to its authenticity, for the only inference which we can deduce is, that the paffage was contained in the Latin manuscripts, then ufed in Africa. We may infer that Eugenius, who drew up the confeffion, found the paffage in his Latin manufcript; but that all the bifhops, who figned this confeffion, found the quoted paffage likewife in their manufcripts, is a very unwarrantable inference. For, when a formulary of religious articles is compofed, however numerous the perfons may be, who fet their names to it, it is in fact the work only of him, who drew it up: and a subscription to such a formulary, though it conveys a general affent to the doctrines contained in it, by no means implies, that every fubfcriber has, previous to his fubfcription, examined every argument adduced, or every quotation, that is alleged in it, and obtained a thorough conviction, that not one of them is exceptionable. I believe no man would venture to affirm this of all those, who subscribe to the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran church: and yet our Symbolic Books were certainly drawn up with full as much care and accuracy, as the Confeffion of Faith, which the orthodox bifhops of Africa prefented to Hunerich.

6

But, it is faid, the Arians themselves, who were prefent, when this Confeffion was delivered, made no objection to the quotation, Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in cœlo, &c. :' that they acknowledged therefore by their very filence, that the paffage was not fpurious. Now this is a very weak and even abfurd argument. For, in the first place, we have no further knowledge of this tranfaction, than what the orthodox themselves have given of it: and therefore it is not fair, to conclude, that the Arians made no objections, merely from the circumftance, that no objections are on record. Secondly, if the conclufion were admiffible, nay, were it abfolutely certain, that the Arians, who were prefent at this conference, admitted, Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in cælo, &c.' it would follow only, that "the paffage was in their Latin manu

scripts,

1

fcripts, as the quotation of it fhews, that it was in the Latin manufcript of Eugenius, who drew up the Confeffion. For thefe Arians were Vandals, who had been driven out of Spain into Africa, who read the Bible only in the Latin translation, and were totally unacquainted with Greek. Confequently their filence on the quotation of a paffage from the Latin tranflation, at the end of the fifth century, affords no prefumption whatsoever, that the paffage exifted in the Greek original. Laftly, the whole tranfaction between Hunerich with his Arian Vandals, on the one side, and the orthodox bishops of Africa on the other, was of fuch a nature, as was very ill adapted to the decifion of a critical question. For these Vandals did not combat by argument, but by force: and they brought their adverfaries to filence, not by reafoning with them, but by cutting out their tongues. To argue therefore from the filence of fuch men to the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. is nearly the fame, as an appeal in its favour to the testimony of a Ruffian corporal.

SECT. IV.

The Alogi did not reject the first Epistle of St. John: conJequently in their time, that is, in the fecond century, the Epistle did not contain the controverted paffage.

IN

N the fecond century there arofe a fect, to which Epiphanius has given the title of Alogi', because they would not admit the application of the term Aoyos

to

That the Alogi appeared fo early as the fecond century is certain, For Theodotus, whom Epiphanius (Hæref. 54. al. 34) defcribes as, αποσπασμα εκ της Αλάγε αιρεσεως, lived in he time of the emperor Severus. See Eufebii Hift. Ecclef. Lib. V. cap. 28. p. 252, 253. ed. Reading.

to Chrift. The reafon, which they affigned, was, that Cerinthus had applied the term in this manner: whence they argued, that it could not have been thus used by an Apostle. Accordingly, they rejected both St. John's Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe: and they not only denied, that St. John was the author of these two books, but even afcribed them to Cerinthus. It is evident therefore, that men of this description must have rejected likewise the first Epistle of St. John, if in their time it had contained the controverted paffage for there the term Aoyos is undoubtedly applied to the second perfon of the Trinity. If then it can be fhewn, that the Alogi made no objection to this Epiftle, we must conclude, that ch. v. 7. was not contained in the Greek manufcripts, which exifted in the fecond century: for had it been contained in any copies, however few, fo remarkable a paffage could not have remained unknown to

them.

The oldeft writer, who has given any account of thefe perfons, is Philaftrius, who exprefsly declares, that they rejected St. John's Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe; but he fays nothing of their rejection of any of his Epiftles. The next writer, who has mentioned this fect, is Epiphanius, who collected, with the utmoft zeal, all hiftorical information, which he could obtain, against the heretics, and has frequently charged them with more than his information warranted. But in the prefent inftance, though he has afferted, that the Alogi rejected, the Gofpel of St. John and the Apocalypfe, and fometimes fpeaks in indefinite terms of their rejecting St. John's writings, yet when he mentions St. John's Epiftles in particular, he does not fay, that the Alogi rejected thefe likewife; he hints only a private fufpicion,

that

f Philaftrii Hæref. LX. or (according to fome editions), Hærefis, quæ fub Apoftolis extitit XIII. The fuperfcription is, Hærefis, Evangelium Johannis, et Apocalypfin ipfius rejiciens: and the first words of the text are, Poft hos funt hæretici, qui Evangelium fecundum Joannem, et Apocalypfin ipfius non recipiunt.

that they perhaps did fo. I will quote the words of Epiphanius, Hæref. LI. § 3. that the reader may judge · for himfelf. Είχον την αίρεσιν καλεμένην, αποβάλλεσαν Ιωαντε τας βιβλος. Επει αν τον λόγον ο δέχονται τον παρα Ιωάννη κεκηρυγμένου, Αλογοι κληθήσονται αλλότριοι τοινυν πανταπασιν ὑπάρχοντες τα κηρύγματος της αληθειας, αρνονται το καθαρόν κηρυγματος, και ετε το το Ιωάννη Ευαγγελιου δέχονται, ετε την αυτή Αποκαλυψιν. Και ει μεν εδέχοντο το Ευαγγελίου, την δε Αποκαλυψιν απεβάλλοντο, ελεγομεν αν, μη πη αρα κατα ακρι βολογίαν τοτο ποιωνται, απόκρυφον μη δεχομενοι, δια τα εν τη Αποκαλύψει βαθέως και σκοτεινως ειρημένα. Όποτε δε ο δε χονται φύσει τα βιβλια τα απο το άγιο Ιωάννα κεκηρυγμένα, παντι τω δηλον ότι έτοι εισι, και οἱ όμοιοι τέτοις, περὶ ὧν ειπεν ὁ ἅγιος Ιωάννης εν ταις καθολικαις επισολαις, ότι εσχατη ώρα εσι, και ηκέσατε ότι αντίχριστος έρχεται, και νυν ιδι αντίχριστοι πολλοι, και τα εξης. Here Epiphanius twice fpeaks in indefinite terms of the writings of St. John, as if the Alogi rejected them all: yet, when he fpecifies thofe, which they rejected, he names only the Gospel, and the Apocalypfe, as he does alfo, Hæref. LIV. § 1. where he fays, that the Alogi rejected rejected το κατά Ιωάννην Ευαγγελίου, και τον εν αυτῷ εν αρχή οντα Θεον λόγον, και την αυτε Αποκαλυψιν, but fays nothing of the Epifties. And the following paffage, Hæref. LI. § 34. puts the matter out of doubt; where likewife fpeaking of the Alogi he fays, Επαίρονται δε παλιν τη διανοια οι αυτοι λεξι θηρευτές απείρως, ίνα δόξωσι παρεκβαλλειν τα το άγιο Αποςολε βιβλια, φημί δε Ιωάννη τοτε Ευαγγέλιον, και την Αποκαλυψιν ταχα δε και τας Επισολας, συνάδεσι γαρ και αὗται τῳ Ευαγ γελίῳ, και τη Αποκαλυψει. Hence it appears,

1. That Epiphanius, by his own confeffion, means only the 'Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe, when he fays, that the Alogi rejected the writings of St. John.

2. That he is inclined indeed to excite a fufpicion, that they rejected perhaps the Epiftles alfo; but that he is not able to bring any evidence in fupport of this fufpicion, or any confeffion from the Alogi themfelves.

Further, Epiphanius, who writes As a man well acquairated with the works of the Alogi, delivers, at full

length,

length, their objections to the writings of St. John: but among all these objections, there is not one, which is directed againft St. John's Epiftles, for they relate entirely to the Gospel and the Apocalypfe.

Laftly, the other ecclefiaftical writers, who fpeak of the Alogi, namely, Auguftins, John of Damafcus", and the anonymous author of the work called, Prædeftinatus, five prædeftinatorum hærefis, agree in the affertion, that they rejected St. John's Gospel, and the Apocalypse: but not one of them has afferted, that the Alogi rejected his first Epistle.

The premises therefore, laid down in the title of this fection, being thus éftablished, the inference follows of courfe.

SECT. V.

Of the reasons alleged for retaining 1 John v. 7. though the evidence of manuscripts, fathers, and verfions is decidedly against it.

Ο

NE fhould fuppofe, that no critic, especially if a proteftant, would hefitate a moment to condemn as fpurious, a paffage, which is contained in no ancient Greek manufcript, is quoted by no Greek father, was unknown to the Alogi in the fecond century, is want

8 Hæref. XXX.

ing

Joannis Damafceni Opp. Hæref. LI. p. 88. of to Evayyshior to κατά Ιωάννην αθετώντες, και την Αποκαλυψιν αυτε, δια το τον ελθοντα εκ τε πατρος θεον λόγον, οντα αει, μη δέχεσθαι.

i Bibliotheca Patrum maxima, Tom. XXVII. hærefis Alogorum fic vocata, quia Verbum Dei nolunt, in tantum, ut Evangelium S. Joannis Apocalypfin accipiunt ejufdem Joannis.

P

P. 549. 549. Tricefima effe filium, accipere ipfius non effe; nec