controversies with the Arians, if it had really been in their copies; but also from the fact, that the sentiment of the passage above given from the Actiocheian Creed is in unison with the last clause of 1 John v. 8. ci reus as To v Low, and these three AGREE in one and the same thing; viz. that the Son of God is come. (See Sir Isaac Newton's Paraphrastic Exposition, in p. 373. infra.) Further, it will be observed, that the Antiocheian Creed varies from the commonly received text, the masculine re being turned into the neuter rga: if a quotation had been intended, the framer of that confession of faith would have used the words ci reus iv uo-these three are one. But what most materially neutralizes the passage adduced by Bishop Burgess from this creed, is the fact, that the clause was not cited by any Greek writer' earlier than Manuel Calecas, who lived in the fourteenth century, and whose attachment to the Romish church was so great that he became a Dominican monk, and adopted the tenets of that church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, in opposition to those maintained by the Greek church. Calecas is succeeded by Bryennius, a writer of the fifteenth century, who also was so attached to the Romish church, that he quotes 1 John v. 6. not with To max worn and (the Spirit is truth), but with Xpres TV annua (CHRIST is truth), which is the reading of the Latin, and omits the final clause of the eighth verse, in opposition likewise to the Greek manuscripts, and in conformity with only modern transcripts of the Vulgate. The next Greek writer who has cited this clause is Peter Mongilas, who lived in the seventeenth century, and who is followed by the Greeks in general of the present age. Nor should it be forgotten, that, when the passage first appeared in Greek, it presented itself under as many different shapes as when it first made 1 Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part vi. p. 17. p. 214. Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's, pp. 97. 104. 10, 11. Memoir of the Controversy respecting the three Heavenly Witnesses. The only expression which approximates very nearly to that in the Antiocheian Creed is the following, which occurs in the works of Gregory Nazianzen, who lived and wrote during the middle and latter part of the fourth century:-"For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one." "Ev yap ev uploй JOOTHS, Xα TO Tрiz iv. (Opp. p. 630. Colonia, 1690.) But it has been shown by Crito Cantabrigiensis, that there is nothing in Gregory's manner of introducing this expression which indicates an intention of quoting the sacred writers. (Vindication of Prof. Porson, pp. 53, 54.) It is proper to remark, that Crito adduces another passage from Gregory, which, together with that just produced, was traced by Mr. Porson as being cited from him by Euthymius Zigabenus: this we have omitted, because it has no immediate reference to our present argument. As it is impossi ble to condense within the limits of a note the facts and arguments of "Crito," to show that the Greek fathers, cited by Porson, did not cite the disputed clause, the reader is necessarily referred to his "Vindication," pp. 37-75. "In the Greek Acts of the Lateran Council, verbum et spiritus sanctus (the Word and the Holy Spirit) had been badly translated by xogos xa VIUM IO, without an article, because there is none in the Latin; but Calecas and Bryennius, who were native Greeks, and therefore felt this deficiency, wrote ὁ λόγος και το πνεύμα το άγιον with an article more than the Complutensian editors and Erasmus inserted." Bishop Marsh's Letters to Travis, p. xvii. note 21. For instance, it is not cited by the author of the treatise on the baptism of heretics among Cyprian's works, nor by Novatian, Hilary bishop of Poictou, Lucifer bishop of Cagliari, Ambrose, Faustinus the Presbyter, Leo the Great (who transcribes the whole context, but passes over this verse in his celebrated epistle to Flavianus, which was translated into Greek, and read in the council of Chalcedon), the author of the treatise De Promissis, Jerome, Augustine, Eucherius, the pseudo-Athanasius, the author of the Disputation against Arius, Facundus, Junilius, Cerealis, Rusticus, Bede, Gregory, Boethius, Philastrius bishop of Brescia, Paschasius, Arnobius junior, and Pope Eusebius I. The advocates for the genuineness of the disputed clause, indeed, affirm that it is quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, and other ancient fathers of the Latin church ; but this again has been denied by those who maintain that the clause in question is spurious. The supposed testimonies of these fathers are considered in pp. 371–373. infra. least marked it as doubtful; and though the Editors of the Eng7. The Protestant Reformers either rejected 1 John v. 7. or at Edward VI., uniformly admitted this verse into the text, yet lish New Testament, during the reigns of Henry VIII. and they generally expressed a doubt of its authenticity. Thus it is wanting in the German translation of the illustrious reformer, Dr. Martin Luther, and in all the editions of it pubThe last edition printed under Lulished during his lifetime. ther's superintendence (and which was not quite finished till after his death) was that of 1546, in the preface to which he reBut this quests that no person will make any alterations in it. great and good man had not been dead thirty years, when the passage was interpolated in his German translation. The first edition, in which this act of injustice took place, and in which Luther's text at least was corrupted, is that which was printed at Frankfort in 1574. But in the edition of 1583, printed in the same place, and also in several still later Frankfort editions, the passage was again omitted. The oldest Wittenberg edition, which received it, was that of 1596; and in the Wittenberg edition of 1599 it is likewise contained, but is printed in Roman characIn 1596 it was inserted also in the Low German Bible, In the seventeenth century, printed in that year at Hamburg. if we except the Wittenberg edition of 1607, which remained true to Luther's text, the insertion was general; and since that time it is found in every edition of his German translation of the Scriptures. ters. Calvin, who retained it, speaks very doubtfully of it. In the Latin version printed by Stephens in 1544, and ascribed to Leo Juda (who embraced the theological views of Zwingle the reformer of Switzerland), it is dismissed from the text, but retained in the margin; and in Castalio's Latin version, printed at Basil in 1551 and again in 1563, it is included between brackets. Of the English versions, the earliest is that of William Tindal, Coverdale's Bible was printed in 1544, and again in 1546. printed in folio in 1535. Matthew's in 1537, partly from Tin dal and partly from Coverdale, and reprinted in 1549 and 1551 Cranmer's Bible was printed in 1539 and 1541. In 1540 and 1541 two folio editions were published by Taverner. In 1541 a folio Bible was printed under the inspection of Bishops Tonstal and Heath. In 1549 Taverner's was reprinted. In 1550 a New Testament in octavo, in Latin and English, was printed by Gualtier for Sir John Cheeke. In 1552 a Testament, in quarto, by Hill. In 1553, a Bible in small quarto, by Grafton. In 1556, an English Bible, in folio, was printed at Rouen; and in 1562 a folio Bible was printed in London, by Harrison. All these editions contain 1 John v. 7. but not without marks of doubt, either including the verse between parentheses, or printing it in diminutive letters. Thus, in Cranmer's Bible, usually called the Great Bible, on account of its size, in the edition of 1539, it appears in the following manner:— "This Jesus Christ is he that came by water and bloud, not by water onely, but by water and bloud. And it is the sprete that beareth wyrnes, because the Sprete is trueth. (For ther are thre which beare recorde in heaven, the father, the worde, and the wholy goost. And these thre are one), and ther are thre which beare recorde (in erth) the sprete," &c.1 Bp. Marsh's Letters to Travis, pp. xvi.-xix. In his prologue, Cranmer explains what is meant by the small letters: -"Where as often ye shall finde a small lettre in the texte, it signifyeth, that so moche as is in the small lettre doth abounde, and is more in the common translacyon in Latyne, than is founde, either in the Hebrue or On the other hand, there are three old editions which insert of the Greek church would never have adopted the clause merely the disputed passage without any mark of suspicion; viz. one in upon the authority of the Latin, if they had not sufficient vouch1536, believed to be printed by Gough, from Tindal's versioners for it in their own Greek verity; and even, perhaps, in the the New Testament, in 1552, translated by command of Edward VI.; and the Geneva Bible, in 1557. The English Testaments, printed in 1538 and 1558, are not included in the preceding noices of translations in our language: both of them were translated from the Vulgate, and consequently have the disputed passage.' autograph and primary copies of St. John's Epistles, which were probably subsisting in the church of Ephesus, till the end of the fourth century, at least. These two testimonies, on which this learned writer thus forcibly argues, would unquestionably b entitled to great weight, if we were certain that the Confession and Liturgies of the Greek church had come down to us uncor rupted. But there is every reason to believe that the clause in FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONTROVERTED CLAUSE, IT IS question was interpolated therein, in the fourteenth or fitteenth CONTENDED THAT, (1.) External Evidence. 1. It is found in the ancient Latin Version, which was current in Africa before the Vulgate Version was made, and also in most manuscripts of Jerome's, or the Vulgate Latin Version. The ancient version current in Africa, and which is preserved in the writings of the African fathers, is not only older by many centuries than the most ancient copy of the Vulgate Latin Version of the catholic Epistles now extant (so that we have in these versions two distinct authorities for the verse), but it is also much more ancient than the oldest Greek manuscripts. But it must be admitted, that although most of the manuscripts of the Vulgate Latin Version contain the disputed clause, yet they are the least ancient and most incorrect. It must also be recollected, that no version has been so corrupted as the Latin. The Latin transcribers took the most unwarrantable liberties, inserting in one book of the New Testament passages which they took from another, and frequently transferring into the text what they found written in the margin of the manuscript whence they copied. Under these circumstances, Michaelis concludes every one must immediately suspect that a passage, which is wanting in all the ancient Greek manuscripts, and is likewise wanting in many ancient copies even of the Latin version, is an interpolation in those Latin manuscripts which contain it. And, in the present instance, the same cause that has procured so many zealous advocates in favour of 1 John v. 7. was the principal cause of its introduction and general reception; viz. the importance of the doctrine which it contains. 2. It is found in the Confession of Faith, and also in Liturgy of the Greek Church. the In the Liturgies of the Greek Church, among other portions of Scripture, this verse is directed, by the Greek rituals, to be read in its course, in the thirty-fifth week of the year.3 3. It is found in the ORDO ROMANUS, or Primitive Liturgy of the Latin Church, which recites this verse in the offices for Trinity Sunday, and for the octave of Easter, and also in the office for the administration of baptism.3 These two testimonies, Dr. Hales imagines, are decisive in favour of the authenticity of the clause. For (he argues) when we consider the lasting schism that prevailed between the Greek and Latin churches, from the time of the Arian and Athanasian controversy, about the Homo-ousian and Homoi-ousian doctrine of the Father and of the Son; and about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son; which was maintained from both by the Latin church; but contested respecting the latter by the Greek, inasmuch as the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is not expressly asserted in Scripture, though it may fairly be implied; we may rest assured that the clergy the Greke, which wordes and sentences we have added, not only to manifeste the same unto you, but also to satisfie and content those that herebe. foretyme hath myssed such sentences in the Bybles and New Testaments before set forth." 1 Christian Observer for 1809, vol. viii. p. 210. In this volume the lover ef biblical criticism will find an elaborate and interesting dissertation on the various readings in the principal passages of the New Testament, especting the doctrine of the Trinity. Dr. Smith's Miscellanea, p. 155. London, 1686. Travis's Letters to Gibbon, pp. 61, 62. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, we learn from the express authority of Christ, who says, "The Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father." (John xv. 26.) In the same verse he says, "I will send the Spirit." And St. Paul tells the Galatians, "God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." (Gal. iv. 6.) Hence we infer, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son also. century, by some of the Greek clergy, who were devoted partizans of the Romish See, when the majority of the common people from their ignorance could not detect the imposition; consequently this argument falls to the ground. 4. It is cited by numerous Latin futhers. In reply to this argument it is urged that the authority of the Latin fathers is inferior to that of the Greek fathers in determining the readings of the Greek manuscripts; for, in writing to the Latin churches, they usually refer to their own version of the Scriptures, and, like our divines, must be understood to quote the established translation, unless they give notice of the contrary; now, if the Latin fathers were unexceptionable witnesses, and if they had quoted in express terms the whole of the controverted passage, their quotations would prove nothing more than tha the passage stood in their manuscripts of the Latin version, and consequently that the Latin version contained it in a very early age; but their evidence, it is asserted, is very unsatisfactory. Among the Latin fathers, whom the advocates for the genuineness of 1 John v. 7. affirm to have quoted this verse, Tertullian in the second, Cyprian in the third, Jerome in the fourth, and the African bishops at the close of the fifth century, have principally been relied on. (1.) The evidence of Tertullian, the oldest Latin writer, who has been quoted in favour of 1 John v. 7., is contained in the following passage of his treatise against Praxeas, respecting the Paraclete or Comforter: "This comforter," says he (Christ), "shall take of mine, as the Son himself had taken of the Father's. Thus, the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes three coherent Persons, one in the other; which three are one" [in substance, unum] "not one" [in number, unus]; "in the same manner in which it was said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, not singularity of num ber." It is contended that if these words-which three are one, qui tres unum sunt-had not been in Tertullian's copy of the New Testament, most assuredly we should never have seen them in this place. But it has been replied, What can be made of these words of Tertullian, in order to prove the genuineness of this text? It is plain that he has not cited the controverted passage, because his quotation begins with quomodo dictum est, in the same manner as it is written, I and my Father are one. (John x. 30) That the controverted text was neither known to him, nor cited by him, is highly probable; for he has never quoted it in all his works. Indeed he would have had no occasion to have cited John x. 30. if he had known any thing of a text which had affirmed of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, that these three are one. For that would have sounded better, and appeared more like a proof of the unity of the substance of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, than any text which he has alleged in proof of that point.8 (2.) From the writings of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, twa passages have been cited to prove that 1 John v. 7. was contained in his manuscript of the Latin version. The first is from his seventy-third Epistle, addressed to Jubaianus, in a. D. 256, the The author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum, in the fourth century. affirms, that the originals of St. John's writings were then preserved at Ephesus. Dr. Hales on the Trinity, vol. ii. pp. 196, 197. The testimony of Vigilius, bishop of Thapsus, who wrote in the fifth century, is designedly omitted, as he is a writer of very little credit, who imposed his sentiments upon the world under the names of Athanasius, Idatius, and others; and also because the passage, in which he is supposed to have referred to the disputed clause, is suspected not to be genuine. Cæterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de patris. Ita connexus, Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum sunt,-non unus; quomodo dictum est, "Ego et Pater unum sumus" ad substantiæ unitatem non, ad numeri singularita. tem. Tertullian adv. Praxeam, c. 25. Benson on the Epistles, vol. ii. p. 632. Michaelis (vol. iv. p. 421.) has considered the above cited passage of Tertullian, which, he determines, is not a quotation. But the fullest consideration of it will be found in Bishop Kaye's Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, illus trated from Tertullian (pp. 544–546.); who concludes his observations by expressing his opinion, that "the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7., furaishes most decisive proof the be knew nothing of the verse." p. 546. object of which is to invalidate the baptism administered by heretics. In this Epistle, the following passage occurs:— (3.) The third Latin father, produced in favour of this disputed passage, is Jerome; who flourished in the latter end of the fourth "If any one could be baptized by a heretic, and could ebtain remission or the beginning of the fifth century, and resided chiefly at Bethof sins, if he has obtained remission of sins, and is sanctified, and lehem. His profound knowledge of the original Scriptures has become the temple of God? I ask, of what God? If of the Creator, he cannot be his temple, who has not believed in Him; if of Christ, neither caused his biblical labours to be held in the highest esteem. In can he who denies Him to be God, be His temple; if of the Holy Spirit, several editions of the Latin version, there is a preface or prologue since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be reconciled to him, who to the Catholic Epistles, ascribed to him; which pretends that all is an enemy either of the Father or of the Son ?" In this passage Dr. Mill and other advocates for the genuine-Latin translators as unfaithful, for leaving it out. the Greek copies had the seventh verse, and complains of the ness of the disputed clause, contend that there is plainly an argument founded upon the unity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But how does Cyprian make out or prove that unity? He attempts no proof of such unity, but presup, poses it as a point that must be admitted." Since the three," he says, "are one, the Holy Spirit cannot be reconciled to him, who is an enemy either of the Father or of the Son." That they are one, he supposes every one will know who has read the New Testament, and therefore he only just alludes to the text as his authority. In opposition to this reasoning, Michaelis observes, that the words-cum tres unum sunt,—though inserted in the later editions of Cyprian's works, are not contained in that edition which was published by Erasmus; and that even if they were genuine, they will prove nothing more than the same words which are quoted by Tertullian.2 The other passage of Cyprian, above alluded to, is to be found in his treatise on the Unity of the Church, written A. D. 251, where he thus expressly cites the disputed clause :— "The Lord saith, I and my Father are one; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one." This, it is urged by the advocates of the contested clause, is a plain citation of two different texts of Scripture, viz. The first, of what Jesus Christ says of himself, in John x. 30.—“The Lord says, I and my Father are one;" and the second (which is expressly accompanied with the ancient formula of quotation, it is written) is a citation of what is spoken of them, and of the Holy Spirit in some other place. "And again," it is written, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one. But where is it so written, except in 1 John v. 7.? On the other hand, admitting that the words Et tres unum sunt— And these three are one-were so quoted from the verse in question, Michaelis asks whether a passage found in no ancient Greek manuscript, quoted by no Greek father, and contained in no other ancient version but the Latin, is therefore to be pronounced genuine, merely because one single Latin father of the first three centuries, who was bishop of Carthage, where the Latin version only was used, and where Greek was unknown, has quoted it? Under these circumstances, should we conclude, that the passage stood originally in the Greek autograph of Saint John? Certainly not; for the only inference, which could be deduced from Cyprian's quotation, would be this, that the passage had been introduced into the Latin version so early as the third century. This answer Michaelis thinks sufficient to invalidate Cyprian's authority, in establishing the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. on the supposition that Cyprian really quoted it. But that he did so, it is asserted to be more than any man can prove. The words Tres unum sunt are contained not only in the seventh but likewise in the eighth verse, which is a part of the ancient and genuine text of John; and therefore it is at least possible, that Cyprian took them, not from the seventh, but from the eighth verse. It is true that he says, These words are written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whereas Tres unum sunt in the eighth verse relate only to the spirit, the water, and the blood. But it must be observed that the Latin fathers interpreted Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, not literally but mystically, and some of them really understood by these words Pater, Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, taking aqua in the sense of Pater, sanguis in the sense of Filius, and spiritus in the sense of Spiritus sanctus.4 1 Si baptizari quis apud hæreticum potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,-si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et santifi catus est, et templum Dei factus est; quæro cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, non hujus potest fieri templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si Spiritus Sancti cum tres unum sunt quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est? Cypriani Opera a Fell. p. 203. folio. Oxon. 1682. 2 See p. 371. Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus: et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt. De Unitate Ecclesiæ, Op. p. 109. Michaelis's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 423. He adduces instances of such mystical interpretation from Augustine, who wrote a century after Cyprian; from Eucherius, who wrote A. D. 434; and from Facundus, who wrote in the middle of the sixth century. (Ibid. p. 424.) Bishop Marsh, after Michaelis, has collected similar instances of mystical interpretation. (Let ters to Travis, Pref. pp. xii.-xiv. note 15.) Dr. Hales (on the Trinity, vol. ii. pp. 197, 198.) has endeavoured to vindicate the citations of Augustine and Euche-ius as real quotations, and rot mystical interpretations of the On this supposed prologue of Jerome many advocates of the disputed clause have founded, as they imagine, a powerful ar gument for its genuineness: while others have candidly admitted that the prologue is spurious. In fact, this preface is of no authority whatever; for, 1. Its style is so barbarous as to prove that it could not have been written by Jerome; 2. It is wanting in his catalogue of prefaces, as well as in the best and most ancient manuscripts of Jerome's version; 3. It is often found in Latin copies without his name; it makes use of the term Epistola Canonica, "Canonical Epistles," whereas Jerome's title for them preface is prefixed to some Latin copies of the Catholic Epistles, was Epistolæ Catholicæ, "Catholic Epistles;" 4. Further, this in which the disputed text is not inserted: whence it is evident that the ancient MSS. from which such copies were made had insert that preface; 5. And, finally, what proves that it is utterly not the disputed text, though the transcribers had the folly to destitute of authority, is the fact, that "it insinuates one falsehood, and asserts two other direct and notorious falsehoods. It in sinuates that all the Greek copies of the New Testament had this verse; whereas none of them had it, nor" (as we have fathers once mentioned it. And Jerome above all men, who was already seen) "has any of the genuine works of the Greek the Greek fathers, must needs have known this to have been a so conversant in the Greek copies of the New Testament and in direct falsehood. Again, the preface asserts that the Latin translators were unfaithful in leaving out the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and that he [Jerome] had restored it.”s Latin fathers is derived from the confession of faith, drawn up by (4.) But a chief argument arising from the quotations of the Eugenius, bishop of Carthage, at the end of the fifth century, and presented by nearly four hundred bishops to Hunneric, king of the Vandals, an Arian and a bitter enemy to those who professed the orthodox faith. In this confession, which is recorded by Victor Vitensis, the following passage occurs : Ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelista testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque, TRES SUNT, QUI TESTIMONIUM PERHIBENT IN CŒLO, PATER, VERBUM In English thus:-"That we may further show it to be clearer than the light, that the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, we have the testimony of the evangelist John; for he says,-THERE ARE THREE WHICH BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." In this passage of the confession of the African bishops, 1 John v. 7. is clearly and distinctly quoted; and the circumstances under which it was delivered to sworn enemies of the Catholic faith (for which these bishops suffered very severe persecutions) have been urged as proofs for the genuineness of the disputed clause, the authenticity of which the hostile Arians would not fail to have challenged or denied, had it even been considered of doubtful origin. But the appearance of this verse in the confession eighth verse; and Bishop Burgess has argued, that neither Cyprian not any other father before Facundus (who flourished about the middle of the sixth century) did interpret the eighth verse mystically. (Vindication of 1 John v. 7. pp. xvii. et seq. 136-138.) His arguments, however, are ably, and, we think, satisfactorily controverted by Crito Cantabrigiensis, who has particularly considered the passages supposed to be cited by Augustine, Eucherius, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, and Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome. (Vindication of Porson, pp. 230-288.) See also on this topic Dr. Benson on the Epistles, vol. ii. pp. 633, 634. Benson on the Epistles, vol. ii. p. 635. Hieronymi Opera à Martianay, tom. i. col. 1671-1673. Paris, 1693. Kettner, who reluctantly admits that the preface in question is not the production of Jerome, yet inaintains that it is good evidence for the genuineness of the disputed text in the eighth, ninth, and following centuries! (Historia Dicti Joannei, 1 John v. 7. p. 172.7 See also the Vindication of Professor Porson by Crito Cantabrigiensis, pp. 182-209. Historia Persecutionis Vandalicæ, p. 29. edit. Ruinart. Mr. Travis has related the history of this transaction in his "Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq." pp. 57-60.; and he has printed the confession at length in his Appendix, No. xxxi. pp. 31. et seq. See Mr. Butler's Hora Biblicæ, vol. ii. pp. 292-295. 2d edit. The argu ments briefly noticed above are urged at length under twelve heads, wird great ingenuity, by Mr. Butler; and if the historian, from whose expres sions he has deduced them, had been a writer of unimpeachable veracity, they would go far towards deciding the controversy. But, unhappily for the testimony of Victor Vitensis, that historian has not only rendered his credit extremely suspicious by his account of the Vandalic persecution. but he has also excited the sneers of infidelity (see Gibbon's Decline and Fall, vol. vi. pp. 283–295. 8vo. edit.), by recording some ridiculous uniracles the truth of which, notwithstanding, he solemnly pledged himself to prove. |