Hebrews. Compare 1 Pet. i. 1. and 2 Pet. i. 1. with 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2. Consequently, as the authenticity of the first Epistle was never disputed, the second was unquestionably written by the same person, viz. Peter. 3. Whoever wrote this Epistle calls Paul his beloved brother (iii. 15, 16.), commends him, and approves the authority of his Epistles, which none but an apostle could venture to affirm. 4. A holy and apostolical spirit breathes throughout the whole of this Epistle; in which we find predictions of things to come, and admonitions against false teachers and apostasy, together with exhortations to a godly life, and condemnations of sin, delivered with an earnestness and feeling which show the author to have been incapable of imposing a forged writing upon the world and that his sole design in this Epistle was to promote the interests of truth and virtue in the world. 5. Lastly, the style is the same in both Epistles. The sentences in the second Epistle are seldom fluent and well rounded, but they have the same extension as those in the first. There are also repetitions of the same words, and allusions to the same events. Thus the word araspun, conversation or behaviour, which is so peculiar to the first Epistle, likewise occurs in the second, though less frequently than in the former. So the deluge, which is not a common subject in the apostolical Epistles, is mentioned in 1 Pet. iii. 20., and also in 2 Pet. ii. 5.; and in both places the circumstance is noted, that eight persons only were saved, though in neither place does the subject require that the number should be particularly specified. Michaelis observes that Peter was not the only apostle who knew how many persons were saved in the ark; but he only, who by habit had acquired a familiarity with the subject, would ascertain the precise number, where his argument did not depend upon it. The result of all these evidences, both external and internal, is, that the second Epistle of Peter is unquestionably the production of that apostle, and claims to be received and studied with the same devout care and attention as the rest of the inspired writings of the New Testament. ON THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN. Genuineness and canonical authority.—II. Date.-III. Of the persons to whom this Epistle was written.-IV. Its occasion and scope.-Account of the false teachers whose principles are refuted by the apostle.-V. Synopsis of its contents.-VI. The question concerning the authenticity of the disputed clause in 1 John v. 7, 8. considered. I. ALTHOUGH no name is prefixed to this book, its authenticity as a genuine production of the apostle John is unquestionable. It was almost universally received as his composition in the Eastern and Western churches, and appears to be alluded to by Hermas." It is distinctly cited by Polycarp, and in the Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, and is declared to be genuine by Papias, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian," Origen,12 Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, and all subsequent ecclesiastical writers. A still more decisive testimony is the fact that it is found in the Syriac version of the New Testament, executed at the close of the first or very early in the second century, and which contains only those books of the New Testament, respecting besides this external proof, we have the strongest internal whose authenticity no doubts were ever entertained. But, evidence that this Epistle was written by the apostle John, in the very close analogy of its sentiments and expressions to those of his Gospel. There is also a remarkable pecuII. That Peter was old and near his death, when he wrote Epistle. His sentences, considered separately, are exceedliarity in the style of this apostle, and particularly in this this Epistle, is evident from ch. i. 14.; and that it was written ingly clear and intelligible; but, when we search for their soon after the first Epistle, appears from the apology he brew Christians. Dr. Lardner thinks it not unlikely that, city and benevolence, blended with singular modesty and makes (i. 13. 15.) for writing this second Epistle to the He- connexion, we frequently meet with greater difficulties than we experience even in the Epistles of Paul. Artless simplisoon after the apostle had sent away Silvanus with his first candour, together with a wonderful sublimity of sentiment, letter to the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia are the characteristics of this Epistle; in which John appears Minor, and Bithynia, some persons came from those countries to have delivered his conceptions as they arose in his mind, to Rome (whither there was a frequent and general resort and in the form of aphorisms, in order that they might profrom all parts), who brought him information concerning theduce the greater effect. In his Gospel John does not content state of religion among them. These accounts induced him himself with simply affirming or denying a thing, but denies to write a second time, most probably at the beginning of its contrary to strengthen his affirmation; and in like manner, A. D. 65, in order to establish in the faith the Christians among to strengthen his denial of a thing, he affirms its contrary. See John i. 20. iii. 36. v. 24. vi. 22. The same manner of expressing things strongly occurs in this Epistle. See ii. 4. 27. and iv. 2, 3. In his Gospel also, Saint John frequently uses the pronoun or ros, auth, TUTO, this, in order to express things emphatically. See i. 19. iii. 19. vi. 29. 40. 50. and xvii. 3. pression obtains. Compare i. 5. ii. 25. iii. 23. v. 3. 4. 6. In the Epistle the same emphatical mode of ex whom he had laboured, III. The scope of this Epistle is to confirm the doctrines and instructions delivered in the former; to establish the Hebrew Christians in the truth and profession of the Gospel; to caution them against false teachers, whose tenets and practices he largely describes; and to warn them to disregard those profane scoffers, who made or should make a mock of Christ's coming to judgment; which having asserted and described, he exhorts them to prepare for that event by a holy and unblameable conversation. The Epistle consists of three parts; viz. PART I. The Introduction. (i. 1, 2.) PART II, Having stated the Blessings to which God had called SECT. 1. Exhorts the Christians, who had received these pre- i From the firmness of true teachers. (i. 12-21.) ii. From the wickedness of false teachers, whose tenets and practices he exposes, and predicts the divine judgments against them. (ii.) SECT. 3. He guards them against scoffers and impostors, who, he foretells, would ridicule their expectation of Christ's coming ; i. By confuting their false assertions. (iii. 1-7.) i. By showing the reason why that great day was delayed; and describing its circumstances and consequences, adding suitable exhortations and encouragements to diligence and holiness. (iii. 8-14.). PART III. The Conclusion, in which the Apostle, SECT. 1. Declares the agreement of his doctrine with that of 1 See the observations on Saint Peter's style, p. 362. supra. 2 Pet. u. 7. iii. 11. and 14.15 siderable diversity of opinion. Pritii Introd. ad Lect. Nov. Test. pp. 90-99. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. pp. 108. 109. 113.; 41o. vol. i. pp. 337. 340. 10 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 227.; 4to. vol. i. p. 403. 11 Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. p. 275.; 4to. vol. i. p. 429. 19 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 481.; 4to. vol. i. p. 540. 13 Ibid. 8vo, vol. vi. p. 581, 585.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 525, 526. 14 See several instances of this analogy, supra, Vol. I. pp. 51, 52, notes. 18 Lampe, Cominentarius in Evangelium Johannis, tom. 1. Prolegomena, p. 101. Macknight's Preface to 1 John, sect. 2. Langii, Hermeneutica" Sacra, pars ii. De Interpretatione Epistolarum Johannis, pp. 167-175, destruction of Jerusalem and the subversion of the Jewish | Parthians, because the apostle is reported to have preached polity. For, the Gospel to that people; but this opinion is entirely unsupported by the evidence of antiquity. Dr. Benson thinks that. the Epistle was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Judæa and Galilee. But the most probable opinion is that of Ecumenius, Lampe, Dupin, Lardner, Michaelis, Macknight, Bishop Tomline, and others, who think it was written for the For, 1. It has always been called a catholic or general Epistle; use of Christians of every denomination and of every country. 2. It does not contain any words of limitation that can John ii. 15. would be unnecessary to believers in Judæa, a. D. restrict it to a particular people;-3. The admonition in 1 68, after the war had commenced with the Romans; it is rather suited to people in easy circumstances, and who were in danger of being ensnared by the allurements of prosperity; 4. Lastly, the concluding exhortation to believers to keep themselves from idols" is in no respect suitable to believers in Judæa, but is much more likely to be addressed to Christians living in other parts of the world, where idolatry prevailed. 1. In the first place, The expression in ii. 18., It is the last hour, is more applicable to the last hour or time of the duration of the Jewish state than to any later period, especially as the apostle adds-And as ye have heard that Antichrist is coming, even so now there have been many Antichrists; whence we know that it is the last hour: in which passage the apostle evidently alludes to our Lord's prediction concerning the springing up of false Christs, false teachers, and false prophets, before the destruction of Jerusalem. (Matt. xxiv. 5-25.) Some critics, however, contend that the "last time" may allude, not to the destruction of that city, but to the close of the apostolic age. But Michaelis confirms the propriety of this argument for the early date of this Epistle, by observing that John's Gospel was opposed to heretics, who maintained the same opinions as are opposed in this Epistle; which tenets he has confuted by argument in his Gospel, whereas in the Epistle he expresses only his disapprobation. Michaelis, therefore, concludes, that the Epistle was written before the Gospel; because if Saint John had already given a complete confutation when he wrote this Epistle, he would have thought it unnecessary to have again declared the falsehood of such opinions. 2. Secondly, the expression (ii. 13, 14.), Ye have known him from the beginning, applies better to the disciples, immediately before Jerusalem was destroyed, than to the few who might have been alive at the late date which some critics assign to this Epistle. In the verses just cited, the fathers or elders are twice distinguished from the "young men" and the "children," by this circumstance, that they had seen him during his ministry, or after his resurrection. Thirty-five years after our Lord's resurrection and ascension, when Jerusalem was destroyed, many such persons might have been alive; whereas in 98, or even in 92, there could not have been many persons alive of that description. To these two arguments for the early date of John's first Epistle, Dr. Hales has added the three following, which have not been noticed by any other biblical critic: 1. As the other apostles, James, Jude, Paul, and Peter, had written Catholic Epistles to the Hebrew Christians especially, it is likely, that one of the principal "pillars of the church," the greatest surety of the mother-church, the most highly gifted and illuminated of all the apostles of the circumcision, and the beloved disciple, would not be deficient likewise in this labour of love. 2. Nothing could tend so strongly to establish the faith of the early Jewish converts as the remarkable circumstances of our Lord's crucifixion, exhibiting the accomplishment of the ancient types and prophecies of the Old Testament respecting Christ's passion, or sufferings in the flesh. These John alone could record, as he was the only eye-witness of that last solemn scene among the apostles. To these, therefore, he alludes in the exordium as well as to the circumstances of our Lord's appearances after the resurrection; and to these he again recalls their attention in that remarkable reference to "the water" at his baptism, to " the water and blood" at his passion, and to the dismissal of "his spirit" when he commended it to his Father, and expired. (v. 5—9.) 3. The parallel testimony in the Gospel (John xix. 35-37.) bears witness also to the priority of the Epistle, in the expression, "He that saw hath testified" (aprupuxe), intimating that he had delivered this testimony to the world already; for if now, for the first time, it should rather be expressed by the present tense, μrupa, "testifieth." And this is strongly confirmed by the apostle's same expression, after giving his evidence in the Epistle," this is the testimony of God, which he hath testified (run) concerning his Son" (ver. 9.), referring to the past transaction, as fulfilling prophecy.' We conclude, therefore, that Saint John wrote his first Epistle in 68, or at the latest in 69; though it is impossible to ascertain from what place he sent it, whether from Patmos, as Grotius supposes, or from some city in Judæa, as Dr. Macknight supposes, or from Ephesus, as Irenæus and Eusebius relate from ancient tradition, which has been generally received. III. It is still more difficult to decide concerning the persons to whom this Epistle was written. Augustine, Cassiodorus, and the venerable Bede, called it the Epistle of John to the 1 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 587-589.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 426-428. Lampe, tom, i. p. 106. Pritius, p. 106. Benson's Paraphrase on the Catholic Epistles, PP. 505-510. Macknight's Preface to 1 John, sect. 4. Pritii, Introd. in Nov. Test pp. 99-103. Hales's Sacred Chronology, vol. iii. p. 452. second edition. 6 66 IV. This book is usually entitled The General Epistle of St. John. "But in the composition of it, narrowly inspected, nothing is to be found in the epistolary form. It is not inscribed either to any individual, like Paul's to Timothy and Titus, or the second of the two which follow it, 'To the well-beloved Gaius'-nor to any particular church, like Paul's to the churches of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and others-nor to the faithful of any particular region, like Peter's first Epistle To the strangers scattered throughou Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia'-nor to any principal branch of the Christian church, like Paul's to the Hebrews-nor to the Christian church in general, like the second of Peter, To them that had obtained like precious faith with him,' and like Jude's, "To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. It bears no such inscription: it begins without salutation, and ends without benediction. It is true, the writer sometimes speaks, but without naming himself, in the in the second. But this colloquial style is very common in first person-and addresses his reader without naming him, all writings of a plain familiar cast: instances of it occur in John's Gospel; and it is by no means a distinguishing character of epistolary composition. It should seem that this book hath for no other reason acquired the title of an epistle, but that in the first formation of the canon of the New Testament it was put into the same volume with the didactic writings of the apostles, which, with this single exception, are all in the epistolary form. It is, indeed, a didactic discourse upon the principles of Christianity, both in doctrine and practice: and whether we consider the sublimity of its opening with the fundamental topics of God's perfections, man's depravity, and Christ's propitiation-the perspicuity with which it propounds the deepest mysteries of our holy faith, and the evidence of the proof which it brings to confirm them; whether we consider the sanctity of its precepts, and the energy of argument with which they are persuaded and enforced-the dignified simplicity of language in which both doctrine and precept are delivered; whether we regard the importance of the matter, the propri ety of the style, or the general spirit of ardent piety and warm benevolence, united with a fervid zeal, which breathes throughout the whole composition-we shall find it in every respect worthy of the holy author to whom the constant tra ditíon of the church ascribes it, the disciple whom Jesus loved." 9912 The design of this treatise is, wrote against erroneous and licentious tenets, principles, and First, to refute, and to guard the Christians to whom he humanity of Christ,' of the reality and efficacy of his sufpractices; such as the denial of the real Deity and proper ferings and death as an atoning sacrifice, and the assertion, that believers being saved by grace, were not required to obey the commandments of God. These principles began to appear in the church of Christ even in the apostolic age, and were afterwards maintained by the Cerinthians, and other heretics who sprang up at the close of the first and in the second century of the Christian æra.4 Secondly, To stir up all who profess to know God, to have 2 Bishop Horsley's Sermons, pp. 144, 145. 2d edit. The late Dr. Randolph has admirably illustrated those parts of the present Epistle which assert the Deity of Christ, in his Prælectio xiii. vol. ii. pp. 512-523. of his View of our Saviour's Ministry. For an ample account of the tenets of the Cerinthians, see p. 316 of the present volume. communion with him, and to believe in him, that they walk | an affectionate spirit pervades the whole, except in those in the light and not in darkness (i. 5—7.), that is, in holiness and not in sin; that they walk as Christ walked (ii. 6.); and that they keep the commandments, and especially abound in sincere brotherly love towards each other. (ii. 4. 9-11. iii. 10-24. iv. 20, 21. v. 1-3.) This rational and Christian spirit, the apostle enforces upon the best principles, and with the strongest arguments, derived from the love of God and of Christ; showing the utter insufficiency of faith, and the mere external profession of religion, without the accompanying evidence of a holy life and conduct. Thirdly, to help forward and to provoke real Christians to communion with God and the Lord Jesus Christ (i. 3, 4.); to constancy in the true faith, against all that seduced them (ii. 24-28.); to purity and holiness of life (ii. 1. iii. 3-13.),' and that those who believe on the name of the Son of God, may know that they have eternal life. (v. 13.) passages where the apostle exposes and reprehends hypocrites In the Textus Receptus, or received Greek Text of the New Testament, the seventh and eighth verses of the fifth chapter of this Epistle are as follows: Ότι τρεις εισιν ci μαρτυρούντες [εν τω ουρανω ὁ Πατερ, ὁ Λόγος, και το άγιον Πνεύμα· και οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εισι. Και τρεις εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυρούντες εν τη γη] το πνώμα, και το ύδωρ, και το αίμα και οι τρεις εις το έν εισι. In the Vulgate Latin, and our authorized English version, V. Heidegger, Van Til, Pritius, Moldenhawer, Langius, SECT. 1. asserts the true divinity and humanity of Christ, in SECT. 3. asserts Jesus to be the same person with Christ, in quent happiness and duties, and the marks by which they are known to be "the sons of God." (iii.) SECT. 5. Contains criteria by which to distinguish Antichrist and false Christians, with an exhortation to brotherly love. (iv.) Quoniam tres sunt qui testimo- sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one. The disputed passage is included between the brackets. The decision of the controversy depends partly upon the Greek manuscripts, partly upon the ancient versions, and partly upon the quotations which occur in the writings of the ancient fathers. AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONTROVERTED PASSAGE, IT IS URGED, 1. That this clause is not to be found in a single Greek manuscript written before the sixteenth century. Of all the manuscripts hitherto discovered and collated which if we deduct several that are either mutilated or imperfect in this contain this Epistle, amounting to one hundred and forty-nine,2 place, it will be found that four only have the text, and two of these are absolutely of no authority; viz. 1. The Codex Guelpherbytanus, which is evidently a manuscript of the seventeenth century, for it contains the Latin trans$i. A mark to know one sort of Antichrist,-the not confessing that lation of Beza, written by the same hand, and consequently is of Christ came in the flesh. (iv. 1-3.) ii. Criteria for distinguishing false Christians; viz. (1.) Love of the world. (4—6.) (2.) Want of brotherly love. (7-12.) (3.) Denying Christ to be the true Son of God. (13-15.) $ iii. A recommendation of brotherly love, from the consideration of the The preceding is an outline of this admirable Epistle; which being designed to promote right principles of doctrine and practical piety in conduct, abounds, more than any book of the New Testament, with criteria by which Christians may soberly examine themselves whether they be in the faith. (2 Cor. xiii. 5.) The style of this Epistle is pure, clear, and flowing; and 1 Roberts's Clavis Bibliorum, p. 827. no use whatever in sacred criticism. 2. The Codex Ravianus or Berolinensis, which is obviously a forgery; it is for the most part only a transcript of the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglott, printed in 1514, with some various readings from Stephens's third edition; and the remainder (from Mark v. 20. to the end of Saint John's Gospel and Rom. i.—vi. and xiii.—xvi.) is a copy of the same edition, with some various readings taken partly from Stephens's margin, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott.3 3. The Codex Britannicus, as it was called by Erasmus, now better known by the appellation of the Codex Montforti, Montfortianus, or Dublinensis, which is preserved in Trinity College Library, Dublin. A fac-simile of it is annexed. 2 In this number are now, for the first time, comprised one of the manuscripts collated by Dr. Scholz, and three manuscripts in the archiepiscopal from the Greek islands by the late Professor Carlyle. (See a notice of library at Lambeth, numbered 1182, 1183, and 1185, which were brought them in our first volume.) The information, that the disputed clause does not exist in these MSS. was communicated to the author, with equal to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. promptitude and kindness, by the Rev. Dr. D'Oyly, Manuscript-Librarian a See this proved in Griesbach's Symbolæ Criticæ, pars i. p. clxxxi. and especially in Pappelbaum's Codices Manuscripti Raviani Examen, 8vo. Berlin, 1796. Bishop Marsh has given a very valuable extract from Pappelbaum's treatise, with remarks, in the Appendix to his Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, pp. 241-252. ότι εισιν οι μαρτ احد οι pour Ev Tw ouver, timp, dolos, Kainiva alcor. The passage, divested of its contractions, runs thus : ότι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυ ρούντες εν τω ουρανω, πατήρ, λόγος, Και πνεύμα αγιον, Και ούτοι οι τρεις, εν εισι. Και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυ ρούντες εν τη γη, πνεύμα, ύδωρ, και αίμα· ει την μαρτυρίαν ανθρωπων λαμβανομεν, η μαρτυρία του Θεου μείζων εστιν, ότι αυτή εστιν η μαρτυρία του θεου, στι μεμαρτυρηκε περί του υιού αυτού, The Codex Britannicus is described by Erasmus as a latinizing manuscript: and that this charge is well founded we have shown in the first volume of this work. If any additional evidence were wanting, it is furnished in the passage just given; which is written in such Greek as manifestly betrays a translation from the Latin. It will be observed, that "the article is omitted before the words expressive of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because there is no article in the Latin, and it occurred not to the translator that the usual Greek was o waτng, o xogos, Tμ. He has also an gn, for eri tas as, because he found in terra. He has likewise omitted argus S TO V How, which is wanting in many Latin manuscripts; because the Lateran council, held in 1215, had rejected it through polemical motives. The omission of this clause at the end of the eighth verse is a proof, not only that the writer of the Codex Montfortianus copied from the Vulgate, because no ancient Greek manuscript omits the clause in that place; but also that he copied even from modern transcripts of the Vulgate, because this final clause is found in all the manuscripts of the Vulgate written before the thirteenth century."2 Such are the internal evidences against the authority of the Codex Montfortianus; nor are the external evidences, founded on its date, more weighty. Dr. Adam Clarke indeed assigns it to the fourteenth, or even to the thirteenth century (which lat ter date is adopted by Bishop Burgess); but as there is reason to believe, that in the thirteenth century the seventh verse was extant in a great majority of the copies of the Latin Vulgate, a Greek manuscript of that age may easily have been interpolated from those copies. Michaelis refers the Codex Montfortianus to the sixteenth century; and Bishop Marsh, after Griesbach, to the fifteenth or sixteenth century; that is, subsequently to the invention of the art of printing. Other learned men have observed, that the form of the letters is the same with that of our printed Greek Testaments, with accents and spirits: so that it may possibly have been written subsequently to the invention of printing. The close of the fifteenth century, therefore, is the most probable date. Conceding, however, every advantage that can be claimed for this manuscript by its most strenuous advocates, it is still modern: and the testimony of a witness, of so exceptionable an internal character, can be of no value in opposition to all other evidence. 3 4. The Codex Ottobonianus, 298. in the Vatican Library, is the only other manuscript, in which the disputed clause is to be found, as appears in the following fac-simile :— It is worthy of remark that this manuscript has a тou oupavoυ 1 See Vol. I. Part I. Chap. III. Sect. IL § 4. ii. No. 61. At least, we may presume, that it is the only other manuscript which contains the disputed clause since Prof. Scholz states, that he has examined the MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris, and the Libraries at Florence, Milan, and Rome, also in Greece and Palestine. If he had discovered any other manuscript in which the disputed clause appears, he would most assuredly have communicated some notice of it to the public. ότι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρούντες από του ουρανου πατηρ λόγος και πνεύμα αγιον τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρούντες απο της γης το πνεύμα το υδωρ και το αίμα 46 την μαρτυρίαν the Codex Montfortianus; and the absence of the article (as in that manuscript) before the words expressive of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, manifestly indicates the Latin origin of the Codex Ottobonianus; which has further been altered in many places to make it agree with the Latin Vulgate. And as this manuscript is stated to have been written in the fifteenth century, this late date, in addition to the very doubtful internal evidence which it affords, renders its testimony of no force whatever." It is a remarkable circumstance, which confirms the argument against the genuineness of the clause in question, that in those manuscripts which have it not, there is no erasure in this part, or the slightest indication of any kind of deficiency. 2. This clause is wanting in the earliest and best critical editions of the Greek Testament. It is not printed in Erasmus's first edition, published in 1516, | but (as he says) "to avoid calumny." It is found indeed in the nor in his second edition, in 1519; nor in the editions of Aldus, Greek text, and in the Vulgate Latin version of the Compluten1518; Gerbelius, 1521; Cephalæus, 1524 ; and of Colinæus, 1534. sian Polyglott, of which a fac-simile is given in the annexed Erasmus, it is true, inserted it in his third edition published in engraving, which is accurately copied from the exemplar pre1522, on the faith of the Codex Britannicus or Montfortianus served in the library of Sion College, London. above mentioned,-not from any conviction of its genuineness, On this fac-simile it is to be observed, 1. That the first five | it is in the margin of this text. In 1 Cor. xv. there is noticed in lines, both of the Greek and Latin, are at the top of the opposite page to that on which the other four lines are found; and 2. That the alphabetical letters, intermingled with the Greek text, refer to the corresponding words in the Latin text, which is printed in a parallel column in the Complutensian edition, and marked with the same letters, in order to ascertain more easily the corresponding Greek and Latin words. As the size of our page does not admit of the Greek and Latin texts being disposed in parallel columns, they are necessarily placed one below the other. But the Complutensian Polyglott, however rare and valuable in other respects, is in this case of no authority beyond that of any common Greek Testament, any further than it is supported by ancient MSS. The editors of the Complutensian Greek Testament, indeed, profess to have followed the best and most ancient manuscripts of the Vatican: but in that age copies, two or three hundred years old, were considered as ancient. It is, however, most certain that they did not consult the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, which is reputed to be one of the most ancient MSS. if it be not the most ancient manuscript extant (for that manuscript has not the disputed clause); and that they have not only departed from its readings in many places, but have also varied from the order of things in point of time and place. Wetstein, Semler, and Griesbach are unanimously of opinion that the MSS. used by the Complutensian editors were neither ancient nor valuable: for they scarcely ever consent with the most ancient copies or fathers, except in conjunction with modern copies, and they almost always agree with the modern copies where these differ from the more ancient. Because the Complutensian editors admitted the disputed passage into their text of the New Testament, it has been supposed that they found it in their MSS.; but it is more probable, that they inserted it upon the authority of the Latin Vulgate Version. For, (1.) In the first place, It is not usual-indeed it forms no part of the plan of the Complutensian edition-to insert notes in the margin of the Greek text. Not more than three instances of such notes occur throughout this edition: "and therefore," as Sir Isaac Newton has forcibly argued, "there must be something extraordinary, and that in respect of the Greek, because this margin a notable variation in the Greek reading. In Matt. vi. 13., where they, in their edition, recede from the Greek copies and correct it by the Latin, they make a marginal note to justify their doing so. And so here, where the testimony of the Three in heaven' is generally wanting in the Greek copies, they make a third marginal note, to secure themselves from being blamed for printing it. Now, in such a case as this, there is no question but they would make the best defence they could; and yet they do not tell of any various lections in the Greek manuscripts, nor produce any one Greek manuscript on their side, but have recourse to the authority of Thomas Aquinas."—"Thomas, say they, in treating of the three which bear witness in heaven, teaches, that the words these Three are one,' are subjoined for insinuating the unity of the Essence of the Three Persons. And whereas one Joachim interpreted this unity to be only ove and consent, it being thus said of the Spirit, Water, and Blood, in some copies, that these Three are one: Thomas replied, that this clause is not extant in the true copies, but was added by the Arians for perverting the sense." Thus far, this annotation. "Now this plainly respects the Latin copies (for Aquinas u."derstood not Greek), and therefore part of the design of this annotation is to set right the Latin reading. But this is not the Mace's Greek and English edition, 1729, in that of Harwood, 1776, in whose Among modern editions of note, the disputed clause is omitted in edition the text of the epistles represents the Clermont manuscript; Matof his text. In the editions of Bowyer, in 1763, 1772, and 1782; of Knappe, thæi, 1782-88; and Griesbach, 1774-5, and the various subsequent editions in 1797; of Tittman, in 1820; of Vater, in 1824; of Goeschen, 1832; and of Bloomfield, 1832; this clause is included between brackets. brary) of the original of the marginal note above alluded to:-"Sanctus The following is a literal transcript (from the copy in Sion College LiThomas, in expositione secunde decretalis de suma trinitate et fide catholica, tractans istum passum contra abbatem Joachim, ut tres sunt qui testimo nium dant in cœlo, pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus: dicit ad literam, verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur, et hii tres unum sunt. Quod quidem dicitur propter essentie unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse trahere volens, ad unitatem charitatis et consensus inducebat conséquentem auctoritatem: Nam subditur ibidem, et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra s. [i. e. scilicet] spiritus: aqua: et sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unuin sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab here. ticis arrianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum. Hec beatus Thomas ubi supra." |