s^^ fOA .* LIBRA-HY OF THE TheologicalSeminary '. PRINCETON, N.J. Casey... Division Shelf, S«Gtisn N# Booh^ k se /^a^ V f. '■' I COLLECTION O F TRACTS. Volume IL CONTAINING, I. An Inquiry into the Original Authority of i John 5. 7. There are three that bear Re- cord, &c. printed yinno 171 5, II. An Anfwer to Mr. Martin's Differtation on i John 5. 7. 1718. III. A Reply to Mr. Martin's Examination of the faid An- fwer. 1720. IV. Dr. Rennet's New Theory of the Trinity examined. 1718. V. Remarks on the four London- Minijiers Defenfe of the Doc- trine of the Trinity. 1719. Vi. Notes on Mr. Trap's Cate- chifm, relating to the Deity of the Lord Jefus Chrift and the Holy Ghoft. 17 19. VII. An Inquiry whether Blp- tifm was intended as a {land- ing Ordinance among the Pofterity of baptized Chrif- tians : occafioned by Dr. IVall's Hiftory of Infant-Bap- tifm. 1710. To which are now added. Two SERMONS of the Author's: The one preach'd before the Society for Reformation of Manners at DiiU'in^ Odlober 4. 1^98. The other occafioned by the Death of his Wife, Mrs. ESJ'HER^EMLTN, who died 05loher it,. 1701. LONDON: Printed in the Year MDCCXXXI. >^- THE CONTENTS Of the Second V O L U M E.^ A full Inquiry into the Original Authority of that Text I John 5. 7. R, Mill'i Evidences againft the Autho- rity of I John 5. 7. Page 6 Not in the Greek Manufcripts. 8 How they might Jlide into the Text. 9 .. „^._.-„.^ Not in the moft antient Verfions. ib. Not in any Genuine Greek Writer, 1 1 iV^/r Latin, for fever at Centuries. 14 Evidence offered for the Text, and not rafed out ly Arians. }^ fhe Preface under Jerome'i Nafne rejected, ib. Greek Manufcripts pretended^ and fome Latin found, J 9 Vidlor Vit. confidered, 22 ^he Britifh Manufcript examined. 24 And the Complutenfian. 25 And the Seven Stephens' j Manufcripts. 26 TertuUian'j and Cyprian'i ^ords accounted for. Dr. Mill'j fuppfed Account unreafinatk^ 3^ ^ 2 Reafons The C O N T E N T S. Reafons for altering our printed 'Text. Page 44 How the Words are expounded by Calvin, Beza, &c. 52 Eiccufes for -not altering the?n anfwered, ^^ An Anfwer to Mr. Martin'^s Difiertation. DR. Edmund Calamy'j angry Serjnon, 63 Difadvantages Mr. Martin labours under. 69 The State cf the Latin old Bibles. 72 Dr. Bentley'j Tejlhnony. 78 Of St. Jerome'i Preface. 79 The fixWitnejfes together not mentioned. 84 Eucherius'j Tefiimony consider'* d. 85 Of the Greek Manufcrip'-s in thefe lajl Ages. 88 Of the Codex Britanicus of Erafmus. 90 Of the luOMwaAn Divines. 92 Of F. Amelot'i Teflimony, 94 Of the Berlin Manufcript. ^S 0/-''Stephens'i Manufcripts. 97 The Complutenfian Reading not to Mr. Martin'j purpofe. 103 Mr. Martin'5 Eva/tons are very weak. 105 Of Commentators who inention not this Text. 1 07 Reply to Mr. Martin^^ Examination, &c, INtrodu5lion. 113 An Account of the Berlin Manufcript. 117 Monfieur la Croze'j Letter. 119 Of R. Stephens'^ Greek Manufcripts. 126 Of St. Jerome' J Preface and Bible. 146 Of two Greek Writers^ pretended to have cited this Text. 155 P. S. Of the Dublin Manufcript lately difcover'd to have this Text. 161 An The C O N T E N T S. An Examination of Dr. Bonnet's New Theory of the Trinity. PRIDE of Reafon, in affecfing fubtk and fiibltme Mylleries, inftead of the plain Smpli- cky of the Gofpel Page i68, 9 Dr, Bennet'j Commendation for the Manner of his writing. 1 69 What "Texts are given up^ particular^ Phil. 2.6. 172 The Do 51 or contends not with Br, Clarke about the Baptifmal Creed, or Trinity^ but another Tri~ nity. iy6 The Do&or's Notion of the lord's Quiefcence. 177 The Man Chrifl Jefus the Firfl-born of the Crea- tion. 179 216^ great Hmniliation of the Logos. 183 \rtn2e,\is favours not the DoBofs Notion. 185 Prefumptions againfi his Notion of the Quiefcence. 186 John I. I. The Word was God, explained. 193 A known Dijiin^fion in that Text between the God^ and d. God, 196 Heb. I. 10. Not certainly faid of the Son^ but ra- ther of God the Father. 202 The Perfonality of the Holy Spirit given up, 205 The main Queftion about the Holy Spirit's Deity, refers only to the Perfonal Spirit, not to the Power of God, 209 I Cor. 2. 10, II. cleared. ib. A Trinity of Three Fathers imply' d by Br. B — 2 1 3 His Three Perfons but Operations, ib. At other times they are Three Beings. 215 No Trinity but only Two Perfons in his Scheme. 217 The Char'a^iers of the Two Perfons confounded. 220 Inconfiflency of his Notions with the Offices of the Church. 222, 3 The Church'i Caution, in the Communion-Ru- brick. 225 Remarks The C O N T E N T S. Remarks on the four London- Mwifters Defenfe of the Dodrine of the Trinity. MR. Tong'i hard Inftnuations againjl his Bre- thren. ^ Page 232 'His perverting Turn o/Jude, ver. 4. 233 The Fir ft Reformers 7nade great Ufe of external Force in Matters of Religion. 235 The Way made ufe of at Dublin lately, 236 The Subfcribing Brethren themfelves not open and free to tell their Sentiments about the Trinity in the mam Points » 239 The main Queftion 7noft unjuftly ftated by ^em. 241 The very reproachful Charge pretended in it againft others^ bears hard on the Accufers themfelves, 242 They contradi5f the Second Article of the Churchy in denying any of the Three Perfons to be the one Supreme God. 245 Who are Sabellians, and what their Error, 246 They have no determinate Senfe of the Trinity, nor of the divine Unity. 247 Of their Befign to confound the Ufe of the Term Father, in the Scripture. 248 Their Evidence for the Son's Deity from the Old Teftament confidered. 250 Pfalm 68. ver. 18. confidered. 251 Their Evidence from the New Teftament confidered in the general. 252 So7ne Glory peculiar to the Father. 253 Their Proofs of the Deity of the Holy Spirit. 255 ^Tis not always certain when the Perfonal Spirit is meant. 256 Invocation of the Spirit^ if not found in the Scripture^ why not to be inferred merely from Confequences, ib. The Subordination of the Spirit 7iot to he evaded^ as in tide Cafe of the Son, 257 Heb. The CONTENTS. Heb. 9. ver. 14. confidered. 2^S A ver'j irreverent Argument brought againfi the Spirit'5 Subordination. ib. Of Equal Power and Glory in the fame Numerical Eflence. 260 Why the modern Churches might eafily err in their ConfefTions unawares, 261 ^hey depended too much on the Councils, i^c, with- out due Examination. 262 No need to fuppofe all thofe are perifhed who might err in thefe Matters, 264 2l6d?/^ Confeflions dif agree among themfehes. 265 And with the primitive true Creed. 267 Mr, Reynolds'^ Advice confidered, 269 How to be rightly taken, ib. His Advice to read, ^c, partial. 271 His Motives too general, and too mean, '2'T^-i 4 Great Uncharitablenefs towards their Brethren who doubt. 275 ne AfTembly'j ConfefTion not admitted in the Har- mony, ^c. <2/ Geneva. 276 Mr. Jurieu'j Teftimony to the primitive Bo5lrine of the Trinity before the Council of Nice. 277 That the antient Chriftian Writers held the Genera- tion of the Son to be a little before the Creation of the World. 279 That they held not the Son to be equal to the Father. 280 The Council of Nice affert not the Equality of the Three Perfons. 284 A Paffage of Zanchius concerning the Words^ God of God. 285 No Branch . 140. vers Authority of x John j. 7: n yers places, which he owns had not this Verfe ; nor the Verfions of Luther ; becaufe thefe are of no Authority beyond the Manufcript Copies by which they might be direded : which, it appears, did then want this Verfe^ otherwife they durft not have left it out, in prejudice to a receiv'd Opinion of the Church, and in contradidion to the vulgar Verfions at that time. (3.) He examines the Writings of the primi- tive Chriftians or Fathers : forafmuch as thefe very frequently cite the facred Writings on all Occafions, and had fuch frequent and great Occa- fions to fpeak of the 'Trinity, and of the holy Spi- rit ', 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 diredly in the whole New Teilament, could not be forgotten by ail of them, and at all times ^ if it had been known by them. And here, j7?. He makes inquiry among the Greek Fa- thers, to fee if he can hear of this Text among them, who were moll likely to have feen the authentick Originals of the Apoftles, and needed not a Verfion into another L-anguage. Of thefe he gives this melancholy Account s Neminem ununtj &c. That not one Greek Writer from the heginni?ig of Chrijiianity to St. JeromV time (about 400 Years) has ever cited this Verfe. And adds, ^Tis Diflert. certain it has heen wanting in the Greek Copies very ^''^^^ near from the Apoflle*s writing this Epiftle, And "^ therefore wonders at the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epiftles^ in the Latin Bibles, which pafies under the name of St. Jerom, for faying this Verfe was in all the Greek Copies : whereas, fays the Do6tor*, not one of the Antients had ever * I)e quo nemo Veterum quidquam inaudiverat.' heard ix jin Inquiry into the heard a word of it. For which, and other Rea- fons, he juftly concludes, as do other Criticks^ that it is not St. Jeromes. Not content with thefe Generals^ he runs over the particular mofl eminent Greek Fathers, and thofe who were moil likely to have produc'd this "Te^ct, if they had known of it, who yet never mention it. 1. Not Irenceus^ I.3. c. 18. who to prove the Deity of Chrift, cites this firft Epiftle of John (more than once) nay, he cites this fifth Chapter^ and yet fays nothing of this Verfe v/hich had been fo appofite to his Defign. 2. Not Clemens Alexandrinus, 3. ^otDionyftus Alex, or the Epiftle^ under his Name, to Paulo^ Samofata^ almofl wholly about the Trinity, and the Deity of Chrift ; in which the eighth Verfi is cited, and the three other Wit- neiTes, the Spirit^ the JValer^ and the Bloody but not the Words in dilpute. 4. Not Athanafius himfelf, v/ho had his Wits about him, and as much at v/ork in thefe Mat- ters as any Man , in whofe genuine Works (more to be regarded furely than the fpiiripus Books falfly 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 Dodor again confeftes, he knows not of one Greek Father, before the time of the Nicene Council, who ever cited it. 5. Not the Fathers of the Council of Sardica Theodor. \^ their fynodical Epiftle ; in which, for proof . 2. c, 8. ^|- ^ Trinity of Perfons in one Effence, they al- ledge John 10. 30. but not thefe Words, The Fa^ ther^ the V/ord^ and the Spirit ; and thefe 'Three are One : which had been much more fit to their pur- Authority of \ John 5,7. 1 j purpofe. They needed not twice have cited. My Father and I are One^ which yet did not include the Spirit at all : once urging this PafTage, J'hefe 'Three are One^ had been better for their purpofe than a hundred Repetitions of that other Text. Certainly all thofe Fathers, who came from fo many feveral Quarters out o^Afia^ Africa^ and Europe^ as the Preamble of the Epiftle fliews, 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. Not Epiphanius^ who among the many Texts, alledg'd againft the Arians and Fneuinatomachi^ quite omits thi:. 7. Not Bafil^ in his Book of the Bol'^ Ghoft^ whom he had a mind to join with the Father and Son in the Doxology, but was kept in awe by fuch as watched his Words. 8. ^ot Alexander ^^i^o^Q^ Alexandria^ among the many Texts for the Unity of the Father and Son, in his Epiflle. TheodorA, i. c. 4. 9. Not Ihjfen^ in his thirteen Books againft Eiinomiusy of the Trinity, and Deity of the Ploly Spirit. 10. Not Nazianzen^ in his Oration againft the Arians^ or in his fifth Oration de Theolo^ta ; where, to prove the Spirit to be God, he al- ledges the next Words, but not thefe. 11. Not Didymus^ in his Book of the Holy Spirit. "12. Not Chryfoftom^ on the fame. Subject. 13. 'Not Cyril of Alexandria^ tho he cites the Verfes before and after^ to prove the Deity of the Spirit •, Tbefauri AJ/ert. 34. 14. Not the Author of the Expo fition of the Faith ^ among Jujtin Martyr^ Works \ who endeavours to prove the Father^ Son, and Spirit to be of one Effence, i4 ^^^ Inqiiky Into the EfTence, from their being join'd together id Mat. 28, 19. but not from this Text^ more diredlly for his purpbfe. 15. Not CcBfarius, 16. Not Proclus., tho both of 'erh upon a Sub- je6l that gave occafion. 17. Not the A^V^/^f Fathers themfelves, accord- ing to Gelafms : for Leontius Bifhop of Cappadocia anfwering, in their name, the Arguments of a certain Philofopher who oppos'd the Deity of the Holy Spirit, among other Texts infifted on the Words immediately preceding, viz. It is the Spirit that witnejfeth^ lecaiife the Spirit is Truth -, but omits this Verfe. Here let me add what Du Pin obferves, That as no Greek Father, for fve hundred Tears^ quoted this PafTage, fo tv/o of them, viz. Didy- mus of Alexandria in the fourth Century, and Oecumenius in the eleventh, have written Commen- taries upon this Epiflle of St. John., and yet mention not this Verfe : which, fays he, proves thai either they did not know it, or 7Wt believe it to he genuine *. Thus far then the way is clear thro' the an- tient Greek Writers for fo many hundred Years 5 even to an Age or two after Athanafius, as the Dodor confefTes ^. idly. For the Latin Fathers ; the Do6tor grants^ that neither the Author of the Treatife of the Bapt'ifm of Here ticks, among C;y/;rf^«'s Works, (thd he mentions the Verfes both before and after) * Hift. of the Canon, VoU 2. />. 78. "j- Quinimo nullum omninoCoJicem GraecisEcdefii^ \vi ufii fuifle credo, nifi qui ad mutilates quos dicimus, defcriptus fir, pene ab ipfius Archetypi Scriptura ufque ad Seculum unum vel alteram poll Achanafium. nor ^Authority of i John 5. 7. i j nor ISIovatian^ nor Hilar ius^ nor Calarltanus^ nor pbcehadius^ have ever cited thefe Words. Nor Amhrofe^ who alfo has the F^r/?j on both fides ; nor Jerom^ nor Fauftinus^ nor Aujiin^ who yet would have the Father^ Son^ and 6^fnV, to be my- flically fignify'd by the Sfirit^ the Water^ and the ^/^{?J, in the next Verfe. Nor Eucherius^ who has the fame Notes on the next Verfe : nor Leo Mag- nus ; nor Facundus Hermienfis^ who alfo cites the eightbYtr^Q, 'Nor Jumlius^ nor Cerealis, nor Bede^ (in the eighth Century) who, in his Comment on this Epifile, expounds the three other JVitneJfes^ but not this /event h Verfe. Tho foon after his time, the Do6lor fays, the Weftern Bibles began to have it common : which I Ihall not much difpute. The Reader muft note, that all thefe antient Writers are here produc'd, not merely for not mentioning thefe Words (for then a much greater number might have been brought;) but becaufe they treated profefTedly of fuch Subjeds as re- quir'd the AfTiftance 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 could never have omitted it on any other reafon but this. That they had it not in their Bibles (as the Dodtor juftly 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 fhew that this Verfe was not originally any part of the New Teflament : and one had need have very dire6l and peremptory Teflimonies to the contrary, to make him fo 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 1 6 An hiqtnry into the determine for what feems hitherto irrecoverably loft. Bat I forbear, till I have confide r'd, II. What Dr. Mf// has offer'd for /^^mor Evi- dence on the other fide, to prove this Ferfe -^q- nuine, againfl: all that has been faid. And now he has a hard Tajk indeed, to undo all that had hitherto been done, and to prove this "-Text authentick, againft all thefe Manufcript Greek Copies^ all the old Verfions^ all the before- niencion'd primitive IVriterSy both Greeks and Latins^ 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 could fupport the Credit of a Text^ on which principally fome important Branches of her Creed and puhlick Ojfices feem to be founded. Here is a great deal to excite one to try what can be faid^ by a kind Friend, in the Caie ; who was unwil- 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 he feems to have miftaken the Objedion; of ^' which hereafter. As to the Ferfions, Dr. Mill had none very antient to bring. The Vulgar^ of which fo?ne Manufcripts have it, and others want it, as is C 2 noted 20 jifi Inquiry into the noted by the Louvain Editors -, the Italick printed at Venice in 1532. (while the old Italick^ and St. Jerom's Corredion of it was otherwife) are not worth regarding in this matter : nor the . ^^^ ^^ Jpojiolos, or Colle6fion of Sediions out of the Venice Apoftks Books, with fome Remarks. Only, 1^02. whereas the Dodor mentions the Armenian Ver- fion for having this Verfe^ as he was inform' d •, Append, ^j^^ y^j-y Learned Sandins teftifies the contrary. Para ox. j^.^^jj^g himfelf f^en it with the Armenian Bilhop, at Amjhrdam. LaflJy, The Do6lor produces his Latin Fa- thers, which are indeed his main Strength and Confidence. 1. 'Tertullian^ contra Prax, c. 25. his Words are : 'The Paraclete Jhall take of mine^ fa-js Chrifl^ as be did of the Father^s, 'Thus the Connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Para- clete^ makes the Three • clofely united^ which Three are One, hut not one Perfon ; as 'tis faid, I and 7ny Father are One *. Which the Dod:or thinks, with Bifhop Bull and Dr. Hammond^ are an Al- lufion to our Text in difpute. 2. Cyprian, de Unit ate EalificB, his words are : ^Tis written of the Father.^ Son, and Holy Spirit, thefe Three are One -f ; or Three are One, as fome Copies have it : and, in his Epiftle ad Juhaianum, Tres Umwi funt. Three are One •, without any Reference to the Scripture exprefs'd. And near 300 Years after, comes Fulgentius, a Bilhop of Africa^ and fays that Cyprian in the former words had refpedl to St. Johnh Teflimony. "*^ De meo fumet, inquJr, ficut ipfe de Patris, ita connexiis Patris in Filio, & Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerenteSj alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum funt, non unus ; quomodo diftum eft, ego & Pater unum fumus. f De Patre, Filioi & Spiritu Sanfto fcriptum eft i & hi Tres Unum funt. 3. Vi5for Authority of i John 5. 7. %x 3. Vi5ior y^ttenfis^ who tells us of a ConfefTion of Faith, prefented by Eugenius Bifhop of Car- thage^ and other Bilhops, to Hunnerick King of the Vandals \ in which this Text is cited as from St. John^ in the manner we now have it, in the ' Year 484. 4. Vigilius 'TapfenfiSy Fiilgentius^ and the Au- thor of the Explication of the Faith^ ad Cyril- lum. And thus you have the Whole of what mufl: over-ballance all the Evidence on the other fide : which, whether it will do or not, is to be con- fider'd under my next Head. Therefore, III. I fhall fliew the Infufficiency of thefe Ar- guments brought to fupport the Authority of this Text^ againft thofe produc'd to overthrow it, I fuppofe no Man of Reafon will defire me to give any anfwer to what the Dodtor could lay no ftrefs upon : I mean, fuch modern Teftimo- nies as Calecas and the Council of Lateran^ our late Editions and Verfions^ or the vulgar Latin Bibles fmce Bedeh time. Therefore 1 fhall fay no more to them •, nor indeed to Vigilius Tap- fenfis 2ind Vi^or Vitenfis, nor to any Writer fo long after the Heats between the Jrians and Athanafians, and when the Invafions of the bar- barous Nations had thrown all into Confufion and lo-norance. Such modern Teflimonies will only tell me, that thefe Words did at laft appear. All this I know well enough ; for I fee they are brought into the Latin Verfions, and fmce that into our printed Greek Copies -, and into our Eng-^ liJJj Tranflations, fir ft in little Chara^ers for dif- tindlion, and next with as good a face as the reft of the Text. And if this began to be done C 3 in 2Z An Inquiry into the in the fifth, or fixth, or feventh Century, what is that, any more than if it was in the fifteenth or fixteenth ? But if the JVords were not in St. John^% Epiftle for fo many hundred Years, nor known to the Chriftian Church as fuch, I fhall conclude that no Man can give a good reafon for admit- ting 'em fince. And a thoufand fmooth Suppofitions (which are, in hke cafes, found to be falfe by daily Ex- perience) that fuch and fuch a Writer would not, in later times, have ufed the JVords^ or put 'em into the Bible, if he had not good Evidence they were in the Original ; are of no force againft 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 fhall be inquired into) what fignifies all the refl ? Men may be fond of a fpurious IlTue, but that will not legitimate it. Only with relation to Vicior Vitenfts^ becaufe the Dodlor lays fuch a ftrefs upon it, as if the urging thefe Words ^ in a Confeflion of Faith, fo publickly prefented to Hunnericus^ in midfl of the Arians^ in the Year 48 4. was a good proof that they had been well known and receiv'd ; at leafr, ante iinimi Seculum aut alterum^ an Age or 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 fadl it was not thus, as he plaufibly ima- gines. What the Credit of i^zV7d;r's Hiflory, as we have it, isj I cannot well tell. I know it has found little jitithortty of i John 5. 7. 23 little with many, in the relating of ftrange Miracles, not unlike thofe of Monkijh Legends, "viz. of many who could fpeak freely and articulately, when their Tongues had been cut out by the Roots ; and fending his Reader to Conftantinople^ for an Inftance to prove it : with other Miracles. But let that be as it will, I take it for granted, that he fays true, in the Matter before us ; that in the Creed prefented to Hunnericm^ this 'Text was cited as from St. John, But that it had not been commonly and long receiv'd, and well known as fuch, I think is plain by what the Dodlor could not deny, viz. That St. Auguftine^ Eucherius^ and C ere alls ^ in the fame Age, and two of 'em of the fame Country, knew not of this 'Text. Eucherius lived within thirty Years of the time when this Creed was prefented ♦, and the Dodor tells us, he fays it was common in his time to interpret the Spirit^ the Water and the Bloody of the Father .^ JVord^ and Spirit ; as did Auftin, Now if this Text had been receiv'd th:n^ what place had there been for fuch a myftical Interpretation of the three Witnejjes on Earth ? Nay, Cerealis was one of the African Bifhops at the fame time, probably ; for he flourifh'd in the time of the Perfecution under Hunnericus \ and who drew up a ConfefTion of Faith alfo, at the Demand of the Arian Bifhop Maximman ; and had the fame reafon to have made ufe of this Text^ as Euge- niusj if it had been current, as the Dodor in- finuates. Where then is the Seculum unum nut alterum^ the Age or two before^ in which this Text had been admitted ? I rather think it muft only have been fome private Compofure, tho it might be in the name of the other Bifhops, who were now fcatter'd and banilh'd. It is ligned only aGafts Medianis Epifcopis Numidi^ ; Bonifncir F^.Bib lotk, ratianenfi^ Cr Bonifacio Gatienenfi^ Epifcopis l/Lzace- C 4 nis. 24 ^n Inquiry htto the nis. So that it carries the Evidence no higher tha,n to thai t'lme^ and that at the latter end of the fifth Century fome pretended this for Text^ which had been only an Interpretation. There remain then only two things of weight to be clear'd : Firj}^ The pretended Greek Manufcripts. Secondly^ The Teftimonies of Tertullian, but chiefly of St. Cyprian. Firfl^ His Greek Manufcripts pretended : thefe are of three forts. (i.) The Britijh Copy which Eraf?nus fpeaks of; who not finding one Greek Copy which had this Paflage, would not put it into his two firlt Editions of the New Teitament : 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 Crit. Hift. which F. Simon thus rebukes him : With what f. !?• warrant could he corre^ his Edition hy one fingle Copy ; whichy as himfelf heliev^d^ had fuffer^d fo7ne Alteration ? And it appears he had reafon to fufpcd it: for who ever faw this Britijh Copy fince, or that would 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 Codfce Anglfcano repofuimus, quod in noftris dfcebatur deefle, ne fit caufa calumniandi, tamctfi fufpicpr Codicem ilium ad noftros efle correftqm. num4e- Jmhority of i John 5, 7. 2 j 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, t am apt to think it did the beft fervice it ever cou'd do, in the Caufe, in thus impofing upon the great Erafmus, Strange ! that a Briti[h 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 expedt to hear of it from us, ra- ther than we from them. F. Sifnon fays Eraffnia faw it : but where does Erafmus fay fo ? He only fays (in his Annotations) There is found one Greek Manufcript among the Englilli, 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 Dodlor depends on the Manufcript Copies by which he fuppofes the Complutenfian Edition was regulated ; becaufe thefe Words are there, and the Editors fay in general, they fol- low'd the beft 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 Verfe^ fo it appears they were not ; becaufe, by the Doctor's own Confefllon, the mofi antient and mofi correal 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 Craecus Codex unus, in quo habetur. Library 26 ^n Inquiry into the Library here) wants thefe Words which thofe Editors have put in : And how then did chey follow it fo clofely as is pretended ? Nay, this excellent Mamfcript 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 moft part they did ; and yet in this they forfook it. Proleg. And 'tis no wonder, if they did fo by the reft P* ^°^* of the Vatican Maniifcripts^ as appears. For Cariophilus afterwards, having by Order of Pope Urban VIII. examin'd thefe Vatican Ma- nufcripts^ tells us plainly, that all of 'em which have this Epiftle of St. John^ want this feventh Verfe : tho, outofrefpedt to St. Cyprian, he was for keeping it in *. Of which. Dr. Clarke has given an account, in the place already refer'd to ; together with an account of fixteen Manufcripts (eight of 'em in the King of Spain's Library) collated by the Spanijh Marquifs, Peter Faxard^ (as F. Simon names him) and publilh'd by La Cerda, in his Adverfaria Sacra, c. 19. from all which Manufcripts nothing is alledg'd to juftify their vulgar Verfion, in keeping this Verfe, How then cou'd Dr. Mill prefume fo itrongly that the Complutenfian Editors kept to their Manufcripts Crit. Hlft. here ? F. Simon faw the contrary, and fays they i^'*'''^*'^-5''foUow'd the Reading of the Latin Copies here ; and to vindicate it, have inferted a Note from Aquinas, in the Margin. (3.) He pretends the feven Manufcripts of Ro- bert Stephens do warrant the Words to be ge- nuine. Stephens tells us he made ufe of fifteen Manufcripts in his Edition of the New Teftament, "* Ad finem Catenae in Marcum; only Authoirtty of i John j. 7: %y only feven of which he has fee down in the Margin, as wanting fome, at lead, of the IVords in difpute : hence it was concluded formerly, even by Dr. Mill himfelf, as well as others, that the other eight wanted nothing, but had the whole, as we have it. To this, the D odor's remarkable Words cited from his Prolego?nena^ by Dr. Clarke, are a complete Anfwer •, fhewing that thofe eight Manufcripts did not include this Epiftla cf St, John, at all ; and fo were of no concern here. But Dr. Mill was fenfible of this, in his Dijfertation on the 'Text^ where he fays of thefe eight Manufcripts, Reliqui has Epiftolas non exhi^ bent. And therefore he urges but the other fevetu which are noted as wanting only Iv t« »£^r«,T« Heaven, and authorizing the reft ; ne talher'^ the Word^ and the Spirit, and thefe 'Three are One. But as Dr. 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 : If 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^s fair Folio Edition^ this Mark or fmall Hook falls after the words IV T$ i^y^ ; as if thefe only were wanting : whereas it jfhou'd have been placed after the whole Verfe, as F. Simon obferves, (or rather, af- ter the words in Earthy in the eighth Verfe : which, the Dodlor owns in his Notes, was the cafe of the mojl and hef Copies *, and Simon inti- mates the fame in his Remarks upon the Lou- t Si quidem Semicirculus fuo loco fit coUocatus j which Lucas Brugenlis had /aid before_* aB An Inqtnry hito the vin Latin Bible by Hentenius^ which had the like Error.) And I wonder the Do6^or Ihou'd fay upon it, Nefc'io qua autoritate, neqtie dicit fe ijlos libros confiduijfe \ or that he had not con- fulted the Copies, when he exprefly faid, he had confidted the Maniifcripts of the King^s Library : and I think it was there Stephens found his * It appears by Dr. M7/'s Account in his Prolego- mena^ that four of thefe feven Manufcripts were in the French King's Library ; and fince F. Sif?ion Crit. Hift. cou'd find none there, that wanted only the /4r/2.r.j. words in Heaven^ nor any one elfe pretends to find fuch elfewhere, I may Mtly 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 New Teftament, (as F. Sitnon tells us, Crit. Hift, fart 2. f. II. and as I have feen) included the whole Pajfage within the Mark. So that I think the Cafe is plain, that all Stephens's Manufcripts wanted this Verfe. 'Tis probable he put it into his own Edition, from the Cornplutehfian^ and we from his into ours •, (fo one Error begets another, by prefum- ing too well of the Care and Faithfulnefs of fuch as went bt-fore) for the Do6lor tells us, Stephens governed himfclf by the beft Manufcripts : but Proleg. then he fays. He always jud^d thofe to be beft h 117. ivhich agreed with the Complutenfian. Elfe it would be very ilrange, that all Stephcm's Manu- fcripts fhou'd ditter from all them of Erafmus and Slmon^ and others \ as they mufl, if only ff Tft) s^^jj/w were wanting. And whereas the Dodor lays a flrefs on Stephens's faying he departed not one Letter from * Regia Bibliotheca fuppeditavit. Proleg. p, lif, ' the Authority of i John 5, 7. ^^ the heft and mo ft of hu Copes * ; I would ask then, how he came to put in the \v tbJ »£^f!?, in Hea- ven^ when every one of his [even Manufcripts wanted 'em? 'Tis plain Critich are not always to be trufted in what they fay of their own Fidelity : the Dodlor was right, in inferring that it ought to have been as he faid, but 'tis plain in fa(5t it wai not fo. Thus having examin'd all his Pretences to the Greek Manujcripts^ I think it fully appears there is not fo much as one found to authorize this Paflage, nor one antient Verfwn made from the Greek ; and for others, they are not of value in the cafe. Indeed the Do6tor has dealt more fairly than our common unaccurate Commenta- tors ; who, without any Examination, talk round- ly of man^^ the moft antient and the bed Copies, which have thefe Words, not knowing what they fay : whereas he pretends but to />ze;, and ra- ther fuppofes and hopes, from fome Hints in others, that they had fuch Copies, than know5 of any himfelf Let me clofe this Head with the very perti- nent Remark of the moft learned Plileleutherus^^^'^^^'' againft the Diftourfe of Free-thinking : The pre- fent Text was firft fettled ahnoft 200 Tears ago, out of fever al Manufcripts^ b-j Robert Stephens, Printer and Bookfeller at Paris j whofe beautiful and gene- rally fpeaking (it feems, not in all points) accu- rate Edition, has been ever fince counted the Stan- dard, and followed by all the reft. Now this fpeci- fick Text in your JDoBor^s (Whitby'i) Notion, feems taken for the Sacred Original in every Word * Ne in una litera difceflerit a mellorum & plurium codi- cum fuffragio, and jin Inquiry Into the and Syllable ; a?id if the Conceit is hut [[read and propagate d^ within a few Tears that Printer^ s Infal- libility will he as zealoufl-j 7naintain'*d, as an Evan- geli^Vs or Atjoftle^s, Dr, Mill, zvere he now alive^ wou*d confefs that this Text, fixed hy a Printer^ is fometimes by the ^various Readings rendered uncertain^ nay^ is proved certainly wrong •, but that the real 'Text lies not in any ftngle Manufcript or Edition^ but is difperfed in them all, I now come to the fecond Head of his Argu- ments, viz, from antient Tefti^nonies of the Latin Writers, Tertidlian and Cyprian, As for Tertullian^ in the Words already fet down, he had only faid, fpeaking of the Father ^ Son^ and Spirit^ thefe Three are One ; and 'tis writ- ten^ 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 next 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 Holy Spirit* s Unity with the Father and Son, Only not having a Text for the Unity of all the Three,, he was willing to alledge thefe Words for the Two as a Step to the other. Nor 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 coyitra Hermog. and de Oratione. Whereas 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- rity Authority of x John 5. 7. ^ i^ rity as the ether 'Trxt. And therefore Dr. Mill had reafon to urge it but foftly, faying. Dr. Bull and Dr. Hammond futant fe allufiffe^ frppof^ ^^^<^t he might allude to the Words of St. John: which is but a Conjedlure, inftead of a Proof. So that St. Cyprian is left alone to bear the weight of all. And indeed 'tis eafy to fee the Do(5lor's chief Coifidence^ is in his Teftimony, (with a little help from ^ertullian^ whom he owns to be not fo clear) infomuch that he fays, T!his 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 truft to, the Dodor was refolv'd this mufi and fiiall do the bufmefs. Cyprian's Words are, Of the Father, Son, andB^UnU Holy Spirit, it is written, l^hefe Three are One ; (the ^^^^ ^^r other Teflimony, in Epi^, ad Juhaianum, is but * like Tertullian\ fuppofed Allufion to the Text, and may have the fame Anfwer.) Upon thefe Words the Queftion is, Whether Cyprian refers to the feventh Verfe in difpute, or to the eighth, by a myftical Interpretation of the Water, the Bloody and the Spirit, as fignifying the Father, the Son, and the Spirit? Father Simon is out of doubt forCricHift. this latter, and brings a ftrong Proof of it from ^* !?•- the Words of Faciindus, who was of the fame African Church, in the fifth Century •, and who not only himfelf fo interprets the Words of the eighth Verfe, but exprefly adds, that St. Cyprian fo un- derilood them too, in this very place. Says he, * Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he (St. Johri) fays * De Patre, Pilio, & SpirituSanfto, dicit tres funt qui tefti- monium dam in terra, Spiritus, Aqua, 5c Sanguis, 5c hi tres unum An Inquiry into the fays there are Three that hear witnefs on Earthy the Spirit^ the IVater^ and the Bloody and thefe Three are One : hy the Spirit^ fig^^fy^^g the Father^ by the Water^ the Holy Ghoft^ and hy the Bloody the Son. Which words of John the Apoftle^ St. Cyprian the Martyr^ in his Book of the Trinity, (Unity it fhould be, as Simon obferves) conceives to he 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 Necerfity : fince this will overturn all he had to fay from the Latin Fathers. What Facundus fays, is fo far from being im- probable, that the Dodlor himfelf owns St. Auf- tin, who was of the fame African Church, did make the fame Interpretation afterwards •, and after him, Eiicheriiis declares it was a common Expofition of thofe Words : and then why might it not be Cyprian^s ? Does not Facundus exprefly fay it ? Does he tell an unlikely Story ? Why is ic then levis inomenti ? Truly the Do6lor thinks none, till St. Auftin, made this myflical Inter- pretation, and therefore not St. Cyprian. But why might not Cyprian begin it as well as Auftin ? 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 the feventb Verfe in difpute, be- caufe that Verfe never appear'd in any Writer till t\it fifth Century, as his is, viz. That Cyprian (X\^ not unum funt ; in Spiritu fignificans Patrem, in Aqua Spirftum Sanftum, in Sanguine vero Filium fignificans. Quod Joannis Apoftoli Teftimonium beams Cyprianus in Epiftola five libro qyem de Trinitate (de Unitate rather) fcripfir, de Patre, Filio, & Spiritu Sando, diitum intelligit. Facundns pro Defenf. Trin, Cap. 1. 1. c, 3, fo Authority of \ John 5. -. ^ ^ fo interpret, becaufe that Interpretation appears not till the fifth Century ? Only I can prove my Aflertion by a proper pofitive Teftimony, that Cyprian did ufe this Interpretation j whereas he had none to prove that St. Cyprian met with a _^/J)^f/^/ Copy of St. 7^i?;^'s Epiftle^ which had /^^^ 'Tis true indeed, he alledges for the other fide Fulgentius^ Contem.porary with Facundus^ frying? * St. John tefiifies there are three that bearwitnefs in Heaven^ the Father^ the Word., and Spirit \ and thefe Three are One : which alfo St. Cyprian, in his Epiftle of the Unity of the Churchy confejfes ; alledging from the Scriptures., that of the Father.^ Son^ and Holy Spi- rit, 'tis written. And 'Three are One. ButasF^a/;z- dus is as good an Evidence as he, arid more parti- cular, fo even this does not contradid: Facundus, For Fulgentius a.nd he both fay the fame thing, viz. that Cyprian confejfed 6"/. John'j Teflimony of the Fa- ther, Son, and Spirit^ thefe Three are One. Only Facundus tells us, that he took this Teftimony from the eighth Verfe^ and Fulgentius does not fay it was otherwife -, and therefore there is no reafdn to oppofe him to Facundus. Cyprian might own the fame thing as is now contain'd \ni\it feventh Verfe, tho he deduced it from the eighth : he that fuppofed the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, in St. John, 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 * Vdg. com: Arianost fiih finem, Beatus Joannes teftatur, ;/s ; j^o^n^w/. 2. who fays, 'tis out of doubt that he hath not. Tho/. 78. *tis probable this Miftake of Cyprian's Words led Crit. Hift. fome following African Writers into the Opinion ^' ^' ^^^^ that Sc. John had faid them exprefly. And thus I have fairly accounted for St. Cypri- an'^s Words, without the Suppolitlon of his ha- ving a fpecial Copy to himfelf. And then I think f Cyprian /^y; not^ that the words. Father, Son, and Spirit, -were written ; onl^^ thefe words. Three are One, "which he applies to Father^ Son, and Spirit. * See Dr, Whitby'^ DilTert. de S. Script. Interpretat. D 2 there :£ 5 6 An Inquiry into the there is not one tolerable Pretence left of any an- tient Authority. Now it remains that we fee how the Dodor accounts for the Difficulties that lie i agrJjyl him -, from all the Greek Copies and Fathers ^ before and after C^priany who knew nothing of this "Text : how then had Cyprian fuch a particular Copy above all others ? Does the Doctor clear himfelf as fairly of this, as we have of his Objec- tion from Cjprian^s Words ? He puts very proper Queries here : If thefe V/ords zvere in St. John'j Original^ hozv 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 it., when it was unknown to Ire- njEus, who was a very curious Inquirer into all Learn- ingy (which is I'ertullian^s Chara6ler of him *) and who coriVen*d with Poly carp, the Difciple of St. John " Kunfelf? But in Anjwer to thefe Queries, he is forced to frame many unreafonable Suppofitions : he knows not which v/ay it was., but he can ima- gine how poffibly it might have been., and then ieems to believe it was fo. Let us hear his own Account. If We afk how carne thefe IVords to be out of all the known Greek Copies ? he anfwers. By mere Chance., and Carelejfnejs of the Tranfcriher., who cafh his Eye upon the Word fict^Tvf/jigj or Witnefs, in the eighth Verfe^ inflead of the fame Word in the feventh\ and fo went on^ unawares emitting the one [XA^tvfhy^^ or Witnefs, and all the Words between them both. And then by reafon of Pcrfecution Chrif- iians were in hafie., and ft aid not to revife the Tran- fcript., nor to compare with one- another^ s Copies^ which were but few ^ becaufe of the Pains and Expences of tranfcribing : and the Original being at a diftance '^ Curiofidimus omnium dodrinarum explor^tor, Ir^naeus. TifUil, con!. F^le?}t» from Atithority of \ John 5. 7. 57 frojn them when difpers'd^ ihey could not exa?7n?ie hy that, I grant, Midakes of this kind have happen'd to Tranfcribcrs, where o^uoioriAivJcx,, Words of the fame endings or the fa^ne Words have often oc- curr'd : but that it was not fo here, is plain, be- caufe the Tranfcriber had then taken the next Words to tht fecond iJLA9Tvp^^i>%i, which are, sfTjT^M, in Earth: whereas the Doclor confelTes tLepJVords were wanting aUb. This he was aware of, and therefore fuppofes once more^ that the Words /;/ Earth might be in ihtfirfi Tranfcript^ but that the next time it was tranfcrib'd, or foon after, it was thought thofe Words were fuperfluousy and fo were left or dafh^d out * ; and then Copies were taken by other Churches, and /i? they fpread abroad thro^ Greece, Egypt, ^c. And this is the reafon that the antient Verfiom and Writers knew nothing of this Text^ becaufe there were none but thefe maimed Copies among all the Greek Churches -f. But in procefsof time, /-?£f thinks, fome correal Co^ pies which lay hid in Afia (where the Oriapial was) or fome other Parts^ fomxC way or other get into Africa, which Tertullian 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 contini^hl ; and about i oo Tears after they became common^ elfe the African Bljhops would 7iot have alledged thefe IVords in a Confeffton of Faith ^ if they had not been in their common Copies^ and in the Body of St. John'i Epifile^ more than one or two Centuries. And about 1^0 Tears after Cyprian, * Curato hoc uno^ ut verba \v rf ^>T tanqu^m ////er/«/? delerentur. t Nullum omnino codicem Ecclefiis Grascis in ufu fuifT^ credo, nifi qui ad mmilatos, quos dicimus, defcriptus (it, P 3 ^^'^ 3 8 An Inquiry into the the fpuriotis Author of the Difptitation^ faljl^ afcrih^d to Athanafius, perhaps might meet with a perfect Greek Coy^ : and then all was fee right. And fo we have his Anfwer to ajwther ^eftion^ i^ reclor^ humbly to befpeak your very feriou,s Thoughts upon thefe following Confider actions, * Meliora, fi quid melius ceriiurcjue dederit longior dies, fdifcere parato, I. Whc- 44 -^^ Inquiry into the 1. Whether fuch Evidence, as is brought a- gainft this Verfe before us, wou'd not be judg'd by '^ou fufficient againft an^ PalTage in an^ Claf- fick Author whatever ? Wou'd not fuch a Paflage prefendy be pronounc'd f^iirious^ and be brought under a Deleatur by the unanimous Voice of the Criticks, when they had no concern in it, but to judge what is true and genuine, ^nd whatnot'^ Nay, would a Court of Judicature allov/ any Pa- ragraph to be good, in a Writing of Confequence, for which no more, and agai}yl which fo much can be fairly faid ? And v/ill not the fame Sincerity and Impartiality well become us in tbis^ which we can not only well juftify, but commend in the Examination of other 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. John, Rev. 22. 18. againft all who add to., or diminiflj from his Writings, will permit '^ou to be unconcern'd in the matter before you ? It cannot be fuppos'd that thofe Words fhou'd not, at leaft by parity of Reafon, concern his other Writings, as well as the Revelation ; efpecially when we remember how general the Precept was, not to add nov to diminifb, Deut. 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. The Threatning is very fevere : God fhall add to him the Plagues that are written in this Book, are words of fo much terrour, as will fufficiently juftify your Lordfhips and the Reverend Clergfs utmoft Caution to avoid 'ejn ; whatever more carelefs People may think or fay. Whether the keeping in an unjuft Addition to the Word of God, when 'tis our part and in our power to rec- tify it, comes, or not, within the Prohibition^ none concern'd can think below their fober Con- fideration. It might perhaps come in with lefs guilt Atithortty of i John 5. 7, 4j guilt thro' Ignorance, than it can be kep in^ when the Fault is difcover'd. The Oracles of God are a Sacred Bepofitim lodg'd with the Church •, Rom. 3.2. To them are committed the Oracles of God \ in this Truft furely, that the'^ be kept inviolable, and be tranfmitted to Poflerity pure and clean from all known human Additions : i^hofe Authority is fo infinitely in- ferior to the IVords of God, that they ought not knowingly to be intermix'd therewith ; efpeci- ally by thofe who are the Stewards of the Myjle- ries of God, and who expedt that others fhou'd feek the Law at their Mouths ; of whom Uis re- quired that they be found faithfid. Our twentieth Article tells us, 'The Church is the Wit7tefs and Keeper of holy Writ : and there- fore muft not bear either falfe or uncertain wit- nefs in fo folemn a matter, as to fay that is holy- Writ, which fhe has the greateft reafon 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's Words, who doth not believe it to be fuch. 3. Whether the Honour and Inter eft of our holy Religion will not be better ferv'd 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 di Innovation (as upon all forts of Reformation) That Religion is fubverted, that all is uncertain, &c. Archbifhop* Laud once made this 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 Bringers- * Preface again fl Hfher. in 46 An Inquiry into the in of new Opinions : and there is no greater Ah fur ^ dit'j ftirring this day in Chriftendom, i^c. This indeed may grieve a good Man ; but muft Truth and Piety therefore be facrific'd to the Ignorance and Perverfe?iefs of Men ? Muft we then prophefy to them fmooth things^ only hecaufe they love to have it fo \ and not acquaint 'em with their Er- rors, becaufe they'll murmur againft us? I re- member St. Paul once made fome of his Friends to hecome his Enemies^ by telling ^em the Truths Gal. 4. 16. God forbid that any of his Succeffors fhou'd be fo difcourag'd by it, as not to tell the truths for fearing of making Men their Enemies. If fo, we fhou'd appear to take more care of ourfelves^ than of the Interefls of Chrift^ and his Religion. Pardon me, if I fpeak with humhle Freedom^ what I think not of without real Griefs that this falfe Notion of Peace has often well nigh ruin'd Religion. Chriftianity had never come in, if our lleffed Mafler had ftifled the Truth for fear of difquieting the Family, by dividing the Father againfl the Son^ ,and the Mother againft the Daugh- ter^ Luke 12. 51, 52, ^'^. This political Wif- dom, which is firft peaceable, and then^ or never^ is pure •, is juft the Reverfe of that IVifdom from above, which is f?ft pure. If it he poffihle we muft live peaceably zvith all Men, Rom. 12. 18. but, we can do nothing againft the Truth, fays the fame Apoftle, 2 Cor, 13. 8. h S)jvcltov muft give place to « S\jVcly.l^. 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, hut hy Manifeftaticn of the Truth commending the mf elves to every Man^s Qorfcicnce Authority of i John 5. 7. 47 Conjcience in the fight of Gcd, Not by putting falfe colours upon what they know they cannot juflify, or feeking to deceive Men in Sacred Mat- ters *, 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 Unbelievers in their unjiifi Sufplcions and Reproaches, than to fee that no Amendment can be obtained upon the mod manifejl difcovery of an Error -, but that right cr wrongs their Teachers and Guides will co72timie with Refolution, what they find came in by Miftake. What will it avail for honeft Men to ftudy and inquire after 1'nith^ when convincing Men will not make 'em reform ? As if Refor- mation was fuch an unreafonable 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 late to conceal the Evidence againft the 'iext I have treated of: it has been long obferv'd, oft objedled, and much ~ needs Satisfadion. And \v your Lordfnps and the Reverend Clergy fhall pleafe to inftrud us, by better Evidejjce^ that there is no wrong done to the Text of St. John ; or, being convinc'd that there is, fhall hereupon promote a juft Altera- tion of this in our pihted Books, according to all the Greek Manufcrips, that fo your People may fee that, at leaft, you take it for doubtful', will not this upright Method fhew to the World that you are fair and ingenuous beyond exception, and that you feek after T'ruih in the Love .of it ? This fhall convince them that you are their faith- fid Guides ; which will enable you, in a very ferious and not far diftant Hour, with St. Paul, {rich and happy in the inejlimable ^reafures of a good Confcience) to make that triumphant Boaft, Toat 48 An Inquiry into th^ That with Simp/icily aiid godly Si;icerit)\ and not with flcjhly^ or worldly, iVijdom^ by the Grace of God^ you have a^fed towards the Worlds and towards your Flocks. I think I may lafely add, th^t what I propofe, will greatly filence the Cavils of the Anti-Scrips turijh., when they objedl the different Readings m the feveral Copies of the New 'Teftament. To which 'cis a very good Anfwer^ that thefe Diffe* rences are only in Circumfiances^ or in matters of very little confeqiience to Religion ; and which 'tis morally impofiiblc fhou'd be otherwife, in a Book fo oft tranfcrib'd, and in fo long a Trad of Time. In other Inftances 'tis truly To ; the Differences are very fmall, as Dr. MiU\ Colledion of the various Readings doth abundantly fhew. But wou'd not this Anfwer be fomewhat clearer and ftronger^ if judice were done to the Text in the Point I have argu'd ? I know not one Inftance which interferes widi the abovefaid An- fiver fo much as this. How fhall we fay thaC this Text is of fmall confequence in Religion, which is fo oft alledg'd by Preachers and Writers., as of eminent force in proof of a Fundamental hx- tic4e of Chrijlianity ? Is it not pity we fhou'd needlefly leave 'tmfuch an unjuft Pretence ? Were it not better to cut oil all Occafion from them, who leek Occafion to cenfure the holy Scrips tnres^ when we can fo truly and juftly do it? becaufe there really is 770 difference in the Greek Copies, but all of 'cm agree in wanting this Verfs ", fo that the ObjecStion appears ftronger than it is^ or than it ought to appear, 4. Doth not the fixth Article of our Church exclude this Verfe from being a part of thofe I:oly Scriptures wliich /Z-^ receives ? for it tells us, that by the Scripture Qie underjlands thofe Cano- nical Books of the Old and New Tejlament, of whofe Authority Authority of i John 5.7, 4^ Authority was never any doubt in the Church. Is not the Cafe the fame with any part of thofe Books? And will any venture to fay there ne- ver was^ or that at prefent there is not very great doubt of this Verfe in the Church ? Whereas if there be any doubt for it., 'tis the utmofl: that can be made of Dr. MiWs Differ tation. 5. Whether in our printed Bibles fome Word^^irQ not omitted, or by a fmaller or different Chara^er viUbly diilinguifh'd as doubtful, for which there is far greater Authority, than for thefe under confideration ? Nay, this is done in this very Epiftle of St. John^ ch. 2. v. 23. Dr. Mill has fhown that thofe Words, He that acknowledges the Son, hath the Father alfo ; are in feveral va- luable Copies, and antient Verfions, and in the Fathers, even in St. Cyprian too : and yet not being in maiiy other Copies, the Wifdom of the Church hath mark'd ^em for dubious, to fhew how cau- tious fhe was there, not to put wrong or uncer- tain Scripture upon her Members. Yet here is a ^ext in the fame Epiftle, which has not one quarter, nay, I think I may truly fay, has not any of that Authority for it ; and wliich Was once in the fa7ne cafe, diftinguifh'd by fmaller Charauiers, as of lefs certain Authority, from the leginning of the Reformation : and now the former Caution is withdrawn, this is advanc'd into the Rank of undoubted 'Text, whereas the other is left as it was. Which, however, ferves to fhew us, what we may fairly expedt in reafon fhou'd be done, by fuch a 'l^ext as has nothing, 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 -th^n for the other, 'tis poffible they had both remain'd in the fame ftate. Therefore^ Vol, II E 6^ tg An Inquiry into the 6. It may reafonably be enquir'd, whether there be any more Evidence for this 'Text^ fince the Reformation? The prefent current Notions of the trinity were receiv'd then as much as 7ww, perhaps more ; and yet as Luther wou'd not put this into the 'T'ext in any Edition of his German Bible, nor durft Bidlinger take it in, fo our old Bibles in Henry VIII's and Edwaj^d VI's time, had thefe fFords of the feventh Verfe^ and the words in Earthy in the eighth^ in fmall Letters, and fometimes in a Parenthefis , to fhew they were not to be efleem'd of the faiJie certain Authority with the other parts of the Epiftle^ becaufe the Manufcrips wanted 'em. In Queen Elizabeth's Bible, 1566. I find the fatne •, and her later Bibles were the firfr which took V;7z in, as they now are, between 1566, and 1580. but whether by the influence of the Convocation which inter- ven'd, I know not. And if it was a dubious ^ext then, fome may ask what further Evidence arifes fince, to have caus'd this change ? Has any antient valuable Greek Manufcript newly appear'd ? Yes ; the moft valuable of all^ the Alexandrian Manufcript^ has fince that time been brought among us : but alas ! this has added great weight to the Evidence againft it. Befides, Erafmus's BritiJJj Copy^ and the Complutenfian Tefiainent^ and the Miflake about Stephens's feven Manufcripts, were not underflood to be fo void of all weight, as now they appear to be. If the firfl Refor- mers then had as 7nuch Evidence for it^ and thought they had more than we can now think we have, and not fo much to fay againfi it as we \ and yet they judg'd it but juft to leave it doubtful: how is it that we fhall jullify their SuccefTors, who have ventur'd upon what they dared not to do? Nay, Atithonty of \ John 5. 7. ^ 1 Nay, if your Lord/hips and the Reverend Clergy don't think this 'Text to be certainly fpuriops, I wou'd humbly propofe, whether it be not moji likely to be fo ? And then whether it be not fafer to put it out^ than to keep it in the place 'tis in ? Nay, whether it be not at lead dubious ? and then whether it ought not to be mark'd as fuch^ for your Peoples Obfervation? I befeech you, let us but obtain yc> much as I t\{\nk your- felves will, and as the firft Reformers did fee to be juft and reafonable, or convince us that this Requeft is not fo : elfe what remains, but to fit down, wonder, and defpair? 'Tis but an eafy flep, and will be well warranted, to return to that which our fir§f Reformers wifely and un- blameably 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 alter'd without Reafon. 7. Laftly, the great Importance of the fub- je6t matter of this much-doubted Text^ well de- ferves your moft impartial Judgment upon it. The Do5irine of the bleffed Trinity is purely de- pendent on Revelation \ varioufly underftood by Chriftians^ both of the Clergy and Laity ; and bound upon the Members of the Church by very direful Anathemas^ fcarce any more terrible, ex- cept that of St. John againft fuch as fhall add to, or take from his Writings. Now, fnice '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 an infpired Oracle, I pretend not to make any Interpretation of the JVords^ till their Authority be prov'd : but moft judicious Expofitors underftand Thefe Three E 2 ^re ji An Inquiry into the are One^ of an Unit'^ of Confent^ or in Witnels- bearing > as BnUinger^ Calvin^ Beza^ and many other, both Protefiant and Popijh Writers. But let 'em fignify much or little, in the Con- troverfy about the philofophical Nature of the ^hree Perfons -, yet as tbe"^ are always likely to be drawn into the fervice of what is moft prevalent and current, fo 'tis certain the common People have their eyes upon ihis^ 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 'jour Lordfhips and the Clergy^s power to let 'em know it, and to refer 'em to other Texts, which you can ajfm^e them are ge- nuine. Nor is there any doubt to be made, but the People think feme Branches of the Liturgy have their main Foundation on this one doubted Text, When they hear, Three Perfons and One God, in the fourth Petition of the Litany ; and who with thee and the Holy Ghofi ever liveth and reigneth one God, in the Doxokgies ', 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 fhou'd build fo weighty things on fuch a flender Foundation, if }'^2/r/^tei fo judge it? I fpeak this, becaufe I know not any other Text that dire^ly or clearly fays the fame thing, vix, that the Father, Word and Spirit, are One, They are not join'd in one Boxology, nor indeed do I find any given to the Holy Spirit in the New Teftament, either jointly or feparately ; much lels is the Spirit fa id 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 thefe Three are the One God. And if there be no other Text which fays this^ 'tis not the 7?iore likely to have been jimhority of i John 5, 7. 55 been St. John^s Saying here -, but the more grie- V0U5 to have it inferted by any who had not his Authority. Whether, upon the whole, this Pajfage fhall by your diredion, in our printed Books, be fairly difown'd and marked as formerly, or better vin- dicatedy I know not : but if neither of thefe be done, and if Preachers and Writers ftill go on, without due regard to Jujiice and their own Efteem^ to urge this as an Authorit^^ after all that is faid to fhew it has 7ione ; I apprehend, there are many underftanding Chriftians will be apt to think they are not fairly dealt with. And I hope it fhall not be thought to pro- ceed from any want of due Veneration for your Lord/hips and the Reverend Clergy ^ 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^ (hall excite many of your People^ as well as of the Clergy^ to fome Ex- pectations in this matter. I Ihall only fet down the Advice and Requeft of BugenhagiuSy a Lutheran Divine : having ob- ferv'd this Verfe to be put in, without any rea- fonable Pretence of Authority, and having ex- claim'd againft it as an impious bold Addition to the Sacred Scripture, and what (he fays) eftaUiJhes the Arians Blafphemy, and therefore fufpeded was their Contrivance ; he concludes, * / hefeech the Printers, and fuch learned Men as are aiding to them, that when at any time hereafter they Jhall re- print the Greek 'Tejlament, they leave out that Ad- ■* Obfecro igitur Chalcographos & eruditos Viros qui Chal- cographis adfunt, ut cum rurfum pofthac N. Teft. graece ex- cudendum eft, illam additfonem omittant, & ita reftituant GrsEca fuae priori integritati & puritati^ propter veritatem, ad gloriam Dei. in Ex^oftt, Jcha, E 3 dition. 54 -^^ Inquiry into the dition, andfo reftore the Greek to its former Purity^ for the Love of i'ruth^ and the Glory of God, With which Requeft, I humbly hope your Lord- fh'ip and the Reverend Clergy will fee great reafon to comply ; and the rather, becaufe I am inflruc- ted by a very Great * Prelate (who was once the Head of fuch a Convocation^ and very tender of the Church's Honour) That the Church is not fa hound up^ that floe may not^ on juft and farther Evidence, revife what may in any cafe have Jlipt by her. Whether this be not one of thofe Cafes, is fubmitted to your impartial and difcerning Judgment. A Pojlfcripf, in Anfwer to the Excufes offer d to take ^off the Force of this Addrefs. I Am perfuaded, the Addrefs I have made to your Lordflnps and the Reverend Clergy, is for the Matter of it fo reafonable and necef- fary, and may with fo much good Confcience and Jufcice 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 defenfe 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 * ABp Laud*; Preface agamfi Fifher. 2 under jitithortty of \ John 5. 7. jj 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 fhould not in this place be regulated according to the true Original, as I have humbly propofed ; I have inquired in private what any of the Clergy or others have to fiy in excufe of it. And tho I do not think the reverend BiJJoops or Clergy in Convocation will abide by any fuch flen- der Apolo^.es^ yet for the Satisfaction of private Perfons, I 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 1'ext is given up already^ and is allow'd by learned Men not to be genuine. Refp, Thefe Men do indeed confefs that the Text ought to be given up, as pafl all jull de- fenfe j but 'tis very wrong to fay, 'tis enough that a few learned Men know it. The Bible is a puhlick Book, for the ufe of all, and is tranflated for the ufe of the Unlearned -, and for their Good it fhould be fet out free from all known Corrup- tions. And the Learned, who know this Texl is to be given up, fhould honeftly let the World know it too, who are as much concerned as they. But 'tis never given up fairly, till it be left out of our printed Copies ; nor is it declared to be dubious, till it be again mark'd in fmall Letters. Let a Difference be made betv/een 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, fince this is fo. But alas ! 'tis vain to fay 'tis given up, while 'cis read undif- tinguifh'd in the Church, and urg'd from the Pulpit, in proof of a fundamental Point of Reli- gion ; and while Commentators ftill deliver it as E 4 their jin Liquiry into the their Opinion that 'tis genuine, and according to the true Origiml of St. John, Which Dr. Wellsy tho without anfwering the Arguments againfl it, and therefore without juft reafon, has not fear'd to do, in his late Expofition of this EpijJie -, and yet he is one who has appear'd in the Contro- verfy this Texi relates to, and has had the Ar- guments againft its Genuinenefs laid before him, in Dr. Clarke's Letter to him, and therefore ought to have confider'd this matter, and if he could, to have anfwer'd the Argnments that lie againft his bare Affertion. Ey^cufe 2. Others fay, the Words may ftand as they do, becaufe if St. John has not faid them, yet other Texts fa j the fame thing, Refh 'Tis not fo ; as has been faid already, /. 52. I never found any ferioufly pretend to it; only th.it they coiiid by -confequence infer the like, as they imagin'd ; and crhers deny it. And muft a doubtful Confequence^ of one Text be thruft into another part of Scripture ^ exprefs Text ? What Scripture (hall we have at this rate, if every Church or Party may put their difpu- tabk Interpretations into the Sacred Text ? Some may think 1.1oree Infinite Modes to be proved by good confequence (as they im.agine) from fome I'exts ; others that Three 'infinite Modes are the three Perfons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit : fhall this be put into the Text therefore, viz. And thefe Three Infinite Minds are one^ or thefe three In- finite Modes are one ? I fee not but the fame Apology as well would ferve them, as it does in the prefent Cafe. We are not feeking what other Texts may imply, but what St. John has exprefly faid. ' Excufe 3. Others fay, that St. Cyprian (on whofe miilaken Authority the Caufe has chiefly refted hitherto) does hauuevcr own the Senfe of thefe Authority of i John 5. 7. 57 thefe JVords^ if he did not find them in the Text ; fince he makes ic the Interpretation of the next Words, in which he judg'd St. John to have faid the fame in effedt. Refp. What if St. Cyprian did fuppofe fo, viz, that the Water ^ Bloody and Spirit^ might be ac- commodated to the Father^ Son^ (for he does not fay the JVord) and Spirit ? Shall St. Cyprian^ s little Fanfy be put into the Text ? Is St. Cyprian's Authority as good as St. John's ? I inquire what St. John has faid, and thefe Men tell me only what Cyprian fays. If Cyprian had any good Rea- fons for fuch an Interpretation of the three Witnefles, in the next Words, I hope they will Hill be heard when produced ; and fo long as this Text, about the Water, Blood, and Spirit^ (lands undoubted, there will always be this Proof of the Trinity in Unity, left fafe and found for the Followers of St. Cyprian, in all the clearnefs and ftrength it had in St. Cyprian's time. But then let it only be proved from thefe genuine Words of St. John, and let not the fuppos'd In- ference be thruft into the Text, to make it pals more current ; fmce a human Inference may with modefly be queftion'd, when a Divine Oracle is immediately aflented to as facred. Excufe 4. Laftly, Some think it beft to have it pafs for the Printer's Fault, in omitting to put the Words in fmall Letters as was ufual, without any Order. Refp. But are not the reverend Bifhops and the Clergy the Overfeers both of the Church, and of the Sacred Depofttum of the holy Scrip- tures, that they be kept undepraved, for the Edification of their Flocks ? Have they not had time fufficient, thefe hundred Years and more, to efpy this Fault, and to amend it ? Nay, *tis plain they have approv'd it, for 'tis read in 5 8 uin Inquiry^ Sec. in the Church as Sacred Texts j 'tis oft preach'd on, and alledg'd in proof even of what is ac- counted the mod fundamental Article of the Chriflian Faith. Add to this, that our Bible has been revifed and amended by the new Tranf- lators, fince this Interpolation crept in ; and yet they have continu'd it as it was. So that I think the Fault is taken off from the Printers ; and where it ought nexc to be laid, is an Inquiry • which I humbly hope your Lordjhip and the reverend Ckrg\^ in Faithfulnefs to your Flocks, and in Love to the Truth, and at the earneft Defires of the very * Z^i/j, will by an effedual and timely Amendment of the Miflake, wholly fuperfede as needlefs : thatinftead of fuch poor Excufes and Evafions, Men may be taught honeftly to confefs the Truth, and to be content with the Sacred Text, as God and his Holy Spirit gave it, rather than defire to have it amended, better to fuit their own Schemes and Fanfies. Pfalm 119. 128. I eft e em all thy Precepts to he rights hut I bate every falfe Way, * See the Layman's Addrefs to the Bifhops and Clergy, fag* 18. We fiatter'd ourfelves, fome or other of ^our Learned and mofi Venerable Order would have given an Anpwer to that Inquiry, {i.e, into i John 5. 7.) but infiead of that, we have of late been alarmed with Reports that a very learned Critick, a Member of the Lower-Houfe, Dr. Bentley, Mafler of Trinity- College, being an Archdeacon^ is upon an Edition of the Greek Tejiament^ and intends to omit that T^a:^. And we fee nothing in defenfe thereof but afijort Letter written on that occafion to the BoUory by a Layman* This therefore vje humbly pray may be taken into Confideration. US A N A N ANSWER T O Mr. Martins Critical Differ- * tation on i John v. 7. There are Three that hear Record^ Sec. SHEWING The Infufficiency of his Proofs, and the Errors of his Suppofttions ; by which he attempts to eftabliih the Authority of that Text from /^//^/^^ Manufcripts. 6t THE PREFACE. [HIS Gentleman, whom I propofe to an- ^BfA\ le^ ^^^ ^'^ the following Treatife, has cer- ^H ^ i^ tain^ fet off his Arguments with a great ^^^^^ deal of Addrefs and handfome Flourijh. ^^^^^^ I believe few could have faid more upon the Pointy tho perhaps fome would have chofen to fay lefs. '^he Extrad of my Inquiry in the Hague-* Journal feems to have given the Occafion of his Dif- fertation. ^ had traced the learned Dr, Mill, VATA 'ffe«Ac65, to whofe accurate Labours, little that was new could be added. What few Remarks I may have made^ to clear or ftrengthen foine Arguments^ Mr, Martin has not always taken notice of\ fo that I thought at firfi he had only feen the Extrafl, //// / obferved he has cited the Pages which are not in- ferted in the Journal. / commend his pious Zeal for the Credit of the Holy Scriptures, but do not think his Inference y/^, viz. that, if the Text in debate be found not genuine^ it is rational to fuppofe the fame thing may have happened to fome other Texts whereon the Faith has been founded. For if our Faith be jufily founded upon 6% The P R E 1? A c E. upon any Text, Uis hecanfe we have better Proof of its Authority ; and if we have not^ 'tis not Faith, hut Credulity, which is no Chriftian Virtue. And I believe this Gentleman cannot give fuch ayiother In- flance of one important Text rdfd on^ which is not better proved than this •, nor admits any one elfe^ nor yet the PafTage of Jofephus itfef^ upon fuch lame Evidence. Nor can I think that Man a true Friend to the Honour of Chrijiianity, who declares it muft ft and or fall with this, of (if there were any) other Texts in the fame Cafe. Since therefore he agrees to this^ that we ought to rieje^l this Paffage if 'tis not Scripture ; and 1^ that we ought to receive it, if it' be fo *, we are not to fright oiirfelves with Confequences^ to engage our Fajfons on one fide or on the other., hut ferioufly^ and in the Integrity of our Hearts^ to inquire and exa- mine to the bottom, whether it he a part of Sacred Writ or not. Only I muft ohferve, that 'twas not fair to fay., It turns only upon the Silence of fome antient Writers, and the Omiffions in fome Greek Manufcripts of St. John's Epiftle, and that nothing elfe can he urged ; when we do urge the Omijfton of all the Greek Manufcripts, and earneftly defire him to dire5i us at leaft to one, before he bars us of this Plea^ and alfo the Omiffion in all the genuine antient Greek Writers., as far as appears. And till this Eica?nination be over, and full Satisfa^fion given^ he Jhould not, I think, have called it one of the moft excellent Paflages of the whole Scripture, left he happen to give the Preference to a Dilate of fome ordinary and erroneous Man. I can't fay but Mr. Martin has written with De- cency, and the Civility of a Gentleman \ but fuch treatment muft not, it feems, be expelled from alL For from the Pulpit, at a publick LeEiure of Dif- fenters, / have been very lately attack' d with heavy Cenfures, and angry Reproaches^ in order to vindicate this The Preface. |5| this contefted Text. Itfeems that Br, Calamy, on the ipb Inftant, thought it the heft Method to begin with Mens Charadlers rather than with their Argu- ments, and in effect to tell his People^ that verj good Men had been for the Text, and fofne very bad or in- different ones againft it: And then he defcended to Particulars ; viz. Mr. Le Clerc, Mr. Wbifton, and F. Simon, as the Chief of the oppofite Side^ 'o/ha for Piety and Learning were not to compare with fo?ne of the other \ tho they are well known to be Men of fuperior Abilities^ and fingular Learning., of whom^ if on his Side^ perhaps he would have boafted with as great Glory. As to myfelf I only complain^ that it was not very charitable in him to fay from the Pulpit^ That tho ifs true the Text is not in the Alexandrian and Vatican Copies, yet that I {under the Name of the Author of the Inquiry) had fuch an Averfion to that Doc- trine, that if the Text had been in thofe Copies, and twenty more, (I think that was the Number) he beheved I would cavil againft it ftill *, and infinua- ted to the People^ as if I had atternpted to huff and hedor 'em out of the Text. / addreffed my Inquiry to iny Superiors in Con- vocation ; and if I drd write in a huffing and hedlo- ring manner^ 1 fhould be very for ry.^ fince I intended to do it with fair Arguments and decent Refpe5f : but I muft leave this to equal Judges that have read my Book^ and let them pronounce whether my Book., or fuch Preaching, have more of the Huff and He6tor. ^Twas hard he fhould be fo very uncharitably con- fident^ what I would have done^ and how I would have a5ied againft the great eft Evidence^ if there had been any in the Cafe. Pm perfuaded he canH fJjew wherever I have cavilled againft fuch Evidence as he mention^ d^ in any one Point of religious Difpute. I can tell of feineral Inftances where I have yielded to Evidence againft my former religious Opinions.^ and againft 64 The Preface. againfl my worldly Intereft and Reputation too : nay^ I once valued this fuppofed Text, as much as I can now any Proof of its being fpurious ; perhaps much more^ hecaufe I found far more need then to have it for 7ne^ than I do now to get clear of it : and yet when E- vidence did appear againjl it^ I did not cavil. I appeal to any one ofUnderflanding^ whether John lo. 30. I and my Father are one, be not altogether as oppofite to the Opinion offuch as are counted Arians, with relation to the Deity of Chrifl^ as this other Text ; and yet do I or others cavil at that ? I think this Jhould convince any Man who is not too far gone in Pajffon and Prejudice^ that ^tis Difference of Evidence makes me willing to admit the one^ and rejeEi the other ; fince there is no more difficulty {and indeed I find none at all) in reconciling the one to my Opinions^ than the other : And indeed I was as eafy in my prefent Sentiments while I did not reje5i this Text, but thought it more probably genuine^ as I am fince. I think this may fatisfy : And yet I don^t know but he that can heartily believe the Words ge- nuine without the Authority of one Manufcript^ may think it eafy for another to disbelieve 'em, tho he found ""em in all. It may be obferved how ready fome are to inflame their People with Indignation and Rage againft fiich as differ from them^ and that in Matters they are no way capable Judges of. We know zvell what the marking Men out in the Pulpit with odious Cenfuresferves to. I am forry if thefe are fome of the firft Fruits of the kind Indulgence granted,, viz. to fall fo foul upon ' others^ even before that was quite fi.mjhed, I /up- pofe,, to cenfure and lejfen by Name or Marks, is a Liberty wiich the kindeft Laws never intended : When thefe provided that DiiTenters jhoidd not be disturbed by others, it wa^ fnupofed others Jhould not be affronted hyperfonai open Reflexions from them^ Why The Preface. > 6$ Wh'j can^t a Point of Criticifm, or Kifrory, or an Opinion he calmly argued ? CanH a Alan go in- to a Pulpit without Heat and Ruffle, and there pro- duce his Evidences fairly ? If he can find none that pleafe him, he need not he forward to undertake it, hut Jhould not he out of humour \ hy which 'tis great odds, hut he will expofe one more than he intended, I meddle not with his Arguments, for indeed they were deferred till the next ; and if his Reafons he as Jirong in his next turn, as I thought his Pajfions were in the laft, it will make much more Impreffion on me. And I promife him that if he will try ?7ie with hut half the Evidence, nay with one quarter of the twenty Greek Manufcripts, tvhich he concluded I would cavil againft, he /hall find lam not fo perverfe as he reprefented me. And when he Ratifies the World with thefe Difcourles, if he will come firth as a Scholar^ or rather as a Chriflian, ferene and ingenuous, and I fhoidd judge it requifite to take any notice of them ; / affure him I am not fo difturhed, hut that I really intend to ufe more'Temper and Civility out of the Pulpit, thayi I have fometimes feen in ic : / rememher the Servant of the Lord muft not 2 Timo %\ ftrive, but in Meeknefs inftrud thofe who oppose. ^4' 25* I am fo fenfihle that Vi5lcry, in angry and unchari- tahle Strifes, even for Truth itfelf, however it may gratify our prefent Vanity, is yet inglorious ; and fo injurious to the Interejls of our holy Religion^ that I am ready to fear, what a certain General is faid to have replfd, when congratulated uton a great hut cofily Vi^ory, That a few fuch Victories will undo us. Jan. 14. 1718. 'P^ £^ Vol. II. F An An Anfwer to Mr. MartinV Differ tation on i John 5. 7. 67 R. MARTIN, Minifterofthe French Church at Utrecht, having piiblidied a Differ tation in defenfe of the ge- nuine Authority of i John S-J- There are Three that hear Record in Heaven^ &c. wherein he pretends to give a fufficienc Proof of its Authority, and to enervate the Ar- guments given by me from Dr. Mill, of its be- ing a manifeft Interpolation ; I thought it proper to confider what he hath faid, and to difpel that Mift, wherewith, by fpecious Infmuations, and fine Suppofitions, and fmooth Turns, he has en- deavoured to impofe upon the Minds of fuch as do not thorowly underftand the Matters of FaEi. This Gentleman is alarmed to this Befenfe by an Opinion of the mighty Confequence of this fuppofed Text^ for the Support of the Orthodox Dotlrine *, and is therefore very earned not to let go his hold of it, tho he pretends indeed the fame thing is to be found in man-j other Places of holy Scripture \ which yet I apprehend he has feme diaruft of, F 2 For 68 ^n Anfwer to Mr. Martin's For my part, I ihii. I am no way influenced by any fuch contrary Motive^ in writing on the ether fide of the Queftion, being fully fatisfy'd that the Words, if genui'^.e^ were as favourable to thofe call'd Arians^ as to any •, and clearly would argue againft the Sahellian Unity of one f'jiqle Mind, or one inteltigint BAng ; becaufe it would make the three V/.Uvjj'es to dwindle again into hut one^ and fo to lofe much of the Force of the Argument from three. And therefore Cal- In loc. <[jin and Beza declare, that 'tis not Unity cf Being is here fpoken of, but Unity of Confent and Tejii- mony \ which I think will imply diftin^ Minds con- curring in their Evidence, fince Confent is al- ways between more than one : So that it injures Mr. Mcirtin'^s Caufe to depend on fuch a Proof j as Erafmus fays *. I am only concerned to do juftice to the Sa- cred Writitigs^ and to difcover w^hat is true in it- felf, not what is convenient or agreeable to my liking. And as my Defign at firft was to ftate the Fa^s on Dr. Mill's Evidence^ fo I judge I did make it appear that he had left no Foundation for the juil fupport of the Authority of this fuppofed Text : But yet if any new Evidence arifes, or any well attefbed Authorities, or, hitherto con- cealed, Manufcripts of Credit, can be produced, I am as ready as any Man to allow 'em a due re- gard. But Mr. Martin has not try'd me, I con- ceive, with any fnch Matters as thefe ; but with fine Siippofitions, and abftraded FoffMlities, of this and the other thing, which in a Matter of Fa6t will not go very far with me againft plainer E- vidence. * Hoc not! eft confirmare Fidem, fed rurpe(^ani reddere, fi nobis hujufmodi Lemmatis blandiamur. Eraf, m locum. He ^tjfertatton on x John 5. 7. dp He fuppofes the Words in debate might not harm the Context^ nor difagree to St. Johrf^ Stfie : but what is this to the purpofe, to prove that in fa£f they were orginally written by him? 'Tis fo eafy by one fetch or other, according to Mens various Fanfies, to wind almoft any thing into an obfcure Context, when once it is refolved it muft be in •, that I take fuch Arguments to be but trifling Supplements, where good Reafons are wanting. But then as to what he calls a t'oird Advantage in favour of the Text, vix. That his Ch. i. Adverfaries cannot 'produce one fingle Pajffage from the Antients^ whence it ma'j appear that they had any Sufpicion concerning this Text: It may be faid that it had been indeed ftrange, if any had made a Difpute about a Text^ which they had never feen or heard of ^ which I think is true of the Primitive Writers {or many Centuries: and for o- thers fince, 'tis no wonder if creeping into private Books in Ages of Darknefs and Confufion, we find no notice remaining of any Oppofition of theirs to what did not offend them. On the other hand, there are three great Bif- advantages which Mr. Martin labours and finks under, and which are fatal to his Caufe. I. That he has not produced one genuine Greek Writer that ever cited this T^ext^ thro' fo many hundreds of Years. Even the fpurious Sy nopfis Scriptures among Athanafms^s Works, by fay- ing that St. John /hews us the Unity of the Son with the Father^ gives no ground to fay that this un- certain Author had tbi:> Text in hi^ eye •, pro- bably it refers rather to fome other Paifages, {loch, 2. 23.) or to the 8th Verfe of this 5th Chapter myftically interpreted, &c. However, who, or at what time, this Author, v^hether Greek or Latin ^ was, is not known. F 3 2. That 70 An Anpwer to Mr. Martin 5 2. That he carnot direft us to one Manufcript Greek Copy in the World, where this Text is at this day to be found ; and yet the Manufcripts have been in very fafe keeping with the Ortho- dox all along : fo that if ever they had been feen -with thisTcxt in 'em, they might be fo ftill. If Avian Kings and Emperors had borne the Sway, we fhould have had it confidently fiid by Men of flight Thought, that then it was thefe Manufcripts of Stephens^ and the Britijh Manufcripts, and the Vatican Manufcripts, ^c. were aker'd, and the Words rafed out, as now they vainly pretend it might be of old : but who has alter'd 'em all now fince the Reformation? %. That he has not produced one credible Wit- nefs, that ever diredly faid he had at any time feen any one particular Greek Manufcript in which this Text was ; or defcribed it by any Mark of Diftindion, by which it may be known, upon In- quiry after it. We have feveral indefinite AfTer- tions, thatUis^ ^nd th?it we find it^ and the like, in fo??ie Copies, as Beza and P. A?7ielot fpeak ; but that they faw it themfelves, and took it not from others upon loofe Prefumaption, is, I think, not once fully manifefted : and it fignify'd nothing to mention Xujieues, and Cajetan, and Laurentius Valla^ and more fuch, only to make a pompous Show of Na?nes and Numbers for nothing ; when ^tis not proved they fay any thing to the Point in hand : and one may fay of 'em all, as Erafmus of Laurentius Falia, ^Ad legerity non Jatis liquet , riowYd.\\i read^ is not evident. But of this Mat- ter fomewhat more particular fhall be fiid, when I come to examine what Mr. Martin fays of the Greek Manufcripts. And indeed, 'tis only on this third Head that I need much to concern myfelf : for as to the two former Points, he makes no great peienfe ; the genuine Greek Writers^ and the pre- fent ^tjfertation on \ John ^.7. 71 fent Greek Manufcripts are not to be found, nor are fo much as fummoned m for WitneiTes on his fide. Indeed, Mr. Martin would fain invalidate this ^^*^'^'^^' negative Argument from the total Silence of the ^* Greek Fathers^ and that of the Latins too, for 400 Years, (for he has not proved S. Cyprian's Words to be more than his Interpretation of the 8th Ver. as Facundus, yea and Fulgentius too, as Ihad (hown, do declare 'em to be) by pretending that they might be in other fVritings of the Antients which are loft •, or that it might not come into their Minds to mention 'em : even as that Text of Baptizing in the Name of the Father^ Son^ and Spirit, was not mention'd by fome of them, in feveral of their Works where it might have been proper. But is this like the Cafe we are upon ? For as thofe Words were not fo peculiarly neceifary for their purpofe againft any Adverfaries they had to do with •, fo 'tis granted, that if they were omitted in one part of the Writings, they are flill alledg'd in another -, or if by one Writer, yet they are cited by others, both Greek and La- tin ; and alfo have the concurrence of the antient Greek Manufcripts to back it all. Now is this, or any thing like it, to be faid in the prefent Cafe } where the Text in difpute is not once mention'd, neither in one genuine Greek Writer nor in ano- ther -, neither in one part of their Works, nor in another ; and where they had fuch provoking fre- quent Occafions, as would not fufFer 'em to be, all of 'em, and always^ forgetful of fo proper a Text ♦, a Text fo emphatical and fo fingular, fuch an one that Mr. Martin^ and fome others, cannot tell how to fpare •, and where, all the Greek Ma- nufcripts known to us, are as filent as the Greek Fathers^ and the Latins too for many Ages, Can any negative Argument be ftronger ? Or can therq F 4 t)e f% An Anfwer to Mr. Martin*^ be any but negative Arguments to prove a Ne- gari-e P And iTrall it be enough not to anfwer, but evade fuch Proof, by ftrange Suppofitions of ex- treme PoiTibilities of fuch things, to which per- haps the like never yet happened ? Mr. Martin's 2Q,3d,and 4th Chapters zrt nothing but a Proof, by a long Series from the 14th Age backwards to the time of Charlemain^ that this "Text was in the Latin Bibles in thefe Weftern Parts ; fo that he pleafes himfelf with tracing it up to the End of the Ei^th Century in the Latin Copy : which yet is no more than has been freely allowed on all fides \ I mean that this Text has from that Age been found in divers Latin Copies, not in all^ or in the moft : the nearer they were to our prefent Times, the more they agreed in this Point ; and the higher we go, the Evidence ap- pears weaker and weaker, till at lafV, without the help of a ftrong Fanfy, we can difcern none at all. And even in thefe Latin Bibles 'tis confefs'd, that this Text is in various Ihapes ; in fome the Words in Heaven are wanting •, in others, thefe Three are one •, and in fome the whole Verfe : fome- times the 8th Verfe comes before it, and fome- times 'tis as in our prefent printed Books ; fome- times 'tis in the Text, and fometimes in the Mar- gin. And tho Father Simon owns the Words to be in that antient Manufcript of Lotharius, copied Crii^ Btji, from Charlemain's Bible -, yet he fays, that it cf(heText,.j^as greatly disfigured, fome Words interim' d^ "^'^ and fome defaced^ to fubftitiite other Words in their place: fo that he might well reckon this to be of lefs ^ntient Authority, than the Body of the Copy ; and therefore there was no great reafon here to triumph over him as contradicting himfelf. Such Marks of Confufion feem plainly to Jhew, ^hat this Text had, as yet, been a Stranger there, and jDiJfertation on i John 5. 7. jrj and had not any fixed Settlement afligned to it : perhaps in St. Bernard's time, viz, in the Xlth j^ge^ it might be got into the Ordo Romanus^ and the Offices of the Church, both Latin and Greek ; even as in England^ I find thefe fame Words were introduced among the Epiftles into the Common- Prayer of King Edward Vlth, without any mark of Sufpicion, while at the fame time, and long after, they were marked for doubtful in the publick and common Bibles, So that it does not always follow, from a Text's being quoted, or being brought into the Offices of a Church, or placed in the Bible it- {z\U that it was received as undoubtedly genuine, becaufe the Offices of a Church are fometimes apt, as we fee, to out-run their Bible ; and Pofterity will be abufed, if any, in after Ages, fhall per- fuade 'em, that the Englifh Church of this or the lafi Age^ prefer'd the old reading o^ Pfalm 105. 28. And they were not obedient to hisWord^ merely becaufe 'tis retain'd in the Church's Office or P falter \ when 'tis fo well known, that all our more common, and publickly authorized Bibles^ have for above an hundred Years maintain'd the reading, which is juft contr?.did:ory to it, viz. And they rebelled not againft his Word, So that it would be a v/rong Step to fuppofe our Zeal for Unifor- mity had been carry'd fo far as this ; I mean, to an exa6l Agreement of the Church-Service with the Church-Bible, But what tho this Text were found to be di- rectly in the Bible of Charlemain^ which Father Simon oppofes not ? will this prove it to have been in the Greek Manufcripts at that time ? In the Latin for certain, it has long been, and is now in many other Verfions ; and yet we have not found hitherto one f Greek Manufcrift^ by which \ One is Jince found at Dublin, of which notice will h taken, to 74 -^^^ Anfwer to Mr. Martin'5 to juftify it : And therefore tho Cbarlemain^ about Ann. 798. caufed the vulgar Latin Bible to be review'd and purged of many Errors and Cor- ruptions that had crept into it fince St. Jerotn's time ; and to that end imply'd Alcuin^ and other learned Men of that Age •, it will not prove they had the Authority of any Greek Maniifcript to warrant this Text, as Mr. Martin would have us Part I. to fuppofe. // is not to he imagined^ fays he, that ^^' 3« thefe learned Men wou'd only confult and compare with the Latin Copies ; they wou^d go^ without doubt, to the original Greek of the New ^eftament : and pleafantly asks, if Father Simon himfelf (had he been one of them) ^vould have put in THIS 'TEXT upon the Credit of a few Copies only among many, &c. But 'tis abfurd to think, the Men of that Age wou^d or ccu^d take fuch Meafures as the learned of the prefent Age wou'd •, for as the Greek Ma- v.ufcripts were probably very rare, and hard to be come at in the Weflern parts, fo the learned of thofe Times had fcarce any thing of that critical Skill, or Genius^ which thefe later Ages have ar- rived at, and which is fo necelTary for fuch a Work : It does not appear that they took any pains to compare with one Greek Manufcript, which, if they had had before 'em as their Rule then, and had made fuch account of, they might probably have been ftiil preferved to us : but as we have no fuch Manufcript to be now found, or that has been feen, as far as we know, for any of the Ages pafl between us and them ; fo it does not appear there ever was fuch in the World. Nay, if they follow'd one, or a fev/, even of the Latin Manufcripts^ where different from the moji arid befl^ I think 'tis no great won- der. I am fatisfy'd this has been often done, viz. to prefer the Reading, that has pleafed beft, when againft the 7noJl and the ^^/ Copies, Did I not T>tJfertatton on i John 5.7. ^^ not the Complutenfian Editors fo ? Did not Erafmus do it? And why naight not thefe Rcvifers under Charletnain^ have the J.^fa calmnniandi as much at heart as he had ? efpecially fince they niighc fanly, as others do now, that this l^ext might have been omitted, as the Preface, under St. Je- roin^s Name, to the feven Epiftles, does fuggeft ; which Father S'vnon judges (and the contrary does not appear by Mr. Martin him felf) to have been about this fame time compofed and inferted -, and to give it the greater Authority, they father'd it upon Jerom. Not having any Authority to pro- duce from any Greek Copies of their own to jufli- fy their Complaint of the Latin Tranflators O- miffion, perhaps they might think it beft to re- fer the matter back to St. Jerom ; efpecially if they found it already put in any Copies of his Latin Bible^ tho, by a late Corruption, which carry'd no Offence in it to them : this might afford 'em a fpecious Plea, and would prevail upon many others, I believe, to do the like in their Cafe, when there were none to remonflrate againft it. So that if they did but as others have done, the whole Argument is fpoil'd. And then Mr. Martin will fall fhort of his Con- cliifion^ viz. that from this Review of the Latin Bible, Anno 798. there can he no doubt at all made ^ hut this 'Text had been current in the Bibles of the 7 th, 6th, and the 5th Ages', hecaufe, fays he, we canU fuppofe they went by Manufcripts of lefs than two or^ three hundred Tears fianding ; and fo they mufi have had at once before *e?n [and not, hut they ought to have had, &c. as the Englifio Tranflator puts it] both the Copies of St.jGVom's Bible^ and alfo them of the old Italick Verfion made in the fecond Century ^ and which had continued to the feventh^ to be the Bible of all the Latin Churches: and then concludes, that this clearly Ihews, The Text had ever been in ch. 3. the T6 An Anfwer to Mr. Martin^^ the vulgar Verfion, And thus, by the llrength of a vigorous Imagination, he is fpeedily arriv'd, in a manner, at the End of his Journey ; without being beholden to any the lead Proof by way of Evidence, that thefe Revifers did find, or did fay they found, the TeDct in any one Greek Manufcript^ or in St. Jerom^%^ or in the It dick Verfion itfelf ; much lefs that they found it in any antient Copies of Credit, that might Ihew it was no Innovation, if it was found in any others. I do not fee but Mr. Martin^ without tiring his Fanfy by a long train of Suppofitions, might as well have made fliorter work, by faying, (for I can't well call it arguing) that we fee at prefent our trinted Copies have this Verfe ; and we ought not to doubt but the World has always been fo hone§f^ fo unfe^ fo watchful and careful^ that it could never have been brought in, if it had not always he n in the true Copy from the firft. But yet, alas, 'tis too evident, that feveral Cor- ruptions, Inrerpolations, and Omiflions, have happened frequently, before'the Art of Printing, according to the Skill, the Care, or the Fanfy of the Tranfci ibers •, and for that reafon. Si, Jerofn was put upon corredting the Latin Verfion of the New Teftamenc with very great Labour and Diffi- culty : and afterwards we fee Charlemain caufed another Review to be made, becaufe of new Cor- ruptions : and then in the tenth Century, the Sor- ' Ion another. And 'tis as certain, that fuch Reviews are not wont to fet all things right again ; that upon a little doubt, fome things are removed, and others that pleafe better are retaii/d, upon very flender grounds \ fo that we muft not prefume and fap- pofe, that all vjas done which we now think was Jit to be done* The 2)iJfertatton on x John 5.7. _ 7^ The truth is, the World has already too long gone upon Suppofttions in this matter, and 'tis that has brought us into this Confufion. The Learned fuppofed for a long time, that the Complutenfian Editors had kept clofe to the Vatican Manu- fcripts ; efpecially to that famous, and mod an- tient one, recommended to their exa6t Regard by Pope Leo \ and therefore that they had thh good Authority for putting this Verfe into their Edition. But, tho this is more than Mr. Martin has to warrant his Confidence in the Charlemain Revifers^ yet, it feems, the Learned fuppofed- too much here, fince thefe Manufcripts are found to want what was fuppofed to be taken from them. Thus the learned World long fuppofed that Stephens had nine Greek Copies which had this Verfe^ zndfeven more that had all but the Words in Heaven \ and what is become of their Suppo- fitions ? I believe Mr. Martin will pai t with fome of them -, and yet they were very piaufible, and partly grounded on Stephens's own, butmifla-* ken Account : and yet muft we ftili be treated with fuch trifling Suppofitions in the fame Cafe, inftead of Evidence? But there is no end of fuppofing, on one fide and on the other •, and I have no Fondnefs for a Conteil, which not the flrongeft Reafon, but the ftrongeft Imagina- tion muft decide. Ilhall take my leave of this Subjed, by fhewing only how groundlefs and falfe Mr. Martinis funda- mental Suppofition is, viz. That the Latin Bibles^ of the 6th, and yth, and Sth Ages generally had this Text, from the decifive Words of that tranfcen- dent critical Genius of this Age, Dr. * Bentle'j, * Two Letters to the reverend Dr, Bentley, concerning his intended Edition of the Greek Teftament, with the Doftor's Anfwer, and fome account of what may be expeSiedfrom that ^ Edition, /. 24, 25. 7? Jfin Anpmer to Mr. Mar in*s I formed a T bought , a priori, that if St. JeromV true Latin Exemplar could he come at^ it would he found to agree exactly with the Greek 'T'ext of the fame Age \ and fo the old Copies of each Age (if fo agreeing) would give mutual Proof to each other. Whereupon., rejeEling the printed Editions of each^ and the fever al Manufcripts of feven Centuries^ and under .^ I make ufe of none^ hut thefe of a Tboufand Tears ago^ or above, (of which fort I have twenty itow in my Study, that one with another, make 20000 Tears.) I had the Pleafure to find, as I prefaged, that they agreed exaSily like two Tallies, or two Indentures ; ^3; this you fee that in my propofed Work, the Fate of that Verfe (i. e. i John c^. "].) will he a mere ^efiion of Fa^. >^And if the fourth Century knew that Text, let it come in^ in God's Name : hut if that Age did not know it, then Arianifm in its height was heat down, without the help cf that Verfe : and let the Fa^ prove how it will, the Do^rine is unjhaken. Now if thefe twenty fo antient Copies all agree in wanting that Verfe, (as I am fatisfy'd, none fuppofes they agree in having it) we may fee what Credit is due to Mr. Marthi\ ftrongeft Imagination, concerning the Copies of thofe Ages. Here is plain Fa5l againft his extravagant Fanfies. And I doubt not, when the Dod:or, who alone appears to be par huic negotio, fhall gratify the expedling World with his Nohle Performance, things will be fet in a yet clearer Light. Mr. Martin's ^th Chap, is an Attempt to re- trieve the Credit of the pretended Preface of St. Jerom to the feven Epiftles ; which complains much of the Latin Tranflators of the New Tefta-^ ment, that they had omitted this Verfe, which the Greek Copies had in them. If this had been genuine, it had been of great weight ; but for many Reafons the Learned have judged it to be a JDiJfertatton on \ John j, 7.' 75^ a Forgery in St. Jeromes Name : fome of thefe Reafons Mr. Martin thinks not to be fufficient, but that ftill it may pojffibly be St. Jerom's own Work. But he can never give a good anfwer to all : for the Preface profelfes him to have re- flored this Verfe^ after fuch injuftice done to it ; and declares it to be a "principal Support of the Chriflian Faith^ by which the one Subftance of Father^ ' Son^ and Holy Spirit^ is confirmed. But then how comes it, that this Text., in all St. Jeromes true Writings, where he contends for this Faith, and fearches fo much for Texts and Arguments, is not once mentioned by him ? Could he omit what he judged the great Rampart of his Faith ? Could he always omit, and always forget, fuch a Text, which he had been the Preferver and Reftorer of ; and would therefore be more than ordinarily fond and careful of ? Befides, St. Jerom furely would never be guilty of fuch a falfe In- fmuation that all the Greek Copies had this Verfe^ when the total Silence of all the Greek Fathers in that, and preceding Ages, is an undeniable Evidence of the contrary ; not to be anfwer'd by little Prefumptions and airy Suppofitions. But Mr. Martin ufes fuch an Argument, which Chap; ^i he fays is very confiderable., to prove this Preface was St. Jerom*s and not a Forgery, that I con- fefs is to me very furprizing. If, fays he, the Writer of it was a feigned Perfon, who defigned to put off his own Piece for St. Jerom'j, he was certainly not a Mafier of much Addrefs, in com- plaining of unfaithful Tranflations in his Time ; for no one can produce the leafh Proof, that new Latin Verfions were ever made in the Age Uis pre- tended this Preface was compofed : whereas 'tis plain from^ St, Auguftin, St, Jerom'j Cotemporary, that in their Days divers had undertaken to make Latin Verfions of the New Tellament, and undoubtedly the 8o An Answer to Mr. Martin'i the Complaint in the Preface refpe5ied fome one of thefe Verfions •, which is a confiderable Reafon to prove it was truly St, Jerom'i. Now I can't but think juft the contrary ♦, that the feigned Author^ by this was a Man of great Addrefs : for if he in- tended a Fidlion in St. Jeroin^s Name, it was to be fuited to St. Jerom^% Time, when Mr. Martin fays, there were divers Verfions made ; and ha- ving faid none can produce the leaft Proof of Latin Verfions made in that Age which this Preface was pretended to he compofed in^ he fays, there is plain Proof, that in St. Jeromes Days^ there were fuch Verfons, which is the very Age it was pre- tended for : but if he means the feigned Man Ibould have framed a Preface^ in St. Jerome's Name, that had only been fuitable to Charlemai?i's Age, he had been a Bungler indeed, tho, with Mr. Martin^ a Man of Addrefs. But if fuch Reafoning as this . can confirm him in this Opinion^ it will be very difficult to conceive how he fhould ever be unfettled in any thing. May I not fay to him, what he, on no Reafon that I can fee, fays of Dr. Mill \ fure he did not confider what he faid^ [not, did not think what hefaid^ as the Eng* lifh Tranflation is, Ch. 5. at the end'\ and his Eyes and Underftanding went not together. But Mr. Martin fays, ^Tls of no great moment^ whether it he granted to he St. Jerom'j or not, be- caufe he thinks it will yet prove this ^ext to have all along been in the Bible ; in that the Preface 7?iuji he allowed to he very antient, and to have heen in the Bihles for ahove Soo Tears ; and F. Simon fuppofes it put in hy fome of thofe who re- vifed the Bihle under Charlemain. Hence he ar- gues, that if thefe learned Men made this Com- plaint of the Unfaithfulnefs of the Latin Tranf- lators in omitting this Verfe, it is a certain Ar^ gument of its having heen in St. Jerom'j Bihle-, elfe ^ijprtationon i John 5. 7. Si elfe they could not have brought fuch an Ac- cufation. I grant they could not juftly do fo, unlefs they knew it had been even in all the Greek Co- pes too, which therefore they pretend : but they might do this unjuftlj^ i. e. without Ground, and upon miftaken Prefumption, as I have al- ready faid 5 or perhaps upon juft fuch Suppofi- tion as Mr. Martin himfelf goes upon, when he fays, in his 6th Chap, that either this Verfe was in St. Auftinh Bible, or that it ought to have been in ity hecaufe it mas infome Bibles of that time. And fo, for ought I know, fome Latin Bibles might have the Verfe in them in the ^th Age, and before ; 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. Simon^ I mayalk him, whether if he had been one o^ ihefn^ he wou'd not have done the fame thing according to his way of Reafoning, or rather of Prefu mingy without Evidence. But if, from the former Evidence of Dr. Bent- lefs Words, it appears in Fad, that St. Jerorr^s Bible had not this Text^ then there is an end of this Difpute, and the Prologue could not be Ch. 5. his-, fince, 'tis granted to be ridiculous^ to fup-^^"''- pofe he fhould reproach other Tranflators, 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, Jerom^s^ or in any Greek Copy. So that the great, and middle Link of the imaginary Chain in the ^ih Age, is bro- ken -, on which hangs the Suppofition of fuch Greek Manufcripts^ for dbouifeven Centuries before, and which fupported that Suppofition for about as many Centuries after ; till Matters of Fad Vol. IL G came %i An Anfwer to Mr. Martin's came to be looked into, and tne Greek Manu- fcrips themfelves infpedted \ which, we fhall fee prefently, are all wrong on Mr. Martin*^ fide, when I have confider'd the few private Citations of his two next Chapters. Mr. Martiriy in his 6th and ']th Chapters^ goes on to prove that this 'Text was in the antienc Italick Verfion of the New Teftament. This he would infer, from its being in St. Jerom^s^ which I hope appears already to be' a groundlefs Sur- mife j and fo the Argument will turn on the other fide, and be retorted upon him, viz. that if St. Jero7n\ New Teftament had not this Text^ 'tis a great fign, the Italick^ which he corredled, had it not neither : Otherzvife his Bible had been fo defeciive^ that it would have been bitterly exclaimed againjiy by fuch as made fuch ado with him^ about his changing but one fingk Word for another ^ as we learn out of St. Auguftin, As for his Inftances of the mention of this Text by Fulgentlus (in the 6th Century) and by Vi- gilius Tapfenfis^ 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 ViL^or Vitenfis^ fignify any thing more than what I had fuppofed formerly, viz, that at the latter end of the fifth Century^ fome might begin to pretend that for 21?;^/, which had fo long and currently been the Interpreta- tion of the next Verfe. And therefore I did not, as Mr. Martin infinuates, put by ViHor Vitenfis^s Teftimony for being a fibulous Writer ; but I fhewed, (to which Mr. Martin hath made no reply) that it was no Evidence of the current AdmifTion of that Text^ or of its long Handing ; and that from the common way, in that Age and Place, of interpreting the next Verfe^ in fuch a manner as could not well confift with ha- ving differ tatton on i John ^. y. 83 ving this 'Text alfo in their piblick Bibles : I fay, their publick Bibles^ becaufe as F. Si?non has (hewn, ^'^fl- ^f that tho it appears not that different Lalin^^^ ^^^^* Tranllations were then read in the Weftern^* Churches, yet private Perfons took the hberty of making new Trandations ; and that by this Di- ftiniflion, between the Bible read in the pubHck Service, and thefe particular Verfions^ we may eafily refolve the Objedtions taken YromTertuiliany Cyprian, &c. whofe Citations agree not with the Jtalick Verfion, Tbe^ read the vulgar Copy with the People, which was in ufe in their Churches, becaufe they could not do otherwife : but in their IVritings, they took the liberty to tranjlate as they thought fit. And therefore fuppofing Vigor's relation of that Confefjlon 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 T^ext, even at the end of the fifth Age, was in their com?non Bibles, tho they might have fome Countenance, or fome ISIotions on which they prefumed to bring in the Words for a Proof ; whether it was that they had the direct Words" in feveral private Books, or relied on the current myllical Interpretation of the ?iext Verfe to bear them out : which lafh may, for ought I fee, be all that is intended in fuch Teftimonies or Citations of thefe Words. i do not confidently affert it, or fay, that even thefe late Writers had only Three Witneffes, in the Bible •, which fometimes they mentioned by their direcSl: Names, Water, Blood, and Spirit, and fometimes by their niyflkal Narnes, 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, SindSpirity sls St. John's three Witnejfes -, I have not G 2 ' obferved $4 An Anf^er to Mr. Martin''^ obferved that any of them fpeak of both together, or of fix Witnejjes : which looks as if it was all but one 'Text^ with its Interpretation. (I confefs EiichermH Teflimony, in the next Cha^, has all fix fet down there \ but to that I fhall have fome- thing to fay.) So that for ought appears, Mr. Martini Cloud of JVitneffes^ as he calls this huge number of African Bilhops *, every one^ fays he, coming with his Bible in his Hand^ offering us this Paffage of St, John to read •, may be but a Cloud of an ha?id'breadth, three or four only, without any Warrant from the publick Copies, long efta- blifhed, as it appears by others of that Country in that fame Age, from what has been already faid. The Teftimonies of Eucherius, Cyprian, and * ^* 7'ertullian, are to carry on the Proof of the Italick Verfion's having this Text \ but as here is nothing new about St. C\prian, (to which Tertullian is but an Appendix) fo I have already dated the matter Pag' 5 If concerning him in my former Bifcourfe, and have accounted for what Mr. Martin here repeats ; but he takes no notice that even Ftdgentius, whom he brings to confront Facundus, does rather, as I have fhown, confirm his Judgment of Cyprian*^ Words, viz. that they are an Interpretation of the eighth Verfe ; and for certain they are not the diredl Words of the y^^'c';7//:7 Verfe contended for. And yet here is all that is pretended to, from St. John^% Time to the fifth Century ; for neither Greek nor Laliyi^ fmall nor great Writer, for fo many hundred Years, gives the leafl: fhadow of a Proof, that they knew any thing of this great and remarkable Text -, perhaps the mofl obvious, and adapted for their conftant Occafions, of any Text in the Bible. And yet this contefted Paffage of St. C\prian only, fo well accounted for other- wife, and upon fo good A^uthority, muft outweigh aii. zstc. ^tjfertatton on \ John j. 7, 85 all, even againft the exprefs Teftimony and Senfe given of St. C'jpnan*s Words, by a following Bi/hop of the fame Country, whom none contraditfl:, and whofe Teftimony, if believed, is entirely decifive. But the PafTage Mr. Martin brings out of Eucherius^ of which indeed I was not aware be- fore, will need more Confideration ; for tho it only concerns the fifth Ccmur'j^ in which I did allow that poffibly the IVords might become ^ext, in fome Books, yet it will carry it half a Century higher, than the Confeffion of the African Bifliops in ViBor Vitenfis : and, I confefs if the PafTage be genuine^ it is more to the purpofe than any, yea than all the other Teftimonies, before or after Eucherius^ for fome hundreds of Years : be- caufe here we find both the feventh and eighth Ferfes together^ at once to fhew us all the fix Witneffes \ and that there was Father, Word, and Spirit, befide what was faid of the IVater, Blood, and Spirit', whereas, only Father, JVord, and Spirit, might have been the fame Things myfti- cally interpreted, after the prevailing Cuftom of that Time. So that I cannot deny but Mr. Martin had fome ground to fay, this is decifiive, i. e. as to its being acknowledg'd by Eucherius, in the fifth Century. But, The Inftanoe being fingular, is indeed apt to raife fufpicion about it -, yet I fliall not for that Reafon rejed it, but Ihall 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 Eucherius, In general, the Learned know very well, that in the Copies and Editions, efpecially, of the La- tin Fathers, fuch Interpolations of Texts are fre- quent, and were thought innocent : for when G 3 the ^6 An Anpwer to Mf.MartIn'5 the Tranfcriber found a Text only refcr'd to by his Author, he would fupply it at large, or per- haps rectify it, by pitttnig it in according to what was in his own Bible of another Age, which he thought muft be right. This was but natural •, and 1 underfland this is the Cafe in a like Inftance with Bedels Comments on the eighth Verfe : there are ^hree that bear Record^ the Water^ Bloody and Spirit ; for fo I am informed the Manufcripts of Bedels Works have it, whereas in the printed Edi- tion, the Words in terra, en Earthy are added to make it agree to the current Verfions of After- j?ges. So' that if Eucherius had only faid, As to the 'Trinity St. John has fpoken as in the eighth Verfe^ the Tranfcriber finding in After-ages the feventh Verfe alfo in his Bible, might join both, as eafily as he now would add Chapter and Verfe : and thus an Alteration of a Text was the likelieft of all. But 'tis not enough to fay it might be fo, I fhall therefore offer my Reafons on which I judge it was fo here -, becaufe, Fn'Jl^ It appears to be not very confident with n"^\ !^T ^^''^^^^'^''^^'^ himfelf elfewhere *, for in his Interpre- ficif in^'l^^^^on of Ver. 8, or the Water ^ Bloody and Spirit^ Lcca V. he cieclares, that moft did hy a 7nyftical Interpre- & N. T. tation underftand thereby the Trinity^ i. e. by the Water the Father ^'^z, in which he feems endrely to acquiefce alfo ; which is much what St. Cy frian had faid before, according to Faciindiif% Teftimony, Now I cannot imagine how to re- concile this with Eucherius" s acknowledging the Words of the feventh Verfe ; for how could any, according to common Senfe, fet themfelves, by forced mydical Interpretations, to extort from the eighth Verfe fuch an unnatural Meaning, and make the PFater, Blood, and Spirit, to mean Father, JVcrd, and Spirit, if they had read it dircaiy ^iffertatlon on i John 5. 7, 87 dire<5ily in the feventh Verfe already, that there are three in Heaven^ &c. Father^ IVord^ and Spirit ? Could they make the three WitneiTes on Earth to be the fame which had juft before been called the WitnefTes in Heaven ? Would they make the Six to be but 'Three Witneffes ? and the Apoftle to fay the fame thing twice over ? and after the mention of them by their proper Names, to men- tion 'em by myftical Chara6lers, 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- rius de formidis Spirit, ^c, in particular was in very great Diforder, and it feems the Copies were not alike ; for Joannes Alexander Brafficanus^ in his prefatory Epiftle, tells us, as I find it in the Bibliotheca Patriim^ that he took a great deal of pains, unto Wearinefs, in repurgand':s <^ reftituen- disy &c. in leaving out and adding many things : id quod deerat adjecifnus^ fays he. So that all things confidered, it is not improbable that this Paifage may be one of thofe Additions. To which I may fubjoin, Thirdly^ That this Text was not neceffary to his Defign, which (tho I will not fay he keeps ftridly to it) was to infifl upon myftical Inter- pretations, like the Jewijh Cabala^ under the fe- veral Numbers one^ two^ three, Sec. which the eighth Verfe did ferve him in. This appears in the Title of this Chapter, which is, * Of Num- * ^^ „„, hers whofe Significations are alleipricalh explained : meris quo- whereas the feventh Verfe v/as not fubjedl to fuch a rum iigni- fecret fio;urative Interpretation. And according- ?'^^''''''^* ly in the beginning of his Work, he prays vjod ^j^ ^^ahun^ . G 4 tOtur. 88 Jn Anfwer to Mr. Martin $ to reveal the fecret abflrufe Senfe of the Scrip- tures, that he might produce what was their fecret Meaning *. However, \{uhm\X.tbe[e Rea- fons to the Judgment of the impartial, who, I think, will not wholly defpife *em all : but ftill it muft be remember'd, that if by any they be not thought fufficient to take off the Autho- rity of this Teftimony, yet as 'tis the firft clear mention of this 'Text by any Cbriftian Writer, fo it was not till a good way in the fifth Century. And now there is nothing remains to be confix dered, but what Evidence there is to be found from the Greek Manufcripts of the N. T, to au- thorize this T^ext : for it fignifies little that the modern Latin or Greek Churches have admitted it, unlefs they had Authority from the Greek Original for fo doing ; and therefore this Article of the Greek Manufcripts is of greateft Importance in the Cafe. Mr. Martin in his eighth Chapter undertakes tp fhew that this Text was found in the Greek Manu^ Jcripts of thefe lafl Ages, and fays fo many things with fuch undaunted Confidence, and pofitive Affurance, (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 Tnth and Evidence^ I think it will not gain his Work any Credit in the end, tho it may ftagger the unlearned Reader at firft. He begins with a fine popular Harangue upon the old Story of its having been in the original Greek of St. John^ and thence paf- fed into the Italick Verfion^ and fo into St. Jeromes, Bible., and thence into Charlemain''% \ for he fays, JVe 7nufi not doubt but the learned Men he emplofd in corre^iing the Bible., had Greek Manufcripts i9 * Oremus Deum ut revelet abfcondita Scrfpturarum, 6c pro- feramus quomodo fecretiora icullcftu fentiendum fit. con- 2)l0rtatwn on x John 5. 7. g^ confuh. And indeed if we muft not doubt their having fuch Manufcripts^ nor that they exadlly correded the Latin by 'em in every Place that dit- fer'd, nor that they really put this "Text in their Bibles •, in Ihort, if we may doubt nothing, then the Work is done : but Mr. Martin knows thefe things are doubted, yea, and that fome^ or all of them, are denfd, and ftrongly oppofed : and 'tis trifling, on no better grounds, to tell us we muft not doubt the principal Matters in debate. Next he argues from F. Simon's faying. This Paffage is in ver'j few Greek Copies^ that therefore he grants it was in fever al •, which is no true Inference at all, becaufe Mr. Martin, but a few Pages after, cites him for faying the Text was not in any one Greek Manufcript ; which he calls contradiBing himf elf formally^ and retraofing, &c. but very un* 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 great eft part of V;?7, and that it certainly was but in few^ tho he never intended hereby to fay it was in any And when he had fearched more thorowly, 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 flender, 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 ConcefTion of F. Simon, which he knew he difowned, or redlify'd. And now he comes to Particulars, i . He tells us, Laurentius Valla, in the fifteenth Century, re^ covered feven Greek Manufcript s * '■ a7td thisFajfage of St, John is found in all [even ; and he thinks it is hard if none of them was then four or five hundred Tears po ^n jifipwer to Mr. Martin'^ Tears old: but however he is fo modeil, as to let 'em be but three or four hundred Tears. And yet after all this -particular Account, given without iTiincing, or hefitating about it, I dare fay this Gentleman knows nothing of the Matter, but fpeaks all upon Fanfy and Guefs. If perhaps you imagine he has got L. ^'s Mamifcripts in his poflef- fion, or at lead, that he has feen 'em fully ; he tells you no, not he, nor any Man elfe that he knows Chap. 1 1, of, has either feen Valla'i Manufcripts^ or knows ivbat is become of ^em. Is not this a pretty Account ? ^"if^^S* Dr. Mill fays he had only three Greek Mamifcripts^ Mr. Martin hys feven. Erafmus fays, //c^w Valla found or read (this Place in St. John) does not fully appear ; Mr. Martin fays roundly, this 'Text was in all the f even ; and yet does not know any Author who fays he ever faw thefe Manufoipts^ nor pro- duces any Words of Valla's own, to prove that he faw this Text in them. Next comes Cardinal Cajetan^ and what fiys he to the Point ? Truly no more but that he doubted whether this Vcrfe were in the Text ; becaufe, fays he, 'tis not in all the Greek Majiufcripts^ hut only in fome ; whence the Difference arijes, I knozv not. This is much what F. Simon had faid, as I have ob- ferved before ; he might not fee the Words in any Manufcript., but at that time never queilioned but they were in fo?ne. Then for the Coinplutenfian Editors, Mr. Martin fays boldly, that they put this Text in upon the warrant of one or ;/zor^ Manufcripts, (he can't tell which) and yet takes no notice of the Evidence given to the contrary in my former Tratl^ that they had it not where it was prefumed and. pre- tended they had it. As for the Codex Britanmcus^ by which alone Erafmus was influenced to put the IVords into his third Edition j if Erafmus never fays he faw it, 2 what Titjfenatton on i John 5. 7. ^\ what fignities it to mention F. Simon's faying it ? And therefore 'twas very unfair and unjuft to in- finuate-that I had called in queftion the Veracity d?/*Cliap. i, ibis learned Man^ two hundred Tears after his Death^ when I never once fufpecfted his Teftimony in the lead, and only faid that I never found he gave any fuch Teftimony. And is his Credit at- tainted, by not believing any groundlefs Story that ethers tell of him ? Cannot he be thought an honeft: Man, if all that they fay of him Ihould not be true ? Had that great Man, who was the^^;/^>r 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 it^ I had eafily relied upon his Since- rity ; who, I conceive, was too great to ufe fuch Falfhood and Deceit. Indeed Mr. Mariin thinks it enough to fay, ^'Tis not our Concern now to inquire what is heco??ie of this Manufcript^ or if any others have feen it hefides Erafmus and that this Method will introduce a new fort of Scepticifm in Matters of Learning. But with his leave, I think it does concern us greatly to know whether fuch a Manifcrivt 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 ever Erafmus faw it, or pre- tended to it. And I dare fay, fuch a pr.fuming Credulity as Mr. Martin propounds for the Cure of Scepticifm, which would hinder a fevere Exami- nation into Fa^s^ would do, and has done, the World far more harm than fuch Scepticifm it- felf ; and the longer Men go on to take things fo on truft, the more grievous will the Scepticifn:^ be at laft. Stephens's Manufcripts are next in tale ; but on what miftaken Grounds, will be further ktn in the Review of the next Chapter. In fz An Anpisoer to Mr. Martin'^ In the Year 1574, fays he, the Louvain Divines in a Preface to their Latin Bible, fay they had feen this PafTage of St. Johi^ in many other Greek MamifcriptSy as Stephens had in his. As for Ste- fheyis^s 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. Martin is miflaken in interpreting it of any Greek Manufcripts: I fnall fet down their own Words, in which he has left out one material Sentence, which was both in the Latin^ and in F. Simon's Tranflation^ (with what Defign he beft knows :) fpeaking of Jeromes Prologue^ * lihis^ fay they, confirms the reading of the Text, which is likewife fupported by very ?nany Latin Copies y agree- able to which Erafmus cites two Qrtck Copies y one of Britain, the other of Spain ; to that of Spain the Kin^s Bible is both in all other Places and in this conformable : (this laft Sentence Mr. Martin has omitted) we have feen tnany others which agree to thefe. Now the word nefe rather refers to the three laft Copies, one whereof, viz. the Kin^s Bi- Printsd athle^ was a printed Copy, which fhews that they Antwerp, fpeak of any Copies promifcuoufiy ; or it may re- ^^72. ja^e {-Q the Latin Copies firft mentioned. But why fliould Mr. Martin pick out the middb Sentence only for the reference of thefe Words ? and by an unfair Omifiion reprefent it to his Reader as if it were the immediate Sentence before thefe Words of Reference, tout d* une fuite^ ^c ? He fays they are fpeaking of Greek Manufcripts of England^ &c. but are they not fpeaking alfo of * Quod pro textus leftione facit, & Latinorum librorum p'urimi fufFi-agantur, quibus confentientes duos Graecos codices, I num Britannicum, alterum Hifpanicum, Erafmus profert ; Hifpanico ut ubique & hie conformis eft Regius : multos alios his confoHantes vidimus. Latin ^tjfertation on i John 5.7. ^5 Latin Copies, and of King Philip's printed Bible ? and perhaps Slephens's Manufcripts, which they inftance in immediately after, may be fome of the many which they f aw didfo agree to the other. But their own Account of them fhews how they faw *em, viz. as they were mark'd in the printed Copy only ; and therefore they make fome doubt whe- ther he had placed his Marks right according to his Manufcripts •, nay 'tis plain that even the Copy of Spain^ which Erafmus cites, ~|- was only the Complutenfian Edition^ and is what thefe Divines, I think, do intend here j and not a Manufcripts as Mr. Martin turns it. But I have now before me the New Teftament, of thefe Louvain Diviaes, by Plantin, Antwerpia 1584, with the fame Approbation of Molanus annext as in the other Edition ; and in their Notes on this Text^ their Words are fomething different, * viz. ^his confirms the reading of the Texc, whereto agrees the Greek Complutenfian Edition^ and what are taken from thence^ with many others which we have feen. And then follow the Words about Stephens's Manufcripts^ as 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 Co^hs befides that of Complutum^ but no Greek Mann- fcript. And I think 'tis not againfl: common Senfe, as Mr. Martin pretends, to underftand even the former Account fo, if I had not had this f Eraf. in locum : Perlata eji ad nm edit'io Hirpanienfi^. 'jigaifZy Exemplar, ex eadem, ni fallor, Bibiiotheca 'V'aticana) petitum, fecuti funt Htfpani. * Quod pro textus ieitione facit, eui Grasca Complutenfis Editio, & quae ex ea funt, cum aliis quas vidimus non paucis, confonant. Inter omnes Parifienfijim ne umis eft qui difll- deat, &c. latt>J\ 94 -^^^ Anfwer to Mr. Martin's latter^ which makes it more plainly appear. So then hitherto no one is proved to have feen any one Greek Manufcript for this 'Text. His next Evidence he calls, is F. Amelot, who, in his Note on this Text, fays, Erasmus faid it was wanting in one Greek Manufcript of the Vatican^ }?ut I find it in the ?noJl antient Manufcript of that Library Whether he found it by his own Search, or others Information, thefe Words do not fully determine. Nor does Erafmus only fay it was wanting in one iManufcript of the Vatican^ but ia a mo^il antient Manufcript.^ which he calls Codex per- ^ceiuftus iff Liber antiquiffi7nus : and fince we are well aillirM the 'Text is wanting in the famous moft antient Vatican Manufcript, by the conceflion of Dr. Milly and I think of all that have inquir'd into it, and particularly by Carjophilus ; and that upon a ftridl Search made by the Criticks, whom Pope Urban the 8th employ 'd about it ; Mr. Amelot's flight Tedimony that it was in the rnoft antient Manu- fcript there, cannot be confident with their more accurate and credible Teflimony. Indeed Mr. Du Pin fays Amdot was not very * exadl \ and Father Simon upon feveral Occafions fhews how vainly he ufes to talk. '\ Father Amelot^ fays he, does 7iot feem to be fincere^ when he fpeaks of his fearching out of Manufcript s •, and that he fpeaks of Manu- fcripts which were never extant but in his own Ima- gination : and as to his having carefully fearched the Vatican Manufcripts, he fays, he cou'd not affi.rjn it, fince he produces no various Readings but fuch as are in print -, and that he never faw, but in print, what he cali'd feeing the Manufcrifts, So that I think we may let this Witnefs afide. * Hijl, of Canon of O. and N. Teft. Vol. 2. ch. 5. § u t Crir, Htji. ^/ Veif. cf N. T. Ch. 31, and 35. HI: IS Dtjfertation on i John 5. 7; pj His laft is a fort of Ear-Witnefs rather, viz, ^tis /aid there is a Ifo one (Manufcript) at Berlin in the Kin^s Library, that is believed to be 500 Tears old. Father Long reports it on the 'TeJli7nony ofSd.u- bcrcus and Tollius i and Dr. Kcttner, on a Letter that he fays he received of it from M. Jablonski, i^c. But Mr. M^r/i/;, who makes the mod of every thing, does not quite venture to fay, that this ^ext is reported to be in that Manufcript, [tho his TranQator makes him fay fo ; of which I 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 Lo7ig fays only there is a Manufcript, and refers to Saubert (whom I have not feen) and tollius, whom I have conlulted -, and he only tells us what fort of Book it is, viz. written in great Letters, Literis un- cialibus, and without Accents, i£c, but fays not one word of this 'Text in St. John : and if M. Jablonskt's 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 in the World ? Surely the Prefumption lies on the other fide; and this Gentleman cou'd fo eafily gave ggin'd Satisfadlion from Berlin in this Point, that I fufpecl he was fearful there was no fuch Verfe 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 Flourifh in fo ferious an Argument. But if indeed it has the Text, and we can be aflured how the Cafe ftands upon that Manufcript, it will then deferve good Confideration, and be . of p6 jin Anjmr to Mr. Martin 5 of more weight than all the reft that he has ofFer'd : Till then, 'tis amufing the World with random Conjedures, and unfair Infinuatwm^ to tell 'em, they fay fome-body has written to fome-body, that there is a Greek Manufcrip which has in it we cannot tell what. But fmce my writing what relates to the Berlin Manufcript^ I have receiv'd Information from a very fare f 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 concealed it •, nay, if he could ftill not only infmuate this Manufcript to be in confirmation of his Argument, when it was di- rectly againft it ; but alfo cou*d even venture to add this vain Triumph immediately upon it, IVe fee here Ma?iufcripts more than fiijficient to convince iis^ &c. (when yet he was driven to fuch hard Shifts, of pretending a falfe Authority to make out but one fuch Manufcript :) I fay, if he had known this, I fhou'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 Dijfrtation, viz. that he had learned from the Book ofjch^ I3- /• ^^^^ we fJjould not talk deceit- full'jfor 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 Air of 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 flill burdened with a fuperfluity of good Greek Ma- nufcripts, having this Text, I conceive they will all be taken otf his Hands, and not one left him to turn to. f This proved a wrong Informatien, as is Jheiun in the next And ^tjfertattbn on \ John 5. 7. ^/ 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 the Names of the Authors who were mention'd about 'em 5 Valla, Ximenes, Erafmus^ Stephens, and man^ other learned Men have feen ^em : then by their Place^ fome in France, fo7ne 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 Manufcripts ftill? And he has the Courage to fay what I think is one of the ftrangeft things to be faid with fo great AfTurance, viz, IVe fee here, fays he, more Manufcripts than there is need of, to con- vince us 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 us believe. What ! more than is needful ? and yet after all, not one ? Hov/ eafily are fome Men fatisfy'd ! In the laft place, we are come in his 9th Chap^ to Stephens*s, Manufcripts, It has been fhown^ that of all his fixteen Manufcripts, (for fo many Dr. Mill had allowed befides the Complutenfian Copy, Froleg, N^ n?^.) only feven had St. John'% Epiftle ; and that all thefe are found to want this Verfe, tho, by miftake, Stephens's Greek Editiori has marked only the words, in Heaven^ h ^i^vS, 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 fhew that more than feven of Ste- fhens's Manufcripts had this Epiftle, 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, Dodlor of Divinity at Bourges^ and writing in defence Vol. IL H too 5^8 An Anfwer to Mr. Martin's too of the fcxi, has, after his ftridt Examina- tion of Stephens^ s Greek Teftament, (in which his Manufcripts are referred to) declared that he can iind but feven belonging to this Epiftle ; and that not one of Stephdns'j Manufcripts had this Verfe\ tho, fays Mr. Martin^ they have always heen accounted a Bidwark thereof : and, he fays, Mr. i^^^^r.has not computed aright. But I am amazed to fee how weakly Mr. Adar- tin goes about the Proof of this great Difcovery ; he mentions three more Manufcripts of Stephens^ as having this Epiftle of St. John^ not before obferved -, thefe are marked /A /g. /r* /. e, 14. 15. 16. and he proceeds ftill upon his accuftomed Topick of Prcfumption : becaufe, forfooth, all the Epiftles of the Nezv Tejlament^ viz. St. Paul's, and the feven Catholick^ and the Revelation^ are v/ont fometimes to make one Volu?ne ; therefore finding by Stephens's Teftament that thefe Manu- fcripts had St. Paul'^s Epiftles before., and the Re- velation of Su John hehi'fid., he ftrenuoufty argues that the feven CathoUck Epiftles were furely in the middle. However, ftnce the Manufcript mark'd 'A is referred to, upon 2 Ret. 1.4. which is one of thofe feven Catholick Epiftles, he doubts not but that Manufcript reach'd St. Johii's Epiftle alfo, and fays briskly, this makes eight Manu- fcripts. But certainly Mr. Martin cannot be fo weak, to think this will pafs for a good and invincible Proof with Men of Senfe. Did he never fee an old Bible Vv'hich had Beginning and End, and yet wanted fome Parts between? l^ he had read and confidered Dr. Mdl, he wou'd have found it fo here •, that accurate Inquirer tells us often, with exadb nicety, what Books, what Chapters, and what Parts of a Chapter, are wanting in feveral of the Manufcripts, And he tells us thefe three were ^tjfertatton on iJOHNj.7. pp were mucilated ; and as to the laft^ 'A he is fo particular, that he tells us this was a Copy of three Gofpels, Matthew^ Luke^ and John ; but that at the end were 'Two Leaves, in which w^as a part Millii Pro- of A^s ioi\\Chap. and the firft Chap, of the 2d^^§* ^''^ Epiftle of Peter. One might hope fuch a great J |^^^' Difappointment as this fhou'd take us off Irom 117^, prefuming and fanfying, where Faofs lie fo 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 notQ^feven Manufcripls of Stephens had St. John's Epiftle in 'em, and con- fequently this Verfe \ becaufe he fays, this Verfe is in the Manufcripts of England and in fome of Stephens'i antient Manufcripts. Yet I do not think it appears by all that Mr. Martin {^,ys^ but that Beza intended it of thofe aforelaid le- ven Manufcripts^ which he, as well as others, ima- gined by Stephens^ Marks to have all but the words in Heaven -, which fmall Defect might yet not hinder him from faying in general Terms, the Verfe was there : And tho after he had faid this Verfe is in fome of Stephens's antient Manufcripts, he adds that the Words, in Heaven., are wanting in feven Manufcripts -, it does not follow that he diftinguifhes thefe feven from the frrne Manu- fcripts before, but only that he expreffes the number of Manufcripts determinately, v/hich 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 fuppofmg Beza did, as perhaps he mjght, imagine that fome other Manufcripts of Stephens had this Verfe ; this has been long thought by o- thers, thro' miftake, and why might not he mif- take as well as others ? H 2 . For M 1 CO jin Anfwer to Mr. Martin's For tho Mr. Martin reprefents Beza^ as having jeen t-?// Stephen s'i MaKi-fcri.is^ and compared V;«, and that they were in his hands, &c. and thence in- fers from Beza^s Words, that the ivho.le Verfe was in fome of 'em ; and afterwards argues, that in the refl of them only the h W »£^j'a:/, which he calls Objections, in his Second Part^ viz. 1 . The Greek Manufcripts have not this 'Text ; ch. i. but then, fays he, they want fome other Texts alfoy which yet are Genuine, Refp. Some Manufcripts may want one Text, and others another ; but is there one Text of good Authority which they all want? for fo the Cafe is here. 2. The Councils of NiceB,ndSardica mention itCh. i." not : but it was, fays he, Chap. 2. becaufe they had no conteft 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^s^ or as for the Deity of all the three Perfons ? Is not the Son one of the Trinity ? and would not a Text that fhould be thought to prove Father, Son, 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 ? 3. The 1 o6 jin Anpweit to Mr. Martin'^ 3. The Greek Fathers did not mention it ; but Ch. 3. yet it mighty he thinks, have been in fome other of their Writings^ which are loft ; as the 'Text of hap- tizi;?g in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (and fome others) is not ufed by ^em in fome Treatifes where it was proper. Refp. What is this to our Cafe, where the IVords 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 Prefump- tion indeed to imagine it fhould be in a great many loft Writings, and not preferved in one of the many we have, to which they were fo perti- nent. As for the Latin Writers, they are ac- counted for in my Inquiry. ,4. The Fathers who mention the eighth Verfe^ Ch. 4'. and yet not the feventh, fays he, had only occafion for the one, and the other was ?wt proper to their purpcf. F^efp. It might indeed happen fo in fom.e Inftances, but not in all. Not in Cyril, who had plair ' iPiOre occafion for the feventh Verfe than for tne eighth, in order to prove the Holy Spirit God, or to have the Najne of God, I ap- peal to any Man, if the feventh Veife be not more likely to anfwer that purpofe than the Water, Blood, and Spirit, &c. Not in Auguftin, for he diredly wanted 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 could have hit his Fanfy better, if it had been knov/n to him. Not in Facundus furely, who urged the ^xhVerfe for ;[r oof of the Trinity, but not the 7th. Mr. Martin hys, he ought to have ftuck to this laft. But 'tis certain he did nor •, and for what reafon but this, that he knew not of any fach Text ? And alfo that the African Bifhops, by ufmg the Tefti- Tftjfeittation on \ John 5^. 7. 107 Teftimony of St. John for the Father^ Word^ and Spirit^ being one, intended it only, as he exprefly fays St. Cyprian did intend it, of the myftical In- terpretation of the eighth Verfe, So that this Ex- cufe will not do. Befides, had they never any Occafion for the feventh Verfe ? Could they find no Opportunity for bringing in this, one of the ?noft excellent Pajfages of the whole Scripture, as Mr. Martin calls it, be- fore he has proved it to be any part at all ? Where are thefe Inftances ? What, not once in all St. ^ugujiine^s Ten hrgQ Tomes! Again, had not fuch a Commentator on St. John's Epifile, as Bede^ (the molt learned Man perhaps in the eighth Cen- tury) the fame Occafion for the feventh Verfe, 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. Martin adds in his fifth Chap. 5. Commentators have always been at liberty to ex- pund oyily what Pajfages 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 again [l: Keafon, and the World's Expe6lation ; or without fome Apology for it, efpecially in io remarkable a Text. Oecumenius had no reafon to omit it, and Bedd as litde. Chryfofio7n indeed might omit or pafs over one Sentence that was eafy and plain, or of fmaller importance, or that often occurred, or the like ; and fo another might do by others : but how comes it that both Oecumenius and Bede fhould 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, Oecumenius and Bede knew it to be a Text received by fome ; and fo had as much reafon to fay fomething to it, tho they had to8 An Anfwer to Mr. Martin'^ had not own'd it, and yet are quite filent, againft all reafon that we can give. Refp. This is pre- fuming what is not granted ; for Occmnenm be- ing a Greek Writer, would 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 Teflament to his time, nor mentioned by one genuine and known Greek Writer, what Reafon could he have to fay any thing about a Matter that had never been in being ? Surely it muft have been by a Spirit of Prophecy ; for Mr. Martin has not fhewn it was in St, John's Epijlle in Oecumenius'i time^ he has only faid it, and it had been flrange 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. Martin makes a vain Suppofition, that Bede found his Latin Copy had it ; and th^t if his Greek wanted it, he fhould not have failed to take no- tice of it ; whereas no fuch thing appears, but rather both wanted it. As for Bede^s> knowing that Cyprian, Fi^or Fit. and Fulgentius had cited thefe JVords, this is but a precarious Suppofition neither -, for if this was judged to be only their myftical Interpretation of the eighth Verfe, then Bede had nothing to fay of it, as of another Text by itfelf And indeed, if he had known the Words of St. Cyprian, and of the African Bifhops, i^c, (which yet does not appear) and had taken 'em to refer to a direB icM in St. John, yet if he knew of no fuch Text, how could he tell where to infert it ? or where to take notice of it ? whe- Tiljfertatton on i John 5. 7. 105^ whether in St. John^s Gofpel or Epiftle ? Therefore it were no wonder he fhould not mention fuch a loofe uncertain Matter in St. Cyprian, But it had been ftrange indeed, if finding the Text in his Bible, he fhouid omit to comment on that in courfe, when yet he commented on the reft round about it, before and behind. So that I think thefe Apologies and Excufes are too thin and weak to pafs in the World : but the beft of it is, the Fathers need 'em not, in my Opinion ; becaufe they had a much more fubftan- tial Reafon for not mentioning thefe Words, if they never found ''em in their Bible. And now I muft leave it to the judicious and candid Readers to confider, whether Mr. Martin had good reafon to go off with fo much Oftenta- tion and Opinion of his Performance. On the oppofite Part, fays he, we have nothing but Reafon^ ings without Proofs ; on ours, evident Proofs and Reafonings upon ^em. We fettle a Matter of Fa5f on pofttive Teftimonies of Wiinejfes, without ambiguity , without exception : they alledge dumb Witneffes that can only fpeak by Signs, Manufcripts that have not the Text -, Writers who have not quoted it. Where are thefe Fa5is ? thefe pofitive Proofs^ againft which nothing can be faid ? What, I fuppofe, the Berlin Manufcript of 500 Years old ? and all above the feven Manufcripts of Stephens, which had this Epiflle ? And where are they ? Bring forth your Witneffes ; I doubt they canH fpeak fo much as by Signs, for there is not any Sign of 'em that I can fee. And I fuppofe Jerom'^ Preface, and the Britijh invifible Manufcript, ^c. Here are Fads indeed alledged, but they are only fuppofed Fa6ls that want confirmation. The moft plaufible Witncfs is St. Cyprian, which yet is not fo plain, but that much is very reafon- ably faid to Ihew he fpake of another Text, They 1 1 o An Afipwer^ &c. 27j^3? have dumh Witnejjes^ Manufcripts that have fiot tioe "Text^ fays he. But are noc negative Proofs proper to make out a Negative ? If one ob- trude fomc new Text in print, or a Mahometan Ihould urge a Text of our Lord's (as is pretended) fpeaking of Mahomet by Name, or ti^KhvrQ' , muft not negative WitnefTes confute it, byfhewing , 'tis not fo in any C^-eek Mamifcript Copy^ nor men- tion'd in any genuine Greek Writer for many hundred Years ? nor pretended to by any Favou- rers of Mahomet in the firfl fetcing up their Re- ligion ? And have we not all this Evidence againft this Verfe ? If I produce a blank Paper, does not it prove there is no writing in it, only becaufs 'tis [ilent and canH [peak ? To conclude, if it he fo in fa 51^ I hope 'tis no faulty Pofitivenefs or Confidence to fay it, viz. That there is not one old Greek Manufcript of the New Teftament, written before Printing, yet known of to the World, which warrants this *Text for genuine, tho there be a huge Number which all want it. So that I hope no candid Man will fay I am immodeft in pronouncing it doubt- ful, or that I would not receive it, which I am fure I would, if I had fufficient Evidence that ever St. John had delivered it to the Saints, REPLY T O Mr, MartinV Examination O F T H E ANSWER T O His Dissertation on i John 5. 7. T'here are three that bear Record in Hea^veriy the Father^ the Son, and the Holy Ghoji^ and thefe three are one. 113 A Reply to Mr. Martin V Examination^ 6^c. The Introduction. I S not my Defign to make this Repl'j equal in Length to Mr. MarMs Exa- jnination: He has mingled fo many long hiftorical Narrations concerning '§ late Authors ; has introduced his Ar- guments with fuch flourifhing Preambles *, and afterwards confirms them with fo many high Com- mendations, that I find a great deal which I need take no notice of. I pretend not to fay that I am not miilaken in any accidental Matter whatever : and therefore if I negledled to diftinguifh Eucheritis, from the ^nV^;^ Bifliops, when he liv'd in an Ifle 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 j for as to this, Mr. Martin bimfelf had faid, That toward the. end of the eleventh Century^ St, Bernard quoted this Text in many of his Writings *. And I thought * Bijfer- I had been very fure that he could not make tai, ch. |* very many Quotations an Age before he was Vol. II. I born-. 114 ji Keply to born ; and fo I ventar'd to fay he llv'd in that eleventh Age in which he wrote : but Mr. Martin Exam'm, corrects me, faying. Nor did St, Bernard live in ch. 5. the Xlth, hut the Xlltb Age. Whereas the truth of the whole Matter is juft the contrary ; for be was born towards the end of the Xlth Age, (Anno 1 09 1, fays Dr. Cave) fo that he did not quote this Text in the Xlch Age, which Mr. Martin has afErm'd, but yet he did Uve in the Xlth Age, which he denies •, fo Httle Caution does he ufe in what he writes. But I pafs on to what more nearly aiteds our main Argument. I obferve two things in^ Mr. Martbf^ Entrance upon his Work, in his very firft Leaf, that are a little furprizing : 1. That he fhould prefume to fay, p. 2. "Hhat the universal antient Church has fuppofed this Text to contain the Do5irine of the 'Trinity of Perfo72S in the Godhead ; when 'tis not pretended to be once mentioned by any one of the antient Greek Church or Writers ; and but once is pretended, with any, and that very little, colour, to be quoted by any Latin till the fifth Century. If this amount to a Teflimony of the univerfal antient Church, I dare engage to produce her Teftimony, and one much more ample, for many flrange things which Mr. Martin would not believe. 2. I wonder, that when he will not conteft againfl the Arians from the laft Words, Thefe three are one., whether they don't mean only an Unity of Teftimony, he fliould yet think them diftrefs'd by proving the Father, Son, and Spirit, to be three Perfons from their being three Witnejfes ; and that I, for this Reafon, was in a Miftake^ in faying, the Words, if genuine, were as favou- rable to them call'd Arians, as to any ; and adds, / know not whence he learned that the Arians ever believed the Holy Sprit to be a Perfon really fubfifting. And Mr. Martin'5 Examination^ &c. 1 1 5 And truly 1 as little know whence it is that he has not learn'd it, except it be from his not having look'd much into the Controverfy, how much or how forcibly foever he may have written upon it, as his Preface tells us. And I dare affure him, that if he have no occafion for this Text but to prove the Holy Spirit a Perfon, thofe call'd Arians will grant him the Benefit of it in fome other Text more exprefs -, and he has lefs reafon to feek for it here, where the Water and Blood are Q2}\t^Witneffes alfo, which yet are not Perfons. I obferve alfo, that Mr. Martin reckons it 2iExamin. mighty Advantage, that this Text has been foimd^^'^^^ (tho not conflantly, as he fays) in the Latin Bibles of the Weitern Churches^ from the Age when Printing hegan^ upwards to the eighth 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 firfl 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 Manufcripts vary, yet the learned and judicious will allow me to tell him, that when, as he fuppofes, any Texts are varied, or are wanting in divers Manufcripts of the greateft Antiquity^ tho read in others^ (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 their Ge- nuinenefs : and yet Mr. Martin is not fo ingenuous as once to confefs this. Text to be fo much a$ doubtful^ tho wanting in all the known Greek Ma- nufcripts, without any Difagreement or Varia- tion \ but always fpeaks of it as moft certainly genuine, proved by indifputable Witneffes^ and by a great Variety of Proofs^ every one of which is con- clufivcy without the Afftftance of the ref, and the I 2 like: \6 ^ Kev IjY to like : In which as I believe he is almoll fingular, fo it (hall not affright me from purfuing my Argu- ments for the contrary. The Sum of my Argument againfl Mr. Martin in relation to this T^ext^ was in three Conclufions : 1. That no one antient nor genuine Gr^^i^ Writer mentions this 'Text upon any Occafion whatever. To which he oppofes only two Paf- lages of fome uncertain counterfeit Athanafius^ but relies more upon fome of the Latins. 2. That, am.ong fo many which want the Verfe^ there is not one antient Greek Manufcript pro- duced to countenance its AdmifTion into the T^ext. To this he has oppofed one Manufcript at Berlin^ of which he has made fome Pretences of a Ihuffling Defenfe. 3. That we have no well attefted Evidence, or fatisfaclory Account, of any one having for- merly feen any fuch Greek Manufcript, tho it hxas been much prefjmed, and in general Terms faid, there were fome. To this he has oppofed Robert Stephenfs Manufcripts, atteited, as he thinks, by Beza \ and alfo St. Jeromes Teftimony, taken from his Preface^ and his Verficn of the New Teftament. Thefe three principal Points, with which fome fmaller things will naturally fland or fall, I ihall again confider and defend, that I may confirm the abovefaid three Conclufions. Only I intend to leave that about the Greek and Latin Fathers to the lad Place, and begin with the Second^ concerning the Berlin Manufcript, which formerly I was not fully informed of CHAP. Mr. Martin'5 Examination^ &c. 1 1 7 CHAP. I. j4 true Account of the Berlin Manufcript^ which Mr, Martin fays is reputed to be 500 Tears old; and his very difmgenuous Conceal- ment oftheEvide?2ce he had of the contrary. I HAVE argu'd againft the Authority of I John 5. 7. that 'tis not found in any one antient Greek Manufcript before Printing, as far as yet appears to the learned World : fo that ic feems to have been inferted in the publick Im- prefTions without any good Warrant. Mr. M. on the contrary tells us, that 'tis in a Manufcript at Berlin in the King's Library, reputed 500 Tears Dljjert at old ; and that F. le Long gives this Account upon ^^* ^• the ^eftimony of Saubertus and Tollius ; and Z)r. Kettner relates the fa?ne^ &c. This indeed was fomething to the purpofe, if true. But when I look'd into F. le Long and 'Tollius^ I found not a word of this Account there ; neither that the Manufcript was reputed to be 500 Tears old^ nor that the Paflage of St. John is in ic, (tho this latter proves in fad to be true :) Hereupon I thought it meet to make fome further Inquiry about this Berlin Copy. Underftanding there was a Gentleman from Berlin then at London^ capable of givmg a good Account of this Matter, I defir'd a Friend, who was likely to fee him, to ask him about it , which he did, and brought me for an Anfwer, I 3 tliat I 1 8 ^ R E P L Y ^0 that the Text in difpute was only In the Margin of the Berlin Greek Manufcript. Whether the Qvieftion pat, or the Gentleman's Anfwer to it, was miftaken, I know not ; but it leems by the following Letter, here was an Error, and I was mifinform'd as to the Greek Manufcript ; it being only the noted X^/i;^' Manufcript which wanted this Verfe in the Text, but had it in the Margin. Mr. M. who it appears knew the whole Matter (more than he had the Ingenuity to confefs) con- firms one. part of his Account by frefh Advice from Berlin *, viz. that the Paffage^ i John 5. 7. is in the Text of the Greek Manufcript -, but the other part, viz. the Antiquity of the Manufcript.^ (without which the other is nothing at all) is in a manner given up by his Friend, who adds, hut we can affirm nothing certain concerning its Anti- quity, I wifli 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. M. adds a Para- graph, in which I prefently thought I difcerned the Marks of great Difingenuity, Confufion, and Guilt. Whether^ fays he, this Manufcript he 500 Tears old, or ?nore, or lefs, if they will have it fo, is a Point to he difcuffed hy thofe learned Men, whofe particular ftudy has heen about the Ink, the Parchment, the form of the Chara5fers, and fuch other Matters, whereby they judge almoft exa5ily of the * His Examination of Mr, Emlyn's Anfiaer^ ch. xiv. time Mr. Martin 5 Examination, &c. \ 1 9 time a Manufcript was zvrote in \ and yt are oft miftaken. I make myfelf no Partj in this Affair ; / ft and to what I quoted fro7n F, Long : my flotation is faithful ; and whatever he determined concerning the Antiquity of the Copy^ the Paffage of St. John is found in it, and fiands in the Body of the Text ; that's enough : even lefs would fuffice ; ftnce the Truth I maintain has no need of the Berlin Manu- fcript, Here is fuch fhifting and fhuffling, faying and unfaying, laying ail on the Back of F. Long, (who yet had not faid what Mr. Martin quotes him for, as Ihall be fliewn) fuch a modeft Wil- lingnefs to be content with the truth of one half of his own AfTertion, that yet was utterly infigni- ficant by itfelf ; nay, to be content without any part of it, and to account it enough tho it were nothing at all ; that I had reafon to fufpedt here was fomething very unfair, if the true State of the Berlin Copy could be fully known. Having the happinefs of an intelligent Friend, who held Correfpondence with a very learned and eminent Perfon in Saxony, I obtained the Favour of him to write to his Correfpondent to inquire into this Matter ; who received (and tranfmitted hither in the Original) the following Letter from the celebrated Mr. La Croze, the learned Library-keeper of the King of Pruff^a ; in which, with the Candor and Ingenuity, becom- ing a Perfon of Integrity and true Learning, he has given this full Account of the Manufcript un- der his Care. Vir Amplifftme^ ' TV/TALO difcas ex litteris meis ea qus ' iVX nomine CI, C flagitas, quam ab eo ' ipfo, ad quem, utpote ad virum mihi minus * cognitum, litteras deftinare nolui. Miror Codi- * cem noftrum, librum nuUius au6loritatis, afie- 14 ' rendx 120 ^ Kb V LY to * rend:E dubis ledlioni idoneum videri, cum jam ' ego compluribus viris eruditis, ipfique Reve- ' rendo Martino^ manifeftum fecerim, eum Co- ' dicem, qui faliarii cujufdam fraude pro antiquo ' venditus eft, & venditatur, manu recenti ex ' Editions Polyglotta Comjiutenft fuifife defcriptum. ' Id ftatim vidi cum Anno MDCXVI. * Biblio- ' thecam Reglam peregrinorum more, non enim ' tunc me moras Berolini fadurum putabam, per- ' luftr:rem, dixique palam Hendreichio tbJ uAn^fh^ j ' idqiie, ex quo Bibliotheca mihi credita eft, can- ' dideapuG omnes profefius ftim *, neque id ignorat '^ CI. S^rR-ev'Trendus Martinus^ cui idem meo no- ^ mine fignificai.im eft. ' Hie ergo habes compendium Quseftionum tua- ' rum : qui codicem edicum CompluUnfefn vidit, ' is vidit &■ Manufcripcum Codicem noftrum, ne ' demptis quidem mendis typographorum, quae ' fcriba indodus ita fideliter expreflic, ut omnino ' conftet hominem illiteratum ab erudito aliquo *• nebulone ei fraudi perficiendae fuiffe prsefedlum. * Et fane pro antiquo liber ille venditus eft, ' immani etiam pretio, etfi membranas recenti ' adhuc calx, ftve creta ilia inhasreat, quae pel- ' libus vital in is parandis adiiiberi folet : atramen- * tum ubique albicans, demptis aliis criteriis, * fraudi agnofcends fufticeret. ' Quicunque ergo ad hunc codicem provocat, is ' omnino fe nihil agere norit. Certe quod ad me ' attinet, pertinax fum fidei Nicence^ & Ortho- ' dox^ j at illi tuendae abfit ut fraudes unquam ^ adhibeam. Csterum verfus 7. eodem tenore in ' Codice illo legitur quo 6 ^ ^^ nee quicquam ' margini adfcriptum eft. Nullos alios novi tefta- •^ menti Codices Grcecos Manufcriptos habemus ; * Latinos vero quam plurimos, fed recentiores % * BjiaA MDCCXVI. * inter Mr. Martin'5 Examination^ &c. 1 1 1 * inter quos quidam eft bonse notas ex antiquiflimo, * ut mihi conftat, defcriptus, in quoverfus o6lavus * fextum ftatim excipit, addito tamen feptimo in ' margine ab eadem manu. Haechabui, quae re- ' fcriberem alio vocatus, eodem tamen momento, ' quo litteras tuas ad me delatas funt : nee plura in * prsefenti addere licet, nifi quod me benevolentias * tU2E iterum, iterumque commendo. Ampliffimi nominis tui JiudiofiJJij?tiwi^ Berolini, pridie Cal. Januar. MDCCXX. quern annum n/r it- t r> tihi faHfium, & filicem ^- ^- ^'^ ^^^0^^' precofy CT* voveom " It feems very ftrange to fne^ that ever our Manufcript, a Book of no Authority at all^ Jhould be alled^ d in confirmaticn of a dubious Readings fine e I have already dtfcovered it to very ?nany learned Men^ and even to the Reverend Mr. Martin himfelf^ that this Manufcripty tho 7nuch boafted of and fold by a cunning Cheat for an antient Book^ is but a late Tran- fcriptfrom the Polyglot of the Complutenfian Edi^ tion ; this I prefently difcerned^ when ah a Stranger only I viewed the Kin^s Library^ before 1 had any thoughts of fettling at Berlin, and I then declared the fame openly to Hendreichius now deceafed : and ever fince this Library has been committed to my Care^ I have freely owned it upon all Occafions without re- ferve ^ and the Reverend Mr. Martin knows it very well^ who by my means has been informed of it. Take this therefore in fhort for an Anfwer to all your ^eftions : He that has feen the Complutenfian printed Copy., has at the fame time feen our Manu- fcript, without excepting fo much as the Errors of the Printer^ which the unjkilful Scribe has fo exaBly copfdy that it plainly appears fome learned Knave had committed the Work to an illiterate Man. The 1 Z2 J Kb ? LX to ne Book indeed was fold for very antient^ and therefore at an huge Price ; and yet the Parchment is fo new^ that the very Lime or Chalk made ufe of in the dreffing Calve-fkins^ is yet upon it \ and were there no other ?narks^of Frauds the Ink is enough to difcover it^ in that 'tis whitifh in every Part. It is therefore to no purpofe to appeal to this Copy. For my part I firmly hold the Nicene and orthodox Faith ; but God forbid I floould ever go about to defend it by Fraud, However in this Maniifcript^ the yth Verfe is in the 'Text^ in the fame manner as the 6th and Sth are, 72or is there any thing written in the Margin. We have m other Greek Manufcripts of the New Teftament ; manyl^dXm ones we have, but them not eld ; among which there is one indeed of good efieem, which appears to me to betranfcribedfrom a very an- tient Copy •, in this the ^th Verfe 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. I have no leave given me, nor am I reflrained from making this Letter publick ; and hope ic 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 there- fore fet down the intire Letter according to the Original, that none may fufped me of withhold- ing any thing that might be againft my Caufe ; and . fhall now make a few Remarks upon Mr. Martini difnonourable Condud in this matter of the Berlin Manufcript, which he afferted, and pretended to prove, had the Reputation of being five hundred Tears old. I. It appears plainly by the abovefaid Letter, and by what he has faid in his Examination of my Anfwer., that Mr. Martin had good Evidence of the Mr. Martin'5 Examination^ ^c. 1 2 3 the little or no Reputation of this Manufcript for Antiquity ; and that it was at leafl reafonably fufpe6led, if not rather fully proved, to be a late Tranfcript, fince Printing has been in ufe. How exactly do his Words, about the Ink and Parch- ment^ i^c, anfwer to the Account in Mr. La Croze's Letter, and confirm the Truth of his having been informed of the State of this Copy? And 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 being a Fraud. And ought not an impartial Lover of Truth to have difcover'd this in a critical Differ ta^ tion^ or elfe not alledg'd this Manufcript at all in the Argument ? With what ingenuous Honefly could he pro- ceed to fay. Whether this Manufcript he 500 Tears old^ more or lefs^ is to be difcuffed^ (f^c. As if, by the Information fent 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 Repu- tation of being 500 Tears old ; on the contrary, tho he fays, F. Long gives this Account on the Teftimony of Tollius and Saubertus^ yet F. Long (in the Place refer'd to) fays not a word of 500 Tears old j much lefs does he ground it on the Teftimony of Tollius^ for he fays not a Word of it neither : and I fuppofe the fame of Sauhertus^ whom I have not met with. In- t24 J Kb p hT to Indeed Mr. Martin had . father'd the whole Af- fertion on Le Lojig^ viz, ^Tis faid to be in a Ma- nufcript at Berlin reputed 500 Tears old ; this Ac- count F. Long gives, &€. but in his laft Tra6l he tells us, he contented bimfelf with giving the Antiqiii- ■ i^ of the Manufcript on the 'Teftimeny of Saubertus and Tollius, as recited by F. Long: fo that we mud quit him of the firft half ; one would hope then that the other remaining half fliould be well proved from F. Long^ viz, reputed 500 Tears old ; which is what Mr. Martin faid of its Antiquity, and was to prove. But tho Mr. Martin fays, Iwillfland ExaminatJowhat I quoted from F. Long, and my Rotation p. 101. is faithful^ yet I think he had better confefs his Unfaithfulnefs, than to deny it. All that F. Long fays, is. That there is a Greek Manufcript of the New Teftament very old^ on Parchment^ in great Letters and without Accents^ ^/:?ir/j John Ravius bought for 200 Rix Dollars, and brought out of the Eaft, and as is reported, gave it to the King's- Library at Berlin, in two Vol. and then only refers to the Places in Saubertus and 'Tollius. i" Where is the Account of 500 Tears old in this ? 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 ingenuoufly intimates, that F. Long mull bear all the blame if it be not fo old : but when himfelf only, and not F. Long faid it, ■f Novum Teft. Graecum MS. pervetuftum, membranaceum, literis uncialibus, & abfque accentuum non's exaratum, quod ducentis ImpeiirJibus emptum ex Oriente attulit, & uti fama fert, Sereniir. Eleftoris Brandeburgici illuftri Bibliothecae con- fecravit Jofja?ines Ravins ProfefTor Vpfalienjisy 1 Vol. ^0. Saubertus in Proles, ad variasjediones S. MatthAtj p. ^I,' de hoc Codke locjuitur Tollius in Ep'ijl. Itinerariis, Ep, il. p.45* Bei'Oiini Bibl. Bra7ideburg, F. Long, Bihlwth. S, To. I. C. 3, Sed. 4. how ilir. Martin'5 Examination^ ^c. 1 25 how could he lay, / make m^felf no Party in this Affair^ I quoted it from F. Long ? 3. When he faw he could no longer juftify his Argument, how unfairly does he come off with this pitiful Conclufion ? Whatever he determined concerning the Antiquity of the Copy^ the Paffage of St. John is found in it, and in the Body of the ^ext ; 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 Paffage to have been St. John's originally, becaufe fomebody of late has written down the Words ? He might even as well have faid, the Paffage is now printed, and that's enough -, no matter what Authority they had for it. But it mult be enough^ tho it be nothing to the purpofe, becaufe Mr. Martin could prove no more from it. From the whole of this Matter, I take leave to make a few Inferences. 1. That Mr. Martin Ihould not think it ftrange, nt)r take it ill, if fome Sufpicion be entertained concerning others in what they have fpoken in general Terms, of the Manufcripts made ufe of by them, in revifing the New Teftament •, at lead fo much as to put us upon examining into the Grounds they went upon ; left perhaps, thro' a cautious Fear of oppofing the ftrong 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 hardly and vehemently, if any have made fome fuch flip, much lefs if it were only a Miftake thro' Inadver- tency. He fhould not call Robert Stephens a Cheat and Impojior^ if he failed to put his Marks exactly in 126 J Kb 1? LY to in the right Place. I fliould be very forry if any fhould giv^e Mr. Marlin 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, and dealt unfairly in this matter, viz. in recom- mending the Antiquity of the Berlin Copy, while he concealed what he knew of its Novelty. 3. That it ftill 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 Manu- fcript 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. IL Of R. S T E p H E N s'x Greek Manufcripts, TH O Mr. Martin can find no antient Greek Manufcript in being, which has the "Text in dilpute, yet he thinks time was when there were fuch Manufcripts in great plenty ; efpecially in the Days of R, Stephens^ to whofe Manufcripts he Ch. 12. appeals as an invincible Proof of the Geraiinenefs of this Pajfage, To make this appear, he under- takes, I. To fhew that Stephens had more than feven Copies of this Epiflle of St. John^ and that the Text under debate was in fome of them entire. And, 2. That the feven Copies, refer'd to by Stephens*s Marks in his Folio Edition, w^anted only the Words h tJ ie^vu, in Heaven , and that there was no Miftake in placing the Obelus^ as has been long Mr. Martin'5 Examination, (^c. 1 17 long fufpeded. Which iwoFoms I fliall confider again -, tho I think what I have faid in my former Jnfwer, is fufficient to confute what Mr. Martin has faid in reply to it. But I muft firft take fome notice of what he fays as to the Number of Stephens^s Manufcripts. Mr. M. thinks he has done a confiderable thing in determining the Number of Stepbensh Manu- fcripts to be Seventeen ; pretending to corred: Dr. Mill's Error, in that under the Number of Sixteen he comprehends the Comphuenfian Edition. Now tho I judge it nothing to the purpofe whe- ther there were Sixteen or Seventeen Manufcripts, fo long as there were but feven of St. John's Epiftle, yet I am not convinced that this was any Error in Dr. Mill-, becaufe Stephens himfelf in his Preface fpeaks but of Sixteen, and exprelly fays, the Co7nplutenfian was one of them. He marks the Manufcripts in his Margin, by the numeral Let- ters in Greeks one, two, three, and fo on, fays he, unto Sixteen ; ad fextum decimum iifque : and diredts us by the /r/ to under/land the Co?nplutenfian *. What can be more plain .? And therefore what- ever Beza meant by fpeaking of Seventeen, and tho he may feem to be a better Judge in the Cafe than Dr. Mill, yet I think Stephens himfelf a better Judge than either of them, who mentions no more than Sixteen ; and which is more ftill, the Work itfelf fhews it, fince Mr. Martin pretends not to find any feventeenth Number once refer'd to throughout the Whole ; which is a Demonftration that Stephens made ufe of but Sixteen Manufcripts. I thought in one Place Dr. Mill h^id allow'd Sixteen befides the Complut en/tan ; but I perceive on a -more ilridl Review of his Words, that he did not. * lit pr'tmoy Complutenllam Editionem intelUgaSy ft- eundc, O'c, Let 128 A Kb V LY to Let US now examine the tzvo main Points about thefe Manufcripts. I* Whether more than /even had St. John^s Epiftle ? 2. Whether Stephens'" s Marks, as to them^ were right ? I . Mr. Martin has not proved that Stephens in all his Sixteen Manufcripts had more than feven Copies of St. John's Epiftle -, or that Dr. Mill and Dr. Roger of Boiirges^ &c. were in a Miftake in fo judging : on the contrary, Mr. Martin's way of Reafoning about it is weak and ridiculous ; their's folid and juft who argue againft him. To fhew this, we muft take a View of both. Mr. Martin's pretended Proof of more than feven Manufcripts, is grounded on his own Ohfer- vatio72S^ which he expreiTes thus : ' The feven ' canonical Epiftles being ordinarily joined in * one Volume v/ith the Epiftles of St. Paul ; it * follows from thence that R. Stephens had as * many Copies of the feven canonical Epiftles as * of the other. Now I have found Fourteen Ma- ' nufcripts of St. Paul's Epiftles marked in the ' Margins, whence I concluded there were fo * many of the feven Epiftles.' And he 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.' But if Mr. Martin had duly confider'd the State of the Manufcripts of the NewTeftament, as they are related in F. Lon^s Bihlioth. Sacra^ and Dr. Mill's Proleg. 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 Teftament being in a Manufcript, how many other Parts are conneded with it. Sometimes in one Manufcript 2 all Mr. Martin'^ Examination^ ^c. \i^ all the four Gofpels are , fometimes but one, or two, or three of them ; and fometimes the J^s : and of what Mr. Martin calls the fecond Volume, fometimes the j^Bs may be with only the ^tv^n. Catholick Epiftles, and not St. Paul's% fometimes St. Paul's, and none of the feveOj which made often a third Volume, nay fometimes two or three of St. Paul's alone. So that the Foundation of Mf. Martin's Argument is a weak and childilli Fanfy, viz. That the Manufcripts are ordinarily made up in comiplete Volumes, like our printed Books, where the whole Impreflion being uni- form, one may indeed prefume nothing is want- ing till it be made appear : but to talk fo of Ma- nufcripts which are oft but fmall fcatter'd Parts, written at the Pleafure and Choice of various and particular Perfons, is very abfurd. Mr. Martin himfelf can difcern this at another time : when Dr. Bcntlefs Manufcripts were ob- jedled to him, he fays, and very properly, /-F'^ Examinat. don't know how many Manufcripts Dr. Bentley may^^* 5« . have of St. John'j Epifile. He furmifes what is reafonable, and I doubt not very true in Fa6l, that fome of thofe Manufcripts are but of one part, and others of other parts : the like I fay of ^/^^i?^;7j's Manufcripts, and therefore I can't but pity hisRafhnefs and Confidence in daring to fay. If then there were eleven Manufcrip Copies of St. I>«flertat. Paul'j fourteen Epiftles, there were fo many of the ^^' Canonical Epifiles^^ for all the one and twenty were hound together. This is a very abfolute and pe- remptory Afiertion of what Mr. Martin cannot prove to be true, and what the mod capable Judges Vv^ill think to be very falfe. He is angry with me for ufing often the Words perhaps, and poffihly^ and the like, (which yet I fhall not forbear in rea- foning about diftant Fads or Words not fully known) but if he had ufed fo^me fuch foftning Vol. II. K Word i^o . u4 Kb p IjY to Word here and in many other Parts of his Wri- tings, he need not have been afhamed of his Mo- delty, for his Argument would very well bear it. Mr. Martin's other Ohfervation from the Copy mark'd iS", isfuHiciently refuted by what I fhewed from Dr. Mill's particular account of that Copy p. 58. in mj foriner Anfwer^ which I fuppofe is accepted. Thefe are the Obfervations by which, if we be- lieve himfelf, he has undeniably proved that Ste- phens'j Manufcr'ipts of Stc John'i Epiftle were not reduced to the number of feven. But if this be his undeniable Proof, we need .not be much mxoved with the higheil Commendations he oft gives of his own Arguments. I am next to reprefent the Method which is ufed on the contrary fide, in order to Ihew that Stephens^s Manufcripts of St. John^s Epiftle were no m.ore than feven -, which Mr. Martin diflikes. Since Stephens hath not given an account how much each Manufcript contained of the New Tcilament, (of v/hich Dr. Mill complains) the Learned have thought this the only way of find- ing it out, viz. by obferving how far he has made ufe of each Manufcriot in notino; the various Readings ; for v/hich he had fo many Occafions, that tho they did not offer in every Chapter, or in flich a fmall Epiftle as the 2d or 3d Epiftle of St. John., (which Mr. Martin remarks) yet in a much larger Com.pafs, 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 Farts of the New Teftament, has never once referred to any but the feven., throughout the whole Epiftles of St. John^ nor throughout all the fcvcn Caiholick Epiftles, (which indeed generally v/ent Mr. Martin 5 Examinatmn, ^c. 1 3 1 Went together) is it not rationally concluded, he had no other Manufcripts of tbef?i but thefe /even before him ? How ftrange were it to fuppofe there fhould not be any fort of different Reading in all that Compafs ! We find one fingle Chapter of St. Peter's id Epiftle was (according to Dr. Mill's relation ofproleg; it) annexed to a Manufcript of the Gofpels, N° 1174, mark'd /J*; and this indeed is refer'd to by Ste- ^^^^' fhensm that Chapter. Could there then be other ^'^ Manufcripts of all the feven Epiflles, and yet never be taken notice of? M.v. Martin h:is not obferved to us any Mark of any other but the feven Manufcripts, fave that on 2 Pet. i. 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 poilible in Stephens to have Manufcripts, and not make ufe of them till he came juft to i John 5. 7. yet I think no Man will ever prefume it, if Mr. Martin does not. Nay, if I miilake not, Mr. Martin himfelf has owned this way of Reafoning to be jufl : for how- ever he flights it in others when againft his Caufe, yet himfelf has naturally gone into it before he was aware, in his Bijfertation. For thus he proves Chap. $1 fome of Stephens's Mcfnufcripts to have been not complete ones of the whole New Teftament : The Reafon^ fays he, why I fay Stephens had fome Copies thus imperfeul^ is, that I find in the Tome of the Gofpels^ mention made of certain Ma?nifcripts that no where occur in the Epiftle s, as are the third, the fixth, and eighth ; and fo I find fome in the Epiftle ^ that are no where feen in the Gofpels, And again. As for the fee on d Volume, (i.e. the latter part of the New Teftament, or the epiftolary Code) / have obferved eleven majmfcript Copes, whereof nine had alfo the firft Volufne^ hut the two others y viz. /g and K 2 /5^» i^z A Kbvly to IT, muft have belonged to a defective Book, Is not this 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 77iujl conclude, that thofe Manufcripts did not contain the Epiftles, (tho ordinarily they went together, for he fays, nine of them had boch ;) then furcly, where the Manufcripts men- tion'd in St. Paulas Epiftles never occur in all the feven Catholick Epiftles, we may conclude they belonged to defeBive Books^ which had not thofe feven Epiftles in them : for it was common to have St. Paul's Epiftles feparate from the others. So that upon the v/hole, I think hitherto we have tr.uch fiiopger Proof of Stephens^ % having but feven Manufcripts of St. John^s, Epiftles, than Mr. Ma7i.in\ pretended undeniable Proofs of his having more. But he infifts on further Proof from the Tefti- mony of Be%a^ who in his firft Note on this Verfe fays, Erafmus read it in the Manufcript of England : the Complutenfian Editors read it alfo ; and ive read it in fome Manufcripts of our Friend R. Stephens \ tho thefe do vM agree in all the JVords^ &'c. And afterwards, in another Note up- on the Words, in Heaven^ he fays, ^hefe Words ivere wanting in feven Manufcripts : whence Mr. Martin infers, that Stephens had more than ^tvta Manufcripts of this Epiftle ; feven wherein thofe two TVords were not^ andfome others in which the Verfe was entire as inferted in the ^ext , and that Beza makes a manifeft DifAn5fion between the Manufcripts of the one and of the other, or be- tween the y^/;^^ Manufcripts and th.Q feven, ^ To this I anfwer, that the Words of Beza do not at all imply that the feven Manufcripts in the fecond Note, were not among the nonnullis^ or the Mr. Martin J Examination, &c. 1 3 5 the fome mention'd in the firft ; for he does not fay, infeptem aliis Codicihus^ in feven other Mrnu- fcripts : and 'tis abfurd to imagine, when hefiys in one Note^ this is wanting in t'wo \ and in the next Note, this is wanting in three or in four Manu- fcripts \ that therefore all thefe are different Ma- nufcripts: how, many hundred Manufcripts muft we have at this rate? No, the fame Manufcripts are again oft produced under feveral Heads ; and I doubt not but it was fo here, and that the {tv^n which wanted the Words, in Heaven^ were of the fome which he thought had the Verfe ; becaufe ac- cording to Stephen!,^s Marks^ they would appear to have it all but thefe Words. 'Tis evident that Beza could not in his way of reckoning, but account th^k feven Manufcripts to be among thofe that had the Verfe in grofs, tho they wanted thofe Wordsy (unlefs he knew alfo they wanted more than the Words, in Hea- ven, which Mr. Martin will not yield) becaufe he reckons the Complutenfian and the Britifh Copies among them, v/hich 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 Omiffion of the Words, in Heaven, amounts to : fo that here was no more reafon for diflinguifhing the [even Manufcripts from thofe which had the Verfe in grofs, than for diflinguifhing the others which had their different Readings too, but yet are faid by him to have the Verfe, Thefe then were intended in Beza''s non- nullis, or fome Manufcripts, if he fpake rationally and confidently ; but if he talked confufedly and obfcurely, (which I mufl own I fufpeil he did) then 'tis in vain to guefs at his meaning, or to argue from it, K 3 That: 134 A Kb V L.Y to That Bcza writes confafcdly and obfcurely, as a Man unctrcain, and that had not fully inquired into the Manufcripts, as ought to be done in fo critical and important a Cafv^ (unlefs. he had a mind to leav^e it in the dark) iecms to me very plain i elfe why did he in fo nice a Matter, and fo much conteded, only fay in general, this Verfe^ tbo wanthig in fticb and fitcb^ &c. ' is yt in fome of Stephens'^ Manufcripts ? Why did he not tell the World in v/hich Manufcripts it was, at leafc in how many of them ; as in the next Note, and in the foregoing Notes, he did ? fometimes he mentions two^ fometimes three^ and fevcn^ &€. Why were we in this extraordinary Subjed to be put oil with a loofe and carelefs indefinite foms ? I can't but fufpedl, that having Stephens^^ ^OPY before him, where he had fee dovinfeven in the Margin, Beza could eafily fay /even too in his Notrs ; but in this Place where there was no fuch Guide, he only ventures to fay 'tis in fome, fince it v^ras in the Text of Sletbens. That Beza took little care to make any fearch into the Manufcripts himielf, I had noted from Dr. Alill ; fo that Mr. Martin need not afk, Wbere did 1 find this ? And whereas I had faid Beza was furnifl'-ed with Henry Stephens's (Son of Robert) Colle6tion of the various Readings of ?nore Copies (Dr. Mill fays ten) added to thole of his Father ; by which means, I judge, he was eafed of his own laborious Search : Mr. Martin breaks out Chap. II. into thcfe angry and cenforious Words, '27j a ^t the end, ^^jC^g^ggj^i^l^ thing to have to do with Men who hazard every things and fear not vjhat they fay. But wherein have I been fo regardlefs of Truth as this Cenfure reprefents me } Beza,, fays he, received fiot this valuable Copy frojn H. Stephens, //'// after the Death of Robert bis Father, who lived Mr. Martin'^ Examination, ^c. 135 lived three Tears after himfelf had printed the Nezo Teftajnent and Annotations of Beza, publifh'd Anno 1556. But as I never faid Beza received this Copy- fro 111 H. Stephens^ fo I doubt Mr. Martin has fpoken at all hazards, in faying pofitively that Beza never received this Copy of H. Stephens till after the Death of Rchert his Father. I demand his Evidence for this: for Dr. M7/, who was a confiderate and wary Man, tells us, that it was Rob. Stephens v/ho gave Beza this Colledicn of his Son's (and I think I Ihall 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 pofitively aiferts, I fhall take leave to credit Dr. Mill rather than him -, and the more, becaufe I think Beza him- felf fays, that he had this Copy of various Read- ings (which I take to be the fime) in R. Slephens^s Time, even before the Edition in 1556. In the Preface to which, fpeaking of what Helps he had in this Work, he fays. Moreover I had a Copy from ?ny Friend Stephens'^ Library, which had been carefully compared with about twenty-five Manufcripts, and almofl all the printed Editiojts : which one thing has eafed me of a great deal of trouble, fince I could here fometimes fee the Conjee- tures of Interpreters confi,rmed byfome Manufcripts *. So that inflead of his faying, I feared not, it may perhaps be thought, that Mr. Martin here cared not what he faid. ^ Ad hasc omnia acceflit Exemplar ex Stephani noftri Bibliotheca, cum viginti quinque plus minus MSS. Codi- cibus, & omnibus pene impreffis, diligentiffime collatum. Quas res una, prae ceteris, magnopere me fublevavit, quum interdum viderem quae alioqui fola Interpretuni conje^lura nitebantur alicujus Codicis autoricate confirmata. K 4 In ^ R E P L Y to In fhort, if Beza^s nonnuUis^ or fotne Manu- fcripts, were only the fame with his feven which wanted the Words, in Heaven, then he mentions no more xh^in feven ; and fo it proves not Mr, Martin'^s Point, viz. that Stephens had more than feven Manufcripts of St. John's Epiftles : but if he meant fome others befides, tho not excluding the feven, then he fhould have faid, xhitiht Verfe was in all 6'/^/?^/?;2j's Manufcripts, fince 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 thofe others, fome had, and fome wanted the whole Verfe. Of v/hich I fliall make fom.e ufe hereafter, in relation to Stephens^ s> Care and Accuracy in placing and corre6ling his Marks of Reference ; upon which alone Mr. Mar- tin depends for making good his Authority for this Verfe, from thofe yd'i'f;/ Manufcripts •, totheCon- fideration of which I now pafs, and add. Secondly, That Mr. Martin has not clear'd Stephens from a Miftake in his Marks, referring to the feven Copies, which alone he had, of St. Johifs Epiftle. Whatever becomes of the reft of Stephens* s Manufcripts, yet, if thofe feven, which are no- ted in his Margin, did want only the Words h tJ »£^.r6j, in Heaven, it will follow, I grant, that z.\\ the reft of the Verfe was in thofe very Copies. But tho Stephens's Marks are placed ^ as to fignify that only thofe two Words are v/ant- iiig, yet it will not be granted that this is dccifive for the Authority of this l!ext, or for proving that it was in thofe Manufcripts, if there be good Reafon to fufped: that one of Stephens's Mark^ was placed wrong ; and that inftead of being fet after the Words, in Heaven, it fhould have been fet after the Words, in Earthy in the next Verfe. Many Mr. Martin's Examination, ^c. 137 Many learned Men, who could be glad to fe- cure the Authority of this Texf, have greatly doubted, that there is a Miftake in Stephe?js in this matter. Near 150 Years pad, the Divines of the Univerfity of Louvain made an exception upon this Article : Mr. Martin can't think but they had fome weighty Reafon for making this Scruple ; probably it was becaufe they had never feen or heard of any fuch Copy which wanted thofe two Words, in Heaven^ and no more ; and then it would feem flrange that Stephens had fo many of them as feven : this ftagger'd thofe Di- vines almoft at the beginning, and the ftumbling- block remains unremov'd to this Day. For, That which ftrengchens the ObjecStion againft Stephens's Mark, is, that upon inquiry into the French King's Library, where Stephens had fome of his Manufcripts, there is no fuch Manufcripc found there, nor elfewhere that I 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 ridiculous^ but i*eafonab!e ; for Mr. Martin grants the way to determine this Point of the Obelus, would be by the Manufcripts themfehes : but he fays, this is impradicable, be- caufe, as he pretends, the Manufcripts are no longer nx^mln. in being. But I know not what Warrant he or ^h. xiii. any have for faying fo, fave that they can find none which anfwers to their Expe«5lation in this Affair. Manufcripts, I 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 preferves them, fo it is not likely very many of them fhould be deflroy'd, that had once been taken' notice of, and highly prized : and 'tis flrange if not fo much as one out 13 8 \A Ke ? LY to out of /even fhould efcape, to tell us there had been fuch a Copy. What way then will Mr. Martin take to afllire us that Stephem has been exad 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 exaci and judicious^ he ought to have given an Advertifement of fo confiderable a Fault as this, by way of Emendation, v/hich he has not done •, and that Beza's Annotations were printed by Stephens himfelf -, that it was a nice and curious Matter, to fee in what manner Eeza had fpoken of this Pajfage coruerning the 'Trinity in the God- head, which had raifed great Contejis : That all this deferved that he Jhould fee ivhat ufe Beza had madit of his Manufcripts^ on a Text of this impor- tance : And then infers. Who can doubt after this, that if Beza had advanced a FalJJoood in aiTerting that he read the Verfe in Stephens's Manufcripts, that learned Printer would not have dlfcerncd it, or that he zvouFd have, printed it? concluding, that if Stephens had not fuch Manufcripts in v/hich the Text was found, he was an Lnpofior, an infamous Fellow, and deferved the utmofl Contempt. But what is there in all this more than the bare telling us what Stephens ought to have done ? And fo he ought in all the other Parts of his "Work •, but yet he has not by his Care and Faith- fulncfs, either prevented or corre&d all confi- derable Faults : and therefore this alone is no fuHicient Satisfadion that there is no Fault in the Matter before us, where we have fuch grounds to fufpe6t it. I am far from detradino; from the Praife and Efteem of R. Stephens as a Critick., and a curious Printer , nor do I think him at fo little a diftance from Mr. Martin'5 Examination, ^c. 139 from the Charadler of an infamous Fellozv, worthy of utmoft Conte?npt^ that nothing (lands between him and it, but only the (lender Siippofition of his having fet his Marks exa6lly right here. 'Tis Mr. Martin who ufes him thus cruelly^ for- getting how eafily Men run into Httle Arts of Difguife and Conceahr.ent about Manufcripts. But (lill I cannot rely on Stephcris^s 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 itfelf How Beza and he manag'd it, I kn9w not, nor v/hat their Intention Was ; but I fee plainly they, with Mr. Martin^ have left the Bufinefs in^ uncertainty and inconfidency, as I will fhew anon. That Stephens made many Omi(rions, is fo ap- parent, that Dr. Mill found above 700 of them in one Article, ij'z. in comparing the Coraph- tenftan Edition, in which he found fo many diffe- rent Readings not taken notice of by him. And vrcUg. N° fo far was he from unerring Exadnefs, that he H7-- fometimes put into the Text what he had no fufficient Authority for. I will give one Inllance, which I obferved without much fearch, in Rev. i, 1 1 . where the Words, / avi Alpha and Omega^ the firfi and the lafi^ are put into Stephens''?^ Text, and his Margin notes 'em to be wanting only in two Manufcripts a, and n •, whereas Beza on the Place tells us, thefe Words are not in the Complu- tenfian Edition^ nor in any other of Stephens'^ Ma- nufcripts f . Here then let me ask Mr. Martin the fame Queftions which he asks in relation to the I'e^t of St. John^ Whence came it there ? Or Diprtaf. where did Stephens jneet with it to give it that Place ^ ^^- ^' if it was in none of his Manufcripts ? And Vv^hy j- Neque extant in Complut, Edit, neque in alio quodam vetufto Codice ex noftris, did 140 A Ke ? LY to did he mark only Izvo Copies as wanting the Words ? Why did he not fay, h \^tnzt, either was in St. AuguflinV Bibie^ or in cafe it was^^' ^** wanting, his Bible was defeofive, 'Tis very true 1 His Bible then had this Defed; which is what aC prefent I aim at. From hence I infer, that St. Jeromes Bible had the fame Defed alfo as to this Verfe ; becaufe they two had fuch free Intercourfe by Letters in rela- tion to the Bible, and St. Augiijlin knew fo well what was in St. Jeromes, Verfion, that 'tis juft to fuppofe, if there had been a Difference in fo im- portant an Article, as this Text being in one Bible and wanting in the other, we fhould have heard of it from them, among many other Matters of that kind, of fmalier moment. Jerom had many Oppofers who cenfured his Performance, and ac- cufed him of altering the Scriptures againft the Authority of the Antients ; and St. Auftin him- felf for fome time found fault with his Old Tefta- ment ; but yet in ^/VEpiftle to him, he highly com- mended his Verfion of theNewTeftamentin thefe Words, We heartily thank God for your Tranflation of the Gofpel, becaufe there is nothing in it which offends us when we compare it with the * Greek. It feems * j^ug, Hieronymo ^i^,T[. Ed. BafiLUDLVL Quia pene in omnibus nulla offenfio eft, cum Scripturam Gucam con- tulcrimus. L A then 152 ^REPLYfO then that St. Auguftin compared it with the Greeks and found it to agree : but neither from the Greek Manufcripts, nor from St. Jeromes E- mendation of the New 'Teftament^ (as St. Jerojn in the ne>:t Epiille, in anfwer to him, calls that which Auguftin named the Tran/Iation of the Gofpel) did he learn thi'S Text in St. John ; nor does he obje6t any thing from the It dick Verfion about it ; tho, I fuppofe, he had as a good a Right to have the common Bible, which Mr. Martin talks of, as others after him. I may carry this Matter yet further. It ap- pears that St. Auguftin was well acquainted with Cyprian's Works, who had been eminent in a neighbouring See^ and whofe Writings he oft refers to *, and tho he had very probably read, at leaft heard of his Teftimony from St, John concerning the Trinity, yet had he not gathered from thence, that there were any fuch Words in St. John as thefe, there are three that I ear witnefs^ the Father^ Son and Holy Spirit^ any otherwife than as it might he faid fo^ by a myfti- cal Interpretation of the other three Witnefles in the oth verfe^ which, Facundm exprefly tells us, was alfo St. Cyyrian\ Meaning in that famous Teftimony. Which, by the way, may fatisfy us, that if the African Bifhops had this Text in their Bibles after St. AuguftAnh time, yet it was not in the Italick Verfion ufed by him, who was more eminent and ^ inquifitive than any of them ; which may check Examinae. y[y^ Martin's confident Con clufion with regard to ch. viii. ^^^ Italick Verfion, That all the Monuments of this antient Tranjlaticn we have extant in the Writings of the Fathers^ agree in giving us this Pajfage, For we fee St. Auftin did not agree in it ; nor confe- quently did St. Jerom's Bible, if that and St, Aujlin's 2 Mr. Martm*5 Examination, (^c. 1 5 3 j^uftin's were fo much alike. And then I hope the Preface pretended for fuch could not be St. Jeromes ; nor any Proof that this Verfe was in his Bible. There is but one thing more I need fay upon this Head, and that is concerning the moft learned Dr, Benilefs Latin Manufcripts, of a thoufand Years old or upwards, which is higher than the Bible of Charles the Great ; thefe I have intimated are like to fhew that St. Jero77i*s Bible had not this Text., Mr. Martin fufpedts they are not fo antient ; this indeed muft reft, at prefent, on the Judgment of that excellent Critick^ as Mr. Martin does, and all muft allow him to be. Next he fays, the Book is yet to be written: but I hope the Manufcripts are not. Then he obferves that the Dodlor takes no notice whether every one of thefe Manufcripts be of the whole New Teftament, or only of Parts of it. I know not well how this matter lies •, but I fuppofe the latter, with Mr, Martin^ and underftand it fo, that fome have one part, and fome another, one can't expedt it otherwife : but if all that con- tain St. John*s Epiftle, want this Verfe, 'tis all we need. But when he concludes fo daringly againft me, Exammat. I am well affured the Dodtor and the Manufcripts ^^* "' /^^ will give him up to his had Caufe ; and that mine^ which is the Caufe of Truth^ has nothing to fear from that garter : I know not what to fay, but that Mr. Martin is a Man of great Affurance ; for whatever the Dodor may do, I am not afraid of the Manufcripts ; and I wonder how Mr. Martin pretends to come at this Affurance, when any other Man will fee no Encouragement to it from the Letter I mention'd ; and I have reafon to think Mr. Martin^ if the Dodor publifh them in his ;j:54- a Kb p ly to \is time, may fall from the Height of his vain Aflurance into a fhameful Difappointment, and yet the Caufe of Truth receive no hurt. Nor fhall I be afliamed to Jhelter fnyfelf which Mr. Martin upbraids me with, under thefe Manufcripts ; Pm fure not fo much, as if I had Ihelter'd myfelf under the Berlin Manufcript, But I can forgive his Contempt of Manufcripts. when I con- fider that he has none to take fhelter under •, and, as confident as he is, fliall only tell him, that this great Critick who has thefe Manufcripts, in a lace publick Ledlure at the Univerfity oi Cambridge upon this fexty has been very far from defending it. And the learned Dr. Waterland^ Mafler or Mag- dalen College in that Univerfity, has not thought this Text once worthy to be mention'd by him, in his late very large Vindication of Chrift*s Divinity : which none will think to be from Forgetfulnefs ; tho Mr. Martin^ with as little reafon, fuppofes it of the primitive Writers. CHAP. Mr. Martin 5 Examination, &c. 1 5 5 CHAP. IV. Of the two antient Greek Writers that are pretended to quote this Text, and of the Latin Writers. I Have urged againft this Text^ that not one genuine Greek Writer is found to have cited it on any Occafion, for many hundred, I believe not for a thoufand Years ; and yet who fo likely to know the Greek Copies, as the Greeks themfelves ? Mr. Martin fays, that if it be fo, the Text will lofe hut one Proofs which may he difpenfed with. Examinat. But yet he will not let it go without a Struggle ^^' ^^• for it : and therefore produces the two Pafiages from uncertain Authors among Athanafius^^ oxks>\ the fir ft from the Sjnopfis Scriptures^ which, he fays, F. Montfaucon allows at lead to be eight hundred lears old, Mr. Martin thinks it to be Athanafius^s own. However, 'tis no matter which, becaufe 'tis little to the purpofe what he has faid, viz. That St. John in his firft Epiftle, fioews the Unity of the Son with the Father ; which I have faid might well be a Reference to Ch. 2. 1^.23. Mr. Martin fays, this Verfe does not JJoew that Unity •, and alfo that this Writer had done with the fecond, third, and fourth Chapters, and that thefe Words were fpoken upon the fifth : and on this cries out. There's no going hack. As to myfelf, I am not about going hack^ but can prove my Point s but if he means that the Author 15^ J Ke 1^ LY to Author mufl not go back from the fifth Chaj^. to the fecond, he has fpoken too late ; for he has done it long ago. For, as he did not keep any ftridl Order, but wrote as things occurr'd to his Memory, after fomething faid on the third Cb. V. 8. going back to the fecond, and after mention* ing the Sin unto Deaths and not to Deaths in the fifth, returning to the fourth, about trying the Spirits, whether they be from God ; fo having mention'd thefe Words, of the Unity of the Son and Father^ he immediately conne6ls with them the exprefs Words of Ch, 2. 23. And that he who denies the Son hath not the Father ♦, by which we may fee what his Eye was upon : and indeed was it Athanafius, and had he referred to our 'Text ; who can doubt but he would have faid, St. John Ihews the l^rinity, or the Unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit ; and that he would have men- tion'd this Text twenty times over in his other Writings .? So that this is but a very poor Evidence. His other Author is that of a Dialogue be- tween Athanafius and Arius •, none knows who he was, and 'tis difputed whether a Greek or a Latin. Dr. Cave fays, it was fome raving Monk : Mr. Martin alTerts at all adventures, that he was an hone ft Orthodox Chriftian. Near the end of his Work he drops a fhort Sentence, Add to this^ St. John fays, the Three are One ; which looks like a fmall Poftfcript added. The Words li Tf>«? to |y «^/, have one little Particle, one Syllable too much for the feventh Verfe of St. John ; and one too little for the eighth : fo that it determines nothing. Mr. Martin takes no notice of this, and is not juft in faying, th^it without the PFord^f^ the feventh Verfe (any more than the eighth) is hinted at. So that we have not one fingle Teftimony to depend on from any or all the Greek Wri- ters. Mr. Martin'i Examination^ &c. 157 ters, who yet were poireffed of the Greek Tefta- ments. I (hall not therefore be very anxious about the Latin African Writers in the fifth Century or after- wards ; tho this indeed is Mr. Martin's only plaufible Plea for the Authority of the 'Text. As to St. Cyprian^ nothing is faid to invalidate the account of Facundus^ which is confirmed alfo by Fulgentius^ (as I conceive from the word Confi- ietur) and which clears that Matter. But as for all the others after him, in the fifth Age^ above a hundred Years after Arms and Athanafius*^ Time ; and to whofe Allegations we have no Anfwers of the Arians handed down to us, all being fupprefs'd or . loft ; for there is no doubt but they had fomething to fay, or they yielded the Vidlory to their Adverfaries, who would not have been wholly filent of fuch a Triumph, obtained by means of a Text which their Fore- fathers, in the Heat of that long Controverfy, had never once thought of : I fay, as for thefe, fuppofing their Tefti monies to be taken from the feventh Verfe, and that they had the eighth be- fides, which does not appear ; and fuppqfing their Writings have not been alter'd by the Revifers or Publifhers who caufed them to be printed ; who fo often have adapted their Scripture Cita- tions to the Vulgar Verfton^ (which F. Simon feys we muft keep in mind, in reading the Latin Fathers who lived before St. Jero7n''s Verlioa was receiv'd ;) of which I took notice formerly in fpeaking of Eucherius's Teftimony *, yet there is one thing to be confider'd, of great weight, which is more than fuppofed^ and is fully pro- ved, viz. That in their Time, and before it, there was a great deal of Confufion and Va- riety in the Latin Copies of the New Tefta- ment, and many Illujlrations added^ even in Cyprian's tjS J KEP LY to t F. Si- Cjprlarh f Time : and this was the Occafion of c^-^'^H'ft ^^' 7^^^'^'^ correding the New Teflament ; fifVerC, of^^ ^^' ^^^^^^ cannot deny. St. Jero?7i com- K. Teft. plains of thefe Matters, in his Preface to the ch. e. Gofpels. In anfwer to feme who found fault with his Defign, If^ he reply'd, tbe^jfay that //?£■ Latin Copies are to he credited^ let them tell me which \ for there are almofi as many different Copies as there are Books ; why JJoould we not have reconrfe to the Greek Original^ to correEi the Faults which proceeded either from had 'TranJIation^ or unjufi Corre^ions, or from j4dditions and Alterations hy carelefs Copiers ? And St. Aiiguftin had fuch an Opinion of thefe Cor- ruptions of the Latin Bibles of the New Tefla- ment, that, with refpecl to their Difference from tht Greek Originals and St.Jerofn^s newVerfion, he calls them the old Fal/ities, in his afore-mention'd Epiftle : If any one^ thro* Contention^ fhall plead for the old Falfity, he is eafily convinced or con* futed hy producitig and comparing the (Greek) ^ Copies. By this we may difcern how the Latin Bibles differed, and that it was very pofTible, nay eafy, for St. Jugujiin^s to want, what fomc other African^ s Bible might have^ at leafl after his Time : and 'tis abfurd to talk of one co7n* mon Bible of all the Latin Churches., out of which their Citations were taken ; when 'tis from thefe Citations that the Difference of their Books appear. And therefore fmce St. Jerom's Bufinefs was to corre6c fuch Interpolations^ Omijfons^ and Al- terationsy it follows that if he did not retain ibis Verfe in his Bible, he, if he found it at all, * Unde fi quifpiam 'vetm falfitaii contentiofius faverif, prolatis coUatifque Codicibus, vel docetur facillime, vei re- fcllitur. efteem'd Mr. Mardn'5 texamination, i^src. 1 5$> elleem'd ic as a fpurious Addition. Indeed 'twas iikely enough fuch a fine myftical Senfe of the JVater^ Bloody and Spirit^ being fo common a- mong them, fome or other would add it (as they oft did other Words) by way of Illuftra- tion, to the Text itfelf ; and fo 'twould re- main : for tho St. Jerom reform'd the Latin Ver- fion, yet it was not received prefently, but made its way by degrees in fome Ages before the other Verfion was laid afide : and many reformed, and corrected the other by St. Jerom's^ in the Places which they thought to be corrupted, fome in one Place, fome in another ; which caufed great Confufion in the Latin Manufcripts ; ^^^ F^^*^ and, I may add, gave great trouble to the Re^ ^^dq. vifers who came after : but withal it gave thtmvoli an handle to omit, or keep in fome Pafrages,^ 443- as might be moft agreeable to the Sentiments of the Time they lived in. And therefore if St. Jerom had not this 'Text^ it is of no great weight, that fome Copies, fup- pofed to be taken from that of Charles the Greats have it. Indeed Mr. Martin fuppofes fuch abundance of good and great Things, concern- ing thofe Revifers under that Prince, that they were fo judicious, fo exadl, fo careful, fo im- partial, and confulted fo many, and the beft Latin Manufcripts, and Greek ones too, and that they kept in this Verfe alfo ; that he would leave us no room for any doubt, but all was right : but the World has been fo oft deceiv'd with fuch Pretences, that they will not now pafs, when contradidled by rational Arguments ; and by flrong Evidence on the other fide, from all the Greek Manufcripts which are older, as fome of them are, than thofe Times, and from all the Greek Fathers, and even from St. Jerom himfelf, as I hope is made to appear. For tho Mr, 1 6o A Kb P I.Y to Mr. Martin^ with all his Pretences to Logick, is unreafonable in expeding pofitive Proofs of a negative Point ; yet I have juft Reafon to re- quire a pofitive Proof of the Affirmative, (not mere Prefumptions) viz. That this Text is, or ever was, in any antient Greek Manufcripts, or even in St. Jeromes own Verfion corredled by them. And therefore, when Mr. Martin can inform us truly, that one of his many fuppofed, mi/laid, or loft Greek Manufcripts, is found again, the World will be ready to hear of it •, but when a Controverfy comes to confiil only of tedious Re- petitions, and perfonal Refledtions, 'tis a fign it either is near to an end, or ought to be fo. POST- Mr. Martin's Examination^ &c. 1 6 i POSTSCRIPT, concerning the Dublin Manufcript, call'd Codex Montfortius. THE Code>: Montfortius was formerly well known, being mention'd in xhtEnghJhPol-jglot publifh'd by Walton^ and in Dr. MiWs Prolegomena and Notes y m both which Works the various Readings of it are inferred, as far as to the firil Chapter of the Epiftle to the Romans : but whether it reach'd any farther, was not known, nor where it was depofited, till the learned Father le Long inform'd the World of it in his Letter to Mr. Martin^ printed in the Journal des Scavans oVjUne 1720. who having feen Mr. Martin's Dijfertation on I John 5. 7. wrote to him, among other things, that it was certain that Robert Stephens had but feven Greek Manufcripts which contain'd the Cano- nical Epiftles, and that this Verfe in queftion was not found in any of them ; he having examin'd this matter flridtly, at the defire of Dr. Roger Dean of Burges^ who had lately wrote in defence of this Text. In fhort, he adds, that he knew hut of two Greek Manufcripts where it was to he found, to wit, the Codex Britannicus cited hy Erafmus, and the Codex Montfortius made ufe of in Walton'i Polyglot, which lafl, fays he, is preferv^d in the Library of the Univcrfity of Dublin. After this Mr. Martin receiv'd from Mr. Tcard, Dean of Aconry, who was then at Dublin, an Ex- trad: of this Palfage, which was compar'd with the Original by him and the Library-keeper. This Original mark'd G ^y. was among the Manu- fcripts of the great Archbifhop U/her, In this Vol. II. M Copy i6z u4 Kepily to Copy is found the Verfe in difpute, viz. There are three that hear witnefs in Heaven^ Father^ Wordy and Hcly Sprit ; d!7d thefe three are one *. Having read Father le Lon^s Letter, and being defirous to know how the State of that Dublin Copy was as to this Point, my learned Friend Dr. Samuel Clarke wrote to Dr. Evans then Bilhop of Meath^ to procure a Tranfcript of that part of St. John's Epiftle •, who it feeins defir'd the fame Mr. Tcard to do it ; whofe Letter to the Bifliop with the faid Tranfcript, I have now before me, and which agrees v/ith the Account given by Mr. Martin. Dr. Miir^ Account of this Copy is, that 'tis ivritten in a modern a?id carelefs Hand ; and Mr. Martin owns that the Form of the Letters is that of our Greek Editions, with Accents and Spirits. TheDo6lor fays, that fome learned Man has here and there blotted out fome things, which he thought were Interpolations •, and that in the Text itfelf there is a great number of Readings which are altogether fmgular, or fuch as are not found in our Books. And I may add one thing more, that in this Place of St. John, the words, thefe three are one^ are but once found, to wit, in ver. 7. and wholly omitted in the 8th verfe. What Antiquity this Manufcript, or that from which it was copy'd, was of, Mr. Martin owns he can't certainly demonflrate \ but yet he has endeavour'd to raife an Opinion of its Antiquity by a Suggeftion wholly groundlefs. He is well aifur'd indeed it could not be before the eleventh Century, becaufe the Prologues of TbeojjhylaEi are found in it, v/ho liv'd towards the m.iddle of that Age : but then he infmuates, that it might be written at the end of that Age, and fays there * Martin'i La Verite du Texte de la 1 "^Qhu 5. 7. wou'd Mr. Martin'5 Examination J ^c. 1 6 wou'd be no room to doubt it, if we cou'd be afTur'd that the Date which is found there at the end of St. Mark's Gofpel, is by the fame Hand that wrote the Copy ; for there, as it was fent to him, it is, ly£^^(pyi lAtrd XCP^^^ <^^K^ ™ "^ yy etva,\ri4i^i '» that is, as he interprets it, written ajter ten Ages from the Afcenfion of Chrifl : And this he fays points to the eleventh Age. Now either Mr. Martin had a lame account fent him, and fo might be ignorant of the matter -, or elfe artfully conceal'd what quite overthrows all his Suppofi- tion, by omitting what it was that is faid to be written at that time, viz. ^o ivAyyihtov yAta M^t'f^eo;' \y^.(^^) &'c, The Gofpel according to St. Mark was written^ &c. Why was this omitted, but that it might appear as if that was faid of the whole Copy, which is only faid of Mark^s original Gof- pel, which of old was* fuppos'd to be written ten Years after Chrift's Death ? Likewife in the Dublin MS. there is a Note of the fame kind at the end of St. John's Gofpel alfo, relating to the Time of that Gofpel's being written. This I myfelf obferv'd, when I had a fhort view of that MS. 3.1 Dublin^ viz. mAugiift 1725. So that fuppofing we grant Mr. Martin that the PaiTage was written by the fame Hand with the Copy, yet there is not the lead foundation for his In- ference, that it was wrote in the eleventh Age : nor does xe/^a^ here fignify Centuries or Ages, but Years \ which fure none will pretend was defign'd for the Date of this Copy, but rather of the origi- nal Gofpel. From all which it does not appear to have any marks of Antiquity. * 5^^ Du Pin's Hiftory of the Canon, Vol. II. f. 42. and Mill'; Notei at the end of St» Mark 5 by which it appears that thofe Words were added in divers MSS. at the end of St. Mark. M 2 Thus i 1^4 -^ Reply, &cc. Thus having laid the matter before the World, I leave it to the Learned to judge of its Value and Auiliority ; while yet it is the only Greek Copy, among fucii great numbers., in which this contellcd Verfe appears to be found. I fliall only add, what Mr. j7ard writes in his Letter, " That it is writ current e C alamo ; " and that the feven Canonical Epiftles, as well ^^ as the Book of the Revelation^ did feem to '•' him to be writ with fuch hade, that he " thought it was writ at one fitting, and with " the fame Pen And that as a proof '• of the Flail e of the Writer, in ver, 13. he '' has omitted all from the firft 9s«." Now whether fuch a haily and modern Tranfcript can be depended upon for its Exa6tnefs, or Authority, I leave to the Judgment of others. "^ ^H '""^l ^^ -^^. Dr. 2)r. B E N K E t'5 ISIew Theory of the ^rmtty Esamind : OR, SOME CONSIDERATIONS O N H I S Discourse of the Ever- blelTed Trinity in Unity ; AND His Examinatioa of Dr, CLARKEs Scripture-Dodrine of the Trinity, Bgregie Ariftoteles ait^ nunquam nos verecundiores effe debere^ qitam cum de iOiis dgimr ■ qiianto magh cum de Deoriira Nutura difpiitamiis^ ne quid temere^ ne quid impudenter^ aiit igno- rantes affinmraus^ aiit fcientes mentia?mir ? Sen. Nat. Quasft. 1. 7. c. 30. M 3 THE INTRODUCTION. T would be fomething ftrange, if this Book, of fo fam'd an Author as Dr. Bennet ; a Book of fo long Expeda- tion, and fo deliberate a Birth ; on fo important a Subjed as the Holy Trinity^ and againft fo celebrated a Writer and eminent Divine as Dr. Clarke ; Ihould pafs in the World without any notice. One great Queftion, I find, has been, from which Quarter an Anfwer would firfl come ; whether from thofe againft whom^ or from thofe /i?r whom 'tis pretended to be writ- ten. I who know not the Intentions of any other in this matter, do adventure to give freely my own Thoughts of his Performance, which, I con- fefs, contains in it fomething nev/. For, tho the Subje^i of the Holy 'Trimly, and the Divinity of our hlejfed Saviour, has with fufficient Boldnefs been teaz'd and tortured by the School- men, and wrought into great variety of fine Schemes ; yet, it feems, fomething has been \tit for the fcholaftick Genius of Dr. Bennet to fupply : and flil], I apprehend, none of 'em all will fa- tisfy ; and no wonder ! For, Tho it may not be hard to underftand what we find of thefe Subjeds in the Scriptures them- felves ; yet, when Men think they muft adjuft the M 4 Scripture- 1^8 An E:r. Bennet'5 l i5« of Rubies^ ^^nd happy is the Man that findeih her, ' 3. For his zealous Profeffion of Integrity, ex- citing others to ad honeftly and openly, according to their Judgments ; and not to ufe Arts of Dif- guife and Hypocrify in Hicred Matters : for fo I P. 4. underfland him in thofe excellent Words, JVhat- ever little Ends may be ferved in this World,, by Arti- fice^ Shift and Collufion \ yet nothing but the ?nofi unbiafe'd Integrity in our ConduB here^ can prevent our everlafting Difgrace hereafter. In thefe things I greatly praife him, as worthy of Imitation. And if I cannot fo much commend his Notions,, as worthy to be receiv'd by Chriftians ; I hope tht follozving Difcourfe will evince that it is tor this good Reafon, i;i2;. That they are the Refult of Imagination, more than of Evidence. A N 171 A N EXAMINATION Of the Reverend Dr. Bennet's iV(?w Theory. Propofe four Things in relation to Dr. Bennetts Book. I. To fhew what Texts of Scrip- ture he difcharges from that hard Service, againft the Arians and Socinians^ which fo many have long and unjuftly prefs'd them into. II. To examine his new Notion of the ^iefcence of the WORD, which he fuppofes to be dif- tind from Chrift's rational Soul, and by which he thinks to anfwer fome Texts and Argunnents, which are urged againft the fupreme Self-exif- tent Deity of Jefus Chrift. III. To confider the Strength of thofe few remain- ing Texts, which he has referv'd as his only Defence in this Caufe : to which I have added an Appendix concerning the Leitj of the Holy Cboff. IV. \7% An Examination of IV. To make fome general Obfervations upon his New "Theory^ and Scheme of the Trinity in Unity^ as containing very great Abfurdities. CHAP. I. I Begin with a brief Reprefentation of thofe Texts and Arguments upon them, which the DocStor owns have no Force in them to prove the Supreme Deity of our Lord Jefus Chrift, after all the ilir which fome have made about them ; p^^j^ V/jyM they have been afraid to part with any one Aroiirnent that has been urged in favour of Orthodoxy hy their Predecejfors in Controverfy, As for that remarkable Text, FhiL 2. 6. Who being in the form of God^ thought it not robbery to be equal with Goa ; he fpends his whole feventh Chapter in an elaborate and judicious Confuta- tion of thofe who interpret this of Chrift's Di- vine Nature -, and frankly concludes, that 6"/. Paul is fo far from teaching (in thh re?narkable Pajfagp) that the Divine Nature of our Lord lefus Chrifi is inferior to the very God^ that he does not, therein, ipeak one Syllable of his Divine Nature^ "but only of his Human Nature. So that being in the Form of God, and equal to God, he allows,' may and mull agree to Chrift's Human Nature only. In the next C/j^/'/i?r, he throws up, at once, all the Arguments taken from the Gofpel-Iiiriory of our 6'^o'w^/r's Life, Adions, and Doftrihe ; with a profeffed Defign to prove this Fropaftiiou, viz. That durmg the time of our Saviour^ s Minifl.ry, the Difciples did not believe he was any thing 7nore than a mere Man, conducled and affifted by the Spirit of God : 2)r, Bennet'5 New Theory. ly-^ God : and tells us, pag. 94. That as there is not in all the New Tejla?nent one Fajfage^ which implies the Difciples Relieved him to have had any Divine Na- ture during his Minijlry, fo 'tis very remarkable^ (fays the Do6lor) that the whole Courfe of our Sa- viour's wonderful A^lions affords no Proof nor even the fmallefi Intrmatiofi of his having any Divine Na- ture at all^ viz. 1. Not his knowing the Thoughts of Mens Hearts ; and therefore he anfwers to fuch Texts, as John 2. 24, 25. John 16. 3. and fuch like Ex- prelTions. 2. Nor his Miracles^ calling out Devils^ and raifmg the Dead \ fince the Dfciples did the very fame things in every kind -^ as he fays, pag. loi. 3. Nor his taking on him to forgive Sins, Mat. 9. 2, 5. which he grants a mere Man may do, if God pleafes, whatever the Jews pretended a- gainft it. 4. Nor his conferring on others a Power to work Miracles : Mat. 10. i. Next, he goes on to confider what things our Lord faid of himfelf, which many take to be Proofs of his Divine Nature given to his Difci- ples ; but indeed were not fo, viz. 1. Not his faying, he came down from Heaven. 2. Nor his having Glory with the Father before the World was^ John 17. 5. 3. Nor his calling himfelf the only-begotten Son of God^ John 5. 16, 18. which he fays did not difcover that he had any Divine Nature at all, pag. 109. being only on the account of his being Man, pag. 162. 4. Nor his faying, / and fuy Father are one^ John 10. 30. the fame Phrafe expreffing the Union between Chrifh and his Difciples. 5. Nor in faying. As the Father knoweth me^ fo I know the Father '-i John 10. 15. 6. Nor 1 74 An Examination of 6. Nor in thofe Words, Joh^ 14. 7 — 11. He that hath feen 7ne^ hath feen the Father, 7. Nor in thofe, John 5. 19. Whatfoever things the Father doth^ thefe alfo doth the Son, 8. Nor in faying, he was greater than the "Tern- fle^ Mat. 12. 6. 9. Nor, that he was Lord of the Sabbath, ver. 8. 10. Nor in faying, he had Life in hmfelf^ even as the Father hath ; John 5. 26. 1 1 . Or that all things that the Father hath are mine^ John 16. 15. 12. Nor in faying, that \\t Jhould raife the Dead at the Day ofjudgme^it, John 6, 40. Of all thefe Declarations (the Dodor fays) they might have been made flridly true, and might have been made by him *, tho he had been nothing more than a mere Man, condu6led and afllfted by God's Spirit, p. 116. So that for any thing argued from thefe Texts, the Dodor plain- ly implies, he might not have had any divine Na- ture perfonally united to his Manhood at all. In like manner he grants, that John 3. 31. where the Bapcift fays of Jefus, He is above all \ and thofe Words, John i. 18. The only begot- ten Son, who is in the Bofom of the Father -, and thofe, John^. 17. where he calls God, 'iS'iov ^arstu'es^y (whence the Jews falQy inferred, that he made himfelf equal to God) are all applicable to his human Nature -, and fo is the Character of the Jmage of God, and the Firfi-born of the Creation, Col. I. 15. See fag, 170. The fame he fays, pag, 173. of thofe Expreffions, the Heir of all things, the Brightnefs of his Father'' s Glory^ and the exprefs Lnage of his Perfon, or Subflance •, Heb. i. 2. Of all Chrift's Declarations during his Miniftry, the Dodor referves to himfelf only thefe three Texts, John 5. 22, 23. foretelling, he fays, his re- ceiving of religious Worfhip ; Mat. 18. 20. foretel- lifjcr Dr. Bennet'i Ne^ Theory. \y% ling his Prefence with his Difciples after his Afcenfton : and laftly^ John 14. 13, 14. AJfiiring them he would anfwer their Prayers, He grants that thefe (and perhaps there may be others fuch) did hint and im- ply our Lord's having a divine Nature \ but then 'tis becaufe he fuppofes this Myllery revealed to us other ways : and fo the Meaning of thofe De- clarations becomes clear to them who believe it before-hand, for other Reafons, and bring that pre-conceiv'd Meaning with them to the Text. But he does not think the Difciples took the a- forefaid Hints. Nay, on the contrary, he fays, P. iir» our Lord's having a divine Nature^ was what they ^* ^^^• leaft fufpe5fed^ and would have been 7710ft JJooclC d at. I may add feveral other common Topicks which he recedes from, viz. from Chrift's raifaig himfelf Joti.i-i?/ when dead, which he allows to be done by the human Soul, pag. 149. So from his judgifig the World, which the Difciples knew of, and yet little thought of his having any divine Nature, pag. 155. and from his being an Objed, of religi- ous Worfhip, pag. 29. and laflly, from the Form of Baptifm, where the Son betokens (he fays/. 211.) the Man Chrift. And now from hence I only in- fer two Things : (i.) That without believing or fufpedlifig any divine Nature in the Lord Jefus Chrift, we may have fuch a Faith as was acceptable in the Difci- ples, even fuch Faith as that for which our Sa- viour pronounced St. Peter blejfed., telling him he Mat. iles could perceive any Sign of fuch a. perfonal Union, from any thing he did or faid, during ms whole Miniftry, till after his Refurredion v but that he was wholly under the Conduct of the ToL, IIv N Holy 178 An Esamination of Holy Spirit. By this he hopes to defend him- felf againfl: fome Texts urged by his Adver- faries -, particularly that of the Son's not knozving the Day of judgine}2t : and indeed againft all the great Prejudices that muft needs be raifed againft the Dodrine of our Lord's fupreme Deity, from the Non-appearance, or no Evidence of it, in the whole Courfe of his Life and Dodlrine. To this he anfwers, true j but tho his divine Na- ture did not appear, yet it was united to him, only it lay as ftill and filent as if not fo : and be- caufe his Oppofers will fiy, this is but a Pretence, and that if there was fuch an Union, it would not be without fome fuitable Effedls, or to no purpofe ; therefore he labours to conflrain them too, on their own Principles, to admit this Qui- efcence of the V/ord^ in their Notion of it. In the firft place he takes it for a certain Truth, that our Lord Jefus had two intelligent Natures in him united to his Body, (otherwife, if there be but one^ he has proved that cannot be the felf- exiftent God, but pre-exiftent Soul.) He knows this touches not at all the Sociniam^ who alTert but one intelligent Being in our Savwpj*s Perfon -, nor much thofe Arians^ who fuppofe the WORD to be the Soul of Chrift, or the Soul to be the Word : nor do I find that Dr. Clarke has ever'faid, they are two diflindl Beings, tho he would fain urge it upon him, as well as on the Arians^ that they mult grant it (as a Confequence of the high Cha- rader they give the Logos or Word) that it can- net be the Soul of the Man Chrift Jefus, if he was a Man in fuch Ssnfe as other Men are. But without inquiry into the Philofophical Notion of a Man, wlicther any rational Spirit united and limited to, and fympathizing with fuch an orga- nized Body as ours, does not truly become a Man, or be of another Species \ I think his way of fDf . Bennet'5 New Theory. 1 7^ of reafoning does not make out the Confequence pretended in his third Chapter, For as the Doc- tor cannot prove againft 'em by any diredl Tefti- mony, that the Word and rational Soul are two ; any more than that Jefus and Chrift denote two Perfons ; fo neither does his Reafoning extort an Acknowledgment of it from themfelves, as he imagines. His main, if not his whole Argument for this, is, That Dr. Clarke^ and alfo the Arians,, allow the Word to be fiiperior to all created Beings whatever^ and that all were made hy h'un ; and they call it a divine ISlatiire. But what then ? Is not the Man Chrift Jefus, according to the Dodor's Own Aflertions, fuperior to all created Beings whatever, having all Power in Heaven and Earth given to him? Does he not tell us, That theY.\iiy Man Chrift Jefus is the ftrft-born of all the Crea- tion? I. Becaufe his Soul was created before all other Creatures. 2. Becaufe he is now in poffef- fton of the Jus Primogeniti (or Right of Primo- geniture) which the divine Nature is incapable of receivings being the Governor of all created Beings^ and God's Vicegerents and that the whole Creation?. 17 f is at his Co?nmand. Thefe things, he fays, muft^ or moft fairly ?nay be underftood of his human Na- ture only ; with many more fuch high Chara6lers of the Man (or human Soul of) Chrift. Now. I appeal to any one, if this be not as high and lofty as any thing faid by the Arians of the Word V at leaft that need be faid by 'em, in' maintenance of their great Article. They don't make him in Power and Honour fuperior to all Creatures, in a greater degree than the Doc- tor makes Chrift's human Soul now to be ; and therefore 'tis no Argument againft the Word's being a Spirit of the fame kind, in that he was ^hU3 fuperior, as one of the fame kind now is, N 2 That 1 80 An EMmhiation of That Mind which has fuch tranfcendent Glories now, furely was naturally as. capable of great Glory before : and he who is now God's Mi- niflcr (or Vicegerent, as he often terms the Man Chrift Jefus) in governing and judging the whole Creation, was as capable, for Ought that he has faid, to be a fubordinate Minifter in the Forma- tion of it. And that human Soul (rather Mind) which, in its Separation from the Body of Chrift, he grants, ?night he endued (pag. 149.) with a miraculous Power of raifing himfelf from the Dead, as well as he had before raifed others, might, I conceive, by the like divine Power, raife the firft Adam out of the Duft alfo into Life : And, I think, to give Life is the nobleft Part of the Creation. But yet neither this nor the other, does necelTarily give one the Domi- nion, or make him God, over them he has mi- nifterially raifed, fmce the Apoftles were with- out this Dominion. The Dodlor indeed pretends the Word, or the rational Spirit, thro' which, according to his Oppofers, all things were formed, muft be ejfen- tially fuperior to all •, and that the Power and Wij^om manifefted in the Creation, muft be ef- P. 15. fential to the great Arch'iteEl of the Univerfe, To which I anfwer, moft certainly infinite Power and Wifdom are eftential to the great Archlteui^ and Mafter-Builder, or Creator of the World ; even to the God and Father of our Lord Jefus, and of all things elfe. But as I know not that either Arians^ or any primitive Chriftian Writers, ever adventured to give the Gharader of great Archi- tecl of the Umverfe to Jefus Chrift, chufing ra- John I. ^ther, with the facred Writings, to fay in fofter H^eb.\*. t ^^'^P^"^''^^^^ ^^^^ ^^/^' ^^'^^^ ^od created all, and referving the abfolute Title of Creator of the Umverfe to anotlier, i;iz. the God and Father of 2)r. Bennet 5 New Theory. \ 8 1 of the Word: fo I fee not, that the efTcntial na- tive Power either of Miracles, or Creation, (which are much the fame) is at all required in fuch fubordinate Minifters, who do all by a communicated Power from him who adls by them. 'Tis enough that this Fulnefs is in the original Source and Fountain ; the Channel is well fupply'd with derived Streams. No more, an fhort, needs be elfential to him, by whom God is pleafed to form and frame all, than to that human Soul, by which, as the Do6lor grants, he governs all. So that the Superiority of the Wordy to all created Beings, hinders not its be- ing the Soul of Chrift ; which for its immediate Production, and the Honour of being the Firfl- born of the Creation, and for the Dignity and Authority conferred by God, has been ftyled God, and a divine Nature^ by them who be- lieve him not to be the felf-exiftent indepen- dent God, as the Do6lor profefTes his Belief to be. But, The Dodlor further argues, on the other hand, againft the Word*s being the Soul of Chrift, from the Miferies and Temptations he felt : which he thinks, the Word^ under fuch high Cha- raders, could not pofTibly be fubjc6l to. If the fuperior Excellencies of the Word don't make it impoffible to be Chrift's Soul, he will have the Imbecillities and Troubles of that Soul ren- der it inconfiftent with being the Word -, fo that both fhall not be one and the fame Mind. He fays, The Maker and Fortner of all Things^ who is ejentially fuperior to all created Beings^ could not be te?npted^ &c. But this being grounded on the fame Miftake of a neceifary eilential Superio- rity fuppofed, has its anfwer in what I have already faid, and may be further confidered when I come to meet the fame as urg'c^d again N 3 for 1 8 1 An Examination of for an Argument of his t^iefcence of the Word : for as he thinks the Logos cannot be Chrift's ra- tional Soul, he thinks alfo, that without its CefTation, and Quiefcence during his Miniftry, its Union to fuch an afflidted Soul, as Chrift's oft was, is inconfiftent. And therefore having laboured firft tOk prove a felf-exiftent divine JVord (diftind from the human Soul) united to our Lord Chrift, he labours as much, in the next place, to prove, that there was no Sign or Token of his having any fuch thing, nor any ufe for it during his Miniftry ; which I am next to confider. That there was no Appearance of any fuch felf exiftent fupreme Nature perfonally united to him, or fuch a Ward^ is readily granted without proving it •, but that it was quiefcent in him, will be deny'd by thofe who hold there was no fuch thing, and that therefore there could be no juft Signs of it. And for the Logos, in the Senfe of Dr. Clarke^ and others, (who, for ought I fee, take it for the Soul of Chrift) the Dodor will not pretend, nor need, that this fhould be qui- efcent. So that till he can, by good Arguments, conftrain them to yield that the IVordy and ra- tional Soul of Chrift, are not the fame, but two diiferont Minds ; there is no occafion to difpute about this Quiefcence of nothing. But becaufe the granting the Quiefcence of the fVcrd^ while the rational Soul in Chrift did not quiefce, would carry with it a Conceftion, that it was not Chrift's rational Soul, but a diftindt Mind ; for this reafon he endeavours to perfuade us, that both Dr. Clarke^ and alfo the Arians^ muft on their own Principles grant, that ?, 12,8. the Word^ in their Senfe of it, was^ at leaft fome- iimes^ quiefcent during his Miniftry^ viz. when un- der Temptation by the Devil, and under his Agonies : 2)r. Bennett iSIe^ Theory. 183 Agonies : becaufe, fays he, no Temptation could affedl him ; and no Agony be upon him ; if the Word^ fo powerful and excellent an Agent, did exert and communicate its mighty Influences. To this it may be reply'd, that the Do6lor has no right Apprehenfion of the Humiliation and In- carnation of the Logos^ according^xo his Oppofers Sentiments ; for they think the JVord really emp- tied itfelf, and became like the rational Soul of another Man, which is limited by the bodily Or- gans, and is in a manner dormant in Infancy ; for by the fettled Laws of Nature, it exerts not then its noblefl Powers : fo that the Man is at firfl but like an Animal, and gradually thofe Pow- ers, and latent Faculties, difcover themfelves according as the Organs admit ; and never dif- play themfelves, probably in all their full Strength, in this grofs and feculent Body •, not till it be fpiritualiz'd and refin'd at the Refurredion. Now according to this Opinion of the IVord (which alfo makes our Saviour's Humiliation very aftonifhing and endearing, and which is the true and great Myftery of Godlinefs^ God manifeft in the i Tim. 3. Flefb) 'twill be eafy for them to admit the JVord^^* to be deprived of its former extraordinary Abi- lities, and to become fubje(5l to fore Temptations, and great Afflictions, in reality : Alfo to grow in Wifdom as others do ; tho at the fame time it did conduct his A6lions, and fomething very ex- traordinary too appear'd in him at twelve Years of Age, even befoi-e his great Undtion with the Holy Spirit, when he reafoned fo wonderfully with the Jewifi Doctors : fo that it adted as the bodily Organs admitted. But the Doctor's felf-exiftent fupreme God (which is the fVord in his Senfe) will not be fup- pofed capable of fuch Abafement. Can the Al- mighty Jehovah be brought low, or deny him- N 4 felf? ' J 84 uin Et:ammation of he was wholly quiefcent, as to the bearing thofe Afflidions, which yet he did fo far acquiefce in, as not to prevent their coming on him, or to be a real Temptation, and to afflid him forely. Ha- ving clear'd the way fo far, I will next fuggefl fome flrong Prefumptions againfl: his Hypothefis of the Hoard's ^iefcence. Firft^ There is not the leaft hint of any fuch thing in the Gofpel-Hiftory of Chrifl: to found it upon. Tho the Go/pels were written many Years after Chrift's Afcenfion, and after the Dif- ciples are fuppofed to have been infornled of this new and unfufpeded Myllery •, yet they have not dropt one word of fuch a Quiefcence of the Di- vine Nature, nor made any Apology for Chrift's r.ot appearing to be what they fince found he was -, nor made any Refle6i:ions upon their own Ignorance or Miftake, as in other Cafes they did. 'Tis ft range that St. John (whofe Expreflion, the Word was God^ is in a manner the whole Founda- tion of the Dodor's Opinion, as to Chrift's Su- preme Deity) ftiould not fay fomething, why or how this had been purpofely hid from Men, du- ing Chrift's Abode in the Flefh : nay, which is more, St. John takes notice of the Quiefcence, or undifcover'd Secrecy of the IVord^ before his In- carnation, even according to the Doctor's Account, in thofe Words, And the Word was with God: 'Tis ftrange, I fay, he fhould not carry it far- ther, and fay fomething to his lying hid too in his Life ! And, which yet prefles harder, the Do6lor tells us, thofe Words, T^he Word was with P. 189. God^ are oppofed to his Manifejlation^ when the Word was made Flejh^ and dwelt among us *, and that the Word was with God, till the Time when God was manifeft in the FleJIo, It feems then, he was not hid with God any longer •, it was no longer a Se- cret s but the PFord wdiS plainly difcovered, when once 2)r. Bennet'5 l