/J 
 
 .rv 
 
 i 
 
 LIBRA_RY 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological 
 
 Seminary, i 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. ' | 
 
 Case, 
 Shelf, 
 
 SIC 
 
 Division '.. ; 
 
 Section.. 
 
 Booh, 
 
 ■ 
 
 No 1 
 
 -«l«^^ 
 

LETTERS 
 
 EDWARD GIBBON, Esq, 
 AUTHOR OF THE HISTORY 
 
 © F T H 
 
 I DECLINE, AND FALL, 
 OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 By G E O R G E ' T R A V I S, A. M. 
 
 PREBENDARY OF CHESTER, AND VICAR OF EASTKAM. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION, 
 CORRECTED, AND CONSIDERABLY ENLARGII 
 
 LONDON: 
 ll , PRINTED, AND SOLD, BY C. F. AND J. RIVINGTOK, 
 
 ST. PAVl's CHURCH-YARD, 
 MDCCLXXXV. 
 
■ ADFERriSEMENT. 
 
 AS the prefent edition of thefe Letters de- 
 viates, in many refpefts, from the former ; 
 it will be thought neceffary, perhaps, that fomc 
 account Ihould here be given of fome, at leaft, of 
 ^ofe deviations. 
 
 I. The Litters are, now, five, in number ; 
 and they are all addrefled to Mr. Gibbon, v/ho 
 was the occafion of them all. 
 
 T\\t firjl of them is introdu(flory to the general 
 fubjed : which is — A vindication of the au- 
 thenticity OF THE VERSE, I. JOHN, V. 7. (^) 
 
 The fecond contains all the positive evidence, 
 which the author has adduced direBly in proof of 
 that authenticity. Many other proofs are urged 
 thereto, indireElly^ as it were, or collateralhy in the 
 three fubfequent letters, {h) 
 
 The third dates, and replies to, the objeilions, 
 ' which 
 
 %a) Pages i — 16, 
 '^) 17—57. 
 
( iv. ) 
 
 which Dr. Benson has brought againft the authen- 
 ticity of this contefted paflage. (c) 
 
 The fourth is employed in confidering the ob- 
 jeftions of Sir Isaac Newton, M. Giuesbach, 
 and Mr. Bowser, (^d) 
 
 The fifth {e) attends to the three, principal, 
 objedions, which are, or may be, alledged againft 
 this difputed text : and fums up the whole argu- 
 ment, applying it particularly to Mr. Gibbo7i. 
 
 Ill the three Letters, laft mentioned, many alle- 
 gations, againft this verfe, are occafionally anfwer- 
 cd, which have been brought by M. Simon, Em-. 
 LYN, MicHAELis, Wetstein, La Croze, and 
 Le Long. 
 
 2. Two miftakes, contained in the former edi- 
 tion of thefe Letters, are now redified. The 
 former refpedted the firft publication of Valla'% 
 Commentary by Erasmus ; which happened in 
 A. D. 1505, and not in A. D. 1526, as erroneoufly 
 ftated in that edition. The latter related to fomc 
 portions of Scripture -, which it was then faid 
 that Bede had not noted in his Commentary. 
 
 But, 
 
 (f) Pages 59—221. 
 \d) ' 222 — 314. 
 
 (0 315—376. 
 
( V. ) 
 
 But, fortunately, thcfe errors do not, properly, 
 belong to the author of this Treatile. He con- 
 fided the examination of the only edition of 
 Valla's, Commentary in 1505, v.'h;ch is, perhaps, 
 to be found in England, (if not m Europe) and 
 which is in the Bodleian Repofitory, to the care of 
 one who was difinterefied in this enquiry, and com- 
 petent to that examination. And he pofitively, and 
 repeatedly, but (it appeared at length) miftakenly, 
 affirmed, that Erasmus was not the editor of that 
 publication ! The other millake arofe in the 
 fame manner. It was impofTible to redify thefe 
 mif-flatements in the former edition ; becaufe it 
 was publifned long before they were dilcovered. 
 
 It is mod fortunate, however, that thefe invo- 
 luntary errors do not, at all, afttd: the great 
 queftion, difcufled in thefe Letters. The original 
 infertion of them was an unintentional offence in 
 the author. Their expulfion has not enfeebled^ 
 or impaired, liis argum.ent. 
 
 To thofe who have honored the former edition 
 of thele Letters v/ith their approbation, the 
 author will venture to fubmit the prefent with 
 fome confidence, as being lefs unvv^orthy of their 
 protection. To thofe, v/ho have (in any manner, 
 known to the author of thele pages) mingled their 
 indulgence with reprehenfion, — he begs to prefent 
 
 his 
 
( vi. ) 
 
 his thankful acknowledgments for both. The 
 one may have been honorable to him ; the other 
 has been advantageous. They will find that he 
 has, in general, not reje6led their ftriftures, but 
 hath profited by them, wherefoever they were 
 jull. (f) 
 
 Truth is the fole aim, objed, and end, of the 
 writer ot the following pages. If he fiiall feem, 
 in any part of tliofe pages, to have animadverted, 
 with fomc feverity, upon Mr. Gibbon, or upon 
 Dr. Ee^s.n • Aich Ji. madverfions will, he trulls, 
 be, at lead, pardoned, when the nature of the of- 
 fence Ihah be confidered, which excited them. 
 Whea men, but tooevidently, pollpone the love of 
 truth to the defire of viftory, and facrifice the 
 faithfulnefs of tadts to their own predile6li6ns,— 
 luca coiidu6l becomes more than a common tranf- 
 grefiion : and, therefore, not only calls tor, but 
 juftifies, a more than common feverity of rep re- 
 henfion. 
 
 May 2, 1785. 
 
 (f) One ftriauie, In particular, by a late wiiter, refpea. 
 5ng <i qu nation from Tertuilian^ is of fo diiFercnt a defcription, 
 that, nvhen read, ii is alfo anfu.eied* 
 
TO THE RIGHT REVEREND 
 
 B E I L B r. 
 
 Lord Bishop OF Chester, 
 
 THE FOLLOWING LETTERS ARE 
 MOST HUMBLY 
 
 INSCRIBED, AND DEDICATED: 
 AS SOME TESTIMONY, HOWEVER SMALL, 
 OF REVERENCE FOR HIS VIRTUES; 
 
 AND 
 
 AS SOME TOKEN, HOWEVER INSIGNIFICANT, 
 OF GRATITUDE FOR HIS FAVORS, 
 
 / BY 
 
 The author. 
 
LETTER r, 
 SIR, 
 
 I SHALL make no apology to you, for the 
 following addrefs. It is caufed by certain 
 affertions, which are contained in a work, 
 lately given by you, to the public, in the 
 truth, or falfehood, whereof the pubhc is 
 materially concerned. 
 
 The alTertions, here meant, are found in 
 the following note to the third volume of 
 your " Hiftory of the Decline, and Fall, of 
 the Roman Empire.'* 
 
 " The three witnelTes" (i John, v. 7.) 
 ** have been eftabliflicd in our Greek Tefta- 
 *' ments, by the prudence of Erafinus ; the 
 ** honeft bigotry of the Complutenjian Edi- 
 *' tors : the typographical fraud, or error, 
 *' of Robert Stephens^ in the placing a crot- 
 *' diet ; and the deliberate falfehood, or 
 B *' ftrange 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 ** flrange mlfapprehenfion, of Theodore 
 '' Bezar {a) 
 
 The verfe of St. John, here alluded to, 
 •ftands thus in our common Teflaments — 
 
 *' For there are Three that hear record in 
 " Heaven ; the Father, 'the J'Vord, and 
 *' the Holy Ghoji : and thefe Three are 
 " Oner 
 
 As the charges, which you have thus 
 brought againft the Complutenjian Editors, 
 againil Robert Stephens, and Theodore Beza, 
 (^Erafmus being rather praifed, than cenfu- 
 red, by you, for a reafon which may here- 
 after appear) feem expreffed in terms pur- 
 pofely obfcure, — it appears neceffary, in the 
 lirft place, briefly, to enquire, whether they 
 have done any thing to deferve thefe feveral 
 
 accufations ; 
 
 {a) There is a deficiency in this feritencc which ought 
 to be fupplied. St. John fpealcs, in two fuccellive verfes 
 of the chapter in queftion, o\' fix Witncllcs : tJn-ee in 
 heaven, and three on earth. Mr. Gi-bbon has no quarrel 
 with the three Witnefles on earth. His Note is levelled 
 againlt the three^ heavenly, TVitncJfes, only. It feemed ne- 
 reft'ary to ftate this diftindion here, ai^d to keep it £Oii- 
 ftantiy in view in the following Dillertation, 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 ■iccufation-s; makings howeverj. Ibnie preT>. 
 ous mentioi-^ of Fj^aCmm^ 
 
 I. Emfinm pii!>li/hed hisfi-JI e^ithn ofth^ 
 GreekTeikament at Ba/il^ A. D. 1516^ ir?leis 
 than a century after the invention of the art 
 of printing. It was the firfl Greek Teila- 
 ment which the world had, then, feen ilS"ue 
 from the prefs. He publi/hed a fecond' edi- 
 tion of the fame work, at the fame place, in 
 A. T>. 15^9' Ji^ thefe two editions this 
 verfe (i Jobn, v. 7.) was not inserted ; which 
 omifCionJirfi caft the imputation of impoflere 
 upon it. Being publicly reprehended, for 
 this omiflion, by our countryman Eckvcird 
 Le)', and hy Lopez Stunk a^{oT Ajlumga^ as it is 
 fometimes written) a learned Spaniard, Eraf- 
 mus afterwards, in A. D. 1522, pubhOied 
 his third edition, in which he reflored this 
 text of the three (heavenly) Jflcnejfes : de- 
 claring, as his apology for having left it out 
 of his two former editions, that he had not 
 found it in five Greek MSS, which: he had 
 then confulted ; but thatheiiad now replaced 
 ^" repofuimus'^) the verfe, becaufe lie found 
 P 3 that 
 
'( 4 ) 
 
 that it did exifl in an ancient, Greel, MS ii| 
 England, (b) 
 
 II. The famous Polyglott of the Old, and 
 New, Teftament was pruited in Spaln^ at 
 Comphitum, (or Alcala de Henares) under the 
 patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, A.D. 15 14; 
 but it was not publifhed until feveral years 
 afterwards. It was the refult of the joint 
 labors of many (c) learned men, who were 
 fele<fted, by the Cardinal, for that purpofe, 
 and furnifhed with all the Greek MSS, and 
 other aids, which his great political, as well 
 as perfonal, influence could procure. In this 
 work the " Complutenjtan Editors" have in- 
 ferted the text of i John, v. 7 : which in- 
 fertion, it feems, deferves no better an ap- 
 pellation, from Mr. Gibbon, than that of 
 *' honeji bigotry. ^^ 
 
 III. In A. D. 1546, Robert Stcphejis pub- 
 lifhed his valuable edition of the Greek Tef- 
 tament. That this work might be as per- 
 
 fed 
 
 \{h) Appendix, No. XX. 
 
 [c) The number of ihefe learned men, Vf2i^ forty-two T 
 
 » — and they were employed in this great work, not lefs 
 
 ijas is commonly believed) than fifteen years. Aljledii 
 
 Encyclop. Bookxxxiij Chap, 7. GomsT-^ in Vita Ximmis, 
 
C 5 ) 
 
 fed: as pofTible, great induflry was ufed to 
 colIe6l fuch Greek MSS, as had efcaped the 
 enquiries of the editors of Cpmplutum-. And 
 thofe endeavours were attended with fuch 
 fuccefs, that Hobert Stephens^ in the profecu- 
 tioii of that work, " i'jllated^{d) his Greek 
 text withjixtee?i very ancient,, written^ copies,^* 
 This edition of A. D» 1546, and a fubfe- 
 quent one in A. D. 1549, not being printed 
 in a volume large enough to admit of mar- 
 ginal remarks, and notations of different 
 readings, contained only the plain Greek 
 text of the New Teftament. And in both, 
 thefe editions ftands this teftimony of the 
 ;f/:?;Ti? (heavenly) IVitneJfes. InA. D.1550, 
 Hobert Stephens gave a third edition to the 
 World, on a larger fcale : in which he diftin-. 
 gullhed the different Greek MSS, which he 
 had collated, by Greek letters (f3, y, &c.) and 
 the' various readings by an obelus^ and Jemi' 
 parenthejis, or crotchet ; which, wherever in- 
 ferted, were meant to denote, that, from the 
 word, before which the obelus was placed, to. 
 the ftation Vvhere the femi-parenthejis was 
 found, in the Greek text, the whole of that 
 
 {d) See his Preface, Appendix, $so. XII, 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 verfe, or verfes, word, or words, was want- 
 ing In the particular MSS cited in the marr 
 gin. In this third edition, Robert Stephens 
 has thus marked, in a great variety of in- 
 ftances, fometimes a iingle word alone, and 
 fometimes feveral words following each 
 other. As he found in feveral of (for i'c 
 feems to have exifted in them all) his own 
 Greek MSS, and in the Cotnplutenjian Bible, 
 this feventh verfe entire ; fo in fome others 
 he remarked the particular words (^iVTu^xvx\ 
 " in Heaven,^'' to be wanting. At the head 
 of thefe three words, therefore, Robert Ste- 
 phens placed an obelus, in his edition of A. D. 
 1550, and a femi-parenthefis at the end of 
 them : thereby denoting, to the reader, that 
 thofe three words were wanting in the par- 
 ticular MSS, referred to in the margin. 
 And this, Sir, you call " the typographical 
 fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens." 
 
 IV, Theodore Beza (whofe erudition, and 
 piety, did honor to the age in which he liv- 
 ed) was born at Fezelai, in, or about A, D. 
 J 5 19, and died in A. D. 1605. He publifh- 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 td an edition of the Ne\v Teftament, with 
 annotations, at Geneva, in A. D. 1551. He 
 was urged to this work by Robert Stephens^ 
 who, on Bezas comphance with his foUci- 
 tations, permitted to him the free ufe of all his 
 Greek MSS. In his notes on this paiTage of 
 St. jfohn, he fays (^) " This verfe does not 
 *' occur in the Syr/ac verfion," &c. " but 
 *' is found in the Enghyb MS, in the Com- 
 *' plutetijlan edition, and in fome ancient 
 *' MSS oi Stephens, In the EngUJlo MS, the 
 *' words Father, Word, and Spirit, arc 
 *' written without their articles ; but they 
 *' are read with their articles in our (/^) 
 " MSS. The JLngl'iJJj MS has, fimply, the 
 *' word Spirit, without adding to it the 
 *' epithet Holy; in ours they are joined, and 
 *' we read Holy Spirit. As to the words, 
 " In Heaven, they are wanting mfeven an- 
 *' cientMSS." And he further ufes thefe re- 
 markable exprefTions (which, indeed. Sir, 
 feems to have drawn down the plenitude of 
 
 vour 
 
 {e) Appendix, No, XL 
 
 (/) Be%ay throughout his annotations, calls the MSS 
 of Stephens " no/iri codices" — our MSS. 
 
 The notes, juft referred to, fupply, in a very fmali 
 cocnpafs, two inftances of this appellation. 
 
(83 
 
 .your anger upon him) — " / am entirefy 
 *^ faihfcd that we ought to retain this ver/e,**, 
 
 This is the pLiin truth, briefly ftated, of 
 the proeeedings of Erafmus, Robert Stephens^ 
 Iheodore Be%a, and the editors of Complutum^ 
 relative to the verfe in queflion. To this 
 iliort ftatement permit me to add the follow* 
 ing obfervations. 
 
 I^ You feem, Sir, not to be more happy 
 in your md'ire^i commendation of Erafmtis, in 
 tliis matter, than we fhall, hereafter, find 
 you to have been in your dire^ cenfures of the 
 other editors. In whatever light we view 
 the condud of Erafmtis^ it betrays, at leaft, 
 greait weaknefs. If he was really poffefled 
 oi five ancient MSS, in which this verfe had 
 no place, and had thought it his duty to ex- 
 pel it, accordingly, from his two former edi- 
 tions, he ought not to have reftored it, in his 
 third edition, upon the authority of afitigle 
 MS only. It feems impofiible to account for 
 the behaviour of Erafmus, in this matter, 
 taking the whole of it into contemplation at 
 once, but upon one of thefe fuppofitions : 
 
 Either 
 
c 9 y 
 
 Either he couU not produce the five MSS, iii 
 which he had alledged the verfe to be omit-^ 
 ted ; or he had other authorities, much fu* 
 perior to the teftimony of a fmgle MSS, for 
 re-placing the verfe, which he was not, how* 
 ever, ingenuous enough to acknowledge. 
 And this conclufion will not, perhaps, feera 
 altogether unwarrantable, when the tefli- 
 monies which I mean to produce, in my next 
 letter, in fav6r of the originality of this verfe^ 
 Ihall have been fully weighed ; and when it is 
 further confidered, that Erafmus was fecret- 
 ly inclined (g) to Arianifm : a circumflance, 
 which rendered him, by no means, an in^ 
 different editor of this fifth chapter of St. 
 John, Upon the face of his own Apology, 
 then, the conduct of Erafmus^ in this in- 
 ftance, was mean. Upon the fuppofition of 
 his having kept back from the world his 
 true motives of adion, it was grojly dlpn" 
 genuous^ and unworthy. And yet for a pro- 
 ceeding, which muft fall under one of thefe in- 
 evitable alternatives, you, Sir, it feems, cannot 
 find a more fevere ftridure, than, " the pru- 
 dence 
 
 {g) Int. ^X.-^Chmh, Cyclopaed. (by Re(s) Tit. " A>U 
 
C 1° ) 
 
 Jefice of Erafmus /" If Erafmus had not pof- 
 feffed the merit of cafting the^r/?, (F) pub- 
 lic, imputation of impoflure on this verfe, 
 which others have fince been induftrious to 
 prove, — his fuhfequent recantation, his *' re* 
 fofuimus,^* would hardly have met with fo 
 mild a rebuke from Mr. Gibbon. 
 
 II. The admiflion of the text, in queftion, 
 into the feveral additions of Robert Stephens's^ 
 Greek Tellament, was not owing to a " /y- 
 pographieal error''* of that editor. You, Sir, 
 I prefume, would fay, that Robert Stephens 
 meant to have placed his obelus^ and crotchet, 
 fo as to have denoted the whole of the verfe 
 I yohn, V. 7, (inflead of the three words, tu 
 ru a^«i/w) to have been wanting mfeven of his 
 MSS; and that his not doing fo was a miflake. 
 Without requiring your authority for fo ar- 
 bitrary an affumption, we may fatisfy our- 
 felves from the bell: authority poffible, the 
 internal evidence of the volume itfclf, that 
 
 the 
 
 (h) " Praefatio Hieronymi Interprttes quofdam ob omif- 
 " Jionem ejus" [this Verfe] " culpat ; infertto. vero, ejus 
 •* NON, ante Erafmi aetatem, ut fraudh ■plena ^ damnata 
 «' ejir [IVolfius, Curs Philologicze, Edit. Hamb, Vol. 
 V, pa. 306.) 
 
the whole of fuch a fiippofition muft be 
 groundlefs. To this edition, of A. D. 1550, 
 Robert Stephens has annexed a lift of 'Errata^ 
 or " typographical errors,'* wherein he has 
 , been fb afliduoufly corre6l, as anxioufly to 
 point out to the reader one comma forgotten^ 
 and another m'lfplaced, in that laborious vo-. 
 iume : but there is no reference, in the HT". 
 rata, to this verfe of St. yohn. If an argu- 
 ment, like this, could want fupport, it might 
 be further remarked, that John Crtfp'm (aii 
 advocate of the parliament of Paris, who 
 had retired to Geneva, for the fake of the 
 free exercife of the reformed religion) pub- 
 iifhed a new edition of the Greek Teftament, 
 at Geneva, in A. D. 1553; wherein the obe-' 
 lus, and crotchet, retain the fame place, in re- 
 gard to this verfe, that they poflefled in the 
 edition of Robert Stephens : which is a proof 
 that Stephens, who was then a Jellow citizen 
 <ivlth Crlfpln, never found out (what you. 
 Sir, it feems, have now found out for him) 
 any " typographical error in the placitig his 
 crotchet,^* Nor, 
 
 ^'ill. Was this text inferted hi Beza's Greek 
 
 Teflamenc 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 Teftament through the ^'Jlrange mlfapprehm* 
 fon^'* or through any mlfapprehenfion at all, 
 of Theodore Beza. The debate between Eraf- 
 mus. Ley, and Stunica, had awakened the 
 attention of Chriftians, in general, to this 
 fubjed, upwards of /ie;^;7/y years before The^ 
 cdore Beza began his commentary. As a 
 principal member of the reformed church, 
 as a man famed for erudition, and integrity, 
 the eyes of all 'Europe were fixed on Bezci^ 
 expe<fled publication. Indeed, he feems ta 
 have felt himfelf called to the talk: and ac- 
 cordingly his own words, before quoted in 
 this letter, fliew that he gave the matter a 
 full confideration ; that he contrafled the 
 Syriac verfion, &c. with his own authori- 
 ties, and compared them together fo atten- 
 tively, as even to note in which of them a 
 iingle article, or epithet, was wanting ; that 
 he had, in fliort, fully weighed the reafons 
 on both fides, and found thofe for the au- 
 thenticity of the text fo greatly to prepon- 
 derate, as to enable him to fpeak his ferious 
 convidion in the moil decifiy^ terms. — " / 
 mn entirely fatisfied that we ought to retain iM^ 
 verfe:\ Such motives for caution, and fucli' 
 
 marks 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 piarks of diligence, in fuch a man, leave n5 
 room for the idea of mifapprehenjion. 
 
 Thus acquitted of " error, and mifappre* 
 henfion," it remains for you, Sir, to fhew, 
 how you can fubftantiate the other parts of 
 your charge again ft Robert Stephens, and The^ 
 odore Beza, — namely, of '\fraud'' and " de- 
 liberate falfehood^ It will become one who 
 wifties to live to pofterity as a hiftorian, to 
 confider well, how he can juftify himfelf, 
 either in literary candor, or Chriftian cha- 
 rity, for accufing men fo evidently confci- 
 entious, — men, whofe charadlers have hi- 
 therto been not unfuUied only, but illuftrl- 
 ous, — of the complicated crime of a deli" 
 berate falhfication of Scripture I 
 
 IV. Nor, are the Complutenjian editors, as 
 It feems, juftly chargeable with bigotry , (ei- 
 ther honeft, or di/Jjotiefi) for the part which 
 they took in this tranfaclion. They were 
 aflembled to collate the MSS of the original 
 language of the Scriptures, and to perpetu- 
 ate their contents to pofterity by means un-r 
 known to former ases. And what was the 
 
 o 
 
 conduct , 
 
( «4 ) 
 
 condu£l, which they purfued, as far as we,' 
 at this diftance of time, are enabled to trace 
 It out ? It appears, In general, from their 
 Preface (P) that thefe Edrtors had been fa- 
 vored with feveral Greek MSS, from th« 
 f^atican, at Rome, for the ufe of their Edition, 
 It appears, in particular, from the teftimony 
 of Stunica himfelf, (li) that they had pro- 
 cured another, moll: valuable, Greek MS 
 from the Ifle of Rhodes (which, from that 
 circumftance, is ufually ililed the Codex 
 Rhodienjis) for their affiflance in this under- 
 taking. PofTeffed of fuch treafures, it can- 
 not be fuppofed, with reafon, that theic 
 Editors would negle6l them. Led by fuch 
 guides, it is not to be prefumed, without 
 the moft clear and unequivocal proof, that 
 they would wilfully refufe to follow them. 
 They did no more, then, in this tranfadion, 
 as it feems from this general view of the 
 fubjecl, than infert, in their Polyglott, a verfe 
 which, we have reafon to conclude, (/) was 
 found in all thefe MSS, thus confulted by 
 
 them. 
 
 (/) Appendix, No. XIV. 
 \k') Contra Erafmum^ pafllm. 
 
 (/) The objcitions to this conclufion will be confi- 
 dered hereafter. 
 
( '5 ) 
 
 >em. And are you, then, Sir, ferloufly 
 offended, that thefe Editors, as far as their 
 condud can thus be traced out, did not abufc 
 the confidence repofed in them ? Are they 
 bigots^ becaufe they would not falfify the 
 text, which they were convened to afcer- 
 tain ? Bigotry may be defined to be a per- 
 verfe adherence to any opinion of any kind, with- 
 out giving to the evidence, on the contrary party 
 an open hearing, and a candid judgment, Su re- 
 ly, then, it is bigotry in Mr. Gibbon, (leaving 
 him at liberty to chufe his own epithet for 
 it) to exprefs what might, by any mode of 
 inference, be conftrued into a wifh, that 
 thefe editors had, in favor of the opinion to 
 ivhich he adheres, mutilated thofe records, 
 which they were urged, by every principle 
 that ought to govern the human mind, to 
 deliver down, to future ages, unabridged, 
 and unperverted. I would not, Sir, willing- 
 ly remind you of the reproaches of your 
 learned opponents, (;?#) refpecllng the quo- 
 tations, and authorities by which you at- 
 tempted to fupport the pofitions, aflumed in 
 the two well-known chapters of the fir ft 
 
 volume 
 
 {m) Dr. JVatfon^ Dr. Chelfunij Mr, Davls^ and others," 
 
< «6 ) 
 
 volume of your liiftory. I Ihould ftlU iv^t^; 
 unwillingly permit myfclf to draw any in« 
 ference, either from thofe inflances, or from 
 your prefent indignation againft the editors of 
 Complutum, as to the probable manner ia 
 which you would have proceeded, had yo\i 
 been the fole editor there. But, I truft, I may 
 be allowed to fay, that if thefe editors had 
 a6ted as you more than feem to wifh they had 
 done, they would, for ought that appears to 
 the contrary, have merited the appellation of 
 difljoneft bigots — would have proved them- 
 felves unworthy betrayers of their truft, and 
 unfaithful flev/ards of the oracles of GOD J 
 
 I now beg leave. Sir, to fubmit the quef- 
 tion to yourfelf, how far thefe three Editors 
 have deferved the charges of error^ and mif- 
 cpprehenfion^ on the one hand, or of bigotry^ 
 frauds and deliberate falfehood, on the other, 
 which you have thus brought againft them. 
 And I requeil: your permiffion to eftablifh, in 
 a future letter, the authenticity of the text 
 in difpute, by proofs, all of them, antece- 
 dent to the days o^ Robert Stephens, Theodore 
 Be%a, or the Editors of Complutum, 
 
 I am, Sir, &c. 
 
LETTER IL 
 
 S I R, 
 
 IN my former letter, I trull:, It is proved, 
 that the charge, which you have brought 
 ^g2.m{tTheodore Beza, Robert Stephens^ and the 
 Complutenjtan Editors, relative to the Verfe 
 I John, V. 7, is not warranted by fa£t, and 
 cannot be fupported in argument. I mean 
 now to proceed, as was at firft propofed, to 
 cflablifli the authenticity of the Verfe itfelf, 
 by teftimonies of different kinds, all antece- 
 dent, in point of time, to the days of any 
 of the Editors here mentioned ; (tf) by 
 C proofs^ 
 
 [a) The teftimony of F. Jmelotte, inferted here in the 
 former Edition cf thefc Letters, is now omitted, becaufe 
 many learned, and worthy, men have exprefled doubts 
 of his veracity. His accufation, and defence, are ftated 
 at large, by Emlyn, on the one hand, and by Martin on 
 the other ; and alfo in the Jcurnal Britanique for 
 A. D. 1752, and 1753. [I am indebted for this 
 laft reference to Mr. Mat/?, New Review for Auguft 
 1 784* p. 74.] The deductions from the whole of thin 
 accufation, and defence, feem to be greatly in favor of 
 Amehtte. But I wilh not to bring forward any witnefles, 
 of any kind, againft whom any objedions may be made, 
 which are even only apparently reafonable \ becaufe this 
 Text does not feem to ilaud in need of any precarious 
 fuppoit. 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 proofs, commencing with the age of Erafmus^ 
 and afcending, from thence, to that of the 
 i^poftles. And 
 
 Firil, — From the writings of individuals, 
 
 I . Laurentius Falla, an Italian nobleman, 
 of great erudition, was the firfl perfon (as 
 M. Simon {b) confefles) who fet himfelf to 
 correal the Greek MSS of theNewTeftament. 
 He lived nearly a century before Erafmus, 
 (c) By afliduous, and long continued, enqui- 
 ries he got into his hands feven Greek MSS ; 
 a number very confiderable, if we refle(5l, 
 that, through the univerfal ignorance of 
 thofe ages, the G/Y^yC' language was then, be- 
 come 
 
 {b) Hi/I. des Verf.ons, C. xii. Du Pin. Hody, De 
 Biblioruni Textibus originalibus, Edit. Oxon. A. D, 
 1705, p. 441, 2. The learned Dr. A^ill Teems to have 
 fallen into feveral miftakes, in h\s Prolegomena y refpeiling 
 the MSS of P^al/a, See Bengelius {Inttod. in Criiin) p. 
 
 437- 
 
 (t) Erof?nus has, himfelf, paid a deferved tribute of 
 praife to Valla's. Annotations. In one part of his Epiftle 
 to F-fiher he fays, *' Laurentius^ — collatis aliquot vetujiisy 
 *' atque emendath^ Gracorinn excrnplaribus^ qunedam anno- 
 *' tavit in Novo Tcftamcnto." In another place he 
 fays, " Si quibus non vacat totam Gi-acorum linguam 
 ** pcrdifcere, ii tamen /^W/ceftudio non mediocriter adju- 
 "• vabuntur, qui mira fagacitate Novum omne Tclta- 
 .*' m^ntum cxcuiiit." (Appendix, No. XV, ) 
 
 1 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 tome almoft a dead letter, and Its MSS were 
 perifhing with it. This paflage of St. John 
 was found in all thefe MSS ; and is com- 
 mented upon by Valla^ in his Notes upon 
 this Epiftle {d), 
 
 2. In the Commentary upon the Scrip- 
 tures, written by Nicholas de Lyra, this 
 Verfe of St. John is found, in the place which 
 it it now polTefles, accompanied by the learn- 
 ed author's Annotations, without the fmall- 
 eft, exprefled, fufplcion of its authenticity 
 (i). He held the profefforfliip of Divinity, 
 at Paris, with great reputation, in the four" 
 teenth century. 
 
 3. About a century before this laft-men- 
 tloned time, appeared the Commentary of 
 St. nomas (as he is commonly called) on 
 this Epiftle ; in which this Verfe is not only 
 admitted, but commented upon, without any 
 inflnuations of interpolation. He has, alfo, 
 frequently quoted it in his great work, 
 
 C 2 " Summa 
 
 {d) « Opera L. Valla, Edit. Bafil A. D. 1543, p. 
 892. 
 
 (0 Edit. Jntverpia^ A. D. 1634. 
 
C 2° ) 
 
 ** Summa totlusTheoIogla',^* which, for manjf 
 pent'uries after its publication, was the admxf 
 ration of all Europe (/). 
 
 4. This Verfe is found in the Rationale 
 of Divine Offices, compofed by the celebrated 
 Durandiis (^) Bifhop of Mende, m Langus^ 
 doc, in the thirteenth century. 
 
 5. Lombard, who was Bifhop of Paris ^ 
 (Z?) in the twelfth century, exprefsly cites 
 this Verfe in the firft book of his Sentences. 
 His words may be thus tranflated : " The 
 *' Father, and the Son, are one, not by con- 
 ** fuiion of Perfons, but by unity of nature^ 
 " as St. John teaches in his canonical epif- 
 *' tie, faying, 7here are Three which bear 
 *' record in Heaven, the Father, the Words 
 *' and the Holy Ghof, and thefe Three are 
 " Oner 
 
 6, This 
 
 (/) Part T, Qii. 30. Art. 2, Qu. 31, Art. 1, 2, Qi.!. 
 39, Art. 2, 3, and 6, and Qu. 41, Art. 6. 
 
 {g) Rationale Dlv. Offic. Edit. Ludg. A. D. 155 1, Lib, 
 vi, chap, 97, p. 238. Morcri, Tom. i. p. 388, Edit. 
 A. D. 1724. 
 
 {h) Lib. i. p. 10— Edit, Paris, A. D* 1738. 
 
( 2« ) 
 
 6. This Verfeis quoted, in the fame cen^ 
 tury, by Rupert^ Abbot of Duyts, hi Genna- 
 ny, in his Treatife on the ** Glorification of 
 the Trinity (/)." 
 
 7. In the eleventh century lived St. Ber- 
 siardf whofe Sermons are yet extant. This 
 Verfe is iniifted upon, by him, in feveral of 
 thefe difcourfes, particularly in one upon the 
 05iave of Eafter, and in the Sixteenth of his 
 Parvi Sermones, 
 
 8. In, or about this age, RadulphusArdens^ 
 Hugo Fi^orinus, and Scotus, with other au- 
 thors, whofe works have furvived to the pre- 
 fent times, referred to the Verfe in queftion 
 (^). It would be tedious to particularife 
 all the citations made, in this century, of* 
 this paflage of St. John, 
 
 9. The Glojfa Ordinaria^ the work of IFa- 
 iafrid Strabo, was compofed in the 7iinth cen- 
 
 C 3 tury. 
 
 (/') ^7iperti Opera, Edit. A. D. 1602, Vol. ii, p. 26, 
 et alias fparfim. 
 
 {k) Dorfchei (Calov. Bibl.) DiiTertatio de'Spir. Aqua, 
 and Sanguine, p. 11. Calov. de Puritate Fontium, § 
 
( " ) 
 
 tury. This performance has been diftin- 
 guifhed by the higheft approbation of the 
 learned. In every age fince its appearance in 
 the world. Even M. Simon confeffes, that 
 *' no comment on the Scriptures is of equal au- 
 *^ thority with this expojition^'* In this work, 
 the text, in queftion, is not only found in the 
 Epiftle of St. 'John^ but is commented upon, 
 in the Notes, with admirable force, and per- 
 fpicuity. 
 
 In his Preface to this valuable Commen- 
 tary, Walafrid Straho lays down the follow- 
 ing rules, as means whereby to difcover, and 
 coxrtdi, any errors that might fubfifl in the 
 tranfcripts of his times, either of the Old, or 
 of the New Teflament. " Let it be noted,'' 
 (fays he, fpeaking to his readers) ** that 
 *' where any errors are difcovered in the 
 *' Tranfcripts of the Old Teflament, we 
 ** mufl have recourfe to the Hebrew Origi- 
 *• nal, becaufe the Old Teflament was ori* 
 ** ginally written in the Hebrew tongue. 
 *' But where any fuch errors fhall be difco- 
 «* vered in our Tranfcripts of the New Tef- 
 •* lament, we mufl look back to the 
 
 Gjieek 
 
( 23 > 
 
 ** Greek mss, becaufe the New Teflament 
 *' was originally written in the Greek lan- 
 ** guage, except the Gofpel of St. Matthew^ 
 '* and the Epiille of St. Paul to the He- 
 *« hrewsr (/) 
 
 If, Sir, it {hall be allowed, that this cele- 
 brated Commentator followed, in his own 
 pra£lice, the rules which he has thus pre- 
 fcribed to others, (which will hardly be 
 doubted) the Greek MSS, which direded him 
 to infert this Verfe in his Text, and Com- 
 mentary, muft, in all probability, have been 
 more ancient than any now known to exift. 
 He flourifhcd about A. D. 840. Some, at 
 leaf!:, of the Greek MSS, which were ufed 
 by him, cannot well be fuppofed to have 
 been lefs than 300, or 400, years old ; the 
 latter of which dates carries them up to 
 A. D. 440. But the most ancient Greek 
 C 4 MS, 
 
 (/) **■ Nota, quod ubicunque in libris Vderh Tefta- 
 
 ** menti mendofitas reperitur ; currendum ell ad volu- 
 
 *' mina Hebraorum\ quia vetus Teftamentum primo ia 
 
 •* lingua Hebraka fcriptum eft. Si verb in libris Novl 
 
 <* Teftamenti, revertendum eft ad volumina Gracorum \ 
 
 •' quia Novum Teftamentum primo in lingua Gradz 
 
 ** fcriptum eft, prjeter Evangelium Mattkai, et Epift ;• 
 
 •* lam Pauii at! Hcbrceos." 
 
MS, which is ?ww known to exift, is the 
 Alexandrian ; for which, however, Weiftein^ 
 who feems to have conlidered the queflion 
 with great attention, claims no higher an 
 antiquity than the clofe oithtjifth century, 
 or about A. D. 490. (jri) If this mode of 
 reafoning, then, be not (and it feems that it 
 is not) fallacious, the text, and Commentary, 
 of Walafr/d Sirabo {\:md upon the foundation 
 of Greek MSS, which are more ancient, in 
 point of time, and therefore, which ought to 
 be more refpe6led, in point of teftimony, 
 than any pofleiled by the prefent age, 
 
 10. In the middle of the eighth century 
 Amhrofe Anjhert^ Abbot of St. Vincent's^ in 
 Italy^ wrote a comment upon the Apocalypfe-, 
 wherein this verfe of St. John is applied, in 
 explanation («) of the fifth Verfe of the firfl 
 Chapter of the Revelations. 
 
 In his Comment upon this Verfe of the 
 Apocalypfe^ he fays, " Although the expref- 
 *' fion Qf faithful PFitnefs, found therein, 
 
 refers, 
 
 {m) See, alfo, Mill. Proleg. 1338. 
 (») Biblioth. Max. Patrum, Edit,i»^^. A, D. 1677;^ 
 Vol, xiii. p. 415. 
 
( 25 > 
 
 ** refers, dlreBly^ to Jefui Chrljl alone,-*.yet 
 •' it equally charafteriles the Father, the 
 ** Son, and the Holy Ghoft ; according to 
 •' thefe words of St. John^ 'There are three 
 ** which bear record in Heaven^ the Father^ 
 «« the IVord, and the Holy Ghoji, and thefe 
 f three are one'^ 
 
 II. In the fame century lived EHpandus, 
 Archbifhop of Toledo, in Spain, who main- 
 tained that Jefus Chriji had no exiftence, an- 
 tecedent to his coming into the world, and 
 that he was the Son of God by adop^ 
 tlon, only, and not by any co-eJfentlaUty in 
 nature. Thefe opinions of Ellpandus were 
 flrenuoufly oppofed by Etherlus, Bifhop of 
 Uxame, a Suffragan to Ellpandus, and by Be-* 
 atus, a Prieil in the AJltirlas. In the Trea- 
 tife which they publifhed againft Ellpandus^ 
 on this fi)bje6t, they quoted feveral paflages 
 of this Epiflle of St. John ; {o) and this verfe 
 in particular, which fpeaks of the three Wit- 
 fiejfes In Heaven^ the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 12. Calfiodorius 
 
 {o) Du pin, Lond. Ed. Vol. vi, p. 121—4 — B'^^* 
 Max. Patrum, Vol. xiii. p. 350. 
 
C 26 ) 
 
 t2. CaJJtodonus lived in Italy^ m the mid«* 
 die of the Jixth century. Among other 
 works, he wrote a Commentary on the Epif- 
 ties, &c. of the New Teftament, which he 
 tniit.\Qd.Complexiones, This work had lain long 
 in obfcurity, in the great library at Verona^ 
 where it would, probably, have flill remained 
 •unnoticed, and unknown, had not the late, 
 very learned, Maffeius found it there, in fomc 
 of his various refearches, and caufed it to be 
 printed, at Florence, in A. D. 172 1. In his 
 Annotations on this chapter Caffiodorius ufes 
 thefe words : " Three myfteries bear wit- 
 ** nefs in earth, the Water, the Blood, and 
 *' the Spirit, which are, we read, fulfilled in 
 *' the paflion of our Lord ; and in Heaven^ the 
 *' Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit^ 
 *' and thefe three are one GOD (/>)•*' 
 
 The teftimony of this writer is of the 
 greateil: weight, becaufe it appears from his 
 own work, as well as from the teftimonies 
 of BengeliuSy and }Vblfiu^, (q) that he was 
 
 exceedingly 
 
 (p) Appendix, No. X. 
 
 {q) Bengelius, Edit, Tubbiga, A. D. 1734, p. 755. 
 Hody, De Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 399. Wotfii, Cur. Phi- 
 Itlog. (Index, Tit, Cajftodorus, and particularly Vol. v. 
 
C ^7 ) 
 
 exceedingly attentive to the true readings of 
 liich works as he commented upon, particu- 
 larly the Scriptures ; and becaufe he lived 
 antecedently to the revifal of the New Tef- 
 tament, by Alcuinns and others, under Char* 
 kma^ne^ which will be mentioned hereafter. 
 
 13. In the beginning of thtjixth century 
 flouriflied Fulgentiiis^ Bifliop of Rufpe^ in 
 jifrlca. In that age the tenets of Arlus 
 were efpoufed by, at lead, two African kings, 
 nrajimond^ and Hunerk. Fulgentius oppo- 
 fed the Arlans (ahhoiigh fupported at that 
 time by the former (r) of thefe kings) with 
 zeal, and fortitude. And in his works we 
 find this verfe, among other paffages of 
 Scripture, exprefsly cited, and inlifted upon, as 
 being conclufive againfl the tenets of Arius : 
 '' The blelTed Apoftle St. John'* (fays he) 
 *' teftihes, that there are three which bear re* 
 ** cord in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and 
 ** the Spirit^ and thefe Three arc One, Which 
 
 " alio 
 
 p. 207, and 306.) Alio Simon, Hift. Crit. desVerfxons, 
 C. viii. 
 
 (r) Du P/'«,--Art. Fulgentius, Edit. Lond, A. D. l693» 
 Vol. iv, p. 14, 
 
( 28 > 
 
 ** alfo the moft Holy Martyr, Cyprian, c3e«* 
 *' clares in his Epiftle De Unit ate Ec define ; 
 *' wherein, to demonftrate that there ought 
 ** to be an unity in the Church, as there is 
 *' in the Godhead, he has brought the fol- 
 *' LOWING PROOFS, diredly, from Scrip- 
 *' TURE ; theLord (Jefus) fays, /, andmyFa^ 
 *' ther^ are One ; and again it is written of the 
 *' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit^ And ihefs 
 *' Three are One (/).'* 
 
 Ftilgentius, alfo, quotes this Verfe in his 
 ^reatife on the Trinity, dedicated to Felix, 
 *' I, and my Father, fays St. John, are One 
 *' [unum fumus] ; " thereby teaching us to 
 *' apf)ly the word tmu?n to their nzture, fumus 
 " to their perfons. So in the following words, 
 **• There are Three which bear witnefs in Hea* 
 ** ven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit" \ 
 *' and thefe three are one, (/) 
 
 14, In one of the lafl editions («) of the 
 
 works 
 
 {s) Refponfio contra Jrianos, — Bib). Max. Patrum, 
 Vol. ix, p. 4.1. (Appendix, No. IX.) 
 (/) Bibl. Max. Patr. Vol. ix, p. i6o. 
 («) Biblioth. Max. Patrum, Vol. ix. p. 276 and 28/. 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 works of this Blfhop, two Tradts are infert- 
 cd under his name ; although fome refpec- 
 table Critics, of modern times, have rather 
 wifhed to afcribe them to fome other Writer 
 of that age. They are addreffed to two 
 Jirian Controveriiahfl-s, then living, Pinia 
 and Fabian^ in oppofition to the tenets which 
 they maintained. In the former of thefe 
 Tracts the Verfe in queftion is thus quoted* 
 *' In the Epiftle of St. John, — There an 
 *' Three in Heaven which bear record, iheFa^ 
 " ther^ the Word, and the Spirit ; and thefi 
 *' three are one^'' 
 
 The title of the latter Trad is—" Tht 
 ** Trinity in perfons^ and the Unity in ejfence'* 
 [of the Godhead] " proved from Holy Scrips 
 «' tureJ" The title of this Trad, or Frag- 
 ment, is ftriking ; and the manner, in which 
 this Verfe of St. John is cited therein, is as 
 remarkable as the title (y). " The Apojlle^ 
 ** St. John, has exprefsly /aid, in /peaking of 
 *' the Father, the Son, afid the Holy Ghofi,'>^ 
 ♦' And thefe three are one'"* 
 
 It 
 
 (v) This Treatife Is affirmed, by Du Pin, to be the 
 work q{ FiJ^^ntiuSt Vol. iv, Loud, Edit. p. i8. 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 It feems to be of little moment, in this 
 dlfquilitlon, whether we conclude thefc 
 Tra£ts, or Fragments, to have been the 
 work of FulgentiuSy or of fome contemporary 
 Writer. They, prove, tinder either fuppo- 
 fition, (in corroboration of other authorities 
 here adduced) both thofe points, by which 
 the prefent queftion is affeded ; namely, 
 that this verfe was quoted in the AxiTuvi contro^ 
 verfy^ — ^^^^ ^^^^ there appealed to, as m^\x^ 
 hitzhly proceeding from the pen of St. John. 
 
 I c A few years before Fulgentius, lived 
 Vigiliusy who was Bifhop of Tapfum, fitua- 
 ted in iht fame province, and kingdom, with 
 Rufpe. He thus urges the teflimony of this 
 Verfe, in oppofition to the errors of Arius^ 
 in thtfr/i book of his Treatife on the Trinity* 
 *' The names of the Perfons in the God- 
 •* head" (fays he) " are evidently fet forth 
 *' by St. John, the Apoftle, who fays in his 
 •* Epiftle, There are three which bear record 
 " in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the 
 *' Spirit, and in Chrijl Jcfus they are one (w).** 
 
 Again,—. 
 
 (zy) Bibl. Max. Patrum, Vol. vlii, p. 775. — " Unum; 
 non tamen unus eft, quia non cjl in his una perfona" ais 
 the words of the original. (Appendix, No. VII.) 
 
( sO 
 
 Again, — ** To what purpofe is it" (fays 
 he, in his feventh Book, addreffing himfclf to 
 the Arians) " that ye read in John^ the 
 •' Evangelift, l^hefe Three are One, if ye ftill 
 *' perlift that there are different natures in 
 " their perfons ? I aik, in what manner are 
 ** the Three One, if the nature of their di- 
 <* vinity is diiferent in each ?" (a;) 
 
 In the tenth Book he repeats the argu- 
 ment, herein before cited from the ^rjl 
 !Book, with little variation. 
 
 And, laftly, in his conteft with Farlma^ 
 iius, the Arian, he ufes thefe expreffions : 
 •' John, the EvangeliU:, in his Epiftle to the 
 •* Parthians, fays, — There are Three, which 
 ** bear witnefs in Earth, the Water, the 
 ** Blood, and the Flefh \et tres in nobis funt] ; 
 ** and there are Three, which bear witnefs in 
 ** Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit 
 '* [et hi tres unum funt], and thefe three are 
 ** one. (^) 
 
 i6. A 
 
 {x) Appendix, No. VII. 
 
 (y) Magna Bibl. Vetcr. Patr. Vol. H, p. 623— Edit, 
 Cut. Jgripp. A. D. I6i8. (App-idi.^:, No. VIII. ) 
 
( 3^ ) 
 
 1 6. A little before the days of Flg'dm^ 
 flourifhed in the Weil, the good Eucherius^ 
 He was confecrated Bifhop o^ Lyons (z) about 
 A. D. 434. There was not a Bifliop, in the 
 weftern world, more revered for learning, 
 and piety. Permit a quotation from his 
 works {a) : '^ As to the Trinity" (fays he) 
 ** we read in the Epiftle of St. John, There 
 *' are Three which bear record in Heaven, the 
 *' Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And 
 *' there are ^hree which bear witnefs in Earthy 
 *' the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood'^ 
 
 17. When the pious Jerome (who died 
 (3) A. D. 420) had compleated that great 
 work, of correcting the Latin veriion of the 
 Old, and fettling the text of the New, 
 Teflament, which he undertook at the re- 
 queft of Pope Damafus, he clofed the ar- 
 duous talk with a folemn protcflation, (c) 
 that, in revifing the New Teftament, he 
 had adhered entirely to the Greek MSS : 
 
 " Novum 
 
 (z) Du Pin, Art. Eucherius. 
 
 (a) Formulas, C. XI, Sed. 3 — Bibl. Max. Patrum, 
 Vol. vi, p. 838. (Appendix, No. VI.) 
 
 (b) Moreri, Art. Jerotnc. 
 
 (c) Catal. Ecclef. Scriptor. ad finem. (Hlerony)ni 
 Opera, per Era/mum, Vol i, Edit. Parlftisj A. D. 1546.} 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 " Nomm 'iejlamentum Jidei Gr^^eca reddidi'^ 
 And in Jerotni^ Teftament this verfe of Sti 
 yohn is readj without any doubt of its au* 
 thenticity. 
 
 18. Nor is the infertion of this verfe, iri 
 his Teflament, in obedience to his Greek 
 MSS, the only teftimony which Jerome 
 hath given to its authenticity. He has alfo 
 quoted it in the folemii confeffions of his 
 Faith, which are iiifcribed, refpedively, to 
 Pope Damafus, before mentioned, and to 
 Cyrillus^ then Bilhop of Jerufalem* 
 
 *' And as, in oppofition to Arius^ we 
 *' afErm that the Trinity is of one and the 
 *' fame eflence, and confefs, in three perfons, 
 *' one God : fo, (hunning the herefy of 
 " Sabellius, \Ve diftinguifh thofe three per* 
 " fons by their feveral properties. The Fa- 
 *' ther is always the Father ; the Son is aU 
 "ways the Son; and the Holy Ghoft is 
 *' always the Holy Ghoft. In eflence, 
 ** therefore, these" [three] "are oke'* 
 " \unufn funt\. They arc diftinfl inperfon, 
 " only, and in names." 
 
 D And 
 
( 34 > 
 
 And again, in the explanation of his faith 
 to Cyrtllus' — '* To us, therefore, therd is one 
 " Father ; — one Son, 'who is very God; and 
 '* one Holy Ghojl, who is very God: and 
 
 " THESE THREE ARE ONE.*' The WOrds 
 
 of Jerome are, " Et hi tres unum funt^"* 
 which are alfo a literal quotation from this 
 Verfe of St. John, (d) 
 
 19. Augujiinc was contemporary with 
 Jerome, and correfponded with him on many 
 Biblical fubjeds. In his Commentary upoa 
 the firfl Epiflle of St. John, and upon this 
 very Chapter of that Epiftle, Augujline ufes 
 thefc expreffions. " And why is Chriftthe 
 " end of the commandment ? Becaufe Chrifl 
 *' is God ; and the end of the command- 
 " ment is Love ; and God is Love. For the 
 " the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
 *' Ghoil" [unum sunt] " arc one^* 
 
 Again, in his Treatife againfl MaximiniiSy 
 the Arian, he expreffes himfelf in thefe re- 
 markable terms. " For there are three per- 
 *' fons'* [in the Godhead] " the Father, the 
 
 " Son, 
 
 {i) Appendix, No. XXIL 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 <* Son, and the Holy Ghoft : And these 
 <* THREE (becaufe they are of the fame ef- 
 *' fence) are one". J^Hl ires unum funt.'] 
 *' And they are compleatly one, [unum funt\ 
 *^ there being no diverfity either in their na- 
 *' tures, or in their wills. These three, 
 " therefore, w/&(? ARE one" [hi tres qulunum 
 Junt\ " through the ineffable unity of the 
 '^ Godhead, in which they are incompre- 
 *' henfibly joined together, are one GodJ'^ (J) 
 
 The flriking reiteration, in thefe paffages, 
 of the fame expreffions, — Unum funt, — Hi 
 tres unum funt, — Unum funt, and Hi tres qui 
 nnum funt, — feems to befpeak their deriva- 
 tion from the Verfe, now in debate, too 
 clearly to require any comment. 
 
 20. In the expofitlon of the Faith, Writ- 
 ten to Cyrillus, by Marcus Cekdenfs, an Afri- 
 can, the writer thusexprefles himfelf : " To 
 ** us there is one Father, and one Son, who 
 ** is truly GOD, and one Holy Spirit, who 
 *' is alfo truly GOD ; and thefe Jhree are 
 
 D z *« One 
 
 (/) Appendix, No. XXII, 
 
 r 
 
( 36 > 
 
 '^ One (/) :" the precife words of the 
 
 yerfe in queftion. 
 
 21. Phahadius was Bilhop of J^gen^ in 
 France^ in the fourth century. He thus cites 
 this Verfe, in his Book againft the Arians :■ 
 *' The Lord fays, I will alk of my Father, 
 *' and he fhall give you another comforter. 
 " Thus is the Spirit different from the Son, 
 ** as the Son is from the Father. Thus the 
 " Spirit is the Third Perfon, as the Son is 
 *' the Second, yet they all conftitute but 
 " one GOD, becaufe ihefe T^hree are One,^* 
 Quia tres unum Junt (g) are the words of 
 PhiebadluSy which are alfo a literal quota- 
 tion from St. Johiu 
 
 Jeroriie gives the mod honorable teftimo- 
 ny to this author, in his Catalogue of Eccleji- 
 ajljcal Writers, " Pha-badlus,"' (fays he) 
 " Bifliop of Agen, in France, publifhed a 
 *' Book againft the Arlam. It is faid that 
 *' he has been the author of other works 
 *' alfo, — but thnfe I have not yet read. He is 
 
 " alive 
 
 {f) Bingelius, p. 753. 
 
 Is) BihL Max. Patrum, vol. IV, p. 305. 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 ■*' alive at this day, in a very advanced age 
 
 22. Cyprian w^'^ made Bifliop of C^r/y?>^o-^, 
 (/) A. D. 248. In his treatife De Unitate 
 Ecclejiie, written againft Novafus^ he ufes 
 thefe words : " Our Lord declares ; / and 
 ** my Father are One ; and again it is zvrif- 
 '* ten of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 «« Spirit, — And thefe ^hree are One'' Et 
 hi tres iinum funt . (^) are the exat^: words of 
 this Holy Martyr. Here Cyprian^ there- 
 fore, manifeftly makes two quotations from 
 the Scriptures ; the former from the Gofpel 
 (/) of St. John^ the latter from i John^ v. 
 7, the Verfe in queftion. " // is ivrittcn^^ 
 lays he ; but in what part of Scripture is it 
 fo written, in thofe particular terms, fave in 
 I "John^ V. 7 ? In that Verfe, alone, through- 
 D 3 out 
 
 (/;) Catal. Eccl. Scriptor. p. 125. (Appendix, Nc, 
 V.) In Erafnms's edit, his name is written Sa:badius. 
 
 (;) Annales Cypriauiciy Edit. Oxon, A. D. 1682, p. 9. 
 
 Jerome's character of Cyprian is given in his ufual, ner- 
 vous, manner. '' Cypriaiius Afery-^H^^ns ingenii fuper- 
 *' fluum eft indicem texere, cum Sole clariora fine ejus 
 opera." [Catal. Scriptor. Eccl. p. 125.] 
 
 {k) Cypriani Opera^ Edit. O.vw. De Vnltaie Ecclejieey 
 p. 109. (Appendix, No. III.) 
 
 (/) Chap. X, V. 30. 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 out the whole of thofe facred pages, is the 
 precife phrafe, Et hi tres unum ftint, applied 
 to the Trinity of perfons in the Godhead. 
 This quotation, then, was made, and was 
 meant to be made, (jn) from this Verfe of 
 the EpilHe of St. John, 
 
 In his Epiftle to Jubahnus, Cyprian again 
 tirges this teftimony of the three (heavenly) 
 Witnefles, by a reference to the fame Verfe, 
 *' Cum hi tres mumfunt (^)." 
 
 23. Tertullian was born about the time of 
 ^t..John\ death, if fome Chronologies may 
 be {0) credited. But other computations, 
 which indeed feem to be much more accu- 
 rate, place his birth about A. D. 140. In 
 
 either 
 
 {m) See the words of Fulgentius, No. 13, before quo- 
 ted ; whofe teftimony renders all argument on this head 
 fuperfluous. 
 
 («) Cypriani Opera, (inter Epiftolas) p. 203. (Ap- 
 pendix, No. IV.) 
 
 {0) Eufebius, in his Chronica^ p. 165, fays that St. 
 John was alive in A. D. loi. And TeriulUan died (in 
 A. D. 196, according to Dr. Blair's Chronology, hut 
 according to Dr. Playfair^ which, indeed, feems to be the 
 more accurate account) about A. D. 234, in a very ad- 
 vanced age. *' Fertur vixijfe ufque ad decrepitam atatem'' 
 are the words of Jerome^ who was born in A. D. 331, or 
 little more than a century after the death pf Tertullian, 
 (Catal Scriptor, Eccl. Art. Tertullianus.) 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 cither cafe, it will be no incredible thing to 
 iuppofe, that TertulHan had converfed with 
 Chriftians of his own times, who had a6lu- 
 ally fat under St. Joh?i^s minlflration of tlie 
 Gofpel. In thofe days arofe, in Afia, the 
 heretic Praxeas, who maintained that there 
 was no pluraUty of perfons in the Godhead, 
 but that the Father fuffered on the crofs. 
 Againft the opinions of this man TertuUian 
 wrote a treatife, in the tiicmty-fifth chapter 
 of which he thus alledges this palTage of St. 
 John : " The connedlion of the Father in 
 *' the Son, and of the Son in the Holy Spi- 
 " rit, makes an unity of thefe three, one with 
 *' another, zvhicb Three are One.'''* T\\q Latin 
 is, Qui tres unum funt (/>), a literal quotation 
 of the Verfe in queftlon. And the tefllmo- 
 ny of Teriullian feems to carry irrefiftlble 
 convidion with it, to every unprejudiced 
 mind, not only from Its proximity to the age 
 of the Apoftles, but becaufe he teftlfies, 
 that, in thofe times, ihetr authentic Epi/iles 
 "uocre a^ually read to the Churches (^), not 
 
 through 
 
 (/>) Lib. adv. Praxeam Cap. xxy, ad init. (Appei- 
 dix, No. II.) 
 
 (y) " Percurre ecclefias Apoftolicas, apud qiias ipfe 
 •* adhue cathcdiic Apoftolorum fuis locis prcefident, apud 
 
( 4° ) 
 
 through the medium of the Latin, or of any 
 other tranflation, but hi the original Greek ; 
 to which originals TertulUan, himfelf, di- 
 redly appeals in the eleventh chapter of hl$ 
 ^ionogamla. " Sclamus plane''' (fays he, 
 ipeaking of fome erroneous opinions which 
 were then attempted to be proved by Scrip-s 
 ture) *' nonjic ejfe in authentico Gr^eco,^^ 
 
 I have now, Sir, gone through the tefti-? 
 monies of many individuals to the authentic 
 city of this Verfe, all of whom wrote ante- 
 cedently to the days of Erafmus, Others 
 might be adduced ; but it feems, at prefent, 
 unnecefTary to call for their afliftance. 
 
 To 
 
 ** quas ipfa auiL'nticcs Utera eorum reckantur, fonantes 
 *' vocem, et repraefcntantes faciem uniufcujufque." (Ter- 
 iuliianus, de praefcriptionibus adverfus Haereticos, Edit, 
 Fran. A. D. 1597, p. 211.) 
 
 It appears, moft clearly, from the Epiftle of Ignatius 
 (Cap. 8.) to t\\t Phi ladelph'ians^ that, in his times, the 
 original MSS of the Apoftles were extant, and were held 
 in great veneration. He died early in the fecond century. 
 And Peter, Bifhop of Alexandria^ in the fourth century, 
 refers to the original of St. John's Gofpel, which, he 
 fays, was then preferred, with even a religious refpeft, 
 at Ephsfus. Michaelis feems to doubt (Introd. Led. Edit. 
 Land. A. D. 1 76 1, Sedl. 12.) as to the truth of this 
 latter tcftimony ; but without much reafon. Eor, furcly, 
 it feems far from being improbable, that a MS of fuch 
 importance, and kept with fuch peculiar care, fliould 
 fubfift a little more than two hundred yz^vs. 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 To the evidence thus furnlfhed by LidhU 
 ^uals, I now beg leave to fubjohi — the tes' 
 
 TIMONY OF COUNCILS, AND OTHER COL^ 
 LECTIVE BODIES OF MEN, in fupport of 
 
 the originality of the Verfe in queftion, 
 
 I. The Council of Lateran was held at 
 Rome, under Innocent III, A. D. 1215. Of 
 all the afTemblies, of this kind, which the 
 Chriflian world ever faw, this was the mofl 
 numerous. It was compofed of more than 
 400 (r) bifliops, of about 800 abbots, and 
 priors, and of an equal number of deputies 
 from prelates, colleges, and chapters, who 
 could not attend in perfon. Among others, 
 the Greek patriarchs of Conjfantinople, and 
 yerufalem, were prefent ; and the feveral 
 patriarchs of Antioch, and Alexandria, fent, 
 each, a bifhop, and a deacon, as their repre^ 
 fentatives. The chief purpofe of convening 
 this council, was, for the examination of 
 certain opinions of the famous Italian, Fa- 
 ther Joachim, founder of the congregation 
 of Flora. Thefe opinions were accufed of 
 Arianijm, and were unanimoufly condemned 
 
 by 
 
 (r) DuPin, Bibl. Ecclef. vol. X. P. 103. 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 by the council : In whofe a6t, or decretal, 
 containing the reafons of fuch condemna- 
 tion, we find the Verfe now in queftion, a- 
 mong other paffages of Scripture, thus par- 
 ticularly fet forth (j). It is read in the Ca- 
 nonical Epiftle of "^john^ that " there are 
 *' T^hree which hear JVitnefs in Heaven, the 
 '' Father ^ the Word^ and the Holy Spirit, and 
 " theje Three are One^ 
 
 It may be permitted to me, perhaps, juft 
 to remark, that the univcrfal deference yield- 
 ed to the known learning, and integrity, of 
 the members of this council, caufed its de- 
 crees, in matters even of a fecular nature, 
 to be received as law, not only in Englajid, 
 {/) (where they flill continue fo) but through 
 the reil of the Chrijiian world. 
 
 2. About the clofe of the eighth century, 
 the Emperor Charlemagne called together 
 the learned of that age, and placed Alcuinus, 
 an Engli/hman, of great erudition, at their 
 
 head ; 
 
 (s) Colle^lloii of Councils, by Zfli^^^, and Cojfart, Edit. 
 Paris. A. D. 167 1, vol. XI, pa. 144. 
 
 (t) Bacon's Abridgment, vol. V. title Tithes^ Bunt's 
 Ecclef. Law, vol. Ill, (8vo. edit.) p. 381. 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 head («) ; inftru£llng them to revife the MSS 
 of the Bible then in ufe, to fettle the text, 
 and to re6llfy the errors which had crept in- 
 to it, through the hafte, or the ignorance, 
 of tranfcribers. To effect this great purpofe, 
 he furniflied thefe commiffioners with every 
 MS, that could be procured throughout his 
 very extenfive dominions. In their CorreSfo- 
 rlmn, the refult of their united labors, which 
 was prefented in public, to the Emperor, by 
 Alcmnus, the tejllmony of the three (heavenly) 
 Witnejfes is read, without the fmallefl im- 
 peachment of its authenticity. This very 
 volume Cardinal Baron'ras affirms to have 
 been extant, ^t Rome, in his life-time (.v), in 
 the library of the Abbey of Faux-Celles ; and 
 he ftiles it " a treafure oflnejllmable valued'' 
 
 It cannot be fuppofed, that thefe Divines, 
 thus allembled under the aufpices of a learn- 
 ed prince, would attempt to fettle the text 
 of the New Teflament, without referring to 
 
 the 
 
 (u) LeLong^ Bibl. Sacra, vol. I, c. iv,. fe6l'. 2. Edit. 
 Faris. A. D. 1773, P-235. ^. Simon^ Hift. Crit. des 
 Vers. C. ix. Hody, p. 409. 
 
 (x) He was born in or about A. D. 1538, and died in 
 A. D. 1607. Du Pin con^rms th\5 account of Baronius 2 
 Lond, Edit. A. D. 1693, vol.Vi, p. 122. 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 the Greek Original, by which alone that text 
 could be afcertained ; or that they would, in 
 that arduous inveftigation, collate MSS only 
 of a modern date, jufl wet, as it were, from 
 the pen of the copyift. Candor requires us 
 to admit, that their refearches mufl have ex- 
 tended many centuries upwards,^ — in all pro- 
 babihty even to the age of the Apoftles, 
 
 3. In A. D, 484, an affembly of African 
 Bifliops was convened at Carthage^ by King 
 Huneric, the Vandal^ and the Ar'tan, The 
 ll:yle of the edid, ifllied by Hunerk, on this 
 occafion, feems worthy of notice. He therein 
 requires the Bifhops, of his dominions, to 
 attend the council thus convened, there " to 
 *' defend, by the Scriptures, the confubfcan- 
 *' tiality of the Son with the Father," agamft 
 certain Arian opponents. At the time ap- 
 pointed nearly /i^/^r hundred bifhops attended 
 this council, from the various provinces of 
 Africa, and from the ifles of the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea ; at the head of whom fl:ood the 
 venerable Eugenius, bifhop of Carthage, The 
 public profefftons of Huneric promifed a fair, 
 and candid, difcuffion of the divinity of Jefm 
 
 Chrifl ; 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 Chrijl', but it footi appeared that his prhaU 
 intentions were, to compel, by force, the vin- 
 dicators of that belief to fubmitto the tenets 
 of Ariantfm, For when 'Eugenlus^ with his 
 Anti'Arian prelates, entered the room of 
 confultation, (jk) they found Cyrila, their 
 chief antagonift, feated on a kind of throne, 
 furrounded by armed men ; who quickly, 
 inflead of confuting the arguments of their 
 opponents, offered violence to their perfons. 
 Convinced, by this application of force, that 
 no deference would be paid to reafon, Ku^ 
 genius, and his prelates, withdrew from the 
 council-room ; but not without leaving be- 
 hind them a protefl, in which (among other 
 paiiages of Scripture) this Verfe of St. jfofm 
 Is thus efpecially infifted upon, in vindica- 
 tion of the belief to which they adhered. — ■ 
 " That it may appear more clear than the 
 •' light, that the divinity of the Father, the 
 *' Son, and the Holy Spirit, is one, fee it 
 '* proved by the Evangelift St. jfohn, who 
 
 " writes 
 
 ( V ) Vi^or Vitenjts^ who was then an Afiicayi hifhop, 
 and prcj'cnt at this council, has left us a ciicumitantia! ac- 
 count of the whole tranfadion. Vide Biblioth, Max. 
 Patrum, vol. VIII, p. 6h"6 : Gryn^'i Coll. Patr. Oi thod. 
 (Edit. 5^/. A. D. 1569) p, 799 : and Appendix, No. V. 
 
(46 ) 
 
 " writes thus : There are Three which hear 
 " record in Heaven^ the Father^ the Word, 
 *■' and the Holy Spirit^ andthefe Three are One^ 
 Hi tres untim funt are the very words thus 
 quoted by thefe bifhops, as we have before 
 feen them ci^ed by Cyprian^ TertuUian, and 
 others, in the flime literal order. 
 
 This remarkable facl appears to be, alone, 
 amply decilive as to the originality of the 
 Verfe in queftion. The manner^ in which 
 it happened, feems to carry irrefiftible con- 
 vi6lion with it. It was not a thing done in 
 a corner^ a tranfa^lion of folitude, or obfcu- 
 rity. It paffed in the metropolis of the king- 
 dom, in the court of the reigning prince, 
 in tlie face of opponents exafperated by cpn- 
 troverfy, and proud of-royal fupport, and in 
 the prefence of the whole, congregated, Af- 
 rican church. Nor is the time, when this 
 tranfaclion happened, lefs powerfully con- 
 vincing than its manner. Not much more 
 than three centuries had elapfed, from the 
 death of St. John, wiicn this folemn appeal 
 was thus m.ade to the authority of this Verfe. 
 Had the Verfe been/i;r^^^ by JLi-igeniiis^ and 
 
 his 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 his bifhops, all Chriftian Africa would have 
 exclaimed, at once, againfl: them. Had it 
 even been confidered a§ of doubtful original^ 
 their adverfaries, the Arians, thus publicly 
 attacked by this proteft, would have loudly 
 challenged the authenticity of the Verfe, 
 and have refufed to be, in any refpeft, con- 
 cluded by its evidence. But nothing of this 
 kind intervened. Cyrila, and his affociates, 
 received its teflimony in fuUen filence ; and, 
 by that filence, admitted it to have proceed- 
 ed from the pen of St. JoJm, 
 
 To the authority of thefe councils, and 
 of the revilion of Charlemagne^ let me now 
 fubjoin the moft facred fan6lion, which any 
 collective body of Chrillians can give to the 
 truth of a paflage of Scripture, namely, the 
 admiflion of it into the public rituals, or fer- 
 vice-books, of their churches. For, 
 
 4. This Verfe of St. John was inferted in 
 the ancient fervice-booksoftheLr?///; Church. 
 It was read in them, as part of tiie oitice for 
 Trinity Sunday, and (as it nov/ is in the 
 church of England) for the octave of Eafter. 
 
 It 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 it appears from the Rationale of Durandus^ 
 mentioned in my former letter (s), that this 
 paffage alfo formed a part of the office for 
 the mhilflration of baptifm, irt thofe ancient 
 liturgies, purfuant to the regulations of the 
 Ordo Romanus^ or " 7 be Roman order ofOf- 
 *' fees to be ufed throughout the year.^* The 
 prccife time of the eflabllfhment of this ritual, 
 in the Latin churches, is tiot clearly known : 
 Its antiquity has, in fome degree, thrown a 
 Veil over it. Butthatit was, in thofe churches, 
 the eflabiifhed dlredory of public worfhlp, 
 and confequently, that this Verfe was re^ 
 ceived, by them, as part of the infpired wri* 
 tings, long before the revifal of the Scrip* 
 tures in the reign of Charlemagne^ (already 
 flated in this letter) we are certified from 
 authority (a) which will not be difpUted. 
 
 5. Tliis Verfe of St. John is found in the 
 Confejfwn of Faith of the Greek church. The 
 words of this confefiion where it refers to 
 the paiTage in queftion, are thefe : " The 
 
 " Father, 
 
 ('/.} ^^ge 20. 
 
 ,\i ; I'oi die antiquity of the Ordo RomanuSy fee Uj}>er*s 
 w<y.k^ — Ciive^ Appenciix ad Hi ft. Lit.— and Selckrif de 5jr. 
 htJ.iisj vol, 11, p. 1250. 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 *' Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are 
 '' all of the fame eflence ; as St. ^ohn tefli- 
 *' fies — There are Three who hear record hi 
 Heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ a'nd the Holy 
 Spirit^ and thefe Three are Oney {b) The 
 iime^ when this puhlic confeffion of faith 
 was firft compiled by the Greek church, does 
 not, now, appear. But the arguments, which 
 were urged on another occafion, and for ano- 
 ther purpole, by one of the moH: zealous an- 
 tagonifls (c) of this Verfe, might he here ap- 
 plied to prove, that this confeffion was drawn 
 up in an age very remote from our own times. 
 Its exa^ date, hov^ever, like that of the 
 proof laft alledged from the Lat'm church, 
 is loil in its great antiquity. 
 
 6. This Verfe is alfo found in the liturffv, 
 or public fervice-books, of the Greek church. 
 Among thefe one in particular, entitled 
 
 (b) " AAAa |W£i/ &C, — Deusautem eft natura verus, 
 *' et Eeternus, et omnium conditor, villbiilum, et inviii- 
 ** bilium : talis etiam eft Filius, et Spiritus fandus. 
 *' Sunt etiam ejufdem inter fe efl'-nti;e, juxta dodtrinam 
 '' Joanms Evangeliftae, qui dicit, — Tres junt qui teftmo- 
 *' nium perhibent in ccelo^ Pater ^ Scrnio, et Spiritus fanilus : 
 *' et hi tres U7jum funt.'" Dr. Thomas Smith'?, Mifcellanea, 
 p. 155, Edit. Lond. A. D. i686. 
 
 (c) M. Simon, Hift. Crit. du Texte, &c. C. ix. 
 
( JO ) 
 
 ATrofo>.c(^ (a) (the Apoflle) bears a diflln- 
 guiflied place, beinga colle£llon of the EpiJIles 
 of the Teftament, taken feparately from the 
 Gofpels : fele6l parts of which are appouited, 
 like thofe which fland in the Communlon- 
 fervice of the Church of England, to be read, 
 in fucceflion, in the proper offices for par- 
 ticular days. Among other portions of 
 Scripture, this Verfe of St. John is direded, 
 by the Greek rituals, to be read in its courfe, 
 in the thirty-fifth week of the year. As to 
 the antiquity of this A7roroX6(^, we have the 
 moft pofuive proofs {e) that it was ufed in 
 the Greek church, in X.\\q fifth century. How 
 long it might have been eftabliflied there be- 
 fore that iEra, is known only to Him, " in 
 ' ' 'whofc fight a thoufand years are but as yefier- 
 " dciyr 
 
 If there can be, at this time, an unerring 
 
 method 
 
 {d) 5w////s Mifccllanca, p. 155. " In ilia qq\a.y.^- 
 " TiONE Epistolarum Novi Tejlamcnti,'' he. Alio 
 Jl'Idi titles LaVeritc^ p. ii. C. v. 
 (?) Cave, Vol. ii. Difr.2, Kclit. Oat^?;?, A. D. 1743, p. 23. 
 
 Selden de Synedriis, Vol. ii, p. 1250, &c. 
 
 Fabricius, Biblioth. Grac. Vol. v. DifT. i, p. 34, Edit, 
 Hamb. A. D. 17 12. 
 
 Cotderius, Eccl. Grac. Monum. Tom. iii.p. 222--^=; i» 
 Edit.Ptfm. A.D. 1656. 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 method of demonftrating, that any particu- 
 lar paflage of Scripture was confidered, by 
 the primitive Chriftian church, as authen- 
 tic, as bearing upon it the feal of divine in- 
 fpiration, it mufl: be by ihewing fuch paflage 
 placed in its public creeds, or confeffions of 
 faith, and appointed to be read in the folemni- 
 ties of its religious worfhip. By the former, 
 the Church fpeaks to men ; by the latter, it 
 intercedes with God : and in both with lin- 
 cerity, becaufe all human principles of ac- 
 tion concur to forbid even an attempt to de- 
 ceive, in either. Of both thefe pre-eminent 
 fan^Slions the Verfe in queftion can, fortu- 
 nately, avail itfelf. It can plead both of 
 them in its favor. While numberlefs other 
 teftimonials of its originality have, without 
 doubt, perifhed by neglect, or by accident ; 
 have been deflroyed by the hoftile invafions of 
 rude, and unlettered, barbarians, or have 
 been crumbled into duft under the deleter!* 
 ous hand of time, in the long lapfe oi feven- 
 teen hundred years : thefe have, happily, ef- 
 caped all thofe perils, and have furvived to 
 the prefent age. And when we can trace 
 (as we are enabled to do in the inftance now 
 before us) fuch confeffions, and liturgies, 
 E 2 . • back 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 back into ages fo remote as xht fourth, ox fifths 
 century after Chr'ijl^ without being able even 
 there to difcover the adiual time of their ef- 
 tablifhment in the Chriftian Church ;--we 
 are then, by all the rules of right reafonlng, 
 well warranted to conclude, that fuch creeds, 
 or confcflions of faith, fuch rituals, and for- 
 mularies of devotion, muft have been nearly 
 coeval with Chriftianity itfelf. 
 
 But the infertionof this Verfe in the Con- 
 fti[Jio?i of Faith o^ the Greek Church, and in 
 the public Liturgies of both theGr^^Z^andL^- 
 tin. Churches, joined to the authority of the 
 Councils, and of the Revlfion of Charlemagne^ 
 — which have been juft ftated, — are not the 
 only teflimonies, (however flrong, and con- 
 vincing they may feem) which have been 
 given, by colle6live bodies of Chriftians, to 
 the authenticity of this verfe. Let it br 
 here, finally, obferved, that the New Tefta- 
 ments, which were anciently read in the 
 Churches of far the greatefl number of thofe 
 nations, who made an early profeffion of 
 the Chriflian faith, either in the original 
 Greek^ or in the ancient Verfions of that ori- 
 ginal 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 ginal into the language of thofe nations, (^f) 
 furnifh the mod powerful proofs of the truth 
 of this difputed paflage of St. John. For 
 
 7. The ancient Verfion, or Tranflation, 
 of the New Teftament into the Armenian 
 language, hath always contained (^g) this 
 verle. It is affirmed, by the moil ref- 
 pe(Slable opponent of the authenticity of 
 this difputed paffage, that this Verfion hath 
 been ufed, by the Armenian nations, at leafl 
 ever fince the age of Chryfojlom ; who (Jo) 
 died in A. D. 407. The real date of this an- 
 cient Verfion, however, cannot, perhaps, be 
 carried higher than A. D. 432* But, even 
 in this cafe, the original MS, or MSS, 
 from which this Veriion muf!: thus have 
 been made, in the fifth century, cannot, 
 E 3 reafon- 
 
 ( /) The Syrl^c, and the Coptic^ Verfions, with their 
 1 ranfcripts, are the only exceptions to this, general pro- 
 pcfitian. And thofe veffions were adopted by a very- 
 few nations, indeed, when compared with the Latin, 
 Greck^ and Armenian, Chriftians, who comprifed three 
 parts out of four^ at lead, of the then Chriftian world, 
 (v-ee the objedtions of Dr. Benfon, xlv to xlix, inclufive^ 
 hereafter flated, and the anfw'-ers made to thofe objections.) 
 
 (g) See objeftioii xlix, of Dr. Benfon, herein after 
 ft a ted. 
 
 (/;) See objection xxvlii, of the late Sir Ifaac Newtony 
 herein alfo after ftatsd. 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 Veafonably, be fnppofed to have bad a mUth 
 later date than the age of the Apoftles. 
 
 8. The <^7roroAcf, which hath been already 
 rnentioned, was a tranfcript, or CoUedlion of 
 the Epiftles of the New Tejlament^ ui the orl- 
 glnal Greek, It was read publicly in the 
 Greek Churches, as early a^, perhaps much 
 earlier than, the fifth century ; and it hath 
 been juft proved always to have contained 
 the Verfcj in queilion. 
 
 9. The Verlion, or Tranflation, of the 
 New Teftament, by Jerome, from the or/- 
 ginal Greek into the Latin tongue, was made 
 (ij in, or about, A. D. 384.— It hath been 
 already obferved, that this difputed paflage 
 hath conftantly ftood in this Verlion. 
 
 Id. Nor hath theverfe, in quefcion, been thus 
 found in the Armenian Verfion, in t'le Greek 
 «7roroAo?, and in the hat'in Tranflation of Je^ 
 rome, only. The nwf ancient of all the Verfion s 
 of the Books of the New Tefla^nent, from the 
 
 languages 
 
 (i) See page 33, and objet^liQn xix of Vl, Benfon ; 
 alCo Mkhmiisy Sea. 65. 
 
T 
 
 in 
 
 i 55 ) 
 
 languages in which they were originally 
 written, is the Old Italic, or Itala Fetus. This 
 Verfion was made in the firjl (Jz) centn 
 and therefore whilst St. John was ye 
 ALIVE ; and was iifcd hy all the Lat 
 Q\\MXch.Q:so^ Europe, Ajla, (/) and Africa, for 
 many centuries after his death. And thus 
 the origin of the Verfe in queftion, is, at 
 length, carried up, not by inferences, or ioi- 
 phcatlons, alone, however fair, and obviou?, 
 
 but by PLAIN, AND POSITIVE, EVIDENCE, 
 
 to the age of St. John himfelf. For this 
 mojl valuable, as well as tnq/i ancient, Verfion 
 hath (jri) conftantly exhibited the Verle, 
 I, John, V. 7. 
 
 E 4 I have 
 
 {■?) The words of Michaelh^ on this fubjed, which 
 are the more to be relied upon, beCaufs they are the words 
 ot a very learned adverfary, are, that " The Old Latin' 
 (or Itala Vetus) " is the moji ancient, andbejl, of all En- 
 " ropcan Verfions^'' — that it is *•• of uncommon antiquity " — 
 and that " no man of learning denies that this Verfion 
 " was chne in the first century^ except only Dr. Milly 
 " who argues from this^ that^ inthe firfi century^ most 
 *' of the Chrijlians, at Rome, nnderjlood Greek. But how 
 *' will he prove,'" (coruinues Michaelis) *'• that there were 
 *' ni't many of thofc Chrijiians," Cparticularly in the remoter 
 Provinces, and among; the lower dafles of mankind^ " who 
 *' undcrftood no more than their mother tongue.'' (Se£ts. bi 
 
 ^°^3-) ... 
 
 (/) Tile Chri/iians near ferufakm, and in many parts 
 fiyria, were of the Latin church. 
 
 {m) See objedlion xlv of Dr. Benfan, v/here, it is 
 Jrulted, this point is proved nt large. 
 
( ss ) 
 
 I have now, Sir, gone through all the 
 pofitive teftimony, which I propofed, ^^ 
 re^fy, to adduce in fupport of the authen- 
 ticity of the Verfe in queftion. But the fuh- 
 jed is too important to be thus difmiffed. 
 The OBJECTIONS, which have been brought 
 againfl: the originality of this Verfe, remain 
 yet to be difcufled ; and demand from me, 
 what they fhall certainly receive, an atten- 
 tive, and ferious, invciligation. In this 
 propofed difquifition, many other proofs of 
 the authenticity of this Verfe are intended 
 to be urged indlre^ily, and by implication. 
 Such proofs, when produced, will not, it is 
 trufted, lofe any thing of their real weight, 
 by the accidental circumftance of the place^ 
 in which they may be found. It is even 
 poffible, that a fpeculative mind may experi- 
 ence a peculiar fatisfaftion, in fele6ling them, 
 hereafter, from thofe flations, where the 
 neceffity of anfwering thofe obje6:ions, and 
 a defire of avoiding repetitions, compel them 
 now to ftand ; and in adapting them to other 
 lituations, where, if no fuch neceflity had 
 exifted, they might, perhaps, with raore pro- 
 priety, have been arranged. And it feems, 
 
 moreover. 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 moreover, that I fhould be deficient to my 
 own future views, as well as unjuil: to the 
 evidence which has been already ftated, i^ 
 I did not fubjoin, to an examination of thofe 
 obje£lions, a few obfervations, which force 
 themfelves upon the mind, on an attentive 
 contemplation of the whole fubjedl. For 
 thefe purpofes you will perhaps, Sir, permit 
 me to intrude yet more upon your leifure, at 
 ibme future opportunity. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 5cc. &:c» 
 
ssns^^^mwm 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 1HAVE taken the liberty, herein, as well 
 as in the preceding letters, of addrefiing 
 myfelf, diredly, to you, Inftead of uiing, as 
 my means of approach, any fictitious name, 
 or any artificial addrefs. I have, in fo doing, 
 Submitted to the juflice of the rule, which 
 you have prefcribed to your opponents, in 
 your Vindication ; (^) namely, that the au- 
 thor of a work, *' who boldly gives his 
 " name, and his labours, to the world, im- 
 " pofes on his adverfaries the fair and ho- 
 ^' nourable obligation of encountering him 
 ** in open day-light, and of fupporting the 
 '* weight of their ailertions by the credit of 
 " their names/' And yet, the rule applies 
 only in part, on the prefent occalion. The 
 credit of a name, little known to the world, 
 will not fupport the weight of many ajfertions. 
 
 But 
 
 {a) A Vindication of fome pnflages in the 15th and 
 16th Chapters of the Hiftory, ^c, — i>y Mr. Clhhn, Edit. 
 ^> p. 153- 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 But I am not, however, much difcomforted 
 in this refpe6t, becaufe I purpofe to load it 
 with very few : one found argument, one 
 fohd inference, being of more worth than a 
 whole Chapter of aliertions. 
 
 I will now, therefore, proceed to examine, 
 as was before propofed, the mofl: material 
 obje6lioDS, which have been urged againft 
 the originality of this Verfe ; and will beg 
 leave to fuperadd, to fuch examination, fomc 
 reflections, which feem to arife from an at- 
 tentive confideration of the whole fubjecl. 
 
 In this difquiiitlon It may, perhaps, be the 
 moft fatisfadory method to ftate the objec- 
 tions of the chief opponents of this Verfc 
 fuigly, and to fubjoin to each its diftindl, 
 and feparate, reply. Of thefe Sandius, (b) 
 M, Simo?!, (c) and Mr. Emfyn, (d) among 
 its more early opponents ; and Dr. Ben/on, 
 
 (e) Sir 
 
 {b) Nucl. Eccl. Hift. and Appendix, p, 376, &c.— 
 Interpr. Paradox. 
 
 (0 Hift. Crit. du Texte &c. Diflert. for les MSS 
 &c. Hift. des Vcrfions Sec. 
 
 (d) Full Enquiry &c. Sec Em/yn's Wprks, 2 Vol*. 
 Lond, Edit A. D. 1746. 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 (e) Sir IfaYic Newton, (/) M. Grlejhach, {g) 
 and Mr. Bowyer, (/?) among its more mo- 
 dern adverfaries, feem to have been the mofh 
 diffufe, in the variety of their remarks, and 
 the moft determined in their oppolition. But 
 as the four laft-mentioned writers have col- 
 ledted into one point of view, all, or nearly 
 all, the objedions that have, at any time, 
 been urged againfl the originality of theVerfe 
 in queflion, — and as their works are more 
 generally known than thofe of Sandius^ Si- 
 7non, or Ernlyn,—! will conlider them as 
 Ipeaking the fenfe of their fellow-advocates, 
 and will ftate their own. objections in their 
 own words. 
 
 And firft, as to Dr. Be?tfon. — ■ 
 
 I. " ^hree of the (I) latin fathers have, 
 '' been referred to, as having borne teftl- 
 " mony to this df put ed text \ namely Ter- 
 " tullian, Cyprian, and Jerome ,'* 
 
 By 
 
 [e) Paraphrafe on the Catholic Epiftles, Vol. ii. Edit. 
 A. D. 1756. 
 
 ( /') Hiltory of two Texts (Vol. v. of NcvutGn' sWork^ 
 by Dr. Horfley.) 
 
 (p-) Nov. Teftam. Grcec. Vol. ii, p. 225 kc. (in the 
 Notes) Edit. Hal^y A. D. 1777. 
 
 [h] Conjcdures on the N. Teft. Edit. Lond. A. D. 
 1782. 
 
 {,i) Dr. Bevf:rJ^ Paiaphrafe, Vol. ii, p. 632, 
 
( 6^ ) 
 
 By this introductory obfervation, a candid 
 reader mufl-, at firft, prefume, that Dr. Ben" 
 fon really meant to confine, to the age of Je- 
 rome^ his obfervations on thofe Latin Fa- 
 thers, whofe works might be made ufe of, 
 in argument, refpecling this Verfe ; and not 
 to travel below xh& fifth century, for autho- 
 rities on either fide of the quefiion. Yet, under 
 this prefumption, Dr. Benfon ought, at leafb, 
 to have made his enumeration of thofe Fa- 
 thers, who have borne teftimony to this 
 Verfe, compleat, by adding to this Lift, (k) 
 Mtircus Celedenfis^ Pba'taJius, 'Eucheriiis^ Au- 
 gufiine^ and VigHim\ who lived, and wrote, 
 in the fame century v/ith ferome^ and have, 
 as well as Jerome^ given their teftimony to 
 the truth of the Verfe in qucflion. But Dr. 
 Benfon does not fufFcr his readers long to re- 
 tain this firfl prefumption. They fee him, 
 it is true, in the progrefs of his Diflertation, 
 pofitively refufing to admit the teftimony of 
 Fi^or Vite?ifis, m i avcr of this Verfe, who 
 
 lived 
 
 (i) See pages 30 to 36, o^ tliefe letters. 
 
 It fccms, however, that Dr. Benfon cuukl not be igno* 
 rant of the two Writers, here firll: named j for he has 
 referred to Bengclius^ in p. 620 of his paraphrafe, by 
 whom their teftimony is particularly fet forth. 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 lived in the fame century, and wa^, proba- Dr, B51 
 bly, alive at the .fame hour, with Jerome, 
 But they foon afterwards find him travellinp- 
 
 o 
 
 down, for authorities (/) which oppofe (or 
 rather for omijjlons which seem to oppofe) 
 the authenticity of this Verfe, fo low as to 
 Bede^ of the eighth^ and to Oecumenius, of the 
 , eleventh^ century. 
 
 If, then, Sir, we follow Dr. Benfon to the 
 sge of Jerome^ only, the references to La^ 
 i'm Fathers, in favor of this Verfe, com- 
 mencing with the age of the Apoflles, will 
 be, not to " three''' only, but at leaft to f/g-^/, 
 viz. to TertuUian^ Cyprian^ Marcus Ce- 
 LEDENSis, Ph^badius, Jerome^ Augus- 
 tine, EucHERius, and Vigilius. But 
 if we purfue him to the age of Oecumenlus, 
 this Lift, already more than doubled, will 
 receive an almoft incredible increafe ; among 
 whom the following " Latin Fathers" feen^ 
 w^orthy of being efpecially referred to^ name- 
 ly, (jii) Fulgentius^ CaJJiodorius^ Ambrofe An- 
 Jhert, Etherius, and Beatus, Walafrid Straho^ 
 
 Radulphus 
 
 (/) Paraphrafe, p. 644. 
 {m) See pages 21 to 30, of the preceding letters. 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 Radulphus Ardens, Htigo Fidlonnus^ Scoius^ 
 and St. Bernard : the four hundred African 
 Blfhops, who attended the pubHc difputa- 
 tion, propofed by Huneric ; — and the Divuies 
 of the reign of Charlemagne^ who, under the 
 prefiding care of Alcidnus^ revifed the Bible 
 of that age. To whom muft be added, laft- 
 ly, and above all, the common confent of 
 the whole hatln Church, which, oefore the 
 reign of Charlemagne^ had given the mofl 
 folemn atteftation to the originality of this 
 text, by inferting it in its public Rituals of 
 divine worfhip. To this mighty Phalanx^ 
 and within this limit as to time, might be 
 added a great number of other witnefles to 
 the authenticity of this Verfe, as unexcep- 
 tionable, in point of evidence, and as deci- 
 ded in their teftimony, £s any of thofe whofe 
 fuffrages have been already thus particular- 
 ly collefted, and fet forth. 
 
 II. *' It IS plain he [TertulUan] has 
 ** not quoted the pajfage'' [viz. becaufe 
 he does not exprefsly declare his words 
 to be a quotation] 
 
 This objedlionis ill-founded, and incon- 
 
 clufivc. 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 conclufive. It has been the pra£llce of wrl- Dr. Be 
 ters, in all ages, to infert quotations from 
 well-known authors, without exprefsly de- 
 claring them tb be quotations^ or introducing 
 them as quotations^ in any refpe6t. A few 
 Inftances, of this kind, will be fuflficient to 
 iliew the weaknefs of the argument, her© 
 XI fed by Dr. Benfon, 
 
 And firfl from Irenaus^ who lived in the 
 fecond Century after Chrlft. 
 
 *' Our bodies, being [firil] nourished by 
 " the earth, [then] depofited in the earth, 
 ** and [laftly] refolved into earth, fhall 
 *• arife in his time ; the Son of God grant- 
 *' ing them a refurredion to the glory of 
 *' the Father : for the ftrength of God is 
 ** made perfect in weaknefs." («) 
 
 In like manner, from Clemens Alexandrl" 
 Tius^ who lived in the fame age with 7/-^- 
 
 TliXUS, 
 
 " But that which is holy, Is dear to that 
 F *' from 
 
 («) Irena'i adverfus Harcfes, Lib. v. Cap. \\, Edit. 
 Oxon» A, D, 1702, p, 400, 
 
( 66 
 
 NsoN. " from whence it becomes holy ; which is 
 " properly called light : for ye were (o) 
 " fometimes darknefs, but now are ye light 
 " in the Lord/* 
 
 Again, from Orige?!, who flourifhed In the 
 third Century. 
 
 " But let the faithful Chriftian, more 
 '■'' wife, as well as more firm, follow reafon, 
 " and the word of God ; and from thence let 
 " him learn to diftinguifh between truth, 
 " and fiilfehood : even as they delivered 
 " them unto us, who, from the beginning, 
 "' were eye-witnefles, and miniflers of the 
 " word." (/) 
 
 Again, from Cyril, who was Archbifhop 
 of Alexandria, in \k\Q fifth Century. 
 
 " As the Lord, and Saviour of all, who 
 ** could have appeared in the form of the 
 '* Fatlier, and altogether equal to him, and 
 *' could have exhibited his Majefty on the 
 
 " throne 
 
 [o) Clemnit'n Alcxandrini Paedag. Lib. i, Cap. vi, p. 
 41, Edit. Commcl. A. D. 1592. 
 (/>} Origenis Opera, Hom.'l. Edit. Parlfih, A. D. 1619- 
 
C 67 ) 
 
 *^ throne of the divinity ; thought it not Dr. Be 
 ^< robbery to be equal with God, but made 
 ^^ himfelfof no reputation, and took upon 
 " him the form of a Servant." {q) 
 
 The concluding words of all the preceding 
 fentences are quotations from. Scripture ; the 
 Jirjl from 2. Corinthians, xii. 9 ; the fecond^ 
 from Ephef, v. 8 ; the third from Luke i. 2 ; 
 and the laft from Philipp. ii. 6, 7 ; — although 
 they are all thus introduced — like the ex- 
 ample, now in debate, from TertulUan,^ — • 
 without any previous expreffions, denoting 
 them to be quotations. 
 
 In{!:ances of a fimilar kind, will fcarcely 
 be required from the hatin Fathers, as they 
 abound in almofl every page of their writings. 
 One example, however, may jufl be pro- 
 duced (to which a thoufand others fliall be 
 added, if required) from 'Jerome^ in \^iq fourth 
 Century. 
 
 F 2 "As 
 
 [q] Cyrtllus contra JuUartum^ Lib. vi. p. 195, Edit, 
 Zz>/^, A. D. 1696. 
 
 The learned Reader needs not to be informed, that all 
 the preceding quotations, as they ftand here, are tranfla- 
 tions from the original language of thefe Greek Fathers, 
 
(63 ) 
 
 NsoN. • <« As long as we are entangled in the af* 
 *^ fairs of the world, and our minds are en» 
 " grofled hy our earthly pofleffions, it is im- 
 *' poffible for us to give up our thoughts 
 *' chearfuUy to God : For what fellowfhip 
 *' hath righteoufnefs with unrighteoufnefs, 
 " and what communion hath light with dark- 
 *' nefs ? what concord hath Chrijl with Be* 
 " lial ? or what part hath he that believeth, 
 " with an (r) infidel ? 
 
 The lafl words of the foregoing fentencfi 
 are cited, literally, from 2. Cor\ vi. 14, 15 ; 
 although without any previous note of in- 
 troduction, denoting them to be a quotation. 
 
 If more modern inftances fliall be required, 
 they are here fubjoined. 
 
 '* The man, who proceeds in it with 
 *' fteadinefs, and refolution, will, in a little 
 " time, find, that all her ways are pleafant- 
 " ncfs, and ail her paths are peace.'* 
 
 Addlfon — Sped. No. 447. 
 '* To 
 
 (r) HieroJiymi "EpiL ad Luclnlum : Edit. Era/mi^ Paris. 
 A. D. 1546, Vol. i, p. (71, as erroneoufly marked in 
 that Edition, but properly page) 66, 
 
'( 69 ; 
 
 <* To graft in his heart the principles of Dr. B] 
 *« charity, which fome perfoiis ought not, 
 <« by any means, wholly to renounce, be- 
 *' caufe it covereth a multitude of hns." 
 
 Dx, Swift. 
 
 The former of thefe quotations is from 
 Prov, iii. 17, — the latter from i. Pet. iv. 8 ; 
 —and both without any previous expreflions 
 of citation. 
 
 But, Mr. Gibbon will, perhaps, he fatis- 
 fadorily convinced, that quotations of this 
 nature are not infrequent, among good wri- 
 ters even of the prefent times, by the follow- 
 ing inflances. 
 
 *' Here, too, we may fay of Longinus^hh 
 *' own example flrengthens all his laws." (j) 
 
 *' It never can become (/) a Chrijiian to 
 
 ** be afraid of being alked a reafon of the 
 
 '' faith that is in him ; or the Church of 
 
 F 3 " England 
 
 (5) Gihhon'% Hift. of the Decline, &c. Vol. i. (2d. 
 Edit.) Notes, p. 10. 
 
 It) Dr. lVaiJQn'% Apology, Edit. 2d. ad init. 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 ENsoN. " England to abandon that moderation, by 
 ** which fhe permits every Individual et 
 *' fentire quae velit, et quae fentiat dicere.'* 
 
 The iScrz/^/wr^/ quotation, contained in the 
 latter of thefe fentences, is from i. Pet. iii, 
 15. I will not offend Mr. Gibbon, by point- 
 ing out the others. 
 
 It is fo far, therefore, from being plain 
 that TertuUian has not quoted this verfe, 
 becaufe he has not exprcfslyjiiled his words 
 a quotation from St. John'; that there muft, 
 from a candid confideration of the paflage, 
 ■under all its circumftances, be, neceflarily, 
 deduced the very oppofite inference. The 
 Uriking peculiarity of the words themfelves, 
 the literal order in which they ftand in Ter- 
 iulllan, and the conflant pra6lice of writers, 
 ancient and modern, compel, as well as juf- 
 tify, the conclufion ; that thefe words, when 
 written by Tertullian, muft have been a di- 
 re£l, ititcntional, citation of the verfe in quef* 
 tion. 
 
 Thus far, then, Sir, for the imbecility of 
 
 the 
 
( 71 > 
 
 the objedion, which fuppofes the words of Dr. Be 
 TeriuUian not to be a quotation, merely be- 
 caiife they are not declared Jo to he by T^er- 
 iuUian, Let us, now, turn to the ^reatife 
 agalnjl Praxeas, and compare TertiilUan with 
 himfelf. Perhaps we may obtain new hght 
 by the comparifon. 
 
 In the twenty- fecondQ\\'^'^X.(tx of this Trea- 
 tife, Tertullian quotes the words of Jefus 
 Chrijl, as recorded by St. John in his Gofbel. 
 '* Jefus Chrlji fays, I and the Father are one, 
 *' His expreffion is v^vrnfumtis;''^ [We are 
 *' one th'mg, or Being] '* not unus'* [one 
 Per/on,'] " He iifes the word unum, in the 
 '' neuter voice ; which does not belong to 
 '' a fingle perfon, but to an (li) unity of 
 ** perfons." 
 
 With thefe helps, previouily acquired, let 
 us proceed to the paflage itfelf, of the twenty 
 Jijth Chapter, now in debate. 
 
 " Jefus Chrljl, fpeaking of the Holy Ghoft, 
 
 " faid, He JJmll take of 7nine, as he himfelf 
 
 F 4 */ had 
 
 (u) Appendix, No. I. 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 r 
 
 JzNsoN. " had taken of the Father. Thus the con* 
 
 " ne£lion of the Father with the Son, and of 
 
 *' the Son with the Holy Ghoft, caufes ihefe 
 
 *' three to be united together, one with ano-» 
 
 ** ther : ivhich three are one \thing, or Being] 
 
 *' not one \Perfon] in the same manner 
 
 " AS IT IS SAID, /, end my father are 
 
 *' oner (y) 
 
 TertuII/'an here, moft obvioufly, looks back 
 to that former quotation, in the twenty^ 
 fecond Chapter, which has jufl been ftated. 
 He had there proved the Divinity of Jefus 
 .Chriji, by a quotation from St. John, which 
 Ihewed his unity with the Father. He 
 here proceeds to prove the Divinity of the 
 Holy Ghoft, likewife, by another quotation 
 from the fame St. John, which iliews a like 
 unity of thp.ee Perfons in the God-head, 
 And, left his meaning fliould be mifunder- 
 ftood, he, fortunately, adds a Comment, 
 which feems to place the whole matter in 
 the cleareft light : " Which three are one Be- 
 *' ing, not one Pel fon, in the same ma n- 
 
 " NE15 
 
 (v) Appendix, No. II, 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 ^^ NER AS IT IS SAID, I and my Father arc Pr« Ben 
 *' one^'' — viz. in the former (quotation. 
 
 III. " /« his Book concerning the Unity 
 *''• of the Churchy Cyprian is fuppofed to 
 * ' have quoted this pajfage. His words 
 *• are,-^Of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 <' Spirit, it is written, Thefe three are 
 " <?«^.— (p. 633.) 
 
 It were much to he wlflied, that Dr. Ben- 
 fan had heeii more candid in his extradts, and 
 more faithful in his quotations. The words, 
 above cited, are a part, only, of the ex- 
 preffions of Cyprian, fome very material 
 words being unfairly paffed by, and omitted. 
 The whole fentence taken together, ftands 
 thus : {w) " Our Lord declares, /, and my 
 " Father, are one.- And again it is written 
 *' of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, And 
 *' thefe three are one,''^ 
 
 Let this fentence be analyfed. — ** GurLord 
 declares, I, and my Father, are one ^"^ Where 
 does he make that declaration ? In Scripture, 
 
 becaufo 
 
 [yj) Appendix, No. III. 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 becaufe that contains the record of the words 
 of our Lord, as well as of his adions, whilflon 
 earth. And in what part of Scripture is that 
 declaration made ? It is in the thirtieth Verfe^ 
 of the tenth Chapter, of theGofpel o^^t, John\ 
 and the quotation is literal. Let us now 
 proceed. — " And again it is written^ of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, And thefe three 
 are one,'" — Again // is written ! — When an 
 author thus fpeaks of 2.feco?id2.di of any kind, 
 he muft be confidered as referring to afor?ner 
 a6l, of afimilar nature with, orfimilarly cir- 
 cumftanced to, that which refers to it. And 
 what, in the prefent cafe, was this former 
 ad f It was a diredi citation, by Cyprian, of 
 a paffage in Scripture. What, then, was 
 
 the latter a6l ? The inference needs not 
 
 to be mentioned. It follows too clofely ta 
 be miftaken, or evaded. 
 
 Thus the conclufion, — that Cyprian did 
 mean to " quote this paffage, in his Book 
 *' concerning the Unity of the Church,'''' — 
 feems to be inevitable, when we take the 
 whole of his words into contemplation, at 
 once, and place them in the fame point of 
 
 vieiw. 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 View. But if we even receiv^e their tefli- Dr. Bensi 
 monyin the mutilated, curtailed, condition, 
 in which Dr. Be?ifon has thought Jit to ftate 
 it, the fame inference feems fairly deduci- 
 ble from them. For, as the volume of the 
 facred Writings, is, emphatically, called, the 
 Book : fo the phrafe, // is zvritten,' when em- 
 ployed by writers on facred fubje6ls, empha- 
 tically^ and abfolutely, without any other par- 
 ticulars of defcription, denotes (in general, 
 at lead) the expreffions, which follow, to be 
 quotations from Scripture. It might be tedious 
 to produce many examples from many books. 
 A few from that book alone, which was 
 written for our learning, may be fufficient. 
 
 *' For // is written, I will finite the Shep- 
 herd, and the flieep fliall be fcattered." — > 
 \_Mark xiv. 27.] 
 
 " For it is written, thou fhalt not fpeak 
 evil of [or curfe] the ruler of thy people." 
 '--^A^s xxiii. 5.] 
 
 " For // is written, vengeance is mine.**— • 
 [Romans xii. 19.J 
 
 « And 
 
- ( 76 ) 
 
 ;Ns.ojf. *' And fo // is written^ Adam was made 
 '^ [or became] a living foul." — [ i . Cor, xv. 45, 
 
 In thefe inftances, Zeeharlah, xili. 7,—^ 
 Exodus, xxii. 28, — Deuteronomy, xxxii. 35^ 
 and Genejls, n.7,— are literally cited, although 
 without any other previous introduction, 
 than the phrafe here ufed by Cyprian, viz. 
 // h written. The objection, therefore, that 
 Cyprian can only be " fuppofedio have quoted 
 this paflage,'* becaufe he has not ufed Intro- 
 duClory words, fufficlently ftrong (as is al- 
 ledged) to imply a fucceeding quotation 
 from Scripture, comes fomewhat unfeafon- 
 ably, when it appears, that he has adopted 
 thofe very words, to introduce his quotation, 
 which are made ufe of by Jefus Chrift, and 
 by his Apoille St. Paul, to preface theirs ; 
 —the identical expreffions employed, in Scrip" 
 iure itjelf^ to denote a quotation from Scrip- 
 ture, 
 
 IV. " 7he query is, whether Cyprian 
 " defgned to quote the [event h Verje, or 
 " to give a inyjiical interpretation of the 
 •' eighth verfe^ namely, that by the water, 
 
 «< the 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 *' the blood, and thefpirit, we are to un- Dr. Ben 
 •' derjiand the father^ the fon, and the 
 ^^ holyfplrhr 
 
 There feems to be no query in the cafe. 
 Had Cyprian defigned to give a myjlkal inter- 
 fret ation, only, he would not, (as hath been 
 juft obferved) after having literally quoted 
 one paflage of Scripture, have inftantly fol- 
 lowed that quotation with the words,— 
 " And AGAIN it is written^ The aflertioii 
 would have been utterly falfe, at the very 
 hour of its being made by Cyprian, had not 
 the feventh Verfc exifted at that time. The 
 words, *' And thefe three are one^"* were never 
 WRITTEN, of the Trinity of perfons in the 
 Godhead, in any part of Scripture, fave in 
 I. "John^ v. 7 ; which is the verfe in quef- 
 tion. 
 
 Let it be further remarked, on this head, 
 that had Cyprian deiigned a myjiical ifiterpre" 
 tation, only, he would not have written, 
 Scriptum eft, et hi tres unum funt ; but, 
 Scriptumejihostresunum ejfe: as he does write 
 In another place, where he only defigns to 
 
 allude, 
 
( /S ) 
 
 ENsoN. allude, not quote y " Scnptum (x) ejl jujlunt 
 fide vivereJ'^ Taking the fentence in quef- 
 tion, as a glofs, comment, or interpreiat'wn 
 of Cyprian, the conjundion, £/, is a moft 
 abfiird, and a moft ungrammatical, Exple- 
 tive. But, as a quotation, it ftands perfectly 
 right. " It is 'written of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit.^' — What is written of them ? 
 Thefe words, Et hi tres unumfunt, — " Ana 
 ** thcfe three are one^ The conjunction, 
 (Et) thus viewed, is fo far from being in- 
 confident with Grammar, and common 
 fenfe, that it {lands, with peculiar propriety, 
 in its fituation ; not only proving the claufe, 
 at the head of which it fo ftands, to be a quo^ 
 tation, but marking out the bounds of that 
 quotation moll precifely. 
 
 V. " ne loofe manner, in which the 
 *' fathers fotne times quoted, might tre- 
 " ate a fufpicion. But there is more, i'/i 
 *' the prefent cafe, than this general fuf^ 
 *' piciony [viz. That Cyprian did not 
 mean to quote the feventh, but to give 
 a myllical interpretation of the eighth, 
 
 Verfe 
 
 {x) De Mortalitote, p. 157, alluding to Romans i, 17, 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 Verfe.] " For Eucherius^ (de ^atjl. Dr. Be: 
 
 " difficil. in he a V, et N, T.) about the 
 
 '' year^ 434, having cited thefe words ^ 
 
 " There are three which bear tejilmony^ 
 
 *' the water ^ the blood, and the Jpirlt% 
 
 " fiy^t ^f^^ ^^ ajhed, what is the meaning 
 
 " of thefe words f I anfwer, many think 
 
 " the Trinity Is here me ant, ^"^ 
 
 If Dr. Benfon did not know that Eucherlus 
 has actually quoted this Verfe, (y) in his 
 Works, he has, in this objection, betrayed a 
 mofl blame able Ignorance of his fubje(5l. If he 
 did know, 2ii-\d.yQ\.fuppreJ[fed, the quotation, he 
 has proved himfelf guilty of a mofl: dlfn^ 
 gemious concealment of the truth. Let his 
 advocates take either alternative. Want 
 of knowledge renders him unfit for the office 
 of a Compientator. Want of integrity makes 
 him unworthy of it. They are difqualifica- 
 tions very different, indeed, in their nature; 
 but they, alike, reject him from fitting in 
 judgement on the authenticity of the Verfe in 
 queftion. 
 
 Both 
 
 jj) Letter ii, p 32, art. 16 ; — where the quotation, 
 here referred to, is llatcd in the words of Euckaius. 
 
( So ) 
 
 Both alternatives are thus offered to the 
 reader. But he will, perhaps, foon perceive 
 on which of them he ought to fix. For Mr. 
 Emiyn, an Engli/Ijma;i, and a Diflenter, 
 (the mofl: ftrenuous opponent which this 
 verfe ever had, except M. Simon) in the dlf- 
 pute, which arofe, in the beginning of 
 the prefent Century, between him and 
 Mr. Martin^ Paflor of the French Church, at 
 Utrecht^ in Holland^ refpeciing the authen- 
 ticity of this verfe, thus ingenuouOy confef- 
 fes the embarraifment, into which this teftjf 
 mony of £//c/^^;7«j had thrown him. " The 
 " paflage Mr. Martin brings out oiEiicherluSy 
 *' (of which indeed I was not aware before) 
 *' will need more confideration; for though 
 *' it only concerns ih.^ fifth Century, in which 
 *' I did allow that poffibly the words might 
 *' become 7ext in feme books, yet it will 
 *' carry it half a Century higher than the 
 " Confe£io7i of the African Bifhops in Vi^or 
 " V'ltcnf.s: and, I confefs, if the paffage be 
 *' genuine, it is more to the purpofe than 
 *' any, yea than all, the other teflimonies, 
 *' before, or after, Eucheritis, for fome hun- 
 *' drcds of years : becaufe here we find both 
 
 '* the 
 
( 80 
 
 ** the feventb, and e/'gbt/j verfes together, at Dr. Ben 
 
 " once to fhew us all th^Jix witnefles; and 
 
 •'' there was Father, Word, and Spirit, befide 
 
 ** whkt was faid of the Water, Blood, and 
 
 ^' /5)5//7/ ; whereas only Father, Word, and 
 
 " Spirit, might have been the fame things 
 
 *' myftically interpreted, after the prevail- 
 
 " ing cuftom of that time. So that I can- 
 
 *' not deny but Mr. Martin had fome ground 
 
 " to fay, this is dccijive, i. e. as to its being 
 
 *' acknowledged by Eucherius, in the fifth 
 
 «' Century." {%) 
 
 Dr. Benfon could not be ignorant of this 
 quotation of the Verfe, in queftion, thus 
 made by Eucherius, or of Mr. Emlyri?. 
 diftrefs on the fubje6t ; wherein, as his lafl 
 poor refuge, he is driven, (as we have jufl 
 feen) to afFe6t a douht of the pajage being ge- 
 nuine. For T)'c.Be?jfon had read, before he 
 began his Dijfertation, not only Mr. Martin s 
 Diflertation on this text, which contains this 
 quotation from Eucherius ; but Mr. Emiyn's 
 reply to it. He confefles both, in the outfet 
 G of 
 
 (z) Emlyfis Anfwer to Martin'^ Diflert, Lond. Edit, 
 A. D. 1746, p. 193. 
 
(SO 
 
 of his own (a) Dlfiertatlon ; although he 
 was not then, perhaps, aware of the confe- 
 quence. After this confeilion, which con- 
 demns himfclf, the plea cf IGNORANCE, — of 
 not having feen the quotation,— c^in no longer 
 avail him ; and, that being once taken away, 
 there can be no doubt as to, the charge, which 
 mufl be fubftituted in its place, 
 
 VI. *' Facundus, who JlouriJJjed in the 
 * ' ffth century, and was of the fame African 
 " Church', did not only, himfef, interpret 
 " the words of the eighth verfe, in that 
 *' mvftical manner : hut has acquainted us 
 " that Cyprian, the Martyr, did fo un- 
 *' derftand them.''* 
 
 What Facundus, or Cyprian, underflood, of 
 interpreted, concerning that Verfe, is imma- 
 terial to the prefent enquiry. The queftion 
 is not about the eighth, but about th^feventh, 
 Verfe. And it feems clear that Cyprian read 
 
 the 
 
 (a) " I have read Dr. MilPs. Prolegomena'' kc. " But 
 *' above all, I have read Mr. Martin's Critical DiJ/er- 
 ** tation on ibis text; Mr. Emlyn's Full Enquiry, 
 *' kc. and the letters of M. La Croze, and F. Le Long, 
 5, publiflicd by Mr. En^lyn" (^Dr, i?<(«/e«'s Paraph ral«, 
 ad Fdir. p. 631, and 632.} 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 the feventh Verfe, in his Teflament, not Dr. Bi 
 only from the arguments, which have been 
 urged, on that head, in the preceding part of 
 this letter, but from the pofitive (b) teilimo- 
 ny oi Fulgentius, who lived in the fame cen- 
 tury, and was of the fame African Church, 
 with Facundus, Nor could Facundus, even 
 if it Ihould be granted that he has not quoted 
 this verfe, (which is more than ought to be 
 granted, unlefs we were in poileffion of all 
 his works) be ignorant of its exiftence in this 
 Epiftle of St. John, The public appeal to 
 the teftimony of this Verfe, which was 
 made in the country of JFacmidus, by nearly 
 four hundred Bi{ho])s at once, in the famous 
 (c) Convention of Huner/c ; — made at Car- 
 thage, the Metropolis of that countrv ; — ■ 
 made in oppofition to the Arians, of that age 
 who were fupported by the reigning Prince 
 of that country; — made in the life-time, in 
 the manhood, of Facundus ; — (for it hap- 
 pened but a few years before the advance- 
 ment of Facundus to theBifliopric of Her-- 
 mlane^ — all thefe circumflances render it 
 G 2 impofiible 
 
 ib) See pages 27, and 28 ; and alfo the anfyvers to the 
 t^o next fucceeding objections. 
 (c) See Pages 44—47, 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 EKscN. impofiible' to fuppofe, that this Verfe was 
 not found in the Bible oiFacundus^ as well 
 as in that otiCypnan: although he, perhaps, 
 may not, like Cyprian^ have particulariled it 
 by a dirc6l quotation. 
 
 VII. " FuIgentJus^ who was coiem- 
 * ' porury with FacunJus, has been thought 
 *' to reprefent Cyprian as quoting the 
 ** words from St. John,''^ 
 
 Thefe, which follow, are the words of 
 Fulgentitis, where he fpeaks of Cyprian^ and 
 this Verfe, conjointly. " The bleffed A- 
 *■' poftle St. John, teftifies, that there are 
 '' three which bear record in Heaven, the 
 " Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and 
 •' thefe three are one. Which, alfo, the 
 '* moft holy Martyr, Cyprian, declares \i\ 
 '* his Epidle, DcUnitate Fcclefi^-, wherein, 
 *' to demonrtrate that there ought to be aa 
 " unitv in the Church, as there is in the 
 *' Godliead, he has brought the following 
 '* proofs from Scripture; Jhe Lordfays^ 
 ** I and my Father are 07ie\ and again it 
 
 IS 
 
C 85 ) 
 
 ** IS WRITTEN of t/je Father, Son, and Holy Dr. Bei 
 " Spirit, Andthefe three are oneT {d) 
 
 Thus Fulgenthis has not only " been 
 thought to reprefent," but has dir edify, and 
 pojithely, reprefented, " Cyprian asquothig" 
 the verfe in queflion. And, not contented 
 with this, he has done more ; — he has quoted 
 the Verfe, himfelf, in the mod explicit, and 
 un-myflical, terms. 
 
 But this, it feems, cannot be ; becaufe Ful~ 
 gentius ufes the word [confitetur] confejj'es. 
 For, as 'Dr.Benfon further argues concerning; 
 Fulgentius — 
 
 VIII. " He fays [fo Cyprian co?feJei\ 
 " Confcffes, ivhat f That thefc very words 
 *' were in the epiflle of St. John ? What 
 *' a iitighty matter was that ; to confefs 
 
 what he found in the writings of an 
 
 «c 
 
 G 3 " Jpoflel 
 
 [d) Refponfio contra Arlanos^ Bibl. Max. Patrum, 
 vol. ix, p. 41. (Appendix, No, IX.) 
 
 It cannoc be doubted, that Fulgentius read this verfo in 
 the Greek iVISS, as well as in his own Bible ; becaulc' he 
 was much praciifed, and eminently fkilled, in the Qr-.-e^ 
 language. DuPln, Lond. Edit. A. D. 1693, vol. iv. is 
 I3> H- 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 *' Apojik ! But to confefs, or acknowledge^ 
 " that hy the Water ^ the Bloody and the 
 *' Spirit^ IV ere meant the Father ^ the Son, 
 " and the Holy Spirit, was a very re- 
 " marhable confejfion. And what thofe 
 *' who held the fame opinion, would be 
 ^'' glad to find Jo eminent a father and 
 " martyr confejjing,^* — (p. 634.) 
 
 If this piece of verbal Criticifm, fuch as 
 it is, werejuft, it would prove nothing. But 
 it is not juil:. The Verb, Confiteor, may be 
 rendered, to declare, to Jhezv, to profefs, as 
 well as to confefs ; and is frequently ufed in 
 thefe fenfes by the beil Writers. Without 
 taking the trouble of referring, for examples, 
 to the Latin Claffics, at large, the Dictionary 
 of Ainjworth will fufficiently attefl: the truth 
 of this conftru6lion. And thus this poor 
 cavil falls to the ground. 
 
 IX. " Tes^ (you will fay) hut inter- 
 *' preting is one thing ; and faying, fo it it 
 *' vjritten, is quite a different thing"* 
 
 It has, I trufl, been already not onlyfaid, 
 
 but 
 
( 87 > 
 
 but PROVED, that " faying. So it is written^'' Dr. Bens< 
 IS, in ferlous truth, " quite a different thing 
 from interpreting ;" and was meant fo to be, 
 by Cyprian himfelf, in the cafe now before 
 us. And the argument will, perhaps, ac- 
 quire additional ftrength, by fhewing that 
 Cyprian has, in other paffages of his works, 
 frequently quoted Scripture, without ufnig 
 any other prefatory words, to introduce fucli 
 quotations, than the phrafe, [// is 'wriitenl 
 which is now under confideration. 
 
 " Beca.ufe it is written. He who endureth 
 '* to the end, fhall be faved." {e)—[De ha- 
 *' bitu Virginum, p. 93.] 
 
 " Since // is Written, All things are lawful, 
 " but all things are not (/) expedient."" 
 '' \lbid, p. 96.] 
 
 " Since // is written. Remember from 
 *' whence thou art fallen, and {£) repent." — 
 " {DeLapfts, p. 129.] 
 
 G 4 *' As 
 
 {e) A literal quotation from Mjtlhew x. 22. 
 {/) Frcm I Cor. vi. 12. 
 \g) From Riv^ ii. ^. 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 Senson. '« As it is written, A man's heart devifeth 
 *' his way, but the Lord diredeth his fteps." 
 (/6) — [Dezelo, p, 22^."] 
 
 " As // is written, am I a God at hand, 
 *« and not a God afar off? If a man fhall 
 " hide himfelf in fecret places, fhall not I fee 
 *' him ? Do not I fill heaven and (/) earth ? 
 " — And again : The eyes of the Lord 
 " are in every place, beholding the evil and 
 *' the (Ji) good." — [De Oratiojie Dominica^ 
 p. 140.] 
 
 ** Since // is written. The Lord will not 
 *' fuffer the foul of the righteous (/) to fa- 
 " mifh. And AGAIN : I have been young, 
 *' and now am old ; yet have I not feen the 
 *' righteous forfaken, nor his feed begging 
 (m) bread."— [//^/J. p. 148.] 
 
 The number of thefe examples might, if 
 neceffary, be much increafed. The two laft 
 
 are 
 
 {h) From Prov. xvl. 9. 
 
 (;*) From Jerem. xxiii. 23, 24. 
 
 {k) From Prov. xv. 3. 
 
 (/) From Prov. x. 3. 
 
 \vi) from Pfdm xxxvii. 25, (Bible Tranflation.) 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 are peculiarly appofite ; being inflances of Dr. Bei 
 two fucceffive quotations, coupled together, 
 by the very fame link [j^nd again'] which 
 joins the two quotations in the paflage now 
 under conlideration. 
 
 X. ''''Cyprian has, in other injlances^ 
 '' quoted Scripture more by his fenfe ofit, 
 " than by repeating the words of the text. 
 *' Thiis inJleadoj\ head us not into tempta- 
 *' tion, he quotes it. Suffer us not to be led 
 *' into temptation. And, Rev, xix. lo. 
 " Worflnp thou the Lordjefus, injlead of 
 '• Worfiip thou God. — V/hich were not 
 " different readings ; but Cyprians s own 
 '' interpretations^"*-^ 
 
 There is good reafon to believe, that tne 
 former of thefe inftances did not fall from 
 the pen of Cyprian. It certainly is not the 
 only, and it feems not to be the genuine, read- 
 ing of this paiiage. head us not into tempta^ 
 iion, are the words of the Arundelian MS, of 
 thofe from Pembroke College, Cambridge, of 
 thofe from Tork, from Lincoln College, Ox^ 
 ford^ of one belonging to the famous Voffius^ 
 
 and 
 
( 90 ) 
 
 ENsoN. and of two others from the Bodleian Library * 
 and the fentence ftands thus, alfo, in the 
 Collations of the Monaflery oi St. Fidior, at 
 Paris, 
 
 As to the latter inftance, from Revelations 
 xix. lo, it is, moft probably, 2. different read- 
 ings notwithftandingDr.^f;?/o;?'j pofitive de- 
 claration to the contrary. The old Italic 
 Verfion was the Bible of Cyprian^ and the 
 public Bible of the age in which he lived. 
 The Verfion of Jerome was not made until 
 nearly two hundred years after the death of 
 Cyprian ; and it was, at leaft («) four hun- 
 dred years after his death, before that Ver- 
 fion took place of the Italic^ in the public 
 Churches, as well as in the Libraries of the 
 learned : which, indeed, it has done fo com- 
 pletely, that there is not a fnigle MS of the 
 old Italic Verfion now, certainly, known {0) 
 to exift in the world. 
 
 What 
 
 {n) M. Simon, Hift. Crit. des Verfions, Cap. vii — ix. 
 
 {0) Michael'is feems to wilh the learned world to be- 
 Jleve, that the text of the Old Italic is annexed to the Bo- 
 ernerian, and ClaromonUme^ MSS : and that Martianoy has 
 already publifhed the Gofpel of St, Matthew, and the 
 Epiftlc of St. James, from that Verfion. But his own 
 cxprcffions^" A Latin Verfion^ which is thought to- 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 What then, Sir, fhall hinder us from con- 
 cluding, that the Verfion, from whence 
 Cyprian (^) drew his quotations, was the 
 old Italic^ and that it read the words now 
 in queftion, as Cyprian has quoted them ? It 
 has not been fufficiently attended to, by Dr. 
 Benfon, and by other writers, of modern, 
 times, who have, too haftily, accufed Cyp^ 
 rian, and other ancient Latin Fathers, of 
 quoting loofely, and of giving interpretations^ 
 inftead of citations ; that thofe fathers did 
 not quote from the prefent Vulgate of the 
 New Teftament, or from any other Kx^ 
 emplar of it, which is now known to be ex- 
 tant ; but from a Verfion, which is «<9w, 
 probably, lojl, 
 
 XI. " V/hy might not he' [Cyprian] 
 
 *' give 
 
 " he the Italic" — " a very ancient Latin Verfion" — " ivhich 
 *' Martian ay caufed to be printed from two very ancient 
 '' MSS" — are the uncertain language of a perfon, wa- 
 vering, and diftruflfu] of his own condufions. [Inirwi, 
 Le£i. Sea. 24, 26, and 6r.) 
 
 (/>) Dr. Pearfon^ in his Edition of Cyprians works, 
 has adopted this idea of a different reading m this paflage. 
 " LegilTe videtur Cypriantis non tw Ojw Tr^oo-.-yi/jicroj/, fed 
 *' Tw xuatw." (Note, pa. 220.) But, not recolleiaing 
 the circumftances above-mentioned, he has not attempted 
 any explanation of this note ; but has left it, as it now 
 ftands in his Edition, a refpeaable, yet uafupported, 
 conJEduie. 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 " give thefenfe'' [of- the eighth verfe] 
 *' in his own words ; and fay. Of the 
 " Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is 
 " written^ Ihefe three are one V* (p. 
 
 635-) 
 
 Becaufe he would, In fuch a cafe, have 
 faid the thing which was not. It is not 
 WRITTEN, of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, Thefe three are one, in any part of the 
 eighth Verfe of this chapter. To fuppofe 
 that Cyprian would have affirmed a thing to 
 be written, which never was written, is to 
 fuppofe that he would have been guilty of 
 uttering an intentional falfehood ; a fuppo- 
 fitlon altogether monflrous, and abominable ! 
 
 XII. " For my own part, I make m 
 *' doubt but that was thefa^^"* 
 
 Indeed 1 
 
 XIII. " The rcafon, why Jerome has 
 
 *' been appealed to, in this point, is, that 
 
 " there is, in fever al latin bibles, a pre^ 
 
 '* face to the catholic epijlles, which goes 
 
 " under his name''* 
 
 This 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 This aflertion is true, in part ; but it does Dr. Bei 
 not contain the whole truth. The appeal 
 to the teftimony of Jerome^ in favor of this 
 Verfe, is not founded on this preface only ; 
 but partly on this preface, and partly on his 
 having been the Author of that Tranflation 
 of the Bible, which is now called the Vulgar 
 Latin, or the Vulgate: — in which Tranfla- 
 tion this Verfe has always had a place. 
 
 £C 
 
 XIV. '' But fever al learned men, and 
 even fome, who plead for the genuine- 
 '' nefs of this text, have given up that 
 " preface, as fpurious. Their reafons^ 
 it j-Qjr f^eje^ing it, arefuch as thefe, — 
 
 " // is not in Jerome's catalogue of 
 ^' prefaces'^ 
 
 Jerome wrote, in the fourteenth year (^p) of 
 neodofius, A. D. 392, a Catalogue of the 
 works, which he had then compofed. He 
 lived twenty-eight years longer, or until A. 
 D. 420 : in which latter part of his life he 
 compofed, not only this preface to the Ca- 
 
 iholic 
 
 (g) See the Catahgite Itfclf, Hleronymi Opera, per IlLv- 
 timay^ vol. iv, Edit. Parifiis, A, D. 1706, 
 
( 94 ) 
 Benson. /^^//^ (oi- Canonical) Epiftles, but alfo fevcral 
 other fimilar prefaces, and commentaries, 
 particularly to the greater Prophets, as they 
 are commonly called, (r) Ifaiah, Ezekiel, 
 and Jeremiah ; to the leller Prophets Zecka- 
 riah, Malachi^ Hofea^ Joel^ Amos^ and '^jonah ; 
 to the A<5ts of the Apoftles, alfo, as it feems, 
 and to the Epiftles of St. Paul. 
 
 It is true, then, that this preface is not 
 inferted in Jeroine\ Catalogue : but it is not 
 true, that it is, therefore, fpurious. The 
 preface has no place in the Catalogue, not 
 becaufe it was not written by Jerome^ 
 but becaufe it was written by him after 
 that Catalogue was compofed. 
 
 XV. '* //'* [this preface] " Is often 
 ** found m latin MSS, without his'' [Je- 
 rome's] *' name'' 
 
 It is found without his name, in fome La- 
 tin MSS. But that omiffion does not prove 
 its fpurioufnefs. Jerome\ preface to the 
 Books of the Chronicles is not mentioned as 
 
 his , 
 
 (r) Hody,li^V>\\A. Tcxt.Orlg. p. 378. 
 
( 9S ) 
 
 his work, even in his own Apology; although D-r* Benj 
 written by him long before the date of that 
 Apology, (j) His preface to the Pfalms is 
 ** without his name" in feveral ancient MSS, 
 particularly in that of Carcajfonne (J) : ytt 
 that preface is confeffedly his work. Jeromes 
 preface to the Book of Efdras is, alfo, " with- 
 " out his name," in one of the moft ancient 
 MSS in the Royal Library at Paris. Yet 
 this preface is now allowed, by all learned 
 men, to be the work of Jerome, Omiflions, 
 of this kind, prove nothing, — but the negli- 
 gence of hafly tranfcribers. 
 
 XVI. *' //" [the preface] '^ males 
 ^^ life of the words ^ canonical epiftles : 
 *' whereas Jerome's title for them was^ 
 " The Catholic Epiflles." 
 
 Jerome has, himfelf, applied the epithet. 
 Canonical, to thefe Epiftles, in other parts 
 of his works, as well as in the preface 
 now in queftion (^ii). So hath Auguflrnc^ 
 
 iy) the 
 
 (j) Jdem^ p. 374. 
 
 (t) Hieronymi Opera, vol. ii. p. 546. 
 
 (u) See Notes by Erafmus, on Jerome's Trcatife cm 
 Ecclefiaftical Writers: vol. i, p. 103, F. and G. Edit. 
 Parii^ A. D. 1546. Erajmus^ however, was offended with 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 (v) tlie Contemporary, andCorrefpondent, of 
 jferome. And fo hath Figilius^ who alfo lived 
 in the fame age. In his treatife again ft Va^ 
 rimadus^ the Arian^ he fays — '' It is written 
 " in the Canonical Epiftles, My little 
 *' children^ this is the loft time '^ and the 
 quotation is made from this very Epiftle of 
 St. 'John, And fo hath Junilius^ likewife, 
 who lived in the fixth century, about one 
 hundred years after the death of Jerome, 
 Junilius ftiles thefc Epiftles Canonical^ with- 
 out explanation, or apology^ as an appella- 
 tion well-kndwn, and long applied to them ; 
 ^a (w) Apoftolorum Canonic^ nuncupan- 
 
 tur;\ 
 
 the epithet ; and, at firft, vainly, attempted to fubrtitute 
 Catholic in its place : but he foon fubmitted, and ftiled 
 them Canonical, himfelf ; viz. *' 2. Joan. Canonica— 
 3. Joan. EjusDEM. (Vol. ii, p. 109.) In another work 
 he even allovv'S, that Jerome Itiled thel'e Epiftles Canonical. 
 Thefe are his u'ords : " De hac quoque fecunda Petri 
 *' epiftola, cujus efl'et, controverlia ciat. Id teftatur 
 *' Hieronyrniis, in Catalogo fcriptorum illuftrium, his 
 ** quidem verbis; Scrip/it [Petrus] duas epijtolas, qua 
 *' CANONIC^ nomina.itur^ quarum fecunda a plerifque 
 •* ejus negatur, propter itili cum priore uiflojiantiam." 
 ('Annot. Ernj'ini in Nov. Teft. A. D. 1522, p. 614.J 
 
 [v) De Ctvitate Dei, Lib. xv. cap. 23. " Scripfifle 
 *' quidem nonnuUa dlviiiaiS'M^^c/^, ilium feptimum zhAdam, 
 " ne2;are nonpofiumuSjCum hoc inEnsTOLA canonica 
 ** Judas ^poftolus dicac." (Augujl. Opera, Edit. Paris, 
 A. D. 1680, vol. vii, p. 408.) 
 
 (w) De Partibus Divinae Legis, Cap. 6. — (Max.Bibl, 
 Patrum, vol. x. p. 341, Edit. Lugd, A. D. 1677.) 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 //^r/* are his words. Cajfiodorhs applies the Dr. Bens 
 fame epithet to them, in the firft Book of his 
 Injlitutes ; who lived in the fame age with 
 yunilius. Nor was this epithet of Canonical 
 applied to thefe Epiftles, at that time, by 
 yerome, Vlgilius, Auguftim, CaJJiodonus, and 
 JuniUus, alone, but by the whole Latin 
 Church ; which is proved by the befl tefti- 
 mony poffible,' — the acknowledgement of an 
 adverfary. '' The Greeks''' (fays M. Simon') 
 " have ftiled the feven Epiftles, Catholic ; 
 *' but the Wejlern Churches feem, (.v) es- 
 ** PECIALLY, to have given to them the 
 f* epithet of Canonical." 
 
 XVII. '' That preface is prefixed to 
 " fome latin copies of the catholic epijlles ; 
 *' in which the difputed text is not in- 
 " fertedr 
 
 The fame adverfary, whom we have al- 
 ready quoted in reply to the laft, fliall, fnig- 
 ]y, anfwer this, objection. " This is the 
 " fault of tranfcribers ;" (fays M. Siinon, 
 fpeaking on this fubje^l) " who, being only 
 H ~ " juft 
 
 . (*; Hift. Crit. duN. T, C, xvii, ad init» 
 
( 98 ) 
 
 JzNsoN. *< jull equal to the talk o£ copying the MSS, 
 *' did not confider the difagreement, which 
 '* there was between the text of their 
 *' copies, and this preface." 
 
 XVIII. '* The preface is not found in 
 *' fome of the beji and mojl aticient MSS 
 *' of f^Tfome'' s verfion.''^ 
 
 If by the expreflion, ^^ fome^'' it was here 
 meant to infinuate, that this preface is not 
 found in the greater part, or in the generality^ 
 of the MSS of Jerome's verfion,— the in- 
 finuation is not founded in truth. Nor are 
 thofe MSS of Jerome's verfion, in which 
 this preface " is not found," either the hcft^ 
 or the moji ancient. The truth is, thofe 
 MSS of Jerome s verfion, which want this 
 preface, are few, aiid, in other refpe£ts, very 
 incorrect ; and (as hath been in part ob- 
 ferved before) no conclufion can be drawn, 
 to overturn the authenticity of this preface, 
 from fuch, or any fimilar, a£ls of negUgence, 
 or omiffion. In ignorant, or hafty, tranfcri- 
 bers. 
 
 XIX. " 7/" [the preface] *' infinuates. 
 [\ omfalfehood — that all the greek copies 
 
 *^ of 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 " of the new tejlamefit had this verfe. Dr. Ben 
 
 " JVljcreas none of them had it, And 
 
 *' Jerome, above all 7nen^ who was fo 
 
 " cunverfant in the greek copies of the 
 
 *' new te/iament, muft needs have known 
 
 " this to have been a direSf falfehood'^ 
 
 It is really aftonifhing to fee fuch afler- 
 tlons advanced in diredl oppolition to Je- 
 rome'^s own teftimony, and to the plain, and 
 obvious, truth of the cafe. This Verfe 
 flands in Jerome's Teftament. Jerome 
 folemnly aflures us, that he fettled the text 
 of that Teftament by the Greek copies. " No- 
 *' vum Tejlamentum (^y) fidei Gil?£C2c reddidi,''* 
 Jerome, therefore, is fo far from knowing 
 H 2 that 
 
 {y) See the reference mentioned in page 33. 
 
 in his 28th Epiftle (to Lucinlus) Jerome again makes 
 the fame declaration. *' Septuaginta Interpretum edi- 
 *' tionem et te habere non dubito, et ante annos plu- 
 *' rimos diligentiffime emendatam, ftudiofis tradidi : No- 
 *' vtim Graecre reddtdi au^oriiati." Edit. Erafmi^ Paris. 
 A. D. 1546, vol. i. p. (71, as erroneoufly marked in the 
 vol. but really page) 66. 
 
 And again, " Sicut autem In Novo Teftamento, fi 
 ** quando apud Latinos quasftio exoritur, et eft inter 
 *' exemplaria varietas, reairrimus ad fontem GaiEci 
 ^■^ fer?nsnis^ quo novum fcrlptum eji injirumentum : ita in 
 ** Veteri Teftamento, i\ quando inter Gram, Latinofqudy 
 *' diverfitas eft, ad Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem." 
 (HiERON. Sunia et FnUh, vol. iii, p, 26. — ) 
 
( ioo ) 
 
 Benson, that this Verfe was in none of the Greek 
 JNISS, that he has, upon the authority of 
 thofe very M3S, inferted the Verfe in his 
 own Tranflation. This Jerome, *' who, 
 '* above all men, was fo converfant in the 
 " Greek Copies of the New Teftament," 
 has tranfcribed this Verfe from thofe very 
 Copies I 
 
 XX. " Nor has any of the genuine 
 " works of the greek fathers once men- 
 *' t'wnedif — [viz. the Verfe, i^John^ 
 V. 7.] 
 
 If this affcrtion were true, it would not 
 be conclufive againft the originality of this 
 prefice. But it is not true ; as will appear 
 by the following inftances, taken from fuch 
 parts of the works of thofe Fathers, as have 
 furvived to the prefent times. 
 
 I . Euthymius Zygahemcs lived at Conjlan* 
 ilnopJe, in the eleventh century, in the reign 
 of Alexis Comnenus. In his works he thus. 
 ^ 1-efers to this Verfe of St. John, *' The 
 " term One denotes things, theeffence, and 
 " nature, of which are the fame, and yet 
 
( loi ) 
 
 *' the perfons are different (^) ; as m this D^". Ke: 
 <« inftance, And three are one.'* 
 
 2. A Dialogue, in the Greek language, 
 wherein ^thanajlus, and Arim^ are the real, 
 praffumed, interlocutors, which was written 
 about A. D. 336 ; thus exprefsly quotes 
 the Verfe in queftion. " Is not that lively, 
 *' and faving, Baptifm, whereby we receive 
 *' remiffionof fins, admlniftered in the name 
 " oithe Father, the Son, and the Holy Gboji ? 
 '' And St. John fays, And these three 
 *' ARE ONE." (^) Whether thisDialogue was 
 written hyAthanaJius, or not, has long been a 
 matter af debate among the learned. It is, 
 however, of greater moment, in the prefent 
 cafe, to afcertain the time when, than the 
 perfon by whom, it was written. And this 
 circumftance (the time when it was written) 
 feems to be clearly decided by the following 
 cxtra(5l from the work itfelf. Athanajius, to- 
 ll 3 wards 
 
 {a) Orthodox^ F'ulti Dog7natica Panoplia^ Part i. Tit. 
 7, (Max. Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xix, p. 47. Edit. Lugd. 
 A. D. 1677. 
 
 The Council of Lateran was compofed of Greek, 
 as well as Latin, Fathers, and Bifhops ; and this 
 Verfe is exprefsjly appealed to in their joint Decretal, 
 (fee p. 41 of this work.) 
 
 {h) Athanafn Opera, Edit. Parh, A. D. 1698, vol. 
 ii. p. 229. 
 
( 102) 
 
 ENsoN. wards the clofe of the debate, demands of 
 Jlrius, *' Whether^ by faying, the Emperor 
 *' Conflantine reigns hyfea^ and land, he there- 
 '' by affirmed that his Son, Conftantius, did 
 " not reign there alfo.^'' To which Arius 
 rephes, " It is very dangerous to Jay, that 
 *' Conftantius does not reign with Con- 
 " ^7in\m^, his Father :' {c) 
 
 I need not obferve to Mr. Gibbon, that the 
 joint reign of ConJlaJitine, and Conjiantius^ 
 ended with the death of the former, in the 
 month oi May, A. D. 337. 
 
 Laftly, — Among the works of Athanafius, 
 {a) which are generally allowed to be genuine, 
 is a Synopfis of this Epiftle of St. John. It 
 is not thepurpofe, or intent, of a Synopjis ex- 
 prefsly to quote the work to which it refers ; 
 
 but 
 
 {c) Ou /^i)t^o? )tiv(Jui/o? &C. Non Icve efl: periculuin 
 dicere Conjiantinum non imperare [(ru,a6a(riA£U£t] cum 
 Conftantmo Patre fuo, eo quod una cum ipfo numera- 
 
 TUR. p. 215. 
 
 {d) Du Pm^ Art. Athamfius, Land. Edit. vol. ii, p. 
 34. Hody, (De Bib]. Text, originalibus, p. 309) fays 
 the author of this Synopfn — " Qui, fi non fuit Athsnafius, 
 ** vetuftiflimus tamen fuit." Dr. Caue fpeaks to the 
 fame purpofe, Hift. Lit. Land, Edit. A. D. 1688, p. 146, 
 
( 1^3 ) 
 
 but to give a compendious Summary of its Dr. Bei 
 fcope, and fubjed. The verfe in queftion, 
 therefore, is not dirc6lly quoted in this Sy- 
 nopfis ; but the author of it feems plainly 
 to refer to this Verfe, in thefe words : The 
 Apoftle (fays he) " here teaches (^) the Unity 
 of the Son with the Father :" for this unity is 
 not taught in any part of that chapter, fave 
 in t\iQ /event h verfe. 
 
 Thefe inftances, then, are flat contra- 
 <!idions to the ailertions above ftated. Had 
 the works of the ancient Greek Fathers come 
 down to us entire, the number of thefe in- 
 stances would, without doubt, have been 
 greatly increafed. 
 
 XXI. " //".[the preface] " ajferts 
 *' two other direct and Jiotorioiis falfe- 
 *' hoods^^ — viz. firfl, " that the Latin 
 '* tranjlators were unfaithful^ in leaving 
 *' out the tefimony of the father^ the word^ 
 " andthefpirit'' p. 636.) 
 
 II 4 The 
 
 {e) ' KaiJ T*!i/ iv(frr,ra. o? tx v.ov ttco^ tov 'jrXTSpr/, 
 ^nxn^n" — {Manafii Opera, Jidic. iV //! A. D. I69^^ 
 vol. ii. p. 190.) 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 The words of the Preface are, " In qua 
 " etiam ab infidelihus tranjlatorihus multuni 
 *' erratum efle a fidei verltate comperlmus." 
 Jerome does not fay, that the Latin Tranjla^ 
 tors, collectively taken, were unfaithful ; 
 but that a great error had been fallen into 
 by unfaithful tranflators^ by fome, it might 
 be even by a few, of them, refpedling this 
 Verfe. 
 
 XXII. The other " direcl and notorious 
 " falfehood^'' which this Preface ajferts^ 
 ** is — " That he, [Jerome] had rejiored 
 " this Verfer 
 
 The Preface aflerts (/) no fuch thing !-^ 
 Its words are — " The firft of thefe Epiftles 
 *' is one, of James-, then two, of Peter \ 
 *' three of y<9/j«; and one, oijude'. Which, 
 *' if they had been faithfully tranflated into 
 " the Latin language, as they were 
 
 ** WRITTEN BY THESE i^POSTLES, WOuld 
 
 " not have offered ambiguities to their 
 *' readers ;^^nor would variations of the 
 " text have thwarted each other ; particu- 
 
 *' larly 
 
 (/) '' See Appendix, No, XIII, where this preface is 
 trajifcribed at length. 
 
( 105) 
 
 <' larly in that paffage of the firft Epiftle of Dr. Ben 
 *' St. John^ where we find the unity of the 
 '' Trinity fet forth.'* 
 
 The obvious meaning of the Preface is— • 
 that the exiftence of this paffage of St. 'John^ 
 in fome, and its non-exiflence in others, of 
 thofe Tranflations, had caufed certain amhl^ 
 giiities, and variations of the text, which are 
 here complained of. Had the Verfe been 
 omitted in all of them, no fuch ambiguity 
 could hav^e been offered to the reader, be- 
 caufe there would have been no variation to 
 caufe, or produce, it. The Preface, there- 
 fore, does not fuppofe any rejloration of the 
 Verfe by 'Jerome, becaufe it does not fuppofe 
 the Verfe ever to have been lojl. It goes no 
 further than, fimply, to complain, that the 
 Verfe had been left out of certain Tranfla- 
 tions : which we may even conclude to have 
 been few in number, in comparifon with the 
 reft who retained the text, with as much 
 reafon as any one can have to conjecture the 
 contrary. 
 
 XXIII. '' AuguJlinCy vxho ivas mti- 
 
 " mate 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 ' ' mate with Jerotne^ kept a correfpondence 
 " tjcith him, read his works, and more 
 " efpecially his Latin Verjion of the New 
 " Tejiajuent, has 7iever once, in all his 
 " voluminous works y mentioned the dif- 
 *-' pitted text. 
 
 It hath been already proved, {g) as It i« 
 trufted, in dired contradi£lion to the pre- 
 ceduig objedion, that Augiijiine hath quoted 
 this difputed text. Nor is this quotation the 
 only teftimony, which he hath given to its 
 authenticity. He has, moreover, exprefled 
 the highefl approbation of Jerome's Verfion 
 of the New Teftament ; which hath always 
 exhibited this verfe. " PFe heartily thank 
 " God^^ (fays Augujline, writing to Jerome) 
 " for your translation of the New Tef- 
 " t anient ; becaufe there isfcarcely any thing in 
 " ;/, which offends us, (h) when we compare 
 *' // with the ORIGINAL Greek." 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 [g] Pa-e34.. 
 
 [b) '* Proinde non farvas Deo gratiai agimus de op ere 
 " tuo^ quod Evangelhan ex Graco interpretatus es: 
 ** quia pene in omnibus nulla offenfio cji^ cum Scripturam 
 *' Gr(scam contulerimus." To which Jero?ne replies — 
 " Si mcy ut dicisj in Novi Testamenti etnendationc 
 
( I07 ) 
 
 XXIV. '' IVJjat may put the matter* Dr. Bemsg 
 [the fpurioufnefs of the Preface] " aut 
 *' of all dlfpute^ is, Jerome hmfelf, in 
 " his genuine, voluminous works, bath 
 " never quoted this difputed ■paffage'"' 
 
 If thefe premlfes fliould be admitted, the 
 conclufion, drawn from them, does not, ne- 
 ceflarlly, follow. Jerome may not have 
 quoted this difputed paflage in his other 
 works, and yet the preface may be genuine. 
 It is not for me, for Dr. Be?ifon^ or even for 
 Mr. Gibbon, dogmatically to pronounce, that 
 an Author has not written a Preface, in 
 which a particular paflage of Scripture is 
 quoted, merely becaufe he has written other 
 works, in which that paflage is 7tot quoted. 
 
 But the premifes, themfelves, are by no 
 
 means 
 
 *' fufciph^'' hz.^-{Hleronymi Opera, Ed. Erafml^ A. D. 
 I54fo, vol. ii, p. 1 1 1— 1 14. j 
 
 Erafmus fpeaks of this intercourfe between Aiigujline^ 
 and 'Jerome^ in the following terms. 
 
 " Porro divus AugnjVmm^ quoniam ne Grace quidem 
 ** ad plenum fciebat, non probat H'leronsmi ftiidium, qui 
 ** Novum T-eJlamcntwn ex GR^tcoRUM fontisus, vel 
 '* verterit^ vel emendar'it. Qiianquam hoc utcunque to- 
 *' lerandum putat, propterea quod, collatis codici- 
 <* BUS, deprehendiflet Hieronymianam in ea re fidem." 
 {Erafm: Annot. in Nov, Tcii, Edit. A. D. 1522, p. 74.) 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 ENsoN. means to be admitted. It hath ah'eady been 
 proved, as it is trufted, that 'Jerome hath 
 quoted this difputed palTage. Erafmus^ in- 
 deed, entertained, or affefted to entertain, 
 fome doubts of the authenticity of (;) thefc 
 quotations. But, when ferioufly coniidered, 
 they do not (Jz) ieem to have any real weight. 
 
 Jerome then, as it feems, hath, in the plain 
 fenfe of the word, quoted this verfe. But, 
 
 iu 
 
 , (0 Pages 33—35. 
 
 {k) The words of Erafmus^ rcfpc£ling the ConfeJJlom 
 of Fuithy here referred to, are — " Talia funt^ ut ambigi 
 PossiT, utrion Hieronyfnifint^ necne." Their ftile, how- 
 ever, fhews them to be Jerome''s : which prefumption 
 feems to be fully eftabliflied by the following confideta- 
 tions : 
 
 1. Jerome frequently refers to TertuU'ian, and Cyprian^ 
 who have cited this Verfe in their writings. (Vide Hier- 
 cnymi Opera, per Erafmum, A. D. 1 546, — vol. i, pages 
 8 M, 36 E, 96 H, and 98 G. ;— vol. ii. p. 37, 49 M i 
 and vol. iii, p. 65 A : et alibi pajfun.) 
 
 2. Jerojne not only expreffes to Marcus Celedenfis, who 
 was Jeroniis friend, and correfpondcnt, the warmeft ap- 
 probation of that Expo/it ion of the Faith, [ke page 35 of this 
 work) which Marcus had written to Cyriilus ; but, at the 
 fame time, pofitivcly declares that one of thcfe C<?«- 
 
 fcjfioiis, which are now in debate, was his own com- 
 pofition. *' De fide, autem, quod dignaius esfcrihere fantto 
 Cyrillo, DEDI CONSCRIPTAM FIDEM." (Voi. ii, p. I04.) 
 
 And of this Expositio fidei of Marcus Celedenfts, and 
 and of his own conscripta fides, here treated upon, 
 ^Jerome further fpeaks, in thefe glowing terms ; " ^«i 
 ♦' Jic mn credit^ alicnus a Chrijlo t/i," 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 in another fenfe, he hath done much more Dr. Bens 
 than quote it, by inferting it in his Verlion 
 of the New Teftament ; the mofl laborious, 
 the moft important, of all his works. By 
 this infertion, indeed, Jerome may be faid, 
 moft truly, to have " put the matter out of 
 *' all difpute ;" but in a very different man- 
 ner from the predeftinated fentence of Dr. 
 Benfon, The Preface of Jerome throws light 
 upon his Verfion ; and his Verfion refleds 
 ftrength to the Preface : and in both, thus 
 mutually illuminating, and corroborating, 
 each other, Jerome has fixed his own feal to 
 the authenticity of the Verfe, in queftion ; — 
 " a feal, which will continue many days^ 
 
 This, Sir, is the lafl of the eleven proofs j 
 (as he has thought proper to ftile them) which 
 are produced by Dr. Benfon^ to fhew the/purl- 
 cuffiefs of this Preface. They have been, I truil, 
 fairly weighed in the ballance, and found 
 wanting. Some of thefe pretended proofs are, 
 moft blameabJy, untrue. The reft, even 
 where not falfe, are yet, without a fingle 
 exception, vague, and inconclufive. They 
 are fo far from inducing a fober convidion 
 
 of 
 
(i,o) 
 
 Jenson. of the fpurioiifnefs of this Preface, that they 
 do^not, when combuied together, amount 
 even to a probability of it. Indeed, the af- 
 perfions, which have been caft upon this 
 Preface, are but the dream of the prefent 
 a^e. The mofl difturbed imao-ination did 
 not harbour any fuch chimeras, until the 
 times o^ Martianay, z\\6. Simon. (/) Former 
 ages would not have liftened to them for a 
 moment. Let prejudice, then, give way to 
 moderation. Let candor pronounce her 
 judgment ; and let the Preface be, what it 
 affirms itfelf to be, what even Erafmus, and 
 (;//) Socinus^ confefs it to be, the work of 
 
 Jerome. 
 
 We 
 
 (/) See Cyprian's Works, Edit, Ow;z. (Note on the 
 Treat ife, De Unitate Ecdefice) p. 109. 
 
 Nicholas de Lyra^ in the tourtcenth, and TValafrid StrahOy 
 in the ninth. Century, having occafion to fpeak of this 
 Preface, exprefsly afcribe it to 'Jerome. 
 
 Erajmus admits it to have been the work of ^rrtf/w/, 
 in his Annotations upon this part of the New Teftament. 
 *' Dlvus Hieronymus PR>ffiL0QUENS in epistolas ca- 
 *' NoNicAS, fufpicatur hunc loam fu'ijp depravatutn" &C. 
 Edit. Bafil. A. D. 1522, p. 616. 
 
 And Dr. Cave, alio, placL-s this Preface among the 
 genuine works of Jerotne. (Hiji. Lit. Edit. Lond. A. D. 
 168S, p. 223.) 
 
 (m) SmithWindicics, Edit. L(7?;i. A. D. 1686, p. 136. 
 Sec aUb Calmet — " Mais Erafinc, et abres lui Socin, Ai. 
 *' Ec Clerc, &c. foutiennent que le Prologue, dont on "jient 
 •* de parler, cji vraiment de Saint JcroruQ." (DifT. Vol. 
 iii. Edit, Paiis. A. D. 1720, p. 561.) 
 
( III ) 
 
 We may, Sir, I prefume, now quit this D'. Bess 
 Preface, allowing it to have been written by 
 Jerome, and proceed to the reft of Dr. Beti- 
 fons objections to the originality of the Verfe, 
 I. John^ V. 7. 
 
 XXV. " As to what Vi5lor Vitenfa 
 •' has f aid, towards the conclujion of the 
 *' fifth century ; or others In later ages^ 
 " // cannot he of much inoment. And, 
 " therefore, I fij all fay nothing to fuch late 
 " teflwionles"' — (viz. in favor of the 
 Verfe in queftion.) 
 
 This objedbion is fo extraordinary, that it 
 feems to call for a very particular examina- 
 tion, in all its parts, 
 
 Firft, as to the objector, — it feems, on a 
 primary view, peculiarly ftrange, that Dr. Ben- 
 fon fhould thus rejeCl the evidence of Vlttor 
 Vltenfis, who wrote (about A. D. 488, or) 
 in t\\Q fifth century, as late tefiimony ; when he 
 foon afterwards cites Bede, (ji) of the eighth^ 
 and Qecumenlus, of the eleventh y century. 
 
 But 
 
 {n) Page 644, 
 
(112) 
 
 ENsoN, But this mode of feledinghis evidence, firaiige 
 as it feems, may, perhaps, be accounted for. 
 The fufrrage of Vidlor V'lteiijis supports 
 the authenticity of this verfe. Thofe of 
 Bede^ and Oecumenlus are, in fome fcnfe, 
 ADVERSE to it. It feems but too plain, that 
 thefe circumftances, alone, have prevailed 
 with Dr. Ben/on to urge the latter teftimony, 
 and to rejed the former. 
 
 This primary prefumption feems, furtlier^ 
 
 to become abfolute certainty, when applied, 
 
 comparatively, to the nature of the fe- 
 
 veral teftimonies, here rejeded, or retained, 
 
 by Dr. Bcnfon. For, what is the nature of 
 
 the proof, which is drawfl from Bede, and 
 
 Oecumenius, as to this verfe ? It amounts 
 
 only to this, — //:>i^/BEDE,^7/<^OECUMENius, 
 
 have KOT quoted this verfe ^ in their works. 
 
 The whole of the evidence, then, which 
 
 can be drawn from them, is barely negative. 
 
 It is, only, an oinijjion in a Commentator ; and, 
 
 as fu ch, affords matter for conjecture ^ merely, 
 
 and no more. — But the evidence of FlBor 
 
 Vitenfis is positive, clear, and pointed. 
 
 He has related a plain hiftory of plain fa£ls. 
 
 He 
 
( 113) 
 He has given an unadorned account of what I^r. 
 hey^w and heard, and expcric?iceJ., when fur- 
 rounded by the armed band of the defpotic 
 Huneric. His narrative was compofed, whllft 
 Ananljm fat triumphant on the throne, and 
 therefore muft be circumfpeci. It was w^rit- 
 tdii in the fiice of exafperated enemies ; (o) 
 and therefore muft be accurate. It was pub- 
 lished, whilft the parties, of whom it treated, 
 were living ; and therefore muft ht faithful. 
 It recorded a tranfaftion, known through all 
 the dominionsof i^//«fr/r, and therefore mufl 
 be true : becaufe the fmalleft deviation from 
 truth would have been foUov/ed by inihuit 
 deteclion. This narrative of Victor Vitejfs, 
 then, is an argument in favor of this verfe, 
 which needs only to be read in order to 
 compel conviction. It is, in its nature, fu- 
 perior to all fophifms, and inexpugnable by 
 
 any cavils : and yet, this is the teftimony, 
 
 which Dr. Benfon has thought fit (/>) to put 
 I afide, 
 
 {o) The account given by Fulcr, and here alluded to, 
 is ftated more at lar^e in pages 4.4 to 47 of thefe letters. 
 See alfo Appendix, No. XIV : and Du Pin, Land. Edit, 
 vol. V. p. 170. 
 
 (/>) If Dr. Benfon would have given his true reafon^ for 
 having " nothing to fay to the tc/iimony" of Viilor Vitenfis ; 
 it would, feemingly, have been, that he kne^ifj not ho:v to an- 
 fwer it. 
 
( 114) 
 
 Senson. afide, as having nothing to do with, ns being 
 utterly unconcerned in, the decifion of the 
 authenticity of the verfe, i. John^ v. 7 I 
 
 Nor is this the only abfurdity, into which 
 Dr. Benjon has here betrayed himfelf. His 
 pretence, about the time, in which Vldfor Vi^ 
 tenjis lived, which he hath afligned as his 
 reafon for rejedling Vi^or*s teftimony, is as 
 futile, as his real intentions, in reje6ting 
 it, feem to have been hlameahle. For in the 
 outfct of his Differtation, he admits the tef- 
 timony of Jerome, in favor of this Verfe, as 
 valid in pomt of time ; for he lets himfcif fe- 
 rioufly to do away its effed, if poffible, by 
 laboring to prove (as we have already feen) 
 that the Preface to the Canonical Epirtles is 
 not the work of ferome. Now Jerome lived 
 in the fame Century with Viclor Vitenfs ; 
 nay, it is poffible that they might both be 
 alive at the fame hour : for Jerome furvived 
 until A. D. 420, and Vidior was a Bifloop in 
 (perhaps long before) A. D. 484, and was 
 prcfent, with jEz/^mz/j, and his Co-prelates, in 
 that year, at the Council of Carthage, Dr* 
 Benfony therefore, allows the evidence of Je- 
 
 rome. 
 
( "5 ) 
 
 rome^ in the beginning of the fifth Century, ^^- ^^' 
 to be early enoi]gh ; and yet rejects that of 
 FiBor, and his Brethren, the Biihops of ^fri- 
 ca, " towards the conclulion of that centu- 
 '' ry," as " late te/i/mon)'j--^s inadmiflible 
 hecaufe modern : for that is the only im- 
 peachment which he ventures to caft upon 
 It. But if the former be early enough, why 
 is the latter too late ? By what rule is a tef- 
 tlmony of A. D. 414, for inftance, to be ad- 
 mitted, by a Critic of the eighteenth Century, 
 by an author who writes nearly one thoufana 
 three hundred years afterwards, as in time^ 
 (the antiquity of the evidence being the fole 
 point in queftion) and another, of A. D. 484, 
 to be reje6led, as out of time : nay, lo much 
 out of time, as to be out of all claim to no- 
 lice, — fo very " late,'' as that " nothing'* is 
 to be " faid, to it ?" Will any one, Vv'ho 
 contends for the fpurioufnefs of this Vcrfe, 
 — will Mr. Gibbon, — attempt to juflify Dr. 
 Benfon in this rejection ? If lb. Sir, you will, 
 perhaps, condefcend to inform the v/orld, 
 what members, what fractional parts, of the 
 fame Century, (^theffth, for inflance) are to 
 conftitute ancient^ and what frailions, or 
 1 2 part:«, 
 
(1.6) 
 
 ENsoN. parts, thereof, modern teflimony. But you 
 will not hazard the attempt. 
 
 XXVI. " In fettling the text of the new 
 " tejlament, Robert Stephens made ufs 
 ^' of fifteen ancient MSSr (p. 637.) 
 
 He made ufe oifxteen, befide the Comphi- 
 icnfan Bible, which was a printed book. His 
 own words are {f) " Tcflamentum qua (dlc- 
 " iante Splrltu fandfo) fcrlptum ftilt lingua, 
 ** cum vetujllffimls sedecim scriptis ex- 
 *' EMPLARiBus, quanta maxima potulmus 
 ** curd^ et dlllgentld, collatum excudlmus.^* 
 Theodore Beza^ who was permitted to collate 
 thefe MSS for his own Verfions of the New 
 Teftament, acknowledges himfelf indebted 
 to tlie friendfhip of Robert Stephens for the 
 life of feventeen (r) of Ids Copies ; taking 
 into the number the Complutenfan Bible, 
 which Robert Stephens had 11 fed in his own 
 Editions, and afterwards furniflied to Beza^ 
 along with the fixteen, written. Copies. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 (q) Preface to his Edition of A. D. 1550, printed at 
 Pans. (Appendix, No. XII.) 
 (r) Preface to his Editions of A. D. 1582, and 1589. 
 
("7) 
 
 XXVII. " // is very certain that he Dr, Bsi 
 " [Robert Stephens] didnot fcruple va- 
 " ryingfrom his MSS^ and has varied 
 " f'om them all, and from the complu- 
 * ' tenfe and vulgate, too, in feventy places, 
 *' at leajir 
 
 The plan, which Robert -Stephens follow- 
 ed in his Edition of A. D. 1550, here allu- 
 ded to, was, — to take all thofe fentences, or 
 words, to be original, in which all his au- 
 thorities concurred, and to place them in the 
 text, generally, (^) without any marginal 
 notes, or references, whatfoever. But where 
 his authorities varied from each other, al- 
 though by a fmgle letter only, he adopted 
 that fentence, or word, alone, which feemed 
 to be the genuine reading of the paflage, in- 
 ferting it in the body of the page, and no-, 
 ting, in the margin, the principal variations 
 of his other authorities. 
 
 If, then, the objection only means, that 
 
 Robert Stephens has fometimes varied from 
 
 I 3 fomc 
 
 (x) Robert Stephens, in this work, took the laft Edition 
 of Erafmus, as the general foundation of his text j which 
 kehas followed chiefly, but not fervilely. 
 
■ (zi8) 
 
 fome of his MS3, in preference to others ; 
 lometinies from all, or mofl-, of them, in 
 favor of the Comphitetijian, and the Vulgate ; 
 and at other times from them alfo, in obedi- 
 ence to his MSS, in proportion as any of 
 thefe guides feemed to fupply the mofl: cor- 
 real iPiformation ; — it defcribes Robert Ste- 
 phens as an afliduons inveftigator of truth, as 
 an accurate, and judicious, Critic: a def- 
 cription, in which the whole Uterary world 
 will concur. But if the obje6lor meant to 
 iniinuate (and the plain conll:ru£lion of his 
 words direclly infers the infinuation) that 
 Robert Stephens has, in feventy, or in any 
 number of, places, varied from the whole 
 tenor of his authorities, and interpofed an 
 arbitrary, unfupported, le6lion of his own, 
 in contravention of them all, — the infinu- 
 ation is illiberal ; and, being unwarranted by 
 any proof, oiight to be rejeded w^tli dif- 
 dain. 
 
 You will expe(5l me, Sir, before I quit the 
 objection now under confideration, to al- 
 low, that it was not originally urged by Dr. 
 Benfcn, but copied by him from the writer 
 
 of 
 
( "9) 
 
 of the Memoirs of the late Dr. Waterland. 
 That Dr. Benfon was but a Copyifl in this 
 obje^lion, as well as in many others which 
 are urged in his Differtation, I do moil: readi- 
 ly admit. But he has (o copied them, as 
 to make them his own. On feeing a charge 
 of this reproachful nature, brought againft a 
 man of fo fair a fame as Robert Stephens, one 
 who is acknowledged, even by Dr. Benfon^ 
 to be " a learned, worthy, man," — a man 
 *' of extenlive learning, indefatigable dili- 
 " gence, and zeal (/) to promote ufeful 
 " knowledge, and particularly that of the 
 " Scriptures," without the fhadcvv of a 
 proof to fupport the charge, beyond the 
 empty affirmation of the Affertor ; — a Com- 
 mentator, without prejudice, without any 
 fecret partiality to either fide of the queftion, 
 would, at once, have challenged the impu- 
 tation, and have refufed to admit it, againft 
 fo truly refpedlable a charadler, without the 
 moft unequivocal demonflration of its truth. 
 He would have treated that Writer's ^'-feventy 
 *•' place s^"* as the Brltlflj nation did his Ma- 
 jefty of 65^/7/Vs " hundred injuries'' alledged 
 I 4 ill 
 
 (/) Page 638. 
 
( i^o) 
 
 Benson, in a late memorable Man'ifejlo. He would 
 have called for a fpeclfication of them ; which 
 not being comphed with, he would have 
 condemned the whole as a groundlefs allega- 
 tion. But, inftead of this, Dr. Benfon haftens 
 to admit the charge, and, to preferve the 
 appearance, at leafl, of candor, afFe£ls to 
 make this apology for it ; viz. " As to his 
 '* varying from his copies, it feems plain, 
 " from his Preface, that he had not an op- 
 *' portunity to collate all the copies him- 
 " fclf." An apology, which, unfortunate- 
 ly, is as falfe, as it is frigid ; — for the Pre- 
 face (u) of Robert Stephens, fo far from 
 making it " phi'm,''* does not even afford 
 foundation for a conje£lure, that he did not 
 " collate all the copies himfelf." I think 
 myfelf juftified, therefore. Sir, in alking, 
 whether a Commentator, without prejudice, 
 or partiality, would have aded like Dr. Befi- 
 [on ? And I fhould rejoice in being able to 
 give any other folution of the queftion, than 
 that which the quefllon, itfelf, pre-fuppofes, 
 and which the whole tenor of his Dillerta- 
 tion proves, to be the only true one. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 (ii) See the Preface throughout. Appendix, No. XII. 
 
( ^^^ ) 
 
 XXVIII. " The fum of the matter ts. Dr. Be: 
 *' Robert Stephens was a learned, worthy, 
 *' man. And, therefore, one %vould not 
 *' willingly fufpedt, that he placed the lat- 
 *' ter feml-clrck wrong, onpiirpofc. How- 
 " ever, in his famous Greek Tefamenty 
 " 1 ^^o, it is wrong placed.'^ 
 
 Here is another inflance of Dr. Be?fons 
 keeping back a part of the truth, in order to 
 give the fairer color to his own prediledlions. 
 It is true, that Robert Stephens could only 
 place the feml- circles wrong, as to the Verfe 
 in queftion, (provided he did place them 
 wrong at all, which is denied) in his Greek 
 Tefiament of A, D. 1550 ; becaufe that w^as 
 the only Edition, in which he made ufe of 
 thofe femi-circlcs. But the whole trutli is, 
 — that Robert Stephens has borne teftimony 
 to the originality of this Verfe, in all the 
 Editions of the Greek Tellament, ever pub- 
 lifhed by him ; which are no lefs than four, 
 in number. In his Editions of A. D. 1546, 
 and 1549, in which the Semi-circles (or the 
 Obelus, and Semi-par enthefs^ are not ufed, the 
 Verfe is read entire, in the text, as vreli as 
 
 in 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 Benson, j^ the Edition of A. D. 1550, in which they 
 are made life of. To this third, fiicceeded a 
 fourth, Edition, pubUflied by Robert Ste- 
 phens^ in A. D. 1 55 1 ; wherein the Verfe is 
 ftill continiied, ftill maintained in its place, 
 without the leafl note of diflruft, without 
 the fmalleft impeachment of its authenticity^ 
 
 Thefe fads being premifed, the whole 
 queftion, as to this part of Robert Stephens's 
 condu6i:, will be reduced to this lingle 
 dilemma. Either Robert Stephens placed the 
 latter Semi-circle, as we now find it in his 
 Edition of A. D. 1550, 07i purpofe ', or by 
 mtjiah. Now he placed it there, 7iot by mlf- 
 take ; hecaufe he had printed the Verfe, en- 
 tire, in his two former editions, and he ex- 
 prefsly informs us that this Edition had 
 been collated with the fame MSS, from 
 whence the foregoing Editions were made. 
 Not by ?ni/iake ; becaufe he would, in that 
 cafe, have caft out of his fubfequent Edition, 
 of A. D. 1551, a pafi'nge which he had in- 
 tended to repudiate (for fo the objcdlion fup- 
 pofes) by the Semi-circle of the preceding 
 year. Not by mifake ; becaufe a man, who 
 
 had 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 had been (6 painfully accurate in revinng Dr. Benj 
 this work, as even to point out, in the Er- 
 rata fubjoined to it, the mif-placing of one 
 Comma, in the body of the ttxt, and the o- 
 niiffion of another, cannot even be fuppofed 
 to have fufFered a w^hole Verfe to have 
 efcaped his notice; a Verfe, too, which on 
 account of the then recent difpute between 
 Erafmus, Ley, and Stimica, mufl: have en- 
 gaged his particular attention. Not by mif- 
 take ; becaufe the Verfe, in queftion, is in- 
 ferted in the New Teflament of John Crifpin, 
 v/hofe publication bears date three years fub- 
 fequent to that of Robert Stephens, who was, 
 at the time of his publication, the friend, 
 and fellow-citizen, of Robert Stephens, and 
 who muft be concluded to hav^e publiihed 
 with his privity, and affiftance : for it is im- 
 poffible to fuppofe, that Crifpln would not in 
 fuch an undertaking, conflantly confer wirh 
 fqch a neighbour, with fuch a friend, v/ith 
 fuch a man, as Robert Stephens, Not by mif- 
 tahe \ — becaufe the Verfe is found in tlie 
 New Teftament of Theodore Beza, who, like 
 Crifpin, pubJiflied whiift Robert Stephens was 
 living, who mentions him frequently with 
 
 the 
 
( ^H ) 
 Benson, the mod aifeaionate refpecl ; v/ho had hi 
 his poficffion, by the perlbnal favor oi Ro- 
 bert Stephens^ the identical IVISS, iifed by 
 him in this very Edition of A. D. 1550, — > 
 and {x) who folemnly declares, that this 
 Verfedid ad u ally ex i ft in thofe MSS. 
 
 1^ Robert Stephens^ therefore, did ;z(5/ place 
 
 the 
 
 [x] " Hie Verficulus — extat \n Combluteufi Y.A\\\ov\q^ 
 •* et in mnrmllis Stephani vcteribiis libris. In cctlo^ deeil 
 •' in Septan vetuftis codicibus." (Appendix, No. XI.) 
 
 Mr. Enilyn endeavours to take away the W3ight of 
 ^eziis, teflimony to this point, by alledging that he nevsr 
 Jaw the AISS, themfehes^ of Robert Stephens ; for that they 
 were not delivered to Bezn^ but only a Book, or Tranf- 
 cript, wherein Robert Stephens had written down his Col- 
 lat'iom from them. But this objection may be repelled, 
 in the prefcnt cafe, by the mofl unexceptionable teflimo- 
 ny ; which is that of Mr. E!nlyn himfelf. For in the 
 ficmid pa2:e after this allegation. Air. Ernlyn further af- 
 lirms, that Beza dttedcd a mil^ake in those Colla- 
 tions, us to the firft Chaj)tcr, of \.he Jpocahpfe ; in 
 which Robert Stephens had marked certain words to be 
 wanting in two, only, of his authorities, whereas (ac- 
 cording to Bczas. account) thofe words were wanting in 
 the refi of Stephens's, MSS likewife. It would haye been 
 well worth Mr. Emlyns pains, when he gave this latter 
 information to his readers, to have apprifcd them, at the 
 fame time, HOW Beza could, podibly, have detected a 
 miftake of this kind, in Stephens's Book of Collations, 
 unlefs by refortmg to the jlISS theu/felves / 
 
 By Mr. E??2ly?i's own argument, then, it clearly ap- 
 pears, that Beza did poflels the original MSS of Robert 
 Stephens; becaufc he could not, but by the aid of Robert 
 Stephens's MSS, have detected any miftake, of this nature, 
 in his Collciilons. (Sec Emlyn'i reply, p. 244 — 9. J 
 
( 1^5 ) 
 
 the latter Semi- circle in the fituatioii where Dr. Benj 
 we now find it, by mljiake^ (as he moft af- 
 fu redly did not) the confequence is inevita- 
 ble : — He placed it there on purpose! — 
 And, unlefs we are now, at length, to fup- 
 pofe, that Robert Stephens firft advanced an In- 
 tentional faliehood in the face of the whole 
 Chrijlian world, as to the exiftence of this 
 Verfe in his MSS, and that, afterwards, 
 Theodore Beza, who had thofe very MSS put 
 into his hands which enabled him to detetl 
 the fiilfehood, did, inftead of betraying, abet, 
 and fupport, him in it ; unlefs we .are now, 
 at length, to defpoll them both of thofe cha- 
 rad:ers of learning, and worth, of probity, 
 and honor, with which their memories have 
 been fo long adorned, and confecrated, and 
 to conclude tliat they confJDired to adt, in 
 concert, the infamous (and, in the prelent 
 cafe, impious) part of cheats, and impoftors : 
 Unlefs we are now become defperately de- 
 termined to fpeak, and a6l, in contradicciou 
 to the voice of all Europe, in defiance to the 
 teftimony of ages, pafl:, and prefent, as well 
 as in utter fubverfion of every principle of li- 
 terary candor, and Chrijlian chaiity; we 
 
 muft 
 
( 126 ) 
 
 Benson, niuft feel ourfelves, of neccflity, compelled 
 to acknowledge, that what Robert Stephens 
 thus did intentionally, he alfo did confcien- 
 tioujly ; that he, and Theodore Bez<f, have a 
 right to command our full affent, when they 
 only affirm a plain fad, which lay within 
 their own knowledge, and which, therefore, 
 they were compleatly competent to afcer- 
 tain ; that Robert Stephens did not place the 
 latter Semi-circle wrong, either fy mijlah^ 
 or on purpofe ; — and that when it is afFe£led 
 to teach us, either by Dr. Benfon, or by Mr. 
 Gibhcn^oiiho, " typographical fraud, or error, of 
 " Robert Stephens," in the prefent inftance, 
 at leaft ; or of the " deliberate falfehood, or 
 Jl range mifapprehenjion of Theodore Beza ;'* 
 — fuch teaching is in vain I 
 
 Thcfe confidcrations feem to determine 
 the whole debate, as to the MSS of Robert 
 Stephens. Nothing can weigh againft them, 
 but the adlual production of the MSS them- 
 felves, accompanied by indubitable proof 
 that they do not contain the Verfe in queftion. 
 And lo ! the required Defderatuni flands 
 before us ! — For Dr. Benfon thus proceeds : 
 
 XXIX. 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 XXIX. " Jndhir [R. Stephens's] Dr. Be 
 
 " MSS, are^ upon the ftriSfeft examina- 
 " tio?!, found to 'want this difputcd paf- 
 '' fagcr 
 
 As a deciiion of this point will materially 
 afFeft the whole queftion, rerpe6ling the ori- 
 ginality of this Verfe, — you will, Sir, pardon 
 me, perhaps, if I trefpafs fomewhat longer 
 than ufual upon your patience, in examining 
 the foundation of this aiiertlon, and ihewing 
 its falfehood at large. 
 
 In the courfe of the controverf}^ (already 
 mentioned in (_y ) this letter) which arole, 
 in the beginning of theprelL^nt ce'itury, be- 
 tween Mr. Martin^ and Mr. Efnlyn, as to the 
 originality of this Verfe ; tlie propriety of 
 the Obelus, or Semi-circle, as placed in Robert 
 Stephens'^ Greek Teilament of A. D. 1550, 
 was warmly denied by Mr. Emiyn, and llren- 
 noufly defended by his antagonifl. During 
 the pendency, and indeed in the very height, 
 of this difpute. Father Le Long, a Prieft of 
 the Oratory at Paris^ publiflied in the Journal 
 
 des 
 
 {y) Page Zo, 
 
( 128 ) 
 
 ENsoN\ des SavanSy.A.T). 1720, aletter^ in which he 
 affirms, that all the MSS, which had been 
 ufed by Robert Stef hens, m his Edition of A.D. 
 1550, (amounting, he fays, to fifteen in num- 
 ber) were then in the Royal Library at Pa- 
 ris ; that Robert Stephens had borrowed them 
 from King Henry the lid ; that they flill 
 bore the ufual mark of the MSS of that 
 Prince, namely, a Crown furmounted by a 
 coronetted H ; that they were alfo marked 
 with the Greek numerals, mentioned by Ro- 
 bert Stephens in his Preface ; that he (F. Le 
 Long) had examined them feveral times ; 
 and that, by comparing fome of the mar- 
 ginal References of Robert Stephens's Edi- 
 tion, with the MSS in the Library, upon 
 which the correfponding Greek numerals 
 were infcribed, he was perfedly fatisfied of 
 their identity. (%) 
 
 This is the teftimony of F. Le Long ; 
 which, if it had been true, might have meri- 
 ted the commendation, which Dr. Benfon has 
 been pleafed to beflow upon it. But, unfor- 
 tunately 
 
 (z) This Letter is printed in Emlyn^a Reply, vol. 
 ii. of his works, Lond. Edit. 1746, p. 372. 
 
( ^29 ) 
 
 tuhately for this mif-placed Eulog'mm, the t)r. Benj 
 account, thus given by F. Le Lo?2g, is a total 
 mif-appreheniion, or mif-reprefentation, of 
 the cafe. The truth of this affertion will in- 
 conteftibly appear, by comparing the fore- 
 going account of F. Le Lo?ig with the def- 
 cription which Robert Stephefis has given of 
 his own MSS, and with the margins of (^) 
 his own Edition of A. D. 1550, the book 
 now in queflion. 
 
 For, in the firfl place, the MSS, which 
 iR.obert Stephens borrowed from the Royal 
 Library, were not fifteen, but only eight, n\ 
 number, as he exprefsly (^) declares in his 
 Preface. Nor were thofe MSS borrowed 
 from Henry 2, but from Francis i, his pre- 
 deceflbr. For the firft of Robert Stephens s 
 four Editions of the Greek Teflament^ for 
 which thefe MSS were procured, and col- 
 K latcd, 
 
 {a) The former Edition of thefe Letters referred, in. 
 this place, to Martin's, La Ferite. On a fubfequent ex- 
 amination, I found his account of R. Stephen's MSS 
 tolerably accurate, as far as it proceeded, yet very inade- 
 quate and defedlive. I have, in this Edition, fupplied 
 thefe deficiencies by an adtual collation of all the re- 
 ferences, contained in every page of that great work. 
 
 {b) " Tertio, quarto^ quinto^ fexto^feptuno, oilavo^ dectn e^ 
 ** et qulntodecimOf ea qua ex iibliothica Regis hahuimus," 
 {Appendix, No. XII.) 
 
( 130 ) 
 
 Benson. Jated, and cut of wliich they were all (c) 
 compokd, and framed, — was publifhed be- 
 fore Henry 2 began his reign. 
 
 Nor lafth^, does it all concord with the 
 probability of the cafe, or with the known 
 probity of Robert Stephens^ that he, who had 
 only borrowed eight MSS from the Royal 
 Library, flioiild vcturn fifteen (b) thither, for 
 no other piirpofe, as it fhould feem, than to 
 abufe the confidence of thofe friends, who 
 had lent to him the other MSS, and to de- 
 prive them of their property. 
 
 Thefe clrcumdances would, alone, furniHi 
 fuflicicnt ground for a ftrong fufplcion, that 
 the MSS of F. Le Long are not the MSS of 
 
 R. Ste- 
 
 (h) Moitnire, in his life of R. Stephens, (Edit. Lond, 
 A. D. 1709, p. 67) affirms that he [R. Stcpbem] returned 
 to the Royal Library, thofe MSS, which he had borrovv- 
 <:d Irom thence. This plainly appears to be a miftake, 
 in Alaiialre ; Jiot only from Beza's own words, (Appen- 
 dix, No. XI) but from the exprefs declaration of R. 
 Stephens, in his advertifcmcnt fubjoined to Beza\ Edition 
 of A. D. 1556. 
 
 [e) '•'■ Idt?n vunclterim!, ct tcrtio, aim iisdem colhiumf 
 • — iihi ojferh/ius." (Appendix, No. XII.) 
 
 P^. Stephens, indeed, in his GVtr/f Preface, fpeaks of theft 
 MSS in the following terms : — rx va. Tnqn^ciTifg vy-uv 
 
 lUit this is only an acknowledgement, that his MSS 
 came from the Jyibrary then belonging to Henry j not 
 that they were atftually borrowed from him, 
 
( 131 ) 
 
 R. Stephens, But this fufpicion becomes Dr, Bei 
 certainty, when fortified by the following 
 obfervations, viz. 
 
 That there is no MS, in the Catalogue (J) 
 o^F.Le Long, which contains the Apoca^ 
 lypfe ; whereas the Apocalypfe is found in no 
 lefs than four^ namely, in the fifth, the 
 eleventh, fifteenth, and fixteenth, of the 
 MSS of R. Stephens, 
 
 That the MSS of F. Le Longs Catalogue, 
 which refer to the Gofpels, are fewer by 
 three, than thofe which refer to the fame 
 Gofpels, in the Edition of R, Stephens* 
 
 That ill the Lift of F. Le Long there are 
 only [even MSS which refer to the A^s of 
 the Apoftles ; whereas ten MSS are cited 
 thereto in the margin of R. Stephens Edition. 
 
 That there are three fewer MSS, in the 
 Catalogue of F. Le Long, which refer to the 
 Epiftles to the Romans, and Corinthians, than 
 are found in the margin of the work of R. 
 Stephens, And laftly, 
 
 K 3 That 
 
 (d) (Appendix, No 5CIX.) 
 
( 132 ) 
 
 That in. the Lift of F. LeLofig, there Is 
 not a fmgle MS, {e) which contains the 
 words, i^ r-A yr,^ of tlie eighth verfe of the 
 chapter in qneftion. But thefe words were 
 found in all the MSS of R. Stephens. (/) 
 
 Thus it is manifcft, tliat the MSS of F. 
 Le Long, taken aggregately, or as a whole, 
 have no parity, or agreement, with thofe of 
 R, Stephens ; and, therefore, cannot be the 
 fame which R* Stephens iifed in his Edi- 
 tion of A. D, 1550. But this conclufoii 
 \\\\{ become unanlwcrably clear, when we 
 proceed further to the examination of par- 
 ticular MSS. For 
 
 The MS, marked [?, in the lift of F. Le 
 
 Long, 
 
 [e] See LeLongs Letter, accompanying his Lifl, Eni- 
 
 i(^'«» P- 273— 2^3- 
 
 (f) Without having rccouiTe, in proof of this lafi: 
 aflcrtion, to the aulhoiity of R.Stephens himfelf, the note, 
 which Theodore Bezn has left upon this part of the eighth 
 verfe is, beyond all Qucftion, decilivc. " Thefe words" 
 [fays he] " are not in the Syrinc Verfion, nor in fcvcral 
 *' very ancient Gnek copies ; but they are in our Greek 
 *' MSS, and in tht Latin Verfion." It has been, before, 
 obfervcd, that this is the exprcffion, " our MSS," where- 
 by Beza conftantly diilinguiflies the MSS of R. Stephens; 
 .by whom they were lent to Be%a for the ufc of this very 
 Edition. (Appendix, No. XL) 
 
(133) 
 
 Long^ contains the Gofpels, and the Ads of Dr. Be: 
 the Apoftles, only. But the MS of R, 
 Stephens^ which bore that mark, contains al- 
 fo the Epiflle to the Romans ; for it is cited 
 by him, in the margin of his work, upon the 
 tenth Verfe, of the third Chapter, of that 
 Epiftle. 
 
 The MS, marked £, in the Catalogue of 
 F. JLe Long, does not comprife the Apocalypfc^ 
 whereas the MS of R. Stephens, which was 
 thus marked, certainly contained the Apoca^ 
 lypfe', becaufe he has particularly referred 
 to this MS in Rev. iii: 18, — and xix: 14. — 
 
 The two MSS, marked ^ and n in the Lift 
 of F. Le Long, do not contain the A£ls of 
 the Apoftles. But both the MSS, which 
 R, Stephens diftinguiihed by the fame letters, 
 contained the Acis ; for the former is re- 
 ferred to, by him, in Chapter xvii: 5; and 
 the latter in Chapters xxiv: 7, and 8; xxv: 
 I4;xxvil: i ; andxxviii: 11. 
 
 The MS, marked with the letter ], in the 
 
 lift of F. Le Long, contains only the Aofs, 
 
 K 3 and 
 
C 134 ) 
 
 Benson, and the Eptfiles. But the MS, which Is de- 
 noted by this letter, in the Edition of R, 
 Stephens^ comprifed alfo the Gofpels of St. 
 Luke^ and St. John. A various reading is 
 quoted, by R, Stephens, from this MS, in St. 
 Luke, V : 19, and another in St. John, ii : 
 17. Again, 
 
 The MS, marked \x in F. Le Long\ Cata- 
 logue, comprehends, like the laft mentioned 
 MS, no more than the A^s, and the Epifiles. 
 But the MS of i^. Stephens, which bore this 
 mark, contained (befides the A6ls, and the 
 Epiftles) the Gofpels of St. Matthew, and 
 St. John, together with the Apocalypfe. The 
 citations of this MS, in the margin of R, 
 Stephens^ Edition, which prove this aflertion, 
 are no lefs than jive ; namely, St. Matthew, 
 x: 8, and 10; and xii: 32; St. John, il: 
 17; and the Apocalypfe, xiii: 4. Again, 
 
 The MS, marked ;|3, in the llfl of F. Le 
 Long, comprifes the Gofpels, only. But 
 the MS of R, Stephens, which was denoted 
 by this mark, comprehended alfo the iirfl; 
 Epiflle to the Corinthians ; for he has re- 
 ferred 
 
( '35 ) 
 
 /erred to It in the margin of i. CorinihJans, 
 XV : 44. Further, 
 
 The MS, marked ly, in F. Le Long's Cata- 
 logue, contains, like two former ones herein 
 before mentioned, no more than the yf^j, 
 and the Epijtks. {g) But in that of R, 
 Stephens, which carried this mark, was com- 
 prehended, alfo, the Gofpels of St. Matthew 
 and St. yohn. Various readings are copied 
 by him, from thence, in the margins of St. 
 Matthew^ xxvii : 64; and of St. John, ii, 1 7. 
 
 The MS, marked IJ", among thofe of F. Le 
 Long, comprehends only the three Gofpels 
 of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John. But 
 the MS, denoted by thefe letters, in the Edi- 
 tion of R. Stephens, comprifed likewife, the 
 Ads of the Apoftles, and the fecond Epiflle 
 of St. Peter. It is cited, by R. Stephens, in 
 the margins of ASis, xiii : 1 5 ; (Z>) and of 
 2. Peter, i: 4. 
 
 K 4 The 
 
 [g) It contains, in truth, only a part of the Epiftles ; 
 the third of bt. 'John, and that of St. "Jiule, not being 
 comprifed therein. (Appendix, No. XiX.} 
 
 (/;) Dr. M7/affirrr.s (Proleg. 117.) that this MS con- 
 tained no Chapter, but the taith, or rather a part of tiie 
 tenth, of the A£is of the i^poitles. Noching is more 
 
C 136 ) 
 
 £NsoN. The MS of F. Le Long, marked i?, con-f 
 tains no part of the New Teftament, except 
 feven of the Epiftles of St. Paul, But the 
 MS of R. Stephens, which bore this mark, 
 differed greatly from that of X^ Long. Judg^ 
 ing by R, Stephens^ s references, it comprifed 
 on\y four of thofe Epiftles. But befide thefe 
 four Epiftles, it comprehended alfo the ^0- 
 calypfe. The references to this MS, in that 
 part of his work, are too numerous to be 
 here particularifed : they abound in almofl 
 every page. Finally, 
 
 The MS of F. Le Long, which is marked 
 ir, contains, only, the Gofpels of the two 
 Evangelifts, St. Luke, and St. Jolm, But 
 the MS of R, Stephens, . which w\as thus 
 marked, does not feem to have contained the 
 Gofpel of St. John, at all ; for there is no 
 reference to this MS in the margin of R» 
 Stephens''^ Edition of this Gofpel. — But it 
 certainly did further comprife the fecond 
 
 Epiftle 
 
 certain than that he was miftaken in this afTertion. And 
 indeed nothing fecms more certain than that this, and 
 many other grofs errors on the fubjecl of R. Stephens's 
 MSS, have originated in an idea, that thofe MSS are yet 
 exiflingj whereas they are all (for any thing that ap- 
 pears tQ the contrary, at leaftj undoubtedly. /g//,. 
 
( ^37 ) 
 
 Eplftle to the Corinthians^ the firfl.Epiftle to Pr. Be 
 5"/;/i<j//^, ; and . the Jpocalypfe\ bccaiife this 
 MS is referred to, by R. Stephens ^ in the 
 margin of his Edition of ^// thefe parts of 
 the lacred Canon, 
 
 And now, Sir, will you contend for Fa^. 
 ther Le Long (who cannot anfwer for 
 hinifelf) that you are " fatisfied of the idea-*. 
 " tity of thefe MSS ?" Or will you fay, with 
 Dr. Ben/on, that thefe are the MSS o^ Robert 
 Stephens^ and that, " on the^ftriclefl: exami- 
 " nation, they are found to want this dif- 
 ^' puted pafl'age r" You will not venture to do 
 cither. The MSS, in queftion, have fcarcely 
 any thing in common with each other. They 
 do not agree even in the general refemhlance. 
 They differ in almofl every feparate feature. 
 The MSS of Father Le Lo?ig, tlieiefore, arc 
 not the MSS of Robert Stephens, They are 
 a fpurious race, foflered, at leaft, if not be- 
 gotten, by the diflaoneft curming of fome 
 Librarian, or of fome other perfon equally 
 didioneft : who, neverthelefs, was not quite 
 cunning enough, for he neglected to look in- 
 tS>^ Robert Stephens's Prefice, eUe he would 
 
 not 
 
( 138) 
 
 ENsoN. not have made them into fifteen^ only, but 
 into Jixteen Books ; — for fuch was the real 
 number of Robert Stephens's MSS. They 
 are Counterfeits ; on whofe unreiifting Covers 
 fome buly impoflorhas infcribed forged, and 
 falfe, marks of Robert Stephens, from fome 
 lUidue motive, — moft probably, in order to 
 advance their reputation by his illuftrious 
 name : but they are not the MSS of Robert 
 Stephens, 
 
 XXX. " Tf/ // is hijtjled upon, that 
 ** Erafmus fpenks of a Britlfo copy, ivhich 
 " had the difputed text : and that tipofi 
 " the authority of that MS, he infer ted It 
 " in his third and following editions ; 
 ** though he had left it out, in his firjt 
 " andfecond editions. But it does not ap- 
 " pear that Erafmus ever faw any fuch 
 " thing himfelfr 
 
 M. Simon, the great adverfary of this 
 Verfe, acknowledges that Erafmus (J) did fee 
 the Britifh MS in England. And this account 
 might have been prefumed to be the truth, 
 
 without 
 
 (0 Hift. Crit. du N. T. vol. ili, p. 205, 
 
( ^39 ) 
 Without much enquiry, becaufe it is the con- Dr. B] 
 feffion of an enemy, — becaufe Erafmus fpent 
 much time In this country, — and becaufe he 
 has quoted this MS in many other parts of 
 his works. But we need not leave any thing, 
 even here, to prefumptlon. Erafmus de- 
 clares, that he collated this MS himfelf. " The 
 Mis' WHICH I COLLATED IN England," 
 (^) are his words, when difcourfing on this 
 Briti/J^ Copy. Indeed if no fuch proof as 
 this could have been produced, the fame 
 conclufion muft, in fadt, have been adopted 
 on this fubjecl. For to imagine that Eraf- 
 Plus would ever introduce to the world a 
 MS which not only thwarted his own 
 private predile*£lions, but vitiated his two 
 former Editions of the New Teftament, 
 without being firft indubitably fatisfied of its 
 exlftence, — is a fuppoiition, which cannot 
 be admitted for a moment ; becaufe it vio- 
 lates every rale of probability, and is repug- 
 nant to common fenfe. 
 
 XXXL 
 
 (k) " In codtce, tinde CONTULI z« AngUa^fulJfc fcrip' 
 
 ** Collationis Jiegotium PEREGERAM in Jngliti," Sec. 
 Era/mi Opzra, Ed. Lugd, A. D. i;o6, vol. ix, p. 
 986. 
 
( HO ) 
 s.NsoN. XXXI. " It appears that he' [Eraf- 
 
 mus] '' had a bad opinion of //" — 
 [the BritiJJj MS] " For he fays, I fufpedi 
 *' that copy to have been corre^edby ours ; 
 " that is, from the latin copies, '"^ 
 
 The words of Erafmus are — ''^^anquam et 
 hitnc fufpicor ad Latino rum codices fuijfe cafti^ 
 gatum^ The evidence, however, as far as 
 it can be now colledled, is dire^ily adverfe to 
 Erafmus, m this matter. The Latin MSS, 
 uniyerfally, read (Spiritus fan^ius) the Holy 
 Spirit, in this Verfe : but the BritiJJj MS of 
 Erafmus read therein {jrwjixa,^ the Spirit, only, 
 without the diflinguifhing epithet of (ay^o^) 
 Holy. This difference, although of a fingle 
 word alone, is too ftrongly marked, to per- 
 mit any fuppofition of one of thefe authori- 
 ties having been correded by the other. 
 
 But, even if no proof could have been 
 brought in oppofition to it, furely, to advance 
 a charge of this kind, unfupported by any evi' 
 dence, or by any thing like evidence, (/) favor- 
 ed 
 
 (/) Erafml Opera, Edit. Lugdun. A, D. 1706, vol. 
 X. p. 352. (Appendix, No. XX.) 
 
( HI ) 
 
 ed more of pretence, than fincerity ; and was Dr. Be 
 unworthy of a Writer mtich inferior to £- 
 rafmus. It is incumbent upon all authors, in 
 all fuch cafes, openly to relate \\i^\x fuf pic ions ^ 
 (if they have any) and candidly to alii gn their 
 reafons for entertaining them ; that the rea- 
 der may judge, forhimfelf, as to the degree 
 of credit, which they ought to receive from 
 him. It was efpecially incumbent upon Eraf- 
 mus to have done thus, in the prefent inftance, 
 becaufe he was then in the ad of reiradiing 
 that imputation of impofture, which his con- 
 duct had jirjl caufed to be thrown upon this 
 Verfe. At fuch an hour as that, for Eraf- 
 mus to hint fufpicions, without proof, and 
 to helitate diflikes, without explanation, 
 gives his readers but too much reafon to 
 confider him, as determined to call fome 
 imputation upon the MS, whichhadfo mor- 
 tified him ; although impotent of the means 
 to do it with any eifeft. 
 
 Attempts of this nature often prejudice 
 the caufe, which they were meant to ferve. 
 The prefent may, at leaft, convince us of 
 the reality of the exiftence of this ]>JS, at 
 
 that 
 
( H2) 
 
 NsoN. that time ; and of its containing the Verle 
 in queftion. Had there heen the fmallefl 
 room to doubt either, the fentence, juil: 
 quoted frona JLrafmus, would have fpoken a 
 very diiterent language. 
 
 XXXII. "And he'' [Erafmusj ''plain' 
 *' ly acknowledges^ that ivhat induced 
 '^ him to injert the difpiited text, zvas, ne 
 *' fit anfa calumniandi, that he might 
 " not give a handle to any, to call him 
 •* an Arian, orfufpe5l him of herefy'^ 
 
 I have. Sir, in a former (tn) letter, given 
 my fentiments, with fome freedom, on the 
 conduct of Tjajmus, rcfpe£ting this Verfe, 
 It was there obferved, that it feemed " im- 
 ♦' poffiblc to account for the behaviour of 
 *' Krafmus, in this matter, taking the whole 
 " of it into contemplation at once, but up« 
 '* on one of thefe fuppofitions : Either he 
 •' could not produce the five MS S, in which 
 ** he had alledged the Verfe to be omitted ; 
 *' or he had other authorities, much fuperior 
 ** to the teftimony pf a Jtngk MS, for re- 
 
 " placing 
 
 i^m) Pages 8 and 9. 
 
( '43 ) 
 
 ** placing the Verfe, which he was not. Dr. Bf 
 ** however, ingenuous enough to acknow- 
 *' ledge." Now, how far it might have 
 been in his power to fulfil the former of thefe 
 alternatives, is not, perhaps, for the prefent 
 age to determine. But this may, fortunate- 
 ly, be nozv determined ; namely, that Era/- 
 7nus " had other authorities, much fuperior 
 " to the teilimony of a fmgle MS, for re- 
 *' placing the Verfe," and that he " W3.s mt 
 ** ingenuous enough to acknowledge" them. 
 For, independent of the authority of Jerome^ 
 who declares his Tranflation to have been 
 made according to the Greek MSS, who ac- 
 cufes certain hatln I'ranfiators of unfaith- 
 fulnefs, for having left this Verfe out of 
 their copies ; (for Krafrnus believed the pre- 
 face, which contains this complaint, to be 
 the genuine work of Jerome) — independent 
 of, at leaft, fome part of the authorities, 
 which have been dated in the preceding 
 pages ; (for Erafmus was a learned man, and 
 could not be ignorant (n) of them all) — In- 
 dependent 
 
 {n) Erofrnns was not ignorant of them all ; for he ha^ 
 quoted the works of Cyprian, Lyranus^ Cajfiodorius, JVala- 
 frid Straboy and Aquinas, by whom this Verfe (as hath 
 *k>een before proved) is exprefsly cited as an authentic 
 
( H4 ) 
 
 ENsoN. dependent of thefe, Erafmus lay tinder ait 
 obligation, almoft peculiar to himfelf, arifing 
 frciTi the authority of the MSS of Laurentius 
 Valla^ to re-place the Verfe in queftion. He 
 had, juft eighteen ytz.x^ before the publication 
 of this Edition, of A. D. 1 522, obtained pof- 
 feffion of the, then, unpubliihed. Commen- 
 tary of Zv. Valla. The Greek MSS, on which 
 it was founded, were no lefs than fe-vien (0) 
 in number ; and this Verfe pofleffed its place 
 in them all. In the exultation of his mind, 
 arhing from this acquifition, Krafmus firfb 
 communicated (p) his difcovery to his learn- 
 ed 
 
 part of the facred Canon. (See his N. Teft. of A. D. 
 1522, paflim.) 
 
 (0] Dr. Mill, in his ProJegomcna, fpeaks oi three only: 
 *■• Comparatis tr'ihus exemplaribus Gracis, ac totidem Lo' 
 *' tinis." This is one of thole miilakes which I ventur- 
 ed to lay io his charge, in a Note to page i8. He feems, 
 alfo, to have fallen into another miftalce, on this fubjeil, 
 in confidering the Annotations oi Valla as of little eftima- 
 tion ; for which he is warmly reproved by Bengelius. 
 [lutrcd. iu Crifin. p. 437. J 
 
 L. Valla certainly had sevhn' Creek MSS'; for, in his 
 Annotations on the Gofpel of St. j'o^;;, vii : 29, 30, he 
 pofitively affirms that his numLx-r was '' feptan Grseca 
 *' exanplaria." And Erapms cjufirms the alTcrtion in his 
 oWn Apology. (See L. I'alU (3pera, Bafil. Edit. A. D. 
 1 543, p. 842 i — and Erafmi Gnvc. Tefl. Bajll. Edit. A. D. 
 1516, Apol. p. 3.) 
 
 {pj Appendix, No. XV. 
 
( H5) 
 
 ed friend, and correfpondent, Fifcher ; and Dr. Bj 
 then, in the fame year, A. D. 1505, pub- 
 lifhed this Commentary, or permitted it to 
 be publiflied, from the prefs of Jodocus 
 Badlus, at Paris. Erafmus had, therefore, 
 the authority of eight Greek MSS, inftead 
 of ONE (which alone he held forth) for 
 refloring the verfe. For he had, in his 
 own Apology, in A. D. 151 6, mentioned the 
 number of Valla s (Greek) MSS to hefeverty 
 although he was, at that rime, fecretly medi- 
 tating the expulfion of this verfe from the text 
 of St. jfobfijin dire6l contradiction to them all. 
 
 Nor is this the only inflance of dilingenu- 
 oufnefs, which is difcoverabJein the conduft 
 of Erafmus, refpe6:ing this verfe. He omitted 
 it, as hath been before ftated, in his Edition 
 of the New Teftament of A. D. 15 16. la 
 A. D. 15 1 8, he publifhed his Treatife, en- 
 titled Ratio ver^ Theologi^, which he dedi- 
 cated to Cardinal Chryjogoni : wherein he 
 cites, in ferious argum.ent, and as a legitimate 
 portion of Scripture, this {cj) identical verfe, 
 which, only two years before, he had ex- 
 L pelled 
 
 {q) Appendix, No. XXI, 
 
( U6) 
 
 ENSON. pelled from, the very text of the New Tefta- 
 
 meiit ! Nor is even this alL For in the 
 
 next, fiicceeding, year, (A. D. 15 19) he con- 
 demns the verfe again, by leaving it out of 
 his New Teflament of that year. And yet 
 he continued but a fhort time, even in that 
 refolution : — for he reftored the verfe, finally, 
 to its place, in his very next Edition of the 
 New Teflament, in A. D. 1522. 
 
 The fa<ft3, then, being thus clear, there 
 feems but one confiflent method of account- 
 ing for this incongruity of condudl in Ei^af- 
 mus ; which is, to fuppofe that he became a 
 profelyte to Arianijm, not before A. D. 1505, 
 but in fome part of the interval between that 
 year, and A. D. 151 6. — In A. D. 1 505, then, 
 not having then imbibed the tenets of Ari- 
 an'ifni^ 'Erafmus gave to the world, in the 
 commentary of jL. Valla^ the teflimony of 
 feven Greek MSS, in favor of the authenticity 
 of this verfe. In A. D. 15 16, having fuf- 
 fered that leaven to enter into, and to fer- 
 ment within, his mind, in a long interval of 
 eleven years ; he expelled this verfe from the 
 text of his New^ Teftament. But he ventured 
 
( '47 ) 
 
 on this expullion, as it feems, under a fecret Dr. 1 
 fear of a fevere attack, on its account, from 
 the Chriftian world, in general ; for which 
 the commentary of L, Falla, itfelf, would 
 furnifh no inconsiderable weapons : which 
 fear apparently induced him to provide fome 
 means of retreat, in cafe of neceffity, (fuch. 
 Sir, was the prudence of Erafmusl) by 
 bringing this verfe forward again, in A. D. 
 
 1 5 1 8, in his Ratio ver^ Theologiie.. In A.D, 
 
 15 1 9, he hazarded a fecond expulfion : but, 
 ftill fearful, as it feems, of the argument dedu- 
 cible from Valla\ MSS, he gave up the whoJe 
 contefl:, formally, and finally, but flill in a 
 moft unchearful, and difingenuous, manner, 
 in A. D. 1522. 
 
 Thus, then. Sir, may the whole conduct 
 of Erafmus^ in this matter, (which you have 
 attempted to dignify by the appellation of 
 prudence) be accounted for, at leaft, and ex- 
 plained : — that meanncfs, which, upon the 
 face of his own apology, he was guilty of; 
 that departure from truth, which, when the 
 fads are fully confidered, he feems to be 
 juflly chargeable with ; his hafty expulfion 
 L 2 of 
 
( h8 ) 
 
 ENsoN'. of the veife,. and his fnllen re-admiflion of 
 it ; his confeffion of one MS only, in favor of 
 this verfe, when he ought to have acknow- 
 ledged eighl ; and his impotent attempt to 
 depreciate even th^t one, hy charging it with 
 having been correded by the Latin copies, 
 although he did not attempt to produce a 
 fingle inftance of fuch correction, in proof of 
 the charge, fo alledged. 
 
 This conduct of 'Erafmiis feems, in fomc 
 refpeds, to have been the caufe, and in others 
 the confequence, of his having been feduced, 
 by pre-conceived prejudices, to affign an in- 
 competent, and, apparently, an untrue, mo- 
 tive for his reftoration of this verfe, in A.D. 
 1522. And this condu6l feems to juftify 
 the cenfure, caft upon him by Wetjielny which 
 is tlie more fevere, becaufe it falls from a 
 friend, and fellow-advocate. " It is an aU 
 " mojl intolerable thing'' (fays he) " in Eraf- 
 '■' mus, that he will frequently try ta Jljelter 
 *' himfclf {r) under excvses, which are evert 
 
 *' IDLE, 
 
 (r) " Illud denique inY-x-sSmonunime ferendum e/},quod 
 Jape excufutionihus partun idotteis nee fotis honejiis uti^ quam 
 erroris culpomfmiplicitcrfaterii maluerit" (Wctjiein^ PfQ*. 
 ]cg. p. 124.; 
 
( H9 ) 
 
 ** IDLE, i?/7^ DISHONEST, rather tba?i make Br. Be 
 *' an ingenuous confejjion of a fault, or a 
 '* viljlake:' 
 
 XXXIII. '' A MS has been referred 
 ** to, which is now lodged in the IJbrary, 
 *' belonging to the Univerfty of Dublin. 
 *' And IVetfein reckons that MS to be 
 * ' what Erafmus calls Codex Britannicus^'' 
 
 The Bublin MS is not the Codex Brit an- 
 nicus of 'Erafmus ; — becaufe (as Dr. Benfon 
 confelTes in another if) place) the latter 
 reads nviMi^cx. only, the former o.y^oy rvcu^ua, in 
 the fcventh Vtxit'. — and becaufe, in the 
 eighth Verfe, the article ol is placed before 
 /Aa^l'jpsvTj?, in the MS of Dublin ; but the fame 
 article is not found, at all, in the Codex Bri^ 
 tannicus. It is impoilible that the fame MS 
 fhould, in the fame given paffage, differ from 
 itfelf ; or, in other words, be the fame, and 
 yet not thefame^ MS. 
 
 L 3 XXXIV. 
 
 (j) Note on page 640. 
 
 See Appendix, No. XX, where thefe Veifcs are copied 
 by Erafmus himlelf, — as they flood iu the Codex Bri- " 
 t amicus. 
 
( ISO) 
 
 XXXIV. *' ne learned author of ^he 
 *' Memoirs of the Ufe and writings of 
 *' Dr. IVaterland, (p. 79.) gives this ac- 
 " count of it. The Dublin MS now has 
 " // [that is, the difputed text ;] written^ 
 *' (as I am told, by one who has feen it) 
 ** in a different hand, (as all the Epiflles 
 " are) from the reji oj the MS."' 
 
 I have been favored, by the learned Dr. 
 Wllfon, of the Univerfity of Dz^i^//;/, to whofe 
 care this MS is, at prefent, officially en- 
 trufted, with the following account of it :' 
 which dire£lly contradi6ls the affertion, thus 
 brought from the writer of the Memoirs of 
 Dr. Water I and. 
 
 " I. The Dublin MS, as exatlly as I can 
 *' form an opinion, is written by the 
 " SAME HAND. In the Gofpel of St, 
 " Matthew the letters are fmaller, and the 
 *' lines more {lender, than in the other parts 
 *' of the MS. In the refl: of the whole 
 " volume, the letters are uniformly larger, 
 " but fo fmilar as to indicate the same 
 
 " Scribe. 
 
( ^51 ; 
 
 " Scribe. It abounds in contra£llons. Dr, B; 
 *' There are NO rasures, 
 
 " The Scribe, when he had immedlate- 
 ^' ly difcovered an erroneous letter, or fylla- 
 " ble, drew a line acrofs the miftake, and 
 *' ftraightway fubjoined the word corredly 
 *' written. When the error was not ob- 
 '' ferved, until the paragraph, or page, was 
 " concluded, the corre6lion is exhibited in 
 " the margin ; the faulty word croffed, 
 " yet flill legible. But fome of thefe cor- 
 " regions, thus noted in the margin, feeni 
 *■' to have been made when the whole work 
 *' was concluded ; becaufe, in them, the 
 *' ink is much blacker than in the text, 
 " having acquired, by landing longer, a 
 " deeper tinge. 
 
 '' It is written with accents, and fpirits. 
 " The Ads are placed after the Epiftles of 
 " St. Paul, 
 
 '^ 2. The CONTESTED VERSE is, indif- 
 putably, WRITTEN by the same per- - 
 SON, who wrote the rest of the page, 
 L 4 ** and 
 
ENsoN. <i and the rest of the epistle. This, 
 '* on infpe6llon, will appear felf-evidcnt, and 
 ** inconteftlbJe. 
 
 ** 3. As to the antiquity of the MS, I am 
 ' incapable of giving a decided opinion, 
 ' further than as follows. That it pre- 
 ' ceded the aera of Printing feems very clear, 
 ' from its having many readings not found 
 
 * in any edition prior to Stephens ; there- 
 ' fore not a tranfcript from any of them. 
 ' But I do not think that it can be carried 
 ' higher than a century, or tvi^o, at the ut- 
 ' moft, before the invention of Printing. 
 ' For it is certainly written on thick, po- 
 ' lifhed, paper, which Tcard miftook for 
 ' parchment. Now no paper records have 
 ' been difcovered, anterior to the clofe of 
 ' tht twelfth century, as I find in the jidla 
 ^ Leipjienjta. It was, therefore, a tranfcript 
 ' from fome MS now, perhaps, loft ; and, 
 
 * on that account, claims the authority of 
 ' an original. Whether correded, and 
 ' compleated, according to a Latin copy, is 
 
 .^' more than I know. — 
 
 4. The 
 
( ^53) 
 
 '' 4* '^^'^^ controverted paffage (lands thus. Dr* ^e 
 <' [In Martin's La Fen'te, Ed. Utrecht ^ 
 «' A. D. 1721, p. 272, it is not accurately 
 '< reprefented.j 
 
 y. OtV t^eVj eVcVv 01 jtAK^Tu 
 cai/r' £1/ Tw ouVw, TTTip^ Xoyoq v.Xi TTi/Si ayio;»* 
 
 8. KaV T^fVf fVgiV oV /Aa^TU 
 
 Before fuch authority as this, the telling 
 of Dr. Ben/on, who is told by the Author 
 of certain Memoirs, who is told by one who 
 has no name, that this text is written in a 
 different hand from the reft of the AfS',— va- 
 niflies into nothing. 
 
 XXXV. " It appears thence probable, 
 '' that that part of the MS has been 
 " added fince the time of ArchbiJJoop 
 •' Uf)er, In whofe collations iC [the 
 verfe in queflion] " is not found ^^ 
 
 The 
 
 (t) The account of the Duhlhi MS, here dated, is more 
 particular than that which v/as fet forth in the former 
 edition of this work ; becaufe it is the refult of the whole 
 of the communications, made to me, by Dr. Wilfon, as 
 wejl before, ^isftnce, the publication of the former edition 
 of thefe Letters. 
 
(154) 
 
 The premifes, from whence the former 
 part of this objection is drawn, having been 
 juft dlfproved, the conclufion muft, of courfe, 
 fall to the ground. And, as to the latter 
 part of it, — the verfe, i. John, v. 7, does 
 not appear, it is true, in the Collations, 
 which Archbifliop U/her made of this MS ; — 
 becaufe he did not live to carry thofe Col- 
 lations beyond the firfl Chapter of the 
 EpiiHe to the Romans, 
 
 This circumftance is evident from the 
 Prolegomena («) of Dr. Alill: which, how- 
 ever, Dr. Benfon has endeavoured to con- 
 ceal from his readers. He did not chufe to 
 communicate to them that part of Dr. Mlk's 
 account of this MS, which fupported its re- 
 putation, and character ; although he ufes 
 all hafte (as will appear in the next fucceed- 
 ing extract) to ftate thofe parts of the Pro- 
 kgomena, at length, which tend to depreciate 
 
 the 
 
 (u) MilUlVTo\tg. 1379, 1380. This circumftance 
 is further affirmed by a Memorandum of Dean Tcard, 
 prefixed to thjs MS : *' The readings of this MS were 
 *' not gathered, but to the 22d of the Ads of the Holy 
 *' Apbflles, and thofe of the firft Chapter of the Epiftle 
 ** to the Romans." (See alfo tVetJldn^ P.roleg, p. 52, 
 ai]d Emly,C^ Reply, C. v. p. 269.) 
 
( ^55 ) 
 
 the Veife. But this. Sir, you will, perhaps D"". Be 
 denominate the prudence of Dr. Ben/on. It 
 will, at leaft, rank, as a fit companion, with 
 the *■' prudence of Erafmus ;" of which you, 
 fome time ago, made fuch honorable men- 
 tion. 
 
 XXXVI. *' Dr. Mill fays. It is writ- 
 *' ten in a modern and car clefs hand ; with 
 *' fome things blotted out, and others inter- 
 *' polated:" — (p. 640.) 
 
 It feems moil probable, that Dr. Mill, and 
 Mr. Cajley, had never {ten this MS. Dean 
 2"cjrJ*s account, who had seen it former- 
 ly, and Dr. Wilfon^ defcription, who has 
 lately infpe^Slcd it, admit the blottings 
 out, and interpolations, but explain them 
 In a manner the moil: honorable to the 
 Copyift. '' The Writer" (fays Dean Tcard') 
 '' has not taken pains to make fair writing. 
 *' He has often greatly neglected his hand ; 
 <' and, what is very difagreeable to the eye, 
 " but i?, neverthelefs, the marlz of integrity 
 *^ in a Trarfcrihcr^ is, that when, in copy- 
 
 " ing. 
 
(156) 
 
 ** ing, he perceived any word, or words, to 
 ** have beeni omitted by him, he erafed thofe 
 *' which he had written'* [fubfequent to the 
 omlffion] " and re-placed them in the body 
 *' of the work, after he had inferted there- 
 .*' in what he had before omitted." (w) 
 
 Blots, and interpolations, may be marks 
 of hafte in the Copyift ; but they are not 
 certain proofs of inaccuracy in the MS itfelf. 
 It is morally impoflible, that the tranfcriber 
 of fo large a book as the New Teftament, 
 fhould travel through his tafk, without falling 
 into errors, without committing miftakes. 
 And if, upon revifion, he ihould decline to 
 blot, or to interpolate, left he ihould be find 
 not to have " taken pains to make fairwrlt- 
 *' ing," the outward falrnefs of his work 
 would ill atone for its internal errors, and 
 defeds. 
 
 Thus far as to this charge, of blots, and 
 interpolations, in general. Let it be, finally, 
 remarked, as to this Verfe, in particular, that 
 
 it 
 
 {w) Afariin's La Veritey Fart u, C. 12. Dr. ^f^il/on'fi 
 account of thefs particulars hath been already ftated at 
 large in page 151. 
 
( >57) 
 
 It is «^/V^^r BLOTTED, «i)r INTERPOLATED ; Dr. B] 
 
 but is written in the body of the page, and 
 in the fame fair, uniform, hand, with the 
 ♦eft of the MS. 
 
 XXXVII. " Mr. Cajley calk it a mo-* 
 *' dcrn MS, probably tranjlated, or cor^ 
 *' redied, from the latin vulgate. Other 
 *' learned men have obferved, that the 
 ** form of the letters is the fame with that 
 ** of our printed Greek Tefatnents, ivith 
 '' accents and fpirits. So that it may^ 
 " pojfibly, have been written, f nee thein-^ 
 " vent ion of Printing^'' — 
 
 Dr. Benfon ought to have ftated the cir- 
 cumftances which make for the antiquity of 
 this MS, as well as thofs which tend to pro- 
 nounce it modern. But this, it feems, al- 
 though greatly his duty, was no part of his 
 delign. 
 
 Let it be here obferved, then, that the 
 vowels ; and u are written, throughout this 
 MS, vidth double points placed over them : 
 which method of pointing, by the teflimony 
 
 of 
 
( 158 ) 
 
 ENsoN. of (^x) Montfaucon^ the moil competent q^ 
 all men to decide a cjueftioii of this nature, 
 fhews a MS to be more than a thoufand years 
 old. This is, at leaH:, a ftrong prefumptioii 
 in favor of the antiquity of this MS. But 
 this difpute will, perhaps, be the moil: 
 fatisfaclorily decided, by referring to the 
 defcription of this MS, herein before 
 •ftated : (y) which, at lead, proves that it was 
 written before (if not long before) " the in- 
 " vention of Printing." 
 
 As to Mr. Cnfuys expreffions, '* proba- 
 " ELY tranjlated^ o^corretied^'' they are the 
 very language of mere conje6lure ; and, as 
 fuch, deferve little, or no, attention. 
 
 XXXVITI. '' I would have truth take 
 *' place, on which fide foever It falls ^"^ 
 [Note, p. 640.1 
 
 If 
 
 {x) Palcccgraphh Gra:ca. 'E^Xt. Paris. A. D. 1708, 
 Lib. i. p. 33. 
 
 (;;) The words refpCvSting the date of this MS, which 
 wcie copied fiom it, in the former edition of thefe let- 
 ters, are here omitted ; becaufe they 7nay be applied to 
 the time ivbcn St. Mark's Gofpel, itfclf, was originally 
 written: although that time really was, according to Dr. 
 CW^'s account, A. D. 56, and, according to Dr. Pear/on, 
 A D. 60. I do not wifli to ur^e any evidence in favor 
 of this verfe, againlt which any objedions may be brought, 
 which can, in any degree, {land the teft of examination. 
 
If Dr. Benfon, inftead of raking together Dr. B 
 every thing that hath been faid, however 
 miftakenlj, by iV//7/, and Cajley, in prejudice 
 of the MS in quefliion, and preffing that fide 
 of the argument, alone^ had thought fit, at 
 the fame time, to have given to the world 
 what Martin, and Tcard, had urged in favor 
 of its antiquity, and authority ; his practice 
 would have done as much honor to this de- 
 claration, as it now refleds difgrace upon it* 
 
 XXXIX. " Agahi\ we have been re* 
 " f erred to another MS, which is in the 
 " King of P ruffians library, at Berlin. 
 "' That MS has, indeed, the difputed 
 " text. But then it is achiowledged to 
 " be a late tranjcript from a printed Greek 
 *' Tejlament, and, particularly, from the 
 '* Complutenfan edition ; which the ig- 
 *' nor ant tranfcriber has followed fo clofely^ 
 " as to copy ex adlly -and without variation^ 
 " even the very errors of the Printer^ 
 
 This MS was purchafed, upwards of a 
 century ago, at a high price, by Frederic 
 William the Great, Elector of Brandenburgh, 
 
 and 
 
( i6o ) 
 
 Jekson. and was believed to be very ancient, not 
 only by the learned of that age in gene- 
 ral, (as by the Librarian Hendrekhlus^ by 
 Saubertus, Profeffor of Divinity at Helm- 
 Jladt^ by Tollius, and by the great Orien- 
 talift, Jabhijki, at Berlin) but by the 
 famous Spanheim. If the claim of this MS 
 to antiquity were to be decided by authorities 
 of this kind, it ihould feem, that very re- 
 fpeclable antagonifts, and thofe many iii 
 number, fhould be oppofed to names of fuch 
 eminence as thefe, to flitisfy the world of its 
 being a modern copy. And who are thefe 
 many, and refpe6lable antagonills ? As to 
 number, I know of none, but one ; and as to 
 the refpe5lablenejs of that one, in this (%) in- 
 ftance, at leaft, let the reader (if any reader 
 fhall have accompanied me thus far) con- 
 defcend to afford me a few moments more 
 of his patience, and then judge for himfelf. 
 
 One perfon, then,M. V.L^Cros^, a Libra- 
 rian at Berlin, in the beginning of the pre- 
 
 fent 
 
 (•l) Emlynh Reply, (Edit, as before) p. 229. — M. V. 
 La Croze wn?i, certainly, a very learned man. But his 
 behaviour, in refpccl to this verfe, undoubtedly merits 
 the mofl; fcvcrc rcprchenfion. 
 
( i60 
 
 fent century, in a letter written A. D. 1720, Dr. BE^ 
 and publifhed by Mr. Emlyn^ in his conteft 
 with Mr. Martin, affirms this MS to be a 
 late tranfcript from the Complutenjlan Edi- 
 tion. " I wonder," (lays he) " that our 
 " MS, a book of no authority, fhould be 
 *' alledged in confirmation of a dubious 
 *' reading, after I have already made it 
 *' manifefi to many learned men, and to Mr. 
 " Martin himfelf, that this book, although 
 " fold by an artful impoftor for an ancient 
 " MS, and boafted of accordingly, is only 
 " a late tranfcript from the Complutenjlan 
 *' Edition : and this'* (he proceeds to fay) 
 '' I PERCEIVED AT ONCE, when I formcr- 
 *' ly viewed this Library, as a ftranger, and 
 " before I had any intentions of fettling at 
 *' Berlin ; and I made this declaration open- 
 " ly to Hendrelchius, now dead ; and ever 
 *' iince this Library has been entrufled to 
 ** my care, I have candidly declared the 
 " fame to ail perfons, nor is Mr. Martin ig- 
 *' norant of it." — In another part of the 
 fame letter, the fame La Croze fays, " He 
 *' who has feen the Complutenjlan Edition, 
 ** has alfo feeil our MS, without excepting 
 M *' eve?i 
 
( i60 
 
 " ci^cn the '■eery errors of the Printer^ which 
 *' the Ignorant tranfcriber has followed fo clofe- 
 " /v', as to make it abfolutely certain, that 
 " fome illiterate copyifl was employed by 
 " Ibme learned cheat, in order to accomplish 
 " this impoflure.'* 
 
 In another letter, much anterior In point 
 of date to this, which has jufl been abflract- 
 ed, the fame La Croze fays (with a for- 
 wardnefs, which indicates that he had, even 
 then^ taken his fide, and that the fate of the 
 Verfe, in queftion, was, at that time, not 
 indifferent to him) among other things — 
 
 *^ I read, yesterday, {a) Dr. M'lir^ 
 *' Differtation upon the paflage cf St. John ; 
 *' and found there almost all that I had 
 *•* thought upon the fame fubje£t. — All 
 " the ancient Greek and Latin MSS, in 
 " reckoning up the three*^[THREE !] "Wit- 
 ** nefles, mention only the Spirit, the Water, 
 *' and the Blood. There is no account to 
 " be made of our Greek MS of the New- 
 •• Teftament ; it is a work, which, although 
 
 « it 
 
 {a) Emlpfs Reply, p, 286.—. 
 
( i63 ) 
 
 ** it has deceived many, I never thought a- Dr. Be 
 
 '' bove eighty years old. In the year 1696, 
 
 *' upon coming to Berlin^ this MS was fliewn 
 
 '' to me as being a thoufand years old : After 
 
 *' having examined it a moment, I maintain- 
 
 *' ed that it was modern, and copied from 
 
 *' the edition of the Bible of Cardinal Xime- 
 
 " nes. I convinced the late Mr. Spanheim^ 
 
 " and the then Librarian, by comparing of 
 
 *' paffages, the refemblance of charadters, 
 
 *' and other fenfible proofs. The paflage 
 
 *' of the Three Witnefles is there word for 
 
 *' word, as in the Bible of Alcala, and it 
 
 " COULD NOT BE THERE OTHERWISE. 
 
 " The ancient Fathers have {h) never 
 
 *' made ufe of fo remarkable a paflage. 
 
 *' The Ledlionary, entitled aTa-^roAo,-, in my 
 
 *' OPINION, is of no great authority in this 
 
 " cafe. I do not doubt its antiquity ; but 
 
 *' thefe ecclefiaftical Books are more fubjed: 
 
 *' to alterations than others."— 
 
 Such teftimony as this (to fay nothing of 
 M 2 that 
 
 [h) M. La Cr.oze^ it feems, had never confulted any 
 ©f the authorities, ftated in the former part of thefe let- 
 ters, which diredly deftroy this aflertion j or he would 
 NEVER have made it. 
 
( ^H ) 
 
 that air of affc6led felf-fufiiciency, which 
 appears in ahnoft every line, and is truly re- 
 diculous) carries fufplcion upon the face of 
 it. There can be but fniall doubt of the 
 then Elecfor having taken the opinions of 
 the moil learned men of his Court, and 
 Country, as to the antiquity of this MS, an- 
 tecedently to his purchafe of it ; and of their 
 having given their fentlments in its favor, 
 after having tried it by the beft examination 
 in their power. There can be no doubt of 
 this MS being well known to HendrelchtuSy 
 becaufe, as the ElcdUral Librarian, he had 
 it under his care many years ; to Sciuhertus^ 
 becaufe he has fet forth nearly Hvo hundred 
 various readings from it, in his commentary 
 on the Gofpel of St. Matlbew, and he ftiles 
 it " Pervetuftus, (c) et admodhn preUoJus ;" — 
 to ToWiis^ becaufe he is cited, in relation to 
 it, by Father Le Long ; to Jablonffci, becaufe 
 he was confulted by Kettner, on the fubjedt, 
 previoufly to his publication ; and to Span- 
 hehn^ for ha Croze affirms that he convinced 
 Spanhc'mi of its being an impofture. It is 
 furely, tlicn, on the very face of this account, 
 
 a 
 
 {c) Prchgom. Edit. Hthnfiadt^ A. D. 1672, p. 41. 
 
( i65 ) 
 
 a moft ftrange, an almofl incredible, thing, Dr. Be 
 that La Croze (hould perceive at once, 
 at a fingle glance, as it were, and in A mo- 
 ment, what fo many learned men, upon a 
 long .acquaintance with, and a dole examina- 
 tion of, the MS, could not perceive at all. 
 Such a narration as this, having no fupport 
 beyond the bare affirmation of the reporter, 
 would deferve little credit, even if no pofi- 
 tive proof could be brought to deflroy it. 
 
 But, unfortunately for La Croze, his whole 
 charge is demonftrably falfe. — For, 
 
 I. As to his affertion, that he had made 
 It manifeft to Mr. Martin, that the MS, in 
 queftion, was a late tranfcript from the Com- 
 flutenfian Edition, — it turns out, by ( t/)Mr. 
 
 1^,1 3 Martins 
 
 {(l) Martins LaVerite, Part ii, C. 7. La Croze^ at- 
 tempted, indeed, to apologife to Wetjicin, on this fubje<5i:, 
 by faying, that he hi>.d not defended himftlf, becaufe he 
 was unwilling to offend Mr. Martin, or to treat him 
 harfhly. " Hoc mihi Jignificavit CI. La Croze, per ep'ifto- 
 " lam, A. D. I'j t^\ , fe ad ohjecilonesY) . Martini nonrefpon- 
 *' dijfe, quod jencm vcncrandum offendere, out ipfi agre fci- 
 ** cere, noluijjet" (Proleg. p. 59.) But this was a mere 
 pretence. Whilft he thought himfelf able to fupporf 
 his own afiumptions, he made no fcruple of treating Mr, 
 Mnrtin difrcfpedfully enough. He found himfelf toi- 
 •ujilling to offend this venerable ohhnan., precifely at the time 
 when he found himfelf Kw^/'/f to anjwer his argra/ients. 
 
( i66) 
 
 Ienson. Martinis own account, which was addrefled 
 to La Croze, which it was highly incum- 
 bent upon him to have contradicted, if he 
 could, but which flands to the prefent hour, 
 even uncontroverted, — that he had made, to 
 Mr. Martin, no fuch manifeftation at all. 
 Nor was it, indeed, poffible that La Croze 
 could " make manlfeft" his affertion, not- 
 withflanding the over-forward zeal which 
 haflily precipitated him into it, either " to 
 *' Mr. Martin,^'' or to " many learned men," 
 or to any perfon whatever. For, 
 
 2. This MS is NOT <3 tratifcript from the ] 
 Complulenfian Bible : — as will evidently ap- 
 pear by the following obfervations. 
 
 In the Gofpel of St. Matthew, Chap. ii. 
 Verfe 13, the MS of Berlin (in queflion) 
 reads a.-rroKruvai ; but the reading of the Bible 
 of Complutum is a7roA£o-a«, in the correfpond- 
 ing part of that Verfe. 
 
 In ii. 1 7, of the fame Gofpel, the Berlin 
 MS has uTo xu^ta (Ji« ii^i^i'd ; but the Cornplu* 
 ienjtan Edition has, in the fame paflage, v^ro 
 
 In 
 
( '67 ) 
 
 In V. 32, the Berlin MS reads ot* tt^j Dr. E 
 ftTToAuwv ; but the reading of the Complutenjlan 
 
 Edition is OTi 0? a;/ aTTO/v-LiO"??. 
 
 In vi. 13, the Complutenjian Edition has 
 the Doxology compleat — *' For thine is the 
 *' kingdom^ the power, and the glory, for ever 
 ** and ever :" of which the Berlin MS has 
 not a fingle word. (^) 
 
 In vii. 18, the BerlinMS has a^^ Trx,xiv oep^pot> ; 
 but the Complutenjian Edition has only »h 
 
 In vii. 24, the Berlin MS reads oixoiuh^myA : 
 but the Complutenjian Edition only oixoi(ru. 
 
 In ix. 30, the MS of Berlin reads Ms^x^n<rxv 
 «JIwj/ 7rotf>oc,^n[j.x ; but the Complutenfian does 
 not exhibit the word 7r^pa;^p>i^«, in that 
 paflage. 
 
 In XV. 22, the MS of Berlin reads ix^ct^i^ 
 
 fzTKTu ocvTs ; but the Cojnplutenjian Edition has, 
 
 la the fame paflage, sxpaufao-Ei/ «utw. 
 
 M 4 In 
 
 {e) This Doxology ftands in the margin of the Com- 
 flutenftan Tcft.unent. 
 
( 168 ) 
 
 ENsoN, In xvii. 2, the Berlin MS has «? Xjo;;/ ; but 
 the Complutenjtan reads, inflead thereof, w? t» 
 fw?, in the parallel paflage. 
 
 In xxvil. 29, the MS of Berlin reads fv T-,7 
 oilioc; but the Edition of Complutuni hath, ia 
 the parallel pafiage, ^tt* Tt)^ 0£^>aj/. 
 
 In eight of thefe examples, this MS agrees 
 with one, or more, of the MSS of Robert 
 Stephens ; in one example, with a MS of 
 -CafimLon\ \n two, with the Codex Montjor" 
 tins ; in one, with the IMSS of Saubertus ; in 
 three, with the celebrated MS of Cambridge ; 
 and in the lafl" example, with the ftill more 
 celebrated IMS of Alexandria, 
 
 "" If thefe variations of the Berlin MS from 
 the Complutenjtan Edition, fele6led, by the 
 help of Saubertus, from the Gofpel of ^t. Mat- 
 thew, alone, be fo numerous, (and yet the 
 Lift here given, does not comprife them all) 
 how greatly might that number be increafed, 
 by an examination, of this kind, purfued 
 through the whole of the New Teftament ! 
 But, as the taik would be irkfome, fo the 
 
 attempt 
 
( i69 ) 
 
 attempt is, happily, unneceffary. The varl- J^r- B 
 ations, which have been aheady adduced, 
 concord too nearly with the readings of other 
 MSS, to be mere errors of the tranfcriber. 
 They are too corredl, in their language, and 
 too pointed in their m.eaning, to be the er- 
 rors of an "ignorant tranfcriber." And they 
 differ too widely, are in every rtfpedl too 
 difcordant, from the text of the CompluUn- 
 Jian^ to warrant even a poffibility, that the 
 MS oi Berlm can be, at all, " a tranfcript 
 from that Edition." 
 
 With refpecl to the information, which 
 M. l^a Croze has further condefcended to give 
 us, — namely, that the " aTrcroAo? is, in his O' 
 '' pinion^ of no great authority," becaufe it 
 is a Le5lionary^ and becaufe Ledionaries 
 " are more fubjed to alterations than 
 " other ecclefiaflical Books," — it might be 
 alked, whether in any Leclionary, of any 
 Church, any text would, at any time, be in- 
 ferted, which that Church did not accept as 
 genuine ? But queftions of this kind need 
 not be propofed, or multiplied, in the prefent 
 cafe. For the aTraroAo? is not a Ledlionaryy 
 
( 170 ) 
 
 in any other fenfe than as the Bible itfelf 
 may be called a hedfionary^ namely, from 
 being read In the Church. The aTroroxo? is • a 
 " Colleaion (/) of the Epiftles of the 
 " New Teftament, written feparately ;" 
 that is, feparately from the Gofpels. The 
 ATTorcXof, then, is the very volume of the E- 
 plftles therafelves, comprifing, among the 
 reft, this Eplftle of St. John. And the op't^ 
 nion of ha Croze^ founded on fuppofed al- 
 terations in Le6clonarles, can have no place 
 in the prefent queftion. 
 
 As to Dr. Benfojis fuggeftion, that this 
 MS is ALSO, a " tranfcript from a printed 
 " Greek Teftament ;** it feems hardly recon- 
 cUeable with his other aflumption, of its 
 being, withal, *' a tranfcript from the Com- 
 " plutenfian Edition." Taken as a whole ^ 
 the accufation feems, in no fmall degree, in- 
 confiftent with itfelf. Confidered In parts y 
 the latter claufe of it has already been prov- 
 ed to be utterly untrue ; and the former, 
 being made without fpecification, is empty, 
 
 and 
 
 (/j Dr. Thomai Smith's, Mifcellanea, Lond. Edit. 
 A. D. 1686, p. 155. See alfo Martin's La Feriu, p. 
 ii, C. 5. 
 
('7' ) 
 
 and unfounded. As an idle charge, and Dr. Bi 
 brought at random, it is not worth the pains 
 to dwell upon it. It is too vaguely ftatcd to 
 receive an anfwer, and too abfurdly expreffed 
 to deferve one. 
 
 XL. " And. Jitially, as to the Com- 
 ** plutenfian, which zvas the firfl edition 
 *'^ of the Greek Tejiament ; which, 
 *' (though printed) Stephens has nuni' 
 " beredas the firjl of his MSSr^-^ 
 
 The Complutcnjian was not^ properly, the 
 firft Edition of the Greek Teftament. The 
 Bafil Edition of Ernfmus was publifhed in 
 A. D. 1 516, antecedently to the Bible of 
 Comphitum\ which, although^r//z/^t/in A. D. 
 1 5 14, was not given to the world until feve- 
 ral years afterwards. Nor has Robert Ste^ 
 phens " numbered the ComphUenJian as the 
 " firjl of his MSS," or as any of his MSS. 
 Take his own (^) words : *' Ut primo, 
 " Complutenjem Editionem intelligas, quae 
 *' olim ad antiquiffima exemplaria fuit EX- 
 
 «« CUSA." 
 
 XLI. 
 
 (g) Preface to R. Suphem*i Edition, in queflion. 
 (Appendix, No. XII.) 
 
( ^r- ) 
 
 XLI. *' From whence'' [viz. from 
 the Complutenfian Edition] " moji 
 " probably, /V [Robert Stephens] '' took 
 *' this difputed pajfage, and inferted it into 
 " the facred text:' 
 
 If Dr. Benfon had flopped to compare the 
 text of this difputed paflage, as it ftands in 
 the Comphitenfan, with that of the Edition 
 of Robert Stephens, he, perhaps, would not 
 have hazarded this obfervation. 
 
 TheGr^^X'Textofi^:. 
 Stephens^ Edition 
 of I. John, v. 7, 8. 
 
 C^ £. ^. 0. 7 OUtliJ \v TW »^«- 
 
 Xoyf^, Kon ro 
 
 ayiou ■syvs\J[j.x^ 
 y.a,i arot oi r^si? 
 bU to cct * f^ iKTi. 
 
 8. Kaj rpEK 
 EKrii/ 01 [xocflvp- 
 
 TO "cri/fUjaa, xat 
 TO ucJ'wfl, xaj TO 
 a;//,a, xa» oj t^sj? 
 £iC TO iv £itrj. 
 
 TheGr^^y^Textofthe 
 Comphtenjian Edi- 
 tion of the fame 
 Verfes. 
 
 7. OtI TpElf £I(nV 0{ 
 
 y.a.flvpovvTig sv rw «pai/M, 
 ■aroi]7\o y.xi Koyoq Jtai to 
 ayiov •ZD"V£U/Aa, xkj Oi TO£f? 
 
 £1? TO EV £Kr», 
 
 8. Kat T^£Jf £*0-»l' 0* 
 
 /w,a^1u^ouvl£? £7rt t»i? y^if to 
 TTvsUjWa xai to v§o)p aon 
 
 In 
 
( >73 ) 
 
 In the feventh Verfe of this Eplftle, then, Di 
 the Edition of Robert Stephens reads >tat a7oi o* 
 7/!fi? •, — That of Complutum, Jtat oi t^sk, only. 
 The Edition of Robert Stephens alfo reads 
 tv Eio-j •, whilft that of Comphittim conveys not 
 only different words, but, in fome refpefts, 
 a different meaning, from that of Robert Ste^ 
 phens, by reading 
 
 £K TO fV U<H, 
 
 In the eighth Verfe, the Edition o^ Robert 
 Stephens reads £v th 7^ -, but that of Complii' 
 turn fsr* '^"1? yi?, — a different prepoiition, go- 
 verning, in the following fubftantive, a dif- 
 ferent cafe. In the Edition of Robert Ste- 
 phens, the laft claufe of this Verfe, xai ot, rpa? 
 aq TO £1/ ao-t, is read entire ; but there is not 
 one word of it found in the eighth Verfe of 
 the Edition of Complutiim. 
 
 Befide thefe palpable difcordances, which 
 render the pretence of one of thefe Editions 
 having been a Tranfcript of the other, im- 
 probable, beyond all feeming ; a little atten- 
 tion to the method, in which Robert Stephens 
 proceeded, throughout his Edition of A. D. 
 1550, will prove the abfolute impraclicabiiity 
 of this fuppofition. 
 
 When 
 
( 174) 
 
 When any particular word, or words, 
 were found in a few of his Copies, which 
 did not exift in the generaHty, or in the great- 
 er part, of them, Robert Stephens^ on inferting 
 fuch word, or words, in the text of his work, 
 conftantly pointed to the margin, hy the 
 help of his index, the obelus ; where his 
 reader might find the MS, or MSS, particu- 
 larly fpecified, on the authority of which he 
 had made the iniertion. And when, upon 
 placing his obelus in the text, the paflkge, or 
 word, to which it was prefixed, was found 
 in but a very few (as in one, or two) of his 
 Copies, it was his invariable cuflom to fignify 
 this deficiency, in the margin, by the follow- 
 ing defcriptlOn~ii' Traci (or Trai/ra) TrAni/ ^^ (i 
 
 (for inftance) viz. This word, or pa/fag e, is 
 wanting in all my authorities, except the Copy 
 marked .Q : or, for the fake of brevity, by the 
 fingle initial tt. (inflead of iv Tvaa-i or Tra^ra) 
 followed by the reft of the reference. Thus 
 in St. Matthew, xii. ^^, the obelus is placed 
 over the words rr,; Ka^J'ja? •, and in the margin 
 is written tv Trxin, ttAvii/ rv tw r, or Thefe words 
 are wanting in all my authorities, except the 
 MS, ri. In St. Mark, viii. 2, the mark of 
 
 reference 
 
( '75 ) 
 
 reference is placed over the word v^^i^ccc, and Dr. Be 
 the correfponding margnial Note is, ttccutx 
 vAvv rs y, or, JVanting hi all, except the MS 
 marked y. And laflly in St. Jolm, iii. 25, 
 the reference is affixed to the word Watwv • 
 and in the margin is found xu-. -static t« a, or, 
 wanting in all, except the Copy «, which is the 
 Complutenjtan Edition. (Jj) 
 
 Now, what is the Note, or Reference, of 
 Robert Stephens, in the margin of this dif- 
 puted Verfe, coufidered in relation to the 
 Complutenjtan Edition ? Not, ^v T^ao-*, or TD-atl^^ 
 ■uxriv ra a, (or, abbreviated, ^. -srAns/ T8 a) which, 
 is the conflant cuflom of Robert Stephens, 
 where one, only, of his authorities fupports 
 a particular reading : Not, *' Wanting in all 
 *' my copies, except the Complutenfian," — 
 which, certainly, would have been the cafe, 
 if the fuppofition, advanced by Dr. Bejifon, 
 and now under confideration, were juH:, 
 But his Note, or Reference, is to this effe^l, 
 and may be thus fairly paraph rafed. The 
 VJordsy if Tn »^«vw, in this Ferfe, are wantifig 
 
 i?i 
 
 (h) See the Edition itfelf (of A. D. 155c) pages 21, 
 75, and 166.— 
 
( '76) 
 ■NsoN. infevenofmyMSS. TT'^ComplutenfianC^?^/, 
 and others of my authorities^ have the whole Verfe 
 In full lengthy fave that the Complutenlian has, 
 at the clofe oj the Verfe, a reading peculiar to 
 itfelf viz. £i? TO £1/, which does not belong to 
 any of the ref. If Robert Stephens, whilll 
 living, had even entertained fome latent 
 fears, left a fuppolition of the kind, now 
 under confideration, however prepofterous, 
 might, at fome future time, attempt to im- 
 pofe itfelf upon the world ; it feems that he 
 could not have employed thofe marginal 
 Notes, and References, which he had adopt- 
 ed, more appofitely, than he thus has 
 done, to meet it with a flat negation. In 
 was not well within his power to have 
 done more for our fatisfiKTrion herein, un- 
 lefs he had heen uneafy enough to have de- 
 tailed thofe fears, at large, to the world, by 
 anticipation ; and had bulied himfelf, in 
 much circumlocution, to caution his readers, 
 beforeliand, not to pay any heed to fuch an 
 impofition, if it Ihould be attempted to be 
 palled upon them. 
 
 Thefc impediments, Sir, being thus re- 
 moved. 
 
( 177) 
 
 moved, I am enabled to fum up this argu- 
 ment, in both its parts, in a few words. Had 
 Robert Stephens " taken this difputed paflage 
 *' from the Complutenjlan Edition," he would 
 not have remarked, as a circumftance pe- 
 culiar to that Edition, that it read f»? 7o sv, in 
 ti part of the Verfc in queftion ; if the whole 
 Verfe had been peculiar to it, and had not 
 been found in any of his other authorities. 
 But he has mt inferted the difputed palTage, 
 as it Jiood in the text of the Complutenfian, 
 And he has remarked the f? to £^, as a cir- 
 cumftance peculiar to a part of the Verfe, in 
 the Complutenjlan Copy. The confequence 
 fs peremptory ; it will not be evaded, and ic 
 cannot be repelled : namely, that Robert Ste^ 
 fhensdJidi not take this difputed paflage from 
 the Complutenjlan Edition. 
 
 XLII. " ne Editors'' [of the C<?;«. 
 *' plutenjlan Edition] "^%S in general ^ 
 " that they followed the bejl andmojl an^ 
 " cient MSS of the Vatican. — But Mr. 
 *' Wetftein (i) renders it dubious whe- 
 N *' ther 
 
 (j) Prolegomena to folio Edition, A. D. 1751, pa£S 
 
 no. 
 
( '78 y 
 
 *< ther they had any Vatican Af*?^, — not 
 " (5«/y, from their varying^ hi Jo many 
 *' places, from the beJlY^ticzn copy, but 
 " becaufe Leo X did not come to the Pope- 
 " dom, time enough to have furnijljed 
 " them, in Spain, with Juch MSS before 
 " they undertook that work. For he (be- 
 ** ing then ficli) was chofen Pope not a 
 *' year before that Edition was publiJJjed, 
 *' And they are fuppofed to have been about 
 '* fifteen years in preparing and publijhing 
 » //."_(p. 641.) 
 
 The Editors of Comphtum poiitlvely, and 
 in the ftrongeil terms, declare, that they had 
 the life of feveral Vatican MSS, which were 
 fent, from Rome, to Cardinal Ximenes, fo», 
 that purpofe. 
 
 " Let it be known" (fay they (f) m their 
 preface) *' to the reader, that we have had, 
 " for the benefit of this work, the ufe of 
 " feveral MSS, of fuch very great antiquity, 
 *' and correclnefs, that it feems a kind of 
 
 ** impiety 
 
 {k) Appendix, No. XIV. 
 
( 179 ) 
 
 *' impiety to doubt their truth : which the I^^' ^ 
 *' mofl holy Father, &c. Leo X. defirous to 
 '' favor our undertaking, fent from the Apof- 
 *' toUc Library, to the moll: reverend the 
 *' Cardinal o^ Spain ; under whofe authority, 
 *' and by whofe commands, we have com- 
 *' mitted this work to the prefs.'* 
 
 The world, furely, owes to thefe illuftri- 
 ous Editors fo much refpe6t, at leaft, as to 
 credit a declaration, made with fuch folem- 
 nlty, unlefs there fhall appear, from circum- 
 ftances, a moral impoffibllity of its truth. 
 But the obje£lions, here culled out of IVetfte in ^ 
 are far from importing any fuch impoflibility. 
 It by no means follows, that thefe Editors 
 had no Vatican MSS, becaufe they varied, In 
 many places, from the befl Vatican Copy. 
 It would be juft as found a conclufion, to 
 affirm, that Robert Stephens had not the Com-- 
 plutejijian Bible, becaufe he has varied, in 
 many places, from that Edition. And, as to 
 there not being a Leo X. at Rome, " time 
 *' enough to have furnlflied them, in Spain, 
 *' with fuch MSS, before they undertook 
 ** that work ;'' it may be anfwered, that 
 N 2 there 
 
( iSo ) 
 
 KsoN. tlicre was a Cardinal (/) de Medici there, 
 
 time 
 
 (/) He was created Cardinal, by Innocent VIII, at 4f 
 years of age. [Bayle^ Did. Kiiloriquc, Tom. ii. p. 299. 
 £dit. Rotterdam. A. X>. 1697.) 
 
 The learned friend, to whom I am indebted for tlis 
 account of the Di/W/// MS, fct forth in p. 150 — 153 of 
 this work, has favored me with the following refledtions, 
 on the fubjcfl of theie Vatican MSS. 
 
 " 1 think it probable, that the Vatican MSS were lent 
 *' to Ximenes., during the Popedom of his countryman 
 " Alexander V\., who died in Auguft, A. D. 1503; — 
 *' that, during the cnfuing fccucs of turbulence, they 
 *' were not re-dcmanded, until at lad they were abfo- 
 *' lutely forgotten ; and that they lie dormant in fome 
 *' Library, or Monaftcry, in Spaht^ where, on examina- 
 *' tion, they may yet be difcovercJ. I know when 
 *' Francis I. died, and when Leo's Popedom commenced. 
 *' But the reigning Prince, or Pope, is always thanked 
 *' for the favours conferred by their predeceflbrs ; while 
 ** it is to their indulgence we owe their continuance, or 
 *' from their grace we muft expe6l iheir repetition. H, 
 *' Stephens acknowledccs that his MSS came from the 
 *' Library thtn belonging to Henry, "i'hey were lent by 
 *' Francis. So might the Compluicnf.an Editors thank 
 •* Leo for the MSS, which they had from his Vatieariy 
 *' although they received them from Alexander. Ximetui 
 ** was long projcciinghis work, and long preparing his 
 *' materials. Is it not probable, that he would take the 
 *' opportunity of foliciting the loan of the Vatican MSS 
 ** (if they were LENT to him) when his countryman 
 " filled St. Peter's chair? But, as Books, and MSS, 
 ** were not Alexander's paflion, I fufpct?!: that he sold 
 " them to Ximenes j and that the loan was a fable, con- 
 *' trived to conceal the infamy of the tranfacStion." — 
 
 This is a moft judicious conjecture. And it feems 
 that no objcclion can be brought againll: it, fave the ex- 
 prcflions of the Coniplutenjian Editors ; who pofitively fay, 
 in their preface, that Ximenes received them from Leo. 
 " ^iia Leo decivms edu^ta^ &c. WisiT ad Cardinalem 
 " liijtanut:''^ 
 
X i8i ) 
 
 time enough to furnifli tbofeMSS to his D^* ^^ 
 Brother Cardinal, Xlmenes^ for his affiftance 
 in this undertaking. And becaufe, in that 
 long feries oi fifteen years, which faw thefe 
 learned Editors fecluded from the world, 
 and anxioufly intent on their great work, 
 their original benefactor had been exalted to 
 the Papal throne, and aflumed the new name 
 oi Leo X; they would not, in their Preface, 
 -mention him by his former, lefs honorable, 
 appellation, but by the augufl, and pre-emi- 
 nent, title, which diftinguifhed him in A. D. 
 15 14, when their Polyglott came forth from 
 the Prefs. As men, this lefier kind of ikf^- 
 ionymy would be natural.-^-As Papifis, it 
 would be inevitable, 
 
 XLIII. ** Since that. Pope Urban, 
 *' having recommended thofe MSS in the 
 " Vatican, to he examined, it was found 
 *' that all of them, which have the Epif- 
 *' tie of St. John, zvajit this feventh 
 " Verfe of the fifth Chapterr 
 
 Dr. Benfon has not been fo juft to his 
 N 3 readers, 
 
( I8- ■) 
 
 ENsoN. readers, (m) as to inform them on what au- 
 thority this aflertion is founded. 
 
 But, admitting, for the prefent, and for 
 the fake of argument alone, that the MSS, 
 NOW in the Vatican, have not the text in 
 queftion, — does it follow from thence, that 
 there were no MSS in that Library, before 
 the time of Cardinal Ximenes, which had the 
 Verfe? Dr. Benfon, indeed, is forward enough 
 to tell us, that " thofe MSS," thofe identi- 
 cal exemplars which were ufed by the Edi- 
 tors of Compluium, were " examined,** and 
 that <' all of them, which have the Epiflle, 
 " want the Verfe." Will he prove it to us ? 
 He does not attempt it. He trufls to find 
 readers as full of zeal as himfelf ; and then 
 —no proof will be required. 
 
 The truth is, the MSS which were fent 
 (not lent — for there is a great difference in 
 the two words, and the expreflion in the 
 original, is inifit) to Ximenes, for the ufe of 
 
 the 
 
 {m) The fearch, alledged to have been made by Caryo- 
 philus, is fuppofed to be here alluded to. But even IFet- 
 Jieiny himfelf, pays little, or no, credit to it. (Proi. 
 p. 6l.) 
 
( i83 ) 
 
 the Complutenjian Editors, were not ordered, Dr. B] 
 as far as we know, to be returned, nor are 
 we certified that they ever were returned, to 
 the Library of the Fntican. We know, that 
 the MSS, which were borrowed^ by Robert 
 Sttphens, from the Royal Library, at Paris, 
 have never found their way back thither, or, 
 at leaft, that they are not now in that Libra- 
 ry : for the MSS, which Father Le Long 
 i|:>oke of, have already been proved (;;) not 
 to be thofe which liad been ufed by Robert 
 Stephens, And the fame conckifion may, 
 with far more probability, for many obvious 
 reafons, be formed, as to the Vatican MSS, 
 ufed by the Editors of Complutiun, 
 
 XLIV. " And Father Simon has ob- 
 *' ferved veryjufly^ Jhat^ when the pub- 
 " UJJjers of the Complutenfian edition pub- 
 *' lljlied tins dljptited text ^ tJjey foUoived 
 " the reading of the latin copies here,'"' 
 
 This objection fuppofes that Xlmenes, and 
 
 his congregated (f) Divines, not finding the 
 
 N 4 text 
 
 [n) Pages 127 to 138. 
 
 [0) l^hey were no lefs than 42 in number, a«- hath 
 been before oblcrved ; and the expences or Ximcms^ in 
 
( 184 ) 
 
 Nsojy, text of the heavenly Witnejfes in any Greek 
 MSS, confe(ierated to forge this new text, 
 in order to make their Greek, correfpond 
 with the Latin, Copies : nay, it pofitively 
 affirms that they did fo. 
 
 Thus flands the liberality of this objedion* 
 Let us now enquire into its truth. 
 
 The text of the Latin Copies is " Et hi 
 ^^ tres unum funt,'* — And thefe three are one* 
 But what is the text of the Comphitenjian E- 
 dition, in the parallel paflage? Not ^ro^ oi t^ei; 
 IV fio-j, which would have been exadly con- 
 fonant to the Latin text, (hi tres unumfunt) 
 thefe three are one ; but o» r^a? £.? to iv n<n, 
 ihefe three agree in one. Can any perfon 
 be fo much much a Boeotian, as to imagine, 
 that, if thefe Editors had meant to forge a 
 
 Greek 
 
 the whole of this publicatioHj are affirmed to be Duca- 
 torum Jexcenties ATillena miliia. The Writer of the Ap- 
 pendix to the HiJi.Lit. of Cave, fays, ^iinquaginta m'lllia 
 aureorum. Edit. Land. A. D. 1688, p. 201. 
 
 The delighted mind of Ximenes is faid, by Gomez, m 
 his life of this Cardinal, to have exprelTed the happinefs, 
 which it poflcfled, on feeing this great work compleated, 
 in thefe animated words — *' Grates tibi ago, fiomne Chrijle, 
 quod rem, magnopere a me cur atom, ad optatam fineiii per- 
 duxerk." Hody, De Bibl, Text. Orig. p. 462. 
 
( 'SS ) 
 
 ^reek text, " to follow the reading of Dr« 
 «' the Latin Copies," they would have not 
 have forged one which would have followed 
 thofe Copies exa61:ly ? Is it poffible to believe, 
 that, if thefe Editors had intended to frame, 
 in the Greek language, a tranflation of the 
 Latin Text, they would have produced fome- 
 thing fo utterly diilbnant from it ? — that fo 
 many men of learning, who had {pent Jifteen 
 years in collating Greek MSS, in order to 
 compile a Greek Teftament, were yet fo ut- 
 terly ignorant of the Greek language, as to 
 bring forth a grofs mif-tranflation, and, with- 
 al, one fo foreign to their purpofe ? — The • 
 truth is, that M. Simon, and Dr. Ben/on^ 
 would not liave argued thus abfurdly in any 
 other cafe. There is, upon a fair ftatement 
 of the proofs, every reafon to believe (as 
 hath been remarked in a former letter) that 
 the verfe ftood, in thofe MSS which the 
 Complutenjian Editors confulted, (ji) exadly 
 as tliey have delivered it to us ; and that 
 they did not think themfelves at liberty to 
 vary from their MSS, either to " follow the 
 
 " reading 
 
 (p) Thefeven MSS of L. Valla read uq ro sv nci, in 
 the lafl claufe of this verf;, as well as the MSS ufed by 
 the Canplutsn/kvi Editors. 
 
( i86 ) 
 
 reading of the L^//« Copies," or of any other 
 copies whatfoever. 
 
 Between this obje£lion, herein laft ftated, 
 and that to which I now proceed, feveral mif- 
 cellaneous obfervations intervene, which Dr. 
 Benfon ftiles '* incidental and internal marks 
 " which may render it" [the authenticity 
 of the Verfe] *' fufpeded." Some of thefe 
 obfervations are too frivolous to require any 
 animadverlion. Thofe, which feem to de- 
 ferve it, will receive their anfwer hereafter. 
 
 XLV. " This difpuied text was not in 
 " the Italic, or old Latin Ferjion^ before 
 " the time of Jerome'* (p. 643.) 
 
 The whole tenor of the authorities, from 
 the Latin Fathers, who were prior to, and 
 coeval with, and from fome, who were fub- 
 fequent to, the age of Jerome, which have 
 been already (q) fet forth, proves the abfo- 
 lute falfehood of this alTertion. It may not, 
 however, be improper to llate this matter, 
 here, at large. 
 
 The 
 
 (?) P^S^s 26 to 40. 
 
( i87 ) 
 
 The old Italic Verlion, then, or the Itala Dr- Bi 
 VetuSy was fucceeded, in the Latin Church, 
 hy the Tranflation of Jerome. But it was 
 not fuperfeded by that Tranflation, as to 
 general ufe, until about the end of the feventh 
 Century, (r) or until nearly 300 years after 
 Jerome's death. The references, therefore, 
 to, and the quotations of, this Verfe, which 
 were made by TerttdUan, by Cyprian, by 
 Ph^badius, and Marcus Ccledenjts^ — bv 'Eu^ 
 cherius, Figilius,Fiilgentius, ^ndi CaJJiodorius,-^ 
 and which have been aheady produced, (s) 
 were not, in any inftance, taken from Je- 
 rome''^ Verfion. For the three, firft named, 
 of thefe Writers lived before Jerome's Ver- 
 iion was made. The two next in order, 
 were fo nearly the contemporaries of Jerome^ 
 that they can hardly be fuppofed even to 
 have feen his Verfion. It feems, moreover, 
 certain, from an examination of their works, 
 as well as from the pofitive affirmation of 
 IVetJiein^ (t) that Vigilius, and Fulgent ius did 
 not quote from the Verfion of Jerome. And 
 
 the 
 
 (r) See the anfwer to objection LVI of Dr. Benfon^ 
 hereafter ftated. 
 
 (5) Pages 26 to 40. 
 
 \t) Proleg, p. 81. He admits that ALL thefe authors, 
 here mentioncJ, ufcd the old Italic Verfion in their 
 i^uotation;». 
 
( i88) 
 
 the very learned Maffeius [ti) affirms the 
 fame thing of CaJJiodorius, in the moil poli- 
 tive terms. Thefe references, and quota- 
 tions, then, being, all, made whllfl: the old 
 •Jtallc Tranflation was in general ufe in the 
 Latin Chuuch, and not being taken from 
 that of Jerome^ feem to befpeak their own 
 derivation in the cleareft manner ; and to 
 prove the very oppofite conclufion to that 
 which is advanced in the objection : namely, 
 that this dlfputed text was In the Italic, or 
 old Latin Verjion^ not only before the time 
 of Jerome, bat from the firfl: hour of that 
 Veiiion being delivered to the Chriilian 
 .world. 
 
 XLVI. " It'' [the Verfe in queftion] 
 *' Is not In any of the oriental Ver [ions ^ as 
 " ihefyrlac.'' — 
 
 There were two, ancient, Syrlac Verlions, 
 The latter of them was made in the time 
 of Xenayas, (who was Bifhop of Hlerapolls, 
 
 and 
 
 {u) ** Evident er enim paid, ex quamphrimts harum 
 " ComplexionuTn loc'is^ Caffiodoriwn alia verftone a Hierony- 
 " miana ujiim ejfe" — are the words of Maffeim, (Ap- 
 " pendix, No, X.) 
 
( i89) 
 
 and died in A. D. 520) and confequently in Dr. Bi 
 the end of the fifth, or in the beginning of 
 the {ixth, century. Concerning the age of 
 the former of thefe Ve.rfions, tiiere hath 
 been a great divcrfity of opinion. To pafs 
 over the fcntiments of more ancient critics, 
 the learned Mkhaelis (x) wifhes to carry its 
 date up to the //j/r^ century, at leaft ; while 
 Wetftein (%) degrades it to the feventh cen- 
 tury. Truth is, generally, a medium between 
 two extremes ; and it feems to be peculiarly 
 fo in the prefent cafe. For, from the tefli- 
 mony of Bar HeBr^us, in his Horreum myjle^ 
 riorum^ that a more accurate Tranilation of 
 the New Teftament into the Syriac language, 
 was made in, or about, the beginning of th^ 
 fixth century, in the time of Xenayas ; 
 it feems evident, that one more ancient, 
 although lefs accurate, fublifted before that 
 
 time, 
 
 {x) lutrod. LeSlures^ Se<£l. 49, Ed. Lond. i-jbi. 
 
 The other arguments of this very learned pro- 
 fetTor, on this head, have no real weight. Ephrem quoted 
 from the Greek MSS themfelves, which were then fre- 
 quent in Syria^ tranllating, as he quoted, for the benefit 
 of his unlearned country-men. And the ftory of the 
 Edejpi Copy is a mere dream. 
 
 (z) Prcleg. Tom. i. p. 109. — In page 113, he for- 
 gets himfelf fo far as to fay, that the latter (or fecond) 
 Syriac Verfion was made in A. D. 506 ; — thus making, 
 by his owa account, the o^spring older than i\iQfarint. 
 
( '9^ ) 
 WON. time. Whilfl:, on the other hand, it fccms 
 equally certain, that this, more ancient, Sy- 
 riac Verfion was made fubfequent to the age 
 of Chryjojlom^ who died in A. D, 407 ; not 
 only becaufe it is divided according to the 
 "Canons of Eufeblus, and contains his letter to 
 Carpianus : but becaufe it fets forth the DoX' 
 ology in Matt, vi, 1 3, which was not found 
 (^)in thatGofpel until the time of Chryfojiom, 
 
 The (more ancient) Syriac Verfion, then, 
 is poflerior, in point of time, to the Italic 
 Tranflation, and to the Verfion of Jerome ; 
 both of which, it has been already fhewn, 
 have conftantly exhibited the Verfe in quef- 
 tion. The Syriac is, moreover, faulty, and 
 incorred, almoft beyond belief. Not words, 
 or fentences, only, but even whole verfes, 
 are left out, or pafled over, by the Tranlla- 
 tor, in various parts of his Verfion (befide 
 the paflage now in difpute) which are ad- 
 mitted by all to be genuine. It may not be 
 improper, perhaps, to fpecify a few inftances 
 of thefe omiffions. 
 
 In 
 
 (a) See (int. al.) Erafmi. Annot. inNov.Teft. A.D. 
 1522, p. 31 and 32. 
 
( 19' ) 
 
 III St. 'Johi^% Gofpel, the following Verfes Dr. Be: 
 are wholly left out of this Verfioii : — 
 
 " And if I go, and prepare a place for 
 " you, I will come again, and receive you 
 " unto myfelf ; that where I am, ye may 
 " be alfo/' (C. xiv. 3.) 
 
 " He fhall glorify me : for he fhall receive 
 *' of mine, and fhall (hew it unto you.'* 
 (C. xvi. 14.) 
 
 In the Adls of the Apoftles :— 
 
 " And FhlUp faid, If thou believeft with 
 ** all thine heart, thou mayeft. And he 
 *' anfwered and faid, I believe that yefui 
 ** Chrljl is the Son of God." (C. viii. 37.) 
 
 " Notwithftanding, it pleafed Silas to 
 <' abide there flill." (C. xv. 34.) 
 
 " And when he had faid thefe words, the 
 ** Jews departed, and had great reafoning 
 " among themfelves,'* (C. xxviii, 29.) 
 
( 19- ) 
 In the I. Epiftle of St. Peter, 
 
 *' If ye be reproached for the name of 
 " Chrifl^ happy arc ye: for the fpirit of 
 *' glory, and of God^ refteth upon you. 
 *' On their part he is evil fpoken of, but 
 *' on your part he is glorified." (C. iv. 14.) 
 
 Thefe are examples, which have efcaped 
 even the critical eye of Theodore Beza, His 
 (b) annotations point out others, almoft in- 
 numerable. 
 
 inftances of omiffions, in Copies, in ge- 
 neral, when brought to prove that the words, 
 fo omitted, did not exifl: in the original, arc 
 but fufpicious evidence. Inftances of omif- 
 Cons, in a Copy fo full of omiffions as this, 
 will fcarcely amount to evidence at all. 
 
 XLVII. ** Nor is it in the Arabic^ 
 <' Mthiofic, or Perfic:'-"- 
 
 Thefe 
 
 {b) Beza's Annotations, pajjim. Martin's DifTcrta- 
 tlgn, Part. 2. C. i, 
 
( 193 ) 
 
 Thefe Verfioiis were copied from (c) the Or. BE^ 
 Syriac, and, therefore, muft have adopted 
 its faults ; increafed, moft probably, by others 
 of their own. 
 
 XL VIII. " Nvr m the Coptkr 
 
 The Verfion abounds more, if poflible, 
 with faults, and omiffions, than the Syriac, 
 The fame remark applies to both. 
 
 The following omiffions of compleat 
 Verfes, in this Tranflation, feem to merit a 
 particular reference : viz. 
 
 In the Gofpel of St. Matthew, 
 
 '* But I fay unto you, Love your enemies, 
 
 *' blefs them that curfe you, do good to 
 
 *' them that hate you, and pray for them 
 
 O *' which 
 
 (<:) M. Slmon^ Hid. des Verfions, C. 17 and 18, and 
 in Book ii, C. 15, of his Hift. of the Verf. of the Old 
 Teftameat : and Du Pin, Diflert. Prelim, p. 82. Wetjlein^ 
 however, Proleg. no, affirms, " teUe Renodoiio^" that 
 the /Ethiopic Verfion proceeded from the Coptic, And 
 Michaclis affirms (Se6l. 54) that fome of the Arabic Ver- 
 fions, alfo, were rendered from the Coptic. It is of fmall 
 importance to the prefcnt difquifition, whether JVetJidnf 
 and MichaiUs, are right, gr not, in thef^ cynglufions. 
 
ii 
 
 ( 194 ) 
 
 which defpitefuUy ufe you, and perfecute 
 you/' (C. V : 44.) 
 
 ** At the fame time came the Difciples 
 ** unto Jefus, faying, who is the greateft In 
 *' the kingdom of Heaven ? (C. xviii : i.) 
 
 ** But Jefus anfwcred, and fald. Ye know 
 '* not what ye alk. Are ye able to drink 
 ^' of the cup, that I fhall drink of, and to 
 ** he baptlfed with the baptifm that I am 
 *' baptlfed with ? They fay unto him, Wc 
 y are able. 
 
 •* And he faith unto them, Ye fhall drink, 
 ** indeed, of my cup, and be baptifed with 
 *' the baptifm that I am baptifed with : 
 " but to fit on my right hand, and on my 
 *' left, is not mine to give ; but it fhall be 
 " given to them, for whom it is prepared of 
 *' my Father." (C. xx : 22, and 23.) 
 
 *' And they crucified him, and parted his 
 garments, cafting lots : that it might be 
 fulfilled which was fpoken by the Pro- 
 phet, They parted my garments among 
 
 " them, 
 
( m ) 
 
 •< them, and upon my vefture did they caft Dr. Be 
 " lots." (C. xxvii: ^S-) . 
 
 In the Gofpel of St, Mark* 
 
 " if any man have ears to hear, let him 
 « hear." (C. vii : i6.) 
 
 " Bat if ye do not forgive, neither will 
 ** your Father, which is in Heaven, forgive 
 " your trefpafles." (C* xi : 26.) 
 
 In the Adis of the Apoftles* 
 
 " And PhlUp faid. If thou believeft with 
 ** all thine heart, thou mayeft. And he 
 ** anfwered, and faid, I believe that Jefus 
 " Chrijl is the Son of God." (C. viii : 37.) 
 
 " But the Chief Captain^ Lyjias^ came 
 *' upon us, and, with great violence, took 
 ** him away out of our hands." (C. xxiv : 
 
 "7.) 
 
 More inftances need not be adduced, to 
 
 Ihew, that no argument is to be drawn from 
 
 O 2 any 
 
( 196 ) 
 
 SON. nny omiffiou of any Verfe, by any Tranfcrl- 
 ber, like this (d)» 
 
 XLIX. " No, nor in the ancient copies^ 
 " of the jirmenian Verfion^—^ 
 
 The Armeniam were converted to the 
 Chriftian faith, in the third century ; at whiclv 
 time Chriilianity became the eftabUftied re- 
 ligion of all ^r;«^;i/<7, under Tiridates, who 
 was then the King of that country. Until 
 this cera, the Armenians had poffeffed no 
 alphabet of their own ; but had made ufe 
 of Perfian, or Greek, charaders in writing. 
 Not long after the introdudion of Chrifti- 
 anity into that country, the famous Miefrob^ 
 who flourifhed in the end of the fourth, and 
 in the beginning of the fifth century, in- 
 vented the charad;ers, which have ever fince 
 been ufed by the Armenians. To this won- 
 derful man Armenia owes the Verfion of the 
 Scriptures, alfo, which it now polTeffes, as 
 well as its alphabet ; which Verfion was 
 
 finifhed 
 
 (d) JFetJle'm afcribes this Verfion t€t the fifth, or fixtli 
 century. [Proleg, no.) 
 
( 197 ) 
 f nlflied (e) very early in the fifth century. Dr. Be 
 
 This, however, was not the firil:, but the 
 third, Tranflation of the Scriptures, which 
 liad then been made by this extraordinary 
 man, affifted by Ifaac, the great Patriarch 
 of Armenia, The two former Verfions had 
 been rendered from the Syriac ; becaufe 
 Meruzan, who was, at that time, tho. Perjian 
 Governor of Aniienla^ and an enemy to 
 Chriftianity, had deflroyed all the Greek MSS 
 in the land : and had even prohibited the 
 Greeks y who lived in part of Armenia, from 
 ufing (/) any other than the Syriac language. 
 But, in a few years afterwards, the Armenians, 
 being delivered from all fear of Merttzan, and 
 being anxious to know whether their Ver- 
 O 3 fion 
 
 {e) Muhaelis^ Seil. 57, fays, that this Verfion was 
 flnifhed in A. D. 410. — 
 
 Sir Ifaac Newton (Objedion XXVIII, hereafter flated) 
 affirms that it hath been ufed by the Annen'iam ever fince 
 the age of Chryfojiom ; who died in A. D. 407, TheCe 
 accounts differ but very little in their aeras, and may be 
 reconciled by averyeafy fappofition : which is, that the 
 different books of Scripture were delivered out to the 
 clergy, and people, of Annm'ia, as they were 
 
 SEVERALLY TRANSLATED, [viz. in A. D. '405, &C ] 
 
 although the whole version was not finished until 
 A.D. 410. 
 
 (f) Hi/I. Mosis Chorenensis, Edit. IFhyhn. Lib. 
 iii, C. liv, p. 500. 
 
( 198 ) 
 
 ENsoM. fion, having been then rendered from the 
 Syriac alone, contained the true words of life, 
 fent deputies to the Greek Council, which 
 was held at Ephefus^ in A.D. 431. Thefe 
 deputies, being returned from Ephefus (fays 
 Mafes Cborenetifii) *' delivered to Isaac (the 
 *' Patriarch) and to Miesrob, the letters^ 
 *' and decrees, of that ^Jfembly, together with 
 *' a copy oj the Scriptures carefully writ- 
 *' TEN. IVhenlshKC, /?«^ Miesrob, had 
 *« received this copy, they chearfully took upon 
 ** thera the labor of tranjlating again that fa- 
 *' cred volume, which they had tranjlated twice 
 ** before. But finding themf elves fomewhat 
 ' ' deficient in knowledge"* * [of t h e Greek tongue] 
 ** they fent us to the famous School at Alex- 
 ** andria ; there to learn compleatly that ex- 
 *' ccllent language'^ Such was the great 
 induftry, which the Armenians of the fourth, 
 and fifth, centuries, ufed in order to obtain 
 an accurate Verfion of the Scriptures ; ren- 
 dering them twice from the Syriac Verfion, 
 and the third time from the Greek MSS. 
 
 This Verfion was not known, in zny printed 
 Copy, until the lafl century ; when it was 
 committed to the prefs, by order of an -^•- 
 
 menian 
 
C^99) 
 
 menlanCouncW^hddm A,D, 1662. I/Jean^ Dr. Be 
 ail Armenian Bifliop, was deputed by that 
 Council, to luperintend, in Europe, an im- 
 preffion of their Bible, in their own language. 
 He executed his comnaiffion, in A. D. 1668, 
 at Amjlerdam : and this impreffion contains, 
 without any mark of doubt, or fufpicion, 
 annexed to it, the Verfe, i. John^ v. 7. 
 
 Thus far, Sir, I have the good fortune to 
 concur with Mlchaells ; who feems to have 
 given by much the beft hiftory of this Ver- 
 iion, that has ever yet appeared. I am truly 
 cbncerned to feel myfelf compelled to dif- 
 ient from him, totally, in every other part, 
 (which (hall hereafter be ftated) of his rea- 
 fonings in refped to this excellent Verfion. 
 For, 
 
 I. MlchaeUs affirms, on the authority of 
 Sandlus, that *' he" [Ufcan] " did not find the 
 ** paflage, i.John, v. 7, in his MS, although 
 
 it ftands in Ufcan s edition." 
 
 «( 
 
 But the account, fo given by Sandhis, was 
 
 evidently (to fay the leaft of it) a miftakc. For 
 
 M. Simon\v2LS acquainted, at Paris, with Ufcan., 
 
 O 4 whilfl 
 
( 200 ) 
 
 JNS6N. whilft he was employed in executing his im- 
 portant- commiffion. And M. Simon (who 
 was not only a very learned, but, on the 
 whole, a candid, opponent of this verfe) ex- 
 prefsly admits, that UJcarC% impreffion could 
 not but be very accurate. " Ihe B'tjhop^'' 
 (fays he) " who was a judicious, anddifcreet^ 
 ** per/on, brought with him the most cor- 
 ** RECT MSS, which he carefully followed, 
 * ' j^nd thefe particulars I learned from the 
 ** Bishop himself." (^) 
 
 There is no difficulty in determining, 
 whether the preference, in point of credit, 
 is to be given to Sandius, or to M. Simon, in 
 the prefent cafe. If all other circumftances 
 were equal between thefe two witneffes 
 (which M. Simons great fund of learning 
 forbids us to fuppofe) the fad of M. Simon's. 
 being a ftrenuous opponent of the authen- 
 ticity of this verfe, decides the queflion en- 
 tirely in favor of his teflimony. The ac- 
 count of Sandius is the attack of a zealot, 
 fupporting his own partialities. The tefti- 
 
 mbny 
 
 {g) Hi/i. des Verfions, C. i6, and 17.— AJfo MUl'd 
 Prolcg, Edit. Oxon, A. D, 1707, p. 742. 
 
( 201 ) 
 
 monyof M. Simon is the confession of an Dr. Bki 
 adverfary, overthrowing his own p; ;pof- 
 feffions. The ballance of evidence cannot, 
 for a moment, hefuate in inclining to the 
 latter. 
 
 2. MichaeUs argues, that " as i his verfe 
 " was not in the oldefh Armenian MSS, 
 *' Haitho (King of Armenia^ from A. D. 
 *' 1224 to 1270) who nnderftood Latin^ 
 *' feems to have added it from the Vulgate." 
 
 This is hegging the queftion. It does not 
 appear, by any kind of proof, that this verle 
 was not in the oldeft Armenian MSS. So 
 far, indeed, is this ailbmption from being 
 true, that the very contrary appears from 
 the teftimony of M. Simon, hiiiifelf, which 
 hath been jufl related. 
 
 3. But MV/j'^^/Zi further infifts, that jyii///&(> 
 was " a fuperftitious Prince, that he tranf- 
 " lated all Jerome'^s prefaces, and turned 
 *' Friar before his death.'* 
 
 And fo he might. His being ftiperflitious 
 
 Of 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 Ienson. (If there be any meaning in that epithet, in 
 the prefent inftance) tranflating Jerome^ and 
 turning Friar, does not prove that this verfe 
 was not in the MSS of his nation long be- 
 fore he was born. 
 
 Indeed, the exiilencc of this palTage, in 
 the ancient MSS of Armentay feems clearly 
 to appear from an acknowledgment of A//- 
 chaelis, which follows ihe charges, which 
 have juft been confidered. He there con-r 
 feffes, that, " thirty-feven years 2Sxtx Haitho' ^ 
 *' death, this verfe is quoted in a Council 
 " held in Armenia^ and in other (Jo) Anne- 
 ** nian records. Now, this quotation, by 
 the Council, fo early after the death of 
 Haltho^ and without any remark, -or com- 
 ment, upon it, is a very ilrong argument 
 in favor of this verfe. Had it not exifted 
 in the Armenian Bibles, before the time of 
 Haitho, the members of that Council would 
 certainly have annexed, to their quotation 
 of it, fome note, to the reader, to inform 
 him that it had been once loll out of their 
 
 MSS; 
 
 [h) Galani Concilia, Lib. i. p. 436—478, And 
 Thef. Epift, La Croze, p, 4, and 69. 
 
( 203 ) 
 
 MSS ; or fome mark of acknowledgement Dr. BE^ 
 to the memory of Haitho, for having (as 
 they would, in that cafe, have exprefled 
 themfelves) reftored this verfe, 
 
 4. MlchaeUs, laflly, urges (Sed. 58) 
 that ** Ufcan acknowledges, in his Preface, 
 •* that he had altered fome things from the 
 *' Vulgate/' 
 
 But this obfervation proves nothing, as to 
 the prefent queftion. For Ufcan makes no 
 acknowledgement, of that kind, refpecling 
 this paflage of St. John. 
 
 And this fact, that Ufcan had made no 
 alteration as to this verfe, is further eftab- 
 lifhed by M. Simon : — who relates, that (i) 
 an Armenian, named Nicon, published a trea- 
 tife on this fubjedt, wherein he accufc-'l his 
 countrymen of having interpolated feveral 
 paflages in their Bibles. And he mentioned 
 Ltih% xxii : 43, 44, and di verfe other texts, 
 as particular inftances of fuch interpolation. 
 But he brought no charge, of this kind, 
 
 againft 
 
 (1) Littres Choifies, Ep. 24. (BIbl Critique, Tom. iv.) 
 
( 204 ) 
 
 ENsoM. agamft the verfe now in debate: — which is 
 a further proof that it anciently was, as it 
 now is, found in that Verfion. 
 
 Thus, then, Sir, I have produced the dire^ 
 authority of M. Simon^ to the exigence of 
 this paiTage in the ancient yfrw^«/^;zVerfion. 
 I have further enforced that dire(5l teftimony, 
 by circumjiantlal proof. In fo doing I have, 
 as I trufl, not only collected a body of evi- 
 dence, to this point, which will not be con- 
 troverted ; or, if controverted, will not be 
 iet afide : — but have, moreover, adduced a 
 frefh inftance of Greek authority, the 
 authority of a Council, in favor of the ori- 
 ginality of the text, i . John^ v. 7. 
 
 I fliould now. Sir, beg leave to difmifs 
 this objection, did it not feem requifite, pre* 
 vioufly, to take a fhort, general, review of 
 the conclufions, at which we feem to have ar- 
 rived, on this fubjed of the ancient Verjtons 
 of the New Teftament, 
 
 The ancient Verfions, then, of the New 
 Tcftament into various languages, are, — ar- 
 ranging 
 
( 205 ) 
 
 ranging them in order of time— the Old D^ Bsn! 
 Italic, (or Itala Fetus) the Version op 
 Jerome, the Syri AC, the Armenian, and 
 the Coptic. Thefe were all made in, or 
 before, xhtjtxth century. Of the reft, fome 
 are too modern, as the French, the Ruffian^ 
 and the Sclavonic, (which, however, will be 
 mentioned in' the next, fucceeding objedions) 
 to deferve the appellation of ancient Ver- 
 lions. And others, as the Arabic, PerJiaUy 
 and Eth'wpic,. are merely tranfcripts from 
 fome of thofe, which have jufl been men- 
 tioned, and therefore are not entitled to a 
 fpeclal enumeration. The Frankijh, errone- 
 oufly ftiled the Gothic (k) by fome of the 
 learned, is out of the prefent queftion ; for 
 it contains the Gofpels only. The^i;^, then, 
 herein firft mentioned, are all the ancient 
 Veriions of the Epiftles of the New Tefta- 
 ment, from their original Greek, which afFedl 
 the prefent debate. And here, — although 
 Dr. Ben/on has thought proper, in the outfet 
 of (I) his obfervations on this part of the 
 fubje£t, to affirm, that " the ancient verjlons 
 
 " havs 
 
 (k) Mlcbaelh, Se£l. 70, and 71. 
 
 Conthiet ijle codex quatuor Evangel i a, fed mulHa. " We T - 
 STEIN, P;W^^. p, 114.} 
 
 (/; Page 643. 
 
( 206 ) 
 
 ENsoM. « ija-ce NOT this dlfpiited text,'' yet — it feems, 
 from what has been premifed, undeniably 
 certain, that three, out of the whole 
 FIVE, of thefe ancient verlions, and Tw-o 
 out of the THREE mojl ancient of them all, 
 have uniformly exhibited the verfe, now in 
 queftion ! — 
 
 L. " // is not in the Riifian''^-^ 
 
 The modern Rujfmn^ is a younger branch 
 of the ancient Greek Church. The Ruffians 
 were converted to Chriftianity, by the Greeks^ 
 about the clofe of the tenth Century. From 
 the Greeks they received, not only the 
 Scriptures, but their ecclefiaftical difcipline ; 
 and they acknowledged the Gr^^^ Patriarch, 
 at Coiiflantinople, as the head of their Church, 
 until the feventeenth Century, when they 
 elected a Patriarch of their own country, 
 but {till without caufing, or wiftiing to 
 caufe, thereby, any abfolute feparation from 
 their Mother-Church. 
 
 It has been already {ni) proved, that the 
 
 ANCIENT 
 
 {m) Pages 48 — 50. 
 
( 207 ) 
 
 ANCIENT Greek Church (as it may be ftiled Dr. Ben: 
 for the fake of diftindllon) has given the moft 
 decided judgment in favor of the authentic!* 
 ty of this Verfe, by inferting it in its pub-« 
 lie Confeffion of Faith, and by reading it, 
 conftantly, in its publid fervice. The ufe, 
 in that Church, of the axoroAo?, {n) of which 
 this Verfe formed a part, has been traced up 
 la xkiz fourth^ or fifths Century after Chrift, 
 without finding, even there, the time when 
 it began to be fo ufed : from whence, as 
 hath been before remarked, the thinking 
 mind feels itfelf compelled to carry up the 
 commencement of that ufe almofl to, if not 
 entirely as far as, the age of the Apoilles. \ 
 
 Thus, then, the cafe ftands with the an- 
 cient Greek Church. It might have been 
 prefumed, without feeking for further proofs, 
 that the Rtiffian, or modern Greek, Church, 
 thus deriving its rudiments of Chriilianity 
 from the ancient one, would, with its Mother 
 Church, acknowledge this Verfe to be ge- 
 nuine. But, happily, we need not leave any 
 thing, even here, to prefumption. The 
 
 Verfe, 
 
 [n) See pa. 49-- 50, and i6g. 
 
( 20S ) 
 
 iNsoN. Verfe, in qucflion, poffeiles its place in all 
 the Ruffian {o) Nev,' Teftaments ; and is, 
 moreovi ^•, cited in the public Ccnfejjion of 
 faith, or Catechifm, of the RuJJian Church, 
 in the following exprefs manner : — 
 
 *' What the Father is according to his 
 *' nature, the fame is the Son, and the Holy 
 *' Ghoft. Now, as the Father is, in his 
 *' nature, true, and eternal, God, and Creator 
 *' of all things, vifible, and invifible, fuch is 
 " the Son, and fuch the Holy Gholl, being 
 *' confubftantial one with another ; accord- 
 *' ing to what the Evangelift, St. John^ 
 *' teaches, when he fays, There are three 
 *' which bear record in Heaven, the Father .^ 
 ♦' the Word, and the Holy Ghoji, and thefe 
 ** three are one^ 
 
 This Confeflion, (^) or Catechifm, was 
 drawn up by the Ruffians, and approved of 
 by Parthenius, Patriarch of Conjiantinople, in 
 A. D. 1643 ; was printed in Greek, and La^ 
 
 tin, 
 
 (0) The Sclovonlan Bible, of A.D. 1663, lias this 
 text printed in its margin, only ; All the Ruffian Bibles 
 have it in the body of the page. 
 
 (p) Martin'' i La Verite, Fart 2. C lO. 
 
( 209 ) 
 
 lin, 2XLeipJtc, In A. D. 1695, and ztMofcow, Dr. Ben 
 in A. D. 1 709. 
 
 LI. " Nor in the old French Verfton'^ 
 
 There was no ancient French Verfion of 
 any part of the New Teftament, except the 
 Frankijh, which was formerly called the 
 Gothic^ through mlflake. And that Verfion, 
 (although not ancient) does not, as was 
 obferved (q) before, afFe£t the pre fen t quef- 
 tlon. That which was made by the JVal^ 
 denfes, on their feparation from the Church 
 of Rome^ about A. D. 1160, feems to have 
 been (r) the next, In point of time, to the 
 Franktjh^ herein before mentioned. But this 
 Verfion of the Waldenfes^ together with the 
 Tranflatlon of Quiart des MouHns, In A. D. 
 1294, and of others, In flill later times, have 
 no claim to the appellation of oA/, or ancient, 
 Verdons. 
 
 LII. *^ ^nd there is even a great num*- 
 P " ber 
 
 (q) Page 2Q$. 
 
 (r) K, Vide KoRTHOLTi de variis Seriptur, Edit, 
 page 31 1.— 
 
( 210 ) 
 
 *' ber of MS copies of the vulgar latin ^ 
 " in various parts of Europe ^ in whick 
 " this text is not founds"* 
 
 And there IS a flill^r<rt7/^r number, beyond 
 all comparifon, in which this text is found. 
 Dr. Benfon, if living, would not confent to 
 have the caufe decided by the greater num- 
 ber of thefe Latin MSS. The argument, 
 therefore, was merely ad captandum ; and 
 proves nothing either to the advantage, or 
 to the credit, of the propofcr. 
 
 LIII. " //" [the Verfe in queflion] 
 *' is not once quoted in the genuine works 
 '• of any one of the greek fathers. For 
 ** in/iance ; // is not found , in Clemens 
 *' Romanus, Barnabas y Hernias, Ignatius^ 
 *' y«^/V? Martyr, Irenceus, Clemens A- 
 *' lexandrinus, Eufebius, Athanafius, E- 
 *' piphaniusy Didymus of Alexandria, Bafl 
 *' the Great, Gregory Nazianzene, Gre- 
 ** go7y Nyifene, Chryfoflome, Cyril of 
 *• Alexandria, ^c^ 
 
 Before we enter on this wide field of va* 
 
 cuityj 
 
(an ) 
 
 cuity — this region of night, and nothing,— Dr. Beni 
 let the two following, general rules be laid 
 down, as guides to lead us through it with 
 fafety, and difpatch. 
 
 I. That where a part on!y (perhaps but 
 a fmall part) of the works of any ancient 
 Father has defcended to us, we are not at 
 liberty to conclude, that a particular paflage 
 of Scripture has not been quoted at all by fuch 
 ancient Father, merely becaul'e it is not found 
 in th^t part of his works, which hath come 
 down to the prefent age. And 
 
 2. That where fuch ancient Fathers have 
 not cited, in thofe parts of their works which 
 remain to our times, other texts, confefledly 
 genuine, which would have been as applica- 
 ble to the fubjeft then in difcuffion, as this 
 paflage of St. Jobn, — no conclufive argument 
 is to be drawn, from fuch filence, againfl 
 the originality of the text in queftion. 
 
 Thefe two general rules being premifed, 
 lef us now proceed to particulars. And iirft«-« 
 
 P Z "It 
 
(.12) 
 
 ENsoN, M It Is not found in Clemens Alexandnnus,^'* 
 
 A part only of his works hath come down 
 to the prefent age. In that part he occa- 
 fionally treats of the Trinity, but he has not, 
 on that fubje£t, cited the text of the Baptif- 
 mal Inftitution, (i) which would have been 
 as applicable to his defign as this paffage of 
 St. John, By both the preceding rules, 
 therefore, no conclufive argument is to be 
 drawn from his filence, againft the origina- 
 lity of the Verfe in quellion. 
 
 " Nor in Alexander^ Bifhop of Alexandria^ 
 " Eufebius^ Epiphanius, or Gregory Naziim^ 
 
 Nor has the firfl of thefe, in his Epiille 
 sgainft Arius ; the fecond in his Tra6l: againft 
 the Sabellians ; the third, in his defence of 
 the Trinity, againft Noctus ; or the laft in 
 his Treatife on the Divinity of Jefm Chri/i ; 
 cited the words of the Baptifmal Inftitution. 
 
 (/) The 
 
 (i) ** Go ye, therefore, and teach" (or, viake difciples 
 of) " all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- 
 •' ther, and of the Son, and of the Ho]/ Ghoft.'* 
 MiUthtvu, xxviii: 19. 
 
( 213 ) 
 
 (/) The fecond of the precednig genei'al T>r. Ben 
 rules applies itfelf to all thefe Fathers, 
 
 *' Nor in Athanqfusy — 
 
 Whether theDIalogue httwQtnAthannJtus, 
 and Arlus, belongs to this Author, or not, 
 the Sytiopjis, («) herein before mentioned, 
 may, with great probability, be attributed 
 to him : the writer of which has plainly re- 
 ferred to the text in queflion. 
 
 As to the reft of the Greek Fathers, re- 
 cited in the obje^llon, they fall under the 
 former of the foregoing rules. Their works 
 have not defcended to us compleat. And 
 it feems that we are not at liberty (as is 
 there obferved^ abfolutely, and entirely, to 
 conclude, that this verfe has neVer been 
 quoted by them, merely becaufe it is not 
 found in that part of their works, which hath 
 furvived to the prefent times. 
 
 LIV. " Thev quoted this firjl efijlle of 
 
 [f] MarUn\ Diflertation, Part 2. C. 3. 
 \u) Page 102. 
 
(214) 
 
 ** St. Jobn, the fifth chapter^ and even 
 *' thejixih and eighth verfcs."" f p. 644.) 
 
 By th-" iiniverfality of thefe expreffions, it 
 {Koulci ietm that Dr. Benfon believed, or 
 wilhed his readers to believe, that all the 
 Greek Fathers herein before named, had 
 quoted the fixth, and eighth, verfes of this 
 Chapter. But that is a miftake, or a mifre- 
 prefentation ; for only three of thefe Fathers 
 feem to ftand in this predicament, namely 
 Clemens Alexandrinm^ Gregory Ncizlanzene^ 
 and Cyril of Alexandria. 
 
 As to the firfl of thefe, no part of his Com- 
 mentary (if indeed {x) it be his) on this 
 Epiftle, hath defcended to the prefent age, 
 except a few fcattered fragments. Thefe 
 fragments make no mention of the five firft 
 verfes of this Chapter ; they juft touch upon 
 the fixth, giving only the firft words of it. 
 They then pafs from the eighth, to the end 
 
 of 
 
 {x) Dr. Cave does not believe thefe fragments to have 
 "been the work of Clemens Alcxandrinns. (Hift. Lit. Land. 
 Edit. A. D. 168B, p. 56.) 
 
 Thefe fragments may be found ( fuch as they are) in 
 Maf<, Bibl, Patrum^ Vol. 3. pa, 232. 
 
of the eleventh, verfe ; then omitting the Dr. Ef 
 two next following verfes, and part of the 
 fourteenth, they end with the lafl claiife of 
 the nineteenth, verfe. From fuch disjointed 
 members of a Commentary, even if allowed 
 to be the work of Clcjnens Alexandrinus^ no- 
 thing conclufive can be inferred. 
 
 With refped to the other two Greek Fa- 
 thers, they feem to fall under the objection 
 of omijjions in general, which will be con- 
 fidered hereafter. 
 
 i( 
 
 LV. " As to the latin fathers. The 
 author of the ire at if e about the baptfm 
 " of heretics, fuppofed to be co- temporary 
 *' with St. Cyprian, hath quoted the 
 *' Jixth and eighth verfes ; but taken no 
 " notice of the feventh. Which, as it 
 *' fljews he knew nothing of the feventh 
 " verfe, affords a very frong and cogent 
 *' argument for the fuppofition, that nei- 
 ** ther had Cyprian this text in his 
 ** copies, ^^ 
 
 Du Pin fays of the Author of this Trea- 
 P 4 tifb, 
 
( *>6 ) 
 
 NsoN. tife, (y) — " He was, perhaps, aContem- 
 '* porary with St. Cyprian y-^Vir, Pearfoii 
 {%) calls it, the work of an unknown Author » 
 Such teftimonies as thefe are no proofs, even 
 of the antiquity of this Treatife. But whether 
 ancient, or modern, the conclufion, here 
 drawn by Dr. Benfon, is unwarranted, and 
 groundlefs. The Writer of the Treatife, in 
 the paflage referred to, fpeaks, as was ufual 
 with the Divines of that age, of three forts 
 of Baptifm ; namely, by the Water, by the 
 Spirit, and by the Blood, On this topic he, 
 properly, quotes the Jtxth, and eighth, Verfes 
 of this Chapter of St. John, The words of 
 the feventh Verfe did not relate to his fub- 
 jea. (^) 
 
 <c 
 
 LVI. " Didymus of Alexandria, /n 
 the fourth ; Bede in the eighth ; and 
 *' Oecumenius, in the eleventh, century, 
 ** wrote, each of them, a commentary up- 
 *' an thisfirft epiflle of St. John. Butfo 
 
 ''far 
 
 (y) Du Pin, Vol. I. Land. Edit. A.D. 1692, p. 155. 
 
 (z) Cyprian'?, works. Ed. Pearfon (int. op. falf.) p. 2r. 
 \a) Appendix, No. XVII j where this part of the 
 Treatife is fet forth from the originaJ. 
 
** far were they from explaining this dlj- Dr. Bensi 
 ** puted text, that they have not fo much 
 ** as mentioned it. Which Jhews, that 
 •* they either knew nothing of It, or did 
 ** not believe It to be genuine ^ 
 
 Dldymus did not write a regular Commen- 
 tary, but fome loofe, and defultory. Notes 
 en this Epiftle of St. John. In thefe Notes, 
 all the Verfes, from the ffth to the four- 
 teenth, of this Chapter, are wanting. The 
 inference, then, that Dldymus " knew no- 
 ** thing of this text, or did not believe it to 
 ** be genuine/* becaufe he has not made 
 fpecial mention of it in his Commentary, 
 will apply jufl as forcibly to all the other 
 Verfes thus omitted, as to the feventh. If 
 the argument proves any thing, it concludes 
 equally againfl all thefe Verfes. But it 
 proves too much ; and, of courfe, proves 
 nothing. (F) 
 
 As to Bede, who comments upon xhefxth, 
 and eighth, but pafles over the feventh, Verfe, 
 his filence affords grounds for a flight ful- 
 
 picion, 
 
 ; (^) ff^olfius, Cur. Philol. ve], v, p. 301. 
 
( 2i8 ) 
 
 Benson, plclon, that he did not know this text, or 
 that he did not believe it to be genuine. 
 But the fufpicion feems to vaniih, on a due 
 confideration of the following obfervations, 
 
 I. Bede was not ignorant of the exigence 
 of this text. He had read the works of 
 Cyprian, and Fulgentius ; and he, virtually, 
 admits the teftimony of the four hundred 
 jyrican Bifhops, recorded by Ficior Vhenjis : 
 for he has cited all thefe Authors in his 
 works. But what feems decifive as to Bede's 
 knowledge of the Verfe, is, that the Verlion 
 of Jerome^ in which this text has always 
 pollefled its place, had not only been adopt- 
 ed by the learned, but publicly read in the 
 Churches, for more than a century before 
 Bede began his Commentary. " Remigius^'' 
 (fays (c) M. Shnoii) " Rahanus, Hahno, An^ 
 " felmus, &c. and, finally, all other Eccle- 
 *' fiaftical Writers for more than nine hundred 
 *' years paft, have adhered fo clofely to the 
 "•' New" {Jerome'^) " Edition, that all other 
 
 ■" Veifions 
 
 (c) Hifl-. Crit. dcs Veifions, C. vil, viii, and ix ; and 
 Le Long, Bibl. Sacr. C. iv. Scl"^. i. Edit. Paris. A. D. 
 1723, p. 229. 
 
( 219 ) 
 
 *' Verfions have been utterly loft, at leaft Dr. Ben 
 *' as to their ufe.'* 
 
 Nor does this obfervation depend upon 
 the teftimony of M. Simon alone. It flands 
 upon the moft folid foundation, the authori* 
 ty of Bede himfelf ; who very frequently 
 refers to Jerome % Verfion, entitling it nos- 
 TRAM edhionem^'' and nostros rot-Z/rjj;" 
 and defcribing Jerojue by the affedionate 
 appellation of " Inter pres nojler,^^ (^) The 
 fuppoiition, theri, that Bede " knew nothing 
 of this text," cannot be maintained, even 
 for a fingle moment. 
 
 2. Nor does the other fuppofition, found- 
 ed alfo on the filence of Bede, namely, that 
 he did '' not beheve this text to be genuine," 
 feem more defenfible than that which pre- 
 ceded it. For Bede podelled no fmall fhare 
 of the learning of thofe days, particularly as 
 to the Greek language; and his pradlice, in 
 other parts of his Commentary, was, con- 
 
 ftantly 
 
 {d) See h!s works, pajfim. 
 
 Bede was, alfo, the precepfor of Alculnm^ of wbofe 
 CorreSiorium (which contained this Verte) m^ation is 
 made in p. 43 of thefe Letters. 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 Benson, ftantly to advertife his readers, whenever 
 any pafTage occurred in the vulgar copies, 
 which was not found in the Greek MSS. 
 But he has fixed no imputation of this kind 
 on the Verfe in queftion. He has pafTed it 
 over in filence. And how is that filence to 
 be accounted for ? He either found this 
 Verfe in his Greek Copies, or he did not. 
 If he did not find it there^ it muft be prefumed 
 that he would have apprifed his readers of 
 the deficiency in this, as he did in other in- 
 fiances. His filence, alone, in fuch a cafe, 
 would not have been fufficient. Where it 
 is a duty to fpeak, to be filent is to be crimi- 
 nal. We cannot prefume thus of the " Ve- 
 nerable Bede^"* without having more fub- 
 flantial grounds, for the prefumption, than 
 mere conjeclure. 
 
 The conciuflon, then, feems to be, that 
 Bede DID FIND this Verfe in his Greek Copies, 
 His practice, in other cafes, warrants, the 
 fan£lity of his chara£ler even hallows, this 
 conclufion. Standing fingly, thefe circum- 
 flances form, each, a probable proof, — united, 
 they prefs conviflion home upon the mind, — 
 
 that 
 
( 221 ) 
 
 that Bede believed this Verfe to he genuine ; Elr. Benso 
 and that, from whatever other motive his 
 fllence, in regard to it, may be conjedured 
 to have proceeded, he had no fcruples to 
 communicate refpedting its authenticity, and 
 truth. 
 
 As to Oecumetilus, who lived fo late as the 
 eleventh Century, no inference can be drawn 
 from any omljjion, on his part, which can 
 impeach the originahty of this Verfe. It 
 has been already fhcwn, by ^ cloud of wltnejfesy 
 by proofs too numerous to be- here repeated, 
 that this text did exift, in his times, in the 
 Epiftle of St. John. 
 
 Thus far. Sir, for thofe objedions of Dr. 
 Ben/on^ which appropriate themfelves to 
 particular objedts, and may be met by parti- 
 cular anfwers. And thus I beg leave to dif- 
 mifs, for the prefent, at leaft, his Differtation : 
 which for intrepidity of aflertion, difingenu- 
 oufnefs of quotation, and defe£livenefs of 
 concluiion, has no equal, — ftands aloof be- 
 yond all parallel, — as far as my reading ex- 
 tends, either in ancient, or in modern, times ! 
 
 I am, Sir, &;c. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I NOW proceed to a conrideratlon of the Newton', 
 objedilons, which have been urged againfl: 
 the authenticity of the Verfe, i. John^ v. 7, 
 by the late Sir Isaac Newton. 
 
 The learned Dr. Horjley has jiifl given 
 thefe objections to the public, in the ffth 
 Volume of his Edition of the works of this 
 illuflrious man ; to which he has prefixed 
 the following advertifement. 
 
 " A FERT imperfedf copy of this tran, 
 ** wanting both the beginning and the end,, and 
 ** erroneous in many places,, was publi/Jjed at 
 ** Lo?idon in the year 1754, under the title of 
 *' Two Letters from Sir Ifaac Newton to Mr, 
 ^ L€ Clerc, But in the Author's MS, the 
 
 ** whole 
 
( 224 ) 
 
 EWTON. <c whole is one continued difcourfe ; ivhkh, a!" 
 ** though it is conceived in the epijlolary form^ 
 ** is not addrejfed to k^y particular perfon, 
 
 ** // is nowfirf puhlljhed entire from a MS, 
 ** in the Author's hand-writingy in the pof- 
 *' fejjion of the Rev, Dr, Ekens, Dean of 
 " Carlisle." (a) 
 
 The obje£lioiis, urged by this moft ref- 
 pe6:able antagonift of the verfe, in queilion^ 
 ■are, principally, as follows.— 
 
 I. ** The arguments alledged for the 
 ** teflimony of the Three in Heaven, are 
 .** the authorities of Cyprian^ AihanaJtuSt 
 *' and Jerome^ and of many Greek MSS^ 
 •* and almofi all the Latin ones^ — (p. 
 496.) 
 
 This enumeration is candid, and has no 
 fault but that of being incompleat. Befide 
 thefc authorities, and within the limit, as to 
 time, of the century, in which Jerome lived, 
 
 the 
 
 {a) Du Horf.ey has obligingly informed me, that he 
 linds nothing in the MS to^jfccrtaia the time when this 
 tradi was compofed. 
 
( 225 ) 
 
 the reading of this Verfe in the azroroxc?, the Newton. 
 direfl references to, or exprefs citations of, 
 it, by Tertullian, Phabadms, Marcus Celeden- 
 Jis^ Auguftine, Eticherius, and Figilitis^ and its 
 exiftence in the Armenian^ and Old Italic^ 
 Verlions, (b) — are concurrent teftimonies of 
 its authenticity : all of which, neverthelefs, 
 are here totally pafTed by, and omitted, 
 
 II. " Cyprian s words run thus : The 
 *' Lord faith, I and my Father am One. 
 *' And again of the Father, Son, and 
 " Holy Ghofl: it is written ; And thefe 
 *' Three are One. The Socmlans here 
 *' deal too injurloujly with Cyprian^ while 
 *' they would have this place corrupted i 
 '* for Cyprian In another place'* [Epif. 
 ad Jubalanum] " repeats the fame thing, 
 " Thefe places of Cyprian, being In my 
 * ' opinion genuine, feemfo appofte to prove 
 *' the tefilmony of the Three In Heaven^ 
 " thar^-{^. 497-) 
 
 This extradl contains another, pleafing, in- 
 
 fiance of candor in this illuftrious objedor- 
 
 Thefe paffages in Cyprian are, undoubtedly, 
 
 Q^ as 
 
 [b] Pages 30—56, 
 
( 226 ) 
 
 EwTON. as " genuine," as they are clearly '' appo- 
 . " fite to prove the teftimony of the Three in 
 " Heavenr--' 
 
 III. *' I JJoould never have fufpedled a 
 " mljiake in it,'' [viz. the teftimony of 
 the Three in Heaven, as fet forth by 
 Cyprian"] " could I but have reconciled 
 " it with the ignorance I meet with of 
 " this reading in the next age, among fi 
 *' the Latins of both Africa, and 'Europe^ 
 " as well as among the Greeks.'''' — 
 
 Cyprian fufiered martyrdom m the latter 
 part of the third century. The " ?iext age,^* 
 therefore, to that of Cyprian, is the fourth 
 century. And in that century, Pho'badius 
 among the Latins of Europe, Jerome among 
 thofe of A/ia, and Marcus Celedenjts, and Au- 
 gufline, among thofe o^ Africa, have directly 
 quoted, or referred to, this teftimony of the 
 Three in Heaven, The fame century, alfo, 
 holds forth to us tlie difputatlon (whether 
 real, or feigned) between Arius, and Athana^ 
 fus, the Synopfsoi St. y<3Z;«*s Epiftle, and the 
 ufe of the aTroroT^o?, among the Greeks : {c) 
 
 which 3 
 
 (^c) Pages 30—56, a«d loi— 10^, 
 
( 227 ) 
 
 which, all, exhibit the fame teftlmony. NiwTot^. 
 
 Sir Ipiac Nezvton' s :irgument, then, is this, 
 *' Tbere is an ignorance of this verfe, in 
 the next age to Cyprian, amongft both Latins, 
 ^W Greeks. Had it not been Jo ^ I JJjouId not 
 even have suspected a mijtake in Cyprian's 
 quotation.^'' — The anfwer to which is — The 
 next age to Cyprian was not ignorant 
 of this verfe, as Sir Ifaac Newton improperly 
 imagined. The quotation of it therefore by Qy^ 
 prian, 'tt'/zj not a mistake, as he erroneous^ 
 h fufpetied' ' — The fuppofed ignorance^ then , 
 upon which Sir Ifaac Newton here builds 
 his fufpicion of a miflake in Cyprian^ quota- 
 tions, does not exift. The fufpicion itfelf, 
 confequently, falls to the ground. And thus, 
 by Sir Ifaac s own argument, the queftion is 
 already decided in favor of the authenticity 
 of the verfe, in queftion. 
 
 It appears evident, from thefe conlide- 
 rations, that had Sir Ifaac Newton been 
 acquainted with the whole of the evidence, 
 which tends to fupport the authenticity of 
 this Verfe ; (a confiderable part of which 
 feems to have been entirely > unknown to 
 Qji him) 
 
( 228) 
 
 f^EWTON-. biiTj) he would not have written this trea- 
 the, now under confideration, which ftrives 
 to overthrow it. The plain import of his 
 own argument warrants the former con- 
 clufion. His known candor infers the latter, 
 
 IV. " For had it been in Cyprian\ 
 
 *' Bible, the Latins of the next age, when 
 
 *' all the It- or Id was engaged in difpuiing 
 
 " about the Trinity, and all arguments 
 
 *' that could be thought oj, were diligent" 
 
 ■^ ly fought out, and daily brought upon 
 
 *^ the f age, could never have been igno- 
 
 '^ rant of a text, which, in our age, 7wiAf 
 
 ^^ the difpute is over^ ischiefy infifled up^ 
 
 '' our 
 
 Sir Ifaac Newton, in this objedion, flill 
 prefies the former argument of a fuppofed 
 ignorance of this Verfe, in the fourth century, 
 and during the Arian controverfy. The 
 fuppofition of fuch an ignorance hath been 
 abxady refuted. The argument, as to the 
 Arian controverfy, will he more properly 
 conlidered hereafter, {d) 
 
 V. '* In 
 
 (d) See objc<5iion XXXII, of Sir Ifaac xVirtf/^;:;— where 
 this queftioa is Itated, and confidcred. 
 
(229 ) 
 
 V. ** In reconciling this difficulty ^ I Newtou. 
 " conJiJer, therefore, that the only tvords 
 ** of the text quoted by Cyprian in both 
 ** places^ are. And thele three are one : 
 ** which words may belong to the eighth 
 ** verfe as well as thefeventh. For Eu- 
 ** cheriui, Bljhop of Lion in France, and 
 *' contemporary to St. Aujlin, reading the 
 *' text without the feventh verfe, tells us, 
 ** that many then underjlood the Spirit, 
 " the Water, and the Blood, to fignlfy 
 *' the Trinltyr— 
 
 Cyprian's words are (as bath been before 
 llated) " Of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi, 
 ** IT IS WRITTEN, (^) And thcfe three are 
 *' one,^^ Thefe words cannot be underflood 
 to have been taken, by Cyprian, from the 
 eighth veife ; becaufe // is NOT fo written^ 
 in the eighth \cr(c. 
 
 And, as to Fucherius, the argument here 
 kififted upon, overthrows itfelf. For Eu* 
 cherius has, in another part of his works, {f^ 
 diredly cited t\\t feventh verlb. 
 
 0^3 VI. '* And 
 
 (/) Pages 73—93. 
 
 If) Pages 32, and 79 — 82. 
 
( 230 ) 
 
 VI. '' And St. Aujiln h one of thofe 
 *' many, as you may fee in his third book 
 " againft Maximus, where he tells us, 
 " that the Spirit is the Father, for God is 
 " a Spirit ; the Water the Holy Ghoji, 
 *' for he is the Water, which Chrift gives 
 *' to them that thirft ', and the Blood, the 
 *' Son ; for the word was madeflefhr — 
 
 (p. 498.) 
 
 Augufine may be one of thofe, who have 
 wifhed to underftand the eighth Verfe, as 
 being typical of the Trinity. And this 
 pafl'age from the third book of his treatife 
 againft Maximinus (not Maximus) the Arian, 
 may be a proof of it. But it is no proof 
 that he did not read the feventh verfe in his 
 bible. In fad, he nbt only read it there, 
 but has fhewed us, in his fecond book againft 
 the fame Maximinus, that, like Eucherius, he 
 knew how to interpret it, when he thought 
 proper to bring it forward. (^^ For his words 
 there are (as hath been before ftated, — 
 ♦* There are three perfons^"" [in the Godhead] 
 *' the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofl\ And 
 
 *' THESE 
 
 U) See page 35. 
 
( ^31 ) 
 
 " THESE THREE (becaufe they are of the Newt* 
 
 ^'' fame ejfe^ice) are one. And they are 
 
 *' compkiely one, there being in them no differ- 
 
 * ' ence in nature^ or in will. These three, 
 
 *^ therefore^ who are one ; through that ifi- 
 
 '' defcribable union, in which they are joined 
 
 ♦' together in the Godhead, are one God.'* 
 
 Whatever might be the cafe, with the 
 expreflions which are quoted in the objeclioii, 
 it feems impoffible that Augiifline cout.d 
 have the eighth verfe in view, in the lafl pro- 
 ceeding extrafl. For he therein Ipcxiks of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofl, who are 
 of the fame ejfence, or fubfiance, and In whom 
 there is no difference in nature, or in will. 
 Whereas the things, not perfons, fpoken of 
 in the eighth verfe, are not either of the fame 
 nature, or of the fame fub/iatice ; nor can 
 they be faid to have any will at alL 
 
 VII. " Now if it was the opinion of 
 ** many^ iri the Wefiern Churches of thofe 
 ^' times, that the Spirit, the water, and 
 *' the blood, fignified the Father, the Son, 
 " and the Holy Ghojl, it is plain, that the 
 Qjf *' teffimony 
 
( 232 ) 
 
 ** tejltmony of the Three in Heaven njoas 
 ** not crept Into their books, ^* 
 
 It might be the ophiion of both Eu^ 
 cher'ms, and Augujiine^ as hath been already 
 obferved, that the Spirit, Water, and Blood, 
 in the eighth verfe, did fignify (typically) 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. 
 And yet is plain, that the teftimony of the 
 Three In Heaven^ in the feventh verfe, had, 
 nevertheiefs, then crept into their booh. For 
 they not only tell us, very plainly, that they 
 found that teftimony in their books', but they 
 give us this Information without any marks 
 either of furprife, or of indignation : — which 
 fhews that they had no doubts either of its 
 antiquity, of its authenticity. 
 
 VIII. *' Even without this teftimony^ 
 *' // was obvious for Cyprian^ or any 
 " man elfe of that opinion^ ^o fay of the 
 " Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi, It is 
 *' written. And thefe three are one." 
 
 It is obvious that Cyprian, or any other 
 Writerp might, and perhaps would, expound 
 
 the 
 
1 233 ) 
 
 the eighth verfe, as being typically expreflive NEWTo^». 
 of the Trinity, if he really thought fo. But 
 he would not fay, at the fame time, " It 
 IS WRITTEN, in the eighth Fcrfe, of the Fa* 
 iher. Son, afid Holy Ghoji, And these 
 THREE ARE ONE,'* — if he paid any re- 
 gard to truth : becaufe it never was fo writ* 
 ten, in any part of the eighth verfe. 
 
 The objections, which follow, as to Fa- 
 cundus, and Tertuilian^ have already been ob- 
 viated ; (h) and therefore require no further 
 confideration. 
 
 IX. *' ^S'^ then this ifJterpretation feems 
 " to have been invented hy the Montanijls 
 ^^ for giviyig count eiiance to their trinity, 
 *' For ^ertullian was a Montanijl^ when 
 *' he wrote thisJ''' (p. 500.) 
 
 This obje£lion feems to abound in mif- 
 tukes. 
 
 It is, in the firft place, far from being 
 clear that JeriulHan was a Montanijl^ when 
 
 he 
 
 {h) Pages 64—73, ^^^ 82—84. 
 
( 234 ) 
 
 riwTON. he wrote his Treatife againfl Praxeas, In 
 the life o^TertuUian, prefixed to the Edition 
 of his works by Rigaltius^ (J) this treatife is 
 affirmed to have been written, before the 
 opinions of Montanus were adopted by l^er- 
 iulUan, 
 
 But admitting, for the fake of argument 
 alone, that ^ertullian was a follower of Mo7i' 
 tanus, when he wrote his treatife againil 
 Praxeas, — what was the Trinity of the Alon- 
 tanifis f ^piphanius affirms, that the Mon- 
 tanijls (^) held the fame opinion, as to the 
 Trinity, which was entertained by the ca- 
 tholic Church, in general. While 'Jerome 
 pofitively aiierts, that the Montamfis (/) 
 thought like SahelUus in that refpe£l, — 7n- 
 nltatetn in unius perjona angujilas cogentes. 
 
 And 
 
 (/) Edit. 'Pam. A. D. 1675. 
 
 i^k) Ilffi h Trar^of, &c. De Patie, enim, et Filio, ct 
 Spiritu fauclo, fmiiliter cum ecclefia catholica fentiunt. 
 
 Epiph. adv. Hisr. Lib. ii. Tom. i. Edit.Pi^m. A.D. 
 1622, p. 402. 
 
 (I) Nos Patrem, et Fillum, et Spiritum fandum, in 
 fua unumquemque perfona ponimus. lUi, (viz. Mon^ 
 taniJicE) dogma Sabellii fedantes, Trinitatem in unius 
 perfonae anguftias cogunt. 
 
 HiERON. adverfus ^Montamim^ vcl. ii. p. 4.4, A. (F.d, 
 Erafm. A. D. 1546.) 
 
( 235 ) 
 
 And now, Sir, whether of thefe hiterpre- Newton. 
 tatlons of the " Trinity of the Montanijis^'* 
 fhall we adopt, in order to give countenajice 
 to the preceding objection ? If that of Epi- 
 phanius, — the Montanijis wanted no counte- 
 nance to be given to their Trinity, in parti- 
 cular, becaufe it was the fame with that of 
 the Chriilian Church, in general. And if 
 that of Jerome^ — the Montaii'ijls had NO 
 Trinity, to which they could give counte- 
 nance ; becaufe, being Sabellians, they did 
 not hold the dodrine of a Trinity at all. 
 
 The fach, however, upon the whole, feem 
 to be, that Jerome's account of the Afcw/J- 
 nifls is the true one. For Jerome lived in 
 the vicinity of the ancient Phrygia, where 
 tlie errors of Montaniis were almofb univer- 
 fally followed: from which circumftance the 
 appellation of Cataphryges is frequently ap- 
 plied to the Montanijis by ancient writers. 
 And that TertuUian was not a Montaniji (as 
 hath been already obferved) when he wrote 
 the treatife againft Praxeas ; but a believer, 
 with Jerome, in the catholic do6trine of a 
 Trinity J of three perfons, and o?2e God {cfui 
 
 TEES' 
 
( ^36) 
 
 ^fiWToN. TRES UNUM SUNT, are TertuII'iarfs own 
 words) as then, and now, taught bv the ca- 
 tholic [or univerfaij Church of Chrift. 
 
 X. *' What is [aid of the teflimonyof 
 " TertulUan^ and Cyprian,^'' fviz. that 
 their words were only a forced interpre- 
 tation of the eighth verfej " maybe much 
 " more f aid of that in the feigned difpu- 
 * * iation of Athanafiiis with Arim at Nice, 
 •* For there the words cited are only Thefc 
 *' three are one, without naming the 
 " p^fons of the trinity before them,** 
 (p. 500.) 
 
 The expreffions of this Dialogue, or Dif- 
 putation, (as hath been before ftated) are, (m) 
 ** Is not that lively^ and faving, baptifm^wherc' 
 by we receive remifjion of fins ^ adminifieredin the 
 name rf the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofi? 
 And moreover St. John fays. And ihese 
 
 THREE ARE ONE." 
 
 The words thus cited, then, are not Thefe 
 three are one^ without naming (for they do 
 
 cxprefsly 
 
 {m) Page lOl, 
 
( 237 ) 
 
 exprefsly name) the perfons of the Trinity he* Newton-, 
 fore (and immediately before) them, 
 
 XI. " Ihef [alfo] " ^r^— H«, oi y^i 
 " TO £1- sjo-ifc' — and they are taken cut of tbs 
 " eighth Verfer 
 
 This conclufion is by no means to be ad- 
 mitted. The premifes warrant the very 
 contrary deduclion, viz. that the words, ci« 
 ted in this Dialogue, are not taken from the 
 eighth verfe. For the claufe, here referred 
 to, wherever it (lands in the eighth Verfe, 
 is (not TO IV only, but) £k to fv, univerfally. 
 
 XII. *' The Greeh interpreted the Spl^ 
 ^ " r/V, Water ^ and Bloody of the Trinity^ 
 
 " as well as the Latins \ as is manifefi 
 " from tide annotations they made on this 
 " text in the margin af fome of their 
 " MSS. For in the margin of one MS, 
 " in the Library oj the King of France 
 *' {about ^oo years old) over againjl the 
 ^"^ former claufe of the eighth Verfe are 
 " written — The Holy Ghoil, and the 
 ** Father, and He of himfelf — and over 
 
 *' agalnfi 
 
(238) 
 
 " aga'tnft the latter claufe. One Deity, 
 *' one God. And the margin of the fame 
 " Verje^ In another In M. Colberfs Libra- 
 *' ;j, thefe uwrds. One God, one God- 
 *' head — The teftimony of God the 
 *' Father, and of the Holy Ghofl/* 
 (p. 501.) 
 
 Some of the Latins did, we know, inter- 
 pret the expreffions of the eighth Verfe in 
 this manner. And fome of the Greeks might 
 do the fame. But it will not follow, from 
 thence, that they had not the feventh Verfe 
 in their MSS. Eucherius, for inftance, Au- 
 gufiine, and Facimdus have adopted this myf- 
 tical interpretation of the eighth Verfe, 
 And yet it is mofl certain, that Eucherius 
 DID read the feventh Verfe in his Bible, 
 The quotations, which have been before re- 
 ferred to, from uiugufine^ will hardly permit 
 a ferious doubt as to its being found in his 
 Bible, likewife. And the fame conclufion 
 has been already drawn, («) in refpe£l to the 
 Bible of Facimdus \ and ftands as it feems, 
 upon the moft folid foundations. 
 
 XII. " Thefe 
 
 («) Pa^es 32, 35, and 79— S4. 
 
( ^39 ) 
 
 XII. " Thefe marginal notes fufficmiU Newt 
 " lyfiew how the Greeks ufed to apply 
 " this texf' [the eighth Verfe] " to 
 *' the Trinity y and, by confequence, how 
 *' the author of that difputation is to be 
 ** underjlood,^* 
 
 This conclufion is defective in all its 
 parts. If the two marginal notes, in quef- 
 tion, Ihallbe admitted to fhew that the two 
 refpedtive poffeffors, or copyifts, of thofe two 
 particular MSS. applied the eighth Verfe to 
 the Trinity; they will be ftill very far from 
 proving the fame thing of the Greeks, in ge- 
 neral. But even if both thefe proportions 
 Ihould be granted, the confequence, juft al- 
 ledged, will be as remote as ever from the 
 premifes. For *' the Author of this Difpu^ 
 *' tation, is not to be underflood," as applying 
 the eighth Verfe to the Trinity, in this pafi- 
 age; becaufe, as hath been before obferved, 
 he has not cited, in this paffage, the words 
 •f the eighth Verfe. 
 
 XIV. " But IJhould teilyou alfo, thai 
 *' that Difputation was not writ by Atha- 
 
 ^ najius^ 
 
( 240 ) 
 
 " K.TfMs^ hut by a later author-, andtherc' 
 *' fore, as a Jpurious ptece^ ufes not to he 
 ' ' much tnjtjied on' * 
 
 The queftion, whether this Difputation 
 IS fpurious, or, in other words, whether it 
 was written by Athanafius, or not, — has been 
 much debated, but does not feem to be as 
 yet determined. The lime, when it was writ- 
 ten, is of much more importance in thepre- 
 fent enquiry. And that feems to have been 
 already fixed, by the aid of the Treatife it- 
 felf, (o) to the joint reign of Corjlantine and 
 Conjlant'ius, which ended in A. D. o^-i^j. The 
 circumflances of its being written in the 
 Greek language, of its very high antiquity, 
 and of its referring to St. 'John by name, 
 will always give a moil: powerful influence 
 to the teilimony of this Dialogue, or Difpu- 
 tation, in fivor of the authenticity of the 
 Yerfe, i. John, v, 7. 
 
 XV. " The jirji upon record, that In* 
 " ferted it, is Jerome, if the Preface to 
 *' the canonical epifiks be hi^^'* 
 
 The 
 
 (•) Page 1 01 — 102. 
 
( MI > 
 
 The preface to the canonical Epiftles, it Newtoi 
 is trufted, hath been already proved (^) to 
 be Jerome\, And yet he is not the firjl 
 upon record^ that inferted the Verfe. It was 
 received by the Latin Church long before 
 'Jerome ^ Tranflation was made, and indeed 
 long before 'Jerome himfelf was born ; be- 
 caufe it hath always ftood in the old Italic 
 Verfion, which was made in the (Jecond^ if 
 not in the) Jirji century after Chrifl:. This 
 matter hath been already flated at large. (^) 
 
 XVI. " For which he'' [Jerome] 
 *' cornpofed not a new tranjlation of the 
 " New Tejlament^ but only corre^ed the 
 ** ancient vulgar Latin,'* — (p. 502.) 
 
 He cornpofed a new Tranflation of the 
 New Teflament, from the Greek. Augujiine 
 calls it fo, who was Jerome's contemporary, 
 and correfpondent. *' JVe heartily thank God 
 ^^ for your Translation.'* (r) Nzy Jc^ 
 rome himfelf calls it fo, in efFed. His ex- 
 R preflion 
 
 (/>) Pages 92 — no. 
 (?) Pages 186—188. 
 (rj Page Io6. 
 
( 242 ) 
 
 ^J^FTOK. prefTion, upon this fubjcd, is not correxi^ or 
 cajligiivi, but reddidi, (j) repeatedly. 
 
 XVII. '* He' [Jerome] ** conipIainSy 
 ** in the fame Preface, how he was there- 
 ** upon accufed, by forne of the Latins^ 
 '* for faljifying Scripture ^ — 
 
 Permit mc, Sir, to- take this objedlion in 
 detail. It may af]ifl; us, perhaps, in coming 
 to an early, as well as a latisfa6lory, conclu- 
 fion. 
 
 Jerome, then, in his Preface to the Ca- 
 nonical Epiflles, complains of the miulicious 
 accufations of his enemies. They pronounce 
 me (fays he) a faJfifier of Scripture — " me 
 *' f afar turn pronunchint,^'' But have they 
 fpecified their accufations, and mentioned 
 the particular parts of Scripture, which they 
 
 affirm 
 
 (i) Pages 33, and 9Q. 
 
 Jerome, it"is true, upon one occafion ufes the word, 
 'tmendatiorie, when fpcal:ing of his own New Tefta- 
 meat. And the learned Hody (p. 351) has aigued, 
 from that exprt-Hion, that Jcrcme did not make a neu/ 
 'rranflation, but only corrected the old one. And, in- 
 deed, had Jerome never ufcd any other cxpreflion, ref- 
 peciing his work, than that, — Hody\ argument would 
 have been as llrong, and valid, as it now iecms weak, and 
 wafatisfadtory. 
 
( 243 ) 
 
 affirm to have been falfified by him ? — They Ne vtom 
 have fpeclfied them. They have, in the Old 
 Teflament, particularifed his inferting husde* 
 ray for cucurbit a ^ in the Book of Jonah ^ — his 
 accufations of the Septuagint^ — and his ob- 
 jedlions as to the Prophet Daniel. And, as 
 to the New Teftament, among many other 
 charges, they have accufed him of following 
 the tenets of Origen in his Commentary on 
 St. Paul\ Epiftle to the Ephejians, — they 
 have objected to his notions concerning pre- 
 deftination, — his interpretation of No man 
 ever yet hated his own JieJIi, — his expofitioii 
 oi From whom the whole body fitly framed to-" 
 gether^ — his opinion concerning the re- 
 million of fins by baptifm,-— his conje6lures 
 SS to the condition, and office, of Angels, — 
 and his explanation of the refurredion of 
 the body. — But have they faid any thing 
 againft his retention of the Verfe, i. John^ 
 V. 7, in his Tranilatlon ? Not a fingle fylla*- 
 ble. — How, then, do thefe accnfations prove, 
 that the accufers of Jerome were offended 
 with his infertion (or, to fpeak more proper^ 
 ly, his retentioTi) of this Verfe in his Tefla- 
 ment ? — They do not prove it at all, in 
 any manner, or in any refped, whatfoever ! 
 R :; Nof 
 
( 244 *) 
 
 >TiwT0N. Nor have we, farther, any reafon even to 
 fufpe&y that thefe, or any other, accufations 
 Avere brought againft Jerome, on account of 
 ■any part of his Tranflationof the firft Epiftle 
 of St. John. Thofe accufations are thus re- 
 corded by Jerome himfelf. 
 
 " But now, bccaufe, according to our 
 *' Saviour's precept, I am defirous to labor 
 *' for the meat which perifheth not, and to 
 *' clear the primitive paths of the Scriptures 
 '** from thorns, and brambles, an accufation 
 ** doubly injurious is brought againft me. 
 ** Anxious to corre6l the falfifications of 
 *' others, I am, myfelf, called a faljijier* 
 [falsarius dicor'l *' of Scripture ; and am 
 *' charged with fowing errors, inflead of 
 '* plucking them up.'* (/) 
 
 •' Inafinuch as I am called a fnlfary* 
 [falsarius vocor] " I am contented to 
 
 deny 
 
 (t) " Nunc autem^ quia jitxta fententiam Salvatoris, vdle 
 *' operari cibum qui non petit, et antiquam divinorum voiu" 
 ** minufn viam fentibus, virguhifque, purgare, error mihi 
 '* geminus it:ji}gitur. Corrctlcr vitiorumy FALSARivsdiccr^ 
 *' et errores non aitferrc^ Jed fcrerc.'* f Prsf. alt. in Lib, 
 Jd.) 
 
( 245 ) 
 
 ** deny, without retorting, the accyfa- Kewton. 
 *' tlon." («) 
 
 I will beg leave, Sir, to ftate the reft of Jf- 
 rome'^ complaints of this kind, In his own lan- 
 guage. My own may not do him juftlce. 
 
 " Sed et vos, famulas Chriji, rogo, quae 
 <* Domini difcumbentis precIoffiiJima fidel 
 ** myrrha ungltis caput, quas nequaquam 
 " Salvatorem qu^erltls in fepulchro, qulbus 
 ** jam ad Patrem Chrijlus afcendit : ut con- 
 •' tra lair antes canes ^ qui adverfum me rahido 
 ^ ore defavlunt^ — o ration um veflrarum cly- 
 *' peos opponatis." (.v) 
 
 ** Ohiredlatorthus mels — qui canino dente 
 '\ ^ me rodunt." {^y ) 
 
 
 * Cogor PER siNGULos Scripture 
 DiviNvE LiBROs adverfarlorum refpon- 
 ** dere malcdldis." (2) 
 
 R 3 " Quanto 
 
 {u) Ad Pamnuich, vol. ii, Edit. Eraf. A. D. 1546, 
 pa. 123, B. 
 
 {x) Praef. in Lib. Regum. 
 \y) Praef. in Lib. Parallp, 
 \%) Praef. in Lib. Job, 
 
(246) 
 
 ewtcjj:. « Quanto plus amatis" [Chn/!uf?i] " O 
 ** Paula, et Eufiochium, tanto magls ab eo 
 " petite, nt pro obtreBatione pr^fenti, qua 
 " me indejinenter ijemuU laniant, ipfe mihi 
 ** mercedem reflituat in futuro : qui felt me 
 *^ ob hoc, in peregrins linguae eruditione 
 " fudafle, ne Judai ^cfaljitate fcripturarum 
 <* ecclefiis ejus diutius infultarent." {a) 
 
 " Quis enlm do£luSj pariter, vel indo£lus, 
 ** cum in manus volumen afibmpferit, et a 
 " faliva, quam femel imblbit, viderit difcre- 
 *' pare quod le£litat, non ftatim erumpat in 
 " vocem, me falfarium, me clamitans efle 
 *' facrilegum, qui audeam aliquid in veterl- 
 " bus libris addere, mutare, corrigere." {¥) 
 
 Thefe accufatlons, then, of Jerome, as a 
 falfary, were brought againft him before 
 he publifhed either his Tranflation of the 
 Canonical Epiftles themfelves, or his Pre- 
 face to them, which is now under confider- 
 ation. And they were not increafed, or even 
 repeated, (as far as is known) after his pub- 
 lication 
 
 (a) Prxf. in Efaiam, 
 
 (h) Praef, in quatuor Evangelia, 
 
C ^+7 ) 
 lication of thofe Eplftles. Jerome, there- 'N2WTo^r. 
 fore, was not thereupon (that is, upon 
 the publication of this Preface, or upon the 
 retention of the Verfe r. John, v. 7, in his 
 New Teftan:ient) accufed of falfifying Scrip- 
 ture ; as is allerted in the above obje6lion. 
 The tranfient mention of his accufers, in 
 this Preface, is merely the retrofpeclion of 
 a feeling mind, ftill fmarting under a fenfe 
 of former injuries; and bears no reference 
 whatfoever to his Tranflation of any part 
 of the iiril Epiflle of St. John. 
 
 XV^II. " In this defence hc^ [Jerome] 
 ** feems to fay, that he corrected the Vul- 
 " gar Latin Tranflation by the original 
 *' Greek ; and this is the great tejlimony 
 *' the text relies upon.''^ 
 
 Jerome not only fe pus to fay, but does po- 
 fitively fay, not in this defence only, but in 
 other parts of his works, that he made his 
 Tranflation from the original Greek. Several 
 proofs have already (c) been produced to 
 this point. To thofe let the following paf- 
 R 4 fage 
 
 U) Pages 241, and 242, and their references ; viz. 
 P' 33> 99> a^"^^ i'^^- 
 
Cns ) 
 
 !»Tewton. fage be fubjomed, from his Epiftle to Mai'" 
 cella, *' Latinorum codicum viUofitaiem^ qua 
 *' ex diverjttate lihrorum omnium comprohaiur, 
 " ad GRiECAM ORiGiNEM, ujide et ipji 
 f ' tranjlata non denegant^ voluijfe revocare.^^ 
 
 66 
 
 XIX. « But whilft he" [Jerome] 
 confejfes //** [the Verfe i. John^ v. 7] 
 *' w^i ;7o/ /« the Latin before^ — hefatis- 
 *' fes us that it has crept into the Latin 
 *' Jince his time," 
 
 Jerome makes no fuch confeflion. The 
 premlfts are not true ; (d) and muft, there- 
 fore, produce an unfound conclufion. 
 
 XX. " And whiljl he was accufedhy 
 * ' his contemporaries offaljifying the Scrip- 
 ** iures in infer ting it^ this accufation alfo 
 ** confirms^ that he altered the public 
 *' reading" 
 
 The premifes, here, are as untrue as the 
 former. For Jerome never was accufed, by 
 
 any 
 
 {d) Sec Pages 104 and 105; where objeftions, of this 
 Itind, have been already confidered, and refuted. 
 
( ^49 ) 
 
 any of his contemporaries, of falfifylng the Nbwtos. 
 Scriptures in inferting this Verfe. On the 
 contrary, Aiigufi'me^ who doubted as to fome 
 of Jerome % corredlons of the Old Tella- 
 ment, exprefies the higheil: (I had almofl: 
 fald the moft devout) approbation of yerome% 
 New Teftament. {e) Nor was fuch a charge 
 ever brought againft Jerome^ by any perfon 
 whomfoever, for more than twelve hundred 
 years after his death, I appeal to all anti- 
 quity for the truth of this obfervation. 
 
 XXL " W [Jerome] " accufes for^ 
 " mer Tranjlators of faljify'mg the Scrip' 
 " turcs in omitting It'"- — [viz. the Verfe 
 hi queftion.] 
 
 This obje£lion has (f) been already an- 
 fwered. 
 
 XXII. " For had the reading heen du- 
 '' blotis before he made It fo^ no man would 
 " have charged him with falfificatlon for 
 *' followmg either fart^ 
 
 No 
 
 (e) Page lo6 i where Augujfl;ne\ words are dated at 
 large. 
 
 (f) P^ges 103 nnd 104.. 
 
( 250 ) 
 
 No man ever did charge Jerome^ in the- 
 fenfe here meant, with falfification for £pl- 
 lowlug either part. Jerome, therefore, did not 
 make the reading dubious. Nor, moreover, 
 does he even declare it to have been made 
 dubious at all, in his times, except through 
 the error of certain " unfaithful TranJlators'C^ 
 who (he fays) had not rendered the Canonical 
 Epijlks into the Latin language, " as they 
 
 " WERE WRITTEN BY THE ApOSTLES :'* 
 
 which \in faith fulnefs had produced ambigu- 
 ities, and variations of the text, " particular^ 
 " ly in that pajfage of the firfl Epifile of St. 
 *' John, where the Unity of the Trinity is Jet 
 " forth." (g) 
 
 It was the fault of thofc unfaithful Tranf- 
 lators, then, whom Jerome reprehends, and 
 not of Jerome himfelf, that the reading of 
 of this Verfe was ever rendered, in the 
 fmallefl: degree, dubious, in theL^//>Church, 
 either in his age, or in any part of the Chrif- 
 tian asra, which preceded him. 
 
 XXIII. " 7 hey that have been con- 
 
 " verfant 
 
 (i) Appendix, No. XIII. 
 
( if ) 
 
 <« *Oerfant in his'^ [Jerome's] ** writings, Newton. 
 
 *« ohferve ajlrang liberty ^which he takes 
 
 *' in ajfertmg things. Many notable In- 
 
 ** lld7Kes of this he has left us in compojing 
 
 *' ihofe very fabulous lives of Paul, and 
 
 " Hilarian' [Hllarlon] '' not to mention 
 
 " what he has written upon other occa- 
 
 " Jons, JFhence Erafnms" — (p. 503.) 
 
 What Erafmus fays of the compofitlons, 
 here cenfured, is only, — that Jerome feems 
 to have amufed himfelf with writing fucb 
 trifles, merely for the fake of exercipig his ge- 
 nius, (h) He wrote them as Apologues, or 
 flories contrived to teach fome moral, or 
 fpiritual duty ; and not as ftrlcl details of 
 pofitive fa^s. They were, therefore, fabu^ 
 
 bus ; 
 
 {h) " Videiiir et hoc Hieronymus, exercitandi ingenii 
 «» gratia^ lujijfe." Vol. i. p. 8i, F. 
 
 In another place he fays, fpeaking of another inftancc 
 of this kind of compofition — ** Lujit in hac epjloia Divut 
 *' HxexonymviS artijjcio fcribenda Hi/ioriie ; et /lilutrty jam 
 *' fcrihendi defuetudine torpefcentem, hac exercitatiuncula re- 
 ** novavit." 
 
 And in the life of Makhiis, another inftance of this 
 kind, Erafmus fays — " Depinxit [Hieronymus] foli" 
 *' tarium" ^meaning this Paul^ the Hermit) " depinxit 
 ** celebremy' [meaning Hilar ion) " depingit hic^" [medn- 
 ** ing Malchus) captivwn^ et agitatum. Lufit et in l:ioc 
 ** argumento, ingcnii exercltandi iratia," (Woi. I. p. 8o 
 « and 87.; 
 
( 252 ) 
 
 wTo.Y. iQn^ . and were meant, by Jeromey to be fa- 
 bulous : as appears even by the teftimony 
 of Erafnius, And fo were the Fables of 
 Filpay^ the Apologues of JEJop^ the two 
 magnificent Epics of Horner^ and Jothams 
 parable of the Trees ; (i) which laft is much 
 more ancient, perhaps, than any other cx» 
 ample of this fpecies of compofition, which 
 is now extant. 
 
 Thefe prolufions of Jerome, then, were, 
 like the other inflances jufl mentioned, 
 feigned narrations, defigned to inform, to 
 encourage, to reprove, or to corred. They 
 are — inftrudlion difguifed under the allegory 
 of an adion. They are *' liberties take?i^^ to 
 fuppofe, rather than to aflert, what is 
 *•'- Jirange^'' and unufual ; in order to incul- 
 cate what is ufeful, and good. 
 
 XXIV. " Whence Erqfmus /aid of 
 *' ^/w," [Jerome] '' that he was in of- 
 " firming things, frequently violent, and 
 " impudent, and often contrary to him^ 
 
 Erafmus 
 
 V) 7"^i"i ix, 7—20. 
 
( 253 ) 
 
 'Erafmus has fpoken thus of Jerome, but Newtq 
 NOT on account of the lives of Paul and Hl^ 
 larion. He applied thefe expreffions to Jer- 
 ome, from another motive, and for another, 
 and a far different, purpofe. (Jz) Erafmus, 
 when he ufed thefe words, was agitated by 
 a difpute, which ruffled his temper, and has 
 added . no honors to his name. When his 
 mind was more at eafe, he gave a very differ- 
 ent defcription of the fame Jerome ; as the 
 following pidure (which, however, is drawn 
 by the hand of a mafler) will abundantly 
 teftify. 
 
 " Caterum, In opiimo Theologit^ ge-* 
 " nere, primas^ [fcil. laudes] '/ tenet Divus 
 '' Hieronymus, de "L^iims loquor : et ttaprl^ 
 " mas tenet, ut omne'is poji fe longo relinquat 
 " intervallo. Inter tarn innumerablles Theolo- 
 *' gos, vix quenquam hah eat et iff a dodia 
 '* Graecia, qui noflruni aquet Hieronymum, 
 " fi modo non unam aliquam laudem, fed uni- 
 " verfas ejus dotes fimul expendas. 'T ant am 
 " una in homine reperias fecularium, ut vacant, 
 " Uterarum cognitionem, tantam omnis antiqui- 
 " tatis peritiam, tot linguaruni abfolutam fcien- 
 •' tiam, tarn admirandam locorum, et hijlcri' 
 
 " arum, 
 (k) Annot. In i. John^ v. 7. — Edit. 1522, 
 
( 254 ) 
 fiWToN. " arum, omnium noiltlam^ tarn non vulgarent 
 
 *' myjllcorum voluminum eruditionem, iantum 
 * * inlmitabilis eloquent ii^e^ tarn exactuiniubi- 
 " QUE JUDICIUM, iam Jacrum affiati pec^ 
 •' tons ardor em, rerum adeo divcrfarum tarn 
 *' dlgejliwi ac pr^Jentem memoriam, iamfccli^ 
 •' cem juxta et divitem mixturam ; denique^ 
 ** tanto lepore conditam feverltatcm, ut, quern- 
 *' admodum per Je facundi^ Ji cum Cicerone 
 '* confer atitur, protinus videniur obmutefcere: 
 ** ita cateri dodfores, quos c'llra collaiionem 
 ** fufpicimus, cum Flieronymo compojiti, vix 
 *' fapercy vlx loqui, vix vivere, vldeanturr (/) 
 
 Again — *' Nullum ejl enim argumentt genus ^ 
 ** in quo llle non luferit : nusqitam sui dis- 
 ** siMii^is." (jn) 
 
 And again — ** Multis defuit Ihguarum pe^ 
 
 " ritia^ 
 
 (/) Preface to vol. iv. of Jerome's Works, by ErafmuSf 
 Eoit. P^m, A. D. 1546. 
 
 [m) Vita HiERONYMi per Erajmum, vol. i. Ed. Pariu 
 A.D. 1546. 
 
 It would not be credited, perhaps, if it were not here 
 repeated, that the Exacium ithirpte judicium, the Nu/guar/t 
 fui dijfmtilis, and the Onmium concentus viriutum, of thefc 
 charaders ; — and the Sapenumero violentiis, fepe varius, 
 parumquefibi conjUm, of the other, — were written of the 
 fame Jerome, and by \\vzfame Erafmus! 
 
(255) 
 
 ." rituty nonmiHls fidel Jtnceriias, quihufdam NE.wTo^ 
 
 " vita integnfas : — Hieronymus, et unus 
 
 " Hieronymus, Jic omnia prajlitlty ut Ji non 
 
 " non ad tinam aliquam virtutem, fed ad OM- 
 
 ** NiUM coNCENTUM et futmnam refpicias : 
 
 *' die am audadier^ fed verc, nihil hah eat vel 
 
 *' ipfa Gx'£c\z, quod nojiro opponat Hicrony- 
 
 XXV. ''.Yet fince his'' [Jerome's] 
 '* contemporaries accufed him, it is but 
 
 " jnfl i^^^ '^^ ^^^y ^fi^^^ ^'^^ prejudice of 
 " his great name, and hear the caufe im- 
 '* partially. Now the witnejfes between 
 ** them, are partly the ancient Tranflators 
 " of the Scriptures into the various Ian- 
 *' g^^g^^y partly the writers of his own 
 " age^ and of the ages next before and 
 *' after hitn, and partly the Scribes, who 
 " copied out the Greek MSS of the Scrip- 
 *' tures in all ages. And all thefe are 
 *' againfi him. For by the unanimous 
 " evidence of all thefe, it will appear^ 
 " that the teflimony of the Three in Hea- 
 *' veil was wanting in the Greek MSS 
 ** from whence Jerome,- or whoever w.is 
 
 *« the 
 
(256) 
 
 ** the Author of that preface to the cano" 
 " yion'ical epijiles, pretends to have bor- 
 *' rowed it^'' 
 
 It hath been before obferved, that fe-^ 
 tome's contemporaries have not acciifed him, 
 as is here alledged. The perfons, therefore, 
 mentioned in the objedion, are not wanted, 
 as witnejfes, beca'ufe there are no accufers, 
 who require their tefllmony. But they 
 fliall, neverthelefs, be examined, in relation 
 to Jerome^ in hke manner as if fuch an ac- 
 culation had been a£lually brought : not 
 only for the fake of the very refpedable au- 
 thor of this objedion, but for the fake of 
 truth ; which always appears to the greateft 
 advantage, when put the moft feverely to 
 the trial. 
 
 Firfl, then, it is alledged — (to flate this 
 obje(flion in parts) — that, *' It appears 
 " by the unanimous evidence of all the 
 *' ancient Travjlators of the Scriptures 
 *' into the various languages, that the 
 " tefimony of the Three in Heaven, was 
 " wanting in the Greek MSS, from 
 
 " whence 
 
( ^Sl ) 
 
 ** whence "Jerome pretends to have bor- Newt( 
 <« rowed it. ^* 
 
 The evidence of thefe ancient Tranjlaiors of 
 the Scriptures into the various languages is lb 
 fo far from being unanimous, that the tejiimony 
 of the Three in Heaven was wanting in thofe 
 ancient Greek MSS, from which even their 
 own refpe£tive Verfions were derived ; that 
 three («) out of the whole jfi;^ (as hath been 
 ah-eady proved) d.nd two of thofe the moft an- 
 cient of them, have uniformly contained the 
 teftimony of thefe heavenly witneffes. And 
 the two, (o) of thefe fve ancient Verfions, 
 which have not exhibited this difputed text, 
 if we admit their evidence to the utmofl:, do 
 not eftabliih any part of the propofition ad- 
 vanced in the objection. Thofe two Verfions 
 may give room for prefumptions as to the 
 readings of the particular MSS, from whence 
 they themfelves were derived. But they 
 prove nothing as to the MSS, which ferome 
 ufed in his Tranflation ; and from which he 
 S not 
 
 («) The Italic, that of Jerome, and the Armenian. Se? 
 pages 53 — 55, 187, and 196 — 20^. 
 (9) The Svriac, and Cootie, 
 
( M ) 
 
 "Jewton. not only pretends to have borrowed, birt un- 
 doubtedly did bonow, the verfe in queflion. 
 
 2. " The fame appears, alfo, by the 
 '* unanimous ev{de?ice of all the writers 
 ** of fercmes own age, and of the ages 
 *' next before, and after him^ — 
 
 There is Kot one Writer, hi all thofc 
 ijges, who will judify this afTertion. .Some 
 of them, indeed, have not mentioned this verfe 
 (as hath been before remarked) in fuch parts 
 of their writings as have defcended to the 
 prefent tinies. But other writers, of the 
 fame ages, have cited it in the moil pointed 
 terms. The mere filence of the former, as 
 to this verfe, will not prove that it was 
 ^jantlng even in their own Greek MSS. Far 
 lefs will fuch filence prove, that this verfe 
 was wanting in thofc MSS, by which Jc- 
 rome regulated his tranflation, 
 
 3. *' The fame appears by the unanimous 
 *' cvide?ice of all the Scribes, who have 
 *' copied out the Greek MSS of the Scrip- 
 
 ' tures in all ages.** 
 
 How 
 
( 25^ ) 
 
 Ho\V a Scribe, who copied out a Greek MS Newto 
 at Paris, or at Rome, m the tenth century, 
 fbr iiiftanee, in which the teflimony of the 
 *Jhree in Heaven waSj admittedly, wanting^ 
 can be a proof that the Greek MSS, which 
 Jerome ufed in Palejline, in the fourth cen- 
 tury, did not contain that teftimony.-^is 
 utterly inconceivable. Such aifertions (for 
 they are not arguments) are too extravagant 
 for a ferious confutation. 
 
 If it {hall be afked^ what is become of Je- 
 rome's MSS ^'— let it be confidered^ that he 
 executed his tranflation of the New Tefla* 
 ment in a Monaflery, at Bethlehem, near 
 yerufalem ; where he alfo died. When we 
 recolle61:, how foon, after Jerome'' s death, the 
 Saracens invaded the Holy Land, and kept 
 its territory under their iron rule for near five 
 hundred years, until their flrong holds were 
 retaken, by ftorm^ from them, by the fol- 
 diers of the Croifade, under the command of 
 Robert, Duke of Normandy, in the laft year 
 of the eleventh century ; — we need not be 
 very doubtful, as to the fate, which befel the 
 MSS of Jerome, 
 
 S a XXVL 
 
(260 ) 
 
 XXVI. " The ancient Interpreters^ 
 " which 1 cite as witnejfes agninji him^ 
 " are chiefly the authors cf the ancient 
 *' vulgar Latin, of the Syriac, and the 
 «' Ethiopic Verfionsr^^ 
 
 Thefe three witnelTes are, in the iirfl 
 place, only two. For the ILthiopic is no 
 more than a tranfcript from the Syriac ; which 
 reduces them to a fingle teftimony. Of 
 thefe, thus reduced to two, witnefles, the 
 ancient vulgar "Latin, the moft ancient Ver- 
 fion in the world, is a wltnefs on the other 
 fide of the queftion. For it hath already 
 (^) been proved, that this Version hath con- 
 {lantly, and uniformly, contained thepafiage, 
 I.John, V. 7. 
 
 XXVIII. " For 'as he'' [Jerome] 
 *' tells us, that the Latins omitted the tef- 
 *' timony of the Three in Heaven in 
 *' their Verjion before his time'' — 
 
 'Jerome tells us no fuch thing. He com- 
 plains, indeed, of certain unfaithful tranlla- 
 
 tors, 
 
 (*) Page 187. 
 
( 26' ) 
 
 tors, who had omitted this paffage of St. 
 yohn ; but who might be, and (if we may 
 judge by the vaft majority of l^ailn MSS, 
 which read the verfe at this day) were, few 
 in number, compared with thofe which re- 
 tained it. He makes no complaints, of this 
 kind, againfl: the hat'tn Verfions in general ; 
 or againfl the pubUc Verlion of that age, the 
 Old Italic^ in particular. (^) 
 
 XXVIII. " //" [i. John, V, 7.] ";> 
 ** wanting alfo in other ancieiit Vcrjiom ; 
 *' as in the 'Egyptian Arabic^' [andj " in 
 ** the Armenian Verjion^ ujed ever fmce 
 *' Chryfqftoni^ age, by the Armenian 71a- 
 " tiomr-^ 
 
 This obje£lIon is true of the Coptic, here 
 called the Egyptian Arabic. But it is not 
 true (r) of the Arnwiian : for that Veriion 
 hath always read this verfe. 
 
 The obje(5tions, which follow, as to the 
 S 3 Ruffian^ 
 
 {q) Pages 103— 5. 
 
 (r) Pacres igb — 2c6 j where this point hath been dif- 
 cuiled at large* 
 
(262) 
 
 wroN. RuJJian^ or Sealavonic, Bibles, have beea 
 con fide red already, 
 
 XXIX. ** And that ir [the verle in 
 ♦^ queftion] '* was not written in the an* 
 ♦* cient Verfions — Nor in the Greeli''—' 
 [viz. original of this Epiftle.] 
 
 Every ancient Verlipn, which contained 
 this verfe, every ancient Church, which re- 
 ceived it, and every individual writer, of an- 
 cient times at leaft, who quoted it, is zpojttive- 
 proof againft this obje£lion. To ftate then:^ 
 here at large, would be to recapitulate the 
 whole of the preceding pages. The evi- 
 dence, or rather the prefumption, to the 
 contrary, is merely conje^lural, arifing from 
 cmijjions. The difference, in degree, between 
 thefe two kinds of evidence, Ihall be appre^ 
 ciated hereafter, 
 
 XXX. ^' Bui was wholly unknown 
 ** to thefirji Churches:'-^ 
 
 Jt was jiot unknown to tfie firH: Latin 
 
 Chyrches, 
 
( ^6^.) 
 
 Churches. For their pubUc Verfions, the Newton 
 Jiala Fetus, and that of Jerome, have con- 
 ftantly exhibited this pailhge of St. Job?/^ 
 from the firft hour of the exigence of itha]C 
 Church, to the prefent moment. 
 
 It was not unknown to the firft Arjiienian 
 Church. For its pubhc Verfibn hath (j) 
 been proved to have contained this Verfc, 
 from the age of Chryfojlom to the prcfeut 
 times* 
 
 It was not unknown to the Greek church. 
 For it hath been proved by the ufe of the 
 ^aTTCfoAof, that this paiTage was conftantly read 
 in that church, even in the earlieft a^cs of 
 Chriftianity. 
 
 Nor was it, laftly, unknown to the yifr'i- 
 can churcli. The citation of it, fo early as 
 A. D. 484, by no lefs than (nearly) jG//;r hun- 
 dred Biihops ; tlie reliance upon its evidence, 
 by thofe Biftiops, in oppofitioi^ both to the 
 fraud, and force, of Huneric, and Cyr'ila ; 
 S 4 and 
 
 {i) Pages 196—206. 
 
( 264 ) 
 
 EWToi^. and the utter inability of the Tyrant, and 
 his mock-patriarch, to repel its teftimony, 
 but by violence, and perfecution ; — prove 
 that this paffage was known, read, and re- 
 ceived, in that church, even from the ear liefl 
 aera of its converfion to the Chriftian faith. 
 
 The plain truth, therefore, is, that this 
 verfe was unknown to none of the firft 
 churches of Chriftians ; except, perhaps, to 
 the Synac, and the Coptic, with their few, 
 and, comparatively unimportant, deriva- 
 tives. 
 
 XXXI. " In all that vehement, unt^ 
 " verfal, and lajiing, controverfy about 
 *' the Trinity in Jerome'j time, and both 
 *' before and long enough after it, this 
 *' text of the Three in Heaven was never 
 " once thought of^-^ 
 
 This objedion is inaccurate in its form 
 (but it is not worth the time to flop for in- 
 accuracies only) and untrue in its fubftance* 
 The text of the Ihree in Heaven was not 
 only thought of but adually quoted, and in- 
 fixed 
 
( 265 ) 
 
 fifteJ upon, not only a little after the age of Newtc 
 Jerome, by Pulgenlius, and Figilius ; and in 
 the fame century with Jerome, by the au- 
 thor of the difputation between Arius, and 
 Athanafius, by Eucherius, and Auguft'me, and 
 by the African Bifhops under Huneric ; but 
 alfo BEFORE Jerome's time, by Phcebadiiis^ 
 and, as Itfeems, by Marcus Ccledenfis, And 
 ALL thefe quotations of this verfe were ex- 
 prefsly made hi the contrcverfy about the tri- 
 nity, and in open, and avowed, oppofition to 
 the Artaiis of thofe ages. 
 
 The treatife, now under con (i deration, 
 next enumerates feveral ancient writers, who 
 have omitted to cite this verfe in thofe parts 
 of their works, which remain to the prefent 
 times. But the lift is not accurate. For, 
 of thefe, Phahadius^ Augujime, Aihajiafiis^ 
 Jerome, Eucherms, and Caffodor'ius, have, in 
 fome Inftances, quoted, and in others plain- 
 ly referred to, this difputed paiTage. 
 
 XXXII. " And therefore f thh re ad- 
 " i7ig were once ottt^'' [viz. in Jercme\ 
 age] " <ive are botirJ in jujiice to he- 
 
 " IJevc, 
 
( 266 ) 
 
 " //V^v, that it was out from the begin* 
 '' ning ; unlefs the razing of it out can be 
 *' proved by fome better argument, than 
 " that of pretence^ and clamour ^ — (p. 
 409.) 
 
 It was OUT of fome copies, in ferome^ 
 age, and in others; — as Jerome, hlmfelf, 
 informs us. And this fingle circumftancc 
 does more than confute the objeftion, — by 
 turning it againfh its author. For, (to ufe 
 this illuftrious objector's own ftile) if this 
 reading were once in, [viz. in jero7ne\ age, — 
 which Cyprians Bible, as well as Jerome*^ 
 information, affure us ofj we are bound in 
 juficeto believe that it was in from the be- 
 ginning %— unlefs the putting of it in, at 
 fome later period, can be proved by fome better 
 argument, than unfair, and violent, ' confl ruc- 
 tions, (f) 
 
 XXXIII. " The Greeks received it 
 
 '' not"" 
 
 (i) Whenever Mr. Gibbon Ihall find himfelf difpofeci 
 to attempt a refutation of thefe ftri<Slures, the preceding; 
 one is particularly recommended to his notice. It will 
 require his moft icrious attention. 
 
 I fpeak thus of the foregoing ftricSture, without dread- 
 ing; the imputation of vanity. For it is not my own j it 
 was fuggeftcd to mc by Dr. HoRSLEY ! 
 
( ^67 ) 
 
 *« not [viz. Jerome s reading of i . John^ Newrq 
 V. 7.] *' //// this prefent age^ when the 
 " Venetians/^;;/ it amongjl them infrint-^ 
 *' edbooh:" 
 
 Was the a.-rro^oxoc^^ thcii, not known to the 
 Greeks^ " until this prefent age ?" Was the 
 «7roroAo? " a printed book ?'* Did 'Eulhymius 
 Zygaheniis live only " in this prefent age ?'* 
 Was the treatife, containing the debate 
 (whether real, or feigned) between Arius^ 
 ;nid Athannjius^ written in ■' this prefent 
 age r* Were any of thefe \NQxVi, firjl known 
 to the Greeks " in printed books ?" — It is irk^ 
 fome to fee fach aflertions brought forward ; 
 and to lie under the neceffity of repelling 
 them. 
 
 XXXIV. " //" [the verfe in queftion] 
 
 ^' is wanting in the MSS of all languages 
 *^ but the Latin:' 
 
 It was, perhaps, wanting in thofe partis 
 Gular Greek MSS, from whence the Syriac, 
 and Coptic^ Verfions were tranflated. But 
 pven that is not certain ; becaufe the omifiion 
 
 Pf 
 
( 268) 
 
 of this paffage, in thofe ancient Verfions, 
 might have been, and probably was, the 
 fault of the Tranflator, or Tranfcriber: 
 who have, or one of them hath, been guilty 
 of much greater miftakes, («) and omiffions, 
 than this, in thofe refpedive Verfions. 
 
 This is all that can be granted to this ob* 
 jedion. For the Arabic, Ferjian, and 'Ethl- 
 opic, Verfions are (as hath been before re- 
 marked) tranfcripts, only, from the SyriaCy 
 and Coptic. And the Greek, and Armeniatiy 
 (as well as the Latiii) both deny the truth 
 of the objedion, as applied to them. 
 
 The queftion of omiJfionSy in general, will 
 be confidered hereafter. 
 
 XXXV. " The Lateran Council, A.D. 
 *' 121 5, mentions Joachim quoting the 
 " the text In thefe words: ^onlam In 
 " canonlca Johannis epljlola ; QuiaTres 
 '* funt, qui teftimonium dant in caelo, 
 " Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus ; et 
 *' hi tres unum funt : Jiailmquefubjun- 
 
 ** gitur, 
 
 («) Pages 188—196. 
 
( 269 ) 
 
 ** gltur, Et tres funt, qui teftimomum Newtc 
 
 •* dant in terra, Spiritus, aqua, et fan- 
 
 *' guis, et tres unum funt : Jictit in co^ 
 
 *' dicibus qiiibufdam invenitur, Therefore 
 
 •' this reading'* [i. John^ ^' l'\ " "^^^ 
 
 " then got hut into fame books. For the 
 
 *' words, Sicut in codicibus quibufdam 
 
 " invenitur, refer as well to the Jirjl 
 
 *' words of Joachim" [about the three 
 
 "heavenly witnelTes] " as to the fecond 
 
 *' pari* [about the three vvitnefles on 
 
 earth.] (p. 511.) 
 
 Joachim interpreted the final claufe of the 
 feventh verfe [Tres unumfunt'\ to fignlfy an 
 unity of confent, only, in thofe heavenly wit- 
 nelTes. And he attempted to juftify that 
 interpretation, by alledging, that the fame 
 words \Tres unumfunt'\ ftood in fome copies 
 \^ficut in codicibus quibufdam invenitur'] in the 
 eighth verfe, as well as in the feventh ; — that, 
 being, there, applied to the fpirit, water, and 
 blood, they could import an unity of confent, 
 alone, in that verfe ; and that, being fo in- 
 terpreted in the eighth^ he had a right t© 
 
{110) 
 
 WTON. give the fame interpretation to them irt the 
 feventh, verfe, likewife. 
 
 This, Sir, was the argument oi Joachim: — ■ 
 in which, hy the expreffions, Sicut in codici- 
 bus quibufdam invenitur^ he referred, not to 
 the three, heavenly^ witnefles, but to the 
 three witnejfes on earth, {m^y^ and exclufivety. 
 And I am happy in being able, further, to 
 allcGge the moft refpedable authority againffc 
 Sir Ifaac Nezvion, on this head, which is the 
 teftimony of Sir IJaac Newton himfelf : who 
 has, in another part of this treatife, {x) 
 given to the words of Joachim a fimilar in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 XXXVI. " Eugcnius, Bijhop of C^x- 
 *' thage, in the fevenih year of HunenCf 
 •* anno Chriji 484, in the fummary of 
 ** his faith exhibited to the King, cited it 
 *' the firfi of any man, fo Jar as I can 
 "/W."-(p. 512.) 
 
 I have no objection to this remark, fave 
 that the fummary of faith, here ipoken of, 
 
 is 
 
 [x) Page 521. 
 
( 271 ) 
 
 is defcribed as the Creed of Eugenius aione : Newto 
 — and that he is faid to have been the Jirjl 
 who cited this text. It does not appear to 
 have been the Creed of Eugem'us alone, in 
 any fenfe ; for, although prefented by him 
 to Huneric, it does not carry his fignature, 
 but (^y) that of four other J[frican Bifhops : 
 who were moft probably, from that cir- 
 cumftance, the perfons deputed, by their 
 brethren, tocompofe, and prepare, it. And 
 Eugenius, or the perfon, or perfons, who 
 drew up this fummary, was not (or rather 
 were not) the Jirjl who cited this text ; be- 
 caufe the exprefs citations, and references, 
 ef TertuUian, Cyprian, Ph^badius, Marcus 
 CeledenJtSy Augiijline, and Eucberius ; — the 
 life of the a,nofoX(^ in the Greek Church, the 
 Synopfis attributed to Athanajius, and thedif- 
 putation (real, or feigned) between him and 
 Arius ; together with the Old Italic, and Ar- 
 menian, Verfions, as well as the Veriion of 
 Jerome ; all of vvhich have recognlfed this 
 difputed text : — were, ally antecedent to the 
 year 484. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 (y) In pnges 44. — 7, and 11 1 — T16, this whole 
 tranfas3'ion is briefly ftated. The original record is co- 
 pied in /Appendix, 
 
(270 
 
 Newton. Dr. Ben/on {%) has reprefcntcd this iden- 
 tical teflimony of the African Church to be 
 fo very late, in point of time, as not to be 
 worth hh notice. Sir Ifaac Newton here 
 places it in the firjl rank of proof. But— 
 l\cn nojirum eft talcs componere Ikes, 
 
 XXXVII. '' Of the MSS which have 
 *' not the tefimony of the Three in Hea- 
 *' ven ; fome have the words in terra, In 
 ** the eighth verfe^ but the mof want it. 
 ♦* Of thofe which have the tefiimony of 
 *' the Three in Heaven, fame in the 
 *' eighth verfi have hi Tres Unum funt. 
 ** Others not. And that tefimony is in 
 ** mof hooks Jet before the tefimony of the 
 *' Three in earth ; injome^ it is Jet af 
 *' ter. So Erafmus notes two old books y 
 *' in which it is fet after ; Lucas Bru- 
 *' genfis a thirds and Heilelius a fourth ; 
 *' and fo Vigilius Tapfenfis (adverf. 
 " Varim. Cap, v.) fets it after : which 
 *' feems to proceed from hence, that it 
 •' ivas fomelnnes fo noted in the margin^ 
 *' that the reader or trcirfcriber knew not 
 
 *' whether 
 
 (z) Pages 114-^115. 
 
( '^n ) 
 
 *^ whether It were to come before or after » Newt 
 ** Now thefe dfcords, as they detradl 
 *^ from the authority of the Latin MSS,fo 
 *' they confirm to us, that the old vulgar 
 ** Latin has in thefe things been tampered 
 *' with^ and corredied by JeromeV ver-* 
 
 ">«."(p. 514.) 
 
 The diftords, which are here complained 
 of, feem to have been entirely owing to the 
 ofcitancy, and negligence, of tranfcribers. 
 Had they originated, in thefe MSS, from a 
 defire of correding them by Jerome"* s Verlion, 
 it feems very difficult to aflign a reafon, why 
 thefe fuppofed tmnferers ceafed from tamper- 
 ing^ until they had rendered their MSS^^^<^ 
 copies^ in this paflage at leafl (which ex con- 
 fejfo they are not) of the Verfion of Jerofne, 
 
 But, taking the objciSlion as granted, for 
 the prefent, and for the fake of argument,— 
 let it be obferved, that, before it can be im- 
 puted, as a fault, to any Latin MSS, tha^ ic 
 has been correded by Jerome\ Verfion ; — it 
 muft be proved, that the Verfion of Jerome 
 i^, in itfelf, erroneous, and of no authority. 
 T This 
 
(•2H ) 
 WtwTOK. This illuftiious obje<5lor has, indeed, endea- 
 voured to difparage this Verfion, as we have 
 already feen i — by afRrmiiig, that Jerome 
 was accuied by his contemporaries of having 
 altered the public reading, in refpeft to the 
 palTage, in queftion, — that he wrote the 
 fabulous lives of Pauly and Hilanon^ and 
 that Erafmus called him impudent. But it 
 hath been already proved, that thefe in- 
 tended di-fparagements of that Verfion have 
 no folid foundation ; and cannot, therefore, 
 fupport the inference, which is thus at- 
 tempted to be built upon them. 
 
 XXXVIII. ** The original MSS'' [of 
 R, Stephens] " be'' [Beza] " does not 
 *' here'* [in the preface to his annota- 
 tions] *' pretend to have-, nor could he 
 " have them, for they were not Stephens'^ 
 ** MSS\ but belonged to feveral librariei 
 *' /;; France, j?<^ Italy." (p. 516.) 
 
 Beza has exprefled himfelf with fo little 
 precifion, in this preface, on the fubje£t of 
 iv. Stephens'^ original MSS, that it might be 
 doubted whether he had, or had not, the 
 
 ufe 
 
< ^TS f 
 
 XiCt of thofe MSS, did he not, in other parts Newtoi 
 of his works, clear up thofe doubts m the 
 moft fatisfadory manner. Ego in omnibus 
 nofiris veiufiis l i s r i s inve?u : And — Sic legitur 
 in omnibus Grascis exemplaribus^ quae quidem 
 MiHi INSPICERE iiciiit : — are his expreffions 
 on other occafions, which are fo plam as to 
 need no comment. 
 
 Nor does the fa«fl of Bezas poflefling thefe 
 original MSS depend on his own aflhtion, 
 alone, however truly refpe6lable that may 
 be. For R. Stephens has affirmed the fame 
 thing (as hath («) been already remarked) 
 in his poftfcriptj or advertifement, fubjoined 
 to Beza's edition of A. D» 1556* 
 
 XXXIX. " Stephens had fifteen MSS 
 ** in ally yet all of them did not contain 
 *« all the Greek Tejlament:' (p. 517.) 
 
 R, Stephens has not cited alt his MSS to 
 
 all parts of his Greek Teftament. But it 
 
 does not follow, from thence, that all his 
 
 T 2 MSS 
 
 [a) Page 130, note d. 
 
 Emlyn hath, in fa£l (however unintentionally) proved 
 this point, in favor of Beza, (See page 124, note x,) 
 
f 276 ) 
 
 I^EWTok. MSS- did not contain ciU the Greek Tella- 
 meiit^ 
 
 XL. *' Four of ihem'' [R. Stephens^ 
 MSS] " noted OS r, »P, ioy had each of 
 *' them the four gofpels 07il)\'* 
 
 This aflertion is not juft. The MS, noted 
 «/3, contained the firft epiflle to the Corinthi- 
 ans. And that marked ^^ contained, alfo, 
 the Ads of the Apoftles, and the fecond 
 epiflle of St. Peter, 
 
 XLI. " T^it'o noted '^^ >i, contained only 
 ** the Gofpels, and the Adls. One^ noted 
 *' \^^ contained the Apocalypfe only. Tht 
 *' MS, I, co?italnedtheEplfJe5,andGof 
 " pels\ ', 'a, ty, //^^ Eplftles, andAdls ; ^W 
 " ^, 1, 0, //;^ Eprf/es, Gofpels, and Jeis.'* 
 (p. 518.) 
 
 This enumeration abounds with miftakes. 
 Befide the particulars, here mentioned, the 
 MS of R. Stephens, marked |3, contained the 
 Epiftle to the Romans ; — »r, the Gofpel of 
 St. Luke, the fecond Epiflle to the Corlnthi- 
 
 ansy 
 
( '^11^ 
 
 ansy and the firfl Eplftle to Timothy ; — .f, the Newtc 
 ^,5ts ;— ', the Gofpels of St. Luke, and St. 
 Jolm ; — *«> the Gofpels of St. Matthew, and 
 St. John, and the Apocalypfe ; — }y, the Gof- 
 pels of St. Matthew, and St, Jehn*, — and ?, 
 the Apocalypfe. 
 
 XLII. *' For in the various Unions of 
 *' the canonical epijlles, and thofe to the 
 *' Theffalonians, Timothy, Titus, and 
 <' the Hebrews, ai'e found thefe fcvcn 
 *' MSS, K E» ^5 ^j '» '«5 »r5 ^'L'^0' 'W>^^^'^ 
 *' c/V^^, and no more than thefe T 
 
 This obfervatlon is incorrect, like the for- 
 jner. The MSS •<?, and ir, are cited by JR. 
 Stephens, to thefe, enumerated, parts of the 
 facred Canon, as well as the MSS mentioned 
 in the objedlion. 
 
 XLIII. " And this anv one mav O'a- 
 *' ther, by noting what MSS the various 
 *' ledlions are cited out of, in every book 
 ** of the New Tefament'^ ■ 
 
 He certainly may. It is the very method 
 T 3 which 
 
(^78) 
 
 zwToN. which I have purfued ; and which lias 
 enabled me to corred all the preceding 
 miftakes. 
 
 XLIV. " Stephens, therefore, did 
 
 '* colledl various legions of the epi files out 
 
 ** of only thefe feven MSS, «^, « , ^, 0, «, »a, 
 
 " »y. j^nd in all thefe feven he found the 
 
 " teflimony of the Three In Heaven to. 
 
 ** be wanting ; as you may fee noted in 
 
 ** the margin of his edition*'' 
 
 The former claufe of this obje(^ion hath 
 been jufl difproved. And the latter is ut- 
 terly groundlefs. The margin of R. Ste-^ 
 phens's edition denotes, that the particular 
 words, iv ru) a^ai/w, were wanting in the feven 
 MSS there referred to :— bwt no more. 
 
 The obje^lions, which follow, as to Eraf 
 tnuSf have (^) been replied to already. 
 
 XLV. " Jndfo here, where the tefi^ 
 •* mony, of the Three in Heaven, is ge- 
 *' nerally wanting in the Greek copies, 
 
 " they' 
 
 ihy?zot% 138— 149. 
 
( ^79 ) 
 
 " they' [the Complutenjian Editors] Newtc 
 
 *' make a marginal note, tofecure them- 
 
 *' /elves from being blamed for printing 
 
 *' //.*' — And that note " being Jet in 
 
 *' the margin of the Greek text, fews 
 
 ** that its main defign. is to jujlify the 
 
 ** Greek, by the Latin thus rectified and 
 
 *^ confirmed. But to us Aquinas is no 
 
 ♦' Apoftk:' (p. 520,, and 521.) 
 
 The marginal note, here referred to, was 
 evidently deligned to juftlfy the omillion of 
 sToj o( T^£.i,- uq TO i\> £Ki, in thc clghth verfe ; and 
 for no other purpofe. A hngle, impartial, 
 perufal of the (r) note Itfelf, will amply 
 juftify this abfervation, 
 
 XLVI. *' A third reafon %vhy I con- 
 *' ceive the Compluteniian Greek to 
 *' have been in this place a tranjlaiion 
 *' from the Latin, is, becaufe Stunica, 
 *' when, in his objections, he comes to this 
 '* text, cites not one Greek MS for it a^ 
 *' gainf Eraimus, but argues wholly 
 T 4 ** from 
 
 {c) See Appendix, No. XVIII j whi^re this marginai 
 note is copied at full len<;th. 
 
( 2S0 ) 
 
 ** from the authority of the Latin." (p. 
 522.) 
 
 I am ready, Sir, to acknowledge the truth 
 of this objection. And, as far as the con- 
 du£l of Stunica can afFedl the authenticity of 
 the verfe. In queftion, — I own myfelf unable 
 fatisfadlorily to account for it. But to us 
 Stunica (as Sir Ifaac properly obferves of 
 j^quinas) is no Apojlle, Whether the reft of 
 Stunica s writings, if they had furvived to 
 the prefent times, would have diffipated 
 thefe doubts, or not, — cannot now be de- 
 termined. But this may be now, and in- 
 deed has (^) been already, determined, and, 
 in truth, it is the chief point, which requires 
 determination in the prefent difqulfition : 
 viz. that " the Complutenjtan Greek was not 
 *' a tranjlation from the hatin^'' as is aflumed 
 in the preceding obje£lion. — 
 
 XLVII. " So then the Complutenfian 
 
 '* Divines 
 
 {d) Pages J 84— 186. 
 
 Thefe Editors pofitively affirm, that they had (how 
 many they do not mention) Greek MSS, from the Vatican, 
 And we arc certified, by various authorities, that they 
 had another Greek MS from Rhodes^ commonly called 
 the Codex Rhdienfts, 
 
(281) 
 
 *' Divines did fometlme:; coiredl the Grtok. Newtow 
 •' by the Latin, without the authority of 
 *' any Greek MS', as appears by their 
 *' practice in Matthew, vi : 13." — (p. 
 
 5230- 
 
 The marginal note, in Matthew^ vi : 13, 
 contains an account, given by the Compluten- 
 ■fian Editors, of their having omitted the Dox- 
 ology, in that verfe. And the reafon which 
 they affign for the omiffion, does them in- 
 finite honor, as it fhcws them to have been 
 confcientioufly fcriipulous, in not admitting 
 any thing to ftand in the facred canon, 
 which had not, in their judgment, an indu- 
 bitable claim to originality. Had they en- 
 tertained any doubts of its authenticity, it 
 mufl: be prefumed that they would have 
 a£led in the fame manner with the verfe 
 I. John, \.^, 
 
 XLVIIL " Nor has all the zeal for 
 " this text been able fnceto dif cover one,* 
 [viz. Greek MS which contained the 
 verfe i. John, v. 7.] '' either in Spain, 
 *' or any "ivhere clfe.'* 
 
 This 
 
( 28^ ) 
 
 This obje£lion will be befl repelled; per^ 
 haps, by a reference to Wetjleln ; vvhofe tef- 
 timony, on thh pointy at leaf!:, will not be 
 contefted. 
 
 Wetjleln^ then, in his laft Edition of the 
 New Teftament, affirms {e) that he has 
 availed himfelf of the different readings of 
 Jixtyjive Greek MSS (exclufive of four Lec- 
 tionaries) for that portion of his work, which 
 contains the canonical Epiftles. But as Fal- 
 las MSS are clafled with the reft, by the 
 numeral 44, as if they were but one MS, 
 whereas they were feven ; the whole num- 
 ber of thefe Greek MSS is, properly, feventy- 
 one. Of thefe the lettered MSS, C, D, E, 
 and F, do not contain the firfl Epiflle of 
 St. John, And, of the fixty-four numhered 
 MSS, that marked 49 is the Gofpel of St. 
 Mark only ; 52 is the Codex Rhodienjis, which 
 Wetjie'm never faw, and which, moft pro- 
 bably, did contain this difputed paflage ; 53 
 does not contain that part of St. Johns Eplf- 
 flle ; 55 is Jude, only ; and 56 is no more 
 ,thaii a colledion of fome various readings, 
 
 noted 
 
 [e) Amf, A. D. 1752, vol. ii, p. 449, &c. 
 
noted in the margin of a printed book ; and Newto 
 58 is only a duplicate of 22. Setting thefe 
 afide, there remain, in IVetfleiri'S^ Lift, Jixty- 
 one (to which Griejbach adds four others) 
 lettered, and numbered, MSS, which fet forth 
 the firft epiftle of St. John, 
 
 Of thefe fixty-five Greek MSS, mt/leht 
 admits, that thofe marked 34, 44, 48, 51, 
 '-^j, and 58, DO EXiiiBiT this difputed 
 pafiage. But, as ^Fetjiein has not taken the 
 Codex Britannicus into the account, which 
 Erafjnus affirms that he collated (/) in Eng- 
 land ; and as Falla's MSS were/even in num- 
 ber, and have been fo ftated in the general 
 enumeration, an allowance muft here be 
 made for them, ^% for /even. 
 
 But this Is not all. In the foregoing lift 
 Wetjle'm has taken the eight MSS of R. Ste- 
 phe?is, which arc refpe£lively marked S, £, 6, », 
 la, jy, *f, and C> into the number of thofe MSS 
 of the canonical, or catholic, Epiftles, w4iich, 
 [he fays] do 7iot exhibit the vxrfe, in queftion. 
 And he has acled thus, upon the idea, ori- 
 
 ginally 
 
 (f) P'-ige i3>. 
 
( 284 ) 
 
 [Newton, g'lnally held forth to the world by F. Lt 
 Long, which (g) hath been already proved 
 to be vifioiiary, and.vaui. Yet, as F, Lc 
 Long h^th proved, that there are, now, fuch 
 Greek MSS of thefc Epiftles, iu the Royal 
 Library at Paris, which do not contain this 
 difputed paflage, the Lift, which Wetjieln 
 has thus drawn up, of Greek MSS not con- 
 taining this verfe, muft not be abridged ; 
 but inftead thereof, the whole number R, 
 Stephens's Greek MSS (which were fixteen 
 in all) muft be brought to the oppofite fide 
 of the computation : becaufe they did ex- 
 hibit this difputed paftage. 
 
 This mode of calculation, then, will ad- 
 vance the Jixty-Jive Greek MSS, herein be- 
 fore brought to account, to eighty-one. 
 From whence it, finally, follows, by the 
 
 very 
 
 (g) Pages 127—138. 
 
 Sir Ifaac Newton, in p. 5i6of his treatife, argues, that 
 R. Stephens " never faw the MS marked (3 j but had only va- 
 " rious legions collected out 0/ it by his friends in Italy." 
 The words of R. Stephens, upon which this aflumption 
 is built (for there is no other foundation for it) arc — 
 * * Exemplar 'vetujUjJimum, inltdWzab amicis COLLATUM." 
 It was the exemplar, the book itfelf, then, (and not the 
 leciions out of it) which was (collehed, or rather) procured 
 for R, Stephen Sy by his friends in Italy, 
 
( ^«s ) 
 
 veryadmiflions of /Ff?//?f/«, thus commented Newtci 
 upon (if thefe reafcnings are not, and it 
 feems that they are not, iinjuft) that, of the 
 whole number of Greek MSS, containing the 
 catholic, or canonical, Epiftles, now known 
 (by any fpecial defcriptlon) ever to have ex- 
 ifted in the world, thirty-one out of eighty- 
 one^ or (more than) three out of eight, or 
 (nearly) one half of that whole num- 
 ber, — actually did exhibit, or do now ex* 
 hibit, the verfe i. John^ v. 7. 
 
 XLIX. " The differences'' [of terms, 
 in thefe two verfes, in different MSS] 
 ** are too great to fpring from the bare 
 •* -errors of Scribes, and arife rather from 
 *'' the various tranjlations of the place, 
 " out of Latin into Greek, by different 
 " perfomr-^ 
 
 This objection confines itfelf to the read- 
 ings of the Codex Britannicus, and the Cofn- 
 pliitenfian Polyglott. But in order to give- 
 all poffible force to the cbje6lion, all the 
 readings, which have been mentioned in this 
 treatife, ihall be here combined together, in 
 one view. 
 
 The 
 
(286) 
 
 EWTON. .. 3 o S ^ g 
 
 
 t3 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 *\ 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4" 
 »r 
 
 3. 
 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 1? 
 
 
 g- 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 ?- 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 
 
 ?- 
 
 fc 
 
 
 >>, 
 
 Q 
 
 ^■ 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 no 
 
 o 
 U 
 
 o 
 
 •a 
 
 5 
 X 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 is. 
 
 V9 
 
 T 
 
 CO 
 
 .. 
 
 a. 
 
 «r. 
 
 ;^ 
 
 rC 
 
 t/!> 
 
 
 J: 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 {< 
 
 
 ■J 
 
 C4 
 
 S 
 
 
 1- 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 «• 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 8 
 
 <5 
 
 S 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 tA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 
 CLi 
 
 .. 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 ■^ 
 
 8 
 
 a: 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 r 
 
 o 
 
 b 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 f 
 
 a 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 H 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 r 
 
 3k 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 z. 
 
 
 
 'I* 
 
 r^ 
 
 ?: 
 
 2^ 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 ;» 
 
 <E) 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 S. 
 
 t 
 
 ^ I- 
 
 5 s 
 
 3 »Ut 
 
 I ^ «- i 1 
 
 f b g V. s 2 
 
 w w ^ :^ h f? 
 
 - J^ 
 
 X 
 
 v2 : -ei 
 
( 287 ) 
 
 CO 
 
 Pi 
 
 M 
 
 PQ 
 
 K 
 
 A) 
 W 
 
 H 
 
 Pi 
 
 O 
 
 fen 
 
 => 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 :> 
 
 «r 
 
 
 
 3- 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ?5 
 
 
 b 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 a. 
 
 
 ** 
 
 k^ 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 ^ 
 
 b 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 o 
 3* 
 
 ?* 
 
 s 
 
 
 b 
 
 s 
 
 or 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 h 
 
 t- 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 ■> 
 
 
 v^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 «i 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 X 
 
 Vj» 
 
 
 
 9^ 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 « 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Qjl 
 
 t: 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 A 
 
 h 
 
 t- 
 
 i4 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 • 
 
 i» 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 oo 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 >< 
 
 5 
 
 
 M 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 Q^ 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 
 <J-n 
 
 X 
 
 
 • 
 
 O 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :3 
 
 
 *«J 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 
 >- 
 
 A 
 
 3^ 
 
 
 H 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 o- 
 
 <!/. 
 
 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 
 
 <i 
 
 ST 
 
 
 S 
 
 r> 
 
 fi 
 
 
 a. 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 a. 
 
 a. 
 
 X 
 
 
 S 
 
 5 
 
 
 b 
 
 o 
 
 b 
 
 5^ 
 
 5 
 
 _• 
 
 
 
 
 ua 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ty> 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 Kr> 
 
 •-n 
 
 •\ 
 
 H 
 
 b 
 
 
 M 
 
 l- 
 
 a: 
 
 « 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 h 
 
 H 
 
 ST 
 
 ?1 
 
 X 
 
 
 P 
 
 t- 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 H 
 
 
 ? 
 
 o 
 
 ;k 
 
 
 ■. 
 
 14 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 lA 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 CO 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 «1 
 
 
 >3 
 
 o 
 
 <a_ 
 
 
 o- 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 
 Q, 
 
 b 
 
 H 
 
 t 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 • 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 ?r 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 5 
 
 X 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 *. 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 X 
 
 . 
 
 
 « 
 
 r> 
 
 
 
 iL 
 
 
 «i 
 
 
 :i. 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 1" 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 b 
 
 b 
 
 
 8 
 
 5-. 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 «-^ 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 H 
 
 
 3 ^ 
 
(»88) 
 
 Upon the face of this collection of the 
 Greek readings of this contefted pafiage. com- 
 pared with the Latin copies, the following 
 obfervations offer themfelvcs to the mind. 
 
 1. The Latin copies, unlverfally, read Sfii^ 
 r'lius SANCTUS [die Holy Spirit] in the fe- 
 venth verfe ; which epithet is not found ia 
 
 the Codex Bniannkus, 
 
 2. The fame Latin copies, univcrfally, 
 read Tre^ vi^nu funt [T/jree are o?ie] in the 
 conclufion of the feventJj verfe. But the 
 Complutenfian Polyglott^ and the Berlin MS, 
 read t^£k n? to iv fui, which is equivalent to 
 Tres IN unumfunt^ or Ihefe three agree in 
 one, 
 
 3. The Latin copies have, unlverfally, the 
 concluding claufe of the eighth verfe. It 
 flands thus (with fo few exceptions as not 
 to merit any notice) in thofe copies, In umim 
 
 funt, or Thefe three agree in one. But the 
 Dublin MS, the Codex Britannicus, the Edi- 
 tlon of Complutum^ and the Berlin MS, do 
 not contain this concluding claufe, under 
 
 any 
 
(289) 
 
 any terms, or mode of expreflion, whatfo- N^Ewto 
 
 ever. 
 
 Now thefe difFerenceS, from their ndfurey 
 camiot be imputed to any tranflators, with 
 any reafonable degree of prdbabiUty. For, if 
 thefe expreffioils (nay whole claufes) wer& 
 loft by any Tranflators,— they mull: have fo 
 ioft them by incapacity, or by inadvertence. 
 Now no tranflator can be fuppofed to have 
 been fo incapable, as not to know how 
 to render thefe omitted expreffions, and 
 claufes, from the Latin, into the Greeks 
 language. And the omiffions feem to be 
 too large, and to contain too many words, 
 to permit a well grounded idea of their 
 having been loft, through inadvertence, 
 by a tranjlator ; whofe office, verbum de verba 
 reddere, requires him to yield an inceflant 
 attention to his original, and to give to his 
 tranflation frequent, and painful, revifals, 
 left he fiiould injure, or betray, the meaning 
 of his author. 
 
 It feems, therefore, to be almoft an im-> 
 
 pofTibility, that thefe aberrations ftiould have 
 
 U arifen 
 
( 290 ) 
 
 arifen from any (fuppofed, — for there is no 
 proof that there ever were any fuch) tranf- 
 lators. From whence it feems to follow, 
 that they have arifen from the other caufe, 
 flated in the ohje£lion, — namely, the bare- 
 errors of Tranfcribers, whofe objed hath al- 
 ways been to hurry through their tafk, as 
 faft as podible, without much regard to any 
 thing, beyond the reward expected at the 
 clofe of it. 
 
 L. " Erafmus tells us, that he never 
 '•^ faw it'*' [the verfe, i. John, v: 7.] 
 " in any Greek MS ; and, by confequencey 
 " not in that cor reeled one'' [the Code?: 
 Briiannicus'] " which fell into his hands'' 
 
 -(p. 538.) 
 
 Erafmus did, in the earlier part of his 
 rontroverfy on this fubjedl, affirm, that he 
 had, at that time, nev^er feen any Greek MS, 
 which contained this difputed paflage. But 
 he admits, in another place, that he (g) did 
 
 afterwards 
 
 The cl)iirgc, here iniinuated, of this MS having been 
 corrected by the Latin, has been confidcred in the piiges 
 \ixh reicrrcd to. 
 
( 291 ) 
 
 afterwards find this verfe in the Codex Bri- N£wt( 
 tannicus'y which he collated in England, 
 
 LI. *' He that JJmll hereafter meet 
 ** *wtth it'" [this difpvited text] " inanf 
 [Greckl " book, ought firji^ before he in- 
 '* fil^ ^^P'^^^ ^^^ ^^thority of that book, to 
 
 <( 
 
 examine. 
 
 whether it has not been cor^ 
 
 " redled by the Latin, and whether it be 
 " ancient er than theYjMtx^m Council', for 
 *' if it be liable to either of thefe t^vo ex- 
 " ceptions, it can Jtgnijy nothing to fro- 
 *'■ duce it:' 
 
 This conclufion, — although. In general, 
 juft, — is liable to many exceptions. One of 
 them, at leaft, ought here to be mentioned : 
 which is, — that, where any Greek MS now 
 exifts, which was, probably, or even con- 
 felTedly, copied, or written, since the thir- 
 teenth century (the sera of the Lateran 
 Council) — fuch MS is not to take its efti- 
 mation, flridlly, from the time, when it was 
 fo copied ; but from fome higher sera, which 
 gave date to that Copy, from which it vvas 
 fo tranfcribed. 
 
 . U 2 But 
 
( 292 ) 
 
 But, Sir, I am contented to take the con- 
 clufion in its Jlndteft terms, as to feveral 
 parts of the evidence, herein before adduced 
 to the originality of this verfe. For I find 
 myfelf, even in that fituation, at hberty to 
 affirm, that the a7roc&A©r, — the CofifeJJion of 
 Faith of the Greelz Church, — the Difputa- 
 tion, and the Synopjis, cf Athanafius^- — the 
 Greek MSS of IValafrid Strabo, and of ^e- 
 ro7ne, — the quotation of Euthymius Zygabe- 
 nils, — and the authority of the Council of 
 Kphefus\ in A. D. 431, upon which the Ar^ 
 
 me?iia?i Vcvdon was framed, and adjufled, • 
 
 (/)) form an accumulation of Greek tefll- 
 monies, the authority of which cannot be 
 denied, even upon the terms of the objec- 
 tion itfelf. For there is no color of reafon, 
 to affert that any of them have been " cor- 
 " refJed by the Latins And there is no 
 ground, to fuppofe, that they are not, alt,, 
 more ajicient, in point of date, than theZ^- 
 teiwi Council. 
 
 This moH: refpeclable obje^lor, laflly, 
 ftates his own paraphrafe of this paffage, in 
 
 order 
 
 {h) Pages 22 — 24,48—50, 100— 103, and 196 — 264. 
 
( 293 ) 
 
 order to fhew that the fenfe of St. John, New 
 without the teftimony of the ^hree in Hea- 
 ven, is (to life his own words) " plain, and 
 " Jirong ; but if yon injcrt that teftimony, you 
 
 "• fpoii itr 
 
 'V\i\sfe?ife, or internal evidence, of the paf- 
 fage, will be confidered hereafter : in which 
 confideration, I truft, the very oppofite con- 
 clufioa will appear. At the fame time I 
 moft freely admit, in common with tlfis il- 
 luftrious objedor, (/') that I " have that ho- 
 *' nor for St. John, as to believe that he wrote 
 ^' good fenfe \ and, therefore^"* do moft im- 
 plicitly " take that fenfe tq be his, which is'' 
 [or which, at leaft, appears to me to be] 
 ♦' thebejir 
 
 And here, Sir, I wifh to take my leave of 
 the objections, urged by this great ornament 
 of human nature, this '"' firft, and chief eft, of 
 the race of men :" — from whom it v/ill de- 
 tract little, that he clierifhed an erroneous 
 opinion as to this difputed palfage ; his errors 
 being more than redeemed by his candor, 
 U 3 his 
 
 {/) Page 53c. 
 
( -94 ) 
 
 wroN'. his miftakes by his unafFe(£led magnanimi- 
 ty. — His own declaration, ftated in the out- 
 fet of thele oblervations, affords the faireft 
 reafon, the mod available pretenfions, to 
 conclude, that, if Sir Ifaac Newton had been 
 apprifed of all the pojitive evidence, which 
 has been alledged, in the preceding pages, 
 on behalf of the authenticity of this text (a 
 great part of which was utterly unknown to 
 him) : he would not have cafl: the weight of 
 his name into that fcale, which (as it feerhs, 
 he would then have confelTed) ought not 
 to preponderate in the prefent queftion. 
 
 It feems necellary, now, to attend to M. 
 Griejbach, and Mr. Bouyer, according to 
 the plan heretofore laid down. But as the 
 objedrions, infifted upon by thefe Writers, 
 iland on foundations very fimilar to thofe of 
 Dr. Berjon^ and Sir Ifciac Newto?!, which 
 have been already difcufied ; they will, 
 fortunately, require no more than a very 
 brief confideration. 
 
 And firft, for M. Griejhach. 
 
 I. '* R. 
 
( 295 ) 
 
 I. " R. Stephens confulted, indeed, Griesb. 
 ^' fome"' [Greek] *' MSS, but they were 
 " few ; viz. in the Gofpels, ten ; /;; the 
 " ^cis, and Epijiks, eight ; and two in 
 " the Apocalyffer (k) 
 
 This is but an indifrerent fpecimen of the 
 accuracy of M. Griejhach. In the Gofpels, 
 R. Stephens confulted fourteen MSS, at 
 leafl, iniiead of ten, as here alledged ; in the 
 A6ls, TEN, at leaft, Inftead oi eight ; in the 
 Epidles, TWELVE, at leaft, inflead of eight ; 
 and in the Apocalypfe, four, at lead, in- 
 flead of two. 
 
 The margins of R. Stephens?, Edition 
 prove (I) tliefe allegations, beyond all con- 
 tradidlion. And there is no room to con- 
 clude, either from R, Stephens'^ preface, or 
 from any mode of found argumentation, 
 that thefe particular MSS, thus cited, were 
 
 {h) Vol. ij, Preface, p:ige 25. 
 
 (/} To the Gofpels R^Stephem has cited the MSS 
 
 p5 r» K h C? *i9 ^» 's ^3 »*5 'P> 'y> '^> S"d <r. 
 
 To the Ads, j3, J', J, <^, 71, e, J, 15^, ly, and ,j-. 
 
 To the Epiltles, ^, .; ,, ^^ 0, ., .«, ,^^ .y, J, .,, 
 and ,f. 
 
 .^nd to the Apocalypfe, f^ ,«;, i;, and jj-. 
 
C 296 ) 
 
 SBACH. all the MSS, of R. Stephens^ which contained 
 thofe feveral portions of Scripture. Fourteen 
 MSS, only, are diredly cited, by him, to 
 the Gofpels ; but that circuniftance does not 
 prove, that the vAioXt Jixteen did not ppntain 
 the Gofpels. Twelve MSS, only, are direct- 
 ly CITED to the Epiftles ; but that circum- 
 fiance does not prove, that the Epiftles were 
 not exhibited in all the Jixteen MSS, poiTeffed 
 by jR. Stephens. 
 
 The Divines of the Univerfity of Lou- 
 vaine, who were contemporaries with R, 
 Stephens, pofitively affirm, in their Bible, 
 publifhed A. D. 1574, that all the MSS 
 of R, Stephens did contain (^m) not only the 
 Epiftle of St. John, but this difpiited pajfage. 
 alfo. And this tefliimony, at leaft, proves 
 the general belief, and reputation, of that age, 
 and time, to be fo ; and, added to the evi- 
 dence of R' Stephens^s own marginal refer- 
 ences, on this ve'rfe, form a body of proof, 
 which no cavils, or conjectures, of modern 
 times, — which nothing but the production 
 
 of 
 
 (m) " Inter omnp.s Stephani nevuvsejly qui dijftdear — ; 
 are the expreflions of thele Divines, on the I'ubjcdt, now 
 jLinder confideration. 
 
( 297 ) 
 
 pf R. Stephens's MSS the^nfelves, — can ever Griesb 
 difcredlr, or deftroy. 
 
 II. " Jnd thefe MSS were not collated 
 *' by'K, Stephens himfelf^ but by Henry, 
 ?* his Son^ fi boy of eighteen years of age ^'' 
 
 It appiears, from Matt air e^ as well as from 
 other proofs, that Henry Stephens, under the 
 Ituition of his Father, acquired, very early, 
 a compleat knowledge of the Greek language. 
 Thus capacitated for the employment, it is 
 no wonder that the father required, or that 
 the fon afforded, his afjiflance in thefe lahori- 
 ous collations. But that R. Stephens s MSS 
 were "not collated by R. Stephens^"* at all ; 
 but that the taik of collation was de- 
 volved on He?iry, his Son, Singly, and ex- 
 clufively, — as is aflerted in the preceding 
 pbjedlion ; — is not to be admitted for a mo- 
 ment ; — hec^ufe there is no pretence for the 
 aflertion, and becaufe reafon, propriety, and 
 probability, are uniformly againjl it. 
 
 III. " ^here are very many good, and 
 *-' valuable, readings. In R. Stephen s'j 
 
 " MSS 
 
( 298 ) 
 
 " MSS, which are not inferted in the 
 *' margin of his Book,^'* 
 
 When M. Griejhach (hall be able to pro- 
 duce thefe original MSS, he may be at 
 liberty, perhaps, to bring this accufation 
 againfl R, Stephens. It is, at prefent, as 
 groundlefs, and improbable, as it is uncan- 
 did, and injurious. 
 
 IV. " R. Stephens has very often 
 
 " clofely followed the footfteps of Eraf- 
 
 " mus, orfome other Editor, in oppoftion 
 
 " to the faith, and authority, of all his 
 
 " MSS: and the hoafs, which he makes 
 
 " in his preface, as to his very great care, 
 
 ••* and diligence, in collating his MSS, and 
 
 " his faithfulnefs in fettling his text, are 
 
 " empty andfalfeT (n) 
 
 The anfwer to the laft, preceding, objec- 
 tion, will fuffice for this alio. It merits no 
 
 further attention. 
 
 Thus far for M. Grief ach's Preface to 
 his fecond volume. 
 
 In 
 
 («) Preface, p. 26. 
 
( 299 ) 
 
 In his dlffertation (o) upon this contefted Griesbach 
 text, he affirms that it exlfls in no Greek MS, 
 except that of Dublm, which, he fays, is the 
 Codex Brkannicus of Erafmus— tint Fallas 
 hat'm^ as well as his Greek, MS3 did not 
 contain this verfe — that it firft appeared, 
 in Greek, in the A6ts of the Council of La- 
 ieran — that it was not read in the ancient, 
 Ar^nenian Verfion, (which he afTerts on the 
 bare authority of Sandlus) — that the Preface 
 to the canonical Epiftles is not Jerome'^s, 
 — that Eucherius, (p") Jerome, and Augiijllne^ 
 have not quoted the verfe — that Fulgentius 
 ufes the w^ord conftctur — ^that the confeffion 
 of faith of Eugen'ras, and the African Bifhops 
 under Huneric, has no fubfcription, or fig- 
 nature (whereas it is figned by no lefs than 
 four Bifhops) — and that Flgii'ms was the 
 iirfl: who explicitly quoted this difputed paf- 
 fage. It is fufBcient to have barely menti- 
 oned thefe objedlions : not only becaufe they 
 
 are 
 
 {o) Pages 225—226. 
 
 (/)) 'i'he proofs, which he bring?, as to Eucherius^ are, 
 that Flacius publiftied an edition of the Formula, m 
 which he left out this paiTage j and that Eucherius has 
 not quoted it in other parts ot his works. 
 
( 3^0 ) 
 
 lESBACH. are, in general, brought forward without 
 even the decency of an attempt to fupport 
 them; but becaufe they have been already 
 replied to, and, as it is truf>ed, overthrown, 
 without a lingle exception, in the preceding 
 pages. 
 
 The obje£lions, which follow, feem to re- 
 quire a more particular confideration, 
 
 V. " // is now beyond a doubt, that 
 " R. Stephens had tio more MSS of the 
 " catholic Epijlles than feven ; and that 
 " none of theje contained any part of this 
 *' difputed pa[fage:' (p. 226.) 
 
 It is truly aftonifliing, to fee fo many men 
 of learning, Le Long, (taking them in order 
 of time) Emiyn, La Croze, Sir Ifaac Newton^ 
 Dr. Benfon, and M. Griefhach (not to men- 
 tion any other modern Writers in Germajiy) 
 follow each other fo implicitly in fo grols 
 an error. Thofe Greek MSS, which now 
 fubfift in the Royal Library, at Paris, have 
 been already proved not to be thofe, of R» 
 Stephens, And yet this is the fuppofition, up- 
 on 
 
( 301 ) 
 
 on which this charge, and all fimilar char- Grissb? 
 ges, againft R. Stephens, are foundeci. — But 
 R, Stephens C2in bear them all. Such accufa- 
 tions tarnifh not his well-earned honors. 
 They prove nothing — but the precipitancy 
 of his accufers. 
 
 VI. " The obelus, *whkh is rightly 
 " fixed in R. Stephens'^ Latin editions^ 
 " is found out of its proper place in his 
 «' Greek" [Edition of A. D. 1550.] 
 
 In printing his Latin (as well as his GreeJz) 
 Teftaments, when R. Stephetis did not find 
 certain words, or fentences, in fome of his 
 MSS, which flood in the reft, — he marked, .^ 
 in his text, the words, fo omitted in thefe 
 MSS, with an obelus, and crotchet ; refer- 
 ing, in his margin, to the particular MSS, 
 in which thofe words were fo wanting. He 
 acled thus in his Latin Edition of A. D. 
 1539. He placed this paffage entire in the 
 text; he then fixsd his obelus, and crotchet, 
 fo as to comprehend, within them, all the 
 words of this difputed paffage, from in c^lo 
 to in terra, inclufively ; and laftly, inferted 
 
 in 
 
( 3^0 
 
 in his margin the infgnla oifour only, of his 
 Juat'tn MSS : Thus lignifying to his readers, 
 that the words fo included within hisobehis, 
 and crotchet, were not, indeed, contained 
 in thcfe Jour MSS, — but that they were for 
 that very reafon (^) contained in all the 
 rejl. 
 
 Let R. Stephens^ then, by his JLj//« Tefta- 
 ment of A. D. 1539, determine the difpute 
 about his Greek Teilament of A. D. 1550, 
 His fentence, in refpe£l of thefe two Tell:a- 
 merts, will ftand thus : 
 
 In all my Latin MS'^S' from whence I 
 compiled my Latin Edition of A.D, 1539, 
 
 the whole of the difputed pajfage, John, 
 V : y, and 8, is read, except in four MSS 
 only ; in which four, the words from in 
 caelo to in terra (inclufvc) alone are 
 wanting : — 
 
 In all my Greek MSS from whence I 
 compiled my Greek Edition of A, D, 1550, 
 the whole of the fame difputed pajage is 
 
 alfo 
 (j-) ExcepUo prohat re^ulam. In non exreptis. 
 
C 303 ) 
 
 alfo read^ except in feven only ; In which Griesb 
 feven the words^ bv tw homm^ alone are 
 wanting. 
 
 This is the plain language o{ R, Stephens's 
 crotchets, in both his Latin, and Greeks 
 Teftaments. And this is, alfo, as to the 
 Greek, what hath been uniformly contended 
 for, throughout the preceding pages. The 
 collation, and comparifon, of R. Stephens's 
 Latin Edition (r) with his Greek one, feem 
 only to prove, that his condud hath been 
 uniformly fmcere, in both. His, admitted, 
 integrity as to the Latin Teftament, is a 
 w^arranty, a pledge, for the like integrity in 
 his Greek Teftament. And the defenders of 
 the authenticity of this verfe, of St. John^ 
 ought not to wifh for a more favorable ar- 
 bitration, in the debate, as to the intentions of 
 R. Stephens in placing his crotchets, than 
 tiiis expofition of them by Stephens himfelf. 
 
 VII. " What learned men have long 
 '' feen'' [as to the MS of Berlin] *' / 
 
 " have 
 
 (r) He printed fevcrd Editions of both. But thefe 
 fwo, principal. Editions alone are here lUted, for the 
 fake of argument. 
 
( 304 ) 
 
 " have found to be mojl certain, on aftrl^ 
 ** examination of the MS itfef and on a 
 *' comparifon of it in pari ivith that Edi- 
 *' tion ; namely J that it is nothing hut a 
 " tranfcript from the Bible <?/' Complu- 
 " turn." (p. 226.) 
 
 In addition to the arguments which I ven- 
 tured to urge againil: this objeaion, in feme 
 (j) of the preceding pages, I have juft beeni 
 obhged, and honored, by M. i. f. Zoellner j 
 of Berlin^ with a very particular defcription 
 of this MS : by which it appears, (as I have 
 before contended) that it is not a tranfcript 
 from the Bible of Complutum. 
 
 ** GratiJJimum fane mi hi fuijfet, vir plur, 
 reverende, fi lit eras Tuas ad Gibbon em 
 legere potuijfem, quo melius ea 'Tecum com^ 
 munlcarem^quce pracipue fcire Tua inter ef. 
 Libris autem Anghcanis pier unique fero ad 
 nos venientibus, hanc quoque difcujjionem eru- 
 ditam Beroltni frufra quajtvi. Sed ut 
 7iihilominus Tibi qfficium meum probem, qua 
 
 *' ad 
 
 (J) Pages 159—171, 
 
( 3^5 ) 
 
 *' ad liicem difqiiifitlonlbus Tuts affundendam Griesb. 
 *' valere ofinor, brevher ea commemorabo, 
 
 " ^lod^ quidem, ad antiquttatem Codkh 
 
 *' Ravi AN I attinet, vereor ut fujlciat, Ji 
 
 *' meam tantiim fententlam Tecum communkare 
 
 *' velim. Sunt cnlm tarn mull a in Germania 
 
 ** recentljjimh temporibus, hac de re, a vlris^ 
 
 *' eruditijjtmis difputata, ut meum non Jit inter 
 
 *' criticos tantos i ant as componere lites, 
 
 ' * ^od La Crozlu s fimpUciter dicit, fcribam 
 *' indodlum etiam mendas typographic as ex^ 
 " P^dJKf^y ^^ omnino conjlet. Sec, — id quidem 
 " nimis feftinanter ab illo diElum eft. Codex 
 ** Ravianus a textu Complutenfium innu- 
 *' MERis LOG IS difcrepat^ 
 
 And, after affignlng many, and, as it 
 feems, unanfwerable, reafbns for his opinion, 
 and judgement, he fubjoins this very proba- 
 ble conclufion. — '' ^a cum itajint, baud ab- 
 '* fonumforet, Ji cui placer et, codicem nojirum 
 *' apographum ejfe, non e Complutenfibus, 
 ^^ Jed ex ALIO codice mamfcripto, quem Edi^ 
 X '' tores 
 
( 3o6 ; 
 
 ESBACH. «« tores Complntenfes potijfimim fecutl funt^ 
 '* concinnatum.^' (/) 
 
 VIII. " This verfe was not read'''' [ok: 
 quoted] " at the Counc'il of Nice.'* — (p. 
 227,) and is, therefore, fpurious. 
 
 This hath been often faid : — but, as it 
 feems, without fufficient grounds. For how 
 is this aflumption to be proved ? Not by the 
 u^^s of this CounciL For they are Decrees 
 only, and Ordinances, and fet forth no 
 texts of Scripture, whatever, refpe6li ng the 
 nature, the attributes, («) or even the ex- 
 iftence, of the Deity. Nor can it be proved 
 by the (Nicene) Creed of this Council. 
 For that, although infifting ftrongly on the 
 divinity of Jefus Chriji, does not contain a 
 iingle citation from Scripture. Nor is this 
 afllimption to be proved from thofe pretend- 
 ed difputes of Bifliops, and others, at that 
 Council. For thefe are mere fables, com- 
 pofed by Gelajius Cyzicenfis, (x) fome centu- 
 ries 
 
 (0 Appendix, No. XXIII j where this letter is given 
 more at large. 
 
 («) Ihe only texts, cited in them, refer to Eunuchs^ 
 and ufury. Harduin. in loco^ 
 
 (x) '^'.' P', Art. Gela/ms, 
 
( 3^1 ) 
 nes after that Council was held, as is now Griesbac 
 iiniverfally admitted. The Nicene Fathers, 
 therefore, are filent, as to this contefted verfe, ^ 
 
 in their ASis, and Creed', but that filence is a 
 thing the moill: remote in nature from a 
 proof, that it did not then fubfifl in their 
 Greek MSS ; or that it was not even q^uoted 
 at the council of A7rt?. 
 
 Whenever it fhall be affirmed, then, that 
 the Ads, and Creed, of the Nicene Fathers 
 have not mentioned the verfe, i . John, v : 7, 
 
 and that it is, therefore, fpurious : it 
 
 would, as it feems, be no very unapt corol- 
 lary, to fuch a proportion, to fay — Nor have 
 they mentioned the baptifmalinjiitution, — there- 
 fore that is fpurious : Nor that pajfage in St, 
 John'j Go/pel, I, and my father^ are one, — 
 therefore that is fpurious : Nor any part f/- 
 ther of that Go/pel, or of his Epifles, — there- 
 fore they are fpurious : Nor yet any one paf- 
 fage, from any one part of the Bible, refpeEiing 
 the nature of the God-head, — therefore, in 
 
 fine, thofe paffages are all fpurious ! Tiie 
 
 inference is either valid in all its parts, or 
 it is vaHd in none. But, in truth, it is ut- 
 terly invalid. It has no foundnefs in it. It 
 X z proves- 
 
(3o8 ) 
 
 lESEACH. proves too much, and therefore proves no- 
 thing. 
 
 M. Griefbach proceeds to remark, (^) that 
 Latin MSS, written hefore the tenth centu- 
 ry, do not contain this difputed paffage ; — 
 that the MSS of the Vulgate had it not, at 
 the time when Jerome's preface was written ; 
 — that fome copies have the preface, andyet 
 do not read the verfe ; and that, in others, It 
 is not placed in the hody of the text, but in 
 the margin. 
 
 I fhall content myfelf, with jufl: remark- 
 ing, in reply to thefe obfervations, that the 
 fecond^ and thlrd^ of them have been anfwer- 
 ed {%) already. T\\q firjl fhould be anfwer- 
 ed now, if the learned profeflbr had fuffici- 
 ently afcertained his own meaning. The 
 lafl: of them will receive its anf\ver hereafter. 
 
 IX. *' ne preface o/' Jerome h not 
 *' found in any MS, written before the 
 ** time o/" Charles the Bald, in the ninth 
 " century,"" (p. 235.) 
 
 Admitting 
 
 [y) Page 228. 
 
 (%) Pages 97— IC4» and 341 — 266, 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 If this allegation were true (winch, how- 
 ever, (j) is not the cafe) it would not prove 
 that this preface was not written by Jerome. 
 A condderable fpace of time muft elapfe, after 
 the writing of this preface in yljta^ before 
 the Latins of Europe, in general, could know 
 (by the flow, and expenfive, method of 
 propagating books then in iVfe) that fuch a 
 preface even exifted. And, when the fa£t 
 became, in fome meafure, known, the MSS, 
 prior to that time, could not receive it ; for 
 it was too large a piece of compofition to be 
 mterlineJ, or written in the 7?iargin. As it 
 was no part of the fiicred Canon, many 
 would refufe to infert it, even in the MSS 
 written after the knowledge of it became 
 general. Thofe Chriftians, who favored 
 the Arian, Semi-Arian, SaheUian, or even 
 the Eunomian, and Eutychian, fy ftems, would 
 certainly deny it a place in their books. 
 And thus it is poffible, that fome few MSS 
 (for they cannot be many) written in, or 
 hefore, the ninth century, may now be pro- 
 cluced, in which this preface is not found. 
 But this circumftance (as before obferved) 
 
 is 
 
 {a) M. Simon, Hlji. dii Texte, p. 208. Hijl. des Ver- 
 fions^p. 1C5. — Martianay, Proleg.Vol. i. Op, Hieron, 
 Dr. Burnet, Letter i. 
 
( 3^^ ) 
 
 as far from proving the preface to be fpuri- 
 OLis : — efpecially when it is further confider- 
 ed, that, in the ninth century^ this preface 
 was publicly admitted to be the work of 
 Jerome ; as appears by the Glojfa ordinaria of 
 JValafrid Strabo^ which hath been already 
 called (d) in evidence to this point, in the 
 preceding pages. 
 
 And now, Sir, I beg to be difmifled from 
 M. Griesbach, — in order that I ma}^ 
 laftly, attend to Mr. Bowyer, as was ori- 
 ginally propofed. — And his obje6lions are, 
 chiefly, thefe w^hich follow. 
 
 I. " S,t. Cyprian does not quote the 
 " verfe, totidem verbis, as the text is 
 *' now read^ though Bijhop Pearfon 
 " (Not. ad Cyprian, de Unitate Ec- 
 *' clefiae, p, 109) rather too Jlrongly of- 
 " ferts Cyprianum citafle ante Hiero- 
 '' nymi tempora. The words of Cy- 
 *' prian are — Et hi tres in unum funt." 
 X 3 Cyprian 
 
 (a) Page 110 — Note/. 
 
 See alfo Bengelius^ Edit. Tubingte, A. D, 1734? pa. 763. 
 
(3'0 
 
 Cyprian does quote the verfe toiidem Bo wye 
 verbis, (as far as his words are meant to be 
 a quotation) and Blfliop Pearfon's alTertioii 
 is NOT too ftrong. Cyprians words are not 
 " Et hi tres in unum funt," but " Et hi 
 tres {b) unum funt," an exa6l Tranfcript of 
 the hatin Text of St. 'Johii, 
 
 11. *' And in another place, Cyprian 
 " (Epif. ad P. Juhanum, p. 223, Ed, 
 *' Pearfon (Quasro cnjus Dei, ^c.-*- 
 ** Cum tres unum funt. // is certain 
 ** St. Cyprian does not cite it in terms 
 ^^ from the text, nor yet, in both places, • 
 ** agreeably to hitnfelf^'' 
 
 The Epiflle, here referred to, is Ad Ju- 
 haianum, not Julianum. In the former in- 
 ftance, which has been conlidered under the 
 laft, preceding, obje6lion, Cyprian cites the 
 claufe in dire£i terms from the Text of St. 
 John. The latter inftance is rather an al- 
 Jufion, or a reference, (c) than a direct 
 quotation. 
 
 III. '' He 
 
 (b) Page 37, and Appendix, No. III. 
 {c) Appendix, No. IV. 
 
Wyer. III. " He does not fay in either^ the 
 
 *' Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghojl : 
 *' but in the former, the Father, Son,. 
 *' and Holy Ghofi ; and in the latter, 
 " the Creator^ Chrtft, and the Holy 
 " Ghofir 
 
 Cyprian only meant to ^^o/^, dire£lly, the 
 concluding claufe of the verfe, *' Et hi tres 
 •unum funt." And this he has literally done 
 in the former of thefe examples. 
 
 IV. " ^he Montanifis, foon after this 
 • *' time, generally interpreted the Spirit, 
 
 " Water, and the Blood, in the eighth 
 *' verfe, to denote, intheirmyfiicalfenfe^ 
 " the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft^ 
 
 The Herefy of Montanus began long be^ 
 fore (not after) the time of Cyprian. What 
 the Montanifis interpreted of the eighth verfe 
 is of no confequence, unlefs it could be 
 proved that the feventh verfe did not exifl 
 in the times of the Montanifis, 
 
 V. '* if foi it will be no hard thing 
 
 X 4 *« /^ 
 
(3-3) 
 
 ** to fuppofe Cyprian to do the fame. ^^ Bowv 
 
 If to fuppofe would have been to fucceeJy 
 the queftion would have been decided long 
 fince. But if Cyprian had really done as this 
 obje6l"ion fuppofes^ his quotation would have 
 been *' Et hi tres in unum funt/* according 
 • to the invariable (d) tenor of the eighth 
 verfe ; which it is not. Mr. Bovjyer has, 
 indeed, endeavoured to give color to this ob- 
 jection, by affirming, as we have ju ft feen, 
 that Cyprian did quote " in unum." But 
 the affirmation is invaHd ; and the inference, 
 is, therefore, inadmiffible. 
 
 VI. *' //'* [the verfe in queflion] 
 " Jirjl appeared to the public in Greek, /;/ 
 " the Complutenfian Edition, upon the 
 *' authority of Thomas Aquinas, whofe 
 . ** note is printed in the margin of the 
 « Greek." 
 
 If Mr. Bowyer here means that the verfe 
 firil: appeared to the public in printed Greek, 
 
 in 
 
 [d) The exceptions to this defcription are (o very 
 few, as not to merit notice. 
 
V 3^^ ) 
 
 WYER. in the Complutefijian Edition, the affertion 
 may be juft The Complutenfian was not, 
 however, x\\&firjl^ printed, Greeks Teftament 
 which appeared to the pubhc ; for the firfl 
 Edition of Erafinus was publiflied long be- 
 fore the Complutenjian^ viz. in A. D. 1516. 
 
 But the verfe, in queftion, did not appear, 
 In the Greek of the Complutenfian Edition, 
 ■upon the authority of Aquinas^ in any ref- 
 pe£l ; the marginal note, here {/) mentioned 
 by Mr. Bowyer, having no fuch import, and 
 being capable of no fuch conftrudion. 
 
 \ And here. Sir, I take my leave of Mr. 
 Bowyer : — who has, indeed, urged feveral 
 other objections againft the originahty of 
 this verfe. But they have been already con- 
 iidered, in fome part, or parts, of the pre- 
 ceding pages. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 &c. 
 (e) Appendix, No. XVIII. 
 
i^^aaaaE 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 HAVE now replied to all thofe ohjedilons, 
 which it feemed neceflary for me to ex- 
 amine in detail.— And I am encouraged 
 to hope, that (in having been thus enabled 
 to detach thofe incumbrances from it,) the 
 whole queftion, as to the authenticit}^ of 
 this contefled paflage, may be, henceforth, 
 difcuffed in a lefs defultory manner. The 
 fubje(51: appears to be now comprelTed 
 within a fmall compafs ; and mav novv% 
 therefore, as it feems, be quickly determined 
 by a difcernlng mind. 
 
 UPON A FULL CONSIDERATION, 
 then, of the whole queftion (fetting afide thofe 
 objedions which have been already refuted) 
 
 the 
 
( 3i6) 
 
 the only impeachments of this verfe, which 
 claim the ferious deliberation of an unpreju- 
 diced mind, fecm to be comprifed in thefe 
 three, following, particulars : namely, 
 
 1 . Its not being found in thofe parts of 
 the works of many Greek, and of fome few 
 Latin, Fathers ; which have defcended to 
 the preicut age : 
 
 2. Its not being found in any of the Greek 
 MSS of the Scriptures, which are now 
 extant : And 
 
 3. The (fuppofed) injury done to the 
 context of the i^poflle, by the admiffion of 
 the text in queftion. 
 
 As to the firft of thefe obje£lions, — it un- 
 doubtedly feems, on a primary view, a 
 ftrange circumftance, that this verfe fhould 
 not be found in thofe parts of the works of 
 certain ancient Chrtjitan Fathers, which 
 have remained to the prefent age. And this 
 circumflance appears the more peculiarly 
 ftrange, when it is confidered, that many of 
 
 thefe 
 
( "6^1 ) 
 
 thefe Fathers wrote upon fubje<5ls, which 
 feemed to call for a citation of this verfe ; 
 as the Divinity of Jefiis Cbrijl, and of the 
 Holy Spirit ; or that awful fubjcd, which 
 involves them both in itfelf, the Trinity of 
 perfons in the Godhead, 
 
 But, in anfwer to this objection , it ought 
 to be obferved, in the firft place, that, at 
 lead, fome of thefe Fathers, perhaps all of 
 them, conceived the words of this verfe to 
 indicate an unity of co7ifent^ o"lj? ^'^^ ^-^^ "^^ 
 unity of nature, in thefe three, heavenly, 
 I^^itnejfes. We know, that many learned 
 men have given this expofition to the verfe ; 
 for their works, particularly thofe of Calvin, 
 and Beza, prove it to us Upon this bypo- 
 thefs (and it feems very far from being a 
 forced, or an extravagant, idea) every diffi- 
 culty vaniflies at once. Thofe pious Cbrifllan 
 Fathers, whofe citations of this verfe have, 
 fortunately, furvived to theprefent age, have 
 quoted it in affirmation of the Divinity of 
 the fecond, and third, Perfons In the Holy 
 Triruty ; becaufe they interpreted the verfe, 
 as holding forth a proof of fjch Divinity. 
 
 Thofe 
 
(3-8) 
 
 Thofe ancient Fathers, equally p'lous, per- 
 haps, and equally lincere, whofe private 
 judgement, reftricted their interpretation of 
 this text to an unity of confent^ alone, would 
 noL cite it, at all, in their Treatifes upon 
 thofe myfterious fubje£ls : becaufe, in their 
 apprehenfion, it did not eflabhfh the doc- 
 trines, for which they contended. The 
 former clafs of thefe Fathers, wouXdi fpeak ', 
 becaufe they had no doubts as to the expofi- 
 tion of theverfe, but were convinced. The 
 latter would bejilent\ becaufe they had their 
 doubts as to its interpretation, and were 
 perplexed. But, had not the verfe cx'ijlcd, 
 at all, in their Bibles, it cannot even be 
 imagined that thefe laft-mentioned Fathers 
 would have contented themfelvcs withy^"- 
 lence only. They would certainly have en- 
 quired of thefe, w^ho thus quoted the verfe, 
 — IVhy do you impofe fuch words upon us, as 
 parts of Holy Writ f T^hey do not exlft in our 
 Bibles. Shew us, whence they are derived I 
 But they have urged no fuch queftions, have 
 expreflcd no fuch doubts, at any time, in 
 any part of their wririnjrs. 
 
 The 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 The fa^, that fbme of thefe ancient Fa- 
 thers have, and that others have not, quoted 
 this verfe, is undoubtedly true. It is ad- 
 mitted by aU. And this method of ac- 
 counting for the ambiguity is, at leaft, ob- 
 vious, and eafy, as well as candid. It does 
 not fuppofe Men wilfully to betray the 
 truth, which Dr. Benfon more than fuppofes 
 Robert Stephens, Theodore Beza, and the Com- 
 flutenjtan Editors, to have done. It only 
 prefumes Men formerly to have been, as 
 they now are, of different opinions in dif- 
 putable matters. It involves itfelf in no 
 painful perplexities. It offers no violence to 
 the plain dictates of common fenfe : and is, 
 therefore, moft likely to be the truth. 
 
 When this argument is ftill further ex- 
 tended to the opponents of thofe Dodrines, in 
 fupport of which this verle hath been thus 
 alledged, it feems to become infuperable. 
 Throughout the vafl feries oi 07ie thoufand 
 four hundred years, which intervened be- 
 tween the days of Praxeas, and the age of 
 Erafmus, not a fingle Author, whether Pa- 
 tripajfian^ Ccrhthian^ Ebionite, Arian, Ma- 
 
 cedonian^ 
 
( 320 ) 
 
 cedonlan^ or SabelUan^ whether of the Greek 
 or Latin^ whether of the Eaftern, or 
 Weftern, Church, — whether in yljta, AfrU 
 ca, or Europe, — hath ever taxed the various 
 quotations of this verfe, which have been 
 fet forth ill the preceding pages, with inter- 
 polation, or forgery. Such filence /peaks, 
 moft emphatically fpeaks, in favour of the 
 verfe. Had it, in any of thefe ages, been 
 even fufpe6ted as fuppofitiiious, thofe adver- 
 faries (efpecially the Arians) would* not 
 have been filent only. — They would have 
 exclaimed aloud, vehemently, and without 
 ceaiing ; they would have filled the Chriji'ian 
 world with their inveGiives againft thofc 
 who quoted it : they would have charged 
 them with abfolutq faUehood, with impiety, 
 with blafphemy. 
 
 Thus it feems, that the circumflance of 
 this verfe not having been quoted by fome an- 
 cient Fathers (as it has been by others) may 
 be candidly, and fatisfictorily, accounted 
 for ; without fuffering any impeachment to 
 reft upon the authenticity of the verfe, and 
 without feeking any refuge for it, in fucli 
 
 part* 
 
( 321 ) 
 
 parts of the works of thofe Fathers, as are 
 now loft. But, fuppofing for a moment, 
 and for the fake of argument, that no ra- 
 tional account could be given of thefe omif- 
 fions ; what would their weight be, in the 
 fcale of found judgnaent ? All thefe om'ijjlons 
 could amount, only, to a fort of negative 
 evidence. They might perplex the mind, 
 indeed, and lay it under difficulties ; but 
 they could do no more. If there were no 
 pojitive evidence, that other Writers, of 
 thofe ages, had quoted the verfe, thefe 
 omiflions, indeed, ought to turn the bal- 
 lance againft the authenticity of this Text. 
 But there is fuch evidence. It is ample, it 
 is various, it is particular ;— and it has been 
 particularly ftated, Thefe omiffions, there- 
 fore, cannot make what is in itfelf, and in 
 its own nature, only a difficulty, or a nega- 
 tive prefumption, become a pojitive proofs to 
 deftroy a fad well eftabhfhed. It is impof^ 
 iible for Writers of this age pofitively to 
 pronounce, on what grounds, or for what 
 reafons, certain Greeks or Latin^ Authors, 
 who wrote more than a thoufand years ago, 
 have omitted to quote this text. This, 
 y however. 
 
( 322 ) ' 
 
 however, may be fald, — that fuch omifiions 
 are, at the moft, only negative evidence. 
 But negative evidence, although multiplied 
 infinitely, will ftill be no more than negative. 
 And the {lighted pofitive teftimony (which, 
 however, is, in the prefent cafe, not flight, 
 but moil powerful, moft convincing) will, 
 at all times, and on all occafions, totally 
 overballance, and deftroy it. 
 
 The SECOND of thefe objections is, — That 
 the verfe^ in quejlion, is not found in any of the 
 Greek MSS of the Scriptures, which are now 
 extant. But to this objection let it be an- 
 fwered, 
 
 FIrll:, that the aflertion Is not flrldty true. 
 *' Apparent rari nantes in gurgite vajio^ The 
 MSS of Dublin, and Berlin, at leaf!:, — (and, 
 as it feems by the admiflions of Wetjiein^ 
 three others) — yet remain to juftify this ob- 
 fervation. 
 
 But if it fhould be granted, for the pre- 
 fent, that the verfe, in queftion, Is found in 
 none of the very few Greek MSS, which arc . 
 
 now 
 
( 3^3 ) 
 
 how extant,— does it thence follow, that it 
 Was not found in many which formerly did 
 exift, but are now periflied ? What may 
 have been an omiffion in one MS, is no proof 
 of iiltierpolation in another. Such a conclu- 
 clufion, at all times weak in itfelf, is, in the 
 prefent cafe, overthrown by irrefiftible evi- 
 dence. Robert Stephens points to this verfe 
 in his MSS ; 'Theodore Beza confirms his tefti- 
 mony : and the (f) mifreprefentations of 
 Father Le Long^ on this great queftion, have 
 been, in the preceding part of thefe letters, 
 compleatly refuted* Laurentius Valla had 
 {.t\t\\ Greek MSS for the ufe of his Com- 
 mentary ; he (ets forth the very terms in 
 which thofc MSS read this verfe : and the 
 miftakes (^) of Dr. Mill^ on this fubjed, 
 have been re<5lified* The Divines, of the 
 Univerfity (y&) of Louvaine^ affirm that this 
 Y 3 verfe 
 
 if) P2ges 1 27-^1 3^. 
 
 {g) Notes on Pages 18, and 144. 
 
 (/;) An Edition of the New Teilaitient was publifh- 
 ed, by them, in A. D. 1574; in which they fpeakof this 
 conterted vcrfe^ in the following terms. 
 
 *' The reading of this text is fapported by very many Latin 
 *' copies^ and a/Jo hy two Qreek copies, produced by Erafmus, 
 ** one in England, the other in "ipain. The King's Bible 
 ** agrees tvith the Spanifh JUS in this paj/age, as ivell as in 
 «« fydy other. We hav£, ouRiELVEs. seen several 
 
( 324 ) 
 
 verfe exifled in feveral ancient Greek MSS of 
 their times : and their affirmation has never 
 been djfp roved. Enifnus confefles one 
 fuch MS ; although, in truth, he ought ta 
 have acknowledged eight. JValafrid Stra- 
 ho directs his readers, in all cafes of difficul- 
 ty, to refort to the Greek copies ; which im- 
 plies that to have been his own pradice :— 
 and this contefted paffage hath always flood 
 in his Glojfa or dinar la. The ancient Arme^ 
 nlan Verfion was rendered from the Greek 
 of the Council of Ephefus * and that Verfion 
 hath conflantly exhibited this difputed text. 
 Jerome declares, that the Greek MSS of his 
 times read the verfe ; for he makes his ap- 
 peal, in behalf of his Verfion, to the autho- 
 rity of the Greek text : and this palTage hath 
 always exifled in his Verfion. The aTrofoXo; 
 contained the Epiftles themfelves, in the 
 original Greek, read in the Greek Churches 
 iis early as (perhaps much earlier than) the 
 fourth, or fifth, century : and this aTroroXof 
 has always exhibited this verfe. And Ter^ 
 iuUian, who quotes this verfe in the fecond 
 
 century, 
 
 *' OTHERS LIKE THESE. This vcrfc is alfo found in 
 " ALL Stephens'^ MSS; five that the wordsy in Heaven, 
 t< gre wmtting infeven of them,** 
 
( 3^5 ) 
 
 century, appeals to the *' authentico GracOy'' 
 the " ipfa liters Apoftolorum^'' the Auto- 
 graphs^ the very originals written by the A- 
 poflles themfelves, which were extant in his 
 times. Above all, the old Italic Verfion, 
 which is believed to have been made in the 
 lirft century, and was read publicly among 
 the Aflemblies of Chrljilam for feveral cen- 
 turies afterwards, has always had this paf- 
 fage. Now, the Compilers of this very an- 
 cient Verfion muft, either, have furrepti- 
 tioufly introduced this verfe into their Tran- 
 flation ; or they muft have found it in the 
 Greek Original, from whence they tranflated. 
 But the former alternative feems impoffible 
 to be adopted. For if it (hall even be grant- 
 ed that this Verfion was not made until the 
 fecond century ; it is decifively certain, from 
 the authority of Tertidlian, which has juft 
 been referred to, and of IgnaUiis^ (i) that the 
 original Epijiles of the x'\po{lles were then 
 extant, to deted the daring impiety of in- 
 ferting a forged, a falfe, text in the lacred 
 Volumes, if any fuch had been committed. 
 But if this Verfion were executed in \.\\q fi'Jl 
 Y 3 century, 
 
 [i) Sec page 40 — Note q. 
 
(326) 
 
 century, which we have every reafon to be-^ 
 lieve, St. John himfelf was then alive, to 
 flrike the bold impoflors dead (as St. Peter^ 
 (JC) and St. John^ together, had before punifliT 
 cd Ananias, and Sapphird) for ** agreeing to^ 
 ♦' gether to tempt the Spirit of the Lord^ aiid 
 *' lying unto the Holy Ghoji."^* — The former 
 alternative, therefore, being abfurd, and in- 
 admiffiblc, the latter is at once fubrtantiated i 
 namely, that the Tranflators of the old Ita- 
 lic Verfion found this verfe in the original 
 Greek ; and therefore, that this Italic Verfion 
 holds the place, not of a Greek Copy only, 
 but of the very Autograph itfelf, the original 
 Epiftle written by the pen of St. John. 
 
 Let It be further obfervcd, on this head, 
 that fome, tolerably fatisfa<flory, account 
 may yet be given (although none can rea- 
 fonably be required) why fome of thefe anr 
 cienr Greek MSS, now in debate, would pro- 
 bably (I had almofl faid necejfarily') be loft 
 to the prefent times. The MSS of Lauren- 
 tius Valla ; thofe which were fent into Spain^ 
 from the Vatican Library, for the ufe of the 
 
 Complutenfan 
 
 [k) A^i of the Apodles, Vt i — ij, 
 
( 3^7 ) 
 Compluienjtan Editors ; thofe which were la 
 the poi^effion of Robert St ephem, of Theo- 
 dore Beza, and of the Univerfity of Lou- 
 vaine ; exlfted at a time when the Art of 
 Printing, then recently invented, was be-, 
 ginning to extend itfelf to the Greek Tella- 
 ment. Efleemed, as thefe written Copies,' 
 or MSS, muft be before the invention of 
 Printing, the Books, multiplied by that in- 
 valuable Art, were fb much more compen- 
 diouily corrected, (a fingle revlfion ferving 
 for a thoufand Copies) were fo much lefs 
 cxpenfive, fo much more eafy to be obtained, 
 and fo much more convenient for ufe, that 
 the value, at that time, of MSS muft be fo 
 exceedingly depreciated at once, as almofl 
 to iink into nothing. All thefe early Edi- 
 tors, when their MSS had ferved the purpofe 
 6f fettling the text of their refpecl:ive Edi- 
 tions, would conlider them as defuncl, in 
 fome degree, and neglect them accordingly. 
 This muft be the cafe, in general, for a long 
 feafon after the printed Copies began to 
 fpread themfelves over the Chrijiian world. 
 It was not until more modern times, when 
 a tafle for critical enquiries of this kind arofe, 
 Y 4 that 
 
that thefe MSS (or rather the remnants of 
 them) have been fo much fought for, and 
 fo highly valued. In this interval of neg- 
 led, the MSS of L. Valla, and of the Com* 
 plutenjian Editors ; the MSS feen by the 
 Divines of Louvaine ; the MSS of Robert 
 Stephens, and, by confequenccj of Theodore 
 !Beza: — have perilhed Had it not been for 
 a fortunate (J) adventure of Erafmus, the MS 
 of L. Falla had, in all probability, been ut- 
 terly loft. Had it not been for Maffehts, it 
 can hardly be imagined that the Compkxiones 
 of CaJJiodorius would ever have feen the 
 light. But we need not travel into Italy iot 
 inftances to iiluflrate this argument. Our 
 own country exhibits an example fufficiently 
 conclufive. There was not a Cathedral, a 
 Pariih-Church) a Monaftery, Nunnery, or 
 Chantry, (not to bring private families into 
 the account) within this kingdom, which 
 may not be fuppofed to have pofl'efled, at 
 the aera of the invention of Printing, one MS 
 Copy of the Scriptures, in the Latin lan- 
 guage, at leaft. And yet, where are thofe 
 
 MSS 
 
 (/) « Forte in cafTes meos iiicidit prada," kz» 
 (Appendix, No. XV.) 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 MSS now ? — Out of the many thousands, 
 V'hich then exifted, it may be doubted whe* 
 ther there is a fingle hundred (there may, 
 perhaps, be a folltary fcore, or two) whick 
 can now be produced. Let us hear, theii, 
 no more of the improbability of loll MSS, 
 or of queflions framed on the idea of fuch 
 an improbability. If the MSS of Dublin^ 
 and Berlin^ had been annihiJated fome cen- 
 turies (ince, and if it could be now fatisfac- 
 torily proved, that there did not fubfilt, at 
 this hour, a iingle Greek MS, which exhi* 
 bited the verfe, in queflion : yet ftill the 
 teftimonies of its former exiftence, which 
 have been already produced, would greatly 
 over-ballaiice any prefumption which miglit 
 arife from fuch a circumftance ; would con- 
 troul, would fubdue, would govern, every 
 unprejudiced mind. 
 
 Thefe refiedions on the lofs of thofe an- 
 cient Greek MSS, which contained this verfe, 
 will derive additional drength, perhaps, 
 from a recoUedion of frnjilar deftrudions, 
 which have befallen other monuments of 
 ccclefiaflical, as well as prophane, learning ; 
 
 for 
 
( 33^ ) 
 
 for which no adequate account can, human- 
 ly, be given. If the demand be made, IVhat 
 is become of thofe ancient Greek MSS^ which 
 contained this verfe ; and why are they^ in ge- 
 neral^ loji, rather than thofe which did not con- 
 tain it? It may, in return, be afked, what 
 is become of the loft Books of Livy f What 
 of the reft of the Hiftory of Polybius ? Why 
 hath the whole of Claudians Poem, on the 
 Gildonic War, perifhed, the firft Book only 
 excepted ? Why hath Origen\ Confutation 
 of Celfus furvived to our times ; although 
 the work itfelf is loft, which Origen fo con- 
 futed ? Why have we a part, only, of the 
 Chronicon of Eufebius ; and that fcarcely the 
 hundredth part, if Jofeph Scaliger may be 
 credited ? Why have we 1'acittis only in 
 part ? And why have those particular 
 PARTS, of all thefe MSS, been loft, rather 
 THAN THE OTHERS which have, fortunate- 
 ly, come down to our hands ? Such queftions 
 as thefe may be infinitely multiplied, whe- 
 ther they relate to the records of things fa- 
 cred, or profane, in general, or to thofe, 
 now loft, Greek MSS of the New Teftament, 
 m particular, which contained this verfe of 
 
 St. 
 
( 331 ) 
 
 St. John : but they will prove nothing, and, 
 therefore, will delerve no attention. Whether 
 thefe particular MSS, laft mentioned, have 
 perifhed by the (lowly, yet furely, dc(lru6live 
 efforts of Time; or by accident, negligence, 
 or fraud : it matters not to enquire. Al- 
 though " dead," they '* yet fpeak" to us, 
 in thofe faithful tranfcripts, and quotations, 
 which are flated in the preceding Letters. 
 And their teftimonv will be rejeded only by 
 prejudice; becaufe it cannot be fo rejected, 
 but by a violation of all thofe rules of rea- 
 ioning, and a£ting, by wdiich men govern 
 themfelves on all other occaiions. 
 
 The THIRD, and Lift, of thefe objedions, 
 is — thefuppofed injury done to the cotitext of the 
 Apojlle^ by the admij/ion of the verfe in quejiion. 
 
 But this objection feems to have ftill lefs 
 foundation than either of thofe, which pre- 
 ceded it. Before this Epiflle was written, 
 the two, oppofite, Herefies of the Cerinthians^ 
 and the Docet^^ had arlfen, to the great dK- 
 turbance of the Chriftian Church. The, 
 JDoccta denied the incarnation of Chrijl\ 
 
 refuiing 
 
( 33^ ) 
 
 refufing to admit that he was ever cloathed 
 with human flefh, or ever took our nature 
 i]pon him. ^he Cer'mthians^ on the con- 
 trary, denied his divinity ; affirming that 
 Jefus Chrifi had no other than the human, A- 
 gainft luch errors as thefeit was highly need- 
 ful to proteft, and to contend for the faith 
 once delivered to the Saints : and St. John 
 (^m) alone, probably, then remained, of the 
 facred College of Apoftles, to undertake the 
 work with the authority of an infpired wri- 
 ter. In a few of the firft verfes of his Gof- 
 pcl he afferts the God-head of the Word, 
 the Almighty, and Eternal Word, in con- 
 futation of the errors of Cerinthus. " /;; 
 " the begimi'mg was the Word^ and the Word 
 *' was with God, and the Word was God, 
 *' The fame was, in the beginning, with God, 
 *' j^ll things were made by him \ and in him 
 *' was life^ And in a fucceeding verfe he 
 flops to affirm the incarnation of Chriji, 
 with a plainnefs, and precifion, equally fatal 
 to the oppolite error of the Docet^. " And 
 " the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
 
 " among 
 
 (m) Dr. Townfon\ Difcourfes on the Gofpels. Ed. 
 Z778, p. 204—5. 
 
( 333 ) 
 
 *' among us" He condemns the Doceta 
 alfo, in the exordium of this Epiftle. '" That 
 " which was from the beginning, which tve 
 " have HEARD, which we have seen 
 ** WITH OUR EYES, and our hands have 
 " HANDLED, of /he WoRD cf life : declare 
 *^ we unto you.'''' He confounds the Cerin- 
 thians in the clofe of it. '* Jlnd we know 
 ** that the Son of God is cotne, and hath given 
 *' us an underfland'tng that we may know him 
 " that is true ; and we are in him that is 
 *' true, even in his Son Jefus Chrifi : This 
 *' is the TRUE God, and eternal life^'* 
 
 Thefe feparate condemnations are found 
 united together, and are urged in conjunc- 
 tion, in that paffage of this Epiftle, which 
 is the object of this prefent difquifition, and 
 in a few words antecedent, and fubfequent, 
 to it. The text ftands, Hterally, thus : 
 
 *' nis is the victory that overcometh the 
 " world \ even our faith. Who is he that 
 *' overcometh the world, hut he that believeih 
 ■*' that Jefus is the Son of Godf This is he 
 *• that came by Water, and Blood, even Jefus 
 
 Ch'rif, 
 
C 334 ) 
 
 " Chnji^ not hy Water only, hut hy Water an J 
 *' Blood. And It Is the Spirit that beareth 
 *' witnefs, hecatije the Spirit is truth. For 
 " there are three that bear record in Heaven ; 
 *« the Father, the Word, and the Holy GboJI . 
 " and thefe three are one. And there are three 
 *' that bear witnefs in earth ; the Spirit ^ the 
 ** Waier^ and the Blood: and thefe three agree 
 ** in one. If we receive the witnefs of Meti^ 
 *' the witnefs of God is greater ; for this is 
 ** the witnefs of God^ which he hath teflificd 
 " of his Son:" 
 
 And thefe words may, in the fenfe jufl 
 ftated, be thus paraphrafed* 
 
 ** It is this convl6lion, which giveth us 
 *' that victory which overcometh the worlds 
 '' which rifes fuperior to its terrors, as well 
 *' as to its temptations, even cur faith that 
 " y^^/^J is the Son of a partaker of the fame 
 •' nature with, God. But this Jefus is not 
 *' a partaker of the divine nature, only ; for, 
 " when he came on earth, he took our hu- 
 *' man nature alfo upon him, as appeared 
 *' by the Water, and Blood, which flowed 
 
 *' from 
 
( 335 ) 
 
 from his fide, when pierced by the Spear, 
 upon the Crofs. Thefe two truths, di- 
 redly oppoiite to both your errors, ye 
 Cerinthians^ and ye Docefo', are cftaLiiih- 
 ed by the mofl powerful proofs. For 
 there are three in Heaven, that bear record 
 to the DIVINE nature of Chrifl: : namely, 
 the Father^ who declared by his own voice 
 from Heaven, This is my beloved Son, 
 in whom I am well pleafed ; the JVord^ 
 who continually affirmed of himfelf, that 
 he was the predicled Mefliah, that he had 
 exifted before Abraham, that he was the 
 true Chrift, the Son of God ; and the Holy 
 Ghoji, who defcended, in bodily prefence, 
 like a Dove, upon his head, at his Bap- 
 tifm, and fat in cloven tongues, like as of 
 fire, upon the heads of his Apoftles after 
 his refurre£lion. And thefe three are one 
 in nature, or, at leaft, in unity of tefti- 
 mony, proving againfl: you, ye Cerinthians, 
 the DIVINITY of Jefus ChriH:. And 
 there are (moreover) three which bear wit- 
 nefs on earth , againft you, ye Docetce ; and 
 thefe three agree in one, as to the reality of 
 Chrifl's taking our human nature upon 
 
 '* him : 
 
( 336 ) 
 
 *' him : namely, the Spirit, (n) Soul, ot 
 
 " Life, 
 
 (ff) The.laft words of the firft Martyr, ^t. Stephen, 
 were, Ku^i£ Inrou, tJf^a* to nvivy^x [j^ov. Which are 
 rendered, in our 7>anflation, as to the word Tri-ju^a, by 
 the fame expreilion, Jpirit, as in this paflagc, and in tlic 
 f-trne fenle. *' Lordjefus, receive my j^iri/." (J^s, 
 vii : 59.) 
 
 To which the following examples may not improper- 
 Iv, perhaps, be added. 
 
 JLuh xx'ni : 46 — fK %^'f*^? <?"a Tra^x-lJnto thy hands I 
 er,a-c/xaj to Trviuua [ iommaid my 
 
 viii : 55 -Ka. .^.re4^ TO ^..u-]^'^^ ^^^-^^ ^"^^^ 
 
 1 yielded up [the 
 itffii;/. xxviii : 50 — xipwi to Trviuwa— - i ghoft, or j /^/i 
 
 J SPIRIT. 
 
 John xix : 30— :'-A.v«? tw x£?><z^v„^, 1 -^' ^^'"^ ^" ^f ^' 
 
 •^ -^ . U and gave up [the 
 
 rra^a^K, TO TTHV: ^ ghoft, or] /^;> 
 
 /** ' J SPIRIT. 
 
 I have herein endeavoured to keep the paraphrafe of 
 Erfffmus in view : but the elegance, and force, of his 
 Latin^ are not, eafily, to be transfufed into another 
 language. 
 
 " Tres funt emm in calo^ qui tejlimonium prabent Chri/loy 
 ♦' paier, J'ermo^ et fpiriius fmt^us. Pater, qid femely 
 " otque iterum^ voce ccelitus emijjd^ palani tejiatus eji hunc 
 ** ejje plium fuum^ egregrie charum, in quo nihil offender et : 
 *' Sermo, qid tot miraeulis edids, qui moriens, ac refurgenSy 
 *' declaravit fe veruni ejfe Chrijium, Deiim par iter atque 
 ** homincm^ Dei ^ honunum coneiliatorem : Spiritus 
 ** SAN'CTUS, qui in bapiizati caput dffce?idit, qui po/i refur- 
 ** reSlionem delapfus ejt in dijcipulos. Atque hcrum trium 
 •^ funmnis eJi confenfus : Pater ejl autor, Fiiius nuntiuSy 
 '* Spiritus fuggejior. 
 
 *•" Tria funt item in terris, qua atteftantur Chriftum : 
 
( 337 ) 
 
 *' Life, (Sptritushumanus) which he breath- 
 " ed forth upon the Crofs, when he gave 
 '' up the Ghoft ; and the Water, and the 
 " Blood, which flowed from his fide (as 
 ** was before obferved) when they looked 
 " on him whom they pierced. Thefe, ye 
 *' Cerinthlans, thefe, ye Docet^, are the 
 *' teftimonies which overthrow both your 
 *' errors : proving Jefus Chriji to have a di- 
 *' vine, as well as a human, nature; to be 
 *' God as well as man. If ye receive the 
 " wltnefs of Men, the wJt fiefs of God Is 
 " greater : for this Is the wltnefs of God^ 
 *' which he hath tefllfied of his Son,^"* 
 
 If this comment, and paraphrafe, be juft, 
 the context of the Apoftle is fb far from re- 
 ceiving any injury, by the retention of the 
 verfe, in queflion ; that it w^ould lofe all its 
 Z genuine 
 
 ** Spiriius humanus, quern pofult in crucem : et aqua, ct fan- 
 *' gui:^ qui fiuxit e latere nicrtui. Et hi tres tejiei confen' 
 " tiunt." 
 
 (Paraphraseon Era/mi in Nov. Tcft. Tom. ii. 
 Pagj 34.7, Edit. Ba/il. A. D. (541.) 
 This paraphrafe was publifhed by Ej-afmus, about nine- 
 teen years after his re-admiflion of tht verfe, 1. John, 
 V. 7, irico the facred page. It feems impoflible to read it, 
 without -otMc/ingy t\\?it Erafmus was, at that time, at leaft, 
 fully convinced of the authenticity of this text. 
 
genuine fpirit, would become unapt, aiid 
 feeble in its application, and therefore could 
 hardly be faid to fubfifl, without it. 
 
 Indeed, the cxif^ence of the feventh verfe 
 appears to be eflential to the context, under 
 any interpretation whatfoever, which may 
 be annexed to this part of the Epiftlc of St. 
 Jobn. In whatever point of view we place 
 thefe fix, fucceflive, verfes, the exprelTions, 
 *' IVltnefs of God^^^ in the ninth verfe, can 
 find no due antecedent in any of them, can, 
 indeed, bear no proper reference to any 
 preceding paffage of the whole Chapter, 
 fave to the feventh verfe. So that if this 
 verfe (the verfe in queftion) fhould be ex- 
 punged from the Epiftle, it feems that the 
 other mu/l, neceffarily, be involved in the 
 like profcription. 
 
 If, Sir, it (hall be further required, that 
 fome probable account be given of the ab- 
 fence of the text, now in debate, from fome 
 of the ancient MSS of this Epiftle of St. 
 yohn^ — I feel no repugnance in believing, I 
 fee no abfurdity in concluding, that this 
 
 verfq 
 
( 339 ) 
 
 verfe was thus, partially, loft in Tome period 
 of that interval, which elapfed between the 
 death of St. John, in A. D. loi, and the re- 
 vifion of the New Teftament by Jerome^ a- 
 bout A. D. 384. Whether this defalcation 
 happened by accident, or fraud : Whether 
 fome hafty, and heedlefs Scribe, having juft 
 inferted the oi ixufvo-suV^ of the feventh verfe 
 in his copy, fuffered his eye, in its next 
 glance from his Tranfcript to the Original, 
 to fix itfelf on the fame words, o» y^ty.^h^Huls^, 
 which alfo occur in the f/^-^/Z? verfe ; and, 
 being fatisfied with the identity of the ex- 
 preffion, travelled onwards through his talk, 
 without perceiving the error into which he 
 had fallen : or. Whether, in the violent 
 contefts which arofe within this period, be- 
 tween the opponents of Arms, and his abet- 
 tors, the Arian Writers purpofely left out 
 of their own tranfcripts the words, which 
 ftood, in the (0) Original, between thofe 
 two Greek Participles, and which are the 
 very words now in difpute, hoping that their 
 Copies might, in time, be followed as origi- 
 Z 2 nals, 
 
 {0) In fome erroneous Copies, the words iv rr\ yn, are 
 alfo omitted in the eighth verfe. But that feems to h*vc 
 been the cafe with a few of them, only. 
 
( 340 ) 
 
 iials, and divide, at leafl, If not govern, the 
 Chrijiian world : — is not now very important 
 to enquire, becaufe it is not poffible to de- 
 termine the fa£l, with precifioii, at this dif- 
 tanceoftime. But, ^s Arianifm, during a 
 confiderable part of this interval, fat upon 
 the throne of the Cafars ; as the Emperors 
 Conjlantius, and Falens^ in particular, had 
 their Ar'ian Archbifhops, and Bifhops, who, 
 for a long time, poffefTed the fupreme eccle- 
 iiaftical power, and banifhed their opponents : 
 it is, perhaps, not utterly impoffible to con- 
 ceive, that fome of the warmed of the fol- 
 lowers of Arms (hould confplre, at that time, 
 to devife fome fubdolous means of banifhing 
 this obnoxious verfe, along with its fup- 
 porters. Far be it, however, from the pre- 
 fent age, abfolutely to affirm that this latter 
 was the real truth of the cafe. Either caufc 
 is equal to the effcd ; and each is, at leaft, 
 poffible. For, as one, fingle, mljlaken^ Copy 
 might, with perfed purity of intention in 
 the feveral fucceffive Copyifts, generate all 
 the erroneous MSS of this kind, which have 
 ever yet been produced : So the Arians, on 
 
 the 
 
( 341 
 
 the other hand, are not fi free {f) from im- 
 putations of the oppofite nature, as to he en- 
 titled to demand, from an impartial Hiftori- 
 an, a certification of their innocence. And 
 when a iingle erroneous Tranfcript, of this 
 kind, had been once made, whether through 
 intention, or inadvertence, within any part 
 of the interval herein before mentioned ; it 
 would certainly propagate its own errors, 
 for fome time unchecked, and uncorre£led, 
 on account of the various, and continued, 
 perfecutions of the Chrjjlians, which pre- 
 vailed through the greatell: part of that pe- 
 riod : and oftentimes prevented them from 
 meeting together but by ftealth, *' ante lu- 
 ** ffw," and in too much terror, and tre- 
 pidation, to think, at fuch meetings, of 
 comparing their MSS with each other. But 
 when the rage of perfecution began {q) to 
 Z 3 abate, 
 
 (p) The Ariatjs nre exprefsly accufed of having muti- 
 Jated the Scriptures during this^ their reign. (Amhrofcy 
 De Fide, Lib. ii. C. 15, p. 494 : — And Lib. v. C. xvi, 
 p. 586.— Alfo Epif. Clajfts I, pa. 795.) 
 
 And Socrates (Hiji Ecd. vii, 32 — and Tripart, xii, 4.) 
 diredtly char2,es them with having garbled this very Epiftle 
 of St. Johri^ for the purpofe of detaching, if poffible, the 
 £>ivi?:ity of Cbrlji from his human nature. See alfo /f 7/- 
 /ius, vol. ii : Exercitat. 3, pa. 113. Edit. Herborna 
 Nsjfavior A. D. 1712. 
 
 {q) Thefe impediments were not compleatly removed. 
 
( 542 ) 
 
 abate, and when the different affemblies of 
 Chriftians had lelfure to communicate toge- 
 ther, and to confult, in fecurity, their ori- 
 ginals, or fuch authentic Tranfcripts thereof 
 as held, with them, the place of Originals 
 —then the abfence of this verfe was difco- 
 vered, and the omiffions of it were, in fome 
 degree, rectified. Private perfons correded 
 their erroneous MSS, in the moft compen- 
 dious, as well as leaft expeniive, method : 
 namely, by interlining the omitted verfe in 
 the text, or by adding it in the margin (r) of 
 their Copies of this Epiftle. The public 
 Bibles, the old Italic (and afterwards the 
 Vulgate of Jerome) of the Latins^ the Ver- 
 
 fioii 
 
 until the Jixth Century ; for Arlanifm was not compleat- 
 ly fubdued until that time. 
 
 (r) The Adverfaries of this verfe have founded, on 
 this latter circumftance, their idea of a jnarginal glofs, or 
 comment. Bur, furely, nothing can be more affected, 
 or abfurd. When the pofTefibr of a MS of this Epiftle 
 had difcovercd the omiffion of this verfe, in his copy, 
 how is it to be fuppofed that he would a6t ? He would 
 not re-copy the -whole of his MS, beginning with this oniif- 
 fion ; for that expedient v/ould be too troublefome, or 
 too expcnfive. He mult, of neceflity, correct his erro- 
 neous iViS, either by an interlineation (which, however, 
 would be impradicable in fome MSS) or by inferting the 
 cmi/fion in its margin. And this feems to be the true, 
 the obvious, and the only, reafon why fome MSS have 
 interlined, and others have exhibited in their margins^ 
 this verfe of St. John, 
 
(343 ) 
 fion of the AnnewanSy and the^^oroAo; of the 
 Greeks, needed no corre<5lIon, as to the text 
 in queftion, and confequently received none. 
 And this verfe hath ever lince maintained its 
 place in every (ancient) public Verfion of 
 this Epiftle, wherefoever the name of Chrijl 
 hath been profeffed, except in the Syrlac^ 
 (5) and the Coptic: both of which, how- 
 ever, have been proved to be fo very incorrect, 
 fo very full of omiffions of other verfes, as 
 to render their omiffion of this paffage not 
 to be even a matter of any furprife. 
 
 Thus, Sir, I have travelled through the 
 tafk, which I firft prefcribed to myfelf, oF 
 flating, and replying to, the chief objec- 
 tions, which have been urged againft the ori- 
 ginality of the verfe i.john, v: 7. The un- 
 dertaking hath been, occalionally, rendered 
 arduous by actual difficulties, caft in its way 
 hy the adverfaries of this verfe. But it hath 
 been, much more frequently, made dilguftful, 
 hy their fophiftical (as it feems) perverfions 
 of the truth. The labor, and av^ivity, which 
 Z 4 were 
 
 (j) The Jniblcy Bthhplc, and Perju:^ are no more than 
 Copies o; tljcfe VeriiOi-S; and, therefore, not entitl.^d to 
 a fpecial snumt;ration in this placci, (See page 193 J 
 
( 344 ) 
 
 were requlfite to encounter the former, hav« 
 borne no comparifon with the parL-nce, and 
 forbearance, which became necelTarv to endure 
 . the latter. But, whether originating in t ruth 
 or fallacy, whether holding forth real, or 
 feigned, perplexities, thofe objedions have 
 been (fuch of them, at leafl:, as appeared de- 
 ferving of notice) all fairly ftated, and fully 
 confidercd. I have not fupprefled, I have not 
 fhrunk back from, even one of them. And 
 now. Sir, let me intreat you to eftimate fpr 
 me, for yourfelf, for the public, the real value 
 of fuch objedions, when compared with the 
 anfwers which they have received. Left, 
 however, you fhould, through modefty, (our 
 language will not convey the full import of 
 the Latin word, pudor) decline the unplea- 
 fmg office — I muft, of neceffity take it 
 upon myfelf. The employment may, ia 
 fome fenfe, be alllimed improperly ; but it 
 fliall be difcharged impartially. 
 
 THE RESULT, then, FROM THE 
 WHOLE, is, — that the Verse, in quef- 
 tion, seems, beyond all degree of 
 
 SERIOUS DOUBT, TO HAVE STOOD IN 
 
 THIS 
 
( 345 ) 
 
 THIS Epistle, when it ohiginally 
 
 PROCEEDED FROM T. E PEN OF St. JoHN. 
 
 In the Latin^ or Weftern, Church, the fuf- 
 frages of TertuWian, and Cyprian, of Marcus 
 Celedeiijts^ and Ph^badlus, in its favor, aided 
 by the early, the folemn, the public, appeal 
 to its authority, by the African (/) Biihops 
 under Huneric ; the Preface, Bible, and con- 
 fcripta fides, oijerojue ; the frequent, and di- 
 red", citations of the verfe by Eucherius, Au^ 
 gufiine, Fulgentius, Figllius, and Cajfiodorius : 
 — thefe, fupported, as to th^Greek, orEailcrn, 
 Churches, by the Dialogue between A ''is, 
 and Athanafiiis, as well as by the Synopfis of 
 this Epiilile, — by the Armenian Verlion, 
 which was framed from Greek MSS ; by the 
 very early, and conftant, uie of the a,7roi-o7J^ \{\ 
 the (d.xncGreek Church (an ufage which feems 
 to be dedacible even from the Apoflles (^u) 
 
 them- 
 
 (/) The authority of FioJor Vitenfis, as a hiflorian, will 
 not he refillL^d by Mr Gibbon^ when he turns to pa<Tes 'H']y 
 342, 343, <,48, 393, and 442, of tne third Voiume of 
 his own Hiftory, 
 
 It is remarkable, that thefe African Bifhops, in thi?ir 
 pubhc Conreflion of Faith, ftile uie diibeliei'of a Trinity 
 of perfjns in the Godhead, *' quandam novitatem" a N£v 
 OPINION; and that this defcriptioa was given in A. D, 
 484' ('App-nJix, No. V.) 
 
 {li) Fabricius, treating of this xwo^oKoi;, affirms — " E- 
 
( 346 ) 
 
 themfclves) and by its public ConfeJJion of 
 
 Faith: All these evidences, arifing 
 
 within the limit of the Jixth century, (to 
 })afs over the immenfe accumulation of tefti- 
 mony vvhich has been produced fublequent 
 to that 2era) offering themfelves to the tefl 
 of the judgement, combined in one point of 
 view, unchecked by a fingle negation, unre- 
 buked by zny pojttive contradiction, unrefifted 
 by any the fmalieft, direSf^ impeachment (w) of 
 the authenticity of the verfe, throughout all 
 the annals of all antiquity :— ALL THESE 
 CIRCUMSTANCES leize the mind, as it 
 were, by violence, and compel it to acknow- 
 ledge the verity, the original exiftence, of 
 the verfe in queflion. For, although it un- 
 doubtedly 
 
 •' piJloJarum hiijufmodi leSi'ionem non ejfe Novaterum inven^ 
 *' tum^ fed AE Apostolis ipsis ad nos tranjmjjcim,^* 
 And he quotes, on this fubje£l, Clement. Conltit. Lib, 
 II. Cap. 57 — Jacobus in Liturgia — and Jujiini Mart. 
 Apolog. 2. _ ^ 
 
 (Fabridus^ Bibl. Grcec. vol. V, DliT. I. p. 
 36 — Ldit. Hamb. A. D. 1712.) 
 {vj) Om'ijfions of the verfe, in ancient MSS, or by an- 
 cient writers, are neither pofitive contradiiiian:^ nor direif 
 impeachments^ of its authenticity. They are joodfor con- 
 jc6ture\ and no more. Hat conjecture lias noweightj 
 wnailocver, in any cafe, or under any circuniilances, 
 v/hv n put into the ballance agalnil the evidence of pu- 
 
 ?ITiVE FACTS- 
 
( 347 ) 
 
 donbtedly appears llrange, on a firft confi- 
 deratlon of the fubjscl, that feveral ancient 
 Greek, and Latin, Fnthers have not quoted, 
 or commented upon, this verfe, in thofe 
 parts of their works, which have defcended 
 to the prefent age ; although it appears, on a 
 primary view, ftill more ftrange, that thofe 
 numerous Greek MSS (not Latin, for 'a* vail 
 majority of thefe have always read the 
 verfe) which formerly exhibited thispaffage 
 of St. John, fhould be now "in general (not 
 totally) loft, rather than thofe few, which 
 did not contain it : Yet both thefe objedions, 
 when aggravated to the utmoft, are but^r^- 
 fumptions, amount to no more than negative 
 evidence ; and they have been already, as it 
 fhould feem, compleatly, and fatisfa(Storily, 
 explained, and avoided, — or accounted for, 
 and defeated. And from whetherfoever of 
 the fources, which have been heretofore 
 affigned, the partial occultation of this verfe, 
 antecedent to the times of Jerome, proceed- 
 ed, that temporary obfcu ration was difperfed 
 at once, and the verfe was fummoned foith 
 to fhine in its proper fphere, by his Preface, 
 and Verfion ; which are confirmed, and ef- 
 
 eftablifhed 
 
(348) 
 
 tabliflied (if they could be faid to need an/ 
 confirmation, or eftablifhment) by the Rc- 
 vifion of Charlemagne. And this verfe hath 
 EVER SINCE (if we may now defcend to 
 modern times) not only maintained its place 
 in EVERY public Verfion, which hath been 
 in ufe fince the days of Jerome ; (jx) but it 
 hath alfo been ever since uniformly 
 quoted, and referred to, by individual Wri- 
 ters, of the firfl: eminence for learning, and 
 integrity, in ^Jta, and in Africa^ as well as 
 in "Europe^ without the leaft queflion, with- 
 out the fmalleft interruption : except the 
 invaiion of Krafmus, which, however, was 
 foon repelled, and of which he lived to re- 
 pent, and be afhamed, (y) unlefs his own 
 Paraphrafe, on this verfe, be the compleateft 
 piece of literary hypoci ify, now fuhf fling ; — 
 and except the alTaults of fome more mo- 
 dern objeflors, which neverthelefs, it is 
 hoped, and trufted, have been repulfed, in 
 the preceding DiiTertation, in a manner (al- 
 though unequal to the fubjefl, yet) fuffi- 
 
 ciently 
 
 (x) The exceptions of ths Syriac, and the Coptic, with 
 their Tranfcripts, have already hzzi\ made, andaccouBt" 
 ed for, in pages i88 — IQO. 
 00 i\^^ 33^5 ^'^^e «' 
 
( 349 ) 
 
 ciently adequate to the ferious, the comipleat, 
 conviction of every unprejudiced eaquirer 
 after truth. 
 
 I beg leave to clofe thefe reflexions v^^ith 
 a quotation from a work, which, by its pe- 
 culiar felicity in combining metaphyfical 
 learning with the Scriptural fcheme of Re^ 
 'velation^ has ennobled the one, whilft it has 
 illuftrated the other ; (z) which ndmonifhes, 
 " That^ in qu eft ions of difficulty, orfuch as are 
 *' thought fo, where more fatisfaSiory e V c^ 
 *' cannot be had, or is not feen ; if the refult of 
 *' examifiation be, that there appears, upon the 
 " whole, any, the low eft, prefumption on one 
 *' fde, and none on the other, or a greater pre- 
 *' fumption on one fde, although in the lowefl 
 " degree greater ; this determines the quefiion, 
 
 " EVEN IN MATTERS OF SPECULATION: 
 
 " and in matters ofpradlice, will lay us under 
 *' an abfolute, and formal, obligation, in point 
 ** of prudence, and of iiiteref, to a5l upon that 
 *' prefumption, or low probability, although it 
 " befo low, as to leave the mind in very great 
 ^' doubt^ which is the truth'' At the fame 
 
 time, 
 
 (z) Butkr*% Analogy, Introducllon, adinhlum. 
 
( 3S^ ) 
 time, however, I do not mean to Teek any 
 fhelter for the authenticity of this verfe, un- 
 der the Jiri^ terms of this quotation, but 
 will venture to claim a much higher pro- 
 tection for it, than the literal expreffions of 
 the quotation will fupport ; by affirming, 
 that the refidt of examination^ in the prefent 
 difquilition, is, that, upon the whole, a 
 VERY STRONG POSITIVE PROOF appears 
 on one fide, and nothing but a very low 
 PRESUMPTION on the other ; and, therefore, 
 that the quelVion is determined, even when 
 viewed as a Mx^tter of speculation: 
 but v^hen conlidered as a matter of 
 PRACTICE (and furely there is no fpecula- 
 tion, as to the nature of the Deity, which 
 will not, in fomc degree, at leaf!:, influence 
 OMt pradticc) we Ihall find ourfelves laid un- 
 der an ABSOLUTE, AND FORMAL, OBLIGA- 
 TION, IN POINT OF PRUDENCE, AND OF 
 
 INTEREST, to a£t upon fuch a fpeculation; 
 and the more emphatically fo, becaufe the 
 evidence, in the prefent cafe, does NOT ap- 
 pear to be so LOW, AS TO LEAVE THE 
 
 MIND IN ANY (rcafonable) doubt, wpiich 
 
 IS THE TRUTH. 
 
 Having 
 
( 350 
 
 Having now, Sir, dlfcufled the general 
 queftion as to the originality of this verfe, I 
 Ihould beg to take my leave of you, did it 
 not feem, in feme refpeds, requiiite that 
 this intercourfe lliould be continued yet a 
 few moments longer. 
 
 And llrft, let me fubmit to your confidera- 
 tion a few remarks on the general deiign of 
 your feveral publications, as far as they dif-^ 
 ciofe it to your readers. But, as this is not 
 the direct obje£l of this Diilertation, — I will 
 be brief, yet plain. 
 
 You have, Sir, throughout the whole of 
 your publications, feemed to fnatch, with 
 avidity, at every occafion, apt, or unapt, of 
 leflening the power of Chr[flianity over the 
 human mind. You have not, indeed, at- 
 tempted to produce this elfed by open im- 
 peachments of the external evidences of its 
 truth (for thofe would have been fpeedily 
 confuted) or by diredl charges agalnfl: the 
 internal purity of its dodrlnes (for thofe 
 would have confuted themfelves) : but you 
 have endeavoured to efFeduate your purpofe 
 
 by 
 
( 350 
 
 by indire«5l machinations. You have, art- 
 fully enough, fuggefted annbiguous infinua- 
 tions, where you durfl not hazard a pofitivc 
 accufation. You have labored to raife a 
 fneer, where you durft not rifk an argument. 
 When fuch paflages, as thefe, occur to your 
 readers — 
 
 " Ro77te fubmitted to the Toh of the 
 
 *' Some advocates would difgrace Chrif- 
 " tianity, if Chnjllantiy could be difgraud^"* 
 
 ~{b) 
 
 "If I had designed to inveOigate the 
 * Jewiih Antiquities, reafon, as well as 
 ' faith, mufl have direfted my enquiries to 
 ' the facred Booh^ which, even as human 
 ' produotions, would deferve to be ftudied as 
 ' one'* (I cannot help Mr. Gihhon'''$> bad 
 EfigliJIf) " of the moft curious, and original, 
 " Monuments of the Eafl." — (c) 
 
 " Jlpollon'iuSy 
 
 [a] Hiftory, vol. iii, p. 77. 
 \b) Vindication, ad init. 
 \c) Vindication, p. 2g. 
 
 The Parenthefts, in this quotation, will find its prece- 
 dent in Mr. Gibbon's Vindication, 
 
( 353 ) 
 
 '* Apollonm^ of Tyana, wns born about 
 *' the fame time as Jefus Chrift. Hh life 
 *' (that of the formerj is related in fo fabu- 
 *' lous a manner, by his fanatic Difciples^ 
 " that we are at a lofs to difcover, whether 
 " he was a Sage, or an Impoflor.'* — (d) 
 
 " This prohibitory Law'* (viz. of Theodo^ 
 Jills, when he aboliflied the finguinary, as 
 well as idolatrous, worfliip of the Greeks and 
 Roman, pagans) " was exprelTed In the 
 *' mofl abfolute, and comprehenii\ e, terms. 
 *' // is our will and pleafure (favs the (^) 
 " Emperor) that none of our fubjeHs JJjall 
 " prefume, in any city, or in any place, to 
 *' worjhip an inanimate Idol bv the facrifici of 
 *' a guiltlefs Vidiim. The Act of facrificing^ 
 " and the pradtice of divination by the en^ 
 " trails of the Vi5iim, are declared High 
 *' Treafon aga'nil: the State. The rites of 
 *' Pagan fuperflition, which might (eem 
 A a *' lefs 
 
 {d) The regular confufion of this fentence befpeaks de- 
 flgn. *' Mai^ j* ai d'abord vu qu' il en vouloit a Jefus 
 *' ChrijU rc'U If characterL de Mahomet." (Lord Chfjler^ 
 field, to Crebillon, refpedting Voltaire'^ Tragedy of Ma-- 
 hornet. ) 
 
 {e) Hiftory, vol. iii, p. 89. 
 
( 354 ) 
 
 ** lefs bloody and attrocious, are aboliflaed, 
 " as highly injurious ro the truth, and ho- 
 " nour, of religion ; and the harmless 
 " CLAIMS of the domeftic Genius, of ihc 
 *' houfehold Gods, are included in this r/- 
 '* gorous profcription. Such was the perj}.' 
 '*■ cut'ing S^:h'tt of the laws of Theodojius, 
 " which were repeatedly enforced by his 
 '* Sons, and Grandfons, with the loud, 
 " and unanimous, applaufe of the Chriftiaii 
 " worldv" 
 
 " Neither the violence of Antiochus, nof 
 " the arts of Herod, nor the example of the 
 *' circumjacent nations, could ever perfuade 
 " the Jews to aflbciate, with the injiitutiom 
 '' of Mofes^ the elegant Mythology of thg 
 " Greeksr (J) 
 
 When fuch paffages as thefe occur royour 
 readers, the interpretation, which was mofl 
 intended, although leafl exprefied, cannot 
 lie hid even from the commoiieft apprehea- 
 fion. 
 
 But 
 
 (/) Hiftory, C. XV, p. 451. 
 
( 355 ) 
 
 But, Sir, pafllng over other enqu'ries. 
 Why are you not confident with your- 
 felf? After having, in the former part 
 of thefe extrads, thus endeavoured, how- 
 ever vainly, to overturn the Syflem of Reve- 
 lation by ridicule, by indecent farcafms le- 
 velled at it, and at its divine Author ; after 
 having thus attempted, however feebly, to 
 lupport the caufe of Deifm ; — why do you, 
 at once, carry over your faithlels colors to 
 the Hofts of Heathenifm, — and Idolatry ? 
 What was the principal inftitution of Mofes 
 (if you are refulved to attribute thofe infti- 
 tution s to Mofes ^ alone) upon which all the 
 reft depended ? It was — " Hear^ O Ifrael^ 
 " the Lord thy God is one God, Thou Jh alt 
 *' have none other Gods but Him, Him only 
 " Jljalt thou worjhip, and him only Jhalt thou 
 ** ferve^ But what was *' the elegant My- 
 " thology of the Greeks r ** It was — Gods 
 many, and Lords many. And do you, then. 
 Sir, really wifti to cenfure the Jews, be- 
 caule they would not alibciate, with the 
 worfliip of the God of Abraham, of the 
 great 1 AM, " Him. befide whom there is m 
 '* God', the Lord, who is God in Heaven a* 
 A a z *' bove^ 
 
( 356 ) 
 
 *' hove, and in the earth bene ath^^^and there 
 '" h none elfe ; the Lord^ who prepared the 
 " lights and the fun ^ — 'who Jet all the borders 
 *' of the earth, who made fummer and 'winter ; 
 *' bejore whom the nations are as the drop of a 
 *' bucket, and are counted as the fmall dujl of 
 '* the ballance ; who holdeth the fea in the 
 " palm oj his hand', and taketh up the ijles as 
 *' a very little thing ;'* — Do you, ferioufly^ 
 condemn the Jews, becaufe they would not, 
 in the days of Atitiochus, and Herod (for be- 
 fore that time they had but too often, and 
 too fatally, tried the experhnent) defile the 
 adoration of this fole God of the Univerfe^ 
 with the vvorfhip of the adulterous, and in- 
 ceftuous, Jupiter, — the paffionate, and re- 
 vengeful, Juno, — Fenus, the ftrumpet, and 
 Mercury, the pickpocket ? I forbear to pur- 
 fue you through the inferior Godlings, the 
 Pan and Priapus, the (^) Laverna, and Cloa- 
 cina, of this " elegant Mythology." No- 
 thing exhibits human reafon in a more hu- 
 miliating light, than to take a view of its 
 mythological Reveries, when unaided by 
 
 divine 
 
 {g) " Pulchra £w^r«^, 
 
 *' Damihifallere."— HoR, 
 
i 357 ) 
 
 divine Revelation. If the mofl inventlv'e 
 mind fhould ftudy for abfurdity, what coidd 
 it devife more ludicrous on the one hnnd, or 
 more abominable on the other, than the 
 worfliip of Calves, and Serpents, — Monkies, 
 and Onions ? It may be granted, that parr, 
 at leait, of thefe adorable existences 
 belong, properly, to the elegant Mythclogy of 
 the "Egypttam. But are the Serpents, and 
 Monkits, of the Borderers upon the iV//^, 
 more prepofterous, as obje6ls of worfhip, 
 than Gods and Goddejfes^ {h) in Hell — than 
 Dog- Gods, HorfeGods, Fifi-Gods^ and Goat- 
 Gods f And yet this hideous hoft, this beaft- 
 ly herd, this contemptible (/) *' crew^ de- 
 *' bafed with every human weaknefs, and 
 " polluted with every human vice," are, in 
 your opinion, it feems, fit compeers, as ob- 
 A a 3 je^ls 
 
 [h] Pluto^ Proferplne^ Cerberus^ Pegafus^ Triton^ Pan^ 
 and the Satyr s^ &c, 
 
 [i) Sermons by THE (where merit is pre- eminently 
 confpicuous, epithets are needlefs) Prelate, to whom 
 this dilTertation is hujt.bly infcribed. (4th Edit.) 
 
 A certain felf-delegated, anonymous, Critic (I mean in 
 the Englijhy not the Greeks fenle of the word) hath cen- 
 fured the exprefTion, crew^ here quoted, as low and mean. 
 If it hath anv fault, it is that of not being low and mean 
 enough. It is much too good for the fubje£l, provided a 
 more contemptuous cxpreilion could either have beea 
 adopted, or invented. 
 
( 3S8 ) 
 
 je6ls of worfhip, with the felf-exifl-ent, om- 
 nipotent, and eternal God: and the Jews 
 are, as ytm inform us, guilty of inexcufable 
 obftinacy, in rf-fufing to place, on the throne 
 of Heaven, this elegant Mythology^ and to 
 yield to BOTH a like adoration ! 
 
 This then. Sir, it feems, is your Syflrem 
 (if any thing fo mutable, now Deiflical^ now 
 Pagan, can merit the name of a Syftem) of 
 Theology. And your plan of morality is the 
 amiable offspring {k) of lo engaging a parent. 
 Ir expofes itlelf toyour readers, t^cafionally, 
 and, as it were, in momentary glances, in 
 the preceding parts of your Hiftory ; bur it 
 feems to look out at full upon them in the 
 following paflage (/). 
 
 *' The Sifter of Valentinian was educated 
 *' in the Palace at Ravenna ; and as her 
 ** marriage might be productive of lome 
 *' danger to the State, (he was raifed, by 
 *' the title of Augufta, above the hopes 
 *' of the moft prefumptuous JnhjeEl, But 
 
 «« the 
 
 {k) « Maire fulchra Filia pulchrior /" HoR. 
 (/; Hiitory, vol, ill, p. 404. 
 
( 359 ) 
 
 " the fair Honoria bad no fooner attained 
 " the fixtcenth year of her age, than (he de- 
 " tefted the importunate greatnefs, which 
 *' muft forever (jri) exchide her from the 
 *' comforts of honourable love : in the midft 
 *' of vain, and unfatisfa£lory, pomp. Ho- 
 ** noria fighed, yielded to the impulfe of 
 *' nature, and threw herfelf into the arms 
 *' of her Chamberlain, Eugenius. Her 
 *' guilt, and (hame (fuch is the abfurd lan- 
 *' gunge of impel ions man) v/ere foon be- 
 ** trayed by the appearances of pregnancy : 
 *' but the difgrace of the royal family was 
 *** publiihed to the world by the impru- 
 ** dence of the Emprels Piacidia; who dif- 
 " miffed her daughter, after a ftri(fl, and 
 ** fhameful, confinement, to a remote exile 
 ** at Conftantinople." 
 
 To the condu(5l oi Honoria, then, In thus 
 
 foregoing every confideration that was due 
 
 to her rank, and ftation ; in thus betraying 
 
 her own perfonal honor, and, at fo early an 
 
 Aa 4 age, 
 
 {m) Why, roREVP.R ? She was only raifed, by the 
 title oi Atigu/ia^ above the ** honorable love" o'i fubje£is. 
 Foreign Princes, of any country, might (as indeed Attila 
 afterwards did) afk her in marriage. 
 
( 36o ) 
 
 age, breaking through all the bafhful rc- 
 ftraint^ ot virghi modefly ; in thus equally 
 difregardi'ig the laws of God, and man, and 
 profiiituting herfelf to one of her domefl^ics, 
 merely becaufe the dignity of her title (the 
 only p )or apology held out for her) placed 
 her above the fubje^s of her Brother, the 
 Emperor : to fuch a condu£l neither guilty 
 noi J}:ame^ is, hi your opinion, to be imputed ; 
 for luch imputations, in fuch a caie, you af- 
 fiiin to be *' ahjurd language^ It is ev.^n 
 piv)per, in your juogement, that other iJo- 
 no) la^^ of dilfinguifhed birtb, and high race, 
 ox the prefent, and of future ages, (hould be 
 inllrudled to ad, or at Icail to realon, in this 
 manner : for, if they (hould become your 
 nadeis, they are here told, that to apply the 
 cxpreflions o\ guilty ^r\djhamc^ to luch a con- 
 dudl, would be only ••' the ahjurd language of 
 *' imperious yiM^,^"" It is, it ieems, a luffi- 
 cient juftifi cation for thole preleiit, or future, 
 Honorias^ when they have thus played the 
 flrumpet with (pardon. Sir, the inadver- 
 tency — " when they have thus yielded to the 
 " impulfe oj nature^ and thrown themj elves 
 *' into the arms of) their Footmen, or their 
 
 Chamberlains, 
 
( 36i ) 
 
 Chamherlahs^ to fay, that they were *' In 
 " their fixteenth year ^'' and that they "7%"/6- 
 *' ed'^ — -And the iiidignarioii, and afflidion, 
 of a Royal parent, anxious to hiterrupt {o 
 ofFtnfive a commerce, and to prevent the in- 
 troduction of any more fpurious ifiue into 
 the imperial Houfe of the defars, hy fepa- 
 rating her daughter from the ohje<5t of her 
 libidinous, and criminal, attachment, — 
 ought, it llems, to be reprobated as " a JlriSt^ 
 " and Jljameful, confinement^'' ending in a 
 " remote exileT' Surely, Sir, the honefl: blufh 
 of ingenuous fhame hath long iince forfakeii 
 vour cheek. Are thefe the 2. rave inftrudlions 
 of the Hiiforic Matron, combining trutli 
 with majerty ; or are they the meretrici'^us 
 artifices of an abandoned Procurefs, pleading, 
 in her choiceft terms, the caufe of proftitu- 
 tion ? 1 intreat your aid. Sir, to affift me in 
 folving tlie difficulties which you have thus 
 thrown around me. li left to my own 
 guidance, I can find but one way of extri- 
 cating myfelf from them : which is,— to 
 fuppofe that, in Mr. Gibbon, the Scliool-boy 
 is not yet loft in the Man ; that, although 
 when he was a child, it was allowable for 
 
 him 
 
. 3^2 ) 
 
 him (even by the fuffrage of an Apoftle) to 
 think as a child, and to /peak as a child, yet 
 that, when he became a man, he could not 
 put away childijh things, but even now tinder^ 
 {lands as a child, and believes in the fenfelefs, 
 and idoJatrous, Polytheifm of the ancients. 
 In this point of view, Mr. Gibbon is, indeed, 
 entitled to claim one merit, that of being 
 confiftent with himfeif. Beyond all doubt, 
 a writer teaches fuch morals, as thele, with 
 the moll: perfefl confiftency, who announces 
 his partiality for a Theology, which reprefents 
 them as the practice of its Deities ; who 
 openly declares, that the " claims''' of fome 
 of thofe Deities are " harmlefs"^ at lead:, (al- 
 though they are claims of divinity in them- 
 felves, and of worjljip from men) and who 
 feems to lament, in terms not very ambigu- 
 ous, or obfcure, that " the elegant mythology,^^ 
 which contains them, is no longer the ef- 
 tablifhed religion of the world ! 
 
 If, Sir, this delineation, the outlines of 
 which have been fk etched by your own 
 hand, be a juftj-eprefentation of your mind, 
 your Creed is already known : and the pre- 
 
 fent 
 
( 3^3 ) 
 
 fent age may, future ages moft certainly 
 will, be at no lofs to form their judgment 
 of you accord! n5:ly. If it be not jufl:, if 
 either your own text, or mv comment, hath 
 wronged you, — do juftice to yourfelf. You 
 have the remc dy in your own power. Favor 
 the public with your fyftems of Theologv, 
 and Morals. Delineate them at full length. 
 Defcribe thtm at large. Stand forth in the 
 open Held. The world is weary of feeing 
 you fight fo long in ambufh. Walk no 
 more forth with your Stiletto in the Twi- 
 light. Seek your adverfary honorably, with 
 your naked fword, in the face of day. Af- 
 pire to the credit of Poland, and Tinda!^ — of 
 Chubb, and Morgan, — of FiViini, and Shinoza, 
 by a dire«5> attempt to break this " Toke of 
 *' the Gofpciy Take to yourfclf tbe honors 
 of Rouffeau, at Icaft, and give us the Creed 
 of YOUR Savoy d J Cur zte alio. Aflume the 
 diftinft'/vn of Voltaire, and fivor us with 
 YOUR Dt5i'wn7a;re Phiicfohique Port at if. 
 Diftinguifh the grounds of your oppofition 
 to Chri^a'fiiy, wit' I'l.iiimefr-, aid perlpicu- 
 ity. Leave vour readers no longer at liberty 
 to contound, in you, modern Deifm with 
 
 ancient 
 
( 3<54 ) 
 
 ancient Polytheifm, or either of them with 
 Atheifm. If any of thefe Baals be Gk:,^. 
 with you, — tell us which of them you wor- 
 fhip. Your friends exped from you feme 
 plan of unbelief, which may, at \t^{{, appear 
 to be tolerably regular, and confident, or 
 they will foon defpair («) of being able, in 
 any degree, to enter upon your defence. 
 The impartial public demand it from you ; 
 or the perfuafion, already entertained by 
 many, will foon become univerlal, that you 
 conceived a decent modicum of infidelity, no 
 matter how prepared, to be neceflary to give 
 fajldion to a work, pompous, yet not fubftan- 
 
 tial, 
 
 {ri) One of the moft (perhaps the mojT) truly refpe6^able 
 of them feems already to have loft the very hope of your 
 defence, in defpair. 
 
 Think not my verfe means blindly to engage 
 In ralh defence of thy profaner paj^e ! 
 Though keen her fpirit, her attachment fond, 
 Bafe fervice cannot fuit with Friendfhip's bond j 
 Too firm from duty's facred path to turn, 
 She breat;;es an honeli luh of deep concern. 
 And pities Genius, when his wild career 
 Gives faith a wound, or innocence a tear. 
 Humility herfelf, divinely mild. 
 Sublime Religion's meek, and modeft child. 
 Like the dumb fon of Crcsfus^ in the ft rife, 
 When force aflail'd his Father's facred life. 
 Breaks filence, and, with filial duty warm. 
 Bids thee revere his Parent's hallow'd form. 
 
 Haylefs Eflay on Hiftory, Epiftle iii, adfinenu 
 
( 365 ) 
 
 tial, — fpecious, yet not fatisfadory, — labor^ 
 ed, yet not accurate. And Chrijlia?iity calls 
 you to the teft, dares you to the onfet ; it 
 being her fupreme wifh, her only prayer, 
 where (he hath any enemies, that (lie may, 
 like the Grecian Warrior, fo well defcribed 
 by the Grecian Bard, be permitted to confront 
 her Adverjaries in open day. She challenges 
 your fl:ri6left fcrutiny. She loveth not 
 ** darknefs rather than light, becaufe her deeds 
 ** are evil "C^ fhe " hateth not the light, lejl 
 " her works Jloould he reproved:'''' but fhe 
 " doeth the truth,''' and therefore wiflieth to 
 come " to the light, that her deeds may be 
 ** made manifeji, that they are 'wrought in 
 « God r* (J) 
 
 But, Sir, your Hiftory, in general, is not 
 my principal concern. I leave that fubjed 
 to the impartial Tribunal of future times, 
 which will do it ample jufiice. A particular' 
 part, only, of your work is my proper ob- 
 ject. Let me, then, ceafe from purfuing 
 this digreffion any longer. Let me return, 
 for a few moments, to my original defign, 
 
 ' and 
 
 (/>) 'John^ iii. 19 — 21. 
 
( 366) 
 
 and then conclude this long, perb,aps to yoxi 
 tedious, addrefs. 
 
 In addition to the Note, in page 545 of 
 your third Volume, which has cauled you 
 the trouhle of thefe letters, vou declare, in 
 the body of the correlpondent p;';^es, and in 
 their Notes, with Dr. Benfon, t! at tiiis text^ 
 which ajferts the unity of the three in HeU" 
 ven^ is condemned /^ //j*? u N i v e r s A l silence 
 of the orthodox fathers, a?icient verfions, and 
 authentic MSS \ zn^ that the two M^S'^S' of 
 Dublin, and l^QiMm, are unworthy to form AK 
 exception. You then refer to Mr. Emlyn's 
 works, and infinuate, rather than affirm (for 
 your expreffions are conflrained, and obfcure) 
 that this text owes its prefent e-xiflence to 
 an allegorical interpretation, in the form, per^ 
 haps, of a marginal Note, invading the text of 
 the Latin Bibles, which were renewed and 
 corredled, in a dark period of ten centuries. 
 You affirm, with Sir If a ac Newton, .hat this 
 verfc was first alledged by the Catholic Bi- 
 fjops, whom Hunneric fiamnoned to the Con- 
 ference of Carthage. And from your own 
 Treafures you produce a confident ailertion, 
 
 that 
 
(.3^7) 
 
 that Gennadlus^ Patriarch of Con(iantinople\ 
 was fo much amazed at the extraordinary com- 
 pofition (the Creed of Athanafius^ commonly 
 ib called) that he frankly pronounced it to be 
 the work of a drunken Man : in fiipport of 
 which remark, you refer to the Dogmata 
 ^heologka of Petavlus. (p) 
 
 Thefe, 
 
 (/)) " The famous Creed, which fo clearly expounds the mxflc- 
 ** ries of the Trinity, andthe Incarnation^ is deduced^ withjlrong 
 " probability y from this Mnan fchool. ' ' ^ Even the Scrip- 
 * * tures themfctves were profaned by their rajh^ and facrilegiouSy 
 ** hands. Tlie memorahle text, which afjeris the unity of the 
 '* Three who bear witnefs in Heaven,' ' * is condemned 
 " by the univerfal filence of the orthodox fathers, ancient ver- 
 " fionsy and authentic MSS. ' * ^ // was frjl ailedged by the 
 «* Catholic bi/hops whom Hunneric fummoned to the conference 
 ** of Carthage. Jfi allegorical interpretation, in the for m,^ 
 
 «« I 1 3 The P. Quefne) fla'ted this npin'ion, tvhich has been fatourabfy 
 •* received. But the three foiloiuing truths, hotve-ver f'trfrijing they may 
 " feem, are now uniiierjally acknonvlei'ged (Gerard VcfTius, torn. vi. jj, 
 " 516— 52i. Tilleniont, Mem. Ecclaf. torn, viii. p. 667 — 671.) 
 " I, St, Atlianafius jj nat the authsr of the Creed -whicb is Jo frequently 
 ** read in our Churches. 2. It does not appear to hiz-ve exijicd, luithin a 
 *' 'century after his death, 3. Jt -was originaHy comfefed in the Latin tongue, 
 " and conjequen'ly in the Wcftern pro-vwces. Ge:)nad'us, patriarch of 
 ♦' Con(tanliiiople, ivas jo much amazed by this extraordinary compojiiion, 
 " that he frankly pronounced it to be the luork of a drunken »:<in. Pctav. 
 •' Dogmat. Tlieoiogica, com. ii. 1. vii. c. 8, \>. 6S7." 
 
 •« ■ »♦ 1. Jolm, V. 7. 5?f Simon, HiJ}. Crir. &c. and the chborr 
 " Pro\e^omt:na and annttations of Dr. MiW, and WeH\e\n, to their editic 
 " of the Greek Tejiament. In 16S9, the Papijl ."iimon Jirove ti be free 
 •' in 1707 the Proteftant, Mill, ivijhed to beafla-ve-. it 175 I, the hliW. 
 " nian Wetftcin ujcd tt^e liberty of his times, and of his /ti?." 
 
 «« I < S Of all the MSS ntto extant, above i5o in number, fame of tuLich 
 " are more than 1200 years o/d. (VVetltein, ad loc.) The on Lcdox copies of 
 " the Vatican, of the ComplutcnOan editors, and of R. Steplien.-, are 
 " became invifble ; and the two MSS o/'Dul)lin, and Berlin, are univortby 
 •' to form an exception, 5?<r Emlyn'5 nvtrki, vol, ii, p. 227—255. 269— 
 " 299 } and M. de MilTy'i four ingenioui letter:, in torn. viii. anti ix. of 
 " {,ii* Journal Briunnit^ue," 
 
(368 ) 
 
 Thefe, Sir, are your affertions. And it 
 feems that they ought not to pafs n-ithout 
 f()me (but they ihall be brief) animadver* 
 lions. 
 
 In the firft place, then, let it be obferved, 
 that by having thus adopted the obj.-6>ions, 
 juft dated, you are now become relponfible 
 for them as your own. If this adoprion 
 were, originally, no more than the refuit of 
 a curfory, and imperfed, examination of the 
 fubjed, and if any part of the preceding 
 letters (in which, I trufl, thofe objedions 
 have been proved to be in general false, 
 and unherfally inconclusive) {hall have 
 been fortunate enough to convince you of 
 your error; you will, without doubt, as the 
 beft reparation in your power, haflen to 
 efface the fligma, with which you have en- 
 deavoured to brand this text, by cancelUtig 
 
 thofe 
 
 •* peThaps, of a 7narginal noie^ invaded the text cf the Ij^ixn 
 
 *' Bibles^ which were renewed^ atid correal ed^ in a dark 
 
 *' period of ten centuries. Jfter the invention of Priming, 
 
 *' the editors of the Greek "Tejlament yielded to their o^vn 
 
 ** prejudices^ or thofe of the times ; and the pious fraud, 
 
 *' which was embraced with equal -Leal at Ron e, and at 
 
 *' Geneva, has been infinitely jmdtiplied in every country^ 
 
 *' and every language of 7nodern hurope." (p. 543 — 4.) 
 
(369) 
 
 thofe pages which contain it. Such a pro- 
 ceeding would do juftice to the text, and 
 honor to yourfetf. But if upon a patient, 
 and attentive, review of the fubje£t, you 
 fhall fee no reafon to reverfe your former 
 fentence, fhall ftill pronounce the verfe, in 
 queftion, to be fpurious ; — it will be highly 
 hicumbent upon you to demonftrate, to the 
 world, the incompetency of the fadls ftated, 
 and the infufficiency of the arguments urg- 
 ed, in the preceding letters, in fupport of 
 its authenticity. Attempt this confutation, 
 then, without delay. Silence will be a proof 
 of confcious impotence. And attempt it 
 with candor, and ferioufnefs. Tinfelled 
 phrafes, and empty farcafms, will have no 
 effed, but to double the load which now lies 
 heavy upon you. I prefs not, however, this 
 caution through private, or perfonal, confi- 
 derations. It is a matter of no fmall indif- 
 ference to the Writer of thefe pages, whe- 
 ther (to ufeyour own language) you falute 
 him {q) with gentle courtejy, or Jlern defiance. 
 Your fa£ts, if you fhall produce any to ex- 
 plain the queflion, fhall be received with 
 B b compla^ 
 
 (y) Vindication— Edit. A. D. 1779. 
 
C J7° ) 
 
 complacence. Your arguments, if you iliall 
 urge any to illuminate the fuhje^l, fhall be 
 weighed with candor, and coolnefs. But 
 your cavils, if you (hall practife any, fhall 
 be checked with ileadinefs ; and your info- 
 lence, if you Ihall affed any, fhall be repelled 
 with difdaln. 
 
 Let me In the next place, Sir, but fllll 
 l?nore briefly, remark, on thefe Extradls, that 
 they convey no very favorable idea of your 
 impartiality, as a Hiftorian. You have, in 
 them, brought forward Mr. Etnlyn, on the 
 fubjed: of this verfe, becaufe he is your fel- 
 low-advocate. And you have configned evea 
 the name of Mr. Martin, his refpeftable an- 
 tagonifl, to deep iilence, — 710 friendly Note 
 to tell where his work lies, — becaufe his opi- 
 nions were directly adverfe to yours, and be- 
 caufe he has overthrown many of Emlyn\ 
 mifreprefentatlons. But, Sir, is this the 
 part of an impartial Hiflorian ? To ftate 
 authorities, and to urge arguments, on one 
 fide of a quedion, alone, is but barely tolera- 
 ble in a hired Advocate, A Hlftorian, who 
 
 atSts in this manner, is but his defcrip- 
 
 tioi\ 
 
( Zl"^ ) 
 
 tion will be befl given in yonr own worcls. 
 ** Whatever subject he has chofen^ 
 ** WHATEVER PERSONS he introduces^ he 
 *' oives to himfelf^ to the prefent age^ and to 
 " fojlerlty^ a juji and perfeB de line at ton of 
 *' ALL that may he praifed, o/'all that may 
 ^' be excufed^ and c/" a ll that mujl be cenfured, 
 * ' If he -p AiT.s in the dif charge of his important 
 ^' office^ he partially violates the sa- 
 
 *' CRED obligations OF TRUTH." (r) 
 
 Eut, Sir, this is not all. Let mc, in the 
 third, and laft, place, remark, that the ex- 
 tracts, in qneftion, fiipply the moft palpable 
 proof of your partiality, and prejudice, in 
 refpe6l to the great queflion of the authen- 
 ticity of this verfe of St. John, They fhew 
 you to be capable even o^ forging authorities 
 in a matter, which bears no more than a 
 collateral, or rather an implied, relation to 
 It. You have wilfully (for your reference is 
 too exa6l to allow you fhelter under any 
 fuppofed inadvertence^ mifreprefented both 
 Petavius, and Gcnnadius, in the laft of thofe 
 extracts. Your own words have been al- 
 B b 2 ready 
 
 (r) Vindication— Edit, 1779, p. 139. 
 
( ZT^ ) 
 
 ready fet forth. The words of Petavius 
 may be thus tranflated. 
 
 " It is certain, that the Creed, which 
 •' pafTes under the name of Athanajius^ was 
 *' not only read, but had in great authority, 
 " by the Greeks as well as by the Latin^ 
 *' Church. In this Creed are thefe expref- 
 *' fions, as is known to all : The Holy Ghofi 
 *' h of the Father^ and of the Son, neither 
 " made, nor created, nor begotten, hut pro- 
 *' ceeding. Which plain, and weighty, tcf- 
 '' timony was fo ofFenfive to the Greeks, that 
 *' they carried up their frantic, and foolifh, 
 " rage even to Athanafiiis himlelf ; which 
 *' Gennadius relates, and laments. 
 " They fear not (fays he) to affirm that A- 
 " thanafius was a drunkard, and that he was 
 *' drunk when he wrote this pajjage : a 
 
 " SENSELESS, and RIDICULOUS, CALUM- 
 
 *' NY, which merits flent contempt, rather 
 *' than diferious confutation.^* (f) 
 
 What 
 
 {s) ** Symbolum dico quod vulgo Athanafii dicitur — 
 *' Certe fub Athanafii nomine, non modo ab nojbis, fed 
 *' a Grach etiam, et legitur, et in magnam audtoritatem 
 *' afTumitur. Eft autcm in eo ita fcriptum, quod igno- 
 *' rat nemo : Spiritus fan£lus a Patre^ et Filto, nonfaiJus, 
 *' nee creatus, nee genitusyfed procedens. Q^iod tarn grave. 
 
( 373 ) 
 
 What fay you, Sir, to this quotation? 
 May it not be fuTpedied, that by fondly 
 ftudylng Dr. Benfon, you have imbibed no 
 fmall portion of his fpirit ? You have, in 
 your Hiftory, confidently placed this afler- 
 tion, as to the expreffions of Gennadius, a- 
 mong certain truths^ which you affirm to be 
 ^oix^ tiniverfally acknowledged. But you will 
 not repeat the aflertion. Let me befeech. 
 you to compare the real expreilions of Gen- 
 nad'ius^ with your own account of them ; and 
 then to inform the world how far yrmr aC" 
 coimt is diftant from a direct falsehood. 
 Is it not practicable for you to utter truth, 
 even whiifl you have its ficred name in your 
 mouth ? Surely, Sir, " this feemeth to argue 
 *' a bad caufe, or a bad confcience, or (/) 
 B b 3 " both." 
 
 *' ac difeitum, teflimonium Graculos fic ofFcndIt, ut in 
 ** Athanafnini ipfum ftolide dcbacchati fim : quod re- 
 '* FERT, ac DF.PLORAT, Gemiadius. Non verenluKy in- 
 *' quit, dicer e fant-tum Athonaftum ehriofum fu'ijje^ et, cum 
 ** ijia jcriberei^ -vino flemim. Stulta, ct inepta, 
 *' CALUMNiA, riluque pocius, et conteniptu, quam 
 ** ft-ria expoltulatione digna." 
 
 (Peiav. Dogm. Thcol. vol. ii. lib. vii. c. 8. p. 687.) 
 
 For the words of Gcrwadius, hirafel-f, to which Pefa- 
 vius here refers, fee Appendix, No. XXIV. 
 
 (i) The Tranflatorb' Preface to the Bible of jt/mes 
 1 : — a performance, which feems not to be fo generally 
 ki^own, as it deferves. 
 
( 374 ) 
 
 ** both." Is there any phyfical, or moral, 
 impoffibillty, for thofe who deny the au- 
 thenticity of this verfe, to quote fairly, to 
 argue candidly, and to fpeak truly ? Is there 
 any reajon in nature for such hard hearts ? 
 Thofe reafons, fuch as they are, can only be 
 found (but they may be there plentifully 
 found) in pride, and prejudice. If a falfe 
 tenet, or opinion, is to be defended, at aii^ 
 events, to what auxiliaries muft it look for 
 affiftance ? Not to truth ; — for fhe is all fair, 
 and artlefs, uniform, and confillent, fimple, 
 and iincere. It mufl feek the treacherous 
 aid of cavils, and equivocations ; it mud 
 pra6tife the foul (u) arts of fophlftry, and 
 deceit, offimulatlon, and diffimulation : by 
 fe]e6;ing a part only, and ftating them as 
 the whole, of an Author's words ; by afcrib- 
 ing to him exprellions which he never ut- 
 tered, and meanings which he never meant ; 
 by fuppreffing what is known to be true, 
 and infinuating, if not aflerting, what is 
 known to be falfe. This defcription feems 
 to apply, with all its energy, to Dr. Ben/on. 
 
 It 
 
 («) Rien rCeJl heau que h vrat, le vrai feul eft at triable. 
 
 BolLEAU. 
 
( 375 ) 
 
 It IS very far, Sir, from being inapplicable 
 to yourfelf. 
 
 In fine, — The defence of this Text of 
 the three (heavenly) M'^itnejfes^ w^hich you 
 affirm to h^v^hstn profanely introduced into 
 ihefcriptures, by raJJj^ and facrikgious hands^ 
 hath been thus attempted with, at leafl:, up- 
 right intentions, and a ferious perfuafion of 
 its originality, the refult of much patient, 
 and, as I believe, impartial, inveftigation. 
 This defence, fixing its foundation upon the 
 impeachments alledged againfl the text, in 
 a part of your Hiftory, hath, almofl necef- 
 farily, produced a counter- charge againfl 
 yourfelf. This general defence, on the one 
 hand, and this particular accufation, on the 
 other, are now, both, laid before the tribunal 
 of an impartial, and difcerning. Public. You 
 are called upon to traverfe, or to acknow- 
 ledge, — to refift, or to fubmit. \i yoxxrefufe 
 to pleads the charge will be taken as con- 
 feffed. And the definitive judgment may, 
 in fuch a cafe, perhaps, with no very great 
 impropriety, be framed out of fome part, at 
 leaft, of thefe, your own (.v) words — 
 
 " If 
 
 {x) GihhonH Vindication — Edit. A. D. 1779, p. 7. 
 
( 376 ) 
 
 *' If I am inJecd ir.c Av AJii.7. of under- 
 
 " STANDING WHAT I READ, / Can 710 
 
 *' longer claim a place among thofe Writers^ 
 *' 'who merit the ejieem^ and the confidence of 
 *' the Public. If I am capable of wil- 
 
 *' FULLY PERVERTING WHAT I UNDER- 
 
 *' STAND, I no longer deferve to live in the 
 •' fociety of thofe nien^ who confider afiridi and 
 *' inviolable adherence to truth, asthefoun- 
 *' dation of ev.ery thing that is virtuous or ho-' 
 ** nourable in human nature,""^ 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 . 7^ GO ei Pater unnmftintiis. Hie ergo jam gra- 
 "*-' dum volunt figere ftulti, immo cceci, qui non 
 videant, primo, Ego^ ei Paler, duorum cfTc Iignin- 
 cationem ; dehinc in novilTimo, fumus^ non ex u- 
 nius cITe perfona, quod pluraliter dictum tit •, tuin 
 quod, latum lumus, non unus fumus. Si enim dix- 
 iflec, unus fumus, potuiflet adjuvare ftrnientiam lU 
 lorum. Unus enim fingularis numeri figniiicatio 
 vidccur. Adliuc cum duo, mafculini generii,. 
 t/«.w/ dicit, heutrali verho, qiiod?ionpertinetadfm' 
 guhrUatem, fed ad unitntem, ad limilitudinem, ad 
 conjundionem, ad diie>5tioncm Patris qui Filiuin 
 diligir ; et ad obfequium Filii, qui vokuxiati Pacris 
 obiequitur. Unuin fumus, d'uLcns, Ego ei Pater, oi- 
 t^ndit effe qjios .equai et jungit. (Teriul!ia7ius adver- 
 fus Prapcea'/n, Cap. xxii, ad lintmj 
 
 No. IL 
 
 Pod Philippurn, et totam fubllanciani quseftionh 
 
 iftius, quern in finem Evangelii pcrfcverant \u. 
 
 eodem gcnere fermonis, quo Pater et Fiiius in i\:a 
 
 A proprieiats 
 
2 APPENDIX. 
 
 proprietate dlilinguuntur, Paracletum quoque a 
 Patre (t poftulaturum, quum afcendiiretad Patrem, 
 et miilurum rcpromictit, et quidem alium, fed jam 
 pr^mifimus quomodo alium. Casterum, de fueo 
 J lime t^ inquit, ficut ipfe de Patris. Itaconnexus Pa- 
 iris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto^ ires efficit CGhjercn- 
 tes^ alterum ex altcro ; qui tres unum [iint^ non tinus, 
 QiTOMODO di^nm efi. Ego et Pater itniim fumus j ad 
 lubftanti^ unitatem, non ad numeri fmgularitatem* 
 (Idem, Cap. xxv, ad initium.) 
 
 No. III. 
 Dicit Dominus ; Ego et Pater unum fumus. Et 
 iteriim de Patre et Filio et Spiritu lando fcriptum 
 eft : Et hi tres unum funt. Et quifquam credit 
 lianc unitatem, de divina firmitate venientem, fa- 
 cram.entis csleflibus cohasrentem, fcindi in Eccle- 
 fia pofTe, et voluntatum coUidentium divortio fcpa- 
 rari ^ Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, Dei legem non 
 tenet ; non tenet Patris, et Filii, fidem -, et verita- 
 tem non tenet ad falutem. (Cypianus, De Unitate 
 Ecckfia, Edit. Oxon. p. 109.) 
 
 No. IV.' 
 Si peccatorum remifllim confecutus eft, et fanc- 
 tificatus cil, et templum Dei fadus eft ; qusero 
 rujus Dei ? fi Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum. 
 non credidit : fi Chrijli, nee hujus fieri pateft tem- 
 piu'^. qui ncgat DeumChriftum : fi Spritus fan^i, 
 
 cum 
 
APPENDIX. J 
 
 cum ires unum fint, quomodo Spiritus fandus pla- 
 catus efle ei poteft, qui aut Patris, aut Filii, ini- 
 micus eft ? (Epiftola ad Juhmanum^ Ixxiii, circa 
 mediam partem, p. 203.) 
 
 No. V. 
 
 Ph^hadius, Agenni G alii arum Epifcopns, edldlt 
 contra Arianos librum. Dicuntur et ejus ede alia 
 opufcula, qu£e necdum legi. Vivit ufque hodie, 
 decrepita lenectute. {Hieronym. Catal. Scriptor. 
 Eccl. p. 125.) 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 Ad Trinitatem in Joannis Epiftola : Tres fv.nt 
 qui tejiimonium dant in c^lo, Pater ^ Verbum, et Spiritus 
 fan^us ; et tres funt qui tejiimonium dant in terra^ 
 ffirituSy aqua^ etfanguis. {Eucherius, C. xi. Sec. 3.) 
 
 No. VII. 
 Ergo quamvis in luperioribus exemplis Scrip- 
 turarum tacita Tint nomina perlbnarum , tamen 
 iinitum nomen divinitatis per omnia tibi eft in his 
 demonftratum: ficut et in hocexemplo veritatis, in 
 quo nomina perfonarum evidenter funt oftenia, et 
 iinitum nomen divinitatis claule eft declaratum, 
 Dicente Johanne Evangelifta in epiftola fua, Tres 
 funt qui tejiimonium dicunt in calo. Pater, et Ver- 
 bum, et Spiritus, et in Jelu Chrifto mmmfunt ; non 
 tamen unus eft, quia non eft in his una perfona. 
 (Vigilitis^ Liber primus, p. JJS-) 
 
 A 2 No, 
 
4 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. VI 1 1. 
 
 Jam auuifii fuperius Evangeliftam Johannem m 
 Epiltola fua tarn ablblute teftantem, Tres fuut qui 
 teftimsnmn dant in c.clo^ Pater ^ Verbttm^ et Spiritus 
 fanchis^ et in Chrifto J-cfu untim fv.nt. Utique fine 
 dubio in Trinitate divinitatis per omnia unum 
 lunt, & in nominibus perlbnaruni tres lunt. {Vigil. 
 Lib. primus, ad calcem, p. "j']^.^ 
 
 Zti\ et Spiritus Sanfliis in Fatre, et in Filio, et 
 in fe, confillens efc •, licut Johannes Evangelifla in 
 cpiftola ilia tani ablblute tellatur, Et ires tmum funt* 
 (Lib. V. p. 786.) 
 
 Cur, 'Tres umim funt, Johannem Evangcliflam 
 dixille legitis, fi diverfas naturas in pcrfonis effe 
 accipitis ? (Jnd a little after'wards) Rogo qucmo- 
 do ti-es unum funt^ fi diverfa in utrifque cfl natura 
 divinitatis .'' (Lib. vii. p. 789.) 
 
 Unde ct Johannes in Epiftola fua ait, Tres funi 
 q:d tcjlimcniiun diciint in Citdo, Pater, Verhum, et 
 Spiritus : et in Chrirco Jefu unnmfunt •, non tamen 
 unus efl, quia non eil eorum una peribna. (Libv 
 K. p. jg-,.) 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 Bcatus Johannes Apodolus tcRatur diccns, Tref- 
 [unt r/id tejliriwnium pcrhitcnt in Ccclo^ Pater ^ Verhum^, 
 
 13- 
 
APPENDIX. 5 
 
 ^ Spirittis^ y hi tres iinum /tint. Quod eriani 
 beatWrimus Martyr, Cyprianus, in Epifiola Be Uni~ 
 tate Ecde/ice, confiLCtur j clicens, Qj-]i pacem Chrijli^ 
 ec concordiam rumpit, adverfusC/^ri/'?^^;;; tacit •, qui 
 alibi prarter Ecclefiam colligit, Chrifii Eccldiain 
 fpargit. — Atqiie, ut unam ecclefiain iinius Dei efTe 
 monftrarct, hjec contcllim testimoxia de Scrip- 
 tiiris infernit : Dicit Dominus, E^o €i Pater, 
 unum fiimiis : Et iternm de Patre^ Filio, et Splritu 
 SanBo icriptum eft •, Et hi tres unujjifunt. {Fulgeri-- 
 tiHs, Refponlio contra.//7.?/7w.) 
 
 No. X. 
 Sceculo codem (viz. circiter A. D. 550) CaJJio- 
 dortis, vel Cajfiodorius potius, Patricias F^o'manns, 
 vixit, Monachifque fibi ruhjcdis delcdum antiqu- 
 ifiimorum, et correcliiTimoruni Scripturas iacrns 
 codicum commendavit, et in eoriim ufum exempla- 
 ria, ope contextus Gntr/, emendavit, aiiLtorque 
 exftitit, ut in locis dubiis duos, trefve, anriquos, 
 et emendatos, codices confalerenr. Tanro ftudia 
 is ferebatur in rccognofcendum lacrum contexcum, 
 ut, opera reliquos libror. emendandi Nctariis luis 
 relida, ipfe facrorum librorum curam in fe recipe- 
 ret. Teftatur porro fe dc Grthographid ideo corn- 
 mentatum efie, ut accuratam facrorum libroruni 
 delcriptionwin prcveheret. {VAljii Cur. Pi^^ii. p, 
 
 A 3 Extracts 
 
6 APPENDIX. 
 
 Extracts from the Introduiflion, Sec. of 
 M A F F E I u s , to the CompIeA-iones ofCAssi- 
 
 ODORIUS. 
 
 Membraneus Liber, in quo infigne hoc antiqul- 
 tatis rronumentum unice perennavit, eximia?, ac 
 venerandas, vetuflatis notas pr£c fe fert omnes; 
 adeo ut videri poflit ab ipfius Cajfiodorii ^tate non 
 ita multum abefle. — '[Ejus titukis] " Cassiodoru 
 *' Senatoris Complexiones in Epistolas, et 
 *' Acta Apostolorum, et Apocalypsim." 
 
 Ex C&JJiodoriano hoc opere conftat non in Afri- 
 canis tantum, (quod patet ex Eugenia, Fulgentia^ 
 Vigilio^ Victore, Faaindo, Cypriano quoque, ut vide- 
 tur)fed in antiquiflimisjet emendatioribuSjEcclefias 
 Romans codicibus,verficulum ilium ibriptunifuiffe. 
 Cum enim tantoftudio Monachis fuis in Div. Led, 
 id pr^ceperit, ut prsftantiffimis, et Gr/eci eiiam 
 textus collatione repurgatis, codicibus uterentur, ut- 
 que in ambiguis Iccis duorum, vel trium, prifco- 
 rum emendatorumque codicum auftoritas inquirere- 
 tur i — ipium imprimis idem prasflitiffe, quis am- 
 bigat ? 
 
 Clamant ifli, Scripture verficulum, quo Sanc- 
 tiffima Trias perfpicue docetUr, S. Johannis, Ep. 
 i. C. 5, in prilcis codicibus ut plurimum non re- 
 
 pcriri. 
 
APPENDIX 7 
 
 perlr'i, et ab antiquis Patribus ledlum non efie, 
 Africanis quibufdam exceptls. At docet vos Cajj'.* 
 odorii interpretatio ledum ab ipfo fuifrej quo con- 
 flat et in Romanis exemplaribus cxftitifle. QLiibul- 
 nam autem ? Nimirum fek^ijjimis^ et qui jam turn 
 hahenntur antiqid. 
 
 Qiii vero Vidgatce^ feu Hieronymiance, Verfioni earn 
 vcOixoTrnv olim intrufam putant, deditioneni tari- 
 dem faciant, atque arma fubmittant, necefie eft. 
 Evidenter enim patet, ex quampiurimis haruni 
 Complexionum locis, Caffwdorium alia Venlone a Ilie- 
 ronymiana ufum t^t ; et nihilominus earn 7r:piy.oTnu 
 legit. 
 
 Qii?e in hac explanarione vel afFeit 
 
 Cdjfiodorius hemiftichia, veldefignat a Vidgata anti- 
 qua^ five ab Italica, vere deprompta efie ; id apud 
 me ferme evincit, quod ilia Verfio probatiiTima, 
 inter csEteras, a dodiffimis Veterum iiaberctur. 
 Quapropter adhibitam procul dubio arbitror ab 
 erudito Scriptore, facrorumque librorun fcruta- 
 tore eximio ; eoque magis, quo vetuftiores Scrip- 
 tur^e codices perquirere folitus erat, et coUatos 
 cum Gr^co textlt, quern csleftia teflimonia pris 
 fe tulifTe, cum Scriptorum audoritas, turn optimi 
 qui fupei Tint MSS Libri, tellantur. (pag. 42, &c.) 
 
 A 4 Extrad 
 
S APPENDIX. 
 
 Extract from the Preface of CaJJiodorhis, 
 
 Scd qnanivis omnis Scripturadivina fuperna Ince 
 rc-rplendcat, et in ea virtus Spiritiis lancli evidcntcr 
 irradiet-, in Pfalterio tamen, et Prophetis, et Epil- 
 tolis Apoftolorum, ftudium maximum laboris im- 
 pcndi, quoniam mihi vifi iunt profundiores abyflbs 
 commovere, et quafi arcem totius Scripturas divin^e, 
 atque altitudinem gloriofiflimam continere. Quos 
 ego cunftos NOVEM CODICES audoritatis divins; (ut 
 fenex potui) fub collatione priscorum codicum, 
 amicis ante me legentibus, ledula leftione tranfivi. 
 Ubi me multum laboralTc, Domino adjuvante, pro- 
 fiteor-, quatenUs«5 nee elcquentia; modificat.x deef- 
 Jem, nee libros facros temeraria prseiumptione 
 lacerarem. 
 
 The Words of Ca[fiodoi ius^ m loco. 
 
 Sic autem diligimus eum, cum mandata ejus 
 facimus, qu?e juilis mentibus gravia non viden- 
 tur, fed potius vincunt f^eculum, quando in iUum 
 credunt, qui condidit mundum. Cui rei teftifi- 
 cantur in terra tria myftcria, aqita, f unguis ^et fpiru- 
 i:(S, qvix in p^J/^ one Doinini leguntur impleta; in 
 C^i.Lo, autem. Pater, et Fi Litis, et Spiritus 
 Sanctus, et hi tres UNU3 est Deus. 
 
 Na; 
 
APPENDIX. ^ 
 
 No. XL 
 
 The Notes of Iheodore Bcza on the Verfej 
 I. John, V. 7, 8. 
 
 VII. Nam tres funt^dizc. on rpj;?, Hie verficulus 
 omnino mihi retinendus videtur. Explicat eniiU 
 manifede quod de fcx teftibus dixerat, tres fe- 
 orfim coelo, tres terrse tribuens. Non legit, ta- 
 men, 6)';-;/j, nee Yetv.s Latimts interpres, nee Na- 
 'zianzeitus (oratione 5. de Theologia) nee Aihanafius^ 
 nee DidymnSy nee Chryfofiomus^ nee Hilarius^ nee 
 Cyrillus^ nee AugujHnus, nee 5^i^ ; fed legit Hiero- 
 nymus^ legit Erafmus in Britannico eodice, & exftat 
 in Compiuicnft cditione, & in nonnullis Siepba?:i 
 veteribus libris. Non convenit tamen in omnibus 
 inter idos eodiees. Nam Brkannictts legit fine 
 
 artieulis -3-*r>;o, Xoyo;, v.Xi zryzvixa. In NOSTRIS VCrO 
 
 leguntur articuH i & propterea etiam additum erat 
 y^Wt?/ epithetoa Spiritui, lit ab eo diftinguatur cu- 
 jus fit mentio in Icquenti verfieulo, quiqne in terra 
 colloeatur. ^[ In cah^ zv rx y.focv^. Hoc decft in 
 fcptcni vetuflis codieibus, fed tamen omnino vide- 
 tur retinendum, ut tribus in terra tcilibus ifta ex 
 adverlb refpondeant. ^ Senno^oKoy!^. Cur filius 
 Dei dicatur Aoy^-\ expofuimus Joan. i. i. At 
 cnim dices. Nemo in fua caufa idoneus eft teftis. 
 Hunc nodum ifte Chrifius explicat J^^». viii, 13, 
 & deineeps : qui locus iftum mire iliudrat, ut et alii 
 
 multl 
 
%6 APPENDIX. 
 
 multiapud hunc noftrum Evangeliftam, in quibus 
 foepe fit iftius teftificationis mentio. f Ei hi tres 
 Unum funt^ v.a.\. aroi 01 r^tiq i]> ikti. Id cfl, ita 
 prorfus confentiunt, ac fi unus teflis eflent, uti 
 revere unum lunt, fi aaxv fpedes. Sed de ilia 
 (ut mihi quidem videtur) non agitur hoc in loco: 
 quod et Glofia ipfa interlinearis, quam vocant, 
 agnofcit. Sed & CompliUenfis editio legit aj to iv 
 fKTj, ad unum flinty id eft, in unum conveniunt, uti 
 legitur in fequenti membro. 
 
 VIII. In terra., s-sri ty,? y^g. Syrus interpres, & 
 plurimi ex vetuftioribus, tum Gr^cis, turn Lati- 
 nis, iftud non habent : quod, tamen, in Greets 
 NOSTRis codicibus, & apud veterem Latinum inter- 
 pretem legitur ; & fane videtur retinendum, nifi 
 proxime antecedens verficulus expungatur. ^ Et 
 hi tres in unum confentiunt, xa< ot r^n? a? to iv uaiv. 
 Co:nplutenfts editio h^c non legit hoc in loco, qu:e 
 tamen mihi videntur prorfus retinenda, ut intel- 
 ligamus hsec omni teftimonia penitus conientire; 
 & ad unum, eteundem, ilium fcopum tendere. 
 
 No! XII. 
 The Preface of Robert Stephens to his Editiort 
 
 of the Gr^^^ Teftament of A. D. 1550. 
 
 Rohertus Stephanus Typographus regius, Sacrarum 
 
 literarum lludiofis, S. 
 
 Superioribus diebus, Chriftiane kftor, Novum 
 
 Domini noftri JESU CHRISTI Teftamentum, 
 
 qua. 
 
APPENDIX. II 
 
 qua, dictante Spiritu fanfto, rcriptum fuit lingua, 
 cum vetuftiflimis fedecim fcriptis exemplaribus, 
 quanta maxima potuimus cura , et diligentia, col- 
 latum, minore forma, minutioribufque Rcgiis 
 chara<5leribus, tibi excudimus ! Idem nunc iterum 
 ct tertio, cum iifdem coUatum, majoribus vero 
 etiam Regiis typis excufum, tibi ofFerimus ; lis 
 prsefixis (nequid defyderes) infertifve, aut in 
 calce pofitis, qu£e ufquam in fcriptis, aut exculis 
 leguntur codicibus : quas omnia, augufta alterius 
 forma capcre non potuerat. Ad hs;c, in margine 
 interiori varias codicum ledbiones addidimus : 
 quarum unicuique numeri Graci nota fubjunfta 
 eft, qu^ nomen exemplaris, unde fumpta eft, 
 indicet : aut exemplarium nomina, quum plures 
 funt numeri. 
 
 lis nanque placuit, primo, fecundo, ad fextum- 
 decimum ufque, nomina imponere : ut primo, 
 Complutenfem cditionem intelligas, quas dim ad an- 
 tiquiffima exemplaria fuit excufa : cui certe cum 
 noftris mirus erat in plurimis confenfus. Secundo, 
 exemplar vetuftiflimum, in Italia ab amicis coUa- 
 tum. Tertio, quarto, quinto, fexto, feptimo, 
 oftavo, decimo, & quinto-decimo, ea qu£ ex 
 bibliotheca Regis habuimus. Cetera funt ea qus 
 undique corrogare licuit. Cujus, quidem, vetuf- 
 • tiorum codicum coUationis, dodiftimos Hehraorum 
 authores habemus : quos poft rcdudum e Babylo^ 
 
 nia 
 
12 APPENDIX. 
 
 nia populum Dei, qnum facros veteris Teflamcnti 
 libros difcrepare verbis aliquando, aut apicibus, 
 etiam comperifTent, diverfam in margine ledionem 
 adnotafic, teftantur hodie libri ad exemplaria Icrip* 
 ta excufi. Capitum, prasterea, juxta Gr^ecos divi- 
 fioncm, in inceriori rnargine numeris Greeds nota- 
 vimuSj qui bus refpondent in Evangeliis x£9aAatx 
 in fuperiore, & inferiore, paglnarum parte : in 
 Epiftolis, vero, ipfa JirA«?aias fingulis Epiftolis 
 praefixa. Latinorum autem capita numeris & ipfa 
 Gracis, in margine exreriori fignificavimus : ip- 
 foique Latinos Tequuti, breviora capita in quatuor, 
 longiora in feptem, partes diftribuimus : iiteris 
 alphabeticis majufculis partes illas in eodem mar- 
 gine Tignantes. Ubi etiam, et Laihwrum more, 
 notavimus locum, vel ex Evangeliila aliquo, vcl 
 ex Apoftolicis fcriptis, qui cum praifenti loco auc 
 idem fit prorfus, aut non parum abfimiiis : aut 
 qui certe, cum ipfo collatus, lucem aliquam afferre 
 pofTe videatur : adjecfla litera majufcula, quse ca- 
 pitis eam partem indicct, in qua qusiri locus ille 
 debeat. Locos ex Veteri teftamento aut ad ver- 
 bum, aut eodem fenfu citatos, magna cura figna- 
 vimu5. Nee tamen omifimus Eufebii defarienfis 
 canones, led iis quoque in interiori margine locum 
 dedimus, ut Gr^cis etiam fatisfieret. Sed ne nu- 
 merum quidem s-ix"^v, prefertim quum is in noftris 
 prope omnibus codicibus invcniretur, in calce cu- 
 jufque Evangelii, & EpiftoLT. Quam rationem 
 
 rccenfendi 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 »5 
 
 fecenfendl r'v«f, & apud nonnullos prophanoa 
 fcriptores videre eft. 
 
 Hsc vero omnia, ut te alacrlorem ad facrofanfti 
 Novi Teftamenti Servatoris noftri, Dei, leftionem 
 redderemus, nobis q:& fufcepta exiftimato. Noftris 
 igitur uterCi & fruere iaboribus, dum ad tandiu 
 delyderata Jujiini^ philofophi, & martyris, accin- 
 ^'mur opera. Vale. 
 
 No XIII. ' 
 
 Incipit Prologus feptem Epiftolarum Canonicarum. 
 
 Non idem orde eft apud Gracos^ qui integre fa- 
 piunt, ft iidem redlam leftantur, epiftolarum fep* 
 tern, qus Canonic^ nuncupantur, qui in Latinis 
 codicibus invenitur. Quod quia Petrus primus 
 eft in numcro Apoftolorum, primas funt etiam eju^ 
 epiftolse in ordine cj^terarunl. Sed ficut Evart- 
 geliftas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus, ita 
 has proprio ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus. 
 Eft enim prima earum una Jacohi ; Petri duse ^ 
 Johannis tres j et Jud^ una : Qure fi ut ab eis di-^ 
 geftjE funt, ita quoque ab inrerpretibus fideliter 
 in Latinum vertcrentur eloquium, ncc ambipuita- 
 tem legentibus facerent, nee iermonum dtiz varie- 
 tas impugnaret -, illo pr^^cipus loco ubi deunitate 
 Trinitatis in prima Jchannis epiftola pofuum le*^!- 
 p.ius. In qua etiam ab inEdclibus tranllatoribns 
 
 itiulium 
 
U APPENDIX. 
 
 multum erratum effe a fidci veritate comperimus ; 
 trium tantum vocabula, hoc eft, aquce, fanguinis, 
 ct fpiritus, in fua editione ponentes, et Patris, Ver- 
 bique, ac Spiritus teftimonium omittentes, in quo 
 maxime et fides Catholica roboratur, et Patris, ac 
 Filii, ac Spiritus fandti una divinitatis fubftantia 
 comprobatur. In ceteris vero Epiftolis, quantum 
 a noftra aliorum diftet editio, ledoris prudentia:: 
 derelinquo. 
 
 Sed tu, virgo Chrifti, Euftochium, dum a me 
 jmpenfius Scriptural veritatem inquiris, meam quo- 
 dammodo fenedutem invidorum dentibus corro- 
 dendam exponis, qui me falfarium, corruptorem- 
 que facrarum Scripturarum, pronunciant. Sed 
 ego, in tali opere, nee asmulorum meorum invi- 
 dcntiam pertimefco, nee fand^e Scripture verita- 
 tem pofcentibus denegabo. 
 
 (Hieronymi divina Bibliotheca, per Martianay,^ 
 Edit. Pari/lis^ A. D. i6^^^ page 1667 — 9. 
 
 No. XIV. 
 
 ExTR'ACTs from VICTOR VITENSIS, 
 
 De Persecutione Vandalica. 
 
 (Note. This Hiftory is comprifed in three Books; 
 containing fifty-three pages in folio.) 
 
 Th^ 
 
APPENDIX; ^^ 
 
 The Edi<5t of Huneric mentioned in page 24. 
 
 Kex Hunericus Va7idalorum & Alanorum, univer- 
 fis Epircopis Omoujianis, 
 
 Non femel, fed fasplus, conftat efTe prohibitum, 
 nt in fortibus Vandalorum facerdotes veftri con- 
 ventus minime celebrarent, ne fua feduftione ani* 
 mas fubverterent Chriftianas. Quam rem iper- 
 nentes, plurimi reperti funt contra interdidum 
 Aliifas in fortibus Vandalorum egilfe, aflerentes fe 
 integram regulam Chriftianas fidei tenere. Et quia 
 in Provinciis a Deo nobis conceffis fcandalum efle 
 nolumus, ideo Dei providentia cum confenfu fanc- 
 torum Epifcoporum noftrorum hoc nos ftatuifle 
 cognofcite, ut ad diem Kalendarum Februariarum 
 proxime futurarum, amiffa omni excufatione for- 
 midinis, omnes Cartbaginem veniatis, ut de ratione 
 fidei cum noftris venerabilibus Epifcopis pofTitis 
 inire conflidum, et de fidei Omousianorum, quam 
 defenditis^ de divinis scripturis proprie approhtis, 
 quo poITit agnofci fi integram fidem teneatis. Hu- 
 jus autem Edidi tenorem, univerfis Epifcopis tuis 
 per univerfam Jfricam confritutis, direximus. 
 
 Data fub die xiii Kal. Jn?:. Anno vii Htmerici, 
 
 Appropinquabat jam futurus dies ille calumni- 
 cfus Kalendarum Februariarum, ab eodem ftatu- 
 
 tus. 
 
j^ APPENDIX. 
 
 tus. Conveniunt non folum univerfa; Africcc, 
 verum etiam inlularum multarum Epilcopi, afflic- 
 tione, et masrore, confefti. Fit filentium diebus- 
 i-nultis, quoufque peritos quolque et dodiflimos 
 viros exinde fepararet, calumniis appofitis enecan- 
 dos. Nam unum ex iplb choro DodtorLim, no- 
 mine L^TUM, ftrenuum, atque dodliffimum virum, 
 poft diuturnos carceris fqualores, incendio concre- 
 jnavit, aiilimans tali exemplo timorem incutiens 
 reliquos elifurum. Tandem venitur ad difputa- 
 tionis confliftum, ad locum fcilicet quern dclege- 
 rant adverlarii. Evitantes igitur noftri vocifera- 
 tionis tumultus, ne forte poitmodiim Ariani dice- 
 rent quod eos noftrorum opprefTerit multitudo, 
 cligunt de fe noftri qui pro omnibus refponderent, 
 decern. CoUocat fibi Cyrila cum fuis fatellitibus 
 in loco excelfo fuperbiffimum thronum, aitantibus 
 jioftris. Dixeruntque noftri epilcopi : Ilia eft 
 fempcr grata coUocatio, ubi luperba non domina- 
 tur poteftatis elatio : fed ex confenfu communi 
 venitur, ut cognitoribus deccrnentibus, partibus 
 acrentibus, auod verum eft agnofcatur. Nunc, 
 cutem, qui erit cognitor, qui examinator, vel libra 
 jnftitiae aut bene prolata confirmct, aut pravc 
 afTumpta refellat ? Et cum talia et alia dicerentur, 
 notarius regis refpondit : Patriarcha Cyrila, dixit, 
 kzatur nobis. Qj.io concedente iftud fibi nomen 
 Cyrila alTumpfit. Et exinde ftrepitum concitan- 
 tes, calupiaiari adverforii cccpcrunt, Et quia hoc 
 
 nollri 
 
APPENDIX. 17 
 
 ti-oftrl petierant, utfaltem fi examlnare non licebar, 
 prudenti multitudini vel expedlare liceret, juben- 
 tur univerli filii catholic^e ecclefisci qui aderant, 
 centenis fuftibus tundi. Tunc clamare coepit 
 beatus Eugenius: Videat Beus vim quam patimur, 
 cognofcat afflidbionem perfecutionum quam a per- 
 fecutoribus fuftinemus. Converfique noftri, Cy- 
 rilae dixerunt : Propone quod difponis. Cyrila 
 dixit : Nefcio latine. Noftri epifcopi dixerunt : 
 Semper te latine efTe locutum manifefto novimus, 
 mode excufare non debes, praefertim quia tu hujus 
 rei incendium fufcitalli. Et videns catholicos epif- 
 copos ad conflictum magis fuifle paratos, omnino 
 audientiamdiverfis cavillationibusdeclinavit. Qiiod 
 ante noftri providentes, libellum de fide confcrip- 
 ferant, fatis decenter fufficienterque confcriptum, 
 dicentes : Si noftram fidem cognofcere defideratis, 
 hsec eft Veritas quam tenemus* 
 
 PROFESSIO FiDEI CaTHOLIC^. 
 
 Regali imperio, fidei catholicae, quam tenemus, 
 praecipimur reddere rationem : ideoque aggredi- 
 mur, pro noftrarum virium mediocritate, divino 
 fulti adjutorio, quod credimus & prsedicamus, 
 breviter intimare. Primum igitur de unitate fub- 
 ftanti^ Patris & Filii, quod Grseci o/aso-jov dicunt, 
 exponendum nobis eiTe cognofcimus. Patrem er- 
 go, & Filium, & Spiritum fandtum, ita in unitate 
 B deitatis 
 
i^ APPENDIX. 
 
 deitatis profitemur, nt & Patrem in fiis proprie- 
 tate perfon2t iubfiilere, & Filium nihilominus in 
 propria extare perfona, atque Spiritum fandum 
 perfonx fuas. proprictatem retinere, fideli confefTi- 
 cne fateamur : non eumdem afferentes Patrem quern 
 Filium, neque Filium confitentes qui Pater fit, 
 autSpiritus fundus: neque ita Spiritum fandum 
 accipimuSjUt autPaterfit,autFilius: fed ingenitum 
 Patrem, & de Patre genitum Filium, & dePatre et 
 Filioprocedentemfpiritum fandum, uniuscredimus 
 eife fubftantiae vel eflentiae : quia ingeniti Patris, 
 et geniti Filii, & procedentis Spiritiis fandi, una 
 eft deiias, tres vero perfonarum proprietates. Et 
 quia contra iianc catholicam, vel apoflolicam fidem 
 cxorta haLTcfis novitatlm q^tamdam induxerat, 
 afferens Filium non de Patris fubftantia genitum, 
 fed ex nuilis extantibus, id eft ex nihilo, fubfti- 
 tiiTe : ad banc impietatis profefllonem, qui"e contra 
 fidem emerlerat, refellendam, & penitus abolen- 
 dam, o,w,i:(rja fermo Gra^cus pofitus eft, quod inter- 
 pretatur unius fubftanti.c, vel eifenti^, fignificans 
 Filium non ex nuilis extantibus, nee ex alia fub- 
 ftantia, fed de Patre, natum elfe. Qi.ii ergo putac 
 cmouf0n aufcrendum, ex niiiilo vult afterere Filium 
 extitiffe. Sed fi ex nihilo non eft, ex Patre fine 
 dubio eft, & rede omoufwSy id eft, unius cum Patre 
 fubftantix, Filius eft. Ex Patre autem elfe, id eft, 
 unius cum Patre fubftantia:, his teftimonis approba- 
 tur, Apoftolo dicente : Qiii cum fit fplendor glorije, 
 & figura fubftantias ejus, gerens quoque omnia ver- 
 
 bo 
 
APPENDIX. 19 
 
 bo virtuis fuS. Et ipfe iterum Deus Pater, in- 
 credulorum perfidiam objurgans, qui prsdicantis 
 per Prophetas Filii vocem in fua fubilantia manen- 
 tem, audire noluerunt, dixit: N on audier Lint vo- 
 cem fubftantis. Qiiam vocem fubftantite cum 
 tarn terribili inteftatione increpans, ad eumdem 
 Prophetam loquitur, dicens : Super montes accipi- 
 te planftum, & fuper femitas deierti lu6lum, quia 
 defecerunt,eoquodnon fmt homines: non audierunt 
 vocem fubftantias, a volatibus cceli ui'que ad peco-^ 
 ra. Et rurfum eos, qui a prot'effione unius Tub- 
 ftantise declinantes, in eadem fidei fubilantia flare 
 noluerunt, increpat, dicens : Si fcetiffcnt in fub- 
 ilantia mea, avertiflem utique eos a via fua mala, 
 & a peffimis cogitationibus fuis. Et iterum non 
 extra fubllantiam Patris Filium confitendum, fed 
 eadem fideliter mentis oculis contuendum, aper- 
 tiflime declaratur, dum dicit Propheta : Qiiis fte- 
 tit in fubflantia Domini, & vidit verbum ejus? 
 Patris ergo fubllantiam Filium effe, Propheticis 
 jam olim defignatum eft oracuiis, dicente Salomo- 
 ne : Subllantiam enim, & dulcedinem tuam, quam 
 in filios habes, oftcndebas, quam in figura, & ima- 
 gine, panis cceleftis, populo Ifrael ccelitiis appa- 
 ret profluxifTe : Quod ipfe Dominus in Evangelio 
 expofuit, dicens : Non Moyfes dedit vobis panem 
 de ccelo, fed Pater meus dat vobis panem de cslo : 
 fe utique panem effc defignans, cum dicit. Ego fum 
 panis vivus, qui de coelo defcendi : de quo etiam 
 B 2 Propheta 
 
20 APPENDIX. 
 
 Propheta David dicit : Panem Angelorum man- 
 diicavit homo. Namque ut adhuc evidentius Pa-» 
 tris & Filii fubftanLi^ unitas, & divinitatis sequa- 
 litas, oftendatLir, iple in evangelio dicit : Ego & 
 Pater unum lumus. Qiiod non ad unitatem tan- 
 tummodo voluntatis, fed ad unam refertur eam- 
 demque fubftantiam, quia non dixit, Ego & Pa- 
 ter unum volumus, led unum lumus. Ex eo enim 
 quod funt, non ex eo tantum quod volunt, paterna: 
 unitatis declaratur affertio. Item. Joannes Evange- 
 lifla dicit-, Propterea quasrtbant eum Judgei inter- 
 ficere, quia non Iblum folvebat fabbatum, fed & 
 Pattern fuum dicebat Deum, sequalem fe faciens 
 Deo. Quod utique non ad Jud^os eft penitus 
 referendum, quia Evangeliita veraciter dixit de Fi- 
 lio, quia sequalem fe faciebat Deo. Item in Evan- 
 gelio fcriptum eft j Qiiscunque Pater facit, ea- 
 dem & Filius facit, ftmiliter & ficut Pater fufci- 
 tat mortuos, & vivificat, ita & Filius quos vult 
 vivificat. Item ; ut homines honorihcent Filium, 
 ficut honoriilcant Patrem. i^qualis enim honor, 
 non nifi aequalibus exhibetur. Item ibi Filius ad 
 Patrem dicit, Omnia mea tua funt, & tua mea. 
 Item : Philippe, qui me videt, videt & Patrem : 
 Quomodo tu dicis, Oftende nobis Patrem ? Hoc 
 non dixiffet, nifi Patri per omnia fuiflct asqualis. 
 Item ipfe Dominus dixit : Creditis in Deum, & 
 in me credite. Etadliuc ut unitatem squalitatis 
 demonftraret, ait : Nemo novic Filium nifi Pater, 
 
 nequq 
 
APPENDIX. 21 
 
 neque Patrem quis novit nifi Filius, & cul volue- 
 fit Fiiius revelare : Et ficut Filius cui vult revelac 
 Patrem, ita & Pater revelat Filium : ficut ipfe 
 Petro ait, confitenti eum Chriftum Filium Dei vivi : 
 Beatus es, inquit, Simon Barjona, quia c2,ro & 
 fanguis non reyelavit tibi, fed Pater meus qui in 
 Coelis eft. Et itcrum Filius dicit : Nemo venit ad 
 Patrem, nifi per me, & nemo venit ad mc, niA Pater 
 qui mi fit me, attraxerit eum,. Unde claret squall- 
 tatem Patris c^ Filii ad fe invicem credentes addu- 
 cere. Item dicit : Si cognovifietis me, 6^ Patrem 
 meum utique cognoviiTtrtis, & a modo noftis eum, 
 & vidiftis eum. Verum quia duas in Filio 
 profitemur effe naturas, id eft, Deum verum, & 
 hominem verum, corpus & an imam habeneem, 
 quicquid ergo excellenti lublimitatis potentia de 
 eo referunt fcripturJE, admirandas ejus divinitati 
 ^ribuendum fentimus : & quicquid infra honorem 
 coeleftis potentias de eodem humilius enarratur, 
 non Verbo Dei, fed homini reputamus ailumpto. 
 
 Secundum divinitatem ergo eft, quod fuperius 
 diximus, ubi ait : Ego & Pater unum fumus. Et : 
 Qiii videt me, videt & Patrem. Et : Omnia qus- 
 cunque Pater facit, eadem Filius fimiliter : Vel cete- 
 ra qu£ fuperius continentur, Dla vero qurs de eo 
 fecundum hominem referuntur, ifta funt : Pater ma- 
 jor me eft, Et: Non veni facere voluntatem meam, 
 (ed vol untatem ejus qui mifit me. Et: Pater, fi fieri 
 B 3 poteft, 
 
22 APPENDIX. 
 
 poteft, tranfcat a me calix ifte : vel cum de cruce 
 dicit: Deus, Dens meus, quare mederdiquifti? Et 
 jterum ex perfona Filii Propheta dicit: De ventre 
 matris me^e Deus meus es tu : Vel cum minor an- 
 gelis indicatur, & quam plura his fimilia, quse 
 lludio brevitatis non inferuimus. Filius ergo Dei, 
 nuUis conditionem neceffitatibus obflridtus, fed 
 libera divinitatis potentia, ita, qu^ noilra funt, 
 rnirabili pietate alTumpfir, ut a luis, quae divina 
 funt, omnino non deftiterit : quia dtvinitas nee 
 augmentum ^dmittit, nee patitur detrimentum, 
 Unde gratias agimus Domino noftro Jefu Chriflo, 
 qui propter nos, & propter noflram falutem, de 
 coelo defcendit, fua pafilone nos redemit, fua mor- 
 te vivificavit, fua alcentione glorificavit : Qlu fe- 
 dens ad dexteram Patris, venturus efljudicare vi- 
 vos, et mortuos : juftis ^tern^ vitae prfemium lar- 
 giturus, impiis atque incredulis merita fupplicia 
 redditurus. 
 
 Profitemur itaque Patrem de feipfo, hoc eft de 
 >C0 qilod ipfeeil, fempiterne atque ineffabiliter Fili- 
 um genuiffe, non extrinfecus, non ex nihilo, non 
 cx alia genuiiTe materia, fed ex Deo natum effe : 
 ct qui de Deo natus eft, non aliud eft quam id 
 quod Pater eft, et idcirco unius fubftantias eft, 
 quia Veritas nativitatis diverfitatem non admittit 
 generis. Nam fi alterius a Patre fubikantix eft, 
 gut verus Filius non eft, aut (quod'ncfas eft dicere) 
 
 degener 
 
APPENDIX. 23 
 
 degener natus'eft. Eft enim verus Filius, ficuf 
 Joannes ait: Ut fimus in vero Filio ejus. Non 
 eft etiam degener, quia Deus verus de Deo natus 
 eft vero : ficut idem Joannes Evangelifta exequi- 
 tur, dicens : Hie eft verus Deus, & vita seterna. 
 Et iple Dominus in Evangelio : Ego fum, inquit, 
 via, Veritas, & vita. Ergo fi aliunde fubftantiam 
 non haber, de Patre habet. Si de Patre habet, 
 unius fubftantise cum Patre eft. Sed ft unius fub. 
 ftantias non eft, ergo non de Patre, fed aliunde 
 eft: quoniam unde eft, inde lubftantiam habeat 
 necefle eft. Omnia enim ex nihilo, Fillius vero 
 de Patre. De duobus eligat quifquc quod velit ;, 
 aut det ei fubftantiam de Patre, aut fateatur ex 
 nihilo fubftitifte. Sed Propheticum forfitan obijci- 
 tur teftimonium : Generationem ejus qviis enarra- 
 bit ? Cum ego non dixerim, Enarra mihi modum 
 vel qualitatem, divinse generationis, et tanti fe- 
 creti archanum humanis verbis enuntia, quoniam 
 unde natus fit, non quern ad modum natus fit, re- 
 quifivi. Divina enim generatio inenarrabilis eft, 
 non ignorabilis. Nam ufquc adeo non eft ignora- 
 biiis, id eft, non ignoratur unde fit, ut & Pater 
 de ipfo genuiffe, cc Filius de Patre fe natum f^e- 
 piftime proteftetur. Qiiod nuUus omnino ambigic 
 Chriftianus, ficut in Evangelio demonftratur, ipfo 
 Filio dicente: Qui autem non credit, jam judica- 
 tus eft, quia non credidit in nomine unigeniti 
 Filii Dei. Item Joannes Evangelifta dicit : Et 
 
 vidimus 
 
t4 APPENDIX. 
 
 vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quafi unlgeniti a 
 Patre. 
 
 Ergo profeffionem noftram brevi fermone con- 
 cludimus. Si vere de Patre natus eft, unius fub» 
 ftanti^ eft, & verus Filius eft. Sed fi unius fub- 
 ftantiae non eft, nee verus Filius eft : Et fi verus 
 Filius non eft, nee verus Deus eft : aut fi verus 
 Deus eft, & tamen de patris fubftantis non eft, 
 jngenitus ergo & ipfeeft. Sed quia ingenitus non 
 eft, fa6tura ergo eft, utputatur aliunde fubfiftens, 
 fi de Patris fubftantii£ non eft. Sed abfit hoc ita 
 credere. Nos enim unius fubftantias cum Patre 
 filium profitemur, deteftantes Sabellianam h^re- 
 fim, quae ita Sanflam Trinitatcm confundit, ut 
 cumdem dicat efle Patrem quern Filium, eum- 
 demque credat efle Spiritum fandum, non fervans 
 tres in unitate perfonas, 
 
 Sed forfitan obijcitur, cum ingenitus Pater fir, 
 genitus Filius, non fieri poflTe unam eamdemquc 
 efle fubftantiam geniti, atque ingeniti ; cum utique, 
 fi ficut ingenitus Pater eft, ingenitus eflet & Fi- 
 lius, tunc magis diverfa pofl^et efle fubftantia, quia 
 unufquifque a feipfo fi.ibfiftens, communem fijb- 
 ftantiam cum altero non habcret. Cum vero in- 
 genitus Pater de feipfo, id eft, de eo quod ipfe eft, 
 fi quid illud elt aut dici poteft, (immo quia ut eft 
 dici omnino non poteft) Filium generavit, appa- 
 
 re; 
 
APPENDIX, t5 
 
 ret unam tfCc gignentis^ genitique, fubflrantlam : 
 quia Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Filium cKq 
 vcraciter profitemur. Nam lucem effe Patrem, 
 Joannes apoitolus tellis eft, dicens : Quia Dcus 
 lux eft, & tenebrse in eo non funt ullas. Item de 
 Filio ait : Et vita erat lux hominum, & lux in 
 tenebris lucet, & tenebras earn non comprehen- 
 derunt. Ec infra : Erat lumen verum, quod illu- 
 minat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mun- 
 dum. Unde apparet Patrem, & Filium, unius 
 effe fubftanti^, dum lucis, & luminis, diverfa non 
 potcft effe fubftantia, ejus fcilicet quaedefe gignit, 
 & quae de gignente exiftic. 
 
 Denique ne aliquis inter Patrem, & Filium, di- 
 verfitatem naturalis luminis introducat, idee apof- 
 tolus de eodem Filio dicit : Qui cum lit fplendor 
 glorice, & figura fubftantis ejus. In quoeviden- 
 tius & costernus Patri, & infeparabilis a Patre, & 
 unius cum eo effe fubftantise, perdocetur: dum luci 
 fplendor eft femper costernus, dum fplendor a luce 
 nunquam feparatus eft, dum fplendor a luce, natura 
 fubftantia, nunquam poteft effe diverfus. Qui enim 
 fplendor lucis eft, idem & Dei Patris virtus eft : Scm- 
 piternus ergo propter virtutis ^eternitatem, infepara- 
 bilis propter clarit«dinis unitatem. Et hoc eft quod 
 nos fideliter profitemur, Filium de Patris fubftantia 
 natum: ficut ipfe Pater Deus apertiffimum perhibet 
 teftimonium. Qui ut de fua ineffabilis naturae 
 lubftantia proprium Filium genuiffe monftraret, 
 
 ad 
 
26 APPENDIX. 
 
 ad inftruendam fragilitatis noftra; imperitiam, ut 
 nos ex vifibilibus ad invifibilia erigerer, terrensc 
 nativitatis vocabulum ad divine generationis trax- 
 it exemplum, dicens : Ex utero ante kiciferum 
 gcnui te. Quid clarius, quid luculentius, effari 
 divinitas dignaretur ? Quibus indiciis, quibus 
 cxiftentium rerum exemplis, proprietatem genera- 
 tionis potuit intimare, quam ut, per uteri appel- 
 lationem, proprietatem genetricis oflenderet ? Non 
 quia corporeis compofitus eft membris, aut aliqui- 
 bu-s artuum lineamentJs diftinflus j fed quia nos 
 aiirer veritatein divinse generationis, auditu mentis, 
 percipere non pofTemus, nifi humani uteri provo- 
 caremur vocabulo, ut ambigi ultra non pofiet 
 de Dei fubftantia natum efie, quern conilat ex Pa- 
 tris utero exftitifle. Credentes ergo Deum Patreni 
 de fua fubftantia impaffibiliter Filium generafie, 
 non dicimus ipfam fubftantiam aut divifam eTe 
 in Filio, aut diminutionem pertulifte in Patre • 
 et per hoc paflionis potuifie vicio ftibjacere. Abfit 
 cnim a nobis, ut talia vel opinemur, vel cogitemus, 
 de Deo : quia nos perfe6lum Patrem, pcrfe6lum 
 Filium, fine fui diminutione, fine aliqua derivati- 
 one, fine omni, omnino, pafTionis inHrmitate, ge- 
 nuiflTe fideiitcr profitemur. Nam qui obijcit Deo, 
 quod fi de feipfo genuit, divifionis viclum pertu- 
 lit : poteft dicere, quia et laborem fenfit quando 
 univerfa condidit, et pb hoc, die leptima ab om- 
 ni fuo opere requicvit. Sed nee in generando de 
 
 feipfo 
 
APPENDIX. 4; 
 
 felpfo paflionem, vel diminutionem, aliquam fenfit, 
 nee in condendo univerfa fatigationem aliquam per- 
 tnlit. Namque ut evidentius nobis divinse gcnera- 
 tionis impaffibilitas infinuaretur, Deum ex Deo, 
 lumen ex lumine, filium profitendum accepimus. 
 Si ergo in efficientia vifibilis, ac mundani, luminig 
 tale aliquid invenitur, ut lumine ex lumine fump- 
 to, et per quamdam generationis nativitatem exor- 
 to, ipla luminis origo, qu$ ex fe lumen aliud de- 
 dit, nee minui, nee ullum omnino detrimentum 
 miniitrati ex fe luminis perpeti contingat : quanto 
 re6lius, et melius, de divini et inefFabilis luminis 
 natura credendum eft, quse ex feipla lumen gene- 
 rans, minui omnino non potuit ? Undeaequaiis eft 
 Patri Filius, non natus ex tempore, fed gignenti 
 coceternus : ficut fplendor, ab igne genitus, gig- 
 nenti manifeftatur squalis. 
 
 Hafc de Patris et Filii squalitate, vel de fub- 
 ftanti;e unitate (quantum brevitatis ratio finitydix- 
 ifie fufficiat : fupereft ut de Spiritu fandto, quern 
 Patri, acFilio, confubftantivum credimus,coasqua- 
 1cm, et costernum, dicamus, et teftimoniis appro- 
 bemus. Licet enim hasc veneranda Trinitas per- 
 fonis, ac nominibus, diftinda fit, non tamen ob 
 hoc a fe, atque a fua ccternitate, difcrepare creden- 
 da eft, fed manens ante fascula, divinitatis in Pa- 
 tre ct Filio et Spiritu fandlo, vere ac proprie cre- 
 ditur, nee dividi noftris interpretationibus poteft, 
 
 nee 
 
£8 APPENDIX. 
 
 nee rurfus verfa in unam perfonam Trinitas ipfa 
 confundi. H^c fides plena, hsc noftra creduli-» 
 tas eft. Idcirco Deos nee a;ftimari patimur, nee 
 vocari, fed unum Deum in prsedi<Stis perfonis, ac 
 nominibus, confitemur. Inenarrabilis enim divi- 
 nitas, non ut concludi, aut apprehendi, velut vo- 
 cabuHs pojOfet, intra nomina, perfonalque, fe prse- 
 llitit : fed ut id, quod erat, effe nofceretur, intelli* 
 gentiam fui ex parte, quam capere human^e men- 
 tis auguftiae prcevalebant, credentibus dedit, Pro- 
 pheta dicente : Nifi credideritis, non intelligotis« 
 Una eft ergo Trinicatis deitas, et in hujus vocabu- 
 li appcUatione, fignificatio eft unius fubftantije, non 
 unius perfons. Ad quam rem fidelibus compro- 
 bandam in teftimonium fui divinitas ipfa multis, 
 et creberrimis, conteftationibus Temper affuit. Li- 
 ceat ergo ob brevitatis compendia, ex multis pau- 
 ca proferre, quoniam verse probatio majcftatis, ta- 
 metfi habet pluralitatem teftimoniorum, plurali- 
 tate tamen non indiget, quoniam credent! pauc:^ 
 fufficiunt. 
 
 Primum igitur de Veteris teftamenti libris, pod 
 ttiam novi,Patrem, etFilium, etSpiritum ianftum, 
 unius docebimus effe iubftantice, libro Gcnefis fic 
 inchoante: In principio fecit Deus ccelum, et ter- 
 ram. Terra autem erat invifibilis, et incompofita, 
 et tenebras erant fuper abyfTum, et fpiritus Dei fe- 
 rcbatur fuper aquas. Ille principium, qui Jud^is, 
 
 quis 
 
APPENDIX 29 
 
 quis efTet interrogantibus, dixit : Principlum qui 
 et loquor vobis. Superferebatur fpiritus Dei fu- 
 per aquas, utpote creator virtute potentise fu^ con- 
 tinens creaturam, ut, ex his viva omnia produdu- 
 rus, ipfe rudibus dementis ignis proprii fomenta 
 prscllaret, et jam tunc myllerio emicante baptif- 
 matis, virtutem fanftificationis liquoris natura per- 
 ciperet, primaque ad vitani corpora animata pro- 
 duceret : David pro inde afpirante : Vtrbo Domi- 
 ni coeli firmati funt, et fpiritu oris ejus omnis virtus 
 eorum. Vide quam plena fit brevitas, et quam 
 clare in facramentum unitatis recurrit. Patrem in 
 Domino, in verbi fignificatione Filium ponens, 
 Spiritum fandtum altiffimi ex ore nuncupavit, Et 
 ne vocis editio acciperetur inVerbo,CGelos per euni 
 aiTerit efle firmatos. Ne autem flatus in Spiritu 
 reputetur, cceleftis in eo virtutis plenitudinem de- 
 monftravit. Nam ubi virtus, ibi necefle eft per- 
 ibna rubfiftens. Ubi omnis non ablata a Patre, 
 et Filio, fed confummata figniticatur in Spiritu 
 fando , non ut folus habeat quod in Patre, et Fi- 
 lio eft, fed ut totum habeat cum utroque, Et ite- 
 rum cum de vocatione gentium Dominus loquere- 
 tur, intra unum divinitatis nomen Spiritum fane- 
 tum praedicans, ait : Euntes docetc omnes gentes, 
 baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spi- 
 ritus fandli. Et iterum cceleftia Corinthiis preca- 
 tus Apoftolus h^c fubdidit: Gratia Domini noftri 
 Jefii Chriftij et charitas Dei, et communicatio 
 
 fandi 
 
so APPENDIX. . 
 
 fan6bi Spiritus, cum omnibus vobis. Et ut apef- 
 tius in hac Trinitateunitatem fubftantios fateamur, 
 illud etiam nobis eft intuendum, quomodo Deus, 
 cum de mundi et hominis creatione difponeret^ 
 facramentum Trinitatis oftenderet, dicens : Facia, 
 mus hominem ad imaginem, et fimilitudinem, nof- 
 tram. Cum dicit noftram, oftendit utique aon u- 
 nius. Cum vero imaginem et fimilitudinem pro- 
 fert, asqualitatem diflindionis perfonarum infmuat, 
 ut in eodem opere Trinitatis fit aperta cognitio, in 
 quo nee pluralitas caffa eft, nee fimilitudo diffenti- 
 ens, dum et confequentia fic loquuntur : Et dixit 
 Deus, et facit, et benedixit Deus. Et neceffe eft 
 ut creationis totius audor, Deus unus fit. Quam 
 fidei rationem antiqua, denique, per Mofen benc- 
 didio pandit et comprobat^ qua benedicere popu- 
 lum facramento trinse invocationis jubetur. Ait 
 cnim Deus ad Mofen : Sic benedices populum me- 
 um, et ego benedicam illos. Benedicat te Domi* 
 nus, et cuftcdiat te. Illuminet Dominus faciem 
 fuam fuper te, et mifereatur tui. Attollat Domi- 
 nUs faciem fuam fuper te, et det tibi pacem. Quod 
 hoc ipfum Propheta David affirmat, dicens: Bene^ 
 dicat nos Deus, Deus nofter, benedicat nos Deus, 
 ct metuant eum omnes fines terrx. Quam Trini^ 
 tatis unitatem fupernae Angelorum virtutes hymno 
 venerantur, et ter numero, Sandus, Sandus, Sanc- 
 tus Dominus Deus Sabaoth, indefinenti canentes 
 
 ore,. 
 
APPENDIX. 31 
 
 ore, in unius faftlgium dominationis gloriam ejus 
 exaltant. Quod ut adhuc apertius fidelium fenfi- 
 bus inculcetur, cceleflium myfteriorum confcium 
 producimus Paulum, Ait enim : Dlvifiones au- 
 tern donationum funt, idem autem Spiritus : et di- 
 vifiones miniflrationum funt, idem autem Domi- 
 nus : et divifiones operationum funt, idem vero 
 Deus qui operatur omnia in omnibus. Et certe 
 has divifionum difFerentias pro qualitate ac merlto 
 participantium, Spiritum fanftum docuit operari, 
 cum ipfarum gratiarum differentias partiretur, in 
 ultimis intulit, dicens : Hjec autem omnia ope-, 
 ratur unus atque idem Spiritus, dividens propria 
 unicuique prout vult. Unde nuUius ambiguitati 
 relinquitur locus, quin clareat Spiritum fandum 
 et Deum efle, et fuse voluntatis aftorem, qui cun6ta 
 operari, et fecundum proprias voluntatis arbitriumi 
 divinse difpenfationis dona largiri, apertifiimc de- 
 monftratur. Qiiia ubi voluntaria difiributio prte- 
 dicatur, non poteft videri conditio fervitutis. In 
 creatura enim fervitus intelligenda ed, in Trinirate 
 verodominatio, ac libertas. Et ut adhuc luce cla- 
 
 RIUS UNIUS DIVINITATIS ESSE CUmPaTRE, ET FiLIO, 
 
 Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evange- 
 lists TESTIMONIO COMPROBATUR, AIT NAMQUE : 
 TrES sunt QUI TESTIMONIUM PERHIBENT IN COE- 
 
 LO, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et 
 HI TRES UNUM SUNT. Numquid ait tres in diite^ 
 renti^e qualitate fejundti, aut quibuflibet divcrii- 
 
 tatum 
 
32 APPENDIX. 
 
 tatum gradibus longo fcparationis intervallo divi^ 
 
 fi ? Scd tres, inquit, unum funt. Ut autem ma- 
 
 gis maglfque fan6li Spiritus cum Patre, et Filio, 
 
 una diviniras in creandis rebus omnibus demon- 
 
 ftraretur, habes creatoreni Spiritum fandlum in 
 
 libro Job primo : Spiritus, inquit, divinus eft qui 
 
 fecit me, et Spiritus omnipotentis qui docct me. 
 
 Et David dicit : Emitte Spiritum tuum, et creabun- 
 
 tur, et renovabis faciem terras. Si renovatio, ec 
 
 creatio, per Spiritum erit, fine dubio et principium 
 
 creationis fme fpiritu non fuit. Poft creationem igi- 
 
 tur oftendamus, quia vivificat etiam Spiritus fanc- 
 
 tus, ficut Pater et Filius. Equidem de perfona 
 
 Patris refert Apoftolus : Teftor in confpedu Dei, 
 
 qui vivificat omnia. Vitam vero dat Chriftus, 
 
 Oves, inquit, mese vocem meam audiunt, et ego 
 
 vitam asternam do illis, Vivificamur vero a Spi- 
 
 ritu fanfto, ipfo diccnte Domino : Spiritus eft 
 
 qui vivificat. Ecce una vivificatio Patris, et Fil- 
 
 ii, et Spiritus fancli, aperte monftrata eft. Pras- 
 
 fcientiam rerum omnium in Domino effe, et oe- 
 
 cultorum cognitionem, licet nemo -Chriftianus ig- 
 
 noret, tamen ex Danielis libro monftrandum eft.- 
 
 Deus, inquit, qui occultorum cognitor es, qui 
 
 prsefcius omnium antequam nafcantur. Hjec eadem 
 
 pr^efcientia in Chrifto eft, ficut refert Evangelifta. 
 
 Ab initio autem fciebat Jelus quis effet eum tra- 
 
 diturus, vel qui effent non credentes in eum. Quod 
 
 fit autem occultorum cognitor, ex hoc manifeftum 
 
appendix; S3 
 
 cll, cum obfcura confilia Judsorum traducens 
 dicebat : Qiiid cogitatis nequam in cordibus vef- 
 tris ? Similiter prsefcire omnia Spiritum fanftum 
 i'pfe manifeftavit dicens ad apoftolos : Cum ve- 
 nerit Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnia, & Ven- 
 tura annunciabit vobis. Qui ventura nuntiare 
 perhibetur, prasfcire omnia non dubitatur, quia 
 ipfe fcrutatur etiam altitudines Dei, & novit om- 
 nia qu£e in Deo funt : ficut mcmorat Paulus di- 
 cens : Spiritus enim omnia fcrutatur, etiam altitu- 
 dines Dei. Item in eodem loco : Siciit nemo fcit 
 hominum quae funt hominis nifi fpiritus ejus qui in 
 ipfo eft : ita nemo fcit quae funt Dei nili Spiritus 
 Dei. 
 
 Ad intelligendam vero potentiam Spiritus 
 fan6li, pauca de terribilibus proferamus. Ven- 
 diderat pofTefllonem, ut fcriptum eft in Actibus 
 Apofiolorum, fuppreffa parte pecuni^, dolofus 
 difcipulus, reliquum pro toto ante pedes ponens 
 Apoftolorum. Offendit Spiritum fandum quem 
 putabat latere. Sed quid ad eum dixit continuo 
 beatus Petrus : Anania, quare fatanas replevit 
 cor tuum, ut mentireris Spiritui Sanfto ? & infra : 
 non es mentitus hominibus, fed Deo. Atque it4 
 percuiTus virtute ejus cui mentiri voluerat, ex- 
 piravit. Quid hie vult beatus Petrus intelligi 
 Spiritum Sandlum ? Utique clarum eft, cum di- 
 qit ; Non es mentitus hominibus, fed Deo. Mani- 
 C feftuiu 
 
34 APPENDIX. 
 
 fercum efl: ergo, quoniam qui mentitur Spiritui 
 fancLO, Deo mentitur : & qui credit in Spiritual 
 lanflum, credit in Deum. Talealiquid, imo for- 
 tius quiddam, dominus in Evangelio oftendit: 
 omne peccatum, & blafphemia, remittitur ho- 
 minibus : qui autem blafphemat in Spiritual 
 fandum, ncn remittetur ei neque in hoc feculo, 
 ncque in futuro. Ecce terribili fententia irremif- 
 Iibile dicit efie peccatum : ei qui in Spiritum 
 fanftum blafj^hemaverit. Compara huic fententia 
 illud quod feriptum eft in libro Regum ; Si pec- 
 cando peccaverit vir in virum, orabunt pro eo : 
 fi autem in Dominum peccaverit, quis orabit pro 
 eo ? Si ergo blafphemare in Spiritum fanclum, & 
 peccare in Deum fimile, id eft inexpiabile crimen 
 eft, jam quantus fit Spiritus fandus, unufquifque 
 cognofcit. Deus, qucd ubique fit prefens, im- 
 pleat omnia, ore diicimus Efais : Ego, inquit, 
 Deus approjtimans, & non de longinquo ? Si 
 abfconditus fuerit homo in abfconditis, ergo ego 
 non videbo eum ? nonne coelum & terram ego 
 impleo ? Qiicd autem Deus fit ubique, falvator 
 in evangeiio : Ubicunque, ait, fuerint duo vel 
 tres coiledi in nomine meo, ibi & ego fum in 
 medio eorum. De fpiritu adsque fando, quod 
 adfit ubique, dicit Propheta ex Perfona Dei : Ego 
 in vobis, & fpiritus meus ftat in medio veftrum, 
 Et Salomon ait : Spiritus domini replevit orbeni 
 terrarum, & hoc, quod contiuet omnia, fcientiam 
 
 habec 
 
APPENDIX 35 
 
 habet vocis. Item David dicit: Quo ibo a Splritu 
 tuo, & a facie tua quo fugiam ? fi afcendero 
 in ccelum, tu illic es ; fi defcendero in infer- 
 num, ades : Si fumpfero pennas meas in di- 
 rectum, et habicavero in extremis maris : Etenim 
 iliic manus tua deducet me, & continebit me dex- 
 tera tua. Habitat Deus in fandis fuis fecundum 
 promiflionem, quia dixerat : Habitabo in illis. 
 Qiiod vero dominus Jefus dicit in evangelio : 
 Maaete in me, & ego in vobis : probat hoc Pau- 
 lus dicens : An nefcitis quia Jefus Chriftus efc in 
 vobis ? Hoc autem totum in Spiritus habitatione 
 adimpletur, ficut memorat Joannes : Ex hoc, in- 
 quit, fcimus quia in nobis eft, quia de Spiritu fuo 
 dedit nobis. Similiter & Paulus : Nefcitis quia 
 templum Dei eflis, & Spiritus Dei habitat in vo- 
 bis ? Et iterum dicit : Glorincate et portate Deum 
 in corpore veftro. Qiiem Deum ? Utique Spi- 
 ritum fandum, cujus templum tSc videmur. Nam 
 quod arguat Pater, arguat Filius, arguat Spiritus 
 fandlus, ita probatum eft. In Pfalmo quadra- 
 gefuTio nono legitur : Peccatori autem dicit Deus. 
 Et infra : Arguam te, et ftatuam contra faciem 
 tuam. David fmiiliter orans dicit ad Chriflum: 
 Domine, ne in ira tua arguas me, quia ipfe ven- 
 turus eft arguere omnem cainem. Quod vero dc 
 Spiritu fando falvator in evangelio : cum venerir, 
 inquit, Paraclitus, ille arguet mundum de pec- 
 cato, et de juftitia, et de judicio. PIoc providens 
 David clamabat Dominum : Qiio ibo a Spiritu 
 C a tuo. 
 
S6 APPENDIX, 
 
 tuo, et a facie tiia quo fngium ? Nain et quod 
 bonus fit Pater, bonus Filius, bonus Spiritu.s 
 fanftus, fic probatur. Dicit Propheta : Bonus es 
 tu, Domine, ct in bonitate tua doce me iuflifica- 
 tiones tuas. De fe autem ipfe unigenitus : Ego 
 fum paftor bonus. De Spiritu jeque fanfto David 
 in pfalmo dicit : Spiritus tuus bonus deducet me 
 in rcrram redam. Quis autem illam dignitatem 
 Spiritus fancli poOlt tacere ? Antiqui enim Pro- 
 phetic clamabant : Hcec dicit Dominus. Plane 
 voceni Chriftus adveniens in fuani perfonam 
 revocavit dicens : Fgo autem dico vobis. Novi 
 autem Prophetic quid clamabant ? fic Aga- 
 bus Propheta in Adibus apoftolorum : Hasc 
 dicit Spiritus fanftus. Et Paulus ad Timotheum i 
 Spiritus, inquit, manifelle dicit. Qu£e vox om- 
 nino demonftrat indifferentiam Trinitatis. Di-' 
 cit fe Paulus a Deo Patre & Chrifto vccatum 
 fuiHe et miiTum. Paulus, inquit, Apoftolus, non 
 ab hominibus, neque per hominem, fed per Jefum 
 ChriUum, et Dominum patrem. In adibus au- 
 tem apoftolorum legitur quod a Spiritu fandto fit 
 fcgregatus et mifTus. Sic enim fcriptum eft: Vixc 
 dicit Spiritus fanflus : Segregate mihi Barnabam, 
 et Saulum, in opus quo vocavi eos. Et paulo 
 j eft : Ip.fi, inquit, miiTi ab Spiritu fanfto, defcen^ 
 t'erunt Scleuciam. Item in ecdem libro : atten- 
 diic vobis, et univerfo grcgi, in quo vos Spiritus 
 iciiiflus ccnftituit epiicopcs. Ne quis autem Spiri- 
 tual 
 
APPENDIX. 3; 
 
 turn fandum, quia Paraclitiis di6lLis efl-, con- 
 temptibile aliqiiid aifiliniet. Paraclitus enim ad- 
 vocatus eft, vel pofitus ccnfolator, fecundum La- 
 tinam linguam. Qiis appellatio etiam Filio Dei 
 communis eft, ficut dicit Joannes : Hasc, inquir, 
 fcribo vobis, ne peccetis. Sed fi quis peccaverit, 
 Paraclitum habemus apudPatrem, JefumChriRum. 
 Nam et ipfe Dominus, cum dicit ad Apoftolos, 
 Akerum Paraclitum mittet vobis Pater: fme 
 dubio, cum dicit alteram Paraclitum, fe quoque 
 Paraclitum manifeftat. Sed neque a Patre hoc 
 nomen Paracliti alienum eft. Beneficentis enini 
 nomen eft, non nature. Denique ad Corinthios 
 Paulus ita fcribit : Benediftus Deus, et Pater Do- 
 mini noftri Jefu Clirifti, pater milericordiarum, 
 et Deus totius confolationis, qui nos confolatur. 
 Et cum confolator dicitur Pater, confolatordicitur 
 Filius, confolator ctiam Spiritus ianftus, una tamen 
 nobis coniblatio a Trinitate prasftatur, ficut et un^ 
 remiffiopeccatorum, Apoftolo afFirmante: Abluti, 
 inquit,eftis,etjuftiiicati,etfanclificatieftis in nomi- 
 ne Domini noftri Jefti Chrifti, et in Spiritu Dei noftri. 
 Poftemus plura adhuc de divinis Icripturis proferre 
 teftimonia, qu« juxta baptifmi facramentum, 
 Trinitatem unius gloria;, operationis, ac potenti?e-, 
 manifeftant. Sed quia ex his plenus eft lanienti- 
 bus intelkdus, multa prietcrivimus ftudio brc- 
 Vitatis. 
 
 C 3 Faciamns 
 
38 APPENDIX. 
 
 P'aclamus ergo recapitulationem didorum nof- 
 trorum. Si de Patre procedit Spiritus fan6tus, fi 
 liberat, fi Dominus eft, & fanftificat ; fi creat cum 
 Patre & Filio, fi ubique eft, & implet omnia, fi 
 habitat in eledis, fi arguit mundum, fi judicat, Ci 
 bonus & rectus eft, fi de eo clamatur, Hsec dicit 
 Spiritus fan6bus, fi Prophetas conftituit, fi Apol- 
 tolos mittit, fi Epifcopos prseficit, ft confolator 
 eft, ft cun6la difpenfat prout vult, fi abluit & juf- 
 tificat, ft tentatores ftaos interftcit, ft is qui euni 
 blafphemaverit, non habet remiftionem, neque in 
 hoc feculo, neque in futuro, quod utique Deo 
 proprium eft : Ha^c cum ita fint, cur de eo dubi- 
 tatur quod Deus non ftt, cum operum magnitudine 
 quod eft ipfe manifeftet ? Non utique alienum efte 
 a Patris et Filii majeftate, qui non eft ab opere 
 virtutum alienus. Fruftra illi nomen divinitatis 
 negatur, cujus poteftas non poteft abnegari. Fruf- 
 tra prohibebor eum cum Patre et Filio venerari, 
 quern exigor cum Patre et Filio confiteri. Si ille 
 mihi, cum Patre et Filio, confert remifiionem pec- 
 catorum, confert fandificationem, et vitam per- 
 petuam, ingratus fum nimis et impius, ft ei cum 
 Patre et Filio, non refero gioriam. Aut ft non 
 cum Patre et Filio colendus, ergo nee confitendus 
 in baptifmo eft. Si autem omnimodo confitendus 
 eft fecundum di6lum Domini, et traditionem Apof- 
 tolorum, ne femiplena ftt fides, quis me poterit ab 
 ejus cultu prohibere? In quern enim credere jubeor, 
 
 ci 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Z9 
 
 ci etiam deinde fupplicabo. Adorabo ergo Patrem,- 
 adoraboetFiliumjadoraboetSpiritumfancLum,una 
 eademqne veneratione. Qiiod fi quis durum hoc pu- 
 tat, audiat quomodo David ad culturamDei fideles 
 hortatur. Adorate, inquit, fcabellum pedum ejus. 
 Si religionis eft adorare fcabellum pedum ejus, 
 quanto magis religiofum fi ejus Spiritus adoratur ? 
 ille utique Spiritus, quern beatus Petrus in tanta 
 fublimitate pr^edicavit, dicens : Spiritu ianfto 
 mifTo de coelis, in quern concupifcunt Angeli pro- 
 fpicere. Si Angeli eum cupiunt afpicere, quanto 
 magis nos homines mortales defpicere non dcb;^- 
 mus, ne forte et nobis dicatur, ficut diftum eft ad 
 Judasos : Vos femper Spiritui fan6lo reft'itiftis, 
 ficut et patres veftri. 
 
 Quod fi hjEc tantaet talia non inclinant animuni 
 ad venerandum Spiritum fandlum, accipe adhuc 
 aliquid fortius. Sic enim Paulus inftruit Prophe- 
 tas ecclefias in quibus utique, et per quos, Spiritus 
 fandtus loquebatur. Si inquit, omnes propheta- 
 verint, intret autem aliquis infidelis, aut idiota, 
 convincitur ab omnibus, examinatur ab omnibus, 
 occulta quoque cordis ejus manifefta funt:" et 
 tunc cadens in faciem adorabit Deum, pronunri- 
 ans quia vere Deus in vobis eft. Et utique in eis 
 Spiritus fancluseft qui prophetant. Si ergo infi- 
 deles cadunt in faciem, et adorant Spiritum fanc- 
 tum percerriti, etconfitentur inviti, quanto ma^is 
 C 4 fidelibus 
 
40 APPENDIX. 
 
 fidelibus expedit, ut voluntarie, et ex afFcdu, ado- 
 rent Spiritum landum ? Adoratur autem Spiritus 
 fan6^us, non quafi feparatim, moregentilium,ficut 
 nee Filius feparatim adoratur, quia in dextera Pa- 
 tris eft : fed cum adoramus Patrem, credimus. nos 
 et Filinm, et Spiritum fandum adorare : quia et 
 cum Filium invocamus, Patrem nos credimus in- 
 vocare, et cum Patrem rogamus, a Filio nos ex- 
 audiri confidimus, ficut ipfe Dominus dixit : 
 Quicquid petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, ego 
 faciam, ut honorificetur Pater in Filio. Et fi Spi- 
 ritus fan6tus adoratur, ille utique adoratur cujus 
 eft Spiritus. lllud autem nullus ignorat, quia 
 divinze majeftati nee addi quicquam, nee minui, 
 humanis fupplicationibus poteft, fed unufquifque 
 fecundum propofitum voluntatis fuje, aut gloriam 
 fibi acquirit, fideliter venerando, aut confufionem 
 perpetuam, pertinaciter refiftendo. Certum eft 
 enim, quia concentio et fuperbia damnat : honori- 
 ficentia vero frudum devotion is expedlat. Quare 
 autem fidelcs non honorificent integre Trinitatem, 
 ad quam fe pertincre confidunt, cujus nomine fe 
 renatos, cujus fervos fe nominari, gloriantur ? 
 Nam ficut ad nomen Dei patris homines Dei ap- 
 pellantur, ut Helias homo Dei appellatus eft : fic 
 a Chrifto Chriftiani nuncupamur, fic etiam ab Spi- 
 ritu fpiritales appellamur. Si igitur vocetur quis 
 homo Dei, et non fit Chriftianus, nihil eft. Qui 
 fi Chriftianus vocetur, et non fuerit fpiritalis, nee 
 fibi fatis de falute confidac. Sit 
 
APPENDIX. 4t 
 
 Sit ergo nobis, fecundum falutaris baptifmi 
 confeffioncm, fides integra Trinitatis, fit una de- 
 votio pietatis, nee more gentilium, potefcatum 
 diverfitates opinemur, aut creaturam quantum ad 
 deitatem in Trinitatem fufpicemur, fed nee Ju- 
 d^orum fcandalo moveamur, qui filium Dei ne- 
 gant, qui Spiritum funftum non adorant : fed po- 
 tius perfeftam Trinitatem adorantes, et magniii- 
 cantes, ficut in myfleriis ore noilro dicimus, ita 
 confcicntia teneamus : San6lus, Sanftus, Sanftus, 
 Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Ter dicentes Sandus, 
 unam omnipotentiam confitemur, quia una eft re- 
 ligio, una glorilicatio Trinitatis, ut audiamus ab 
 Apoltolo, ficut audierunt Corinthii : Gratia Do- 
 mini noflri Jelu Chrifli, et diledio Dei, et commu- 
 nicatio Spiritus iandi, cum omnibus vobis. 
 
 H^c eft fides noftra, Evangelicis, et Apoflo- 
 licis, traditionibus, et omnium qu22 in hoc mun- 
 do lunt catholicarum ecclefiarum ibcief ate fundata, 
 in qua nos, per gratiam Dei omnipotentis, pcr- 
 manere ulque ad finem vit:e hujus conlidimus, et 
 fperamus. 
 
 Direfta xii kalendarum Majarum, per Ja- 
 nuarium Zattarenfem, Villaticum a Cafis medi- 
 anis, epilcopos Numidise j Bonifacio Foratianenfi, 
 Bonifacio Gatianenfi, epifcopis Byzacenis. 
 
 No. XV. 
 
4^ APPENDIX; 
 
 No. XV. 
 
 Extracls from Erafmus's Letter to Fifcher^ 
 
 Chriftophoro Fifchero, Protonotario Apoflolico^ 
 Eralmus Roterodamus S. D. 
 
 dilate fuperiore, quum in pervetufla quapiam 
 bibliotheca venarer, (nullis enim in faltibus vena- 
 tus jucundior) forte in caffes meos incidit pr^da 
 neutiquam vulgaris, Laurentii ValU in Novum 
 Teftamentum Annotationes. &c. 
 
 Quod fi qulbus non vacat totam Gr.ecorum lin- 
 auam perdifcere, hi tamen Vall,e ftudio non medi- 
 ocriter adjuvabqntur, qui mira fagacitate Novum 
 omne Teftamentum excuflit, non pauca obiter an- 
 notans, et ex Pfalmis, quorum ufitata editio a 
 Greeds fluxlt, non Hebr^is, Plurimum itaque ftu- 
 diofidebebunt Laurentio, Laurentius tibi, per quern 
 publicum accepit, cujufque et.judicio bonis in- 
 ceniis erit commendatior, et patrocinio contra 
 makdicos inftruftior. 
 
 parifm. Anno 1505. VALE, 
 
APPENDIX. 4J 
 
 No. XVI. 
 
 The Preface to the Bible of COMPLUTUM. 
 
 Ad Lectorem. 
 
 Ne mireris aut viiio vertas o {ludiofe lector ct 
 in hac novi tefcamenti Greca editione alirer quam 
 in veteri nude tantum littcre fine ullis aut fpirituum 
 aut tonorum notis impreUe publicentur: operc 
 precium vifum ellhujustibi rei rationcm affignare. 
 Ea enim hujufmodi eft. Antiquiffimos grccos 
 abfque hifce faftigiis litterarum fcriptitafie notius 
 eft : quod uc fit multis argumentis comproban- 
 dum. Decent enim id aperte antiqua non pauca 
 exemplaria : ut Cdlimachi poemata : nee non ct 
 Sibyllina carmina : ac preterea etiarn marmorea 
 monumenta vetuftiftima que rome adhuc vifuntur 
 nudis folum charaftcribus incifa. Ut liquido con- 
 ftet hujufmodi virgularum apicumque fupra- 
 fcriptiones non in ilia primeva grece lingue origine 
 fuiffe excogitatas : nee ad ejus integritatem ufque- 
 quaque pertipuiffe. Cum igitur univerftim novum 
 teftamentum (preter 'Eva.ng<::\mm Matthei^ & epif- 
 tolas ad Hebreos) grece primum ficut a fpiritu 
 fanclo didcatum eft fcriptum efte conftet: vifum 
 eft prifcam in eo lingue illius vetuftatem majefta- 
 temque intaftam retinere : ac opus ipfum pre- 
 termiflis etiam ipfis quibufvis minimis appendi- 
 
 culis 
 
:^4 appendix: 
 
 culis excufTum ad imagincm antiquarum fcriptura- 
 rum publicare. Ne rei tarn fanfte authoritati ac 
 venerande majeftati adjeditiis novitiifque rebus 
 detrimentum afFerri videretur : accedit quod (fi ve- 
 rum fateri volumus) hie fpirltuum tonorumquc 
 defedus nullum prorfus impedimentum ad redam 
 intelligentiam afferre valet his qui aliquantum in 
 Greca eruditione promoverunt. Ceterum ne ali- 
 cui dubium aliquod pofTit occurrere in qua vide- 
 licet iyllaba accentum oporteat coUocari : fimplex 
 tantum apex in polyfyllabis diftionibus adjedus 
 eft : et is quidem non tanquam grecus accentus : 
 itd tanquam notula fignumque quo dirigi poffit 
 leilor ne inprolatione mcdulationeve dictionum ali- 
 quando labatur. In veteris autem teftamenti edi- 
 tione Greca cum ea Iblum tranilatio fit non origi- 
 nalis textus : nonfuit confilium quicquid ex vuU 
 o-ari fcribendi modo toUere aut immutare. Et 
 quod non doftis folum fed omnibus in univerfum 
 facrarum litterarum ftudiofis hoc opere confulen- 
 dum eft : appofite funt didioni cuique litterule La- 
 tine ordine alphabet! indicantes que didio didioni e 
 regione refpondeat : ne fit novitiis et nondum adhuc 
 in grecislittcrisprovediserrandi locus. Rurfuscuni 
 nonnuUe didiones grece multipllces five equivocas 
 aut alias ambiguas fignificationes aliquo habere 
 videantur : libuit hoc etiam annotare piindo fup- 
 pofito litterule latine fupra didionem grecam col- 
 locare. Et ut prefatiuncule tandem huic modus 
 imponatur : illud ledorem. non lateat : non quevis 
 
 exemplaria 
 
APPENDIX. 45 
 
 cxemplaria imprefiioni huic archetypa fuifTe fed 
 antiquiflima emendatifTimaque ac tante preterea 
 vctultatis ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur. 
 Que fancTdfiimus in Chrifto Pater et Dominus nof- 
 ter Leo decimus Pontifex maxim us huic inilituto 
 favere cupicns apoftolica Bibliotheca eduda mifit 
 ad Reverendiffimum Dominum Cardinalem Hif- 
 panie : de cujus authoritate et m.andato hoc opus 
 imprimi fecimus. Vos autem litterarum ftudi- 
 ofi hoc divinum opus noviter excuffum alacri 
 animo fufcipite : et fi Chrifti Opt. Max. fedlatores 
 videri vultis et efle : nil jam reftat quod caufemini 
 quominus facram fcripturam adeatis. Non men- 
 ^ofa exemplai-ia : non fufpedle tranflatlones : non 
 inopia textus originalis : folum animus et pro- 
 pcnfio veftra expe6tatur. Qiie fi non defuerit : 
 iiet procul dubio ut litterarum divinarum fuavi- 
 tatem deguftantes reiiqua itudia omnia contemna- 
 tis. Valete et omnia boni conlulite. 
 
 No. XVIT. 
 
 Et quoniam videmur omne baptifma fpiritale 
 trifariam divififie, veniamus etiam ad probatlonem 
 narrationis propofit^, ne videamur proprio fenlu, 
 ct temere hoc feciffe. Ait enim Joannes de Do- 
 mino noftro in Epiftola fua nos docens, Hie eft 
 qui venit per aquam et fiinguinem Jefiis Chrjjlus» 
 Non in aqua tantum, fed in aqua et fanguine. Et 
 
 Spiricus 
 
46 APPENDIX. 
 
 Spirltus eft qui teriimonium perhiber, quia Spi- 
 ritus eft Veritas. Quia tres teftimonium perhi- 
 bent, fpiritus, et aqua, et fanguis. Et ilU tres in u- 
 num funt. Ut ex iilis coUigamus, etaquamprsftarc 
 fpiritum folitum, et fanguinem proprium homini- 
 -bus pr^eftare Spiritum folitum, et ipfum quoque 
 Spiritual prseftare Spiritum folitum. Nam cum 
 cftundatur aqua ficuti et fanguis, Spiritus etiam 
 effufus fit a Domino fupcr omnes qui crediderunt, 
 utique et aqua, et proprio nihilominus fanguine, 
 tunc delnde et Spiritu fando, polTunt homines bap- 
 lizari. 
 
 (Towards the end of the Treatife) Ex quibus uni- 
 verfis ollenditur, — Spiritu ablui animas. Porro 
 per aquam lavacri, corpora. Sanguine^ quoque, 
 feftinantius pervcniri, per compendium, ad falutis 
 prsemia. 
 
 (Tradatus ignoti Auftoris, inter Cypriam 
 Opera, falfo iili afcripta, p. 21, Edit. 
 Oxon.) 
 
 No. XVIII. 
 
 Note, in the margin of the Complutenfian Edition 
 of the Nc-Ju Teflament, referring to the fifth Chap- 
 ter of the fir fi Epijlle of St. John, verfes 7, and 8. 
 
 San6tus Thomas in expofitione fecunde decretalis 
 
 de 
 
APPENDIX. A1 
 
 de fumma trinitate ct fide catholica traflaiis 
 iftum pafTum contra abbatem Joachim viz. Tres 
 funt qui tellimoniiim dantin celo : Pater: Verbum: 
 lit fpiritus fandlus : dicit ad litteram verba fequen- 
 tia. " Et ad infinuandam unitatem trium per- 
 ** Ibnarum fubditur : Et hii tres unum funt. Qiiod 
 *' quidem dieitur propter effentic unitatem. Sed 
 *' hoc Joachim perverfe trahere volens ad unita« 
 *' tern charitatis et confenfus inducebat confe- 
 ** quentem auftoritatein. Nam fubditur ibidem : 
 *' tres funt qui teftimoniuili dant in terra Spiritus : 
 " aqua: et fanguis. Et in quibufdam libris ad- 
 " ditur : Et hi tres unum lunt. Sed hoc in veris 
 *' exemplaribus non habetur : fed dieitur effe ap'- 
 *' pofitum ab hereticis Arrianis ad pervertenduni 
 " intelleftum flmum au£loritatis premifTe de uni- 
 *' tate effentie trium perfonarum.'* Hec beatus 
 Thomas ubi fupra. 
 
 No. XIX. 
 
 A Table of the MSS {according to the account of 
 F. Le Long) inade tife of by Robeiit Stephens 
 ifi his folio edition cf the New Tefiament. 1550. 
 
 •c— The, Alcala or Complutenfian edition ; ccn- 
 taining all the New Teftament. 
 
 p — — The four Gofpels, and A6ts of the Apof- 
 tles, 
 
 ^ X — '^^^^ 
 
48 APPENDIX. 
 
 y The four Gofpeis, the King's MS No. 2867. 
 
 ' . The New Teftament, excepting the Reve- 
 lation, the King's MS. No. 2871. 
 
 « The New Teftament, excepting the Reve- 
 lation, the King's MS. No. 3425. 
 
 5- The four Gofpeis. 
 
 ^ . The four Gofpeis, the Epiftles of St. PW, 
 
 St. Jams, St. Pelrr^ and the firft of St. 
 Jobn,the King's MS. No. 2242. 
 
 Tj The four Gofpeis, the King's MS. No. 
 
 2361. 
 
 6 The Nev/ Teftament, excepting the Reve- 
 lation. 
 
 I Xhe Ads and the Epiftles of the Apoftles, 
 
 the King's MS. No. 2878. 
 
 IX The Afts and the Epiftles of the Apoftles, 
 
 i|3 The four Gofpeis. 
 
 ,y — — Xhe Ads and the Epiftles of the Apof- 
 tks, except the third of St. John and that 
 of St. Jude. . 
 
 1$ — — The Goi'pels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, 
 and St. John. 
 
 4£ , i* Seven Epiftles of St. Paul, beginning with 
 the firft to the Corinthians, the King's 
 MS. 
 
 »r The Gofpeis of St. Luke and St. John, 
 
 lEmlyn's Works, vol. ii. Lo;:d. edit. A. D. 1746, 
 p. 283—4.] 
 
 No. XX. 
 
APPENDIX 49 
 
 No. XX, 
 
 Extract from the words of Erasmus, where he 
 fpeaks of the Codex Britannicus ; 'vol. Xy />. 
 2^'^.—^Ed. LuGp. Batav. a. D. 1706. 
 
 Veruntamen, ne quid dilTimulem, repertns eft 
 apud Anglos Grams codex iinus, in quo habetur 
 quod in vulgatis deeft. Scriptum eft enim hunc 
 
 ad modum. Or) rpjf? £t(rtf Oi ^aprupeu j/te? tv tw spavoii 
 YlocTrp^ Aoyo?, mxt Tivsvy-a^ koh outoi oi rpei? ev eiav, 
 Koii rpttq tKTiv jtAapTupouvTEj £v T'/i yr\y ttveuju,*, v^ooo, nxi 
 aijM.a* u TDV fACcoTVPiav ruv av6^W7rw> &C. — Quan- 
 
 quam haud fcio an cafu fadtum fit, ut hoc loco 
 non repetatur, quod eft in Grsecis noftris, xat 
 01 TpBig eig to iv sktiv. Ex hoc igitur codice Britan- 
 nico rep ofuimus, quod in noftris diccbatur deefle : 
 ne cui fit caufa calumniandi. — Quanquam & 
 hunc fufpicor ad Latinorum codices fuifle cafti. 
 gatum. 
 
 No. XXI. 
 
 Ratio vera ^'heologia, per Erafmum.'^^(Edit. Le 
 Clerc, 1704, W. V, p. 74 — 115.) 
 
 Quod apud Joannem capita duodecimo Pharifai 
 
 deftinant & Lazarum interficere: typum habet, 
 
 D quod 
 
50 APPENDIX. 
 
 quod improbi non folum oderunt Chrijlum ipfurr^ 
 fed eos quoquc per qiios Chrifti nomcn illuftratur. 
 Adnotandus dt apudeumdem circulus, in quo fere 
 ic volvit, ubique & focietatem & foedus Chrijiianum 
 commendans : pr.Tfertim capite duodecimo, be 
 decimo tenio, fe declarat idemefTe cum Patre; adeo 
 ut qui Filium norit, norit & Patrcm : qui Filium 
 ipcriia!:, fpernat & Patrcm : nee feparatur ab hac 
 communione Spiritus faniftus. Sic enim kgis irs 
 Epillola : 'Tres junt cjd tejlimoniiim dant in c^cloy 
 Fatei\ Sermo^ iff Spiritus : atque hi tres ttnum Junt, 
 In idem Gonfordum trahit fuos, quos palmites 
 appellat : obfecrans, ut quemadmodum ipfe idem 
 crat cum Patre, ita & illi idem efTent fccum. Im- 
 pertit iifdem communem Patris fuumque Spiri- 
 turn, omnia coneiliantcm. 
 
 XXH. 
 
 KiERON. Opera, per llrafmum^ Edit. Tarii, voL 
 iv, A. D. 1546, p. 42, D. 
 
 Atque ut, confundentes Arium^ unam camdcm- 
 qne dccimus IVinitatis cfTe lubftantiam, et unam 
 in tribus ]:)erronis fatemur Deum : ita impietatem 
 Sahellii dtclinantes, tres perfonas expreffas lub pro- 
 prictate ditlinguimus. — Pater femper Pater eft, 
 P"ilius icmpcr Pilius eft, Spiritus fandus femper 
 Spintus fandtus eft. Itaque fubftantia tinum fun(, 
 Perfonis, ac nominibus diitinguuntur. 
 
 EXPLA- 
 
APPENDIX, 5f 
 
 ExPLANATio FiDEi,— Ad Cyrillim ; Edit. Erasmi, 
 'uol. iv, p. 43, K. 
 
 Nobis, igitur, unus Pater, et unus Filius verus 
 Deus, et unus Spiritus fandus verus Deus : Et hi 
 TREs UNUM SUNT, una divinitas^ et potentia, et 
 regnum. Sunt autem tres perfonof^ non duse, non 
 una. 
 
 Auguji. in Epift. Johan. Cap. 5. Vol. 3. Edit. Taris, 
 A. D, 16.80, p. 896. 
 
 Et quid eft finis Chrijius ? Quia Chrijlus Deus,' 
 et finis prsecepti caritas, et Deus caritas; quia 
 Pater y et Filius ^ et Spiritus fundus ^ unumfunt, 
 
 AuousTiNus contra Maximinum, Arianum^ Lib. 2, 
 (Vol. yiii. p. 698.) 
 
 Tres enim perfonse funt Pater, et Filius, et 
 Spiritus fan6tus : et hi tres (quia unius lubftan- 
 tise funt) unum sunt. Et fumme unum funt, 
 ubi nulla naturarum, nulla eft diyerfitas volun- 
 tatum. — Hi, ergo, tres qui unum sunt propter 
 ineffabilem conjun^lionem Deitatis, qua inefFabi- 
 iiter copulantur, unus Deus eft. 
 
 No. XXIII. 
 
 Gratissimum fane mihi fuiffet, vir plur. revcr- 
 D ^ cnde. 
 
2 APPENDIX. 
 
 ende, d literas Tuas ad Gibbon em legere potuifTem, 
 quo n:elius ea TecuiTi communicarem, qucC prae- 
 cipue fcir>; Tua intereit. Libris autem Anglicanis 
 pkiumque fero ad ..os veniencibus, hanc quoquc 
 ,4iicuffioriem. eruditam Berolini frullra quasfivi. 
 Sec: ut uxhilty'-ninus Tibi oiTicium meum probcm ; 
 quae ad iucem clllqu.ri.ionibus Tuis affundendam 
 valeie opinor, breviter ea commemorabo. 
 
 Locum I. Joan. v. 7, diligentiffime delineavi, 
 ita ut liters literis, lineae lineis, accuratiflimc 
 refpondeant •, cumque intra, de fimilitudine inter 
 Codicem Ravianum et editionem Complutenfem fermo 
 fit faciendus, et ex hac eundem locum depidtum 
 cernis in (chedula hilce literis adjecSla. Quod, 
 quidem, ad antiquitatem Codicis Raviani attinet, 
 vereor ut iufficiat, fi meam tantum fententiam 
 Tecum communicare velim. Sunt enim tarn 
 muka in Germania recentifTimis tennporibus, hac 
 de re, a viris eruditiflimis difputata, ut meum non 
 fit inter criticos tantos tantas componere lites. 
 Malo Igitur notatu digniflima, quantum in Epifto- 
 Ja, quse in libri molem excreicere non debet, fieri 
 potcil, afferre, et turn penes 1 e arbitrium efto. 
 
 Codex Ravianus duobus conftat voluminibus, 
 in menibrana nitidiflime confcriptis. Nee fcribae, 
 ner patriae, nee srse, ulpiam fit mentio. A capitc 
 ad calcem cujufvis libri biblici (fiveevangelii five 
 epiftolit) linea iincam cxcipit, nulla adjcfta nota 
 
 capitum 
 
APPENDIX. 53 
 
 capitum, aut commatum sfx^w, ^nf^xrav^ &c.-— 
 Nullus invenitur accentus, fpiritus, &c. — Fri- 
 DERicus GujLELMus, Elcftor Brand, emit codiceoi 
 du€enti5 imperialibus a Chrijtiano Ravio^ qui per aii- 
 quod tempus in orier.te vitam degerat, et pofl pro- 
 felToris munere Upfali,:^., & dcnique Franccfurti, cis 
 Uiadrum fundus eft. Ravim affirmat, ie hunc- 
 ce codicem, mukis cum aliis (qui cum hoc bibli- 
 othc.am Regis ornant) ex Oriente iecum afpor- 
 tafle ; et non def uere, qui ei vetuftatem qumque, 
 imo decern, feculorum tribuerent. La Croze pri- 
 mus fuir, inter omncs, qui A,D. 1696, Berolimim 
 profe6lus, codice infpcdlo palam afleveravit : 
 *' falfarii cujufdam fraude fro eintiqiio venatiwn ejfe, 
 *' mantt verb rece?iti ex Edit i one polygloita Com- 
 ** PLUTENSi fuijfe defcripium. . ^1^ mt., ccdiccm 
 ** editum Comphiteniem i;;Vi//, is I'tdiit et manufcrip- 
 ** ttan Codicem nofirum^ ne demtis quidem meiidis ty- 
 '* pographorum •, qitas fcriba indoBm itafdeliter ex* 
 " pYeJfit^ lit omnino conjlet^ hominem illiteratum ab cm- 
 *' dito aliquo nebulone ei fraudi perjiciendce fuijje pra- 
 *' fe^um." Et in hac quidem Icntentia permanfit 
 La Crozius, ex quo ipie bibliotheca Regis credica 
 eft, id quod e Thefauro epijiol. LaCroxii (Tom. 1. 
 p. 63. Tom. iii, i. feqq.) latis conftat. 
 
 Per longum temporis fpatium, multi (nedicam 
 
 omncs) Critici inter Germanos^ et Batavos^ La 
 
 Crezii fententia freti, fiocci tecere codicem nol- 
 
 D 3 trum. 
 
54 APPENDIX. 
 
 trum ; nee Wetjlenius eum dignum cxiftimavit qui 
 valeret ad confirmandam ledionem aliquam vari- 
 antem. Nee efle videbatur, cur La Crozio diffide- 
 rent. Bibliothecae enim Regia; prseerat ; habebat 
 igitur copiam, pro lubitu, fcrutandi j — vir erat 
 cruditiflimus, fidei Nican^ addiftus. Non de- 
 fuerc, tamen, qui La Crozio aflcntire dubitarent, 
 id potifllmum urgentes, eum nullo argumento 
 fententiam fuam confirmaffe, nee unicum unquam 
 in medium protu tifi'efphalma typcgraphicum, 
 quod e Polyglottis Compl. in codicem Ravianum ir- 
 replerit. 
 
 Noviras externa negari omnino non poteft. 
 Membrana admodum alba eft ; ct ei adhuc calx, 
 five creta, adhsret. Verum enim vero vix, ac nc 
 vix quidem, ex .de /r^«^f;« evinci poffe, exiftimo. 
 Crtta, enim, qu£ adhuc in membrana cernitur, 
 falttm a tempore, quo Ravius exemplar ven- 
 didit, ufque ad noftram setatem fupereft. Qiiid ni 
 quod per feculum unum faftum eft, per duo, aut 
 tria, ante hasc, fieri potuiflct ? Et dixerit forfari 
 codicis Raviani fautor t ante Ravium ilium non 
 adeo multorum manibus efle vcrfatum, id quod 
 fufficiat ad fplendorem novitatis ei iervandam. 
 Sunt in bibliotheca Regis alii MSS (v. c. Sueto7m, 
 1472 fcripti) qui majorem etiam pras fe ferunt 
 novitatis fpeciem. Atramentum, quod a La Cro- 
 zio 
 
APPENDIX. 5^ 
 
 zio albicans vocatur, jam non nifi lenuatum ell, et 
 vetuflatis fpeciem habct. Magnum quidem ap- 
 paret difcrimen inter atrarricntum, quod natur;\ 
 albicat, et quod vetuflatis vi evanuit ; fed quis 
 np-ftrum hodie dignofcere poteft, utrum »itramcn- 
 turn codicis nollri, quod nunc lerie annorum pal- 
 luiffe videtur, tempore La Crozii eandcm indoicm 
 habuerit, an nunc demum contraxerit ? IJterM 
 Codicis Havtani non ,congruunt MSS antiquiori- 
 bus i contra CLmillimce funt typis in Polyglottis 
 Cotnplutenftbus. Ulud ilatim apparet : hoc vero in 
 dubium yocari pofiet. Magna omnino depre- 
 benditur fimilitudo inter figuram literarum Codicis 
 Raviam, et Polyglottoruni Complutenfium (fi ab 
 i^idole calamo pictarum et typis impreflarum dii- 
 Cefleris) ncc tamen tanta, ut dici queat ad harum 
 imitationem illas effe exprelTas. Q^uid ? quod 
 typi., qui Alcaic, a Cardinali Ximenio parabantur, 
 procul dubio ad exi^mplar MSS Gr^corum (prse- 
 -cij5ue forfitan Rhcdii) iufi funt. Qiiod fi itaque 
 Cod. Raviariis congruat typis Compiuknf.hus, nil 
 probaret hasc fimilitudo ; cur enim non rcfpon- 
 d.eiit figura literarum unius MS Gru'ci literis al- 
 terius j et cur igitur non congruat Ravianus Co- 
 dex Rhodio^ vel alio archetypo, ad cujus fmulicu- 
 ■^dinem typi Complatenfis fufi eiTe poffunt ? Id ta- 
 •men manifefium ell, du6lum literarum Codicis 
 Raviani non attingere fecula ante xv ; nee id fi- 
 kntio p.faicereundiim puto, primas paginas magis 
 
 anxie 
 
$6 APPENDIX. 
 
 anxie efle delineatas, in fequentibus vero agilio- 
 rem, expeditioremque maniim apparere : ex quo 
 forian colligi poffet opus efle hominis ducen- 
 darum literarum non adeo gnari. 
 
 Quod La Crozius fimpliciter dicitj fcribam in- 
 dodum eciam mendas typograhicas expreflifle, ut 
 omnino conftet, &c. — id quidem nimis feftinanter 
 ab illo didium eft. Codex Ravianus a textu 
 Complutenfmm innumeris locis difcrepat. In folo 
 Evangeiio Matthai^ praster ea quce abfque dubio 
 laplus fcr.bentis funt, 50 ledtiones variantes in- 
 veriiuntur, quibus Codex Raviantis ab editione 
 Complutenfi difcedit, quarum notatu digniflinice 
 funi: MaUh.ii: I'^^^S^^iiiioComplutenfis ]tgit octco- 
 Xiffoci, Raz'ianus contra. aTronlai/a*. xv, 22 Compluten- 
 
 flS iy.^x\jyji.<riy avlut RavianUS iK^oc^iv ottktw uvth xvi : 
 
 Complutenfis w^Afixa*, Ravianus cotpiXn^no-eTcn. — xvii : 
 2, Complutenfis u<; ro (pu<; Ravianus w? ;)^iwv xxiii : 8, 
 Complutenfis Kan^ynTr? Ravianus J'lJ^ao-xaAo? — Cap. 
 ix : 30, Ravianus poft unu-x^^via-ocT/ cc\)ro}v addit -n-oc- 
 C*Xf^/^' — ^' • ^^' poft 5'^'"^'^ addit Ravianus y.a- 
 
 6viju,£i/ai— xiii : 4, poft ra TTirHvoc RdviajlUS addit TS 
 
 jj^ai/«. — I. Joan, v: jo, Complutenfis legit ^ta Ra- 
 vianus uiw — Jud^, 22, Complutenfis iXuiTB ^lax^iuo- 
 /x£i/o(, Ravianus iXzymri Sixx^ivoixivag. Sufficiant 
 hsEC : fatis, enim, fuperque, demonftrant fcribam 
 non literarum Gracarum rudem fuifle. 
 
 Nee id flocci faciendum eft, omnes iftos va- 
 D A variantes 
 
APPENDIX. ST 
 
 riantcs le(5]:iones uno vel altero MS conHrmari, id 
 quod noftris temporibus poft Milln, JVetJlcmi^ ali- 
 orumque recenfiones tcxtu^ Graci^ nihil probarer, 
 fed ante centum, et quod excurrir, annos hand fa- 
 cile a falfario quovis perfici poterat. 
 
 Attamen qui omnem lapidem movere vellet, ci 
 omnes loci, quibus codex Ravianus a Comphtenji 
 difcedit, diligenter colligendi efienc, ut inde perf- 
 piceret an variantes leftioncs ex editioi ibus prirui- 
 phuSy quarum xix forte conferendi copia fuiUcC 
 falfario, hauriri potuerint. Qiii fententias La 
 Crozii favent, id inter alia potiffimum urgent, i. 
 Joan. V. 4, in codice Raviani deelie verba :isj c-vt^ 
 — Tov xoo-jutov, quae in PoJygl. Compliittnfi integram^ 
 et quidem unicam lineani c.mplent. " En" (aic 
 audor quidam in Colle^iomhus Haknfihus adfromo- 
 'uendam eruditionem tkeologicam^ quas Semlerus ediilit) 
 '* fcriba tranfiliit lineam ; necefle igitur eft, ut 
 *' nee plura, nee pauciora, omitteret, quam qos 
 *' in una lineola comprehenduntur ?" — Faieor 
 mihi ipfi hoc argumentum validifTimum vifuni 
 fuifie. Ex quo vero curiofius texmm examinavi, 
 ftatim deprehendi oiMoionXivrx induxiffc fcribam. 
 Bis enim in eodem commate occurrit mb-^tj -, et 
 cafu fadum efie poced, uc qu^ a v.oa-^ov priori ad 
 v.o(j^o]/ fecundum fcquuntur, in editione Co-mplutcnjl 
 lineolam compleanc. Et in epidola /ai^, v. 15, 
 omifit fcriba codicis Raviani fex verba {-tte^i Trxymv 
 fm i^ym apf;3f;aj a-jrcni/) qus in textu Ccmpluteiijt 
 
 non 
 
58 APPENDIX. 
 
 non una Hneola comprehenduntur, fed apcrte ho- 
 moioteleutis fedudus, omifit quas duo ifta x-jtjov in- 
 teriarent. 
 
 Le<5liones, quas fingulares vocantur, codi^i Ra- 
 viano cum Polyglottis Complutenfibus, communes 
 cfle innumeras, vix eft quod memorem. Nihil 
 vero exinde colligendum cffe mihi quidem videtur, 
 nifi quod codex nofter eidem familias fit annume- 
 randus, cui is, ex quo Complutenfes editorcs potif- 
 fimum textum fuum haufcrint. Majus faciunt- 
 momentum mtndsi typographorum, quas in Poly- 
 glottis Complutenfibus leguntur, quaeque fufpican- 
 tur, ex his in codicem noftrum efle tranfcriptas. 
 Ita, videlicet, in Raviano, ^que ac in editione 
 Compluienji, cx^r alum tiX : Alatt. xxVi: 19, Tr^or/i- 
 Viyaav — Galaf. iii : 19, ^txroiysio-oc — yf^, XXV : 19, 
 ^\j(rsi^sn[jcouia.i; — I. Joan, i : 6, vj'-"^'^/"'^^'* — !• 'Joan, 
 ii : 27, x^i<r(Ma Mxa-iiy) — Cap. iii : 2, o^iot — JpocaL 
 n : 1 7, )c£i/oi/, &c. 
 
 Quid ? quod in rebus minutiflimis nonnun- 
 quam mirabilis confenfus fervatur inter MS nof- 
 trum, et editionem impreifam •, ambo, exempli gra- 
 tia, i.Joan. ii : 22, h{/.yi — Cap. iii: ^icctovto — 
 Jpocal. ii : 2, a^uji jundim exhibent : — AlI. vii : 
 20, 22, 29, feq. ubi Ccmplutenfia Mwo-n?, et Mous-tif, 
 legendo alternant, et Codex Ravianus iifdem vici- 
 bus ponit, et omittit, to u, et quae ejufmodi funt 
 
 reliqua! 
 
APPENDIX. -59 
 
 feliqua ! — Ncc tamen hie elabendi rima codicis 
 Raviani defenlbribus deeft. Dicere enim pofTent : 
 fine dubi >editores Coinplutenfes quendam MS (for- 
 tafle Rhodium) fideliter deicribendam curarunt, et 
 poll variantes lediones e MSS aliis colledlas, quas 
 e re Tua arbitrabantur, inferuerunt, parum attenti 
 ad laplus llbrarii, quo utebantur, non folum repe^ 
 ticrat, fed et hie illic incurins auxerat. (ex. Millius 
 in proleg. § 109 1 fcqq.) Id faltem manifeftum 
 eft, perveriarum leftionum, quse plerumque fphal- 
 mata rypographica nuncupantur, nonnullas edito- 
 riim potius, five Incurise, five imperltijE, quam ty- 
 pographo effe tribuendas, quumesedem in Lexico 
 repetantur ; fic circa a^ii§r,<rxy^ F.om. iv. ('pro quo 
 Codex Ravianus exhibet a<p£^r,(ra,v) i.Ccr. iv. 11, 
 yo^auiTEuo^ajv (quod ct codcx Rdvianus legit j in 
 lexico quoque cliorda oberrant eadcm. 
 
 Qiiaj cum ita fint, haud abfonum foret, (j cui 
 placeret, codicem noflrum apographum ejfe, non e 
 Complutenfibus^fed ex alio MS, quern editor es Com- 
 
 plutenies pQtijfimum fecuti fint^ concinnatum. 
 
 Cupidiflimus fum literas Tuas ad Gibbonem Ic- 
 gcndi, etme tibi devindtiirimum reddes, nov£ edi- 
 tionis exemplar mecum communicando. Pofl: 
 JVetJlenium, enim, in Gen}2ama tot Critici, prse- 
 qipue Semkrtis^ Michaelis^tt Mosqu/E Matthei (qui 
 decern omnino codices primum examinavit) alii-. 
 
 que, 
 
6o APPENDIX. 
 
 fjue, yvr.tnoTTiTy, lefllonis i.Jotinn. v: 7, oppug- 
 narunt,— rut jam ftitione deceflifle videantur didi 
 iUius propugnatores. 
 
 Vale. Scribo Berolinf, xxv Martii, 
 
 MDCCLXXXV. 
 
 J. F. ZOELLNER, 
 
 No. XXIV. 
 
 Gennadii Patriarchs Constantinop. Expofttio 
 pro Ccncilio Florent. Cnp. i. SeSl. v. (Vide 
 Mtvx. Bihl. Pair. Edit. huGDUNi, A.D. 1677. 
 Vol. xxvi, p. §66.) 
 
 • Accedat, 'gitur, Veritatis pr^co, ei confcflbr 
 iriagnus, Celebris Jtb'r-^jlus, ut mecum eadcm tef- 
 tificetur. Hie, enim, in confelTione fus fidei, 
 cujus principium, " Quicunque vult falvus efie, 
 ^'^ ante omnia opus eft, ut teneat Catholicam fi- 
 *^ dcm," fic inquit : Spiritus Jav^iis.^ a Patre, et 
 Filio^ non faoius^ nee creatus, nee ^enittis, fed pro- 
 
 cederts Cum in hunc locum pervenenm, fu- 
 
 biit mihi vehemenier fiere, et n vocem pro- 
 rumpere cum lacrymis, et ejulatu, et eos deplo- 
 rare, qui fponte fua adverfus lucem oculos occhi- 
 dunt, et veritati oppugnant ; nee Iblum veritati 
 contiadicunt, verum et'am fandlos ecclefise doc- 
 tores afpernantur ; neque afpernantur folum, fed 
 ctiam injuria afficiunt. Qtiamnam defeniione m, 
 
 vel 
 
APPENDIX. Ci 
 
 vcl coirmiferatlonem invenient, qui hsec faciunt ? 
 O tuam patientiam, Christe Rex: quor.-ioao blaf- 
 phemantium ora non comburuntur Vthana- 
 siuM dicer e non lerenttir eh :um fuijfe, et lino cp- 
 fletiim^ qucindo hac fcri-^ftts Vere pi en us erat 
 fpiricualis poculi, fapicntice, et grati^e ex Spiritus 
 fandi fonte fcaturientis, non ut hi, miferabiles, 
 dicunt. Propitius fit illis Dominus, ac nobis. 
 Tollatur ab eis hsec imprudentia ; nobifque con- 
 tingat Tub Athanafii pedibus confiftere ! 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 For « MSS" 
 
 page g, 
 
 line 4, 
 
 Read MS 
 
 — " corred" 
 
 — j8 
 
 — 8 
 
 do/M 
 
 — " littJe more" — 38 
 
 — 28 
 
 
 — " them" 
 
 — 180 
 
 — 28 
 
 t/jo/e MSS 
 
 — - *' prophane" 
 
 — 329 
 
 — 25 
 
 
 After " parts" 
 
 — 55 
 
 — 30 
 
 Add 0/ 
 
 — " to" 
 
 — 94 
 
 — 8 
 
 — — fame, at kajl, of 
 
 — " Remigius" 
 tt • »> 
 
 — 218 
 
 — 17 
 
 Be that, boiveaier^ 
 
 — 337 
 
 — 240 
 
 — 23 
 
 as it may, the 
 
 — " from" 
 
 -263 
 
 — 10 
 
 — — tiearly 
 
 — . " and" 
 
 — 296 
 
 — 19 
 
 ^.vhen 
 
 — « verfe" 
 
 
 — 21 
 
 they 
 
 In page — 19 — ,9 Dele it. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A Pages 
 
 ALCUINUS — exhibited this difpttid text in " 
 his CorreBorhim - » _ 
 
 Ansbert, Ambrofe - - - 24 
 
 A?roroAO? — what - - 49 
 
 " Contains this text - 54 
 
 42-44 
 
 -defended againd La Croze - 163 — x6g 
 
 A9,tJiNAS - - • 19 279 313 
 
 Aki\h contro'verjy, this text cited in - 265 
 
 Arians, accufed of mutilating the Scriptures 341 
 
 Athanasius-— dialogue attributed to hitn loi 1236 240 
 
 AucusTiNE - - - 34 106 
 
 B 
 
 Bede - - - - III 216—221 
 
 Benson (Dr.) — his objeflions confidered - 61 — 221 
 
 Berlin VIS, defcribed - - 304 — 306 
 
 defended agalnfl Dr. Benfon, aud La \ 
 
 Croze . '. jlj9 l/» 
 
 Griejbacb - 304 
 
 Bernard (Si.) - - - ai 
 
 Beza, Theodore 6 II 13 
 
 '—^- W\& canntdi'mn w'wh R. Stephens - IZ2 — 127 130 
 
 defended againil Sir Ifaac Neui-ton 274 
 
 ' ' Emljn - 1 24 
 
 Bowyer, Mr. — his ubjeclions confidered 310 — 314 
 Britannicos, Co^^a:, collated by i?rfl/;/r«j, himfelf 139 
 
 ■ is not the Dublin MS - 149 
 
 C 
 
 Carvopuilus - • - 1S2 
 
 Cassiodorius . - "" » 26 97 
 
 C£i,EDENSi$, Marcus - ' " 35 108 
 
 Cerinthians,' 
 
H INDEX. 
 
 CEHlNTHrANS, IlPTefy of - - CO J 
 
 CoMPLfTf NsiAN Editors - , 4 13 r(? 
 
 • ' (lefcn'-lf(? acjainfi Dr. Jietifon 177 — J.S6 
 
 Sir/. Neivton 278 — 281 
 
 i : M I . Boixjer o I ^ 
 
 Cyprian - - - ^7 
 
 ■ de'"enrled Hgainfl Dr. Ben/on - 7" — 02 
 
 i I ' ■ Sir 7. Neicien - 224 — S'^'J 
 
 r Mr.Bonvyer - 310 — 313 
 
 DlDTKtf? - - - 217 
 
 DocEr^., herefy of « . qqi 
 
 Ddblin MS, (lefcTibed - - iro — 133 
 
 • defended - - 15^ — 139 
 
 DURAMJUS - - - • 20 48 
 
 Emlyn, Mr. — referred to - - 80 124, Sec. 
 
 Erasmus, ceufuicd - - - g 1^2. — I^q 
 
 li is accnfation of y^rijw^ repelled 251 — 254 
 
 ' his infiniiatioDS againll tlie Codex Bri- ") o 
 
 tanr.icui anfwercd - j 
 
 ■ admits y^rswtf's preface , IIO 
 
 I quotes this difputed text - 14 c 
 
 »-■ ■■ his paraph rafe thereon » 336 
 
 Etherits - - •25 
 
 EuCHERiUS . - - 32 79 82 29^ 
 
 Faccjndus ■- - » %z — 84 
 
 FuLCENTIUS » « . 27 30 84— 86 
 
 Gibbon, Mr. — jicneral tendency of his publica- 7 f-r 
 
 tions, in refpeft to Chriftianiiy - J 35* 3°" 
 
 Greek. Church — its ConfefTion of Faith - 49 
 
 GRiEiBACH — his objcdions aufweied • 295'~-3JO 
 
 H 
 
 HoDY i i ;. J4Z, 8cc» 
 
 HoRsi.EY (Dr.) . « ^ 265 
 
 I 
 
 Jerome — Ins Tranflatioti from the Greek text 32 99 106 247 
 ——— quotes this difputcd paffagc . 33 108 241 
 
 defended 
 
INDEX.. I 
 
 defended again ft Dr. ^^w/oB i g? — no 
 
 _— _ Sir /. Neivton 240 — 261 
 
 ■ Etafmus - 230 — 255, 
 
 ' »— Qriejbach • 308—3 1 o- 
 
 JOACHIM, Abbot . . • ^l 2.69 
 
 'Later AN, Council of - - 41 268 
 
 'JLe Long— confuted - ^ - 127 — 138 
 
 Lombard - - - 2o 
 
 LouvAiNE, Divines of - - 296 323 
 
 M 
 
 Maffeius - - - 26 l88 
 
 Martin — his controverfy with Emlyn - So 
 
 Marginal interlineation , of this text, in fome MSS, J 
 
 accounted for - - i 
 
 MiCHAELis — his account of the Armenion Veifion \ 
 
 difputci - . - 1^99-204 
 
 MoNTANus, herefy of - - z'^'>^ — 236 
 N 
 
 "Newton, 5/> Isaac, — his objediorwtconfidered 223 — 294 
 
 rNicE, Council of - - - 306 — 308 
 
 'Oecumf.nius - - - -III 
 
 Objections, the /^rfc^ principal ones drfeuficd 316 — 344 
 
 ..QrdO Romanus - - _ 48 
 
 P 
 
 Ph^badius - " ~ 5S ' 
 
 ^Preface, to the Canonical Epiftles, writtca by I 92 — no, 
 
 Jerome - - • \ 309. 
 
 R 
 
 IReadincs, various, of this text, placed in one 7 or__, 
 vie^v - - - 3 ' 
 
 RUPERT, Abbot - - • 21 
 
 S 
 
 Saubertus - - - 364 — 16S 
 
 SiMON — conttaflerl with SandiKS, as to die j^r- 7 
 
 w r ( J 99 — 204 
 
 tnenian Vet lion . - - ^ ->-> ^ 
 
 .SThT-Hius, Rohert - - - 4 6 10 n 
 
 ■ defended againft Dr. Be»/on - 117 — 126 
 
 Sit 
 
I N D E X. 
 
 «■ ■ Sir /. Ntwion 275 — 278 
 
 ' ■• '- " M. Grie/bach r 293 — 305^ 
 
 ' his Lafin Edition of 1549, compared 7 
 
 ' with his Gr«;i of 1550 ■ I 30»— 303' 
 
 Stephens, /f^wry - - - - 297 
 
 St&abo, Walafrid - - - - «i — 24 310 
 
 Stunica -- - - - 3H 280 
 
 T 
 
 Tertullian -- - _ i qj? — 40 
 
 —————— defended agsinfl Dr. 5^»/e« . 61 — 73 
 
 ' ■ ■■ Sir /. Neivton 233 — 236 
 
 Valla, Lcurentius - - - 18144. 
 
 Versions (or Traiidations 
 
 Old Italic 
 
 "Jervmsi 
 
 Syriac 
 
 Aymenian 
 
 Coptic 
 
 Arabic > 
 
 Ethiopic > 
 
 Perftc 1 
 
 Frankijh 
 
 French 
 
 Ruffian 
 
 Scla'vonic 
 
 54 ' 
 
 [85 
 
 32 1 
 
 ^o-, 
 
 1S8- 
 
 — 192 
 
 53 J 
 
 196 
 
 '93 
 
 205 
 
 >93 
 
 343 
 
 205 
 
 
 209 
 
 
 206- 
 
 -209 
 
 iffian I _ _ 
 
 la'vonic j ' " 
 
 . „,. ■ — All compared toccther, as to this 7 c 
 
 .lifptited text - \ 204-206 
 
 Victor Vjten^is " - - - 45 m 345 
 
 ViGiLius - • - - 30 — 32 
 
 W 
 
 Wetstein — his cenfare of fr^/Jwwj - 148 
 
 . — — . hisi accoutit lA Greek MSS, cnnfidcred 282 — 285 
 
 Wilson, Dr. — his accouiii of \\\k Dublin MS 150 — 133 
 
 XiMENES, Cardinal . - • 178 — 1S4 
 Y 
 
 YCARD— (Dean) - - , iri__l^g 
 
 Zycabenus, Euihymius ... 100 267 
 
 Zoeu-NER— his accouut of the MS of Birlin 304 — 306 
 
•n"! 
 
 mmmmmm 
 
 ''^^F 
 
 '#'l#« 
 
 ^ *■