sfHE SPARKS ) LIBRARY. 11^ [MISCELLANY.] Xk Collected by ^ JaredSparks,LL. D., ■v'' President of Harvard College, t. Purchased by the Cornell University, 1872. Cornell University Library BT112 .P83 Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in ans oiin 3 1924 029 373 770 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029373770 "^^ LETTERS T O Mr. archdeacon TRAVIS. «j^*^ LETTERS T Mr. archdeacon TRAVIS, IN ANSWER TO HIS D E F E N d E OF THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES, I John V. 7. By R. P O R S O N. " Tun'' ut ornnes in omni doQrina liberalis genere principes adlatres, et cenfeas fore, ut qffam laudis tibi objiciamus, qua: te nobis tranquil- liorem faciat, potius quam rationibus te verberemus, et Ji opus fuerit, etiam de canina tua facundia mu^uemur aliquid, quo tanquam fufte' probe dedolatus, incipias 'uelle mujjare, et modera- tionis, modejiiee, niefecundiie Umites non migrare ? ^ MusAMBEKTius Commonitorio ot^RAMiRESiuM ue Frado. L O N D O -N: Printed for T. and J. Egerton, Whitehall. M DCC XC. P R E F A C E. IT is fcarcely tieqeffary to tell the reader, that in the years 1516 and 1519 Erafmus puMiftied his firfl: and fecond editions of the Greek Teftament, both whith omitted the three heavenly witnefles. That having pro- mifed Lee to infert them in his text, if they were found in a fingle Greek MS. he was foon informed of the exiftence of fuch a MS. in England, and confequently inferted i John V. 7. in his third edition, 1522. That this MS. after a profound fleep of turo centuries, has at laft been found in the library of ^ri- nity^college, Dublin. That the Gonipluten* fian edition, which was not publilhed till 1522, though it profefies to be printed in jl PREFACE. 1514, has the feventh and eighth verfes patched up from the modern Latin MSS. and the final claufe of the eighth verfe, which is omitted in its proper place, tranf- ' ferred to the end of the feventh. That Cdi- naeus in i^|2|^ oi^tted,fehe verfe, on the 'faith of MSS. That R. Stephens, in his famous edition of 1550, inferted the verfe, and marked the words ev r.m. ou^mm as wanting in feven MSS. That Beza, fufpeding no mif- take, concluded that thefe feven MSS. con- tained the reft of the feventh verfe, , and the eighth with the words Iv rijr yi?.".. Ail tfe^ft circumftanjces are either fo.w^l knows, off mentioned fo fully in the following Leitefsy that it would be a tedious, repetition to dweU. Jonget upon them at prefent. ; In the year 1670, the Ariaa Sandiws Eaade a fbrmidable attack upon: the verfe, which -was followed by a more fotsmidable atfeot from Simon in his Critical Hiftory oJ^ the N. T. and other works pertaining to. the fame fubjeft. Soon after the appearaace of Simon's book,- betweea the years, 1690 and 1 700, Sir Ifaac Newton, wrote a diflfertaitioqi -Upon r JohnV. 7. in which, he ooUeaei, arranged, F R E F A E ill in,ents, and; gave a clear, 'exaft, and ccfflnpire- kenfive view of the whole qweftioiirn This dlfleJrtation, which was not publKhed tUl 1754, and then imperfe£Hj, has been lately^ reflored byi Vs. Horfley in the laft edition of Newton's works, from an original MS. ; In the mean time Kettner anfweried Simon in three publications, in which he has produced Hooft of the arguments ufuallyalkdged oa his fide, but mixed with fo many abfurd and trifling ohfervationa, that td read through them is no moderate exercife of patience. He reckons in the fecond century twenty- ieven, in the third twenty-nine^ in the fourth forty-two reafons, which might hinder the Fathers fi-om appealing 10 the heavenly wit- ■neffes. Qf the third fet of reafons, his eighteenth is, left that text might feem to favour Sahellianifm ; his twenty- fourth, left Gonftantine the Greatv being then a cate- chumen, (hould be f(5andalized ! At the end of his dilSxiation he burfts out into the fol- lowing-rapturous exprefEons, which Ifliall dJDpy, without (attempting; to*traiisfufe their -cieg^aMe^into Engliih^ /• ./'f a 2 *' Nihil iv - PREFACE. " Nihil eiiim mihi gratius qiiam bene me" ttn de hoc illuftri difto, quod eft' Theologia Johannea in nuce, eft inftar ftellas primae magnitudinis in Scriptura, eft maVgarita Bi- bllca pretibfiffima,, & flos Novi Teftamentl pulcherrimus, -eft compendium analogia^ fidei de Triaitate, ut alia elogia in dedicatione ad- du(5la taceamus^ *' Latet inexhauftus fcientranim thefaurus in hoc excellentiffimo dido* Hie enim Theo- log't tres articubs fidei, Jurifconfulti tres ad- vocates coeleftes et teftes fummos, Medici tres animarum medicos inveniunt. Siftitur nobis in hoc difto Philofophia et Panfophia quaedana fublimior. Metaphyfici ens unum verum* bonum, Logici praedicationes inufitatas con* templari poffunt. Ethicus cernit in hoc loco fummumBonum, Phyficus If idem trium co- torum, et Aftrologiis concurfum trium pla- netarum five tres ibles obfervat. Mathe- maticus difcit, . quomodo tres fint unum in Arithmetica Divina. Muficus Muficam fua- vlffimam trium vocum in textu concentum- que harmonicum audire poteft. Opticus, fi quid videt, ^ddet TpeGulum Deitatis et in fuo intelleftu ob hujus ttiyfterii altitudinem in- PREFACE. veiiit Cameram quandam obfci^ram.^ Pnexi- maticl fpiritualitatem Dei cognofcere poffunt. Rhetores hoc diftum confiderantes, afFedtum admirationis moverc coguatur et exclattiaEe^ O profuxiditas fapienti« Dei ! Aulici tres grd- tiofiflimos MonarchasLCceJeftes, erga fubditos in regno gratiae venerari poflunt." At laft Miir.s long-expefted edition of the N. T, was.publiflied, - Still more and more evidence pj^duced agaihft the.verfe!: Mill, after fiiirljf fumming up the evidence on both iides, juft as we fhould expedl him to declare the verfe; Ipurious, is unaccountably trans- formed into a defender. Abbe L. Roger, Dean of Bourges, publiflied,, Par. 17 15, two dif- fertations, in the firfl of which he defends f JohnV. 7. It ought to be mentioned , to his credit, that, having examined the MSS. jn the Foyal library at Paris, he fubfcribed to the opinion of Lueas Brugenfis, Simon, and he Long, and ingenuoufly cdnfellcd that the femicircle In Stephens's edition, which now follows the words ev rat ev^avut in the feventh •yerfe, ought to be, placed after the -words Iv j^r yi^r in the eighth, _ , 51 3 3&ut 1/f preface; Biafe Mftrtiftj l^ftoT of thfe Prfflich i^tSirGh at the H^gue, thought fuch mcwlenatiott as this a bafe defertion of the caiafe, 1^ hb Treatife on Revealed Religion he^fpetids agreat paft upon thefingle qneftion of i John V. ^- He afterwards defen^d the geKwlimKtaefs «0 the verfe in three books agaii^A Etniyn's Full E'nquiry, Anfwer and Reply. In all thefe performances he taaa^fully a!^r»?ed thieirigM portion of Stephens's femiciTcle. This, he did by a flight aflunnption, that Stsephecs and aii his afliftants, qompofitors, &c. were Ja?* fallible ; an aflumption which Mr. Travis has fince borrowed. Emlyn, it mufl be owned^ left Mat^tin in pofi^fliba of the 6eld ; and yetj I imow not how, the opinion of Emlyn made many converts; and Bifhop Small*' brooke* feems riot to have been ifatisfiEd with Martin's defence ; jfor he fays, that little ihas been faid agaiuft Mr* Emlyn, except what has been offered by the ingenious Mr, Martin* * In a letter to Pr. Bentley concerning the Compiyten- fian edition. ' jSee the beginning of De Mijffs firft letter, Journ. Brit, Vol. VIJI, and FeltknS Meyer's LeSures, F R E F A C B. Til The Grei^-EngJHh e4itor of the N. T. in 1789 threw the Verfe out of his text, and fiibjbined a long note to the place, whiqh, tiiot^h it is apparently written -with great labour^ does not deiferye th« ipraiieS. bellowed tipon it by Sofipatct^. Twells refuted this editor after his toanner ; but he fcarcely quits Mar-tin, except in giving up the Ipurious Pro- logue, and appeaUdag ffo the new-found tefti* ^ony of Caffiodtenus* i : ; Ben^lius, whofe edkioa was publiflied in 1734J -allows, in his note on this pafl^e, that it ^% in no genuine MS. ; that the Com- plutanfian editors ihtetpoUtod it from the Laton verGon ; litflt the Codex Britannicus is good for nothing ; tha* Stephens's femidrcle ^s miiplaced ; that no ancient Gf eek Writer dtes the heavenly witneffes ; that many La- tins omniit them I and that they were neithe* erafed by the Arians^ «ror abferbed by th6 homceotekutcn. Surely then the verfc is Spu- rious. No; this learned man finds out a way of efcape ; the paffage was of £0 fublime * Commentaries and Eflays» Vol. I, p. 145, a 4 and viu t» R E F MC E. and fnyfterioias a nature, that tha/ecret SfcU ptine of the church ' withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually loft. Un- der what' a want of evidence muft a cti^ labour,^ who refbrts to fuch an argumeBil Wctftein* and Mr. Griefl>ach h^ve in tfeelf' re^e£tive editions given judicious abridger tnents of the authorities and arguments on both fides ; but from the neceflary brevity of notes, fome previous information is requifite, before they can be perfedly uhderftood. Such was the ftate of the controverfyj and all the learned ^ had abandoned,, the -de- fence of the verfe. Mr. Gibbon expreffed the general opinion with grea^jexaftnefs and im- partiality in a paffage of the third volume of his Hiftory. Perhaps the hiftorian, who muft have forefeen many attacks upon other, parts of his work, apprehended none on this paf? fage. Perhaps he thought, that' an opimoni *■ ■ " • ' * Bentiey read a public kaure, which is ftill extant, and Abbe Longuerue wrote a diflbrtation, vyhjcii perhaps is ftill extant, to prove this yerfe fpurious. Semler too has written a Critical Hiftory pf the text, ip German, which I .have hot been able to orocure. PREFACE. jx which he poffeffed in common with many orthodox critics, might be fuffered to pafs without moleftation. But if thefe were his hopes, he was difap- pointed. The Rev. Mr.Ti-avis published three (host letters againfl him in the Gentleman's Maga-r zine, 1782. Thefe letters he afterwards re- printed (4to.' 1784), with two others, much longer, addrefled to Mr. Gibbon, in which he profeffed to difcufs tlie whole quefiion, Diid vindicate the authenticity of i John V. 7. Afterwards having learned -that Sir Ifaac Newton, Mr. Grielbach, and others, had writ- ten upon the fubje£ii;, he publifhed a fecond edition (8vo. 1786), with fbme alterations, and a confiderable increale of bulk. I had read, though without exaniining every minute particle of their reafbnuig, Alill, Wetftein, Newton, and I was fully Satisfied of the ipuripufnefs of the verfe from my general recolledion of their arguments. But I muft thus far confefs my obligations to Mr. Travis, that the appearance of his book induced me to reconfider the fubje6t with a41ttle more attention. In the courfe of X- fre.face: ^{ thk.mqaxty^rl found lliirch aftonifliirig iir- ;ftances of error, fuch inti«pid affertiDns icoa^ trary to fad, that I almoft doubted, whether I -were awake whildcfead them. But at laft I difcovered that Mr. Travis was a ftraagef toaH Cfiticifaij-facred a'Brd .prbi≠ and that he had read fcarfieiy toy thing even on the fubjeitof the conteftad verfe, isxcept Martin's publication^,. This jtiifeovery opened rnyeyesi and made jne iee why Mr. Travis wasj ai Profeffor Michaelis. rightly fays, ba§^ a cen^ iury behind-hand h his ii^ormat'um. r. The reader will hardly thank me- for re- pfeatamg. ihy dwtv opinion of Mr. Ttavis ; but it may amufe him to know the fentiments pf leaniied foreigners. I ihall therefore giv« fome extra£ts, communicated to me by a friend, from Michaelis's N^uc Orientalifche und E^getifche Bibliothek, Gottihgen, 1 786, p. 144. He fays, that " Mr. Travis is indifputahly half a century behind-hand in critical know- ledge ; and, confequently, unacqi&inted with matters univerfally known ; a proof this, thsE the verfe i John V. 7. has more and warmer friends in England thacb in Germany." Ht declares that he ihall not honour Mr. Travis PREFACE. id Vnih. a particular review, to the lafs of his own time, and of his reader's money aftd paibence j that inoft of Mr. Travis's argu- znents have been already anfwefed, or givea up. by the very defenders of the verfe.; that if he vfibre difpo&d to re-examine the queftio}!^ he ihouid be obliged to tram&ribe his own htmdudiion, which Mr. Travis cJUbtes i« th« £l»gli{h tranilation of the Jirft edition ; bl4: Ikough he has not feen the kH: edition of J 777, he might have found the partioilars in other «QthorSi He proceeds to rema«|: how fhamefully Mr. Travis trea|ts Dr.Bea&n^ while he himfelf betrays a more Hacaeab]^ ignorance concerning the Slavonic vei!S£^* After quoting Mr, Travis's words on that iubjed, «* Now," fays the Profeffor, " let iiny brie compare my 88th fedtion, and thfe jjote from Mr. Poletika's letter*, and judge. I do * The fum of Mr. Poletika's note is, tliat heljeiKevcs 1 John V. 7. to have been inferted in the Slavonic verfioir during the life-time of the patriarch Nicon ; for it is ih the edition of 1653, but not in the preceding editions printed at Mofcow and Kiow. All thefe editions M^. Poletika poflefles ; he Ukewife poiTefles fome MSS. 'of the Kii P R E F A C E. i^o'noi here complain of dif|imuIation,;ibut' of extreme ignorance;" ' - . «« Againft Mr. GriefbaA, Mr. Travis writes '«vith incredible ignorance.. If Mr.Griefbach fchufes to ■ defend himfelf, Jie may ; \>}it I ihould judge it perfeiSly needlefs. Why is there not a word for or againft Matthasi, an orthodox Athanafiaa j^jefter of the. verfe ? He wrote too in Latin, and might have been read by Mr. Travis, who feems to underftand no living languages but French and Englifh. But perhaps" (and I, firmly :laelieve the Pxot feffor in the right) " Mr. Travis did not know that, there, was .fuch. a man or fuch a book in the v/orld;," '^■■■'' ' -.ts' .A3s apd Epiftles written befar? th5,a?ra.Qf printSngj, bi^t neither in tiiem;^ nor in any copies, tli^t ever c^mc into % "hands, could he find the paffage. -' '* Michaelis adds, that it is not in the OArow edition nor in ancient MSS, He doubts whether the edition of ^i5s3 has it in the text or .margin. I am ^Imcjl perfuided jthat it. is in the ixiargin, becaufe e'l'fe I fee np reafon why .th? oyerfeprs of the edition of 1663 fliould not have taken ^it at once into the text, if they borrowed it from an edition where it. was already in full, poffeffion. Sec the latto- part of my eighth letter, . '» Mr, PREFACE, xm Mr. Zoellner loudly complains that Mft Travis has not only disfigured his letter bjf errors of the prefs, but alio mutilated It in fuch a manner, as to make him appear the defender of a bad caufe*. He then adds that part of his letter which Mr. Travis had fuppreii&d after the fecond break in his Ap- pendix, p. 59i It confifts of two paragraphs*, which together would have made, as I calcur late, about thirty lines of Mr. Travis's book. Thefe are fome of his words ; ** Omnia haec accuratius perpendenti^ mlhl quidem vldetur^ codicem Ravianum adhuc tion Jatls cerio pio apographo poly^lottocum Complutenfium har beri." Mr. Travis, by the prudent omifnon of this hefitating fentencej has made Mr. Zo- ellner feem to give a final opinion in favour of the gehuinenefs of the MS. There is no mark of defe£l in the letter, as it is print^^ in the Appendix ; fo that the reader cannot help taking it for the whole that Mr. Zoellner wrote. Being curious therefore to know how Mir. Travis had exprefled his promife to print * I had myfelf obfervcd, that Mr. Zoellner watratha" «{^dydbte than a judge, Letter V. p. 123. the iW .PREFACE. this letter, I turaed to p. 304, and faiand^ tJiis wutious. note^ . '"i Appendix, No., XXill.' mhece tbis letter is given more, at large.''* But who would' believe chat in Mr. Zeellne/i letter thefDlldf^il^ing fentenceoiiginally eiiiled 3 Exira omnem duhitatioaii akam, Ji nihil aBtd', id guidem p^um ^, codicem Ravianum in re (riiica vix ulMm fmmenii affe ; non tarn gmd mn vojta Jitfpicione fremaiur, fed quod valde recens Jk, St^ehio ^iS^SHie jitc^iah^i certe pofi anmMi t/^$j Jeripius. Let aajr man believe Mr. Tisivis hereafter, when he talks of his own tnith, canda^r, charitjj and upright iaten*- tbhs, or when be is angry with others for their deficiency in thofe qualities. Wh6ne««Jr J hear fuch zealous flicklers for truth, they bring to my mind thofe undate<3:ed femaiLes ■who rail With all the bitternefs and ijpfetence of confciotis virtue againft the frailties ®f -their lefs prudent fiftera. Mr. Papptdbaura yMa wrote a letter to Mr. Travis on the fub- jt; vexed thd writer: of thefe letters, that he has reftmaed the whole difpute, as if it were flill unde- cided, and has. brought forth this child, of his diligence, or rather- this abortion, with a vadk body, but no brain. The {i!:^ular good'fortune of this Hz^ork, to be twice pdah lifhed m a fhoit fpac& of time, has ilnfpii:^ ouc arfiiiH: with a woEideiifutl confidence, which he himfelf proffeffes ; . others perhaps may call it impudence." They then give a brief fketch of the. work, with fbme proper^ remarks i they nAake themfelyes very merry with Mr. Travis's fufpicions of Erafmus and the ai^i^ ment drawn irom ^ his- Paraphrafes, toigethaaf > with the accurate chronology of making EraCtous publifli his.^iP^raphrafes in 1541, five years after he was .4eftd, and twrenty-onc years after they w*ere Jwtitte^* , They laijgh at Mr. Travis's credulity in relying upoii Stephens's 4 XVi P R E- F A C E, Stephens's accuracy, and Beza's ocular In- lpe6:ion of the 1 5, not 1.6 MSS. ; at his repe- tition of Martin's miferable reafons; at his appeal to L. Valla^ and the only edition extant in Europe \ sit his implicit truft in the later Latins, Ljranus, Aquinas, Durandus, Lom- bard, &c. ; at his infallible method of arguing to prove thatWalafrid Strabus found the hea- venly witneffes in Greek MSS. With equal co&tempt they pafs over his preference of the interpolated edition of Eucherius to the ge- luline ; his fecurity in the proldgue of Pfeudo- Jerome addrefled to Damafus (read ,Eufto- chium) ; his confidence in the teftimony of Cyprian backed by Fulgentius, in the La- te fan council, in the revifion of Charlemagne, the hiftory of Viftor, the Apoftolos, the mo- dern Greek confeffion of faith, &c. &c.* Though I had by fome pains andiludy qualified myfelf to pronounce the faftie fen- tence on Mr. Travis's book, I (hould have « What thefe gentlemen fay, in their concife manner, fo well 4grees with the obferwtions fcattered through the fpflowing letters, Aat, if I had met with their review fqoner, I would have infertcd it entire. P RE FACE. . xvU ftill kept my opinions to myfelf. My natural iiidolence, my engagemeiit in other ftudies, niy contempt of the work, hindered me from troubling the public with my thoughts. I read with a fmile commendations* of Mr. Travis in print, and found no inclination to contradidt opinions, which (with Vindex's leave) could only proceed from ignorwice or bigotry. At laft appeared, in the Gentleman's Magazine for Auguft 1788, p. 700. a letter ligned Eblanenfis, challenging Mr. Gibbbn to come forth in peffon and break a lajnce with that valiant knight of the holy brother- hoodj Mr. Travis. So much ignorance of the queftion joined with an equal quantity of infolence, as well to Mr. Gibbon as to others, excited my indignation, and raifed an hafty refolution of writing fome remarks upon Mr. Travis's letters, and fending them to the fame journal in which his own firft letters, and this ihagnanimous challenge, had ap- peared'.. I meant at firfl rather to expofe * Gent. Mag.' Aug. 1784, p. 565.— Aug. 1^85, p. 584.— Sept. 1785, p. 686, 687.— March 1787, p. 211. b Mr, xviii PREFACE. Mr. Travis's way of ihanaglng this contro- verfy, than to enter into the controveffy itfelf. But when I confidered that it would be little mere trod'ble to undertake the one than the other ; that it would be a good deed to let the public know how far they nligfct truft big words and bold promifes ; that, though rnany Were fitter for this tafk than myfelf, fomewere averfe to labour, and others per- haps afraid of confequences ; when I confi- dered dl thefe things, I changed my plan, and determined, befides occafional animad- verfions on Mr. Travis, to give a general abftraCt of the main queftion. Meafuitfim^ per huec in hue re liolufifas et Jentertti^^ quemvis at hod mallem de its qui ejfent idonei^ fufcipere quant me", me ut mallem, quam neminem. In confequeuee of this refolution, I inferted {tvtn, letters (which make the five firft- of this colle£lion) in the Gentleman's- Maigazine for dftober and December 1788, February, April, May, June^ Auguft, 1 789^ A gen-* tletpan who called himfelf Vindex, in the fame Magazine for January 1789, p. 12, after mentioning «* Mr. Gibbon's contemptuous inattention to Mr. Travis's irrefragable* de- 1» R E F A C E. xix fence," added the following note : * " KCam- .^rf(d§^. ib. n. tic to tv «4. ult.y«r £ "«, ib. 14. 16. IV sin tS, 8. |re, £t 53, y. Sfta. ib. to.Jttlritf ib. 8. cfficiuat ' 65> 7' PR E F A C E. XXXIU £8, 23, 241 clearer. In it). Sj« Matthew 6a, 14. addition ib. 15. h jb. 17. iif x64. penult. MS.) 7», 16. i* iiirg- tnly fayt that be Jaind ELEVEN MSS, vibich bc^ langfd to Kitig Henry. For ivz- VEN therefore read eight, and Hot out the next/etrlencet 74, 8. .refers, £mlyn, 75*3' MSS.? ib. j. as it may, ib. 8r fent them 78, 7, ayaSn ^nrtie-irxi 83, zo.jfor pp. read p, 84, 15. manufcript ib. pen. a. a. ^i,S, Gal. IV. 14, ib. 15. 80. XXI. ib. 23. IV. 31. 94, g. where even 97, >8. it is V)8, 4. '/« cala,' ib. 6, 7. Brugenfis's editions, 99, 2o. at laft, 110,8. P;S7'43- 133, 22. itTKL tia, 17, 18, ig. adds ta Chrl/la yefu in the eighth verfe ; which IS added in the feventh by the> antbor de Trinitate, publifhed, together with the writer againil Varimadus, by Chifflet. 147, 6. farther, ^67> 171 18. Mark IV. g, &c. a great number of MSS. adds it inMati)i. XIII. 23. XXV. 30. Luke 182, 6. Add as a rate : BengeliuSj who fays on Apoc. XIII. j. that Ufcan prints his additions \p a difiirrent charafler, millook the edition of 1698 for Ufcan's. 188, 16. My memtry has here grifsly deceived me. Sor meant to print read printed, and btot out the note, igo, 14. fcripture? S18, 12. adds And Mr.Grielbach informs us. Symbol. Crit. p. 225. that the French King's M.S. No. - 60. reads, mH A t^t "f' If t^T^. the precife words quoted in tl>e dialogue;, 223, 6. add, this Mote: From this place to 1. 17, except the paren- ^the{(S, the Emperor Jullin II. has ftolen word for word in his epif- tle to all the Cfarillians in the Vorld; and towards the end of the epillle employs almoii the very words of the parenthefis. Evagrius Hift. Ecdef. V. 4. p. 422. 229. 5. in the epillle for ib. 11. Inftcad oifpuriaus I ought rather to have inA. Interpolated. The words licet camalUer et -uiji- iiliter corporis et/anguiais Chrijil. facramentum dentibus premant are rejeScd by all the MSS. (a'bout twenty) that have been collated by the Lauvain and the Paris edi- tors. Augufiine, Traft. in Joann. XXVI. near the end. ' B36. Note +. Combefs, Grate. Patr. Au6ar. Noviff. PartH. p. 215," 272, 7. On tie word Father* add this note : * How eafily this.mighc happen, will appearfrom the fol- lowing pafTage of Epiphanius, Hacr. LXVI. 69. p.69i...OiSsic i| n Ta, ftailA. Keu sT^ Kuplo^ Iha-Que Xfifif, h' oi Tat itiila,, >uti h miifta 7fl a^iov, Jv auTa vivlttf ael oSa-a. h - 275. note §. Haref. XXX. 30. p. .56. 192, 1 g. Read, for the fake ofclear- tiefs, happened to authors. 293, 7. dele a ,301, 26. Add this note on " montefji' *yim;" • I follow Markland's emendation, which Mr.Heyne has tnifreprefented. He imputes to Markland an abfurd reading, moif tefq; feras, jtl-aafque, and con- demns the emendation for its aukward arrangement of the mourners, in putting the wild beaflsbetween the mountains and woods. I mention this oyerfight, merely to llrengthen an opinion, which I have long entertained, and Ihallalways refolutelydefend. That am. men A;tx liable ' TO EKXOR. gigj J. yfoold have been. * c 31S. XXXIV PREFACE. 1116 «*ft*;otev€n /«/4c/a*M; th« author 9! which 322, II, 14; Pricftley borrow* the fubflanoe of gregt 144 for r,±s- for I ill''"' "o prorf h P»" °^ '''<= '^^"^ book, with ad- ^ej, after Rom. VIII. 16. adii ditions,trahrpolBaons,an,- "tiheymight as well argue, C 9 ] argtie, that Bede knew nothing of John VIII. ^2, 54. A(Ss II. 12 — 22. Rom. I. 20 — 22. becaule he makes no mention of fuch paf- fages in his Commentary." This remark and thefe citations are fuppreffed in the fecond edition : in the preface to which you fay^ if I take your meaning rightly, that this error arofe from trufting implicitly to the infor- ihatioh'of others. Now I would fain know two things : i . Upon whole information you made the aflertion ', 2. If you took it from Martin, as I fufpe£t (Diff. Part. 2. c. 5. p-. 196.) how it came to pafs that you changed I Pet. to JRom. Martin quotes, for examples of Bede's omiffions, i Pet. I. 20 — 22. yobn VIII. §2, 54. ^^s II, ver/es 12 ei les fuhants jujq'au 23.) Suppofing this remark to be true, it might, perhaps, feem plaufible enough to fay, that nothing would be prefumed againft any particular verfe from Bede's- filence, be- caufe he has omitted many other paflagesj which yet all critics believe to be genuine. But if the premifes be withdrawn, what be- c6mes of the conelufion ? Did you mean to prove any thing when you niade this obfer^ ' yation ? If you meant it for a proof, furely ypur your main argutment myfl:./ be weakened in proportion t.o the weight .tl^titijch a. proof would have had* i-f the; fa<^?,; on which it is grounded, were admitted* Still I agree, that the 4xpu^mt of thefe errors. y6^i nof. mfi^kd^or impaired your argumeaf. And, while I axa; in the generousr humour of making conceffionsi J, will farther allow, . rfiat tia^ caufe which you haye efpoufed would have been in fi^iL a^ good a fituation, ;f you had :never written, ift ^s defence. When firft I ij^aid your |jre;^e, I thpught that, not having;]^^d?*s Works in your ,pofleffion, you had en%uIiFed of for^e perfon at Ojcford, (perhaps the. fame whci gave you fo exajSt an account of t)i^ only edi- iion of Valla) and that thiis perfopt had iedi yo% into the miftake. But being now convinced that you took your citations ixoax^ Martin, I would gladly learn, why you exprefled yourfelf in fuch vague term-s as, " tlie other jmiftake arofe in the fame manner." Wh^ did you not father fay, " the other rnift^f J copied from Maiptia." I think I cap g^f^ the reaibn of this managenjent,- Suqh a cqiit feffion would have fliewn you to h^ a fervile gopier, a. Ww4 follQWsr gf the hlia4,;and WQ^14 r «i ] Vii'ourd have dpawn up6n you the fam* cen- iifte' tfe^t ^'CrtPhaVe pal&d upon Dr. Benfon, p. 56, iig. If ^ou demand, and certainly you have a right to demand, why I infihuatfe fo injurious a fufpicion, I fhall at prefent refer ytW to ^ges 13 ah'd 76 of your former ■gditisni. (Seo hereafter. Letter V,y If you afe flot fallsfi«d with this anfwer, I promife to gi>^ ym fome additioiiab reafons for niy Opinion, befoit L end my remarks upon you. Anothef diftinguiftiing quality of your, ex- ttiaoirdiliaPy compofition is what the bafe vulgal: would eall cantiiig. For inftance: " Theo- ** dore Be:&a, whoft erudition and piety* _ * His piety was fo fetvent, that an inftapce or two of Jt may not be araifs. He wrote a book to prove, that he- retics may jjilitly be punifhed with de^th. It is well known that ^erV^tus Wa's grieVoufly affliSed wfth that peftilentml difbrdfer^ herefy . Calvin prefcrfbed roafiing by a flow fire, as an «ffe9ual oirei which was accordingly tried, but the ftatient unluckily hq>pened to die in the operation. Beza, fpeaking of this accident. In a note on 2 Pet. I. 4. face- tioufly aifdis, " and yet' there arefopae who think the good nian forfboth wis vel-y ill ufed." Emlyn indeed, Vol. II. ]).'253» is pleafed to complain df this as a cruel fcdfF, but lie hafd no tafte for raillery. I mufl'own, to the difgrace pf piety and orthodoxy, that 3?z^ QmjWed this ientence in ^is latter ecfition;, *^ 4id ," did honour to the agej-.&c:" p. 6. ":Th© *:' celebrated,. Durandus,"jp, 40. " iCfcis ce- ^' lebrated comqientator" (WalafridrStaabo) p. 23. " The good Eucherius ■ — "there *' was not a bifhopmQre. revered, for- tlearn- *' ing and piety."- " The pious Jerome," p. 32. *' This holy "martyr" (Cyprian); p. -3 7. ** Jerome fpeaks in thefe glowing terms" (glowing (indeed I.) "Qui fic non ^credit, ", alienus a Chrifto eft," p. 108. ; But jenbugh of this drudgery. Neither fhall I •take any notice of-your cqnfufed manner of stating the objeftions of the adverfaries. ' 0ne thing ought tp^be recorded, to, the honour of your diligence and learning, that at firft yon "^either knew not or entirely negle£led, New- ton, De Miffy Srid Griefbach, and very rarei ly confulted Emlyn', Bengeliqs, afid W^tftein. In your fecond edition, p. 17, you tell us^ that you are indebted for the knowledge of De Mifly toMaty's Review. Ifhall not expedt the reader to believe, but upon the teftimony of his own eyes^' that in Mr. Gibbqn's note upon the very paffage of his hiftory, which gave occafion to Mr." Travis to expofe him- ie^f in print, there is ^n a,ccurate reference tQ [ ^3 ] to De Mifly ; nor (hall I exped Inm to bq* lieve, but upon the fame teftlmony, thaE you, Sir, haVe favoured us with that felf- feme. note In p. 367. But you feeni to have too high a Kpirit to receive inftrudlion from aq enemy; I fhall leave you, for this time, with the following dilemma. If you have r^ad through De Mifly 's. Letters in the Journal Britannique, either your fenle or your ho- nefty is in imminent danger : your fenfe, that you have not feen caufe to make more alterations in your book; your honefty, that having feen caufe, you have fuffered the ob- noxious paflages, to remain unaltered. But if you have not yet read through De Mifly's Let- ters, I call upon you to juftify your indolence to the public ; an indolence, which in any writer, who afpires' to the chara£i:er of a patient ^nd impartial iuveftigator, (p. ,375^ amounts to a crirninal inattention. Sed haec fuer'it fiobis, tanquam kvis armatur^e^ prima erathnh excwjio; nunc commmus ^agamus, expe-. riamurque, Ji pffimus corma commovere dihuiU'^ tlom tua. . PoSTSCpiETi, 1 14 H Postscript. EUTPHCA! What I ■defpaired -of ^ndang, fchance at laft threw in -njy - way. Ma«»y fl^eplefs nights ^d I pafs ia ©ndgavour- ing to -MJc&ver -why Mr. Tr«v-is, in -cevpy* ing Martin, fhould change i P*^. into ^o^» Bat looiki^g into the Engli0i tran^-atlon of Martial's book, I faw the reafoa of 'the miftake. The tranflator, f. id'S, an^ead elf faying St. Peter'-s fir/i Epi^k, fiiys, St* VavtVs _fir/i E^iftle. Mr. Travis foKdly Tt^feh- ed, that St. Paul's firft Epiftle was in iOinf Teftameiyts the Epiftle to the Romans-; fet it -down without farther enquiry, and 'fulfilled the old adage by robbing Peter to, giv^e to Paul. - Are Bede's Works (lo very fcarce or expeiifive, that they were inaeeeffible to Mr* Travis ? Had lie no correfpondent at'Cam- bridge or Oxford to examine them for him'? Gr could not *' the (where merit is pre- eminently confpicuous, eptthets ^ve needlefe) ** pRfitATE, to w^hom Mr. Travis's work -is *' humbly infcribed," p. 357, lend Bina ^a copy ? Gentle reader, admire this patient gnd .mpantidl inve/tigafor, who takes a quo- tation tation at fecond-hand, and that he may enjoy every poffible opportunity of blunder- ing, confults even the copy of a copy. Thus in liis firft edition, p. 76. he quotes avTEXaspev for dye\oi{icvf a mere typographical error in the Etiglifh tranflatlon of JWfertin. To the fame caufe are owing the quotatiqii and refer&nce, both inaccurate, p. 74, 1 64. -N. B. See Vindex's remark upan the forlrie^r -part of this letter, in'the preface, ot ill* the 'Gentleman's ' Magazine for January, I7IS9, p. 12'. t i6 3 LETTER II. ^ I R, I HEREBY give noticci once for all, -to you and my readers, that I pretend not ^to produce any new arguments upon fb beaten a topic as I have chofen. It will be enough for me, if I can colie£l what is fcatter- ed through many works ; dtfpofe in a better order, or fet in a clearer light, what others have written; fo that thofe who want leifure or courage to wade through the whole controverly may form fome general notion of' the difpute, without the labour of collefting and comparing a multitude of polemical authors, or, the danger of bping mifled by the hardy aifertions of a partial and fophiftlcal declaimer. Perhaps, after this confeflion, I ftiall be thought to ftand ia need of fome excufe. I (hall therefore (helter myfeif under the example of Mr. Travis, who has himfelf condefcended to pick up the blunted [ n ] blunted weapons that poor Martin wielded without fuccelsj.and to brandifh them a'gainft the Philiftines, As the or^hpdox ' aife n^er weary of repeating the faine'ljaffled and ex- ploded reafons, we heretics rntift never be weary of anfwering them.'' For filehcei as I learn from yoti. Sir, .'p. ^.(69-, is " a proof of eonfcious impotence. I oiice thought that it might fometimes proceed' from coritenipt*. But left ybii Ihould be wife in your own con- ceit, you Ihall be anfwered. I cair myfelf an heretic, becaufe \ know that the diftielief of the authenticity of thi^s text is the Shib- boleth of the party ; and' that it would be equally abfurd and frui'tlefs, after llKe rafh and unguarded opinion that I have advanced, * Vindex alfo, ' with whom I have not the pleafure of being acquainted, in the Gent. Mag. 1789, p. 12, atlrlbotes Mr. Gibbon's inattention, with great juflice, in my opirfion, to contempt.. In anfwer to Vindex's note, I would * ad- vife him in a whifper, to temper liis zeal with a fittle know- ledge and difcrefion. * I muft fell liini at the "ftme timie, that they?r/i?am,'^wh'idh he ob%ingIy calls /«*/*, -did not profefe'to enter inta the merits of; the caufe; but only ta convitS): Mr. Travis of' ignorance and" jM-ev-arication : in which, if I am not mifinformed, they have had fome (uQcefs, '" C to it <( ti ii ti [ i8 ] to make any proteftations of innocence. *' It were to be wifhed," fays Martin, *' that this ftrange opinion had never ** quitted the Arians or Socinians; but we have the grief to fee it pafs from them to fome Chriftians, who thotigh content to retain the do£trine of the trinity, abandon this fine paffage, where that holy doftrine is fo clearly taught. 'They have, however, *' fhe^ misfortune to find thernfelves confounded *' 'wHh ihefecrei enemies of the dpSirine." In vain may Simon, La Croze, . Michaelis, and Griefbach, declare their belief of the do£lrine ; they muft defend it in the catholic manner, and with the catholic texts:' nor is all this enough ; but in defending the genuinenefs of a particular text, they muft ufe every one of the fame arguments that have already been tjfed, without reje61:ing, any upon the idle pretence that they are falfe or trifling. I pity Bengelius, He had * the weaknefs (whicb,fbols call candour) to rejed fome of the arguments that had been employed in defence'of this celebrated verfe, and brought \]pou himfelf a fevere but juft rebuke from <« It li [ '9 ] an oppofer of De Mifly * (Joiira. Brk. X. ] 133) ; where he is ranked with thofe, " wh under pretext of defending the three he! venly witneffes with moderation, defer them fo gently, that a fufpicious read( might doubt whether they defended thei in earneft ; though God forbid that nvejhou •wijh to injimate any fufpicion of Mr. Beng lius's orthodoxy." You fee. Sir, what a mi take I have made in taking my fide . of tl: queftion. But there is no help ; it is too la to recant. Fortem hoc animum tolerare jubel et quondam majora iuli. I wifh your frier Eblanenfis had favoured us with the nam of thofe eminent men who are convinced I the extenfive learning and clofe reafoning f which your work is {6 remarkable. Th* rauft have been candid pcribns, and extreme * De Mifly's fate too has been fomewhat hard. 1 was bdld enough to attack Amelotte's veracity and M: tin's underilanding. This provoked a neft of home Four anonymous writers fell upon him ; three with p( fonal abufej the fourth (who is here quoted) with a %nity under the mafk of moderation. g a op [ 20 ] open' ,tb conviftion. * I will mention ihariy as I can recoileca at prefent, who ha^ publicly declared themfelves on your fide Biftio^s Horfley arid Seabury, Bamptoni; Leauref s'y Dr. Ci<5ff, a^d Mr. Hawkins i arid laftly, Sir, our * good mbther pays due refpedt to the rnerit of her Ion. For arS credibly informed, that on the 30th ( NoA^isrtiber 1 788', at Great St. Mary's Churcl Cambridge, the Rev. Mr. Coulthurft told * The excellent Dr. Wateriand being corapliinenti by Whifton andEttilyn (feeEmlyn, Vol. II. p. 236.) f his impartiality in not infiiltng upon this text, thought pn per in his "Importance of theDodJrineof the Trinity, p. 271, to be convinced by Twells tliat it was genuine. [I I mean to acknowledge a mirtalce or to fapply a defei Whenever I pferceive it, I think it neceflary to obferve, th the foregoing hote contains the truth indeed, but not tl • - - whole truth. For 1 have fiiice learned that Dr. Wate land had declared himfelf in favour of the fpurious ver in the year 17^3, but in a more guarded and dpubtf manner.] t To *.hefe I ought perhaps to a'dd the atliinynTOU^ ai thor of « A Summary of the moft irttereffing EvideiK on a mbft. important TVySl," who calls Mr, Travis book, p. 9. zmafterphte ifWUfariihg attd corhfofttim, Bi whether he be in jeft or eameft, depends upon a previ bus^ueftion. ■ : " brilliar brillKUJt and crowded, as well as a learne audience, that " the authenticity of i. John ^ % has been clearly and fubftantinlly eftablid ed." When Eblanenfis (hall be pleafed i increafe this lift with the names of' his cot verts nf tJye firfi eminence^ they will all t( gather compofe a very amiable fet, and ei tirely free from ^ bigotry. And now, Sir, compliments being pafled, I (hall begin upc bufinefs. Mr. Gibbon affirmed in that fentenc upon which' Mr. Travis has written a lop commentary, that the memorable text oftt three heavenly witnefTes is condemned t irhe (ilence of Greek MS^. of verfions, and i fathers. In a note, he, explains liis fent ments more openly with refpeft to the Grei MSS. and the origin of the verfe in our pr fent edition. A Writer in the Gentleman Magazine (Nov. .1782, p. 521} to whorayc yourfelf referred iii your firft edition, p. 3 fufficiently juftified Mr, ;Gibbon , upon tl fubjeft of the ofFenfive note. Since the e: temal authority of any text in fcripture founded on the concurrence of ancient MS of aiiciejit veriions, and citations x>i ancie C 3 , writer L ,22 ] writers, it will readily be granted; that wher ever any of thefe three- pillars of evidence withdrawn or weakened, the fuperftruftu which they were intended to fupport, mv totter of courfe ; and that if all three be ui found, it muft be in great danger of ft 'Z Jing. Let us then enquire into the Greek MS iuppofed to contain the difputed verfe. Yo Sir, reckon up feven belonging to Vail one to Erafmus, fome (you * are {o modei you will not fay, p. 280, how many) to tl Complutenfian editors, lixteen to Robe Stephens, and fome that the Louvain d vines had feen. You afterwards make;, 282 — 5, a very pretty calculation (foryc are an excellent arithmetician) and find tha thirty-one [MSS.] out of eighty-one, or (moi than) three out of eight, or (nearly) one hai of that WHOLE number\^ — adtually did ej hibit, or do exhibit, the verfe i John, "\ 7!" Inquifitlve people will fay, how haj pens it that none of thefe MSS. now n main, except the Dublin copy, which Wei ftein is fo cruel as to attribute to the fij teenth century; for concerning tlie Berli MJ L 23 J MS. they will, I fear, rather chufe to belie\ La <^roze and Griefljach than Martin arid M Travis. But the anfwer is eafy. The are loft. Either they have been burned, ^ have been eaten by the worms, or bet gnawed in pieces by the rats, or been rott< with the damps, or been deftroyed by tho peftilent fellows the Arians ; which w very feafible ; for they had only to get ini their power all the MSS. of the New Te tament in the worlds and to mutilate or d ftrpy thofe which contained un des plus_ heai paffages dans rEcrhure Samte^. Or, if a thefe poffibilities fliould fail, the devil 'm£ play his part in the drama to great advai tage. For it is a fa£t of which Beza poj tively affures us, that the devil ha;s been tan pering with the text, i Tim. III. 1 6 ; ar that Erafmus lent him an helping hani Beza indeed, being a man btimful of cai ^3our, fubjoins, that he believes Erafmus a i^&di Satan unwittingly t. This perha] * Martin. f A diabolo depravatum : cui fane hac in parte (dica fcnim libere qi|od res eft} fuam operam impruden; quidc [ H ] tnzy be fome excufe for Erafmus. But what hopes of falvation are left for your Wetfteins, your Grie{bachs, your Sofipaters, who have the front to perfift in their damnable errors ; the two fiirft in fpite of 350 pages of Berri- man, the other In fpite of 400 of Mr. Travis. After all, I rather prefer the fuppofition that the Arians deftroyed the fald MSS. becaufe it fhews the orthodox in fo fuperior a light ; who have not, to my knowledge at leafl-, deftroyed a fingle MS. that omitted their darling text, while the Arians, In lefs than a century and half, fuppreffed, thirty that -contained It. Yet Ipt us hear what may be fald in their favour ; not out of tendernefs to them (they deferve no mercy) but merely for our own juflificatlon. The earlieft collator of Greek MSS. of the New Teftament was Laurentius Valla, who had feven, according toyou, Sir, p. 18. For this, p. 144, you quote his note on John yil. 29, where It feems. Valla " pofitively af- (Jic enim arbitror) fed fuam operam tamen Erafmus com- modavit. InBeza's ^r{^ edition it is. sic, enim malo ARBiTRARi. Lentor et melior fis acce^nte JeneSta ! See above, Letter I. p. 5, note. firm's" C '^5 ] firms*' It. -I can fee no /i^//i>^«^ m Valf; expreffion; however, it Is a word- of . e^cee ifi'g good Command, and is of great ufe elj where, as in'njj, iy$pi4.yy i8o, 296. B ■I fee'a'great deal f of pojiftvenefs in the atfd tioh, that this pelage was found in all Fati, M^S. and is •commented ' upon'^ by htm,, p. 1 Valla's words are, \Et hi ires unum fui Gr^cs eji,' ET hi tres in unUm^sunt, «i? tc £iVj. Now, Sir, point but, if you can, a finj Greek MS.' in which the' feventh^'verfe'' thus read. ' (I except the Cbmplutenfiart i vifibles.) 'Explain why R. Stiephfins's fixte "MSS.'fltould, according to yoXir 6Wii hy^ thefiSj'all'agree in' the other rfea'ding, '^?lfl is now ''adopted for text fe^cdmrndn'Con'ffe One very notable circuniffdnce in the cfdjp is, that they are fuch gregarious attittiE AH Vafla's^MSS. agree" in' ha\^iHg 'iH M ' iU T9 fi/ 'tis-EJo-jK, in theTeventh' Vdrf^ ; aftd the Cortipluterifian 'agree 'with' tKfem in d ' Variation,' and* with one ahbther,' as V^elt with theTJublin copyj Tin oniittiBg the'fii . claufe of the eighth verfe. . Seven of . Stephens s MSS. omit the words « rm oupai and the other nine, if we may believe a Trav t »« ] Travis, for Martin is not quite fa.fanguin correfpond with the received i-eading. ^ the reft of the Greek MSS. which, if I hai counted right, amount to ninety- feven ' ancient and modern, oriental and Occidents good, bad, and indifferent, do with oneco] lent, wholly omit the feventh verfe, and tl words " TJirynr of the eighth. , You have fa I know, p. 339, that the words « r^ryjir feei to have been omitted in a few copies onl But this is a little pious fraud, which is vei excufable, when it tends to promote the cau of truth and the glory of God. If you thin this charge of fraud too fevere, I fhall I very happy to feize; the flighteft probabilitii that may acquit you of fb odious an imput; tion, and fhall acquiefce in the milder acci fation of fliameful and enormous ignprauG But be this aflertion of yours owing to fran or toJgnorance, I defy you to fpecify a fing! Greek MS. that omits the feventh verfe, iiD retains thefe words. Simon indeed^ mentior No. 2247, as having the wordsj h ti{C ynX i h} * This muft be uhderftood only of Mr. Grielbach lift. See a more exa£): computation at the end of Le xaYi ' - [ V ] it feems to be a miftake committed in tl hurry of copying, and to have proceeded froi the idea of the vulgar reading, which w: then prefent to his mind: i. Becaufe F. I Long (Emlyn Vol. II. p. 277.) teftifies, th; having looked over all the MSS. quoted b Simon, he could find hrtl^yn^ in none < them: 2. Becaufe Mr. Griefbach, who h^ re-examined the fame MSS. with a partici larview to. this paflage, fets down No^ 224; as in perfed harmony with the reft, wit! out taking notice of any variation. It is,noi high time to awake you. Sir, from your naj and to inform you, that Valla's note is wri ten upon the eighth and not the feventh vejri^ This is acknowledged by Martin, wh< though a :^mple man, and totally deftitui of tafte and criticifm, had yet more leacnio and honefty than his humble imitator. Mard only argues that Valla had the feventh yer: in his Greek copies, becaufe Val^a is quii filent. This argument, as every body knowi that knows any thing of collations,, is ver deceitful ; for in half the collations that evf were made, and more efpecially the jiean we mount to the revival of letters, the editpi an [ 28 :] and critics confulted their 'MSS. only upon difficult places, or where they themfelves felt ariy curiofity. And to conclude that •Valla or any critic of that age, -had any par- ticular text in his MSS. becaufe he does not texfirefsly fay that they omitted it, is to pn(h a negative afgunvent much farther than it will go by its own -ftrength. But I Ihall fpeak more fiilly on this head, when I come to treat of' R. Stephens's edition. Meflieurs Martin and Co. feem at other times to decry allnttgdtive arguments ; but that is only when the Inference bears hard upon their favourite ; Vhen the admiffion of fuch an argument liirts 'their purpofe, they are as vigilant in feizing it, and as adroit in managing it as heart bould wifh. You will fay, pp.288, 313, (foryoU have a fine bold Way of talking) *'' that the hi)anaMe tenor* of the eighth verfe in the Latin Vulgate is, with fo few excep- tions as not to merit notice, in unumfunt ;" and confequently that Valla, who quotes limply, unumfunVy withdut the prepofitibn, ■■•v.. ;■; . ■. .'( ;. i;.' ' * Mr. Travis had the aflurahce to affert this without anylimitation, Ed. i. p;Jioo. from E 29 ] from the Latin, mufl mpan the feventh, an4 not the eighth verfe. I rauft defire you to produce a, competent number of aijthorities for this invariable tenor. I have feen, I be- lieve, as many MSS. of the Latin Vulgate a? you. I have compared moft of the editions^ printed in the fifteenth centutjy, and ia3,any fubfequent to that aera ; particularly fuch ag^ have various readings ; I have examised ^h^ early French, Italian, and Eriglifli verfions (which were ^\\ made from copies of tb% Vulgate) and I folcmnly declajre, that I t>a,Ye not beeri able to find, even in a ^ngle copy, even as a variation, that reading whiel) M-c. Travis affirms to be the invariable tenor of the eighth verfe. Will he prove it to us f He does not attempt it. He trujis to find readers as fuli of zeal as himjelf\ and then— no proof will be required^' The • This decent language is applied to Dr. Benfon, p. 83, 1S2. I (hall here propofe a conjefture, how Mr. Travis fell into this ftrange nvftake. He knew nothing of the Latin copies : he fcorned to foil his hands witlj kiufljr MSS. and editions; but Mr. Bowyer had faid (falfely indeed) that Cyprian has quoted tres in unumfunt; and after- [^ 30 I The whole qireftion is reduced to one point. "Vafla f^ys nothing of this vferfe in his cbl- lation. Is his filehce a good proof that the ferfe-was in Kis Greek copies ? 'By no means. That exadriefs of collation which is nbwjuft- ly thought neceflary, was. Unhappily, never atteitfpted by the critics of the fifteenth and fixt^rith centuries.' The methbd in which Vaik performed his talk was, probably, to, chule the MS. that he judged to be the beft,? f o read; It . diligently^ and wherever he was ft6pp©J by a' difficulty, or was defirous to Ictidw hbw the fame paflage was read in other Batiii or in the Greek MSS. to have recourf© afterVrafds had fuppofed that Cypriart referred to the eighth verfe. Mr. Travis feems to have joined thefe pro- pofitions together, and thence to have concluded that th^ reading of the V^ulgate was in unumfunf, in which opi- nion he might perhaps be confirmed by finding it thus quoted in the treatife de Baptifmo, annexed to Cyprian's works. Part of this treatife Mr. Travis has printed in hi» appendix, which part contains the only Latin authoi;ity that I know for tjie jHepofitioq. Mr. Bowyer has led Mr. Travis into another miftake, and perfuaded him pp. ^T^i EsioJi 3Vi» to give Biftiop Pearfon the notes on Gyprian,' which are the property ofEiihop Fell. / aents fo copioufly as might be expefbed, but :udy brevity too much, and do not fufficient ^ ■\( qonfult the apprehenfion of common read-. P ^ ersi I 38 y ers. Thus fen fe is in danger of being t over- powered by words, and reafonjng by decla- mation. Befides, I {hould be happy to im- print fome few elementary ideas of criticifna upon the . ra/a tabula, of Mr. Travis's mind. For I can affure him that ^t prefent hepoflef- les not even the rudiments of that ufeful-^ faience. N. B. See Vindex's anfwer in the preface or in the Gentleman's Magazine for March, 1789, p. 225. Th^ pafl'agea which Vindex anitiidfed himfelf with quoting, are marked. with correfpond-? ing numbers in his anfwer, and in the foregoing letter. P o s T s c R I P T. If I were writing for the learned, the itiquir fitive or the impartial, I fhould think that I had already trefpaffed too much upon th^ir patience. But that the unlearned and lefs-atf tentive reader may be enabled, and the par- tial compelled to fee how much credit is due to Valla's filence ; I fhaliadda Abort obferva- tion or two to prove what I have ^alfle^ted con- cerning the defefts of his collation, i. In I John, [ 39 1 I John, V. 9, the Vulgate reads, ^oniam hoc eft teftimottium Dei, quod majus eft. The claufe quod mains eft, is peculiar to the Latin tranfla- tion. But Valla, who juft now was fo mi- nute as to inform us that the Greek added two fmall ■^ords {tU to) here fays nothing of three (5} /*£i'{w» kC) apparently more important. a. Though the firft epiftle of Peter is not quite fo long as the firft of John, Valla has beftowed upon it almoft twice as many anno- tations. Jf therefore it were probable that no various readings- of confequence efcaped him in the latter, much greater would be the chance that none efcaped him in the former. At the end of the third chapter after Dei in the Latin copies we read deglutiens mortem, ut mta tsetern^e haredes efficeremur. No Greek MS. has the flighteft traces of this impertinent addition. But Valla, in fpite of his diflike to the Vulgate, in fpite of his readinefs at once to difplay his own acutenefs and to gratify his refentment, by confronting the verfion with the original, was either too negligent to detect this blemifli or too merciful to expofe it. I am aware of an alternative that may be Xjrgfdagainft this argument,. which alternative I D 4 ihall [ 40 ] all fairly ftate, and let it produce its utmoft xd: upon the mind of the reader. Either dla's Greek MSS. might be more bountiful an others, and contain this fentence ; yivotfiAu) or his L^tin MSS, might be more aring than others, andpreferve the genuine I, undebafed by impure alloy. Which of e two fuppofitians be farther diftant from e boundaries of reafon, muft be left a quef- •n, till a certain critic fhall havo made bis, tion in favour of one or the other. I ♦' 3 LETTER III. Hcis Rtj jt fliouI4 be fliewn what an arguer he is, and how well lie deferves for his performance to be dubbed by himfelf IRREFRAGABLE.* LoCIfE.' In fchool-divinity as able As he that hight irrefragable*} A fecond Thomas, or at once. To name them all, another Duns. ^UDIBRAS. SIR, W E are now arrived at the Complutenfiaa edition, in which the honejl bigotry of the * See Vindex on the ufe of epithets, Gent. Mag. for Jan. 1789, p. 12. I perceive, from the fame Magazine for March 1789, p. 225, that he has not profited by the wholefome advice which I gave him. And how ungene- rous it is, as well as cowardly, after fwaggering and bluf- terihg, to fneak away from the combat, arid leave Mr. Travis alone to bear the burthen and heat of the day ! In the mean time I earneftly intreat Mr. Travis's admirers to refrain fromboafting of their profelytes and repeating their defiances. Such quacke;ry is qnwQrtJ^y any perfon who pretends to learning, ^ditofs t 4a ] editors has inferted the doubtful text. By honejt bigotry Mr. Gibbon probably means, that the editors thought the verfe genuine indeed, but inferted it contrary to their Greek MSS. If they thought it genuine upon fuch flight grounds as the authority of the Vul- gate, of Pfeudo-Jerorn,e, and of Thomas Aquinus, they w&rt bigots. But if they re- ally thought i't genuine, their 6igotry was £o fo far honejt. The fame fort of bigotry pre- dominated in your mind, when, you quoted p. 286, the barbarous Greek of the Lateran council, and finding a chafm, fupplied^ it by a jftiil more barbarous tranflation of your own from the Latin. Thus would the Cotti- plutenfian editors reafon : " This verfe is genuine, though it is not id the Greek copies. We will tranflate it therefore from the Latin Verity, and reftore it to the context." Bu|; you. Sir, take for granted without proving (a vice very frequent in, you, thougb y^u reprove others fpr it, p, 182,) tjiat thjs verf? was in all their MSS. ; you hint Mr, Gib? bon's wiihes to be, that the editors had or^itr %%i. it in oppofition to all their auth'Ofities 5 and you profefs aii uuwillingnefs'{i; e, a willing- nefs) [ 43 ] nefs) tQ believe that Mr. Gibbon himfelf would in fuch a cafe have betrayed his truft. Merugo^ meral Mr. Gibbon juftifies the inten- tion of the Complutenfian editors, and only blames their prejudice. And who can deny their prejudice in favour of the Vulgate to have been exceflive and abfurd, after rfead-« ing the follovring fentence from their pre- face to the Old Teftament ? Mediam Latinam beati Hieranymi tranjlaiionem, velut inter fyna^ gogam et orienUdem ecclejiam pofuimus, tan^am duos him: inde htrones^ medium autem Jefum h. e. Romanamjive Latinam ecclejiam colheantes. Or who can wonder that men, fo blindly devoted to a verfion, (hould fometimes pre- fume to oorre£t the originals from that ver- lion^ efpecially in a paffage, * in quo max'ime et fides cathoUca rohoratur, et Patris et Filii et Spiritus SanSli. una divinkatis Juhjianiia compro- ^ bdtur f But in fait we have all the evidence neceffary to prove that they aftually paid this "extravagant compliment to the Vulgate. For Stunica, who would have been extremely- glad to have had the ppwer of appealing to f PfewdQ-HifTopytn, Prolog. }n Epifl:. Canon. the [ 44 ] the Greek > MSS. againft. Erafmus, qetes none in favour of this unfortunate verfe, but Tefts the whole merits of the caufe Upon the Latin copies, and the impoftor who ufurpS the name of Jerome. You, Sir, to do you juftice, think there is fome force in this obje(9:ion ; and in a momentary fit of impru-^ dence or modefty, p. 280, Gwn yourfelf unable fatisfaSlorJly to account for it. But thefe are the laft ftmggles of expiring fliame. For though you faw the unavoidable confequence of this conceflion, you add, that you have proved the Complutenfian Greek not to be a tranflation from the Latin. Your tacit, in- ference then is, I fuppofe, tliat it could only ' come from the Greek MSS. But this infer- ence is a little too hafty. The Complutenfian. Greek may be a tranflation from the Latin, though not an exact tranflation. Let us fupr pofe that Mr. Travis, while he was difput- iug againft Mr. Gibbon, had the ufe of a MS. which contained the fufpe(3;ed verfe ; would he neglefl: to produce its teftimony in defenqe xi£ this very verfe and aigainft a man whona he hated ? If he believes this poflible, or pro- fefle? to believe it poffible, I Ihall believe hin? ^ihqj? ' t- 45 ] cither mad, aut Ulud quod dkere nolo, I alk therefor© what could induce Stunica, who is at other times fcarcely lefs virulent againil Erafmus than Mr, Travis himfelf is, what could induce him to be fo mild and tame in this particular inftance ? What but the con- fcioufnefsthathe knew of no Greek MS. which contained the paffage in queftion ? Twell^ indeed has bethought himfelf of a falvo, and a precious falvo it is (Exam. P. II. p. 142.) that the labour of collating the Catholic Epiftles did not fall to Stunica's fhare. In the year when Stunica wrote his remarks on Erafmus, all his fellow-labourers were on the ipot, able and willing, I hope, to inform him of the manufcrlpt readings of this or of any other paflage. For furely they had fome dif- courfe together upon the difficult places, and did not perform each man his taflc in filence and folitude, without any confultation or com- munication. If Stunica had faid nothing upon this Epiftle of John, we might notper- haps be able to extract any certain conclufion from his filence. But Stunica quotes his Rhodian MS. frequently in oppofition to Erafmus, once upon the i6th verfe of the third [ 46 3 t^ird chaptef of this Epiftle, once upon the ' 3oth vei-^ of this very fifth chapter, and both times in defence of the Complutenfian readings Yet upon the 7th verfe, where there was a preffing neceflity, if ever neceffity ex- ifbed, of fupporting his opinion by the au- thority of the Greek MSS. Stunica appeals to none. *' Wliere," cries ErafmHis, *' fleeps this Rhodian MS. ?" But the Oodex Rhodienfis was as deaf to the reproaches of Erafmus, as Baal to the farcafms of Elija!!-. No man in hts fenfes would ever omit to urge evidence that was fo much w'anted and that would, have fo much weight. Poor Stunica moft piteouf^ ly cries out, Sciemdum eft Gri^comm codices ^Jfe corrup/w; noJiros-n}eroipfam veritateifi continere. Now if this be not a full and clear confeffionj that he knew of no MS. containing the dif^ puted verfe, I cannot tell what is. If the Codex Rhodienlis had been drthodox, he would have written to this efFeft : ^idamfane codices Gracorum hate verba omittunt ; Rhodien- Jis vero if Jam veritatem continet: I need not obferve, that fince this MS. leans very much to the Vulgate and particularly ^dds, tou @toZ in the former of the two places above quoted, words :[ 47 ] words f6uh{3 in no bther Greek MS. naf vet- fioi>':whatfoever, its omilTion of the Seventh v^rreof thfe fifth Jcba)pt€^ will form a ftrong arguraent againft 'the geb'iitinenefs of the p^f- fage. Allowing then that the Codex Rho- dienlis dmitted, as it certainly did omit, this exulk'nt paffage, why did not Stmiica confult others ? Either he bad no more to confult, of t-h'^ other editors, and not Stunica, had colla* ted them. If he had only the Codex Rho- ^ieiifis, why is he not ingenuous enough to c^6nfefs it ?. If he or his brother editors had more, why did he not inform himfelf of their teading in this place, either from his OWn in- fpe)?, to WVlZ(/.X X«l to V9«|» «al TO «Tj«.fl:. In their Greek Manufcript ot Manufcripts, they found, Cn Tpsr? £iVi» oj ^«p- >.~ \ ~ \ \ tfr, . \ \ t \ TUj50Ul'T£?, TO 7rViVfJI.» KOii TO udwp XOi( TO OilfAlX X«J oi T/>£K £('? TO eV £iV». What was now to be done ? They were not willing entirely to abandon their originals ; they accordingly patched up a motley text, and dexteroufly tranfplanted the claufe xasI ol r^tTg to h eIo-i, to the end of the feventh verfe. So that as far as they could without damage to the orthodox faith, they followed the reading of the Greek manufcript. They thought this claufe of too great fize and importance to be turned out of doors without ceremony ; they there- fore fufFered it to flay, though they provided it with rather an indifferent lodging. If Mr. Gibbon obferved this, he had a frefh reafon for iattributing their conduct to hones'J bigotry^ And it is no more than juftice to allow that they at leaft did their work like workmen. They made good Greek of their Latin ; a talk E 2 W L 5^ J to which the trau^ator of the Lateran Decrees and the writer of the Publiti MS. were unequal. In my. next I intend to , travel, through Stephens's, and the other manu- fcriptg that.have been faid to contain this £x-,- cellent verfe. . I fliall not quit this .article without taking notice of an objeftion, which you, p. i S5, and Martin feem rather to infinuate darkly, than, to.propofe in form : " that the Cdmpluten- iian reading of -the fevfenth verfe, tk to h il wrote your letters,' you would have fp''ared yourfelf a conlider- able quantity of difgrace and repentance. I Ihall repeat Wetftein*s laft quotation. .Pater ■meus — cum' N. 1". Gruecttni cum multis vetujtis ei^mpiaribm opera- mea collatum, primo quid^ minuiionbus hph^ — mox autem grandibus chdraiieribus., &t:. •■ To which add Beza's tef- tjnaoiiy.to the fame purpofe. Ad hac omnia accejjit. exemplar ex Stephani mjiri hiblibibkor cum viginti ■ quikqueoplus minus mamfcnptis eo^ dicibtts et omnibus pene imprejfts^ditigentiffime col-^ latum. Thus Beza in his firft edition of 1 5 5 6. But in his fecond edition, when R. Stephens was dead, thefe important words follow after impejjis', ab' Henrico St eph a no ejus filiq et' patern^ sedulitatis h^rede qu'am diligentijjime collatum.' Obferve in all this pro- ceeding the craft .of a printer and editor. Ro- bert [ 57 1 bert was aware 4:hat, by telling his readers who was the collator, he might infufe a fuf*- -picion into their minds, that the work was negligently performed : he therefore carefully avoided * mentioning that circumftance. Another inftanpe of this management maiy be feen in the preface to his firft edition^ where he lays, that he has not fuffered a letter to be printed but what the greater part of the better MSS. like fo many witnefles unani- moufly approved. This boaft is indeed * With the fame caution, fpeaking of his No. 2, (now our Cambridge MS.) he calls it, exemplar vetuftijjimum in Italia ae'amicis coUatum, dtli^M^tt- Without fairly confeffing or openly violating the truth, that it was col- lated by his fon Henry, he difguifes the faft in a general 'expreffion. I have not forgotten Mr. Travis's maAerly conftru£lion of the fentence, p. 284; " It was the ex- emplar, the book it/elf, then, (and not the leSlions out of it) which was fa//^(f?^i5? or (jzXha) procured for R. Stephens^ by his friends in Italy." I have heard of a learned Do6lor in our wniverfity, who confounded the colleSiion with th? collation of MSS. but I never till now fieard of. a fingle copy being colleSfed.^ That the reader may not fufpe(9t me of inventing nonfenfe for the pleafufe of fathering it upon Mr. Travis (4 fuppofition which at firft fight - may feem not improl^able) I affute him th^tl have honeftly copied the very words, and can only beg of hinj tp verify my citation by the evidence of his own fenfes. Utterly r 5? I utterly falfc, as all critics agfee, who have taken any pains in Comparing Stephfens's edi- tions. They know that Stephens has not obferved this rule conftantly, becaufe his editions often vary from one another, and his third edition often from all his MSS, eveti by his own confeffion. But becaufe Mr. Grief- bach took this point for granted ; not forefeeing that a man would be found fo hardy or ignorant as to deny it, you in- fult him, p. spSj and call his affertton. ground* lefsy improbable, uncandld, and injurious. Thefe are the magic words that have charmed your converts of the firji eminence. Editors and printers are fuch confcientious people, that we may be fur-e^they will never pradife any tricks of their profeffion, or give their owii publications und'eferved praife. And whoever offers to think that they may fometimes bfeftow extravagant commendations oh their own la- bour, diligence, or fidelity, is totally Voidbf //- terary candoufdnd'Cb'ri/iian charity ^ (p. 5 9, 1 2 5 .) But an example will make this pofition clear-. fjf in th? eleventh verfe of the fecond chap- ter of Matfeew, all the MSS. the Com^lu^ ^nfiaii edition, nay the veiry MS, froifi wHich llrajEinijSi [ 59 ] ^rafmus published his edition, have i7hy In- .^€ad of sSjjoi/, byt Erafrnus upon the fingle authority of ^ faulty copy of Theophyla£t, altered it to cv^ov ; Stephens in his third edi- tion followed Erafmus, and (Sf.oM infefts, our printed Teftanients to this day, I can only excufe Stephens b.y the univerfaJ: cuftom of dealers who think it an innocen.t deceit to cry up the value qf their wares. Stephens inferted nothing in his text (miftakes except- ed) which he, did not find in the Conxpluten^ lian edition, or in Erafmus, or in his MSS. But he frequently quits all his MSS. to fol-. low bis prii^ted guides, and frequently, fal- lows Erafmus without attending tq the refl^ of which partiality I have already given a ipecin^en. Let ns be no more peftered with- the ftale common-places of honour, honefty, yeraqity, judgment, diligence, erudition, &c. If R. Stephens's MSS. all omitted the con* trpvertedpaffage, he woujd ftill retain it in his ejditipn; becaufc; he. has the fame vicious^ <:pm!p,la.ifance for many other paflages, with- out hgiVing equal feeming authority. ][iere he had; the Qonfeiit of both editions for hi^ lyarrant ; ir^ ,othef plaices, he follows Erafmus? ^9p.!^ YoUa Sir, proye, with admirable con- cifenefs^ [ i6o j] d.'fcnefs, In fomething lefs than fix pagesf (p. 78—81, 1.72--177) that' Stephens did NOT take this verfe from the Complutenfian edition. Granted. He did not take it tvholfy' from tHe Complutenfian. He took it partly from- the Compliiteniian and partly from Erafmus. He differs from Erafmus in adding- the artiole thrice, and in tranf- ppfing the vvord^ioi/ ; and in thefe fouir differ- ences, he followed the Complutenfian edition and the. genius of the language. . Mr. Grrefhach aflerts, as quoted by "yoUj Sir,' pJ 297, tHat there are iri R. Stephens's MSS.' many good readings, which are noC ijifertedin his margin. " Youanfwer him by a flat denial. This is indeed a compendious ahd convenient method of anfwering ; but I would counfel you not to, make it too cheap by frequent ufe. Mr. Griefbach thought,' that this and fome other of his aflertions were fb generally allowed, that it would be wafte of time and paper to prove them in form. At laff up ftarts a grave and reverend gentleman-, and tells us with a feflous face, tiiat it is not day/ at noon. And this trafli we are expefted to refute, or the MiMipfiMm 'i^- regiment [ 6i ] reglei^nt will hoaft hereafter that we have not accepted; their lea Whethet Stephens had fixteen or only fift^n MSS. in all, is not of fo much con- fluence as the next queftion, how many of thele contained the Catholic Epiftles. Martin' (Verite, p*' 171) partof whofe reafoning you' have adopted, (p. 80, 175} fays, nine at; leaft ; and' thus he argues;: If Stephens had only feven MSS. in all, he would not have' iHacfe a piarticular enumeratioh,' but have faid, Tfjioiffi'Tao-n' in the margin. If he had only eight, he would have faid, ir. itx^v (adding the':nurober of the diffentiezit MS. fuch be- ing bis "'cnftpm ' iii other places? I anrwer,*" -■^ • I. That [ 65 ] ' \. That Stephens could not, confiftently with truth, as Martin hinifelf owns, ufe the mark T. m this place, becaufe the Complutenfian edition, his No. i. diffents J nor, '%. could he, confiftently with himfelf, fay, t. tta-^h — ^ becaufe he never does fay foin his fecond vo- lume, the epiftles and apocalypfe. But you are not content with Martin's fcanty allow- ance, your lively imagination hurries you beyond the bounds of fober reafon ; and iij. one of your happy inventive moments you iet down the whole fixteen, p. 284, as con"- taining thh difputed pajfage. A jolly com* pany I What luck old Robert had to light upon thefe MSS. and fettle the true reading from them, before Satan and his Ariana had laid their claws upon them ! Did you ever hear, Sir, of any large colledion of MSS. all containing the whole Greek Teftament ? Or, to deal liberally, let the apocalypfe be excepted, did you ever hear of fo many as fifteen all containing the remainder ? Take the trouble of confulting fifteen at hazard, you will be very fortunate if feven of theni contain the Catholic Epiftles. ^ Or do you pioufly believe, that an editor who has not F defcribed . i 66 ] 4efcribed his MSS. may have found only fucfi as are complete, while fearce a fixth part of thofe MSS. whieh have been particularly de- feribed, contains the N. T. entire, even with the exception mentioned ? You inform us, p. 275, (fee alfo p. 295-6) " that it does not follow from R. Stephens's not citing all his' MS^. to all parts of his Greek Teftament, that all his MSS. did not contain all the Greek Teftament." But I can tell you what does follow. If R. Stephens^s MSS. all con- tain the whole N. T. either the MSS. fo rare- ly cited had a miraculous agreement with his text, fuch as never has been fince found m any dne MS. or R. Stephens's collator was fo infamoufly negligent, that his filence and his teftimony are equally undeferving of regard. A ray of light however pierced through the Egyptian darknefs . of your mind, when you wrote the following fentence, p. 136 : " The MS. of R. Stephens marked 15^ does not feeni to have contained the Gofpel of St. John at all ; for there is no reference to this MS. in. the margin. But to what purpofe d^ we prolong this childifh play ? Newton, Wetftcin, and Mr. Griefbiach knew well enough [ 67 ] (though that Stephens's No. 2 , was once q^ioted u'pori the Epiilie to the Romans, No. 5, twice upon the apoealypfe, No. 7, up- on the A t n 1 (4, 5, 7, 9, lo.) and that thefe all omit from the words Iv tu? oupavw? to the words «» th? yjir, iuclufive. And I have fuch an opinion of Wetftein's fehfe and honefty (though he was an heretic) that I fhall venture to think him In the right, till you. Sir, talk fomething more to the purpofe. If you aik, how Wet- ftein came to know, that they were the fame manufcripts. I anfwer, by collating them, and finding them agree with Stephens's margin in other places. And left you (hould reply, that the readings of thefe MSS. as given by Wetftein fometimes differ fromthe readings of Stephens's margin, cognofce ex me, quoniam hoc primum iempus dijcendi naSlui «, that in thefe cafes a general and remarkable fimilarity is aftronger argument for the affirmative, than a few Va- riations for the negative. If we rejeft this canon, fuch a monftrous abfurdity as this will enfue ; that if a collator makes here and there a miftake, whoever afterwards confults the fame manufcript, muft nof infer the identity of the manufcript from the peffeit agreement of the reft of the collation. Thus the opginufcrlpts. vyill be daily multiplied, in the [ 78- ] the joint ratio of the number and jieghgence of the collators* Having before fhewn that R. Stephens's work was in general inaccurate and imperfeft, I proceed in the next place, to point out fome particular faults. In i Pet. III. ii, the words dyec^ov ^mra-aru, are omitted, contrary to all manufcripts, verfions, and former editions. Was this the effedt of fraud or miftake ? If we dare to fiifpe£t any fraud, you will remind us that it, will become us to conjider how we can jujiify our [elves either in literary candour or Chrijiian charity, &CC. (p. lo, 13.) And we ihall get very little by taking the other [part of the] alternative, thzt Stephens omitted thefe words by miftake. For, by the help of the ^ravifian \o^\c, which is of the fort that de- duces oyiDLiBET EX QuoLiBET, I wiU prove that Stephens omitted them upon the autho- rity of manufcripts. Now he omitted them NOT BY MISTAKE ; becaufi he would in that cafe have replaced in his fiibfequent edition of 155^9 ^P^Jf^S^ 'which he had left out of this edi- tim by mere overfghi. Not by mistake ; hecaufe a man who had been fo painfully accurate as to pint out in his errata the mifplacing of one comma. [ 79 ] comma, and the omijjion of another, cannot he fuppofed to have fuffered two fuch important words to have efcaped his notice. Not by mistake ; becaufe the words In quejiion are omitted in the edition of John Crifpin i$S3y '^^'^ '^^^ t^^ friend and fellow: citizen of Robert Stephens, and mujl he concluded to have puhlifhed with his af- fiftance^for it is impoffible to fuppofe, that Crifpin would not. Sec. Not by mistake ; becaufe the Latin verf on in the edition of 155 1, which is placed by thefde of the Greek,, contains thefe words, and mufi confequently force them upon the attention of Stephens, ivhofe duty and interejl would confpire to make him infert them in the original, unlefs he had (upon good grounds doubt- lefsj determined to reje£l them. If fuch labour- ed nothings (which I have faithfully imitat- ed from you, p. 57, 122, except that I have retrenched fome of your redundancifs) had any-force, what would they prove ? That a reading is fupported by authority, which, as far as I can learn, every man hitherto has _ believed to be a mere error of the -prefs. Yet tbis error paiTed at leaft four .editions * with- * Stephens, fol. 1550. 8vo. 1553. Criip. 8vo, 1551. Francf. fol. iboi, out t 80 ] tvtt obfervation or correftion. With refpeA to the marginal numbers and the marks in the text, errors abound in Stephens's edition. To fet this matter in a clear light, I will give a collation of two pages of the Apoca- lypfe 176 — 177. In thefe two pages Ste- phens's margin omits eighteen various areadings of the Complutenfian edition, and notes nineteen. Of thefe nineteen two are inaccurate and two palpably falfc. Three times the femlcircle which ought to deter- mine the quantity of text is omitted, and in a fourth paflage it is at leafl once mifplaced, for it is twice printed. Tvyenty-fix * faults in the compafs of two pages ! In Apoc. XV". 2. "«« is marked as wanting in two copies, whereas x«« is extant in thofe copies and the four following words h roZ x'^pxyixxro^ «Jtou are wanting. If then Stephens could, as I have proved, place both his obelus and femicircle wrong, I am furely very moderaSfe, when I only contend for half of this miftake in a cafe of neceffity. I am certain at leaft, that the tremulous ball of orthodoxy mujl be aimoft invi- * Twcnty-feven. See Poftfcrlpt, Jtbk^ [ 8^ ] JiUe, if it vibrates within the narrow limits * of this momentous femicirde. " But Stephens ought to have cotrefted this miftake, if it was a miftake, in his errata." Yes, to be fure he ought; fo he ought to have corre£led many otherSjfome of which I have mentioned; but he has not done it, and therefore no particular rea- fon obliged him to do it here. The tranfpofi- tion of a flop or a miftake in orthography, is eafily redified ; but thofe errors, which are in truth of the greateft confequence, are at the fame time moft difficult to detect, a fophil- ticated text or a falfified margin. It was full as eafy to mifplace a femicircle as a comma, for they are nearly of the fame fize and fhape, and are frequently confounded in Stephens's edition; but if the femicircle were mifplaced, it might elude all difcovery, unlefs the edi- tor either carried all the various readings in his memory, or virould undertake the pleafing tafk of performing the whole collation anew. In fliort, when we confider, that thefe {^veii manufcripts of Stephens, on the one fup- pofition give a reading which has never been * Gibbon, Vol. II. p. 253. 4to. III. 335. 8vo. G found [ 8. ] found in any manufcript, Greek or Latin ; that they defrroy the antithefis between heaven and earth, which the context, if the verfe were genuine would plainly demand ; that Stephens often mifpiaced his marks ; that no manufcript can now be found in the library to which Ste- phens returned his manufcripts that exhibits this reading ; while on the other hand, if we only fuppofe a fingle femicircle wrong placed, we fliall have a text agreeing with all the other Greek manufcripts, or at lead: with more than one hundred ; when we add to this, that Wetflein found at Paris five manufcripts, which agreed with five of Stephens's manu- fcripts in other places, but here contradidled his margin, none will hefitate to pronounce, that Stephens's copies followed the herd, and omitted the feventh verfe, except only thofe, who by a diligent perufal of Tertullian have adopted his maxims of reafoning, and meafure .the merits of their affent by the abfurdity * of the propofition to be believed. * Crucifixus eft Dei filius ; non pudet, quia puden- dum eft : et mortuus eft Dei fiHus : prorfus credibile eft, quia ineptum eft ; et fepultus refurrexit; certum eft, quia impoffibile eft. Tertullia J de Came Chrifti. 5. I have [ 83 ] 1 have already quoted the paffage from Beza's preface or dedication, which proves that he had not the ocular infpedion of Ste- phens's MSS. I have likewife proved that Stephens, by his own confeffion, had them no longer in his power in the year 1552. I might therefore fifely difmifs the fubjeft ; but it may poffibly divert the reader to fee Mr. Travis's alacrity in blundering. You fay, that Beza detedts miftakes in R. Ste- phens's collation, whence you argue that Beza had the ufe of the fame MSS. A moft exquifite reafon I Stephens, in print- ing the collation made by his (oa Henry, fometimes committed a mi flake ; Beza, by the help of Henry's autograph, corre6led the miftake.* Is this fo hard to conceive ? It is alfo pleafant to obierve, that Emlyn tries to prove a truth by a falfehood, and that you gravely follow him, pp. 124, 275. For Be- za detects no miftake in the paflage to. which * Diftinguendum inter coliationem accuratam et editi- onetn collationis accuratam : CI. de Maftricht accurate quidem contulit codicem Casr.ireum ; fed coliationem non accurate edidit ; quin plurima fupprcfllt. Wetstein. Proleg. p. 160. ' G 2 Emlyn [ 84 ] Emlyn refers, but |>erfedly agrees with Ste- phens's margin *. But that the reader may fee what fluff has impofed upon fome perfons for irrefragable reafoning, I will tranlcribe a part of your note, p. 124. " It would have been well worth Mr. Emlyn's pains to have apprized us how Beza could poffibly have detedled a miftake of this kind, in Ste- phens's book of collations, unlefs by refort- ing to the m-anufcripts themfelves." If this note did not proceed from the profoundeft ignorance ***** State it in Edglilh, and it will anfwer itfelf. How could Beza detedl a miftake in Stephens's printed collations, but by reforting to the manufcripts from which Stephens printed thofe collations ? P«- det quidem talibus immorari; fed quid facias ? Ut adverf:riifunt, ita morem geras^ et infra te nott' nunquam defcendas necejfe efl. Again, " Beza' fays in other places, ego in omnibus nqftris in- veni. Sic legitur in omnibus, quae quidem mihr infpicerelicuit" 6cc. The former of thefe notes * Nequeex-tantin Complutenfi editrone neque in alio- guodam vetufto codice ex noftris. Beza ad Apoc. I. 11. Eiii'jn underftood it as if it were gu'c^uam. *• •»• Steph. niarg, Beza [ S5 ] Beza had afterwards the modefty to with- draw. As for the other, and any expreffions of the fame fort, we mufl; either fofteii them by a gentle interpretation, or be obliged to fix an imputation upon Beza, which would ill fuit his erudition., and ftill worfe his piety, Beza too is fometimes very lax In his af- fertions. Matth. I. ij. heat firft publifhed from an interpolated 'manufcript of Ste- phens. In his later editions he reftored the common reading; but that he, might feem to have adopted the other upon better grounds and authority than he really had, he goes on, Robertus Stephanus ex vetu/iis codicibus exciidit, &c. Now R, Stephens did never fo print it in his text, but only puts it in his margin as the reading of one fingle manufcript. Such was Theodore Beza's good faith and exa£tnefs in facred literature ! Befides, any impartial reader will be convinced by the conduit of Beza himfelf with regard to this verfe, that he had not the immediate ufe of Stephens's manufcripts. For having written in his firft and fecond editions, legimus et nos in nonnullis, he afterwards changed his tone, and in the fuppeecjiilg impreflions only fays, extat in mn^ Q 3 nuMi:S% I 86 ] nullis. How meek and modeft ! Such a fweet tempered man as Beza, armed with the au- thority of fo many manufcripts, would noC have thundered his anathemas agairift the fefquiheretic * Erafmus for wrefting the capital texts out of the hands of the faithful. In- ftead of charging the oppofers of this verfe with aflifting the devil, he is fo faint-hearted in his later editions, as to hint a doubt whe- ther the feventh verfe ought not to be ex- punged. If we may believe you, .Sir, pp. 130, 275, R. Stephens himfelf exprefsly declares^ that he had lent Beza the manufcripts, which be (Stephens) formerly ufed. I wifh you would pay a little attention to the truth of your fails, and not quote books without con- fulting them. Stephens is fo far from affirm- ing what you put into his mouth, that upon an attentive perufal, he would appear to af-' firm the direft contrary. His words are, S^nod ad exemplar la aitmel — funt autem cum alia turn ea omnia qua' in regis Gallorum bibliotheca extant, ^c. If they were then in the French * Attuli Novum Teftamentqm ab Eraftno verfum. Ab Eiajmo ? Aiunt ilium elTey^/'^^ai-hsreticum. Eras- mus Colljq. Adolefcentis et Scorti. King's [ 8; ] King's library, how could Beza have them at Laufanne ? If Stephens had kept them and lent them to Beza, he would have ex- prefled himlelf in this manner: — ^.a- ex regis G. b. utenda habui — ^/r ex regis G. h. mihi precat io data funt. Having at lafl: difcufled the lubject of Stephens and Beza's orthodox ma- nufcripts, I am compelled to decide (with forrow I pronounce it !) that they have dif- appeared ; perhaps they were too good for this world, and therefore are no longer vifible on earth. However, I advife the true believers not to be dejedted ; for (ince all things loft from earth are treafured vip in the lunar fphere, they may refb aflured, that thefe va- luable relics are fafely depofited in a fnug cor- ner of the moon, fit company for Conftan- tine's donation, Orlando's wits, and Mr, Travis's learning. Postscript. Though I am almofl afhamed to have wafted fo many words upon fo plain and eafy a fubjeft as Stephens's man afcripts, I cannot forbear offering fome fai ther obfervations. G 4 The [ 8S ] The beatity of Stephens's" edition is fuch, that it dazzles the eyes of the ignorant be- holder, and this circumftance, joined to the vulgar but erroneous perfualion that Ste- phens's editions are free from typographical errors, naturally creates a flrong prejudice in favour of its correftnefs. But all the learned are agreed, that fcarcely any critical benefit can be derived from it, For inftead of giv- ing an accurate and particular defcription of his manufcripts ; what parts of the N. T. every one contained ; where it was mutilated or defective ; what was its probable age, &c. he leaves us to gather information vi^here we can find it. However, if he had fcrupuloufly noted all the various readings in his margin, and attributed each to its proper parent, we might by a careful comnarifon of the exter- nal authority fince produced, and the Intrin- fic goodnefs or badnefs of the readings, form a tolerable judgment upon the antiquity and merits of his manufcripts. But inftead of doing this, h? has favoured us with only a part of the various readings, (probably leis than half) and has frequently fet down a reading as from one manufcript which be- longed [ 89 ] longed to another. Of thirteen hundred va- rious readings of the Complutenfian edition, he has omitted fev«n hundred ; of four upon the moft curious place of the whole N. T. he has omitted three. Since therefore he has been fo negligent of a printed book, it is ut- terlyun likely that he fhould take more pains with his manufcripts, the majority of which were lefs eafy to read. Again : in his folio, edition, Stephens was fo fervilely addicted to Erafitius (fee Mill, Pro!, p. 126) that though he follows his manufcripts only in thirty two places, and the Complutenfian in thirty one, he follows Erafmus's fifth edition in ninety- nine I Surely then an edition to which he pays much more deference than to any other fingle authority, might deferVfe a place in his margin, when he deferts it. To what motive fhall we afcrjbe Stephens's obftinate filence ? I am inclined to think, he was afraid of ac- knowledging himfelf indebted to an heretic for any afliftance in facred critlcifm. Thus much may ferve for omiflions. To the ex- amples of error that 1 have produced in the body of my letter, I {hall now add a few more. John XVI. 14. If Stephens's margin be cor- rca [ 90 ] rede, feven of his copies read >.a.y.^dm for A»i4'£-ra(. Let Mr. Travis believe fo if he hkes ; but every body elfe will quickly fee that the marginal note belongs to x»ii|/£t«j in the next verfe. Aft IX. 31. a reading which mani- feftly belongs to one and the fame manufcript is fplit into two, and the parts given to dif- ferent copies. Two of the proofs that Martin and Mr. Travis bring againfl Le Long carry internal evidence againlt themfelves from the very order of the numbers. A£l. XXV- 14. a. la. 7). XIII. 15. "^- ">'- Upon the firft I have nothing to propofe ; the fecond ought, I be- lieve, to be, ^' >. ics. for thefe three manu- fcripts agree together in the fame chapter once againfl: all Stephens's other authorities, and once againft all but the Complutenfian. The. fame number is twice repeated in the margin of Apoc. XII. 2. a. (£. (£. (read «. <£. is-.") Nor is this edition |free (however that filly fancy has gained credit) from the moft glaring ty- pographical errors. Thus pages 212 and 2 1 3 are numbered 213 and 214, and in the run- ning titles of pages 85 and 212, MAT©, is printed for MAPK. and ETArr. for nPAHElS. Adts iX. 24. TO TTuAaj ill the text ; i Cor. XVI. 14' [ 91 ] 14.. a> ya"!-*? is violently rent afunder, as I have here reprefented it. I have counted above forty places where the femicircle is omitted ; fometimes neither the obelus nor the femicir- cle appear ; Rom. XVI. 24, Gal. 1 4. Some- times neither figure of reference nor femicir- cle ; John XI. 30. Afts V. 33. VII. c,^. Sometimes the text direfts us to the margin, for a various reading, where the margin is filent; Mark XIII. 19. Apoc, XVI. i. Some- times the femicircle is twice printed ; i Cor. VII. '^2)'' -Apoc. II, 7. Sometimes the figure of reference is mifplaced ; Rom. XIII, 3. Apoc. II. 20. (corre£t my former collation, p. 29.) XXI. 6. XXII. II. fometimes the femi- circle ; Matth. V. 48. XI. 23. Adl. VII. 21.* &c. fometimes both the figure and femicircle : Act. I. 26. Yet none of thefe miftakes are reftified in the errata, where Stephens has been Jo painfully accurate, according to Mr. Travis, p, 58, 123, as to fet. commas and points exadly right, If then thefe plain and * Gal. IV. 3 V. the femicircle is placed atter the word e^EfG/pa;, which Ought to follow "«( in the nex;t verfe V. I. The fame mifiake for which we coptend in i Joha V. 7- palpable [ 9^ ] palpable faults, moft of which are fuch as the fmalleft fhare of knowledge or attention would be fufficient to detect, if thefe could efcape Stephens or his corredtor, how much more eafily might they mifs the error of this reference, for the djfcovery of which a good memory, a ftrong judgment, or a painful attention was necefiary ? But fuppofing that R. Stephens, or any other editor, had affirmed in exprefs terms, that he pofleffed feven manufcripts of the Catholic Epiftles, in which was read the verfe, I John, V- 7, except the words iv tu? mpava?, who would be bound to believe him ? This ground is fo fmooth, eafy and pleafant, that the defenders of the faid verfe are per- petyally pacing it over. After judicioufly im- proving a marginal abbreviation into a folemn and formal alTeveration, which muft irrevo- cably decide the charader of R. Stephens for honefty and veracity, they deafen us by bawl- ing in our ears old fcraps of fermons againft the crying fin of uncharitablenefs. For my own p;irt, I declare, that let any editor affirm, as pofitively as he will, that he has feveri manufcripts of an anciaiit author, confepting; [ 93 ] in a certain reading; if an hundred manu- fcripts of the fame author being afte,\v.i,da collated are found all to agree in another read- ing, and ic x'ltradift the fuppofed feven ma- nufcripts ; whatever may be fuch an editor's general reputation for veracity, I (hall cer- tainly reje£t his teftimony in this particular, either as a miftake, or (if his indifcreet friends will fuffer no compromife) as a wilful and deliberate untruth. fivSolfj-nv uUvto; «' ntv vi-csi^onv a.xo\jriv. In Horace, A. P. 65, pa/us has its fecond fyllable made (hort, contrary to a known canon, and the conAant ufage of all good Latin poets. And to render the cafe quite defperate, Servius and Prifcian expreflly cite the verfe for an example of this extraor- dinarv licence. What fays Theodore Mar- ciliiis to all this ? He produces, if we may take his word for it, ibe true reading from ancient parchmentsof Horace and Prifcian. Upon which Bentley obferves, frenue frontem perfricare Theodoruin Marcilium, in plain Englift, tloat he is animpudent liar. And to Bentley 's fentence of condemnation, every perfon will fubfcribe, except Mr. Travis and his profelytes, wrhofe literary candour and Chriflian charity will fuffer them [ 9+ ] them to think evil of none but neretics* Ego hulc tejii, et'iamji jurato, qui tarn manlfejio fumos •vendit, me Jion crediturum ejfe confirmOi (Mofheira in Horfley's Trafts, pp. 159, ^SSt 489.) But I have no obje61:ion to put the debate upon a ihorter ifTue. I will acknow* ledge the probability of Stephens's margin being right in this place, if another paffage in the whole N. T. can be found, wherever three of his manufcripts agree with each other, and differ from every copy fince examined. Twelve years before the appearance of Ste- phens's firft edition, his father-in-law, Simon Colinaeus, publifhed the Greek Teftament. Both Mill and Wetftein allow triat he faith-^ fully followed his manufcripts, and Wetftein candidly vindicates him from Mill's harlh cenfure of raflinels and prefumption, rightly obferving, that ColinEUs had few guides to follow, and that his poverty, not his will, was to blame. Thefe manufcripts, however, whe- ther good or bad, many or few, omitted I John, V- 7 ; and confequently Colinaeus leaves it out of his edition. If Colinaeus bor- rowed his manufcripts from the royal library, they mufl have been fome of thofe that were after- [ 95 ] afterwards ufed by his fon-ia-law. If they were his own or lent him by his friends, ftill it is moft probable that Stephens knew of them, and endeavoured to procure them for the fervice of his own edition. But if any manufcript of Colinaaus containing the Catho- lic Epiftles was afterwards ufed by Stephens, fince that manufcript certainly was deftitute of the three heavenly witnefies, it will furnifh a new proof, if proof be wanted, of the ivrong pofition of the lemicircle, in this me- morable fentence of Stephens's edition. The freedom with which I have treated that great work (as Air. Travis calls it, p. 129) may perhaps difpleafe fome of Stephens's ido- laters ; but the invidious praifes that have been heaped upon it by ignorant or interefted perfons, have extorted thefe unpalatable truths. The early editions * of the N. T. confidered as the publications of critics, are for the moft part worfe executed than editions of profane authors, and owe their chief value either to their fcarcity or fplendour. But when I pafs * See Mr. Griefbach's preface to tlie fecond volume of his N. T. p. 13 — 29. this t 96 ] this cenfure, I find fault not with the men, but with the times. They did not then poA lefs, nor if they had pofleffedj would they have known how to employ, the material that have fince been difcovered. Of Beza's edition it is needlefs to faly more. As a critical work it has very little merit* Ignorant of the true ufe of various readings, he feldom mentions them but to fupport his own hypothefes ; to which godly purpofe he warps both text and interpretation. He makes his commentary (as indeed he partly boafts himfelf) a vehicle for abufe upon Origen, Erafmus, and Caftalio ; efpecially the latter ; againft whom he indulges, * xvithout rejlraint^ the exquijite rancour of theological hatred. I have faid thit the words in ccelo are omit- ted in no Latin manufcript, though Martin, I know, tells us (Verite, p, 1 70.) that thofe ■Words are marked in Hentenius's edition 1547, £9 wanting in five manufcripts. It feems to be the fate of this + marvellous text, to lead * Gibbon, Vol. II. p. 284. 4to. III. 377. 8vo. t Martin. both [ 9y ] both friends and fqes aftray. For Slmoa himfelf, fpeaking of the edition of 1547, fays, that it commits the fame error as Ste- phens's Greek, and marks only the words In ccelo as wanting in five manufcripts, inftead of marking the whole verfe. Whether Mar- tin was mifled by Simon or coined the en or out of his own brain, I know not ; but I know, that unlefs there are different copies of Hentenius's edition, which I hardly be- lieve, Simon's affertion is totally falfe. For in the copy that I h.we feen, the whole feventh verfe is comprehended between the obelus and the femicircle. Nor could it be otherwife. Hentenius's lift of manufcripts includes the very Latin copies that Stephens had collated. Since, then, four of Stephens's manufcripts did certainly omit the whole feventh verfe, it was no lefs certain that, whatever Hentenius's margin may feem to fay, Hentenius himfelf meant to extend his marginal reference to the fame quantity of text. Perhaps Simon con- founded a republication of the book with the original edition. For the Antwerp edition of 1570, omits both obelus and femicircle; H the [ ?8 ] the Lyons edition 1573, P^^^ces this mark J, which anfwers to the femicircle in other edr- fions, after the words in ccelo : the Antwerp edition 1 572, thus reprefents the text, *■ in cceloy- and in the margin has this note "5. But thefe miftakes are fet right in Lucas ^ur- genfis's edition, Antw. 1574, 1583. Martin Ibmewhere fays, if I recoUedl, that Heii- tenius's edition 1565, omits the words mccelo, but I believe him miftaken. From thefe fadts it feems to me a certain conclufion, that Robert Stephens might eafily mifplace his femicircle upon this verfe, when we fee rn two other editions the felf fame error com- mitted in the very fame words. Still, if Mr. Travis wiflies to catch at a twig that may fave him from finking, I will be charitable enough to dire£l him to R. Stephens's Latin edition of 1545, but I expeft his thanks for the information. In that edition Robert has printed two verfions, which he calh the Old and the New ; the Old is the received Vulgate^ the New is a tranflation from the Greek, made by Robert, or by fome learned man under his infpedion. The Old, as might be expeded. t 9') ] expected, retains i John, V. 7 ; the New difmiffes it from the text with ignominy, but puts a ftar after iejlimonium dant *, and adds in the margin, " * Pater verbum et fpi- ritvis fandus et hi tres unum funt. Et tres funt qui teftimonium dant in terra fpiritus, &c. fie legunt quaedam exemplaria Gra;ca." Bengelius referring to this edition fays ; *' Latina Stephani biblia lunulam fuo loco ex- hibent, et difertam in margine habeut an- notationem : Sic kgimt (fcil. in coslo Pater, reUqua) quaedam exemplaria Gr^eca Britannicus NEMPE codex et Complutenjis juxta Hieronymi leEiionem *. Nullum alium habuit queni citaret." But De Miffy (Journ. Brit. IX. p. d-^ taking Bengelius's explanation for Stephens's own words, bewildered himfelf in hunting for an edition that never exifted. Now, if we put this marginal note to the torture, it will fpeak at leaft, and confefs that fome of its mafter's Greek manufcripts omitted the words in ccelo ; for, upon adding the text and the margin together, they will cxaftly make up two verfes, bating thofe two * N. B. Bengelius's words are printed in the Italic cha- raSer as I have here reprefented them. H 2 words. t 106 ] Vrords. If Mr. Travis be fo cruel as to f urfl agalnft me the point of the weapon with which I now prefent him, I muft fhieid my- felf with Stephens's formal preference of the Greek copies that receded the verfe to tbofe which retained itv LET- C '01 ] LETTER V, SIR, X ASSURE you that I lay a grievous tax upon my patience, when I condefcend to throw away a few Tines upon the Greek manufcripts, fuppofed to belong to the Lout vain divines, In your firft edition you were pleafed, p. 13, to quote their words jn this manner : '* The reading of this tejft is fup-? ported by very many Latin copies, and alfo by iwo Greek copies produced by Erafmus, one In England, the other in S^ain. We have, ourfehes, feen Jeveral others like thefe. This verfe is alfo found," &c. For this quotation you refer to Simon, Hift. des Verf. c. II. But in your fecond edition, p, 323, a fhort; fentence is added ; *' The King's Bible agrees with the Spanijh manufcript in this paffage^ as well as in every other. IVe have ourjelves^^' ^c. Martin had omitted the fam? fentence, H 3 ^i » [ I°2 ] you implicitly copy him. To fay the truth, iiotwithftanding all my candour, of which I have told you fo pften, that it is impoffible for you either to doubt or forget it, this place made me almoft fufpe£l that worthy old gen- tleman's iincerity. For he argues from the clofe connection of the two lentences, that the Louvain divines can only mean manu- fcripts, by the words " feveral others," Ces dodieurs parloient des manufcrhs — dire done la- dejfus et tout d'une suite, " nous en avons iiu plujieurs autres Jemhlabks^'' neji ce pas dire, qu'ihavoient vu plujieurs autres manufcrits Grecs ? Martin rightly refers to Simon, c. 1 1, but you. Sir, in evil hour took the Arabic for Roman numerals, and referred to c, II. What a quantity of belief fome men have ! Can the Roman Catholics Ihew fuch a faith as Mr, Travis's, who believes the infallibility of every individual, author, tranflator, tranfcriber, or printer, that is not tainted with herefy. But let us look at the Latin of the Louvain divines (or rather of Lucas Brugenfis.) Lati- norum librorum plurimi fuffragantur, quibus cou' feniientes duos Gracos codices, unum Britannicum, okerutri Hifpanicum, Erafmus profert ; HifpanicQ T *^3 1 K? nbique et h'lc conformh ejl Regius ; midtm aim his confonantes vidimus. Since editions as well as manufcripts are here called by the general name of codices (for Hifpanicus codex, which you have tranfubftantiated into a Spanifh inanufcript, is the Complutenfian edition, and Regius Montanus's edition, which in this paf- iage exatSliy agrees with the Complutenfian) none but fuch quickfighted critics as you and Martin could have made the next words, multos aFm, iignify manufcripts. The pro- per conftruftion of the fentence is this : Moft Latin manufcripts agree in this reading, to- gether with Erafmus's Britifh Greek manu- fcript, the Complutenfian and INlontanus's editions, and many others that we have feen. If a fhadow of doubt can ftill remain, it will vanifli when we learn that Lucas Brugenfis publifhed his annotations in 1580, 4to, fe- parately, and afterwards in folio, fubjoined to the edition of 1583. The note upon i John, V. 7, in both thefe editions is nearly the fame in fubftance with the note already quoted, but varies confiderably in the words- He there exprefles himfelf in fo plain a man- ner, that I fhould be amazed how Martin, H 4 bi^ot [ 104 ] biscot as he was, could refill: fuch evidence when it was laid before him by Emlyn, un- lefs I knew what wonders obftinacy and pre- judice can perform, ^od pro textus leSlione facit, cut Gneca Complutenjis editio et qvm ex ea fimt, cum aliis quas vidimus non paucis con-^ fonant. Take another fpecimen of obftinacy, Martin ftoutly denies that the Louvain divines meant to infnuiate any doubt concerning Ste- phens's femicircle by the words, itiier omnes Siepbani codices, ne untis eft qui dijjideat^ nift quod Jeptem duntaxat rl in coelo confadiunt, si tamen SEMICIRCULUS LECTIONIS DESIGNANS TERMI- NUM sue LOCO SIT COLLOCATUS. And yoii. Sir, feem to be of the fame opinion with your principal, by breaking off your tranflation at the word confodiunt. The Louvain divines therefore hzvt affirmed'^' nothing about Greek, nianufcripts, and there is no need of difprov- ing what was never affirmed. Make room there for the Irifh evidence ! His teftimony, like your Vi the C ^^7 ] the fame word is omitted in four of his own examples from the Latin writers, p. 28 — 31. The conclufions which I draw from thefe fa£ls are, i . That the Codex Britannicus is the MS. now called Dublinenfis or Mont-* fortius. 2. That it contains the controverted paffage tranflated in a bungling manner from, the modern copies of the Vulgate. For the om.iffion of the final claufe of the eighth verfe is peculiar to them. 3. That it was probably written about the year 1520, and interpolated in this place for the purpofe of deceiving Erafmus, This hypothefis will explain how it fo fuddenly appeared when it was wanted, and how it difappeared as fuddeiily after having atchieved the glorious exploit for which it was deftined. It might have been hazardous to expofe its tender and infantine form to barbarous critics, They would per- haps have thrown brutal afperfions upon its charafter, frpm which it might never have recovered, The frefhnefs of the ink and materials might then have led to a dete£tion of the impoilure ; hut time would gradually render fuch an event lefs probable in itfelf, and lefs hurtful in its confequences, J 3 \ ihaU [ ii3 ] I fhall pafs over in filence the fhameful attacks on Erafmus, pp. 145 — 147, 348; where inftead of accounting for his condudt from his natural timidity, and the violent clamours of his enemies, you make it fpring from fheer Arianifm, villainy and hypocirify. Whoever fairly confiders the temper of the times, and the peculiar fituation of Eraf- mus, will find much greater reafon to applaud his fuicerity than to cenfure his prudence. La Croze, a profeffed Trinitarian (though, I fear,* (the leaven of Arianifm fermented with' in his mind) affirmed that the Berlin manu- fcript was copied from the Complutenfian edition. Mais [M. Travis] femble faire peu de cas du jugement de M. La Croze. Cela ne fed pas mal h quiconque fait grand cas de celui de M. Martin +• In confequence of this per- fuafion, you retail Martin's reafon s of ftraw ; the firft of which is, that the Eleftor pur- chafed the rnanufcript for 200 crowns. This, it muft be owned, proves the antiquity * Compare p. 146 with p. 162. t De Mifly, Journal Brit. IX. p. 78. 9f [ 1^9 ]: of the manufcrlpt not lefs clearly thantne expences of Cardinal Ximenes prove the learn- ing, diligence, and fidelity of his illujirious congregated divines; (pp. 179, 183) not lefs clearly than the immenfe price that the Duke of Lauderdale paid for Captain Thornton's bible *, proves the genuinenefs of that bible. a.Hendreichius, SaubertuSjTolliuSjJablonfki, Spanheim, believed it ancient. Did thefe five men, or any of them, give their opinion after a careful examination ? Did they perfift in their opinion after doubts to the prejudice of the manufcript had been hinted? When a critic dete(£ls a forgery that has for fome time impofed upon the world, his difcovery cafts no imputation upon thofe learned men who have been hitherto deceived. Befides, if La Croze convinced Spanheim and Hendreichius that the manufcript was a forgery, their conver- lion is inore than equivalent to the hafty opi- nions of fifty others. 3. La Croze affirmed that he had made the matter plain to Martin himfelf, whereas Martin denied that La Croze ever had made it plain to him ; and La Croze * Levfis's I^iftory of Englllh Tranflatjon?, p. 47— 49. ^d, 8vo. I 4 iiever I 1 20 ] never replied ; but left that venerable Senior mafter of the field. I fee no great difagree- ment in thefe aflertions. I take La Croze to mean, that he had given fufficient reafons for his opinion, and that Martin knew of thofe reafons. I believe therefore th^t La Croze was not miflaken in the nature and force of his proofs, but in the nature and force of his patient, whofe cafe would have baffled the united powers of reafon and helle- bore. But why did not La Croze reply ? If his excufe be unfatisfaclory, as given by Wetftein, Prol. p, 59, and by you, p. 165, take his own words from the Journal Britan- nique, XI. p. 90. Le ban homme M. Martin, navoii aucun gout n'l auciin merite critique. Le reJpeSi quefai cru devoir a fon age et hfoncarac- iere ma emp^che de lui repondre. II auroit mieux fait de fe meler de precher. 4. Thus far you have only been fkirmifiiing. Now you pre- pare for a deciiive aftion,. " The Berlin ma- nufcript is not a tranfcript from the Complu- tenfian edition, becaufe it differs in many places." Martin had occupied the fame ground, and to maintain it, had intrenched himfelf in twenty-three choice examples, twelve of which you borrowed in your firfl edition. I ^21 ] f edition, without confulting the Complutenfian. In your fecond edition, either by the fuggeftion of a friend or your own collation, you detected two miftakes adopted from Martin, and the lift of examples dwindles to ten. However, Mr. Travis's arguments are like the Sibyl's books ; they contain information of equal truth, and they increafe in value by the diminution of quantity. One of the examples is fo im- portant that I cannot help quoting it. " Iti [Matth.] VI. 13, the Complutenfian edition has t\ie doxology complete — of which the Berlin manufcrlpt has not a fingle word." Thus you had faithfully tranfcribed froni Martin in your firft edition, p. 76. Now the Complutenfian edition (as you have fines learned) omits the doxology in the text, and gives the reafons for this omiffion in the mar- gin. Would not a writer, who had any re- gard for the public or for his own charafter, upon the difcovery of fuch a mlftake, blot out the whole fentence ? You, Sir, In your ■fecond edition, p, 167, repeat the falfhood with unblufhing foreheaid, fet down the fame aflertion, and qualify it with this elegant note : *' This doxology flands in the margin of the Complutenfian Tei^ament." The argument then [ 122 ] then is, by your own confeffion, either falfe or trifling, and proves nothing but the ignorance or prsvarication of its owner. But fome ■writers feem to be incapable of diftinguifti- ing text from margin, originals from tranfla- tions, or manufcript's from editions. Let the reader attend to the next obfervation ; for the words of the wife, fays John Dennis, are precious. " In eight of thefe examples this manufcript agrees with one or more of the manufcripts of Robert Stephens ; in one example with a manufcript of Cafaubon ; in two with the Codex Montfortius ; in one with the manufcripts of Saubertus ; in three with the celebrated manufcript of Cambridge ; and in the laft example with the ftill more cele- brated manufcript of Alexandria." From all which you mod logically infer, p. 169, *' THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BeRLII^ MANUSCRIPT TO BE A TRANSCRIPT FROM THE COMPLUTENSIAN EDITION." HoW per- verfe muft thofe men be, that can withftand i'uch a proof! But to ftrip the unbelievers of all defence, Mr. Zoellner is at hand in the appendix, p. 56, with fix frefh examples. And yet Joth as I am to diffept from Mr, Travis, C 123 ] Travis, I am .here compelled to 'it by the reafons which La Croze and Mr. Griefbach (Symbol. Crit. . p. clxxxi — cxcii.) have given for the contrary opinion. I fhall only mention feven or eight. 1. The Berlin manufcript has all the marks of novelty, fuch as frefh chalk, parchment, (ink not pale from its antiquity,, but its natural weaknefs, ' adds La Croze,) &c. Mr. Zoellner, who, to fay the truth, fpeaks more like an advocate than like a judge *, con- feffes that thefe appearances are fuf- picious, and makes a very feeble anfwer, the amount of which is, that in his opinion a manufcript of Suetonius, written in 1472, looks rather younger than even the Berlin manufcript. 2. The characters refemble no manufcript whatever that has yet been feen, but are very like the types of the Complutenfian edition. * Dixerit forfan codicis Raviani fautor — ^Nec tamen hie elabendi rima codicis Raviani defenfortbus deeft, P- 54' 59- - 3- It O' It Is written without accents and fpirits. It ought, therefore, to be above a thoufand years old. But as I fup- pofe you will fcarcely believe it to be quite fo old (though I am far from wifhing to flint you in your faith) I ihall conclude that it is a copy of the Complutenfian edition, which is alfo deftitute of accents and fpirits. Though La Croze calls it a tran- fcript, even to the faults of the im- prefiion, yet critics, as De Miffy ob- ferves, never expert fuch a conformity as there is between ten and twice five ; becaufe it is next to Impoffible to tran- fcrlbe a book fo large as the New Tef- tament without making many devi- ations. But you and Martin taks it for a firfl principle, that no book can be copied from another, unlefs both agree exa<£lly in every word, fyllable, letter, and comma. A general and remarkable likenefs is allowed; and that, as I have more than once obferved, is in thefe cafes reckoned fufllicient. Sii^ce La Croze fiippofdsi t «^5 ] fuppofes the impofture to bethejoiitf product of fraud and folly, it is no wonder that differences from the original are occafionally found, fome the offspring of knavery and fome of ignorance. 6. Thefe differences are ftrewed more plentifully through the Gofpel of Matthew than any other part of the book. Who perceives not the drift of this contrivance ? That if any mo- rofe critic fhould chance to collate the manufcript with the Complutenfian edition, he might be deceived by the •apparent variation before he had ex- amined too far. Nempe collide Jibi pro- Jpexit impo/ior, ut in quovis N.- 'T. libra — in promtu ejfei locus unus et item alter a Complutenfi editione manifejle difcrepans, quo commodum uti pojfet adverfus eos^ quibus frausfuboleret, Atque ob eandem banc caiifam procu! dubio plures Matthceo adfperfa funt leSiiones^ &c. * ''' Griesbach, Symb. Crit. p. cxc. 7. The [ i?6 3 ^k The dlfputed verfe in this manU' fcript exactly reprefents the . reading of the Complutenfian edition ; and, -S. Laftlyt every one of the fixreen dif- ferent readings produced by you and Mr. ZoeHner may be found in the margin of R. Stephens's edition. In fliort, every circumftance favours La Croze's determination, that the Ber- lin manufcript was copied by an ig- norant tranfcriber from the Complu- tenfian edition, with corre£lions here and there interfperfed by his knavilh employer from Stephens's margin. If inftead of the eloquent paragraph which I have quoted above, yon had been content with this fhort and fim- ple exprefiion, " In every one of thefe examples, the Berlin manu- fcript agrees with Stephens's mar- gin," your argument would have re- coiled upon yourfelf, the forgery would have flared us in the face, and the indignant reader would have ex- claimed with Mr. Griefbach, Itaque jam [ 127 ] jam tenetur falfarius, manifejlo ftirto pri- henfus I The calculation at which I hi«ted in my fecond letter, p. 22, is (if that be poffible) falfer and fuller of miftake than the reft of the work. You affert, p. 282, that Wetftein's No. 49, contains only the Gofpel of Mark, when Wetfteln himfelf tells us, that it has alfo fcholia upon the catholic epiftles. Per- haps you think that the reading of the text can never be afcertained from fcholia. If fuch be your notions, why do you not ex- plain them ? You would then believe an ab^ lurdity; now you affert a falfehood. " No. 56 is no more than a collc£lion of fome various readings noted in the margin of a printed book." Is it therefore to be fet afide ? On the contrary, it is at ieaft a good finglc authority. A learned man had collated the catholic epiftles with four manufcripts in the Medicean library, and had marked the vari- ous readings in a copy of Raphelengius'a edition. Since therefore that edition contains the difputed verfe, if the collator had been filent, it would not indeed have been certain that any of his manufcripts agreed with the printed [ 128 j printed text ; (though Martin and yOU would have improved this filence into a demon- stration ;) but lince Wetftein fets down No. 56, as agreeing with the other manu- fcripts, he could not ad thus but upon the adlual information of the margin. In the following fentence, Sir, I muft defire you to chufe between deliberate falfehood znd Jirange rriifapprehenjion;, " Of thefe fixty- five Greek manufcripts Wetftein admits that thofe marked 34, 44, 48, 51, 57, and 58, do exhibit this difputed paflage. Six afiertions and five of them falfe ! Wetftein only ad- iTiits, that No; 34, (rhe Dublin MS.) exhi- bits the difputed paflage. No. 44 fignifies Valla's manufcripts ; and Wetftein is fo far from admitting what you affirm, that he en- deavours to prove (as I have done more at large) exactly the reverfe. Numbers 48, 51, and ^y, he fets down in the lift of manu- fcripts that omit the three heavenly witnefles ; and you rightly obferve (from Mr. Griefbach) in the fifth line preceding this fentence, that No. 58 is a duplicate of No. 22. If then Wetftein admitted that No. 58 retained the three heavenly witnefTes, he would admit that [ *29 ] that No. 22 retained them. But he has fet down No. 22 in the omitting lift. Either therefore yoii poflTefs a copy of Wetftein's edition different from all other copies, and in it thefe important confeffions exift ; or, in five of your fix aflertions, 'Truth and you will be found in twojiories ; and which are we to believe ? I own that politenefs alone would induce me to prefer the lady, even without the magni- ficent charadler that you give her, p. 127, 374, " That flie is all fair and artlefs, uni- form and confiftent, fimple and fincere." Who fhall hereafter doubt of Mr. Travis's Chriftian charity, when we find him thus honeftly doing juftice to his inveterate enemy ? You charge Mr. Gibbon, p, 126, 371, in ex- prefs terms withforging the authority of Gen- nadius. If Mr. Gibbon be guilty of one for- gery, Mr. Travis is guilty oi jive : If a de- fender of Mr. Travis fhould argue, that it is incredible that Mr. Travis fhould wilfully at- tribute to an author opinions, which that author not only never maintained, but which he dlredly oppofed ; In the fame manner, with equal right, may a defender of Mr. Gibbon argue. " But Mr. Gibbon has wilfully mlf- K reprefented [ n° 1 reprefented Gennadius, becaufe his reference is exa(^." Truly I am fo dull as not to per- ceive the conueflion between the two pro- poiitions. Would not the fufpicion be more reafonable, if the reference were general and inaccurate? You, Sir, p. 71, 157, make Montfaucon fay what Moiitfaucon never meant ; and in the fecond edition the refer- ence is exad:. From your own principles, therefore, I might conclude, that you have *' •wilfully (for the reference is too exa£l to allow you fhelter under any fuppofed inadver- tence )■ mif reprefented''^ Montfaucon. Butlfhall fliew you more indulgence. I believe that you caught a detached fentence without confult- ing the fequel. Only remember, that a man who quotes in this negligent manner ftiould be the laft to accufe others of forgery. You end your calculation by telling us, that thirty-one manufcripts have the verfe to fifty that omit it. What only fifty ? Making all poffible dedu£tions from Wetftein's lift, I cannot allow fewer than eighty-fix that omit the verie. But perhaps you have a new fyf- tem of arithmetic as well as a new fyftem of criticifm. Why did you not rather take Mr. Griefbach's . [ ^3^ ] Griefbach's computation ? Becaufe it Increafea the number of heretical manufcripts, and that way madnefs Iks I I muft try, therefore, my- felf to fubftitute a more exadl account of all the Greek manufcripts that have been collated upon this chapter. I dedudl No. 64, one le6:ionary, and two of Stephens's manufcripts that have dlfappeaied. There will then re- main ninety- feven in Mr.Griefbach's lift ; for I myfelf have examined No. 63, and teftify that it omits the paffage. To which add, two of the oldeft manufcripts in die Efcu- rial, infpecled by Edward Clarke*, a ma- nufcript once belonging to Bentley (which.. I have feen in Trinity College library, Cam- bridge) another in Cafley's Catalogue, p. 3, another in the library at Vienna, lately col- lated by Profeflbr F. C. Alter, and ten at Mofcow (one written in capitals) examined by Mr. Matthaii ; the whole number of ma- nufcripts now extant, omitting this marvellous text, amounts to one hundred and twelve. I fliall therefore not hefitate to conclude with * Letters concerning Spain, 410. 1763, p. 133. K 2. Chandler [ 132 ] Chandler (Pref. to Caffiodorus), BengcUus» Wetftein, Mr. Griefbach and many others, that this celebrated verfe exifts in no genuine Greek manufcript whatfoever ; and partly with Mr. Gibbon, that it owes its place in our editions to the prudence of Erafmus ; the honeft bigotry of the Complutenfian editors ; the typographical en-or of Robert Stephens i and the ftrange mifapprehenfion of Theodore* Beza. Postscript. I. I have ftill a fcruple remaining with refpeft to an incidental queftion. Simon quotes the note of Lucas Brugenfis, which Mr. Travis has fo grofly miflaken, as from the edition of 1 5 74. Martin fays, that it is in the preface. I have feen feveral copies of the Antwerp edition of 1574. All thefe were in oclavo ; none of them have notes, nor men- tion this text in the preface. Lucas Bru- genfis too fpeaks in fuch terms (Pref. to his notes dated 1579), as ftrongly imply that they were then publifiied for the firft time. Are there tUcn difierent copies of the fame notes, [ '33 1 notes, and did Simon ufe a copy containing fuch a note upon i John, V. 7, as he has re- prefented ? If that be the cafe, Lucas Bru- genfis feems to have been apprehenfive that he had not exprefled himfelf with fufficient clearnefs, and in confequence of that appre- henfion to have flopped the prefs, that he might alter his note fo as to leave no ambi- guity. But I fhall be thankful to any learned reader, who can explain this difficulty, and either confirm or deflroy my conjedture. 2. That I may fhew my impartiality by cor- reding errors on either fide, I fhall oblerve that De Miffy has fallen into a mifV&ke by too much refinement. The word [Ji,ot^u^ouvTsg in the Dublin MS. has its lafl fyllable written in a contraction, and marked with double points, a circumflance not uncommon in modern Greek manufcripts. But upon this innocent circumflance he founded a falfe accufation againfl the manufcript, that it meant to pro- fcribe the whole fentence from Iv to7 ov^xvm to jKap7uoouvT"(inclufive), as doubtful or fpurious. I have expended fo many lines upon the iden- tity of the Dublin manufcript, and of the Codex Britamicus, merely in obedience to the K 2 canoiTji [ ^34 ] canon, that enjoins us not to enlarge the' number of manufcripts without neceffity. Elfe I would as readily admit as deny their diverfity. For fince they both are manifeflly tranflated from the recent and corrupt Latin copies, the authority of an hundred fuch ma- liufcripts is equal to the authority of one, and the authority of one is equal to no- thing. 3. "\Yhen I fay, in the foregoing letter, that ]VIr. Travis prefers Wetftein's computation to Mr, Griefbach's, the expreffion is inaccurate. He mifrejJtefents them both. He makes a fhew of mentioning Mr, Griefbach's additions in thefe words, " to which Griefbach adds four others." Now befides the manufcripts •which Wetftein conftantly ufes, he appeals, on I John, Y- /> to thofe which were col- lated by Simon, Burnet, Lami, Blanchini, Sec. Thefe make up thirty-one ; to which Mr, Griefbach adds eight. Thefe manu- fcripts, together with the fifty that Mr. Tra- vis gracioufly allows u^, would make eighty- nine. But Mr. Travis, either from hurry or from forgetfulnefs, or from whatever caufe, has tptaliy pegieded thefe aclditional witnefr fes, [ ^3S ] fes. Whatever was the caufe, it certainly was no difhoneft motive. For " to ftate authorities, and to urge arguments on one fide of a queftion alone, is barely tolerable in an hired advocate," p. 125, 370^ ^ake notice, lords, he has a loyal hreaji^ For you have feen him open it. K 4 LETTER [ ^36 1 LETTER VI. SIR, After a long interval, which, I dare fay, has been equally painful to us both, I wait upon you again according to my pro- i-nnj*. Having difpatched the Greek ma- nuicnpts, I proceed to the examination of thofe vcifions of the New Teftament w^hich contain the Catholic Epiftles. You, who with an happy facility contrive to turn the balance in your favour, however the particu- lars may make againft you, tell us, p. 205, 206, that, of the five ancient verfions, the Italic, theVulgate of Jerome, the Syriac, the Armenian, and the Coptic, three, the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Armenian, contain the * Gent. Mag. Aug. 1789. p. 697. difputed [ ^Z1 ] difputed verfe, i John, V. 7. Pray, Sir, where is this Italic Verfion to be found ? Not in MSS. for you fay, that there is not a fuigle MS. of it now certainly known to exift in the world, p. 90. Why, then, muft this verfion be prefl'ed into the fervice ? Be- caufe it is cited by the writers who lived before Jerome. This verfion, therefore, ul- timately refolves itfelf into the authority of thofe writers ; and the number of ancient verfions flirinks into four, unlefs to fill up the vacancy, you will accept my gracious offer of the Sclavonian verfion, to which you ought to have no objedtion, confidering that you have alfo inlifted that into the orthodox army, p. 92, 206. Leaving, therefore, the examination of your quotations from Ter- tullian, Cyprian, ^c. to another letter, I fhall endeavour at prefent to treat of the Vulgate verfion with all poffible brevity. In order to pave the way to this fubjeft, I defire the reader to alk himfelf the following quef- tions : J. Does the Vulgate always clofely follow the Greek, particularly in fcrupulouf- ly guarding agaiuft interpolations ? 2. Do [ '38 ] 2. Do all the MSS. of the Vulgate agree in retaining the three heavenly wit- neffes ? 2- Do all that retain the feventh and eighth verfes of i John V. reprefent them in the fame manner, without any important alterations, omiffions, or additions ? 4. Have the orthodox MSS. the verfe from the hand of the firft writer, without rafures, interlineations, or marginal infertions ? 5. Are they generally the oldeft and beft ? Unlefs thefe queftions can be anfwered in the affirmative, the main prop and pillar of your caufe will be in a very lame and tot- tering condition. For I need not tell you. Sir, becaufe you muft deny, nor need I tell the learned, becaufe they cannot but know, that the chief fupport of this contefted verfe is the authority of the Vulgate. But who- ever has enquired with the leaft fhare of di- licjence into the ftate of the Latin MSS. knows, that not one of thefe queftions can t>e anfwered in the afBrmative. I allow you in advance, that a great ma- jority [ ^39 J jority of the Latin MSS. are oa your fide» Perhaps for one that omits the three hea- venly witneffes, forty or fifty may be found that retain them. I fearched, I confefs, a long while without finding any others ; and, that my readers may be as wife as myfelf, I will give them a collation of fifty MSS, or more, that I had the patience to confult, 1. Of this number thirty-two omit the final claufe of the eighth verfe ; eighteen retain it, but one has it in the text underlined with red lead, two in the margin, one from the firft, the other from a fecond hand. 2. One omits the final claufe of the fe- venth verfe. 3. Two read film inftead of verbum % with which two French MSS. fold by Meff. Leigh and Sotheby, May 2^, 178Q, agree. {It fils^ 4. Two omit the epithet fan£ius. 5. Nine change the order of the verfes ; but of tbefe nine one begins the eighth verfe with et and the leventh with quoniant ; on the other hand, pne MS. that prefer ves the common order, [ I40 ] -order, begins the feventh verfe with et and the eighth with quoniam. 6. The MSS. that retain the claufe of the eighth verfe read invariably either et ires unumjunt, or et hi ires unumfunt. 7. One adds the heavenly witneffes in the margin from the fame hand ; another is fo fond of them^ as to infert them in the text, both before and after the others. 8. 'En terre is wanting in one French MS. and in terra in a Latin MS. at Ulme, quoted by Mr. Griefbach, p. 229. With moft of thefe variations fome MSS. or other, collated by editors and critics, agree. One MS. at Toledo, collated by Blanchini, adds in ChryioJefu'\ which is alfo the reading of the author de Trinitate and the writer againft Varimadus, both publifhed by Chifflet under the name of Vigilius Tapfenfis. You feem. Sir, to acquiefce in Chifflet's judgment. But if you (hall hereafter choofe to make them two diftind: witneffes, my candour is fuch, that I am determined to have no ob- jedion: Th« [ HI ] The fame faithful and judicious writer* againft Varimadus quotes for the earthly vvitneffes in the eighth verfe, aqua^ fanguis, et caro ; and fo reads the margin of a Colber- tine MS. quoted by Simon. If this reading had become fafhionable, it would have pre- vented an objeftion which the heretics have made againft the double mention of the fpirit. The addition In Chrijlo Jefu I take to havQ at firft belonged to the eighth verfe, and to have been written by feme pious perfon who meant thus to explain the verfe ; that the fpirit, the water, and the blood, concur in bearing witnefs to Chriftianity. But when the feventh verfe was framed upon the modet of the eighth, they whofe copies had received this addition, tranfpofed it together with the reft of the claufe to the end of the feventh. One of my reafons for this opinion is, that fome of the MSS. of Ambrofe add thefb words at the end of the eighth verfe. I ftiall take little notice of the trifling oiTiiflion of in before tinum, becaufe I think * See tJie Poftfcript to this Lettec, that that it neither afFefts the fenre of the paftage, nor the credit of the Vulgate. The Greek MSS. from which that verfioii was made, without doubt omitted sk from the" identity of the three precefdifTg letters in t^e^. The prepofition is omitted from the fame caufe in a paffage of Cyril, and in the Greek MSS. of Euthymius Zigabenus*. If all thefe various readings were prefented in one view to any perfon endowed with com- mon fenfe, moderately inftrtli£ted in the prin- ciples of critlcifm, and uninfluenced m the prefent debate by intereft or paffion, he could not help concluding, that the number and importance of the various readings furnifh reafonable ground for a fufpicion of corrup- tion. That a paffage, which fo often adds, omits, or alters particular words ; which now precedes, now follows the unfufpedled parC of the te.\'t ; which is fometimes feen in the , body of the work, fometimes in the margin ; fometimes by the fame, fometimes by a dif- '* Panopl. Dogm. Tit. XII. near the end, fol. 112. «g1. 1. ed. Tergovift. See Mr. Matthai, on the Catholic Epiftles, p. 141— 143. * ferent [ H3 ] ferent hand ; fometimes after a rafure ; which, in fiiort, changes fhapes fafter than Proteus or Empufa ; that fuch a paffage Is exceedingly queftionable, whatever (hape it affumes ; and that, though it were not abfolutely omitted by any MS. an editor might yet hint his doubts, or even avow his difbelief, of its ge- nulnenefs, without juftly incurring the cen- fure oi blafphemy or impiety^. But, allowing that this verfe had been ex- tant in the Vulgate even from the end of the fecond century, and without any of thefe fufpicious appearances, is the merit of this verfion fo high as to ratify and render genuine every word and fentence in which its MSS. confpire ? Was it in no place corrupted In the days of Tertullian and Cyprian ? If we are certain of any reading having conftantly kept its place in the Latin copies, we are cer- tain that they never read otherwife than quod in I Tim. III. 16, inftead of Deus. You, Sir, will probably defend the latter reading ; nor fhall I difpute it. But if we take the liberty * Emlyii's Enquiry is called blafphemotis and impious in the Layman's Addrefs to Convocation, 17 17, p, i8. of [ M4 ] of reje(3:lng the authority of the Vulgate, when it is fo confiftent with itfelf, and fo well fupported as it is upon i Tim. III. 1 6. why naay we not with equal right rejed it, when it is the principal, if not the fole, fup- port of a contefted verfe ? Was the addition of the claufe in i Pet. III. 22, made by the firft; framers of the verfion from the warrant of Greek MSS. ? Yet that has the general confent of the prefent Latin copies. Who- ever undertakes the defence of fuch paflages, may pretend that his aim is to eftablifh the genuine text, but in fail he is exerting all his force to weaken and undermine its au- thority. Thus I (hould argue, if all the MSS. COR- fented in the received reading. I fhould think it an hazardous flap to prefer any verfion to the unanimous confent of all the Greek MSS. now known to exift. Still lefs (hould I ven^ ture to rely upon fuch a verfion, which, by having been more frequently copied, has alfo been more frequently interpolated than any other. The fublidiary ftreams which the river has received in its courfe have neither made the witcit more clear, nor more.whole- fome.. But [ us ] But we are told, p. 42, that, by the com- mand of Charlemagne, Alcuin was employed in a revifion of the Vulgate ; that in Alcuhi's Correftorium " the teftimony of the three heavenly witneffes is read without the fmallefl: impeachment of its aufhenticity ;" and that this very volume was extant at Vauxcelles in the life of Baronius. You then add a fup- pofition (for of fuppofitions you have a plen- tiful ftock), that Alcuin and his afliftants, in order to fettle the text, referred to the Greek MSS. and not only to the Greek MSS. but to the beft and oldeft Greek MSS. fome in all probability as old as the Apoftolical age. A lively fancy. Sir, is an indifferent accomplilh- ment for a critic. You cannot prove that Alcuin ever faw a Greek MS. much lefs that he collated any for the ufe of his edition. The knowledge of Greek was fo fcarce a commodity in thofe days, that the contrary fuppofition, which is expreflly affirmed by Vallarfius*, is much the more probable of the two. It was labour and honour enough for Alcuin to collate the copies of the Vul- gate. Neither can you prove that the MS. * In Blanchini''s Vindicise Veteris Vulgats, p. 328. L at f ^46 1 ^tVauxcelles is the original of Alculn. Fof it is fo cuftomary to tranfcribe titles from older MSS. that the name of the cTorredlor is no proof of the MS* being written by the corrector, or in the fame age. Befides, the ignorance fhewn in orthography* (as Welftein obferves) wonld tempt us to be- lieve that it was written by an unfkilful tran- fcriber of Alcum father than by Alcuin him- felf. You will be delighted, Sir, I doubt not, to hear, that this treajure of inejlimabk va- lue is ftill in being. Blanchini has given a fpecimen of the charader in his Evangelia- rium Quadruplex, from which it appears, as far as I can judge, to be lefs ancient than he would make it. But in thefe matters moft editors are naturally apt to be a little partial. When you lay, that i John V. 7. is found in this famous MS. without the fmallejl m- peachment of 1!^ authenticity, what do you mean by the Jmallefl impeachment ? Would you have * Such, for inftance, as Canoniorum for Canonicarum, iic. Fitall feems to fpeak of another MS. written by Alcuin, and reprefenting i John V. 7. in the fame man- ner ; but wliat he h) s is very obfcure, and therefore I (hall not urge it. the [ H7 ] the writer of the MS. inform his readers, by a marginal note, that he had inferted a fpu- rious verfe in his edition ? An editor would hardly be mad enough to become fuch zftlo defe. But I fhall advance one ftep further, and nnaintain, that this MS. upon which fo much ffrefs is laid, is at leafl: as much againft the verfe as in its favour, t'or how is the verfe read in this MS. ? Not in the text, but in the margin are added thefe words : — SiCUT ires funt qui teJiimoniUm dant in ccelo, pater, •uerbum, et fpiritus fariclus, et ires unum funt. The text has only thefe words, ^oniam ires funt qui teJiimonium dant^ fpiritus, aqua, et fan- guis, et ires unum funt. Between y««/ and ^a* the fame hand has interlined in terra *. Now, Sir, this is fo far from being 2t.fmall impeach- ment of your favourite verfe, that it is a direct and viblent attack upon it : for it plainly fays, that- the Latin MSS. varied ; and it more than hints, that the older furviving MSS. were without the addition of the heavenly vv itnefles. If, then, this MS. was only a copy of Alcuin's * ^;V^/; in Blanchini's Evang. Qiiadr. Parti, p. 56;, L a. 2u4;q- C h8 ] autograph, Aicuiti might be unacquainted with this verfe, though without its aid he believed the doiStrine which it is fuppofed to contain, as appears from his treatife on the Trinity. I have purpofely omitted, in my former account of the various readings, one of the moft important, that J might introduce it here. The reader will eafily guefs that I mean the connexion of the feventh verfe with the eighth by the intervention of sicuT. In three MSS^ that Bp. Burnet faw, the feventh verfe follows the eighth ; and they are pinned together, as the bifliop well expreffes it, by a SICUT. In a MS. at Ulme* the paffage {lands thus : ^ia tres funt qui tejiimonium dant^ fpiritus, et aqua, et fanguis, et tres unum funt, SI cur in ccelo tres funt pater, verbum, et fpiritus^ et tres unum funt. Tills various reading not only gives frefh fufpicion of interpolation, but (hevi^s us the means by which it gradually infinuated itfelf into the text. Whoever duly and attentively weighs this circumftance, will perhaps fee lefs caufe to think the idea of a marginal glofs fo affected and abfurd as * Grtejbach, torn. II, p. 229. Sicut is alfo read in a ]\'i6. of Card. Paffionei. yo^ [ 149 3 you modeftly pronounce it, p. 342. But they who believe things that are impoffible, gene- rally difbelieve other things both poffible and probable. We know for certain that fome of the moft learned and renowned fathers in- terpreted the fpirit, the water, and the blood of the Trinity. Could all the diligent Chriftians who perufed Auguftine, Eucherius, and Fa- cundus, with the intention of extrading ex- planations of fcripture, and noting them in the margin of their bibles — could they all mifs this fagacious interpretation ? Would no member of the churches over which thefe bifhops prefided, approve and endeavour to perpetuate his diocefan's fublime difcovery ? When once fuch a copy exifted, with a mar- ginal note of this fort upon i John V. 8, Sicut tresfunt qui tejiimonium dant in ccelo, pater, verhum, et fpiritusfanSius, et hi tres unum funt ; 4he next tranfcriber, in a, fit of poUtenefs, might think that if this fentence wa^ not text, it deferved to be, and might compli- ment it with a place in the middle of his page. Perhaps you think it an affeSied and abfurd idea that a marginal note can ever creep into the text : yet I hope you are not L3 fo [ I50 ] fo ignorant as not to know that this has actually happened, not merely in hundreds or thoufands, but in rnillions of places. Natura^ iays Daille*, ita comparatum eji, ut auSiorum prohaiorum I'lbros pkrique omnes amplos quani breves malint ; verenies fcilicet, ne quidjibi dejit, quod auSiorh vel ^t vel ejfe dtcatur. To the fame purpofeBengelius-f, Non facile pro fuper- Jluo aliquid hodie habent complures doSii viri (he might have added, omnefque tn^odii) eademqt^e tnente pkrique quondam librarii fuere. Froni this known propenfity of tranfcribers to turn every thing into text which they found writ- ten in the margin of their MSS. or between the lines, fo many interpolations have pro- ceeded, that at prefent the fureft canon of criticifm is, Praferati^r leStio br^vior. I have hitherto b?^n arguing as if all the Latin MSS. had the difputed verfe in fome fhape or other ; which you know. Sir, is no| the cafe. You fay indeed, p. 210, that " there is a greater number beyond ail cornparifon in which this t;ext is found," 1 have already * De Lib. fupp. Dipnyf, et Igoat. II. 3. p, 238. •}■ In Apocalypf. I. 1 1. allowed [ ^51 ] allowed you the full benefit of your majority. Make the moft of this couceffion ; for it would be unkind to deprive you of an acJvanT tage which you fo feldom enjoy. But take care of this argument ; for, if you pufh it too forcibly, it will pierce the heart of your own caufe. If the majority of Latin copies be a good proof that this verfe was early in the Latin verfion, the majority of Greek MSS. is as good a proof that it never was in the original. However, I will make what I think a fair propofal. Produce two a£lually exifting Greek MSS. five hundred years old, containing this verfe, and I will acknowledge your opinion of its genuinenefs to be probable. If you are unable to do this, and I produce you above twenty Latin MSS. all greatly exceeding that age, you cannot, I think, in common decency, refufe to be a convert to my opinion^ Let us then come to the fa£t. There are now exift- ing twenty-nine Latin MSS. in general the oldeft, the faireft, and the moft correft. Wetftein reckons twenty-five, to which Mr. Griefbach adds the Harleian, 1772, and fays, plurefque poji Wetjlenium infpeSlos. I know nothing about any of thefe plures, and there- L 4 fore [ 152 ] fore I fhall make no appeal to them. All thefe MSS. in f John V. inflead of our pre- fent feventh and eighth verfes, give no more than — ^oniam ires funt qui ieftimonium dant*, fpiriius, aqua, et Janguis, et ires unum funi. In the Harleian catalogue. No. 7551 contains three copies of the firft epiftle of John. The firft copy feems to be of the tenth century, the fecond of the ninth, and both omit the heavenly witneffes. In the firft copy the line, as appears from the fpace, originally flood thus; sps, aqua, et Janguis., et ires unum funt. But another hand has erafed the whole fen- tence, and written, fpiritus, fanguis, et aqua^ ftretching out the letters to make them fill the line. In the margin is added, by the fame hand, I fuppofe, that rnade the rafure, in cc^lo paier, verburn, et sps, et ires unum funt, et ires funt qui tefiimonium, dant in terra. After aqua, a third hand (unlefs it were the fecond in a repenting mood) adds, et hi ires unum funt. The fecond copy has the genuine words * If any of thefe MSS. add in terra, as perhaps one or two may, I am content that they be ftrugk off the lift. without 1,^53 ] without any rafure, interlineation, or mar- ginal note. Cafley, in his catalogue, p. 15, gives an account of another Latin MS. agree- ing; with thefe as it was firft written ; but afterwards thus interpolated : ^ia ires funt qui tejlimomum dant '" t^a sps aqua et fangiiis, et ^' tres unumfunt. et tres funt qui teftimonium dant in coelo, pater et fillus, et sps fanftus, et hi tres unum funt. The fame hand has very liberally fcattered corredlions through the reft of the book, fometimes right, but oftener falfe and abfurd. I hope. Sir, by thefe inftances, you will be- gin to perceive that it is at leaft poffible for an interpolation fometimes to gain footing in the text. I fhall trouble you with the men- tion of only one Latin MS. more. Mabillon found at Lifieux, and publifhed, a Gallic* Ledlionary, which is reputed to be now about 1200 years old, and contains the entire epiftle of John, except ^:he three heavenly witneffes. But thefe it barbaroufly omits, and only has ^oniam ires funt qui tejiimonium dant, fpiritusy * Twells and Bengelius, by a ftrange miftake, affirm that this Ledionary was not written in Latin, but in Gallo- Teutonjc. aquUf [ '54 ] Mquai etfanguts, et ires unumfunt. The autho- rity of this MS. cannot but be thought of great weight, if we confider its age ; to which I ihall add another argument in its favour : it omits (fee Mabillon, p. 475) that inter- polation I Pet. IIL 22. from which no other Latin copy, fo far as I know, is exempt. • But, to clofe this long difcuffion, the quef- tion is, To which fide fhall we give credit, to age or to numbers ? On one fide the wit- neffes are grave, elderly perfons, who lived nearer the time when the fad happened which they aflert, and they are all confiftent in their teftimony ; while the other party, though Vaftly fuperior in numbers, yet lived too late to be competently acquainted with the caufe : many carry a brand of perjury on their front ; and, after all their collufion and fubornation, their teftimonies frequently clafh, and con- tradict one another. In fhort, the few Latin MSS. that reje£l theverfe, are as much fupe- rior to the herd of incorredt and modej^n copies that retain it, as a fmall well-trained band of foldiers to a numerous rabble -defti- tMte of dlfcipline and unanimity. Postscript. [ ?55 ] Postscript. Abbot Joachim coiupared the final claufes of the feventh and eighth verfes, whence he inferred, that the fame expreffiou ought to be interpreted in the fame manner. Since there- fore, faid he, nothing more than unity of tefliimony and confent can be meant by ires Mnumfunt in the eighth verfe, nothing more than unity of teftimony and confent is meant in the feventh. This opinion the Lateran council and Thoqias Aquinas confuted by cutting out that claufe in the eighth verfe. Thomas tells us, that it vi^as not extant in the true copies^ but that it vfd^sfdid to be added by the Arian heretics to pervert the found underftanding of the foregoing authority* My blood boils whenever I think of thole facrilegious Arians, fometlmes forging and fometimes erafing fcripture. Thus Thomas Aquinas tells us, that they werejaid to have added this claufe. Bugenhagius thinks they inferted the whole feventh verfe. Yet fome part of my indignation is involuntarily di- verted to the holy fathers of the church, who [ ^$6 ] who feem to have been in a fleep approachuig to a lethargy, while the enemy came and fowed the tares. In taking the method above- mentioned, the Lateran council, it is true, followed Dr. Ovid's advice, immed'tcabik vul- nus Enfe reddendum, ne pars sinceha tra- HATUR. But if they had given their minds to good reading, they would have found in the treatile againft Varimadus an ealy way of curing the wound that Joachim had made jn the common faith, without having recourfe to the defperate procefs of amputation. For the author of that treatife, as if he had fore- feen, and meant to confound, the ftratagems of the Arians, thus quotes the paffage from "j the epiftle to the Parthians ;" 'There are three that bear record on earth, the water, the Mood, and the flesh, and the three are in us ; and there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and they three are one. What would then have become of Joachim's argument ? LETTER [ ^S1 ] LETTER VII. SIR, You will perhaps accufe me of a capital negle£l, in not taking notice of your argu- ment from the Prologue attributed to Jerome, the author of which boafts to have reftored* this verfe from Greek MSS. I confefs that I was rather doubtful in what clafs of proofs I Ihould place the Prologue ; but at laft I thought it more properly belonged to the head of quotations. I fliall therefore treat of it in my review of the pious Jerome. In the mean time, the next verfions upon our lift are the Syriac and Coptic, which I intend to make the joint fubjecls of this letter. * Mr. Travis quarrels with the word rejiored, p. 51, 105, " becaufe," fays he, « the verfe was never loft." Surely an editor may be faid to rejiore a paffage, that was only in a part of the copies, and confequently in danger of being loft. Y ou [ 158 ] You and MarHn find the teftimony of thefc Verfions fo unfavourable to your caufe, that you are refolved, at all events, to demolifh their authority; But the heat of a prejudiced accufer often hurts himfelf more than the party accufed. Your eagernefs to difable the credit of the Syriac and Coptic verfions has fo utterly deprived you of judgrtient and re- fiedtion, that I arn not without fome hopes of making an impreflion upon your ovi^n head 0"r heart : forfo IJhall, If they he made of penetrable Jiuff % If damned cuftom have not brazd themfo, ^hat they be proof and bulwark againfifenfe. I fhall not difpute with you about the pre- cife age of the old Syriac verfion. I have feverai reafons for this forbearance ; one of which is, that I know very little of the mat- ter. I fliall only obferve, that your argument againft its being older ihan Chryfoftome, becaufe it contains the doxology, is not valid, unlefs you allow that the doxology is {purious. If you allow this, you reje£l a reading, that lias, upon a moderate computation, thirty times [ 159 ] times as many wkneffes in its behalf, asymif prefent client. It is found in all the Greek MSS. except eight; in two of the oldefi Latiii copies; in feme MSS. of the Arabic and Perfic; in the Syriac, the Armenian, the Gothic, andthe.^thiopic. If you had a fixth part of this evidence for i John V. 7. how you would triumph over all that dared even to infinuate the fiTialleft fufpicion ! But you deipife the aid of external evidence. It is the nature of the texts and the dodtrines fuppofed to be contained in them that per- mits or foibids omiffions to be concluflve arguments. If I had a mind to argue in your way,. I could fay, that only a fingle verfion, the Coptic, is found, which uniformly omits the doxology ; " that this verfion is faulty beyond belief, leaving out mainy whold verfes; and that no argument can be drawn' from any omifiion of any verfe, by any tran- fcriber, like this ;" p. 90, 196. I now come to your arguments againft thefe obnoxious verfions ; which, as they are of the fame kind, I beg leave to confolidate. " They are," you fay, p. 87 — 90, 190 — 196, " faulty and incorreft, almoft beyond belief. They [ i6o ] Tiiey pafs dver not words or fentences onlj, but even whole verfes, which are admitted by all to be genuine." The inftances of this fort which you produce from the Syriac, are John XIV. 3. XVI. 14. Ads VIII. 37. XV. 34. XXVIII. 29. I Pet. IV- 14. You might have ftrengthened this argument by an obfervation which I have feen, that this verfion omits whole epiftles, and therefore might eafily omit a ftiort fentence of a fingle epiftle. If you think this objeftion of any weight, you are welcome to the ufe of it. Your inftarices of omiffion from the Coptic are Matth. V. 44. XVIII. i. XX. 23, 23. XXVII. 25' Mark VII. 16. XI. 26. Ads VIII. ^7. XXIV. 7. To fave your readers the trouble of looking for the places, and the fear of being deceived by any mifprint iu the numbers of reference, you have cour- teoufly tranfcribed the entire paffages. But, before I go farther in this fubje£t, I requeft you. Sir, to anfwer the following queries. I. Are you fure, from your ov^n infpedion, that the Syriac and Coptic verlions are chargeable with thefe omiflions ? 2. Do i ^6i ] 4. Do all the MSS. of this or that Verfi,on agree in reje£ling the verfes fpecified ? For, if the MSS. vary, feme retain- ing and fome omitting a paffage, it is abfurd to blame that for a fault In the verf^on itfelf, which may be correfted from better copies. 3. Do they omit the whole quantity of text that you have tranfcribed ? 4. How do you know that thefe paflages are admitted by all to be genuine ? Have you had the patience to colleft the opinions of all who have written upon thefe fubjefts ? Or do you be- lieve that every fyllable of our com- mon Greek Teftament, as it was fet- tled in the year 1624 by Elzevir and other infpired men, is the genuine text of the Evangelifts and Apoflles ? Leaving you to chew the cud upon thefe queries, I fhall proceed to coniider a few of thefe paflages. " Matth. V. 44. is entirely left out of the Coptic." — Let us then tranfcribe the context without this verfe, and fee what excellent fenle it will make, M 43. re 43. Te have heard that it hath been faidy Thou JJoalt love thy neighhouf^ and hate thine enemy ; 45. I'hat ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven ; for he mahth his fun to rife on the evil and on the goody &c. Strange, that the reafon of a precept (hould be given, and the precept itfelf not appear ! Notwithffcandhig your *' right to command our full aflent when you only affirm a plain faft, which you are complcatly competent to afcertain," P- 59? 126; notwithftanding my own literary candour and Chrijlian charity, I affure you. Sir, that fooner than believe fuch an abfurdity of the Coptic, I fhould have the audacity to charge you with flrange mifappre- henfon, Matth. XXViL 2iS' — ^^ this whole verfe,. too, Sir, wanting in the Coptic ? If it be, I will own fuch a verflon to be of very little value, and fliall make no difficulty of deli- vering it up to your refentment., But wlien I conlider that, if the verfe be expunged,, there will remain no dire£l mention of Chrift'a crucifixion, I cannot believe that either tranfla- tor or tranfcriber could in his moft carelefs mood overlook fo important a fentenee. Throw [ i63 ] iThroW out Matth. XVIII. i. XX. 22, 23. John XVI. 1 4. the fenfe indeed will not be totally deftroyed, but the conftruftion will appear abrupt and unconnefted. In A£ts XXIV- 7. whoever will cafl his eye on the Greek text will fee that your account Cannot be true, for the eighth verfe begins with jigXeuVa?, which, if the feventh verfe be omit- ted, will have no fubflantive to govern it. Thus far I have thought fit to take the high priori road of reafoning ; that if I have any attentive readers (befides your friend Kufter) they may learn to weigh the probabilities of an affertion before they agree to its truth, and to diftruft all inconfiftent relations, however folemnly vouched by the relater. — — — 'Zoii(ppovo(; o'dTfttTTiolg Ovz igtv ovoev ^pyio'if^aTSpov ISpojoi'g. I fhall now, Sir, defcend to the level of your tmderftanding, to the plain fad. I aflert then that the Syriac verlion omits only three whole verfes of the fix you have been pleafed to quote: Ads VIII. s7- XV. 34. XXVIII. 29. Of your eight examples from the Cop- tic, you are right only in three ; Mark VII. 16. XI. 26. Adls VIII. 37. However, I M 2 fhall [ i64 ] Ihall be merciful to you in your laft inftauce, AftsXXIV- 7. becaufe you are feldom guilty of afferting too little. For the Coptic ver- iioa there omits not only the whole feventh verfe, but parts alfo of the fixth and eighth. John XIV. 3. XVI. 14. the later Syriac editions reprefent exactly as they are in the Greek. Widmanftad and Tremellius indeed omit the former part of one (And if I go and prepare a place for you), and the latter part of the other (Andfhalljloew it unto you) ; but in Guide's edition both thefe claules are replaced from a MS. i Pet. IV. 14. the Syriac only omits, On their part he is evil fpoken of but upon your part he is glorified. Marth. V. 44. the Coptic thus fhortens : ^iit T fay unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that perfecute you. XVIII. i. the Coptic does not omit, nor any other verlion, nor any Greek MS. that I can find. Inftead of XVIII. 1. you ought to have written XVIII. II. which the Coptic does omit. XX. 22, 23. In each of thefe verfes the Coptic only omits the words, and be baptifed with the baptifm that I am baptifed with. XXVII. ^S' *^^ Coptic omits the application of [ i65 ] of the prophecy, and only retahis. And they crucified him, and parted his garments, cajiing lots. Thus, Sir, in your fourteen examples you have made eight miftakes. Will you accept of my correftions ? The lift will not be much leflened in number, for there will then re- main twelve examples ; but feveral of them will be of lefs confequence. Thefe twelve examples amount only to eleven paflages ; A6ts VIII. 37. being twice quoted. Are then thefe eleven paflages admitted by all, as you affirm, to be genuine ? You muft correfl again. Sir. This general aflertion of yours contains in efFefl: eleven feparatc aflertions, and in ten of them you are wrong. Eight times Mill approves the Ihortfer reading ; two of the other omiflions are patronized, one by Eraf- mus, and one by Bengelius; nay, Whitby himfelf, who * put in the front of his book that SPLENDID FALSEHOOD THAT THE VUL- GAR READING MAY BE ALWAYS DEFENDED, agrees to expung^e Matth. * VALCKENiER. Orat. de Critjea jn N. T. non adhi- benda, p. 308. M 3 J^XVIL [ ^66 ] XXVII. 35- Three of yom genuine pzffngcs Mr. Griefbach has difcarded from his text ;. Matth.XX. 22, 23. XXVII. 3S' AftsVIII. 37, and upon fix more he fets a mark to ren- der them doubtful ; Matth. V- 44. XVIII. II. Ads XV. 34. XXIV. 6—8. XXVIIL 29, I Pet. IV. 14- Let us now enquire into the merits of fome of thefe readings. In Matth, V. 44* the fenfe is the fame, whether we acquiefce in the received reading, or prefer the fhorter reading which has the Coptic and other au- thorities on its fide, It is a mere point' of criticifm tq decide whether the fentence w^s firft abridged by the hafte of copiers, or lengthened by the admiflion of the parallel paflage, Luke VI. 27, 28, To me, I own, the latter opinion feems more plaufible, Matth. XVIII. 1 1 . is omitted not only in the Coptic verfion, but in fix Greek MSS, one very ancient Latin copy, one MS. of the Syriac quoted by Profeflbr J. G. C. Adler*, nor is it mentioned by Origen, Jerome, &c, f De Syriacis Verfionibus. Man\p t i67 ] Many Greek MSS.- the ^thiopic, Arabic, .and latter Syriac verfions add ^i;T^ I cannot but liibfcribe to Mill's judgment, who thinks it fpurious. What confirms me the more in this opinion is, that the tran- fcribers of the Greek MSS. have in other places been very prone to fluff out the text with the fame fentence. Not contented with its having quiet and acknowledged pofleffion in Matth. XI. 15. XIIL 9. Mark IV, 9. a great number of MSS. adds it in Luke XIL 21. XXI. 4. In Mark XI. 26. feveral of the Greek MSS. agree with the Coptic. The reft of the omiffions which you lay to the charge of thefe verfions are fupported by fo many confiderable authorities, that whoever ventures to decide pofitively againil: them, will incur the imputation of great M 4 rafhnefs. [ i68 3 raflinefs. And what is remarkable enough Is, ' that they all have the concurrence of at ieaft fome Latin MSS. By this time I hope the intelligent reader will perceive, that, in fa£t;, there is not, among all the inftances you have brought to prove the Syriac and Coptic verfions faulty, above one or two that can reafonably be pronounced corrupt ; and, that in the reft they rather create a prejudice againft the luxuriance of the common read- ing, than the common reading againft their frugality. But " though it was greatly your duty, it was napart of your defign," p. 71, 157, to fay what might be faid in favour of thefe verfions. The unlearned reader therefore is left to fuppofe that one or the other of thefe verfions is fo incorre£t as in many important inftances to ftand fingle, and contradict the united authority of the Greek MSS. the other verfions, and the citations of the fathers. It is curious, too, that of the paflages you pro- duce, you only note the agreement of the Syriac and Coptic in one omiffion, whereas they really agree in five. And I cannot but condemn your imprudence in mentioning even [ i69 3 even that fingle iliftance of their agreement, AftsVill. 37. It might awaken the fufpi- cions of fome inquifitive reader, who by this glimmering of light would perhaps be -led to a farther examination of the fubjeft, and Gonfequently to a detedtion of Mr. Travis's errors. I Ihall only add, that wherever the Syriac and Coptic verfions agree in any devia- tion from the common reading (be it altera- tion, addition, or omiflion), and that devia- tion is countenanced by a reafonable number of Greek MSS. it will require better critical abilities than yours to prove them in the wrong. *' Thefe are examples," you add concern- ing the Syriac, ** which have efcaped even the critical eye of Theodore Beza." How lucky that they efcaped not the critical eye of Mr. Travis ! But if Beza was fo purblind as not to fee fuch manifeft omiffions, with a Latin tranflation from the Syriac before him, I affure you. Sir, without flattery, that your eye is at leaft as critical as his. When you have read a little more concerning this fub- jed than you have already, that is,, when you have read at ^11, you will find, that Beza does actually C ^70 ] adually mention four of thefe fix examples ; John XIV. 3. AasVIII.37. XXVJII. 29. J Pet. IV. 14. ; , fv I feel myfelf here trending upon flippery ground. When I refle£l upon the heinouf- nefs of the charge that Ihave brought againft you, I am almoft ' afraid of beipg myfelf fufpe£ted for a.falfe accufer. There is one advantage in telling enormous rather than moderate falftioods. Mankind are in general fo lazy and credulousj that when one© they are prejudiced in favour of any perfon's vera- city, they will regard another as a calumni- ator who endeavours to convince them that they have beftowed their approbation upon an unworthy object. They will argue, as I have already obferved, from the enormity of an offence, and the eafinefs pf deteftion, againft the probability of its ever being committed. But if I Ihall be fortunate enough to have one reader of learning and probity, I requeft him, I exhort him, to perufe this letter, and the other paffages where I pawn my own word, with particular attention. He will then find that I have flated the fadts fimply as they are, and thatioweveraltonifhing the inflances of C 171 ] pf Mr. Travis's affurance may feei»,"Ihave Ipoken of them without diftortion or exag* gera.l'^n. I fliould indeed "have almoft diftrufted the evidence of my own fenfes, when I faw you commit above twenty grofs and palpable errors in lefs than half a dozen pages, if I had not been acquainted with the fource from which they flowedt Your French friend Martin * makes a few miftakes, which you like a true Englifhman have greatly im- proved. Martin fays, Diff. p. 166. (91 Eng.) " This Syriac verfion is full of faults, and efpecially of omiffions. Beza has given abutv- dance of inftances — and we could add thereto a great many others — - — I fhall give only a few, and thpfe in whole texts." He then fpecifies the very fame verfes which you have quoted (except that you have omitted one of liis examples) ; but becaufe he was content * Mr. Travis may perhaps alledge in his defence, that he refers to Martin in the bottom of his page 88, 192* This is true ; but I would defy any reader to guefs from fo flight and naked a reference that he had borrowed the fubftance of five pages froin Martin. to I 172 ] to mark the numbers without reciting the words* you fet down- the whole verfes with- out enquiry. To the Coptic he makes the fame objection, and gives for examples of omiffioris the fame numbers with which you have obliged us. But by ill luck, inftead of Matth. XVIII. II. his printer, by overlook- ing a figure, made It XVIII. i. Now if Martin had been lefs fparing of his ink and labour, he would have written the pafiages at full length, and faved his admirer the dif- grace of this ridiculous plagiarifm. How very rude too was it to exprefs himfelf fo ambiguoufly, " Beza has given abundance of tnflances — and we could add thereto a great many others." If you look at thefe words again, you may perceive, Sir, \\n\ets fame devil has cozened you at hoodman-blind, that they do not neceflarily imply all the inftances there given to be fuch as had efcaped the critical eye of I'heodore Beza. There is another little circumftance which you have not condefcended to mention. Be-' fides the copies of the ancient Syriac verfion, commonly called the Verjiojimplex^ there came to England in this century a copy of Phi- loxenus's [ ^IZ ] loxenus's verfion, revlfed by Thomas Hera- clfeenfis, and collated iu the margin with the old Syriac and feveral Greek MSS. The margin and text of this revifion fo often make additions, that if the colhitor had found the three heavenly witneffes in any MS. Syriac or Greek, he would not have envied his readers the valuable difcovery. Yet this villainous copy is obftinately filent both in the text and in the margin. The fame ma- lignant demon ^ that has preferved the Dublin MS. to mock at human credulity, feems to have brought to light this new Syriac verfion to abet the Arians in their impious oppofi- tion. Acclpe nunc Danaum injidias. In the year 1599, Menezes, Archbifliop of Goa, prefided at the Synod of Diamper, and made the In- dian Chriftians correft their Syriac copies by the Latin verfion. , Among the palTages thus judicioufly correded, i John V. 7. t could not fail to be included. This the Archbiftiop ordered to be reftored, as having been fupprejfed * Journ. Brit. torn. IX. p. 64. f tA Croze, Chriffianifme des Indes, III. p. 342. E -7+ ] hy mpieiy* Tremellius^ Hot finding this paf- lage either in Widmanftad's edition or the Heidelberg MS. ventured not to infert it in his text, but tranflates it into Syriac in the margin, and fays, Jie rejiltui pojjit. At lafl Gutbier boldly thrufts it into the text, and tells us that the Arians expunged it. Schaaf Could not help applauding (o good an exam- ple. *' This verfe," fays he, " is wanting in the former editions, but Gutbier and I have tranfcribed It from Tremellius's notes and inferted it in the text." Schaaf after- wards fent a copy of his edition to the Bifliop of the Malabarian Chrlftians of St. Thomas. The Bilhop in return fent him a Syriac MS. of the N. T. This treafure of 'imjlimable value is ftill preferved * in the Amfterdam library, and contains that precious jewel, the caufe of fo much ftrife and fhedding of ink. With what face will the infidels now aifert, that the Syriac verfion omits the three heavenly wltneffes, when a Syriac MS. confirms their authenticity ? Perhaps they will make two * Adler de Syriads Verfionibus, p. 31— 33- trifling [ ns I trifling objeftions; i. That this MS. was written as late as the year 1 700, and there- fore is too modern to have any authority; efpecially as we know that the Syriac copies had been interpolated with this very text tl century before. 2. That in this MS. the verfe is written thus in the margin, in coeh pater et films ^ et fplrhus fanSius, et hi ires in una funt. Etfiint ires tejles in terra. But you, Sir, who are as well pleafed with margin as with text, and with Dublin or Berlin MSS. as with Alexandrian or Vatican, will defpife fuch ar- guments, and manfully defend the credit of your witnefs. I hope, however, that forrie who have formerly entertained fublime no- tions of the morality of the Complutenfian: and other editors, will upon refleftion abate of their confidence, and acknowledge that when a man is (no matter how) convinced of the genuinenefs of any reading, he will not be fo fcrupulous as to throw it out of his text merely becaufe his MSS. chance to be refraftory. In particular, the zeal and eager* nefs that have been fhewn for the eftablifh- ment of this verfe, fometimes upon very {lender authority and fometimes upon none, may C J76 ] may ferve to chetk the wottder of thbfe readers^ who are apt to put implicit truft m the profeffiops of editorSi I muft not forget a gentle cenfure of La Croze's upon the Syriac verllon, that * " re- fpeftable as it is, by haying been retouched feveral times, the copies have many varia- tions, and that it does not deferve quite ib much credit as it has commonly obtained." But this obfervation, however it may detraft from the general authority of the verfion, rather ftrengthens than weakens its evidence in the prefent cafe. For iince many Greek interpolations have been admitted from time to time into the Syriac, its conftant omiffion of this verfe in the fucceflive collations of Greek MSS. proves that the verfe was uni- formly abfent from the early Syriac verfion and the Greek copies upon which the later tranflation was formed. To conclude, the MSS. of the Coptic ver- fion unanimoufly, the old Syriac verfion, and the later verfion made by Philoxenus and collated again with Greek MSS. and the for- * Chriftianifme d'Ethiopie, I, p. 40. - .r^ mer t ^11 1 met Syfiac by Thomas Heracleenfis, are three ftr6ng and diftind evidences againft the au- thenticity of I John V. f. The Syriac MSS. protefted againft it till the end of the fixteenth century, when the cof)ies of fuch owners as were obedient to the confcientious Menezes began to be adulterated in compliance with his orders. With equal judgment and fidelity fome of the Syriac editors hav« admitted this verfe into their text, without the flighteft authority, but merely from a marginal note of Immanuel Tremellius. But whatever weight thefe verfions may be thought to have in the decifion of the prefent queftion, every attentive reader muft; fee and confefs that Mr. Travis is a fervlle copier and an hardy aflerter. I (hall there- fore dlfmifs him to the contempt of the learned, and the reproaches of his own confcience. N LETTER [ 178 } LETTER VIII. SIR, X HE remaining verfions to which Dr.Ben- fon appeals, are the Arabic, the ^thiopic, the Perfic, the Armenian, the Ruffian, and the old French. By the old French verfion I ftippofe him to mean the Gallic Le£lionary publiihed by Mabillon,, of which I gave an account in my fixth letter. I frankly con- fent to exclude this from the number of ver» fions. I have only produced it as a copy of the Latin verfion, though for a fingle autho- rity I Jay great ftrefs upon it. The Perfic, which Martin feems generoufly to yield to his oppofers, Dr. Benfon accepts, and you acquiefce in his claim. If there really be in print fuch a Perfic verfion containing th^ Catholic Epiftles, I muft take fhame to my- felf, and confefs my ignorance ; comfortinig myfelf, however, that Mill, Wetftein, Mr. Griefbach^ [ ^19 1 Griefbach, and others, feem to be as ignorant as I am. To the Arabic and ^Ethlopic you bbjedt, becaufe they are copied, according to Simon and Dupln, from the Syriac. But in the note, p. 193, you tell us, that Renaudot I deduces the ^Ethiopic, and Michaelis fome of the Arabic verfions, from the Coptic. The folution of this queftion muft be left to the curious in Oriental languages. Perhaps thofe learned men were hafty in their judgments, and founded their fentiments upon a partial conformity. Perhaps both thefe verfions were made from Greek MSS. though the MSS. might have a general likenefs to thofe which were ufed by the compilers of the Syriac and Coptic. At any rate, amidft thefe jarring opinions, it will be impoffible to make a well-grounded choice, till more accurate editions are publifhed from Arabic and ^thio- pic MSS. But not caring to talk learnedly without underftanding the fubjeit (though that is a very common fault, as you, Sir, no doubt; have obferved), I (hall not prefs this argu- ment ; nor affume a point in my own favour, merely becaufe it cannot be proved againft N 2 me. I .86 ] mc. I iliall only life the concurrent tefti* mony of thefe two Vcrfions as an argument for the confiftency of their parents. If the difputed verfe had been once in the Coptic of Syriac, and was afterwards loft out of the later copies, it might have been preferved in the iEthiopic or Arabic from early and un- corrupted MSS. But lince thefe too omit it, the agreement of the Syriac and Coptic ver- ffons is ftrengtheried by a frefh acceflion of evidence. ' '■ Having thus difpafched the Arabic and ;^thiopic verfions, w^e come to the Armenian, which La Croze* has dignified with the augufl: title of ^ein of Verfions* But, alas I Kings, Queens, and States^ Maids, matrons, nay, the fecrets of the grave^ This vifrous Slander enters* For a king and a bifhop (Haitho andUfcan), who were iutrufted with the education of this queen, have been" accufed of fullying the pu- rity which they ought to have prot^Sed* ' * Beaufobre 3.nd Xenfant's Pref, to N. T. p. 2tl. JVhiJlon's Pref. to Mofes Chorenenfis, p. 9. This [ i8i 1 This flander had gained ground upon the report of Simon, Sandius, and La Croze ; and the world in general feemed dlfpofed to believe it ; when a champion entered the lifts, and with more than a Quixote's gallantry threw down his gauntlet in behalf of in- jured innocence. Kn quoi certes &fa bonte, 'Rt fan zele ^ fa charitiy Sefirent d^autant plus parottre, ^il ria rhonneur de la connoitre ; Semblable d. ces preux Chevaliers^ Ces Paladins avaniuriers, ^i defendant des Inconnue's, Ont parte leur nam jufqu aux nu'es. You will perhaps, Sir, interrupt this raillery by alking me, whether I underftand the Ar»- menian language r Truly, Sir, no better than yourfelf. But that I know fomething more of the fubjedl than you, I will endeavour to convince my readers, We are happily agreed that Ufcan publifhed this verfion, and that it contains i John V. 7, You add indeed, *' without .any mark of doubt or fufpicion," You are very fond, I perceive, of thefe ex-; pletives. Has any other pafl[age of Ufcan's bible any mark of doubt or fufpicion ? If M 3 not, C ^82 ] not, what confequence can be drawn from his filence on this place ? For fny own part, not having your heroic talent for aflertion, I cannot pofitively affirm, but I fully believe that Ufcan has fpared himfelf all trouble of that kind. Your next arguments cannot have juftice done them,vvithout being more largely tranfcribed. *' I. Michaelis affirms, on the authority of Sandius, that Ufcan did not find the paf- fage I John V. 7. in his MS. although it flands in Ufcan's editions. *' But the account fo given by Sandius, was evidently (to fay the leaft of it) a mif- take. [^fjglice, was evidently a lie.] For M. Simon was acquainted at Paris with Ufcan, whilft he was employed in executing his important commiffion. And M. Simon (who was not on^y a very learned,,, but on the whole, a candid opponent of this verfe) expreffly admits, that Ufcan's impreffion could not but be. very accurate. T'&e btjhop (fays he), ivho was a -judicious and- difcreet per/on, brought with him the most correct MSS. which he carefiillj followed. And ihefe particulars I learned from the bishop him- self." Here, C '83 ] Here, Sir, your fidelity in copying Martin's tranflator has let you into a fmall error. You ought to have divided Simon's words into two quotations. But if a tranflator will omit allleurs, who can help it ? — This, however, you call the confeflion of an adverfary, over- throwing his own prepoiTeffions. To make this a complete confeflion, and a counterpoife to the evidence of Sandius, Simon ought to have feen Ufcan's MS. or MSS. with his own eyes, and to have teflified that he there read the difputed verfe. But he only fays that the bifhop brought with him good MSS. which he faithfully followed. We cannot eredt this into a teftimony, unlefs we know alfo, that Simon examined the MSS., com- pared them with Ufcan's edition, and found them to agree. But this we know he did not, becaufe he confefles, in another place, that he learned thefe particulars from the bifhop's o^vn mouth. Thus Simon's confef- fion, that was to work fuch wonders in fa- vour of the verfe, fhrliiks into the folitary declaration of an editor. The bubble that we admired at a diflance, and purfued with cagernefs, vanifhes into air the inftant we N 4 touclv [ ^84 ] touch It. Bengellus would have faid (what he has fald hi effed) of the Complutenfian editors, that they had good MSS, and fol- lowed them faithfully. And 1 niyfelf would fay the fame of other editors. But Bengelius allows that the Complutenfian editors had not this verfe in their MSS, And if any perfon fhculd take advantage of my general expreffions, that an edition was publiflied from MSS. and argue that therefore it faith- fully followed the MSS. in this or that parti- cular paffage, I fhould begin to be in pain for or that in the eagernefs of his zeal, partly againft the verfe, and partlj- againfl Frey, he might * Regeffit neque exftare apud Patres, ne apud Cypri*- num quidem, fi rede infpiciatur, neque in MS. San£lo- Gallenfi, aliifque veteribus codicibus Latinis, neque in Verfioney quam haberet, Armena, Wetstein Prolegom. p. 192. enlarge f 208 ] enlarge a fimple conjedure into a pofitive affertion. The hOc, however, is probable enough In itfelf, that Frey had feen, or that he poffefled, an Armenian MS. containing the Catholic epiftles. If fuch a MS. be ftill preferved at Amfterdam, it would perhaps upon examination turn out to be the fame that Sandius faw in Ufcan's poflfeffion. I throw out this only as an hint to thofe who may hereafter have inclination and opportu- nity to reconfider the queftion. 2. I learn from Mr. Matthasi *, that the firft edition of the Slavonic verfion was printed at Prague in the year 15 19. He does not mention its form, but obferves that it is re- markably fcarce, and rarely found entire. I have feen an old Slavonic edition, which I guefs to be the fame. It is a fmall thick oftavo, but I have not been able to find any date of time and place. Nor is it neceffary to make any particular enquiry after fo perverfe and difloyal a book, which fcarcely furnifhes half its complement of text on this dangerous and diftreffing occafion. * Append. II. ad Apocalypf. p. 34.6. LET- I 209 ] LETTER IX. SIR JL ALMOST feel an inclination to pity you, when I enter upon yonr Greek authorities, they are fo fcanty, doubtful, and fufpeded. According to your own computation they are only four ; the Synopfis Scripturae and the Dialogue againft the Arians (both publifhed with the works of Athanafius), the Panoplia Dogmatica of Euthyroius Zigabenus, and the Greek Ledionary called Apoftolos or Praxapoflolos. Of thefe I mean to treat in their order. Firft, the argument of this Epiftle, you fay, p. 49, 102. is generally allowed to be the genuine work of Athanafius. As far as I can learn, it is generally allowed to be fpu- rious. In fome editions of the N. T. it is attributed to Euthalius. It may be found in Oecumenius. without aiiy author's name. In P Mill's [ 210 ] Mill's edition it is called Sophronius's, though Mill himfelf, Prol. 994. thinks it may be the work of Athanafius, not the great prelate, (for the learned have long since de- cided IT not to be his), but another, per- haps him who advifed Euthalius to undertake his edition. Certainly it would much leflen the charafter of the great Athanafius, if he were the real author of fuch a confufed and im- perfeft abridgement. However, genuine or fpuribus, " this author: feems plainly to refer to the verfe in queftion." How different are opinions ! Mill, Bengelius, Wetf1:ein, and Mr. Griefbach, affirm that it is not cited in the Synopfis. But let us attend to the proof. *' The verfe — is not direftly quoted — but the author of it feems plainly to refer to this verfe in his fummary or breviate of the fifth chapter :" I'he apojlle, " fays he," here teaches the unity of the Son with the Father : " for this unity is not taught in any part of that chap- ter, fave in the feventh verfe." This you had written, probably without looking at the Synopfis itkif, and therefore added thofe ufe- fui words, in his fummary or breviate of the fifth chapter, which vanilh in the fecond edi- tion. [ 211 ] tlon. A common reader might henqe fancy, that the Synopfis was a corred ahridgement of the whole Epiftle, chapter by chapter, and almoft verfe by verfe, with the exaftnefs and regularity of a modern commentator. But though you omit thefe words, you ftill fay, at the end of the fentence, in any part of that chapter, which fuppofes the very aflertlon you have omitted. To make the argument com- plete, you ought to have faid, as Martin had boldly faid, in any part of the epifile, inftead of mending his expreffion by an implied falfehood. Whoever will take the trouble of reading this fame Synopfis, will find it an incoherent jumble without method or con- fiftency. I once intended to tranfcribe the whole, but to avoid the fatigue and difgufh of fuch a talk, I fhall fet down in their order the paffages which the author cites from this epiftle. I. I. I. 5. I. 2. V. 20. III. 8. IL 12 — 14. III. 10 — 18. IV. 7 — 12. IV. 19. 18. III. 10. IV- 2, 3, 6. V. 16. III. 14. IV- 8. [II. 23.] %z. III. 13, 14. V. 20, 21. I may now fafely appeal to every man of common fenfe, whether the place of any doubtful text in the Synopfis can determine P 3 its [ 212 ] its correfponding fituation in the epiftle. But perhaps the expreffions are fo peculiar as clearly to point out the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter. " He alfo fhews the unity of the Son with the Father." What ! fo brief that he cannot allow us the full fenfe of the paflage, but breaks off a part and conceals the reft ? Could he not have faid, " He alfo Ihews the unity of the Son and the Holy Ghoft with the Father," or " the unity of the three perfons in the Godhead," or fome one of an hundred other expreffions, which every naind will fuggeft to itfelf ? How ft range is it, that he fliould tranfplant from the other parts of the epiftle, fo many phrafes vifible to the naked eye, and here make fo minute a reference as requires the moft powerful ortho- dox microfcopes ! Martin and you cautioufly avoid quoting the entire fentence. " He alfo Ihews the unity of the Son with the Father, and that he who denies the Son, neither has the Father." The reference here is made folely to II. 23. as Emlyn, in his Reply, p. 265, obferved ; to whom Martin Verite, p. 234. made fo lame and fhuffling a rejoinder, that, J fear, he was convinced of his error, though he [ 213 ] he had not the courage to confefs It. If yoit objedt that the verfe II. 23. does not teach the unity of the Son with the Father, you muft prove, i. that the author of the Synopfis means unity of eflence, not of confent ; 2. that no ancient writer would or could in- terpret it in that manner. But, I hope, every perfon who has had the patience to read thus far, will be convinced that no mention is made of our verfe in this Synopfis, but that lince the author was perfectly orthodox, his filence is a probable argument that it was utterly unknown to him. i-r. r Your fecond' authority is a dialogue be- tween an Athanafian and an Arian, where " the verfe is thus expressly quoted ; Is not that lively and faving baptifm, whereby we re- ceive re7niJJion of Jins^ adminiftered in the name of the Father^ the Son, and the Holy Ghoji? And St. John fays. And thefe three are one^'' You have here tranflated rather freely, para- phrafing fome words and omitting others. You might have greatly edified your readers, if you had favoured them vvith all the argu- ments by vv^hich the Athanafian convinces the Arian that the Trinity in unity is to be P 3 worfliipped. [ 214 ] worfhipped. I fliall therefore give an abridged but faithful tranflation. " Why do the Sera- phim, that Ifaiah heard cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, neither exceed this number, nor fall fhort of it ? Certainly becaufe it is not lawful for any befides the Trinity to be thus honoured. Why did Mofes teach the people to bend their neck and their knees three times on the earth, but to denote the worfhip of the Trinity in one Godhead ? The divine Elijah raifes the dead at the third breathing, to fliew that no man can be worthy of eternal life, who (hall not firfl receive with reverential faith a coequal and confubftantial Trinity, which like fire confumes deadly fins Neither could Paul otherwife have afcended to the third heaven, unlefs he had poffeffed in his heart the indelible and confubftantial faith of the Trinity Likewife is not the remiffion of fins procured by that quickening and fanftifying ablution, without which no man fiiall fee the kingdom of heaven, an ablution given to the faithful in the thrice- blefled name. And befides all thefe, John fays, And the three are one^ [or rather, " are the one"] Concerning C 215 3 Concerning this dialogue you tell us, " that whether it belongs to Athanafius or not, has been a matter of great difpute among the learned." Who is the author, may perhaps admit of a difpute. But all tjie learned at prefent, as far as I know, confefs it to be fpurious. Cave thinks it to be the compo- fition of fome doating monk. In general however, I believe, it is attributed to Maxi- mus, who lived in the feventh century, and refided five years in Africa and ten at Rome, You, I know, fettle its date by an acute cri- tical remark (taken, as ufual, from Martin), that becaufe the dialogue mentions the joint reign of Conftantine and Conftantius, it was written before the expiration of that joint reign, A. C. 337. I always thought, Sir, that the internal notes of time, unlefs they be very recondite, were not deciGve in feigned dia- logues. The greatell: dotard of a monk in. the feventh, or even in the feventeenth cen- tury, might write a dialogue and mention fo obvious a hd. It would be a part of his plan to throw in a circumftance of this nature, if he meant to fuftain his affumed charafter with propriety. Works may be proved (with P 4 certain Gcrtain exceptions) to be fpurious, If tliey violate hiftorical trath, but they cannot he proved genuine, becaufe they do not violate it. To the foregoing cenfure of Cave, which I am forry gave that worthy man, Mr. Martin^ great uneajinefs, no reader of the leaft tafte, who has perufed my extraft, will refufe his- affent. How eafily might a monk who could fix fuch remote, abftrufe, or rather abfurd fenfes upon other paiTages of fcrlpture, Inter- pret I John V. 8. of the Trinity ? The words ieem to convey at leaft a more myftical mean- ing than moft of the other quotations. If he thought that fuch arguments as the Ifraelites thrice bending the neck, Elijah's thrice breathing, Paul's being rapt into the third heaven, &c. had made an Impreffion on his antagonlil:, he might with equal modefty expe6l, that he would be completely van- quished with this teftlmony. It cannot be faid, that this Interpretation was not current among the Greeks, when Simon found it in the margin of two MSS. and Mr. Matthaei in a third. The latter fcholium is this : Ih-ee in the mafculine gender, in token of. the 'I'riniiy : C 217 ] trinity: the Jpirit, of the Godhead ; the wateh^ of the enlightening knowledge to mankind, by the fpirit; the blood, of the incarnation. ThefeMSS. are of the tenth and eleventh centuries'. Now if this explanation could thus creep into the copies, and be recorded by the fcribes as a valuable memorandum, I fhould be fur- prized to find that no author had met with it in the margin of his MSS. or in the works of the holy Dodtors, or in converfation ; or that, having met with it, he fhould impioufly fufFer it to ruft in his poffeffion, inftead of employing it in the fervice of religion. But, interrupts Martin, the words are not the exa£l words of the eighth verfe. I an- fwer, neither are they the exa£l words of the feventh. But they much more nearly refem- ble the eighth than the feventh. The word «V, as I faid before, was abforbed by the three preceding letters, and loft out of the Greek MSS. from which the Latin verfion was made. The fame omiffion has happened in the copies of Cyril, of Euthymius Zigabenus, I may add, of Dionyfius Alexandrinus, whom Mar- tin cites to his own confutation. But whe- ther the copy itfelf that the author of the dialogue t 218 ] dialogue ufed, or the fcribe who copied the dialogue, be m fault, the fault is fo trifling and natural, that I wonder, i. why it has not been more frequent ; 2. wljyMill Ihould hence take occafion to objedt that the eighth verfc is not quoted by Maximus. For, fays he, all the MSS. read in the eighth verfe, £iV TO ev. But this argument is not valid, ■unlefs all the MSS. of all ancient writers who quote the eighth verfe, retain the pre-» pofition, which we have juft feen not to be the fadt. In treating of the Latin fathers, I fliall have occafion to examine more fully the fub- je£t of this allegorical interpretation. In the mean time I pafs to your next Greek witnefs (next in the order of time) Euthymius Ziga- benus, who in his *Panoplla Dogmatica Or- thodoxae Fidei " thus refers to this verfe of St. John. jThe term one denotes things, the ejfence and nature of which are the fame, and yet the perfons are different, as in this injlance. And THREE ARE ONE." * Compare Ephef. VI. u — 17. Here, [ 219 ] Here, Sir, I mean to furprlze you with my liberal conceffions. I grant that this paflage relates to the Trinity. And if It be a qtiota- tion from fcripture, I will grant that it is the claufe of i John V- 7. But before we admit this fecond propofition, I cannot help complaining that you have been lefs civil than Martin, who produces the Greek ori- ginal from a MS. in the French's king's library : to 'sv £7r* f/.ev ruv o^jloomo-Iuv XBysTuif ev6x ToojToriijg fiiv (pu oi; 5 £ioT»!;, v Toyi axftffirifot tlirsTn, a, i Aeotij;. See tOO Orat. XXXVII. p, 598. A. LI. p. 739. B. partaking [ *24 ] partaking of Impiety." And in the next page, *' There is then one God in three [perfons], and the three are one, as we said." I believe that Mr. Travis himfelf will ex- cufe me from any farther examination of this authority. But fmce I have promifed to pro- duce every argument that to my knowledge has been or may be urged againft me, J muft not conceal that in the fame edition of Eu- thymius, fol. 112. col. i. a part of the epiftle of John is thus quoted. " jind it is the Spirit that beareth witnefs, becaiife the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven^ the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoji, and ihefe three are one. And there are three that hear record on earth, the Jpirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three agree in one. If olic Epiftles, p. 142—143. From [ 217 ] IProrrt Euthymius to your Apoftolos, that is, from one interpolation to another, is a gentle tranfition. Newton had faid, 'The Greeks Yecehed it (i JohnV. 7.) not till this prefent agty when the .Venetians fent it amongst them in printed books (meaning this Apoftolos). Upon this you alk two fapient queftions, " Was the Apoftolos not known to the Greeks till this prefent age ? Was the ApoHolos a printed book ?'* I. You might have recolledled that Newton's Differtation was written in the lafl: century^ in the beginning of which the Apo- ftolos was printed at Venice. 2. Yes, Sir, the Apoftolos is a printed book, fo far as it is an authority for the difputed verfe. Newton knew that the printed book contained the verfe, but he had reafon to declare it an in- terpolation. For he tells us, from the infor- mation of fome of his acquaintance, that the MSS. Leiftionaries of the Greeks omitted the verfe ; and that the Greeks, when they were attacked on this fubjed, appealed to their printed copies, and affirmed that it was crafed by the Ariaus. Your ingenious idea that the ancient Greek church from the fifth century acknowledged Qjt this t 228 1 this verfe, becaiife it is now in theu"'Apofl:o- los, reds upon this foundation, that the read- ings of the Apoftolos have never been altered* But La Croze fays, and with truth I believe, that ecclefiaftical books are more fubje£t to alterations than others. Your reafoning upon this affertion is fo curious, that I confefs my- fclf unable to underftand it. You afk, whe* thei^ the church would at any time infert a reading which (he did not believe to be ge- nuine. Suppofe that (he would not ; yet in cafe of various readings, the church would^ fometimes from hafte, fometimes from igno- rance, fometimes from indolence, fometimes from a blind obedience to the di£bates of a leader who pretended to fuperior learning of holinefs, give a fpurious reading the fanftion of her authority. I cannot allow the Greek church to have been fo nice and critical as you would make her, becaufe I fhould then cede to her the palm of learning and fidelity, to which, I firmly believe, our church has an equal right. But if we may judge from ourfelves, the overfeers of the Greek church gave them- felves little trouble about- genuine readings in [ 329 ] in the public fervice, provided nothing hete-t redox was admitted. In one of the early editions of our Bible, with the Common Prayer prefixed, the text of the N.T. marks I John V. 7. as doubtful ; in the gofpel for the firfl: Sunday after EalTer it is printed in the fame charafter, and no fufpicion infinu-*, ated. To which I may add, that we have now for more than two hundred years been proving the do£lrine of our XXIXth article by a fpurious quotation from Auguftine. In the year 1200 the Archbifliop of Lyons fent an hvimble petition to the chapter-gene- ral of Citeaux, praying that the gofpel con- cerning the paffion of our Lord — might be correfted. An abbot was accordingly ordered to make inquiry, and communicate the refult to the next chapter. The chapter's order is thus expreffed : " Scribatur in teXtu Matthsei Evangelifta2, ubi deeft ; Diviferunt Jibi vejii' tnenta *.-" The biographer of Lanfranc*, Archbifhop of Canterbury, tells us, that his Grace co?-? * Wetjiein Proleg. p. 85. t Q 3 refted C 230 ] felted the Old and N-. T. and th6 writings of the holy Fathers, according to the orthodox faith. Can we wonder that men thus afFefted, when they found a text which apparently fuited their purpofe, ffruggling into notice, but not yet generally received, Ihould be biafled by their preconceived opinions, and fendeavour to give it currency among their fpiritual fubjeds by the ftamp of their own approbation. If our Apoftolos, which the perpetual de- mand of the church would multiply in num- berlefs copies, conftantly retained this verfe from the fifth century, by what fate or chance has every tranfcriber forgot to reftore it to the other MSS. which were not intended for public fervice. The critics complain that the Evangeliftaries and Ledtionaries have ofter^ transfufed their readings into the other MSS. But in this cafe the two ftreams of the pub- lic and private MSS, have flowed as diflinft and unmingled as Alpheus and the ocean. Of the MS. Leftiot^aries that have been col- lated, none contain the three heavenly wit- nefles. If therefore it were certain that the copy from which the Apoftolos was printed, did [ 231 1 did contain them, the queftion would be, which Tiuthority we ought to follow ? Newton's appeal to the Greek MSS. you with your accuftomed civihty call, not an argument, but an affertion too extravagant for a ferious refutation. For you fay, p. 259. *' How a Greek MS. omitting i John V. 7. copied out at Paris or Rome in the tenth century, can be a proof that the verfe was wanting in the MSS. that Jerome ufed at Paleftine in the fourth century, is utterly in- conceivable." If you cannot conceive this, your conceptions are very narrow. This ob- fervation, however, of yours, applied to the Apoftolos, will be as proper as it is now ab- furd. " How a Le£tionary printed at Venice in the feventeenth century, fourfcore years after i John V. 7. had been inferted in the Greek editions of the N. T. can be a proof that the fame verfe was extant in all the MS. Ledionaries from the fifth century dowu- ward, is utterly inconceivable !" The Apoftolos, Sir, was interpolated in printing. You will perhaps bring your old argument, which is nearly worn out, upon theftage, that if the editor inferted this verfe 0^4 without [ 232 ] without the authority of MSS. he was a cheat. But he was not a cheat, and therefore, &c. This kind concern for the moraUty of editors I greatly admire. But I do not accufe the editor of being a cheat. Who ever called R. Stephens a cheat, becaufe he retains many readings in his edition, which he found in no MS. ? Every editor, unlefs he makes ac- tual profeffion to the contrary, is at liberty to follow the text of his predeceflbrs. Com- mon readers are ignorant what licence edi- tors take in reforming the text of MSS. to their own notions of corredlnefs. The Venetian overfeer of the prefs, having been long familiar with the vulgar reading, would naturally fuppofe the omiflion to be a mere error of the copier. He would doubtlefs have a printed N. T. at hand, for the greater eafe and quicker difpatch. When he came to this ■place, if he had any regard for the credit of the printed editions, or for the fineft paflage in fcripture, he would add it to the Apofto- los, and inftead of thinking himfelf guilty of raflinefs or pious fraud, would plume him- felf on his zeal and vigilance in the eaufe of orthodoxy. The infiances of interpolation which [ ^33 1 which I have produced In the Syriac verfion, the Slavonic, and the editions of Euthj'mius, will infufe into any realonable man a diftruft of publiftiers who conceal the authority upon which they aft in cautions filence. All edi- tions, as well of fcripture as of books where fcripture is quoted, that give a text without notes or various readings, are by thenifelves incompetent witnefles. The lefs fcandal they give to the fimplicity of the vulgar, the more they excite the fufpicions of the learned. The confeffion of faith, though I cannot tell when it was firft made, is, I am fure, too late to have any weight. The modern. Greek verfion only ferves to fhew with what eagernefs this verfe was every where received as foon as it was known. When I think on the miferable poverty of Greek authorities under which you labour, I am aftonifhed that you would not accept the additional teftimonies offered by Benge- lius, Wetftein, and Mr. Griefbach. Bengelius wilhes to draw over to his party Irenasus, Clemens AlexandrinuSjAthenagoras, and Ba- fil ; but they are fo fhy, that he is obliged to ufe C 234 ] ufe violence ; and even then they perform their work in a very aukward manner. The place from Bafiil looks moft like our verfe, DeuSf et Verbum, et Spiritus, una Deltas etfola adoranda. If this be a quotation of i John V. 7. no verfe has greater plenty of evidence to boaft, for it is quoted by every ancient writer who has expreffed his belief in three perfons and one God. A fcholion ^fcribed to Origen on Pfalm CXXIII. 2. AouAw KVptUV TTCcjoog KXt uloV TTViUUiOt. KUl ritten, to be extant in Scripture. Why would he not quote the entire feventh verfe, as we have it at prefent ? Alas ! what un- kind and perverfe mortals were thefe holy fathers ! Half a minute more time, half an inch more parchment, would have cleared up all doubts, eftabllihed the wavering, con- founded the gain-fayers, and faved a multi- tude of fouls. But whether through envy, or hafte, they huddled the moft important texts into the (horteft compafs, though they are tedious and difFufe upon others, where we could have wifhed them to be more concife. It has been .made a queftion, ever fmce the time of Simon, whither Cyprian quotes our prefent leventh verfe,or only applies the eighth by a myftical interpretation to the Trinity ? The fecond fuppofitioa is fo ftrongly fup- ported, by the authority of Facundus, that you will find fome difficulty in fetting afide his teftimony. Facundus himfelf, interpret- ing [ 249 ] ing the fpirit, water and blood of the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, at laft feenns ap- prehenfive that his adverfaries may poffibly obje£t to his explanation ; he, therefore, re- ferves as his ftrongeft argument, the autho- rity of Cyprian : " Aut fi forfitaii ipfi Trini- tatem, quae unus Deus eft, nolunt intelligi, fecundum ipfa verba, quse pofuit pro Apof- tolo Joanne, refpn-odeant — Quod tamen Jo- annls Apoftoli teftimonlum B. CyprianusCar- thaginenlis antiftes et martyr, in epiftola five libro quern de Unir te {c .pfit, de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sanclo didum intelligit. Ait enim ; Dicit Dommus, Ego et Pater unum suMus ; et iterum de Palre, et Filio, et Spiritu San6to fcriptum ejl, et hi tres unum sunt." Such a thundering proof as this, left no room for objeftion ; in the progrefs, therefore, of his difpute, he refers to this place again, and takes it for granted, that he has undeniably proved his point. " Nam fie ecclefia Chrifti, etiam cum necdum ad diftindionem Patris ct Fihi et Spiritus Sandi uteretur nomine perfonae, tres credidit et praedicavit, P. et F. et Sp. S. ficut teftimonio Joannis fupra docui- mus, quo di£lum eft ; 'Tres funt qui tejlimo- nium dant in terra, fpiritus, aqua et Janguis, et hi [ 250 ] hf tres mum funt." I fliall now Jefirc the reader to confider your modeft affertion, p. 40. 82. that " what Facundus or Cyprian Tinderftood, concerning the eighth verfe, is immaterial to the dilpute about the feventh." On the contrary, I affirm, that Facundus, ■urging the heretics with the diflinftion of perfons in the Trinity, which is taught in the eighth verfe, and confirming his explanation by this very pajGTage of Cyprian, Ihews, firft, that he himfelf knew nothing of the feventh verfe ; and, fecondly, that Cy- prian, in his opinion, knew no more, but ex- traded the doftrine 'of the Trinity from the eighth. Could Facundus, with a text before his eyes that would have gained him an eafy vidory over his enemies, labour through fc- veral pages to bend this untra£table verfe to his purpofe ? " The Spirit," fays he, " fig- nifies the Father, for God is a Jpirit, (John IV. 24.) the water, the Holy Ghoft (fee John VII. 37. 38.) the blood, the Son, he alone of the Holy Trinity partaking of flelh and blood." If the feventh verfe was then in the generality of the Latin copies, Facundus had not only loft his wits, to ufe a weak rea- fon, when he had a ftronger to produce, but his [ 251 ] his honefty too, in forcing an abfurd inter- pretation of fcripture upon Cyprian, which he well knew to be his own, and not Cy- prian's. Why then might not Cyprian give the fenfe of i John V. 8. in his own words, and fay, Of the Father^ Son, and Holy Ghoji, it is •written, these three are one ? To this queftion you anfv.er, in Houyhnhnm lan- guage, that " Cyprian would then hzvefaid the thing which was not ; that he would have been guilty of an intentional falfehood ; a fuppofition altogether monftrous and abomin- able." You might have a little lowered theie tragical outcries, if you had confidered, that the goodnefs, or badnefs, of every adion may be confidered in two lights ; with refpe£t to the quality of the adion itfelf, and to the in- tention of the agent. That Cyprian fet down his own fenfe of the eighth verfe with an in- tention to miflead his readers, is an odious, and, unlefs it be well fupported, an abomina- hle accufation. But who accufes Cyprian of a deliberate falfehood ? This is your con- ftant refuge, when argument fails you, to re- prefent with all your pathos, the injury done to [ 252 ] to illuftrious characters, fuch as Cyprian, Stu- nica, Stephens, Beza, &c. If Cyprian gave his own fenfeof a particu- lar verle, and faid, So it is rvritten, though he might occafion error in others, I fhould not, 'without very ftrong reafons, fufpeffc him of abfolute fraud. I wifh, indeed, that it were the cuftom to quote with more accuracy ; but we know too well, that all authors (and frequently in controverfy) quote, not the very words, but the fenfe and fcope of them, or what they take to be the fenfe, and fome tiiiies without warning the reader. If I had faid in my III Letter, p. 42. that you pro- fefs, p. II. 1 6. a wilhngnefs to believe thatMr. Gibbon, upon a certain occafion, would have aovA and '-hominable I Lord Shafttibiry* thus blafphemoufljr derides the language of the holy Scriptures ; *' I have i'ttrk in certain Chnftian cburchea. an ancient piece or two affirmed on the fo» lemn faith of prieftly tradition to have been angelically and divinely wrought ; but having, obferved the whole Jlyle and manner to vary from the rcrles of art, I prefumed to affert, that if the pencil had been heaven-guided, it eould never have been fo lame in its per- formance." Would a defender of Shaftebury gravely argue that I have here been guilty af an intentional . falfehood ; that Shaftefbury fays not a word of the Scriptures, but mere- ly of fome piftures that were ftievv^n to him in certain churches for celeftial woi:kmai>- fiiip ? In fuch a cafe I fhould anf\ver, if I could keq) my countenance, that I had fup- po&d Lord Shaftefbury by this allegcMry to ♦ Cbafa£leriflics, voU III. 1>. 5130; ridicule [ 259 ] ridicule the Scriptures themfelves ; that the veil which covered his real meaning, was fo tranfparent, that every body might fee It, without my tearing it ofF; that hov^rever I was guilty of no Intentional falfehood, for I firmly believed what I faid, and that the morality of fuch matters Is not to be mea- fiired by the foundnefs of our judgment, but by the ftrength of our perfuafion. I make no doubt but Facundus was as fully convinced that he and Cyprian had rightly interpreted i John V. 8. as I am that I have rightly interpreted Lord Shaftefbury. The Only objeftion remaining, which can feem to have any weight, that Cyprian was not capable of fo abfurd an interpretation, I have in part anfwered already ; and I ftiall obferve farther, that no man ought to difpute upon any fubjedt where the Fathers are concerned, who either knows not, or will not own, that many Interpretations of Scripture fo the full as abfurd as this may be found in their works. To mention one. Many of the Fathers prove the divinity and eternal generation of the Logos from Pfalm XLV. i. Eru^avif cor meum verbum bonum. But the S z mere [ 26q ] faerc Englifii Chriftian is defrauded o£ this argument for his fciith by our heretical traw- Oation, My he^t is inditwg of a goodmatisr, * Cyprian is elfewhere oegligent iu quoting, as in Matth. VL 13. Stffer us not to be led i^o temptation. Apop. XIX. 10. Worjbip tkm the Lord J^us, i John 11. 17. he five times adds, As God remains for ever. The fiiO: and lecoud you defend. I fliail there- fore e:^amiae the firft, to give a ipecimen of your talents, for you never are more pleafant than when you taJk about criticifm. You think. Lead us not into temptation^ which is found in forae MSS. the genuine reading. The note in the inner margin of the Oxford Cyprian is thus expreflfed : '* Ne nos indu- cas, Ar. Ehor. Pemh. Lin. Vofs. 2. Bod. 3. 4. ViSi.^ which you p. 44, 89. thus improve, as ufual. ** Lead us into temptation are the words of the Arundelian MS. of thoiib from Pembroke College, Cambridge, of thoie from « Whoever dcfires more of thefe interia-etatlons, may iaiMx himfelf by oonfulting Whitby's Diflertatio de S. Sa'iptunffum Interpretationefi Council of Carthage, § 6. John III. 6. with the fpurious addition, borrowed from Tertullian de Carne Chrifti, § 1 8. of which I (hall take another occafion to fpeak. " But though Facundus indeed tells us that Cyprian meant only to interpret the eighth verfe by that fentence, Of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoji it is written, and these THREE ARE ONE, Fulgentius diredlly and poji- tively reprefents Cyprian as quoting the ieventh." Fulgentius's word is confitetiir, which, you fay, frequently means in the beft writers to declare y to Jhew, to profefs. And for this you refer to your trufty friend, ** the dictionary of Ainfworth," of whofe two examples one has been correded from M3S. (Sueton. Aug. 4,) the other I have- not been able to find, but I will venture to S 4 prophefy^ [ 264 ] prophefy that it is a miftake ; a third, which ^* the Thefaurus of Gefiier" would have fupplied, is either corrupt or nothing to the purpofe. Yet I fhall lay no ftrefs upon this argument, becaufe in that barbarous age, flrange liberties were fometimes taken in the ufe of words. I fhall alfo grant, that Ful^f gentius quotes our feventh verfe, and does not adopt the myftical expofition of the eighth from Cyprian, as Emiyn pretends. I (hall attack Fulgentius's teftimony upotl a new ground, I affirm, that it is no tefti- mony at all, except to the genuinenefs of the paflage in Cyprian. Fulgentius fairly confefles (or if you -w'lW, Jhews^ declares ^ pro' fejfes) that he became acquainted with this verfe folely by the means of Cyprian, and that he had not feen it himfelf in the copies of the N. T.' Elfe what does he mean to prove by his appeal to Cyprian ? That this verfe was genuine ? But if it already exifted in all the copies, if it were acknowledged both by orthodox and Arians, where was the ufe or fenfe of ftrengthening this general confent by the folitary evidence of Cyprian ? Clarke, Clarke,* quoting Juftin for a paflage, which.. I Ihall hereafter mention, adds, that no doubt Juftin found it in the old Greek tranJP" lation. Is it not clear from this appeal to Juftin's authority, that the paflage is not iix the prefent copies of the Greek tranflation ? Would Fulgentius have faid, De Patre et feipfo et Spiritu SanSio iejiatur ipfe F'dius dicenSj Ite, docete, &c. (Matth. XXVIII. 19.) ^od etiam beatijjimus martyr Cyprianus confitetur, &c# Certainly never ; or if he had faid it, he- would weaken a part of the evidence which we riow have for the authenticity of that text. But Fulgentius being aware of ar> objection that the verfe was not then extant ija St. John's Epiftle, (hields himfelf under the authority of Cyprian, and quotes the paflage for genuine Scripture, upon this maxim, (which Facundugalfo adopts, though he applies it in a different way) that Cyprian was infallible. Nor was he Angular in this maxim, but agreed with the general opinion; that prevailed after Cyprian's mart^rdpra«- * Reply to Waterland, p, 135,, For, i 266 J . For, as Molheim* well obferves, Cyprian's reputation was fo enhanced by his fortitude in fuffcring a violent death, that he became the common mafterand oracle of the church. The merits of the martyr threw a ihade over the defe(3:s of the author, and the veneration that ought to have been corifined to his piety, was extended to his writings. It was there- fore no wonder that Fulgentius Ihould ac- cept a reading which he fuppofed to be Cy- prian's reading of a paffage in Scripture ; or that Facundus ihould accept an interpreta- tion which he fuppofed to be Cyprian's in- terpretation of Scripture, In either cafe they were fure of vanquifhing their enemies by an authority which it was deenied blafpheray to refift. I think it moft probable, that Cyprian in thefe quotations, followed, as he thought, the authority of TertuUian, Finding the * Incredibile diflu eft, quantam per univerfum orbem Chriftianum, poft mortem pro Chrifto magno aiiimo ex- ceptam, audloritatem adeptus fit, ut communis inftajf magiftri et oraculi loco habereter. De Rebus Chriftianis ante Conftantinum M. Sec. III. § XXIV. p, 597. phrafe. I 267 3 phrafe, ires unum funt, clofely joined tq, qmmodo diSlum ejl. Ego et pater unum euMus, he took the former part of the fen- tence to be a quotation from Scripture as well as the latter. " But from what part of Scripture," would Cyprian fay, " could my mafter take it, except i John V. %. I perceive his drift ; he interprets the fpirit, the water and the blood, of the three perfons of the Trinity, and to them applies- the concluding words, the three are one. If fuch an allegorical interpretation once en- tered Cyprian's head, it would recommend itfelf to his approbation equally by its own intrinfic merit and the authority of his maf- ter. I pay no compliment to De Mifly, when I fay that he had a clearer and more critical head than Cyprian. Yet he took Bengelius's words for a quotation from Ste- phens. * TertuUian proves by fome curious reafons (de Jejun. § 10.) that Daniel's hours of prayer were the third, the fixth and the jiinth. Cyprian lays his hands upon this piece of news as a great prize, and turns it * Letter IV. p. 99, [ 268 i to go6d account. The paflage I have quoted iibove. He there not only aflerts this as a fa£t of Daniel, but adds his three compa- nions, and infers that it denoted the myftery of the Trinity, which was to be revealed ia the lafi: times. I wi(h you had tranfcribed a little more from Fulgentius in your Ap- pendix. He has borrowed this argument from Cyprian, and I think (but I may be partial) fomewhat improved it. After his iirft citation from Cyprian, he thus proceeds* JFbr in his book on the Lord's prayer, to Jhenjt> ihat the trinity is of one Deity^ without any difference of the ferfons, he relates that Daniel and the children were •mont to pray at intervals ef three hours ; where by the revolution ^ three bourSi to the duty of one prayer , he evidently JbewSf ihat the "Trinity is one God. I fhall now requefl: the reader once more diligently to perufe the pafl'age of Eucherius above quoted. If Eucherius had found in any of his followers as conftant a reader and zealous an admirer as Tertullian found in Cyprian, how natural would it be for fuch a follower, upon reading this place, to miftake the fentence, Ergo pater ex qm emniaj, [ 2^9 J 9mm/t,film per quern omnia, fpirhus far^us^ in quo omma^ for a formal quotation of I Cor. VIII. 6. He would infer, (and he would infer with as much juftice as you and others have made Tertullian's words a quotation) that bj the Jicut et apojiolm dkit^ Eucherius meant, not to defend his own expreflion by a fimilar palTage of Scripture, but to connect two fimilar paflages. All the difference is, that the ficut et, is ftronger than TertuUian'a quomodo. Or to draw up ray argument in form of an ablirad proportion : if an authof ftates his own dodlrine in language refemi- bling fome words of Scripture, and illuftrates it by a Scriptural quotation, it is probable that fome credulous reader will take the author's own words for his reading of that part of Scripture to which they bear a re- iemblance. -Gregory Nazianzen's father left behind him (bme difcourfes on the Trinity. In one of thefe, after proving his thefis from feveral texts, he proceeded in thefe words : tgiv CUV "TTctTfiP, £5 ou Tu "rrccvjoc, u<5f, oi au TtX. Vcivju, TO aytov wsUfJia, Iv ui ra, vavjx, Ka9ug xui ysypa-Trjuif e| «VT» ««» St oMri. kk) iv uurui tx TTctvJx, *■ [ ^70 ] crdvjoc.* (Rom. XI. 36.) Gregory on the perufal of this paffage, turned over his New Teftament, and at laft found in i Cor. VIII. 6. this fentence ; To us there is one God the Fa- ther, from whom are all things — and one Lord yefus Chr'tfl, by whom are all things. He therefore judicioufly concluded, that his fa- ther read the whole verfe thus : To us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things j and we from him ; and one Lord Jefiis Chri/f^ ty whom are all things, and we hy him ; and ONE Holy "Spirit, in whom are all THINGS, AND WE IN HIM. With this opi- nion, could he forget to employ his new- found text in his difputes with the heretics. Either his reverence for his father's memory, ©r the Angular fitnefs of the paffage for his purpofe, would alone be a fufficient motive ; united, they were irrefiftible. In his thirty- ninth oration, therefore, p. 630. C. he quotes the verfe with this addition, compares it with Rom. XI. 36. and argues from it as if * I have adopted the reading of the Vulpte for an sbvious reafon. tjoth t »7i I both heretics and orthodox allowed It to be genuine. His commentator, Nicetas, T. II. Orat. XXXIX. p. 1026. B. XLIV. p. 1249. A* twice follows this readiilg, and urges it againft the Arians, adding in the latter place,. Neque enim alkqui 'Trinitas fuerit, nifi, Spiritm ^oque connumeretur \ which, as Mr. Matthaei* tightly remarks, is an unwary confeffion of fraud. Three MSS. Scholiafts agree in the fame reading, and one has the impudence to affirm that it was erafed by Arius. E'|£Xij(p5i| 'jra^oL Tou Kauov. (read e^ijXs/ip^ij.) From Gregory it paffed to John Damafcenus, who quotes it feveral times, to Euthymius Ziga- benus, and to Emanuel Calecas. + From Gregory or John Damafcenus (for both, I believe, were early tranflated into Slavonic) it crept into the Slavonian verfion, and is ia the MSS. and firft editions, but omitted in the latter. I acknowledge that I have mixed a little romance with the beginning of this ftory., • Aflitnadrerf. ad i Cor. VIII. 6. p. 204—210. f De Principiis Fidei, c. 3. p. 215. ed. Coteler. whom Mr. J^tfatthxi feems to have overlooked. But C 272 ] But I was willing for once to imitate your tvay of fetting down your own fancies' for pofitlve fads. The intelligent reader will however fee that I have fuppofed nothing but what Is probable. I take Gregory to have been deceived by finding in fome emi- nent Greek Father a fentence fimilar to that which I have quoted from Eucherius. My hypothefis too is very charitabk ; for I was willing to bring off my favourite Gregory with the leaft poffible lofs of honour. I have pointed out the real fource of the miftake, though I cannot trace its progrefs, nor dis- cover through what channels it flowed into Gregory's oration. If an admirer of Gregory, writing upon the deity of the Holy Spirit, ufed thefc words : " The blefled Apoftle Paul teftifies, that to us there is one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, which alfo the moft pious bifhop Gregory the divine declares (confitetw) in his oration of the holy lights, where, to demon- ftrate the Trinity, he has brought the fol- lowing proofs direflly from Scripture : To trs THERE IS ONE GoD THE FaTHER, &C. ix^here the from whom and by whom and in WHOM [ 273 1 WHOM do not feparate the natures — as is clear, if we aitentivrly read in the fame Apoflle, froM HIM AND BY HIM AND IN HIM ARE ALL THINGS, &c." would not he confefs, that he was indebted for the knowledge of this text to Gregory Nazianzen, and to him only ? The plain Englirh of fuch an appeal would be, This fentence is wanting in our prefent copies, but Gregory, whofe fidelity and ac- curacy cannot be queftioned, had it in his MS. as appears from his quoting it. So Ful- gentius's teftimony amounts to no more than this. The verfe is not now indeed in the epif- tie, but it was there in Cyprian's days, for he quotes it, and to fufpeit him either of fraud ormiftake would be the height of impiety. " The implicit faith with which the Latin writers copy their predeceiTbrs often dimi- nifhes and fometimts deftroys the value of their teftimony. Thus a glofs crept early into fome copies of John III. 6. ILt qmniam "Deus Spirilus g/?, de Deo natus ejl, I believe TertuUian to be the author of this glofs, who fometimes blends the words of fcripture with his o'»vnj fo that it requires much Ikill and pains to make the feparatioa. From T bin. C 274 ] him it quickly fpread through all the Latin churches, Ceu Jlamma per tadas, vel Eurus Per Siculas equhavit undas. It would be idle to recount all the writers who quote this for- fcripture ; but fome, not content with affertr ing it to be genuine, charge the Arians witli having corrupted the copies that omitted if^ Hear the holy Ambrofe : '• This place you Arians fo exprefsly teftify to be written of the Spirit, that you erafe it from your books^ And 1 wifli you erafed it only from your own, and not from the public books of the church.'* Obferve the candour and judg- ment of this^ Saint.. He acknowledges that a paffage is wanting in g.lmoft all the MSS» and. founds his accufation of the Asians upon- the very circumftance that ought to have acquitted them. The fame calumny is re- peated by Bede, Fulbert and Hincmar, who- follow in the chafe-, not like hounds^ that hunt, bu^ like thoje that fill up the cry. I muft not for- get to add, that Grabe* defends the genuine- * Not. ad BulU Defenf. Fid. Nie. p. 139, Grahiut vir lanus nee indoBus fu'it et in fcripth Patrum apprime verfatus : critict^s non fuit, neque effe potutt, ut pote neque in^enia neque judicio fatis ad earn rem in/iru£ius. Thirlby Dedicat. to Jujiin Martyr. nefs [ ^75 ] nefs of this Interpolation, and very properly in company with i John V. 7. ^e heifer hath calved and hath not calved. Pray, Sir, in what part of fcripture may this paffage be found ? It is quoted by at leaft four of the Fathers. Tertullian* fays, *' We read in Ezechiel." Clemens Alexan- drinusf fays (imply, " in fcripture." Gre- gory Nyflen | and Epiphanius § feem to quote it from Ifaiah. There is fome differ- ence in the words, but they all agree in the application, which, I fuppofe, I need not mention. Jnftin Martyr tells Trypho, that the Jews have corrupted their fcripture to elude the prophecies relating to the Mefliah. One of his examples is Pialm XCVI. 10. from which three words, fays Juftin, have been erafed by the Jews, fo that the true reading is. The Lord hath reigned from the tree. Thirlby in his note produces an hoft of * De Came Chrifti, § 23. f Strom. VII. p. 756. X In Zacagni's ColIeAan. Monument. Vet. p. 303. § Hseres. p. 156. T 2 witnefles [ 276 } witneffes for the fame reading, to whom he might have added the author againft Vari- piadus HI. 2. This reading, thetugh mani- feftly falfe and fpurious, has cropt into fome Pfalters, and feems to have impofed upon Erafmus, who cites it without rfufpicionr in his colloquy intitled, Inquijitio de fide. • * Thefe interpolations, which are well known to the learned, I have produced' merely to teach the fuperficial reader not to place too much confidence in the cita- tions of the Fathers. We have.feen how Nicetas, though he was fenfible that autho- rity was againft him, retains and defends Gregory Namnzen's reading. We have feen how Juftin Martyr and Ambrofe, when they wanted to promote a paffage to the rank of fcripture, reproached their adverfarie&- with having erafed it. You fuppofe authentkae Uterae in TertuUian to fignify the autographs of the apoftles. This conftrudlion you fupport by a paffage from Ignatius, which I profefs not to un- derftand, but I am fure that it will not ad- nfit the fenfe you put upon it. You then refer [ 277 ] refer us to Peter* of Alexandria, who tefti- fies, it feems, that the original Gofpel of St. John was kept at Ephefus in his time. Are you really ignorant, Sir, that this Peter is an author, whofe age, name and credit are totally uncertain ? And Berriman-j- and Er- :iefl:i;|; think that autheniiae means no more than gmuine, uninterpolated. But I flatter myfelf that I can confirm your interpreta- tion from Tertullian himfelf, § who quotes the originale injlrumentum Moyji. Now if Ter- tullian had feen the original volume of Mofes, how much more eafily might he have feen the original epiftle of John. Nor is it won- derful that the autograph of Mofes fhould laft to TertuUian's time, when the autograph of Efdras has lafted to the prefent day. For Montfaucon || faw at Bologna an He- brew MS. which, as appeared from a memo- randum in the middle of the book, wag written by Efdras's own proper hand. * Petavius Uranolog. p. 397. f Diflert. on i Tim. III. 16. p. 13. X Opufc. Philolog. et Crit. p. 308. § Contra Hermog. § ig. Ij Diar. Ital. p. 400. T 3 But [ ^/S ] But to leave this folemn trifling, and re- turn to the queftion. The words of Tertul- lian, which you have taken for a quotation from fcripturCj I think I have (hewn to be only a dedudlion 6f his own from two texts John X. 30. XVI. 14. Phqebadius copies Tertullian. Cyprian finding two or three words, which happen to follow in the fame order, i John V. 8. immediately fucceeded by a formal quotation from fcripture, thought thefe vi'ords alfo to be a quotation, and em-^ ployed them without remorfe in the fenfe, which, as he ipnagined, his mafl:er had af- fixed to them. Thus Tertullian * proves by fome ingenious arguments, that Daniel's three hour^ of prayer were the third, the fixth and the iiinth. Then comes Cypriari, takes the fact for granted, aiflerts the fame of Daniel's three companions, and hence elicits the myftery of the Trinity. Whoever Could argue at this rate, could with equal or greater eafe find the fame dodtrine in fuch an ex- preffioa as " ibe three are one^' though the * De Jejuniis, § ro. literal [ 279 ] literal fenfe feemed ever fo foreign to his fubjed. Two or three centuries afterwards both Facuadus and Fulgentius appealed to this paffage of Cyprian. Neithet of them could find a text of fcripture, where it was ex- prefsiy faid of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, " thefe three are one." Yet Cy- prian feemed to affirm it. Facundus there- fore fuppoied, that Cyprian mixed his own interpretation with the words of fcripture. Fulgentius on the other hand, being fome- what more fanguine, fuppoied that he quoted literally the words of fcripture. Finding therefore a kind of counterpart to Cyprian's quotation in i John V. 8. he would naturally conclude that the three heavenly witnclTes were diftindly mentioned in Cyprian's copy, but had afterwards vanifhed, either by the malice of the Arians, or the negligence of the fcribes, confounding the homceoteleuta. If you think. Sir, that it derogates from the honour of Cyprian or Fulgentius to infinuate that they could in matters of fuch impor- tance, blindly follow their leaders, you ought to recolleft that I pafs np harflier cen- T 4 fure [ 28o ] fure upon them than I .have paflTed upon you with refpe£t to Martin, a cenfure, whofejuf- tice you cannot help feeling in your mind, whether you chufe to coniefs it or iiot, Postscript. I. I have perhaps been much more dlffufe upon this article than w^s neceflary. But I remember, that when I was a novice in this controverfy, I was very angry with the oppofers of the heavenly witnefles for their obftinacy in denying Cyprian's word^ to be a literal quotation. My reafons for the opi- nion which gave birth to my indignation were chiefly two. i. My efteem for the learning, good fenfe and fidelity of the fa- thers, which would not fufFer me to believe, that they would quote negligently or inter- pret abfurdly. 2. My reliance on the can- dour of the difputants in ftating the adver- fary's argumerits. But experience has in- ftru [ 293 ] miifcribers, but the negligence or forgetful- nefs of the collators, that was the caufe of this difagreement. The prologue was tran- icribed from a younger MS. the text of the Epiftles from an older ; written either be- fore the Prologue was compofed, or at leaft before it forced itfelf into a general notice. Some of the MSS. call the Epiftles Cano- nical in the title, and all in the Prologue, whereas Jerome would have called them Catholic. Here you tell us that Jerome has called them Canonical in other parts of his works, and fend us for fatisfaftion to his ca- talogue of ecclefiaftical writers. You ought to be told. Sir, that when correct editions are publifhed ou the faith of MSS. no critic is allowed to argue from the old and corrupt readings. The editions publifhed by Mar- tjanay at Paris, and Vallarfius at Verona, both read Catholics in the three places of the catalogue, and produce no various reading from their MSS. I have collated ten MSS. qne in the Bodleian and nine in the Mufeum, Two of the thirteenth and one of the fif- teenth century have canonka without varia- tion ; a fourth of the f^,fteenth century has U 3 canonkiQ [ 294 3 canontca once in the text, hxit cathoUca for ^ various reading between the lines from the fame hand, and catholica in the text twice without any fufpicion. The remaining fix MSS. two of which are very ancient, (one at leaft a thoufand years old, MS. Cotton. Calig. A. 1 5.) conftantly read cathoUde^ whiql^ 1 fhall therefore conclude to be the true reading. Auguftine, you add, calls the Epif- tles canonical. His partiality to the Latin ufage touches not Jerorrie, who prided himfelf too much upon his Greek to fufFer fuch an inr novation. Auguftine quotes " the Apoftle Jude in his canonical epiftle." How woul4 you have exuked, if you had known that Je- rome himfelf in his commentary on Ifaiah LXV T. III. p. 484. calls the fecond epiftle of Peter canonical. And to crown the whole, all the MSS. as Martianay teftifies, and two in the Bodleian, as I teftify, concur in this reading* Martianay is afraid that this uni- form confpnt of the MSS, fomewhat weakens the foregoing argument. But he might have been of good cheer; for there is no refemblance between the two cafes. The name canonical applied to feven Epiftles, four ■ ' of [ 295 1 of wViich were lefs generally received for canonical than piofl: of St. Paul's, is the per- feftion of abfurdity. But it is applied with propriety to a fingle epiftle of the feven, whether doubted, or undoubted. For in- ftance, Jerome quoting the fecond epiftle of Peter, which many churches rejedled, by this epithet fixes upon it the feal of his own. opinion and authority. For the fame reafon Auguftine calls the epiftle of Jude canonical^ as if he had faid ; I know that this epiftle is rejefted by fome, but in my opinion it is the genuine compofttion of the Apoftle. If oil the other hand a writer rejecting the fe- cond epiftle of Peter, the fecond and third of John, &c. had occafion to quote any of the other three, he might juftly fay, " St. Peter writes in his canonical epiftle," thus' diftlnguifliing the true from the counterfeit money. This, if I miftake not, was the true reafon why the Catholic epiftles by de- grees gained the title of canonical. For \vhen the later writers faw their predeceflbrs fe- parately call the Epiftles canonical, they with great judgment, gave them the fame epithet \u the lump. Our argument, Sir, is, not U 4 t,hat [ 296 3 that Jerome never calls a fingle eplftle ca- nom'cal, for that he might have done by any of St. Paul's, if it had pleafed him, but that he calls the whole feven Catholic in his genuine works, while the Prologue calls them canonical. The fame of Jerome was fo for extended, and his authority fo great, that if a Pro- logue of his compofition, containing fuch important information, had been conftantly known and read from the beginning of the fifth century, it muft have been quoted by feme of the intermediate writers between the fifth and the ninth, a fpace of time in which Jerome's verfion triumphed over all preceding tranflations. If this Prologue had been univerfally acknowledged for Jerome's, how could Bede overlook it ? Bede's filence both with refpe£t to the difputed verfe and the Prologue is a complete proof that he knew nothing of the Prologue, and a probable ar- gument that it was not even extant in his life. The only appeals to it are made by Walafrid Strabus in the ninth, and the Sor- bonne Corredorium in the tenth, century. This laft author feems to have been pver- burthened [ 297 3 fcurfhened with judgment, for he fays,- *' Here fome of the Greek MSS. are cor- " rupted, as St. Jerome obferves." • We may therefore fuppofe, that the Proloffue was written in fome part of the time h&v tween Bede's death and the ninth centurv. But if there were no other obje£lion to this Prologue, the ftyle alone would deter- mine it not to be Jerome^s. Whatever be his fubjeft, his language is always fpirited and perfpicuGUS 5 while the Prologue is writtea in a barbarous and uncouth jargon. To make it the more barbarous, you have fol- lowed thofe editions (Append, p. 6, 13.) which read, quodfunt for ut Jint, and traitjlato- ribus ponenies. But I (hall pafs by thefe ex- preflions, though, if they were genuine, they would clear Jerome from all fufpicion. Next, let us confider the reafoning and connexion. '^ As we formerly corrected the *' Evangelifts to the line of truth, fo we *' have by God's affiflance reflored thefe " [epiftles] to their proper order." The real Jerome could never have indulged him- felf in fo filly a parallel, when he might l^ave faid, and ought to have faid, ita et has'^ Deo [ 29S ] Deo javante^ Gr^^Hc^ Jidel red^idimuu This would have been a prober fubjedt for his joy and piety, inftead of childifhly com- mending himfelf for fuch a trifle as reftoring the order of the epiftles. It is aifo obferv- able, that though the main drift of the au-, thor was to give cyrrency to his favourite i?erfe of the three heavenly witneiTes, he is; afraid to affirm diredtly that it was in the Greek MSS. and only infinuates that falfe- laood in cautious and perplexed language : *' Which epiflJes, if they were faithfully ^q " turned into "Latin, as they are arranged by *' them" (the Apoftles, I fuppofe) "neither ** would create doubts in the readers, nor *' vi^ould the varieties of readings impugn *' one another ; efpecially in that place of ^' John where we read of the unity of the ^' Trinity; in which we find the unfaithful *' tranflators to have erred much from the *' true faith ; putting only three names,-— " and omitting the witnefs of the Father, the Word an4 the Spirit, by which the catholic faith is chiefly ftrengthened, an4 ** the one deity of the Father, Son, and^oly f* Ohoft proved," Firft, here is another ridiculous [ 299 ] ridiculous oppofition of ^o and as. *' If the *^ tranflators had been as diligent in tranf- ^' lating the epiftles as the apoftles (or the ^' Greeks, for ab lis nnay be referred to them) *' have been in arranging the fame epiftles." Nor do I beHeve that Jerome would have ufed fuch language as this, Neque fermonum Jefe varietates impugnarent. Befides, the au- thor does not pofitively affirm that he has reftored the yerfe upon the authority of Greek MSS. but in order to poflefs the reader with that belief, envelopes his meaning in a cloud of words. This obje6lIon will not feem of little weight to thofe who know that many perfons will infinuate a falfhood, which they dare not aflert in explicit terms. If Jerome himfelf had told us fuch a piece of news as is hinted in the Prologue, he would have fpoken out and told it plainly, whether it were true or falfe. If it were true, an af- fetted obfcurity would be as needlefs, as it was contrary to his manner. If it were falfe, he would have affirmed it no lefs boldly and called God to witnefs no lefs folemnly, than when he attefled the miracle of his being ^hipped by angels for reading prophane au- thors ; [ 3^° ] fhors ; or when he wrote the lives of Paul * and Hilarlon, which you have fo well de^ fended, But * Mr. Travis fays that Jerome wrote tliefe lives, " not •f as pofitive facts, but to teach fome moral or fpiritual " duty, and to inculcate what is ufeful and good." An4 he compares them to Piipay and iEfop's Fables, to Ho- mer's two poems, and to Jotham's parable. I (hall there- fore give the outlines of Jerome's life of Paul, that the unlearned reader may be better able to Calculate the quan- tity oi good and ufeful inftrutStion contained in it. " Antony thought hitpfelf the moft perfeft monk iq " the world, till he was told in a vifion, that there was " one much more perfefl: than he, and that he muft fet " out on a vifit to the prince of anchorets. Antony *' departed on this errand, and in his journey through the " defert faw a centaur. Jerome modeftly doubts whe- " ther it was the natural produce of the foil, fruitful in *' monfters, or whether the devil aflumed this fliape to " fright the holy man. Some time after he faw a Satyr,' *» with an horned forehead and goats feet, who prefented ♦f him with fome date? as hoftages of peace, and confeffed " that he was one of the falfe dpities, whom the deluded " Gentile? worfhipped. At lafl; Antony, quite weary " aftd exhaufted, found Paul, and, while they were dif- '^ courfing together, who (hould appear on a fudden, bi?t •f a raven with a loaf, which he laid down in their light. " Every day, fajd Paul to Antony, I receive half a Iq^f, " but [ 3^1 1 But if Jerome had told us, that his Greet MSS. contained the three heavenly witnefles, he would have told a notorious falfhood. •' but on your arrival Chrift has given his foldiers dou- " ble provifion. He alfo told Antony^ that be himfelf " fhould (liortly die ; he therefore defined to be buried in " the fame cloak that Antony received from Athanafius, " Antony fet out full fpeed to fetch the cloak, but Paul *' was dead before his return. Here was a frefh diftrefs ; " Antony cpuld find no fpade or pickax to dig a grave. " But while he was in this perplexity, two lions ap- " proached with fo piteous a roaring, that he perceived " they were lamenting the deceafed after their unpolifhed " faftiion. They then began to fcralch the earth with ♦' their feet, till they had hollowed a place big enough to " contain a fingle body. After Antony had buried his *' friend's carcafe in this hole, the two lions came to him, *' and by their figns and fawning afked his blefllng, which <♦ he kindly gave them, and they departed in very good *' humour," Something of the fame nature happened to St. Daph- nis, as we learn from thofe Ecclefiaftlcal Hiftorians who inculcate what is ufeful and good. Theocritus, I. 71. T?»oj x'""" V^"'" AEfiN EKAAYSE @a,to,l», and Virgil, V. 27. Daphni, tuum Pcenos etiam ingeMuisSE leones Interitum montefque feros filvafque loquutitur. All the inference that I wifh to draw from this long note, is that Mr. Travis has not read Jerome's lives of the Saints which he has fo manfully defended. That [ 3^2 ] *rhat r.ll the Greeks before his time ahd all for many ages after it, fliould know nothing of this text, or entirely hegle£l it; that all the vifible Greek MSS. which have furvived to the prefent day, (hould omit it ; and yet that Jerome found a clufter of Greek MSSi all of which retained it, this, according to the common courfe of things, is incredible an