vindication of 1 john

8/2/2019 Vindication of 1 John

1/102

A V

From tliL Objections of M. GriesbaPrice Three Shillings and Sixpence.


2/102

Cathedral Library,ELY.

T. a. 4,ECCLES : CATHEDR : ELIENSI

DONAVITHENRICUS HERYEIUS BABER, A.M., F.R.S.

ECCLESI^: STRETHAMENSIS,CUM CAPELXA DE THETFORD.

IN INSULA ELIEN :RECTOR.


3/102

>


4/102

f*jl


5/102


6/102

QQQOw

I 8W oT >*^ "& HHg * gs < s9 rC Ho . ^ 5.^ g ^K i ^o H^ 5- os SXo

sXQo

oOH


7/102

A VINDICATIONor

1 JOHN, v. 7.FROM THE

OBJECTIONS OF M. GRIESBACHIN WHICH IS GIVE*

A NEW VIEW OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE,WITH

GREEK AUTHORITIESFOR

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE VERSE,NOT HITHERTO ADDUCED IN ITS DEFENCE.

BY THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.

LONDON iPrinted by W. Hughes, Maiden Lane, Covtnt Garden.

SOLD BY RIV1NGTONS, ST. PAUL*S CHURCH YARD ANDWATERLOO-PLACE; HATCHARI* AND SON, PICCA-DILLY ; AND OGLE AND CO. HOLBORN.1821.


8/102


9/102

TO

THE HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND

SHUTE HARRINGTON, LL.D,LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.

MY DEAR LORD,THE long interval, which has elapsed

since your acceptance of my first endeavour* toassist the acquisition of religious knowledgeamong the poor, presents to me so many recol-lections of your Lordship's kindness and friend-ship, that, if I could forget them, I should bemost ungrateful to that directing Providencewhich first brought me within your Lordship'snotice ; and which enables me, at this late hourof your advanced life, to offer you this humbletribute of my affection and gratitude.

* The Salisbury Spelling-Rook lor the Use of Sunday Schools,1786.


10/102

IV

That the same gracious Providence may longpreserve you in the enjoyment of perfect health,the reward of a temperate life, is the ardentwish of,

My dear Lord,.

Your Lordship'si r ; , ~ -'obliged and affectionate Friend,

T. ST. DAVID'S,


11/102

PREFACE.

IT may be of some service to religion, if wecan rescue any one evidence of Christian doc-trine from the imputations of bigotry, fraud,falsehood, and forgery, which have been at anytime brought against it. Such charges have atendency to weaken the faith even of sincerebelievers in the doctrine so said to be supported,and to affect the credit of the church whichprofesses it. The doctrine and the church mustbe very corrupt which can require or employsuch means for their support; and, though thedoctrine may have many other evidences of itstruth, yet the disputed evidence is usually at-tacked as vehemently as if the doctrine had noother ground to rest upon.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity has manypassages of Scripture for its proofs; but none socelebrated as the seventh verse ofthe fifth chapter


12/102

vi

of St. John's First Epistle; none so controverted,or so calumniated; and none, if I mistake not,more capable of effectual vindication. To justifythese assertions, I need not repeat the scurrilitiesof Mr. Gibbon, nor the calumnies of Unitarianunbelievers: it will be more to the purpose ofthe following pages to adduce here the testi-mony of two judicious writers, who had muchmore critical learning and experience in theseinquiries, than was possessed by our infidel his-torian. Mi LL concludes his learned investigationof the authenticity of the verse with the mostdecided sentence in its favour, " After fairly" summing up the evidence on both sides (says" Mr. Person,) just as we should expect him to" declare the verse spurious, he is unaccountably" transformed into a defender."* Not unac-countably; for he gives very substantial reasons forhis decision: " Mihi fateor," says Mill, (" nie-"

liora, si quid melius certiusque dederit longior" dies, discere parato,) argumentis ad auctoritatem" huic versionlo conciliandam modo adductis tantum" roboris inesse videtur, ut cum nni!v modo de loco" suo movendum esse censeam.^ \

* Preface 1o Letters to Mr. Travis.t Vote, ad facum. Soe also the passage quoted in the foliowin?

Tiru-1. p. JO.


13/102

vii

I3ENGEJLiusr who had all the light of his pre-decessor's learned labours, and brought to theinquiry at least an equal share of learning, can-dour, and integrity, was as decidedly convincedof the authenticity of this verse, as Mill was." Ex uno codice," he says, " seque divina hauriri" potest fides atque ex mille; hoc priEsertim"' loco, ubi adamantina versiculorum cohcerentiau omnem codicum penuriam cmnpensat."*

But, decided and explicit as these testimo-nies are to the authenticity of the verse, otherlearned men, avowed believers in the doctrineof the Trinity, have either doubted or denied itsauthenticity; governed, in great measure, ifnot solely, by the external evidence. In thediscussion of this subject the external evidencehas been allowed more than its due autho-rity : for, even in the opinion of Griesbach, it isbut a secondary means of determining the rightreading of a passage, and a subordinate part ofcriticism, whose chief office consists in " iuda-" gandis tt wpendcndis internis verte falsave44 lectionis indiciis."f\ On the contrary, the Ec-

* Apparat. Crit. p. 771.* See his .Symbols Criticae, vol. ii. p. DO, not?. Prolegomena


14/102

Vlll

lectic Reviewer, to whom Dr. Carpenter andDr. Pye Smith refer their readers, says (Jan.1810, vol. vi. p. 63,)" The only legitimate" sources of authority, in ascertaining the pure" text of the New Testament, are, ancient"manuscripts, ancient versions, and citations" in the works of early Christian "vyriters."Most opponents of the verse rely on the ex-ternal evidence as the sole criterion of authen-ticity ; for, if they notice the internal evidenceyit is done slightly and inadequately. And this,rather than a denial of the doctrine of theTrinity, I conceive to have been the princi-pal cause why the verse has had so manyopponents.*

A believer in the true Divinity (vera deltas)of Christ, as Griesbach declared himself to be,f

to the New Test. sect. iii. init.; and especially the Preface to thesecond part of his Commentarius Criticns, p. 4: " Perfectum" criticum nondum eum esse, qui codices, vel universim quos-" libet, vel saltern pnestantiores, enunierare valeat, immo ne" eum quidem, qui diversas textus recensiones distinguere ac" sccundum eorum consensum vel dissensum sententiam ferre" didicerit ; sed requiri praesertim in critico sagacitatem in inda-4< gandis et expendendis internis veras falsaeve lectionis indiciis."

* This subject will be pursued in the Postscript to the Tract..riat. ul, ii. j. 8. lid. Nov. Test, 1770.


15/102

IX

Id not disbelieve the doctrine of the Trinity ;yet he pronounces the verse to he spurious*Michael is, also, was of opinion that it was spu-rious. The learned translator of Michaelis, inthe preface to his Letters to Mr. Travis,* is ofthe same opinion : " To suppose,'' he says," that the passage ever existed in ancient Greek" manuscripts, is contrary to the rules of proba-" bility, founded on actual experience." Andagain : " All hope, therefore, of shewing, even" with the least colour of probability, that the" WOrds EV ru> ovpavu o 7r


16/102

X

tcresting"

Inquiry into the Integrity of the" Greek Vulgate"* after stating the internal andexternal evidence of the verse, and the proba-bility that the verse was suppressed by Eusebiusin the edition which he revised under the sanc-tion of Constantine the Great, adds, " I trust" nothing further can be wanting, to convince" any ingenuous mind that 1 John, v. 7, really" proceeded from St. John the Evangelist."

Dr. Hales, in his learned workf on " Faith" in the Holy Trinity" speaks with equal confi-dence on the authenticity of the verse : " To" the authority of Griesbach on this question, I" shall not hesitate to oppose and prefer the" authority of a celebrated German editor and" critic, the learned Ernesti ; with whose ob-" servations I shall close this minute and elabo-" rate survey of the whole external and internal" evidence; which, I humbly trust, will be" found exhaustive of the subject, and set the" controversy at rest in future."

* Page 305. London, Rivingtons, 1815.

t Vol. ii. p. 226. London, Rivingtons, 1818.


17/102

\l

Mr. Grier, in his recent"

Reply to Dr." Milner's End of Religious Controversy,'** afternoticing the " invincible arguments" of Mr.Nolan, says, " I feel compelled to abandon my" former prejudices against the verse, and to" think that a person should almost as soon" doubt the genuineness of the rest of St. John's" Epistle, as that of the disputed passage."

A late edition of the Greek Testament, by theRev. Edward Valpy, must not be omitted amongthe advocates of the received text. The editionis formed very much on the text of Griesbach,but without adopting all his alterations. Itretains, among other passage^ 1 John, v. 7.His selection of readings has incurred the censureof Dr. Carpenter, who thinks that the editorshould have taken all Griesbach 's readings, ornone. Unitarianism bows to no system but itsown if system it may be called, which has nofixed principle, but of hostility to every thingin religion that is established. ALL OR NONE!Popery itself has not a more arbitrary rule.But Popery and Unitarianism concur in their

'* Page 40. London, Cadell, 1821.


18/102

xngoverning systems nmch more than is commonlysupposed; as we were long ago told by theauthor of " Roma Racoviena et Racovia Romana."When Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevireditor formed their several texts, it was not bythe rule of ALL OR NONE I

Believers in the doctrine of the Trinity wiltbe pleased with these recent confirmations* of1 John, v. 7. not because the doctrine dependsupon this passage, (for there are many otherpassages in Scripture which ascertain the dis-tinct existence of the Three Divine Persons;and the whole analogy of the Bible establishestheir unity in one God ;) but because the res-cuing of any part of Scripture from the impu-tations of wilful corruption and interpolation, isremoving a charge which, if true, would affectthe credibility of the whole Bible.

I hope, in the following vindication of 1 John,* It is very much to be wished that Knitters New Criticisms

on 1 John, v. 7. published at Brunswick in 1785, were translatedfrom German into English. They were an answer to Semler.Michaelis says of them, " Learned and specious as they are, theyhave not convinced me that Semler is mistaken ;" which is sayingevery thing but Do tiln manvs, Plato.


19/102

xiri

v. 7. from the objections of Gricsbach and others,to make some material additions to the evidencesof its authenticity, and to prove that the causeof orthodoxy does not support itself by passages" indisputably spurious" by shewing^zr,tf, fromthe internal evidence of the passage, that it isan essential and indispensable part of the Epistle ;and, secondly, that, during the three first centu-ries, there is no external evidence against the'verse, and much of the most probable kind forit; that, during the next six hundred years,there is, comparatively, very little of externalevidence against it, and, at the same time, somedirect and positive evidence for it negativeevidence against the verse, and positive for it;and that, after that period, there is extant aGreek manuscript, containing the controvertedverse ; a manuscript, not of the sixteenth cen-tury, as Michaelis and Mr. Porson supposed ;but, most probably, of the thirteenth; and,therefore, as ancient as fifteen* of the manu-scripts, which are quoted in evidence against it;and old enough to meet the challenge of

* Griesbaeh's 6. 18. 19. 30. 36. 37. 38. 59. 63. 72. 82. 83. 96. f.b.arc all of the thirteenth tentur*.


20/102

Mr. Person,* and more ancient, by one or two*centuries, than fourteenf others which are op*posed to it.

The new view of the external evidence, whichthe title-page to this Tract promises, is thedivision of it into the three periods, before-men-tioned, which excludes all external evidenceagainst the verse from the first period, and re-duces it to four manuscripts in the second. Thenew Greek authorities are the Greek heretics,called ALOGI, on account of their rejection ofSt. John's doctrine of the Logos in the secondcentury; and EPIPHANIUS'S testimony, in thefourth century, to the agreement of St. John'sEpistles with his Gospel, respecting the Divinityof the Logos, or THE WORD. I am inclined tothink that the stores of antiquity are not yetexhausted; that ampler researches in the writingsof the ancient Fathers, (similar to Dr. Words-worth's inquiries into the authorities for Mr.

* " Produce two actually existing Greek MSS. five hundred" years old, containing this verse, and I will acknowledge your" opinion of its genuineness to be probable." Letters, p. 151.t Griesbach's 20. 31. 32. 62. 77. . are all of the fourteenth

century : 4. 27. 90. 94. 95. c. %. 4. are of the fifteenth century.See the Table of Manuscripts in tht- Appendix, No. I.


21/102

XVsharp's Rule,) and among the uncollated manu-scripts in the libraries of Europe and Asia, willbring more and more evidence of this verse;and that the time is not for distant, when therewill remain no just cause to doubt its authen-ticity. For the first fifteen centuries of theChristian church, during all the controversies ofconflicting parties, no suspicion was ever raisedof corruption or interpolation in the Latin ver-sion of this passage. On the other hand, theGreek text of the very epistle, which containsthe controverted verse, had suffered mutilation,as we are informed by Socrates the historian ;and the Latin version was, in the sixth or seventhcentury, charged with deviation from the Greektext in the omission of the verse, by the Author ofthe Prologue to the " Canonical" Epistles.*

The value of the controverted verse may, in-some measure, be estimated by the vehemenceof the attacks, which have been made upon it.Unitarians are its chief opponents, though they

* Mr. Person says, on the authority of this Prologue, " In factit

appears, that whenever this Prologue was written, most of theLatin copies wanted 1 John, v. 7." flutters, p. 303.)


22/102

xvihave contributed nothing to prove its spurious-ness. They trust to their auxiliar, M. Griesbach*He is the rock of their infidelity, and the Popeof their system. His single authority is sufficientfor mutilating the received text of the New Tes-tament. On him they repose, as their security,and content themselves with retailing his objec-tions. Instead of examining the defences ofMr. Nolan and Dr. Hales, they refer their readersto Griesbach, as an unanswered and infallibleauthority. " It is their business" (says Dr. Car-penter, speaking of the advocates of the verse,)" to confute GRIESBACH> not ours to confute them"*The two points most laboured by Griesbach in hisDiatribe, are, that " the verse rests chiefly, ifnot solely, on the authority of VigiliusTapsensis;"and that " Eucherius, so far from quoting itapertissime, as Bengelius asserts, was wholly ig-norant of the verse." He has failed in boththese arguments, as I have shewn in the follow-ing pages. The Unitarians, therefore, must lookout for other aids to maintain their antichristiancause.

London, June 4, 1821.* Reply to Bishop Ma^rr, ]>. 416


23/102

CONTENTS,

I. GRIESBACH'S judgment on 1 John, v. 7- shewnto be precipitate, partial, contrary to his own rules ofcriticism, and untenable, p. 1 11.

II. Bengelius's conviction of the authenticity of theseventh verse, not founded on one argument, but many,1115.

III. Reasons accounting for the loss of the verse inancient manuscripts. Not incumbent on the defenders ofthe verse to account for its loss, 14 16.

IV. Absence of the verse from manuscripts now ex-taVit, no proof of its spuriousness, if it can be shewn thatthe verse was ever read in the most ancient Greek manu-scripts Cyprian's testimony the allegorical interpreta-tion of the eighth verse imputed to Cyprian, a fiction of


24/102

XVltlFacundus- Cyprian's quotation of the verse from Scrip-ture asserted by Fulgentius Facundus's fiction main-tained by Griesbach, but not warranted by Cyprian's ownwords, 16 18. The eighth verse not aliegorically inter-preted by the generality of African Fathers the seventhverse extant in Greek six or seven centuries before thetime of the Lateran Council, 18, 1Q.

V. Internal evidence of the verse a sufficient, butnot the sole, evidence of its authenticity the external evi-dence, a secondary consideration, 20. Grounds of theinternal evidence, 21 27. Neapolitan reading of thesixth verse, 22.

VI. External evidence three periods First period)A. D. 101 300. No external evidence against the verseduring this period Rejection of the Epistles of St. Johnby the ALOGI, a probable evidence of the verse, 28 32.Indirect evidences of the verse Conclusion from theexternal evidence of the first

period,33.

The second period, A. D. 301900. Only fourGreek manuscripts extant of this period, 34. Prooffrom the Prologue to the Epistles that the seventh versewas absent from most of the Latin copies of the sixth orseventh century, and extant in the Greek, 35. Words ofthe Prologue, 35. Probability that the seventh verse wasextant in Greek in the fourth century, from Epiphanius'stestimony to the agreement of St. John's Epistles with hisGospel, 36, 37- Testimony of the African ChurchThe African Church the depositary of the most ancientLatin version possessed also of the Greek original, 3p.Augustin

rs mystical interpretation of the eighth verso, not


25/102

xrxadopted by Marcus Celedensis, Vigilius Tapsensis,Cassiodorus, or Fulgentius, 41. Fulgentius's testimonyto Cyprian's quotation from Scripture, 42. Griesbach'stestimony to Fulgentius's, 42. Fulgentius quotes directlyfrom St. John, 43. The eighth verse not allegoricallyexplained by Eucherius, 44, 45. Augustin, the first ofthe African Fathers, who interpreted the verse mystically,46, followed by none but Facundus, 47- Why Augus-tin had recourse to allegory in explaining the eighth verse,4(). The seventh verse known to Augustin, 47-

Third period, A. D. 9Q1 1522. Evidence againstthe seventh verse derived chiefly from this period Evi-dence of this period superseded by the evidences of thetwo former periods, 49- A Greek manuscript, contain-ing the seventh verse, extant in ibis period, more ancientthan Michaelis, Griesbach, and Mr. Person supposed,49, 50. Indirect evidences from the first and secondperiods, 51, ,52. Conclusion from the whole inquiry, 52.

APPENDIX [. A Table of Manuscripts, 53.APPENDIX II. Passage of Eucherius, 54.APPENDIX III. Passage of Facundus, />(>.APPENDIX IV. Dr. Cave's argument for the authen-

ticity of 1 John, v. 7- from the Philopatris of Lucian, 58.

APPKMHX V. Note on the quotation of the seventhin Eucherius's Formula', (>1.


26/102

XXAPPENDIX VI. Note on the omission of passagesoccasioned by the near occurrence of similar words ; aud

on the reading of the eighth vrsc in the Neapolitanmanuscript, (>'3.

APPENT DIX VII. Note on the passage of Maximns,ctffKt, Kat rpac TO iv tioiv, 65.

POSTSCRIPT. On Dr. Pye Smith's ol>jections todie authenticity of I John, v. 7 and on the fallacies ofarguments opposed to the seventh verse, GO.


27/102

A

VINDICATIONOF

THE AUTHENTICITY OF 1 JOHN, v. 7.FROM THE

OBJECTIONS OF MR. GRIESBACH.

A CAREFUL and repeated examination of theevidences of Christ's Divinity, which the firstEpistle of St. John contains, has led me to someconsiderations of the celebrated seventh verseof the fifth chapter, which appear to me almostto remove all doubts of its authenticity. Iventure to repeat* this opinion of a passage, ofwhich MT. Griesbach, after enumerating theevidences against, and for it, affirms that " if41 vouchers so fe\v, doubtful, suspected, and** recent, and arguments so trifling, could suffice" to establish the genuineness of any reading,41 in opposition to so many weighty testimonies

* Sec a Volume of Tracts on the Divinity of Christ, latelyPreface, page xcvii.

B


28/102

2" and arguments, there would no longer be any" criterion of truth and falsehood in criticism," and the whole text of the New Testament" would become wholly uncertain and doubt-" ful ;" and I do not hesitate to add, that thejudgment, which Mr. Griesbach has thus passedon the controverted verse of St. John, is, afterall the learning and labour which he has em-ployed upon it, precipitate, partial,* contrary tohis own rules of criticism, and untenable.As to the assertion which he subjoins to this

judgment : namely, " If it were worth while, I" could produce six hundred futile and exploded" readings, and defend them with testimonies" and reasons equally numerous and valid, nay" more numerous and valid than those are which" the

patronsof this verse employ

in its defence:" Nor would the defenders of the genuine text" of those six hundred readings have so many" arguments to oppose to my vain attempt, as are" opposed in this Diatribe to the favourers of

* Of critical partiality in Ihe choice of readings in Hie mostimportant passages, Matthaei quotes, as an instance, the differentprocess observed in the rejection of 1 John, v. 7. and the adop-tion of oj instead of "? in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Sed taraen hos inter-rogaverim, cur cum 1 John v. 7. quod multo pluribus testibus acpropemodum universae Ecclesiae Occidentalis testimouio nititar,rcpmlicnt, hiijns loci lectionem, quae o? vel o* habet, quaeque inultopaucioribus ac mendacibus testibus defcnditur, tanta cupiditatearripiant ? (Nota ad 1 Tim. iii. Ifi.)


29/102

'* the controverted verse:"* it is an assertion;to say the least of it, extravagantly vain anduntrue.

But, to return to the preceding judgment onthe verse, it is, as I said, precipitate, partial,contrary to his own rules of criticism, anduntenable. It is precipitate in risking an asser-tion which is injurious to the authenticity of thewhole Bible, without attempting to prove hisassertion by an experiment on any one of hissix hundred futile and exploded readings. Isit credible that GriesbachY defence of any suchreadings could render doubtful the authenticityof John i. 1. Phil. ii. 5. Tit. ii. 13, &c. or isit rational to impute such consequences as hedoes, to the adoption of a passage which issupported by Pearson, Stillingfleet, Bull, Grabe,Mill, Bengelius, Ernesti, and Horsley?

His view of the subject is partial and defec-tive. He examines the external evidence veryelaborately, but dismisses the internal evidencehastily and contemptuously.He conducts the enquiry contrary to his own

rules for judging of the true reading of anypassage. In his Symbols Criticaef the consi-

* Diatribe in locum Joann. v. 7, 8. p. 25.t Vol. ii. p. 90. Note. See also his Prolegomena, Sect,

iii. Init.


30/102

deration of the interna bonitas of a reading pre-cedes that of the external evidence. In judi-candis lectionibus spectatur primo interna earumbonitas, quag pluribus rebus cernitur; stcundotestium (codicum, versionum, patrum,) antiquo-rum et bonorum consensus. But in his Diatribeon 1 John v. 7. he consumes four and twentypages on the testimony of manuscripts, versions,and Fathers, and gives a single paragraph of halfa page to the internal evidence, introducing itwith these words : Tandem tribus verbis attingi-mus argumenta interna. And even of that shortparagraph, the greater part belongs to the ex-ternal evidence.*

His decision on the controverted verse is un-tenable, being grounded not only on partial evi-

* Tandem tribus verbis attingimus argumenta interna potiora(sed levissima profecto) quibus non nulli ^vna-iomra hujus com-mutis dcfensum iverunt. 1) Nexus cum antecedentibus et eon-sequentibus postulat comma septimum. 2) Joannes respexit adsermoncm Christi Jo. v. 31 39. coll. Jo. viii. 12. 18. et idemquod Jesus ibi docuerat, iisdcm, arguments probare suis lectori-bus voluit ; quo posito comma 7 \ix deesse potest. 3) Joannesbane epistolam bis edidif, et in altera editione priorem commate7 locupletavit. 4) Librarii minus attenti, saltu facto a prioreT{f surly w /uttgTwgouvrec ad posterius ?; turn ol fjut^rv^uvnt, omnia quaeinterjacent, transilierunt. Speciosum argumentum, nisi obstarentverba ev r* yn et tv r


31/102

clence, but on negative and erroneous positions.Of the latter, none has had more influence thanthe assertion that the seventh verse rests chiefly,if not solely, on the authority of Vigilius Tap-sensis, " a base forger," as Dr. Carpenter callshim, of the fifth century. This assertion is thefinal result of his elaborate enquiry. Igiturcomma controversum septimum prcecipue, ne dicamunice, NITITUR TESTIMONIO, FIDE, ATQUE AUC-TORITATE VlGILII TAPSENSIS, et llbrOTUin llUlCattributorum auctori, ante quern nemo dare idescitavit* This final result of his investigationis very erroneous and inadmissible. It cannotbe admitted that Vigilius Tapsensis was the firstwho clearly quoted the verse, since it was notonly expressly appealed to, by his contempo-raries the African Bishops, but, nearly fiftyyears before them, was distinctly cited byEucherius, Bishop of Lyons. Eucherius, Epis-copus Lugdunensis, (says Griesbach) jprw2ws esseputatur qui circa annum 440 aperte verba in du-bium vocata excitavit in libro formularum cap.II. his verbis : III. (h. e. numerus ternarius) adTrinitatem (sc. refertur) in Joannis epistola. Tressunt qui testimonium dant in ccelo, Pater, Ver-bum et Spiritus S. et Tres sunt qui testimoniumdant in terra, Spiritus, aqua et sanguis. This isclearly the passage of St. John, though not thewhole passage. Griesbach indeed denies it to

* Diatribe in locum 1 Joann. v. 7, 8, p. 21.


32/102

be a quotation of the Apostle; but Bengelius,who was quite as conversant with the enquiry,says that Eucherius quotes the verse not onlyaperte but apertissime.

And even if Eucherius had not quoted theverse, still it does not rest on the authority ofVigilius Tapsensis, but on Cyprian, if we maycredit one, whose learning and acuteness wererespected by Griesbach. In the tenth of hisletters to Mr. Travis, Mr. Porson says, " upon" Cyprian therefore the whole labour of support-" ing the verse is devolved ;" (p. 247) whichcarries the enquiry at least two centuries higherthan the time of Vigilius Tapsensis. Nor doesthe verse rest even on the authority of Cyprian ;for Mr. Porson says in his sixth letter, (p. 138)"

I need not tell you, Sir, because you mustdeny, nor need I tell the learned, because theycannot but know, that the chief support of thiscontested verse is the authority of the Vulgate"which he has just before called " the main propand pillar of Mr. Travis's cause" Here weascend to the end of the second century, theage of Tertullian, who appears from his writingsto have found the verse in his copy of the LatinVersion.

So far, then, from resting on the authority ofVigilius Tapsensis of the fifth century, we may


33/102

consider it as extant in the Latin Version, atleast as early as the end of the second century.Mr. Person, who being an opposer of the Verse,places the incorrectness of the Latin Version, asa balance against its antiquity, yet allows that theverse might have been extant in the Latin copiesat that time.

"Allowing that this verse had" been extant in the Vulgate even from the end" of the second century, and without any of" these suspicious appearances, is the merit of" this version so high as to ratify, and render" genuine every word and sentence, in which its

" MSS. conspire? Was it in no place corrupted" in the days of Tertullian and Cyprian?"We are now arrived at a period within little

more than a century after the death of St. John,when the original writings of the Apostles wereread in all the Churches. We shall thereforefind, that the verse does not rest on the authori-ty of Vigilius Tapsensis, or of Cyprian, or Ter-tullian, or of the Latin Version, but on theoriginal of the Latin Version ; (for an ancientVersion is legitimate evidence of the text of itsoriginal ;) and of that original the Latin Fathersof the three first centuries could not have beenignorant. Michaelis, indeed, with a petulance andoversight unworthy of his great character, says,in reply to a remark by Mr. Wagner, u I knownot whether my readers will excuse my noticing


34/102

" a very frivolous objection made by Mr. Wag-" ner. He says, I have taken for granted with-" out proving it, that those Latin Fathers, who" have quoted the controverted passage, quoted" not from the Greek original, but from the" Latin version. Now I really thought it un-" necessary to give any such proof, because I" imagined, that every man, who had studied" theology, had learnt enough of ecclesiastical" history, to know the Latin Fathers in general" did not understand Greek, and consequently," that they could use only the version of their" Country."* Mr. Wagner's objection was cer-tainly neither frivolous nor irrelevant, but essen-tial to an enquiry into the authenticity of thecontroverted passage. If Tertullian and Cyprianunderstood Greek, their quotations from St. Paulor St. John, must be considered to have been asdirectly taken from the originals as Cicero'squotations from any of the Greek Philosophers,though expressed in Latin. Readers of JustinMartyr, Irenseus, Clemens Alexandrinus (as fromtheir writings we know they were) must haveunderstood Greek, and therefore have read theoriginal writings of the Evangelists and Apostles,which were extant in their days.f In the

* Bishop Marsh's translation of Michael is's Introduction, vol.iv. p. 425. ^

t The Alexandrine MS. which is preserved in the BritishMuseum is thirteen or fourteen hundred years old. There is


35/102

second and third centuries, Greek must havebeen almost as familiar to men of learning, astheir own language. Caius and Hippolytus,though natives of Italy, wrote in Greek. Andlong after this time Roman Emperors and Phi-losophers continued to write in Greek. TheGreek language was more universally prevalentthan the Latin, even in the most triumphantperiods of the Roman Empire. Nothing provesthat prevalence more than the promulgation ofthe Gospel in that language. It is remarkahletoo that, for the same purpose, Justinian so lateas the sixth century published his laws in Greekas well as Latin.* The original language of theNew Testament must have been still as it werethe vernacular language of the Church, beingpublicly used in the daily service of the Church.The Latin Fathers therefore of this period couldnot have been ignorant of Greek; and theirquotations from the New Testament must beconsidered as quotations from the original.therefore no pretence for the difficulty, which some persons havein admitting that the original writings of the Apostles wereextant in the second and third centuries.

* Nam. ut ait Cicero, Graeca leguntur in omnibus gentibus,Latina suis tantum terminis, atque iis exigius coiitinentur. I taquefmperator Justiniamis cum in remotiores partes Constitutionesias mitteret, Graece eas exscribi fecit, quomelhis ab hominibusintelligerentur. Cujus rei specimen habetis Institutionum Im-permlum Lib. III. Sed nostra Constitutio, inquit, quant pro oinainittionc Grccca lingua compendioso tractatu habito exposuimus-'(irarcap Lingua Hist, a Gulielmo Burton. Londinii. 1657.)

C


36/102

IX)

Mill, who investigated the external evidencesof the controverted verse with the greatest ac-curacy and candour, formed an opinion of thelearning of the Latin Fathers, as well as of thegeneral question, very different from that ofMichaelis, as will appear from the followingpassage in his note, in which he gives goodreasons for the existence of the verse in theoriginal, and for Tertullian's knowledge of it.Et jam subductis utrinque calculis, allatissummafide, qua3 ad auctoritatem hujus textus elevan-clam, quas ad stabiliendam facere videantur, Ex-emplarium Manuscriptorum et Impressorum,Versionum, Patrum denique Gfsecorum ac Lati-norum testimoniis ; restat ut quae mea sit de hacre sententia, paucis exponam. Dico igitur 1Pericopen ham, utcunque postea disparuerit, in ipsocerte Joannis Autographo exstitisse, aliisque aliquotad illud descriptis evemplaribus. Compertum satismihi hoc ex Tertulliani testimonio supra adducto ;qui cum cetate ilia vixerit, qua (teste ipso, Prse-script. c. 36.) apud Ecclesias recitatce sint ips&litera authentic^ Apostolorum, h. e. aut Arche-typa ipsa, (quae certe longe ultra aetatem Ter-tulliani durasse probabile est ; siquidem inter tern-pus, quoscripta Epistola Joannis, et quo scriptusTertulliani Liber de Pra3script. medii sunt anniduntaxat CXI) aut saltern Cocld. ad Archetypafideliter express! ; et vero provocet ad authentkumGr&Cftm Pauli, (lib. dc Monog. cap. II.) sive


37/102

MCodiccin Epistolarum ejus, quas, uti et caeteras;originalibus ipsis conformes, habuerit ad manum :Nequaquam certe Jieri potest ut textum hunc(magni inprimis moment i adfirmandam sententiamsuam contra Praxeam) citarit, seu, quod idem, adcum all-userit, nisi in Greeds suis legisset*

It is clear, then, that Griesbach is mistakenin the main conclusion, which he draws fromhis elaborate Diatribe ; for we find, that theseventh verse DOES NOT REST SOLELY ORCHIEFLY ON THE AUTHORITY OF VlGILIUSTAPSENSIS; nor on Cyprian, but on almost thewhole Western Church ; and on the LatinVersion, which they used from the end of thefirst century;')' and not on that only, but on theoriginal Epistle of St. John, of which the LatinVersion is an evidence^

The substance of Mr. Griesbach's Diatribeconsists of these positions; that the contro-verted verse is not found in any Greek Manu-script extant but one; and that a very recentManuscript of the fifteenth or sixteenth century;

that it is not quoted by any of the GreekFathers ; and that it rests chiefly, if not solely,on the authority of Vigilius Tapsensis. I haveshewn that he is mistaken in the last of these

*Pago 584.t Michaeli.s's Introduction, cli. vii, sect. 2-3.


38/102

IS

positions. He is also mistaken in the age ofthe Dublin Manuscript, which Dr. Adam Clarke*has shewn to be a Manuscript of the thirteenthcentury. If the verse has not yet been foundin any other Greek Manuscript, it may hereafter.The Hymn to Ceres had been lost for sixteencenturies, when it was discovered in a Manu-script at Moscow, and that Manuscript writtenas late as the end of the XlVth century. If theverse is not quoted by any of the Greek Fathers,it has been by two Latin Fathers, who are moreancient than any Greek Manuscript of the NewTestament, that is now extant.

Bengelius admitted all the arguments, whichare usually alleged against the verse, and yet hehad no doubt of its authenticity. Michaelis,on the contrary, and Mr. Porson, contend onBengelius's admissions that the verse is spurious." Bengelius,'7 says Michaelis, " was by far the" most learned of those who have defended the" passage; and as he was likewise highly dis-" tinguished for his accuracy, and his scrupu-" lous conscientiousness, we may safely take for'* granted that the charges are true, which this" able and honest advocate has admitted."!

* See the Appendix to these pages.I Introduction to the New Testament, chap, x*xi. sect, 2.p. vii.


39/102

15

May we not as safely rely on the decision ofthis learned, judicious, and conscientious writeragainst those charges, as insufficient to invali-date the evidence of the Latin Version, and ofthe context ? Mr. Porson, in the Preface to hisletters to Archdeacon Travis, enumerates Ben-gelius's admissions, and draws from them thesame conclusion which Michaelis does. " Ben-44 gelius, whose edition was published in 1734," allows, in his note on this passage, that it is" in no genuine manuscript ; that the Complu-44 tensian editors interpolated it from the Latin" version ; that the Codex Brittanicus is good" for nothing; that Stephens's semicircle is mis-" placed; that no ancient Greek writer cites" the heavenly witnesses; that many Latins" omit them ; and that they were neither erased44

by the Arians, nor absorbed by the homceote-" teuton. Surely, then, the verse is spurious." No; this learned man finds out a way of44 escape; the passage was of so sublime and" mysterious a nature, that the secret discipline44 of the church withdrew it from the publicu books, till it was gradually lost. Under what


40/102

14

account for its omission, he must indeed havelaboured under a great want of evidence. Butthe following lemmata from his discussion ofthe subject will shew that his persuasion of itsgenuineness was founded not on one, but manyarguments.

X. Tota horum verborum sententia ex aliis etiam locis minimecontroversis disci et deduci potest.

XI. Habuit vero in suis codd. hanc periocham Tertullianut.XII. Habuit Cyprianus.XIII. Nee non Phabadius.XIV. Et Marcus Celedensis : et Marius Victorinus Afer.XV. Et apertissiine Eucherius Lugdunensis.XVI. Habuit plane Vigilius Tapsensis cum episcopis illius

aetatis in Africa non solum Catholicis, sed etiamArianis.

XVII. Legit hunc versum Fulgentius.XVIII. Legit Cassiodorus, Ambrosius Ansbertus, et alii.XIX. Habet Latina versio antiquissima.XX. Augustinus, vel etiam Hieronymns, potius dissimulanter

tractaverunt hoc Dictum, quam ignoraverunt.XXI. Versus 7 post versum 8 legendus est.XXII. Citerioribus demnin seculis, Armeni, atque ipsi Greeci,

hunc versum postliminio receperunt,XXIII. Remanent tamen vestigia periochse apud Graecos

initio lectae non contemnenda.XXIV. Periocha haec non est Glossa ex allegorico spiritus et

aqua3 et sanguinis interpretamento conficta.XXV. Non tarn incuria librariorum factum est, ut in monu-mentis plerisque praetermitteretur haec periocha, autdolo Arianorum, quam consilio virorum ecclesiastico-rum quorundam.XXVI. Testimonia Dictum comprobantia se invicem valdeconfirmant.

$ XXVII. Nemo tamen, ut nunc est, aut obtrudcre alteri Dic-tum potest aut eripere.


41/102

15XX VIII. Ex historia Dicti hujus elucet QSOV quoddam, apud

eos saltern qui dictum accipiunt; argumenturnvcro irrefragabile pro Dicto ipse contextus praebetapostolicus.

Of two of these evidences (the Latinxix. and the context, xxviii.) Bengelius thus de-cidedly expresses himself, in his observationon Lemma xxvii. " Enimvero interpres hieomnibus Gr^ecis codicibus patribusque, quorumhodie quidquam superest, antiquior fuit, et primohujus epistolae codici satis propinquus. Interpresis si plane deesset, textus Grsecus per se loque-retur, hiatum se habere. Nunc supplementumhiatus, quod datur, etiamsi unicum sit, tamen,quia unice aptum est, amplecti, non credulitatis

, sed fidei et pietatis."

III.But if the verse be genuine, how is its ab-

sence from the Greek Manuscripts to be ac-counted for? It is not at all necessary thatthe defenders of the verse should be able toaccount for its absence ; nor would such inabilitybe any proof of want of evidence in its support.It is, strictly speaking, no part of their argument.Several reasons, however, have been alleged forits loss, and among them the disciplina arcani*

* Mr. Nolan, in his learned and interesting work on the Integrityof the Greek Vulgate of the New Testament, imputes the. with-drawing* of the verse to F.usehins.


42/102

16mentioned by Bengelius in his exposition ofthe xxvth lemma. The introduction of thisreason for its absence detracts nothing from theexternal and internal evidences of its authen-ticity, which precede and follow it, and whicharc opposed to those external evidences againstthe verse (i. ix.) which Bengelius has detailedand conceded with so much accuracy aridcandour.

The whole of the external argument from theabsence of the verse in the Greek Manuscripts,and from the silence of the Greek Fathers, willavail nothing, if it can be proved that the versewas ever extant in the most ancient Greek co-pies of the original epistle of St. John. Thatit was so extant, Mill, Bengelius and othersaffirm on the authority of the Latin Version, andthe express citation of the verse by Cyprian.But to the passage of Cyprian it has been ob-

jected that " ever since the days of Simon, it"has been made a question whether Cyprian' quotes our present seventh verse, or only

41 applies the eighth, by a mystical interpreta-" tion, to the Trinity/' Mr. Porson,* whomakes this observation, should have added thatit was not made a question by Ittigius or Grabe,

* Letters, p, 248.


43/102

17or Mill, or Bengelius, who rejected the suppo-sition as the groundless notion of Facundus, andeffectually refuted it by the contrary authorityof Fulgenthis. Ittigius says, Falsisimum estquod add it Simonius Patres Johannis dictum deSpiritu aqua et sanguine de mysterio Trinitatiscommuniter interpretari. Nam ante Facundumvix ullus adduci potent, et forte etiam nulluspost Facundum, qui sic interpretatus est.*

Mr. Person allows that Fulgentius quotes theseventh verse, and does not adopt the mysticalinterpretation of the eighth from Cyprian. Buthe " affirms that Fulgentius became acquaintedwith this verse solely by the means of Cyprian,and that he had not seen it himself in the copiesof the New Testament."-)" Griesbach, on thecontrary, admits, that Fulgentius found the versein his own copy, and did not impute to Cyprianthe mystical interpretation of the eighth verse.^:But Griesbach, nevertheless, thinks that Cypriandid interpret the eighth verse mystically of theTrinity, and that the seventh verse originated insuch interpretation. But to this opinion thereare two objections: (I.) Cyprian, so far from

* De Hacresiarchis, sect. ii. cap. xv. .r>.

f Letters to Archdeacon Travis, p. 264.

: Diatribe, p. 15. ed. 180*3.D


44/102

48

interpreting the eighth verse, does not evenquote it, and takes no notice of the water andthe blood, which those Fathers do, who interpretthe eighth verse mystically. (2.) The mysticalinterpretation gives a different meaning toUvevfjia from what it has in the seventh verse,explaining it of the FATHER, instead of theHoly Ghost; and follows a different order ofthe words.

The Bishop of Peterborough (in the Prefaceto his Letters to Archdeacon Travis, p. xii..xv.)says the seventh verse originated in the mys-tical interpretation of the eighth verse, by theAfrican Fathers ; and that the verse was " trans-planted from the Latin into Greek, by order ofthe Lateran Council, in the thirteenth century."In the sixth section of these pages I shall shew,that the generality of the African Fathers hadboth verses in their copies, and did not alle-gorize the eighth; and that the seventh versewas extant in Greek six or seven centuries be-fore the meeting of the Lateran Council.

Mr. Person allows that it might have beenin the Latin version from the end of the secondcentury; (Mill, that it was there long before;)*but says, that the Latin version was corrupted

* Prolegomena, 938.


45/102

19

and interpolated ; and this might have been oneof its interpolations. As the Latin Fathers ofthe three first centuries were undoubtedly ac-quainted with Greek, they must have known,whether the seventh verse was in the original ornot; and Cyprian would not have quoted it asScripture, if he had not found it there. It isremarkable, too, that through all the controver-sies of the second and subsequent centuriesrespecting the Divinity of Christ, and person-ality of the Spirit, it was never objected byheretics of any description, that the seventhverse was interpolated in the Latin version.

It is called, however, by Dr. Carpenter, " a" gross interpolation ;"* by Mr. Worsley, " a" gross and palpable forgery ;" and " the op-"posers of the verse say, that its insertion con-" fuses the whole sense, breaks the connection," and makes the most intricate and ambiguous" sentence, that ever was seen."f H^re thenwe are brought to the necessity of examining

that part of the evidence, which Griesbach neg-lected. For the question, whether the passagebe an interpolation, or not, may be ascertainedin a great measure by the context, and belongs,therefore, to the internal evidence of the verse.

* Reply to the Bishop of Raphoc, p. 415.t Person's Letters to Travis,


46/102

20V.

Ernesti and Horsley were decided in theiropinion of its authenticity by the internal evi-dence. And though Griesbach in his Diatribeon the verse dismisses this evidence, as I saidbefore, hastily and contemptuously ; yet, he notonly in his general rule for judging of the truereading of a passage, gives the first place tothe internet bonitas* of the text, but on anotheroccasion, in estimating the value of CodexPaulin. 17. in his Symbols Criticae,t he takesthe internal evidence for his chief guide. Nay,in the Preface to his latest work, his Commen-tarius Criticus in Nov. Test. Part II. he repre-sents the use of MSS. and his distinction ofrecensions, as of very secondary consideration,in comparison with the interna verce fals&veleciionis indicia. I shall, accordingly, in thefollowing pages reverse the method of inquiryinto the authenticy of the verse, observed in hisDiatribe. I shall first consider the internal evi-dence, and then the external; and shall take anew view of its external history by dividing itinto three periods, (1.) From the death of St.John to the end of the third century; (2.)From the beginning of the fourth century tothe end of the ninth ; (3.) From the beginningof the tenth to the date of the Complutensian,or first printed edition, in the sixteenth century;and shall apply to the two first periods two

* See before, p, 3, 4. f Vol. ii. p. 90, 91. Note.


47/102

21Greek authorities not hitherto adduced in de-fence of the verse.

The whole of the controverted passage con-sists of the four following verses. " 6. This ish6 that came by water and blood, even JesusChrist: not by water only, but by water andblood. And it is the Spirit that beareth wit-ness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For thereare three that bear record in Heaven, the Father,the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these threeare one. 8. And there are three that bear wit-ness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and theblood ; and these three agree in one. 9. If wereceive the witness of men, the witness of Godis greater : for this is the witness of God whichhe hath testified of his Son."

This passage, as it stands in the first printededition of the Greek Testament, and in thecommonly received text, contains a most im-portant proof of the Incarnation and Divinityof Jesus Christ; namely, the earthly evidences,and the united testimony of the three DivinePersons, the Father, the Word, and the HolySpirit. The declaration of this testimony is in-troduced with these words: "And it is theSpirit that beareth witness, became the Spirit istruth. For there are three that bear record"Kat TO lll'f I'/m IfTTL TO HCtpTVpOVl', OTI TO Hl'lVf.tCt WTIV tja\tj$tta. On rpac cifftv oi


48/102

mThe subject of this passage being the evidences'of Christ's incarnation, and the testimony, which

was borne to it by the Spirit, St. John assertsthat this testimony is of the strongest and mostindisputable kind, first by its union with twoother testimonies, and then by the superiorityof divine testimony over human. By the Levittcal Law, the testimony of one witness was notheld to be true. (John viii. 13. 17.) For " in themouth of two or three witnesses shall everyword be established." (2 Cor. xiii. 1.) To thetestimony of the Spirit the Apostle adds thetestimony of the Father and the Son. If thenthe Spirit is declared to be truth, because it wasnot alone ; (John viii. 1 6.) " for there are three thatbear record;" it could not be said to " bear record"because it is truth. The bearing of record depended 1on the will ofGod ; belief in the record dependedon its truth; its truth (humanly speaking) onthe union of two or three witnesses. The Spirit,therefore, did not bear witness because it wastruth ; but it is here declared to be truth, or atrue witness, because it was one of three wit-nesses. Instead, therefore, of a causal particleto connect the two clauses, it should be a con-junctive; instead of OTI it should be KAI. Andso (if I mistake not) it is read in the NeapolitanManuscript 83.* Whitby and others endeavour

* See Griesbach's new edition of the New Testament, vol. ii.ed. 1806, and the Additional Note to this page in the Appen-dix to this Tract.


49/102

23to remove the difficulty of the common readingby a large arbitrary ellipsis. tc And it is theSpirit that beareth witness, (and on his testimonywe may rely ;) because the Spirit is truth." Thereading of the Neapolitan Manuscript requiresno ellipsis ; is a natural introduction to the nextverse; and gives simplicity and perspicuity tothe passage. Keu TO Hvci/ûa tart TO [tapTvpovv' KAI TOUfEvâ effTiv TJ aXr/Saa. " And it is the Spirit thatbeareth witness ; and the Spirit is truth, for thereare three that bear record." The frequent repe-tition of KAI is familiar to St. John, as in thefourth chapter of the Epistle, ver. 22, 33, 24.But be this as it may; the question of theauthenticity of the seventh verse does not de-pend on the reading of the sixth, though theconnection of the two verses appears to be im-proved by what I conceive to be the Neapolitanreading.

" There are three that bear record," rp< cuapTvpowTec three persons distinguished as per-sons by the masculine participle; of which theSpirit is declared to be one. But who are thethree? If we admit the reading of all GreekManuscripts but one, we must admit the follow-ing reading in defiance of grammar and theContext I Tpac uaiv ol [tapTvpovvTes TO Ylvev/ua, tcai TOvSwp, Kcti TO aifj.a. A 11(1 tllUS Ilvfiyâ, which in VCr. 6has, itself, a neuter participle, is, in the next verse,


50/102

24

when accompanied with two other neuter nouns,most unexpectedly, and solecistically connectedwith a masculine participle; a violation of grammar,which is a stronger evidence of the loss of someintervening sentence, than the existence of averse in only one manuscript is, of interpolation.But in the seventh verse we have the threewitnesses, already recorded by St. John in hisGospel,* and, at the same time, language of alegitimate construction. For Hvwpa being by sig-nification masculine, though by form neuter; andbeing one of the three /iapn/pow?

in v^rse 7,retains its construction in the eighth, and asso-ciates with it the other neuter nouns, whichfollow its construction.

Without the seventh verse, the solecisms ofthe eighth will be unaccountable and indefen-sible; Without the iv of the seventh verse, thearticle with iv in the eighth verse is equallyunaccountable, as Wolfius and the Bishop ofCalcutta have observed. Neque enim dicitur:iv curl, neque


51/102

25With the seventh verse, the witness

which God bare of his Sou in the ninth verse,has an obvious reference to the ITar^p, one of the/uapri/poi/vrfc in the seventh. But without it thereis no expressed reference; for though Uvfvfia,which occurs in the sixth verse may, in a gene-ral sense, be understood of God, yet, as one ofthe witnesses to the Son, recorded in the Gospel,it is always mentioned, not as the Father, butthe Holy Spirit.

Without the seventh verse, there is no reasonto be given, why the evidences of Christ'sincarnation are limited to three, in the eighthverse; for he is proved to be the Sou of Godincarnate, by all the predicted circumstances ofhis birth, life, miracles, and sufferings, which areverified in the Gospel. Without the seventhverse, therefore, instead of three, there might bethirty witnesses. But with the three witnessesof the seventh verse, the limitation to threewitnesses in the eighth, followed by a naturaland obvious parallelism. If the seventh versehad not preceded, it is probable that the watei\and the blood, would not have been mentionedas witnesses. For they are not so recorded inthe Gospel, nor so styled in verse 6.

To these proofs of the mutilation of the pas-sage, by the absence of the seventh verse, we

E


52/102

may add the proofs of the integrity of the pas-sage with that verse, arising from its suitable-ness to the mode of thinking, and peculiar dictionof the Apostle, as well as to the scope and contextof the verse. The mode of thinking is peculiarto St. John. No other of the Evangelists orApostles speaks of the witness of the Father andthe Holy Spirit, as he does in his Gospel, chap.v.3157. viii. 1318. xv. 26. Though Gries-bach very greatly undervalues the internal evi-dence, yet he states the affinity between thedoctrine of the Epistle and the Gospel fairlyand fully. He mentions it as the second of theinternal arguments. " (2.) Joannes respexit adsermonem Christi, Jo. v. 31 39. coll. Jo. viii.12, 18. et idem, quod Jesus ibi docuerat, iisdemargumentis probare suis lectoribus voluit; quoposito, comma 7 vix deesse potest." The diction ispeculiar to St. John. No other Evangelist orApostle calls the Son of God THE WORD. Thescope of the passage leads to the addition ofgreater testimony than had been alleged. St. Johnhad hitherto testified of Christ from his ownand the other Apostles' personal knowledge. Butgreater testimony than human testimony wasnecessary, as our Saviour said of himself: (Johnv. 33, 34.) " Ye sent unto John, and he barewitness unto the truth ; but I receive not testi-mony from man."


53/102

27in short, the grammar and reasoning of the con-text require the seventh verse. The conjunctive^?-

ticle, which, in the Syriac version, introduces thetestimony of the Spirit, the water, and the blood,betrays the loss of the preceding clause. Thewords in terra in those Latin copies, which omitthe 7th verse, indicate the absence of the verse,which contained their correspondent terms. Thearticle of the eighth verse refers to a previousunion of testimony ; and the testimony of Godthe Father, in the ninth verse, implies a previousmention of the Father. When Christ speaks ofhimself in the Gospel, (John v. 31.) he confirmshis own testimony by that of the Father. Hedoes not, on that occasion, mention the Spirit,but he there twice appeals to the testimony ofthe Father. The witness, therefore, in the ninthverse, is that of the Father; and its reference isto the Father in the seventh verse.

Whatever then may have been the cause ofits omission in all Greek Manuscripts that areextant but one, it is clear from the internalevidence of the verse, from the mode of thinkingand diction expressed in the verse, as well asfrom the scope and context of the passage, thatthe verse is the authentic language of St. John,and an essential part of the Epistle; and thatwithout it the passage becomes disjointed,


54/102

28

defective in its references, and inexplicablysoleeistical.

Having examined the internal evidence of theverse, and found it altogether favourable to itsauthenticity, we now proceed to the externalevidence, which has been so largely and minutelydetailed by Mr. Griesbach, as apparently toleave no room for further observation. But, ifI mistake not, to the testimony of the Latincopies, we may add two Greek evidences of greatantiquity, not adduced by Mr. Griesbach.The relative strength and weakness of the

external evidence will be best seen by dividing itinto three periods. The first from the death ofSt. John to the end of the third century.(2.) From the beginning of the fourth centuryto the end of the ninth. (3.) From the beginningof the tenth century to the date of the firstprinted edition of the Greek text of the NewTestament in the sixteenth.

I. The first period (A. D. 101300) containsno evidence against the verse, but much for it.There is no Greek Manuscript of the NewTestament of, this period. The oldest Greekcopy extant is of much later date than the ancient


55/102

29Latin version of the Western Church, and thewritings ofTertullian and Cyprian, who made useof it; and posterior to the first of two Greekevidences, which I have to bring in defence ofthe verse ; I mean the refection of the writingsof St. John by certain heretics of this period,whom Epiphanius calls ALOGI, on account oftheir denial of the Apostle's doctrine of theDivinity of the LOGOS, or the WORD. Thisrejection of St. John's writings by the ALOGIapplies to no part of his writings so strongly asto his first Epistle, and especially to the seventhverse of the fifth chapter of that Epistle,which must have been the most obnoxious tothem of all the passages of St. John, whichrecord THE WORD. He is twice mentioned inthe first Epistle, once in the Gospel, and oncein the Apocalypse. In the Apocalypse, he iscalled the Word of God; in the Gospel, and inthe first chapter of St. John's Epistle, the Wordof life; and in the fifth chapter of the firstEpistle, THE WORD; and in this last passage,especially, he is mentioned, as the second personof the Trinity: "There are 'three that bearrecord in Heaven, the Father, THE WORD, andthe Holy Spirit."

Michaelis, it is true, says (but without anyauthority from antiquity) that the ALOGI did


56/102

30not reject the Epistles of St. John; and there-fore he maintains that the controverted passagemust be spurious. If, on the contrary, as Mill,Wolfius, and others affirm, the ALOGI didreject the Epistles; this is a warrant of theauthenticity of the verse. Epiphanius says,generally, that the Alogi rejected the writingsof St. John because they denied the Divinity ofthe Logos. They must therefore have rejectedthe Epistle, in which that doctrine is more fullyasserted than in the Gospel or Apocalypse.The latest critic on the writings of St. Johnconcurs with Mill, and Wolfius. He says ofEpiphanius, Fuisse quosdam tradidit, qui omnesomnino libros Joanni apostolo adscriptos repu-diarent, et evangelium atque epistolas operaCerinthi haberent.* The reason which inducedMichael is to suppose that the Alogi did notreject the Epistles of St. John, is, that in thepassage, which mentions the rejected writings,the Epistles are not specified by Epiphanius.But for the same reason it might be saidthat they did not reject the Apocalypse, becausein the catalogue of heretics subjoined to Philas-trius, only the Gospel is mentioned.f If the

* Bretschneider's Probabilia dc Evangelii et Epistolarum,Joannis, Apostoli, indole et origine, p. 222. Lipsiae 1820.

t Alogi alias Alogiani tanquam sine verbo dicti, Deum verbumnon credunt, Joannis Evangeliom respuentes. P. 114, ed. Basil,1539.


57/102

seventh verse were to be considered asspu-rious, because the Alogi did not reject the

Epistle ; then the three first verses of the firstchapter must also be spurious. The supposition,therefore, is groundless, and unsupported by anyancient authority. No ancient writer says thatthe Alogi did not reject the Epistles of St. John.

Epiphanius himself, who has followed Philas-trius in one place, by specifying only the Gospeland Apocalypse, gives a good reason in anotherfor thinking that they rejected also the Epistles.2i/v^rcoi/


58/102

32

tained this most memorable evidence of theDivinity of the Logos, and of the personality ofthe Holy Spirit.

I will close this period with two remark-able passages of Clemens Alexandrinus, andTertullian ; which, though not quotations from1 John, v. 7. appear to be founded uponit. Clemens Alexandrinus (or some scriptorcerte vetustissimus, as Bengelius calls him,) says,

7> ria>/ prj^ia ivrarcu em cvo icai TPIftN MAPTY^ftN, eiriIIATPO2 KM YIOY Kat AHOY nNEYMATO2> p WVJMAPTYPHN KO.I fiuti(t)V al fvroXcu Xfyo^ufrat (bv\a(ra'ta'$cito$et\ovcnv* Clemens considers the presence ofthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,witnesses to our promises at our baptism, asobligatory on our obedience. Tertullian, takingup the same idea of the three heavenly wit-nesses to the Baptismal Covenant, draws aconclusion still nearer to the language andreasoning of the seventh and ninth verses. Siin tribus testibus [humanis] omni stabit verbum,

quanto magis sufficit ad fiduciam spei nos- .tra etiam numerus nominum dwinorum^

" If wereceive the witness of man, the witness of Godis greater."

* FoJ. 575. ed. Coinmelin. apud Bengel. xxiii.t D* Baptismo, c. vi. p. 226.


59/102

53In the view, .which we have taken of this

first period, every thing is favourable to theauthenticity of the controverted verse. Theinternal evidence requires the verse ; there is noexternal evidence against it; for there is no ma-nuscript extant, so ancient, as this period ; andwe have good evkience for it in the testimonyof the Latin version of this period, preservedby the African Church ; beside the probabilityarising from the rejection of St. John's Epistlesby the Alogi. These evidences cannot be in-validated by the absence of the verse frommanuscripts of a later period ; nor is it incum-bent on the defenders of the verse to accountfor its loss, or for the silence of the GreekFathers; though very probable reasons havebeen given for both, by Bengelius, and latelyby Mr. Nolan, not only by what he says ofEusebius's edition, but by his view of the sub-jects of religious controversy during the sixfirst centuries, and of the mutilation of this veryEpistle by those, who wished to sever the hu-manity of Christ from his Divinity; for whichhe quotes the authority of Socrates's Eccles.Hist*

II. In the second period of the external his-tory of the verse, which comprehends 600 years,(SOI 900) while the clear light of the internal

* Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 303, 545.F


60/102

34evidence continues in all its force, the externalevidence assumes a somewhat different charac-ter. In the former period there was no externalevidence against the verse ; in this there issome; but at the same time there is some for it;negative evidence against the verse, and positivefor it. All the Greek manuscripts extant of thisperiod omit the verse. But they are so few(not more than four*) as to bear no proportionto the hundreds, perhaps thousands, that arelost, many of which might have contained it, assome, we know, did.

There can hardly be a doubt that theseventh verse was extant in Greek in the co-pies of Walafrid Strabo ; and none at allof its existence in the time of the writer ofthe Prologue to the " Canonical Epistles."Walafrid Strabo, who lived in the ninth cen-tury, wrote a comment on the verse, and onthe Prologue to the Epistles. He could nottherefore be ignorant either of the dejects, whichthe author of the Prologue imputes to the Latincopies of his day, or of the integrity of theGreek, as asserted by him ; and he directs hisreaders to correct the errors of the Latin by theGreek. The testimony of the Prologue is verymaterial to both points.

* The Alexandrine, the Vatican, the Passionci MS. and onfMatthaei'*, (A BG g.)


61/102

In the Preface to his Letters to ArchdeaconTravis,* the Bishop of Peterborough has thefollowing remark: " That the verse was not in" the Latin manuscripts, when the Prologue to" the First Epistle of St. John was written, is" certain ; for the author of it, whoever he was," probably a writer of the seventh or eighth" century, makes a complaint on this very sub-" jcct, saying of the authors of the Latin ver-" sion : ' Trium tanturn vocabula, hoc est, aqua," f sanguinis, et spirit-us, in sua editione ponentes," ' et Patirisy Verbique, et Spiritus testimonium" ' omittentes.' " The writer of the Prologue com-plains of the unfaithfulness of the Latin trans-lators in not following the Greek original; andexemplifies his complaint by their omission ofthe testimony of the three heavenly witnesses,the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. Thewhole passage deserves to be quoted. " Qua?(epistolae,) si sicut ab eis (Graecis) digests sunt,ita quoque ab interpretibus ficleliter in Latinumverterentur eloquium ; nee ambiguitatem le-gentibus facerent, nee sermonum sese varietasimpugnaret, ilio praecipue loco, ubi de unitateTrinitatis in prima Johannis epistola positumlegimus : in qua etiam ab infidelibus tramlatori-bus multum erratum esse a fidei veritate com-perimus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est,aqute, sanguinis et spirit us in ipsa sua editione

* Page xiii. Not*.


62/102

36

ponentibus; et Patris, Verbique, ac Spiritmomittentibus ; in quo maxime et fides Catholicaroboratur, et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sanctiuna Divinitatis substantia comprob'atur."We have here the same certainty that the

seventh verse was found in the Greek copies,as we had before, that it was omitted in theLatin. The verse was, therefore, indisputablyextant in Greek, when the Prologue to theEpistles was written, which was probably asearly as the sixth or seventh century ; Mill andBengelius* say the sixth ; the Bishop of Peter-borough, the seventh or eighth.

Having arrived at a certainty that the con-troverted verse was extant in Greek manu-scripts of the sixth or seventh century; andhaving in the former period of the history ofthis verse, found it probable that the verse wasextant in the copies of St. John's Epistles,which the ALOGI rejected ; we now proceed toa further probability of its existence in thecopies of the Greek Father, who records therejection of St. John's writings by the ALOGI.EPIPHANIUS, who lived in the fourth century,says, that the Epistles " agree with the Gospeland the Apocalypse," in the doctrine of the

* Bengelius calls him Cassiodoro fortasse coaevus et familiaris,p. 763, that is, medio Seeeulo VI. as he says before, p. 755.


63/102

37

Logos; and assigns this agreement as a reasonfor thinking that the Alogi rejected the Epistlesas well as the other writings of St. John. Andhow do the Epistles agree with the Gospel? St.John calls the Son of God THE WORD, in thefirst chapter of the GoSpel, and in the fifth ofthe first Epistle, and no where else. In theEpistle, St. John calls the Son of God the Wordof Life, and in the Apocalypse the Word of God.The Gospel therefore agrees, both in terms anddoctrine concerning the Logos, only with thecontroverted verse. The testimony, therefore, ofEpiphanius to the agreement of the Epistleswith the Gospel is, in effect, an acknowledg-ment of the controverted verse.

To the negative evidence, then, of the fourmanuscripts of this second period, now extant,we have to oppose the probability collected fromEpiphanius and Walafrid Strabo, and the cer-tainty derived from the Prologue to the Epistles,that Greek manuscripts were extant between thethird and the tenth century, which containedthe seventh verse. If it be asked, why the versewas not quoted by almost all the Greek, andmany of the Latin Fathers? The objectionamounts to no more than this: it was not quotedby them, because it was omitted, either byaccident,* or design, in their copies, and pro-

* By the horaoeotelcuton. Sec the additional Note iti theAppendix.


64/102

38

bably in the generality of Greek manuscripts,and many of the Latin. But this does notaffect the certainty, or the probability, that theverse was extant in other copies. If it be againasked, what is become of the manuscripts, thatcontained it? We may reply by asking, whatis become of the many hundred manuscriptsof this second period, containing the Catho-lic Epistles, of which only four remain tothis day ? In the last century of this period,the ninth century, many valuable works wereextant, of which we have now only Latin trans-lations, or fragments of the originals, whichhave been preserved in the inestimable Bibtiothecaof the most learned Patriarch of that, or, per-haps, of any other century, PHOTIUS of Con-stantinople. The last remaining copy of Cicero'swork, De Gloria, is said to have perished ina fire at Canterbury, since the invention ofprinting.

The evidence of the four extant Greek manu-scripts of this second period, compared withthe Prologue to the Epistles, shews that thecontroverted verse was contained in some Greekmanuscripts of the sixth or seventh century,and not in others. From the same Prologue,compared with Fulgentius, it is equally clear thatsome Latin manuscripts contained the verse, andsome did not. Facundtis, who was contempo-


65/102

rary with the writer of the Prologue, (accordingto Mill and Bengelius) apparently had not theverse in his copy. But Fulgentius, Cassiodorus,Vigilius Tapsensis, the African Bishops at theCouncil of Carthage, and Eucherius certainlyhad it in theirs.

The African Church from Tertullian to Ful-gentius, that is, for somewhat more than 400years, is the chief witness to the authenticityof 1 John v. 7, as the depositary of the ancientLatin version, which contained the verse, andby the testimony, which the African Bishopsbore to it in the fifth century. The Latintranslation was their Bible for ordinary use; butit cannot be supposed that this learned Church-was without the Greek text of the New Tes-tament:* Greek was spoken and written atCarthage in its Pagan state, when they had nosuch motive for its use, as the Christian Churchhad in the study of the Scriptures.

Yet what has here been said of the authority ofthe African Church, would be very ill-founded,if that were true, which has been asserted bysome very learned and acute opponents of* Quod si (jiils Maximum non agroscit, alium tamen auctorem

minime ineptum, ct satis antiquum, et codieibus Afrorum UsqueGreeds, Fretilin, dcbebit confiteri. BENGELIUS ad loc. xxiv.p. 762.


66/102

40the celebrated verse now under consideration :namely, that " Augustin was generally followedin applying the eighth verse to the Trinity;"and " that the allegorical interpretation of theeighth verse could not be adopted by any one,who had the seventh verse in his copy." TheBishop of Peterborough says:* "The African" Fathers, in the true mystical spirit of that" country, began at an early age to interpret" 1 John v. 8. of the Trinity. Cyprian de" Unit. Eccles. applies in this manner the final" clause of the eighth verse, et hi tres unum sunt." The seventh verse in Cyprian's time did** not exist in the Latin any more than in the" Greek. Augustin was generally followed in" applying 1 John v. 8. to the Trinity." FromCyprian's supposed interpretation of the eighthverse allegorically, it is inferred that he knew no-thing of the seventh verse; (I say inferred; for inCyprian nothing is said by him of aqua, sanguis,et spiritus, as indicating the Trinity.) The infer-ence from the assumed allegorical interpretationis according to Mr. Person's position:! " I do"

re-assert, that no writer, in his perfect mind," could possibly adopt this allegorical interpre-" tation of the eighth verse, if the seventh were" extant in his copy." If this assertion be ad-mitted together with the opinion, that the ge-

* Preface to Letters to Mr. Travis, p. 12. Note,f Letters, p. 3 11,


67/102

41nerality of the African Fathers adopted themystical interpretation of the eighth verse, itwould follow, that the generality of the AfricanFathers knew nothing of the seventh verse,instead of being the chief witnesses to it. Itbecomes, therefore, necessary to inquire, whe-ther Augustin was generally follosved in apply-ing the eighth verse to the Trinity; and whe-ther such application of the eighth verse is anadmissible proof of the absence of the seventh.

Augustin, Marcus Celedensis, [Eucherius,]*Vigilius Tapsensis, Cassiodorus, Fulgentius, andFacundus, are (with one exception,) Fathers ofthe African Church during this second period.But of these Fathers neither Marcus Celeden-sis, nor Eucherius, nor Vigilius Tapsensis, norCassiodorus, nor Fulgentius, adopted Augustin'sallegorical interpretation. Facundus, who hadbeen accustomed to the doctrine derived fromthe seventh verse, but had not, as it seems,that verse in his copy, applied, as Augustinhad done, the eighth verse mystically to theTrinity. Facundus, though the last of theseFathers, was the only one, who imputed themystical interpretation to Cyprian. BecauseAugustin so applied the eighth verse, he appearsto have supposed, (for there is no other reasonto be collected from his words,) that Cyprian

' Kuchcrius was IJishop of Lvons.G


68/102

42had so interpreted the verse. This groundlessnotion, however, is effectually refuted by thesuperior authority of Fulgentius, who precededhim in the sixth century. The passage of Ful-gentius is too important to be omitted. In Patreergo et Filio et Spiritu Sancto unitatem substan-tias accipimus, personas confundere non audemus.Beatus enini Joannes Apostolus testatur Tressunt, qui testimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater,Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus ; et tres unumsunt. Quod etiam beatissimus Martyr Cypri-anus in epist. de unitate Eccl. confitetur dicens:Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, ad-versus Christum facit. Qui alibi prater Eccle-siam colligit, Christi Ecclesiam spargit. Atqueut unam Ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstrarethaec confestim testimonia de scripturis inse-ruit : Dicit Dominus. Ego et Pater unum sumus ;et iterum de Patre et Fiiio et Spiritu Sanctascripturn est : Et tres unum sunt.

In this passage Mr. Porson says, that " FuK" gentius fairly confesses that he became ac-" quainted with this verse solely by the means of" Cyprian."* I can find in these words notrace of such confession, but the very reverse.And so the words of Fulgentius were under-stood by Griesbach, who says, that Fulgentiusu evidently had the seventh verse in his ownv

* Jitter*, p.


69/102

43

copy, and therefore could not suspect thatCyprian's trcs unum sunt rested on the mysticalinterpretation of the eighth, but was convincedthat Cyprian also had the seventh verse inhis copy.''* Fulgentius, who had the verse inhis copy of the Scriptures, asserts that Cyprianquoted it from the Scriptures.

In another passage, Mr. Person says : a Ful-*' gentius being aware of an objection, that" the verse was not then extant in St. John's" Epistle, shields himself under the authority" of Cyprian."f This is all mistake, undoubt-edly. Fulgentius quotes St. John as his autho-rity for the doctrine, and Cyprian as holding thesame faith. Testatur Joannes confitetur Cy-prianus. It is St. John that testifies; Cyprianonly follows his testimony. Fulgentius herequotes St. John as independently of any otherauthority, as he does in the fragment contraFabianum et adv. Pintam. In the formerhe says, Beatus vero Joannes Apostolus evi-denter ait, Et tres unum sunt ; quod cle Patreet Filio et Spiritu Sancto dictum, sicut superiuscum rationem flagitares, ostendimus. In thelatter: In Epistola Joannis Tres sunt in ccelo,qui testtmoninm reddunt, Pater, Verbum, et Spi-ritus: et hi tres unum sunt.

Fulgentius evidently does not allegorize theDiatribe. j>. 1.V t letters, p. 266.


70/102

44

eighth verse. But neither does Cassiodorus norVigilius Tapsensis, who quote both verses; norEucherius, though Emlyn, Griesbach, Mr. Por-son, and the Bishop of Peterborough, think hedoes.* Emlyn says that Eucherius explainsaqua, sanguis et spiritus, of the Father, Son, andHoly Ghost. The Bishop of Peterborough, that" Eucherius explains aqua of Pater, et spiritusof spirit its sanctus.n"\ Mr. Person, that the mys-tical interpretation of the eighth verse was" expressly maintained by Eucherius."^ Thisopinion respecting Eucherius's allegorical inter-pretation seems to have arisen from misquo-tations of his words. The words of Eucheriusare thus incorrectly quoted by Griesbach :Ad Quaestionem, quid significetur Joannis ver-bis: Tria sunt, quae testimonium perhibent aqua,sanguis, et spiritus? Respendetur: Videri Jo-annem respicere ad locum Evangelii, cap. 19- 34.de aqua et sanguine e latere Christi profluente,collatis verbis: inclinato capite tradidit spiri-lum. Quosdam vero aquam explicare de bap-tismo,sanguinem de martyrio,spiritum de eo ipso,qui per martyrium transit ad Dominum. Plurestamen hie ipsam mystica interpretatione intelli-gere Trinitatem : aqua Patrem, sanguine Chris-tum, spiritu autem spiritum sanctum manifes-

* On the strength of this supposition, Emlyn says the passagein the Formula; is interpolated; and Lardncr proposes to expungethe passage ; which Mr. Porson calls " Lardner's emendation."

I Letters. Preface, p. xiii. ! [Betters, p. 400.


71/102

45tante. The chiefdefect of this quotation is in theomission of the important word Mihi at thebeginning of the passage, which distinguishesEucheriuxx own opinion from thefrew other opini-ons, which are afterwards mentioned. Griesbachdoes not appear to have taken his quotationimmediately from the original, but from someother source, which seems to have misled himand the other opponents of the verse intothe opinion, that Eucherius applied the eighthverse allegorically to the Trinity. The words,with which Griesbach's quotation commences,stand thus in the original : Simile huic locoetiam illud MIHI videtur, quod ipse in Evangeliosuo de passione Christ! loquitur, dicens, unusmilitum lancea latus ejus aperuit, &c.* Eucheriusstates three opinions respecting the interpreta-tion of the eighth verse, his oicn, referring it tothe crucifixion, (which was also the opinion ofCassiodorus;) that of certain others, who under-stood it of baptism, c. ; and lastly, the opinion ofthe plure.s, who interpreted it mystically of theTrinity. MIHI videtur QUIDAM ergo PLU.REStamen. Whoever these qiddam and plures were,it is clear that Eucherius was not " one of theplures, who embraced the mystical interpreta-tion."!* See the whole passage in the Appendix. The entire passage

is not quoted by Griesbach, Mr. Travis. Air. Person, or Dr. Hales,t Person's Letters, p. 309.


72/102

46'

Augustin was the first of the African Fatherswho interpreted the eighth verse mystically. Butit does not follow from such interpretation, thathe had not the seventh verse in his copy ; be-cause it was impossible for him to interpret itliterally, consistently with the meaning, whichhe ascribed to unum, namely, unity of essence.There are passages in the works of Augustin,(such as Pater, et Films, et Spiritus Sanctus unumsunt ; and Tres enim persona sunt, Pater, et Filius,et Spiritus Sanctus; et Hires, quia unius substan-tive sunt, unum sunt,) which appear evidentlytaken from the seventh verse. Yet his allego-rical interpretation of the eighth verse, accordingto Mr. Person's argument, implies that he hadnot the seventh verse in his copy. " The argu-ment from Augustin's allegory is so full andstrong, that Beza fairly says, Non legit Angus-tinusT Tli is argument would have more strength,than it has, if Augustin had not understood by" unum," unity of essence. It could not be saidthat the spirit 9 the water, and the blood, are one inessence. He, therefore, applied it, not absurdly,non absurde, as he says, to the only three that areone in essence, the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit. The literal meaning being, in his senseof it, impossible, he necessarily had recourse toallegory, and applied the passage to the Trinity.Non potuit non ad allegoriam confugere, says Ben-gelius, who did not " avoid the argument," as


73/102

47Mr. Porson thought, but met it with a full con-viction, that Augustin read the seventh verse inhis copy. Sane dictum adeo non ignoravit (Augus-tinus) ut totam ejus sententlam, et sententia peri-phrasin disertam insereret, VERBI etiam nomineadhibito. He gives the following reason, whyAugustin could not have been ignorant of theseventh verse: Augustinas in eo climate floruit,in quo et antecessores et successores libris usifuere Dictum exhibentibus, et revera proximoscodicibus Cassiodori et Fulgentii, ubi Dictumlegebatur, codices habuit, ut patet ex MilliiProleg. 841, 844.*

The allegorical interpretation of the eighthverse was unknown to the Fathers of the threefirst centuries. There is not one of them whichsays that aqua meant the Father, and sanguis theSon. Nor have any allegorical interpreters ofthe verse been produced from the three nextcenturies, except Augustin and Facundus, (forEucherius, as I have shewn, disclaims it,) bythose, who bring this interpretation as an evi-dence of the spuriousness of the seventh verse.

Having shewn that Eucherius did not explainthe eighth verse allcgorically ; that Augustin'*allegorical interpretation of it does not prove himto have been ignorant of the seventh ; and that

r Bcngel. ad loc. x\.


74/102

4SFacundus's imputation of the allegorical senseto Cyprian is not justified by Cyprian's ownwords, and is, moreover, refuted by the contraryauthority of Fulgentius; we may conclude withFulgentius, that Cyprian's testimony is a directquotation from the Scriptures. And if Cyprianhad the verse in his copy, Tertullian must havehad it in his, almost as certainly as if he hadquoted the authority of St. John in the words ofa later Father: Sicut Joannes Evangelista inEpistola sua tarn absolute testatur, et tres unumsunt ;* and again, Cur tres unum sunt JoannemEvangelistam dixisse legitis, si diversas naturasin personis esse accipitisrf though the rest ofthe passage is not quoted by him.

The authority of the African Church, as wit-nesses to the authenticity of 1 John, v. 7. is notdiminished by the allegories either of Augustinor his follower, Facundus. Nor is the validityof that testimony lessened by its being deliveredin Latin instead of Greek. That the LatinChurch was in possession of the Greek text, weknow from Tertullian's appeal to the literaauthentic^ of the Apostles, (whether autographsor copies, is of no consequence,) and the au-thenticum Gr&cum of St. Paul, in the second

*Vigil. Taps. Li. V. ad Theoph. p. 219. ed. Chiffiet,t Idem L. I. p.2f>3. ed.'Chifflet.


75/102

45)

and third centuries; from the writer of thePrologue to the Epistles in the sixth or seventhcentury, and from Walafrid Strabo's references,in the ninth century, to the Greek text as thestandard for correcting the imperfections of theLatin. The indirect evidence of this period isreserved for the conclusion of the third.

III. The absence of all external evidence againstthe seventh verse during the three first centuriesthe probability that it was contained in the textof St. John's Epistles, rejected by the Alogi;and was known to Epiphanius, the recorder ofthat rejection; aud the certainty, that Greekmanuscripts containing the verse were extant be-tween the third and the tenth century; sup-ported as these testimonies are by that which isequal to them all, the internal evidence, theadamantina versiculorum cohcerentia omnem codicumpenuriam compensans it may, perhaps, be unne-cessary to enter on the third period of the historyof the verse, (901 1522.) It is, however, apart of its history to add, that in this period wehave a Greek manuscript containing the con-troverted verse; and that the manuscript isconsiderably more ancient than Griesbach orMr. Porson supposed it to be. Griesbach assertsit to be of the fifteenth or sixteenth century.Mr. Porson fixes its date ; and says,

" it wasprobably written about the year 1520, and inter-

H


76/102

50polated in this place for the purpose of deceivingErasmus."* In this conjecture Mr. Porson wasundoubtedly mistaken. Mr. Martin of Utrechtsupposed the Montfort Manuscript to be of theeleventh century. Dr. Adam Clarke, who exa-mined the manuscript in the year 1790, and hasdescribed it in his Succession of Sacred Litera-ture,^ says, a the manuscript is more likely tohave been the production of the thirteenth thanof either the eleventh or the fifteenth century.The former date is as much too high, as thelatter is too low." Dr. Clarke has given

a fac-simile J of it, as well as of the Complutensiantext, in the work before-mentioned, and in hisNotes on the New Testament.Though the authenticity of the controverted

verse does not depend at all on the antiquity orthe character of the Montfort Manuscript, yetit may not be improper to add, that, when theGreek of this verse in this manuscript is calleda bungling translation from the Latin, on ac-count of the omission of the articles usuallyprefixed to Ilanyp, Tloc, and Uvev/jm, the passagebefore quoted from Clemens Alexandrinus (p. 32,)is sufficient to authorize the omission ; to which

* Letters, p. 117. t P. 8892.J The fac-similes prefixed to this Tract were (by the kind indul-

gence of Joseph Butteiworth, Esq. M. P.) taken from the sameplates.


77/102

51t

may be added the following words, ascribedto Origeil : AovXot k-i/p


78/102

the seventh verse, as to afford " a more thanprobable" proof of its authenticity. To an earlypart of the second period belong the followingpassages: Basil, (adv. Ennom. L. V.) says,01 crTTfptfpywe TriffTtvovrec eiQ 0ov Kctt, Aoyov teatfutav ovaav for^ra, KCU p,ovr)v 7rpocrKvyrjTtKt]V. XllCmocanon published by Cotelerius, has,rpta narrjp KCU 'Ttoc KCII aytor HvtvfJLa, Iv rai/ra ra rpia.Among its principal indirect evidences maybe placed those Latin manuscripts and Latincitations, which omit the seventh verse, butretain in terra in the eighth; such as themanuscripts, which Griesbach says are men-tioned by Stephens, Hentenius, Lucas Brugensis,and others ; and the passages of Facundus, inhis Defcnsio trlur.i Capitulorum*

Upon the whole view of the important andinteresting subject of these p

vindication of 1 john

Documents