out. It is the interest of all, who would know the whole counsel of God, which He has seen fit to reveal, to possess the entire genuine text of Scripture, - no more, no less.

It may be well here to state a few facts connected with the literary history of this inestimable volume, which we call the Holy Bible, or Book; facts which should be kept in mind in entering on any inquiry into the integrity of its text. This volume does not come to us in the form in which its contents were originally written. In the first place, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek. In the next place, neither is a single book, no, nor even two books; but each is a collection of several books written by different authors, in different places, at different times, for different purposes, and without any concert. In the third place, these several books were published or circulated publicly, in a separate form. And in the fourth place, they were not at first published in print, but in manuscript, the art of printing not having then been discovered.* This one

*The present canonical books of the Old Testament were first collected by Ezra, after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, about 450 years before Christ, and perfected about 100 years after Ezra, by Simon the Just. The first recognition of the books of the New Testament as one collection, of which we have any knowledge, is in Eusebius of Cesarea, the ecclesiastical historian, in the beginning of the fourth century of the Christian era; and his catalogue contains all which we now receive, classified, however, by him into two divisions, those which are undisputed, and those which are disputed. The first complete edition of the entire Bible was printed by Guttemberg, at Mentz, in Latin, in the year 1450. The second was that, the printing of which was begun in 1502, and finished in 1514, at Alcala, in Spain, the ancient Complutum, hence called the Complutum, or Complutensian edition. This was a magnificent work, performed under the inspection, and at the sole expense of one man, the Cardinal Ximenes, then Archbishop of Toledo, and prime minister of Spain. It was not given to

fact, that they were first published in manuscript, and that in this way all the copies and versions previous to the discovery of the art of printing, were for fourteen centuries made,-joined to the unquestionable ignorance, and probable carelessness, and at least possible dishonesty, of some of the transcribers and translators during that long period of time, makes it not strange that some errors should have crept into the sacred text; makes it passing strange that there are no more, so strange, indeed, that many good men have felt that there must have been the special Providence of God, in the preservation of its purity. In the case of an English Bible, then, there are certainly some errors, though I gladly subscribe to the opinion of an eminent critic, that "its general fidelity,

the world until 1522. It was a Polyglott Bible, or one containing the text in many languages. It comprised the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Septuagint or Greek Translation of it; the Latin and the Chaldee paraphrases of Onkelos; the New Testament in the original Greek; and the Latin Vulgate, as still used in the Roman Catholic Church. The impression was limited to 600 copies, three copies being printed on vellum. In 1817, one of these last, which had found its way into France, was purchased by an English gentleman for 16,000 francs. The work made 6 vols. folio, and cost the munificent Cardinal 50,000 ducats. The first English translation of the Bible known to be extant, was made by an unknown hand about the year 1290. Wickliffe's translation, which next followed in the year 1380, was so offensive, from the mere fact of being an attempt to render into "profane English" the word of God, that we find the House of Lords, in the reign of Richard II., engaged in solemn debate upon an act for its suppression, which, however, did not pass. Still, at a later period, at an Archiepiscopal convocation held at Oxford in 1408, a decree was made against reading the Scriptures in English. Some who persisted were even punished with death. The first printed English Bible was Tindal's, a middle sized 8vo. volume, and printed either at Antwerp or Hamburg, in the year 1526. That which is now in use, called the Textus Receptus, the Received English Version, or King James's Bible, was published in the eighth year of the reign of James I., A. D. 1611 VOL. XVIII. — NO. 213.

1*

perspicuity, and excellence, have deservedly given it a high and distinguished place in the judgment of the Christian world, wherever the English language is known or read."

John, v. 7, is one,

errors which have And the grounds on

Now, the insertion of the verse 1 and a very important one, of the few crept into our English version. which I venture thus to distinguish it, nay, more, to pronounce it a gross and totally unauthorized interpolation, are briefly these.

1. It is not found in any Greek manuscript of this epistle, which is of any authority, previous to the 15th century. The whole number of Greek manuscripts which are extant, is one hundred and fifty-one. This text is found only in three out of the whole number. I quote a Trinitarian authority (Horne, Introd. iv. p. 436) to the point, that "two of three are of no authority; one," he says, "is of no use whatever in sacred criticism," "the other, obviously a forgery." The third, is the only genuine manuscript which contains the text; but even to this, no writer on either side, pretends to assign an earlier date than the thirteenth century, and "the close of the fifteenth, is the most probable." Of course it is quite modern. To this I shall have occasion

-

66

to refer again.*

2. It is not found in the ancient Latin Vulgate, nor in any Latin version, older than the ninth century. The celebrated Latin father, St. Augustin, or Austin, as he is variously called, wrote ten treatises on this first epistle of St. John. We find every verse of the four first chapters, and the beginning of the fifth, quoted in differ

* Infra, page 9.

ent places in these treatises; but never the disputed verse. Nay, what is even more striking, in his controversy with Maximin the Arian, he was led to write a gloss or comment on the eighth verse, and gives it professedly as such; and his reasoning shows that he knew nothing of the seventh verse, as it is incredible that he should not have quoted it if he had, as being most to his purpose. This was about the close of the sixth century.

3. It is not in the manuscripts of the ancient Syriac version, executed at the beginning of the second, if not within the first century.

4. It is not in the manuscripts of the Ethiopic version, made nearly as early. These two, the ancient Syriac, and Ethiopic, were those "which the oriental Ethiopic nations received from the beginning;" * * * and the authors of these, and of the ancient Latin or Vulgate, being the "three most ancient, most famous, and most received versions," by omitting it, are concurrent witnesses, that they found it wanting in the original Greek manuscripts of their own times.

5. It is not in the other ancient versions, viz., the Egyptian Arabic, and all the known Arabic versions; the Armenian, used by all the Armenian nations ever since the fourth century; the Illyrican, used in Russia, Muscovy, and all the Sclavonian nations; and an ancient French version, made more than one thousand years ago. Indeed, none ever called ancient, but the later Vulgate, has it.

6. Very many copious writings of the fourth century are extant, written when the controversy upon the Trinity was at its height; and yet this verse is not to be found, either quoted or alluded to, in any of the disputes, epistles, or orations, which they comprise. The eighth

verse, and even the sixth and eighth verses are repeatedly quoted in succession, but never the seventh. Now it is beyond belief, that it should not have been quoted in this controversy, if it had been known. It has been greedily enough seized on in modern days.

the years 1516, and 1519; 1518; that of Gerbelius,

7. It was not printed in the earlier printed Greek Testaments, except in the famous Complutensian, at Alcala, in Spain, in 1514. The first and second editions of Erasmus at Basle, in the Aldine edition at Venice, 1521; that of Cephalius, at Strasburg, 1524; the Badian edition, 1526; and that of Colinæus, at Paris, 1534, – all omit it. It is worthy of remark, that Erasmus, having omitted it in his first and second editions, was assailed from all quarters; and in the warmth of discussion, or else through fear of his enemies, he declared that if a single Greek manuscript could be produced which contained it, he would insert it in his third edition. His immediate antagonist could not produce one; but subsequently, after search everywhere, one was found at Dublin, Ireland; and Erasmus, without seeing, and "suspecting all the while," as he himself confesses, "that it was a translation from the Latin," inserted the verse, "to avoid calumny," to use his own words, in his subsequent editions, of 1522, and after. This is the manuscript concerning the modernness of which I have already quoted the opinion of Horne; * and of which Charles Butler, the distinguished Roman Catholic layman, admits, that "it is neither of sufficient antiquity nor of sufficient integrity, to be entitled to a voice in a question of sacred criticism." While Horne adds, "the testi

* Vid. above, page 6.