called Nicolaites in the Apocalypfe: or whether he meant to defcribe the fyftem of the Gnoftics in general, as ä fyftem of idolatry, which in fact it was, THE CHAP. XXXI. DISSERTATION ON I JOHN V. 7 SECT. I. Previous remarks on this fubject. HE controverfy relative to 1 John v. 7. has rendered this paffage fo celebrated, and at the fame time has rendered fo much benefit to biblical criticism, by being the cause, that Greek manufcripts, ancient verfions and editions, have been examined with greater accuracy, than they otherwife would have been, that the reader would hardly excufe me, if I paffed over this fubject in total filence. But as this controverfy is fo very extenfive, and the limits of the prefent work will not permit me to go over the whole ground, and examine every thing, which has been faid on both sides of the question, I shall argue chiefly from the premises, which the most learned, and likewife the most candid advocate of 1 John v. 7. has admitted, and proved. But though we agree in the premifes, our conclufions are totally different. In the year 1750, when I published the first edition of this Introduction, the opinion, that 1 John v. 7. was fpurious, did not fo generally prevail, as it does at prefent; and my defence of this opinion, though it belongs only only to the province of the critic, did not fail to procure me enemies, who regarded me as a heretic, in spite of the most folemn proteftations, that, though I believed the paffage to be fpurious, I did not doubt the doctrine contained in it, which may be proved, and in a much better manner, from other paffages of the New Testament. That I may not appear to conceal the publications, which have been directed either wholly, or partly, against me, I will enumerate the feveral defences of 1 John v. 7. which have appeared fince the period above-mentioned. The first is a thefis written for a public difputation by Dr. Semler at Halle in 1751, entitled, Vindiciæ plurium præcipuarum lectionum codicis Græci Novi Teftamenti, adverfus Whistonum, atque ab eo latas leges criticas. This tract eminently diftinguishes itself from the rest by its profound learning, and great moderation. It would be fuperfluous to make any reply to it at present, because the learned author himself, who foon after altered his opinion, not only confuted all the arguments which had been used in favour of 1 John v. 7., but wrote the most important work, which we have on this fubject. The next defence of 1 John v. 7. was written by Mr. I. E. Wagner, in 1752, and entitled, Integritas commatis feptimi capitis quinti primæ Joannis epiftolæ ab impugnationibus novatoris cujufdam denuo vindicata. This treatife was directed particularly againft me, whom the author meant by his "novator quidam.' But with fuch an adversary as Mr. Wagner I never could perfuade myself to enter into any controversy. After a lapfe of above thirty years, the learned Knittel undertook another defence of the difputed paffage in his New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7.' printed at Brunswick, in 1785. This is a valuable work, and much useful information may be derived from it: but in the proof of the principal point the author has totally failed. In <See my review of this work in the Neue Orientalifche Bibliothek, No. 33. In the fame year Mr. Travis published in London his Letters to Gibbon:' and in the year following Mr. Strefow printed at Hamburgh his Open avowal of the doctrine of the Trinity as delivered in 1 John v. 7.' But both of thefe publications betrayed the utmott partiality and ignorance. I must now mention what has been written during the fame interval on the other fide of the question, efpecially fince fo many new authorities have been produced against the difputed paffage, that its fpuriousness is still more ftrongly confirmed, than it was fifty years ago. In the first place must be mentioned Wetstein's Note to 1 John v. 7. which contains a very copious differtation on this paffage. In particular, he has quoted a much greater number of Greek manufcripts than any former critic: and he was the first who produced the evidence of the Philoxenian Syriac verfion, from which it appeared that the paffage was no more contained in this verfion, than in the old Syriac. Soon after the publication of Wetstein's Greek Teftament, several Letters appeared on this fubject in the Journal Britannique, which difcovered great learning and penetration, but were written, for the most part, in rather too ludicrous a tone for serious criticism. In thefe letters were particularly expofed, the ridiculous and falfe pretence of Amelote, that the difputed paffage was contained in a Vatican manufcript, and the abfurd inference which fome perfons had deduced from Wetstein's correction of an erratum relative to the three Lectionaries belonging to Cefar de Miffy, this correction having been converted into an acknowledgement, that the paffage was contained in one of these three Lectionaries. The latest publication on this fide of the question is that of Dr. Semler, entitled, Historical and critical collections, relative to what Whoever wishes for further information about them may consult what I have faid in the Orientalifche Bibliothek. Tom. VIII. p. 194. 274. T. IX. p. 44. 290. T. X. 127. T. XI. 66. T. XV. p. 148. 151. what are called the proof paffages in dogmatic theology. Vol. I. on 1 John' v. 7. In this work the learned author has reprefented in fo clear and comprehenfive a manner all that can be faid on both fides, that every man, who reads it with impartiality, muft perceive that the paffage is no longer defenfible. a At present therefore it is unneceffary to enter at large into this controverfy; and confequently I fhall do nothing more than attempt to convince thofe readers, who have either not fufficient leifure or not fufficient inclination to enter into deep critical inquiries, of the fpuriouf nefs of John v. 7, by arguing from the premades, which Bengel the most learned writer in its defence has granted and proved. At the fame time, I fhall fubjoin in notes an account of fuch authorities, as have been discovered fince Bengel's time, in fupport of his pofitions: and shall likewise add in a feparate fection an additional argument against 1 John v. 7. which may be drawn from the hiftory of the Alogi. That the reader may clearly comprehend what is the fubject of debate, which appears not to have been understood even by fome of thofe, who have engaged in the controverfy, I will here reprefent 1 John v. 7, 8. as. the paffage ftands in cur common printed editions, and inclofe in brackets thofe words which are wanting in the Greek manufcripts. Ότι τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρώντες εν τῷ zgava, o warne, λογος, και το άγιον πνεύμα και ετοι οἱ τρεις ἐν εισι. Και τρεις εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυρώντες εν τη γη] το πνεύμα, údwę, xai το αίμα και οι τρεις εις το ἑν εισι. words which are inclofed between brackets I maintain are fpurious, and affert that: this text, as it proceeded from the pen of St. John, ran thus. Ori TOEIC flow of pagtuτρεις εἰσιν надтна ραντες, το πνεύμα, και το ύδωρ, και το αίμα και οι τρεις εις το XXI то ἓν εἰσι. The From this représentation it appears, that thofe arguments are wholly ungrounded, which are drawn from the connexion between the 7th and 8th verfes. It has been objected namely, 1. That, 1. That, if the feventh verfe be omitted, the words Tyn in the eighth verfe have nothing, to which they can be opposed, that the antithefis, between the earthly, and the heavenly witneffes is destroyed, and confequently that the context does not permit the omiffion of the seventh verfe. Now this argument presupposes, that the words v τn yn are genuine, whereas they make a part of the controverted paffage, and are themselves as fpurious as the words to say. 2. That the eighth verfe begins with xa, whence it is inferred, that befide the witneffes mentioned in this verfe, other witneffes must have been mentioned immediately before. Now the fame anfwer may be given to this argument as to the preceding, for xas at the beginning of ver. 8. is again a part of the controverted paffage. And if it were not, the argument would be of no value, fince a conjunction copulative, as well as a caufal conjunction, inay connect the 8th verfe with the 6th, without any reference to other witneffes. This is really the cafe in the old Syriac verfion, and in the Erpenian Arabic verfion, which was made from the Syriac. These two versions exprefs: The fpirit beareth witness, for the fpirit is truth: and there are three, that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood." SECT. II. Five charges against 1 John v. 7. admitted by Bengel. NOW deliver the charges against 1 John v. 7. which but, where it was neceffary, has proved. Now as Bengel was by far the most learned of thofe who have defended the |