IX. 3. Contest of Erasmus with Stunica, respecting the celebrated verse of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or 1 John, c. 5, V. 7. IX. 3. Contest of This celebrated verse may be thus rendered in the English language:-" There are three "who bear witness in Heaven, the Father, Stunica, re Erasmus with specting the celebrated verse of the * 'The genuineness of the verse of the " Three Heavenly Three Heavenly "Witnesses," or 1 John, ch, 5. v. 7, has engaged much of Witnesses. the attention of the learned during the three last centuries; so that, as the bishop of Peterborough observes, (Preface to his Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis), " there is hardly a li"brary in all Europe, from the Vatican to the Bodleian, "from Madrid to Moscow, in which the manuscripts of the "Greek Testament have not been examined, in order to "determine whether it proceeded from the pen of St. John.” Mr. archdeacon Travis remarks, that "there are few sub"jects in the walks of philology or criticism in which one "simple question, as it appears on a distant view, expands "itself on a nearer approach, into so many complicated "branches, and covers so large a field of historical and bibliographical criticism." .66 The principal disputes to which it has given rise, may be divided into three classes:-1. that between Erasmus and Stunica, mentioned in the text;-2. that, which began by the rejection of the verse by Sandius the Arian, in his Nucleus Historia Ecclesiastica;3. and that which was provoked by the note in Mr. Gibbon's History, (Ch. xxxvii. n. 118.). This note was attacked by Mr. Travis, and defended by Mr. Porson and the bishop of Peterborough, in their letters to that gentleman. In a dissertation inserted at the end of the second part of his Hora Biblica, the present writer has attempted to give CHAP. IX. "the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three We have mentioned, that Erasmus published five editions of the Greek New Testament. He did not insert the verse of the Three Heavenly witnesses in the two first: For this, he was repre a short historical outline of each of these disputes, and of the principal arguments against and for the authenticity of the verse. To this dissertation he added two letters to the bishop of Peterborough ;-one, upon the insertion of the verse in the "Confession of Faith presented by the Catholic bishops "to the Vandal king, in 484;"-the other, stating the result of an examination which the writer had caused to be made of three manuscripts containing that confession. Since this publication, the verse has been zealously defended in Mr. Nolan's "Inquiry into the Integrity of the "Greek Vulgate ;"-and the learned bishop of Salisbury's "Vindication of 1 John, v. 7, from the objections of "M. Griesbach ;" and the same prelate's "Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's, on a passage of the "second Symbolum Antiochenum of the fourth century, as an evidence of the authenticity of 1 John v. 7." His lordship's "Vindication," is the subject of Article 2, in the Quarterly Review of January 1822. 66 It is remarkable, that Luther omitted the verse in his translation of the New Testament; the edition of it which was in the press while he was living, but which was not published till after his decease, is that of 1546. In this, as in all the former editions, it is wholly absent. It was, however, inserted in the Frankfort edition of 1574, and was inserted in some, and rejected in others, of the subsequent editions; but since the beginning of the 17th century, with the exception of the Wittenberg edition of 1607, the insertion of it in Luther's translation has been general. IX. 3. Erasmus with Contest of specting the verse of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. hended in the severest terms by Lee or Ley, an English divine of some note, afterwards promoted by Henry VIII to the archbishoprick of Stunica, reYork; and by Stunica, a Spanish divine, em- celebrated ployed in editing the Complutensian Polyglott. In answer to them, Erasmus declared his readiness to insert the verse in his next edition of the New Testament, if a single manuscript should be found to contain it. As the verse was inserted in the Complutensian Poly glott, and ought not to have been inserted in it, without the authority of one or more manuscripts, Stunica was bound in honour to produce such a manuscript: Erasmus called for it, loudly and repeatedly; but Stunica produced none. Against the reprehensions of Lee and Stunica, Erasmus defended himself with great ability. The former possessed little learning, or literary talent; both were possessed in a high degree by Stunica; and he displayed both in his contest with Erasmus, but he expressed himself in it with extreme coarseness and violence. Of this he repented in his serious moments; he would not consent to the impression of some works, which he had composed in the same style against Erasmus, but ordered the manuscripts of them to be delivered to him, that he might avail himself of them if he should think proper. Afterwards, the Coder Montfortianus, then CHAP. IX. called the Coder Britannicus, now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, was found to contain the verse. Then, Erasmus, in performance of his promise, inserted the verse in his third edition of the New Testament, and it was retained in the two subsequent editions. It is mentioned in one of the letters of Erasmns, * that Stunica having found cardinal Ximenes reading Erasmus's edition of the New Testament, expressed his surprise, that "his "Eminence should vouchsafe even to cast a look This upon a work, so full, as he termed it, of monstrous errors;" and that the cardinal, with great gravity, reproved Stunica for his insolence; and desired him, if he were able, to produce (6 a more valuable work, and in the mean time, not to defame the labours of others." anecdote does honour to the cardinal's memory, as it shows his candour, and how free he was from the little jealousy of authors, which was one of the blemishes in the character of his great rival for his political fame, the cardinal minister of Lewis XIII. * Tom. ix. 228. Historia Literaria Reformationis, Pars 1, p.. 60, 61. CHAPTER X. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN ERASMUS AND LUTHER. 1524. Æt. 57. Ar first, Erasmus, by his own account, beheld in Luther, an indiscreet and too ardent a Catholic; whose writings teazed the monks and theologians; and whose zeal and talents, though they sometimes exceeded the bounds of moderation, might banish sholastic theology from the universities, and work in the church, that salutary reformation of manners and discipline, which Erasmus so much wished for. He repeatedly acknowledges, that the proceedings of Luther did not, in the first instance, altogether displease him he admits this to have been an error; "but "this error," says Erasmus, in one of his letters. against the Prince of Carpi, " was common to : me and a multitude of persons of the first "distinction, in every condition of life. When "Luther first began to make himself known, "all the world," says Erasmus, in another place, applauded him. He had on his side, many N 4 |