superb defenders of the 1800s - McCarthy, Abbe le Hir, Cornwall, Forster, Dolman, Armfiield and French defenders

[Steven Avery]

Daniel McCarthy,
Abbe le Hir (friend of Charles Forster)
Charles Forster
Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
Charles Vincent Dolman (some exc. articles in the Dublin Review).
Henry Thomas Armiield

McCarthy, le Hir and Dolman, and the French writers, were RCC.

This post is a WIP it is starting off with a Facebook thread which is also important for homoeoteleuton.

This album contains resources for the study of the Comma Johanneum (First John 5:7 as presented in the Textus Receptus).
James E. Snapp, Jr. - Oct, 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/741064679313868/

========================

Tertullian - Against Praxeas reference

In the article, Wiseman raises an interesting point about the best-known Tertullian reference (he actually has three or four allusions to the verse) in Adversus Praxean, and then Daniel McCarthy gives some counterpoint. It would be good to read the Tertuallian section afresh and decide whether the Wiseman additional emphasis on the later "duo unum sunt" is a helpful addition to the heavenly witnesses ECW history.

Wiseman - 1834 - reprinted as Essays on Various Subjects, 1853
http://books.google.com/books?id=WMw9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA66

. To see the full force of his expression, we must read farther till we come to the following words: " Nam et Spiritus substantia est Sermonis, et Sermo operatio Spiritus, et duo unum sunt" Tertullian certainly does not here refer to the passage he has already discussed so fully,—"ego et Pater unum sumus;" for it could never prove that the Son and Holy Ghost are one God. Yet he seems to allude to some text of equal force, where the Word and the Spirit are mentioned as being one; and this text can only be the one which he had already, in the passage commonly quoted, compared with that regarding the Father and the Son. He says, "duo unum sunt," because his argument, at that moment, required not the mention of all, and he was only alluding, not quoting.

Daniel McCarthy - 1866
http://books.google.com/books?id=SuxS-z-6SIUC&pg=PA514

Charles Forster (very skilled) - 1868
noted the Wiseman discovery (i.e. in terms of hw usage by Tertullian)
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA155
"A late writer on the controversy, just fallen into my hands, points out, in the treatise against Praxeas, decisive collateral proof of these words being quotation. I gladly avail myself of his acute criticism and independent authority."

Tertullian Against Praxeas (1919)
Alexander Souter
http://books.google.com/books?id=mOJLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA98

"Thus the link with the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes three cleaving together, each to his neighbour. These three are one thing," not one person, as it is put: " I and the Father are one thing," in respect to unity of nature, not as regards the singular number.... p. 98

(note how strong a verse allusion you have, corroborative with Cyprian .. then the other section)

.... For just as when John says : " The Word was made Flesh," we understand " the Spirit" also in the mention of "the Word," so also here we recognise "the Word " also in the name of the Spirit." For besides, spirit is the foundation of speech, and speech is the working of spirit, and the two are one. But John would declare that one "was; made flesh," the angel would say that the other ' would become flesh, if spirit is not also word, and ' word spirit. .(p. 101)