to its authenticity, for the only inference which we can deduce is, that the paffage was contained in the Latin manuscripts, then used in Africa. We may infer that Eugenius, who drew up the confeffion, found the paffage in his Latin manuscript; but that all the bishops, who figned this confeffion, found the quoted paffage likewife in their manufcripts, is a very unwarrantable inference. For, when a formulary of religious articles isi compofed, however numerous the perfons may be, who fet their names to it, it is in fact the work only of bim, who drew it up: and a fubfcription to fuch a formulary, though it conveys a general affent to the doctrines contained in it, by no means implies, that every fubfcriber has, previous to his fubfcription, examined every argument adduced, or every quotation, that is alleged in it, and obtained a thorough conviction, that not one of them is exceptionable. I believe no man would venture to affirm this of all thofe, who fubfcribe to the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran church and yet our Symbolic Books were certainly drawn up with full as much care and accuracy, as the Confeffion of Faith, which the orthodox bishops of Africa prefented to Hunerich.

297 But, it is faid, the Arians themselves, who were prefent, when this Confeffion was delivered, made no objection to the quotation, Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in coelo, &c. that they acknowledged therefore by their very filence, that the paffage was not Spurious. Now this is a very weak and even abfurd argument. For, in the firft place, we have no further knowledge of this tranfaction, than what the orthodox themfelves have given of it: and therefore it is not fair, to conclude, that the Arians made no objections, merely from the circumftance, that no objections are on record. Secondly, if the conclufion were admiffible, hay, were it abfolutely certain, that the Arians, who were prefent at this conference, admitted, Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in cælo, &c.' it would fol low only, that the paffage was in their Latin manu

"

fcripts,

fcripts, as the quotation of it 'fhews, that it was in the Latin manufcript of Eugenius, who drew up, the Confeffion. For thefe Arians were Vandals, who had been driven out of Spain into Africa, who read the Bible only in the Latin tranflation, and were totally unac→ quainted with Greek. Confequently their filence on the quotation of a paffage from the Latin tranflation, at the end of the fifth century, affords no prefumption whatfoever, that the paffage exifted in the Greek ori ginal. Laftly, the whole tranfaction between Hunerich with his Arian Vandals, on the one fide, and the orthodox bithops of Africa on the other, was of fuch a na ture, as was very ill adapted to the decifion of a critical queftion. For thefe Vandals did not combat by argu ment, but by force: and they brought their adverfaries to filence, not by reasoning with them, but by cutting out their tongues. To argue therefore from the filence of fuch men to the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. is nearly the fame, as an appeal in its favour to the teftimony of a Ruffian corporal.

SECT. IV.

The Alogi did not reject the firft Epifile of St. John: confequently in their time, that is, in the fecond century, the Epifle did not contain the controverted paffage.

N the fecond century there arofe a fect, to which Epiphanius has given the title of Alogi", becaufe they would not admit the application of the term Aoycs

to

That the Alogi appeared fo early as the fecond century is certain. For Theodotus, whom Epiphanius (Hæref. 54. al. 34.) defcribes as, αποσπασμα εκ της Αλογα αίρεσεως, lived in the time of the emperor Severus. See Eufebii Hift. Ecclef, Lib. V. cap. 28. p. 252, 253. ed. Reading,

to Chrift. The reason, which they affigned, was, that Cerinthus had applied the term in this manner; whence they argued, that it could not have been thus ufed by an Apoftle. Accordingly, they rejected both St. John's Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe: and they not only denied, that St. John was the author of thefe two books, but even afcribed them to Cerinthus. It is evident therefore, that men of this defcription must have rejected likewife the first Epistle of St. John, if in their time it had contained the controverted paffage: for there the term Aoyos is undoubtedly applied to the fecond person of the Trinity. If then it can be fhewn, that the Alogi made no objection to this Epiftle, we must conclude, that ch. v. 7. was not contained in the Greek manufcripts, which exifted in the fecond century: for had it been contained in any copies, however few, fo remarkable a paffage could not have remained unknown to them.

The oldest writer, who has given any account of these perfons, is Philaftrius, who exprefsly declares, that they rejected St. John's Gofpel, and the Apocalypse; but he fays nothing of their rejection of any of his Epiftles'. The next writer, who has mentioned this fect, is Epiphanius, who collected, with the utmoft zeal, all hiftorical information, which he could obtain, against the heretics, and has frequently charged them with more than his information warranted. But in the prefent inftance, though he has afferted that the Alogi rejected the Gofpel of St. John and the Apocalypfe, and fometimes fpeaks in indefinite terms of their rejecting St. John's writings, yet when he mentions St. John's Epiftles in particular, he does not fay, that the Alogi rejected thefe likewife; he hints only a private fufpicion,

that

f Philaftrii Hæref. LX. or (according to fome editions), Hærefis, quæ fub Apoftolis extitit XIII. The fuperfcription is, Hærefis, Evangelium Johannis, et Apocalypfin ipfius rejiciens: and the first words of the text are, Poft hos funt hæretici, qui Evangelium fecundum Joannem, 'et Apocalypfin ipfius non recipiunt.

that they perhaps did fo. I will quote the words of Epiphanius, Hæref. LI. § 3. that the reader may judge for himfelf. Είχον την αίρεσιν καλεμένην, αποβάλλεσαν Ιω αινε τας βιβλες. Επει ἂν τον λόγον 2 δέχονται τον παρα Ιωάννα κεκηρύγμενον, Αλογοι κληθήσονται αλλοτριοι τοινυν παντάπασιν ὑπάρχοντες τα κηρυγματος της αληθείας, αρνείται το καθαρον κηρυγματος, και 8τε το τ8 Ιωαννα Ευαγγελιον δεχονται, ὅτε την αυτε Αποκαλυψιν. Και ει μεν εδέχοντο το Ευαγγελιον, την δε Αποκαλυψιν απεβαλλεντο, ελεγομεν αν, μη πη άρα κατά ακρι βολογίαν τατο ποιόνται, απόκρυφον μη δεχομενοι δια τα εν τη Αποκαλυψει βαθέως και σκοτεινως ειρημένα. Ὁ ποτε δε και δεν O χοντας φύσει τα βιβλια τα απο τα άγια Ιωαννα κεκηρυγμένα, παντι τῷ δήλον είη, ότι έτοι εισι, και οἱ ὁμοιοι τέτοις, περι ειπεν ὁ ἅγιος Ιωαννης εν ταις καθολικαις επιτολαις, ότι εσχατη ώρα εςι, και ηκέσατε ότι αντιχρισος ερχεται, και νυν ιδε αντιχριςοι πολλοι, και τα εξης. Here Epiphanius twice fpeaks in indefinite terms of the writings of St. John, as if the Alogi rejected them all: yet, when he specifies thofe, which they rejected, he names only the Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe, as he does alfo, Hæref. LIV. § 1. where he fays, that the Alogi rejected rejected το κατα Ιωάννην Ευαγγελίον, και τον εν αυτῳ εν αρχῇ όντα Θεον λόγον, και την αυτα Αποκαλυψιν, but fays nothing of the Epiftles. And the following paffage, Harel. LI. § 34. puts the matter out of doubt; where likewife fpeaking of the Alogi he fays, Επαίρονται δε παλιν τη διάνοιᾳ οἱ αυτοι λεξι θηρεντες απείρως, ἵνα δόξωσι παρεκβάλλειν τα τα άγια Αποτολα βιβλιά, φημι δε Ιωανν8 τοτε Ευαγγελιον, και την Αποκαλυψιν ταχα δε και τας Επιτολάς, συνάδεσι γαρ και αύται του Ευάγος γελίῳ, και τη Αποκαλυψει. Hence it appears,

1. That Epiphanius, by his own confeffion, means only the Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe, when he fays, that the Alogi rejected the writings of St. John.

2. That he is inclined indeed to excite a fufpicion, that they rejected perhaps the Epiftles alfo; but that he is not able to bring any evidence in fupport of this fufpicion, or any confeffion from the Alogi themselves.

Further, Epiphanius, who writes as a man well acquainted with the works of the Alogi, delivers, at full

length, their objections to the writings of St. John : but among all these objections, there is not one, which is directed against St. John's Epiftles, for they relate entirely to the Gospel and the Apocalypfe.

Laftly, the other ecclefiaftical writers, who speak of the Alogi, namely, Auguftin, John of Damafcus", and the anonymous author of the work called, Prædeftinatus, five prædeftinatorum hærefis, agree in the affertion, that they rejected St. John's Gospel, and the Apocalypfe: but not one of them has afferted, that the Alogi rejected his first Epistle.

The premises therefore, laid down in the title of this fection, being thus eftablished, the inference follows of course.

SECT. V.

Of the reafons alleged for retaining John v. 7. though the evidence of manufcripts, fathers, and verfions is decidedly against it.

NE fhould fuppofe, that no critic, especially if a

O proteftant, would hefitate a moment e a

as fpurious, a paffage, which is contained in no ancient Greek manuscript, is quoted by no Greek father, was unknown to the Alogi in the fecond century, is want

1.

• Hæref. XXX.

ing

Joannis Damafceni Opp. Hæref. LI. p. 88. oi o Evayythos To κατα Ιωάννην αθετώντες, και την Αποκαλυψιν αυτε, δια το τον ελθοντα εκ τα πατρος θεον λογον, οντά αει, μή δεχεσθαι.

Bibliotheca Patrum maxima, Tom. XXVII. p. 549. Tricefima hærefis Alogorum fic vocata, quia Verbum Dei effe filium, accipere nolunt, in tantum, ut Evangelium S. Joannis iphus non effe; nec Apocalypfin accipiunt ejufdem Joannis.