SECT. III.

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

The authorities, which Bengel has produced in favour of this controverted passage, are copies of the Latin version, and certain fathers, and martyrs, who made use of the Latin version.

Now I readily grant that of the Latin manuscripts, which we have at present, much the greatest part contain 1 John v. 7.. But it must recollected, that no version has been so corrupted as the Latin, as appears from the testimony of Jerome himself. Originally there were several distinct Latin versions, which by degrees were melted into one, but in such a manner, that Jerome found no two copies alike. For the Latin transcribers took the most unwarranted liberties, they inserted in one book of the New Testament, passages which they took from another, and frequently transferred into the text what they found written in the margin of the manuscript, from which they copied. Under these circumstances, every one must immediately suspect, that a passage, which is wanting in all the ancient Greek manuscripts, and is likewise wanting in many ancient copies even of the Latin version, is an interpolation in those Latin manuscripts, which contain it. And in the present instance, the same cause, which has procured so 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 said in the preceding paragraph to another instance of interpolation in the Latin version, and thence argue to the passage in question. In St. John's Gospel. ch. iii. 6. several ancient Latin MSS. added at the end of the verse, what is found in no other version, and in no Greek manuscript, "quia Deus spiritus est." This text was formerly quoted by the Latin fathers, in their dispute about the Trinity, as a proof of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and was defended with as much zeal as 1 John v. 7. has been defended in later ages. They likewise ascribed the omission of it in those copies, which did not contain it, to the malice of the Arians. In several respects then, the addition made in the Latin version at 1 john v. 7. is similar to that, which was made at John iii. 6. Moreover, the latter has been quoted by so early a writer as Tertullian, whose manuscript of the Latin version did not contain the former. Much more therefore may be said in favour of "quia Deus Spiritus est" added in John iii. 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 Protestant divines would venture at present to defend the authenticity of "quia Deus spiritus est;" and the catholics have long since rejected it from their copies of the Vulgate. But if it be admitted that "quias Deus spiritus est," John iii. 6. is spurious, how is it possible to vindicate 1 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, if no objection could be made to Bengel's witnesses, and the most ancient Latin fathers had quoted in express terms the whole of the controverted passage, their quotations would prove nothing more than, that the passage stood in their manuscripts of the Latin version contained, and therefore that the Latin version contained it in a very early age. But it will appear upon examination, that their evidence is very unsatisfactory.

The evidence of Tertullian, the oldest Latin writer, who has been quoted in favour of 1 John v. 7. is contained in the following passage of his treatise against Praxeas, B. I. ch. 25. "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.' " Hence it is inferred, that because 'tres unum sunt' stands at present in the Latin version at 1 John v. 7. these words stood likewise in the time of Tertullian, and that Tertullian borrowed them from the Latin version. But this inference is wholly without foundation: for Tertullian does not produce these words as a quotation, and the bare circumstance of his using the expression, "tres unum sunt," will not prove that he found that expression in the Bible. On the contrary it is evident from what immediately follows, that 1 John v. 7. was not contained in the Latin version, when Tertullian wrote. For in proof of his assertion "qui tres unum sunt," he immediately adds, quomodo dictum est, "Ego et Pater unum sumus," which is a quotation from St. John's Gospel, ch. X. 30. Now as this quotation relates only to the Father and the Son, and not to the Holy Ghost, surely Tertullian would not have proved the unity of the Trinity from this passage, if 1 John v. 7., which is much more to the purpose, had then been contained in any Latin manuscript, with which he was acquainted. At any rate the mere use of the words "tres unum sunt" affords no argument in favour of the controverted passage: and if any inference is to be deduced from their agreements with our present copies of the Latin version in 1 John v. 7. it is this, the person, who afterwards fabricated this passage retained an expression, which had been sanctioned by the authority of Tertullian. So much for the evidence of this Latin father, the only writer of the second century, to whom appeal has been made.

Of the Latin fathers, who lived in the third century, Cyprian alone has been produced as evidence in favour of 1 John v. 7.. From the writings of Cyprian two passages have been quoted, as proofs, that 1 John v. 7. was contained in his manuscript of the Latin version. The one is from his Epistle to Jubaianus, where Cyprian write thus. "Si baptizari quis apud haereticum potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit: si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est: quaero, cujus Dei? Si creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit: si Christi, non hujus potest sieri templum, qui negat Deum Christum : si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?" Here it must be observed that the words "cum tres unum sunt," though inserted in the later editions of Cyprian's works, are not contained in that edition, which was published by Erasmus: and even if they were genuine, they would prove nothing more, than the same words, just quoted from Tertullian. The other passage, which is much more to the purpose, is in Cyprian's treatise De Unitate Ecclesiae, where Cyprian writes thus. "Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus: et iterum de Patre et Filio, et Spiritus Sancto, scriptum est; et tres unum sunt. Now admitting that the words "et tres unum sunt" were quoted by Cyprian from 1 john v. 7. I seriously ask every impartial judge, whether a passage found in no ancient Greek manuscript, quoted by no Greek father, and contained in no other ancient version tha the Latin, is therefore to be pronounced genuine, merely because one single Latin father of the three first centuries, who was bishop of Carthage, where the Latin version only was used, and where Greek was unknown, has quoted it? Under these circumstances should we conclude, that the passage stood originally in the Greek autograph of St. John? Certainly not: for the only inference, which could be deduced from Cyprian's quotation, would be this, that the passage had been introduced into the Latin version, so early as the third century.