- The American Church Review
- The three witnesses, the disputed text in st. John
- A Critical Dissertation Upon the 7th Verse of the 5th Chapter of St. John's First Epistle
- Reply to a Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis
- In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7
- Francis Turretin's Disputatio Theologica
- The Genuineness of the Text of 1 John 5:7
- A New Plea
- Letters to Edward Gibbon by George Travis
- The British Critic, Vol IV, 1794
- The British Magazine
- New criticisms on the celebrated text, I Jn5:7
- JCR: Vol. 12, No. 02
- In Further Proof of the Authenticity of 1 Jn 5v7
- Pious Annotations Upon the Holy Bible
- The printed Hebrew text of the OT vindicated
- A Treatise of the Corruption of Scripture by Rome
- Divine Authority of the New Testament
- A Scholastical History of the Canon
- Exercitations Divine
- R.L. Dabney's Discussions
- Revised Version of the 1st 3 Gospels Considered
- 13 Sermons concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity
- A Vindication of 1 John, v. 7
- Further Proof of the Authenticity of 1 John, v. 7
- An Introduction to the Controversy on the Disputed Verse of St. John
- The Divine Triunity
- William Twisse's The Scripture's Sufficiency
- Select Works of Robert Rollock Vols 1 & 2
- On Holy Scriptures from Elenctic Theology Vol 1to 3
- From Sacred Text to Religious Text
- Disputations on Holy Scripture
- The King James Version Defended
INTRODUCTION.
THE controversy respecting the authenticity of 1 John v. 7- originated from Erasmus's omission of the verse in his first and second editions of the Greek Testament. It was omitted by him, because it was not
contained in the MSS. from which he printed those editions ; but it was extant in the Latin Version ; nor had its authenticity ever been questioned, before the omission of it by Erasmus, and his defence of his editions. It was however restored to the text by him in his third edition, on the authority of a manuscript found in England, which contained the verse.
From that time to the present, the verse has been rejected as spurious, or defended as authentic, according to the different views, which have been taken of it and of its evidences by learned men, both unbelievers in the doctrine of the verse and believers. In the sixteenth century its chief opponents were Socinus, Blandrata, and the Fratres Poloni ; its defenders, Ley, Beza, Bellarmine, and Sixtus Senensis. In the seventeenth century its authenticity was denied by Sandius and Simon, and asserted by Gerhardus, Hammond, Bull and Grabe. In the eighteenth century the verse was maintained by Mill and Bengelius, and opposed by Wetstein, Griesbach, and Mr. Porson, the Vindication of whose Letters to Archdeacon Travis by Crito Cantabrigiensis has given occasion to the following Tract.