and respectable versions." He then mentions the following early versions, in which it is not to be found; "namely," the two Syriac, the Coptic and Schidie versions, formed for Upper and Lower Egypt; the Ethiopic, Arabic, Sclavonian and Armenian versions."

On the supposition that his statement is correct, it must be admitted that, they afford no evidence in favor of the text under consideration. Those versions, however, were probably made in the Arian period, and in the East which is a circumstance of great weight in accounting for their silence in respect to the passage. My opponent says himself, that immediately after the death of Arius, his doctrine gained ground with astonishing rapidity, and seemed to bid fair to become the dominant religion, especially in the East, where it prevailed far more generally than in the West." The want of the text in question, in the versions that the gentleman has named, may be one reason for those nations exchanging Christianity for Mahomedanism, and the Scriptures for the Koran. But he acknowledges, that it is only in the correct editions of the Armenian version, the text in dispute is wanting; and that is admitting, that it does appear in the incorrect editions of it. We may be assured, wherever this Trinitarian text is found, that manuscript, version, or edition, will be deemed incorrect, for that reason. He admits, that the passage is found in the Vulgate version, with the exception of "29 of its fairest and best manuscripts." No doubt, the want of the text, will constitute a great degree of fairness and excellency in his

esteem.

very

The Vulgate was made for the western part of the Christian world, where my opponent says, the doctrine of Arius did not so generally prevail. This fact fully accounts for the text being found in that version. The gentleman, however, attempts to remove every argument arising from

this consideration, by saying,-" The Vulgate is the version of the church of Rome, that mother of harlots, that mistress of abominations, who has mystery inscribed upon her forehead."

These accusations, however, amount to nothing in relation to the subject before us. It was made evident in a former part of this controversy, that the church of Rome had no motive to forge this disputed text; and, therefore, its being in the Vulgate translation, is highly in favor of its authenticity. We are not told, by my opponent when this translation was made, but merely that it was made for the use of the Roman church. But as Latin was the language of that Empire, the church there, stood in need of such a translation from the time of her origin, which reaches back to the very age of the apostles. The church of Rome, was as sound in the faith as any of the churches of Christ, until the beginning of the seventh century. This consideration sets the Vulgate on as high ground, as any translation whatever.

It is conceded by my opponent, that there are two versions, in which the text in debate appears; namely, the Vulgate, and the incorrect editions of the Armenian version. But the author, which I have quoted in my sermons, says, "The ancient version into the Armenian language, hath always contained it."

It appears also in the Italic, which is the oldest version of the New-Testament, having been made near the days of the apostles. Out of nine versions of the Holy Scriptures, therefore, the text, it seems, appears in three. The gentleman in opposition, in another of his conclusions says, "On supposition of the genuineness of the sage, it would be in the controversial writings of the Trinitarian fathers of every age." But, as I have largely replied to this argument, needless repetition must be avoided.

pas

The last of his conclusions is, that, "If it were a genuine text, it would be found in the orthodox creeds and catechisms which have regulated the faith of Christendom.

On this, I will just say, if it be not found" in the creeds and catechisms," which are " orthodox" and ancient, the omission was not for the want of a belief of its authenticity; for it was not disputed until the fifteenth century; and since the art of printing has been invented it has appeared in all the editions of the New-Testament, in every language. This is surely, giving it as high a standing as its insertion"in creeds and catechisms."

But I have shown from high authority, that "this verse of St. John was inserted in the ancient service-book of the Latin Church-in the confession of faith of the Greek Church-and also in their Liturgy or public service-book." On this head, therefore, I shall say no more at present, but proceed to some other objections which seem to be deemed formidable by my ingenious opponent.

In proof of the spuriousness of the text, he says,-" All the libraries of Europe, and of the world have been challenged, for years, by the learned and highly respectable Trinitarian Griesbach, to produce one single decent Greek manuscript, ancient or modern, which contains it."

When such epithets, as “learned and highly respectable,” are given by the Anti-Trinitarians to a writer, there is reason to fear, that he is nigh to their sentiments. No doubt Griesbach is a scholar, and very industrious in collating ancient manuscripts; but his challenging "all the libraries of Europe, and of the world," as my opponent states, is not like the tone of a man, who feels a sacred regard for Trinitarian doctrines.

But the gentleman says farther,--" No one of the learned Trinitarians has met this confident challenge. No

one has dared to pretend that there is any such manuscript existing, in any part of the globe."

It seems the challenge was given "to produce a decent Greek manuscript, ancient or modern." It is acknowledged by my opponent himself, that there are three Greek manuscripts which contain the passage; namely, "the Berlin, the Dublin and that of Matthæi." It is admitted that they have existed ever since the fifteenth century; and, if they are not entitled to the high character of ancient, surely they may be called modern Greek manuscripts. As the challenge is, "to produce either ancient or modern Greek manuscripts," they could not have been set aside on the ground of their age. But it was, perhaps on account of not being decent, that they were rejected by Griesbach; or for that reason the Trinitarian divines did not dare present them. To illustrate this case, the gentleman says,"The Dublin manuscript is a transcript, in part, of Cardinal Zimminie's edition, and contains its typographical mistakes." He He says likewise, the Greek manuscript of Matthæi, is only a copy of the printed editions of Erasmus and Beza."

But why should printed editions of the Scriptures be copied into Greek manuscripts, unless it were to give the appearance of authenticity to the text in debate? Such insinuations, are implications of Trinitarian honesty, but no hints must be given by us, that Anti-Trinitarians have ever had any inclination, to lay unhallowed hands on the Oracles of God. If we would only believe their word, however, their time and eminent learning, have been piously occupied in purifying the Scriptures, from Trinitarian adulterations.

But my opponent goes on to say,-" The Dublin manuscript is not earlier than the 15th century, probably forged by the British divines, to deceive Erasmus; and in

duce him to put 1 John 5. 7, into his Greek Testament." He then asserts,-" So the only three Greek manuscripts in existence, which contain the passage of the three heavenly witnesses, are all written since the invention of the art of printing; for which no cause can be assigned, that I know of, except the base and wicked design of manufacturing authority for a vile interpolation, which has not the countenance of a solitary Greek manuscript on earth." The modesty of these assertions is submitted to my hearers. Admitting, however, that the gentleman's statement correct, it is far from settling the subject in dispute. If such Greek manuscripts, as Griesbach requires, are not to be found now, this does not prove that there never have been any, neither does it invalidate the historical testimony which is adduced in my sermons. You see my opponent allows the dignified name of Greek manuscripts, to 109 only; but, that is not one to a thousand which must have existed since the apostolic age.

In ancient times, every Arian public library might have been furnished with such a manuscript of the Scriptures; and so might every family of that community, whose property was adequate to the expense of writing it. In the eastern section of the Christian world, manuscripts and versions, without the text in debate, were probably numerous; and the church in the western section, might have been less careful in preserving what are now deemed the only proper vouchers of the true reading of the Scriptures. From an excessive fondness of the Latin language, the church of Rome, preferred the Vulgate version to all others. This might have made them very indifferent about securing the Greek manuscripts which contained the text. There is no great want of it in the Latin manuscripts, which were used in the western section of Christendom; where the gentleman says, Arianism did not so generally prevail.