remarks

Page 1 of 37

REMARKS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF 1 JOHN v. 7.

By ROBERT JACK, D.D.

Copyright 2001 All Rights Reserved

THE Author being engaged in a course of Lectures, in vindication of some of the most important doctrines of the Christian Religion; the doctrine of the Trinity naturally demanded a large share of his attentive consideration. His thoughts were of course powerfully directed to this celebrated text. He soon found, that the remarks which occurred to him concerning its authenticity, swelled to such size, as to render it impracticable to compress them within the proportionable space to which they were entitled, in a discourse on the general doctrine of the Trinity. He resolved, therefore, to publish them in this form, which may be considered, either as a separate dissertation on this particular passage, or as an appendix to his Lecture on the Trinity. -------------------------------------

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 2 of 37

THE authenticity of this memorable text, we are well aware, has been the subject of much controversy in modern times. The result has been, that whilst some are convinced it ought to be retained as a portion of the divinely inspired Word; others are no less persuaded, that it must be abandoned, as an interpolation introduced by some sacriligious hand into the sacred canon. On a subject which has been so fully discussed, and perhaps exhausted, it may be impossible to advance any thing new; nor do we expect to produce conviction in some minds, by what we shall state in favour of its authenticity. But, if we can succeed in exhibiting the difficulties, which must be surmounted before this verse is abandoned as surreptitious, it will be at least one point gained. We are ready to admit, the great utility of sacred criticism, in ascertaining the meaning, and in unfolding the beauties of many parts of the Holy Scriptures. In certain cases, however, may it not become the dupe of prejudice and partiality, in support of a favourite system? When we find men collating manuscripts, examining versions, and ransacking the writings of the fathers, in quest of materials with which to undermine the essential doctrines of Christianity, we ought surely to pause and reflect, before we yield an implicit assent to their bold assertions, and adventurous criticisms. We shall endeavour to give a general view of the argument for the authenticity of this verse, collected from the writings of these, who profess to have diligently and impartially examined the subject. And then consider, whether there be any weight in the objections which have been advanced against its authenticity. Some have ventured to assert, that the verse in question

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 3 of 37

is comparatively a modern addition to the Scriptures, and indeed if this could be satisfactorily proved, it would afford sufficient cause at once to reject it. But if it can be demonstrated, that the Christian world have generally received it as an authentic part of Scripture, from one age to another, from the primitive to the present times, this, we should imagine, furnishes a strong argument for considering it as genuine, and not interpolated. "It is observable," says M. Simon, "that nearly all the manuscripts, not above 600 years old, agree in retaining this disputed verse." Reckoning from the time when he wrote, this carries us at once as high as A.D. 1100; and if this text was then very commonly found in the copies of the New Testament, it is an evidence, that it was then generally acknowledged as an authentic part of Scripture. --- But we shall begin at a period somewhat later, and ascending to the age of the Apostles, endeavour to show the authenticity of the verse in question. About A.D. 1360, lived Manuel Calecas, a Greek writer, who published a treatise on the Principles of the Catholic Faith, in which this verse is inserted, an evidence, that in his time it was not accounted spurious. --- In the same age, but a little earlier, about A.D. 1320, Nicholas de Lyra, a learned professor of Divinity, at Paris, wrote a Commentary, which was much and generally esteemed, on the Holy Scriptures. In that Commentary this verse is found, accompanied by the Author's Annotations, without the smallest insinuation or suspicion of its authenticity. The celebrated Durandus, bishop of Mende, in Languedoc, lived about A.D. 1260. In a Rationale of Divine Offices, composed by him for the use of his

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 4 of 37

churches, this verse is found. --- A little before him, about A.D. 1250, lived Thomas Aquinas, who in his commentary on the First Epistle of John, explained this verse in common with the rest of the chapter. --- Still earlier in the century, A.D. 1215, was held at Rome, the council of Lateran, under Innocent III. This is supposed to have been the most numerous assembly of the kind, which the Christian world ever beheld. Upwards of two thousand bishops, and inferior clergy, are said to have been present; among whom were the Greek patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, in person, and the several patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, by their representatives. The opinions of father Joachim, who had been accused of Arianism, were unanimously condemned by the council: and in their sentence of condemnation, we find the verse in question, among other passages of Scriptures, thus particularly set forth. It is read in the Canonical Epistle of John, that "there are Three which bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." This is an evidence, that, at that time, the authenticity of this verse was generally acknowledged, both in the Eastern and Western churches. Peter Lombard, who was bishop of Paris, in the twelfth century, about A.D. 1150, and who is commonly styled the Master of the Sentences, expressly cites this verse in the first book of his Sentences. His words may be thus translated: "The Father, and the Son, are one, not by confusion of persons, but by unity of nature, as St. John teaches in his Canonical Epistle, saying: "There are Three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy ghost, and these three are one."

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 5 of 37

Euthymius Zygabenus lived at Constantinople, in the eleventh century, in the reign of Alexis Comnenus. He composed a large work against heresies, entitled Panoplia Dogmatica, a Latin translation of which has been published in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and the Greek original of which has also been published. In this work he thus refers to the verse in question: "The term ONE denotes things, the essence and nature of which are the same, and yet the persons are different; as in this instance, AND THREE ARE ONE." The Glossa Ordinaria, the work of Walafrid Strabo, was composed in the ninth century, a work which in every succeeding age, has been highly esteemed by the learned. Even M. Simon confesses, that "no comment on the Scriptures is of equal authority with this exposition."[1] In this work, the verse in question is not only found in the Epistle of St. John, but commented upon in the notes, with peculiar force and clearness. In the middle of the eighth century, about A.D. 760, Ambrose Ansbert, Abbot of St. Vincent's in Italy, wrote a commentary upon the Apocalypse; in which this verse is applied in explanantion of the first Chapter of the Revelations. "Although" he says "the expression of faithful witness found therein, refers directly to Jesus Christ alone, --- yet it equally characterises the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; according to these words of St. John. There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." About the close of the eighth century, the Emperor Charlemagne assembled all the learned men that were to be found in that age, and placed Alciunus, and
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 6 of 37

Englishman, of great erudition at their head; instructing them to revise the manuscripts of the Bible then in use, to settle the text, and to rectify the errors which had crept into it, through the haste or the ignorance of transcribers. To effect this great purpose, he furnished them with every manuscript that could be procured throughout his very extensive dominions. In their Correctorium, the result of their united labours, which was presented in public to the Emperor, by Alciunus, the testimony of the three (heavenly) witnesses is read without the smallest impeachment of its authenticity. This very volume Baronius affirms to have been extant at Rome in his life time, [2] in the library of the Abbey of Vaux-Celles; and he styles is "a treasure of inestimable value." It cannot be supposed, that these divines, assembled under the auspices of a prince zealous for the restoration of learning, would attempt to settle the text of the New Testament, without referring to the Greek original; especially since we know, that there were, at that time, persons eminently skilled in the Greek language. They must have had access to peruse manuscripts which have long since perished; and their researches might in all probability extend even to the age of the Apostles. --- Here, then, is evidence, that this verse has been acknowledged as a part of Scripture, during more than a thousand years. Cassiodorus lived in Italy in the middle of the sixth century. Among other works, he wrote a comment on some books of the New Testament, which he entitled Complexiones. This work had remained for ages unnoticed and unknown, in the great library at Florence, till, by the researches of the noble and learned Marquis Scipione Maffei, it was brought to light, and published in

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 7 of 37

the beginning of the last century. In his annotations on this chapter, Cassiodorus uses these words: "Three mysteries bear witness in earth, the water, the blood, and the spirit, which are, we read, fulfilled in the passion of our Lord: and in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one GOD." Some have supposed, with a considerable dgree of probability, that Cassiodorus in this work, only translated a preceding one of Clemens Alexandrinus on the same subject. If this could be fully proved, it would give to his authority, in the present case, a still higher importance. At any rate, his testimony is of great weight; because, as Bengelius affirms, he was exceedingly careful to ascertain the true reading of the Scriptures; and because he lived antecedently to the revisal of the New Testament under Charlemagne. In the beginning of the sixth century, flourished Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, in Africa. He opposed the Arians with great zeal and fortitude, although they were countenanced and supported by two African kings, Thrasimond and Huneric. In his works, we find this verse, among other passages of Scripture, expressly cited and insisted upon, as conclusive against the tenets of Arius: "The blessed Apostle St. John," says he, "testifies that there are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." [3] The title of a Tract, that has been ascribed to him, is very striking. It is this: "The trinity in persons, and the unity in essence, (of the Godhead) proved from Holy Scripture." And the manner in which in which the verse is cited therein, is as remarkable as the title. "The Apostle St. JOHN has expressly said, in speaking of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, --- And these three

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 8 of 37

are one." A few years before Fulgentius, lived Vigilius, who was bishop of Tapsum, situated in the same province and kingdom with Ruspe. He wrote against several heresies, without prefixing his name to the work, and sometimes under the feigned names, of Athanasius, Augustine, and Idacius Clarus, that he might protect himself the better, against the rage and malice of his enemies. The testimony of this verse he urges in opposition to the errors of Arius, in the first book of his treatise on the Trinity; and in his contest with Varimadus the Arian. "The names of the persons in the Godhead," says he, "are evidently set forth by St. John the Apostle, who say in his Epistle, "There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."[4] "To what purpose is it," says he in his seventh book addressing himself to the Arians, "that ye read in John the Evangelist, These three are one, if ye still persist, that there are different natures in their persons? I ask, in what manner are the Three One, if the nature of their Divinity be different in each?" --- Vigilius has been suspected by some, to be the interpolator of the verse in question, but no proof of this, as far as we know, is attempted to be produced. He has been represented, as a writer of no credit, and Griesbach mentions one reason among others why he is not to be trusted, which must appear rather a curious one. This man he says is entitled 'to little credit, because he wrote many books under assumed names.' If this were a just reason for discrediting his testimony, what will become of the credibility of many celebrated authors, both in ancient and in modern times?
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 9 of 37

Among the arguments in favour of the authenticity of this verse, there is perhaps none more remarkable than that which is derived from the celebrated Confession of Faith delivered by Eugenius, and the African bishops, in the presence of a council convened at Carthage, by Huneric, A.D. 484. --- Huneric, king of the Vandals, and an Arian, had issued an edict, requiring the bishops of his dominions to attend that council, "to defend by the Scriptures, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father," against certain Arian opponents. The venerable Eugenius, bishop of Carthage, accompanied by nearly four hundred bishops, from various provinces of Africa, and from the Isles of the Mediterranean sea, accordingly attended the council. These good men, it is probable, expected a fair and candid discussion of the question, but it soon appeared, that they were to be compelled by force, to submit to the tenets of Arianism. For when Eugenius with his friends, entered the hall of consultation, they found Cyrila, their chief antagonist, seated on a kind of a throne, surrounded by armed men, prepared not to listen to, or to confute their arguments, but to offer violence to their persons. Convinced, therefore, that amidst such tumultuous and hostile appearances, they had no chance of obtaining a fair hearing, these champions for the truth withdrew from the assembly; but, not without leaving behind them, a solemn protest and declaration of their faith, in which they especially refer, among other passages of Scripture, to the verse in question. "That it may appear," say they, "clearer than the light, that the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is one, see it proved by the Evangelist St. John, who writes thus: There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." --- To intimate,
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 10 of 37

that they by no means entertained any peculiar sentiments on this head, they added, "This is our faith, fopunded on Evangelical and Apostolical traditions, and on the agreement of all the Catholic churches in the world; in which, by the grace of Almighty God, we trust and hope to continue, even to the end of this our earthly pilgrimage." Now it is to be considered, that this was not a thing done in a corner. It was transacted in the metropolis of the kingdom, in the court of the reigning prince, in the face of antagonists exasperated by controversy, and elated by the royal favour, and in the presence of the whole congregated African church. These bishops must have been aware, that the sentiments they held on the subject of the Trinity, and the proofs by which these were supported, would be strictly examined, and that great prudence and caution were requisite in their circumstances, especially, as all the power was in the hands of their angry and watchful adversaries. They were aware, that they must necessarily insert in their Confession, some things at which they knew the Arians would cavil. But is it to be supposed, that they would have exposed themselves in these perilous circumstances, to immediate and indelible infamy, by appealing in confirmation of their sentiments, to a text known to be interpolated? Is it within the limits of probability, that they would have quoted a passage, concerning which, if we are to credit the adversaries of this verse, the Arians, instantly, and upon the spot, could have convicted them of palpable falsehood, by challenging them to produce their authority? That they did not do so, if they had it in their power, but were silent
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 11 of 37

on the occasion, must be utterly inexplicable, on the supposition we are now considering. When, therefore, these bishops produced the verse in question, they could have no fear, that their adversaries were able to prove it spurious. They knew either, that it could not be attacked, or that if attacked, they could produce Greek Copies of the New Testament, ancient Latin Copies, and ancient fathers, in vindication of its authenticity.[5] About A.D. 434, Eucherius was consecrated bishop of Lyons, than whom there was not a bishop, in the western world, more revered for learning and piety. Speaking of the Trinity, he says, "we read in the Epistle of St. John, There are Three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And there are Three which bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood." It is nearly fourteen hundred years since Eucherius gave this testimony to the authenticity of the verse in question; and we know of no manuscript now in existence, of a date so ancient as that period. Mr. Emlyn, the most strenuous opponent which this verse ver had, except M. Simon, in his dispute with Mr. Martin, pastor of the French church at Utrecht, in Holland, thus ingenuously confesses the embarrassment into which this testimony had thrown him. "The passage Mr. Martin brings out of Eucherius , of which, indeed, I was not aware before, will need more consideration; for though it only concerns the fifth century, yet it will carry it half a century higher than the Confession of the African bishops, in Victor Vitensis: and, I confess, if the passage be genuine, it is more to the prupose, than any, yea than all the other testimonies, before, of after Eucherius, for some hundreds of years; because, here we find, both the seventh and the eighth verses together, at once to show

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 12 of 37

us all the six witnesses; and that there was Father, Word, and Spirit, beside what was said of the Water, Blood, and Spirit; whereas only Father, Word, and Spirit might have been the same things mystically interpreted, after the prevailing custom of that time. So that I cannot deny, but Mr. Martin had some ground to say, 'this is decisive', that is, as to its being acknowledged by Eucherius in the fifth century." [6] About A.D 382, Jerome is said to have translated the Old Testament into Latin, from the Septuagint, and at the same time corrected, what was called the Italic translation of the New Testament. This Italic version, thus modelled and amended, is what has long been known in the church, by the name of the Vulgate. At the close of this great work, he added his solemn protestation, that in revising the New Testament, he has adhered entirely to the Greek manuscripts. [7] In some instances, he complained of omissions by unfaithful translators; but in no instance, as far as we know, was he ever accused, or having himself vitiated, or interpolated the sacred text. ---In Jerome's version this verse has always existed, without any doubt of authenticity. Cyprian was made bishop of Carthage, A.D. 248. In his treatise, De Unitate Ecclesiae, (On The Unity of the Church) written against Novatus, he uses these words: "Our Lord declares, I and my Father are one; and again it is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, --And these three are one." Here there are plainly two quotations from the Scriptures, the one from John 10:30,
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 13 of 37

and the other from 1 John 5:7, the very verse in question. Some indeed have pretended, that in this last quotation, Cyprian refers to a mystical interpretation of the witnesses mentioned in the eighth verse, and they adduce Facundus, a writer of the sixth century, to prove that this was his meaning. We presume, however, it can be easily demonstrated, that this mystical interpretation was unknown in the days of Cyprian, and was never heard of in the church, till many years after his time. His meaning is best collected from his own words, which are as plain and decisive, as can be desired. Had he intended, as some have supposed, mystically to explain the eighth verse, he would not, after having literally quoted one passage of Scripture, have instantly added, and again it is written, because he would, in that case, have said the thing which was not. It is not written in any part of the eighth verse, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three are one. In these particular terms, it is not written in any part of Scripture, save in the verse in question. The testimony of Fulgentius, to which we have already alluded, renders all argument on this head superfluous. "The blessed Apostle St. John," says he, "testifies, that there are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one: which also the most holy martyr Cyprian declares, in his epistle De Unitate Ecclesiae." It is manifest, therefore, that the quotation of Cyprian, stated above, was made, and was meant to be made from this verse of the Epistle of St. John. In the close of the second century, lived Tertullian, who wrote a treatise against the heretic Praxeas, in which he has been considered as plainly referring to this verse.
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 14 of 37

"The connexion," he says, "of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which three are one --- not one person; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, and not the singularity of number." Here Tertullian plainly expresses his opinion and belief, that the Father and Son are one, and in the very same sense. He speaks of the unity of the persons in the Godhead, as a doctrine as well known, as generally believed, as little questioned, and as fully supported by Scripture, as the unity of the Father and Son, of which the passage he quotes, is as decisive a proof as any to be found in the New Testament. This testimony is the more valuable, not only from its proximity to the age of the Apostles; but because he assures us, that in those times, their authentic Epistles were actually read to the churches. [8] By this he understood to mean the autographs, the very originals of the Apostolical Epistles, which the churches to whom they were addressed had carefully preserved. That this is his meaning, is plain; for to these originals, he directly appeals in the eleventh chapter of his Monogamia, when speaking of some erroneous opinions, which were then attempted to be proved by Scripture, "We know assuredly," says he, "that it is not so in the original Greek." [9] --- We find, therefore, that about A.D. 200, not much more than an hundred years after this Epistle was written, Tertullian refers to the verse in question, to prove that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in essence; a satisfactory evidence, that this doctrine, though asserted by some in our time, to be a dangerous novelty, was really the acknowledged faith of Christians in those early times.

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 15 of 37

The history of this text, it is manifest, may be thus traced up to the Apostolical age; and in every step of our progress, we perceive an unbroken chain of evidence in favour of its authenticity. To us, the facts and references which have been stated on this subject, appear truly important and valuable; and for many of them we acknowledge ourselves indebted to the LETTERS of Mr. Travis to Edward Gibbon, Esq. On the Authenticity of this verse. --- It is now time to examine whether there be any weight in the objections which have been advanced against its authenticity. It is in general objected, that this verse is an interpolation, though its opponents have never pretended to determine with certainty, how, or when it was introduced into the canon of Scripture. ---S Some assert, that the interpolation occurred in the close of the fifth century, whilst others maintain, that the Greek and Latin writers knew nothing of this passage, until the eighth century. --- Socinus pretended that Jerome was the interpolator, or at least, that having found several Copies of the New Testament, in which this verse was inserted, in a manner so dexterous, that the fraud could could not be detected, he begun to defend it as genuine, in opposition to all other Greek and Latin Copies. --- M. Simon, on the contrary, denies that it was interpolated by Jerome; and contends, that it appeared first in the form of a marginal note, as an allegorical interpretation of the eighth verse, and from thence crept into the Text. --Erasmus, at one time, laboured to prove that the Greek Copies in which it is found, were altered from the Latin

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 16 of 37

versions. --- Others have even affirmed, that the idea was first suggested by Thomas Aquinas, who lived as late as the thirteen century, and was transferred from his writings into the sacred text. All these opinions, however, are merely conjectural, unsupported by any thing like proof; and some of them are in direct opposition, as we have seen, to the clearest historical evidence. If we should suppose the verse to be a forgery, it will be admitted, we presume, that no one would think of forging such a passage as this till it was needed, or imagined to be needed, in support of the cause which he had espoused; and would not his opponents be then naturally upon the watch to detect and expose the fraud? The Trinitarians could have no temptation to be guilty of any such fraud; because the doctrine of the Trinity appears to them so firmly established on the authority of Scripture, as not to depend exclusively on the support of any single passage, however clear and decisive. Besides, no instance, we apprehend, can be produced from the records of history, of their having corrupted, mutilated, or interpolated the text of the Holy Scriptures. It was, however, far otherwise with their adversaries. We know from the testimony of ancient writers, that the Epistle of John was very early corrupted.. Some have asserted, that the verse in question was expunged by Artemon, or some one of his disciples, who held the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ. If so, it must have happened as early as the second century. Others have supposed, that the corruption of this passage took place in the fourth century, during the violent contests occasioned by the Arian heresy; and that the Arians in this, as well as in other instances, vitiated the purity of
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 17 of 37

the sacred text, in the hope that their Copies might divide at least, if not govern the Christian world. We know, that during the reigns of the emperors Constantius, and Valens, the Arians were powerfully patronized, and encouraged by the government. The supreme ecclesiastical authority was committed into their hands, which they exercised and abused with great severity in persecuting their opponents. If, therefore, they employed their power in treating the Trinitarians with great cruelty, it cannot be supposed improbable, that the more zealouis among them, might devise means likewise, of banishing this obnoxious text from all the Copies of the Scriptures that came into their hands. It is well know, that the Arians are expressly accused by many of the Latin fathers, of having corrupted the Scriptures, of expunging passages, and of strangely mutilating them, during the time that they were in power. [10] Socrates, Greek ecclesiastical historian, who flourished in the fifth century, directly accuses them, of having garbled this very Epistle; for the purpose of separating, between the Divinity, and humanity of Christ. Others have supposed, that the omission of the verse in question, ought not to be ascribed to the bad designs of ancient heretics, since it might arise, merely from inattention, or inadvertence, in the transcribers of the Scriptures. In whatever way, however, the event occurred, if we suppose the Text to have been once corrupted, one single defective copy might generate all the erroneous manuscripts, which have ever yet been produced; and when we consider the circumstances of those times, the error might remain for a long while unchecked, and uncorrected. According to Mosheim, learning was in a very low state
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 18 of 37

among Christians in those early times. [11] As yet, no law was enacted which excluded the ignorant and illiterate from ecclesiastical preferments and offices; a circumstance which would of course prevent, for some time, the discovery of the fraud. Besides, the continued persecutions of the Christians in those times, would deprive them of opportunities of meeting together, unless by stealth, and of mutually comparing the manuscripts in their possession. These impediments, we know, were not completely removed until the sixth century; for, until that time, Arianism was not completely subdued. When, however, the season of quiet and security returned, and the absence of the verse in question was discovered; how was the error to be rectified, unless by transcribing their Copies anew, or by interlining the verse, which however would be impracticable in some manuscripts, or by inserting the omission in the margin? Does not this afford a very plausible account of the interlineation of the verse, in some manuscripts, and the exhibition of it by marginal reference in others? And yet, this very circumstance of interlineation , and marginal reference, has been considered by some, as a strong argument against its authenticity! --- To this we may add, that in those times, Copies of the Catholic Epistles were not so frequently to be met with, as Copies of the Gospels, and of Paul's Epistles. Of course, they could not be so frequently read in the public assemblies, or in the private meetings of Christians; and for this reason among others, the omission of the verse might remain the longer undiscovered. We have at least good evidence, that in those churches where the Syriac version was used, this verse could not be read in their assemblies, because the Catholic Epistles, and the Book of Revelation, though afterwards added, were at first wanting in that version.
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 19 of 37

On a candid and impartial review, therefore, of all circumstances, the probability is, that if any change was introduced into this passage, it must have been by omission, rather than by interpolation. It is far more probable, that Anti-Trinitarians would expunge from their Copies, a testimony so decidedly against them, or, that it would be omitted, by the mistake of some careless transcriber, than that the Trinitarian would directly forge and interpolate the verse. If it were rejected as spurious, the Trinitarian would be deprived only of one argument, with which to attempt the conviction of his opponent; for his doctrine, he conceives, is abundantly supported by many other passages; but if it be received, as an authenticated portion of the Divine Word, all the ingenuity and sophistry of its adversaries, will not avail to explain away the doctrine which it contains and inculcates. Viewing the matter in the most favourable light, the passage might at first be omitted through mistake, without any improper design; but it could not afterwards be added to the sacred text, either at one time, or at another, without some bad design, of which men ought not to be accused, unless on the clearest evidence. --- It may be thought inconsistent with the watchful care, which we must believe Divine Providence ever exercises over the Scriptures, to suppose, that a single passage might in any way be erased from that inspired Book. This, however, without the interposition of a miraculous and extraordinary providence, is unavoidable. But, if we have evidence, that Copies do exist, or have existed, by means of which the error may be rectified, this ought to satisfy our minds. Indeed, we can no more suppose, that Providence, vigilant, active,
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 20 of 37

and almighty, would permit any part of a revelation, which was intended to be a complete and perpetual rule of faith, to be entirely lost, than, that it would suffer the light of the sun to be extinguished in the heavens. It is an observation, we apprehend, of considerable importance, on this part of the subject, that till we descend to modern times, no objection was ever advanced against the authenticity of the verse in question. Jerome complains of the omission of it by unfaithful translators; and declares, that the best Greek manuscripts of his time contained it; for he appeals, as we have seen, in behalf of his version, to the authority of these manuscripts. Jerome died A.D. 420, and ever since his days, the verse has not only maintained its place in the Scriptures, but has been uniformly quoted and referred to, by writers of the first eminence for learning and integrity, in every succeeding age. If we should suppose for a moment, that it is spurious, is it not wonderful that this was never discovered till modern times? Is it not wonderful, that during the period of one thousand four hundred years, which intervened between the days of Praxeas and the age of Erasmus, not a single author can be mentioned who ever charged this verse with being an interpolation or forgery. Had it been, in any of those ages, even suspected to be spurious, would its adversaries, especially the Arians, have been merely silent when it was produced against them? Would they not have exclaimed aloud against those who quoted it? Would they not have filled the Christian world with invectives against them, for their falsehood and impiety, in thus attempting to corrupt the Word of God? That the Arians in those times never pretended to deny the
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 21 of 37

authenticity of the verse in question, is a phenomenon which should be accounted for by those who contend that it is spurious!! Erasmus, who lived in the beginning of the sixteenth century, is said to have been the first, who questioned the authenticity of this verse. He omitted it in the first two Editions of his Greek Testament, but restored it in a third Edition, declaring as his apology for the omission, that he did not find the verse in five Greek manuscripts, which he had consulted; but, that now he had replaced it, because he found, that it did exist, in a very ancient Greek manuscript in England; and this he had done, that there might be no handle for calumniating him. It is known, that Erasmus was more than secretly inclined to Arianism; for he was accused of broaching in his commentaries on the New Testament, Arian interpretations, and Arian tenets. If so, he could not be an indifferent editor of the fifth Chapter of John. He had challenged Lopez Stunica, a learned Spaniard, with whom he had engaged in controversy respecting this very passage, to produce a single Greek manuscript, in which it was found. Is it not then altogether improbable, that he himself should have afterwards produced one, if he had not been irresistibly impelled by the force of truth? Is it to be imagined, that without being first indubitably satisfied of its existence, he would have introduced to the notice of the world, a manuscript, which not only thwarted his own peculiar sentiments, but vitiated his two former Editions of the Greek New Testaments? The supposition violates all the laws of prbability, and cannot for one moment be admitted. That Erasmus was convinced, of the authenticity of this verse is manifest, not only from
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 22 of 37

his inserting it inhis thrid Edition of the Greek Testament, but also in his Latin Edition, published in conformity with the original Greek. [12] It is asserted, that the verse is not to be found in any ancient Greek manuscript, and, that we have no certain evidence, that it has ever been in any Greek manuscript at all. Its spuriousness, it is supposed, may be on this ground clearly demonstrated. --- We know, that the original Copies of the New Testament, which came from the hands of the Apostles and Evangelists, have long since perished; and, that the oldest manuscripts now in existence, are probably not of higher antiquity than the fifth or sixth century. Even the Alexandrine and Vatican Copies, in both of which this passage is said to be wanting, cannot be traced, it is affirmed, to an earlier date. [13] Du Pin gives it as his opinion, that though the antiquity and number of Greek manuscripts be of some importance in the present question, yet, as there are none more than eight or nine hundred years old, we should not solely on their authority, reject a passage which is found in Latin manuscripts, of equal or greater authority. Agreeably to this opinion, Erasmus considers it as a good rule in criticism, that the concurrent testimony of the Latin fathers, is sufficient to establish the authenticity of a text of Scripture, though it should be wanting in Greek manuscripts. Michaelis, to the same purpose observes, "that wherever among the testimonies in favour of a reading, I find the names of Clemens Alexandrinus, or of Origen, they excite in me a high
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 23 of 37

degree of respect. Even in cases where no manuscript can be produced for the same reading, I am often induced to prefer the authority of an ancient father, to that of all manuscripts written since his time. If it could be shown, that the celebrated passage in the First Epistle of St. John, was quoted by a Greek father, of the third or fourth century, I should consider this as much stronger proof of its authenticity, than if it were discovered in our most ancient manuscripts." The reason is manifest. The manuscripts which existed in the third and fourth century, were of much higher antiquity, than any which are now extant. Admitting, therefore, the justness of this remark of Michaelis, may it not be asked, on what principle can it be fairly shown, that the authority of a Latin father, is not entitled to equal credit with that of a Greek father, on the question of the authenticity of a passage in Scripture? If it should be proved that few ancient manuscripts containing this verse, have been preserved to our time; yet if it can be ascertained, whether by the testimony of Latin or Greek fathers, it makes no difference, that some of them have been preserved, or that such manuscripts did exist at a remote period, surely their evidence is not to be rejected. No dependence whatever could be placed on human testimony, were it to be admitted, as some have asserted, that we can produce no credible witness who had seen one Greek manuscript, in which this verse is found. Can we peruse the account which is given of the labours of Laurentius Valla, [14] of the Complutensian Editors of the Old and New Testaments, [15] of Robert Stephens, the Parisain printer, [16] and of Theodore Beza, [17] without believing, that they found this passage in several
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 24 of 37

valuable Greek manuscripts? All those learned and honourable men could not surely have combined to assert, in the face of the Christian world, that they had examined and collated manuscripts which contained this verse. Where would be our candour and charity, if we should suppose them capable of such an intentional and deliberate falsification of the Scriptures, and of doing this in concert? Would not this be to rob them of their honest and well-earned reputation, for learning and worth, for probity and honour, and to stigmatize them as cheats and impostors? --- It is supposed, that those Greek manuscripts which were used by the first Editors of the New Testament, have been lost by being neglected, or destroyed after they had been used for this purpose. The manuscripts which were used by the Complutensian Editors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it is said, were never returned to the library of the Vatican, but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of the libraries in Spain. The manuscripts which were borrowed by Robert Stephens, from the Royal Library at Paris, have never found their way back thither, or at least, they are not now, it is said, in that Library. NO certain information can be obtained, where the Codex Britannicus, to which Erasmus refers, is deposited. In the course of two or three hundred years, it may have passed into the hands of new proprietors, or may have been lost entirely, a circumstance very likely to have happened, when we consider how much the libraries of England were dispersed and destroyed by the dissolution of the Monasteries. Out of the many thousands of manuscripts which must have existed in former times, it is doubted whether there be an hundred, or an hundred and fifty that can now be produced. Though, however, it could be proved, that there did not exist at this hour, a
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 25 of 37

single Greek manuscript which exhibited the verse in question, yet still the testimonies of their former existence, which have been produced, should overbalance, it is conceived, in the view of every unprejudiced mind, any unfavourable presumption arising from this circumstance. If it be true, that there are many ancient manuscripts, especially in Italy, which have never been collated, but lie still unexplored in the libraries of that country; here is a field where much yet remains to be done. After all, may it not be safely affirmed, that a printed Copy of the New Testament is even more authentic, than almost any manuscript now extant? The most ancient of them were written hundreds of years after the Autographs of the Apostles had perished, and there is reason to believe, that more learning and deligence have been exerted to render some printed editions correct, than were employed with respect to all the manuscripts written for a thousand years before the Reformation. It has been affirmed, that the disputed verse is not found in any of the ancient versions of the New Testament. --Upon a careful examination, however, of this subject, it has been ascertained, that the versions translated from the Greek, which have, and which have not, this disputed verse, are equal in number. The ancient versions made from the original were only four, the Syria, the Coptic, the Italic or Latin, and the Armenian. The verse was confessedly not in the Syriac or Coptic versions, the former supposed to have been made in the second, the latter in the fifth century. But the omissions which occur in the Syriac and Coptic versions, are so numerous as completely to take away the effect of their omitting the
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 26 of 37

verse in question. Many passages of Scripture, universally acknowledged to be genuine, are said to be wanting in these version. [18] Other versions are mentioned as omitting it, but they do not seem to have been translated from the original, but from preceding versions. Some have doybted whether the verse was found in the Italic version, which is believed to have been made in the beginning of Christianity, and whether it was in the Armenian version, which wasx made about twelve hundred years ago. The best judgment we can form, from what is urged on both sides, relatives to version, is, that the disputed text was in the old Italic version; as appears from its being quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Fulgentius, and from its being referred to by Cassiodorius. Indeed, that version was the Bible of Cyprian, and of the age in which he lived, though not a single manuscript of it is now known to exist in the world. With respect to Jerome's Vulgate, there is no doubt, for in the oldest Copies of his reformed version, the passage is said to be found. The Armenian version likewise is said to contain it. But the old Italic is of much greater consequence. It was much older than the most ancient Greek manuscripts which have been preserved to our time; it served as the foundation of what is termed the Latin Vulgate; yea, it seems to have been the authorised version of the Scriptures, in the Western Church, from the earliest times. It is adduced as an objection against the authenticity of this verse, that it is not found in the writings of those ancient Greek fathers, which have been transmitted to us, and in which one might expect to have found it. --- To this it has been observed in reply, that where a part only,
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 27 of 37

perhaps a very small part of the works of any ancient father has descended to us, we have no authority to conclude, that a particular passage of Scripture has not been quoted at all by him, merely because it is not found in that part of his works which has been preserved to our time. If all the writings of the fathers had survived the ruins of our time, it is highly probable, that we should have met with this passage in some part of them; at least till the contrary position can be proved, this objection should not be considered as having any weight. --Besides, when we find, that the fathers, in those parts of their works which have come down to us, have not cited other passages confessedly genuine, and as applicable to their purpose, as the verse in question, it is manifest, that we can adduce on this ground, no conclusive argument against its authenticity. It has been observed, that Clemens Alexandrinus, and other ancient fathers, in speaking concerning the Trinity, have not referred to the words of the baptismal institution, though this would have been evidently most pertinent to their subject; and yet none, not even the Arians themselves, ever contended, from their silence, that these words were no genuine part of Scripture. All, therefore, that can be fairly conclude from their silence, in this instance, is either, that they had reasons for not quoting this verse of which we are not informed, or, that it was not found in their Copies of the New testament, though it might still form a part of the original Epistle of John, and be found in other authentic Copies. When we consider further, that Arianism became for a season the reigning religion, especially in the eats, where it obtained much more than in the West, may we not in this way be able to account, in some measure, for the silence of the Greek fathers with respect to this verse? The Western Church never
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 28 of 37

became so generally Arian, as the Eastern; of course it might be expected, that the verse was more likely to be found in the writings of Latin, than of Greek fathers; and accordingly we perceive that this is the case. It is not however strictly true, that this passage is not quoted in any of the works of those Greek fathers which have survived to our time. Among the works of Athanasius which are generally allowed to be genuine, is a Synopsis of this Epistle. In his summary of the fifth chapter, he seems plainly to refer to this verse, when he says, "The Apostle here teaches, the unity of the Son with the Father." But it would be difficult to find any place in this chapter where this unity is taught, save in the seventh verse. [19] --- Maximus, who lived in the seventh century, about A.D. 645, is generally supposed to have been the author of a dialogue in the Greek language, in which Athanasius and Arius are the assumed disputants. In this dialogue, the verse in question is expressly referred to. "Is not that lively and saving baptism," says he, "whereby we receive remission of sins, administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? And moreover St. John says, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." [20] --- We know too, that this passage was received into the Confession of Faith of the Greek Church, and is found in one of the Lectionaries of that Church, entitled Apostolos, (the Apostle) which contains a collection of the Apostolical Epistles in Greek, appointed to be read in the solemnities of their religious worship. The exact date when this public Confession of Faith was compiled, is lost in its great antiquity. With respect to the antiquity of the Apostolos, we have evidence, that it was used in the Greek Church in the
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 29 of 37

fifth century; for it is mentioned in the life of St. Sabas, who flourished at that time. [21] How long before is unknown. It is worthy of remark, that all this evidence in proof of the authenticity of this verse, occurs within the limits of the sixth century, and prior of course to the date of the oldest manuscripts now in existence. --- In short, it has been denied that this verse was ever quoted in the Arian controversy, or ever appealed to as having unquestionably proceeded from the pen of the Apostle John. The contrary, however, is manifest to those who will take the trouble to examine the history of the Church. Were it necessary to insist on this part of the subject, we might refer to the testimony of Phaebadius, Jerome, and Marcus Celedensis, in the fourth century; of Eucherius, Vigilius, and Fulgentius, in the fifth and sixth centuries; and of many Greek and Latin fathers in subsequent ages, who make frequent and direct citations of the verse in question; and some of whom have appealed to the Arians themselves, as acknowledging its authenticity. The argument respecting the authenticity of this passage, arising from its connexion with preceding and subsequent context, has been urged on both sides of the question. Those who are for rejecting it as interpolated, maintain, that the retention of it injures the sense of the whole passage; that no connexion can be traced between the verse and what precedes it; that the context would be better connected if it were entirely omitted; and that though omitted, we can perceive no chasm in the meaning. These, on the other hand, who think that the verse ought to be retained, conceive, that without it the meaning is quite is quite maimed and imperfect. In
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 30 of 37

representing the foundation of the Christian Faith, and the various testimonies which are given to the perfection and doctrine of Jesus Christ, it is deemed highly natural and proper, for the Apostle to refer to the testimony of witnesses in heaven, as well as of witnesses on earth. Supposing the verse in question to be omitted, the energy and consistency of the Apostle's argument are lost, in referring once and again, to the water, and the blood, as the external symbols of sanctification, and justification, by the grace and atoning blood of the Son of God, and as agreeing in one with the testimony of the Spirit: unless we suppose hi m likely to take notice of the testimony of the Father from heaven, when he said concerning Jesus, This is my Beloved Son; and of the testimony of Christ Himself, confirmed by His miracles and resurrection, and by the fulfilment of His promise, in pouring the Holy Spirit upon His disciples. --- Besides it is observable, that in the ninth verse of the chapter, the witness of God, the highest evidence that can be given to the truth of any declaration, is supposed to have been adduced in the preceding context. "If we receive," says the Apostle, "the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." But, if the seventh verse be rejected the witness of God is nowhere mentioned in the passage, and where, in that case, are the premises from which the Apostle draws his conclusion? He must be accounted, as some have termed the Apostle Paul, an inconclusive reasoner, the chain of his reasoning will be broken, and the meaning and design of the whole passage will become lame, perplexed, yea unintelligible. In reviewing, therefore, what has been stated respecting the authenticity of this verse, we are constrained to infer,
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 31 of 37

that it must have proceeded from the pen of the Apostle John, and, by consequence it ought to be received as an inspired portion of the Holy Scriptures. We are well aware that we shall be accused by some as injudicious, uncandid, undiscerning, as of easy faith, and of obtuse understanding. Perhaps our arguments shall be considered, as exhibiting a lamentable contrast, to these of our opponents; and perhaps there are those who will blush for our incorrigible obstinacy, in contending to strenuously for the retension of a passage, which they judge to be indisputably spurious. This, however, we cannot help. "With me," says the Apostle Paul, "it is a very small thing that I should be judged --- of man's judgment; but he that judgeth me is the Lord. [ 1 Cor. 4:3] In allusion to the words of a learned preacher, we shall conclude by observing, that we have said thus much in vindication of this text, because it appears to us, in common with some texts of Scripture, and other parts of Christian history, to have been too easily given up. Some, who call themselves Christians, care not how much they concede. Others, who really are so, confident of their strength, rather than contend for what might in any shape be questioned, have yielded the matter in debate. The intention of these last cannot be blamed, their judgment and their prudence perhaps may. We have crafty and incroaching enemies to deal with. Concessions, therefore, are dangerous, and at any rate ought never to be made at the expence of truth. Truth is a sacred and inviolable palladium, and any part of that evidence which God has placed to guard and secure it, we are not at liberty to give up or not, as we please. Never can we be too deeply impressed with the solemn
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm 3/13/2012

remarks

Page 32 of 37

and important meaning of that awful denunciation with which the Canon of Scripture is closed. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book: And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book." [Revelations 22:18 -19]

Finis
----------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

[1] M. Simon, Hist. Des Versions.

[2] He was born in or about A.D. 1538, and died in A.D 1607. Du Pin confirms this account of Baronius, v. vi. P. 122. Travis p. 24.

[3] It cannot be doubted, that Fulgentius read this verse in the Greek manuscripts, as well as in his own Bible; because he was much practised, and eminently skilled in the Greek language. Du Pin, vol. Iv, p. 13 - 14.

[4] "Et hi tres unum sunt --- Unum; non tamen unus est, quia non est in his una persona," are the words of the original. --- Bibli., Max., Patrum. Vol. Viii., p. 775. Travis. P. 19.

[5] It is remarkable, that these African bishops, in this Confession of their faith, style the disbelief of a

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 33 of 37

trinity of persons in the Godhead, "quandam novitatem," "A New Opinion"; and that this description was given in A.D. 484. Travis. Appendix. P. 9. Victor Vitensis, who was then an African bishop, and present at this council, has left us a circumstantial account of the whole transaction. Vid., Biblioth., Max., Patrum, vol., viii., p. 686. Grynaei Coll. Patr. Orthod., p. 799. Edit. Basil. A.D. 1569. --- Travis., p. 25. Victor, it is true, has been represented as a weak and credulous man, as so fond of the marvellous, that he has related in his writings miracles not to be credited. If, however, we should even suppose him so credulous, as to relate a false miracle, does it follow, that is could not be a competent witness, respecting a matter of fact, which occurred in his own presence, or, that he must necessarily be so wicked, as to be capable of fabricating a public record? Would it not be strange, that so many bishops are to be considered as unworthy of credit, in quoting a text of Scripture, merely, because the man who inserts their confession in his history, details some wonderful things, which he knew not how to believe? If we discredit on this ground the testimony of Victor, would not the same principle affect the credibility of other ancient writers, whose veracity has hitherto remained unquestioned?

[6] Emlyn's Answer to Martin's Dissert., printed in Emlyn's Tracts, London Edition, A.D. 1731. V. 2d., p. 85.

[7] His words are, Novum Testamentum fidei Graecae reddidi. --- Catal. Eccles. Scriptor., ad finem. Hieromyni Opera, per Erasmus, vol. 1. Edition Parisiis. A.D. 1546. --- Travis. P. 20.

In his twenty-eight epistle, (to Lucinus) Jerome again makes the same declaration. Septuaginta Interpretum editionem et te habere non dubito, et ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatam, studiosis traditi: Novum Graecae reddidi autoritate. Edit: Erasmi, Paris: A.D. 1546, vol, i., p. 71. Travis., p. 48.

[8] --- Apud qua ipsae authenticae literare eorum recitantur. Tertull., de prescript., adver. Haereticos., p. 211

[9] Sciamus plane non sic esse in authentico Graeco. ---Tertullian. Monog., cap. II.

[10] This was particularly objected against them by Hilary of Poitiers, Hilary the deacon, Ambrose, and Salvianus.

[11] Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1., p. 180. 4to Edition.

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 34 of 37

[12] In A.D. 1574, the University of Louvain published and edition of the New Testament. The dispute which had arisen in the beginning of that century between Erasmus and his opponents respecting this verse, required an attention from these divines, suitable to the high reputation which their University then enjoyed. Their judgment is given in the following words:--- "The reading of this text is supported by very many Latin Copies; and also by two Greek Copies produced by Erasmus, one in England, the other in Spain. We have ourselves seen several others like these. This verse is also found in all Stephen's MSS., save that the words, in heaven, are wanting in seven of them." In the same century, Amelotte published a French version of the New Testament with his annotations. In his notes on this passager, he says: "Erasmus has affirmed this verse to be wanting in a Greek Ms., of the Vatican library; but I have myself seen it in the most ancient Ms., of that library." Travis, p. 14 - 15.

[13] If the verse in question be to be wanting in the Alexandrine manuscript, may not this be accounted for on the ground, that Alexandria, the place where this manuscript is supposed to have been written, was the place whence the Arian heresy first began to diffuse its baneful influence? Has this circumstance been duly considered as affording a probable reason for the deficiency? --- Other instances may be produced in which manuscripts are found to be deficient. The last chapter of Mark's Gospel, for instance, is said to have been wanting in almost all the Greek Copies. Euthymius, in his comment on the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter of Mark, informs us, that some have considered his Gospel as terminating at that place; and that what follows, is a later addition. But M. Simon observes, "that we ought not to question the authenticity of that chapter , which is as ancient as the other parts of the Gospel of that Evangelist." --The case is the same with respect to the eight chapter of John's Gospel, from the first to the eleventh verse, containing the history of the woman taken in adultery. It is not to be found in many Greek Copies of the Gospel of John; nor in some version of the Eastern church. It is wanting, as well as the verse in question, in the Alexandrine manuscript, and in the Syriac version; and yet has always been acknowledged as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture.

[14] Laurentius Valla, an Italian nobleman, of high acquirements in learning, and of great taste for sacred literature, is said to have been the first person who engaged in the design of comparing the Greek text of the New Testament with the Vulgar Latin version. He lived in the former part of the fifteenth century, nearly a century before the time of Erasmus. By diligent and persevering enquiries, he obtained possession of seven Greek manuscripts; a number very considerable, if we reflect, that through the universal ignorance of those ages, the Greek language was then become almost a dead letter; and its manuscripts were perishing with it. With the help of these manuscripts, he composed a work entitled Collations of the New Testament, which afterwards in its unpublished state, passed into the hands of Erasmus. This circumstance is the more observable, because it took place, we know, ten or twelve years before Erasmus published his two Greek Testaments, which left out the verse in question. In this commentary, Laurentius Valla carefully notices the most minute differences between the Greek text and Latin version. When he comes to the disputed verse, which was then read in the Vulgate as it is at his day, he says nothing of any difference between that and his Greek manuscript, save only, that whereas the Vulgate concluded the eighth verse, the same as the seventh, Et hi tres unum sunt , and these three are one, he intimates, that according to the Greek Copies, that clause was thus expressed, kai oi treis eis to en eisi, --- Et hi tres unum sunt; and these three agree in one. But why notice this comparatively minute circumstance, and overlook the more important one, if the verse in question was then considered as interpolated, or was wanting in his Copy? He does not say how many of his manuscripts contained this first epistle of John. He might have seven Copies of the Gospels, and but one or two perhaps, of the

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 35 of 37

Catholic Epistles. But it must have been contained at least in one of them; otherwise he forfeits that character for judgment and fidelity, for which he has been so long celebrated in the learned world.

[15] The Complutensian Edition of the Old and New Testament was printed in Spain, at Complutum, or (Alcala des Henares) under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, A.D. 1514; but it was not published until several years afterwards. It was the result of the labours of forty-two learned men, who were selected by the Cardinal for that purpose, were fifteen years engaged in the work, and were furnished with all the Greek manuscripts and other aids which his great political or personal influence could procure. The copy, we are informed, which they made their text, was a very ancient manuscript, sent to them from the Vatican library, by Pope Leo X., with orders not in the least to depart from it. Accordingly, excepting a few alterations, they faithfully transcribed the whole; namely, the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and the Greek New Testament, to the Revelation, which is wanting in the Vatican copy. This transcript they compared with a number of manuscripts, some of them furnished by the Pope, and others by the Cardinal himself; particularly a very ancient manuscript of the Epistles, sent to Ximenes from Rhodes; and at the same time, they marked the readings of all these manuscripts which were different from the Vatican copy. With respect to the verse in question, Erasmus, who was contemporary with these men, affirms, that he believes they followed the Vatican copy in the insertion of this text in their edition. "Exemplar ex eadem," he says, "ni fallor Bibliotheca (Sc. Vaticana) petitum secuti sunt Hispani. " Erasmus in., loc. Dr. Macknight's Gen. Pref., to his translation and comment., on the Epistle.

[16] Robert Stephens, a celebrated printer at Paris, is acknowledged to have been a man of extensive learning and indefatigable diligence; an assiduous investigator of truth, and an accurate and judicious critic. In the preface to his first edition of the Greek Testament, published in the year 1546, he tells us, that he had procured from the Royal Library at Paris, some manuscripts of admirable antiquity; that from them he had formed his text, in such a manner as not to have admitted a letter which was not supported by the best manuscripts; that, among other helps, he had used the Complutensian Bible, whose readings he found to agree wonderfully with the king's manuscripts; in short, that having collated the text with king's manuscripts, and with the Complutensian Bible, he had admitted those readings only which were supported by the greatest number of the best Copies. In his third edition of the Greek Testament, published in the year 1550, he refers to seven out of fifteen or sixteen manuscripts in his possession, as containing this verse, with the exception of the words, en to ourano, in heaven. --- It is observable, that to this edition he has annexed a list of errata, or typographical errors, in which he has been so assiduously -- so correct, as to point out to the reader one comma forgotten, and another misplaced; but there is no reference in the errata to the verse in question. --- Travis, p. 9. --- Dr. Macknight's Gen. Preface.

[17] Theodore Beza, whose erudition and piety did honour to the age in which he lived, published at Geneva an edition of the New Testament with annotations, A.D. 1551. Morinus tells us, that to assist him in the prosecution of this work, Beza borrowed from Robert Stephens the sixteen manuscripts in his possession. In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth, he himself says, that whilst he was employed in this work, Henry Stephens, Robert's son, gave him a copy of his father's noble edition published in 1550, on which were marked the readings of about twenty-five manuscripts, and of almost all the printed copies. In his notes on the verse in question, he says, "This verse is found in the English manuscript, in the Complutensian Edition, and in some ancient manuscripts of Stephens." And he further uses this remarkable expression: I am entirely satisfied that we ought to retain this verse. If, however, the verse was not to be found in any of the manuscripts of Stephens, nothing can excuse Beza from being guilty of

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 36 of 37

uttering an intentional and deliberate falsehood respecting a matter of fact. It has been surmised that he might be mistaken; but how, in this case, could we ascertain the truth of any matter that depends on testimony, were we at liberty to assume, that they who assert it, may be mistaken, whilst we can produce no evidence that they actually were mistaken? His evidence cannot be evaded, by saying that he might mistake unintentionally; for he particularly notices certain differences in these ancient manuscripts from each other; that in some, the words Father, Word, and Spirit, were written without their articles; and, that in others, the epithet Holy, was joined to Spirit. All this affords conclusive evidence, that Beza had given the matter a full consideration, and that no room is left for supposing him misled by any misapprehension or mistake.

[18] The following are specified as instances of these omissions. In John's Gospel, Chapter 14:3, and Chapter 16:4. --- In the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8:37; 15:34; and 28:29. --- In the First Epistle of Peter, Chapter 4:14. --- These are said to be examples which have escaped even the critical eye of Beza. His annotations point out others almost innumerable. Martin's Dissertation, part 2, c. 1.

[19] Du Pin, Art. Athanasius, London Edition, vol. 8, p. 34. --- Hody ( De Bibl. Text. Originalibus, p. 309.) says of the author of this Synopsis. --- "Qui, si non fuerit Athanasius, vetustissimus tamen fuit."

[20] Athanasii Opera, vol. 1., p. 126. Edit. Col. Agr,

[21] Cave, Hist., Lit.

Copyright 2001 All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, in any forms or by any means, electronic [floppy disk, zip disk, &c.], mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Editor and Publisher.

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012

remarks

Page 37 of 37

To contact the Editor:

jcprotestanthouse@hotmail.com webmaster@1john57.com

To contact the Publisher:

"For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are one." I John v. 7.

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

3/13/2012