Word, and the Holy Spirit, as it is confirmed by the Evangelist John. For he says there are three who bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."- Victor.

The words here cited from the first two look plausibly, taken by themselves, apart from the passages in which they stand; but when examined in relation to the context, they afford no proof that either of those fathers ever saw the 7th verse. Indeed the passage from Cyprian serves to demonstrate beyond all doubt that he never had met with it, and consequently that it did not exist in his day. The reader will find it put forth at large in Professor Porson's tenth letter. I will state it distinctly.

86

Cyprian says, "It is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that these three are one.” Now it so happens that in the sixth century, Facundus, interpreting the eighth verse, endeavors to prove the Trinity from it by making the Spirit" to signify the Father, the "water" the Holy Ghost, and the "blood" the Son;—and, observe this,—quotes these very words of Cyprian in confirmation. Here are two plain facts: 1. Facundus could not have been acquainted ⚫ with the seventh verse, or he would have quoted it outright, instead of laboring to extort the Trinity by violence from the eighth. 2. He had no idea of Cyprian's being acquainted with it, but supposed him to quote the eighth verse. It is clearly impossible that the seventh verse should have existed at that time; for who would dream of torturing the spirit, and water, and blood, into an argument for the Trinity, if he had at hand the Father, Word, and Spirit?

The explanation of the passage from Tertullian, may be seen in the same letter of Porson. But it is of less consequence, after having thus disposed of Cyprian. For if the verse did not exist in the days of Cyprian and Facundus, it is quite clear that it could not in the time of Tertullian. It

the genuineness of his text, are Cyprian, Tertullian, Victor, Robert Stephens, John Mill, and Dr. Hammond. From each of the first three, he quotes a passage as circumstantial evidence at least that they had seen the verse, (1 John v. 7.) They are the following.

"It is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that these three are one."—Cyprian, A. D. about 250.

"The Father and the Son, centring in the Comforter, make three, subsisting one of the other, which three are one possessing a unity of substance, but not singular in number.". -Tertullian, A. D. about 200.

"We teach the one God, as existing in the Father, the

Matt. xxviii. 19; the other, the apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii. 14. I would commend to his attention, 1 Peter, i. 2: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.'"

I will here remark, that had Mr. Robbins perceived the point of Pro. fessor Ware's expression, he would, unquestionably, have thought his statement true. The word "formally," which Mr. Robbins seems to have overlooked, may denote that formality of expression which belongs to a direct announcement of a doctrine or fact. Mr. Ware doubtless conceived that the two texts referred to might be said by Trinitarians to announce in form, with some formality of expression, the doctrine of the Trinity. Other texts, (such as 1 Peter i. 2) they would say, announce it informally, that is, indirectly. Had he stated that "there is but one text which for mally names the Father, Son, and Spirit, in connection with each other," it would, I conceive, have been perfectly correct.

"It is hard to believe," says Mr. Robbins, "that intelligent men, who reject this passage of Scripture, are fully satisfied with what they do. They usually exhibit an excitement of feeling on the subject which hardly comports with a full conviction of the understanding. We scarcely find an instance of excited feeling in the whole works of Dr. Lardner, except when he declares against the validity of this text."

Would Mr. Robbins have us believe that all the eminent Trinitarian authors, who have declared against the validity of this text, were actuated by passion? That they had not a full conviction of the understanding? -That good men, who think differently from himself in relation to this text, cannot express their views without losing their temper? His remarks, I think, could they be read by those authors, would be likely to restore pleasant feelings, by exciting a smile.

Word, and the Holy Spirit, as it is confirmed by the Evangelist John. For he says there are three who bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."-Victor.

The words here cited from the first two look plausibly, taken by themselves, apart from the passages in which they stand; but when examined in relation to the context, they afford no proof that either of those fathers ever saw the 7th verse. Indeed the passage from Cyprian serves to demonstrate beyond all doubt that he never had met with it, and consequently that it did not exist in his day. The reader will find it put forth at large in Professor Porson's tenth letter. I will state it distinctly.

Cyprian says, "It is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that these three are one." Now it so happens that in the sixth century, Facundus, interpreting the eighth verse, endeavors to prove the Trinity from it by making the "Spirit" to signify the Father, the "water" the Holy Ghost, and the "blood" the Son;-and, observe this,-quotes these very words of Cyprian in confirmation. Here are two plain facts: 1. Facundus could not have been acquainted with the seventh verse, or he would have quoted it outright, instead of laboring to extort the Trinity by violence from the eighth. 2. He had no idea of Cyprian's being acquainted with it, but supposed him to quote the eighth verse. It is clearly impossible that the seventh verse should have existed at that time; for who would dream of torturing the spirit, and water, and blood, into an argument for the Trinity, if he had at hand the Father, Word, and Spirit?

The explanation of the passage from Tertullian, may be seen in the same letter of Porson. But it is of less consequence, after having thus disposed of Cyprian. For if the verse did not exist in the days of Cyprian and Facundus, it is quite clear that it could not in the time of Tertullian. It

could not have been lost out of the Bible in half a centúry.

As for Victor's narative, Griesbach, in his dissertation on this text, has proved that no credit can be given to it. Professor Porson also gives a similar account of it. Mr. Robbins will certainly not pretend to found an argument on an uncertain passage, which scholars like Griesbach and Porson hold to be unworthy of trust. Let him first prove Victor's authority, by refuting those writers, before he presumes to appeal to it.

As to Stephens and Mill, Mr. Robbins has the following remark: "The learned Professor [Mr. Ware] will probably admit that no editions of the Greek Testament have been published with so much care and labor as those of Robert Stephens and John Mill. Both have this passage in its place." Professor Ware "will probably admit" no such thing; nor will any scholar of the nineteenth century, who has properly examined the subject.

As to Stephens, it is sufficient to state, that he formed his edition from the two previous printed Testaments of Erasmus, and the Complutensian Polyglott, and fifteen Greek manuscripts-that these manuscripts were examined not by himself, but by his son Henry, a lad, at that time, but eighteen years of age, "too young, too impatient, and too little experienced in criticism for an undertaking of that nature;"that Robert himself was guilty of great carelessness and inaccuracy, and has even been suspected of dishonesty ;-and that therefore his work is of exceeding little authority.*

Of John Mill no one would speak disrespectfully, or of his work. It was the faithful and indefatigable labor of thirty years, and by far the most important of the kind at the

*See Michaelis' Introd. to the N. T. Chap. viii. Sec. 6, and Chap. xii. Sec. 1, with Marsh's Notes: and Horne's Introd. to the Scriptures, Vol. ii. p. 129: Phil. ed. 1825.

time of its appearance. But that was one hundred and thirty years ago. It has been superceded by the editions of Wetstein, Griesbach, and others, who in later days have had access to mines of information unknown to him. No scholar now pretends to decide a question by the authority of Mill, but by that of later and more learned critics; and not one such of established reputation can be found who does not reject the verse in question. What can a man be thinking of who goes back a century and a quarter in such a case as this? Will Mr. Robbins name the man at the present day equal to Mill, who retains the verse? Certainly

he cannot do it.

Every one who reads Mill's remarks on the subject will perceive that the decisive point of his argument is the presumption that the verse existed in seven ancient Greek manuscripts, used by Robert Stephens. In this, Mill was mistaken it is well known that not one of those manuscripts contained it. Mr.Robbins says of Mill, "After giving a series of authorities in its favor, he says, 'Atque hic,'" &c.as if that were his conclusion of the whole matter. The case is not exactly so. Mill had just been speaking of the above mentioned seven manuscripts, which Stephens pronounced so venerably ancient; he says that Stephens would not have called them so if they had been later than the year 700 or 800. Then he adds, "Atque hic quidem pedem figimus neque enim ad secula recentiora descendere opus est. Here we set our foot-nor is it necessary to come down to later times." That is, if Robert Stephens had seven manuscripts, so ancient, containing the verse, it settles the question. In this every body would agree with him. But unhappily, Stephens not only had not seven, he had not even ONE of any date, ancient or modern. Therefore Mill's argument falls to the ground; and Mr. Robbins, by relying on him, has imposed upon himself and others.