66

come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know the True [One]; and we are in the "True [One], in his Son Jesus Christ: this is the "true God and the eternal life.""

satisfied of the authenticity of this passage, while they advance nothing but surmises and conjectures, and mistakes almost incredible in the statement of facts, to counterbalance the weight of evidence on the other side; excites my astonishment and concern. Considerable clauses and sentences, in other parts of Scripture, might be adduced, which are universally rejected as spurious, but which have more semblance of a right to be admitted into the sacred text, than this passage has to be retained. The attempt to set aside the decisions of impartial and honest criticism, is painfully discreditable. Nothing is so injurious to a good cause as the calling of fallacious allies to its support.

It might have been expected that Dr. Scholz would, in this matter, bow to the claims of his church; for it would seem scarcely consistent with the renunciation of private judgment and implicit deference to an infallible authority, that he should rest upon his own judgment in rejecting a passage asserted by Popes and Councils to be genuine but his critical integrity is superior to his papal predilections. In his excellent Translation (1830), he omits the spurious clauses, and gives the passage in its genuine form; "There are therefore three witnesses, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are as one:" and he subjoins this annotation-" After the words, three witnesses, the Vulgate has the addition as follows: in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one: and three witnesses are upon the earth But no Greek manuscript, except three which are quite modern; no Ancient Version, except the Latin [Vulgate], and that only subsequent to the fifth century; no Greek, Syriac, or Latin Fathers (except a few Latin, beginning with Vigilius of Tapsus in the fifth century,) have this addition. Also, internal evidence, from the want of connexion, speaks against it; as there is no occasion furnished for introducing the heavenly witnesses."

11 Chap. v. 19, 20. Griesbach, Knapp, Vater, H. Tittmann, and Scholz, retain the common reading, wǹ aiúvios which, however, cannot be correct; for it would make a proposition, The life is eternal, like those in the first aphorism of Hippocrates, o Bios ßpaxis, &c. The Alexandrian Manuscript, and about ten besides

The question is, whether the demonstrative pronoun refers to the immediate antecedent, "Jesus Christ," or to the remote one," the True," (ó ảλnivòs,) ἀληθινὸς,) by which must be evidently understood the Divine Father. In favour of the latter interpretation it is urged :

1. That the former part of the sentence unquestionably distinguishes between the Mediator, who is the Author and Bestower of saving knowledge, and the Father as the object of that knowledge. The latter is designated by the epithet, the True; as also in our Lord's prayer, John xvii. 3. It is, therefore, reasonable to regard him as intended by the same epithet with its accompanying name, in the succeeding clause.

2. That the agreement of relative and demonstrative pronouns with remoter antecedents is a common construction in all languages.'

12

of inferior note, omit the article; others repeat it before aiúvios. Either of these emendations is good. Bishop Middleton prefers the latter; Lachmann, the former. "Articulus vel omittitur, vel postponitur, voci un, vel utrobique legitur;" Vater, thus showing his feeling of the error of the common reading.-Dr. Bloomfield, in his generally omnicomprehensive (venia verbo !-) Gr. Test. has omitted to notice the difficulty. Lücke seems to have a glimpse of it, but to lose it immediately. As it is safer, upon the grounds of external evidence, to retain the common reading, we may suppose an ellipsis, somewhat harsh, I confess, "This is the True God, and "this life that which is eternal;" as if it were said, Other schemes of religion promise largely, but they can never satisfy the deeply felt necessities of a soul longing for deliverance from sin: Christ alone is the Life, essentially in himself by reason of his Divine Nature, and the Author and Giver of it in the final perfection of holiness and happiness; and this Life, in itself and in its glorious effects, shall never decay; it is eternal.

12 E. g. Acts viii. 26, where aury more probably refers not to the town of Gaza, but to the road thither as lying through the desert,

VOL. III.

K

3. That, for the sake of avoiding a harsh and apparently tautological construction, and for the attainment of a perspicuous sense, the second év, in the middle clause, may properly be rendered by; so as to read, "We are in the True One, by his Son Jesus "Christ."

On the opposite side, it is maintained:

1. That the ordinary and fair construction of the demonstrative is with the nearest antecedent noun: a rule from which we are not at liberty to depart, without evident necessity," and on grounds critically impartial. But there is not here a clear necessity, and the deviation is made to answer a polemical purpose.

2. That it is not a tautology to take the preposition ev in each place in the same signification; and that it would be much more harsh to suppose, that a change was intended in so close and continuous a clause.1 whereas there was another way through the inhabited country. Heb. xii. 17, where auriv refers, not to repentance, but to the blessing. A striking instance is in the 2d Ep. of this very apostle, ver. 7 ; where the antecedent to ouros is to be made out by inference from the former part of the sentence, though a noun in the singular more closely precedes. See also John vii. 50, and viii. 44.

13 Dr. Wardlaw lays down the following, as a further case of exception from the ordinary rule; and I conceive the observation to be strictly just :

"When the immediate antecedent holds no prominent place in the sentence, but is introduced only incidentally, the remote being obviously the chief subject, having the entire, or greatly preponderating emphasis in the mind of the writer. -It requires only the reading of the verse, to satisfy any candid mind that this is not the case here, and that no reason exists on this ground for any departure from the general rule." Discourses on the Socinian Controv. p. 33. Fourth ed. p. 95. Reply to the Rev. James Yates, p. 180. Upon the translation proposed, "We are in him that is true, through his Son Jesus Christ," Brucker remarks; "That in this

14

The second member is, therefore, added for the elucidation of the first: "We are in the True One, in his "Son Jesus Christ;" i. e. We enjoy a mental and moral union with the Father of mercies, by the faith, devotedness, and obedience which we exercise towards him; and this union is also, concurrently and equally, with our Gracious Redeemer, since it is only by a spiritual union with him that we can enjoy the favour and love of the Father.' Thus the sentiment is the same with that of various other passages of Scripture: as, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one cometh to the Father except through me. Abide "in me, and I in you. He who confesseth the Son, "hath also the Father. "and in the Father. He who hath seen me, hath seen "the Father. I am in the Father, and the Father is ❝ in me. God hath given to us eternal life, and this "life is in his Son." Dr. Samuel Clarke so felt the force of this argument, that he inclined to the extravagant expedient of dividing the reference of the two attributives; making the first apply to the Father, and the second to Christian knowledge.15

Ye shall continue in the Son

3. That, with this idea of the spiritual union of true believers with the Father AND the Son, the apostle, by a reasonable association, connects the fact that the

way violence is done to the text, is evident from the order of the clauses; and the subjoined declaration of the apostle clearly proves that the second dλnoivos is applied to the Son.- -The connexion determines the signification of the preposition iv. The apostle would have written in an extremely obscure, perplexed, and unintelligible manner, if, in a case of apposition, [which this is,] he had used the preposition in two senses." Leipzig Varior. Bible, vol. xviii. p. 675.

15 Script. Doct. of the Trinity, Text 410.

Son is, equally with the Father, THE TRUE GOD. He, therefore, annexes the declaration, as a further ground for the stability and consolation of sincere Christians.

4. That the characteristic epithet, "the True," (ò 'Aλnoivòs,) is repeatedly given to Christ in the writings of the Apostle John: "The True Light; "the True Bread; the True Vine; the Holy, the "True; the Faithful and True Witness; He is called "Faithful and True."16

5. That the designation, "THE ETERNAL LIFE," is never given to the Father, but is peculiar and appropriate to the Saviour: "The Life has been manifested "-that Eternal Life which was with the Father."" While thus the abstract term is metonymically applied to Christ, the same sentiment is held forth by its being the constant style of Scripture, that Jesus Christ is the Author and Giver of "eternal life,” true and perpetual happiness, the reconciliation and holy reunion of man to God. If, however, we adopt the interpretation, "the life is eternal," this remark is superseded but its spirit will remain, that the blessing which is so divinely great is bestowed by One who is of correspondent dignity.

6. It does not appear that any good reason can be laid for the affirmation, "This is the True God," in relation to the subject of the former part of the sentence. The argument of the passage involves no alluding to difficulty, upon the question whether the Father were the True God. On the contrary, this position is evidently assumed as a point on which no hesitation could possibly exist. "We are of God,"

16 John i. 9; vi. 32; xv. 1. Rev. iii. 7, 14; xix. 11.

17 Chap. i. 2.