ing in both Syriac verfions, in both Arabic verfions, in the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonian verfions, is contained only in the Latin, and is wanting in many manufcripts even of this verfion, was quoted by none of the Latin fathers of the four first centuries, and to fome of them, who lived fo late as the fixth century, was either wholly unknown, or was not received by them as genuine. To this immense weight of evidence against John v. 7. its advocates oppofe the following reafons for retaining it.

In the first place there is fomething divine, So quoddam, as Bengel expreffes it, both in the paffage itfelf, and the prefervation of it. But in what this S quoddam confifts, I really do not know: for Bengel did not mean the divine doctrine, which the paffage contains, fince he was really too good a critic to conclude, that a text was genuine, for no other reafon, than becaufe its contents were orthodox. Nor can this SELOR quoddam be fought in the prefervation of the paffage: for if a genuine paffage of the New Teftament has been loft in the Greek, in the Syriac, in the Arabic, and in fhort in every other than the Latin Bible, it cannot be faid, that divine Providence has particularly watched for its prefervation. If this or quoddam confifts in a certain internal fenfation, excited by the reading of the paffage, this fenfation, if felt only by thofe, who already receive the paffage as genuine, cannot be used as an argument, when the queftion is in agitation, whether it be genuine', or not. In other inftances, Bengel would not have appealed to such a criterion and indeed if he had, his whole Apparatus Criticus would have been fuperfluous.

Further, the following reafons are affigned, which might have occafioned the omiflion of 1 John v. 7... 1. That

* Sect. 29.

1

Bengel himself fays only, apud eos faltem, qui dictum accipiunt.'

1. That the feventh verfe begins and ends in the fame manner as the eighth and therefore that transcribers might have easily overlooked the feventh verfe, and confequently have omitted it by mere accident.

2. That the Arians might have defignedly expunged it, as being inimical to their doctrine ".

3. That the orthodox themselves might have defignedly withdrawn it, ex ftudio arcani, as Bengel" fays, that is, out of regard to the mystery of the Trinity, and under the perfuafion, that fuch a paffage as 1 John v. 7. ought not to be expofed to every reader.

Without examining the ftrength or weakness of these reafons, I will only obferve, that such causes, though they might have produced the omiffion of the paffage in fome copies, could not poffibly have occafioned it, in all the ancient Greek manufcripts, and in all the ancient verfions, except the Latin. Befides, they are wholly foreign to the prefent purpose: they do not tend to fhew the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. but account merely for its omiffion, on the previous fuppofition, that it is authentic. But this is the thing to be proved. And it is furely abfurd, to account for the omiffion of a paffage in St. John's firft Epiftle, before it has been fhewn, that the Epiftle ever contained it. Suppofe I were to cite a man before a court of justice, and demand from him a fum of money, that on being asked by the magiftrate, whether I had any bond to produce, in fupport of the demand, I anfwered, that I had indeed no bond to produce, but that a bond might have been very easily loft during the troubles of the late war. In this cafe, if the magiftrate fhould admit the validity of the demand, and oblige the accufed party to pay the

fum

The Latin fathers faid this of the interpolation quia Deus fpiritus eft,' John iii. 6. but they did not fay the fame of 1 John v. 7. The charge of having expunged this paffage has been laid to the Arians only in modern times, and by writers, who certainly would not undertake to defend the authenticity of the former.

fum required, every man would conclude, not fo much that he was unjuft, as that his mental faculties were deranged. But is not this cafe fimilar to the cafe of thofe, who contend, that I John v. 7. is genuine, becaufe, it might have been loft? In fact, their fituation is ftill worse, fince the lofs of a fingle manufcript is much more credible, than the lofs of one and the fame paffage in more than eighty manufcripts.

Laftly, Bengel entertained hopes, that Greek manufcripts would hereafter be difcovered, which contained the paffage. Now, till fuch manuscripts are actually produced, the hope of difcovering them will not fupply their place. And if we may judge from experience, all hope of discovering any fuch manufcripts is now at an end for fince Bengel's time, a great number of Greek manufcripts, with which he was unacquainted, have been examined, but none of them contain the controverted paffage.

SECT. VI.

In what manner 1 John v. 7. was first introduced into the Latin verfion, and afterwards into our printed editions of the Greek Teftament.

WHE

HEN it has been proved by fatisfactory evidence, that a paffage is fpurious, it is wholly unneceffary to fhew at what time, or in what manner, the paffage was first introduced. There are many readings in our common printed text, which at prefent are univerfally allowed to be falfe, though we cannot afcertain by what copyift they were firft written, or what particular caufe has given them birth. In fuch cafes we must be fatisfied with probable conjecture; for hiftorical evidence is feldom

1

feldom to be expected, fince interpolations are in general clandeftine facts, and are very rarely recorded. But fince the advocates of 1 John v. 7. contend, that this paffage would not have been contained in the Latin verfion, unless it had been contained likewife in the Greek, I will endeavour to fhew in what manner it was firft introduced into the Latin verfion.

The fimple fact, that it had it's origin in the Latin, is indifputable, fince it is contained in no ancient Greek manufcript, and in no other version. And the caufe, which gave it birth, was probably the following. It appears from the third fection of this chapter, that the African fathers interpreted 1 John v. 8. myftically, and confidered the fpirit, the water, and the blood,' as denoting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Further it must be remarked, that the African fathers, were the firft, who discovered 1 John v. 7. in the Latin verfion. The combination of these two facts leads to the following probable conclufion that the fpiritual interpretation of 1 John v. 8. was written in the margin of one or more Latin manufcripts, and that, in order to distinguish the terrestrial from the celeftial meaning, the words in terra' were added as a marginal glofs, in reference to teftimonium dant' in the eighth verfe, by which means both the literal and the fpiritual meaning were rendered perfect. According to this reprefentation, the text and the margin ftood thus.

* in terra.

Et tres funt, qui teftimonium dant in cœlo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum funt,

Quoniam tres funt, qui teftimonium dant, fpiritus, et aqua, et fanguis : et hi tres unum funt.

When

There is no verfion, in which so many, and fo long interpolations have been made, as in the Latin.

Marginal gloffes were very common in the Latin manufcripts.

When a copy of this kind fell into the hands of ignorant tranfcribers, who were making new tranfcripts of the Latin Bible, they imagined, that what was written in the margin was a part of the text, which had been omitted by mistake; confequently they inferted it in the text of the manufcript, which they themselves were writing. But fome of them inferted the marginal reading before the text, of which it was the interpretation, others after it: and this is the reafon why the controverted paffage has no fixed place in the Latin manufcripts, the heavenly witnefles fometimes preceding, fometimes following the earthly witneffes.

In this manner the paffage having gained admittance into one or more Latin manufcripts written in Africa, it had the undeferved good fortune to be quoted in the Confeffion of Faith, prefented at the end of the fifth century by the Afiican bifhops to Hunerich, king of the Vandals'. And as thefe bishops became martyrs, and were faid even to have performed a miracle', the paffage in confequence of its having been quoted in their Confeffion, not only acquired celebrity, but was ftamped with authority. Hence other Latin tranfcribers, especially they, who lived in Africa, were induced to follow the example of thofe, who transferred the paffage from the margin to the text. And, as the Carthaginian and Roman churches were clofely allied, this example foon fpread itself to the tranfcribers, who lived in Italy. It must be obferved however, that the example was not imitated. univerfally: for Facundus, who lived in the fixth century, did not find the paffage in his manufcript of the Latin verfion. This appears from

In the modern tranfcripts of the Vulgate, the former arrangement generally prevails: but Bengel preferred the latter.

That this quotation is no argument for the authenticity of the paffage, has been fhewn in the third fection of this chapter..

• It was afferted, that they spake after their tongues were cut out,