66

Upon the whole, if it shall appear from the Vatican MS. when retrieved, that the Complutensian Editors, inserted the disputed passage of St. John from that most ancient copy, an end will be put effectually to the insults of the adversaries of that passage. And if it cannot be discovered, but must be given up for a lost or perished copy, yet still the strong probabilities will continue, that the Complutensian Editors inserted the said passage from it. However, it is very just and reasonable, that the controversy about this passage should be suspended, till the greatest diligence possible be used to find out the celebrated Vatican MS. And then it will be time enough to decide upon the authority of this passage. In the mean time, as the method proposed by yourself, Sir, of endeavouring to find out whether the said passage be genuine or not, by an accurate collation of the most ancient Latin MSS. of the New Testament, as supposed to be translated from the most ancient uncorrupt Greek copies; as this consequential method, I say, is subsidiary, and may contribute to give some new light, in this dispute, (though it cannot be allowed to be a decisive argument,) so is it highly probable, that it is a method which will be serviceable towards the establishment of this passage of St. John. For far the greater number of those Latin MSS. that have been hitherto collated by learned men, retain this passage; and many of them, no doubt, are very ancient. Whatever be the result of collating your own Latin MSS., asserted by you to be very ancient, the public will be glad to be informed of it. For though it should happen, that they want this passage, it will not be conclusive against that of a multitude of other very

ancient Latin MSS. that are known not (Query?) to retain it.

"On the other side, if it shall appear from the Vatican MS., when retrieved, that the Complutensian Editors did not insert the disputed passage from that most ancient copy, but from Latin copies of great antiquity; though such a discovery would confute the reasons assigned in this discourse, yet agreeably to the method proposed by yourself, Sir, of finding out the genuine Greek text by the concurrence of very ancient Latin copies, that were translated from the most ancient and uncorrupt Greek MSS., I say upon this principle, neither the reputation of the Complutensian Editors of the Greek Testament, nor the authority of this controverted text in particular, would be affected by such a discovery. For if Stunica and his brethren were persuaded that most, if not all, the Greek MSS. of St. John, that are now extant, were corrupted, and that the Latin copies that retain this controverted passage ought justly to be inserted in that edition, as in fact it was; I do not see why they ought to undergo any censure from yourself, who pay so great a regard to, and lay so mighty a stress upon, the ancient Latin copies of the New Testament, whatever opinion the rest of the learned world might, on this occasion, entertain, by way of diminution of the authority of the Complutensian Editors."

That neither the Vatican MS., nor any other used by the Complutensian Editors, contained the passage, has been most satisfactorily proved: consequently the main argument of this pamphlet, by the Bishop's own admission, is overthrown. The other argument, addressed to Dr. Bentley himself, on the ad hominem principle, is worth very little. Bentley's edi

tion was never published, so that how the passage might have appeared in it, may be matter of dispute; but that he believed the passage to be spurious is well ascertained, from a discourse which he delivered on the subject, which is still preserved. A letter also from Bentley to an anonymous friend, shows that his sentiments were understood to be unfavourable to the authority of the verse; and certainly was not intended to remove that unfavourable impression. The execution of his edition of the New Testament on the principle of that letter, would undoubtedly have left out the text.

*

The first edition of the Greek New Testament published in England, which omits the passage, appeared in 1729.

"The New Testament in Greek and English, containing the Original Text, corrected from the Authority of the most Authentic MSS. And a new Version formed agreeably to the Illustrations of the most learned Commentators and Critics with Notes and various Readings." London. 2 vols. 8vo.

The editor and translator of this work was Dr. Mace, of whose history very little is known, but that he belonged to the free school of theology. The Greek text is beautifully printed, but its authority as a critical edition does not stand high, as the editor appears

to have been rash and vain man, who took very unwarrantable liberties with the text, and seldom assigns satisfactory reasons for the alterations, which he made with such freedom. Indeed, his object seems to have been to throw a degree of uncertainty over the whole text and canonical authority of the New Testament. On the disputed verse,

* Crito Cantab. p. 225.

however, he enters at some length. He gives a list of Greek MSS. in which it is not to be found; of Latin MSS. in which it is omitted; of Greek fathers who do not notice it; of Latin writers in the first five centuries who do not mention it; and of printed editions which want it. He then notices the Greek and Latin authorities which are supposed to be in its favour. He concludes his examination and comparison, by exclaiming, "In a word, if this evidence is not sufficient to prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious; by what evidence can it be proved, that The authority upon which any any text in St. John is genuine? Greek text is founded, is only the authority of the Greek Fathers, and their authority is founded upon that of the ancient Greek MSS. Now ALL the Greek Fathers, not one excepted; ALL the Greek MSS. the Irish one only excepted; ALL the ancient Versions, the old Italic, and St. Je rome's, the Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, and the Coptic; ALL the ancient Latin Fathers, and the most ancient Latin MSS. of the New Testament, do unanimously exclaim against the controverted text."*

The publication of this work led to the following:-" A Criti cal Examination of the late New Text and Version of the New Testament: wherein the Editor's corrupt Text, false Version, and fallacious Notes are detected and censured. By Leonard Twells, Vicar of St. Mary's. In Three Parts.

In the second of which justice is done to the famous text of 1 John v. 7, against his partial representation of that matier." London, 1731.

* Vol. ii. p. 234.

gives his opinion, that the Codex Britannicus, is a modern MS. probably translated, or corrected, from the Latin Vulgate."

Twells, the author of this examination, was a clergyman of the Church of England, not very distinguished for the accuracy of his researches, or the extent of his learning. It was no hard task to expose the incorrectness of Mace's text, and the blunders and absurdities of his translation. But in attacking his omission of the disputed passage in John, Twells had not Mace, but Mill's authorities to contend with. In doing this, he flounders in the darkness of his own misconceptions, hazards the most groundless assumptions, and dogmatically asserts what had been repeatedly disproved. He concludes a long discussion by a passage precisely the opposite of that quoted from Mace, in the latter part of which, it must be acknowledged, he has a just stroke at that rash and vulgar critic." The disputed passage of 1 John v. 7, has so many marks of genuineness, that if it had not contained a doc trine, to which the disputers of this world have always shown the utmost aversion, its authority had never been called in question. An undoubted proof of which is this, that many texts of Scripture, according to their present reading, are worse supported than this, and yet receive no molestation from critics. And of all others, the editor should be the last to object to the disputed passage, as defective in point of testimony, who admits some sections into his new text, upon the credit of simple vouchers, and others against all authority whatever," p. 154.

David Casley published, in 1734, "A Catalogue of the MSS. of the King's Library, together with 150 specimens of the manner of writing in different ages, from the third to the fifteenth century." In his preface to this catalogue, he refers to the controversy respecting the heavenly witnesses, and

Bengelius published his valuable critical edition of the Greek Testament in 1734; in which the principles on which he constructed his text, led him to insert the passage. He adopted no reading which had not previously appeared in some printed edition, except in some cases in the Apocalypse. In consequence of following a law, which he had laid down for himself, more specious and better adapted to meet the popular feeling on certain points, than solid in itself, he admitted the passage; and yet the statements in his note seem fatal to its authority. He allows that it exists in no genuine manuscript; that the Complutensian editors interpolated it from the Latin version; that the Codex Britannicus is good for nothing; that Stephen's semi-circle is misplaced; that no ancient Greek writer cites the heavenly witnesses; that many Latins omit them; that they were neither erased by the Arians, nor absorbed by the homœoteleuton. He thought the evidence afforded by the African Church, and some other considerations, favourable to the passage, and therefore inserted it, but, on the whole, he had no strong conviction of its authenticity.

As a good deal, however, has been said of the weight of Bengel's opinion, the following view of his conduct in this matter, seems to be characterised by great accuracy and candour. Bengelius was, probably, the first advocate of the verse who fairly gave up the notion that the Complutensian editors and Robert Stephens printed the passage as they found it in Greek MSS. He also allowed due weight to the silence of the Fa

thers with regard to the text. In fact, he was a good workman; and, in the progress of his undertaking, he cleared the subject of many incumbrances. He condemned the principle of defending a text, because it favoured a particular doctrine. He disdained to measure a person's orthodoxy by his reception of the text of the heavenly witnesses. He contended that the great object of inquiry was, whether what was held to have been written, really had been written. He censured the mode in which the verse had, in many instances, been defended; and even mentioned its great champion, Dr. Twells himself, with no great reverence. Towards the close of his inquiry, he seems to have considered the subject as one on which learned men might justly hold opposite opinions; and in his Greek Testament he stated his wish, that the reader should his suppose, as own judgment might direct, either the seventh verse to be erased, or the eighth verse to precede the seventh; for his own part recommending the latter supposition. This mode of proceeding was any thing but agreeable, to those who were resolved that the text should be vindicated, at all events. In literary campaigns, the established rule seems to be, that he who first deserts a position as untenable, however valiantly he may fight in other instances, shall be accounted as little better than one of the enemy; and accordingly, Bengelius was, more than once, obliged to defend himself from the charge of indifference to the cause in which he was engaged. In vain,' says Mr. Porson, may Simon, La Croze, Michaelis, and Griesbach, declare their belief of the doctrine (of the Trinity); they must defend it in the Catholic manner, and with the Catholic texts: nor is all this enough: but,

in defending the genuineness of a particular text, they must use every one of the same arguments that have already been used, without rejecting any upon the idle pretence that they are false or trifling. I pity Bengelius. He had the weakness, which fools call candour, to reject some of the arguments that had been employed in defence of this celebrated verse, and brought upon himself a severe, but just rebuke from an opponent of de Missy (Journ. Brit. x. page 133); where he is ranked with those who, under pretext of defending the three heavenly witnesses with moderation, defend them so gently, that a suspicious reader might doubt whether they defended them in earnest, though God forbid that we should wish to insinuate any suspicion of Mr. Bengelius's orthodoxy.'"*

In the critical edition of the New Testament, published by Wetstein, in 1752, the passage is marked as spurious. There is also attached to it, a long and important note; this is justified by a reference to a much greater number of MSS. and versions than had ever before been quoted in the controversy. The leanings of Wetstein's mind to the Unitarian hypothesis is well known, and has excited a suspicion that he may have been influenced by it in his rejection of this passage. This is scarcely candid, as he states fairly and fully the evidence on which he formed his decision.

Soon after the publication of this letters important work, several appeared against Martin and the disputed passage, in the Journal Britannique. They were written by Cæsar de Missy, a native of Berlin, French preacher in the

* Crito Cantabrigiensis, pp. 311, 314.

Savoy, and French preacher at St. James's. They discovered great learning and penetration, but were written, for the most part, in rather too ludicrous a tone for serious criticism. In these letters were particularly exposed, the ridiculous and false pretence of Amelotte, that the disputed passage was contained in a Vatican MS., and the absurd inference which some persons had deduced from Wetstein's correction of an erratum relative to the three lectionaries belonging to Cæsar de Missy; this correction having been converted into acknowledgment, that the passage was contained in one of these three lectionaries.* "De Missy's fate," says Porson, "has been somewhat hard. He was bold enough to attack Amelotte's veracity and Martin's understanding. This provoked a nest of hornets. Four anonymous writers fell upon him; three with personal abuse, the fourth with malignity, under the mask of moderation."+

an

Nothing more of importance on the subject occurred till 1754, when "Two Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. Le Clerc, upon the reading of the Greek text, 1 John v. 7. and 1 Tim. iii. 16.," appeared. They had been drawn up by Sir Isaac so early as the beginning of the century, and were at last published from the MSS. left by Le

Clerc, in the library of the Remonstrants in Amsterdam. The first Letter is entirely devoted to the text of the heavenly witnesses. The first four pages of the MS. being lost, the beginning is supplied by the editor, whose name does not appear. The MS. was sent to Le Clerc by Mr. Locke, and is said to have been in his hand writing. It is almost entirely occupied with a history of what

* Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. vi. p. 414. + Letters to Travis, p. 19.

Sir Isaac considered the manner in which the testimony came to be surreptitiously inserted, first into the Latin MSS., and then into the printed Greek text. Some of his remarks bear very hard upon Beza, whom he calls a dreamer, and almost justify the sneers of Gibbon. Sir Isaac assigns several reasons for believing that the Complutensian editors_translated the passage from the Latin Vulgate. And, certainly, the marginal note attached to the passage in the Complutensian edition, a practice which is adopted in that edition, only in two other places where the Greek MSS. are defective, and the silence of Stunica, one of the editors, in his controversy with Erasmus on the authority of Greek MSS., are strong negative proofs that the passage was translated from the Vulgate. Sir Isaac also endeavours to explain the passage and its context without the three heavenly witnesses. He considers the spirit, the water, and the blood, to mean the promised spirit, the baptism of nexion with his resurrection, all Christ, and his passion, in coubearing testimony to his character and mission as the Son of God.

The attention which this eminent man paid to biblical subjects, must have been very considerable. The of critical reading, which, consipresent tract discovers a good deal dering his circumstances and purhad his taste for the Scriptures not suits, would not have taken place, been cultivated. His leanings to Arianism, which were no doubt Clarke, Whiston, and other emipromoted by his acquaintance with nent persons of that school, are to be deplored. But his character presents a noble contrast to that ruthless infidelity, or cheerless scepticism, which characterise men infinitely his inferiors in all the attainments of genuine philosophy.

I cannot withhold from the