FOR THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS
IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE
HOLY GHOST, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.
AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS
IN EARTH, THE SPIRIT, THE WATER, AND THE
BLOOD, AND THESE THREE AGREE IN ONE.

Now, how easy it is, for one who is transcribing, and perhaps in haste, to slip his eye from the words THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS in the 7th verse, to the same words THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS in the 8th verse any person may easily conceive who has been accustomed to transcribing himself, or who has ever read and observed the transcripts of others, or has been much employed in correcting the press. Similar omissions frequently occur in Mill's and Griesbach's critical editions of the New Testament. For where the beginning and ending of two sentences, within a line or two, happen to be alike, the copyists so frequently omit the former, that if the text under dispute had been found in all the manuscripts and copies, we should have had a great deal more reason to wonder than we have now, that it appears in so few. Let it be granted, therefore, that an omission of the intermediate words might naturally happen; yet still, the appearing of the omission, both early and wide, proves no more than that the words happened to be early dropped, and overlooked in some still more early copy It might be dropped, for any thing we know, out of a copy taken immediately from the original of Saint John himself. And then, most assuredly, all future transcripts, mediately or immediately derived from that copy, must continue, at least, as imperfect and faulty as that first copy itself. And if there should have been but few copies taken from the original in all (and who will pretend to say how many were really taken ?), it is no wonder that while some churches, as those, for instance, in Africa and Europe (whither the perfect copies had been carried), had the true reading, other churches in Asia and the East, from an imperfect copy, should transmit an imperfect reading.

(6.) Several of the early fathers may have designedly omitted to quote the clause in question, from considering it as a proof of the unity of the testimony of the heavenly witnesses to the Messiahship of Christ, and not of the unity of their nature, and consequently not relevant to the controversies in which those writers were engaged.

(7.) The silence of several of the earlier Greek fathers is no proof at all that their copies of the Greek Testament wanted the clause in question; since in their controversies they have omitted to quote other texts referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, with which other parts of their writings show that they must have been well acquainted. Besides, the silence of several of the fathers is more than compensated by the total silence of all the heretics or false teachers, at least from the days of Praxeas (in the second century), who never charged the orthodox fathers of being guilty of interpolation.

Let us now briefly recapitulate the evidence on this much litigated question.

I. AGAINST the genuineness of the disputed clause, it is urged, that

1. It is not to be found in a single Greek manuscript, written before the sixteenth century.

2. It is wanting in the earliest and best critical editions of the

Greek Testament.

5. It 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.

6. It is not once quoted by any of the Latin fathers, even where the subject of which they were treating required; and where, consequently, we should expect to see it cited.

mon people, from the ignorance which at that time generally prevailed throughout Europe, were incapable of detecting the imposition.

4. It is cited by numerous Latin fathers.

The contrary is maintained by the antagonists of the disputed clause and in pp. 371-373. we have shown that the authorities of Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, and the African bishops, which have principally been relied on, are inapplicable to prove the point for which they have been adduced.

(2.) Internal Evidence.

1. The connection of the disputed clause requires its insertion, inasmuch as the sense is not perfect without it.

This argument is rebutted by the fact that the context admits of an exposition, which makes the sense complete without the disputed clause.

2. The grammatical structure of the original Greek requires the insertion of the seventh verse, and consequently that it should be received as genuine.

Otherwise the latter part of the eighth verse, the authenticity of which was never questioned (as indeed it cannot be, being found in every known manuscript that is extant), must likewise be rejected.

3. The doctrine of the Greek article, which is found in both verses, is such, that both must be retained, or both must be rejected.

4. The mode of thinking and diction is peculiar to St. John. To this it is replied, that there is no such identical expression in the

whole Bible, besides 1 John v. 7.

5. The omission of this clause may be satisfactorily accounted for. Thus

(1.) There may have been two editions of this epistle, in the first of which the disputed clause was omitted, though it is retained in the second.

(2.) The great scarcity of ancient Greek copies, caused by the perse. cutions of the Christians by the Roman emperors, would leave the rest open to the negligence of copyists or to the frauds of false teachers.

(3.) The Arians might have designedly expunged it, as being inimical to their doctrine.

(4.) The orthodox themselves might have designedly withdrawn it out of regard to the mystery of the Trinity.

(5.) The negligence of transcribers is a cause of other omissions. (6.) Several of the fathers may have designedly omitted the clause in question. (7.) The silence of several of the Greek fathers is no proof that their copies of the Greek Testament wanted the clause in question; since, in their controversies respecting the Trinity, they have omitted to quote other texts with which they must have been well acquainted. Upon a review of all the preceding arguments, the disputed clause (we think) must be abandoned as spurious; nor can any thing less than the positive authority of unsuspected manuscripts justify the admission of so important a passage into the sacred canon. Much stress, it is true, has been laid upon some points in the internal evidence, and particularly the supposed grammatical arguments (Nos. 2. and 3.), and the reasons assigned for the omission of this clause." Bu some of these reasons have been shown to be destitute of the support alleged in their behalf; and the remainder are wholly hypothetical, and unsustained by any satisfactory evidence. "Internal evidence," indeed (as Bishop Marsh forcibly argues), may show that a passage is spurious, though external evidence is in its favour; for instance, if it contain allusions to things which did not exist in the time of the reputed author. BUT NO INTERNal evidence can PROVE

66

A PASSAGE TO BE GENUINE, WHEN EXTERNAL EVIDENCE IS

DECIDEDLY AGAINST IT. A spurious passage may be fitted to the context as well as a genuine passage. No arguments, therefore, from internal evidence, however ingenious they may appear, can outweigh the mass of external evidence which applies to the case in question."

But, although the disputed clause is confessedly spurious,

SISTIBLE EVIDENCE which other undisputed passages of Holy

(1.) External Evidence.

1. It is found in the Latin version which was current in Africa before the Latin Vulgate version was made, and also in most manuscripts of the Vulgate version.

But the authority of these manuscripts is justly to be suspected, on account of the many alterations and corruptions which the Vulgate version has undergone.

2. It is found in the Confession of Faith, and Liturgy of the Greek church.

3. It is found in the Primitive Liturgy of the Latin church. But it is very probable that the clause in question was interpolated from the Liturgy of the Latin church into that of the Greek church by some of the Greek clergy who were devoted partisans of the Romish church, in

our Lord's true and proper Godhead remain unshakendeduced from the prophetic descriptions of the Messiah's

1 Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part vi. p. 27. Bishop Burgess has argued, at considerable length, in favour of the superiority of internal evidence, even when the external evidence is decidedly against a passage. (Vindeation, pp. xxix.-xxxiv.) His arguments are minutely considered, and (it must, we think, be admitted) set aside, by Crito Cantabrigiensis. (Vindication of Mr. Porson's Literary Character, pp. 75-84.)

2 On this subject the reader is referred to a small volume by the author of this work, entitled, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity briefly stated and defended, &c. (Second edition, 12mo., London, 1826.) In the appendix to that volume he has exhibited the very strong collateral testimony, furnished to the scriptural evidence of this doctrine, by the actual profession of faith in, and worship of, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as of God the Father, by the Christian church in every age; together with other documents illustrative of this important truth of divine revelation, derived from ecclesiastical history and the writings of the fathers of the first threa centuries of the Christian æra

person in the Old Testament-from the ascription to him of the attributes, the works, and the homage, which are peculiar to the Deity and from those numerous and important relations, which he is affirmed in Scripture to sustain towards his holy and universal church, and towards each of its true members. "There are," to adopt the deliberate judgment of Griesbach, "so many arguments for the true Deity of Christ, that I see not how it can be called in question; the divine authority of Scripture being granted, and just rules of interpretation acknowledged. The exordium of Saint John's Gospel, in particular, is so perspicuous and above all exception, that it NEVER can be overturned by the daring attacks of interpreters and critics, and taken away from the defenders of the

Sruth."

SECTION VI.

ON THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.

I. Genuineness, authenticity, and date of these Epistles.-II. The second Epistle, to whom addressed.-III. Its scope. IV. The third Epistle, to whom addressed.—V. Its scope. VI. Observations on this Epistle.

1. ALTHOUGH, in the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote his ecclesiastical history, these two Epistles were classed among the Arousa or books which were received by the majority of Christians (though some doubts were entertained by others respecting their authenticity), yet testimonies are not wanting to prove that they were both known and received as genuine productions of the apostle John. The second Epistle is cited by Irenæus, and received by Clement of Alexandria. Origen mentions all three Epistles, though he says that the second and third were not allowed to be genuine by all persons. Dionysius of Alexandria mentions them as being ascribed to St. John. The second Epistle was quoted by Alexander bishop of Alexandria; and all three Epistles were received by Athanasius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, by Epiphanius, Jerome (a few of whose contemporaries doubted the authenticity of these Epistles), Rufinus, and almost every subsequent writer of note.2 They are not, indeed, received in the Syrian churches; but the thoughts and style are so similar to those of the first Epistle, that almost all critics attribute them to the author of the first Epistle, namely, John; and they were, in all probability, written about the same time as that Epistle, viz. A. D. 68 or 69. Consequently these Epistles could not have been written by John the elder, a member of the Ephesian church, as some of the fathers, and also some modern critics, have imagined. Various reasons have been assigned why these two Epistles were not received earlier into the canon. Michaelis is disposed to think that doubt was excited concerning their genuineness by the address, in which the author neither calls himself John, nor assumes the title of an apostle, but simply names himself the "elder" (BT); as Saint Peter (I. ch. v. 1.) styles himself a "fellow elder" (σuμBuros), which title, after Peter's death, the apostle John might with great propriety assume, as being the only remaining apostle. It is, however, most probable that, being letters to private persons, they had for a considerable time been kept in the possession of the families to whom they were originally sent, and were not discovered till long after the apostle's decease, and after the death of the persons to whom they had been addressed. When first discovered, all the immediate vouchers for their genuineness were necessarily gone; and the church of Christ, ever on its guard against imposture, particularly in relation to writings professing to be the work of apostles, hesitated to receive them into the number of canonical Scriptures, until it was fully ascertained that they were divinely inspired.

a particular person to be intended, while others understand it figuratively, as of the church. The ancient commentators supposed it to be figurative, but most of the modern commen tators and critics understand it literally, though they do not agree in their literal interpretation. Archbishop Newcome, Wakefield, Macknight, and the venerable translators of our authorized version, make Ex to be an adjective, and render the inscription "To the elect (or excellent, or chosen) Lady;" the Vulgate version, Calmet, and others, consider ExT to be a proper name, and translate it "To the Lady Electa;" J. B. Carpzov, Schleusner, and Rosenmüller take Kup to be a proper name, and the Epistle to be addressed to Cyria, or Kyria, the Elect, and Michaelis conjectures Kupa to be an ellipsis of Kupa Exxxo, which, among the ancient Greeks, signified an assembly of the people held at a stated time, and was held at Athens three times in every month; and that, since the sacred writers adopted the term Exx fron its civil use among the Greeks, Kupi Exxxσ might here mean the stated assembly of the Christians, held every Sunday; and thus τη εκλεκτή κυρία, with εκκλησια understood, would signify, "To the elect church or community which comes He admits, however, that he knows together on Sundays." does not think that this explanation can be very easily estanot of any instance of such ellipsis; and Bishop Middleton blished. Of these various hypotheses, the most probable opinion is that which considers the Epistle as addressed to the Lady Electa, who is supposed to have been an eminent Christian matron: what confirms this opinion is, that the Greek article is absent, which would have been absolutely necessary if the inscription had been “To the elect Lady," or to " Kyria the Elect."

III. The SECOND EPISTLE of John is an epitome of the first, and touches, in few words, on the same points. The "Lady Electa" is commended for her virtuous and religious education of her children; and is exhorted to abide in the doctrine of Christ, to persevere in the truth, and carefully to avoid the delusions of false teachers. But chiefly the apostle beseeches this Christian matron to practise the great and indispensable commandment of Christian love and charity.

IV. The THIRD EPISTLE of John is addressed to a converted Gentile, a respectable member of some Christian church, called Caius; but who he was is extremely uncertain, as there are three persons of this name mentioned in the New Testament, viz. 1. Gaius of Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14.); whon Paul calls his "host, and the host of the whole church' (Rom. xvi. 23.); 2. Gaius, a native of Macedonia, who accompanied Paul, and spent some time with him at Ephesus (Acts xix. 29.); 3. Calus of Derbe (Acts xx. 4.), who also was a fellow-traveller of Paul. Michaelis and most modern critics suppose the person to whom this Epistle was addressed to be the Caius of Corinth, as hospitality was a leading feature in his character. His hospitable temper, particularly towards the ministers of the Gospel, is strongly marked in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth verses of this Epistle.

V. The Scope of this Epistle is to commend his steadfastness in the faith and his general hospitality, especially to the ministers of Christ; to caution him against the ambitious and turbulent practices of Diotrephes, and to recommend Demetrius to his friendship; referring what he further had to say to a personal interview.

II. Considerable uncertainty prevails respecting the person to whom the second Epistle was addressed, some conjecturing

See the references to the above-named fathers in Dr. Lardner's Works, Bvo. vol. vi. pp. 584-586.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 525, 526. Dr. Mill, and after him Dr. Lardner, observe, that, of the thirteen verses composing the second Epistle, eight are to be found in the first either in sense or in expression.

Demetrius, who is so highly commended by the apostle in

4 As the Syriac name Martha is of the same import as Kupa, Carpzov conjectured that this epistle was addressed to the sister of Lazarus, and that she changed her name from Martha to Kyria or Cyria, after the perse cution of the church which followed the martyrdom of Stephen, for the secarity of her person. The conjecture is ingenious, but is not suppor bay authority. Epist. Cath. Septenarius, p. 185

this Epistle, is thought to have held some sacred office in the church of which Gaius was a member; but this opinion is rejected by Dr. Benson, because on that supposition Gaius must have known him so well, as to need no information concerning his character from the apostle. He therefore believed him to have been the bearer of this letter, and one of the brethren who went forth to preach to the Gentiles. With this conjecture Roseninüller coincides. Calmet supposes that he was a member of the same church as Gaius, whose piety and hospitality he imitated. But whoever Demetrius was, his character and deportment were the reverse of the character and conduct of Diotrephes; for the apostle speaks of the former as having a good testimony from all men, and whose temper and behaviour were in every respect conformable to the precepts of the Gospel, and therefore Saint John recommends him as an example to Gaius, and the other members of the church to which he belonged.'

SECTION VII.

ON THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.

the ancient catalogues of the sacred writings of the New Testament: it is asserted to be genuine by Clement of Alexandria, and is quoted as Jude's production by Tertullian, by Origen, and by the greater part of the ancients noticed by Eusebius. Independently of this external evidence, the genuineness of the Epistle of Jude is confirmed by the subjects discussed in it, which are in every respect suitable to the character of an apostle of Jesus Christ; for the writer's design was, to characterize and condemn the false teachers, who endeavoured in that age to make proselytes to their erroneous and dangerous tenets, to reprobate the impious doctrines which they taught for the sake of advantage, and to enforce the practice of holiness on all who professed the Gospel. In short, as Dr. Macknight most truly observes, there is no error taught, no evil practice enjoined, for the sake of which any impostor could be induced to impose a forgery of this kind upon the world.

on its style.

I. JUDE or Judas, who was surnamed Thaddeus and Lebbrus, and was also called the brother of our Lord (Matt. xiii. 55.), was the son of Alpheus, brother of James the Less, and one of the twelve apostles. We are not informed when or how he was called to the apostleship; and there is scarcely any mention of him in the New Testament, except in the different catalogues of the twelve apostles. The only particular incident related concerning Jude is to be found in John xiv. 21-23.; where we read that he addressed the following question to his Divine Master-Lord! how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Full of ideas of temporal grandeur and universal monarchy, he could not imagine how our Saviour could establish a kingdom without manifesting it to the world;-a proof how much this apostle was actuated by Jewish prejudices, and what delusive hopes he cherished, in common with all the other apostles, of soon beholding his Master erect a powerful and magnificent empire.

As Jude continued with the rest of the apostles after our Lord's resurrection and ascension (Acts i. 13.), and was with them on the day of Pentecost (ii. 1.), it is not unreasonable to suppose, that after having received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, he preached the Gospel for some time in Judæa, and performed iniracles in the name of Christ. And as his life seems to have been prolonged, it is probable that he afterwards quitted Judæa, and preached the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, in other countries. It has been said that he preached in Arabia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia, and that he suffered martyrdom in the last mentioned country. The Syrians still claim him as their apostle; but we have no account of his travels upon which we can rely, and it may even be questioned whether he was a martyr.2

11. In the early ages of Christianity the Epistle of Jude was rejected by several persons, because the apocryphal books of Enoch, and of the Ascension of Moses, were supe posed to be quoted in it; and Michaelis has rejected it as spurious. We have, however, the most satisfactory evidences of the authenticity of this Epistle. It is found in all

Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 442-456. Lardner, Svo. vol. vi. pp. 581-607.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 425-437. Benson on the Catholic Epistles, pp. 663-680. Buddei Ecclesia Apostolica, pp. 314-316. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 1150-1152. Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 653 656. (first edition.) Lampe, in Evang. Joannis, tom. i. pp. 111–115. "Pritii, Introd. in Nov. Test. pp. 109, 110. It is more certain that Jude was a married man, and had children; for Eusebius relates, on the authority of the ecclesiastical historian Hegesip. pus (a converted Jew, who flourished in the second century), that the emperor Domitian, in a fit of jealousy, ordered inquiry to be made concerning the posterity of David, on which occasion some of the grandchil dren of Jude were brought before him. The emperor, first asking them several questions respecting their profession and manner of life, which was husbandry, next inquired concerning the kingdom of Christ, and when it should appear? To this they replied, that it was a heavenly and spiritual, not a temporal kingdom; and that it would not be manifested till the end of the world. Domitian, thus finding that they were mean persons and perfectly harmless, dismissed them unbound, and by edict appeased the persecution which had been raised against the church. Hegesippus adds, that, on their release, the grandchildren of Jude afterwards presided over churches, both as being martyrs (more correctly confessors), and also as eing allied to our Lord. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cc. 19 20 3 B

VOL. II.

With regard to the objection against the genuineness of this Epistle, which is derived from the supposed quotation by Jude of an apocryphal book of Enoch, it is to be observed, that the apostle, by quoting such book, gives it no authority. It was no canonical book of the Jews; and though such a book existed among them, and was apocryphal, yet it might contain some things that were true. Jude's quoting from it thority of his Epistle, any more than Paul's quotations from the heathen poets Aratus (Acts xvii. 28.), Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33.), and Epimenides (Tit. i. 12.), have lessened the authority of the history of the Acts, and of that apostle's letters, where these quotations are found. The reason is (as Macknight most forcibly observes), if the things contained in these quotations were true in themselves, they might be mentioned by an inspired writer without giving authority to the poems from which they were cited. In like manner, if the prophecy ascribed to Enoch, concerning the future judg ment and punishment of the wicked, was agreeable to the other declarations of God respecting that event, Jude might cite it, because Enoch (who, like Noah, was a preacher of righteousness) might actually have delivered such a prophecy, though it is not recorded in the Old Testament; and because his quoting it did not establish the authority of the book whence he took it, if he took it from any book extant in his time. The preceding observations have been made on the supposition that the apostle did quote an apocryphal book of Enoch: but it has been remarked with equal force and truth, that "it is incredible that Jude cited a book then extant, claiming to be the prophecies of Enoch: for, had it been genuine, the Divine Spirit would not surely have suffered his own word to be afterwards lost; and, had it been apocryphal, the inspired apostle would not have stamped it with his authority, and have declared it to have been the production of Enoch, the seventh from Adam.' Indeed, the language of Jude by no means implies that he quoted from any book whatever (a circumstance which most writers on this controverted subject have mistaken); and hence some persons have come to the highly improbable conclusion that the prophetic words attributed to Enoch were communicated to the apostle by immediate revelation. But this conclusion is not more improbable than it is unnecessary. There is yet another source, from which this insulated passage might have been derived. There is nothing to forbid, but much to establish, the supposition, that some hisdown by the uninspired authors of the Jewish nation. Altorical facts, omitted in the Hebrew Scriptures, were handed though it is true that, in the most ancient remains of Hebrew literature, history is so obscured by fable as to be altogether an uncertain guide, yet some truth doubtless exists in this mass of fiction. This observation may be applied with greater force to the Jewish records which existed in the apostolic age. We know, indeed, from the highest authority, that the Jewish doctors of that period had made the word of God of none effect by their traditions;' but still their uninspired records must have contained some authentic narratives. From such a source we may rationally suppose that Jude gathered the traditional antediluvian prophecy of Enoch, under the direction of that infallible Spirit, who preserved the inspired writers from error, and uided them into all truth. We conclude, therefore, that the apostle did NOT quote from any book extant in his day urporting to have been written by Enoch."4

See the passages of the above-named writers in Dr. Lardner's Wort 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 613-618. 4to. vol. iii. pp. 440-443. • Christian Observer, July, 1829, vol. xxix. » 417