SECTION X.

OF THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES.

1 JOHN v. 7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This passage, if genuine, would furnish no evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not say that the three are equal; or that they are one God, one nature, or one essence. It only asserts that the three are one in the record they bear; one in testimony. The point to be established by these witnesses does not relate to the Trinity at all. It is simply this that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is not necessary that witnesses should be equal to each other, in order to a oneness of testimony. If the three are but one Being, and that Being is God, there is but one witness; whereas the text says there are three. The celebrated Reformer, Jolin Calvin, speaking of this passage, says"The expression, these three are one,' does not relate to the essence, but to the agreement of the persons spoken of. The meaning is, the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit, harmoniously bear testimony to Christ. Some copies, accordingly, read 'agree in one thing.' But although you read ‘are one,' as it is in other copies, still there is no doubt that the Father, Word, and Spirit, are said to be one, in the same sense as the blood, and water, and spirit, in the verse immediately succeeding."*

Christ. Disc. ubi supra.

But this passage is unquestionably an interpolation. It is now admitted by the most learned critics of al. denominations, that it forms no part of the inspired volume-that it does not belong to the Word of God. John wrote in Greek; but the ancient Greek manuscripts, which contain his Epistles, have not this passage. Consequently it could not have been written by John, but must have been added since. It is not found in any Greek manuscript written earlier than the fifteenth century; nor in any Latin, earlier than the ninth century. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though in defence of the doctrine of the Trintity, they have cited the words immediately before and after the 7th verse. It is not cited by any of the Latin fathers, even where it would have greatly strengthened their arguments; and where, had it existed, it might have been most naturally expected. It is not found in any of the ancient VERSIONS, the Vulgate excepted; and in the more ancient copies of this it is wanting. The first edition of Erasmus, A. D. 1516, which is the editio princeps of the Greek text, does not contain it. It is not in his second edition, A. D. 1519; but in the third it is added from the Codex Montfortii. It is wanting in the editions of Aldus, Colinæus, Gerbelius, Cephalius, Zwinglius, &c. It is wanting in all the editions of Luther, published during his life time; and it is said that he made it the subject of particular request that it might never be inserted in his translation of the New Testament. In the early English Bibles of Henry VIII, Edward VI. and Elizabeth, it was printed on small types, or included in brackets. About the middle of the sixteenth century, or a little later, it began to be printed as it now stands. Finally it is wanting in GRIESBACH'S Greek Testament,* first published about forty years ago.

• As this work will probably be read by some who never heard of Gries

The words which have been interpolated are, in the following arrangement, included in brackets.

"6. And it is the spirit the beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater."

The learned and orthodox Dr. Dodd says of this text,

bach, I give the following testimonies, from the highest Trinitarian authorities, for those who need the information.

"Of all modern critical editions of the Greek Testament, this of Griesbach is universally allowed to be the most valuable and complete."Horne's Introd. Vol. ii. p. 135.

"The Greek text of Griesbach's last edition has a just title, above every other yet published, to be received as a standard text.”—Eclectic Review. "His [Griesbach's] profound comparative knowledge of manuscripts and editions, and the singular sagacity and impartiality of his verbal criticism, have given to his text of the Christian canon an oracular value. The orthodox and the heretic bow alike to the unprejudiced indifference of his dogmatism; and, where inspiration appears not to guide, Griesbach is now acknowledged to determine."-Monthly Review.

“We hazard nothing in saying, that the venerable Professor [Griesbach] has achieved that honorable and necessary work, which has been for ages wanting, of liberating the sacred text of the New Testament from unauthorized intrusion and alterations; and that he has exhibited in it a state so nearly approaching to its original and native form, as to exclude all probable expectation of any material improvement from future collations and critical labors."-Eclectic Review; March, 1809.

"Of all the texts, then, in the New Testament, to which I have directed your attention on this interesting topic, [the Divinity of Christ] how many are there, do you suppose, which undergo any alteration in the text of GRIESBACH, the most recent, and, on all hands, acknowledged the most perfect?-You will be surprised, perhaps,-es pecially any of you who may have been in the way of hearing Griesbach so often and so trium phantly appealed to, as he usually is by our opponents,-when I assure you that there is NOT ONE-that not a single text of all that have been quoted is in the slightest degree touched by this high and vaunted authori ty!"-Dr. Wardlow.

66

There are some incidental and accidental remarks, which may render the passage suspected; for the sentence is complete, and the sense more clear and better preserved, without it. Besides, the spirit is mentioned, both as a witness in heaven, and on earth; so that the six witnesses are thereby reduced to five, and the equality in number, or antithesis between the witnesses in heaven and on earth, is quite taken away. Besides, what need of witnesses in heaven? one there doubts that Jesus is the Messiah; and if it be said, that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are witnesses on earth, then there are five witnesses on earth, and none in heaven; not to say that there is a little difficulty in interpreting how the Word, or the Son, can be a witness to himself."

No

Here I should close the evidence for the spuriousness of the words included in brackets, had not an elaborate argument for their genuineness recently appeared in this town, in "A Discourse on the doctrine of the Trinity, in three Sermons," of which this very text is made the basis.* The following review, if I mistake not, will show that that argument is untenable.

The principal authorities cited by the author in favor of

* Sce Robbins on the Trinity: recently published by Sidney Underwood, 108 Union-street: particularly the note on pages 18 and 19, from which the following are extracts.

"Since the delivery of this Discourse, a tract has been handed me, entitled, 'Outline of the Testimony of Scripture against the Trinity. By Henry Ware, Jr.' The author quotes the passage I have now examined, and remarks upon it as follows. 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. This verse every body knows, was not written by St. John, but has been added to this epistle since his day.' And a little after, 'It is rejected by all impartial scholars of every denomination who have inquired concerning it.' A very bold assertion; to which it would be unnecessary to make any reply, were it not for the deserved reputation of the writer...... The Professor, having disposed of this text, says, 'There are, therefore, only two texts which formally name the Father, Son, and Spirit, in connection with each other.' One is in the form of Baptism,

the genuineness of his text, are Cyprian, Tertullian, Victor, Robert Stephens, John Mill, and Dr. Hammond. From each of the first three, he quotes a passage as circumstantial evidence at least that they had seen the verse, (1 John v. 7.) They are the following.

"It is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that these three are one.' "—Cyprian, A. D. about 250.

66

The Father and the Son, centring in the Comforter, make three, subsisting one of the other, which three are one: possessing a unity of substance, but not singular in number.”—Tertullian, A. D. about 200.

"We teach the one God, as existing in the Father, the Matt. xxviii. 19; the other, the apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii. 14. I would commend to his attention, 1 Peter, i. 2: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.'

I will here remark, that had Mr. Robbins perceived the point of Pro. fessor Ware's expression, he would, unquestionably, have thought his statement true. The word "formally," which Mr. Robbins seems to have overlooked, may denote that formality of expression which belongs to a direct announcement of a doctrine or fact. Mr. Ware doubtless conceived that the two texts referred to might be said by Trinitarians to announce in form, with some formality of expression, the doctrine of the Trinity. Other texts, (such as 1 Peter i. 2) they would say, announce it informally, that is, indirectly. Had he stated that "there is but one text which for. mally names the Father, Son, and Spirit, in connection with each other," it would, I conceive, have been perfectly correct.

"It is hard to believe," says Mr. Robbins, " that intelligent men, who reject this passage of Scripture, are fully satisfied with what they do. They usually exhibit an excitement of feeling on the subject which hardly comports with a full conviction of the understanding. We scarcely find an instance of excited feeling in the whole works of Dr. Lardner, except when he declares against the validity of this text.”

Would Mr. Robbins have us believe that all the eminent Trinitarian authors, who have declared against the validity of this text, were actuated by passion? That they had not a full conviction of the understanding ? -That good men, who think differently from himself in relation to this text, cannot express their views without losing their temper? His remarks, I think, could they be read by those authors, would be likely to restore pleasant feelings, by exciting a smile.