Thomas Burgess

Steven Avery

Thomas Burgess is a major defender historically.

Thomas Burgess (1756–1837)

The life of Thomas Burgess, D.D., F.R.S., F.A.S., &c. &c. &c., late Lord Bishop of Salisbury (1840)
John Scandrett Harford (1785-1866)
(is useful for bibliography, note this comment)

First there were some early skirmishes around 1815.

George William Meadley (1774-1818)

Johann Friedrich Schleusner (1759-1831)

The Bible, and Nothing But the Bible, the Religion of the Church of England: Being an Answer to the Letter of an Unitarian Lay Seceder [i.e. “A Letter to the Bishop of St. David's” by G. W. Meadley]: with Notes and Illustrations Containing Schleusner's Interpretation of Passages of the New Testament Relative to the Established Doctrines of Christianity: to which are Added, a Postscript on the Anti-Socinianism of Newton and Locke: and a Letter Dedicatory to the Bishop of Gloucester on the Divinity and Atonement of Christ (1815)

p. 36-38 Schleusner and Porson discussion
To the proofs of the distinct personality Of the three Divine Persons mentioned before in p. 32. and here by Schleusker, we may add the following passages of St. Paul .... and of St. John: “ There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one:” which Schleusner understands of union of testimony: Utnam eudenque rem suo tesimunio confirmant and quotes without the slightest hint as to spuriousness or want of authority. The name therefore of Schleusner may be added to the number of increasing advocates for its auththenticity.
See also 133.

Postscript on the Anti-Socinianism of Newton and Locke.
looks at the lack of consistency of Newton due to his verse acceptances and rejections.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Tracts on the Divinity of Christ - 1820

Tracts on the Divinity of Christ, and on the repeal of the statute against blasphemy. To which is prefixed a preface containing strictures on the recent publications of mr. Belsham and dr. Carpenter (1820)
Thomas Burgess

British Critic (1828)

His first publication on this subject, which made its appearance in 1821, was followed in the ensuing year by a reprint of the “Annotationes Millii, &c.” This collection contained the annotations of Mill, Wetstein, Bengelius and Sabatier, with two letters of Dr. Bentley’s, and the observations of Selden, Pfaff, Buddaeus and Schmidt, on this disputed verse. In 1823 the learned prelate published a second edition of his “ Vindication of 1 John, v. 7,” with a large apparatus of Advertisements, Prefaces and Postscripts, in reply to the objections of Bishop Marsh, the Quarterly Review, and Porson’s celebrated “ Letters to Travis.” In 1824 he gave the world “ A Selection of Tracts and Observations on 1 John, v. 7. Part the First:” (Part the Second, we believe, has not yet made its appearance.) This volume consisted of Bishop Barlow’s letter to Mr. Hunt; Bishop Smallbrooke’s letter to Dr. Bentley; two anonymous letters to Dr. Bentley, with his answer; extracts from Martin’s examination of Emlyn’s answer; the notes of Hammond and Whitby on the controverted verse; and Dr. Adam Clarke’s account of the Montfort MS. Last of all, in 1825, came " A 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"

The 1820 Tracts has a large amount of heavenly witnesses material, (I counted seven with the verse in the title, and that is the tip of the iceberg.) .

About a dozen (!) are on the Granville Sharp Rule error, with a Titus 2:13 emphasis. There is some irony there, because the Granville Sharp "Rule" (for fools) was pushed, tit-for-tat, precisely as a type of Bible Verse deity swap-a-rama. We may give you the heavenly witnesses and 1 Timothy 3:16, but we have a new claim to change the AV in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and maybe more. (Clearly, I see this as a scholastic and scriptural abomination.)

We plan a little review here. Note that there is also Matthew 28:19, one on how the AV learned men saw Titus 2:13, Ittigius contra a Porson argument, Tertullian and Cyprian, internal evidence, Grotius, Elohim as plural, baptism as necessary for salvation, Paley, a couple of names to follow up, and more.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Like the British Critic, Grantley starts with the 1821 material, so for a more comprehensive list we add the two above, 1815 and 1820, or at least 1820, to Grantley's list, which we will fill out here with urls, notes, descriptions, etc..

Burgess, Thomas. A Vindication of I John v. 7. from the objections of M. Griesbach. London: Rivington, 1821. (Also RGA)

ed. Adnotationes Milli, Auctae et Correctae ex Prolegomenis suis, Wetstenii, Bengelii, et Sabaterii, ad 1. Joann. V. 7. St Davids: Evans, 1822. (Also RGA)

A Vindication of John v. 7. 2nd ed. London: Rivington, 1823. (first edition was 1821)

A Selection of Tracts and Observations on 1 John v. 7. London: Rivington, 1824.
38. A Selection of Tracts and Observations on 1 John V. 7. Part the First, consisting of Bishop Barlow’s Letter to Mr. Hunt; Bishop Smalbrooke’s Letter to l)r. Bentley; Two anonymous Letters to Dr. Bentley, with Dr. Bentley’s Answer; an Extract from Martin’s Examination of Emlyn’s Answer relative to that letter; together with Notes of Hammond and Whitby on the controverted Verse ; and Dr. Adam Clarke’s Account of the Montfort Manuscript. [With a Preface by the Editor, Thomas Burgess, D.D., Bishop of St. David’s, afterwards of Salisbury.] London, 1824. 8vo.
Worldcat (note Yale)"Selection+of+Tracts+and+Observations+on+1+John+"+&qt=results_page

A 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. London: Rivington, 1825.

A letter to the Reverend Thomas Beynon, Archdeacon of Cardigan: in reply to A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson by Crito Cantabrigiensis; and in further Proofofthe Authenticity ofT John, v. 7. Salisbury: Brodie, 1829. (Also RGA, here corrected from Benyon.)

Remarks on the General Tenour of the New Testament, Regarding the Nature and Dignity of Jesus Christ. 2nd ed. Salisbury: Brodie, 1832. (1st edition 1831)
Full name
Remarks on the general tenour of the New Testament, regarding the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ, addressed to mrs. Joanna Baillie [in reply to A view of the general tenour of the New Testament regarding the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ.]. Appendix on sir Isaac Newton's suppression of his dissertation on 1 John v. 7. and 1 Tim. iii. 15

An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of St. John, as revived by Mr. Gibbon: to which is added, Christian theocracy; or, a second letter to Mrs. Joanna Baillie, on the doctrine of the Trinity. Salisbury: Brodie, 1835. (Orme says privately printed in 1833, which might be the one below)
There is an 1834 edition of Christian Theocracy

Three letters to the Rev. Dr. Scholz, editor of a new edition of the Greek Testament, Lips., 1836, on the contents of his note, on 1 John, v., 7 in his edition of the Greek Testament. Southampton: King, 1837.
1866 description by Ezra Abbot


Full description of Adnotationes Millii

WIP - some to check - 295 pages of an incredible collection
1-56 - John Mill and Kuster
57-58 - review of anonymous (Daniel Mace) by Michaelis
59-95 - Wettstein
96-179 - Bengel
180-193 - Pierre Sabatier
194 - Deinde and more (is this part of Sabatier?)
201-204 - Richard Bentley
205-209 - John Selden
210-221 - Pfaff
222-239 - Buddeus
240-269 - Schmid
various brief sections
Fritii, Lampii, Buddei, Moshemii, Felli, Poli-Gerhard-Hammond, Kuttner-Griesbach
Editors Epilogue

much more planned to finish
Biblical Criticism p. 281

Burgess also edited two book-length florilegia containing defences of the comma by earlier scholars. The first was in Latin, and contained the remarks of Mill, Wettstein, Bengel and Auguste Sabatier, pioneer in the study of the Old Latin translation.

That does cover about 2/3 of the book, however there is much more.

The other was in English, and gathered up the remarks of bishops Thomas Barlow and Richard Smalbroke, the correspondence between Craven and Bentley, extracts from Martin’s writings against Emlyn, notes by Hammond and Whitby, as well as Adam Clarke’s account of Codex Montfortianus.

This looks complete and accurate.


List of Reviews with excerpts and descriptions.

Analysis of Grantley's text, which focuses largely on Erasmus and Montfortianus and Newton-Brewster. Burgess is clearly vulnerable on those issues, as well as his somewhat myopic view of the doctrinal positions of Newton and Locke. So Grantley's bring those up is sensible, in their own right.

(look at Brewster note, also the overall position of Burgess on Erasmus, and his best overall Burgess argumentation sections.)
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Augmentation City - the Journals anonymous and named

Anonymous Bibliography section in Biblical Criticism

Review of Mill 1707. Journal des Sfavans 41 (July-September 1708): 163-183.

Review of Emlyn 1715. Journal litteraire 8 (1716): 57-67.

Review of Martin 1719b. Acta eruditorum 1720: 357—363.

‘Memoire envoye a l’Auteur du Journal Britannique, au sujet des Lettres de
Mr. de Missy sur le passage des trois temoins celestes.’ Journal Britannique
10 (1753): 127-134.

Review of Travis 1785. The English Review 5 (1785a): 167-177.

Review of Knittel 1785. Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 131 (1785b): 229-231.

Review of Porson 1790. Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 289 (1791): 196-200.

Review of Travis 1794. The English Review 24 (1795): 378-380.

Review of Pappelbaum 1796. Neue allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek 33 (1797a): 115-120.

Review of Pappelbaum 1796. The Monthly Review 22 (1797b): 493-497.
This might be the same as:

‘Deaths in and near London.’ The Monthly Magazine, and British Register, for 1797. From January to June, inclusive 3 (1797c): 238—240.

Review of Nolan 1815. The British Critic 5 (1816): 1-24.
(Overall fine - Nolan criticized for view of Sabellian textual element)

Review of Burgess 1821. The British Review 18 (1821): 219-235.

Review of Burgess 1823. The Quarterly Review 33 (1826): 64—104.

‘British and Foreign School Society.’ The Quarterly Journal of Education 5 (1833): 52-71.

‘The Revised Version.’ The Times, 17 May 1881a: 4.

‘The Revision of the New Testament.’ The Dublin Review, 3rd series, 6 (1881b): 127-144.

‘The Church Congress.’ The Times, 8 October 1881c: 10.

‘Notes.’ The Tablet 89, n° 2974 (8 May 1897a): 728.

‘The Decree of the Holy Office on the Authenticity of 1 John, V. 7.’ The Tablet 89, n° 2979 (12 June 1897b): 921-922.

‘La Commission Biblique.’ The Expository Times 18 (1906—1907): 381—382.

Check Bibliography for others named like this one from Bludau:

‘The Comma Johanneum in the Writings of English Critics of the Eighteenth Century.’ Irish Theological Quarterly 17 (1922): 128-139, 201—218.

Eclectic Review p. 167-183 (1830)
review of Thomas Turton critique of Evanson Preface


And then add from my notes and studies.
Last edited: