third edition of the Greek Testament which was published in 1522.

Mr W. Has it been retained in all the Greek Testaments which have been published since ?

Min. It has not. It however was suffered to retain its place for many years, although it was believed by many learned men to be an interpolation.

Mr W. Interpolation—that is a term I never heard before.

Min. An interpolation is a word or passage inserted in the writings of an author, by some other person, without good authority. What is interpolated was not written by the author himself, but was added by some other hand. Many thought the verse in John an interpolation; yet after it had once found its way into the printed Testaments, it required more resolution and decision than most persons possess, to print the Testament without it. This however has been done in several recent editions of the Greek Testament, and particularly in one, the editor of which was a Trinitarian, and one who spared no pains to render his edition as perfect as possible.

Mr W. Has the passage been omitted in any other editions of the New Testament ?

Min. It has either been omitted, or printed in smaller type, or enclosed in brackets in many other editions. The great reformer, Luther, who translated the New Testament into German, refused to admit it into any of the editions published in his life time; and, before his death, requested that his translation should upon. no account be altered in the slightest instance. In all the

* Griesbach.

earliest editions in English, it is marked as suspicious, and in some more modern translations published by Unitarian Christians, it is wholly omitted.

Mr W. And are there other reasons still, for rejecting this text; I am impatient to learn what they are.

Min. You shall hear. First, the verse in question is not found in any of the ancient versions. This is an argument of very great weight; as it is morally certain, that if it had been contained in the original at the time when those versions were made, it would have been adopted together with the rest of the chapter in which it is now found.

Mr W. Allow me to interrupt you once more. I do not think I clearly understand what you mean by ancient versions. Be so good as to explain your meaning.

Min. The ancient versions of the New Testament are the translations that were made of it in ancient times, or in the first ages of Christianity. The New Testament was written in Greek; but, as the gospel was soon conveyed to many nations where the Greek language was not spoken, it was found necessary to translate it into various other languages, so that all Christians might read it in their native tongue. Several ancient versions have been preserved to this day; and it is found that not one of them contains the verse in question.

Another argument against the genuineness of this verse is taken from the silence of ancient authors, called the Greek and Latin Fathers, who wrote on the doctrines of Christianity, and whose writings abound in quotations from every part of the New Testament. Some of these writers warmly engaged in controversy respecting the na

ture of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the trinity, and adduced every text that appeared to have the most remote bearing on the subject; and it is stated as a fact, that not one of the Greek Fathers, or those who wrote in the Greek language, has quoted, or so much as alluded to this verse in any work of which we have any knowledge; and that the same is true of the Latin Fathers, with the exception of one who wrote in the middle of the fifth century, in whose writings it is now found, though it is supposed that it has been added by a later hand.

Mr W. I believe I must give up the point. If what you say is true, I should think every one, I mean every one who knows the facts you have stated, would be forced to admit that the Bible has been altered, and that the text in John has been inserted without a good reason, and that it ought not to be suffered longer to retain its place in the inspired volume. Are learned men generally agreed in their views respecting this verse?

Min. I believe they are; if genuine, it is the most important text in the Bible to the believer in the Trinity; yet it is seldom quoted or alluded to by learned Trinitarian writers at the present day; which is a sufficient proof, if any were needed, that they do not regard it as genuine. And besides, many Trinitarians have expressed their conviction that it is spurious, or does not belong to the Bible, in language as strong and explicit as it was possible for them to use.

Mr W. I should like to hear what they have said on this subject; for I am sure they would not give up this important text unless they had very strong reasons for so doing.

Min. Your remark is perfectly just. I will now read to you a few passages taken from Trinitarian authors, and leave you to draw your own conclusions. And as several of the most important of these are brought together in a little tract* which I have by me, I will read them as the author has quoted them.

"Let me first ask your attention to the Eclectic Review, the religious character of which is unsuspiciously orthodox.

'We are UNSPEAKABLY ASHAMED,' says the writer, that any modern divines should have fought, for the retention of a passage so INDISPUTABLY SPURIOUS. We could adduce half a dozen, or half a score passages of ample length, supported by better authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed edition and translation.' The learned Griesbach, another believer in the trinity, says If it were worth while, I would undertake to defend six hundred of the most futile and universally rejected readings by testimonies and arguments equally numerous and valid, nay, in general, more numerous and valid, than those which the advocates of this passage adduce.'

Bishop Lowth, another learned Trinitarian, is equally decided. "We have somne wranglers in theology,' he says, 6 sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to defend any thing, however absurd, should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who would be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse, 1 John, v. 7.'

Michaelis, in his most learned and valuable Introduction to the New Testament, says, 'It is very extraordinary that any man should think of opposing the testimony' in favor of this verse to the testimony against it. And again he says, 'One would suppose that no critic, especially if a Protestant, would hesitate a moment to condemn as spurious, a passage,' supported by such feeble evidence as this.

Dr Middleton, in his elaborate work on the Greek article, tells us, that this passage is now pretty generally abandoned as spurious;' and that if any one will study the controversy, the probable result will be, that he will close the examination with a firm belief that the passage is spurious.'

Mr Wardlaw, late zealous and eloquent defender of the doctrine of the trinity, is no less positive. 'Certainly,' he says, this text should have been entitled to hold the first place, had its genuineness not been disputed, or disputed, as that of many texts have been, on

*Two Letters addressed to Rev. Alexander M'Leod D. D. of N. Y. by Henry Ware, Jun. (pp. 6, 7, 8.)

VOL. II.

2*

slight grounds. I freely acknowledge, however, that the evidence of the spuriousness of this celebrated passage, even if it were much less conclusive, than, in my mind, it appears to be, would be quite sufficient to prevent me from resting upon it any part of the weight of this argument.'

To the same purpose the Bishop of Lincoln, in his Elements of Christian Theology,' says, 'I must own, that after an attentive consideration of the controversy relative to that passage, I am convinced that it is spurious."

Prof. Stuart undoubtedly holds the same opinion respecting this verse; for in adducing the texts in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, he omits all mention of this-whereas if he thought it genuine, he must have given it a conspicuous place.

To these names, some of them amongst the most honored in the church, might be added many more equally well known; it is enough to mention those eminent biblical critics, Simon, and Wetstein; Benson, Grotius, and Semler, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Herbert, Marsh, Archbishop Newcome, and the distinguished Methodist, Dr Adam Clarke; and, finally, that illustrious scholar, Porson.

Mr W. Well-I acknowledge I cannot withstand the reasons you have stated. They appear to my mind convincing. I had no suspicion that it was so plain a case. As the passage continues to be printed in our Bibles, I had supposed that it as properly belonged to the Bible as any other verse in it. You cannot tell, indeed you cannot, how much I was startled and shocked to hear you speak of it in the way you did. I was too hasty however in judging you. I ought not, I know, to have taken offence and shown my dislike in the way I did. I now see that you had reason on your side; and I sincerely thank you for the pains you have taken to set me right. There are several other points on which I wish for information, but it is growing late, and I have already heard enough to afford me matter for much reflection. I shall be happy however to renew the conversation at some future time.

Min. It will always give me pleasure to see you when I am at leisure, and to afford you any aid in my power.