Post 3 of 4 in the series “The Three Heavenly Witnesses: Edmund Calamy on 1 John 5:7.” This post contains the complete modernized reading text of the corresponding sermon.
The third sermon turns from answering objections to stating the positive case. Calamy places particular weight on early Latin and African evidence, especially the lines of testimony he associates with Tertullian, Cyprian, and later Latin writers.
The sermon is valuable as a map of pre-modern discussion even where later manuscript research changes the weight assigned to individual witnesses. Its argument should therefore be read historically and verified before being transferred unchanged into a modern textual apparatus.
Editorial note. This is a historical working reading edition. Calamy's manuscript identifications, datings, and patristic citations reflect the resources of his period and should be checked against modern catalogues and critical editions before scholarly use.
Sermon Text
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Original p. 505
We are told by St. Augustine that it was the usual way of the Manichees, who in his time made no small noise and stir, whenever anyone quoted against them a text of Scripture that appeared to thwart their sentiments, to answer at once that the place was corrupted and inserted by later writers, or else that the book in which it was found was drawn up by some impostor under the name of the apostles.
Original note. Augustine, Contra Faustum, book XVI, chapter 11; book XXXIII, chapter 3.
Original p. 506
And if any persons once go such lengths and give themselves a liberty that amounts to this, it is exceedingly difficult to know how to deal with them to any purpose. We have also had a like spirit lately at work among us, stirred up by those of an Arian or Arianizing stamp. When this text has been cited or preached upon, it has been freely declared that it was not Scripture and therefore should be set aside.
I have it from a person of worth that, in a recent conversation with one who was for discarding the proper divinity of our Saviour, when he urged the beginning of St. John's Gospel he was very pertly told that the first verses of that book were not genuine. Should this spirit spread, general confusion would be the consequence; and therefore I think checking it as far as may be should be the aim and endeavour of all who have the interest of religion truly at heart.
Father Simon himself, that celebrated French writer who has done so much to propagate uncertainty in an age sufficiently inclined to scepticism, has represented it as a custom of long standing with many that, when they found a difference in copies of the New Testament and that difference was observed to favour the sentiments of a particular party, they freely accused that party of corrupting the sacred books, although the variation commonly arose only from the transcribers. And yet the very persons who are given to this way are commonly—
Original note. Richard Simon, Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, p. 351.
Original p. 507
inclined to cry out against those who think themselves in Duty bound to oppose them, for dealing hardly with them: As if they had a Right to ingross the Liberty of speaking their Thoughts freely, to themselves, lie that has read the History of yirlanlfm in the IVth Century, won't be much surprised at anything of this Kind he may meet with. 'It is the old Way of those innovating Tern/ pers: And indeed, Theres nothing new under the Sun.
The Instance Simon ha6 pitched upon to exemplify his Observation in this Case, is the very Text I am upon. For he cries out, How many Divines are there at this D.iy, who believeth Testimony of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, spoken of in I John V. 7. has been taken out of the ancient Greek Copies to favour the Heresy of the Arians! 1 And he seems to admire at it. But when the Matter is well considered, I am apt to think it will be found a Thing more to be admired at, That though we have such good Evidence that the Truth which th: s Text holds forth, has been firmly believed in the Christian Church from the Beginning, and carefully propagated from Age to Age; as well as is so agreeable to the whole Current of the Writings of the New Testament, it should be thought worth while to take so much Pains as that Author has done, to expose this Text as spurious, when at the very same Time he declares for it as authenticity upon the Authority of the Church. For my Part, 1 can't for my Life conceive how any Church can have Authority to insert a Passage in a sacred Book, if that Passage did not come originally from GOD: And yet I am by no Means for quitting this Text, (which Way soever it game to be left out of so many
Original p. 508
n<^ °r c^at ^-ea°n nave ^een willing to take some Pains in inquiring into the Evidence produced and have offer 'd, what gives me Satisfaction that it is genuine; and shall now take into Consideration, the Ob sections that are brought in against the Proof I have produced, and then let before you a brief Comparison of the Argument and Evidence on the two opposite Sides, that you may be the better able to judge, which ought to have the Preference.
The most material ObjcBions I have met with against what has been advanced, are these that follow: t. It is said, That so great a Stir about such a Text as this, is needless, and what there is no Occasion for; because the Dod trine of the Trinity does not depend upon it. And I very readily grant (and have done it already) that it does not so depend upon it, as that it would cease to be credible, though this Text was entirely wanting: And yet, when many discover so little Inclination to this Doctrine, that they set themselves to weaken the several Evidences that support it one after another, in see^ ral different Ways, I cannot perceive, that it is at all unbecoming those that are convinced of the Truth of this Doctrine, and sensible how much it is interwoven with the whole Scheme of Christianity, to be un willing to part with any of the usual Sup ports of their Cause, with which they have hitherto so well stood their Ground, not withstanding all the Attacks that have been made upon them, unless they are forced to it. To me therefore that off. Simon appear^ an odd Insinuation, when he tells
Original p. 509
as it is read by all the Greeks and Last present, or whether it be not ready we still prove the Sentiment, contrary to that of Antitrinitarians, (that is, we can prove a Trinity) because the Fathers from the fist Ages the Church did apply to Father, Son, and Spirit, the Testimony of the Spirit, the Ma and the Blood • and proved, that the Persons the Trinity are one Thing, by the Unity of Three fVitneJJes *. To me, I confess, this more like Bantering than Reasoning. Our falling in with himyn this, would be a quitting a good and strong Argument for one that is weak and trifling a leaving an Argument that is natural, for one that is extremely forced, and can do no which is what I should think no one that is a Friend to Truth could yield to. We have an Insinuation much like this,.from Mr. Whiston, who tells us, That the proving this Text spurious, will not the rest of the New Testament, nor indeed of this Epistle f. But though it won't, I can't perceive the Text debated, is ever less genuine.
- It is objected by Zegerus, 4 That he could not find that as to this Text, any of the Ancients did in all Things agree with our Reading. Father Simon also ob That in the later Copies of St. jkBible, where this Text is added in the Margin the Order of the Words, and the Witnest'es is various and diverse; which he * Hist. Crit. du Text du N. T. pag. 115. t Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions, pag. 42.' j Castigat. in N. T. fid Bf. 1 Job, cap. v. 7.
Original p. 510
not in the first Copies. And he That several Copies strangely differ, both in the manner of placing this Text, and in the manner of Reading it. They differ the manner of placing it. For in the Vulgar Translation, this Verse that speaks of the Witness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, goes before that which mentions the Testimony of the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood: But in several MSS. the latter goes before the former. They differ also in the manner of Reading. For in some Copies it is Teflimonium dant, and in others Teflimonium dicutit. And at the End of the 8th Verse, which contains the Witness of the Spirit, the Water, and the Bloody, in some Copies, those Words, & ii hi tres unumjunt, and these Three arc One, are omitted . Our late Inquirer also ions in the same Complaint, ana objects, That this Text is in 'various Shaves. In some, the Words in Heaven are wanting • in others, these Three are One: Sometimes the Sth Verse comes before it, and sometimes it is as in our present printed Books: Sometimes it is in the Text, sometimes in the Margin f. From hence it is intimated, that whatever may be said in Fa your of it, it cannot be genuine. But if this is a good and substantial Reason for discarding this Text, I am afraid we shall be forced to expunge several other Texts at the same Time, for the same Reason; and of this, any Man that with Care runs over the Various Readings of Dr. Mills Testament, and F. Simmons Critical Volumes, will soon and
Hist. Crit. des Versions An. J. pag. 113. \ Emljn's Tracts,
Original p. 511
be agreeable enough to those that being weary of our Old Scripture Text and Dotlrine, hope to serve their Turn by new moulding both: But we that are not for quitting the Old Scheme, till we arc well assured we have found a better, must be excused if we are not for expunging, till we are forced to it. If the Certainty of this Text be to be this Way overthrown, I doubt it will fare hard with the Beginning of St. John's Gospel, where Simon observes, That one fmgle Verse, that does not contain above fix or seven JVords, may be read in four different jVIanncrs, which makes as many different Senses, as they are differ gently pointed; which different Readings are all defended by ancient Authors . Nay, if different Readings will justify expunging, we shall have so much Work upon our Hands, that it will be hard to know when we have done. I doubt we must then be content to part with the Twelve last Verses of St. Marks Gospel • as to which Simon observes f, that they are not to be found in many Greek MSS. Oijetan doubted of them: And Simon says, He might doubt of them upon the bare Authority of St. Jerome^ before the Council of Treat had determined anything of that Matter^ because that Father bottomed his 'Judgment upon many Cosies that he had ■read \. That father says ft, That the lap Chapter of St. Mark was wanting in almost all the Greek Copies. Euthymius also in his Comment on Verse 8, of this 16th of St. Mark says, that some Interpreters say, that the Gospel
Hist. Crit. du Comment. du N. T. cap. Hi. p.JZ. t Hist. Crit. duTexte du N. T. pag. 114. + 4 Ibid. pag. 1 17.
tt Micron. tyt Hedibt Quæst. iij. Top. III. p. »43>
Original p. 512
that what follows is a later Addition. And y yet here, Simon himself could lay, That we ought not to doubt of the Truth of this Chapter, which ts as ancient as the Gospel of St. Mark itself *. And he gives this as the Reason of ic, Because the Greeks generally read them at this Day in their Churches; as appears from their Ledctionaries or Service-Books. And if this is a good Argument for the retaining those Verses, I cannot see why it should not equally hold for the Verse I am upon, which is read ' to the full as generally, as that or any other Portion of Scripture whatever.
And the Case is much the same as to Twelve Verses in St. John's Gospel, from Chap. vii. yj, to Chap. viii. ix. containing the History of the Woman taken in adultery, which Verses have much the same Objc3io» made against them with this Text. For Si mon observes, that they are not in many Greek Copies in the Gospel of St. John} nor in some Versions of the Eastern Church f. They are not in the Alexandrian MSS. any more than this Verse +\, 4 nor in the Myriad Ver son stand yet they are owned, while this Verse is discarded. 5 It is the like also, as to the Close of St. John's Gospel fit of which he does not fail to take Notice. But I suppose a main Reason of the different Censures passed by that Writer, upon such Passages as these men tons, and the Text I am upon, was this; That he did not find that those Places stood so * Hist. Crit. duTexte duN.
T. pag. m. t Hist. Crit. du Text du N. T. pag. 141, t ft'. J. Ibid. pag. i47. trib. p. 150. Ut P- 5
Original p. 513
fore he was more favourable there than here. However, it well deserves our Observe lion, That if different Readings in several Co pies, be an Argument of spuriousness, we mult not only part with Verse 7, of this 1st of St. John, which I would so willingly preserve, but with the 8th also, that comes next to it, as fond as these Critical Gentlemen are of retaining the one, while they are so warm for discarding the other. This is plain from hence because our Copies are not much better agreed as to the 8th Verse of this Chapter, than they areas to the 7th. For in one of M. Colbert's MSS. the Three that bear Witness on Earth, are said to be Bloody and Water, and Fleur, not Spirit, Water, and Bloody, as we commonly express them . In some Copies also, those Words, And these Three agree in One, or are One, are wanting, after the Testimony of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood f. I myself have been a Latin MSS. of this Sort. And we are also told, That in Bede's Copy, the Words are There are Three that hear Record, the Water, the Bloody, and the Spirit, instead of Three that bear Record on Earth \. This last Remark as to Rede, has before been observed to be a Mistake. However, it is plain enough, that if thi, 7th Verse is to be expunged because of the 'various Readings; so also must the 8th for much the same Reason. And if we go on at this Rate, we shall at length make the New L 1 Testament
Hist. Crit. du Text du N. T. pag, 210. ^ t Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. pag. 113. 1 Emlyn'% Tracts, fag. 4^.
Original p. 514
Verse here mj^ht be genuine, and is owned for such, notwithstanding these several various Reading?, I cannot see why this 7th Verse also, may not both be, and be owned to be genuine, notwithstanding all the Varieties men tons, which are only a few more. For why should such different Readings be a greater Proof of spuriousness in the one Case than in the other? Again, 3. -It is objected, That such Evidence as is brought against this Verse, would be judged sufficient against any Passage in any Classic Author whatever. Would not, says our Inquirer, such a TajJ'age presently be proncuned spurious, and be brought under a Deleatur by the unanimous Voice of the Critics, when they had no Concern in it, but to judge what is true and ge nine, and what not? Nay, would a Court of 'Judicature allow any Paragraph to be good, in writing of Consequence, for which no wore, and against which so much can be fairly said? And will not the same Sincerity and Impartiality well become Us in this, which we cannot oily well justify, but commend in the Examination of other Writings? Shall we press Men to take that for Evidence here, which will pass no where else ? I answer, Criticism, when we make the very best of it that we can, or that it will bear, is a very precarious Art; and if we may judge of it by the Practice of the greatest and most plausible Pretenders to it, it leaves as much Room for Fancy, and Prejudice, and Prepossession, as any Art whatever. though there are many that pretend to give strict Rules, there are few Critics can be found that keep to them.
Nay, * Emtjris Tracts, fag. 34$.
Original p. 515
Nay, the best of them still have such Escapes, as plainly show that in the midst of all their Pretences to Exactness, they could cither find or make Room for Favour and Affect on. Father Simon himself, who is by some made the Standard of stored Criticism, tells us, That the Design os those that use the Art of Criticize, lng, is not to dtflroy^ but to tstMisii *; And yet I am apt to think that any Man that runs over his Writings, will readily con clue, that he was too forgetful of this De sign, and that he was one to whom settling and efiabl.Jhlng, was not anything near lo agreeable, as overthrowing, unsettling, and destroying. And he that takes a considerate View of. the Censures of our Critics upon Clajfick Authors, and observes, how inconsi-1 stem and contradictory they often are, and how full of fanciful Cavils, and ill-natur'd Reflections, will hardly think them remarkable for the Certainty of their Measures: Nor is it an easy Thing to mention a Case of Importance, in which their Voice is unanimous. And therefore their Methods afford but a poor Foundation for a solid Argue ment. The Proceedings indeed of Courts of Judicature, are a little more regular: And yet even they in many Cases are of Necks sit swayed and governed by Probabilities, and such Probabilities too, as leave a plain Possibility of Mistake and Deceit, when they have done their best, and gone the farthest – they are able. Thus with Respect to the last Wills and Testaments of deceased Persons, which most certainly are Writings of Cone quince, a Paragraph that gives away Hung 1 dress Preface a Christ. Crit. JuTexte du N. T.
Original p. 516
and Thousands, shall be allowed to be and autbtntick, if credible Peribns, acwith the Hand of the Testator y Oath that they believe it to be his own Hand Writing. And yet such a Paragraph as it may fall out) may have less that can be fairly laid for the Reasonableness of it, than is alleged in the Case under Cons deration. I am far therefore from thinking this Argument conclusive. Persons may still be sincere and impartial, and yet hold this Text to be genuine. Simon himself owns, that this Ver-fe is at present read in all the Latin Copies . And this I should think, might well be allowed to pass for incontestable Evidence, in the Case of those that own the Jutbenticknefs of the Latin Version. And though it is not altogether so good an Evidence, in the Case of those that are of another Opine on, it may yet be fairly allowed to have its Weight with Respect to them also, till better Evidence is produced than has yet been given, that it is a Corruption. And when all is done, Dr. Roger f, and some others, asgood Judges perhaps as our Inquirer, are of Opinion, That the Genuineness of this Text may be justify'J, by the strict Laws of Criticism. Again, 4. Whereas from Dr. Grab and others, it has been offered as no improbable Thing, That some of the first Transcribers of this Epistle, might overlook this 7th Verse, and that might be the Occasion of its being omit ted in those that were copied after them; and hinted, that the Silence ot the Greek Father as to this Text, and its not being found in Greek Copies, might in a great Measurethbies Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. pag. 109. t Vice Dijfertat. Crit. Taeelogic. in 1 John V, 7.
Original p. 517
we may reasonably suppose, that the first Transcribers ot St. John's Epistle, knowing how much was depending, would be more careful in viewing and examining their Than fcriptSy, than to have omitted much a Passage as this . This is represented as the more Probable, because ot a solemn adjuration which benœus, who was one of the oldest Fa thereof the Christian Church, 3 has added to his own Writings, in order to the striking an Awe upon such as should transcribe them. For in his Works we meet with these very solemn Words f • I adjure thee who 'Jlialt than scribe this Book, by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious appearance to judge the ^pick and the Dead, that thou compare after thou bast tranj'criVd, and amend it by the Original very carersully. And we are told, That these awful Words of this Father, pew rts what Sense they had in those early limes, of the NeccJJity of comparing their Tratirscripts with the Originals. And it is lett to be g^gathered, that if they took such Care of the Transcripts of their own Works, they could not but be much more careful of those of the sacred Volumes, which were so much more -valuable and important. But to this it is easily answered. That notwithstanding such a solemn Adjuration as this, hardly anything was more common than Than scribing without exact Collating, aye, and than mangling, changing, and altering too, the Works that were transcribed: And hardly any Works have in this Respect suffer'4 more than those of Arenœus; so little Force had his Adjuration to restrain. And if in this Respect our sacred Volumes have suffered less than other Writings, (which is what he that ' h \ carefully
Umlyri^ Tracts, pag. 540. )
Aren. Op. ex Edit. Feurtrdentii, pag. jjf
Original p. 518
it must be ascribed to the special Providence of Almighty GOD, in Favour of his Church and People, who had a great deal more de pending on these, than on any other Writings tings whatever. A Man might certainly be very honest, and yet in too much Hate to be exact, at the 1 ime when he tranfcrlVi St. John's Epistle, and might unhappily omit this Verse, while another Transcriber inserted it: And the Original might be sent away to Yartbia, before there was an exact Collation of some of the Transcripts with it; and it might be at too great a Distance to leave Room tur it afterwards, in such hazardous Times as those in which the Primitive Christians lived.
And when its added, That Yts not very likely thai all the Transcribers, or many of them, flwuld make the same Mistake *: 3It is easily replied, That one transcribers making this Mistake, might (as Circumstances stood) be sufficient to affect the several Copies of the Greek Fathers that were taken from it, which, could not have it, if they were taken from a Transcript that omitted it, any more than the Copies of the African Fathers could be supposed to omit it, if they were taken from a Transcript that inserted it. But then farther,,.
J. Whereas, borrowing M. Martinis Expression, I mentioned a Cloud, of IVhneJJ'es in Africa, in the Confcjfion of Faith that was pre sented by Eugcnlus Bishop of Carthage, to Hw: nerlck the Vandal King, An. 484, on which I have laid a considerable Stress, and I think not undeservedly it is objected by our h yttirer^ * Emljn's Tracts, fag. 341.
Original p. 519
Copies . But methinks, he that can take the Liberty to say this, may say even jufl; what he pleases. As for that Confession, we have as good Evidence as need to be desired, that it was presented by a considerable Number, and that in very critical Circumstances. They that presented it were exposed to the utmost Hardships, on the account or their ad hearing to it. At such a Time, if ever, one would expect that Men should be in Earnest, and so careful in Searching into Matters, al to be fully satisfied they went upon good Grounds in adhering to it, before they offered to concur. No Man that met up on that Occasion, or had any Concern in Drawing up, Presenting, or Spreading that Confession, could tell but it might colt him his Life. And there is very little Likelihood they would be so Foolhardy, if they were not very clear as to the Truth of what was declared with fugh an Appearance of Sole city. It was not Three or pour only that were engaged in this Affair but all the Tri unitarian Bishops in and about Africa, appear to have counted it a common Concern. And (as has been already observed) Gennadius of Marseilles, who lived and flouriflied about the Year 495^ 3 and drew up, and publilsted a Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, or Catalogue of Famous Men, in which he began where St. Jerome left off, tells us in so many Words, That this Confession was drawn up with she common Consent of all the Bishops and Confeisors L 1 4 Emljris Tracts, fag. 490,
Original p. 520
fico, wno were more likely to be Three or Four Score (not to say Hundreds) than but Three or Four. And I think I may venture to say, that these all together, make a Cloud much too large to be blown away with the Breathy, or Affirmation, of any one that in clines to reduce and lessen their Number, out of Dislike of their Principles. And for any Man to insinuate, that in such a Case as theirs, they would venture to insert this Text in their CoJifcJJiov, without any Warrant from the fiublick Copies, is a wilder Supposition by far, than any the Inquirer can justly charge on those whom he molt warmly opposes; for it is a supposing them to take a Method to serve their Cause, which they might ea silly be able to foresee was likely to bring effectual Ruin both upon that and themselves too, if it was once diiccvered. And I don't see how they could expect to prevent a Discover, when the collating their Assertion with the fublick Copies, was a Thing so far from having any Difficulty in it, that nothing could be more natural or easy. St. Austin its true, seems to have been a Stranger to this Text, but that (as has been observed) was owing to the old Italics Version, in which it was not to be found, though that was not the only public Copy that was used in Africa. And our not hearing of anything like an Objection started against these African Fathers upon this Occasion, as if they went about to impose a spurious Text, is to me a better Evidence that they were warranted by the public Copies, than any that hag yet been offered by our Inquirers or Cavillers to the con tray. And though some may perhaps take the i-iberty to grace this Text, upon this Orca-
Original p. 521
which is a most unseemly and undecent Expression in a Case of this nature) yet 1 can't see any likelihood of their this way doing the least Service to the Cause they are engaged in, be it what it will. For no Weakness can be greater, in the Judgment of Men of sense, than to suppose the giving hard Names will supply the Place of Trutfi. Once more, we are told in the, Vlth place, that there are three Things that are fatal to our cause, three great disadvantages, under which c labour and fink ; and they are these: That we cannot produce one Genuine Greek Writer that ever cited this Text,• nor any one Manuscript Greek Copy where this 1 ext is at this Day to be found; 5 nor one credible Witness that ever directly said he had at any time seen any one particular Greek Adanujcript in which this Text was, or described it by any Mark of Distinction, by>which it may be known up on inquiry after it. And with this it seems to be expected that we should be for ever silenced. But as much as our Inquirer here triumphs, I cannot perceive that we are destitute of a sufficient Reply to each of these three Articles. For, i. As to a Greek Writer citing this Text, I have before instanced in Maximus, who is generally held to be the Author of the Dis put at the Council of Nice, which bears the Name of Athanasius, which is much at one with a Genuine Greek.Writer in the 7th Century; and in the Lateran Council in which there were so many Greeks^ iq ■ 1 r Emlyris Traslt, pag. 475, 47S,
Original p. 522
the 13th Century, which in. Effect supplies us wltn a g00" Number of Greek Writers citing it at once: And the inserting the Text by the Greeks in their Book of Lejjims, and in their Confession of Faith, heightens the Proof in this Case. But whatever we can do as to Greek Writers that have cited this Text, we are able to produce a genuine Greek Writer, and he an ancient one too, that tells us of Heretics who left out of this Epistle, Passages that made against them; and that is Socrates the Ecclesiastical Visto ran . And if they took out other Passes, they might as well rase out this, out of any Copies that came in their Way, in which it was left by the Transcribers. They that were for separating Christ's Divinity from his Humanity, (which was the Principle and View of those concern"d and aimed at) would be as likely to be against this Text, as any other in all this Epistle. And if it came at 1 all in their Way, we have so much the less Reason (besides what has been before alledged) to be surprised, that they should take such Methods with it, as contributed to prevent its being so commonly cited by Greek Writers, as it might otherwise have been. And then, 2. As to a Manuscript Greek Copy, where this Text is at this Day to be found, I can't for my Part pretend to have had that converse with Ancient MSS, as could enable me to satisfy the Objector upon ray own certain Knowledge: But I can refer him to what I take to be vastly preferable Lib. 7. cap>. 1%.
Original p. 523
Vcrfion of the New Testament into Modem Greeks which has been twice Printed; once at Geneva, and a second Time here at London; and this Verse is to be found in both Editions. I know indeed that F. Simon re presents that Version as the Work of some Greeks, that were Friends of the Calvinists; and as undertaken at the Solicitation of the Dutch Embalfador at the Sort *: But we have no Reason to regard or depend upon all his Assertions. Nor have we any Reason to suppose 3 that either Maximus the Translator, or Cyrillus Lucaris, who was at that Time Patriarch of Constantinople (who al so presiYd a Preface to it) would have in served this Text, if it was not to have been found in any of their Greek MSS. And I add farther, that if Father Simon is to be believ'dj, the Greek Text is in many places less exact than the Vulgar Latin. This is what he endeavours to prove in his Writings by a great many instances. And if so, its being wanting in Greek Copies, can be no Argument of its being spurious, as long as it is so generally in the Latin Copies.
But since after all, the Inquirer? is so particularly fond of a Greek MS, Mr. Martin has referred him to one in the Library at Dublin, and has given a very particular Account of it and whereas, 3. It is also positively asserted, that no one credible Witness can be produced that ever directly said, he had at any Time seen any * blist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. c. I. fag. 7. t La Verite du Text de Sr. Jean, Cb. v. 7. I'art II. Chap. 12.
Original p. 524
which this Text was to be found; I desire it may be considered, how vain a thing it is to expect to convince or satisfy, such as are not disposed to believe anything but what makes for them, and will serve their Purpose, and that will allow no Witnesses to be credible but what are of their own side. Father Simon who has in a particular manner signalized himself in Opposition to this Text, and who is the Man whom all that are against it borrow from, seems scarce to have allowed any Man to have been a competent Judge of Manuscripts but himself: Nor will he allow any to be cre bible Witnesses, if they testify anything that crosses his Scheme of Notions. And they that have fallen in with him in vehemently setting themselves against this Text, seem herein to have imbibed his Spirit, and to be ambitious of treading in his Steps. There is no doubt at all to be made of it, bur that one Critics making it so much his Business, and having such Access to well furjiisht Libraries, saw more MSS. of the New Testament than most Men: And yet it does not follow, that none had to do with them or were capable of judging of them, or were to be believed in their Report con cerning them, but himself, as he would seem to insinuate by his assuming Airs. He speaks of Morinus and Camelot, who he says talked much of August and Venerable MSS} but he charges them with giving the Name of true and Apostolick Copies, to Books that were altered. They tell the World they saw Greek MSS. that had this Text, but this Gentleman tells us they did not know what they saw themselves. He owns that Er
Original p. 525
to judge of them, and yet fell into great and one of them it should seem was the inserting of this Text, which he knew not how to forgive him. Another was that accused the Greeks of altering their in some Places after the Council of By which Simon says, he showed be but little Knowledge of the Quality of the Cosies he had consulted. Beta he owns had in his Hands, (which by the Way de that Gentleman notice, who will scarce him to have had any in his Hands at more MSS. of the New Testament than and he acknowledges he was as with the Pains of the two Stephen', and Henry, and yet he says, he did not know the equalities of his Copies, and therefore was mistaken. And whereas our Bishop Burnet tells us in his Account of his Travels, that he took some Pains to examine all the ancient MSS. of the New Testament that came in his way, concerning this Text, our Pray magical Father sets himself down in lies Dictators Chair, and like an Inthroned Critics presently reads his Doom, and declares that by his works, that Prelate whose Memory is lo celebrated among us, does not appeared the to have been a Critics or an able Divine . And the Result of the whole feenis to be this, that he could better judge what other Men saw, than they themselves; and that though others might lee a Variety of MSS. as well as he; yet he only was fit tofu3gc concerning them. And is not this intolerable ble! Is io Worthy an ancient Protestant Divine * Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. c.Ix. p. 104, 105.
Original p. 526
Divine as M. Martin, when grown old in Service of GOD and his Church according y to the Purity of his Gospel, to be for being so bold as to set himself to con front such a Champion of the Philistines as this, who has bid open Defiance to the Armies of the Living GOD! But I forbear.
I mult1" confess, I reckon it no very diff cult Thing to name several credible Wit nesses, that have owned they have seen this Text in several Greek MSS. Nay, I hare named several already. I cannot but reckon Erasmus for one, though our Inquirer denies it, and falls out even with his beloved Friend Simon for owning it *. For when Simon says, That Erasmus saw the Codex Britannicus, from whence he inserted this Verse in the third Edition of his Greek Testament, he asks, TVotrt does Erasmus say so? I answer, though in his Annotations he only says, There is found one Greek MS. among the Englifll which has it yet that is in effect the lame with declare ing that he himself had seen it: Which I take to be plain enough from Simmons Account of Erafmtis's Answer to Titelman.fans Objet actions against his New Testament. For that Friar objecting against his Way of rendering Rom. v. 12. where he used peccavimns instead of pecca'uerunt, Erasmus answers. That it -was so in the Greek MS. which he had read in England. This in all Probability was thievery same MS. as that Author refers to, up on this Text of St. John: And I shall con tinge of this Mind, till I see good Reason to the contrary.
I take Robert Stephen for another that saw this Text in a Greek MS. if not in several.
And Emljn's Tracts, fag. 327.
Original p. 527
has so much objected against, I give this. good Reason for my being of this Mind, That that celebrated Printer (whose Veracity in the Case I see no Reason to call in question) in his Account of his fine Edition of the Greek Testament in if49, declared that he had gotten some Copies, that were almost toreador'dfor their Antiquity, from which he did not 'vary so much as in a Letter. Now should he after such a Declaration in his short Vrtface, add a whole Verse that he did not find in any of them, he must not only vary considerably, but must be a downright Falsifier, and guilty of such gross Forgery, as that nothing that came from him could afterwards deserve the least Regard or Notice.
Nor can I help reckoning Laurentius VaUa andBeza of the Number ot those that saw this Text in Greek Miss, whatever our Inquirer has objected to the contrary. And Dr. Roger * has published it to the World, that the celebrated Father le Long had assured him, That Dr Card an Irijk Dean had given it him under his Hand, that this Text was in a Dub lin MS. And at length M. Martin has printed an Attestation under the Hand of Ms. Lewis the Library Keeper, that it is in the MS. aforesaid, that is in his Custody, and an exact Extract of it. And if our Inquirer will still complain, That no one credible Witness can be produced that ever directly said, he had at any Time seen any one particular Greek Manuscript, in which this Text was to be found it will be hard to know what will give him Satisfaction.
He * DissertAt. Crit. Theolog. de i John v. 7. f XXIII. tg1 10.
Original p. 528
ned Edition of the New Testament, for clearer Light, in this Matter , and Compliments him with the Title of the transcendent Critical Genlm of this Age; of which Title he may easily happen to be striped again, if it should so fall out that he should cross our Inquirer in his Scheme: And by what as yet appears, he is likely more to differ from him, than agree with him. For my part, I shall be very thankful for the additional Light that comes this Way, and very ready to make the best Use of it that may be. In the mean Time from what of the Doctors is already published about this Matter, it appears that he reckons the Fate of this Verse to be a mere Question of Fast, Whether or no it was known in the IVth Century? Perhaps it may be so: And yet I can't tell whether the Way which the Doctor proposes, will give the Inquisitive all the Satisfaction that is desired. He has given us to understand that he in tends to make St. Jerome true Latin Exam play, which he has adjusted to the best Greek Copies, the Standard by which to judge whether this Text be genuine or spurious. And it we make St. Jerome the Standard, 'twill be a Reflection on our Inquirer 's Friend Simon, who assures us, That that Father either approves er disapproves a Way of Reading, In different Places, according as he needs it in the Matter he is treating off. If St. ferom's true Latin Exemplar can be come at, it must be owned it will de serve to be well considered: But I don't know that we are under any Obligation to allow, that Emlyn\ Tracts, fag. 4.83, 4.84. t Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. pag. 59, 60.
Original p. 529
For some Latin MSS. as Simon himself observes *, have been corrected from Greek Copies very different from that which was used by St. Jerome. Thus" we find MSS. in which as well as our common Copies, this Clause is added at the End of the Lords Prayer; For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Tower and the Glory, for ever and ever; and yet it ascertain that these Words are not in St. Jerome's Edition, nor were they in the most ancient and correct Greek Copies, and particularly not, in that of Origin, which he commonly follows. And perhaps upon strict Search, it might not be very Difficult to pick up se vera Instances of the same Kind. But still how it should come about that this Inquirer should be so fond of the Learned Doctor, is hard to say, seeing he frankly adds at the End of his Letter, That let the Fact prove how it will, the Doctrine is unjliaken. For my Part I must own it beyond my Skill to discern how there can be any great Harmony between Two Persons, where One stands firm to the; common Doctrine of the Trinity, whatever be-., comes of the Fact, with Respect to this par titular Text while the other therefore sets himself to disprove the Fail as to this Text, on Purpose that he may be able with the more Advantage to shake the commonly received Doctrine, That Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are but One GOD. But I cannot per- \ clive but for anything that has been hi thereto offered, both Fad and Doctrine may be allowed to remain unshaken.
And * DiferUP. Crit. fur les MSS. attn. T. p. 74.
Original p. 530
within a narrow Compass, I shall a little compare the Argument and Evidence on the two opposite Sides,' together, -winch may be worth our while, because it may the better help, us to pass a Judgment. And here we may make such, Remarks as these.:. " If "they that are against this Text have some Advantages that favour them, so have we".' If they plead the general unacquaintedness of the earliest; Ages withjtiese Words; we may plead the Connexion is for us, and that there is a plain. Chasm left, supposing this Verse to be \wanting. If it be disadvantage on our Sicfcj that this.Text has been sqi little owned \>by.Greek Writers; I think it cannot fairly be disowned to be no small Dis advantage on their Side, that whatever it was formerly, this Text has been. generally owiied both among Greeks and Latins, now for several Hundred Years, with very little Opposition. 'Ifjtheir Account of the. coming in of this Text be natural and easy , 1 thlrjk our Account of the so great Silence about this Text is Very possible and plain. If we arc not without our Difficulties; neither.must they pretend to it. ' If it be ' difficult on our Side, to jmfwer Objections from its not being used whereat was much needed, and might have been.Very usefully aud where the very next Verse is cited,- it is not a Jot less difficult oh their Side, to give any tolerable Account how such a Text askthis should ship in without Observation and Opposition. If the Consequences of either retaining or quit ting this Text be put in the Balance toge the, Emljns Tra£b,/<?£. 3 1 1.
Original p. 531
the, I 'cannot' see but we must keep oar Bibles in this Respect unaltered. For, if we retain this Text, the worst that canfollow this j That we own for Scripture, what that lived in the Ages before us seem have known nothing' ot: Whereas if we quit it, we "shall be in no' small Danger of being at length drawn to fall in with Simmons' darling Principle, ■ of equating Tradition mtb and 'making the Certainty of the latter depend upon the former. The Evidence which they that are against this Text most upon is more Negative; while that is for this Text, ia more Positfa<. ' not (say they) alledVd by the Greet Fa it is hot in the 6ldFer'fipnS? it is nptja Greek MSS, and therefore it is not genuine. Consequence, say 'we, is far from being certain. It might M\ be genuine, arid at inserted,1 though afterwards undesignedly by_ one of the first Transcribers. In mean time (as we have seen) 'twas quo by some of the first Latin Fathers, and when it was openly alfedged, passed current, and was readily received. It is pleaded how ever, That their Evidence is as good as we can "well^ ' require for a Negative ^ 3 and that there must be great Weight to cause an lÆquillbr'ium, ana much more to turn the Scales *. And that greater Weight we, think we have; because they that firmly a£hereto the Doctrine of the Trinity, could not well add this Text if they would,• and we have no Reason to think they would if they could J because they did not need k, aad could gain nothing by it, which they M m 2 might \ Emljns Tracts, f«fag.' 3 17.
Original p. 532
may be allowed more than just to turn the Scale. If they charge us with making un reasonable Suppositions in the Prosecution ot this Argument; we have as much Reason or more, to charge them with unaccountable Evasions. Thus when we plead, That this Text was quoted by a Number of grave Sufferers for the Truth of the Gospel, upon as so lean an Occasion as could well be supposed, in Opposition to the raging Arlansy all the Return made is this: That it Is no Wonder If this Text creeping Into private Books in Ages of Darkness and Confusions we jljould find no Notice remaining of any Opposition of theirs, to what did not offend em. Than which nothing could be more jejune and precarious especially when it is known that nothing could offend them more.
And finally, The Enemies of this Text set up one Man in Opposition to the rest ot the Learned World, and he as unfit a Person as" could be pitched upon to be a Guide to Protestants, and that is, Father Simon; who had so great an Aversion to Protestants, as such, that he not only takes all Occasions to expose and censure them, and run them down, but could difficultly prevail with hintself in any of his Writings to give a tole able Character of any Learned Man they had amongst them, when they came in his Way.
As Archbishop Tlllotfon gives it as a just Character of our Countryman Mr. Hobbcsy, That he did more by his Writings to debauch the Age with Atheistical Principles, than any Alan that lived * Emljns.Tractssag. 475.
Original p. 533
Grounds, give it as a true Character orthat French father, That be bjs done more towards the iveakn'ing and undermining the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, than any Writer of the Age. He flatly denies, that Moses wrote the Pen tatetich. He makes the Authority of our Divinely inspired Writings, to depend up on the Church • and boldly equals Trade lion with them: And this Principle runs through all his Writings, It appears to have been the grand Design of all, his Critical Works, to weaken the Certainty of Scrip sure, on the Account of its having been so much altered. And if our Rule once comes to fail us, our Religion which is to be reg lated by that Rule, will soon become the most wild and loose, and precarious and under tain Thing in the World. And yet this Man is admired, applauded, and adhered to by the Enemies ot this Text, in Opposition to the Body of Men of Letters, ever since the Revival of Learning in these Parts of the World; the Wisdom of which I cannot understand.
After all, our Inquirer hopes no candid Man will say, be is Immodejl, in pronouncing this Text doubtful : Nor should I have done it, if that would have contented him, and he had gone no farther: But for him to insinuate, That there is not one tolerable Pretence of any ancient Authority for it f,• and that such as still adhere to this Text, sacrifice Truth and Piety to their norance and Pcrverjenefs of Men; and appear to take more Care of themselves, than of the Interest of Christ and his Religion,- 4 and are guilty M m 5 pf Emljns Tracts, fag. 5 16.
Original p. 534
cannot justify, and seeking to deceive Men In sacred Matters *: This is a sort of Carriage that can hardly be reconciled with Decency and Modesty, or even common Justice. Tu perfectly outrageous. '., hope what J have offered, may convince some others, as it does me, That it is much more probable that this Passage came from St. John, than that it did not which is sufficient.in a Case of this Nature, where there is no Room for Demonstration, and all that can be expected is a preponderating Probability. Who ever is convinced of this, ought in my Ap» prehension, to receive and defend this Text as genuine, against all Gainsayers; whom I should think however, it became to be mo best in their Opposition, considering what a Stream of Witnesses they have running against them.
And now I take the Liberty to repeat a former Motion v&> That since it is lo evident we must be forced to take Pains for this Text, if well keep and defend it, we should heartly bless GOD that it is not so with a great many other Texts. We might have had a great many as much contested as this, and so been under a Necessity of clearing them from being spurious, before we could argue from them, tor the Proving of Truth or the Refuting of Error and we ought to be thankful that it is otherwise. This, cons dering our Distance from the Time when the sacred Writings of the New Testament were drawn up, and the many Designs that have been against them, and the many Acc
dents * EmljJs Tracts, 'pag. 349. \ See Serai. I p.4j }.
Original p. 535
Ages they have since passed through, is very wonderful, and therefore well deserves our Notice. It was not possible but that in so large a Book as the New Testament, there should in so many Years as have passed since it was finiflied, be a great many Various Read- ings, through the Negligence, Carelessness and Haste, and sometimes also the Design of she Transcribers. But all has been ib overruled by our Good GOD, that we need not upon this account be shaken in anything of Moment. The more we turn this in our Thoughts, the more Reason we shall find to admire it. The Papists very commonly tell us, That unless we believe the infallible Au- tbority of their Church, we can't be assured that any Parcel of Scripture was written by Divine Inspiration $ and this Principle of theirs runs through all Simon Critical Writings. But thi6 Principle is impious, and would leave no Ground for the Belief of the Divinity of Scripture. For there neither is nor can be any Ground for believing their Church infallible, unless we first believe the Scripture Divine. Let U6 bless GOD, that we have been otherwise instructed; and that though Infallibility is deservedly discarded, we yet up on considering all Circumstances, can find ib much Reason to adhere to the Scriptures, as they have been delivered down to us by those that have gone before us, and that in this particular Text as well as others: And let us take Care to improve it, as it is profitable for % yimDoBrine, for Reproof, for CorreSlion, for Instrtt K ^ ' §ion In Righteousness.
Original p. 536
Previous: Post 2, “Manuscripts, Versions, and the Fathers: Calamy's Second Sermon on 1 John 5:7”
Next: Post 4, “The Three Heavenly Witnesses: Calamy's Exposition of 1 John 5:7”
Comments
Share a question or response to this article.