Observations on the

1. JOHN.

Three heeenly Witnesses.

The reader will observe, that in Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the eighth instead of verbum. But both these readings are united in an ancient English manuscript of my own, which contains the Bible from the beginning of Proverbs to the end of the New Testament, written on thick, strong vellum, and evidently prior to most of those copies attributed to Wiclif.

Coder Regius, (No. 2271,) written A. D. 914, the icta is dotted | and 1468, the text stands thus: Quoniam tres sunt qui testi. in Ociny.-Ibid. pag. 271, (No. 4,) written about 890, the iota monium dant in cœlo, Pater Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, is dotted in pov and in Spec. V. in the word rotia. See et hii tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dan! also Ibid. pag. 320, No. 3. another of the Colbert MSS. (4111,) in terra. Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, et tres unum sunt. written A. D. 1236, where the iota is dotted seven times. All In the Bible printed by Fradin and Pinard, Paris, 1497, these specimens are taken from MSS. written in small cha- fol. the text is the same with No. 2, only instead of testimo racters; and, as the dates show, (the last excepted,) long be- nium dant, it reads dant testimonium. fore the twelfth century. As to these dots being more frequent in manuscripts of the fifteenth than those of the twelfth, thir-verse is put before the seventh, and that 3 and 4 have filius teenth, and fourteenth centuries, I cannot say much: it is certain they became more frequent towards the fourteenth century than they were in the twelfth; and yet this was not a general case. In two well written manuscripts now before me, one of which I suppose to be of the fourteenth century, and the other of the fifteenth, these dots often occur, but they are by no means regular. I have noticed several pages in the oldest manuscript where they occur but once; and in other pages they may be met with ten or twelve times. On the contrary, in the more recent manuscript, whole pages occur without one of them; and where they do occur, they are much less frequent than in the former. So that it rather appears from this evidence, that they began to disappear in the fifteenth century. Dr. Marsh, misled by the specimen in Michaelis, Vol. II. pag. 286, says, "The letters in question are always dotted in the Codex Montfortianus." By referring to the fac simile, the reader will be able at once to correct this mistake. The iota in the fac simile occurs thirty times, and is dotted only in five instances: and the upsilon occurs nineteen times, and is dotted only in seven.

But arguments, for or against the age of any MS. on account of such dots, are futile in the extreme; as the most ancient MSS. have them not only on the iota and upsilon, but upon several other letters, as may be seen in the Codex Alexandri nus, the Codex Rescriptus, published by Dr. Barrett, and the Codex Bez; in the latter of which, they seem to occur more frequently than they do even in the Coder Montfortii. On the evidence of these dots, Mr. Martin, of Utrecht, supposed the Dublin manuscript to be as old as the eleventh cen tury; and, on the same evidence, Dr. Marsh argues, "That It is at least as modern as the fifteenth." Both these judg. ments are too hastily formed: medio tutissimus ibis, is the best counsel in such a case; the manuscript is more likely to have been a production of the thirteenth, than of either the eleventh, or fifteenth. The former date is as much too high, as the latter is too low: the zeal of the critics for and against this controverted text, having carried them, in my opinion, much too far on either side.

for three ben that geven witnessing in heven the Fadir, the Word, or Sone, and the Pooly Goost, and these three ben oon. And three ben that geven witnessing in erthe, the Spirit, Water, and Blood, and these three ben oon.

As many suppose the Complutensian editors must have had a manuscript, or manuscripts, which contained this disputed passage, I judge it necessary to add the note which they subjoin at the bottom of the page, by which, (though nothing is clearly expressed,) it appears they either had such a manuscript, or wished to have it thought they had such. However, the note is curious, and shows us how this disputed passage was read in the most approved manuscripts of the Vulgate extant in the thirteeth century, when St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, from whom this note is taken. The following is the whole note literatim:

"Sanctus Thomas, in expositione secunde Decretalis de sumâ Trinitate et fide Catholicà, tractans istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim; ut tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; dicit ad litteram cerba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur. Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essente Unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis et consensus, inducebat consequentem auctoritatem. subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, S Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. E in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exempla ribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arrianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum. Hecleatus Thomas ubi supra."

Num

In comparing the writing of the Coder Montfortii, with the If the Complutensian editors translated the passage into different specimens given by Montfaucon in the Palaogra- Greek from the Vulgate; it is strange they make no mention phia Graca, it appears to approach nearest to that on p. 320, of it in this place, where they had so fair an opportunity while No. 4, which was taken from one of the Colbert manuscripts, speaking so very pointedly on the doctrine in question; and (No. 845,) written in the year of our Lord 1272, which, I am forming a note for the occasion, which is indeed the only theled to think, may be nearly about the date of the Coder Montological note in the whole volume. It is again worthy of note, fortii; but, on a subject of so much difficulty, where critics that when these editors found an important various reading of the first rank have been puzzled, I should be sorry to ha- in any of their Greek manuscripts, they noted it in the mar zard any more than an opinion, which the reader is at liberty gin; an example occurs 1 Cor. xiii. 3. and another, ib. xvi.— to consider either true or false, as may seem best to his own why was it, then, that they took no notice of so important an judgment. omission as the text of the Three Witnesses, if they really had no manuscript in which it was contained; did they intend to deceive the reader, and could they possibly imagine that the knavery could never be dete ted? If they designed to deceive, they took the most effectual way to conceal the fraud, as it is printed their text; for the story of their being sold, in 1749, to a rocket-maker, (see Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 440,) is every way so exceptionable, and unlike the truth, that I really wonder there should be found any person who would seriously give it credit. The substance of this story, as given by Michaelis, is as follows: "Professor Moldenhauer, who was in Spain jin 1754, went to Alcala on purpose to discover these MSS), but was informed, that a very illiterate librarian, about thirty-five years before, who wanted room for some new books, solid the ancient vellum MSS. as useless parchments, to one Toryo, who dealt in fire-works, as materials for making rockets." It is farther added, that "Martinez, a man of learning, heard of it soon after they were sold, and hastened to save these treasures from destruction; but it was too late, for they were already destroyed, except a few scattered leaves, which are now in the library." On the whole of this account, it is natural to ask the following questions-Is it likely that the management of so important a trust, should be in the hands of a person so ignorant, that he could not know a Hebrew or Green MS. from a piece of useless parchment? Could such a person be entrusted to make a purchase of new books for the library, for which he wanted room? or, if they were purchased by the trustees of the library, is it likely they would leave the classification and arrangement of these to such a Goth as this librarian is said to be? Would such a librarian, or, indeed, any other, be permitted to dispose of any part of the library which he might deem useless? If Mr. Martinez heard of it soon after they were sold, and hastened to rescue them, is it likely that almost the whole should have been converted into rockets before he got to the place; when, we are informed, they were so many as to cost originally 4000 aurei; and that even the price which the librarian sold them for, was so con. siderable, that it had to be paid at two different instalments? Was it possible that in so short a time, the rocket-maker

Though a conscientious advocate for the sacred doctrine contained in the disputed text, and which, I think, expressly enough revealed in several other parts of the Sacred Writings, I must own the passage in question stands on a most dubious foundation. All the Greek manuscripts, (the Codex Mont-supposed they destroyed the manuscripts from which they fortii alone excepted,) omit the passage; so do all the ancient Versions, the Vulgate excepted: but in many of the ancient MSS. even of this version, it is wanting. There is one in the British Museum, of the tenth or eleventh century, where it is added by a more recent hand in the margin; for it is wanting also in the text. It is also variously written in those manuscripts which retain it. This will appear more plainly by comparing the following extracts, taken from four manuscripts of the Vulgate in my own possession:

1. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cœlo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hii tres unum sunt. El tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Sun. guis, et Aqua. This is the same with the text in the Complu. tensian Polyglott: only aqua is placed before sanguis.

2. -Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cœlo, Pater Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hii tres unum sunt.

3. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo, Pater et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hii tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis.

4. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis; et hii tres unum sunt. Ettres sunt qui testimonium dant in cœlo, Pater et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hii tres unum sunt.

5. -Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in cælo, Pater Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi

tres unum sunt.

This last I took from an ancient manuscript in Marsh's library, St. Patrick's, Dublin.

In what has been denominated the Editio Princeps of the Latin Bible, and supposed to have been printed between 1455

could have already consumed the whole? The whole account is so improbable, that I cannot help saying, Credat Judæus Apella non ego.

It is more likely the manuscripts were destroyed at first, or that they are still kept secret, to prevent the forgery (if it be one) of the text of the Three Witnesses from being detected; or the librarian already mentioned, may have converted them to his own use. If they were not destroyed by the Complu tensian editors, I should not be surprised if the same manu scripts should come to light in some other part of the world, if not in the Alcala library itself.

It is worthy of remark, that Luther never admitted the text of the Three Witnesses into any of the editions of his transla tion it is true, it was afterward added, but never during his lifetime. On this, Professor Michaelis makes the following observation: "It is uncandid in the extreme for one Protestant to condemn another for rejecting 1 Johm v. 7. since it was rejected by the author of our reformation." Any conscientious Trinitarian may innocently hesitate to receive the feebly sup porting evidence of this disputed text, in confirmation of a doctrine, which he finds it his duty and interest to receive, on the unequivocal testimony of various other passages in the book of God. Professor Griesbach, who does not appear to be an enemy to the doctrine, and who has carefully and critically examin. ed all the evidences and arguments, pro and con, has given up the text, as utterly defenceless; and thinks that to plead for its authenticity, is dangerous. "For if," says he, "a few dubious, suspicious, and modern evidences, with such weak arguments as are usually adduced, are sufficient to demonstrate the authenticity of a reading, then there remains no longer any criterion by which the spurious may be distinguished from the genuine: and, consequently, the whole text of the New Testament is unascertained and dubious."

Much stress has been laid on Bengel's defence of this text: Michaelis has considered the strength of his arguments in a candid and satisfactory manner.

Three heavenly Witnesses

lian. The other passage, which is much more to the purpose,
is in Cyprian's treatise, De Unitate Ecclesia, where Cyprian
writes thus: Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus:
iterum de Patre et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est.
et tres unum sunt. Now, admitting that the words et tres
unum sunt, were quoted by Cyprian from 1 John v. 7. 1
seriously ask every impartial judge, whether a passage found
in no ancient Greek manuscript, quoted by no Greek father,
and contained in no other ancient version than the Latin, is
therefore to be pronounced genuine, merely because one La-
tin father of the three first centuries, who was bishop of
Carthage, where the Latin version only was used, and where
Greek was unknown, has quoted it 1 Under these circum-
stances should we conclude, that the passage stood originally
in the Greek autograph of St. John ? Certainly not: for the
only inference which could be deduced from Cyprian's quo
tation would be this, that the passage had been introduced
into the Latin version so early as the third century.
"The preceding answer is sufficient to invalidate Cyprian's
authority in establishing the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. on
the supposition that Cyprian really quoted it: but that he did
so, is more than any man can prove. The words tres unum
sunt, are contained not only in the seventh, but also in the
eighth verse, which is a part of the ancient and genuine text
of St. John; and therefore it is at least possible, that Cyprian
took them not from the seventh, but from the eighth verse. It
is true that he says, these words are written of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost; whereas tres unum sunt, in the eighth
verse, relates only to the Spirit, the water, and the blood. But
it must be observed, that the Latin Fathers interpreted spiritus,
aqua, et sanguis, not literally, but mystically; and some of
them really understood by these words, Pater, Filius, et Spi
ritus Sanctus, taking aqua in the sense of Pater, sanguis in
the sense of Filius, and spiritus in the sense of Spiritus
Sanctus.

"This is expressly asserted by Eucherius in his Quæstiones N. T. Difficiliores; for, after having quoted 1 John v. 8. thus, Tria sunt, quæ testimonium perhibent, aqua, sanguis, et spiritus. he adds, soon after, plures tamen hic ipsam inter sanguine, Christum, spiritu, Spiritum Sanctum manifes tare. But if Cyprian really thought, that aqua, sanguis, et spiritus, 1 John v. 8. denoted Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanc tus, he might say of tres unum sunt, ver. 8. that it was written, de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto. And that he actually did so, that he quoted not ver. 7. but understood ver. 8. mystically, appears from the following passage of Facundus, who lived in the neighbourhood of Carthage, and consequently used the same Latin version as Cyprian. Johannes Aposto lus in epistolâ sua de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, sic dicit; Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt: in spiritu signifi cans Patrem, &c. Quod Johannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, in epistola, sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, dictum intelligit." Facundus then quotes the words of Cyprian, which are the subject of our present inquiry. From the preceding passage it is manifest that 1 John v. 7. was unknown to Facundus; for he proves the doctrine of the Trinity by a mystical interpre tation of ver. 8. and appeals to the authority of Cyprian, who, he says, gave the same interpretation. But if 1 John v. 7. was unknown to Facundus, who lived in the same country as Cy. prian, used the same Latin version, and wrote almost three centuries later, it is incredible that 1 John v. 7. was already introduced in the Latin manuscripts which Cyprian used Consequently we must conclude that the assertion of Facun dus is true, and that the words of Cyprian contain not a quo tation from 1 John v. 7. but a mystical application of 1 John v. 8. This is further confirmed by Augustin, who was likewise an African bishop, lived a hundred years later than Cyprian and still knew nothing of 1 John v. 7. for he has never quoted this passage, not even where he speaks of the Trinity, but he has inystically applied the eighth verse."-MICHAELIS, Vol. VI. p. 420.

"The ancient writers which Bengel has produced in favour of 1 John v. 7. are all Latin writers; for he acknowledges that no Greek father has ever quoted it. Now, if no ob-pretatione mystica intelligere Trinitatem; aqua Patrem, jection could be made to Bengel's witnesses, and the most ancient Latin fathers had quoted in express terms the whole of the controverted passage, their quotations would prove nothing more than that the passage stood in their Manuscripts of the Latin version; and, therefore, that the Latin version contained it in a very early age. But it will appear, upon examination, that their evidence is very unsatisfactory. The evidence of Tertullian, the oldest Latin writer who has been quoted in favour of 1 John v. 7. is contained in the following passage of his treatise against Praxeas, Book I. chap. 25. Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coherentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus. Hence it is inferred, that because tres unum sunt stand at present in the Latin version, 1 John v. 7. these words stood there like, wise in the time of Tertullian, and that Tertullian borrowed them from the Latin version. But this inference is wholly without foundation; for Tertullian does not produce these words as a quotation, and the bare circumstance of his using the expression tres unum sunt, will not prove that he found that expression in the Bible. On the contrary, it is evident from what immediately follows, that 1 John v. 7. was not con tained in the Latin version when Tertullian wrote. For in proof of this assertion, qui tres unum sunt, he immediately adds, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, which is a quotation from St. John's Gospel, chap. v. 30. Now, as this quotation relates only to the Father and the Son, and not to the Holy Ghost, surely Tertullian would not have proved the unity of the Trinity from this passage, if 1 John v. 7. which is much more to the purpose, had then been contained in any Latin manuscript, with which he was acquainted. At any rate, the mere use of the words tres unum sunt, affords no argument in favour of the controverted passage; and if any inference is to be deduced from their agreement with our present copies of the Latin version in 1 John v. 7. it is this, that the person, who afterwards fabricated this passage, retained an expression which had been sanctioned by the authority of Tertullian. So much for the evidence of this Latin father, the only writer of the second century, to whom ap peal has been made.

"Of the Latin fathers who lived in the third century, Cyprian alone has been produced as evidence in favour of 1 John v. 7. From the writings of Cyprian two passages have been quoted as proofs that 1 John v. 7. was contained in his manuscript of the Latin version. The one is from his epistle to Jubaianus where Cyprian writes thus: Si baptizari quis apud hæreticum potuit, utique et remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est; quaro cujus Deil Si Creato ris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, non hujus potest fieri templum qui negat Deum Christum: si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanc tus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est? Here it must be observed, that the words cum tres unum sint, though inserted in the later editions of Cyprian's works, are not contained in that edition which was published by Erasmus: and even if they were genuine, they will prove nothing more than the same words just quoted from Tertul

The Greek writers who have not quoted this verse, though several of them wrote professedly on the Deity of Christ, and on the Trinity, are the following: Irenæus.

Didymus de Spir. Sanc.
Clemens Alexandrinus.
Cyril of Alexandria.
Dionysius Alexandrinus (or Expos. of Faith in Justin Mar
the writer against Paul of tyr's works.
Samosata under his name.) Cesarius.
Athanasius.
Proclus.

The Synopsis of Scripture.
The Synod of Sardica.
Epiphanius.
Basil.

Alexander of Alexandria.
Gregory Nyssen.

Gregory Nazianzen, with his
two commentators, Elias
Cretensis and Nicetas.

Chrysostom.

The Council of Nice, as it is represented by Gelasius Cy

An author under his name, de Germanus of Constantinople....
sancta et consubstantiali Ecumenius.
Trinitate.

Euthymius Zigabenus

4. Though it is found in many Latin copies; yet it does not appear that any written previously to the TENTH CENTURY contains it.

5. The LATIN Fathers do not quote it, even where would have greatly strengthened their arguments; and where, had it existed, it might have been most naturally expected.

The writers that have quoted it are comparatively recent, or spurious; for those of any note, which have been supposed, 6. Vigilius, bishop of Tapsum, at the conclusion of the from certain expressions in their works, to have had refe. fifth century, is the first who seems to have referred expressly rence to this verse, have been proved by learned men to have to the three heavenly Witnesses: but his quotation does not nad no such text in view. A great and good man has said, agree with the present text, either in words or in sense; and that "the seventh verse, in conjunction with the sixth and hesides, he is a writer of very little credit, nor does the place eighth, has been quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an unin- alleged appear, to learned men, to be genuine. terrupted train of Fathers." But a more incautious assertion 7. The Latin writers who do refer to the Three heavenly was never made, as the preceding list will prove: and the Witnesses vary greatly in their-quotations; the more ascent evidence on the subject I have most carefully examined. placing the eighth verse before the seventh; and very many Bengel, who was an excellent critic and a good man, endea-omitting, after the earthly witnesses, the clause these three st voured to defend it, but without success; and Michaelis de-one. Others who insert these three are one, add in Christ Je monstrated its spuriousness from Bengel's five concessions. sus-others use different terms. Knittel has defended its authenticity with much critical acu. men: Hezelius with great sagacity; David Martin, of Utrecht, with much honest simplicity; and Dean Travis with abundance of zeal, without much knowledge of the critical bearings of the subject. Socinians need not glory that it is indefensible, and that honest Trinitarians give it up: for the sacred doctrine which it appears to express is diffused through every part of the Scriptures; and is as inexpugnable as a rock of adamant; and will live and prevail in the church of Christ while sun and moon endure, and till time shall be swallowed up in eternity.

SUMMARY of the whole evidence relative to the THREE HEA
VENLY WITNESSES, 1 John v. 7.

1. ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN Greek MSS. are extant, containing the First Epistle of John; and the text in question is wanting in 112. It only exists in the Coder Montfortii, (a comparatively recent MS.) already described. The Coder Ravianus, in the Royal Library at Berlin, is a transcript taken from the Complutensian Polyglott.

8. It is wanting in all the ancient VERSIONS, the Valgate cepted: but the more ancient copies of this have it not; and those which have it vary greatly among themselves, as may be seen in the specimens already produced.

9. It is wanting in the first edition of Erasmus, A. D. 1516 which is properly the editio princeps of the Greek ter It is wanting also in his second edition 1519; but he added it in the third from the Coder Montfortii. It is wanting in the editions of Aldus, Gerbelius, Opho lius, &c.

It is wanting in the German translation of LUTHER, and a all the additions of it published during his lifetime. It is inserted in our early English translations, but with marks of doubtfulness, as has already been shown. 10. In short, it stands on no authority sufficient to the cate any part of a revelation, professing to have come from God.

See Griesbach's Dissertation on this verse at the end of th second volume of his Greek text. Hala et Londini, 19 In defence of this verse, see "Archdeacon Travis's Lette 2. All the GREEK fathers omit the verse, though many of to Gibbon," and on the other side, "Professor Persen's them quote both ver. 6. and ver. 8. applying them to the Tri-swer to Travis." The latter has left nothing father to be nity, and Divinity of Christ, and the Holy Spirit; yea, and said on the subject, either in vindication or reply.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.

is called the Philoxenian, from Philorenus, bishop of Hin polis, under whose direction it was formed from the Greek, by his rural bishop, Polycarp, and was afterward corrected and published by Thomas of Charkel, in 616, contains thest, as well as all the other canonical books of the New Testament

From the time that the language, sentiments, and doctrins, of these two epistles were critically examined, no doubts were entertained of their authenticity; and at present they are re ceived by the whole Christian church throughout the world: for, although they are not in the ancient Syriac Version they are in the Philoxenian; and concerning their authenscay believe the Syrian churches have at present no dents.

1 HE authority of the First Epistle of John being established, | But the later Syriac Version, which was made A. D. 508 and little need be said concerning either the second or third, if we regard the language and the sentiment only; for these are so fully in accord with the first, that there can be no doubt that he who wrote one wrote all the three. But it must not be concealed that there were doubts entertained in the primitive church that the two latter were not canonical. And so late as the days of Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, they were ranked among those writings which were then termed avrtλeyoueva, not received by all, or contradicted, because not believed to be the genuine productions of the apostle John. It is very likely that, being letters to private persons, they had for a considerable time been kept in the possession of the families to which they were originally sent; and only came to light perhaps long after the death of the apostle, and the death of the Elect Lady or Kyria, and Gaius or Caius, to whom they were addressed. When first discovered, all the immediate vouchers were gone; and the church of Christ, that was always on its guard against imposture, and especially in rela tion to writings professing to be the work of apostles, hesitated to receive them into the number of canonical Scriptures, till it was fully satisfied that they were divinely inspired. This extreme caution was of the utmost consequence to the Chris-hy Jerome; by Ruffinus; by the third council of Carthag tian faith; for, had it been otherwise, had any measure of what is called credulity prevailed, the church would have been inundated with spurious writings: and the genuine faith greatly corrupted, if not totally destroyed.

The number of apocryphal Gospels, Acts of Apostles, and epistles, which were offered to the church in the earliest ages of Christianity is truly astonishing: we have the names of at least seventy five Gospels, which were offered to, and rejected by the church; besides Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Third Epistle to the Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans, Book of Enoch, &c. some of which are come down to the present time, but are convicted of forgery by the sentiment, the style, and the doctrine.

The suspicion, however, of forgery, in reference to the Se eond Epistle of Peter, second and third of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, was so strong, that in the third century, when the Peshito Syriac Version was made, these books were omitted; and have not since been received into that Version to the present day; which is the Version still used in the Syrian churches.

Dr. Lardner observes, that the first epistle was received quoted by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, contemporary with the apostle; by Papias, who himself had been a disciple of t John; by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many others. The second epistle is quoted by Irenæus, was rece by Clement of Alexandria, mentioned by Origen and Dionysi of Alexandria; is quoted by Alexander, bishop of Alexand All the three epistles were received by Athanasius: by Cyra of Jerusalem; by the Council of Laodicen; by Epiphan by Augustin; and by all those authors who received the canon of the New Testament that we do. All the epistles in the Codex Alexandrinus, in the catalogues of Gregory #i Nazianzen, &c. &c.

Thus we find, they were known and quoted at a very early period; and have been received as genuine by the must spectable fathers, Greek and Latin, of the Christian charc Their being apparently of a private nature might have pre vented their more general circulation at the beginning, kept them for a considerable time unknown, and prevented the from being reckoned canonical. But such a circumstance this, cannot operate in the present times.

As to the time in which this epistle was written, it is ver uncertain. It is generally supposed to have been written at Ephesus between A. D. 80 and 90; but of this there is no proof: nor are there any data in the epistle itself, to lead to any p bable conjecture relative to this point. I have placed it A. D. 85, but would not wish to pledge myself to the correc

ness of that date.

II. JOHN.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.

For Chronological Eras, see at the end of the Acts

The apostle's address to a Christian matron and her children, 1-3. He rejoices to find that certain of her family had re ceived, and continued to adorn the truth; and he exhorts them to continue to love one another according to the command. ment of Christ, 4-6. And particularly cautions them against deceivers, and to be watchful that they might not lose the benefit of what they had received, 7, 8. The necessity of abiding in the doctrine of Christ, 9. He cautions them against receiving, or in any way forwarding, those who did not bring the true doctrine of Christ, 10, 11. Excuses himself from writing more largely, and purposes to pay her and family a visit shortly, 12, 13. [A. M. cir. 4089. A. D. cir. 85. An. Imp. Flavii Domitiani Cæs. Augusti 5.]

Tlove in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that This is the commandinent, That, k as ye have heard from the

al John 3, 19. 3 John 1. Ver.3-b John 8.32. Gal 2.5,14 & 3. 1. & 5.7. Col.1.5. 2 Thess.2.13. 1 Tim.2.4, Heb. 10 261 Tim. 1. 2- Gr. shall be-e Ver 1.-9.-p Gal 3.4. Heb. 10.32,35,-q Or, gained: Some copies read, which ye have gain13 John 3-g1 John 2. 7, 8. & 3. 11h John 13.34 & 15.12. Eph.5.2. 1 Pet. 4.8. 1 John 3.23.-i John 14. 15,21. & 15. 10. 1 John 2.5.& 3.3. NOTES.-Verse 1. The elder] John the apostle who was now a very old man, generally supposed to be about ninety: and therefore he uses the term & poßurcpos, presbyter, or elder, not as the name of an office, but as designating his advanced age. He is allowed to have been the oldest of all the apostles, and to have been the only one who died a natural

And shall be with us) For God will preserve not only the Christian religion, but its truth, all its essential doctrines, for ever. And they that abide in the truth, shall go whither that 9. Whosoever transgresseth] Пapaßavor, he who passes truth leads; i. e. to glory. The Armenian has a strange read-over the sacred enclosure, or goes beyond the prescribed limits ing here. "For the truth's sake which dwelleth in us," be--and abideth not in the doctrine, does not remain within these holy limits, but indulges himself either in excesses of action or passion; hath not God for his Father, nor the love of God in his heart.

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.

For Chronological Eras, see at the end of the Acts.

The apostle's address to Caius, and his good wishes for his prosperity in body and soul, 1, 2. He commends him for his steadiness in the truth, and his general hospitality, especially to the itinerant evangelists, 3-8. Speaks of the bad con. duct of Diotrephes; his abuse of his power in the church; and his slander of the apostles, 9, 10. Exhorts Caius to avoid his example, and to follow what is good, 11. Commends Demetrius, 12. Excuses himself from writing more fully, and proposes to pay him a visit shortly, 13, 14. [A. M. cir. 4059. A. D. cir. 85. An. Imp. Flavil Domitiani Cæs. Augusti 5.] THE elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love bin