Interesting is the position of textual critics against the Johannine Comma. Most find a minority reading from one or two 4th century manuscripts sufficient. Why not accept the early Latin manuscript evidence and its overwhelming majority of manuscript copies that support the text? It should also be noted that most Greek extant manuscripts containing the verses 7 and 8 of 1 John are actually considered late manuscripts (dated from 9th century or later). What should weigh heavily here is that when the Johannine Comma is removed, the text clearly has a Greek grammatical error which has been noticed very early on in Church history (Gregory of Nazianzus 4th century).
It is difficult to argue that someone fabricated the comma after the fact as it naturally flows within the context of the text both before and after, and it most naturally resolves the grammatical error. In addition, the Johannine Comma is cohesive with John's writings and his underlying theme on the divinity of Jesus Christ - the Word of God . Again, early evidence specifically supports this text by specifically addressing the fact that this scripture was under attack. Jerome's Preface to the Canonical Epistles states: "The order of the seven Epistles which are called canonical is not the same among the Greeks who follow the correct faith and the one found in the Latin codices, where Peter, being the first among the apostles, also has his two epistles first. But just as we have corrected the evangelists into their proper order, so with God's help have we done with these. The first is one of James, then two of Peter, three of John and one of Jude. Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested." This alone should silence the critics by confirming the reason as to why the text is missing in many manuscripts. Of course if you do not accept this evidence< then you will fail to accept the early evidence of fathers referencing this scripture which uniquely contains the text that these three are one" In ~200AD Tertullian wrote "these three are one" in his "Apology, Against Praxeas", chapter 25. His reference to it is clear in apologetic "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,'". Note, some critical thinkers are now reconsidering the stats quo. In 1983 the UBS Preface p.x announced plans for a "thorough revision of the textual apparatus, with special emphasis upon evidence from the ancient versions, the Diatessaron, and the Church Fathers". The latest edition of UBS4 updated many early church writer references and now has Cyprian for Comma inclusion. ~248AD Thascius Cyprian bishop of Carthage in his "On The Lapsed, On the Novatians" wrote: On the Unity of the Universal Church, Treatise (1:6): "He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again, it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'" Critics that claim the Joannine Comma is a late emendation must address the reality of the very early evidence that supports it and the rational claim as to its removal and the obvious identifiable issue that is created when it is missing.