even among our adversaries have themselves shown, nothing certain can be concluded from them. There are, besides, some persons who deem the genuineness of the passage suspicious;-that is to say, Erasmus, Beza, Franc. Lucas, and the Louvain divines. On this account Luther could not venture to admit the words; and his colleague Bugenhagius, in his Commentary on John, warned all printers against inserting them in the text. Besides, the principal Fathers among the advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity, whose names may be seen in the editions of Louvain, of Beza, Serarius, and Pelargus, do not acknowledge them. They do not agree with the preceding context. And Gro

tius asserts that they are wholly wanting in a very ancient manuscript which was transmitted by the patriarch Cyrillus to the king of Great Britain.-I observe in the next place, that even if the passage were found in the authentic Scriptures, it could not be proved from it that there are three persons in one God. For it ought not to be inferred from the words, that all these are PERSONS, merely because they are said to bear record: for in the following verse, the very same thing is stated of the spirit, the water, and the blood. When then it is said that they are one, or, as some copies read, in one, no other unity ought to be understood than that which is wont to exist in witnesses who agree in their testimony. This is apparent not only from the circumstance that the writer is here speaking of witnesses, but also because he makes a similar assertion in the following verse concerning the spirit, the water, and the blood-that

THESE

THESE THREE ARE, or agree, IN ONE THING,—or as the Latin version correctly renders the words, are one thing-Unum sunt. I now

5 The reader who wishes for further information concerning this passage may consult the Interpretationes Paradoxa Quatuor Evangeliorum, of Christopher Sandius (Appendix p. 376); and also the work of Herman Cingallus, lately published under the title of Scriptura S. Trinitatis Revelatrix, p. 91, &c., an author who seems to have drawn his remarks on this passage, as well as several others, from Sandiusf. These writers, in addition to the versions above enumerated, state that these words are wanting in the Armenian, Ruthenic and Illyric, or Sclavonic Bibles. And the Fathers who are named as not acknowledging. them are Athanasius, Hilary, Didymus, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Bede, &c.

Although, however, these words were understood to speak of the essential unity, as our adversaries contend, I do not see how they can deduce from them the three persons of the Trinity. They take for granted that the Word (20yos) denotes here Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But this, which many have asserted, I do not find that any one has hitherto proved. Indeed, it were absurd, supposing the passage to be genuine, to understand by the λoyos, Jesus Christ; for in this case Jesus would bear record that Jesus was the Christ. But what, I ask, would there be objectionable in understanding by λoyos, literally and without a metaphor, the WORD or SPEECH of the FATHER (which title, when put absolutely, in the writings of John, designates God, as may be perceived in several instances, as John iv. 23; 1 John i. 2; chap. ii. 1 and 16; chap. iii. 1; 2 John 4); bearing testimony to his son, as he had done at his baptism and on the mount, not to notice other occasions? the account of his baptism, the Holy Spirit is expressly mentioned: and no one can, I think, doubt that the same spirit, or the POWER of the Most High, was present also on the mount. And thus you have the unity of these three; which, as far as I am concerned, you may if you please interpret of the strictest, that is, of a personal unity. BEN. WISSOWATIUS.

In

f[Porson, in the preface to his Letters to Travis, pronounces this work of Sandius "a formidable attack on the verse." The other very scarce and curious little book referred to in this

note,

I now perceive, from what you have stated, that God is but one person: I wish to learn, further, how the knowledge of this truth eminently conduces to salvation?

This

note, as from the pen of Herman Cingallus, is also the work of Christopher Sandius: and the writer, as Wissowatius justly observes (either in ignorance of the identity of the persons, or to favour the disguise of the real author), does certainly most freely borrow from the Interpretationes Paradoxa; the entire article on this verse being little besides a transcript of the learned dissertation inserted in that publication. The Scriptura S. Trinitatis Revelatrix purports to have been printed at Gonda, but was in fact printed at Amsterdam, in 1678. Sandius lived chiefly by his pen, and wrote under several fictitious names, of which Herman Cingallus was one.

[Since the time of Wissowatius, the claims of this celebrated verse to the honour it had so long usurped, of being ranked as a portion of sacred writ, have undergone a most laborious, complete, and satisfactory investigation. The result is, that it has been convicted, upon evidence the most ample and demonstrative, of shameless effrontery, fraud, and imposture; and condemned, without benefit of clergy, to excision and everlasting infamy. In death, indeed, it has not been wholly abandoned some pious friends still pursue its ghost, and fondly clasp the airy nothing to their doting breasts. But their grief is unavailing. Let them therefore seek consolation in the memorable hope of Bengelius, which, O præclarum diem! contemplates its future resurrection :—Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices Græcos qui hanc periocham habent, in occultis providentia forulis adhuc latentes, suo tempore,productum iri! We shall content ourselves with adopting the exclamation of Wetstein-Non equidem invidemus iis qui hác spe lactantur !

For a connected view of the arguments in this controversy the reader is referred to Griesbach's learned dissertation on the verse, at the end of the second volume of his Greek Testament: also to Travis's Letters to Gibbon, and Porson's and Bishop Marsh's Letters to Travis. Mr. Belsham has inserted an excellent abstract in his Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ, page 236, &c. 1st edit. And

the

This you will easily understand if you only consider how pernicious the opinion of the adverse party is. For, in the first place, that opinion may easily weaken and subvert the belief in one God, while at one time it asserts that there is but one God, and at another declares the existence of three persons each of whom is God; and indeed does destroy it, in so far as it denies that the person of that God, whom it calls one, is one also. Secondly, it tarnishes the glory of the one God, who alone is the Father of Christ, by transferring it to another, who is not the Father. Thirdly, this opinion comprises some things which are un

the editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament have given in its place a concise summary of the evidence against the genuineness of the passage, which, as being short, and perfectly within the comprehension of the mere English reader, shall be here transcribed. "1. This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manuscript earlier than the ninth century. 3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after this text. 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin Fathers, even when the subject upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged. 7. It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation: in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinæus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omitted by Luther in his German Version. In the old English Bibles of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets but between the years 1566 and 1580 it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose authority is not known." TRANSL.]

worthy

unworthy of the one supreme God:-asserting, for instance, that the one most high God is the Son or Spirit of some other Being, and that therefore he has a father and author-that the one most high God was made man-and that a man was the one most high God; and other things of a similar kind. Fourthly, it renders God, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit very different objects of mental perception and of faith, from what they really are; and the more especially since it declares the Son of God, a character to which he is truly entitled, to be (I shudder to relate it) a false God, an idol, and unworthy of divine worship, and indeed of himself undeserving of this very title. Fifthly, it is calculated in like manner to subvert in our apprehensions, the true notion of salvation, by destroying the distinction between the first and the second cause; and prevents our knowing rightly who is the primary author of our salvation, and in what manner it is effected by God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Lastly, this opinion presents a formidable abstacle to unbelievers to receive the Gospel, by inculcating things that are repugnant to those divine testimonies, which some of them receive, and also to right reason. Above all, if Christ be thought to be the one God, the force of his commandment, by which we are required to imitate him, is wholly destroyed, and the obedience which he yielded to God becomes a mère nullity. Now all these consequences are avoided by that system which maintains that the person of the one God is but one.

May not this opinion concerning three persons in

one