The MSS which have been brought forward in connection with the Passage 1 John v. 7., deserve mention, not on account of their value, but because of the degree of notoriety which they have acquired.

CODEX MONTFORTIANUS. (No. 61 in the Gospels; 34 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 40 in St. Paul's Epistles; and 92 in Tregelles's edition of the Apoaclypse). --- This MS derives its present name from its former owner Dr. Montfort, who possessed it before it came into the hands of Archbishop Usher. Montfort was a doctor of divinity at Cambridge in the seventeenth century. A previous owner was William Chark (or Charc), who in 1572 was deprived of his fellowship at Peterhouse, Cambridge, because of his Presbyterian sentiments, and who afterwards became (in 1582) preacher to the Society of Lincoln's Inn. A still earlier owner was Thomas Clement; and before him it belonged to one Froy, a friar. From Archbishop Usher it passed into the library of Trinity College, Dublin, where it is still preserved. The MS was written by different hands: more than one person seems to have copied the Gospels; the Acts and Epistles are from an entirely different hand; and so again is the Apocalypse. Either the parts were once wholly independent of each other, and thus it formed three separate books, afterwards conjoined only because of similarity of size and material; or else, the other parts were added at later times to the Gospels, and thus the present codex was produced. This is so far important, that it relates to the date of the MS.; whatever may be the age of the Gospels, the other parts are more recent. Now the Revelation agrees, as Dr. Barrett showed, in such a manner with the Codex Leicestrensis of that book, as to prove that it was transcribed from that MS.; and as both codices were once in the possession of the same William Chark, it is probable in the highest degree that the Revelation was copied to complete this MS., which must seemed so far deficient in his time, i.e. in the latter half of the sixteenth century. This is confirmed by the corrections, &c., in the margin of the Codex Montfortianus having been made from the Leicestrensis by the same hand. Dr. Dobbin also states that the titles to the books of the New Testament in each of these MSS were added by the same hand. This is apparently stated from memory, and therefore it might be objected that it is not conclusive without an examination of the MSS together. But even if any one feels doubt on the subject, he must admit the resemblance, and that the identity of hand is probable. Thus it is pretty clear that the MS was completed, as it now exists, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, by the addition of the Revelation and the readings now found in the margin. If there had never been any particular reason for discussing the age of this MS., there would apparently have been no difference of opinion; but the Gospels would have been ascribed to the end of the fifteenth century; the Acts and Epistles to a period a little later; and the Apocalypse to the latter half of the sixteenth century, --- not because of the writing of this part of the MS., but simply from the history of the text of that book as here found in connection with Chark, the former owner of this MS., and of the Codex Leicestrensis. But as the occurrence of the passage of 1 John v. 7 in this MS has given it a kind of importance that it could not otherwise have possessed, its antiquity has been by some greatly overstrained, and even its material has been questioned, as if it were not sufficiently evident that it is written on paper and not on vellum. It has often been said by those who have examined it, that it is written on glazed paper; but this is only true of one place, namely the leaves containing 1 John v. 7., and the glazing is either some kind of size which has been used to preserve and strengthen the part which was so often examined, or else it has arisen from the frequent handling of those two pages.
 
 

Erasmus, in his two earliest editions of the Greek Testament, did not insert the text 1 John v. 7., as not finding it in the MSS which he had seen: this was charged against him as a serious fault; and he promised that if any Greek Copy were found containing the text, he would insert it. Before the appearance of his third edition in 1522, he heard of a certain Codex Britannicus containing the words; and on its authority he redeemed his promise by making the addition, though certainly without being convinced of its genuineness. The close verbal agreement of the text, as thus printed by Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus is almost in itself a proof of its identity with the Codex Britannicus of which he had heard; and this becomes all the more evident when it is borne in mind that no other MS containing the text in such a form as this has been found, though the libraries of Europe have been well searched: and farther, this MS seems to have originated in England, and never to have left this country until its removal to its present location, Dublin. Also the resemblance is not confined merely to the words of this verse, for Erasmus had received from England a copy of the seventh, eighth, and part of the ninth verses, which in his Annotations of 1522, and also in "Apologia ad Stunicam," are printed (with two errors [1], indeed, which his Greek Testament corrects); and here there is so much peculiarity as to show that the identity is complete. The non-insertion of the article before the witnesses, either heavenly or earthly, was a pretty indication that the MS had not been copied by any one whose vernacular tongue was Greek; and this was a good intimation of Latin origin or something of the kind. Erasmus suspected that the text of the heavenly witnesses had been introduced by translation from the Latin Vulgate: he also pointed out that in the extract which he had received the omission of the final clause of verse 8 was in accordance with the copies of the Vulgate then current (and this is a strong proof of the identity of his Codex Britannicus with Codex Montfortianus). The Latin influence in this passage is also just as plainly marked in the introduction of Christos instead of Pneuma in the end of verse 6., --- a reading which is found in not other Greek copy [2], and which sprung up from the confusion in Latin MSS of the contractions SPS and XPS.
 
 

Thus this place with the context affords abundant evidence that this was the MS to which Erasmus referred, and that in this passage the copyist was influenced by the Latin Vulgate, introducing, as he did, not a few things which could have no Greek origin. Hence the conclusion is manifest that in this place he followed not any Greek copy whatever, but the Latin, with which he was more familiar. This may have been done, as it was by the Complutensian editors, from honest ignorance and misconception; or it may have originated from a definite design. It is singular, at least, that the Complutensian editors and this copyist should both have omitted the conclusion of the eighth verse; a procedure which in this case looks certainly rather suspicious. [3]
 
 

An imperfect collation of this MS., as far as the latter part of the Acts, made while it was in the possession of Archbishop Usher, is printed in the last volume of Walton's Polyglott. Dr. Barrett collated the remainder of the Ms and published it at the end of his edition of the Dublin palimpset Z.: he pointed out the identity of text of this MS and the Codex Leicestrensis in the Apocalypse, and also drew attention to the close resemblance of many of the readings in the Acts and Epistles to those of a MS in the library of Lincoln College, Oxford (No. 39 St. Paul's Epistles; No. 33 Acts and Catholic Epistles.) --- a resemblance sufficiently great to lead to the supposition that the one may have been used in part as the examplar from which the other was taken. Recently Dr. Dobbin has carefully collated the portion of the Codex Montfortianus which was not re-collated by Dr. Barrett; and he has also taken some pains to ascertain what were the MSS used in its formation. In doing this he has collated the Lincoln College MS., and he states that the resemblance is quite as great as would have been supposed from what Barrett had noticed.
 
 

The proofs of identity of text which he gives are by no means conclusive; for they are almost all of them particulars in which very many MSS agree: some of them indeed are such as are found in the generality of copies; so that coincidences of this kind prove nothing; they might indeed seem to weaken the cause which they are brought forward to uphold. And thus the conclusion at which Dr. Dobbin arrives is one which cannot be said to rest on true logical data; for he supposes that he has shown that the Lincoln College MS is the archetype of the Epistle in the Codex Montfortianus (the very point which for his argument required unexceptional proof), and then, as the Lincoln College MS does not contain 1 John v. 7., he thinks that he has proved its insertion in the Montfort MS to be an unjustified addition. This conclusion is quite correct, though this process of proof is not sufficient. The relation of this MS to that of Lincoln College was a fact previously known, and such it still remains, even though this could hardly be demonstrated from the new evidence on the subject, at least from that part of it which has been published. [4].
 
 

To conclude all that need be said of the Codex Montfortianus: the Gospels (which in part appear to have been copied from MSS still at Oxford) cannot be much older than the year 1500, even if not modern. The epistles and Acts were afterwards added; and this could not have been done much before the time when this MSS was used as evidence against Erasmus: and as it is certain that the copyist here altered the Greek, and made it suit the Latin, and as it was brought forward just when it was needed (having been in that sense found, while so many other MSS remained in obscurity), and no similar copy having ever since appeared which has not been proved to be a forgery, it is hardly too severe a conclusion, if we believe that the Epistles were written at that time, and added to the Gospels, in order to meet Erasmus, and to compel him to insert the text. And thus, whether by mistake or fraud, from this MS the text 1 John v. 7., (with a few corrections for the sake of grammatical propriety) has been established in the common text, and has been introduced into the greater part (if not all) of the modern translations of Holy Scripture.
 
 

The only part of this MSS which possesses any critical value is the most recent, i.e., the Apocalypse; for as the Codex Leicestrensis is defective at the end, this trancript from it of that book has been the means of preserving the readings of that part which is now defective.
 
 

The following facsimile was copied (by permission) for the Rev. T.H. Horne from that which appeared in the Rev. A. Clarke's "Concise View of the Succession of Sacred Literarure," (London 1807,) and which was traced by the Rev. Dr. Barrett of Trinity College, Dublin.

CODEX OTTOBONIANUS (No. 298 in the Vatican Library); a MS containing the Acts and Epistles, to which attention was directed by Scholz (who ddesignated it 162 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 200 in those of St. Paul). This MS is simply remarkable for its having been found to contain 1 John v. 7., in any form. It does not, however, confirm the Codex Montfortianus at all in this passage (unless it be in the want of grammatical propriety); and it affords a farther proof, if any such could have been wanted, that both these forms of the text in Greek are mere transaltions from the Vulgate. This MS is, however, at least the more respectable of the two.
 
 

The following facsimile contains the one passage an account of which this MS is at all an object of interest or curiosity.

It was copied from the tracing made in 1829 by Dr. Wiseman (then Vice-President of the English College at Rome, now a Cardinal), for the late Dr. Burgess, Bishop of Salisbury, by whose permission it was used by the Rev. T.H. Horne.
 
 

As reference has been made to the form of the passage in this MS., and as the contracted writing is not easily read by those who are not familiar with mediaeval Greek MSS., the passage contained in the facsimile is subjoined in ordinary characters.
 
 

The Greek letters between the two columns appear to be partly faded or scaled off, so that but a portion of them seems to have been traced by Dr. Wiseman: perha;ps they could not be explained with certainty without subjecting the MS itself to a very close inspection; they look, however, like part of a scholion relating to the passage itself which has thus been introduced so peculiarly into the Greek. Scholz, who first drew attention to this singular MS [5]., does not appear to mention anything respecting the scholia interposed between the columns. On this account the Ms deserves a reinspection, which the writer was not able to give; for while he was in Rome (1845 - 46) this Codex was removed from its place in the Vatican for the use (it was understood) of the late Cardinal Mai in the Altieri Palace.
 
 

Other Greek MSS said to contain 1 John v. 7. --- The other MSS mentioned by any writers as containing this passage may be passed by very briefly. None require any notice but those which can be produced; for MSS the existence of which is merely rumoured, are found almost invariably to be non-existent.

The Codex Ravianus at Berlin certainly contains this passage; but the MS itself is nothing whatever but a modern transcript taken almost entirely from the Complutensian Polyglott with a few readings introduced from the text of Erasmus. The very hand-writing is an imitation of the Complutensian Greek types. The real character of this MS., which some in the last century were so incautious as to quote as though it possessed authority, was very fully shown by Griesbach and Pappelbaum. [6]. This MS is now preserved at Berlin simply as a literary forgery, and not as the precious monument of the sacred text which it was once described as being. It is uncertain who formed this MS., and whether Rave himself took a part in the fraud, or whether he was himself the dupe of others. A learned man who had not made MSS his study might be thus misled.

Codex Regius Neapolitanus. --- This MS (173 in Scholz's list) requires to be mentioned here, in consequence of that editor having in his Greek Testament cited it as containing the passage in question, though taken (he says) from the Latin. It is, therefore, of some importance to notice how the passage appears in this codex; and this we are able to do from the exact statement of Birch. [7]

In Codice Neapolitano Regio textux hujus commatis cum additamentis, recenti charactere in margine scriptis, sequenti modo reperitur:
 
 

Other MSS which were formerly referred as though they might be authorities for this clause, such as one of those at Wolfenbuttel, are in fact only transcripts of some printed Greek Testament; though executed, probably, without any dishonest intention. They require no specific notice.

[1] --- These errors were repeated in each impression of this note, and of the "Apologia." They consisted in the omission of oi before the second marturountes, and the omission of agion after pneuma. But as the note refers to the Greek Testament which accompanied it, it is worse than folly to argue (as some have done) on this difference.
 
 

[2] --- For Scholz is wholly incorrect in citing the same reading from Codex Passionei (G., of the catholic Epistles), as the present writer can testify, and as may be seen by Blanchini's facsimile of this very passage from that MS.
 
 

[3] --- The connection of England with Spain in the former part of the reign of Henry VIII., through the dependants, &c., of his first Queen, Catharine of Aragon, must be remembered in connection with this subject. Edward Lee was engaged in the same cause as Stunica; and though the latter would not have resorted to mere fraud in order to overwhelm Erasmus, the former will not be deemed incapable of this by those who know his dishonest controversial writings.
 
 

[4] --- "The Codex Monfortianus: a collation of this celebarted MS in the Library of trinity College, Dublin, throughout the Gospels and Acts … By Orlando T. Dobbin, LL.D., T.C.D., M.R.I.A." Bagsters. 1854
 
 

[5] --- "Biblisch . - Kritische Reise in Frankreich der Schweitz, Italien, Palatina und im Archipel, in den Jahren 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, nebst einer Geschichte des Textes des N.T. von Dr. Joh. Mart. Augustin Scholz. Leipzig und Sorau. 1823." P. 105.
 
 

[6] --- See Griesbach's Symboloae Criticae, i., p. , clxxxi, seq., and the extracts from Pappelbaum, given by Bp. Marsh, in his "Letters to Travis" (Appendix), pp. 241 - 252., where he shows that Travis had, by parial extracts, represented Pappelbaum as bearing a testimony the very reverse of that which he really had given.
 
 

[7] --- Variae Lectiones ad Act. App. Epp. Catholicarum et pauli, p. 106.