generally adopted. It appeared indeed under different forms; but it was still the gloss of Augustin, though variously modified. The gloss having once obtained credit in the Latin Church, the possessors of Latin manuscripts began to note it in the margin, by the side of the eighth verse.

the eighth verse) says that it was written of the Trinity: de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto, scriptum est. The SCRIPTVM EST of Cyprian is not at all stronger than the DICIT of Facundus. It can make no difference in this case, whether we say scriptum est, or dictum est. Yet Facundus was expressly commenting on the eighth verse. Consequently we are not warranted to conclude that Cyprian meant the seventh verse. And it is really incredible that the seventh verse should have existed and have been known to Cyprian, and yet have remained unknown (as it certainly did) to Augustin. But all doubts on this question have been long since removed by Facundus himself, in the very chapter where he quotes the eighth verse. In confirmation of the gloss upon that verse, he appeals to the authority of Cyprian, and says that Cyprian understands those words of the Trinity, namely, the words spiritus, aqua, et sanguis. Facundus having quoted spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt, a second time in the same chapter, and having observed that some men refused to understand these words of the Trinity, immediately adds, quod tamen Joannis Apostoli Testimonium B. Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr,-de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit. Ait enim, 'Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt'. Here then Facundus declares, not only that Cyprian understands the eighth verse of the Trinity, but in support of his assertion appeals to that very passage in the works of Cyprian, which in modern times has been taken for a proof, that Cyprian was speaking of the seventh verse.

Hence the oldest of those Latin manuscripts, which have the passage in the margin, have it in a different hand from that of the text. In later manuscripts we find margin and text in the same hand; for transcribers did not venture immediately to move it into the body of the text, though in some manuscripts it is interlined, but interlined by a later hand. After the eighth century the insertion became general. For Latin manuscripts written after that period have generally, though not always, the passage in the body of the text. Further, when the seventh verse made its first appearance in the Latin manuscripts, it appeared in as many different forms, as there were forms to the gloss upon the eighth verse. And though it now precedes the eighth verse, it followed the eighth verse, at its first insertion, as a gloss would naturally follow the text, upon which it was made. It is not therefore matter of mere conjecture, that the seventh verse originated in a Latin gloss upon the eighth

8. The various forms, in which the seventh verse made its first appearance in the Latin MSS. may be seen on consulting the notes of Erasmus, Mill, and Sabatier to 1 John v. 7: Simon Hist. des Versions, chap. ix. and Porson's 6th Letter.

9. Bengelii Appar. Crit. p. 467. ed. 2d. It is so placed also by Vigilius Tapsensis, who quotes thus. Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, sanguis, et caro; et tres in nobis sunt: et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in cœlo Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.

verse it is an historical fact, supported by evidence, which cannot be resisted.

But many centuries elapsed before the passage was exhibited in Greek. The first Greek writer who has given it, is Manuel Calecas, who lived as late as the fourteenth century. And we need not wonder at finding the passage in his works, as Calecas was a convert to the Church of Rome. In the fifteenth century the passage was quoted by Bryennius, who was likewise so attached to the Church of Rome, that he quoted other readings of the Vulgate which are not found in the Greek manuscripts.10

At length, in the sixteenth century a Greek manuscript of the New Testament appeared with 1 John v. 7. Its original appellation was Codex Britannicus: but it is now called the Dublin manuscript." It made its first appearance about the year 1520: and that the manuscript had just been written, when it first appeared, is highly probable, because it appeared at a critical juncture, and its appearance answered a particular

10. See the above quoted Preface, p. 17.

11. That the Dublin MS. is the same with the Codex Britannicus is proved in my Notes to the second volume of Michaelis' Introduction, under the article Codex Montfortianus.

12

purpose. 12

But whether written for the occasion or not, it could not have been written very long before the sixteenth century. For this manuscript has the Latin Chapters, though the Kepaλaia of Eusebius are likewise noted. Now the Latin Chapters were foreign to the usage of the Greek Church, before the introduction of printed editions, in which the Latin Chapters were adopted, as well for the Greek as for the Latin Testament. Whatever Greek manuscripts therefore were written with Latin Chapters, were written in the West of Europe, where the Latin Chapters were in use. They were written by the Greeks, or by the descendants of those Greeks, who fled into the West of Europe, after the taking of

12. Erasmus had published two editions of the Greek Testament, one in 1516, the other in 1519, both of which were

oupave and end with

without the words, that begin with ev T év Tỷ vị. This omission as it was called by those who paid more deference to the Latin translation than to the Greek original, exposed Erasmus to much censure, though in fact the complaint was for non-addition. Erasmus therefore very properly answered, addendi de meo quod Græcis deest, provinciam non susceperam. He promised however, that, though he could not insert in a Greek edition what he had never found in a Greek manuscript, he would insert the passage in his next edition, if in the mean time a Greek MS. could be discovered, which had the passage. In less than a year after that declaration, Erasmus was informed, that there was a Greek MS. in England, which contained the passage. At the same time a copy of the passage, as contained in that MS. was communicated to Erasmus: and Erasmus, as he had promised, inserted that copy in his next edition, which was published in 1522.

Constantinople, and who then began to divide their manuscripts according to the usage of the country, in which they fixed their abode.18 The Dublin manuscript therefore, if not written for the purpose to which it was applied in the third edition of Erasmus,14 could hardly have been written more than fifty years before. And how widely those critics have erred in their conjectures, who have supposed that it was written so early as the twelfth century, appears from the fact, that the Latin Chapters were not invented till the thirteenth century.15 But the influence of the Church of Rome in the composition of the Dublin manuscript, is most conspicuous in the text of that manuscript, which is a servile imitation of the Latin Vulgate.

13. There are three Greek manuscripts with the Latin Chapters in our University Library, marked Hh. 6. 12. Kk. 5. 35. and Ll. 2. 13. That which is marked Ll. 2. 13. and is evidently the oldest of the three, was written at Paris, by Jerom of Sparta, for the use and at the expence of a person called Bodet, as appears from the subscription to it. Now Jerom of Sparta died at the beginning of the sixteenth century.

14. The third edition of Erasmus has 1 John v. 7. precisely in the words of the Dublin MS.

15. They were invented by Hugo de S. Caro, who died in 1262. The precise year, in which he divided the text of the Latin Vulgate into its present Chapters is not known. But as it appears from the Preface to the Cologne edition of his works, that he composed his Concordance about the year 1248, and his division of the Vulgate into the present Chapters was connected with that Concordance, it could not have been done many years before the middle of the thirteenth century.