the paffage, and as he was likewife highly distinguished both for his accuracy and his fcrupulous confcientioufnefs, we may fafely take for granted, that the charges are true, which this able and honeft advocate has admitted. They are as follows..

1. Not a fingle Greek manufcript, written before the fixteenth century, contains the controverted paffage. 2. Though

f The Codex Montfortianus, which contains the paffage, was written in England after the year 1500. As to the Codex Ravianus, which likewife contains the paffage, it is a mere forgery, as the reader will find on confulting my catalogue of MSS. in the fecond volume of this Introduction, Ch. viii. Sect. 6. No. 195. Further, the paffage is contained in a Wolfenbüttel MS. called by Knittel in his New Criticisms on John v. 7. Codex Guelpherbytanus D. But it is certain that this MS. was written fo late as the last century. See my catalogue of MSS. No. 131. Laftly, there is another MS. in the fame library, called by Knittel Guelpherbytanus C, (No. 130. in my cata logue), in which the paffage is found, not in the text, but in the margin, and written, not by the perfon who wrote the manufcript, but in a very different, and in a very modern hand. However this MS. has an unusual reading in the text: for inftead of iri gig o oi μαρτύροντες, το πνευμα, κ.τ.λ. it has ὅτι οἱ τρεις εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυρώντες, To whoμx, X. T.A. whence Knittel conjectures, but, as far I can fee without the leaft foundation, that 1 John v. 7. was contained in the text of the more ancient manufcript, from which this was copied.

I

8 Since the time that Bengel made this candid confeffion, many more Greek MSS. have been examined, but the paffage has been found in none. Wetstein's lift amounts to eighty-feven: to which may be added the Molfheim MS (No. 179 in my catalogue) collated by Father Goldhagen. It is true that Goldhagen does not fay in exprefs terms, that this MS. omits 1 John v. 7.: but as his particular object was to confirm the readings of the vulgate, his filence at this place in regard to the Molfheim MS. is a tacit acknowledgement. Further, the famous manufcript-thief Aymon was in poffeffion of a leaf, which he had torn out of a MS. containing the firft Epiftle of St. John, which he fhewed to Mr. Uffenbach, and which omitted 1 John v. 7. See Uffenbach's Travel's, Vol. III. p. 477. It is true that in this leaf, a modern hand had written the paffage in the margin: but this may be done in every MS. if the margin has only fufficient breadth. In the library belonging to the city of Bern, there is likewife a Greek MS. fuppofed to have been written in the ninth century, which omits the paffage, as appears from the Catalogus Codd. MSS. bibliothecæ Bernenfis, published by T. R. Sinner de Ballaigeres. Clark, in his Letters on Spain, relates that he did not find the paffage, in the MSS. which he confulted in the Spanish libraries: and Birch in his Letter published in the Orient. Bibl. Vol. XXIII. p. 152. declares that among all the VOL. IV. Greek

2. Though it is contained in the common printed editions of the Greek Teftament, it was not inferted on the authority of Greek manufcripts: for the editors of the Complutenfian edition tranflated it from Latin into Greek: and from the Complutenfian, it was transferred to the other editions of the Greek Teftament.

i

3. It is contained in no other ancient version, than the Latin. It is wanting in both Syriac verfions, in the Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Ruffian fions. It is true that in modern times the paffage has been interpolated in the two laft mentioned verfions: but in the former it was not interpolated before the fourteenth, and in the latter not before the feventeenth century.

4. Not all the manufcripts even of the Latin verfion contain it. In fome it is totally omitted: in others it is found only in the margin. and of thofe, which have it in the text, fome place it before, others after, the earthly witneffes.

5. The ancient Greek fathers have never quoted the paffage, not even in thofe places, where we thould the moft expect it.

Confequently we must either admit that the paffage in queftion is fpurious, or we must allow, unless we choose

Greek MSS. which he had feen, the paffage was contained in none: and he mentions particularly the celebrated Codex Vaticanus. Tref chow collated five Vienna MSS. (Lambec. 1. 34. 35. 36. 37.) all of which likewife omitted the paffage: but in one of them, the Lambec. 35. a modern hand has added in the margin the two Latin words, alibi aliter. See Trefchow's Tentamen, p. 35. Laftly, Matthäi has examined the Greek manufcripts preferved in the Mofcow libraries: but difcovered the paffage in none,

h Since Bengel's time this has been more fully confirmed by Semler in his More accurate inquiry into the state of the Greek text of the Complutenfian New Teftament.'

i See the fecond volume of this Introduction, Ch. vii. Sect. 37.

* Since Bengel's time, Blanchini and We:ftein have augmented the lift of Latin MSS. which omit 1 John v. 7.: and fince their time it has been augmented by the addition of feveral more, to which I will add a MS. (described in Uffenbach's Travel's, Vol. III. P. 476.) which formerly belonged to Aymon.

choose to be inconfiftent with ourselves, that all other readings contained in fome Latin manufcripts, but rejected by all the Greek manufcripts are genuine. In fact, it is very extraordinary that any man should think of oppofing the teftimony of a single verfion in favour of a paffage to the united evidence of the Greek manufcripts and all other verfions against it, when the copies even of that fingle verfion are not unanimous in its favour, and the very copies, which contain it, are at variance in regard to its pofition.

Of the authorities, which have been adduced in favour of 1 John v. 7.

HE authorities, which Bengel has produced in favour Tof this controverted paffage, are copies of the Latin

verfion, and certain Fathers, and Martyrs, who made ufe of the Latin version.

Now I readily grant that of the Latin manuscripts, which we have at prefent, much the greatest part contain 1 John v. 7. But it must be recollected, that no version has been fo corrupted as the Latin, as appears from the teftimony of Jerom himself. Originally there were feveral diftinct Latin verfions, which by degrees were melted into one, but in fuch a manner, that Jerom found no two copies alike. For the Latin tranfcribers took the most unwarranted liberties, they inferted in one book of the New Teftament, paffages which they took from another, and frequently transferred into the text what they found written in the margin of the manufcript, from which they copied. Under these circumstances, every one must immediately fufpect, that a paffage, which

is wanting in all the ancient Greek manufcripts, and is likewife wanting in many ancient copies even of the Latin verfion, is an interpolation in those Latin manufcripts, which contain it. And in the present inftance, the fame caufe, which has procured fo many zealous advocates in favour of 1 John v. 7. was the principal cause of its introduction and general reception, namely, the importance of the doctrine, which it contains.

I will apply what has been faid in the preceding paragraph to another inftance of interpolation in the Latin verfion, and thence argue to the paffage in queftion. In St. John's Gospel, ch. iii. 6. feveral ancient Latin MSS. added at the end of the verfe, what is found in no other version, and in no Greek manufcript, quia Deus fpiritus eft.' This text was formerly quoted by the Latin fathers, in their difpute about the Trinity, as a proof of the divinity of the Holy Ghoft, and was defended with as much zeal as 1 John v. 7. has been defended in later ages. They likewife afcribed the omiffion of it in thofe copies, which did not contain it, to the malice of the Arians. In feveral refpects then, the addition made in the Latin verfion at 1 John v. 7. is fimilar to that, which was made at John iii. 6. Moreover, the latter has been quoted by fo early a writer as Tertullian, whofe manufcript of the Latin verfion did not contain the former. Much more therefore may be faid in favour of quia Deus Spiritus eft' added in John ii. 6. than in favour of 1 John v. 7: and the one, as well as the other, may be used as a proof text in the doctrine of the Trinity. But I much doubt whether any of our Proteftant divines would venture at prefent to defend the authenticity of quia Deus fpiritus eft;' and the Catholics have long fince rejected it from their copies of the Vulgate. But if it be admitted that quia Deus fpiritus eft,' John iii. 6. is fpurious, how is it poffible to vindicate i John v. 7.?

The ancient writers, which Bengel has produced in favour of 1 John v. 7. are all Latin writers, for he acknowledges, that no Greek father has ever quoted it.

Now,

Now, if no objection could be made to Bengel's witneffes, and the most ancient Latin fathers had quoted in exprefs terms the whole of the controverted paffage, their quotations would prove nothing more than, that the paffage ftood in their manufcripts of the Latin verfion, and therefore that the Latin verfion contained it in a very early age. But it will appear upon examination, that their evidence is very unfatisfactory.

The evidence of Tertullian, the oldeft Latin writer, who has been quoted in favour of 1 John v. 7. is contained in the following paffage of his treatife against Praxeas, B. I. ch. 25. Ita connexus patris in filio, et filii in paracleto, tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum funt, non unus, quomodo dictum eft, ego et pater unum fumus.' Hence it is inferred, that because tres unum funt' ftands at prefent in the Latin verfion at i John v. 7. thefe words ftood there likewife in the time of Tertullian, and that Tertullian borrowed them from the Latin verfion. But this inference is wholly without foundation: for Tertullian does not produce these words as a quotation, and the bare circumftance of his ufing the expreffion, tres unum funt,' will not prove that he found that expreffion in the Bible. On the contrary it is evident from what immediately follows, that John v. 7. was not contained in the Latin verfion, when Tertullian wrote. For in proof of his affertion qui tres unum funt,' he immediately adds, quomodo dictum eft, ego et pater unum fumus,' which is a quotation from St. John's Gofpel, ch. x. 30. Now as this quotation relates, only to the Father and the Son, and not to the Holy Ghoft, furely Tertullian would not have proved the unity of the Trinity from this paffage, if 1 John v. 7., which is much more to the purpose, had then been contained in any Latin manufcript, with which he was acquainted. At any rate the mere use of the words tres unum funt' affords no argument' in favour of the controverted paffage and if any inference is to be deduced from their agreement with our prefent copies of the Latin verfion in 1 John v. 7 it is this, that the perfon,

DD 3