Johannine Comma and Richard Simon

See also Johannine Comma, Index of Johannine Comma articles, 1 John 5:7, & 1 John 5:8.

Richard Simon (1638-1712) was critical of the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. He argued that this passage was not part of the original text and was likely a later addition, based on the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence. By questioning the authenticity of this passage, Simon sought to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the received text, which the Reformers held as divinely preserved.

His 1689 section on 1 John 5:7 is called, A critical history of the text of the New Testament (Book 2).

A Critical History of the New Testament (Book II)

PART II (BOOK II)

CHAPTER XVIII

A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle, Chapter V, Verse 7, which is wanting in the most Greek copies, Eastern editions, and the most ancient Latin copies. The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles, under the name of S. Jerome, was not penned by that Father. It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the passage of S. John's Epistle in his copy.

The reflections which many learned men have made on that passage in the First Epistle of S. John, Chap v, Vers. 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh, and consulting most of the Greek and Latin manuscripts that I could find about the same. The Greeks at this day, in their copy entitled ἀπόστολος, read (as the Latin Church) these words (a) For there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

(a) Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν· 1 Joann. c.5. v.7.

Margin: 1 Joh. c.5. v.7.

Yet it is hard to find among the Greeks any manuscript copies that have that passage; I speak not only of the Ancients, but also of those of the latter times. Erasmus alleged that the Greeks had their books more correct than the Latin copies, but he is mistaken, as shall appear by what follows in this discourse. It is much more probable, that that doctrinal point was formerly written in the margin, by way of scholium or note, but afterward inserted into the text by those who transcribed the copies. Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek editions; and there is no less probability, that it was supplied after the same manner in the ancient Latin copies; which nevertheless, happened not until after S. Jerome's time, who is not the author of that addition, which Socinus, next to Erasmus, had laid to his charge.

After the most diligent search in the King's Library, and that of Mr. Colbert, in which there are a great many good manuscript volumes, I found no copy that had that passage in it, though I read seven of them in the Royal Library, six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. (Margin: Codd. MSS. Bibl. Reg.) Some of the manuscripts have notes; but no scholiast or annotator does make mention of that passage, neither have I found it in five manuscript copies belonging to Mr. Colbert 's Library, which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. (Margin: Codd. MSS. Bibl. Colb.) Yet some of these manuscripts are only in paper, and much later than the rest. There is also one in 16, well written, and I believe, since the impression: Yet the passage in question is not found therein, any more than in the rest of the ancient copies.

I could produce yet other Greek manuscript copies which I have seen, whose various readings I observed; but that which most deserves our notice, is that in the margin of some of the King's and Mr. Colbert 's copies, there are small notes set over against the said passage, which, in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the body of the text. Take an example from the King's copy, marked 2247. Over against these words, Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, there is this remark, τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατήρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτου. By which we may perceive that the author of the said remark understood the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood: And what was formerly written by way of note passed afterwards into the text, as it often falls out. In the same copy, over against these other words, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, this note is added, τουτέστι μία Θεότης εἷς Θεὸς, that is, One Deity, One God. That manuscript is about 500 years old, and there are but very few places therein that have notes. There is the like remark in one of the manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert 's Library, numbered 871. For besides these words that are set in the margin, εἷς Θεὸς μία Θεότης, One God, One Deity; the scholiast has also added these, μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἅγιοῦ Πνεῦματος, The testimony of God the Father, and of the Holy Ghost.

This, in my opinion, is the original of the passage in question, which it is very hard to find in the Greek manuscript copies, though at this day they read it in their version. This is much more likely than what Erasmus alleges; that the Greek copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin, which obliged that judicious person to omit the aforementioned passage in his first editions of the New Testament; in this he was not altogether to be blamed, not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his manuscripts. He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arian party by the omission. James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting of the said passage in his edition, (b) supposing that the Greek copies had been corrupted in that place.

(Margin) We must in this place know that the Greek copies are notoriously corrupted, and that ours contain the very truth, as they were translated from the Original.

(b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos; nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere: quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet. Jac. Lop. Stun. Annot. in Eras.

But this Spanish critic, who had read ancient manuscripts, does not quote any to justify his own sentiments: He contents himself with an appeal which he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the Canonical Epistles, from which he proves that the passage was extant in the ancient Greek copies, out of which that Father compiled his ancient Latin edition.

Erasmus, in his answer to Stunica, does vindicate himself well enough by the authority of those Greek copies which he had. Yet he was wrought upon by some other consideration, contrary to the authority of all his manuscripts, to insert the passage of S. John in a new edition of his New Testament. He declares that what obliged him to make that change was his seeing a Greek copy in England, which he believed was more perfect than any Latin edition. I shall afterwards show that he is mistaken in believing that the Greeks reformed their copies of the New Testament to a degree of perfection, above those of the Latins, after their reunion with the Roman Church.

If that were so, as that judicious person does suppose, with what warrant and freedom could he correct his Greek edition by one single copy, which, as he himself believed, had suffered some alteration?

---

Checked to here----

He does disparage his own judgment, by inveighing against S. Jerome, as if that Father had been the Author of the Addition that is found in the Latin Copies, in which there are these words, Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater, Verbum & Spiri∣tus Sanctus, & hi tres unum sunt; i. e. Because there are three who bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.(c) 6.7 He on this occasion brings a heavy Charge against him, as being more forward than wise; that is to say, if the matter be referred to Erasmus’s judgment, S. Jerome must stand chargeable with Forgery, a bold and presumptuous undertaking to correct the ancient Latin Edition according to his own fancy, without the Au∣thority of good Copies.

Faustus Socinus knew very well what advantage to make of this Answer of Erasmus; but withal adds, that(d) 6.8 S. Jerome might have had one or more Copies, in which this Addition might be so man∣aged, as to make it a hard matter to discover the Fraud, and that this is the reason obliged him to maintain that additional Passage against the Authority of so many Copies. In this manner that Unitary argues, according to his custom, with more subtilty than solidity. But Reason alone is not sufficient to judg of such maters; for besides that, ’tis necessary to be well acquainted with, and to examin strictly such Writings as are on publick record, and may give light in this affair. If Erasmus, who had read many Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament, and frequently consulted S. Jerome’s Manuscripts, had applyed himself to a strict examination of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, which he thinks was written by that Father, he would rather have been inclined to reject that Preface, as supposititious, than to charge S. Jerome with For∣gery.

’Tis not amiss to set down in this place some part of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles,* 6.9 that is thought to be S. Jerome’s, which is only found in the first Latin Editions of the Bible with this Title. Incipit prologus beati Hieronymi presbyteri in septem Epistolas Canonicas. i. e. The beginning of the Preface of S. Jerome the Presbyter, to the seven Canonical Epistles.

description PAGE 5 The Author complains, that Interpreters have not faithfully translated those Epistles,(e) 6.10 especially that place of S. John’s First Epistle, Chap. v. vers. 7. where there is mention made of the Unity of Persons in the Blessed Trinity. He accuses those unfaithful Translators of falling into great Errors, whilst they retained in their Version these words only, The Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, and left out the words, The Father, and the Spirit, which are an authen∣tick Testimony of the Catholick Faith, about the Mystery of the Trinity.

The Bishop of Oxford, who has lately published a new Edition of S. Cyprian’s Works with Observations, makes mention of a great number of Latin Bibles, where S. Jerome’s supposed Preface is found: In the mean time he complains, that it is left out of the Latin Bi∣bles that are printed in our Age.(f) 6.11 Let those (says that learned Bishop) who are men of Judgment determin, if that omission happened by chance, or was the effect of some bad Design. He could not ima∣gin for what reasons it was taken from the last Editions of the Latin Bible, since he found it in the Manuscript Copies, and al∣most in all the ancient Impressions: Libris manuscriptis passim & fere omnibus codicibus impressis antiquioribus.

But ’tis not just to accuse, upon this account, those who were concerned in the Translation of the Latin Bibles without that Pre∣face. This is true, that it is found with other Prefaces of S. Jerome to the Bible, in such Latin Copies as have been made not above six Hundred Years ago, and in all probability the first Latin Bibles were printed according to such Manuscripts.

But ’tis not altogether so in those that were written about seven or eight Hundred Years ago, but in some few only of such Copies: And ’tis very likely that as to the rest, there was a Regulation made, according to the later Manuscripts in such Editions of the Bible; as have not that Preface. ’Tis further observable, that nei∣ther the Name of S. Jerome, nor of any other Writer, is prefixt to the Preface, in some of the ancient Copies where it is found, which sufficiently shews, that we may on good grounds question S. Jerome’s being the Author of it.

description PAGE 6 The Preface in controversie is not in a certain Manuscript Co∣py of the whole Bible,* 6.12 that is in the Royal Library, marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years; neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity, belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abby of S. Germain.* 6.13 It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve’s fair Bible that is in the King’s Library; but S. Jerome’s Name is not there, any more than it is in some other ancient Copies.

Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together, shall easily discover, that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body, (the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome) is really the Author of that Preface. Since he was not furnished with that Father’s Pre∣face to all those Books, he supplied, in his Collection, what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure, and others, which he gathered from S. Jerome’s Works. Hence, for example, in Charles le Chauve’s Copy, there is, before the Acts of the Apostles, a Preface with this Title, Praefatio Hieronymi: Yet ’tis certain, that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts, as it is there in express words, but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible, took the same out of that Father’s large Preface, entituled Prologus Galeatus; and it is expressed in these words, Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur, & nascentis Ec∣clesiae historiam texere: Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum, cujus laus in Evangelio, animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam: that is, The Acts of the Apo∣stles seem to be a bare History, affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth: But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician, who is famous in the Gospel, we shall also perceive, that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. ’Tis also probable, that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version, which we call the Vulgar, not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canoni∣cal Epistles, made one according to that Father’s Stile, some of whose Expressions he has made use of, and amongst others, has inserted that word Eustochium.

’Tis likewise probable, that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time, in some Copies of S. John’s Epistles, or at least in some Latin Writers, at the time when that Preface was made. Upon this account the Author, who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies, supposed, that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy, the Trans∣lators were to be blamed. ’Tis observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome’s Bible, to which neverthe∣less

description PAGE 7 the Preface is prefixt, as I have observed in two Copies, one whereof is in the Royal Library, and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert. How incongruous is it, to see a Preface at the be∣ginning of the Canonical Epistles, where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators, who have omit∣ted in the First Epistle of S. John, Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek; and yet, if one turn to the place of S. John’s Epistle in the very same Copy, the passage is not to be found there. There can be no other reason given, in my opinion, of this inco∣herency, but this, that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface, made use of such Latin Copies, in which that Verse was not extant; because neither S. Jerome, nor the antient Latin Version had any thing of it. If that Father had been the Author of the Preface, and of the Addition inserted in S. John’s Epistle, that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome’s Latin Bibles. This diversity of Copies is in my judgment an evident proof, that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles.

And that which makes it further manifest, that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition, is, that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the antient Copies, in the Body of which it is not extant. It was no less than surprising,(g) 6.14 that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface, commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles, upon the account of the change he had made, especially in the First of S. John, whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein. Upon which account the Transcribers, or they to whom the Copies did belong, thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface, by supplying, in the Margin, the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which, before that time was ex∣tant in some Ecclesiastical Authors. But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies, to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words, it so fell out, that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary. This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversie, but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Pre∣face. I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation, of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome’s Bible.

description PAGE 8 In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words,* 6.15 Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, i. e. There are three which bear witness; there are these other words added, In coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus: & tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, & hi tres unum sunt. i. e. In Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit: and there are three which bear witness on earth, and these three are one. The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert’s Library,* 6.16 that is marked 158. where in the Margin, over against these words, Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, these are added, In coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus, & tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, sanguis, aqua, & caro. And to make the Text and Addition agree the better, there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out. There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the Abby of S. Germans, only it is placed in the Mar∣gin of one of these Copies,* 6.17 and the Addition is as old therein as the Text it self.

’Tis true, that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago, in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place;* 6.18 in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus, Sunt tres qui testimonium dant, (the words in terrâ being interlined) spiritus, aqua, & sanguis; & tres unum sunt: & tres sunt qui de coelo testifican∣tur, pater, verbum, & spiritus, & tres unum sunt. But some time after∣wards, the words (de coelo testificantur, i. e. bear witness of Heaven) were defaced, to make room for these, testimonium dicunt in coelo, i. e. bear witness in Heaven.

All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome’s Bible; for which reason it is not to be found in a cer∣tain Version of the French Church, which is at least a Thousand Years old, and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk, and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Pas∣sage in his Works, is Victor Bishop of Vite, who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome. Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals: Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divi∣nitatis esse cum Patre & Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur.* 6.19 Ait namque, tres sunt qui testimo∣nium prohibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus Sanctus, & hi tres unum sunt: i. e. And further, to shew, that ’tis most evident, that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son, the testimo∣ny of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient; for he says, that there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy

description PAGE 9 Ghost, and these three are one. St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him. But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work, where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament.

I know that a great many Men of Learning have alledged that St. Cyprian, (who lived a long time before St. Jerom,) had quoted that passage in his Books. The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian,(h) 6.20 to justifie St. Jerom’s Preface, and at the same time, to shew, that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing, because he only re-established the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity. Father Amelote, who belongs to the Chappel, freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Gregory, St. Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom; Didymus, and (as to the Fathers of the Latine Church,) in St. Augustin, St. Leon, Beda, and in divers others; and yet does assure us, that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian con∣cerning the Unity of the Church.

But can we imagine, if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament, that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time? The truth is, after I had strictly ex∣amined that passage of St. Cyprian, which is the matter in Question, I fully persuaded my self that that Pious Prelate had only made men∣tion of these words, & hi tres unum sunt, i.e. and these three are one, about which there is no contest, and that from thence he would prove, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be one and the same. It is written (says he) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. He applies to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what we read in all the Greek and Latine Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit, the Water and the Blood, of which it is said, that they are one, & hi tres unum sunt, which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words, as if they were in the Text it self.

And that there may be no doubt left, but that this is St. Cyprian’s true sense of the words, it is but consulting the Learned Facundus, who was of the same African Church, and gives their explication at large, evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them,* 6.21 after his ex∣ample. He does suppose through his whole Discourse, that in St. John’s Epistle, Chap. v. there are only these words extant, Tres sunt qui testi∣ficantur in terrâ, spiritus, aqua & sanguis. i. e. There are three which bear

description PAGE 10 witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time, that they are to be understood of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. De Patre Filio & Spiritu Sancto dicit, tres sunt qui testi∣monium dant in terrâ, spiritus, aqua & sanguis, & hi tres unum sunt; in spiritu significans Patrem, in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum, in sanguine vero Filium significans. His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion, he adds, that St. Cyprian was of the mind, that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes & Martyr, in Epistolâ sive libro quem de* 6.22 Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio & Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit.

If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian, he had not brought such weak Arguments against E∣rasmus and Socinus, in the defence of St. Jerome, who stood in no need of that service, seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, nor of the Addition inserted in St. John’s Epistle, Chap. v. Victor the Bishop, not having considered the matter so nar∣rowly, brings in the Witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as if St. John had expresly made mention of them, whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus, bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. The same thing hapned to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius’s Works, with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture, which are quoted therein. They have set down at large there, the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St. John, as if that Holy Man had quoted that place after that manner. Yet in his dispute against the Arians, he only made use of these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and these Three are One, and applied the same to the Trinity.

I make no question but that this Explication of St. Athanasius, was the occasion that some Greek Scoliastes placed in the Margin of their Copies the formentioned Note, which afterwards was put in the Text. And that is more probable than what Erasmus thought concerning this matter, who was of opinion, that the Greek Copies, which make mention of the Witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were more Correct than the Latin Copies. If he had only spoken of such Greek Copies as were written by those of the Latin Church, and which served for their use, what he alledged, would be the more credible. But that the Greeks, after their reunion with the Latin Church, made their Copies of the New Testament more Cor∣rect than the Latin, is against all appearance of Truth. On the con∣trary, ’tis manifest that the Copies that have been since that time, make no mention of that Testimony.

description PAGE 11 The Observation that Fromondus, a Divine of Louvain, made on that place of St. John, after some other Commentators is without any ground. He acknowledged that St. Augustin, and many other Latin Fathers, had not that passage of St. John extant in their Copies; but at the same time he adds,(i) 6.23 that the Arians had taken away the same out of many Copies, and that the Latin Version which St. Augustin, and those other Fathers made use of, was compiled out of those Books that were corrupted by the Arians. This opinion is most ab∣surd, and can have no other ground, but the Preface that is fathered on St. Jerome. With what reason could they accuse the Arians of changing the Greek Copies of the New Testament in that place, seeing St Cyprian, who lived before Arius’s name was known in the World, had no such Verse in his Copy? Besides, the same altera∣tion must of necessity have reached all other Churches: for neither the Syrians of any Sect whatsoever, nor any other Eastern Church have it in their Editions of the New Testament.

And I cannot imagin what advantage the Antitrinitarians can get against the Catholicks, upon this ground, that that passage is not found in the most part of the Greek Manuscripts, nor those others of the Eastern Church, nor yet in the old Latin Copies. For the most learned Interpreters of the New Testament do not Expound it with reference to the Trinity. Such ancient Ecclesi∣astical Writers as have applyed it to that Mystery, followed the Custom of that time, which was to give the Scripture such a Theo∣logical sense, as was accommodated to the Faith then received in the Church. Now whether that Verse be Read in the I. Epistle of St. John, as all those of the Greek and Latin Churches do at this day, or it be not Read; yet the Doctrine of the Trinity may always be very well proved from that place, against those who deny that Mystery; because the Fathers from the first Ages of the Church, have applyed the Witness of the Spirit, of the Water, and of the Blood, to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They have proved, by the Unity of those Witnesses, that the three Persons of the Trinity are one.

It is therefore to no purpose to dispute about the Addition or Omission of a passage, which by it self, does not clearly establish, but only suppose a Trinity of Persons, according to the opinion of the most Ancient Divines of the Church. I do not believe, that

description PAGE 12 the most of the Modern Divines had any intention of favouring Arianism, when they observed that that place shews that the Wit∣nesses are One. Those three (says Father Amelote) are one in their Te∣stimony, the Father gave a Testimony to Jesus Christ, in Jordan. The Word, by his Words and Actions, the Holy Ghost, in the form of a Dove, and by his miraculous Gifts.

I cannot after all, in any wise conceive for what use or purpose Sandius has quoted,* 6.24 upon the credit of others, so many different Edi∣tions of the New Testament, in which the Verse in question is not to be found. Seeing the most part of those Greek Editions were taken from one another, and but very few of them from Manuscript Copies, their great number signifies nothing. I do not think, for example, that that of Strasburg, An. 1524. or that of Simon de Colines, at Paris, An. 1534. were compiled by the help of Manuscripts. Wolfius, who published that of Strasburg, makes no mention of it in his Preface. On the contrary, he declares, that he only Reprinted in a new Letter, and another Volume, what had been Printed be∣fore that time. Simon de Colines made no Preface to his Greek Editi∣on; which makes me think he compiled it according ro the best of his skill, by Editions that were extant before. Erasmus is one of the first, who gave occasion for the omission of that Verse, in those Greek Editions of the New Testament that came after his own, which was An. 1516. And he published another, An. 1519. where that Verse is also wanting. Those Editions, on the contrary, which came out after the Complute or Alcala, An. 1515. have all that Verse. Hence it is, that it is extant in Robert Stephen’s Fair Edition, and in the most part of the other Editions. The Manuscript, and not the Printed Copies, are to be heeded, unless these be taken from the Manuscripts, such as the Edition of Alcala, and that of Erasmus.

Nor is there any account to be made of the great number of Editions, of Luther’s Dutch Version, that Sandius brings against the Lutherans. For they are only repetitions of the first, in which Luther had followed the Edition of Erasmus, or some other, there being at that time many, even in Holland, which had been pub∣lished without that Verse. I do not think that that Patriarch of the North was well Read in the Greek Manuscript Copies, though the most part of his followers do justifie him in this manner, when it is objected to them, that their Master has corrupted the Scri∣pture, by leaving out a passage of the New Testament, that as∣serts the Mystery of the Trinity. He might (say they) very well omit that Verse, with the Greek Edition of the Haguenau, An. 1521.

description PAGE 13 Raithius, in answer to this objection,(k) 6.25 says, that Luther did think fit to put that only in his Version, which was constantly, and by all agreed on, and that consequently, he might omit a Verse about which some doubts had arisen, and which was not in Aldus’s Edition, which he made use of, as it is believed. Besides, he was persuaded that there were other passages, which afforded a lasting Foundation for the belief of the Trinity.

This is a plausible Reason, because Luther took upon him the Translating a Greek Copy into his own Language. But if the Master was to be justified in this respect, I see no reason why his Disciples should alter his Version in that place, and that they should commend to the people, for the true word of God, a thing they believed to be doubtful. It might possibly have been more to the purpose, according to their principle, to preserve their ancient Dutch Version, and content themselves with placing that Verse in the Margin, by way of remark. On the contrary they bring it at this day against the Antitrinitarians, as a strong proof of the Mystery of the Trinity; little thinking, that they give them, by that means, the fairest occasion imaginable of Triumphing over them. It is the bare Authority of the Church that does at present oblige us to receive that passage as Authentick. The Greeks, though otherwise disaffected to the Latin Church, fully agree with them in this matter.

There is a greater Uniformity amongst the Calvinists, in their Versions of the New Testament, than amongst the Lutherans. For though they pretend, as well as they to Translate the Original Greek, yet they have retained that Verse in all their Translations. Beza, who openly declares that it is not to be found in the most part of the Ancients, yet says withal,(l) 6.26 that it ought to be kept in the Text, whereof it is a part. Diodati, who has likewise retained it in his Italian Version, is of Opinion,(m) 6.27 that the Unity men∣tioned in that place, is as well an Unity of Nature, as an Uni∣ty or Consent of Testimony. But Calvin is much more reserved on this occasion, according to his wonted precaution, never to make us weak Arguments against the Antitrinitarians. That Ex∣pression,

description PAGE 14 (says he) Three are One does not denote the Essence, but the Consent.* 6.28

He perceived, no less than Luther, that that passage was not in the most Copies, and was very sensible that it would be a matter of no small difficulty to reconcile the words of St. Jerome, (in that Pre∣face which is alledged to be his) to the ancient Greek Books. He durst not deal freely in the matter, lest he should have offended his weak Brethren. I shall here set down his own words, that the World may see how this Man carried himself, when upon any occasion he was obliged to Critisize on such places of Scripture as appeared to him doubtful.* 6.29 All this has been omitted by some. Which St. Jerome thought, did proceed rather from malice, than ignorance or inadvertency, and which was not done but by those of the Latin Church. But foras∣much as the Greek Books do not agree amongst themselves, it is not easie for me to be positive about the matter. Nevertheless, because the Text runs very well with that Addition, and, as I observe, it is extant in the best, and most Correct Copies, for my part I am very willing to ad∣mit of it.

References

• 1. Title

A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. (BOOK 2)

PART II. (BOOK 2)

CHAP. XVIII. A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle, Chap. v. vers. 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies, Eastern Editions, and the most ancient Latin Copies. The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles, under the name of S. Jerome, was not penn'd by that Father. It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy.

THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John, Chap. v. vers. 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh, and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same. The Greeks at this day, in their Copy entituled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, read (as the Latin Church) these words(a) 6.1 For there are three that bear witness in Heaven,* 6.2 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Yet 'tis hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage; I speak not only of the Ancients, but also of those of the lat∣ter times. Erasmus alledged the Greeks had their Books more cor∣rect than the Latin Copies, but he is mistaken, as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse. 'Tis much more probable, that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin, by way of Sco∣lium or Note, but afterward inserted in the Text by those who tran∣scribed the Copies. Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions; and there is no less probability, that it was supplied after the same manner in the antient Latin Copies; which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time, who is not the Author of that Addition, which Socinus, next to Erasmus, had laid to his charge.

After the most diligent search in the King's Library, and that of Mr. Colbert, in which there are a great many good Manuscript Vo∣lumes, I found no Copy that had that Passage in it, tho I read seven of them in the Royal Library,* 6.3 six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes; but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage, neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library,* 6.4 which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper, and much later than the rest. There is also one in 16, well written, and I believe since the Impression: Yet the Passage in question is not found therein, any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies.

I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen, whose various Readings I observed; but that which most de∣serves our notice, is that in the Margin of some of the King's and Mr. Colbert's Copies, there are small Notes set over against the said Passage, which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Bo∣dy of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy, marked 2247. over against these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there is this Remark, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark, understood The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John, The Spirit, the Water, and the Blood: And what was formerly written by way of Note, passed afterwards into the Text, as it often falls out. In the same Copy over against these other words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Note is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, One Deity, One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old, and there are but very few places therein that have Notes. There is the like Re∣mark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library, Numb. 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One God, One Deity; the Scholiast has also added these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The testimony of God the Father, and of the Holy Ghost.

This, in my opinion, is the original of the Passage in question, which 'tis very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies, tho at this day the read it in their Version. This is much more likely than what Erasmus alledges; that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect, were much more correct than the Latin, which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament; in which he was not altogether to be blamed, not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts; He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission. James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky reje∣cting the said Passage in his Edition,(b) 6.5 supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place. But this Spanish Critick,* 6.6 who had read an∣cient Manuscripts, does not quote any to justifie his own Sentiments: He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the Canonical Epi∣stles, from which he proves that the Passage was ex∣tant in the ancient Greek Copies, out of which that Father compiled his ancient Latin Edition.

Erasmus in his answer to Stunica, does vindicate himself well enough by the authority of those Greek Copies he had; yet he was wrought upon by some other consideration, contrary to the Authority of all his Manuscripts, to insert the Passage of S. John in a new Edition of his New Testament. He declares that what obliged him to make that Change, was his seeing a Greek Copy in England, which he believed was more perfect than any Latin Edition. I shall afterwards shew that he is mistaken, in believing that the Greeks reformed their Copies of the New Testament to a degree of perfe∣ction, above those of the Latins, after their Reunion with the Roman Church.

If that were so, as that judicious Person does suppose, with what warrant and freedom could he correct his Greek Edition by one single Copy, which as he himself believed, had suffered some altera∣tion.

He does disparage his own judgment, by inveighing against S. Jerome, as if that Father had been the Author of the Addition that is found in the Latin Copies, in which there are these words, Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater, Verbum & Spiri∣tus Sanctus, & hi tres unum sunt; i. e. Because there are three who bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.(c) 6.7 He on this occasion brings a heavy Charge against him, as being more forward than wise; that is to say, if the matter be referred to Erasmus's judgment, S. Jerome must stand chargeable with Forgery, a bold and presumptuous undertaking to correct the ancient Latin Edition according to his own fancy, without the Au∣thority of good Copies.

Faustus Socinus knew very well what advantage to make of this Answer of Erasmus; but withal adds, that(d) 6.8 S. Jerome might have had one or more Copies, in which this Addition might be so man∣aged, as to make it a hard matter to discover the Fraud, and that this is the reason obliged him to maintain that additional Passage against the Authority of so many Copies. In this manner that Unitary argues, according to his custom, with more subtilty than solidity. But Reason alone is not sufficient to judg of such maters; for besides that, 'tis necessary to be well acquainted with, and to examin strictly such Writings as are on publick record, and may give light in this affair. If Erasmus, who had read many Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament, and frequently consulted S. Jerome's Manuscripts, had applyed himself to a strict examination of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, which he thinks was written by that Father, he would rather have been inclined to reject that Preface, as supposititious, than to charge S. Jerome with For∣gery.

'Tis not amiss to set down in this place some part of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles,* 6.9 that is thought to be S. Jerome's, which is only found in the first Latin Editions of the Bible with this Title. Incipit prologus beati Hieronymi presbyteri in septem Epistolas Canonicas. i. e. The beginning of the Preface of S. Jerome the Presbyter, to the seven Canonical Epistles.

The Author complains, that Interpreters have not faithfully translated those Epistles,(e) 6.10 especially that place of S. John's First Epistle, Chap. v. vers. 7. where there is mention made of the Unity of Persons in the Blessed Trinity. He accuses those unfaithful Translators of falling into great Errors, whilst they retained in their Version these words only, The Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, and left out the words, The Father, and the Spirit, which are an authen∣tick Testimony of the Catholick Faith, about the Mystery of the Trinity.

The Bishop of Oxford, who has lately published a new Edition of S. Cyprian's Works with Observations, makes mention of a great number of Latin Bibles, where S. Jerome's supposed Preface is found: In the mean time he complains, that it is left out of the Latin Bi∣bles that are printed in our Age.(f) 6.11 Let those (says that learned Bishop) who are men of Judgment determin, if that omission happened by chance, or was the effect of some bad Design. He could not ima∣gin for what reasons it was taken from the last Editions of the Latin Bible, since he found it in the Manuscript Copies, and al∣most in all the ancient Impressions: Libris manuscriptis passim & fere omnibus codicibus impressis antiquioribus.

But 'tis not just to accuse, upon this account, those who were concerned in the Translation of the Latin Bibles without that Pre∣face. This is true, that it is found with other Prefaces of S. Jerome to the Bible, in such Latin Copies as have been made not above six Hundred Years ago, and in all probability the first Latin Bibles were printed according to such Manuscripts.

But 'tis not altogether so in those that were written about seven or eight Hundred Years ago, but in some few only of such Copies: And 'tis very likely that as to the rest, there was a Regulation made, according to the later Manuscripts in such Editions of the Bible; as have not that Preface. 'Tis further observable, that nei∣ther the Name of S. Jerome, nor of any other Writer, is prefixt to the Preface, in some of the ancient Copies where it is found, which sufficiently shews, that we may on good grounds question S. Jerome's being the Author of it.

The Preface in controversie is not in a certain Manuscript Co∣py of the whole Bible,* 6.12 that is in the Royal Library, marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years; neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity, belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abby of S. Germain.* 6.13 It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve's fair Bible that is in the King's Library; but S. Jerome's Name is not there, any more than it is in some other ancient Copies.

Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together, shall easily discover, that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body, (the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome) is really the Author of that Preface. Since he was not furnished with that Father's Pre∣face to all those Books, he supplied, in his Collection, what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure, and others, which he gathered from S. Jerome's Works. Hence, for example, in Charles le Chauve's Copy, there is, before the Acts of the Apostles, a Preface with this Title, Praefatio Hieronymi: Yet 'tis certain, that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts, as it is there in express words, but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible, took the same out of that Father's large Preface, entituled Prologus Galeatus; and it is expressed in these words, Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur, & nascentis Ec∣clesiae historiam texere: Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum, cujus laus in Evangelio, animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam: that is, The Acts of the Apo∣stles seem to be a bare History, affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth: But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician, who is famous in the Gospel, we shall also perceive, that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. 'Tis also probable, that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version, which we call the Vulgar, not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canoni∣cal Epistles, made one according to that Father's Stile, some of whose Expressions he has made use of, and amongst others, has inserted that word Eustochium.

'Tis likewise probable, that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time, in some Copies of S. John's Epistles, or at least in some Latin Writers, at the time when that Preface was made. Upon this account the Author, who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies, supposed, that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy, the Trans∣lators were to be blamed. 'Tis observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome's Bible, to which neverthe∣less the Preface is prefixt, as I have observed in two Copies, one whereof is in the Royal Library, and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert. How incongruous is it, to see a Preface at the be∣ginning of the Canonical Epistles, where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators, who have omit∣ted in the First Epistle of S. John, Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek; and yet, if one turn to the place of S. John's Epistle in the very same Copy, the passage is not to be found there. There can be no other reason given, in my opinion, of this inco∣herency, but this, that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface, made use of such Latin Copies, in which that Verse was not extant; because neither S. Jerome, nor the antient Latin Version had any thing of it. If that Father had been the Author of the Preface, and of the Addition inserted in S. John's Epistle, that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome's Latin Bibles. This diversity of Copies is in my judgment an evident proof, that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles.

And that which makes it further manifest, that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition, is, that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the antient Copies, in the Body of which it is not extant. It was no less than surprising,(g) 6.14 that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface, commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles, upon the account of the change he had made, especially in the First of S. John, whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein. Upon which account the Transcribers, or they to whom the Copies did belong, thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface, by supplying, in the Margin, the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which, before that time was ex∣tant in some Ecclesiastical Authors. But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies, to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words, it so fell out, that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary. This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversie, but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Pre∣face. I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation, of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome's Bible.

In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words,* 6.15 Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, i. e. There are three which bear witness; there are these other words added, In coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus: & tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, & hi tres unum sunt. i. e. In Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit: and there are three which bear witness on earth, and these three are one. The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert's Library,* 6.16 that is marked 158. where in the Margin, over against these words, Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, these are added, In coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus, & tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, sanguis, aqua, & caro. And to make the Text and Addition agree the better, there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out. There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the Abby of S. Germans, only it is placed in the Mar∣gin of one of these Copies,* 6.17 and the Addition is as old therein as the Text it self.

'Tis true, that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago, in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place;* 6.18 in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus, Sunt tres qui testimonium dant, (the words in terrâ being interlined) spiritus, aqua, & sanguis; & tres unum sunt: & tres sunt qui de coelo testifican∣tur, pater, verbum, & spiritus, & tres unum sunt. But some time after∣wards, the words (de coelo testificantur, i. e. bear witness of Heaven) were defaced, to make room for these, testimonium dicunt in coelo, i. e. bear witness in Heaven.

All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome's Bible; for which reason it is not to be found in a cer∣tain Version of the French Church, which is at least a Thousand Years old, and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk, and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Pas∣sage in his Works, is Victor Bishop of Vite, who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome. Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals: Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divi∣nitatis esse cum Patre & Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur.* 6.19 Ait namque, tres sunt qui testimo∣nium prohibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus Sanctus, & hi tres unum sunt: i. e. And further, to shew, that 'tis most evident, that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son, the testimo∣ny of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient; for he says, that there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him. But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work, where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament.

I know that a great many Men of Learning have alledged that St. Cyprian, (who lived a long time before St. Jerom,) had quoted that passage in his Books. The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian,(h) 6.20 to justifie St. Jerom's Preface, and at the same time, to shew, that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing, because he only re-established the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity. Father Amelote, who belongs to the Chappel, freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Gregory, St. Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom; Didymus, and (as to the Fathers of the Latine Church,) in St. Augustin, St. Leon, Beda, and in divers others; and yet does assure us, that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian con∣cerning the Unity of the Church.

But can we imagine, if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament, that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time? The truth is, after I had strictly ex∣amined that passage of St. Cyprian, which is the matter in Question, I fully persuaded my self that that Pious Prelate had only made men∣tion of these words, & hi tres unum sunt, i.e. and these three are one, about which there is no contest, and that from thence he would prove, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be one and the same. It is written (says he) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. He applies to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what we read in all the Greek and Latine Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit, the Water and the Blood, of which it is said, that they are one, & hi tres unum sunt, which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words, as if they were in the Text it self.

And that there may be no doubt left, but that this is St. Cyprian's true sense of the words, it is but consulting the Learned Facundus, who was of the same African Church, and gives their explication at large, evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them,* 6.21 after his ex∣ample. He does suppose through his whole Discourse, that in St. John's Epistle, Chap. v. there are only these words extant, Tres sunt qui testi∣ficantur in terrâ, spiritus, aqua & sanguis. i. e. There are three which bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time, that they are to be understood of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. De Patre Filio & Spiritu Sancto dicit, tres sunt qui testi∣monium dant in terrâ, spiritus, aqua & sanguis, & hi tres unum sunt; in spiritu significans Patrem, in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum, in sanguine vero Filium significans. His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion, he adds, that St. Cyprian was of the mind, that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes & Martyr, in Epistolâ sive libro quem de* 6.22 Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio & Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit.

If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian, he had not brought such weak Arguments against E∣rasmus and Socinus, in the defence of St. Jerome, who stood in no need of that service, seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, nor of the Addition inserted in St. John's Epistle, Chap. v. Victor the Bishop, not having considered the matter so nar∣rowly, brings in the Witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as if St. John had expresly made mention of them, whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus, bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. The same thing hapned to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius's Works, with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture, which are quoted therein. They have set down at large there, the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St. John, as if that Holy Man had quoted that place after that manner. Yet in his dispute against the Arians, he only made use of these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and these Three are One, and applied the same to the Trinity.

I make no question but that this Explication of St. Athanasius, was the occasion that some Greek Scoliastes placed in the Margin of their Copies the formentioned Note, which afterwards was put in the Text. And that is more probable than what Erasmus thought concerning this matter, who was of opinion, that the Greek Copies, which make mention of the Witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were more Correct than the Latin Copies. If he had only spoken of such Greek Copies as were written by those of the Latin Church, and which served for their use, what he alledged, would be the more credible. But that the Greeks, after their reunion with the Latin Church, made their Copies of the New Testament more Cor∣rect than the Latin, is against all appearance of Truth. On the con∣trary, 'tis manifest that the Copies that have been since that time, make no mention of that Testimony. The Observation that Fromondus, a Divine of Louvain, made on that place of St. John, after some other Commentators is without any ground. He acknowledged that St. Augustin, and many other Latin Fathers, had not that passage of St. John extant in their Copies; but at the same time he adds,(i) 6.23 that the Arians had taken away the same out of many Copies, and that the Latin Version which St. Augustin, and those other Fathers made use of, was compiled out of those Books that were corrupted by the Arians. This opinion is most ab∣surd, and can have no other ground, but the Preface that is fathered on St. Jerome. With what reason could they accuse the Arians of changing the Greek Copies of the New Testament in that place, seeing St Cyprian, who lived before Arius's name was known in the World, had no such Verse in his Copy? Besides, the same altera∣tion must of necessity have reached all other Churches: for neither the Syrians of any Sect whatsoever, nor any other Eastern Church have it in their Editions of the New Testament.

And I cannot imagin what advantage the Antitrinitarians can get against the Catholicks, upon this ground, that that passage is not found in the most part of the Greek Manuscripts, nor those others of the Eastern Church, nor yet in the old Latin Copies. For the most learned Interpreters of the New Testament do not Expound it with reference to the Trinity. Such ancient Ecclesi∣astical Writers as have applyed it to that Mystery, followed the Custom of that time, which was to give the Scripture such a Theo∣logical sense, as was accommodated to the Faith then received in the Church. Now whether that Verse be Read in the I. Epistle of St. John, as all those of the Greek and Latin Churches do at this day, or it be not Read; yet the Doctrine of the Trinity may always be very well proved from that place, against those who deny that Mystery; because the Fathers from the first Ages of the Church, have applyed the Witness of the Spirit, of the Water, and of the Blood, to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They have proved, by the Unity of those Witnesses, that the three Persons of the Trinity are one.

It is therefore to no purpose to dispute about the Addition or Omission of a passage, which by it self, does not clearly establish, but only suppose a Trinity of Persons, according to the opinion of the most Ancient Divines of the Church. I do not believe, that the most of the Modern Divines had any intention of favouring Arianism, when they observed that that place shews that the Wit∣nesses are One. Those three (says Father Amelote) are one in their Te∣stimony, the Father gave a Testimony to Jesus Christ, in Jordan. The Word, by his Words and Actions, the Holy Ghost, in the form of a Dove, and by his miraculous Gifts.

I cannot after all, in any wise conceive for what use or purpose Sandius has quoted,* 6.24 upon the credit of others, so many different Edi∣tions of the New Testament, in which the Verse in question is not to be found. Seeing the most part of those Greek Editions were taken from one another, and but very few of them from Manuscript Copies, their great number signifies nothing. I do not think, for example, that that of Strasburg, An. 1524. or that of Simon de Colines, at Paris, An. 1534. were compiled by the help of Manuscripts. Wolfius, who published that of Strasburg, makes no mention of it in his Preface. On the contrary, he declares, that he only Reprinted in a new Letter, and another Volume, what had been Printed be∣fore that time. Simon de Colines made no Preface to his Greek Editi∣on; which makes me think he compiled it according ro the best of his skill, by Editions that were extant before. Erasmus is one of the first, who gave occasion for the omission of that Verse, in those Greek Editions of the New Testament that came after his own, which was An. 1516. And he published another, An. 1519. where that Verse is also wanting. Those Editions, on the contrary, which came out after the Complute or Alcala, An. 1515. have all that Verse. Hence it is, that it is extant in Robert Stephen's Fair Edition, and in the most part of the other Editions. The Manuscript, and not the Printed Copies, are to be heeded, unless these be taken from the Manuscripts, such as the Edition of Alcala, and that of Erasmus.

Nor is there any account to be made of the great number of Editions, of Luther's Dutch Version, that Sandius brings against the Lutherans. For they are only repetitions of the first, in which Luther had followed the Edition of Erasmus, or some other, there being at that time many, even in Holland, which had been pub∣lished without that Verse. I do not think that that Patriarch of the North was well Read in the Greek Manuscript Copies, though the most part of his followers do justifie him in this manner, when it is objected to them, that their Master has corrupted the Scri∣pture, by leaving out a passage of the New Testament, that as∣serts the Mystery of the Trinity. He might (say they) very well omit that Verse, with the Greek Edition of the Haguenau, An. 1521.

Raithius, in answer to this objection,(k) 6.25 says, that Luther did think fit to put that only in his Version, which was constantly, and by all agreed on, and that consequently, he might omit a Verse about which some doubts had arisen, and which was not in Aldus's Edition, which he made use of, as it is believed. Besides, he was persuaded that there were other passages, which afforded a lasting Foundation for the belief of the Trinity.

This is a plausible Reason, because Luther took upon him the Translating a Greek Copy into his own Language. But if the Master was to be justified in this respect, I see no reason why his Disciples should alter his Version in that place, and that they should commend to the people, for the true word of God, a thing they believed to be doubtful. It might possibly have been more to the purpose, according to their principle, to preserve their ancient Dutch Version, and content themselves with placing that Verse in the Margin, by way of remark. On the contrary they bring it at this day against the Antitrinitarians, as a strong proof of the Mystery of the Trinity; little thinking, that they give them, by that means, the fairest occasion imaginable of Triumphing over them. It is the bare Authority of the Church that does at present oblige us to receive that passage as Authentick. The Greeks, though otherwise disaffected to the Latin Church, fully agree with them in this matter.

There is a greater Uniformity amongst the Calvinists, in their Versions of the New Testament, than amongst the Lutherans. For though they pretend, as well as they to Translate the Original Greek, yet they have retained that Verse in all their Translations. Beza, who openly declares that it is not to be found in the most part of the Ancients, yet says withal,(l) 6.26 that it ought to be kept in the Text, whereof it is a part. Diodati, who has likewise retained it in his Italian Version, is of Opinion,(m) 6.27 that the Unity men∣tioned in that place, is as well an Unity of Nature, as an Uni∣ty or Consent of Testimony. But Calvin is much more reserved on this occasion, according to his wonted precaution, never to make us weak Arguments against the Antitrinitarians. That Ex∣pression, (says he) Three are One does not denote the Essence, but the Consent.* 6.28

He perceived, no less than Luther, that that passage was not in the most Copies, and was very sensible that it would be a matter of no small difficulty to reconcile the words of St. Jerome, (in that Pre∣face which is alledged to be his) to the ancient Greek Books. He durst not deal freely in the matter, lest he should have offended his weak Brethren. I shall here set down his own words, that the World may see how this Man carried himself, when upon any occasion he was obliged to Critisize on such places of Scripture as appeared to him doubtful.* 6.29 All this has been omitted by some. Which St. Jerome thought, did proceed rather from malice, than ignorance or inadvertency, and which was not done but by those of the Latin Church. But foras∣much as the Greek Books do not agree amongst themselves, it is not easie for me to be positive about the matter. Nevertheless, because the Text runs very well with that Addition, and, as I observe, it is extant in the best, and most Correct Copies, for my part I am very willing to ad∣mit of it.

See also

• 1 John 5:7

• Johannine Comma

Johannine Comma 1 John 5:7 1 John 5:8

Pure Bible Forum KJV Today 1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism by Taylor Desoto Codex Montfortianus, Erasmus, and 1 John 5:7 Erasmian Myths: The Comma Wager Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus 1 Jn.5:7,8 Establishing the Authenticity Defense D. A. Waite And These Three Are One Manuscript Differences “And These Three Are One” Part 1

Riddle Review of McDonald book Hixson, the CJ, and Roman Catholic Provenance Riddle on Hixson Part 1 Riddle on Hixson Part 2 Riddle on Hixson Part 3 Riddle - Internal Argument Riddle - Papyrus KJV Asia Scams KJV Asia KJV Asia Manuscripts

Setting the Record Straight Dedending 1 John 5:7 by David Cloud KJV "Errors" (1 John 5:7-8) Is It Inspired Scripture? First John 5:6-8 by Floyd Jones Scion of Zion Article Trinitarian Bible Society on Johannine Comma 1 John 5:7-8 by Jeffrey Khoo 1 John 5:7 by Thomas Golda David Cloud Articles Email Debate Gregory S. Neal and Thomas Holland “And These Three Are One” Part 2

Internal Articles

Ignatius of Antioch Origen‎‎ Augustine of Hippo Clement of Alexandria Cyprian of Carthage Gregory of Nazianzus Codex Montfortianus Codex Fuldensis Codex Ottobonianus mss 629

Joseph Bryennios Complutensian Polyglot Erasmus Eugenios Voulgaris Christian Frederick Matthaei Franz Anton Knittel Frederick Nolan Ezra Abbott Walton's Polyglot

Hutter's Polyglot Jean Hardouin Peter Ruckman Elijah Hixson James White Bruce Metzger Response to Wallace by Martin Shue Armenian Bibles Dutch Bibles German Bibles

Links to Books

Frederick Nolan - An Inquiry SS(ancti) apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae 1782 [1] Joseph Bryennios Comma Quotation New criticisms Knittle 13 Sermons - Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund Calamy Raising the Ghost of Arius by Grantley McDonald Letters To Edward Gibbon George Travis 1785

A Vindication...of Porson Thomas Turton 1827 Memoir of the Controversy. William Orme A Vindication of 1st John v. 7 Thomas Burgess Web Ben David William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 1 William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 2

Theopneustia - François Samuel R. Louis Gaussen, 1841 New plea for the authenticity - Charles Forster 1867[2][3] Deux dissertations (French) English Martin The doctrine of the Greek article - Thomas Middleton Richard Porson I John v 7, 1790

Some Helpful Links Please Donate Donate Facebook Textus Receptus Academy Facebook

The Old Paths Publications Textus Receptus Bibles KJV Today Another King James Bible Believer Dean Burgon Society Treasury of Scripture Knowledge The Kings Bible King James Bible Translators King James Bible Dictionary Peter Van Kleeck YT

Berith Press Nick Sayers Videos KJV-Asia Sinaiticus.Net - Exposing Codex Sinaiticus Trinitarian Bible Society Websters Dictionary 1828 AV Defense Stylos Defending Easter in the KJV AV 1611

Confessional Bibliology King James Bible Research Council Scion of Zion Scion of Zion Versions Compared Adullam Films KJV Textual Technology Jonathan Sheffield Videos Pure Bible Forum David Cloud Articles

Internal Links Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900 New Testament KJV 2016 Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus 2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based) Russian Synodal Version (TR Based) Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based) Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Revelation 16:5 1 John 5:7 Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus 191 Variations in Scrivener’s 1881 Greek New Testament from Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus Books Many Scanned Agros Church

Matthew 1:1 Unicorn The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy New King James Version List of Omitted Bible Verses List of Bible verses not included in the ESV Pure Cambridge Edition

Ephesians 3:9 Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3 Will Kinney List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles List of New Testament minuscules List of New Testament lectionaries

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

^{List of New Testament Papyri}

𝔓¹ · 𝔓² · 𝔓³ · 𝔓⁴ · 𝔓⁵ · 𝔓⁶ · 𝔓⁷ · 𝔓⁸ · 𝔓⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹ · 𝔓¹² · 𝔓¹³ · 𝔓¹⁴ · 𝔓¹⁵ · 𝔓¹⁶ · 𝔓¹⁷ · 𝔓¹⁸ · 𝔓¹⁹ · 𝔓²⁰ · 𝔓²¹ · 𝔓²² · 𝔓²³ · 𝔓²⁴ · 𝔓²⁵ · 𝔓²⁶ · 𝔓²⁷ · 𝔓²⁸ · 𝔓²⁹ · 𝔓³⁰ · 𝔓³¹ · 𝔓³² · 𝔓³³ · 𝔓³⁴ · 𝔓³⁵ · 𝔓³⁶ · 𝔓³⁷ · 𝔓³⁸ · 𝔓³⁹ · 𝔓⁴⁰ · 𝔓⁴¹ · 𝔓⁴² · 𝔓⁴³ · 𝔓⁴⁴ · 𝔓⁴⁵ · 𝔓⁴⁶ · 𝔓⁴⁷ · 𝔓⁴⁸ · 𝔓⁴⁹ · 𝔓⁵⁰ · 𝔓⁵¹ · 𝔓⁵² · 𝔓⁵³ · 𝔓⁵⁴ · 𝔓⁵⁵ · 𝔓⁵⁶ · 𝔓⁵⁷ · 𝔓⁵⁸ · 𝔓⁵⁹ · 𝔓⁶⁰ · 𝔓⁶¹ · 𝔓⁶² · 𝔓⁶³ · 𝔓⁶⁴ · 𝔓⁶⁵ · 𝔓⁶⁶ · 𝔓⁶⁷ · 𝔓⁶⁸ · 𝔓⁶⁹ · 𝔓⁷⁰ · 𝔓⁷¹ · 𝔓⁷² · 𝔓⁷³ · 𝔓⁷⁴ · 𝔓⁷⁵ · 𝔓⁷⁶ · 𝔓⁷⁷ · 𝔓⁷⁸ · 𝔓⁷⁹ · 𝔓⁸⁰ · 𝔓⁸¹ · 𝔓⁸² · 𝔓⁸³ · 𝔓⁸⁴ · 𝔓⁸⁵ · 𝔓⁸⁶ · 𝔓⁸⁷ · 𝔓⁸⁸ · 𝔓⁸⁹ · 𝔓⁹⁰ · 𝔓⁹¹ · 𝔓⁹² · 𝔓⁹³ · 𝔓⁹⁴ · 𝔓⁹⁵ · 𝔓⁹⁶ · 𝔓⁹⁷ · 𝔓⁹⁸ · 𝔓⁹⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰⁰ · 𝔓¹⁰¹ · 𝔓¹⁰² · 𝔓¹⁰³ · 𝔓¹⁰⁴ · 𝔓¹⁰⁵ · 𝔓¹⁰⁶ · 𝔓¹⁰⁷ · 𝔓¹⁰⁸ · 𝔓¹⁰⁹ · 𝔓¹¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹¹ · 𝔓¹¹² · 𝔓¹¹³ · 𝔓¹¹⁴ · 𝔓¹¹⁵ · 𝔓¹¹⁶ · 𝔓¹¹⁷ · 𝔓¹¹⁸ · 𝔓¹¹⁹ · 𝔓¹²⁰ · 𝔓¹²¹ · 𝔓¹²² · 𝔓¹²³ · 𝔓¹²⁴ · 𝔓¹²⁵ · 𝔓¹²⁶ · 𝔓¹²⁷ · 𝔓¹²⁸ · 𝔓¹²⁹ · 𝔓¹³⁰ · 𝔓¹³¹ · 𝔓¹³² · 𝔓¹³³ · 𝔓¹³⁴ · 𝔓¹³⁵ · 𝔓¹³⁶ · 𝔓¹³⁷ · 𝔓¹³⁸ · 𝔓¹³⁹ · 𝔓¹⁴⁰ ·

---

List of New Testament minuscules

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 · 141 · 142 · 143 · 144 · 145 · 146 · 147 · 148 · 149 · 150 · 151 · 152 · 153 · 154 · 155 · 156 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 164 · 165 · 166 · 167 · 168 · 169 · 170 · 171 · 172 · 173 · 174 · 175 · 176 · 177 · 178 · 179 · 180 · 181 · 182 · 183 · 184 · 185 · 186 · 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 · 194 · 195 · 196 · 197 · 198 · 199 · 200 · 201 · 202 · 203 · 204 · 205 · 206 · 207 · 208 · 209 · 210 · 211 · 212 · 213 · 214 · 215 · 216 · 217 · 218 · 219 · 220 · 221 · 222 · 223 · 224 · 225 · 226 · 227 · 228 · 229 · 230 · 231 · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · 237 · 238 · 239 · 240 · 241 · 242 · 243 · 244 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 248 · 249 · 250 · 251 · 252 · 253 · 254 · 255 · 256 · 257 · 258 · 259 · 260 · 261 · 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 · 269 · 270 · 271 · 272 · 273 · 274 · 275 · 276 · 277 · 278 · 279 · 280 · 281 · 282 · 283 · 284 · 285 · 286 · 287 · 288 · 289 · 290 · 291 · 292 · 293 · 294 · 295 · 296 · 297 · 298 · 299 · 300 · 301 · 302 · 303 · 304 · 305 · 306 · 307 · 308 · 309 · 310 · 311 · 312 · 313 · 314 · 315 · 316 · 317 · 318 · 319 · 320 · 321 · 322 · 323 · 324 · 325 · 326 · 327 · 328 · 329 · 330 · 331 · 332 · 333 · 334 · 335 · 336 · 337 · 338 · 339 · 340 · 341 · 342 · 343 · 344 · 345 · 346 · 347 · 348 · 349 · 350 · 351 · 352 · 353 · 354 · 355 · 356 · 357 · 358 · 359 · 360 · 361 · 362 · 363 · 364 · 365 · 366 · 367 · 368 · 369 · 370 · 371 · 372 · 373 · 374 · 375 · 376 · 377 · 378 · 379 · 380 · 381 · 382 · 383 · 384 · 385 · 386 · 387 · 388 · 389 · 390 · 391 · 392 · 393 · 394 · 395 · 396 · 397 · 398 · 399 · 400 · 401 · 402 · 403 · 404 · 405 · 406 · 407 · 408 · 409 · 410 · 411 · 412 · 413 · 414 · 415 · 416 · 417 · 418 · 419 · 420 · 421 · 422 · 423 · 424 · 425 · 426 · 427 · 428 · 429 · 430 · 431 · 432 · 433 · 434 · 435 · 436 · 437 · 438 · 439 · 440 · 441 · 442 · 443 · 444 · 445 · 446 · 447 · 448 · 449 · 450 · 451 · 452 · 453 · 454 · 455 · 456 · 457 · 458 · 459 · 460 · 461 · 462 · 463 · 464 · 465 · 466 · 467 · 468 · 469 · 470 · 471 · 472 · 473 · 474 · 475 · 476 · 477 · 478 · 479 · 480 · 481 · 482 · 483 · 484 · 485 · 486 · 487 · 488 · 489 · 490 · 491 · 492 · 493 · 494 · 495 · 496 · 497 · 498 · 499 · 500 · 501 · 502 · 503 · 504 · 505 · 506 · 507 · 543 · 544 · 565 · 566 · 579 · 585 · 614 · 639 · 653 · 654 · 655 · 656 · 657 · 658 · 659 · 660 · 661 · 669 · 676 · 685 · 700 · 798 · 823 · 824 · 825 · 826 · 827 · 828 · 829 · 830 · 831 · 876 · 891 · 892 · 893 · 918 · 1071 · 1143 · 1152 · 1241 · 1253 · 1423 · 1424 · 1432 · 1582 · 1739 · 1780 · 1813 · 1834 · 2050 · 2053 · 2059 · 2060 · 2061 · 2062 · 2174 · 2268 · 2344 · 2423 · 2427 · 2437 · 2444 · 2445 · 2446 · 2460 · 2464 · 2491 · 2495 · 2612 · 2613 · 2614 · 2615 · 2616 · 2641 · 2754 · 2755 · 2756 · 2757 · 2766 · 2767 · 2768 · 2793 · 2802 · 2803 · 2804 · 2805 · 2806 · 2807 · 2808 · 2809 · 2810 · 2811 · 2812 · 2813 · 2814 · 2815 · 2816 · 2817 · 2818 · 2819 · 2820 · 2821 · 2855 · 2856 · 2857 · 2858 · 2859 · 2860 · 2861 · 2862 · 2863 · 2881 · 2882 · 2907 · 2965 ·

---

List of New Testament uncials

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08 · 09 · 010 · 011 · 012 · 013 · 014 · 015 · 016 · 017 · 018 · 019 · 020 · 021 · 022 · 023 · 024 · 025 · 026 · 027 · 028 · 029 · 030 · 031 · 032 · 033 · 034 · 035 · 036 · 037 · 038 · 039 · 040 · 041 · 042 · 043 · 044 · 045 · 046 · 047 · 048 · 049 · 050 · 051 · 052 · 053 · 054 · 055 · 056 · 057 · 058 · 059 · 060 · 061 · 062 · 063 · 064 · 065 · 066 · 067 · 068 · 069 · 070 · 071 · 072 · 073 · 074 · 075 · 076 · 077 · 078 · 079 · 080 · 081 · 082 · 083 · 084 · 085 · 086 · 087 · 088 · 089 · 090 · 091 · 092 · 093 · 094 · 095 · 096 · 097 · 098 · 099 · 0100 · 0101 · 0102 · 0103 · 0104 · 0105 · 0106 · 0107 · 0108 · 0109 · 0110 · 0111 · 0112 · 0113 · 0114 · 0115 · 0116 · 0117 · 0118 · 0119 · 0120 · 0121 · 0122 · 0123 · 0124 · 0125 · 0126 · 0127 · 0128 · 0129 · 0130 · 0131 · 0132 · 0134 · 0135 · 0136 · 0137 · 0138 · 0139 · 0140 · 0141 · 0142 · 0143 · 0144 · 0145 · 0146 · 0147 · 0148 · 0149 · 0150 · 0151 · 0152 · 0153 · 0154 · 0155 · 0156 · 0157 · 0158 · 0159 · 0160 · 0161 · 0162 · 0163 · 0164 · 0165 · 0166 · 0167 · 0168 · 0169 · 0170 · 0171 · 0172 · 0173 · 0174 · 0175 · 0176 · 0177 · 0178 · 0179 · 0180 · 0181 · 0182 · 0183 · 0184 · 0185 · 0186 · 0187 · 0188 · 0189 · 0190 · 0191 · 0192 · 0193 · 0194 · 0195 · 0196 · 0197 · 0198 · 0199 · 0200 · 0201 · 0202 · 0203 · 0204 · 0205 · 0206 · 0207 · 0208 · 0209 · 0210 · 0211 · 0212 · 0213 · 0214 · 0215 · 0216 · 0217 · 0218 · 0219 · 0220 · 0221 · 0222 · 0223 · 0224 · 0225 · 0226 · 0227 · 0228 · 0229 · 0230 · 0231 · 0232 · 0234 · 0235 · 0236 · 0237 · 0238 · 0239 · 0240 · 0241 · 0242 · 0243 · 0244 · 0245 · 0246 · 0247 · 0248 · 0249 · 0250 · 0251 · 0252 · 0253 · 0254 · 0255 · 0256 · 0257 · 0258 · 0259 · 0260 · 0261 · 0262 · 0263 · 0264 · 0265 · 0266 · 0267 · 0268 · 0269 · 0270 · 0271 · 0272 · 0273 · 0274 · 0275 · 0276 · 0277 · 0278 · 0279 · 0280 · 0281 · 0282 · 0283 · 0284 · 0285 · 0286 · 0287 · 0288 · 0289 · 0290 · 0291 · 0292 · 0293 · 0294 · 0295 · 0296 · 0297 · 0298 · 0299 · 0300 · 0301 · 0302 · 0303 · 0304 · 0305 · 0306 · 0307 · 0308 · 0309 · 0310 · 0311 · 0312 · 0313 · 0314 · 0315 · 0316 · 0317 · 0318 · 0319 · 0320 · 0321 · 0322 · 0323 ·

---

List of New Testament lectionaries

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 25b · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 · 141 · 142 · 143 · 144 · 145 · 146 · 147 · 148 · 149 · 150 · 151 · 152 · 153 · 154 · 155 · 156 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 164 · 165 · 166 · 167 · 168 · 169 · 170 · 171 · 172 · 173 · 174 · 175 · 176 · 177 · 178 · 179 · 180 · 181 · 182 · 183 · 184 · 185 · 186 · 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 · 194 · 195 · 196 · 197 · 198 · 199 · 200 · 201 · 202 · 203 · 204 · 205 · 206a · 206b · 207 · 208 · 209 · 210 · 211 · 212 · 213 · 214 · 215 · 216 · 217 · 218 · 219 · 220 · 221 · 222 · 223 · 224 · 225 · 226 · 227 · 228 · 229 · 230 · 231 · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · 237 · 238 · 239 · 240 · 241 · 242 · 243 · 244 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 248 · 249 · 250 · 251 · 252 · 253 · 254 · 255 · 256 · 257 · 258 · 259 · 260 · 261 · 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 · 269 · 270 · 271 · 272 · 273 · 274 · 275 · 276 · 277 · 278 · 279 · 280 · 281 · 282 · 283 · 284 · 285 · 286 · 287 · 288 · 289 · 290 · 291 · 292 · 293 · 294 · 295 · 296 · 297 · 298 · 299 · 300 · 301 · 302 · 303 · 304 · 305 · 306 · 307 · 308 · 309 · 310 · 311 · 312 · 313 · 314 · 315 · 316 · 317 · 318 · 319 · 320 · 321 · 322 · 323 · 324 · 325 · 326 · 327 · 328 · 329 · 330 · 331 · 332 · 368 · 449 · 451 · 501 · 502 · 542 · 560 · 561 · 562 · 563 · 564 · 648 · 649 · 809 · 965 · 1033 · 1358 · 1386 · 1491 · 1423 · 1561 · 1575 · 1598 · 1599 · 1602 · 1604 · 1614 · 1619 · 1623 · 1637 · 1681 · 1682 · 1683 · 1684 · 1685 · 1686 · 1691 · 1813 · 1839 · 1965 · 1966 · 1967 · 2005 · 2137 · 2138 · 2139 · 2140 · 2141 · 2142 · 2143 · 2144 · 2145 · 2164 · 2208 · 2210 · 2211 · 2260 · 2261 · 2263 · 2264 · 2265 · 2266 · 2267 · 2276 · 2307 · 2321 · 2352 · 2404 · 2405 · 2406 · 2411 · 2412 ·

---

New book available with irrefutable evidence for the reading in the TR and KJV.

Revelation 16:5 book

Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Authorized Version

Old Testament Book of Genesis - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Book of Exodus - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Book of Leviticus - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Book of Numbers - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Book of Deuteronomy - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Book of Joshua - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Book of Judges - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Book of Ruth - 1 2 3 4 Book of 1 Samuel - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Book of 2 Samuel - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Book of 1 Kings - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Book of 2 Kings - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Book of 1 Chronicles - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Book of 2 Chronicles - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Book of Ezra - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Book of Nehemiah - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Book of Esther - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Book of Job - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Book of Psalms - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Book of Proverbs - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Book of Ecclesiastes - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Song of Solomon - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Book of Isaiah - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Book of Jeremiah - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Book of Lamentations - 1 2 3 4 5 Book of Ezekiel - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Book of Daniel - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Book of Hosea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Book of Joel - 1 2 3 Book of Amos - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Book of Obadiah - 1 Book of Jonah - 1 2 3 4 Book of Micah - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Book of Nahum - 1 2 3 Book of Habakkuk - 1 2 3 Book of Zephaniah - 1 2 3 Book of Haggai - 1 2 Book of Zechariah - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Book of Malachi - 1 2 3 4 See Also: New Testament

New Testament Gospel of Matthew - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gospel of Mark - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Gospel of Luke - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 John - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Acts - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Romans - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 Corinthians - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2 Corinthians - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Galatians - 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ephesians - 1 2 3 4 5 6 Philippians - 1 2 3 4 Colossians - 1 2 3 4 1 Thessalonians - 1 2 3 4 5 2 Thessalonians - 1 2 3 1 Timothy - 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Timothy - 1 2 3 4 Titus - 1 2 3 Philemon - 1 Hebrews - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 James - 1 2 3 4 5 1 Peter - 1 2 3 4 5 2 Peter - 1 2 3 1 John - 1 2 3 4 5 2 John - 1 3 John - 1 Jude - 1 Revelation - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 See Also: Old Testament