John Brown of Haddington

Indeed, the Socinians, modern Arians, and some others, contend that the last-mentioned text, I John 5:7, is spurious; because,

1. “Many Greek manuscripts want it.” But many of these also want other texts: and the similarity of the 5:7 and John 5:8 made a careless transcriber apt to overleap one of them.

2. “Many of the ancient translations want it.” But none of these translations are of great weight in this matter, for they want much more of the New Testament. Nor are any of them, except the Syriac and Jerome’s Latin one, much worth.

3. “The ancient Fathers do not quote it, when, in their disputes with heretics, it would have been much to their purpose.” But that might be, because they had deficient copies, or cared not to adduce a text which their opponents might have rejected.

Let it be further observed,

1. The orthodox had no temptation to forge it, having plenty of proof for their faith concerning the Trinity beside. But the Anti-trinitarians had strong temptations to drop it out of their copies, which is also more easily done. And yet perhaps it originated from no design, but from the hurry of a transcriber, amidst the rage of persecution.

2. About 1400 years ago, we find complaints of some Anti-trinitarians attempting to corrupt the Scripture: but never, till of late, that the orthodox had done so.

3. This text is referred to by Tertullian about AD 200, quoted by Cyprian about AD 250, and by Athanasius, or one in his name, about AD 350.

Jerome hath it in his translation about AD 400, and admitting it to be in all the best Greek copies, he severely blames the want of it in the old Latin version. Soon after, it is quoted by Eucherus and Vigilius.

In AD 484 the African bishops quote it in the Confession of their faith which they presented to Hunneric their Arian king; and about thirty years after, Fulgentius, when required by an Arian king to produce his objections against the Arians, quoted it three times.

When the Vulgate Latin translation was solemnly, and with great care, corrected from Greek and Latin manuscripts, by order of Charles the Great, about AD 800, and again by the famed University of Sorbonne, about two hundred years after, this text was retained.

Erasmus, who inclined to Arianism, first suspected it, and dropt it out of his first edition of the New Testament: but restored it in his subsequent editions, upon the credit of an old British copy.

It is said, that nine of Stephen’s sixteen manuscripts from which he printed his excellent edition of the Greek New Testament, had this text. No doubt, many of the manuscripts, from which other principal editions were formed, are now lost.

A printed copy is even more authentic than almost any manuscript extant, the oldest of which were written some hundred years after all these of the apostles were either worn out, or lost: for, more learning and care have been exercised to render some printed editions correct, than perhaps was taken on all the manuscripts written for a thousand years before the Reformation.

4. The passage appears deficient and unconnected if this verse be dropped. Mill and Bengelius have therefore honestly retained it, in their excellent editions, notwithstanding they have fairly, and with much more candour than Michaelis, represented the objections against it.

Source: John Brown of Haddington, Systematic Theology, Book II, Chapter 2 [read online]