from the circumftance, that he proves the doctrine of the Trinity by a myftical interpretation of the eighth verfe which he certainly would not have done, if the feventh verfe had been contained in his manufcript, because in this verfe the doctrine, which he intended to prove, is literally and directly afferted. After the fixth century, the whole Latin church was involved in ignorance and barbarifm: all critical inquiries were at an end and both fpurious and genuine paffages were received without diftinction. In the middle ages therefore, 1 John v. 7. was generally confidered throughout the weft of Europe, as a part of St. John's first Epiftle, without any further queftions being asked about it.

At the revival of letters, and the restoration of Greek literature, it was difcovered, that, though the paffage had gained admittance into the Vulgate, it was not contained in the Greek manufcripts. Accordingly, Erafmus printed his two first editions of the Greek Testament without it: that is, he printed the text of St. John's first Epiftle as he found it in Greek manufcripts. This gave great offence to the members of the church of Rome, whofe oracle was the Vulgate and who concluded, from the omiffion of the paffage in the Greek manufcripts, not that it was fpurious, but that the Greeks had malicioufly erafed it. Erafmus however did not think proper to tranflate the paffage from Latin into Greek, and to infert it without authority: but he promised to infert it in his next edition, if a Greek manufcript could be difcovered, which contained. it. Before the publication of his third edition he received intelligence, that fuch a manufcript exifted in England, and likewise a transcript from this manufcript of the place in question. From this tranfcript Erafinus inferted the controverted paffage in his third and following editions,ne cui fit caufa calumniandi.' From thofe editions others were copied, and others again from thefe, till at length 1 John v. 7. became as general in

the printed edition of the Greek Teftament, as it was in the Latin verfion'.

SECT. VII.

Luther did not admit 1 John v. 7. into his German tranflation of the Bible.

N

EITHER the truth of the doctrine, which this controverted paffage contains, nor the clamours of the Catholics against thofe, who rejected the paffage, could induce Luther to insert a translation of it in his German Bible. He must therefore have believed, that the Complutenfian editors did not derive it from ancient Greek manufcripts; and that the Codex Britannicus, from which it came into the third edition of Erafmus, was a manufcript of no authority. This fufpicion has been fully confirmed by later inquiries : and at prefent it is well known, that the Codex Britannicus, which is no other than the Codex Montfortianus, is a very modern manufcript. Luther's critical learning was not equal to that of Erafmus: but in ftrength of understanding no man ever furpaffed him, and in refolution and integrity he was fuperior to all the learned of his age. In the prefent inftance at leaft he ventured further, than any other tranflator, who lived at that time in the weft of Europe, would have done and not only did not tranflate it in his first edition of the German

It has been likewife interpolated in the editions of the Greek Teftament, which are ufed by the Greeks of the prefent age. In the laft century, it was interpolated in the Slavonian, or Ruffian verfion and in the Armenian verfion, it was interpolated fo early as the end of the thirteenth century, in the time of king Haitho, who was ftrongly attached to the church of Rome,

German Bible, but refufed to admit it, as long as he lived, in any of the fubfequent editions".

The laft edition, which was printed, while Luther was living, and indeed was not quite finifhed till after his death, was that of 1546. In the preface to this edition, which comes immediately after the title page, he delivers the following request, Dr. Martin Luther. I requeft my friends, and my foes, my mafters, printers, and readers, to let this New Testament continue mine. If they find faults in it, let them make another. I know well what I make, I fee alfo well, what others make. But this Teftament fhall remain Luther's German Teftament. Now a days there is neither measure nor end of mending and bettering. Let every man therefore take heed of falfe copies, for I know how unfaithfully and untruly others have reprinted what I have printed.' Now one fhould fuppofe, that every author has a right to expect, that a requeft, like this, would be granted: and that, fince he never admitted 1 John v. 7. into any edition of his German tranflation, no future editor would prefume to infert it, and still retain the name of Luther's tranflation 'on the title. But Luther had not been dead thirty years, when the paffage was interpolated in his German tranflation.

The first edition ", in which this act of injuftice took place, and in which Luther's text at least was corrupted, is that, which was printed at Francfort in 1574. But in the edition of 1583, printed in the fame place, and alfo in feveral ftill later Francfort editions, the paffage was again omitted. The oldeft Wittenberg edition, which received it, was that of 1596: and in the Wittenberg edition of 1599 it is likewife contained, but is printed in Roman characters. In 1596 it was inferted alfo in the Low German Bible, printed in that year at Hamburg.

"See the Memoirs of a Library in Halle, Vol. III. p. 16. N. 202.

See the Catalogue of Bibles in the poffeffion of the Dowager Duchefs of Brunswick.'

Hamburg. In the feventeenth century, if we except the Wittenberg edition of 1607, which remained true to Luther's text, the infertion was general and of the editions, which have been printed in the prefent century, I know of none, which does not contain it. Later editors however are much more excufable, than the firft corrupters of Luther's text. For not every one knows at prefent, that the paffage was never admitted into any of Luther's own editions: and they, who do know it, would not be permitted perhaps in every univerfity, to print Luther's tranflation, which is the eftablished version of our country, without the paffage.

Knittel has endeavoured to fhew, that Luther altered his opinion, and in the latter part of his life allowed, that the paffage was genuine: whence Knittel infers, that Luther must have feen the paffage in a Greek manufcript. But I cannot admit the premises, and ftill lefs the conclufion. It is true, that Luther rejected in pofitive terms 1 John v. 7. in a public lecture delivered in 1522 because (to ufe his own words) it was not contained in the Greek Bibles:' but that in a lecture delivered many years afterwards, at least after the year 1532, he did not repeat this affertion, on the contrary, that he read 1 John v. 7. from the Greek Teftament, and even explained it. But this argument proves nothing. For the aflertion, which Luther had made in 1522, that the paffage was not contained in the Greek Bibles, though true at that time, was not true ten years afterwards, and confequently Luther could not repeat it after the year 1532. Namely, the editions of the Greek Teftament published before 1522 did not contain the paffage: but in almoft all the editions publifhed after that year, it was inferted. As to the circumftance, that Luther in his latter lecture, explained 1 John v. 7. after he had read it from the Greek

New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7. p. 131-138.

* See the Neue Orient. Bibl. Vol. II. p. 132-137. where I have reviewed Knittel's work.

Greek Teftament, without entering into any critical inquiry in refpect to its authenticity, it fhews nothing more, than that Luther diftinguished exegetical from critical lectures, and that in explaining the Greek Teftament, he interpreted what he and his hearers had before them. That he then received it as genuine, is an inference, which we are not warranted to make: and indeed it would be inconfiftent with his unremitting refolution to reject it from his German tranflation, and with his laft requeft, in the preface to that very edition, during the printing of which, he died.

Before I conclude this fection, I must make the following remarks.

1. Whether it be granted, that I John v. 7. is fpurious, or whether it be not, it is no part of Luther's verfion, and they, who have inferted it have been guilty of an act of injuftice to the author.

2. It is not only unjust, but injudicious, to infert 1 John v. 7. in Luther's catechifm. For children are thus accustomed to confider this paffage as the chief proof of the doctrine of the Trinity: the confequence of which is, that, when they are grown up, and have been informed, that the paffage is fpurious, they naturally conclude, that the doctrine itself is ungrounded.

3. It is uncandid in the extreme, when one proteftant condemns another for rejecting 1 John v. 7. fince it was rejected by the author of our reformation. Nor can it be faid, that Luther, were he now alive, would be of a different opinion, fince every inquiry, which has been inftituted fince the age of Luther, has brought to light fresh evidence, not in favour of the paffage, but against it.