SECTION V.

 
 

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

One should suppose, that no critic, especially if a Protestant, would hesitate a moment to condemn as spurious, a passage, which is contained in no ancient Greek manuscript, is quoted by no Greek father, was unknown to the Alogi in the second century, is wanting in both Syriac versions, in both Arabic versions, in the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonian versions, is contain only in the Latin, and is wanting in many mansucripts even of this version, was quoted by none of the Latin fathers of the four first centuries, and to some of them, who lived so late as the first century, was either wholly unknown, or was not received by them as genuine. To this immense weight of evidence against 1 John v. 7. its advocates oppose the following reasons for retaining it.

In the first place, there is something Divine, Theion quoddam, as Bengel {1} expresses it, both in the passage itself and the preservation of it. But in what this Theion quoddam consists, I really do not know: for Bengel did not mean the Divine doctrine, which the passage contains, since he was really too good a critic to conclude, that a text was genuine, for no other reason, than because its contents were orthodox. Nor can this Theion quoddam be fought in the preservation of the passage; for if a genuine passage of the New Testament has been lost in the Greek, in the Syriac, in the Arabic, and in short in every other than the Latin Bible, it cannot be said, that Divine Providence has particularly watched for its preservation. If this Theion quoddam consists in a certain internal sensation, excited by the reading of the passage, this sensation, if felt only by those, who already receive the passage as genuine, cannot be used as an argument, when the question is in agitation, whether it be genuine {2}, or not. In other instances, Bengel would not have appealed to such a criterion: and indeed if he had, his whole Apparatus Criticus would have been superfluous.

Further, the following reasons are assigned, which might have occasioned the omission of 1 John v. 7..

1) --- That the seventh verse begins and ends in the same manner as the eighth: and therefore that transcribers might have easily overlooked the seventh verse, and consequently have omitted it by mere accident.

2) --- That the Arians might have designedly expunged it, as being inimical to their doctrine {3}.

3) --- That the orthodox themselves might have designedly withdrawn it, ex studio arcani, as Bengel {4} says, that is, out of regard to the mystery of the Trinity, and under the persuasion, that such a passage as 1 John v. 7. ought not be exposed to every reader.

Without examining the strength or weakness of these reasons, I will only observe, that such causes, though they might have produced the omission of the passage in some copies, could not possibly have occasioned it, in all the ancient Greek manuscripts, and in all the ancient versions, except the Latin. Besides, they are wholly foreign to the present purpose: they do not tend to show the authenticity of 1 John v. 7., but account merely for its omission, on the previous supposition, that it is authentic. But this is the thing to be proved. And it is surely absurd, to account for the omission of a passage in St. John's first Epistle, before it has been shown, that the Epistle ever contained it. Suppose I were to cite a man before a court of justice, and demand from him a sum of money, that on being asked by the magistrate, whether I had any bond to produce, in support of the demand, I answered, that I had indeed no bond to produce, but that a bond might have been very easily lost during the troubles of the late war. In this case, if the magistrate should admit the validity of the demand, and oblige the accused party to pay the sum required, every man would conclude, not so much that he was unjust, as that his mental faculties were deranged. But is not this case similar to the case of those, who contend that 1 John v. 7. is genuine, because, it might have been lost? In fact, their situation is still worse, since the loss of a single manuscript is much more credible, than the loss of one and the same passage in more than eighty manuscripts.

Lastly, Bengel entertained hopes, that Greek manuscripts would hereafter be discovered, which contained the passage. Now, till such manuscripts are actually produced, the hope of discovering them will not supply their place. And if we may judge from experience, all hope of discovering any such manuscripts is now at an end: for since Bengel's time, a great number of Greek manuscripts, with which he was unacquainted, have been examined, but none of them contain the controverted passage.
 
 

Footnotes to Sect. V.

{1} --- Sect. 28.

{2} --- Bengel himself says only, "apud eos saltem, qui dictum accipiunt."

{3} --- the Latin fathers said this of the interpolation "quia Deus spiritus est," John iii. 6. but they did not say the same of 1 john v. 7. The charge of having expunged this passage 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.

{4} ---Sect. 25.