The outcry which has been made in some quarters against the Revisers for omitting the disputed words in 1 John v. 7, and without a hint in the margin that there is any authority for them, is not creditable to English scholarship. The veteran scholar Dollinger expressed his surprise at this outcry in a conversation with the present writer in July, 1882: and he expressed his amazement and amusement that anyone in these days should write a book in defence of the passage, in a conversation in September, 1883. The Revisers's action is a very tardy act of justice; and we may hope that, whether their work as a whole is authorised or not, leave will before long be granted to the clergy to omit these words in reading 1 John v. as a Lesson at Morning or Evening Prayer, or as the Epistle for the First Sunday after Easter.

The insertion of the passage in the first instance was quite indefensible, and it is difficult to see upon what sound principles its retention can be defended. There would be no difficulty in treating this case by itself and leaving other disputed texts to be dealt with hereafter. The passage stands absolutely alone (a) in the completeness of the evidence against it, (b) in the momentous character of the insertion. A summary of the evidence at greater length than could conveniently be given in a note will convince any unprejudiced person that (as Dr. Dollinger observed) nothing in textual criticism is more certain than that the disputed words are spurious.
 
 

(i) --- The External Evidence.
 
 

1. Every Greek Uncial MS. omits the passage.

2. Every Greek Cursive MS. earlier than the fifteenth century omits the passage.

3. Out of about 250 known Cursive MSS. only two [No. 162 of the 15th century and No. 34 of the 16th century] contain the passage, and in them it is a manifest translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate.

Erasmus hastily promised that if he could find the words in a single Greek MS. he would insert them in his text; and on the authority of No. 34 (61 of the Gospels) he inserted them in his third edition (1522); Beza and Stephanus inserted them also: and hence their presence in all English Versions until the Revised Version of 1881.

4. Every Ancient Version of the firt four centuries omits the passage.

5. Every Version earlier than the fourteenth century, except the LAtin, omits the passage.

6. No Greek father quotes the passage in any of the numerous discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity. Against Sabellianism and Arianism it would have been almost conclusive.

It has been urged that the orthodox fathers did not quote v. 7 because in conjunction with v. 8 it might be used in the interests of Arianism; in other words that they shirked a passage, which they saw might tell against them, instead of proving that it did not tell against them! And Cyril must not only have shirked but suppressed the disputed words, for he thrice quotes the passage without them. But in that case why did not the Arians quote v. 7? Had they done so, the orthodox would have replied and shown the true meaning of both verses. Evidently both parties were ignorant of its existence.

Again, it has been urged that the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture printed in some editions of the Greek fathers, and also the so-called Disputation with Arius, "seem to betray an aquaintance with the disputed verse." Even if this 'seeming' could be shown to be a reality, the fact would prove no more than that the interpolation existed in a Geek as well as a Latin form about the fifth century.

Can we seriously defend a text which does not even 'seem' to be known to a single Greek father until 350 years or more after St. John's death?

Could we defend a passage as Chaucer's which was never quoted until the nineteenth century, and was in no edition of his works of earlier date than that? --- And the 'seeming' can not be shown to be a reality.

7. No Latin father earlier than the fifth century quotes the passage.

It is sometimes stated that Tertullian possibly, and S. Cyprian certainly, knew the passage. Even if this were true, it would prove nothing for the genuineness of the words against the mass of testimony mentioned in the first six of these paragraphs. Such a fact would only prove that the insertion, which is obviously of Latin origin, was made ata very early date. But the statement is not true. "Tertullian and Cyprian use language which makes it morally certain that they would have quoted these words had they known them" (Westcott and Hort --- Vol. II. p. 104).

Tertullain's words are as follows:--- "De meo sumet, 'inquit sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus; quomodo dictum est, 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. "He saith, He shall take of mine (John 16:14), even as He Himself of the Father. Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, maketh Three that cohere together one from the other: which Three are one Substance, not one Person; as it is said, I and My Father are one (John 10:30), in respect to unity of essence, not to singularity of number" (Adv. Praxean 25).

S. Cyprian writes thus; Dicit Dominus, 'Ego et Pater unum sumus'; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, 'Et tres unum sunt.' "The Lord saith, I and the Father are one; and again it is written concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, And three are one" (De Unit. Eccl. 6).

It is very difficult to believe that Tertullian's words contain any allusion to the disputed passage. The passage in S. Cyprian seems at first sight to look like such an allusion; but in all probability he has in his mind the passage which follows the disputed words; 'the spirit, the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one'; the Latin Version of which runs, spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres unum sunt. For the Vulgate makes no difference between the conclusions of vv. 7 and 8; in both cases the sentence with et hi tres unum sunt. That S. Cyprian should thus positively allude to 'the spirit, the water, and the blood' as 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' will seem improbable to no one who is familiar with the extent to which the fathers make any triplet found in Scripture, not merely suggest, but signify the Trinity.

To take an example from Cyprian himself: "We find that the three children with Daniel, strong in faith and victorious in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hour, as it were, for a sacrament of the Trinity, which in the last times had to be manifested. For both the first hour in its progress to the third shows for the consummated number of the Trinity, and also the fourth proceeding to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when from the seventh the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered every three hours" (Dom. Orat. 34).

But perhaps the most conclusive aargument in favour of the view that Cyprian is alluding to 'the spirit, the water, and the blood,' and not to 'the Three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,' is S. Augustine's treatment of the passage in question. In all his voluminous writings there is no trace of the clause about the Three Heavenly Witnesses; but about 'the spirit, the water and the blood' he writes thus:--- "Which three things if we look as as they are in themselves, they are in substances several and distinct, and not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the one, only, true, supreme God, Father, and Son and Holy Spirit, of whom it could most truly be said, There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are one. So that by the term 'spirit' we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, God is spirit. By the term 'blood,' the Son; because the Word was made flesh.