^i? -*-*.! , J !* ) '^r .-^'4 z '1 { i:^ ^ Q^ i^ «j:^ i:a. '^:2r OF THK AT PRINCETON, N. J. x> »j ::v ^'v -r I cj >r c» i.- SAMUEL AONEW, O V P H I I. A I) K 1. F H I A . PA. ©^. - /hoiyi^ey^ ^ct7:^'/§5 f >3 e<^^^9 ©<^^^3 ?<^^^e s«^^^^ ©<^^^9'^'' I Case, % Shelf, D i^ooA-, V k A F U L L '^ Z^-e*--^ INQUIRY INTO THE Original Authority O F That TEXT, i Joh n v. 7. 77w€ art Three that bear (^cord in HeaVeJiy 8cc. Containing an Account of Dr. Miirs Evi- dences from Antiquity, for and againft its being Genuine. With an Examirmtior^ of his Judgment thereupon. Humbly addrefs'd to Both Houfej of Copvocafion nowafTerTibled. ^f^'' With aPoftfcript in anfwer to the Excufes offer'd to take off the Force of this Addrefs, By THOMAS E M LT N. The Second Edition. Jerem. xxiii. 28. Be that hath wy Word^ let him [peak my Word jaith fully : what is the Chaff to the Wheat ? faith the Lord, LONDON: Printed by John Darby in Bartholomew Clofe. M-DCCXIX. / r^ ^i-m~y$h "y^ *&v»N' To the Moft Reverend WILLIAM Lord ABp of Canterhury, President; And the Right Reverend the B I s H o p s of the fame Pro- vince, his Grace's Suffra- gans ; And to the Reverend the C L E R c y of the Lower Houfe o( Convocation now aflembled} This Inquiry is Humbly Prefentcd and Sab- niitted) by The AvTNOR.' 1 Some Conjjderations on that Long'douhted Text^ i John c. 5. V. 7. ' f^^"^^^^ I S poUible the laborioas Inqniries " ' ' ' jf majy Learned G-.r^Vi^/, who, vith great Diligence and Accnracy, i ^ V-' , ave lifted and fcaan'd the Oajjlck l-w^^..^^,..^, Author?, forne of 'em or no great moment *, may be efleeiE'd by others only as the ingenious Diverfions cf a dextroas and fagacious Mind : Cnce, when they have prefented their Authors a-new, with their Emendations and Corrections, in reftoring their old, or giving 'em new Beauties*, 'tis oft of fo little Ufe or Confeqaeace to the World, that 'tis well if their painful Studies efcape the Cenfare of being 2 laborious Lofs of Time. But when learned and jadicious Men do, with Serioufaefs and humble Rsv^ence, apply their Indaftry and Sagacity to calamine the far more important Writings that are to guide as in the way of Sakatioa^ when they Ihill difcover the Interpolations and Additions, the Errors or Defeds, which thefej as well as other Writings, by ofc tranfcribing, may in fo long a Tract of A Tims i Jn Inquiry into the Time have been liable to •, when, by diligent comparing antient Manufcripts and Verfions, and the frequent Citations of the Text in the pri- initive Cbriilian Writers, they become able to inform us certainly what h original and genuine, and what not, in any part of the Bible, more cfpecially where fome matter of great moment is concern'd •, their learned Induftry is then fure to be well employ'd, and will be recompenfed not only with the Applaufes of the Curious, biit the Thanks, and which is more, the real Edifica- tion and Satisfa6:ion of the ferious Inquirers after Truth •, who greatly defire to know what God would have 'em believe and do *, to have the Chajf feparated from the Wheats and the to aAokov yihcf^ the fmcere unadulterated Milk of the Word, for their fpiritual Growth. The peculiar Veneration due to the Sacred Writings, requires us to keep that precious De- fofitum as pure as pofllble, and free from all hu- man fpurious Additions. Why then (hould the learned Criticks exhauft all their Learning, Read- ing, and difcerning Skill, upon the Trifles of a witty or wanton Poet^ or a fabulous and remote Hlftoriarjj and wholly negled to make as fevere an Inquiry into the Holy Scripture, in which are the Words of eternal Life ^ in order to difcover what is the genuine Text, among the various Readings of different Copies ^ that we may build our Faith upon it, with the greatelt Certainty we can attain to ? I know, a late ingenious Author of the Dlffi* cuttles and Dlfcoiiragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures^ has pointed at the worldly Dif- coaragements, which, he judges, have tempted our cautious Criticks to turn their Studies ano- ther way. 1 wilh him Succefs in his Addrefs to ^Authority of i John ^.f] to have thefe Hindrances remov'd j that it may be as fafe, where *tis more important, to do Jal^ tice to the Writings of the Apoftles, as of any other Author. The very Learned and Judicious Dr. Mill has done much for one Man, in his celebrated Labours on the Isle w Tefta men t ^ which ^ whatever may be wanting, will long ftand, as a lafting Monu- ment of his praife-worthy Zeal and well-employ- ed Abilities. A Specimen of what he has done upon one finglc f^erfe I am now to produce: And if upon a full and impartial Conlideration it (hall appear to your unbiafs'd Judgments, that there is abundant Evidence of a fpurious Addition; may I not juftly hope that the Rulers and Guides of the Church, who can better judge of fuch Evi- dences than the Unlearned can, will yield their cbnfcientious Compliance, and not render fuch commendable Inquiries fruitlefs, by refufing ta receive the Truth, and to reftlfy our Books^ when the true Reading is found ? Elfe to whac purpofe do Men inquire how it was in the hegin^ ningj if we irefolve not to return to it ? or to fearch after the right, if we will ftill adhere to what is wrong, and will rather maintain Cuftom than Triith ? This is what I (hall have fome right to infilt upon, and for the fake of Truth to prefs upon your Lord(hips and the Clergy ^ when I (hall have niade it appear, from his Dljfertation on i Jobft 5, 7. that the Doftor himfelf has overthrown the Credil^^ ]hat Text, by the Evidence he has gi- ven tliat It is not original and genuine, tho he has not acknowledg'd himfelf overcome by it* In order to manifefb this, t (hall, L In the firft place f for the f^ke of othefs, who need more information) hy dowa the Sum' A a 0( Jn Inqidry into the of that Evidence which the Dodor has produc'd, to fhcw that thefe Words in the feventh Verfe, Tljere Are Three that bear Record in Heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Spirit *, and thefe Three are One: or rather thefe Words in the feventh Verfe, In Heaven^ the Father j the Word^ and the Spirit ^ and thefe Three are One : And (ver. 8.^ there are Three that hear voitnefs in Earth : were not in the original Text, but have been added in later times without juft Authority. II. I fhall put down what he had to offer on the other fide, for eftablifhing the Authority of thefe Words, and upon which he has determined in favour of their being original and genuine. III. I fhall (hew the Weaknefs of thofe Argu- ments by which he endeavours to fupport the Authority of this Text: that fo it may be judg'd whether he had jufl: Reafon to make fuch a Determination, or we to abide by it. I. I muft lay down the Evidences produced againft the Authority of this Text^ as not having been originally in St. Johns Epiftle. Only let me firfl obferve, that the Text it felf, and Con- text, have no internal Evidence, to perfuade us that the Words are genuine: for as thefe Words themfelves are not to be match'd with any in the whole Bible, fo the Context is corn- pleat without 'em, and rather more fmooth and eafy. The three following Witnefles having been already diftindly fpoken of, it was very natural to fum 'cm up in one Conclufion ; There are Three that bear witnefsj the Spirit^ the Water j and the Bloods But the other three Witnefles had not been men- tion'd, to give occafion for the like to be faid of them. Nor was it likely the Spirit fliould be produc'd as auother Witaefs en Earthy if it had beea num- bred Authority of i John 5. 7. j bred before among the WitnefTes in Heaven* The Spirit was no more an Inhabitant of the Earth, than the Father and Word were \ who alfo opera- ted and gave their Teftimony, not in Heaven, bat on Earth. Nay, the Word Incarnate was more properly an Inhabitant of the Earth thaa the Spirit, and yet is not reckoned among the WitnefTes on Earth. Is it likely the Spirit fhould be made twice a Witnefs in the matter, and fo give two Teftimonies for one of the Father and Word f But lince the Doftor's Inquiry was only after external Evidence from Authorities and Tefti- mony, it ihall be my prefent bufinefs to examine them. And here it muft be own'd, that Dr. Mid, has done Juftice j fo that very little more can be faid in the cafe. 'Tis a Subjeffc which had been long and often examin'd, with Nicenefs, from the beginning of the Reformation, and very much illuftrated by the great Sagacity of the late Learn- ed and Laborious Gritick, Father Simon^ in his Critical Hifiory of the J^ew Teftament^ Chap. i8.' Dr. Mill\ bufinefs was, not fo much to fearch for Evidences, as to colled, with no fmall pains, what had been oiFer'd ^ and to prefent it in one view, and in good order. Thefe Evidences are taken, (i.) Fromantient t7r^^i& Manufcript Copies. (2.) The antient K^r- fans. (3.) The Writings of the antieat Chriftiaa Fathers, And indeed whither fhould we go to leara what was in the Apoftles Writings, but to the oldeft Copies of thofe Writings (which are loft or confum'd themfelves) and the oldeft Verfions made from them, and to the old Chrillian Writers who have tranfcrib'd very much of them into their own Books ? A 3 (lO 144' 6 Anlncjulry into the (i .) Let us hear how many antient Manufcript Gretk Copies are without this Text. The Doc- tor tells us, in his Notes on the Words, That 'cis certain all thefe Words, in Heaven^ the fa- ther^ Wordy and Holy Spirit ; and thefe Three are One : and there are Three that hear witnefs in Earth : are wanting in molt Copies. Then he enume- rates them particularly, in his Dijfertation vpon this SubjeB ^ beginning with our famous Alexan- f roleg. ^^/^„ Copy, which elfewhere he calls Ingens The- ^' ''^^^ faurus Orient alisy and the moft precious Trea/tke the Chriftian World ever faw for thefe twelve hundred Tearsy and by far the moft antient Copy in the World^ tphich moft exaEily expreffes the Original Kexc comes the famous Vatican Copy, which he extols much after the fame manner, as of very r. loS. great Credit, and above twelve hundred Years old ^ by which, according to Pope Leo\ Order, the Complutenfan Edition was to be made. 'Tis enough to fhake the Credit of this Text with all impartial Men, that 'tis wanting in thefe twoj the moft valuable and antient Copies we know of in the World. Yet befides this, the Doftor gives a long Roll of the other very valuable Manufcript Greek Copies, in the molt famous Libraries of the Learned, and of our two Univerfities, and of the French King (where Fa- ther Simon made a diligent Search, and fays, he found not one that had thefe Words, of all the feven which he view'd, nor of the five Manu- fcripts of Mr. Colbert^ tho fome of thefe be of Crit. Hift. later date) alfo two at Baftly one at Venicey and 'h, i8. many more. All thefe want this Text, tho in fome of the later Manufcripts there are in the Margin fliort Notes, by way of Glofs or Com- ment, over againfl: the Spi^ity the Water^ and the Bloody applying thefe to the Fathery Wordy and Sfirit^ according to an antient myftical Interpre- tation, Authority 0/ i John 5. 7^ ; tation, of which hereafter. And from the Ma r^ gin, Father Simon judges thefe Words did after- wards Hide into the Text, which are in our fe- vemh Verfe, Which is a very natural and eafy Account, and the only way by which Dr. Mill himfelf accounts for fo many other Interpolations, in his Notes, and his Prolegomena, And whereas Dr. Mill once thought Robert Stephens had fouiid the Words in eight Manufcripts (becaufe of fifteen Copies which he had, he men- tions but feven as wanting this Verfe^ whence the Dodor dipt into the common Miftake, and took it for granted that the other eight had it) he found upon Examination that thofe eight Co- pies of Stephens had not St. Johns Epiftle in them: fo that all which had the Epiflle^ want- Proleg: td^this rerfe. /• i^7' To thefe of Dr. Mill^ the Learned Dr. Kujler adds one Authority more, from the Cod(x Seide^ lianus^ brought out of Greece^ and about 700 Years old *. So that I think I may fay, in one word, all the Greek Manufcripts, which are found, do agree in rejecting the Text under Conlldera- tion. (2.) He confiders the antient Verfons of the New Teftament. Thefe were made for the Ufe of fuch People, as in early Times were converted to the Chriftian Religion, but did not underhand the Greek Language, in which the New Tefta- ment was written \ for their Benefit it was tranf- lated into their own Language. The moft an* tient of thefe Verfions were the Syriack^ Coptick^ Ethiopicky ArAhlck^ Latin \ all which, with the Rujfian^ have not the Text : fo that when thefe * In his Edition oj Dr, lAiWs Tcft. Rotterdam 17 19. which is what I make nfe of, A 4 Vcrfions Z An Inquiry into the Verfions were made, there was no fuch Paflagc in the Grech Copies or Original, whence they were made. Of the Latin Verfion the Doftor fays "^, T/V certAln this Verfe was wanting in all the mofi antient Latin Copies^ except fame in Africa, in TcrtuUian'j and Cyprian'i time^ &c. Which Exception is a mere Suppofition grounded on his Miftake(asl fhall Ihew) t\i2itTertullian^ and efpe- cialjy Cyprian^ had cited thefe Words in their Books. P. 141. The antient /m//V^ Verfion, he fays, was made near to the j^poflles tlme^ from the hefi Copies, Of ^- 152. the Coptich'i that it was from one of the heft and P. 128. earlteft. Of the Syriack^ that the Learned agree it was made in the very next Age to the Apojiles, He tells us moreover, that even the Latin Manu- fcripts at Baftl^ Zurich^ Strasbourgh C800 or 900 Years old) and two others. Duo Donatianici^ want thefe Words: That the Words however are inferred in the bottom of the Page in one^ by another Hand ^ and in the Margin, by the fame Hand, in another* Father Simon obferves, that in thefe later Co- pies of St. Jerom^% Bible, where thefe marginal Notes are found, the Order of the Words, and t\[t three Witnejfes are various and diverfe^ which he takes to be a good Proof that they were not in the firfi Copies : who adds alfo one very old Crlt.Hift. French Verfion, of a thoufand Years, which has '^- not the Words. I need but mention the firft Editions of the >3ew Teftament, correded by the Manufcripc Copies, about the beginning of the Reformation-, viT^' by Erafmtis^ Aldus ^ CoUnAtu^ printed in di- * Certum eft hunc Verficulum abfuifle c vctuftiflimis Code Latinis omnibus, prsctcr Africanos quofdam, 6cct /, 140, vers [Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. < vers places, which he owns had not this Verfe ; nor the Verfions of Luther ^ becaufe thefe are of no Authority beyond the Manafcript Copies by which they might be directed : which, it appears, did then want this Ferfe^ otherwife they durfb not have left it out, ia. prejudice to a receiv'd Opinion of the Church, and in contradidion to the vulgar f^erfons at that time. (^.) He examines the Writings of the primi- tive Chriftians. or Fathers: forafmuch as thefe very frequently cite the Sacred Writings on all occalions, and had fuch frequent and great Occa- flons to fpeak of the Trinity^ and of the Holy Spi- rit J it may well be concluded, fuch a Text^ of lingular Importance, and fo exceeding pertinent to their Defign, and where there is no other Text^ to fupply the want of it, fully or direftly in the whole New Teftament, could not be forgottea by all of them, and at all times, if it had been known by them. And here, i/, He makes inquiry among the Greek Fa- thers, to fee if he can hear of this Text among them, who were molt likely to have feen the authentick Originals of the Apoflles, and needed not a Veriion into another Language. Of thefe he gives this melancholy Account ^ Neminem unum, &C. That not one Greek Writer from the beginning of Chrifiianityto St, Jerom'j time f about 400 Years) has ever cited this Verfe. And adds, "^Tis Di'fTert. certain it has been wanting in the Greek Copies veryP' "J^Sa near from the ^pofile^s writing this Epiftle. And '^^^ therefore wonders at the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epifilesj in the Latin Bibles, which pafles under the name of St. Jerom^ for faying this Verfe wa5 in all the Greek Copies : whereas, fays the Doftor '^, not one of the Antients had ever * Pe quo nemo Veterum qiiidquana inaudiverat. hfard lo An Inquiry into the heard a word of it. For which, and other Reafons^j he juftly concludes, as do other Criticks^ that it is not Sujeroms. Not content with there(7f«ffr4//, he runs over the particular moft eminent Greek Fathers, and thofe who were moft likely to have produc'd this Textj if they had known of it^ who yet never mention it. r. Not Iremus^ 1. 3, c. i8» who to prove the Deity of Chrift, cites this firft Efiftte of John ('more than once) nay, he cites this fifth Chapter^ and yet fays nothing of this Ferfe which had been fo appofite to his Defign. 2. Not Clemens Alexandrinus, 3. Not Vionyfus Alex, or the Epiflhy under his Name, to Paul of Samofata, almoft wholly about the Trinity, and the Deity of Chrift ; in which the eighth Verfe is cited, and the three other Witnefles, the Spirit^ the Water^ and the Bloody but not the Words in difpute. 4. Not Athanafius himfelf, who had his Wits about him, and as much at work in thefe Mat- ters as any Man *, in vi\\o^Q genuine Works (more to be regarded furely than the fpuriom Books falQy attributed to him for the other fide) even thofe in which he labours to prove the Trinity, and Deity of Chrift and the Holy Spirit, by all the Texts he could think proper, we find no mention of this great Text, as he muft have deem'd it. So that the Doftor again confefTes, he knows not of one Greek Father, before the time of the TV/c^w^ Council, who ever cited it, 5. Not the Fathers of the Council o^ Sardica Thcodor. Jn their Synodical Epiftlej in which, for proof i. 2. c. 8. qj: 3 Xrinity of Perfons in one ElTence, they al- Icdge John \o. 30. brft not thefe Words, The Fa^ ther-f the iVord^ and the Spirit *, and thefe Tijree are One: which had been much more fit to their pur- 'Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 11 purpofe. They needed not twice have cited, My Father and J are One^ which yet did ^hot in- clude the Sfrit at all : once urging this Paflage, fhefe Three are One^ had been better for their purpofe than a hundred Repetitions of that other Text. Certainly all thofe Fathers, who came from To many feveral Quarters out of Afia^ Africa^ and Eurofe^ as the Preamble of the Epiftle (hews, could not be ignorant of this Text which they fo much wanted, if there had been any [knowledge of it in any part of the Chriftian World. 6. ISIot Epiphanifu, who among the many Texts, alledg'd againft the Brians and Pfteuma- tomachi^ quite omits this. 7. Not Bafil^ in his Book of the Holy Chofl^ whom he had a mind to joinwith the Father and Son in the Doxology, but was kept in awe by fuch as watched his Words, 8. Not Alexander^ Bifhop of Alexandria^ a- mong the many Texts for the Unity of the Fa- ther and Son, in his Epiftle, Theodor. 1. i. c. 4. 9. Not Nyjfen^ in his thirteen Books againft EmomiH4y of the Trinity and Deity of the Holy Spirit. 10. Not NaTLianz^en^ in his Oration againft the AriarjSy or in his fifth Oration de Theologia ^ where, to prove the Spirit to be God, he al- ledges the next Words, but not thefe. 11. Not Didymusy in his Book of the Holy Spirit. 12. Not Chryfofiom^ on the fame Subjeft. 13. Not Cyrill of Alexandria^ tho he cites the Verfes before and after^ to prove the Deity of the Spirit j Thefauri Afert, 34. 14. Not the Author of the Exfofitlon of the Faith^ ^niong Juflin Martyr^ Works ^ who endeavours ;o prove the Father^ Son^ and Sfirh to be of one ElTenc^, I z An Inquiry into the EflTence, from their being join'd together in Mat. 28. rp. but not ixoVkithisText^ more dire«!^ly for his purpofe. I 5. Not Cicfarivs. 1 6. Not Proclusj tho both of 'em upon a Sub- ject that gave occafion. 17. Not the Nicetie Fathers themfelves, ac- cording to Gelafivs : for Leontius Bifliop of Caf- fadocia-dVi^v^Qxxng^ in their name, the Arguments of a certain Philofopher who oppos'd the Deity of the Holy Spirit, among other Texts infifted oa the Words immediately preceding, viz.. It is the Spirit that witnejfethy becaufe the Sfirit is Truth ', but omits this Verfe. Here let me add what Du Pin obferves, That as no Greek Father, for five hundred Tearsy quoted this Paflage, fo two of them, viz.* Didy- mus of Alexandria in the 4th Century, and O^. cumenius in the nth, have written Commen- taries upon this Epiftle of St. John^ and yet men- tion not this Verfe: whichj fays he, proves that either they did not know ity or not believe it to he genuine *. Thus far then the way is clear thro the an- tient Greek Writers for fo many hundred Years ^ even to an Age or two after Athanalius, as the Doftor confeflcs f. 2^/y. For the Latin Fathers ^ the Doftor grants, that neither the Author of the Treatife of the Baftifm of Hereticby among Cyprian^s Works (tho he mentions the Verfes both before and after) * Hift. of the Canon, Fo/. 2. p, 78. \ C^inimo nullum omnino Codicem Grxcis Ecclefils in ufii fuifTe credo, nifi qui ad mutilatos quos dicimus, defcriptus fir, pene ab ipGus Archctypi Scriptura ufque ad Seculum unum vel al- terum poli Achanaiium. nor Authority of i John 5. 7. 1 j nor Novatian^ nor Hilar ius^ nOi C-iiiritanus^ nor Fhabadius^ have ever cited thefe Words. Nor jimbrofe^v^^o alfo has the r^r/^j on both fides ^ nor Jeroniy nor Fauftwus^ nor Au ft in ^ who yet would have the Father^ Sonj and Spirit^ to be myllically fignify'd by the Spirit^ the IVater^ and the Bloody in the next Verfe. Nor Eucheriusy who has the fame Notes on the next Verfe : nor Leo Magnvs^ nor Fttcvndus Hermienfisy who alfo cites the eighth Verfe. Nor Juniiius^ nor Cerealis^ nor Bede^ (in the eighth Century) who, in his Comment on $his Epiftle^ expounds the three other Witneffes^ but not this feventh Ferfe, Tho foon after his time, the Doftor fays, the Weftern Bibles began to have it common: which I (hall not much difpute. The Reader mult note^ that all thefe antient Writers are here produc'd, not merely for noc mentioning thefe xvords (for then a much greater number might have been brought^ but becaufe tljey treated profefledly of fuch Subjeds as re- quir'd the Afliltance of this Text^ and many of 'em of the Context^ and next Verfes. And there- fore tho others might omit it, as not having occafion to alledge it, yet all thefe cou'd never have omitted it on any other reafon but this. That they had it not in t\\Q\x Bibles (as the Doc- tor jufkly argues) for above 700 Tears. Now methinks here is a pretty large flock of Evidence, and as much as one can well require for a Negative, to (hew that this Verfe was not originally any part of the New Teftament : and one had need have very direct and peremptory Teftimonies to the contrary, to make him fa much as to hefitate in the matter. There mufl: be great Weight, to caufe an Equilibrium^ and much greater to turn the Scales, and make him determine 14 ' ^n Inquiry Into the determine for what fee ms hitherto irrecoverabljf loft. But 1 forbear, till 1 have confidcr'd, II. What Dr. Mill has ofFerM for fuferiout Evidence on the other fide, to prove this Ferfc genuine, againft all that has been faid. And now he has a hard Task indeed, to undo all that had hitherto been done, and to prove this Text authentick, againft all thefe Manufcript Greek Copies^ all the old Verftons^ all the before- mention'd primitive Writ ersy .both Greeks and Latinsy down to the eighth'Century, who, all that while, knew nothing of it. No doubt it would be a grateful Service to the Church, of which he was a worthy Member, if he could juftify her putting it into her Bible as current Scripture, (tho that has been but of late) and cou'd fupport the Credit of a Text^ on which principally fome important Branches of her Creed and fuhlick Offices feem to be founded. Here is a great deal to excite one to try what can be faid, by a kind Friend, in the Cafe; who wasunwil-^ ling to leave the Matter fairly ftated on both fides, without giving it the Weight of his own Judgment on one fide ^ which no doubt had other- wife been thought to be for the contrary. 'Tis well known how many are apt to regard a Learned Author*^ own Opinion, more than to examine his Premifes, or weigh his Arguments, But what has he to fay in this Caufe? In ihtfirfi place 1 muft fhew what j^rgvmenti he refufes to make ufe of : efpecially two^ which have been often urg'd by others, thro Miftake, or Want of Judgment, or popular Prejudice, As, I. That the Arians have razeed this Text out of the Bible, becaufe it thwarted their Opinion^ Ihis pafl'es for current among the People, and is ^Authority 0/ i John 5. 7.'' 15 IS taught 'em by their Expofitors, even by Dr. Hammond^ and many other lefs judicious Com- mentators. But the Learned T>x. Millxt]t^s the Sufpicion of this with Indignation and Scorn: for ■* hovD Jhoud the Arians, fays he, put out the words J which were out already <, i 50 Tears before Arius was horn ? And he fays, that Ambrofty who^ alone of the Antiems^ obje^ed this^ in relatuirt. to another Text^ John ^^6. (not the Text in dif- pute) was under a Adiflake : as he fhews in his Kotes on that place. Nor will the Dodor fufped any of the.<7«<7- fi^ick Hereticksin former times ; whom their Op- pofers accufed indeed of making new Gofpels, but not of corrupting the old : only Marcion was charg'd with interpolating the Gofpels and 'StU Paul's Epiftles, but not the Catholick EpifiUs. Kor cou'd they corrupt the Copies in other Chrif^ tians Hands, nor yet thofe in their own^ without being foon difcover'd. Thus the Dodor clears the Hereticks, as being without juft caufe fuf- peded in this matter: / dont think any Heretick corrupted the Text in any partj much lefs in this fa^ mous Teftimony of St. John 'f-. 2. He utterly rejedts the Authority of the Pre- face to the Canonical Epiftles, under the name of St. Jerowy in the firit printed Latin Bibles 9 which pretends that all the Greek Copies had this Ferfe^ and that the Latin Tranflators had done unfaithfully in omitting it. And thoevea. the Latin Bibles which had this Preface, wanted this Verfe, after the Complaint made, (which Ihew'd that the Preface and the Verfion were * Quid enim illis cum hac Perlcope, fublata ^ comexm Craeco i«50 annis afttcquam Arius nafcercnir ? \ Non puto quenquam hireticorum S. Textum in aliquo, aedum in hoc nobiJiflimo Johannis tcftimonio, dcpravafle. not 1 6 An Inquiry into the not by the fame Author) yet this gave great trouble to Erafmus (and others) how to recon- cile this to the plain Evidences of the contrary: He was well aflured the Ferfe had not been in the Greek Copies, and therefore charges Jerom with Falfhood and Forgery. And the Learned Bifhop Fell was at the needlefs pains of vindi- cating St. Jeroniy and juftifying his Preface, in his Notts on Cyprian ^ when after all, our Learned Dodor, who acknowledges that himfelf once had a great regard for this Preface^ before he had cxamin'd into it, is fully convinc'd (with F. Simon and Du Tin) that 'tis not St. Jeronis^ nor is it found in the moft antient Manufcript Copies of his Verlion; nor with his Name, in fome Crit. Hlft. other Copies where it is, as F. Simon tells us : ^- 1^-. but is the Work of fome filly Rha^fodift after JbTbr* ^^^^'s ^^"^^1 35 theDoftor fays, and then join'd (ixli. ^ ^^ ^^^ Bthle^ which contradifted the Preface. So that the Learned will no more be troubled with this pretended Authority of St. Jerom'^s Preface, nor get any aid from it^ towards the Support of the Credit of this Verfe we are in- quiring after. I am next to confider what Authorities the 'Do^ovdoes infill on, on behalf of this Text. As for Teftimonies from the antient Greel Writers, he had left himfelf very little to fay from them, having confefs'd there is not one of thefe, before the Council of Nice-t w]io tak|ss any notice of this Text. And therefore, tho he puts down Serif tores Graci for one of his Topicks^ he is hard put to it to find any, and is content to mention only one oblique Teftimony, which he . ^^^^^ wou'd have pafs for probable^ from a fpurious Difputatio- ^ovk falfly afcrib'd to, but long after jithana- munCon-fus f . Aud he is fufpeded to be a Latif$ Author cil.Niccn. .|* too 7 Authority of i John ^./. \T too ^ who only fays, ^lutlvvm (pao-ku h Tf«^ to %v hWj ]o\\n fays thefe Three are One. Which tq sV, with the Article^ are neither exadly the words of the feventh nor eighth Ferfe : and F. Simon judges they refer to the latter^ which was ufually ap- ply'd to the Father^ Son^ and S^iirit at that time; as Dr. Mill owns it was in St. Aufii?i\, Hence he leaps at once down to the Council of Lateran undi^r Innocent the Third, in the 13th Century; and to Calecas^ in the 14th, who was a Greek^ and turn'd to the Latins, All which is to no purpofe at all, but to increafe the number of Teftimonies. The Greek Manufcripts be pretends (which will be found only fuppos'd) are, i. A Manu- fcript in Britain of which Erafmus fpeaks, and by which he was moved fagainit his own free Judgment) to put thefe Words into his laffc Editions of the New Teftament, againft the E- vidence of all the other Manufcript Greek Copies. 2. Some Manufcripts which the Dodor fuppofes Robert Stephens to mention, as having moft of the words ; all, except \v t^ »6«»'f> *« Heaven. 3, The antient Vatican Copies, which the Editors of the Com^lutenfan Bible fay in general they were direded by, and the Dodor hopes they were fo in this particular, which they have taken into this Edition. I think it will appear that all thefe are but Suppofitions of fuch Copies as never were feen, nor produc'd by any others to this day. To all in hU Ke\ which, Dr. Clarke has given a learned and f\x\\Ph^lo m/. Anfwer, except to 5ffp^f«j's Manufcripts, where ^*^'°"* he feems to have miftaken the Objedion ; ot^' ^^^' which hereafter. As to the Ferftons^ Dr. Mill had none very antient to bring. The Vulgar^ of which fome Manufcripts have it, and others want it, as is B noted 1 8 An Inquiry into the noted by the Louvain Editors \ the Italicl printed at Fenics in 1532. (while the old Italick, and St. Jerom's Correction of it was otherwife) are not worth regarding in this matter : nor the A^ojholos^ or Colledion of Sedions out of the Prwted at jpoflles Books, with fome Remarks. Only, Venice, whereas the Dodor mentions the ArmenianVzx^ ^^^^' fion for having this rerfe, as he was inform'd *, Appead. the very Learned Sandius teftifies the contrary, Paradox, having himfelf feen it, with the ArmenUn Bi- h V^*^ (hop, at Amft^erdam^ Laftly, The Dodor produces his Latin Fa- thers, which are indeed his main Strength and Confidence* 1. TertulUan^ contra Prax. c. 25. his Words are : The Taraclete jhall take of mine-, fays Chrifiy as he did of the Father s» Thus the Connexion of the Father in the Son^ and of the Son in the Para* dete^ makes the Three clofely united^ which Three are One^ hut not one Perfon ^ as ^tis faid^ I and my Father are One ^. Which the Dodor thinks, with Biihop Bull and Dr. Hammond^ are an Al- lufion to our Text in difpute. 2. Cyprian^ de Vnitate Ecclefu^ his words are : '77x written of the Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit^ thefe Three are One -]' \ or Three are One^ as fome Copies have it : and, in his Epiftle ad Jubaia- num^ Tres Vnumfunt^ Three are One \ without any Reference to the Scripture exprefs'd. And near 300 Years after, comes Fulgentius^ a Bifhop of * De mco fumet, inquit, ficut ipfe de Patris, ita connexus Patris in Filio, & Filii in Paradeto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alte- nim ex altero. Qui tres unum funt, non unus ; quomodo dic- tum eft, ego & Pater unutn fumus. \ De Patre, Filio, gc Spiritu San^O faiptum eft j & hi Tres Uftum funt. AfricA^ Authority of i John j. /• 19 Africa^ and fays that Cyprian in the former words had refpe(ft to St. Johns Teftimony. 3. Fi^or Fiten/ts, who tells us of a Gonfef- fion of Faith, prefented by Eugenius Bifliop of Carthage^ and other Bifhops, to Hunnerlck King of the Vandals '^ in which this Text is cited as from St. Joh7j^ in the manner we now have it, in the Year 484. 4. Figilivs TapfenfiSy Fulgent ius^ and the Au- thor of the Ex flic at ion of the Faith ^ ad Cyril" turn. And thus you have the Whole of what mult over-ballance all the Evidence on the other fide : which, whether it will do or not, is to be con- lidcr'd under my next Head» Therefore, III. I (hall fhew the Infufficiency of thefe Ar- guments brought to fupport the Authority of this Text^ againft thofe produc'd to over- throw it. I fuppofe no Man of Reafon will defire me to give any anfwer to what the Dodlof cou'd lay no ftrefs upon: I mean, fuch modern Teftimo- nies as Calecas and the Council of Lateran, o^r late Editions and Ferfions^ or the vulgar L^tin Bibles fince Bedeh time. Therefore I fliall fay no more to them \ nor indeed to FigiUus Tap- fenfis and Fi^or Fitenfis^ nor to any Writer lb long after the Heats between the Arians and. Athanajians^ and when the Invafions of the bar- barous Nations had thrown all into Confafion and Ignorance. Such modern Teftimonies will only tell me, that thefe Words did at laft appear. All this 1 know well enough •, for I fee they are brought into the Latin Verfions, and fince that into our printed Greek Copies \ and into onr Eng' lijh Tranllations, firft in little Characters for dif- tinftion, and next with as good a face as the B 2 reft 20 An Inquiry into the reft of tbe T^xt, And if this began to be done id the fifths or fiXth, or feventh Century, what is that, any more than if it was in the fifteenth or fixteenth ? But if the Words were not in St. Johns Eplftle for fo many hundred Years, nor known to the Ghriftian Church as fuch, I fhall conclude that no Man can give a good reafon for admitting ^em fiace. And a thoufand fmooth Suppofitions (which are, in like cafes, found to be falfe by daily Ex- perience) that fuch and fuch a Writer wou'd not, ia later times, have ufed the Words^ or put 'em into the Bible, if he had not good Evidence they were in the Original •, are of no force againit all the Greek Manufcripts and Fathers, which plainly fhew they certainly were not there. If upon the whole matter there can be found not one Greek Manufcript, or one Greek Writer, who mentions it for a thoufand Years ^ nor one Latin Writer to the fifth Century (if St. Cyprian be not the Man, which (hall be inquired into) what lignifies all the reft ? Men may be fond of a fpurious IflTue, but that will not legiti- mate it. Only with relation to Vi^or ritenfis^ becaufe the Dodor lays fuch a ;ftrefs upon it, as if the urging thefe Words^ in a ConfefFion of Faith, fo pubiickly prefented to Humericus^ in midft of the Arians^ in the Year 484. was a good proof that they had been well known and receiv'd ; at leaft, ante unum Seculum aut alterum^ an Agt er two before'^ and fo will carry the Evidence much higher than the Year 484. Therefore I fhall take fome notice of this, and fhew that in fad it was not thus, as he plaufibly ima- gines. What the Credit of ViB^or'^ Hiftory, as we have it, is, I cannot well tell. I know it has found little Authority 0/ i John 5, 7. ii little with many, in relation of ftrange Miracks, not unlike thofe of Monhjh Legends, viz. of many who cou'd fpeak freely and articulately, when their Tongues had been cat ont hy the Roots ^ and fending his Reader to Confiantmofie^ for an Iriftance to prove it : with other Miracles* But let that be as it will, 1 take it for granted, that he fays true, in the Matter before as ; that in the Creed prefented to Humericus^ this Ttxi was cited as from St. John, But that it bad not been commonly and long received, aad weO known as fuch, 1 think is plain by what the Dodtor cou'd not deny, viz.. That St. Aug^fiint^ Eucheriusy and Cerealis^ of the fame Country, and in the fame Age, knew not of this Texr^ < Eucherius lived within thirty Years of the time when this Creed was prefented ^ and the Do£|or tells us, he fays it was common In his time to interpret the Sprit^ the Water and the Bioed^ of the Father^ Word^ and Sfirit ^ as did Aufitn. Now? if this Text had been receiv'd then^ what place had there been for fuch a myftical Interpretation of the three Witneffes on Earth ? Kay, Cerfdis was one of the African Blfhops at the fame time, probably ^ for he flourilh'd in the time of the Perfecution under Hunnericus'^ and who drew up a Confe iion of Faith alfo, at the Demand of the Arian BiOiop Maximinian ; and had the fame reafon to have made ufe of this Texty as Etdge* nius^ if it had been current, as the Dodor in- fmuates Where then is the SeoAum -unnm ant alterum^ the Age or two befors^ in which ihis Text had been admitted ? I rather think it mnft only have been fome private Compofure, tho it might be in the name of the other Bilhops, who were now fcatter'd and baniih'd. it is figned only a Gafis Medianis Epi/copis Numidi^ ^ Bonifacio Fi- BibKoth, rmanenfiy & Bonifacio Gatienenfi^ Efifcofh Fiz.ace- Pa:ram. B 3 nis. 2 z jfn lnc[my into the tiis. So that it carries the Evidence no higher, than to that time^ and that at the latter end of the fifth Century Ibme pretended this for Text^ which had been only an Interpret atio^i. There remain then only two things of weight to be clear'd : Firftj The pretended Creels Manufcripts. Secondly^ The Teftimonies of Tertuliianj but chiefly of St. Cyprian. FirJ^^ His Greek Manufcripts pretended : Thefe are of three forts. (i.) The BritifJi Copy which Erafmvs f^Q^ks of ^ who not finding ont Greek Copy which had this Paflage, wou'd not put it into his two firft Editions of the New Teftament : but upon in- formation of a Copy in England which had it, did, againft the Faith of all his Copies, after- wards infert it ^ "^ rather, as he confefles, to avoid the Reproach of others, than that he judg'd it to be of fufficient Authority. For which V.Simon thus rebukes him : With what war^ Crit. Hift. y^^f cou*d he correB his Edition by one fingle Copy ; • • which^ as himfclf believ*d^ had fvfferd fome Alte^ ration f And it appears he had reafon to fufpeft it : for who ever faw this Briti^ Copy fince, or that wou'd produce it ? Dr. Mill does not tell us where it was, or that ever he heard more of it. Such rare Difcoveries, fo ufeful and grateful to the Publick, are not wont to be loft again, in fo critical an Age. What ! cannot all the Learned Men of our two Univerfities, nor our * Ex hoc Codice Anglfcano repofulmus, quod in noftris ^X" cebatui- deefTe, nc ilt caufa calumniandi, tametfi fufpicor Co- dfcem ilium ad noftros efle corrcftum, nume^ Authority of iJohn 5,7. 25 numerous Clergy, give us fome account of it ? Surely either there was no fuch Copy, or it is not for the purpofe : elfe it had probably, long before this time, been produced. I am apt to think it did the belt fervice it ever cou'd do, in the Caufe, in thus impofing upon the Great Erafmus. Strange ! that a Brhijh Copy is only to be mention'd by one beyond the Seas, while all Britain^ and fuch an inquifitive Britijh Critick as Dr. Mill^ can know nothing more of it. Fo- reigners will exped to hear of it from us, ra- ther than we from them. F. Simon fays Erafmus faw it : but where does Erafmus fay fo ? He only fays (in his Annotations) There is found one Grtok Jllanufcript among the Englifh, which hath it ^» He needed not then have faid, Sufpicor^ &c, he cou'd, I think, have made a clearer Judgment of it, if he had feen it. And if he was abus'd by Mifin» formation or otherwife, 'tis hard firft to deceive him, and then to make his Miftake an Authority in the cafe. (2.) The Do(^or depends on the Manufcript Copies by which he fuppofes the Cemplutenfian Edition was regulated ; becaufe thefe words are there, and the Editors fay in general, they fol- low'd the belt and moft antient Manufcripts of the Vatican, But as they don't fay, that they were direc- ted by thofe Manufcripts in putting in this Ferfij fo it appears they were not^ becaufe, by the Dodor's own Confeffion, the moft antient and mafi correB Copy of the Vatican^ which is fo juftly extol'd by him, (and comes at leaft very near to the famous Alexandrian Manufcripts in the Royal * Repertus eft apud Anglos Grsecus Codex unus, in quo ha- bctm*. B 4 Library 14 -^'^ Inquiry into the Library here) wants thefe Words which thofe Editors have put in : And how then did they follow it fo clofeiy as is pretended ? Nay, . this excellent Manufcri^t was that which Pope Leo recommended to them, as the Ground- work and Standard of their Edition, to which they were to keep, and to note the Variations of other Copies in their Margin, and which for the moffc part they did ^ and yet in this they forfook it. Prolc|. p^^^ >|.|g jjQ wonder, if they did fo by the refi ^'^° * of the Vatican Manufcripts^ as appears. For Cariofhilus afterwards, having by Order of Pope Vrban VIU. examin'd th^k Vatican Ma- rjufcripts, tells us plainly, that all of 'em which have this Epiftle of St. John^ want this feventh Verfe : tho, out of refped to St. Cyprian^ he was for keeping it in -(-. Of which, Dr. Clarke has given an account, in the place already refer'd to j together with an account of fixteen Manufcripts {eight of 'em in the King of Spain*s Library) collated by the Spanish Marquifs, Peter Faxard (as F. Simon names him) and publifh'd by La Cerda^ in his Adverfaria Sacra^ c. 19. from all which Manufcripts nothing is alledg'd to iuftify their vulvar Ferjion^ in keeping this Ferfe. How then cou d Dr. Mill prefume fo ftrongly that the Complutenfian Editors kept to their Manufcripts Cm. HifV. here ? F. Simon faw the contrary, and fays they par,2» c.^. followed the Reading of the Latin Copies here \ and to vindicate it, have inferted a Note from Aquinas J in the Margin. (3.) He pretends ihQ f even Jl^anufcripts of RO' bert Stephens, to warrant the Words to be ge- nuine. Stephens tells us he made ufe of fifteen Manufcripts in his Edition of the New TeJ^amenty * Ad finem Catenae in Marcum, only Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. if only [even of which he has fet down in the Margin, as wanting fome, at kafl:, of the Words in difpute : hence it was concluded formerly, even by Dr. Mill hirafelf, as well as others, that the other eight wanted nothing, but had the whole, as we have it. To this, the Doctor's rcmarhable Words cited from his Prolegomena^ by Dr. Clarke, are a compleat Anfwer *, (hewing that ^ thofe eight Manufcripts did not include this Epifilc of St. John^ at all ^ and fo were of no concern here. But Dr. i^/// was fenfible of this, in his Dijfertation on the Text, where he fays of thefe eight Manufcripts, Reliqui has EpiftoUs nan exhi" herit. And ;:herefore he urges but the other feven^ which are noted as wanting only hT^^i^v^^ in Heaven, and authorizing the reit ^ The Father^ the Word, and the Spirit^ and thefe three arc One, But as Br. Mill was too judicious not to fee thro this Miftake, in placing a little Mark *, fo he fairly owns his Doubt about it, in his Notes on the Verfe : // indeed the little Hook he placed aright f. For this depends wholly upon placing the Semicircle, which marks the Words that are wanting in fuch Manufcripts, as are noted in the inward Margin. In Stephens^ fair Folio Edition^ this Mark or fmall Hook falls after the words Iv T&f ^^^y? ', as if thefe only were wanting : whereas it fhou'd have been placed after the whole Verfe, as F. Simon obferves (or rather, af- ther the words in Earth, in the eighth Verfe : which, the Dodor owns in his Notes, was the cafe of the moft andbefi Copies ^ and 5/wo« inti- mates the fame in his Remarks upon the Lou" •f* Si quidem Semicirculus fuo loco fit collocatus ; which Lucas Brugenfis had Jaid before, vain 26 \/^n Inquiry into the lain Latin Bible by Hentenius^ which had th^ like Error.) And I wonder the Dodor fhou'd fay upon it, Nefcio qua automate^ necjue dicit fe iftos libros confuluijfe ; or that he had not con- fulted the Copies, when he exprefly faid, he had confulted the Manufcrifts of the King's Library : and I think it was there Stephens found his ^. It appears by Dr. Millh Account in his Prolego^ mena^ that four of thefe feven Manufcripts were^ in the French King^s Library ^ and fince F. Simon Crit. Hift. cou'd find none there, that wanted only the fart 2.C.9. words in Heaven^ nor any one elfe pretends to find fuch elfewhere, I may fafely conclude 'twas a Miftake in placing the Mark in Stephens^ which the Dodor was willing to take hold of. And the fame Stephens^ in his Latin Edition of the Kew Teftament, (as V. Simon tells us, Crit. Hift. fart 2. c II. and as I have feen) included the whole Paffage within the Mark, bo that I think the Cafe is plain, that all Stefhens\ Manufcripts wanted this Verfe. 'Tis probable he put it into his own Edition, from the Complutenjian^ and we from his into ours '-i (fo one Error begets another, by prefum- ing too well of the Care and Faithfulnefs of fuch as went before) for the Dodor tells us, Stephens govern'd himfelf by the beft Manufcripts : but Prolcg. then he fays, He always judged thofe to be befi /. ii7» which agreed with the Complutenlian. Elfe it would be very ftrange, that all Stephens^sMmu- fcripts fhou'd differ from all them of Erafmus and Simon^ and others j as they muft, if only tvTT^ie^v^ were wanting. And whereas the Dodor lays a ftrefs on Stephens^s faying he departed not one Letter from Regia Bibliotheca fuppeditavlt. Proleg, p* 117, the Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 27 the heft and moft of his Copies 'j* ^ I would ask then^ how he came to put in the kv tJ «^«r«, in Hea-^ ven^ when every one of his [even Manufcripts wanted 'em ? 'Tis plain Criticks are not always to be trufted in what they fay of their own Fidelity : the Dodor was right, in inferring that it ought to have been as he faid, but 'tis plain ia fad it was not fo. Thus having examined all hi^ Pretences to the Greek Manufcripts^ I think it nilly appears there is not fo much as one found to authorize this Paflage, nor one antient Ferfwn^ made from the Greek \ and for others, they are not of value in the cafe. Indeed the Dodor has dealt more fairly than our common unaccurate Commenta.'- tors \ who, without any Examination, talk round- ly of many^ the molt antient and the beft Copies, which have thefe Words, not knowing what they fay: whereas he pretends but to fexv^ and ra- ther fuppofes and hopes, from fome Hints in others, that they had fuch Copies, than knows of any himfelf. Let me clofe this Head, with the very perti- nent Remark of the moft Learned Phileleutherus, Part u again ft the Difcourfe of FrecThinking : The pre- fent Text was fir f^ fettled almoft 200 Tears ago^ out of fever al ManufcriftSy by Robert Stephens, Printer and Bookfeller at Paris j whofe beautiful and gene^ rally freaking (it feems, not in all points) accu-^ rate Edition^ has been ever fince counted the Stan^ dardj and followed by all the reft-. Now this fpeci" fick Text in your Do(for^s (Whitby'jJ Notion^ feems taken for the Sacred Original in every Word \ Ne in una liteu difceiTerlt a meliorum 5c plurium codi* cum fuffragfo. " " and Jn Inquiry into the and Syllable ^ and if the Conceit is hut /pre ad and propagated^ within a few Tears that Printer^ s Infal^ Itbiiity will be as z,ealouJly maintain dy as an Evan* gelift's or ApoftWs. Dr. Mill, were he now alive j wou*d confefs that this Text, fixed by a Printer^ is fometimes by the various Readings rendered uncertain^ nay^ is proved certainly wrong ^ but that the real Text lies not in any fngle Manufcrift or Edition^ but is difperfed in them all. i now come to the fecond Head of his Argu- ments, viz,, from antient Tefiimoniesoi the Latin Writers, TertulUan and Cyprian. As for Tertuilian^ in the Words already fet down, he had only faid, fpeaking of the Father^ Sony and Spirit ^ thefe Three are One ^ and ^tis writ- teny the Father and I are One. But the former of thefe he fays from himfelf^ not as any part of Scripture^ as he fays the nexr words are. And in- deed he needed not to have cited thefe latter Words at all, if the former had been of the fame Authority \ for they had been fufficient, whereas the latter Words were not to his purpofe for proving the Floly Spirit's Unity with the Father and Son. Only not having a Text for the Unity of all the Threey he was willing to alledge thefe Words for the Two as a Step to the other. Kor can it be thought, but that in fo volumi- nous a Writer we muft have had that Text many times over, on feveral proper Occafions, if he had known it as fuch. He repeats John lo. 30. / and the Father are one^ very frequently, even five times in a few Pages in his Book contra Praxe-^ am^ and again contra Hermog. and de Oratione, VVhereas this pretended Text^ fo much more for his purpofe, he omits: which could hardly have been, if he had taken it to be of as good Autho- lity [Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 29 rity as the other Text. And therefore Dr. Mili had reafon to urge it but foftly, faying. Dr. Bull and "Dv* Hammond put ant fe allu/ijfe^ fuppofe that he might allude to the Words of St. John : which is but a Conjedure, inftead of a Proof. So that St. Cyprian is left alone to bear the weight of all. And indeed 'tis eafy to fee theDodtor's chief Confidence is in his Teftimony, (with a little help from TertvlUan^ whom he owns to be not fo clear) infomuch that he fays, This is Evi^ dence enough of the Words being authentick^ tho none of the Greek Writers ever faw them^ and tho they never appeared in any Copy to this day. It feems then 'tis to no purpofe to withftand this Evidence -, or rather it feems, having nothing elfe to trult to, the Doftor was refolv'd this mufi and (hall do thebufinefs. Cyprianh Words are, Of the Father., Son., and '^^ ^^m'- Holy Spirit^ it is written^ Thefe Three are One ^ (the"^^^^' Other Teftimony, in Epifi. ad Jubaianum^ is but '^ ^ ^^* like Tertullianh fuppofed Allufion to the Text, and may have the fame Anfwer.) Upon thefe Words the Queftion is. Whether Cyprian refers to the feventh Ferfe in difpute, or to the eighth^ by a myftical Interpretation of the Water^ the Blood., and the Spirit^ as fignifying the Father., the Son., and the Spirit ? Father Simon is out of doubt for Cm. Hift. this latter, and brings aftrong Proof of it from*^- *^- the Words of Facundus., who was of the fame African Churchy in the fifth Century \ and who not only himfelf£o interprets the Words of the eighth f^erfe^ but exprefly adds, that St. Cyprian fo'ua- derilood them too, in this very place. Says he, ■^ Of the Father J Son., and Holy Spirit^ he (St. John) fays * De Patre, Filio, 6c Spiritu Sando, dicit tres funt qui tefti- moniura dant in terra, Spiritus, Aqua, §c Sanguis, 6c hi tres unum 2 o Ai Inquiry into the fays there are Three that bear wltnefs on Earthy the Sprite the Water ^ and the Blood j and thefe Three are One : by the Spirit^ fi^^^fj^^^ ^^^ Father^ by the Water^ the Holy Ghofij and by the Bloody the Son, Which Words of ]o\[x\ the ApoflUy St. Cyprian the Martyr^ in his Book of the Trinity^ (Vnity it (hould be, as Simon obferves) conceives to be fpoken of the Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit. And tho Dr. Mill would make light of this Teftimony, 'tis without all Reafon, and from mere Necellity: fince this will overturn all he had to fay from the Latin Fathers, What Facmdus fays, is fo far from being im- probable, that the Dodor himfelf owns St. Auf- tin^ who was of the fame African Churchy did make the fame Interpretation afterwards*, and after him, Eucherim declares it was a commoa Expofition of thofe Words : and then why might it not be Cyprian^s ? Does not Facundm exprelly fay it ? Does he tell an unlikely Story ? Why is it then levi^ momenti ? Truly the Doftor thinks none, till St. Auflin^ made this myftical Inter- pretation, and therefore not St. Cyprian, But why might not Cyprian begin it as well as Auflin? Facundus tells us, he did interpret fo, and it does not appear that he had any other fuch Words to apply to the Trinity, but thefe. Is it not as good an Argument againft the Dodor, to fay that Cy- prian did not cite thQ feventh Verfe in difpute, be- caufe that Verfe never appear'd in any Writer till thQ fifth Centvry J as his is, viz.. That Cyprian did not unum funt ; in Spiritu fignlficans Patrem, in Aqua Spiritum Sandum, in Sanguine vero Filium fignificans. — — — Quod Joannis Apoftoli Teftimonium l^eatus Cyprianus in Epiftola five libro quern de Tiinitate (de Ijnitate rather) fcripfitj de Patre, Filio, & Spiritu SandOj didum intelligit. lacmdm pro Defenfi Jrin, Cap, 1. i, c. 2^ ;: fo Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. ^ i fo interpret, becaufe that Interpretation appears not till the fifth Century ? Only I can prove my Aflertion by a proper pofitive Teftiraony, that Cyprian did ufe f^/^ Interpretation ; whereas he had none to prove that St. Cyprian met with a fpecial Copy of St. Johns EpiftU^ which had that Verfe. 'Tis true indeed, he alledges for the other fide FulgentiHs^ Contemporary with Facundta^ laying, * St. John teftifies there are three that bear witnefs in Heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and Spirit '-, and thefe Three are One : which alfo St. Cyprian, in his Epifile of the Vnity of the Churchy confejfes \ alledging from the ScriptureSy that of the Father ^ Son^ and Holy Spirit^ ^tis written^ And Three are One. But as Facundus is as good an Evidence as he^ and more particular, fo even this does not contradid Facundus. For Fulgentim and he both fay the fame thing, viz,. that Cyprian confejfed St. JohnV Teft-imony of the Father^ Son^ and Spirit^ thefe Three are One* Only Facundus tells us, that he took this Teftimon/ from the eighth Verfe^ and Fulgent ius does not fay it was otherwife '•, and therefore there is no reafoa to oppofe* himXo Facundus. Cyprian might owa the fame thing as is now contain'd in the feventh Verfe^ tho he deduc'd it from the eighth : He that fuppofedthe Spirit^ the Water^ and thQ Bloody in St. Johnj to mean the Father^ the Son^ and the Spirit^ as much confejfed this Dodrine, and from St. John too ', as if he had found the very * Fulg. cont. Arianos, fuh finem. Beatus Joannes teftamr, dicens, Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus \ 6c tres unum funt. Quod etiam B. M. Cyprianus in Epiftola de Unitate Ecclefia; contitetur, dicens — - *— de Patre, Filio, & Spiiitu Sandto fcripiain ell, & tres unum funt. Words 2 1 ^n IrKjulry Into the Words Father^ Son, and Spirit^ in the Text* And this is all which Fulgentius himfelf^ fays of him. Keither of them fays that Cyprian found in St. John, the Father, Son, and Spirit, beiides the three WitnefFes in the eighth Ferfe. No, it was there he thought he might find the Father, Son^ and Spirit, myftically reprefented. And 1 ob« ferve two things to confirm it. 1 . Fulgcmius fpeaks of it as a remarkable Con- cejfion in St. Cyprian, Quod etiam B» Cyprianus con* fitetur, which alfo St. Cyprian confejfes. ConfeffeS what ? that St. John had thofe Words, the Fa- ther, Word, and Spirit, and thefe Three are One? Was that fuch an Acknowledgment, if he found it in his Epifile ? No, but he acknowledg'd the Father, Son, and Spirit to be one^ out of St. John^ by a niyftical Interpretation of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, which are one* This indeed was fomewhat far-fetch'd, and not fo clear a Point, but St. Cyprian's confejfwg it might give it fome credit*, but it could give none to an un- doubted Text of St. John, to fay Cyprian acknow- ledged it to be true, i will not fay the Dodtor had any Defign in it, but 1 find in reciting the words, he has happen'd to change the confitetur into the more convenient Word, conteftatur. 2. I obferve Cyfrians words are not the exad Words pretended to be found in St. John ; for Cyprian fays, Father, Son, ('not the Word) and Spirit, Kow tho the fame Perfon may be intend- ed by both words, yet 'tis plain there could be but one of them in the Text. And therefore, if our prefent primed Text be right, Cyprian had no fuch Copy, or elfe he did not keep ftrid^ly to it t and if he did not cite the words exaElly, only the Senfe of them as an Interpreter *, then in fuch a loofe way of fpeaking it might well be, as Facun- dus fays it was, viz.. his Senfe of the eighth Ferfe. ^ So Authority of i John ^.y^. 35 So that the Dodtor was too forward in faying that Cyprian could not have cited the Words of St. John (as we have them) more exa^ly^ if he had them before his eyes. Let the Interpretation be ever fo forced, that is nothing, fo ic was ^ and there are enough as /?r4A7^f Interpretations of Texts in the Fathers and in St. Cyprian himfelf, to fatisfy us this is no good Evidence it was not his*. And why may not Cyprian father a weak Interpretation as well as i St. Auftin ? JSIor was it unufual with Cyprian to cite Scripture more by ^/i 5f«/t of it, than by the ftridt Letter of the Text. Thus, inftead of Ltad Cypr. de us not into Temptation^ he cites it, Suff'er its not ^''^^* to be led, &c. Again, he cites Rev. ip. 10. Wox-^'"'^'''^' Jhip thou, the Lord Jefus, inftead of worjhip thou Cypr. de God, Will any fay, upon this, that he found a Bono Pa- particular Copy which had thefe Readings ? No "cnrix, furely, but rather that it vf as Cyprian's Expofi- ^' ^^* tion of the true Reading in all the Copies. Even fo, I doubt not, his words, the Father^ the Son^ and Spirit, thefe Three are One, was his Senfe of the eighth Verfe of St. "Johns fifth Chapter. I fhall conclude this with Mr. Dm Tins Judgment upon the Cafe: '7/j not then, fays he, abfolutely^'^^-^^ certain, that Cyprian hath quoted the feventh Ferfe ^^^ ^^' ofSt.]oWs Epiftle, And Father Simon's^, vjUo^^'Y fays, Wsout of doubt that he hath not. Tho 'tis crit. Hift. probable this Miftake of Cyprian's words led fome N.T. part following African Writers iato tlie Opinion that i* f* ^^* St, John had fa id them exprejly, Ajid thus I have fairly accounted for St. Cypri^- 4»S -Words, without the Suppofition of his ha- ving a T/^mW Copy to himfelf. And then I think there is not one tolerable Pretence left of any an^ » See Dr. Whitby 'DiiTert. de S. Script. Interpretau C tic Tit 2 A Jn lnc[uiYy into the tient Authority. Now it remains that we fee how the Dodor accounts for the Difficulties that lie A(rainft him \ from all the Greek Copes and Fa^ jfcfrf before and after Cyprian^ who knew nothing oithis Text: how then had Cyfrian fuch a parti- cular Copy above all others ? Does the Dodor clear himfelf ^ fairly of this, as we have of his Objeaion from Cyfrianh Words ? He puts very proper Queries here : If thefe \ Words ■I'^ere in St. John'j Original ^ hvw comes it to pafs that for three Ages following^ the Greek Fathers had it not in their Copies ? How came Cyprian, an African, to know itj when it was unknown to Irenseus, who was a very curious Inquirer into all Learnings (which IS Tertullians Charader of him ^) and who conversed with Polycarp, the Dffciple of St. John himfelf? But in Anfwer to thefe Queries, he is forced to frame many unreafonable Suppofitions : he knows not which way If was^ but he can ima- gine how poffibly it might have heen^ and then feems to believe it was fo. Let us hear his own ^Account, If we ask how came thefe Words to be out of all the known Greek Copies f he anfwers, By mere Chance^ and Carelejfnejs of the Tranfcriber^ who cafi his eye upon the word fAetpTvp^y%iy or Witnefs, in the ei'^hth Verfe^ infiead of the fame Word in the /t«tfTi;fM6^, or Witnefs, and all the words between th cm both. And then by reafon of Fepfecution Chrif" tians were in hafte^ and fiaid not to revife the Tranf- cript^ nor to compare with one-another^s Copies^ which were hut feWf becaufe of the Fains and Expences of tranj cribing : and the Original being at a difiance * < Cuiiollflimus omnium doitrinarum explorator, Irenaeus. Ttrtu L ient, Vaknt. from Authority 0/ i John 5. 7.' jj from them when differs* d^ they could not examine by that' I grant, Miftakes of this kind have happen'd to Tranfcribers, where c,uo/o75AgJ/<*» Words of the fame endings or the fame Words have often oc- curr'd : but that it was not fo here, is plain, be- caufe the Tranfcriber had then raken the next Words to the fecond ^la^TVfhlii, which are, t^rf^f, in Earth : whereas the Dodor confefles thefe words were wanting alfo. This he was aware of, and therefore fupfofes once more^ that the Words in Earth might be in ihQ firfi Tranfcript^ but that the next time it was tranfcrib'd, or foon after, it was thought thofe Words were fuferfluousj and fo were left or dajh^d out ^ : and then Copies were taken by other Churches, and fo they fpread abroad thro Greece, Egypt, d-c. And this is the reafon that the antient Verftons and Writers knew nothing of this Text^ becaufe there were none but thefe maimed Copies among all the Greek Churches *f". But in procefs of time, he thinks, fome correcl Co* pies which lay hid in Alia (where t\it Original was) or fome other PartSy fome way or Other got into Africa, which TertulUan and Cyprian faw ; And the Times being troublefome^ few Copies only were taken for the ufe of the African Churches^ where they feem to have continued ^ and about lOQ Tears after they became common^ elfe the African Bijhops would not have alledged thefe Words in a Confeffion of Faith ^ if they had not been in their common Copies^ and in the Body of St. John'j Epiftle^ more than one or two Centuries, And about 250 Tears after Cyprian, * Curato hoc uno, ut verba Iv rf y? tanqaum fuperfitia dele- rentur. \ Nullum omnino codicem Ecdefiis Grascis in ufu fuifle cre- do, mil ^lii jtd muulacos, quos dicimus, defcriptus iic. C 2 the 26 An Imiuiry into the the fpurious Author of the Diffutation^ faljly afcrih'd to Athanafius, perhaps might meet with a perfeEi Greek Copy : And then all was fet right. And fo we have his Anfwer to another Queflion^ viz. How the true Copy at laft came to light again ? I believe thi^ Account will fatisfy very few : if any Man (hould trace hi;s Pedegree after this man- ner, through fuch a train of wild Sufpofitions^ and improbable Imaginations of this and the other bare Pojfibility^ I fear he would ftill pafs for a fpuriom Pretender* And yn all this the Judicious Dr. Mill could fcem to believe, rather than this one Suppofition^ which is alfo well attefiedj That Sr. Cyprians Words were his Interpretation of the eighth Ferfe : for allo^y but this, and there was no need of racking his Invention at this rate. And Til appeal to Men of Candor, which of the two is more probable j that all thefe Suppv fitions Ihould happen, or that Facundus (hould fay true: efpecially when thefe few Remarks on the Dodtor's imaginary Account, fhall be duly con- fidered. I. Why fhould he fuppofe, they who were at the Pains or Expence, and had leifure of tranfcri- bing, would not be at a very little more, to re- view and examine their Tranfcripts ? which is fo natural and ufual, in matters of much lefs mo- ment than what concerns the Interefts of another Life, which to the primitive Chriftians were very dear. While they had the Original in their hands, it waseafy to be done. Surely they were not fo carelefs as the DoOor makes them to be : it appears what Senfe they had in early times, of the neceflity of comparing fuch Tranfcripts with the Originals^ by 7yfW4;ttJ ', to whofe Writings this fo I emn Mju^ ration is anncx'd : Adjure te per Dominum Jefum^ vt Qonferas poflquam tranfcripferis^ &c. / adjure thee Authority 0/ i John 5, 7. 37 thee who flj all tranfcribe this Book^ hy the Lord Jefus Chrifi^ and by his glorious Appearance to judge the Ovick and the Dead^ that thou compare after thou hafi tranfcriPdj and amend it by the Original very carefully- To which parpofe Sr. Johns Words, Rev. 11, 18, 19. are probably to be underftood, as a Terror to all negligent and deceitful Tran^ fcribers of his Booh, But the Z)^^(7r pretends the Perfecution of the ChrifiianSy and their not daring to ajfemble but in the Nighty might hinder them : So far were they from having lei fur e to rexnew their Books ^ that they could not ajfemble but before day ^. As if this hin- der'd them from examining or comparing their Copies at home. Mult they needs do it in a pub- lick Aflembly ? Rather, was it not much better .to be done \n private i Therefore the X>oJ?or has another Imagination to help it out ; and that is, that Chriftians were in fuch eager hafte to catch the [acred Copies^ that they carry^d them off as they were f . As if, after fo much Pains or Expence for a Copy^ they would not take care to have it right. Befides, if the Defire was fo great^ then we may conclude the Tranfcripts were very many^ of io Ihort an Epiftle- And iince all the Transcribers could not make thQ fame Miftake^ nor many of them, I ask, 2. Why muft only this one defeElive Copy be carry'd away into remote Countries, to become the fruitful Parent of all the Copies in the World that we can find \ and all the others ftay behind, or never be heard of more ? Is this likely i Were not the Pofleflbrs of the other Copies (which * Adeo non vacabant recenfioni librorum, ut ne quidem con- ycnire iis Hcuerit nifi ante lucem. f Libri cum primum exarati, avidifllme ^ Chriftianis ar- repti fmt, & in varias regiones diftradli, C 3 he ^8 An Inquiry Into the he fuppofes there were) as much perfecuted and fcatter'd as the PoffeiTor of this one faulty Cofy ? And if they brought away theirs^ furely there would have been fome more and better figns of them than what is pretended from Cypriar?. 3. Had not the Chriftians of that time often heard St, John's Epi file read to them, before they had it tranfcrib'd, as well as after ? This was the conftant PratSice of rk/V Affemblies, to read fome part of the Gofpels and thQ Jpofiles Wtitings^ as Jvftin Martyr and Terttillian tell us in their Apo- logies : which the Apoflle Paul expefted, and fometimes requir'd to be done ^ Col. 4. 16, i Theffi 5. 27. Therefore if there had been an Omijfton in the Tranfcript, would not fome or other ealily have mifs^d lb memorable a Faflage as this Text contains ? 'Tis fo lingular and remarkable, that the OmilTion could fcarcely be unobferv'd, when, they came to read it over again, 4. Why fhould he fuppofe again (to back his former hard Su^Y^oCition) tlmtSLny Chrifiians wovi*d fo evilly treat the Sacred Scriptures, as to firih out the Words in Earth-y for feeming to be fuperflu- ous f .Had they fo little Reverence for thefe Sa- cred Records, as to dafli out what they liked not ? And yet with thofe Words the Senfe and Context zx^ no way diflurb^d: there are an hundred Texts which contain Words more feemingly needlefs, and more hard to be accounted for, and which may as well be fpared, if we make our own Fan- cy the judge, as thefe Words^ which have indeed no Difficulty at all in them'^ and yet lam well fatisfy'd thofe Chriftians never would, nor did prefiime to dafh them out of their Copies, upon this flight Pretence, That they were fuperfluous, 5. Doth Cyprianj after all, fay one word of any fuch things as his having had a better Copy than the reft of the Churches had ? Not a word , ancl yet Authority 0/ i John 5. 7* 39 yet one would think he fhould not wholly for- bear Caking fome notice of fo happy an Event. Or do any after him fay they found fuch a cor red Copy, or that ever they underftood he had one ? And what became of this valuable TVc^/ttre, after it had got into thefe fafe Hands ? For, 6, How came it that St. Auflin^ fo long after him^ in a neighbouring Church, knew nothing oithis matter ^ And that in his Difputes with the uiriansy none fhould let him know what might have been fo ferviceable to him f In fuch times ot eager Contefts, it muft ha\:e foon/on7» about into the Neighbourhood, when adjacent Bifijops fo frequently met and confer'd ^ and the rather^ bc- caufe Cypriarjy and others after him, muft know that other Copiss^ were defe(flive in this place, and therefore it concern'd them to fend Intelligence to all round about them, how the true Text ftood : and yet the Dodor grants that St, Au(l:in knevi} not of it. And therefore I think it very apparent there was no fuch thing as Cyprian^s having /wc^ a Copy, notwithftanding the Dodor could fay certijfimum efi^ upon no manner of Evidence but his ufing thofe Expreffions which are already other- wife accounted for^ and of which Mr. Vu Pin fays, V/j not certain that St» Cyprian quoted St^ John'j Words ^ and Father Simon^ that without doubt he did not. By thefe things it appears, that Dr. Mill not only could not give any true Account, how it really came to pafs that all the CTr^t^ iManufcripts and Writers (hould be ignorant of this Ferfe^ and yet Cyprian recover it from the Original *, but that fetting his Imagination to work, he could not fo much as invent or contrive a way, how it could pojfibly be done, with any tolerable Shew of Probability, or Confillency of Gircumllaaces, C 4 Since 40 Jn hquiry into the Since therefore he has made fuch a furfrizing Conclufion in favour of this Text^ fo anfuitable to his Fremifes^ and againit all the Rules of Criticifm \ in preferring one Copy to all the Copies befides \ one Father to all the Fathers : nay rather, with- out one Copy, rejeding all the Manufcript Co- pies ^ and fetting one fuppofedj at belt but dubious^ Teftiroony of one or two Fathers, againft all the certain Evidences from all the Copies and all the Fathers for near <^oo rears: 1 fay, fince'tis thus, 1 cannot wonder at the Remark made by the fa- mous Le Clerc upon the DoEiors great Candor and Juftice in dating the Evidence, and his ftrange ' Caution in concluding againft it \ in the Preface to Kufterh Edition : * If Dr, Mill (fays he in relation to this Text) hath not toncluded here like a judicious Critick^ yet certainly he hath fhown himfelf to he a ^ candid and ingenuous Man^in producing the Arguments which ejfeclually overturn his own Opinion : nor would I impute this to his want of Judgment, in not yielding to the Force of fuch Arguments, fo much as to the Prejudice of a fort of Men, who are wont fpite fully to reproach thofe who freely own the Truth ', as if they favoured I know not what Herefies, merely hecaufe they will not argue againft ^em from corrupted Texts, Truly the heft Men are fometimes under a necejfity of giving way to the frowardy which we muft forgive* ^ Si aciuum Criticum hie fe minime praeftitit Millius, at certe ingenuum 8< candidum virum fe oftendit, in proferendis rationi- bus, quibus fententia, quam ipfe amplexus eft, evertftur. Nee turn ejus judicio afcripferim, quod rationum pondere fe permo- veri nonf paflus fit, quam iis qui libera vecitatem profeltbs ma- ligne infamare fo!cnr, quafi haerefibus nefcio quibus faverenf, quia nolunt eas depravatis locis oppugnarr. Scilicet, optimi qui- que viri Fadb'ofis nonnihil concedere necefle fxpe habent, quod facile ignofcimus, Clerki Efiji* de Editione M'illiana. And Authority 0/ i John 5. 7. 41 And yet at the fame time I willingly confent, that his great Learnings his indefatigable Labour^ ^//accurate Judgment-^ and worthy Defign^ in this noble Undertaking, fhall not fail to perpetuate his high Efteem, and very honourable Remem- brance to remotefi Ages. Kor indeed is his Judg- ment given in this point, but with the Modefl;y of one ready, M'^ovi better Information^ to alter it; which he feems to fufped there might be ground for, in the Clofe oihis Differtation ^, BUT whatever Reflraints Dr. Mlll^ in his private Capacity, might lie under, from dtclaring his Mind more ofenly^ they affed not your Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy in Convocn" tion J whom, with all the Refped due to fo rene^ rable a Body, and with the Humility of aSuppli^ cant^ I befeech to corffider of this matter, as in the fight of God'y whether here be not fufficient Evi- dence that this Text either certainly^ or at leafl: very probably^ never was originally in the Holy Writings of St, John, but unwarrantably thruft in in later times. And if fo, whether from the confcientious Regards ^o« bear to the facred Scrip- tures, they ought not to be puig'd of all fuch injurious Additions. In order to which, permit roe, I pray, without t\{t\t2L^ AffeEhation of being your Monitory or the Arrogance of an alTuming Z)/- re^or, humbly to befpeak your very ferious Thoughts upon thefe foWomag Confiderations* * Meliora, fi quid melius certiufque dcderit longior dies, dif- «ere parato. 4- I, Whe- A I An Inquiry into the 1. Whether /«6;? Evidence, as is brought a- gainft this Fcrfe before a?, wou'd not be jodg'd by you fufficient againit any PafTage in any CUf" fck Anthor whatever? Wou'd notfucha Paflage prefently be pronounc'd fpurwus^ and be brought under a Deleatur by the unanimous Voice of the Critich^ when they had no concern in it, but to judge what is true and genuine, and what not ? Kay, would a Court of Judicature allow any Pa- ragraph to be good, in a Writing of confequence, for which no more, and againfi which fo much can be fairly faid ? And will not the /^r/ae Sincerity and Impartiality well become us in this^ which we can not only well juftify, but commend in the Examination of ether Writings ? Shall we prefs Men to take that for Evidence here^ which will pafs no where elfe ? 2. Whether an awful Regard to that dread- ful Anathema^ or Denunciation left on Record by St. Johuj Rev. 22. 18. againit all who add toj or dimi?jifj from his Writings, will permit you to be unconcern'd in the matter before you 1 It cannot be fuppos'd that thofe Words Ihou'd not, at leaft by Parity of Reafon, concern hii other Writings, as well as the Revelation \ efpecially when we remember how general the Precept was, not to add nor to dimimjh^ Deut. 4. 2. Trov, 30. 6. The Threatning is very fevere: God Jhall add ta him the Plagues that are written in this Booh^ are words of fo much terrour^ as will fufficiently juftify your Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy'' s utmoft Caution to avoid 'em ^ whatever more carelefs People may think or fay. Whether the keeping in an unjaft Addition to the Word of God, when 'tis our part and in otir power to rec- tify it, comes, or not, within the Prohibition^ none concern'd can think below their fober Con-? fideration. It might perhaps (omc in with lefs guilt Authority 0/ i John 5. 7, 45 guilt thro Ignorance, than it can be heft in^ whea the Fault is difcover'd. The Oracles of God are a Sacred Depo/itum lodg'd with the Church ^ Rom. 3. 2. Te? them are committed the Oracles of God', in this truft furelf, that they be kept inviolable, and be tranfmitted to Pofterity pure and clean from all known ktdtnan jidditions \ whofe Authority is fo infinitely in- ferior to th^lVords of God, that they ought not knowingly to be intermix'd therewith: efpeci- ally by thofe who are the Stewards of the Myfte- ties of God, and who exped that others fhou'd feek the Law at their Mouths \ of whom 'm re* cpiird that they he found faithful* Our twentieth Article tells us, The Church is the Witnefs and Keeper of Holy Writ : and there- fore mull not bear either falfe or vncertain wit^ nefs in fo folemn a matter, as to fay that is Holy Writ, which fhe has the greateft reaibn to judge is not fuch, 'Tis a difmal thing to have it faid to your Flocks, Thus faith the Lord, when the Lord hath not fpoken it : and a hard task it is on him that reads this in the Church for St. John\ Words, who doth not believe it to be fuch^ 3, Whether the Honour and Intereft of our Holy Religion will not be hettcr fervM by dif^ owning ingenuoufly what we find to be an Error^ even tho it have long pafs'd as current as Truth ? Weak People, I confefs, may be apt to cry out 1 of Innovation (as upon all forts of Reformation) That Religiou is fuhverted, that all is uncertain, &c. Archbifhop ^ Laud once made th:: fad Complaint .- When Errors are grown by Age and Continuance to ftrength, they which fpeak for the Truth, tho it be far older, are ordinarily challenged for the Bring ers" f Preface againfi Fifher* in 44 ^^ Inquiry into the in of new Opinions : and there is no greater Ahfur* dity ftirring this day in Chriftendom, &c. This indeed may grieve a good Man^ but muft Truth and Piety therefore be facrific'd to the Ignorance and Terverfenefs of Men ? Muft we then prophejy to them fmooth things^ only becaufe they love to have it fo ^ and not acquaint 'em with their Er- rorsy becaufe they'll murmur againft us? I re- member St. Paul once made fome of his Friends to become his Enemies ^ by telling ^em the Truthy Gal. 4. \6. God forbid that any of his Supceffors Ihou'd be fo difcourag'd by it, as not to tell the trvth^ for fear of making Men their Enemies. If fo, we lliou'd appear to take more care of our felves^ than of the Imerefts of Chriji-^ and his Re- ligion. Pardon me, if I fpeak with humble Freedom, what I think not of without real Griefs that this falfe Notion of Peace has often well nigh ruin'd Religion. Chviftianity had never come in, if our Bleffed Mafter had ftifled the Truth for fear of difquieting the Family, by dividing the Father againft the Son^ and the Mother againft the Daugh" ter^ Luke 12. 51, 52, 53. This Political Wif- dom, which is firft peaceable, and then^ or never-i is pure \ is juft the Reverfe of that Wifdom from abcve^ which is firfi pure. Jf it be pojfihle we mufi live peaceably with all Men ^ Rom. 12. 18. but, we can do nothing againft the Truth^ fays the fame Apoftle, 2 Or. 13. 8- 'iiJ)jvATov muft give place to « AfVetiJii^ct,' For true Religion is never more in credit, than when her Votaries, and efpecially her Guides and Teachers, who minifter in her Holy Offices, deal fincerely and openly in things appertaining to God : Not walking in Craftinefs, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully^ but by Manifeftation of the Truth commending themfelves to every Mans Confcieme J'uthority 0/ i John 5. 7, 4j Confcience in the fight of God. Not by putting falfe colours upon what they know they cannot juftify, or feeking to deceive Men in Sacred Mat- ters i which being once difcover'd, weak Minds are apt to think the worfe of Religion, for what is none of her fault, but is aded in a plain Viola- tion of her Laws. Nothing will tend more to harden Vnbellevers in their unjvft Sufpicions and Reproaches, than to fee that no Amendment can be obtain'd upon the moft manifefi difcovery of an Error ; but that right or wrongs their Teachers and Guides will continue with refolution, what they find came in by Miftake. What will it avail for honeft Men to ftudy and inquire after Trvth^ when convincing Men will not make 'em reform? As if Refor- mation was fuch an unreafonahle thing, that it were better to continue our Faults, when they can't be forfaken with a general Approbation. In the Cafe before you, 'tis too /^r^ to conceal the Evidence againfi the Text 1 have treated of: it has been long obfervM, oft objeded, and much needs Satisfadion. And if your Lordfhips and the Reverend Clergy fhall pleafe to inftrud us, by better Evidence^ that there is no wrong done to the Text of St. John \ or, being convinc'd that there is^ fhall hereupon promote a jult Altera- tion of this in our printed Books, according to all the Greek Manufcripts^ that fo your People may fee that, at leaft, yo^i take it for dovbtful \ will not this upright Method fliew to the World that you are fair and ingenuous beyond exception, and that you feek after Truth in the Love of it ? This (hall convince them that you are thch faith- ful Guides^ which will enable you, in a very ferious and not far diftant Hour, with St. Paul^ rich and happy in the inefttmable Treafures of a good Confcience, to make that triumphant Boaft, That 46 \/{n Inquiry into the That with Simflicity and godly Sincerity^ and not toith fiejJjiy^ or worldly, Wifdom^ by the Grace of Cod, you have a5led towards the World^ and towards your Flocks* 1 think I may fafely add, that what I propofe^ will greatly filence the Cavils of the Anti-Scrip' turifisj when they objed th^ different Readings id the feveral Copies of the New Tefiament, To which 'tis a very good Anfwer^ that thefe Diffe- rences are only in Circumfiances^ or in matters of very little confequence to Religion^ and which 'tis morally impofTible Ihou'd be otherwife, in a Book fo oft tranfcrib'd, and in fo long a Trad of Time. In other Inftances 'tis truly fo ; the Differences are very fmall, as Dr. MilPs CoUedion of the various Readings doth abundantly fhew* But wou'd not this Anfwer be fomewhat clearer and ftronger^ if juftice were done to the Text in the Point I have argu'd? I know not one In fiance which interferes with the aboyefaid An^ fwer fo much as this. How Ihall we fay that this Text is of fmall confequence in Religion, which is fo oft alledg'd by Preachers and Writers, as of eminent force in proof a Fundamental Ar- ticle of Chriftianity? Is it not pity we fhou'd needlejly leave 'em fuch an unjuft Pretence ? Were it not better to cut off all Occafion, from them who feek Occafion to cenfure the Holy Scrip- tures^ when we can fo truly and juftly jdo it ? becaufe there really is no difference in the Greek Copies, but all of 'em agree in wanting this Verfe\ fo that the Objedion appears flronger than it isy or than it ought to appear, 4. Doth not the fixth Article of our Church exclude this Ferfe from being a part of thofe Holy Scriptures which Jfe^ receives? for /^ tells us, that by the Scripture fhe underftands thofe Cano- meal Books of the Old and New Teftament^ ofwhafc 4- Authority Authority 0/ i John 5. 7.' 47 jiuthority was nevtr an) doubt in the Church] Is not the Cafe the fame with any fart of thofe Books ? And will any venture to fay there «f- ver was^ or that at prefent there is not very great ttoubt of this Verfe in the Church ? Whereas if there be any doubt for it^ 'tis the utmolt that can be made of Dr. MUl\ Dijftrtation, 5. Whether in our grimed Bibles fome Words are not quite omitted, or by a fmaller CharaBer vifibly diftinguifh'd, as doubtful, for vohich there is far greater Authority, than for thefe under confideration? Nay, this is done in this very Eflfiit of St. "fohn^ ch. 2. v. 23. Dr. Mill has fhown that thofe Words, He that acknowledges the Son^ hath the Father alfo ^ are in fevers! va- luable Copies^ and antient f^erfions^ and in the Fathers^ even in St, Cyprian too : and yet not being in many other Copies, the Wifdom of the Church hath mark'd ^em for dubious^ to (hew how cau- tious (he was there^ not to put wrong or uncer'* tain Scriptiue upon her Members. Yet here is a Text in the fame Epifile^ which has not one quarter^ nay, i think I may truly fay, has not any of that Authority for it ^ and which was once in the fame cafe, diftinguilh'd by fmaller CharaBers^ as of lefs certain x\uthority, from the beginning of the Reformation : and now the for?ner Caution is withdrawn, this is advanc'd into the Rank of undoubted Textj whereas the other is left as it was. Which^ however, ferves to fhew us, what we may fairly expeft in reafon flwud be done, by fuch a Text as has nothings even of that leffer Evidence, which hath not yet advanc'd the other into the undoubted Text. If there had not been fome more occafion for one than for the other^ 'tis pofFible they had both remain'd in the fame ftate. Therefore, 6. It 48 'An Inquiry into the 6. It may reafonably be enquir'd, if there be any more Evidence for this Text^ fince the firlfc Reformation? The prefent current Notions of the Trinity were receiv'd then as much as now^ perhaps more v and yet as Luther wou'd not put thii into the Text in any Edition of his German Bible, nor durib BulUnger take it in, fo our old Bibles in Henry V\\\h and f^rp^r^ Vl's time, had ihefe Words of the feventh Ferfe^ and the words in Earthy in the eighth^ in fmall Letters, and fometimes in a Parenthefis ; to (hew they were not to be efteem'd of the fame certain Authority with the other parts of the EpiftUj becaufe the Manufcripts wanted 'em. In Queen EUzabeth^s Bible, 1 5(5(5. 1 find the fame ^ and her lattef Bibles were the frfi which took ^em in, as they now are, between 1 566, and 1 580. but whether by the influence of the Convocation which inter- ven'd, I know not. And if it was a dubious Text then, fome may ask what further Evidence arifes fmce, tohavecaus'd this change? Has any antient valuable Greek Manufcript newly appearM ? Yes ^ the molt valuable of ally the Alexandrian Manufcripty has fince that time been brought among us : but alas ! this has added great weight to the Evidence againfi it^ Befides, Exafmus\ Britijh Copyy and the Complutenfian Teflament^ and the Miftake about Stephens'*^ feven Manufcripts^ were not underftood to be fo void of all weight, as now they appear to be. If the firft Refor- mers then had as much Evidence for itj and thought they had more than* we can now think we have, and not fo much to fay againft it as we i and yet they judgM it"but juft to leave it doubtful : how is it that we fliall juftify their SuccefTors, who have ventur'd upoa what they dared not to do ? Nay; Authority of i John ^.y. 49 Nay, if your LordJIiips and the Reverend Clergy don't think this Text to be certainly fpurious, I wou'd humbly propofe, whether it be not mofi- likely to be foF And then whether it be not fafer to put it out^ than to keep it in the place 'tis fw ? Nay, whether it be not at leaft dubious ? and then whether it ought not to be mark'd as fuch^ for your Peoples Obfervation ? I befeech you, let us but obtain fo much as I think your felves will, and as the firfl Reformers did fee to be juft and reafonable, or convince us that this Requelt is not fo : elfe what remains, but to fit down, wonder, and defpair ? 'Tis but an eafy itep, and will be well warranted, to return to that which our firft Reformers wifely and un- blamably did. It can be no reproach to be as juft to the People as they were ; and to return again with Reafon^ to that which has been altered without Reafon, 7. Laftly, the great Importance of the fub- jed matter of this much-doubted Text^ well de- ferves your molt impartial Judgment upon it6 The DoEirine of the Blejfed Trinity is purely de- pendent on Revelation *, varioufly underftood by ChrifiianSy both of the Clergy and Laity-, and bound upon the Members of the Church by very direful Anathema" s^ fcarce any more terrible^ ex- cept that of St. John againit fuch as Ihall add to^ or take from his Writings. Now, fince 'tis to the Scriptures that you make appeal for proof of this Dodrine, and for the right underfianding of it; 'tis moft juft that in fo folemn a matter you warn your Flocks not to be milled, by mif- taking an unwarranted modern Addition for aa infpired Oracle* I pretend not to make any Interpretation of theWordsi ti\[ their Authority be prov'd : but moft judieious Expofitors undetft^ad ThefeThree P 4r« Jn Inquiry into the are One^ of an Vnity of Confent^ or in Witnefs- bearing \ as BuUinger^ Calvin^ Bez,a^ and many other, both Frotefiam and Tofiiln Writers. But let 'em fignify much or little, in the Con- troverfy about the philofophical Kature of the Three Terfons ; yet as they are always likely to be drawn into the fervice of what is molt prevalent and current, fo 'tis certain the common People have their eyes upon thi^^ more than on any un- doubted Text in the Bible, in this Controverfy. And fo far they muft be deceiv'd, if it he fpu- rious. And it is in your Lordfiips and the Clergy^ power to let 'em know it, and to refer 'em to other Texts, which you can mffure them are ge- nuine. Nor is there any doubt to be made, but the People think fome Branches of the Liturgy have their main Foundation oxi this one doubted Text. When they hear. Three Terfons and One God^ in the fourth Petition of the Litany ^ and who with thee and the Holy Ghofi ever liveth and reigneth one Gody in the Doxologies *, they think nothing in the New Teftament fo like it as this dubious Text* And will you not think it great pity, that your People (hou'd build fo weighty things on fuch a (leader Foundation, if your felves fo judge it ? I fpeak this^ becaufe I know not any other Text that direBly or clearly fays the fame thing, "viz. that the Father^ Word^ and Spirit^ are One, They are not join'd in one JDoxology^ nor indeed do I find atiy given to the Holy Spirit in the New Teftament^ either jointly or feparately ^ much lefs h the Spirit faid to be one with the Father and the Son. I read of one Spirit^ one Lord^ one God and Father^ Eph. 4. but not that tjhefe Three are the One God, And if there be no other Text which fays this^ 'tis not the more likely to have been w Authority of iJoHN 5.7. been St. Johns Saying here; but t\\Q more grie- vous to have it inferted by any who had not his Authority. Whether, upon the whole, this Pajfage fhaU by your diredion, in our printed Books be fairly difownd and marJi'd as formerly, or better ^7«- dicated^ 1 know not : but if neither of thefe be done, and if Preachers and Writers ftill go on, without due regard to Juftice and their own Efieem^ to urge this as an Authority.^ after all that is faid to fhew it has none ; 1 apprehend, there are many underltanding Chriftians will be apt to think they are not /^?V/y dealt with. And 1 hope it fhall not be thought to pro- ceed from any want of due Veneration for your Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy y if an high Efteem of the Learnings the Judgment^ Integrity^ and hearty Zeal for our Holy Religion and the Sacred Scriptures, which they are perfuaded dwell with an Englijh Convocation^ fiiall excite many of your People^ as well as of the Clergy^ to fome Ex* pedtations in this matter. 1 fhall only fet down the Advice and Requeft of BigenhagiuSj a Lutheran Divine : having ob- lerv'd this Ferfe to be putin^ without any rea- fonable Pretence of Authority, and having ex» claim'd againft it as an impious hold Addition to the Sicred Scripture^ and what (he fays) efiahlijhes the Arians BUjphemyj and therefore jfufpeded was their Contrivance \ he concludes, ^ I hefeech the Printers^ and fuch Learned Men as are aiding to them^ that when at any time hereafter they Jh^Il re^ print the Greek Teftamenty they leave out that Ad- * Obfecro igitur Chalcographos & Erudites Vifos qui Chal- cographis adfuut, ut cum rurium pofthac N. Teft, grsc^ ex- cudendum eft, illam additionem omittanr, & ita reftituant Grgeca fuae priori integiitati & puiitati, propter yeritatem, ad gloriam Dei. In Expofu. -Jon£» D 2 dition. ^t An Inquiry Into the ditlon, and fo reft ore the Greek to its former Purity ^ fortheLoveofTruthj and the Glory of God. With which Requeft, I humbly hope your Lord- jlnps and the Reverend Clergy will fee great^ reafon to comply •, and the rather, becaufe 1 am inftruc- ted by a very Great f Prelate (who was once the Head of fuch a Convocation^ and very tender of the Church's Honour) Ihat the Church is not fo hound vpj that Jhe may not^ on jufl and farther Evidence^ revife what may in any cafe have ftift by her. Whether this be not one of thofe Cafes, is fubmitted to your impartial and difcerning Judgment. A Foflfcrift^ in Anfrver to the Excufes offered to take off the Force of this Addrefs. I Am perfuaded, the Addrefs I have made to your Lordjhips and the Reverend Clergy , is for the Matter of it fo reafonablc and necef- fary, and may with fo much good Confcience and Juilice to Truth be comply 'd with^ that I am embolden'd again to renew it, with the Ear- neftnefs which becomes a matter of fo great importance to the Honour of our Holy Reli- gion. It might indeed in your Wifdom feem meet to wait a while, to fee what could be faid in defence of the Words ^ which are charg'd to be an Interpolation of the true and facred Text, before the Convocation fhould determine what to do with them. But fince no Man has at- tempted it to any purpofe, and all feem filent f ABp Laud*; Preface agalnji Filher, under Authority 0/ i John 5, 7. 55 under the Imputation of fo great a Wrong done to the Holy Scripture and the Church of God ; and fince I can learn nothing from the Publick, either from the Convocation or the Prefs, why our common Bibles Ihould not in this place be regulated according to the true Original, as I have humbly propofed \ 1 have inquired in private what any of the Clergy or others have to fay in excufeof it. And tho I do not think the Re- verend Bifljops ox Clergy in Convocation will abide by any fuch (lender Apologies^ yet for the Satif- fddionof private Perfons, 1 will fet them down here, and confider the Force of them. Excufe I. There is no need to urge this mat- ter any farther, fay fome, becaufe this Text is given up already^ and is allow'd by Learned Men not to be genuine. Rcfp, Thefe Men do indeed confefs that the Text ought to be given up, as palt all juft de- fence ^ but 'tis very wrong to fay, 'tis enough that a few learned Men know it. The Bible is a publick Book, for the ufe of all, and is tranflated for the ufe of the Unlearned ^ and for their Good it Ihould be fet out free from all known Cor- ruptions. And the Learned, who know this Text is 10 be given up, fhould honeftly let the World know it too, who are as much concern'd as they. But 'tis never given vp fairly, till it be left oat of our printed Copies \ nor is it declared to be dubiousy till it be again mark'd in fmall Letters. Let a difference be made between what is given up, and what is not fo, left fome think other even genuine Texts be given up too, tho they ftand unmark'd, fmce this is fo. But alas! 'tis vain to fay 'tis given up, while 'tis read undif- tinguifh'd in the Churclf, and urg'd from the Pulpit, in proof of a fundamental Point of Reli- gion : ancj whik Commentators ftill deliver it as their c4 .^n Inquiry into the their Opinion that 'tis genuine, and according to the true Original of St. John. Which Dr. IVeilsy tho without anfwering the Arguments againft it, and therefore without julb reafon, has not fear'd to do^ in his late Expofltion of this Epifile\ and yet he is one who has appear'd in the Contro- verfy this Text relates to, and has had the Ar- ^^unieats againll: its Genuinenefs laid before him, in Dr. Clarke''^ Letter to him^ and therefore ought to have conlider'd this matter, and if he could, to have anfwer'd the Arguments that lie againft his bare Afiertion. Excufe 2. Others fay, the Words may Hand as they do, becaufe if St^John has not laid them, yet other Texts fay the fame thing. Refp. 'Tis not fo ^ as has been laid already, p. 50. I never found any ferioufly pretend to it ^ only that they could by confequence infer the like, as ihey imagin'd, and others deny it. And muft a doubtful Confequence of one Text be thruft into another part of Scripture as exprefs Text? What Scripture lliall we have at this rate, if every Church or Party may jput their difpu- table Interpretations iato the Sacred Text ? SoxTiQ may think Three Infinite Minds 10 be proved by good confequence (as they imagine) from fome Texts '-i others that Three Infinite Modes are the three Perfons, Father^ Son^ and Hdy Sprit : fhall this be put into the Text therefore, ws:. And thefe Three Infinite Minds are one^ or thefe three Infinite Modes are one} I fee not but the fame Apology as v/ell would ferve them, as it does ia the prefent cafe. We are not feeking what other Texts may imply, but what St. y.W».X%.VV.-«M PREFACE. p' '" ^//£ ^^/^g^ of this treattfe h to Vindicate one of the mofi excellent paffages throughout the whole Scripture^ agatnji the Attach fome late Cr'itkks have form'd to prove ttfuppoftttttous. I fear the mofi candid of its oppoferSy who refpeB the do^ clrme this Text enforces as of divine re^ velation^ have not enough conftder'd the dangerous confequences that naturally flow from the fentiments they mamtain. For tf fo fundamental a Text of Religion could pofjibly infmuate it f elf into the Ho- ly Scriptures^ either thro"" prejudice of party y or the negligence and inattention of the principal perfonSy in whofe hands the Sacred Books were depofited ; is it not rational to fuppofe the fame thing may have happened to fome other Texts ^ where- on the Faith has been eftabliflo'dy and zvhich yet ferve for its foundation 7 It may A z he «?• The PREFACE. he nr^d perhaps we have other Texts enough to prove the truth of that Orthodox doBrmey without having recourfe to the pajfage in St. John'5 Ep'tjile. I allow there are other places full to this purpofty yet this to me feems not a fufficient reafon for giving up the great advantage this paf-- fage affords us : there is danger in the ex^ periment j beftdes^ that the furrender is too cheapo and we hereby pay a complain fance to the herefy this Text encounters^ which in no wife it deferves. If the Text in quefiion he not Canonical^ we ought to re-^ jeB it for that very reafon^ hecaufe His not Scripture: but before we come to this concluftony we fhould examine the matter to the bottom y and not reft fatisfy^d with an uncertain Criticifm^ which turns only upon the Silence offome ancient Writers^ or upon the omijjions infome Greek MSS^ of St. John's Epijile. Nothing but thefe can he ur^d againfl it *y and we Jhall fee in the following Differtation that no argu- ments can he weaker than thefe ^ nothing more inconclufive. THE THE CONTENTS. PART I. C H A P. I. O W this paffage fir ft came to he thought Sup- pofititious y of the progrefs of that opinion^ with a brief account of the reafons^ 'whereon it is founded. Page i . Chap. II. fhat this pa If age of St, John has he en always in St. JeromV Tranfiation of the Bibk\ p. j. Chap. III. l*he fame propofition^ that this verfe of St. John has been always in St. JeromV l!ranflation^ proved by the quotations which have been made of it from age to age up to the feventh Century, p. 1 1. Chap, The CONTENTS. Chap. IV. I'he fame propofition proved from the ancient Correc- torium of the Sorbonne, and the Rituals or Puhlick Service- Books of the Latin Churches p- ip« Chap. V. Of St. JeromV Preface to the feven Canonical Epi-- files. p. 2 J. Chap. VI. That the paffage of Si. John was in the old Itatick Verfion^ before that of St. Jerom, proved from St.YuX- gentius, from Vigilius of Tapfum, and a ConfeJJion of Faith drawn up by near four hundred African Bifhops, P- 33- Chap. VII "the teftimonies of St. Eucherius, ^S"^. Cyprian and Tertullian/(9r the genuinenefs of this l^esct. p. 41. Chap. VIII. that this pa [J age of St. John is to he found in the Greek Manufcripts of the I'ext of the New Teflament^ well as m the Latin, P- f i « Chap. IX. 0/R. StcphenV Manufcripts. p. Co- Chap. X. Of the obelus and femicircle the paffage of St. John is marked with in Stephen^ Edition, p. 6f . C H A p. The CONTENTS, Chap. XI. Of the Codex Britannicus or Manufcript /;; England, and of the Complutenfian Copy, p. 74, C u A P. XIL "That this paffage has been quoted in two places in the Editions of St. Athanafius'j works, p. jj^ Chap. XIII. That the Greek Church recei'ves the 'text of the thret witnejfes in heaven as authentick, p. 8z; PART II. Chap. I. THE firfi OhjeSiion^ this pajfage is not in the Greek Manufcript s^ nor Oriental Ferfions of the New "lejtament, p. gg^ Chap. II. The fecond OhjeSiion ; that the paffage of St, John 'ivas not known to the Fathers of the Councils of Nice andSdxdiQ^, p-PJ. Chap. III. Tie third OhjeEiion; this pajfage has not been cited h the Greek Fathers^ nor by the Latins of the firft ^^^^- p.pd. Chap. The CONTENTS. Chap. IV. fhe fourth Ohje6iion\ fome of the ancient Fathers have quoted the fixth and eighth verfes of the fifth chap^ ter of St. JohnV Epiiile^ hut havp taken no notice of -Ihe/eventh. p. loo. Chap. V. The fifth Ohje^ion-y the ancient Commentators upon St. John's Eptfile have pafs^d over the difputed verfe in filence, p. lof. ERRATA. |Ag. 13. line 18. for a Friar Preacher ^ read of the Cijlernan Order, pag. 21. lin. 31. read the firji Sunday after Eafter, A Critical DiflTertation UPON The Seventh Verfe of the Fifth Chapter of St. John's Firft Epistle, There are Three ^ that hear record m Heaven^ See. PART I. Wherein this Paflage is prov'd to be St. John's. Chap. I. How this Taffage firft came to be thought Sup^ fofititiom ; of the Trogrefs of that Opinion ; with a brief Account of the Reafons where ^ on 'tis founded, ?^55lHOUGH I my felf am fully perfuaded the ^ ^ ^ do6trine of the moft facred Trinity is true, ^^^^ I ihould yet think it criminal in the light of that adorable Trinity to ufe in its defence a Text of Scripture, of whofe genuinenefs I was not ftriftly convinc'd. I have learnt from the Book B of ( o of ^Jdh^ that God forbids we JJjould talk deceit fully for his caufe 3 and 1 have read in ^ Jfaiah and <^ Malachi^ that the facrifice of robbery is an abomination to God. 'Tis not man's part to add to God's word, or to put what he never utter'd into the Mouth of an in- jpir'd writer: This is a boldnefs, which no pretence of gooddefign can ever palliate. But 'tis withal fa- crilegious, to ftrike off a pafiage from the (iicred books, which, no lefs than the reft, was dictated by the Holy Ghoft. The denunciation of God's wrath in both thcfe cafes is equally exprcfs and dreadful in the ^ i\pocalypfc. The pallage, we treat of, has three great advan- tages on its lide to convince us of its truth at firll view. The firft. That the do6trine here taught, fublimc as it is, is not peculiar to this place, but occurs in many other parts of Scripture. The fecond. That the expreilions are all in the ftyle of Sr. Jobn^ and have a perfed: connexion with what goes before 'em, and follows after 'em. The preceding verfes relate to the Perfon of Jefus Chrifi^ and his dignity as the Melliah and Son of Gods and the words of the 7^^ confirm thofe great truths by the depolition of three witnelTes, the Father^ the JVord^ and the HolyGhofi. To thefe three witnefTcs from heaven are joyn'd in the following verfe three witnefles upon earth, the Spirit^ the Water^ and the Blood. No words can be more juftly conneded j one verfe anfwers to the others there is the fame tefti- mony throughout, the fame number of witnefTes, a diltin61:ion and oppofition of the places where they ares the witnefles of the 8^^^ verfe are in earthy of the 7^^^ in heaven. The 8^^^ Verfe by a dift'indion fo notify 'd throws us back upon the 7^^, and like 3 "^oh. xiii. 7. b i^ai, Ixi. 8. c i^dach, i. 13. d Rtv, xxii. 18, 19, the (3 ) the ''■ Seraphim in Ifalah's Vifion, they correfpond together. This is all plain, and (Irikcs at firft fight. The third advantage, in fine, this Text has, is that the ancient Church never caft upon it the leall -h" fufpicion of Forgery. Where'er it has appeared, it has always been look'd on as the Apoltle St. Johns j and I challenge all thole, who at this day labour to throw it out of his Epiltle, to produce one finglc pafiage from the Fathers, where it has been men- ^ tion'd with marks of abatement, or the like fenti- ments of dilapprobatiori glanc'd at, as have been form'd againit it in thefe later Ages. The Imputation of impofture lay conceal'd till the fjxtecnth Century : Era/mis gave the occafion, per- haps undefignedfy, by his firlt Edition of the New Teftament in Greek, in the year ifid. This was the £ril Edition of the New Teftament in its Ori- ginal Language, the world had feen. The induftri- ous art of Prmting, found out as 'tis faid at May e nee in 1440, had not yet prefented to the publick any thing more of the holy Scriptures than the Latin Bi- ble, or it may be, than the New Teftament. Cardinal Ximcnes indeed had caus'd his famous Impreftion of the Polyglot to be made in Spain at Complutum^ or^/- cala des Henares^ in the Kingdom o^Caftille in if 14, but that Edition came not abroad till many years after : So that Erafmus's Greek Teftament, printed at Bafel in if 16, was the firft that faw the light i which was follow 'd by a fecond, in all refpects like the former, put out by him at the fame place in if ip. The 7^'^ Verfe of St. John was wanting in both thefe Editions : The Complaints hereupon ran high 5 and there are to be feen amongft Erajmus's works the difputes he had upon this head wath Edward Ley^ an EngUJJj Divine, and Lopes Stunica a learned Spaniard, Erafmus was blam'd by both thefe Gen- a l[aiah vi. 3. B 2> tlemen (4) tlcmen for having omitted this Text in his New Tertamcnt: He defends himfelf by faying, he found it not in the four Manufcripts from which he printed his firll Edition, nor in a fifth he had afterward colla- ted upon pubUfhing his fecond, three years after his firft. One might wonder, a man fo curious to fearch into all the Libraries of the Low-Countries^ of Ba- fil^ and other Places, as Erafmiis was, fhould be able to find no greater number of Manufcripts of the New Tellament in Greek, did we not know the Greek Tongue had then lain negleded for many Ages throughout all Europe. The Learning of the Clergy of thofe times went no farther than Latin, and as the publick fervice was wholly performed in that Tongue, 'twas enough for them to have a Latin Bi- ble, and to lludy the New Teftament in the fame Language. The verfe concerning the WitnefTes in Heaven being thus omitted in St. John's Epiftle, and Eraf- WHS declaring 'twas not in his Manufcripts, join'd to the want of it alfo in the Edition o^ Aldus^ or his Father-in-Law Azula^ at Venice in i f 1 8 , gave grounds to certain men at that time to cry out agamfi: the authenticknefs of the Text. George Blandrata^ a P/- edmonteze^ and reviver of the Jrian Herefy, which had been well nigh extind for feven or eight hun- dred yeafs, whatever Sandius is pleas'd to fay in his Hiilory oi Arianifm^ took upon him expreflly to de- ny this verfe to have been St. John's, Socinus appear- ed fome few years after him, and equally concern'd with the jirian to rejed a pallage fo flagrantly oppo- fite to both their Errors, beheld it in the fame view, and affirm'd it to have been inferted into St. John's Epiftle by fome one of the perfons, who held the dodrine of the Trinity in Unity. 'Twere to be wifh'd this flrange opinion had been confin'd to the Sed of the mw Jrians^ or the ( 5 ) the SochilariSy but with gnef we have fccn it pafs thofc bounds, and find favour with Tome Chriltians, who, willing enough to retain the do<51:rine of the Trinity, do yet reject this excellent paffagc, wherein that fiicred dodrine is fo clearly exprefs'd. They have however the ill fortune to find themfelvcs en- roll'd among the fecret adverfaries to that opinion. There's no Socinian^ nor even Arian^ has taken fo much pains to decry this fam'd verfe, as fome of thcfc Chriifian writers have done \ and efpecially Mr. Simon^ formerly Prieft of the Oratory, who died about two Years ago out of that icarn'd Society. He has written in three large Volumes a Critical Hi- flory of the New Telbment, and as if his principal defign had been to combat this palfage, he brings it in upon all occafions, whether to the Purpofe or no, in order to give it frefh attacks. A late Englijh Author has trod Hep by flcp in the fame path with this mighty combatant, in a Diflertation which came abroad ^ the laft year, and whereof an Extra6i: has been given to the world in the i/^^;^ and as this Journal has met with a general approbation, fo the laid Difcourfe has fallen under the view of no fmall part of Mankind. The reafons of Mr. Simon^ and others of his fen- timents, are, i^^ That this verfe is wanting in ma- ny ancient Manufcripts of the Latin Bible. 2. That 'tis not to be feen in the molt Authentick Greek MSS. of the New Teftamcnt. 3. That the Oriental Ver- iions, the Syriack^ the Arabick^ the Perfian^ and the Copttck have it not. 4. That 'twas not cited by the Councils of Nice and Sardica^ in whofe difputes a- gainfl the Avians 'twould have been extremely ufe- tul. f . That the Ancient Fathers, thofe efpecially who wrote at the time Arianifm prevail'd from Eafl to Weft^ have not urg'd this Text againft an Herefy, Fix. A. D. 1716. it I it Co plpjnly oppofes. 6. That none of the Greek Fa- thers have quoted it. 7. That many, who have given us the words of tlie (5^^'and 8^^^ verfes of the fame chap- ter, have taken no notice of the feventh. 8. That the Commentators upon St.J^Z^^^'s Epiftle have nei- ther explain'd this verfe, nor rehears'd the words of it. Scruples concerning the truth of this paiTage, fecm at leall the confequence of thefe Arguments > and if every one of 'em taken apart has a fpccious appearance of reafon, of what force muil they all be compar'd together and when by their near ap- proach and conjundion they fhail have communica- ted to each other the mifleading flrength of every particular. I muft allow, the filfe light here is ve- ry glaring, 'tis eafy to be led aiide by it, and to take the fhadow of truth for its real fubftance^ but a Critick, and a true Divine are not content with ap- pearances, they look farther than the furface, they learch narrowly into the bottom of things, and found 'em with all the attention requifire to difcern truth from probability j as knowing this the only means to avoid miftake. I have endeavour'd to follow the fame rule throughout the whole of this diflertation, and the Reader will hereby be able to judge, whe- ther my opinion is grounded on the precarioufnefs of fancy, and efpous'd thro' prejudice of party, as thefe late Authors fomewhat too raihly calumniate the defenders of this Text of St. John j or rather, whether upon fure rcafons I don't maintain its au- thenticknefs, and fettle its authority beyond the reach of all the artful glolTes of its rejeders. Chap, (7 ) Chap. II. That this pciffage of St, John has been al- zvays m St. jerom's Tranflatton of the Bible. TH O' the Greek Manufcripts of the New Tefla- ment were found fcarce upon firfl printing the Bible, the Latin were very numerous. As 'twas ufual to read the holy Scriptures in that language only throughout all the JVeftern Churches, the Li- braries abounded with this fort of Copies 3 and pri- vate Perfons withal, of either piety or fubftance e- nough to procure one of 'em, took care to have a Manufcript Latin Bible, and fometimes more than one, for the ufe of their families. Out of this va- riety choice was made of the moil ancient and moll correct, from whence to make an impreflion : And in the firfl Editions of the Bible we every where meet with a curious collation of various Manufcripts, with remarks upon the different readings, which occur in the mod confiderable Texts. The paf- fage of the three witnefTes, like many others, was fub- je6l to thefe changes, and thedifagreement of Copies varioully diverfify'd. Iji fome were omitted the words, in Heaven. Hentenius^ ProfefTor of Divinity at Lou- vain^ in his Latin Edition of ifdf, has taken notice of five Manufcripts that wanted 'em 5 as alfo of fif- teen which had not the lafl claufe of the verfe, tkefe three are one : In others, the whole verfe was entire- ly left out. Several of thefe Manufcripts are men- tion'd by Erafmus^ and three or four others by R.Ste- jjhen^ ^ ^ ^ phen^ among divers more ancient, wherein 'tis to be read. Dr. Burnet informs us, in the firfl Letter of his Travels into Switzerland and Italy^ of a Manufcript at Baftl near eight hundred years old, of another at Zurich^ and three at Strasbourg^ all wrote about eight or nine hundred years ago, which have not this Text: But of thefe Manuscripts the number is eafily fumm'd up, their fcarcity makes 'em remarka- ble> whereas the others, which have the Text, are not to be told upon making an Edition, they are al- moll infinite. Before the invention of Printing, Books were but j Copies taken from others, whofe faults, and above all whofe omiffions, were eafily tranfmitted from one ! to another > and unlefs the Copids had equal exa6l- i nefs and capacity to collate the Manufcript they had { tranfcrib'd with other Manufcripts, 'twas morally impoffible the faults fhould not remain in the Co- pies, and new ones be added withal. Examples of like omiffions with this of the feventh verfe are \ fo frequent, and in pafiages too of the higheft im- portance, that no Man who has any knowledge of Manufcripts can be ignorant of 'em. Am id ft the many great advantages the wonderful art of Printing brought to the world, we have this among the reft, that by corredbing the differences in Manufcript Books the Scriptures are fix'd and the Text fettled 5 that 'tis no longer poffible to fwerve in the lead from it, but the Publick mud be adver- tis'd of the variation. In Manufcript Copies the cafe was far otherwife : The Tranfcribers were ufu- ally hir'd ; and thefe, the fooner to gain their re- ward, made more had than was fitting, and fo left out a multitude of pafi^ages which fhould have been inferted. Negligence and unexaftnefs were in- termix'd with their hade, and from thence num- berlefs faults, numberlefs omiffions, the Publick knew nothing of, were with the Copy tranfmitted to to Poftcrity. May not then the few Manufcripts in which the veife of St. John is wanting in whole or in part, be this fort of faulty Copies, at firil bought up by private pcrfons, kept hid from the Eyes of the publick, and not 'till many ages after depofited in Libraries, where their antiquity is at this day their grcateft worth, which conceals it felf underneath the covert of eight or nine hundred years? We can nd more rely upon the Copies which have not this pafTage to the prejudice of that vail body of Manufcripts col- lected from all parts of Europe^ which have it entire, and from whofe uniform agreement have been m.adc, as I've already obferv'd, the moll ancient Editions of St. 7t'^^^>'^'s Verfion, than upon Copies mutilated or defe6live. Mr. S'mon acknowledges this prodigious ( uniformity in the Manufcripts wrote at leaft within / fix hundred years; 'Tis obfervable^ ^ f\ys he, tbat\ well nigh all the Manufcripts not aho've fix hundred | years old agree in this^ that they have the verfe in \ difpute. But 'twould have been no eafy matter fof ' him, well skill'd as he was in evading difficulties, to Ihev/ whence it came to pals, the Manufcripts for the lall fix hundred years have fo univerfally given us this paflage, provided they had difagreed before, and the verfe had been found in a few of 'em only, and thofe the moll incorre6t. Should we fuppofe this exa6l agreement not older than fix hundred years, he could draw thence no great advantage: but in the fourth Chapter we fhall fee the reafons of this Uni- formity, and Mr. Simon (hall furniili us with one part of our Arguments. Among the Manilfcripts from which R. Stephen made his firil Editions of the vulgar Latin in if 24, and I f 18, there are fome he calls mir^e vetujiatis^ Ma- nufcripts of a wonderful antiquity j and this, when he could not carry 'em higher than fix or feven hun- * Hijl. des Verjlons. ch. 9. C dred ( 10 ) dred years : Co that, without doubt, the lead we can now'adign 'em will amount to near nine hundred. Dr. Burnet relates, that one oF the four Manulcripts he faw at Strasbourg^ which wanted but a imall mat- ter of the age of Charles the Great, and confequent- ly were nine hundred years old, had the verfe wc fpeak of: he adds moreover, he faw many other ve- ry ancient Manufcripts at Geneva^ Venice and Florence^ which had all this paflage. But why ftould we feek for teftimonies elfewhere, when we have 'em in Mr. Simons own Books, who has been, perhaps, the moft zealous Antagonifl: this verfe ever had before him ? He tells us in his ^Critical Hiilory of the NewTefla- ment, and his ^ Hiftory of the Tranflations, that he read this verfe in the Emperor Lotharius's Bible, which was wrote in the timeof C/:7^r/^; the Great, or copied upon the revife that Emperor had caus'd to be made of the Bible, towards the clofe of the eighth Century. Here then is one of the mofl ancient Manufcripts of St./V- roms Verfion, we have extant 3 for Father le Long^ a learned Benedidine, who has preferv'd throughout the Charader of a Man of truth and fincerity, declares we have no Manufcript of the vulgar Latin older than the Abbot Tbeodulphus's^ ^ which he (ays was wrote in the year 790, /. e, in the time oC Charles the Great. With what face after this fhall any Man of Letters prc- fume to affirm, this paflage is not found in the oldcfL Manufcripts of the Latin Bible, fince from Mr Simons confcflion 'tis feen in a Manufcript as old as the age of that Emperor ? How apt is prejudice to lead into error 1 The moft convincing proofs by its means ap- pear to men of clear underllanding perplex'd and ob- Icure. a Pa'T. in. ^ chap. 9. ^ Biblioth, Sacr. T. i. cap.^^Jf.i, Chap, ( XX :^m :;^^^ ^^ ct.n^ji^§0vi^^>j-T.\;^ Chap. III. T/je fame propofitton^ that this vcrfe of St. John has been always in St. Jerom"^ Trandation, prov'cl by the quotations Tvh'icb have been made of it from age to age^ up to the feventh Century. OUorations of a Text of Scripture in the Writings of the Ancients are one of the moll convincing proofs we can have, that the Text was then in their Bibles, and withal, that 'tw^as generally recciv'd as genuine and not fuppofititious. Thefe writings were no fingle Manufcripts, latent, and unknown beyond the compafs of a private family, but were JNlanu- fcripts fent abroad into the world, and whereof man- kind might all judge, whether iheir citations were true or falfe. li' the Text quoted met with no con- tradiction, if in many following ages, and in coun- tries far didant from each other, it has been frequent- ly cited by writers of judgment > what but the real Scripture could flow from their pen, and approve it felf to the world ? There are few Texts in Holy Writ thefe confide- rations can be applied to with more juilice, than the Text in quelHon. From the fourteenth Century up- wards to the fjventh, it has fall'n with the Latin Ver- fion und^r the view of the moll: diltinguilli'd writers, and been thence copied out into their works. Which citations are not private and obfcure, fuch as have de- noted the want of particular attention j but have been brought by grave Divines, who in reheariing this C z pall^ige ra(Tiigc have either form'd their remarks and cora- ment upon it, or produced it as a formal proof of the Trinity : Councils have withal in their Seilions argur ed from it againil: the Errors of the Times they fat in ', And what more can reafonably be requir'd ? In the beginning of the fourteenth Century Mc/:?^?- las de Lyva^ one of the moft learned men of his Age, and aProfefTor of Divinity at P-^m with much reputa- tion, wrote a Commentary upon the Holy Scripture, which was highly eileem'dj the palTage of St. John is feen with the reft of his Epiftle, beautifully explain'd, without any infinuation, that 'twas fufpefted of for- gery. In the thirteenth Century S. fhomas put out a Comment upon the fame Epiftle-, the difputed Text is to this day in its place, and the learnM Interpreter has Withal expounded it. Not long before, the h-m^d^Diirandits Bifliop of Mende^ had brought it into his Rationale, and plac'd it after the three Witnefles of the eighth Verlc. The fame tranfpofition, by the way, may be obferv'd in other writers of greater antiquity than this Bifhop, and in fome Manufcripts of the Bible. Dr. Burnet has taken notice of feveral in the Letter I've above mcntion'd ; and there is now at Utrecht in the Chap- ter of St. Mary's a Bible in Cix great Volumes, written upon large and very fine Vellum, in which the two verfes are tranfpos'd in this manner. The fame thing has happen'd to other paflages. The 30^^' and 31^^ verfes of the 21^^ Chapter o^ ^i, Matthew in fome Manufcripts have a like tranfpofition ; and many o- ther Inftances arc given by Dr. Mills in his NewTe- flament. Now, a tranfcriber might fall into this mi- llake thro' inadvertency ^ and another as negligent as himfeU follow him m the wrong placing this paOage; Or the Copycr, imagining the words of the 7^1^ \c\{q better connc61:td, as is not unhkely, with the words of the ninth, than of the eighth, might take upon him . ^ ^3 ) him to change their order, and in the variation have o~ thers follow after his Manufcripti and thus may the tranfpofition have taken place from the eighth Cen- tury, where 'tis firft difcern'd in the Decretal Epillles of Iftdorus Mercatur^ down to the fifteenth, in which the Bible of St. Maries was wrote. This in all like- lihood is the Tail, was copied 5 for 'twas not begun, 'till many years a*"tcr Printing was found out, nor ^'' nifh'd, as is manifeil from the date of the lafl Volume, 'till the year 1476. About fifteen years before which date, 'tis probable this valuable Manufcript was firft entcrM on, for at the clofe of the Book we find the fecond Volume was compleated in 1467. and the date of the firft is torn off. But to return to the cita- tions. In the year iiif . five hundred years from the 7^^ Century, Pope Innocent the 111^. held at Rome in the Church of St. ^o/^/^i^Lateran one of the moll nume- rous Councils, was ever fcen. 'Twas composed, ^fays M. DuPin^ of four hundred and twelve Bifhops in Perfon 5 of near eight hundred Abbats or Priors > be- fides an abundance of Deputies from abfent Pre- lates and Chapters. The Greek Patriarchs oi Con- Jiantinopk and Jerujaiem^ who fpokc Latin, were there prefentj the Patriarch of >f/^//W^, being himfelffick, lent a Biftiop in his flead 3 and the Patriarch of y//^.v- andria deputed a Deacon. The Abbat Joachim^ a Friar Preacher, an Italian and Founder of the Con- gregation of Tlora^ had gain'd in the twelfth Centu- ry a vail reputation : but with other particular opini- ons he had advanc'd unorthodox Sentiments concern- ing the Trinity. The Book this Joachim had writ- ten, fome years before againft P. Lombard was exa- min'd by the Council, and his notions of the Trinity condemn'd : And among the arguments in the A6^s of the Council urg'd to defend that important Dodlrinc, I Bihl, Ecclef. Tom. 10. p, 103. the pafHige of the three witnefTes in heaven is alledgM, as a Text decifive in the point. It muft then have been generally in the Copies of the Latin Bible > and if at that time 'twas omitted in any private Manufcripts, no more regard was paid to them, than v/e ufually fhew to the fliults of an impreilion, or theomiffions in a printed Bible -, a pallage left out is no whit lefs true upon that account. But to go higher. I come now to Lombard^ Bi- fhop of P^m, and iirnam'd for his extenfive know- ledge M^/^r ^/ /Z?^ iS'^-?'// he flourifli'd in the ii^^^ Century : let us hear how he fpeaks in the firil Book of hisfentences, at the clofe of his fccond Diilin6ti- on; That the Father and the Son are one^ fays he, 72ot hy confufion ofPerfons^ hut by Unity of Nature^ 6V. John hath taught us in his Canonical Epifile^ fay'^^g-i Inhere are three which hear record in hea'ven^ the Father-, the PFord^ and the Flojy Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. If this celebrated Preacher's Bible was now extant in any Library, what efteem iliou'd we not have for it ? what deference would not be paid to its Authority ? But as to this pafHige, we have it, for we fee it copied from this Bible in Lombards citation. In the fame Age, Rupert Abbat of Duyts-, near Co- logne^ Gompofed aTra6l with this Title, Of the glorifi- cation of the 'trinity 3 and the Paflage of St- John is therein found. Towards the end of the 11^^ Century, S. Bernard has quoted this Text in many of liis Writings 5 but of him I fhall have occafion to fpeak more largely in ^he fequel of this difcourfe. In the 10^^^ Century, the Sorhonne revis'd the Ma- nufcripts of the Latin Bible, and in their review pre- ferv'd entire the feventh verfe of St. John ; but this by the way : in the following Chapter 1 ihall fiy more upon this head. In the ninth Century came abroad the Book entitu- led, GloJ/a ordinaria^ drawn up by IValafrid Strabo^ and ( IJ ) and met with a general approbation. There has heen^ lays Mr. Si7non in his Hillory of the Commentaries upon the New Tettament, 710 Comment on Holy Scrip- turc of equal authority with this expofttion from the time it firjl appeared in the ninth Century, Now, m this Work, fo greatly eileem'd, fo hi ;hly reverenc'd, the Text of the three Witnefles in heaven occuis. and not in the Epiille only, but in the Com-ncnt alio, ve- ry excellently interpreted. In the beginning of this Century, in the year 814. died the Emperor Charles the Great, who a few yeai*s before, towards the clofe of the preceding Age, had / caus'd the Latin Bibles to be revis'd. As they were \ all in Manufcript, upon the review they were found ! full of faults, fo 'much had the negligence or igno*' ranee of tranfcribers in feveral places deform'd St-Je- ro/n's Verfion. The pious and generous Emperor commits the execution of this great defign to many Iciirned men, and places at then* head Alcuinus^ by nation an Englip man, whom before he had attach 'd to his perfon, out of regard to the high elleem he had conceiv'd of his knowledge. Thefe learned Men, thus chofen by a Prince who was himfelf well skill'd m Letters, with all the care a work of that nature re- quir'd, fet themfelves to corre6i: the Manufcripts of the Vulgar Latin > and we muil; fuppofe they had at hand in this affliir a great number of the befl: and moll ancient. 'Twas by no means difficult at tliat time to procure 'em, for there were then no other than written Bibles : and 'tis eafy to believe that be- ing employ'd in this revife by fuch an Emperor as Chmles the Great, they had every thing of the kind which was moll: extraordinary, in the Emperor's pri- vate lludy, or in all the Libraries of Germany^ France and Italy: the bufinefs they were upon deferv'd it well. There is kept at Rome^ in the Abby of Faux-ceUes^ a^ a treafure of exquifite value, {\i\s Cardinal Baronius^ a Copy ( i^ ) a Copy of the Bible thus corrcflied, written by At- cuinus's own hand, and prefented to Charles the Great. This ineftimable Copy, adds the fame Cardinal, was put into the Corrector's hands, who by order of Ur- ban the Eighth in the beginning of the lall Age, re- vised the Vulgar Bible. And we have already feen Mr. Simons acknowledgment that the padage o^ Si. John was in Charles the Great's Bible, from whence it was copied into the Bible of the Emperor Lotharius^ and other Manufcripts taken from Charles the Great's Exemplar. Mr. Simon finding himfelf prefs'd by the weight of fo llrenuous an Argument, tho' unwilling to own he was overcome, has yet fcarce refrain'd from the allowance in thefe words •, ^ 'l^is probable^ the addi- tion of the teftimony of the three perfons might even then be read in fome Copies of St. John'5 Epifile^ or at leaft in fome Latin Writers, But wou'd iVIr. Simon^ if he had liv'd in thefe days, and Charles the Great had done him the honour to employ him in correct- ing the Vulgar Bibles, would he, I fay, upon the credit of a fmall number of Manufcripts, or of fome few Latin Authors, have added to the Bible a paflTige, like this o£ St. John? Mr Simon would be thought too great a Critick, to fuffer this abufe, or to follow fuch particular writers, as were led away by uncertain Copies to cite the Text of the three witnefles in op- pofition to the generality of Manufcripts, and the whole Body of Divines, who had been utterly igno- rant of the paflage. Good fenfe will inform us, what 'tis reafonable to believe of Mr. Simon in fuch a cafe, that Alcuinus^ who was a man of prodigious learning and abilities, the wife and l^^niai Alcuinus^ and the other Divines, who in concert with hinl corrected the Bible, were no lefs careful not to infert a Text of this importance, if they had not found it a jiiji^ Critic, dti Texte du N. Tefiam. c^. 18, in ( '7 ) in all, or well nigh all, the Manufcrlpts they had confjlted, nnd the Church in their time had not ac- knowledg'd it as part of the infpir'd writings. Nor is it to be luppos'd they collated only the Latin Ma- nufcrlpts, but had recourfe alfo to the Original Greek of the New Teftament j without application to this means they would oft have been unable to determine what reading they ought to follow. Jkuinus was learned in the Greek Tongue, and fo without doubt were his Collegues in the revife. Before this flimous revife ^ in the year 798. were forg'd the falfe Decretals attributed to the firil Popes. As they were favourable in many refpc^cls to the am- bitious pretenfions of the Roman See, the Writers of later Ages who have ftudied to raife the Papal Autho- rity, have not been wanting to cite 'em, as the real EpifUcs of the Popes, whofe Names they bear. But 'tis long (ince thefe Letters have been own'd fuppo- iititious in the bofom of the Church of Rome : Cardi- nal Baromiis^ F. Lahhe^ Balnfius^ Du Pin and others have pafs'd this judgment upon 'em : as among the Proteltants Mornai^ Rainold and Dallle have done, and David Blondel yet more fully than the reft, who has wrote upon the Subjed a Treatife of vafl learning, and general eftecm throughout the world. *Tis commonly believ'd thefe Epiltles were wrote by //?- dortis Mercator^ who liv'd about the middle of the eighth Century > 'xnd. Baronlm obferves, as does alfo Blonde]^ that 'tis probable they were wrote about the year jSf. or a little after. In one of thefe Letters, the firii attributed to Pope Hyginus^ there is an in- finite number of quotations from Scripture, and a- mong thefe the feventh and eighth verfes o^ Si. John's firil Epiftlci with this difference, that what is now the eighth is plac'd before the feventh : and 'tis on this account 1 have faid, I know no Author, or Ma- nufcript more ancient, that has the verfes tranfpos'd. » Mill. Proleg. I ©2.8. D Above ( »8) Above forty years before the rcvife in 798. and the time the Decretal Epillles in all likelihood were forg'd, jlmbrofe Aiithpcrt^ Abbat oiSt. Vincent^ in the king- dom of Naples^ wrote a Comment upon the Apoca* lypfe, extant in the 13th Volume of the Bihlioth. Max'mi. Patrum^ in which the words of the fevcnth verfe of St. John are brought to explain the fifth verfe of the firll chapter of the Revelations. St. Jerom's Verfion was not received in the Weflern Churches 'till the feventh Century, and 'tis little more than nine hundred years ^ ^ fiys Mr. Simon^ fince M^^r iters ha've in fiich fort followed that Verfion^ as entirely to negleU the Latin Bible^ which before "was us'd in the Church. And thus have we got as high as the time the Vulgar Latin gain'd the advantage, and was pre- fer'd to the old Italick Verfion > but from this time the pafiage oiSvJohn has been found in his Epillle, and quoted in the Writings of Divines. And yet tho' we had not been furnilh'd with the citations I have produc'd, the revife that was made of the Bible in the eighth Century can leave no caufe to fufpccl that it was not in the Bibles of the feventh, fixth and fifth Centuries, unlefs thro' pure willfulnefs and obfiinacy againlt the genuinenefs of this Text, we are refolv'd to believe, the Corre61:ors employed by Charles the Great confulted only Modern Manufcripts, and as I may fay, jull wet from the Copier's hands, v/ithouc cither [cnfe, judgment, or inclination to look into Manufcripts more ancient. If they had had Copies but of two or three hundred years {landing, which had been a fmall thing, their Manufcripts mull have reach'd up to the fifth Century, the Ag^ St. Jerom died in. But they ought to have confulted at once both the Copies pf St. Jerom's Bible, which had then been receiv'd for one or two hundred years 5 and the a Hiji. Cnt. des verf. du N. Tefi, f/^ 7, 8, cr 9. ct- M. DuPin Oijjert, Prelwi, I. i,ch, 7. Sect. i. Manu- ( 19) Minufcripts of the old Italick, which from the fe. cond to the fevcnth Century had been us'd by all the Latin Churches in Europe and j^frick. From this continued feries of quotations, and the remarks I have made upon 'em, I think, it may plainly appear, the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven has ahvays been in the Vulgar Latin Bible. I fliall next apply my fclf to a different fort of proofs upon the fame Subjed. Chap. IV. The fame propoftiion prov'd from the an^ c'lent Corredtorium of the Sorbonne, arid the Rituals or PuhJick Service* Books of the Latin Churches. WE owe this obligation to the deceased Mr. *9i- mon^ that he more than once fupplies us, tho' undefignedly, with arms againft himfelf. Thus God oft fuffers the truth to receive additional ftrength from the perfons, who mofb oppofe it. 'Tis to him we're endcbted for the knowledge of a certain Manu- fcript laid up for many Ages and preferv'd with great care in the Sorbonne^ entitul'd Corre^orium Biblia. Mr. Simon^ who has read and critically examined it, informs us, this work was composed upon the Holy Scripture about the tenth Century, in order to cor- reft the faults, which might have crept into the La- tin Bibles fince the revife of Charles the Great > for, by the way, fuch reviews were frequently neceflary, as Mr. Dii Pin has obferv'd in the firft Book, chap. 7. of his Preliminary Diflertations upon the Bible : i'hefe D z Corre- ( lO ) Correftoria Biblicer, ^ fays Mr. Simon^ may ferxe in the place of Mantifcripts^ and are of f^reat life in judging of. the true readings of the Latin Bibles. He adds, that the Author of the S or hnne Corrediorium has obferv'd in his Note upon thefe words, There are three^ which bear record in heaven^ i^c. " That St. Jerom afHrms *' fome Latin Copies (in the CorreSioriurn tliro' mi- flake was put, Greek^ inilead of, Latin^ whereup- on Mr. Si-^'-ion rries out mightily againil it, tho' with reafon iiaic enough) were faulty in this place. " But 'tis in no wife furprizing, adds he, the paflage of '^ St.John^ ^Axh the Preface to the feven Canonical *' RpiiUes, fho'ild find a place in this Correoiorium^ '' which was not compil'd 'till near the tenth Cen- " tury. For at that time (M\\ Simon goes on) 'tis " certain few of the Latin Copies wanted either the '^ Preface or the paflage, which had been inferted '^ from the time of Charles the Great." Mr. Si?nun here again yields to the evidence of truth, after he has done all he can to avoid it, and as much as poflible kick'd againfr the pricks : this pczj/age^ crys he, was inferted into the Bibles in the time infomuch, that nothing can be either added or omitted, but the whole world muft per- ceive it, and withal be fcandaliz'd at the inferting a pailage before unheard of, or not generally met with in their Bibles j efpecially if the Text be fo remarka- ble, as is that of the three Witnefles in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. But this palTage oCSt.'John was in all the Ancient Latin Service-Books, as at prefent, in the Office of Trinity- Sunday, and the firil Sunday after. As on that day 'twas ufual folemnly to admit to Baptifm, with the words of Baptifmal Inftitution were read thefe words of St. Johns Epiftle, There are three^ which bear record in heave f^ the Father^ the JVord^ 6cc. This Durandus^ Bifhop of Mende^ informs us of, in the fixth Book, Chap. pj. of his Rationale of Divme Offices, who adds ( ^o ndds moreover, that 'twas purfuant to the directions in the Or do Romanus^ and what this Order was we iliall have occafion to fee by and by. S. Bernard^ who Uv'd above an hundred years be- fore the Bifhop, has made divers Sermons upon this Feilival, and never omitted to mention the paflage of St. Johri^ as being in a fpecial manner the Text of the day. He has given it entire in a Sermon upon the O&aveof Eaiterj in another immediately following, and in the fixteenth oih\s Parvt Sermones. The Or do Ro?nanus^ whereof we are now to fpeak, is a Book of great Antiquity -, Dr. Cave^ and before him the learned Uf,oer^ believes it to have been drawn up in the year 730. Its title is, line Roman Order concerning the Offices throughout the whole year : now this Book fo much to be refpe6i:ed in the Latin Church, has thefe words, Upon the 05laves of Eafter^ are read the AUs of the Jpoftles and the [even Canonical Epijlles^ or the Revelation of i?/. John, '//// the OUaves of Whit- funtide. Which, in fhort, muft be underilood of the particular places that bear m.oil relation to the folemnity of the day, and not of the whole Books of the A6ls, and the fevcn Epillles and the Revelation: But we have learnt fi'om St. Bernard^ and the Bifhop of Mende^ that the words of the feventh verfe of St. John were read in the Office of thefe Fellivals, pur- suant to the Roman Order: The whole Church there- fore acknowledg'd the paflage of St. John to be part of the infpir'd Writings before Mr. Simon's pretended addition in the Age of Charles the Great. This Ar- gument will admit of no reply : it amounts to a de- monftration. Chap. ( ^3 ) C H A p. V. Of Sl ^JGYom's Preface to the [even Cano- nic al Ep'tflks. IN this Preflice St. Jerom complains of certain Latin Tranflatois, who in their Verfions of the New Teilamcnt had omitted the feventh vc\{q, of the fifth Chapter of St. John's Epiil:le3 and for this caufe he blames 'cm as unfaithful Interpreters^ who turning a- fide from the true Religion had attempted to throw out of their Tranflation this Text, which is (faith he) one chief Support of the Catholic k Faith. This Preface had pafs'd without contradiction for St. Jerom's to our own time, with the other Prefaces he had composM upon Holy Scripture. The Wri- ters, who in the fixteenth Century made the firfl at- tacks upon the genuinenefs of St. John's Text, obje- 61:cd nothing againfl it: but in the following Ages men grew more daring, and this Preface has itood the charge of divers Criticks in the lafl, who have treat- ed it as fuppofititious. Mr. Simon is one of the mod zealous in oppofing its authenticknefs, and is carri- ed fo far by his heat, as oft to entangle himfelf in greater difficulties, than he would throw upon the Preface. Yet when all's done, 'tis of little importance, whe- ther we afcribe it to Sl.Jerom^ or fome other Perfon j for ihould we not be able to prove it his, 'twould yet be no lefs true, that the palTage has been always in his Bibles 1 have given of this full proof already. Howe- ( M ) However, it inufl- be ownM, the Preface is very ancient, and has held its place in the Vulgar Bibles for more than eight hundred years; Mr. Simon is of opinion, 'twas inierted in Charles the Great's time, by the Correctors he employ'd in reviewing the jVJanu- fcripts. This is a good Hep gain'd, from which I ihall draw a new Argument, and that no bad one, in favour of St. 7^/:7/^/'s pafiage. For after all, if thefe learn'd Correftors complain'd in the mention'd Pre- face of a faulty unfaithfulncfs in fome Tranilators for omitting this Text in their Tranllations, 'twas indif- putably ni St. Jerom'^ Bible j for how could they o- therwife have accus'd the Tranfiators of unfaithful- ncfs in rejedting it ? this is asvclcar as daylight. Tho' then, without prejudice to the caufe I main- tain, 1 might give up to the morofe humour of thefe late Criticks the Preface they labour to reprefent as forg'd ; I fhall yet defend it againlf their imputations, for this only reafon, becaufe 1 am fenfible they are ve- ry unjull, yix.Simon^ who is often pleas'd to vouch contra- didions, has told us in his Critical Hiflory of the New Teftament, Chap. 1 8. that 'tis triie^ this Proem is found 'with St. Jerom'j other Prefaces upon the Bible in the Latin Copies^ that are not aho've fix hundred years old. But as if he had faid too much, he farther adds, that 'tis not fo perfe^ly in thofe^ zvhich ivere wrote fe- i;en or eight hundred years ago^ hut only in fome few of "em. F, Martianay has abundantly anfwer'd this Ar- gument in his Prolegomena upon the Epiille, in the iirft Vol. of the Bcncdicline Edition of St. Jerom's Works, and has fhewn by divers citations of the mofl ancient Manufcripts, this Preface is fo far from being conflantly in the Manufcripts not above fix hundred years old, and feldom in the others j that on the con- trary, 'tis more feldom found in the Manufcripts on this fide fix hundred years, and generally in the more ancient. Dr. Burnet fays alfo in his firlt Letter, that he he faw this Preface in a Bible at Geneva at Icaft of feven hundred years Handing j in another at Ba- Jil faid to be above eight hundred years old ; in a third of the fame antiquity at Zurich 5 and in three others at Strasbourg^ wrote in the time of Charles th« Great. But why Ihould I prefs Mr. Simon with fo- reign tellimonics ? he'll be witnefs againft himfelf, ^ you'll have but a little Patience to hear him fpeak. He tells us in -^ feveral places of his Critical Hilto- ry of the New Telfament, that the Preface to the feven Canonical Epillles is in the Bible of Charles the Bald, copied from that q{ Charles the Great hisGrand- fiUher : and in the ninth Chapter of his Hiftory of the Tranllations, treating of the valuable and curious Corre^oriwm of the Sorhonne^ of which I have fpoken above, he lays, at that time "'tis certain few of the La^ tin Copies wanted this Preface^ for it had been inferted in them from the time of Charles the Great. I'm ama- zed fo great a man as Mr. Simon ihould poffibly fall into fo plain a contradidion. He (inks yet deeper and deeper, pofitively affirming, as one of the rare difcoveries he has fpread throughout his Critical Works, that 'twas fome one of the Corredors em» ploy'd by Charles the Great in revifing the Bible, who compil'd this Preface to the feven Epiftles. 'tis pro- bable^ ^ he fays, the ColleEior of the Books of the FuU gar Latin Bible ^ not finding in St, Jerom a particular Preface upon the feven Canonical Epiftles^ composed one himfelf in imitation of that Fathers Style^ whofe expref* fions he has follow' d^ and withal added the Name of Eu* llochium. What an admirable man is Mr. Simon ? He has an imagination always ready to bear him thro' whatever he defires. Would he have the Proem to the fevea Canonical Epiftles none of 3c» Jerom's ? Streight it » Hiji. dn Texte p. 108. v des Verfions p. loj, *» Hijl, Crih du Texte dn $i, T. ch, i§. ( ^M is hardly found in any Bibles above fix hundred years old. Wou'd he have it of longer date than fix hun- dred years? There are a few Copies, wherein it was infertcd about eight or nine h-jndred yt-ars ago, in the Age of Charles tnc Great. Would he find out its O- rigiaal? His imagination leads him to the clofe of the eighth Cc.itury, there to dcfcry one of the Corre- ctors of the Bible compiling this Proem according to the Taft, and in the Style of Sr. Jerom, Mr Si- inon's imagmaei jn (hould not have ceas'd, 'till it had difcover'd the nauie of this Corrector, and given us his f'i'acc among the reftjfor we know there were many in number. PiBoribus atq-^ Poetis §uidlibet audcndi femper fuit d:rina potefias. We may in this affair well joyn Mr. Simon to Pain- ters and Poets, for he has taken t!ic fame privilege of devifing fictions, and ranging 'em in their refpcctive orders. But let us now come to fomewhat more fo- lid than conje6ture, and fee what reafons are urg'd to prove this Preface is not the work of that ancient Father: I fhall endeavour to omit none of 'em. 'Tis fii ft alledg'd, that fome Manufcripts of the Bible, which have the Preface that charges unfaith- fulnefs upon the Tranllations not having S^.. John's pafTagc, want the pafTage it felf in the Text of the Epiftic-, But ''t^.vouid be ridiculous^ ^ fays Mr. Simon, ;/ this Preface was St, Jeroms, the PaJJdge of St. John jhould be wanting in his Bible^ as well as in that of the Ttanflators, 'Twould have hztn indeed ridiculous, or rather extremely furpriziitg, if thefe Copies, which have the Preface and not the paflage, had been written by St. Jerom's own hand, or revis'd by him 3 But 'tis ^ Hiji. Crlt. des Verjiom dii N. T. ch ^. too r 17 ) too vifible a millake, to urge that Manufcripts copi- ed three or four hundied years after St. Jerom's death, may ferve for a proof that he was not Author of the Preface, for this reafon, becaufe the feventh verf:- is not in the Copies the Preface is. L.et us once again hear IVIonf Simon^ and he'll take off the objection himibif. This^ fays he^ is the fault of T^ranjcrihers'^ for as their whole 'Talent lay in copying old Manufcripts^ they conftder'd not the manifefl difagrcement there was betwixt the Text of their Copies^ and this Preface, And befides, they might not have wrote altogether and at the fame time the Preface and Chapter, in which this paflagc is j the Preface is put before the Epiftle of St. James^ betwixt which place and the difputed Text well nigh four entire EpiiHes are interpos'd. So that 'tis not fo much to be wonder'd at, they fhould have fojgot this verfe had been taken notice of in the Preface > Tranfcribers have not always fo good an excufe for committing the like faults. And thus the Objedion, on what fide foever you take it, is very weak and inconclufive. But 'tis farther argu'd, that the name of St. Je^ rem is not prefix'd to this Preface in all Manufcripts. And indeed in fome particular ones it is anonymous j but this is no peculiar circum fiance, nor of any weight to fliew it is not that Fathers. The Preface upon the Pfalms is his indifputably, tho' without his name in the Manufcript o{ Carcafjonne^ reputed above eight hundred years old: F.Martianay^ who thinks not the Preface genuine, yet ^ rejeds this Argument, and obfervcs, thePrci-ace upon the Books o'l Efdras^ which is certainly Si.Jerom's^ has withal no name in one of the moft ancient Manufcripts in the French King's Library. Mr. Simon again without reafon objects againft the Preface,that the pretended Compiler,whom he fufpeds • Hisron. Oper. Bened't^. T. 1. p. 546. E z to ( t8 ) to be its Author, has affedcdly imitated St. Jerom's Style, even to the infertion of the name ^^/Euftochinmj the pious Virgin, ^i.Jerom fo highly eftecm'd. But on what grounds docs he maintain this to be an imitation of St. Jerom^ rather than the genius and writing of St. Jerom himfelF? If the writer of this Proem was a feign'd Pcrfon, who deijgn'd to put ofl^his own piece for Si. Jeroni's^ he certainly was mader of but little addrefs in complaining of the unfaithful tranflations, which had been fent abroad in his timej for no one can produce the leaft proof, that new Latin Verfions were ever made in the Age 'tis pretended this Preface wascompos'd: Whereas 'tis plain from Si. Auguflin^ St. yerom's contemporary, that in their days divers had undertaken to tranllate the New Tellament > and 'tis without doubt, the complaint in the Preface re- fpe^led fome one of thefe Vcrfionsj which is no in- contlderable Argument in favour of our opinion, that this Preface is St. Jerom's genuine Work. 'Tis urg'd fiirther, that were this St. Jerom's^ 'tis inconceivable he fhould fet {o high a value on the difpofition of the Canonical Epillles, and throvv'-mg back St. James's into the firll place, as to aicribe it to the efpccial ailiftance of God. But the words and fenfe of St. jerom are here mifunderiioodj for his paflage and meaning relate not to the bare ordering the Epillles, but to the pains he had taken, when by dilpoling 'em as they ought to be, he had brought them to a review, as before he had done the Gofpels : Sicut E'vafigcliftas dudum ad I'eritatis lineam correximns y it a has propria or dine .^ Deo dante.^ reddidimus. The exprelTion, Deo dante^ regards the former word ror- reximus^ as well as the latter, reddidimus j and com- prehends both the order they were difpos'd in and their corredion, for otherwife the inllance drawn from the Gofpels would be of no ufe in this affair. As to what is faid in the Preface, that the Latins had not obferv'd the fame order with the Greeks in their ( ^9 ) their difpofition of the feven Epiftles, having put St. Peter's before St. J^mes's^ F. Martianay will have it, that this can't be St. Jerom's Criticifm, bccaufe it had no place in his tinae. But the learned Bcnedi^ine is here niiilaken, luice 'tis certain that in the Age of St. Jero?n fome among the Latins had fo ordered the Epiftks, as may be feen in Rufimis upon the Creed, and St. yiHgufiirfs fecond Book de Dobliind Chnfliand^ Chap. 8. 'i'hc lame F. Martianay is of opinion, this Preface was not con:ipos'd 'till feveral Ages after St. Jercm^ by reafon of the word Cafionical^ v/hich is there gi- ven to the Epiftles inllead of CathoUck their ancient title, for he fays they were not nam'd Cano?iicari\\\ after the llxth Century : But this is another miftake. Jiinilius^ who flourifli'd about the middle of the fixth Century, calls 'em Canonical^ as by a name ufually af- crib'd to 'em; qute Canonica^ fays he, appellant ar ', hereby denoting the name was of fome ftanding. Befides St. Augusiln has faid the fame thing of St. Jude\ Epiille, in his fifteenth book de clvitate Dei^ cap. 13. And 1 find in a note o^ Erafmus's upon St. Jerom's treatife of Ecclefiaftical Writers, that this ancient Father had alfo flyl'd the Epiftles of St. Peter and St. Jude Canonical. The words oi Erafmus are thefe; Inflead of Canonical^ I have follcw^d the tran- fiation ^/ Sophronius, and put CathoUck. Erafmus therefore alter'd St. Jerom's Text by the Verfion of Sophronius^ who had tranflated into Greek the Tra6t de Scriptoribm Ecclefiaflicis, But Erafmus in fo do- ing not only aflum'd too great a Hbertyj he did not enough attend to the Subje6l he was upon : for he Ihould have confider'd, that Sophronius writing in Greek might, and in fome manner ought, to fubflitute the word CathoUck in the place of Canonical^ which would have appear'd altogether new upon the occa- fion, and foreign to the Greek Idiom -, for the Greeks purfuant to the Council of Laodicca^ which had fo nam'd ( 30 } ^ namM 'em, gave no other title to the feven Epidles, than that o^Catholick. Mr. Simon agrees here entire- ly with us : The Greeks^ ^ fays he, have ftyVd the fe- ven Epiftles Cathoiick j tho' the VVeflern Churches feera to h.rce unherfally appropruted to them the name Ca- nonical : and from hence he proceeds to give fome reafons for his opinion. However he is p^eas'd to produce another Argu- ment againd the Preface, that fcarce deferves a re- hearfal > luhlch is^ that this Preface was not in Bede'i Bihle^ who liv'd before Charles the Great. But where is it he faw this Bible o^ Bede's? Or, in what part of his works has that Fenerable Dodor, as he is llyl'd, taken notice the Preface was not in his Bible? Thefe are mere inventions. Mr. Simon goes upon this, that Bede having commented on the feven Epillles would not have fail'd to mention the Preface, had it been extant in his time. But this is an extravagant way of reafoning, and unworthy fo finifh'd a Critick as he wasj for he could not be ignorant that Bede had wrote many other Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture, without having faid the leail word con- cerning the Prefaces prefix'd to 'em, which were un- doubtedly Si.Jerom's 3 for example, upon the Books oi Mofes^ oi Samuel^ of Kings ^ the Proverbs, St. Mat- thew^ and fome others. The moil plauflble reafon Mr. Simon has urg'd to prove this Preface none oi St. Jerom's^ is taken from that Father's not mentioning it in the Catalogue of his Prefaces. But it might be, it was not then com- pos'd : and what more clearly refolves the difficulty, St. Jerom has not fet down in the fame Catalogue ma- ny other Prefaces, which he wrote 5 for inflance, thofe upon the Pfalms, the Books of the Maccabees, theEpitlles of St. P^/^/, and the Adls of the Apoftles. a Hiji. Crii.dH N. T, £h. i^. This ( 3^ } This laft, Mr. Simon denies to be St. Jercm's^ but is iuily refuted by F. Martianay : to which I add, that the lame Be^e^ whole Silence was lately produc'd as a good Argument againfl the Preface, has exprefHy own'd that to be St. JerGm's^ which is fet before the Acts in the Latin Bibles, and cited from it fonie lines in his Comment upon the Acls. This is another kind of proof than Mr. iS'/;^;^A/s, which maintains the Pre- face upon the feven Epiltlcs is not St. Jerom's^ becaufe Bcde has no where fpoke of it. Tiie anonymous Author of the EngUjl) Diflertation againft the genuinenefs of St. John's Text has done honour to the late Dr. Mills for his having own'd the Preface to be none of St. Jerom's : but 'tis an interelVd regard this namelefs writer, and others before hinij have paid the Do61:or, with defign to draw an advan- tage from his acknowledgment. I refped: his memo- ry, I honour his learning, and am very thankful for the almofl ineftimable prefent he made to the publick in his excellent and incomparable Edition of the New Teliament 5 but I muft be allow'd to fay, he has oft err'd thro' want of attention, or a defedl in memo- ry: 'tis human i the late Mr. Kufter has made this obfervation upon divers pafTages in his Prolegomena, and as to Dr. Af/V/^'s fentiment upon the Preface to the feven Canonical Epiftles, the Arguments he brings for it are fo very weak, that were one from thence to pafs a judgment upon the great learning of that ex- traordinary man, we could not but abate of the high eftcem he otherwife fo juftly merits. He charges the Author of this Proem v;ith falihood in taxing the TranflatorSjhe mentions, of unfaithfulnefs for not having turn'd into Latin the feventh verfe of St. Jo/jn-, becaufe, fays he, this verfe had never been in the Greek before St. Jerom's time^ for no Greek Father before him had ever quoted it. I fhall ihew hereafter, that conclufions can't be drawn againlt the Authenticknefs of St. J(?/;«'s Text from the want of citati- ( 3^ ) citations in the Greek Fathers. But he/ides, Dr. Mills fhould have confider'd, tho' this Preface had been made later than the Age of St.Jcyoiti^ and not 'till about the eighth or ninth Century, the verfe wg treat of mull at leaft have been extant in the Greek Copies of that time: But more of this by and by. Another great mi Hake in Dr. Mills is, that he has imagined the Preface had in view the old Iralick Ver- iion in the place, where 'tis faid, the paflage of St. John had not been tranilatcd by the Latin jnterpre- lers: Sure that great man did not think what he faid, and his eyes and underllanding were in different places : I ihall fay no more at prefent. A third argument he urges is, that if the Preface was St. Jcroni's^ the feventh verfe would have been found in all the ancient Copies of his Bible. I have alreadv anfwer'd this Objedioni and 'twas eafy for Dr. Mills to have given an anfwer to himfelf, that is very natural, and leaves behind it no manner of diffi- culty. I have been very large, perhaps larger than the bu- finefs required, in vindicating the Preface to the Ca- nonical Epiftles j but as I have obferv'd mofl of the rejeders of St. John's pafTage form to themfelves a notion, that to remove the teilimony of St. Jerom in its favour in a Preface, that bears his name, is to take away its chief fupport j I thought it excufable to be thus full upon the point, that 1 might leave none of the arguments urg'd againll it, untouched or unexa- mined. Chap, (33) C H A P. VI. That the pa ([age ofSt.^o\\x\ was tn the old Itahck yerjion^ before that /^/cSV. Jerom, prov'd from St, Fulgentius, from Vigi- lius of Tapfum, and a confeffion of faith drawn uD by near four hundred African Biftoops. THO' the Greek Tongue had fprcad it fclF thro' all the JVefl^ and become as it were an univer- Tal language in thoie Countries, upon firil: preaching the Gofpel there, the Latin was yet more generally known, and admitted as the common language not only in //^/jK) but in many other nations withal. For thiscauie, in order to make the New Teilament more eaiy to be read and under flood by all forts of people^ it was tranOated into Latin in the firil or fecond Cen-' tury. The perfons concern'd in fo important an af-* fair are unknown to us j this barely is come to our knowled/^e, that their Vcrdon was much approv'd of, andimmediately recelv'd in all the ^Vejlern Church- es, and focn after in the African. As this Tranflarioa was the firil that appear'd, and in all probability was compil'd in Italy ^ it has been dillinguiih'd from others fince made, by the title o^ antlqua^ and Italica^ '?j-\dL fomctlmes by the word Vulgata^ or Common^ becaufe as I have above obferv'd, it was the vulgar and ordi- nary Verfion us'd in all the Latin Churches. As in thofe days tranfcribing Copies was the only means to multiply Books for publick ufe, or the be- nefit of private pcrlbnsj 'tis ealy to iuppofe, that many faults muft of courfe creep into 'em. Here an ©million j there one word put for another) elfew^here F pallages (34) paHages difplac'd and fet out of order: at fomc times the words or one Evangelift added to another's relati- on of the [iime Fa61:5 as tho' they had been there left our j all thefe fliults and abundance of others of a dif- ferent nature, increaling with time, made it very de- firable that an able hand fhould be fet to work in cor- rccling 'em. There was no man more capable to ex- ecute this great defign than St. Jerom. He had al- ready amended the Latin Verfion of the Old Tefta- itienr, with a fuccefs worthy the vafl knowledge he had in the Hebrew^ its Original language; and in Greek^ the language of the fam'd Tranflation by the leventy Interpreters. Pope Damafus at the fame time earneiily prefs'd him, tho' already wearied with that great work, and difpirited by the injuries the envy of the place had drawn upon him, to review and cor- red the MSS. of the New Teftament. The pious and learned Rechife yields to his entreaties, and Book by Book, after much pains and time, he at length perfecled his review, and correded the Vulgar Bible then in ufe. However, he proceeded in fuch manner, as to cafl: out only the moll obvious miilakes 5 he perpetually follow- ed his copy without diminution or addition and never fupplied an omiHion upon conjedure without authority from the Original Gr^f/^; and tothisweowethefolemn proteftation at the clofe of his Catalogue of Ecclefi- aflical Writers, that in his Tranflation of the New Teftament he had kept clofe to the Greek Original, and to the Hehrezv in his Veriion of the Old : Novum "Te ft amentum Gracce fidei reddidi : Fetus juxta Hebraic cam tranftuU. Since then the verfe of the witneiTes in heaven was in St. Jerom's correded Copy ;' tis indubitable, that it was alfo extant in the oldLatin Tranflation ; 'twould other- wife have been an addition in his Bible 5 and com- jplaints hereupon could not but have arofe, fincc by mere changing one iingle word for another, he was was occafion'd no fmall trouble j as we learn from '"B^fwe" have no need of this indirca proof, tho' clea. and evident, to fhew the verfe ot S. John ^v . .n the Old Italick Bible before the review and cor- reftion of S. Jcrom : I fhall produce dnxft arguments IS favour, againft >^hich 'tis m^poffib le to n^ake reply tha canies with it the flradow ot rcafon iFuhcntius, B.ftop of Rufpe m Jfnck, l,v d m the begmmng of the Century at =i t™e the Italick VerfioT. was only read in the Churches Th.s pious B.lbop, with the other ^ncans of '^ ^§0 fuffcr'd much from the Jrian Kmgs^ nraju,:Mul caus'd him to appear at Carthage to anfwer tne Ob- jeftions thofe Hereticks had drawn , up «g|l'"ft ';= Eternity of the Son of God, and h,s equality vni the Father We all fee, the utmoil exaftnefs and precaution in chufing Texts of Scripture was req:,..- fite in S. Fulgentius, and above all ^\^ m^'f''°\^,l none whofe genuinenefs might be fofpeaed. We have extant among his works the anfwers to thefe Qiieftions, and we there Hnd alledg'd m P™.ot °f 5>^e S^n's Confabftantiality with the Father this Pafl age of S.John, There are three, that bare record ,n hea- ven, he Father, the Word, and the Holy G„ofi, and thefe three are one. This verfe is withal quoted m a traa of the fame Fulgentius concerning the runity, which he dedicates to Mix. A little before him flourifh'd alfo m Jfrtck and in the fame Province VigHius, Bifhop of Tap^fhm, who in the f'h Century wrote many excellent pieces againlt diverfe Herefies, but prefix'd his name to none o. 'em, fave a treatife againft the £«0'f*/«wi for the jlriam not taking part with thofe Herencks, the^- frkan Writers had nothing to fear on that fide. But in his controverfies with the Ariam he walk d not m "~~' » Du Pin ttmkr the ArtUle of S, Fulgentius. ( 3M tlie fame fleps-, he here conceal'd his name, that without ncceflity he might not be expos'd to the perfccution they had rais'd. So that his writings came al)ror.d under divers feign'd names j fometimes he pafs'd for Idacius Claras^ a former Bifhop in Por' tugal-^ fometimes for S. Athanafius \ and fometimes he t.:)ok upon him the perfon of S. Augufiine^ who died a few years before at Hippo. In thefe works he vigorouDy oppofes Arianifm,, and makes ufe of the celebrated paflage concerning the three witnefles in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, He quotes it twice in his treatife ^ concerning the Trinity, and urges it wirhal in his difpute againft Fa^ rimadus.^ an Aricin Heretick, About the fame time, in the year 484. was aflem- bled at Carthage a numerous Council of Bifhops, fum- mon'd thither by King Hmerick^ an Avian and great Perfecutor. He had order'd by his Edi6t of May 10. 483. all the Bifliops in his Dominions to appear at Carthage upon the firil of February.^ there to defend, are the words of the Edi6]:, by the Scriptures (a very remarkable expreflion in this place) the Confubfban^ tiality of the Son with the Father in a publick dif- pute againft the Arian Bifhops. This Edid was fig- nificd to the pious and prudent Bifhop of Carthage Eugenius^ who feeing well the difpute was intended only to circumvent and opprefs the Orthodox undej- a fpecious pretext, took all poflible pains to procure the Edi6i: to be repeal'd. But finding no fuccefs in his defign, he judg'd it convenient a writing fhould be drawn up by certain Bifhops of the greatefl abili- ties in form of a Confeflion of Faith, to prefent the Emperor with, in cafe the diforder and opprefLon he forelavv on the part of the Arians fliouki prevent th^ Orthodox from maintaining their opinion with free- dom. This momentous inllrument was compiPd by " Llh. I. cr i/^. 7. four ( 37) four Bifhops in that interval of time the Emperor had aflign'd^ and we can't doubt, it was read and ex- amin'd, both by Eugenius^ the then Primate of jifri- ca^ and by all the learned, prudent and zealous advo- cates of the Chriftian Faith aflcmblcd at Carthage, Upon the appointed day near 400 Bifhops came to- gether, from all the Provinces of J f rick and many Ifles (mult arum infularum) fays Vi^or Vitenfts^ who flouriin'd at that time, and who wrote this Hidory, and has pkc'd upon record the entire Confedion of Faith, we now treat of. Under thefe Ifles were principally comprehended Majorca and Minorca on the Coafts of Spain^ and Corfica with Sardinia bor- dering upon Italy-i as being all dependent on the Vandal King then reigning in Africk. From among this great number of Bifhops ten were chofen to maintain the difpute, and at their head the Holy Prelate Eugenius. When they were come to the place, where the Conference was to be held, they found there an Arian Bifhop, one Cyrila^ who taking upon him the title of Patriarch, had proudly feated himfclf on a kind of throne, environ'd with Soldiers. The Orthodox amaz'd at this Spectacle faw well how the matter would go> and no fooner had they begun to fpeak, and enter their Proteita- tions, but feditious outcries follow'd, which ended in blows upon the Orthodox. The only way they I had in this cafe to take was to prefent the King's I Commiilioners with the Confellion of Faith they had I drawn up ready, and wherein were produc'd many Texts of Scripture in defence of the Orthodox do- ctrine purfuant to King Hunerick's Edicl, who had refus'd to admit the Plea of Tradition. Of all thefe pafTages thus inferted into the Confef- fion of Faith St. John's verfe was more particu- \ jlarly infiifed on than the reft 5 fo decifive was it \ I thought by the African Qhmchcs in proving the do- ftrine of the Trinity. But^ fay they, that it may yet ( 38 ) appear more clear than day lights that the Godhead of the Holy Ghoft is one with the Godhead of the Father and the Son^ fee it prov'd by the teftimony of the Evan- gelift tS'^. John, who writes thus^ 'There are three^ which bear record in heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the Holy Ghofl y and thefe three are one. Do's the Apoflle fay^ thefe three are not difiinci from each other ^ except in the cafe of equality^ or fome other great difference^ that difiinguifJoes 'em ? In no wife 5 hut he fays^ thefe three are one only and the fame thing. Hi tres imum lunt. Thefe Bifliops would truly have wanted, fhall I fay, difcretion or honefty, had they made ufe in this affair of a Text not generally received as Holy Scri- pture. Could they have invented a more ready means to draw upon 'em the infults of the Arians^ who ta- king advantage from this error would not have fail'd to cry out againfl; the Orthodox to Hunerick as Men who had urg'd falfe records inftead of the genuine Texts of Scripture the King's Edi6t had requir'd? Men were the fame then they are now, and have we at this day, I (ay not, hundreds of Bifhops, who by concert would employ a forg'd Text in the Faith's defence 5 but is there one lingle Bifhop, only one Man of Letters, who has the lead Honour or Con- fcience, who would thus rifque his reputation, and proftitute his religion? Can we imagine the Arians were lefs diligent then to examine the arguments of the Orthodox, than the moft zealous oppofers of our Holy Myfleries are now? No furelyj and the forge- ry of the Paflage in queilion had been too palpable to have efcap'd the Eyes of the Arians^ who, had they been able to read only, would have wanted nothing far- ther to difcover the cheat. Nor would it have been enough to juflify the Or-^ thodox for inferting it into their Confeffion of Faith, to fay, they had found it in fome of their own Co- pies. At that time, as before and finccj particular Mss; ( 39 ) MSS. might eafily be incorred, but the Faith of the Church was not to be built on faulty and inauthoii- tative MSS. > this was to be grounded on Copies rc- ceiv'd in the Publick fervice, and to which molt o- thers were generally conform'd. Nor weie thefe Copies of two days or a few years (landing -, 'tis to form notions at wil), to fuppofe the Bibles in the ^- frican Bilhops PoOefiion in Himerick\ Reign had a padage fo clTential to the Chrifiian Faith as this of St. John's Epiftlc, that was wanting in the Bibles of their PredecelTors. This confequence (o juft, fo na- tural, brings us back to St. Auguftine^ who had flou- rifh'd with fuch reputation in Africk^ and ended his days at Hippo^ when Gcnferick^ Hiinerick''s Father, laid Siege to that Town. 'Tis urg'd againfl us, as we fliali fee hereafter, that St. Auguftine has no where quoted this paiTage, which he ought to have done, if it had fall'n under his view, or he had thought it to be St. John's^ and feen it in that Apoftle's EpifHe. For my part, I maintain this paHage either was in St. Augufiine's Bible, or in cafe it Vv^as wanting, his Bible was defective > fince it mui1: neceilarily have been extant in the Bibles of his time, or infertcd into the Bibles o^ tht ylfrkan Churches after his deaths the laft proportion is abfard and incredible, and there- fore the former true and certain. If not, the difputed Text in that fmall interval muft have run thro' all the Provinces of Africk^ and the Iflands of Spa'm and Italy, all Libraries mull have been open to receive it 3 and it mufl have either crept between the lines of the MSS. or been wrote in the Margin of St. John's Epillle j how otherwife could the Bifhops in Hunerick's days have copied it thence into their ConfefTion of Faith ? But this is not all, it muft with the fame eafe have penetrated into the private Clofets of the Avians^ and finding there the MSS. they had brought from Spain into Africk^ when they accompanied King Gsnferk thither, this Text concerning ( 40 ) concerning the Trinity muft have forc'd its way into them, to the utter fhame and confufion of j^riamfm. Without this fuppofal the Jrians would not have re- cciv'd it, nor admitted for a Text of Scripture a quo- tation the Orthodox Bifhops had drawn from their own Bibles. Thefe confequences are all ridiculous, but as they naturally flow from the opinion I oppofe, that the paflage of St. John is forg'd , they evidently make out the contrary concluiion, that it was re- ceiv'd as genuine in Africk by both the Orthodox and jirians. Mr. Smon has attempted to evade the Force of this Argument, by faying, ^ BiJJjop Vidor liv'd an Age after St. Jerom, and was the fir ft who brought the paffage into his fVorks. But why does the learned, the judicious Mr. Simon fo little confult his own reputa- tion by advancing fa6ls fo notorioufly falfe ? Firll, he has err'd in his Chronology, in making Fi6for an hun- dred years later than St. Jerom^ for they both liv'd m the fame Age. St. Jerom died in the year 410. and Fi^or was Bifhop at leail in 483. and it may be, a- bove ten years before, for the year of his inrtaiment into his Biiboprick is uncertain) but 'tis fure, this was done before the conference at Carthage^ and in thofe Days no one could be made a Bifhop under the Age of 30 years. Secondly^ Fi6ior cannot properly be faid to have brought this palTage into one of his works > he has on- ly copied and given us at large a writing which others had drawn up, wherein this pafiage was produced. As then this work was none of Fi5ior's , for whofe it is taken j fo is it not true, that Fi5lor firfl alledg'd the paflage: I fliall fhew the contrary in the next Chap* tcr. But to come to another weighty anfwer of Mr» Simon's. ^» Hiji, Grit, dft Texte dtt N. J\ ch, i8. fhit ( 41 ) This great nnmhcr of BiJIjops ^ (fays he) amounts to only Eugenius. Whence learns he this? Why, from Gennadi us ^ who in his Catalo^^iie of fajnous men fays^ Eugenius with the confcnt of all the Bifhops in Africa^ Mauritania^ Sardinia^ and C(?r/7^^ com pil'd this Con- fellion of Faith. But ViHor^ who had been an Eye- witnefs of all that pafs'd, tells us, the Confeflion was drawn up by fourBifhops, whofe names he gives us with the titles of their Bifhopricks, nor does he make Eugenius one of the number. But fuppofe Eugenius had alone compos'd it, would it be lefs true, that the pafTage had been urg'd in the manner we have feen? Was ever reafoning fo bad? Yes, what follows is worfe. "the other Bifljops^ adds hcj [uhfcriFd the Confejjiort ivithout critically examining the pajfages of Holy Scrips ture quoted in it. We mult own, Mr. Simon gives us a fine Idea of the African Bifhops, who in their time were the greateft lights of the Epifcopate. Eugenius^ in his account, was a man of no confcience j or a mere giddy-brain'd fellow, to attempt fo grofs an im- pofition, firll upon hiaCollegues and the whole Cler- gy, and next upon the Arian BifhopSj by a fuppofi- titious Text, whofe forgery might fo eaiily have been difcover'd. Well, but {vjs'b^lv. Simon ^ they were not able Criticks> i. e. they were not Mr. Simon\'^ they were good harmlefs People, who would fet their hands to a paper of the utmoil: importance, without having read it all over, or at beft but curforily^ and not with confidcration , uiicapable to difcern they fubfcrib'd a paflage, by which the ConfeiHon was fupported more than by any other, without their ha-^ ving feen it in St. John'^ Epiftle. Reafon crys outy whether one will or no, againft an imputation lb vile, fo abfurd, fo rallily advanc'd. ' ^ I Di/I'erf. fnr les MSS. /, 89, G The ( 40 The anonymous Author of the Englijh Diflertati- on appears fomewhat afhamM of Mr. Simon in this point, whom otherwife he has highly magnify'd throughout the whole of the difputcj for leaving here his idle fancies, ^ he contents himfelf with fay- ing, the teftimony of Fi^er ought not to be of much weight, becaufe in his Hiftory he has intermix'd a recital of certain miracles, that have more an appear- ance of fable than an air of truth. This is not a place to reafon upon miracles: Fi^ior is not the only perfon, who has recited 'em > MarcelUnus Comes and many other Writers, living at the fame time, have fpoken of 'em, as well as Fi5lor. But whether in the cafe alledg'd he has exaggerated the matter or nor, what is this to the Contellion of Faith fubfcrib'd by the y//r/V^;^ Bilhops, or wherein is FiSlory who has gi- ven it us entire, for this caufe a lefs faithful Hillorian ? But I'll detain my Reader no longer. This great great number of Biihops are, to fpeak in the lan- guage of the Apoftle St. Paul<^ a cloud of witnejjes ^ every one of 'em comes, as I may fay, with his Bible in his hand ready to prefent us with St.Jobn^s pafTage to read. Chap. VII. The teflimonies of Sl Eucherius, St. Cy- prian, and TertuUian for the genuine- nefs of this Text. I Know not how it efcap'd Dr. Mills ^ but he has faid in his 152,0^^ Prolegomenon to the New Te- l, Differ t. />. 18. ftament, ( 43 ) itament, that only the African Copies had this pajfage. We have however leen it in the moft ancient Wri- ters of France^ Italy, and Germany .^ who have all ci- ted it from St. Jerom\ Bible j and obferv'd that 'twas no Icfs extant in the Bibles of the old Italick Verfion, in ufe throughout Spain and Italy, than in the Copies o^ Africk: i\nd befides, we fhall fee it quoted in a treatife of St. Eucherius de formulis fpiritualibus, who was Bifhop oi Lyons, and St. Jeronis Contemporary. St. Jerom, as we have noted, died in the year 420. About the fame time Eucherius'' s fame began to ad- vance in the Monaftery o^ Lerins, now call'd the IJle of St, Margerice., on the coafts of Prcvence. Before the year 418. %s Mr. du Pin in the article of St. Eucherius, his reputation forc'd him thence into the neighbouring Provinces > but within a while he re- turn'd to Lerins, and was foon after confecrated Bi- shop of Lyons. The time he liv'd in, with the high efteem he had in the Church, can't but fet off to ad- vantage the quotation he has made of St. John'^ paf- fage : ^ As to the trinity, fays he, we read in St. JohnV Epijlle : There are three, which hear record in Heaven, the Father, the IVord, and the Holy Ghoft -, and there are three, that bear witnefs in earth , the Spirit , the water, and the blood. This is decifive in the point. Dr. Mills did not recolle(5V, that himfelf had taken notice of this quotation by St. Eucherius in his 958^^ Prolegomenon 'y the greateft Men are fubjecl to like flips in memory. St. Cyprian, who flourifli'd in Africk, about the middle of the third Century, has quoted the fame paflage in a Difcourfe againft the Novatian Schifmj entitul'd De fimplicitate Pnelatorum, or De unitate Ecclefne, in thefe words : Our Lord hath /aid, I and my Father are one j and again, it is written of the Fa- ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghojl, that thefe three are » Eticher. ch. 11. Jf ^, G z one. ( 44 ) one. Here he vifibly alludes to the paflage In St. John's Epiltle". The Jrian Sandius would infinuate in his Eccle- fiaflical Hiilory, and the Jppendix to that Hiftory, that we can't much depend on this paflage of St. Cyprian^ becaufe the Tra61: from whence it is taken has been alter'd in divers places, where the ancient MSS. do not agree : But is that circumftance pecu- liar to this difcourfe? There are few MSS. of the nncient Writings, that agree in all particulars 5 tho' the variations be generally of the leall importance. However it be as to this treatife, 'tis very fure, we have no MSS. at prefent, which want the words I have given above, and that's enough for us. Mr. Simon^ and all others who have been prefs'd hard with this quotation from St. Cyprian^ have found out another way to evade its force. They (ay, the Holy Martyr had in view the words of the eighth verfe, the fpirit^ the water ^ and the bloody and thefe three are one-y which St. Augufline has interpreted myftically of the three perfons in the Godhead, and St. Eucherius informs us were by fomc men fo ex- plain'd. And to give more weight to their anfwcr fhey add, that Facundus Bifhop o{ Hermiane in 4frick^ not only has expounded 'em in this manner, but alfo faid that St. Cyprian had refpedt to them in the paf- fage above produced. This is the refuge, the only refuge our modern Criticks fly to, who will have St. John's paflage fuppofititious 3 but this hold is not de- fen Able. Firllj It IS a mere fallacy, and prejudice lurks be- hind it. The fallacy conliils in this, that the point in difpute is taken for granted The quellion is, whether in St. Johns Lpilrle there is a paflage, where the three perfons in the Trinity are expreifly nam'd, and taught to be one and the fame thing: The affirmative is maintained by us, by them the ne- gative. Down ip St. Cyprian, v/e have found them in \ (45 ) in St. John^ and all ihcJ/rican Biihops, St. Cyprian\ SucceiTor in the See o^ Cart barge not excepted, have feen the ilime words in the Holy ApolHes Epillle. Not one of the three perfons in the Godhead is nam'd in the eighth verfe, the word Spirit only oc- curs without the Epithet oF Holy, which is adjoin- ed to it by St. Cyprian and in the icventh vcrfc of St. Jobn-y only the word Spirit is equivocal, for it has many fignifications, and its meaning always depends upon the particular fubjed treated of, where 'tis men- tion'd. Why then fliould not the expreffion /i^/Z^^r, Son^ and Holy Gboft refpc61: the feventh verfc, where the fame words occur and the fame perfons are de- noted, rather than tbe fpirit^ tbe ^jjater^ and blood in the eighth verfe, which are three words quite diffe- rent, but that 'tis fuppos'd the feventh verfe was not in St. John's Epillle, lince without this fuppofition we mull own St. Cyprian had the feventh verfe in his Eye? Now this is what I call aflillacy. We leave the natural ideas of the terms, and have rccourfe to ideas foreign and forc'd, and then fay this was the fenfe and meaning of St. Cyprian. Thefe Gcntlem.en, ac lead many of 'em, are Philofophers and Divines. I beg of 'em to confider, whether ever it came into their heads, or they ever obferv'd it in men of the fame learning v/ith themfelves, to leave the proper and litteral iignification of terms to explain 'em by other words, which have not litterally the fame fig- nification. Metaphorical expreflions indeed muft be taken in a different fenfe from the letter of the phrafe j for example, the feven ears of corn in Pba- raob's dream fignified feven years 5 by a vineyard in Jfaiab was denoted the Houfe o^ Ifrael], -.mdjcfus Cbrift by a vine in St. Jobn-, and fo in a thouiand other cafes: but that we lliould explain feven years of feven ears of corn j or the Houfe o[ Jjrael of -a. vineyard) or Jefus Chrifi of a vine, in the Texts where neither ears of corn, nor a vine, nor a vine- yard f 4^ yard have any concern, but the proper terms fland all alone, is what I'm perfuaded no iniknce can be brought to ihew \ tor rcafon univerfally crys out againlt it, where prejudice has not fliut mens eyes : The application forms it felf. When St. Augufiine interpreted the fprit ^ the water^ and the blood in the eighth verfe of the three perfons in the Trinity, he took notice his interpre- tation was myftick and allegorical > confult but his own words in his treatife agamd Maximin : There is nothing like this in St. Cyprian^ he quotes the three perfons of the Godhead by their ordinary names. Facundus^ an hundred years after him, interprets ' 'tis true, of the three perfons the three words in the eighth verfe, but he gives us alfo to underfland, that his comment is but by way of figniHcation, /. e. he takes 'em as St. Aiiguftine^ in a myftical and facra- mental fenfe. In St. ]o\iX\^ (liys he, is fignify'd the Father by the word fpirit, the Son by the blood, and the Holy Qhofl by the water. St. Cyprian has nothing of this nature, how then can we afcribe the fame mcanmg to him ? For this purpofe there fhould have been fome di 11:1 ngui tiling mark in the paflage, from whence one might happily conjedure he defign'd a myflical interpretation 5 but if nothing can be found there, that has the leall look that way, and we will yet maintain it to be his mind, this is to make our felvcs mailers of an Author's words, and there is nothing in fuch a cafe we may not expound to what fcnle we pleafe. Factmdus has given himfelf this hberty in the af- fair of St. Cyprian^ and fucceeded no better in it than in his explication of the eighth verfe of Sr. John's Epiflle, and the third of his Gofpel. Mr. Simon up- on the occafion has ftyl'd him the learned Facnndus^ with dcfign by this encomium to preingage the judgment of his Readers ^ but I iha'n't fcruple to affirm, neither Mr. Simon^ nor any of his followers, would 4 ( 47 ) would be willing to admit Facundus\ interpretation of the words jpirit^ water ^ and bloody or of the phrafc, God is afpirit^ upon which Facundus grounds his explication of the word fpirit in appropriating it to theperfon of the Father. I {hall add no more upon this head, out of regard to that ancient Bifhop, who for other paflages has highly deferv'd elteem 3 and I fhall gladly make ufe of what F. Sirmond^ to whom we owe the firfl Edition of Facundus*^ work, has faid in his favour, tho' in no proper place, upon the fubjed of a pafPage concerning the Eucharift. 7/" Fa- cundus has not well eaprefs'd himfelf ^ we ought to Jhew an indulgence toward hi?n^ who had fo much for others. But the refpc61; that's due to this venerable Prelate's piety fhould not take from us a right we have in common with him (which is no more than the right of reafon it felf,) to judge of the juft ap- plication of St. Cyprian's words by themfelves, and independently of the fentiment Facundus had ot 'em. I obferve farther, if this caufe muft be determin'd by tellimony, we fhall gain no fmall advantage from the evidence of another Bifhop, an African equally with Facundus^ and of a reputation in no wife infe- rior to him, I mean S. Fulgentius^ Bifnop oi Rufpe. He liv'd fome time before Facundus^ and wrote much againfl the Herefy of Arius, We have fhewn in the foregoing Chapter, that the feventh verfe is oft alledg'd in his writings, he produces it entire, and adds upon the quotation, 'This the blef/ed Martyr St. Cyprian has withal acknowledged^ writing in his Epi^ file concerning the Unity of the Church , It is written of the Father^ the Son^ and the Floly Ghoft^ that thefe three are one. If ^S*. Fulgentius had urg'd the words of the eighth verfe, the jpirit^ the water ^ and the bloody ^c. and hereupon repeated the paflage from St. Cy- prian^ it might not without reafon have been averr'd, that the Holy Martyr had rehears'd 'em only with a view to the Trinity, and to fhew St. Cyprian iiad the ( 48 ) the fame thoughts concerning that myftery with himfelf. But as St. Fulgentius has taken no notice of the eighth verfe, can it poflibly be imagin'd his quotation from St. Cyprian refpeds the eighth verfe^ and not the feventh which he has produc'd ? This would be fomewhat extraordinary. In the fecond Century Tertullian fiourifh'd in A-^ frick^ in which Age St. John died, ^ about the year 102, according to Eufebius^ o/ according to others 104, or I Of . At that time an Her.etick, nam'd Prax* eas^ taught there was but one Perfon in the God-* head, in fcripture call'd the Father. Tertullian has wrote a very excellent Treatife againll this error, and alledg'd the laft claufe of St. John\ pafTage upon the fubjed: of the three perfons in the Godhead, thefs three are one. His words taken out of his if "^^^ chap- ter are thefe, " Jefus faid of the Holy Ghofl, He '^ Jlmll take of mine ^ as he had taken of the Father j *^ and thus the connexion of the Father with the '' Son, and of the Son with the Holy Gholl, cau- ^' feth thefe three to be united together 5 the which '^ three are one and the fame things not one and the fame perfon; as 'tis faid, / and my Father are one, " The Latin runs thus, q^iii tres unum funt, non unus'y quomodo diUum eft^ Ego 6c Pater unum fumus. The words, qui tres unum funt ^ are manifeflly the fame with the feventh verfe of St. John, 'Tis pretended ^ 7'ertullian has thus exprefs'd him* felf of his own head (imply to expound the dodlrine of the three perfons in one God, and not with a view to the Text of the Apoftle ; and this notion is confirm'd by the mark of quotation, which occurs in the following paflage, j^s it is ^written^ I and my Father are one. The difcuffion of this point at the bottom is noE a Du Pin ly'i(fe,rt, PreUm.fur h Bible, lib, a. ch. 1. §. 6. fc Dijfert, Angl p. 38^ extremely ( 49 ) fextremely important j we may eafily pafs over "jter- tuUiari's quotation after having feen St. Cyprian's^ who Hv'd in Jfrick much about the fame time, and whofc Bible was not different from 'tertullian's^ efpe- cially in fo momentous a point as the Text of the three perfons: But after all, I can fee nothing folid in the objection againd 1'ertuUian's paffage, and for this very reafon fhall undertake to defend it. Firflj 'tis certain the Fathers have oft interwoven whole Texts, or fome part of a Text, with their Writings^ without notice of the citation, and as if the words had been of their own compofition 5 if this be difpu- ted I am ready to produce an infinite number of Ex-. amples. I fhall at prcfent content my felf with one in every rcfpeft parallel to ^ertuUian's', in that two Texts of fcripture coming immediately one after an- other, the former without any mark of quotation Hands as the Authors own words, and the latter, which flraightvv^ay follows, is exprefly quoted, tho' the mark of quotation be no n.ore necelTary in the one cafe than in the other. T his inftance is drawn from Gregory Nazianzen ^ who in his 44*^ Oration fpeaking of the gilt of Tongues the Apolilcs had re- ceiv'd on the Day of Pentecoft, has thcfe words. *' The Apoftles fpake in divers tongues, without " having learnt 'em, which was a fign not to them *' which believe^ hut to them which believed not \ and *' thus was an accufition of the unbelievers 5 as it \% ^' written, / will/peak to this people in a flrange Jan- guage. Now, the former words, 7'ongues are a jigii to them which believe not^ &c. were taken from the twenty fecond vcrfe of the fourteenth chapter of the firfl epiifle to the Corinthians s and yet St. Gre- gory feems to have fpoke 'em of his own head, with- out any view to the Text of the Apollle : and the rather for his exprefs quotation of the Text which foUow'd. ^ertullian's is the fame cafe. Secondly, What confirms this reafoning is, that H St. (so) Sc. Cyprian^ who in his treatife of the Unity of the Church produc'd 'em as St. John's words, in another place urges no more than we have feen in TertuIUan^ ^hefe three are one^ not obferving, that it was a quota- tion drawn from fcripture. The paflage I fpeak of is in St. Cyprian'' s Epiftle to Juhaianus^ pag. 205. of the Edition by the learned BiHiop of Oxford: He who receives Bdptifm^ fays St. Cyprian^ is fanUified^ and becomes the Temple of God '^ But of what God? Of the Creator ? This can^t be^ for he believes not in him. Of Chrift ? Alas ! How can he become the Temple of Chrift^ who does not acknowledge him to be God? Is he then the T'empJe of the Holy Ghoft^ fince thefe three are one ? Ctim hi tres unum fint^ as it is in the Latin. Here we fee the very words of St. John without the leaft mark or appearance of citation alledg'd as St. Cyprian'?, own equally with the reft : And why may we not pafs the fame Judgment upon the paflage of T'ertullian ? To fum up all in a few words. Thefe are the quotations, which from age to age down to the time of St. John^ have been made by Chriftian Divines of that Apoflle's Text concerning the three perfons of the Godhead in the Unity of Eflence. The firfl Latin Verfion of the New Teflament retain'd this valuable depofttum with the remaining part of the E- piflle j and St. Jerom took care it ihould not be o- mitted in the Bible he review'd and corrected. This Bible, which for a long time lay fhut up in Libra- ries as a Book to be confulted by the Learned or Curious, at length became the common Bible, and alone was read in the Churches > the Text of the Witnefles in heaven held there its ordinary place, and the Chiiilian Faith drew its nurture thence both in publick aflemblies and in private Families. This we have already fliewn from irrefragable authori- ties and unexceptionable evidence. A fmall num- ber might have fuffic'd, we demand no more in o- ther ther cafes, where party-intereft is not concern'd : How ftrong then mull be the conclufion, how dc- monftrative the teltimony, convey'd down thro' a fuccertlon of fo many Ages, and fupported by fuch abundant proofs ? e^o :^. tj «^ :?!o s^ tSTo cITw Jib olw J.O « ^ t'KU Chap. VIII. That this pcijjage of St. John h to be found in ^i?^ Greek Afanufcr'tpts of the Text of the New Tejiament^ as well as in the Latin. WE are told with alTurance enough to deceive, that this Text is no where found in the Greek Manufcripts of St. John's Epiftle j and a long lift of thefe Manufcripts is drawn out with much pomp and an air of ti lunrph, faid to have been feen in many Li- braries of France^ England and other Countries, where- in the verfe is wanting. But before we enter upon a particular examen of the Manufcripts, we mayob- ferve, that as the pafTage has been ever in the Italick Verfion, compos'd in the firft or fecond Century, the Compilers of that Verfion from the Greek Copies muft have either inferted it of their own head, ortranflated it from the Greek. Now the former propofition is too abfurd to be advanced j and therefore it muft have been in the Greek Original, and the old Italick Ver- fion in this refped hold the place of a Greek Copy. ■; St. Jerom^ upon revifing the Italick Bible towards the clofe of the fourth Century, took care to throw out the principal faults only, which had ftolcn into the MSS. and had efpecial regard to confult the Greek Copies, Novum ^eftamentum^ fays he, as we have a- H i bove bove obferv'd, fidei Gr^ae reddidi. St. John's paflage is found in his Bible ; Here then we have Greek MSS. on our fide, and MSS. the more valuable, as they are more ancient. Mr. Sirdon owns we have now not many above {ix or feven hundred years old > he excepts none but the Alexandrian ^ and one in the Vatican : The MSS. St. Jerom followed in his revife were far be- fore all thefe, and the Copies from which the Italick Verfion was tranflated were yet more ancient than St. Jerom'^s. If, when the African Bifhops drew up the excellent Confeffion of Faith we have already Ijpoke oF, the pafTage of St. 7^^;^ , which holds there fo confiderable a plac^, had not been in theGr^^y^ of the New Tedament, they could not have urg'd it with- out expofing themfelves to a fevere Cenfure. The Arians would have certainly exclaim'd, that the paf- fige was wanting in the Greek Original \ for the Greek Tongue was in thofe Days well known in Africk^ as we learn from an Epiflle of St. Augufline to St. Je- rom^ and may fee more fully in the Life of St. Fulgen- tius. The paflage then mull: of neceflity have been iri the Greek Copies of that Age. In fine, when in the eighth Century the learned' Men employed by Charles the Great, labour'd to free the Latin Bibles from the faults Tranfcribers had fuc- cefl^vely thrown into 'em, we can't but fuppofe that they alfo, as St. Jerom before them, confulted the Greek MSS. Mr. Simon maintains, the Proem to the feven Canonical Epiitles was the work of thefe Cor- redors > I have ihewn it to be St. Jerom's own per- formance, but be it fo, if they will have it, that 'twas wrote by one of the learn'd Revifers, the ends I pro- pos'd will yet be obtahi'd. The Compiler of it makes heavy Complaints againft certain Tranflators, whom he ilyles unfaithful^ for not having inferted into their Verfion of Sr. John's Epiftle the Text concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoil^ but this Au- thor would have become the fubjed of publick laugh- ter, (53) ter, if the Text had not been in the Greek Copies. Here then are ^.ther MSS. convey'd down to our times by the complaint \i\ that Preface. We have at prefent no iMSS. remaining of thofe remote Ages, time has fwept them all away, but as St. Paul{\\d of j^bel. ^ that being dead, by bis works he yet fpeakcth-y fo may we fay in fome manner of all thefe ancient MSS. they are now no more., but yet fpeak to us in the V'erfions and Quotations we have feen. Their language is only chang'd, the fenfe and meaning of the Greek has pals'd entu'ely into the La- tin-y and this is what's properly divine in a Text of Holy Scripture. But is it then triie, that there's no Greek MS. found in thefe later Ages, which has the pafiage of St. John ? No, afluredly, 'tis not true. I know nothing is more confidently aflerted , but nothing withal has been more rafhly advanc'd. Mr. Simon^ whom I fhall continually keep in view throughout this DiiTertati- on, becaufe I fee 'tis from him and his writings the clamours chiefly proceed, has in his Critical Hiftory of the New Teiiament own'd more than once the pafldge to be in f -veral Greek MSS. In one place he has faid, ^ "this p iff'ige is in very few Greek Copies : A little after, ^ It is not in the generality of the Greek Copies : Again, ^ 'TJi only in the mofi modern Greek MSS. Well then, tho' 'tis not in the generality of ^em, the' 'tis but in a few, yet 'tis in fomc of 'em j which may fuffice for an anfwer to fuch, as peremp- torily afTert, that 'tis in none. What Mr. Simon fays, that 'tis only in the mofi modern MSS. would do him no fcrvice, fhould wc grant it, as I fhall fliew in a- nother place ^ but on the contrary 'tis certain, the Text is found in MSS. of the higheil antiquity. a Heh. II. 4. b lltfl, dii VerCions, ch. II. « iy\^^ ch. \6 t Ch. l8. Nej^" (54) Near 500 years ago Laurent ius Falla^ a Noble* man of Rome^ and of vaft learning for the time he liv'd in, was the firfl: , fay Mr. Du Pin and Mr. Si- mon^ who made enquiry after the Greek MSS. of the New Teftament 5 he got into his hands feven, a num- ber at that time very confiderable , if we regard the fcarcity of Greek Copies then in Europe^ or known to be there. The paHage of St. John was found in all the feven. Thefe MSS. would have been modern in- deed, if not one among 'em was of four or five hun- dred years (landing % yet this added to the 300 years, or thereabouts 5 that have pafs'd fince, will in our days amount at lead to feven or eight hundred years. The Greek MSS. wherein Mr. Simon has obferv'd the pafTage to be wanting, by this computation will be the more modern of the two : fince, except the MS. in the Fatican^ and that of Alexandria , he gives to none a longer date than 600 years. But let us fup- pofe, if they require it, Valla' ^ MSS. were not above three or four hundred years old, they will yet equal all the others in antiquity. In the difpute Edward Ley had with Erafnzus upon his not inferring the Text of the three Witncflcs, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, into the two firll Editions he had made of the Greek Teflament, he urg'd againft him the Authority of Z/^^r^;^//^j Fal- 'la's MSS. Erafmus defended himfelf by faying he had not found the pafiage either in the four Greek MSS. from whencehe made his firll: Edition of if 16. or in a fifth he had afterward confulted upon publifhing his fecond. In the year ifip. Cardinal Cajetan wrote a Com- ment upon theEpiftles, and being come to the firll Epifrle of St. John^ he declares himfelf not fully fa- tisfy'd, that the words of the feventh Verfe, For there are three^ i^c, were St. John's , becaufe, tho' they were in fome, he had not found them in all Greek MSS. If thefe ^words^ fiiys he, belong to the Text^ they are ( 55 ) are added to pr^ve what before was obferv'dj that tht Spirit is truth : I fay^ if they belong to the text^ be- caiife they are to be met with only in fome Greek MSS. not in all: But whence^ adds he, this diverfety proceeds^ Imuft profefs^ Tm unable to determine. Valla had wrote above an hundred years before the conteil of Ley and Stunica with Erajmus concerning this paflagc j the difpute had made a noife in the world fcveral years before Cardinal Cajetan compos'd his Commentary j he cfpoufes neither fide of the quefti- on, and for this reafon his teftimony that the verfe is found in fome Greek Manufcripts is above fufpicionj nor can we imagine a man fo learned, as Cajetan was, who had free acccfs to all the Libraries m Rome^ where he wrote his Comment, did not fee any of the MSS. he mentions, as well thofe, which had thepaG- fage of St. fohn.^ as thofe, which had it not. In the year if 14. Cardinal Ximenes began his im- preflion of the Old and New Teftament in many lan- guages at Complutnm^ otherwife nam'd Alcala des He^ narcs^ in the Kingdom of CaJliUe^ and upon the Cre- dit of one or more MSS. he inferred into his Edition St. John's pafTage. Erafmus^ who had omitted it in his two former Editions, put out a third in the year if 22. into which he brought it > his reafon was, becaufe after the two foregoing impreflions were pubiifli'd, he had feen it in a MS. in England^ as his note upon the Text informs us. Of this MS. and the Compluten- Jian we fhall have occafion to fpeak more at large. In the year if 46. R. Stephen undertook a Greek Edition of the New Teilament with all poflible ex- a(5lnefs. And to this purpofe he was careful in fearch- ing out the mod: ancient and mod correct MSS. The French King's Library of it (di furniili'd him with eight j and he procured eight others, either from the Convents, or private Libraries 5 to thcfc he added the Comphitenfian Editicn, which he found to a^rce with his ( 5n his beft MSS. He examin'd 'em with all the judg- ment and accuracy he was mafter of, and at the con- clufion fent abroad that valuable Greek Edition, which is in truth ; ; : of the moft beautiful was ever printed. The paOagc of St. Johfi is there entire, taken from thefe MSS. This Edition^ and a fecond that follow'd three years alter, had nothing but the plain Greek of the New Tellarnent, for both of 'em being printed in a fmall Volume, he had not room to fet down in the margin the different readings of feveral of his MSS. Stephen hereupon caufes a third Edition to be made on large paper in iffo. wherein he diftinguiihes the MSS. which any where differ'd in their reading of the Text, by the Greek numeral L'^tters oc^ /3, 5/, (^c. Thus the pafTage of St. John is equal!} °^ this Edition with the two former, but ai the words Iv rf ^(^vw^ in heaven J there is a reference, which informs us, they were not in the MSS. cited in the margin: and at the lad claufe, t^^? h elc-i^ we are refcr'd to the GomplMenJIanEdition^ where we read, r^eiV «V to tv «V;. The great exaftnefs of Stephen in fetting down the various readings is a proof the Text occur'd in his MSS. In the year if 74. the Divines of the Univcrfity of Louvain made an Impreflion of the Latin Bible with a Preface, wherein they acknowledge R. Ste^ fhen found the Paflage of St. John in his Greek MSS., and add, that they alfo had feen it in many others : The words of the Preface are too remarka- ble to be omitted in this place. Mr. Simon has ^ thus cranflated 'em : St, Jerom complains in his Preface up^ m the Canonical Epiftles of unfaithfulnefs in the 'tran- fiat or s^ who omitted the tefiimony of the 'Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft j this makes good the read' ing of the Text^ which is alfo fupported by abundance ' Hijl, des Verfions, ch, 11. ( 57 ) of Latin Copies^ and over and ahove by two Greek Co- pies produced by Erafmus, the one in England, the other in Spain > and we our Iclves have feen feveral others like thefe. The fame pajfage is read in all StephenV, only the 'words in ca^lo are wanting in /even of ''em. What thefc Do6i:ors fay of their having fcen this Text in many other MSS. deferves well to be re- mark'd. But what could Mr. Simon think of the matter, when he trandated this paflage? He has not given us the Icall reaion to imagine he did not believe 'em.: Befides, we caji't fufpcft the honelty of fo ma- ny Dodors in fo famous an Univerfity j cfpecially in a matter, where it might have been demanded on all fides to produce the MSS. like to Stephen's in the paflage of St. John. Nor can we by any means wreft their Expreflions to the Latin MSS., their Subject led 'em only to the Greek > they were talking of the MSS. in Itngland^ in Spain^ and of Stephen^ and then immediately follows, we have feen many others like thefe^ i. e. many other Greek MSS. fuch as thefe were. The rules of language and notions of com- mon fenfe won't allow us to underftand 'em other- wife. F. Amelotte^ of the O'ratoiy, who put out aFrench Verfion of the New Teftament with Notes, has one upon this Text in thefe words : Erafmus has [aid this verfc was wanting in a Greek MS. of the Vatican -, hut I my felf have fen it in the mofi ancient MS, of that Library. Erajmns and he might both be in the right, for as there are feveral Greek MSS. in that celebrated Library, the paflage might be wanting in that which Erafmus'^ Friend collated for him, and F. Amelotte withal have feen it at Rtme with his own Eyes in another Manufcript. 'Tis faid to be alio in a MS. at Berlin in the King's Library reputed f oo years old. F. k Long ^ gives ■* Bihl'ioth. Sacr. Tom. i. Ch. 3. §. 4. I US (58) US this account upon the tedimox/iy of Sauhertus and ToUius : and Dr. Kettner rcl-ates the fame from a Let- ter, that was fent him by Mr. Jablonski^ a fam'd Preacher of the King's, and well skilFd in the Orien- tal languages. We fee here are more MSS. than are abfolutely necefTary to convince us, the PalTiige of St. John was found in a very few MSS. only, and thofe the mo ft modern, as Mr. Simon has endeavoured to impole up- on the world in his Critical Hidory. His behaviour has been yet worfe, fince he wrote the three Vo- lumes of that work j for in a Letter he fent to an Abbat of his acquaintance, he retra61:s this partial acknowledgment and falls into a formal contradiction > the expreflions in the Letter are very obfervable j ^ 7'he feTenth verfe of the fifth Chapter of the firfi E- pifile of St. John is found^ you fay^ in the Armenian Ferfion > tho"" I have my felf objer'v'd this pajjage of the three witnejfes in heaven is in no written Greek Copy, nor any of the Oriental Ferfions. Tou may add withal^ that fince the writing my Critical Hiflo7ies I have read fever al other MSS. Copies^ and not found fo much as one^ that has the verfe. Now, which of the Mr. Simon's may we credit? The writer of the Critical Hiftories has told us, the paflage is in a few Greek MSS. tho' of modern dates the Mr. Simon^ who wrote the Letter, declares he has obferv'd the paflage to be in no Greek Manufcript. But after ail, tho' 'twas not in the Greek MSS. which fell under Mr. Simon's view, mull it therefore follow that 'twas in no others ? Valla^ Ximenes^ Erafmus^ Stephen^ and many other Learned Men have feen it, fome in Italy^ others in France^ fome in Spain^ others in England^ and fome in \h^ Low-Countries : and has the Text yet no place in the Greek MSS. ? The per- B'lbl'ioth. Critiq. on Lettres cholfes, Tom. 4, Lett, 24. fonsj (59) ions, who difpute and deny this Fafr, will never gain their caufe, if the matter be tried by reafon. In the mean while, that they might not fiibmit wholly to thele tertimonics, they have afTerted, the vcrfe was originally a Scholium^ or marginal note, which pafsM from the margin into the Text through the imprudence, or mifguided zeal of tranfcribers. It has happened fometimes, in ihort, that a fmall note wrote in the margin to explain the fenfe of a palTage has thro' the carelefnefs of the Copiers crept into the Body of the Text j but then this has been in MSS. only copied after a former, and the note or Sc/jo- Hum has always there remain'd the fame. Here's no- thing of this fort in the cafe before us, no marginal Greek Scholium has been ever found in the fame terms with this verfe, or which abfolutely exprelTes the fame things no fuch inllance can be produc'd : and befides, how was it podible this pretended Scholium could pafs into the MSS. of fo many different Coun- tries, and there form Texts with feveral variations from each other, as may be feen in the MSS. of Xi- mcnes^ Erafmus^ and Stephen ? This pretence has fo little ground, that Mr. Simon ^^ who had urg'd it in his Critical Hiftory, has cwn'd its abfurdity in his Differtation upon MSS. and entirely abandon'd the Conje<5ture -, I 'would fuppofe then^ fays he, that this was ^ as is commonly believ'd^ in fome real Greek MSS. and indeed^ were this fuppos'd^ I fee not what reafon can be brought to prove the contrary. To fum up the matter, 'tis true, that the MSS. of Falla^ Erafmus^ Ximcnes^ and Stephens^ i^c. are genuine, and not forg'd : ?w reafon therefore can be brought to prove the contrary to what we have in them of the Text of ^t, John's Epiftle, i. e, no reafon can be brought to prove the feventh verfe of the fifth Chapter to be a a H'lJ}, Crit. du, Texte du N. Tefi. Ch. 1 8. I z Scholiy.ti ( ^o ) Scholium^ an addition dcriv'd from the margin, or clfewhere. Chap. IX. Of R. Stephen'^ Manufcripts. I Find a wrong Judgment is nfually pafs'd upon the number of MSS. in general , from which was printed the Greek Edition of R. Stephen's^ and in par- ticular the MSS. of the feven Canonical Epiilles. I fhould not niuch concern ray felf in clearing this matter, if it had not a near relation to the principal fubjcd of my DifTertation in defence of St. John'^ paliage. 'Tis commonly thought, Stephen had but fixteen Copies of the Greek Teitament, including the Com- flutenfian Edition of the Bible ; and of thefe Sixteen only eight had the Epidle of St. John with the other Canonical Epiftles; and from hence 'tis concluded, that if the pafTage of the witnefles in heaven was not in {^\tn of thefe MSS. 'twas then only in the Copy of the Complutenfian Bible, from whence Stephen tvansfer'd it into his Edition. I ihall fet right this affair, which in my opinion has not been fufficiently difentangled. Firft, 'tis not true, that R.Stephen had only if Manufcripts befides the Edition at Complutum: he had 16: Copies in writing, and himfelf fays in his Pre- face, / have collated the Greek text with 16 writ- ten Copies^ very ancient. After this tellimony what room is left for doubting ? Be-za had the ufc of all Stephen^ Copies, he read 'em and compared 'em all together, when he put out his own Edition of the New Teftament, and he expreflly declares, there were with the Complutenfian Bible 17 of 'em : 1 have com- pafd (6i) par'd ^ fays he, the Books of the New Tejiament with the 17 different Greek Copies of Stephen. Every one of thefe Copies had not the New Tella- ment entire j fome of em which had been divided into two Volumes, having only in the firft the four Gof- pels, and the Ads of the Apoflles, which generally went together, wanted the fecond Volume, that con- tain'd the remaining part of the New Teftament > o- thers on the contrary had the fecond Volume, the Epiftolary Code^ without the firft. And thus the one and die other were imperfect Copies: for in- Ihnce, the fir 11: Volume of one of the moft ancient Manufcripts of the New Teftament is at Cambridgey the fecond in the French King's Library > fo that the Manufcript Copy both at Paris and Cambridge is de- fective. Now the reafon why 1 fay Stephen had fome Copies thus imperfed js, that I find in the V^ome of the Gofpels mention made of certain Manufcripts that no where occur in the Epiilles, as are the three mark'd y. ?. >j. that is, the 5^^, the 6^'^ and the 8 ^^ -, and fo I find in the Epiftles fome that are no where feen in the Gofpels, to wit, n. and t?, the \^^^ and 16'^; I fpeak only of written Copies, for as to the Comphi- tenfian Bible, that contain'd the whole New Tefla- ment, as do all Editions. As for the fecond Volume, which took in the E- pillles, I have obferv'd eleven Manufcript Copies, whereof nine had alfo the firfl Vol. but the two others namely a. 6c i^. mull have belonged to a defeftive Book. And for the feven Canonical Epiftles, Mr. Roger Dr. of Divinity at Bourges^ who not long ago pub- liih'd a Difcourie in behalf of St. John's pafiage, ob- fervcs, ^ that having carefully reckoned up the MSS. quoted in the margin of the Epililes, he could find there but feven, exclufive of the Cornplutenfian Copy, ^ Bcz. Pr&fat. in N. Tejiam. ^ Part I, §. 3. pagi 14, i. €. (6z ) I e, the Manufcrlpts mark'd ^. e. ^. b. i. la. ty. But ^U.R.oger was not juil in his computation, for he over-look'd the Manufcrit <^. quoted f. 4. of the firft Chapter of St. Peter's fccond Epiille. This makes eight Manufcripts of the Epidles, yet ha-e is not all their number. Thefe Epiftles made but one Volume v/ith the Epiflles of St. Paul, if then there were eleven Manufcript Copies of St. PauPs fourteen Epiflles, there were fo many withal of the Canonical Epililes, for all the one and twenty were bound together. I obferve alfoj that the two Copies cited by the numeral Letters ie. & i^. which fignifie the fifteenth and fixteenth, are found in the Epiflles and Apo- calypfe, as making up but one Volume. But I can't conceive, how the feven Canonical Epiflles in- terpos'd betwixt St. PauFs and the Apocalypfe, could have been wanting in thofe Volumes: whence I con- clude, the fame Copies which had St.PauPs fourteen Epiflles had alfo the feven others. Whence is it then, will fome fay, that R. Stephen has produced but feven Manufcripts of St. John's firfl Epiftle? And whence is it, fay 1 in my turn, that he has cited only fix Manufcripts of that Apollle's fecond Epiflle, and four of the third? Whence is it, he has faid nothing of the Complutenfian Edition, neither in the Epiflle to Titus^ nor the fecond of St. john^ which in other Books is alledg'd throughout ? No one will attempt to fay, 'twas becaufe he had not that Edi- tion of the Bible by him, or that he had fewer Manu- fcripts of the fecond and third Epiflles of St. John^ than of the firfl : the fame anfwer then they fhall make to my queries, will ferve for theirs, I fhall give no o- ther. Stephen therefore cited only in each Epiflle the Manufcripts, wherein he found fuch various read- ings, as he judg'd worthy his notice. And thus much for this dry tedious matter, which can't but be wearifome to mofl of our Readers, as it was ( ^3 .) was grievous to us. But what is there in the whole, that can be of fervice to the caule I defend ? Why this, fome have attempted to elude in the manner we fhall fee in the next chapter, the feven Manufcripts plac'd in the margin of the verfe concerning the three witneflcs, the Father, the Word and the Spirits and thefe Manufcripts being taken away, this general con- clufion is thence drawn, that as there were no other Manufcripts of that Epifilc, fo not one was found which had the paiTiige in it. The oppofers of th . genuinenefs of this Text are not the only perfons, who by all thefe long windings and turnings come at the mentioned conclulion. Mr. Ro- ger^ who writes in the Gme caufe with us, has fufFer- ed himfelf to be furpriz'd into it. After he had de- clar'd in the palTage of his Difiertation we have above refer'd to, that having exactly computed the Manu- fcripts of the Canonical Epiilles in R. Stephen's Edi- tion, he found 'em to be only feven, he in one place ^ fays, the Obelus fet over again ft the feventh verfe cuts off that verfe, as not appertaining to theEpiftlej and in another ^ concludes, that none of StephenV Manufcripts had the ^ext in difpute. Our adverfaries are much oblig'd to him for fo free an acknowledg- ment, that at once gives a difcharge to all Stephen's Manufcripts which have been ever look'd en as the Bulwark of St. John'^Texi. But after having unde- niably prov'd, as 1 have done, that the Manufcripts of this Epiftle were not reduc'd to the number of feven, I fhall now iliew from a pofitive teftimony of Beza's^ that the Text in quellion was alfo in others befides thofe feven. The v^ords of that learned Man, who was fo well acquainted with all Stephen's Ma- nufcripts, upon this Subject are thefe, ^ This verfe does not occur in the Syriack Verfion^ ^q. hut is found 3. pag. 15. b §. 12.. c Bcz. N.TeJi, in fol. in in the Englifli Manufcript in the Complutenlian Edi- tion^ and in fome ancient Manufcrlpts of Stephen. It will be anfwer'd, perhaps, that Beza here al- ludes to the feven Manufcripts cited in the margin of the verfe. Tho' this were fuppos'd, 'twould yet al- ways (land good from fo confiderable a teftimony, that the difputed paflage was in feveral of thefe anci- ent Manufcripts j but this was not Beza's meaning. The matter will foon be clear'd, if we keep cloie to his words. 1 . His note begins thus, 1 am entirely perfuaded^ *we ought to retain this 'verfe : here he fpeaks in oppo- fition to their fentiment, who would rejed it out of the Epiitlcj this then was the fam.e verfe, that was in fome of i?. ^'/^/^te's Manufcripts, but the Manufcripts cited in the margin bear relation to only one or two words of the verfe. 2. Beza's obfervation at the fame time, that this verfe was not in the Syriack Verlion, nor the other Books he names, took in the whole verfe : but of the fame verfe he moreover obferv'd, that it was in fome Manufcripts of R. StephenV, here then he fpeaks of the Manufcripts only, that had the verfe entire. 3 . Beza joyns together the Manufcripts he treats of with the Englifh Manufcript, and the Compluten- /^;2 Edition > but both in that Manufcript and Editi- tion the verfe was perfedtj and therefore the y^;i^^ Manufcripts of Stephen^ which had it alfo, were not the Manufcripts cited in the Margin, which v/anted part of the verfe. 4. Laflly^ Beza diftinguillies the Manufcripts that wanted the words Im tw j^^vw from the foregoing ones \ for having faid the verfe was in fome ancient Manufcripts of Stephen^ he immediately adds, the Words bf Tw ^^vw are wanting in feven Manufcripts, it was natural to fay they were wanting in thefe MSS. provided they had been the famej whereas faying flmply in feven^ we can't otherwife underlland him than ( ^5 ) vxn of feven others: but in how many of 'em the vcrie was, we are unable to determine} .6^;3t^'s note lays only at large, that 'twas mfo?ne of 'em : and this we ought to keep clofe to. Chap. X. Of the Obelus and Semicircle^ the paffage of St, John IS mark' d with in Stephen'^ ^ Edition. WHAT the Greeks name ohelus is in terms of printing a fmall pointed hne plac'd a- crofs the fide of a word, to ihew that from that word to another, where is fet a fort of a little paren- thefis, the whole which is interpos'd is wanting in the Manufcripts cited in the Margin over againfl the- Text. In this manner has R. Stephe?i mark'd an in- finite number of places in his Edition of if f o. fome- times one word alone, fometimes feveral together, are put into the Text of the New Teftament, which were not in fome particular Manufcripts of his, or were wanting in the Complutenfian Bible. As he had found in that Bible, and feveral of his Manufcripts the pallage of the feventh verfe whole and entire } fo in fome others he obferv'd the words dfr Tw ^p^vod in heaven were wanting. But difccrn- ing well this could be nothing elfe than an omiPilon, he gives the words a place in his Text j and that he. might not fliil of exadnefs, or be charg'd with un- fliir dealing, he fets an obelus at the head of the three words, and adds a fmall parenthefis after x'e^vw, to fliew they were wanting in the Manufcripts de- K fcrib'd (66) fcrib'd in the margin by their proper numeral let- ters. In all this there would be no difficulty, andthofe who difpute the genuincnefs of St.John's palfage would ; be oblig'd to own 'twas in Stephen's Manufcripts, if they agreed with us, that the Semicirle, which clos'd the obelisk'd fentencc, was inferted by Stephen into j the place it now holds in his New Teftament : but I this they fay is a fault of the prefs. Stephen Curcel- l^eus^ who in all probability was the firft, that had recourfe to this Subterfuge, put out in the year 1 6f c3 , a Greek Edition of the New Teftament, where of his own head, and by his fole authority, he removed, to ufe the Scripture phrafe, /Z?^ ancient landmarks^ and plac'd the Semicircle, which foUow'd after the words a/ T6? ^pfjivoo-i at the clofe of the words iv T? y^ in earthy which ifand in the middle of the 8di verfcj by this artifice gi?ing to underftand, that all rhefe words, in heaven^ the Father^ the word and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe three are one: And there are three^ that hear witnefs in earthy were foppofititious. This boldnefs of Ctircell^^us foon met with followers > fo apt to fpread is the contagion of ill examples ! For in i67f . out comes a Gr^^/^N.TeftamentatOA/<5fi with the fame parenthefis. 'Tis alledg'd, that Lucas Brti- genfis had before pafs'd the like judgment upon the obelus and femicirclcj but all he has faid amounts to no more than this, that the palTage was in all Ste- phen's yhxiW^QU'^x.s^^' provided the femi circle in that 'verfe was rightly plac'd: which at moll can only imply, that this Learned Man had fome fupicion the femicir- c\c was mifplac'd > but he in no wife affirms it was, much farther is he from determining the place where it ought to fland. Befides there is a deal of difference betwixt having a private fentiment concerning fuch a Luc. Brugenfis. Si tamen femkirculus le^ioms defignans ter^ minHm fuo loco fu collocatus. an (^7 ) mi -afFair, and introducing that fentiment into the Text oF Scripture it felf j lince fuppoiing the opinion to be falfe, as I Ihall fliew it to be, it is with regard to them who know the fignification of fuch a mark in that place, no Icls than thecrafing and cutting off that whole verfe. Fr and feus Junius^ who is commonly thought to be the Author of the Greek Edition of the Bible printed at Francfort in the year i f ^7. among the va- rious readings at the bottom of the page, gives us the differences Stephen found in his Manufcripts, and limits the femicircle of the feventh verfe to the place where it (lands in the Ediaon of if fo. John Crifpln^ Advocate to the Parliament of Pa- ris^ a man learned in the Law, and skill'd in all po- lite learning, withdrew himfelf to Gene'va in if 47. for the more free profeffion of the Proteliant Reli- gion: he there fet up a Prinring-prefs, and in iffj- put out an Edition of the Greek Teilament, in which the obelus and femicircle of St. John's paffage are found in the fame place, as in R. Stephen's Edition. This is a proof that Stephen who was yet alive, and in the fame town with Crifpin^ had not difcover'd an error in his placing the parentheHs. Beza can yet mform us better how the matter ilands: All Stephen's Manufcripts as we have feeu had been put into his hands, and he made ufe of 'em in reviling the GreeklCcxt^ and making thereup- on his Annotations from the beginning of St. Mat- thew to the end o^ the Jpocalypje. ^ K.Stephen had oft prefs'd him to this work, and himfelf printed it at Geneva^ whither he had retir'd from France in the year iffi. After his death, which happened in the year iffp. Henry Stephenhis Son, a very learned man, in the Greek Tongue efpecially, reprinted Beza's P Beza'i Letter to (^een Elizabeth. K i isTotes, ( .^8 ) iSfotes, and furnifh'd him with a valuable Copy of the New Teilament of his Father Roberts^ wherein was a vaft number of Critical Remarks, wrote with bis own hand. 'Tis eafy from all this to imagine, that fuch a man as Bexa was, who had fuch near al- liances with the Stephen's^ both Father and Son, and who had in his own hands their Manufcripts, which he continually throughout his Notes calls noftri codices^ our Manufcripts, and which in almoft every note he tells us, he had read, examin'd, and compar'd, legi- mus^ invenimus^ comperimus in noftris^ &c. / have read^ Ihave found^ Ibave obferv'd inour Manufcripts. 'Tis, I fay, eafy to imagine that he could not be igno- rant whether the Semicircle under coniideration was plac'd where it is by R. Stephen^ or where it ought to have been plac'd. The fubje6t was of moment ; Stephen^ under whofe eyes, as 1 may fay, thefe anno- tations were made, was not ignorant of it, and Beza in his Notes upon this verfe gives fufficient notice how nice the matter was: let us then fee what he fays upon it. Firft, he obferves, that the feventh verfe is in fome ancient Manufcripts of Stephen^ as in that of England^ and in the Complutenfian Bible. He next takes notice of certain variations in Stephen'^ Manufcripts, and the Manufcript in England: In that^ fays he, the i in ours they are joyn d^ and we read the Holy Spirit, ^s to the words in heaven, they are wanting in f even ancient Manufcripts. If the whole verfe had been wanting like thefe words in the Manufcripts, Be- xa would not have given their variations from the Manufcript in England-^ all that he could have had to fay would have been in Ibort, that this Text was in the EngUfi Manufcript, but not in Ours y inflead of that, he gives us to underlland, that the Manu- fcript i^9 ) fcript in England^ and the Mnnufcripts of Stephen ■were the fame, except in the differences he had mark'd. Can any thing be more evident ? See yet another argument taken from Beza againft the tranfpofition Cnrcellieus and others have made of the fcmicircle by placing it after the words of the eighth verfe, a> rvj yy,^ in earth, for by this means thefe words are call out of Stephen's MSS. as if they had really never been there, whereas 'tis moft fure they were there. Let us confult Beza's Note ; ^he Syriack Tranjlator and the ancient Verfton^ 6cc. have not the words^ In Earth > hut they are in our Greek MSS, and in the Latin Tranjlation. But what need have we tofeek for proofs elfewhere than from Stephen himfelf? He had plac'd at the end of his Edition an Errata^ where he has taken notice of one Comma forgot, and another mifplac'd, mat- ters of very little importance : that of the pa(Iage of St. John is of infinitely more moment, fince no lefs than the reje61:ing it as a forg'd Text, or retaining it as genuine is concern'd in the affair > its fate then in that edition depended upon the right or wrong placing a fort of comma : Stephen knew all this, and had not he the forefight to provide againfl an error in fo ma- terial a pointjwho had taken fuch great care to put out an Edition as correct as was poffible? Or in cafe this little figure had happen'd to have been plac'd wrong, and fo efcap'd the vigilance of the Learned Printer m revifing the proof Sheets, would he have caff but a tranfient view upon a place that more than the rcff deferv'd his notice, and requir'd his utmoft attenti- on? Let who will blame him, but reafon will ne- ver give the caufe againd him, unlefs evident proofs can be brought to the contrary: and what are thefe proofs? and whence are they taken? No other an- fwer can be given, than that this Text is not in fuch and fuch Greek MSS. and by confequence it was not in thofe of Stephen-, but not being there ^ the fe- micircle (7o) rnlcircle which follows after the word s/^vi^ mufi be mifplac'd in his Edition, and ought to be tranf- pos'd fifteen or fixteen words farther. Admirable confequences ! The Text is not in the Fatican iManu- fcript, nor in the Alexandrian^ l^c. confeqiiently in none of Stephen^ 5 and upon the force of fuch acon- fequence the place of the femicircle in this verfe is chang'd, and carried wherefoever we pleafe. A very poor Logician may fee the unconclufivenefs of this rea- ibning, 'tis impoSible to avoid it > and yet thefe arc our great Mafters, our learned Criticks, who fall into this miftake, and are infeniible of their error. When Stephen had occafion to place the obelu? before any palfage, where a whole line was wanting, he always plac'd it precifely where the omifTion be- gan, no inflance can be produc'd otherwife. If then the words. Inhere are three^ that bear record in heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe three are om^ ought to have been mark'd as not re- ally appertaining to the Text, the obelus would have been fet at the head of thefe words, and the femi- circle at the clofe after the word >tj, which begins the eighth verfe; this would have been regular : but inr flead of placing the obelus in this manner Stephen has fet it in the middle of the verfe, the worll place he could have chofe. But to go on. The paflage of the three witnefTes in heaven ftands in the Body of the Text in this Edition j Whence came it there, or where did Stephen meet with it to give it that place, if it was in none of his ^ Manufcripts ? 'Tis anfwer'd, it was in the Co?nplU' ienfian Edition, that Stephen confulted that Edition and paid a great regard to its authority, and from thence took the paflage. If fo, Stephen was a very bad copier when he transfer'd it from the Complu- ten/tan Edition into his, for at the fame time he re- moved its fituation, he caus'd it to put on a new dvefs. In the Cmplutenjian Bible the Text of this verfe ( 7i) treiTe ends with thefe words, cl r^elg «V '^ 'iv hci ; id Stepheji's New Teilament with thefe, ^loi ol r^Hg h «Vi' too different readings in fo few words, xto< for o:, and r^fTc 'i\ for T^e7? e;, which is the eighth. In St. John^ ch. 3. -j^. If. the Text has the word Vjoum^ the Jews^ ^ in the margin is v/rote \^.^cu'>i a Jew^ isr, 'sskIw $ cc ; i. e. the word l^^^i^^ is in all Manufcripts except in the Complutenfian Edition only, which has la^ouoov ^ in the plural number. If then Stephen had feen the paffage of St. John only in that Edition, if he had not found it in any of his ManufciiptS5 he would have faid as in other places, "'tis wanting in all^ except in the Compluten- fian Bible. The rcafon then why he has not done thus is becaufe he found it not in that Bible onlyj but fuv it alfo in the i\4anufcripts. Chap. (7^) Chap. XL Of the Codex Britannicus, or Mamijcrtpt m England, and of the Complutenfian Copy WE have feen in another place what Erafmus has faid , that the reafon of his inferting St* John's paflage into his third Edition of the New Teftament, was becaufe he had found it in a Manu- fcript o^ Englmd. He has given no other title to this Manufcript, than the indeterminate name of Ci?- dex Britannicus^ and under this name it has been e- ver cited by all the Learned Men, who have wrote upon the fubjed. The anonymous Engliflo writer treats this Manu- fcript as little lefs than fable ^ he fays none of his nation have mentioned it in their writings, nor is any one but Erafmus , who was a foreigner, faid to have feen it. Here then is a blot cad upon the can- dour of that Learned Man near two hundred years after his death : The charge comes fomewhat too late to take effed. Erafmus made profeffions of uprightnefs and fin- cerity in his quotations, and has been always looW on as a man not eafily apt to be imposed on by fuch fort of fa61:s, and uncapable to impofe upon others : His enemies and cenfurers, who were affuredly many in number, could not have wifh'd for any thing more defireable than to take him in a fault of this nature : But we have the lefs reafon to think he flipp'd in the ufe of the Codex Britannicus^ upon the fole authority whereof he fill'd up the void fpace of the feventh verfe, which was wanting in his two former Editions, becaufe he feems not to have been over- fond 4 (7i ) fond of the bufinefs himfelf, for he declares he did it purely to guard againfi calumny. We are not con- cerned to enquire further into this Manufcript, to know what is become of ir, or whether others have feen it befides Erafmus : A thoufand people may have read it without taking notice of it in print, or ha- ving occafion to mention it in their works. 1 know no Author, who fays he faw Falla's Manufcripts, or who knows where they are 5 does it therefore follow he had none ? I know of none but Beza^ who has fpoke o^ Stephen's Manufcripts, as having feen and compar'd 'em all : And if he had not com- menced, as he has done, upon the New Teftament, in all probability we ihould not have known they had pafs'd thro' his hands: But would it have been lefs true in fuch a cafe, that Stephen had thefe Ma- nufcripts, and that they contained the paflage of St. John? This would be to introduce a new kind of Scepticifm in Learning, which certainly cannot ;fuic with the tafle of the Learned, and I am perfuaded is not wholly agreeable to the Author of this Dif- fertation, who without defign may have given place to it. Mr. Simon had before him taken another method of ruining the authority of the Codex Britannicus. Far from fufpeding Erafmus had quoted it upon the credit of another perfon , he on the contrary afferts that ^Erafmus had feen it in England. All Mr. Si- mon has done is to refute Erafmus's opinion, that the place of this Manufcript concerning the palTageof St. John^ might have been corrected from iht Latin Co- pies ; Ex hoc Codice Britannico^ faid he in his Apo- logy againll Stunica^ and in his Annotations upon the New Teftament: repofuimus quod in noftris dicehatur deejfe : quamquam i3 hunc fufpicor ad Latinorum Co- dices fuijfe cajligatum. Mr. Simon for fcyeral good ' Hiji, Crif, dn N, Tejiam. Tern. 3, furt, I. /. lo;. L reafons (74) reafons rejects this conjedure 5 but being unwilling to admit the pafTiige of the three wfcneires in hea- ven as St. John's genuine Text, he next enquires whence it could get into the Greek Manufcript ^. And here he imagines, 'twas taken from the Greek of the Council o£ Lateran-y as that Council had been tranflated into Greek out of the Latin its Original language, fo he derives it alfo from the Latin Bibles, tho* not in a right line indeed as Erafmus has done, yet indireftly and by way of a Greek Tranllation. What pains are taken to evade the truth ! Firft, here is nothing urg'd but a mere conjecture, the product of a flrong imagination ^ And muil his fancy be allow'd to ramble wherever he pleafes, and whatever conclufions he draws thence be allow'd of? And pray upon what elfe does Mr. Simon ground his opinion? Why, / ohferve^ ^ fays he, both in the one and the other Koy^ and -nv^^iKOL ha've no articles-, and *withal 1 read in both ^ Si^t 01 r^eTf, which feerns to ha've been tranflated from the Latin, 13 hi tres. Thefe lafl: words, hi tres, are not peculiar to the Council and the Codex Britannicus > they are the fame with the Text, as it ftands mR. Stephen's Ma- nufcripts : and for the omiflion of the articles before the words Koyog and srvdtr^iJt, 'tis fo flight a refem- blance, that 'twas not worth while to take notice of it in order to infer thence the paflage of the Codex Britannicus had been taken from the A6i:s of the Council : We fhall produce far more confiderable differences in proof of the contrary opinion to what M\\ Simon has advanc'd : And to make the matter plain to the eyes as well as to the underftanding, I ihall place on one fide the Greek of the Council of Lateran, held, as we have obferv'd above, in the year izif. as we find it in the CoUedion of Councils by F. F. Labbe and Cojfart 3 and on the other fide the a Dijfert, fur les Manufcrits, ^ Dijfett, fur Us Manufcrits. Greek (75) Greek of the Codex Britannicus^ taken from Erafmus'% Annotations upon the New Tellament. printed in if4i. page 802. The Greek of the Coun- cil. TJ^^? Greek of the Codex Britannicus. I. In the Greek of the Council the word il^vw is without an article : In the Codex Britannicus it has its article tw. z. In the Greek of the Council the word zst^tk)^ is with its article 0: But without an article in the Co' dex Britannicus* 3. In the Greek of the Council^ the word -zsv^^ao^ 'has its ordinary epithet ^^y^ov, the Holy Spirit : In the Codex Britannicus it ftands alone without olyiov^ the Spirit. This difference is confiderable. 4. In the Greek of the Council we read ts-w*- in the Codex Britannicus Stvi. The Text is the fame in both as to fubflance : But thefe four differences, efpecially the third, are an e- vident proof the Greek of the Codex Britannicus was not copied from that of theiL^^^r^;^ Council, and by confequence that it was taken from fome other Greek Copy. What remains is to fee the manner this late Cri- tick attacks the Edition of Complutum. No one be- fore him ever doubted, that the paffage of St. John in that Edition was taken from fome of the Manu- fcripts Ximenes had recover'd from divers places. Mr. Simon is of another fentimcnt j he's of opinion Xi- menes had the authority of no Manufcript for that Textj and as if the matter was beyond difpute, he L 2, aflerts (76) aiTerts, * that the Cardinal finding this pafTage in the Latm Copies, and not in the Greek , took upon him to compofe a veiTe himfelf from the Preface to the Canonical Epiftles, which he beHev'd to be St. jferom^s. This is to ftretch the boldnefs of imagination as far as poffible, but the farther it goes, the more do J think I am oblig'd to follow it in order to expofe it> tho' of it felf it lies fufficiently open to ridicule. Mr. Simon has no proof for what he advances, and his whole notion is fo ill digefted, that he has not kept clofe even to probability. I , Ximenes was not the perfon who put out his Polyglott : He only fupply'd the Learned Men he had chofen for that great work with Manufcripts and printed Copies, and to them we owe the ftate that Book is in. So that fuppofing Ximenes could have^ entertained fo injudicious a thought as the modern Critick has imputed to him, all the Learned Men, who labour'd in the compiling his Bible, muil: have been no wifer than himfelf, to infert into the Origi- nal of the Epiftle a Text they had no where feen. 2. This pafTage is not in fo many words in St. Je^ rom's Preface: He has only faid the Tranflators, whom he ftyles tmfaithfuj^ had omitted in their Ver- iion the teftimoriy of the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft^ by ivhich the CathoUck Faith was highly fupported^ and the Unity of EJferue in the Father^ Son and the Holy Ghosl prov'd. Here is indeed the fub- ilance of the pafl'ige, but not the words: How then can we imagine, they were deriv'd from thence ? And what befides is very remarkable, the Complu- tenjian Edition does not teach, as do all others, and this very Preface, the Unity of EfTence in the three \t.x^o\Yz^ but the Lenity of their tellimony, for inftead of thefe words t^«? iv «V<, we read -v^^q eig ^ tv e^a-u »• Dijfcrt. fur Us Aianufcrus» Let ( 77 ) Let us now come to the proofs taken from the Qreek Writers in defence of St. JohrC^ palTage. ^ ■ ' 'V^wT f^t/V,^ «.AA<^ ^'sr«r K.^^^S« W\^>J Chap. XII. 7hat this pcijfage has been quoted m two places m the Editions of St. Athana- fius'5 zvorks. IT has been urg'd withal againft the genuinenefs of this Text, that only the Latin Fathers have cited it, and not the Greek. I have elfcwhere fhewn, were this true, it would not thence Follow the paf- fage was forg'd : But there is much of miilake in the charge, and I ihall prove from two inftances, that this pafTage has been read and quoted by very ancient Greek Writers. Among the Works of St. Jthanaftus we have a Trad: entitul'd, A Synopfts of Holy Scripture. Some modern Criticks , Dr. Cave among the reft, in his Hiftoria Litteraria^ and F. Montfaucon in his Pal^o- logia Graca^ are of opinion this work is not St. ^- thanafius\'y Mr. Du Pin thinks it is, and defends it in his ^ Bibliotheque of Ecclefiaftical W^riters j how- ever all agree that 'tis very ancient. The name of Athanafius is of great weight, and yet an Author of meaner reputation is no lefs fit to be admitted in the citation of a paflage. The Text of St. John is not indeed in plain terms and by an exprels quotation alledg'd in the mention'd Synopfts : The nature and defign of that work would not allow of it : The Book it felf is but a fummary of the principal mat- ^ Ariic, Athanaf. p. 40. c^ 5S. ters i (78) tcrs containVi in each Book of Holy Scripture, and this requires a good choice and nice diftinction. We have here an abridgment of the moil material mat- ters in St. John's firft Epiille, and in that abridg- ment we find thefe words : The Jpofile does here teach the Unity of the Son 'with the Father. 7'hefe words muft necefTarily allude to the paflage of the fifth Chapter, fince throughout the whole Epiftle St. yoh7i has in no other place taught the Unity of the Son with the Father. The word taught bears rela- tion to fome particular Text, and as it were points to it with a. finger: This Text then is, T'he Father j the Son J and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. It may be demanded, if the Author of the Symp- fis had this paHage in his view, why he faid ov\^ the Apoftk taught there the Unity of the Son with the Fa- ther ^ without mentioning the Unity of the Holy Gholl with the Father and the Son, fince that U- nity of the third perfon is no lefs exprefs'd in the Text of St. John^ than the Unity of the Father with the Son. To which I anfwer : I. It is the rule both of language and reafon to take v/hat an Author has faid, without being oblig'd to lliew why he confined himfelf to fay no more, when his fubjedl requir'd more. z. In the time this Abridgment of Scripture was wrote, the Unity of the Son vv'ith the Father was the chief point in difpute, againll the herefy of AriuSj who denied that Unity of nature. And hence I draw an Argument in defence of this Tra6t, which I have not obferv'd the writers, who hold it to be St. yithanafius^s^ to have been aware of 5 which is, that in jfthanafius's days the queilion concerning the unity or confubilantiality of the Holy Ghoil with the Father and the Son had not been debated : But more of this hereafter. And the matter being thus, *tis eafy to perceive why in this fummary of St. John's Epiftle 'tis only faid, the Jpoftle here teaches the Unity 4 (79) of the Son with the Father: Jthanafius and the other Orthodox Chriftians in the early Age of Arianifm had their minds wholly taken up with this Unity, and fcarce turn'd 'em to any other rubje61:. Among the works of the fame Athanafiiis we have befides a Difpute in form of a Dialogue, under the names of Athanafias and Arius. We might well con- tent our felves without placing it there, iince 'tis evi- dent Athanafiiis was not its Author. Whofe it is wc know not, but in my opinion a fault of the date in the title of this Difpute is fomewhat too feverely cri- ticised upon. 'Tis there faid this conference was had at Nice betwixt Athanafius and Arius^ during the fitting of the Nicene Council, in the year ^ lo. where- as that celebrated Council was not afTembled till the year ^if . But this error is fo grofs, that 'tis not poflible to conceive a man who wrote againft Aria- nifm could fall into't. In cafe the Compiler of the Trad wrote alfo the Title, we cannot in reafon look upon it otherwife than as want of attention and not ignorance, fince the meaneft perfon then alive was well enough informed of the time the Council fate in: nor will this conceffion be an excefs of complaifance, an over extenfive aft of Charity, to the Author of this Dialogue J tho' I much queilion whether he will ftand in need of fo fmall an indulgence in his favour. For we muft firft prove him the Author of the title, before we can charge this fault upon him> and that he was the Author of it can in no wife be infer'd from the Dialogue it felf j a thoufand examples may be given of titles prefixed to the works of the Anci- ents, which were not drawn up by the Writers them- felves i thefe have very often been afterwards added by a different hand, that finding the treatife without a title judg'd it convenient to make one. As to the piece; the perfon who composed it was allow'd to introduce what Interlocutors he thought proper 3 in almoft all Dialogues both anci- ent (8o) eiltand modern the Compilers have made ufe of feign'd names and borrow'd perfonagcs: 'tis a thing that's common. The Author of the Dialogue thought he could not in a more ufeful manner write againft Arianifm^ than by introducing on the one fide Arius^ the Author of that Herefy > and on the other Athanafius^ who was generally elleem'd as chief of the Orthodox party: and the rather, becaufe the real Athamfius had dif- puted at Nice with Arius in perfon, and giiin'd a Vi^ 6lory over the Heretick. Dr. Cave expreffes a great diHike to this Dialogue and its Author, and calls it the work of fome doting Monk, cujufdam Monachi delirantis > the grounds of his opinion I'm unacquainted with, but am not afraid to aflert, that there's nothing throughout the whole difpute which agrees not with the tail, and manner of writing and reafoning in the fifth or fixth Century. Mr. Simon % who can't be thought partial in this af- fair, had the fame opinion, and has given a particular account of it, which fhews the efteem he had for it. He was then an Ecclefiaftical Writer, an honell Or- thodox Chriftian, who compos'd this work in Greek at the time the difpute with the Avians was hot in the Eaft. 'Tis herefaid: fl^e obtain remijjion of fins by Bapiifm^ in the form of which Baptifm are named the Father y the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft j and St. John hath faidy These three are one. Thefe Words of St. John are plac'd here as parallel with the words of inftitution in Baptifm \ as there the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft are nam'd j fo are the fame menti- on'd in the place of the Epiftle^ whence are taken the words, thefe three are one, 'Tis granted) but to this two things are anfwer'd^ firft J that the Author of the Dialogue was a Latin » H'lfl, Cfit. de$ Comment, ch, 6. Writer, ( 8i ) Writer, and not a Greek -y but the citation of thep.if- fiige by a Greek Writer and not a L^tin is vvhat*s de- manded. Secondly, that the words of the eighth verfe may here be as well alluded to, as the words of the feventh. We will clear up this matter a little. The reafon of the opinion that the writer of this Dialogue was a Latin and not a Greek is taken from the words ol r^eig TO iv etc-i^^ inllcad of ol r^esg iv bV/, as it is in St. John ; for 'tis pretended this to %v could never be an exprefHon of a Greek Author. And this anfwer is call'd a reply : tho' nothing fure could be more idly urg'd. The Dialogue in queflion is a pretty long difcourfe, all in Greek^ and for the fake of one poor little arti- cle, well or ill plac'd, its Author muff be concluded a Latin who took upon him to write in a foreign lan- guage. I own I have never met with fo critical a nicety before; but not to dwell upon trifles; The Greeks^ we know, have not always been fo exa6t in adding and omitting the articles, but that great varie- ty is often found in this affair; their books are here- in full of examples. If Inilances in the word %v be required, as that is the word we are upon, 'tis but to confult the fifth Chapter of the Epiftle to the Ro- mans^ and we fliall find it without an article in the 12^^, 1(5 "^^ and 1 8^^^ verfes, and with an article in the If ^'^ and 17^^ The fame to %\> occurs in the firft Epiflle to the Corinthians^ Chap. xii. •^. 11. If a whole padiige in an approved Greek Author be de- manded, where all thefe words of the Dialogue, r^eig TO tv «V/. iland together, even this may be found in the Epiille of Dionvfius of Alexandria to Paul of Sa- mofata-y where Dionyftus^ or whoever was the x4.uthor of that Letter, fpeaking of the purification of lepers, makes it to conlilb ini three things, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, and then adds, d vc^? to 'iv c-ict. The other anfwer that's urg'd agalnlt the proof which the Dialogue betwixt Athanafius^ud Anus af- M fords ( 8z ) fords us is not, like the foregoing, a tdfle in language^ it ftrikes home to the point, but glances only on the left fide, and touches it not. The words, ol r^^gtv- ^ for if this Text has of late been inferted into the Ritual , which is very ancient, 'tis plain the Greeks thought it was wanting there, and deferved to be added. But this they never could have thought, if the words had not been in the New Teflament of the Greek Churches. I have therefore faid this Ritual is very ancient, be- caufe it is at lead as old as the fifth Century. Cyril of Scythopolis in PaUJiine^ who liv'd at the beginning a Dr. Cave m Jf^end, ad Hijl, Lit, ^ Lib, z. ch. 4. art.41 of ( 80 of the fixth Century, has mention'd it in the Life of ^ St. Sahas^ who was born in the year 4^9. and he fliys, ^ that in order to be made a Reader in the Church oi Scythopolis ^ he was oblig'd to learn the Pfalter and the Book entituPd Jpofiolos. We read alfo in the ancient Pontifical of the Greek Church, publilh'd by Hahertus Bifhop of Vahres^ in Rouergue^ in the chapter concerning the ordination of Chaniors and Readers, that when the Patriarch ordain'd a Rea- der, he caus'd him to read the Jpoftolick Bock 5 up- on which Hahertus makes this remark 5 This Book iz the Office called Apollo] os. The fame thing is yet feen in the Euchologium of the Greeks^ another Book of great antiquity, *= lince as Leo Jllatius tell us, there is extant at Rome in the Barberine Library a MS. of it near a thoufind years old. In the Euchologium what occurs to our purpofe IS the following paflagej To the per [on who is to be ordain'' d a Reader is prefented the Book , wherein are contain d the AEis of the Apo files , and their Epiftlcs , and after he has read it in fever al places , the Bifhop takes back the Bock out of his hand^ and gives him the hlefjing. 1 here end the firil part of my DifTertation. I pro- pofed herein to cilabHfh the genuinenefs of theText concerning the three witneiles in Heaven, and I dare flatter my icif with having fet it in fo great a light, that every one, who will but a little open his eyes, can't avoid feeing it. What can, in ihort, be de- manded in order to convince men the paflage is ge- nuine? Would they, that I llaould from age to age produce mofl ancient, grave and renowned Dodors, who have quoted it in their Writings? I have done it j and from all partsof the L.^i^/;^ world have fliewn it either in their Bibles or citations of the Text. Do. a Cav. Hlfl. Lit. b Coteler. Mon. Ecclef Gru. T. 3. « JFabnt. Biblioth, Gru. lib. 5. they ( 87 ) they require the Eaft iliould furniih me with it in the original Langiinge of Si. John's EpilHe? The Greek MSS. have not been wanting to nie in this affair. Is it expeded, I fliould allcdge arguments, from whence it may appear the Text has not been pafs'd over in fi- ]ence by Greek Writers of ages far remote from ours? Why, thefe I have urg'd. Do they in fine infid upon afTurances, that the Greek Church in thefe later Ages has acknowledged the pafTage to be the Apollles, whofe name it bears j and that in fo doing that Church folio w'd only the example cf her Anceftors, from whom fhe deriv'd her Original ? Her Confeffions of Faith and moil ancient Rituals afford us full afTuran- ces hereof. So many proofs upon aqueflion of fa6b, and almofl all of a different kind, which after having rendred every one their teilimony apart reunite together, and dirc&ly aim at the lame fcope, are an ample demon- llration of the genuinenefs of St. John's paflage. But that I may leave no manner of doubt behind me, I fhall now examine ail that has hitherto been found ouE of force againil its authenticknefs. ijiit (88) Part the Second. In which are anfiperd the moft material OljeBions againft the Text in difpute. Chap. I, The firfi ohjeB'ion : This pcijfcige ts not In the Greek Manufcr'tpts ^ nor Oriental Verfions of the New Tejiament. '%l N the eighth chapter oF the firll part, I have urg'd fuch convincing proofs againft theObjedion drawn from the Grepk MSS. that 'tis but to run over that chapter to to difcover the whole weaknefs of the Ar-* gument. The Grounds of it are entirely thefe^, that the words of the feventh verfe are not found in divers MSS. in England^ France^ and Italy 5 and tho' ex- cept two only, the oldeft MSS. we have, reach not beyond the eleventh or tenth Century, 'tis maintain'd that ( 8? ) that the pafTage of St. John not beirig found there^ it has not been in the Manufcripts more ancient, and from a particular account that's made of their num- ber an univerlal conclufion is drawn, and we are told, it therefore never was in any. This reafoning in Logick is C2i\Vdi^ paralogijm^onc of the Sophifms ab infufficienti eniimeratione^ wherein an univerfal conclufion is made from the enumerati- on of fome particulars, in a cafe where one fole par- ticular omitted deftroys the whole conclufion. This objeaion offends yet in another refped againlt the rules of righc reafoning: Such and fuch a paflage is not at this Jay found in any of the Manufcripts that have been convey'd down to our times, there- fore it never was in the more ancient Copies that are loft. To conclude in this manner, we ought to fhew that thefe particular paffages were not in the old Ita- Jick Verfion, nor in the Vulgar Bible of St. Jerom^ nor in the Writings of the Fathers, nor any where clfej but Mr. Dn Pin and F. le Long are of opinion, there are Manufcripts of the Sacred Books older than that Age. The arguments taken from the form of the letters, and manner of writing Greek withouc fpirits and accents, are two of the bell proofs al- ledg'd for the antiquity of thefe Manuicnptsj buc thefe reafons are of no force to ihew a Manufcripc is of the fourth or fifth Century, rather than of the fixth or feventh. I know no man \n Europe mox^skiWd in thefe matters, and who deferves more to be rely'd on than F. Montfaucon. He has feen and examin'd every thing of greateft value in the Libraries of /r^/?^^ and Italy-y but he gives us in the Journal of his Travels into Italy^ in the PaUoJogia Gr^ca^ and in the Cata- logue of the famous Chancellor Segmer's mod ex- cellent Library, commonly call'd i\\c Library of Coaf^ tin^ as being in poffeflion of the Marquis of that name> he gives us, 1 fay, 1 know now not how many in- ilances of the Gr^^^ Manufcripts wrote in the fame >^ manner manner with the Alexandrian and Vatican^ which are neverthelefs fome of the fixth Century, others of the feventh, and fome of the ninth. And fo perhaps the two Manufcripts that are reputed fo ancient, majr not be above {tYcn or eight hundred years old . But fup- pofe they were more, we can't conclude becaufe they have not St. John's pafiage, that it was not in his E- piftle when thofe Manufcripts were wrote, for then the fame conclufion ought to take place Vvnth regard to other pafTages that are wanting in them : Dr, Mills has taken notice of a great many of 'em, and we fhall felefl: a few. In St. Jobn^ ch. 8. f. i, [^c. the hiilory of the woman taken in adultery is omitted in the Fatican^ Manufcript. In the eighth chap, of the jl5is^ the 37^^ verfe is entirely wanting in the Alexandrian iVlanufcript. Rom. 8.1. the words, hit after the Sprit ^ are not in the Manufcript of Alexandria^ nor in fome others. Rom. p. 4. thefe words, of whom is the adoption^ and what follows to the fifth verfe are wanting in the Manufcript o£ Alexandria. In the firft Epiftle of St. Peter^ ch. 4. f 14. on their fart he is evil fpoken of^ 6cc. is all wanting in the fame Manufcript, and in feveral others. In the firft Epiflle of St. John^ ch. 4. f. 5. thefe words, Chriji is come in the flejh^ are not found ei-* ther in the Alexandrian Manufcript, or the Fatl^ cah ' In the eighth verfe of the fifth chapter the wordsy '»,, earthy are omitted both in the Vatican and Akx*^ andrian Manufcripts. How then can we depend upon the want of the Text concerning the witnefles in heaven in thefe twa Manufcripts, of all the moft reputed, and in feveral others not fo ancient ; We ought certainly to look upon it as one of the omiffions which have crept into thefe thck Copies tbro' the fault of the tranfcnbers, as I have elfewhere obferv'd. To thefe omilTions in the Greek Manufcripts are joyn'd the Oriental Verfions, Vhich have not this paffage 5 but we have the fame anfwer to make in this affair, namely, that all thefe Verfions are defe- ctive in many other Texts which are undoubtedly ge- nuine. The moft ancient of all is the Syriack > 'tis not known in what age 'twas compos'd, but 'tis moft certain the Italick Verfion which has the paffage of St. Jobn^ was made before it. The common opinion is^ that this Tranilation into Syriack is as old as the fourth or fifth Century, and Mr. Du Pin ^ thinks ic yet older; but at that time the paffage of Si. John was in the Copies o'l tho. Latin Bibles, and quoted in the writings of Divines. Befidcs, this Syriack Verfion is full of faults, and efpecially of omiifions. Beza has given abundance of inllances in his Annotations upon the New Teflament, and we could add thereto a great many others, if there was occafion j I fhall give only fome few, and thefe in whole Texts. InSi.jQhn ch. 14. J. and 16. 14. Atls%. 37. and ||f. 34. and 18, 19. the words, after the Sprit ^ Rom, cS. i. and ihofe of St, Peter i Ep.ch.4. 14. arc wanting al- fo ; a more particular account would be tedious. The other Oriental Verfions have been made from the Syriack^ as Mr. Du Pin has obferv'd in his preh- minary Differtation upon the Bible, ^ and for- this caufe we here meet with the fame omifiions as -Vthe Syriack. The Verfion, which is faid to be more ancient than the Syriack.^ is the Coptick or Egyptian. Mr. Du Pin has obferv'd in the fecond §. of the fame chapter, that we have no Edition of the New "Tcft anient in thctt Ian' I Dijjerc. Prelijn, far la Bible. 1. 2. ch. 4. ^ ibid. p. 81. gtmge^ hut that there are Mann fcripts of it in the French ^King's Library. We are fince indebted to Mr. /Fi/- kins for a very fine Bdition he publiih'd at Oxford a^- bout the end of the year iji6. with ^ Latin Tranfla- tion. The omiflions of Texts are here very nume- rous} 1 ihall mention f 'me: Matt, f . 44. and 20. 22, 23. and 18. I. and 27. 7,^. Marc. j. i(5. and 11. 26. jl5ls 8. 37. and 24. 7, t^c. The Perfian Trandv.tion is not look'd on as anci^ ent, and being made, as Mr. Simon ^ fays, not from the Greek^ but from the Syriack j 'tis no wonder we find there many omiflions. The Ethiopick Verfion is yet more charg'd with faults, and Icfs -^Heem'd than the refl. As for x.\\f^ Armenian; that has the pafTage of St. John : This was printed at Amfterdam by the care of Ufcan^ an Armenian Bifliop, who in a Council of his own Nation held in \66^. was commifTion'd to come into Europe to print the Bjbie m their language. Mr. Simon^ who was acquainted with the Biihop at Paris^ fays this Bible could not bur he very exa61:, ^ becaufe the BijJoop who was an able and judicious man^ had brought ivith him good Mamifcripr Cofies^ which he faithfully fmow^d^ and this (fays Mr. Simon) I learnt from the Bijhup's own mouth. A certain Armenian^ nam'd Ni- con^ put out a Book entitled, De pejjimorum Armenio- rum pejjlmd Religione^ where he accufes 'em of having adjdtd fevers: pillages to their Bibles not originally in 'em, -c^nd in(tanccs m the 45^. and 44^^ verfcs of the ZZ^ chap, or St. Liike^ and divers others : but the paflagc of St. fohn\ Epiilie has no mark fet upon it : all this is copied from the 24^'^ Epillle of Mr. Simon in the fourth Volume of his Bibliotheque Critique^ or Lettrcs Choijieu But at he has not faid the pafTage o^ St. John was of the number of thofe, which Nicon a Hifi. des VerfionSf ch. 3Z. fc Hift. Cnt. des Verfions, ch, I'j, accufes ( 93 ) aceufes the Jrmenians of having added to their Bibles, which is a furc token that it anciently flood as it does now. With regard to the Arahick Verfion, I fhall con- tent my felf with the judgment Mr. Simon has pafs'd upon it in the fecond Book of the fifteenth Chapter of theHiflory of the Verfions of the OldTeftament: /» general^ fays he, the Arabick 7'ranjlations of the Scripture are of no great authority^ for they are not an- cienty and for the moft part are made from the Syriack, "with a great deal of negligence . Why then were they not left there, and not oppos'd againft the pafTage of Si.John^ which is wanting in thofe Verfions ? Chap. II. The fecond Ohjecikn-^ that the pajfage of St. John was not known to the Fathers of the Councils of Nice and Sardica. AConfiderable argument againfl this pafTage is pretended to be drawn from its not being ci- ted by the two Councils, wherein Arius's herefy was folemnly condemned. But we ought to know, that the Trinity of thePerfons in the Godhead, as taught by St. John^ was not properly the fubjecl debated in thofe Councils. Aritis confin'd himfelf to the Son's Divinity, nor was the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft yet brought into queftion or oppos'd by AriuSy this happen'd not 'till a long time after, and when the Eunomians and Macedonians ^ hereticks fo nam'd from the chief of their Sefts, Eummius and Macedonius^ had added to the Axian impiety^ the denial of the Holjr ( 94 ) Holy Ghoft's divinity : and hence were they callM Pneum(itomachi^ which is being interpreted, enemies of the Spirit', as we learn from the Ecclcfiallical Hi- ilory of Socrates^ Book i. chap. 3. This is an Hi- lliorical Fad that's undeniable 3 and from hence has Mr. Simon^ and before him Cardinal Baronius^ drawn a very excellent argument to fliew the Difpute be- twixt Athanaftus and Arius^ of which we have fpo- Icen above, did not pafs at the Council of Nice^ be- caufe, fay they, the Author of that Tra6t has taken much pains to prove againfl the Avian the Divinity of the Holy Gholl:, which at the time of tha{ Coun- cil had not been difputed, As to the Ads of the Nicene Council, they are only decifions and ordinances, without any Text of Scripture. The Creed it felf, which contains the Faith of the Church, dwells chiefly upon the per- fon of the Son, and has but one word concerning the Holy Ghoft, and no exprefs citation from Holy Scripture. They urge farther, that Bifhop Alexander has not quoted it. in the Epiftle he wrote to the Bifhops of the Eaft upon the Subjed o^Arius : It is true, but he has pais'd over withal the words of Baptifmal InlH- tution, In the name of the Father^ the Son^ and the Ho- ly Ghoft. This Text, with the Text of St. John are both exprefs for the dodrine of the Trinity ^ but this dodrinc, as I have faid, was not concern'd in the difpute with Ayius, As to fome other pieces, which are given out to belong to the Council of Nice^ fuch as are certain Difputes of the Billiops with the Pagan Philofophers, thele are mere Fables invented by one Gdafius of 6>- zicum^ many Ages after the Council was held, and re- ceived as fuch by all the Learned : I iliall reil fuis- fy'd with giving upon this head the judgment of Mr. Du Pin^ in the article of Gelafius : " 'Thefe Dif- putes, fays he, " of the Philofophers concerning the "Divi- (95 ) " Divinity of the Holy Ghoft are a mere fiftion, and " it IS CERTAIN the queftion of the Holy Ghofl's *' Divinity was not debated in the Council of " Nice. The argument taken from the Synodical Epiflle of the Council of Sardica^ held twenty two years after ihc Nicene^ is not more conclufive. In this Epifllc we find cited the pafTage of the Evangehd; Si.JoJmj I and my Father are one^ but the paiTiige which fpeaketh of the Father, Son and Holy Ghofl, that thefe three are one^ is not found there. But here the cafe is the fime, as in the Council o? Nice^ the matter debated by this Council, was flridly the Di- vinity of the Soa only, not the Trinity in ge- neral. 'Tis withal a miftake to attribute that part of the Letter from whence this Objedlion is taken, to the Council Q^ S-ardica > 'tis an addition made by fome o- ther perfon, and is no where read but in * Theodoret. Wc have this Synodical Epiflle among the Coun- cils, in the Apology of St. Athanafius^ and in St. Hilary^ but the lafl part is wanting in 'em all : So that Baronius has reje6ted it as a forgery in his iVn- nals of the year 347. And thus the mighty noife, which has been rais'^d againfl the paflage in difpute, that 'twas unknown to the Fathers of thefe famous Councils, has no real foundation, and is of no ufe but by the authority of great names to impofe upon fuch perfons, as are not in a condition, or unwiUing to give themfelves the trouble, of unravelling all thefe points of Hiflory. > Hi/?. EQde[, lib. z. ch. 8. 4 Chap, (pO Chap. III. The third Obje'ciion ^ this pajfage has not been cited by the Greek Fathers y nor by the Latines of the fir ft Ages. THIS objeftion is fet out and enlarg'd with a long lift of the moft pompous names of Anti- quity, Clement oi Alexandria^ Si. Athanaftus^ St. Cj/- r/7, St. Baftl^ on the fide of the Greeks:, St. Hilaryy St. Jerom^ St. Aiiguftin^ Lucifer^ Cefarius^ and I know not how many others on the part of the Latins 5 fbr what can be more eafie than to furnifh out a Cata- logue of Authors, who have not fpoke of one par- ticular thing s the bufinefs might have been ftretch'd out to infinity. But I would here demand of thefe Gentlemen, who fo loudly boaft of this their Catalogue, that they would be pleas'd to tell me, whether in cafe a paiTage is not found quoted by the Greeks^ which yet occurs in the writings of the Latins., they would look upon it as fuppofititious. For example, if St^ Hilary , St. Jerome^ St- Auguftine have urg'd a paf- fage, which St. Athanafius^ St. Cyril^ and St. Bafd "with others of the Greeks have made no mention of in thofe works of theirs we have remaining, muft we rejed the paflage as a forgery? according to their way of reafoning we multj tho* reafon will nevet fubmit to fuch a deciiion, the abfurdity whereof is very apparent. Let us fuppofe then, if they re- quire it, that the paffage of St. John has been quoted by no Greek Writer extant, that Athanaftus^ Cyril and Baftl have made no mention of it > they may yet have urg'd it in other treatifes different from thofe which have come to our hands, for 'tis well known we have (97) have not all their works ; and as to thofe we at pre- lent have, this pafTage might not come into their Au- thor's mind, whilft they were writing, anymore thari feveral others, which were no lels to their purpofe, as I ihall fhew in the fequel : But TcrtulUan who is more ancient than all thefe Greek Writers, has hint- ed at it in one of his Books > St. Cyprian has ex- preflly quoted it; St. Jerome has fpoke of it in his Proem upon the feven Canonical Epillles, he has gi- ven it a place in his Bible, or rather he has left it as he found it in the old Italick Bible j St. Eucherius has pro- duc'd it J St. Figilius^ St. Fulgentius^ a multitude of pious and holy Bifhops have urg'd it as the Bulwark of Orthodoxy againll the Jriam of the fifth Centu- ry : The fad: is certain, I have pro'/M it 5 what then can be alledg'd again ft the confequence ? Erafmus in his difpute with Edward Ley lays it down as a good rule in Criticifm, that the confentient voices of the ancient Latin Fathers are fufficient to eftablifh the authenticknefs of a Text of Scripture, tho' it be wanting in the Greek manufcripts> now how much more fufficient muft they be, in the cafe of compa- ring a quotation made by the Latin Fathers with the bare filence of the Greeks ? But to come to par- ticulars. I have fiiid, that it follows not Jl pafTage wasn't in the Bibles of the Fathers, whether Greek or Latin^ from their not having quoted it in fuch places of their works, where it would have been to their pur- pofe 5 fince it might have been urg'd in the works of others which we now have, or in works which have perifli'd in the ruines of time: This will appear from the following inllances. Clement of Alexandria has fpoken of the Trinity % but has no where produc'd the w^ords of Baptifmal Inflitution, in the name of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy GhoH. O AUaander ( 98 ) Alexander Bifliop of Alexandria^ has withal not brought 'cm into his Epiftle againil-^mjf. Eufehiiis oi Cafarea wrote a Trad againfl; the Sa- hellians extant in the fourth Volume of the Bihlio- thee a Maxima Patrum^ wherein he difcourfes of the Trinity, and of each perfon in the Godhead didinft- ly, without taking the lead notice of the Text con- cerning Baptifm. Epiphanius in his ^7^^ hcrefy againil: the Noetians^ defends the myftery of the Trinity, and makes no ufe of this pafTage fo exprefs, fo decifive, of the Baptifmal Inilitution. He has alfo omitted it in his 6f*^ herefy againft Paul of Samofata. If w-e had only thefe parts of his works remaining, Ihould v/e not believe this Text of Baptifm was unknown to him, Unce he iirg'd it not upon occalions, wherein 'twas fo natural to have us'd it?. St. Gregory Nazianzen has made an excellent Dif- fertation in proof of the Son's equahty with the Fa- ther againft the Avians^ he produces there divers Texts of Scripture, and among thefe the very words immediately following the inilitution of Baptifm, / "will he 'With you always even to the end of the world^ and omits this Text which is fo clear in the point. Baptizing them in the name of the Father^ 6cc. 'jitus^ Bifhop o^ Bo fir a in Arabia^ one of thofe "whofe iilence is urg'd againfl: the Paflage of St. John^ compos'd a Book in defence of the Trinity, and the eternal generation of the Son, without alledging the Text of Baptifm, or that other v^zx^^ famous one which was continually in the mouth of the Ortho- dox, / and my Father are one, Phoebadius Bifhop of Agen^ is alfo one of the An- cients, whofe iilence is thought to be of advantage in the affair. He has urg'd a great number of paf- fages out of the New 1 eilament againfl: the Arian herefy, but has no wheie quoted the Text concern- ing Baptifm. Cerealis (99) Cerealis was one of the pious African Bifhops, who rubfcrib'd to the paflagc of St. John in the Confeflion of Faith drawn up in Hunerick's days: He wrote a Book againil the Jrian nam'd Maximin^ and has no where cited in it St. John\ padage : Who would not have expelled to have found it there? Vigiliiis of ^apfum^ who has wrote fo much againfl: the feme Hcreticks, and fo often urg'd the authori- ty of this paflage, compil'd under the borrow'd name oi Aiigiiflin^ a Dialogue printed among St. Auguftin's Works in the eighth Volume of the beautiful Edi- tion of the Benedidine Monks of St. Maur^ where- in he introduces St. Auguftin difputing with an Avian nam'd Felicianus , and no where alledges St. John's paflage. St. Fiilgentins^ as we have feen, hath divers times made ufe of it in his works 5 yet we have one in- fcrib'd to the Emperor Thraftmond^ an Arian and Perfecutor which has it not. He made befides a Trea- tife concerning the Faith^ where he proves the Trinity by divers Texts of Scripture, without taking the lead notice of the paffage in St. John's Epiftle. Ifofallthefe Bilhops, Si^FiilgLntiiis^ St. Figilius^ and Cerealis^ we had no other works remaining than thofe I have juft now mentioned, fhould we not fay it was im.poffibie for thefeholy Do61:ors not to have pro- duc'd in their Difputes againft the Antitrinitarian Do- drine a Text fo exprefs as that of the three WitnefTes in Heaven, if it had been in the Epiftle of St. John? One might as well draw this confequence from them as from all the other ancient Fathers whatfoever j and yet the confequence would be null -, it would a- mount to no more than a conjedturc, a fpecious ap- pearance of reafon at the beft, and by no means con- clufive : So jufl is ^ Mx. Simon in his obfervation, that we reafon to little purpofe concerning fa^s by urging ^- Dljfert. fur les Manufcrits. p. ts- ( loo ) galnft 'em confequences to prove \m impoffiMe^ if on the other hand we have certain and evident proof that they are real But what proof more certain and evident can we have to fhew the Text of the three Wit- nefles, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, was in the Bibles of the Ancients who have not ci- ted it in fome of their Writings, than the quotations made of it by Divines of therr time, and by them- felves in other Works ? Chap. IV. ^he fourth Oh] eB ion: Some of the ancient Fathers have quoted the (5th a.nd 8 th Verfes of the jth Chapter of St. john'5 Epifile^ but have taken no notice of the 7th. THIS Objedion is apt to furprize at fir ft fight j but before I difcover the fallacy of it, 1 fiiall here make one general obfervation concerning the true nature of citations of Texts of Holy Scripture in the writings of Divines. 'Tis moil certain, that the more regular and ju- dicious a citation is, the lefs it takes in of fuch mat- ters as do not peculiarly belong to it 5 every thing elfe ferves only to perplex the affair, and whoever underftands well the art of arguing and writing draws this rule into his pradice j a thoufand inftances may be produced to fhew the ancient Fathers have ordi- narily followed this method. Againft th? Text in gueilion are urg'd firll the Greek Fathers and then the Lati7is, The ( loi ) The firft inftance taken from the Greeks is the pretended Epiftle of St. Dionyfius oi Alexandria to Paid of Samofata \ extant in the firft Volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum. 'Twould be of no moment to prove this to be none of St. Dtonyfius'%^ others have obferv'd it long ago \ tho' indeed the Letter is very ancient : 'Tis there faid, we are regenerated not by a corruptible feed ^ but an incorruptible > and by the water and the fpirit^ and thefe three agree in one : «V lo t\ «Vfv, fays the Greek: Now thefe lall words are the words of the eighth verfe of St. John^ but thofe of the feventh are not alledg'd > it's very true, and the rea- fon is becaufc they ought not j for who in a citation which has regard merely to fpiritual regenerationwould produce a Text which fpeaks nothing of it, and con- cerns onlv the v/itnefs of the Father, the Son, and the Holy'Ghoft ? St. Gregory Nazianzen has quoted alfo the eighth verfe without the feventh. But we ought to give the reafon why he did fo. The quotation occurs in a treatife he wrote againft the Macedonians in behalf of the Holy Gholl's Divinity. Thofe Hereticks maintain'd, that only things of the fame nature could come under the fame denomination 3 qu^ poffint^ faid they, connumerari^ noi fubnumer art -^ I know not well what to make of their frivolous diitin^lion : But againil this notion St. Gregory oppos'd the eighth verfe, "there are three that hear witnefs^ the fpirit^ the '^ater^ and the bloody and thefe three are one : this inftance was much to his purpofe. He adds yet ano- ther in the word dog^ which is the common name of three different things, of a four-footed animal, of a filh call'd cams marinus^ and of a conftellation namM the dog-Jlar, Now of what ufe would the feventh verfe have been in this cafe .^ The purport of it was direaiy contrary, for the three fubjeds there united under the denomination of one^ are of the fame ( JO^ ) fame nature, whereas St. Gregory is f peaking of fuch matters as are of a nature quite difEcrcnt. There's a mighty flrefs laid upon St. Cyril of J- lexandria's citing in his feventh Dialogue, and his Book entitul'd fbefaurus^ the fixth, eighth, and ninth verfes of St. john^ and paffing over the feventh without flying one word of it. But let us fee with what defign. His aim was to prove, that the Scri- pture had given to the Holy Ghoft the appellation of Gocl^ in oppofition to the Hcreticks who taught, that name was no where afcrib'd to him. The lame objedion is propos'd and refuted by Gregory Nazian- zen in his 57^^ Difcourfe concerning the'^Holy Ghoft. St. Cyril to compafs his end alledges among'ii: other Texts the place of St. John's Epiftle which aids with thefe words of the ninth wak^ the witnefs of GocL The feventh verfe was nothing to his purpofe, for the name God is not there given to the Holy Ghoil. Thefe are all the inftances colleded from the Greek Fathers, let us now come to the Latins, Tertullian is always produced upon the occafion, tho' he has not fo much as touch'd upon the fubjed. He has wrote a treatife concerning Baptlfm, where- in befides the Baptifm with water^ he fays there is another in bloody to wit, Martyrdom : For of this Baptifm^ writes he, Jefus Chrifl fpake, when he [aid, he had another Baptifm to he baptized with^ tho' he had been before baptized with water, for he came by water and blood, as St. John obferves. But what's this to the feventh verfe? In fome Editions of St. Cyprian we have alfo a Dilcourfe concerning Baptifm, which is moft certain- ly not his, but an Author's by far more modern. He fpeaics here, as Divmes do, of three forts of Baptifm, tne Baptifm o^ water, the Baptifm of the ^V^and the Baptifm of ^/..^, and hereupon he quotes the words of the fixth and eighth verfes of St. John. The ( ro3 ) The words of the fevcnth bore no relation to the fuhjcd. St. ylmhrofe is withal urgM againft us, who in two places hath us'd the words of the eighth verfc, and not mention'd the feventh. In the one of thefc places, which is upon thefe words of St. Luke^ Chap, xxii. y. 10. 'There jloall meet you a man hearing a pitcher of water : he turns his difcourfe to the water in thefe terms, O r^ater^ ivhich haft had the honour to become the facrament of cur regeneration^ thou art one of the three ijuitneffes^ ^jjhereof 'tis faid^ There are three that bear witnefs^ the fpirit^ the water ^ and the blood. Of what ufe would the Text of the three witnefTes in heaven have here been? Truly, of none. The other place where this Father has quoted the eighth verfe without touching upon the feventh is in the fixth Chapter of the firlt Book of a Tract con- cerning the Holy Ghoif. Being renewed^ fays he, by the Holy Ghoft^ "we are raifed up and horn again: and for this caufe thefe three witnejj'es^ the fpirit^ the ivater^ and the bloody are^ as St. John hath faid^ one and the fame thing : the fame in myftery^ thd" not in nature. Would they have had the three v/itnefles m heaven of the feventh verfe alledg'd here ? St. Am- hrofe knew better than to urge Texts fo little to his purpofe. In the fame Trad, in the 1 1^^^ Chapter of the third Book being about to prove the Holy Gholt to be God, becaufe he is the Author of our regeneration, he re- cites the words of the fifth verfe of St. John\ Gof- pel, where 'tis {iiid we mull be born again of wattr and the fpirit^ and joins to it what the lame St. John has faid in his Epitllc, that Jefus Chrill: came by water and bloody and that there are three witncHes, the fpi- rit^ the water and the blood. And yet all this has no affinity with the three witnefTes in heaven of the fe- venth verfe. A great advantage is pretended to be taken from St. C 104 ) St. Juguftim^ who in his difpute againil: Maximinus^ an Jrian Bifliop, prefles very clofe the eighth verfe, and omits the feventh, tho' decifive for the dodrine ot the Trinity. St. Juguftine had advanced a Propofition, moft cer- tainly not to be maintain'd, that the Scripture had never faid of two or more different things that they were one ; and hereto he makes himfelf this obje6]:i- on> St. Johnhnh faid, there are three that hear wit- nefs and thus can no Advantage be drawn from his not having urg'd it, tho' it had been to his pur- pofe. At laft, we are brought again to Facundus^ who has urg'd the eighth vcrfe in proof o^ the Trinity, in (lead of the feventh which had been far more pro- per. I own it : yet Facundus could not but know that all the African Bifhops feme years before hecam* to his Biihoprick had defended the myflery of the Trinity by the words of the feventh verfe of St. John-, he ought therefore to have kept cloie to that, and not run after an allegorical conceit. Chap. V. The fifth objcchon ^ the ancient Commen-^ tators upon St. John'5 EpfUe have paffd over the difptited verfe tn fdence. THefe Commentators are the four following} Clement of Alexandria^ Didymus j Bede a-nd OEcumenius. St. element's Commentary upon St. John's Epiftle is not come down to us with the reft of his works, we only know that he did write upon the fevcn Ca- nonical Epiftles J but that work is loft. Cafiodorus * » Caffiod. Inji'ft. Uh. i. c 8. "" P tcll^ ( to6 ) tells US, he trandated it into Latm^ but we have loft alio his tranllation. The whole of this Comment of Clemens Jlexandrinus is reduc'd to a few fmall Scholia or Notes, rhat are extant under his name in the third * Volume of the Blbliotheca Patrum: but we learn there at the beginning of 'em, that they are not be- liev'd to be the Work Cajjlodorus tranflated. Dr. Cavs places 'em in the rank of fuppolititious books, and I'm of opinion no one that has read 'em can pafs any other judgment upon 'em, v/ho is the leaft ac- quainted with the llrength of genius and extcnflve karning that fhines thro' every line in Clement of Alexandria. The tra6t: is iliort, a page and half com- prehends all that's fud upon St. John's Epitlle, with- out skilly or life: all is dull, faint and languiiliing. No notice is here taken of the feventh verfe of the nfth chapter of St. John's Epiftle > but the five fii-ft vsrfes of the fame chapter are withal omitted. He begins at the fixth verfe, and gives us only the firit vi'ords of it; from hence he pafles over to the eighth, from thence to the end of the eleventh, after that he ieaves the twelfth , the thirteenth , and part of the fourteenth, and betakes himfelf to the lail claufe of rhe nineteenth verfe. Can any thing be more pitiful ? And is this an Author to be fet in oppoiition againft us } ^ Didyyniis of Alexandria flourifh'd in the fourth Century, he made a Comment upon St. John's firft Epiftle, but what remains of it is very imperfed 5 the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter is wanting there, and the fixth, and eighth, and ninth, and the tollowing to the fourteenth are wanting alfo. But as we can't conclude from hence that St. John's Epi- iile had not all thefe verfes, fo neither can we infer •r had not the feventh ; this would be to carry double weight, to have double meafure. Bede has expounded the fame Epiftle, and his Com- mentary do's noi; fail of exaftnefs ; he explains the " -. fixth ( 107 ) iixth and eighth vcifes of the fifth chapter, but Hivs nothing of the feventh , which is fo confidcrable. This lilence may caufc a prejudice, but that's all. Two reafons may convince us, that the if":.:ter Hands thus. Firft, we can't fay Bede was ign®rant, that this Text had been urg'd by St. Cypria/i^ and St. Fiilgen- tins y he had read their works and quoted them in his own writings. He was not ignorant withal, being fo much vers'd in the ftudy of Antiquity, that this Text was cited in the Hiilory o( FicJor ^ an Author Bcda has alfo quoted. All that can be anfwer'd to this is, that tho'^^.^^^ knew the padagc of St. John had been cited by ihe ancient Doctors of the Church , he notwithitanding belicv'd it fuppofititious, or at leall was not fully a{- fur'd It was the Apofllc's. But befidcs that this is to attribute to Bede a fentiment he has given no grounds for, neither in his Commentary, nor elfewhere, 'tis quite to miitake his character and turn of thought. -'^ Beck was learned in Greek^ and a very good Critick for the time he hv'd in : when he found m the Books he commented upon any verfe that was not in the Greek^ he never fail'd to take notice of it 3 how came he then to let a paflage of this importance efcape him : It was not enough to be filent in the affiir, his fi- lence might have pafs'd for an approbation -, and he was bound in confcience, and in regard to truth to inform the publick in a bufinefs of this nature. If he did not, it was becaufe he had no fciuples concern- ing the genuinenefs of Si.Jobns Text. Why then, may fome fay, has he wrote nothing upon this padage which fo well deferv'd to be ex- plain'd ? No one is now oblig'd to give a reafon for his filencej 'tis enough to Inew that no confequencc ^ M. Simon. Hiji. Crit. des Commentate co. 14. p z can ( io8 ) can be drawn from it againft the authentlcknefs of the Text. Commentators have always been at liberty to ex- pound what paflages in Books they pleas'd. St. Chry- foftom^ for example, has commented upon the Adis^ and when he came to the eighth chapter took no no- tice at all of the thirty feventh verfe, tho' it be one of the moll beautiful in the whole chapter. Shall we fiiy this is a fign the verfe was not in the New Teftament, and that if it was there, 'twas not in fome Copies, or that St. Chryfoftom thought it not genuine ? We can't affert any thing of this kind j why then fhould we fiy the fame of the feventh verfe of St. John upon Bede's not having infcrted it into his Commentary? The Cafe is parallel. Befides, we ought to know there has been no one an- cient Commentator that has taken the liberty I have been fpeaking of more than Bede^ of pafling over very important Texts without faying one word concerning 'cm. For inftance, he has not explain'd the 2o^^^,zi ^^, 21^ verfcsofthefiril: Chapter of St. PauPs firll Epiitle, the moll excellent throughout the whole Epiftle. in his Comment upon St. 'John's Gofpel he has omit- ted the fifty third and fifty fourth verfes of the eighth Chapter. In his Commentary upon the .4^s he has; entirely pafs'd over the twelfth and following verfes to the twenty third of the fecond Chapter. Apd tho' m his Book of Retra6lations up- on this Commentary he has run over divers Texts he had not explain'd before, yet with regard to thole of the fecond Chapter, he takes notice only of the thirteenth, without touching upon the others 3 as if that had been the only one he had really thought di- vinely infpir'd. I could produce many other inltances, but thefe already urg'd are more than fufficient to fliew, that tho' this iearn'd Divine has not commented upon the leventh verfe of St. John j it follows not nc^ver- { lo? ) neverthelcfs that this verfe was wanting in the Bibles of his time, or that he believed it fuppofiritious. We have none behind but OEcumenius^ a Greek Writer, who Hv'd towards the clofe of the tenth Century, or beginning of the eleventh. He wrote a Commentary upon St. Johyis Epiftle, and has nei- ther expounded nor recited this pafHige. But what conclufion fhall we draw from thence? That in his time the pafTagc was not in the Epiltle ? I have fhewn it was : And belides, were this concluiion admitted^ we fhould of right draw the fame from a like fi- lence of St. Chryfoftom againft the thirty fevcnth verfe of the eigth chapter of the u4cis^ upon which that learned Interpreter has not vouchfafcd one word, tho' he has expounded all the Chapter befide. Shall we fay then, that OEcumenins did not believe the paf- fage of the witnefTes in Heaven to be St. John's^ But either this was his own private fentiment, or the opinion of the Greek Church in his time. If the lat- ter, OEcumenius had no reafon to pafs over the Text in filence, and not mark it as a Text that a foreign hand had inferted into fome Manulcnpts. And if it was his own private opinion only, the caufc I main- tain will rather be the better than worfe by the o- miflion of the palfage in OEcumen:us\ Commentary, Upon the whole, 'tis of no momciit to fearch ^^ti^ into the reafonsof this omiflion, fince the genuinenels of the pafTiige can receive no detriment from it. If we now place on the one iide all that we have urg'd throU(ghout this DiiTertation in defence of the Text's authenticknefs, and on the other whatever has been alledg'd againll it to prove it a forgery, we fhall findavalldifproportion. Ontheoppofitepart we have nothing but reafoning without proof j on ours we have evident proofs, and reafonings upon 'em. We fettle a matter of facl upon pofitive teltimonies j this faft they deny upon the credit of mere omiflions. The witnefTes I produce urge and explain it clearly "» and ( "O ) and without ambiguity, witnefTes not to be rejeded, againil whom can lye no juft exception > and by what other means can a matter of fad be made out ? They on the contrary alledge mute witnefTes, witncfles that can't fpeak but by iigns > Manufcripts that have not the Text i Writers who have* not quoted it : I have ah-eady fhewn that this pretended fpeaking by ftgns^ to wit, the filence both of Writers and Manufcripts is inconclufive. And is not here a prodigious dif- parity ? We are bound in reafon to weigh thefe matters, in order to determine where the preference is due. If then we take the balance in hand, we fhall foon fee the charge of forgery againll this pafTage difap- pear, audits genuinenefs triumphant. Every Chriftian who is fincerely concerned for the fundamental Do- drine this Text enforces, ihould be pleas'd that we have demonftrated its authenticknefs, fince the other paffages wherein the Holy Trinity is revealed to us, are hereby rendered far more clear in the article of that grand myftery. If it was not for that fubhme Dodrine, which in all ages, and unhappily in ours too, has met with perfons who in fecret llrive againfl: its truth, the pafliige of St. John's Epiftle in all pro- bability would not have found the oppofition which has been form'd againft it. Some indeed have inno- cently imbib'd the opinion from others, whofe de- figns were but too plain from their Doftrine. St. John requires we JJ)Ould try the fpirits^ and St. Paul^ that "we examine all things and hold fafi that which is good. Thefe are two rules every wife and pious Chri- Itian ought to flick clofe to, and thefe 1 have endea- vour'd conilantly to follow. FINIS. BOOKS printed for Willia^i arid John Innys. PLain Notions of our Lord's Divinity. Set forth in a Ser- mon preached upon Chriltmas Day, at the Royal Chapel of Whitehall. Pubhlhed at th.e Requelt of many of the Audi- ence. By Tho. Mangey, LL. D. Chaplain to the Right Rever- end Father in God, John, Lord Bifhop of London. Remarks upon Nazirenus, wherein the Fajfity of Mr. 'Poland's Mahometan Gofpel, and his Mifrepreicntation of Mahomet-^n Sentiments in refpecfl of Chriftianity are fet forth; and the Hiftory of the old Nazaraean clear'd up,- and the whole Condudl of the hift Chriilians in reipe(ft of the Jewifli Law, ex- plain'd and defended. The fecond Edition, Ocftavo. Mangey's praftical Difcourfes upon the Lord's Prayer, preached before the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn ; the fecond Edition, Oclavo. A Charity Sermon preach'd at Chelfea July; 29, 17 16. Odavo. Dr. Bennct's Difcourfe of the ever-bleiPed Trinity in Unity, with an Examination of Dr. Clarke's Scripture Dodrine of the Trinity, Odtavo. Diredions for liudying : i. A general Syflem or Body of Divinity. 1. The 39 Articles of Religion. Second Edition. Svo. ■ ■Difcourfe of Schifm ; fliewing, i. What is meant by Schifm : 2. That Schifm is a damnable Sin: 3. That there is a Schifm between the cllabliQi'd Church of England and the Dif- fenters: 4. That this Schifm is to be charg'd on the DilTcnters Side : 5. That the modern Pretences of Toleration, Agreement in Fundamentals, &c. will not excufe the Diffenters from being guilty of Sch'fm, &c. Fourth Edit. Svo. Mr. Bragg's Pradical Obfervations upon the Miracles of our blcffed Saviour, 2 Vol. 8vo. Pradical Difcourfes upon the Parables of our bleffed Sa- viour, 2 Vol. Svo. Mr. Derham's Phyfico-Theology ; or a Demonflration of the Being and Attributes of God, from his Works of Creation ; with large Notes, and many Curious Obfervations. The fourth Edit. Svo. — -Aftro- Theology ; or a Demonflration of the Being and Attributes of God, from a Survey of the H#«vens; illuftrated with Copper Plates; the third Edition, Svo. The Chriftian's beft Guide, Svo. Mr. 'A Books printed for W. and]. Innys/ Mr. R\y"s Wifdotn of God manifefted in the Works of the Creation, in two Parts, the feventh Edition. — .'Miyfico-Theological Difcourfes, concerning I. The Pri- mitive Cluos and Creation of the World. II. The general De- hige, its Caules and EflTcas. III. The Dilfolution of the World, and general Conflagration ; with Cuts. The third Edit, with Addicions, 8vo. And all the reft of iMr. Ray's Works. -?hilofophicnl Letters between the late learned Mr. Ray, and i'evera! of his ingenious Correfpondents, Natives and Fo- reigners. To which are added thofe of Francis Willugby, Efq; the whole confining of many curious Difcoveries and Improve- ments m the Hiftovy of Quadrupeds, Birds, Fi(bes, Infects, Plants, Foffiles, Fountains, 6cc. Publiflied by the Reverend Mr. Derham, 8vo- Harts Bulwark ftormed, in Anfwer to Delaune's Plea for the Nonconformills; with a Preface by Dr. Brett, 8vo. Dr. Lucas's Enquiry after Happinefs ; in three Parts: i. Of the PolFibility of obtaining Happinefs. 2. Of the true Notion of human Life. 3. Of Religious Perfeftion, in two Vol. 8vo. ——Twenty four Sermons on feveral Occalions, in two Vol. 8vo. Pracflical Chriftianity, fifth Edition. •Influence of Conversation, Twelves. ——Duty of Servants, Twelves. Spiritual Year, Twelves. —Plain Man's Guide to Heaven. Mr. Kettlewell's Help and Exhortation to worthy communi- cating, 8vo. ■ -Works ; i« two Vol. Fol. in the Prefs. Dr.Baiil Kennet's Antiquities of Rome, with Cuts, 8vo. The Lives of the French, Itahan, and German Philofopher<;, late Members of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris,- to- gether with Abftradls of fome of the choiceft Pieces, communi- cated by them to that illuftrious Society : To which is added the Preface of the ingenious Mr. Fontinelle, Secretary, and Au- thor of the Hiftory of the faid Academy, 8vo. Ludolphus's Hiftory of Ethiopia, with Copper Plates, FoJ. Mr, Lock's Works m 3 Vol. Folio. Mr. Lawrence of Gardening, 8vo. — — Clwiftian Morals and Chriftian Prudence, 8vo. Mr. Le Neve's EfTay towards deducing a regular SuccelTion of all the principal Dignitaries in England and Wales, Fol. The Life «f Archbilhop Whitgift, by Mr. Strype^ Fol. Mr. Marftial's Chronological Tables in Englifti and Latin* FoL Minutius Felix, englifbed by Mr. Combe, 8vo. Milton's Paradife loft and regain'd, in 2 Vol. Twelves. Mr. Mortimer's whole Art of HuftiandTy, two Vol. Svo* /PI A Second Dissertation By Mr. MARTIN In DEFENCE of the TESTIMONY Given to our SAVIOUR B Y JOSEP HUS; W H E Pv E I N The Paragraph in the 4-^ Chapter of the 1 8'^^ Book of the Jewijh Antiquities concerning Chr'tH Jeftis is prov'd to be authentick. Tfanflated from the French Original. L O M'D O K: Printed for W. and J. Innys at the Prince's Arms ^c the IVeft End of St./^^»/'s Chnrch-yard. ME)Ccxix, THE PREFACE. HE Subjeft of this fecond DiiTertation is not near fo important as the former. For whether the honourable tedimony given to our Saviour in the Jewijh Anti- quities does really belong to Jofcphus or no, Jefus Chrift and the Chriilian Religion will be no great gainers or lofers by the bargain. So that the love of truth is properly the only motive, engaging us to examine into this affair. For my own pare, I have the current ftream of antiquity on my ^lAc^ with the confent of mod of the Learned of thefe la- ter ages, in maintaining the paflage was wrote by him. Thofe of the oppofite party ground their opi- nion wholly upon arguments, which at beft are only probable, and many of 'em very unlikely. Ours on the other hand are fubilantial and pofitive, taken from the Manufcripts of Jofephus^ and the quotati- ons, which the bed and mod ancient Authors have made of this pafTage. I have endeavour'd thefe argu- ments fliould lofe nothing of their evidence, nor abate of their force, in the following tradj and 1 have add- ed withal a confideration relating to the perfon of Jofephus^ which Tm of opinion will appear whollv new upon the occafion, at lead I have no where met with it; However, I venture nothing in propofing it, as having urg'd it upon fure grounds, which are borrowed Irom Jojephus hixnfelf. THE THE CONTENTS. Chap, i- A ^ account of this teftimony^ and what XX, fentiments the Writers of thefe later times have had of it. page i Chap. II. Wherein the pajfage in the Book of Antiqui- ties is fhewn to he genuine and not fpurious, 6 Chap. III. An anfwer to the jirft argument urg^d a^ gainft this paffage^ taken from the quality and parti- cular character of the Hifiorian, 14 Chap. IV. T^hat Uis no argument againft the genuine- nefs of the pajjage z;^ Jofephus, that Eufebius is the firfi^ who ever quoted it, 17 Chap. V. An anfwer to the ohjeBion againfl this pajfage taken from the filence of tS^/. Juftin, TertuUian, St. Cyprian, Origen, and Photius. 24 Chap. VI. The obje^iion againfl this pajjage^ that "'tis fo ill plac'd in the Book of Antiquities^ that "'tis in- credible jo{c\)hus put it there ^ anfwer' d. jz Chap. VI I. An anfwer to fome other lefs confiderable arguments ttrg'd againfi the authenticknefs of this pa- ragraph. 41 Chap. VIII. An examination of the fever al expreffions in the difputed teftimonyj which occafion the fufpicion of its hci?igfpurious. 4(5 Chap. IX. The exa5t and particular examination of ]q- fcphusV teftimony continued. 5-4 Chap. X. An enquiry into the politicks^ and ambition of Joiephus, and how his tefiimony concerning Jefus Chriit was owing to both thefe, 61 ACri* I ) A Critical Dissertation Upon the Tellimony JOSEPHUS gives of our SaviourJFsus Christ in Book XVIII, Chap, iv, of his Jewifh Anttqmues. Chap. I. Aj account of th'is tcfihnony^ and what fenttments the writers of thefe later times have had of it. HOUGH the truth of the Gofpel Hillovy Hands fufficiently fupported of it fclf, the additional tellimonies of Writers in the firll Ages, who never made profeflion of Chriicianity, cannoc but heighten the evidence in their opinion, who fufpcdt the KvangeHlls to be Authors of doubtful B Autho' Authority. The fum of this marvellous hiftory is^ that there was in Jud^ea^ and at the time the Evan- gelifls have fpecifyed, a man named jefus^ who preach'd there with wonderful fuccefs, who work'd divers miracles, and this not with (landing was per- ■ fecuted by his own nation, that he was carried be- fore a Roman Judge by the chief of the Jews^ and by that Judge condemn'd to be crucify 'd, that from this Jejus was formed a very numerous Se6l of Chri- ilians, who followed his doftrine, worihip'd him as a God, and for this caufe were cruelly perfccuted in Judaa^ and other Countries throughout the Ro- man Empire. All thefe fadls, which are the fubjccb of Church Hiftory from its firft Original for fome Ages, are for the mod part attefted by the Heathen Writers, 'Tacitus^ Suetonius^ Lucian^ and others.. But the mofh confiderable teilimony of ail is the palFage of the fam'd Jewtfi Hidorian, which he has given us in his Antiquities o^xhtjews: The words exaftly tranflated from the Greek are thefe. jlt that time^ to wit , the itime of Pilate , was Jefus, n wife man^ if yet we may call him a man^ for he did many miracles. He was a teacher of the truth to fuch ferfons as would readily embrace it^ and drew after him multitudes both of Jews and Gentiles. He was the Chrift. He was accused by the principal men of our nation before Pilate, who caused him to be cru- cify'd. Tet thofe who fir ft lov'd him did not forfake him J for he appear'' d to them alive again on the third day. 'The Holy Prophets had foretold thefe and many other wonderful things^ of him: and the race of Chri- Jiians^ who are fo calPd from him^ remain to this day, A teflimony fo extraordinary, wherein every thing that could advance the honour of Jefus Chrift is urg'd fo precifely, and with fuch exa6i:nefs, feems not poffible to have come from an unbelieving Jew^ a Prieft among the Jcws^ and withal a Pharifee ^ for (3) for Jofephus was all this. Yet Antiquity has uni^ verfally afciib'd the pafTage to Jofephus^ and from, the fecond Century to the fixteenth it has been receiv'd without contradidion, and no perfon found who ever caft upon it the imputation of for- gery. Gijfcimiis^ a Civilian in Germany^ in the fixteenth Century is, if I miftake not, the firll Who in fome one of his Works has taken upon him to doubt, whether this teftimony was really Jofephus's. Lucas Ofiander a Lutheran Divine, and contemporary with Giffanius^ has agreed with him in the conjecture. The Jefuit Salmsron tov/ards the clofe of the fame Century was alfo, as 'tis faid, of their fentiment^ . and about the beginning of the lall h^^^^ the Jefuit Salianus in the Preface to the i.^ Vol. of his Annals has obferv'd, that many Learned Men fafpe^red this Paflage to be ratlier the work of a Chriltian, than of the JcjoiJJj Hiilorian^ but for his own part he believ'd with S. Jerom^ that Jofephus was its Au- thor. I know not that at that time any Perfon had ever abfolutely declar'd himfelf againil: the PafTage^ all that had appeared were doubts, fufpicions, uncertain* ties> but the Criticifm, which at firlt was ftarted with modeily, and carried fcarfulnefs in its front, within a while took courage, and grew more da- ring. ^ Mr. CappeJ^ ProfeiTor in Divinity and Hebrew at Saumur^ Vv'as the firfr, at leafc that I know of, who in the year 1(534. attempted to prove this palfage was falfly attributed to Jofephus y he gives feveral reafons for his opinion, which I fhall examine in the fequel, with the arguments of all others who have efpous'd his feniiments. Mr. Blondel toUow'd foon after: he put out in Lad. Cappel. Compend. Hlft. Jud. B z i<54p, (4) 164-9' an excellent treatife againfl the pretended Si- bylline Oracles, which he has fo clearly convided of forgery, that no one fince him has judg'd 'em genuine. As in treating on this head he had occa- lion to obferve, that in the firll: Ages of Chriftia- nity there came abroad divers of this fort of doubtful or fpurious Books, fo he made no difficulty to place in this rank the pafllige of Jofepbus concerning Cbrift Jefus: Some bold ba?id^ ^ fays he, batb infer ted it in- to the Book of Jevoijlo jintiquities^ and it is manifeftly an interpolation^ halving no coherence with the reft of the difcourfe^ that either goes before or folloivs after it -, the place 'tis pof/eft of being rather pitched on through party-prejudice^ than any juft grounds. If Mr. Bloft- deVs arguments were as ilrong as his expreflions, the affiiir would foon be decided, and \ve Ihould have no longer caufe to doubt the pailage v/as fuppofiti- tious : but this Learned Man, whofe obfcrvations are otherwife fo juil, has here fufferd himfelf to be led away by that party -prejudice^ which he charges upon others : as fhall be fhewn hereafter in this dif- courfe. The next in order after Blondel is the learned Mr. le Fevre^ Regent in the Univerfity of Samnur^ and a very excellent Critick, who wrote a Diilerta- tion upon the fmie fubject, which is printed among his Critical Letters. He llrikes home to the point, which others had but lightly touch'd on, and mana- ges the matter fo thoroughly on all fides, with that learning which was common to him, that all who have wrote after him on this head have been able to add nothing of much moment. ^ Mr. Simon has inferted into the 2'^ Vol. of his Critical Bibliotheque a fmall Tra6i:, under the name o^Niw Piques J a Doctor of the Sorbonne^ which yet Blondel Traite des Sibyiles, Liv, i. ch. 7. Lib. 1. EpiiL 44. is ( 5 ) is known to be Mr. Simon's own performance, wherein he zealoufly maintains the opinion of the Learned Men I have jiiH: mention'd againft the paf- fage of Jofephits. So hkcwife from time to time, fomctimes one namelefs writer, and fometimes ano- ther, have aflcrted this paflage to be fpurinus againft the body of Divines and Learned Men, who hold ic to be genuine. It mull: be own'd, there have been Ages, wherein through want of attention or exami- nation divers fpurious works have pafs'd upon the publick, and the fraud lain undifcover'd^ but thofe times are now no more, men are grown more cir- cumfped and attentive, and by the help of llrict Criticifm the forgery of moil of thefe ancient tracts is laid open, and no one any longer deceiv'd by 'em. But it has alfo fomctimes happen'd, that by endea- vouring to fearch too deep into an affair, men have Joll: themfelves in their own fpeculations, and then the truth Avhich was very apparent, is hid under the fubtleties of a doubtful enquiry. This we have ^Q^n to be the cafe in the foregoing DifTertation up- on the paflage of St. Jobn-y and I quellion not but it will appear to be the fame in this Difcourfe upon the pafllige in the Antiquities of the Jews. And here I require not, that men iliould judge of its genuinenefs from the miiverfal confent of the Learn- ed till the 16^1^ or 17^^ Century j Prefcription feems not to me a fufficient motive to ground an opinion upon, nnce I hold it as a fix'd principle, that no- thing ought to prefcribe againft the truth. I iliall therefore engage with equal arms, urge reafons a- gainft reafons, and proofs againft proofs. But as in every qucftion of Fad:, the proofs which relate and affirm it ought to be oppos'd by the lame fortof proofs^ in cafe the latter are not found, the former remain in their full force, and decide the. contefted Fad to their advantage. Ch A P. Chap. II. Wherein the paffage in the Book of An- tiquities is jheivn to he genuine and not fpurious. ONE thing which every man who fipcerely aims at truth ought perpetually to have ia mind, in order to prevent miftakes in judgment, is an efpecial miilruft of the fecret affedions of his heart towards every thing which comes under the name oi party 'hitereft. Where'er this interefl reigns, the favour'd falihood eafily and imperceptibly gains ad- mittance and pafles for truth j like objedh, which appear to the eye of the fame colour with the glals they arefeen through. I do therefore readily allow, that in this Difpute we fliould have no regard to the advantage which may accrue to the Chriitian Faith from the teilimony o^ ^JeiviJIo Writer: our Saviour Jefus^ of whom this teilimony is given, has infinite- ly greater witnefs in his behalf, and it would be in- jurious to him to feek for teilimony from forgery and fraud to do him honour. A iincere and upright mind cannot but difapprove of the cheats, the iim- plicity of former ages has at fome times tolerated under the fpecious name of pious frauds y and would to God an indifcreet zeal and too credulous a devo- tion did not yet even at this day give place to 'em in fome countries, and ibme Chriilian Commu- nions ! Religion would be more pure, and God be better ferv'd. But to return to the paiTage of Jo- fephus^ and the arguments which fliew it to be ge- nuine. The (7) The firft is taken from the MSS. and Editions we have of his Works. When the Copies of Books, whether printed or iVISS. vary concerning a paflage, fo that 'tis in fome, and not in others, 'tis ufual to compare with the bell Editions thofe of lefs Autho- rity, and from thence to have recourfe to the MSS. feeing before the invention of Printing there were no other Copies of Books than thefe. The differen- ces in MSS. are oft the occafion of much trouble, and we Hand in need of all the aids of Criticifm, of all the fliarpnefs of wit and penetration of Judg- ment, to diilinguiili the true from the falfe reading. But when all the moft correal and mod ancient Edi- tions, which have been made from MSS. and con- fequently hold the place of Manufcriprs> when all the written Copies that are any where to be found in multitudes of Libraries agree in the fame pafTa^e we can have no furer rule than this univerfal agree- ment to prove the paflage not fpurious. If if was allow' d^ iiiys Socinus very judicioufly, and would to God he had always fpoken as juftly ! '^Ifit zvas allowed to call in queftion the aut bent i chiefs of a faffa^re which is conjlantly found in all Copies and all MSS, there would be no pajfage whofs genulnenefs might not reafonably be calTd in queftion. Upon this principle, which is the voice of Reafon it felf, the matter in difpute will foon be decided. The MSS. of Jofephiis are very numerous. We have 'em in all parts o^ Europe^ in France^ in Italy in the Libraries of Princes, Convents, and private Perfons: We are withal furnifh'd with 'em from ^fia. Now it may be faid, that thefe MSS. are of no great antiquity 5 but this is urg'd without proof, and I queftion whether any of the Learned who have confulted divers of 'em ever pafs'd this cen- furc upon 'em. Tho' were it fo, yet all agreeing in ^_ Socin. de Ecclefia, ad linem. the (8) the difputed fa6t, and being copied after others far more ancient, they carry the genuinenels of the paf- fage as high as them, and fo from age to age up to the very firil, unlefs an inilance of an early MS. can be produced, wherein it was wanting. From this , reafoning and this prodigious uniformity of the MSS. is form'd an argument in favour of the paflage, ' which v/on't admitt oF a reafonable reply. For ' if it would, we might by the fame way of argu- ing ftrike off all the pafTages of any ancient Book whatfoever, which we fhould attempt to render du- bious : And I know not whether the Authority of an infinite number of Texts in Holy Scripture would not be fhaken into the bargain. I add far- ther, we fhould not have one of the mod decifive left, Qf whofe genuinenefs we could be fully aHiir'd. For fhould it be urg'd in its defence, that the Text is found in all the MSS : Yet thefe MSS. fay I, are too modern to fatisfy us, tho' the paflage be in them, that it was alfo in the more ancient. If you urge, farther, that 'tis found in MSS. a thoufand years old; Alas ! this is in no wife fufficient, you mull ftill go higher, for within the 700 years that are interpos'd be- twixt the time the Apoftles drew up their Writings, and the age of thefe Manufcripts, which are ancient on- ly with regard to us, many pallages may have eaiily crept into 'em, which were not in the original. How unfathomable is the abyfs > Reafon is drown'd in it, and the Faith in extreme danger of finking withal. What hinders us then from beholding all thefe fright- full confequences, which lye fo open ? Mull we for ah affeded fingularity in pafiirig judgment upon a paragraph in Jofephus introduce a principle, which overfpreads all the Hillorians of antiquity, all the Sa- cred Books, with doubtfull fufpicions of the authen- ticknefs of any paflage contain'd in 'em? No wife Man, no real Chriflian efpecially, Proteitant or Pa- piftj can avoid being ftruck with horror at the view. 4 Yet (9) yet thefe confequcnces do naturally flow from the opinion I encounter. This is not all : the falfity of the principle is not on- ly evident from its confequences, it bears its own con- futation along with it. We have, fay they, thothis is iirg'd without proof, none but modern MSS. of Jofephus\ Works, MSS. of about three, or four, or five hundred years old : and I on the other hand af- fert, that we have MSS. of ten, of thirteen, or fourteen hundred years old. If they ask, where they are> I anfwer, before their eyes in the Authors of the fifth and fourth Century, who have recited the pafn^ge. I Ihall make the fame obfervation upon this head, which I have made in the foregoing Diflertation upon St. Jobyi'i paflugc, that a quotation in an an- cient Book, wrote by a grave and unfufpedled Au- thor, is fu* more conliderable, than the MS. it felf would be from whence it was taken 5 the reafon is evident J a Copy may have been wrote by a bad Tranfcribcr; and at the time of its firfl appearance been look'd on as a MS. of no weight: Whereas when an Author of learning, judgment, and reputa- tion copies a paflage from a MS. in order to infert it into his work, this is an infallible mark, i^"^. That the paflage cited is a6tuaUy in the MS. and 2^^% That in his opinion 'tis genuine, and not fuppofititious : Thus with the quotation we have the MS. and the fentiment of the Author concerning it, which is alfo the opinion of the Publick. What we have to fhew then is, that this paflage was anciently read in the Book oijofcphus^ and quoted by divers celebrated Writers in the 4^^ and f ^^^ Centuries. The firfl in this lift is Eufebius^ Bifhop of C^- fdrea^ and without contradiction one of the mofl Learned Men the Church had in thofe early Ages. To be convinc'd of this we need but read his Books de Demonfiratione £5? Pr^paratione Evangelicd, Throughout the whole of thefe two Works we eve- C ly ( .0 ) ry \vBere find a prodigious acquaintance with the Authors, who wrote before him : divers of whofe Names and Writings we have no knowledge of but fram the quotations he has made of 'em. He was confecrattd Bifhop of Cafarea in Palccftine ^ in the year of our Lord 31 3. or 3 14. Now he could not have been promoted to this Dignity in the Church, efpecially to fo confiderable a See as that of C^farea^ unlefs he was fomewhat advanc'd in years, and had before eflablifli'd his reputation. Eujebius then be- gan to Hourifh in the 3^ Century, and Jofephus dyed in the 2^, as Scaliger has obferv'd in his Animadver- £ons upon Eiifebius'% Chronicon. By this fmall ob- fervation we fhall draw the times of their lives near to each other, which fome Moderns labour to repre- fent as far diilant, the more eafily to compafs their end, namely, to leflen the weight that Eu[ehius\ te- ilimony gives to the quotation of this palTage con- eerning Chrift Jefus. He has recited it in two of his Books, fir ft in his Treatife de Demonftratione E-^ vangelicdj and then in his Ecclefiafrical Hiilory, which he wrote feveral years after the other. In his Book ^ de Demmfiratione he has along chap- ter again fl thofe who pay no credit to the account the Evangehfts ha've given of our Savioufs miracles : That's the Title. The tellimony in the Book of Antiqui- ties could not here be well omitted: and thus 'tis re- ferv'd to the lad, as it were to feal up the evidence of the reft : And now, fays he, isohich is more than is ne- cejfary^ I /ball give you the teftimony 0/ Jofephus, an Hebrew Writer^ who in the 18'^ Book of his Jewifh Antiquities recounting the fa6ls which fell out in the days of Herod, fpeaks there alfo of our Lord Jefus Chrift: At that time was Jefus, a wife man^ if yet we may call him a many 6cc. the paffage is pro- duc'd entire. cDiiPin. Bibl.Ecclef. Tom.2. pag. 2. ^Lib. i.e. 2.. ' - " " ■ ■ He (") He has infeited it withal into his s Ecclefiaflical Hillory, and obferv'd as in his Book of DemonJIra- tion^ that he took it from the i8^^ Q]\'\'^.o^Jofepbus\ JewiJJj ^Antiquities. St. Jcrom liv'd and wrote divers Books fonie years after the death of Eufehiiis. There is among his Works a fmall Tract, entitul'd a Catalogue of Eccle- ftaftical Writers. He there fpeaks in few wvords of the perfon of Jofephus and the vail: reputation his Books had gain'd him j his Hiftory of the War with the Je'ws.j fays he, was fo elleem'd by the Emperor Vefpcifiayi and his Son "titus^ that they caus'd ic to be laid up in the Publick Library, and in return ere6i:ed the Statue of Jofephus at Rome. St. Jerom proceeds CO his Book of Antiquities, andtranfliitesout o^ Greek into Latin the whole pail age concerning 7^/?.^ j Chrifi. Thisfhews, that he had before him the whole Works of Jofephus^ and that he took not the telHmony he rranflated from Eufebius^ but read it in Jofephus him- felf. Sophronius^ a Gr^^y^ Author, tranflated into his own tongue the traft of Ecclefiaftical Writers wrote by St. Jerom.^ his contemporary and friend, as Erafmus Hyles him : and finding under the article oi Jofephus^ that St. Jerom inftead of the words of the Jewijh Hillorian in the teftimony he gave to our Saviour, He zvas the Chrifi^ had put by way of explication and paraphrafe into his verfion, he was believ'd to be the Chrift^ credebatur eJfeQhxi'Hus^ Sophronius Ycilorcs the true reading as it was in Jofephus o x^t^cV Srog ^'v, he was the Chrifi : The remaining part of the pallage is withal copied from Jofephus^ and not from any of Eufebius's quotations. At the fame time Ruff.nus^ a Pried of Aquileia in Italy.^ turn'd into Latin Eufebius's Ecciefiaitical Hi- ilory. He found there the pailage of the jewifi Hi- fi Lib, I. cap. i. C 2, ilorian. ( lO ilorian, but having obferv'd fome finall difFerences betwixt it and the Original, he made his Verfion from the Text o^Jofephus, In the following age, to wir, the f ^^ Century, Ifi-- dore oi Pelufium^ or Damiata^ in Egypt ^ a man of vafl judgment and great learning, urges againft the Jews the teftimony of their own Hillorian, and ufliers it in with this judicious obfervationj ^'^ uis it is on all hands agreed among the Jews and Romans, and in general by the whole world ^ that the witnefs of an adverfary is mo ft worthy of credit^ I ftjall here produce againft the Jews the teftimony Jofephus has given to the truth : ^t t&at time, fays he, fijag SlCfUlS, i^c, the paflage is taken entire from the Copies of Jofephus^ and not from the Books of Eu- febitis. In the fame age ^ Sozomen wrote an Ecclefiaftical Hiftoryin Greek, in which he produces Jofephus as a witnefs of Jefus Chrifi. Jofephus^ fays he, the Son c/ Matthias, a Prieft^ a?id of great reputation both a- mong the Jews and Romans, has bore witnefs to the true God the word 5 for he hath made no fcruple to fay that he did many miracles^ and that he preach' d the doBrine of truth 5 he hath, withad expreffly caWd him the Chrifi^ ^c. Suidas fhall be the lafr iluthor quoted upon this paflage, for 'twould be ufelefs to defcend to later a- ges. This Writer, who fiourifh'd in the eleventh Century, has compiled a fort of Greek Didionary, that is very ufefui in many cafes. In this Diftionary we have an article concerning Jofephus^ where the pafFage of the Book of x\ntiquities is given us as it Hands in the Hillorian, and not as Eufebius has quo- ted it in his Book de Demonftratione^ and in his Ec- cleiiallical Hiftory. h ifid. Pdeuf. Epift. lib. 4. Epift.2r25. \ Sozom. lib. i. ad princip. I haYC ( ^3 ) I have made all thefe remarks upon the quotations of S. Jerom^ Sophromus^ RuffinMs^ Ifidore^ and Sui- das^ to fhew that they have not copied after Eufe- hius^ but taken the paflage from Jofephus himfelf: the ufe I fhall make of this obfcrvation will be feen hereafter. Nothing can confirm to us the agreement of the prcfent MSS o^ Jofephus with the moft ancient more than thefe quotations. The MS. Suidas had in Greece feven hundred years ago, in no wife differ'd from thofe we have at this day. The MS. of Sozo- men in another part of Greece^ and of S. Ifidore vsx ^tJPU ^'x hundred years before iS'///W^j, had the fame paflage with his and ours. Sophronius had read the fame an hundred years before, in the Copy from which he revisM S. Jerome's tranflation, who had alfo in Palcefline a MS. of the fame Author. Ruffinus had read and confulted the original Greek of Jofe- phus^ when he tranflatcd the pafTage in the 1^"= Book of the Hillory of Eufehius^ who by trufting to his memory had miilook one word in the recital, as I fhall have occafion to iliew elfewhere. Eufehius had read it before all thefe in his Copy, and learnt it by heart, fo much did he think it deferv'd a place in his memory. Now what more can be defir'd in defence of the genuincnefs of an ancient pafTage againft the imputation of its being forg'd? If we would fpeak out, we muft own nothing but the nature of the pallage obflruds our aflent to it. If the tefti- mony here given to J ejus Chrijl had not been vn fuch* ftrong terms, and one half of what is faid had been omitted 5 if we read only, that in the days of Pilate Jefus appeared in Judj^a j that he was a wife man, of much knowledge, and upright in heart and mind^ that he drew after him abundance of difciples, and that from him was deriv'd the fam'd feel of Chri- flians, which was fpread over the whole world ; If the Hiftorian had withal added fomewhat upon the fubjeft (H) fubjeftof the miracles 7^7^^ wrought, all thefe grand difficulties, which have been form'd againft thepaf- fage, would vanifli on a fudden. Thefe MSS. that are now look'd on as of late date, would in their opinion who objeft againft 'em as modern, then put on the venerable air of antiquity -, they would be efteem'd as faithful Copies of more ancient MSS 3 the citations of Eufebius^ Ruffinus^ S. Jerom^ So- phronius^ S. Ifidore^ Sozomen and Suidas^ would be receiv'd as oracles. What is there then but preju- dice in the cafe ? Truly, nothing more, becaufe the teftimony is too exprefs j there is nothing faid but what's true, but the truth here renders the paflage fufpefted, and betrays its forgery. We might then have been well contented without recourfe to all the efforts, all the fubtleties, of a ftudy'd Criticifm to evade the real and fubftantial proofs of its authen- ticknefs : but all thefe have been necefTary, and for want of good arguments, we muft take up with bad ones, 1 fliall run over them all, and confute 'em. Chap. III. An anfwer to the firji argument urg'd agamfi this pcijfage^ taken from the quality and particular charaBer of the Hifiorian. BEfore I come to an examination of the paflage it felf, which as I have obferv'd, is alone the principal bafis of the opinion I oppofe, 'twill be ne- ceflary to examine all the other arguments that are urg'd to prove it fuppofititious : I ihall omit none ■ that ( ^y ) that have coijie to my knowledge, or I have read in the fcveial Authors, who have wrote upon this head, from the time of its being fiid debated to this day. The firfl thing which is oppos'd againfl: this paf- fage is the quality and charadler of the Hiftorian, from whom it was taken. Now this is, as I have aheady (aid, that of a Jevj^ a Jew of the hneage of the Priefts, and withal by fe6l and rehgion a Pha^ rifee. From thefe three charadlers all united in one and the fame perfon, is form'd a very fpecious preju- dice againil a pafTage wherein appear lb many diffe- rent characters to all thefe. Could we be affur'd, that Jofephiis had cafl: off the fcntiments of his birth and education with regard to- the Chiiilian Religion, and that he was one of thoie moderate Jews, who tho' not entirely convinc'd of the truth, w^ere yet not wholly ellrang'd from it , we might fay that being dazled by its brightnefs he let fall thefe expreflions: but on the other hand he h reprefented to us an obftinate, opiniatcd jew^ an e- nemy to the Chiiilian Faith, and one,, who devo- ting himfelf to the intcrelts of the Emperors in whofe Court he held an eminent pofl, would have taken efpccial care not to give a teftimony fo ad- vantagious to a Religion and Se6t, which the Roman Emperors had perfecuted from its cradle. This reafoning, we muft own, has a fair out- fide, but that's all: for in cafes of fad real proofs are not dcftroy'd by reafoning, as I have oft ob- ferv'd. I can't fee too that the charaCler they have given of ihtjewijh Hiftorian has any juil: grounds. Jofephiis liv'd indeed and dy'd a Jew^ but he was not one of thofe obltinate oppofers of the Chriftian Religion, who far from faying any thing to its advantage, employ'd all their iiityr to blacken it wich falle imputations. Sozonwn { i6 ) Sozomen ^ judg'd quite other wife, and refpe^ted him as a man who kept the mean betwixt Judaifm and Chriftianity, and who far from writing any thing againft it, feem'd rather inclin'd to the ChrilHan Faith. Origen long before him pafs'd ahnofl: the fame judgment upon him in his fird Book againft C^^j 3 for after having faid , that Jofepkus look'd on the deftrudtion of Jerufalem as a juft judgment of God upon the Jews for unjuftly murdering James the Juft 5 ^ he goes on, Jofephus has transfer' d^ as it were againft his will, and by deviating but a little from the truth, the dejlru^ion He was^ ^^ fays the Hiftorian, a ?nan of much piety^ who taught the Jews the profeffion of 'virtue^ and praEike of juflice^ who exhorted them to receive his Baptifm^ and to joyri to the Purity of the Body an habitual Purity of Mind, And in another place of the fame Jewifh Hiftory, " fpeaking of the Apoftle St. James^ and the crime of they^'ZC'^ in murdering him, he expreiles himfelf in fuch manner concerning him, as fufficiently ihews the good opinion he had of him 3 and as it were to 3^ Qiw3-efd/joi Soiom. lib. i. ^ Jofeph. Antiq. Jud. lib, xviii. cap. 7, n Ibid. lib. XX. cap. 8, heighten ( ^7). heighten his charafter, he adds, that he ^ims the bro- ther (?/ Jefus, tjoho was called Chrifi. As CO what is urg'd farther, that fo finilh'd a Po- litician, and one fo careful to keep in Do7nitian''s fa- vour, in whofe reign he wrote his Book of Anti- quities, would never have fpoke in praife of Jefus or his Religion, to which the Emperor was a declar'd enemy, the matter is quite millaken > for the conduft of the Hillorian is here entirely mifconfliucd. The whole turns upon a fuppofal, that to fpeak in behalf of Jefiis Chrifi or the Chiillian Religion, muii: be -inevitably to lofe the good graces o^ Domitian-, and I on the other hand undertake to fhew that the whole of th;s teftimony was owing to the refin'd Politicks o^ Jofephus^ and that this was the moll ef- ficacious means poilible of making his court to the Emperor. Chap. IV. That 'its no argument agatnjl the g^emi- tnenefs of the pajfage tn Jofephus, that Eu(ebius is the firjl zvho ever quoted tt. WE muft have but an ill opinion of Eiifehms'% fincerity, \i we think he forg'd a pafiage for Jofephns^ becaufe he has firft quoted it. Eufcbius had his faults, as all men have theirs: he has fomc- times miftook the name of one place for another, as where he fays, that Jofephus writes oi Herod ^ that he was banilh'd to Vienna^ inllead of Lyons^ as it is in Jofephus-^ and the name of one perfou i:oi- aiiother, D ai ( i8 ) as in n^TiYrngJofephus fay the taxing, St. Luke men- tions in the 2.'^ Chap, of his Gofpel, was made under ^iiriniiis^ whereas in Jofephus 'tis under Archelaus. Eeiidesrhefe faults of memory or pure inattention^ Eu- fcbius\\\^s been withal too credulous in giving heed to certain Apocryphal Stories, and receiving certain writings which went abroad under feign'd names. All thcfe miflakes, and fome fuch others, have no- thing in 'em but what the greateft and molt extraor- dinary men are fomctimes fubjed; to : but to charg^e an Author with fentiments he never efpous'd, and make him cxprefs 'cm in the llrongell and fullelt terms, is an a^rion at leait to be branded witli the name of outrage, and the perfon guilty of the excefs to be re- garded as a counterfeit and impoflor. Eufebius^ who had read fo many of the ancients, and drawn extra6ls out of lb many of their works, was never accus'd of forging any, or putting another's name to his own performance. But what will not a daring Critick attempt to obfcure a fa6b, which 'tis refolv'd ihall be a forgery? Eufehms is the firff, who has recited the paflage o^ Jofephus: Etifebius then, and not Jo- fephusj is the Author of it. We don't reafon thus, when paflion does not blind our Eyes, nor prejudice turn the t<^gt of our underilanding. If Eufebius had forg'd the pafTage, he would not only have been a cheat and an impoilor, but the moll: Ihipid knave can pofiibly be imagin'd 3 he would have wanted common fenfe. The Books of the Jewifi Hiftorian were not in thofe days, any more than now, Books of little elleem, which (like the animals we name ephemeran^ as being born and dead in a day) no fooner appear'd, but vanifli'd, were caft afide into corners, or lay cover'd in dull: the works of that Hidorian were univerfally approv'd: the Chrilb'ans valu'd 'em much 5 \}i\^Jews had 'em in their houfesj tii: Greeks and Latins who underllood Greek, read 'en ai Books from whence they might be inform 'd of ( >9) of a thoufand thln^ys ihey could clfc where have no knowledge of. And can wc think Lufchius fo (cnfc- lefs as to infert into his Copy of the Book of Anti- quities the pafHige we have feen there ? could he make it pafs into the MSS. of other Chrillians, dif- pers'd over the Eall and Well? Or by wliat rndgick was the fame paiTage, invented by the Bifliop of Cd-farea^ brought into the Books of ^jews and Pa- am :? Add to this, that Eufehius who, as we have faid above, has rehears'd the paflage entire in his Book de D e men ji rati one E^oangdicd^ and aftcrvvaid in his Ec- cleiiaftical Hillory, has not given us the fame words in both places, and in one of the two differs fome- what from Jofepbus. Thofe who underiland Greek may foon be convinc'd of this, if they will give thcmfelves the trouble of a collation j for my own part, that I might omit nothing in difcufling this affair, I have compared 'em, and find Eufehius to vary from himfelf in feven or eight places, and in almoft as many from the Text of the Jeivijo Anti- quities J tho' the fum and fubftancc of the pailvige has fufFer'd throughout no real alteration. From all which we learn, that Eufehius had this valuable paf- fage by heart, and that truifing to his memory in the recital, he happened, as the greatell men are apt to do, to put one word for another of the fame fignification, and to make fuch other irnall variations as affe6l not the main point. This is fo lar from the charafter of an impollor forging \qvc\\ or eight, fubfequent Periods under another Author's name, in a matter too of the lad confcquence, and every word of which (frikes home to the bufincfs in jjand, that 'tis not poflible to conceive a man of undci Handing and a perfed: mailer in the art of writing, as we know Eufehius was, could have been capable of fuch grois flu- pidity. But we have no occaiion to dwell longer up- on thefe reflexions or others of the fame nature to D z ac^pit ( 10) acquit Eufehius of the injiiftice done him, in charging the forgery of this pallage upon him, becaufe hefirft quoted it j I find very few, who come in to the accu- (lition. But we have another, which tho' lefs to his difadvantage is not better fupported than the former, propos'd terms to this efFeft. They are willing to beheve Eufehius had read this pafTage in fome other Book diftind from the Hiftory of the y^-zw, but not calHng to mind where he"^had read it, and fancying 'twas in Jofephus^ he made him the Author of it, and quoted it under his name. Per- fons who have read much, and truft a great deal to their memory, or who have not time to run to the Books they have read, or who care not to givethem- ^e\vGS the trouble of confulting 'em, are apt to con- found thus the Authors of the Books they cite. 'Tis a fad I fhan't attempt to deny, multitudes of inftan- cts may be urg'd of it : But then this remark is ne- ver made, but when it may be proved from the Books that are quoted, and when the places alledg'd are not in the Books refer'd to, but are found in others. Now this no one can fliew with regard to the cita- tion Eufehius has made of the pafTage in Jofephus : It is in Jofephus^ but no Author either ancient or mo- dern is fiid to have fccn it elfev/here : and this alone refblvcs the difficulty. 'Tis true, fay they, we have now no ancient wri- ter, befides Jofephus^ who has the pafTage, but we learn from Photius^ that there was in the 3^ Centu- ry one Caius^ a Prieil o^ Rome^ who wrote a Book wherein he fpokemuch in praife o^Jefus Chrijl^ and this Book was by many believ'd to be Jofephus's^ might not then Eufehius have read this Book, and found in it this pafTage in favour of Chrifi^ and thu3 have afcrib'd it to Jofephus by mi flaking Jofephus for <^ains^ thro* a flip in memory j or believing, as did many others, that this work of Caius was really Jo^ fyhus's, I'm furpriz'd how many fhifts a ftrong in- clination ( ^y) clination to a particular opinion, how falfe foever it be, is able to find our. Inftead of realities men run to imaginations, and by heaping fuppofition up- on fuppofition think to difentanglc thcmTelves from all intricacies. Ca^us wrote no Book co}7cc}'n!?7g the Jewifi Jyitiquities^ the Work Pbotitis mentions was entiturd a freatife concerning the Univerfe. Photius fays not, that this Book bore the wxmc o^ jofephus -^ on the contrary he expreflly declares no Author's name was prefix'd to its and I'm allonifli'd there are men at this day who write that this Book had the name of Jofephus for its Author. Photius fiys, that the Book having no name before it, men were divi- ded in their fentiments concerning it, fome afcribing it to St. Jujlin^ others to St. Irenceiis^ and others to Jofephus , becatife of the agreement in flyie : That's all the reafon given for the opinion, a reafon weak indeed, when fupported by no others, that are more fubllantiaf, as we fhall fee prefently. In truth, he is fond of delufion, who fuffers himfelf to be led in- to it for the pleafure oF confounding together fo dif- ferent fubje<5ls by an imagination that may be turn'd which way one will. But to come back to Eufebius^ and finifli our defence of him againft the vain impu- tation of huddling marre'-s together by reciting a paf- fage out of a Book wrote by a Chriilian, and afcri- bing it to a "fewifh Writer. 1 have obfcrv'd, that he has rehears'd it in two of his Books, his Evangelical Demonlbation, and his Ecclefiailical Hillory : Now if he had the firft time been miilaken in the name of the Author, would he have been fo negligent in amatterof fuch importance in which both his friends and enemies would have been able to put him in mind of his miftake, as to have em- ploy'd it a fecond time ? Let who will conceive it, foi my part I own my imagination can't reach fo far. Farther, when Eufebius iirfturg'd the pafTage, he did it that he might reftrain the incredulity of the Jev:i ( ^o by oppofing the teflimony of a Writer of their own nation, and a Writer of credit, as we have feen a- bove. And can we fuppofe a BiiTiop of C^farea^ a man well skiird in controverfy, and of immenfe learn- ing, would acl fo like a novice in difpute, fo devoid ^ of ail judgment, as to urge againft the Jews a Chri- ilian Writer, upon the bare imagination that he was zjew. In quoting the paflage a fecond time in his Eccle- fiaftical Hiftory, there appears ail the confidence of a man who fears not to be charg'd with having quo- ted a falfity. His expreilions deferve well to have a place in the defence i make of his integrity and ho- iiefty : UHoerefore^ fays he, y/;?^^ Jofephus, a Writer defcended of the ancient Race of the Hebrews, has giv- en in his Hiftory thefe teflimonies 0/ John the Baptifi^ and our Saviour }c{us^ what fuht erf uge can he left for thofe^ who have forg'd falfe writings concerning ^em ? Or how can they efcape being convi^cd of i?npudence ? A man who writes in this ityle ought to be well af- fur'd the cenfures could not be retorted : it had been to give up himfelf bound to the condemnation he bad pronounc'd againd others, if his cafe was the fame, and he had afcrib'd to the Jewifo Hiftorian the Work of a Chrillian. But Eufebius was furc of his fact, and all the Copies of Jofephus acquitted him of the crime of impoflure and falliiication. Ifidore of Pelufiuni was no more afraid, than Eufe- hius^ of being charg'd with not having read \n Jofephus the teflimony he urg'd thence aganil the infidelity of the Jews. He gives it not in his Epiille as a fimple ac- count of what he had fomewhere read j but before his recital, as we have fliewn, he dwells upon the cha- racter of the Author, who being no Chriflian, but :^jewj and firmly attach'd to hisjudaifm, his telti- niony concerning Jefus Chrift ought to be the lefs fufpeded, and deferv'd credit the more ; It is agreed^ fciys he, in general hy the whole worldy that the wit- neCs ( ^3 ; '/iefs of an adverfary is mofl worthy of credit : Therefore I JJjall here produce againft the Jews the tefti??iony of Jofephus. But would Jfidore have ever made this ob- fervation, if it had not been in his time a generally received opinion, that the teltimony w^s Jofephus'^. He mufl have a very mean idea of the fenfe and un- derftanding of thcie two great men, Eufehius and Ifidore^ who imagines they could not fee the inevi- table danger in fiich a cafe they were in of pafling in the world, efpecially among Infidels, whether Pa- gans or Jews^ for men who had neither Ihame nor confcience. In fine, I obfcrv'd in citing St. Jeroin^ Sophronius^ Rnffinus^ Ifulorc^ Sozomen^ and Suidas^ that their quotations agreed with the Text of the Jetvifi Hi- llorian, and were not taken from Eufebins. The matter is particularly plain in Sophroniits^ IfJore^ and Suidas^ who have given it in their own tongue from the Book of ^Antiquities. Sophronius copied it thence word for word \ he liv'd in the fame age with Eu- fehius^ and it may be never read his Works: But be that as it will, 'tis certain he tranfcrib'd it neither from the Book de Demonflratione Ev angelica^ nor from the Ecclefiaftical Hillory j it is but to compare em together, and it will foon be feen that I advance nothing but what I have well examin'd. Sophronius then took it moil: certainly from Jofephus -^ and with what fhew of reafon after this can it be charg'd with forgery? I can fcarce believe, that thofe who afTerc it have fearch'd fo deep into the affair as to know the bottom on't. Ch AP, ( M ) Chap. V. An anfwer to the ohjeB'ton again fl this paffage taken from the ftlence of St^^xx- ftin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Ori- gen, and Pbotius. AS the pafTiige of Jofephus is not found quoted by thefe ancient Authors in the Books they wrote againft: the Jews^ tho' it be very ferviceable to the caufe of the Chriftian Rehgion, 'tis thence in- fer'd that 'twas not in their time in the Book of Jewifi Antiquities i but this is to draw a decifive conclufion from a principle unable to fupport its weight. All that can be gather'd hence is conjedture, probability, and nothing elfe: But here 'tis not e- nough they have probability on their fide, the rea- lity of the arguments urg'd for the genuinenefs of the paflage quite removes all conjefturesj and efpecially a conjed:ure that's inconfiftent with the rules of good reafoning. The grounds whereon it goes are all falfe and deflrudive : The iirft of which is, that a paflage which is in one ancient Writer ought not to be receiv'd as genuine, unlefs quoted by other Au- thors : The fecond, that no argument can be drawn from quotations made by very ancient Writers, if they are not found in other Authors fomewhat more ancient: The third, that in cafe an Author has wrote upon a particular Subje6i:, wherein the paflage would have been to his purpofe, and he has noc urg'd it, 'tis a fure flgn that the paflage was not in his time in the Book from which others have quoted it foon af- ter. If none of thefe confequenccs be jufl:, nothing then then can be more weak and groundlcfs than the con- clufion which is form'd againflihe geniiinenefs of the padlige in Jofephus from the (ilcnce of ^i.Jujlin and Ibme others, who Hv'd before Eufchius. This fore of conje6tures has no place, nor the force of an ar- gument, but when there is no ancient quotation of a paflage, and no MS. Copy found which has it: But where the pallage occurs both in the Copies and quota- tions, there the conjedure taken from the lileiice of Au- thors concerning it is a mere phantom, and is fit only to delude the fcnfes. I come now to the examination of the Authors and writings, wherein 'tis urg'd the teftimony given of ^efus Chrifi ought to have been inferted, had it been extant in jofephus in the time of St. Juftin and others ^ or if they had bcliev'd, it really belong'd to the Book from \vhich it was quo- ted after their death. The firfl of thefe ancient Writers, who ought, fay they, to have quoted this famous telh'mony, and who yet has not quoted it, is Jufin Martyr, We have fcarce any Ecclcfiaflical Writer older than he, or who comes nearer to the time of Jofephus. He wrote his Book o^Jewifi x4ntiquicies towards the clofe of the firlt Century, and liv'd four or five years in the fecond, as 1 have obferv'd already 3 St. Juftin liv'd in the lame age, and flouriili'd in tlie Church fome forty years alter the death o^ Jofephus. We have amongft his Works a long and learned dif- pute with certain Jews^ at whofe head was one 'iry- pho^ a man of learning, and note arnonglt his Countreymen. The tciiimony oi Jofephus m ho- nour o{ Chrift found there a place very naturally: He was an Author Si.Jufii/i could not but haveread^ and he well knew how to employ it in confounding the Jews by the witnels of their own Hillorian. St. Juftin had been a Platonick Philofopher before heembrac'd Chrillianity, and we plainly fee from his manner of difputing with Trypho^ that he knew hcw E to (i6) to manage an argument, and fet off his proofs to ad- vantage : is it then to be conceiv'd, that he would have ilipM the opportunity of doing honour to the Chriftian P^eligion by the teftimony of fo celebrated a JeWj as Jo/cpbus was ? /^t^/^^/^j has very judicioufly anfwer'd this glaring Objeftion in his obfervations upon Eufeblus^ lib. i. cap. 12. He has obferv'd i. that the teftimony of Jofephus would have had but fmall weight with a Jew : And 2. that the delign of St. Juftin was only to convince "trypho from paflages in holy Scripture: Thefe arguments are very folid, but ftand in need of a fuller explication. A As to the firli, v/ith regard to the perfon of Jo- ' fephus^ 'tis certain his teftimony would not have been received by a Jezv^ not only becaufe, as Valefius ob- ferves, he was an Author too modern 5 but efpecially becaufc he was fallen into difrepute among the Jews upon the fubjed of his Religion > he was look'd on as half an apoftate. The fecond argument is more confiderable. Ju- ftin and "frypho had agreed to argue folely from the iiuthority of Scripture 5 they were then obhg'd ab- (blutely to ftick clofe to that > and this is what Ju- y?/;? actually did : Ihave urg^d^ ° fays he, no arguments \ but what are taken from Scripture : And a little af^ \ ter P Trypho fays, fVe would not have heard you^ if you had not fetch d all your arguments^ all your proof s^ from holy Scripture. Now let any one judge, whether the pafTage of Jofephus could have found admittance there. Tertullian has alfo wrote again ft the Jews^ but in the fame way, and with the fame view as St. Juftin^ i. e. he argues againft 'em only from Texts of H. Scrip- ture 5 we need but confult the manner he has taken. St. Cyprian^ who, as all the world knows, had a o' Dial, cum Try phone p. 249. p Ibid. p. 277. great ( ^7 ) j great value for the writings of fertuIUayi^ has trod irj I the fame Steps, in the tra6t he wrote to prove the truth of the Chrillian Religion againit the Jews-^ he has there fcarce any thing but naked Texts of Scri- pture plac'd one after another, without method or reafoning upon 'em > 'tis no wonder then, that he quoted not the paflagc of Jofephus. As to Origcn^ he has not only in common with St. Juflln^ Tcrtullian^ and St. Cyprian not given us the pafTageof 7^?/^/?^/^;, but has withal expiefs'd him- felf upon the fubje»5l: of 7^/^/)/:?^/ in terms which don't feem to agree with the teltimony given to J ejus Chrijl in the Book of JewlJJy Antiquities: The Tellimony is in exprefs words, that J ejus was the Chrijl : And Origen in his Commentary upon the 17^^ chapter of Sl.Alatthew f. if. writes that Jofephus did not acknow- ledge J efus to be theChrift. Now how could Origen Write in this manner if he h-jd read thefe words in Jojephils^ Jefus was the Chrijl? But the whole here turns upon an equivocal exprellion: We muft clear up the matter, and the truth will fully appear from the inGght we fliall give into the fenfe of Origen'Sj^ pafTage and that of the Hiftorian. Origen meant no more, than that Jofephus did not acknowledge and embrace Jejiis for the Chrijl^ that he was no Chrillian 3 which is the proper (igniiication of the Greek word KccraJc-JaiuiJccf, that Origen has made ufe of. This will plainly appear from a parallel paflagc in Theodoret^ at the end of his Comment up- on Daniel^ where he ^ fays, that Jofephus did not embrace the Chrijlian Religion. The word then On- gen has us'd implies the fame thing with that of The- odoret^ only he has exprefs'd himlelf fomewhat more fully, for I'heodoret has us'd only the fimple word Si^oif^^cg^ and Origen the compound aoLroih^xy^^Q^' And it is the idiom of the Greek Tongue to expreli E X more ( z8 ) more emphatically by compound, than by fimple and primitive verbs. In the fame fenfe Origen in his Book againft Celfus has ^ faid, that Jofephus heliev'd not in Jefus, as the Chrift. It appears then mani- feftly, that his meaning was not different from 'The' odorefs: Their expreflions are the fame, and import only that Jofephus^ who was born and bred upa 7^w, adher'd all his life-time to the Jewijh Religion, and wasnever converted to Chriftianity. But as it does not follows from the words of 'Theodoret^ that the difpu* ted teflimony was not in his time in the Book oi Jo- fephus^ fince Eufebius^ St. Jerom^ and Sophronius had read it there long before his days, and St. Iftdore who liv'd in the fame age with him, had tranfcrib'd it thence entire 5 fo we can't conclude, that it was not in the Book of Antiquities in the time of Origen^ be- caufe he has faid with 'The odor et^ that Jofephus did not own Jefus Chrift to be the Mefliah, nor believ'd in him. We have faid more than is abfolutely neceffary for the refolution of this fingle difficulty urg'd a- gainfl the paflage, a difficulty borrow'd only from one equivocal expreffion, namely, that Jofephus ac- knov^7ledg'd not Jefus to be the Chrift^ which may lignifie that he has no where declar'd in his works that Jefus was the Chrift^ and 'tis in this fenfe the Objedors take it 5 or which may mean, that 7^7^- phus^ never own'd or embraced by profeffing the Chriflian Faith our Saviour as the Mefliah, in which fenfe we underiland it. Now our explication has a double advantage before the other: i^^. That 'tis more literal, and keeps clofer to the meaning of the word KArc<,Si^uijS^Qg^ which properly fignifies to re- ceive^ to embrace^ to embrace cordially and with all cur ftrength^ than the former interpretation, which expounds it fimply by the general term to acknoW" *^ Lib, I. cl7rt<3i»v 7^ Itjg-S eJiX^ifU), Udge^ ( ^9 ) ledge^ or to owu. I'^^y. That the other pafTage I have quoted from Origen's^ works confirms the fenfe I have put upon this. Now of what force is one fingle difficulty, and a difficulty fo ill fupported, a- gainft the pofitive and inconteflablc proofs I have urg'd to {hew the pafTage of Jofepbus is authentick? There can fure be no comparilbn. I fhall add but one word more to fhew the weak- nefs of this objedion. 'Tis concluded a teltiraony that makes fo much for the honour of Jefus Chrifi as this pafTage of Jofepbus^ could not have been ex- tant in Origen's time, becaufe if it had, he mufl have fpoken quite otherwife conc^xmngjofephus than he has done j 1 have fhewn this argument turns up- on an equivocal expreflion that concludes nothing: I add farther, that if we call to mind the age that O- rigen liv'd in, and rcfled upon the quotation Eufebi^ us has made of this paflage, with the Icafl cafl of an eye we ihall difcover the weaknefs of the inference. Origen flourifli'd about the middle of the 3^ Centu- ry > in the fame Century, and fo me few years after him Eufebius had acquir'd a prodigious reputation : In his time the tellimony in honour oi Jefus Chriji was in the Book oi Jofepbus^ as I have indifputably prov'd i can we then fay it was not there in the time of Origen? By no means. From thefe Authors of the 3^^ Century we freight ftep to Photius^ who liv'd in the p^^, and who in re- citing the works of Jofepbus makes no mention of this pafTage. But without dwelling here upon this Authors continual want of exadnefs in the extradirs he gives of the Books he has read, I ihall content my felf with obferving, that he was not ignorant that this teftimony was in the Book oVJewifh Antiquities j Eufebius^ Sl.Jerora^Sopbronius^Ifidore^ and Sozomen had read it there, and copied it thence : We have no reafon to doubt, whether Photius had read Eufe^^ iius^ Ifidore and Sazomeny for he himfelf places"''em in C3o} in the number of Books he had read. What con- clufion then may we draw from his filence? It muft be one of thefe three, either that in turning over the Book oVJofephus^ he did not purpofe to recite the moft remarkable places, but only fuch as firll pre- fented themfelves to the defigns he had in view j or, that the teftimony concerning Jefus Chrift was fo well known, he had the lefs occafion to quote it i or in fine, that feeming fo little agreeable to the chara6ter of a Jewijh Hiltorian, he had fome fufpicion that it was only, as Mr. Blondel fays, an interpolation inferted by fome Chriftian into Jofephus. Of thefe conclufions the two former are to me the mofl: pro- bable. Photius has been fo irregular and unexa6t in his extraft of the very Book, wherein this paljage is, that 'tis fcarce poflible to be more fo. Of all this valuable Work, which contains the Hiftory of the People of God, and is full of very remarkable mat- ters, he has confin'd himfelf wholly to the Succeflion of High-Prieils in the family oi Aaron ^ and an a- bridgment of the Hiflory oi Herod: And this with- out any regard to the order of time or place in the llories, which Jofephus had rang'd as they ought to be. So that no great authority is due to this extra6t out of the Book of Antiquities : Photius has taken thence what is faid upon the death oijohn theBap- tift and of St. James^ he was at his liberty to take what he pleas'd, and whether he aded with judg- ment or no, is not much to our purpofe : ^ Mr. Huet has obferv'd upon this, that Photius was not a man who kept clofe to matters of moment, and that he ihew'd no great judgment in his choice or omiflion of palliiges in the many and divers Books, from which he made the coUedion entitul'd his Bibliotheque, The laft of the three conclufions, which may be drawn from his filence touching the paflage in difputc I Dem. Evang. Prop, 3* to (30 to wit, that he fufpeftcd it of forgery, is the lead i probable of all. Were this the cafe, 1 can't fee why inftead of entirely pafling over this place of theHi- florian, he, on the contrary, did not mark it as a dubious or fuppofititious paflagc. Was then this great Patriarch of the Greek Church fo modeft, To referv'd, fo fearful, as to conceal his fcntiments con- cerning the paflage of Jofephus? Thofc who have read Photius's Bibliothcque^ and are in the leaft ac- quainted with his hiftory, won't eafily believe that circumfpe6i:ion, fearful nefs, and referve, were the caufe of his not mentioning the paflage in the Book of Antiquities. And to fuppofe, that having found it quoted by Eiifebiiis^ St. Ifidore^ and Sozomen^ who have all three urg'd it againft the Jews as a trium- phant evidence for the Chriftian Faith, he was afraid to offend the Publick by declaring againft it, is to afcribe to the Patriarch fuch defigns, as in no wife agree with his charadter, and of which he has not given the leaft intimation in his writings. And when all's done, what is this to the point in difpute? It is nothing to us, what opinion Photius^ in the p^^ Century, had or had not of this paflage: The queftionis whether or no it holongsio Jofephus : Pbotius has not faid that it does not j Eufebius^ Ruf- finus^ St. Jerom^ Sophronius^ Ificlore^ and Sozomen have faid that it does; and they have not only faid io, but urg'd the teftimony as an argument againft the infidel J^iyj ; Whom then fhall we at this day give our felves up to.^ To Pbotius^ who has faid no- thing neither for nor againft the pafHige, or to all thefe other pious and learned men, who have not fcrupled to receive it as genuine, and who fay they have read it in Jofephus himfelf. 'Tis plain which fide is to be taken : There's no room left for choice. CHiiP, (3^ Chap. VI. The ohjeB'ion agamji this pcijfage^ that His fo til plac'd in the Book ofAnttqui- tksy that His incredible Jofephus put it therey anfwefd. MR. Cappel firft flarted this objedtion, and o- thers who cahie after him have urg'd it in their turn with all poflible advantage, to prove the paiTage fuppofititious. Mr. le Nain T!iUemont is of o- pinion, ^ that 'tis one of the mofl perplexing argu- ments on that fide the queftion, and thinks it not fo eafily anfwer'd as the others. 'Tis faid, the pafiage in the place where it (lands breaks the thread of the difcourfe, and has no relation with what goes before or follows after it. Juft before Jofephus gives an ac- count of a fedition the Jews had rais'd agamft Pilate^ for which they w^ere punifli'd j next follows the te- ilimony concerning our Saviour: Whei'e, fay they, is the connexion? Immediately after the Hillorian fpeaks of a fecond misfortune which befel the Jews^ Another fad accident^ fays he, cans'" d much trouble^ 6cc. The word another muft relate to a foregoing, which -was the fedition againft Pilat0 : And thus thefe two events being united one to another by the fame terms in the Hiftorian, the tellimony which is interpos'd, and has no relation to thefe matters, ferves only to in- terrupt the difcourfe, and throw all out of order. But Jofephus^ fay they, was a man of more judgment, and s Hi,(l. dcs Emp, Tom. i. part, i, dans les Notes. knew ( 33 ) knew better the art of difpofing every thing in its proper place, than to deface the beauty and neatnefs of his difcourfe by Rich confufion-, lince then we can't impute it to him, it mull be the work of fome other, who not knowing where to thrufl- in this te- ilimony of Cbrijl Jefus^ rafhly and inconiid(rrately plac'd it there. This argument may perplex fuch as have not read in JofephtiS the paflages under confideration, or who have not read 'em wjth fufficient reflexion. The Learned are not the leail apt to be impos'd on by a iirfl: reading, and when once the mind is turn'd afide by the impreflion that reading has made, it does not eafily come to its felf again : Great men are fubjedt to this weaknefs; As 1 find my fclf far inferior to them, I for thisreafon read a paflage ever and over, and miflrufling always my firil judgment I ftrive not to form my fentiments 'till after a reiterated ex- amination. With this dillrull of my felf, andcircum- fpedl confidcration of the prevening opinions of o- thers, I have read over attentively in the Hiflorian all that I thought could give light into this affair > and after all, this pretended mifplacing the paffage, a- gainfl which we hear fuch loud exclamations, to me feems to proceed from the wrong idea men have of it. And as to the confequence which is thence drawn again ft the genuinenefs of the palTage, 1 think it would be null, tho' we allow'd the paffage was mifplac'd and broke the thread of the difcourfe. I Ihall give my reafons both for the one and the other. I fliall begin with examining the place of the te- Himony given oi Jefus Chriji y 'tis the 4^^ chap, of the iS^^^ Book of the Antiquities. In the entrance upon this chapter we find the account of an adion equally barbarous and imprudent in Ptiate foon after hisarnval mjudoca^^ whiiher he had been fent Go- vernor by the Emperor Tiberius, Being yet at C^- fmea he caus'd in the dead of the night, and when F none (34) jione of the Jews were aware of it, the Roman Stan- dards to be planted in Jerufalem^ upon which was fi- gured the Image of the Emperor: And as the Laws of Mofes expreflly prohibited to the Jews the ufe of Images, they were much difturbed at what they faw the new Governor was about to introduce into the City. Hereupon they fent to him divers of the mofl: confiderable among 'em with a petition for a remo- val of the Roman Standards out of the Town : Pi- late who thought by this means to make his Court to the Emperor, refus'd to comply with their demand, but at length yields to their arguments and importu- nities, and carry's back the Standards to C^farea. From the recital of this firil adion of Pilate Js" fephtis pafles on to a fecond, which was attended with worfe confequences than the former : That had blown over without much noife and trouble, but it far'd not fo with the fecond. Pilate had a defign of ma- Icing an Aqusedud to bring water into Jerufalem. As the place from whence it was to be brought was at fome diftance from the City, and for that reafon requir'd a great expence, he purpos'd to take money out of the Holy Treafury, nam'd Corbanj where- with to defray the charge. The Jews took this ve- ry heinoully, and refolving not to let the fums de- £gn'd for Holy Ufes be employed in the ornament of their City, or the publick benefit, without which fhey had hitherto always been contented, form'd themfelves into a Body to withftand it, and went in a tumultuous manner to make theircomplaints toPilatey infulting him with menaces and injurious language. The T?^;;^^;^ jealous of his authority haughtily receiv'd the crowding multitude, and having given a fign to the Soldiers he had about him to quell the fedition, divers were wounded, and fome kill'd. After this ilory immediately come the words, y^t the fame tim^ ^here was one J c{us^ a wife man^ 6cc, To know whether they hold their proper place with (35) with regard to the two foregoing fafe, we have no- thing more to do than to fee whether the order oi' time is here well obferv'd. Eufihius in his Chro- nicon places the firll of Pilate\ actions in the 3 i^' year of our Saviour: But Scaliger in his Notes up- on that Author's Chronicon^ and after him P^alefius m his Notes upon theEcclefiaftical Hiftory have ihewn that attempt of the Roman Governor to bring the ima- ges into the City, ought to be fet three'or four years be- fore the time Eufehius has given it \ and indeed the matter's very evident. Pilate was made Governor in Jud^a about the year of our Lord 27. or z8. he was fcarce arriv'd there, before he attempted to plant the Roman Standards in the Temple j this then hap- pen'd about the year of Cbrifi 27. or 18. and not as Eufehius has imagin'd in the 32^. The fecond hd: which Jofcphus relates at the heels of this, namely the ^z^igw of taking money out of the holy Trealury to defray the charges of the A- qua:dLia: Pilate had a mind to make, Eufehius places in the year of our Lord 54. which was the year af- ter his death: Scaliger is of opinion Eufehius is here again millaken, and that tliis matter fell out fome- what fooner. However thcfe points in Chronologv be decided,'tis certain they all happen'd mjudcea but a few years -sSttx Pilate was made Governor there, and he continued not in that pofl above ten or eleven years. But it was precifely at the time thefe things hap- pen'd, our Saviour appear'd and taught in Judu-ea, John the Baptill, his torerunncr, had cnter'd upon the Minillry, which made him fo famous, in the if^^ year of the Emperor Tiherius^ as we Icarn from St. Luke chap. 3. y. i. Pilate had then two years difcharg'd the office of Governor in Judaea -y fix months after John the Baptiif Jefus Cbrifi ilicw'd himfelf openly > and cofifequently in the 3^ or 4^^ y €2(1' o^ Pilate : The teilimony concerning him in the Book of Antiquities is fet down about the fame time F 2 and ( 30 ^nd nnmediatcly after two ftories which in fa£t went before it , where could it have been plac'd better ? Hi- therto then there's not the leaft want of orders and half our way is got over. To go on : The other half is yet behind j and here lyes the difficulty, which is thought not eafily to be mafter'd. To come to the point then. Next after the teilimony concerning Jefus Cbrift ftreight follow thefe words in the Hiilorian : Mout the fame time another fad accident gave the Jews much trouble : But what fell out in the time of Jefus Chrift^ or what was faid in the article concerning him, that gave trouble to his nation? Certainly nothing at all : Why then is it faid another misfortune, another fid accident F Mr, Jrnauld Dandilly^ who has publidi'd a Tranf- lation of Jofephus^ that is very much valu'd and de- fervesto be fo, inftead of the'words another misfor-^ tune^ has render'd the paflage, there jell out a great misfortune-^ this would entirely remove the difficulty, » was the tranflation juft, but alas ! in Jofephus 'tis a- nother misfortune, not a great misfortune : and aTranf- lator ought not to change the fenfe of his Author by putting one word for another. Let us leave the paf- fage as it is 3 and fee only what could be the mean- ing of the Hiftorian. Now I readily allow the ac- count given of the ill accident which befell the Jews has no manner of connexion with the foregoing te- ilimony^ but it has relation to the misfortunes reciy ted in the beginning of the chapter, and this was all that Jofephus defign'd. He fet in its proper place, as I have fhewn, the paflage concerning J^/i/j Chrift-, but becaufe in fo doing he had broke the thread of his difcourfe, which turn'd upon divers troublefom^ misfortunes that happen'd to the Jews^ he here re- fumes his fubje6i:, and recounts a third accident, which gave 'em much trouble, and thus he relates it: at length in the following chapter. A cer= iS7) A certain Jezv^ who was one of the 'wickedeft wretches upon the face of the earth, and was forc'd to fly his country to avoid the ftroke of publick jii- ilice, in concert with three others no better thanhim- fclf, fct up at Rome^ where abode many of the Jews^ for an Expofitor of the Laws of Afo/es. By this pretence tliey prevaiPd upon a Woman of quality, nam'd Fulvia^ who had come over to the JewiJJj Re- ligion, to fend large Oblations to JernfaUmy and the Lady committing 'em to their charge, they con- verted 'em to their own private ufe. When Saturni- nus^ her husband, was inform'd of this, he made his complaints of it to Tiherius^ who was fo cnrag'd at the deed, that he forthwith commanded all ihejews to depart out of the City. There were divers put to grievous tortures, and to the number of 4000 ba- niHi'd, and fent away for Sardinia. Jacitus in his annals '^places this banifliment of ihtjeivs '\n the ^^^ year of Tiberius's reign, and by confequence eight years before Pilate was made Governor oijuda.% for he received not his Commiflion 'till the 13^^ year of that Emperor, So that this unfortunate affair, which Jofephus refers to in the words following the tefli- mony concerning Cbrifl^ at the fa?nc time fell out ano- ther fad accident^ happen'd nine years at leafl, before the ilory of the Roman Standards which Jofephus teils firll 5- and eleven or twelve, before the fedition in Jerufakm on account of the Corhan^ which Pi- late would have employ'd m making an Aqiixdu6b. From all this it appears, that the words, in .the fame time ^ and thofe, another ill accident^ refpe6l:ed only the (lime things, /. e. the misfortunes of the Jews^ which had in like manner been related in the Je'wifl) Hiftory, v/irhout any defign fo to unite 'em together, as if they had all fell out diredly one after '■ Lib. 2. art. 25. another, ( 38 ) another, fince that which is told lafl went before the two former fcveral years. We may hence learn withal, what mighty reafon there is for extolling fo high the exa6tnefs of this Hi- florian in time and chapter. I fliall give a flagrant in- flanceof it from this very place. Jofephm was upon the hiftory of the firfi: years of Pilate's Government, jufl before he came to fpeak o^ Jefus Chrift-, next follows his account of the expulfion of the Jews from Rome divers years before Pilate was fent into Jud^a^ and then he returns to the mention of ano- ther fa6l:5 wherein Pi/<^^e was concern'd : For itreight he " gives a relation of an a6t of cruelty, that Pilate ex- ercised upon the S^.maritans on mount Gerizim /Which a6t of inhumanity he committed in the iaft year of his Government. The Samaritans made their jud: complaints to VitelUus^ Governor of Syria^ upon "whom the Government of Jud^a then depended. VitelUus heard their grievances, and order'd Pilate forthwith to Rome^ to anfwer before the Emperor the accufations exhibited againffc him. Pilate obey'd, and never after return'd into Judaa, The order of time can't fure be lefs obferv'd than in the recital of thefe ftories, nor hiftorical fads be plac'd more out of order than thefe are. And how many other in- ilances of the like nature might we find in this hi- florian, if we would be at the trouble of an enquiry ? How many withal in this large number where we iliould find the words. In tbefame time^ :^ rbVov toV y.xi^QVy or yj Tiirov rov y.^ovovy which begin the account urg'd againil: us, which follow the tellimony in ho- nour of our Saviour, and which feem to have been the favourite exprelTion of this Author, as being brought in upon all occafions. 1 fliall give but two infrances. 'Tis indifputable, that Nahum wrote the Book of " Jcfeph. Antiq. Jud. lib. 18. cap. 5. 4 his ( 39 ) his prophecy againft Nhriveh^ after the King of ylf» Jyria had deflroy'd the Kingdom of Ifraely ^ now this happen'd in the p^^^ year of Hofca^ King o^Ifrael^ and in the i z^^ oi Ahax King o^Judah^ the fon of King Jotham : yet Jofephus by an anachronifm of 1 2. or I 3 . years places the time of Nahum's prophecy at the clofe of the reign of King Jotham^ and makes life of the fime exprellion he had always fo ready at t hand : ^At the fame time there appeared a Prophet^ na^ med Nahum, vjho foretold the fibverfion of the Afly- rian Empire^ and the de fir nation ^/Niniveh. I finci too the fame expreflion in another place^ where the tranfpofition is more remarkable than the foregoing: 'Tis in this very 18='^ Book of Antiqui- ties, in the chapter immediately going before that of the teflimony which is difputed under the vain pre- text of a tranfpofition or wrong placing the ftories related in the 4'^^ chapter. Jofephus then gives an account in the 3"^ chapter of the advancement of T!iberiiis to the Throne of the Roman Empire, and the prodigious pains Herod the Tetrach took to gain the favour of the New Empe- ror 5 and then adds. At this ti?ne ivas Phraates Ki^g of the Parthians treacheroufy murdered by Phraataces his Son. But this fell out according to the learned Chronologer x Ufier 20 years before the birth of Je- fus Chrifj and confequently ij. or 38. before the 3"^ year of the reign ofl^ibe^ius^ in which w^ere tranf- aded the other matters related in this place of the Book of Antiquities, ;'. e. the reign of Vonones in the Kingdom of Parthia^ and the death of Antiochus Kmg of Comagena : Concerning whom confult l^a- citus^ lib. 2. with the Notes of Lipfms. To talk after this of tlie pretended mifplacing the Gonteiled padage, and to build this imaginary want ^^' 1 Kings 16. r, CT- 17 <^- '^ Autiq. Jud.iib. p.c.ip. z, ad fin. yf^/cr. anno mundi 3984. of ( 40 ) of order upon the expreffion following it. At that time^ is the mod idle thing in the world : For firfl, the pafTage comes directly as it ought, after fuch fa6ts as went before it 3 and fecondly, as to the To- ries following, it was very ufual with Jofephus to mifplace his accounts, according as the particular fub- jc6ls he was upon led him. Befides, we mull: not look upon thefe little irre- gularities in place, as a fault which deferves much to be charg'd upon him, or was particular in him. There's fcarce an Hiftorian to be nam'd, in whom we may not find the like upon a clofe examination. ^ Cafauhon has remark'd divers in Thucydides^ Poly^ hius^ and Livy^ three Hiftorians of the greateft emi- nence, the two former among the Greeks^ and the third among the Latins. This is the befl excufe wc can make for theunexadnefs in the order of fads and events related by an Hiilorian. As to the confequence drawn from the pretence, that the difputed paflage is out of its true place, I afTert that were it fo (tho' I have prov'd the con- trary) there could thence be drawn no juft conclu- Hon again (I its genuinenefs, nor any found argument form'd to fhew Jojephus was not its Author: Other- wife the fame thing muft be faid of all the other paf-^ fages in that hiilorian, that are far more out of or- der, than this can be. The reafon why it Hands where it does is, becaufe Jofephus found no place where he could put it better: and who is there ihall difpute this reafon with him? An Author is as much mafter of his pen, as his thoughts, and fo of the or- der he pleafes to obferve in particular cafes, which order as it may be divers ways conne6bed with other fads, the Hiilorian at fometimes may have one view, and the Reader another : The genuinenefs of the paflage will be the fame throughour^ and a mere er- *Exerctii z. in ^r.n. 2L " ror ( 41 ) jor in pkce, how fenfible foever, will never anioum to a proof of irs being ^org'd. But as 'tis not our buiincfs here to icafon logically upon the nature of confcquenccs, I fliail fay no more to fliew this is not jullly drawn: 'tis fufficicnt that the principle it goes up- on is found falfe, and I am apt to imagine the argu- ments I have urg'd agamil it are unanfwerable j they are all grounded on fads taken from 'Jofephus himfclf^ and fuch fa6ts as Hand fupported by an incontcllablc Chronology. Chap. VII. An anfwer to fome other lefs confiderahle arguments ur^d agamfi the autheritkk^ nefs of this paragraph. IArn uncertain, whether any of the oppofers of this paiTage, except Mr. le Fe--jre^ have added to the other arguments they have urg'd, the difference of rtyle in this place with the ilyle of the hiftorian. Mr. le Fevre has imagined he difcern'd it, and as he was much pradis'd in the art of judging of the flyle of Latin and Greek Authors, he had form'd to himfelf fo exquifite a Tafle, that few Men in this point came up to him. But it is with the Talte of the Mind as with that of the Tongue and Palate j thefmalleft trifle is fomctimes able to put it out of order 3 theleall im- prefnon of a Ifrange humour changes its Taile, and the finer and more delicate it naturally is, the more apt it is to be eafily akcr'd. The caie is much the flimc in the Tafte of the mind with regard to Criti- cal judgments} the leail prejudice in favour of this O or ^m.- ( 4X ) or that fide the queftion is, as I may fay, like an hu- mour upon the tongue, it leaves there an impreflion which alters the Taile, and inchnes a man to make a difcovery which ethers are not ienfible of. This is what we End in the prefent cafe in Mr. 1e Fevre^ and Mr. Haet^ Bifhop of Arranches^ both men of learn- ing, and of an excellent t.afle in Criticifm. Mr. U Fe'ure has difcover'd in the language of this paragragh in the Book of Antiquities fomewhat lefs polite and exad than in the reft of the work : Mr. Huet ^ can perceive nothing like it, he has read it often, exa- min'd its phrafes, conftruclions, words, and ^nds nothing foreign to the ftyle of the Jewijh hiftorian. Mr. Dauhuz^ ^ a learned Clergyman in England has fince wrote a Diflertation in defence of the ge- nuinenefs of this pafiage, and as he appears to have been v^ell vers'd in the Greek tongue, has apply 'd himfelf to a refearch, which nobody, I'm of opini- on, ever made before him 3 namely to ihew, that the ilyle of this pafiage is in fuch wife JofepJms's^ that he has produc'd divers places from the works of this hi- storian, wherein we find the fame manner of fpeak- mg as in this pafiage. We are obliged to this learned Man for the trouble he has given himfelf of making fo exa6i: an enquiry into the words and phrafes of his Author, which is equally painfull and tedious. But Yvx may well difpenfe with entering into this detail: for 'tis their part, who give out that there is a difix^- rence in the ityle of a contelted pafiage, and who are for drawing thence an argument to ihew it belongs not to the fame Author, as do the other works we have of his, to produce proofs of this difference, and fuch proots as are convincing. A word, or a con- ihiiclion of a pafiage, VNrhich do not other v/ife occur in an Author's works, are not fufHcient> unlefs it be % ^ Dem. Evang. prop. 3. ^' Carol. Danhuz pro leilim. Jofephi, a word (43 ) a word To dillingunvd, that we muH own it was not in ufe 'till a long time after 3 fuch as arc, for indancc, the proper names of pcrfons, or certain terms appro- priated Lo particular controverfies fprung up iince the death of the Writer whofe ftyle is examined, or fome other like differences, as can have no place here. 'I'is bciides fo difficult a matter to judge furely of the ityle of ancient Writers, that the moil learned Cri- ticks are continually divided in their judgments upon this head : Inllanccs of this kind are innumerable. I Jiave already mention'd Sophro:nus^ the Tranflator of St. Jerom's trad de fcriptorihus Ecckfuijllcis. Eraf- mus^ who, as all the world has own'd, was a very great Critick, il^w nothing in his language, which might not really belong to that Greek Author > the Learned John Gerard Vojjltis was of the frme opinion j his Son Ifaac VoJJiiis had a contrary fentiment, as Mr. Dit Pin informs us in the article of St. Jerom. Here then we fee very learned Criticks difrering in their notions upon a whole Work> and yet a judg- ment here is much more eafy than upon a finglc paf- ^\gG of ^^wcn or eight fentences : How then can wg determine concerning this paragraph, that its iryle is not the fame with Jofephus's ? The differences in fuch a cafe fhould be very vifiblej but here there are none ilich. Befides, we ought to conddcr, that neither the learned Huetius^ nor any others, who have found the ilyie of this paffage exa6i:ly agreeable to the ffylc of jofephiis^ have urg'd it as an argument to prove the pallage is certainly his j nothing would be more un- reafonablc, and therefore no body ever thought of it : I'o take up v/ith fuch pitiful arguments would be di- redly to initil into the publick a prejudice to the d'^S- advantage of the caufe we defend. We know very well, that two Authors may write exadlly in the fame ilyle, efpecially for feven or eight fentences together, >vhere the counterfeit has ftudied the Author's man- G 2. ner ( 44 ) iier or writing, under whofe name he would have the forgery pais. All we can fay upon the agreement of language in this place with the writings of Jofe- phus^ is only to oppofe it to the pretended difagree- ment fome have given out they have here found, and from whence they have form'd an argument againfl this pafTage: If they had not made a^i attack from that quarter, we fliould never have oppos'd our counter-battery from the conformity of his flyle. Mr. Simon has us'd a like addrefs in the Epifile of his Critical Bibliotheqae: The ftro?igcli argument^ ^^ fays he, urg'd to prove the difputed paffage Joiephus'j is^ that 'tis incredible he jloould have [aid nothing con- cerningjefus Chrift. Jofephus has faid one word of him, which is equivalent to m.any others, where fpeaking of ^i. James in terms much to his advan- tage, as I have elfewhere noted, he adds, that he was the brother and after M^/^-j, how many other extraordinary men had there been in Ifrael^cni from God, who had lignaliz'd their miniltry by the won- ders they had openly fhewn.^ Since then the expref- iion of Jtjfephus,^ if yet we may call him a man^ was deriv'd from the miracles w^hich Jefus wrought, I can't fee whence 'tis poilible to imagine he meant to fay by thefe words, that Jefus was God. But to purfue the examination of his teftimony. He was a teacher of the truth to fuch perfons as would readily embrace it. The v/ord truth appears here too exprefs for the mouth of a man, who was no Chrifhian, becaufe we comprehend under it the whole doctrine of the Gopfelj but how could a Jew^ who never embraced it, defcribe it by thefacred name of truth? This argument might be good, \i Jofephus H 2, had (y^ had us'd the word in the full fenfe the argument takes it in, but Jofephus had another meanings his expref- fion is more general, and does not refped the Gofpel asoppos'dto the J^f-ze;//^ Religion, which this argu- ment takes for granted. The Greek fays, he taught thofe who were ready to embrace true things^ rdM- ^^. But for this we need only fee in St. Matthew what were the fermons which Jefus Chrift made to the multitude of people, who flock'd to hear him, and wc fhall find nothing there which Jofephus might not well comprehend under the general name of true things : We have faid enough upon this head. Let us now come to what follows. He drew after him multitudes both of]ews and Gentiles. As to the Jews who were followers o^ Jefus Chrift^ tis certain they were very numerous: as we find in the hiftory of the Gofpel: But for the Gentiles^ we can't perhaps find there {\x in all, who embrac'd his dodrine, and were converted. St. Paul has obferv'd of Jefus Chrifty ^ that he was a mini ft er of the circumci- fion^ that is, he preach 'd only to the Jews: and he himfelf had faid to a Canaanitifh woman who en- treated him to heal her daughter, ^ I am not fent hut to the lofl fheep of the Houfe of Ifrael. The Gentiles receiv'd not the Gofpel, 'till it had been preach 'd to them, and it was not preach'd to them> 'till feveral years after Jefus Chrifi had afcend- ed into heaven > from thence he drew them after him by the preaching of his Apoftles, and the vi6lo- rious grace of his Spirit, purfuant to what he had foretold in St. 7^^?;^, chapter 12. ^ fFhen I fhall ha've been lifted up from the earthy I will draw all men unto we: all men indifferently. Gentiles as well as Jews, Thefe things are fo well known to every one, who has read the New Telbment, that 'tis fcarce poffiblc to believe a Chrillian could have been fo far miftaken Rom. 15.8. J' Matt. 15. 14. ' V. S^^- as (53 ) as to fay that Jefus Chrifl drew after him multitudes of Gentiles as well as Jews. If then we confider well thefe words of the pafllige in difpute, we fhall find it could not be a Chriftian, as they would fancv, who forg'd this paflage: he who composed it, mull have been one of thofe ignorant men, who were very little acquainted with that Religion j for whoever knows any thing of it beyond the mere rudiments of the Faith, cannot but know, that nothing is literally lefs true, than what is faid in this teilimony, that our Saviour preaching the truth drew after him miiJ- titudes not of Jews only, but of Gentiles alfo. lit muft have been a ftranger to the Chriftian Religion, one who had never read what the Evangelids have written, who could fall intofuch a miftake; And in this ftranger we difcover the Jezvifo Hiftorian. From his time the Chriflian Church had been equally com- posed both of Jews and Gentiles j Jud^a was full of the one 3 and all parts of the Empire of the other. There was fcarce a town, how inconfiderable foever, among the Greeks and Latins^ wherein there were not both Jews and Gentiles converted to Chriftianity. Jofephus who obferv'd both the one and the other to follow the fame dodrine, and acknowledge the fame Jefus for their Lord and Chrifl^ troubled not himfelf fcrupuloufly to enquire into the exad time they had begun to do fo> he anticipates the conver- fion of the &;^//7^j feveral years, and confounds it with the converfion of the Jews : But what is there that's ftrange in all this, efpecially in fo fhort an account as that of this teftimony, where every thing is cur- forily exprefs'd? What follows is worthy our utmoft attention, and deferves a chapter apart. ^ AP. ( 54) Chap. IX. Toe exaU and particular examtnatton of the teftimony of Jofephus continued. IF what we have already feen of this teftimony has appear'd to thofe who rufpe6t it of forgery too loity and confiderable to have come from the pen of a Jeiv^ what follows is infinitely more fo. Hither- to we have had no expreflion, w^hich has not been fomewhat uncertain, and which we may not accom- modate to the charader of the Hiftorianj but what iTiall we fay to the reft of his teftimony? We there find chcfc words 3 He was theChrift. The impoftor, fay they, who bei^^ore had fhewn himfelf but by halves, here makes an open difcovery j he is then no more ^Jew^ not a moderate and impartial /V-te;, who wrote the paftage, but a Chriftian, and a Chriftian fo tran- iported by his zeal , that he loft all condud in the choice of his exprcftions j he plainly declares, that Jefus was the Chyifi^ and that when the chief of the Jews^ jealous of then' own glory, had caufed him to be condemn'd and crucify'd, he was feen three days af- ter alive as before. We fhould have reafon to (ay, the impoftor who had forg'd this teftimony for Jofephus would have betray'd himfelf by making that Jew fay fuch things as were foreign to his profeftion, were it true that an iinpoitor was Author of the pafTage. But is it likely this pretended impoftor, this counterfeit, up- on whom we would throw it, iliould have fo far for- got himfelf as not to have feen, that by attempting ra fay, all he went about to deftroy all, that exprcfti- ons ( 5J) ons fo ill chofen and decifive would fcive only to raifc llifpicions that Jofephns was not the pcrfon who had wrote the teitimony, the forgery whereof would be fo evident, that every body mull ftand amaz'd at it. 'Tis aduredly incredible, that any man who had taken it into his head to put out a tcltimony under the name of the Je\viJJj Hillorian in honour o^ Jefus Chrifi^ could have had fo little underftanding, as to lay himf-lf open to the difcovery of the whole world. But let us pafs by this, and fuppofe the man had nei- ther wit nor fenfe in the leaft to difguifc his forgery. The great men who have made ufe of this telbmo- ny, thofe menof fuperior Genius, Eufebius^ Sl.Jercm^ St. Ifidore^ would they have been fo heedlefs as to embrace fo flagrant an impofture? A coyner of falfe money would be but a bad contriver, who could not in the lead counterfeit the genuine ftampj and they truly would have but little wit who lliould fuf- fer themfelves to be impos'd on by it, and put it oiF as good and current coin. The application forms it felf j theimpoltor i'?^ the falfe coyner, and the others are thofe who put off his bad money. But could it then be poffible for Jofephns to have fiid that Jefus was the Chrijl^ the Melliah foretold by the Prophets, and yet notwithftanding this con- feflion continue in hx^Judaifm^ and not embrace the Chriilian Religion? h\\\ !e Nain de Tille?nont has very judiciouily anfwer'd this objection in his Hillo- ry of the Emperors : ^ Tis the love of truth ^ fays he, that makes men Chrifliayn^ not the bare knowledge of it : ne wind bloweth where it lifleth^ and men know not^ why it happens to touch one perfon^ or why it leaves another The f uth had reached the under ft anding but not the heart of J )fc'phus, overfwafd perhaps by the vain lujtre of hn fife learnings and the wretched va^ nity of paffing fur the chief man of his own Nation. Turn. I, part. 2, pag, 1015, ( jO All this is very agreeable to Chriftianity, but Mr. fil- lemont has not in my opinion enough fludied the genius and chara6ter of Jofephus^ to fpeak of him as he has done, and to believe as he fays, that the Hi- ftorian, tho' a man of learning and abilities, was fo far convinced as to own Jefus was the Mefliah > he was not arrived to that pitch of knowledge, nor any more a Chriftian in underftanding than in heart. Yet has he fpoke concerning our Saviour as a Chri- ftian might have talk'd of him. Thefe firft words, as coming from a Jew^ he was the Chrili^ have occafion'd the furprize and aftonilh- ment of Chriftians. We have feen how St. Jerom alleviated the matter by the word credehatur^ it was believ'd^ that he was the Chrift^ divers "learned men have efpous'd his thought, and urg'd for it feveml reafons. Others unfatisfy'd with that anfwer have found out a new method of refolving the difficulty : They have for this had recourfe to a conjefturc which Criticks have fometimes em ploy 'd fuccefsfully enough, to wit, ^that it was firft a marginal note, wrote by fome body in Jofephus^ which afterward pafs'd from the margin into the Text , thro' the imprudence of tranfcribers. We muft own, this cafe has fometimes happen'd, but then the note transfefd into the Body of the Text is found only in fome MSS. copied after this former, or which have been made from others of the fame fort. But as it was impoflible at firft, that a note wrote by a private perfon in his own Copy could be alfo in the Copies of others, which were very numerous, and in divers places, it has always fell out for this reafon, that in procefs of time the MSS. of the fame Book in different places have not agreed j fome having the additional note in the Text, n Ulher, Ifaac Voffius, Mr. Huct, Pagi, and others. o Montacut. in notis ad Eufeb. Demonfir. Stfiph, le Moinc in mji$ ad fif^^oL Ittig, Pr&lf^^ in ^offj^hHrn^ Sec, and (57) and others the Text alone without that addition. This is all evident of it felf, and naturally it cannot be otherwife. But here all the MSS. of the Book of the JewijJo Antiquities, in all times and all coun- tries whatfoever, have thefe words without any va- riation. The Ancients, whom I have fo oft quoted in this tra<5b have all related this tellimony in the fame manner. It is not then pofTible to believe this was originally a margmal note : It has ahvays been the very Text of the Hillorian. Spencer has given in to another opinion : I have not feen his Book, but Mr. Simon has reported it in the z^^ Letter of the 2^ Tome of his Critical Bibliotheque. Spencer has fuppos'd a fort of Meffiah^ who was not altogether the fame with him the Jews expc^ed^ that was to reign over all the World. I know very little concerning this opinion^ N\\\ Simon xq- je6ls it as being only^ fays he, a conje^ure without much grounds : 1 think it yet lefs than that, nor do I fee how it can be apply'd to the paHage o^ Jofephus. All thefe applications of the fcope and ftnfe of thefe words, He was the Chrift^ are forc'd conllru- (5lions invented merely to elude the difficulty 3 but tho' all were received, the difficulty would Itill re- main, for were thefe words not in the teflimony un- der examination, yet the words following would be equally perplexing, that Jcfus^ after he had been crucify 'd by the command of Pilate^ was raifcd a- gain on the third day, and that all thefe with many other very wonderful things had been foretold by the Prophets. This addition binds dofe the knot, which the foregoing fcntence had only form'd, and thus 'tis a Vain attempt to untye it by any of the me- thods before prefcrib'd, we mull cut it, and yet this we cannot do, if v/e leave the laft words of the te- flimony in their full force. I A aiP- ( 58 ) A modern writer, p \vho in all likelihood faw thefe difficulties, and notwithftanding is of opinion the paflhgc really belong'd to Jofephus^ has imagin'd the Jewijl) Hi dorian, far from intending there to do ho- nour to jcftis Cbrift^ had a quite oppofite defign. For this purpofe, he has ftrangely ftudied to turn all the periods of this teilimony to a bad fenfe 5 he has excrcis'd his imagination in feeking for every one fuch extravagant explications, that we maybe well afllir'd, Jofcphus would be found there a llranger to himfelf, fii.ce there is not one expofition, that his words give the Icaft hint of: So that 1 know no perfon who has follow'd this author thro' his indirect by-ways : He has been left to w^ander there alone very peaceably. Mr. Daubuz has thought of another expedient to extricate himfelf out of the affair. Perfuaded, as we are, that this teftimony is Jofephus's^ and fenfible of the difficulties we have kid open, he has dwelt much upon what Jofephus writes in his Preface to the Book of Antiquities, *^ that he compos'd that work in favour of fuch as were Lovers of HiHory, and efpecially that he might oblige Epaphrodttus^ a man of extraordinary worth, and who after having flood feveral fhocks of fortune had executed divers eminent Commiffions. The learned Englijhman conceived this was enough to ground his conje6tures upon, and form a new plan of the defign Jojephus might have had in this telli- mony. Nero had about his perfon a flave he had fee free, nam'd EpaphrodituSy whom he highly valu'd. Mr. Daubuz thinks him the fame man Jofephus here fpeaks of. He imagines this Epaphroditus had withal much credit in the court of Fefpaftan and his fons Titus and Domitian\ that he was a Chriftian, and that \\. would be to oblige him in the highell degree p ^smbecus in Biblioth. Vindebonenfi, Tom. 8. 'i Aatiq. Praefat. to (59) to inferc into the Hiftory of the Jews an honoura- ble teftimony of Jefus Chrift. Jofephus had very particular motives of elleem and rerpe(5l for Epaphro- ditus^ whofe friendihip and prote6tioii might Hand him in much Head by keeping him in the good gra- ces of the Emperor, againll the dangerous inlinuati- ons of his enemies. In order then to procure fo con- fiderable a protector as Epapbroditus^ Jofephus^ who wrote the hiftory of the Jews^ laid hold of the op- portunity of thruiting in there a tellimony to the ad- vantage of our Saviour. This opinion, which is grounded wholly on the refemblance the name of the Epaphroditus Jofephus mentions in his preface bears with him who was fee free by the Emperor Nero^ has need of fo many con- jcftures, not one of which is certain, nor indeed very probable, that wecan'tacquiefceinitj audit hasbeen oppos'd in an anonymous Tra6l equally polite and learn- ed, which was fent from France to Mr. le Clerc^ who has ^ inferted it into his ancient and modern Bibliotheque, fo that 'tis unneceflary to fiiy more concerning it. We fee by all that I have related of the different fentimcnts in explaining this pafn\ge, and the views Jofephus might have had to fpeak of Jefns Chrift in terms fo advantagious as thofe of this telhmony, how no pains has been i'par'd either to accommodate it to the charader of the Hiilorian, or to penetrate into the fecret fprings, which might have led him to exprefs himfclf m this manner. If I thought I could not bring better reafons than what have hitherto ap- penr'd, I would here end my Diflertation. My de- iigii was to prove Jofephus the Author of this telH- mony, and nothing is wanting to the proofs I have produc'd. If we had no MSS. of Jofephus^ and his Book of Jewiflo Antiquities was entirely loll, like abundance of others, which, as I may fay, but a lit- "^ Tom. 7. for the year 17 17. part. 2, I i tic ( 6o tic ^hile fufviv'd their Authors, the citations of a paflage made by divers learned men, who all fay they read it in the Book itfelf, which in their days was yet extant, thefe would be to us inflead of the Book, which now we fhould have no more. Indeed, when we fee clearly that quotations follow fucceffively one after another from one age to another, from that to a third, and fo on, we may imagine, if wc have otherwife convincing arguments againft the genuine- nefs of the paflage, that they amount all but to one 5 like the founds of an echo, which repeat the fame words divers times over, that the firfl has form'd. But when on the other hand it appears, as clear as the day, that all thefe ancient writers have not co- pied one after another, and that they all fpeak of the paflage they quote, as having all read it in the Book of the Author, under whofe name they produce it, he mufl: in my opinion be very obftinate, who refu- fes to afl[t nt to its being genuine. Take away from the incredulity this fupport, that all the quotations^ of the difputed teftimony are only a repetition of the citation Eufebius firfl: made, and you take away all : the charm is broken : And have I not fhewn this irom incontefliable evidence? Befides the Book of Antiquities is not one of thofe, which time has fwept av/ay, and whereof we have no remains, but fome. few paflages cited by the ancients in their writings j it IS come down to our own time, and with it the tellimony in honour of Jefus Chrift has pafs'd frorrju one age to another, in quotations. Now what bu-r iinefs have we after this to ftep from the Book to the Author, and enquire into his genius, whether this teftimony was agreeable to his fentiments, whe^ ther his words and opinion were the fame, whether 'twould not have been the height of indifcretion and imprudence to have fpoke as he has done, whether lie iaw not that he fliould hereby itir up againfl: hini his ov/n countreymen, among whom he had already too (61) too many enemies, and that he ran an extreme rifque of lofing himfelf with Domltian^ whom fuch a tefli- mony could not but difpleafe for many reafons eafy to be feen? All this comes at laft to nothing, the fad remains (lilh we ought to refer the matter to proofs, and abide there. But if we muft yet, to fet the bufinefsin a clearer light and difljpatc the fmall cloud which the perfonal quality of Jofephus forms around it, approach fome- what nearer, handle thefubjeit, and found it, I think the thing very poflible, I would fiiy too, very eafy but that I fear to be in fome fort injurious to all thofe learned men, who have attempted to lay open the inward fentiments of Jofephus^ and have fallen from their purpofe. The eafinefs of the affair con- fifts in following him thro' all he has faid of himfelf and in drawing thence juft confequences, which be- ing Gompar'd with the teltimony in difpute will dif- cover to us the Author's defign in it. Chap. X. ^n enquiry into the politicks and ambiti- on and the choice he made of the fed of the Pharifees^ in his time the mofl elteem'd of all, was a mark of his zeal for his Religion. He was no lefj^ fit for arms than letters, and when the misfortune of the times required the jews to defend their liberties and their laws againfltheic'o;^/^;?!, who had bore down both, Jofephus fignaliz'd himfelf in that war upon divers occafions for the defence of his countrey. Hitherto we have feen nothing in him, which does not give us an high ideaj birth, abilities, learning, zeal, valour, were all difplay'd in his perfon 5 but under thefe fo fpecious appearances lay conceaPd the feeds of irreligion, which waited but for a favoura- ble opportunity to fhew themfelves. In all probabi- lity himfelf for a long time was ignorant of 'emj an exceflive felf-love, from whence they were derived, hid and cherilli'd 'em 5 'till time drew 'em out from thofe fecret recefies, where they had been fl^ut up, and laid them open to the view of the world. When he fet himfelf to write this great and labo- rious Work of the Jewijh Antiquities, which begins with Mofes at the creation of the World, and ends at the ij-'^^ year of the reign of iVVrtf, he promis'd with all exadnefs and fidelity to follow the facred Jofeph. Vit. ad princip. BooIi% (^3 ) Books, and to write nothing concerning his nation, which was not taken from Holy Scripture. He makes withal the fame proteftation at a time he was far advanced in this Work j For ?}iy oivn part^ ^fays he, who bai'e the honour to derive my extraclion from the Royal Blood of the Afmonxans, a72d the Dignity Jikewife of the Pontificate^ as I would not blaji the re- putation of my character with one falfe word^ I report matters as I find 'em. Nothing is more exprefs than this declaration-, the dignity of the Prieflhood, and in fome refpedt: of the Royal Blood too, are here en- gag'd. And yet, how oFt has he fail'd of that exa(5b fidelity, which was due to the facred Scriptures? V^^z can't fay, he eir'd thro' ignorance of what was con- tain'd in 'em, no, he had 'em before his eyes 5 but his heart being drawn away by vanity and an ambiti- ous deiire of making his Hillory agreeable to llrangers, frequently put him upon difguifing the truth, when that truth would have loll the air of probability with his Readers: 1 fhall give but a few examples. In the 2.^ Book of his Antiquities " he gives an account of the paflage of the Israelites through the Red fea^ and clofes his recital with this proteltation: 1 have been the more particular in thefe relations^ becaufe 1 find 'em in Holy JVrit 5 and yet he has there added divers things of his own head, of which the Holy Scriptures fay not one word. Such is the long difcourfe he puts into the mouth o^ Mofes to repreis the «nurmurs of the people^ Mofes's long prayer > the tempell of rain^ and lightnmg, and thunder, which* augmented the horror of the pitchy night that overtook the Egypti- ans-^ the falfe praife he of his own accord bellows upon the Ilebrezvs^ for whom the fca opcn'd [hat happy paflage, that they were men who livd in in- nocence':, but what is worfc than all this, he has exte- nuated the glory of the miracle, by leaving it unde- Antiq. Jud. lib. 16. cap. n. » Cap.-i^. 16. cidcd. cided, whether it was properly the work of Godj or the ordinary courfe of trnTurej whether^ fays he, the fea opeu'd of it felf^ or this fell out by the will of God. And to give the finiiliing ftroke to his impiety, he requires we fliould compare this miracle with the fable of the Greeks^ who faid that the fame thing hap-- pen'd to the Macedonians, when they pafs'd thro' the Sea of Pamphylia, under the conduct of Alexander. Here was a worthy Attendant upon the facred Altars, who thus prophanes the Holy Scriptures to acommo- date 'em to his own intentions ! But he did not flop there. Another inftance we have in the manner of his re- lating the ftory o^ Jonas. All the world has read in the Book of that Prophet the miracle of the fiih, who fwallowed him up when he was thrown into the fea, and after three days caft him up again fafe and found on the fhore. Jofephus durft not affert upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures, that the matter wasfoi but for fear the Greeks^ upon whofe account principally he fomewhere fays he wrote his Jewifh Antiquities, Ihould treat the Hiftory of this great e- vent as fable, he contents himfelf with reporting it un- der the privilege of a bare V/j faid^ Koyag. Is it pof- lible for a Jew^ a Prieil, to keep up lefs clofe to his chara6ler, or more bafely to fhuffle in relations, which demand the utmoft fidelity and fincerity? Let us follow him, and we fhall yet fee him more Shamefully betray the truth, and droll upon Re- ligion. He had been taken prifoner by the Romans at the (lege of Jotapata^ a fortrefs, where himfelf com- manded. Vefpafian^ the Emperor's General laid (lege to that place: Jofephus was brought before him, and the fear of being fent to Rome^ and given up to Nero^ who was dreaded for his cruelties by the whole world, put him upon a fingular ftratagem to ro obtain of Fefpafian'^ that he might tarry vvlth him as his prifoncr^ this was to let up for a Prophet. He fays he was a Mejfengcr Jcnt by God to tell him he lliould one day be Emperor, and after him his Ion Titus^ who was there prcfcnc. He thus gives the re- lation himfeif in the 3^^ Book of his Wars of the Jevjs. '' Fefpaftdn order'd me to be kept in fafe '' cudody^ bccaufe he intended to fend me to Nero^ '' but having intimated, that I had fomething to fay " to him in private, he gave me audience in the pre- " fence of Tittis^ and two of his friends raid 1 de- '' liver'd my felf in terms to this efTc6L; Your pre- ^^ fent thought, Sir, without doubt is that you have '^ only in vour hands Jofephus a prifoner, but 3i i!tn " a ^effengei: fent Qf ©Oa about a matter that '' much more concerns you. You would fend me " to Nero^ and why am 1 to be fent thither, when *^ he and his fucceObrs down unto you have fo fhort ^^ a time to live? 'Tis you only I muil look upon as ^' the Emperor, and t'ltus your fon after yciu, for " both of you fhall fit upon the Throne. What fliifts has not the love of life in the mind of a prophane -.iid worldly man, who makes religion truckle to his interelh ! This unv.-orthy perfon went about to proilitute tlie name of God to the ambitioni o^-Fefpafian^ aud following the manner and expref- fions of the true prophets, he had the boldncfs to af- fert be came a Mcjfenger fro?n G^r/ with thefc predi£ti- ons to Vefpafian^ when the whole of the matter was only a turn of flattery invented by this impoftor to fave his life. He impofes withal upon the publick^in his account-, the particular circumftanccs that after NcYo there fhould be Emperors whole reign would be very fhorr, and that giving place one to another by quick fuccellions they Ihould leave the tlirone va- cant to Vefpafian^ who lliould afcend it after them,- are but an embelliflimcnt added by Jofephus to the difcourfe, he made the General. 'Whcn he wrotd K hi^ ( 66 ) Ills Books of the Ifars of the Jews Vefpafian was al- ready poflefs'd of the Kingdom, and fo the pretended Prophet had then feen the Revolutions which fell out in the Empire. At that time Nero died, Galhct was made Empe- ror in his ftead, but reign'd feven months only > aftei' him Otho afcended the Imperial Throne, but fate not long there, for he reign'd but three months > Viteh lius fucceeded him, and reign'd eight months. Af- ter all thefe fudden turns of afFairs, Vefpafian Avas e- leded Emperor, his birth gave him no title, but his merit procur'd his advancement,. 'Twas eafy for Jojephus in the account of his pre- tended prophecy to infinuate, that he had (q^ii all thefe things before they fell out, but herein he only cloak'd one impoflure by another. He pretends to foretell things to come, and grounds his predi61:ions upon conje6lure. A man who knew the world fo well as he did, and was mafter of fo much ingenuity and policy might foretell without a miracle that Vefpafian W'ouid one day be Emperor. The Empire was wearied with the burthen of Nero'% villanies and cruelty, info- much that he kill'd himfelf for fear of b'^ing murder'd by another hand. There were fome men in the Empire indeed, who might lay claim to the fucceffion ^ Vef- pafian had not the fame right: but after all what ha- zard did Jofephus his prifoner run, by fo flattering a predi61:ion? The worft: that conld happen to him was either to be expos'd to publick fcdffe, to be pu- nifh'd for abufing the Roman General 5 or, what he apprehended moll, to be fent to Nero-y whereas if it barely fell out, that Nero fhould dye, ov be kill'd, zdr his crimes made it reafonable enough to imagine, he would then be ever look'd on with a favourable eye an the Court of Vefpafian^ by reafon of that firfl glim- n,iering, which had flattcr'd his hopes, and anima- ted his nHibitioDo * The ( ^7 ) The whole of the matter is, Jofephus made ufe of this artifice to prevent his being carried to Rome. Suetonius mentions his prcdiftion in thefe terms j "^Whcn Vefpafian ivas in Judxa, there was one of the moft eminent captives^ nani'd Jofephus, *ivho the mo- ment he IV IS feiz'd on^ declared he fijonld he fet at U- herty hy Vefpafian, who would become Emperor. The diviner's prediction went no farther; but the events preceded the prophecy, as I've above obferv'd. This firfl: elTiiy had fucceeded too well for the pre- tended Prophet to Hop there. Being wholly intent upon what might gain him ftill more and more the favour of Vefpafian and his fon, he with the fame dexterity laid hold upon the following occaiion, which was very proper to compafs his ends. There had been a current report in the world for Tome time, that the Jews^ who were fubjc6i:ed to the Romans^ fhould retrieve their loft cftate, and extend their vidlories to foreign nations : // was held^ ^ fays Suetonius^ throughout all the Eafi^ that the Fates had then promis''d^ i. e. in the time o{ Fefpafian^ the govern- ment of the world fjjould be given to men who came out from Judx^. Tacitus relates the fame thing in thefe terms > ^^ There was among them^ he fpcaks of the "Jezvsj an opinion^ [aid to have been taken from the an- cient Books of their Priefls^ that at that time the Eaji fjjould be uppermofi^ and that from Juda:a would come forth men^ who fhould make themfelves mafters of the world. It is not difficult to fee what might have given place to this opinion of the Jews.^ and the reports that had gone abroad. The Prophets had foretold the coming of the Mefliah, they had fpecify'd the rime, and this was the time, when the Scepter be- ing departed from Judah^ the Meiliah defcended of the Royal Family of Davidy fhould be eftablilh'd on ^ Suet. Vic. Vefpaf. cap. ■?. ^ cap. 14. ':' Taat. Hift cap. 5. d;e Mie throne. The fecond Pfalm had foretold his tri- umphs over his enemies even in the remotefr corner? of the earth 5 j^sk of me^ fays the Ahiiighty, and I .will give theethie heathen for thine inheritance^ and the tittermoft parts of the ear tip for thy pofjefjion. The grofs and carnal Jews kept clofe to the letter and explai n'd this prophecy, as all the world knows, in an earthly fenfe of a kingdom in this world, and their defire of being freed from the bondage they laboured un- der turn'd their minds wholly upon fuch flattering i- deas. ■ ^acitus^ and with reaibn, treated thefe hopes of the Jews as illufion and chimiera^ he culls thefe predi6l:ions by the Latin word ambages^ as who ihould fay, ihey wxre predictions fii only to perplex men's minds, and lead 'em into a fnare j after that explaining 'em in his own way, and as a Pagan might doj This^ f\ys he, was underficod of Thus and Y q{^" pafian^ but the people^ who eafily believe what tjaey deftre^ interpreted thefe oracles to their own advantage^ without being better informed from their misfortunes. This application of the Holy Oracles coming from a Pagan who might know nothing of 'em but from confus'd reports, is in no wife furprizingj but \s it credible he iliould be fupply'd with it from the Jezv ijh Hiilorian, and almoit: in the fame words. Taci- tus WTote divers years after him, and efpeciajly after the publieacion of his Hiflory of the Wars of the Jews^ which was compil'd m the reign of f^efpaftan and Titus^ and in a npanner under the eyes of them both. Tacitus could not fail to have vead that Work which was fo much approv'd, as I have already ob- ferv'd after St. feroniy that it was ordef d to be kept \Xi the Library at Rorae^ and in recompence a ftatue was erected to fofephus. But it is in his ^ liillory of the Wars of the Jevjs we had the words which ^ Lib, 6. cap. 31. follow : (^9) follow : " After the taking of Antonia^ the "Jeia^ ^' made the Temple fqiiarc, when they could not be ^^ ignorant of a Prediction in Koly Writ, that Tern- " pie and City ilioiild be both taken, when that " happcn'd. But the chief motive to this unfortu- " nate War was the Ambiguity of another Text, im- " porting that in thofe days there fhould one come " out o\Judcea^ that Ihould have the command of '' the whole world. Now they apply M this to their *' own nation, and many great men fell into the fame '' error y for this prophecy was intended of Fcfpa^ ^^ fian^ who was created Emperor '\\\^ud.V:i : But '' they interpreted thefe prediftions by their own '• fancy, and were not convinc'd of their uiiftake but " with the irreparable deibudlion of themfelves. I vvnll not here heighten the palpable millakes a- bout the fenfe of prophecies, which Jofephus has fallen into in thefe few words 5 there's not one through- out all the old Teftament that bears any relation to the taking o{ Antcnia-^ not one importing that in thofe days a man of their own nation, or as he un- derftands it, a ftranger who fhould be found in Ju^ d£a^ {hould go out thence to take upon him the command of the whole earth. Thefe were /1-rata- gems invented by Jofephus to carry on his defigns. But good God! Vv'hat defignsj why, to wreft the prophecies concerning tlie Meilrah, and turn 'em all upon Vefpaftan, And befides, how disdainfully does he mention thefe prophecies? He Itylcs 'cm by a name of contempt ambiguities^ anfv/ering to the La- tin word ambages^ the mark of fcorn let upon 'em by l^acitHs. And why fhould a Pagan {peak more re- fpeclfully of 'em than the 7^wi/7; Hiftori.m, that ve- ry Hiitorian Vv'ho in this Work declar'd he was an In- terpreter of the Law ? Was there ever feen a more extravagant inftance cf flattery, and more grievous profanation of Holy Writ than to expound of Vefpcifian the predidions concerning ( 70 ) concerning the Meffiah ? No wonJer this wretched Corrupter of the facred Books after this drew upon him the hatred of his own nation, as we read in his Life, wrote by himfelfj he deferv'd to meet with the utmoll deteflation. Yet Vefpafian was not fo well fatisfy'd with the apph'cation of the prophecies Jofephus had made, but* that he fufpeded flattery had a part in the affair. He had opportunities enough, whilfl he was in Judaa^ of knowing that the Jews flill expeded their Mef- £ah, and plac'd all their hopes in his coming. This gave him no fmall diflurbance, and to free himfelf from the pain, as we learn ^romy Eufebius^ he caus'd an exa6t fearch to be made after the Pofterity of Da- wW, and put to death all he could find of that illu- ftrious Houfe. Whence all this fear and precaution in ^L Roman Emperor? but that the Prophets, whofe predictions had never fail'd, clearly foretold there fhould arife one of the family of Da^vid^ in whofe perfon thefe prophecies would all be fulfili'd, and who ihould reftore again the Kingdom to IfraeL After the death of Vefpafian^ and his Succeflbr 27- ius^ who reign'd two years only and fome months, Domitian came to the Throne. He was a Prince born with very bad inclinations j all Hiilorians have reprefented him as timorous, fufpicious, miilruilful to the lafl degree, and jealous upon every trifle. He found the Empire in fome fort fecur'd to his Family, \\\% father had been firll: in pofleflion 3 "Titus fucceeded him, and held it peaceably to his death j he next fol- low'd after I'itus his brother, but the dread of the predidions in the facred Books came frelh into his memor}^, as they had formerly done into /^t^^^/^;^'s. He faw no other remedy for thefe fears than what his father had made ufe of} to this purpofe, he diligently enquires v/hether any one furviv'd among the Jews^ y Eufeb. Hiii Ecclef. lib, 3. cap. 11. who (7i) who was dcfcendcd of the Royal Blood and Family ol David. The MefHah was to fpring from thence j and the Meffiah was the fource of the Emperor's fear. We learn from ^Hiflory, that fome few were found ther/£, who were alfo brouglit ht^oxo. Domitlan, He put divers quellions to 'em upon the flate of their fa- milies, to know if there were any amongll 'em of honourable note^ particularly he ask'd their opinion of the .Kingdom of the Mefliah. They anfwer'd they had neither riches, nor glory in their houfesj that their whole patrimony coniillcd of forty acres of land, which they till'd with their own hands, as might be {^ of ch3 Hulorlan in the tellimiiiy he give to Jefus Cbrlji. He fpoke not of hi'ii iii ^^\c'n aivuicagbus terms with defign to do him honour, or to favour the Chriltian faith : And in all probability he would have pafs'd him over in tilence, or faid very little of him,^ if the imagi- nary fears, which firfl: took footing in the breall of Fejpajian^h'xdi not fome years after replaced themfelves in his fon Domit'wji's. But as ftrong paffions lay hold of every advantage > the immoderate ambition of Jofephtis to keep in that Emperor's favour by whom he was much elteem'd, as he had been before by Fefpafian and I'itus^ put him upon this ingv^nious firatagem to difpel the cares of the diflruftfui, un- eafy Domltian. This might have gone hard with the iincerity and confcience of any other man b:*{idcs Jofephus'y but for his part he did not trouble himlelf much about that matter. He had upon divers occ^- ilons cleared the way for profanation and impiery 5 and when this road is once beaten, a man walks in it without pain, efpecially when led on by an ambi- lion, that has full pofleffion of his heart. FINIS. A Critical DiiTertation upon the 17^^ Verfe of the s*^^* Chap- ter of St. ^ohris firft Epiflle, There are three^ that bear record in Heaven, d<.c. wherein the Autheaiicknels of this Text is fully proved againft the Objedlions of Mr. Simon and the Mo- dern Ar'ians. Written originally in French by Mr. Martiny and now tranllated into Engllfh, 8vo. 17 19. Plain Notions of our Lord's Divinity. Set forth in a Ser- mon preached upon Chrifimas Day, at the Royal Chapel of Whitehall. Publidied at the Requeil: of many of the Audience, By Tho, Mangey, LL. D. Chaplain to the Right Reverend Father in God, Johny Lord Bilhop of London ; the z^ Edi- lion» 8vo. 1 7 19. Mr. Law'i Reply to the Bifliop of Bangor s Anfwer to the Reprefentaiion of the Committee of Convocation^ Humblj addrefs'd to his Lordd^ip. 8vo. 17 19. /06. A N ANSWER T O Mr. Martin's Critical Diflerta- tion on i John v. 7. Tl^ere are Three that bear ^cordy &c. SHEWING The Infufficiency of his ^ Two Letters to the Reverend Dr. Bentley, concernhig his intended Edition of the Greek Tefiament, with the Dodor's Anfwer, and fome account of what ma/; Age, and be- fore ^ and perhaps the Compofers of this Preface were as loth to think, it was put lately in, as Mr. Martin is : and contrary to what he fays of F. Sirhon^ I may ask him, whether if he had been one of them^ he wou'd not have done the fame thing according to his way of Reafoning, or rather of Prefuming^ without Evidence. But if, from the former Evidence of Dr. Bent" /f/s words, it appears in Fad, that SLjerorn*^ Bible had not this 7ext^ then there is an end of this Difpute, and the Prologue cou'd not be ch. $: his^ fince, 'tis granted to be ridiculous^ to fup- Part i. pofe he ihou'd reproach other Tranllators, for leaving out this Text^ and yet himfelf leave it out in that Copy to which this Preface was made : therefore the Preface is a Forgery ^ and be it whofe it will, is of no force to prove that this Text had been either in St. Jerorris^ or in any CreekCo"^^, So that the great, and middle Link of the imaginary Chain in the Sr/? Age^ is bro- ken \ on which hangs the Suppofition of fuch Greek ManufcriptSy for about 7 Centuries before, and which fupported that Suppofition for about as many Centuries after j till Matters of Fad came \6 An Anfwer to Mr. MartinV came to be looked into, and the Greek Manu-- fcripts themfelves infped^ed '•, which, we (ball fee piefently, are all wrong oa Mr. Martinh fide, when I have corifidered the few private G>^f/(7wx of his two next Chapters. ^v, Martin^ in his <5f^ and ']th Chapters^ goes on to prove that this Text was in the antient ItalicJi Ferfton of the New Teftament. This he wou'd infer, from its being in St. Jerom\ which, I hope appears already to be a groundlefs Sur- mife j and fo the Argument will turn on the other (ide, and be retorted upon him, viz.. that if St. Jerom% New Teftament had not this Text^ 'tis a great fign, the ItaUcky which he correded, had it not neither : Otherwife his Bible had been fo defeSlive^ that it woud have been bitterly eX' claimed again ft ^ by fuch as made fuch ado with him^ about his changing but one fingle word for another \ as we learn out of St. Auguflin, As for his Inftances of the mention of this Text h^Fulgentins (in the 6th Century) and by P^i^ gilitu Tapfenjis^ I pafs them by, as I had done be- fore, as coming too late to be of any great ufe in the Cafe ^ nor can the mention of this Text by them or nEior Vitenfis^ fignify any thing more than what 1 had fuppofed formerly, viz.. that at the latter end of the %th Century^ fome might begin to pretend that for Text, which had ^o long and currently been the Interpreta- tion of the next Verfe. And therefore I did not, as Mr. Martin infinuates, put by Vi^or Fitenfis*% Teftiraony, for being a fabulous Writer ; but 1 (hewed, (to which Mr. Martin hath made no reply) that \t was no Evidence of the current Admi(rion of that TfArf, or of its long (landing •, and tjiat from the common way, in that Age and Place, of interpreting the next Verfe^ in fuch a manner as cou'd not well confill with ha- rum^ Ving Differ tat ton on i John y. 7. i/ ving this Text al fo in their publick Bibles : I fay their fuhlick Bibles^ becaufc as F.Simon has fhewn, Hi/i, of that tho it appears not that different Latin Veifionsi Tranflations were then read in the VVeftern ^* 3* Churches, yet private Ferfons took the liberty of making new Tranflations ^ and that by this di- ftindlion, between the Bible read in the publick Service, and thefe particular Ferfions^ we may eafily refolve the Objedions taken from TertuIUan^ Cyprian^ &c. whofe Citations agree not with the Jtalick Verfion. They read, the vulgar Copy with the People^ which w^s in ufe in their Churches, becaufc they c^ud not do otherwife : hut in their Writings^ they took the liberty to tranjlate as they thought fit. And therefore fuppofing FiBor'*s relation of that Confejfion of Faith to be truly as we have it, yet whether drawn up by one Bifhop or by four^ it does not follow that this Text, even at the end of the ^th Age^ was in their common Bibles^ tho they might have fome Countenance^' or fome Notions on which they prefumed to bring in the words for a Proofs whether it was that they had the direft words in iQ'^tXdX private Books, or relied on the current myftical Interpretation of the next Verfe to bear them out : which la(t may, for ought I fee, be all that is intended ia fuch Teftimonies or Citations of thefe Words- I do not confidently aflert it, or fay, that even thefe late Writers had only "Three iVitnefes^ in the Bible ^ which fometimes they mentioned by their diredt Names, IVater^ Blood and Spirit^ and fometimes by their myfticd Names, Father^ Son^ and Spirit ^ or father^ Word and Spirit : but I conceive there is fome ground to think fo from this, viz^» that while one fpeaks of the Water^ Blood and the Spirit .^ and another of Father^ Word, and Sfiritj as St. Johns three Witnejfes j I have not C obferved 1 8 Jn Anfwer to Mr* Martin 5 obferved that any of them fpeak of ^ both together, or of /at Witneffes : which looks as if it was all but ofte Text^ with its Interpretation. (I confefs Eucheriui^s Teftimony, in the next Chap, has all fx fet down there *, but to that I fhall have fome- thing to fay.) So that for ought appears, Mr. Martin\ Cloud of Witnejfes^ as he calls this huge number of ^/nV^w Bifhops ; everyone^ fays he, coming with his Bible in his Hand^ offering tts this Fajf^ge e>/5r. John to read ^ may be but a Cloud of an hand' breadth^ three or four only, without any Warrant from the publick Copies, long efta- blilhed, as it appears by others of that Country in that fame Age, from what has been already faid. The Teftimonies of Eucherim^ Cyprian^ and P^ 7* Tertullian^ are to carry on the Proof of th^ It dick Verfions having this Text % but as here is nothing new about St. Cyprian^ (to which TertvlUan is but an Appendix) lb I have already ftated the matter P^333> concerning him in my former Difcourfe, and have 6*^. accounted for what Mr. Martin here repeats ^ but betakes no notice that even Fulgentius^ whom he brings to confront Facundm^ does rather, asl have fhown, confirm his Judgment of Cyprian's words, viz.' that they are an Interpretation of the Sth Verfe ^ and for certain they are not the direft words of the jth Kerfe contended for. And yet here is all that is pretended to, from St. Jo^;?'s Time to the 5?/? Century *, for neither Creek nor Latin^ fmall nor great Writer, for fo many hundred Years, gives the leaft fhadow of a Proof, that they knew any thing of this great and remarkable Text \ perhaps the moft obvious, and adapted for their conftant occalions, of any Text in the Bible. And yet this contefted PaiTagc of St. Cyprian only, fo well accounted for, aad upon fo good Authority, muft outweigh all, Dijfertation on i John j. 7- 1 9 all, even againfl: the exprefs Tellimony and Senfe given of Sr. Cyprian\ words, by a following Bijhop of the Time Country, whom none contradid, and whofe Tellimony, if believed, is entirely dcci- five. But the Paflage Mr. Martin brings out of Ew cherit4Sj of which indeed I was not aware before, will need more Gonfidcration -^ for tho it only concerns the '$th Century^ in which I did allow that pofTibly the Words might become Text^ in fome Books,, yet it will carry it half a Century higher, than the Confejfion of the African Bi- Ihops in y^i^or Vitenjis : and, I confefs if the Paifage be genuin^^ it is more to the purpofe than any, yea than all the other Teftimonies, before or after Eucherit^^ for fome hundreds of Years : becaufe here we find both the ^th and Sri? Ferfes together^ at once to (hew us all the fix Witnejfes\ and that there was Father^ Wordy and Spirit^ befide what was faid of the Water^ Blood and Spirit -^ whereas, only Father^ Wordj and Spirit^ might have been the fame Things myftically interpreted, after the prevailing Cuf- tom of that Time. So that I cannot deny but Mr. Martin had fome ground to fay, this is deci- five, i. e, as to its being acknowledged by Euckerir^t in the ^th Century. But, The Inftance being fingular, is indeed apt to raife fufpicion about it, yet I (hall not for thaS Reafon rejed it, but (hall offer fuch other Argu- ments, as will, I think, acquit me from the Charge of being influenced by mere Partiality, in judging it to be probably an Interpolation^ added by the Tranfcriber of Eucherivj, In general, the Learned know very well, that in the Copies and Editions, efpecially, of theL^- tin Fathers, fuch Interpolations of Texts arc fre- Guentj and were thought innocent : for when C 2 the * 20 Jn Anfwer to Mr. Martin'^ theTranfcriber found a Text only referM to by his Author, he would fupply it at large, or per- haps redify it, by putting it in according to what was in his own Bible of another Age, which he thought mufl: be right. This was but natural; and I underftand this is the Cafe in a like Inftance yfi\l\\ Bede*% Comments on t\\Q SthFerfe'^ There are three that hear Record^ the Water^ Bloody and Spi' ritr for fo I am informed the Manufcripts of Bede\ Works have it, whereas in the printed Edi- tion, the Words in terra^ on Earthy are added to iTiake it agree to the current Verfions of After- Ages. So that if Eucherius had only faid. As to the Trinity St, John has [poke ft as in the Sth Verfe^ the Traofcriber finding in After-Ages the 7th Verfe alfo in his Bible, might join both, as ealily as he now would add Chapter and Ferfe : And thus an Alteration of a Text was the likelielt of all. But 'tis not enough to fay it might be fo, I (hall therefore offer my Reafons on which I judge it was fo here •, becaufe, Firfi^ It appears to be not very conflflent with Euch.de Evcherim himfelf elfewhere *, for in his Interpre- ^"^^•^i^; tation of Fer. 8. or the Water, Blood, and Spi^ ca* v! &°"^^^' ^^ declares, that mofl did by a myftical Interpret n! T.* tation vnderfiand thereby the frinity, i. e. by the Water the Father^ &c. in which he feems entire- ly to acquiefce alfo ^ which is much what St.Cy- prian had faid before, according to Facundush Teftimony. Now 1 cannot imagine how to re- concile this with Eucheriush acknowledging the Words of the 7th Verfe *, for how could any, according to common Senfe, fet therafelves, by forced myftical Interpretations, to extort from the 8th Verfe fuch an unnatural Meaning, and make the Water^ Bloody and Spirit^ to mean Father-i Word^ and Spirit-, if they had read it directly Differ tation on i John 5. 7- ^^ dired^ly in the 7th Verfe already, that there are three in Heaven^ &:c. Father^ IVord^ and Spirit f Could they make the three Witnefles on Earth to be the fame which had juft before been cal- led the WitnefTes in Heaven ? Would they make the Six to be but Three Witnefles ? and the Apo- ftle to fay the fame thing twice over ? and after the mention of them by their proper Names, to mention 'em by ?w)/y?*c^/ Charaders, i.e. to fpeak of 'em darkly and enigmatically, after he had fpoken of 'em plainly ? One would think it not credible that Men (hould ufe fo much Force and Straining to fearch for the Trinity in the dark, if they had found it lie plainly before 'em, fo clofe and near to them. Secondly^ It appears that this Treatife of Euche^ rim de formuUs Spirit. &c, in particular was ia very great Diforder, and it feems the Copies were not alike ^ for Joannes Alexander Brajficanus^ in his Prefatory Epiftle, tells us, as I find it in the Bihliotheca Patrum^ that he took a great deal of pains, unto Wearinefs, in repurgandis & rcftituen^ dis^ &c. in leaving out and adding many things : id quod deerat adjecimus^ fays he. So that all things confidered, it is not improbable that this Pafl^age may be one of thofe Additions. To which I may fubjoin. Thirdly^ That this Text was not necefliary to his Defign, which (tho I will not fay he keeps ftridtly to it) was to infifl: upon myfiical Inter- pretations, like the Jewijh Cabala, under the fe- veral Numbers one, two, three, &c. which the ^th Verfe did ferve him in. This appears in the Title of this Chapter, which is, ^ Of Num- * De nu- hers whofe Significations are allegoric ally explained : meris quo- whereas the 7th Verfe was not fubjec^ tcj iuch a rum figni- fecret figurative Interpretation. And according- f^^i'i^^^Q^i, ly in the beginning of his Work, he prays God trahuwurl C 3 to Jn Jnfwer to Mr. Martini to reveal the fecret abftrufe Senfe of the Scrip- tures, that he might produce what was their fecret Meaning. However, I fubmit thefe Rea- fons to the Judgment of the Impartial, who, 1 think, will not wholly defpife 'em all : But flill it muft be remember'd, that if by any they be not thought fufficient to take off the Authori- ty of thisTeftimony, yet as 'tis the firft clear mention of this Text hj any Chn fit arj V^rit^r^ fo it was not till a good way in the 5?^ Century. And now there is nothing remains to be confi- dered, but what Evidence there is to be found from the Greek Manufcripts of the N. T. to au- thorise this Text : for it fignifies little that the jnodQxn Latin or Cr^f^ Churches have admitted it, unlefs they had Authority from the Greek Original for fo doings and therefore this Ar- ticle of the Greek Manufcrips is of greateft Im- portance in the Cafe. Mr. Martin in his 8th Chapter undertakes to fliew that this Text was found in the Greek Manu* fcrlpts of thefe lalt Ages, and fays i^o many thing? with fuch undaunted Confidence, and pofitive AiTurance (which a wife and cautious Man would not fay, unlefs he knew 'em to be true) that if it be found he has faid 'em without Truth and Evidence^ I think it will not gain his Work any Credit ia the end, tho it may ftagger the unlear- ned Reader at firll. He begins with a fine popular Huravgue upon the old Story of its having been in the original 6'rf^^ of St. Job f7, and thence paf- fed into xMtltdickVerfion^ and fo into St. Jeromes Mible^ and thtncQ into Char I e mat fih'^ for he fays, V/e mvft not doubt but the learned Men he employed in correcting the Bible^ had Greek Manufcrifts to ^ Oremus Deum ut revelet abfcondita Scriptuiarum, &: profe- rajnus quoaiodo fecretiora intelledu fentiendum fit. ■ ' con" J)iffertation on i John 5, 7. 23 eonfult. And indeed if we muft not doubt their having fuch Manufcripts^ nor that they exactly correded the L^itin by 'em in every Place that dif- fer'd, nor that they really put l\\hText in their Bibles, then the Work is done if we may doubt nothing-, but Mr. M^irtin knows thefe things are doubted, yea, and that fome^ or alloi them, are denyd^ and ftrongly o/jpo/f^ * and 'tis trifling, on no better grounds, to tell us we muft not doubt the principal Matters in debate. Next he argues from F. Simons faying, Tlois Taffage is in very few Greek Copies^ that therefore he grants it was in many \ which is no true Inference at all, becaufe Mr. Af^mw, but a few Pages after, cites him for faying the Text was not in any one Greek Manufcript ^ which he calls contradifiing .himfelf formally J and retraSling^ &c. but very ua- reafonably : for F. Simon having feen many Ma- nufcripts in which this Text was wanting, but not all that might be feen, might well pronounce . hereupon, that it was not in the greateft Part of W, and that it c^tainly was but in few^ tho he never intended hereby to fay it was in any. And when he had fearched more throughly, he then ventured to fay it was not in any one\ and therefore thofe vain Triumphs^ not to fay Infults, on that celebrated Scholar^ might have been better fpared than utter'd upon fo (lender, or rather no true Occafion. And if Mr. Martin were not willing to catch hold of any thing, he would ne- ver have made an Argument of fuch a poor pre- tended ConcelTionof F^Simon^ which he knew he difowned, or reftify'd. And now he comes to Particulars, i . He tells us, Laurentitu Falla^ in the i 5th Century, recovered f^ven Greek Manufcripts ^nd this Pajfage of Sr» John is found in all feven j and he thinks it is hard if none of them was then four or five hundred Tears C 4 old: 24 '^'^ Jnftver to Mr. Martin'^ cld : but however he is fo modeft, as to let 'em be but three or four hundred Tears. And yet after all this f articular Account, given without mincing, or hefitating about it, I dare fay this Gentleman knows nothing of the Matter, but fpeaks all up- on Fancy and Guefs. If perhaps you imagine he has got i. y's Mmufcri^ts in his poffeflion, or at leaft, that he has feen 'em fully ^ he tells you no, not he, nor qny Man elfe that he knows of, has ChAp. II. either feen VaWd^s Manufcripts^ or knows what is be- come of ^ em* Is not this a pretty Account ? Dr. Pi-oleg. Jl/fill fays he had only three Greek Manufcripts, iJ« ic85. jyj[j.^ Martin fays feven. Erafmus fays, How Valla found or read fthis Place in St. John) does not fully appear *, Mr. Martin fays roundly, this Text was in all the feven \ and yet does not know any Author who fays he ever faw thefe ManufcriptSy nor pro- duces any Words of ralWs own, to prove that he faw this Text in them. Kext comes Cardinal Cajetan^ and what fays he ^0 the Point ? Truly no more but that he doubted "whether this Verfe were in the Text *, becaufe, fays he, 'tis not in all the Greek Manufcripts, but only in fame '^ whence the Difference arifes^ 1 know not. This is much what F. Simon had faid, as 1 have ob- ferved before ^ he might not fee the Words in any Manufcripty but at that time never queftioned but they were in fome. Then for the Complutenfian Editors, Mr. Mar- tin fays boldly, that they put this Text in upon the warrant of one or rjjore Manufcripts (he can't tell which) and yet takes no notice of the Evi- dence given to the contrary in my former Tra^^ that they had it not where it was prefumed and pretended they had it. As for the Codex Britmnicus^ by which alone Erafmus ^diS influenced to put tht IVords into his ^hird Edition ^ if Erafmus never fays he faw it, what 'Dijfertation on \ John 5. 7. 2 j what (igniiies it to mention It- Simons faying it ? And therefore 'twas very unfair and unjuft to in- linuate that 1 had called in queftion the Veracity ofru^r, j, this learned Man^ two hundred Tears after his Deaths when I never once fufpeded his Teftimony ia the lealt, and only faid that I never found he gave any fach Teftimony. And is his Credit at- tainted,by not believing any groundlefs Story that others tell of him ? Cannot he be thought an honeft Man,if all that they fay of him fhould not be true ? Had that great Man, who was the Wonder and Glory of his Age, and who laid the Foundations for Af- ter-Ages to build upon, faid fuch a Word as that he had feen itj I had eafily relied upon his Since- rity ^ who, I conceive, was too great to ufe fuch FaKhood and Deceit. Indeed Mr. Martin thinks it enough to fay, *Tis not our Concern now to inquire what is become of this Manufcript^ or if any others have feen it be fides Erafmus and that this Method will introduce a new fort of Scepticifm in Matters of Learning, But with his leave, I think it docs concern us greatly to know whether fuch a Manufcript be in being ftill, which was too remarkable to be loft in Ob- fcurity, if it had once been taken notice of ^ and whether any one elfe ever faw it, fince 'tis contef- ted fo much whether t^^v Erafmtu faw it, ; or pre- tended to it. And I dare fay, fuch a pre fuming Credulity as Mr. Martin propounds for the Cure of Scepticifm, which would hinder a fevere Exami- nation into FaEls^ would do, and has done, the World far more harm than fuch Scepticifm it- felf j and the longer Men go on to take things fo on truft, the more grievous will the Scepticifm be at laft. Stephens^ Manufcripts are next in tale ^ but on what miftaken Grounds, will be further feen in the Review of the next Chapter. Ia 26 An Jnjtvcr to Mr. MarcinV In the Year i 574, fays he, the Louvain "Divines in a Preface to their L^f/« Bible, fay they had feen this Paflage of St. John^ in many other Greek Maniifcrifts^ as Stephens had in his. As for Ste- fhensh Manufcripts, 'tis plain they only prefumed it from what appeared in his printed Edition*, but as to what they fay themfelves faw, I think Mr. Mim« is miftaken in interpreting it of any Greek Manufcripts : I fhall fet down their own Words, in which he has left out one material Sentence, which was both in the Latin^ and in V^SimorPsTranflation^ (with what Defign he beft knows :) fpeaking oijeromh Prologue^ "^ This^ fay they, confirms the reading of the Text, which is likervife fupported hy very many LMn Copies ^ agreea' ble to which Erafmus cites tws Greek Copies^ one of Britain, the other of Spain *, to that of Spain the Kmg^.s Bible is both in all other Places and in this conformable : (this lafl: Sentence Mr. Martin has omitted) we have feen many others which agree to tbefe. Now the word Thefe rather refers to the three laft Copies, one whereof, viz.. the King^s Bi- Printed at /,/f^ yvas a printed Copy, which fhews that they Antwerp, fp^^}^ Qf '^j^y Qopjes promifcuoufly ^ or it may re- *^^^' iate to the Latin Copies firft mentioned. But why fhould Mr. Martin pick out the middle Sentence only for the reference of thefe Words ? and by an unfair OmifTion reprefent it to his Reader as if ic were \.\i^* immediate Sentence before thefe Words of Reference, tout £ une fuite^ O'c ? He fays they are fpeaking of Greek Manufcripts of England^ &c. but are they not fpeaking alfo of ^ Qiiod pro textus k^clione facit, 6c Latinomm libromm plu- rimi fuftiMgantur, quibus confentientes duos GrsEcos codices, u- num Biitannicum, alterimi Hlfpaniciim, Erafmus profert ; Hifpa- hico ut ubique & hie conformis eft Regius ; multQS alios his con- fonantes vidiiTius. hf^tin Dtffertatton on \ John 5. 7] ^T, X4f/« Copies, and of King PM/pV printed Bible .? and perhaps Stephens^ Manufcripts, which they inftance in immediately after, may be feme of the many which they f aw did fo agree to the other. But their own Account of them (hews how they faw 'em, viZ' as they were mark'd in the praff^ Copy only ^ and therefore they make fome doubt whe- ther he had placed his Marks right according to his AUnufcripts *, nay 'tis plain that even the Copy of Spaifi^ which ErafntHs cites, -{- was only the Comflutenfian Edition^ and is what thefe Divines, I think, do intend here -, and not a Manufcript^ as Mr. Martin turns it. But I have now before me the New Teftament,' of thefe Louvain Divines, by Planting Amwerfiaz 1584. with the 4ame Approbation of Molanpu annex'd as in the other Edition*, and in their Ivlotes on this Text^ their Words are fomething different, ^ viz. This confirms the reading of the Texty whereto agrees the Greek Complutenfian Edition^ ani what are taken from thence^ with many others which fve have fe en. And then follow the Words about Stephen^h Manufcripts^^s in the Other, but 'tis under the Title of the Parifian Copies. Now this,' which feems to be upon their fecond Thoughts, puts it out of doubt that they fpake . only of feeing feveral printed Editions of the Greek Copies befides that of Complutum^ but no Greek Manw fcript. And I think 'tis not againft common Senfe, as Mr. Martin pretends, to under ftand even the former Account fo, if 1 had not had this \ Eraf, in locum, Perlata eft ad nos editio Hifpanlenfis, Again^ Exemplar, ex eadem, ni fallor, Bibliotheca (Vaticana) petitum, fecuti funt Hifpani, * Quod pro textus leclione facit, cui Grxca Complutenfis E- ditio, ^ quae ex ea funt, cutn aliis quas vidimus non paucis, con- fonant. Inter omnes Parifienfium ne unus eft qui diifideat^ 6cc. 'j- Utter 8 "jn AnfxvcY to Mr. Martin'^ latter^ which makes it more plainly appear. So then hitherto no one is proved to have feen any ofje Greek Manufcrift for this Text, His next Evidence he calls, is F. Ameloty who, in his Note on this Text, fays, Erafmm faid it was wanting in one Greek Manufcript of the Fatican^ but I find it in the moft antient Manuscript of that . Library. Whether he found it by his own Search, or others Information, thefe Words do not fully determine. Nor does Erafmm only fay it was wanting in one Manufcript of the Vatican^ but in a mofi anti(nt Manufcript^ which he calls Codex per^ *vetuflm & Liber antiquijfimm : and fince we are well afTur'd^/;^ Text is wanting in the famous mofi antient Vatican Manufcript, by the conceflion of Dr. Mill^ and I think of all that have inqjjir'd into it, and particularly by -Caryophilvu \ and that upon a ftrid Search made by the Criticks, whom Fo^QVrban^ the 8 th employ 'd about it j Mr. Ameloth flightj^ Teftimony that it was in the mofi antient Manu*, fcript there, cannot be condftent with their more^ accurate and creditfle Witnefs. Indeed Mr. Du^ Tin fays Amelot was not very ^ exad \ and Father*, Simon upon feveral Occafions (hews how vainly her ufes to talk, f Father AmeUt^ fays he, does not feem to be fincerei^ when he fpeaks of his fearchingf cut of Manufcript s ^ and that he fpeaks of Manwl fcripts which were never extant but in his own Ima^l gination: and as to his having carefully fearche(t\ the Vatican Manufcripts, he fays, he cou*d not afjirni'' it J fince he produces no 'variom readings but fuch as are in print '^ and that he never faw, but in print, what he call'd feeing the Manufcripts. So that I think" we may fet this Witnefs afide. * Hlfl, o/Ganon of O. and N. Teft. Vol. 2. ch. 3. §. I- f Crit. HiJi.ofY^i^. of N, T, Ch. 32, and 33. His Tiijfertation on t John 5. 7. i§ His lafl: is a fort of Ear-Witnefs rather, viz. ^tis faid there is alfo one (Manufcript) at Berlin in the Kinfs Library^ that is believed to be 500 Tears old. Father Long reports it on the Tefiimony ^/Sau- bertus and Tollius *, and Dr. Kettner^ on a Letter that he fays he received of it from M. Jablonski, &c* But Mr. Martin^ who makes the moft of every thing, does not quite venture to fay, that this Text is reported to be in that Manufcrift^ [tbo his Tranflator makes him fay fo ^ of which 1 will not take any advantage, becaufe I think he has done his Author fome wrong] but it has the face of fuch an artful Infinuation. Father Long fays only there is a Manufcript^ and refers to Saubert (whom I have not feen) and T*?////^, whom I have confulted ^ and \\c only tells us what fort of Book it is, viz.. written in great Letters, Literis un- cialibti4^ and without Accents, &c. but fays not one word of this Text in St. John : and if M. Jablonshh Letter has faid no more than thefe, what is this Manufcript mention'd for ? If there be a Manufcript at Berlin that wants this Verfe^ does this prove the Text to be genuine ? Or if Mr. Martin means, that we don't yet know what is in that Manufcript^ is that an Argument for us to conclude, that it is in it, contrary to all the other Greek Manufcripts that we know of ia the World ? Surely the Prefumption lies on the other fide j and this Gentleman cou'd fo eafily have gain'd Satisfadion from Berlin in this Point, that I fufped he was fearful there was no fuch Ferfe in this Manufcript ^ Or elfe he wou'd have come abroad well fortify'd with fuch an Authority : and if fo, 'twas not ingenuous to make fuch a deceitful Flourilh in fo ferioas an Argument. But if indeed it has the Text^ and we can be allured how the Cafe Hands upon that Manufcript, it will then deferve good Confideration, and be of JO An ^nfwer to Mr. Martin'^ of more weight than all the reft that he has ofFer'd : Till then, 'tis amufing the World with random Conjectures, and unfair Infinuations^ to tell 'em, they fay fome-body has written to fome-body, that there is a Greek Manufcrift which has in it we cannot tell what. But (ince my writing what relates to the Berlin Manufcrip^ I have receiv'd Information from a very fare Hand, that this Verfe is not in the Body of that Manufcript, but that it has been fince in- ferted in the Margin^ and the Manufcript is not above 300 Tears old neither. If Mr. Martin had known this, and conceal'd it ^ nay, if he could jtill not only inlinuate this Manufcrift to be in confirmation of his Argument, when it was di- redtly againft it ^ but alfo cou'd even venture to add this vain Triumph immediately upon it, We fee here Manufcrifts more than fuffcient to convince usy &c. (when yet he was driven to fuch hard Shifts, of pretending a falfe Authority to make out but one fuch Manufcrip .•) I fay, if he had known this,I (hou'd think it fuch an Imputation on his Sincerity in writing, that I cou'd not tell how to reconcile it to what he had faid at the Entrance of his Dijfertationj viz.- that he had learned from the Book of Job ^ 1 3* ?• That wefhould not talk deceit- fully for God. And if he did not know it,which I'll fuppofe, his offering it to the World at all adven- tures, with fuch an Airof Boafting, is nothing to the Reputation of his Difcretion ^ and will, I hope, convince him how unfit fuch a prefuming confident Imagination is, to be brought into an Inquiry of this nature. However, if he be ftill burdened with a fuperfluity of good Greek Ma* , nufcrifts^ having this Text^ I conceive they will all be taken off his Hands, and not one lefc him to turn to« And Dijfertation on i John 5. 7. fi And now upon a Survey of all hitherto faid, it appears that Mr. Martin has fcraped together all the things little and great, that he cou'd think of, that fo he might make a huge Heap and pom- pous Show of Numbers ^ and then with a popular Flourifli retails 'em out fingly, firft by thQ Names of the Authors who were mention'd about 'em ; F'allaj XimeneSy Erafmus^ Stephens^ and many other learned Men have feen ''em: then by their place, fome in France, fame in Spain, fome in England, and fome in the Netherlands : and after all this, fays he. Shall the Text not have been in the Greek M^nufcrips fti/U And he has the Courage to fay whati thinkisoneof theftrangeft things to befaid with fo great Aflurance, viz. IVe fee here^ fays he, more Manufcripts than there is need of^ to con^ vince la that this Text is not found only in a very few Manufcripts, nor only in fuch as are more mo- dern^ as Father Simon wou*d make m believe. What ! more than is needful ? and yet after all, not one ? How eafily are fome Men fatisfy'd ! In the laft place, we are come in his 9th Chap. to' Stephens^ Manufcripts, It has been (hown, that of all his fixteen Manufcripts^ (for fo many Dr. Mill had allowed befides the Complutenfian Copy, Troleg, ^^ ii7<^.) only feven had St. Johns Epifile'j and that all thefe are found to want this Ferfe^ tho, by miftake, Stephens^s Greek Edition has marked only the words, in Heazen^ l¥ Tti i^vo>^ to be wanting. Mr. Martin being fen- fible this preffes very hard, pretends to fet this Matter in a clearer Light than ever ^ and' un- dertakes to fliew that more than feven of Ste- phens^s Manufcripts had this Epifile^ and confe- quently had this Verfe^ for certainly they are not among thofe feven which are marked as wanting it. And he is forry to find that Mr. Roger ^Do^ov of Divinity at Bourges^ and writing in defence too 3 ^ An Anfwer to Mr. Martin'^ too of the Text, has, after his flrid Examina- tion of Stefhensh G'rf^^Teltament (in which his Manufcripts are referred to) declared that he can find but [even belonging to this Epfile ^ and that not one of Stephens'/ Manufcripts had this Verfe ^ tho, fays Mr. Martin^ they have always been accounted a Bulwark thereof: and, he fays, Mr. Roger has not computed aright. But 1 am amazed to fee how weakly Mr. Mar- tin goes about the Proof of this great Difcovery ^ he mentions three more Manufcripts of Stephens^ as having this Epillle of St. John^ not before obferved \ thefe are marked //. /g. /r. i. e, 14. 15, 16. and he proceeds ftill upon his accuftomed Topick of Prefumption: becaufe, forfooth, all theEpiftles oftheiVo Leaves, in which was a part MillilPro-; of Ms Joth Chap, and the firft Chap, of the 2d l«g- N^-. Epiftle of Peter. One might hope fuch a great ^^It* Difappointment as this fhou'd take us off from „ ^5* prefuming and fancying, wheref^^/liefo crofs in the way. He brings Beza^ as one well acquainted, he thinks, with the matter, to confirm this Point, viz. That more than thofe noted feven Manufiripts of Stephens had St. Johns Epiftle in 'em, andcon- fequently this Verfe ^ becaufe he fays, this Verfe is in the Manufcripts of England and in fome of Stephens'^ antient Manufcripts. Yet I do not think it appears by all that Mr. Martin fays, but that Bez^a intended it of thofe aforefaid fe- ven Manuscripts^ which he, as well as others, ima- gined by ^r^pfofwi's Marks to have all but the words in Heaven '^ vfhich fmall Defeft might yet ' not hinder him from faying in general Terms, the Ferfe was there : And tho after he had faid ^^s Verfe is in fome of Stephens^s antient Manufcrifjs, he adds that the Words, in Heaven, are wanting in fcven Manufcripts j it does not follow that he diftinguiflies thefe feven from the fome Manu- fcripts before, but only that he expreffes the number of Manufcripts determinately, which be- fore he had exprelTed indefinitely and uncertainly : And what wonder is it, tho he did not exprefs himfelf fo accurately in a Matter he might be in fome Confufion about ? But fuppofing Bez.a did, as perhaps he raighf, imagine that fome other Manufcripts of Stephens ha'd this Verfe ^ this has been long thour^ht by o- thers, thro miftake, and why might aoc he mif- take as well as others? D For 34 ^^ Anftver to Mr. MartiW For tho Mr. Martin reprefents Bez.4^ as having feen all Stephens'/ Manufcripts^ and compared ^em^ and that they were in his hands^ &c. and thence in- fers from Bez.a% Words, that the whole Verfe was in fome of 'em *, and afterwards argues, that in the refi of them only the %v ti^ v^.v(»^ in Heaven^ was waitings and that Stephens*^ Marks were not wrong plac'd •, becaufe Bez.a^ who would have obferv'dit, if he had found the contrary to either of thefe things, appears to confirm it all : yet I apprehend the very Foundation of his whole Argument is but a miftaken Prefumption j for it no way appears that ever BeTia had ihil fere in his rebus viderit, vir alias eruditus 5c perfpicax. Dijfertation on \ John y. 7. 3J ly he treated of it^ he did hut Jljew how little or m* thing in a manner he faw into thofe Matters^ tho o^ therwife a learned andfagaciom Aian, How Mori' nus alfo blames him, may be feen in Dr. StilUngfleet on the Trinity y p. 159, &c. But there need no more Words about it, the Matter is determined before^ for if, as is al- ready proved, Stephens had not one Manufcript, of St. John^s Epiftle more than the feven which he had marked in the Margin, then to what pur- pofe does Mr. Martin make ado to force the con- trary out of Bez^ah Words ? viz^. that his fome Manufcripts were not of thofe fevenj i*e, were none of all he had. So that here is no News from Bez,a^ of any one Greek Manufcript which has all the Verfe \ for thefe feven^ he owns, want fome Words. And XqiMw Martin hold to it ever fo tenacioufly, or reafon ever fo finely upon it, 'tis either Bez^a fpeaks wrong, or himfelf by mifta- king him, argues fo, (ince'tis againft plain Fad. And therefore I judge Bez.a% Words can do hitn but very little fervice, in his loth Chapter, to juf- tify the Marks of Ste^hens\ Edition being rightly placed i it being what he probably never exami- ned into*, and Stephens himfelf might not have it fuggefted to him. It has already been faid and manifefted, that there is Proof of this Miftake ia thofe Marks^ from ocular Infpedion into feveral of thofe Greek Manufcnpts which are found to want the whole Verfe ^ but not one that wants only the Words in Heaven^ as the Semicircle is put in Stephens*s printed Edition. This Mr. Mar- See Full In: tin ought to have taken notice of, and then he q"'7* would have blufh'd to fay, in the Gonclufion of his Book, that his Oppofers aUedge nothing hut Reafo- nings without Proofs but that he efiahlifjes Fa^s -up^ on Teftimony \ and, that his Adverfaries argue from the Text's not being in the Vatican nor A- D 2 lexandrian 36 An Anfwer to Mr. Martini lexandrianManufcrifts^ that therefore it was in none ofSffpfcf^j's.. No Sir, we argue, that becaufe 'tis not now round, nor any Rafure pretended, in any Ma» nufcripts, even not in thofe which Stephens had, that therefore it was not there formerly, and that the Semicircle was mifplaced : So that on our fide is the Proof from FaEl^ on yours from Reafonings againft it •, while you bring not one Manufcript in proof, nor one Witnefs that fays he faw fuch a one upon his own immediate Search. And I would know what made the Louvain Di- vines make the Doubt long. Whether the Semi- circle were in its due Place ? Surely they had fome reafon for fuch a particular Sufpicion. So that I think the Bufinefs of Stephens^ Manufcripts ftands as I put it before, and Mr. Martin has found no Evidence of any one Greek Manufcript here, which yet is his Ufl and chief Refuge ^ for as to his Codex Britamicus^ I think there needs no more be faid to it, than that Erafmm either never faw it, or however judged it to be corrupt- ed in this Place by fome modern Interpolation* Not is that any infuper able Difficulty which Mr. \Martin pretends, faying, that Stephens (hould at once have faid in the Margin^ hiAo-i^ &c. i.e. it was wanting in allj rather than faid, 'tis not in this, .'nor this, nor this, and fo of all the fevenManufcripts, if he had no more. Perhaps indeed that had been the (horter way ^ but who knows the Reafons of Mens Fancies, or why they chufe this or that way of expreiTing themfelves, when they are at their own liberty? Perhaps when Stephens hw moft of the Verfe in the Complutenfian Edition, and in that of Erafrnus^ he was loth bluntly to fay fo harihathing, as that he could find it in no Ma- nufcript, and fo might chufe to fay it more foftly, viz.. not in fuch and fuch: Ajid tho thefe indeed were all he had, yet this was not fo obvious to Dtffertation on i John 5. ^. 37; to be obrervedjby many, as the other had been, and therefore was lefsofrenfive. But it may be asked, whence then did Stephens take thefe Words^ fince he did put 'em into his Text ? Kef, 'Tis enough that we can anfwer in the Negative upon good Authority, that he bad 'em not from any of his Gree\ Manufcri^ts^ and then 'tis no great matter where elfe he found 'em. Probably he took 'em, as he did the Words cjf TzSi^c^va^ from the Comflutenpan Edition \ only the latter part of the Verfe not being fo agreeable to the Latin Bibles, as 'twas in Erafmniy from his fuppofed Britijl: Greek Manufcript, he might pre- fer the reading of this latter, and take lut h t?«^ ii' «w, rather than the U Tf«$e/? td hiiai* Kor is it any fuch puzding Qyefiion as Mr. Adar- tin fancies, viz,. Why did Stephens obferve that ch. 10. the Complutenfian Edition hadlnToht i. e, agree in one^ as peculiar to it^ if the whole Verfe was fo, f I anfwer, none can fay the whole was peculiar to it, when the fuppofed Britijh Manufcript, and £- rafmm's Edition aifo had the reft of the Verfe \ and therefore this Part only was peculiar, and fo was fit to be obferved. Mr. Martin in Chap. 11. is fo over-critical in marking the Differences of the Codex Britannicus, and the Creek of the Council of Lateran^ that he obferves one confiderahle Difference to be «7b/ and T»7T/, when a very little Knowledge of tht Greek would fugged; that it was only an Erratum-^ pro- bably the Mark over the aTo/,5 a Circumflex with an Afpirate^ was placed fo as to be taken for a tau^ and a part of the Word. I cannot but remark one thing more in Mr. Martin % I ith Chapter: He tells us, The Complu- tenfian Edition does not teafhy as do all the others^ the Vnity of Ejfence in the three Perfons^ hut theVnity of their Tejlimony, But then 1 ask him and others, D 3 what ^8 ^ Jn Jn/werto Mr. Martin'^ what they mean by fo often vouching this Au- thority ? If we grant ^em this^ then they will g^la a Text which does wor teach the Vnity of Ef- fence in the three Terfons^ but the contrary ^ and theriperhapsthey will throw it up again, and be as angry that we receive it, as they were before that we rejeded it. Let 'em tell us whether they think we fhou'd or (hou'd not admit it,or elfe let 'em never more urge us with the Com^lutenfian Copy. The two Teftimonies which Mr. Martin touches on in his 1 2th Chapter are amongft the fuppofi* titious Works afcribed to Athanafm, The firfty taken from the Synoffis Serif t. has been obferved to be no plain Evidence of any regard to this Text^ let the Author be who it will j and for the cfW. Author, Mx, Martin ^QQ^ not know but he was a Latin^ tho he thinks he poflibly might be a Cree\ : but of the 5th or 6th Century however^ which is not worth llriving about; finceitcan come but to this, that among the Multitude of Creek Writers, one, who poflibly might be Greeks feems to have fome relation to fuch a Text^ but all the reft are filent ^ and yet his Words ^i y^ will agree to the 8th ferfe^ by omitting C«0, as much as to the 7th by adding the Cta): fo that thisAnfwer will remain good againft all he has faid about the difference of the Latin and the Greeh His 13th C/;^prfr tells us, that f/7/i r'^r/^ is made life of in the Greek Churchy in her Confejfion of Faith^ Ritual^ and Leffons ^ which may eafily be, and yn be bat of late Date, if he cou'd fhew" us they had tt in their Offices in the Primitive Ages, 't'vere to the purpofe; but to fay any of their Offi^cs^ which from Age to Age have been fubjed to variations or additions, have it now, is to fay nothing: And to argue, that if they took it into the fuhlick Leffon^ (which is an antient part of the OiEcej it tnufi be becaufe they knew it^ was Dijferutm on \ John 5. 7- 39 an omijfion^ and that it ought to he added '^ is juft the fame as to fay, whoever put it into the Bible, or any Greek Edition of the Kew Teftament, (which New 1 eftament is certainly a very old Book) did it becaufe they knew it was a defed, and that it ought to be added *, which they cou'd not have thought, if the Words had not been ia their Greek Bibles before, i. e. that it cou'd never have come in at all, if not at the firft Penning of St. John's Efifile. Which is a pretty fhort Ar- gument, but there needs no great Guard againfb Its Force, by them who believe an Addition or Alteration to be no impoffible thing. Let Mr. Martin prove this^ and he will carry his Point indeed, by Reafon^ which he feems not fo likely to do, by Evidence of Fa^» 1 come now to confider briefly his Evafions of the Arguments againft this ^exty which he calls Objedions, in his Second Party viz. 1 . The Greek Manufcripts have not M Text •, ^^^ ^^ but then, Y^^sh^^ they want fome other Texts alfo^ "vhkh yet are Genuine, Refp. Some Manufcripts may want one Text, and others another *, but is there one Text of good Authority which they a/i want ? for fo the Cafe is here. 2. The Councils of Nice and Sardica mention it ^|^^ j. not : bat it w^as, fays he, Chap. 2. becaufe they had no com efl about the Trinity^ but only the Deity of the Son, Refp, Very good ! But was not this Text as much to the purpofe for the Son^s Deity, as for the Holy Spirit^Sy or as for the Deity of all the three Perfons ? Is not the Son one of the Trinity ? and wou'd not a Text that (hou'd be thought to prove Father y Sony and Spirit to be one God, prove as ftrongly, that the Father and Son are one ? Was it not on all fuch occafions as good a Proof as that Text, / and my Father are one / 4- 3- The ){0 'An Anfwer to Mr. MartinV 3. The Greek Fathers did not mention it ; but yet it might:, he thinks, have been in fome other, of their Writings., which are loft ^ as the Text of hap* fizzing in the Name of the Fat her ^ the Son, and the Spirit (and fome others) is not vfed by- ^em in Ch '^. y^'^^ Treatifes where it was proper. Refp, What * ^* is this to our Cafe, where the Words are not omitted in one part, and found in another, or by one Writer, but found in other Greek Writers of his Age *, but are omitted in all the genuine Works of all the Greek Writers of fo many Hundred Years that have remained ? 'Tis a hard Prefumption indeed to imagine it fhou'd be in a great many lolt Writings, and not preferved in. one of the many we have, to which they were fo pertinent. As for the Latin Writers, they are: accounted for in my Inquiry. 4. The Fathers who mention the 8th Ferfe^ Ch. 4. ^^^ y^^ "^^ ^^^ 7^^^' ^^y^ ^^» ^^^ °^h ^^^^^ fion for the one , and the other was not proper to their purpofe. Ref It might indeed happen fo in fome Inftances, but not in all. Not in Cyril^ who had plainly more occa (Ion for the 7th Ferfe than for the 8th, in order to prove the Holy Spirit God., or to have the Name of God. I appeal to any Man, if the 7th Ferfe be not more likely to anfwer that purpofe than theWater, Blood, arid Spirit, &c. Not in Avguftin, for he diredly want- ed fuch a Text to prove his point, viz. That where Two or more are faid in Scripture to be One, they are not different, hut the fame thing', nothing cou'd j^ have hit his Fancy better, if it had been knowa t to him. Kot in F^cMw^wj furely, who urged the 8th Fer, for proof of the Trinity, but not the 7th. Mr. Martin fays, he ought to have ftuck to this lafi. But 'tis certain he did not ^ and for what rea- fon but this, that he knew not of any fuch Text ? And alfo that the ^/nV^« Biftiops, by ufing the 4. Tefti. Differtntion on i John 5.7. 41 Teftimony of St. John for the Father^ Word^ and Spirit's being one, intended it only, as he exprefly fays St. Cyprian did intend it, of the myftical In- terpretation of the 8th rerfe. So that this Ex- cufe will not do. Befides, had they never any occalion for the 7th Ferfe f Cou'd they find no opportunity for bring- ing in this, one of the moft excellent Tajfages of tht whole Scripture^ as Mr. Martin calls it, before he has proved it to be any part at all ? Where arc tbefe Inftances? What, not once in all St. Au- ^ufiineh ten large Tomes I Again, had not fuch a Commentator on St. John\ Epftle^ as Bede^ (the moft learned Man perhaps in the 8th Cen- turyj the fame occafion for the 7th />^fr/*^, viz.. to comment upon it, if it had lain in his way as the other did ? Which was all the Occafion he wanted, that I know of. Therefore Mr. i^^m» adds in his '^xhChap. 5. Commentators havq always been at liberty to ex" found only what Faffages they pleased* Refp. True, they are fo, for none can compel 'em ^ but I think Men are not wont to ufe their Liberty in this manner without fome Reafon, and againft Reafon, and the World's Expedation^ or without fomc Apology for it,efpecially in fo remarkable a Text. Oecumenitu had no reafon to omit it, and Bede as little. Chryfoftom indeed might omit or pafs over one Sentence that was eafy and plain, or of fmaller importance, or that often occurr'd, or the like; and fo another might do by others : But how- comes it that both Oecumenim and Bede fliou'd agree to omit this fame Text fo very remarkable? Or is there one old Commentator that ever did obferve the Words ? But Mr. Martin objeds, Oecumenim and Bede knew it to he a Text received by fome \ and fo had as much reafon to fay fomething to it, tho they had 42 An J^nfwer to Mr. Martin'^ had not own'd it, and yet are quite fiient,againn: all reafoa that we can give. Refp. This is pre- fuming what is not granted ; for Oecumemm be- ing a Greek Writer, cou'd probably have no manner of occafion to fpeak of it : forafmuch as this Paflage does not appear to have been in one Greek Manufcript of the New Teftament to his time, nor mention'd by one genuine and known Greek Writer, what Reafon cou'd he have to fay any thing about a Matter that had never been in being ? Surely it mull have been by a ^ Spirit of Prophecy ^ for Mr. Martin has not (hewn : it was in 5r.John'j Epiftle in Oecumenius'j time^ he has only p/^ it^ and it had been ftrange if he had mark'd a Text which he had never feen. As for Bede^ the Words might begin perhaps to be taken into fome private Latin Copies before his time, in Africa or other remote places •, yet probably he had never feen or known it : and not having it in his Latin, nor in the Greek Copies, what reafon had he to take notice of it ? Mr. i Martin makes a vain Suppofition, that Bede found bis Latin Copy had if, and that if his Greek wanted it, he fhou'd not have failed to take no- tice of it ; whereas no fuch thing appears, but rather both wanted it. As for Bedeh knowing that Cyprian^ FiBor Fit. and Fulgentius had cited thefe Words^ this is but a precarious Suppofition neither ^ for if this was judged to be only their myftical Interpretation of the 8th Ferfe^ then Bede had nothing to fay of itv as of another Text by it felf. And indeed, if he had known the Words of St. Cyprian^ and of the African Bifhops, &c. (which yet does not appear) and had taken 'enl to refer to a direEi Text m St. John^ yet if he knew of no fuch Text^ how cou'd he tell where to infert it ? Or where to take notice of it? whe- Dijfertation on i John 5. 7. j v whether in St. Johns Go/pel ot EptftU ? Therefore it were no wonder he ihou'd not mention fach a loofe uncertain Matter in St.Cypriaft. But it had been ftrange indeed, if finding the Text in his Bible, he ftiou'd omit to comment on that in courfe, wher\ yet he commented on the relt round about it, before and behind. So that I think thcfe Apologies and Exrcufes arc too thin and weak to pafs in the World : but the belt of it is, the Fathers need 'em not, in my Opinion •, becaufe they had a much more fubftan- tial Reafon for not mentioning f/;efigu of giving a quite different Character to a certain ^reacher^ again ft whom he bitterly complains : For the Obligation I owe Mr. Em-, lyn for the favourable Opinion he has of my manner of Writings is highly abated by the Judgment he has pafs'd upon the T>2fpofition of my Hearty in refpe^ to the Tajfages of ho- ly Scripture^ wherein I had faid we might find fitfficient Troof of the Trinity^ tho' the Text of the three JVitncffes in Heaven was want- ing ; which yet, fays he ^ [peaking ofme^ I ap- prehend he has lome Diftruft of. If his Ap- prehenfion proceeds from the Inter eft he has iti this Affair-i from an Orthodox Zeal for the T>o&rine of the Trinity, and an Opinion of my want of Capacity to defend the Truth of that heavenly "Doctrine againft an Arian, or fuch other Heretick^ I commend him for fo no- ble The PREFACE. ble a Fear ; but if he imagines I have a Tii- ftruft of finding in Scripture divers other Places which prove the Trinity^ that is taught in this Taffage of St. John j* Epiftle^ Imujt beg leave to asky IVhence he has borrowed fuch Sufpi- cions or Apprehenfions concerning me ? Has he found in my "Differ t at ion^ or in my Notes upon the Old and New Tejtamenty or^ in fhort^ in any other of my Writings^ the leaf Ground for him to fay^ That he apprehends I have fome Diftrufl-, whether there be feveral other V laces in Scripture to the fame Turpofe ? Mr. Emlyn is as little acquainted with my Writings^ as the Grounds of my Heart ; and I can ajfure him^ that if the Difccurfe of Reveal'd Religion, which I have jufi publijh'd as a Sequel to my Difcourfe of Natural Religion, comes to his Hands, he will there fee the facred T>oEirine of the Trinity fupported by more Texts of Scrips ture^ and with more Precifenefs and Force, than an Arian or Socinian would defire to fee. But we've faid enough by way of Prelude ; let us now come to the Examination of the Anfwer^ and fee if Mr. Emlyn has fo well fucceededj as to convince me of the pretended Infufficiency of my Troofs^ and to jhew, that they are only vain Suppofitions, as he has af- fumingly given out in his Title-Tage. AN EXAMINATION O F Mr. EmJyns ANSWER TO THE Critical Dissertation On the Seventh Verfe of the Fifth Chapter of St. John's Epiftle, There are three that hear record tn Heaven^ &c. j^v^^v^^/^^x'-^r/^^r^ fyiTAf!\f'\f'Afyi f'\fyiW'.'i\^yiT I'hefe three are one^ lays he, ivith re* regard to ejfence > but the exprejfton here feems to re* fpeut the Unity of tejlimony. When an Artan fliall make the fame remarks upon the paflage of St. 'fchn^ which Calvin and Beza have done, he will ccale to be an Arian : The truth of the paflage as to the main of the Dodrine we find in it^ receives thence no confidenible harm -, and the truth of the fad, to wit, that this paflag'c is St. John's^ is there entirely B .tnaiiKsin*4 <4) maintained, and altogether as I have defended it in my Difcourfe. This latter is properly the point now in difpute be- twixt Mr. Emlyn and my felf 5 'tis a quellion of fad. Now a hdc can't be prov'd by mere fpecula- tive reafonings, which at befl can be but fpeciousj what we call proofs of faSl^ mud be urg'd withal j /. e. hdis which are clear and diilind, and which by the natural relation they bear to the fad in queltion, demonilrate its truth. A fad admits of the fame proof at the bar, and within the jurifdidion of right reafon. But from thence, that they are fads which ferve to prove another fad, 'tis evident that 1^"=, themfelves ought robe of fuch a nature, as not to be conteflcd 5 and, "^x , that their connexion with the fad they are brought to prove, be fuch as nccef- farily to carry along with it the fad in difpute 5 fo that the one being clear to the underllanding, the other muil be dilcern'd at the fame time. Logicians cxprefs this by the following maxim, which is foun- ded in right reafon, That the concliifion muft be wholly drawn from the premises. Upon thefe principles, and fome others of this nature, the truth oF a fad related by an Hiftorian cannot ju(tly be rejeded^, under pretence that ano- ther Hiltorian, contemporary with the former, or fomewhat more modern, has made no mention of it 5 HO more than the depoiition of divers perfons, who Ihall fay they have not feen fome particular thing, will avail againll the truth of that fad, provided that fcvtral other perfons, againil whofe tefiimony nothing can be alledg'd, give witnefs to it. All that can reafonably follow from thefe diflferences, what- foever they be, are doubts and fufpicions j and the moil nice judgment can require no more in fuch a cafe, than that welhould examine well the proofs of the fi6t, fift 'era thoroughly on all fides, and if we find there no ihadow of falihood or inconiiltency with ( r ) with the nature of the thing they are brought to prove, we ihould no longer doubt of its truth. To apply thefe genei-al reflcdions to our particular fubjea, 'tis firft of all agreed on both hands, that the order or connexion of this Text, with what goes before, and follows after it, is not conclufive either for or againft its authenticknefs. For befides that it very much depends upon the fancy or parti- cular prejudice of an Interpreter, to difcern or not difcern the connexion of a context, as Mr. Emiyn has well obferv'd ; 'twould be withal to make that fort ofparalogifm Vh\\o^oY>htvsc' whereas Mr. Emiyn has thought fit to fpare himfelf the trouble cf tranfcribing the whole, and has given \is that part of 'em only, which might raife the above- mcntion'd fufpicions: The words then of My.Simojt are thefe 3 ^ The Copy is ftrangely disfigured in that place^ in that Copy the reading "was formerly thus : " Sunt tres qui teftimonium dant", the words in ter- ra being inUrlm^d^ " Spiritus, Aqua, & Sanguis, 6c '' tresunum funt : Et tres funt qui decoelo tell: iiican- " tur, Pater, Verbum, 6<: Spiritus, 6c tres unumfunt''^ hut afterwards thefe words^ " de coelo teilificantur", were erased to make room for thefe^ " teltimonium di- " cunt incojlo". The iirii thing then we fee in this Bible, \s^ that the words of the 8^^ verie are plac'd there be- fore thofe of the 7^^. I have given divers inftances* of their being thus wrong piac'd, both in Tome an- tient MSS. of the New 'Tefiament^ and fome old quotations. As to the v/ords in terrd^ which a fo- reign hand had interiin'd, this is a corredion of the omiilion of thofe words by the Writer who had co- pied Charles the Great's Bible. The different read- ing plac'd over thefe words of the 7'^ verfe, d: coelo teftificantur -y inflead whereof the emencation i/ads, tefUmoHium dicnnt in coelo^ alters nothing the feme of the Text, and keeps clofer to the Letter of the Greek Original. But the Text it felf, of the three VVit- neffes in Heaven, is fo far from being disfigur'd by thefe flight corredior?, that, on the other hand, 'tis hereby the more furc and evident j becaufe if (a) Hift. Crit, du Texte du N. Teftam. ch. 18. fag, 2u. C it ( I^ ) it had not been in Charles the Great's Bible, and the Copier had added it to that of Lotharius^ the Re- vjfor, or Cenfor, who was fo exa6fc as to make fuch an incondderable remark upon the paffage, would not have fail'd to have made one upon the Text it felF, as a Text which had crept into this Manu- fcript contrary to the purity of Charles the Great's Bible, and the others of that time. Mr. Emlyn then is here taken in his own nets. He entangles himfelf yet more and more, ^'^by allowing this Text to be found diredly in Charles the Great's Bible. But what follows from thence, fays he ? ff^ill this prove it to have been in the Greek MSS. at that time ? In the Latin, adds he, for certain it has long been. Mr. Emlyn confounds every thing, and obferves no manner of order, either with regard to the Tra6l he undertakes to anfwer, or the matters themfelves of which he writes j I have been forc'd to run from one page to another to form a Con- nexion, and gather 'em together out of the confu- fion he has thrown 'em into 5 and I can aflure him, that this is not one of the lead: troubles I find in confuting him : There is no one, who has read my Dijfertation and his Anfwer^ that won't agree with me in this. I return to what he has faid. That the Text in difpute 13 found in Charles the Great's Bible, a proof that it was in the Latin Manufcripts of that time, and before. 'Twas then, as I have obferv'd, in St. Jerom\ Verfion from the firfl ages of its being us'd in the Weftern Churches, which was not 'till the Seventh Century. Charles the Great's Bible was made in the Eighth > the paflage of St. John was in the Latin Bible before that time, the confequence forms it felf : This pafTage then was in the Bible of St. Jerom^ when it gain'd the preference in the Pag. 7. Churches ( ^3 ) Churches of the Wcfl: over the Itallck V^erfion, which was the ancient vulgar Bible > I demand no L more at prcfcnt. x-^ny other pcrfon befidcs Viv. Emiyn would there find himfclf captive, but he has a refuge which few men would have expected, 'tis a Book that is to be written, arid which perhaps never will be written. A Book too of which he is not to be the Author neither, 'tis anotlier, a man of great reputation, and profound erudition 5 the name of Dr. B:ntley carries the encomium along WMth it, and even goes beyond it : I had the honour to kc him at Cam- bridge^ at trinity College, about twenty years ago. Dr. BerJley had receiv'd a letter from one of his friends, who took notice of his having heard, that the Doctor defign'd to throw out of the firlt Epiltle of St. Johr.^ the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter, in the Edition he propos'd to publiili of the New Tefiameyit : He anfw^ers, That he had collected with much diligence twenty Latin Manufcripts of about a thoufand vears old, or above, and that they agreed exadly with each others hwi for the PaJ/age of St. John, he knew not yet v:hat would he its fate. Mr. Emlyn thereupon takes heart, and proclaims Vi* ctory. I fijall take leave of this SiihjeU^ ^fays he, by JJjewing only how groundlefs and falfe Mr. Martin'j fundamental Sappojition /j, viz. That the Latin Bibles of the jixth^ jcventh^ and eighth Jges had generally this 7>a7, from the decifi-ve words of that tranfcend- cnt Critical Genius of this Jge^ Dr. Benrley ; And then he gives us the Do6lor's Letter. Ihe pub- lick is much oblig'd to that Learned Man for the trouble he has given himfclf in collecting this great number of Manufcripts of the Latin Bible, and him- ielt is not a little mdebted to his good fortune, that he has found among fo many others, which, ' Pag. II. C 7, withouc ( m) without doubt, are not very antient, twenty well told, which are of a thoufand Years ago^ or above, 'Tis one of the mofl extraordinary difcoveries in that kind of literature that has been made in our Days. ^ F, leLong^ a learned and eniinent Father of the Oratory, had made very diligent Enquiry, with prodigious care and application, amongft the beft Libraries and moft famous Authors who have wrote upon thefe Subjefe, what were the moft antient Manufcripts we have at prefent of the vulgar Bible of St. Jerom^ and he tells us, he found none older than i'heodolphus's^ who fir ft was Abbot of Fleuri on the river Loire^ and afterward BiOiop of Orleans.^ which was wrote about the year 790. he mentions another which he fays is of the year 79 f. and a third, of which he doubts a httle, that is fhewn in the Monaftery o^Ciftercians^ in the Diocefe of Sens^ which is reputed a thoufand years old. Dr. Bentley fays, he has found twenty of that antiquity, and fome more ancient. He takes no notice in his Letter to his friend, whether every one of thefe Manu- fcripts has the whole A>iy 'Tefiament-y or whether fome have it not but in part only, which is a com- mon thing in antient Manufcripts , for inftance, there is at Cambridge .^ in "Trinity-College^ of which Dr. Bentley is Mailer, the famous Manufcript of Beza upon the Gofpels • and at Paris^ in the King's Library, the other part of that Manufcript, which is that of the Epiftles. So that we don't yet know how many Manufcripts Dw Bentley m^y have of St„ John's Epiftle 5 he does not tell us ; nay, he declares, he has not yet examin'd that particular Subjecl. As to that admirable agreement he fays he has found be- tween thefe Manufcripts in the places he has com- » In the Differtation upon the Text of St, John, printed at Utrecht, R le Long IS, by millake, called A karr.ed Bene- di^in, inHe^d of A lEather of the Oratory. par'd ( m) far'dj we may afTurc him, without rafhnefs, that he'll find feveral wherein he'll fee difference enough. Erafmus^ who had" very great Skill in ancient Ma* nufcripts, and had feen an infinite number of the Neiv 7'eftament^ becaufe that in his time the inven- tion of Printing was but of late flanding, and Li- braries and private Houfes had fcarce any thing but Manufcript Bibles, afiures us in his Apology^ that thofe of a thoufand years old and above, did not exadly agree, it not being pofTible, fays he, the matter fhould be otherwife, partly thro* the igno- rance of a great number of Copiers, and partly thro' their negligence or raihnefs. To come now to the pafiageof '^t.John^ which is what regards us here in p^irticular. I with with all my heart that all the ancient Copies were found alike 5 that would be to the advantage of the caufe I defend. The Bible of Charles the Great ^ wrote a thoufand years ago, had this paiTage; The Revifers, who in 798 corrected the faults which had crept into divers Manufcripts of St. Jerom's Ver- fion, found this Text in thofe from which they made their revife : This carries it backwards, not to the age of a thoufand years only, but much farther. Above forty or fifty years before this famous re- vife, Jmbrofe Aiithpcrt^ Abbot of the Monallery of Si. Vincent^ in the Kingdom of Naples^ had read it in his Bible. U then the Manufcripts of Dr. Bent- ley have all this pafiage, Mr. Emlyn will be m.uch out in his reckoning : If fome have it, and others have it not, there will be nothing in this difference, that we have not feen in the Manufcripts mentioned bv Beza^ HenteniuSy T>\\ Burnet^ and others: If, laftly, none of Dr. Bentley's Manufcripts have the paifage, why yet we have 'em at hand, as I may fay, with the Bible of Charles the Great^ and all the others from which that Bible was composed, with the Bible of Jfi'dorus Mercator^ of Amhrofe Autbpert^ and of s * the (i6) the Author of the Ordo Romanm:^ which nil prefcn- ted this Text to thefe ancient Writers. The point then in difpute will be, Firft, to know, whether thefe Manufcripts lately difcover'd be really as old as Dr. Bentley takes 'em to be 5 for tho' the Dr. be an excellent Critick, ye we are not ignorant how dif- ficult it is, not to fay impofliblc, to pafs always in thefe cafes a certain judgment, and fecure from all. doubt : We need but call to mind what I have faid concerning F. MabiUon^ and F. de Montfaucon^ the two moft celebrated Criticks in this kind of learning, that have been ever feen. Secondly, We mull enquire whether fuch a particular number of Manufcripts of theBible, is a more certain rule to determine concern- ing a pafTage they have not, than the exprefs quotati- ons of thefamepaflag^in Authors of the famenntiqui- tyjor fomewhat more ancient, and Authors oFreputati- on too in their feveral times. A quotationisa pofitive and formal teilimony 5 the omifiion of a Text in fome Manufcripts, let it be what it will, can be only lookton as a negative one, a teilimony that lofes all its weight after the appearance of a pofitive, exprefs, and formal teflimony. One or two ancient Manu- fcripts may have been copied by a great number of others, and the omiflions in the former have pafs'd 1 fucceflively into the later copies, without any perfon V being at the pains to examine whether they were cor- re6t or no : In quotations, the cafe is far otherwife: The Author, v/ho quotes a paflage, has not only read it in his Bible, but has alfo receiv'd it as ge- nuine 3 'tis a fort of pafs with which he fends it abroad into the world with his book 5 and if the world admits it therein as a Text which really be- longs to Scripture, the quotation this Author has made, becomes that of the publick. In fuch cafes, the unanimous lilence of all Writers, whether of the fame, or later times, has always held the place of an exprefs and formal approbation. We have firll of all all this quotation of St. John's pafTage in Authors and Writings much efteem'd in their times, which have pafs'd from one age to another, and againft which, neither in their own time, nor fince, any perfon appears to have ever obje(51:ed j fo far from it, that the Bibles, which have been wrote fince the ages thefe quotations were made in, have had the fame pafHige. Divines have given it in their Wri- tings, and it has not found in its way, in any age or any country, the lead contradidion : Thefe fafts are very certain, nor do I advance one word which I can't fully prove, was there occafion, and which is not taken notice of in my Dijfertation, Mr. Emiyn can't 'but have feen it, and what anfwer does he make to it ? Let but any one compare his Book with mine, and after that judge. Weak in himfcif, and openly to ward off the force of fuch heavy blows, he has run for Sanftuary to the great name of Dr. Bentley^ and ihelterM himfelf under his Manufcriprsj but I'm well aflur'd, the Dodlor and the Manufcripts will give him up to his badcaufe^ and that mine, which is the caufe of truth, has no- thing to fear from that quarter. IVe can do nothings fays S. Paul^ againft the truth ^ and we can do all things for it. Chap. C ^8 ) Chap. IlL That Mr. Emlyn has objeBed nothing reafonahle againfl the argument drawn from the revtfe of the New Tefta- ment m Charles the Great'i Ttme^ m behalf of the authentkknefs of St. John's paj/age. Mong the great number of proofs I brought to {hew the Text in St. John's firftEpiftle concerning the three witnefTes in Heavea was genuine, I allcdg'd the famous revife of St. Jerom's Bible, made by order of Charles the Great^ in the clofe of the eighth Century. That Bible had then been receiv'd but about two hundred years as the common Bible of the Weftern Churches, i. e, in all Europe : Abundance of faults had never- thelefs crept into the Copies, which had been made during that time. The matter could fcarce be other- wife, Printing was not yet in ufe y for 'twas not found out 'till the middle of the fifteenth Century j and all Books were then but Manufcripts, in which were multiply'd, Copy after Copy, the faults that the ignorance or inadvertency of the Copiers had fufFer'd to creep in. The moil: part of thefe faults were inconfiderable, and affefted not the fundamen- tals of Religion j 'twas neverthelefs matter of con- cern, that a Book fo facrcd as the New feftament^ for 'tis chat only we have now to do with, fhould be aker'd and disfigur'd by thefe abundant miilakes. The zeal of a private perfon had not been fufficient to remedy fo great an evil } 'twas requifite a Prince fo learned aad pious as Charles the Great ^ ihould form the defiga of infpefting the Mftnufcripts of thofe timcs^ ( 19) times, and that to come off with fuccefs, he fhould commit the care of the revife and the choice of the Bibles to divers learned Men of noted abihties and probity. And thus it was the wife Emperor a6led : Alcuinus^ the learned Jlcuinus^ whom Hi- llory fpeaks of as a man of confammate skill in Cri- ticifm and the Sciences, was plac'd at the head of the fmall body who were chofen to be the Revlfers and Corredors. They all together difcharg'd the impor- tant Commillion, and fentout o'i their hands a Bible correded and purged from the fiulcs which had made that revife neceflary. The paflage of St. Joby; was, as we have feen, in this Bible, and convey 'd with the whole Epillle wherein 'twas read^ from the jfirfb MS. into the following ones by a Succeilioa which was uninterrupted, 'till the wonderful x^rt of Printing took away the cudom and ncceility of writing Manufcript Books. If this Text had not been conftantly in the Bibles before, which were in the hands as well of pri- vate families, as of Divines and the Clergy oF all forts, what an uproar and exclamation would the in- troducmg this novel verfe have rais'd in the world ? With what face could the learned men, employed in the revife, have bore the blame of it ? Charles the Great had given it to them in charge to correiSt the faults, whichj as I have (aid, were of no great im- portance : And inllead of doing this, they had in- ferted one of more moment than an hundred others taken together. Inflead of doing the duty of Co) - re^ors^ they had taken up the infamous profcffion oiCorruptors of the Scripture. What, fays iMr. Em- lyn to this ? He has taken care to anfwer nothing at all J for can it be callM an anfwer, is it: not rather to accufe thefe Revifers and CorrecStors as men who had neither honour nor confcience, to fay i-6 he has done in page the eighth, xh^iif they follow' d em or afezvoftheL^iin Mamfcriffs^ where diferent D ffom ( io) from the mofl and. heft^ I think 'tis no great wonder. 1 am fathffd^^'^'j^ he, this has been often done^ viz. to prefer the reading that has pleas' d beff^ when againfi the moft and the beft Copies. If nothing better can be offtrM to take off an infuperable difficulty, 'cis the mod: prudent way to be wholly filent. And now we are upon the Corre6lors of St. Je-- rom's Latin Bible, that we may not be call'd to't a fecond time, let us fee what judgnnent Mr. Emlyn pafies upon their abilities. I had faid, ^ // was not to be fuppos'd they coUeUed only the Latin Manufcripts^ but had recourfe alfo to the Original Greek of the New Teftament, and a little before ^, But really.^ (aid I, would Mr. Simon, // he had liv'd in thofe days^ and Charles the Great had done him the honour to employ him in correBing the ^julgar Bibles^ would he upon the credit of a [mall number of Manufcripts^ or of fome few Latin Juthors^ ha've added to the Bible a pajj'age^ like this of 6'/. John ? Mr. E^nlyn treats this as a ridi- culous queilion : Mr, Martin, fays hc^pleafantly asksj if Father Simon, l^c, I fubmit it to the judgment of men of good fenfe, on which fide the advantage lies, Mr. Emlyn's or mine, and 1 confenc with all my heart, if Ihave faid achildifh or a foolifli thing, to take the ihame of it upon my felf. But on what grounds has Mr. Emlyn thought he might be merry at my expence ? Why, 'tis abfurd to tht?ik^ iliys he, the men of that Age would or could take fuch meafures^ as the learned of the prefent age would. But is it to level the one with the other, or to make 'cm take the fame meafures, to fay that Correctors cmploy'd by Charles tbe Great^ would not fail to compare ihc Latin Manufcriptswith the Greek ot the New "Teftament^ and that Mr. Simon would have undoubtedly done the fame ? If Mr. Emlyn\ name had appear'd in the front of his anonymous t ■ ... — — _— ^.^^— — _—- — ^ ^ ! v-m. DilVcrt. /. 17. t. p^ j^. Diflcrtatio% I ^^ ) Diflertation, I had joyn'd him to Mr. Simor?^ and perhaps his modelly would not have been offended, tho' his zeal for Mr. Simon's learning was. But to dwell a little longer upon this remarkable paflage, ^ T'he Gr^ek Manufcripts^ fays he, werepro- bably very rare^ and bard to be come at in the We- ilern parts^ fo that the learned of thofe times had fcarce any thing of that Critical Skilly or genius^ . ivhicb is fo neceffary for fuch a JVork. If rhefc lear- ned Men underftood no more of the work they were upon, than Mr. Emlyn has judg'd of their un- derflanding and the skill men had in Greek in their time, Charles the Great made but a bad choice of them for a review of the Latin Bible. But, firff, whence does Mr. Emlynknow theGV^^X^ Manufcnpts of the New Tefiament were become very rare in the eighth Century ? Who inform'd him they were hard to come at in the fl^efl^ as if no one knew how to write Greek there ? And, lalUy, who told him 'twas nccclfary to be fo great a Critick as he fuppofes, to revife the Latin Manufcripts of the Neiv "TeHa- ment by the Greek ones? The moll fupeificial know- ledge of that tongue would fuffice to know whe- ther fuch a particular paHage, which was found, or was wanting in the Latin^ was alfo found or was wanting in the Greek. I appeal to all who are not wholly ftrangers in the two languages, and to Mr. Emlyn himfelf, without fuppofing him for this to be a mighty Grecian j for perhaps he might be difpleas'd, ihould I join him to pcrfons of fuch little worth. We don't particularly know any of thefe Corre- ctors, but Alcuinus : France was oblig'd to England for him, and his reputation made him to be enquir'd after by Charles the Great^ ^ whofe Mafter he was \n feveral Sciences. He was learned in Greek and He- Pa^e 8. b Voff. 4e Hid. Lat. ( ^^ ) hrew^ • fo was rJfo Charles the Great , infomuch that he undertook of himfelf to compare the Latin of the New 'Teflament with the Greek and Syriack : 'Tis lofs of time to dwell longer upon Imaginations fo vain as are thofe Mr. Emlyn feeds himfelf with, andfeeks toimpofe upon others, and 'tis tirefome to fee fo many idle Notions advanc'd with fo much aflurance. Chap. IV. Of the Preface of St. Jerom to the fe-- ven Canonical Eptfiles^ alled^d as a proof of the Text concerning the three vjttnejfes in Heaven^ and defended aga'mfi Mr, Emlyn. |E ihould want no other proof to fliew the paflage in St. John's Epiflle was in- ferted by St. Jerom into the Latin Bi- bles, than the Preface which is plac'd before the feven Canonical Epillles, if every body was agreed that this Preface was really his. This pafTage is not only mention'd there as one of the principal foundations of the Chriftian Faith 5 but withal, there is a loud complaint of its being omitted in certain Verfions by unfaithful franflators. This Preface is found in the Bibles of eight or nine hundred years old 5 the Z/^//>; Churches have receiv'd it with their Bibles, in all Countries, and at all times 5 and no perfon that we know of, in its paflage thro' fo many ages and among fo many different nations, ® Eginard, in th.e Life of Charles the Great, and Theyau^ (p|^. 7. ^se BefT^IiHS upn Eginard. (M ) has chargM it with being fpurious. In fome Manu- fcripts it was without a name j but this was in no \v[[c peculiar to it, for divers otherhke prefaces huve not had the fam'd name of St. Jerom prcBx'd to 'em, tho' indubitably his. In other Manufcripts St. Je" rom's name was fet before it, as before the gcncraHty of his other Prefaces : The particular humour or negligence of the Copiers was thefole caufenf thefe fmall variations ; fo that they made not the Uafl: im- preffion upon mens minds to the difadvantage of the authentickncfs of the preface 5 no more than of others, which were fometimes found to have St, Je- rom^s name, and fometimes not. The clouds of fu- fpicions and doubts were not form'd around it 'till our days, and from thefe doubts and fufpicions it is that arguments have been drawn againfl it. I have difpell'd thefe clouds by the force of trqth > to this end fhe had no farther occadon than to be fhewn, and 1 am perfuaded that I have fufficiently laid her open to the light, to be difcover'd by every one \vhofe eyes are not clos'd thro' prejudice. I fancy my felf to have difcern'd in Mr. Emiyjfs trad!:, that fome of thefe gleams of light, which have proceed- ed from the demonftration of truth, have reach'd even to him : he giv^s way to 'em, and makes no attempt to repel 'em j but yet his heart holds good againil the Preface, and he anfwers as he can, in loofe and general terms, the arguments I employ'd in its defence 3 or rather he is afraid to bring them back from the attack, whither I had vigoroully pufh'd *em. An advocate who does not gradually defend the arguments on his fide the queflion, fairly owns himfelf defeated -, a formal confeffion would have coil: him too much, and 'tis more than we can re- quire of him. If Mr. Emiyn kcs not himfelf de- fcrib'd in this ihort allegorical reprefentation, all thofe w^ho fhall read my Differ tafion and his per for- HiancCa however wilL He ( m) He firll makes mc to lay, tha.t I think ^fimepf €ftbe rea'cns u^g'd Jg.a:nfi this Preface not to be fuf- f-de%t^ hut that duJ it may pvjjibly he St, Jerom'j. I'm not ienhble I have faid this, nor has Mr. EmJyn iccn 2Xiy thing like it in my Diicourie. Far from having laid ^nily, and by way of rell:ri<9:ion, that 1 think fome^ tf tkefe rcafcns nvt to be fupcient : I have found 'em all fo inconclufive, that I let not one of 'em pafs \?ri:hout a ConRjtarion. Neither have I laid, the Preface might poiEbly be Sr. Je- rom's, I have maintained that it is hisj all that I have laid, is, thit tho' ir vras not his, but com- posed by one of the Corredors employed by Charles tbs Great ^ as Mr. Simon has ridiculoufly fancied, the genuinenefs of St. John's Text, would thereby lofe nothing in the main 3 but that }£t I 'ivould de- fend it again fi^ the imputations vf the modern Criticksj for this vnJy reafcn^ hecaufe 1 'was fenfMe they 's.ere 'K^oUy groundlefs. Mr. Emiyn j[hould read with more caution. Be it Td tUen, he fays, but yet ^\x. Martin cos teZ'Cr gzi-e a gDod ar, fiver to all. If I have not, whv does not he confute my feveral anfwers ? The worfe they were, the more eafy would it have beei for him to overturn 'cm > and the matter would have been wonh his while, was it only for the Pkafure of laying open the weaknefs of one of the moft common proofs of the auihoriry of a Text, he is fo unwilling ihould fland in the Epiflle of St. John. The whole of his laft Shift againft the Preface, to prove it fuppofititious, amounts to this, that it can be none of St. JcTcm\ becaufe it fpeaks with fo much force of 2 Text fo fundamental to the Faith, which yet Sr. Jervm has not once mention'd in all his Works : He would fav, in all thofe that ancienr (^5) ancient Do5:or has wrcxe againft hercticks, and rhc jirians in particular. This reaicmng fuppofes Sainc Jerom to have wrote fome Works, or, at Icaft, one Tract, wherein he has treated the fubjcS of j^ri- anifm to the bottom j for otherwife the rcafoning will be either wholly void, or very near fo j and yet 'tis certain, that in all the great Volumes of this Father, we have not one fingie DiTcourlc of his againll Jrianifm i he has not touched upon it but by accident, and as occafion offcr'd, in divers of his Commentaries upon the Old and A>a; Tepinunty and even there he's very fparing for the moft part, and at beft makes ufe only of fome paiTages which came in his way, whofe defign was not to write a fet Book of controverly, and confcquently did not make ufe of all the Advaauges which were in his power. Tho' were it true, that St. Jsrom had drawn up % particular treatife againft the Arian herefy, would it lollow, that this Text was net in his time in St. Jchn's Epiitle, becaufe he and Mr. Emlyn^ before he u^gt? this reafoning as a proof, ihould call to mind what I have wrote upon this Subjed in the third chapter of the fecond part of my DiUcnation, where I have dcfiroy'd this way of writing by divers convin- cing inilances. A little Logick is enough to mew there is no confequence in fuch an Argument -, this or that particular Writer of Antiquity has not quoted a paflage in a certain place of his Book, where it would have been to his purpofe, and cu:-ih;n'd all others that could be brought j this palTage therefore was not in the time of that ancient W riter in Holy Scriptures : Thofe who realon after this manner, ibouid learn better the rules of their Logick : I appeal to ail Philofophers in the world Among 4 (26) Among the Authors I quoted in the Chapter juft mention'd, were Figilius of ^apfumj and Saint Fulgentius^ the two greatelt Antagonills of the Art* cms in the fifth Century, and the beginning of thd fixth : And I fhew'd, that tho' both thefe had urg'd the pafuige of St. Joh?i in divers of their difputesj thty had not yet made ufe of it in other Treatifes up- or the fame fubjeft, in which 'twas fcarce to be cor'.eiv'd they could poffibly have omitted itj in the fame place may be feen the conclufion I drew from thence 5 'tis founded on the mofl certain rules of rcafoning, and 'tis impoflible ever to evade it. I beg leave to add here fome other inflances, in order to difpel quite thefe falfe Lights, which I perceive the Enemies to St. John's pafTage fuffer themf^lves to be led aliray with. Vigilius of "tap- fum has wrote againll the Eutychians^ who con- founded the Son and the Holy Ghoft with the Fa- ther : He oppofes to tfiem the Avians who divided the nature of the Father and the Son> and in the iarne treatife he confutes thefe two fo oppofite He- refies : Jefus Chrift has faid^ I and my Father are one : In faying I and my Father, he has divided what SabelHus wrongfully confounds y and in adding^ are one, he has uyiited what Arius feparates> He then gives us the Text of St. Matthew^ chap. 28. in which is the form of Baptifm, In the narae of the Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghoft j and makes the fime remark upon it, as upon the foregoing Text : Jefus Chrift^ fays he, has fignify'd the unity of the three by faying in the fengular number^ In the name. Ought not the padage of St. John's Epiftle, which is more exprefs than all thefe, to have been here alledg'd, wherein the pluraHty of perfons is taught in fo plain terms, againft the Herefy of Arius ? And yet this moil dcGiiive Text is no where feen. But to go on j The The {lime VigUlus wrote againft the Avians^ whom he had always in view, a Trcatife in form of a Dia- logue, which he divides into two Books. In the former are introduced Athanafiiis and Arius difputing together before Prohus^ whom they had appointed a Judge in their difpute. Athanafius in two places urges againfl Arius thefe words of Jefus Chrift^ Go and teach all nations^ baptizing them in the name of the Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofl. The pafTage of St. John^ There are three in Heaven that bear record^ the Father^ Sec. is not once mentioned throughout the Dialogue. See yet, if poffible, fomewhat more remarkable. Figilius in his fecond Dialogue, adds the perfons of SabeUitis and Photinus to thofe of Athanafius and Arius^ in order to prove againft thofe Herericks the plurality in the Unity. Athanafius urges thefe words in the firfl Chapter of Genefis^ Godfaid^ Let us make man in our own image , and fays, thofe who confult are three ^ the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofi j but thefe three are one. The Text of St. John would have been more convincing, and yet is not there alledg'd. Figilius goes on, The Son difcourfing of the grand my- fiery of the Trinity.^ has faid^ I am the God of Abra- ham^ and the God of Ifaac^ and the God of Jacobs in faying^ lam, '' Ego fum^\ he hasfljewnthere isbut one God y and in repeating three times^ the God of Abraham^ the God of Ifaac^ and the God of Jacohy he has more openly declared the my fiery of the 7? inity. Is this proof comparable with thepaflage of St. John? From the Texts of the Old Tefiament, Figilius pafles on to the N'ew j and here fure one might expe6l to find this excellent paflage : Let us fee then : Let 7is hear ^kyshe^ St. V^iuXfpeakingmoreexprefily of the fame my fiery ^ and faying tn his fir fi Epifile to the Co- rinthians, ch, 12. V. 4, f . Now thae are diverfities of gifts, i^c. becaufe there is a 'Trinity^ he names three^ and bscaufe the Trinity is but om Gijd^ after halving E nam''d (28) nam' d the three perfons^ he fays not in the plural^ which Work all in all, but in the fingular^ which worketh. 'Twas very natural to add the pafl^ige of St. John to that of St. Paul^ and I own I expeded it was there 5 but this paflage is entirely forgot. Tho' then St. Je- rom had wrote as many Tracls againft the Ariayis^ as this ancient African Bifliop, and in none of 'em had urg'd the paflage in difpute, it would not follow, that this paflage was not then in the Apoille'sEpillle. 'Tis no anfwer to fay, that what Vigilius has not done in ihefe places, he has in others : My reafoning does not tuni upon that, nor is in the leaft affcded with it. I only fay, that it docs not follow, bccaufe an ancient Writer, St. Jerom for inftance, has not quoted this Text in a Difcourfe, wherein 'twas natu- ral to quote it, and which fince has been quoted by others, either contemporary with him, or living a iiiort tmie after him > it follows not, I fay, that the Writer di^di not look upon the Verfe as really St.John's : Thus far my reafoning is jull: and unexceptionable. But this is not all : Mr. Emiyn would argue the Preface, wherein this Text is mention'd, to be none of St. 7 and we are told it is not his, becaufe thepaifageof St. John is in it. Whofe is it then ? I would not put this queftion, was not Mt.£^/;'^ toanfwci us after Mr. Simony that ( ^9 ) tis the work of one of the Coneclors who revis'J the Bible by Charles the Great's order. 'Tis ibrpri- zing, that after all I have advanced againft this vain conjecture of Mr. Simon^ Mr. Emlyn lliould iwy^ the contrary does not appear by Mr. Maitin him/elf. I fliew*d how ridiculous this imagination was, which Mr. Simon with his ufual aiTurajice had ventur'd to fend abroad without any fupport of authoiity, or other proof*, and yet we are fince told with very little thought and reflexion, that I have not made the contrary appear ; pray^ what other confutation does a fidion, a mere idle conceit deferve ? If Mr. Emlyn would do any thing to the purpofe, he fliould furnifli Mr.5'/>;^o;^ with fubltantial proofs, which he could not find, to make good what he advanced, 'viz. that thisPrefiice was forg'd by fome one of the Corre6tors -, but fo long as he, or his Author ihall forbear to produce any, the fidion will remain al- ways a fiction, ar.d be treated with ridicule by men of fober minds. However, if h'lr. Emlyn yti requires I fhould Hiy fomewhat more upon the Subjecft, 1 won't refufe to add fome other conliderations upon it. This perfon was not the only man entrulk'd with the revife of the Latin Bibles, the burden had lain too heavy up- on any one man's Shoulders^ and had been too long- winded a piece of work : More than one then were concern'd ni the afKiir j and as in all performances of this nature, the perfons employed make a diitribution of what falls to every ones paiticular ihare, and then re-unite their labours in the conferences they have to- gether 5 by this means, what at lirli: was the work of one private pcribn, becomes afterwards the a61: of all. If then one of thefe Revifers had drawn qpthe Prologue to the feven Epiiiles, he would but have put in execution the refolution agreed on among 'em * Page (J, E i all, ( 30 ) all, viz, that thefe Epiftles having no Preface before 'em, as Mr. ^'//^^^^^ pretends, 'twas requifite to prefix one to 'em. And after the Preface was made, it would have been brought before them all when met together, in order to be read and examin'd j after which it would no longer be the preface of one, but the preface of all. I hope Mr. EmJyn won't treat this zs fuppofition^ imagination^ fancy^ words he has oft made ufe of with as little reafon. Every wife and judicious man will evidently fee the plan is juft, and that matters could not be otherwife. Here then thefe learned, thefe chofen men, are all of a fudden, and without any real neceffity, turn'd cheats and im- poftors in putting off as St. Jerom's,, a treatifethem- felves had forg'd > a forgery and impofture withal, that would expole 'em to the reproach of all man- kind > for no man could be ignorant that St. Je- Tom's Bible had no fuch Preface, in cafe, as Mr. Si- mon will have it, it had really never been inferred m it. Had I not then reafon to fay, that if they had been the Authors of this Preface, they would not have fent it abroad under St. Jerom's name, fince if they had put it out of their own head, and not giveq it the character of a piece of St. Jerom's^ no perfon could have complain'd of 'em, and they had done no more than they had a right and liberty to do : Yet Mr. Emlyn has diverted himfelf upon the occafion, as it were at my expence, that I have made a refle- xion upon the little addreis the pretended Authors of this preface would m fuch a cafe have been Ma- kers of. Nor has he only advanc'd this pleafant turnagainil mc, he has obliquely thrown a more fatyrical refle- ction upon the Corredors, in fuppofing they had be- liev'd the Text in controverfy was in all the Greek Copies i for 'tis from this fuppofition he draws an argument to fhew the Preface could not be St. Je- rom'^i I Beftdes^ fays he, St, Jcvom firely could never be ( 3^ ) he guilty of fuch a falfe inftnuation^ that all the Greek Copies had this 'uerje :' Have the pretended Authors of the Preface then infinuated this ? They havefpokc only in general and loofe terms, they have faid no more than that thc^e^ unfaithful 1'ranjlators had much departed from the truth : But cannot a Tranllator be unfaithful in the Verfion of an Epiftle, unlefs all Copies have the paflage omitted by him ? 'Tis fuffi- cient the paflage is ordinarily in the Copies of the Epiftles, and generally receiv'd as fuch : Every par- ticular Copy, wherein 'twas wanting, would on fuch occafions pafs for nothing, and a Tranflator would have but an hard task on't, if in order to deferve the title of a Faithful Tranflator^ he muft be aflur'd of the conformity of all Copies, and that there is no one extant, in which the paflage is v/anting. St. Jerom himfelf in this cafe, would oft have been an unfaith- ful Tranflator. But we have laid enough upon a mat- ter fo evident. The Preface then to the feven Cano- nical Epiilles, is neither the Work of one of the Corredors, nor of all of 'em together : 'Tis St. Je- rom's own Performance, as I have prov'd in my Dif- fertation^ and in this Difcourfe ; The tellimony of the three witnefl^es in Heaven was found in the Latin Bibles, as well before as after the Correction. Si.Je- rom complain'd in the Preface, that fome Tranflators in his time had omitted em : All this amounts to a full demonftration, that the pafllige was always in St. Jerom'^ Bible. a Page 13. b Prolog, in Epill. Canon. Ab tnfidslibui tran- flatorii/us rnultHm erratum ejfe a fidei veritate comperimas. Chap. (30 Chap. V. Of the ancient Corredorium of the Sorbonne, and the Publick-Servke- Booh. jT has oft bappen'd, as I have obferv'd, thro' the fault of the Copiers, that a paf- fage, which is really a part of Scripture, has been omitted in a Manufcript, and from this firft, in divers others which have been co- pied after it j and as every private perfon or family tolerably inflruded had a Copy of the New ^efta- ^nient^ 'tis not poffible but feveral, and fometime con- iiderable omiffions mud creep into thefe Manufcripts belonging to particular families j this is generally own'd by all mankind, and in order to be certainly afTur'd of the authority of a Manufcript, we mull find it in the Corre^oria of the Bibles, or in thePub- lick-Service-Books, which were us'd in the Churches. There Avas made at Parisj in the Sorhonne^ a revife and corre6lion of the Bible about the tenth Century, Mr. Simon^ who has told us of this Corre^oriumj has obferv'd, that the Correcloria may ferve in the place of Manufcripts. 1 fi^id hereupon, that the paf- fage of St. John being found in this piece, 'twas a certain proof there was no fcruplc made inpublickly owning the Text as genuine, in like manner with ali the rell. I don't fee that Mr. Emlyn has anfwer'd any thing to this. Upon this occadon, I ihall here carry the matter yet higher. The Latin Tongue w^as the common Language in all Europe, the Bibles were wrote in L^tin^ the Rituals and Commentaries were alfo Lar tin\ infomuch that a Bible with the Text and Notes was then the lame that a Bible with annotations in 4 the ( 33 ) the language of every particular country is at prefent. A few years after the revife made in the clofe of the eighth Century, JValafrid Straho publifh'd a Bible with notes, which was in the hands of the Learned, and the People, and of common ufe in families, and I have obferv'd concerning this in my DiJJertation^ that the verfe of the three witncflcs in Heaven, was in the body of the Text, attended with a very ex- cellent annotation. This proof, which makes it fo evidently appear, that the paflage was generally read in the vulgar Bible, has been left alfo without a reply. The Truth of the fame fa6b was made out from the offices in the Rituals, Le£lionaries, or Publick- Service Books : This proof prefs'd clofe, and Mr. EmJyn was too fenfible of its weight to let it pafs without notice ; that would be to give up the au- thenticknefs of the Paflage he difputes : and yet, after all, I know not whether a profound Silence would not have been much better than a pitiful Anfwer. A Ritual,, or Le^lionary, intitled. The Roman Order concerning the Offices throughout the zvhole Tear^ a Book of great antiquity, believ'd to be drawn up in the Year 730. has thefe words. Upon the Otlaves ^/ Eafler are read the /even Canonical Epifiles. Hi- therto then we are not got mighty forward in our inference, that the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven was read publickly in the Church : The Roman Order has nothing particular, it fpeaks only in general of reading the fevcn Epiftles, among that is one which has St. John's paflage : But Du- randus Bifhop oi Mcnde^ who liv'd in the thirteenth Century, fays, in his Rationale of divine offices^ that \\\tis piirfuant to the Ordo Romanus this paflage of St. John was read in the Church on "Trinity Sunday^ a cuftom lubfifting for near a thoufand years with- out interruption. Now, ( 34 ) Now, is not a fa61: fo conftant and publickly no- torious, a decifive proof, that the whole Church has own'd this paflage to be really St. Johnh \ and confequently ought we not to look upon the Copies, which have it nor, as private Manufcripts, and dif- apprcv'd by the Church" for not having this Text? What can be faid to this ? The fad is certain, and the confequences juft. Why, all Mr. Emlyn has been able to devife, is this j ^ Perhaps in Sl Bernards time^ viz. in the Eleventh Jge^ it might he got into the Ordo Romanus, and the Offices of the Churchy both Latin and Greek. St. Bernard is here put in (lead of Durandus Bifliop of Mende^ for 'tis he and not St. Bernard who has wrote what I have jufl men- tion'd concerning the Ordo Romanus^ nor did Saint Bernard live in the Xl^^^ but the Xll^^ Agt : But to come to fad. Had I not reafon to fay, 'twould have been much better to let thefe Service-Books pafs quietly without any anfwer, than to anfwer 'em only Vv^ith a perhaps ? In fhort, what ground has Mr. Emlyn to fiy, this paflage might be got into the Ordo Romanus^ in the time either of Durandus or St. Bernard ? Is it then, that he has read the paflage of the three witnefles in Heaven in the Ordo Romanus^ to tell us, that not being there in former times, it might be crept into it in St. Bernard's time ? W hat means he farther by confounding the Oflices of the Greek Church with thofe of the La- tin^ as if the Greek Church had taken for its model the Ritual nam'd Ordo Romanus ? He fliould weigh Matters with fomewhat more attention. What follows isn't more folid, tho' how^ever 'tis in fome refpcd fpecious. He (ays then, that Pub- lick- Service Books, or Rituals, are not works which continue always abfolutely the fame in every part, and that from time to time alterations and cor- Pag, 7. regions (3J ) regions are wont to be made in 'em : And here- upon he gives us two inlliances of Alterations made in the Coynmon- Prayer Book of the Churcli of Eng- land {mcQ the reign of ^^it'^r^ the VP'^ ; and what is more remarkable, one of thefe alterations refpe6ls the very paHnge of St. John. ^ Thcfc ^joords^ fays he, moere introduced among the Epi files imthout any mark of Sufpicion^ ivhile at the fame time^ and long after^ they ivcre marked for doubtful in the puhlick and common Bibles, 1 am ignorant how thefe Mat- ters ftand, as alfo of his other indance, which is taken from the 28^^^ verfe of the lof^'^ Pfalm in the fame Common-Prayer Book. But be thefe particu- lar fa61:s as they will, they neither of 'em are of weight on the prefent occafion : Thefe inllances prove only that an alteration fometimes happens ia Liturgies > but he mull: prove from authorities and teflimonics, that this has happened to the ancient Rituals of the Latin Church with refpe6t to the Text of the three witnefies in Heaven : And this is what he'll never be able to prove. On the other hand, I have made it appear in my Diff^rtation^ that the ufage has alv/ays been preferv'd the fame, from the firll of thefe Rituals that we know of, which is that of the Qrdo Romanus^ down to our times. Besides, the inftances alledg'd above, {hew only, either that the tranllation of a paffage has been dif- ferent, as in the cafe of Pfalm lof. f. 28. or, that the manner of writing a Text has been alter'd according to the Rcafons which prevail'd at diffe- rent times : This is a matter properly belonging to the Clergy, who have been concern'd in fuch alte- rations y the People had nothing to do with it ; And the paflage in St. John's EpilVic not being call out of the Liturgy, but remaining always the F fame ( 3<5) fame from one end to another, the Church recelv'd no Scandal thereby -, and the Edification fhe always gain'd from a Text fo full of inftru6tion, continu'd perfed, not with (landing the nicety of the Authors of thefe little alterations which are here fpoken of. But all this is nothing to our prefent purpofe 5 'tis to deceive himfelf, and impofe upon others, — for *tis entirely to change the ftate of the queition : The queftionis only, Whether the Church ever had in her PubHck-Service Books a Text which was not Scrip- ture 5 a fuppofititious Textj 'tis this alone he muft prove from ancient inftances, againft which no Ob- jeftion can be made : But when will Mr. Emlyn do this ? Should he run over all the Libraries in the world, he would not find one fingle inflance of a like pafiage introduced into the publick Offices. Thus it remains clearly and convincingly made out by feveral proofs of different kinds, (againft which Mr. Emlyn has had nothing to oppofe, or has return'd only vain anfwers,) that 'tis true thefe admirable words, ^here are three in heaven that bear record^ the Father^ the TVord^ and the Holy Ghoft-, and thefe three are one^ have always been in St. Je- rom's Bible. But they had not been there, had they not belonged to the Apollle St. John^ as well as the Epiftle, of which they make a part. ^.i^^ Cha p. { 37) Chap. VI. Mr. Emlyn'5 anfwer to the proofs taken from the African Churches for the au- thority of the Text tn St. John's Epi^ fiky examined. Fcer the great number of evident and fub- ftantial proofs I brought to fhew the Text of the f *^ Chapter ofSt.7^^«\sEpiftle\vas always in St. Jeroni's Bible j I prov'd at the Hime time, that 'twas alfo in the ancient Latin Bible, nam'd the Italick. This fa6b is of fufficient impor- tance to deferve a thorough examination j becaufe if 'tis certain the pafTage in difpute was in a Verfion fo ancient, and one that was in ufe too among all the Latin Churches both in Europe and Africk^ there can no longer remain the leaft doubt of its being genuine. The matter then is only to fettle well this fad: Now a fa6]: we have oblerv'd muft be prov'd by other fads, bare reafon is not fuffici- ent either on one fide or the other. We have faid withal, that the moll certain proofs of Eift, infuch a cafe as this, are quotations of the pafTage in Latin Authors, who wrote at a time, and in a country where the Italick Bible alone was read in the Churches and Families. If we had the Manufcripts themfelves of this Bible, we might compare 'em with the quotations of the Bifliops and other learn- ed and pious Writers of thofe Ages : But alas ! this means is entirely taken away from us, for all are loll by length of time, the negligence of men, or the ruin of a prodigious number of Libraries, which have been utterly deltroy'd in Europe and Africk% fome by fire, others in the taking and facking of ( 3S ) Towns, or fuch like (iid accidents. The quotations then of St. John's pafiagc, as of divers others, ought at prefent to hold the place of the Manufcripts of the ancient Vulgar Bible. One or two of thefe might fuffice, bccaufe the whole matter being to know whether this verfe was in the Bible, an Au- thor who had quoted it in any work, whoft anti- quity cannot be called in queftion, would be to us a full warrant that the pallage was genuine. But inilcad of one Author we have three, all three Bi- fhops, and Bifliops of reputation too, St. Eucherius Bifnop of Lyons in France^ Figilius Bilhop of Tap- fum in Africk ; and Fulgentius Biiliop of iRufpe in jifrick alfo : The two laH were cotemporaries, the other flouriih'd about fo Years before them. In the mouth of two or three witneffes^ fays our Saviour, JhaJl every word be ejlahlified^ i. e. the faft well prov'd : But the more the witnellcs are to be re- Ipefted for their piety, their wifdom, and condi- tion, their depofition is the more weighty and de- cifive of the fad it agrees with. Had I then in my Dijfertation brought only the depofition of thefe renowned Servants of God for the authenticknels of the conteftcd pafTagc, I mufl be fure of gaining my caufe before the Tribunal of rcafon, the only Judge I can admit of in this Affair. If Mr. Emiyn had fubmitted to it, as I have done, there would have been no difpute betwixt us: But prejudice has alfo her Tribunal, and it unfortunately happens, that men very often carry their caufe thither, and receiv^e judgment thence. However, prejudice mufl have taken deep root in the mind when it fubmits not to fuch teflimonies as I have jufb now produced : How great mull: it then be, when it holds out againft the like depofiiions of three or four hundred Bifhops, who, upon the moft important occalion of their life, or which happen'd in divers Ages together, reprefented in their perfons all the Churches ( 59) Churches of Jfrick^ Sardinia^ Corfica^ and the Ba- learick Iflands, Majorca and Mhiorca\ and who in this Aft, To Hicred, and at a time lb dangerous to Orthodoxy, the caufc of which they defended before a furious Tyrant, prefcnt him with this Text, and ufe it as a Shield to the Do6lrinc of the Tri- nity. If prejudice ftands firm againd fuch an at- tack, we muit not hope that 'twill ever be fubjeft- cd to reafon : And God only can draw it out of the mind by the power of his grace. I bewail, from the bottom of my heart, all perfons in this condi- tion j and 1 earneftly beg of God, both with re- gard to the authenticknefs of this Text, and princi- pally to the truth contain'd in it, that he would open the Eyes of all thofe whom prejudice hinders from Teeing it. Can there really be any thing in it felf more evi- dent than the authority of this Text ofthe Apoflle in the quotations I have produc'd from Vigilius and St. FuJgentius? The former has quoted it thrice in a Work expreflly wrote to prove a Trinity of Perfons in the Godhead againft the Avians of the £fth Century: And St. Fulgentius has it alfo in two of his Books wrote againll the fame Avians, Mr. Emlyn^ who fcarce fticks at any difficulty, declares he's not much embarrafs'd with thefe quotations, not becaufe he finds 'em falfe, nor that he's ignorant Vigilius and Fulgentius were men of great reputation for learning and piety, and above all very zealous for a belief which, at prefenr, fuits not well with fome mtn^'-ciz. a Trinity of Perfons in the Godhead : Mr. E?nlyn knows all this 5 he doubts not but thefe good Bifhops found the verfe in their Bibles, but ^ thefe inilances, fays he, come too late, they are of the fifth and (ixih Centuries. 'Tis true, Vigilius wrote ill the fifth, and St. Fulgentius in the beginning of I Vag, 16. the (4o) the fixth, but were their Bibles ever the lefs of the old Italkk Verfion? For 'tis expreilly on this the ilrefs of my argument lyes : The time a quotation from an Ancient Book is made in, is nothing to the thing it felf whereon the quotation turns 5 as every child knows. In order to wreft this proof out of my hands, and render it unferviceable to me, he muft ihew me, by good arguments, that the Bibles of thefe Bifhops were not the old Italkk Verfion, fince my proof here wholly turns upon that ancient Verfion : But who will do this ? There's no man living, that has any reputation for learning, and efpecially for judgment , will attempt it 5 the defign would prove too unfuccefsful. St. jerom's Bible was not us'd in Afruk in the time of Vigi- lius and St. Fulgentius^ and I qucftion whether it can be prov'd to have been us'd there ever fince. Befides, of what fervice wou'd this be to inva- lidate the authenticknefs of St. John's paflage? This would be to grant what fo much pains is taken to deny, that this pafTage was from the age of St. Jerom found in his Bible. From whence then are the mention'd quotations taken? Why, Jlays Mr. Emlyn^ from fome new Tranilation, which private perfons took the liberty of making, and which did not always agree with the Bible read in the Publick Service. Mr. Emiyn is here again egregioufly miftaken. For, firft, a Tranflation made by a private perfon, is not the fame thing with the introdu6tion of an entire pafl^age, which had never been in the Original, nor in any Verfion, and which confequently would be an unknown and fpurious paf- fage. A Verfion made by a private perfon might be in divers places different from the common tranfla- tion, This is every day feen, but fuch a corruption of the Text, as that of the feventh verfe of the fifth Chapter of Si. John's Epiflle, would be an attempt that coijld neitho: be excus'd^ nor tolerat- ed 5, ( 41) cd > and Mr. Emlyn fhould have given us proof, that feme one of thcfe pretended private Verfions had TextSj which the Bibles read in the Churches had not J otherwife all this is a mere evafion. Se- condly, Suppofing that fome one of thefe private Verfions had added this Textto the Epillle, yet had not the Bilhops who quoted it the common Bible of all the African Churches ? Or were they fo ignorant as not to know they had nrver read this Text in 'em \ Or focarelefs and imprudent, that finding it in thefe private Verfions, they had no regard to the Bible, which alone was publickly authoriz'd ? In truth, Mr. Emlyn paflesno great complement upon the good fenfe of thefe Bifliops. They were men v/ho faw things with their own eyes, their leai mng went far- ther than Latin^ and they were too well skill'd in the art of difputing with the Avians^ to urge a Text againll 'em, which had been only found in un- faithful Tranflations j and which confequcntly could not but have ended in the ihame of thefe Prelates, and diihonourof the orthodox dodrine. He fupports himfelf with Mr. Slmon\ authority, who has faid, ^that fertulUan'mdi^i, Cyprian read the 'vulgar Copy 'with the People^ which was in ufe in their Churches^ hecaufe they could not do otherwife 5 but in their Writings they took the liberty to go back to the Or i'* ginal^ and tranflate as they thought fit. We have no need of Mr. Simon for fuch a trifle j there has been no Verfion of the Bible, the terms and fenfe of which men have not been at liberty to leave for a better, when they had good reafons for fo doing 5 but this is not the matter we're upon, as I have juft now prov'd. In the namelefs Differtation^ which Mr. Emlyn now fathers, he had pafs'd by the teftimonies of Figilius and FiBor Vitenfis : ^ becaufe^ fays he, they wrote long * Hift. Crit, des Verfions, c^, 3, ^ Page 19, X after (40 after the heats hetween the Arians and Athanafians, and when the invafions of the barbarous Nations had thrown all into confufion and ignorance. When he had nothing but this to take up with in that Dlffertation^ Mr. Em- Jyn did well not to fet his name to his performance, no body required it of him ; but fince he has refolv'd to run the rifque of it, he mull: give me leave to ask him v/here he has found the heat of the controverfy was over on the fide of the orthodox, whom he calls, I know not why, Athanafians^ as the Arians ftyl'd 'em in contempt : On the other hand, 'twas more hot than ever in Africk^ and Africk is the fcene of the prefent difpute. I beg like wife he would tell us whence he has learnt that the arrival, or as he terms it, the invafion o£ the I^andals in Africk^ for 'tis them he names the barbarous Nations^ brought confufion and ignorance into that country. Confufion and dif- order, 'tis certain, were brought- but for ignorance j nothing in the world is lefs true. This fell out ac the time St. Augufiin^ held his Difpute with Maxi- miniis^ an Arian Bifhop ; at this time liv'd Figilius^ Vi^or^ and St. Fulgent ius^ who wrote abundance of Treatifes againil the Arian Herefy. I juft nam'd Fi^ory who for his ihare deferves a Chapter apart. Chap, (43 ) Chap. VIL Particular confide rations upon the Afri- can Church's Confeffion of Faith ^ re- lated by Vidor, Bifhop of Vite, a- gainfl the anfwers of Mr. Emlyn. |E can't have a more glorious monument to prove the paHage in the fifth chapter of St. John\ firlt Epiftle was in the old ltd- % lick Verfion, than a pubhck and folemn, and as I may fay, judiciary Inftrument prefented to the King, or his Commiflioners, and put into their hands in a full aflembly : An Aft fo authentick, I will add too fo extraordinary in icsform, and in all itsc:r- cumftances, Divine Providence has preferv'd to us in an Original Hillory of that time. This Aft then is a Confeflion of Faith, which by the prudent and grave advice of divers Prelates, and other perfons of underftanding, was drawn up by four Bifhops, cho- fen out of all the African Clergy, to be prefented to King Hunerick an Avian and perl'ecutor > that it might ferve for that Prince, as a Defence and \^indication of the Orthodox Faith. The pafTage of St. John^ ^herc are three in Heaven^ 'wkich hear record^ &c. is placed entire in this Confeflion of Faith : It is not as it were crept in among others, neither in fuch fort that it can hardly be difcern'd there : It flands bare-fac'd, and fliews it felf openly, as if alone it was to fuilain the main fhock of the difpute. I beg leave to rehearfe it here in its full extent, and as I have quoted it in the Dijfertation I am now de- fending: This repetition will not be unufcful, and can't but be fcrviceable to thofe who have not read my former Difcouife, andfhall read this. After the quotation of divers other palfagcs, 'tis faid. But that it may appeart more clear than day-light^ that the God- G head ( 44 ) head of the Holy Gbojl is one with the Godhead of the ■ Father' and the Son^ fee it proved by the tefiimony of the Evangelifl St. John, who writes ^thusy there are three which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Gholl:, and thefe three are one. Does the Apoflle fay^ thefe three are not difiinH from each other ^ except in the cafe of equality^ or fome other great differences that diftinguifh ''em ? In no wife J hut he fays^ thefe three are hut one and the fame thing. Hi tres unum funt. Wherein is this proof defe61:ive in ihewing fully, that this famous Text was read in the Bibles of the African Churches ? For that's the only thing I am to prove at prefent. What would one, or what can one defire more ? King Hunerick had enjoin'd the Bifhops CO appear within fix months at Carthage to difpute there with the Arian Bifhops upon the do61:rineof the Trinity, and to come furnifh'd with proofs taken all from parages out of holy Scripture. The Confeflion of Faith was not drawn up by the Or- thodox precipitately and ilightly \ they had fix months time allow'd for't 5 four Billiops, Mr. Emlyn fays three, but there were four, all nam'd by their names, and the titles of their Churches, four Bifhops chofen to compile this important piece, threw it into the form wherein we now have it. The pious and prudent Bifhop of Carthage^ Eugenius^ at the head of nine others , prefented it to HunericJ€% Com- miflioners in the prefence of the Arian Bifhops : The pa(]age of the three witnefTes in Heaven makes a notable figure in this Confeflion, which was fub- fcrib'd or approved by three or four hundred Bifhops, 1 have given at large a more particular account of the whole in my Critical Differtatlon^ and have there re- futed the vain and nice obje6bions of Mr. Simon, What remained after this for Mr. Emlyn? The order of the difpute lequir'd he fhould oppofe my Argu- sxientSj if they were not folid, and endeavour to re- eft ablifh ( 45 } eftjiblifli thofe I had defeated: Infleadof thishe com' plains, but in vain, of an infinuation in my Differta^ tion^ ^ that he had -put by Vi6lor VitenfisV teftimo" ny for being a fabulous IVriter : His words were thefe' ^ What the credit of VidorV Hifiory^ as we have it is} I cannot well tell. I know it has found little with many^ in relation of firange miracles : And what I have (iiid is this, He contents himfelf with faying^ the tejiimony of Victor ought not to be of much weighty be^ caufe in his Hiftory he has intermixed a recital of cer* tain miracles^ that ha'ue more an appearance of fabky than an air of truth. Let any one judge, whether I have done him wrong. But at the fame time Mr. Emlyn complains, 1 have mif-reprefented his words J does he not exprefs himfelf in the like man- ner concerning Fi5ior's Hillory? ^^ S uppoftng Vidiov's relation of that Confcffion of Faith to be truly as we have it. This defervcs not that we fhould dwell one moment upon it. What follows is more remark- able : ^ Ifhew'dj fays he, (to which Mr . M^xim has made no reply) that it was no evidence of the cur- rent admijfion of that Tcxt^ or of its long fianding j and that from the common way^ in that Age and Place^ of interpreting the nest verfe.^ in fuch a manner as Qould not well confifl with having this "Text alfo in their public k Bibles. Hereupon, I firll make this obfervation, that Mr. E?nlyn^ who would reprefent my DiJJ'ertation as a Treatife full of arbitrary Suppoiitions, and void of proofs, which, as I have divers times faid, muft be proofs of fa6V, produces not one of this kind, but perpetually reafons in the air, and draws confcquences without any foundation. For I would beg of him to tell me, whence he forms this reafoning, that the Text in difpute, quoted by an aHembly of Billiops, who reprefented ail the Churches of Jfrick.^ was ??4^?. l5, bfulj Inquiry, ^aie lo. c ^a^e 17. ^ Paie 16. G 1 nui; (40 not generally in the Bibles of thofe countries, or that 'tis no evidence of its long {landing. If he will conceit, that thefe Bifhops had neither probity, nor honour, nor common fenfe, to urge againft the A- rian Bifhops, a novel and unknown Text, or one Text for another, the eighth Verfe for the feventh, and this in favour of an allegorical explication which feme perfons had conceived, and the Avians fcorn'd, and the more, becaufe notallegoi'ies and explications, but exprefs Texts of Scripture were required j if he will conceit, I fay, all thefe things, as he neceflarily muft, who gives the fame anfwer with Mr. Emlyn^ I own I have not learnt to form phantoms at will, nor improve a chimera into a reality. I take fads as I find 'em : I find three or four hun- dred Bifhops afTembled out of all Africk^ and divers other countries, drawing up a confeffion of Faith, wherein I fee the pafTage of St. John^ and fee it ap- pear too with all the mofl fingular marks of diflin- dion : In this quotation I fee the Bibles of thefe Bifhops J with the Bibles of thefe Bifhops I fee alfo thofe of their Churches and publick performances : I fhould think I hadlofl my fenfes, if I went about to imagine thefe Manufcript Bibles were lately wrote, inflead of being the Bibles of their Predeceflbrs j nor fliould I think my mind in a much better flate, if I fancy 'd the Avian Bifhops to be men fo eafy to be impos'd on, as to be made believe, that there was a Text in St. John's Epiflle, which they had never feen there, they who, as Erafmus obferves, were mightily vers'd in reading the holy Scriptures : Thus is my mind form'd, if Mr. Emlyn's is other- wife, indeed I don't envy him. Non equidem invideo, miror magis — ™ In his anonymous treatife he had afferted, ^ that this ConfefTion of Faith, related by /^/^or, muftha've » Pagi t.i, -l > heen (47) been fome private compofure^ thd* it might be in the name of the other Bifiops^ who^ fays he, were fiow fcatter'd and banijjyd. But 'tis very likely Mr. Em- lyn had never read Fidlor's Hiftory, and that he had conceived the matter fo as would be mofl: proper to leflcn the authority of that Record. For on the contrary, in Fiber's account *ti5 expreflly faid, rhat all this great number of Bifhops were afTembled at Carthage^ that they chofe ten from among 'cm to affift in their name at the Conference, and carry thi- ther their Confeffion of Faith > and then he imme* diately recounts in the moft affeding manner imagi- nable, the infults, cruelties and barbarities of Hune^ r/V^againll thefe poor Biihops, who prefentedthem- felves in a body before him at the gate of the City, after the day of the conference. To return to the quotation of the paflage it felf in this ConfefTion of Faith : The Text of the 7^^ vei'fe is there recited word for word 5 we have feen it > however this is not yet fatisfadory to Mr. Emlyn j he will have it to be the 8^^ verfe j this fpeaks oi the Spirit^ the Water^ and the Blood j the other men- tions the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghojl : the 8^^ verfe fpeaks of three witnejfes in Earth -y the quotation of the 7^^ verfe q^ three witnejjes in Hca^ ven, Thefe differences are fo fenfible, and make fuch an impreffion upon the mind, that 'tis not pof- fible to take here the one for the other, the wit- nejfes in Heaven^ for thofe of the Earth -^ the Father^ the Sorij and the Holy Ghoft^ for the Spirit^ the Water ^ and the Blood: But notwithftanding, Mr. Emlyn finds that all this is the fame thing. But how, will fome one fay, is itpofflblehe fhould thus confound matters, which are fo diftind ? It pro- ceeds from a flrong notion he can't get rid of, that the myflical interpretation ofthe eighth verfe, which fome of the Ancients have given in to, allegorically explain- ing the word Spirit of the Father, the Water of the Holy (48 ) Holy Ghoil, and the Blood of the Son, is the fame with the qaotation of the words of the feventh, I'here are three in Heaven^ that bear record^ the Fa- ther^ the PFordy and the Holy Ghofi. But if he had; a httle more attentively conlider'd what I have faid. in my Dijfertation upon this perplexed interpretation of the eighth verfe, he would not have rcturn'd to- it (o often as he has done in his Anfwer -y but fince he is fo fond on'r, 'tis necellary for me to take away all danger of his ever deceiving himfelf with it again. Firfl, I muft put him in mind, that he has, always m'^^icEucherius(^Q2k upon this occalion other- wife than he defign'd. Mr. Emlyn^ in his Anony- mous performance has made him fay, ^ that this was the common expolition of thefe words of the eighth -verfe, the Spirit^ the J^Fatcr^ and the Bloody and in the Anfwer I am confuting, ^ that this interpretation was current and of long ftanding: But St. Eucherius neither fays the expolition was ancient, nor com- znon. Hie words are, P lures tamen hie ipfam inter- pretatione myfticd intelligunt ^rinitatem : i. e. '' Ne- *"' verthelefs divers by a myftical interpretation un- " derfland it of the Trinity." What is there in all this, that Ihews the expolition to have been an- cient? Does it fay, this expofition was after the prevailing Cuftom of that time, as Mr. Emlyn fays ^ in the nineteenth page of his Anfwer ? Does the word plures exprefs the fame thing with common^ ly and currently? In no wife. But what was the expofition which divers gave to thefe words, the Spirit^ the Water ^ and the Blood ? One might be^ lieve perhaps 'twas the lame St. Auguftin gave 'em in his Book againll Maximinus, and which was alfo Facundus's, on whofe authority Mr. Emlyn much rehes : It was in part, but there is one great differ- ence y St. Augujlin and Facundus underftood by the * Pag. 30. b Pag, 16. c Pag, 19. (49) word Spirit^ the perfon of the Father, and by the lVatei\ the Perfon of the Holy Gholl j whereas thofe whoTTi Eucherius {^ifA^.^ of, meant the .Father by the word Water^ and interpreted the word Spi- rit of the Holy Ghofb. Aqua Patremindioans^ San- :guinc Chriftum demonftrans^ Spiritu 'verb S. Spirit urn. This fhews, how fmall a matter thefe refin'd expo- fitions of the three witneiles in the eighth verfc were, and how little they were current. What, is over and above cei tain, iSyih^t no Anan would have fliewn any regard to this fort of allego- rical expofitions, the produft of pure fancy 5 'twas requifite the very perfons of the Trinity Ihould be ihewn to them under the proper names of 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft; This the African Bifhops knew very well, and 'twas alfo on this account they produc'd, in their Confeffion of Faith, the exprels words of St. J-obn^ Inhere are three in Heamn^ that hear record^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe three are one. One of thefe pious Bifhops, Vigilius of T'apfum^ of whom I have al- ready fpoke fo often, had before tojd the Arians^ in urging againft 'em this very paiTage, that themfelves Y^^d it in their Bibles : The names of the three perfons y ;he tells 'em,-^r^ e'vidently fjeivn^ and the nctrme of 'their Divinity^ 'which is one^ is alfo manifeftly de- .cJar'd by thefe; words of the Evangelifi St *]ohn in ■his Erpiftk. ''There are three^ that hear record in Hea- veny the Father y the Wordy and the Holy Ghoft 5 and thefe three are one : And fomewhat lower in the fame Work, fFhy Do you read what the Evange^ lift 5"/. John has fa'idy Three are onCy if you conceive there are different natures in the three perfons. Upon the whole, thefe words oi VigiUiis to the -Atiansy IVhy do you read, i^c. manifellly fhcw how much thofe men are deceived, who think .the Arians eras'd thefe words of the fcventh verfe QUI of St. John\ Epiftle, and that for this reafon * they ( 50 ) they arc wanting in divers Manufcripts. 'Tis an imputation, which far from being prov'd, is entirely deflroy'd by this fole word oi Figilius, who proving to them, by this Text the myftery of the Trinity, tells 'em theyjread it in their own Bibles > and draws thence an argument againft 'em, that in reading it they refus'd to embrace the divine Truth contain'd in it. C HAP. VIII. The pcijfages of St. Eucherius, and Saint Cyprian defended againfi the Anfwers of Mr. Emiyn, whh a recapitulation or general conclufion^ concerning the citatiom of the Text of St. John, ta- ken from the old Italick Verfion. T,Eucherius liv'd in great reputation for learning and piety in the Ifle of Le- rinsj at the fame time Sc. Jerom was yet alive in his Monaftery of Bethlehem^ and St. Aiiguflin in his Bifhoprick of Hipfo in Afrkk. I have given in my Dijfertation the quotation Eu- cherius has made of the paiFage of St. John in his Treatife de formulis Spiritualibus. This quotation by fo w^orthy a man, and a contemporary of St. Au* guflin and St. Jerom^ has given Mr. Emlyn exceflive trouble 5 he faw the confequence, but was not fo happy as to follow and embrace it. He had faid in his anonymous Difcourfe, ^ That St. Auguflin, Eu- cherius, and Cerealis, of the fame Country^ and in » Full Enquiry, vc pag. lu the ( 51 ) the fafne yf^e^ knew- not this Texti And in tJicfe few words he had fallen into two egregious errors j the one, in faying theie Bifhops were all of the fame Country : St. AuguHin and Cerealis liv'd in Africk^ and were Bilhops there : St. Euchcrius liv'd in France in the Monallery of Lm;^;, and was after- ward Bifhop o^ Lyons. The other mi (lake is in fay- ing Eiicberius knew not this Text : I pafs'd over the former fault, not confining my felF, as I have fud above, to follow him dole j but for the fecond I confuted it in mv Dif/ertation^ and quoted there a palTage from Eucherius^ wherein he recites this Text : This is pofitive. How does he extricuce himfelf from this affliir ? We fliall fee, by the man* ner Mr. Emlyn is here caught, that inllead of fin- cerely enquiring after truth, and embracing it when laid before him, he ufes his utmoll effort to wreft and evade it. Fnit, he fays that this quotation ^ concerns only the fifth Century^ in "which pojfihly the "words might become "text in the Epiftle of St. John. 'Tis theri upon a pojjihility this argument turns j a very un* Heady fupport : but was not this alfo the i^ge of St. Angufiin^ and in part of St. Jerom ? And if this Text had been quoted by St. Auguftin^ or St. Jerom had alledg'd it in fome of his Works, would he rejefl: the quotations of thefe two Ancients upon pretence, that they liv'd in the fifth Century? 1 am per* fuaded he would not > for from the humour I fee him in, no Age will Itop him j and if he had no- thing to urge againft that, he would mod certainly invent other reafons either againft the work, from whence the quotation would he taken > or the terms, wherein 'tv.^ould be exprefs'd, were they the very words of the feventh verfe j as we have feen in the H cafe ( J\) cafe of the Confeffion of Faith drawn up by the Jfrican Bifhops. We mull however fay here in honour of his judg- ment, that he has percciv'd the weaknefs of this firfl: Jnfwer^ and therefore not daring to rely upon it, has fought out for another^ wherein he keeps himfelf clofe, after having attempted to form around it the flrongeft fence he was able. In this paOage of St. Eucherius^ he found both the verfes of the fifth chapter of St. John's Epiille, the feventh and eighth, recited one after the other, and has hence infer'd the paillige might polfibly be faulty, becaufe the joining together of the two verfes in one quo- tation feem'd to him wholly fingular. From this firfl: very curious obfervation he has pafs'd on to a reflexion he appears to be well fatisfy'd with, viz* it being fure, according to him, that the eighth verfe was at that time conftantly us'd in proof of the Trinity, 'tis not natural to fuppofe the words of the feventh verfe fhould be us'd withal 5 but that in procefs of time, he knows not when, nor mud we ask him, fome body having found this pailage in fome private Bible, had unadvifedly added it to St. Eucherius's Work. Be it fo! Who will fay after this that Mr. Emiyn has not skill in forming Syftems of Criticifm ? Here's one of his making, tiiat would be entirely pcrfedir, was not the whole a mere fidion. In advancing that a pafTage of any ancient Author whatfoever is alcer'd in the quotations, 'tis not enough to fay in general, that many faults have been obferv'd in the Manufcript. The Arian Sandius would by this means get off from the paflage of St. Cyprian concerning the Text in St. John's Epi- llle, and Mr. Emlyn urges the fame reafoning againfl the piiilage of St. Eucherius j but no Critick or Man of Letters has any regard to fuch an obferva- tion. The Text may be faulty in divers places of one ( 53 ) one or more Manufcripts, without being fo in ano- ther place 5 there is no confequenceto be drawn from the one to the other. To do the bufinefs effeclual- Iv, he mud prove either that the particular place in diipute is not in the Manufcript Copies, or thi^t "l!s not fo largely fct down there as in the printed Editions Nor will this always fuffice, for an Edi- tion may be made from fuch a Manufcript as con- tain'd in it all that is printed, tho' the whole be not found in divers others. And this is the cafe of that very inflance Mr. Emlyn produces to fhcw thcfe words of the feventh verfe, T'bere are three that bear record in Hea'ven^ ccc. might be there an interpolatioji, and not originally infertcd by St. Eu- cheriiis, ^ This^ fays he, was but natural-, and I underftand this is the Cafe in a like inftance with Bede'i Cornments on the eighth lerfe -, There are three that bear record, the Water, Blood and Spi- rit : For fo I am informed the Manufcripts ^/Bede's JVorks have it^ whereas in the printed Editions the words^ in terra, ^' in earth f are added. J have nothing to fay againfl: the information he has re- ceiv'd, but I'm very fure that 'twas not' given in rhofe general terms Mr. Emlyn has exprefs'd him- felf, / am informed the Manufcripts of Bcde'^ Works have not thefe words j he fhould have faid fome Manufcripts. But My. Emlyn faw this would do him no fervice, becaufe it does not follow that one or more pafTages are interpolations in the printed Books which have 'em, from their being omitted in fome Manufcripts, the words in terra are in an old Ma- nufcript o^ Bede belonging to the Library of Utrecht : I havefeen 'em there with my own Eyes. To go higher : Mr. £;^;/)« grounds his conjedture, that the Text of the feventh verfe is an interpola- tion in St. Eucherius upon this, that the eighth f Pa^. to. H z verfe (54) i^crfc was very commonly urg'd in proof of tbe my* ilery of the Trinity; this is a miiiake he perpetU" ally makes, and brings in upon all occafions : I have ihewn it to be fo 5 and he miifl be delighted with it beyond all imagination, if yet he refufes to abandon it. He has withal fuffet'd himfelf to be imposed on in his firfl: difcovery, in believing it a iingularity in this pafTage of St. Eucherius^ that both the feventh and eighth verfes are found there to- gether. If he had read the fpurious Decretals of Jfidorus Mercator^ he would have found 'em both twice quoted in the Decretal of Pope Hyginus^ which I had refer'd to, pag. ^i. and in that 0/ Pope 5*eZ?/^ the W. He will tell me, thefe Decretals are far more modern than the time Eucherius liv'd in. I know it, but thefe Decretals, as fpurious as they are, in being attributed to thofe Popes, are yet very ancient, as 1 have obferv'd after the moll learned Criticks among both Proteftants and Papifls. And then, what is it to the quotation of two pafHiges together, whether 'tis more ancient, or more mo- dern ? What llrikes with Mr. Emlyn^ and ferves to ^ti out his remark, is, that he does not compre- hend how any who had before 'em the Text of the feventh verfe, wherein the three Perfons of the Ho- ly Trinity are exprefs'd by their own names, fhould go about to quote along with fo formal a Text the words of the eighth verfe, which can only be apply'd to the Trinity allegorically, and by a myftical ex- pofition- Whether Mr. Emlyn conceives or not how this could poffibly be, is a matter we have no concern in > the fa6i: remains notwithftanding, and the inltance of the two Decretal Letters do's not allow us to doubt of it. I will fay farther, and 1 have referv'd this obfer- vaiion for the laft, which rnufl entirely difconcert Mr. Emlyn's whole machine, that he has not confi- a^fi^^ that the myllery of the Trinity is in no wife the ( 5J) the fubjeft treated of in the pafTage of St. Eucherius, 'Tis true, we there read thefe words, ad Trinitatem^ which in their primary notion fignify, as to the 'tri- nity^ but here they are taken in a quite different fenfe, and to denote the number three, as we fhould fay, as for the number three. We muft know then, St. Eucherhis purposed in the chapter, wherein thefc are read, to make fome fmall obfervations upon di- vers numbers exprefs'd in Scripture. He begins with one^ and lays it has refpeiSi: to the Unity of God, up- on which he quotes feveral pafTages, wherein there is, God is one. He comes next to the number twoy and finds for this number the two Tables of the Law, the two Cherubim, l^c. He goes on, and coming to the number three, 'tis there he fays, ad Trinitatem\ and upon this number he produces the two pafTages of Si.Johrj^ becaufe the number three is exprefs'd in both, three witneiTes in Heaven, and three witnefles in Earth, and the three Vine-branches, Gen. 40. ii. From the number three he pafTes to four^ and fo on to others. The Pubhck will be much fiirpriz'd to fee a man of Letters, a Writer of Critical Differta- tions^ fatiguing himfelf 'till he fweats, as I may fay, water and blood after an imaginary difficulty, a Phan- tom which flics upon fight, and difappears at the bear reading St. Eucherius's pafTage. As for my part, 'tis all one to me for what ends, and upon what oc- cafion he has quoted it, fince I draw my proof from this only, that being taken from the Italick Verfion, for Eucherius us'd no other, it follows that this paf- fage was in that Verfion in the time of Si.Jerom^ as we have feen it there towards the clofe of the fifth Century, in the Writings of Figilius^ St. Fulgent ius^ and olhtr African Bifhops. From the quotation of St. Eucherius I went back- wards to St. Cyprian^ who had even in the third Cen- tury recited this Text in his Difcourfe of the Unity of the Church, I had treated this matter at large from the ( 5n the 79^^ to the 87^^ page of my Dijfertation^ where 1 had examined and confuted all the falfe argun:ients of Mr. Simon and others againft this pafliige. Mr. Em- lyn makes no reply to this, but as if I had but bearly touch'd upon it, he triumphs in fuch wife for his having fo well explain'd St. Cjf/>W^?2's meaning, that he wonders I fhould again bring him back upon the board. If any one will give himfelf fuch mighty airs of fufiiciency, he ought to have more reafon for't than Mr. Emlyn has here. If I had barely recited St. Cy/'ri^w'steftimony, without taking notice of the evafions which he and Mr. Simon^ and fuch others had invented to enervate the force of this teilimony, he might have grounds for his prefumption, and for faying he had fo folidly eftablifh'd his caufe, that we mud; no more cite again St. Cyprian -y but far from this, I have evidently fhewn the force of this tcfli- mony, and have fet it above all exception : In this flate it Hill remains, fince Mr. Emlyn has thought himfelf too weak to renew the attack, and wreft him from us j I fubmit my felf to the judgment of every Reader, who fhall take the pains to compare our Books together. 'Tis pretended, that when St. Cyprian faid in his Trcatife of the Unity of the Church, Jgain^ it is written of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofiy that thefe three are one^ he had refpe61: to the Spirit^ the Water^ and Blood of the 8^^' f. of which it is alfo faid, and thefe three are one > but inftead of gi- ving the proper terms of this Text, which are the Spirit^ the Water and the Bloody he only had 'em in view, and contented himfelf with giving their Sig- nification, which is faid to be that of the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi. Without repeating here what I have objeded to this very fingular pretence, I would ask whether any thing is found in St. Cyprian which may have given place to't j for if nothing be found, 'twill be mere fancy and imagination to afcribe to (57) to him a meaning which no one can fhew he ever had -, now 'tis certain there is nothing like this in St. Cyprian. *Tis true, iay they, but Facnndiis two hundred Years after him undcrllood him in chisfenre. But has Facundiis prov'd what he fays ? He has only laid it, and that's all. In truth, 'tis to make a bad ureofreafon entirely to acquiefce in the bare ipfe dixit oF any perfon whatfoever, unlefs we believe him infal- lible, and he is alfo believ'd fuch by thofc upon whom this ipfe dixit is magillerially impos'd. Is it well then to aitlx afenfe to "St. Cyprian's words, which no one dare fiiy they naturally and of themfelves have, upon the bare imagination of one man, I will not fay who liv'd two hundred Years after him, but who was his contemporary, anJ. if they pleafe, his SuccefFor in the See of Carthage ? We have feen how the lear- ned and pious Figilius^ Bifhop of T^apfum^ urg'd againil the Avians^ that St. John do's not only fay there were three, but afcribes to every one of thefe three his dillin61: name, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofl : Let us here again repeat the very words of that ancient Biihop : St. John has exprejjfly mentioned the names of the perfons and their Unity in the God- head^ when he faid in his Epiftle^ fhere are three that hear record in Heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the Holy Ghofl ^ and thefe three are one. St. Cyprian had faid in like manner, 'Tis written of the Father^ the Son.^ and the Holy Ghofl ^ that thefe three are one. Can , any thing be more alike than thefe two pafTages of St. Cyprian znd PI gili us ? ^liunum novit^ ambos no- verit'y who fees one, fees the other alfo. In Figilius 'tis the Text of the feventh verfe, and it fhall not be fo in St. Cyprian^ tho' there is nothing in all the Dx- Icourfe wherein thefe words are found, nor in any other place throughout the Writings of this holy Bifhop and Martyr, which takes 'em away from the fame verfe Figilius had in view, to transfer 'em to another. (58) another, where the names of the three perfons in the Godhead are not fpecify'd. I was about to put an end to this fubjeft, and draw my conclufion from the great number of au- thorities which 1 have produced to fhew the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven was in all Ages in the Ifalick Verfion j when taking again in hand the anonymous Dijfertation^ I found there two things concerning the quotation of St. Cyprian^ which are certainly of a very fingular chara6ter. As I made no account of 'em when I wrote my DiJJertation^ I left 'em quietly to their Author \ but at prefenr, be- caufe Mr. Emlyn^ who lays hold of every advantage, would perhaps imagine I could not anfwer 'em, I find my felf under a fort of neceffity to fpeak my Opinion. The firft of thefe is what he fays, Page ii. that no one could fhew Sr. Cyprian had a particular Copy of St. John's Epiftle, wherein the Text of the fe- venth verfe was. The challenge is extraordinary, Mr. Emlyn may be well aflur'd no one will offer to accept it, /. e. to prove to him what Manufcripts of the New ^eflament St. Cyprian had ; but if he means only here of fliewing that this holy Bifhop had the common Bible of all the Churches of his time, that will be by no means difficult. I fhall be anfwer'd : This is not precifely what he demands j he requires it (hould be prov'd to him, that the fe- venth verfe of St. John was in the Copy St. Cy- prian us'd. If this is the fenfe of his queilion, why do's he talk of z particular Copy, fincethis would be vi(ibly to make a captious and deceitful challenge, in that it would give out the Copy, wherein this Text was, would be a particular or fingular Copy, different from others. The great proof a pafTage is in a Book, is the quotation of it by a Writer of known honour and probity. St. Cyprian has given us ( T9 ) iis the words of the fevcnth verfc, this vcrfc v/a3 then in St. Cyprian's Bible. The iecond thing the anonymous Writer had ad- vanced againft St Cyprian's quotation, was, that ii could not refpect the feventh verfc as it ftands in the Bibles, becaufe in the Bibles the z'^ vvitncfs is nam'd Verhum^ or the IVord\ whereas in St. Cyprian he is call'd the Son^^ for tho' in the main 'tis the fame thing, yet the letter of the Text is not foUow'd, as it ou^o^ht to be in n quotation. I own, 1 was lo much difguitcd with thefe triflles, that judging 'em not Wvjrthy of a grav^e and ferious man, fuch as a Critick ought to be^ I thought it not worth while to fpeak of 'cm ; but fince we are here engng'd, we'll difpatch this affair in a few words. I fay then, fi rll, that the quotation of St. John^ pafTage in St. Cypuan^ properly dehgns to fpcak on- ly of the lafl; words, tbc/'e thee are one j the Father^ the Son, and the Holy Gholl are nam'd there merely^ becaufe thcfe words bear relation to them. Second- ly, Tho' it fhould be true^ that this w?.s equally a quotation of the three perfons, and of their Uniry^ Mr. Emlyn's objection, taken from St. Cyprian's fay- ing the Son^ inltead of the ivord Koyog^ as it is in the Text of St. John^ would come to nothing, for he mult be much a Stranger to the writings of the ancient Fathers, who has not obferv'd that in their quotations of a Text of Scripture, they often put one word for another of the fame fenfe j inllantesof this kind we have in St. Hilary^ who m the Icven- tecnth verfeofthe fixth chapter of the firll: Epiltleto iht Corinthians'^ has the word Godm^czd oi Lord ^ in St. Leo^ who inftead of the word G/ory has wrote Majejiy^ l Cor. 2, 8. in St. Cyprian himielf very frequently} thus St. Luke 2. ii. he has ^uijefiis Chnft for Chrift the Lord > in St. 'John 3. if. he has faid, that ivhofoever believeth on the Son^ for "whofo-* fQsv^r kdmith m himj as it is in the Greek > in I t Cor. ( 6o ) I Cor. ch. 7. y. "^z. the Greek reads, how he may pleafe the Lord -, St. Cyprian^ bow be may pleafe God, 'Tis tiiefome to dwell upon fuch obiervations : To quit 'cm then, and come to fomewhat more ferious, and moie worthy the important Ribjed: we are upon. I have prov'd by indilputable authorities, that the Text oF the fcventh verfe of the fifth chapter of St.Jobn's firfl: Epiflle, was always in the old Italkk Veriion, as before I had fhewn it was in the Verfion revis'd by St. Jerom : From all this I at prefent draw this conclufion with regard to the Itnlick Verfionj that fince all the monuments of this ancient Tranfla- tion we have extant in the Writings of the Fathers, agree in giving us this pallage, 'tis as much, and even more, than if we had the Bibles of thofe Ages. We might have fome few of 'em without having a great number 5 four or five Copies wrote in Ages fo remote, would at this day be one of the molt valuable treafures in Libraries : and if we found 'em all agree in having the pailage in St. John's Epi- Itle, fo highly would their agreement be cried up, that we fhould look on thofe men, and with reafon too, as head-flrong and obllinate, who fiiould op- pofe fo prefTmg a teftimony. But tho' we have not thefe Manufcripts of the whole Epiflle of St.Job^j we have 'em at leaft fo far as concerns the difputcd paflage, 'tis in the quotations of the Fathers, and 'tis there as a fentcnce engraven in brafs or marble. Nor are thefe quotations two or three, which in the cafe of this Text are to us inftead of perfed Manufcripts of the Epiltle or the Bible j we have 'em in France and Jfrick^ i, e. in the Well: and South. Nor have they been made and jcopied one from the others, nor are they in Manufcripts thrown into certain cor- ners of private houfes 3 they are Manufcripts which belong'd to theBilliops, to Bifhops who were famous for their zeal and orthodoxy. The number of 'em with- al is not fmallj not two, nor three, norfour j we have thar that of St. Cyprian^ that of Eucherius^ thofe of PI- gilius and St. Fidgcntius^ for their names are come to our knowledge. To thefe we may join the Manu- fcripts of the four yf/;7V^/7 Bifhiops who drew up the Confeflionof Faith of all theChurchcs intheirCoun- try, from the Manufcripts of their Bibles > their names alfo are known to us, and thus we have eight plainly notify'd. ThetenBilliops, \j\^\\ ^i. Eugenius their Patriarch at the head of them, wcreable to prove to the Ariam by their Bibles, the authentickncfs of the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven, which ftands fo admirably dillinguifh'd in then- Confcilion : Laflly, The three or four hundred other Bifhops of Africk^ Sardinia^ Cor fie a^ and the Bakarick I (lands, who all fubfcrib'd, was it only by their prefence, to this Confefllon of Faith which ten of 'em had prc- fented to Hunerick j where have we ever feen at once fo many witnefTes, and fo authentick depofiti- ons for the certainty of a fa6l ? Now 'tis purely a fa6t which is here concern'd, viz. whether this parage was, or was not in the old //^//V/^ Bible ? 'Twas there then, and this truth remains clearly demonitrated : Mr. Emlyn has taken care not to touch upon it, his filence gives victory to my proof But I am now about to carry the matcer yet farther, and confute him from his own principles. We have ^ efpecially upon the places, where- in the Latin Copies might differ from them, or dif- agree among themfelves : From whence it follows, that the Text of the feventh verfe being plac'd in their B ble, revis'd and corrected, they mull necef- farily have found it in the Greek Manufcripts. I don't believe we can form, upon a queftion of facl, rcafonings better connedled, nor draw confequences more juit. If Mr. Emlyn has found either that the fuds exprefs'd in all this are not true, or that being true, we can't reafonably deduce from 'em thefe con- fequences, he could not do better than by fliewing it, and this he muil necelHirily doj but he has not done either the one or the other: He anfwers nothing to ;he point of the Italick Verfion, nor upon the cor- rection made by St. Jerom^ nor the confequences drawn from thefe two fads j fo that thefe two firfl proofs remain in their full force. And yet Mr. E??!- /;« has been fo bad a manager of his exprcffions as to {64) to fay upon this occafion, ^ that I advance fo man^ things with fuch undaunted confidence and pofitive affu- ranee J that if it be found I have [aid 'em without truth and evidence^ he thinks it will not gain my Work any credit in the end^ tho"* it may ft agger the un- learned Reader at firfi. Truly , I believe , they are not the Readers he intitles ignorant or unlearned^ who have been convinced of the force and evidence of my proofs, but Gentlemen of the Clergy oi- Eng- land^ and other learned men, who have read 'em 5 for thefe are more capable to penetrat' ^o the bot- tom of things, and have infinirch more tafte for mattersofCnticifm and Learning, as this is, (^^ hich is in djvers places found burden'd ^ith dry and knot- ty Criticifm) than the ordinary Readers, whoie whole capacity is confin'd w.thm the bounds of good fenfe. Howeyer, 'twas Mr. Emlyn's part to fink the reputa- tion of thofe things which he afTertsI havefaid with ib much prefumption, without truth and evidence. To judge yet bttter of the perplexity he is in, let us hear what he fays concerning the inference taken from the Corre6lors employ'd by Charles the Great, And indeed^ fays he, if we muft not doubt of their ha- 'ving fuch Manufcripts^ (viz. Greek Manufcripts,) j3or that they exactly corn fled the Latin by ''em in eve- ry place they differ d^ nor that they really put this Text in their Bibles j then the work is done^ if we may real- ty doubt nothing : But is there fo much as one of thefe things whereof we can doubt after the reafons i have given ? Let us hear him yet again, Mr, Mar- tin knows thefe things arc doubted \ juft on the con- trary, I know very well they are certain, and \ my felf have prov'd 'em effedually. As the flrongefl prejudice againfl: the pafTage I defend, is deriv'd from the want of it in molt of the Greek Manufcripts, the matter is pufh'd fo far (^5) as to maintain that 'tis in none. I firR- opposed to th s Mr. S'mon'^ own conteflion, who has exprcllly fa.u, that this pafHige ^ is iri very few Greek Copies -y and a little a-ter, it is not in the moft part of the Greek Copies ; and again, 'tis only in the moft modern Greek Mmufcripts. Without naming the Libraries, and marking thefe Manufcripts by their numbers, and fuch other particular diftinilions, one C'^uld not fay more exprcflly, that this paflage is certainly in fome Copies or Greek Manufcripts. Mr. Simon who wrote againfl; this p^Hage, and lets up in all his Works for a man who had fcarch'd into the mod valuable Libraries, could not more expreflly avow it, and I think one might very well conclude from thence, as I have done, ^PVell then ! tho* 'tis not in the generality of 'em^ tho' 'tis hut in a fevj^ yet 'tis in fome of 'em. Mr. Emlyn who ab- folutely denies it to be in any of 'em, afTerts that: my confecjuence is not juft, for^ fays he, F. Sim.on never intended hereby to fay it ivas in any, and this becaufe Mr. Simon has retratled it in a Letter he afterwards wrote to one of his Friends, to whom he faid he had not found this Text in any Manu- fcript. Mr. Simon was a man with whom yes or no were almoii: the fame thing, according as particular views led him to fay the one or the other : But whan is here very remarkable, is^ that all thefe fo frequent- ly reiterated declarations, which we find in his Hi- llory of the Verfions of the New I'eftament^ are not words which might drop from him, and which re- quired not his particular attention. Fie faid, or vv^rote *em, one while in a fort of quarrel he had with the Lutherans concern mg this paflage.^ tho'^ fxys he, they add a remaik upon the [event h verfe of the fifth C/Jjpter of St. John's firft Epiftle^ they had not ac- quahjted their Readers^ that this verfe is in very few **" '"" " ■ ■' ■■*■ >' ■ ' * Hill, uc Verf. if), ii\ x6. i8. *> Fa^e 53, ( 66 ) of the Greek Copks : At anothef time, *tis in mak- ing a remark of his own head upon the Coptick Manufcripc of the New Tefiament^ which he fays is in the King's Library 5 wherein the teftimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoil is wan- ting in St. John's Epiflle, in like manner as in the moji part of the Greek Manufcripts \ and laftly, in critizing upon Walton^ becauie that in his Prolego* mena to the Polyglott^ printed in England^ he had pretended to prove the antiquity of the Arabick and Syriack Ferfions^ from the feventh yerfe of the fifth chapter of St. John's firfiEpifl/ey which is not in thtofe ^ranjlations , No more thanin the old Gr£ek Manuscripts. C H A P. . X. The Manufcripts ^/ Laiirentiiis Valla, in favour of St. Jobn'^ P^JT^K^y ^^^ the Codex Britannicus, or of Erafmus, in behalf of the fame fuhfeB defended againfi the anfwer of Mr. Emlyn. FT E R having defended the general proofs I produc'd to fliew the dilputed pafTage has from its original been in the Greek of 1^1 Su John's Epiltle, I defcended to parti- cular proofs, and have fpecify'd divers famous Ma- riufcripts wherein this Text is found. The Lear- lied, who in our Age have doubted of the authen* ticknefs of this paffage, or who have openly declar'd againft it, have been fomewhat referv*d touching the Greek Manufcripts which have it not. Mr. Em^ lyn^ more daring than them all, fays and repeats ifi an hundred times, that there is mi (q much as one whicl3? (67) ivhich has it ; and his courage increafing with his Zeal, he afTerts that no perfon ever faw any Manu- fcript wherein it was, nor is there any who fays he read it in one. This is what's call'd to fpeak fure, to put on a decidve air, and cut the knot. He found in my Differtatiun^ that I had faid, after a thoufand others, who have wrote upon this fubje£t before mc, that Laurent ius Valla^ a Nobleman of Rome^ and h learned Man, had near three hundred years ago divers Greek Manufcripts, wherein this paflage was: As Mr. Simon had confin'd it to fome few oF the modern Manufcripts, I took occafion from Valla\ Manufcripts to fay, they might then be three or four hundred years old \ and 1 think that fuppofition was reafonable enough : I am not oblig'd to defend it, becaufe the main of the difpute is not conccrn'd in't, and 'tis only a fmall incident in rela- tion to what Mr, Simon had advanc'd concerning the little antiquity of the Manufcripts wherein this Text is read. This hov/ever has drawn upon me from Mr. Emlyn this little ftroke of haughtinefsj 1 dare fay^ ^ this Gentleman knows nothing of the matter^ but /peaks all upon fancy and guejs. He adds, if any one imagines 1 have got Laurentius Valla\ Manu- fcripts in my poflcffion, or at lead, that 1 have fecii 'em fully : I Jh all tell 'em^ that neither I^ norariyman elfe that I know of^ has either feen Valla'j Manufcripts^ or knows what is become of 'cm. Mr. Emlyn joins all this together, as if 'twas in my Dif/'ertation^ or that I had laid thefe laft words with the fame view, and upon the fime occafion as I did what concerns the antiquity of Falla's Manufcripts : The matter is how- ever quite ocherwife j thofc who defire to be fa- tisfy'd, need but confult the eighth and eleventh chapters. But thefe are fuch trifles, as don't defervc to beanfwer'd,and which 1 highly dc.pife. I come now K to ( ^8 ) to the fa61:, and beg every judicious Reader to attend^, and I'll endeavour to give him fatisfadion. Many perfons have fpokc of thefe Manufcripts of Falla 'y Edtvard Ley is the, firil, at leaft that I know of, who urg'd 'em in favour of the pafTage in Saint John's EpilUe, in the accufation he brought againfl Erafmus^ for having omitted it inhisEditions of the New Tejiamefit in Greek^ in if 16, and if ip. Eraf- mus anfwers only in an indired manner, and both Ley's allegation, and Erafmus's reply concerning thefe Manufcripts are fo general, that nothing very clear or exprefs can be gathered from 'em. Since this difpute of Ley with Erafmus^ fev/ have wrote upon this Subjed, without mentioning Laurentius Valla's Copies j but I dare fliy moft of 'em have on- ly fpoke after others : I have not been fo happy as to have found one who has given a particular account of this matter, and clear'd it up \ however, 'tis a bufinefs worth ones while, and ftands thus. Laurentius Valla was, about the middle of the fifteenth Century, the firil: man of Letters who had the noble curio (ity to colle6l: the Greek Manufcripts of the New Tefiament. As the Latin Copies of Sl.Jero7n''s Vulgar Bible were then only in ufc, this learned man had a mind to compare that Vcrfion with the Greek^ which to him feem'd faulty in many refpeds. The deiign was daring for the time he liv'd in, becaufe of the great prejudice^ men labour'd under in favour of the vulgar Latin^ which prevail'd but too much in the following Age, and could noc yet be entirely deO;roy'd, what light foever we have had fince» I dare not give out for certain, that the induftrious art of Printing was then known, when Valla undertook the work we fpeak of j he faw that wonderful art in its birth, but the beginnings of it were fo flow and fmall, that there came not out in his time fo much as one edition of the New Tefta- mmt in Greek, There being then none but Greek Maau- i^9) Mnnufcripts extant in his time, whereby he might make his Collations of the Lathi with the Greek-, he -Colle6ted all of this fort he could find; the number was not great, 'tis faid to be fez'eN -, I have faid it al- fo 'y but Mr. Emlyu will not allow mc this fmall number, and oppofes to me upon this head Dr.MilL ^ Dr. Milly fays he had only three Greek Manu- fcripts^ Air, Martin fays feven. The word only is Mr. Emlyn's^ who is wont to diminifh or heighten the mofl part of his quotations by fome fuch fmall turn, but always to his own advantage. Y)\\ Mill fays barely, that Laurentius Valla collated three Greek Copies with three Latin ones j and this is true, for Laurentius Valla himfelf fays it in his note upon the twenty fecondverfe of the twenty feventh chapter of St. Matthew ; but if Dr. Alill has pretended in vir- tue of this note, that Valla had in all but three Greek Manufcripts, as Mr. Emlyn has made him fay by the addition of the word only^ I'll venture to affirm, either that the Dodor is miftaken, or that Mr. Emlyn has made him fay more than he has faid. The Text of St. Matthew according to the Latin is this, What [ball we do to the man^ who is nam'd Je- fus? "They all fay ,^ Let him be cruciffd-y and Val^s note upon it runs thus, ^ I have three Latin Manu- fcripts^ and fo many Greek ones^ which I compare j 6Litd fometimes I confult other Manufcripts^ and as in all the Greek Ifind^ they all fay unto hi m, the word him I find in none of the Latin, Now Valla is {o far from faying, he had but three Gr^^^' Manufcripts, that on the other hand he fays he had more, wc mufl only underfland, that ordinarily he contented himfelf with comparing three Latinwith three Greek Manu- fcripts when he w^u]pon Si- Matthezv's Gofpel. »" .1.1 .1 II ■ 11 I ■ . ■ I 3 Miliii Proleg. No. io86. t> Ties Codices, Latinos, 6:totidem Graecos habeo, cum hac compono ; & nonnunquam alios Co- dices habeo, & cum in omnibus Graecis legam, dlci^nt ei om- nss, nomeii illud « in nullo Latinorum lego. K i To (70 ) To come, if they defire it, yet ciofer, tho^ in the iDkin it matteis not much whether Falla had feven or three Maniifcripts, we will however prove thcfiril article 5 and for this we need only tranfcribe one of his Notes, 'tis upon the thirtieth verfe of the feventh chapter of St. John^ They fought to take him^ is the Text ; and the note runs thus, 7 have read SEVEN Greek Copies^ in every one of "which it was 'Writtenj 6cc. This is full, but this isn't all, 'tis but a fmall matter, the principal remains behind, which is ro fhew, that Falla found the paflage of Si. John in his Greek Qo^Ks : Has hefaid it, or has he made a remark upon it ? The difficulty is no more than up- on this 3 I {hall now clear it. Laurentius Falla gave to his Work no other than the general title of Annotations^ tho' at the bottom *tis a Critical Performance upon the Latin Verfion^ in comparing it with the Greek. Every other title would have llartled his Readers, and might have brought him inro trouble, by reaion of the extreme affe(5i:ion, which, as I have obferv'd, was ftiewn to- wards the Latin Verfion : Any one may be convinc'4 of this from the excellent Letter of Erafmus to Fijher the Apoitolick Protonotary, which Revius took care to place before the Edition of Fallal Work in 1638. 'ris worth reading: We fee there with what extraoidinary refped: he fpeaks of Falla and this Work, and with what life and force he defends him agi.inft certain fuperditious perfonsj who made him guilty of a kind oF Sacrilege, for ha- ving attempted to alter the Latin Verfion. Tho' the title of this Book was only, as I have faid, that oi Annotations upon the New T^eflament j Falla gave it another in his particular Writings, he call'd it Collationes Novi left anient i^ 6cc. Revius^ who has adonied chis Title, and preiix'd it to his Edition j reoLcs in the preface to his own Remarks divers places where Falla calls his work by this nam.e. I mention (71 ) I mention this only, becaufe it ferves to give us a true Idea of thefe Annotations. It feems then this learned Critick had purposed to fet down in the places where he judg'd it necclT^iry, the differences betwixc the Latin Bible, and the Greek Manufcripts > but where they agreed, there he made no remark, nor mention'd the Greek Manufcripts, 'twas chief- ly after this manner he form'd the whole work : Thofe who have read it, or {hall have the curiofity to read it, will find it to be as I fay : I fliall give here a fmall pattern for the Satisfaction of thofe who have not read this Book. I. Falla often remarks the omiflions either of a Text, or of a part of one, and fometimes of a fingle word, and rellores it from the Greek. z. When he finds in the Latin any fmall diffe- rences with the Greeky either concerning the fingu- lar or plural number of nouns, or thetenfes of verbs, he puts it down in his note. 3. If he had in the Latin half a verfe, or barely two or three words, fometimes one word more than in the Greek^ there he made his remark. Inftances of thefe corrections are innumerable. This is in general the plan of his Work, and the rnanner wherein 'twas perform'd. Coming then now to the paflage of the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter of St John's firll Epillle, Laurent ius Valla read it in the Latin Bibles, as we do at prefent : This is not, nor can it be difputed 3 he has made no obfervation upon it, becaufe he made none upon the Texts where the Latin and the Greek agreed. This happen'd, as we have feen, in that cafe only where the Latin differ'd from the Greek of his Manufcripts. Hecarry'd his exaCtnefs fo far, that he fuffer'd not one fmall word to efcape him, of this we have inftances throughout his whole Book. One of this kind is to be feen upon the twenty fecond verfe of the twenty feventh chapter of "^i, Matthew \ thi$ (7X) this accuracy is difcern'd here in a like remark upon the eighth verfe -, the reading of the Latin Bible, is, hi tres unum funt^ " thefe three are one:" Falla's note is, Grace eft^ hi tres in unum funt^ «V to sv aV/, thefe three agree in one. In the feventeenth verfe of the fame chapter the Vulgar Bible has, Omnis ini- quit as peccatum eji^ £5? eft peccatum ad mortem : i. e« *' all unrighteoufnefs is fin, and there is a fin unto '* death o" Falla does not find thefe lafl words to ft.md thus in the Greek Copies 3 addenda^ fays he, negatio eft^ legendumqs fic^ 6c eft peccatum non ad mortem, v.c»t,l i^iv dfAcc^la^ h jr^og B'dvaiov^ there is a Jin not unto death. In the following verfe, Sed generatio Dei confervat eum^ i. e. as 'tis tranflated, or rather paraphras'd by Port' Royal J the hirth he has received from God keep- €th him pure ^ Falla's note is, Grace eft^ fed genitm ex Deo confervat feipfum , dA\' 0 yiv^B-^is- i^ tS Sss As yet there had been no difpute againft the paf- fage, which fpeaks of the three witnefies in Hea- ven, no one had brought it into queftion whether 'twas really St. John's^ or fuppofititious. This Con- tfoverfy arofe not 'till an age after, and when, as I have faid, Erafmus publiih'd his Editions of if 16.. and ifip. If this difficulty had fprung up m the days oiValla^ he would not have fail'd to refolve it, when having this paflage before his eyes in the Latin Manufcripts, he compared 'em with the GreeL However he takes no notice of it, he left the Latin as it was, and as he left it throughout the whole Epiftle, and elfewhere, when he found no variation from the Greek j for where he found the leaif differ- ence, he has mark'd it. The Vulgar Latin has the vj ordi fmus in the firll verfe of the third Chapter > Falla fays hereupon, non legitur Grace -^ yet 'tis a word that in no wife alters the fenfe > but 'tis enough for this flriS: and rigid Ccnfor, that 'tis a word that's (73 ) that's added, to make a remark that this word Is not in the Greek, He mufl have feen then both there and elfewhere the mote of the Vulgar Bible, an addition which amounts to almoft nothing; and faw not the l^eam, the addition of a whole verfc. Credat Judaus Jpella^ non ego. It has more than once befallen Mr. Emlyn to be entrap'd in his own nets : We have an inftance of it in this place > to takeaway from us the proof we draw from the Manufcripts oi Laurentius Valla con- cerning the pafTage of St. John^ he objeds againft us the words of Erafmus in his Commentary upon this Text, ^iiid Laurentlus legerity non fat is liquet: As if Erafmus would fay, that it does not appear Valla had read this palTage in the Greek Copies 5 and yet 'tis quite otherwife, as 'tis eafy to learn from the very words of Mr. Emlyn's tranflation, who has thus render'd thefe Latin words. How Valla found or read (this place in St. John) does not fully appear 'y fince this is expreflly to fay, that Valla found it j that he read it 3 but the only thing Eraf- mus was not fatisfy'd about, was how this palfage was read in Valla's Manufcripts, and whether there were no variations, as there were among the Lati^ Copies, in fome of which, tho' but few of 'em, were wanting thefe words of the verfc, in caloy in fome others the kit claufe, hi tres tinum funt ; and in a Manufcript of Conflance mention'd by Eraf- mus^ the words teflimonium dant. Some of thefe differences in the Latin Copies might be alfo found in the Greek 3 as might others withal depending purely upon the nature of the Greek Tongue, as in particular are thofe relating to the Articles. In fhort, Erafmus^ as himfclf tells us, knew only of two Greek Manufcripts, wherein was found the Text of the three witnelfes in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Gholt : The one was the Manu- ( 74 ) Manufcript of England^ and the other, that whicfe was made ufe of by the famous Complutenfian Edi- tors > this Text was indeed in both thefej buE with divers variations, which Erafmus has fet down in his Commentary 5 the words ttoi]*?^, Ao- yoq^ and TTi/sC/^ttft, were without articles in the Ma- nufcript of England'^ and they had each their refpe^live Articles in the Complutenfian Edition, 0 TTo^yj^y 0 Koyog^ to Trvsu/xot* The word ccyiov Holy before the word Spirit was left out in the Ma- nufcript of England, the Complutenfian Copy had this word, to olyiov tvv^v^a : In the Manufcript of England wzs read J-ra* ol r^eig^ hi tre:>j thefe three 5 the word ^to/, thefe^ is not in the Complutenfian^ which fays barely, ol t^«^, the three. We read there, ol -r^etg eU ^n tv e/cr<, tre^ in unum [unt^ i. e. *' the three agree in one," which properly belong to the eighth verfe 3 the Manufcript of England^ like all thofe we have feen of R. Stephen^ has xto< 0* T^«? iv eicrt^ hi tres unum funt^ '^ Thefe three are ^' one." Twas then natural after ail this for Eraf* Tnus to fay he did not fully fee after what manner the Text of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoil was read in Falla's Manufcripts, fince Falla had not recited it in his Book. Nor had he any occafion to produce it there, for the reafon already given, becaufe that learned Man didn't propofe to quote the Greek Texts, where he found Vm to agree with the ordinary Latin Veriion : For as to that fort of different readings, which might be found in fome particular Manuicripts, Laurentius Valii didn't trou- ble himfelf to fet them down, this being a work of infinite labour, and no great iiDpo; tance. ' Fis with- al at prefent of no concern to us to be certify'd of what Erafmus fays he didn't fully know cunct-rniiig the precife manner, or the exad terms wherein this Text was read in the Greek Manufcrir^rs of Lan-- refitius Falla : the mam point is not aft eacd by icj 5 the ( 75 ) the Text was there, Erafmus does not fay he doubt- ed of iti and to put an end to this Article, I ihall obferve after Revius^ that 'tis to this Learned Man the publick is endebted for the difcovery of this Book of Annotations, which had drawn upon VaJla abundance of reproach from the paOionate admiiers of the Latin Verfion j he found it out in the year If 04. annongil divers old Manufcripts in I know not what place, and the year after caufes it to be publifli'd j without which in all probability this valuable work had met wiih the fate of abundance of other Manufcripts which have been lolt under the duit or mouldinefs of negle(5led clofets. ^'^^^^Z^^ltTA^^K^^S^l^:^^: Chap. XI. An examination of Mr. Emlyn'^- an^ fwers relating to the parage of Ca- jetan, and the Codex Britannicus, or Manufcript of England, produced by Erafmus. F XT after the Manufcripts of Laurentius Valla I had produced the teilimony of Cardinal Cajetan^ who, in his Co.-nmenf upon this Text, has faid, that he found if not in all the Greek Manufcripts^ hut only in fomeo As this Cardinal has quoted no one in particu/ar, T toiCiaw anObje6tion which might be made, that tiLffe words b uig general, Cajetan might have faid in a loofc fciife, and upon the credit of aJiorher, that ihis Text was founu ui fomc Manufcripts j and 1 difpers'ci this fmail cloud by ihe reflexions I L made ( 76 ) made upon Cajetan's charadter, upon the time, and place he wrote in. My reflexions (land without a reply, To that the teilimony of Cajetan^ which Mr. Emlyn only touches (lightly, remains in its full force. Indeed, Cajetan was not one of thofe common Writers, who poficively aflert uncertam and doubt- ful fafts upon the credit of another •, nor of thofe other Writers, who through a blind preju- dice, the too common efFe6l of ignorance, and a millaken party interell, inconfiderately give in to the truth of fads reported by others j nor lailly, did he live in a country, where he could not inform himfclf, and fee whether in his own Library, or in others at Rome^ was found any one of thofe copies, wherein he fays the paflage of St. John was : He was himfelf fame what doubtful concerning its au- thenticknefs, for this only reafon, becaufe he found it not in all the Greek M.vmfcripts. The profound veneration the Church of Rome had for the Latin Verfion, was enough for this learned and judicious Cardinal to fet it m competition with the Greek Ma- nufcripts, in which this paflage w^as wanting^ and that placing himfelf betwixt the Vulgar Latin and thefe Manufcripts, he fhould remain undetermui'dj but inflead of this he oppofes Greek Manuicripts to Greek Manufcripts > and having plac'd fome on one lide, and others on the other, and having heard all, fome for, and others againil it, he dares not decide concernmg the Text's authenticknefs. Non noftrum inter vos tantas componere lites. And this is as much to my thinking, as if he had faid, I have feen fevcral Manuicripts which have not this Text, and I have feen others which have it : ^Twas not in all^ hut it was m Jome. Erafmus fays, that the Manufcripr, wherein he had feen it, was found in EngUmd^ upon the credit of (77) of which he rcdores this Text in his third Edition in ifiz. All thofe who have fpoke of it after him, have faid Era/fm^s read it^ and Mr. Simon among the reft. Mr. Emlyn on the other hand maintains that 'tis an imaginary Manufcript which no perfon has ever fecn, and which Erafmus himfclf, who quotes it, never (liys he read, but only there is found among the Englifli one Manufcript 'which has it in this ynanner^ cVi -x^i'xq «(r nor L i would ( 78 ) would it be more difficult for Mr. Emlyn^ tn fuch a cafe, to find other evafions • He [aw it ^ nd where would he fay, and in whofe hands, for no Dody be- fides him favs he law it. He read it^ but do's he fay he found it in the Text^ or whether it was not be- tween the lines, or in the margin, as Mr. Eraiyn fays of the Manufcript of the King of Fruffia ? Such an one as he, well or ill, gets over all difficul- ties. To return to Erafmus^ he fhews he had in fuch wife feen, read, and examined this Codex Br it mini- tus^ as he always names it, that he made diveis re- marks upon it : I have given 'em in my Diffcrtationj with the oppofite obfervations of Mr. Simon on thofe of Erafrhus. Laftly, 'Tis fo true, that Erafmus has carried his exaftnefs in regard to this pafTage as far as one can wifh, and as ought to be expe&d from a man of his fagacity and integrity, that quoting upon this Text another fort of Manufcript, which he had not fecn, he declares 'tis upon the credit of one of his Friends, whofent him from Rome ihcCo^y of an ancient Ma- nufcript of St. John^s Epidle in the Vatican^ where- in the words of the feventh verfe were wanting. Nothing difcovers to us better the veracity and judi- cious forefight of Erafmus^ in advancing no fadb up^ on this head without mature deliberation, and where- of he was not inhimfelf iuiiiciently ailurd. Ch A P« (79 ) Chap. XII. Of R. Stephen^ Greek ManiifcripU^ and Beza'^ Teftimony c oncer rang Vw, a^ gatyifi the vain evafions of Mr. Emlyn. Ill^^^j IS here Mr. Emlyn has gone beyond him- P 'TliiS ^^^^ ^" finding out artificial turns to (c^ ^t— .J^i cure his caufe from the invincible proof, ■^^li'Sl which R. Stephen's Manufcripts afford to th': ^cnuinenels of St. John's pailiige -, but the more pains he rakes, the more he lays open the weaknefs oi that fide he thought to defend -, the whole he pro- duces are only />^r/:?^/)^5 'tis probable^ "'tis poffiblc^ and fuch other expreflions, which fignify nothing, or decide nothing, and yet decifive proofs are here ne- cefllu"y ; nor mufl any thing be allow'd toconje6i:urc, 'till after the dccilion of fa6ts. This is the method I have follow 'd, and 'tis the only one we mufl: take in this place. The main of the difpute is to prove, that the Greek Editions of the Ne^^ Teftament^ wherein the Text of the three Witneffcs, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofl: is read, have been made from ancient Greek Manufcripts. Mr. Emlyn pofitively af- fures us, there is none fuch, and that no perfon has faid he fav/ or read one, wherein this paffage was. The arguments and proofs I have brought to the contrary fhew, that 'tis an unwarrantable affurance to advance a fad fo evidently falfe. The falfity of it has been demonflrated too in the moll clear manocr in the world, by the Editions R. Stephen publilh'd of the New 7'eftament^ with this Text, in if 4(5, 1 5*49. in 16°. and in iffo. in Folio, with references to the Greek Manufcripts. As I thought that mat- ter had not been fully clear'd, I enter'd into a labori- S ous ( 8o ) ous indeed, but very iiecefTary detail of it, in order to remove whatever might remain obfcure or con- fus'd. I had begun with determining expreflly the num- ber of Manufcripts B. Stephens had madeufe of in his Edition of if fo This fa61: had flood in much con- fufion 5 ^ and Dr. Mill hinifelf, whom" Mr. Emiyn quotes as an Author, who faid R- Stephens had fix- teen Manufcripts, had no better fucceeded in this affair than others j for under the number fixrecn he comprehends the Complutenfian Edition, which was inflead of a Manufcript to that learned Critick and Printer ; whereas 1 have fhewn that R. Stephens Iiad fixteen Manufcripts befides that of Complutum. From thence I pafs'd on to examine the queilion, whether he had no more Copies of the firit Epillle of St. John than the feven Manufcripts, which are quoted in the margin of the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter by their numeral or alphabetick let- ters. This affair has lain under much mifreprefen- tation: I fhew'd the miflake, and urg'd in proof of it two obfervations, the one of which \^ a very folid conjedure, and the other an evident proof. Mr. Em- lyn treats the former as an extravagant conceit, and lays nothing of the latter but what's pitiful. My firll obfervation confifled in this, that the fe^ ven Canonical Epiflles being ordinarily join'd m one Volume with the Epiflles of St Paul^ it followed from thence, that R. Stephens had as many Copies of the feven Canonical Epdtles as of the others. Now I had found fourteen Manufcripts of St. PauPs Epiflles mark'din the margins 5 whence I concluded there werefo many of the ieven Epiflles. This con- jedure cannot feem weak to any but thofe v/ho know not that in the Manufcripts thefe lad Epiflles ordina- rily made but one Volume with thofe of St. Paul^ Mill^ Proieg, 11 56. as ( 8i) as they do in the printed Editions. All Mr. Emlyrfs anfwer to this confifls in laying, ^ that I cannot be fo weak to think this will pafs for a good and invincible proof with men of fenfe . I own frankly, that 'tis true, I am not fo weak as to think men of iVlr. Emlyn's^cnCe can be well pleas'd with this remark j for howihould they like it, when the mod evident proofs are not perceiv'd by 'em ? He asks if I didn't know, that Dr. Mill has obferv'd in divers of his Prolegomena, that there are frequent defeds in feveral Manufcriptsj that in oneisfometimes wanting a whole chapter, in another fomewhat elfe. This is to change the fad} I had no need to have read Dr. Alill to know this, I knew it many years before the Do6i:or fet pen to pa- per i but Mr. Emlyn himfelf alfo knows, that we have right to prefume nothing is wanting to a Vo- lume, 'till it can be made appear that fome partof it is. This then is what he mull: prove. I had alfo obferv'd, that a Copy mark'd ^^T, that is, the 14^^, was quoted in the margin to the fourth verfe of the fir (I chapter of the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, This Epiitle comes next before that of Sr. John^ and can't make with it above one or two leaves in a Manufcript, the confequence then was very natural to fay, that this Manulcript i§ contain'd alfo the Epiilleof St. John. In order then not to be miftaken in reckoning up the Manufcripts of R, Stephens upon the firll Epiille of St. Johnj if we confine 'em to the number of fe- ven, becciufe fcven are only quoted in the margin, we muilreafon in this manner j R. Stephens h-^d only the precife number of Manufcripts of every Book of the New feftament^ which are quoted in the margin of that Booki but there are only feven quoted upon the firfi Epiftle of St. John-, therefore he had only feven Manufcripts of that EpilUe. This confc- a Page 31, quencc (80 quence wholly depends upon the firft propofition, which being nororiouOy hilfe, the confequence can'c be true. I can't enough wonder, that any man fhould not fee a reafoning fo juft and natural, who has but curforily ran over R. Stephens's New fejlament. In fhort, without going out of the feven Canoni- cal Epiftlesj I find in the fecond Epiftle of St. jP^- ter one Manufcript more than in the firitj in the iirft Epiftle of St. John two Copies more than in the fecond, 'viz. the Complutenjianj and the Manufcript f, or 7. which was one of thofe belonging to the King's Library. In the third Epiftle there is none bun the Complutenftan Copy, and four Manufcripts, which are the only ones in the Epiftle of St. Jude. The Confequences which flow from all thefe variations, are fo evident, that 'tis not poffible to over-look 'em without ihutting ones eyes. The firft is, that it fol- lows not from R. Stephen's having fet down in the margin of fome one of thefe Epiftles, but a certain number of Manufcripts, that he had not fo many of it as of the other Epiftles j fo many, fay I, of the firft Epiftle of St. Peter as of the fecond, and fo of others. The other confequence is, that this judici- ous Critic k quoted only in the margin (uch Manu«* fcripts as he found different with thoie from which he printed the Text. So that this firft reafoning, which Mr. Emlynhns fpokefo flightingly of, where- by I fhevv'd that R. Stephens had more than feven Manufcripts of the firft Epiftle of St. John, cannot fail to find more folidity with men of fenfe^ than he has imagined. My fecond reafon for a greater number of Manu- fcripts of the firft Epiftle of St. John^ than the fe- ven which are there mai^k'd in the margin of the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter, was taken from the teftimony of Beza : 'Tis pofitive 3 for this lear- ned Divine diftinguifties in his notes the Manufcripts wherein this verfe was, from the other Manufcripts wherein (83) wherein the words y tw x^^^vw, in Heaven^ were wanting. In fpeaking of this verfe he fays, Eraf- mus re^id it in the Manufcript of England, fhs Complutenfian Editors read it alfo^ and vje have read it in fome ancient Manufcripts of our Friend R. Stephens. Then in a fecond note upon the words ov rco iip^vu), he obfcrvcs they iverc not in feven of Srephens'j Manufcripts. Stephens had then more than feven Manufcripts of this Epiftle 5 feven where- in thefe two words of the Verfe were nor, and fonie others, wherein the Verfe was entire, as inferted in the Text. Can any thing be more evident ? And can there be a more manifeft dill:in6tion be- tween the MSS. wherein Beza read the Verfe en- tire i for 'tis of the whole Verfe, that he fays Eraf^ 7nus and the Coinplutenfian Bible had read it, and the other MSS. to the number of feven, wherein the words bv tw «'^vw were wanting, words which are alfo found mark'd in five ancient Manufcripts of the Latin Bible, as we have feen in Hentenius ? When any man fubmits not to fo perfe6t a demonflration, 'tis in vain to reafon with him any longer. ^ But fuppofmg^ fays Mr. Emlyngtn&xou^y^ and as if it were a favour, fuppofmg Beza didy as perhaps he mighty imagine that fome other Manufcripts tco i^-^^ being want- ing, and two others at leall, wherein 'twas perfect 5 for the expreflion in fome^ which Beza ufes in fpeak- ing of thpfe, in which he had read 'em, mud be un- derftoqd of two at leaft. The following chapter wiJl,)Ed^i'roborate all thefe remarks, and carry on th^ X^I^^X tothehigheil degree of conviftion. M % Chap. (U) Chap. XIII. That Mr. Emlyn has confuted none of the proofs I ur£d againfi the pretend- ed mtfplacmg the obelus m R. Ste- phen sV Edition over-agamfi the words HE ohelusy which R. Stephens h^s pkc'd before the words h tw i^'^vw, is in this grand affair decifive for the authority of the pafTagej for if this Httle mark re- fpfds only two words, as being wanting in the fe- ven Copies quoted in the margin, 'twill follow that all the reft of the verfe was in thofe very Copies> and alfo, that it was entire in the other Copies i?. Stephens confulted. Thefe two confequences are juft, and decide fully in favour of the authentick- nefs of the paflage. The whole queftion then has been, whether the obelus ought to be placed after sl^vw, as it is in the Edition, or after the words h Tjj 5/?, in terra ^ which are in the middle of the eighth verfe, as thofe perfons pretend who oppofe the authenticknefs of this Text j and this I have fully fhewn to be fldfe. Without repeating here the proofs already pro- duc'd, I demand whence one may know that an obelus^ or Semicircle, in an ancient edition is wrong plac'd, and goes beyond the word where it ends. In my opinion one of thefe two anfwers muft be given : Firft, That the Author of that Edition has mark'd it in his Errata as a fault of the imprellion, or that he has correfted it in a later Edition 5 and fecondly, That the Copy, whereby he was influenc'd in placing the obelus in his Edition, not only wanted the words where (87) where the oheltis terminated, but feveral other words alfo immediately following, which make up the whole period : Now neither of thefe anfwers can be urg'd againft the place of the ohclus in the feventh verfe. R. Stephens has not mark'd it in any other Edition j he publifh'd one the year after, and the Text is found in it entire: 'I'ls true indeed, he didn't propofe to place an obelus in this 8^'^ Edition, nor any other fuch marks, as he had inferted in the margins of the foregoing Edition •■, but if his de- fign, and the nature of the lize of the Edition in Iff I. didn't allow him to place there ohelus's^ he ought, as exa(5l and judicious as he was, to have fee before, or at the end of that Edition, which i^ in two Volumes, a fmajl advertifement to corre(5l fo confiderablc a fault as this was : R, Stephens has done nothing by way of emendation 3 a fign he was not fenfible of any fault he had committed. The fccond way of proving the obelus wrong plac'd, would be by the Manufcripts themfelves, from which R. Stephens made this obfervation> but this method is impradi cable, becaufe thefe Manu- fcripts are no longer in being j and i^ Stephens h'^d a6led contrary to what he found in his Manufcripts, he would have been a moll egregious cheat, which none of his greateft enemies ever obje6led againll him. Beza witnefTes of him in a Note upon the firff chapter of St. Matthew^ that his exa6lnefs and accuracy in printing the Holy Scripture?, were own'd by all the learned and valuable part of man- kind ; and Hentenius Profeflbr of Divinity at LoU" vain^ has given the fame teflimony in his Preface to the Edition of the Latin Bible in if 47. Upon what grounds then is the pretence now form'd that the obelus which begins at the word fv, and ends at ^^v<^^ ought to be plac'd after the words Iv T^ yf, which are in the middle of the eighth verl'e ? The only reafon they have, and Mr. Emiyn has ( 88 ) has been able to give no other in botli his perform- ances, is that thefe words, in Heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft *, and there are three that bear record in earthy are in no Greek Manufcript. But this reafoning contains two paralogifms. The fii fl is what is call'd in Philofophy ab enumeratione infufficienti : Thefe words are not found in the an- cient Manufcripts of the Vatican^ nor in the Alex- andrian^ nor in any other we have at prefent ; they were then in none of Stephens's : The f.iKity of this way of reafoning is feen at firll view. The other paralogifm confiils in this, that the reafon alledg'd again ii- the obelus^ is taken from a fuppofition, that thefe words are not St. John's > whereas 'tis evident from the proofs I have given, that the whole Church has receiv'd 'em as the genuine words of that Apo- ille, and withal that the greateft enemies to the doctrine of the Trinity, againd whom the Ortho- dox uig'd 'em, never look'd upon 'em as fuppofiti- tious, and read 'em themfelves in then' own Bibles, as the Orthodox did in theirs : This I have clearly dcmonftrated. And can any thing be thought of more weak than a reafoning founded upon two fo- phifms ? Notwithibnding this, and as if it was the mofl admirable reafoning in the world, Mr. Emlyn here infultingly exclaims againll me 3 Mr. Martin, fays he, would have blujh'd to fay in the conclufton of his Booky that his Oppofers alledge nothing but reafonings without proofs — and that his Jdverfaries argue from the Texts not being in the Vatican nor Alexandrian. I iliould have blujh\d indeed to have been fo ftupid, or have a61:ed with fo little integrity, as to charge 'em with bringing no other proof of the pretend- ed mifplacing the obelus^ than that the Text of the feventh verfe is not in the Vatican nor Alexandrian Manufcripts, But Mr. Emlyn Ihall blufh^ if he will, tor havmg either through negligence, or otherwife, (himfelf ( h) (himfelf bed knows the rcafon) reflrain'd my words to thofe two Manufcripts : I added an L5?r. under which I comprehended all rhe (;ther Manufcripts that are oppos'd to us : This (yc. blunts the edge of My. Emlyn's Satyr > he takes away that, and iVIr. Martin mull blufh. But this little figure oF an ^c. could not but be fecn by Mr. Emiyn s 'tis fanly printed in my D'lJJh'tation^ and is plain to be read in the firll line of the 1 29^'^ P'^g^j 'i^^s alfo in the EngliJJj Tranflation, and I didn't put it down in my Book, 'till after I had fiid, no other anfwer have they to give^ than that this 'Text is not in fuch and fuch Greek Manufcripts 5 this is general, and not confin'd to the two Manufcripts of the Fatkan^ and of Alexandria. Mr. Emlyn clofes this paragraph with urging again what he has faid and repeated an hundred times, that we bring not one Manufcrip in proof : And in proof of what? That the obelus is rightly plac'd? For 'tis that only we are now upon: But fuch an anfwer would be very ridiculous j wc muft not charge it upon M\\ Emlyn: What then? That we brnig no Aluuifcvipr ,': proof of the Text; But would not this alfo be vciy ^l:alant, that at a time we produce a large number of R. Stephens's Ma- nufcripts, we fho'jld be told, that we bring not one M.inufcript ? But who iias feen, fays he again, thefe Manu- fcripts 5 we bring not one witnejs that fays he faiv fuch a one upon his own immediate fear ch ? 'Tis enough that R. Stephens has faid it, and that he has given jin account of the fcven by which he was guided in placing the obelus y R. Stephens is a perlon of credit, fo is Beza too> and Beza has faid in a hun- dred places he read and compar'd thefe Manufcripts j and as to what refpedls the obelus in particular, no- thing can be requir'd upon that head more exprefs than the palfage I have recited. Wc ( PO ) We are now come to the place where 'tis ne- cefTary to return to the Edition, which was made of Beza's Notes in iff(5. perhaps Mr. Emiyn will fee that matter more clearly, when he fhall have read what I am about to fay. Beza and R. Stephens^ who both fled for refuge to Geneva upon the account of Religion, and were both very learned men, had a particular eileem and friendfhip for each other. Stephens^^ who was not a Divine by profeffion, mightily prefs'd Beza^ who was both a Critick and a Divine, to v/rite upon the Nezv Teftament 5 ^Cahm urg'd him withal very earneflly to undertake this Work : He refolv'd up- on it, and in the mean while being call'd to Lau- zame to be Profeflbr of Philofophy there, he went on with his work upon the N'ew Teftament. As foon as he had prepared fome flicets or quires of his performance for the prefs, he fent 'em to Geneva to his Friend R. Stephens ^ and he, who had that work much at heart, printed 'em off as foon as he received 'em. Thus was this Edition begun, and carried on, 'till all was finifh'd. Beza dates his preface from Lauzanne in iff (5. and R. Stephens inferts in his advertifement what I have juft related concerning the manner, after which this Edition was printed by him. Beza has faid in his annotations upon the paflage in St. John's Epiftle, that he had read it in fome ancient Manufcripts of R. Stephens^ but for the two words h Tio K^'vf , which ftand in the middle of the Text, he £iys, they 'were wanting in [even Manu^ fcripts^ which precifely agrees with the mark of the ohelm. The fheets of Beza\ Work were fent, as we have feen, to R. Stephens^ and pafs'd under his eyes, and were printed by him. If Stephens had been only one of the Working Printers, or a com- ■ ■ I I ' '" " ■■ . I ,11 III I i» »» iwnjBi I m a Teijlir, Eloge des hommes fa vans arc. d^c Thsodor. Beza. (91 ) mon Bookfeller, who gives the Copies of Author^ into the Printers hands, without havrng the curio- fity to read 'em, or the ability to judge of 'em, one might imagine him unacquainted with the notes he printed, or which were printed under his name t But it would fliew we knew but little of R. Ste* phens if we pafs'd fuch a judgment upon him, efpe- cially in regard to a Work he had fo earnellly wifh'd for, and which he printed off as faft as his Friend fent him the quires, which made the reading of 'em more eafy to him, and gave him time to confider of 'em. Befides, 'twas a very nice and curious matter to fee in what manner Beza had fpoke of the paflage concerning the Trinity of Per^ fons in the Godhead in St. 'John's Epiille. This pafTage had rais'd great contcfts, as we have feenj Stephens had inferted it in his Editions of i f4(5. if 49. and Iff I. without an obelus : He had given it a place in his Edition in folio in iffo. All this de- ferv'd, that havmg in his hands the quires of his Friend, to whom he had communicated his Manu- fcripts, he fhould fee what ufe Beza had made of 'em, efpecially upon a Text of this importance, and wherein Stephens himieif was concern'd. He prints it with the foremention'd annotations, and in his advertifement informs us what Manufcripts were quoted in thefe annotations. Who can doubt after this, that li Beza had advanc'd a falfhood in afTert^ ing he had read all that he fays he had read in Ste* phens\ Manufcripts, that learned Printer would noE have perceiv'd it, or that he would have print- ed it ? Mr. Emlyn will tell us, thefe are only reafonings; 'tis true, but fuch reafonings as turn upon the tads themfelves, fa6fs which are notorious and certain j and in fuch a cafe reafonings are proofs. Lailly, either R. Stephens had the Manufcripts wherein the Text of bt. John was found, which N hs (9^) he inferted into four Editiotis one after another, or he had not: If he had, all's over, and our caufe is gain'd : If he had not, Stephens v/as an Impoftor, an infamous fellow, who deferv'd the utmoli con- tempt. Mr. Emlyn^ I hope, will be kinder than to treat him in this cruel manner. How happened it then this Text was put into the Edition in 1^4.6. which was the firft, and from whence it afterward pafs'd into the others? For, in fhort, if they won't allow that Stephens found it in any of his Manufcripts, nor will accufe him of ha- ving added it of his own head, they mufb tell us whence he had it 5 we won't believe Mr. Emlyn^ nor the others upon their bare word, and imagina- tion > we mud have proofs: Terrible perplexity j and yet not fo terrible, but Mr. Emlyn can extricate himfelf out on't, and that without much trouble. R. Stephens^ fays he, had read the Complutenfian Edition, and thofe of Erafmus j from the Complu- tefifian he took this part of the verfe, for there are three that hear record in Heaven^ the Father^ the fFordj and the Holy Ghoft 5 the lafl words of the verfc^ and thefe three are one^ y.ou Sroi ol r^eig tv eio-iv^ he took from the later Editions of Erafmus -, where- as in the Edition of Complutum we read ol r^eig «V iv d ■ And thus there's no difficulty fo great but by the help of a dextrous and inventive faculty of mind it may be got out of. I don't think 'tis expe£led I ihould throw away my time in the purfuit of fo vain an imagination, which vaniihes as foon as form'd. I come back to this only: R. Stephens had not the villany to forge a Text which had never been in his own Manufcripts, and he has faid nothing which looks that way, or rather he has taken a quite con- trary method 5 this is evident from v/hat I have wrote in the ninth and tenth chapters of my Differ t a- lion, Befides, he has affur'd us in the Preface to that firil (93 ) firft Edition in if 46. that he had, amongll: others, fome Manufcripts of the mofl venerable antiquity, ipfd vetuliatis fpccie pene adorandos^ and that he had abfolutely put nothing into that Edition which he could not juftify by divers of his Manufcripts, and thoie the bell > ^I'extufn facrum ita recenfuijfe fe^ ut nullam oninino litter am [ecus efje fat cretiir^ quamplures iique meliores codices^ tanquam teftes comprobarent. This admits of no objecl:ion, and therefore the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven was infcrted into the Greek Editions of the New Teftament upon the credit of the ancient Greek Manufcripts oF that facred Epiftle. Chap. XIV. Of other Greek Mamifcrtpts ryieyiUon'd by the Louvain DwmeSy and by Fa- ther Amelotte, and of the Berlin Maniffcrtpt. ^fvJ^lHere would be no occafion for me here to ■"^~^~' 'Ij take upon my felf the defence ofthefe Manufcripts 5 if I had defign'd only to prove, that the difputcd Text was found in the Greek Manufcripts as well as the Latin^ when the firil Editions of the New T^ejiamcnt in Greek were publilli'd. Mr. Emiyn d^nks it to have been in ariy one^ but I have ihewn by i^. Stephens's Editions, that 'twas even in a great many. I had added to this proof the teftimony of the Zo^'z;^;;^ Do61:ors, who in the year if47. declared in the preface to a Latm * Mill. Proleg. 11 55. N Z Bible, (94) Bible, that R. Stephens had in reality read this Text in all his Manufcripts^ with this Difference only, that in feven the words b/ rf «^v« were wanting. The teftimony of an Univerfity fo famous as that of Lowvain then was, is certainly of no fmall weighty the more (o^ becaufe in this point thcfe Dodors faid nothing but what Beza had faid before 'em, as we have feen. And here, by the way, I beg of Mr. Emiyn to take a httle more notice of an uniformity fo exadly harmonious. Thefe Do6tors declare, that themfelves had feen federal others in which the paflage of St. John was to be found. I had cited their words jull as Mr. tS"/- raon^ that great enemy to the authenticknefs of this Text, had tranflated them. It feems Mr. Emlyn fan^ cies 1 had fome defign in it. With what chfign^ fays he fpeaking of me, he heft knows : Yes, 1 do know befl: j Mr. Simon's tranflation could not be fiifpc61ed, ^nd now my d^c^ign is unfolded. As to the citation it felf, I had omitted a fhort fentence, becaufe I could not fee the inferting it was any thing to my purpofe. Mr. Emlyn reprefents this as done with defign, and for fear this intermediate fentence fhould be prejudicial to the proof I had drawn from the Te- ilimony of thefe Dodors. Upon this he mod cer- tainly lends me a thought 1 never entertained : Let us then produce here the whole palll^ge, and we fhall fee which of us was in the wrong, 1 for omit- ting this fentence, or Mr. Emlyn for reproaching me thus upon this occafion. The paflage is this, which I give once more in Mr. Simon's Tranilation, in the eleventh Chapter of the Critical Hiftory of theTran- flations : t^/. Jerom complains in his Preface to the Ca- tboUck Epiftles of the unfaithfulnefs of the Latin In- terpreters^ who have omitted the witnefs of the Father^ the Word^ and the Eloly Ghoft. This makes good the reading of the Text^ which is like wife confirmed by abundance of Latin Copies^ and ovqr an4 above by. two Greek (95) Greek Copies cited by Eiafmus, one of zvhich ivas in Great-Britain, the other /;;? Spain : AV^,^; Philip 11^'* Bible, agrees exa&ly with the/e laft. We have fecn federal others like the fe. The fame pajjage is read in all Stephens*;, only there are /even which have not in coelo, unlef's in his Edition the femi- circle is viark'd wrongs which affigns what is not read in this place in his Mamifcripts. Thefe Do6lors feem to have been before-hand in taking my part, and efpoufing my intercft. I have maintained that R. 5'/^/)^^;^?; had more than feven Ma- nufcripts of St. John\ Epiftle j thefe Dodlors have faidthe fame near one hundred and fifty years ago. I have diilinguifh'd betwixt thofe Manufcripts of Stephens^ which had the pafTnge entire, and thofe wherein the words i\ tw ^p^.\>oo were wanting, thefe Dodlors had made the fame diftinftion. I have fhevj'd that the obelus refpe(5led the words CM T'2 ^p^vu only, the Louvain Doctors had made the fame difcovery, in cafe, faid they, the Edition is not faulty in this place: I would have alfo faid as much, if after the fbideft examination I hadn't found that in that point, there was no miftake intheimpreflion: Nothing then can be more harmonious throughout this whole affair than my expofition, and that of the Univerfity of Louvain. Thele Do6i:ors, in like manner, bear witnefs, that the Prologue to the feven Canonical Epiftles, where- in complaint is made concerning thispaflage, for its having been omitted in unfaithful Tranllations, is St. Jero-m's own > here again thefe Dodors agree with me. They don't fhew they have any fufpicion of the Codex Britannicus of Erafmus-, Mr. Emlyn is of a different Opinion 5 mine is the fame with that of thefe Divines. They fpeak of the C^w/?/«/^;i?y?^;^ Edition, asform'd upon another Qrcek Manufcript, fo that after he had retrieved retrlev'd the Manufcript of England^ thefe were the Manufcripts of Erafmus j this fame truth I haveeila- blifh'd. They fay the King's Bible, viz. the Polyglott of Philip II. agrees in this Text, as throughout the whole, with the Comphtenftan Edition, this is the pafTage I didn't mention, becaufe it made nothing to my purpofe, and the caufe I defend had no concern in this exa61: agreement of the King's Bible with the Edition of Comphttum : 'tis however from this fen- tence Mr. Emlyn takes his anfwers to wrell what thefe Do6tors add, IVe have feen this 'Text in feveral other Manufcripts^ to a quite different fenfefrom that I thought thefe words to have j this deferves to be a little examin'd. To this end, let us here again give the words of thefe Do6t:ors without the leail omillion 5 The read- ing of the Text^ fay they, concerning the Father^ the JVord^ and the Holy Gho ft ^ isconfirrnd by a greatnum- her of Latin Copies-^ ^ with which two Greek Copies agree^ one in England, the other of Spain, quoted by Erafmus ; The Kin^s Bible does here^ as every where elfe^ agree with that of Spain j we have feen feveral others conformable to thefe : Among thofe of Stephens there'' s not one which difagrees with 'em. I would ask of every one who underflands the Latin^ which I have here very faithfully tranflated, whether thefe Divines have not faid, that befides the two Greek Manufcripts quoted by Erafmus^ viz. the Manu- fcripts from which was made the Complutenfian Edi- tion, with which King Philip IPs Bible exadly agreed, and the Manufcript of England^ they had not themfelves feen other Greek Manufcripts which » Quibus confentientes duos Graecos codices, unuin Britanni- cum, alterum Hifpanicum Erafmus profert : Hifpanico, uc ubique, & hie conformis eft Regius: multos alios confonantes vidimus : inter omnes Stepliani ne unus eft c|ui diffide.at. had (97) had the fame paflage, that was alfo in all the Manu- fcripts of R, Stephens > nothing in the world is more evident. Mr. Emlyn has drawn a double curtain before his Eyes to prevent his feeing it : Firft, That thefe words, we baie feen many others conformable to thefe^ didn't refer to the Manufcripts of Erafmus and Com- plutum^ but the Edition it felf publilli'd by Erafmus^ and the Bible printed at Complutum^ with which the printed Bible of King Philip agreed j and fecondly, that it was of thofe printed Editions they had feen feveral others, which had alfo the Text of St. John. But that Mr. Emlyn may fee here more clearly, I beg him to attend a little more to the connexion of the difcourfe 5 for 'tis by this means an Interpreter enters into the fenfe of a pafTage : This connexion has here a double advantage, and is equally taken from what goes before and follows after. What goes before is, that Erafmus had found in a Greek Manu- fcript of England^ the Text concerning the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft 5 and befides this, he had feen alfo the fame Text in the Edition of Com- plutum^ this Edition had not been made without a Greek Manufcript, fo that it was with relation to that Manufcript Erafmus cited the Complutenftan Copy. The King's Bible was exadly copied from that Edi- tion. Atter this come the words, we hai:e feen feve^ ral other Copies conformable to thefe 5 to which .^ To thefe Greek Copies of Erafmus and of Complutum, What follows is to the fame purpofe : Among thofe of Stephens there'' s not one^ which do's not agree with ''em. What mean they by thofe of Stephens ? His Editions^ or his Manufcripts ? Without doubt his Manufcripts. Thefe Greek Copies then, which the Louvain Do6lors fay they faw, are rank'd with that which Erafmus had cited, with that of the Complu- tenfian Edition, and with all thofe of R. Stephens, I know 3 (98) I am apt to think Mr. Emlyn has a little pef- ceiv'd the force of this connexion which I had taken notice of^ for having fome miftruil of his for- mer anfwer, he approaches nearer to us, not abfo- lutely denying but thefe words, PFe have feen fe- 'veral others conformable^ might beiinderftood of Ma- nufcviptsj he*s at lall reduc'd to fay, that perhaps thefe Do6tors meant no more than that they had ken the cyphers which in Stephens's Edition diitinguilli'd the different Manufcripts he made ufe of in forming that Edition. I knov/ not what Mr. Emlyn would do withoux.^ perhaps y 'tis his grand intrenchment, whi- ther he retreats very frequently, as to his lail refuge : However, I am not for purfuing him thither j there let him refl in quiet, and at prefent let us be con- tented with having fufficiently defended the Telli- mony the LouvainDodioxs give of then- having feen in feveral Greek Manufcripts, the Text concerning -the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. Father Amelotte^ of the Oratory, has affur'd us alfo he faw the fame paffage in a very ancient Greek Manufcript of the Vatican. Library : His v/ords are, Erafmus has [aid this verfe was wanting in a Greek Manufcript of the Vatican, hut I f i n d i t in the moft ancient Manufcript of that Library, To this we have three anfwers j Firlf, Thefe words do not fully determine^ whether F, Amelotte found it by his own fearch^ or others information. We ihall be at a lofs for the future what terms to make ufe of to be underftood by Mr. Emlyn', when Beza faid, I have read^ I h^ve founds I have obferv'd in Stephens's Manufcripts, this did not mean, that Beza had fccn and read thefe Manufcripts, but only that he had feen the cyphers or numeral letters in the margins of a printed Book 5 and when F. y^melotte fays, / have found this paflage in a Manufcript, this neither im- • Page 27. b Pag& i8, plies (99 ) plies not that he had Found it himfclf, but that others irad found it for him, and given him an account on*t 5 this is to divert himfclf with humane lan- guage, and Avith reafon. The fecond anfwer is, that Erafmus J7ot only fays it 'was wanting in one M^nnfcript of the Vatican, but in a moft ancient Manufcript. Be it \o^ but I have ah'cady obferv'd upon this, that Erafmus and F. y^mc- lofte might both be in the right; becaufc there was more than one ancient Manufcript in the Vatican Library; this would takeaway all contradiction; What fays Mr. Emlyn to it ? Nothing at all. But what if I fhould here turn his own armsagainll him- feU? He won't have us give credit to Cajetan^ nor Erafmus^ nor Beza^ nor F. Jmelotte^ nor any other perfon whatfoever, who have fiid tliis paHage was in the Greek Manufcripts, becaufe they don't fay they law and read thefe Manufcripts themfelves; and here he oppofes Erafmus^ who had not {ttw the Manu- fcript of the Vatican^ and who knew nothing of it but from the information one of his Friends had given him, to Amelotte^ who fays he found this paf- fage himfelfina very ancient Manufcript o^\\\z Vati- can-y this is very lingular. But I wnll here again pafs him over, that 1 may come fooner to the main point. Cariophilus^ adds he after F. Simon ^ in the Pontificate of Urban VIII. made an Inventory of the Vatican Manufcripts, in which Inventory he found not one Greek Manufcript which had the paf- fage F. Amelotte fays he found in the mod ancient Alanufcripts of that valuable Library. This obfer- vation is morefpecioqs than all the rell, but amounts to nothing in the end. ^ Cariophilus dy'd in the Year i63f. He had drawn up an Inventory of the Library in the Potiiicate of Urban V^III. F» Ame- lotte^ ^^hQ dy'd in 1678. faw not above twenty five or thnty years ^fter the Manufcript he mentions, ! F. Long Index Alphabet. Auitor. Q fincc ( loo ) fince that happened mo ft probably when the Clergy of France in i6ff. had fet him to work upon the New Teftament^ which was not printed 'till 1666. The Manufcripts he fays he faw might have been forgot or miflaid, when Cariophilus drew up the In- ventory of that Library : This is no extraordinary thing, or it might well have been depolited there fince, as it oft happens that after Catalogues are made, divers Manufcripts are recovered, and plac'd in Libraries : So that this Inventory concludes no- thing againfl F. Amelotte's account. MwEmlyn urges as a third reafon, That this Au- thor is not an accurate and credible witnefs. He cites for this Mr. Du Pin^ who fays F. Amelotte was not very exa6i\, and Mr. Simon^ who rcprefents him as a man whofe teftimonies ought not much to be re- lied on. I don't know whether Mr. Simon is more credible than F. Amelotte : Many perfons queflionit, and upon good grounds. The Clergy of France al- fembled at Paris in i6ff . being defirous to have a good Tranfiation of the New "Teftamcntin the French Tongue, and knowing no perfon more capable of that important Work than F. Amelotte^ deputed divers Bilhops of their own body to engage him to under- take that Tranfiation, he yields to their foUicitations and entreaties, and in 1666, this Tranfiation came abroad with his notes, attended with the approbation of feveral Bifhops. All this heightens much the merit of this Divine, and ihews the high efteem they had of him. Mr. ^ Dit Pin has not found him very cxaft in the places where he has found forne dif- ferences betwixt the L^//;^ Tranfiation, and the Ori- ental Verfions, and divers Manufcripts > but in what ? In refped of his notes. But 'tis one thing not to be perfectly exa£k in the choice of different readings, and another to have no integrity : Which Amelotte would not have had, was it not true, that he had * D\x Fin Dilfert. Prelim, fur la Bible, Lih.%, ch. 3. / i. ' ' ''■"'"" " ■ found ( I°I ) found in a Greek Manufcript of the Fatican a Text which was not there. We are now come at lall to the Berlin Manufcript : I contented my fclf with giving its antiquitv upon the teflimony of Sauhertui and jTollius^ two learned men, as recited by F. Long in his Biblioth. Sacr. ch. 5. of the Greek Manufcripts, and 1 had joyn'd with this the account Dr. Rettncr has given of a Let- ter from the celebrated Mr. Jahlonski^^'vd\o\Vi percei- ving an omiflion ni chat article, as it fhmds in my print- ed Book, concerning the pafTage in St.Jobn^ which Mr. Jahlonski Jiad lent word to Dr. Kcttner was in that Manufcript, without which it would have been to no purpofe to have quoted it. The omifTion rs very fenfible > no one ought to be furpriz'd that I didn't difcover it: An Author oft believes he kcs in his Copy what in reality is not there, when his mind is full with the idea. Mr. Emlyn has at- tempted to take an advantage from this omidionj I ought to have perceived it firlt j but in the main 'twas eafy upon confideration to fee 'twas a mere omiilion. The Tranflator faw it plain, and made amends for it by giving the pad-ige this fole turn, ""'lis fend to be alfo in a Manufcript at Berlin, 13 c, I am much oblig'd to him. To come then to the fa61:, I had quoted Sauher^ tus and ToJlius only in relation to the Manufcript it fclf, and Kettner with regard to the pafTage : His words are, There is a Greek M'^nufcript of the New Teflamenc /"// the King's Library at Berlin, "jery oldj on parchment^ in ^ great Letter s.^ and without accents^ in two Voluines^ "j)hich John Ravius, Frofejj'or at Upfiil, brought out of the Eafl^ and fold for 100 Rix» dollars : "The famous Mr. Jablonski has wrote me word the paJI'age is plainly there. Ac the fame time I was writing upon this fubjeft, I receiv'd a Letter from Berlin^ wherein 'twas fignificd that this Text was g' ' * * " i»»» III m^ ' • .. ^ ■ i I a • Ktttnir. Hift. difl. Johaun. i Ep. c. 5. ;?. 7. i" OnaaUs. O 2, " ia in tliar Maniifcriptj it could not naturally come in- to my mind, that 'twould one day be iirg'd againfl me, that 'twas not in the body of the Text, but only in the n^argin, as Mr. Ejitlyn affures us he knows from a good hand j ^ / have received information^ fays he, frcrm a very fiire hand^ that this Verfe is not in the Body of that Manufcript^ hut that it has beer? fin:e inferted in the margin. We muft believe, for Mr. Emlyris honour, that fome body has diverted him- {c\i with writing him this account > for nothing is more exprefriy falfe > and he can name no man, who has any reputation to lofe, that can have given him this information, as of his own knowledge. I have hereupon receiv'd new advices from Berlin , and thcfe are the very words of one of the Kind's Librarians, Locus i J oh. f . 7. in Novo Teftamento Gr£co Manufcripto^ quod Bcroli ni Blhliothcca Regia hahct^ extat in contcxtu : Dc antiquitate verb nihil certi afirmari potefi : that is, the pajjage of the fir ft Epiftle (?/ 6"/. John, ch. f . f j. is in the text of the Greek Manufcript of the INew Teflament in the King^s Library at Berlin, but we can affrm nothing certain concerning its antiquity. Whether this Manufcript be foo years old, or more, or Icfs, if they will have it fo, is a point to be difcufs'd by thofe learned Men, whofe particular Study has been about the Ink, the parchment, the form of the characters, and fuch other matters, whereby they judge almoil exadly oi the time a Manufcript was wrote in> and yet wnth all their knowledge and application they are oft miflaken 5 we have mftances of it every day. 1 make my felf no party in- this affair 3 1 lland to what I quoted from F'Long: My quotation is faithful^ and what- ever be determined concerning the antiquity of the Copy, the palfage of St. ^ohn is found in it, and Hands in the body of the 1 ext 3 that's enough. • Pag. 30. Even (103 ) Even Icfs would fuffice •, fince the truth I main- tain has no need of the Berlin Manufcript ; after fo many proofs as I have produced, this lall comes not, as I may fay, 'till after the aftion : All I am to prove, is, that the Greek Editions of the New 'Teftament^ wherein are read thefe important words, were made from Greek Manufcripts 5 now have I not given in the utmoil: evidence of this from the Ma- nufcript of the Complutenfian Edition, publifh'd about the year if 18. from the Codex Britannicus^ which influenc'd Erafmus^ who had not infcrted it in his two firlt Editions, to reftore it in the third in If 11. from a confiderable number of Manufcripts from which 'twas copied by R. Stephens^ and put into his Editions of if46. if4p. iffo. and iffi. Thefe are the proofs 1 urg'd, and yet, as we have fcen, thefe are not all : How then dares any one after this aflert the Text is in no one Manufcript ? ^.J:/y^^y/^^y^^/y^ but this^ faid I, is only Ihewn m the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter : Mr. Emlyn coming to this quotation, pag. ^8. has been pleas'd to anfwer, that it has been obferv'd to be no plain evidence of any regard to this 7'ext^ let the Author be who it will. To know the bottom of this remark, we mull turn back to page the third of his Anf'wer^ where he fays^ the fpurious Synopfis Scriptura: among Athanafius'j IVorks^ by faying^ that St. John fhews us the Unity of the Son with the Father, gives no ground to fay^ that this uncertain Author had this 'Text in his Eye-, probably it refers rather to fome other ^ajjages (to ch. z. 23. J or to the eighth verfe 7?2yflically interpreted^ &c. Hozvever^ who^ or at what tinie^ this Author^ whether Greek or Latin, was-^ is not known. It appears by all this, that Mr. Emlyn was under no fmall difficulty •, he keeps clofe to nothing. ^his Author^ fays he, may have had his Eye in the twenty 'third verfe of the fecond Chapter y but does this vt\{cfloew the unity of the Son with the Father? On the other hand, this Author had already given the fubfiance of the fecond chapter, and having pafs'd from that to the third, and from the thud to the fourth, he was at lalt come to the fifth, and 'tis upon the f th he lays, that St. John fl:iews the unity of the Son with the Father. There's no going back. Very well ! be it fo 5 will Mr. Emlyn fay, ho'wcvcr probably it refers to the eighth verfe myflically interpreted. No, this is in no wife probable 5 for bcfides that there is nothing in this Synopfis, nor its Author , which gives us to undcrfiand , that he was acquainted with that myftical expofition of the eighth verft, of w Jiich Mr. Emlyn has fo often ipofce. ( '05 ) rpokc, this Synopfis has nothing to do with cxpofi- tions, but is contin'd to the cxprefs Texts of Saint John. But who was the Author of this Synopfis? inhoy adds Mr. EmJyn^ or at what time^ this Author^ whc^ ther Greeks;- Latin, waSr^ is not kuovjn: The lall, but poor fubterfuge, againit the Synopfis. Down to oiu" days it has been luok'd on as St. Jtharia^ fus'Sj and diviTs learned men do yet effeem it his : Others think 'tis not j I'm unacquainted with their reafons, but yet they all declare 'tis very ancient, and the kail favour ^ F. Montjaucon bellows on it, \^ to lay, that 'tis 800 years old. As to what Mr. Emiyn fays, that we know not whether its Author was a Greek or Latiyi j 'tis apparently himfclf alone, who do's not know it, becaufe perhaps he will not know it, and I don't believe he ever read of any fufpicions form'd about it. 'Tis therefore a matter which remains very fure, that the Text concerning the Unity of the Son "with the Father ^ mentioned in the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter of Sr. Johri's firll Epillle, was receiv'd as the Text of that Apo- ftle, either by St. Athanafius^ or fuch another Grtek Divine, of great antiquity, and even more anciejit than any Greek Manufcripts wc at prefenc have of j;hat Epiftle : I have no need of more than that. We find among the Works of the fame Athana- ftus a Diak^gue betwixt him and Ariiis^ la which thefe two names ferve only for Interlocutors, as in the Dialogues of Figilius Biihop of 'Tapftim^ to re- prcfent an Orthodox Chriftian^ and an Arian difpu- ting together upon the myilery of the Trinity. The Orthodox lays to the Arian^ we receive remif- fion of Sins by Baptifm^ in the form of which are namd the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofi-, and St. John hath faid^ These three are one. I have defended this palVage againit the two only • Praefat. ad I'alssol. Grssc. ICafons ( io6 ) reafons urgM agalnfl it 5 the one, that he is rather a Latm Writer, who wrote in Greek^ than a real Greek 5 and the other, that he might have had in view the words of the eighth verfe ; For this idle fancy is always fure to be raention'd, when there's nothing elfe to anfwer. Here again Mr. ^^i^/)';?, to extricate himfelf from the difficulty, has taken upon him to fay, againft all appearance of reafon, ^ Air, Martin does not know hut he was a Latin, tho"* he thinks he poffihly might he a Greek. I don't flridly know what he means by ^lying, that I am uncer^ tain whether this Author was a Greek or a Latin ^ and that I barely think he might poffibly have been a Greek. I have on the contrary fo validly refuted their Opinion, who would fufpecl him to be a La- tin^ that I can'c conceive how it could come into Mr. Emlyn's head, that I had the leaft doubt con- ccming it, and that I am not fully convinc'd this Writer was a Greek : Let but any one read the 149^^' and ifo^^^ pages of my Dijfertation. The Book is in Greek^ it has been written eleven hun- dred or a thoufand years ago j no man has ever ycc been able to prove the Author a Latin j the Book then fpeaks for it felf. Mr. Emlyn here again returns to his favourite fup- pofition, that the Author of the Dialogue might have had in view the words of the eighth verle : but he returns fuch a way as no body had ever found out before him. In the Greek Dialogue we read, 0/ t^«$- 75 ev «V/v, this 1^3 eV, fays he, agrees with the eighth verfe, 'tis but adding ek before 173, and then you will have the eighth verfe. Hitherto Criticks had paid fuch regard to the Manufcripts, as to add nothing to the places where they all agree, but if Mr. Emlyn's example is follow'd, we fliall be no more flraitned fo hereafter} and when we want in any paffage a word which can change the fenfe ( 107 ) of it, and put m its (lead what wc would havr to be there 5 'tjs but to add that word, and the bu- finels is done; The word ek is here wanting ; with- out it the feventh vciTeis hinted at j but we wouM have it refer to the eighth, add but this word there, and freight the eighth verfe is rei'err'd to; /We (ay then, 'tis an omiffion, let us place this word theic; The invention is commodious, but 'twill never iuit with right rcalbn. Cha p. XVI. 77:^^ Coyifejpon of Faith; and PuhUck- Service Books of the Greek Church defended again jl Mr. Emlyn, with regard to the w'ltnejjes hi Heaven mentioned in St, John's Epifile, f^^i^l R O M the quotation of this Text by pr& very ancient Greek Writers, I pafs'd to -^.._J^.i the more modern Greeks^ and lliew'd ^I^Ml they had inferted it into their Confcflion of- Faith, and Publick Offices. Mr. Emlyn fays, this may be \ but why does not he frankly own, that lo it is, fmce he has nothing to urge iigainfl the proofs 1 have given of it ? He has upon this a very pleafant cvafion: '7/j hut^ fays he, of late date* Firll, 'tis not true to fay its not ancient; the tclti- inony I quoted from the Ritual intituled 'AtoVoAoc, is very ancient ; I have fliewn 'tis at ieaft as 010 as the fiith Century. And befides, both as to the Ritual and the Confeflion of Faith of the Greek Churches, the force ot the pi oof coniiUsin this, that the Churches, which gave this Text a place in fuch publick A(5i:s of their Religion, have not done lo wtth- out having read it in U^cir Greek Manufcripts ot ( io8 ) St. yohn'sEp\{\.\e', and i^'itbe (aid, they have done fo without having read it, it lies upon thofe who fhall have the aflurance to charge 'em with fo odi- ous an imputation to prove their Aflertionj which is what they will never do. Let thefe Rituals then, and this Confeffion of Faith be, if they will have it fo, modern pieces, will the pafTage cited in them be one whit the lefs ancient on that account ? The fal- fity of this confequence is apparent. Our Con- feffions of Faith of England^ Scotland^ France^ Hol- land.^ and other R.eform'd Countries, are but of the fixteenth Century, which was the age of our moll happy Reformation > but would it follow from thence that the pafTages of Holy Scripture, v/hich are quoted therein, are not ancient, and as ancient as the Scripture it felf from whence they are taken ? Upon this head of the Greeks^ I will here recall what I have pafs'd over in fpeaking of the Codex Britanniciis of Erafmus. Mr. Simon has imagined that the Text Erafmus has copied from this Manu- fcripr, might well have been taken from the Greek of the CouncW o^ Latr an 'y in order to refute this vain conceit I mention'd four differences, which are found betwixt the Greek of the Council, and the Text of the Codex Britannicus^ they are to he feen di{lin6lly fet down in the i 38^^^ page of my Dijfertation : Mr. Emlyn has meddled only with the lad of the four, where, by a new Giammatical Obfervation he pretends the Greek word Wto/, which is in the Council's Tranflation of this paf- fage, was put there by an error of the prefs for the word ?To/, which is in the Manufcript oi England^ and every where elfe > and this by virtue of the circumflex and the afpirate fet over ^'rof in this man- ner ^ , which approaches very near to a r 3 and that this pretended ^ was drawn down from the top of the word ^ro/, to be plac'd in the begin- ning of the word ts/to/, and fo to make a t, in bringing along with it a new accent, and lofing its C 109 ) its afplrate in Its dcTcent j for all this is ncccfTary to ground this curious remark upon. It may be well imigin'd I fha'n't trouble Mr. Emlyn much upon this affair, 'tis a matter which dcferves on- ly to be I'lugh'd at : But he muft give me leave to ask him why he has faid nothing upon the other three differences, which I have taken no- tice of betwixt the Greek of the Manufcript in E'tg.a-'ii^^ and the Greek in the Tranflation of the Latrad Council : This makes one believe he had nothmg to anfwer. The Texts of the fcventh and eighth veiTcs are plac'd immediately one after the other m the A61:s of that Council, as in the Epi- ftle of St. John 3 the place they fland in may make us look on 'em as inferted there by the very Au- thors of the Council, or as being cited by Joachim himfelf, whom the Council condemned 3 I have an firll view given in to the firll thought 3 if anyone prefers the fecond, as the more natural, I acquicfce with all my heart : The feventh verfe will be never the more or lefs in the A6ts of the Council upon that account, and that's all that is here effential ; fince the point we are upon concerns only the fa£t it felf J and the quotation, by whomfoever made, is a proof of the fad. ChA Fi (xio) Chap. XVII. That Afr. Emlyn has had ^lothtngfoTtdto an/wer to the Solutions I have given the ohjeBinns tirgdagamji thispajfage. ^^^i^HO' I had fufficientlv pftablifh'd the au- fc T ^^1^ ^^^^'"i^'ckiielsof the paHage of St. John in t© » ihe firlt part of my Diflertation^ I did ^b: ;-%! not omir to examine, m a lecond part, tlie mc'il 'pecious objc6i:ions the adverfaries of this \ Trige bring agamtl it. Mr. Emlyn has pretended to reply to the folutions I had given to thefe objecti- ons, but has Olid nothing upon any of 'em that de- fervcs a confiiration. However, that he may not turn my filcnce to his own advantage, I will here Ipend a h\v moments in the examination of what he has faid upon every one of my anfwers to thefe ob- jedions. The firll, and moit fpecious of all, is^ ^ that this Text is wanting in the Greek Manufcripts, and the ancient Oriental Verfions. As to the Gr^^/^ Manufcripts, this Objection fell of it felf, after the demonftrative proofs I had brought, and which we have here jull: repeated, that 'tis only m fome Manufcripts this Text is wanting, iince I have ihewn it to be in thofe o^Valla^ oiComplu- ium^ of Erajmus^ of R. Stephens^ and others. But be- caufe 1 had faid, chiefly upon theoccafionof the Fati- can -d^ndi Alexandrian Manufcripts^whrch are reputed the molt ancient, that thefe two Manufcripts want feveral other Texts alfo, Mr. Emlyn anfwers, that this make§ nothing for the prefent purpofe, becaufe a Text which is in no one Manufcript, is of no authority, fuppoling thus that the paffage in St. John\ Epiltie is in none. Etitthis is no anfwer to my folutionsj 'tis to throw the « Piffert, f.^, I. (lit ) queftion into the condition 'twas in at firfl, altoge- ther as if I had own'd the Text to be in no Manii- fct ipts, or had produc'd no proof of its being in any or that 'twas recciv'd as genuine by all the ancient Fathers, who urg'd it againll thejrlaf/s. As to theanfwers I gave in relation to the Oriental Verdons, wherein this Text was omitted, WwEmlyn has not thought fit to advance any thing againd Vm. He had obie6ted in his Inquiry againll this Text, that the Councils of Nice and Sardlca had made no ufe of it againll the Avians. I clear'd up this matter fo fully, ^ that Mr. Emlyn lets all pafs, and contents him- felf with %ing over again, that this paflage would have been extremely uieful againll the Avians^ as be- ing a proof of the Trinity. I don't love to repeat the fame things, 'tis too tirefomc for the Reader, and too inlipid for a man who thinks he can employ his time better : He ought either to confute what I have wrote upon that Suject, or fay nothing at all. A third objection had took up a whole chapter in my Dijfertation > this was, that the Text had not been cited by any of the Greek or Latin Fathers of the firfl ages j as I had obferv'd the anonymous Wri- ter, who is now MwEmlyn^ then pretended, as he continues to do in his late Anfwer, that the proofs of this Text taken from the fifth and following Centu- ries, were not very confiderable 3 I had made fome obfervations upon this vain pretence, the weaknefs of which is felf-cvidcnt, that Mr. EmJyn ought to have confuted, had he been able 3 he has been fo artful as not to touch upon 'em. As for the ancient Greek Writers j the Authors of the Sy no pfis^ and the Dialogue betwixt Athmafms and Arius^ are fure witnefles that the Text in their days was in the Apo- flle's Epiftie \ there's no more returning to this Shift, the fad- is demonflrated. And forthc Zrt//>j-, ?cis UiCouceiveable that any man fnould hav^fuch aa * Dillert. P thefe are meer repeti- tions. They had urg'd, that no ancient Commentator on St. John's Epiftle had fpoke of this paftage. Thefe ancient Commentators are reduc'd to four, the firft: of which, Clement of Alexandria^ had wrote a Com- ment upon the feven Canonical Epiftles, which has been loft feveral hundred years ago : We have only fome Latin Scholia remaining, and which are fo de- fedlive, that one half of the Texts is wanting in 'em : The other is Didymus^ of Alexandria alfo, and what "We have of his I have ftiewn to be rather the frag- ments and broken remnants of a Work, than the Work it felf. Mr. Emlyn then ought to confefs, with refpeft at leaft to thefe two Greeks^ that reafoq was on my fide, and that thefe Ihould no longer be urg'd as Commentators, to prove the Text of the witnefTes in Heaven was not in St. ^c?^/^'s Epiftle. C "3 ) The grand effort is here upon Bede^ who flou- rifh'd in the eighth Century, and who having com- mented on St. Jchns Epilllc, has faid nothing con- cerning this pafTage. I have flievv'd we could not conclude from thence the paffage was not in the Apoitle's Epiftle, becaufe I had demonftratively prov'd that St. Cyprian^ about the middle of the third Centurv, St. jercm in the fourth, St. Ruche- ri^^j towards the middle of the fifth, Figilius and the other y^fric an Bifhops, towards theclofe of the fame Age, and St. Fulgentius in the fixth, had read it in their Bibles. Bede liv'd partly in the feventh Age, being born, according to Dr. Caz-e in his Hiftoria Lhteraria^ in the year 672, and partly in the dghth. The time of his death is not abfolutely certain, fome place it in the year 761, othei's in 765. Dr. Ca'ue thinks it mod probable to be in the year 755- . The Ordo Romanus^ w^hich had the Text of the Epillle of St. John^ was drawn up about the year 750. Near the fame time Authhert^ Abbat of St. Vincent^ re- cites this Text, fo does alfo Ifidorus Mercaior : Al- cuinus^ ^f^/^'s Scholar, infertsit into therevife of the Latin Bibles : Bede liv'd exa6lly in the mid ft, be- tween thefe times > he approaches near the age of St. Fulgent ius^ who went before him 3 he liv'd and wrote m the fame age, and almoll in the fame years with the others, who were fomewhat his juniors : The pafllige of the witncfics in Heaven is found in the Bibles of all thefe 3 and yet fome will even dare to fay , that 'twas not extant in Bede's time, under the pretext that Bcdc has not quoted it j they might as well tell us 'tis dark at noon-day. The laft of the Commentators, whofe filcncc is urg'd againfl us is Oecumenius : I have anfwcr'd this Objcd'.on, and Mr. Emlyn does nothing more than fay over-again, that 1 have not prov'd this Text was in St. John's Epiftle in Oeaonenius^ time, who liv'd at the clofe ot the tenth Century, or beginning of the ( 114 ) the eleventh. What pity- .'tis that we mufl: be con- tinually repeating the fame things over and over? -'Let us now leave to MwEmlyn the forry employ- ment of cxerciling his mind and pen in defending, as \Vell as he can, fo deplorable a caufe as his is j or rather, let us content our felves with deilring that the truth may at length reach even to him, and that ac- knowledging with us the authenticknefs of St. John's pafllige, both he and we may ever hereafter be em- ploy'd in worfhipping with one heart and one mind, the Holy Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, in one only and the fame God, .blefled for ever- more • which Trinity is fo evidently demon- fti'ated to us in this pafTage, FINIS. If -^ ^ •^ h|h 4^ 4^ 4^ 4" 4" 4^ 4'' ^ "^ ■^ T* "^ 4* 4'' 4^ ■*!* ^•'' 4^ ^ ^J^ 4* ""^ ^ "^ BOOKS Printed for William his Jewifli Antiquities is. proved to be authentick. Written originally in French, and now Trau" ilatcd into EngliQi, ,0 MartiiiV Examination O F T H E ANSWER T O His Dissertation on i John 5.7., There are three that bear Record in Heaven^ the father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghofiy and thefe three are one. By Thomas E m l y n. LONDON'. Printed by ]• Darby in Bartholomew- Clofc, and fold by John Noon near Mercers Chappel in Cheapfide, ^/^^A. Dodd without Temple-Bar. M.DCCXX. Price 6 d. C J ] J[ Reply to Mr. Martin's Examination^ &c. The Introduction. ^^^'^:IS not my Dedgn to make this Reply mf^^i equal in Length to Mr. Martins Exa- ■ 'T J^j mination : He has mingled fo many M^3= long hiftorical Narrations concerning ^-^ late Authors j has introduced his Ar- guments with fuch fiourifhing Preambles-^ and afterwards confirms them with fo many high Com- mendations^ that I find a great deal which 1 need take no notice of. I pretend not to fay that I am not miftakea in any accidental Matter whatever : and therefore if I neglefted to diftinguifh Eucherius^ from the African Bi(hops,when he liv'd in an Ille on the op- pofite Coaft ^ or if I had miftaken, in calling the Xlth Age St. Bernard's Time, inftead of the Xllth, it had been no great Matter *, for as to this, Mr. Martin himfelf had faid. That toward the end of the eleventh Century^ St. Bernard quoted this Text in ynany of his Writings^. And I thought \ had been very fure that he could not make very many Quotations an Age before he was ^ DiJJertat. ch. 3. A 2 borni 4 ' J KuplY to born *, and fo I ventur'd to fay he livM in that eleventh Age in which he wiote: but Mr. Martin corrects me, faying, -f- Nor dtd 5f. Bernard live in the Xlth, btit the jcilth Jge. Whereas the truth of ihe whole Matter is juft the contrary ^ for he was born towards the_ end of the Xith Age, (^Ajino 1091, fays Dx-Cave) fo that he did not quote thU Textm the Xlth Age, which Mr. Martin hasafRrm'd, but yet he did live inifie Xlth Age, which he denies ^ fo little Caution does he nfe in what he writes. Bat V pafs on to what more nearly affefts our main Argument. 1 obferve two things in Mr. A/^mVs Entrance upon his Work, in his very firit Leaf, that are a little furprizing : 1. That he fhould prefume to fay, p. 2. That the ttniverfal antient Church has fuppofed this Text to contain the Dofirine of the Trinity of Perfons in the Godhead ; when 'tis not pretended to be once mention'd by any one of the antient Greek Church or Writers*, and but once ^V pretended, with any, and that very little, colour, to be quoted by any Latin till the fifth Century. If this amount to a Teftimony of the univerfal antient' Church J I dare engage to produce her Teftimony, and one much more ample, for many ilrange things which Mr. Martin would not believe. 2. I wonder, that when he will not conteft againft the Arians from the lafl V/ords, Thefe three are one^ whether they don't mean only an Vnity of Teftimony^ he ihould yet think them diftrefs'd by provii.g the Father, Son, and Spirit, to be three Perfons from their being three Witneffes j and that I, for this Reafon, was in a Mifiake^ in faying, the Words, if genuine, were as favou- rable to them caWd Ariansj as to any; and adds •I* Examin, ch. 5, Mr* Martin'i Examination, &c. 5 / know not whence he learned that the Arians ever believed the Holy Spirit to be a Ptrfon really fubfi ft png. And truly I as little know whence it is that he has not learn'd it, except it be from lus not having look'd much into the Controverfy, how much or how forcibly foever he may have written upon it, as his Treface tells us. And I dare 'allure him, that if he have no occafion for this Text but to prove the M/y 5pmf a Pcrfon, thofecall'd jiriafis will grant him the Benefit of it in fome other Text moreexprefs •, and he has lefsreafon to feek for it here, where the Water and Blood are called WltneJfesMo^ which yet are not Perfons. I obferve alfo, that Mr. Martin ^ reckons it a mighty Advantage, that this Text h^s been found ftho not conltantly, as he fays) tn the Latin Blblei cfthe Weftern Churches^ from the Jge when Printing began, upwards to the dghth Century: which with me, I confefs, is of fmall account, when the Inquiry is, whether ever it was in the Greek Original, or in the Bibles of the firft: Ages*, which is not to be proved by its being now in thofe of the latter times. And tho he fays a Text does not lofe its Au- thority becaufe the Manufciipts vary, yet the learned and judicious win allow me to tell him, that when, as he fuppofes, any Texts are varied, or are wanting in divers Manufrripts of the (rreateft Jintiquity^ tho re^d in ethers^ (which is not the Cafe of our Text) their Authenticknefs as to us, becomes lefs certain and more doubtful in pro- portion to the want of Evidence of thrj^ Ge- nuin^enefs : and yet Mr. Martin is not {0 ingenuous as once to confefs this Text to be fo much as doubtful^ tho wanting In all the known Creek Ma- nufcripts, without any Difagreenfient or Varia- J Examin. ch. xi. tion *, 6 J Reply to lion •, but always fpeaks of it as mod certainly fijf^mine^ proved by indi/putable Witnejfes^ and by a ^-rreat Variety of Proofs^ every one of which is cori' dufive^ rcithout the j^Jfiftance of the refiy and the like : in which as I believe he is almoft lingular, lb it fhall not affright me from purfuing my Argu- ments for the contrary. The Sum of my Argument againft Mr. Martin in relation to this T'ext^ was in three Conclufions : 1. That no one antient nor genuine Greek Writer mentions this Text upon any Occalion whatever. To which he oppofes only two Paf. fages of fome uncertain counterfeit Athafiafiiu, but relies more upon fome of the Latins^ 2. That, among fo many which want the Verf^y there is not one antient Greek Manufcript pro- duced to countenance its AdmiHion into the Text* To this he has oppofed one Manufcript at Berlin:^ of which he has made fome Pretences of a fliuffling Defence. 3. That we have no well attefled Evidence, or fatisfactory Account, of any one having for- merly feen any fuch Greek ManujR;ript, tho it has been much prefumed, and in general Terms faid, there were /iJ/T^e. To this he has oppofed Robert Stephens's Manofcripts, attefted, as he thinks, by Bez^a \ and.alfo St, JerotTj's Teftimony, taken from his Preface^ and his Ferfion oi the >^ew Teftament. Thefe three principal Points, with which fome fmallcr things will naturally ftand or fall, I Pnall again confider and defend, that 1 may confirm the abovefaid three Conclufions. Only I intend to leave that about the Greek and Latin Fathers to the lafl: Place, and begin with the Secondy concerning the Berlin Manufcript, which foimcriy 1 was not fully informed of. CHAPe Mr. Martin'/ Examination, &e. tjr CHAP, I. ji true Account of the Berlin Mmufcrift^ which Mr. Martin [nys is refuted to he 500 Tears old \ and his very disingenuous Conceal^ z/^ent of the Evidence he had of the contrary. I HAVE arga'd againft the Authority of I John 5.7- that 'tis not found in any one antient Greek Manufcript btfore Printing, as far as yet appears to the learned World : So that ic feems to have been inferted in the publick Im- preflions without any good Warrant. Mr. A/. on the contrary tells us, that 'tis in a Manufcript at Berlin in the King's Library, refuted 5C0 Tears cld^'y and that /^ le Long gives this Account upon the Teftimony ^/Saubertus and Tollius ; and JDr, Kettner relates the fame^ &c. This indeed was fomething to the purpofe, if true. But when I look'd into F. le Long and TolUusj 1 found not a word of this Account there i neither that the Manufcript was reputed to he 500 Te^rs old^ nor that the PafTage of St. John is in it, (tho this latter proves in fadl to be true:) Hereupon i thought it meet to make fome further Enquiry about this Berlin Co^^. Underftanding there was a Gentleman from Berlin then at London ^ capable of giving a good Account of this Matter, 1 defir'd a Friend, who was likely to fee him, to ask him about if, which he did, and brought me for an Anfwer, that the Text in difpute was only in the Margin of the Berlin Greek Manufcript. Whether the Dijf«rfaf, ch. viii* 8 J Reply to Queftion put, or the Gentleman's Anfwer to if was miftaken, I know not •, but it feems by the following Letter, here was an Error, and I was miiinform'd as to the Gr^f^ Manufcript ^ it being only the noted Latin Manufcript which wanted this Verfe in the Text, bat had it in the Margin. Mv, M. who it appears knew the whole Matter (more than he had the Ingenuity to confefs) con- firms one part of his Account by frefli Advice from Berlin^ * viz,» that the Pajfage, i John 5. 7. is in the Text of the Greek Manufcript ; but the other part, Tjim. the Antic^uity of the ^^»z/y?rfp/-, (without which the other is nothing at all) is in a manner given up by his Friend, who adds, but we can affirm nothing certain concerning its Anti^ qvity, 1 wiQi Mr. M- had let us know whether this was all that in this Letter was faid relating to the Manufcript^ and whether his Correfpon- dent, who could fay nothing for its Antiquity^ did not at the fame time acquaint him with Arguments of its Novelty^ which in juftice ought not to be concealed by an honeft Inquirer after the Truth. Immediately after the foremention'd Words of the Letter from Berlin^ Mr. Ai» adds a Para- graph, in which I prefently thought I difcerned the Maiks of great Difingenuity, Confufion, and Guilt. Whether^ fays he, this Manufcript be 500 Tears oU^ or more^ or lefsy if they will have it fo^ is a Point to he difcuffed by thofe learned Men^ whofe particular fludy has been about the In\^ the Parchment^ the form of the CharaEiers^ andfuch other Matters^ whereby they judge almofl exa^ly of the time a Manufcript wa^ wrote in \ and yet are oft mifluhen, I make my f elf no Party in this Affair \ I fiand to what I quoted from F. Long : My Quotation 1^ His Examination of Mr, Em's, Anfwer^ ch. xiv» Mr. Martini Examiiiation, d'c g is faithful \ and whoever he determined concerning the jintiquity of the Copy^ the Pajfage of St. Joho is found in it., and ftands in the Body of the Text j that^s enough : Even lefs would fuffice \ fmce the Truth 1 maintain has no need of the Berlin Manu" fcrip. Here is fuch (hifcing and fhaffliiig, faying and unfaying, laying all on the Back of F. Long., (who yet had noc faid what Mr. AUrtin quotes him for, as (hall be fhewn) fuch a modeft Wil*- lingnefs to be content with the Truth of one half of his own AlTertion, that yet was utterly infignificant by icfelf^ nay, to be content with- out any part of it, and to account it enough tho it were nothing at all ^ that I had reafon to fufpeft here was fomething very unfair, if the true State of the 5^r//« Copy could be fully known* Having the Happinefs of an intelligent Friend, who held Correspondence with a very learned and eminent Perfon in Saxony., I obtained the favour of him to write to his Correfpondent to enquire into this Matter ^ who received (and tranfmitted hither in the Original) the following Letter from the celebrated Mr. La Croz.e^ the learned Library-Keeper of the King of Prvffta 5 in which, with the Candor and Ingenuity^ be- coming a Perfon of Integrity and true Learn*- ing, he has given this full Account of the Manu- fcript under his Care. Vir j4mplijjlmey MA L O difcas ex litteris meis ea quae nomine C/. C- flagitas, ouanlabeo ipfo, ad quern, utpote ad virum mihi minus cog- nitum, litteras deftinare nolui. Miror Codi- cem noftrom, librum nuUins audtoritatis, alle- rendae dubiae ledioni idoneum videri, cum jam ego compluribus viris eruditis, ipfique Re"e- rendo Martina^ manifeftum fecerim^ eum Codi- cem, qui falfarii cujufdam fraude pro antiquo lO A V^tVhY to ' venditus eft, & venditatur, manu recenti ex ^ Editione Polyglotta Complutenjt fMQ defcriptum. ' Id ftatim vidi cum Anno MDCXVI. ^ Biblio- ' thecam Regiim peregrinorum more, non enini * tunc me moras ^^ro/^w^ fa6:urum putabam, per-' * luftrarem,dixique palam Hendreichio iref f/an^ixrij ; ' idqae, ex quo Bibliotheca mihi credita eft, ' caadide apud omnes profeflus fum ^ neque id * ignorat CI. & Reverendus Martintu^ cui idem * meo nomine fignificatum eft. * Hie ergo babes compendium Quaeftiorum tua- * rum : Quicodicemeditum Complutenfem \id\X., is * vidit 6c Manufcriptum Codicem noftrum, ne * demptis quidem mendis typographotum, quae * fcriba indodus ita fideliter expreffir, ut omnino * conftet hominem illiteratum ab erudito aliquo * nebulone ei fraudi perficiendae fuifle prsefedum. * Et fane pro antiquo liber ilk venditus eft, ' immani etiam pretio, etfi membrane recenti ' adhuc calx, live creta ilia inbaereat, qux pel- * libus vitulinis parandis adhiberi folet : atra- * mentum ubique albicans, demptis aliis criteriis, ' fraudi agnofcendse fufEceret. ' Qaicunque ergo ad hunc codicem provocat, is * cm iiino fe nihil agere norit. Certe quod ad me at- ' tinet, pertenax fum fidei Nkena^ &: Orthodoxse.'; * at illi tuend^e abfit ut fraudes unquam adhibeam. ' Caeterum verfm 7. eodem tenore in Codice illo ' legitur quo 6 6c 8, nee quicquam margin! ' adfcriptum eft. Islullos alios novi teftamenti * Codices G'r^cf^j Manufcriptos habemus; Latinos ' vero quam plurimos, fed recentiores j inter * quos quidam eft bonas notse ex antiquiffimo, ' ut mihi conftat, defcriptus, in quo verfus oda- * vus fextum ftatim excipit, addito tamen fep- * timo in margine ab eadem manu. Hxc habui, * qu^ refcriberem alio vocatus, eodem tamen ? Read MDCCXVI. ' mo« Mr. MartinV Examination, &c, ii * momento, quo litterse tu^e ad me delate funt: • nee plura in prgcfenti addere licet, nili quod ^ me benevolentise tuce iterum, iterumque com- ' mendo. j^mplljfimi nominis tui ftudlopjfimum^ Berolfni, prid'te Cal. Januar. MDCCXX. e»em annum ^ y L^ Croze. tibt fauftum^ er Jelicem prccor^ ^ voveo, It feems very ftrange to me^ that ever our Afanufcript^ a Book of no yiuthority at all, flwuld be alledg'd in confirmation of a dubious Readings fince I have already difcovered it to very many learned Men^ and even to the Reverend Mr* Martin himfelf^ that this Manufcripty tho much boafied of^ and fold by a cunning Cheat for an antient Book, is but a late Tran" fcript from the ?o\yg\ot of the ComplutcnCi^n Edi- tion *, this I frefently difcerned^ when as a Stranger only I viewed the Kin£s Library^ before I had any thoughts of fettling at Berlin, and I then declared the fame openly to Hendreichius «<7rp deceafed : and ever fince this Library has been committed to my Care^ I have freely owned it vpon all Occafions with" out referve \ and the Reverend Mr. Martin knows it very well^ who by my means has been informed of it. Take this therefore in Jhort for an Anfwer to all your Queftions : He that hoifeenthe Complutenfian printed Copy^ has at the fame time feen cur Manu- fcript, without excepting fo much as the Errors of the Printer^ which the unskilful Scribe has fo exaEily copy^d^ that it plainly appears fome learned Knave had committed the Work to an illiterate Man. 7%e Book indeed was fold for very antient^ and therefore at an huge Trice \ and yet the Parchment is fo new., that the very Lime or Chalk made ufe of in the drejfmg Calve-skins^ is yet upon it j and were B z there 12 A Reply to there no other Marks of Praud^ the Jnh is enough to dlfcover it^ in that ^tis whiti/h in every Part. It is therefore to nofur^ofe to appeal to this Copy. For my tart I firmly hold the Nicene and Orthodox Faith ; but God forbid J fhould ever go about to defend it by Fraud, However in this Manufcripty the Jth Ferfe is in the 7ext^ in the fame manner as the 6th and %th ure^ nor is there any thing written in the Margin, We have no other Greek Manvfcrifts of the New Teftament •, many Latin ones we have^ }?ut them not old \ among which there is one indeed of good efleem^ which Appears to me to be tranfcribed from a very an- tient Copy ^ in this the Sth Ferfe immediately follows the 6th, and the feventh Verfe is added in the Mar- gin by the fame hand. This is what I have to write in anfwer-, &c, 1 have no leave given me, nor ami reftrained from making this Letter publick *, and hope it will give no offence to the worthy Author, whofe critical Genius, and honeft Regard to Truth in a matter of Fad, will furely merit the Efteem of the Learned and Impartial. I have therefore fet down the entire Letter according to the Original, that none may fufpefi: me of with- holding any thing that might be againft my Canfei and fhall now make a few Remarks upon Mr, Martinis difhonourable Condud in this Matter of the Berlin Manufcript, which he aflerted, and pretended to prove, had the Reputation of being $00 Tears old. I. It appears plainly by the abovefaid Letter, and by what he has faid in his Examination of my ^nfwery that Mr. Martin had good Evidence of the little or no Reputation of this Manufcript for Antiquity j and that it was at leafl reafonably fufpeded, it not rather fully proved, to be a late Tranfcript, fince Prioting has been in ufe. Hov^ exadly Mr. Martin'i Examination, &c: i j cxaOly do his Words, about the M and Parch* ment, &c, anfwer to the Account in Mr. La Croz.e*s Letter, and confirm the Truth of his having been informed of the State of this Copy ? /Vnd yet he was not fo ingenuous as to own any thing of it; only from a Scrap of a Letter he tells us, we can affirm nothing certain of its Antiquity : But I judge Mr. Martin could have told us a great deal that had been affirmed of its Novelty, and of its be- ing a Fraud. And ought not an impartial Lover of Truth to have difcover'd this imCritical Dif- fertation^ or elfe not alledg'd this Manufcript at all in the Argument ? With what ingenuous Honefty could he pro- ceed to fay. Whether this Manufcript be 500 Years oldy more orlefs^ is to be dif cuffed^ &c. AS if, by thelnformationfent him, it was as likely to be of greater Antiquity, as of lefs than 500 Years, for any thing that he had heard ^ or as if he had not known, that a Judgment had been made of its Novelty from the Ink and Parchment, and the like. 2. Mr. Martin has not produced any one Au- thority or Teftimony that juftifies his Affirma- tion ^ viz* that this Manufcript had the Re^w tat ion of being 500 Tears old ^ on the contrary, tho he fays, F. Long gives this Account on the Teftimony of T^oUim and Saubertvu^ yet F. Long (in the Place refer'd to) fays not a word of 500 tears old \ much lefs does he ground it on the Teftimony oiToIUuSy for he fays not a Word of it neither : and I fuppofe the fame of Sauhertm^ whom I have not met with. Indeed Mr. ^^rfi;? had fathered the whole Af- fertion on Le Long^ viz. 'Tis faidto be in a Ma- vufcript at Berlin "reputed 500 Tears old ^ this Ac^ count F. Long^ti/e/, &c. but in his laft Trad he tells uSj he coritent edhimf elf mth giving the Antiqui- t/^ A Rep l y /(? ty of the Manufcript on the T*eji:lmony of Saubertus and Toilius, oi recited by F. Long : So that we muft q^it him of the firft half^ one would hope then that the other remaining half fhould be well proved from F. Lon^^ viz, reputed 500 Tears old'^ which is yN\\'^l'Nir, Martin faid of its Anti- quity, and was to prove. Bat tho Mr. Martin fays, I will fiand to what Icjuoted from F, Long, ^ And my ^4otation is faithful^ yet I think he had better coafefs his Unfaitbfulnefs, thar. todenyit. . All that F. Long lays, is. That there is a Greek Manufcript oi the New Teftament njery oid^ on Farchment^ in great Letters and without AccentSj rohich]o\{X\ K^d^i ins bought for lOO Rix Dollars^ and brought out of the Eafty and^ oi is reported^ gave it to the Kin£i Library at Berlin, in two Vol. and then only refers to the Places in Saubertus and Tollim,-\ Where is the Account of 500 Tears old in tl)is ? He calls it indeed a very antient Manufcript, but determines not the particular Age of it, which Mr. Martin affirmed, and brought him for a Wit- nefsof*, and not very ingenuouily intimates, that F. Lon(i muft bear all the blame if it be riot fo old: But when himfelf only, and not F. Long faid ft, how could he fay, I make my felf no Tarty in this jijfair^ I cjuoteditfromF'Lo^^t 3. When he faw he could no longer juftify his Argument, how unfairly does he come off with ni.: . - 1^.,^ Exaimnat. p. 102. '^ \ Novum Teft. Grxcum MS. pevvetuftum, membranaceum, ^Iiteris Uncialibu?, & abfque accentuum notis exaratum, quod du- centis Impevialibus emptum ex Oriente attulit, & mi fama feit, SereniiT. Eleftoris Brandeburgici illuftri Bibliothecae confecravit 'Johannes Rallies Profellbr Vpfalienfis^ 2 Vol. Jo, Saubertus in Proleg, ad vaiias leftiones S. Matth&iyi^» 6i» de hoc Codice loquiiur Tollius ;» Epifi. Itincrariis^ Ep, l\* p. 4$. Bcrolini Bibl. Brandeburg. P.Long, B'iblioth. S. To. i. C. 3, Sea.4, this Mr. MartinV Examination, &c. 1 5 this pitiful Gonclufion? Whatevfr be determined concerning the Antiquity of the Copy^ tht Pajfage of St. John is found in it^ and in the Body of the Text ; that's enough. Is it fo ? But what is it enough for ? Is it enough to prove the Copy to be old, and before the Art of Printing, if it be but a Tran- fcript from the Print ? or does Mr. Martin think fo meanly of Mankind, that they will take the PalTage to have been St. Johnh origiaally, becaufe fomebody of late has written down the Words ? He might even as well have faid, the PafTage is now printed, and that's enough^ no matter what Authority they had for it. But it muft be enough^ tho it be nothing to the purpofe^ becaufe Mr. Martin could prove no more from it. From the whole of this matter, 1 take leave to make a few Inferences. 1, That Mr. Martin fhould not think it flrange, nor take it ill, if fome Sufpicion be entertained concerning others in what they have fpoken ia general Terms, of the Manufcripts made ufe of by them, in reviling the New Teftament ^ at lealt fo much as to put us upon examining into the Grouads they went upon ^ left perhaps, thro a cautious Fear of oppofing the ilrong and general Prejudices of the Age, or from fome other Bias, they alfo, like Mr. Martin^ might conceal fome things known to them, which they did not care to have known. 2. That he fhould not cenfure others too hardi/ and vehemently, if any have made fome fuch flip, much lefs if it were only a Miltake thro Inadver- tency. He fhould not call Robert Stephens a Cheat and Impofior, if he failed to put his Marks exadly in the right Place. I fhould be very forry if any fhould give Mr. Martin fuch hard Words, whom I will by no means cenfure as an evil Man, tho I can't help thinking he has impofed on the World, i6 J Keply to World, and dealt unfairly in this matter, viz* in recommending the Antiquity of the Berlin Copy, while he concealed what he knew of its Novelty. 3. That it (till remains true what I had for- merly aflerted, That the Paflage of St. John is not now found in any one antient Greek Manufcript yet known to the learned World ^ this Berlin Ma- nufcript being the only one Mr. Martin pretends to inftance in, and the Copies of Stephens and others no longer in beings as he fays, or mijlaid ^ which are the frivolous Excufes he makes. CHAP. II. Of R. Stephens'^ Grsek Mmufcripts. THO Mv, Martin can find no antient Greel Manufcript in being which has the Text in difpute, yet he thinks time was when there were fuch Manufcripts in great plenty ^ efpecially in the Days of R. Stephens^ to whofe Manufcripts he appeals as an invincible Proof of the Genuine^ mfs of this Paffage"^, To make this appear, he undertakes, i. To fhew that Stephens had more than feven Copies of this Epiftle of St. John^ and that the Text under debate was in fome of them entire. And, 2. That the feven Copies, rfe- fer'd to by Stephens''^ Marks in his Folio Edition, wanted only the Words \v t^ K'^^yw, in Heaven:, and that there was no Miftake in placing the Obelus^ as has been long fufpeded. Which two Points I (hail confider again ; tho 1 think what I have faid in my toimer Anfwer^ is fufficient to confute what Mr. Martin has faid in reply to it. J Ch. xii. Mr. Martini Examination, 6^c. ij But I mult firfl take fome notice of what he fays as to the Number of Stephens^ Manufcripts. Mf. Af. thinks he has done a confiderable thing in determining the Number of St:evhens\ Manu- fcripts to be b'eventeen ^ pretending to corred 'Dv.MlWs Error^, in that under the Numberof Sixteen he comprehends the Complutenfan Edition. Kow tholjudge it nothing to the purpofe whe- ther there were Iixteen ovfeventeen Manufcripts, fo long as there were but feven of St. Johns Epiftle, yet lam not convinced that this was any Error in Dr. Aflll ; becaufe Stephens himfelf in his Preface fpeaks but of fixteen, and ex'prefly fays, the Complutenfian was one of them. He marks the Manufcripts in his Margin, by the numeral Letters in Greeks one^ twoj three^ and fo on, fays he, unto fixteen'^ ad fextum declmum ufque : And diredfs us by the firfi to under ft. tnd the Ccmflute??Jian "^^ What can be more plain ? And therefore whatever j^f;^:^ meant by fpeaking of feventeen, and tho he may feem to be a better Judge in the Cafe than Dr.Afill^ yet I think Stephens himfelf a better Judge than either of them, who men- tions no more than /ixteen *, and wihch is more llill, the Work it felf (hews it, fince Mr. Martin pre- tends not to find any feventeenth Number once referM to throughout the whole-, which is a Demonftration that Stephens made ufe of but fixteen Manufcripts. I thought in one Place Dr. Mill had a\]ovj^d fixteen h^Mcs the Comptutenfian ; but I perceive on a more ftricTt Review of his Words, that he did not. Let us now examine •the two main Points about thcfe Manufcripts. 1. Whether more than feven had St. Johns Epiftle ? 2. Whether Stephens's Marks, as to thew^ were right? ^^^^ C I. Mr. i8 J Rb^ly to T. My- Martin has not proved that Stephetjs la all his fix teen M :nan.ripts had more than feven Copies of St. Johnh Epiftle^ or that Dr. Mill aiid Dr. Roger of Bourges^ &c. were in a Miftake in fo jodging: on the contrary, Hx, Martini way of Reafoning about it is weak and ridiculous ^ their's folid and juft who argue againft him. To ihew this we muft take a View of both. Mr, Martins pretended Proof of more than feven Manufcripts, is grounded on his own Ohfer- 'vatlonsy which he exprefTes thus : ' The feven * Canonical Epiftles being ordinarily joined in * one Volume with the Epiftles of S^.Paul-^ it * follows from thence that R. Stephens had as * many Copies of the feven Canonical Epiftles as ^ of the other. Islow 1 have found fourteen Ma- * nufcripts of St. Paul\ Epiftles marked in the * Margins, whence I concluded there were fo * many of the feven Epiftles.' Andhe adds^^ We ' have a Right to prefume nothing is wanting to * a Volume, till it be made appear that fome part * of it is fo/ Bat if Mr. Martin had duly confider'd the State of the Manufcripts of the New Teftament, as they are related in F. Long''s BibliotL Sacra, and Dr- y!i/7/'s Troleg, he would have known that there is fuch a great Variety and Diverfity in the Volumes of Manufcripts, that there is no room for deter- mining what they ordinarily contain ; or for con- cluding from one part of the New Teftameat being in a Manufcript, how many other Parts are conneded with it. Sometimes in one Manufcript all the four Gofpels are , fometimes but one, or two, or three of them; and fomtiimes the ABs : and of what Mr. M^irttn calls the feccnd Vo ume, fometimes the AEh may be with only the ft vea Catholick Epiftles, and not St. P^w/'s \ fometimes St. Paui*Sy and none of the leven, wfiich made often Mr. MartinV Examination, &c, \g often a third V^olume, nay fometimes two or three of ^t. PauVs alone. So that th: Foundation of Mr. Martin s Argument is a weak and chiklifh Fancy, viz.* That the Manufcripts are ordinarily made up in complect Volumes, like our printed Eo.>KS5 where the whole ImprefTion being uni- form, one may indeed prefume nothing is want- ing till it be made appear : b'lt to talk lb of Ma- nufcripts which are oft but fmall fcatter'd Parts, written at the Pleafure and Choice of various and parcicular Perfons, is very abfurd, Mr. Martin himfelf can difcern this at another time: Wlien Dr. 5f«r/f/s Manufcripts were ob- jcdedtohim, he fays, and very properly, "^We don* t know how m.%ny Manufcripts Dr. Bentley w^y have of St,]ohn*s Epiftle. irJe furniifs what is rcafonable, and I doubt not very true in Fadf, that fome of thofe Manufcripts are but of one part, and others of other parts : the like 1 fay of 5rfp^f wj's Ma. lufcripts, and therefore I can't but pity his Rafhiiefs and Confidence in daring to fay, 'I' If then there were eleven Manufcrlpt Copies o\ St. FsLuVs fourteen Epifiles^ there were fo many of the Canonical EpiftleSy for all the one and twenty were bound together. This is a very abfolute and pe- remptory AlTertion of what Mr. Martin cannot prove to be true, and what the molt capable Judges will think to be very falfe. He is angry with me for ufmg often the Words perhaps^ and poffihly^ and the like (which yet I fliall not forbear in reafoning about diftant Fads or Words not fully known) but if he had ufed fome fuch foftning Word here and in many other Parts of his Writings, he need not have been adiamed of his Modefty, for his Argument would very well bear it. * Examin, cb. iii. f D'tjfntat, ch. ix. C 2 Mr. 20 J KV.VLY to Mr. Martin's other Ohfervation from the Copy inark'd tc/^, is fufficiently refuted by what I fhewed from Dr. Mill\ particular Account of that Copy in m^^ former jinfwer |), which I fuppofeis accepted. Thefe are the Obfervations by which, if we be- lieve himfeif, he has vndeniahly proved that Ste- phens'i Manufcripts of St. JohnV Efiftle were not reduced to the number of feven. But if this be his undeniable Proof, we need not be much moved with the higheft Commendations he oft gives of his own Arguments. I am next toreprefent the Method which is ufed on the contrary fide, in order to fhew that Stephens's Manufcripts of St. Johns Epiftle were no more than fez'en-^ which Mr. Martin d\i\ikts. Since Stephens hath not given an Account how much each Manufcript contained of the New Teltament, (of which Dr. Mill complains) the Learned have thought this the only way of find- ing it out, ^jIz,. by obferving how far he has made ufe of each Manufcript in noting the various Readings ^ for which he had fo many occafions, that tho they did not offer in every Chapter, or in fuch a fmall Epiftle as the 2d or 3d Epiflle of St.Johnj (which Mr. Martin remarks) yet in a much larger Compafs, there could not but be fome various Readings in them, to be taken no- tice of by one that carefully collated the Manu- fcripts. If then Stephens^ who had made frequent References to the other Manufcripts in the other Parts of the New Teftamenr, has never once referred to any but the feven^ throughout the whole Epiftles of Si.John^ nor throughout all the fevea Ci?W/Vy^Epifl:lcs, (which indeed generally went together) is it not rationally concluded, he had no other Manufcripts of theyn but thefe feven II ^'^'^. 52. before Mr. Martin'^ Examination, &c. 21 before him ? How ftrange were it to fappofe there fhould not be any fort of different Reading in all that Compafs! We find one fmgle Chapter of St. ?eter\ id Epifle was (according to Dr. .4/;//'s relationof^ it) annexed to a Manufcript of the Gofpels, itiark'cT/tA, and this indeed is rcf.rr'd to by 5ff- fhens in that Chapter. Could there then be other Manufcripts of all the feven Epiftles, and yet never be taken notice of? Mi'.M.irtin has not obferved to us any Mark of any other but the /ft/fw Manufcripts, fave that on 2 P^r. 1.4. which I have been fpeaking of. Let it be judged then if this be not the moft equal and rational Procefs : Tho I do not fay it was not poffible in Stephens to have Manufcripts, and not make ufe of them till became jult to i John '^,7. yet I think no Man will ever prefame it, if Mr. Martin do not. Nay, if I miftake not, Mr. Martin himfelf has owned this way of Reafoning to be juft : for how- ever he flights it in others when againlt his Caufe, yet himlelf has naturally gone into it before he was aware, in his Differtation -]', For thus he proves feme of Stephens's Manufcripts to have been not compleat ones of the whole Kew Teftament: The Reafon^ fays he, why I fay Stephens had fome Copies thus imverfeCt^ is^ that I find in the Tome of the Gofpels^ mention made of certain Manufcripts that no where occur in the Epiftles^ as are the 3d, the 6th, and 8th ^ and fa I find fome in the Epifiles that are no where feen in the Gofpels, And again, uis for the id Folume^ (i. e. the latter Part of the New Teftament, or the Epiftolary Code) / have obferved eleven Manufcripr Copies y whereof muQ had alfothefirfi-p^ohmey but the two others^ viz. /e and l^-i muft have belonged to a defMiVr^ Book. Is not ProUg, N^ 1174, 1 1 75, 1175. f Chap. I'x. this 22 J Reply to tfeis the very Method which in his Examination he condemns? If becaufe the Manufcripts mention'd in the Gofpels are not mention'd in the Epiftles, we may, nay mv^ conclude, that thofe Maau- faipts did not contain the Epiftles^ (thoordiiia^ rily they went together, for he fays, nine of them bad both,) then furely, where the Manufcripts Eiention'd in St. Paidh Epiftles never occur in all the feven CatholicR Epiftles, we may conclude they belonged to defeEiive Booh^ which had not thofe feven Epiftles in them : for it was common to have St. Faults Epiftles feparate from the o- thers. So that upon the whole, I think hi- therto we have much ftronger Proof of Stephens^s having but feven Manufcripts of St. John^s E- piftles, than Mr. A^^r tin's pretended undeniable Froofs of his having more. But he infifts on further Proof from the Tefti- SDony af Be^ia, who in his firft Note on this ferfe fays, Erafmus read it in the Manufcrip of England : The Compluteniian Editors read it alfo ; and we read it in fome Aianufcripts of our Friend R. Stephens i tho thefe do not agree in all the Wordsy &c. And afterwards, in another Note upon the Words, in Heaven^ he fays, T'loefe Words were wanting in feven A^anufcripts : Whence Mr. A4artin infers, that Stephens had more than feven Manu- fcripts of this Epiftle^ feven wherein thofe two Words were not ^ and fome others in which the Verfe was entire as inserted in the Text ^ and that Bez.^ makes a manifeft DiftinSlion between the Manu- fcripts of the one and of the other, or between Iht fome Manufcripts and the feven. To this I anfwer, that the Words of Bezado not at all imply that the feven Manufcripts in the fecond Note^were not among the f;f>w«w//^, or the Mr. Martin'j Examination, &c. «j the fome meation'd in the firft ; for he does not fay, infeptem alits Codicibm^ in feven other Manu- fcripts : and 'tis abfurd to imagine when he fays ia one Note^ this is wanting in two \ and in the next ]Sote, this is wanting in three or in ^our Manu- fcripts *, that therefore all thefe arc dificrent Ma- nufcripts : How many hundred Manufcripts muft we liave at this rate? Ko, the fame Manufcripts are again oft produced under feveral Heads \ and I doubt not but it was fo here, and that the fe- ven which wanted the Words, in Heaven^ were of the fome which he thought had the rerfe \ be- caufe according to Stephens^ Marls^ they would appear to have it all but thefe Words. 'Tis evident that Bez,A could not in his way of reckoning, but account thefe /fi'f?? Manufcripts to be among thofe that had the Verfe in grofs, tho they wanted thcfe Words, (uniefs he knew alfo they wanted more than the Words, in Heaven, which Mr. Murtin will not yield) becaufc he reckons thcComplutenfian and the ^r/>z/fc Copies among them, which yet had not the entire Words as inferted in Stephens'^ Text \ and he owns that they difagreed in feveral Particulars ^ and indeed in one there is a Difference, judged to be of more Importance than the Omilfion of the Words, in Heaven^ amounts to : fo that here was no more reafon for diftinguifhing the [even Manufcripts from thofe which had the Verfe in grofs, than for diftinguilhing the others which had their different Readings too, but yet are faid by hira to have the Verfe. Thefe then were intended in Bez.as non* millis^ cr/I'Wtf Minufcripts, if he fpake rationally and confiftentiy •, but if he talked confufedly ani obfcurelv (which 1 mud own 1 fufped he did) then 'tis in vain to guefs at his Meaning, or to araue from it. That 24 ^ R E P L Y ^^ That ^f;?:^ writes confufedly and obfcurely, as a Man uncertain, and that had not fully inquired into the Manufcripts, as ought to be done-in to cri- tical and important a Cafe, (unlefs he had a mind to leave it in the dark) feems to me very plain ; elfe why did be in fo nice a Matter, and fo much contefted, only fay in general, this rerfe^ tho wanting infuch and fuch^ &c. is yet in fame (7/Ste- phens'j Manufcripts ? Why did he tiot tell the World in which Manufcripts it was, at leaft in how many of them •, as in the next Note, and in the foregoing Notes, he did? Sometimes he men- tionstwo^ fometimes f^re^, and /even ^ &c. Why were we in this extraordinary Subjeft to be pur off with a loofe and carelefs indefinite [ome ? I can't but fufpeft, that having Stephens^ Copy be- fore him, where he had fet down feven in the Margin, Bez.a could eafily fay feven too in his Notes vbut in this Place where there was no fuch Guide, he only ventures to fay 'tis in fome, lince it was in the Text of Stephens. That Be2ia took little care to make any fearch into the Manufcripts himfelf, I had noted from Dr. Miii 7 fo that Mr Martin need not ask. Where did I find this ? And whereas I had faid Bex.a was furni filed- with Henry Stephens^ (Son of Robert} Colledion of the various Readings of more Copies (Dr. Mill fays ten) added to thofe of his Father ; by which means, 1 judge, he was eafed of his own laborious Search : Mr. Martin breaks out into thefe angry and cenforious Words, * ^Tis a difagreeahle thing to have to do with Men who haz,ard every things and fear not what they fay. But where- in have 1 been fo regardlefs of Truth as this Cen- fure reprefents me? Beza, fays he, received not this valuable Copy from H. Stephens, till after the * Chap. xii. at the End. Death Mr. MartiiaV Examination, drc. 25 Death of Robert his Father^ who Uv^d three Tears after himfelf hAd printed the New Teftament and Art- notations of Bczdy publiHied Anno 1555. But as I never faid Bez.a leceived this Copy from H* Stephens^ foldoabc Mv. Martin hzs fpo- ken at all hazaid*, in fiying polltively that Beza never received this Copy of H. Stephens till after the Death of Rch^rt his Father. I demand his Evidence for this : for Dr. A'filif who was a con- liderateaud wary Man, tells us, that it w^s Roh. Stephens who gave Beaa this ColledioQ of his Sons (and I think I fhall not hazard any thing if I fay, that he gave it in his Life-time.) And till Mr. Martin brings his Vouchers for what he fo earneftly and poUtively aflerts, I fhall take leave to credit Dr. Mill rather than him*, and the more, becaufe I think Bez.ci himfelf fays, that he had this Copy of various Readings (which I take to be the fame) in R. Stephens's time, even before the Edition in X556. In the Preface to which, fpeaking of what helps he had in this Work, he fays, Moreover I had a Copy from my Friend Ste- phens'/ Library^ which had been carefully compared with about twenty five Manufcripts, and almoft all the printed Editions : which one thing ha^ eafed me of a great deal of trouble^ Jince I could here fometimes fee the Conje^ures of Interpreters confirmed by fome Manufcripts •^. So that iuftead of his faying, / fear'd not^ it may perhaps be thought^ that Mr. Martin here card not what he faid. * Ad hoDc omni.i acceflit Exemplar ex .>/fp/? una^ prae ceie.'is, 'iia;»nopere mi 'ubl-v.^vit, quu.-n inrerJunuvitkrem qua: ^/ioqui fola lnterpre:um conjcduia n.tebantur ali^jus Co" Hicis auiuviiate confiunata. 26 J K v. PLY to In (hort, if Bez.as nonnullis^ or fome Mana- fcripts, were only the fame with his feven which wanted the Words, in Heaven^ then he mentions no more than feven'j and fo it proves not Mr. i^^rnVs Point, njiz' that Srf/j/?e»j had more than feven Manufcripts of St. J^f/i^w's EpiUles : but if he meant fome others befides, tbo not excluding the feven, then be Ihould have faid, that the f^erfe was in all Stephen s\ Manufcripts, fmce it was both in the feven, (as is fuppofed by him) and in the others alfo^ unlefs Mr, Martin will fay, as he feems to do, that of i\\o^q others^ fome had, and fome wanted the whole Ferfe. Of which 1 (hall make fome ufe hereafter, in relation to Stephens^s Care and Accuracy in placing and correding his Marks of Reference :, upon which alone Mr. Mar- tin depends for making, gc^d his Authoiity for this Verfe, from thofe feven Manufcripts ^ to the Conlideration of which 1 now pafs. And add. Secondly^ That Mr, Martin has not clear'd Ste' fhens from a Miftake in his Marks, referring to the feven Copies,which alone he had, of St. John's Epiftle. Whatever becomes of the reft of Stephens^ Manufcripts, yet, if thofe /^f^??, which aie no- ted in his Margin, did want only the Words h T&I »jct;/a, in Heaven^ it will follow, 1 grant, that all me reil of the f^erfe was in thofe very Copies. But tho Stcphens'% Marks are placed fo as to fignify that only thofe two Words are want- ing, yet it will not be granted that this is decifive for the Authority of this Text^ or for proving that it was m thofe Manufcripts^ if there be good Reafon to fufped that one of Stephens's Marks was placed wrong*, and that inftead of being fet after the V\'ords, in Heaven^ it (hould have been fet after the Words, in Earth, in the next Verfe. Many Mr. MartinV Examination, &c. 2.7 Many learned Men, who could be glad to fe- cure :hc Authority of this Text, have greatly doubted, that there is a Miftake in Stephens in this matter. Near 1 50 Years pad, the Divines of the Univerfity of Louv^ln made an exceptioa upon this Article . Mr. Martin can't think but. they had fome weighty Reafon for making this Scruple j prooably itwasbecaufe they had never, feen or heard of any fuch Copy which wanted, thofe two Words, in Heuven^ and no more *, and then it would fecm ftraiige that Stephens had fa many of them as /even: this ftagger'd thofe Di- vines almoft at the beginning, and the ftumbliag Block remains unremov'd to this Day. For, That which Ilrengthens the 0-bjedtion againlt Stephens^ Mark, is, that upon inquiry in the French King's Library, where Stephens had fome of his Manufcripts, there is no fuch ManufcripE found therc,^ nor elfewhere that 1 ever heard of, which wanted thofe Words, and no more : and this is what I ask, to have one Manufcript in proof of it \ and it is not ridiculop^^ hut reafonable^ for Mr. Martin grants the way to determine this Point of the Obelus^ would be by the Manufcripts themfelves : but he fays, this is impracticable, be- caufc, as he pretends, the Manufcripts are no longer in heing^. But I know not what Warrant he or any have for faying fo,fave that they can find none which anfwers to their Expedatioain this Affair. Manufcripts, 1 mean antient ones, have been of greater efteem and value, and fo more worthy of careful Prefervation,^ from Stephens's time than they were before ^ and as they are of no Value but to him that prefer ves ;hem, fo it is not likely very many of them (hould be deftroy'd, * Examinat* cb. xiii. D 2 that 28 A Reply to that had once been taken notice of, and highly prized : and 'tis ftran^e if not fo much as one out of /even (hould efcape, to tell us there h^d been fuch a Copy. What way then will Mr. /^4m« take to aflure us that Stephens has been exaft and juft, and that thofe ftrong Sufpicions are all groundlefs ? Tru- ly only this, that Stephens has not correded him- felf as he ought, and as he thinks he would, if he had fet his Marks wrong : he tells us, as he was exaEt and judkiopu^ he ought to have given an Advertifement of fo confiderable a Fault as this, by way of Emendation, which he has not done j and that Bez.a% Annotations were printed by Stephens himfelf ; that it was a nice and curiom IVlatter, to fee in what manner Bez.a had fpoken of this Pajfage concerning the Trinity in the God- head, which had raifed great Contefis : That all this deferved that he fl)ould fee what vfe Beza had made of his Manvfcnfts^ on a Text of this impor- tance : And then infers, IVho can doubt after this, that if Beza had advanced a Faljhood in aflerting that he read the Verfe in Stephens^ Manufcripts, that learned Printer would not have difcerned it^ or that he wculd have printed it f concluding, that if Stephens had not fuch Manufcripts in which the ,Xext was foui'.d, he was an Impofior, an infamom Fellow-i and deferv^d the utmoft Contempt. But what is there in all this more than the bare telling us what Stephens ought to have done? And fo he oi^ght in all the other Parts of his Work ^ but yet he has not by his Care and Faith- fulnefs.j either pre ^'^en ted or corrt ded all confi- derable Faults ; and therefore this alone is no fufficient Satisfadion that there is no Fault in the Matter before us, where we have fuch grounds to fufped it, I Mr. Martini Examination, &c. 29 I am far from detrading from the Praife and Efteem of ^. Stephens as a Gritick, and a curious Printer ^ nor do I think him at fo little a diftance from the Charadler of an iffamota Fellow^ worthy cf vtmoft Contewpt^ that nothing Hands between him and it, but only the (lender Suppofition of his bavins; fee his Mirks exadly right here. 'Tis Mr. Martin who ukshim thus cruelly^ for- getting how eafily Men run into little Arts of Difguife and Concealment about Manufcripts. Butftill I cannot rely on Stephens^ Care and Faithfulnefs, with fuch a Confidence as Mr. Mar- tin requires, nor yet clear him from all Faults, either in other Texts, or in this it felf. How £ez.a and he manag'd it, 1 know not, nor what their Intention was •, but I fee plainly they, with Mr. MArtin^ have left the Bufinefs in uncertainty andinconfillency, as I will fhew anon. T\\2iX. Stephens made many Ornidions, is fo'ap- parent, that Dr. Mill found above 700 of them in one Article, viz» in comparing the Complw tenfian Edition, in which he found fo many diffe- rent Readings not taken notice of by him ^. And fo far was he from unerring Exadnefs, that he fometimes put into the Text what he had no fufficient Authority for. I will give orv? Inftance, which I obferved without much fearch, in Rev. i . II. where the Words, lam Alpha and OmegUy the firft- and the Ufl^ are put into Stephens^ Text, and his Margin notes 'em to be waating only in two Manufcripts a and /tj whereas iJ^s:^ on the Place tells us, thtfe Words are not in the Complu- teniian Edition^ nor in any other of Srephens'i Ma' nufcripts f. Here then let me ask Mr. Martin the fame Queftions which he asks in relation to the * Proleg, N°1472. \ Nequc extanr in Cot7iplut, Edit, ncque ia alio quodam vctufto Codice ex noftiis, rtext JO J Rep LY to Text of St. Johfiy Whence came it there ? Or where did Stephens w^^^ with it to give it that FlacCy if it was in a one of his Manufiripts^ ^ And why did be mark, ojily two Copies as wanting the Words? Why did he not fay, ?,; ^^^oj, or in ^//, as Mr. Martin pretends he would, if he faro them not in any Manufcripts ? And w hy did he not give an Advertifement of this Fault, &c ? Will M»". Martin fay he vj2l$ an infamom Fallow for infer ting thefe W'ords without Manufcripts ? I hope he will not treat him in this cruel manner . Now apply but all this to his infertion cf the PaiTage of Sr.John^ and his mifplacing ihcALirks^ and all Mr. Martini long Flourifhes upon the Exadnefs and Faithfulnefs of that learned Prin- ter, will do him little fervice. What tho he faid in his Preface^ that he put nothing into the Text, nuHam ornnino literam^ not a Letter^ but upon the Authority of the mofi and befi Manufcripts .? We fee 'twas not fo in fad ; and therefore 'tis but empty Harangue to run out into an Encomium of Stephens^ Care and Concern, and his Duty in the Cafe, when we are enquiring what he has, not what he (houid have done. hlx.Marttn fays, He had not the f^illany to forge a Text which had not been in his own Manvfcripts y nor do 1 fay any thing of his FUlany : but he has put in fo me Text which Be^a (Mr. A4artins own Evidence) fays was not in his own Manufcripts *, and why ftiould he not be as likely to do it in St. Johnh Epiftle, where he might be under more fear of offending others, and where he had the Complutcnfian Edi- tion to countenance the Fajfage^ as in St, Johns Revelation, where he had not that Precedent? It may perhaps be faid, that Bez.a however hascorreded this Fault of Stephens's *, true, he * Diffsrtat, ch. x. did M*. Martini Examination, &c, ^i did fay what is contrary to Stepheta^s Account, but does not take notice of Stephe^/s's fault in the Matter. And I conceive alfo that I fee the like in ^f^^'s Notes on the Paflage in St.Johri's E- piftle, hew that tho he finds not fault with his Friend 5ff/?^f??/s Marks, yet he has faid fometbing which is inconfiftent with him, and that fhews there was fomething wrong in his A^/^rks ^ for he only fays this Verfe was read >>/ nomuliis^ m fame 0/ 5ffp^f«j's Manufcripts, as well as in the Com- plutenfari : by which it appears, that it was not in a/l of them (for he would not have concealed that) and fo Mr. Martin^ I think, takes it ^ for he fays, We cannot determine in hove many of them the Verfe ir^/, only ^twa4 in fome of them* And in his Examination^ &:c. he fays, That at leafi there were two wherein it wa4 per fed ^ for the Exprelfton in fome, which BeZa ufes^ mvfi be twderfiood of two at leafl , fo that there were at leafl nine^'w which the ■V^ikw^ts found^ hefides the Com plutenlian Copy. "^ JSow, if Bcz.a fpake exadly upon his own accurate Search, as Mr. Martin thinks, and not at adventures, this plainly contradicts Stephens^ who reprefents the Verfe to be in all his Manu- fcripts, but without the Words, in Heaven^ in [even of them •, for he does not mark one in the Margin as wanting the whole. And fo the Louvain Divines underllood it, that all Stephens's Copies had the Verfe.'I* And if Mr. Martin m^ have it, that he had fourteen Manufcripts, and we fhould fuppofe, by his Reafouing from Bez.a^ that nine had the Verfe, then I ask. What had Stephens done with the reft ? Where is there any Mirk or N^te Ihewing us thofe other /owr, which wanted the whole Verfe? Ought not that to have been marked, if he dealt fo carefully and J Ch. xii. \ Inier omnes Ste^hani ne unus eft qui diHidear. honeft- j2 ^ Reply ^^ honeftiy in a Matter fo cuyiom and important^ and that had raifed great Contefts ? But wbere is this advertifed^ or correded by him? And yet Bcz.a tacitly, perhaps unawares, difcovers it ; and ia his Notes on the 8th Verfe, feems not to judge the Authority certain and undeniable for our jth Ferfe^ by obferving that the Words, on Earthy tho not in all Copies, fhould yet be kept, nifi^ fays he, expungatur proxime ant ece dens verfits. But I think if all the Manufcripts confirmed fo ftrong- ly that Verfe, he need not have made fuch an exception, viz. -unUfs the preceding Verfe he put out. It feems plain then that Stephens has not done right to the Manufcripts, in not marking what wanted the Verfe ^ and Bez.a^ if he faw it, and had a mind to be open in fuch an important Point, could have fet the Matter in a clear light by mentioning what, or how many Manufcripts had it, and not have left us in the dark ftill, by an uncertain nonnullis-^ or fome of them. If Mr. Martin to avoid the Argument ihall re- treat, and fay, that all 5^^;>k??i's Manufcripts had the Verfe in grofs, he mult remember, that 'tis what Bez.a would not pretend to fay \ and what alfa carries in it very abfurd Suppofitions, viz,. I. That he fhould have thirteen or fourteen Manu- fcripts all agreeing in having the Verfe. Cajetan fpeaks of but feme \ Erafmm could find none 5 Cayyo^hdm none, and F. Simon none : But Stephens co'ild find none other, it feems I Whatnot one that wanted it? V^hat ftrangeLuck had he ? How different from all other Enquirers after the anf ient Manufcripts? 2. And what is further ftrange, is, that all thefe arelofl: What, fourteen, or ele- ven, or nine Manufcripts, be which it wili, all in a CUiIter, and not one to be found fince ! Did Stephen's^ Mr. Martin'i Examination, a-c. ^ } Stephens^ think we, burn them when he had done? or had no body any value for fuch a Manu- fcript to fpare and to preferve it, as they did fo many others? How much more eafy is it co think Stephens might make a filent flip, and drop his femicircle too ihort, than to admit fo many Abfurdities all at once ? And as for his Edition with Bez^as Annota- tions, it was done haftily : the Author was weary, and the Printer in hade \ and flnce, in his Advr'- tifement at the end, he befpeaks Favour a:.d Pardon of his OmilTions or Neglects upon that Account, I think we ought to accept his Excufe, H^c tant£ fcflinationi condona* Nor is it unworthy of our Conflderation,' t\\zt Bez.aS Annotations were printed by Stephens at Geneva^ at a Time and Place flaming with bitter Zeal and Prejudice againft all Antitrimta^ rians : but three Years before Servetus had beea cruelly burnt there at the Stake, partly at the inftigation of Calvin\ and Bez^a was fo full of it, that in thefe very Annotations, he could not forbear juftifying the fad ^ having mentioned Servetus''s (landing in his Opinions even to Death, on 2 Pet, 1.4. he adds an ironical Scoff not much lefs cruel than his Death it felf "^j yet good Matfj fome think he had great wrong done him. Is it any great Wonder then if they durlt not, or would not call out fuch a Text, that was thought a principal Support of the Orthodox Faith, and had been in their Latin Bibles, and in fome Im- preffions of the Greek ? No doubt it was more fife to fay little, and to letJ it pafs with a filent OmifTion *, and perhaps we may fay (as Mr. Alar* tin fays of him, in relation to his inferting the Words \v tJ 2oavo, in Hxavtn^ tho againft the Authority ot all, at leaft of moftof his Manu- * Sunt tamen qui maguam bono viro injuriam putanc fa^am. E fcripts) 34 J Reply to fcripts) difcerning this could he no other than 4n Omiffio^j^ he gave them a flace in his Text* Upon the whole of thisSubjeQ: of the M.inu- fcripts, I cannot but make this Refle(!lion \ What a (trange flippery Text do fome make this to be ? who fuppofe that at firft it was left out ge- nerally in the molt early Tranfcripts of St. >Ws Epillle, fwhich they can't well deny from its being wanting in the antient l^erfions^ and from the Silence of the primitive Writers \) that after- wards it was found in Africa, or fbmewhere elfe, and was brought back again into the Copies as a choice Treafure ^ but now when we come to look for it, it is gone again, and none knows how long : So that -difirft and lafl 'tis wanting, as if no Care nor Caution were fufficient to hold it fait in the Bible. When Mr. Martin can give us the like Inltance of any other Verfe in the New Teftament thus managed, we fliali be lefs afhamed to give Credit to this. As for the reft of the Greek Manufcrlpts which others, beHdes Stephe^s^ are prefumed to have feen, I fee nothing more that need be faid of them, but refer my Reader to what I have ofiered in ray former Anfwer* Ameloth Evidence, that he found it in the mofl antient Manufcripts in the Vatican Library^ has been fully overthrown in my Anfwcr^ p. 28. The Complutenfian Editors had no Manufcript for the Text where it was prefumed : Erafmus put it into his 3d Edition againit his Judgnient, for fear of reproach : Cajetan fays only, 'tis fomd but in Jome j (juft fo F. Simon once faid, when he knew none :) And who at that time could have pre- fum'd lefs ? Laur. Valla is (ilent, and fays nothings which Silence Mr. Martin takes for good Authori- ty, that it was in al] his [even Manufcripts ; and yet he has not proved he had fo many as three^ of Mr. Martini Examination, &c, j 5 of St. 7<7Ws Epiftle ^ for he only fnews he had fcven of tht Gofpels • which might be, and yec not one of them of that Epiftle. Kor is it any wonder that p^alla fhould hold his peace, if he found this Ferfe wanting in the Greek ^ when M\\ Martin tells us, that he durlt not give his Book the true Title of the Latin Verfion compared with the Greek, fince it would have ft .ir tied his Readers^ and might have hrovght him into trouble^ by reafcn of the extreme j4ffeEiion which was jhewn to* wards the\ja.l\\\ Verfton '-^ and that j^w^e made him guilty of a kind of Sacrilege, for having attempted to alter the Latin Verfion ^. What then had be- come of Valla^ if he had thrown out this Text? And yet his Silence mult be a convincing Proof that he found it ! Truly Mr. Alartin has quite fpoiled his Evidence by talking too muchabouthim. So that I think 1 might juftly fay, there is no Evidence of one antient Greek Manufcript yet known to the World, which warrants f^/iTlrArri which yet is very different from faying abfolutely, that there is not [o much a^ one which ha4 it^ which Mr. Martinw^]\x^\'j affirms of me, and adds, that I repeat it an hundred times j. I may urge him in- deed with the OmifTion of it in all^ as what I think probable, but 1 did not alTert that 'tisnotinany Manufcript in the World. CHAP. ni. Of St. JeromV Preface and Bible. FOrafmuch as St. Jerom reformed the Latin Verfion by the beft Greek Manufcripts in his li'jie, 'tis reafonable to conclade that hi^s New Teftament fhould be very agreeable to the origi- E 2 nal * Exam, ch, x. \ Exam, ch. x. at the beginning* 36 ^ Reply f(? m\Gree^, His Teftimony therefore who fearchM into the primitive Manufcripts, mull needs be of grcateft Weight to determine the Genuineriefs of this Pairage of St. John : But how Ihall we know what St»j£ro?n thoog^ht of this Matter? It muft be either trom hi^ VVritwgSj by fhewing that he quoted this T'exf^ or from the moll antient Co- pie-, of hisi?/^/f it felf : but neither of thefegive any Coontenance to the Text. There i^ no Pretence for it from any of Jnom's undoubted Writings, where he had very great Oc- cafion f )r fuch a Text : All that is pretended is from an uncertain Preface to the feven Epiftles, which has been in fome Latin Bibles a ad not in others :i and in the former, fometimes it was at- tributed to Jerom^ and fometimes without any Author nam.ed. The Learned in our Age, are pretty generally agreed that this was not Jerom'Sy (even as many other Prefaces have been attribu- ted to him in the Mancfcripts which apparently belong not to him, as F.Sifnofj has obferved^.^ DuPln^ ManUnm^ Dv. M'dl^ &c, have given it up. But Mr. Martin^ who being fecure in nothing, lays hold of every thing, maintains it to be genuine \ and has the Vanity to fay, he has proved the F^iBy and maintained it againfi the firongefl Ohjctvions that were ever made to it 'f. And yet I think he has not faid one Word in Proof of it, but that it has bore St.y^rdJwa'slSIame^ and palled under that Title a long time ^ when yet himfelf can tell us, when 'tis in favour of his own Caufe 1], that a thoufafid Examples may be given of Titles pre- fx'^d to the Works of the Antients afterwards by o- thers, xvl. 9 finding a Treatife without a Title^ judged It convenient to make one , fo it might be here. Nor has Mr. Martin maintained it againfl all Objedions-, he has faid fomething indeed to (hew '^ CriT, HijKof I'erf. di.ix, \ Exi'.rnm, <:h. i, \\DijJertat, ch. xii. that il/r. Martini Examination, &c, 57 tb.irpojf///;/y it might be St. Jeroms notwichfland- ing fome of the Objections*, viz. notwithltand- ing it be not in his own Catalogue of Prefaces \ not- vvithftanding it be often without his Name^ notwithftanding the Ufe of the Word Canonical Epiftles, inflead of C^r/jeZ/V^-, and notwithitand- ing ^f^^took no notice of this Vrcface^ nor yet of the Text which it fpeaks of, the he commented on St. John\ Epiille?. But what does all this a- mountto ? It does not Ihew it to be fo much as probable and likely^ only that 'tis polTible, while 'tis on many Accounts very improbable, and more than pofTible to be falfe. But he has not anfwered the Argun'e.its I in- filled on, which only are what I need defend ^ and yet he is fo trifling and vain as to fay, that if I defend not the Arguments on my fide of the Oueflinn^ J fairly own my J elf defeated. Mr. Martin may be one of thofe Writers, if he will, who are fure to defend every thing faid by any one on his fide of theQ^ieftion^ but I beg leave to defend what I my felt judge to be valid and convincing. I had faid, that St. 7fr A V IT> M A RT I N, Redor of the /Va^rA Church at Utrecht, Author of the 'D'tjfertation upon this Text^ 8cc. TranOated from the Ftci'cb. LONDON: Printed for W. and J. Innys at the Prince's Arm? at the ^ejl End of St. PauPs Church-yard. * Mdccxxii. THE PREFACE. HO' I engage a third time upon the fubjedl of this famous Text m St. Joh'/i's Epiflle, T'bere are three in Hea- 'ven which bear record^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghcfl^ and the fe three are one\ it is not to conrinuc the defence of it againil Mr. Emlyn, There would be no end in removing the miflakes he commits in this mat- ter, and I am natuvally an enemy to Ihife ^.nA de- bates. I have always been of opinion, that when a truth is fufficicntly clear'd up, all that is added thereto by reiterated difputes, rather carries it off from its true point of light, than is capable of fix- ing the mind upon it. Qiieitions are multiply^d, new difficulties ar$ flatted that arc foreign to the principal fubjed, pcrfonal intcrefts are infenHbly mix'd with it, and in this confufion the Reader's jnind, divided betwixt fo many different matters, A 2 gives The PREFACE. gives but an impevfcd: attention to the fubjcft up- on which it /hoLild be wholly employ'd. Mr. Emiyn has lately publifli'd a Piece, under the name of a Reply to the Examination I bad made of his Anfwer, by which he bad pretended to con- fute my Didertation upon the pailage of St. Jobji-, hut as he has .but flighrly run over fome paflages, and not touched upon divers others which carry de- mbnftration and conviiSlion along with 'cm, 1 fliall have no need to return frequently to him 5 and if this was all 1 had to do, 1 might have dilpensVI with writing again upon the fame fubjeeb. The only thing which could have engaged me in it, would have been to defend my mnocence in the quotation I had made of a Manulcript of Berlin^ upon occafion of which Mr. Emlyn h^s thought fit to f riumph -, but one or two Sheets inferred in forhe one of the Critical Journals would haVe fuf- ticM for this, and all the reft of his Piece. Mr. Emiyn therefore and his Reply will be here but incidentally fpoke of, and according as the matters I iball have to treat of will require : the principal dcfign of this Work docs not turn upon thatj and the purpofe of it is of more concern to Chriliians, who owning no other foundation of their Faith than the facred Scripture, cannot but with fingular edification fee a Text, in which the myftery of the Trinity is evidently taught, defend- ed againft thofe, who thro' the malignant force of prejudice, or an exprefs hatred to this (acred myikry, endeavour to take from it this Apofto- lick paflage, and deny it to be St. John's. I had prov'd the gcnuinencfs of it by the mofl fohd arguments, that can be urg'd for a fa6b oJF this nature; and thefe proofs are lo numerous, and of fo many different kinds, that 'tis impoffible not to be convinc'd by 'em , unlefs an obftinate refolution The PREFACE. fefolution formed of fee purpofe againll this Gcred Text, lliuts mens eyes to Reafon it felF. I have produc'd the tellimony of the La'm Church from the fecond Age up to the lafl: j the tellimony of the Greek Church-, and lallly, the Gr^^^ Munu- fcripts of St. Johri's Epiftle, in the firft of all the Editions which were made of the New Tefta- ment in Greeks in which Cardinal Ximenes em- ployed feveral learned Men, and which was print- ed at Complutum from excellent Manufcripts in If 1 3. After this famous Edition comes that of Erafmus in ifiz. in which this learned Critick and Divine, inferts this pafTage of St. John in the manner it lay in a Manufcript found in Eng-^ land. Thele two ancient Editions were follow'd by thofe of Robert Stephens^ who in the year I f 4(5. and i f 49. publilli'd the Greek New Te- ftament with this Text, agreeably to feveral Ma- nufcripts which he had from the Library of King Francis the Firll, and fome other Libraries of that time. Divers attempts have been made to enervate the force of this proofs I have given 'em in my two former Treatifes, and have fhew'd the weak- nefs of them. But ^ F. le Lon;^^ of the Oratory, has lately taken a new mechod of oppofing the Editions of Robert Stephens^ namely, by produ- cing the Manufcripts he thinks to have been thofe of this learned Printer, in which the pafTage of St John is not found. I have ihewn that this Fa- ther, as learned as he is, has been too credulous in taking the Manufcript he produces from the King's Library for thofe of Stephens's-, and I prove invincibly from the Manufcripts themfelves, that * F. \e Long's Letter dated April li. 1710. and inferred in the ]JQf4rnal des Savans in June. a they The PREFACE. they cannot have been thofe of Stephens. This fs a point wholly new, which has never been brought into this Controverfy, and which deferves to be examin'd with (o much the more accuracy and exadnefs, as the rubje6l of it is extremely mo- mentous, and the manner F. le Long has followed, is dazling and apt to lead into miilake. To return now to the TeHimonies of the Latin Churches, I confirm the quotation which Tertul- lian and St. Cyprian have made of the Text of the witneflTes in Heaven with new reafons, and 1 add withal to the inftances by which I had prov'd that this pafTage was anciently in the Italick Ver- fion, and in that of St. Jerom^ feveral authorities, taken from divers Divines, which had never been quoted, at leaft that I know of, upon this impor- tant fubjeft. Coming then to the Greek Church, I fhew that it has own'd this Text to be authentick in the paft ages as well as the prefents and I do it by the teitimony of the Mufcovite Church, which, as all the world knows, is an ancient branch of the Greek. I have not feen that hitherto any of the Divines, who have wrote upon this Text, have made ufe of this proof, to ihew it to be authentick. I have had upon this all the infor- mations I jndg'd neceffary, and was poffible for mej and I hope that every Reader, who feeks af- ter edification, will be fiuisfy'd therewith. Another fort of proof, which had no lefs than the former efcap'd the enquiry of the Criticks and Divines, is a very curious Edition of the New Teliament in modern Greek made in 1658. plac'd over againil thj htteral Greek in two Co- lumns, by a Greek Monk, nam'd Maximus^ of the Town of CalllpoiiSj which is a fufFragan Billiop- lick to the Patriarch of Confiantinopk. The fa- mous The P R E F A C E. mous Cyril Lucar^ a Patriarch zealous for tire inltru6t:ion of his Flock, in a Preface fct before this Edition, has recommended in prefTlng terms the reading of this Work , which is a fort of tranflation of the New Tellament into modern Greek. It will be i'cen from the remarks I have made upon the nature of this Verfion, what ad- vantage it affords us for the genuinenefs of the Text o't St. John's Epilile. Ladly, we Ihali find in this Difcourfc an au- thentick Piece never yet produc'd, ar.d which gives the finilhing fcroke to all the proofs urg'd for the genuinenefs of this Textj and this is the extra6b of an ancient Greek Maniifcript of the New Teftament found at Dublin in the Univerfity Library. 1 am endebted for this Extra6i: to the good nature and zeal of Mr. 7^card^ formerly Miniiler in France^ and now Dean of Jconry at Dublin, I received it about the end of lall Ocfober^ whea 1 began to recover from a languilliing ilate of ill- nefs, which join'd to my great age, was likely to put an end to my life. It was no fmall joy to me CO fee the facred Text, which found fo many contradictors, arife from the obfcurity in which it had lain hid with the xVlanulcripc that contains it. Mr. Tcard fent me a very long difcourfe with the Exrraft, v;hich tended to fhew that this Manufciipt is the fame which was exprcifed in the Englijh Polyglott by the name of Mont, abridged from that of Mont fortius^ to whom it had formerly belong'd, and which was afterward the famous UJJjer's^ Archbiihop of Ar- magh in Ireland. I have made ufe of fome par- ticular obfervations upon divers paOagcs of this excellent Manufcript, which are alfo communica- ted to mc by the fame Mr. Tcdtd^ with whom I have fincc had, upon :his occ^fion , coirclpon- Lqnc and imagining herer upon that this may be difpens'd with, they don't think themfelves much concern'd to retain it. We have, fay they, fo many others, which teach us this profound myflery, and even feveral that are no lefs ftrong than that of St. John^ that nothing would be lolt, tho' we had not this PalTage, or tho' the queftion fhould be left undetermined, whe- ther it really belongs to the Epiftle of that Apo- ille, or is an interpolation. I own, I find no edification in fuch an opinion, and in my judgment a Chriftian ought not to be fo indifferent concerning a Pallage, which he finds in the Holy Scriptures. \^ the Holy Ghoft has plac'd it there, 'tis a crime to give it up to the audacious criticifm of the enemies to the do6lrine it contains j and I conceive nothing more injudicious, I will even fay, nothing which comes nearer contempt, than to afiert that this Text may well be difpens'd with, for this frivolous rea- fon, becaufe we have many others in which the do- ctrine of the Trinity is clearly made good. The oppofite error could not be better gratify'd, than by feeing a Text difappcar, by which it finds it felf confounded. ( 5 ) qonfounded. It yields, it falls under the weight of the refl-, but this gives the finilhing ftrokc, and prevents all means of rifing again. In all the other Texts, that are urg'd againft it, the three Pcrfons of the Trinity are feen j but they are in none fct down by the precife number three 5 that of the E- piftle of St. John is the only one where this num- ber is exprefs'd, and 'tis by the force of the word three^ that the ancient Fathers oppos'd the error of Praxeas^ and of Sahellius^ who acknowledging in the Divinity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl, yet refused to allow of three^ and made but one perfon, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghod. The Brians have, with us, own'd the three \ and having form'd after their manner a fort of Trinity, they baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl:, without owning the Son to be God co-eflential with the Father, but God notwichftanding, according to their deceitful way of explication, as the Socinians do now j and for the Holy Spirit, they made fuch a perfon of him, as they pleas'd, and their herc(y could admit of 5 but they did not own him to be God, as the Son, nor did they believe him to be a divine Perfon. 'Tis for this rcafon 1 have faid ia my Examination againft Mr. Emlyn^ that they did not own the Holy Ghoft to be a perfon really ^xijl'mg^ fo as to make with the Father and the Son a Trinity of divine Perfons. According to them, the Holy Ghoft is but a kind of Angel, who was created by the Son, and is infinitely inferior to him. However it be, the Avians have own'd three pcrfons. Now the Texts which I have quoted, njiz. that of the adminiftration of Baptifm, and the two others, taken from the Epiftle of St. Paul to the Corinthians^ go no farther than to denote thefc three pcrfons. To convince then the Arians in- tirely (6) tn'ely by one Text of Scripture, in this Text the Trinity and Unity both together muft be equally fet before their eyes j for 'tis the unity in the number three, which is the ftumbling-flock to the Brians and the fubjed' of their incredulity. The only Text which comprehends all this, (the Tri- nity, 1 fay, and the Unity,) is this pafTage of St. John^ There are three^ which hear record in heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghofi j and thefe three are one. If the Avian gives me up this Text, he leaves in my hands the ilrongefl weapon 1 can employ againft him, and he will hope in vain to fecure himfelf by mean fubtleties and imaginary di- ilindtions. The advantage then, which To vifibly accrues to us from thefe words againft the moil peftilent of all herefies, the Arian or Socinian^ fliould make ic be look'd on, at lead by all the Chriftians who believe the myftery of the Trinity, as an Apoftolick Text, and entirely remove from their minds, that fort of indifference, which they pretend to have for its being authentick. If thofc, tvho openly oppofe it, as the Socinian party does, or thofe who waver betwixt its being genuine andfup- podtitious, had arguments to urge againft us, which it was not poffible to give very fatisfa6tory folutions to 5 or if we, who defend its genuinenefs, had not any good proofs to fupport it, I own that in all thefe cafes it would be the wifeft conduct to fufpend our judgment upon a queftion of fad, which might then pa{s for problematical: but this Text is found in all our Bibles 5 'tis in all the Greek Editions of the New Teftament, except three only, two of Erafmus^ and one oi Aldus -y the whole Church owns it to be genuine, and this is enough to form a conclufion in favour of its being (p. But fhould they yet urge againft all this, arguments which were very near of the fame force, and which might ji|ftly ftrike upon the mindj then, I fay, there might (7) might be room for doubts and uncertainties. But the c:iCc is very different : The evidence, force, and number of proofs all fpeak the paflage of the three witnclfes in heaven to be genume, and they have nothing to urge againll it, but conjectures drawn from the filence of Ibme old Greek and Latin Fa- thers, of fome MSS. of the New Teilament, in which this paflage is not found j and laftly, of fome ancient Verfions, in which it is wanting. As for real proofs, and proofs of fa6t which im- pugn this pafl^ige, and are contradi6tory to thofe which are drawn from the ancient Verfions, the quotations of antiquity, and the Greek and Latm MSS to llicw that it really belongs to the Epillle of St. yobn^ they have not been able to produce one^ after lb many attempts they have made to find it i and without any hazard, I'll venture to fay, they never will find one of this fort. CHAP. II. The Text of the three witrteffes in heaven cleared upy for the better underflanding the import ante and force of it^ which were ffoke of in the foregoing Chapter. THE firfl: thing, which here offers it felf to be clear'd up, and which may create fome difficulty in the minds of thofe perfons, who rather feek for a pretence to doubt of the Text's being genuine, ihan to be convinc'd of its authority, is that 'tis there faid of the three witneffes, that they bear record in heaven : for how is it poffible, they flreight cry, that an Apoftle fhould have faid, that 'tis in heaven the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghod bear record in honour of Jejus Chrifl^ '\x\ or- der ( g ) dcr to prove that he is really the Son of God, and the Meffiah? A teftimony is given in the places^ and before the Perfons, 'tis necefTary it fhonld be givenj either thro' ignorance of the matter in de- bate, or the contradiftions that incredulity oppofes to it 5 but as nothing of all this can be found in heaven, of what ufe are thefe witnefles and their tellimony ? I have flightly touched upon this fniall difficulty in my Differtation^ and in my Examina- tion j but becaufe without enlarging faither upon it, I contented my felf with faying, that *twas one of thofe tranfpofitions of words, which are very common in all languages, efpecially in the more an- cient j and that even divers inllanees were ft-en of it in Holy Scripture, without giving my felf the pains to produce one, it will not be inexpedient, if as I defign in this treatife to take my leave of this paflage^ (that 1 may not return to it againj) I fhould here fct down fome inllanees of tranfpofiti- ons of words in the ftyle of the facred Writers. I fay then, that thefe two words in heaven are tran- fpos'd in the TeXt under examination, and put out of their natural and grammatical place 3 forinftead of faying, there are three that bear record in heaven^ the order of the conitrudion in the Greek phrafe fhould be , there are three in heaven that bear record. I have obferv'd that Socinus himfelf has allow'd of this in his Commentary upon thefe words of the Epiftle o^ St. Johnj and I have withal infinuaced in favour of thole, who are not acquainted with the Greek tongue, that the tranfpofition of thefe words is far Icis fenlible in the phrafe of the Original^ than in our Verfionsj but if inftances are requir'd, here are fome taken from the Old and New Te- llament. We read in the book o^ Genejts^ ch. xv. f. 13. thefe words of God to Abraham j Know of a furety^ that thy feed JIo all be a fir anger in a land that is not theirs^ (9) theirs^ and fij.ill ferve them , and they Jljall afflict them four hundred years. Thefe words four hun- dred years are mod cerrninly there out oF their true place; for the bondage and perfecution of the people of God in Egypt endur'd but about an hun- dred years, as I have fhewn in my note upon this paflage : thus thefe lait words mull be conftrued wirh that of being o\ fojourning^ which is in the beginning of the verfej thy feed fjj all be a firanger four hundred years^ &c. which was verify'd in the abode they made in Canaan and Egypt, Here then is a tranfpofiuion fomewhat more harfh, than the bare placing the two words of S. John's paflage out of their natural order. In the Epiftle to the Romans^ thefe laft words of the 4^'^ f. of the i^^ chapter, Jefus Chrijl our Lord^ fliould be joined to thefe concerning his Son^ which are at the beginning of the 5^ f. In the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians^ ch. 1. "j^. 3. their Lord and ours^ are alfo out of their natural place. In the 1 Cor, ch. v. f. ip. we fee a tranfpofition, which fmall as it is, has yet given place to an ob- fervarion not worthy the Divines who have made it : The words of the Text are, God was in Chrift reconciling the world to himfelf : The word reconci- ling is tranfpos'd from the verb was^ with which it mull be conlbued in this manner, God was recon- ciling the "world^ that is, God has reconciled the world to hmifelf by Jefus Chrift -, this tranfpofition is e- videnr, yet for want ot attending to it, many of thofc ancient Divines, who out of refpe6t are rty- led by the venerable name of Fathers^ reading God was in Chrift^ and (lopping there, as if thefe words made the fenfe compleat without the word fol- lowing, have form'd 'em into a proof of the eflen- tial unity of Jefus Chrift with the Father, and to fhew that the Divinity of the Father was the fame as in the Son, C Laflly, ( lo ) Laftly, (for to what purpofe fliotild we multiply inftances in fo clear a cafe?) in the 8^^ f. of the xvii^^ chap, of the Revelation^ mention is made of thofe, whofe names were not written in the hook of life from the foundation of the world : Now v/ho is there that does not fee thefe words from the foun^ dation of the world are tranfpos'd, and that they lliould be join'd in this manner to the foregoing word, were not written from the foundation of the World? Thus then in the Text of the fame Apoftle by placing backward the words in heaven before that o^ bearing witnefs or record^ (for this word pre- cifely anfwers to ih^Xireek phrafe,) our tranflation will (land thus> There are three in heaven which bear record^ &c. for 'tis thus in reality that this Text is quoted in the difpute printed among the works of St. Fulgentius^ againft Pint a the Arian\ fres funt in icelo qui teftimonium reddunt^ ^c. " There are three " in heaven which bear record, i^c. " After having thus firil cicar'd up the phrafe of the facred Text, we muft come to the fubje6t it felf, and enquire narrowly into it. I find three forts of herefies which have been flartcd one after another againft the facred Trinity,^ a fublime truth which has always been a Humbling ilone to the pride and haughtinefs of human un- derftanding. The firft of thefe herefies was that of Prase as in the fecond Century, and pufli'd on with yet more vigour by Sahellius in the age fol- lowing. It allow'd of the fole perfon of the Fa- ther in the Divinity, and reduc'd the Son and Holy Gholl; to mere names, or attributes, of the perfon of the Father. The fecond antitri* arian herefy was that of Arius ^ a Century after. This at the firft folely terminated in the perfon of the Son, depriving him of the degree of perfe6t and eternal equality which he has with the Father, in order to place him a degree ( II ) degree lower, and leaving him only a fort of re" femblance with the perfon of the Father ♦, a God' without being God. As to what regards the Holy Ghofl-, we don't learn from hiftory that yirius in the beginning fell foul upon his divinity, but we may well imagine, that his judgment was not more found with reference to him than to the perfon of the S-^n: what followed foon made it appear j the Holy Ghoft was degraded by that herefy of the dignity of God 3 they didn't leave him the very name ; they made him no more, as I have already cbferv'd, than a fort of Angel, created by the Son. In thefe lad times Socinus invented a third here- fy, which is in a manner made up of the two foregoing: It approaches to that of the Sabellians in this, that it confounds the Holy Ghofl with the perfon of the Father, not allowing the Spirit, or Holy Ghoft, to be a perfon^ but merely fpiri- tual gifts, which being nam'd in Scripture the Spi- rit, or the Holy Gholl, are there in fome fore perfonalized^ that is, defcrib'd and reprefented un- der the name of Spirit, as if they were a Perfon. On the other hand the herefy of Socinus adheres to that of Jrius in this^ that it takes away from the Son the quality of true God co-ellential with the Father, and co-eternal j and makes him no more than a titulary God, in virtue of his offices and dignity : But Socinus does not pretend that the Son had any real exiftence before he was born oi Mary-y whereas Jrius^ in part at leaft, keeping more clofe- ly to the Texts of the Holy Scripture, which ex- prefs the eternity of the Son, left him a part, or (hadow of that eternity, by faying that he was created of the Father before all Worlds. The Text, which I undertake to defend, is equally oppofite to all thefe herefies. It ma- nifeftly deftroys that of Sahellius , who own'd but one Perfon in the Father, the Son, and the C z Holy ( tz ) Holy Ghoft, whereas this Text fays there are three. By the fame number of three thus diflinflly fpc- cifyed, at the fame time, the impious boldnefs of Socinus is confounded > for as he refolves not to own the Holy Ghoft for a Perfon, but only for the fpiritual and divine gifts of the eternal Father, 'tis then the fame thing as the Father himfelf in thefe gifts 'y fo that there remains no more than thefe two, the Father and the Son 5 whereas this Text of St. John reckons up three. The herefy of Jrius admits of all three^ fince it acknowledges three pcrfons, but it cannot ihew us three witneffes 5 and yet 'tis this the Text clearly teaches us. In fhort, if the Son, as y^rius pre- tends by reducing him to the number of the crea- tures, be only the Minifter of the Father, and the Holy Gholl the Minifter of the Father and the Son, there will be no more than one witnefs, which is the Father 5 for whether he has given his witnefs huTifelf immediately, or has caus'd it to be given by his Son, and by the Holy Ghoft, ■tis always himfelf, properly fpeaking, who is the witnefs: Now St. John fays three witmffes y in like manner as he fays afterward, three that bear record in earthy the Spirit^ the Water ^ and the Blood: and as chefe laft are not really three witneffes, but be- caufe the Teftimony of the one is not compre- hended in the teftimony of the other, fo that 'tis not the Spirit it felf, which bears record by the Water, nor the Water by the Blood 5 in like man- ner that they may be three witnefles in Heaven, each of thefe three muft be himfelf a witnefs, and not all be only one of them, who after having gi- ven witnefs himfelfj bears record again by the two others. Thus thefe two herefies, that of Arius^ which for above two hundred years ftir'd up the Eaft, the Weft, ( 13 ) Well:, and the South againfl: the Chridfan Faith; and the herefy of Socinus^ the fatal ofF-fpring of the former, are feparately opposed by thefe words of the facred Text, "there are three thnt bear re- cord in heaven: But thofe which the Apoftle adds at the clofe of the verfe, fall upon all thefc hercfies join'd together, and flrike 'em down at one blow: ihefe three ^ fays he, are one. The Arian and the Socinian would willingly give us up the three^ if this number, reduced to one, was not the total o- verthrow of their herefy } thus they do all thf-y can to fecure themfelves from the (Iroke. By thefs extraordinary words, three are one^ the unity of nature in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, prefents it felf without difficulty to the underlland- ing and faith of a Chriftian, which has its nur- ture in the facred Scriptures 5 and the whole anci- ent Church faw there this adorable unity with the fame eyes, that we fee it there now 5 we have proof of this in Tertullian^ in St. Cyprian^ in Figilius^ in S. Fulgentius^ and in three or four hundred African Bifhops, who all acknowifdg'd and ador'd the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as being but one God ; and have all faid with St. John^ thefe three are one. The Greek word of the original, Iv, which is of the gender which the Grammarians call the neuter^ cannot be explain'd in our language but by the word thing., that is, one thing j and this expref- fion is fomewhat indeterminate, and does not give a diftin6t idea of the particular fubje6t of which it is to be underftood^ fo the Greek word ev is alio a vague expreffion, the meaning of which depends upon the fubjed it is applied to. The Socinian and the Arian take an advantage from this general way of fpeaking, and by the thing of which St. John fays, thefe three are one and the fame things rhey ynderftand one and the fame will, one opinion, one teitiniony ( 14 ) tcflimony in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghort. To favour this explication, they defend themfelves with fome other Texts of Scripture, where the fame word %v denotes this fort of moral unity, improperly fo call'd, which is nothing elfe, but a fort of agreement of opinions, or rtate, and condition, between different perfons. The moil expreffive of thefe palTages are taken from the xvii^^ chapter of St. John's Gofpel, in which the Pray- er of Jefus Chrift to God his Father is recited: Holy Father^ fays he recommending to him his difciples^ whom he was fhortly to leave behind him, keep through thine own name^ thofe whom thou haft given nie^ that they may be one.—— Neither pray 1 for thefe alone ^ but for them alfo that jh all be- lieve on me thro' their word^ that they alfo may be one in us. And the glory which thou gave ft me £ have given them^ that they may be one, as we are one, 'that they may be made perfect in one. In all thefe verfes, where the expreflion that they may be one^ and we are one^ which is the fame with that of the Text in St. John\ Epiftle, returns fo often-, it is evident, that 'tis there us'd in two different {tvS.t^ in one it fignifies an unity of opi- nions^ in oppofiition to all fchifm and diyifion a- mong themfelves 5 and in the other it denotes an unity of happincfs and glory, after they fhall have finifh'd their miniftry in holinefs, that they may be made perfect in one. The firft of thefe two fenfes only can have been transferr'd by our adverfaries upon thefe words of St. John*s Epillle, namely, the unity of will, fentiment, and teftimony. The Abbat Joachim^ who at the clofe of the 1 1'^'^ Century feems to have had a defign of intro- ducing Jrianifm afrefli, did not fail to refer thefe words of Jefus Chrift^ that they may be one^ to thofe of the Text of the three witnefles in heaven, thefe three are one^ as parallel palTagcs. The mo- dern ( ly ) ekrn Avians^ and the Socinians^ their companion^ urge the fame conformiry of pafTages in their de- fence, and not only make *em their ftrong-hold, but 1 may venture to fay, their only one. Before 1 lay open the weakncfs of it, I fhall make one general remark, the application of which will be very cafy to theprefent fubjed:} and this is, that in feveral Texts of Scripture one and the fame exprellion, or one and the lame phrafcj has diffe- rent meanings, according to the different fubjcfts they relate to. 1 have given feveral inftances of this in the ii^^ chapter of the fecond part of my Difcourfe of revealed Religion, at prefenc I will content my felf with thefe two. It is faid in the vii^^ chapter of the Book of Job^ IVhat is man that thou 'vifiteft him ? We read alfo thefe words in the viii^^ Pfalm^ but the fenfe is certainly not the fame in thefe two places j as is eafily to be feen. 'Tis faid in feveral places of the facred Books, that God takes away Sins, and that he blots 'em out : The fame thmg is alfo faid oijefus Chrift^ that he takes away our fins ^ and that he blots ''em out^ or wipes ''em away, yet this is in very different fenfes : God takes 'em away by pardon-, Jefus Chrift takes 'em away by expiation, A bare conformity fometimes fufficing thus to make ufe of the fame terms upon different fubjeds. We have a proof of this ready in the paffages of Jefus Chrift' s prayer, which they compare with the Text of St. John'^s Epiftle. Will any one venture to fay, that in the words oi Jefus Chrift^ that they miy be one as we are one^ the ex- predion to be one^ which is found there twice to- gether, is abfolutely in the fame fenfe, and not barely in a fenfe of conformity, and by a fort of refemblance? 1 know very well that the jlrian and Socinian would perfuade us that the cafe is thus, in order to reduce the unity of the Son with the Father to a bare (x6) a bare unity of will and fentiments, fuch as that of the Difciples with each other was, and thus to take away from Jefus Chrift that adorable unity, by which he is co-ellential with his Father. Thefe unhappy hereticks turn all their thoughts this way j but to compafs their point they mufl firfl take a- way from Jefus Chrift the title of God^ o^ true God^ of the great God^ which the Scripture afcribes to him J they muft deprive him of the auguft dignity of Creator^ and that of God over all, hleffed for e- ver^ w^hich the fame Scripture attributes to him. Could they indeed fliew that Jefus Chrift is no more than merely theMinifter of the eternal Father, then truly they might find the unity he has with his Father to be no other than that which the Dif- ciples had with one another, an unity of fentiments, and not an unity of eflence and nature : But when will they be able to take away from Jefus Chrift all thefe fublime charadters of Divinity ? Let us fuppofe for a moment, with ^rius and SocimSj that the Son is only a creature of the firffc rank, and that the Holy Gholt, as j^rius taught, is of an order far inferior to the Son, a Spirit crea- ted by him 5 or, as Socinus has imagined, the fpiri- tual gifts, perfonaliz'd under the name of Spirit j would there be the bare fhadow of good fenfe in placing them in company with the perfon of the Father, the fovereign and eternal God, fo as to fay, that they are one with him, under pretext that they had no other Sentiments than he ? 1 Ihould as foon chufe to fay it of an Angel, and of one of the glo- rifyed Saints, fince this Angel and Saint can have 110 other will than that of God 5 and yet v/hat man will attempt to make them one with God, and fay of them, as St. John has faid of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, thefe three are one ? Let 'em own then, that thefe words of the facred Text have a fenfe infinitely more profound than 8 that ( 17 ) that of an unity of fentiments and will, and con* fequently that they exprefs that unity of efl'ence and nature, which makes the three to be but one God. *Tis with this pafTage as wich that of the inftitu- tion of Baptifm, in the name of the Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofi. The ancient Fathers, who have quoted thefe words againil the jirians^ have obfcrvM that it is notfaid, in the names^ in nominibus, in the plural -y but in the name^ in nomine^ in the lingular^ as defigning an authority common to thefe three perfons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofi i the unity of nature being thus included in the unity of Name^ v-^hich is that of God, firxre Baprifm is adminiiter'd in the name of God alone. As then the Father, the. Son, and the Holy Ghoft are joined together in Baptifm under this unity of Name, which is no other than the very unity of a God, it mud necefTarily be thus in thefe words of St. John^ thefe three are one. The illudon which is formed in the explication of thefe words arifes from the name oiijuitnej/es^ which is there given to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoitj for from thence they conceive that they may terminate in their teftimony, and fignify that thefe three are one^ as witneflcs, and with regard to the record they have bore. But the falfity of this notion may eafily be per- ceiv'd by comparing a tellimony with proofs. When thefe different proofs of one and the fame fad are alledg'd, they will never fay that they are one and the fame thing, tho' they all tend to the fame purpofe, becaufe the one is not the other. To be able then to fay of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl, theje three are one^ from an unity of Tellimony, their tellimony mufl neceflarily have been but one and the fame; but this is not fadl, for the Father has bore witncfs in one manner, the D Son ( i8 ) Son In another, and the Holy Ghoil: in another alfo 'y fo that they were really three different wit- nefles of one and the fame truth. And as the three proofs of a fa6l refpe6b the fame fa6b, yet without being one and the fame thing-, fo thefe three te- jftimonies, that of the Father, that of the Son, and that of the Holy Ghoft, do not make thefe three "witneflcs to be one, fince their teftimonies are in number three, (very diftinft, and not capable of be- ing confounded one with another,) tho' they have all three reference to the fame fubjed. This is fo evidently true, that St. John has exprefs'd himfelf in a very different manner, when after having faid of the witnefTes in heaven, thefe three are one, he came to fpeak of the three witnefles in earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Bloody for he did not then go on to fay, thefe three are one^ but chang- ing entirely both the idea and expreflion, he has faid, thefe three agree in one; becaufe in reality thefe three lafl being each of a different nature from the other, he could only fay, that they had rela- tion to the fame thing. Will they never open their eyes to fee fo clear a difference, and difcern a truth which is fo evidently difplay'd in the very Text o^ St. John? From all that I have faid in this and the fore- going Chapter, I deduce the confirmation and proof of what 1 had proposed to make good, name- ly, that 'tis the honour and intcrett of every per- fon , who is really orthodox, conftantly to defend the genuinencfs of St. John's paflage, againft the artifice of the modern hereticks, who ufe their ut- moil endeavour to degrade it, or if they cannot do chat, at leaft to render it dubious. CHAP. ( »9) CHAP. III. Of the nature of the proofs on which the genuinenefs of the Text of the three wit* nejfes in heaven^ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, muft be eflabli[hed\ and of the nullity of thofe^ which are urg'd a- gainji it, IT would be of no fervice, that thefe words con- tain'd the great and fublime notion of the Tri- nity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft in one only divine nature, if they did not really belong to St. John^ and were fraudulently inferted into his Epiille, for the fupport of the doftrhie of the Trinity. We are therefore now to enquire into the nature of the proofs for and again ft the truth of this pafTage. When the wonderful art of printing Books, Avhich till then were all Manufcripts, was found out about the middle of the fifteenth Century, divers Bibles were printed in feveral Countries froni the Manufcripts which were in the hands of all the World, and the Text here in difpute was in- ferted in the Epiftle of St. John^ in the fame place and after the fame manner it has been ever fince. No perfon exclaim'd againft thefe imprcflionsi they had then the fame MSS. they have now, in which this pafTage is wanting, but this was not thought of moment agaiqft its being authentick j they judged it lo be a mere omi^Iion m thefe MSS. a cafe which was not peculiar to this Text 5 no- thing on the other hand being more frequent than fuch omiflions in written Copies. This folemn ac- D 2. quiefcence ( ^o ) quiefcence of all Chriftians in favour of a Text which they were accuftom'd to i^ad in the Epi- ftle of St. John,^ cannot be validly concradia:ed but by ftrong and folid arguments ta prove the Text fuppolititious. If we could have recourfe to the o- riginal copy of the Epiftle, the matter would fooi> be decided, but in all likelihood 'tis now above fifteen hundred years fince the original of the Ca- nonical Epiftles were loft 5 the tranfcripts which have been made from age to age, and the early Verfions into the vulgar tongue of the people then alive, are fince that time the only means, 'by which we can be aflur'd of the truth of fafts of this kind. The Books of the New Teftament were wrote in the Greek language, and confequently the Greek Editions muft have been made from Greek MSS. The Latin is the language of the moft anci- ent Vcrfion of thefe facred Books j and 'cis thus the Latin. Editions muft have been made from the Greek. If thofe who publifh'd the ^x^ Greek Edi- tions of the Epiftle of St. John^ and who have in- ferted this padage in the body of the Text, did not place it there but upon the credit of MSS. their printed Books muft now have the fame au- thority as the MSS. themfelves had formerly. And for this authority of the MSS. from which the Editions were made, 'tis not neceftary that all the reft ftiould be found to agree with them in the Text, we are upon> firft, becaufe what may have been an omiftion in the one is no proof of its hav- ing been an interpolation in the others 5 a thou- fand inftances make out the contrary. 2. If the Greek MSS. in which this Text is not, are fuch as want alfo feveral entire paflages in divers placesj which yet are own'd to belong to the facred Textj becaufe they are in other MSS. the want of this paflage in any MSS. whatever, is not a fufficient rcalon to conclude, that it is fuppofititious in the Manufcripts ( ^l ) Manufcripts in which it is found, j. The greater or fmaller number of MSS. in which this pafiagc is not read, cannot invalidate thofe in which it is read, no more than twenty or thirty Hiitorians, who fhall have wrote an hiftory, fuccellively and in divers ages, in which a certain fa6V, tho' of very great importance, fhall not be found, but which feven or eight other Hiftorians of undoubted credit {hall have mentioned, can be alledg'd in proof from a mere omifHon of this faft, againfl: the veracity of the others, who mention it. 4. If the Gree/. Church has own'd as genuine the pafTagc, which is not found in this number of Greek MSS. this defc6b can be looked on only as a pure omifUon, which has palTed from one to another*, or which even thro'^ the inadvertency of a tranfcriber has been in- troduced into their MSS. Now what is regarded as an omidion avails nothing againft a paflage quoted and approved j we ihall fee in the fcquel, that it is not a fuppofition without ground which 1 here make of the judgment of the Greek Church in de- fence of the truth of this Text; 1 have elfewhere given certain proofs of it; and I fhall yet produce others, which I am inclined to think our adverfa- ries have not confider'd. I have fpoke of the ancient Verfions, which may lead us back very near to the time of the Originals of the facred Books. I don't think, that any per- fon ever attempted to difpute the antiquity of the Latin Verfion, call'd the Italkk: 'Tis upon this that St. Jerom^orm'd his Verfion or Corredion at the clofe of the fourth Century, and it was this which the whole Weftern and Southern Church in Eu- rope and in jifrkk^ made ufe of from the age in which the Apoille St. "John dy'd : If then the Text of the three witnefles in heaven be found in a Vcrlion fo ancient and authentick, 'tis one of the ftrongeft proofs we can have for the Texts being genuine 5 genuine J efpccially If it has been own'd by the an- cient P'athers, in the times, and countries, where the Italick Verfion was us'd by the Churches : 'tis a fa6t which I Ihall undertake to prove in the fol- lowing Chapters, and which I hope to fet in a new hght, tho' what I have faid in my Diflerta- tion has put our adverfaries out of the condition of giving any anfwer to it, that has fo much as the ap- pearance of reafonj as may be feen in the Exami- nation which I have wrote again 0: Mr. Emiyn. To return to the Italick Verfion, and the proof which we draw thence j I know not how it has happen'd, but thofe who difpute the genuineneis of St. John's pafiage, urge again (I it the Oriental Verfions, the Syriac^ tlie Arahick^ the Coptick^ in which this Text is omitted. As the bare name of thefe Verfions carries with it a certain air of learn- ing and erudition, which is apt to dazzle and lead aftray, they fail not to make a great noife about ir, and as the Syriac is the moft ancient of all thefe, they cry it up in fuch a manner as feems to bring it near to the original : they forget that it is de- fective in many other important Texts, as well as in that of the Epiftle of St. John^ as 1 have fhewn in my Diflertation, pag. i66. But the Syriac Ver- fion, which they have now, mud not be con- founded with that which was made in the firft ages 5 the mofi: able perfons in this kind of learn- ing are of the fame opinion > and Mr. Simon hini- felf thought fo too, fince he owns in his Critical Hiftory, that this Verfion is more modern than the Latin Verfions, i. the firil confifts in this, that the Syriac Verfion was us'd only by fome people in the remoteft part of the Eall, who underftood neither Greek nor Latin ^ and confe- quently ( ^3 ) quently it was of no great note in the Church j whllft on the contrary the Italick Verfion firil, and then the vulgate of St. Jerom^ had a progrels thro' all the Churches of the Latin World, and were re- ceiv'd as Books of great authority. 2. This Ver- fion fell under the eyes and pens of the mofl cele- brated Fathers of the Church, who have quoted ic in their Writings 5 and was alfo the Bible of all the Councils of Europe and ^frick. Nothing in general could contribute more to the authority of this Verfion j as then the Syriac does not come near it, the omifTion of the paflage of St. John in this Verfion cannot balance the authority of the Italick Verfion, and deftroy a Text, which that has own'd. What remains is to bring proof of thisj and that fhall be the fubjedl: of feveral fol- lowing Chapters j for 'tis too copious to be con- fined to one. C H A P. IV. That the Text of the three witnejfes in hea-- ven was from the firfl Ages in the Italick Verfion^ frov'd from the quotations ofTQi- tullian and St. Cyprian. IT is not from the MSS. themfelves of the Ita- lick Verfion, that we can know w^hethcr fuch or fuch a pafilige was in itj thefe MSS. have been loft for many ages: Time which confumes every thing, and carelefsnefs in preferving them, not on- ly in the hands of private perfons, but withal in the Libraries of Convents, Princes, and learned Men, who were curious in thefe matters, has fo ordered it, that not one Copy, as I know of, of this famous V^eifion of the NcwTellamenr is now extant. 2 (H) extant. From the time that St. Jerom's gained the afcendant over the Jtalick in the Churches, as be- ing far more corred than the copies of the for- mer were, into which, thro' the fucceffion of time, a great number of faults were crept, the MSS. of that Verlion were by little and little fuf- fer'd to be loft. All that we have of it is in the Writings of the Fathers, who have made Commen- taries upon fome Books of the New Teftamentj or in the quotations of feveral Texts of that ancient Verfion, in divers paflages of their Works. The moft ancient Book, in which the paflage of St. John is quoted , is the Treatife of fertullian a- gainft th^ hcretick Praxeas-, it would be impoffi- ble to go back to a more remote age, fince Ter- tulUan liv'd in the fame age this famous Verfion was made, namely, the fecond Century. 1 have quoted the paflage, which regards this Text, in my Diflertation, and I would not return to it now, if I had not new obfervations to make upon it, in order to defend it againft the falfe glofles of thofe perfons, who alledge that Tertulllan had not the paflage of St. John in view, under pretence that he has not made an exprefs quotation. 'Tis thtis that ancient Do6lor fpeaks in the if^^ chapter a- gainft: Praxeas. " Jefus Chrifl fpeaking of the " Holy Ghofl: faid. He fiall take of mine^ as him-^ *' felf had taken of the Father > and thus the '' connexion of the Father with the Son, and of " the Son with the Holy Gholl caufes thefe three *' to be united together 5 which three are one^ as it '' is faid, / and my Father are one, " There we fee clearly exprefs'd thelaft words of the paflage in St. ^ohn'^ EpilHe, Jh.ee are Om-, in like manner as we fee there the very words of Jefus Chrifl in the x^^ Chapter of the fame Apofl:le's Gofpel, / and the Father are one, I'ertuUian has not been content with barely quoting the words of the Epi- itie. ( M ) file, Trcs untim fimt^ but he his wirhvl mnde tl^cre an obft-rvation, in order rr» jllulh-at;- th^ fi-i^rc, and to (hew chat the word U-ium h;is ex«prt^s relation to the nature and cHence i^\ t'lc thre<", tlie Father, the Son, and the Holy Gh.>(l 5 and not to their perfbns, qui tres^ fays he, UNUM funt^ mn UNVS : which he confirms by the authority of our Lord Jefus Chrijfi^ who exprcfs'd himfclf after the i'lrne manner by the word Unum^ ^vA not by that of Ufius y when he fpoke of himfclf and his Father, quomodo dil^um ej}^ adds TerTullian^ I' go ^ Pater UNUM fumus. Can anything be mr«rc exprefs? Yet, inilead of (incerely owninr, that this is the fcnfe and meaning of Tertullian^ they take what pains they can to elude the force of this proof. They pretend, that it was of himfclf, and without a view to any particular Text of Script iirc, that J'trtullian ia;d, qui tres iinum funt^ und-er pretext that the words are put there without any lign of quotation J as if it was not very common in the vritings of the Fathers, and particularly in Tertul- lian^ to quote parages of Holy Scripture without any indication which marks 'em to be paflagcs taken from Scripture 5 they need but open the Book of that ancient Do6tor, and numbers of in- itances will offer themfelves to their eyes. Was then the remark he makrs upon the word uniim^ to ihew the great difference bctwixc unum and unus^ with a view towards clearing up his own expieilion, and not that of a iacred Tcxi ? This is ablurd to ima- 'gine, and (till more io^ becaufc he hadjull made the iajiie obfervation upon the word Unum us'd hy Jefus Chrijl in the ii^^ chapter, Ego (J Pater UNUM fa- Pius^ I and the Father are O N E. He laid, U- NUM fumuSy non UNUS [limns, — U^ium dicit mu- trali lerhoy quod non pertir^et ad Jir^galaritaum^ /(d ad ur/itatcm. ^^ J'^f^^^ CbrifiiAi^^ 1 and tke Father ** are one; and this onc m the neuur gender docs li. *^ not ( t6) " not imply there was but one perfon in God, *' (which was the error of Praxeas^) but it denotes *' their unity. " The obfervation then which Ter- lullian had juft made upon the difference of unum and unus^ to explain the meaning of thefe words of the Son of God, I and the Father are one^ he here makes upon thefe, Three are one^ and yet they will have it, that he had not this Text of the fa- cred Scripture in view ! 1 defire every perfon, who finccrely feeks after truth, to give heed to this ob- fervation. A fecond, which terminates in the fame views, and will confirm the former, is the agreement of this pafTpge o£TertuIIian with that of St. Cyprian in his Book of the Unity of the Church. St. Cyprian joins together, as two Texts which mutually fup- port each other, that of Jefus Chrift^ 1 and the Fa- ther are one^ and this of St. John's Epiftle, "Tis written of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft^ thefe three are one. Why then fhall not the words thefe three are one^ join'd in Tertullian with I and the Father are one^ and with the fame defign too, namely, to prove the plurality of perfons in the unity of the divine nature, be the pafTage of St. John's Epiftle, as they are in St. Cyprian ? To dwell a little longer upon this remark. The fame words, I'res unum funt^ '' Three are one," are found thus alone, and without the reft of the fame Text, in St. Cyprian's Epiftle to Juhaianus\ in Vigilius of Tapfum^ m two paftages of his Dif- iourfe concerning the 1'rinity j and in the Fragments againft Fabian among the works of St. Fulgentius? I here quote only the Authors, who have us'd the fame Verfion with Tertullian. Now in all thefe paflages the words, three are one^ are indifputably jnferted as belonging to St. John's Epiftle: and yet they fhall not haverbeen in Tertullian's Book ! They muft have very ftrong proofs to convince an im- partial ( i7) partial mind of it, which {hall have read the fame Italick Verfion in thefe different Authors, and have found there the fame words. This obfervation leads us to a third, with which I (hall conclude my reflexions upon 'Tertullian. Let 'em maintain, as long as they will, that thefc words, 'Three are one^ are properly 'Tertullians^ who fpoke 'em of his own head, and without having taken them from St. John^ upon this fuppofition, that they were not in the Latin Verfion of that Apoftle's Epiftlej they cannot at lead deny, but that feveral of the Ancients, famous for their orthodox belief in the facred Trinity, did read 'em in their days in the fame Verfion : I have produc'd fo many quota- tions of it, to which I fhall prefently join fo many others, that this cannot be difputed me 5 whence then comes it, that thefe words, Three are one^ fhall be found in the Italick Verfion in the age of St. C>'- frian^ and the ages following ; and the fame words fhall have been us'd by Tertullian^ yet without ha- ving been in the Verfion, where the others found them ? I believe they will wait long for an anfwer to this powerful difficulty, if they cxpe£b an an- fwer that removes it : let them examine it, and look throughly into its confequences j I defire no more. I flop here, and pafs on to St. Cyprian, This holy Bifhop o£ Carthage^ who fuffer'd mar- tyrdom for the Chriftian Faith in the year 2f8. has quoted the pafiage of St. John in two of hisTrea- tifes. He produces the lall words in the Epiftle to Jiibaianus^ and almoft the entire pafiage in the Book of the Unity of the Church ^ and in thefe two places he quotesit upon different fubjedls. That of his Epiftle to Juhaianus is to fhew the necefiity there was of re-baptizing, or rather, as he expreffes himfelf in the begmning of that Epiftle, of ha]^- tizing thofe, who had received baptifm in the Commu- nion of the hereticks, who did not believe the Tri- E 1 nity, f 18 ) niry, becaufe this could not hare been look'd on as true Briptifm, fince Baprifm was conferred in the Name of the Trinity : He who receives Baptifm^ fays he, /V fanHlfyed and becomes the Temple of God-, But of what God? Of the Creator? This cannot he^ for he does not believe in him. Of Chrifi? But how can he he the Temple of Chrifi^ who does not acknowledge him to be God ? Is he then the T'emple of the Holy Ghofr, fince THESE THREE ARE ONE ? Cum ires unum fint. Thefe v/ords then are there quo- ted as a proof of the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl:, in one only divine cf- fence. He urges the fame paflage upon quite another de- fia;n, and fo^^newhat more at large, in his Difcourfe (f the Unily of the Church. He wrote it againlithc fchifm of the Novatians \ and he realons there llrongly, with that lively and noble eloquence which was natural to him, againll the Schifra in general, in order to fet out the horrour of it. 'Tis there, thar, wfrer having faid, that he cannot have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his Mother, he adds, the Lord has faidy 1 and the Father are one •, and ngain^ it is written of the Fa' ther ^ the Son^ and the Holy Qhofi ^ and THESE T'HREE ARE ONE. All that the enemies to the genuinenefs of this pafTage of St. John have been capable of imagining to render uielefs the exprefs quotation St. Cyprian has made of it, an^iounts to this, that it has refped to the 8'^^ verfe, v/here the Apoftlc fpeaking of the three witnelTes which are in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, fays that thefe three are one^ accord ir.g to the Latin Veriion, which has tranOated the lad words of the 8^^ verfe, and thofe of the 7^^^ in the fame manner, tho' they are very different in the Greek^ as I have elfewhere fhewn, 1 have confuied this illufion with fo much force and ( ^9) and bv fuch demonftrative arguments in my Criti- cal Differtation, that the oppofite party has been at a lofs what anfwer to give, and all that Mr. Em- lyn^ who at prefcnc maintains the contrary fide in England^ has been able to do, \s to quote St. Eu- cherius^ who has faid that feveral explained the three witnefTes of the 8^'^ verfe myftically of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl, and then to produce Facundus^ who has obfcrv'd, that St. Cyprian explained after this myflical manner in his Treacife of the Unity of the Church, what is there faid of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. Buc I have given fuch repulfive ftrokes to thefe la 11 efforts of a deplorable caufe, in my Examina- tion of that Writer's anfwer, that they have not vcntur'd to appear again in the late Piece, he has pubiilh'd, under the title of a Reply to the Exami^ nation of M. Martin : The Reply has here, as al- moit every where elfc, been mute, and pafs'd over the proofs and arguments which my Book is full of in fiiencc and confufion. I have fhewn under this particular article of St. Cyprian^ with how lit- tle underftanding or juftice Mr. Emlyn had urg'd the words of Sc. Eucherius y and how abfurd ic is to make Facundus^ (who out of pure fancy has af- crib'd a meaning to him which that ancient Wri- ter has not given the lead hint of,) a fupreme judge of the fenfe and intention of St. Cyprian j which will appear yet more and more from the new obfervations I am going to make upon it j for I avoid, as much as 1 can, tautology and repeti- tion. I begin with the ^]^\?ih lo J ubaia72iis : As Fa- cundus has made no mention of the pailage of this Epiftle which 1 have quoted, with regard to this he leaves us the field free, to take the quotation which St. Cyprian has there made of thcle words of St. Jobn^ "Thefe three are one^ according to the fenfc ( 30 ) (enfe and views which they can have there. There will be no difficulty in being affur'd, that it is the unity of eflence in the Father, the Creator of the World i in the Son, whofe Temple no one can be, if he is not really God •, and in the Holy Gholl, whofe Temples likewife we are, and who is one with the Father and the Son. Now what have the Spirit^ the Water^ and the Bloody which St. John fays are three witnefles in earth, and which are reduced to one in this, that they all three bear the fame record, in common with thefe r^afonings and thefe expreffions? Facundus here fails the So ciman^ and Reafon is againd him too. Let Us now bring this paflage of the Epiftle to Juhaianus^ and that of the Difcourfe concerning the Unity of the Church both together. St. Cyprian had there the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood of the 8^^ verfe no more in view, than in his Epiftle to Juhaianus : We fee there only the proper and ordinary names of the three divine perfojis, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft j by what means then will they introduce the Spirit under the name of Father > the PVater under the name of Holy Ghoftj and the Blood under the name of Son? Reafon will never envy an imagination, which thus abufes ic. We have lately feen in "TertuUian the Text of the Gofpel, / and the Father are one^ plac'd in conjun6bion with thefe words of St.John^ thefe three are one\ we find in the fame manner thefe two pafTages join'd together in the quotation of St. Cyprian^ why then fhall not this be here the three one of the 7^'^ verfe, as it is in Tertullian-^ or why fhall not the three are one in Tertullian be the three one of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, if it is fo in St. Cyprian? This reafoning is fo much the more firm and Iblid, as St. Cyprian does not add thefe words of the EpiUle of St. John^ but in the fame fenfe as ( 31 ) as the former, / and my Father are one : Now as according to him, and all the Fathers of the Church, thefe fignify an unity of nature betwixt the Father and the Son, the fime unity mud: be exprefs'd in the other pafTage, which is parallel to the former, thefe three are one j and confequently they cannot, even in the very meaning of St. Cy- prian^ be underllood of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, which far from having this unity of nature, are three very different natures. But we tarry too long in anfwering an illufion, which has not the lead appearance of reality, and in defence of which they have not been able to produce one reafon, that is taken either from the language of St. Cyprian^ or the fubjed of the Treatife in which this paffage is read, or from any hypochefis of this holy Bilhop which can favour it. Is not this to make an Author fay what he has not faid, and which cannot even have come into his thoughts ? The Text then of the witnefles in heaven was in Ter- tullian and St. Cyprian's time in the It alt ckYti don ; and we fliall fee it there again in the fucceeding ages. 'mn CHAP. V. Other proofs that the Text of the witnejfes in heaven was in the old Italick Verfion. TO the age of St. Cyprian immediately fuc- ceeded that, in which St. Jerom flourifh'd. The firll Latin\' txdon had already been made three hundred years, and in lefs time many faults mull have crept into the Copies, which were continual- ly difpers'd for the ufe of the Churches and private Perfons. 'Twas then a trade to tranfcribe Book?-, ^^ as ,4 ( 30 as it is now to print 'etri. Both learned and ig- norant were equally employ'd in writing and co- pying : 'twas a means of getting their livelihood -, and as tfhey were more or lefs dexterous at ir, they made their profit, Every one, who could write and read, became his own fcribe for himfelf and family 3 no perfon had the infpe£tion of his work, or was appointed to make in it the necef- fary correftions. Books muft thus often fall into bad hands, and be infenfibly fill'd with faults. Sometimes an ignorant tranfcriber took one word for another, and put that which he underftood in the place of that which he did nor. Sometimes, wearied with a labour, which requires a continual attention, he fuffer'd words to cfcape his eyes and his pen, and even Imes, efpecially when the one began with the fame words which the other had ended with j inftances of thefe oraiflions are very common in the ancient MSS. Sometimes a co- pier, more bold than learned, made alterations in the pailage, where he thought the copy, which he tranfcrib'd, was faulty. Thefe were fo many fatal fprings from whence iRimbers of faults arofe. St. jferom has fpecify'd all thefe fourccs of irregularity and defers in his Epiftle to Pope Damafus^ who earneiUy exhorted him to make an exad revife of the JMSS. of the Gofpels. Tho' this work ap- peared to him very toilfome and difficult, bccaule, faid he, of the great diveriiry he faw in the Ma- rufcripts, and the almoll innumerable faults, which had crept into 'em, tho' for the moll part very flight, and which did not affed the ejQentials of Religion, he yet refolv'd to undertake it. He per- formed it with all niiaginable care, comparing fe- veral MSS. together, and formmg his corredtions upon the Qreek, He did the fame fome time af- ter to the other Books of the New Teilamenr, which makes him fay in the Catalogue of his works, plac'u ( J3 ) plnc'd at tlie end of his Trent ife of EccleHaftical Writers, that he had revised the New Tcllamenc by the Greek Copies, as he had bet ore done that of the Old by the Hebrew. The Text of the three witncfies in heaven was \\\ the Italick Verfion, as we have feen from the life TertuUian and St. Cyprian had made of ir. This Ver- fion fell under the eyes of St. "Jerom-y there ihcn he faw this facred Text 5 and he fiw it there, either as a fault to be corrc6l:td , or as a genuir.e Text. If the latter, St. Jerom own'd it to be the Apollle St.Jobn'si if the other, he mulf have caft it out of the Epiftle in his revifcj but very far from having rcjc<5ted it, he kit it there with the Text of the three witncOes, which are upon earth, and the whole Church has read it there iincc, as it had read it there before: I have given indifputable proofs of this in my Difiertation, and fhall give more in this. I fpeak not here of the Prologue to the feven Canonical Epiillcs, in which St. Jerom complains of fome particular Verfion, from which this Text was taken away, thro' the unfair hfulnefs, as he believ'd, of the Authors o^ that V^erficn j 'tis a point of Criticifm , upon which I have already wrote, and to which I fhall be oblig'd to return, in order to remove the difficulty Mr. Ernlyn has form'd, and with which he imagines I mud be very much perplcx'd. Thofe who have read with any care the wri- tings of St. Jerom cannot be ignorant, that when he has happen'd to deviate in lome places from the Italick Verlion, he has mark'd them cut, and given his reafons. If it was neceflary to quote inltances, I could give feveral, which wiihui concern only one word, or fome fuch other inconfiderable alte- ration; but this would lead me too far, and carry me off too much from my iubjccl : the matter of fact IS known, and difputed by no body. If then St. F Jerom ( 34 ) Jerom bad infertcd this pafTage of St. John in his Verdon without having found it in the Jtalick-y or having found it there did not infevt it in his revife, for one of thefe two mult neceflarily be fa61:, is it to be conceived, that fo exad and careful as he was to jullify himfelf upon the fmalleft points, againft his envious adverfaries, who fought for an occafion to quarrel with his condu6l in relation to his Verfion, as he has complain'd in feveral of his Epiflles, yet he fliould have negligently forbore to - fet down in fome of his works the reafons which he had, not to follow the ancient Verfion with regard to this Text, which is one of the moft im- portant in all the New Teltament? His perfc6i: Ci- lence then is a certain mark, that he had nothing to fay upon it, no more than upon all the other paflages, where he had left things as he found them. This reafoning is one of thofe which the Philo- fophers name a dilemma^ the force of which con- fills in an alternative, in which two cafes being proposed, you muli chufe to admit of the one, and rejed the other. Here then let them take which fide they will 5 I matter not; my argument will al- ways be convincing. But what need is there to urge this reafoning from the genius and character of St. Jerom^ when we have exprefs proofs of the fact in queltion, namely, that in his time the ^nckm Latin Verfion contained the paffage of St. John's Epiltle ? St. Eucherius liv'd at the fame time with St. Jerom^ tho' fomewhat younger than hej the Church had then no other Verfion in ufe but the Italkk-y St. Jerom's revife, made at Bethkem^ could not yet have pafs'd the mountains to be known in France^ where St. Eucherius fiourifh'd ni the famous Mo- nailcry of Lerins, and afterwards at Lyons^ where he was Bifliop. He has quoted in his Trad de formulis (3J) formulis fpiritualihus the two paflages of Sx..John'$ Epiftle, which fpcak of the three witnefles in hea- ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghofl; and of the three witnefles in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. One cannot believe how much pains Mr. Emlyn has taken to invalidate this quotation j but the more he has turn'd about to different fides, the more he has fhewn the perple- xity he was in, and the difficulty of getting rid of it> he himfelf is become fo fenlible of it by the anlwers, which I have made to all his objedions, that he has prudently thought fit to be filent in the affair. One thing, which Teems to have given him the mod fatisfa6lion, was an imagina- tion, that thepaflage where St. Euchcrius fpeaks of the three witneffes of heaven, was falfify'd by feme tranfcribers , becaufc, he faid, he did not comprehend how that ancient BiHiop could have quoted in the fame paflage the Text of the three witneffes in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, which were myllically explained of the three divine perfons, fince that of the witneffes in heaven would have prov'd of it felf, and without recourfe to myftical meanings, the Trinity of the perfons in the divinity. I have Ihcwn hmi, that this was an illulion, which he had form'd from imagining that S. Eucheriusc\\iox.^d thefe two paf^ fages to prove the dodbrinc of the Trinity 5 and I next produced to him two inftances taken from the Decretal Epiftles of Iftdorus Mcrcator ^ in which thefe two Texts of St. John's Epiltle are quoted together, and even wirh regard to this dodrine. We have withal a third inltance taken from an Author more ancient than the Author of the De- cretals > 'tis Figilius Bifhop of Tapfum^ who has wrote fo much againft the Arians^ and who has urg'd againfl: them the paffage of the witnefles in heaven no lefs than five times in divers places o£ F i his of his DiTcourfe concerning the Trinity. Being at Naples^ whither he had rerir'd from Jfrick^ that he might continue no longer expos'd to the perfecuti- on of the Emperor Hitnerick^ he composed under the name of Idacius Clarus^ a famous Biiliop in Spain in the preceding age, a Treat ife again ft Va- rimadus^ an Arian Deacon, in which he inferts the principal objedtions of the Arians againft the Di- vinity oijejlis Chrift^ with the anfwers that weic to be made to 'em : If they urge againft you^ fays he, thefe words of the Son of Godj I'he Father is greater than I: Anfiver^ l!he Father is greater than the Son confider'd as man^ having taken human na- ture upon him \ hut the Son is equal to the Father^ in bis divine nature 5 according to what he has faid^ I and the Father are one: agreeable to which is that which tS*/. John has faid in his Epiftle to the Parthi- ans, (for 'tis thus that feveral of the ancients have fly I'd this firft Epiftle of St. John) There are three that hear record in earthy Sec. and three that hear record in heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the Holy Ghoft^ Svc. From this quotation I draw two advantages ; the firft, which is the leaft, is that it finally difcon- certs Mr. Emlyn's fc heme againft: the p aft age of St. Eucherius'y the fecond, which is far more con« iiderable, and is very much to my purpofe, is that the Text of the witnsftes in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, was in the Italick Verfion ; for Vigilius^ and the other writers of his age, madeufeofno other. This pious Bifhop liv'din the fame age with St. Jerom-^ fortho'hehad already gain'd a great reputation tov/ards the clofe of the the fourth Century, he pafs'd a good part of his life in the fifth > for which reafon he is commonly rank'd with the Writers of the fifth Century, with St. PaulimSy Rufinus^ St. Auguftine^ and others. This remark would not be very impoitant, and which ( 37 ) which I fhould never have thought of making, if it did not ferve to remove an illufion, which Mr. Emlyn has form'd, and which he would be glad to realize to impofc it upon others; which is, that fays he, Figilius^ Eugenius^ and the other Prelates, who have mentioned this Text, came too late, for they liv'd in the fifth Century : I have (hewn the extravagance of this anfvver, and have met with no reply: but to draw an advantage from the re- mark I have made upon the age , in which Sr. Jerom is rank'd, namely, the fame with that of Figilius^ Bifhop of Tapfiim^ and the other j^fri- can Prelates, whom I have quoted 3 if the argu- ment taken from their bemg of the fifth Century renders their depofition ufelefs, what can that of St. Jerom^ or that of St. Aiigujiine^ have more, un- lefs it derives its authority from the dignity and merit of their perfons> which would be the moll abfurd thing to urge in the world. Vigilius of Tapfum was no lefs religious than St. Augujline^ and he had this advantage above him, that he fuffer'd great perfecutions \\\Africk^ which had not been rais'd there in the time of St. Augujline, St. En- genius alio. Primate of the African Churches, and a ConfefTor for the Faith, was a perfon of no lefs dig- nity than the Bifhop o'^ Hippo ^ and the three or four hundred Bifhops who in their profcfiion of faith, prefcnted to Hunenc^ defended the dodlrine of the Trmity by the Text of St. "John^ There are three which bear record in heaven^ 6cc. in the fame age with St. Auguftine and St. Jerom^ amounts in my opinion to as much as a quotation which fhould be found among the works of thofe two excellent fervants of God. It feems as if they had a mmd to pafs m the world for men who fliut their eyes againlf the cleared truths j or who proltitute their fincerity, when they make ufe of fuch pitiful tva- fions. ( 38 ) In fhort, tho' the times had been far more di- llant from each other than thofe of St. Jerom and St. Jugtiftme were from that of thefe Afrkayi Bi- fhops, the fole life of a man, might yet have feen them both: There were but fixty four years from St. Jerom to the time thefe Birfiops wrote j and fcarce more than fifty two or fifty three from the death of St. Auguflim j now does this make it worth the while to fay with fcorn, they are wri- ters of the fifth Century? If I had been in that age, and it had pleas'd God I had liv'd fo long, as 1 have done in this, I fhould not only have been able to fee St. Jerom^ Figilius^ and the re(t, but alfo to have exercis'd the facred Miniftry for near three years of St. Auguftine's life, and withal in the days of the three hundred African Bifliops, who drew up that excellent Confeffion of faith, in which the paflage of St. John confronts the Arian herefy, iince I have had the honour to be a Miniiler f/ years, and am now in the eighty firfl year of my kgQ. Opinions may change in pafling from one age to another \ and in thefe cafes 'tis true one cannot in- fer from the prevalence of fuch or fuch an opinion in the world in one age, that they had been fo an age or two before ; of this we have an hundred intiances: but that the quotation of a paflage from a Book known, and efteem'd, and which is with- al in the hands of all the world, lofes of its weight, becaufe of its being made in one age more ancient than another, is what no body has ever thought, and yet 'tis this which Mr. Emlyn has feveral times ventured to afTcrc. CHAP. ( 3P) CHAP. VI. Containing fome new reflexions upon the Tro- fejjion of faitb^ which was prefented to Huaeric by the African Bijhops, IN fpeaking o^ Figilius B;fhop of 'Tapfum^ and the frequent quoiations he has made of the paf- fage of St. Johrj^ I have had occafion to place with him the three or four hundred Billiops, who had inferted this triumphant Text into their Profeflion of fairhj I have quoted in my DifTertation, and in the Examination of Mr. Emlyn's Anfwer, the place which concerns this paflagej he has been able to make no reply, fo chat I look upon this matter as concluded : but I am here about to conlider it a- gain in another Hght. It remains indifputably prov'd that all the African Bifhops, as well in their own name, as in that of their Churches have own'd as a Text of St. John that of the witnefles in heaven, which they have urg'd in the moll authentick inlbument that per- haps was ever drawn up, and in the nicell circum- ilances that the Churches of fevern! great Provin- ces, and of divers other Countries beyond Sea, fuch as the Churches of Majorca ^ Minorca^ Sardinia^ and Corfica^ which were in the fame interells with thofe of Jfrick were ever found in. It is certain then, that this Confellion of faith was ad:ually put into the hands of the Avians^ who had their Bibles, as the Orthodox had theirs, and were acquainted with the Greek tongue, as well as they, and were, no lefs than the Orthodox, exercis'd in reading the facred Scripture, and in difpute. Laftly, 'tis molt fure, that they gave no other anfwer to this Trad of ( 4^ ) of the Bifhop than by ftirring up nga in ft them the rage of the Emperor Huneric-^ all thefe hdis are taken from Hiflory. This fole recital, tho' very much abrJdg'd, and deftitute of the reflexions I have added to it in my Diflertation, convinces by its own evidence, that at that time neither Ortho- dox, nor j^rians^ had any doubt but that the paf- fage really belong'd to St. John's Epiftle. The yf- rians would not have defir'd any thing better than to find in an A6b prepared with fo much care, and upon which four BJfliops em ploy 'd to draw it up had fpent feveral Months, a forg'd pafTage, and e- fpecially a paflage, upon which the Orthodox re- ]ied fo much in the defence of the dodrine of the Trinity. Thofe cunning and obilinate hereticks knew how to exclaim againft the Ample words of iicrioo and oiiAOiic-iQv^ ejjhue and co-effential^ which in the Council of A^ice had been appropriated to the Confublhntial Divinity of the Son with the Fa- ther. Shew us, faid they continually, the words effence and co-ejjential in fome Text of Scripture 5 how then did they not here, where the fubjed is of more than one word , and where a whole Text is oppos'd to their error, anfwer that the Text is not m the Scripture, and that it could not be fhewn to be there ? They would have difcern'd the mote, and not have fccn the beam ! VtgiUus of 'Tapfum entcr'd the lifts againft 'em j Si, Fulgenticds aUo had with them divers difputesj the pallage of St. John was ui g'd by them both : We find in all thefc djfputes the anfwers and the arguments of the Avians upon divers Texts of Scri- pture: nothing appears upon this, which looks like the rcjedling it as forg'd. When any paftagts are brought againft them, upon which they can urge the difference of Copies, they never fail to make ufe of this plea: this may be ieen in the cafe of Rom. viu. f, 11. in the fe- cond ('4^ ) cond Vol. of St. Athanafius's works, p. 228. and upon another palTage in the fame Volume, pag 610. but we meet with nothing like this upon the Text of St. John's Epiftlc. Their whole anfwer to all the paflages urg'd againft them out of the Epillle to the Hebrews in defence of our Saviour Jefus ChrlB's Divinity j which is there exprefs'd in fo many places, is that this Epiftle is not Canonical : Tbe Avians^ fays Mr. Simon^ were the firfl in the Eaflern Churchy who oh* Jinately rejected the Epijile to the Hebrews^ feeing it was not favourable to their new opinions. Urge a- gainft them the Text of Sr. John's Epiftle! They alledge nothing againft its being authentick, nor charge it with forgery. How then, fays Mr. Emlyn in his late Trafl:, pag. 4f . do they fay nothing, and fufFer themfelves to fall by a Text, which gives vidory to their ad- verfaries, without making the leaft defence? Thofe, fays he, who have urg'd this pafTage, muft have either necefllirily fupprefs'd the anfwers of the Ari^ ans^ or they are loit, fince they are not come down to us. As to their being loft, 'tis impoftible, fince as they muft have been join'd to the objedi- on, and the objection is by different ways come down to us in the Writings of the Fathers, the anfwers could not fail of coming in like manner. Nor did even Mr. Emlyn think fo-, he ufes this di^ lemma in his reafoning only to manage a little the oppofite queftion, and not too inconfiderately to affcrt that the ancient Fathers had fupprefs'd the anfwers of their adverlaries. If he meant to fay this, he may find certain perfons who out of pre- judice and diflike to the Writings of the Fathers will not difallow of it j but natural equity join'd to good fenfe, which ought every where to prefide, I Hift. des verit. du Texte de N. Teftam. ch. xvi. G can (4^) can never approve of a fufpicion fo injurious to the ecclefiaftical Writers, who have recommended them- felves fo many different ways, and to which their manner of relating the difputes which they had with the hereticks, has given no place. So far from thisy that we every where find the paiTages of Scripture, that fcem mofl favourable to Aria- nifm^ fet in their fulleft light, and urg'd with all the force that was poffible to the Avians. We fee there the moft fubtle and artful reafonings that the Arians^ and their fellow-brethren the Socinians^ arc able to form at prefent, fomerimes againll the My- fiery of the Trinity 3 fometimes againll the Divinity and eternal generation of the Son 5 and fometimes againll the proceflion of the Holy Ghofl, and the Divinity of his Perfon. Confult but what they have faid upon the 22^ f. of the viii^^ Chapter of the Proverbs againll the eternity of the Son: The Lord has created me^ &c. relying upon the tranfla* tion of the lxx. who have thus rendered it in- flead of, 1'he Lord has pojfejfed me^ &c. as the Hehreiv Text imports: Upon the ^i'^ f. of the xiii*^ Chapter of St. Mark^ in order to deprive Jifus Chrift of his infinite knowledge. But of that day knowethmman^no not the Son^ 6cc. Upon the ip*^^. of the x^^ Chapter of St. John^ to take oif from the fupreme dignity of the Son, by thefe words which he had faid himfelfj My Father is greater than L The Fathers withal have not been forgetful to give us inftances of their artfulnefs in eludmg the Texts of Scriptur,e urg'd againll them % feveral are feen in what] have pioduc'd above j I Ihall add but one more, that I may not too much multiply things of this nature. The Orthodox made ufe of the 1 exr, where Jefus Chrift fays, / and my Father are one^ to prove his unity of nature with the Father, as be- ing but one and the fame God. The Arians cva- <^Qd^ or pretended to evade this proof by the di- itin(5i:ion ( 43 ) flin61:ion of unity of nature, and unity of will, ex- plaining thefe words o'i Jcfus Chrifi of the latter; and it was necefTary for the Divines of thofe times to ftrengthen themfelves with other Texts in de- fence o\ that. We muft: not imagine that thefe fubtle j^rians did not urge the flime anfwer to the padiige of St. John's Epiltle, fince xh^ three are one of this Text is the fame thing with thefe words o^Jefus Chrift^ I and the Father are one. This is manifeflly the fum of the feventh Dialogue o^Figilius oiTap- fum^ printed among the Works of St. Athanafms^ Vol. 2. of the Cologn Edition: where he fays, thar where the names of the perfons are exprefs'd, there they believe different natures to be exprefs'd by thofe names ; fo that they adjgn to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft an unity of will only, and not an unity of divine nature: And it was alfo after this manner, that the Abbat Joachim^ who reviv'd Ari^ anifm^ explained the Text of St. John's Epiftle in the 11*^ Century i as we fee in the A(5ls of thj^ QouncW oi Later an ^ held in 12 if. But tho* we were not fo well fatisfy'd as we are concerning the anfwer which the Arians may have given to this paflage, what advantage cou'd accrue to Mr. Emlyn^ or what confequence could he draw thence? Our quellion turns only upon this, whether, thefe words of St. John's EpilUe, For there are three ^ ivbo bear record in heaven ^ the Fa^ ther^ the IFord^ and the Holy Ghoji j and thefe three are one^ were in the old Italick Verfion, and were urg'd by the Fathers againlt the Arians \ I prove it by abundance of authorities j and there is noc one which they can difpute, either as falfely al- b Sic fentiunt, ut ubi nomina in perfonis indicant, ibi i;- mul in ipfis nominibus & fingulas vel di^erfas fubftantias effs pronuntiant, ut unitatem in concordia tantum charitatis effc alTignant, & non in unita plenirudine Divmic^tis. G a ledg'd, r 44 ) ledg'd, or as uncertain > but would it be lefs true, that the paflages extraded from the writings of the Fathers, which I have prodiic'd, are in their Books, tho' we Ihould be wholly ignorant of what the Arians may have anfwer'd ? 1 am n^t acquaint- ed with Mr. Emlyn's Logick, but no man was ever lefs regular in fixing his principles, and drawing his confequences : 1 have made this remark m ano- ther place. C H A P. VII. Other quotations of the Italick Verfion in fa- vour of the pajfage in St. John'^ Epijile^ taken from two ancient TraSis, afcrib'd to St. Fulgentius, ST. Fulgent ius^ Bifliop of Rufpe in Africk^ liv'd in thofe forrowful times, when jirianifm was upon the throne, and true Chrillianiry very much perfccuted. I have ^ fet down in my Diflertation two pafTages where this holy Bifhop makes men- tion of the pallage of St. John.^ but as I have not given the exprefs words, I think it convenient to give 'em here. The firft of thefe paflages, which is in his An- fwers to ten Obje6tions of the Avians^ is exprefs'd in thefe terms : ^ H^e acknowledge the unity of efr fence in the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft\ yet without confounding the perfom j for Uis this which St. John tefiifieSj when he fays^ There are three which hear record tn heaven^ the Father^ the iVord^ and the Holy Ghofl^ and thefe three are one. The other pafTage is in a Difcpurfe, which he wrote cori- ^1 ,1 II III " " . ■- .. II ,1 II I ■ f Pa.g. 6u "'"" d Fulg. Rufp. ad lo. Ob.ed. cerning (45 ) cerning the Trinity at the requeft of one of his friends, nam'd Felix^ to explain to him that great fubjedt, which was fo much difputed. *= I will /ay then to you in few ivords^ that the Father is one^ the Son another^ and the Holy Ghoft another-^ di- ftindi I fzy^ as to their perfons •, but not diftin6l as to their nature : and for this reafon 'tis faidy I and the Father are one: the word ONE refpe^s the nature^ the term ARE denotes the perfons •, in like manner^ ^tis faidy T'here are three^ which bear record in hea* ven^ the Father^ the Word and the Holy Ghojl^ and ihefe three are one. After fuch exprefs quotations of St. 'John\ paf- fage, let 'em come and boldly tell us it was not in the Italick Verfion, or that St. Fulgentius had not this Verfion, which was received in all the Churches, before his eyes, nor took thence the pafTages he quoted in his Writings j this will be an unpardon- able ignorance in thofe perfons who thro' preju- dice deny a truth which is difagreeable to themj or a want of fincerity, yet worle than that igno- rance, fliameful in men who profeis themfelves Scholars. In the lafl: Editions of this holy Bifhop's Works, and in the ninth Volume of the Bibliotheca Nova Patrum^ we find two Tradls under the name of Sc. Fulgentius, The one is againll: an jirian Bi- fhop nam'd Pinta j and the other is a collection of divers Fragments againft an Arian alfo, nam'd Fa-f hian. As to the former Mr. Bu Pins in the article of St. Fulgentius^ proves that this Work does not be- long to that famous Billiop, and he gives very good reafons, which if they plcafe they may fee in the place I have mentioned. Dr. Cave in his hiftory is of the fame opinion, and 1 know no per- ti ■ I I- , - ^^^^^^^ f Fulg. de Trinit. ad Felicem Nptariqm, cap. iv, L.. ... ^^^ ( 40 fon who has fliffly maintained the contrary. 'Tfs at lead true, that this Tra6t is very ancient. The Author, who drew it up, quotes there feveral Texts of the facred Scripture in defence of the Trinity, after which he fets down this: In the Epifile of St. John, fhere are three in heaven^ which bear re^ cord^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Spirit-, and thefe three are one. As to the colledion of the Fragments of tea Books, which St. Fulgent ius had written, as the Author of his Life fays, againd the falfe accufati* ons of Fabian^ F. Chifflet^ a Jefuic, who publifh'd 'em upon the credit of fome MSB. does not doubt, but that they really are the Fragments, which fome one had coUefted from the Work of St. Fulgentius, I have no concern to engage my feif in this point of Criticifm : but I will venture to fay, that I find in fome oF thefe Fragments fuch thmgs, as \x\ my opinion, fuit not with the charader and genius ofc this learned African. In the third fragment of the iSrfl Book we fee remarks upon the Greek ^ un- worthy the great skill St, Fulgentius had in that language i and a diftin61:ion betwixt the Latin words minifirare znd fubmifiijir are <, which does not agree with fuch a man, as he was. I leave the ftrider enquiry into thefe matters to thofe who are Cri- ticks by profeffion ; ^ fhall here infill no longer upon it. Yet K 1 have done right in not con- foundmg die Author of thefe Fragments with St. Fulgentius^ no more than with the Author of the Tra61: againlt Pinta^ the quotation of St. John's paflage in thefe Fragments, wherein the Texts of Scripture are all taken from the Italick Verfion, will be a new proof that this Text was read in that Verfion. The title of the 21^^ Fragment of the fixth Book is, I'be Trinity in Perfons^ and the Unity in Nature po'Cd from holy Scripture -^ under this extraordinary title ( 47 ) title are read ttiefc words at the clofe of the Chap- ter, 'The Apoftle St. John has evidently faid\ and three are one^ in fpeakmg of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghojl : this is exprefs. Upon occafion of the manner, after which this paflage is quoted, I return to the quotation St. Cy* prian has made in his Treat ife of the Unity of the Church J It is written^ fays he, of the Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofl ; and thefe three are one, 1 fee here no difference with the quotation of the Fragment i in the latter, 'tis indifputably the 7'** f. fince it can only be faid of that verfe, St. John has evidently faid-y the confequence tends di- redly to St. Cyprian^ and confirms the reflexions I have made upon him. If thofe, who venture to deny the pafTage wc arc upon to have been in the Italick Verfion, have never read the Authors I have quoted, their igno- rance in a matter, they ought to be acquainted with before they fo refolutely deny it as they do, is inexcufable in Men of learning > and if they have read 'em, and taken notice of the paflages in 'em I have quoted, their fincerity becomes very much fufpedled : this is a grievous dilemma for 'em. CHAP. viir. Of the judgment St. Jerom has made of this Texty in his Trologue to the feven CathO" lick Epjiles. 5 T^ I S impoffible but that St. Jerom muft have A feen in the Italick Verfion a Text which 7>r- tullian and St. Cyprian had read there before him, and which all the world had feen there as well as they, and which the great numbers of Bifhops who liv'd ( 48 ) iiv'd in the fame age with St. Jerom read there at^ fo. The toilfome and difficult pains he gave him- felf to purge that Verfion from the faults, which had crept into it, did not allow him to fpare a Text, which would have been the greateft of all the faults he had to correft, if it did not really be- long to St. John's Epiftle j but far from taking it away, he on the contrary has complain'd in very ilrong terms, in his Prologue to the feven Epiftles, of the omiffion of this Text in fome private Ver- Hon, which appear'd in his time •, the Authors of which he treats as unfaithful Tranjlators : a reproach unjuft as well as rarfi, if this pallage had not been in the Italick Verfion, which was ufed by the whole Church > and if withal it was not in the Greek of the New Teftamcnt, lince it was from the Greeks as from the Original, that the Latin Ver- fions were made. Thefe confequences are natural, and 'tis impof- fible CO overturn 'em, but by deftroying the princi- ple from which they proceed, which is abfolutely to deny that this Prologue is Si.Jerom's, And thus Mr. Simon has bent his whole force this way with a view to exclude the paflage it treats of, as a forg'd and fuppolititious Text : Dr. Mill and F. Martianay have gone into the fame opinion concerning the Prologue, but yet with different views, for they believ'd the paflage of St. John genuine} their pre- judice reach'd no farther than the Prologue. I have colleded from the Writings of each all the rea- fons they have urg'd to fhew that St. Jerom is not the Author : I have examin'd 'em ftep by ftep one after another, and have fhewn 'em to be fo weak, that ^ Mr. Emlyn who has twice enter'd the lifts * See the fifth Chapter of fwy Dijfertation upon the pajfage cfSK John, and the fourth Chapter of ths Examin, of Mr, Emlyn',j Anfwer. fincc ( 49 ) fince upon thefe matters, he has not been able to deftroy one of my arguments. The moll fpecious of thole which had beenurg'd againft this Preface, was that the fcvcn Epifties are there call'd Canonical^ a name which F. Martiana}\ who is the Author of this remark, pretends was not given to thefe Epiftles , 'till after the fixth Century, and confequently that it could not be St. Jerom^ who wrote the Preface, where they are caird by this name. This reafon would be good, if the remark wasjull, but 1 have (hewn from fe- veral Authors, that it is not : I lliall not offend, if I here add two other inftances. The firft is from Figilius^ Bifhop of Tapfum in the fifth Century, who in his Book ^ig-ixwiX Farimadus fays, 'J/j writ- ten in the Canonical Epiftles^ my little children^ this is the laft time : the quotation is from the firft Epi- Itle of St. John. The other inftance is taken from St. Jerom himfelf, who in an Epiftle to Paul^ Mar- cellus^ and Enjiochium , the fame Euftochium to whom the Prologue is addrcfs'd, fays to 'em, Jiide the Apojile and Brother of James had [aid in his Ca- nonical Epiftle^ (s'c, F. Martianay^ who has read fo often over the works of St. Jerom^ of which he has given us a mod beautiful Edition, and adorned them with the mofl: Jeafn'd Prefaces which have appear'd, would be much furpriz'd, was he alive, to fee his Criticifm upon the word Canonical^ confuted by St. Jerom himfelt^ but the moft learned men are fubjedb to fuch mi Hakes. Tho' it be a main point for thofe Gentlemen who difpute the Text of the witnefTes in heaven to be genume^ to take from it the fuffrage of St. Je- rom in the Prologue here in quellion, yet Mr. Em- lyn will not anfwer for the reafons which have been urg'd againlt this Prologue, and he does not find 'em ilrong enough for him to keep clofe behind fo ti weak ( JO ) weak, a bulwark j Mr. Martin^ ^ fays he, may he one of thofe PFriters^ who are fare to defend what o- thers ha've fald upon a fuhjeSl in debate -y hut for my part^ I undertake to defend that enly^ which I think fvaVid and conclufive. Let us pafs by what he fays of me, he doiVt know me: let us dwell upon what he tells us of his own turn of genius > I undertake^ fays hey /^ defend that only ^ which I think 'caVid and con- clufive. He might at this rate have fpar'd himfelf the trouble of writing his two laft pieces in order to defend what others had faid before him againft the paitage of St. John\ he in this had lefs con- fulted his ftrength than his inclination, which has carried him to enter into an engagement which he "would have done well not to have meddled with} he gets no honour by it. But whence is it, that after having engaged fo deeply in it, he gives up all the proofs urg'd againft a Preface, which, if it fubfifts, is the total ruine of his fide of the quellion ? It is, he fays-, becaufe he docs not undertake to de- fend reafons which do not appear to him folid and conclufive : fuch a confeflion does not make much for their honour, and makes much for me," who have had the fame opinion of it before him. Yet you niufl; not believe that he entirely abandons the dif- pute j he has one iliifc left which appears to him fe- cure, and with which alone he thinks to triumph. If St. Jerom^ fays he, was the Author of this Pro- logue, in which the palTage that fpeaks of the three wicnefles in heaven is chara6leriz'd as the principal fupport of the faith , and the omiilion of this paflage in fome Verfions mark'd with the odious name of tinfaitbfulneis, would it be pofTiblc after this that St. ^JcrQ7n fhould have never produc'd fo terrible a paf- fage againlt the Arians^ when he oppofed 'em in » Ke^h, pag. 37. his ( 5^ ) li is Writings f I had largely anrvver'd this, and a- tnongft other things had laid, that this obje6lion fuppofed this holy Doftor to have wrote fome particular Treatife againll Arianifm : whereas there is no fuch piece found atrjong all the great Vo- lumes we have of his ; and that he had but fcarce touched upon it as it came in his way in fome of his Commentaries. Mr. Emlyn returns to me upoa this fubje6l, and contents himfelf with alledging in general the Comment upon Ezekiel^ without mark- ing any paOage where Arianifm is mention'd. This vague and confus'd manner of quoting a Book has its profit and advantages for thofe who judge that it is more fecure to lurk behind this general form of fpeaking, than to appear in a diilinft and exprefs quotation. 1 have read St. Jerom's Commentary upon £2;i?^/>/ more than once, and have found him fo far from exprefHy engaging again ll^r/^/^i/A/;, that he fpeaks not of the Holy Trinity but upon occafion of the myftical expofition of fome expreflions, which are found in this Prophet > and the paflages which he quotes, tho' rarely, are always fuch whofe ideas have relation to thofe of the myHical terms and explications he gives, and which are of- ten far fetched: inlknces of this obfervation may be feen in the xi^'^ Chapter, f. i . in the xl^^ Chap- ter, f. 44. and in divers other places. To this I add, that a very confiderable time having pafs'd betwixt the Prologue and the Com- mentary upon Ezekiel^ 'tis by no means furprizing that St. Jerom not being concern'd in the lealt with the affair of Arianifm^ fhould not have prefent in his mind a Text of which he had fpoke with (o much force upon a quite different occafion, as that of the revife of St. John's Epiille was. He was working upon this revife about the year 389 or 390 i for giving in the year 39^5 (which he notes to be the 14^^' year of the reign of Thcodofius) a H z Catalogue ( jO Catalogue of his Works, he fets down in the num- ber the review of the New Teftament: now he did not finifh, as is gathered from his Works, his Commentary upon EzekieruW the year 414, and confequently 24 or if years after he drew up the Prologue to the fcven Epiftles. Will Mr. Ewly^ find that after Co long a fpace of time St. Jerom mull have prefent in his mind the noble vivacity with which he had fpoke of the Text of the witnefTcs in heaven againft the unfaithful Tranflators, who had not inferted it in their Verfion, that this Text mufl; have plac'd it felf under his pen, and be ne- cefTarily repeated there? If he thinks fo, thofe who know mankind better, and how men of thegreat- cfl parts do not always think upon the fame thing, how the mofl judicious content themfelves with faying or writing what is moft to their purpofe, and how 24 or 2f years time are capable of fixing the mind to one thing, without prejudice to that which made a lively impreffion upon it 24 years before, will not find the lead difficulty in com- prehending, how 'tis poflible that St. Jerorn^ after all the reafons I have given, fhould not have quo- ted the pafTage of St. jfo/m^ of which he had fpoke with fo much zeal and force in the Prologue to the Canonical Epiftles. Mr. Emlyn carries his reafoning yet one ftep higher, and to give it the greater advantage, he re- prefents the Author of the Prologue as taking upon him the Charader of Reflorer and Pre fewer of this pafTage, againft the omiflion wnich he condemns in {om^ Latin Verfionsj from whence Mx, Emlyn infers, that thefe charafters cannot belong to Sti Jerom^ fince he has made no inention of this Text in his Commentaries, nor in his Epiftles. The Author of the Prologue does not give him- felf the great titles of Reftorer and Preferver^ not sreprefents himfelf under any of thefe ideas 5 'tis from' (53 ) from himfelf Mr. Emlyn has taken them. The word and idea of Reftorer would reach much far- ther than to chofe particular Verfions, which arc rpecify'd in the Prologue, and which, as we learn from St. Auguftine^ were almoll of no confiderati^ on in comparifon of the Italick^ which was caird the Common Verfion^ becaufe as I have feveral times obferv'd, it was that of all the Churches : and the paflage of St. John not being wanting in this Ver- Hon, which was in the hands of all the world, the name of Refiorer of this Text could not belong to the Cenfurer of thofe other obfcure Verfions, which at moft were only in the hands of fome pri- vate perfons. I fay the fame thing of the word Preferver^ which is no lefs a ftranger to this Pre- face than the other. The Text in hand had no need of any other Preferver than the original Greek^ and the Bible of the Churches. But has Mr. Emlyn well confider'd that in mak- ing the Author of this Preface, whoever he was, fince he will have him not to be St. Jerom^ fpeak thus of himfelf, he makes him fay by a neceflary confequence, that this Text was in the Greek^ and in the ancient Editions^ for how otherwife would he have been the Preferver of it .^ And will Mr. Emlyn acknowledge this? He is taken^ as faid the Royal Prophet, in the net which he had laid. 3ut whilll he extricates himfelf out of it as well as he can, let us refume his reafoning, and draw an advantage from it in favour of the truth I maintain. The Author of the Prologue charges the Tranflators with un- faithfulnefs, who had not inferted this pafTage in their tranflation^ therefore he mull himl'clf have plac'd it in hisj for the Latin Poets obfcrvation Was always juft, Turfe eH do^ori (um culpa r:darguit ipfnra. 'Tii ( 54) ^^is fiameful for a man to reprove others , and fall himfelf into the fame fault he blamei in them. But this is what St. Je^om cannot be charg'd with, if this pafTage was pkc'd in his Verfion, which thefe unfaithful ^ranflators had not inferted in theirs. Now this paflage was no lefs in St. Jerom's Ver- iion than in the Itaiick-, 'tis a fa6t which confifts in proof 5 1 have given a great number in my Dif- fei ration, and I fhall refume and continue that fub- je6t in the following Chapter. CHAP. IX. That the Text of the three witneffes^ the Fa- ther^ the Wordy and the Holy Ghoft, and thefe three are one^ was always in St. Je^ tom's Verfio7t, MR. Emlyn does not deny but this Text has been in the Manufcripts of the Latin Bibles fince the time of Charles the Great^ who liv'd at the clofe of the eighth Century j the teftimonies I have produc'd have not left him the lead room to difpute it. But how could fo remarkable a Text as this, both in its matter and form, be found in the Manufcripts of the New Teftamcnt, difpers'd through all Countries among the Clergy and the People ? If it was a Stranger, newly come, it mud: be own*d they were very eafy who admitted it into the Sanduary of the facred Scriptures, without having given it any oppofition in any countrey of the world. Thefe Manufcript Bibles were feveral times revis'd, the fmallell errors of tranfchbers were cor- reft ed as much as pofTible, and yet they mnft have ihewn fo exceffive an indulgence to this entire Text, lately ( n) lately introduced, as to leave it in pofTeflion of a place it had (o undefcrvedly ufurp'd ! Does Mr. Emlyn really believe this? 1 went back yet farther than the time in which the famous revife was made by the order o^ Charles the Great ^ wherein we have fcen this Text of St. John-y there's no artifice and Criticifm, which can evade this revife j 'tis beyond all the fubterfuges * which prejudice and error can raife againfl it j I have fet it beyond the reach of both, as may be feen from what I have faid. Pafling farther than the time of this famous re- vife, I fearched into the Decretal Epiilles of Iftdo- rus Mercator^ and 1 /hew'd that the two Texts of St. John^ one of which fpeaks of the three wit- neHes in heaven, and the other of the three wit- neffes on earth, were read m two of thefe Epiftles. The Bible of St. Jerom was then only in common ufe with the Church and its Doctors > this Bible had then the pafTige of the 7^^ f, which is that of the witneflcs in heaven. As Germany furm{h'd me with this very certain proof in the Writings of Mercator-, Italy affords me a like one in the Commentary of a learned Abbat in the Kingdom o^ Naples -^ this is Jmbrofe Jnthhert^ or Anshert^ whofe words I have quoted, and which I am willing to repeat here, becaufe of the new obfervations I have to make upon 'em. Anshert then commenting upon thefe words in the firft Chap- ter of the Revelation^ the faithful witnefs^ and the firfl-begotten of the dead^ and the prince of the Kings of the earthy fays, that tho' the exprellion oi faiths ful witnefs has there reference only to Jefus ChriH^ 'tis yet a chara6ter, which equally belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholij according to thefe words of St. John^ There are three^ which bear record in heaven^ the Father^ the JVord^ and the Holy Ghoii j and thefe three are one. The remarks i have ( yO i have to make upon this quotation deferve a par- ticular attention. Amhrofe Anshert^ a native of Provence^ retir'd in- to the Kingdom of iW/>/^/, and was there very much cfteem'd : he wrote there feveral Works which gain'd him a great reputation withal tho' they drew upon him the envy of many. They accus'd him of pride, rafhnefs, and in a manner of impiety^ for having attempted to write a Commentary up- on the Revelation^ to the great contempt, they cry'd, of that terrible Sentence in the xxii^ Chapter^ If any man Jh all add unto thefe things^ God Jh all add unto bim the plagues that are written in this Book, It was eafy for Anshert to fhew this accufation ri- diculous 5 but as his innocence was not a buckler ftrong enough to defend him againft his enemies^ he implor'd the protection of Pope Stephen , to whom he dedicated his Commentaries. Would a man fo unjuftly defam'd in publick , and fo rafhly accus'd of making additions to the Book of the Re^ velation^ under pretence of the explications he gave of it, would he have unadvifedly quoted in this very Commentary a paflage, which had not been in the Bible, and faid, it is written^ 'There are three^ ijuhich hear record^ 6cc. if it had not been written ? Now it was St, Jerom's Bible which was then read in the Churches, and which private families had before their eyes. The old ^ Italick Verfion had given place to this, which was far more correft, as I have already obferv'd > and this alteration of the Verfion had been introduc'd into the Church but about a Century, or a Century and an half, before : the Jtalick Veriion had kept its ground 'till to- wards the clofe of the feventh Century, and Am- hrofe Ansbert wrote about the middle of the fol- i P. Simon Hift. Critic des Verfions du N, Teftanio ch. vii. lowing-- Idwihg. We cannot then have a greater certainty of the faft in quellion, namely, that the Text of the witneflcs in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, (^c. were from the firfl: ages, as in the Age of Charles the Great^ in St. Jervrn'^ Bible. Another inflance, very like the former, and of the fame Century, is that of Etherius^ Bifhop of JJxame in Spaiyi^ and of Beatus Pricft in the y^Jlu- rias. ElipanZus Archbifhop o{ Toledo^ and Pelix Bi- fhop of VrgeJ^ taught that 'Jefus Chr'ifi confider'd as man was only the Son of God by adoption, and thus they llruck at the hypollatick union of the two natures in Jcfus Chrih : their do6lrine prevailed mightily in Spain out of regard to thefe two Pre- lates, whofe reputation there was confiderable, e- fpecially ElipanduSy who was Primate of all Spain. Etherius^ tho' his Suffragan, and Beatus^ who was but a bare Priefl, wrote againft: the error of the Archbifhop 5 and the Archbifhop in his turn writes a Letter of Spirit againfl: 'em, to an Abbat, call'd Fidelis^ in which he charges 'em with being Euty^ chians. To jultify thcmfelves, and at the fame time to oppofe the Error of Elipandus and Felix^ they wrote a Book, in which they quoted a good part of the firll Epillle of St. John j and among the reft the entire paifage of the fifth Chapter, which fpeaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. It was already a great undertaking in Etherius and Beatus to venture openly to oppofe their Arch- bifhop and Primate 5 and it would have been not only an imprudence in 'em, but impious withal, to blend a forg'd palfage among the genuine Texts of St. John's Epiftle, and thus to corrupt the fa- cred Scripture, if this paflage had not been gene- rally in the Bibles of thofe times. This mult ne- eefiarily have brought upon 'em the cenfure of 1 their ( 58 ) their Superior, t\^ho was already but too much provok'd at their boldnefs in oppofing his dodrine with fuch open force; they, who according to the ordinary courfe of Subordination fhould have re- gulated their fentiments by his. The conclufion is, and this a very certain conclufion, that the re- cord of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, dne God in three perfons, was really in St. Jerom's Verfionj which was all I had to prove. Now wherein are thefe proofs defedlive ? We are upon a fa61:, and a fa6t which muft have been pub- lick, expos'd to the eyes of the whole Church, and we have feen in this Chapter the teftimonies from Germany in the Works of Ifidorus Mercator ; teftimonies from Italy in the Writings of ^mbrofe jimherty teftimonies from Spain and the Aflur'ias in the Book of Ether ius and Beat us. All thefe te- flimonies exadly agree, they all depofe that the Text of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft was in the Epiftle of St. John •, and all thefe four witneftes report it as having read it, and reading it in the Verfion of St. Jerom^ without any perfon, even their greateft enemies, accufing 'em of a falfe tranf- lation : and yet nine hundred years after there fhall be found men who will venture to aftert that thefe words were not in St. Jerom's Bible ! A little more equity, but efpecially more candour, would fub- mit to the genuinenefs of this Text. CHAP, ( 59 ) CHAP. X. JVhat judgment muft be pafsd upon the Latin Manujcripts of the Vulgate of St. Jerom, which have not the Text of the Father^ the Sony and the Holy GhoH. WERE we fo happy as to have the Manu- fcripts of the Bible which had pafs'd under St. Jerom's eyes, or only the Manufcripts which had been made very near the time that ancient Cler- gyman was upon his revifc, we might clear up very many palTages, which have given place for feveral Criticifms. We fliould fee whether the paflage they difpute with us was originally in that Verfion. But all the Manufcripts which are preferv'd fall far {hort of the time when it was made, the mod ancient fcarce come within four or five hundred years of itj fince F. k Long reckons for the molt ancient that of T'heodulphus^ made in the year jpo. and confequenily more modern by haU a Century than the quotation o^ jimhrofe Anther t. But lup^ pofe they (hould find, if they will, fome other yet more ancient, let it be a thoufand years old, and the Text of St. >/;//'s EpilUe not read in it> will this be any more than an omiflion, o. fault of the tranfcriber, like many others of the fame nature? The more ancient this fhall have been, the more it may have been copied by others fince, in which the fame fault ihall have cfcap'd thro* the inadver- tency of the tianfcribers: as we have often fcen the faults of an impreiTion to pafs from one edi- tion to another, in the very prmting ot the facrcd Books, where the revifers and correctors of the prels ought to ufe all poffible care to prevent fucfi I 2 tiiilUkes. ( ^o ) miftakcs. The helps of Correflors, which are fix'd in every Printing- houfc, being wanting to the ge- nerality of tranfcrihers, the faults which efcap^d their pen remained in their Manufcriprs j this Ma- nufcript came into the hands of the buver, who fometin^es was a man lefs careful in reading, than in forming a Library f(jr pornp and fhew ; no- thing is more frequent in the world than this, and we muft not imagine that it was ever otherwife. When fuch a Manufcript met with a buyer who us'd it, and read it for devotion^ he might either not perceive the omiflion, or leave it there with- out giving himfclf the trouble to correal it-, either becaufe he could not write, (for that art was not always fo common as it is in our days j) or if he could, thro' negligence in corrc61:ing it } or be- caufe of an overcurious niccnefs he was afraid of fpoiling the beauty of his Book. There are at pre- fent men of all thefe Characters, the negligent, the indolent, and the afft6i:edly neat 5 and men who liv-'d a thoufand years ago were form'd no o- therwife than thofe who have come after 'em. The omiflions thus remaining in one Manufcript which has been preferv'd for manyages, of what weight can this Manufcript and others of the fame fort be in a matter which ows its firfk origmal to the care- lefsnefs of a tranfcriber, and which is preferv'd on- ly by a like carclefsnefs, or ignorance, or the la- zinefs and negligence of the perfons into whofe hands it fhall have pafs'd fu cceffiv ely ? It even happens, that when fuch an omiiTion is grown old in a Manufcript, the ages which have pafs'd up-^ on it without making any alteration in it, have gain'd it on the otner hand a fort of venerable prefcription i fo that the older a Manufcript is, the more venerable it grows, even 'till the very faults of it fametimes hold the plac^ of law and de- termination. Whep (^t ) When a tranfcriber looking over his copy hap-p pen'd to obferve fomething forgot, if he was a man who had the perfedion of the Text of the (acred Author more at heart, than the ncatnefs or beauty of his iManufcript, he himfclf infertcd the paflage he had omitted in the margin 5 and this is what Mr. Simon and others have obferv'd concerning the paf- fiige of St. John^ that not being in the very Body of the Epiftle, 'tis found written in the margin, by the fame hand, and with the fame ink as the reft. In other Mi^nufcripts where this Text is not in the body of the Epiftle, fome of ihofe who had pof- fefs'd this copy from that time, or a little after, having perceiv'd that the Text of the three wit- neffes in heaven was wanting to it, had wrote it ii> the margin over againft the place where it ought to have been. All thefe wife and pious precautions, as well of the tranfcribers of the facred Scripture, as of the buyers, or religious readers, are {o many condem- nations brought againfl: the other Manufcripts in which this paTage is found wanting i and are a cer- tain proof that this defedb mult be look'd on but as a mere omiffion, and confequently as a matter, which is of no confideration againll the authen* ticknefs of this Text. This reafoning, which is fo evident and natural, and lets us fee of how little moment it is with re- gard to the paflage we are upon, that it is not found in fome Manufcripts of feven or eight hun- dred years old, and which are very fewj this rea- foning, I fay, is confirm'd and render'd infupcra- ble by the quotations, which I have produced in the foregoing Chapter. The Authors of 'cm were not mere tranfcribers, tranfcribers unknown, who got their bread by writing, as Printos do now-a-dayst they are men of letters, and for the moft part of a venerablq (dt ) venerable character in the Church, learned Di- vines who wrote upon religious Subjefts, who had the Bible at hand, and who, in the fame age, (from which they offer us fome Manufcripts unknown otherwife than from iheir (ingle quality of Manu- fcripts in which this palTage of St. John is not found,) come to us by their Works, each with his Bible, and upon opening 'em lay before our Eyes in the Epiftle of St. John the Text they have quo- ted. *Tis then with regard to this Text quite as much, as if we had their very Copy, as it is with regard to all the other paOages, which arefet down in their quotations. 1 fee there five of the mod ancient Manufcripts they have, 1 know from what hand they come to mt\ thofc from whom I re- ceive 'em alTure me by the ufe they have made of the pafTagein St.yfj/^/^'sEpiille, that it really belongs to the Epidie of that Apollle. Have they the fame afTurance of any Manufcripts in which this paflage is not feen j and is there the leaft compa- rifon to be made betwixt the one and the other? They will be confirmed in this thought, if, pla- cing on one fide the few Manufcripts in which this Text is wanting with the innumerable multi- tude of thofe which have it, (fince they are forc'd to own that within thefe feven or eight hundred years 'tis generally found in the Manufcripts) they attend to the regard which was anciently paid to one and the other. If before the eighth Century there were fome Copies in which this pafisge of St. John was wanting, they mufl necefiarily have been but little known in publick 5 or if they were, they gave themfeive^ no more trouble about 'em, than we do now about the faults of a printed Book, and even of the Bible j all that is done in this refpcd is to avoid the fame faults in another Edition. And 'tis thus the Ancients were \vonttoa6t in ( ^3 ) in what concerns the paOage of Sr. John\ the fault or omifllon remain'd where ir was, and chey Cook care not to let it pafs into other Copies. They went farther, when, at the clofe of the eighth Century, they made by order o^ Char lei the Great that excellent revifc of the Copies of the New Tedament, of which fo much havS been laid. The learned men who were chofcn co make a judg- ment of the Copies and the faults to be corre6ted, either met with none of thcfe Manufcripts which wanted this palTage, (which would be a fign of their fcarcenefs,) or if they had fonxe of 'em be- fore their eyes, among the great number of others which were neceflliry to their ^t'[\gx\^ thev plac'd the omidion of this Text among the faults that were to be corrededj otherwife, one cannot conceive why they lliould have plac'd it themfelves in the Epiftle of St. John^ as has been proved. Unlefs they had diredly explained themfelves againft the omiffion of this Text, they could not better make it known to be a fault of the tranfcribers, than by following themfelves the quite oppofite Manu- fcripts, and inferting from them this forgotten Text. This was all that belonged to their delign, and the nature of their work 5 critical remarks up- on particular Texts, whether they were omitted in fome Copies, or were found faulty in fome of their cxpreflions, would have gone too far, and not have been necedary for the ufe of che faithful, which is what Charles the Great had folely propofed : a good revife, and an exa6t and faithful corredion ; that was all. They adted no otherwife in the CorreElorium of the Sorhonne^ in the tenth Century. Always the Manufcripts in which the Text of the three wic- nelTes in heaven was not, were rejeded, as dcfedive in this point i and the only ones in which it is found were followed in thefe Corre^oria. \i then ihey ( ^A ) they had no regard to the Copies, which liavc not this facred Text, upon the occasions of a regular corrc61:ion, what eileem do they deferve Cix or fe- ven hundred years after, unlefs an error is chang'd into truth by traft of time? Laflly , the conftant and univerfal ufe the Church has made of the Verfion and Copies in which this Text was read, without having ever gainfayM thofe, in which it was not found, is the moll certain approbation they can have of the for- mer, and an indifputable difowning of the latter. Let thefe Manufcripts make, as much as they will, one of the curiofities in Libraries j they may be valuable in other refpefts, but the efleem mull ne- ver be extended fo far as to their faults. The End of the Firjt Tart. Part Part the Second- In which, the pafTage of St. Johi ■ Ej idle. There are three in heaven^ 8cc. is prov'd to be genuine from the Greek Copies, and the ufe of the Greek Church. CHAP. I. That the two ancient Larin Verjions ^ the Irahck and the Vulgate of St. Jci om, are a f roof that the di/puted ^ajfage was in the Greek Copies. H E Italick Verfion being the moft anci- ent of all thofe of the Ntw Teftamcnt, it can have been made only from the Greek: 'tis a fad: of which no peifon has ever doubted, and which Mr. Simon Ipeaking of this Verfion in his Critical Hifloiy has own'd. Yen this is not to fay, that this Verfion, how ancient foever it may have been, had not its faults-, there is none exempt, and that is a good one which has the fewcft. But thefe faults, which moil: frequent- ly proceed either from a certam wcarincfs the mind contra6i:s in a long and difficult woik j or trom a want of a thorough acquanitancc with the lull meaning of certain words in the origuval language, and fometimes even with the words oi the lan- guage into which the tranflation is made, that are molt proper to the fubjcdj thclc hiults, 1 fuy, tho* they were in the Italkk Verfion, were not carried K fo ( ^o fo far as to cut off a Text which was in the Greeks nor to infert one which was not thei;e. This would have been a moft audacious crime, and which thofe pious tranllators, who in thofe firft ages made aVerlion defign'd for the inftru^tion of the Church, could not have been guilty of The Text of the 7^^ verfe o? the v^^ Chapter of the firft Epiftle of St. John was inferted in that Verfionj it was read there from the firft agts> TertuUian^ St. Cyprian^ Figilius^ St. Fulgent ius^ and the others who have quoted it from this Verfion, underll:ood the Greek 5 the laft cfpeciaily was skili'd in it, as we read in his Life, prefix'd before his Work« : what^oom is there left after all this to doubt whether this Text was in the Greek ? To doubt of ic with any fort of grounds, they muft be able to deny that this Verfion was made from the Greek y and who will deny it? or they muft be able to prove, that it was fo unfaithful as to have inferred for Texts of Scripture whole paflages, which never were there, and which no body had read there •, but how can they prove fo odious an imputation, and which none of the Chriftians and Dodors of the remote ages has ever charged upon a Verfion fo venerable? Or laftly, they muft be a- ble to advance that none of thofe who have taken the paftage of St. John from this Verfion was ca- pable of comparing it with the Greek^ or that if they were capable, they had neither the zeal, nor the care to do it : but for a man to afcribe fuch fentiments to 'em, would be to expofe himfelf to the derifion of all the world. Nothing then would remain but abfolutely to deny, that the Text we fpeak of was in the Italick Verfion > but can they deny this after the proofs I have given of it? The' there fhould be now extant in our days one or more ancient Manufcripts of that Verfion, and the paflkge Qi^i,John be read in 'em, could they fee it {67 ) it there better than thofe famous Authors did, who have copied it from thence? And would the report of the Learned among the moderns, who fliould declare this paffage to be in thofe ancient Copies, deferve more credit with us, than the tellimonics which have been by the 'Tertullians^ the Cyprians^ the Figilius'Sy the Ful^entius's^ and the three or four hundred African B'.ihops^ Since then none of thefe things I have mention'd can be denied, they ean't but own, that this firft proportion, which is infepiirably connedted with all the reft, namely, that the Text of St. John was in the Greek^ is by this very means put beyond all contradidion. I fay the fame thing with regard to St. 'Jerom\ Verfion, and the proof of it is more eafily to be given. We have no need to fuppofe that St. Je* rom was well-skill'd in the Greek Tongue, no per- fon ever difputed it ; no more have we need to fuppofe that in revifing the Italick Verfion of the New Teftamenr, he not only chofe the mod: cor- re6t and moil exa61: Manufcripts, but that he had alfo the the Greek Copies in his hand, in order to regulate his corredions by thofe Copies : He has himfelf declar'd that he foUow'd this method > Novum Tc ft amentum^ 3 fays he, Gr^ae fidei reddidi. " I have corre6l:ed the Verfion of the New Te- *^ (lament exadly after the Greek Copies." Tho' he had not faid ic, 'tis feen enough from the abun- dance of remarks he has made m his Commenta- ries. He had found in the Verfion, which he re- vifed in order to make it more correct, the paf- fage of the Epillle of St. John-y and if in compa- ring the Verfion of that Epillie with the Greek^ he had feen that it difFer'd from the Greek in what re- gards this Text, is it conceivable that he would have left it there, and that induflrious, as he was, 5 De Scriptor. Ecclefiail:. . K 1 to ( 6^ ) to make alterations in many places, which may feem flight, he would have lee pafs in his Verfion fo manifefl: a depravation of the original Text of that Epiftle ? The abfurdity is palpable > he faw then this pafTage in the Greek^ as he found it in the Latin. The error which oppofes it felftothe truth of this Text neceflarily yields to the force of this rca- ibn, unlefs it extricates it felf by the helpofano- the error, boldly and confidently aflcrted j and this is to deny that Si.Jerom has inferred this pafTage in his Verfion. But how can they maintain this after the teflimonies which I have brought to the contrary? The Romijh Cenfors fay in their Preface to Clement the Eigth's B'ble, as reported by ^ Mr. Simon^ that fince nine hundred years all the Au- thors who have flounfh'd in the Church, have on- ly made ufe of St. Jerom's Verlion j 'tis then from them, and the quotations of that Verfion which are found in their Books, that we may be inform- ed with mofl certainty of what was read in that Verlion > and the certainty which will arife with relation to any particular paflage, will be far greater, and beyond all doubt, if this pafTage is found quo- ted by feveral of thefe famous Doctors. We have here all this, as 1 have fhewn in the ninth Chap- ter of the firll Part j and thefe Authors are ex- prefTiy of the fame age the Romijh Cenfors fpeak of. Thefe Authors are fome of above eight hun- dred years, and others above nine hundred and near a thoufand. This fad being thus prov'd, and this lafl refuge taken away from thofe, who declaim againfl the genuinenefs of this pafTage, they will be forc'd to own that St. Jerom mult have found it in the Greek^ becaufe for upwards of nine hun- t» HiH. Criciq. qcs Verf. du N. Teftamcnt. ch. vii. p. 75. dred dred years the mod celebrated Writers have fhewn us, that they read it in St. Jerom's Bible. I had briefly touch'd upon this reafoning drawn from the ancient I.ati?i Verfions in my ^ firfl Dil- fertation, to Hiew that the Text of the witnefTes in heaven, which was always read in thefe Verfions, mufl: neceiliirily have been found in the Greek. The iliortnefs I us*d in my explication fhou'd not have hinder'd Mr. Emlyn from taking notice of it and anfwering it j but he has thought good not to meddle with it. As I have now been as large upon this proof, as it defervcs, its force will be better percciv'd > and I queftion whether any anfwer can be given to it, that will fatisfy a pcrfon, who feeks after truth and folidity. CHAP. II. Of the fir ft Greek Editions , in tsohich the Text of the three witneffes in heaven is read^ and of thofe in which this Text is not inferted, BEfore I come to fpeak of the Greek Manu- fcripts which fcrve to defend the truth of the paflage of St. John^ I think it will not be a- mifs to make fome obfervations upon the firft Greek Editions of the New Teftament with relati- on to this famous Text. The Latin Bibles were the firfl that were print- ed, about the middle of the if^'^ Century > the little ufe which was then made of the Grf^-^ Tongue in reading the holy Scripture, was without doubt ' Diflert. fur le 7. if, du ch. v. de la i Ep. dc S. Jean p. 94. the i (70) the caufe, why they made no hafl:e to print it in that language. It was not till the beginning of the 1 6^^^ Century, that Cardinal Ximenes having form'd the great and noble defign of printing a Bible in feveral languages, colleded with immenfe care and charge all the Manufcripts he could find for this purpoie, and committed the examination to feveral learned men, who were employed in that Edition. That of the New Teitament was finifli- ed, not as Mr. Simon has faid thro' millake in if if. biit in If 14. the lo^'^ day of January^ ^ as 'tis fet down in the very Edition, which was made at Com- plutum. The paHage of St. John is in this Greek Edition, which is the firft that was made, and which was made from Manufcripts > but it did not appear in the world 'till fome years after, by reafon of feve- ral accidents, which interven'd at that time, and are nothing to our fubjedl. During this delay of the publication of the Po- lygott Bible of Ximenes^ known by the name of the Complutenfian^ from Complutum the place where it was printed, Erafmus having got together four or five Greek Manufcripts of the New Teftament, put out an Edition at Baftl in if i(S. The paflage of St. John's Epiftle was not in this Editiom In the year if 18. the Greek New Teftament was printed at Venice \ in which alfo they have not put the pafTage of St. John 5 this is the Edition that goes under the name of Aldus. That o^ Erafmus in if 16. was reprinted in if 19. without any alteration \ at leail with refped to this paflage. He pubHfh'd a third in ifzz. in which this Text was reilored. Robert Stephens having gather'd together from ^ F. le Long. Bibl. Sacr. Tom. i. pag. 13. the (71 ) the Library of King Francis the Firft, and divers other places, feveral Greek Manufcripcs, put out in If 4(5. a very fine Edition of the New Teftamenc v/ith the palTage of St. John's Epiftlc, fuch as we have it in the common Editions 3 he put out a fe- cond in 15*49. from this firft. By this exa6t account of the firft Greek Editions of the New Teftament, we fee thofe which were made from Manufcripts which had the Text of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft in the Epiftle of St. John j and thofe where it was want- ing. As both had been taken from Manufcripts all thofe which have fince been fent abroad, were co- pied from thefe firft Editions. I know but three which have folio w'd that of jlldiis^ and the two firft of Erafmus in what re- gards the omiflion of this paftage in difpute> that of Haguenan m i^-zi. that of Strasburg in if 14. and that of Simon Colinaus at Paris in if 34. all the reft of the fame age, and fince that time have regularly followed the former, which read the paf- fage of St. John : there's not a tranilation even to the German Verfion of the New Teftament made by the Socinians^ and printed at Racovia in 1630. which has not preferv'd this paiTiige. The fmall vogue which the Edition of Aldus^ and that of Erajmus in if 16. had in this refped, is an evident mark of the difapprobation of the Chriftian World. They look'd upon 'cm as ^ Edi- tions defedive in this point, which did not deferve to have any regard paid to 'em, nor that any ad- vantage ihould be drawn thence againft the other Editions, in which the Text of the witneftes in heaven were found. Yet thofe who believe the Text fuppofititious pretend this to be of force a- Synopf. Burmanni lib. i. 33. gainft (7^ ) gainft its being authentick ^ but its not difficult to fhew 'em that they arc under a miftake. Mr. Simon himfelf, that Mr. Simon who has rais'd the ilandaid fo high againft this facred Text, ihall fpeak for me, and fupply me with the arguments I fhall ufe. Let us hear him explain himlclf upon the fubjecl: of thefe Editions. I don't believe^ ^ lays he, that either that of Strasbourg in i f 24. or that of Simon Cohna^us at Paris in if 54. 'were taken from Manufcripts, Wolfius, njoho fuhliflj'd that of Straf- bourg, fays nothing of it in his Preface ^ he there witnejjes^ on the contrary^ that he only reprinted in new cbiraSlers and in a new form what had already been printed. Simon CoHnxus has put no Preface he fore his Greek Edition^ which makes me believe that he adjufled it according to his own fenfe from the foregoing Editions. All the pretended authority of thele Editions cannot be more expreflly made void, and the proof which men, either of little under- ilanding, or great prejudice, would draw thence againd the Text of the holy Apoftlc. Mr. Simon fends us back to the ManufcriptSj they alone hold the place of the Original in the Editions 5 and thofe which want this fupport are but Copies, of nO authority in themfelvcs. Thus he brings us back, as at one ftep, to the firll Editions, which were copied by Wolfius^ and Simon Coiimeus > let lis then go back with him fo far as to them. Being thus come to the firil Edition of Erafmus in If 1(5. and that o^ Aldus in if 18. our buiinefs will be to fee from what Manufcripts they were both made, h^ to that of Aldus^ we know no- thing \M all about it > and tho' I do not doubt but that he hr.d fome Mai.ufcfipts from which he print- ed the Epiltle of St. John without the Text of the witnelfes in heaven, nevertheleis as we do not "^ Hift. du Tcxte du N. Tcfiam. ch. xviii. know (73 ) know whether he had feveral fuch, and whether what he had was of any efteem or no, his Edition can be of no great weight in what concerns the omillion of this Text. The cafe is not the fame with the Edition of Erafmns > he informs us that he had four or five Manufcripts, but whether they were very ancient or no, is not known j there's but one, which he fays a friend of his fent him an extrad of from Rome^ that is known to be ancient. Let us now compare thefe Manufcripts in which the paflage of St. John is found to be wanting, with the other from which the Editions, of Complu- tum^ that of Erafmus in i^iz. and that o^ Robert Stephens in if46. which have all this Verfe, were made. I here touch upon what regards thefe Ma- nufcripts only by the by, and fo far as the way of comparifon requires > 1 fhall have occafion prcfent- ly to fpeak of 'em more at large. We know that Cardinal Ximenes had abundance of Manufcripts, and the bed that he could find 5 and that thefe Manufcripts were put into the hands of able men, who examin'd 'em with care: Nothing like this can be faid in favour of the Edition oi Jldui 5 and as to that of Erafmus^ there were but few, and ic cannot enter into competition with the three Edi- tions of Complutum , of Erafmus himfelf in i fiz, and R, Stephen's in if 46. either with regard to the number of Manufcripts taken all together, fince they all agree in having this Textj or with regard to their antiquity, of which Stephens fays, fpeak- ing of thofe from which he made his Edition, that they were of the molt venerable antiquity 3 codices tia5lus aliquot ipfe vetu/iatis fpecie pene adorandos. Here again let us hear Mr. Simon j " JVe muft judge of the readings of the Manufcripts according to ■ Hift. du Texte Grec du N. Tettam. ch. xxix. p. 351, L the ( 74 ) the rules of Criticif?n^ and fee ^ with Hilary the Dea- con^ which of thefe Copies are fupporied by reafon^ hi ft or y^ and authority : the Greek where thefe three things fljall meet^ will he the moft ancient and the moji correct •, whether it be found in old ManufcriptSy or in printed Books, The Editions of Complutum , of Erafmus^ and Stephens have vifibly thefe three advantages above thofe of If i6 and if i8. which have not the Text of St. John •, the reafon taken from the end and de- fign of the Epiftle, as well as the connexion of this verfe with the following, favours the Text of the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofl: in one only divine^eflence. The hi (lory of the quotations of this paflage is entirely for its being genuine > and the authority of the Authors v^ho have quoted it is equally veneriible for their antiquity, and their great name in the Church. Can any thing like this be produced in favour of the Editions , in which this palTage is omitted ? Let thofe Editions then pafs for nothing fo far as concerns the omillion of this Text. The fame arguments will alfo ferve for the Sy- jiac Verfion, which they fay is the only one of the Oriental Verfions, that was taken from the Greek : if it is true, as they pretend, that it was made from the Greek^ and that the Manufcripts from which it was made had not this Text, it was a defed and an omifiion, fince it appears from the proofs drawn from ecclefiaftical Authors, more ancient than the Syriac Verfion, that it was in the Italick^ and with it fell under the eyes of the whole Church : and if it was not wanting in the Manufcripts, 'tis an omifiion which mufl be laid to the account of the Syriac Verficn. I fhould even believe this lafl rather than the former. In {hort, if the want of tfiis verfe in that Verfion was a ne- ceflkry confequence that it was not in the Greek^ the ( 75 ) the fame confequence muft have place in all the o- ther pafTagcs, which are wanting to this Vcriionj now as the number of thefe paffages is not fmall, it would follow that they were not in the Greek Copies, when that Verfion was made, which yet is very falfe. Mr. Simon tells us, that the other Oriental Verfions, the Arabkk^ the Coptick^ the Perfian^ were made from the Syriac : now as there is not one of thefe Verlions which does not want fome pafiage, it would follow that the fame de- fe6ts would be in the Syriac, but the contrary is clearly feen by comparing thefe Veriions v/:th that, which ferv'd 'em in fome fort for an original. 'Tis not then a good reafon to fay that the I'ext of the 7^'^ WQy[c was not in the Greek Mauufcripts, becaufe \ it is not in the Syriac Verfion. CHAP. III. The paffage of St. ]o\\v\ provd to be genuine from the Greek Manujcr'ipts with fome particular confiderations upou the Mann- fcripts of Laurentius Valla, upon that of Complurum, and that of England or the Codex Britannicus. IT would be very furprizing that two of the three parts of the Chriflian World, namely, Europe ^nd Africk^ fhould have conftantly had m' St. John's EpiiUe the Text which fpeaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, and that the Italick Ver- fion made in the fecond Century from the Greek Copies, and the Verfion of Si. Jerom^ exa6lly com- par'd with the mofl faithful Manufcripis as Mr. Si- mon ov/ns'y it would be, I fay, very furprizing, that all thefe forts of Copies fhould have entirely va- L i niih'd (76J nifh'd in thefe latter ages, fo that there fliould not be found one from which to make a Greek Edition of the New Teftament in favour of a Text fo re- comrnendedj yet this its adverfaries pretend. Hear them, and one would believe there never were fuch Copies, and under pretext that the Libraries in England^ France^ Germany^ and Italy^ have fome in which this pafTage is not read, they boldly and po- fitively conclude, that the Text is not, nor was, in any Greek Copy. Thefe fort of conclufions drawn from a particular to an univerfal are condemned by all Philofophers as falfe and illufory: one or two inftances to the contrary are enough to deftroy 'em. lii the prefent cafe two Manufcripts which had this pafiage would hinder that univerfal con- clufion, that all the Greek Manufcripts have omit- ted it, that it is in none. At moll, they could on- ly oppofe the great number of chofe, where it is not, to the fmall number of thofe where it would bcj but even this decides nothing: Mr. Simon fhall here again fpeak for me : JVe mufl prefer^ ° fays he, the fewer number of Greek Copies to the greater^ when thefe few Copies are conformable with the mofl ancient Latin Fathers, He makes this reafoning upon the claufe of the Lord's Prayer, For thine is the kingdom^ 2ic. but he did not dream that one might make ufe of it againft himfelf in favour of the paflage of St. John-y truth made him fpeak it, and we reap the profit. We have withal this ad- vantage of him in this reafoning, that he has form- ed it in oppofition to almoft all the Greek Copies of the Lord's Prayer, which except one or two have all thefe laft words. For thine is thekingdom^^c, and which even by his own confellion are found quo- ted in fome ancient Fathers of the Greek Church : whereas there is no Father, either Greek or Latin^ o Hift. Crit. du Texte Grec. chap, xxxii.^ whom (77) whom they can alledge againft the paflage of St. John: fo far from this, that we have feveral Greeks who have quoted it, and the Latins have conilantly made ufe of it. Befides this, there is a great difference betwixt the Manufcriprs in which an intire palTage is found, and thofe where it is not found at all ; the former are a pofitive proof*, the latter form only a diffi- culty, a conje6ture: but a pofitive and exprefs proof is by no law in the world dcftroy'd by a conje£turc, or a fimple difficulty. If this was once not received in the World, it would oft happen that fads the bed averr'd by pofitive and exprefs proofs would be overturned by the difficulties and conjedurcs which would be found to urge againfl: them. To come then to the Greek Manufcripts which authorize the Text we are upon to be genuine. I have quoted thofe which the learned Critick Lau- rentius Valla had carefully colleded in order to correft divers faults which he found in the vulgar Verfion of the New Teftament. I had faid they were feven^ Mr. Emlyn has faid only three. This was one of his leaft miftakes in thefe matters j I thought he would have recolleded himfelf when I had produc'd the exprefs declaration of Valla^ who in a Note upon St. John fpeaks of feven Manu- fcripts, and who had never faid that he had but three > but fince Mr. Emlyn does not fubmit to thefe teftimonies, under the fhadow of giving a different fenfe to 'em, I will add one word farther upon the fubjedj the matter is of no great confe- quence, but we mud however pay this honour to truth 5 my own will be found in it. Erafmus is the perfon, to whom the Publick is indebted for the impreffion of Laurent ius Falla's Works, the Manufcript of which was forgot in a place where the moifture and worms would have infallibly (78 ) infallibly confum'd it. Having drawn it out thence^ and read it with all the attention and regard fuch a Work deferves, he fays that Falla had feven very valuable Manufcripts from which to make his an- notations j as he himfelf, fays he, has declared, P Laurentius Falla feptem hon^ fidei codices fe [ecu- turn fuije teftatur. For this once perhaps MwEm- lyn will own that 1 had reafon, and that he had none to fay, this can only prove the number of Ma- nufcripts he had upon the Gofpcl^ and not upon the E- pftle of St. John. I cannot comprehend how he could Ibrm to himfelf fuch an illudon, fince at this rate one might as well fay, that he had not even three, tho' Mr. £,^(y/^ had adopted that fmall num- ber: but this is to amufe our felves about trifles. The Main of the affair is that Falla had Greek Manufcripts o^ Si. John's Eoiflle 5 that he has found fault with the Latin Veriion for not having fol- lowed the Greek in feveral paOages of that Epiille^ that he has withal made an obfervation againil a particular word added in that Verfioi^, and which was not in the Greek -^ 'cis the word Simus of the jfc ^_ of the iii"^ Chapter, Behold^ what manner of love the Father has bejiowed upon us^ that we jhould he called and be the children of God \ for 'tis thiis in the Fulgate. But {-^ys' Laurentius Falla upon this, the word he is not in the Greek: the addition of this word was of no confequence, yti Falla would not let it pafs: how then could fo fevere a Cenfor have let go this whole vcrfe of the v^^ Chapter, There are three^ that bear record in heaven^ &c, which was in the Fulgate^ without making a re- mark, that it was not in the Greek^ if in reality he did not find it there ? Falla was very attentive to the additions, he met with in the Latin Ver- iion, to corre61: 'em by the Greek -^ 1 could fill ? Erafmi Apol, Edit. iN. Teft, 1521. more (79) more than two pages with this fort of obfervati- ons, or correflions, which he has made upon the Gofpels, the Acls, and the Epi files, if it was ne- cefiary to copy 'cm here. Jn this he only follow- ed the plan he had form'd for that Work 3 this plan did not lead him to fetdown the places where the L^tin was found to agree with the Greek : faying nothing then of the Text of the witnefTes in heaven, 'tis as much as if he had faid, that the Greek and the Latin agreed. This reafoning which I have urg'd in the Examination of Mr. Emiyns Anfwer to my DifTertation, has been but flightly glanc'd at in his Reply : he has not touch'd upon the main mattery its force always fubfifts: it is e- vident 5 there I fix. A few years after the death of Laur-entius Valla the famous Edition of Cardinal Ximenes was made at Complutum in Spain^ of which 1 have already fpoke. As we have not a particular account of the Manufcripts which were us'd on this occafion, and yet lefs of thofe which ferv'd for the edition of the Canonical Epiftles, we cannot know exadl- ly whether that from which the Text in queftion was taken was the only one in which it was found, or whether they preferr'd it to the reltj it is with- al of very little importance to know it. What is certain, is firfl:, that this paflage was printed at a time when no one had yet undercook to difpute its being genuine j for it was not 'till fome years af- ter, and upon the occafion of Erafmus's not infert- ing it in his Editions of if 16, and if ip, that they began to fufpe6l thefe words might have crept into that place of St. John's Epiftle in favour of the do6lrme of the Trinity. So that they cannot fay, 'twas prejudice of party, which prevail'd upon Cardinal Ximenes^ or the other learned men who were employ'd in that Edition, to forge this Text, in order to oppofe it to the Editions of AUhts^ and Erafmus, (8o) Erafmus. Mr. SImo?t has imagin'd, that Ximenes^ and thefe Editors, feeing this facred Text in the Latin Bible, and not finding it in any Greek Copy, that they might not leave this place of the Epiitlc empty, and to make the Greek anfwer to the La- tin^ forg'd amongft themfelves this new Text. I queftion whether Mr. Simon^ who has been fo dextrous in inventing fuch turns of cunning would have been capable of making ufe of 'em himfelf, had he been in the place of Ximenes and the Edi- tors: Charity forbins me to pafs fuch a judgment upon him J efpecially fince being no longer m the World he cannot anfwer for himfelf. But the fame charity which I am willing we fhould have for him, ought to have hinder'd him from forming fo injurious an accufation of an enterprize he had no proof of, and againft perfons famous both for their dignity and their learning, and whofe probity was never brought under any fufpicion. Thus we fee that Erafmus^ who, as I have elfewhere obferv'd, does not appear to have been prejudic'd in favour of the genuinenefs of the paflage of St. John^ has iliewn a great refpe61: to the Complutenfian Bible with relation to the fame Text j and Robert Ste- phens fo much valued it, that he gave it the firft place amongd all the Manufcripts which he ufed m his Editions of the New Teflament. So black an imputation as that of Mr. Simon would deferve no other treatment than to be fent back to its Author. But becaufe thofe, who main- tain this pafTage is not found in any Greek Manu- fcripts, are concern'd to let this accufation be cur- rent, in order to deflroy the Manufcript of Xime- nes^ I would demand of them whether if they had a mind to form a Greek paflage, that fhould an- fwer to the Latin^ they would have plac'd in that, flj T^eTf «f IB gy «Viv, to anfwer to the Latin^ hi tres mum funt ? The difference of the fenfe of the Greek ( 8i ) Greek and Latin is very evident, and it was fo eafy to put in the Greek^ Im ol t^«? 'iv «V/, which is ex- preffly what the Latin imports, that 'tis inconcei- vable how men of parts, and who were very well acquainted with both languages, would have made fo grofs a miilake, and fo foreign to their purpofc. Since Mr. Emlyn took in hand to anfwer my Dif- fertation, in which I had defended the Complnten- ftan Manufcript againfl Mr. Simon^ he ought to fig- nalize his zeal for this head of the party, and the interell which he himfelf takes in his caufe. But bccaufe it may be that I did not fufficiently ap- ply my felf to {hew the full abfurdity of this grofs imputation, I think that as I defign to put an end to all thefe matters in this Difcourfe, I ought to pafs by nothing that 1 think worthy my obferva- tion. In this view I fhall again make this obfervation upon the Editors of the Complutenfian Bible: as they faw that thefe words of their Manufcript, 0/ T^«f «V 1^' 2v «(r<, which regularly fpeaking are not the fame thing with thofc, ^73; U T^c7f sv «V<, m fome meafure corrcfted the notion which Sc. Thomas had form'd, tho* without reafon, that thefe words of the Latin Verfion, hi tres unum funt^ had been added by the Arians at the end of the 7^^ f. they plac'd in the margin of their Edition the very words of St. Thomas^ fo fincere were they in the matter. For what occafion was there for this long remark, and the quotation of the pafTage from St. Thomas^ if the form of thefe words in their Ma- nufcript had not been different from the tres unun% funt^ which the Abbat Joachim had abus'd, and upon account of which St. Thomas had made the obfervation juft mention'd .^ I admire divine Providence upon this occafion % the firil Greek Manufcript exposed to the World by printing, prefcnts us this marvellous Text with M thefg (82) fehefe laft words ol rr^«f eig mv iv «V/, which are taken from the 8^^ f. and which in that Edition are wanting at the clofe of that Verfe 5 fix years after the fame Verfe of the witnefles in heaven appeared again in an Edition ot Erafmus^ who finds it in a Manufcript different from that of Complutum^ and in this Edition the laft words of the 7'^ f» are thofe which are pecuhar to it, Sto; qI t^eig tv «V/, and the 8^^ f. keeps thofe which belong to it, and which the Manufcripts of Erafmus and jlldus had kept, ol r^eig eig tv tv eiciv. Laftly comc the Manu- fcripts of Robert Stephens^ which have the Text of the three witnefTes in heaven , with fome flight differences in the Greek articles, but which are no- thing to the thing it felf. Thefe fmall variations in the Manufcripts of the Greek Editions feem to have been fo order'd by Providence, to prevent the thought that fome had been copied from the reft, and that one fole Manufcript had been the founda- tion of all the three, or even that it had been a forg'd Manufcript. That of Erafmus was the fecond from whence the paffage of St. John's Epiftle came into the hands of the publick, with a Latin Verfion. Erafmus had recovered it from England^ and it was for this reafon that he gave it the name of Codex Britan- mcus. This Manufcript has met with no better treatment than that of Complutum from Mr. Simon and Mr. Emlyn : both have treated it as forg'd and imaginary. It was a Manufcript fays Mr. Emlyuy Which no body has ever feen, nor any other ever fpoke of but Erafmus^ either before him, or after him, except from what he fays of it himfelf. Mr. Simon has not abfolutely denied the reality of this Manufcript, nor has he imputed the forgery of it to Erafmus 'y he does not deny alfo but that the* Text of Sr. John's Epiftle was there fuch as Eraf- mus gives it, Well! and have we not then at leaft one (83) one Greek Manufcripc of the pafTage in quedion? It feems fo, but Mr. Simon knew foon how to take it from US; this, fays he, was no other than a Copy from the Greek of the Council of Lateran^ and the Greek of this Council, held in liij-.was made from the Latin ^ and thus by a little artifice we are brought back from the Greek to the Latin^ and con- fequently there's no Greek Copy for this Text. ^ I have fapp'd the foundation of all thefe Fi6tions, which only have their fource from an incorrigible ob- ftinacy in rejefting this padlige, and an unlimited afTurance to deny the mod certain fads and moft undeniably prov*d : my confutation has ftood with- out a reply. Mr. Emlyn would have touch'd upon it in his firfl piece, and have caft fome blemifh on it, but the examination I have made has taken from him the defire of returning to it again in his laft, which he calls a Reply. The Editors^ ^ fays he, of the Complutenfian Bible had no Manufcript for this T'ext y Erafmus inferted it in his Edition a- gainft his own opinion^ for fear of calumny. This is caird deciding'^ and deciding clearly; but to de- cide is, is not to anfwer : reafons are demanded, and Mr. Emlyn gives none. I do not know what he means when he fays that Erafmus inferted the paflage o[ Sz. John in his edition of lyii. againft his own opinion. If he means the opinion of Eraf- mus concerning the genuinenefs of the palllige in felf, it is not abfolutely true j Erafmus never decla- red againll its being authentick : nothing like it will be found either in his Commentary, or in his anfwers to Stunica and Ley > all that is fecn there is only a kind of perplexity into which the want of this paflage in the Manufcripts from which he had made his two firfl Editions had thrown him j and q Difert. on this paJfa^Cy chap. xi. * Re^l, ch. ii. pag. 34. Mi the . ( 84 ) the fame defefi: in a certain old Latin Manufcript which he highly valued, to which he join'd what he had obferv'd concerning S. Cyril principally, that he had not quoted this palTage upon occafions, where it would have been very much to his pur- pofe. All this held his mind for fome time in doubt betv^ixt thefe and the contrary reafons he had for believing the Text genuine. Thus when Ley and Stunica had wrote againfl; him upon his leaving it out of his two Greek Editions, he gives no other anfwcr, but that he folio w'd his Manufcripts clofe- ly, and that if they would ihew him one which had the paflage, he would Itreight put out ano- ther Edition, in which it fliould be inferted. Up- on this he meets with a Manufcript in England where he finds this paflage, and without hefitation or offering the leall violence to himfelf, he gives it a place m his Edition. By this means he fatisfies his confcience, and filences his calumniators, who fpread abroad againft him fcandalous reports, as if he had meant to favour Arianifm by fupprcfling fo plain a Text. Mr. Emlyn Ihould have better ob- ferv'd the frank and open condu6t of Erafmus in this whole affair, and have thus (hewn fomewhat more regard to the judgment he had pafs'd himfelf upon the Codex Britannicus. He had fpoke of it as of an imaginary Manufcript, forg'd and fuppo- fititious i now how can this be reconcil'd with what he has juft faid, that Erafmus had produc'd it againil his own opinion, for fear of calumny ? But what calumny? That he did not infert in a new Edition a paffage which he found in a Manufcript that no body befides himfelf had ever feen ? Cer- tainly Mr. Emlyn did not think of the matter. The Manufcript which Erafmus fpoke of really exifted, and the Text of St» John was in this Manufcript 5 to attempt to form doubts in fo clear a cafe is to feek for darknefs in broad day. CHAR ( 85 ) CHAP. IV. 0/ Robert Stephens'j* Manufcrlpts, WE have feen in the foregoing Chapter the ex- treme perplexity in which Mr. Simon and Mr. Emlyn are found with reference to the Manufcripts of CompJutum and Erafmus 5 they could not ex- tricate chemfelves but by denying that the paflage of St. 'John was in any of thefe Manufcripts. The difficulty is confiderably augmented by the Manu- fcripts of Robert Stephens : but here again 'tis the fame refuge; they have no other; they muft deny that the Text of St. John was in thefe Manu- fcripts: but yet Robert Stephens faw it there, and took it thence to place it in his Editions. The Editions fpeak the paflage to be there! What have they to fay to all this ? They muft rack their brains, and amafs a heap of trifles, which ferve to no other purpofe than to perplex the matter; I fhall difpatch 'em in this Treatife, and keep clofc to what is caird the trunk of the tree, and leave Mr. Emlyn to catch at the branches. To this end, I fhall fay but two words upon the number of Manufcript Copies in general, which Robert Stephens had. They pretend that he had but fifteen of this kind, and he fays in his Prefice that he had fix teen. / compared ^ fays he, ver^ exatily my Edition of the New Tejiament with fixtcen ^very old written Copies : the Complutenfian Copy which he fpeaks of afterward was a prmted Book, which confequently cannot be comprehended in the number of fixteen, which Stephens does not call by the general name of Manufcripts^ but by the particular name of written Copies 3 cum vetujiiffmis fedecim SCKIPT/S. Beza (U) Beza had in his hands the Manufcripts of his great friend Robert Stephens^ when he went upon the Verfion and Notes of the New Teftament, and he fays in the Preface to his Editions of if 82. and If 89. that he had feventeen Copies oi Robert Stephens 'y becaufe he reckoned in this number the Complutenftan Copy which Stephens had made ufe of. In the year ifpS. he put out his lad Edition of the fame Book, and fetting down as in the fore- going, the Copies he had in hand, he puts down nineteen, namely, feventeen of Stephens's^ and two others : one was the old Manufcript he had from Lyons^ which contain'd the Gofpels and the A6ls, which he prefented to the Univerfity o^ Cambridge^ where it now is j and the other, which contain'd the Epiftles of St. Paul^ was that which he calFd the Copy of Clermont^ which is at prefent in the French King's Library, Mr. Emlyn has gone'fo far as to deny that Beza faw and read thefe Manufcripts, and by a turn of imagination altogether new, has faid that what Beza has fo oft fet down in his Annotations, fpeak- sng of Robert Stephens's Manufcripts, 'vidimus^ le- gimus^ in Roberti nojiri Codicibus invenimus^ (Jc, meant no more, than that he had feen in Robert Stephens Edition in iffo, the Gr^^^ numeral Let» ters, by which that learned Man had exprefs'd each of his Manufcripts in the margin of that Edition. He has perceiv'd by my anfwer that he had made his Readers fmile, who could not avoid being mer- ry upon the occafionj he has not return'd to it again, and has handfomly given up that ingenious thought. Beza however has not been abfolutely difcharg'd for this. Mr. Emlyn no longer difputes his having had thefe Manufcripts in his hands, fince Beza fays it, and Robert Stephens has faid it alfo in the Adver- 8 tifemenc (87) tifcment put at the en.d of Beza's Edition of the New Teftament in iff 6. But he accufes him of not having clearly enough exprcfs'd himfelf in what he has laid of thefe Manufcripts upon the Text of the witnefles in heaven; as if he had there intend- ed artifice, and had left with defign fome obfcuri- ty in the Notes, which particularly rcquir'd, by rea- fon of the nicety and importance of the fubjc6t, that he fhould not leave there the leail fhadow of obfcurity. 'Tis with this Mr. Emiyn there finds fault, and by this he thinks to take from us the teftimony of this venerable divine and learned Cri- tick, as if Beza had not a6i:ually found this excel- lent pafi^ige of St. John's Epiille in Stephens's Ma- nufcripts. To know whether this reproach is well ground- ed, we need but copy here the two annotations which Beza has made upon this Text: This paf- fage^ fays he, There are three in heaven, ^c. clear* ly explains what the Apoftle had [aid of fix witneffes^ three in hea'ven^ and three in earth -y yet neither the Syriac T'ranjlator^ nor the old Latin, nor Gregory Nazianzen, nor Athanafius, nor Didymus, nor Chry- foftom, «6^r Hilary, nor Auguftin, nor Bcderead it^ i, e. they have not quoted itj but *$*/. Jerom read it^ and Erafmus found it in a Manufcript of Eng- land, 'tis alfo in the Complutenfian Edition^ and in fome ancient Manufcripts of Robert Stephens. What IS there wanting to this? Why, what is wanting, fays Mr. Emlyn^ is that Beza fhould have exprefs'd the Manufcripts of Stephens^ in which he fays this palTagc was, and not fay in general and confufedly 'tis in fome Manufcripts of Stephens, 'Tis then the word fome which feems to him to contain an obfcurity and not to be plac'd there without de- fign. Could I expe£b pardon from a difcreet and underftanding Reader, if he faw me running after fo pitiful a trifle, and amufing my feif with col- led ing (88 ) lefting from this very work of Beza abundance of inftances of this very fort of annotations, in plerif- que^ or in nonnullis exemplaribus^ 13 c ? I endeavour to make a more prudent ufe of my Readers time and attention. Well, fay they, but he has obferv'd in the fol- lowing annotation, upon thefe words of the fame verfe, h rw s/^vw in heaven^ in how many Copies they were wanting-, and why has he not done the ilime in the preceding Note? Why? Becaufe it was of no great importance to tell us how many Manufcripfs among StephensW\d.6. this Text. 1 wifh for Mr. Emlyn\ fake he had done it j but will any one venture to affirm after all this, that a Critick fo hard to be fatisfy'd as he, would not yet find fomething to fay? We mull: not, fays St. Athana" fius^ expect from an Author that he fhould exprefs himfelf as we would, or as we think we fhould i "^ixs enough that v/hat he fays may be eafily under- llood. This rule flows from good fenfej and there's no Author, either ancient or modern, but what Hands in need of the fame juilice. Let us continue to mai^e the extra6t of Beza's Notes > commg to thefe words of the Text ov tw jfjo^vw in heaven^ he fays, thefe words are wanting in feven ancient Manufcripts : and thefe feven are thoie which Robert Stephens had mark'd in the margin by their numeral Letters. I had faid, that this di-* llindion of feven Manufcripts which wanted thefe words from thofe which Beza^ faying of this verfe that it was in fome, had juft mention'd, is an evi- dent proof, firil, that Stephens had more than fe- ven Manufcripts of St. John's Epiftle j and fecond- ly, that he muft neceflanly have had feveral, two only, if they will, in which the verfe was entire j lince Stephens and Beza reilrain'd thofe, in which the words of tw ^^m were wanting, to feven. A reafoning fo clear and natural ought not to be fub- jeefc ( h) je& to difpute ; yet Mr. Emlyn has not fail'd to call it in qucllion. He denies the Manufcriprs Beza fpeaks of in thcie two annotations to be different •, and the reafon he gives is drawn from the mod refin'd criticifm. If thcfe fevcn Manu- fcripts, fays he, were not the fame with thofe of which Beza^ (fpealcing of the verfe, that it was read in St. Jerom^ in Erajmus^ and in the Complu' tenfian) (aid that it was alfo read in nonnuUis Ste^ phant^ " in fome o^ Stephens's -, " he fhould have faid in the following Note, deeft in feptem aliis ve~ iuflis Codicibus^ 'tis wanting in [even OTHERS 5 not having then faid [even others^ but only feven^ this, fays he, docs not diftinguifli thefe Manufcripts from the reft, but leaves room to judge that they are the fame. What pity 'tis^ I will not fay to anfwer thefe things, the meancft Grammarian will do it for me, but that I cannot avoid tranfcribing 'cm from Mr. Emlyn's writings into mine! Robert Stephens^ as I have elfe where obferv'dj had already made two Greek Editions of the New Teflament before that of iffo. upon "which Bezci made his annotations. This laft was in every re- fpe(5t like the two former, and differ'd from them only in the largenefs of the chara6lers, and the form of the volume; this being in folio ^ with large mar- gins, and the two former in 16% and conlequent- ly with very fmall margins. The Manufcripts of the lail of thefe three Editions were the fame as of the firfl and fecond j Stephens fays it in exprefs terms, aim iifdem contulimus^ i3c. Now the verie of the wirnefTes in heaven was inferred entire in the two former. This learned man aded in this ac- cording to what prudence and the rules of {lri6t Criticilm requn'd, and what all prudent and able Editors have done in like cafes j which is to have regarded the two words which were wanting in feven Manufcripts as a mere omiffion, becaufe he N found ( po ) found 'em in the reft, in xhc Compkienjlan^ in E-^ rafmus^ and in the Latin Verfionsj and becaufe alfo the nature of the oppofition which is fcen in the words of the following verfe, cv tj? y^^ in earthy with thefe foregoing, Iv tw «^vw, in heaven^ evi- dently enough fhew that the words in heaven muit be join'd with the witnefTes which are nam'd in the 7^^^ verfe. If Stephens had only kept to thefe two Editions, and had not with the exadnefs of an ho- nell man and a learned Critick put out this third, in which, as I may fay, he gives an exa6fc account of the Manufcripts from which he had made his two former y what would they havefaid, who upon occafion of this great exa6lnefs in fetting down in the margin the various readings he had found a- mong ail his Manufcripts pretend that this Text was not in any? If the cafe be fo, we cannot avoid looking upon Stephens as an egregious Impoftor for having given us as a Text of the Apoltle St. John^ an entire verfe forg'd by himfelf, or others like him : Mr. Emlyn finds that I am too fevere in drawing confequences which refleft upon the ho- nour of Stephens in making him pafs for a profli- gate forger of fuppofititious pafTages 5 but would one imagine whence this indulgence fliould proceed F « he fanfy'd that I fpoke of a pretended negli- gence of this learned Printer in correcting an error of the prefs, with regard to the obelus which ends sit the word i?V^*?> whereas, fays he, it ftiould not liave ended till the middle of the 8'^ verfe, and af- ter the words, Iv t^j yvj^ in earth. What a plea- fant notion was this? ^ Either Robert Stephens^ faid I, had the Manufcripts in which the Text of St. John was founds which he infer ted into four Editi^ ens^ one after another^ or he had not : If he had^ alVs over^ and our caufe is gain'd : If he had noty f ?-^ih p»S»i2'9. J E^am. pag, 148, J49. Stephens (91 ) Stephens was an impojlor^ an infamous feUoii\ ivho deferv^d the utmofl contempt : Mr. Emlyn will place better at another time his foft fpeeches, and his re- gard for the memory of Stephens. I had fpoke in advantagious terms of the fince- rity and exa6tnefs of this learned man, in giving nothing a place in his Edition of the facred Scrip- ture, which was not in the Manufcripts : and I had confirm'd this by the teftimony of Eeza^ and Hentenius^ Profeflbr in Divinity at Louvain^ but for my part^ " fays Mr. Emlyn^ 1 do not rely fo much as Mr, Martin, upon the integrity and exaUnefs of Ste- phens. And why not? Becaufe, fays he, Dr. Mill has obferv'd, that Stephens had omitted above fe- ven hundred various readings betwixt his Editioii and that of Complutum. Is it then to want either integrity or exa(3:nefs not to fill an Edition v/ith all the various readings that are found in the Ma- nufcripts? Truly, Stephens would have made a fine work of it, if he had fiU'd his margin with a thoufand variations of no fignificancy: he chofe, like a skilful man as he was, thole which appear'd to him the moll confiderable. ThcTe fort of Criticifms concerning the nature of the variations which are met with in the anci- ent Manufcripts, have nothing common with the addition of a Text which was not in any j for the quertion here is only concerning that. I come back then to this, i\i2X\i Stephens did , not find in his ancient Manufcripts the pafiage which fpeaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl, he was guilty of forgery, for having infeited it in his Editions, compar'd^ as he fays, with his Manufcripts. France^ which alluredly did not love him, tho' they could not but erteem him, received his firft Editions, made at Paris^ with the applaufes they N % defcrv'd ( 9^ ) t^eferv'd : and it was nor, 'till (ince a party has beer^ i^orm'd as by concert againil: the genuinenefs of the palTage ofSc. John^ that an attempt has been made to fapp the foundation of thefe Editions, by at- tacking the Manufcripts from which they werq made. Let us now pafs co the ohelus which in the third Edition was fet before the words b) tw ji'^vf^ and which has given occafion to a malicious Criti» cifm again ft this pafTage. V*v^ viv^ 91"?. viv 5v4\^ wv :\'i V wv v'«v 9«^'' ^/r I viv. vKc CHAP. V. Of the obelus flac'd in the middle of the f^^ Verfe^ There are three in heaven, ^c. of the Manufcripts mentioned by the 'Divines £?/Louvain, and of that which F. Amelocte fzys he faw at Rome. WE have feen that among the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens there were found fevcn, \n which the paOage of St. John was not entire, for they wanted thefe words iv tm ii^vco^ i. e. in hea^ 'ven: but as notwithftanding this he did infert 'eni in his Edition, for the reafons I have given, he mark'd them with two fmall points, which he fee at the upper end of the line, one before the word Of, and the other after s^'e^vw, which thus form'4 a kind of parenthefis nam'd sin obelus j as if one ihould, fay fomewhat powted^ or Jharp. This obe- lus^ placed as it is, and ending with the word ss'^vf, fliews that all the reft of the Verfe was in the fame Manufcripts, but ,this not fuiting with thofe who Will have the Text to be fuppofititious, they pretend that the end of this obelus is mifplac'd, by an error of xhc prefs, and that it ought to be put aftc? (93) ^fter thefe words of the following Verfe, iv r^ y^ij in earth. ^ 'Tis pretended thar the Divines of Lowuain pafs'd the fame judgment upon the rpif- placing this obelus ifo years ago: but they have only faid that the Manufcripts of Stephens had the Text of the 7'^ Verfe entire, and fo as 'tis printed, unlefs the obelus he placed wrong: I would my felf fay as much, tho' I maintain that it is in its true place. As it is a point of mere Criticifm, which requires a nice application and enquiry, no one mufl be furpriz'd that Dr. M/7/, who had his mind full of learning, and who could not but be very much wearied with the large Work of the Edition of the New Teftament he has left us, has not allow'd all the time and pains necefTary to clear up this matter 5 one man cannot do every thing. Where the Dodor fail'd in attention, I have endeavour'd to fupply with mine> it may be feen thro' the whole of what I have faid in the x^^^ Chapter of my Diflertation, where I have very largely treated of this matter, and in the xiii^^ Chapter of the Examination of Mr. Emlyn^s Anfwer, that there is no rcafon to doubt but the obelus muft be in the place where 'tis put in the Edition without carrying it any farther. Mr. Emlyn has not touch'd upon the reafons I have given, and he had no other way to take, than by callmg out for the Manufcripts of Robert Ste- phens-, to demand what is become of 'em 5 let 'em produce 'em 3 that they cannot be loft j and fuch other matters which ftiew a man reduc'd to the lall extremity. Without tarrying to fhew that it belongs neither to me nor any other to give an account what is become of old Manufcripts for upwards of i f o years, which may fo eafily have had the fate of fo many others no \ds confiderable, which are loft, I would beg of Mr. Emlyn to tell us whither this ti .— -... c» .;■■.■, ■ w . i>j ? ^¥y pas- 2-7. objcftion (94) objeQ:ion tends, which appears to him fo prefling. For my part, I cannot fee that it aims at any thing elfe, but to infinuate that 'tis a fable, fpread by Robert Stephens^ and confirmed by Beza^ his good friend 5 that there were Manufcripts which had the parage of St. John^ fome the entire paflage, others without thefe two words, in heaven, Unlefs they accufe fird Robert Stephens^ and then Beza^ of ha- ving a6i:ed one after the other, and then both to- gether, the infamous part of cheats and impo- ilors, I don't fee to what end they call for thefe Manufcripts. If Mr. Emlyn can form fufpicions a- gainil the probity and honour of thefe two learn- ed men, whofe reputation has been, and is yet in veneration -, there will be no candour and fincerity, which in this kind can be feeure againll his inju- ifious fufpicions. There would be withal fo much extravagance in this, that I am not willing to be- lieve him capable of it. Tho' then thefe Manu- fcripts (bould be loft fince the time that Stephens had 'em in his hands, and tho' no perfon at prefent knows what is become of 'em , all that we lofe thereby, is the fatisfadion of feeing there the fame Texts, which Stephens and Beza faw there. The truth of thefa6b remains always the fame ; a degree of more or lefs evidence takes away nothing from the truth, and the evidence is here great enough for the reafon 1 have given, without any need of our feeing thefe Manufcripts our felves, which they fay they iaw. If the obelus ought to have been carry 'd fo far as the middle of the 8^^ Verfe, and all the words toge- ther, in heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft > and thefe three are one : And there are three that hear record m earthy be thus cut off at one Ilroke, in order to join the firft words of the 7^^, Verfe, For there are three^ which hear record^ with thefe othpr of the 8^% the Sfir^t^ the fFater^ and th4 . ( P5 ) the Bloodj &c. as Mr. Simon and Mr. Emiyfi ima- gine, Robert Stephens could not have condemned himfelf in flronger terms, and given himfelf up as an impoftor to the Publick : For having infertcd the 7^^ Verfe intire in two following Editions, and the 8^^ Verfe intire alfo 5 making together fix witnefles 5 three in heaven, the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoji^ and three in earth , the Spirit^ the JVater^ and the Blood. This reafon carries with ic its own convidion. It will be withal confirmed by the condu6t which Stephens continued to obferve after the Edition in which he had plac'd the ohelus^ which was that of iffo. As all his Editions were fold off, almof^ as faft as they came out of the prefs, the firft, v/hich was that of if46. had been foUow'd by that of if4P. this by the Edition in iffo. and to this third immediately fucceeded a fourth, which was made in the year iff i. If the obelus had been wrong plac'd in the Edition of iffO. which is the only one in which it was inferted, as this mifpla- cing would have introduced into the Epiftle a falfe Text, namely that of the witnefTes in heaven, can one conceive that Robert Stephens would not have caft out of this Edition in iff i. a pafTage which he had printed and rejeded by the obelus of the preceding year ? By fuch ufe of forming chimeras, a man muft have got fuch a power over his own mind, as to be able to believe whatever he pleafes. This would be more than enough to prove to any reafonable perfon, that the obelus of the 7^^ Verfe relpe6i:s only the words Im tw s/^vf, and ought not to be carried farthers but I yet relerve for the clofe a demonftrative proof of the fame truth} I know not whether any one has ever difcover'd it> for my part, 1 have obferv'd it but within thefe few days as 1 was reviewing this fubjeft. ' ~ Extra- (90 Extraordinary pains have been taken, to reduce all the Manufcripcs which Stephens had of the firll Epiftle of St. John to the number o{ feven^ and to fhew that they were only the feven which are fet down in the margin with reference to the ohelus of the 7*^ Verfej and as they pretended this obelus was inferted in order to caft out of the Epiftle the whole Text of the witnefles in heaven, they con- cluded from thence that this Text not being in his feven Manufcripts it was not therefore in any. I have here and elfe where fhewn in the paflages which I have alledg'd the falfity of all thefe fup- pofitionsj but without fo many reafons, and ha- ving recourfe to a difcuflion upon which they form feveral difficulties^ here is a fhort and certain way to come at the fame end: which is, that the very reafon they rely fo much upon, deftroys it felf, and carries with it the convidion of quite the con- trary. The olelus refers to feven Manufcripts mark*d in the margin by thefe Greek numeral Letters, ^, g. ^. 9". I. io(,. iy, to fignify that in thefe the words mark'd by the ohelus were wanting ; now this is fo far from proving that Stephens had none but thefe very Manufcripts of St. John^% Epiftle, that 'tis a convincing proof he had feveral befide. To be fatisfy'd of this they need but run over with their eyes Stephen's Edition ; they will there fee from one end to the other abundance of Texts mark'd like this with an obelus^ fometimes upon one word only, fometimes feveral, and fometimes half a Verfe, with the reference of fome Manu- fcripts fet down in the margin: fome of thefe obe- lus's refer but to one Manufcript, others to two pr three, and feveral to nine or ten, but this very thing fhews that they were not all the Manufcripts of the Gofpel or the Epiftle, or the like Book of the New Teilament which are fpecify'd by this hfZ (97 ) fort of references, but that befide thefe he had o- thers withal. When Stephens Qi:irk'd with an ohius one or more words which he did not find in his Manu- fcripts he put in the margin cv zirocc-i^ in all^ to Cig- nify that thefc words were wanting in all: moil frequently he fet down by abbreviation the fingle letter -sr. which' being the firft of the Greek word zffdvlcc^ exprefs'd the lame thing j but when the paflage of the Text where he put an ol^elus was wanting only in fome, he mark'd by the numeral letters 1 have mencion'd each of thofe which had not the words, and 'tis then a perfect demonilrati- on that he had others in which the words were read. For inflance ; In the iii'^ Chapter of Matthew^ f. II. He fiall baptize you with the Holy Ghpfi^ and 'With fire ^ the lall words arid with fire are mark'd by an obelus^ and in the margin are pl:ic'd thefe feveii Greek Letters, c6. y. $. i. 5-. ^. //3. which fignify'd feven Copies, where thefe words were wanting. In the vi^^ Chapter, in which the Lord's Prayer is recited, there is an obelus over thefe words, For thine is the kingdom^ the power ^ and the glory ^ fior e^ 'ver and ei'er^ Jmen > and in the margin is put the letter ^. which fpecify'd the Copy in which thefe words, which were found in all the reft, were not. In the fiune Gofpel chap. viii. f. 21. the word firft^ is mark'd with an obelus^ which refers to one Manufcript only, becaufe there was but that which had it not. In the ix^^ Chapter, f. 13. ihefe words to repentance^ are read in all the Manufcripts excepting two, which are exprefs'd in the margin by /d. & /,3. It would be cndlefs to quote all the other parallel inftances. As then it would be cer- tainly wrong to imagine that Stephens had but fuch Books of the New Teftament, as anfwer to the number of Manufcripts mark'd in the margin by O obelus"$ ( 5>8 ) oklus's in the Gofpels or in the Epidles, they may thence fee whether they have reafon to fay that he had only the feven Manufcripts to which the obelus o^ the j^^^ Verfe refers of the firft Epiille of St. John^ befides the Complutenftan Bible : iinct on the contrary 'tis every where a certain proof that he had feveral others, and that in them the words were read which were wanting in thofe denoted by the obelus, 'Tis a conftant ufc, and a pra6lice fo univerfilly obferv'd, in fuch cafes not to carry the references of the o^^//^j's, and fuch other marks, farther than the folc Copies, upon occafion of which they were inferted, that there never yet was mnde an Edition when the matter was otherwife. Before Robert Stephe?is had made his Greek Edition of iffo. he had printed feveral fine Lattn Bibles, for which he had made an excellent choice of the molt extra- ordinary Manufcripts. When he did not find a word or a fentence in fome which were generally in the others, he mark'd thefe Manufcripts with an obelus : his Editions afford abundance of exam- ples 5 wc have one among the reft upon this very Verfe of the v^^ Chapter of St. John's Epiltle, which y Mr. Simon has not forgot, and upon oc- cafion of which he commends the exa6tnefs of Stephens. The paffage is entire in this Latin Edi- tion, which was made in if40. but it is therewith an obelus ox par enthefis^ which includes all thefe words of the Latin Text, in Coelo, Pater j Ferbum^ £5? Spi' fit us San6ius^ £5? qui tefiimoniumdant in terra -, which v/ere in all his Manufcripts except three or four, in which they were wanting, and which are noted in the margin to anfwer to the obelus j but for this very reafon that only thefe Manufcripts are f Hill. Crit. de Verf, du N. Teft. cb. xi, p. 133. there (99 ) there fpecify'd, 'tis an infallible proof that he had feveral oiheio in which rhe Tcxc was entire. Hentemns^ ProfefTor of Divinity at Louvain^ print- ed in If 47. a very beautiful Latin Bible, and not finding in five Mmufcripts thefe very words of the yth \J^x{^ in ccelo ^ which anfwer to the Greek h^f ^^v'Si^ Vv'hich were wanting in fevcn Manufcripts of Stephans^ Hentenius^ 1 fay, places there an obeUis with a reference to five Mi'.nufcripts. Now as ic would be abfard to infer that Hentenius had only thcfe five Manufcripts of Sr. John's Epiille, 'tis juil the fame to fay that Stephens had but fevea Manufcripts of this Epillle, under pretext that the obelus mentions but fevenj fince on the contrary Hentenius taking notice but of five in which the words in coelo were not read, he has fhewn by this very thmg that they were read in the others: the cafe is the fame with regard to the feven Greek Manufcripts of Stephens^ which had not the words The only thing they can object is to fay that Stephens having bcfidcs thefe feven MSS. the Com- /)////^j7/?^« Edition, in which the pafHige of St. John's Epiftle was entire •, he ought not to have put, as he has fo frcqtiently done in other places, ov sra3-<, or (Imply ar. fince it was not wanting in all: but ought only to have mark'd thofe, in which it was wanting, which are thefe feven. This anfwer might take place, firfl, if it was true that Stephens had taken the Text we are upon from the Complutenftan Edition : but nothing is more evidently falfe : I have fhewn it in my Dif- fertation upon this pafTagej and to repeat it here in two words, the Edition of CompJutum has y^ oi T^«?, thefe words of Stephens y^ qvtqi ol r^elg' the Complutenftan fays, «? to 'iv «V/, Robert Stephens^ h pa. Which makes a very great difference, lo the O a. 8^1^ ( loo ) gth VeiTe the Complutenfian reads 1^/ tj^? y^g. Sie^ phens cv Tji yy}^ the la(l claufe of this Verfe, ol t^«? eig TO 2v «V/, is wanting in the Edition of Complu- tum^ where the words are plac'd at the end of the yx.\\ Verfej there is nothing like this in the Editi- ons o^ Stephens^ and thefe words are at the end of the 8^^ Verfe, as they ought to be agreeably to the other Greek Manufcripts and the Latin. Stephens cannot then have had that Edition in view. Secondly, When upon putting an obelus^ there remain'd but one or two Copies which had the, words, that the obelus mark'd to be wanting in fome Manufcripts J it was his cullom to fet in the margin a> Tsoiffi^ or w. with the Greek word stAj^v, which {ignifies except^ to denote that thefe words were wanting in all, except fuch or fuch Copies: for inftance, m St. John^ Chap. vi. f. 4f . he places an obelus over the word a.war, and in the margin ST. srA>)v tS" y. k, rS '^. to exprefs, in all except the two Manufcripts y. ^ >?. In St. Matthew^ Ch. v. f-^l> 'sruAiv^ in the margin, sr. ttAj-v i^. i. e. in all, except the Manufcript l^. In Chap. xii. f. 5f. '^ Kcx^j;^?, in the margin, sr. irKviv tS yj. in all except the Manufcript yj. In St. Jobn^ Chap. iii. f. if. Ik£^ipoiv(a^ over which we find the obelus^ he fiys they were wanting in {cv^n Manufcripts, but with regard to the whole Vtrie, fcr 'tis of this he treats in his Note, it was in fome of Stephens's Manu- fcripts, beiides the Complutenfian Bible : Erafmus^ fays he, read this Verfe in the Codex Britannicus 5 it is in the Complutenfian Edition j and we read it alfo in fomc old Manufcripts of our dear friend Ste- phens. What remains is only to fay two words upon the other Manufcripts mention'd in the title of this Chapter, thofe which are fpoke of by the Divines of Louvain^ and that which F.Amelotte fays he faw at Rome, I had quoted in my Difiertation upon this Text a confiderable pafi^ige from the Divines o^ Louvain^ who having printed a Latin Bible in the year if 74. fpeaking of the Greek Copies fay m their Preface, that befides chat of the Complutum^ the Codex Britan- nicus of Erafmus^ and the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens^ they had feen feveral others of the fame fort 'y that is to fay, in what concerns the pafi^age of St. John^ for 'tis of this they were fpeaking. Mr. Emlyn had anfwer'd, that this mud only be underilood of the Latin Editions. 1 fhew'd the impropriety of that anfwerj and he has Itopp'd there i thus leaving me by his convidion the Greek Manufcripts in which this paflage was, which the Divines of Louvain faid they had feen. Next came the teffcimony oi Amelotte a Father of the Oratory, who fays in a Note upon the Text of 3 ( lo^ ) of St. John^ that he had feen it at Rome in a very ancient Greek Manufcript of the Vatican Library. Mr. Emlyn had borrowed from Mr. Simon^ (who in feveral refpefts appears to have been no good friend to F. Amelotte) all that he had advanced to render his integrity doubtful. I have examined all his reafons, and confuted 'em. Mr. Emlyn^ who had held himfelf fecure of his fad under the au- thority of Mr. Simon^ yields to 'em j and F. Ame^ iotte's integrity has remained fafe as to that mat- ter j nothmg that I have faid has been confuted: here again then is another very ancient Greek Ma- nufcript in which the Text of the three wit- iVefTes in heaven is found, as in the Complutenftan^ the Manufcript of Erafmus^ thofe of Robert Ste- phens^ and fome others which had fallen under the eyes of the Divines of Louvain : will they after this fay, that 'tis in no Manufcript ? CHAP. vr. A "Defence of the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens againft certain Manufcripts pro- dticed from the Library of the King of France, which are pretended to be the fame that Stephens ufed in his Editions, THE proof which all thofe who have wrote before me upon this fubje6b have drawn from the Editions of Robert Stephens^ and which I have us'd after 'em, for the authenticknefs of the Text of the three witnefles in heaven, mult not be look'd on as a matter of fmall importance upon the occa- iion. This Text, 'tis true, is feveral other ways prov'd to be genuine, as is feen in this Treatife^ and in the two others of which this is but the fe- quel 3 (quel, but yet to take from it the teftimony of 7?t7- berf Stephens^ or rather of the ancient Manufcripts from which he made his Greek Editions of the New Tellament, would be to deprive it of one of its principal fupports. Thofe who have wrote againft the authcntick- nefs of this Text have demanded where thefe Ma- nufcripts of Stephens^ arc, that we may be facisfy'd with our own eyes whether this pafTage is in 'era or no. The Library of the King oi France^ which abounds in Manufcripts, and from whence Stephens had feveral, was the proper place to feek for 'emj but I have not yet feen any thing pofitive produ- ced from thence. Mr. V Abbe Roger^ Dean of the Mctropolitical See o^ Bourges^ who printed in 171 J. a Latin DifTertation to prove this paflage genuine, receiv'd feveral informations with relation to thefe Manufcripts. Fa. k Long^ Prieil of the Oratory, a learned Man, and very mduftrious in this fort of enquiries, has endeavour'd to give the finifhing llroke to this, and to inform the Publick by a Letter which was inferred in the Journal des Sa^ vans^ the la it June^ and which was addrefs'd to me, as if it had aclually been written to me. It is dated the 12.^^ oi Jpril^ but I did not fee it till the end of the month o( 'July. My Book was in the prefs, and the imprefllon already got very near as far as the matters which refpe^t Robert Stephens's Manufcripts* Thus this Chapter, in which I am about to exa- mm F. le L^.ng\ Letter, mull be look'd on an addi- tion to this Work, which had been finifh'd iome months befoje. F. U Long's Letter is wrote in a very genteel man- ner with regard to my particular fubjcd. He there declat-r: f\om the begnning thar he does not enter upon I genu nc'icfs 01 .he pafLgc oiSl*Jvhn^ and tha*- what he propofes to clear up is only a pome oi Cricicifm, He ptctenus they arc much dtcciv'd, who ( i°4 ) who believe this paflage was in Robert Stephens's Manufcrjpts, and his rcafoning and proof amounts to this. Robert Stephens^ fiiys he, had borrow'd from Henry Il's Library the eight Manufcripts he has fpoke of in the Preface oF the Edition of iffo. He reftor'd 'em again to the King's Library, and 'tis there they are found with the ordinary mark of the Manufcripts of thac Prince, which is a Crown with an H crown'd above, and each with the Greek numeral Letter by which Stephens had mark'd his Manufcripts. Of the eight which were .lent him out of the King's Library, there we/e ifeven which contained the Canonical Epidles, and t:hefe fevcn, iays he, are precifciy the fame with fJhofe which are mark'd in the margin of the •j''^ ^/erfe of the v''^ Chapter of the firll Epiflle of Sr. yohn: This Text is wanting entire in thefe Ma- nufcripts, from whence it follows, fays F. le Long^ thiat the obelus which by an error of the prefs ends at «^vaj, {hould have been plac'd after the words CK TJ? 5^;?, which in the ordinary Editions are read in the middle of the 8^^ Verfe, {o that there ihould only have been in Stephens's Text thefe words, For th.ne are three that bear record,^ the Spirit^ the Wa^ tei^^ and the Bloody and thefe three agree in one, F* le Long has feen thefe Manufcripts feveral times, ami having had, he fays, the forefight to compare fev eral places of the inward margins of the Edition of iffo. with fome of the Mauufcripts which are the re denoted by their Greek Letters, he has found the)7 were the Ihme. All this, aflerted and related \r^ a man of probity whom we have no caufe to miili'ull:, furprizes the mind, and is capable oF ftag* gerin g it. F. le Long was firfl: dazzled, and others may v/ell be fo after him, and from his examples but with a little attention to the reflexions 1 am about t;o make upon all thefe matters, the furprize will will foon be over, and the former perfuafion take its place, as well with regard to tlie genuinenefs of the Text it fclf of the 7^'^ verfc, as the Manufcripts from which Stephens infertcd it into his Editions. There is indeed a very great miilakc in all this. Firif, the Manufcripts we are upon were not bor- row'd from Henry ITs Library •, it was from the Library of Fumcis I. fmce the Hrlt Edition made from thcfe Manufcripts came abroad whilfl this Prince was living in if 46. Now how much time muff be fpent by a man {o conilantly employed as Stephens was in examining fo many Manufcripts colle6ling from each the different readings, then comparing 'em together with one another, and thus fornnng by fo difficult, fo long, {o laborious a collection, the refult from which arofe that fa- mous Edition of the year iffo. Thofe only who know all the difliculties attending works of this kind can tell us how much it muil have cod 5"/^- phens^ and confequently how long he mud have had thefc Manufcripts in his hands. 2. 1 fee from the account of F. le Long that Ro- bert Stephens fays in his Difcourfe to the Divines of Paris^ that he had rcturn'd to the King's Library the Manufcriprs he had borrow'd thence, which Were only to thenunr.ber of eighty the fevcn others were borrow'd elfe where, and from divers places, as Stephens fays in liis Prefice. Yet F. le Long finds in the King's Library all the fifteen which Stephens has quoted, and he gives us 'em all, one after another, quoted by the (ame numeral letters. This, I owm, appear'd to me very fufpicious, and rais'd the thought that fomebody had formerly ta- ken upon 'cm to fet the fame letters upon thefe Manufcripts, in order to advance their credit by the fam'd name of Stephens. For lallly, 'tis not natural to believe that a man of reputation for ho- nour and probity, fuch as Stephens was, fhou'd not P have ( io6 ) have reftor'd fuch valuable Manufcripts as thefe were, to the perfons who had beenfo kind as to lend 'em him. I Ihould require very good warrants to believe this upon 3 and none are brought. I was withal more and more conlirm'd in the thought that thefe Greek letters fet upon the Mano- Icripts F. le Long fpcaks of were a fraud, when I came to examin narrowly into thefe Manufcripts : then the forgery appeared (b evident, and prefented it felf to me in fo many different views, that there no longer remain'd any caufe to doubt of it. In Ihort, I faw that in the Catalogue of F. k Long^ where there is the fame number of Manu- fcripts, as are fet down in Robert Stephens's Editi- on, there is only the Complutenftan Bible which has the New Teftament intire 5 fo that none of the red has the Jpocalypfe-y and I fee on the other hand that Stephens takes notice of three Manu- fcripts, befides the Complutenftan Bible, in his Edition of this Book> he marks 'em in that of iffo. by their numeral letters, /c^, that is, the ele- venth 5. /s, which is the iiFteenth 5 and is", the fix- teenth. How can this agree with the Manufcripts of the King's Library 5 where I find indeed the fame numbers, or Greek letters, tho' I no where find the Book of the Revelation under the mark of the fame letters? 'Tis furprizing that F* le Long did not perceive fo great a difference. This obfervation leads us to another, which i?, that there are not fo many Manufcripts of a Book, if we follow F. le Long's Catalogue, as are fee down by Robert Stephens. For inftance, the Gofpel of St. Matthnv ha'i one Manufcript lefs in F. le Long's Catalogue, than in the iili of thofe of Ste- phens, The Gofpel of St. Luke hns alfo one Icfs in the Manufcripts of the King's Library, than in the E- diiion of Stephens, In ( 107 ) In the Gofpel of St. John^ the Catalogue of F. U Long eompre.hcnds but ^twelve Manulcripts, if \ve take in the Complutenfian\ the Edition of Stephens fets down fourteen with the Bible o{ Complutum. In F. le Long's Catalogue there is found buc eight Copies of the Book of the A5fs^ with the Coynplutenfian\ the margins o^ Stephens's New Te- flament fee down ten comprehending the Edition of CompJiitum. In Stephens's Edition there is one Manufcript more of the Epiftle to the Romans^ than in the Catalogue of Manufcripts which F, le Long has gi- ven us. So in the firll: Epiftle to the Corinthians^ there is one Manufcript more than in the fiid Catalogue. There is alfo one more in Stephens's of the fecond Epi 11:1c to the Corinthians. The fecond Epi Trie of St. Peter has nine Manu- fcripts fpecify'd in Stephens's j F. le Long owns but eight in his Catalogue. All the Manufcripts of the Catalogue having the fame numeral letters with thofe of Stephens's^ and there not being a greiter number mentioned in Ste- phens^ than in the Catalogue, thefe differences can have arofe only from this, that fuch Manu- fcripts which in the King's Library contain only fuch or fuch Books of the NewTeliament, contain more under the fame numeral letter in Robert Ste- phens's Edition 5 from whence it follow*^, that tlio* they have fct the fame marks upon thefe Manu- fcripts of the King's Library, as Robert Stephens had fet upon his, yet they are moll afiurcdly noc the fame : they are counterfeit. Among the Manufcripts of Stephens^ there were eight which were borrow'd froni the Library of Francis I. he names 'em in his Prefice, the 3^*, the 4^^\ the f ^^, the 6'^^\ the 7^^^ the 8^\ the lo^^*, the tf^'^j and CO thefe numbers the G^eck numeral let- P i ' tCTS ( io8 ) ^ers anfwer, which are let down in the margin?, y.i, f. c. >^. Yj. I. a. In F. le Long's IKt, I ice rhe fame Greek letters fet upon eight Manufcripts, but he fays only feven oFthefe eight belong to the King's Library, namely, y. S. g. ^. jj. <. <2. there wants the Manufcript y. and yet wc fee one in this new lid that has the lame mark j now whence could this come, fince that bclong'd to one of the King's Manufcripts, and this is not one of 'em ? This (hews that they have put upon the Manufcripts, which F. le Long has given us an account of, fuch marks as they have thought fie. We lliall fee withal nom the obfervations upon each in particular, that the Manufcripts where they have put 'em, do not at all fquare with thofe of Stephens^ which had thefe marks. The Manufcript mark'd |3. in thofe of /^. le Lmg contains only the four Golpels, and the Book of the AUs\ that which Stephens had mark'd j3. c; n- tain'd alio the Epiille to the Romans^ for he qa ccs it upon the lo^'^ Verfe of the iii^ Chapter. The Manufcript mark'd fin the Ki;:^'s Library has not the Book of the J^s-, that v/h:ch Stephens has fpecify'd by the fame letter f has this Book: 'tis cited at Verie 5^^^, of the xvii^'^ Chapter^ the mark therefore of tlie King's, is counterfeit. I obferve the fame thing concerning the Manu- fcripts where they have put the letter ^ m imitation of one of thofe of Stephens-:, but the fraud is here jmore grofs ^ for this Manufciipt has only the foui* Gofpels, whereas that oi Stephens contain'd alfo the Book of the Acis > it is quoted in two places > ac Chap. xxiv. f.-j. and Chap. xxv. f. 14.. Another of thefe Manufcripts which is falfly pre- tended to be Robert Stepheiis'^^ is that which they have mark'd with the letter ;. which contains only the AEls and the Epijlles : but that which in Stephens^ Edition is denoted by this letter of the Greeti al- phabet, ( I09 ) phabet, had alfo the Gofpels of Sc. Luke and St. JoJm\ a various reading of this Manufcripc is feeii Luke Chap. v. f. ip. and another upon St. John^ Chap. ii. y. 17. The artifice of the forgery has fuccecded no bet- ter in fome other Manufcripts. That which they have mark'd with thefe two letters together loc, has only the A^s and the Epiftlcsy the iVJanufcript of Stephens contained befide this the Gofpel of St. Matthew^ the Gofpel of St. John^ and the ReieJa^ tion^ as may be fecn in St. Matthew^ Chap. x. ir. 8, and 10. in St. John^ Chap. ii. f. 17. in the Re^ve- lation^ Chap. xiii. f. 4. Next to this Manufcript comes according to the order of the alphabetical letters the Manufcript <,i3. That which is feen in the King's Library has only the four Gofpels 3 the Manufcript of tSV^//;^;;; had alfo the Epiftle to the Corinthians^ {\v\cc there is a various readmg in Chap xv. f. 44. One of Stephens's Manufcripts was mark'd with thefe two letters ly. They have counterfeited one with the fame mark, but they have taken no care to counterfeit one that has more than the J5ts and Epifiles^ whereas that of Stephens had alfo the Gof- pel of St. John-y for he gives us a reading thence on the 17^'^ Verfe of the li'^ Chapter. To go onj there now remains but three Manufcripts to becon* fider'd. The firil: of thefe three is that which is mark'd i^. amonglt thofe of the King's Library : it has only the Gofpels of St. Matthew^ St. Luke^ and St. John^ but 1 find it alfo produc'd by Stephens upon the fe* cond Epidle of St. Peter^ Chap. i. y. 4. 1 had al- ledg'd it in my Difiertation > F. le Long maintains that 'tis a fault, and fhould have been ly. inftead of ^^«j for having replac'd a whole Text in the Edition of Iff I. which he had mark'd by an obelus in the edition of iffo. as that ought to be taken away. Here is withal another manner of knowing certain- ly his opinion in relation to all this. After having fet the obelus in the middle of the verfe, and mark'd m the margin the Manufcripts which had given occafi- onforit, he gives upon thefe other words of the fame verfe, ^ ^tci ol r^fig iv (hV;, tbefe three are one^ a various ledion, or different reading, taken from the Com- flutenfian Bible, in which inltcad of '^-^qi ol r^eig U eii yyj^ they cannot be the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens. This was all the queftion betwixt F. le Long and me, and it is determin'd to my ad- vantage 3 iinlefs they deltroy all the proofs I have urg'd againft the Manufcripts produced by F. le Long to fhew them to be counterfeit : but tho' one alone fhould remain, that one would fuffice to dif- concert the whole machine. CHAP. vir. Of the Manufcrip ^/Berlin. ^•-r^IS here no longer that dime Mr. Emlyn^ who X has been (ilent with regard to the Manu- fcripts mentioned in the Preface to the Louvaii^ Doftors, and that which F. Jmekttc affirm'd he faw at Rome ; 'tis quite another thing when we come to the Manufcript of Berlin. Mr. Emiyn has here outdone himfelfj he is in ecdafies and triumph. Yet it cods him fomewhat dearj an acknow- ledgment that he advanced and maintain'd that the Text of St. John was not in the Imes of the Manufcript but in the Margin > he knew this, he faid, from a good hand -, and yet this paf- fage was found to be in the body of the Text -, I have prov'd it from the atteftation of one of the King's Librarians, and it can no longer be quefti- on'd, fince Mr. h Croze^ another Librarian, has faid it in the letter which Mr. Emlyn has very em- phatically produc'd in the firil: Chapter of his Re- ply. Let us fee that Letter, and clear up the fad. I had faid in my DifTertation that there was alfo a GreeJi Manufcript at Berlin^ which was believ'd to Qi be ( ll6 ) be five hundred years old, which had the Text of the 7^^^ verfe, tbere are three in heaven^ Sec. Mr, Emlyn found means by fome of his friends to know certainly the cafe. Tq this end application was made to a learned man in Saxony^ who having wrote to Mr. la Croze^ receiv'd this anfwer, " Vir *' AtppliiliQie, — Miror, Codicem npllrum, librum *^ nulliiis authoritatis, aiTcrenJx dubias ledioni ido- '^ neum videri, ciim jam ego compluribus viris eru- *' ditis, ipfique Revcrendo Martino, manifeftuni '' fecerim cum codicem, qui falfarii cujudam fraude ^r pro antiquo veiiditus efi, 6c venditatur, manu *' recenti ex Editione Polygotta Couiplutenfi fuifle " defcriptumj id llatim vidi , ciim anno 171^. ^' Bibliothccam Regiam, percgrinorum more, non '' enim tunc me moras Berolini fa6i:urum putabam, *' perluftrarcm, dixique palam Hendreichio ica ^ot,-, '^ Kcc^rvj ; idque, ex quo Bibliotheca mihi credita efl, *' candide apud omnes profeiTlis fum, neque id ig- '* norac CI. & Reverendus Marcmus, cui idem meo, *' nomine fignificatum ed. " That is, — It [c ems very flrange to me^ that ever our Mamifcript^ a Book of no Authority at all^ Jhould he alledgd in confirma^, tion of a dubious Readings fince I have already difco^ vered it to very many learned Men^ and even to the Reverend Mr. Martin himfelf^ that this Manufcript^ ihd* much boafted of^ and fold by a cunning Cheat for an ancient Book^ is but a late tranfcript from the Po- ly^ox, of the Compluteniian ££////£>;^j this I prefently difcerned^ when as a Stranger only Ivie'ivd the King^s Library^ before I had any thoughts of fettling at Ber- lin, and I then declared the fame openly to Hendrei- chius now deceafed: and ever fince this Library has been committed to my Care^ I have freely own' a it npon all Occafions without referve j and the Reverend Mr, Martin knows it very well^ who by my means has been informd of it, 2. I don'c ( XI7 ) \ don't blame Mr. la Croze for having wrote to his P'riend in Germa)7j what he thought concern- ing this Maniifcripr, fince it was demanded of him ^ but as that Friend did nor, nor could naturally ask him concerning mc, what knowledge 1 had or had not concerning this Manufcript ; Mr. la Croze^ I think, might have forbore to Ipeak of me without wronging his confcience in the leaft. However he has done itj as iF he had defign'd to draw a par- ticular attention to it : he repeats it twice toge- ther in this Letter, I had mude it eindent to fc-je^ r\jl learned Mcn^ and to Mr. Martin him [elf ^ — and fomc lines after, M^' Martin is not jgnoranT of this^ fince it has been declared to him from me. Thcfeimall reflexions, which without any neccfli- ty have falkn from the pen o.^ Mr. la Croze^ do not favour the candour 1 profcfs, and give an idea of me as of a man who afFed:s to be ignorant of whac he knows very vvell; that by means of this afTe6i:cd ignorance, he may mo'c eafily compafs his defign. 1 am not capable of fuch dillimulation, and him- fclf Ihall clear me from it by the very Letter upon which he grounds what he fays of me, in that which has been ji;il produc'd by Mr. Emlyn, One' of our common Friendj>, who came from Berlin to ftudy Divinity here, and who is now a Miniller, being return'd to Berlin , gave Mr. la Croze an account of a Work 1 was tl/cn engaged in, and which has {ince been printed under the ti- tle of a Difcourfe concerning Reveard Religion j a- mongit other thmgs he fpokc to him of the paf- fage of Si.John^ wh.ich I maintained to be authen- tick •, and as he dcfir'd to know the opinion of this learned man concerning that difputcd padago, in order to communicate it to mc, Mr. la Ctozc yould give it him in writing, that it mi^ht be fcnc ip me: his Letter will acquaint u§ vyith it. ( IIS ) S I R, I Read yeflerday Dr, MillsV Dijfertation upon fhe p^jffage of iS/. John, and I found there almoB all that I had thought upon the fame ftihjeU : 1 Jhall he very glad if Mr. Martin confirms the authority of this tefti?mny by new proofs-, but betwixt you and me the matter appears to me very difficult. I am almoft perfuaded that 'tis a ji^lofs formd upon the explication of St. Cyprian, which crept from the margin into the "Text. All the ancient Greek and Latin Mannfcripts in reckoning up the three witnejfes mention only the Spirit^ t'je Water^ and the Blood, There is no ac- count to he made of our Greek Manufcript of the New Tefiament j Uis a Work^ which^ tho' it has deceived many^ I never thought above eighty years old. In the year i6p(5. upfm^^^ning tu B<:;rlin5 / went to fee the Library^ mere they fhew^d fM this Manufcript as being a thoufand years old : After having examined it a moment.^ I maintain' d that it was modern.^ and copied from the Edition of the Bible of Cardinal Xi- menes. / convinced the late Mr. Spanheim, and the then Librarian by comparing of paffages , the refem- blance of the chara6iers^ and other fenftble proofs : the faffage of the three witnejfes is there word for word^ as in the Bible of Alcala, and it could not be there o- therwife The ancient Fathers have never made ufe of fa remarkable apajfage- The Le£lionary entituled Atvq^ok^ or sr^l^'iTToVoA©-, in my opinion is of no great authority in this cafe •, / don't doubt of its anti- quity j but thefe ecclefiajiick Books are more fubjedi to alteration than others / have written all this in performance of the prcmife 1 gave you j for 1 am per- fuaded that I have propofed no difficulty which has not been weigh' d by Mr. Martin, i^c. Here is word for word what is mod ellential 'n\ that letter as to what regards me, and particularly all that concerns the Manufcript. Two ( 119 ) Two things are here evidently fecn : The Fird, that this Manufcript which was bought for the E- leftor of Brandenburg^ and fold for two hundred Rix Dollars, was thought to be very ancient, and even a thonfand years old, that the then Librarian, Mr. Hendreichius^ who, I have been told was a very- learned man, had (hewn it to Mr. U Croze ^ as think- ing it to be a very valuable Miinulcriptj that the famous Mr. Spanbeim^ fo well versed in the Itudy of ancient Medals and Infcriptions, had alio belie- ved this Manufcript to be genuine j and at the fame time I faw that Mr. la Croze iaid he difcern'd it to be counterfeit in a moment^ and convinced thefe Gentlemen of it, and feveral others in like manner > this I own appear'd to me almoll a para- dox j for in truth, if feeing was enough to difcern in a moment this Manufcript to be forg'd, fincc the calx or chalk of the parchment is yet frefh upon it, as Mr. ]a Croze defcribes it to his Friend in Sasony^ I cannot comprehend how the eyes of the Spanheim'Sj the Hendreichius's^ and fo many o- iher men of letters, v/ho had fcen this Manufcript, and fome of whom had doubtlefs been employed to examine it, before the Elc(5lor bought it as a trea- fure to enrich his Library, as an extraordinary Book brought out of the Eajl; I fay, [ cannot conceive how their eyes were blinded to fuch a degree, as not to fee what in one moment only Mr. la Croze had perceivM. 1 have read withal in a letter of Tollius to the late Mr. Gr^evins^ the famous Profef- for in this Town, wrote in 1687, that Mr. I/en- dreichius fhewing him at Berlin the curiofities in the celebrated Library of the El-^lor, prefented to him this Manufcript, which J believe he would not have done, if the cheat had been fo evident, as to be perceiv'd in a mrment : I'oIUhs not being a man fo ealily to be imposed upon, tho' the Libra- rian ( 120 ) rkn bimfclf had been fo imprudent as not to Oick at the account of drawing him into a millake. Befides this, I law that a Librarian when con- fulted by a perfon of eminent note in the Court of Berlin^ whether the paflage was in the body of the Text, or in the margin only, and whether this Manufcript was ^vc hundred years old, as I faid it was reputed, or if it was only three hundred old, as Mr. Emlyn affirm'd, anfwer'd by a note wrote with his own hand, and printed in my Examinati- on^ that the paflage was in the body of the Text, but as to the antiquity of the Manufcript , they could afTert nothing certain about it, de antiquitate 'verb nil certi affirmari poteft . Was fo much requir'd to be opposed to the opinion of Mr. /^ Croze^ and to make me follow that of fo many learned men, as fuffici- ent grounds for quoting this Manufcript in the plain manner I have done, without relying upon it as an indifputable foundation ? Mr. Jablomki^ who is fo well skill'd in the Oriental languages, having been before all this confulted about this Manu- fcript by Dr. Ketner ^ had hinted to him nothing of its being counterfeit, which Mr. la Croze fays is fo plainly to be feen -, and he himfeif tells us in his Letter to his friend in Saxony , that even at prefent feveral pcrfons cry ic up as ancient > for that is the meaning of the word 'venditatur j which he has made ule of. The fecond thing which is fo evidently feen in Mr. la Croze's letter, which was fent to me, is that there is nothing more than a bare account of his opinion, and the argument upon which it was founded j but can this be call'd the halving dearly fiew'd me that this Manufcript was forg'd } That in {hewing the Manufcript it felf to the perfons who defir'd to fee it, he had evidently laid before 'em the marks of its being counterfeit, I have no- thing ( X2I ) thing to fiiy to that ; but that by one and the l-ime expreflion he fhould confound me with thefe per- fons, as if the impreflion which their eyes and hands had made in their mind (hould have Hkewife paf- fed into mine> by the bare account he has given, equity does not allow 'em to think me oblig'd to have the fame fentiment. Mr. la Croze fhould noc therefore have faid, jam ego complurihus viris eru^ ditis^ ipftque R. Afartino manifeftum fecerim^ l^c, nor repeat again, neqiie id ignorat R. Martinus. For what was I not ignorant of? That the Ma- nufcript was counterfeit ? By no means. But what I was not ignorant of is that Mr. la Croze believ'd it counterfeit} whilft other learned men,- who had feen it, believ'd it genuine. I have done nothing therefore in quoting it that can cafl the leafl: reflexion upon my integrity 5 I am even ape to flatter my felf that this was not Mr. la Croze's intention. Add to this, that his prejudice agalnfl: the autho- rity of the pafllige of Sc. John appeared to to me fo very great, that 1 might well fufpedt that he had fuffer'd himfelf to tall into an opinion againft a Manufcript which fo many others believ'd authen- tick. As I know he has read my Diflcrtation up- on the pafllige of St. Johi^ and the Examination I made lall year of Mr. Emlyn's Anfwer, he mighc have been convinc'd that this Text is not a Scho- lion, as he had fuggellcd in his letter j and that it is not true that no ancient Author has quoted if, except what is related in Victor and Fulgentius, He might have feen alfo that the Lcctionaij^call'd Apoftolos^ is of greater authority than he has ima- gin'd, and he may fee it yet more in the fequel of this Difcourfe. Laftly, no one can fpeak with more circumfpe- £i:ion of the Manufcript oi Berlin than I have done. I have but barely quoted it in my DifTertation, pag. R I Id. c 111 1 1 6. Tbey fay there is alfo a Manufcript at Berlin, faid I, in the King's Library which they believe to be froe hundred years old-y F. le Long reports it upon the tejiimony of Saubertus and Tollius. Mr. Emlyn has form'd upon this an accufation a- gainil me, as if I had afcrib'd to Saubertus and Tol- lius the having diid that this Manufcript was five hundred years old. But he fhould have confider'd that the expreflion they believe^ to which J refer the ^wt hundred years, being a vague term, which cxprefles no perfon in particular, cannot be appro- priated to Saubertus and Tollius. If he did not comprehend it, it was at leaft very eafy for him to underiland it, by feeing after what manner I have fpoke of it in the Examination I made of his £rft Tra6b againft me : / contented my felf^ faid I pag. 103. with marking the antiquity of this Manu- fcript upon the teflimony of Saubertus ^«^ Tollius, quoted by F. le Long in ^/VBibliotheca facra : where indeed this Copy is c^Wdpervetuftum^ i. e. very anci- ent. They fee neither there nor elfewhere that I have fpoke o^ five hundred years^ as from thofe two learned men: and in pag. 164. I quoted^ faid 1, Sau- bertus and Tollius in relation to the Manufcript it felf ^ and Ketner with regard to the p^fjage of St, John: Mr. Emlyn might have done me more ju- flice. CHAP. ( 1^3 ) CHAP. viir. Particular reflexions upon the genuincnefs or forgery of the Mantijcript of the Greek New Teftament which is at Berlin in the King's Library. I Don't know whether we ought at prefent to make a problem of the genuincnefs or forgery of this Manufcript. If we were abfolutely to judge of it from the value the Librarians and other learn- ed men fet upon it, when it was brought to Berlin in order to be put into the curious and noble Li- brary of the Ele6tor o^ Braudenbourg^ as a very ex- traordinary and ancient Manufcript brought out of the Eaft 5 one could not avoid coming into the fame fenriment. But Mr. la Croze^ on the contra* ry, fpeaks with fo much contempt of this Manu- fcript in the two letters lately produc'd, that day is not more oppofite to night. As truth can never lofe its rights, and that we ought folcly to ac- quiefce in the didates of Reafon, if it be now found that Mr. laCroze has Reafon evidently on his fide, his opinion muil be preferr'd to that of the Librarians his Predeceflbrs, and all the other learn- ed men, who have believ'd this Manufcript very ancient and genuine: But withal, whatever regard we have for Mr. la Croze's learnmg, v/e mull noc entirely give up to him the opinion that has hither- to prevailed concerning the antiquity of this Ma- nufcript. The firft knowledge I had of it, is from what F,le Long has faid in his Bihliotheca facra^ where, upon the teliimony of Sanbertus^ he calls it a very ancient Manufcript brought out of the E^all. R i Saubertuf ( 1^4 ) Sauhertus, was a ProfeiTor of Divinity at Helm- ftad^ eminent for his iludy of the Languages and Criticifm. He compofed in this way of learning ji work made up of different readings from the mofl; excellent Manufcripts of St. Matthew's Gof- pel 5 which was printed at Helmftad in 1672, and gain'd him a great reputation among the learned. Mr. Simon among others has fpoke in praife of it in his Critical Hillory of the Text of the New Te- ilament. This work is become fcarce, and tho' I had took a great deal of pains to meet with it, I did not fucceed in 'em till a few days ago, and when this Treatife was already prepared to be printed. The curiofity I had to fee this Book o^ Saiiherr tus was fatisfy'd, even beyond my expedlation, by the great number of different readings, which are there quoted from the Manufcript o^ Berlin^ which Sauhertus marks by the name of Ravius^ and by abbreviation with the word Rav. as he advertifes in his Preface. There alfo he informs us, that all ihefe different readings had been extra61:ed by the care of Mr. Ravius at that time Librarian to the Eleftor, and upon this occafion he Ityles the Ma- nufcript ^ "uery ancient and very precious^ or very fcarce^ for the Latin fignifies both. Thefe two words are a great, tho* a fhort encomium 3 but 'tis not upon that I flop now. They are contrary to thofe of Mr. la Croze ^ who maintains this Manufcript is very modern, and that 'tis even no more than a Copy from the Bible of Alcala : to dwell then upon thefe advantagious expreffions of Saubertus would be only to oppofe one learned man to another, and judg- ment to judgment, which would be no determina- tion. We mull therefore follow another method, and do it by the examination of the Manufcript ? Ferv€^tiitus ac admodum preiiofu?, Proleg, p. 41, it ( iM ) it felf. Mr. la Croze leads us to this by the ac- count he gives us in his two Letters 5 this then we muft neceffarily purkie. The firft thing which ftreight offers it felF to the eye upon opening^his Manufcripc is the form of the letters, the manner of writing, the order of the words, the characters of the ink and parchment, all thefe, fays Mr. la Croze^ difcover it to be mo- dern, and betray the fraud of the writer. 'I'he parchment^ fays he, appears frejh ; the chalk fis'd in drejjing the skin is yet feen^ the ink is wholly white^ the characters are like the Complutenfian, fo that he who has feen that Edition has feen the Manu^ fcript^ and he that fees the Manufcript fees that Edi^ tion-y without excepting even the errors of the prefs which the ignorant tranfcriber (employed in this impo* fiure by fome man of letters) had not skill to correal. As 1 have never feen this Manufcript, it does not belong to me to give my judgment upon all thefc particulars, I only find, that being fo allonifhing, at lead tbofe of the letters, ink and parchment , as Mr. la Croze reprcfents 'em to us 5 it is wonderful, as I have obferv'd already, that none of thofe learn*- ed men who had feen and handled this Manufcripc for upwards of fifty years, fhould have feen any thing of all this. One might think, without any dimi- nution of the probity and merit of Mr. la Croze^ that 'tis not impoflible but, prejudice has here en- larg'd the object to his view. There is one thing a Qui codicem Complutenfcm vidit, is vidit & Manufcrip-* turn codicem nollrum, nedempiis tiuidtm mendis typogra« phorum, quae fcriba indodus ica f.deliter expieiiit, ut omnino conftet hominem illiteratum ab erudito al;quo nebulone ei fraudi perftciendae fuilTe praekdum. Et lane-pro antique ii- ber iile venditus eft, immani etiam pretio, etfi memhrarae recent! adhuc {calx five creta ilia mlijcrear, quae pellibus vi- tulinis parandis adhibcri lb let ; arraineiuum uoique albicans. Mr. la Croze'; Utur to his fne/td m Saxony, prjd-4;\i by Mr, Emlyn. at ( iz6 ) at leaft, which he is not ignorant of, and of which he^ who has feen fo many valuable Libraries and ancient Manufcripts, has more inilances of than I, that the marks taken from the parchment, the ink, and the form of the chara£ters, are not always rules fo furely to be depended on, as thereby to deter- mine the genuinenefs or forgery of this kind of Ma- nufcriptsj but that men may be milkken, and even are fometimes fo, in fpite of the greatefl skill in this fort of ftudies. I go here even yet farther, and fay that the re- femblance of the charaders of this Manufcript with the Complutenftan Bible, was it as perfed as Mr. la Croze would have us believe, is not a reafon for inferring that one is copied from the other. The curious , who have taken the pains to tranfcribe the form of the Greek letters, which have been us*d from one age to another, inform us that feveral Manufcripts which have been made in the fame age, or in ages near to each other, may very eafily, and even muft in fome rcfpedb be alike in the form of their charafters, and in the compofition and order of the words, and yet one not have been copied from the other. Thus this argument from the refemblance is not conclufive in favour of Mr. la Croze's opinion. But this conclufion will be yet lefs capable of beingdrawn, if 'tis true that the writing of the Ma- fcript is different in feveral things from that of the Complutenftan Edition. I have received from Ber- lin^ at feveral times, extrads of the feveral ways of y/riting in the Manufcript 5 and I have alfo received divers others of the manner how the writing and the lines are difpofed in the Edition made in the very Town of Complutum in if 13. and finifh'd, as I have elfewhere obferv'd, the 10^^ of January^ jf 14. I have feen one of thefe Copies at Jmfler- dam in the fine Library of Mr. Fander Hagen^ Pji- ftor ( 1^7 ) (lor of the Dutch Church, which is very much va- lued i and 'tis from thence I have receiv'd all that 1 have to produce from this famous Edition. The Manufcript of Berlin has no fort of punduation in its lines and betwixt its words, which feparates 'em from each other, nor any mark above the words, which holds there the place of the Greek accents. The Complutenfian Edition has all this: points irre- gular in feveral places, and above the words com- posed of feveral fyllables it has ftrokes or fmall points, in the place of the Greek accents, to exprefs the pronunciation of the fyllable over which thefe points are fet, in like manner as in French we put them over the ihut or clofe e, as in the words t^V/7^', penetre^ 6cc. Thus in the Complutenfian the Greek words, iK^oyltq^ 7ffouSiQv ^ Ts^vd^i^oi^ and others J of which the Editors of that Bible have given an ad- vertifement in their Preface. Thefe differences ap- pear to me remarkable enough to fliew that one cannot be a copy of the other. Yet this is the lead thing I have to fay upon this fubje(5t j the principal remains behind, and decides the faft in queftion. Mr. la Croze fays in his Letter to his friend, that he who has feen the Complutenftan Copy, has feen by this aUb the Manufcript of Berlin-^ and in that which he had wrote fome yea-s before to be fenc to me, he fays, that it was by this great agreement of the one with the other, that he convinced Mr. Spanheim this Manufcript was only a Copy of the Complutenfian Edition: I convinc'd^ fays hc^ the late Mr. Spanheim, and the then Librarian^ by confront- ing of pafjliges^f Sec. i. e. by confronting thofe in which the Complutenfian Edition was different in fome refpeds from the ordinary Editions of the Greek New Teftament. This way is indeed the moft fe- cure, provided the fcrutiny is exa6t, for otherwife 'tis eafy to be deceived, and led into miftake. Ic will { ^^8 ) will foot! be feen, that Mr. la Croze was firft mi- flaken herein, and that Mr. Spanheim^ Mr. Hen- dreichlus^ and others before whom he made this comparifon of paflages, were millaken after him, as he aflures us, but both only becaufe their inquiry was made upon too fuperficial a view, for men of their learning and capacity \ for I muft be allow'd to fpeak my thoughts freely upon this fubjedj which derogate nothing from the eileem that is otherwife due to their merit. This reafoning of Mr. la Croze, and the manner after which he has exprefs'd himfelf, imply a per- feft agreement betwixt this Manufcript and the Complut en/tan Bible : This is evident. Now there is nothing lefs true than this agreement: Saubertus is the only perfon who has given me an opportunity of proving it 5 for not having, as I have faid, in my hands either the Complutenftan Edition, or the Ma- nufcript of Berlin, I muft have taken my ideas and knowledge from reading the Book of this curious and learned Critick. He gives near two hundred various readings of the Manufcript of Berlin from the common Greek Text of the fole Gofpel of St. Matthew ; for, as I have already obferv'd, his work is confin'd to this Gofpel. Of thefe variations there are feveral upon the particles, or upon the articles, which are fometimes lels, and fometimes more in the Manufcript than in iht Greek Editions, either of Complutum^ or others. I know that thefe diffe- rences, tho' inconfiderable in themfelves, may yet be otherwife in an exad comparifon 5 but as I mufl confine my felf to the moil important, in compa- ring one pafTage with the other, from the lights I have borrowed at fecond handj 1 have contented n)y felf with extra6ling a certain number of in- fiances, which will abundantly fuflice to fhew that the Manufcript of Berlin was not copied from the Edition of Complut irm^ nor by an ignorant perfon. I ( 1^9 ) as Mr. U Croze affirms j but on the contray, by a man of underdanding, who wrote nothing rafhly, nor any thing which he had not before his eyes in an ancient Manufcript. Let us come to the in- fiances taken from Saubertus^ and confirmed by the lellimonies which 1 have receiv'd in the manner I mention'd. Matt. Chap. ii. f.z, We have feen his ftar ^ the Greek word coJi^y which fignifies bis^ is in the Com* plutenfian^ but is not in the Manufcript. Chap. iii. f. 13. inltcad of the word oLttoxUcu^ which is in the Complutertfian and the common Edi- tions, the Manufcript of Berlin has the word aTro- x]«vf>M, which is alfo in one of the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens. In the 17^^ verfe of the fame Chapter, the ordi- nary Editions read, utto h^ijAia t« sr£o as I have been informed by letter. Chap. xiii. f. 4. after the word rA7retv(x> the Ma- nufcript of Berlin^ and feveral others which Sau- bertus fets down, add t« ij^v^* which are not in the Complut enfian. Ibid. ( I30 Ihid. f. 11, after the word ?.o'yov ^ the Manu- fcript of Berlin adds the word ti?tcv, which is noC in the Complutenfian. Ibid. f. 40. KcclccTcouiy Complut. Kcui'^: but the Berlin Manufcript has y.e/gj- Chap. XV. f. 11. o'ri^ji\j'yoi>(riv aMjoo. Complut, but the Manufcript of Berlin^ one of Stephens^ that of Cambridge and others have tx^Jev oViVw xjurZ. Chap.xvi. "5^. 16. u(^-Keil}. Complut. but Sauhertus fays-, that the Manufcript of Berlin^ one of Ste-^ pbensj and fome others, have u^iK^M'^i^ • Chap. xvii. f. 1. oog to cpw?. Complut. but one of the Manufcripts of Stephens's^ that of Cambridge^ and that of Berlin^ have wV Xiwv. Chap, xxvii. 29. 3^' r h^idv' Complut. hux. Berlin^ the Alexandrian Manufcript, and that of Cambridge have iv Tif Jsl^ri, It would be tircfome to run over Saubertus^ and tranfcribe fo many variations of the Manufcript of Berlin from the Edition of Complut nm: but how many mult there be in the whole New Teflamenr, ^nce fuch a number is found in the fole Gofpcl of St. Matthew? Efpccially fince I am well afllired thac Saubertus has not produc'd all. For inftance, here are two, which he has not fet down, and tho' they are very remarkable, efcap'd the colledion of oi Ravius^ or the remarks o^ Saubertus. The fir ft is upon the n'''' Verfe of the iii'^ Chapter of St. Matthew^ where the words y^ aru^', and with Fire, are wanting in the Complut enfian^ but which, as I am inform'd by Ictccrj are in the Manufcript of Berlin: the other is that of the word ^ Y.xc^iocq of the xii^^ Chap. f. 96. which I have produc'd. It appears clearly from all this fmall collection of different readings from the Manufcript of Berlin and the Complutenfian Edition, that there is no grounds in the world for believing this Manufcript w Copy of the Complutenfian^ fo that U who fees o>ie^ fees the other ^ as Mr. la Croze aflerts. Befides this we fee from the manner Sauhertus gives the differen: readings of this Manufcript, that they are alriioft all the fame with that of Montfort^ Tome of Stephens's^ that of Alexandria^ and the old Manu- fcript of C^;;;/;r?V^^ ; all which agreements cannot but make this Manufcript o^ Berlin highly valua- ble, which Mr. la Croze To much difpifes. But what will then become of his afErmation, that it was by comparing this Manufcript with the Complutenjian^ that he fhev/'d Mr. Spanoeim^ and lAv.Hendreichiiis that this was no other than a Copy of this printed Bible? What will become of this? Why, as I have faid, that this collation was too fuperficial 5 and Mr. la Croze cannot take it ill, if leaving him , as I truly do , all the honour of integrity and fincerity, I fay he has fuffer'd himfelf to be overtaken by fome agreements which he may have obferv'd in divers places betwixt this Manu- fcript ^nd the Complutenfian Bible. I know a great number from the Book of Saubertusy and other- wife j but are fome agreements enough to make one fay roundly it is a Copy , fo long as we fee fo many differences, and differences which can in no refpe<5l be taken for faults of the tranfcriber ? Farther, even thefe agreements are not peculiar to the Complutenfian Bible, they are common to it with feveral other Manufcripts > and this fhould have been firft examin'd. It might have been done firft by means of the work of Saubertus^ where there is found a great number of this fort of varia- tions, which are common to the Berlin Manufcript and feveral others, and of which there are alfo fome that do not agree with the Complutenfian. It would have been more eafy for fome years paft, to have been fatisfy'd by Dr. MiWs New Teltament, who has coUeded with inconceivable pains all the vari- ous readings he could find in a greater number of Manufcripts ( ^33 ) Matiufcripts than Sauhertus^ who had wrote above* forty years before him. If Mr la Croze had found it convenient to make fo particular an examination as that would have been, and had then communi- cated it to Mr. Spanheim and Mr. Hendreichiusy whom he fays he convinced by comparing of paf- fages that the Manufcript was copied from the Complutenfian Bible, I will venture to fay, that thefe Gentlemen would have been far from being convinced, and he will permit me to believe he would not have been fo himfelf. He may have obferv'd perhaps in the difpofition of the Books of the New Teftament, that the AUs of the Apoftles are plac'd betwixt the Epifllcs of St. Paul^ and the feven Catholick Epiftles, and that the cafe is the fame in the Edition of Complu^ turn-, but it is the fame alfo in the Manufcript of Dublin^ and in many Latin ones. I fay nothing con- cerning the great number of Texts where the va- rious readings of the Manufcript are the fame as in the Complutenfian^ we very fcldom fee 'em fo with that Edition alone: nothing would be more tedi- ous than to produce 'em here. I obferve the fame thing as to fome others, which are known to me, and which may be of the number of thofe, upon which Mr. la Croze and the other Gentlemen caft their eyes > I fpeak of thofe in the jlpocalypfe. The moft part agree with the Complutenfian^ and yet not with the Complutenfian alone, but alfo with two Manufcripts of Stephens mark'd n. if. Thus no more conclufion can be drawn from them for the Edition of Complutum^ than for thofe two ancient Manufcripts, the cafe is evident. In this very palTage of St. John's Ef iille which has given occafion to fo many Enquiries, it \s. not peculiar to the Manufcript ot Berlin^ that it agrees with the Edition of Complutum in the 8'^ V'^eric, it agrees alfo wiih the Code,^ Britamiicus of Erajmus^ and ( 134 ) and with the Manufcript of Du^Iiny of which I {hall by and by produce the excra6t. The Berlin Manufcript agrees with the Complutenfian Bible in this, that it has not thefe laft words of the 8^^ Verfe >t, ol r^Hg eig TO tv ei(ri' Neither are they in the Codex Britannicus of Erafmus^ nor the Manufcripc of the Univerfity of Dublin, Ail the difference be- twixt 'em is, that in the Complutenfian Edition, and in the Berlin Manufcripc they are plac'd at the end of the 7*^ Verfe j that's all. But ^xviCt it appears clearly from all thefe proofs which we have feen, that this Manufcript is different in fo many places from the Edition of Complutum^ and confequemly that it mufl necelfarily have been made from a Manufcript different from that Edition, is it not very natural to believe, that the Manufcript from which the Berlin Manufcript was copied had thefe very words at the end of the Text of the three witneffes, which the Complutenfian Manufcript had there? If in the paflagcs where the Complutenftan Edition diflPers from the Greek Editions, and feve- ral ancient and very valuable Manufcnpts, that of Berlin agreed with the Complutenfian and in like manner diffei'd from the Greek Editions, and all the other ancient Manufcripts, my reafoning would not be conclufive, becaufe I know very well 'tis a principle in Logick, a pojfibili ad effe non valet confequentia-y " it does not follow that a thing is, *' becaufe it may be." But after having ihewn, as I have done, that the Manufcript of Berlin was not copied from the Complutenfian^ but from ano- ther very different, my confequence is very good, when I fay, the tranfpofition of thefe words was then in the Manufcript as in the Complutenftan, I hope that this will fuffice to every one who feeks only to be fatisfy'a of the genuinenefs of this Manufcript, which had not hitherto been fo care- fully difcufs'd as it deferves, tho' it were only with relatioa ( I3J ) relation to the Text of the witnefTcs in heaven in St. John's Epiftle. The proof then, which is drawn from this Manufcript for the authentickne(s of a Text fo advantagious to the Chrifhan Faith, is fix'd upon good grounds by the genuinenefs of the Manufcript it felf, which fupplies us with it. CHAP. IX Of the ancient Greek IVriters^ who have quoted this Text of the firfi Epijile of St. John, There are three, which bear re- cord, ^c. ONE of the arguments which is urg'd againfl: the genuinenefs of this Text is, that it has never been quoted by the Greek Writers, which they would not have faiPd to do upon feveral oc- cafions, if it had been in their Copies. This objedion falls no lefs upon the ancient Fa- thers of the L^/i« Church, than upon us. I would therefore know what they, who have fo frequent- ly quoted this paflage, would anfwer to it. Whence have you taken it? Would the Greeks (^iy to 'em. It is not in our Writers. The anfwer which the Latins would make is mine. It is in the Greeky they would fay > and it is from thence that our Vcrfions have taken it 5 and tho' your Authors have not quoted it, 'tis yet in the Epiftlc of the holv Apoftlc. ^ But 'tis falfe, that no ancient Greek Writer has quoted this Text. I have {hewn that 'tis dire6lly exprefs'd in the Synopfis afcrib'd to St. Athanafiusy in the paflage where running over the v*^ Chapter of the firft Epiftle of St. John^ he fays that this Apoitle ( «3^ ) -Apoftle fhews there the umty of the Father and the Son-, words which can only have had refped to this Text of the Epiftle, The/e three are one, Mr. Mmlyn had pretended they might alfo be underftood of what St. John had faid in the ii^ Chap. ^.2}. PVhofo denieth the Son^ the fame hath not the Father ; but he that acknoiuledgeth the Son^ hath the Father alfo J ithe rather, fays he, becaufe thefe words in the Synopfis are plac'd immediately after thofe of the unity of the Father with the Son: but they arc there only as a confequence of that Unity, not in proof of the Unity it felfj now the Author of the Synopfis fays St. John fpeaks of the unity. I had join'd to this teflimony given by the Au- thor of the Synopfis, the quotation of this paflage of St. John in a Greek Dialogue, under the names o^ Athanafius and Arius\ Mr. Emlyn had faid no- thing in his Anfwer to my Difiertation, which I have not fully confuted in my Examination > even to fhew how trifling an obfervation he had made, in order to turn afide this Author's words to the gth Verfe, which he had in no wife in view, but only the 7*^. He has yet taken pains to invent fomething far- ther 5 he fays, 'tis all at a 'venture^ that I have imagined the Author of this Dialogue was an Or- thodoa Chriftian. Now no perfon but fuch a one as Mr. Emlyn can doubt whether this Author was Orthodox, And one who does not believe the Tri- nity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofl in one and the fame Godhead, will not moll certainly find that an Author, who oppofes Arianifm in de- fence of it, is Orthodox. As to the imputation he thi-ows upon me of ha- ving taken up this opinion concerning this ancient Writer at a i:enture^ how does he know it? I am fure that's faid at a venture^ and worfe than fo, for 'tis direftly falfe. I can affiire hira, yet without pretending ( ^17 ) pretending to give him an account of what I read, that I have read this Dialogue feveral times, from one end to the other, and that the more I have read and examined it, the moie I have been fur- priz'd that Dr. Cave^ who was in other refpeds a man of great learning, fhould have fo far miftaken it as to fay, that it was the work of fome doting Monk. Mr. 5'/«/(?« had pafs'd a different judgment upon it, as may be fecn in my Diffei tation upon the paflage of the Epiflle of St. John-y and except perhaps one only place where the Author has too much indulged his imagination, a very common cafe among the beffc writeis of thofe ages, there is nothing m all that piece, which does not fuit with the lafte of thofe times, and which is not withal full of learn- ing and piety. Upon this occafion, I {hall here fet down a re- mark which I have made in reading it over again, and which I leave to the examination of the learn- ed Criticks. I had thought, after Mr. Simon^ that this Dia- logue might have been wrote about the fixth Cen- tury, or towards the end of the fifth, but I find that it may belong to the very time of St. j^tha* nafius , tho' I don't believe it Athanafiui'^ own. The Orthodox, reprefented in this Dialogue under the name of Athanafius^ demands of the Arian^ re- prefented by the name of Arius^ ^ "whether by fa}" ing the Emperor Conltantine reigns by Sea and Land^ they did thereby fay that his Son Conllantius did not reign there aljb. The Arian anfwers, it would be very dangerous to fay that Conllantius does not reign ivith Conit.mtine his Father, It appears plainly from all ihis, that this Dia- logue mull have been compos'd whilll the Empe- ^ Athan. Tom. i. pag. 116. ed. Coijn. T ror ( 138 ) ror Conjlantine was living, and at the time Conftan- this was Tent into the Eafi^ where he made him- felf famous by the vi6tories he gain'd over the ene- i mks of the State, about the year 3J6. fomewhat * before the death of the great Conjlantine^ which fell out on the zi^ of Af^;', 557. which evidently proves that this Dialogue mutt have been written , about the year of our Lord 356. and wrote withal 1 in the Eaft^ where Conjiantius was that year. From all this I draw alfo a convincing proof that the Author of this Dialogue is not the Author of the title we read to it, and upon account of which Dr. Ca've and others have fpoke with great con- tempt of the Dialogue and its Author. 1 have faid in my Diflertation, that it was one of thofe additi- onal titles which are feen at the head of feveral an- cient Treatifes, to which their Authors having gi- ven no title, there has been one form'd, which often does not belong to 'em. This is evidently of that kind j it implies that the difpute contain'd in this Difcourfe was held in the Town of Nice du- ring the time the Council fate, in the year 3 if. a very grofs and inexcufable millake, fince that fa- mous Council was not held till the year 32^. Now at that time Conjiantius was but a child of eight or nine years old, being born at Jrles^ accordmg to Ibme in 316, and according to others in 317. sind tho' Conjlantine had already honoured him the year before with the illuftrious title of defar^ yet it would have been a ridiculous thing to lay, that he had divided the power with Conjlantine ^ and that there would be danger in denying it, as they make the Arian fay in this Diakguc > efpecialiy when Crifpus and Conjlantine^ his elder brothers, and created Cafars long before him, Crifpus efpecjally, who was a perfon of extraordinary merit, wtre with Conjlantine their Father at the helm of the Government. It ( 139) It can only be urg*d againft what I have been faying concerning the time in which this Dialogue may have been wrote, that the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft is there fpoke of as a dodtrine which the Jrians denied, and which the Orthodox there defends from Scripture j whereas Arius had noc touched upon that matter. 'Tis true, that j^rius did not immediately explain himfelf upon this fub- jed, but they faw very well that denying the exter- nal Divinity of the Son, which is prov'd by fo many Texts of Scripture, he would foon come to de- clare againfl: that of the Holy Ghoft, the proofs of which are not fo numerous, nor fo evident. For they did not tarry long before they heard the Ariam blafpheme againll the Perfon of the Holy Ghoft j as againll that of the Son: the Council oi Nice^ m which Arius had been condemn'd upon the article of the Divinity of Jefus Christy had been held ten or twelve years when this Dialogue was wrote > nov/ how many courfes might nor, and indeed did not, the antitrinitarian herefy run, during thefe tea or twelve years? I return from my digrefljon upon the time of this Dialogue, to the quotation which is there made of thefe words of St. Jobn^ thefe three are one. 'Tis but at the end of the piece, fays Mr. Emlyn^ that thefe words are fet > St. John fays^ and thefe three are one^ which, fays he, looks like a little poftfcrip^ turn, Mr. Emlyn makes a jeft of the moll ferious thing in the world, and which requires the utmoll veneration, by treating thus difdainfully as a little poftfcriptum^ part of a Difcourfe fo well connected, as the pafTage we are upon. From pag. I4f . to the middle of pag. 147. the Orthodox Author, who defends the Divinity of the Holy Gholl againll the Arian^ after having eitabliHi'd at large in this Dia- logue the eternal and confubftantial Divinity of the Son, and prov'd by di'^ers Texts of Scripture T %. thefe ( I40 ) thefe two Riniamental truths, that the Son is God with the Father, and that the Holy Ghoft in hke manner God with the Father and the Son, con- cludes the myftery of the Trinity, pag. 147. with fome reflexions upoa Mofes^ EUas^ and St. PauL He fays " that this Apoille was therefore carried *' up into the third Heaven becaufe he bore the *^ Trinity in his heart •, God, %s he, being wil- *' ling to teach us by this example, that no perfon *' can afcend into Heaven, unlefs he has the fame *' faith which St. Paul had. And, adds he, the *' quickning and Hilutary Baptifm, by which we re- *' ceive remiffion of fins, and without which no " perfon was ever admitted into Heaven, is it not '' adminifter'd to the Faithful in the name of the *' Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholi? Befides " all this St. John fays, JND riJESE THREE " JRE ONE. Is then a Difcourfe fo connected, a reafoning fo clofely kept up a little poftfcriptum , a poitfcript ? And yet 'tis not the end of the Dialogue. But what did Mr. Emlyn pretend by this cxpreffion, which fuits fo ill with his fubje6t. If he meant to infinuate into the mind of his Readers th it 'tis an addition made after the work by a foreign hand, he has aded unfairly j and if he believ'd, and would have others beheve, that they are the words of the fame Author with the red of the Dialogue, will it be lefs true upon this account that it is the quo- tation of the paflage of St. John ? Certainly Mr. Emlyn knows not what to lay hold of. A thud Greek writer which I have not yet quo- ted, and have found ilnce, ihall be here join'd to the two foregoing, in defence of the Text of the three witnefies in Heaven > 'tis Euthymius Zyga^ hemus^ a Greek Monk, who flourifh'd at Coyiftan- tinople at the end of the eleventh Century, and ihe beginning of the twelfth. Among feveral works, ( HX ) works, which gain'd him the efteem of the Pub* lick, he drew up, by the order of the Emperor yilexis Comnenus^ who was rais'd to the Throne of Conftantinople a collcftion of divers works of the Gr^^^ Fathers, who had wrore againft the herefies. For this reafon he calTd his work PenopUa dogma- tica^ which fignifies a compJeat armour for the do- dirines of the Faith, In the firft part of this Book, Tit. 7. towards the end, he produces thefe words, 'THREE ARE ONE^ to prove the unity of the divine perfons in the unity of efTencej his words are, to h Itt] r oiA,o^ now a Ritual, or Ledtionary, is an ecckfiaftick work, drawn up by the Doctors for the ufe of publick congregations. Thus the Latin ( 143 ) Latin Church has its Le6i:ionarics, or Rituals 5 the Englijh has its Liturgy, or Common Prayer; we have alfo ours \ and the Greeks have withal a greater number of thefe Rituals, but their Apollolos is by no means of this order, it is but fo far a Ledionary as it is read in the Church, and they chufe, as I have obferv'd, out of it the portions that are more fuitable to certain days, than they are to others. This then is the very Epiftles of the Apoftles, put all together in one Volume, which is for this rea- fon caird Jpojlolos^ i. e. the Jpoflle j as the other Volume is call'd the Gofpel^ becaufe it contains all the four Evangelifts. I might have obferv'd this, if I had attended to the manner Dr. Tho. Smithy who liv'd fo long in Greece^ has exprefs'd himfelf concerning the j^poftolos. For he fays that it is a CoUe^ion of the Epifiles of the New tefiament wrote or printed feparately ; that is, feparately from the Gofpel. I might alfo have obferv'd it in a pafTage which 1 have quoted from the Eucbologium of the Greeks^ where it is faid, that they prefent to him whom they are to ordain Reader^ the Book in which are contained the jl^s of the Jpofiles and their Epi^ files. I owe the advantage of this remark which fpreads fo great a light over the prefent fubjedi: to two Mufcovite Gentlemen, whofe Letters 1 ihall give. For fince the Jpojiolos is the very Volume of the Epifiles, the thought of alterations made from time to time in the Rituals can have no place here. To come now to the new proof which I add to thofe of the Greek Rituals, and which 1 take from the ufe of the Mufco'vite Church 3 few men are ignorant, that this Church is a very ancient branc-h of the Greek Church. As the Mufcovites or Ruffians^ were converted by the Greeks at the end of the tenth Century, they received the Holy Scripture from them, took their Rites and Cere- monies ( M4 ) monies in the exercife of their Religion, and own'd for their Head the Patriarch of Conftantinople. They remained fix'd to him till the laft age, when they made in their own Countrey a Patriarch of their own Nation, yet without breaking with him of Conftantinople^ with whom they held correfpon- dence, as being the principal Head of the Greek Church. Their adherence to this Church has al- ways made the Latins look upon *em as Schifma- ticks, in the fame manner and for the fame rea- ions they treat the Greeks as fchifmatical, namely the article of the procefEon of the Holy Ghoft, whom they don't believe to proceed from the Son, but from the Father only, and efpecially the article of the Pope's authority, which the Greeks and Mufcovites have always refus'd to fubmit to, as the Latins do. This great diftance betwixt the Mufcovites and Latin Churches, with which they have never had any communion, has kept them in all things fledfafl: to their ancient Religion, and to all its Rites. They took from 'em neither their Bibles nor their Ledti- onaries, and if they are found therein to agree m fome things, 'tis only fo far as that which was brought there by the Greeks at the time of their converfion. Since then their Bibles are abfolutely the fame "with thole of the Greek Church, without the in- trodticlion of any new T'ext from the Latin Bibles, if 1 ihew that the Mufcovites have in St. John's E- pillle the fame palTage of the Trinity as we have in the Greek of that facred Epiftle, and if withal they have inferted it in their Confeffion of Faith, and read it publickly, as the Greeks do, on Trinity Sunday^ I fhall have demonltrated, that this paiTage is not lately mtroduc'd into the Copies ot the Greek Church, and tiiat this Church owns it to be gc- ;nuuie ; now all this is eafy to be prov'd. The ( M5 ) The firfl: of thefe three things, which is that the Mufcovites read this Text always in their New Tejftament, here meets with an immediate difficul- ty which miifl be cleared up. We have in the Library of this l^own a Sclavonian Bible, printed at Mofcow in i66^. The Editors advertife in their Prefiice, that they have foUow'd exactly an ancienc Edition made at Oftrogh in Poland^ in the time of one Conftafitine a Prince of that City, which may be about 130. or 140. years ago. The Text of the 7^^ Vcrie, which fpeaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoil is put in the margin, bccaufe the Greek Munufcript from which this Sdai'onian iranilation was made, was one of thofe I have men- tioned; in which this paHage being omitted, the fiime hand, or another like it, had wrote it in the margin. To be convinc'd that this is properly buc an omifllon, and not an addition of a palTage fo- reign to St. John's Epiflle, we need only fee the manner after which this and the following Verfe is written; I fhall therefore produce both as they Hand in that Edition : thefe then are the words of the 7'^ Verfe plac'd in the margin. For there are three hearing record in Heaien^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft ; and thefe three are one : and 'thofe of the 8^*^ Verfe in the very line of the Text, j^nd there are three hearing record in Earth \ the Spirit j the Water ^ and the Blood ; and thefe three agree in one. In both Verfes we fee the Greek phrafe «Vi ^w*^- TutS'wc?, are hearing record^ for that hear record^ and the Greek word ct< for^ plac'd only in the 7^^^ Verfe, not in the 8^'^, as it fhould be, if the 7^^^ was noc there; but inllead of the word qti for the 8^^ Verfe begins with the particle y^^ and^ which is a necef- fary confequence of what has gone before; as in reality it is found in all the Greek and L^//« Copies, where the fix witnefles, the three in Heaven, and the three on Earth are cxprefs^d. I owe the read- U ' ing ( 14^ ) ing and Verfion of thefe pafiages of the Sch'vmian Bible to Meir. Oladin and Croufchof\ Mufcovlte Gentlemen, attendants upon Prince Kourakin^ Em- baflador from his Czarian Majcfty at the i J ague. 'Tis to them alfo I owe the infigbt I am about to give into the ufe which their Church has al- ways made of the paflage of St. John., copied from the letters they did me the honour ro write to mc from the Hague^ one dated the 27^^^ of Jpril m the year 172.0. and the other May the 11^'^ toilowing. SIR, «t r-|-\HE Commiffion you have been pleas'd to JL *•' honour us with, turns upon the 7*^^ Verfe " of the v^i^ Chapter of the firft EpilUe of St. " John, whether it is in the Text of our New '' Teftaments, in our Confeflion of Faith, and in *' our Leftionary. Upon which we allure you, '' that it is inferted in our Confefilon of Faith, *' printed at Lipfick in Greek and Latin in idpf. and '' at Mofcow in 1709. entituled, Orthodox Confefjlon '' of the Faith of the Catholick, Jpofiolick^ Oriental *' Churchy tr an flat ed from the Greek,- of which we *' fend you a Copy, and which has been approv'd '' by our Greek Patriarchs, by feveral Mecropoli- " tans, Archbifliops, and others of the Clergy. " In all our New Teftaments this pafiage is alfo '' found, and every where in the body of the Text, '' and not in the margin, betwixt the 6*^ and 8^^ " Vcrfes : it begins with, for there are three^ 6cc. ^' and the 8'^^ with And there are three^ 6cc. " The fame verfe is found withal in our Jpoftol^ *' which the Greeks call ylpoflolos^ of which you " have treated in your Dillertation upon the 7^^ '' verfe, pag. if 6. *' Leo Allatius reckons it among the Rituals, in " which he is miftaken, becaufe all the Rituals " that we have are tranflated from the Greeks and " contain ( 147 ) '' contain only the order how the Liturgy, thofe « of Sc. Chryfojlom and St. Bafil the Great, with '' the other divine fcrvices, are to be celebrated in *' the Churches : whereas the Jpojlolos is nothing '' elfe but the New Tellamcnt it felf without the *' four Evangelitls, which is made thus exprcflly *' for the ufc oF the Church j for the Epiftles may " be read during divine fervice by any Layman, " who can read, but the Gofpel cannot be read *' but by the Pried who celebrates the Liturgy, or " by a Deacon, who officiates together with the " Pried. For this reafon the four Gofpels and the " Epillles are ufually printed feparate. For the " red, this pafTage of the three witneflcs in Heaven " is read in our Church the Thmjday of the thirty *' fifth week afrcr Pentecosl -y as it is fet down in " your Diflertarion, pag. ij*/. Nov/, Sir, all that " you have faid in your DifTertation upon the " three wicnefles in heaven in pag. ifS.and ifp. is " mod certainly true, for all this is pradis'd in 'our *' Church, without the lead alteration to this' day. " As they print in our Country the Epidles of '' the Apoiiles feparate from the Gofpel for the «' ufe of the Church, they have begun for fome *^ time pad to print the faid Epidles of the Apo- " dlc?s conjointly with the Gofpel for the conve- " nience of travellers. When our nation began to " viiit foreign countries: then the fird edition of « the New Tedament appear'd at Kiof in 1691- " in 4% another alfo at Kiof in 1703. in 11°, ac " Mo/cow alfo in 8^. Here, Sir, are already three " Editions of the New Tedament which we have " with us at the Hague. We have alfo the Jpo- ^' Jlolos printed at Mofcoiv m 1679. and the Text " of the -j^^ verfe is in all thefe Editions.'* As thefe Gentlemen did not feem to me to have fufficiently explained themfelves as to the manner, U 2, after ( 148 ) after which the Jpofiolos is read in their Churches, I wrote to them my difficulties upon that article^ to which they gave the following anfwer the ele- venth o^ May. '' To fatisfy, Sir, your curioGty we have the *^ honour to tell you, that all you have taken from " St. Saha is pra6tis'd in our Church very exaftly, " as well as in the Greek Church. We have Rea« '' ders expreflly appointed to read the Epifties, but '' not in all places -, they are only in the Cdthedral ^^ Churches of all the Bidiopricks, in all the Cloy- *' Hers, and in the Parochial Churches of fome " Diocefesj for there are fome Diocefcs in which '' there are no Readers appointed in the Parochial *' Churches, either for want of perfons who will <' take upon 'em that ecclefiaftick office, or rather ^' thro' the negligence of the Biiliops. Now where '^ there are no Lectors and Chantors appointed, ^' there private men have the liberty of chanting " and reading the Epiillcb, either upon their own '« motion, or by the permiffion or order of the *' Pried, that the congregation may not be depri- ♦•^ ved of the divine fervice — after which the Prieil; ^^ reads the Gofpel. Thefe particulars arc not much known to the publick, by reafon of the little commerce the Muf- covites have had with the reft of Europe till within thefe twenty years, that the prefent Czar has open- ed 'em the way to all Countries of Europe^ having himfelf vifited the principal parts. We fhall conclude this matter with extradting from theConfeffion of Faith, that has beenfent mcj the article which regards the paiTage of St. John, Qj5 E S T I O N. c If there is but one God^ it feems as if there mufi he hut one Perfon* ^ u s f Part I, Quasli p. Answer. ( H9 ) A N S Y/ E R. // does KOt follow \ hecaufe God is one according to his Nature aud Ejfjhue^ but the number of three refpeSls the Perforis-, for ivhicb reafon what the Fa- ther is according to his Nature^ the fame is the Son^ and the Holy Ghofl : noro as the Father is in bis Na- ture true and eternal God^ and creator of all things^ both z'iftble and invifible^ fuch is the Son^ fuch the Holy Ghoft^ being confubflantial one '■juith the other j according to what the EvangelijI St. John' teaches y when he fays^ that there are three which bear record in Fleaven^ the Father^ the Wordy and the Floly Ghofl y and thcfe three are one. This Confellion of Faith, which is a Treatife ia form of aCatcchifm upon the principal parts of the the Chriilian Rehgion was fent by the Mufcovites to the Greek Church. Parthenius^ who fill'd the Patri- archal See of Conflantinople.^ allcmbltd a Council of the Patriarchs ol AlexandriayAntiochy2xAJerufalc'm^ the Archbifhops, and others of the Clergy in great numbers, who having read and examin'd this body of Doclrine ail approv'd it, and fubfcrib'd it the tenth o^ March 1643. '^^^ manner in which this very folemn A(5l begins is remarkable; Parthenius, by the Mercy of Gody Archbifiop of Conflantinople, new Rome, and Oecumenical Patriarch. Our mediocrity together with the AfJ^emhly of fovereign Pontiffs^ and the Clergy has received the Book which has been fent us from our Sifter^ the Church o/LefTer Ruflia, /;;- tituledy Confejfion of the Orthodox Faith^ 6cc. An A6t: fo authentick, in which the Greek and Mufcovite Churches are in a manner blended toge- ther, proves equally that the Greek and Mufcovite Church owns in the mod folemn manner in the world, that the Text of the three witnefTes in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, is really a Text of Sc. 'John'^ Epillle. This is what I had ( 150 ) I had undertook to prove, and I think there can- not be a more evident demonflration. CHAP. XI. Of the Verjion of the New Teflament in mo- dern Greek by Maximus a Monk of Calli- polis, in which is the Text of the three witneffes in Heaven^ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft ; and thefe three are one. THIS facred truth of the original Text of the Apoftle finds withal an inviolable Sanduary in a NewTeilamenc printed in modern Greek^ or Bar- barian Greck^ as 'tis call'd, in diftindlion from the ancient Greek of the NewTelhment, and the other ancient Books. It has h'lppen'd to the Greek tongue, as to the Latln^ to degenerate by little and little in the countries and among the People, where it was the ordinary language > for of all the fine Latin which was anciently fpokc in Italy^ there remains only fome few lame words, and certain phrafes de- rived from it. The ancient language of Greece is not indeed altogether fo much loil among the mo- dern Greeks 5 the words have continued more en- tire, and the conftrudtions are lefs alter'd > yet this does not hinder but that people, naturally ignorant and very ill-taught, can fcarce underftand the Greek of the New Teftament, tho' it is eafy in compari- fon of the other Books of antiquity which are wrote in that language. T!be Greeks, fays "^ Mr. Simon^ do not for fome ages pa§i [peak their ancient Greek, which is no longer under flood by the people. ^ Hill, des Verfions du Nouveau Teftament ch. xx. To ( X5I ) To remedy this ignorance, and provide for the inftiuction and confolation of the Greek Churche?, a Monk, nam'd Maximus^ of the town of CaUipolis^ within ihe dirtrift of the Dardanelles ^ a kifFragan Bifhoprick to the Archbifhop of Heradea^ in the Patriarchate of Conflantinople^ undertook a kind of Verfion, or Paraphrafe of the original Text of the Books of the NewTeftament in vulgar Greek. The difficulty, or rather the impoflibiHty of printing this Work in their own Country, was the caufe why they fent it into Europe^ by means of the Re- fident of the States General at the Port -^ and upon the entreaty of the Patriarch of Conftantinople^ Cyrill Lucar ^ whofe zeal for the Chriftian Religion is very well knov/n, as well as the perfccutions which were rais'd againlt him by his enemies, and which did not end but with the cruel death the 'furks in- flidted on him in 1638. This New Teffament fenc into Holland with a very excellent and very pious Preface of the Patriarch Cyriirs-y was printed at Leyden by the Elzivers in 1638. in 4^, in two Co- lumns j in one of which is the Greek Text of the NewTedament, and in the other the vulgar Greek. The 7^1^ and 8^^ Verfes of the f^^ Chapter of St. John's Epiftle are there in this twofold form, and as they may be feen herej The Greek of St. John's The vulgar Greek of the Epillle. fame Epiftle. ^. 7. Or* T^Hg eiciv ol if. J. On r^ftg hmou s- yTveo]i/,o«, )^ k'\vi ol T^etg kv k^ to ocytov Trvgd^a^, (t tx^- «V/. TQi ol r^eig hoc etveu, if,^. Kou T^eig eiciv ol ilf,S.Koi<7^eigetvcctc'Hei'' yy,f ( ^5^) ^ cuucCy ii cl TP^g elg to tv y^ to oauay yu ol r^eig £rig eicnv. svcc etvou. The differences oFnne Greek from the other are very fmall in thcfe paflages, as in abundance of o- thers of the fame Veriion, but they are much greater in feveral places 5 and 'tis this which makes the anci- ent Greek no longer underflood by the people, who befides their great ignorance, have iunk into an ex- trcnie negligence with regard to Religion and the facred Scripture. Mr. Simon CKprefles a great regard for this Ver- Hon of Mdximus'y he fays, that 'tis one of the moft exadl and mojl judicious that has been made in this laft age^ and that it a^ij'wers up to the fenfe of the original Greek. Yet 'tis in this Vcrllon that he mull: have ^t^n this Text of tlie Epiilleof St. John^ which has caufed him fo much pains, and againit which he has fo frequently declar'd. Whence is it then, and from Vt^hat original Greek did Maximus take it? If from the G'cek Editions made in Europe^ and the Manufcript Copies o^ the Greek Churches had ziot this very pailage, Cyril Lucar^ his Patriarch, would have been very ignorant, or very raili to ftamp an authoiity upon this Verfion, and recom- mend it as he has done to the Greek Churches, e- fpecialiy confidering the many enemies he had. What reproaches would not this have drawn both upon him and Maximus ? We find too that a cer- tain Greek Prieil, nam'd Jeremy^ jealous perhaps of the Monk Maximus and iiis Work, has fpoke with contempt of this Verfion, faying that no per- fon fcarce bought it in Greece^ and that ^ they read there the New Teliament in its proper Gveek^ with- ^ L^aiijius iHoted ly F. ie Long. out ( 153 ) out tying tbemfelves to the vulgar Greek of a Ver- (Ion which was ufelefs enough. But this Priefl: would have had a quite different charge againlt this Verfion, if it had been unfliith- ful to fuch a degree as to contain a forg'd Text, and unknown to all the Greek Church -, 'yet he only blames it as ufelefs. But this Greek Prieft evi- dently fhew'd in this his hatred againft MaximuSy (who declares in his Preface that he had not un- dertook this work but to make the New Tefta- ment underftood by his Nation) and againll the Patriarch Cyril^ who has complained in the fame manner of the ignorance of his people, for want of underltanding the Greek of the New Teftament. If we mull: produce witnelTes of this ignorance of the Greeks .which Cyril ^nd Maxlmus complain of, be- fides what Mr. Simon has faid, let us hear the re- port of three eminent men, who have witneffes of it, as having been upon the fpot, and known very well the fad condition of the Greek Churches j thefe are Sir Paul Rycaut^ Mr. Spon^ and Sir George JVheler. The firft, who had liv'd long in Greece as Conful to the EngliJJ) Nation, has wrote the Hijlory of the Greek Churchy and he fays in his Preface, That the Englifh Trade/men are generally better infirucied^ and more knozving than the Dolors of that Church. What then mull the common people be? Mr. Spon en- ters into a more large and particular account, for fpeaking of a certain Village, which is not far from Callipolis^ and in which there were near an hun- dred Greek families, ^ he fays, " there was a fmall ^^ Church, into which he and Mr. Wheler^ his " companion in the journey, going at the time of '' Vefpers, the Prielt chanted 'em after the moll " miferable manner in the world, not one word of [ Voyage de Mr. Spon en Grece, p. 157. X what ( t54 ) ^' what was faid was under (lood : 'tis probable *' withal he underftood nothing of it himfeif, for *' they are for the mod part fo ignorant in the <' Villages, that they do not know barely how to *' read their office, and what they fay, they ordi- *' narily fay by heart. At lea it if they can read it, '' there are few who underfiood it, becaufe it is *' in litteral Greek^ which is aimed as different '^ from the modern Greek ^ as the Latij^ is from *^ the Italian, Sir G. JVhehr^ an EngUJJj Gentleman oF very great worth, who had travell'd into Greece with Mr. Spon^ and who publifli'd the account of it fometime after that of Mr. Spon came abroad, fays, in the very curious defcription and full of learned en- quiries which he gives of the Town of Athens^ that tho' the Athenians have preferv'd more of the an- cient Greek in their language, than any other mo- dern Greeks^ yet he found only at Athens the Arch* bifhop, and Ezechiel the Papa o't Cyriani^ who un- derftood the ancient Greek j There was alfoy adds he, another Greek of Candia, who knew a little of the Greek of the Schools ; there were but few others who underflood it better than the Italians do Latin, All thefe tellimonies prove but too much the neceflity there was of giving Greece a New Tefta- ment in common Greeks as the Monk Maximus has done from the very Greek of the facred Authors. I will add for the clofe, that 'tis clearly feen from reading this Verfion^ that Maximus had other Greek Copies than our printed ones. I have examined it from one end to the other, and compared it with the Greek of our Editions , and have collected a great number of inftances, but fhall content my felf with thefe two : all our Greek Editions have thefe words in St. Matthew^ Chap, xxvii. f. 9. as it was faid by Jeremy the Prophet j but the Edition of Maximus has barely, as it was faid by the Pro- phet. ( ^55 ) pher. Tiuhei^ Chap. >*^ 25. of the fird Epiftle of St. JohiJ. the Editions o^ComplutHm^ o^ Erafmus^ of jlldus^ and R. Stephens^ which are the only ones from which the others were made, have only this firil: part of the verfc, "djbofoever denieth the SoUf the fame hath not the Father \ but the Greek of the Monk Max'miis hath the other part of the verfe, which has been found lince thefe Editions of Coyn- phitum^ Erafmus and others, in fome ancient Greek Manufcript. He that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father alfo. The Greek Church had its own Copies which the foregoing ages had tranfmitted to it, there is no doubt of it j the Monk Maximus^ a Greek^ and tranllator had 'cm alfo > neither can this be doubt- ed ofj the Text of the witncfTes in Heaven is in his Verlion, his njerfton was exa5i^ judicious^ and made from the Greek original^ by Mr. Simon's own confeiilion 5 this Text was therefore in the Greek Copies. CHAP. XII. Of an ancient Greek Manufcript fotmd at Dublin, "which has the faffage that makes the fiibjeEi of this "Differ tat ion. THERE are a certain fort of men in the world, who under pretence of feeking for fa- tisfaftion concerning a truth, ufe their utmoft ef- forts to find means how to oppofe it. Thefe are two oppofite extremes, and which are both faulty j to yield too eafily to the proofs of a difputed que- ftion, and to be fatisfy'd with nothing, or to take pains only to form objections to render thefe proofs ufelefs. Qnc is the mark of a fuperficial and two X 2 credulous ( I50 credulous mind 5 the other is that of a contentious fpirit, and too fond of it felf > to which we may very juftly apply, thefe words of the Latin Poet, Faciunt nee intelligendo ut nihil intelligant. We find this fort of perfons, more nice and dif- cult than folid, in the cafe of the prefent queftion. They would have us believe they fliould be very glad to be perfuaded that the Text of St. John is genuine 5 becaufe, fay they, they acknowledge with us the myflery of the Trinity, which this paflage contains, but they dare not affirm that it is really St. John's. They cannot indeed deflroy the proofs we urge for the genuinefs of this Text, at leaft there are feveral which appear convincing to 'em 5 but one thing is wanting, which is to produce to 'em an ancient Greek Manfcript that is indifputa- ible, in which this paflage is found. This fubtilty, (I muft be allow'd to fay it) ap- pears to me unworthy either a man of learning or candour, one or the other is wanting to it. A man of learning cannot be ignorant that the Greek Editions of X/;i^^;^^j, Erafmus^ and Stephens were made from ancient Manufcriptsj and a man of can- dour cannot doubt of thefe Manufcripts no more than if they were fet before his eyes, unlefs he fu- fpe6ls Ximenes^ Erafmus^ and Stephens to have been cheats and impoftors. I would ask 'em upon this, what would become an hundred or two hundred years hence, fuppofing fuch a Manufcript to be found now as they require, and that this Manufcript fhould then be loll like the reft, of the proof which would at prefent be drawn from thence, in favour of the difputed paflage ? Men would have equal grounds then as they have now to require fome Manufcript to be produc'd, which has this paflage j that which is now a convincing proof will be no longer^ fuch Manufcripts are noc daily daily to be found •, and thus this excellent paflage will be but a float in mens minds, betwixt doubt and certainty, tho' from other very folid reafons it is prov'd to be St. John's. Thofe perfons who cry out fo loudly to the Maymfcripis^ to the Manufcripts^ as to the only decifive demonlbation, lliould reflect upon the terrible inconvenience their principle leads 'cm into; I hope they will open their eyes upon it: And in the mean time, I iTlail give them thw facif- fadion they demand. Divine Providence, which vKibly takes care to prefervc in the Church the truth oF a Text fo valuable for the do6i:rine it contains, has thrown into my hands the extrad oF an ancient Greek xMa- nufcript which I had no knowledge of, and which therefore it was impoflible for mz to think of. Mr. Tcard^ a refugee Mmifler, whom J had known in France^ and who is now Dean o{ AconryM Dublin^ fent me in Ouiober la(l an extrad of this pafiage taken from an ancient Manufcript which is in the Library of that capital City of Ireland-, this ex- tra6l was compared with the original by the Libra- rian; and Mr. 7card pm^d thereto feveral remarks, which all tended to fhew the nature of the Manu- fcript. Since that time I have had a pretty large correfpondencc with him by letters, in order to be fatisfy'd concerning feveral particulars which 1 thought necefTary. Before I enter into the ac- count, which w'ould be matter for a long Dif- courfe, I fnall begin with tranfcribing the Greek Text of three entne verfes, the 7^\ 8^"^ and p^^^ which have been communicated to me, and are written almoft in the manner following. *0t/ T^tig ei(nv ol fxoi^v^SvT ou tm j/vw, 7!ry,fij Ao- ( ijS ) At the foot of this Text is wrote the attedation of the Librarian in thcfe terms. Supra fcripta Gr^eae Une£ ncyvem^ qu^e cceJeJiium trium^ triumque terreftrium I'eftium teflimonium per^ hibmt^ }}£ linea^ inquam^ exfcriptce fuere ex inanu- fcripto Codice Gr^co totius Novi Tejlamenii \ qui Co- dex in dorfo infcriptus G. 97. membranaceus eft in 8^, ex manufcriptis nomine Ufferii nuncupatis^ quod re- 'vera celeherrimi Fr^fulis Jacohi UJferii Armachani^ dura in 'uivis, fuere. Infuper ajfcverans meipfum ver- batim^ ipfas fcilicet lineas^ cum Autograpbo fuo^ ex quo exfcriptce fuere^ contulijfe^ nullamque in iis^ ne quidem in apice uno^ difcrepantiam ab ipfo reperiljfe. In cujus rei teflimonium manum meam appoftdj if. die Augufti 17 19, Gulielmus Lewis^ Librarius BibUo'- ihecae Collegii S. Trimtatis^ Dublinii. Nothing can be more exa6l than this atreflati*- on. The Greek of the Extrad is in nine lines \n the fhset that was fent me, the faithfuhiefs of this Extrad and its perfeft Conformity with the Ori- ginal, cannot be better ex prefs'd than in thefe words of the atteiiation^ which implies that there is not the lead difference betwixt 'em. The nature oF the Manufcript is not there omitted, 'tis a Manu- fcript in parchment in 8°, which contains the whole New Teltament, mark'd in the back by the Letter G. and the number 97. and what is yet very remarkable is, that it is one of thofe, v^hich belonged to the famous Ufier^ in his life time, Archbifhop of Armagh^ in Ireland. This atteftati- on is very full for the validity^ both of the Ex- tradir, and the Original Few 3 ( 159 ) Few men are ignorant how Ujl^r^ who was born at Dublin in if 80. began early to gain a name a- mong the Men of Letters, and to what degree his reputation afterwards was raisM. As he was curi- ous and indefatigable in his (Indies, fo he was alfo in his enquiry after the bell Books, and mod valua- ble g Mannfcripts. To this end he rlin over all the moft confiderable places in England^ and by means of labour and money, he formed a molt ex- cellent and valuable Library. It fufferM feveral di- minutions from the then civil wars, which caus'd it to be carry'd to divers places, but at lad it was brought from England into Ireland^ and placM at Dublin^ where it now is. Among the Greek Manufcripts of the New Te- ftament, that out of which theextrad ofthefe paf- (ages of St. John was taken and fent me, is the on- ly one, which has the New Tellament entire ; and the only one, at leall that we know of, from which UJJjer took the pains to colled the various readings, in order to have them inferted in the fa- mous Polyglot publi^h'd by Walton. This colledi- on of Ufier's reaches no farther than the firfl Chap- ter of the Epillle to the Romans^ beginning with the Gofpel of St. Matthezv ^ according to what Mills has obferv'd in the Prolegomena no his New Teftament, ^rt. I2,j9-i and 1380. The queilion will be now to know, whether the Manufcripts from which the three verfes of St. Jobrt's Epidle were copy'd, is the flime with that which Mills has fpoke of after Walton-^ and 'tis \\\ this enquiry that Mr. Ycard has us*d all the pains and exaftnefs that could be deiir'd. The Diflerta- tion 1 had wrote upon the difputed palfage, was S Set the Life of Uilier by Bernard in the Book entituled Vitae feledtorum aliquot virorum, 6cc. Printed at London in 1681. doubtlefs ( ^^o } doubtlefs what did raife in him the curiofity to fee whether it was in this Manufcript, and he had the fatisfadion to find it there. Then running over le- veral places of this Copy, he faw at the bottom of a page in St. Matthew's Gofpel, thefe words in La- tin \ fum Thojnce dementis^ oUm fratris Froyht^ that is, I belongio'^rhom^LS Clement, oind formerly to Fryar Froyht's. Thefe two words brought into his mind what he had read in Walton^ and in Mills^ that one of the Manufcripts whofe various readings are given in the Polyglott of England^ and in Mills^ mark'd by the word Mont, which is the abridgment o^ Montfor- tiusj had the fame w^ords, fitm Thoma Clementis^ olim fratris Froyht. This was almoll enough to deter- mine it to be the (lime Manufcript, but to be more fully affur'd of it, Mr. 2?^r^ gave himfelf the trou- ble to compare the different readings which l-Fal- ton and Mills have taken from theManuicriptMc*.^^. with that which he had in hand j he faw that they were every where the fame, and he found that fome were by another hand than the Text of the Manufcript. He faw there alfo the Canons o^ Am- rnonius^ and the Scichomecry which Mills fays was in Mont, and afcer all thefe fo perfe6t agreements there was not the leall caufe to doubt, but the Manufcript he had before his eyes, was this Manu- fcript Mont, which had belonged to a ProfefTor in Divinity, one Montforiius^ from which by abbre- viation, as I have obferv'd, was made the word Mont,hy which it is cx^xds'dhy JValton^ Mills^^nd others. This Manufcript is remarkable in many refpeds : it is not gilded or illuminated, nor has any other like ornaments, which are only for (hew and pomp. 'Tis wrote after a plain and ordinary manner, for the proper ufe of the perfon who copied it from a- nother, and not to be fold, as thofe w^ere which were made by the men who were writers by Pro- feffion, ( i6.) fcffion, fuch as fince the Arc of printing are the Bookfcllers. The writer of this has taken no pains to write it very fairly •, he has even much negled- ed his hand in many places, and that which is very difagreeable to the eye > but which is yet the mark of mtegrity in a Copier is that when in writing he perceiv'd feme word or feveral forgot, he cras'd out thofe he had wrote, and replac'd 'em in the body of the Text, after he had wrote there thofe which he had forgotten 5 Mr. T'card has taken no- tice of feveral of this kind of rafures and corredi- ons, and has given me divers inlfances. As to what regards the main of the Manufcript it felf, there are few perhaps, which are more cor- real j the different readings which are found in Walton^ and in Af/7/j, (hew that they oft agree with the famous Manufcript of Cambridge^ with that of jllexandria^ with the old Lincoln^ and fuch others as are moll valued, I ihall give two or three ex- amples. Rom, Chap. xii. "j^. 11. feveral Mannfcripts and fome Greek Editions have tw y.ou^^ Sahd^om^y i. e. ferving the time^ or complying with the time. Gro^ tius obferves that the moll ancient and befl have inllead of the word >c^^w, which fignifies time, that of Y.v^to which fignifies the Lord j and 'tis thus indeed that we read in o\AX^\h\G^ ferving the Lord-y the Manufcript of Dublin.^ or Mont, has the word jcve/'o) abbreviated in this manner kw. The doxology which contains the three lafl verfes of the Epiflle to the Romans.^ Now to him that is able to ftrengthen you^ 6c c. was inferted in all the Manufcripts of Stephens^ and in feveral others, at the end of the xiv^^ Chapter, and 'tis there alfo, and not at the end of the lait Chapter, that it is in the Manufcript of Dublin. In the firlt Epiftle of St. John^ the 23^^ verfe of the ii^ Chapter has only thefe words in feveral Y Manufcripts ( ^^^ ) Manufcripts, he who denies the Son^ has not the Fa- ther-^ the Manufcripc o^ D ublin^ as leveral others, has the words following. He who acknowledges the Son^ has the Father alfo. We may judge from all this of the goodncfs of this Copy, and how it may ferve to mend feveral uncorre6l pailages in fome very ancient Copies. As to the time when it may have been made, it has this in common with moil: of the rcil, that there is no certain demonilration of it. 'Tis certain, that 'tis not before the eleventh Century, bccaufe it has the Prologues of Theophyla^^ who liv'd about the middle of that agej but nothing hinders withal but that it may belong to the clofe of that Century 5 nor would there be any room to doubt of it, if we could be fatisfy'd that a date which is found there at the end of St. Mark's Gofpel, was wrote by the fame hand with the Copy j this, as it was knc mc, runs thus, iy^cpy} iJ^i x^^^^^ ^'-^^ '^ "^^ X^ dvaM^^cuig^ I. e. it was wrote ten Centuries after Chrifi's Afcen- fton y which would exprefs the eleventh Century. But to advance nothing of my own head upon a matter fo difficult as this, 1 fhall content my felf with giving fome particulars concerning the wri- ting of this Manufcripr, upon which the learned, who are converfant in thefe fludies, may form their judgment, and know almoll exadlly, what age it may be of. The form of the letters is in the main the fame with that of our Gn^^/^ Editions, with accents, fpirits, and the iota fubfcript *, but one thing among o- thers is confiderable in the writing of the Texts of the Epiftle of St. John which have been lately feen, and this is the v vowel in. the word jwct^rvei^v is mark'd with two points upon the top of it > that the I alfo has the fame two points in the words «V« and oTj, and withal in ^oc^Tv(iocv. F. Montfaucon^ who of ail men living is moft capable to judge of thefe thefe matters, has faid in the firft Book of his Pa- lieographia Grceca^ that this manner or marking the i\ and the u's is above a thoufand years old. I know very well, it does not thence follow that we can afcribe fuch an antiquity to all the Manufcripts where it is found > but this may be inferred from it, with regard to this, that it was copied from a- nother very ancient j which is confirmed withal from the agreement I have faid. there is betwixc its different readings and thofe of the Manufcripts of Cambridge^ Alexandria^ and others. Some attention perhaps may be given to the fhort manner of writing ^x^tv^Qvt in this extradt, and to the abbreviation in the word ovvu for ^^v^o, in 2tr>jp for mccv,^^ in dyim [or dv^fiooiTcov^ and in 3-u for 9-sJ. Some others alfo have fallen under my eyes in feveral quotations of Scriptiires, which have been communicated to me upon other occafions, fuch as thcfej /a>J/a for /s^^o-^stA-^u, ^o(>^ for J'^tui^fj f^ov for fav^sv, !$■ for I>jr^f, xV q kV in the firft Epiftle of St. P^^^r, Chap. ii. f. 5. for ;/^i7oV 0 vSje^(^ Km for y.'JtA'h Rom. xii. ^. ii. as I have obferv'd al- ready J ZiTPOq for ZvXPOg^ ^^ig for STJC^e^SS") U'c, But whether one can or cannot draw from the(e ways of abridging certain words, and placing in fome two points over the letters ot, /, and u, certain proofs that the Manufcript in which thefe things are found is precifely of fuch an age, this will be yet a mark of antiquity, and even antiquity which may equal it, with the Manufcripts of the eleventh or twelfth Century. There are few of thofe thap are colle(51:cd in Libraries, which by Mr. Simon's own confeiTion, are above fix or fcven hundred years old ; now this will have that age, tho* it were only of the twelfth or thirteenth Century. But was It yet more modern, being copied from one more ancient, as all that 1 have related (hews, its antiquity would lead us farther back, and we Y a. ftould ( 1-^4 ) fliould find our felf upon the level with the other Manufcripts I have nam'd. Yet this is not what we have need of to give weight to the authority of this Manufcript, with relation to the Text of St. John's Epiftlej Mr. 5'/- mon^ who of all men living is the lead to be fu- fpe6i:ed in this matter, will give us very fure rules to judge rightly of the validity of a Manufcript, and its juft authority with regard to fome particu- lar paflliges in which it is found different from the reft, and he will inform us, that the genuinencfs of fuch or fuch a pafTage does not properly de- pend upon the antiquity of a Manufcripr, and that often on the contrary a very modern Manufcripc fliould be preferred to another far more ancient. See how he has explained himfelf m his Preflice to the Critical Hiftory of the Text of the New Te- ftament. Tbe m&fi ancient Greek Copies of the New Veftament which we have at prefent are not the beft^ Jince they are conformable to thofe Latin Copies^ which St. J erom found fo aiter'ci^ that hejudg'd it conveni- ent to reform them. And in the very Hillory of the Greek Text, Chap. xxx. fFe muft not always prefer the reading of ancient Greek Copies to thofe which are now calVd modern^ for thefe lafi may agree with thofe of St.] trom. The Manufcript of Dublin is not properly one of thofe which may be call'd modern^ (ince it can be no lefs than five or {\x hundred years old > but tho' it was actually one of the modern ones which were made a little before the ufe of printing, and which confequently would not be above three hun- dred years old, Mr. Simon determines that where thefe modern Manufcripts are found to agree with the Verfion of St. Jerom^ they muft be preferred to the old ones, which diftent from it. The con- fequence here forms it felfj the Manufcript oi Dub^ ?^^ which has the paflage of St. John'^ Epiftle in this ( ^^5 ) this agrees with the Bible of St. Jerom^ which has it felf this paflage, as I have largely prov'tij it mn(l then in this cafe be preferred to all the other Co- pies, which have not this Text, let their antiquity be what it will. Let 'em no longer boaft of the Vatican and ^/^.v- andrian Manufcripts, the two oldeft which want this Text, {\x\ct they are both later by feveral ages than St. Jerom's Verfion. This omiffion , tho' it has grown old in their parchments, is of no autho- rity againlta Manufcript, which notwithflanding its being more modern in its writing and parchment, is more ancient than the others in its agreement with thole from which St. Jerom made the revife of the Epiftle, in which this Text is read. Here again to conclude this matter, another very important piece of advice of Mr. Simon^ IVe muft^ ^ fays he, he 'very cautious in quoting this fort of Ma- nufcripts which are not the better FOR THEIR BEING VERT JNCIENT, as I have fe- "veral times obferv^d. h Differt. fur les Manufcrits, pag. 6i. CHAP. CHAP. xiir. The Panoplia dograatica of Exxthymxxxs Zygabe- nus, the Manufcript ^/'Dublin, the Greek Tranjlation of the Council of Lacran, and the Codex Brirannicus but divine Providence has not fuffer'd the paflage where the Latin quoies the Text of the 7^^ verfe of the f^^ Chapter of St. John\ Epillle to be one of thofe where the lacunae render the Greek Verfion defec- tive 5 'tis preferv'd there, and the Greek Text is read in it entire. There is nothing to be faid againil the antiquity of this Vcrfionj ^ Mr. Simon owns that 'tis as old as the Council, but in order to take from us all the advantage we might draw thence for the genuinenefs of the controverted Text, he ad- vances with his ufual boldnefs to difguife the clear- eft and moft certain fadts, that the Greek of this paflage was not taken from any Greek Copy of the New Teftament, and that 'tis only a copy of the Latin turn'd into Greek^ and hereupon he fays fe- veral things to depreciate this Tranflation, as a tranflation almoft barbarous and bad Greek. Thefc [ Differt. Cmic, fur les Manufcripts, p. li, 13, &c. are ( '^^ ) sire cavils that T have no concern in. The tranfla- tion into Greek may have „becn made by an unpolite perfon, and who was not well acquainted with all the regularities of his own Tongue 5 but does ic thence follow that the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy txholi:, was not in the Greek EpitUe of St. Jobrtj and that the TranOator copied it from the Latin^ and form*d it upon the Latin expreffions? I expe6i: in a man of learning the natural Science of reafon- ing confequentially, and here I fee it fink under prejudice, and an obftinate pailion in refolving nOE to own that this pafTage was in any Greek Manu- fcript. To give fome colour to this prejudice againfl: the Greek of the Council of Latran^ Mr. Simon has advanc'd a fad which is evidently falfe, name- ly, that a part of the ■parages of the New Teftament are not there quoted as they fiand in the original Greek, but after the manner they have been tranfia' ted from the Latin. I can aver, on the contrary, that nothing has been advanc'd with lefs care and trouble. In all this Tranflation, which is very long, there are but thirteen paflagcs of the New Teftament where the Greek is preferv'd, fourteen with that of St. John'^s Epiftle> now there is not one of all thofe that can be faid to have been rakcn entirely from the Latin^ except a tranfpofition, which is found in the <\}^ verfe of the 7''' Chapter of the firll Epillle to the Corinthians 'y but this was not to take the Greek from the Latin^ but to follow the order in which the Latin quoted this Text. F. F. Labhee and Cojfart have put this note upon the quotation which is there made of the laft verfe of the fifth Chapter of St. Matthew^ Non utitur i>erbis Text us Gr^eci^ praterea legit Pater nofler^ non Fejier, The Greek of the Text fays Etrs^g t£A«o<, the ( 1^9 ) the Greek of the Council has yivz^i t£A«o<' the Text of the New Teftament has o cv -roTg ^^voTg^ which is in heaTcn^ the Greek of the Council reads o ou^'- viQ- heavenly : but thefc are only different readings; for we fee that St. Athanafms had quoted thefe words of Jefus Chrifi in the fame manner in his Letter to the Bifhops of Afr'ick. And as to the vjoxd^your^ which is in the ordinary Grcek^ and in the Loc^rv^Sv%?, hearing record % is the one then made word for word from the other, the Greek from the Latin? I am fomewhat afham'd to take up my Readers time with thefe minuti£. The Manufcript of Duhlin will finally ruin all thefe vain fubterfuges invented againfl: the Greek of the Council of Latran ; for this end 1 need but fee 'em one over againfl the other, that with one cad of the eye they may fee that one is no lefs than the other the original Greek of St. John's Epiillc. Mr. Boivin^ Librarian of the Manufcripcs in the French King's Library, and famous for his great learning, has been pleas'd to give himfclF the trouble, at the defire of one of my Friends, ro take a Copy himfelf of this palTage of the Council, in the fame manner as the Greek Text of St. John is written there > it ilands thus. The Manufcript of the The Manufcript of Council. Dublin. On Tpetg el(rlv ol y^ao'iM' Or/ r^tT? «V;v 0/ fxoc^v fSvlig cv ouvaT, 0 w^j^, Ao- ^Svr h too ouvw, sd^^, Ao- y^^ ^ ^^<^ ^y^'^^'i ^ ^'^^^ y@"t ^ ^^<^ (ij^^flv, yi^ Qvroi ol T^etg W eiciv. ol r^etg kv elci* We fee not only the fame thing and the fame words in the Manufcript of the Council, and in that of the New Tcftament of Dublin^ but we find in both the fame abbreviations cwm for ^'^vw, sr>j^ for z'oCiYi^^ and srvi^ for -cvvdy^Uj which draws the me in which both were written very near toge- -r. That of Dublin is the very Greek of the Nev/ lament i why then iliould not that of the Coun- cil ( 171 ) cil be Co too ? It appears, laftly, from this Copy which has been fent me, that there is in the King's Manufcript »to/, and nor tkit/, as F. F. Labbee and Cojfart have put it in their Edition. After having defended the Greek of the Coun- cil oC L^tran againll the vain imagination of Mr. Simon^ we mull come to the Codex Britannicusy or Manufcript of England^ which his bold Cri- ticifm has no more fpar'd than the Greek of the Council. The Greek Manufcript found in England^ from which Erafmtis inferred in the Edition of ifiz. the Text of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, has given Mr. Simon no lefs trouble than the Greek of the Council of Latran. This was an authenticic A6t in fiivour of the genuinenefs of this palTage j he muH: provide againll this A61, or own that the paflage in difpute was in the Epiftle of St. 7^^;^; a thing that Mr. Simon was invincibly bent againft. How ihall he extricate himfelf from fo terrible a difficulty ? To fufped Erafmus of having introdu*- ced an imaginary Manufcript upon the ftage, and which no body had ever feen, were infinuations re- ferv'd for Mr. Emlyn's pen. Mr. Simon^ who was better acquainted with the chara6ter of Erafmus^ left him all his reputation for uprightnefs and vera- city 5 but for the Codex Britannicus he did not care to think it originally Greek 3 he fought for ano- ther rife for it, and from fuppolition to fuppofition he has made it defcend from the Latin. This kind of genealogy is extremely curious j the Greek of Erafmus was taken from the Codex Britannicus^ the Codex Britannicus came from the Greek of the Council of Latran^ and the Greek of the Council of Latran was only Latin in another form , 0 cur as hominum I 0 quantum eji in rebus inane I Z z How ( ^71 ) How men make a fpoit of the mod ferious matters to fatisfy their pafTion, and compafs their end ! I have fhewn the illufion that Mr. Simon has form'd in all this. But without having recourfe to what I have faid in my DifTertation upon the Text of St. John^ we need but caft our eyes once more upon the Extraft of the 7^^ and 8^^ verfes of the Manu- fcript of DMin^ and place 'em on the fide of the Extra6l of the fame two verfes which Erafmus has left us in his Apology againft Stunica^ and in his Commentary upon the Epillle of St. John, The Manufcript of The Manufcript of . Dublin. England. »To; ol r^eig ev eicriv. x^ kroi ol i^eig ev ^V/v. ir. 8. Y^ou r^eig ei^ qI t^h? «'? to i^ aVi, and thefe three a- gree in one : neither are they in the Manufcript of Dublin 'y which is a very remarkable agreement; and the more fo, becaufe both thcfe Manufcripts have the fame lail words of the 7^^ verfe, x^ »77i at T^eic iv «V< : and thefe three are one^ which the Ma- nufcript o^Complutum has nor, with which they yet ^grtQ in not having the lall claufe of the 8^^ verfe. Thus far then nothing can be more alike in this refpe6t than the Manufcript o^ Dublin and the Co^ dex Britannicus. I fee there again another place in the fame 8^^ verfc ivi which they exa6lly agree j and this is that they both have the words G,t t^ y^i^ i. e. in Earthy which are wanting in all the Manufcripts I know of, which have not the Text of the three witnelfes in Hea- ven; and which are withal not found m the two fird Editions o'l Erafmus in if 16, and if 19. in that o^ Aldus in If 18. in that of Cephahus m If 24. and in that of Simon Culinaeus in if 54. All thefe fo particular agreements betwixt the Manufcript of England and that of Dublin^ feem'd at firft view tolhew me thefe two Manufcripts reduc'd into one, and the famous Codex Britannicus o\ Erafmus found again in the Manufcript of Ireland. But two things hinder'd my being fix'd in this thought ; the firft is, that the word oly^Qv of the 7^^ verfe, which in the Manufcript o{ Dublin is join'd to the word m^u^v.^ the Holy Spirit^ was not in the Text which was extraded by Erafmus in feveral parts of his works, where he always quotes it with the word TATvi^fAoc only, the Fat her ., the ff^ord^ and the Spirit : a difference too fenfibie to ice us pofTibly blend ( 174 ) blend thefe two Manufcripts, and take 'em for the fame. The fecond difference that is there met with, tho' lefs remarkable than the former, is however no lefs conclufivej 'tis the omiflion of the article d in the Codex Britannicus before the word yt^^fv ^Svlig of the 8^^ verfe, which is join'd to this word in the Manufcripc of Dublin^ where we read qI |tt«^- Tu^8v7g?. This difference would be nothing m bare Copies, but is eflential here, when we talk of the Manufcript it felf: becaufe it is impoilible that one and the fame Manufcript fhould adually have and not have the fame words, the fame fyilables. Thefe then are two ancient Greek Manufcripts which have both equally the Text of the witneffes in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, as it is in the common Editions: and in this refpeft the Manufcript of England^ whether it has been loft fince the time of Erafmm^ like a- bundance of others, or that it yet fubfifts in fome corner expos'd to the mercy of worms and damp, £nds again its authority under that of the Manu- fcripts of Ireland^ by the agrement that it has with it in the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven, and this facred Text thus receives from thefe two ancient Manufcripts combin'd together, a new proof of its being authentick. CHAP, ( t7J ) CHAP. XIV. A brief recapitulation of the principal proofs urgd lor the genuinenefs of the paff^age of St.]o\\v\s firjl Epijile^ There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft ; and thefe three are one. QUeftions of fafb the moft clear in themfelves ufually become cbfcure by the difficulties which prejudice and party form againfl 'em. We have a feniible inftance of it in what we have feen concerning the pafTage of St. John's Epiftle. To remove it from the place it has ib long held in this facred Epiftle, and which was never difpu- ted in any Countrey of the World , they mufi: have very good reafons. Such a hOi as this, and a fa(5t which mantains its ground from the firft ages of Chriftianity, cannot be treated as forg'd, unlefs other facls be produc'd directly contiary, or argu- ments that will admit of no reply, taken from cer- tain and inconteftable principles. 1 have prov'd in my Diflertations, that nothing of this kind can be brought againfl this Text, nor any ancient Ec- clefiaftick Writer be found, who has rcjefted it, or who has only fufpe6ted it not to be St. John's. If there was any exprellion in this palTage which did not belong to the language of Holy Scrip- ture, this would be a good reafon to oppofe to itj but far from this, all the terras of it are facred, and are even all peculiar to the Style of St. John: the term Pl^ord for that of the Son of God, is an cxpreffion, ( ^76 ) expretlion, U'hich St. John has in a manner made his own in his writings : the following words, and ihefe three are one^ do not differ from thofe^ which are read in his Gofpel, / and the Father are one : the three witnefles of Heaven anfwer to the three witnefTes of the Earth j and the verfe which fpeaks of thefe laft is univerfally own'd to be St. John's, Laftly, if the dodrine, which the Text of the witnefles in Heaven contains, was not in fome re- fpe6]: the fame that it is in other places of the fa- cred Books, this reafon alone would fuffice to make us rejc6t thefe words, and condemn 'em to an eternal filencej but the do6lrine contain'd in this Text is far from being peculiar to it, and no where elfe to be found in Scripture 5 'tis feen there throughout j and by the very confellion of Julian the Apellate, ihines no where in the New Teftament with fo much force and brightnefs as in the Writings of St. John. Lailly, if this was a paflage that broke the thread and connexion of the Difcourfe, and was foreign to it, this would be, perhaps, fomething to be faidj but nothing would be more abfurd than fuch an affertion : The three witnefles in Earth are perfe&ly connedled with the three witnefles in Heaven, and their te- flimony is indeed but a fequel of that of the wit- nefles in Heaven. I have demonftrated all thefe things, and there is not fo much as one, the truth of which can be fliaken : they have not ventur'd to touch upon one of 'em. Inftead of thefe reafons and thefe proofs, which are the only ones that can juftly be urg'd, they have nothing bur conjedures and negative argu- ments, which at molt can produce only doubts, and form difficulties 3 but doubts and difficulties can never be proofs, nor be grounds for a fure and folid principle, from which a certain con- clufion ( ^77 ) clufion may be drawn againfl a hSi fo well e- llabiifhcd. All they have reduc'd themfelvcs to is to urge againfl us that this Text is not in feme ancient Latin Manulcripts. 1 have fhewn that 'tis in abundance of others, of the fame or greater antiquity than thofe •, and its being wanting in them is not conclufive againfl: the others, in which this Text is exprefs'd. This is indifputably evident. Farther, 1 have fhewn that the ^quotation of a pafllige by Authors of the fame or greater antiquity than the Manu- fcripts is beyond comparifon of greater autho- rity than the Manufcripts in which it is wanting^ becaufe in a quotation we have at once^ both the Manufcript from which it was taken, and the confirmation of the Writer ^ who ufes it 5 and thus there aie too proofs in one. 'Tis requi- fite they fhould be able to anfwer this argu* ment j but they never will. They have had recourfe to the Oriental Ver- fions, the Syriac^ the Coptick^ and the Arahick^ which have not this Text : This indeed may be faid to thofe who do not know how mo- dern all thefe Verfions are in comparifon of the italick Verfion, and how defc6tive they are in feveral very confiiderable Texts. If my an- fwer is fl:ri61:ly true, the objection vanifhcs j but when will they fhew that 1 have advanced a fal- fhood in either of thefe two charaders of the Oriental Veriions, viz. their bemgi modern, and defective. Laltly, they have cry'd out upon the filcnce of feme of the Ancients , who have not urg'd it againfl the Avians^ to whofe herefy it is {o oppofite, when yet this Text might have been very ferviceable to 'em, if in their days it had A a been ( ^78 ) been in St. John's Epiftle. I have clear'd tip this objection in fuch manner in the fecond part of my Diiiertation upon thi^ Texr, and in the Confutation of Mr. Emlyn's Anfwer, that 'tis impoflible for the niccft fubtlety to evade the proofs and inftances thofe Trails are full of. Have I omitted any of the objediions urg'd a- gainft this paflage ? Or have I by artificial terms weakcn'd the force of thofe I have brought? They cannot reproach me with either of thefc, and I am incapable of fuch diflimulation. Let 'cm then take all thefe reafons together, the o- miflion of this paffage in fome Latin Copies, and yet more in the Greek : the omillion of the fame Text in four or five Oriental Verfions> laflly, the omiffion in the controverfial Trails of the Greek and Latin Fathers, of the fourth Cen- tury againft the Ariam of their times 3 thefe o- millions, and others of the fame nature cannot form a pofitive and real proof, againft a clear and certain fad j now this fad is, that this Text having been read by the whole Church for up- wards of feven or eight hundred years in the JVIanufcripts of St. John's Epiftle, and for near three hundred years paft been inferted in the printed Editions. Ail that thefe different omif- fions could do would be, as 1 have faid, to per- plex the mind, and lay it under fome difficul- ties y but the' we could not entirely remove 'em by demonftrative folutions , this would never fnake what in it fclf and its own nature is but a difficulty, or a negative argumentj become a po- iitive proof to overturn a well eftabiilVd fad. But we are not reduc'd to that ftatr^ thai we cannot give fatisfadc^y anfwers to thefe omifH- onsj i think I have g^^^ri Sxx^n ic every one in the places I have juit mencion'd : I have con- ilantly (^79 ) dandy advanc'd nothing there but the truth in what concerns Fadts and quotations. The principle then is very certain; the confequence only would remain to be oppos'd ; but it is fo much according to the rules of the moft exa6t Logick, that 1 have nothing to fear from that quarter. The Text of the three witnefTes in Heavea thus fupporting it felf by the vveaknefs of the ef- forts which have been made to remove it from its place, one might difpenfe with proving thac it is in rightful poffeffion of it : a long prefcrip- tion in all cafes holds the place of a fufficient proof, when nothing conclufive is urg'd againft it. But I did not lay hold of this maxim of right, as to the genuinenefs of the pafTage. C have made it good by proofs almoft without num*- ber, and taken from fo many different places that 'tis impoflible they fhould all concur in one and the fame obje6t, and be reunited there, as lines drawn from a circumference to one and the fame center, without our clearly feeing therein the pafTage of St. John to be genuine. My firil proof was drawn from the old Ita" lick Verfion, which from the iecond Century was us'd in all the Churches of Europe and ^'» frick^ and even by thofe of the Eajl^ where di- vine fervice was performed in the language of that famous Verfion. It prevail'd in the Church till the feventh Century : The Text of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Gholl, was in this Ver- fion, I have prov'd it from itertuUian down to Fulgentius. Let 'em difpute as long as they pleafe, 7'ertullians having quored it in his Book againlt Praxeas; they will difpute it in vain, becaufe to do it with any grounds^ they mull: prove the au- thorities I have brought to be falfe, or the con- A a 1 fequenqe^ ( i8o ) fequences I have drawn from 'em 5 and this they cannot do. As to St. Cyprian^ who has quoted in his Book de Unit ate Ecckfice the exprefs words of St. John^ they will never compafs their end of metamor- phofing them into thofe of the 8^^ verfe, unlefs they fet up Facundus for an infalHble interpre- ter ; but there's no man who will not blufli at this audacious propofition. The Epillie oF St. Cyprian to Juhaianus fpeaks withal in favour of the genuinenefs of this pafTage; and there is neither ancient, or modern Facundus that can fubftitute there the 8^^^ verfe in the place of the 7^^. This idol after which they have fo long run, that the words of the 8^^ verfe, the Spirit^ the fVater^ and the Bloody were myllically explained of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl, has fallen at the feet of St. ^ Eucherius^ Vigilius^ £- iherius^ Beatus^ and Ifidorus Mercaior^ who have all diftinguifh'd thefe two Texts in their quo- tations, by quoting them leparately from each other, and equally owning them both forthepaf- fages of St. John. They will never extricate themfelves from the abyfs into which all thefe quotations cafl this idle pretence of changing the words of the 7^^ verfe into thofe of the 8 ^^ ; there's no myfticifm which holds good againft the allegations, which are there made of thefe two pallages together. Befides, that not one of the Ancients ever took into his head the ridicu- lous notion of explaining the Father^ the Wordy and the Holy Ghoji^ and thefe three are one^ myfti- cally of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, piention'd in the 8^^ verfe. Thus where-ever ^ See Fart L Chap. v. ^hey ( i8i ) they are found, there they can only be in their natural fenfe. Figilius of Tapfttm^ and all the other African Bifhops of his time look'd upon this Text as fo exprefs for the do6trine. of the Trinity, that they have produced it in their difputes and in their Confeilion of Faith as a Text entirely confound- ing the Arian herefy. With the Books of thefe holy Dodors we have in a manner the Italick Bible at hand, and under our eyes, in which they read it, and the Arians in like manner, according to what Figilius fays to 'em in his difpute con- cerning the unity in the Trinity : ^ Cur^'tRES UNUM SUNT^ Johannem Evangeliftam dixijje LEG It IS ^ ft diver fas naturas in perfonis efje accipi^ tis ? i.e. " Why do you read that St. 7^i6;2 the E- « vangeliftfaid,r///^££ ARE ONE, if you hold *' that the Natures are different in the Perfons?" Tho' we had no other pafTage than this in all the Writings of the Fathers, they fhould blufli, who venture to fay, the Fathers have never urg'd this Text agamll: i\\tArtans? I have withal carryM my reflexions upon this fubjed, and my confequences yet farther > the Arians, faid I, not only had this Text in their Bibles, but it mull alio have been in the Greek of the New Teftament, for otherwife they, who were fo well vers'd in the Greek tongue, which was well-known in that age, would not have own'd it as a Text of St. John''s Epiltle. And becaufe this Text was quoted by all the African Bifhops, in their Confellion of Faith, a few years after the death of St. Augujline, I inferr'd alfo, that this Text was in the very Bible of that an- cient Dodor, which was no ocher than the Ita- ^ Vigi). Tapf. lib. 7. lick ( i8z ) //Vj^Verfion, as appears from all his Writings. Thefe reafonings flow from one and the fame prin- ciple J the principle is prov'd, namely, that this Text was in the Italick Verfion j this would fuffice for me 5 the confequences which I have drawn thence are all natural j the genuinenefs then of this Text finds in this its proof, its demonftra- tion, and the oppofice opinion its full convi6tion. The Italick Verfion continued to be us'd pub- lickly by the Churches 'till the fcventh Century was pretty far advanced 5 that of St. Jerom made at the clofe of the fourth was all this time, that is to fay, upwards of two hundred years, only a Library Book for the Learned and Curious. There is no room to doubt buc the Text of the witnefles in Heaven, which had always remain'd, as I have obferv'd, in the Italick Verfion, was withal in that of St. Jerom, This learned Doc- tor had in his Prologue to the feven Canonical Epiftles declar'd himtelt in too flrong terms a- gainll fome Tranflators who had negligenrly for- bore to infert this important Text in then' Ver- fions, to have left it out himfclf in his own. Yet they will have it that it was not inferted in it, and to this end they deny this Prologue to be St. Jerom'^, I have aflerted his right to it in the fifth Chapter of my Difleitation upon this Text i and I have anfwer'd the new objedions of Mr. Emlyn, This famous Prologue is in the mod ancient Manufcripts of St. Jeroni^ Bibles , Walafrid Strabo^ Author of the Glojfa Ordinariay has quoted it as a Work of this ancient Father's and has alfo made fome obfervations upon it : now Walafrid Straho liv'd in the time of Cbarkf the Great^ and his authority cannot but be here of greac weight, as well for the great repuiation - pf that Author and ins voikj uo ior the age in which ( ^83 ) which he liv'J. Thefe are very certain faflsj the quotations T have made cannot be charged with falfhood : they muft betake themfelves to the Prologue it felf j and that's what they have done; but whoever will give himfelf the trouble to compare my anfwers with the objcdions, will very foon fee the weaknefs of thefe, and for this very reafon will conclude the Prologue is really St. Jerofii's. But they will be withal more fatisfy'd and con- vinc'd, that the paflage which was in the Ita- lic k Verfion was no lefs in St. Jeroni*s^ if they come to the dire6t and cxprei's proofs, which I have produc'd from the ancient Authors, who have quoted it from this Bible. To comprehend well the whole force of this proof; we mud call to mind what I have faid, after Mr. Simon^ Mr. Dtt Pin^ and feveral others, that the Verfion of St. Jerom was not publick- ly received by the Churches 'till the feventh Century; for 'tis eafy to infer from thence^ that the Copies of this Verfion were very fcarce 'till that time; for which reafon there are found fo few whofe antiquity reaches fo high as the fe- venth Century; and I do not know even one which we can be aflur'd is a thoufand years old. F. le Long of the Oratory who has fearched very narrowly into this affair, has exprefs'd himfelf to that effcdt in his Bibliotheca facraj in the paf- fage I have quoted. The confequence which \s naturally drawn from all this is, that there is no better means, nor furer way of knowing whether the pafTage of St. John's EpilUe was in St. Jerom's Verfion, at the time it was publickly introduc'd into the Churches, and Divines began lo quote the Texts of the New Teftament in their Works from this Verfion, ( i84 ) Verlion, than, I fay, by knowing whether the Text of the witnefles in Heaven is found quoted in the Books of thefe Dodors, who were the firft that us'd the Verfion of St. Jerom^ whereas 'till their time the Writers cook the paiTages they quoted from the old Italick. Before we hear thefe Authors themfelves, 'tis ncceflary to fix this firft fa6f, namely, that the quotations of the Texts of the New Teftament were taken from the Verfion of St. Jerom^ only iince towards the end of the feventh Century, and the beginning of the eighth. To be inform'd of this, 1 have no need to fearch by long and labo- rious reading, Mr. Simon has Tpar'd me the pains by the care he has had to give us in the feventh Chapter of the Critical Hiltory of the Verfions of theNewTedament, the teftimony of the Ro- mijb Cenfors, who fay, that Remi^ Bede^ Raha-- nus^ Hugo^ Rupert^ Peter Lombard^ and laftly all other Ecckftafiicks fince nine hundred years have followed the new Edition. Thofe who have quo- ted the pafTage of St. John are Eccleiiafticks of the fame age with the firfl who are there nam'd. Itmaybefcen in what 1 have faid concerning the Abbot Anshert^ Biihop Etherius^ and Beatus the Presbyter., in whofe Woiks the Text of the three witnefles in Heaven is found: in that age, fay the Romifi Cenfors, the quotations of the paflages of Scripture were taken from St. Jerom's Verfion % the paflage of St. John is quoted by all thefe Au- thors, it was then in St. Jerom's Bible. This proof is decifive, and the more they feek to e- vade it, the more they will betray their obftina* cy and want of integrity. From the Latins I pafs'd to the Greeks, 'Tis here the enemies to the genuinenefs of this Text have thought to triumph j but I have fliewn the triumph ( ^h ) triumph to be imnginary. No Greek Auihor, fnjd they, has quot.vd this Tc>:t. 'Tis yet mcn- tion'd in the SviK^phs of St. Jlthanafnis^ or (uch other Ancient, for ic matters not whole ii is ; the nam.e ilgnifcs nothing to ir, 'ris its anticiuity which IS liere of moment. Now this aniiquity is upwards oi* eight hundred years. 7'hcy have ca- vii'd upon the pahage ofthe li,pi(lle of Strjohy!^ which the Synopfis may have had^ in view j I have prov'd that ir can have rcfcrr'd only to the fifth Chapter, and the veifes of this Chapter, which denotes the unity of the Father and the Son, and this 's the feventh Verfe. 1 have joinM to the quotation of the Synoplis, the Dialogue under the names of AtbanafivA and jlriiis^ prmtcd among the Works o^ Si. Jthana- fjis. This tcftimony has given inconceivable pains to the enemies of this Text-, it is there quoted, and tlie three divine Peifons are there mention- ed with the unity in which this Text reprefents them. But what forc'd con[lru6lions have they not given to enervate the force of this quotation ? Sometimes tijcy have fallen upon the perfon of the Author 5 they have faid that he was a Latin^ V'ho had undertook to fpeak Greek^ and not a Greekj who had wrote this Dialogue 5 a mere chimicra 3 I have prov'd it invincibly. Some- times they have attempted to transfer the Greek of this Dialogue to thofe words of the Lali^i- Verlion of the eighth verfe, tres uniim funt : ano- ther chimasra, after which Mr. Emlyn had runj but which I have fhewn to be abfurd. To thefe two Greek witneflcs, 1 have added a thirds Eutbymius Zygal^erius ', and J have quoted his own terms, extra6led from an ancient Manulcripc of the King of France's Library, for which 1 am indebted to the generous good nature of Mr. Boi' B b vin: ( i80 inn: for tho' I had read it in the LatinYcxCion of Etithymius Zygahenus^ infcrted in the nineteenth Volume of the Maxima i^ Nova Bibliotheca Pa- trum^ yet for the greater cerrainty, I was glad to have this paflage in its proper and original lan- guage. From thefe Greek witnefTcs to the original Text of St. John's Epiflle, I came to the Co- pies of this Epiftle themlelves. The Manu- icripts of Laurentius Falla^ that of Complutum^ that o^ Erafmus for the Edition of ifii, thofe of R, Sfcphensy that of the Verfion of the Council o£ Latran^ and ladly that of the Library o{ Bub- lin^ all thefe Manufcripts have prefented to our eyes the Text which its Enemies have ventur'd to fay is in none. They have perplex'd them- >felvcs extremely in their debates upon each of thefcj [that of Dublin excepted, which was not then produced,] but the more they have labour- ed to extricate themfelves, the more they have been entangled : I have taken care to fecure them from efcaping on every (ide. Laftly, I have prov*d as clear as the day, that the Greek Church, no iefs than the Latln^ own'd this pafTage to be genuine. I have prov'd it froni their New Teliiment in common Greek-, from their ConfefTion of Faith, in v^hich this Text is inferred) and from their Book callM Jpoftolos^ which is mention'd in the Life of St. Sabas^ m the fifth Century. I have corre6ted the error of thofe who believe that this Book was no other than a Ritual or Ecclefiaitick Formulary, and I have iliewn that it is the very Volume of the Epiflles of the Holy Apofiles, in which the Greeks conllantly read this Text on Trinity Sun- day. To the Greek Church 1 have join'd the Mufcovhte^ a very ancient branch of the Greek ; and ( i87) and I have fhewn their entire agreement with it in what regards the Text of the three witneflcs, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Gholl. In all this furprizing number of fa61:s, collected from fo many ditferent ages, and fo many diffe- rent climates, which all concur to form the proof of the genuinenefs of this Text, I dare boldly challenge its mod obflinate enemies, to fpecify one which is falfe: An admirable confo- lation to all thofe, who with me have only the truth at heart, to fee that of the pailage of St. "John confirmed by fo many proofs > one half of which would have fuffic'd > but divine Providence has preferv'd 'em all for the triumph of a paflage which was to find fuch great contradictions in thofe lali ages, and which is one of the mofl firm iupports of the Faith of one God in three Per- ibns, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft : to whom be Glory for ever and ever. Amen. F 1 N, I s. BOOKS printed for William and John Innvs. AC;ir.icAl DiiTeitation upon the feventh Verfe of the fifth Chapter of St. joh?is firfr Epiltle, There are Threi that hear Record in Heaven, (j/c. Wherein the AuthtntJck- nefs of this Text is fully prov'd ag':^in!i the Ohj::di('ns of Mr. Simon and fhe Modern Arians, Written originally in French by Mr. M.irtin, and now tranflateu into /'ir/^///?, 8vo. 1719. A lecond DiflTcrtation by Mr. Martin, in Defence of the Telliniony given to our Saviour by -yofephas. Wherein the Paragraph in th^ foiirih Chapter of the eighteenth Book of his Jcwii'h Antiquitii's is prov'd to be authentick. Writ- ten originally in French, and now tranfiated into Engliff.'y 8vo. 1719. An Examination of Mr. Efri\ns Anfwer to th^ Difi'^rta- tion upon the ("eventh Ven'e of the fifth ChipterotSt. Joh^i's firft Epiftle, CT'c. By Mr. Martin Paitor^of the Fre»c^ Church at Utrecht, 8vo. 1719 ——the fame in French, ii^^, 1719. A Difcoiirle of Natural Religion, by Mr. Mar;}n, 8v0i 172,0. Dr. IVaterlanIs Sermons at St. Paul's in Defence of the Divinity of our Lord Jefus Chrijl, 8vo. Dr. Knight's Sermons at the fame Lecftnrc, Svo. Mr* Bayly s Sermons, z Vols. Svo. 1721. The Nature and Nereifuy ot Religious Zeal confider'd. A Viiitation Sermon preaciied at Kin^fion upon Thames, by Jof. Clarke, D. D. The Lord BilLop of London's Letter to his Clergy defend- ed ; wherein the conflant Worfliip of Son and Holy Spiiit, with the Father, during th.: tirft Ages, is fet forth; and the Antiquity of the Doxology afed by the Church of England afferted; Svo. 17 19. . Plain Notions of onr Lord's Divinity. Set forth in a Sermon preach'd upon Chrillmas-day, at the Royal Cha- pel of Whitehall. PublilVd at the Reqaell of many of the Audience. By The. Mangey, LL. D. Chaplain to the Right Reverend Father in God, '}ohnt Lord Bifliop oi London: the id Edition, Svo. 1710. Pradical Difcourfes upon the Lord's Prayer, preach'd before theHo;i. Society of i^/»c^/«i-/«w. The 3d Edition, Svo. — The eternal Exiftence of our Lord Jefus Chrift. Set forth in a Sermon preach'd at the Lord Bifliop oi Winche- fiers Vifitation at Chertfey in the County of Surrey, on Fr'tday the 22,d of May, Publi(h'd at the Requeit of the Clergy there prefent, Svo. 1719. . Sermon before the Houfe of Conjmons on the 30th oi January, 17 19. Svo. ^)