portance of the internal evidence may be illustrated further by the judgment and example of Wetstein. I would only first observe, that the external evidence may be decidedly, without being decisively, against a passage ;-it may be so decided by the opponents of the passage, and even admitted to be so by its advocates; and yet not be decisive against it; because in itself the external evidence is not sufficient for such decision. Mill and Bengelius admitted all the external evidence against our verse, and yet were convinced of its authenticity by its own positive evidence. Ernesti admitted all the evidence of MSS. against the verse, but was of opinion that MSS. alone were not sufficient to determine the question; and was decided in favour of the verse by the tenor of the context. Wetstein was of the same opinion as to the insufficiency even of the most antient MSS. alone Tam multa Codicibus vetustissimis Græcis et Latinis objici possint, quæ illorum testimonium infirmant atque elevant, ut ex illis solis vix quicquam certi confici possit." Yet the testimony of MSS. is almost the whole of the external evidence against the verse. For to the silence of many of the Fathers may be opposed the direct citation of the verse by many others. And the absence of the verse from all the antient versions but one, is more than compensated by the greater antiquity of that one. Wetstein exemplified his opinion of the insufficiency of the external evidence alone, by defending the authenticity of the Syriac Epistles of Clemens Romanus, on the ground chiefly of their internal evidence against the silence of the fathers, and the non-existence of Greek MSS.

"The position, then, of the learned prelate, that no internal evidence can prove a passage to be genuine, when the external evidence is decidedly against it,'" Bishop Burgess continues, "may be confidently reversed by showing, that 'No external evidence can prove a passage to be spurious, when the internal evidence is decidedly for it.' This will be evident, not only from what has been already observed respecting the insufficiency of the most antient manuscripts alone; from the equipollence of the fathers, some omitting the verse, and others quoting it; and the preponderance of the Latin version in comparison with all the others; but also from the importance of the internal evidence admitted, inculcated, and applied, by Wetstein and Griesbach. The inferiority of the external evidence to the internal will appear further from the learned prelate's own observation, that 'internal evidence may show that a passage is spurious, though external evidence is in its favour;' yet the external evidence cannot prove a passage to be spurious, when the internal evidence is decidedly for it. To apply this to our present case: the controverted verse cannot be proved to be spurious by its absence from all manuscripts but

sect. iii. init.; and especially the Preface to the second part of his Commentarius Criticus, p. 4.; " Perfectum criticum nondum eum esse, qui codices, vel universim quoslibet, vel saltem præstantiores, enumerare valeat, immo ne eum quidem, qui diversas textus recensiones distinguere ac secundum eorum consensum vel dissensum sententiam ferre didicerit; sed requiri præsertim in critico sagacitatem in indagandis et expendendis internis veræ falsæve lectionis indiciis."

Prolegom. ad N T. ed. Semler, p. 296.

6

one; from all versions but one; or by the silence of many of the fathers, while the internal evidence of diction, doctrine, and context, is decidedly for it; especially as that evidence is supported by one Greek manuscript extant, by the most antient of all the versions, and by the citation of the verse in the writings of the most learned of the Latin fathers, and by the citations or allusions of some of the Greek fathers. But we will try whether this passage be spurious or not, by a criterion proposed by the learned prelate. He says, 'Internal evidence may show that a passage is spurious, though external evidence is in its favour; for instance, if it contains allusions to things, which did not exist in the time of the reputed author.' Has this ever been shown? Has any thing of the kind been discovered in the seventh verse, by the most sagacious and most formidable' of its opponents, inconsistent with the Apostolic age, or with the character, doctrine, reasoning, or diction of the Apostle? Far from it. Its consistency with all those points is the strong evidence of its genuineness. VENEMA has a similar observation: Ut liber aliquis genuinus sit, requiri jure merito soleat, nihil, a persona auctoris, cui ascribitur, alienum, nihil, quod post ejus ætatem obtinuerit in eo reperiri.' The learned prelate himself has suggested no such inconsistency. If any thing of the kind could have been discovered, it would not have escaped the acuteness, which identified the manuscript at Cambridge with Stephens's long lost Codex sy. On the contrary, the doctrine of the Three in Heaven pervades the whole of the New Testament in the distinct personal operations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the doctrine of the Aoyos is so eminently St. John's, that he was called EOAOгOZ, teacher of the Divinity of the Logos. The attestation of Christ's divine mission and Divinity, by the three heavenly witnesses, is also peculiar to St. John.

-

"There is therefore nothing in the internal evidence which can show the passage to be spurious; while there is much to prove its authenticity; and, the internal evidences being decidedly for the verse, there is nothing in the external that can prove it to be spurious. And as the loss of the seventh verse from the most antient Greek manuscripts, may be accounted for from accidental omission, rather than wilful corruption; as such loss of essentially important Scriptures has not been general, but is confined to this single passage; — and as the loss was compensated by its most antient version, as well as by a variety of other passages containing the same doctrine; it follows, that the defence of the verse requires no sacrifice of critical princi'. nor interferes with any argument, by which the general integy of the New Testament is established. And thus we happily escape the alarming' dilemma, either to relinquish a part' of the sacred volume, or to abandon the whole.'" Supported by the preceding arguments and facts, (which unquestionably do neutralise the above cited objection of Bishop Marsh,) Bishop Burgess is most decidedly and decisively of opinion that the much disputed clause in 1 John v. 7. is genu

1 In his Letter to Hemsterhuis, § ii. p. 47.

2 Bp. Burgess's Vindication of 1 John v. 7. p. xxix.-xxxiv

ine, that it originally was extant in the autograph of the apostle John, and consequently that it ought on no account to be expunged from the sacred text."

We have thus briefly placed before the reader, the principal arguments that have been adduced on the present very important question. Much as has been written on this subject, when it is recollected that there are upwards of one thousand Greek manuscripts of various portions of the New Testament, which are known to be uncollated, the reader will perhaps concur with the writer of these pages in entertaining a suspicion, with the late Bishop Middleton, that although so much labour and critical acumen have been bestowed on these celebrated verses, more is yet to be done before the mystery in which they are involved can be wholly developed; especially, if (as another eminent critic has remarked), it should happen that still older manuscripts should yet be found than those on which we are now obliged to rely.3 Should it ultimately appear that the disputed clause is spurious, its absence will not diminish the weight of IRRESISTIBLE EVIDENCE which other undisputed passages of holy writ afford to the doctrine of the Trinity. The proofs of our Lord's true and proper Godhead remain unshaken - deduced from the prophetic descriptions of the Messiah's person in the Old Testament in the Old Testament-from the ascription to him of the attributes, the works, and the homage, which are peculiar to the Deity and from those numerous and important relations, which he is affirmed in Scripture to sustain towards his holy and universal church, and towards each of its true members. "There are," to use the words of Griesbach, "so many arguments for the true deity of Christ, that I see not how it can be called in question; the divine authority of Scripture being granted, and just rules of interpretation acknowledged. The exordium of Saint John's Gospel, in particular, is so perspicuous and above all exception, that it NEVER CAN be overturned by the daring attacks of interpreters and critics."5

The reader, who may be desirous of entering more fully into this controversy, may consult the dissertations of Calmet, and Dr. Benson, the elaborate note or rather disquisition of Wetstein, and par

1 Vindication of 1 John v. 7. p. xxxiv.

2 See p. 437. supra.

3 Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 653. British Critic, vol. xxxvii. O. S. p. 387.

4 On this subject the reader is referred to a small volume by the author of this work, entitled The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity briefly stated and defended, &c. (12mo. London, 1820.) In the appendix to that volume he has exhibited the very strong collateral testimony, furnished to the scriptural evidence of this doctrine, by the actual profession of faith in, and worship of, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as of God the Father, by the Christian church in every age; together with other documents illustrative of this important truth of divine revelation, derived from ecclesiastical history and the writings of the fathers of the three first centuries of the Christian æra.

5 Griesbach's Preface to vol. ii. of the first of his Critical Editions of the Greek Testament, 1775.

6 Comment. Littéral, tome viii. PP. 745--752.

7 Paraphrase on the Catholic Epistles, pp. 631-646

8 Nov. Test. vol. ii. pp. 721-726.

ticularly the dissertation of Michaelis already cited,' together with Mr. Archdeacon Travis's Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq. (1794, 3d edit. 8vo.), the late Professor Porson's Letters to Mr. Travis, in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1788, 1789, and 1790, which were soon afterwards collected into an octavo volume, and published with additions, and also the Rev. Herbert (now Bishop) Marsh's Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis. (Leipsic and London, 1795, 8vo.) Those who may not have the opportunity of consulting these rare and elaborate works, will find a copious and perspicuous account of the controversy in Dr. Mill's long note at the end of 1 John v. (p. 582. of Kuster's edition); in the Diatribe of Griesbach, at the end of the second volume of his edition of the Greek Testament, as well as in the sixth volume of the Christian Observer, for the year 1806; in the Eclectic Review for 1810, vol. vi. part 1. pp. 62-71. 155-164.; Dr. Hales's Treatise on Faith in the Holy Trinity, vol. ii. pp. 131-225. Lond. 1818. 8vo.; Mr. Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (London, 1815. 8vo.); Bishop Burgess's Vindication of 1 John v. 7. from the objections of M. Griesbach. London, 1823. 8vo.; second edition, in which the venerable prelate has replied to the critique on the first edition of his publication in the Quarterly Review. (vol. xxvi. pp. 324-341.) There is likewise a neat and succinct statement of the arguments in Dr. A. Clarke's Succession of Sacred Literature, and also in the second volume of Mr. Butler's Hora Biblica.3 The dissertation of the late Rev. Dr. Hey, though less extensive than either of the last-mentioned disquisitions, is richly deserving of a perusal from the candid spirit in which it is drawn up.1

SECTION VI.

ON THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.

II. The

I. Genuineness, authenticity, and date of these Epistles. second Epistle, to whom addressed.—III. Its scope.-IV. The third Epistle, to whom addressed.-V. Its Scope. VI. Observations on this Epistle.

I. ALTHOUGH, in the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote his ecclesiastical history, these two Epistles were classed among the Avriλsyousva or books which were received by the majority of Christians, (though some doubts were entertained by others respecting their authenticity,) yet testimonies are not wanting to prove that they were both known and received as genuine productions of the apostle Saint John. The second Epistle is cited by Irenæus, and received

1 See his Introd. to the New Test. vol. iv. pp. 412-441.

2 Pp. 85-98. Dr. C. has reprinted his Essay, with important additions, at the end of his Commentary on the First Epistle of Saint John.

3 Mr. Butler's work is particularly valuable, as he has given the literary history of this controversy, which want of room has compelled us to omit.

4 See his Norrisian Lectures on Divinity, vol. ii. pp. 280-291. All the above noticed works have been consulted for the preceding observations on the contested clause.

by Clement of Alexandria. Origen mentions all three Epistles, though he says that the second and third were not allowed to be genuine by all persons. Dionysius of Alexandria mentions them as being ascribed to Saint John. The second Epistle was quoted by Alexander bishop of Alexandria; and all three Epistles were received by Athanasius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, by Epiphanius, Jerome (a few of whose contemporaries doubted the authenticity of these Epistles), Rufinus, and almost every subsequent writer of note.1 They are not indeed received in the Syrian churches; but the thoughts and style are so similar to those of the first Epistle, that almost all critics attribute them to the author of the first Epistle, namely, Saint John; and they were in all probability written about the same time as that Epistle, viz. A. D. 68 or 69. Consequently these Epistles could not have been written by John the elder, a member of the Ephesian church, as some of the fathers, and also some modern critics, have imagined. Various reasons have been assigned why these two Epistles were not received earlier into the canon. Michaelis is disposed to think that doubt was excited concerning their genuineness by the address, in which the author neither calls himself John, nor assumes the title of an apostle, but simply names himself the "elder" (ōgerBurgos); as Saint Peter (1 ch. v. 1.) styles himself a "fellow elder" (ouμrger Buregos), which title, after Peter's death, the apostle John might with great propriety assume, as being the only remaining apostle. It is however most probable that, being letters to private persons, they had for a considerable time been kept in the possession of the families to whom they were originally sent, and were not discovered till long after the apostle's decease, and after the death of the persons to whom they had been addressed. When first discovered, all the immediate vouchers for their genuineness were necessarily gone; and the church of Christ, ever on its guard against imposture, particularly in relation to writings professing to be the work of apostles, hesitated to receive them into the number of canonical Scriptures, until it was fully ascertained that they were divinely inspired.

II. Considerable uncertainty prevails respecting the person to whom the second Epistle was addressed, some conjecturing a particular person to be intended, while others understand it figuratively, as of the church. The antient commentators supposed it to be figurative, but most of the modern commentators and critics understand it literally, though they do not agree in their literal interpretation. Archbishop Newcome, Wakefield, Macknight, and the venerable translators of our authorised version, make Exλex to be an adjective, and render the inscription "to the elect (or excellent, or chosen) Lady;" the Vulgate version, Calmet, and others, consider Exxsxr to be a proper name, and translate it "To the Lady Electa;" Schleusner and

1 See the references to the above named fathers in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vi. pp. 584-586.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 525, 526.

2 Dr. Mill, and after him Dr. Lardner, observe, that, of the thirteen verses composing the second Epistle, eight are to be found in the first, either in sense or in expression.