'An hundred MSS. of a book so ancient as the New Testament is a very small number, in comparison with the thousands, and tens of thousands, which are lost here then it is possible, and often highly probable, that the true reading is preserved in only one of the MSS. that are now extant, and not impossible that it is contained in none.' J. D. MICHAËLIS.

'It is good and needful to adhere to this proof-passage, and not to suffer it to be discarded by that superficial criticism which is now so common. Nevertheless this must be done in a regular method. Otherwise more harm than good will result.'

ERNESTI.

PREFACE.

THE SUBJECT of the following Work has lain in the author's mind for more than six and thirty years. Certified by long experience in a similar case, that the great question so long at issue as to the genuineness of 1 John v. 7 could never be set at rest without a far fuller analysis of the Scriptural, and a far deeper investigation of the Patristic, evidences, than had heretofore been thought of, he revolved the subject in his mind from time to time, in the intervals between other and arduous theological labours. The object at heart, viz. a final stand for the authenticity of the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, thus never was lost sight of; although the execution of the contemplated work was only very partially accomplished. The more immediate cause of the present publication was the shock recently received on reading incidentally in Archdeacon Wordsworth's annotated edition of the Greek New Testament the following paragraph:

'The words in question are not received by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachman, Tischendorf. Nor need,

any one be disturbed by their non-appearance in the text.'

I can assure the learned annotator that 'their nonappearance in his text' very seriously disturbs me: not from any fear for the safety of the seventh verse, which cannot be disturbed from its place in the Sacred Canon by the FIAT of any individual, however respectable; but because of the pain I feel to see what is to me a mutilated text, and of the ill effect of an example otherwise virtutibus imitabile upon the minds of readers who are unable to judge for themselves, and who are apt, consequently, to be led away by an authority which they justly think entitled to respect.

As for Dr. Wordsworth's dogmatic decision upon this high matter (with all due respect for his high character and learning), I must say that a more weak or one-sided judgment I have never read. He quotes Griesbach, Scholz, Lachman, and Tischendorf (all modern latitudinarian critics) against the verse, without one word of note or reference to Mill's, or Bengel's, or Ernesti's, or Knittel's arguments for it. He runs over, in one hasty sentence, the hackneyed round of MSS. and Versions, and Lectionaries, and Fathers, which omit the verse, with exaggerated emphasis, without any allusion to the explanatory and qualifying circumstances, which have been so ably and so largely adduced by its profoundly learned upholders.

In all this, Dr. Wordsworth's course has been the opposite of Mill's and Bengel's. So scrupulously did these great critics weigh the antagonistic evidences, so conscientiously did they hold the balance, that their very honesty has given the adversaries a factitious advantage, by seeming to enhance the arguments which make against their own convictions and conclusions. Were it possible to overdo through honesty, these advocates of the disputed text might be said to have overdone; and of this noble truthfulness of spirit, its adversaries have not been slow to take an ungenerous advantage. But having thus done all that even its enemies could desire on the side of the arguments that make against the verse, Mill and Bengel decide for it.

For the truth's sake, and for his own, own, I regret that Dr. Wordsworth has not only lamentably failed to follow these bright precedents, but that he has set the directly opposite example: like Griesbach and all his followers, he has enhanced upon his own one-sided view, but slighted or suppressed the counter-evidence.

But there is a still graver error which affects not only the disputed verse, but the whole of Dr. Wordsworth's very learned, and very elaborate, edition of the Greek Testament; the admission, namely of a false first principle of Scripture criticism. This false principle is, the rejection of a common Textus

Receptus; and the assumption, by each individual editor, of the right to set up his own text: in other words, to impose his own textus receptus upon the whole Christian world. For, disguise it to themselves and others as men may, the practice now arraigned comes simply to this. In St. Paul's words, 'every man hath an interpretation;' and each successive editor would, if he could, force his own critical text as the standard

เ

text to be known and read of all men.'

the downward course from right to wrong.

Now mark

The plan of critical editions of the Greek Testament commenced in modesty and moderation. The father of the idea, the truly learned Mill, took for his cloak-pin the well-known Textus Receptus, the Elzevir edition of 1624; and appended his vast collection of various readings, with his notes of their various values, at the bottom of the page. Wetstein, a man of very different faith and spirit, still, nevertheless, adopted the same principle; and, while indulging in great latitude of criticism and of opinion, placed the fruits of his collections of numerous additional MSS. as foot-notes to the Mill or Elzevir text. Griesbach presently followed, and made the first great innovation, by bracketing those various readings which he honoured with his Imprimatur, in the body of the text: thereby, obviously, disturbing the eye, and distracting the attention, of the student by a double lection; and rendering undivided attention to the