Post 1 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 first of Calamy's four sermons establishes the terms of the dispute. He warns against both adding to and taking from Scripture, yet insists that confidence or suspicion must yield to evidence rather than rhetoric.
Calamy also makes a distinction that governs the entire booklet: the Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not depend upon this one textual reading. He defends the clause because he believes the historical evidence warrants it, not because he thinks the doctrine would fail without it.
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. 423
I know not a passage in all the New Testament so contested as this. Though it has for a long time been owned and used both in the Greek and Latin Church, and is in all our modern versions (a very few only being excepted), yet we have some who reject it as spurious and will not allow it to be a part of Sacred Scripture, but represent it as brought in by design and added by those who had a turn to serve. This is so heavy a charge that it had need be well proved, considering how severe a denunciation St. John has, in the very close of the canon of Scripture, made against such as are under any guilt of this kind.
Original p. 424
If any man, says he, shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And indeed, the severest punishment that could be thought of would be but the just desert of such arrogance and presumption. But then, on the other hand, it deserves observation that the threatening added in the very next verse against such as diminish and take from Sacred Scripture is as severe and awful as that against those who make additions to it. For it is said, If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy (and the reason will hold as to any other of these divinely inspired writings), God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So the danger is very great whether we offer to add to God's Word or take from it; and we have all the reason in the world to beware lest, out of fear of the one, we run into the other. For anyone to take upon himself to add such a passage as this, if it did not really come from St. John, was certainly very criminal; and no end proposed to be served by it could be the least justification of it. The abetting, favouring, supporting, or excusing such an addition, when once it is discovered, can be no small fault. Nor can opposing or censuring this passage as a human addition be a jot less criminal if suitable evidence is produced that it was really apostolical, or if its being an addition is not solidly proved. This matter, therefore, is important and of no small consequence; and that the rather because if one passage—
Original p. 425
—that has been so often cited for Scripture as this is owned spurious, people will naturally be apt to suspect that the case may be the same as to a great many more; and it will be hard to satisfy them that it is otherwise.
However, there being some things that have a plausible appearance alleged against this text, it is only fitting that there should be a careful examination and impartial search. I see no good reason that we who are most earnest for keeping it can have for being against such a search, or why we should not encourage it to our utmost. And though we have no occasion to condemn those who, after all, have modest doubts concerning it, yet to have the worse opinion of it on account of the great assurance with which it has been opposed and assaulted would, in my apprehension, be a piece of shameful and scandalous weakness.
We who think adherence to this text our duty stand openly charged—by a writer who first appeared without, and since with, his name—with mistaking an unwarranted modern addition for an inspired oracle. It is only fitting that we should wipe off that charge, if we can, and show it to be undeserved and groundless.
That I may give what assistance I am able, I propose: I. To premise a few things fit to be taken notice of by those who pursue the inquiry whether this text is genuine or spurious.
Original note. Emlyn's Tracts, p. 353.
Original p. 426
II. To make some free concessions, so that those who are most vehement against this text may have no grounds left for just complaints.
III. To give the sum of the argument against this text, with a reply to it in its several parts and branches.
IV. To add the sum of the argument for this text, with an answer to the suggestions of opponents that have been designed to weaken it.
I. I shall begin by premising a few things fit to be taken notice of by those who pursue the inquiry whether this text is genuine or spurious. They are such as these:
- The truth of the great doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been commonly held in the Christian Church all along, and particularly among our Reformed divines, does not, as far as I can perceive, either in whole or in part depend upon this single text. The writer mentioned above indeed asserts with great positiveness that these words are not to be matched with in the whole Bible, and that it is principally on the credit of this text that some important branches of the creed seem to be founded. He might as well have expressly mentioned the doctrine of the Trinity, which I believe most people will be apt to think was what he aimed at.
Original note. Emlyn's Tracts, pp. 308, 318.
Original p. 427
But I must own myself at a loss for his warrant for either of these assertions, when, on the direct contrary, it is so evident both that the several texts referring to the doctrine of the Trinity match with this text exactly, and also that what the creed delivers as to that doctrine might be proved well founded though the credit of this text should be entirely dropped.
Two of the most important branches of that doctrine are that the Father, Son, and Spirit are God, and that they are one God. Though both are clear in this text, supposing it genuine, yet I cannot see that we should be without sufficient proof of the truth of both either if no such text had ever been inserted or if it should now be discarded. That the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God may be proved by texts in great number; and their unity also may be collected from several other texts, though as to all three I cannot say that it is anywhere else so expressly asserted as it is here. So we do not need such a text as this as a foundation of our creed.
And then, as to matching these words with other texts in the Bible, we need be in no pain. Nothing can match better than this does with the whole current of the New Testament, and that is one reason why we are the more inclined to adhere to it. We have nothing here but a nomination of three who bear witness to our Lord's being the Messiah and a declaration that these three are one; and both are so intimated elsewhere that we should have had good reason to believe them.
Original p. 428
This is far from being the only place in which these three are referred to as witnesses to Christianity, or to our Lord's Messiahship, which was one of its capital articles. Our blessed Saviour directly points us to the first of these three witnesses when he says, The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. He did so at his baptism by a direct voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. He also mentioned the first and second witnesses together when he said, I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. We also read of the third witness when our Lord Jesus, speaking of the Spirit whom he promised as a Comforter, says, He shall testify of me.
Neither is the New Testament silent as to the unity of these witnesses. Our Lord is plain and positive as to the unity of the first two, saying, I and my Father are one. Though some of the fathers referred this to a unity of affection and will, the main stream of them carried it for a unity of essence and nature. And if there was a unity of that sort between the first two witnesses, the Father and the Son, it might, I should think, very naturally be concluded that if the Spirit was as truly God as either of them, he must in the very same sense be one with them too. To me, I confess, it is far from seeming likely that when the apostle was here speaking—
Original note. See Petavius, De Theologicis Dogmatibus, De Trinitate, book II, chapter 8.
Original p. 429
—of the whole number who are witnesses to the truth of Christianity, he should mention three inferior witnesses and forget the three superior ones; take notice of three witnesses on earth and silently pass by the three witnesses in heaven, who are of infinitely greater authority—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—to whose testimony he well knew our Lord had often taken occasion to refer for full satisfaction.
- Though it is comparatively only of late that this text has been debated and canvassed, it cannot with any shadow or appearance of truth be said to have been lately thrust into the New Testament by those who would most gladly have it expunged. If it was an addition at first, which we have no reason to yield without good proof, Mr. Emlyn was nevertheless much in the wrong to call it a modern addition. Were it only a few years since, or in later ages, that this text first appeared, there would have been more likelihood of mistake or more danger of fraud. But after all the bravadoes of those who are against it, we have incontestable proof—such as none can justly call in question—that it is not only generally owned now in the Christian world, but was owned for Scripture more than twelve hundred years ago; and we have probable proof that goes still farther and rises higher.
This text is not only commonly read now in these parts of the world, but Father Simon, as much as he sets himself against it, freely owns that it is read by the Greeks at this day in their copy entitled Apostolos.
Original note. Emlyn's Tracts, p. 353; Richard Simon, Critical History of the New Testament, chapter 18.
Original p. 430
Apestolot. Nor is this of late only, but tc l°ng been owned amongst them. Mr. acknowledges it was read constantly and solemnly, as a Part of Scripture, both in the Greek and Latin Churches before the Reformation. So that as Bishop Still'mgfieet serves *, There was a general Consent the Eastern and Western Churches for the ceiling it; and we shall afterwards see, that this was of a long standing too. though there might be some Variety in the remaining Copies of the New Testament, with regard to this Verse, yet there was little Notice taken of it -y there was no Variety in the Tubllck. Service, nor do we meet with any against the Genuineness of this Text, till mru raised a Dust, and began a Scruple, which others have taken no small Pleasure increasing since. So that though our Humble Inquirer (who has since styled his Performance, A Inquiry) thought fit to style this, a long domed Text 4. i yet he might as well, (and I think more truly) have called it, a long oivnd Text, in as much as it has been much longer owned than doubted of in the Church of Christ, where for anything that appears, it was first opposed by Erasmus and Ser-vetus.
And as to Erasmus, though he left it out of his first Edition of the New Testament, yet he brought it into his third Edition, An. z 2 being prevailed with by a British Copy, which he followed, though he does not tell us where that Copy was deposited. It was also kept in in the ComplutensianEdition, after a variety of. ]., Copies t
De Spied. Lib. II. cap. iv. • Find. of the Doc. of the, Irmtj, p. \l y. 4 JP. y$
Original p. 431
in England, though Bede takes no Notice of it, yet it is observable, that this Text has been in. all the several Editions of the English Bible that ever came out. It Was in Wlcklijf's Bible, and in King Henry Vlil's, and in King Edwards Bible, and in TymlclTs, and in the Bishops Bible in Q. Elizabeth Time, as well as in our last Translation of K. James I. It was indeed under the Influence ofErafmm, put iii a difference Letter, in the Bibles Printed in the Time of H. 8. and Ed. 6. and in Tyndal's in i o But it has since been printed Without distinction of Character at all, which some it seems are much troubled at.
I freely grant this would be no Argue ment for still retaining this Text, if it was once proved Spurious. And yet. considering that it has been so long own'dand retained and respectedin 'the Church of Christ, and has been in our Bible ever since we had a Bible in the BritiJIi Language, they that are against it, had need give us very good and substantial Evidence that it ought to be quitted, before they can reasonably expect we should be free to part with it. But farther, 5. though it must be owned, That a conclusive Argument cannot be drawn in this Case, from the different Characters of the Per sons that have been on the two opposite Sides, in the Debate about this Text, yet is there something so remarkable in this Re {pe& to be observed, that I think it ought not to be wholly overlooked . It is a Consideration I thought I had here expressed myself modestly enough t But it appears from Mr, Emlyns Preface to hi Answer to Mr.
Original p. 432
allowed to have some Weight with Men of Sense and Sobriety, to take Notice, That among the Moderns that have stood up for this Text, there have not only been some of as good and extensive Learnings, and as much Penetration, and Sagacity, as any of those on the other Side; but that they have been more remarkable for their Love to serious Piety, and their Veneration for the Holy Scripture, the main Support of it, than those that have been for discarding it; who have been pretty generally I00Æ in their Principles, bold and venturesome in their Tempers, and little concerned to what they should have been, though the Sacred Scriptures should be exposed to Contempt, by the Methods they have been intent upon pursuing. I hardly think they that are against this Text, can produce any one of their
Mr. Martin, that he was not a little displeased, that I should begin with men's Characters, rather than with their Arguments. And yet he knows very well that this is not only the Way of the great Spanheim in his Elenchus Contrcvetfinruniy, but of the generality of the Reformed Divines in their Debates with their Opposers. So that my Method has nothing in it that is in this Respect at all peculiar. As to the Four Per sons I mentioned, he singles out Three of them, and says of Le Clerk, Mr. iVhiJion, and P. Simon, that they are well known to be Men of superior Abilities, and singular Learning. And the same might also have been said of Socinus, whom he over! looked: But still I think I have offend that as to their other Qualify cations, as must necessarily make them appear unfit Persons to be our Guides. Or, if Mr. Emlyn con tines of another Mind, he may boast of 'them with at much Glory as he pleases for me; for I shall be fax from envying him his Satisfaction,.
Original p. 433
more extensive Knowledge, or a better Cri- tick, than Mr. Selden, who has openly declared for it. Bishop Patrick, (who himself was no mean Person,) declares, he needed no more to satisfy him that this Text was genuine, than what had been offer 'd by the Great Selden. Bishop Stillingflett went the same Way, together with Dr. Hammond, Bishop Bully, and Dr. Gfabe, Dr. Thomas Smith and Dr. Mills. On the other side stand Socirtus, F. Simon, Le (Here, and Mr. Whiston. Is there any Comparison between the Men! Father Simon in particular, take him with all his Learning, was most certainly a Man of very ill Principles, and one that did more to lessen men's Veneration for the Holy Scriptures, than any Writer of the last Age. The Scripture, says he, whether it has been corrupted or not, may be cited as an Autbentick Acl, when it is confined with in the Bounds forementiond; that is, -when it agrees with the Doctrine of the Church: And 'fsr in that Sense that the Fathers said, that the true Scripture Was found only in the Church, and that that only pojsesj'cs it. t And upon this Bottom, the Church may reform the Copies of the Scripture at Pleasure, and their Copies thusreformed must be taken for the Doctrine of the Apostles 4. Is not this an admirable Man to be a Guide to Protestants! I It must be owned he had a greater Opportunity than most. Men, for consulting and
Bishop Pntriclis Witnesses to Christianity. Vol.
Ch!.• iiP7
t (Crit. du N. Test. Lib. III. c. xxii. p. 494.
K\ See Sentiment de quell j Theol. de Hollands. – pag.2. 4AI1Q9.
Original p. 434
the Bible but at the same time it should snot be forgotten, that the whole Current of his Writings discovers so little Venera lion for those Sacred Records, and they have so many things in them, tending to weaken their Authority, that we have the less Reason to take his Word, or pay him Regard, in what he suggests about such a Text as this. When this Gentleman has done all that in him lay to unsettle others about it, the Salvo with which he comes off at last, is perfectly ridiculous. There is only, says he, the Authority of the Church, that at this day makes us receive this Tajjhge as A thtnyck. * And if he could believe upon Authority against Evidence, I can't see what Authority his judgment or represent stations can have, over such as are for pro feeding rationally in their determinations and decisions. Again, 4. If the Text of this Epistle of St. John has really varied from what it was at first, I think, upon a fair Comparison, it will be found much more likely, to have been by leaving out, than by taking in. To me I must confess it is much more easy to suppose such a Passage as this, to be omitted, though in at first, than to be entirely added, either at one time or another, if it was never there before, which could not well happen without Noise and Observation. It might be at first omitted by Accident and without any Design, but it could not be added without an ill Design, of which we ought not to suspect Men without Reason. IF Hist. Crit. du N. T. Ch. 18. p. ii7;
Original p. 435
Management with respect to this Text, it is much more likely (as far as I can judge) to have come from the Arians, or those who were either for making way for, or supporting their Notions, than from the Trinitarians. According indeed to Mr. IVbifion's Notions it would be very unjust to offer to suspect the Arians. For he assures us that no single instance of this Nature, was ever proved upon them: And that they had the Ancient Authors so clearly on their side, that they were under no Temptation to corrupt them, f But after a careful search into the Matter, I cannot help being of a quite different Opinion. I think it admits of very good Evidence that the Arians had much more occasion, and much stronger Temptations to be tardy in this respect, than they that were called Carbo licks. And besides, they were often charge ed with faults of this Nature, even in their most flourishing Circumstances, and when they had the Ascendant. I If this Text be genuine, the whole Arian Scheme is at once overthrown, and cannot stand before it: And upon that account we have the less reason to wonder that they that are in that Scheme, are so zea lous against it, and so desirous to get rid of it: Whereas though this Text should be owned Spurious, yet the Doctrine contended for by the Trinitarians, might (as has been before observed) have been sufficiently proved out of other Texts. This to me makes it F f 2 plain, ».— ^> ■ Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions, Pp. 673.' $ ibid. p. 676.
Original p. 436
was much greater on the Arian than on the other side. And withal, the Arians and their abettors and adherents, were often charged with maiming the Scriptures when they were in flourishing Circumstances. Dr. Mall is willing as to this to excuse em; and this is reckoned a Matter of triumphant boasting: But he was therein more complaisant to them than there was any occasion for. For we are told by Socrates the Ecclesiastical Historian that it was observed by the Ancient Interpreters, that there were some who depraved this Epistle of St. John, designing to separate between the Man and GOD in our Blessed Saviour. And had the works of those An client Interpreters been still remaining, we might have been able to have judged better about it, than we can now they are lost. And most of the Latin Fathers, after the rise of the Heresy of Ariusy com only brought it as an Objection against his Followers and Supporters, that they corrupted the Scriptures, and used to blot Passages out of them, and strangely mangle them. This was particularly objected against them, by Hilary of Poidtiers, Hilary the Deacon, St. Ambrose, and Salt'ianus. This is ground enough for a suspicion: Whereas we don't find the Trinitarians charge ed with anything of that Nature. Besides, the Arians had much more opportunity for such Facts than their Opposites. They were extremely favoured by Confiantius and Valens the Emperors, and in their time had all the Emljns
Tracts, p. 319. f Lib. 7. cap. 31.
Original p. 437
they had gotten the Trinitarian Clergy expelled their Churches, might do whatel ver they would in all Parts, having no restraint or check but from the Providence of GOD.
As to the Gospel written by St. Jolmf though the Arians (as well as the Alogi and Theodottts before them) could not by any means relish that, and were continually cavilling at it, yet they could not so easy ly corrupt, or maim, or alter it. Vor Huetius has observed that the Original of that, was preserved in the Church of Epbesus. to the time of the Emperor Honorius: And Titer Bishop of Alexandria,. who lived to ward the middle of the 6th Century, says it was preserved there till his time, and much valued by the Christians, f So that if any Debates arose about any Part or Passage of that, it was easy to have it decided; and they that were ever so much disposed that ways could not well corrupt it, by reason of the many copies which we may well conclude were taken from, and collated with that Original, which was so long preserved. But it was quite otherwise as to this first Epistle of the very same Apostle. That (as the Fathers generally tell us) was written to the Partbians, and when it was once sent to them, we never hear of the Original of it afterwards. It is generally said to have been written at Efbefus: But we have not the least hint that the Autograph of it was there prefers f J ycd. ♦ Demonstr. Evangel, Prop, if, §. ijr \ in Cbron. Alts, Rfdero cdht '
Original p. 438
easily be corrupted by the Anansy, and it has been the Opinion of many that it was so.
Among others, this was the sentiment of the Learned Grotius; though at the same time it was his Apprehension that the sirkm did not as to this Text, so much take away from the Words, as add to them, on purpose that they might be able to ga the from them, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not One, any otherwise than by Consent, in the same Manner as the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, agreed in one Testimony. In this Apprehension of his he is pretty singular, and I see no Reason to fall in with him. To me it appears much more probable, that the Arians left these Words out, than that the Orthodoxput them in. The Notes on the Riemijh Testament go that way, and Fromondus a Divine of Lowrjain in his Notes on this Text does so too. And though Simon wonders at him for so doing, yet we may as well wonder at him in return, and io be even with him. The Learned Heinfius up on this place, gives it as his Opinion, that the sworn Enemies of the Truth, could not bear, and eras' this Text, because of that Doctrine which was Ib plainly and manifestly here delivered. Cornelius a Lafide also gives it as his Opinion, that the Arians took it out of their Copies. And many others of note in the Learned World, have been of the same Opinion.
Ant Hist. Crit. du N. % Ch. 18. p. 214)
Original p. 439
the Arians put out these Words., upon Sups position they were out already, an Hundred and fifty Years before Arius was born? It is easily answered; That though this Verse might at nest be accidentally left out of some Co pies of this Epistle, yet the Arians happening to light upon a Copy that had it, might leave it out by Design, in order to the hindering those who were in the opposite Scheme of Notions, from making Use of it to their Disadvantage: Which as far as I can perceive, carries nothing in it that is at all unlikely. f. We may observe farther, That they who have agreed together in opposing the Genuineness of this Text, have been far from agreeing in the Account they have given of the Matter nay, they have been very opposite to each other: Which to me is an Argument, that the Strength of their Evidence is not equal to their Positiveness and Assurance. Faustas Socinus says of these Words, '7r very evident, that they are jpu riousy, andfoisted into this Place by Men that were bent upon defending their Opinion of a GOD that was One and Three in any Way that offer d. He will have it, That St. Jerome lighting on one or several Copies in which this Verse was added, in such a manner as that the Fraud could not be well discovered, began to defend it as genuine, in Opposition to all other Copies both Latin and Greek. But Simon flatly denies that this Text was added by St. Jerome. Erasmus says, That the Greek Copies in which this Passage is found, were altered from the Latin: But Father Sisson says, the Passage crept out of the Margin in to the Text. He tells us, That the Doctrine f 4. of
Original p. 440
the Bible by way of Note or Scholium; 5 but afterwards inserted in the Text, by those who transcribed the Copies. But he seems in this Respect to have changed his Mind, when he came to. write his Dissertation upon Manuscripts. He takes Notice of a Copy in the French Kings Library, where over against the 8th Verse, of the Three Witnesses on Earth, there is this Remark in Greek, that is, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, and He (that is the Son) of himself. And from hence he gathers, that the Author of that Remark understood the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, to be dignified by the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; and says. That what was formerly written by way of Note, passed afterwards into the Text. He adds, That in the same Copy, over against the other Words, and these Three are One, this Note is added also in Greek That is, One Deity One GOD. And he mentions "a like Remark in one of the MSS. belonging to M. Colbert's Library. Now if either Socinus or Erasmus be in this Case in the Right, M. Simon is mistaken; and if M. Simon is in the Right, both Socinus and Erasmus are mistaken. We may farther observe, 6. That if the Context be but fairly considered, it will appear much more pro able that this Text is genuine than fuppofitious. I'm not ignorant that Sandius lays, That the Words -would be better conneiled, if the th Verse -were omitted: And Slichtingius, That these Words have no Coherence with what went bee fore. The former says. That it is unworthy of^ Append. Intersretat. Paradox, p. 3C 1,
Original p. 441
Whom it is He jliould he a Witness before? Which is an impious Cavil; since the Blessed GOD, y who is best Judge of what is unworthy of himself, or any Way injurious to him, hath often represented himself as a Witness. The latter argues thus: These Words have the causal Particle tor, prefixed to them, which shews that the Reason is given of what was said before. Now says he, 'Twos said, that the Water, and Bloody, and Spirit, as a most true Witness, gave Testimony so Jesus, that He was the Christ of GOD 1 Of which saying it is no Reason at all, that, these are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and r^Holy Ghost. There was no express mention either of the Father, or of the Word and the Testimony of the Holy Spirit was motto be produce ed, as a Reason and Cause of the Holy Spirits tefilfyiyig: This would be mere Trifling. But when the Thing the Apostle was here feting himself to prove, was this, That Jesus was the Christ, true GOD and Man, and our Mediator and Saviour, nothing could be more natural, proper, and orderly, than for him to prove this both by Divine and Humane Wit nesses, that he might convince, that it was abundantly attested. For, in this Case, comes in very naturally, because it shews that his main Assertion is well proved. The Apo stole speaks of all these witnesses jointly, ver. 6. Then of the Divine separately, ver. 7, and of the Humane separately, v. 8: And at last, in v. 9, he joins both together, and says. If we receive the Witness of Men, the Witness of GOD is greater. And this Way, the Test mony of the Holy Spirit is not produced as a Reason and Cause of the Holy Spirits testifying: But good Evidence is given that the Truth alerted
Original p. 442
falls upon Slichtingius, and not upon the Connexion of these words, which is plain, and clear, and admirable.
Our late Inquirer, or rather Determiner, here falls in with his beloved^Companions, says, That the Context has no internal E'videncCy to persuade us that the Words are genuine: and is complete without them, and rather more and easy . Dr. Louis Roger, though a Roman, in this Case refers to the Synopsis for Proof of the contrary f, which I should therefore have thought it proper for this Writer to have consulted and con But he argues in this Manner: The Three following Witnesses halving already been spoken of, it was very natural to sum them up in one Conclufiony, There are Three that Witness, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood: the other Three Witncst'es had not been men to give Occasion for the like to be said of them Which is a direct begging the Thing question, though he might be well assured would not be granted him. He goes on } was it, says he, likely the Spirit should be as another Witness on Earth, if it had been before among the witnesses in Heaven. The Spirit was no more an Inhabitant of the Earth, the Father, and Word were: who also operated and gave their Testimony, not in Heaven, but on Earth. Nay, says he, the Word incarnate was more properly an Inhabitant of the Earth than the Spirit, and yet is not reckon among the IVitnefjes on Earth. Is it likely the Spirit should be made twice a Witness in the Matter, and fa Emlyns Tracts, pa? t. 30$. t Dijsertat. Quit, 'Lheolog. pa£. 188-
Original p. 443
and Word? But what becomes of this fine j Reasoning of his, upon Supposition, that the Spirit here produced as a Witness on Earth, is very different from the Spirit spoken of as bearing Record in Heaven; and that tho the Word did truly bear Witness on Earth, in his State of Humiliation, yet when his Testimony is here mentioned, He was to be considered in his exalted State, and so no longer an Inhabitant of the Earth, but as bearing Witness from Heaven? And what if the Holy Spirit, who is One with the Father, and the Word, is no more brought in as gi king two Teitimoniesj, than either of the other? All this may be safely asserted, and easily proved. And therefore his Difficult ties have nothing in them.
But on the other hand, it should not be forgotten, That the Apostle here declares, v. 9. That it is the Witness of GOD he pro duces in this Case. If, says he, we receive the Witness of Men, the Witness of GOD is greater: For this is the Witness of GOD, which He bath testified of his Son. This manifestly explains what he had said of Six Witnesses, Three in Heaven, and Three in Earth; and sup-i poses that the two Verses foregoing, contain the Testimony, both of those in Heaven, and those in Earth. And, as Dr. Grab has well observed , this Apostles having taken such Notice in his Gospel, of the Witness given by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, makes it the more credible, that their Testimony should here also be referred. And with him Calovias also agrees; "" 1 '
Vid. Busy Def. fid, Nk. Sect. II. cap. ac. t Ml. Uustu "
Original p. 444
unlikely, when the witnesses to Jesus are designedly treated of, for the Three fVitneJJes in Heaven, which are the chiefest and most remarkable, to be omitted, since St. John in his Gospel took such particular Notice of their Testimony, and Jesus himself in John so directly appealed to it *.
These Things being premised, I conceive will help to make my Way the more plain and easy. And now I go on, II. TO make a few free Concessions, in order to the taking away from those that are against this Text, any just Grounds of Complaint. And this I the rather do, that so when all is granted them that they can justly claim, or produce a plausible Appearance of their having a Right to, it may be the more evident they are altogether Unreason able, if they hold on Complaining, 1. Then, let it be granted, That this Text was not urged by any of the Greek Fa there, before the Council of Nice; nor by any genuine Greek Writer against the Arians afterwards, while that Controversy was in its Height. Be it granted, that no Notice is taken of this Text in any remaining ge nine Writings of Irenaeus, Clement, or Denis of *
He that would lee the Grammatical Construct on of this Text and Context discussed, may consult Principles centre les Socinlens far Theod. De Blanc. Sect. MI. chap. x. pag. 157, Ge. And he that would see ' the Analogy that there is between the two Ranks of Witnesses, those in Heaven, ver. 7. and those en Earth, ver. 8,.considered, may consult the same Writer, Chap. xiii. Art. III. pag. 131, "
Original p. 445
weed, that this Text is wholly overlooked by the Fathers of the Council of Sardlca, by Epiphanies, Basil, Alexander of Alexandria, NyJfene, Naz, ianz, ene, Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, the Author of the Exposition of the Faith in the Works of Austin Martyr, Cafarius, Vroclus, and the Nicene Fathers themselves: Nay, let it be granted, that it is not to be found cited by any one genuine Greek Father, for up wards of Five hundred Years after Christ. 'It is all granted to our Contenders; let them make the most they can of it. Our Determi Determiner, who seems to have thought these Greek Fathers likely to have seen the Authentic Originals of the Apostles, *, (though as to the Authentic Original of this Epistle, I don't find any of them ever pretended to see it, or know much of it, any more that we) may perhaps think his Point gain: Whereas in Reality, all that can justly be inferred from their Silence in this Case, is only this. That this Text was not in those Copies of the New Testament which they made Use of,- notwithstanding which, it might still be in the Autograph or Original Epistle of St. John, and also in many true and genuine Copies of it.
- Let it also be granted, that this Text was not taken notice of by many of the Latin Fathers, any more than the Greek. Be it owned, that it is omitted in the Area time of the Baptism of Ilereticks that is in the works of St. Cyprian, and also in what we have remaining of the Writings of Novatian, Hilary, Calaritanus, Vhahadlus, Ambrose, FaujtinHSy, Austin, Leo the great, Facundus Hermianensis, * & Emljtis Tracts, jag. 313.
Original p. 446
some of them do not mention this 7th. verse, even though they produce and make use of the Verses before and after. All that this Concession proves, is only this, that some how or other, the Copies that were used by these Latin Fathers were without this Verse; but not by any means, that it was in no true Copies, and ought not of right to have been in all.;.
Let it also be granted, that this Text is wanting in some of the most Ancient Greek Copies that are extant at this Day: As in our famous Alexandrian Copy in the Library at St. James's, reckoned by some to be 1200 years Old, and in the Vatican Copy, that is much of the same Age -f This Concession aifeds me the less, because I have good Proof that this Text was used and owned as genuine, before either of those Copies were written, supposing them as Old as is pretended, which yet some question. The foresaid writer indeed says, that it is enough to jhaie the Credit of the Text with all impartial Men, that it is wanting in these two, toe most valuable and Ancient Copies we know of in the World. But methinks it is hard that none can be impartial but Father * Dr. Thomas Smith says it is far above a Thou sand years old. Find. 1 S. Jo. c. 5. v. 7. afuppcfititmis not. p. 1 24. Dr. Mill says it was written in the 4th Century: And Dr. Grave (in Prafat, ad O8eteuch.) is of the same Opinion. t Dr. Louis Roger says that the Vatican MS is above t3oo years old; though at the same time he owns that Father le Long does not count it so Old. Dijsertat. Crit. Theol. p. 18, 19. pag. 310.
Original p. 447
Opinion, that had we those two Copies printed exactly as they are, we should find them in several things disagree with each other, and that the Credit of several other Texts would be shaken, if they were allowed to pass for the Standard. And must we either yield to this, or else be partial.' For my part, I can see no Reason for it. I think, to reject any Text as spur'loiis, merely because it is wanting in these two Copies, though it is found cited by good Authors before those two Copies were transcribe, as well as is to be met with in several other Copies of good Credit, looks much more like Partiality *.
Be * When this was delivered from the Pulpit, there was this Addition: That Writer appears in reality to have so great an Aversion to the Doctrine which this Verse holds forth, that heed not only be content to part xtitb several Texts besides this, rather than be brought to own it; but I am inclinable to believe, that if this verse had been found in the two Copies mention d, as valuable as they are, and even in Twenty more, he would Jill have had an Inclination to Cavil against it; and would have reckon nd that if there had been but two or three Copies to have been produce in which it was wanting, that would have been sufficient to have justify his calling it in Question: And if so, what he says of these two celebrated Copies, is a mere Flourish. These are the very Words in which I expressed myself, transcribed from my Notes, without any Variation. Mr. Emlyn in his Preface to his Answer to Mr. Martins Dissertation, represents himself as not a little aggrieved at this, and says it is not very Charitable, &cc. I shall not seek to justify myself by saying, such expressions are com mon in such Debates; and that upon Search it is not impossible but like Instances might be found in that Authors own Writings; and that several hav«
Original p. 448
Burnet examined in his Travels, as he has given the World an Account in his Let term from Switzerland. And though the Authority of Father Simon is very far from being so great with me, as it appears to be with the full Inquirer, because, notwithstanding the great Sagacity of that late Learned and Laborious Critics, which that Writer so much applauds, and has such a Gene ration for, there occur in his Performances such manifest Instances of the grossest Partiality and Prejudice, as will not en courage any very firm Reliance upon his Report told me, they were not aware of any unjustifiable severity in the Expressions I made use of in this Case; but I have two Things to offer. The first is, That I did not then know for a certainty that he was the Author of the Inquiry. I had indeed oft heard ic asserted; but it was many times also denied in my hearing. The Inquiry was at that time an Anonymous Pamphlet: And the Reflection was not Personal, till he made it so, by applying it to himself, and setting his Name. The second is this; That having since, in my Printed Discourse on Truth and Love, promised, That if I could discover I had broken in upon the Love that was owing to any that I had pointed to, in my Discourses on the Tri city, I would endeavour to correct it; I have accordingly here omitted it, as thinking it to be needlessly grating; and believing I myself should have reckoned anything of the like nature to have been so, in my own Case. And I had not now added the Word usVi, at all, but for fear least the Complaint being public, and made with some warmth, it might have been imagined by some, that there was somewhat in my expressions, more provoking, than there was in reality, t Ibid. pag. 309.
Original p. 449
mentioned several Ancient Copies, in the Lij berries of the French King, and Monsieur Colberty in which this Verse is not to be found, I am free to allow it to be wanting in them, till Evidence appears to the contrary: Which I think is as much as can with Reason be desired.
- I freely also own, that this Verse is not to be found, in divers Versions of the New Testament into the Languages of se vera Nations, who valued ana used that Sacred Volume as the Rule of their Faith. The Learned differ in their Sentiments as to the Antiquity of several of these Versions. The Syria is the most ancient. And it has been laid by some, That that Version was made in the very next Age to the Apostles; nay, even by St. Mark himself. But Dr. Thomas Smith asserts , That both the Syria and Arablck Versions, as we now have them, are not so ancient as lome have boasted, but were made long after the Council of Nice: And the Ethlopick is but a lace Version. Dr. Roger inclines to think the Syria Version not finished before the sixth Century. And Dr. IVhitby is very positive, That neither the Costick nor Etbioplck Version is of any Value: And that neither the Syria Ver son, nor the Arablck, nor the old Jtallck, (especially not the last) are worthy of that Regard, that many Learned Men have expressed for them. 4 Father Simon assures us ft That
Vmdk. 1 John v. 7. a Suppose. Nota. p. 117. t Differtat. Crit. Theol. in 1 John v. p.27p. 17i Vid. Exam. Var. Left. Jo Millii cap. iv. Sect. »• tt Hist. Crit. its Vers, fin. T. <*. x'm,
Original p. 450
of the Syriack Version that he had consulted: But then he also observes, that many ge nine Passages of Scripture are wanting in that Version. He says, This Text was not in any but Gutbirius's Edition of it. And this Gutbirius first inferring it, charges the Arians as not sparing either the Greek Text, or the Oriental Versions, with Respect to this Passage. And yet at length Dr. Pocock supplied this Version with this Text, out of the Copy he had from the East, in our Times *. And the Syriack Version being generally without this Text, we have the less Reason to wonder that the Cock} Ethiophk, and Arahick VerfionSj, which are commonly thought to have been made from it, should be without it too. But when they that are against this Text have made the most they are able of this Particular, they can only from thence gather, that this Verse was wanting in those Copies from which those Versions were made.But notwithstanding that, it might still be and in bt. John's Original, and in many true Copies too that were taken from it.
c. I am free also to grant, That some have been urged in Favour of this which deserve not the Stress that been laid upon them. Thus in the Works of Athanafiusy, there is a Dispute aArius, in which this Text is cited: But I cannot see to what Purpose it is to urge it, when Du Pin and others so freely tell us, that the Dialogue between them two was drawn up by one that lived a great
while * I Fred. Sfanbcpi. Hft. Christ. Sccul. IL f 7.
Original p. 451
while after Athanasius; and we from attending Circumstances, have a great deal of Reason to believe as much. Nor am I for insisting on that called Athanasius's Book to Tbeophilns, concerning the United Deity of the Trinity, as a Proof,• bevaufe Dr. Cave reckons it among his spurious Works f. Nor shall I insist on its being referred to, in the Synopsis of the Holy Scripture, which is amongst the Works of Athanasius, notwithstanding that Dp Tin represents it as genuine, and it is cem^ only owned an ancient Treatise. There is also a Prologue or Preface to the Canonical Epistles, that has gone under the Name of St Jerome, and been printed in va riots Editions of the Latin Bible, in which former Translators of the New Testament arc charged with Unfaithfulness, for mention-ring only the Water, the Bloody, and the Spiro}'t and omitting the Testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, by which it is there intimated, the Catholic Faith is much strengthened, and the One Substance of the Divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, is e^widened. Tunic pleads mightily for this Preface as St. Jeromf against Erasmus. Father Simon himself con fesses, that Pityœus and Alahillon thought it was St. Jerome's. Bp. Fell pleads for if as St. Jeroins in his Notes on St. Cyprian: Dr. Tho^ ■mas Smith offers much in Favour of $, j; and Worthy Mr. Martin (than. whom, none has more zealously stood up in Defence of this Text as genuine) has. ransacked all Antiquity in. its Defence 4., and yet after alj,, — -'. A *
Hist. Liter. Vol. I. Pag. P47. \
Vindic. 1 Jbsj.V.7. a Suppositions Koda, p. 137. (£c.
Dijsertat. sur St. Jean. 1 Ep. c. v. v. 7. F.xtimtn de la Heponse de Mr. EmlyUj, chap. iv. —— 7 La Verdi da Tcxte, chap. viii.
Original p. 452
I mu^ own it appears to me a vain Thing to expect any real Support for this Text from thence by which frank Acknowledgement, I am sensible I desert some of my best Friends, and yet am not likely to ob like my Opposites. But I can't help owning the Truth wherever I meet with it. and the Version had not the same Author, that I should be sorry the Fate of this Text, should depend on the Fate of that Preface. I here therefore rea lily fall in with Dr. Mil, and own that to seek to strengthen the Authority of this Text, by that Prologue, is to go about to Support the Truth with Fallliooci and that that Pre face was neither drawn up by St. J^rom, nor by any one that understood the Affair of the Bible as it stood at that Time which it refers to. For though it cannot be denied that there is in that Preface, somewhat that looks like the style and way of St.jfoww?, yet are there some Things that I cannot conceive could come from nim. He could not say, that tkt Greek Fathers generally retain'J this Texts when he knew the contrary. Nor could he charge the want of this Text in the Latin Verse on, purely upon the Interpreter, who was obliged to keep close to the Greek Copy that lay before him, and could not faith fully insert this Text in his Version, if that had left it out. Nor could he pretend that he in his Version first restored this seventh Verse, when it is: not to be found there, even though this Preface is pre fixed.
Original p. 453
romeos whoever was the Author of it, cannot perceive it can do us any Sersj vice.
But though I freely quit such Things as these, through an unwillingness to alledge anything tor Proof that will not hold, yet can I not by any means Consent to part with the Citation of this Text by Tertullian, and yet much less with the No tice taken of it by St. Cyprian, for Reasons that will be mentioned afterwards.
And finally, I readily also grant, that if this Passage did not really come from Sf. John, its Agreeablenefs to the Truth delivered in other Scriptures, would be far from juitifyingj, either the inserting it at first, or the retaining it afterwards. As true Christian Principles will not allow any such Picks Frauds, so neither does our Religion or anything that belongs to it need them. Could I see good Reason to believe this Text Spurious I would be as free to expunge it out of the Bible, as they that are the most set against it could desire. I readily grant our Inquirer, That fie Ho your and Interest of our Holy Religion will be better fervd by disowning ingeiiioujly what we find to be an Error, even though it bare long pissed current for Truth *. But then we must have good Evidence that it is an Error that we quit; a Conviction of which, won't so easily be produced by ( big Words as strong Arguments.
Our Inquirer, after M. Le Clerk tafces the Liberty to affirm, That Dr. Mill, who put Ulhed $the celebrated Greek Testament at Ox G $ fir4§? Emljn's Tm#s, pag. 347,
Original p. 454
Texts hy the Evidence he has given that it is mt Original and Genuine, though he has not acknoTvlcdgd himself overcome by it *. And he may perhaps think that by such Concessions as these, I also have overthrown it, though I am seeking to establish it: But I hope it will appear by the Sequel, that I have good and satisfactory Evidence yet remaining, that neither has Dr. Mill over thrown this Text, nor have I any Reason to give my Consent to part with it, not withstanding these Concessions made, in which I have therefore been the freer, that so they who are on the other side may not be able to say, that after great Pains taken, they can get nothing granted them. Having gone thus far in yielding, I think I may at length make a stand, and take my rise to argue with these that are against this Text with some Advantage, without being justly liable to that heavy Charge of rather maintaining Custom than Truth f.
However, when we find such a Text as this is, attended with so much Difficult ty, ' I 'think I may be allowed to make this fair Motion, That instead of being furprized at it, we should (as it very well becomes us) be thankful that it is not so as to many more. If we soberly consider, the Negligence and Carelessness of the Writer and Transcribers, through whose Hands the Neve Testament passed for many Ages, and the Wisjjngness and Readiness of de signing Persons, to alter and mangle such Copies *
Tracts, p. 307, Ibid. p. 307,
Original p. 455
their own Disposal, I can see no Occasion we can have to be surprised at anything of this K.ind, we may observe. Instead os being shocked at the many 'various Readings that appear, in a Course of so many Years, J think verily we may rather wonder that they are not more, and more Considerable. Nay, we may well admire the watchful Eye of Divine Providence, which has not fuftered the Scripture to be corrupted, al tired, or depraved, either by Negligence or Design, to any such Degree, as not to leave lucli Discoveries of needful Truth as are sufficient, and a plain Way to Eternal Happiness. This is most certainly just Matter of great Thankfulness.
There are indeed in our New Testament Revelation, several Things that are in themselves hard to be understood, and there are several Passages in it that are differently recited: And yet Truth and Duty are plain enough, unless well shut our Eyes, or. willingly give way to a Spirit of Vtvverseness. As dubious as many have studied to make this particular Te^t, yet the Doctrine it declares is plain enough in the very Form of Baptism that our Saviour ap pointed to be continued in his Church in all Ages, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; which is an Order we may I think well conclude he would not have given, if either each ot the Three had not been GOD, or all of them had not been One GOD. Let us bless Alrighty GOD, that by this Settlement he has made our Way so plain: And let us 'ad here to this Doctrine whatever may be offer'4 to divert us from it. Let us like 9 % f
Original p. 456
and Holy Ghest} and either the whole of Christianity must be a Fable and Fiction, or we may depend upon it that we shall be safe and happy.
SEEM
Next: Post 2, “Manuscripts, Versions, and the Fathers: Calamy's Second Sermon on 1 John 5:7”
Comments
Share a question or response to this article.