period of time. There is no such charge exhibited against those ancient heretics by the Orthodox; neither do we find them complaining of such an addition having been made to the Holy Scriptures by their opponents. The original copy was, at that period, undoubtedly, in the possession of the Church; and a sight of it must have completely settled such a controversy. It was, therefore, an inauspicious era, to have omitted or inserted the passage under consideration. But, if either of these things was done, I think an omission of the text in writing manuscripts, the most probable, for these two weighty reasons, namely: First, The character of the Orthodox for piety, and veracity, we must believe, was not inferior to that of the Anti-Trinitarians; Secondly, It was more safe to omit a passage in transcribing the Scriptures, than to make and insert one. If such an omission had been noticed, and protested against, a very plausible apology could have been offered; namely, that it was a mistake, and not designed. No such plea could possibly have been made for an interpolator. The weakest reasoner on earth, must have seen at once, that from the guilt of such an action, it would have been impossible for him to have washed his hands. It is the most probable thing, therefore, that the early manuscripts of the New Testament were all either with or without, this contested passage. But, after the early manuscripts were all buried in the grave of time, and transcriptions had become numerous, no doubt it was then, that this text was either omitted or inserted. None of the ancient manuscripts, which are now in being, reach within many hundred years of the apostolic age. As the art of printing was then unknown, manuscripts of the Bible would be the most likely to increase, when the Christian religion was established in the Roman Empire, and had diffused itself extensively in the world. A mul

tiplicity of transcriptions of the Holy Scriptures was then more practicable and necessary, than in any antecedent period. After the establishment of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire, Anti-Trinitarianism became very prevalent. Then the famous Arius arose, covering the Christian horizon with a cloud of Anti-Trinitarian delusion. He was, indeed, greatly opposed by the Orthodox, and by Constantine the Great; yet his sentiments spread extensively, and finally obtained a legal establishment. The sons of the Arian school were then under peculiar advantages to omit and erase the text which is now in debate.

Concerning this passage, Dr. Scott observes, "It is certainly wanting in many of the ancient versions and manuscripts: but whether the Trinitarians interpolated it, or the Arians and other Unitarians omitted it, is to this day a matter of controversy." He adds, "It is, however, more probable that the Anti-Trinitarians should silently omit, in their copies a testimony that was so decisive against them, or that it should be left out by the mistake of some ancient transcriber, than that the Trinitarians should directly forge and insert it." Ecclesiastical history testifies, that Anti-Trinitarianism prevailed in the Christian world, through the greater part of the fourth century, and almost the whole of the fifth. The votaries of that deleterious scheme, made every possible effort to crush the orthodox religion, and to promote their own views of theology. They had two distinguished sovereigns, who favored their cause, Constantius and Huneric. While the Arians were crimsoning the earth with the blood of orthodox Christians, and banishing their leading men into deserts and caves, we may well suppose that they would take some liberty also with the Holy Scriptures. In relation to this subject, Milner, in his Ecclesiastical History states, that "Huneric ordered, that no one should hold any

office in his dominions, who was not an Arian. He confiscated the property of the rejected Orthodox, and banished their persons. In the year 483, he commanded the Trinitarian ministers to meet the Arian clergy, at Carthage in Africa, to prove their faith, if they could, by the Scriptures." When they assembled at the appointed place, our historian says, "Huneric made no mention of the 'conference, for many days, and separated those of the greatest abilities from the rest, that he might on false pretences, put them to death. One of the most learned, named Laetus, he burned alive, to intimidate others. When the conference was opened, the Orthodox chose ten of their own number to answer for the rest. Cirila, the chief of the Arian bishops, was seated on a magnificent throne, with his partizans sitting in an exalted station, while the Orthodox continued standing below. The latter saw what a mock conference it was likely to prove, and remonstrated-the Arians ordered one hundred bastinadoes to be given to each of them." Under such disingenuous treatment, poor Eugenius, lifted up his voice to heaven, saying, "God look down upon the violence offered us!" They, however, presented a confession of their faith, in terms, expressive of Trinitarian doctrine.” After this awful scene, "Huneric ordered them to be expelled from Carthage, stripped them of horses and change of raiment, and forbad any one to give them victuals or lodgings, under terrible penalties."

66

We may well suppose that such people were full as likely to omit, in transcribing, and to erase from the then existing manuscripts of Scripture, 1 John 5. 7, as the Orthodox were to insert it; seeing that of such an interpolation, there is not the shadow of positive proof.

The evidence, on which this text is rejected from the Holy Scriptures, has now been presented to your view,

at least as far as I am possessed of it, and, with the remarks which have been made on it, you must judge of its weight. This right is yours. I shall now proceed to

state,

7. The opinions of some eminent commentators and .divines, in respect to the authenticity of the text in question. That excellent Christian and divine, Dr. Doddridge, appears to be undetermined in respect to the sacred authority of this passage, but professes to have a full belief in the doctrine which it contains. He says, "I am persuaded the words contain an important truth; but whether they have been added by some, or omitted by others, contrary to the original copy, I will not pretend to determine." See his Family Expositor, Vol. 6, page 311. Dr. Scott's mind preponderates in favor of the divinity of the passage; rather choosing to believe, that "the Arians omitted it, in the copies where it is wanting, than that the Orthodox inserted it." For this opinion, he gives the following reasons, namely, that "the Trinitarian, in fact, would be deprived only of one argument, with which he might attempt the conviction of his opponent, if this were rejected as spurious; but if the testimony were admitted as the unerring word of God, all the ingenuity or diligence of his opponents, would scarcely suffice to explain it away, or to avoid the inference that must naturally be drawn from it, except by rejecting the apostle's testimony,

The celebrated Matthew Henry, in his commentary on the Scriptures, is full in his belief of the divinity of this text, and his remarks in its vindieation, are copious and powerful. I have not had an opportunity of consulting Pool's Annotations on this text; but according to information, he is expressly in favor of its authenticity. The Rev. John Brown, of Haddington, author of the Family Bible, seems to have the highest confidence of the di

vine authority of the text under consideration; commenting upon it, without taking the least notice of the controversy..

Dr. Emmons, who is an eminent divine, has published a sermon on this passage, without calling its inspiration in question. Surely, he would not have done this, if any scruple had rested on his mind, respecting its authenticity. His opportunity for information on this subject, and his ability to judge, are far from being small.

The famous Claudius Buchanan, D. D. author of "The Christian Researches," who has travelled extensively in the Eastern nations, with the view of making discoveries in favor of the Christian cause, expressly avows his belief in the genuineness of 1 John 5. 7.

The Rev. William Jones, in his "Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity," says, of this text, "I firmly believe it to be genuine for the following reasons:-1. St. Jerom, who had a better opportunity of examining the true merits of the cause than we can possibly have at this distance of time, tells us plainly, that he found out how it had been adulterated, mistranslated and omitted on purpose to elude the truth. 2. The Divines of Lovain having compared many Latin copies, found this text wanting but in five of them; and Robert Stephens found it retained in nine out of sixteen manuscripts which he used. 3. It is certainly quoted twice by St. Cyprian, who wrote before the council of Nice: and also by Tertullian. Dr. Clark, therefore, is not to be believed when he tells us, it was never cited by any of the Latins before St. Jerom. 4. The sense is not perfect without it; there being a contrast of three witnesses in heaven to three upon earth, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, whose testimony is called the witness of God; and the Spirit, the water and the blood, which being administered by the church upon earth, is called the

F