YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
Gift of
the Beinecke Foundation
in memory of
Edwin J. Beinecke
Class of 1907

L E T TERS

T O

EDWARD GIBBON, Esq.
AUTHOR OP THE HISTORY

OF THB

DECLINE, AND FALL,
OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

Bv GEORGE TRAVIS, A. M.
FREBENDARy OF CHESTER, AND VICAR OF EASTHAM.

THE SECOND EDITION,
JCORRECTED, AND CONSIDERABLY ENLARGED;

LONDON:
PRINTED, AND SOLD, BY C. F. AND J. RlVINOTOMj
ST. PAVl's CHURCH-YARD.
UDCClaXXXY.

ADFERTIS EMEIVr.
As the prefent edition of thefe Letters de
viates, in many refpedts, from the former ;
it will be thought neceflary, perhaps, that fomc
account fliould here be given of fome, at leaflr, of
shofe deviations.
I. The Letters are, now, five, in number;
and they are all addrefled to Mr. Gibbon, who
was the occafion of them all.
The firji of them is introduftory to the general
fubjedt : which is — A vindication of the au
thenticity OF the verse, I. JOHN, v. 7. {a)
The fecond contains all the positive evidence,
which the author has adduced dire^ly in proof of
that authenticity. Many other proofs are urged
thereto, indire^ly, as it were, or collaterally, in the
three fubfequent letters. (l>)
The third flrates, and replies to, the objeftions, which
{a) Pages I — 16.
(^) —— 27—57.

( vi. )
his thankful acknowledgments for both. The
one may have been honorable to him ; the other
has been advantageous. They will find that he
has, in general, not rejedled their ftriftures, but
hath profited by them, wherefoever they were
juft. (f)
Truth is the fole aim, obje£t, and end, of the
writer of the following pages. If he fliall feem,
in any part of thofe pages, to have animadverted,
with fome feverity, upon Mr. Gibbon, or upon
Dr. Benson -, fuch animadverfions will, he trufts,
be, at lead, pardoned, when the nature of the of
fence Ihall be confidered, which excited them.
When men, but too evidently, poftpone the love of
truth to the defire of viftory, and facrifice the
faithfulnefs of fads to their own prediieflions, — ¦
luch coiiduft becomes more than a common rranf-
greflion : and, therefore, not only calls for, but
juftifies, a more than common feverity of repre-
henfion.
May 2, 1785.

(f) One ftriflure, in particular, by a late writer, refpeft-
ing a quotation from Tertullian, is of fo differ.:nt a defcription,
tiwt, ivhen read, ii is alfo anf'-^ered.

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND
B E I L B T,
Lord Bishop of Chester,
the following letters are
' most humbly
inscribed, and dedicated:
AS SOME TESTIMONY, HOWEVER SMALL,
OF REVERENCE FOR HIS VIRTUES ;
AND
AS SOME TOKEN, HOWEVER INSIGNIFICANT,
OF GRATITUDE FOR HIS FAVORS,
BY
The author.

LETTER I,
SIR,
ISHALL make no apology to you, for the
following addrefs. It is caufed by certain
felTertions, which are contained in a work,
lately given by you, to the public, in the
truth, or falfehood, whereof the public is
materially concerned.
The affertions, here meant, are found In
the following note to the third volume of
your " Hiftory of the Decline, and Fall, of
the Roman Empire."
*' The three wltneffes" (i John, v. 7.)
*' have been eftaljlifhed in our Greek Tefi:a-
*' ments, by the prudence of Erafmiis ; the
" honeft bigotry of the Complutenjian Edi-
*' tors : the typographical fraud, or error,
" of Robert Stephens, in the placing a crot-
*' chet ; and the deliberate falfehood, or
B *• flrange

( = )
" ftrange mlfapprehenfion, of Theodors
" Beza." (a)
The verfe of St. John, here alluded to,
{lands thus in our common Teftaments —
" Por there are Three ihat bear record m
*' Heaven ; the Father, the Word, and
*' the Holy Ghoji : and thefe Ihree ari
*' One:'
As the charges, which you have thus
brought againft the Contplutenjian Editors,
flgainft Robert Stephens, and Theodore Beza,
(Erafmus being rather praifed, than cenfu-
red, by you, for a reafon which may here
after appear) feem exprefled in terms pur-
pofely obfcure, — it appears neceflary, in the
firft place, briefly, to enquire, whether they
have done any thing to deferve thefe feveral
accufations;
(a) There is a deficiency in this fentence which ought
to be fupplied. St. Jehn fpeaks, in two fucceflive verfes
of the chapter in queftion, of Jtx WitnefTes : three in
heaven, and ihree on earth. Mr. Gibbon has no quarrel
¦with the three WitnefTes on earth. His Note is levelled
againft the ihree, heavenly, WitneJJes, only. It feemed ne
ceflary to ftate this diftindlion here, and to keep it con-
ftajitly in view in the following Differtation.

C 3 )
accufations r making, however, fome previ
ous mention of Erafmus.
I. Erafmus publifhed his Jirji edition of the
Greek Teftament at Bafl, A. D. 1 5 1 6, In lefs
than a century after the invention of the art
of printing. It was the firft Greek Tefta
ment which the world had, then, feen ifliie
from the prefs. He publifhed a fecond edi
tion of the fame work, at the fame place, in
A. D. 15 19. In thefe two editions this
verfe (i John, v., 7.) was not inferted ; which
omiffion j?r/? caft the imputation of impofture
upon it. Being publicly reprehended, for
this omiffion, by our countryman Edward
Ley, and hjLspez Stunica (or Ajlimtga, as It Is
fometimes written) a learned Spaniard, Eraf
mus afterwards, in A. D. 1522, publifhed
his third edition, in which he reftored this
text of the three (heavenly) Wiinejfes : ^^-
claring,_a&-hts~applogy for having left It out
of his two. former editions, that he had not
found it in five Greek HSS, which he hard
then confulted; but that he had now replaced
(" repofuimus''') the verfe, becaufe he found
B 2 that

( 4 )
that it did exift In an ancient, Greek, MS In
England, (b)
II. The famous Polyglott of the Old, and
New, Teftament was printed in Spain, at
Complutum, (or Jlcala de Henares) under the
patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, A.D. 1514;
but it was not publiftied until feveral years
afterwards. It was the refult of the joint
labors of many (c) learned men, who were
feledled, by the Cardinal, for that purpofe,
and furnifhed with all the Greek MSS, and
other aids, which his great political, as well
as perfonal, influence could procure. In this
work the " Complutenfian Editors" have in
ferted the text of i John, v. 7 : which in-
fertlon, it feems, deferves no better an ap
pellation, from Mr, Gibbon, than that of
*' honefl bigotry^''
III. In A. D, 1546, Robert Stephens pubt
llftied his valuable edition of the Greek Tef
tament. That this work might be as per- fea
{h) Appendix, No. XX.
(<:) The number of thefe learned men, •v/a^ forty-two ;
¦»— and they were employed in this great work, hof lefs
(as is commonly believed) th?in ff teen -years. JlJleM
Encyclop. Book xxxii. Chap. 7. Goinez., in Vita Ximenis^

,C 5 )
fed as poffible, great induftry was ufed to
colled fuch Greek MSS, as had efcaped the
enquiries ofthe editors oi Complutum:. And
thofe endeavours were attended with fucb
iiiccefs, that Robert Stephens, in the profecu-
tion of that work, " collated {d) his Greek
text withfixteen very ancient, written, copies:^
This edition of A.D. 1546, and a fubfe-
quent one in A. D. 1549, not being printed,
in a volume large enough to admit of mar-.
ginal remarks, and notations of different
readings, con.taIned only the plain Greek
text of the New Teftament. And In both
thefe editions ftands this teftimony of the
?^r^^ (heavenly) Wiinejfes. InA. D. 1550,^
Robert Stephens gave a third edition to the
world, on a larger fcale : in which he diftin-.
guifhed the different Greek MSS, which he
. had collated, hy Greek letters ((3, y, &c.) and
the various readings by an obelus, and femi.~
parenthejis, or crotchet ; which, wherever in
ferted, were meant to denote, that, from the
word, before which the obelus was placed, tq
the ftatlon where the femi-parenihejis was,
'found, in the Qreek text, the whole of that
B 3 verfe,
^4l See his Preface, Appendix, No. XIL

( 6 )
verfe, or verfes, word, pr words, was want^
ing in the particular MSS cited in the mar
gin. In this third edition, Robert Stephens
has thus marked, in a great variety of in-
ftances, fometimes a fingle word alone, and
fometimes feveral words following; each
other. As he found in feveral of (for it
feems to have exifted in them all) his own
Greek MSS, and in the Complutenfian Bible,
this feventh verfe entire ; fo in fome others
he remarked the particular words (iv ru s^ocvu^
" in Heaven,'^ to be wanting. At the head
pf theie three words, therefore, Robert Ste
phens placed an obelus, in his edition pf A. D.
1550, and a femi-parenthejis at the end pf
them : thereby denoting, to the reader, that
thofe three ivords \vere wanting in the par
ticular MSS, referred tp iu the margin.
And this, Sir, you call " the typographical
fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens."
IV. Theodore Beza (vvhofe erudition, and
piety, did honor to the age in which he liv
ed) vvas born at Fezelai, in, or about A. D.
5519, and died in A.D, 1605. Hepubllfh- ?4

( 7 )
cd an edition of the New Teftament, with
annotations, at Geneva, in A. D. 1551. He
was urged to this work by Robert Stephens,
¦who, pi\ Bezd's compliance with his folici-
tations, permitted to him the free uie of all his
Greek MSS. In his notes on this paftage of
St. John, he fays (f) " This verfe does not
' occur in the Syriac vcrfion," &c. " but
' is found in the Englifh MS, in the Com-
' plutenflan edition, and In fome ancient
• MSS of Stephens. In the Engliflo MS, the
' words Father, Word, and Spirit, arc
' written without their articles ; but they
' are read with their articles in our (/")
* MSS. The Englifl} MS has, fimply, the
' word Spirit, without adding to it the
' epithet Holy; in oari they are joined, and
' we read Holy Spirit. As to the words,
' in Heaven, they are wanting mfeven an-
' cient MSS." And he further ufes thefe re
markable expreffions (which, indeed. Sir,
feems to have drawn down the plenitude of
your

{e) Appendix, No. XL
(/) Beza, throughout his annotations, calls the MSS
¦ Stephens " nojlri codices," — our MSS.
The notes, juft referred to, fupply, in a very fmall
compafs, two inftances of this appellation.

cf Stet

( 8 )
your anger upon him)--" / am^ entirely^
*' faii sfed ihat we ought to retain ihis verfe."*
This Is the plain truth, briefly ftated, of
the proceedings of Erafmus, Robert Stephens,
Theodore Beza, and the editors of Complutum,
relative to the verfe in queftion. To this ~
(liort ftatement permit me to add the follow •
ing obferv ations.
I. You feem. Sir, not to be more liappy
in your indiredl commendation of Erafmus, in
this matter, than we fhall, hereafter, find
you to have been In your direct cenfurcs of the
other editors. In whatever light we view
the condud of Erafmus, it betrays, at leaft,
great weaknefs. If he was really poflefl'ed
oi five ancient MSS, in which this verfe had
no place, and had thought it his duty to ex
pel it, accordingly, from his two former edi
tions, he ought not to have reftored it, in his
third edition, upon the authority of a fingle
MS only. It feems impoffible to account for
the behaviour of Erafmus, in this matter,
taking the whole of it into contemplation at
once, but upon one of thefe fuppofitlons :
Either

( 9 )
Either he ctmld not produce the five MSS, In
which he had alledged the verfe to be omit-*
ted ; or he had other authorities, much fu-
perior to the teftimony of a fingle MSS, for
re-placing the verfe, which he was not, how*
ever, ingenuous enough to acknowledge.
And this conclufion will not, perhaps, feem
altogether unwarrantable, when the tefti-
monies which I mean to produce, in my next
letter, in favor of the originality of this verfe,
fliall have been fully weighed ; and when it is
further confidered, that Erafmus was fecret-
ly inclined (^) to Arianifm : a clrcumftance,
which rendered him, by no means, an in"
diff'erent editor of this fifth chapter of St^
yohn. Upon the face of his own Apology,
then, the condud of Erafmus, in this in-
ftance, was mean. Upon the fuppofitlon of
his having kept back from the world his
true motives of adion, it was grofiy difin"
genuous, and unworthy. And yet for a pro
ceeding, which muft fallunder one of thefe in
evitable alternatives, you, Sir, it feems, cannot
find a more fevere ftridure, than, " the pru
dence

{g) Int. 2i\.—Chamb. Cyclopsd. (by Rees) Tit. " Arl^
«' anifmr

( IO )
ienee of Erafmus /" If Erafmus had not pof*
fefled the merit of cafting thcjirfi, (h) pub
lic, imputation of impofture oti this verfe,
which others have fince been induftrlous to
prove, — his {uhfequent reeantatiofi, his " re-
pofuitnus,'* would hardly have met with f»
mild a rebuke from Mr. Gibbon,
II. The admiffion of the text, in queftion,
into the feveral additions of Robert Stephens's^
Greek Teftament, was not owing to a " /y-
fographkal error** of that editor. You, Sir,
I prefume, would fay, that Robert Stephens
meant to have placed his obelus, and crotchet,
fo as to have denoted the whole of the verfe
I John, V. 7, (inftead of the three words, a
T« ajavto) to have been wanting mfeven oi his '
MSS ; and that his not doing fo was a miftake.
Without requiring your authority for fo ar
bitrary an afliimption, we may fatisfy our-
lelves from the beft authority poffible, the
internal evidence of the volume itfclf, that the
(h) " Prjcfatio tiieronymtlnter^retts quofdam ob amtf-
" ftonem ejus" [this Verfe] " culpat j inferiio, vero, ejus
" NON, ante Erafmi aetatem, ut fraudis plena, damnata
« eji." {Pyolfius, Curae Philologic*, Edit. Hamb. Vol.
V, pa. 306.)

( " )
the whole of fuch a fuppofitlon muft be
groundiefs. To this edition, of A. D. 1550,
Robert Stephens has annexed a lift of Errata^
or " typographical errors," wherein he has
been fo affiduoufly corred, as anxioufly to
point out to the reader one comma forgotten^
and another mifplaced, in that laborious vo
lume : but there is no reference, in the £r-
rata, to this verfe of St. John. If an argu
ment, like this, could want fupport, it might
be further remarked, that John Crifpin (an
advocate of the parliament of Paris, who
had retired to Geneva, for the fake of the
free exercife of the reformed religion) pub
lifhed a new edition of the Greek Teftament,
at Geneva, in A. D. 1553; wherein the ohe-
ks, and crotchet, retain the fame place, in re
gard to this verfe, that they poflefled in the
edition of Robert Stephens : which is a proof
that Stephens, who was then a fellow citizen
with Crifpin, never found out (what you.
Sir, it feems, have now found out for him)
any " typographical error in ihe placing his
crotchet." Nor,
III. Was this text Inferted in Beza\ Greek
Teftament

( 12 )
Teftamentthrough the '' firange mlfappreheH^
fion," or through any mlfapprehenfion at all,
oi Theodore Beza. The debate between Eraf
mus. Ley, and Stunica, had awakened the
attention of Chrlftlans, in general, to this
fubjed, upwards of /Ty^«/y years before The*
odore Beza began his commentary. As a
principal member of the reformed churchj
as a man famed for erudition, and integrity,
the eyes of all Europe were fixed on Beta's
expeded publication. Indeed, he feems to
have felt himfelf called to the talk i and ac
cordingly his ovvn words, before quoted in
this letter, Ihew that he gave the matter a
full confideratlon ; that he contrafted the
Syriac verfion, &c. with his own authori*
ties, and compared them together io atten
tively, as even to note In which of thetn a
fingle article, or epithet, was wanting ; that
he had, in fhort, fully weighed the reafons
on both fides, and found thofe for the au
thenticity of the text fo greatly to prepon
derate, as to enable him to fpeak his ferlous
convidlon in the moft declfive terms. — " /
am entirely failsfied that we ought to retain this
verfe:' Such motives for caution, and fuch
marks

( 13 )
marks of diligence, in fuch a man, leave no
room for the idea of mlfapprehenfion.
Thus acquitted of " error, and mlfappre
henfion," it remains for you. Sir, to fhew,
how you can fubftantiate the other parts of
your charge z^?iix\ii Robert Stephens, zndi The
odore Beza, — namely, oi ^'^ fraud" and '* de-
liberate falfehood." It will become one who
wifhes to live to pofterity as a hiftorian, to
conlider well, how he can juftify himfelf,
either in literary candor, or Chriftlan cha
rity, for accufing men fo evidently confci-
entious, — men, whofe charaders have hi
therto been not unfullied only, but illuftri-
ous, — of the complicated crime of a deli
berate falfification of Scripture !
IV. Nor, are the Complutenfian editors, as
it feems, juftly chargeable with bigotry, (ei
ther honefi, or dl/lmiefi) for the part which
they took in this tranfadlon. They were
aflembled to collate the MSS ofthe original
language of the Scriptures, and to perpetu
ate their contents to pofterity by means un
known to former ages. And what was the
condud,

( 14 )
condud, which they purfued, as far as we,
4t this diftance of time, are enabled to trace
it out ? It appears, in general, from their
Preface (/) that thefe Editors had been fa
vored with feveral Greek MSS, from the
Vatican, at Rome, for the ufe of their Edition.
It appears, in particular, from the teftimony
of Stunica himfelf, {£) that they had pro
cured another, moft valuable, Greek MS
from the Ifle of Rhodes (which, from rthat
clrcumftance, is ufually ftiled the Codex
Rhodlenfis^ for their affiftance in this under
taking. PoflelTed of fuch treafures, it can
not be fuppofed, with reafon, that thefe
Editors would negled them. Led by fuch
guides, it is not to be prefumed, without
the moft clear and unequivocal proof, that
they would wilfully refufe to follow them.
They did no more, then, in this tranfadlon,
as it feems from this general view of the
fubjed,' than infert, in their Polyglott, a verfe
which, we have reafon to conclude, (/) was
found in all thefe MSS, thus confulted by
them.
(/) Appendix, No.xfVJ,
\k) Contrz Erafmum,\zW\m.
(/).The objedtions to this conclufion will be confi
dered hereafter.

( 15 )
them. And are you, then. Sir, ferioufly
offended, that thefe Editors, as far as their
condud can thus be tnicedout, did not abufc
the confidence repofed in them ? Are they
ilgots, becaufe they would not falfify the
text, which they were convened to afcer-
tain ? Bigotry may be defined to be a per-
verfe adherence to any opinion of any kind, with
out giving to the evidence, on the contrary part,
an open hearing, and a candid judgment. S u re -
ly, then, it is bigotry in Mr. Gibbon, (leaving
him at liberty to chufe his own epithet for
it) to exprefs what might, by any mode of
inference, be conftrued into a wifh, that
thefe editors had, in favor of the opinion ta
which he adheres, mutilated thofe records,
which they were urged, by every principle
that ought to govern the human mind, to
deliver down, to future ages, unabridged,
and unperverted. I would not. Sir, willing
ly remind you of the reproaches of your
learned opponents, (rit) refpeding the quo
tations, and authorities by which you at
tempted to fupport the pofitlons, aflumed in
the two well-knpwn chapters of the firft
volume
(/») Dr. Watfon^ Dr. Chelfum, Mr. Davis, and others.

( i6 )
volume of your hiftory. I fliould ftill more
unwiHIngly permit myfclf to draw any in
ference, either from thofe inftances, or from
ypur prefent indignation againft the editors of
Complutum, as to the probable manner in
which you would have proceeded, had you
been the fole editor there. But, I truft, I may
be allowed to fay, that if thefe editors had
aded as you more than feem to wifh they had
done, they would, for ought that appears to
the contrary, have merited the appellation pf
dlfhonefi bigots — would have proved them-
felves unworthy betrayers of their truft, and
unfaithful ftewards of the oracles of GOD I
I now beg leave. Sir, to fubmit the quef
tion to yourfelf, how far thefe three Editors
have dcferved the charges of error, znd mlf
apprehenfion, on the one hand, or of bigotry,.
fraud, and deUberate falfehood, on the other,
vvhich you have thus brought againft them.
And 1 requefl: your permiffion to ell:ablifh, in
a future letter, the authenticity of the text
in dlfputej by proofs, all of them, antece
dent to the days of Robert Stephens, Theodore
JBes^, or the Editors of Complutum.
I am, Sir, &c.

LETTER II,
SIR,
1^ N my former letter, I truft, it Is proved,
. that the charge, which you have brought
againft Theodore Beza, Robert Stephens, and the
Complutenfian Editors, relative to the Verle
I John, V. 7, is not warranted by fad, and
cannot be fupported in argument. I mean
now to proceed, as was at firft propofed, to
cftablifh the authenticity of the Verfe itfelf,
by teftimonies of different kinds, all antece- '
dent, in point of time, to the days of any
of the Editors here mentioned ; (a) by
C proofs,
{a) The teftimony of F. Amelotte, inferted here in the
former Edition of thefe Letters, is now omitted, becaufe
many learned, and worthy, men have exprefled doubts
of his veracity. His accufation, and defence, are ftated
at large, by Emlyn, on the one hand, and by Martin on
the other ; and alfo in the Journal Britanique for
A. D. l7S2j and 1753.- [I am indebted for this
laft reference to Mr. Maty's New Review for Auguft
1784, P- 74.J The deduftions from the whole of this
accufation, and defence, feem to be greatly in favor of
Amelotte. But I wifli not to bring forward any witnefles,
of any kind, againft whom any objeSions may be made,
which are even only apparently reafonable ; becaufe this
Text does not feem tOi ftand in heed of any precarious
fupport.

( i8 )
proofs, commencing with the age oiErafmtis^
and afcending, from thence, to that of the
Apoftles. And
Firft,— From the writings cf Indlvlduttlsm
I. Laurentius Valla, an Italian nobleman,"
of great erudition, was the firft perfon (as
M. Simon {b) confefles) who fet himfelf to
col-red the Greek MSS of theNew Teftament.
He lived nearly a century before Erafmus.
(f) By affiduous, and long continued, enqui
ries he got into his hands feven Greek MSS;
a' number very confiderable, if we refled,
that, through the univerfal ignorance of
thofe ages, the Greek language was then, be
come
{b). Hif.. des Verftons, C. xii. Du Pin. Hody, De
Bibliorum Textibus originalibus. Edit. Oxon. A. D.
1705, p. 441, 2. The learned Dr. Mill feems to have
fallen into feveral miftakes, in his Prolegomena, refpedting
the MSS of Valla. See Bengelius (Introd. in Crifin) p.
437- {c) Erafmus has, himfelf, paid a deferved tribute of
praife to Valla'%, Annotations. In one part of his Epiftle
to Fifcher he fays, " Laurentius, —coW-i-Ui aliquot vetujiis,
" aique emendatis, Grcscorum exemplar ihus, quaedam anno-
" tavit in Novo Teftamento." In another place he
fays, " Si quibus non vacat totam Gracorum linguam
" perdifcere, ii tamen ^tf//,«ftudio non mediocriter adjur
*' vabuntur, qui mira fagacitate Novum omne Tefta*
," mentum excuffit." (Appendix, No. XV.)

( 19 )
Come almoft a dead letter, and its MSS were
perifhing with it. This paflage of St. John
was found in all thefe MSS ; and is com
mented upon by^ Valla, in his Notes upon
this Epiftle {d).
2. In the Commentary upon the Scrip
tures, written by Nicholas de Lyra, this
Verfe of St. John is found, in the place which
\, it now poflfefTes, accompanied by the learn
ed author's Annotations, without the fmall-
eft, expreflTed, fufpicion of its authenticity
(J). He held the profeflbrfhip of Divinity,
at Paris, with great reputation, in the^owr-
t eenth century.
3. About a century before this laft-meti-
tloned time, appeared the Commentary of
St. Thomas (as he is commonly called) on
this Epiftle ; in which this Verfe is not only
admitted, but commented upon, without any
infinuations of interpolation. He has, alfo,
frequently quoted it in his great work,
C 2 *' Summa
{d) " Opera L. Valla, Edit. Bafd. A. D. I543> ?•
892. {e) Edit. Atttverpitft A, D. 1634.

(("20-'- )"^
" Summa t'otiui Theologize-" which, for nrfahy"
centuries after its publication^ was the admi* '
ration oi zW Ettrope (/).
4. This Verfe is found in the RationaW^
cf Divine Offices, compofed by the celebrated
Durandus {g) Bifliop of Mende, in Languid
doc,\x\ the thirteenth century.
5; Lombard, who was Blfhop of P/zm^ ¦
fp) in the twelfth century, exprefsly cites
this Verfe in the firft book of his Senierices.
His words may be thus tranflated: '* The
Father, andthe Son, areone, not by con-*
fufion of Perfons, but by unity of nature, '
as St. John teaches in his canonical epif-
" tie, faying. There are " Three whlch^ bear
** record- In Heaven, ihe Eather^ the' Word,
*' and the Holy Ghofi, and thefe Three ar&
" Orie."
6. Th!l
(/) Part I, Qu. 30. Art, 2, Qu. 31, Art. I, 2, Qu. .
39, Art. 2, 3, and 6, and Qu. 41, Art. 6.
{g) Rationale Div. Offic. tdit. Ludg. A. D. 1551, Lib.
vi, chap. 97, p. 238. Moreri, Tom. i. p. 388, Edit.
A. D. 1724.
(/.-) Lib. i. p, 10— Edit. Paris. A.D, 1738.

r( ZI )
¦€. Thls-Verfeis, qupted, in the fame cen-
,tury, hy ^¦Rupert, Abbot oi Duyts, in Germq-
^ny, in Jhis Treatife, on the " Glorification of
.Jhe Trinity (/)."
.7. In the eleventh, century lived St. Ber-
, fiard, whofe Sermons are yet extant. Tliis
Verfe is infifted upon, by him, in feveral of
thefe difcourfes, particularly in one uponthe
OSiave of Eafter, and in the Sixteenth of his
Parvi Sermones.
8. In, or about this age, Radulphus Ar dens,
Tlugo _Vl^orlnus, znd. Scotus, with other au
thors, whofe works have furvivedto the pre
sent times, referred to the Verfe in queftion
(Ji). It would be tedious, to partlcularife
all the citations made, in this century, of
this paflage pf St. John.
9. The Gloffa Ordlnarla, the work of Wa-
iafrld Strabo, was compofed in the filnth cen-
C 3 tury.
(/) ^uperti Opera, Edit. A. D. 1602, Vol. ii, p. 26,
ft alias Jparftm.
- {k) Dorfchei (Calov. Bibl.) DIlTertatio de Spir. Aqua,
and Sanguine, p. "ii. Calov, de Puritate Fonlium, §
I3i> P- 479-

( 22 )
tury. This performance has been ^iftin-
guiflied by the higheft approbation of the
learned, in every age fince its appearance m
the world. Even M. Simon confefles, that
*' no comment on the Scriptures Is of equal au-
" thority with this expofitlon." In this work,
the text, in queftion, is not only found in the
Epiftle of St. John, but is commented upon,
in the Notes, with admirable force, and per-
ijaicuity. In his Preface to this valuable Commen
tary, Walafrld Strabo lays down the follow
ing rules, as means whereby to difcover, and
corred, any errors that might fubfift in the
tranfcrlpts of his times, either of the Old, or
ofthe New Teftament. *' Let it be noted,"
(fays he, fpeaking to his readers) " that
*' where any errors are difcovered in the
*' Tranfcrlpts of the Old Teftament, we
*' muft have recourfe to the Hebrew Origl-
" nal, becaufe the Old Teftament was orl-
*' ginally written in the Hebrew tongue.
*' But where any fuch errors fhall be difco-
" vered in our Tranfcrlpts of the New Tef-
" tament, we muft look back to the
Greek

( ^3 •)
" Greek mss, becaufe the New Teftament
•*' was originally written in the Greek lan-
" guage, except the Gofpel of St. Matthew,
*' and the Epiftle of St. Paul to the He-
«' brews." (J)
If, Sir, it fhall -be allowed, that this cele
brated Commentator followed, in his own
pradice, the rules which he has thus pre-
fcribed to others, (which will hardly be
doubted) the Greek MSS, which direded him
to infert this Verfe in his Text, and Com
mentary, muft, in all probability, have been
more ancient than any now known to exift.
He flourifhed about A. D. 840. Some, at
leaft, of the Greek MSS, which were ufed
by him, cannot well be fuppofed to have
been lefs than 300, or 400, years old ; the
latter of which dates carries them up to
A.D. 440. But the MOST ancient Greek
C 4 MS,
(/) " Nota, quod ubicunque in libris Veteris Tefta-
" menti mendofitas reperitur ; currendum eft ad volu-
»* m.in?i Hebraorum; quia vetus Teftamentum primo in
" linc^ua Hebraica fcriptum eft. Si verb in libris Novi
« Teftamenti, revertendum eft ad volumina Gracorttm ;
•' quia Novum Teftamentum primo in lingua Gracs
" fcriptum eft, prseter Evangelium Matthai, et Epiftv-
" lam PauU ad Hebreeos."

( 24 )
MS, whichis wow known to exift, isthe
Alexandrian ; for which, however, Wetjiein,
who feems to have confidered the queftion
with great attention, claims no higher an
antiquity than the clofe of the^i^-century,
or about A. D. 490. {m) If this mode of
-reafonlng, then, be not (and it feems thatit
is not) fallacious, the text, and Commentary,
oi Walafrld Strabo {k.2Li\d. upon the foundatiP|il
of Greek MSS, which are more ancient, in
point of time, and therefore, which ought to
be more refpeded, in point of teftimony,
I than any poflefTed by the prefent age.
10. In the middle of the eighth century
Ambrofe Anfbert, Abbot of St. Vincents, in
Italy, wrote a comment upon the Apocalypfe;
wherein this verfe of St. John is applied, in
explanation («) of the fifth Verfe of the firft
Chapter of the Revelations.
In his Comment upon this Verfe of the
Apocalypfe, he fays, " Although the expref-
*' fion oi faithful Wltnefs, found therein, refers,
(m) See, alfo. Mill. Proleg. 1338.
(«) Biblioth. Max, Patrum, Edit. Ludg. A. D. 1677,
Vol. xiii. p. 415,

,( 25 J
.** refers, dlredlly,. to Jefm. C^r^ alone,— yet
. *' it equally charaderifes the Father, the
" Son, and the, Holy Ghoft ; according to
?' thefe words .of St. John, There are thr^e
** -fivhlch bear record In Heaven, the Father,
*\the Word, andthe Holy Ghofi, and thefe
;•* three are otie."
II. In the fame century lived Ellpandus,
j^Ai<cbbifhop of Toledo, in Spain, who main-
tpfiijed that Jefus Chrlfi had no exiftence, an
tecedent to his coming into the world, attd
.that he was the Son of God by adop-
jlon, only, and not by any co-effentl ality jn
. nature. Thefe opinions of Ellpandus we^e
.ftrenuoufly oppofed hy Etherlus, Blfhop pf
Uxame, a;,SuiFragan to Ellpandus, and. by Be
atus, a Prieft In the Afiurlas. In the Trea
tife which they publifhed againft Ellpandus,
. on this fubjed,. they quoted feveral paflages
of this Epiftle of St. John ; (o) and this verfe
in particular, which fpeaks of the ihree Wit-
i-wfes In, Heaven, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghoft. 12. C afjiodorlus

^{o) Du Pin, Lond. Ed. Vol. vi, p. I2J — 4— Bibl.
Max, Patrum, Vol. xiii. p. 360.

( 26 >
12. Caffiodorlus lived in Italy, in the mid^i
die of the fixth century. Among other
works, he wrote a Commentary on the Epif.
ties, &c. of the New Teftament, which he
entitled Co/;7/>/^*/(3m. This work hadlainlong
in obfcurlty, in the great library at Verona,
where it would, probably, have ftill remained
unnoticed, and unknown, had not the late,
very learned, Maffelus found it there, in fome
of his various refearches, and caufed it to be
printed, at Florence, in A. D. 1721. In his
Annotations on this chapter Caffiodorlus ufcs
thefe words : '* Three myfteries bear wit-
*' nefs in earth, the Water, the* Blood, aud
*' the Spirit, which are, we read, fulfilled in
*' thepaffion of ourLord ; znd. In Heaven, the
" Faiher, and the Son, and ihe Holy Splrk,
*' and thefe three are one GOD (^)."
The teftimony of this writer is of the
greateft weight, becaufe it appears from his
own work, as well as from the teftimonies
of Bengelius, and Wolfius, {f) that he was
exceedingly
(/>) Appendix, No. X.
(?) Bengelius, Edit, Tubinga, A. D.'i734, p. 755.
Hody, De Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 399. Wol^i, Cur. Phi-
lelog. (Index, Tit, Cajfiodorus, and particularly Vol. v.

< 27 )
exceedingly attentive to the true readings of
fuch works as he commented upon, particu
larly the Scriptures ; and becaufe he lived
antecedently to the revifal of the New Tef
tament, by Alculnus and others, under Char
lemagne, which will be mentioned hereafter.
13. In the beginning of tht fixth century
flourifhed Fulgeniius, Blfliop of Rufpe, va.
.Africa. In that age the tenets of Arius
were efpoufed by, at leaft, two African kings,
Thrafimond, and Hunerlc. Fulgeniius oppo-
' fed the Arians (although fupported at that
time by the former (r) of thefe kings) with
zeal, and fortitude. And in his works we
find this verfe, among other paflages of
Scripture, exprefsly cited, and infifted upon, as
being conclufive againft the tenets of Arius '
" The blelTed Apoftle St. John'' (fays he)
*' teftlfies, that there are three which bear re-
*' cord In Heaven, the Father, the Word, and
*' the Spirit, and thefe Three are Om. Which " alfo

p. 297, and 306.) Alfo Simon, Hift. Crit. des Verlions,
C. viii.
(r) Du Pin., — Art. Fulgeniius, Edit. Lond. A. D. 1693,
Vol. iv, p. 14.

( 28 )
." alfo the moft Holy Martyr, Cyprian,_^^*
*' dares in his. Epiftle De Unitate Ecclefia,-,
." wherein, to demonftrate that there QUght^
-" to be an unity in the Church, as there Is
*' in the Godhead, he has brought the Foi^.
*' LOWING PROOFS, dlredly, from Scrip-
*' ture; theLord (Jefus) fays, /, andmyFa-
*' ther, are One ; and again it Is written qi the
*^ Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, .Arid thgk
*' Three are One (/)."
Fillgentlus, alfo, quotes this Verfe In hjs
Treatife on the Trinity, dedicated to Felix,
" I, and my Father, fays St. John,z.xtQrit. \
*' \unum fumus\ ; " thereby teaching us to
" apply the word unum to their nature, ywmal
*' to their perfons. So in the following words,
" There are Three which bear wltnefs In Meet' -
" ven, the Faiher, the Word, and the Spirit ;
*' and thefe three are one. (/)
1 4. In one of the laft editions («) of the
works
[s) Refponfio contra Arianos, — Bibl. Max. Patrum,
Vol. ix, p. 41. (Appendix, No. IX.)
(?) Bibl. Max. Patr. Vol. ix, p. i6o.
{ti) Biblioth. Max. Patrum, Vol. ix. p. 276 and 287,

( 29 )
H^rks of this Blfhop, two Trads are infert-
icd under his natne ; although fome refpec- '
.table Critios, of modern times, have rather
r. wifhed to afcribe them to fome other Writer
of that a^. They are addrelFed to two
v^r/^« Controverfialifts, then living, Plnta
;and Fabian, in oppofition to the tenets which
:they niaititiained. In the former of thefe
J Trads the Verfe in queftion is thus quoted,
*' In tlie Epiftle of St. John, — There are'^
** T%ree In Heaven which bear record, the Fa-
" ther, the Word, and the Spirit ; and thefe
*' three are one."
[ The title of the latter Trad is—" The
, ** Trinity in perfons, and the Unity in ejfende"
, [ofthe Godhead] " proved from Holy Scrip-'
¦ •' tare." The title of this Trad, or Frag
ment, is ftrlking ; and the manner, in which
this Verfe of St. John Is cited therein, is as
remarkable as the title (v). " The Apofile, ^
J «« St. John, has exprefsly faid, in fpeaking of
. -»'' the Father, the Son, and ihe Holy Ghofi, —
" And thefe three are one." It
(v) This Treatife Is affirmed, by Du Pin, to be the
f^Qxkoi Fulgeniius. Vol. iv, I W. Edit. p. 18.

( 3° )
It feems to be of httle moment, in this ,
difquifition, whether we conclude thef^^
Trads, or Fragments, to have been the|
Work of Fulgeniius, or of fome contemporary.'*
Writer. They, prove, under either fuppo- ^
fition, (In corroboration of other authorities
here adduced) both thofe points, by which
the prefent queftloii is afFeded ; namely,
that this verfe was quoted In the Arian contro' ¦
verfy, — and was there appealed to, as indu- ;
]nx.ah\y proceeding from the fen of St. John.
1 5. A few years before Fulgeniius, lived
VlgUlus, who was Biftiop of T'apfum, fitua-
ted in the fame province, and kingdom, with
Rufpe. He thus urges the teftimony of this
Verfe, in oppofition to the errors of Arius,
in the fir/i book of his Treatife on the Trinity.
" The names of the Perfons in the God-
*' head" (fays he) " are evidently fet forth
" by St. John, the Apoftle, who fays in his
*' Epiftle, There are three which bear record
" in Heaven, the Faiher, the Word, andthe .
*' Spirit^ and in Chrlfi Jefus they are one (w)."
Again,—
(w) Bibl. Max. Patrum, Vol. viii, p. 775. — " Vnum-,
non tamen unus eft, quia non eft in his una perfona" arc
the vk^ords of the original. (Appendix, No. VII.)

( 3^ )
Again,— " To what purpofe isit" (fays
he, in hh feventh Book, addreffing himfelf to
the Arians) " that ye read in John, the
*' Evangelift, Thefe Three are One, li ye ftill
" perfift that there are different natures in
*' their perfons ? I afk, in what manner are
** the Three One, if the nature of their di-
** vinity is different in each ?" (.v)
In the tenth- Book he repeats the argu
ment, herein before cited from the firfi
Book, with little variation.
And, laftly, in his conteft with Varlma^
dus, the Arian, he ufes thefe expreffions :
*' John, the Evangelift, in his Epiftle to the
*' Parthians, fays, — -There are Three, which
*' bear witnefs in Earth, the Water, the
" Blood, and the Flefh [et tres In nobis funt'] ;
"and there are Three, which bear wltnefs In
*' Heaven, the Faiher, the Word, and the Spirit
*' [et hi tres unum funt], and thefe three are
" one. (jv) i6. A
(x) Appendix, No. VII.
(y) Magna Bibl. Veter. Patr. Vol. ii, p. 623— Edit,
Cjl. Agripp. A. D. 161&. (Appendix, No. VIII.)

1 6. A little before the days of Vigiliiis,
flourifhed in the We"", the good Eucherlus.'
He was confecrated Blfhop oi Lyons (z) about
A, D. 434. There was not a Biihop, in the*
weftern Worfd, more reveYed for learning,
ahd piety. Permit' a quotatloii ^ from his'
works (a) : " As to the Trinity" (fays he) '
*' we read In the Epiftle of St. John, There'
** are Three which bear record In Heaven, the
" Faiher, ihe Word, andthe Holy Spirit. Ani
" there are Three which bear wltnefs In Earth,
" the Spirit, and ihe Water, and the Blood." ,
17. When the pious Jerome (who died
((5) A. Dl' 420) had compleated that great'
work, of corredingthe Latin verfion ofthe'
Old, and fettling the text of the New,
Teftament, which he undertook at the re-
queft of Pope Damafus, he clofed the ar
duous talk with a folemn proteftation, (c)
that, in revifing the New Teftament, he
had adhered entirely to the Greek MSS :
" Novurft
(z) Du Pin, Art. Eucherius.
(a) Formulas, CXI, Sed. 3 -Bibl. Max; Patrum,
Vol. VI, p. 838. (Appendix, No. VI.)
(b) Moreri, Kit. Jerome.
atl ^"''b ^^^^^^- Scriptor. ad finem. (Hieronyfnt
^P^r:,, ptrErafmum, Vol i^ Edit. Ptfn>V, A.D. 1546.)

C 53 )
"^^ i^ovum'fefiamenium fidei Gr^eca reddldi:*
And in Jerome's Teftament this verfe of St*
John is readj without any doubt of its au-
thehticityk 18. Nor is the infertiori of this verfe, in
his Teftamentj in obedience to his Greek
MSS, the only teftimony which Jerome
hath given to its authenticity. He has alfo
quoted it in the folemn donfeffions of his
Faith, which are infcribed, refpedively, to
Pope Damafus, before mentioned, and to
Cyrlllus, then Blfhop of Jerufalem.
** And as, in oppofition to Arius, xVe
*' affirm that the Trinity is of one and the
** fame efTence, and confefs, in three perfons,
" one God : fo, fhunnlng the herefy of
^^ Sabelllus, we diftingulfh thofe three per-
*' fons by their fevefal properties. The Fa*
*' ther is always the Father ; the Son is al-
" ways the Son ; and the Holy Ghoft is
" always the Holy Ghoft* In elTence,
" therefore, these'* [three] " are one"
" [unum funt"]. They arc diftind in perfon,"
" only, and in names." D And

( 34 )
And again, in the explanation of his faith,
to Cyrlllus — " To us, therefore, there is one
" Father ; — one Son, who is very God-, and
'¦'¦one Holy Ghofi, who Is very God: and
" these three ARE ONE." The words
of Jerome are, " Et hi tres unum funt,'*
which are alfo a literal quotation from this
Verfe of St. John, (d)
19. Augufilne was contemporary with
Jerome, and correfponded with him on many
Biblical fubjeds. In his Commentary upon
the firft Epiftle of St. John, and upon this
very Chapter of that Epiftle, Augufilne ufes
thefe expreffions. " And why is Chriftthe
*' end of the commandment ? Becaufe Chrlft
" is God ; and the end of the command-
" ment is Love ; and God is Love. Forthe
" the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
" Ghoft" [unum sunt] " are one."
Again, in his Treatife againft Maxlmlnus,
the Arian, he expreffes himfelf in thefe re
markable terms. " For there are three per-
" fons" [in the Godhead] " the Father, the^
" Son,;
{i) Appendix, No. XXII.

( 3S )
" Son, and the Holy Ghoft : Anu th£sS
** THREE (becaufe they are of the fame ef*-
" fence) are one". [HI tres unum funt."]
** And they are compleatly one, [unum funt']
*' there being no diverfity either in theinia-
*' tures, or in their wills. These three,
" therefore, w^o ARE one" [hi tres quiunum
funt'\ " through the ineffable unity of the
*' Godhead, in which they are incompre-
*' henfibly joined together, are one God." (^)
The ftrlking reiteration, in thefe pafTages,
of the fame expreffions, — Unum funt, — Hi
tres unum funt, — Unum funt, and HI tres qui
unum funt,—{eeins to bcfpeak their deriva
tion from the Verfe, now in debate, too
clearly to require any comment.
20. In the expofitlon of the Faith, writ
ten to Cyril/us, by Marcus Celedenfis, an Afri
can, the writer thus exprefles himfelf : " Ter
"us there is one Father, and one Son, who
" is truly GOD, and oue Holy Spirit, who
*' is alfo truly' GOD ; and thefe Three are
D 2 !^ One
(*) Appendix, No. XXII.

( 36 )
" One (/) t"  the precife words of the,
verfe in queftion,
21. Phabadlus was Blftiop of Agen, in^
France, in thefourth century. He thus cites.
this Verfe, in his Book againft the Arians '.
" The Lord fays, I will afk of my Father,
" and he fhall give you another comforter.
" Thus is the Spirit different from the Son,
*' as the Son is from the Father. Thus the
" Spirit is the Third Perfon, as the Son Is
" the Second, yet they all conftitute but
" one GOD, becaufe thefe Three are One:*
Quia tres unum funt (^g) are the words of
Phcebadlus, which are alfo a literal quota
tion from St. Jolm.
Jerome gives the moft honorable teftimo
ny to this author, in his Catalogue ofEcclefi-
afiical Writers. " Phabadlus" (fays he)
" Bifliop of Agen, in France, publifhed a
" Book againft the Arians. It is faid that
" he has been the author of other works
" alfo, — but thofe I hav? not yet read. He is-
" alive
( f) Bengelius, p. 753.
{g) Bibl,. Max. Patrum, vol, IV, p. 305.

( 37 )

<i

alive at this day, in a very advanced age
" (h)."
22. Cyprian wzs madeBIfliop df Cari'/6^^(?,
(/) A. D. 248. In his treatife De Unitate
Ecclefiee, written agaihl^ Novdtiis,'he ufes
thefe words: " Our Lord declares;. / and
*' my Faiher are One ; and again' It Is wrlt-
*' ten of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
** Spirit, — And thefe Three are One." Et
hi tres unum funt (k) are the exad words of
this Holy Martyr. Here Cyprian, there
fore, manifeftly makes two quotations from
the Scriptures ; the former from the Gofpel
(/) of St. John, the latter from i John, v.
7, the Verfe in queftion. " // Is written,"
fays he ; but in what part of Scripture is it
fo written, in thofe particular terms, fave in
I John, V. 7 ? In that Verfe, alone, through-
D 3 out
{h) Catal. Eccl. Scriptor. p. 125. (Appendix, No.
V.) In Erafmus'i edit, his name is written Sabadius.
(i) Annales Cyprianid, Edit. Oxon. A. D. 1682, p. 9.
yerome's characSer of Cyprian is given in his ufual, ner
vous, manner. " Cyprianus Afer, — Hujus ingenii fuper-
*' fluum eft indicem texere, cum Sole clariora ftnt ejus
opera." £Catal. Scriptor. Eccl. p. 125. J
(i) Cypriani Opera, Edit. Oxon. Ds Unitate Ecclef a,
p. 109. (Appendix, No. III.)
(/) Chap. X, V. 30.

( 38 )
cut -the whole of thofe facred pages, is the
precife phrafe, Et hi tres unum funt, applied
to the Trinity of perfons in the Godhead.
This quotation, then, was made, and was
meant to be made, (tn) from this Verfe qf
the Epiftle of St. John,
In his Epiftle to Jubaianus, Cyprian agaia
urges this teftimony of the three (heavenly)
WitnefTes, by a reference to the farae Verfe,
"*' Cnm hi tres unum funt («)."
23. Tertullian was born about the time of
St, John's death, if fome Chronologifts may
he (0) credited. But other computations,]
which indeed feem to be much more accu
rate, place his birth about A. D. I40' -f"
either
{m) See the words of Fulgeniius, No. 13, before quo
ted ; whofe teftimony renders all argument on this head
fuperfluous. (n) Cypriani Opera, (inter Epiftolas) p. 203. (Ap
pendix, No. IV.)
(0) Eufebilts, in his Chronica, p. 165, fays that St.
yohn was alive in A- D. 10 1. And Tertullian died (in
A. D. 196, according to, Dr. Blair's Chronology, but
according to Dr. Playfair, which, indeed, feems tobe the
more accurate account) about A. D. 234, in a very ad
vanced age. " Fertur vixiffe ufque ad decrepiiam ataten
are the words of yerome, who was born in A. D- 331^ ^
little more than a century after the death of 'Tertullian>
{Catal. Scriptor. Eed, hxt.Tertullianus.)

C [ t
i i t

( 39 ')
either cafe, it will be no incredible thing to
fuppofe, that Tertullian had converfed with
Chrlftlans of his own times, who had adu-
ally fat under St. Johns miniftration of the
Gofpel. In thofe days arofe, mAfia, the
heretic Praxeas, who maintained tbat there
was no plurality of perfons in the Godhead,
but that "the Father fuffered on the crofs.'
Againft the opinions of this man Tertullian
wrote a treatife, in the twenty fifth chapter
of which he thus alledges this paflage of St.
John : " The connedlon of the Father in
*' the Soil, andof the Son in the Holy Spl-
" rit, makes an unity of thefe three, one with
" another, -which Three are One." The Latin
is. Qui tres unum funt (p), a literal quotation
of the Verfe in queftion. Aiid the teftimo
ny of Tertullian feems to carry irrefiftlble
convidlon with it, to every unprejudiced
mind, not only from its proximity to the age
of the Apoftles, but becaufe he teftlfies,
that, in thofe times,' their authentic Ep files
iVere adlually read to the Churches (q), not
through
(/>) Lib. adv. Praxeam Cap. xxv, ad init. (Appen
dix, No. II.)
{q) " Percurre ecclefias Apoftolicas, apud quas Ipf«
*' adhuc cathedrae Apoftolorum fuis locis prxfident, apud

( 40 )
through the medium of the Latin, or of any
other tranflation, but in the original Greeks
to which originals Tertullian, himfelf, di-
redly appeals in the eleventh chapter of his
Monogamla. " Sclamus plane" (faiys he,
fpeaking of fome erroneous opinions which
were then attempted to be proved by Scrip.
ture) " non fie eJe In authentico Graco."
I have now, Sir, gone through the tefth
monies of many individuals to the authenti
city of this Verfe, all of whom wrote ante^
cedently to the days of Erafmus. Others
might be adduced ; but it feems, at prefent,,
unneceffary to call for their affiftance. To
*' quas ipfa auihentica liierte eorum recitantur, fonantes
*' vocem, et repraefentantes faciem uniufcuj ufque." {Ter-
tullianus, de prasfcriptionibus adverfus Hsereticos, Edit,
Fran. A. D. 1597, p- 211.)
It appears, moft clearly, from the Epiftle of Ignaiius
(Cap. 8.) to the Pbiladelphians, that, in his times, the
original MSS of the Apoftles were extant, and were held
in great veneration. He died early in the fecond century.
And Peter, Biftiop of Alexandria, in thefourth century,
refers to the original of St. fahn's Gofpel, which, he
fays, was then preferved, with even a religious refpeft,
at Ephefus. Michaelis feems to doubt (Introd, LeB, Edit,
Lond. A. D. 1761, Seft. 12.) as to the truth of this
latter teftimony ; but without much reafon; For, furelyj
it feems far from being improbable, that a MS of fuch
importance, and kept with fuch pecu-liar care, fliould
f«bfift a little more than two hundred years,

< 41 )
. To the evidence thus furnifhed hy Indm^
duals, I now beg leave to fubjoln — the tes
timony OF COUNCILS, and other COL
LECTIVE BODIES OF MEN, — in fupport of
the originality of the Verfe in queftion,
I. The Council of Lateran Vi^s held a|
Rome, under Innocent III, A. D. 1215. Of
all the alTemblles, of this kind, which the
Chriftlan worid ever faw, this was the moft
numerous. It was compofed of more than
400 (r) bifhops, of about 800 abbots, aad
priors, and of an equal number of deputies
from prelates, colleges, and chapters, who
could not attend in perfon. Among others,
the Greek patriarchs of Confiantlnople, and
jerufalem, were prefent ; and the feveral
patriarchs of Antioch, and Alexandria, fent,
each, a blfhop, and a deacon, as their repre-
fentatives. The chief purpofe of convening
this council, was, for the examination of
certain opinions of the famous Italian, Fa
ther Joachim, founder of the congregation
of Flora. Thefe opinions were accufed of
Jh-lanlfn, and were unanimoufly condemned by
{r) DuPin, Bibl. Ecclef. vol. X, P. 103.

( 42 )
by the council : in whofe ad, or decreta?,.
containing the reafons of fuch condemna
tion, we find the Verfe now in queftion, a-
mong other paffages of Scripture, thus par
ticularly fet forth (j). It is read in the Ca
nonical ]EpIftle of John, that " there are
" Three which bear Wltnefs in Heaven, the
" Father, ihe Word, and the Holy Spirit, ani
" thefe Three are One:''
It may be permitted to me, perhaps, juft
to remark, that the univerfal deference yield
ed to the known learning, and integrity, of
the members of this council, caufed its de
crees, in matters even of a fecular nature,
to be received as law, not only in England,
(f) (where they ftill continue fo) but through
•the reft of the Chrlfilan world.
2. About the clofe of the eighth century,
the Emperor Charlemagne called together
the learned of that age, and placed Alculnus,
an Engllfhman, oi great erudition, at their
head ;
(s) Collefliion of Councils, by Labbe,zni Coffart, Edit.
Paris. A. D. 1671, vol. XI, pa. 144.
(t) Bacon's Abridgment, vol. V. title Tithes. Burn's
Ecclef. Law, vol. Ill, (8vo. edit.) p. 381.

' ( 43 )
head (u) ; inftrudlng them to revife fhe MSS
of the Bible then in ufe, to fettle the text,
and to redlfy the errors which had crept in
to it, through the hafte, or the ignorance,
of tranfcribers. To effed. this great purpofe,
he furnlftied thefe commlffioners with every
MS, that could be procured throughout his
very extenfive dominions. In their CorreSo-
rlum, the refult of their united labors, which
was prefented in public, to the Emperor, by
Alculnus, the iefilmony ofthe three fhe^iwenXy)
Wltneffes is read, v;ithout the fmalleft im
peachment of its authenticity. This very
volume Cardinal Barojilus affirms to have
been extant, at Rome, in his life-time (.v), in
the library of the Abbey of Vaux-Celles ; and
he ftiles it " ^ treafure of Inefilmable value:''
It cannot be fuppofed, that thefe Divines,
thus aflembled under the aufplces of a learn
ed prince, would attempt to fettle the text
of the New Teftament, without referring to
the
(u) Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, vol. I, c. iv, {e&. 2. Edit.
Paris. A.D. 1723, p. 235. M. Simm, Hift. Crit. des
Vers. C. ix. Hody, p. 409.
(x) He was born in or about A. D. 1538, and died in
A.D. 1607. Du Pin confirms this accountof Barcmius:
Lond. Edit. A. D. 1693, vol. VI. p. 122.

( 44 )
the Greek Original, by which alone that text
could be afcertalned ; or that they would. In
that arduous inveftigatlon, collate MSS only
of a modern date, juft wet, as it were, from
the pen of the copyift. Candor requires us
to admit, that their refearches muft have ex
tended many centuries upwards, — in all pro
bability even to the age of the Apoftles,
3. In A. D. 484, an affembly of African
Bifhops was convened at Carthage, by King
Hunerlc, the Vandal, and the Arian. The
ftyle of the edld, iffued by Hunerlc, on this
occafion, feems worthy of notice. He thereiil
requires the Bifhops, of his dominions, to
attend the council thus convened, there " to
" defend, by the Scriptures, the confubftan-
" tiality ofthe Son with the Father," againft
certain Arian opponents. At the time ap
pointed nearly /o«r hundred bifliops attended
this council, from the various provinces of
Africa, and from the ifles of the Mediter
ranean Sea ; at the head of whom ftood the
venerable Eugenius, biftiop of Carthage. The
public profefions of Hunerlc promlfed a fair,
aud candid, difcuffion of the divinity of Jefus
Chrlft ;

( 45 )
Chrljl ; but it foon appeared that his private
intentions were, to compel, by force, the vin*
dicators of that belief to fubmit to the tenets-
of Arianifm. For when Eugenius, with his
Antl- Arian prelates, entered the room of
confultation, (y) they found Cyrlta, their
chief antagonift, feated on a kind of throne,
furrounded by armed men ; who quickly,
inftead of confuting the arguments of their
opponents, offered violence to their perfons.
Convinced, by this application of force, that
no deference would be paid to reafon, Eu
genius, and his prelates, withdrew from the
council-room ; but not without leaving be
hind them a proteft, in which (among other
paflages of Scripture) this Verfe of St. John
is thus efpecialiy infifted upon, in vindica
tion of the belief to which they adhered. —
" That it may appear more clear than the
*' light, that the divinity ofthe Father, the
" Son, and the Holy Spirit, is one, fee it
" proved by the Evangelift St. John, who
*' writes

( V ) Vi£for Viienfls, who was then an African biftiop,
and prcfer.t at this council, has left us a circumftantial ac
oount of the whole tranfadlon. Vide Biblioth. Max.
Patrum, vol. VIII, p. 686 : Gry^icei Coll. Patr. Orthod,
(Edit. Bajil A, D. 1569) p. 7q9': and Appendix, No. ^ >'t^

( 46 )'
« writes thus : There are Three which beat
" record In Heaven, the Father, the Word,^
" andthe Holy Spirit, and thefe Three are One."
HI tres unum funt are the very words thus
quoted by thefe bifliops, as we have before
feen them cited by Cyprian, Tertullian, and
others, in the fame Hteral order.
This remarkable fad appears to be, alone,
amply declfive as to the originahty of the
Verfe in queftion. The manner, in which '
it happened, feems to carry irrefiftlble con
vidlon with it. It was not a thing done In
a corner, a tranfadlon of folitude, or obfcu
rlty. It paffed in the metropolis ofthe king
dom, in the court of the reigning prince,
in the face of opponents exafperated by con-
troverfy, and pioud of royal fupport, and In
the prefence of the whole, congregated, Af
rican church. Nor is the time, when this
tranfadlon happened, lefs powerfully con
vincing than its manner. Not much more
than three centuries had elapfed, from the
death of St. John, when this folemn appeal
was thus made to the authcirlty of this Verfe. '
Had the Verfe been forged by Eugenius, and his

( 47 )
his bifliops, all Chriftlan Africa would have
exclaimed, at once, againft them. Had it
even been confidered as of doubtful original,
their adverfaries, the Arians, thus publicly
attacked by this proteft, would have loudly
challenged the authenticity of the Verfe,
and have refufed to be, in any refped, con
cluded by its evidence. But nothing of this
kind intervened. Cyr'ila, and his alfociates,
received its teftimony in fullen filence ; and,
by that filence, admitted it to have proceed
ed from the pen of St. John,
To the authority of thefe councils, and
of the revifion of Charlemagne, let me now
fubjoln the moft facred faiidlon, which any
colledive body of Chriftians can give to the
truth of a paflage of Scripture, namely, the
admiffion of it Into the public rituals, or fer-
vjce-books, of their churches. For,
4. This Verfe of St. John was inferted iu
the ancient fervice-booksof theL/3//«Church.
It was read in them, as part of the office for
Trinity Sunday, and (as It now is in the
church of England) for the ociave of Eafter. It

( 4^ )
It appeafs from the Rationale of Durandui,
mentioned in my former letter (z), that this
paiTage alfo formed a part of the office for
the miniftration of baptlfm, in thofe ancient
liturgies, purfuatit to the regulations of the
Ordo Romanus, or " The Roman order of Of
" fices to be ufed throughout the year:'* The
precife time ofthe eftabllftiment of this ritual,
in the Latin churches, is not clearly known :
its antiquity has, in fome degree, thrown a
Veil over it. Butthatitwas, in thofe churches,
the eftabllfiied diredory of public worftiip,
and confequently, that this Verfe was re-»
ceived, by them, as part of the infpired wri*
tings, long before the revifal of the Scrip*
tures in the reign of Charlemagne, (already
ftated In this letter) we are certified from
authority (a) which will not be difputed*
5. This Verfe of St. John is found in the
Corfeffion of Faith of the Greek church. The
words of this confeffion where it refers to
tbe paflage in J^ueftion, are thefe : " The
" Father,
{¦z) Page 20.
[a] For, the antiquity of the Ordo Romanus, fee Uflier's
worlcs— Ca-ji?, Appendix ad Hift. Lit. — and Selden, de 5y.
tttdnis, vol. Jl, p. I? 50.

( 49 )
" Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are
*' all of the fame effence ; as St. John teftl-
*' fies — There are Three who bear record In
Heaven, the Faiher, ihe Word, and ihe Holy
Spirit, and thefe Three are One." (b) The
time, when this pubhc confeffion of faith
was firft compiled by the Greek church, does
not, now, appear. But the arguments, which
were urged on another occafion, and for ano
ther purpofe, by one of the moft zealous an-
tagonifts (c) of this Verfe, might be here ap
phed to prove, that this confeffion was drawn
up in an age very remote from our own times.
Its exaSi date, however, like that of the
proof laft alledged fronj the Latin church,
is loft in its great antiquity.
6. This Verfe is alfo found In the liturgy,
or public fervice-books, of the Greek church.
Among thefe one in particular, entitled
E A^oc-oAo@J
(h) " hKKx i*£u &C. — Deus autem eft natura verus,
*' et aeternus, et omnium cond itor, vifibilium, et inviii-
*' bilium : talis etiam eft Filius, et Spiritus fanftus.
" Sunt etiam ejufdem inter fe effentiie, juxta dodrinam
*' foannis Evangeliftse, qui dicit, — Tres funt qui teftimo-
*' nium perhibent in ccelo. Pater, Sermo, et Spiritus faniius :
*' et hi ires unum funt." T)T.Tho?nas Smith' sM.\{ce\\d.ne:i,
p. 155, Edit. Lond. A. D. i68(^.
(f) M. Simon, Hift. Crit. du Texte, &c. C. ix.

( 50 )
A-rroToXc^ (a) (the Apoftle) bears a diftln-
gulfhed place, belnga colledlon ofthe Eplfiles
of the Teftament, taken feparately from the
Gofpels : feled parts of which are appointed,
like thofe which ftand in the Communion-
fervlce of the Church of England, to be read,
in fucceffion, in the proper offices for par
ticular days. Among other portions of
Scripture, this Verfe of St. John is direded,
by the Greek rituals, to be read in its courfe,
in the thirty fifth week of the year. As to
the antiquity of this ATroroAo^, we have the
moft pofitive proofs (e) that it was ufed in
the Greek church, in the fifth century. How
long it might have been eftablifhed there be
fore that cera, is known only to Him, " in
" whofe fight a thoufandycars are but as yefier-
" day."
If there can be, at this time, an unerring method
{d) Smith's Mifcellanea, p. 155. « J„ ///^ coLtEc
TioNE Epistolarum Novi Tejlamenti'' &e. Alfo
Martin's La Verite, p. ii. C, v.
{e)Cave Vol. ii.Diff. 2, Edit.O^.«, A.D. X743,p.23.'
Selden <Se Synedrus,Y o\.\\, ^. ^¦2.ep Uc
Cotelerius, Eccl. Grac. Monum. Tom. iir, p. 222-351,
Edit. Ptfm. A. D. 1656. >f *-'¦' ii'>_

( 5r )
method of demonftrating, that any particu
lar pafTage of Scripture was confidered, by
the primitive Chriftlan church, as authen
tic, as bearing upon it the feal of divine in-
fpiration, it muft be by fhewing fuch paflage
placed in its public creeds, or confeffions of
faith, and appointed to be read in the folemni-
ties of its religious worfhip. , By the former,
the Church fpeaks to men ; by the latter, it
intercedes with God : and in both with fin-
cerity, becaufe all human principles of ac
tion concur to forbid even an attempt to de
ceive, in either. Of both thefe pre-eminent
fandions the Verfe in queftion can, fortu
nately, avail itfelf. It can plead both of
them in its favor. While numberlefs other
teftimonials of its originality have, without
doubt, periflied by negled, or by accident ;
have been deftroyed by the hoftile invafions of
rude, and unlettered, barbarians, or have
been crumbled into duft under the deleteri
ous hand of time, in the long lapfe oi f even-
teen hundred years : thefe have, happily, ef
caped all thofe perils, arid have furvived to
the prefent age. And when we can trace
(as we are enabled to do In the inftance now
before us) fuch confeffions, and liturgies,
E 2 back

( 5^ )
back into ages fo remote as thefourth, ot fifth,
century after Chrlfi, without being able ^w;j
there to difcover the aSlual time of their ef-
tablifliment in the Chriftlan Church ;— we
are then, by all the rules of right reafonlng,
well warranted to conclude, that fuch creeds,
or confeffions of faith, fuch rituals, and for
mularies of devotion, muft have been nearly
coeval with Chrlftianity itfelf.
But the infertion of this Verfe mthe Con
feffion of Faith oi the Greek Church, and in
the publlcLlturgies of both theGr^^^,andL^-
iln. Churches, joined to the authority ofthe
Councils, and of the Revifion of Charlemagne,
— v.'hlch have been juft ftated, — are not the
only teftimonies, (however ftrong, and con
vincing they may feem) which have been
given, by colledive bodies of Chriftians, to
the authenticity of this verfe. Let it be
here, finally, obferved, that the New Tefta
ments, which were anciently read in the
Churches of far the greaiefi number oi thofe
nations, who made an early profeffion of
the Chriftlan faith, either in the original
Greek, or in the ancient Verfions of that ori
ginal

( 53 )
glnal Into the language of thofe nations, (f)
furnlfh the moft powerful proofs of the truth
of this difputed paffage of St, John. For
^. The ancient Verfion, or Tranflatlonj
of the New Teftament ' into the Armenian
language, hath always contained (g) this
verfe. It is affirmed, by the moft ref-
pedable opponent of the authenticity of
this difputed paffage, that this Verfion hath
been ufed, by the Armenian natlonSj at leaft
ever fince the age of Chryfoflom ;• who (Jo)
died In A. D. 407. The real date of this an
cient Verfion, however, cannot, perhaps, be
carried higher than A. D. 432. But, even
in this cafe, the original MS, or MSS,
from which this Verfion muft thus have
been made, in the fifth century, cannot,
E 3 reafon-
(y) The Syriac, and the Coptic, Verfions, with their
1 ranfcripts, are the only exceptions to this general pro
portion. And thofe verfions were adopted by a very
few nations, indeed, when compared with tbe Latin,
Greek, and Armenian, Chriftians, who comprifed ihree
p^rts out of four, at leaft, of the then Chriftlan world.
(See the objeftions of Dr. Benfon, xlv to xlix, inclufive,
hereafter ftated, and the anfwers made to thofe objeitipns. )
(g) See objection xlix, of Dr. Benfon, herein after
ftated. {h) See objeftion xxviii, of the late Sir Jfaac, Newton,
herein alfo after ftated.

< 54 )
reafon ably, be fuppofed to bave had a much
later date than the age ofthe Apoftles.
8. The «7rorexo?, which hath been already
mentioned, was a tranfcript, or ColleSim of
the Eplfiles of t^e New Tefiament, in theoW-
glnal Greek. It was read publicly in the
Greek Churches, as early as, perhaps much
earlier than, the fifth century ; and it hath
been juft proved always to have contained-
the Verfe, in queftion.
9. The Verfion, or Tranflation, of the
New Teftament, by Jerome, from the ori^
glnal Greek into the Latin tongue, was made
(Ij in, or about, A. D. 384.— <-It hath been
already obferved, that this difputed paffage
hath conftantly flood in this Verfion.
10.- Nor hath theverfe,inqueftion,beenthus
found In the Armenian Verfion, In the Greek,
<&7roroAo?, and in the Latin Tranflation of Je^
rcme, only. The mofi ancient of all the Verfions
ofthe Books ofthe New Teftament, from the
languages
(«¦) See p^ge 33, and objeaion xix of Dr. Benfon-.
alfo Michaelis, Sea. 65,

( 55 )
languages in which they were ouginally
Written, is the Old Italic, or liala Vetus. This
Verfion was made in the fi^rfi (fi) century,
and therefore whilst St. John was yet
ALIVE ; and was ufed by all the Latin
Ch^^xchesoi Europe, Afia, (/) and Africa, for
many centuries after his death. And thus
the origin of the Verfe in queftion, is, at
length, carried up, not by inferences, or im
plications, alone, however fair, and obvioa,<:,
but by PLAIN, AND POSITIVE, EVIDENCE,
to the age of St. John himfelf. For this
mofi valuable, as well as mofi ancient, Verfion
hath (m) conftantly exhibited the Verfe,
J. John, V, 7. E 4 I have
(i) The words of Michaelis, on this fubjeft, which
are the more to be relied upon, becaufe they are the words
of a very learned adverfary, are, that *' The Old Latin"
(or liala Vetus) " is ihe mojl ancient, andbefi, of all Eu-
" ropean Verfions" — that it is " of unc^rrMon antiquity,'' —
and that " no man of learning denies ihat tbis Verfion
" zvas done in the first century, except only Dr. Adill,
" wha argues from ihis, ihat, inthe firft century, Mosr
" of the Chriftians, at Rome, underftood Greek. But how
*' ujill he prove," (^continues Michaelis) '¦'¦ that there ivere
" net inany of thofe Chriftians," (pa.rticu\-dv\y in the remoter
Provinces, and among the lower clafles of mankind J " who
" underfiood no more than their moiher tongue." (SecSts. 61
1063.) (/j The Chriftians near ferufalem, and in many parts
Syria, were of the Latin church.
(m) See obje£tion xlv of Dr. Benfon, where, it is
triiftcil, this point is proved at large.

I have now. Sir, gone through all the
pofitive teftimony, which I propofed, di-
reSily, to adduce in fupport of the authen
ticity of the Verfe in queftion. But the fub
jed is too important to be thus difmiffed.
The OBJECTIONS, which have been brought
againft the originality of this Verfe, remain
yet to be difcuffed ; and demand from me,
what they fhall certainly receive, an atten
tive, and ferlous, inveftigatlon. In this
propofed difquifition, many other proofs of
the authenticity of this Verfe are intended
to be urged Ind'ireSlly, and by implication.
Such proofs, when produced, will not, it is
trufted, lofe any thing of their real weight,
by the accidental clrcumftance of the place,
in which they may be found. It is even
poffible, that a fpeculatlve mind may experi
ence a pecuhar fatisfadion, In feleding them,
hereafter, from thofe ftatlons, where the
neceffity of anfwering thofe objedlons, and
a defire of avoiding repetitions, compel them
now to ftand ; and in adapting them to other
fituatlons, where, if no fuch neceffity had .
exifted, they might, perhaps, with naore pro
priety, have been arranged. And it feems,
moreover.

( S7 )
paoreover, that I fhould be deficient to my
own future views, as well as unjuft to the
evidence which has been already ftated, if
I did not fubjoln, to an examination of thofe
objedlons, a few obfervatlons, which force
themfelves upon the mind, on an attentive
contemplation of the whole fubjed. For
thefe purpofes you will perhaps. Sir, permit
me to intrude yet more upon your leifure, at
fome future opportunity. I am, Sir,
&c. &c;

LETTER III.
S I R,
IHAVE taken the liberty, herein, as well
as in the preceding letters, of addreffing
myfelf, dlredly, to you , inftead of ufing, as
my means of approach, any fiditious name,
or any artificial addrefs. I have, in fo doing,
fubmlttcd to the juftlce of the rule, which
you have prefcribed to your opponents, in
your Vindication ; (a) namely, that the au
thor of a work, " who boldly gives his
" name, and his labours, to the world, im-
*' pofes on his adverfaries the fair and ho-
*' nourable obligation of encountering him
" in open day-light, and of fupporting the
*' weight of their aflertions by the credit of
*' their names." And yet, the rule applies
only in part, on the prefent occafion. The
credit of a name, little known to the world,
will not fupport ihe weight of many affertions. But
{a) A Vindication of fome paflages in the I5di and
l6th Chapters of the Hiftory, &c. — by Mr, Gibbaiiy Edit.
»5 P- 153-

, ( 6o )
But I am not, however, much difcomforted
in this refped, becaufe I purpofe to load it
\vlth very few : one found argument, one
folid inference, being of more worth than' a
whole Chapter of aflertions.
I will now, therefore, proceed to examine,
as was before propofed, the moft material
objedions, which have been urged againft
the originality of this Verfe ; and will beg
leave to fuperadd, to fuch examination, fomc
refledions, which feem to arife from an at
tentive confideratlon ofthe whole fubjed.
\
In this difquifition it may, perhaps, be the
moft fatlsfadory method to ftate the objec
tions of the chief opponents of this Verfe
fingly, and to fubjoln to each its dlftln^l:,
and feparate, reply. Of thefe Sandlus, {h)
M. Simon, (c) and Mr. Emlyn;'fd) among,
its more early opponents ; and Dv. Benfon, (e) Sir
{b) Nucl. Eccl. Hift. and Appendix, p. 376, &c.—
Interpr. Paradox.
(0 Hift. Crit. du Texte &c. Diflert. fur les MSS
&c. Hift. des Verfions &c.
(</) Full Enquiry &c. Sec Emlyrt'5 Works, 2 Vol*.
Lond, Edit A, D. 1746,

( 6i )
(e) Sir Ifaac Newton, (/) M, Grlefiach, (g)
and Mr, Bowyer, (h) among its more mo
dern adverfaries, feem to have been the moft
dlffufe, in the variety of their remarks, and
the moft determined In their oppofition. But
as the four laft-mentloned writers have col-
leded into one point of view, all, or nearly
all, the objedlons that have, at any time,
been iirged againft the originaUty of the Verfe
in queftion, — and as their works are more
generally known than thofe of Sandlus, Si
mon, or Emlyn, — I will confider them as
fpeaking the fenfe of their fellow- advocates,
and will ftate their own objedlons in their
ow^n words.
And firft, as to Dr. Benfon. —
I, " Three of the (I) latin fathers have
*' been referred to, as having borne teftl-
*' mony to this difputed text ; namely Ter-
" tulllan, Cyprian, and Jerome." By
(i?) Paraphrafe on the Catholic Epiftles, Vol. ii. Edit.
A. D. 1756.
(/) Hiftory of two Texts (Vol. v. of iS/iwfjn.'sWorks,
by Dr. Horfley.)
' is) ^ov. Teftam. Graec. Vol. ii, p. 225 &c. (in the
Notes) Edit. Hala, A. D. 1777.
{h) Conjedures on the N. Teft. Edit. Lond. A. D,
1782. {i) Dr. Benfon i Paraphrafe, Vol. ii, p. 632,

( 62 )
Dr. BzKsoif. By this introdudory obfervation, a candid
reader muft, at firft, prefume, that Dr. Ben*
fon really meant to confine, to the age oi Je
rome, his obfervatlons on thofe Latin Fa
thers, whofe works might be made ufe of,
in argument, refpeding this Verfe ; and not
to travel below the fifth century, for autho
rities on either fide ofthe quefilon. Yet, under
this prefumption. Dr. Benfon ought, at leaft,
to have made his enumeration of thofe Fa
thers, who have borne teftimony to this
Verfe, compleat, by adding to this Lift, (l)
Marcus Celedenfis, Phaibadlus, Eucherius, Au
gufilne, and V'lglUus ; who lived, and wrote,
in the fame century with Jerome, and have,
as well as Jerome, given their teftimony to
the truth of the Verfe In queftion. But Dr.
Benfon does not fuffer his readers long to re
tain this firft prefumption. They fee him,
it is true, in the progrefs of his Differtation,
pofitively refufing to admit the teftimony of
VtSlot Vitenfis, in favor of this Verfe, who
lived
{k) See pages 7,0 to 36, of thefe letters.
It feems, however, that Dr. Benfon could not be igno
rant of the two Writers, here firlt named ; for he" has
referred to Bengelius, in p. 620 of his paraphrafe, by
whom their teftimony is particularly fet forth.

( 63 )
lived In the fame century, and was, proba- Dr. Bensox*
bly, alive at the fame hour, with Jerome.
But they foon afterwards find him travelHng
down, for authorities (/) which oppofe (or
rather for omlffions which seem to oppofe)
the authenticity of this Verfe, fo low as to
Bede, of the eighth, and to Oecumenlus, of the
eleventh, century.
If, then. Sir, we follow Dr. Benfon to the
age of Jerome, only, the references to La
tin Fathers, in favor of this Verfe, com
mencing with the age of the Apoftles, will
be, not to " three" only, but at leaft to eight,
viz. to Tertullian, Cyprian, Marcus Ce-
LEDENSis, Ph^badius, Jerome, Augus
tine, Eucherius, and Vigilius, But
if we purfue him to the age of Oecumenlus,
this Lift, already more than doubled, will
receive an almoft incredible increafe ; among
whom the following " Latin Fathers" feem
worthy of being efpecialiy referred io, name
ly, (tn) Fulgeniius, Caffiodorlus, Ambrofe An
fbert, Etherlus, and Beatus, Walafrld Strabo,
Radulphus
(/) Paraphrafe, p. 6.^.4.
(m) See pages 21 to 30, of the preceding letters.

C 64 )
rpr. Benson. Radulphus Ardens, Hugo Vl5iortnus, Scotus,
and St. Bernard: the four hundred African
Bifliops, who attended the public difputa-
tlon, propofed by Hunerlc ; — and the Divines
of the reign of Charlemagne, who, under the
prefiding care of Alculnus, revlfed the Bible
of that ao-e. To whom muft be added, laft-
ly, and above all, the common confent of
the whole Latin Church, which, before the
reign of Charlemagne, 'hzA given the moft
folemn atteftatlon to the originality of this
text, by inferting it in its public Rituals of
divine worfhip. To this mighty Phalanx,
and within this limit as to time, might be
added a great number of other wltneffes to
the authenticity of this Verfe, as unexcep
tionable, in point of evidence, and as deci
ded in their teftimony, as any of thofe whofe
fuffrages have been already thus particular
ly colleded, and fet forth.
II. " // Is plain he [Tertullian] has
*' not quoted the paffage" [viz. becaufe
he does not exprefsly declare his words
to be a quotation]
This objedlon is Ul-founded, and incon*
clufive.

1 65 )
conclufive. It has been the pradice of wri- Dr. BensoU^
ters, in all ages, to infert quotations from
well-known authors, without exprefsly de
claring them to be quotations, or introducing
them as quotations, in any refped. A few
inilances, of this kind, will be fufficient to
fliew the weaknefs of the argument, here
ufed by Dr. Benfon.
And firft from Irenaus, who lived in the
fecond Century after Chrlfi. <
*' Our bodies, being [firft] nourifhed by
*^ the earth, [then] depofitcd inthe earth,
** and [laftly] refolved into earth, fhall
*• arife in his time ; the Son of God grant-
*' ing them a refurredion to the glory of
*' the Father : for the ftrength of God is
** made perfed in weaknefs." («)
In like manner, from Clemens Alexandri*
Hus, who lived in the fame age with Ire*
meus.
*f But that which is holy, is dear to that
' F « frora
' {n) Irenest adverfus Haerefes, Lib, v. Cap, ii. Edit*
Cxom A. D, 1702, p. 400.

( ^6 .)
pr. Benson. " from whence It becomes holy ; which 1*
" properly called light: for ye were (o)
" fometimes darknefs, but now are ye light;
" in the Lord."
Again, from Origen, who flourifhed in the
third Century.
" But let the faithful Chriftlan, more
*' wife, as well as more firm, follow reafon,
" and the word of God ; and from thence let
" him learn to diftingulfh between truth,
" and falfehood : even as they delivered
*' them' unto us, who, from the beginning,
" were eye-wltnefl'es, and minifters of the
" word." (p )
Again, from ^Cyril, who vvas Archblfhojp
oi Alexandria, in the fifth Century.
*' As the Lord, and Saviour of all, who
" could have appeared in the form of the
" Father, and altogether equal to him, and
" could have exhibited his Majefty on the
" throne
(a) Clementis Alexandrini Pxdag. Lib. i. Cap. vi, p,
41, Edit. Commel. A. D. 1592.
(^} Origenis Opera, Horn. I. "Edit. Pariftis, A. D. i6ig. '

thrane of the divinity ; thought It not Dr. Benson;
robbery to be equal with God, but made
himfelf of no reputation, and took upon
*' him the form of a Servant." (q)
The Concluding words of all the preceding
fentences are quotations from Scripture ; the
firf from 2. Corinthians, xii. 9 ; the fecond,
from Ephef. v. 8 ; the third from Luke i. 2 ;
and the laft from Phllipp. ii. 6, 7 ; — although
they are all thus introduced — like the ex
ample, now in debate, from Tertullian, — -
without any previous expreffions, denoting
them to be quotations.
Inftances of a fimllar kind, will fcarcely
be required from the Latin Fathers, as they
abound in almoft every page of their writings.
One example, however, may juft be pro
duced (to which a thoufand others fhall be
added, if required) from Jerome, In thefourth
Century. F 2 "As
{q) Cyrillus contra fulianum. Lib, vi. p. 195, Edit.
Lipfiee, A. D. 1696.
The learned Reader needs not to be informed, that all
the preceding quotations, as they ftand here, are tranfla-
tions from the original language of thefe Greek Fathers.

(68 }
Dr. Benson. «< As long as we are entangled in the a£i
" fairs of the world, and our minds are ea*
" groffed by our earthly pofleffions, it is Im-i
" poflible for us to give up our thought^
" chearfully to God : For what fellowftiip
*' hath righteoufnefs with unrlghteoufnefs,
" and what communion hathllght with dark*
" nefs ? what concord hath Chrlfi withBe*
*' Hal ? or what part hath he that believetl)|
*' with an (r) infidel ?
The lalT: words of the foregoing fentciWft
are cited, literaljy, from 2. Cor. vi. 14, 15;
although without any previous note of m^
trodudion, denoting them to be a quotation.
If more modern Inftances fhall be required.
they are here fubjolned.
" The man, who proceeds in it with
" fteadliiefs, and refolution, will, in a little
" time, find, that all her ways are pleafant-
" nefs, and all her paths are peace."
Addlfon — Sped. No. 447. " To
(r) Hieronymi EpK. ad Lucinium: Edit. Erafmi, Paris,
A. D. 1546, Vol. i, p. (71, as erroneoufly marked in
that Edition, but properly page) 66,

( 69 )
** To graft in his heart the principles of Dr. Uensoi*.
** charity, which fome perfons ought not,
*' by any means, wholly to renounce, be-
** caufe it covereth a multitude of fins."
Dr. Swift,
The former of thefe quotations is from
prov. iii. 17, — thelatter from i. Pet. Iv. 8 ;
—and both without any previous expreffions
of citation.
But, Mr. Gibbon will, perhaps, be fatls-
fadorily convinced, that quotations of this
nature are not infrequent, among good wri
ters even of the prefent times, by the follow
ing inftances.
** Here, too, we may fay oi Longinus, his
*' own example ftrengthens all his laws." (s)
** It never can become (/) a Chrlfilan to
*' be afraid of being afked a reafon of the
*' faith that is in him ; or the Church of
F 3 " England
(j) Gibhorit Hift. of the Decline, &c. Vol, i, (2d.
Edit.) Notes, p. 10.
(/) Dr. Watfon'i Apology, Edit. 2d. ad init,

( 70 )
Pr. BENSON, <« England to abandon that moderation, by
" which fhe permits every Individual et
" fentire quse veht, et quse fentiat dicere.!'i
The Scriptural quotation, contained in the
latter of thefe fentences, is from i. Pet. iii,
15. I will not offend Mr. Gibbon, by point-
ing out the others.
It is fo far, therefore, from being plain
that Tertullian has not quoted this verfe,
becaufe he has not exprefsly filled his words
a quotation from St. John ; that there muft,
from a candid confideratlon of the paffage,
under all its circumftances, be, neceffarily,
deduced the very oppofite inference. The
ftrlking peculiarity of the words themfelves,
the literal order in which they ftand in Ter
tullian, and the conftant pradice of writer^
ancient and modern, compel, as well as juf
tify, the conclufion ; that thefe words, when
written by Tertullian, muft have been a di-
red, intentional, citation of the verfe in quef
tion. Thus far, then, Sir, for the imbecility gf
the

( 7^ 1
the objedion, which fuppofes the words of Dr. Bensok'^
'Tertullian not to be a quotation, merely be
caufe they are not declared fo to be by Ter
tullian. Let us, now, turn to fhe Treatife
againft Praxeas, and compare Tertullian with
himfelf. Perhaps we may obtain new light
by the comparlfon.
In the twenty- fecond Qhzptex of this Trea
tife, Tertullian quotes the words of Jefus
Chrlfi, as recorded by St. John in his Gofpel.
*' Jefus Chrlfi fays, 1 and the Father are one,
*' His,e;xprefCon is VHVMfumus :'' [We are
" one thing, or Belngi " not unus" [one
Perfon,'\ " He ufes the word unum, in the
" neuter voice ; which does not belong to
*' a fingle perfon, but to an (u) unity of
" perfons,"
With thefe helps, prevloufly acquired, let
us proceed to the paflage Itfelf, of the twenty
fifth Chapter, now in debate.
" Jefus Chrlfi, fpeaking ofthe Holy Ghoft,
«^ fajd. He fioall take of mine, as he liimfelf
F 4 " had
(u) Appendix, No. I.

C 72 >
Dr. BiNsoM. « had taken of the Father. Thus the con-
" nedion of the Father with the Son, andof
<« the Son with the Holy Ghoft, caufes thefi
*' three to be united together^ one with ano-
•* ther : which three are one [thing, or Being]
*' not one [Perfon] in the same manner
" as it is said, /, and my father art
«' one." (v)
Tertulllanheve, moft obvioufly, looks back
to that former quotation, in the twenty-
fecond Chapter, which has juft been ftated.
He had there proved the Divinity of Jtfus
Chrlft, by a quotation from St. John, which
ihewed his unity with the Father. He
here proceeds to prove the Divinity of the
Holy Ghoft, likewife, by another quotation
from the fame St, John, which fhews a tike
unity oi three Perfons in the God-head.
And, left his meaning fhould be mifunder-
ftood, he, fortunately, adds a Comment,
which feems to place the whole matter in
the cleareft light : " Which three are one Be-
*' ing, not one Perfon, in the sameman- *' NER
(w) Appendix, No, II,

ce

< 73 )
•' NER AS IT IS SAID, I and my Father are I>r. Benson,,
•* one," — viz. in the former quotation.
III. " In his Book concerning the Unity
*^ of the Church, Cyprian is fuppofed to
have quoted this paffage. His words
are,— -Of the Father, S-on, and Holy
Spirit, It is written, Thefe three are
" one,— (p. 633.)
It were much to be wifhed, that Dr, Ben
fon had been more candid in his extrads, and
more faithful in his quotations. The words,
above cited, are a part, only, of the ex
preffions of Cyprian, fome very material
words being unfairly paffed by, and omitted.
The whole fentence taken together, ftands
thus : (w) " Our Lord declares, /, and my
*' Father, are one. And again It Is written
** of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, And
*' thefe three are one."
Let this fentence be analyfed. — " OurLord
declares, I, and my Father, areone." Where i
does he make that declaration ? In Scripture, becaufe I
{iv) Appendix, No. Ill, j

( 74 )
Pr. Benson, becaufe that contains the record ofthe words
of ourLord, as well as of his adi ons, whilfl on
earth. And in what part of Scripture is that
declaration made ? It is in the thirtieth Verfe,
of the j-^w/^ Chapter, of the Gofpel of St. Joy^«;
and the quotation is literal. Let us now
proceed. — " And again It Is written, of the
Faiher, Son, and koly Spirit, And thefe three
are one." — Again // Is written I — When an
author thus fpeaks of zfecond^iSi of any kind,
he muft be confidered as referring to & former
ad, of a fimllar nature with, orfimllarly cir-
cumftanced to, that which refers to it. And
what, in the prefent cafe, was this former
a£f f It was a dlredl citation, by Cyprian, of
a paffage in Scripture. What, then, was
the latter ad ?  The inference needs not
to be mentioned. It follows too clofely to
be mlftaken, or evaded.
Thus the conclufion, — that Cyprian did
mean to " quote this paffage, in his Book
*' concerning the Unity of the Church," —
feems to be inevitable, when we take the
whole of his words into contemplation, at
once, and place them in the fame point of
view.

i 75 )
view. But if we even receive their tefti- Dr. B^NsoMi
mony in the mutilated, curtailed, condition,
in which Dr. Benfon has thought fit to ftate
it, the. fame inference feems fairly deduci
ble from them. For, as the volume of the
facred Writings,, is, emphatically, called, the
Book : fo the phrafe, It Is written, when em?
ployed, by writers on facred fubjeds, empha
tically, and abfolutely, without any other par
ticulars of defcription, denotes (in general,
at leaft) the expreffions, which follow, to be
quotations from Scripture. It might be tedious
to produce many examples from many books.,
A. few from that book alone, which was
written for our learning, may be fufficient.
" For // is written, I will finite the Shep
herd, and the flieep fhall be fcattered."— .
[Mark xlv. 27.]
" For // is written, thou flialt not fpeak
evil of [or curfe] the ruler of thy people."
^-[Acis xxiii. 5.]
" For // Is written, vengeance is mine."— »
[Romans xil. 19. J " And

( 76 )
Dr. Benson. " And fo // Is written, Adam was made
** [or became] a living foul." — [ i • Cor. xv.45.
In thefe inftances, Zecharlah, xiii. 7,—
Exodus, xxii. %^,— Deuteronomy, xxxii. 2^,
and Genefis, n.y, — are Hterally cited, although
without any other previous introdudion,
than the phrafe here ufed by Cyprian, viz.
It Is written. The objedion, therefore, that
Cyprian can only be " fuppofed to have quoted
this paffage," becaufe he has not ufed intro
dudory words, fufhclently ftrong (as is at
ledged) to imply a fucceeding quotation
from Scripture, comes fomewhat unfeafon-
ably, when it appears, that he has adopted
thofe very words, to introduce his quotation^
which are made ufe of by Jefus Chrlfi, and
by his Apoftle Sit. Paul, to preface theirs ;
— the identical expreffions employed. In Scrip'
ture Itfelf, to denote a quotation from Scrip*
iure. IV. " The query is, whether Cyprian
" defigned to quote the feventh Verfe, or
" to give a rny file al interpretation of the
:' eighth verfe, nairifly^ that by the water, " ibi

( 77 >
•* the blood, and thefplrlt, we are to un- Dr. Benson,
derfiand the father, the fon, and the
holy fplrlt."

There feems to be no query In the cafe.
Had Cyprian defigned to give a myfilcal Inter
pretation, only, he would not, (as hath been
juft obferved) after having literally quoted
one paffage of Scripture, have inftantly fol
lowed that quotation with the words,—.
*' And AGAIN liis written:'' The aflertion
would have been utterly falfe, at the very
hour of its being made by Cyprian, had not
the feventh Verfe exifted at that time. The
words, " And thefe ihree are one," were never
¦WRITTEN, ofthe Trinity of perfons in the
Godhead, in any part of Scripture, fave in
I. John, v. 7 ; which is the verfe in quef
tion. Let it be further remarked, on this head,
that had Cyprian defigned a myfilcal Inierpre*
tation, only, he would not have written,
Scriptum efi, et hi tres unum 'funt; but,
Scriptum efi hos tres unum effe: as he does write
in another place, where he only defigns to
alhde.

( 7S )
Dr. Benson, allude, not quote, " Scriptum (x) efi jufium
fide vivere." Taking the fenteiiCe in quef
tion, as a glofs, comment, or Interpretation
of Cyprian, the conjundlon, Et, is a moft,
abfurd, and amoft ungrammatical. Exple
tive. But, as a quotation, it ftands perfedly
right. " // Is written ofthe Faiher, Son, and
Holy Spirii." — What is written of them?,
Thefe words, Et hi tres unum funt, — " Ancf
*' thefe three are one." The conjundlon,
(Et) thus viewed, is fo far from being in-'
confiftent with Grammar, and common
ienfe, that it ftands, with peculiar propriety,
in its fituatlon ; not only proving the claufe,
at the head of which it fo ftands, to be a quo
tation, but marking out the bounds of that
quotation moft preclfely.

((

V. " The loofe manner, in which ihe
fathers fometimes quoted, might ere-
" ate a fufpicion. But there is more, in,
" the prefent cafe, than this general fuf-
" picion:' [viz. That Cyprian did not
mean to quote the feventh, but to give
a myftical interpretation of the eighth, Verfe
(*; De Mortalitaie, p. 157, alluding to Romans i, 17.

( 79 )
Verfe.] " For Eucherius, (de ^afi. I>r, Benson,
" d'lfficll. In loca V. et N. T.J about the
" year, 434, having cited thefe words,
*' There are three which bear iefilmony,
" the water, the blood, and thefplrlt-,
*' fays, If It be afied, whai Is the meaning
*' of thefe words -f I anfwer, many think
*' the Trinity Is here meant."
If Dr. Benfon did not know that Eucherius
has adually quoted this Verfe, (y) in his
works, he has, in this objedion, betrayed a
moft blameable Ignorance of his fubjed. If he
did kno'w, znd yet fupprejfed, the quotation, he
has proved himfelf guilty of a moft difin-
genuous concealment of the truth. Let his
advocates take either alternative. Want
of knowledge renders him unfit for the office
of a Commentator. Want of Integrity makes
him unworthy of it. They are dlfqualifica-
tions very different, indeed, in their nature;
but they, alike, rejed him from fitting in
judgement on the authenticity of the Verfe in
queftion. Both
(y) Letter ii, p 32, art. 16 ;¦— where the quotation,
here referred to, is ftated in the words of Eucherius.

( 8o )
Br. Benson. Both alternatives are thus offered to the
reader. Byt he will, perhaps, foon perceive
on which of them he ought to fix. For Mr.
Emlyn, an Engllfhman, and a Diflenter,
(the moft ftrenupus opponent which this
verfe ever had, except M. Simon) in the dif-
pute, which arofe, in the beginning of
the prefent Century, between him and
Mr. Martin, Paftor of the French Church, at
Utrecht, in Holland, refpeding the authen
ticity of this verfe, thus Ingenuoufly confef-
fes the embarraffment, into which this tefti
mony of Eucherius had thrown him. " The
" paffage Mr. Martin brings out oiEucherlui^
*• (of which indeed I was not aware before)
*' will need more confideratlon; for though
" it only concerns the fifth Century, in which,
I did allow that poffibly the ivords might
become Text In fome books, yet it will
" carry it half a Century higher than tho
" Confeffion of the African Biftiops In Vl^or
**¦ Vitenfis: and, I confefs, if the paffage be
" genuine, it is more to the purpofe than
" any, yea than all, the other teftimonies,
*' before, or after, Eucherius, for fome hun-
** dreds ofyears ; becaufe here we find both
" the

cc

( 8i )
*' the feventh, and eighth verfes together, at Dr. Benson.
*' once to fhew us all the fix wltneffes; and
*' there was Faiher, Word, and Spirit, befide
" what was faid of the Water, Blood, and
Spirit ; whereas only Father, Word, and
Spirit, might have been the fame things
myftically interpreted, after the prevail
ing cuftom of that time. So that I can-
not-deny but Mr, Martin had fome ground
to fay, this Is declfive, i, e. as to its being
acknowledged by Eucherius, in the fifth
Century." (z)

li
ti
Itli il
ti

Dr. Benfon could not be ignorant of thia
quotation of the Verfe, in queftion, thus
made by Eucherius, or of Mr, Emlyris
diftrefs on the fubjed ; wherein, as his laft
poor refuge, he is driven, (as we have juft
feen) to affed a doubt of the paffage being gC'
nulne. For Dr. Benfon had read, before he
began his Differtation, not only Mr. Martins
Diflertation on this text, which contains this
quotation from Eucherius', but Mr, Emlyn* s
reply to it. He confefles both, in the outfet
G of

(z) Emlyn'% Anfwer to Martin's DiiTert, Land, Edit,
A. D. 1746, p, 193.

( 82 )
Dr. Benson- of his own (a') Differtation; .although h^
was not then, perhaps, aware of the confe-
quence. After this confeffion, which con
demns himfelf, the plea cf ignorance, — of
not having feen ihe quotation, — can no longer
avail him ; and, that being once taken away,
there can be no doubt as to the charge, which
muft be fubftituted In Its place.
VI. " Facundus, who flourifhed In tht
' ' fifth century, and was ofthefameAfrlcm
" Church-, did notonly, himfelf. Interpret
" the words of the eighth verfe. In that
" myfilcal manner : but has acquainted m
" that Cyprian, the Martyr, did fo m-
" derfiand them."
What Facundus, or Cyprian, underfiood, ox,
Interpreted, concerning that Verfe, is imma
terial to the prefent enquiry. The queftion
is not about the eighth, but about the feventh^
Verfe. And it feems clear that Cyprian read the
(a) '= IhavereadDr. M//'sPA«%e»i^«a,"&c. "But
" above all, I have read Mr. Martin' s Critical Differ-
" tation on this text; Mr. Emlyn's Full Enquiry,
" ^'':- .ai'd the letters of M. La Croze, arid F. Le Long,
„ pubiilhed by Mr. Emlyn." (Dr. Bmfoni Paraphrafe,
sd Edit. p. 631, and 632.)

( 83 )
the feventh Verfe, in his Teftament, not Dr. Benson.
only from the arguments, which have been
urged, on that head, in the preceding part of
this letter, but from the pofitive (b) teftimo
ny oi Fulgeniius, who lived in the fame cen
tury, and was of the fame African Church,
with Facundus. Nor could Facundus, even
if it fhould be granted that he has not quoted
this verfe, (which is more than ought to be
granted, unlefs we were in pofleffion of all
his works) be ignorant of its exlftence in this
Epiftle of St. John. The public appeal to
the teftimony of this Verfe, which was
made in the country of Facundus, by nearly
four hundred B'lihops at once, in the famous
(c) Convention of Hunerlc ;— made at Car
thage, the Metropolis of that country; —
made In oppofition to the Arians, of that age
who were fupported by the reigning Prince
of that country; — made inthe life-time, in
the manhood, of Facundus ; — (for it hap
pened but a few years before the advance
ment of Facundus to the Bifhopric of Her-
fnlane) — all thefe circumftances render it
G 2 impoffible
{b) See pages 27, and 28 ; and alfo the anfwers to the
two next fucceeding objedions,
(i) See Pages i^^-^J^J.

( 84 )
Dr. Benson, impoffible to fuppofe, that this Verfe was
not found in the Bible oi Facundus, as well
as in that of Cyprian : although he, perhaps,
may not, Hke Cyprian, have particularifed it
by a dired quotation.
VII. " Fulgeniius, who tvas coieni'
" porary zvith Facundus, has been thought
" to repre fent Cyprian as quoting the
" words frcm St. John."
Thefe, which follow, are the words of
Fiilgent'ms, where he fpeaks of Cyfrlan, and
this Verfe, conjointly. " The bleffed A-
" poftle St, John, teftlfies, that there arc
" three which bear record in Heaven, the
> " Father, the Word, and the- Spirit, and
'\ "r ?' thefe three are one. Which, alfo, the
" moft holy Martyr," Cyprian, declares in
" his Epiftle, De Unitate Ecclefia ; wherein,
" to demonftrate that there ought to be an
" unity in the Church, as there is in the
" Godhead, he has brought the following
" proofs from Scripture: The Lordfays,-
" I and my Father are one; and again it is;

( 85 )
*' IS written o/'/Z)^ Father, Son, and Holy Dr. Benson.
*' Spirit, And thefe three are one:' (d)
Thus Fulgeniius has not only " been
thought to reprefent," but has directly, and
pofitively, reprefented, " Cyprian as quoting"
the verfe in queftion. And, not contented
with this, he has done more ; — he has quoted
ihe Verfe, himfelf, in the moft explicit, and
un-myftlcal, terms.
But this, it feems, cannot be ; becaufe Ful
geniius ufes the word pconntetur] confeffes.
For, as Dr. Benfon further argues concerning

Fulgeniius —

VIII. " He fays [fo, Cyprian confeffes']
" Confeffes, what ? That thefe very words
" were In the eplfile of St, John ? What
'¦'¦ a rnighty matter was ihai ; to confefs
" what he found In the writings of an
. G 3 " Apofile I
(d) Refponfio contra Arianos, Bibl. Max. Patrum,
vol. ix, p. 41. (Appendix, No. IX.)
It cannot be doubted, that Fulgeniius read this verf: in
the Greek MSS, as well as in his own Bible ; becaufe he
was much praftifed, and eminently ikilled, inthe Greek
language. DuPin, Lond. Edit. A. D. 1693, vol. iv. p.
^3. H°

( 86 )
Dr. Benson. « Apofile I But to confefs, or acknowledge^
" that by the Water, the Blood, andthe
" Spirit, were meant the Father, the Son,
" and the Holy Spirit, was a very re-
" markable confeffion. And what thofe
" who held the fame opinion, would bc
^^ glad io find fo eminent a father and
*' martyr conf effing," — (p. 634.)
If this piece of verbal Criticlfm, fuch as
it is, were juft, it would prove nothing. But
it is not juft. The Verb, Confiteor, may be
rendered, to declare, to fhew, to profefs, as
well as to confefs ; and is frequently ufed in
thefe fenfes by the beft Writers, Without
taking the trouble of referring, for examples,
to the Latin Claffics, at large, the Didionary
of Ainfworth will fufhciently atteft the truth
of this conftrudion. And thus this poor
cavil falls to the ground.
IX, " Tes, (you will fay) but Inter-
" pretlng Is one thing ; and faying, fo It 'is
*' written^ is quite a different thing."
It has, I truft, been already not only faid, but

( 8; )
but PROVED, that " faying, Solt is written," D.k. Benson.
IS, in ferlous truth, " quite a different thing
fiom interpreting ;" and was meant fo to be,
by Cyprian himfelf, in the cafe now before
us. And the argument will, perhaps, ac
quire additional ftrength, by ihewing that
Cyprian has, in other paflages of his works,
frequently quoted Scripture, without ufing
any other prefatory words, to introduce fuch
quotations, than the phrafe, [// Is wrlttenl
which is now under confideration.
" Becaufe It Is written. He who endureth
" to the end, fhall be faved." (e) — [De ha-^
** bltu Virglnum, p. 93.]
" Since // is written. All things are lawful,
" but all things are not (/) expedient."
" [Ibid. p. 96.]
" Since // Is written. Remember from
" whence thou art fallen, and (g) repent."—?
" [De Lapfis, p. 129.J
G 4 "As
(e) A literal quotation from Matthe-js x. 22.
\f) From I Cor. vi. 12.
{g) From Rtv. ii. 5.

( 88 )
Dr. Benson. " As // is written, A man's heart devifeth
" his way, but theLord diredeth his fteps."
(h) — [De zelo, p. 228.]
*' As // Is written, am I a God at hand,
*' and not a God afar off? If a man fhall
*' hide himfelf in fecret places, fhall not I fee
*' him ? Do not I fill heaven and (/) earth ?
" — And again : The eyes of the Lord
** are in every place, beholding the evil and
*' the (k) good." — [De Oratlone Domlfiica,
p. 140.]
" Smce It is written. The Lord willnot
*' fuffer the foul of the righteous (/) to fa-
*' mlfh. And AGAIN : I have been young,
*' and now am old ; yet have I not feen the
" righteous forfaken, nor his feed begging
(m) bread," — [Ibid^ p. 148.]
The number of thefe examples might, If
neceffary, be much increafed. The two laft are

(h) From Prov. x-v'i. g.
{i) From ferem. xxiii. 23, 24,
[k] From Prov. xv. 3.
(/) From Prov. x. 3.
{m) From Pfakn xxxvii. 25. (Bible Tranflation.)

( 89 )
are pecuharly appofite ; being inftances of Dr. Benson,
two fucceflive quotations, coupled together
by the very fame link [And again"] which
joins the two quotations in the paffage now
under confideration. X. " Cyprian has. In other Infiances,
" quoted Scripture more by his fenfe of It,
*' than by repeating ihe words ofthe text.
*' Thus Infi e ad of. Lead us not Into tempt a-
*' tion, he quotes It, Suffer us not to be led
" Into temptation. And, Rev. xix, lo.
*' Worfhip thou the Lord Jefus, Infi e ad of
" Worfilp ihou God. — Winch were not
*' d'lff erent readings ; but Cyprians' s own
*' Interpretations :' —
There is good reafon to believe, that the
former of thefe inftances did not fall from
the pen of Cyprian. It certainly is not the
only, and it feems not to be ihe genuine, read
ing of this paflage. Lead us not Into tempta
tion, are the words of the Arundellan MS, of
thofe from Pembroke College, Cambridge, of
thofe from Tork, from Lincoln College, Ox
ford, of one belonging to the famous Vofiius, "and

( 90 )
Df-. Benson, and oftwo others from the Bodleian Library ;
and the fentence ftands thus, alfo, in the
Collations of the Monaftery of St, Vidior, at
Paris. As to the latter inftance, from Revelations,
xix. ID, it is, moft probably, 7i different read
ing, notwlthftanding 'Dr. Benfon s pofitive de
claration to the contrary. The old liallt
Verfion was the Bible of Cyprian, and the
public Bible of the age In which he lived.
The Verfion of Jerome was not made until
nearly iwo hundred years after the death of
Cyprian ; and it was, at leaft (n) four hun
dred years after his death, before that Ver
fion took place of the Italic, in the public
Churches, as well as in the Libraries of the
learned : which, indeed, it has done fo com
pletely, that there is not a fingle MS of the
old Italic Verfion now, certainly, known (o)
to exift in the world. What
(n) M, Simon, Hift. Crit. des Verfions, Cap. vii — ix.
(o) Michaelis feems to wilh the learned world to be
lieve, that the text of the Old Italic is annexed to the Bo-
ernerian, and Claro?nontane, MvSS : and that Martianay has
already publifhed the Gofpel of St. MattheWy and the
Epiftle of St. yames, from that Verfion. But his own
expreffions — " A Latin Verfion, which is thought to

( 91 )
What then. Sir, fhall hinder us from con- Dr. Bensost*
_cluding, that the Verfion, from whence
Cyprian (p) drevi?' his quotations, was the
old Italic, and that it read the words now
in queftion, as Cyprian has quoted them? It
has not been fufficlently attended to, by Dr.
Benfon, and by other writers, of modern
times, who have, too haftlly, accufed Cyp
rian, and other ancient Latin Fathers, of
quoting loofely, and of giving Interpretations,
inftead of citations ; that thofe fathers did
not quote from the prefent Vulgate of the
New Teftament, or from any other Ex
emplar of it, which is now known to be ex
tant ; but from a Verfion, which is notxr,
probably, lojl.
XI. " Why might not he" [Cyprian] " give
*' he the Italic" — " a very ancient Latin Verfion" — *' ivhiclj
" Martianay caufed to he printed from tivo very ancient
" MSS" — are the uncertain language of a perfon, wa
vering, and diftrullful of his own conclufions. [Introd.
LeB. Seft. 24, 26, and 61.)
(/)) 'Dt. Pearfon, in his Edition of Cyprian's works,
has adopted this idea of a different reading in this paflage.
" Legifie videtur Cyprianus non t'j Seu Trpoo-jtt'j'nB-oy, fed
" TM xufiw." (Note, pa. 220.) But, not recollefting
the circumftances above-mentioned, he has not attempted
any explanation of this note ; but has left it, as it nowr
itands in his Edition, a refpedlable, yet unfupported,
cenjefture.

( 92 )
pr. Benson, " give ihe fenfe" [of the eighth verfe]
*' In his own words ; and fay. Of ihi
" Faiher, Son, and Holy Spirit, It is
*' written, Thefe three areone?" (p.
hs-)
Becaufe he would, in fuch a cafe, have
faid the thing which "was not. It is not
WRITTEN, of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, Thefe three are one, in any part ofthe
eighth Verfe of this chapter. To fuppofe
that Cyprian would have affirmed a thing to
be written, which never was written. Is to
fuppofe that he vvould have ^een guilty of
uttering an Intentional falfehood ; a fuppo-
fitlpn altogether monftrous, and abominable !
XII. " For my own part, I make no
*' doubt but that was thefaSi:''
Indeed !
XIII. " The reafon, why Jerome has
" been appealed to, 'tn this point, is, ihat
" there is. In feveral latin bibles, a prcr
" face to the catholic eplfiles, which goes
" under his name." This

( 9Z ) I
This affertion is true, in part ; but it does Dr. BENsoNi
not contain the whole truth. The appeal
to the teftimony of Jerome, In favor of this
Verfe, is not founded on this preface only ;
but partly on this preface, and partly on his
having been the Author of that Tranflation
of the Bible, which is now called the Vulgar
Latin, or the Vulgate: — ^in which Tranfla
tion this Verfe has always had a place.
XIV- " Bui feveral learned men, and
*' even fome, who plead for ihe genulne-
" nefs of this text, have given up ihat
*' preface, as f pur Ious. Their reafons,
*' for rejeSilng It, are fuch as thefe, —
" It Is not In Jerome's catalogue of
*' prefaces."
Jerome wrote, in the fourteenth year (p) oi
Theodofius, A. D. 392, a Catalogue of the
works, which he had then compofed. He
lived twenty-eight years longer, or until A.
D. 420 : in which latter part of his life he
compofed, not only this preface to the Ca- ,
thollc
[q) See the Catalogue itfelf, Hieronymi Opera, per Mar
tianay, vol. iv. Edit. Pari flis, A. D. 1706.

( 94 )
Dr. Benson, thollc (or Canonical) Epiftles, but alfo feveral
other fimllar prefaces, and commentaries,
particularly to the greater Prophets, as they
are commonly called, (r) Ifalah, Ezekiel,
and Jeremiah ; to the lefler Prophets Zecba
riah, Malachi, Hofea, Joel, Amos, and Jonah ;
to the Ads of the Apoftles, alfo, as it feems,
and to the Epiftles of St. Paul.
It Is true, then, that this preface is not
inferted In Jeromes Catalogue : but It Is not
true, that it is, therefore, fpurlous. The
preface has no place In the Catalogue, not
becaufe it was not written hy Jerome,
but becaufe it was written by him apter
that Catalogue was compofed.
XV. " //" [this preface] " Is often
" found in latin MSS, without his" [Je
rome's] " name."
It is found without his name. In £omeLa-
tln MSS. But that omiflion does not prove
its fpurloufnefs. Jerome's preface to the
Books of the Chronicles is not mentioned as
his
[r) Hody, De Blbl. Text. Orig. p. 378,

( 95 )
his work, even in his own Apology; although Dr. Bensoh.
written by him long before the date of that
Apology, (s) His preface to the Pfalms is
** without his name" in feveral ancient MSS,
particularly in that of Carcaffonne (t) : yet
that preface is confeffedly his work. Jerome's
preface to the Book of Efdras Is, alfo, " wlth-
*' out his name," in one of the moft ancient
MSS in the Royal Library at Paris. Yet
this preface is now allowed, by all learned
men, to be the work of Jerome. Omlifion^, '
of this kind, prove nothing, — but the negli
gence of hafty tranfcribers.
XVI. " It" [the preface] " makes
*¦*¦ ufe of the words, canonical epiftles :
** whereas Jerome's title for them was,
" The Catholic Epiftles."
Jerome has, himfelf, applied the epithet.
Canonical, to thefe Epiftles, in other parts
of his works, as well as in the preface
now in queftion (u). . So hath Augufilne, (v) the
(0 Idem, p. 374.
(i) Hieronymi Opera, vol. ii. p. 546.
(u) See Notes by Erafmus, on ferome's Treatife on
Ecclefiaftical Writers: vol. i, p. 103, F. snd G. Edit.
jParis. A, D. 154-6. Erafmus, however, was oif'ended wiUi

( 96 )
Dr. Benson, (v) the Contemporary, andCorrefpondent, of
Jerome. And fo hath %/7/W, who alfo lived
in the fame age. In his treatife againft Va-
rlmadus, the Arian, he fays — *' It is written
" in the Canonical Epiftles, My Utile
" children, this Is ihe lafi time:" and the
quotation Is made from this very Epiftle of
St. John. And fo hath Junlllus, likewife,
who lived In the fixth century, about one
hundred years after the death of Jerome.
Junlllus ftiles thefe Epiftles Canonical, with
out explanation, or apology, as an appella
tion well-known, and long applied to them ;
^a (w) Apofiolorum Canonic^ nuncupan- tur:'
the epithet ; and, at nrll, vainly, attempted tofubflitute
Catholic in its place : but he foon fubmitted, and ftiled
them Canonical, himfelf; viz. " 2. foan. Canonica —
3. foan. EJUSDEM. (Vol. ii, p. 109.) In another work
he even allows, that ferome ftiled thefe Epiftles Canonical.'
Thefe are his vvords : " De hac quoque fecunda Petri
*' epiftola, cujus eflet, controverfia erat. Id teftatur
" ilieronyinus, in Catalogo fcriptorum illuftrium, his
*' quidem -verbis : Scripfit [Petrus] duas epiftolas, quae
" CANONICJE nominantur, quarum fecunda a plerifque
" ejus negatur, propter ftill cum priore diflbnantiam,"
('Annot. Erafmi in Nov. Teft. A. D, 1522, p. 6 14. J
[v) De Civitate Del, Lib. xv. cap. 23. " Scripfille
" quidem ncnnulladivina£«(7fff, ilium feptimumab-<M??K,
" negarenonpoffumusjcum hoc in Epistola canonica
" fudas Apoftolus dicat." (Augufi. Opera, Edit. Paris,
A. D. 1680, vol. vii, p. 408.)
{vS) De Partibus Divinae Legis, Cap. 6. — (Max. Bibl,
Patrum, vol. x. p. 341, Edit. Lugd, A. D. 1677.)

. (97)
?«r,'* are his words. Caffiodorlus applies the Dr, Bekson-.
fame epithet to them, in the firft Book of his
Infiltutes ; who lived in the fame age with
Junlllus. Nor was this epithet of Canonical
applied to thefe Epifiles, at that time, by
Jerome, Viglllus, Augufilne, Caffiodorlus, and
Junlllus, alone, but by the whole Latin
Church ; which is proved by the beft tefti
mony poffible, — the acknowledgement of an
adverfary. " The Greeks"^ (fays M. Simon)
" have ftiled the feven Epiftles, CathoUc ;
*' but the /^^^r» Churches feem, (x) es-
** pecially, to have given to them the
<* epithet of Canonical."
XVII. " That preface Is prefixed to
*' fome latin copies ofthe catholic eplfiles ;
" in "which the difputed text is not In-
" ferted."
The fame adverfary, whom we have al
ready quoted in reply to the laft, fhall, fing
ly, anfwer this, objedion. *' This is the
" fault of tranfcribers ;" (fays M. Simon,
fpeaking on this fubjed) " who, being only
H " juft
(*; Hift. Crit. du N. T. C. xvii, ad init.

( 98 ),
Dr. Benson. " juft equal to the tafk of copying the MSS-,-.
" did not confider the difagreement, which
" there was between the text of their
" copies, and this preface."
XVIII. " The preface Is not found in
'¦'.fome of the befi and mofi ancient MSS
" of Jerome'' s verfion."
Ifby the expreflion, "fome," it was here
meant to Infinuate, that this preface is not
found in tbe greater part, orin the generality,
of the MSS of Jerome's verfion, — the lii-
finuation is not founded in truth. Nor arc
thofe MSS of Jerome'' s verfion, in which
this pr.e face " is not found," either the beji,
or the mofi ancient. The truth is, thofe
MSS of Jerome'' s verfion, which want this
preface, are' few, aiid, in other refpeds, veij
Incorred ; aud (as hath been in part ob
ferved before) no conclufion can be drawn,
to overturn the authenticity of this preface,
from fuch, or any fimllar, ads of negligence,
or omiffion, in ignorant, or hafty, tranfcri"
bers. XIX. " It" [the preface] " Infiinuata
" one falfehood — that all the greek copies

ti

((

C 99 )
of the new teftament had this verfe. Dr. Benson.
Whereas none of ihem had It. And
Jerome, above all men, who was fo
converfant In the greek copies of the
new teflament, mufi needs have known
this to have been a dlreSl falfehood,"

It is really aftonifhing to fee fuch affer
tions advanced in dired oppofition to Je
rome's own teftimony, and to the plain, and
obvious, truth of the cafe. This Verfe
ftands in Jerome's Teftament. Jerome
folemnly affures us, that he fettled the text
of that Teftament by the Greek copies. " No-
* ' vum Tefi amentum (y ) fidei Graecge reddldl."
Jerome, therefore, is fo far from knowing
H 2 that
(^y) See the reference mentioned in page 33.
In his 28th Epiftle {to Lucinius) ferome again makes
the fame declaration. " Septuaginta Interpretum edi-
*' tionem et te habere non dubito, et ante annos plu-
" rimos diligentiffimeemendatam, ftudiofis tradidi : No-
" vum GrjecJE reddidi auSioritaii." Edit. Erafmi, Paris.
A. D. 1546, vol. i. p. (yr, as erroneoufly marked in the
vol. but really page) 66.
And again, " Sicut autem in Novo Teftamento, ft
•' quando apud Latinos quaeftio exoritur, et eft inter
" exemplaria varietas, recurrimus ad fontem GrjecI
'¦* fermonis, quo novum fcriptum eft infrumentum : ita in
•' Veteri Teftamento, fi quando inter Grescos, Latinofque,
" diverfttas eft, ad Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem."
(HlERoN, Sunies et Fretela,^ vol. iii, p. 26. — )

( I°<^ )
Dr. Benson, that this Verfe was in none of the Greek
MSS, that he has, upon the authority of
thofe very MSS, inferted the Verfe in hisr
own Tranflation. This Jerome, " who,
" above all men, was fo converfant in the
" Greek Copies of the New Teftament,"
has tranfcrlbed this Verfe from thofe very
Copies !
XX. " Nor has any of the genulnt
*' works of ihe greek fathers once men-
," tioned It" — [viz. the Verfe, i.John,
V. 7.]
If this aflertion were true, it would not
bc conclufive againft the originality of this
preface. But it is not true ; as will appear
by the following inftances, taken from fuch
parts of the works of thofe Fathers, as have
furvived to the prefent times.
1 . Euthymlus Zygabenus lived at Confian
tlnople, in the eleventh century, in the reign
of Alexis Comnenus. In his works he thus
refers .to this Verfe of St. John. " The
" term One denotes things, the effence, and
" nature, of which are the fame, and yet

( loi )
"** the perfons Are different (a) ; as in this Dr. Benson.
«' inftance. And three are one."
2. A Dialogue, in the Greek language,
wherein Athanafius, and Arius, are the real,
or affumed, interlocutors, which was written
about A. D. 336 ; thus exprefsly quotes
the Verfe in queftion. " Is not that lively,
" and faving, Baptlfm, whereby we receive
*' remiffion of fins, adminlftered in the name
*' oi^e Father, the Son, andthe Holy Ghofi f
*' And St. Johni^ys, And these three
*'. ARE one."(^) Whether thisDlalogue was
yh\tten\yy Athanafius, or not, has long been a
matter of. debate among the learned. It is,
however, of greater moment, in the prefent
cafe, to hfcertain the time when, than the
perfon by whom, it was written. And this
clrcumftance (the time when it was written)
feems to be clearly decided by the following
cxtrad from the work itfelf. Athanafius, to-
H J wards
(fl) Orthodoxts Fidei Dogmaiica PahopUa, Part I. Tit.
•7, (Max. Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xix, p. 47. Edit. Lugd,
A. D. 1677.
The Council of Lateran was compofed of Greek,
as well a^ Latin, Fathers, and Biftiops; and this
Yerfe is exprefsly appealed to in their joint Decretal.
(fee p. 41 of this work.)
{b) Athanafii Opera, Edit. Paris, A, D. 1698, vol. -
ii. p. 229.

( 102 )
Dr. Benson, wards the clofe of the debate, demands of
Arius, " Whether, by faying, the Emperor
" Conftantine reigns byfe,a, and land, he there-
" by affirmed that his Son, Conftantius, d'ld
" not reign ihere alfo." To which Arms
replies, "' It is very dangerous to fay, that
«' Conftantius does not reign with Con-
«« ^2intn\e, his Father." (c")
I need not obferyeto Mr. Gibbon, that the
joint reign of Conftanilne, and Confiantius,
ended with the death of the former, in the .
nionth of May, A, D. 337.
Laftly, — Among the works of Athanafius,
(^) which are generally allowed to be genuine,
is a Synopfis of this Epiftle of St. John. It
is not the purpofe, or Intent, of a Synopfis ex
prefsly to quote the work to which it refers ;
but

{c) Ou iJi.ix,^oi; xivJuvo? &c. Non leve eft periculum
dicere Conjiantinum non imperare [(ruju,Ea(riA£V£i] cum
Conjiantino Patre (uo, eo quod una cum ipfo numera-
TUR. p. 215.
•{d) Du Pin, Art. Athanafius, Lond. Edit, vol. ii, p.
34. Hody, (De Bibl. Text, originalibus, p. 309) fays
the author of this Synopfis— •¦•• Qui, fi non fuit Athsnafm,
" vetuftiffirnus tamen fuit." Dr. Cave fpeaks to the
fame purpofe, Hift. Lit. Lond, Edit. A. D. i688, p. 146.

( i°3 )
but to p"lve a compendious Summary of its Dr. EEtcsot:
fcope, and fubjed. The verfe in queftion,
therefore, is not dlredly quoted in this Sy
nopfis ; but the author of It feems plainly
to refer to this Verfe, In thefe words : The
Apoftle (fays he) " here teaches (e) the Unity
of the Son with ihe Faiher :" ior this unity is
fiot taught in any part of that chapter, fivve
in thefeventh verfe.
Thefe idftances, then, are flat contra-
dldlons to the aftertlons above ftated. Had
the works of the ancient Greek Fathers come
down to us entire, the number of thefe in
ftances would, without doubt, have been
greatly increafed.
XXI. " //" [the preface] " aferts
" iwo other direct and notorious fulfe-
" hoods, "-r-w'ix. firft, " that the Latin
• " tranfiators were unfaithful. In leaving
" out the tefilmony of the father, the word,
" and thefplrlt." p. 636.)
H 4 Tbe '
[e] " K«i rnv tvor^nra, Ss th viov ¦ttoo^ rov iroi,ri(,x
(Jsixi/uo-t" — [Athanafii Opera, Edit. Paris, A. D. 1698,
vol. ii, p. 190.)

( 104 >
Dr. Benson. The words of the Preface are, " In qua
" etiam ab tnfidellbus tranfiatotlbus multum
«' erratum efle a fidei veritate comperimus."
Jerome does not fay, that the Latin Tranfia
tors, colledlvely taken, were unfaithful;
but that a great error had been fallen into
by unfaithful tranfiators, by fome, it might
be even by a few, of them, refpeding this
Verfe, XXII. The other " direSi and notorious
" falfehood," which this Preface afferts,
il is — " That he, [Jerome] had reftored
" this Verfe,"
The Preface afferts (/) no fuch thing !—
Its words are--" The firft of thefe Epiftles
*' is one, of James ; then two, of Peter 5
" threeoi John; and one, oi Jude: Which,
*' if they had been faithfully tranflated into
*' the Latin language, as they were
" WRITTEN BY THESE ApOSTLES, WOUld
*' not have offered ambiguities to their
*' readers ;— -nor would variations of the
" text have thwarted each other ; particu- ^' larly
(/) " See Appendix, No. XIII, where this preface is
tranfcrlbed at length.

( 105 )
*' Iarly in that paffage of the firft Epiftle of Dr, Bensokt.
*' St. John, where we find the unity of the
" Trinity fet forth,"
The obvious meaning of the Preface is— •
that the exlftence of this paffage of St. John,
in fome, and its non-exiftence in others, of
thofe Tranflations, had caufed certain ambl-
gultles, and variations of ihe text, which are
here complained of. Had the Verfe been
omitted in all of them, no fuch ambiguity
could have been offered to the reader, be
caufe there would have been no variation to
caufe, or produce, it. The Preface, there
fore, does not fuppofe any reftoratlon of the
Verfe by Jerome, becaufe It does not fuppofe
the Verfe ever to have been loji. It goes no
further than, fimply, to complain, that the
Verfe had been left out of certain Tranfla
tions : which' we may even cortclude tohave
been ie^ in number, in'comparlfon with the
reft who retained the text, with as much
reafon as any one can have to conjedure the
contrary. XXIII. " Augufilne, who was intl-
" mate

( ^o6 )
Dr. Benson. «< mate with Jerome, kept a correfpondence
*' with him, read his works, andmore
" efpecialiy his Latin Verfion ofthe New
" Tefiament, has never once. In all his
" voluminous works, mentioned the dif
" puted text.
It hath been already proved, (g) as it I«
trufted, in dired contradldlon to the pre
ceding objedion, that Augufilne hath quoted
this difputed text. Nor is this quotation the
only teftimony, which he hath given to its
authenticity. He has, moreover, expreffed
the higheft approbation of Jerome's Verfion
of the New Teftament ; which hath always
' exhibited this verfe, " ,We heartily thank
" God" (fays Augufilne, writing to Jerome)
" for your translation of the New Tef-
" tament ; becaufe there 'is fcarcely any thing in
'¦'it, which offends us, (h) when we compare
" // with the original Greek." XXIV.

(g) Page 34.
¦ [h) " Proindc non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere
tuo, quod Evangelium ex Grieco interpret ATUS ES:
" quia pene in omnibus nulla offenfio cfl, cum Scripiuram
" Grcscam contulerimus." To which 7«rw«? replies —
Si me, ut dicis, in Novi Testamenti emendatione

( 107 )
XXIV. " What may put the matter''* Dr. Benson^
[the fpurloufnefs of the Preface] " ouf
" of all difpute. Is, Jerome himfelf. In
*' his genuine, voluminous works, hath
" never quoted this difputed paffage:*
If thefe premifes ftiould be admitted, the
conclufion, drawn from them, does not, ne-
ceffarily, follow. Jerome may not have
quoted this difputed paffage in his other
works, and yet the preface may be genuine.
It Is not for me, for Dr. Benfon, or even for
Mr. Gibbon, dogmatically to pronounce, that
an Author has not written a Preface, in
which a particular paffage of Scripture Is
quoted, merely becaufe he has written other
works, In which that paffage is not quoted.
But the premifes, themfelves, are by no
means
" fufcipis," &c. — (Hieronymi Opera, Ed. Erafmi, A. D.
1546, vol. ii, p. Ill — 114..J
'Erafmus fpeaks of this intercourfe between Augufiine,
and ferome, in the following terms.
" Porro divus Augiiflimis , quoniam ne Grace quidem
" ad plenum fciebar, non probat Hieronymi ftudium, qui
" Novum Tefiamentum ex Gr^^corum- fontibus, vel
•' verierii, vel emendarii. Qi^ianquam hoc utcunque to-
*' lerandum putat, propterea quod, collatis codici-
•* BUS, depreherdiflet Hieronymianam in ea re riDEM."
(Erafmi Annot. in Nov. Xc^. Edit. A. D. 1522, p. 74.)

( io8 )
^Dr. Benson, means to be admitted. It hath already been
i proved, as it is trufted, that Jerome hath
quoted this difputed paffage. Erafmus, in
deed, entertained, or affeded to entertain,
fome doubts of the authenticity of (/) thefe
quotations. But, when ferioufly confidered,
they do not (^) leem to have any real vyelght,
Jeromex\\en, as it feems, hath, inthe plain
fenfe of the word, quoted this verfe. But, in
(/) Pages 33—35.
{k) The words of Erafmus, refpeillng the Confeffions
ef Faith, here referred to,are — " Talia funt, ut ambigi
possit, utrum Hieronymi fmt, necne," Their ftile, how
ever, fliews them to be yerome's: which prefumption
feems to be fully eftablifiicd by the following confidera-
tions :
I. yereme frequently refers to Tertullian, and Cyprian,
who have cited this Verfe in their writings. (Vide Hier-
enymi Operz, ^er Erafmum, A.D. 1546,— vol. i. pages
8 M, 36 E, 96 H, and 98 G. ;-vol. ii. p. 37, .^A j
and vol. iii, p. 65 A : ei alibi paffim. )
2. Jerome not only expreffes to Marcus Celedenfis, who
wzs ferome s friend, and correfpondent, the warmeft an-
p^oh^uon onh^tExpofiiion oftheFaiih, (fee page 35 of this
work) which Marcus h;iA written to Cyrillus ¦, hut, at the
lame tune pofitively declares that one of thefe Con.
fejfions, which are now in debate, was his own com-
polition. " Defide, autem, quod dignatus esfcribere fan^o
Cjin/Ztf, dediconscriptamfidbm." (Vol ii p ioa )
And of this ExPosiTio f 1 dei of Marcus Celedenfis, a.id
andof h.s own conscripta fides, here treated upon,
7~ further fpeaks, in thefe glowing terms: « V'
ftc non credit, alienus a Chrijlo tjl." ^

( 109 >
in another fenfe, he hath done much more Dr, Benson.
than quote it, by inferting it in his Verfion
of the New Teftament ; the moft laborious,
the moft important, of all his works. By
this infertion, indeed, Jerome may be faid,
moft truly, to have " put the matter out of
" all difpute ;" but in a very different man
ner from the predeftinated fentence of Dr.
Benfon. The Preface of Jerome throws light
upon his Verfion ; and his Verfion refleds
ftrength to the Preface : and in both, thus
mutually illuminating, and corroborating,
each other, Jerome has fixed hIS' own feal to
the authenticity of the Verfe, in queftion ; —
" a feal, which w'lll continue many days:''
This, Sir, is the laft of the eleven proofs,
(as he has thought proper to ftile them) which
are produced by Dr. Benfon, to fhew the fpurl
oufnefs of this Preface. They have been, I truft,
fairly weighed in the ballance, and found
wanting. Some of thefe pretended proofs are,
moft blameably, untrue. The reft, even
where not falfe, are yet, without a fingle
ejtception, vague, and incon clufive. They
are fo far from inducing a fober convidlon of

( no )
Dr. Benson, of the fpurloufnefs of this Preface, that they
do not, when combined together, am^oiint
even to a probability of it. Indeed, the af-
perfions, which have been caft upori this
Preface, are but the dream of the prefent
age. The moft difturbed imagination did
not harbour any fuch chimeras, until the
times oi Martianay, ciud Simon. (/) Former
ages would not have liftened to them for a
moment. Let prejudice, then, give way to
moderation. Let candor pronounce her
judgment ; and let the Preface be, what it
affirms itfelf to be, what even Erafmus, and
(m) Socinus, confefs it to be, the work of
Jerome. We
(/) See Cyprian's Works, Edit. Ow«. (Note on the
Treatife, De Unitate Ecclefue) p. 109.
Nicholas deLyra, in the fourteenth, and TFalafrid Straho,
in the ninth, Century, having occafion to fpeak of this
Preface, exprefsly afcribe it to ferome.
Erafmus admits it to have been the work of yerrnne,
in his Annotations upon this part of the New Teftament.,
" Divus Hieronymus pr^loquens in epistolas ca-
" NoNicAS, fufpicatur hunc locum fuifft depravatum," &c.
Edit. Bafil. A. D. 1522, p. 616.
And Dr. Cave, alio, places this Preface among the
genui.ie works of ferome, (Hiji. Lii. Edit. Lond. A, D.
1688, p. 223.)
(ot) Smith's Findlcia, Edit. Lond. A. D. 1686, p. 136.
See alfo Calmet— ^^ Mais Erafine, et apres lui Socin, M.
Le Clere, &c. foutienhent que le Prologue, dont on vient
" deparler, ejivraiment de Saint Jerome." (Diff. Vol.
iii, Edit. Pax is. A. D, 1720, p. 561.)

( I" )
We may, Sir, I prefume, now quit this Dr. Benson.
Preface, allowing it to have been written by
Jerome, and proceed to the reft of Dr. Ben-
fotis objedions to the originality ofthe Verfe,
I. John, V, 7.
XXV. " Asto what Vidior Vitenfis
" has faid, tdwards the conclufion sof the
" fifth century ; or others In later ages,
" // cannot be of much moment. And,
" therefore, I fall fay nothing to fuch late
" tefihnon'ies" — (viz. in favor of the
Verfe in queftion;)
This objedion Is fo extraordinary, that it
feems to call for a very particular examina
tion, in all its parts,
Firft, as tothe objector, — It feems, on a
primary view, peculiarly ftrange, that Dr. Ben
fon ftiould. thus rejed the evidence of Victor
Vitenfis, who wrote (about A. D. 488, or)
in the fifth century,' as late tefilmony ; when he
foon afterwards cites Bede, (n) of the eighth,
and Oecumenlus, ¦ of the eleventh j century. But
(«) Page 644,

( nO
Dr. Benson. Butthismodeoffeledinghls evidence, ftrailge,
as it feems, may, perhaps^ be accounted for.
Th? fuffrage of Vi£ior Vitenfis supports
the authenticity of this verfe. Thofe of
Bede, and Oecumenlus are, in fome fenfe,
adverse to it. It feems but too plain, that
thefe circumftances, alone, have prevailed
with Dr. Benfon to urge the latter teftimony,
and to rejed the former.
This primary prefumption feems, further,
to become abfolute certainty, when applied,
comparatively, to the nature of the fe
veral teftimonies, here rejeded, or retained,
by Dr. Benfon. For, what is the nature of
the proof, which is dra\yn from Bede, and
Oecumenlus, as to this verfe ? It amounts
only to this, — //^'^/BedEj^T'/JOecum.enius,
have NOT quoted this verfe. In their works.
The whole of the evidence, then, whioh
can be drawn from them, is barely negative.
It is, only, an omiffion Ina Commentator ; and,
as fuch, affords matier for conje31ure, merely,
and no more.— But the evidence of VtSlor
Vitenfis is positive, clear, and pointed.
He has related a plain hiftory of plain fads. 'He

( 113)
He has given an unadorned account of what Dr. Benson*
he faw and heard, and experienced, when fur-
rounded by the armed band of the defpotic
Hunerlc. His narrative was compofed, whllft
Arianifm fat triumphant on the throne, and
therefore muft be c'lrcumfpett. It was writ
ten in the face of exafperated enemies ; (o)
and therefore ijiuft be accurate. It was pub-
Hflied, whllft the parties, of whom it treated,
were living ; and therefore muft he faithful.
It recorded a tranfadlon, known through all
the dominions oi Hunerlc, and therefore muft
be true: becaufe the fmalleft deviation from
truth would have been followed by Inftant
detedion. This narrative of VlElor Vitenfis,
then, is an argument In favor of this verfe,
which needs only" to be read In order to
compel convidlon. It is, in its nature, fu-
perior to all fophifms, and inexpugnablo by
any cavils :  and yet, this is the teftimony,
which Dr. Benfon has thought fit (p) to put
I afide,,
(fl) The account given by Viiior, and here alluded to,
is ftated more at large in pages 4.4 to 47 of thefe letters.
See alfo Appendix, No. XIV : and DuPin, Lond. Edit.
vol. V. p. 170.
[p) If Dr. Benfon would have given his true reafon, for '
having " nothing to fay to the tefimony," of J'^icior Fitaifis ;
it would, feemingly, have been, that he knetv not bow to an
fwer it.

( 114)
Pr. Benson, afide, as having nothing to do with, as being
utterly unconcerned in, the decifion of the
authenticity of the verfe, i . John, v. 7 !
Nor is this the only abfurdlty, into which
Dr. Benfon has here betrayed himfelf. His
pretence, abput the t i me, in which VlSior Vi
tenfis lived, which he hath afiigned as his
reafon for rejeding Vl5ior''s teftimony, is as
futile, as his real intentions, in rejeding
. it, feem to have been blameable. For in tbe
outfet of his Differtation, he admits the tef
timony of Jerome, iri favor of this Verfe, as
valid In point of time ; for he fets himfelf fe
rioufly to do away Its effed, if •poflible, by
laboring to prove (as we have already feen)
that the Preface to the Canonical Epiftles Is
not the work of Jerome. Now Jerome lived
in the fame Century with VlSior Vitenfis;
nay, it is poflible that they might both be
alive at the fame hour : for Jerome furvived
until A. D. 420, and ViSior was a B'lfiop In
(perhaps long before) A. D, 484, and was
prefent, w\x}nEugenlus,2.nd his Co-prelates, in
that year, at the Council of Carthage, Dr.
Benfon, therefore, allows the evidence of Je
rome,

(115)
rome, in the beginning of the fifth Century^, Dr. Benson,
to be early enough ; and yet rejeds that of
Vi£lor, and his Brethren, the Bifliops of Afri
ca, " towards the conclufion of that centu-
" ry," as " laie tefi'imony, — as inadmlff.ble
becaufe modern : for that Is the only im
peachment which he ventures to caft upon
it. But if the former be early enough, why
is the latter too late ? By what rule is a tef
timony of A. D. 414, for inftance, to be ad
mitted, by a Critic of the eighteenth Century,
by an author who writes nearly one thoufana
three hundred years afterwards, as In time,
(the antiquity of the evidence being the fole
point in queftion) and another, of A. D. 484,
to be rejeded, asotd of time : nay, lo muph
out of time, as to be out of all claim to no
tice, — fo very " late," as that " nothing" Is
tobe " faid to, it?" Will any one, who
contends for the fpurloufnefs of this Verfe,
—will Mr. Gibbon, — attempt to juftify Dr.
Benfon iu this rejedion ? If fo. Sir, you will,
perhaps, condefcend to inform the world,
what members, what fradloaal parts, of the
fame Century, (the fifth, for Inftance) are to
conftitute ancient, and what fradions, pr
I 2 parts,

(ii6)
Dr. Benson, parts, thereof, modern teftimony. But you
will not hazard the attempt.
XXVI. " In fettling the text ofthe new
" tefiament, Robert Stephens made ufe
*' of fifteen ancient MSS," (p. 637.)
He made ufe oifixteen, befide the Complu
tenfian Bible, which was a printed book. His
own words are (q) " Tefiamentum qua (dlc-
" tante Splrltu fanSlo) fcriptum fuit llngud,
*' cum veiufi'tffimls sedecim scriptis ex-
*' emplaribus, quanta maxima potuimus
"v curd, et dlllgentld, collatum' excudlmus."
Theodore Beza, who was permitted to collate
thefe MSS for his own Verfions of the New
Teftament, acknowledges himfelf indebted
to the friendflilp of Robert Stephens ior the
ufe of fevenieen (r) oi his Copies ; taking
into the number the Complutenfian Bible,
which Robert Stephens had ufed in his own
Editions, and afterwards furnlftied to Beza,
along with the fixteen, written, Copies. XXVII.
{q) Preface to his Edition of A. D. 1550, printed at
Pari^. (Appendix, No. XII.)
(r) Preface to his Editions of A. D. 1582, and 1589.

( "7)
XXVII. " Itis very certain that he Dr. Benson.
" [f^ohert ^te^ens] d'ld not fcruple va-
,- - '< ry Ing from his. MSS, and has varied
" from them all, and from the complu-
* ' tenfe and vulgate, too, in feventy places,
" at leaf."
The plan, which Robert Stephens follow
ed in his Edition of A. D. 1550, here allu
ded to, was, — to take all thofe fentences, or
words, to be original, in which all his au
thorities concurred, and to place them in the
text, generally, (f) without any marginal
notes, or references, whatfoever. But where
his authorities varied from each other, al
though by a fingle letter only, he adopted
that fentence, or word, alone, which feemed
to be the. genuine reading of the paflage, in
ferting it in the body of the page, and no
ting, in the margin, the principal variations
of his other authorities.
If, then, the objedion only means, that
Robert Stephens has fometimes varied from
I 3 fome
{s) Robert Stephens, in this work, took the laft Edition
of Erafmus, as the general foundation of his text j which
he has followed chiefly, but not ferviiely.

(ii8)
I
t Dr. Bensoxv, fome of his MSS, in preference to others ;
fomtetlmes from all, or moft, of them, in
favor of the Complutenfian, and the Vulgate ;
and at other times from them alfo. In obedi
ence to his MSS, in proportion as any of
thefe guides feemed to fupply the moft cor
red information ; — it defcribes Robert Ste
phens as an afliduous Inveftigator of truth, as
an accurate, and judicious, Critic: a def
cription, in which the whole literary world
will concur. But if the objedor meant to
infinuate (and the plain conftrudion of his
words dlredly Infers the infinuation) that
Robert Stephens has, in feventy, or in any
number of, places, varied from the whole-
tenor of his authorities, and interpofed an
arbitrary, unfupported, ledlon of his own,
in contravention of them all, — the infinu
ation is Illiberal ; and, being unwarranted by
any proof, ought to be rejeded whh dif-
dain. You will exped me. Sir, before I quit the
objedion now under confideration, to al
low, that it was not originally urged by Dr.
Benfon, but copied by him from the writer
. ¦ ¦ of

( iJy )
of the Memoirs of the late Dr. Waterland. Dr. Benson,
That Dr, Benfon was but a Copyift in this
objedion, as well as in many others which
are urged in his Differtation, I do moft readi
ly admit. But he has fo copied them, as
to make them his own. On feeing a charge
of this reproachful nature, brought againft a
man of fo fair a fame as Robert Stephens, one
who is acknowledged, even by Df. Benfon^
to be " a learned, worthy, man," — a mari
*' of exterifive learning, indefatigable dili
gence, and zeal (/) to promote ufeful
knowledge, and particularly that of the
Scriptures," without -the fhadcw of a
proof to fupport the charge, beyond the
empty affirmation of the Aflertor ; — a Com- .
mentator, without prejudice, without any
fecret partiality to either fide of the queftion,
would, at once, have challenged the impu
tation, and have refufed to admit it, againft
fo truly refpedable a charader, without the
moft unequivocal demonftration of its truth..
He would have treated that Writer's "feventy
'¦'places," as the Brltlfh nation did his Ma-'
jefty of »S^^;Vs " hundred Injuries" alledged
I 4 in
(0 Page 63?,

il ll
(C

( 120 )
Pr. BensoN" in a late memorable Man'fefio. He would
have called for a fpeclficatlon of them ; which
not being complied with, he would have
condemned the whole as a groundiefs allega
tion. But, inftead of this, Dr„ Benfon haftens
to admit the charge, and, to preferve the
appearance, at leaft, of candor, affeds to
make this apology for it ; viz. " As to his
" varying from his copies, it feems plain,
" from his Preface, that he had not an op-
" portunity to collate all the copies hlm-
" felf." An apology, which, unfortunate
ly. Is as falfe, as it is frigid ; — for the Pre
face (a) of Robert Stephens, fo far from
making it " pla'm" does not even afford
foundation for a conjedure, that he did not ,
" collate all the copies himfelf." I think
myfelf juftlfied, therefore. Sir, in aflclng,
whether a Commentator, without prejudice,
or partiality, would have aded Hke Dr. Ben
fon ? And I fliould rejoice in being able to
give any other folutlon of the queftion, than
that which the queftion, Itfelf, pre-fuppofes,
and which the whole tenor of his Differta
tion proves, to be the only true one-. XXVIII.
(u) See the Preface throughout. Appendix, No. XIL

( 121 )
XXVIII. " The fum of the matter Is, Dr. Benson.
*' Robert Stephens was a learned, worthy,
" man. And, therefore, one would not
" willingly fufpeSi, that he placed the lat-
"- ter fem'i-c'ircle wrong, on purpofe. How- ,, , :
" ever. In his famous Greek Tefiament,
*' I ^^o. It Is wrong placed."
Here is another inftance of Dr. Benforis
keeping back a part of the truth, in order to
give the fairer color to his own predlledions.
It is true, that Robert Stephens could only
place the lemi-clrcles wrong, as to the Verfe
in queftion, (provided he did place them
wrong at all, which is denied) In his Greek
Tefiament of A. D. 1550 ; becaufe that was
the only Edition, in which he made ufe of
thofe feml-circles. But the whole truth is,
— that Robert Stephens has borne teftimony
to the originality of this Verfe, in all the
Editions of the Greek Teftament, ever pub-
liftied by him ; which are no lefs than four,
in number. In his Editions of A. D. 1546,
and 1549, in which the Semi-circles (or the
Obelus, sxid Sem'i-parenthefis) are not ufed, the
Verle is read entire, in the text, as well as '\\\

\ ( 122 )
i Dr. Benson. Jn the Edition of A. D. 1550, in which they
are made ufe of. To this third, fucceeded a
j fourth, Edition, publiflied by Robert Ste-
• phens, in A. D. 1 551 ; wherein the Verfe is
ftill continued, ftill maintained in its place,
without the leaft note of diftruft, without
, the finalleft Impeachm.ent of its authenticity.
Thefe fads being premlfed, the whole
queftion, as to this part of Robert Stephens'^
condud, will be reduced to this fingle
dilemma. Either Robert Stephens placed the
latter Semi-circle, as we now find it in his
Edition of A.D. 1550, on purpofe; or by
mlfiake. Now he placed it there, not by mif
take ; becaufe he had printed the Verfe, en-
t'lre, in his two former editions, and he ex
prefsly Informs us that this Edition had
been collated with the fame MSS,, from
whence the foregoing Editions were made.
Not by mlfiake; becaufe he would, in that
cafe, have caft out of his fubfequent Edition,
of A. D. 1 55 1, a paflage which he had in
tended to repudiate (for fo the objedion fup
pofes) by the Semi-circle of the preceding
year. Not by mlfiake ; becaufe a man, who had

( 123 )
had been To painfully accurate in revifing Dr. Benson.
this work, as even to point out, in the Er-
, rata fubjolned to it, the mif-placing of one
Comma, in the body of the text, and the o-
miflion of another, cannot even be fuppofed
to have fuffered a whole Verfe to have
efcaped his notice ; a Verfe, too, which on
account of the then recent difpute between
Erafmus, Ley, and Stunica, muft have en
gaged his particular attention. Not by mlf
iake ; becaufe the Verfe, in queftion, is in
ferted in the New Teftament of John Crifpin.,
whofe publication bears date three years fub
fequent to that of Robert Stephens, who was,
at the time of his publication, the friend,
and fellow-citizen, of Robert Stephens, and
who muft be concluded to have publiflied
with his privity, and afliftance : for it is im-
pofQble to fuppofe, that Crifpin would not in
fuch an undertaking, conftantly confer wirli
fuch a neighbour, with fuch a friend, with
fuch a man, as Robert Stephens. Not by mif
take ;— becaufe the Verfe is found In the
New Teftament of Theodore Beza, who, Hke
Crifpin, publiflied whllft Robert Stephens was
living, who mentions him frequently v.ith the

( 124 )
Dr. Benson, the moft affedlonate refped ; who had in
his pofleflion, by the perfonal favor oi Ro
bert Stephens, the identical MSS, ufed by
him in this very Edition of A. D, 1550,—
aud (x) who folemnly declares, that this
Verfe did adually exift In thofe MSS.
If Robert Stephens, therefore, did not place the
(*) " Hic Verficulus — extat in Complutenfi Editione,
•• et in nonnullis Stephani veteribus libris. In ccelo, deeft
•' in Septem vetuftis codicihus." (Appendix, No. XI.)
Mr. Emlyn endeavours to take away the weight of
Beza's teftimony to this -point, by alledging that he never
faw the MSS, themfelves, of Robert Stephens ; for that tbey
¦were not delivered to Beza, but only a Book, or Tranf
cript, wherein Robert Stephens had written down his Col-
lations from them. But this objeftion may be repelled,
in the prefent cafe, by the moft unexceptionable teftimo
ny ; which is that oi Mr. Emlyn himfelf. For in the
fecond page after this allegation, Mr. Emlyn further af
firms, that Be-za detefted a miftake IN those Colla
tions, as to the firft Chapter, of the Apocalypfe ; in
which Robert Stephens had marked certain words to be
wanting in two, oiHy, of his authorities, whereas (ac
cording to Bcza's account) thofe words were wanting, in
the re/i of Stephens's MSS likewife. It would have been
well worth Mr. Emlyn's pains, when he gave this latter
information to his readers,- to have apprifed them, at the
fame time, how Beza could, poffibly, have dete£ted a
miftake of this kind, in Stephens's Book of Collations,
unlefs by refarting to ihe MSS themfelves I
By Mr. Emlyn's own argutuent, then, it clearly ap
pears, ihztBeza did poffefs the original MSS of kobert
Stephens; becaufe he could not, but by the aid oi Robert
Stephens's MSS, have detefted any miftake, of this nature,
'in his Collations. (See Emlyn's reply, p. 244 — 9.)

( 125 )
the latter Semi- circle in the fituatlon where Dr. Benson.
¦yve now find It, by mlfiake, (as he moft af-
furedly did not) the confequence is inevita
ble : — He placed it there on purpose ! — <
And, unlefs we are now, at length, to fup
pofe, that Robert Stephens firft advanced an in
tentional falfehood in the face of the Avhole
Chrlfilan world, as to the exlftence of this
Verfe in his MSS, and that, afterwards,
Theodore Beza, who had thofe very MSS put
into his hands which enabled him to deted
the falfehood, did, inftead of betraying, abet,
and fupport, him in it ; unlefs we are now,
at length, todefpoil them both of thofe cha
raders of learning, and worth, of probity,
and honor, with which their memories have
been fo long adorned, and confecrated, and
to conclude that they confpired to adj in
concert, the infamous (and, in the prefent
cafe, impious) part of cheats, andimpoftors:
Unlefs we are now become defperately de
termined to fpeak, and ad, in contradidion
to the voice of all Europe, in defiance to the
teftimony of ages, paft, and prefent, as well
as in utter fubverfion of every principle of li
terary candor, and Chrlfilan chai ity ; we
muft

( 126)
Dr. Benson, muft feel ourfel ves, of neceffity, compelled
to acknowledge, that what i^o/^^r/ Stephens
thus did Intentionally, he alfo did confc'ien-
¦tloufiy ; that he, and Theodore Beza, have a
right to command our full affent, when they
only affirm a plain fad, which lay within
their ovvn knowledge, and which, therefore,
they were compleatly competent to afcer-
tain ; that Robert Stephens did not place the
latter Semi-circle wrong, either by mlfiake,
or on purpofe ; — and that when it is affeded
to teach us, either by Dr. Benfon, or by Mr.
Glbbon,oi the " typographical fraud, or error, of
" Robert Stephens," in the prefent Inftance,
at leaft ; or of the " deliberate falfehood, or
firange mlfapprehenfion of Theodore Beza ;"
•—fuch teaching is in vain !
Thefe confiderations feem to determine
the whole debate, as to the MSS of Robert
Stephens. Nothing can weigh againft them,
but the adual produdion of the MSS them
felves, accompanied by indubitable proof
that they do not contain the Verfe in queftion.
And lo ! the required Defideratum ftands
before us ! — For Dr. Benfon thus proceeds :
XXIX.

, ( 127 )
XXIX. " Andhis" [R, Stephens's] Dr, Benson.
** MSS, are, upon the ftrlSiefi examlna-
.'. " tion, found to want this difputed paf-
- ">g-.."
, As a decifion of this point will materially
affed the whole queftion, refpeding the ori
ginality of this Verfe, — you will. Sir, pardon
me, perhaps, if I trefpafs fomewhat longer
than ufual upon your patience, in examining
the foundation of this aflertion, and fliewing
its falfehood at large.
In the courfe of the controverfy (already
mentioned 'm (y) this letter) which arofe,
in the beginning of the prefent century, be
tween Mr. Martin, and Mr. Emlyn, as to the
originality of this Verfe ; the pi\ priety of
the Obelus, or Semi-circle, as placed in Robert
Stephens's Greek Teftament of A. D. 1550,
was warmly denied by Mr. Emlyn, and ftren
uoufly defended by his antagonift. During
the pendency, and indeed in the very height,.
of this difpute. Father Le Long, a Prieft of
the Oratory at Paris, publiflied in the Journal des
{y) Page 80, ,

( 128 )
Dr. Benson des Savans, A. D. 1 720, a letter, in which he
' affirms, that all the MSS, which had beeu
ufed hy Robert Stephens, in his Edition of A.D.
1550, (amounting, he fays, to fifteen in num
ber) were then in the Royal Library at Pa
ris ; that Robert Stephens had borrowed them
from King Henry the Ild ; that they ftill
bore the ufual mark of the MSS of that
Prince, namely, a Crown furmounted by a
coronetted H ; that they were alfo marked
with the Greek numerals, mentioned by Ro
bert Stephens in his Preface ; that he (F, Le
Long) had examined them feveral times ;
and that, by comparing fome of the mar
ginal References of Robert Stephens s Edi
tion, with the MSS in the Library, upon
which the correfponding Greek numerals
were infcribed, he was perfedly fatisfiedof
their identity, (z)
This is the teftimony of F. Le Long ;
which, If'tt had been true, might have meri
ted the commendation, which Dr, Benfon has
been pleafed to beftow upon it. But, unfor
tunately
_ (z) This Letter is printed in £Wj)in's Reply, vol.
41. of his works, Lond. Edit. 1746, p. 372.

( 129 )
tunately for this mlf-placed Eulogium, the i^f* BensomJ
iaccount, thus given by Fi LeLong, is a total
mif-apprehenfion, . or mif-reprefentatiouj of
the cafe. The truth of this affertion will in-
conteftlbly appear, by comparing the fore
going account of F- Le Long with the def
cription which Robert Stephens has given of
his own MSS, and with the margins of (a)
his own Edition of A. D, 1550, the book
now in queftion.
For, in the firft place, the MSS, which
Robert Stephens borrowed from the Royal
Library^ were not fifteen, but only eight, in
nuttiberj as he exprefsly (i^) declares in his
Preface. Nor vvere thofe MSS borrowed
from Henry l, but from Francis i, his pre-
deceffor. For the firft of Robert Stephens's
four Editions of the Greek Teftament^ for
which thefe MSS were procured, and col-
K lated,
(«) The former Edition of thefe Letters referred, in
this place, to Martin's La V^erite. On a fubfequent ex
amination, I found his account of R. Stephens's MSS
tolerably accuratCj as far as it proceeded, yet very inade
quate artd defective. I have, in this Edition, fupplied
thefe deficiencies by an adlual collation of all the re
ferences, contained in every page of that great work.
{fi) '^ Tertio, qttario, quinto, fexto,fepiimo, oStavo, decins,
" et quintodecimo, ea gute ^k bibliotheca Regis habuimus^'
if Appendix, No. XII.J

( 13° )
pr. Benson, hted, atid out of which they were all (e)
compofed, and framed,— was publlftied be
fore Henry 2 began his reign.
Nor laftly, does it all concord with the
probability of the cafe, or with the knowii
probity of Robert Stephens, that he, who had
only borrowed eight MSS from the Royal
Library, fliould return fifteen (b) thither, for
no other purpofe, as It fhould feem, than to
abufe the confidence of thofe friends, who
' had lent to him tHe other MSS, and to de
prive them of their property.
Thefe circumftances would, alone, fiirnKK
fufficient ground for a ftrong fufpicion, that
tlie MSS of F. Le Long are not the MSS of
R. Ste-
{h) Matt'aire, in his life of R. Stephens, (Edit. Lond.
A. D. 1709, p. 67) affirms that he [R. Stephens} returned
to the Royal Library, thofe MSS, which he had borrow
ed from thence. This plainly appears to be a miftake,
in Mattaire ; not only from Be^za's own words, (Appen
dix, No. XI) but fro.-n'the exprefs declaration of iJ.
Stephens, in his advcrtifemeht fubjolned to Beza's Edition
of A. D. 1556.
(c) " Idem nunc iterum, et tertio, cum IISDEM (ollatum,
— tibi ojferimus." (Appendix, No. XII.)
R. Stephens, indeed, in his Gr^,^ Preface, fpeaks of thefe
MSS in the fol-lovving terms : — ra £>t TJifxpaTirs flf*""
But this is only an acknowledgement, that his MSS
came from the Library then belonging to Htnry ; not
that they were actually i«rruiyf</ from him.

( i3i )
R, Stephens, ^ut this fUfpicioii becomes Dr. Benson.
certainty, when fortified by the following
obfervatlons, vii.
That there is ilo MS, iri the Catalogue (d)
oiF.Le Long, which contains the Apoca
lypfe ; whereas the Apocalypfe is fourid in rio
lefs than four, namely, in the fifth, the
eleventh, fifteenth, and fixteenth, of the
MSS of R. Stephens.
That the MSS of F. Le Longas Catalogue,
which refer to the Golpels, are fewer by
three, than thofe which refer to the fame
Gofpels, in the Edition of R. Stephens.
That in the Lift of F. Le Long there are
only feven MSS which refer to the A^s of
the Apoftles ; whereas ten MSS are cited
thereto in the margin of R. Stephen's Edition.
That there are three fewer MSS, in the
Catalogue of F, Le Long, which refer to the
Epiftles to the Romans, and Corinthians, than
are found in the margin of the work of R.
Stephens. And laftly, K 2 That
(d) (Appendix, No XIX.}

( 13^ )
Dr. Benson. That in the Lift of F. Le Long, there Is
not a fingle MS, (i) which contains the
words, £.' r. r, of the eighth verfo of the
chapter in queftion. But thefe words were
found in aU the .MSS" of R. Stephens, (f) f
Thus it is manlfeft, that the MSS of F.
Le Long, taken aggregately, or as a whol,e,
have no parity, or agreement, with thofe of
R. Stephens ; and, therefore, cannot be the
fame which R. Stephens ufed in his Edi
tion of A. D. 1550. But this conclufion
will become unanfwerably clear, when we
proceed further to the examination of par
ticular MSS. For
The MS, marked |3, in the hft of F. Le
Long,
[e) See Le Long's Letter, accompanying his 'L\9c,Em-
bn, P- 273— ^^S- .
(f) Without having recourfe, in proof of this laft
aflertion, to the authority of R. Stephens himfelf, the note,
which Theodore Beza has left upon this part ofthe eighth
verfe is, beyogd all queftion, declfive. " Thefe words"
[fays he] " are not in the Syriac Verfion, nor in feveral
" very ancient Greek copies ; hut ihey are in eur Greek,
" MSS, and in the Latin Verfion." It has been, before,
obferved, that this is the expreflion, " our MSS," where
by Beza conftantly diftinguifhes the MSS of iJ. Stephens;
by whom they were lent to Beza for the ufe of ihis V«ry
Edition. (Appendix, No. XL)

( 133 )
Long, contains the Gofpels, and the Ads of Dr. Benson.
the Apoftles, only. But the MS of R.
Stephens, which bore that mark, contains al
fo the Epiftle to the Romans ; for It Is cited
hy him, In the margin of his work, upon the
tenth Verfe, of the third Chapter, of that
Epiftle. The MS, marked i, in the Catalogue of
F. LeLong, does not comprife the Apocalypfe'.
whereas the MS of R. Stephens, which was
thus marked, certainly contained the Apoca
lypfe ; becaufe he has particularly referred
to this MS in Rev. iii; 18, — ^and xix: 14. —
The two MSS, marked 1^ and tt in the Lift
of F. Le Long, do not contain the Ads of
the Apoftles. But both the MSS, which
Ll. Stephens dlftinguiflied by the fame letters,
contained the ASfs ; for the former is re
ferred to, by him. In Chapter xvii : 5 ; and
the latter In Chapters xxiv : 7, and 8 ; xxv:
14; xxvii: I ; and xxviii: ii.
The MS, marked with the letter 1, In the
lift of F. Le Long, contains only the ASis,
K 3 aaid

(134)
Dr. Benson, and the Eplfiles. But the MS, which is de
noted by this letter, in the Edition, of R,
Stefhens, comprifed alfo the Gofpels of St,
Luke, and St, John, ' A various reading is
quoted, by R. Stephens, from this MS, in St.
Luke, V : 19, and another in St, Jcthrt, 11;
17. Again,
The MS, marked la in F. Le Long's Cata
logue, comprehends, like the laft mentioned
MS, no more than the ASis, and the Eplfiles,
But the MS ofi?. Stephens, which bore this
mark, contained (befides the Ads, and the
Epiftles) the Gofpels of St. Matthew, and
St, John, together with the Apocalypfie. The
citations of this MS, in the margin of R.
Stephens's Edition, which prove this aftertion,
are no lefs than five ; namely, St. Matthew,
x: 8, and 10; and xii: 32; St. John, II:
17 ; and the Apocalypfe, xiii: 4, Again,
The MS, marked 1)3, in the lift of F, Le
Long, comprlfes the Gofpels, only. But
the MS of R. Stephens, which was denoted
by this mark, comprehended alfo the firft
Epiftle to th? Corinthians ; for he has re-,
ferred

( ^35 )
ferred to it in the margin of i. Corinthians, Dr. Benson.
XV : 44. Further, ^ ,¦ ¦
The MS, marked ly, in F. Le Longs Cata
logue, contains, like two former ones herein
before mentioned, no more than the AUs,
and the Eplfiles. (g) But in that of R.
Stephens, which carried this mark, was cpm-
prehendfed, alfo, the Gofpels of St, Matthew
and St. John. Various readings are copied
by him, from thence, in the margins of St.
JMiitihew, xxvii : 64; and of St, John, ii, ij.
The MS, marked )S, among thofe of F. Le
Long, comprehends only the three Gofpels
of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and- St. John. But
the MS, denoted by thefe letters, in the Edi
tion of R. Stephens, comprifed likewife, the
Ads of the Apoftles, and the fecond Epiftle
¦ of St. Peter. It is cited, by R. Stephens, in
the margins of ASs, xiii : 1 5 ; (h) and of
2. Peter, i : 4. K 4 The
[g) It contains, in truth, only a part of the Epiftles ;
the third of St. John, and that of St. Jude, not being
comprifed thei-ein. (Appendix, No. XIX.)
(/)) Dr. M// affirms (Proleg. 117.) that this .MS con
tained no Chapter, but the tenth, or rather a part of the
tenth, of the Aiti of the Apoftles. Nothing is more

( 13^ )
Dr. Benson. The MS of F. Le Long, marked », con*
tains no part of the New Teftament, except
feven of the Epiftles of St, Paul. But the
MS of R, Stephens, which bore this mark,
differed greatly from that of X^ Long. Judg
ing by R. Stephens's references, it comprifed
only four of thofe Epiftles. But befide thefe
four Epiftles, it comprehended alfo the Apa^r
calypfe. The references to this MS, in that
part of his work, are too numerous tq be
here particularifed : they abound in almoft
every page. Finally,
The MS of F- Le Long, which is marked
ir, contains, only, the Gofpels of the two
Evangelifts, St. Luke, and St. John. But
the MS of R. Stephens, which was thus
marked, does not feem to have contained the
Gofpel of St. John, at all ; for there is no
reference to this MS in the margin of R.
Stephens's Edition of this Gofpel.r—But it
certainly- did further comprife tbe fecond
Epiftle
pertain than that he was miftaken in this affertion. And
indeed nothing feems more certain than that this, and
pia.iy other grofs errors on the fubjed of R. Stephens's
MSS, have originated in an idea, tha;t thofe MSS are ye^
exifting; whereas they are all (for any thing that ap
pears to the contrary, at leaftj undoubtedly /^.

( 137 )
Epiftle to the Corinthians, the firft Epiftle to Dr. BsNiou.
Timothy, and the Apocalypfe ; becaufe this
MS is referred to, by R. Stephens, in the
margin of his Edition of all thefe parts of
the facred C^non.
And now. Sir, will you contend for Fa
ther Le Long (who cannot anfvver for
himfelf) that youare *' fatisfied of the iden-
*^ tity of thefe MSS ?" Or will you fay, with
Dr. Benfon, that thefe are the MSS of Robert
Stephens, and that, " on the ftrideft exami-
*' nation, they are found to want this dif-
*' puted paflage ?" You will not venture to do
either. The MSS, in queftion, have fcarcely
any thing in common with each other. They
do not agree even in the general refemblance.
They differ in almoft every feparate feature.
The MSS of Father Le Long, therefore, arc
not the MSS of Robert Stephens., They are
a fpurlous race, foftered, at leaft, if not be
gotten, by the difhoneft cunning of ibme
Librarian, or of fome other perfon equally
difhoneft : who, ncverthelefs, was not quite
cunning enough, for he negleded to look in
to Robert Stephens's Preface, elfe he would not

( ^38)
Dr. Benson, not have made them into fifteen, only, but
into fixteen Books \ — for fuch was the real
number of Robert Stephens's MSS. They
are Counterfeits ; on whofe unrefifting Covers
fome bufy impoftor has infcribed forged, and
falfe, marks of Robert Stephens, from fomc
undue motive,— moft probably, in order to
advance their reputation by his illufttious
name : but they are not the MSS of Robert
Stephens. XXX. " Tet it is Infifted upon, that
" Erafmus fpeaks of a Brlilfij copy, which
" had the difputed text : and that upon
" the authority of that MS, he 'inferted 'tt
"^ in his third ahd following editions;
" though he had left it out. In his firfi
" and fecond editions. But It does not ap-
" pear that Erafmus ever faw any fuch
" thing himfelf:^
M. Simon, the great adverfary of this
Verfe, acknowledges that Erafmus (I) did fee
the Brltfh MS in England. And this account
might have been prefumed to be the truth,
without
(0 Hift. Crit. du N. T. vol. iii, p. 205.

C 139 )
without much enquiry, becaufe it is the con- Dr. Benson,
feftlon of an enemy,— beca(ufe Erafmus fpent
much time in this country, — and becaufe he
has quoted this MS in many other parts of
his works. But we need not leave any thing,
even here, to prefumption. Erafmus de
clares, that he collated this MS himfelf " The
MS wnicn I collated in England,"
(k) are his words, when difcourfing on this
JBrltlfh Copy, Indeed if no fuch proof as
this could have been produced, the fame
conclufion muft, in fad, have been adopted
on this fubjed. For to imagine that Eraf
mus would ever introduce to the world a
MS which not only thwarted his own
private predlledions,, but vitiated his two
former Editions of the New Teftament,
without being firft indubitably fatisfied of its
exlftence, — is a fuppofitlon, which cannot
be admitted, for a moment ; becaufe it vio
lates every rule of probability, and is repug
nant tq common fenfe, XXXI.
(k) " In codice, unde coti'VVLi in Anglia,fu'f[e fcrip
tum," he.
" Collationis negotium peregeram in Anglia" &c.
Erafmi Open, Ed. Lugd. A. D. 1706, voJ. ix, p.
986.

( 140 )
Dr. Bensos. xxxi. " B appears that he" [Eraf^
mus] " had a bad opinion of ii"-^
[the Brltlfh MS] ** For he fays, I fufpe^
*' that copy to have been corrected by ours\
*' that Is, from the latin copies."
The words of Erafmus are — '¦'^anquam et
hunc fufp'tcor ad Latlnorura codices fulffe cafti-
gaium." The ev'idence, however, as far as
it can be now colleded, is direSily adverfe to
Erafmus, in this matter. The Latin MSS,
univisrfally, read (Spiritus fanSius) the Holy
Spirit, in this Verfe : but the BritlJh MS of
Erafmus read therein (irvivi^a') the Spirit, only,
without the diftinguifhing epithet of (oeym)
Holy, This difference, although of a fingb
word alone, is too ftrongly marked, to per
mit any fuppofitlon of one of thefe authori
ties having been correded by the other.
But, even if no proof could have been
brought in oppofition to it, furely, to advance
a charge of this kind, unfupported by any evi
dence, or by any thing like evidence, (/) favor ed
(/) Erafmi Opera, Edit. Lugdun. A. D. 1706, vol,
X. p. 352. (Appendix, No. XX.)

( ^41 )
cd more of pretence, ,than fincerity ; and was D.r.-BEN6oii.
unworthy of a Writer much inferior to £-
rafmus. It is incumbent upon all authors, in
all fuch cafes, openly to relate their fufplclons,
(if they have any) and candidly to aflign their
reafons for entertaining them ; that the rea- |
der may judge, forhimfelf, as to the degree
of credit, which they ought to receive from
him. It was efpecialiy incumbent upon Eraf
mus to have done thus, in the prefent inftance,
becaufe he was then in the ad of retraSilng
that imputation of impofturCj, which his con
dud hzd firfi caufed to be thrown upon this
V^rfe. At fuch an hour as that, for Eruf-
mus to hint fufpicions, without proof, and
tq.befitate diflikes, withput explanation,
gives* his readers but too much reafon. to
confider him, as determined to caft fome
iqiputation upon the MS, which had fo raor-
tlfi.ed him ; although impotent of the means
to do it with any effed.
Attempts of this nature often prejudice
the; caufe, which they were meant to ferve,
Tbe prefent may, at leaft, convince us of
the reahty of the exlftence of this MS, at
that

( H2 )
Dr.BiHSoN. that time; and of Its containing the Vetfe
in queftion. Had there been the fmalleft
room to doubt either, the fentence, juft
quoted from Erafmus, would have fpoken a
very different language.
XXXIL "And he" [Erafmus] ''plain- '
*' ly acknowledges, thai whai Induced
" him io Infert the difputed text, was, ne
" fit anfa calumniandl, that he might
" not give a handle to any, to call hint
an Arian, or fufpedl him of herefy:^

il

I havcj Sitj in a fortner (m) letter, given
my fentiments, with feme freedom, on the
condud of Erafmus, refpeding this Verfe,
It was there obferved, that it feertied " ini-
" poffible to account for the behaviour of
" Erafmus, in this matter, taking the whole
*' of it into contemplation at once, but up-
*' on one of thefe fuppofitlons : Either he
*' could noi produce the five MSS, in which
*' he had alledged the Verfe to be omitted ;
" or he had other authorities, much fuperior
" to the teftimony of a fingle MS, for re-
" placing
[m) Pages 8 and g.

( H3)
*' placing the Verfe, >vhlch lie wa.s not. Dr. BENSoy,
** however, ingenuous enough to acknow-
" ledge." Now, how far it might have
been in his power to fulfil the former of thefe
alternatives, is not, perhaps, for the prefent
age to determine. But this may, fortunate
ly, be now determined ; namely, that Eraf
mus " had other authorities, much fuperior
** to the teftimony of a fingle MS, for re-
*' placing the Verfe," and that he " was not
*' ingenuous enough to acknowledge" them.
For, Independent of the authority of Jerome,
who declares his Tranflation to have been
made according to the Greek MSS, who ac-
cules certain Latin Tranflators of unfalth-
fulncfs, for having left this Verfe out of
their copies ; (for Erafmus believed the pre
face, which contains this complaint, to be
the genuine work of Jerome) — independent
of, at leaft, fome part of the authorities,
which have been ftated in the preceding
pages ; (for Erafmus was a learned man, and
could not be Ignorant (n) of them all) — In
dependent
(«) Erafmus was not ignorant of them all ; for he has
quoted the works of Cyprian, Lyranus, Caffiodorlus, IVala-
frid Strabo, and Aquinas, by whom this Verfe (as hath
been before proved) is exprefsly cited as an authentic

( 144 )
Dr. Benson, dependent of thefe, ErafmUs lay litider art
obligation, almoft pecuhar to himfelf, arifing
frora the authority ofthe MSS of Laurentlui
Valla, to re-place the Verfe in queftion. He
had, juft eighteen years before the publicatloil
of this Edition, of A. D. 1 522, obtained pof-
feflion of the, then, unpubllflied, Commen-^
tary of L. Valla. The Greek MSS, on which
it was founded, were no lefs than feven (0)
in nuniber ; and this Verfe pofTefTed its place
in them all. In the exultation of his mind,
arifing from this acqulfitlon, Erafmus . firft
communicated (p) his difcbvery to his learn ed
part of the facred Canon. (See his N. Teft, of A.D.
1522, paflim.)
(0) Dr. Mill, in his Prolegomena, fpeaks oi three only:
" CotDpamUs tribus exemplaribus Gracis, zc toiMem La*
*' tinis." This is one of thofe miftakes which I ventur
ed to lay to his charge, in a Note to page i8. He feems,
alfo, to have fallen into another miftake, on this fubjeft,
in confidering the Annotations oi Valla as of little eftima-
tion ; for which he is warmly reproved by Bengelius.
[^Introd. in Crifin. p. 437.^
L. Valla certainly had seven Greek MSS ; for, in his
Annotations on the Gofpel of St. John, vii : 29, 30, he
pofitively affirms that his number was " feptem Grzca
" exemplaria." And Erafmus confiriTiS the aflertion in.his
own Apology. (See L. Valla Opera, Bafil. Edit. A.D^
1 543' P- 842 ;— and Erafmi Grac, Teft. Bafil. Edit. A. D,
1516, Apol. p. 3.)
0/ Appendix, No. XV.

( 145 >
cd friend, and correfpondent, Fifcher ; and Dr. Benson,
then, in the fame year, A. D. 1505, pub
liflied this Commentary, or .permitted it to
be pubHfhed, from the prefs of Jodocus
Badlus, at Parts. Erafmus had, therefore,
the authority of EIGHT Greek MSS, inftead
of ONE (which alone he held forth) for
reftoring the verfe. For he had, in his
own Apology, in A.D. 1516, mentioned the
number of Valla's (Greek) MSS to he feven,
although he was, at that tinie, fecretly medi
tating the expulfion of this verfe from the text
of St. Johnfin dired contradidion to them all.
Nor is this the only Inftance of difingenu-
oufnefs, which is difcQverable in the condud
oi Erafmus, refpeding this verfe. He omitted
it, as hath been before ftated, in his Edition
of the New Teftament of A. D. 151 6. In
A. D. 15 1 8, he publifhed his Treatife, en
titled Ratio verae Theologla, which he dedi
cated to Cardinal Chryfogonl : wherein he
cites, in ferlous argument, and as a legitimate
portion of Scripture, this (^) identical verfe,
which, only two years before, he had ex-
L pelled
(?) Appendix, No. XXI.

. ( 146 )
Vr. Benson, pelled from the very text of the NewTefta-
ment-!^  Nor is even this all. For in the
next, fucceeding, year, (A. D. 151 9) he con-
demns the verfe again, by leaving it out of
his New Teftament of that year. And yet
he continued but a Ihort time, even in that
refolution : — for he reftored the, verfe, finally,
to its place, in his very next Edition of the
New Teftament, in A. D. 1522.
The fads, then, being thus clear, there
feems but one confiftent method of account
ing for this incongruity of condud in Eraf
mus ; which is, to fuppofe that he became a
profelyte to Arianifm, not before A. D. 1505,
but in feme part of the interval between that
year, and A. D. 1 5 1 6. — In A. D. 1 505, then,
not having then imbibed the tenets of Ari
anifm, Erafmus gave to the world, in the
commentary of L. p'alla, the teftimony of
leven Greek MSS, in favor of the authenticity
of this verfe. In A. P. 15 16, having fuf
fered that leaven to enter into, and to fer
ment within, his mind, in a long interval of
eleven years ; he expelled this verfe from the
text of his New Teftament. But he ventured on

( 147 )
on this expulfion, as it feems, under a fecret Dr. Benson^
fear of a fevere attack, on its account, from
the Chriftlan world; in general ; for which
the commentary of L, Valla, itfelf, would
furnifh no inconfiderable weapons : which
fear apparently induced him to provide fome
means of retreat, in cafe of neceffity, (fuch.
Sir, was the prudence of 'Erafmus I) by
bringing this verfe forward again, in A. _D.
1 5 1 8, in his Ratio vera Theologlee. In A.D.
15 1 9, he hazarded a fecond expulfion : but,
ftill fearful, as It feems, ofthe argument dedu
cible irom. Valid' s MSS, he gave up the whole
conteft, formally, and finally, but ftill in a
moft unchearful, and difingenuous, manner,
in A. D. 1522.
Thus, then. Sir, may the whole condud
of Erafmus, in this matter, (which you have
attempted to dignify by the appellation of , .
prudence) be accounted for, at leaft, and ex
plained :-- -that meannefs, which, upon the
face of his' own apology, he was guilty of;
that departure from truth, which, when the
fads are fully confidered, he feems to be
juftly chargeable with ; his hafty expulfion '
L. z of

• ( 148 >
Dr. Benson, of the verfe, and his fullen re-admiflion of
it ; his confeffion oi one MS only, in favor of
this verfe, when he ought to have acknow
ledged eight ; and his impotent attempt to
depreciate even that one, by charging it with
having been correded by the Latin copies,
although he did not attempt to produce a
fingle inftance of fuch corredion, in proof of
the charge, fo alledged.
This condud of Erafmus feems, in fomc
refpeds, to have been the caufe, and in others
the confequence, of his having been feduced^
by pre-conceived prejudices, to affign an In
competent, and, apparently, an untrue, mo
tive for his reftoratlon of this verfe, in A. D.
1522. And this condud feems to juftify
the cenfure, caft upon him by Wetfieln, which
is the more fevere, becaufe it falls from 2
friend, and felfew-advocate. ** It Is an al-
" mofi Intolerable thing" (fays he) " in Eraf-
" mus, that he wUl frequently try to fijelter
" himfelf (r) under excuses, which are even
*' IDLE,
(r) " Illud denique in Erafmo mnime ferendum efi, quoi
f^pe excufationibus parum idoneis nee fatis bonejlis utL quam
erroris culpam fnnplicitsr fateri, maluerit," (JVetfieitt^tO-
leg. p. 124.; • y >

( 149 )
" IDLE, <a(W DISHONEST, rather than make '^'^'^^^^'^'^f,
*' an Ingenuous Confeffion of a fault, or a
« miftake." XXXIII. " A MS has been referred
to, which Is now lodged In the Library,
belonging to the Unlverfity of Dublin.
And Wetfieln reckons that MS to be
what Erafmus vails CodexBrliannlcus."

ll
il
It

The Dublin MS is not the Codex Brltan-
filcus oi Erafmus ; — becaufe (as Dr, Benfon
confefles in another (j) place) the latter
reads ttkeu/** only, the former ocyiov irvi^^oi. In
the feventh Verfe : — and becaufe, in the^
eighth Verfe, the article ol is placed before
{AapJvinivTii, in the MS of DubUn ; but the fame
-article is not found, at all, inthe Codex Brl-
tannlcus. It is impoffible that the fame MS
fliould, in the fame given paflage, dift^er from
itfelf ; or, in other words, be the fame, and
yet not the fame, MS.
L 3 XXXIV.
[s) Note on page 640,
See Appendix, No. XX, where thefe Verfes are copies!
by Erafmus himfelf,— as they flood in the Codex Bri-
iannicus.

( 150 )
pr. Benson. XKXl^. " The learned author of The
" Memoirs of the life and writings oj
" Dr. Waterland, (p, 79.) gives ihis ac-
" count of It. The Dublin MS now has
" It [thai Is, the difputed text ;] written,
*' (as I am told, by one who has feen It)
" in a different hand, (as all the Eplfiles
are) from the refi oj the MS."

ll

I have been favored, by the learned Dr.
Wllfon, of the Unlverfity of Dublin, to whofe
care this MS is, at prefent, officially en-
trufted, with the following account of it :
which dlredly contradids the aflertion, thus
brought from the writer of the Memoirs of
Dr. Waterland. ¦
" I. The Dublin MS, as exadly as I can
*' form an opinion, is written by the
" SAME HAND. In the Gofpel of St.
*' Matthew the letters are fmaller, and the
" lines more flender, than in the other parts
*' ofthe MS. In the reft of the whole
" volume, the letters are uniformly larger,
*^ but fo fimllar as to indicate the same
" Scribe.

( ^51 )
" Scribe. It abounds in contradlons. Dr. Besnon,
*' There are NO rasures.
*' The Scribe, when he had Immedlate-
*' ly difcovered an erroneous letter, or fylla-
*' ble, drew a Hne acrofs the miftake, and ,
*' ftraightway fubjolned the word corredly
*' written. When the error was not ob-
** ferved, until the paragraph, qr page, was
*' concluded, the corredion Is ;fxhibited In
*' the margin ; the faulty word croflTed,
*' yet ftill legible. But fome of thefe cor-
" redions, thus noted in the margin, feem
" to have been made when the whole Work
** was concluded ; becaufe, in them, the
*' ink is much blacker than in the text,
*' having acquired, by ftan ding longer, a
*' deeper tinge.
" It is written with accents, and fplrlts.
** The Ads are placed after the Epiftles of
" St. Paul.
" 2. The contested verse Is, indlf-
*' putably, written by the same per-
*' SON, who wrote the rest of the page,
L 4 •' and

( 152 }
Pr. Benson. " andthe rest of the epistle. This,
<¦' on infpedlon, will appear felf-evident, and
*'' inconteftlble.

" 3. As to the antiquity of the MS, I am
* incapable of giving a decided opinion,
* further than as follows. That it pre-
« ceded the sera of Printing feems very clear,
' from its having many readings not found
« in any edition prior to Stephens ; there-
* fore not a tranfcript froiti any of them,
« But I do not think that it can be carried
higher than a century, or two, at the ut-
moft, before the invention of Printing.
For it is certainly written on thick, po-
llftied, paper, which Tcard miftook fof
parchment. Now no paper records have
been difcovered, anterior to the clofe of
theiwelfth century, as I find in the A3 a
Lelpfienfia. It was, therefore, a tranfcript
from fome MS now, perhaps, loft ; and,
on' that account, claims the authority of
an original. Whether correded, and
compleated, according to a Latin copy, is
more than I know.—

*' 4. The

( ^53 )
*' 4» The controverted paflage ftands thus. Dr. Benson,
** [In Martin's La Verite, Ed. Utrecht,
"¦ A. D. 1 72 1, p. 272, it is not accurately
*' reprefented,] 7. OtV TflEK £lj'lV Ot jUatfTU
pai/T £11 TCO oilvw, TDjtf, Aoyoj jcai tti'* ayfok*.
xa( oO'toi 01 T«£K fV £lVt',
8. K«l Tg£K fVjVc oV /*«f TU
eavx' sv Tn yn, 7!'^«,, vSta^, xoii cc'Ii^o:,' (/)
Before fuch authority as this, the telling
of Dr. Benfion, who is told by the Author
of certain Memoirs, who is told by one who ¦
has no name, that this text is written In a
different hand from the refi of the MS, — va-
niflies into nothing.
XXXV, " It appears thence probable,
** that that part of the MS has been
" added fince the time of Archblfhop
*' XJft:)er, In whofe collations It" [the
verfe In queftion] " Is not found."
The
(t) The account of the Dublin MS, here ftated, is more
particular than that which was fet forth in the former
edition of this work ; becaufe it is the refult of the whole
of the communications, made to me, by Dr. Wilfon, as
well before, asfimce, the publication of the former edition
of thefe Letters,

( 154*)
Dr. Benson, The premifes, from whence the former
part of this objedion is drawn, having been
' juft dlfproved, the conclufion muft, of courfe,
fall to the ground. And, as to the latter
part of it, — the verfe, i. John, v, 7, does
not appear, it is true, in the Collations,
which Archbifliop Ufioer made of this MS ;—
becaufe he did not live to carry thofe Col
lations beyond the firft Chapter of the
Epiftle to the Romans.
This clrcumftance Is evident from, the
Prolegomena (u) oi Dr. MIU: which, how
ever. Dr. Benfon has endeavoured to con
ceal from his readers. He did not chufe to
communicate to them that part of Dr. Mill's
account of this MS, which fupported its re
putation, and charader ; although he ufes
all hafte (as will appear in the next fucceed
ing extrad) to ftate thofe parts of the Pro
legomena, at length, which tend to depreciate the
(u) Millii?ro\eg. 1379, 13S0. This circumftance
]s further affirmed by a Memorandum of Dean Tcard,
prefixed to this MS : " The readings of this MS were
" not gathered, but to the 22d of the Ads ofthe Holy
" Apoftles, and thofe of the firft Chapter of the Epiftle
" to the Romans." (See alfo Weijiein's Proleg, p. 52,
and jEm/^s Reply, C. V. p. 269.)

the Verfe. But this, "Sir, you will, perhaps "Or. Benson.
denominate tlie prudence of Dr, Benfon. It
will, at leaft, rank, as a fit companion, with
the " prudence oi Erafmus;'' of which you,
fome time ago, made fuch honorable men
tion. XXXVI. " Dr. MIU fays. It Is wrlt-
*' ten In a modern andcarelefs hand; with
*' fome things blotted oui, and oihers Inter-
" poi ated." — (p. 640.)
It feems moft probable, that Dr. M'dl, and
Mr. Cafiey, had never feen this MS, Dean
2c^r^'s account, who had seen it former
ly, and Dr, Wllfon^ defcription, who has
lately infpeded it, admit the blottings
out, and interpolations, but explain them
in a manner the moft honorable to the
Copyift. " The Writer" (fiys Dean n^ri)
^' has not taken pains to make fair writing.
" He has often greatly negleded his hand ;
** and, what is very dlfagreeable to the eye,
*' but is, ncverthelefs, the mark of Integrity
*' In a Tranfcrlber, is, that when, in copy

ing,

( 156 )
Dr. Benson «« Ing, he perceived any word, or words,, to
" have been omitted by him, he erafed thofe
" which he had written" [fubfequent to the
omifCion] " and re-placed them in the body
*' of the work, after he had inferted there-
*' in what he had before omitted." (w)
Blots, and interpolations, may be marks
^ bf hafte in the Copyift ; but they are not
certain proofs of inaccuracy in the MS itfelf.
It is morally impoflible, that the tranfcrlber
of fo large a book as the New Teftament,
fliould travel through his talk, without falling
into errors, vvithout committing miftakes.
And if, upon revifion, he fliould decline to
blot, or to interpolate, left he fliould be faid
not to have " taken pains to make fairwrit-
** ing»" the outward falrnefs of his work
would ill atone for its internal errors, and
defeds. Thus far as to this charge, of blots, and
interpolations, in general. Let it be, finally,
remarked, as to this Verfe, in particular, that ic
(w) Martin's LaVer!te,?^tt ii, C. 12. Dr. Wilfon's
account of thefe particulars hath been already ftated at
large in page 151,

( 157)
it is ««V/&^r BLOTTED, «(3r interpolated; Dr. Bensoit*
but 'is written in the body of the page, and
in the fame fair, uniform, hand, with the
reft of the MS.
XXXVII. " Mr. Cafiey calls It a mo-.
** dem MS, probably tranfiated, or cor^
*' reeled, from the latin vulgate. Other
*' learned men have obferved, that the
** form ofthe letters Is the fame with that
" of our printed Greek Tefiaments, with
" accents jznd fplrlts. So that It may,
" poffibly, have been written, fince ihein*
" vention of Printing:' —
T)r. fienfon ought to have ftated the cir
cumftances which make for the antiquity of
this MS, as well as thofe which tend to pro
nounce it modern. But this, it feems, al
though greatly his duty, was no part of his
defign. Let it be here obferved, then, that the
vowels » and u are written, throughout this
MS, with double points placed over them :
which method of pointing, by the teftimony of

( 158 )
pr. Benson, oi (x) ]}^ontfaucon, the moft competent of
all men to decide a queftion of this naturfe,
ihews a MS to be more than a thoufand years
old. This is, at leaft, a ftrong prefumption
in favor of the antiquity of this MS, But
this difpute will, perhaps, be the moft
fatisfadorily decided, by referring to the
defcription of this MS, herein before
-ftated : (y) which, at leaft, proves that it was
written before (if not long before) " the iii-
*' vention of Printins;."
As to Mr. Cafiey s expreflibns, " proba-
*' BLY tranfiated, o'k corrected," they are the
very language of mere conjedure ; and, as
fuch, deferve little, or no, attention.
XXXVIII. " I would have truth take
"*' place, on which fide foever It falls."
TNote, p. 640.] If
[x) Palaegraphia Graca, Y.d,\t, Paris. A. D.. 1708,
Lib. i. p. 33.
[y) The words refpeding the date of this MS, which
were copied from it, in the former edition of thefe let
ters, are here omitted ; becaufe they may be applied to
the time when St. Mark's Gofpel, itfelf, was originally
written: although that time really was, according to Dr. .
C'flTVs account, A. D. 56, and, according to Dr. Pear/on,
A. D. 6o. I do not wifli to urtre any evidence in favor
of this verfe, againft which any objedtions may be brought,
Which can, in any degree, ftajid the teft of examination.

('159 )
li Dr. Benfon, inftead of raking together Dr. Bens oy,
every thing that hath been faid, however
miftakenly, by MIU, and Cafiey, in prejudice
of the MS in queftion, and prefiing that fide
of the argument, alone, had thought fit, at
the fame time, to have given to the world
what Martin, and Tcard, had urged in favor
of its antiquity, and authority ; his pradice
would have done as much honor to this de
claration, as it now refleds difgrace upon it.
XXXIX. *' Again ; we have been re-
** ferred to another MS, ivhich Is In the
King of Pruffas Ubrary, at BerUn.
Thai MS has. Indeed, the difputed
text. But then li Is acknowledged to
" be a late tranfcript from a printed Greek
" Tefiament, and, particularly ., from the
" Complutenfian edition ; which the Ig-
¦** norant tranfcrlber has followed fo clofely,
"¦ as to copy exaSily and without variation,
*' even the very errors of the Printer."
This MS was purchafed, upwards of a
century ago, at a high price, by Frederic
WilUam the Great, Lienor of Brandenburgh, and

ll

ll

( i6o)
Dr. Benson, and was believed to be very ancient, not
only by the learned of tljat age in gene
ral, (as by the Librarian Hendrelchlus, by
Saubertus, ProfeflTor of Divinity at Helm-
fiadt, by Tolllus, and by the great Orlen-
tallft, Jablonfil, at Berlin) but by the
famous Spanhelm. If the claim of this MS
to antiquity were to be decided by authorities
of this kind. It fliould feem, that very re
fpedable antagonlfts, and thofe many In
number, ftiould be oppofed to names of fuch
eminence as thefe, to fatisfy the world of Its
being a modern copy. And who are thefe
many, artd refpedable antagonlfts ? As to
number, I know of none, but one ; and as to
the refpeSiablenefs of that one, in this (%) In
ftance, at leaft, let" the reader (if any reader
fliall have accompanied me thus far) con
defcend to afford me a few moments more
of his patience, and then judge for himfelf.
One perfon, then, '^l.Y .La Croze, aLlbra-
rian at Berlin, in the beginning of the pre fent
(%) Emlyn's Reply, (Edit, as before) p. 229.— M. V".
La Croze ^'i.s, certainly, a very learned man. But his
behaviour, in refpeft to this verfe, undoubtedly merits
the moft fevere reprehenfion.

ll

tl ll

( i6i )
fent century, in a letter written A.D. 1720^ Dr. Benson.
and publiflied by Mr. Emlyn, in his conteft
with Mr. Martin, affirms this MS to be a
late tranfcript from the Complutenfian Edi
tion. " I wonder," (fays he) " that our
MS, a book of no authority, fhould be
alledged in confirmation of a dubious
reading, after I have already made it
manlfeft to many learned men, and to Mr. "
Martin himfelf, that this bookj although
fold by an artful impoftor for an aAcient
MS, and boafted of accordingly, is only
** a late tranfcript from the Complutenfian
** Edition : and this" (he proceeds to fay)
*' I perceived at once, when I former-
*' ly viewed this Library, as a ftranger, and
*' before I had any intentions of fettling at
*' Berlin ; and I made this declaration open-
** ly to Hendrelchlus, now dead ; and ever
*' fince this Library has been entrufted to
*' my care, I have candidly declared the
*' fame to all perfons, nor is Mr. Martin ig-
" norant of it." — In another part of the
fame letter, the fame La Croze fays, " He
*' who has feen the Complutenfian Edition,
*' has alfo feen our MS, without excepting
M *' even,

( i62 )
Dr. Benson. " even the very errors of the Printer, which
" the Ignorant tranfcrlber has followed fo clofe-
" ly, as to make it abfolutely certain, that
" fome illiterate copyift was employed by
*' fome learned cheat, in order to accompHfh
" this Impofture."
In another letter, much anterior in point
cf date to this, which has juft been abftrad-
ed, the fame La Croze fays (with a for-
wardnefs, which indicates that he had, even
then, tafeen his fide, and that the fate ofthe
Verfe, in queftion, was, at that time, not
indlfterent to him) among other things—
" I read, yesterday, (a") Dr. M/^s
" Diflertation upon the paffage cf St. John',
" and found there almost all that I HAi)
" thought upon the fame fubjed. — All
" the ancient Greek and Latm MSS, in
" reckoning up the three" [three !] "Wit-
" neflbs, mention only the Spirit, the Water,
" and the Blood. There is no account to
" be made of our Greek MS of the New-
" Teftament ; it is a vv'ork, which, although *' it
{a) Emlyn's Reply, p. 286 ^

tl

( 163 )
it has deceived many, I never thought a- Dr. Benson,
" hove eighty years old. In the year 1696,
*' upon coming to Berlin, this MS was fliewn
*' to me as being a thoufand years old : After
*' having examined It a moment, I maintaln-
** ed that it vvas modern, and copied from
*' the edition of the Bible of Cardinal Xlme-
*' nes. I convinced the late Mr. Spanhelm,
" and the then Librarian, by comparing of
*' paflages, the refemblance of charaders,
" and other fenfible proofs. The paflage
*' of the Three Witnefles is there word for
" word, as in the Bible of Alcala, and it
" COULD NOT be THERE OTHERWISE!.
*' The ancient Fathers have (b) nevepv
*' made ufe of fo remarkable a paflage.
*' The Ledionary, entitled amo^oxoq, in my
*' opinion, is of no great authority in this
** cafe. I do not doubt its antiquity ; but
" thefe ecclefiaftical Books are more fubjed
*' to alterations than others," —
Such teftimony as this (to fay nothing of
M 2 that
(i) M. La Croze, it feems, had never confulted any
6f the authorities, ftated in the former part of thefe let
ters, which directly deftroy this aflertion j or he would
never Jiave made it,

( i64 )
Dr. Besnon. fhat air of afFeded felf-fufflcIency,. which
appears In almoft every line, and Is truly re-
diculous) carries fufpicion upon the face of
it. There can be but fmall doubt of the
then E/^^or having taken the opinions cf
. "^ the moft learned men of his Court, and
Country, as to the antiquity of this MS, an
tecedently to his purchafe of it ; and of their
having given their fentiments in its favor,
after having tried it by the beft examination
in their power. There cari be no doubt of
this MS being well known to Hendrelchlus,
becaufe, as the EleSioral Librarian, he had
it under his care many years ; to Saubertus,
becaufe he has fet forth nearly two hundred
various readings from it, in his commentary
on the Gofpel of St. Matthew, and he ftiles
it " Pervetuftus, (c) et admodiim pretlofus ;" —
to Tolllus, becaufe he is cited, in relation to
it, by Father Le Long ; to Jablonfil, becaufe
he >vas confulted by Keiiner, on the fubjed,
prevloufly to his publication ; and to Spatp
helm, for La Croze affirms that he convinced
Spanhelm of its being an impofture. It is
furely, then, on the very face of this account, a
(f) Prehgom. Edit. Helmjladt, A. D. 1672, p. 41.

( ^^5 )
a moft. ftrange, an almoft incredible, thing,; Dr. Benson,
that La Crozi? fliould perceive at once
at a fingle glance, as it were, and in a mo
ment, what fo many learned men, upon a
long acquaintance with, and a clofe examina
tion 6f, the MS, could not perceive at all.
Such a narration as this, having no fupport
beyond the bare affirmation of the reporter,
would deferve little credit, even if no pofi
tive proof could be brought to deftroy it.
But, unfortunately for La Croze, his whole
charge is demonftrably falfe. — For,
I. As to his aflertion, that he had made
it manlfeft to Mr. Martin, that the MS, In
queftion, was a late tranfcript from the Com
plutenfian Edition, — it turns out, by ( d)'M.r.
M 3 Martins
(d) Martin's La Verite, Part ii, C. 7. La Croze, at
tempted, indeed, to apologife to Wetjlein, on this fubjeft,
by faying, that he had not defended himfelf, becaufe he
was unwilling to offend Mr. Martin, or to treat him
harfhly, " Hoc mihi fignificavit Cl. La Croze, per epijlo-
" lam, A. D.^i'^'^i, fe adobjeStionesD. Martini nonrefpon-
" diffe, quod fenem venerandum offendere, aut ipfi.agre fa-
*' cere, noluifjet," (Proleg. p. 59.) But this was a mere
pretence. Whilft he thought himfelf able to fupport
his own aflumptions, he made no fcruple of treating Mr.
Martin difrefpedtfully enough. He found himfelf un
willing to offend this venerable old man, precifely at the- time
when he found himfelf unable to anfwer his argu?nents.

( i66 )
Dr. Benson. Martiii.s own account, which was addrefled
to La Croze, "which it wa? highly incum
bent upon him to have contradided, if he
could, but which ftands to the prefent hour,
even nncontroverted, — -that he had made, to
Mr. Martin, no fuch manifeftatlon at aH,
Nor was it, indeed, poffible that La Croze
could " make manlfeft" his alTertlon, not
wlthftanding the over-forward zeal which
haftlly precipitated him Into It, either " to
"' Mr. Martin," or to " many learned men,"
or to any perfon whatever; For,
2. This MS Is NOT a tranfcript from the
Complutenfian Bible : — as will evidently ap
pear by the following obfervatlons.
In the Gofpel of St. Matthew, Chap. 11.
Verfe 13, the MS oi Berlin (In queftion)
reads ccTroaTeivai ; but the reading of the Bible
of Complutum Is aTroAso-at, in the correfpond
ing part of that Verfe.
In 11. 1 7, of the fame Gofpel, the Berlin
MS has VTTO w^m Sia. li^i^is ; but the ComplU'
ienfian Edition has, in the fame paflage, v^a In

(i67)
In V. 32, the Berlin MS reads ort Tra? 0 Dr. Eensokj
»,-!rQh\juv ; but the reading of the Complutenfian
Edition is oft o? ocv piiroXwri: ^
In vi. 13, the Complutenfian Edition has
the Doxology compleat — " For thine Is- the
" kingdom, thepower, and the glory, for ever
" and ever :" oi wh'ich the Berlin MS has
not a fingle word, (e) j •
In vii, 18, the BerllnMS has «<?£ TraAii- SivSpov -,
but the Complutenfian Edition has only sh
In vii, 24, the BerUn M^ reads ofioiwOno-ETai :
but the Complutenfian Edition only oix,oi(ru.
In Ix. 30, the MS of Berlin reads -ai'£a;j^5wa>
«ij]w)/ ¦n-ei.pa.yj-Ai/.ot, ; but the Complutenfian does
not exhibit the word irxpa^^cniAx, in that
paiTage. In XV. 22, the MS of Berlin reads ly.poc^i"
•¦nris-w aura ; but the Complutenfian ^^'it'ion has,
in the fame paflage, iv-pccvlxaiv «utw.
M 4 In
(<f) This Doxology ftands in the margin of the Com
plutenfian Teftament.

( i68)
Dr. Benson. In xvii. 2, the Berlin MS has (-s X.«i. ; but
the Complutenfian reads, inftead thereof, wj «
f wf, in the parallel paflTage.
In xxvii. 29, the MS of Berlin re'uds » ta
(JsgiK ; but the Edition of Complutum hath, In
the parallel paflage, £7r« t>)i/ i^sgiav.
In eight of thefe examples, this MS agrees
with one, or more, of the MSS of R..obert
Stephens ; in one example, with a MS of
Cafaubon ; in two, with the Codex Montfor-
tlus ; in one, with the MSS of Saubertus ; in
ihree, with the celebrated MS of Cambridge ;
and in the laft example, with the ftill more
celebrated MS of Alexandria.
If thefe variations of the Berlin MS from
the Complutenfian Edition, feleded, by the
help of Saubertus, from the Gofpel of St.Mat-
ihew, alone, be fo numerous, (and yet the
Lift here given, does not comprife them all)
how greatly might that number be increafed,
by an examination, of this kind, purfued
through the whole of the New Teftament !
But, as the talk would be irkfome, fo the
attempt

( ^^9 )
attempt is, happily, unnecefiTary, TheVarV- Dr^ Benson, i
ations, which have been already adduced,
concord too nearly with the readings of other
MSS, to be mere errors of the tranfcrlber.
They are too corred, in their language, and
too pointed in their meaning, to be the er
rors of an " ignorant tranfcrlber." And they
differ too widely, are In every refped too
difcordant, from the text of the Compluten
fian, to warrant even a poffibillty, that tlie
MS oi Berlin can be, at all, " a tranfcript
from that Edition."
With refped to the Information, which
M. La Croze has further condefcended to give
us, — namely, that the " asTroroAo? is, in his o-
" pinion, of no great authority," becaufe it
is a Ledilonary, and becaufe Ledlonaries
?' are more fubjed to alterations than
*' other ecclefiaftical Books," — ;it might be
afked, whether in any Ledionary, of any
Church, any text would, at any time, be in
ferted, which that Church did not accept as
genuine ? But queftlons of this kind need
not be propofed, or multiplied, in the prefent
cafe. For the «7roroAo? Is not a Ledilonary, in

( 17° )
Dr. Benson, in any other fenfe than as the Bible Itfelf
may be called a LeSilonary, namely, from
being read In the Church. The ocTroroXo; is a
" Colledlon (/) of the Epiftles of the
" New Teftament, written feparately ;"
that is, feparately from the Gofpels. The
aTToroAof, then, is the very volume of the.E-
plftles themfelves, comprifing, among the
reft, this Epiftle of St. John. And the opi
nion oi La Croze, founded on fuppofed air
teratlons In Ledlonaries, can have no place
in the prefent queftion.
As to Dr, Benfon' s fuggeftion, that this
MS Is ALSO, a " tranfcript from a printed
" Greek Teftament ;" it feems hardly recon
cileable with his other aflumptlon, of its
being, withal, " a tranfcript from the Com-
" pluienfian Edition." Taken as a whole,
the accufation feems, in no fmall degree, in-
confiftent with itfelf. Confidered In parts,
the latter claufe of it has already been prov
ed to be utterly untrue ; and the former,
being made without fpeclficatlon, is empty, and
(/; Dr. Thomas Smith's Mifcellanea, Lond. Edit.
A. D. 16865 p. 155. See alfo Martin's La Verite, p,
ii, C. 5.

(^71 )
and unfounded. As an idle charge, and Dr. Benson.
brought at random, it is not worth the pams
to /dwell upon it. It is too vaguely ftated to
receive an anfwer, and too abfurdly exprefled
to deferve one. ¦-'».

XL. " And, finally, as to the Com
plutenfian, voh'ich^vas'the firft edition
of ihe Greek Tefiament ; which,
(though printed) Stephens has num-
' bered as the firfi of his MSS."—

ll

The Complutenfian was not, properly, the
firft Edition of the Greek Teftament. The
Bafil Edition of ErafmUs was publifhed in
A.D. 1 516, antecedently to the Bible of
Complutum; v/hich, although j5r/«/^^in A. D.
1 5 14, was not given to the world until feve
ral years afterwards. Nor has Robert Ste
phens " numbered the Complutenfian as the
"firfi of his MSS," or as any of his MSS.
Take his own (g') words : " Ut primo,
*' Complutenfem Edi tionem intelligas, qus:
*' olim ad antiqulffima exemplaria fuit ex-
« CUSA." XLI.
(g) Preface to R. Stephens's Edition^, in queftion.
f-^ppendix, No, Xll.)

( 17^ )
Dr. Benson. XLI. " From whence" [viz. from
the Complutenfian Edition] " mofi
" probably, he" [Robert Stephens] " took
" this difputed paffage, and Inferted It Into
" the facred text."
If Dr. Benfon had ftopped to compare the
text of this difputed paflage, as it ftands in
the Complutenfian, with that of the Edition
of Robert Stephens, he, perhaps, would not
have hazarded this obfervation.

The Greek Text ofi?.
Stephens's Edition
of I. John, V. 7, 8.
7. Oti T«£if
iiiTiv 0( fj.a,f[vfi-
S. t. ^. 6. ?ou^^£J ^£^ tm box-
i.^tas. ly. ji/w', 0 ¦woclnP, 0
Aey^, xai to
ayioy ¦sri/ivfucc.

EIJ TO 0!,

Xai 8T01 01 Tf£l?
* 8. Kai T/)£i?
£i(ni/ 01 juaflup-
cui/Iej £(i tm yt?,
TO zrvivjAoc, xoii
70 uJwp, XlSJf TO
aijxoc, Jcai 01 TflEij
Eif TO £1/ £l(rj.

TheGr^^^Text ofthe
Complutenfian Edi
tion of the fame
Verfes.
7. Oti TfiEif iifTiv 01
y,xp]vpiKii/Tif iv ru «/)«i/u, 9
¦ascil-iip xoci 0 Aoyof jcai to
ayioj/ TSVi'O^Ot,, K.Ot.1 01 Tf£IJ
£|-f TO IV il(n.

8. Kast TfElf flfl-lK Oi
y-x^lv^ovvlti ini TJif yTif t»
7rc£i/^os Jtoii TO ;j(J'wfl xurj

In

( ^n )
In iS\e feventh Nerie of this Epiftle, then. Dr. Benson.
the Edition of Robert Stephens reads ««» ajoi ot
Iffif j — That of Complutum, y-xi oi tjei?, only.
The Edition of Robet^i Stephens alfo reads
IV £10-1 ; whllft that of Cotjipluium conveys not
only different words, but, in fome refpeds,.
a different meaning, from that oi Robert Ste
phens, by reading £i? to zv fio-i.
In the eighth Verfe, the Edition of Robert
Stephens reads ^v rm yrt -, but that of Complu
tum £OT TTif y»f, — a different prepofition, go
verning, in the following fubftantlve, a dif
ferent cafe. In the Edition of Robert Ste
phens, the laft claufe of this Verfe, ««» oi rpm
£1? TO IV £10-1, is read entire ; but there is not
one word of it found in the eighth Verfe of
the Edition of Complutum.
Befide thefe palpable difcordances, which
render the pretence of one of thefe Editions
having been a Tranfcript of the other, im
probable, beyond all feeming ; a little atten
tion to the method, in which Robert Stephens
proceeded, throughout his Edition of A. D.
1550, will prove the abfolute impradlcability
of this fuppofitlon.
When

( 174 )
Dr. Benson. When any particular word, or words,
were found in a few of his Copies, which
did not exift in the generality, or in the great
er part, of them, Robert Stephens, on inferting
fuch word, or words, in the text of his wqrk,
conftantly pointed to the margin, by the
help of his index, the obelus ; v/here his
reader might find the MS, or MSS, particu
larly fpecified, on the authority of which he
had made the infertion. And when, upon
placing his obelus in the text, the paflage, or
word, to which it was prefixed, was found
in but a very few (as in one, or two) of his
Copies, it was his invariable cuftom to fignlfy
this deficiency, in the margin, by the follow
ing defcription  ^v ¦n-xa-i (or irxvrcc) ¦nMv ra (3
(for inftance) viz. This word, or paffage. Is
wanting In aU my authorities, except the Copy
marked ,Q : or, for the fake of brevity, by the
fingle initial tt. (Inftead of ev tt^o-i or ito.vtx)
followed by the reft of the reference. Thus
in St. Matthew, xil. ^^, the obelus is placed
over the words th; xa^Ji^,? ; and in the margin
is written £1/ 7r«crj, tta-.h/ tv -a r., or Thefe words
are wanting In aU my authorities, except the
MS, 1. In St. Mark, viii. a, the mark of
referetice

( us )
reference is placed over the word -i/t*£f*j, and Dr. Bens«n.
the correfponding marginal Note .is, ¦ttxvtx
ir-xm ra y, or, Wanting In all, except the MS
marked y. And laftly in St. John, ill. 25,
the reference is affixed to the word I^^xk^v -,
and in the margin is found -as. -nsAnv m », or,
wanting In aU, except the Copy «, which is the
Complutenfian Edition, (h)
Now, what Is the Note, or Reference, of
Robert Stephens, In the margin of this dif
puted Verfe, confidered in relation to the
Complutenfian Edition ? Not, ev ¦m-xiri, or ¦srai/7«,
¦vrxnv T3 a, (or, abbreviated, sr. zrXnv ts a) which
is the' conftant cuftom of Robert Stephens,
where one, only, of his authorities fupports
a particular reading : Not, " Wanting In all
" my copies, except the Complutenfian," —
which, certainly, would have been the cafe,
if the fuppofitlon, advanced by Dr. Benfon,
and now under confideratlon, were juft.
But his Note, or Reference, is to this effed,
and may be thus fairly paraphrafed. The
ivords, EV T3 s^avw. In this Verfe, ere wanting in
{h) See the Edition itfelf (of A. D. 1550) pages 21,
75, and 166. — ¦

( 176)
Dn Benson in feven of my MSS. ^/^^ Complutenfian C(9;iy„
andothers of my authorities, have the whole Verfe
in full length, fave ihat the Complutenfian has^
at the clofe of the Verfe, a reading pecuUar to
itfelf, viz. £if TO EV, which does not belong to
any of the refi. If Robert Stephens, whilft
living, had even entertained fome latent
fears, left a fuppofitlon of the kind, now
under confideratlon, however prepofterous,
might, at fome future time, attempt to Im-
pofe itfelf upon the world ; it feems that he
could not have employed thofe marginal
Nqtes, and References, which he had adopt
ed, more appofitely, than he thus has
done, to meet it with a flat negation. It
was not well within his power to have
done more for our fatisfadion herein, un
lefs he had been uneafy enough to have de
tailed thofe fears, at large, to the world, by
anticipation ; and had bufied himfelf. In
much circumlocution, to caution his readers,
beforehand, not to pay any heed to fuch an
impofition, if it. fhould be attempted to be
palled upon them.
Thefe Impediments, Sir, being thus re-
inoved.

( J77 )
moved, I am enabled to fum up this argu- Dr. Bensoi?,
ment, in both its parts, in a few words. Had
Robert Stephens " taken this difputed paflage
" from the Complutenfian Edition," he vi^ould
jtiot have remarked, as a clrcumftance pe
culiar to that Edition, that it read «>? to ev, in
a part of the Verfe in queftion ; if the whole
Verfe had been peculiar to it, and had not
been found in any of his other authorities.
But he has not inferted the difputed paffage,
as It fiood in the text of the Complutenfian.
And he has remarked the £»jto ev, as a clr
cumftance peculiar to a part of the Verfe,. in
the.Complutenfian Copy. The confequence
is peremptory ; it will not be evaded, and it
cannot be repelled; namely, thzt Robert Sie^
phens^^ NOT take this difputed paflage from
the Complutenfian Edition,
'KIAL " The Editors" [oi the Com-
*' pluienfian Edition] " fay. In general,
* *' that they followed the befi and mofi an^
^* cient MSS of the Vatican. — But Mr.
** Wetftehi (I) renders it dubious whe^
N *' il>er

(i) Prele^mffitf to folio Edition, A. D. 1751, page

( 178 r
Dr. Benson. " ther they had any Vatican MSS, — ntH
" only f from their varying. In fo many
" places, from the befi Y^ticzn copy, but
" becaufe Leo X didnot come to ihe Pope-
" dom, time enough to have furnifhed
"¦ them, In Spa.'in, with fuch MSS before
" they undertook ihat work. For hef be-
" Ing then fick) was chofen Pope not a
" year before that Edition was publlfied.
' ' And they are fuppofed io have been about
^' fifteen years In preparing and publi/hifig
" It."— {p. 641.)- : -- ;-"^
The Editors of Complutum pofitively, and
in the ftrongeft terms, declare, that they had
the ufe of feveral Vatican MSS, which were
fent, from Rome, to Cardinal Ximenes, for
that purpofe.
" Let It be known" (fay they (k) in their
preface) " to the reader, that we have had,
" for the benefit of this work, the ufe of
" feveral MSS, of fuch very great antiquity,
" and corrednefs, that it feems a kind of
" impiety
(i) Appendix, No. XfV} ,

( 179 )
*' impiety to doubt their truth : which the Dr. Benson^
*' moft holy Father, &c. Leo X. defirous to
*' favor our undertaking, fent from theApof*
*' tolic Library, to the moft reverend the
*' Cardinal oi Spain ; under whofe authority,
" and by whofe commands, we have com-
*' mitted this work to the prefs."
.. The world, furely, owes to thefe illuftri*
OUS Editors fo much refped, at leaft, as to
credit a declaration, made with fuch folem-
nity, unlefs there fhall appear, from circum
ftances, a moral Impoffibility of Its truth.
But the objedions, here culled ontoi Wetfieln,
are far from importing any fuch impoffibility.
It by no means follows, that thefe Editors
had no Vatican MSS, becaufe they varied, in
many, places, from the befi. Vatican Copy.
It would be juft as found a conclufion, to
affirm, that Robert Stephens had not the Com
plutenfian Bible, becaufe he has varied, in.
many places, from that Edition. And, as to
there not being a Leo X. at Rome, " time
*' enough to have furnifhed them, in Spain,
*' .with fuch MSS, before they undertook
*' that work ;" it may be anfwered, that
N 2 there

Ci8o)
Dr. Benson, there was a Cardinal (/) de Medici there, tlmfe
(/) He was created Cardinal, by Innocent VIII, at 41
years of age. {Bayle, Dift. Hiftorique, Tom. 11. p. 299.
Edit. Rotterdam. A. D. 1697.) . . , r ,
The learned friend, to whom I am indebted for the
account ofthe Dublin MS, fet fortb in p. 150— 15;^ of
this work, has favored me v/ith the following refieftions,
on the fubjeifl ef thefe Vatican MSS.
" I think it probable, that the Vatican MSS were lent
" to Ximenes, during the Popedom of his countryman
" Alexander Vl, whodied in Auguft, A.D. 1503;—
" that, during the enfuing fcenes of turbulence, they
" were not re-demanded, until at laft they were abfo-
*' lutely forgotten ; and that they lie dormant in fomC
»« Library, or Monaftery, in Spain, where, on examina-
" tion, they may yet be difcovered. I know when
" Francis. I. died, and when Leo's Popedom commenced,
*' But the reigning Prince, or Pope, is always thanked
*' for the favours conferred bytheir predecefTors ; while
*' it is to their indulgence w.e owe their continuance, or
*' from their grace we muft fexpe£l: iheir repetition. R.
" Stephens acknowledges that his MSS came from the
*' Library ihtn belonging to Henry. They were lent by
*' Francis. So might the Complutenfian Editors thank
" Leo for the MSS, which they had from his Vatican,
" although they received them from Alexander. Ximems
" was long projeftinghis work, and long preparing his
*' materials. Is it not probable, that he would take the
" opportuni :y of foliciting the loan of the Vatican MSS
" (if they were lent to him) when his countryman
" filled ^t. Peter's chair.? But, as Books, and MSS,
" were not Alexander's paffion, I fufpeft that he sold
" them to Ximenes ; and that the loan was a fable, con-
" trived to conceal the infamy of the tranfadtion." —
This is a moft judicious conjedture. And it feems
that no objecSlion can be brought againft it, fave the'ex-
preffions of the Complutenfian Editors ; who pofitively fay,
in their preface, that Ximenes received them from Let.
" ^ua Leo decimia eduSta, &c. MisiT ad Cardinglm
" Hifpania." —

( i8i )
time enough to furnifli thofe MSS to his Dr. Bensp»»
Brother Cardinal, Ximenes, for his affiftanc^
in this undertaking. And becaufe, in that *
long feries oi fifteen ye^rs, which faw thefe
learned Jiditors fecluded frorn the world,
jnd anxipufly intent on their great work,
their original benefador had been exalted to
the Papal throne, and afiianied the new name
oi Leo X; they would not, in their Preface,
mention him by his former, lefs honorable,
appellation, but by the auguft, and pre-emi
nent, title, which dlftlnguifhed him in A. D?
15 14, when their Polyglott carne forth from ,
the Prefs. As men, this lefler kind of Me-
ionymy would be ngtural.- — j^s Papjjl^, it
would be inevitable.
XLIIL " Since that. Pope Urban,
** having recommended thofe MSS In the
** Vatican, to be examined. It was found
** thai aU of theni, which have the Eplf
-*' tie qf St. John, want this feventh
Verfe pf the fifth Chapter:"

it

.Dr. Benfon has not been fo juft to his
N 3 readers,

( i80
Vt, Benson, readers, (m) as to Inform tbem '6n what aul
thority this aflertion is founded.
, •' --J ¦.: ¦¦ v'
But, admitting, for the prefent, and for
the fake of argument alone, that the MSS,
NOW in the Vatican, have not the text in
queftion,— does it follow from thence, that
there were no MSS in that Library, before
the time of Cardinal Ximenes, which had' the
Verfe ? Dr. Benfon, indeed, is forward enough
to tell us, that " thofe MSS," thofe idehti-
cal exemplars which were ufed' by the Edi
tors of Complutum, were " examined," and
that " all of them, which have the Epiftle,'
*' want the Verfe." Will he prove it to us ?
He does not attempt it. He trufts to find
readers as full of zeal as himfelf; and then
»_no proof will be required.
The truth is, the MSS which were fent
(not lent — for there is a great difference in
the two words, and the expreffion in the
original, is mlfii) to Ximenes, for the ufe of
the
J {m) The fearch, alledged to have been made by Caryo-
philus, is fuppofed to be here alluded to. But even fVei'
fiein, himfelf, pays little, or no, credit to it. [Prol,
p. 6i.)

( ^§3 )
the Complutenfian Editors, were not ordered. Dr. Benson.
as far as we know, to be returned, nor are
we certified that they ever were returned, to
the Library of tbe ^//cij;^. We know, that
the MSS, which were borrowed, by Robert
Stephens, from the Royal Library, at Paris,
have never found their way back thither, or,
at leaft, that they are not now in that Libra
ry : for the MSS, which Father Le Long
fpoke of, have already been proved (n) not
to be thofe which had been ufed by Robert
Stephens, And the fame conclufion may,
with far more probability, for many obvious
reafons, be formed, as to the Vatican MSS,
ufed by the Editors of Complutum.
¦' ' ¦ . [
XLIV. " And Father S'tmon has ob-.
" ferved very jufily, T hat, when. the pub -
" lifers of the Complutenfian edition pub-
" lifiied ihis d'lf puted text, ihey fallowed
" the reading ofthe latm copies here:''
This objedion fuppofes that Ximenes, and
his congregated (o) Divines, not finding the
N 4 text
, (k) Pages 127 to 138.
[0) They were no lefs than 42 in number, as hath
been befpre obferved ; and the expences of Ximenes, m

Dr. Benson, text of the heavenly Wltneffes in any Qree^
MSS, confederated to forge this ne\V text,
in order to make their Greek, correfpond
with the Latin, Copies : nay, it pofitively
affirms that they did fo.
TbiS ftands the UberaUty of this objedlOn.
l^et us now enquire into its truth*
The text of the Latin Copies is " Et hi
*' tres unum funt," — And thefe three are one.
But what is the text of the C-ompluienfian E-
dition, iri the parallel paffage? Not stoi o» Tpt
EV £16-1, which would have been exadly con-
fonantto the Latin text, (hi tres unum funt)
thefe three are one ; but oi t^sk £if to ev sm,
ihefe three Agree in one. Can any perfon
be fo much much a Beeotlan, as to imagine,
that, if thefe Editors had meant to forge a
Greek
the whole of this publicatlofi, are affirrtied to be Duta-
tortim fexcenties Millena millia. The Writer of the Ap
pendix to the Hifl. Lit. of Cave, fays, ^inquaginta millia
aureorum. Kdlt. Lond. A.D. 1688, p. 201.
The delighted mind of Ximenes is faid, by Gottiet, in
his life of this Cardinal, to have exprefled the happinefs,
which it poflefTed, on feeing this great work compleated,
in thefe animated words — " Grates tibi ago, fumme C'hrijici
^uod rem^ magtiopcrt a me turatam, ad optatam finem per"
duxeHs" Hody, -De Bibl, Text. Orig. p. 462.

( i85 )
Greek text, " to follow the reading of Dr. BENsojr,
'* the Latin Copies," they would have not
have forged one which would have followed
thofe Copies exadly ? Is it poffible to believe,
that. If thefe Editors had intended to frame,
in the Greek language, a tranflation of the
Latin Text, they would have produced fome-
thing fo utterly dlflbnant from it ? — that fb
many men of leairning, wbohad fpent fifteen,
years in collating Greek MSS, in order to
compile a Greek Teftament, were yet fo ut
terly ignorant of the Greek language, as to
bring forth a grofs mif-tranflatlon, and, with
al, one fo foreign to their purpofe ? — The
truth is, that M. Simon, and Dr. Benfion,
would not have argued thus abfurdly in any
other cafe. There is, upon a fair ftatement
of the proofs, every reafon to believe (as
hath been remarked in a former letter) that
the verfe ftood. In thofe MSS which the
"Complutenfian Editors confulted, (^p) exadly
as they have delivered it to us ; and that
they did not think themfelves at liberty to
vary from their MSS, either to " follow the
" reading
(p) The feven MSS of Z. Valla read ug ro ev .skti, in
the laft claufe of this verfe, as well as the MSS ufed by
the Complutenfian Editors,

( i86 )
Dr. Benson, reading of theL^///^ Copies," or of any other
copies whatfoever,
. -Between this objedion, herein laft ftated,
and that to which I now proceed, feveral mif-
CeHaneous obfervatlons intervene, which Dr.
Benfon ftiles " incidental and internal marks
" which may render it" [the authenticity
of the Verfe] " fufpeded," Some of thefe
obfervatlons are too frivolous to require any
animadverfion. Thofe, which feem to de
ferve it, will receive their anfwer hereafter.

XLV. " This difputed text was not In
the Italic, or old Latin Verfion, before
the time of Jerome." (p. 643.)

(C

The whole tenor of the authorities, from
the Latin Fathers, who were prior to, and
coeval with, and from fome, who were fub
fequent to, the age of Jerome, which have
been already (q) fet forth, proves the abfo
lute falfehood- of this affertion. It may not,
however, be improper to ftate this matter,
here, at large. ¦-' The
(j) Pages 26 to 40.

( i87)
The old Italic Verfion, then, or the Itala Dr. Benson,
Vetus, was fucceeded, in the Latin Church,
by the Tranflation of Jerome. But it was'
not fuperfeded by that Tranflation, as to
general ufe, until about the end oi thefeventh
Century, (r) or until nearly 300 years after
Jerome's dexnth.. The references, therefore,'
to, and the quotations of, this Verfe, which
were made by Tertullian, by Cyprian, by'
Pheebadlus, and Marcus Celedenfis,— hy Eu
cherius, Viglllus, Fulgeniius, 2Si^Caffodorlus, — -•
and which have been already produced, (s)
were not, in any inftance, taken from Je-
rome'i Verfion. For the three, firft named,
of thefe Writers lived before Jerome^ Ver
fion was made. The two next in order,
were fo nearly the contemporaries of ^(?r<3»;^,
that they can hardly be fuppofed even to
have feen his Verfion. It feems, moreover,
certain, from an examination of their works,
as well as from the pofitive affirmation of
Wetfieln, (t) that Viglllus, and Fulgeniius did
not quote from the Verfion of Jerome. And the
(r) See the anfwer to pbjediop LVI of Dr, Benfon,
Jhereafter ftated.
Q) Pages 26' to 40.
(/) Proleg. p. 81. He admits that AXt thefe authors,
here mentioned, ufed the old Italic Verfion in their
quotations.

(i88)
Dr, Benson, the very learned Maffelus («) affirms the
fame thing of Caffiodorlus, hi the moft pofi
tive terms. Thefe references, and quota-r
tions, then, being, all, made whilft the old
Italic Tranflation was in general ufe in the
I Latin Church, and not being taken from
j; ' ' that of Jerome, feem to befpeak their own
; derivation in the cleareft manner ; and to
prove the very oppofite conclufion to that-
whlcb is advanced in the objedion : namely,
tliat th'is difputed text was In the Italic, 6r
edd Latin Verfion, not only before, the time
qf Jerome, but from the firft hour of that
Verfion being delivered to the Chriftiaa
worlds

<(

XLVI. " //" [the Verfe in queftion]
is not In any of the oriental Verfions, as
the fyrlac"—

There were two, ancient, 5yr/><: Verfions.
The latter of them was made in the tiniQ
pf Kenayas, (who was Blfhop of Hierapofis, and
(2^) " Evidenter enim patet, ex quamplurimis harum
*' Complexionum locis, Cafftodorium alia verftone a Hieroijy-
" miana ufum e/^"— are the words of Maffeius. (Ap'-
«' pendix, No. X.) u \ I-

( i89)
and died in A. D. 520) and confequently in Dr. Bensow.
the end of the fifth, or in the beginning of
the fixth, century. Concerning the age of
the former of thefe Verfions, there hath
been a great diverfity of opinion. To pafs
over |he fentiments of more ancient critics,
the learned Michaelis (x) wifhes to carry-its
date up tothe third century, at" leaft ; while
¦Wetfieln (z) degrades it to the feventh cen
tury. Truth is, generally, a medium between
iwo extremes ; and it feems to be peculiarly
fo in the prefent cafe. For, from the tefti
mony of Bar Hebraus, in his Horreum myfie-
•rlorum, that a more accurate Tranflation of
the New Teftament into the Syriac language,
was made in, or about, the beginning of the
fixth century, in the time of Xenayas ;
it feems evident, that one more ancient,
although lefs accura;te, fubfifted before that
time.
(x) Introd, Leitures, SeiSt. 49, Ed. Lond. 1761.
The other arguments of this very learned pro-
feflbr, on this head, have no real weight. Ephrem quoted
'iVom-the Greek MS.S themfelves, which were then fre
quent in Syria, tr&nHditmg, as he quoted, for the bene£t
of his unlearned country- men. And the ftory of the
'Edeffa Copy is a mere dream,
(z) Proleg. Tom, i. p. J09. — In page 113, he for
gets himfelf fo far as to fay, that the latter (or fecond)
Syriac Verfion was made in A. D- 506 ; — thus making^
hy his own account, the offspring older than the parent.

( 19° )
Dr. Benson, time. Whllft, on the other h^nd, it feems
eqqally certain, that this, more ancient, Sy
riac Verfion was made fubfequent to the age
of Chryfofiom, who died in A. D. 407 ; not
only becaufe it is divided according to the
Canons of Eufeblus, and contains his letter to
Carplanus : but becaufe it fets forth the Dox'
ology in Matt, vl, 13, which was not found
(d) in that Gofpel until the time of Chryfoflom.
The (more ancient) Syriac Verfion, then,
is pofterior, in point of time, to the Italic
Tranflation, and to the Verfion of Jerome;
both of which, it has been already fhewn, -
have conftantly exhibited the Verfe in quef
tion. The Syriac is, moreover, faulty, and
incorredj almoft beyond belief. Not words,
or fentences, only, but even whole verfes,
are left out, or paffed over, by the Tranfla-
tor, in various parts of his Verfion (befide
the paflage now in difpute) which are ad
mitted by all to be genuine. It may not be
improper, perhaps, to fpecify a few Inftances
of thefe omlffions. In
(a) See (int. al.) Erafmi. Annot. in Nov. Teft. A. D.
1522, p. 31 and 32,

( 191 )
In St. yoi^w's Gofpel, the following Verfes Dr. Benson.
are wholly left out of this Verfion : —
" And if I go, -.and prepare a place for
" you, I will come again, and receive you
*' uuto myfelf; that where I am, ye may
" .be alfo." (C. xiv. 3.)
" He fhall glorify me : for he fhall receive
*' of mine, and fhall fhew it unto you."
^C. xvi. 14.) ..::...- .: :o:i..
In the A^s of the Apoftles : —
" And PM/}) faid. If thou belleveft with
" all thine heart, thou mayeft. And he
" anfwered and faid, I believe that Jefus
** Chrlfi Is the Son of God." (C. vHi. 37.)
*' Notwlthftanding, it pleafed Sllas to
," abide.there ftilL" (C. xv. 34.)
" And when he had fiild thefe words, the
.** ^ifWi departed, and had great reafonlng
" among themfelves." (C. xxviii, 29.) In

( 192 )
! Dt, Bti^soN, In the i. Epiflle of St. Peter,
" If ye be reproached for the name of
*' Chrlfi, happy are ye: for the fpirit cf
** glory, and of God, refteth upon you.
*' On their part he is evil fpoken of, bat
*' on your part he is glorified." (Civ, 14.)
Thefe are examples, which have efcaped
even the critical eye of Theodore Beza. His
(b) annotations point out others, almoft In^
numerable, Inftances of omlffions, in Copies, in ge
neral, when brought to prove that the words,
ib omitted, did not exift in the original, are
but fufpicious evidence, Inftances of omlf
fions, in a Copy fo full of omlffions as this,
will fcarcely amount to evidence at alL
'. ' XLVII. « Nor Is It in the Arabic,
*' Mthloflc, orPerfiic"-^
Thef?
(i) Beza's, Annotations, paffim. Martin's Differts*
tion. Part. 2.. C. i.

t 193 )
Thefe Verfions were copied frona- (c) the Dr. Benson,
Syriac, and, therefore, muft have adopted
its faults ; increafed, moft probably, by others
of their own.
XL VIII. « Nor in the Coptic:'
The Verfion abounds more, if poffible,
with faults, and omiffiotis, than the Syriac,
The fanie remark applies to both.
The foUoyving omlffions of compleat
Verfes, in this Tranflation, feem to merit a
particular reference : viz.
In the Gofpel of St. Matthew.
*' But I fay unto you, Love your enemies,
*' blefs them that curfe you, do goodfto
*' them that hate you, and pray for them
O •' which
(c) M. Simon, Hift. des Verfions, C. 17 and 18, and
in Book ji, C. 15, of his Hift. of the Yeri. of the Old
Teftaftnent : and Du Pin, DiflTert. Prelim, p. 82. JVetflein,
however, Proleg, no, affirms, " tett^e Renodotio," that
Jhe .Mthiopic Verfion proceeded from the Coptic, And
Michaelis affirms (Seft. 54)»that fome of the Arabic Ver-
rjUoris, alfo, were rendered from the Coptic. It is of fmall
importance to the prefent difquifition, whether Wetjlein,
and Michaelis, are right, gr not, in thef« conclufions.

( 194 )
Dr. Benson. " which defpltefully ufe you, and perfecute
" you." (C. V : 44.)
" At the fame time came the Difclples
" unto Jefus, faying, who is the greateft in
" the kingdom of Heaven? (C. xviii : i.)
" But Jefus anfwered, and faid. Ye know
^' not what ye afk. Are ye able to drink
" of the cup, that I fliall drink of, and to
" be baptlfed with the baptlfm that I am
*' baptlfed with ? They fay unto him,' Wc
*' are able.
" , And he faith unto them, Ye fhall drink,
" Indeed, of my cup, and be baptifed with
" the baptlfm that I am baptifed with :
" but to fit on my right hand, and on my
"left. Is not mine to give ; but it fhall be
" given to them, for vvhom it is prepared of
*' my Father." (C. xx : 22, and 23.)
" And they crucified him, and parted his
" garments, cafting lots : that it might bc
*' fulfilled which was fpoken by the Pro-
" phet, They parted my garments among
" them,

( ^95 )
** them, and upon my vefture did they caft Dr. Benson.'
*' lots." (C. xxvii : 35.) ^
In the Gofpel of St. Mitrk.
*' If any man have ears to hear, let him,
"hear." (C. vh : 16.)
" But if ye do not forgive^ neither will
*' your Father, which is in Heaven, forgive.
*' your trefpaffes." (C. xi : 26»)
In the A^s of the Apoftles.
" And Phillp faid. If thou belleveft with
" all thine heart, thou mayeft; And he
*' anfwered, and faid, I believe that Jefus
" Chrl/i is the Son of God." (C. viU : 37.)
" But the Chief Captain, lyfias, came
" upon us, and, with great violence, took
*' him away out of our hands." (C* xxiv :
" 7')
More inftances need not be adduced, to
Ihew, that no argument is to be drawn frora
O 2 any

( 196)
¦Dr. Benson, any omiflion of any Verfe, by any Tranfcri*
ber, like this (d).
XLIX. " No, nor In the ancient copies
" ofthe Armenian Verfion." —
The Armenians were converted to ths
Chriftlan faith, in the third century ; at which
rime Chrlftianity became the eftablifhed re
ligion of all Armenia, under T'trldates, who
was then the King of that country. Until
this aera, the Armenians had polTefled no
alphabet of their own ; but had made ufe
of Perfian, or Greek, charaders in writing.
Not long after the introdudion of Chrifti-
anity into that country, the famous Mlefroh,
who flourifhed in the end of the fourth, and
in the beginning of the fifth century, in
vented the charaders, which have ever fince
been ufed by the Armenians. To this won
derful mTin Armenia owes the Verfion ofthe
Scriptures, alfo, which it now poffeflfes, as
well as its alphabet ; which Verfion was
finllhed

(d) fVetfiein nknhes this Verfion to the fifth, w iixlk
century, {Proleg, no.)

( ^91 )
¦finlflied (?) very early in the fifth century. Dr. Benson.
This, however, was not the firft, but the
third, Tranflation of the Scriptures, which
had then been made by this extraordinary
©lan, affifted by Ifaac, the great Patriarch
of Armenia. The two former Verfions had
been rendered from the Syriac; becaufe
Meruzan, who was, at that time, the Perfian
iGovernor pf Armenia, and an enemy to
Chrlftianity, had deftroyed all the Greek MSS
in the land : and had even prohibited the
Greeks, who lived in part of Armenia, from
ufing (y) any other than the Syriac language.
But, in a few years afterwards, the Armenians,
being delivered from all fear oi Meruzan, and
being anxious to know whether their Ver-
O 3 fion
{e) Michaelis, Se6l. 57, fays, that this Verfion was
finiflied in A. D. 410. —
Sir Ifaac Newton (Objecyon XX VIII,.hereafter ftated)
affirms that it bath been ufed by the Armenians ever fince
the age of Chryfoflom ; who died in A. D. 407. Thefe
accounts differ but very little in their jEras, and maybe
reconciled by averyeaiy fuppofitlon : which is, that the
different books of Scripture were delivered out tothe
clergy, and people, of Armenia, as they were
SEVERALLY TRANSLATED, [viz. in A. D. 4O5, &C ]
although the whole version, was not finished until
A.D. 410.
(f) Hi/i. Mosis Chorenensis, Edit. JVhiflon. Lib.
in, C. liv, f. 300.

( 198 )
I Vt. Benson, fion, having been then rendered from the
Syriac alone, contained the true words of life,
fent deputies to the Greek Council, which
was held at Ephefus, in A.D, 431. Thefe
deputies, being returned from Ephefus (fays
Mofes Chorenenfis) " deUvered to Isaac (the
*« Patriarch) andto Miesrob, the letters,
*' and decrees, of that Affembly, together with
" a copy oJ ihe Scriptures carefully Writ-
*' TEN. WhenlsAAC, and 'Miesrob, had
*' received this copy, they chearfully took upon
*' them the labor of tranfiatlng again ihat fa-
*' ered volume, which they had tranfiated twice
*' before. But finding themfelves fomewhat
' ' deficient In knowledge" [of the Greek tongue]
*' they fent us to the famous School at Alex-
<' andria ; ihere to learn compleatly that e^-
" eellent language." Such was the great
induftry, which the Armenians of the fourth,
and fifth, centuries, iifed in order to obtain
an accurate Verfion of the Scriptures ; ren
dering them twice from the Syriac Verfion,
and the third time from the Greek MSS,
This Verfion was not known, in ^nf printed
Copy, until the laft century ; when it was
committed to the prefs, by order of an Ar
menian

(^99 )
«;m^« Council, held in A.D. 1662. Ufcan, Dr. BEtfsoif.
an Armenian Blfhop, was deputed by that
Council, to fuperintend, in Europe, an im-
preffion of their Bible, in their own language.
He executed his commiflion, in A. D. 1668,
at Amfierdam : and this impreffion contains,
without any mark of doubt, or fufpicion,
annexed to it, the Verfe, j. John, v. 7.
Thus far. Sir, I have the good fortune to
concur with MlchaeUs ; who feems to have
given by much the beft hiftory of this Ver- \
fion, that has ever yet appeared. I am truly \ :
concerned to feel myfelf compelled to dlf-
fent from him, totally, in every other part,
(vvhich fhall hereafter be ftated) of bis rea-
fonings in refped to this excellent Verfion.
For, I. 'MichaeUs affirms, on the authority of
Sandlus, that " he" [Ufcan\ " did not find the
?' paflage, i.John, v. 7, in his MS, although
** it ftands in Ufcan s edition."
But the account, fo given by Sandlus, was
evidently (to fay the leaft of it) a miftake. For
M,.S'/;«o;|was acquainted, at P^m, with Ufcan,
O 4 whllft:'

( 200 )
Dr. Benson, whilfl: he was employed in executing his im
portant commiflTion. And M. Simon (who
was not only a very learned, but, on the
whole, a candid, opponent of this verfe) ex.
prefsly admits, that t^^w's impreflion could
not but be very accurate, *' The Blfhop,"
(fays he) " who was ajudlclousi anddlfcreet,
*' perfon, brought with him the most cor-
" RECT MSS, which he carefully followed,
?' And thefe particulars I learned ? kom the
»« BiSHO? HIMSELF." {g)
There is no difficulty in determining,
whether the preference, in point of credit,
is to be given to Sandlus, or to M. Simon, In
the prefent cafe. If all other circumftances
were equal between thefe two witnefTeS
(which M. Simonds great fund of learning
forbids us to fuppofe) the fad of M, Simonds
being a ftrenuous opponent of the authen
ticity of this verfe, decides the queftion en^
tirely in favor of his teftimony. The ac-^
count of Sflndlus is the attack of a zealot,
fupporting his own partialities. The tefti.
mony
ig) Hip, des Verfions, C. 16, and x7,~Alfo Millii
Pfoleg. Edit. Oxon, A, D, 1707, p. 742.

( 20I )
'fnony of M. Simon is the concession of an Dr. Brnsom,
adverfary, overthrowing his own prepof-
feffions. Th6 ballance of evidence cannot,
for a moment, hefitate in inclining to the
latter, 2. MlchaeUs argues, that *? as this verfe
*' was not in the oldeft Armenian MSS,
** Haliho (King of Armenia, from A. D.
*' 1224 to 1270) who underftood Latin,
*' feems to have added it from the Vulgate."
This is begging the queftion, It does not
appear, by any kind of ppoof, that this verfe
was not in the oldeft Armenian MSS. So
far, indeed, is this afihmption from being
true, that the very contrary appears from
the teftimony of M. Simon, himfelf, which
hath been juft related,
3. But MlchaeUs further Infifts, that Haithof
was *' a fuperftltious Prince, that he tranf^
^' lated all Jerome's prefaces, aiid turned
** Friar before his death,"
^nd fo he might. His being fuperftitlous Gf

( 202 )
Dr. Benson. (If there be any meaning in that epithet, In
the prefent infiance) tranflating Jerome, and,
turning Friar, does not prove that this verfe
was not In the MSS of his nation long be
fore he was born.
Indeed, the exlftence of this paflTage, In
the ancient MSS of Armenia, feems clearly
to appear from an acknowledgment of Mi'
chaelis, which follows the charges, which
have juft been confidered. He there con
feffes, that, " thlriy-feven years zitex Haltho's
" death, this verfe is quoted in a Council
*• held In Armenia, and in other (^) Arm.e-
*' nlan records. Now, this quotation, by
the Council, fo early after the death of
Haliho, and without any remark, or com
ment, upon It, Is a very ftrong argument
in favor of this verfe. Had it not exifted
in the Armenian Bibles, before the time of
Haliho, the members of that Council would
certainly have annexed, to their quotation
of it, fome note, to the reader, to inform
him that it had been once loft out of their
MSS;
ifi) Galani Concilia, Lib. i. p. 436—478. And
Thrf. Epift. La Croze, p. 4, and 69.

( 203 )
MSS ; or fome mark of acknowledgement Dr. Benboh.
to the memory of Haliho, for having (as
they would, in that cafe, have exprefled
themfelves) refiored this verfe.
4. Michaelis, laftly, urges (Sed, 58)
that " Ufican acknowledges, in his Preface,
*' that he had altered fome things from the
** Vulgate,"
But this obfervation proves nothing, as to
the prefent queftion. For Ufcan makes no
acknowledgement, of that kind, refpeding
this paflage of St, John.
And this fad, that Ufcan had made no
alteration as to this verfe, is further eftab
lifhed by M. Simon : — who relates, that (I)
an Armenian, named Nicon, publiflied a trea
tife on this fubjed, wherein he accufed his
countrymen of having interpolated feveral
paffages In their Bibles, And he mentioned
Luke, xxii : 43, 44, and dlverfe other texts,
as particular Inftances of fuch interpolation.
But he bl-'oug'l^t: no charge, of this kind,
againft
(/) Lettres, Choififs, Kp. 24. (Bibl. Critique, Tom. iv.)

C 204 )
Dr, Benson, againft the verfe now in debate :— -which is
a further proof that it anciently was, as it
now is, found in that Verfion.
Thus, then, Sir, I have produced the dlre^
authority of M, Simon, to the exlftence of
this paffage in the zncient ArmenlanY erfion.
I have further enforced that dired teftimony,
by clrcumfiantlal proof. In fo doing I have,
as I truft-, not only colleded a body of evi
dence, to this point, which will not be con
troverted ; or, if controverted, will not be
fet afide : — but have, moreover, adduced ^
frefh inftance of Greek authority, the
authority of a Council, in favor of the ori
ginality of the text, i. John, v. 7.
I fhould now, Sir, beg leave to difmlfs
this objedion, did it not feem requlfite, pre
vloufly, to take a fliort, general, review of
the conclufions, at which we feem to have ar
rived, on this fubjed of the ancient Verfitom
of the New Teftament.
The ancient Verfions, then, of the New
Teftament into various languages, are, — ^ar
ranging

( 205 )
ranging them in order of time — tbe Old Dr. Benson,
Italic, (or Itala Vetus') the Version op
Jerome, the Syriac, the Armenian, and
the Coptic Thefe were all made in, or
before, the fixth century. Of the reft, fome
are too modern, as the French, the Ruffan,
and the Sclavonic, (which, however, will be
mentioned in the next, fucceeding objedions)
to deferve the appellation of ancient Ver
fions. And others, as the Arabic, Perfian,
and Ethloplc, are merely tranfcrlpts from
fome of thofe, which have juft been men
tioned, and therefore are not entitled to a
Ipecial enumeration. The Franklfh, err one-
oufly ftiled the Gothic (k) by fotne of the
learned, is out of the prefent queftion ; for
it contains the Gofpels only. The five, then,
herein firft mentioned, are all the ancient
Verfions of the EpifUes of the New Tefta
ment, from their or/ginal Greek, wh'ich affed
the prefent debate-. And here, — although
Dr. Benfon has thought proper. In the outfet
of (I) his obfervatlons on this part of the
fubjed, to affirm, that " the ancient verfions" have
(k) Mfihaelis, Sedt. 70, and 71.
Continet ifie codex quatuor Evangelia, fed muiila," Wet-
STEIN, Proleg. p. 114.)
(/; Page 643.

( 206 )
Dr. Benson. *' have Not this difputed text" yet— it feems,
from what has been premlfed, undeniably
' * certain, that three, out of the whole
five, of thefe ancient verfions, and Two
out of the THREE mofi ancient of them all,
have uniformly exhibited the verfe, now iir
queftion !—
L. " // is not In the Ruffan." -"
The modern Ruffdn, is a younger branch
of the ancient Greek Church. The Ruffians
were converted to Chrlftianity, by the Greeks,
about the clofe of the tenth Centuiy. From
the Greeks they received, not only ' the
Scriptures, but their ecclefiaftical dlfclpllne;
and they acknowledged the Gr eekVztr'izrch,
at Confiantlnople, as the head of their Church,
until the feventeenth Century, when they
/ eleded a Patriarch of their own country,
but ftill without caufing, or wlfhing to
caufe, thereby, any abfolute feparation from
their Mother-Church.
It has been already {m) proved, that the
ancient
(m) Pages 48—50.

( 207 )
ANCIENT Greek Church (as It may be ftiled Dr. Benson.
for the fake of diftindion) has given the moft
decided judgment in favor of the authentici
ty of this Verfe, by inferting it in Its pub-
He Confeffion of Faith, and by reading it,
conftantly, in its public fervlce. The ufe,
in that Church, of the «7roroAof, (fi) of which
this Verfe formed a part, has been traced up
to the fourth, or fifth, Centtiry after Chrlft,
without finding, even there, the time wheil
it began to be fo ufed : from whence, Is
hath been before remarked, the thinking
mind feels itfelf compelled to carry up the
commencement of that ufe almoft to, if not
entirely as far as, the age of the Apoftles. j
Thus, then, the cafe ftands with the an
cient Greek Church. It might have been
prefumed, without feeklng for further proofs,
that the Ruff.an, or modern Greek, Church,
thus deriving its rudiments of Chrlftianity
from the ancient one, would, with Its Mother
Church, acknowledge this Verfe to be ge
nuine. But, happily, we need not leave any
thing, even here, to prefumption. The
Verfe,
afi] See pa. 49 — 50, and 169.

( 268 )
! Dr. Benson. Verfe, in queftion, poflefles its place in all
the Ruffian {o) New Teftaments ; and is,
moreover, cited in the public Confeffion of
Faith, or Catechifnj, of the Ruffian Church,
jn the following exprefs manner : —
** What the Father is according to hl^
** nature, the fame is the Son, and the Holy
'* Ghoft. Now, as the Father is, in hif
•* nature, true, and eternal, God, and Creafpf
" of all things, vlfible, and invifible, fuch i$
•' the Son, and fuch the Holy Ghoft, being
** confubftantlal one with another ; accordr
** ing to what the Evangelift, St. John,,
** teaches, when he fays, There fire thre(
** which bear record In Heaven, the Father,
*' ihe Word, and the Holy Ghofi, and thefi
*' three are one."
This Confeffion, (p) or Catechifm, was
drawn up by the Ruffans, and approved of
¦by Parthenlus, Patriarch of Confiantlnople, in
A. D. 1643 ; was printed in Greek, and La* tin,
(0) The Sclavonian Bible, of A.D. 1663, has this
text printed in its margin, only : All the Ruffian Bibks
have it in the body of the page,
{p) Martin's La Verite, Part 2. C. 10.

( 209 )
tin, zt Leipfic, in A.D. 1695, and at Mo/cow, Dr. BgNSoti^
in A. D. 1709."'^
LI. " Nor in the old French Verfiofi."
There Was no ancient French Verfion of
any part of the New Teftament, except the
Franklfh, which was formerly called the
^Gothic, through miftake. And that Verfion,
(although not ancient) does not, as was
obferved (q) before, affed the prefent quef
tion. That which was made by the Wal-
denfies, on their feparation from the Church
of Rome; about A. D. 1160, feems to have
been (rf the next, in point of time, to the
Franklfh, herein before mentioned. But this
Verfion of the Waldenfes, together with the
Tranflation of Gulart des .Moul'ins, In A. D.
1294, and of others. In ftill later times, have
no claim to the appellation oiold, or ancient,
Verfions. LII. " And there Is even a great num- \ '
P " ber

Xq) Page 205. [i
" (r) K. Vide KoRTHOLTI de variis Scriptur. Edit*
^agejii.—

( 2IO )
Pr. Benson. *' ber of MS copies of the vulgar lathy,
" in various parts of Europe, in which,
** this text is not found."
And there is a ftill greater number, beyond
^11 comparifen, in which this text is found.
Dr. Benfon, if living, would not confent to
have the caufe decided by the greater num
ber of thefe Latin MSS. The argument^
therefore, was merely ad captandum ; and
proves nothing either to the advantage, or
to the credit, ofthe propofcr.
LIII. " It" [the Verfe in queftion]
** is not once quoted in the genuine works
^' of any one of the greek fathers. For
" inftance; Itis not found, in Clemens
" Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius,
" Jufiln Martyr, Irenaus, Clemens A-
" lex andr Inus, Eufcblus, Athanafius, E-
" plphanlus, Dldymus of Alexandria, Bafil
"¦ the Great, Gregory Na%ian%ene, Gre-
" gory Nyffene, Chryfofiome, Cyril of
" Alexandria, &c:".
Before we enter on this wide field of va*
cuit^)

( an )
Cliity — this region of night, and nothing,— Dr. BenjoWj"^
let the two following, general rules be laid
down, as guides to lead us through it with
fafet^ and difpatch.
I . That where a part only (perhaps but
a fmall part) of the worlds of any ancient
Father has defcended to us, we are not at
liberty to conclude, that a particular paflage
of Scripture has not been quoted at all by fuch
ancient Father, merely becaufe it is not found
in that part of his works, which hath come
dowij to the prefent age. AnjJ
2. That where fuch ancient Fathers have
not cited, in thofe parts of their works which
remain to our times, other texts, confeffedly
genuine, which would have been as applica-
ble-to the fubjed then in difcuffion, as thl§
paffage of St. John,->— no conclufive argument
is to be. drawn, from fuch fileijce, ggainft
the originality of the text in queftion,
Thefe two general rules being premife<Is
Jet us now prpcep4 %9 particulars. An4 fitfl:^-^
p 2 mt

( '^12 1
Dx, Benson, ' " It is not found in Clemens Alexandrinus."
A part only of his works hath-come down
to the prefent age. In that part he occa-
fionally treats of the Trinity; but- he has not,
oh that fubjed, cited the t^of theBaptif-
mal Inftltution, (j) which would have been
as applicable to bis defign as this paffage of
St. John. By both the preceding rules,
therefore, no conclufive argument is to bc
drawn from his filent^e, againft the origliia-
llty ofthe Verfe in queftion.
*' Nor in Alexander, Biffiop oi Alexandria,
*' Eufeblus, Eplphanlus, or Gregory Nazism*
" %ene."
Nor has the firft of thefe. In his Epiftle
againft Arius ; the fecond in his Trad againft
the Sabelllans ; the third. In his defence of
the Trinity, againft Noetus; or the laft in
his Treatife on the Divinity of Jefut Chrlfi ;
cited the words of the Baptifmalinftltutlon. (i) The
{s) " Go ye, therefore, and teach" (or, make difciples
tf) " all nations, baptizing them in the name ofthe Fa-
« ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft.'!
Matthew, xxviii: ig.

( 213 )
(/) The fecond of the preceding general Dr. Benson^
rules applies itfelf to all thefe Fathers.

ll

Nor in Athanafius." —

Whether theDIalogue hetweefl Athanafius,
and Arius, belongs to this Author, or not,
the Synopfis, (u) herein before mentioned,
may, with great probabihty, be attributed
to him : the writer of which has plainly re
ferred to the text in queftion.
As to the reft of the Greek Fathers, re
cited in the objedion, they fall under the
former of the foregoing rules. Their works
have not defcended to us compleat. And
it feems that we are not at Hberty (as is
there obferved^ abfolutely, and entirely, to
conclude, that this verfe has never been
quoted by them, merely becaufe it is not
found in that part of their works, which hath
furvived to the prefent times.
LIV- " They quoted this firfi eplfile of
P3 Si-
(<) Martin's Diflertation, Part 2. C. 3.
(«) Page X02.

( m )
Dr. BEfiioir. " ^5^. John, ihe fifth chapter, ahd even
*' the fixth and eighth verfies:^ (p, 644.)
By the unlverfality of thefe expreffions, It
fliould feem that Dr. Benfion believed, or
wiffied his readers to believe, that aU the
Greek Fathers herein before named, had
quoted the fi':^th, and eighth, verfes of this
Chaptei". But that is a miftake, or a mifre-
prefentatlon ; for only three of thefe Fathers
feem to ftand iil this predicament, namely
Clemens Alexandrinus, Gregory Na%lan%ene,
and Cyril of Alexandria!,
As to the firft of thefe, no part of his Com-
tnentary (if indeed (fi) it be his) on this
Epiftle, hath defcended to the prefent age,
except a feW fcattered fragments. Thefe
fragments make no mention of the five firft
Verfes of this Chapter ; they juft touch upon
the fixth, giving only the firft words of it.
They then pafs from the eighth, to the end of
(at) Dr. Cave does not believe thefe fragments to have
teen the wrork of Clemens Alexandrinus. (Hift. Lit. Londt^
Edit A. D. 1688, p. 56.)
Thefe fragments may be found (fuch as they are) ia
Max, Bibl, Pairum, Vol. 3. pa, 232*

C 2^5 )
of the eleventh, verfe ; then omitting the Dr. Bensoi*.
two next following verfes, and part of the
fourteenth, they end with the laft claufe of
the nineteenth, verfe. From fuch disjointed
members of a Commentary, even If allowed
to be the work of Clemens Alexandrinus, no
thing conclufive can be inferred.
With refped to the other two Greek Fa
thers, they feem to fall under the objedion
oi omlffions In general, which will be coti-
fidered hereafter.

LV. " As to the latin fathers. The
** author ofthe treatife about the baptlfm
" of heretics, fuppofed to be co-temporary
" with St. Cyprian, hath quoted the
" fixth and eighth verfes ; but taken no
" notice of the feventh. Which, as It
*' fijews he knew nothing of the feventh
** verfe, affords a very fir ong and cogent
** argument for the fuppofitlon, that nel-
** ther had Cyprian this text In his
" copies:'
Du pin fays of the Author of this Trea-
P 4 tife.

( 2i6 )
Dr, Benson, tife, (/)-r— '* He was, perhaps, a Contemn-
*' porary with St. Cyprian." — Dr. Pearfon
-,(«) calls it, ihe work of an unknown. Author.
.Such teftimonies as thefe are no proofs, even
ofthe ^«//^«//y of this Treatife. But whether
< ancient, or modern, the conclufion, here
drawn by Dr. Benfon, is unwarranted, and
groundiefs. The Writer of the Treatife, in
the paflkge referred to, fpeaks, as was ufual
vvith the Divines of that age, of thre^ forts
of Baptlfm ; , namely, by the Waier, by the
Spirit, and by the Blood. On this topic he,
properly, quotes the fixth, and eighth, Verfes
of this Chapter of St. John, The words of
the fieventh Verfe did not relate to his fub
jed. (a)

it

tt

LVI. " Didymus of Alexandria, in
the fourth ; Bede in the eighth; and
Oecumenlus, In the eleventh, century,
wrote, each of ihem, a commentary up
on this firfi eplfile of St. John. Butfo
^ . "far
(y) Du Pin, Vol. I. Lond. Edit. A.D. 1692, p. 155.
\z) Cyprian's works. Ed. Pearfon (int. op. falf.) p. 2i.'
(a) Appendix, No. XVII j w^here this part of the
Treatife is fet forth from the original.

C 217 )
*' far were they.froAn explaining this dif- Dr. Benbok.
" puted text, that ihey have not fo much
*' as mentioned It., Which few s, thai
they either knew nothing of. It, or dk
not beUeve 'it io be genuine:''

te

.: DiJy mus didnot write a regular .Commen
tary, but feme loofe, and defultory. Notes
on this Epiftle of St. John. In thefe Notes,
ail the Verfea, from the fifth to. the fiour-
if/?<?«/^, of this Chapter, are wantmg. The
inference, theri, that Dldymus " knew no-
" thing of this text, or did not believe it to
*' be genuine," becaufe he has not raade
fpecial mention of it In his Comrrientary,
will apply juft as forcibly to all the other
Verfes thus omitted, as to the fieventh. If
the argument proves any thing, it concludes
equally againft all thefe Verfes. But it
proves too much ; and, of courfe, proves
nothing, (b)
As to jB^^^, who comments upon the fixtb,
and eighth, but pafles over thefeventh, Verfe,
his filence affords grounds for a flight fuf
picion,
\{h) Wolfius, Cur. Philol. vol. v. p. 301.

( 2i8)
Dr. Benson-, picion, that he did not know this text, or
that he did not believe it to be genuine.
But the fufpicion feems to Vaniffi, on a due
confideratlon of the following obfervatlons.
I . Bede was not ignorant of the exlftence
of this text. He had read the works of
Cyprian, and Fulgeniius ; and he, virtually,
admits the teftimony of the four hundred
African BiffiOps, recorded by Vidior Vitenfis :
for he has cited all thefe Authors in his
works. But what feems declfive as to Bede\
knowledge of the Verfe, is, that the Verfion
of Jerome, in which this text has always
pofleffed its place, had not only been adopt
ed by the learned, but publicly read in the
Churches, for more than a century before
Bede began his Commentary. *' Remlglus,"
(fays (c) M. Simon) " Rabanus, Halmo, An-
^' felmus, &CC. and, finally, ^// other Eccle-
*' fiaftical Writers for more than nine hundred
" years paft, have adhered fo clofely to the
*' New" {Jeromes) " Edition, that all other
*' Verfions
{c) Hift. Crit. des Verfions, C. vii, viii, and ix ; and
Le Long, Bibl, Sacr. C. iv. Sefl. i. Edit. Paris. A. D.
1723, p. 229.

( 219 )
** Verfions have been utterly loft, at leaft Dr. Bensqk.
*' as to their ufe,"
Nor does this obfervation depend upon
the teftimony of M. Simon alone. It ftands
Upon the moft folid foundation, the authori
ty of Bede himfelf; who very frequently
refers to Jerome's Verfion, entitling it nos
tram edliionem," and nosTros codices;*
and defcribing Jerome by the affedlonate
appellation of " Interpr es nofter:'' {d) The
fuppofitlon, then, that Bede " knew nothing ,
of this text," cannot be maintained, even
for a fingle moment.
2. Nor does tht other fuppofitlon, found
ed alfo on the filence of Bede, namely, that
he did '* not beheve this text to be genuiue,"
feem more defenfible than that which pre
ceded it. For Bede poffefled no fmall ftiare
of the learning of thofe days, particularly as
tb the Greek language ; and his pradice, in
other, parts of his Commentary, was, con
ftantly
(d) See his works, pajfim.
Bede was, alfo, the preceptor of Alcuinus, of whofe
Correiiorium (which contained this Veik) mention is
made in p. 43 of thefe Letters.

( 220 )
! Dr. Benson, ftantly to advertlfe his readers, whenever
any paffage occurred in the vulgar copies,
which was not found in the Greek MSS,
But he has fixed no imputation of this kind
on the Verfe in queftion. He has paffed it
over in filence. And how is that filence to
be accounted for ? He either found this
Verfe In his Greek Copies, or he did not.
If he did not find It there, it muft be prefumed
that he would have apprifed his readers of
the deficiency in this, as he did in other in
ftances. His filence, alone, in fuch a cafe,
W'ould not have been fufficient. Where it
is a duty to fpeak, to be filent is to be crimi
nal. We cannot prefume thus of the " Ve
nerable Bede" without having more fub-
ffantial grounds, for the prefumption, than
mere conjedure.
The conclufion, then, feems to be, that
Bede did find this Verfie In his Greek Copies.
His pradice, in other cafes, warrants, the
fandity of his charader even hallows, this
conclufion. Standing fingly, thefe circum
ftances form, each, a probable proof, — united,
they prefs convidlon home upon the mind,— that

( 221 )
tliat Bede believed this Verfe to be genuine ; Dr. Benson,
and that, from whatever other motive his
filence, in regard to it, may be conjedured
to have proceeded, he had no fcruples to
communicate refpeding its authenticity, and
truth. As to Oecumenlus, who lived fo late ds the
eleventh Century, no inference can be drawn
from any omiffon, on his part, which can
impeach the originality of this Verfe, It
has been already ffiewn, by a cloud of wltneffes,
hy proofs too numerous to be here repeated,
that this text did exift, in his times, in the
Epiftle of St. John.

Thus far. Sir, for thofe objedions of Dr.
Benfon, which appropriate themfelves to
particular objeds, and may be met by parti
cular anfwers. And thus I beg leave to dif
mlfs, for the prefent, at leaft, his Differtation :
which for intrepidity of affertion, difingenu-
oufnefs of quotation, and defedlvenefs of
conclufion, has no equal, — ftands aloof be
yond all parallel,— as far as my reading ex
tends, either in ancient, or in modern, times !
I am. Sir, &c.

LETTER IV.
S I R,
INOW proceed to a confideratlon of the NEtyrow,
objedions, which have been urged againft
the authenticity of the Verfe, i. John, v. 7,
by the late Sir Isaac Newton.
The learned Dr. Horfiey has juft given
thefe objedions to the public, in the fifth
Volume of his Edition ofthe works of this
illuftrious man ; to which he has prefixed
the following advertlfement.
** A VERT imperfeSi copy of this tra^,
wanting both the beginning and the end, and
erroneous In many places, was publifhed at
London In the year 1754, under the title of
** Two Letters from Sir Ifaac Newton to Mr.
^ Lf CJerc. But in the Author'' s MS. the
"• whole.

ti
«

( 224 )
Newton, « whole Is one continued difcourfe ; which, aU
" though li Is conceived In ihe eplfiolary form,
" is noi addreffedio ahi^ particular perfon.
«' It is now firfi publlfied entire from a MS.
«« In the Author's hand-writing. In the pof-
" feffion of the Rev. Dr, Ekens, Dean of
*' Carlisle." (a)
The objedions, urged by this moft ref
pedable antagonift of the verfe, in queftioO,
are, principally, as follows, —
I, " The arguments alledged for ihe
*' tefilmony of the Three in Heaven, are
<' the authorities of Cyprian, Athanafius,
" and Jerome, and of many Greek MSS,
" and almofi all ihe Latin o«fj."— (p»
496.)
This enumeration Is candid, and has no
fault but that of being incompleat. Befide
thefe authorities, and within the limit, as to
time, of the century, in which Jerome lived,, tha
{a) Dr, Horfiey has obligingly informed me, that ha
finds nothing in the MS to afcertain the time when this
trail was compofed.

( i25 )
the reading of this Verfe in the «woroAo?, the Newton.
dired references to, or exprefs citations of,
it, by Tertullian, Phcebadlus, Marcus Celeden
fis, Augufilne, Eucherius, and Viglllus, and its
exlftence in the Armenian, and Old Italic,
Verfions, (b) — are concurrent teftimonies of
its authenticity : all of which, ncverthelefs,
are here totally paffed by, and omitted.
II. " Cyprian^ s words run thus : The
*' Lord faith, I and my Father am One.
** And again of the Father, Son, and
*' Holy Ghoft it is written ; And thefe
*' Three are One. The Socinians here
** deal too Injur loufiy with Cyprian, while
" they would have this place corrupted I
" for Cyprian In another place" [Epif.
zd Jubalanum] " repeats ihe fame thing.
" Thefe places of Cyprian, being In my
' ' opinion gentilne, feemfo appofite to prove
" ihe teftimony of the Three In Heaven,
"¦ that" — (p. 497.)
This extrad contains another, pleafing, In
ftance of candor in this illuftrious objedor.,
Thefe paffages in Cyprian are, undoubtedly,
Q^ as
{b) Pages 30—5^.

( 226 )
Newton, as " genuine," as they are clearly " appo-
" fite to prove the teftimony of the Three In
" Heaven." —
III. " I fhould never have fufpeSied d
" mlfiake in it," [viz. the teftimony of
the Three in Heaven, as fet forth by
Cyprian"] " could I but have reconciled
" It with the Ignorance I meet with of
" this reading In the next age, among fi
" the Latins of both Africa, and Europe,
" as well as among the Greeks." —
Cyprlan fuffered martyrdom in the latter
part of the third century. The " next age,"
therefore, to that of Cyprian, Is the fourth
century. And in that century, Phabadlus
among the Latins oi Europe, Jerome among
thofe of Afia, and Marcus Celedenfis, and Au
gufilne, among thofe oi Afirlca, have diredly
quoted, or referred to, this teftimony ofthe
Three In Heaven. The fame century, alfo,
holds forth to us the difputatlon (whether
real, or feigned) between Arius, and Athana
fius, the Synopfis of St. John's Epiftle, and the
ufe of the «7roroAof, among the Greeks : (c)
which,
{c) Pages 30—56, and loi— -103.

( 227 )
which, all, exhibit the fame teftimony. Newtow*
Sir Ifaac Newton's argument, then, is this.
** There Is an ig Nor ance of this verfe, in
ihe next age to Cyprian, amongfi both Latins,
and Greeks. Had it not beenfo, I fiould not
even have suspected a mlfiake In Cyprian's
quotation:^ — The anfwer to which is— The
next age to Cyprian was not ignorant
ofithis verfe, as Sir Ifaac Newton improperly
imagined. The quotation of It therefore by Cy
prian, was NOT a MISTAKE, as he erroneous
ly fufpedted: ' — The fuppofed Ignorance, then,
upon which Sir Ifaac Newton here builds
his fufpicion of a mlfiake in CyprlatCs quota
tions, does not exift. The fufpicion itfelf,
confequently, falls to the ground. And thus,
by Sir Ifaac's own argument, the queftion is
already decided in favor of the authenticity
of the verfe. In queftion.
It appears evident, from thefe confide
rations, that had Sir Ifaac Newton been
acquainted with the whole of the evidence,
which tends to fupport the authenticity of
this Verfe; (a confiderable part of which
feems to have been entirely unknown to
0^2 him)

( 228 )
Nevvtox. him) he would not have written this trea
tife, now under confideration, which ftrives
to overthrow it. The plain import of his
own argument warrants the former con
clufion. His known candor infers the latter.
IV. " For had It been in Cyprian's
" Bible, the Latins of the next age, when
" all the world was engaged In dlfputing
" about the Trinity, 'and all arguments
. " thai could be thought of, were diligent-
" ly fought out, and dally brought upon
" the fi age, could never have been Igno-
" rant of a text, which. In our age, now
" the difpute Is over. Is chiefiy Infifiedup-

Sir Ifaac Newton, in this objedion, ftill
prefles the former argument of a fnppofed
Ignorance of this Verfe, in the fourth century,
and during the Arian controverfy. The
fuppofitlon of fuch an Ignorance hath been
already refuted. The argument, as to the
Arian controverfy, will be more property
confidered hereafter, (d) V. " In
(d) See objeaion XXXII, of Sir Ifaac Newton i—whw
this queftion, is ftated, and confidered.

««
i(
4i

(229 )
V. " In reconciling this diffculty, I NEWTo^^
*• confider, therefore, that the only words
*' of the text quoted by Cyprian In both
*' places, are. And thefe three are one :
" which words may belong to the eighth
" verfe as well as the feventh. For Eu-
*' cherlus, Blfiop of Lion In France, and
contemporary to St. Aufi'in, reading the
text without the feventh verfe, tells us,
that many then underfiood the Spirit,
" the Water, and the Blood, to fignlfy
" the Trinity." —
Cyprianus' words are (as hath been before
ftated) *' Ofthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi,
•' IT IS written, (e) And thefe three are
*' one." Thefe words cannot be underftood
to have been taken, by Cyprian, from the
eighth verfe ; becaufe li Is not yo written,
in the eighth verfe.
And, as to Eucherius, the argument here
infifted upon, overthrows itfelf. For Eu
cherius has, in another part of his works, (y)
diredly cited thefeventh verfe.
0^3 VI. " And
[t) Pages 73—93.
(f) Pages 32, and 79—82.

( 230 )
;j^2WT0N. VI. " And St. Aufiinis ont of thofe
" many, as you may fee in his third hook ^
" againft Maxlrnus, where he tells us,
" that the Spirit is the Faiher, for God is
^' a Spirii ; ihe Water the Holy Ghofi,
** for he Isthe Water, which Chrlft gives
*' to them that thlrft ; and ihe Blood, the
** Son ; for the word was madefiefi}."-—
(p. 498.)
Augufilne may be one of thofe, who have
wiffied to underftand the eighth Verfe, as
being typical of the Trinity. And this
paflage from the third book of his treatife
againft Maxlmlnus (not Maxlmus) the Arian,
may be a proof of it. But it is no proof
that he did not read the feventh verfe in his
bible. In fad, he not only read it there,
but has ffiewed us, in his fecond book againft
the fame Maxlmlnus, that, like Eucherius, he
knew how to interpret it, when he thought
proper to bring it forward. (^^ For his words
there are (as hath been before ftated,— •
*' There are three perfons" [in the Godhead]
. *f the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi-, And
*• THESE
(g) SeeT)age 35.

( 231 )
-*' THESE THREE (becaufe they are of the Newton.
" fame effence") areone. ^W they are
'* completely one, there being In them no d'lffer-
" ence In nature, or In w'lll. These three
*' therefiore, ivho, are one ; through that In-
" deficrlbable union, in wh'ich they are joined
" together In the Godhead, are one God."
Whatever might be the cafe, with the
expreffions whlcl>are quoted In the objedion,
it feems Irn poffible that Augufilne could
have the eighth verfe in view, in the laft pre-
ceedlng extrad. For he therein fpeaks of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, who are
of the fiame effence, or fiubfiance, and In whom
there is no difference In nature, or in Wi'ill.
"^herezs the things, -^or perfions, fpoken of
in the eighth verfe, are not either of the fame
nature, or of the fame fiubfiance ; nor can
they be faid to have any will at all.
VII. *' Now If It was the opinion of
*' many. In the Wefiern Churches of thofe
" times, that the Spirit, the water, and
" the blood, fignlfied the Father, the Son,
*' and the Holy Ghofi, It Is plain, that the
Q_jj, " tefilmony

( 232 )
Newton. " *' iefilmony ofthe Three in Heaven wm
" not crept Into their books. ""^
It might be the opinion of both Eu-
therlus, and Augufilne, as hath been already
obferved, that the Spirit, Water, and Blood,
in the eighth verfe, did fignlfy (typically)
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft.
And yet Is plain, that the teftimony of the
Three in Heaven, in the feventh verfe, had,
ncverthelefs, then crept Into their books. For
they not only tell us, very plainly, that they
found that teftimony In their books; but they
give us this Information without any marks
either of furprlfe, or of indignation : — which
fliews that they had no doubts either of its
. . or. . .
antiquity, or its authenticity.
VIII. " Even without this teftimony,
" It was obvious for Cyprian, or any
" man elfe of that opinion, to fiay of the
" Faiher, Son, and Holy Ghofi, It is
" written, And thefe three are one."
It is obvious that Cyprian, or any other
Writer, might, and perhaps would, fxpound the

( 233 )
the eighth verfe, as being typically expreffive Newton,
of the Trinity, if he really thought fo. But
he would not fay, at the fame time, " It
is written, Inthe eighth Verfie, of the Fa
ther, Son, and Holy Ghofi, And these
three are one," — if he paid any re
gard to truth : becaufe it never was fo writ
ten, in any part of the eighth verfe.
The objedions, which follow, as to Fa' ,
cundus, and Tertullian, have already been ob
viated ; (h) and therefore require no further
confideratlon. IX. " So then this Interpretation feems
*' to have been Invented by the Monianlfis
" fior giving countenance to their Trinity.
" For TertulUanivas a Montanlfi, when
" he wrote th'is:'' (p. 500.)
This objedion feems to abound in mif
takes. It is, in the firft place, far from being
clear that Tertullian was a Montanlft, when he
(h) Pages 64—73, ^^^ 82—84.

< 234 0
Newton, he wrote his Treatife againft Praxeas. In
the life oi Tertullian, prefixed to the Edition
of his works by Rlgaltlus, (/) this treatife is
affirmed to have been written, before the
opinions of Montanus were adopted by Ter
tullian. But admitting, for the fake of argument
alone, that Tertullian was a follower of Mon
tanus, when he wrote his treatife againft
Praxeas, — what was the Trinity ofthe Mon-
tanlfis ? Eplphanlus affirms, that the Mon-
tanlfts (fi) held the fame opinion, as to the
Trinity, which was entertained by the ca
tholic Church, in general. While Jerome
pofitively afferts, that the Monianlfis (/)
thought like Sabelllus in that relped, — Tr't-
nltatem In unius perfona angufilas cogentes. And

(/') Edit. Paris. A. D. 1675.
(^k) Ilff I h 7r«Tgof, &c. De Patre, enim, et Filio, ct
Spiritu fando, fimiliter cum ecclefia catholica fentiunt,
Epiph. adv. Har. Lib. ii. Tom. i. Edit. Pam.. A. D.
1622, p. 402.
(I) Nos Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum fanftum, in
fiia unumquemque perfona ponimus. Illi, {viz. Mon-
ianifta) dogma Sabellii fedantes, Trinitatem in unius
perfonse anguftias cogunt.
HiERoN. adverfus Montanum, vol. ii, p. 44, A. (Ed.
Erafm. A, D. 1546.).

( 235 )
And now. Sir, whether of thefe interpret Newtow.
tations of the " Trinity of the Monianlfis,"
ffiall we adopt, in order, to give countenance
to the preceding objedion ? If that of Epi-
phanlus,-^the Monianlfis wanted no counte
nance to be given to their Trinity, in parti
cular, becaufe it was the fame with that of
the Chriftlan Church, in general. And if
that oi Jerome, -r— the Monianlfis had no
Trinity, to which they could give counte
nance ; becaufe, being Sabelllans, they did
not hold the dodrine of a Trinity at all.
The fads, however, upon the whole, feem
to be, that Jeromes account of the Monia
nlfis is the true one. For Jerome lived in
the vicinity of the ancient Phrygia, where
the errors of Montanus were almoft univer-
fally followed: from which clrcumftance the
appellation of Cataphryges Is frequently ap
plied to the Montanlfts by ancient writers.
And that Tertullian was not a Montanlft (as
hath been already obferved) when he wrote
the treatife againft Praxeas ; but a believer,
with Jerome, in the catholic dodrine of a
Trinity, of three perfons, and one God (qui
TRES

( 236 )
NEWtoN. TRES UNUM SUNT, are Tertulllan\ own
words) as then, and now, taught by the ca
thohc [or univerfal] Church of Chrlft.
X. *' What Is fiald of the tefilmony of
*' TertulUan, and Cyprian" fvlz. that
their words were only a forced interpre
tation ofthe eighth verfe j " may be much
" more faid of that In the feigned dlfipu-
" tatlonof Athanafius with Arius at Nice.
" For there ihe words cited are only Thefe
" three are one, without naming the
" perfions of the Trinity before them,"
(p. 500.)
The expreffions of this Dialogue, or Dif
putatlon, (as hath been before ftated) are, (m)
' * Is not th(ii lively, and f aving, baptlfm, where
by we receive remlffon of fins, adminlftered In the
name ofthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofi?
And moreover St. John fiays. And these

THREE 'ARE ONE."

The words thus cited, then, are not Thefe
three are one, without naming (for they do
exprefsly
(m) Page loi.

( 237 )
cxptefsly name) the perfons ofthe Trinity be- Newton.
fore (znd immediately before) them.
XI. *' They" [alfo] " are—K^i o.7f«f
" TO £1/ Eifl-i!/ — and they are taken out of the
" eighth Verfe."
This conclufion is by no means to be ad
mitted. The premifes warrant the very
contrary dedudlon, viz. that the words, ci
ted in this Dialogue, are not taken from the
eighth verfe. For the claufe, here referred
tOj wherever it ftands in the eighth Verfe,
is (not TO £1/ only, but) ei? to £>, univerfally.
XII." The Greeks Interpreted the Spi"
** rit, Waier, and Blood, of the Trinity,
** as well as the Latins ; as Is manlf'efi
" from the annotations they made on this
" text In the margin af fome of their
" MSS. For In the margin of one MS.
" In ihe Library of the King of France
*' {about ^oo years old) over aga'infi the
" former claufe ofthe eighth Verfie are
" written — The Holy Ghoft, and the
" Father, and He Qih:\xn,fe\i~-and over
" asram/i

.( 238 )
Newton/' «* agalnfi the latter claufi. One Deity,
*' one God, Andthe margin of the fame
*' Verfe, 'in another In M, Colberfs Llbra-
*' ry, thefie words. One God, one God-
*' head — The teftimony of God the
*' Father, andof the Holy Ghoft.'*
(p. 501.)
Some of the Latins did, we know, inter*
pret the expreffions of- the eighth Verfe in
this manner. And fomc of the Greeks might
do the fame. But it will not follow, from
thence, that they had not the fieventh Verfe
in their MSS. Eucherius, for inftance, Au
gufilne, and Facundus have adopted this myf
tical interpretation of the eighth Verfe.
And yet it is moft certain, that Eucherius
DID read the fieventh Verfe in his Bible.
The quotations, which have been before re
ferred to, from Augufilne, will hardl/ permit
a ferlous doubt as to its being found in his
^ Bible, Hkewife. And the fame conclufion
has been already drawn, («) In refped to the
Bible of Facundus ; and ftands as it feems,
upon the moft folid foundations. XII. « Thefie
(») Pages 32, 35, and 79—84.

C 239 >
XII. " Thefe marginal notes fufflcient- Nfiwrow.
*' ly fhew how the Greeks ufed to apply
" this text" [the eighth Verfe}" to
** the Trinity, and, by confiequence, how
" the author of that difputatlon is to be
** underftood."
This conclufion is defedlve in all its
parts. If the two marginal notes, in quef
tion, ffiall be admitted to ffiew that the two
refpedive poffeffors, or copyifts, of thofe two
particular MSS. applied the eighth Verfe to
the Trinity; they will be ftill very far from
proving the fame thing of the Greeks, in ge
neral. But even if both thefe propofitions
ffiould be granted, the confequence, juft al
ledged, will be as remote as ever from the
premifes. For ** the Author of this Dlfpu-
" tation, is not to be underftood," as applying
the eighth Verfe to the Trinity, in this pafl
age; becaufe, as hath been before obferved/
he has not cited, in this paffage, the words
cf the eighth Verfe.
XIV. " But I fhould telly ou alfo, that
** that Difputatlon was not writ by Atha-
;^ nafius.

( 240 )
NEwTosf, '' . ¦ " nafius, but by a later author ; and there*
" fore, as a fpur 'ious piece, ufes not to be
*' much Infifted on."
The quefl:ion, whether this Difputatlon
is fpurlous, or, in other words, whether it
was written by Athanafius, or not, — has been
much debated, biit does not feem to be as
yet determined. The time, tvhen it was writ
ten, is of much more Importance in the pre
fent enquiry. And that feems tb have been
already fixed, by the aid of the .Treatife It
felf, (p) to the joint reign of Confiantlne and
Conftantius, which ended In A. D. 337. The
circumftances of. its being written in the
Greek language, of its very high antiquity,
and of its referring to St. John by name,
will always give a moft powerful influence
to the teftimony of this Dialogue, or Difpu
tatlon, In favor of the authenticity of the
Verfe, I. John, v. 7.
XV. " The firfi upon record, thai in-
" ferted It, Is Jerome, If the Preface to
" the canonical ep'ifiles be his." The
(#) Page 101—102.

C 241 )
The preface to the canonical Epiftles, it Newtqs«
is trufted, hath been already proved (^) to
be Jerome\, And yet he is not the firfi
itpon record, that infierted the Verfe. It was
received by the Latin Church long before
^er(?7»e'g. Tranflation was made, and indeed
long before ^i^rowi? ^himfelf was born ; be
caufe it hath always ftood in the old Italic
Verfion, which was made in the (fecond, if
not In the') firfi century after Chrift, This
jjnatter hath been already ftated at large, {f)

-j; -

^i

XVI. ^^ For ivhich he" [Jerome]
compofed not a new tranfiafion of the
^' New Teftament, but only correded ths
*' ancient vulgar JL,atitt''^-^(jPf 5^2.)
v."; '¦¦¦ l:-?-
He compofed a new Tranflation of the
New Teftament, from the Greek. Atigufiln^
calls it fo, who was Jerome's contemporary,
and correfpondent, ' ^ We heartily thank God
^' for your Translation." (r) t>izy Je-'
^Qme himfelf eaJJs it fo, in effed? J^is ex-?
R prefRo;!
tp) Pages 92—110,
\q) Pages 186— ipg,

( 242 )
Newton, preffion, upon .'this fubjed, is not correxi, or
caftlgavl, but reddidi, {s) repeatedly.
.:«"v.- XVII. " He" [Jerome] " complains,
" rn ihe fame Preface, how he was there-
" upon acetified,' by fiome of the. Latins,
/' for falfify Ing Scripture." —
Permit me. Sir, to take this objedion in
detail. It rnay affift us, perhaps. In coming
to an early, as well as a fatlsfadory, conclu-*
fion. Jerome, then, in » his Preface to the Ca
nonical Epiftles, complains of the malicious
accufations of his enemies. They pronounce
' me (fays he) a fialfifier of Scripture — " mt
*' falfarlum pronunclant." But have they
fpecified . their accufations, and mentioned
the particular parts of Scripture, which they
affirm
{s) Pages 33, and gg.
Jerome, it is true, upon one occafion ufes the word,
emendatione, when fpeaking of his own New Tefta
ment, And the learned Hody (p. 351) has aigucd,
from that expreflion, that Jerome did not make a new
Tranflation, but only corrected the old one. And, in
deed, had Jerorne never ufed airy other expreffion, ref-
pe<Siing his work, than that, — Hody's argument would
have been as ftrong, and valid, as it now feems weak, iind
unfatisfafiory.

C 243 )
affirm tohave been falfified by him ? — They Newton.
have fpecified them. They have, in the Old
Teftament, particularifed his inferting hade-
ra, for cucurblta, in the Book of Jonah, — his
accufations of the Septuagint,— -znd his ob
jedlons as to the Prophet Daniel. And, as
to the New Teftament, among many other
charges, they have accufed him of following
the tenets of Origen in his Commentary on
St. P^«/'s Epiftle to the Ephefians, — they
have objeded to his notions concerning pre-
deftination, — his interpretation of No man
eveir yet hated his own fief, — his expofitlon
of Front whom the whole body fitly framed to
gether, — 'his opinion concerning the ret
mlffion of fins by baptifm, — his conjedures
as to the condition, and office, of Angels, — ¦
and his explanation of the refurredion of
the body. — But have they faid any thing
againft his retention of the Verfe, i, John,
V. 7, in his Tranflation .? Not a fingle fylla-
ble.-^-How, then, do thefe accufations prove,
that^the accufers of Jerome were offended
with his Infertion (or, to fpeak more proper-^
ly, his retention') of this Verfe in his Tefta
ment ? — They do not prove it at all, in
any manner, or in any refped, whatfoever I
R 7, No;'

(244 )
Newton. Nor have we, further, any reafon even to
fufpeSl, that thefe, or any other, accufations
were brought againft Jerome, on account of
any part of his Tranflation of the firft Epiftle
of St, John. Thofe accufations are thus re'«
corded by Jerome himfelf,
" l^ut now, becaufe, according to our
" Saviour's precept, I am defirous to labor
*' for the meat which perlffieth not, and tp
" clear the primitive paths of the Scriptures
" from thorns, and brambles, an accufatloi)
" doubly Injurious is brought againft me.
" Anxious to corred the falfificatlons of
" others, I am, myfelf, called a falftfier'\
[f ALSARius d'icor\ " of Scripture ; and am
" charged with fowing errors, inftead of
*' plucking them up," (/)
" Inafmuch as I am called a falfarf*
[falsarius vocor"] " I am contented t»
deny
(t) " Nunc autem, quia juxta fententiam Sahatoris,- vtU
" operari cibum qui non perit, et antiquam divinorum volu-
" minum viam fentibus, virgultifque, purgare, er^ror mihi
" geminus infiigiiur. Corrulor viiiorum, -p als Akivs dicor, .
" et errores non auferre, fed fererc." (Praef, alt. in UV,
Job,)

( 245 )
'" deny, without retorting, the accufa- Newton,
«' tion." («) ' '
I will beg leave. Sir, to ftate the reft of j^^-
rome^s complaints of this kind, in his own lan
guage. My own may not do him juftlce.
** Sed et vos, famulas Chrlfif rogo, quae
*' Domini difcumbentis precioffiffima fidei
** myrrha ungitis caput, quae nequaquam
*' Salvatorem quasrltls in fepulchro, quibus
" jam ad Patrem Chrifius afcendit : ut con-
*' tra lairantes canes, qui Adverfum me rabldo
*' ore defavlunt, — orationum veftraru'm cly-
*' peos opponatls." (fi)

It

Obtreclatorlbus meis — qui canlno dente
** me rodunt." {y )
" Cogor PER singulos Scripture
*' DiviNJE LiBROS advcrfariorum refpoh-
*' dere malcdidls." (z)
R 3 " Quanto
(a) Ad Pammach. vol. ii. Edit. Eraf. A.D. 1546,
pa. 123, B.
(*¦) Praef. in Lib. Regum.
y) Prsef. in Lib. Paralip.
[%) Pr«f. in Lib. Job,

C 246 )
Kewton. " Quanto plus amatis" \Chrlftuni\ ": O
" Paula, et Euftoch'ium, tanto magis ab eo
" petite, ut pro obtredlatlone prafientl, qua
" me Indefinenter amuU lanlant, ipfe m/hl
*' mercedem reftituat in futuro : qui fcit me
" ob hoc, in peregrinae linguze eruditione
" fudaffe, ne Judeiel defalfiiate fcripturarum
" ecclefiis ejus diutius infultarent." {ct)
*' Quis enim dodus, pariter, velindodus,
*' cum in manus volumen afl'umpferlt, et a
*' fallva, quam femel Imblblt, viderit dlfcre-
*' pare quod ledltat, non ftatim erumpat la
**~Vocem, me falfarlum, me clamitans efle
*' facrilegum, qui audeam aliquid in veterl-
*' bus libris addere, mutare, corrlgere." if)
Thefe accufations, then, of Jerome, as a
falfary, were brought againft him before
he pubhffied either his Tranflation of the
Canonical Epiftles themfelves, or his Pre
face to them, which is now under confider-
^ ation. And they were not increafed, or even
repeated, (as far as is known) after his pub
lication
(a) Praef, in Efaiam.
(b) Praef. in quatuor Evangelia,

(247)
lication of thofe :;^pjft les. ..Jerome, there- Newton.^
fore, was not thereupon (that is, upon
the publication of this Preface,' or upon the
retention oi the Verfe i. John, v. 7, in his
New Teftament) accufed of falfifying Scrip-.
ture ; as is aflerted in the above objedion.
The tranfient mention of his accufers, in
this Preface, is merely the retrofpedion of
a feeling mind, ftill fmfirting under a fenfe
of former injuries; and bears no reference
whatfoever to his Tranflation of any part
of the firft Epiftle of St. John,
to
XVIL " In this defence he" [Jerome]
" feems to fay, that he corrected the Vul-
" gqr Latin Tranfiafion by the original
** Greek ; and this Is the great iefilmony
" the text relies upon:' - i,
Jerome not on\y fieems to fay, but does po
fitively fay, not in this defence only, but in
other parts of his works, that he made his
Tranflation from the original Greek. Several
proofs have already (c) been produced to
this point. To thofe let the following paf-
R 4 fage
[i] Pages 241, and 242, and their references ; viz. _^
P- 33) 99> an^'JfO^'

( i4 1
IliWTON. fage be flibjoined, from his Epiftle to Mar*-*
celia. " Latinorum codlcum vltiofitatemi qua
" ex diverfitate Ubrorum omnium coniprobdiur^^
** ad Grjecam originem, unde et Ipfi
" tranfiata non denegmt, volutffe renjocarei'
XIX. " ^ut nxihllfi he'* [Jefoihe]
^' confeffes It" [the Verfe i. John, v. 7]
*' was not in the Latin before,— -hef atli-
«' fies us that It has crept Into the Latin
^* fince his time,"
*ferome makes no fucb cohfeflion* Thd
Jjremlfes are not true ; (d) and muft, there
fore, produce ari unfound conclufioni
XX. " And Hjohllft he was accufed hj^
* * his contemporaries of falfifying ihe Sfcrlp-*
** tures In Inferting It, this accufation alfo
*' confirms, that he altered the publld
" reading.^*
The premifesi bercj are as titttrtie as thd
former* For Jerome nevei? was accufed, by
any-
(i) See ^ageS 104 and 165; where ot)je<aions, of thi*
kind, have been already confidered, and refuted.

( H9 )
fitly of his cofttemporarles, of falfifying the Newtom.
SCriptUteS in inferting this Verfe. On the
contrary, AtigUfilnd, who doubted as to fome
of Jeronie's corredionS of the Old Tefta
ment, exprefles the higheft (I had almoft
faid the moft deVout) approbation of Jeromes
New Teftament. {e) Nor was fuch a charge
ever brought againft Jerome, by any perfon
¦whorhfoeVef, for more than twelve hundred
years after his death, I appeal to all anti
quity for the truth bf this obferva;tion.
XXI. " He" [Jerdme] " accufelfor-
" mer Tranfiators of fialfifylng the Scrip-^
" tures in omitting It" — [viz. the Verfe
in queftion.]
This objedion has (f) been already an
fwered. XXII. " For had ihe reading been du-
*' blous befiore he made It fio, no man would
*' have charged h'lm with falfification for
*•' following either part." No
(^) Fage io6 ; wliere Augufine'% words are ftated at
Jai-ge. (f) Pages 103 and 104.

( 250 )
Newton. No man evet did charge Jerome, in the
fenfe here nieant, with falfification for fol
lowing either part, Jerome, therefore, did not
make the reading dubious. Nor, moreover,
does he even declare it to have been made
dubious at ah, in his times, except through
the error of certain " unfaithful Tranfiators ;"
who (he fays) had not rendered the Canonical
Eplfiles Into the Latin language, " as they
" WERE WRITTEN BY THE ApOSTLES :"
which unfaithfulnefs had produced ambigu
ities, and variations of the text, " particular -
" ly In that paffage of ihe firfi Eplfile of St.
" John, where the Unity of the Trinity Is fet
" forth." (g)
It was the fault of thofe unfaithful Tranf
iators, thenj whom Jerome reprehends, and
not of Jerome himfelf, that the reading of
of this Verfe was ever rendered, in the
fmalleft degree, dubious. In the L^//« Church,
either in his age, or in any part of the Chrif
tlan a^ra, which preceded him.
XXIII. " They that have been con-
" verfant
{g) Appendix, No. XIII.

( 251 )
*' verfant In his" [Jerome's] " writings, Newton.
" obfierve a firange liberty, which he takes
" In affertlng things. Many notable In-
" ftances of this he has left us In compofing
" thofe very fabulous lives of Paul, and
" Hllarlari" [Hilarion] " not to mention
*' what he has ivritien upon other occa-
" fions. Whence Erafmus" — (p. 503.)
What Erafmus fays of the compofitlons,
here cenfured, is only, — that Jerome feems
to have amufed himfielfi with writing fiuch
trifles, merely for the fake of exerclfing his ge
nius, (h) He wrote them as Apologues, or
ftories contrived to teach fome moral, or
fplritual duty ; jand not as ftrid details of
pofitive fads. They were, therefore, fabu lous ;
[h) " Videtur el hoc Hieronymus, exercitandi ingenii
gratia, lufiffe." Vol. i, p. 8i, F.
In another place he fays, fpeakinsr of another inftance
of this kind of compofition — " Lufit in hac epiflola Divus
" Hieronymus ariificio fcribendes Hifloria ; etftilum, jam
" fcrihendi dcfueiudine iorpefceniem, hac exerciiatiuncula re-
" novavit."
And in the life of Malchus, another inftance of this
kind, Erafmus fays—" Depinxit [Hieronymus] foli-
" tarium," (meaning this Paul, the Hermit) " depinxit
" celebrem," {meaning Hilarion) " depingit hic," {mezn-
" ing Malchus) capiivum, et agiiaium. Lufit et in hoc
'' argumento, ingenii exercitandi gratia," ('Vol, i, p. 80
« and 87.;

*i

<c

( ^52 )
Newton; ious ; and Were meant, by Jerome, to be fa
bulous : as appears even by the teftimony
of Erafmus. And fo were the Fables of
P'llpay, the Apologues of Mfiof, the two
magnificent Epics of Homer, and Jotham's
parable of the Trees ; (I) which laft is much
more ancient, perhaps, than any other ex
ample of this fpecies of compofition, which
rs now extant.
Thefe prolufions of Jerome, then, were,
like the other inftances juft nTentioned,
feigned narrations, defigned to inform, to
encourage, to reprove, or to corred. They
are — inftrudion difguifed under the allegory
of an adion.. They are " liberties taken" to
fuppofe, rather than to affert, what is
"firange," and unufual ; in order to incul
cate what is ufeful, and good.
XXIV. " Whence Erafmus faid of
*' him," [Jerome] " that he was in af-
" firming things, frequently violent, and
" 'impudent, and often contrary to him'
" felf."-- Erafmus
t (0 5'«^^"5 ix, 7— 20; /-¦

( 253 )
Erafimus has fpoken thus of Jerome; but Newton.
NOT on account of the lives of Paul and H/-
larlon. He applied thefe expreffions to Jer
ome, from another motive, and for another^
and a far different, purpofe. (fi) Erafmus,
when he ufed thefe words, was agitated by
a difpute, which ruffled his temper, and has
added no honors to his name. When his
mind was more at eafe, he gave a very differ
ent defcription pf the fame Jerome ; as the
following pldure (which, however, is drawn
by the hand of a mafter) will abundantly
teftify. " Caierum, In optima Theologla ge-
" nere, primas" [fell, laudes] " tenet Divus
" Hieronymus, de Latlnis loquor : et Ita prl-
" mas tenet, ut omnels fofi fie longo reUnquat
" intervallo. Inter iam Innumerablles Theolor-
" gos, vix quenquam habeat et Ipfia doSla
" Graecla, qui nofirum aquet Hieronymum,
" fi modo non unam aliquam laudem, fed un'i-
" verfas ejus dotes fimul expendas. Tantam
" uno In homine reperlas fecularium, ut vocant,
*' literarum cognitionem, tantam omnis antiqm-
" tails per It lam, tot llnguarum abfolutam fci'en-
" tlam, tam admlrandam locorum, et h'lfiorl-

" arum.

(k) Annot. in i, John, V. 7.— Edit, 1522.

Newton.

( 254 )
arum, omnium not'itlam, iam non vulgarem
myfi'icorum volumlnum erudlilonem, tantum
InlmltablUs eloquentia, tam exactum ubi
que JUDICIUM, tam fiacrum. afflatl pec
toris ardor em, rerum adeo d'lverfiarum iam
dlgefiam ac prafientem memorlam,tamfaU-
cem juxth et dlvltem mhciuram ; denique,
tanto lepore- cond'itam feverliaiem, ut, quem-
admodum per fe facundi, fi cum Cicerone
confer antur, protlnus v'ldeniur obmuiefcere :
Ita caterl do£fores, quos citra collailonem
fufplclmus, cum Hleronymo compofitl, vix
fiapere, vix loqui, vix vivere, vldeantur." (/)

Again — " Nullum efi enim argument I genus,
" In quo llie non luferlt: nusquam sui Dis-
" SIMILIS." (fn)

And again — " Multis def uit llnguarum pe-
" r'ltla,
(/) Preface to vol. iv. of Jerome's Works, by Erafmus,
Edit. Paris, A. D. 1546.
{m) Vita Hieronymi per Erafmtim, vol. i. Ed. Paris.
A.D. 1546.
It would not be 'credited, perhaps, if it vvere nothere
repeated, that the Exailum ubique judicium, the Nufquam
fui diffmilis, and the Omnium concentus virtutum, of thefe
charactei s; — and the Sapenumero violentus, f<spe varius^
parumqtic fibi confians, of tne other, — were written of the
fame Jerorne, and by t.\\efame Erafmus!

( ^55 )
'* rltla, nonnullis fidei finceritas, qulbufidam Newton.
•^'vlta Integrltas : — Hieronymus,^/ unus
" Hieronymus, fie omnia prafililt, ui fi non
" 4io}uad unam aliquam vlriuiem, fied ad om-
*' NIUM coNCENTUM et fiummam refiplclas :
" dlcam audadier, fied vere, nihil habeat vel
" Ipfia Grascia, quod nofiro opponat Hierony-
" mo." XXV. " Tet fiince his" [Jerome's]
" contemporaries accufed him, it is but
" jufi that we lay afide the prejudice of
" his great name, and hear the caufe Im-
" partially. Now the wltneffes between
them, are partly the ancient Tranfiators
ofi the Scriptures Into the various lan
guages, partly the writers ofi his own
" age, and ofi the ages next befiore and
" afiter him, and partly ihe Scribes, who
" copied out the Greek MSS ofi the Scrip-
" tures In all ages. And all thefie are
" agalnfi him. For by the unanimous
" evidence of all thefe. It will appear,
" that the tefilmony ofi the Three in Hea-
" ven was wanting In the Greek MSS
" from whence Jerome, or vjhoever was
" the

ii.

ii

:( 256 )
Newton. '.' the Author of that preface to the eanom
" nonlcal eplfiles, pretends to have bor*
*' rowed It :^
It hath been before obferved, that Jei
Tome's contemporaries have not accufed him j
as is here alledged. The perfons, thereforej
mentioned in the objedion, are not wanted^
as wltneffes, becaufe there are no accufers,
who require their teftimony. Biit they
fliall, neverthelefs, be examined, in relation
tp Jerome, in like manner as if fuch an ac-.
cufation bad been adually brought : not
only for the fake of the very refpedable au
thor of this objedion, but for the fake of
truth ; which always appears to the greateft
advantage, when put the mpft fevergly tq
the trial,
Firft, then, it is alledged— (to ftate this
objedion in parts) — that, " // appears
" by the unanimous evidence of all the-
" ancient Tranfiators of the Scriptures
" Into the various languages, that the
" iefilmony ofi the Three m'tiezwen, was
i »' wanting In the Greek MSS, from
'f whence

( 257 )
** whence Jerome pretends to have bor^ Newto^,
*' rowed It:''
The evidence of thefe ancient Tranfiators of
ihe Scriptures Into the various languages ¦ is fo
fo far from being unanimous, that the tefilmony
ofthe Three in Heaven was wanting in thofe
ancient Greek MSS, from which even their
jpwn refpedive Verfions were derived ; that
4hree («) out of the whole five (as bath been
already proved) and two of thofe the moft an-
.clent of them, have uniformly contained the
teftlrnony of thefe heavenly wltneffes. And
the fvpo^ (ff) of thefe 7?w ancient Verfions,
which have not exhibited this difputed text, '
If we admit their evidence to the utmpft, dp
not eftablifti any part of the propofitlon ^d^
Vanced in the objedion, Thofe tv^o Verfions
may give room for prefumptions as to the
readings of the particular MSS, from whence
they thernfelves w§.re derived, But they
prove nothing as to the MSS, which Jerome
ufed in hi-S Tranftation ; and frpm which he
S not
(«) The Italic, that qf Jerome, and the Armenian. See
pages 53 — 55, 187, and 196 — 206.
". .ki) T'^^ Syriac, and CV/f/f,

( ^5^ )
Newton, not only pretends to have borrowed, but un
doubtedly did borrow, the verfe in queftion.
2. " The fame appears, alfo, by the
" unanimous evidence of all the ivr iters
" of Jerome's own age, and of the ages
" next before, and after him." —
There Is not one Writer, in all thofe
ages, who will juftify this affertion. Sorae
of them, indeed, have not mentioned this verfe
(as hath been before remarked) in fuch parts
of their writings as have defcended to the
prefent times. But other writers, of thfe
fame ages, have cited it in the moft pointed
terms'. The mere filence oi the former, as
to this verfe, will not prove that it was
wanting even in their own Greek MSS. Far
lefs will fuch filence prove, that this verfe
was wanting in thofe MSS, by which Je^
rome regulated his tranflation.
3. " The fame appears by the tinanlmdtti
" ev'idence ofi all the Scribes, who ha'A
" copied oui the Greek MSS ofthe Serifs
" tures In all ages.'* ¦ ¦¦'¦¦
How

( 259 )
How a Scribe, who copied out a Greek MS Newton.
at Paris, or at Rome, in the tenth century,
for inftaHce, in which-the teftimony of the
Three in Heaven was, admittedly, wanting,
can be a proof that the Greek MSS, which
Jerome ufed in Palefilne, in the fourth cen
tury, did mt contain that teftimony, — is
utterly inconceivable. Such affertions (for
they are not arguments) are too extravagant
for a ferlous confutation.
If it fliall be afited, what Is become of Je
rome's MSS, — let it be confidered, that he
executed his tranflation of the New Tefta
ment in a Monaftery, at Bethlehem, near
Jerufalem ; where he alfo died. When we
recoiled, how foon, after Jeromes death, the
Saracens invaded the Holy Land, and kept
its, territory under their iron rule for near five
hundred years, until their ftrong holds were
retaken, by ftorm, from them, by the fol-
dlers of the Croifade, undd^ the command of
Robert, Duke of Normandy, in the laft year
of the eleventh century ; — we need not be
very doubtful, as to the fate, which befel th^
MSS of Jerome. S 2 XXVI.

(26o )
Newton. XXVI. " The ancient Interpreters,
" which 1 cite as wltneffes againft him,
" are chiefiy ihe authors of the ancient
" vulgar Latin, of the Syriac, and the'
" Ethloplc Verfions.'^ —
Thefe three witneftes are. In the firft
place, only two. For the -Ethloplc is no
more than a tranfcript from the Syriac; which
reduces them to a fingle teftimony. Of
thefe, thus reduced to iwo, witnefles, the
ancient vulgar Latin, the moft ancient Ver
fion In the world, is: a wltnefs on the other
fide of the queftion. For it hath already
(¦p) been proved, thatthis Verfion hath con^
ftantly, and umformly, contained the paffage,
I. John, V. 7.
XXVIII. " For as he" [Jerome]
" tells us, that the Latins omitted the .tefit
" timony of the -Three in Heaven in
" their Verfilfm, before his time:'' —
Jerome tells us no fuch thing. He com
plains, indeed, of certain .Unfaithful tranfla tors,
C*) Page 187.

( 26l. )
tors, who haU opnltted this pafl^j^ge. pf St. Newton;
John ; but who might be, and (if we may
judge by the vaft majority of L^//« MSS,
which read the verfe at this day) were, few
in number, compared with thofe which re
tained it. He makes up complaints, of this
kind, againft tbe Jt^//* Verfions, in general ;
or againft the public Verfion of that age, the
0/^/^^//V, iu particular. (5-) -
XXVni. ; .*'. It" [i . John^-y. 7.] " Is
*' 'Wanting alfo In other ancient Verfions %
" ds In the Egyptian Arabic," [andj " In
.'•. *:'' the Armenian Verfion, ufed ever fince
*' Chryfofiom' s age, by the Armenian na-
*' tions." —
' This objedion' is true of the Co/if/c, here
called the E,gvptian. Arabic. But it isnot
true (fi) of the Armenian : fpr that Verfion
hath always read this verfe.
The objedions,. which follow, as to the
S 3 Ruffian;
tq) Pag«f 103 — 5.
¦ (r) Pages 19(3 — 2o6 J where this point hath been du-
cufied at large.

( 262 )
Newton. Ruffan, or Scalavonic, Bibles, have been
confidered already.
XXIX. " And that it" [the verfe In
** queftion] " "Mas not written in ihe an*
" cient Verfions — Nor in the Greek"—
[viz. original of this Epiftle.]
Every ancient Verfion, which contained
this verfe, every ancient Church, which re
ceived it, and every individual writer, of an
cient times at leaft, who quoted it, is z pofitive
proof againft this objedion. To ftate them
here at large, would be to recapitulate the
whole of the preceding pages. The evi
dence, or rather the prefumption, to the
contrary, is merely conjectural, arifing from
omlffons. The difference, in degree, between
thefe two kinds of evidence, fliall be appre
ciated hereafter. XXX. " But was wholly unknown
, " to the firfi Churches."—
It was not unknown to the firft Latin
Churches.

( 263 )
Churches. For their public Verfions, the Newtom.
Itala Vetus, and that of J^row^, have con
ftantly exhibited this pafl'age of St. John,
from the firft hour of the exlftence of that
Church, to the prefent moment.
It was not unknown to the firft Armenian
Church. For its pubhc Verfion hath (j)
been proved to have contained . this Verfe,
from the rage of Chryfiofiom to the prefent
times. It was not unknown to the Greek chnrch.
For it hath been proved by the ufe of the
airofoxo;, that thIs paflage was couftantly read
in that church, even in the earlleft ages of
Chrlftianity.
-y Nor was it, laftly, unknown to the Afirl-
can church. The citation of it, fo early as
A. D. 484, by no lefs than (nezrly) four hun
dred Bifliops ; the reliance upon its evidence,
by thofe Bifliops, in oppofition both to the
fraud, and force, oi Hunerlc, and Cyrlla;
S 4 and
{s) Pages 196^-206.

( 264 )
Kewton and the utter inability of the Tyrant^ and
his mock^patriarch, to repel its, teftimony,
but by violence, and pcrfecution ;--prove
that this paffage was known, read, and re
ceived, in that churchy eVen from the earlleft
aera of its converfion to the Chriftlan faith*
V The plain truth, thereforej is, that this
Verfe was unknown to noNe of the firft
churches of Chriftians ; except, perhap^S, to
the Syriac, and the Coptic, with their fewj
and, comparatively unimportant, deriva-
¦ tives. XXXI. " in aU ihdtn)ehement,-uni^
" verfial, and lofting, controverfy about
"the Trinity In Jerome' j time, and both
" before and long enough after It, this
" text ofthe Three in Heaven was never
" once thought of." —
This objedion is ihacciirate in its forrn
(but it is not worth the time to ftop for in
accuracies only) and untrue in its fubftance.
The text of the Three In Heaven was not
only thought of, but adually quoted, and^ln- fifted

( 265)
lifted Upon, not only a little after the age of Newton.
, Jerome, by Fulgeniius, and Vigilius; and in
the fame century with Jerome, by the aur
thor of the dlip.utat,ion hetween Arius, and
Athanafius, by Eucherius, and Augufi'ine, and
by the Afirlcan Bifliops under Hunerlc ; but
alfo BEFORE Jerome's time, by Phabadlus,
and, as' it feems, hy -Marcus Celedenfis-. And
ALL thefe quotations of this verfe were ex
prefsly made in ilie controverfy about -the Tri
nity, and in open, and avovved, oppofition to
the Arians of thofe ages.
The treatife, noyv under confideration,
hext enumerates feveral ancient writers, whd
-have omitted to cite this verfe in thofe parts
of their works, which remain to the prefent
times-. But the lift is not accurate. For,
of thefe, Phabadlus, Augufilne, Athanafius,
Jerome, Eucherius, and Caffodorlus, have, in
fome inftances, quoted, and in others plain
ly referred to, this dllputed paflage.
XXXII. " And therefore If this read-
,. ". Ing were once out," [viz. in Jerome's
age] " we are bound In jufilce, to be-
" lieve,

( 266 )
Newton. " lieve, that li was out from the begin-
" ning ; unlefs the razing of it out can bc
" proved by fome better argument, than
" that of pretence, and clamour." — (p.
409.)
It was OUT of fome copies, in Jeromis
age, and in others ; — as Jerome, himfelf,
informs us. And this fingle clrcumftance
does more than confute the objedion, — by
turning it againft its author. For, (to ufe
this illuftrious objedor's own- ftile) if thns
reading were once iN, [viz. in Jerome's age,—
which Cyprian's _'Bi\h\e, zs weW zs Jerome" s
information, affure us Jof] nve are bound in
jufilceto beUeve that It^nvas In from the be
ginning ; — unlefs the putting of It in, at
fome later period, can be proved by fome better
argument, than unfair, and violent, conftruc-
tlons. (f)

XXXIII. " The Greeks received it
not'

ii ^-^"

{*) Whenever Mr. Gibbon fljall find himfelf difpofed
to attempt a refutation of thefe ftriftures, the preceding
one is particularly recommended to his notice. It will
require his moft ferious attention.
I fpeak thus of the foregoing ftridturc, without dread
ing the imputation of vanity. For it is not my own } it
was fuggefted to me by Dr. Horsley !

( 267)
** «o/" [viz. y^frow/s reading of I . yoy&«, Newton.
V. 7.] " tin this prefent age, when the
" Yenetizns fent It amongfi them Inprlnt-
" ed books."
Was the a^roroxoj, then, not known to the
Greeks, " until this prefent age r" Was the
jwroroAof " a printed book ?" Did Euthymlus
Zygabenus live only " in this prefent age V*
Was the treatife, containing the debate
(whether real, or feigned) between Arius,
and Athanafius, written in " this prefent
age?" Were any of thefe works j?r/? known
to the Greeks " in printed books ?" — It is irk
fome to fee fuch aflertions brought forward ;
and- to He under the neceflity of repelling
them. XXXIV. " //" [the verfe In queftion]
*' Is wanting In the MSS of aU languages
" but the Latin."
It was, perhaps, wanting In thofe parti
cular Greek MSS, from whence the Syriac,
and Coptic, Verfions were tranflated. But
even that is not certain ; becaufe the omIiTion of

( 268 )
Newton, of this paffage, in thofe anirieiit Verfions,
might have heen, and probably was^ the
fault of the Tranflator, or Tranfcrlber :
who have, or one of them hath, been guilty
of much greater miftakes, (a) and omlffions,
than this, in thofe refpedive Verfions. -
This is all that can be granted to this ob-^
jedion. For the Arabic, Perfian, and Ethl
oplc, Verfions are (as hath; been before re
marked) tranfcrlpts, -only; from the Syriac,
and Coptic. And the Greek, and Armenian,
(as well a's the Latin) both deny the, truth
ofthe objedion, as applied to them.
. 1-
,^ The queftion oi omlffons, in general, will
be confidered hereafter.
XXXV. " The Lateran Council, A.D.
" 1215, mentions Joachim quoting the
" the text In thefie words: ^oniam In
" canonica Johannis epiftola ; Quia Tres
" funt, qui teftlmonium dant In cjelo,
" " Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus ; et
" hi tres unum funt : fiat'imque fubjun-
*' gltur,
(«) Pages 188— ig6.

( 269 )
" gitur, Et tres funt, qui teftlmonium Newton.
" dant in terra, Spiritus, aqua, et fan-
" guls, et tres unum funt : ficut In co-
¦ *' dlclbus qulbufidam Invenltur. Therefore
" this reading" [i. John, v. 7] " was
*' then got but Into fome books. For the
*' words, Sicut in codicihus quibufdam
" invenltur, refer as well to ihe firft
*' -words of Joachim" [about the three
heavenly wltneffes] " as to the fecond
"part" [about the three witnefles on
earth.] (p. 511.)
Joachim interpreted the final claufe of the
feventh verfe \frres unumfunt'\ to fignlfy an
unity of confent, oiily, in thofe heavenly wlt
neffes. Aiid he attempted to juftify that
interpretation, by alledging, that the fame
"viords Sffres^num fiuni^ ftood in feme copies
\ficut in codlclbus qulbufidam 'inven'itur'\ in the
¦eighth verfe, as well as in the fieventh ; — that,
being, there, applied to the fplrlt, water, and
blood, they could import an unity of confent,
alone, in that verfe ; and that, being fo in
terpreted in the eighth, he had a right to

g-

ive-

C *7o )
Niwton. give the fame Interpretation to them in the
feventh, verfe, likewife.
This, Sir, was the argument oi Joachim:— ^
in which, by the exprefiions, Sicut In codici
hus quibufdam Invenltur, he referred, not to
the three, heavenly, witnefles, but to the
three wltneffes on earth, fingly, and exclufively.
And I am happy in being able, further, to
alledge the moft refpedable authority againft
Sir Ifaac Newton, on this head, which is the
teftimony of Sir Ifaac Newton himfelf: who
has, in another part of this treatife, (fi)
given to the words of Joachim a fimllar in
terpretation. XXXVI. " Eugenius, Bj/&o/o/"Car-
" thage, inthe feventh year of Huner'ic,
*' anno Chrifii 484, in the fummary of
" his faith exhibited to the King, cited it
" ihe firfi of any mq,n,fQ far ,jis I can
"/W."~(p. 512.)
I have no objedion to this remark, fave
that the fummary of faith, here fpoken of, is
(') Page 521.

(271 )
is defcribed as the Creed of Eugenius alone : Newton.
— and that he is faid to have been the firfi
who cited this text. It docs not appear to
have been the Creed of Eugenius alone, In
any fenfe ; for, although prefented by him
to Hunerlc, it does not carry his fignature,
but (jy) that of four other African Bifhops :
who were moft probably, from that clr
cumftance, the perfons deputed, by their
brethren, to compofe, and prepare, it. And
Eugenius, or the perfon, or perfons, who
drew up this fummary, was not (or rather
were not) the firfi who cited this text ; be
caufe the exprefs" citations, and references,
of TertulUan, Cyprian, Phabadlus, Marcus
Celedenfis, Augufilne, and Eucherius ; — the
ufe of the «i«^o^0^ in the Greek Church, the
Synopfis attributed to Athanafius, and the dif-
putation (real,^ or feigned) between him and '
Arius; together, with the Old Italic, and Ar
menian,. Verfions, ..zs well as the Verfion of
Jerome ; all of which have recognlfed this
difputed text : — were, all, antecedent to the
year 484. Dr.
(y) In pages 44—7, and in— 116, this whole
tranfaaiort is briefly ftated. The original record is co
pied in Appendix, No. XW.

( 272 )
Newton. Dr. Benfon (%) has reprefented' this Iden-
tical teftimony of the Afirlcan Church to be
fo very late, In point of time, as not to be
worth his notice. Sir Ifaac Newton here
places it in the firfi rank oi. proof. But--*
Non nofirum efi tales componere Hies,
XXXVII. " Ofi the MSS which have
*' not the tefi'mony of the Three in Hea
ven ; fome have the words in terra. In
the eighth verfe, but ihe mofi want It,
?' Of thofe wh'ich have the tefilmony of
?* the Three in Heaven, fome In the
" eighth verfe have hi Tres Unum funt,
" Others net. And that tefilmony Is In
?' mofi books fet before the tefi'imony ofthe
" Three in earth ; In fome, lilsficiafi-^
" ter. So Erafmus notes two old books,
" In which It Is fiet after ; Lucas Bru-
" senfs a third ; and \ile&Yi\\s a fourth ;
and fo Viglllus Tapfenfis (adverf,
Varlm. Cap. v.) fets It after : which
" feems to proceed from hence, that it
" was fometimes fo noted in the margin,
" that ihe reader or tranfcrlber knew nof
*• w hef ker
(%) Pages 114 — 115.

*i

ti
ii

C 273 )
** nphether it were to come before or after. Newton,
*' ,Nf^Wt} thefe difcords, as they deir adi .•
* ' from the authority ofthe..Latln MSS, fo
, " ihey confirm to us, that the old vulgar
',:*¦' Latin has In thefie things been tampered
' r *¦' ^Ith, and correBed by Jerome's ver-
">«."(p.5H.)
The difcords, which are here complained
of, feem to have been entirely owing to the
ofcitancy, and negligence, of tranfcribers.
Had tb^y originated, in thefe MSS, from a
defire of correding them by Jerotne's Verfion,
it feems very difficult to aflign a reafon, why
thefe fuppofed tamperers ceafed from tamper
ing, until they had rencjered their yiS^exaSi
copies, in this paflage at leaft (vdilch ex con-
feffo they are not) of the Verfion of Jerome,
But, taking the objedion as granted, for
the prefent, and for the fake of argument, —
let it be obferved, that, before it can be im
puted, as ^: fault, to any Latin MSS, that it
has been correded by Jerome's Verfion ; — ^it
muft be' proved, that the Verfion of Jerpmc
i?, iu itfelf, erroneous, and of no authority.
T This

( 274 )
Newton. This illuftrious objedor has, indeed, endea
voured to difparage this Verfion, as we have
already feen ;-^by affirming, /that Jerome
was accufed by his contemporaries of having
altered the public reading, in refped to the
paffage, in queftion, — that he wrote the
fabulous lives of Paul, . and HUarion, ' and
that Erafmus called him Impudent. But it
hath been already proved, that thefe in
tended difparagements of that Verfion have
no folid foundation. ; and cannot, therefore,
fupport the inference, which is thus at
tempted to be built upon them.
XXXVIII. " The original MSS" [of
R. Stephens'] " he" [Beza] " does not
"here" [in, the preface to his annota- ¦
tions] " pretend to have; nor could he
" have them, fior they were not Stephens'.^
" AISS; but belonged to fiever al libraries
" in France, ^«^ Italy." (p. 516.)
Be%a has expreffed himfelf with fo little
precifion, in this preface, on the fubjed of
R. Stephens's original MSS, that it might be
doubted whether he had, or had not> theufe.

( 275 )
life of thofe MSS, did he not, in other parts Newton.
of his works, clear up thofe doubts In the
moft fatlsfadory manner. Ego In omnibus
nofirls vetufils libris Invenl : And — Sic legltur
in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus, qua quidem
Mini IS sviCKRE llcult : — are his expreffions ' '
on other occafions, which are fo plain as to
need no comment. -
Nor does the fad oi Beza's i^offeffmg thefe
original MSS depend on his own aflertion,
alone, however truly refpedable that may
be. For R, Stephens has affirmed the fame
thing (as hath (a) been already remarked)
in his poftfcript, or advertlfement, fubjoined
to Beza's edition of A. D. 1556,
XXXIX. " Stephens had fifteen MSS'
*' in aU, yet all of them did not contain
«* aUthe Greek Tefiament." (p. 517.)
R. Stephens has not cited aU his MSS to
all^ parts of his Greek Teftament. But it
does not follow, from thence, that all his
T z MSS
{a) Page 130, note d. . „ > ' j
E^mlyn hath, in fail (however unintentionally) proved
this goinfc, in favor of Be%a. (See page 124, note k.)

( ^^76 )
Newton. MSS did liot cohtain all the Greek Ttf^i*
ment. XL. " Four of them" [R. Stephens*^
MSS] " noted y, r, .,Q, ><?, had each of
" them the four gofpels only."
This aflertion is not juft. The MS, noted'
, s|3, contained the firft epiftle to the Corinihi-
iins. And that marked i^J cbntairied, alfej,
the Ads of the Apoftles, and the fecond"
epiftle of St. Peter.
XLI. *' Two noted (i, n, contained dnly
** the Gofpels, and the ABs. One, noted
*¦' ir, contained the Apocalypfe only. Tht
" MS, ^, contained the Epiftles, and Gbf-
" pels ;','«> '7,5 ^'^^ Eplfiles, andA6fs ; and
« S, i,-^,the Epiftles, Gofpels, and ASis."
(p. 518.)
This enumeration abounds with miftakes.
Befide the particulars, here mentioned, the
MS of R. Stephens, marked (3, "containied th?
Epiftle to the Romans ; — <r, the Gofpel of
St. Luke, the fecond Epiftle to the Csrinthi- ans,

( 277 )
ms, and the firft Epiftle to Timothy ; — ^, thp Newton.
Ads ;~), the Gofpels of St. Luk?, and St.
John; — IOC, the Gofpels of Su.iVlatthew, znd
St. John, and the Apocalypfe ; — ly, the Gof
pels of St. Matthew,, . and St. John ; — and s,
jthe Apocalypfe. XLII, " For in the various legions of
-*' the canonical epiftles, and thofe to the
*' Theflalpnians, Timothy, Titus, and
*' the Hebrews, are found thefe feven
" MSS, <?, E, <¦, 9, ', iO!, ly, every where
" cited, and no Tiiore than thefie:'
. . This obfervation is Incorred, like the for-
IBier. The MSS ^S, and 'r, are, cited byi?.
Stephens, to thefe^ enumerated, parts pf the
facred Canon, as well as the M3S mentioned
in the objedion.
-XLIII- " And .this any one may ga-
" ther, by noting what MSS the, various
*•* lesions are cited .'OUt .ofi,- ^n every book
^ *' ofthe New. Tefiament." .
He certainly may. It is the very method
T 3 which

( 278 )
Newton, which I have purfued; and which has
enabled me to corred all the preceding
miftakes. XLIV. " Stephens, therefore, did
" colle£i various leSflons of the epiftles out
" of only thefe feven MSS, S, i, (, 9, ', ¦«,
" »7. And In all thefe fieven he found the,
*' tefilmony of the Three in Heaven ttf
" be wanting ; as you may fee noted In
" the margin of his edition:^
The former claufe of this objedion hath
been juft dlfproved. And the latter is ut
terly groundiefs. The margin of R. Ste
phens's edition denotes, that the particular
words, ev.:ru H^oivu, were wanting in the feven
MSS there referred to :— but no more.
The objedions, which follow, as to Eraf
mus, hzve (fi) been replied to already.
XLV. " Andfo here, where thetefii-
*' mony, of the Three in Heaven, is ge-
" ner ally wanting in the Greek copies,
" they"
(iJ^Pages 138 — 149.

( 279 )
" they" [the Complutenfian Editors] Newtoii.
" make a marginal note, to fecure them-
" felves from being blamed for printing
*' //." — And that note " being fet In
" the margin of the Greek text, ffews
" that lis main defign Is to jufiify the
" Greek, by the Latin thus reSllfied ana
V *' confirmed. But to us Aquinas is no
" Apofile." (p: 520,'and 521.)
The marginal note, here referred to, was
evidently defigned to juftify the omlfiion of
aroi o( Tffij £J9 TO iv £ifi. In the eighth verfe ; and
for no other purpofe. A fingle, impartial,
perufal of the (c) note itfelf, will amply
juftify this obfervatloil.
XLVI. " A third reafion tbhy I con-
" ceive the Complutenfian Greek to
" have been In this place a tranflation
"from theLzfm, Is, becaufe Stunica,
*' tvhen. In hlsohjeStlons, he comes to this
*' text, cites not one Greek MS for it a-
" ga'infi Eraimus, but argues wholly
T 4 " from
(f) See Appendix, No. XVIII j where this marginal
note is copied at full length.

( 28o )
j^EWToK; •* from the authority ofthe Latin." (p.
522.)
I am ready. Sir, to acknfoWledge the truth
jof this objedion. And, as far as the con
dud of Stunica can affed the authenticity of
the verfe, in queftion, — I own myfelf unable
fatisfadorily to account for it. Bui to us
Stunica (as Sir .^^^c properly ohferVes of
Aquinas) Is no Apofile. Whether the reft of
Sttmlcd's writings, if they had furvived to
the prefent times, would have dlflipated
thefe doubts, or not, — cannot now be. de
termined. But this may be- now, and in
deed has (d) been already, determined, and^
in truth, it is the chief pointy which requires
determination in the prefent difquifition ;
viz. that ',' tbe Complutenfian Greeliwas not
** a trarifiatlon fram the Latin," as is. affumed
in the preceding^ objedion.*—
XLVII. " So then the Compluttnfian " Divines
{dy Pages 184—186.
Thefe Editors pofitively affirm, that they had (horn
many they do not mention) Greek MSS, from the Vatican.
And we are certified, by various authorities, that they
had another Greek MS from Rhodis, commonly called
the Codex Rhodienfis.

( 28l )
** Divines dldfsmetlmescorreBtheG reek. NswTotr,
" by the Latin, without ihe authority of
" any Greek MS; as appears by their
" pradice In Matthew, vi :. 13." — (p.
523-)
The marginal note, in Matthew, vl : i^,
tiontalhs an account, given by the Compluten
fian Editors, of their having Omitted the Dox-
dlogy, in that verfe. And the reafon which
thdy affign for the omlfiion, does them in
cite holior, as it fliews them to have beeti
confclentioufly fcrupulous, in not admitting
any thing to ftand in the facred canon,
which had not, in their judgtlient, an indu
bitable claim to originality. Had they en
tertained an"y doubts of its authaitlcity, it
muft be pre/umed that they would havb
^^ed' In the fame manner with the verfe
t. John, V. 7.
XLVIII. '-^ Nor has aU the %eal for
" this text been' able fince to difcover one,"
[viz. Greek Mi>' which contained the
verfe i. John,- v. 7-] " either In Spain,
** or any where elfe'.:'' This

(280
Newton. This objedion will be beft repelled, per
haps, by a reference to Wetfieln ; whofe tef
timony, on this point, at leaft, will not be.
contefted. Wetfteln, then, in his laft Edition of the
New Teftament, affirms (e) that he has
availed himfelf of the different readings of
fixty five Greek MSS (exclufive of four.Lec-
tionarles) for that portion of his work, which
contains the canonical Epiftles. But as Val
la's MSS are claffed with the reft, by the
numeral 44, as if they were but orie MS,
whereas they were feven ; the whole num
ber of thefe Greek MSS is, properly, feventy-
one. Oi thefe the lettered MS5, C, D, Ei,
and F, do not contain the firft Epiftle of
St. John. And, of the fixty-four numbered
MSS, that marked 49 is the Gofpel of St,
Mark only ; 52 is the Codex Rhodienfis, which
Wetfieln never faw, and which, moft pro
bably, did contain this difputed paffage ; 53
does not contain that part of St. John's Epif-
ftle ; 55 is Jude, only; and 56 is no more
. than a colledlon of fome various readings, noted
{e) Amfi, A. D. 1-^2, vol. ii, p. 449, &c.

( 283 )
noted in the margin of a printed book ; and Newton.
58 is only a duplicate of 22. Setting thefe
' afide, there remain, in Wetfteln! s Lift, fixty-
one (to which Grlefiach adds four others)
lettered, and numbered, MSS, which fet forth
the firft epiftle of St. John.
Of thefe fixty-five Greek MSS, Wetfieln
admits, that thofe marked 34, 44, 48, 51,
^y, and 58, do exhibit this difputed
paffage. But, as Wetfieln has not taken the
Codex Brltannlcus into the account, which
Erafimus. affirms that he collated (/") in Eng
land ; and as ^//^'s MSS were_y^'U^« in num
ber, and have been fo ftated in the general
enumeration, an allowance muft here be
"made for them, zs for feven.
But this Is not all. In the foregoing lift
Wetfieln has taken the eight MSS of JR. Ste
phens, . which are refpedively marked K s, 6, 1,
<«, ly, »£, and C, into the number of thofe MSS
, ofthe canonical, or cathohc, Epiftles, which,
. [he fays] do not exhibit the verfe, in queftion.
. And he has aded thus, upon the idea, ori
ginally
ff) Page 139.

( 284 )
.Newton, ginally held forth to the world by F. Le
Long, which (.g) hath been already proved
to be vifionary, and vain. Yet, as F. I^e
Long hath proved, that there are, now, fuch
Greek MSiSoi thefe Epiftles, iu the RoypI
Library at Paris, which do not contain this
difputed paffage, the Lift, which Wetfieln
has thus drawn up, of Greek MSS not con
taining this verfe, muft not be abridgatj,?
but inftead thereof, the whole number- i?.
Stephens's Greek MSS (which were fixteen.
in all) muft be brought to the oppofite fide
of the computation : becaufe they did ex
hibit this difputed paffage.
This mode of Calculation, then, will ad
vance the fixty-five Greek MSS, herein be
fore brought to account, to eighty-one.
From whence it, finally, follows, hy the
very
(g) Pages 127—138.
Sir Ifaac Newton, in p. 5l6of his treatift, argues, that
R. Stephens '¦'^ never faw the MS /narked^ ; tut had fink "Vd-
*' rious leiiions collected out of it by his friends in Italyl"
The words of R. Stephens, upon which, this affujhption
is built (for there is no otlier foundation for, it) are —
" Exemplar veiuflippmum, in Italia db amicis coLt aTOm;"
It was tht exemplar, ^Q book itfelf, then, (and not the
leSiions out of it) which was (cellehed, or rather^ procured
for R. Stephens, by his friends in Italy.

(' 28s )
very admlflioils of Wetfieln, thus commented Newton.
,,upon (if thefe reafonings are not, and it
feems that they are not, unjuft) that, of the
whole number of Greek MSS, containing the
catholic, or canonical, Epiftles, now known
(by any fpecial deficrlptlon) ever to have ex
ifted in th« world, thirty-one out of eighty-
one, or (more than) three out of eight, or
(nearly) one half of that whole num- "
BER, — adually did exhibltj, or do now ex
hibit, the verfe i . John, v. 7.
XLIX. " The differences" [of terms,
in thefe two verfes,. In different MSS]
*' are too great to. fiprlng from the bare
*' trrors of Scribes, and arife rather from
"'the various tranfiat'ions of ihe place,
" out' of L.ztm into Gieek, by d'ffer£nt
«' perfons."—
This objedion confines Itfelf to the read
ings pf the Cadex Brliannlct(s, and the Cam-
.pltvtenfidn Polyglott. But In order 'to give
all poflible force to 'the objedion,- aU the
readings, vvhich haye jbeen mentioned in this
treatile, flilU be here <;ombined together, in
«ne view* The

I

The contefted paffage, i. John, v : 7, 8— as ftated by, or in,

The Council of Lateran :
7. Oti TffK ii<riv at |u,«^tu-
f avT£f ff TW is^aw, 0 TTwrrf , Ae-
7^, it** TTI'EI'P* «yioi»
Taroi 0( TfEif £f Enn;-.
[euSfvs T£,7rjor»S«o-t]

XlXt

y^e Dublin MS:
7. Ort Tf£tt Edrii' Cl f*«^Tu-
«SI/T£J £1* TW 'Bf ai'W, TGraTKJ, A.0-
y^, »«» wivfj-x ayioi/' k«»
arei ci Tffif £V EiO"«.

tr"^^ Codex Britannicu-s :
7. Oti Tf£t; Eiiriv ei (ax^tv-
eKl/T£f £V TW sfavw, 7r«T>?p, ?lfl-
y<^, K«( 7niev(ji,6c, x»t cwts* o$
TfElf £1/ EIS'll',

8. K«« Toiij fiirti' o« /xpsfTU- 8. K«« T^Ei? e«u-(v et fAajTU- 8. K«i r^fif tto-jv ftajTu^avlEff
fawTEf £1^ Tfl y>i, ¦csviiijix, uiJwf, fsvTEf EK Tfl y«, w-VEU^a, viTwf, £1* TJ) yn, ttveu/aa!, v^wf, )t»»
{upnr>cr)T»i] :t ,. ;

oo CA

( 287 ;

CO

»5

3"

8

S

d

<i

X
1-
t. 8
a.
S
•
i.
a
o
8
A
b
s
o
3.
o 38
o
5 A
oh
b
5
5
3:
Q.rt
\/i
t£
Vt
X
1-
^a
5
CC
^^
3
¦s
*j*
<ij.
.^
(-
^
-*
M
3
(•
<aji
«
fe
•^
o
^
W
w
:>
inUi
o
,
v.>
ot"
t>*
(•
O
oo
H
*<
5
s
«yi
o
«
<UI
X
r f
o
•
f
^
^
r>
<!
»
8
o
I-
n
f
1-
X
CU
<1>1
o-
2$
K-
8
n
8
:L
1
A,
s.
8 4.
S
o
^
A
.
o
3
8*
2C
3
o?.8
b
b
1 O
a. 8
ml
;:^
***
o
5
6
?
V-
o oV-
ST
8
3
5
5
OS
5? At
3
V-
s
30
<
90
&¦
o
1
*s
Zis
s
/p
«
3
8
4.
i-
." ^
o
UJ
O
O
5
b
fe
•
3h
8a.
b
o
^
b
b
•*#
t\.
Wit
3
\ ^
*«
C^
5
. *^
'«*
1/.
...
?
Q
?-
ST
8
^
3
i4
5
Q.rt
¦
t^
v»
Uf
I/.
t-
t^
»
o
<
00
^3r a.
1
jNewtou,
K H
CO MO
^ s
C O
( ?88 )
Njewton." Upon the fa»ce of this collcdion of the
Greek readings of this contefted faflage, com
pared with the Latin copies, the following
obfervatlons offer themfelves to the mind.
I . The Latin copies, univerfally, read Spi
ritus sANCTUS [the Holy Spirit] in the fie
venth verfe ; which epithet -is not found in
the Codex Brltannlcus.
2. The fame Latin copies, univ^'-f^Uy, ¦
read T'res viJVM funt [Three are one'^i in the
conclufion of the fieventh verfe. But the
Complutenfian Polyglott, and the Berlin MS,
read t^h? eic to ev £iji, which is equivalent to
Tres IN unum fiunt, or Thefie three agree in
mie. 3. The Latin copies have, univerfally, the
concluding claufe of the eighth verfe. It
ftands thus (with fo few exceptions as not
to merit any notice) in thofe copies-. In unum
fiunt, or Thefie three agr£e in one. But the
Dublin MS, the Codex Brltannlcus, th* Edi
tion of Complutum, and the Berlin MS, do
not contain this concluding claufe, under any

( 289)
any terms, br mode of expreffion, whatfo- I^ewton.
ever.

Now thefe differences, froin their nature,
icannot be imputed to any tranflators, with
any reafonable degree of probability i For, if
thefe expreffions (nay whole claufes) were
loft by any TranflatorSi--they muft have fo
loft therri by incapacity, or by inadvertence.
Now no tranflator can be fuppofed to have
been fo incapable, as not to know bow-
to render thefe 'omitted expreflions, and
claiifeSj from the hatlA, iiito the Greek,
langiiage. And the omifllons feem to be
too large, and to contain too many words,
to permit a well groUhded idea of their
having been loft^ through inadvertence,
by a traifiator ; whofe office, verbum de verbo
reddere, requires him to yield an Inceflant
iattentlon to his original, and to give to his
tranflation frequent, and painful, revifals,
left he fliould Injure, or betray, the meaning
of his author*
It feems, therefore, to be almoft an im
poffibility, that thefe aberrations ftiould have
U arlfen

( 290 )
Newtcn. arlfen from any (fiuppofied, — for there is no
proof that there ever were any fuch) tranf
lators. From whence It feems to follow,
that they have arlfen from the other caufe,
ftated In the objedion, — namely, the bare
errors of Tranfcribers, whofe objed hath al
ways been to hurry through their taflc, as
faft as poffible, vvithout much regard to any
thing, beyond the reward expeded at the
clofe of it.
L, " Erafmus tells us, that he never
"faw It''' fthe verfe, i. John, v •. j.l
" In any Greek MS,; ahd, by confiequence,
" not In that corrected one" [the Codex
Brltannlcus'^ " which fell Into his hands."
'-(p. 528.)
Erafmus did, in the earlier part of his
controverfy on this fubjed, afiirm, that he
, had, at that time, never feen any Greek MS,
which contained this difputed paffage. But
he admits, in another place, that he(g) did
afterwards
fe) Pages 139— J 4<).
The charge, here inGnuated, of this MS having been
eorre^ed by the £«//«, has been confidered in the pages
jufl referred to.

^. 291 ;
afterwards find this verfe In the Codex Bri- Newtow,
tannlcus; which he collated In England^
LI. " He that fall hereafter hieet
" with It" [this difputed text] " Inany"
[Greek] " book, ought firfi, before he In-
" fifi upon ihe authority of that book, to
" examine, whether it has not been cor-
" rested by ihe Latin, and whether it be
" ancient er than the 'Lzteran Council; for
" if it be liable io either of thefe two ex-
" ceptions, it can fignlfy nothing to pro^
" duce it."
This conclufion^ — although, iii, general,
juft, — is liable to many exceptlonSi One of
them, at leaft, ought here to be mentioned :
which is, — that, where any Greek MS now
exifts, which was, probably, or even con-
fefledly, copied, or written, since the thir
teenth century (rhe eera of the Lateran
Council) — fuch MS is not to take its efti-
¦mztion, fir l£ily, from the time, when it was
fo copied ; but from fome higher sera, which
, gave date to that Copy, from which it was
fo tranfcrlbed. U 2 But

( 292 )
Newton. But, Sir, I am contented to take the con
clufion in its firldiefi terms, as to feveral-
parts of the evidence, herein before adduced
to the originality of thh verfe. For I find
myfelf, even in that fituatlon, at liberty to
affirm, that the aTroroA^, — the Confieffon of
Faith of the Greek Church, — the Difputa
tlon, and the Synopfis, of Athanafius, — the
Greek MSS of Walafrld Strabo, and of Je
rome, — the quotation of Euthymlus Zygabe
nus, — and the authority of the Council of
Ephefus, in A. D. 431, upon which the Ar
menian Verfion was framed, and adjufled,— —
(^) form an accumulation of Greek tefti
monies, the authority of which cannot bc
denied, even upon the terms of the objec
tion itfelf. For there is no color of reafon,
to affert that any of them have been " cor-
" rested by the Latin." And there Is no
ground, to fuppofe, that they are not, all,
more ancient, in point of date, than the La
teran Council.
This moft refpedable objedor, laftly,
ftates his own paraphrafe of this paflage, in
order
{h) Fagesza— 24,48— 50, roo— 103, and 196—264.

( 293 )
or-der to fliew that the fenfi of St. John, Newtom.
without the teftimony of the Three In Hea
ven, is (to ufe his own words) " plain, and
" Jlrong ; but f yau Infert that tefilmony, you
" fpoll it."
This fienfe, or internal evlde?ice, of the paf-
%e, will be confidered hereafter : in which
confideration, I truft, the very oppofite con
clufion will appear. At the fame time I
moft freely admit, in common v/ith this il
luftrious objedor, (i) that I " have ihat ho-
*' nor for St. John, as io believe ihat he wrote
" good fenfe; and,, therefore" do moft im
plicitly " take that fenfe Iq be his, which is"
[or which, at leaft, appears to me to be]
" the befi."
And here, Sir, I vnfh to take my leave of
the objedlons, urged by this great ornament
of human nature, this "firfi, and chiefefi,. cf
the race of men :" — -from whom it will de-
trad little, that he cherifhed an erroneous
opinion as to this difputed paflage j his errors
being more tiian redeemed l>y his candor.

U 3 ^i

(J) Page 530.

( 294 )
NtiwtoN. his miftakes by his unaffeded magnanimi^'
ty. — His own declaration, ftated in the out^
fet of thefe obfervatlons, affords the faireft'
reafon, the moft available pretenfions, to
conclude, that, if Sir Ifaac Newton had been
apprifed of all thei pofitive evidence, which
has been alledged, in the preceding pages,
on behalf of the authenticity of this text (a
great part of which was utterly unknown to
him) : he would not have caft the weight of
his name into that fcale, which (as it feems,
he would then have confeffed) ought not
to preponderate in the prefent queftion,

It feems neceflary, now, to attend to M,
Grlefiach, and Mr. Bowyer, according to
the plan heretofore laid down. But as the
objedlons, infifted upon by thefe Writers,
ftand on foundations very fimllar to thofe of
Dr. Benfion, and Sir Ifaac Newton, which
have been already difcuffed ; they will,
fortunately, require no rnore than a very
brief confideration.
And firft, for M. Grlefiach^ I. " R.

( 295 )
J. " R. Stephens confulted. Indeed, Griesback.
?' fiome" [Greek] " MSS, but they ivere
" fiew ; vh. In the Gofipels, ten ; 'tn the
" ASis, and Eplfiles, eight •, and two In
" the Apocalypfe." (k)
This is but an Indifferent fpeclmen ofthe
accuracy of M. Grlefiach. In the Gofpels,
R. Stephens confulted fourteen MSS, at
leaft, inftead of ten, as here alledged ; In the
Ads, ten, at leaft, inftead oi eight ; in the
Epiftles, TWELVE, at leaft, Inftead of ^;^7:'/ ;
and In the Apocalypfe, four, at leaft, in
ftead of two.
The margins of R. Stephens's Edition
prove (I) thefe allegations, beyond all con
tradidion. And there is no roOm to con
clude, either from R. Stephens's preface, or
from any mode of found argumentation,
that thefe particular MSS, thus cited, were
U 4 all
(i) Vol. ii. Preface, page 25.
(// To the Gofpels R. Stephens has cited tbe MSS
^, 7, i, ^ C, ". ^» '' ^' "^' '^' '^» "^' ^"'' "¦•
To the Afts, i3, <r, £, C, », 6, S '«. '7. ^"'^ '«"•
To the Epiftles, /3, ,;, £, (^, 8, <, i«, i^, 'r> "^> ">
¦and (J-.
And to the Apocalypfe, *, («, n, and »s-.

(296 )
(jRiESBACH. all the MSS, of i?. Stephens, which contained
thofe feveral portions of Scripture. 'Fmrteen,
MSS, only, are diredly cited, by him., to
the Gofpels ; but that circurnftance does not
prove, that the vihoXe fixtem did not contain
the Gofpels. Twelve MSS, only, are diredt-
\y CITED to the Epiftles ; but that circurii-
ftance does not prove, that the Epiftles were
not exhibited in all the fixteen MSS, poffefled
by R. Stephens.
The Divines of the Unlverfity of Lou-
valne, who were contemporaries with R.
Stephens, pofitively affirm, in their Bible,
publiflied A. D. 1574, that all the MSS
of R. Stephens did contain (;«) not only the
Epiftle of St. John, but this dlfiputed paffage
alfo. And this teftimony, at leaft, proves
the general bellefi, and reputation, of thi^t age,
and time, to be fo ; and, added to the evir
dence of R. Stephens^s own marginal refer
ences, on this yerfe, form a body of proof,
which no caylls, or conjedures, of modern
times, — which nothing but the produdion of
(m) " Inter OMNES Stephani «^UNUS^, qui dijftdeat" —
are the expreffions of thefe Divines, on the fubjed', now
jinder confideration.

( 297 )
pf R. Stephens's MSS themfelves, — can ever Priesbach.
^ifcredlt, or deftroy.
II. " And thefe MSS were not collated
" by R. Stephens himfelf, but by Henry,
f his Son, a boy of eighteen years of age."
It appears, fi-om Mattaire, as well as from
pther proofs, that Henry Stephens, under the
tuition of his Father, acquired, very early,
a compleat knowledge ofthe Greek language.
Thus capacitated for the employment, it is
no wonder that the father required, or that
the fon afforded, his afffiance inthefe laborl-
pus collations. But that R. Stephens's MSS
were "not collated^hy R. Stephens," at all ;
but that the tafk of collation Was de
volved on Henry, his Son, fingly, and ex
clufively, — as is ^flerted in the preceding
objedion ; — is not to be admitted for a mo
ment ; — becaufe there is no pretence for the
laffertion, and becaufe reafon, propriety, and
probability, are unlforrply agalnfi it.
Ill, " There are very many good, and
" valuable, readings. In R. Stephen sV
" MSS

( 298 )
jitiESBAeH. " MSS, which are not Inferted in the
" margin of his Book."
When M. Grlefiach fliall be able to pro
duce thefe original MSS, be may be at
liberty, perhaps, to bring this accufation
againft R. Stephens. It is, at prefent, as
groundiefs, and improbable, as it is uncan-
did, and injurious.
IV. *' R. Stephens has very often -
*' clofely followed the fooifieps of Eraf-
" mus, or fome other Editor, In oppofition
" to ihe faith, and authority, of all his
" MSS: and the boafis, which he makes
" In his preface, as io his very great care,
" and diligence, In collating his MSS, and
" his falthfiulnefis 'in fiet tling his text, are
" empty and falfe." (fi) ';
The anfwer to the laft, preceding, objec
tion, will fuffice for this alfo. It merits no
further attention.
Thus far for M. Grlefiach' s Preface to
his fecond volume. In
(k) Preface, p. 26.

( '^99 )
In his differtation (o) upon this contefted Griesbach.
text, he affirms that it exifts in no Greek MS
except that of Dublin, which, he fays, is the
Codex Brltannlcus of Erafmus-^th^t Valla's
Latin, as well as his Greek, MSS did not
contain, this verfe—that it firft appeared,
in Greek, in the Ads of the Council oi La
teran — that it was not read in the ancient,
Armenian Verfion, (which he afferts on the
bare authority of Sandlus) — that the Preface
to the canonical Epiftles is not Jerome's,
'. — tfizt Eucherius, (^p) Jerome, and Augufilne,
have not quoted the verfe — that Fulgeniius
ufes the word confitetur — that the confeflion
pf faith of Eugenius, and the Afirlcan Bifliops
Vinder Huner'ic,hzs i^o fubfcrlptlon, or fig-
nature (whereas it is figned by no lefs than
four Bifliops) — and that VlgU'ius was the
firft who explicitly quoted this difputed paf
fage. It is fufficient to have barely menti
oned thefe objedions : not only becau(e they are

(o) Pages 225-rr226.
{p) The proofs, which he brings, as to Eucherius, are,
\that Flacitis publiflied an edition of the Formub, in
which he Jeft out this paffage ; and that Eucherius has
pot quoted it in other parts of his works.

( 3°o )
GRiESBAcn. are, in general, brought forv^ard without
even the decency of an attempt to fupport
them ; but becaufe they have been already
replied to, and, as it is trufted, overthrown,
without a fingle exception, in the preceding
pages. The objedions, which follow, feem to rc-^
quire a more particular confideration,
V. " // Is now beyond a doubt, that
" R. Stephens had no more MSS of the
" c ath ol'ic Eplfiles ihan feven; andthat
" none of thefe contained any part of this
" difputed paffage." (p. 226.)
It is truly aftonlftilng, to fee fo many men
of learning, Le Long, (taking them In order
of time) Emlyn, La Croze, Sir Ifaac Newton,
Dr. Benfon, and M. Grlefiach (not to men
tion any other modern Writers in Germany^
follow each other fo implicitly in fo grofs
an error. Thofe Greek MSS,. which now
fubfill In the Royal Library, at Paris, have
been already proved not to be thofe, of i^.
Stephens. And yet this is the fuppofitlon, up on

( 301 )
on which this charge, and all fimllar char- Grieseach.
ges, againft R. Stephens, are founded.  But
R. Stephens Can hear them ah. Such accufa
tions taruifti not his well-earned honors.
They prove nothing— -but the precipitancy
©fhis accufers. VI. " The obelus, which is rightly
" fixed In R. Stephens'^ Latin editions,
" Is found out of lis proper place In his
" Greek" [Edition of A. D. 1550.]
In printing his Latin (as well as his GreeH)
Teftaments, when R. Stephens did not find
certain words, or fentences, in fome of his
MSS, which ftood in the reft, — he marked,
in his text, the words, fo omitted in thefe
MSS, with an obelus, and crotchet ; refer-
ing, in his margin, to the particular MSS,
in which thofe words were fo wanting. He
aded thus In his Latin Edition of A. D.
1539. He placed this paffage entire In the
text; he then fixed his obelus, and crotchet,
fo as to comprehend, within them, allthe
words of this difputed paffage, from 'in cah
to in terra, inclufively ; and laftly, inferted in

( 302 )
Griesbach. in his margin the Infignla oi fiour only, of his
Latln'MSS : Thus fignifying to his readers,
that the words fo included within his obelus,
and crotchet, vvere not, indeed, contained
in thofe four MSS, — but that they were for
that very reafon (ff) contained in allthe
refi.
Let R. Stephens, then, by his Latin Tefta
ment of A. D. 1539, determine the difpute
about his Greek Teftament of A. D. 1550.
His fentence, in refped of thefe two Tefta
ments, will ftand thus :
In all my Latin MSS from whence I
compiled my Latin Edition of A.D. 1 539,
ihe whole of the difputed paffage, John,
V : 7, and 8, Is read, except In four MSS
only ; In which four, the words from in
ca;lo to in terra (Incliifive) alone are
wanting : —
In all my Greek MSS from whence I
cotnplledmy Greek Edition of A, D. 1 5 50,
the whole of the fame difputed paffage Is
' alfo
(f ) Exceptio probat regulam, in non exceptis.

<. 3^3 ;
>alfo read, excepi In feven only ; In which Griesbach.
feven the words, « tw aja^u, alone are
•wanting.
This is the plain language ofi?, Stephens's
crotchets, in both his Latin, and Greek,
Teftaments. And this is, alfo, as to the
Greek, what hath been uniformly contended
for, throughout the preceding pages. The
collation, and comparlfon. Of R. Stephens's
Latin Edition (r) with his Greek one, feem
only to prove, that his condud hath been
uniformly fincere, in both. His, admitted,
integrity as to the Latin Teftament, is a
warranty, a pledge, for the like integrity in
his Greek Teftament. And the defenders of
the authenticity of this verfe, of St. John,
ought not to wifli for a more favorable ar
bitration, in the debate, as to the Intentions of
R. Stephens in placing his crotchets, than
this expofitlon of them by Stephens himfelf.
VII. *' What learned men have long
"feen" [as to the MS of Berlin] " I
" have
(r) He printed feveral Editions of both. But thefe
two, principal. Editions alone are here ftated, for the
fake of argument.

tRIESBACH.

( 3S4 )
' have found to be mofi certain, on dfirlci
' examination of ihe MS itfelfi, and on d
' cotnparlfion of It In part with th'at Edl-
' tion ; namely i that It is nothing but d
' tranfcript from the Bible of Cohiplu-
' tum." (p. 226.)

In addition to the arguments ivhich I ven
tured to urge againft this objedion, in fom'e;
(s) of the preceding pages, 1 have juft beert
obliged, and honored, by M. i. f. Zoellner^
of Berlm, with a very particular defcription
of this MS : by which it appears, (as I have
before contended) that it is not a tranfcript
from the Bible of Complutum.

" Gratlffraum fane ml hi fulffei, vir plur.
rever ende, fi, literas Tuds ad Gibbonem
legere poiuiffem, quo melius ea Tecum com-
munlcarem, quei prteclptie fclre Tua Inter efi.
Libris autem Anglicanis plerumque fero ad
nos venlentlbus, hanc quoque dlficuffonem eru-
ditam Berolini frufira quafivl. Sed Ut
nlhllomlnus Tlbl officium meum probem, qua
" ad

[s] Pages 159—171.

( 3^5 )
*^ ad luccm difqulfiilonlbus Tuls affundendam Griesbach;
valere ofinor, brevlter ea commemorabo.
^od, quidem, ad mtlqultatem Codlcls
" Ravi ani attinet, ver eor ut fufficlat, fi
" •'meam taniilm fiententlam Tecum communlcare
vel'im. . Sunt enim tam multa In Germania
recentiffimis temporibus, hac de re, a 'viris
eruditiffimls dlfiputata, ut meum non fit Inter
cnttcos tantos tantas componere Hies.

ti«(

*' ^od Lz Crozms fimpllclter dlclt,fcrlbam
*¦' indo^uni etiam mendas typographlcas ex-
*' f^^ffff^-, ut omnino confiet, &e, — Id quidem
^' nlm'is fefilnanter ab'illo ctisium efi. Codex,
" Ravianus a textu Complutenfium innu-
** meris locis dlficrepaL"
And, after afligning many, and, as it
feems, unanfwerable, reafons for his opinion,
and judgement, he fubjoins this very proba
ble conclufion. — ** ^a cum Ita fini, haud ab-
" fonum fioret, fi cui placer et, codlcem nofirum
*' apographum effe, non e Complutenfibus,
** fied ex ALIO codice manuficrlfio, quem Edl-
X >- " iore^

( 3o6 ;
Grie«bach. « fores Complutenfes potlffmilm fiecuti furif,.
" conclnnatum." (f)
VIII. " This verfe was not read"'[or
quoted] " at the Council of Nice." — (p.
227,) and Is, therefore, fpurlous.
This hath been often faid : — but, as it
feems, without fufficient grounds. For how
is this aflumptlon to be proved ? Not by the
A£ls of this Council. For they are Decrees
Only, and Ordinances, and fet ft)rth no
texts of Scripture, whatever, refpeding the
nature, the attributes, (u) or even the ex-
iftence, of the Deity. Nor can it be proved
by the (Nlcene) Creed of this Council.
For that, although infifting ftrongly on the
divinity of Jefius Chnfi, does not contain a
Angle citation from Scripture. Nor is this
aflumptlon to be proved from thofe pretend
ed difputes gf Bifliops,. and others, at that
Council. For thefe are mere fables, com
pofed by Gelafius Cyzlcenfis, (ff) fome centu ries
[t] Appendix, No. XXIII j where this letter is giveii

more at large.

(«) The only texts, cited in them, refer to Eunuchs,j
and ufury. Harduin. in loco.
(^^ "' Pin, J^n, Gelafius.

( 307')
ties after that Council was 'held, as is now Griesbach.
univerfally admitted. The Nlcene Fathers,
,- therefore, are filent, as to this contefted verfe,
in their Adis, and Creed; but that filence is a
thing the moft remote in nature from a
proof, that it did not then fubfift in their
Greek MSS ; or that it was not even quoted
at the council of iVw.
Whenever it fliall be affirmed, then, that
^ the Ads, and Creed, of the Nlcene Fathers
have not mentioned the verfe, i . John, v : 7,
and that it is, therefore, fpurlous :  it
would, as it feems, be no very unapt corol
lary, to fuch a propofition, to fay — rNor have
ihey mentioned the baptlfimal Infiltutlon, — there
fore that is fpurlous : Nor that paffage- In St. .
"John's Gofipel, I, and my faiher, areone, — ',
therefore that is fpurlous : Nor any part ei
ther of that Gofpel, or of his Ep'ifiles, —^there
fore they are fpurlous : Nor yet any one paf
fage, firom any one pari of the B'lble, refpedllng
the nature ofi ihe God-head, — therefore, in
fine, thofe paffages are ali fpurlous !  Tiie
inference is either vahd in all Its parts, or
it is vahd in none. But, in truth, it is ut
terly invalid. .Jt has no foundnefs in it. ic
X S . .proves

( 3^8 )
Qriesbach. proves too much, and therefore proves no
thing. M. Grlefiach proceeds to remark, (_y) that
Latin MSS, written before the tenth centu-*
xy, do not contain this difputed paffage ;— ¦
that the MSS of the Vulgate had It not, at
the time when Jerome's preface was written ;
— that fome copies have the preface, and yet
do not read the verfe ; and that, in others, it
is not placed In the body of the text, but ia
the margin;
I fhall content myfelf, with juft remark-*
ing, in reply to thefe obfervatlons, that the
,, fecond, and third, of them have been anfwer
ed (z) already. The fiifi fliould be anfwer
ed now, if the learned profeflbr had fufficl
ently afcertalned his own meaning. The
laft of them will receive It^ anfwer hereafter.
IX. " Ihe preface of Jerome is not
'•' found in any MS, ivritien before the
" time o/* Charles the Bald, in the ninth
" century." (p. 235.) Admitting
(ji) Page 228.
(%^) Pages 97—104, and 241 — 266.

( 3^9 )
If this allegation were true (which, how- Griesbach.
ever, (^d) is not the cafe) it would not prove
that this preface was not written by Jerome.
A confiderable fpace of time muft elapfe, after
the writing of this preface In Afia, before
the Latins oi Europe, In general, could know
(by the flow, and expenfive, method of
propagating books then In ufe) that fuch a
preface even exifted. And, when the fad
became. In fome meafure, known, the Ml^S,
prior to that time, could not receive it ; for
it was too large a piece of compofition to be'
i^nterlined, or written In ihe margin. As it-
was no part of the facred Canon, many
would refufe to infert it, even in the MSS
written afier the knowledge of it became
general. Thofe Chriftians, who favored
the': Arian, Semi- Arian, Sabelllan, or even
the'Eunomlan, and Eutychlan, fy ftems, would
certainly deny It a. place in their books.
And' thus it is poffible, that fome few MSS
(for thtey cannot be many) written in, or
¦before, the «/»//j. century, may now be pro-
duced, in which this preface is not, found.
But this clrcumftance (as before obferved) is
[a) M. Simon, Hifl. du Texte, p. 208. Hifl. des Ver
fions, p. 105.— Martianay, Proleg. Vol, x. Op. Hieron. .
Dr. Burnet, Letter 1.

C 310 )
is far from proving the preface to be fpurl
ous : — efpecialiy when it is further confider
ed, that, in the ninth century, this preface
was publicly , admitted to be the work of
Jerome ; as appears by the Gloffa ordlnarla oi
Walafrld Strabo, which hath been already
called (a) in evidence to this point, in the
preceding pages.

And now. Sir, I beg to be difmiffed from
M. Griesbach, — in order that I may,
laftly, attend to Mr. Bowyer, as was ori
ginally propofed. — And his objedions are,
chiefly, thefe which follow.
Bowyer. I, " St. Cyprian does not quote the
" verfe, totidem verbis, as the text Is
" now read, though Blfhop Pearfon
" (Not. ad Cyprian, de Unitate Ec-
" define, ^» 109) rather too firongly af
" ferts Cyprianum citaffe ante Hiero
nymi tempora. The words of Cy
prian are — Et hi tres in unum funt."
X 3 Cyprian
{a) Page no — ^Note /.
See alfo Bengelius, Edit. Tubingee, A. D. 1734, pa. 763,

il

(311)
Cyprian does quote the verfe totidem Bowyepi,
verbis, (as far as his words are meant to be
a quotation) and Blfhop Pearfon's affertion
is NOT too ftrong. Cyprlaris words are not
" Et hi tres in unum funt," but " Et hi
tres (b) unum funt," an exad Tranfcript of
ihe Latin Text of St. John.
II. " And in another place, Cyprian
*' (Epf. ad P. Julianum, p. 223, Ed.
" Pearfon (Quasro cujus Dei, ^c. —
" Cum tres unum funt. // 'is certain ^
*' Si. Cyprian does not cite It In terms
^' fromthe text, nor yet. In both places,
*' agreeably to himfelf"
The Epiftle, here referred to, is Ad Ju-
baianum, not Julianum. In the former in
ftance, which has been confidered under the
laft, preceding, objedion, Cyprian cites the
claufe In dlreSi terms from the Text of St.
John. The latter inftance is rather an al-
kfion, or a reference, (c) than a dired
quotation.

III. " He

(b) Page 37, and Appendix, No. III.
{c) Appendix, No. IV.

( 3^2 }
^owyer; hi. " He does not fiay in either, the
^' Father, the Word, andthe Holy Ghofi r
^' but in the former, the Father, Son,,.
" and Holy Ghofi ; and in the latter,
" the Creator, Chrlfi, and the Hohp
" Ghofi."
Cyprian only meant^o quote, diredly, the
concluding claufe of the verfe, *' Et hi tres
unum funt." And this he has literally done
in the former of thefe examples.
I v. " The Monianlfis, foon after this
*' time, generally Interpreted ihe Spirit,
" Water, and the Blood, In the eighth
*' verfie, to denote. In their myfilcal fienfe,
** the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft."
The Herefy of Montanus began lopg be
fore (not afier) the time of Cyprian. What
the Monianlfis interpreted ofthe eighth verfe
is of no confequence, unlefs It could be
proved that the feventh verfe did not exif^
in the times ofthe Monianlfis.
V. *' If fio, it will be no hard thing
X 4 ''to

K

( 3^3 )
to fuppofe Cypiian to do the fame." Bovtye*:

If to fuppofe would have been to fucceed,
the queftion would have been decided long
fince. But if Cyprian bad really done as this
objedion fuppofes, his quotation would have
been '* Et hi tres In unum funt," according
to the invariable (d) tenor of the eighth
V,erfe ; which it is not. Mr. Bowyer has-,
indeed, endeavoured to give color to this ob
jedion, by affirming, as we have juft feen, I
that Cyprian did quote " in unum." But
the affirmation is invalid ; and the inference,
is, therefore, inadmjffible.
VI. " //" [the verfe in queftion] -
... * ' firfi appeared to the public in Greek, in
.;:: *' the Complutenfian Edition, upon the
.; *' authority, of Thomzs Aquinas, whofe-
" note Is printed In the margin of the
" Greek."
If Mr. Bowyer here means that the verfe
firft appeared to the public in printed Greek, in
{d) The exceptions to this defcription are fo very
few, as not to merit notice.

(3H)
BowYEx. In the Complutenfian Edition, the aflertion
may be juft. The Complutenfian was not,
however, the firfi, printed, Greek, Teftament
which appeared to the public ; for the firft
Edition of Erafimus was pubhfhed long be
fore the Complutenfian, viz. in A. D. 1 5 1 6.
But the verfe, in queftion, did not appear.
In the Greek of the Complutenfian Edition,
upon the authority of Aquinas, in any ref
ped ; the marginal note, here (fi) mentioned
by Mr. Bowyer, having no fuch import, and
being capable of no fuch conftrudion.
And here. Sir, I take my leave of Mr.
Bowyer : — who has. Indeed, urged feveral
other objedions againft the originality of
this verfe. But they have been already con
fidered, in fome part, or parts, of the pre
ceding pages. I am, Sir, &C,
fe) Appendix, No. XVIII.

LETTER V.
S I R,
IHAVE now replied to all thofe objections,
which it feemed neceflary for me to ex
amine in detail. — And I am encouraged
to hope, that (in having been thus enabled
to detach thofe Incumbrances from it,) the
whole queftion, as to the authenticity of
this contefted paflage, may be, henceforth,
dlfcufled in a lefs defultory manner. The
fubjed appears to be now comprefled
within a fmall compafs ; and may now,
therefore, as it feems, be quickly determined
by a dlfcernlng mind.
UPON A FULL CONSIDERATION,
then, ofthe whole queftion (fetting afide thofe
objedions which have been already refuted) the

the only impeachments of this verfe, which
claim the ferlous dehberation of an unpreju
diced mind, feem to be comprifed in thefe
three, following, particulars : namely,
I. Its not being found in thofe parts of
the worlcs of many Greek, and of fome few
Latin, Fathers ; which have defcended to
the prefent age :
2. Its not being foxind in any of the Greek
MSS of the Scriptures, which are now-
extant : And
3. The (fuppofed) injury done to the
context of the Apoftle, by the admiflion of
the text in queftion.
'- As to the firft of thefe objedions,^ — it un
doubtedly feems, on a primary view, a
ftrange clrcumftance, that this verfe fhould
not be found in thofe parts of the works of
certain ancient Chrlfilan Fathers, which
have remained to the prefent age. . And this
clrcumftance appears the more peculiarly
ftrange, when it is confidered, that many of
thefe

( 3^1 )
thefe Fathers wrote upon fubjeds,' which
feemed to call for a citation .,of this verfe ;'
as the Divinity of Jefus Chrlfi, and of the
Holy Spirit ; or that awful fubjed, which
involves them both in itfelf, the Trinity of
perfons In the Godhead.
But, in anfwer to this objedion, it ought
to be obferved, in the firft place, that, at
leaft, fome of thefe Fathers, perhaps all of
them, conceived the words of this verfe to
indicate an unity ofconfient, only, and not an
unity of naiure, in thefe three, heavenly,
Wltneffes. We know, that many learned
men have given this expofitlon to the verfe ;
for their works, particularly thofe of Calvin,
znd Beza, prove, it to us. Upon this hypa-
thefis (and It feems very far from being a
forced, or an extravagant, idea) every diffi
culty vanlfhes at once. Thofe pious Chrlfilan
Fathers, whofe citations of this verfe have,
fortunately, furvivedto the prefent age, have'
quoted it in affirmation ofthe Divinity of
the fecond, and third, Perfons in the Holy
Trinity ; becaufe they interpreted the verfe,
as holding forth a proof of fuch Divinity. - Thofe

^(3^8 )
Thofe ancient Fathers, equally pious, per
haps, and equally fincere, whofe private
judgement reftrided their interpretation of
this text to an unity of confent, alone, would
not cite it, at all, in their Treatifes upon
thofe myfterlous fubjeds : becaufe, in their
apprehenfion, it did not eftabhfh the doc
trines, for which they contended. The
former clafs of thefe Fathers, would ^^^^;
becaufe they had no doubts as to the expofi
tlon of the verfe, but v^^ere convinced. The
latter would be filent ; becaufe they had their
doubts as to its Interpretation, and were
perplexed. But, had not the verfe exlfied,
at all, in their Bibles, it cannot even be
imagined that thefe laft-mentloned Fathers
would have contented' themfelves wlth^-
lence only. They would certainly have en
quired of thofe, who thus quoted the verfe,
— ij^y do you Impofe fuch words upon us, as
parts of Holy Writ f They do not exift In our
Bibles. Shew us, whence they are derived I
But they have urged no fuch queftlons, have
exprefled no fuch doubts, at any time, in
any part of their writings. The

( 3^9 )
The fa3, that fpme of thefe ancient Fa
thers have, and that others have not, quoted
this verfe, is undoubtedly true. It is ad
mitted by all. And this method of ac
counting for the ambiguity is, at leaft, ob
vious, and eafy, as well as candid. It does
not fuppofe Men wilfully to- betray the
truth, which Dr. Benfon more than fuppofes
Robert Stephens, Theodore Beza, and the Cofii-
flutenfian Editors, tp have done. It only
prefumes Men formerly to have been, as
they now are, of different opinions in dlf-
putable matters. It involves itfelf in no
painful perplexities. It offers no violence to
the plain, didates of common fenfe : and is,
therefore, moft likely to be the trutb.
When this argument is ftill further ex
tended to the opponents of thofe Dodrines, in
fupport of which this verfe hath been thus .
alledged, it feems to become infuperable.
Throughout the vaft feries oi one thoufand
four hundred years, which intervened be
tween the days of Praxeas, and the age of
Erafmus, not a fingle Author, whether Pa-
trlpaffian, Cerlnthlan, Ebionite, Arian, Ma-
fc . cedonlan.

( 320 )
cedoniqn, or Sabelllan, whether of the Greek
or Latin, whether of the Eaftern, or
Weftern, Church, — whether In Afia, Afri
ca, or Europe, — hath ever taxed the various
quotations of this verfe, which have been
fet .forth in the preceding pages, with inter
polation, or forgery. Such filence fpeaks,
moft emphatically fpeaks, in favour of the
verfe. Had it, in any of thefe ages, been
even fufpeded as fuppofititlous, thofe adver
faries (efpecialiy the Arians) would not
have. been filent only. — They would have
exclaimed aloud, vehemently, and without
ceafing ; they would have filled the Chrlfilan
world with their invedlves againft thofe
who quoted it : they would have charged
them with abfolute falfehood, with impiety,
with blafphemy.
Thus it feems, rhat the clrcumftance of
this verfe not having been quoted by fome an
cient Fathers (as it has been by others) may
be candidly, and fatisfadorily, accounted
for ; witliout fufferlng any Impeachment to
reft upon the authenticity of the verfe, and
without feeklng any refuge for it, in fuch
parts

C 3^1 )
^arts of the works of thofe FatherS, as are
lio>v loft. But, fuppofing for a moment,
pnd for the fake of argument, that no ra
tional account could be given of thefe omlf
fions ; wh^t would their weight be, in the
fcale of found judgment ? Afl thefe omlffions
could amonntj only, to a fort of negative
evideqice. They might perplex the mind,
indeed, and lay it under difficulties; but
they could do no more. If there were no
pofitive evidence, that other Writers, of
thofe ages, had qupted the verfe, thefe
omlffions, indeed, pught to tum the bal-p
lance againft the authenticity of this Text,
But there is fuch evidence. It is ample, it
is various, it is particular ; — and It has been
particularly fliated. Thefe omlffions, there
fore, cannot make what is in itfelf, and In
its own nature, only a difficulty, or a nega-^
tive prefiumption, become a pofitive proof, to
deftroy a fad well eftablifhed. It is Impof-
ffble for Writers of this age pofitively to
pronounce, on what grounds, pr for what
reafons, certain Greek, or Latin, Authors^
who wrote more than a thoufand years ago,
liave omitted to quote this text. This,
Y however,

( 322 )
however, may be faid, — that fuch omlffions
are, at the moft, only negative evidence.
But negative evidence, although multiplied
infinitely, will ftill be no more than negative^
An4 the flighteft pofitive teftimony (which,
however, is, in the prefent cafe, not flight,
but moft powerful, moft convincing) wfll,
at all times, and on all occafions, totally
overballance, and deftroy it.
The SECOND of thefe objedions is, — That
the verfie. In quefilon. Is not found In any ofthe
Greek MSS ofthe Scriptures, wh'ich are now
extant. But to this objedion let it be an
fwered, Firft, that the affertion Is not ftrldly true,
*' Apparent rar I nantes In gurglte vafio." The
MSS of Dublin, and Berlin, at leaft, — (and,
as it feems by the admlffions of Wetfieln,
three others) — ^yet, remain to juftify this ob
fervation. But if It fhould be granted, for the pre
fent, that the verfe. In queftion, is found in
none of the very few Greek MSS, which are
now

( 323 )
how extant,--does it thence follovv, that it
was not found in many which formerly did
exift, but are now petiffied ? What may
have been an omiffion in one MS, is no proof
of interpolation in another* Such a, conclu-
ciufion, at all times weak in itfelf, is, in the
¦prefent cafe, overthrown by irrefiftlble evi
dence. Robert Stephens points to this verfe
in his MSS ; Theodore Beza confirms his tefti
mony : and the (f) mifreprefentations of
Father Le Long, on this great queftion, have
been, in the preceding part of thefe letters,
compleatly refuted. Laurentius Falla had
feven Greek MSS for the ufe of his Com
mentary ; he fets forth the very terms in
which thofe MSS read this verfe : and the
miftakes (^) of Dr. Mill, on this fubjed,
have been re^ified. The Divines, of the
Unlverfity (h) oi Louvalne, affirm that this
'Y 3 verfe
(/; Pages 147 — 138.
(r) Notes on Pages- 18, and 144.
(h) An Edition of the New Teftament was pubiilh
ed, by them, in A. D. 1574; in which they fpeak of this
contefted verier in the following terms.
« The reading of this text is fupported by very many Latm
«« copies, and alfo by two Greek copies, produced by Efafmus,
«« one in England, the other in Spain. The Kings Hiblt
" agrees with the Spanifli MS in ihis paffage, as well as in
« ruery athtr. We have, ovrsejlves, s-een severai.

( 324 )
Verfe exlfied in feveral ancient Greek MSS of
tlieir times : and their affirmation has never
been dlfproved. Erafmus confefles one
fuch MS ; although, in truth, he ought to
have acknowledged eight. Walafrld Stra
bo direds his readers, in all cafes of difficul
ty, to refort to the Greek copies ; which Im-
- plies that to have been his own pradice :--'
and this contefted paffage hath always fh)od
in his Gloffa ordlnarla. The ancient Arme-
7ilan Verfion was rendered from the Greek
of the Council of Ephefus • and that Verfioa
hath conftantly exhibited this difputed text.
Jerome declares, that the Greek MSS of his ,
times read the verfe,; for he makes his ap"
peal, in behalf of his Verfion, to the author
rity of the Greek text : and this paffage hath
always exifted in his Verfion. The «iros-«Mf
contained the Epiftles themfelves, in the
original Greek, read in the Greek Churches
as early as (perhaps much earlier than) the
fourth, or fifth, century : and this xirofoM;
has always exhibited this verfe. And Ter
tullian, who quotes this verfe in the fecond
century,
" OTHERS LIKE THESE, This vcrfe is alfo found'in
" ALL Stephens^ AtSS ; fave that the words, in Hfeaveh,
" are wanting in feven of ihem." ¦" . . '

( 325 )
century, appeals to the ¦" authentico Grieco,"
the^ " ipf(^ liters Apofiolorum," the Auto-
grapfhs, the very originals written by the A-
poftles themfelves, .which were extant in his
times. A;bove all, the old Italic- Verfion,
-which is believed to have been made In the
Hrft century, -and" was read publicly among
-the Affembhes of, Chrlftlans for feveral cen-
tunes afterwards,, has alwayrs had thi-s paf
fage. Now, the Compilers of this very an
cient Verfion muft, either, have furrepti-
tioufly Introduced, this verfe intotheir Tran
flation ; or they muft have found it in the
[Gre-ek Orlglnai, from whence they' tranflated.
But the former alternative feems impoffible
to be adopted. For if it fhall even be grant
ed that this Verfion was not made until the
fecond century ; it is declfively certain, from
the authority oi -.Tertullian, which has juft
..been referred to, and of Ignatius, (I) that the
original Eplfiles of the Apoftles were then
extant, to deted the daring impiety of in
ferting a forged, a falfe, text in the facr^l
Volumes, if any fuch had been committed.
But if this Verfion were executed 'ni the firfi
Y 3 century,
[i) Sec page 40 — Nx>te y.

( 326 )
century, which we have every reafon to be
lieve, St. John himfelf was then alive, to
ftrlke the bold impoftors dead (as St. Peter,
(k) and St. John, together, had before punlffi-
ed Ananias, and Sapphira) for " agreeing id''
" gether to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, and
" lying unto the Holy Ghofi." — The former
alternative, therefore, being abfurd, and In-
admlffible, the latter is at once fubftantiated":
namely, that the Tranflators of the old ltd-
lie Verfion fbund this verfe in the original
Greek ; and therefore, that this Italic Verfion
holds the place, nbt of a Greek Copy only,
but of the very Autograph itfelf, the original
Eplfile written by the pen of St. John,
Let it be further obferved, on this head,
that fome, tolerably fatlsfadory, account
may yet be given (although none can rea-
fonably be required) why fome of thefe an
cient Greek MSS, now in debate, would pro^
bably (I had almoft faid neceffarily) be loft
to the prefent times. The MSS of Lauren
tius Falla ; thofe which were fent Into Spain,
from the Fatican Library, for the ufe of the
Complutenfian
[i) Asis of the Apoftles, v. i — 1 1,

( 32> )
Complutenfian Editors ; thofe which were in
the poffeffion oi Robert Stephens, oi Theo
dore Beza, and of the Unlverfity of I.o«-
valne ; exifted at a time when the Art of
Printing, then recently invented, was be
ginning to extend itfelf to the Greek Tefta
ment. Efteemed, as thefe written Copies,
or MSS, muft be before the invention of
Printing, the Books, multiplied by that in
valuable Art, were fo much more compen-
dioufly correded, (a fingle revifion fervlng
for a thoufand Copies) were fo much lefs
expenfive, fomuch more eafy to be obtained,
and fo much more convenient for ufe, that
the value, at that time, of MSS muft be fo
exceedingly- depreciated at once, as almoft
to fink into nothing. All thefe early Edi
tors, when their MSS had ferved the purpofe
of fettling the text of their refpedlive Edi
tions, would confider them, as defund, in
fome degree, and negledt them accordingly.,
This muft be the cafe, in general, for a long
feafon after the printed Copies began to
fpread themfelves over the Chrlfilan world.
It was not until more modern times, when
a tafte for critical enquiries of this kind arbfe,
Y 4 that

(32^
tbat thefe MSS (or rather the remnants of
them) have been fo much fought for, and
fo highly valued. In this interval of neg
led, the MSS of L. Falla, and of the Corn-
pluienfian Editors; the MSS feen by the
Divines of LouvUlne J the MSS of Robert
Stephens, and, by confequence, of Theodore^
^eza : — have periflied. Had It not heen fdr
a fortunate (/) adventure oi Erafimus, the MS
of L. Falla had. In all probability, been ut
terly loft. Had it not been for Maffelus, it
can hardly be imagined that the Cbmplex'iones
of Caffodorlus would eVer have feen the
light. But we need not travel into Italy for
inftances to illuftrate this argument. Our
own country exhibits an exarnple fufficlently
conclufive. There was not a Cathedral, a
Pariffi-Churchi a Monaftery, Nunnery, or
Chantry, (not to bring private families into
the account) within this kingdom, whith
may not be fuppofed to have poffefled, at
the aera of the invention of Printing, one MS
Copy 'of the Scriptures, In the Latin \zn-
guage, at leaft. And yet, where are thofe MSS

(i) " Forte in caffes hieos incidit prpeda," &c.
(Appendix, No. XVt)

( 3^9 )
MSSnow? — Outof the many thousands,
vvhich then exifted, it may be doubted whe
ther there is a Tingle hundred (there may^
perhaps, be a foUtary fcore, or two) which
can how be produced. Let us hear, then,
no more of the improbability of loft MSS,
Or of queftlons framed on the idea of fuch
.in irnprobabllity. If the MSS of Dublin,
and Berlin, had been annihilated fome cen
turies fince, and if it could be now fatisfic-
¦ torily proved, that there did not fubfift, at
this hour, a Angle Greek MS, which exhi
bited the verfe, in queftion: yet ftill the
teftimonies of its former exlftence, which
have been already produced, would greatly
lOver-ballance any prefumption which might
arife from fuch a clrcumftance ; would con-
troul, would fubdue, would govern, every
Jinprejudiced mind,
Thefe refledions on the lofs of thpfe an-
Toient Greek MSS, which contained this verfe»
-Will derive additional ftrength, perhaps,
from a recoiledion of fimllar deftrudions,
tvhich have befallen other monuments of-
l;.cclef}aftica:l, as well as prophane, learning ;
for

C 330 )
for which no adequate account can, human
ly, be given. If the demand be made. What
is become of thofe ancient Greek MSS, which
contained this verfie ; and why are they. In ge
neral, lofi, rather than thofie which did not con
tain It ? It may, in return, be afked, what
is become of the loft Books of Livy ? What
of the reft of the Hiftory of Polybius f Why
hath the whole of Claudlan's Poem, on the
Glldonlc War, perifhed, the firft Book only
excepted ? Why hath Orlgen's Confutation
of Celfus furvived to our times ; although
the work itfelf Is loft, which Origen fo con
futed ? Why have we a part, only, of the
Chronlcon of Eufeblus ; and that fcarcely the
hundredth part, if Jofieph Scaliger may bc
credited ? Why have we Tacitus only iu
part ? And why bave those particular
FARTS, of all thefe MSS, been loft, rather
THAN THE OTHERS whlch have, fortunate
ly, come down to our hands ? Such queftlons
as thefe may be infinitely multiplied, whe
ther they relate to t\),e records of things fa
cred, or profane, in general, or to thofe,
now loft, Greek MSS of the New Teftament,
in particular, which contained this verfe of
St.

( 330
St. John : but they will prove nothin<r, and,
therefore, will deferve no attention. Whether
thefe particular MSS, laft mentioned, have
perifhed by the flowly, yet furely, deftrudive
efforts of Time ; or by accident, negligence,
or fraud : it matters not to enquire. Al
though " dead," they " yet fpeak" to us,
in thofe faithful tranfcrlpts, and quotations,
which are ftated in the preceding Letters.
And their teftimony will be rejeded only by
prejudice; becaufe it cannot be fo rejeded,
but by a violation of all thofe rules of rea
fonlng, and ading, by which men govera
-themfelves on all other occafions.
The THIRD, and laft, of thefe objedions,
Js — the fuppofed Injury done to the context ofthe
Apofile, by the admi ff on ofthe verfe in quefilon.
But this objedion feems to have ftill lefs
foundation than either of thofe, which pre
ceded It. Before this Epiftle was written,
the two, oppofite, Herefies of the Cerinthians,
and the Docet^, had arlfen, to the great dif-
turbance of the Chriftlan Church,. The
J)oceta denied the inc a^nat ion of Chrlfi ;
refufing

( 33^ )
refufing to admit that he was ever cloathe^
with human fleffi, or ever took our nature
upon him. The Cerinthians, on the con
trary, denied his divinity ; affirming that
Jefius Chrlfi had no other than the human. A-
gainft fuch errors as thefe it was highly need
ful to proteft, and to contend for the faith
once delivered to the Saints : and St. Joh'ti
(jn) alone, probably, then remained, of the
facred College of Apoftles, to undertake the
work with the authority of an Infpired wri
ter. In a few of the firft verfes of his Gof
pel he afferts the God-head of the WoRii,
the Almighty, and Eternal Word, in con
futation of the errors of Cerlnthus. " In
" the beginning was the Word, and the Word
" was with God, and the Word was God.
" The fiame was. In the beginning, with God.
" All things were made by him ; and In him
" was lifie." And in a fucceeding verffe-he
flops to affirm the incarnation of Chrifi,
with a plalnnefs, and precifion, equally fatal
to the oppofite error of the Doceta. " And
" the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
" among
(m) Dr. Townfon's Difcourfes on the Gofpels. Ed.
1778, p. 204—5.

(.333 )

<i

(

among us." He condemns the Doceieff
alfo, in the fwr^/wOT of this Epiftle. '^ That
" which was from the beginning, which we
" have HEARD, which we have seen
*' with our EYES, and our hands have
" HANDLED, of the WoRD of life : declare
*' we unio you." He confounds the Cerin
thians in the clofe of it. " And we know
* ihat the Son of God Is come, and hath gi'ven
*' us an underfiandlng that we may know him
*' that is true', and we are in him that is
" true, even In his Son Jefus Chr 'ifi : This
*' Is the true God, and eternal lifie."
Thefe feparate condemnations are found
united together, and are urged in conjunc
tion, in that paffage of this Epiftle, which
is the objed of this prefent difquifition, and
in a few words antecedent, and fubfequent,
to it. The text ftands, literally, thus :
*' This Is ihevlSlory that overcometh the
" .world; even our fialth. Who Is he that
". overcometh the world, but he that believeth
-" that Jefius Is ihe Son of God? Th'is Is he
" that came by Water, and Blood, even Jefius
Chrlfi,

( 334 )
*' Chrlfi, not by Water only, tui by Water arid
" Blood. And 'it Is the Spirit that beareth
" wltnefs, becatfe the Spirit is truth. For
" there are three that bear record in Heaven \
" the Father, ipe Word, and the Holy Ghofi .
" and thefie three are one. And ihere are three
" that bear wltnefis In earth ; the Spirit, the
" Water, and the Blood: and thefe three agree
*' In one. If we receive the wltnefs of Men,
" the wltnefs of God Is greater ; fior this Is
" the wltnefs of God, which he hath tefilfied
" of his Son."
And thefe words may, in the fenfe juft
ftated, be thus paraphrafed*
*' It Is this convidlon, which giveth us
** that vlSlory which overcometh the world,
" which rlfes fuperior to its terrors, as well
*' as to Its temptations, even our faith that
" Jefus Is ihe Son of, a partaker of the fame
*' nature vvith, God. But this Jefus is not
" a partaker of the divine nature, only; for,
" when he came on earth, he took pur hu-
*' man nature alfo upon him, as appeared
" by the Water, and Blood, which flowed
*' from

((

( 335 )
from his fide, when pierced by the Spear^
*• upon the Crofs. Thefe two truths, dl-
*' redly oppofite to both your errors, ye
*' Cerinthians, and ye Docet^, are eftabliffi-
*' ed by the moft powerful proofs. For
" there are three In Heaven, that bear record
" to the divine nature of Chrift: namely,
*' the Father, who declared by his own voice
*' from Heaven, This Is my beloved Son,
" in whom I am well pleafed ; the Word,
** who continually affirmed of himfelf, that
" he was the predided Meffiah, that he had
** exifted before Abraham, that he was the
** true Chrift, the Son of God ; and ihe Holy
" Ghofi, who defcended, in bodily prefence,
*' like a Dove, upon his head, at his Bap-
*' tifm, and fat in cloven tongues, like as of
*' fire, upon the heads of his Apoftles after
"his refurredion. And thefie three are one
" in nature, or, at leaft, in unity of teftl-
*' mony, proving againft you, ye Cerinthians,
" the DIVINITY of Jefus Chrlft. And
" there are (moreover) ihree which bear wit-
" nefis on earth, againft you, ye Docet^; and
" thefie ihree agree In one, as to the reality of
" Chrift's taking our human nature upon
" him:

(330
*^ him : namely, th^ Spirit, (fi) Soulj, m
' *' Life,
{n) The lafl Words of the firft Martyr, St. Stephen,
were, Kupie I-/iirou, Si^xi to Tri/evfAx [j.ov. Which are
rendered, in our Tranflation, as to the word wviufj-x, by
the fame expreffion, fpirit, as in this paflage, and in the
fame fenfe. " Lerd Jefus, receive my fpirit.'' (4^s,
vii : 59.)
To which the following examples may not improper
ly, perhaps, be added.
tuke xxi\i: 46 — f<f X,"?*^ "^^ ttx^x-I Into thy hands /
euo-o/xai TO TTi/Euwa f commend my
f,«_- J SPIRIT.
„ 1 iJnd her SVYH.IX
J J s "^ ^ came again, and
lyielded up [the
ikfa;/. xxviii : 50 — «^5ix£ to TrvB-j[Ji.x- — > ghoft, or] his

SPIRIT.

John xix : so-KA.,^c t«. x£^«x«v,.7 ^? ^f^^^'^ *" *,?f •
"^ -* ^ I and gave Up [the
:r<.f£^.,/.£ TO 7r,«u J ^^^^^^ ^/j ^ ^;^
A''^ J SPIRIT.
I have herein endeavoured to keep the paraphrafe of
Erafmus in view : but the elegance, and force, of his
Latin, are not, eafily, to be transfufed into another
language. "¦ Tres funt enim in calo, qui ieflimonium prtsbent Chrifto,
*' pater, fermo, et fpiritus fan^us. Pater, qui femel,
" atque iterum, voce calitiis emiffd, palam tefiaius eji hunc
'' effe filium fuwn, egregrie charum, in quo nihil offenderet s
" Sermo, qui tot miraculis editis, qui moriens, tfc refurgens,
•' declar avit fe verum effe Chriftum, Deum pariter atque
" hominem, Dei & hominum conciliaiorem : Spiritus
" SAKCTUS, q-ui in baptizati caput defcendit, qui poji refur-
" reftionem dclapfus eJi in difcipulos. Atque horum trium.
*' fummus efi confenfus : Pater ejl autor, Filius nuntius,
*' Spiritus fuggefior.
*' Tria funt item in terris, ques attefiantur Chri/lum :

( 337 )
*' Life, ( Spiritus humanus) which hebreath-
*' ed forth upon the Crofs, when he gave
" up the Ghoft ; and the Waier, and the
*¦' Blood, which flowed from his fide (as
** was before obferved) when they looked
** on him whom they pierced. Thefe, ye
^* Cerinthians, thefe, ye Docetee, are the
" teftimonies 4, which overthrow both your
** errors : proving Jefus Chrlfi to have a di-
** vine, as well as a human, nature; to be
*' God as well as man. If ye receive' ihe
?* nvknefs of Men, ihe wltnefs of God Is
*' greater : for this Is the wliitefs of God^
f * which he hath tefilfied of his Son."
If this comment, and paraphrafe, be juft,
the context of the Apoftle is fo far from re
ceiving any injury, by the retention of the
verfe, in queftion ; that it would lofe all its
Z genuine
*' Spiritus humanus, qu,em pofuit in crucem ; etaqua, etfan-
" guis, qui fuxit e latere mortui, Et hi tres tejies confen-
*' tiunt." (Paraphraseon Erafmi in Nov. Teft. Tom. ii.
Page 347, Yj&it. Bafil. A.D. 1541.)
This paraphrafe was publi^ed hy. Erafmus, about nine
teen years after his re-admiflion of the verfe, i. John,
V. 7, into the facred. page. It feems impoffible to read it,
without believing, thzi Erafmus v/2iS, atihet time, at leaft,
fully convinced of the authenticity of this text.

( 338 )
genuine fpirit, would become unapt, and
feeble in its application, and therefore could
hardly be faid to fubfift, without it.
Indeed, the exlftence of the feventh verfo
appears to be eflential to the context,, under
any interpretation whatfoever, which may
be annexed to this part of the Epiftle of St.
John. In whatever point of view we place
thefe fix, fucceffive, verfes, the expreffions,^
*' Wltnefs of God," in the niiith verfe, can
find no due antecedent in any of them, can,,
indeed, bear no proper reference to any
preceding paffage. of the whole Chapter,
fave to thefeventh verfe. So that if this
verfe (the verfe in queftion) fliould be ex
punged from the Epiftle, it feems that the
other muft, neceffarily, be involved in the,
like profcrlption.
li. Sir, It fliall be further required, that
fome probable account be given of the ab-
fence of the text, now in debate, from fome
of the ancient MSS of this Epiftle of St.
John, — I feel no repugnance In believing, I
fee no abfurdlty in concluding, that this
verfe

W )
reffe was thus,- partially, loft In forhe period
^f that interval, which elapfed between the
death of St. John^ In A. D. loi, and the re
vifion of the New Teftament by Jerome, a-
bout A. D. 384. Whether this defalcation
happened by accident, or fraud : Whether
fome hafty, and heedlefs Scribe^ having juft
inferted the <>« i^xfy^svls^ of the fieventh verfe
in his copy, fuffered his eye, in Its next
glance from his Tranfcript to the Original,
to fix, itfelf on the fame words, 01 t^xfu^sHn,
which alfo occur in the eighth verfe ; and,'
being fatisfied with the identity of the ex
preffion, travelled onwards through his taflc,
without perceiving the error into which he
had fallen : or. Whether^ in the violent
cOntefts which arofe within this period, be
tween the opponents of Arius, and his abet
tors, the Arian Writers purpofely left out
of their own tranfcrlpts the words, which
ftood, in the (e) Original, between thofe
two Greek Participles, and which are the
very words now in difpute, hoplngthat their
Copley might, in time^ be followed as origi-
Z 2 nals,
(0) In fome erroneous Copies, the words ev vn yn, are
alfo omitted in the eighth verfe. But that feems to have
been the cafe with a few of them, only.

i 340 )
nals, and divide, at leaft, if not govern, the
Chriftlan world :«—¦ is not now very important
to enquire, becaufe it is not poffible to de
termine the fadi, with precifion, at this dif
tance of time. But, ^s Arianifm, during; a
Goilfiderable part of this interval, fat upon
the throne of the Xiafars ; as the Emperors
Confiantius, and Falens, in particular, had
their Arian Archblfliops, and Bifliops, who^
for a long time, poffeffed the fupreme eccle-
flaftlcal povver, and banlflied their opponents-:
it is, perhaps, not utterly impoffible tp con
ceive, that fome oPthe warm^ of the fol
lowers of Arius ffiould confplre, at that timei
to devife fome fubdolous means of banifliing
this obnoxious verfe, along with its fup-
portets. Far be it, however, from the pre
fent age, abfolutely to affirm that this -latter
was the real truth of the cafe. Either caufe
is equal to the effed ; and each is, at leaft^
poffible. For, as one, fingle, mlftaken. Copy
inight, v^ith perfed purity of intention in
fhe feveral fucceffive Copyifts, generate all
the erroneous MSS of this kind, which have
ever yet been produced : So the Arians, on
- the

C 341 )
the other hand, are not fo ir&e(p) from Im
putations of the oppofite naturq, as to be en*
titled to demand, from an iinpartlal Hiftori
an, a certification of their innocence. And
tvhen a fingle enoneous Tranfcript, of this
kind, had been once made, whether through
inteation, or inadvertence, within any pari
ef the interval herein before mentioned ; it
^ould certainly propagate it? own errors,
for fome time unchecked, and uncorreded,
©n account of the various, and contlnnec^
perfecutlons of the Chriftians, which pre
vailed through the greateft part of that pe*
riod : and oftentimes prevented them from
meeting together but by ftealth, " ^nie lu^
** eem," and in too much terror, and tre
pidation, to think, at fuch*' meetings, of
comparing their MSS with each other. But
when the rage of perfecution be^an (?) tQ
Z 3 abate,
{p) The Arians are exprefsly accufed of having muti
lated the Scriptures during this, their rsign. (Ambrofi,
Be Mde, Lib. ii. C. t^, p. 49+ :— And Lib. v. C. xVi,
p. 586.— Alfo Epif Ctaffts I. pa. 795.)
And Soerates (Hift 'Meet, vii, 32— and Trtpart. Xi\,j.)
diFeaiy charges them with having' garbled this very Jipittle
6f St. John, foF the purpofe of detaching, if poffible, the
Diwm'ty of Chrifi from his huma>i nature. See alfo mt-
fius, vol. ii: Exercitat. 3, pa. 113. Edit. Merboma
Heiffavior A. D. 1712- , ,
{q) Thefe impediments were not compleatly removed,

( 342 )
abate, and wben the different affembhes of
Chrlftlans had leifure to communicate toge*
ther, and to confult, in fecurity, theit ori
ginals, or fuch authentic Tranfcripts thereof
as held, with them, the place of Originals
—then the abfence of this verfe was difcoT
vered, and the omlffions of it were, in fotne
degree, redified. Private perfons correded
their erroneous MSS, in the moft compen
dious, as well as leaft expenfive, method :
namely, by Interlining the omitted verfe ih
the text, or by adding it in the margin (fi) of
their Copies of this Epiftle. The public
Bibles, the old Italic (and afterwards the
Vulgate of Jerome) of the Latins, the Ver fion
until the fixth Century ; for Arianifm was not compleat-r
lyfubdued until that time.
(r) The Adverfaries of this yerfe have founded, on
this latter circurnftance, their idea of a marginal gtofs, or
"commejjt. But, furely, nothing can be more affeded,
pr abfurd. When the pofieffor of a MS of this Epiftle
had difcovered the omiffion of this verfe, in his copy,
how isit to. be fnppofed tnat he would adi:? He would
Dot re-copy the whole of his MS, beginning with this omif
fion ; for that expedient would be- too trou oiefome, or
too expenfive. He muft, of neceffity, correct his erro
neous MS, either by an interlineation (which, however,
would biimpradti cable in fome MSS) or by inferting the.
emiffion in iis margin. And this feems to be the true,
the obvious, and the only, rea-^on why fome MSS have
interlined, andothers have exhibited in their margins,
tbis verfe of St. John.

( 343 )
«on of th? Armenians, and the afferoXof of the
Greeks, needed no corredion, asto the te-it
m queftion, and confequently received none.
And this verfe hath ever fince maintained its
place in every (ancient) p/jblic Verfion of
this Epiftle, wherefoever the name of Chrift
hath been profeffed, except in the Syriac,
(s) and the Copt'ic: both of which, how
ever, have been proved to be fo very incorred,
fo very full of omlffions of other verfes, as
to render their omiffion of this paffage not
to be even a matter of any furprife.
Thus, Sir, I have travelled through the
taflc, which I firft prefcribed to myfelf, of
fl:ating, and replying to, the chief objec
tions, which have been urged againft the ori
ginality of the verfe i.John, v: 7I The un
dertaking hath been, occafionilly, rendered
arduous by adual difficulties, caft in its way
by the adverfaries of this verfe. But it hat^ii
been, much more frequently, made difguftfal,
by their fophlfticai (as it feems) per verfions
of the )truth. The labor, and adivity, which
Z 4 were
(s) The Arabic,. Ethiapicy and Perjk^ are no more thao
Copies of thefe Veriioiis; and, therefore, not entitled ta
a fpecial enumeiation in this place. ( See page 1 93.)

( 344 )
TVere requlfite to encounter the former, hav*
borne no comparlfon with the patknce, and
forbearance, which becameneceflary to endure
the latter. But, whether origlnatnig in truth
or fallacy, whether holding forth real, or
feigned, perplexities, thofe objedlons have
been (fuch of them, at leaft, as appeared de-
ferving of notice) all fairly ftated^ and fully
confidered. I have not fuppreffed, I have not
ihrunk back from, even one of them. And
now. Sir,, let me intreat you to eftimate for
me, for yourfelf, for the public, the real value
of fuch objedions, when compared with the
anfwers which they have received.' Left,
however, you ffiould, through modefty, (our
language will not convey the full import of
the Latin word, pudor) decline the unplea*
flng office — I muft, of neceffity take it
Upon myfelf. The employment may, in
fome fenfe, be affumed improperly ; but it
ihall be difcharged impartially.
THE RESULT, then, FROM THE
WHOLE, is,— that the Verse, in quef"
tion, seems, beyond all degree of
SERIOUS doubt, to HAVE STOOD IN
THIS

( 345 )
THIS Epistle, when it originally
proceeded from t :e pen of St. ]ohn.
In the Latin, or Weftern, Church, rhe fuf
frages of TertulUan, and Cyprian, of Marcus
Celedenfis, and Ph^b-.idius, in its favor, aided
by the early, the folemn, the public, appeal
to its authority, by ti^e African (/) Biffiops
under Hunerlc ; the Preface, Bible, and con-
fcripta fides, oi Jerome; the frequent, and di
red, <::\tzt\onsoi fhe veriehy Eucherms, Au
gufilne, Fulgeniius, Figllius, and Caffodorlus :
'—thefe, fupported, as to theGreek, or Eaftern,
Churches, by the Dialogue between A ¦ s,
and Athanafius, as well as by the Synopfis of
this Epiftle, — by the Armenian Verfion,
w-hich was framed from Greek MSS ; by the
very early, and conftant, ufe of the xito^ox^ la
the fzmeGreek Church (an ulage which (e'^ms
to be deducible even from the Apoftle:? (ti)
y\ thern-
[t) The authority ofFiSfor Vitenfis, as a hiftorian, will
hot be reiilleJ by Mr Gibbon, when he turns to page^ 337,
342, 34.3, 348, 3^3, and 442, of tne third Volume of
his own Hiftory,
It is remarkablo, that thef- African Bi.'boiS' '" their
public Confeffion of Faith, ftile the difbeile.^of a Trinity
of pe. frms in the Godhsad, " quandam novitate.n," a new
opin'Ion; and that this defcripcion was given in A.D.
484' f App-^ndix, No, V.)
(u) Fabricius, treating of this WTreroAof, ailinns— " E-

(346)
themfelves) and by its public Confieffon cf
Faith:  All these evidences, arifing
within the limit of the fixth century, (to
pafs over the immenfe accumulation of tefti
mony which has been produced fubfequent
to that zera) offering themfelves to the teft
of the judgement, combined hi one point of
view, unchecked by a fingle negation, unre
buked by zny pofitive contradidion, unrefifted
byany the fmalleft, ^/r^^,lmpeachment(w) of
the authenticity of the verle, throughout all
the annals of all antiquity :— -ALL THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES feize the mind, as it
were, by violence, and compel it to acknow
ledge the verity, the original exlftence, of
the verfe in queftion. For, although it un
doubtedly
" pifiolarum hujufmodi IcSiionem non effe Novatarum inven-
" tum, fed AB Apostolis ipsis ad nos tranfmiffam"
And he quotes, on this fubjeft, Clement. Conftit. i^ib.
II. Cap. 57 — Jacobus in Liturgia — and Jujlini Mart.
Apolog. 2. .
(Fabricius, Bibl. Grac. vol. V, Diff. i. p.
36 — Edit. //awi. A. D. 1712.)
(w) Omiffions of the verfe, in ancient MSS, or by an
cient writers, are neither pofitive contradiSiions, nor diteSl
impeachments, of its authenticity. They zre pood for con
jedure; and no more. But conjecture has no weight,
wfiatfoever, in any cafe, or under any circumftances,
when put into the ballance againft the evidence of po
sitive FACTS.

( 347 )
doubtedly appears ftrange, on a firft confi
deration of the fubjed, that feveral ancient
Greek, and Latin, Fathers have not quoted,
or commented upon, this verfe, in thofe
parts of their works, which have defcended
to the prefent age ; although it appears, on a
primary view, ftill more ftrange, that thofe
numerous Greek MSS (not Latin, for a vaft
"majority of thefe have always read the
verfe) which formerly exhibited this paffage
of St. John, ffiould be now in general (not
totally) loft, rather than thofe few, which
did not contain it : Yet both thefe objedions,
when aggravated to the utmoft, are but^r^-
fumptlons, amount to no more than negative
evidence ; and they have been already, as it
ffiould feem, compleatly, and fatisfadorily,
explained, and avoided, — or accounted for,
and defeated. And from whetherfoever of
the fources, which have been heretofore
affigned, the partial occultation of this verfe,
antecedent to the times of Jerome, proceed
ed, that temporary oblcuration was difperled
at once, and the verfe was fummoned foith
t,o ffilne in its proper fphere, by his Preface,
^nd Verfion ; which are confirmed, and ef-
tabliffisd

( 348 )
fabliffied (if they could be faid to need any
confirmation, or eftabllffiment) by the Re
vifion of Charlemagne. And this verfe hath
EVER since (if we may now defcend to
modern times) not only maintained its place
in EVERY public Verfion, which hath been
in ufe fince the days of Jerome ; (x) but it
hath alfo been ever since uniforrnly
quoted, and referred to, by Individual Wri^-
ters, of the firft eminence for learning, and
integrity, in Afia, and in Africa, as well as
in Europe, without the leaft queftion, with"
out the fmalleft Interruption : except the
invafion of Erafmus, which, however, was
foon repelled, and of which he lived to re
pent, and be affiamed, (y) unlefs bis own
Paraphrafe, on this verfe, be the compleateft
piece of literary hypocrify, now fubfifting ; — ^
and except the affaults of fome more mo
dern objedors, which neverthelefs, it is
hoped, and trufted, have been repulfed, in
the preceding Differtation, in a manner (al
though unequal to the fubjed, yet) fuffi*
^' ciently
(ft) The exceptions of the Syriac, and the Coptic, with
their Tranfcripts, have already been made, and account
ed for, in pages i88 — ig5.
(j) Page 336, Note- n„

( 349 )
ciently adequate to the ferlous,, tbe compleat,,
convidlon of every unprejudiced enquirer
after truth.
I beg leave to clofe thefe refledions with
aquotatlon from a work, which, by Its pe
culiar felicity in combining metaphyfical
learning with the Scriptural fcheme of Re-
vehtion, has ennobled the one, whilft it has
illuftrated the other ; (%) which admoniffies,
*' That, In quefilons ofi difficulty, or fuch as are
" thought fo, where more fatlsfaSiory e 'deice.
•* : cannot be had, or Is not feen ; If the refult of
*' examination be, that there appears, upon the-
*' whole, any, the lowefi, prefumption on one
" fide, and none on the oiher, or a greater pre-
*' fumpiion on one fide, although in ihe low efi
*' degree -.greater ; this determines the queftion,
*' even in matters of speculation:
" •and in matters ofpraSiice, will lay us under
" an abfiolute,, and formal, obligation, in point
" if -prudence, and ofi 'inte" efi., to a5i upon that
*' prefumption, or low probability, although It
" befb low, as to kave the mind In very great
" -dtmbt, which Isthe truth." At the fame
time,
fz) Butler's Analogy, Introdudion, adinitium.

time, however, I do not mean to feek znf
ihelter for the authenticity of this verfe, un
der the firl^ terms of this quotation^ but
will venture to claim a much higher pro-
tedlon for it, than the literal expreffions of
the quotation will fupport ; by affirming,'
that the refult of examination, in the prefent
difquifition, is, that, upon the whole, a'
VERY STRONG POSITIVE PROOF appears
on one fide, and nothing but a very low
PRESUMPTION on the other ; artd, therefore,
that the queftion is determined, even when
viewed as a matter of speculation:
but when confidered as a matter oP'
PRACTICE (and furely there is no fpecula-
tion, as to the nature of the Deity, which
¦ will not, in fome degree, at leaft, influence
onr praSllce) we ffiall find ourfelves laid un
der an ABSOLUTE, and FORMAL, OBLIGA
TION, IN POINT OF PRUDENCE, AND OF
INTEREST, to ad upou fucli a fpeculatlon ;
and the more emphatically io, becaufe the
evidence, in the prefent cafe, does NOT ap
pear to be so LOW, AS TO LEAVE THE
MIND IN ANY (rcafonablc) DOUBT, WHICH
IS THE TRUTH. Having

( 35^ )
Having now, Sir^ dlfcufled the general
queftion as to the originality of this verfe, I
ffiould beg to take my leave of you, did it
not feem, in fome refpeds, requlfite that
this Intercourfe fliould be continued yet a
tew moments longer.
And firft, let me fubmit to your confidera
tion a few remarks on the general defign of
your feveral publications, as far as they dif-
clofe It to your readers. But, as this is not
the dired objed of this Diflertation, — I will
be brief, yet plain.
You have. Sir, throughout the whole of
your publications, feemed to fnatch, with
avidity, at every occafion, apt, or unapt, of
leflening the power of Chrlftianity over the
human mind. You have not. Indeed, at
tempted to produce this effed by open im
peachments of the external evidences of Its
truth (for thofe would have been fpeedily
confuted) or by dired charges againft the
internal purity of its dodrines (for thofe
vvould have confuted themfelves) : but you
have endeavoured to effeduate your purpofe by

( 352 )
by Indired machlnafions. You have, art
fully enough, fuggefted ambiguous Infinua
tions, where you durft not hazard a pofitive
accufation. You have labored to ralfe a
foeer, where you durft not rilk an argument.
When fuch paflages, as theie, occur to your
readers —
" Rome fubmitted to the Toke of the
•*-' Gofpel— 'Y^?; ¦ ^'
*' Some advocates would difgrace Chrif*
*' tianity. If Chrlfilanliy could be dlfigraced^
-ih)
" If I had defigned to inveftlgate th«
" Jewlffi Antiquities, reafon, as well as
*' faith, muft have direded my enquiries to
¦*' the facred Booh, which, even as human
*' produBlons, would deferve to be ftudied as
•' one" (I cannot help Mf. G'lbbon's bad
Englifij) " of the moft curious, and original,
*' Monuments ofthe Eaft." — (c)
" Apollonlus,
{a) Hiftory, vol. iii, p. 77.
fb) Vindicafion, ad init.
(c) Vindication, p. 29.
The Parentbefii, in Uiis quotation, will find its prece
dent in Mr. Gibbons Vindication.

( 353 )
Apollmius, of Tyana, was born about
the fame- time as Jefus Chrift. Hn hie
" (that of the former) is relared in fo fabu-
*' Ious a manner, by his fanatic Difciples,
" ihat we are at a lofs' to difcover, whether
** he was a Sage, of an Impoftor." — (d)
¦*' This prohibitory Law" (viz. of Theodo
rus, when he aboliffied the fanguinary, as
well as idolatrous, V^rorffiip of the (^reek, and
Roman, pagans) *• was exprefled In the
*' moft abfolute,- andcomprehenfi\e, terms.
" It is otir ' wilt and plea fur e (fays the (e)
" Empferor) that none of our ftibjeSls ffall
" prefume, in any city, or In any place, to
" ixjorfhlp an Inanimate idol bv the facrifice of
" a gulltlefs Flifim. The ASl cf f acri ficing,
" and the pradice of divination by the en-
" trails of the FiStlm, are declared High
" Tfeafon afgaiilft the State. The rites of
** Pagan Itiperftition, which might feem
A a " lefs
(d) The regular confufton of this fentence befpeaks de
fign, " Mais j' ai d'abord vu qu' il en vouloit a Jefus
" Chrifi, fou le charaftere dc Mahomet." (Lord Chefier-
pM to Crebillon, refpeding Voltaire's Tragedy oi Ma
homet. ) .
\^e) Hiftory, vol. iii, p. Sg.

( 35ff )
" lefs bloody and attroclous, are abollftied,
*' i?s lix!i,^!ly injurious ro ihe truth, and hc^
" nour, of religion; and the harmless
*' claims of the domeftlc Genius, ofthe
" houfehold Gods, are included in this r/r
" gorous proficrlptlon. . Such was the perfier
" cuting Spirit of the laws of Theodofius,
" which were repeatedly enforced by his
" Sons, and Grandfons, with the loud,
" and unanimous^ applaufe of the Chriftlan
" world." ' 

*' Neither the violence of Antiochus, nor
the arts of Herod, nor the example of.th*
circumjacent nations, could eve^ perfuade
the Jews to affociate, Wilth , the inftittitions
of Mofes, the elegant.. Mythology of tht-
Greeks," ,(/) ,

i<

tc

((

When fuch paffages as thefe occur toyour
readers, the interpretation, which was inoft
intended, ahhough leaft exprefled, cannot
lie hid even from the commoneft apprehen
fion. But
,^(f) Hiftory, C. XV, p. 451..

( 355 )
" But, Sir, paffing over other enquiries,
Why are you not confiftent with your*
felf? After having, in the former part;
of thefe extrads, thus endeavoured, how-^
ever vainly, to overturn the Syftem of Reve
lation by ridicule, by indecent farcafms le
velled at it, and at its divine Author ; after
having thus attempted, however feebly, to
fupport the caufe of Delfm ; — why do you,
iat once. Carry over your faithlefs colors to
the Hofts of Heathenifm, — and Idolatry ?
What was the principal inftltution of Mofes
(if you are refolved to attribute thofe Infti-
tutibns to Mofes, alone) upon which all the
Teft depended ? It was—*'' Hear, 0 Ifirael,
" the Lord thy God Is one God. Thou fhalt
" have none other Gods but Him. Him only
'* fijalt thou worfilp, and him only ffalt thou,
" fierve." But what was " the elegant My-
?*- thology of the Greeks V* It was — Gods
many, and Lords many. And do you, then,
Sir, really wiffi to cenfure the Jews, be
caufe they would not aflbciate, with the
worffiip of the God of Abrahan^, oi the
great I AM, " Him, befide whom there Is no
*«* God; the Lord, ivho If God in Heaven a-
Ai z *' beve,

( 256 )
" bove, and in the earth beneath, — ^nd there
" Is none elfie \ the Lord, who prepared the
" light, and the fun, — who fit all the bordert
*' of the earth, who mofdefiummer and winter ;
*' before whom the nations are Qs the drop of a.
" bucket, and are counted as the fmall duft of
" the ballance ; who holdeth the fea in tha
" palm ofi his hand; and taketh up the ifies asi
" a very little thing :" — -Do you, ferioufly,
condemn the Jews, becaufe they \vouId notj
in the days oi Antiochus, and Herod (^ior be!-
fore tl-v^t tirne they had but too often, aofd
too fatal.ly, tried the experiment) define, the
a_doration of this fole God of tbe Unlverfe^
with the worffiip of the adulterous, and in^
Qeftuous,^ Jupiter, — the paffionate, a-nd re
vengeful, Jtino^ — Fenm% the ftrumpet* and
Mercury, the pickpocket ? I forbear to pur^
fue you through the inferior G^dlings, th©
Pan and Prlapus, the (g). Laverna, and OV^
clna, oi this " elegant Mythology." No«
thing exhibits hutjiaii reafon in a more hu-
mihating light, than to take a view of its
mythological Reveries, when, uoaidfld by
divine

(g)  _u ^IchTZ Laverna,
Ii>ajnihi fallere."— H@Rj,.

«(

( 357 )
chvine Revelation. If the moft Inventivfe
mind ffiould ftudy for abl\irdity, what could
it devife more ludicrous on the ohe hand, or
ttiore abominable on" the other, than 'the
worffiip of Calves, and Serpents,— Monkies,
and Onions ? It may be granted, that part,
at leaft, of thefe adorable existences
belong, properly, to the elegant Mythology of
the Egyptians. But are the Serpents, aiid
Monkies, of the Borderers upori the Nik,
more prepofterous, as objeds of worffiip,
than Gods and Goddeffes, {h) In H^//— thai!
Dog- Gods, Horfie^Gods, Flff -Gods, and Goat-
"Gods f And yet this hideous hoft, this beaft-
ly herd, this contemptible (/) " creiv, de-
*' bafed with every human weaknefs, and
" polluted v/ith every human vice," are, ill
your opinion, it feems, fit compeers, as ob-
A a 3 jeds
(h) Pluto, Proferpine, Cerberus, Pegafus, Triton, Pan,
and the Satyrs, Sic.
(i) Sermons by THE (where merit is pre-eminently
confpicuous, epithets aie needlefs) Prelate, lo whom
this diflertation is humbly infcribed. (4th Edit.)
A cerlaiii felf-delegated, anonymous. Critic (I mean ih
the Engliph, not the Greek, fenfe ofthe word) hath cen-
furfed tbe expYeffion, crew, here quoted, as low and mean.
If it hath any fault, it is that of not being low and mean
enough. It is much too good for the l"ubje§tj' provided a
more contemptuous expreffion could either have bceji
adopted, or invented.

(358)
je<fts of worffiip, with the felf-exiftent, om
nipotent, and eternal God : and the Jews
are, as you inform us, guilty of inexcufable
obftinacy, in refufing to place, on the throne
of Heaven, this elegant Mythology, and to
yield to BOTH a like adoration !
This then, Sir, it feems, is your Syftem
(if any thing fo mutable, now Delftlcal, now
Pagan, can merit the name of a Syftem) of
Theol' jgy . And your plan of morality is the
amiable offspring (fi) oi io engaging a parent.
It expofes itfelf to your readers, occafionally,
and, as it were, in momentary glances, in
the precedhig parts of your Hiftory ; but it
feems to look out at full upon them in the
following paffage (/).
** The Sifter of Valentinian was educated
" in the Palace at Ravenna ; and as her
** marriage might be produdlve of fome
*' danger to the State, ffie was raifed, by
«' the title of Augufta, above the hopes
*? of the moft prefumptuous fubjeSf. But
" the
{i) '* 0 Matre pukhra Filia pulcb/ter !" HoR.
{t) Hiltory, vol. iii, p. 404.

( 359 )
®* the fair Honorla had no fooner attained
** the fixteenth year of her age, than ffie de-
** tefted the Importunate greatnefs, which
*^mu{)i forever (rn) exclude her fromthe
^ comforts, of honourable love : in the mldft
*' of vain, and unfatisfadory, pomp, Ho-
*' norla fighed, yielded to the impulfe of
*' nature, and threw herfelf Into the arms
*' of her Chamberlain, Eugenius. Her
*' guilt, and ffiame (fuch Is the abfurd lan-
*' S^^g^ °^ impeiious man) were foon be-
*' trayed by the appearances of pregnancy :
*' but the difgrace of the royal family was
*• pubhffied to the world by the impru-
*' dence ofthe Emprefs Placidia; who dif*
*' miffed her daughter, after a ftrid, and
" ffiameful, confinement, to a remote exile
** at Conft anti nople."
To the condud of Honorla, then, in thus
foregoing every confideratlon that was due
to her rank, and ftatlon ; in thus betraying
her own perfonal hortor, and, at fo early an
;A'a 4 | '. • age*,
(m) Why, FOREVER? She was only raifed, by the
title oi Augufta, above the " honorable love" of >i/V^^.
Foreign PrinceS, of any country, rtiight (as mdeed Attila
afterwards did) aft her in matriage.

( 36o)
age, breaking through all the baffiful tc-
ftrcintb of virgin modefty ; in thus equally
dilregarding the laws of God, and man, and
proftituting herfelf to one of her domeftics,
meely becaufe the dignity of her title (the
only por apology held out' for her) placed
hei above the JubjeSts oi her Brother, the
Emperor : to luiqh a condud neither guilt,
nor fi. ame, is, in your opinion, to bc imputed;/
for luch imputations, in inch a cale, you af
firm to be '* abfiurd language:' It is eyen
pioper. In your judgement, that other Ho«.
nor'ias, of diftlnguiffied birth, apd high 'race,
or rhe prefent, and of future ages, ffiould be
inftruded to ad, or at leaft to reafon, in this
manner : for, if they ffiould become your
readers, they are here told, that to apply tha
expreffions oi guilt, znd ffamc, to iuch a con
dud, would be only *' the abfiifd language of
" Imperious man." It is, it feems, a fuffi
cient juftlfication for thole prefent, or future,
Honorias, when they have thus played the
ftrumpet with (pardon. Sir, the inadver
tency — " when they have thus yielded to the
" impulfe of nature, and thrown themfelves
" Into the Qrms of"') their Footmen, or their
Chamberlains,

( 36t )
Chamberlains, to fay, that thev were « in
" tljeir fixteenth year," and that they "figh
ed.''' — And the indignation, and afflidion,
of a Royal parent, "iafixious to interrupt fo
offenfive a commerce,, aiid ro prevent the in
trodudion of any more fpurlous iflue into
the imperial Houfe of th^ Ceefars, by fepa-
ratlng Her daughter from the objed of her
^-libidinous, and criminal, attachment, —
oug'it. It f?ems, to be reprobated as " a firldt,
" and ffameful, confinement," ending in a
" remote exile!" Surely, Sir, the honeft bluffi
ot ingenuous ffiame hath long fince forfaken
your check. Are thefe the grave inftrudions
of the H-iftoric Matron, combining truth
with majefty ; or are they the meretricious
artifices of an abandoned Procurels, pleading,
in her choiceft terms, the caufe of proftitu-
tion ? I intreat your aid. Sir, to affift me in
folvlng the difficulties which you have thus
thrown around me. If left to my own
guidance, I can find but one way of extri-
eating myfelf from them : which is, — to
fuppofe that, in Mr. Gibbon, the School-boy
is not yet loft in the Man ; that, although
when be was a chlld^ it was allowable for
him

^ 362 )
him (even by the fuffrage of an Apoftle) 'to
think as a child, and to fpeak as a child, yet
that, when he became a man, he could not-
put away ch'ildlff things, but even now under-
ftands as a child, and believes In the fenfelefs,'
and idolatrous, Polythelfm of the ancients.
In this point of view, Mr. Gibbon is, Indeed,
entitled to claim one merit, that of being
confiftent with himfelf. Beyond all doubt,
a writer teaches fuch morals, as thefe, with
the moft: perfed cohfiftency, who announces'
his partiality for a Theology, which reprefents
them as the practice of its Deities ; v^ho
openly declares, that the " claims" of fome
of thofe Deities are " harmlefs" at leaft, (al
though they are claims of dhlnliy in them
felves, and of worfhip from men) and who
feems to lament. In terms not very ambigu
ous, or obfcure, that " the elegant mythology,"
which contains them. Is no longer the ef-
tabllffied religion of the world !
If, Sir, this delineation, the outhnes of
which have been iketched by your own
hand, be a juft reprefentation of your mind,.
your Creed is already known : and tbe pre-' fent

(S63)
fent age may, future ages moft certainly
Will, be at no lofs to form their judgment
of you accordingly. If it be uot juft, if
either your own text, or my comment, hath
Vi'ronged you, — do juftlce to yourfelf. You
have the remedy in your own power. Favor
the public with your fyftems of Theology,
and Morals. Delineate them at full length.
Defcribe them at large. Stand forth in the
open field. The world is weary of feeing
you fight fo long in ambuffi. Walk no
more forth with your Stiletto In the Twi
light. Seek your adverfary honorably, with
your naked fword, in the face of day. Af-
pire to the credit of Toland, and Tlndal, — of
Chubb, and Morgan, — of Fanlnl, and Splno%a,
by a dired attempt to break this " Toke of
*' the Gofpel." Take to yourfelf the honors
of Rouffeau, at leaft, and give us the Creed
of YOUR Savoyard Cnrzte alio. Affume the
diftindion of Foltalre, and favor us with
ycuR DlSllonnalre Phllofiophique Portatif.
Dlftinguiffi the grounds of your oppofition
to Chrlftianity, with plalnnefs, and perfpicu-
ity. Leave your readers no longer at liberty
to confound, in you, modern Delfm with
ancient

(3^4)
ancient Polythelfm, or either of them with
Atheifm. If any of thefe Baals be God
with you, — tell us which of them you wor-*
ffilp. Your friends exped from you fome
plan of unbelief, which may, at leaft, appeaf
to be tolerably regular, and confiftent, or
they will foon defpair (fi) of being able, in
any degree, to enter upon your defence.
The Impartial public demand It from you ;
or the perfuafion, already entertained by
many, will foon become univerfal, that yoU
conceived a decent modicum of infidelity, no
matter how prepared, to be neceffary to give
fafflon to a work, pompous, yet not fubftan- tlal,
(«) One ofthe moft (perhaps themofi) truly refpedabis
of them leems already to have loft the very hope of your
defence, in defpair.
Think, not my verfe means blindly to engage
In rafti defence of thy profaner page !
Though keen her fpirit, her attachment fond,
Bafe fervice cannot fuit with Friendftiip's bond j
Too firm from duty's f.icred path to turn.
She breathes an honeft fi^h of deep concern.
And pities Genius, when his wild career
Gives faith a wound, or innocence a tear.
Humility herfelf, divinely mild,
Sublime Religion's meek, and modeft child.
Like the dumb fon of Crtefus, in the ftrife.
When force affail'd his Father's facred life.
Breaks filence, and, with filial duty warm.
Bids thee revere his Parent's hallow'd form.
Hayley'% Effay on Hiftory, Epiftle iii, ad finem.

(365 )
tial, — fpcclous, yet not fatlsfadory, — labor
ed, yet not accurate. And Chrlftianity calls
you to the teft, dares you to the onfet ; it
being her fupreme wiffi, her only prayer,
where ffie hath any enemies, that ffie may,
like the Grecian Warrior, fo well defcribed
by the Grecian Bard, be permitted to confront
her Adverfaries in open day. She challenges
your flrldeft fcrutlny. She loveth not
" darknefs rather than light, becaufe her deeds
" are evil ;" flie " hateth not the light, lefi,
" her works ff ould be reproved:" but ffie
" doeth the truth,': and therefore wiffieth to
come " to the. light,, that her deeds may be
" made manlfeft, ihai they are wrought In
*' God !" (fi),
But, Sir, your Hiftory, in general, is not
my principal concern. I leave that fubjed
t» the impartial Tribunal of future times,
which will do it ample juftlce. A particular
part, only, of your work is my proper ob
jed. Let me, then, ceafe from purfuing
this digreffion any longer. Let me return,
for a few moments, to my original defign, and
{0) John, iii. 19— 2i.

(366)
and then conclude this long, perhaps to yoU
tedious, addrefs.
In addition to the Note, in page 545 of
your third Volume, which has caufed you
the trouble of thefe letters, you declare, in
the body of the correfpondent pages, and in
their Notes, with Dr. Benfon, that this text,
which afferts the unity of the three in Hea
ven, is condemned by the universal silence
of the orthodox fathers, ancient verfions, and
authentic MSS ; znd that the two MSS of
Dublin, and ^erfin, are unworthy to form an
exception. You then refer to Mr. Emlyn'^
works, and Infinuate, rather than affirm (for'
your expreffions are conftrained, and obfcure)
that this, text owes its prefent exlftence to
an allegorical Interpretation, In the form, per
haps, of a marginal Note, invading the text of
ihe Latin Bibles, which were renewed and
correEted, In a . dark period of ten ceniurlesi
You affirm, with S'lr Ifaac Newton, that this
verfe was first alledged by the Catholic Bi
ff ops, whom Hunneric fummoned io the Con"
ference of Carthage. And from your own
Treafures you produce a confident affertion, tb^t

( z(>i )
tbat Gennadius, Patriarch of Confiantlnople,
was fo much amazed at the extraordinary com-
'pofitlon (the Creed of Athanafius, commonly
fo called) that he frankly pronounced It to be
the work of a drunken Man : in fupport of
which remark, you refer to the Dogmata
Theologlca of Petavius. (p) Thefe,
{P>) " The famous Creed, which fo clearly expounds ihe myfie-
"*' ries ofthe Trinity, andthe Incarnation, is deduced, withfirong
¦" probability, from this African fchool. ' " ^ Even the Scrip-
" tures themfetves were profaned bytheir rap),and phcrilegious,
5' hands. The mernorable text, which ajferts the unity of the
*' Three who bear witnefs in .Heaven,' ' * is condemned
"by the univerfal f lence of the orthodox fathers, ancient ver-
'¦'¦fiuns, and authentic MSS. ' ' ' It was firft alledged by ihe
*' CathoUc bijhops whom Hunnenc fummoned to the conference
" t>f Carthage, An aUegirical interpretation, in the form,
I <¦ 1 I 3 "TAe P. QvetneVftdried this opinion, tuhich bas tem famourahly
" received. But tbe tbree folloiuing truths, hoivenjer Jurprifng tkey may
't feem, are now itniverfatly ackfiotvledged (Gerard VolBus, tOfT). vi, ^j.
" 516—522. Tillemont, Mem. Ecclef. .tom viii. p. 667 — 671.)
"l. St. Athanafius is not tbe author of the Creed tvhkb is fo frequently
** read in our Churches. 2. It does not appear to have exijied, ibiihin .z
V century afttr bis death. 3. It ivas originally compofed in tbe Latin tongue,
** and confequently in the if^ejlern provinces. Gennadius, patriarch of
" Conltanrinople, nvds fo much ama^tied by this extraordinary compojiiion,
*• that he frankly pronounced it to be th.e ivork of a .irunken man, Pctav
" D.ogi}l,at. Tlieologica, tom. ii. 1. vii. c. 8. p. 6S7-,"
" ' '4 I. John, V. 7, See Simon, Hifl. Crit, Sec. and the elaiorir
" Pro^esomena and annotations of Dr. Mi]l, and Weille'in, to their ediiwi
"_ vf tbe Greek Tefiament. In 1689, the Papiji Simon firove ti be free
" in 1707 the Frotefiant, Mill, 10'iped .to beafiave; in 1751, rie Arm ¦
" nian Wetftein ufed the liberty of bis times, and of hisfe3."
" 1 > 5 oy all the MSS notu extant, above !io in number, fome of which
" are more than itoo years old. ( WetHein, ad ioc) The orthodox copies of
" the Vatican, 0/ the Complurenfian cUtors, and of R. Stephens, are
" become invifible; and tbe two MSS of DubUn, and Berlin, an unworthy
" toform an exception. See Emlyn'j lutris, vol. ii. p. 227'— -255. 269 —
"209 } andM. deMiflV'j four ingenious letters, in torn. viu. and ix. of
" tie Journal Bntannique."

CS68 )
Thefe, Sir, are your affertions. And it
feems that they ought not to paf? uirhotrt
fome (but they ffiall be brief) animadver
fions. In the firft place, then, let r^ be obferved,
that by having thus adopted the obj' dions,
juft ftated, you are now become refponfible
for them as your own. If this adoption
were, originally, no more than the refult df
a curfory, and Imperfed, examination of the
fubjed, and if any part of the preceding
letters (in which, 1 truft, thofe objedioiTS
have been proved to be hi general FAI*Se,
and univerfally inconclusive), ffiall havtf
been fortunate enough to convince you of
your error ; you will, without doubt, as the
beft reparation in your power, haften to*
efface the ftlgma, with which you hav-e en
deavoured to brand this text, by cancelling thofe
*^ perhaps, cf a marginal note, invaded' ihe text of tbe haiia.
*' Bibles, which were renewed, and correded, in a dark
*' period of ten centuries, j^fter the invention of Printing,
" the editors of ihe Greek Tefiament yielded to their own
" prejudices, or thofe of the times ; and the pious frauds'
" which was embraced with equal zeal at Rome, and af
" Geneva, has^ heen infinitely multiplied in every country,.
" and evet y language of modern Europe." (p. 54.3 — 4.)

( 369)
thofe pages which contain it. Such a pro
ceeding would do juftlce to the text, and .
honor to yourfelf. But if upon a patient,
and attentive, review of the fubjed, you
ffiall fee no reafon to reverfe your former
fentenCe, ffiall ftill pronounce the verfe, in
queftion, to be fpurlous ; — it will be highly
incumbent upon you to demonftrate, to the
world, the incompetency of the fads ftated,
and the infufficlency of the arguments urg
ed, in the preceding letters, in fupport of
its authenticity. Attempt this confutation,
then, without delay. Silence will be a proof
of confclous Impotence. And attempt it
•with candor, and ferloufnefs. Tinfelled
phrafes, and empty farcafms, will have no
feffed, but to double the load which now lies
heavy upon you. I prefs not, however, this
caution through private, or perfonal, confi
derations. It is a matter of no fmall indif
ference to the Writer of thefe pages, whe
ther (to ufeyour own language) you fialute
him {q) with gentle couriefiy, or fiern defiance.
Your fads, if you ffiall produce any to ex
plain the queftion, ffiall be received with
B b compla-
{q) Vindicatioa— Edit. A. D. 1779.

( 31^ )
complacence. Your arguments, if you ffiall
urge anv to illuminate the fubjed, ffiall be
weighed with candor, and coolnefs. But
your cavils, if you ffiall pradlfe any, ffiall
be checked with fteadinefs ; and your info-
lence, if you ffiall affed any, ffiall be repelled
with dlfdain.
Let me in the next place. Sir, but ftill
more briefly, remark, on thefe Extrads, that
they convey no very favorable Idea of your
ImpartiaUty, as a Hiftorian. You have, ia
them, brought forward Mr. Emlyn,- on the.
fubjed of this verfe, becaufe he is your fel
low-advocate. And you have configned evea
the name of Mr, Martin, his refpedable an
tagonift, to deep filence, — no friendly Note
td tell where his work lies, — becaufe hh opi
nions were dlredly adverfe to yours, and be
caufe he has overthrown many of 'Emlyti-^
mifreprefentations. But, Sir, Is this the
part of an impartial Hiftorian ? To ftate
authorities, and to urge arguments, on one
fide of a queftion, alone, is but barely tolera
ble in a hired Advocate. A Hiftorian, who
ads in this manner, is-^ — -but his defcrlp- tioH'

( 11^ )
tion will be beft given in your own words.
"Whatever subject he has chofen,
*' whatever persons he Introduces, he
*' owes to himfelf, to the prefent age, and to
" pofierlty, a jufi and perfeSt delineation of
*' ALL that may be praifed, of AI.-L that may
*' he excufied, and ofi at, i. that mufi be cenfured.
*' Ifi he v Ai'LS In the dif charge of his Important
*' ofiice, he partially violates the sa-
*' cred obligations of truth." (r)
But, Sir, this Is not all. Let me. In the
third, and laft, place, remark, that the ex
trads. In queftion, fupply the moft palpable
proof of your partiality, and prejudice, in
refped to the great queftion of the authen
ticity of this verfe of St. fohn. They ffiew
you to be capable even of forging authorities
in a matter, which bears no more than a
collateral, or rather an implied, relation to
it. You bave wilfully (for your reference is
too exad to allow you ffielter under any
fuppofed inadvertence) mlfreprefented both
Petavius, and Gennadius, in the laft of thofe
extrads. Your own words have been al-
B b 2 ready
(^} Vindication— Edit. 1779, p. 139.

( 372 )
ready fet forth. The words of Petavius.'
may be thus tranflated.
""It is certain, that the Creed, which
*' paffes under the name of Athanafius, wa&
*' not only read, but had in great authority,
*' by the Greek, as well as by the Latin,
*' Church. In this Creed are thefe expref-
*' fions, as is known to all : The Holy Ghofi
*' Is of the Father, and of ihe Son, neither
" made, nor created, nor begotten, but pro-
*' ceeding. Which plain, and weighty, tef-
*' timony was fo offenfive to the Greeks, that
*' they carried up their frantic, and foollffi,
*' rage even to Athanafius blmlelf ; which
** Gennadius relates, and laments,
*' They fiear noi (fays he) to affirm that A-
*' thanafius was a drunkard, and that he was
" drunk when he wrote this paffage : a
*' Senseless, and ridiculous, calum-
*' NY, which merits filent contempt, rather
*' than zfierlous confiut ation." (f)
What

[s) " Symbolum dico quod vulgo Athanafii dicitur —
Certe fub Athanafii nomine, non modo ab nofiris, fed
a Gracis etiam, et legitur, et in magnam au<aoritatem
affumitur. Eft autem in eo ita fcriptum, quod igno-
rat nemo : Spiritus fanSus a Patre, et Filio, nonfaSius,
nee creatus, nee genitus, fed procedens. Qiiod tam gr^ve.

/ /¦ ( 373 )
What fay you. Sir, to this quotation ?
May it not be fufpeded, that by fondly
¦ ftudying Dr. Benfon, you have imbibed no
fmall portion of hl3 fpirit ? You have, in
your Hiftory, confidently placed thi^ afler
tion, as to the expreffions of Gennadius, a-
mong certain truths, which you affirm to be
nonjo unlverfially acknowledged. But you will
not repeat the affertion. Let me bef-cch
you to compare the real expreflions of Gen
nadius, with your own account of them ; and
then to inform the world how far your ac
count is diftant from a direct falsehood.
Is it not pradicable for you tp utter truth,
even whilft you have its facred name in your
mouth ? Surely, Sir, " this feemeth to argue
*' a bad caufe, or a bad confcience, or (/)
B b 3 " both."
" ac difertum, teftlmonium Graculos fie offendit, ut in
" Aihanafmm ipfum ftolide debacchati fint : quod re-
" FERT, ac DEPLORAT, Gennadius. Non verentur, in-
" quit, dicere fanSlum Athanafium ebriofum fu'ifie, et, cum
*' ijia friberet, fino plenum. Stulta, et inepta,
" CALUMN'IA, nfuque potius, et contemptu, quam
" feria expoftiilatir.ne di.;na."
(Peiav. Dogm. Theol. vol. ii. Hb. vii. c. 8. p. 687.)
For the words of Gemiadiui, himlelf, to which Peta
vius here refers, fee Appendix, No. XXIV.
{i) The Tranflators' Preface to the Bible of Jamis
I :  a performance, which feems not to be fo generally
known, as it deferves.

( 374 )
" both." Is there any phyfical, or moral,
impoffibility, for thofe who deny the au
thenticity of this verfe, to quote fahly, to
argue candidly, and to fpeak truly ? Is there
any reafion In nature for such hard hearts?
Thofe reafons, fuch as they are, can only be
found (but they may be there plentifully
found) in pride, and prejudice. If a falfe
tenet, or opinion, is to be defended, at all
events, to what auxiliaries muft it look for
affiftance ? Not to truth ;— »-for flie is all fair,
and artlefs, uniform, and confiftent, fimple,
and fincere. It muft feek the treacherous
aid of cavils, and equivocations ; it muft
pradlfe the foul (a) arts of fophiftry, and
deceit, offimulation, and diffimulation : by
feleding a part only, and ftating them as
the whole, of an Author's words ; by afcrib-
Ing to him expreffions which he never ut
tered, and meanings which he never meant ;
by fuppreffing what is known to be true,
and infinuating, if not affertlng, what is
known to be falfe. This defcription feems
to apply, with all its energy, to Dr. Benfion. It
(«) Rien n'eji beau que levrai, le vrai feul efi aimahle.
Boileau.

( 375 )
It is very far. Sir, from being inapplicable
to yourfelf.
In fine,— The defence of this Text of
the three (heavenly) IVltneffes, which you
affirm to have been profanely introduced into
the fcrlptures, by rafi, and facrlleglous hands,
hath been thus attempted with, at leaft, up
right intentions, and a ferlous perfuafion of
its originality, the refult of much patient,
and, as I believe, impartial, inveftigatlon.
This defence, fixing its foundation upon the
Impeachments alledged againft the text, in,
a part of your Hiftory, hath, almoft necef
farily, produced a counter-charge againft
yourfelf. This general defence, on the one
hand, and this particular accufation, on the
other, are now, both, laid before the tribunal
of an impartial, and dlfcernlng, Public. You
are called upon to traverfe, or to acknow
ledge,-:— to refift, or to fubmit. If you refiufe
io plead, the charge will be taken as con
feffed. And the definitive judgment may,
in fuch a cafe, perhaps, with no very great
impropriety, be framed out of fome part, at
leaft, of thefe, your own {x) words — " If
(#) Gilbm'i Vindication— Edit. A. D. 1779, p. 7.

( 376 )
*' If I am Indeed IS CAPABLE of undeU-
*' STANDIJSIG WHAT I READ, / Can no
*' longer claim a place among thofe Writers,
*' who merit the efieem, and the confidence of
" the Public. If I am capable of wil-
*' FULLY PERVERTING WHAT I UNDER-
*' STAND, I no longer defer Ve to live In the
*' fioclety of thofie men, ivho confider afirlSt and
*' Inviolable adherence io TkuTH, asthefoun-
** dation of every thing that Is virtuous or ho-
*' nourable In human nature.''^
I am, Sir, &c.

APPENDIX,

No, I.
E^ GO et Pater timimftmus. Hic ergo jam gra-
'*-^ dum volunt figere ftulti, immo cosci, qui non
videant, primo. Ego, et Pater, duoruta efle fignifi-
cationem ; dehinc in noviflimo, fumtis, non ex u-
nius eflTe perfona, quod pluraliter dicflum eft \ tum
quod, unum fumus, non unus fumus. Si enim dix-
ifiet, unus fumus, potuifl"et adjuvare fententiam il
lorum. Unus eni.Ti fingularis numeri fignificatio
videtur. Adhuc cum duo, mafculini generis.
Unum dic'ity neutrali verbo, quod non pertinet ad fin'-
gularitatem, fed ad unitaiern, ad fimilitudinem, ad
conjundionem, ad dileclionem Patris qui Filium
diiigic-, etad obfequium Filii, qui voluntati Patris
obfequitur. Unum fiiraus, dicens. Ego et Pater, of-
tendit efle qiios cequat et jungit. (TertuUianus adver
fus Prqxeam, Cap. xxii, ad finem, j
No. II.
Poll Philipptim, et totam fubftantiam quEeftionis
iftius, quem in finem Evangelii perfeverant in
€odem genere fermonis, quo Pater et Filius in fua
A proprietate

2 APPENDIX.
proprietate diftinguuntur, Paracletum quoque a
Patre fe poftulaturum, quum afcendilTet ad Patrem,
er miffurum repromittit, et quidem alium, fed jam
prjemifimus quomodo alium. Csterum, de meo
fiimet, inquit, ficut ipfe de Patris. Itaconnexus Pa
tris in Pilio, et Filii iti Paradeto, tres efficit coh rer en-
tes, alterum ex alccro ; qui tres unum funt, non unus, •
QUOMODO diBum efi. Ego et Pater unum fvjnus ; ad
hlbftantife unltatem, non ad numeri fingularitatem,
(Idem,Cap. xxv, ad initium.)
No. III.
Dicit Dominus.-, Ego et Pater unum fumus. Et
iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu fando fcriptum
eft : Et hi treS unum funt. Et quifquam credit
hanc unitatem, de divina firmitate venientem, fa-
cramentis caileftibus cohasrentem, fcindi in Eccle
fia pofle, et voluntatum coUidentium divortio fepa-'
rari ?' Plane unitatem qui non tenet, Dei legem non
tenet ; non tenet Patris, et Filii, fidem ; et verita
tem non tenet ad falutem. {Cyprianus, De Unitate
Ecckfice, Edit. O'^'on. p. 109.)
No. IV.'
Si peccatorum remiflam confecutus eft, et fanc-
tificatus efb, et templum Dei fadus eft ; qucefo
cujus Dei ? fl Creatcfis, non potuit, qui in eum-
non credidit : fi Chrifii, nee hujus fieri poteft tem
plum, qui negat Deum Chriftum : fi Spiritus fan^iy
(um

A P P E N.D I X. 3
cum tres unumfint, quomodo Spiritus fimftus pia-
catus efle ei poteft, qui aut Patris, aut Filii, ini-
micus eft > (Epiftola ad Juhaianum, lxxiii, circa
mediam partem, p. 203.)
No. V.
Phcebadius, jigenni Galliarum Epifcopus, edidit
contra Arianos librum. Dicuntur et ejus efle alia
opufcula, quse necdum legi. Vivit ufque hodie,
decrepita fenectute. {Hieronym, Catal. Scriptor.
Eccl. p. 125.)
No. VL
Ad Trinitatem in Joannis Epiftola : Tris funt
qui tefiimonium dant in calo. Pater, Verbum, et SpirituS
fanStus ; et tres funt qui tefiimonium dant in terra.,
fpiritus, aqua, etfangttis. {Ettcheriiis,C.x\, Sec. 3.)
No. VII.
Ergo quamvis in fuperioribus exemplis Scrip.
turarum tacita fint nomina perfonarum , tamen
tmitum nomen divinitatis per omnia tibi eft in his
demonftratum: ficut et in hoc exemplo veritatis, in
quo nomina perfonarum evidenter funt oftenfa, ct
unitum nomen divinitatis claufe eft declaratum,
Dicente Johanne Evangelifta in epiftola fua, Tres
funt qtd tefiimonium dicunt in calo. Pater, et Ver
bum, et Spiritus, et in Jefu Chrifto unum funt; non
tamen unus eft, quia non eft in his una perfona.
(Vilnius, Liber primus, p. T'je.)
^ " A 2 No.

4 APPENDIX. No. VIII.
Jam audifti fuperius Evangeliftara Johannem in
Epiftola fua tam abfolute teftantem, Tres funt qui
tefiimonium dant in calo. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus
faniliis, et in Chrifto Jefu unum funt. Utique fine
dubio in Trinitate divinitatis per omnia unum
funt, & in nominibus perfonarum tres funt. (Vigil.
Lib. primus, ad caicem, p. 776.)
Sed et Spiritus Sandus in Patre, et in Filio, et
in fe, confiftens eft ; ficut Johannes Evangelifta in
epiftola fua tam abfolute teftatur, Et tres unum funt.
(Lib. V. p. 786,)
Cur, Tres unum funt, Johannem Evangeliftam
dixifie legitis, fi diverfas naturas in pcrfonis eflfe
accipitis ? (And a little afterwards) ,'Kogo quomo
do tres unum funt, fi diverfa in utrifque eft natura
divinitatis ^ (Lib. vil. p. 789.)
Unde et Johannes in Epiftola fua ait, Tres funt
qui tefiimonium dicunt in calo. Pater, Verbum, et
Spiritus : et in Chrifto Jefu unum funt ; non tamen,
unus eft, quia non eft eorum una perfona. (Lib.
X. p. 793.) No. ix.
Beatus Johannes Apoftolus teftatur dicens, Trei
funt r^ui tefiimonium perhibent in calo. Pater, Verbum,

APPENDIX. 5
G? Spiritus, y hi tres unum funt. Quod etiam
beatifllmus Martyr, Cyprianus, in Epiftola De Uni
tate Ecclefia, confitetur ; dicens. Qui pacem Chrifii,
ct concordiam rumpit, adverfus C/>;77??/»2 facit; qui
alibi prster Ecclefiam colligit, Chrifii Ecclefiam
fpargit. — Atque, ut unam ecclefiam unius Dei efle
monftrarct, h^c conieftim testimonia de Scrip-
turis inleruit : Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater,
unum fumus : Et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu
SanBo fcriptum eft -, Et hi tres itnumfunt. {Fulgent
tius, Refponfio contra Arianos.)
No. X.
Saeculo eodem (viz. circiter A. D. 550) Cafiw-
dorus, vel Caffiodorius potius, Patricius Romanus,
vixit, Monachifque libi fiibjeftis deledtum antiqu-
ifllmorum, et correftifllmorum Scriptural facrae
codicum commendavit, et in eorum ufum exempla
ria, ope contextus Graci, emendavit, au£lorque
cxftitit, ut in locis dubiis duos, trefve, anciquos,
et emendatos, codices confulerent. Tanto ftudio
is ferebatur in recognofcendum facrum contextum,
ut, ope.^a reliques libros emendandi Notariis fuis
relrda, ipfe facrorum librorum curam in fe recipe-
ret. Teftatur porro fe de Orthographid ideo com-
mentatum eflTe, utaccuratam facrorum librorum
defcriptionem proveheret. (IVolfii Cur. Phil. p.
305-^6.)
A J Extracts

6 APPENDIX.
Extracts from the Introduaion, &c. of
Maffeius, tothe Complexlones oiCAssi'
ODORIUS.
Membraneus Liber, in quo infigne hoc antiqui-
tatis monumentum unice perennavit, eximia?, ac
venerandze, vetuftatis notas pras fe fert omnesi
adeo ut videri poflit ab ipfius Cafiiodorii state non
ita multum abeflfe.— [Ejus titulus] "Cassiodorii
" Senatoris Complexiones in Epistolas, et
*' Acta Apostolorum, et Apocalypsim."
Ex Cafiiodoriano hoc opere conftat non in Afri-
canis tantum, (quod patet ex Eugenio, Fulgentia,
Vigilio, Victore, Facundo, Cypriano quoque, ut vide
tur) fed in antiqulflimis,et emendatioribus, Ecclefias
Romana codicibus,verficulum ilium fcriptum fuifi'e.
Cum enim tanto ftudio Monachis fuis in Div. Left.
id prasceperit, ut prasftantifllmis, et Gr^ci etiam
textus collatione repurgatis, codicihus uterentur, ut-
que in ambiguis locis duorum, vel trium, prifco-
rum emendatorumque codicum auflioritas inquirere-
tur; — ipfum imprimis idem prfeftitiflfe, quis am-
bigat ?
Clamant ifti, Scripturje verficulum, quo Sanc-
tiflima Trias perfpicue docetur, S. Johannis, Ep.
i. C. 5, in prifcis codicihus ut plurimum non re-
periri.

APPE N D I X 7
F"n, et ab antiquis Patribus ledum non efl-e,
Afncariis quibufdanvexceptis. ' At docet vos Caff..
edom mterpretatio leftum ab ipfofuifle ; quq con
ftat et in Romanis exemplaribus e.xftitiffe.-,i; Quibuf-
nam autem.? Nimirum-/^/^^7#«.f, et qui jam tum
haberentur dntiqui.
Qiii vero Vulgata,fii\\ Hieronymiana, Verfion i eam
irt^moinnv olim intrufam putant, deditionem tan
dem faciaht, atque 'arma fubmittant, necefle eft.
Evidenter enim patet, ex quamplurimis harum
Complexionum locis, Caffiodcrium alia Verfione a Hie-
ronymiana ufum eflfe ; et nihiloniinu: eam ¦m^iY^oTv/w
legit.  Qiia2 in hac explanatione vel affert
Caffiodorius hemiftichia, veldefignat ?»Vtilgata anti
qua, five- ab Italica, vere deprompta elTe ; id apud
me ferme evincit, quod iila Verfio probatifTima,
inter cseteras, a doftifllmis Veterum haberetur.
Quspropter adhibitam procul dubio arbitror ab
crudito Scriptore, facrorumque libroran fcruta-
tore eximio ; eoque magi.5, quo vetuftiotes Scrip-
turse codices perquirere foiitus erat, et collates
cum C^MCO teX:tu, quem cseleftia teftimonia prs
fe tulifl'e, cum Scriptorum aucfloritas, tum optimi
qui fupei fint MSS Libri,- teftantur. (pag. 42, &c.)
A 4 Extraft

S APPENDIX.
Extract from the Preface of Caffiodorlus.
Sed quamvis omnis Scriptura divina fuperna luce
refplendeat, et in ea virtus Spiritus fanfti evidenter
irradiet; in Pfalterio tamen, et Prophetis, et Epif-
toiis Apoftolorum, ftudium maximum laboris im-
pendi, quoniam mihi vifi funt profundiores abyflbs
commovere, et quafi arcem totius Scripturfe divinje,
atque altitudinem gloriofiflimam continere. Quos
ego cundtos novem codices auftoritatis divina; (ut
fencx potui) fub collatione priscorum codicum,
amicis ante me legentibus, fedula leftione tranfivi.
Ubi me multum laboraflc. Domino adjuvante, pro-
fiteor J quatenus nee eloquentis modificatre deef-
fem, nee libros facros temeraria prsefumpticne
lacerarem. The Words of Gz^o^o/ /ax. In loco.
Sic autem diligimus eum, cum mandata ejus
facimus, quas juftis. mentibus gravia non viden-
tur, fed potius vincunt Ikculum, quando in ilium
credunt, qui condidit mundum. Cui rei tefl;ifi-.
cantur in terra tria myfteria, aqua, fangms,et fpiri
tus, quse in pafione Domini leguntur impleta; in
CffLO, autem. Pater, et Filius, et Spiritua
Sanctus, et hi tres unus jst Deus.

No.

APPENDIX. 9
No. XI.
The Notes of Theodore Be%a on the Verfe*
I. John, V. 7, 8.
VII. Nam tres funt, Uc. ot» rpEK, Hic verficulus
omnino mihi retinendus videtur. Explicat enim
manifefte quod de fex teftibus dixerat, tres fe-
orfim ccelo, tres terras tribuens. Non legit, ta
men, Syrus, nee Vetus Latinus interpres, nee Na-
zianzenus (oratione 5.de Theologia) nee Athanafius,
nee Didymns, nee Chryfofiomus, nee Hilarius, nee
Cyrillus, nee Augufiinus, nee Beda ; fed legit Hiero
nymus, legit Erafmus in Britannico codice, & exftat
in Complutenfi editione, & in nonnullis Stephani
veteribus libris. Non convenit tamen in omnibus
inter iftos codices. Nam Britannicus legit fine
articulis is-xr-n^, Xoyo;, v.oci -nsviv^tx,. In NOSTRIS vero
leguntur articuli ; & propterea ctiam additum erat
fanBi epitheton Spiritui, ut ab eo diftinguatur cu
jus fit mentio in fequenti verficulo, quique in terra
coUocatur. ^ In calo, tv tw h^ixvu. Hoc deeft ia
feptem vetuftis codicihus, fed tamen omnino vide-
tur retinendum, ut tribus ip terra teftibus ifta ex
adverfo refpondeant. t^ Sermo, oAoy(^. Cur filius
Dei dicatur xoy©', expofuimus Joan. i. i. At
enim dices. Nemo in fua caufa idoneus eft teftis.
Hunc nodum ifte Chriftus explicat >^a. viii, 13,
& deinceps : qui locus iftum mire illuftrat, ut et alii
multi

IO APPENDIX.
multi apud hunc noftrum Evangeliftam, in quibu^'
foepe fit iftius teftificationis mentio. ^ Et hi tres
linum funt, y~ai sto» oi .t^ek £1/ £io-(. Id eft, it^
prorfus confentiunt, ac fi unus teftis efl"ent, uti
revere unum funt, fi na^txv fpedes. Sed de ilia
(ut mihi quidem videtur) non agitur hoc in loco:
quod et Gloffa ipfa interlinearis, quam vocant,
agnofcit. Sed & Complutenfis editio legit £«f to tv
tttrt, ad unum funt, id eft, in unum conveniunt, uti
jdegitur in fequenti rnembro.
VIII. In terra, nsri mi; y^jf. Syrus interpres, &
plurimi ex vetuftioribus, tum Gracis, tum Eati.
nis,, iftud non habent : quod, tamen, in Gracis
NOSTRIS codicihus, & apud veterem Latinum inter-
pretem legitur ; & fane videtur retinendum, nifi
proxime antecedens verficulus expungatur. f^ Et
hi tres in unum confentiunt, xai ot r^ztg sir to iv tta-n/.
Complutenfis editio hsec non legit hoc in loco, quas
tamen mihi vidcntur prorfus retinenda, ut intel-
ligamus hase omni teftimonia penitus confentire ;
& ad unum, et eundem, ilium fcopum tendere.
No. XII.
The Preface of Robert Stephens to his Edition
ofthe G?Y(?^ Teftament of A. D. 1550.
Robertus Stephanus Typographus regius, Sacrarum
literarum ftudiofis, S.
Superioribus diebus, Chriftiane leftor. Novum
Domini noftri JESU CHRISTI Teftamentum, qua,

APPENDIX. IS
qua, dictante Spiritu fanfto, fcriptum fuit lingua,
cum vetuftiffimis fedecim fcriptis exemplaribus,
quanta maxima potuimus cura , et diligentia, col.
latum, minore forma, minutioribufque Regiis
charafteribus, tibi excudimus ! Idem nunc iterum
et tertio, cum iifdem collatum, majoribus vero
etiam Regiis typis excufum, tibi offerimus ; iis
preefixis (ncquid defyderes) infertifve, aut in
cake pofitis, quse ufquam in fcriptis, aut excufis
leguntur codicihus : quse omnia, ajJgufta alteriu/j
forma capere non potuerat. Ad hsc, in marginfe
interiori varias codicum le6tiones addidimus :
quarum unicuique numeri Graci nota fubjunfta
eft, quse nomen exemplaris, unde fumpta eft,
indicet : aut exemplarium nomina, quum plures
funt numeri.
lis nanque placuit, primo, fecundo, ad fextum-
decimum ufque, nomina imponere : ut primo,
Complutenfem editionem intelligas, quie olim ad an-
- tiquifllma exemplaria fuit excufa : cui certe cum
noftris mirus erat in plurimis confenfus. Secundo,
exemplar vetuftiffimum, in Italia ab amicis colla
tum. Tertio, quarto, quinto, fexto, feptimo,'
oftavo, decimo, & quinto-decimo, ea quas ex
bibliotheca Regis habuimus. Cetera funt ea quas
undique corrogare licuit. Cujus, quidem, vetuf-
tiorum codicum collationis, Ao&.\ff\mos Hebraorum
authores habemus : quos poft redudum e Babylo nia

It APPENDIX.
niti populum Dei, quum facros veteris Teftamenti
libros difcrfepare verbis aliquando, aut apicibus,
etiam comperiffent, diverfam in margine ledlionem
' adnotafle, teftantur hodie libri ad exemplaria fcrip-
ta excufi. Capitum., praeterea, juxta Graces divi-j
fionem, in interiori margine numeris Gracis nota*
vimus, quibus refpondent in Evangcliis necpxxoiix
in fuperiore, & inferiore, paginarum parte : in
Epiftolis, vero, ipfa wAaipasa fingulis Epiftolis
prasfixa. Latinorum autem capita numeris & ipfa
Gracis, in margine exteriori fignificavimus :, ip-
fofque Latinos fequuti, breviora capita in quatuor,
longiora in feptem, partes diftribuimus : literis
alphabeticis majufculis partes illas in eodem mar
gine fignantes. Ubi etiam, et Latinorum more,
notavimus locum, vel ex Evangelifta aliquo, vd
ex Apoftolicis fcriptis, qui cum prsfenti loco aut
idem fit prorfus, aut non parum abfimilis : aut
qui certe, cum ipfo coUatus, lucem aliquam afferre
poffe videatur : adjefta litera majufcula, quas ca
pitis eam partem indicet, in qua qujeri locus ilie
debeat. Locos ex Veteri teftamento aut ad ver
bum, aut eodem fenfu citatos, magna cura figna*
Vimus, Nee tamen omifimus Etifebii Cafarienfis
canones, fed iis quoque in interiori margine locum
dedimus, ut Gracis etiam fatisfieret.. Sed nenu-
merum quidem rix'^v, prefertim quum is in noftri'S
prope omnibus codicibus inveniretur, in cake cu-
j-ufque Evangelii, & Epiftolas. Quam rationem
recenfendi

APPENDIX. ,3
recenfendi rtj/ar, & apud nonnullos prophano*
fcrip tores videre eft.
Hsc vero omnia, ut te alacriorem ad facrofanfti
Novi Teftamenti Servatoris noftri, Dei, lefbioneui
redderemus, nobis effe fufcepta exiftimato. Noftris
igitur utere, & fruere laboribus, dum ad tandia
deiyderata Jufiini, philofophi, & martyris, acciii«
gimur opera. Vale. No XIII.
Incipit Prologus feptem Epiftolarum Canonicarum,
' Non idem ordc eft apud Gracos, qui integre fa-
piunt, et fidem reftam fedantur, epiftolarum fep..,
tem, quas Canonica nuncupantur, qui in Latinis.
Godicibus invenltur. Qiiod quia Petrus primus,
eft in numero Apoftolorum, prioias funt etiam ejus
fpiftolse in ordine CEeterarum. Sed ficut Evan-
geliftas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus, ita
has proprio ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus.
Eft enim prima earum una Jacobi ; Petri duas ;
Johannis tres ; et Jttda una : Qu^ fi ut ab eis di-
geftas funt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter
in Latinum verterentur eloquium, nee ambiguita-
tem legentibus facerent, neg fermonum fefe varie
tas impugnaret ; illo prsscipue loco ubi de unitate
Trinitatis in ^r\m2,fJohairds epiftola pofitum legi-
;jius. In qua etiam ab infidelibus tranflaroribus mukiim

14 APPENDIX.
multum erratum effe a fidei veritate comperimus j
trium tantiim vocabula, hoc eft, aquas, fanguinis,
ct fpiritus, in fua editione ponentes, et Patris, Ver-
bique, dc Spiritus teftlmonium omittentes, in quo
maxime et fides Catholica roboratur, et Patris, ac ,
Filii, ac Spiritus fanfti una divinitatis fubftantia
comprobatur. In cseteris vero Epiftolis, quantum
a noftra aliorum diftet editio, leftoris prudentis
derelinquo. Sed tu, virgo Chrifti, Eufiochium, dum a mi
impenfius Scripturas veritatem inquiris, meam quo-
dammodo fenedlutem invidorum dentibus corro-
dendam exponis, qui me falfarlum, corruptorem-
que facrarum Scripturarum, pronunciant. Sed
ego, in tali opere, nee zemulorum meorum invi-
dentiam pertimefco, nee fandts Scripturse verita
tem pofcentibus denegabo.
(Hieronymi divina Bibliotheca, per Martianay,
Edit. Pariftis, A. D. 1693, page 1667 — 9.
No. XIV.
Extracts from VICTOR VITENSIS,
De Persecutione Vandalica.
^Note. This Hiftory is comprifed in three Books^
containing fifty-three pages in folio.) , The

APPENDIX. ,5
The Edid of Huneric mentioned in page 24.
RexHunericus VandalorumU Alanorum, univer-
fis Epifcopis Qmouftanis.
Non femel, fed fspius, conftat effe prohibitum,
Ul in fortibus Vandalorum facerdotes veftri con
ventus minime celebrarent, ne fua fedudione ani
mas fubverterent Chriftianas. Qiiam rem fper-
nentes, plurimi repeiti funt contra interdidum
Miffas in fortibus Vandalorum egiffe, afferentes fe
integram regulam Chriftianse fidei tenere. Et quia
in Provinciis a Deo nobis conceffis fcandalum effe
nolumus, ideo Dei providentia cum confenfu fanc-
torum Epifcoporum noftrorum hoc nos ftatuiffe
cognofcite, ut ad diem Kalendarum Februariarum
proxime futurarum, amiffa omni excufatione for-
midinis, omnes Carthaginem veniatis, ut de ratione
fidei cum noftris venerabilibus Epifcopis poffitis
inire conflidum, et de fidei Omousianorum, quam
defenditis, de divinis 5CKi?'tv^iz proprie approbetis,
quo poffit agnofci fi integram fidem teneatis. Hu
jus autem Edidi tenorem, univerfisEpiicopis tuis
per univerfam Africam conftitutis, direximus.
Data fub die xiii Kal. Jun. Anno vii Humrici.
Appropinquabat jam futurus dies ilie calumni-
ofus Kakndarum Februariarum, ab eodem ftatu- tus.

i6 APPEND! X.
tus. Conveniunt non foliim univerf^ Africse,
veriam etiam infularum multarum Epifcopi, afflic-
tione, et mserore, confedi. Fit fikntium diebus
multis, quoufque peritos quofque et dodifllmos
viros exinde fcpararet, calumniis appofitis enecan-
dos. Nam unum ex ipfo choro Dodorum, no
mine L^tum, ftrenuum, atque dodiffimum virum,
poft diuturnos carceris fqualores, incendio concre-
mavit, asftimans tali exemplo timorem incutiens
reliquos elifurum. Tandem venitur ad difputa-
tionis conflidum, ad locum fcilicet quem delege-
rant adverfarii. Evitantes igitur noftri vocifera-
tionis tumultus, ne forte poftmodum Ariani dice-
rent quod eos noftrorum opprefferit multitudo,
cligunt de fe noftri qui pro omnibus refponderent,
decem. Collocat fibi Cyrila cum fuis fatellitibus
in loco excelfo fuperbiflimum thronum, aftantibus
noftris. Dixeruntque noftri epifcopi : Ilia eft
femper grata coUocatio, ubi fuperba non domina-
tur poteftatis elatio : fed ex confenfu communi
venitur, ut cognitoribus decernentibus, partibus
agentibus, quod verum eft agnofcatur. Nunc,
autem, qui erit cognitor, qui examinator, vel libra
juftitias aut bene prolata confirmet, aut prave
affumpta refellat ? Et cum talia et alia dicerentur,
notarius regis refpondit : Patriarcha Cyrila, dixit,
legatur nobis. Quo concedente iftud fibi nomen
Cyrila affumpfit. Et exinde ftrepitum concitan-
tes, calumniari adverfarii coeperunt. Et quia hoc
noftri.

APPENDIX* J7
hoftri petierant, utfaltem fi examinare non licebat,
prudenti multitudini vel expedare liceret, juben-
tur univerfi filii catholics ecclefia, qui aderant,
centenis fuftibus tundi. Tunc damare coepit
beatus Eugenius: Videat Deus vim quam patimur,
cognofcat affiidionem perfecutionum quam a per-
fedutoribus fuftinemus, Converfique noftri, Cy-
rilce dixerunt: Propone quod difponis. Cyrila
dixit : Nefcio latine. Noftri epifcopi dixerunt :
Semper te ktihe effe locutum manifefto novimus,
modo excufare non debes, prsefertim quia tu hujus
rei incendium fufcitafti. Et videns catholicps epif-
copos. ad conflictum magis fuiffe paratps, omnino
audientiamdiverfis caviUationibusdeclinavit. Quod
ante noftri providentes, libellum de fide confcrip-
ferant, fatis decenter fufficienterque confcriptum,
dicentes : Si noftram fidem cognofcere defideratis,
hgec eft Veritas quam tenemus.
Professio Fidei Catholics.
Regali imperio, fidei catholicse, quam tenemus,
piascipimur reddere rationem : ideoque aggredi-
mur, pro noftrarum virium mediocritate, divino
fulti adjutorio, quod credimus & prsedicamus,
breviter intimate. Primum igitur de unitate fub
ftantia Patris & Filii, quod Grsci op.s<no'v dicunt,
exponendum nobis effe cognofcimus. Patreni er
go, & Filium, & Spiritum fandum, ita in ui^itate
B deitatis

iS APP EN D I X.
deitatis profitemur, ut & Patrem in fuas proprie
tate perforias fubfiftere^ & Filium nihilominus in
propria extare perfona, atque Spiritum fandunrt
perfonae fuae proprietatem retinere, ifideli corifefli-
cne fatea'mur; non cumdem afferentes Patrem quem
Filium, neque Filium confite'ntes qui Pater fit,
aut Spiritus fahdu's : neque ita Spirituin fandum ¦
accipimus,ut autPater fit,autFilius: fed ifigeftitum
Patrem, & de Patre genitum Filium, & de Paire et
Fili'oprocedentemfpiritum fandum, unius credimus
cfiie fubftanti.'E vel eflentis : quia ingeniti Patris,
et geniti Filii, & procedentis Spiritus fandi, una
eft deltas, tres vero perfonarum prOprietJites. Et
quia contra hanc catholicam, vel apoftolicam fidem
exorta lifcrefis NoviTateM quamdaKi induxerat,
afferens Filium noh de Patris fubftantia genitum,
fed ex nullis exitantibus, id eft ex nihilo, fubfti-
tiffe : ad hanc impietatisprofefllonem, -quse- contra
fidem emerferat, refelkndam,- & penitus abokn-
dam, 0^80-18 fermo Grsecus pofitus eft, quod inter-
pretatur unius fubftantia, vel effentis, fignificans
Filium non ex nullis extantibus, nee -ex alia fub-
ftantia, fed de Patre, natum effe. Qiii ergo putac
omoufion 'auferendum, ex nihilo vult afferere Filium
extitiffe. Sedfi ex nihilo non eft, ex Patre fine
dubio eft:, & rede omovfios^ id eft, unius cum Patre
fubftantias, Filius eft. Ex Patre autem effe, id eft,
unius cum Patre fubftantije, his tettimo^is approba-
tur, Apoftolo dicente : Qui eum fit fplendor gloris,
&figUra fubftantias ejus, gerens quoque omnia ver bo

APPENDIX. 19
BO virtms fu£e. Et ipfe iterum Deus Pater^ in-
credulorum perfidiam objurgans, qui pr^dicantis
per Prophetas Filii vpcem in fua fubftantia manen- .
tem, audire noluerunt, dixit: Npn audierunt vo
cem fubftantise. Qiiam vocem fubftantise cum
tam terribili inteftatibne increpansj ad eumdem
Prophetam loquitur, dicens 1 Super morltes accipi-
te plandum^ & fuper femitas deferti ludum, quia
defecerunt,eo quodnon finthomines : non audierunt
Vocem fubftantias, .a volatibus coeli ufque ad peco-
ra. Et rurflim eos, qui a profeffione unius fub
ftantia decUnantes, in eadem fidei fubftantia ftare
holuerunt, increpat, dicens ; Si ftetiffent in fub
ftantia mea, avertiffem utique eos a via fua mala^
& a pefllmis cogitationibus fuis, Et iterum non
extra fubftantiam Patris Filium cohfitendum, fed
eadem fickUter mentis oculis contuendum, aper-
. tifllme declaratutj dum dicit Propheta : Quis fte-
tic in fubftantia Domini, & vidit verbum ejus ?
Patris ergo fubftantiam Filium effe, Propheticis
jam olim defignatum eftoraculisj dicente Salomo-
ne : Subftantiam enim, & dukedinem tuam, quaiii
in filios habes, oftcndebas, quam in figura, & ima
gine, panis ccekftis, populo Ifrael coelitus appa
ret profluxiffe : Quod ipfe Dominus in Evangelio
expofuit, dicens : Non Moyfes dedit vobis panem
de ccelo, fed Pater meus dat vobis panem de cslo :
fe utique panem effe defignans, cum dicit. Ego fum
panis vivus, qui de ccelo defcendi : de quo etiam
B 2 Propheta

20 APPENDIX.
Propheta David dicit : . Panem lAngelorum man*
ducavit homo. : Namque ut adhuc evidentius Pa--
.tris& Filii fiibftantis unitas, & divinitatis jequa-
litas, oftendatur, ipfe in evangelio dicit: Ego &
Pater unum fumus. Quod .non ad unitatem tan-
tummodo voluntatis, fed ad unam refertur eam--
demque fubftantiarri, quia non dixit. Ego & Pa*:
ter unum volumus,. fed unum. fumus. Ex eo enim
quod lunt, non ex eo tantum quod volunt, paternaj
unitatis declaratur affert'io. Item Joannes Evange
lifta dicit; Propterea quasrebant eum Judaei inter-
ficere, quia non folum folvebat fabbatum, .fed:&
Patrem fuura dicebat Deum, aequakm fe faciens
Deo. Quod .utique non ad Judaeos eft. penitus
referendum,, quia Evangelifta veraciter dixit de Fi
lio, quia squalen! fe faciebat Deo, Item in Evan
gelio fcriptum eft; Qiisecunque Pater facit, ea
dem, & Filius facit, fimiliter & ficut Pater fufci-
tat morcuos, & vivificat,, ita & Filius .quos vult
vivificat. Item -, ut homines honorificent Filium,
ficut honorificant Patrem. .ffiqualis enim honor,
iiou nifi sequalibus exhibetur. Item ibi Filius ad
Patrem dicit. Omnia mea tua funt, & tua mea.
Item : Philippe, qui me videt, videt & Patrem :
Quomodo tu dicis, Oftende nobis Patrem ? Hoc ,
non dixiffet, nifi Patri per omnia fuiffet sequalis.
Item ipfe Dominus dixit : Creditis in Deum, &
in me credite. ,Et adhuc ut unitatem asqualitatis
demonftraret, ait : Nemo novit Filium nifi Pater, neque

APPENDIX. ?i
Peque Patrem quis novit nifi Filius, & cui volue-
,nt Filius revelai-e,: Et ficut Filius cui vult revelat
Patrem, ita & Pa.ter , revelat Filium .; ficut jpfe
Petro ait, confitentieum,Chriftum Fil;:um„Dci vi'vi :
Beatu5 es, iqquit, Simon Barjona, quia caro &c
fanguis npn revelavit \ibi, fed Pater meus qui in
cgelis eft. Et iterum Filius dicit : Nemo venit ad
Patrem, nifi per me, & nemo venit ad me, nifi Pater
qui mifit me, attraxerit eum, Unde claret Eequali-
tatem Patris & Filii ad fe invicem credentes addu-
cere. Item dicit,: Si cognoviffetis me, & Patrem
-meurn utiqiie cognoviffetis, &a mode noftis eum,
& vidiftis eum. Verum quia duas in Filio
J profitemur effe naturas, id eft, Deum verum, &
hominem verum, corpus & animam habentem,
quicquid ergo excelknci fublimitatis potentia de
CO referunt fcripturas, admirandae ejus divinitati
tribuendum fentimus : & quicquid infra honorem
ccekftis potentis de eodem humilius. enarratur,
^nop V?rbo Dei,_ fed homini reputamys affunipto.
Secundum divinitatem ergo eft, quod fuperius
diximus, uIdI ait ; Ego & Pater unum fumus. Et :
Qui videt me, videt & Patrem. Et : Omnia qufe-
cunquePaterfacit, eadem Filius fimiliter : Vel cete
ra qus fuperius continentur. Ilia vero qu;^ deeo
fecundum hominem referuntur, ifta funt : Parer ma
jor me eft. Et: Non veni facere voluntatem meam,
,f?d voluntatem ejus qui mif« me- E";: Pater, fi fier
B 3 po^^-"

2?

APPENDIX.

poteft, t'ranfeat a me calix ifte : vel cum de cruce
dicit: Deus, Deiis meus, quare me dereliquifti ? Et
iterum ex perfona Filii Propheta dicit ; De ventre
matris me^ Deus, meus es tu : Vel cum mirtoran-
gelis indicatur, & quam plura his fimilia, quae
ftudio brevitatis non inferuimus, Filius ergo Dei,
nuUis conditionem ncceffitatibus obftridus, fed
libera divinitatis potentia, ita, qu$ noftra funt,
mirabili pietate affumpfit, ut a fuis, quje divina
funt, omnino non deftiterit : quia divinitas nee
augmentum admittit, nee patitur detrimentum.
Unde gratias agimus Domino noftro Jefy Chrifto,
qui propter nos, & propter noftram falutem, de
ccelo defcendit, fua paffiofte nos redemit, fua mor
te vivificavit, fua akentione glorificavit : Qui fe-
dens ad dexteram Patris, venturus eft judicare vi
vos, et mortuos : juftis zeternEc vitas premium lar-
giturus, impiis atque increduHs merita fupplicia
redditurus, Profitemur itaque Patrem de feipfo, hoc eft de
eo quod ipfe eft, fempiterne atque ineffabiliter Fili
um genuiffe, non extrinfecus, non ex nihilo, noil
CX alia genuiffe materia, fed ex Deo natum effe :
ct qui de Deo natus eft, non aliud eft quam id
quod Pater eft, et idcirco unius fubftantias eft,
quia Veritas nativitatis diverfitatem non admittit
generis, Nam fi alterius a Patre fubftantise eft,
aut ve'rus Filius non eft, aut (quod nefas eft dicere)
degener

,A P P.E N DIX. 23
degener natus eft. Eft enim verus Filius, ficut
Joannes ait : Ut fimus in vero Filio ejus, Non
eft etiam degenpr, quia Deus verus de Deo natus
eft vero : ficut idem Joannes Evangelifta exequl-
tur, dkens : Hic eft verus Deus, & vita sterna.
Et ipfe Dominus in Evangelio : Ego fum, inquit,
via, Veritas,, & vita. Ergo fi aliunde fubftantiam
non habet, de Patre habet. Si de Patre habet,
unius fubftantiae cum Patre eft. Sed fi unius fub
ftantia non eft, ergo non de Patre, fed aliunde
eft : g^uoniam unde eft, inde fubftantiam habeat
neceffe eft. Omnia enim ex nihilo, Fillius vero
de Patre. De duobus eligat quifque quod velit :
aut det ei fubftantiam de Patre, aut fateatur ex
nihilp fubftitiffe. Sed Propheticum forfitan pbijci-
tur teftlmonium: Generationemejus quis enarra-
bit ? Cum ego non dixerim, Enarra mihi modum
¦ yel qualitatem, divine generationis, et tanti fe-
creti arclffanum humanis verbis enlintia, quoniam
unde natus fit, non quem .ad modum natus fit, re-
quifivi. Divina enim generatio inenarrabilis eft,
non ignorabilis. Nam ufque adeo non eft ignora-
bilis, id eft, non ignoratur unde fit, ut & Pater
de ipfo genuiffe, & Filius de Patre fe natum f=e-
piffime proteftetur. Quod nullus omnino ambigit
Chriftianus,/icut in Evangelio demonftratur, ipfo
Eilio dicente : Qui autem non credit, jam judica-
tus eft, quia non credidit in nomine unigeniti
Tjlii Dei, Item 'joannes Evangelifta dicit : Et
¦ * vidimus

24- APPENDIX.
vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quafi unigeniti 4
Patre. Ergo profeffionem noftram brevi fermone con,
cludimus. Si vere de Patre natus eft, unius fub
ftantise eft, & verus Filius eft. Sed fi unius fub
ftantia non eft, nee verus Filius eft : Et fi verus
Filius non eft, nee verus Deus eft : aut fi verus
Deus eft, & tamen de patris fubftantias non eft-,
ingenitus ergo & ipfe eft. Sed quia ingenitus non
eft, fadura ergo eft, utputatur aliunde fubfiftens,
fi de Patris fubftantias non eft. Sed abfit hoc ita
credere. Nos enim unius fubftantise cum Patre
filium profitemur, deteftantes Sabellianam hsere-
fim, qus ita Sandam Trinitatem confundit, ut
eumdem dicat effe Patrem quem Filium, eum-
demque credat effe Spiritum fandum, non fervans
tres in unitate perfoniaSf
Sed forfitan obijcltur, cum ' Ingenitus Pater fit,
genitus Filius, non fieri poffe unam eamdemque
effe fubftantiam geniti, atque ingeniti ; cum utiquie,
fi ficut ingenitus Pater eft, ingenitus effet & Fi
lius, tunc magis diverfa poffet effe fubftantia, quia
unufquifque a feipfo fubfiftens, communem fub
ftantiam cum altero non haberet. Cum vero in
genitus Pater de feipfo, id eft, de eo quod ipfe eft:,
fi quid illud eft aut dici poteft, (immo quia ut eft
dici omnino non poteft) Filium generavit, appa- rex

APPENDIX. iS
tet unam effe gignentis, genitique, fubftantiam :
quia Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Filium effe
veraciter profitemur. Nam lucem effe Patrem,
Joannes apoftolus teftis eft, dicens : Qiiia Deus
lux eft, & tenebr^ in eo non funt ulls. Item de
Filio ait : Et vita erat lux hominum, & lux in
tenebris lucet, & tenebras eam non comprehen-
derunt. Et infra : Erat lumen verum, quod illu-
mmat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mun
dum. Unde apparet Patrem, & Filium, unius
effe fubftantias, dum lucis, & luminis, diverfa non
poteft effe fubftantia, ejus fcilicet qusedefe gignit,
l£ qu^ de gignente exiftit.
Denique ne aliquis inter Patrem, & Filium, di
verfitatem naturalis luminis introducat, ideo apof
tolus de eodem Filio dicit : Qui cum fit fplendor
glorise, & figura fubftantise ejus. In quo eviden
tius & co^ternus Patri, & infeparabilis a Patre, &
uniUs cum eo effe fubftantias-, perdocetur : dum luci
fplendor eft femper coseternus, dum fplendor a luce
nunquam feparatus eft, dum fplendor a luce, natura
fubftantiae, nunquam poteft effe diverfus. Qui enim
fplendor lucis eft, idem & Dei Patris virtus eft : Sem-
piternus ergo propter virtutis asternitatem, infepara
bilis propter claritadinis unitatem. Et hoc eft quod
nos fideliter profitemur, Filium de Patris fubftantia
natum : ficut Ipfe PaterDeus apertiflimum perhibet
teftlmonium. Qui ut de fua ineffabilis natura;
fubftantia proprium Fiiium genuiffe monftraret, ad

26 A P P E N D I X,
ad inftruendam fragilitatis noftrai imperitiam, ut
nos ex vifibilibus ad invifibilia erigeret, terrenas
nativitatis vocabulum ad divinse generationis trax
it exemplum, dicens : Ex utero ante luciferum
genui te. Quid clarius, quid lucukntius, effari
divinitas dignaretur ? Qiiibus indiciis, quibus
€xiftentium rerum exemplis, proprietatem genera
tionis potuit intimare, quam ut, per uteri appeL
lationem, proprietatem genetricis oftenderet ?. Np9
quia corporeis compofitus eft membris,,aut aliqui
bus artuum lineament.'s diftindus j fed quia nos
aliter veritatem divinae generationis, auditu mentis,
percipere non poffemus, nifi humani uteri provQr
caremur vocabulo, ut ambigi ultra non poffet
de Dei fubftantia natum effe, quem conftat ex Pa
tris utero exftitiffe. Credentes ergo Deum Patrem
de fua fubftantia impaflibiliter Filium generafle,
iion dicimus ipfam fubftantiam aut divifam efle
in Filio, aut diminutionem pertuliffe in Patre :
ct per hoc pafllpnis potuiffe vicio fubjacere. Abfit
enim a nobis, ut talia vel opinemur, vel cogitemus,
de Deo : quia nos perfedum Patrei-n, perfedum
Filium, fine fui diminutione, fine aliqua derivati-
one, fine omni, omnino, paffionis infirmitate, ge
nuiffe fideliter profitemur. Nam qui obijcit Deo,
quod fi de feipfo genuit, divifionis vicium pertu^
lit : poteft dicere, quia et laborem fenfit quando
tiniverfa condidit, et ob hoc, die feptima ab om-
ni fuo opere requievit. Sed nee in .generandd de
feipfo

APPENDIX. 27
feipfo paffionem, vel diminutionem, aliquam fenfit,
nee in condendo univerfa fatigationem aliquam per-
tnlir. Namque ut evidentius nobis divinae genera
tionis impaffibilitas infinuaretur, Deum ex Deoi
lumen ex ' lumine, filium profitendum accepimus.
Si ergo in eflicientia vifibilis, ac mundani, luminis
tale aliquid invenltur, ut lumine ex lumine fump-
to, et per quamdam generationis nativitatem exor-
to, ipfa luminis origo, quae ex fe lumen aliud de
dit, nee minui, nee uUum omnino detrimentum
miniftrati ex fe luminis perpeti contingat : quanto
redius, et melius, de divini et ineffabilis luminis
natura credendum eft, quae ex feipfa lumen gene-
rans, minui omnino non potuit ? Unde aequalis eft
Patri Filius, non natus ex tempore, fed gignenti
costernus : ficut fplendor. ab igne genilius, gig
nenti manifeftatur asqualis.
Hjec de Patris et Filii asqualitate, vel de fub-
§:antis unitate (quantum brevitatis ratio finit)dix-
iffe fufficiat : fupereft ut de Spiritu fando, quem
Patri, ac Filio, confubftantivum credimus, coasqua-
km, et coaeternum, dicamus, et teftimoniis appro-
bemus. Licet enim hsec veneranda Trinitas pef-
fonis, ac nominibus, diftinda fit, non tamen ob
hoc afe, atque a fua asternitate, difcreparc creden-
da eft, fed manens ante fascula, divinitatis m Pa
tre et Filio et Spiritu fando, vere ac proprie cre-
¦dityi*, ncc dividi noftris interpretationibus poteft, nse

%B APPENDIX.
nee rurfus verfa in unam perfonam Trinitas ipfa
confundi, Haec fides plena, hase noftra creduli-
tas eft. Idcirco Deos nee ffiftimari patimur, nee
yocari, fed unum Deum in praedidis perfonis, ac
nominibus, confitemur. Inenarrabilis enim divi
nitas, non ut concludi, aut apprehendi, velut vo-
cabulis poffet, intra nomina, perfpnafque, fe prae-
ftitit : fed Ut id, quod erat, effe npfceretur, intelli-
gentiam fui ex parte, quam capere humanae. meiv
tis auguftias prsevalebant, credentibus dedit, Pro
pheta dicente : Nifi credideritis, non intelligetia.
Una eft ergo Trinitatis deltas, et in hujus vocabu-
li appellatione, fignificatio eft unius fubftantias, non
unius perfons. Ad quam rein, fidelibus compra-
bandam in teftlmonium fui divinitas ipfa multis,
et creberrimis, conteftationibus femper affuit. Li
ceat ergo ob brevitatis compendia, ex multis pau-
ca proferre, quoniam vers probatio majeftatis, ta-r
metfi habet pluralitatem teftimoniorum, plurali-
tate tamen non indiget, quoniam credent! pauca
fufficiunt. Primum igitur de Veteris teftamenti libris, poft
ttiam novi, Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum fandum,
unius docebimus effe fubftantis, libro Genefis fie
inchoante : In principio fecit Deus coslum, et ter
ram. Terra autem erat invifibilis, et incompofita,
ct tenebras erant fuper abyffum, et fpiritus Dei fe
rebatur fuper aquas. Ilk principium, qui Judseis, quis

A P P E N D I X 29
quis effet interrogantibus, dixit : Principium qui.
ct loquor vobis. Superferebatur fpiritus Dei fu
per aquas, utpote creator virtute potentiae fus con-
tinens creaturam, ur, ex his viva omnia produdu-
rus, ipfe rudibus elementis ignis proprii fomenta
prasftaret, et jam tunc myfterio emicante baptif-
matis,:virtutem fandificationis liquoris, natura pcr-
ciperer, primaque ad vitam corpora animata pro-
duceret : David pro inde afpirante ; Vtrbo Domi
ni coeli firmati funt, et fpiritu oris ejus omnis virtus
eorum. Vide quam plena fit brevitas, et quam
clare in facramentum unitatis recurrit. Patrem in
Domino, in verbi fignificatione Filium ponens,
Spiritum fandum altiffimi ex ore nuncupavit. Ec
ne vocis editio acciperetur in Verbo, ccelos per eum
afferit effe firmatos. Ne autem flatus in Spiritu
reputetur, ccekftis in eo virtutis. plenitudinemde-
monftravit. Nam ubi virtus, ibi necefle eft per
fona fubfiftens, Ubi omnis non ablata a Patre,
ct Filio, fed confummata fignificatur in Spiritu
fando , non ut folus habeat quod in Patre, et Fi
lio eft, fed ut totum habeat cum utroque- Et ite
rum cum de vocatione gentium Dominus loquere-
tur, intra unum divinitatis nomen Spiritum fanc-
tum praedicans, ait : Euntes docete omnes gentes,
baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spi
ritus fandi, Et iterum cceleftia Corinthiis preca-
tus Apoftolus hase fubdidit : Gratia Domini noftri
Jefu Chrifti, et charitas Dei, et communicatio fandi

so APPENDIX.
iandi Spiritus^ cum omnibus vobis. Et ut apef-i
tius irt hac Trinitate unitatem fubfliantiie fateamur^
illud etiam nobis eft intuendum, quomodo Deus,
cum de mundi et hominis creatione difponeret,
facramentuni Trinitatis oftenderet, diCens : Facia*
mus hominem ad imaginem, et fimilitudinem, nof*
tram. Cum dicit noftram^ oftendit utique non u-
nius. CUm.vero imaginem ct fimilitudinem pro-i
fert, aequalitatem diftindionis perfonarum infmuat,
ut in eodem opere Trinitatis fit aperta cognitio, in
qUo nee pluralitas caffa eft, nee fimilitudo diffenti-
cns, dum etconfequentia fie loquuntUr: Et dixit
Deus, et facit, et benedixit Deus. Et neceffe eft
ut creationis totius audor, Deus unus fit. Quam
fidei rationem antiqua, denique, per Mofen benc-
didio pandit et comprobat, qua benedicere popU-
lum facramento trinae invocationis jubetur. Ait
enim Deus ad Mofen : Sic benedkes populum me*
Um,' et ego benedicam illos. Benedicat te Domi'*
nus, et cuftodiat te. Illuminet Dominus faciem
fuam fuper te, et mifereatur tui. Attollat Domi-*
nus faciem fuam fuper tc, et det tibi pacem. Quod
hoc ipfum Propheta David affirmat, dicens: Bene-
dicat nos Deus, Deus nofter, benedicat nos Deus,
et metuant eum omnes fines terrx. Quam Trini
tatis unitatem fuperna Angelorum virtuteshymno
venerantur, et ter numero, Sandus, Sandus, Sanc
tus Dominus Deus Sabaoth, indefinenti canentes ore.

APPENDIX. 31
ore, in unius faftigium dominationis gloriam ejus
exaltant. Quod ut adhuc apertius fidelium fenfi-
bus inculcetur, cceleftium myfteriorum confcium
producimus Paulum. Ait enim : Divifiones au
tem donationum funt, idem autem Spiritus : et di
vifiones miniftrationum funt, idem autem Domi
nus : et divifiones operationum funt, idem vero
Deus qui operatur omnia in omnibus. Et certe
fias divifionum differentias pro qualitate ac merito
^articipantium, Spiritum fandum docuit operari,
cum ipfarum gratiarum differentias partiretur,' in
ultimis intulit, dicerts : Haec autem omnia ope
ratur unus atque idem Spiritus, dividens propria
enrcuique ,,prout vult. Unde nullius ambiguitati
relinquitur locUs, quin clareat Spiritum fandum
ct Deum effe, effuse voluntatis adorem, qui cunda
Operari, et feeUndum propriae voluntatis arbitrium
divinas difpcnfationis dona largiri^ apertiffimc de
monftratur, Qiiia ubi voluntaria diftributio prse-
dicatur, non poteft videri conditio fervitutis. In
creatura enim fervitus intelligenda eft, in Trinitate
vero dominatio, ac libertas. Et ut adhuc luce cla
rius UNIUS DIVINITATIS^ESSE CUMPaTRE, ETFiLIO,
Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evance-
LIST^iE testimonio COMPROBATUR, AIT NAM<ilJE :
Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coe-
£.0, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et
HI tres unum sunt. Numquid ait tres in diffe
rentia qualitate fejundi, aut quibufiibet divcrfi- tatum

sa ¦ A P P E N D I X.
tatum gradibus longo feparationis intervallo divi-
fi .'' Sed tres, inquit, unum funt. Ut autem ma
gis magifque fandi Spiritus cum Patre, et Filio,:
una divinitas in creandis rebus omnibus demon-
ftraretui", habes creatorem Spiritum fandum in
libro Job primo : Spiritus, inquit, divinus eft qui
fecit me, et Spiritus omnipotentis qui docet me.
EtDavid dicit: Emitte Spiritum tuum, et creabun^
tur, et renovabis faciem terrs. Si renovatip,- et
creatio, per Spiritum erit, fine dubio et principium
creationis fine fpiritu hon fuit. Poft creationem igi
tur oftendamus,. quia vivificat etiam Spiritus fane-
tu^, ficut Pater et Filius. Equidem de perfona
Patris refert Apoftolus : Teftor in confpedu Dei,
qui vivificat omnia. Vitarn vero dat Chriftus,
Oves, inquit, meae vocem meam audiunt, et ego
vitam asternam do illis. VivificamUr vero a Spi
ritu fandoj ipfo dicente Domino : Spiritus eft
qui vivificat. Ecce una vivificatio Patris, et Fil
ii, et Spiritus fandi, apertemonftrata eft. Prs-;
fcientiam rerum omnium in Domino effe, et oc-
cultorum cognidonem, licet nemo Chriftianus ig-
noret, tamen ex Danielis libro monftrandum e{ti
Deus, inquit, qui occultorum cognitor es, qui
prsfcius omnium antequam nafcantur, Haec eadem
praefcientia in Chrifto eft, ficut refert Evangelifta. .
Ab initio a;item fciebat Jefus quis effet eum tra-
diturus, vel qui effent non credentes in eum. Quod
fit autem occultorum cognitor, ex hoc manifeftum

APPENDIX; 33
eft, cum obfcura confilia Judseorum traducens
dicebat : Quid cogitatis nequani in cordibus vef-
tris ? Similiter praefcire omnia Spiritum fandum
ipk manifeftavit dicens ad apoftolos : Cum ve
nerit Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnia, & ven-
tura annunciabit vobis. Qui ventura nuntiare
perhibetur, praefcire omnia non dubitatur, quia
ipfe fcrutatur etiam altitudines Dei, & novit om
nia quae in Deo funt : ficut memorat Paulus di
cens : Spiritus enim omnia fcrut»tur, etiam altitu-
diijies Dei. Item in eodem loco : Sicut nemo fcic
hominum quse funt hominis nifi fpiritus ejus qui in
ipfo eft : ita nemo fcit quae funt Dei nifi Spiritu^
Dei. Ad intelligendam vero potentiam Spiritus
fandi, pauca de terribilibus proferamus, Ven-
diderat poffeffionem, ut fcriptum eft in Adibua ,
Apoftolorum, fuppreffa parte pecuniae, dolofus
difcipulus, reliquum pro toto ante pedes ponen?
Apoftolorum. Offendit Spiritum fandum quem
putabat latere, Sed quid ad eum dixit conrinuo
beatus Petrus: Anania, quare fatanas repkvit
cor tuum, ut mentireris Spiritui Sando ? & infra :
non es mentitus hominibus, kd Deo, Atque ita
percuffus virtute ejus cui mentiri voluerat, ex-
piravit. Quid 'hic vult beatus Petrus intelligi
Spiritum Sandum ? Utique clarum eft, cum di.
ck: Non es mentitus hominibus, fed Deo. Mani-
C feftum.

34 APPENDIX.
feftum eft ergo, quoniam qui mentitur Spiritui
fando, Deo mentitur : & qui credit in Spiritum
fandum, credit in Deum. Tak aliquid, imo for
tius quiddam, dominus in Evangelio oftendit:
omne peccatum, & blafphemia, remitritur ho
minibus : qui autem blafphemat in Spiritum
fandum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc feculo,
neque in futuro. Ecce rerribili fententia irrernif-
fibik dicit effe peccatum ei qui in Spiritum
fandum blafphcmaverit. Compara huic fententiae
illud quod fcriptum eft in libro Regum : Si pec- ,
cando peccaverit vir in virum, orabunt pro eo :
fi autem in Dominum peccaverit, quis orabit pro
eo ? Si ergo blafphemare in Spiritum fandum, &
peccare in Deum fimik, id eft inexpiabile crimen
eft, jam quantus fit Spiritus fandus, unufquifque
cognofcit. Deus, qucd ubique fit prefens, im-
pleat omnia, ore difcimus Efais : Ego, inquit,
Deus approximans, & non de longinquo ? Si
abfconditus fuerit homo in abfconditis, ergo ego
non videbo eum ? nonne ccelum & terram ego
impleo .? Quod autem Deus fit ubique, falvator
in evangelio : Ubicunque, ait, fuerint duo vel
tres colkdi in nomine meo, ibi & ego fum in
medio eorum. De fpiritu adsque fando, quod
adfit ubique, dicit Propheta ex Perfona Dei : Ego
in vobis, & fpiritus- meus ftat in medio veftrum,
Et Salomon ait : Spiritus domini repkvit orbem
terrarum, & hoc, quod continet omnia, fcienriam habei;

APPENDIX 3g
Jiabet vocis. Item David dkit : Quo ibo a Spiritu
iuo,^ & ^ £ack tua quo fugiam ? fi afcendero
m coslum, tu illic es ; fi dekendero in infers
num, ades: Si fumpfero pennas meas in di-
redum, et babitavero in extremis maris : Etenim
illic manus tua dcducet me, & continebit me dex
tera tua. Habitat Deus in fandis fuis fecundum
promiffionem, quia dixerat: Habitabo in illis.
Quod vero dominus Jefus dicit in evangelio:
Manete in me, & ego in vobis t probat hoc Pau
lus dicens : An nefcitis quia Jefus Chriftus eft in
vobis ? Hoc autem totum in Spiritus habitatione
adimpletur, ficut memorat Joannes : Ex hoc, in-
quit, fcimus quia in nobis eft, quia de Spiritu fuo.
dedit nobis. Similiter & Paulus : Nefcitis quia
templiim Dei eftis, & Spiritus Dei habitat in vo
bis ? Et iterum dicit : Glorificate et portate Deum
in corpore veftro. Qijem Deum ? Utique Spi
ritum fandum, cujus templum effe videmur. Nam
quod arguat Pater, arguat Filius, arguat Spiritus
fandus, ita probatum eft. In Pfalmo quadra-
gefimo nono legitur : Peccatori autem dicit Deus.
Et infra : Arguam te, et ftatuam contra faciem
tuam. David fimiliter orans dicit ad Chriftum:
Domine, ne in ira tua arguas me, quia ipfe ven
turus eft arguere omnem carnem. Qiiod vero dc
Spiritu fando falvator in evangelio : cum venerit,
inquit, Paraclitus, ilk arguet mundum de pec
cato, et de juftida, et de judicio. Hoc providens,
David clamabat Dominum : Quo ibo a Spiritu
C a tuo.

S6 APPENDIX.
tuo, et vi facie tua quo fugiam ? Nam et quod
bonus fit Pater, bonus Filius, bonus Spiritus
fandus, fie probatur. Dicit Propheta : Bonus es
tu, Domine, et in bonitate tua doce me juftifica-
tiones tuas. De fe autem ipfe unigenitus : Ego
fum paftor bonus. De Spiritu asque fando David
in pfalm.o dicit : Spiritus tuus bonus deducet me
In teriam redam, Quis autem IUam dignitatem
Spiritus fandi poffit tacere ? Antiqui enim Pro-
phetse clamabant : Haec dicit Dominus, HanC
vocem Chriftus adveniens In fuam perfonam
revocavit dicens: Ego autem dico vobis. Novi
autem Prophetse quid clamabant ? fie Aga-
bus Propheta in Adibus apoftolorum: Hase
dicit Spiritus fandus, Et Paulus ad Timotheumt
Spiritus, inquit, manifefte dicit. Quae vox om
nino demonftrat indifferentiam Trinitatis, Di
cit fe Paulus a Deo Patre & Chrifto vocatum
fuiffe et miffum, Paulus, Inquit, Apoftolus, non
ab hominibus, neque per hominem, fed per Jefum
Chriftum, et Dominum patrem. In adibus au
tem apoftolorum legitur quod a Spiritu fando fit
fcgrcgcitus et miffus. Sic enim fcriptum eft: Haec
dicit Spiritus fandus : Segregate mihi Barnabam,
et Saulum, in opus quo vocavi eos, Et paulo
poft : Ipfi, inquit, iruffi ab Spiritu fando, defcen-
,c'erunt Seleuciam. Item in eodem libro : atten-
dite vobis, et univerfo grcgi, in quo vos Spiritus
fandus ccnftituit epifcopcs, Ne quis autem Spiri tum

APPENDIX, 37
-tum fandum,- quia Paraclitus didus eft, con-
temptibile aliquid aeftimet. Paraclitus enim ad-
vocatus eft, vel pofitus confolator, fecundum La-
tinam linguam. Qiis appellatio etiam Filio Dei
communis eft, ficut dicit Joannes : Hsec, inquit,
fcribo vobis, ne peccetis. Sed fi quis peccaverit,
Paraclitum habemus apud Patrem, Jefum Chriftum.
Nam et ipfe Dominus, cum dicit ad Apoftolos,
Alterum Paraclitum mittet vobis Pater: fine
dubio, cum dicit alterum Paraclitum, fe quoque
Paraclitum manifeftat. Sed neque a Patre hoc
nomen Paracliti alienum eft. Beneficentisc enim
nomen eft, non naturae. Denique ad Corinthios
Paulus Ita fcrlbit : Benedidus Deus, et Pater Do
mini noftri Jefu Chrifti, pater mifericordiarum,
et Deus totius confolationis, qui nos confolatur.
Et cum confolator dicitur Pater, confdlator'dicitur
Filius, confolator etiam Spiritus fandus, una tamen
nobis confolatio a Trinitate prseftatur, ficurct una
remiffio peccatorum, Apoftolo affirmante: Ablut:,
inquit, eftis, etjuftifirati,et.fandificati eftis in nomi-
neDomini noftri Jefu Chrifti, et inSpirituDei noftri.
Poffemus plura adhuc de divinis fcripturis proferre
teftimonia, quas juxta baptifmi facramentum,
Trinitatem unius glorise, operationis, ac potential,
manifeftant. Sed quia ex his plenus eft fapicnti-
bus intelkdus, multa prasterivimus ftudio bre-
yitatis. C 3 Faciamus

38 APPENDIX.
F'aciamus ergo recapitulationem didorum nof
trorum. Si de Patre procedit Spiritus fandus, fi
liberat, fi Dominus eft, & fandlficat; fi creat cum
Patre & Filio, fi ubique eft, & implet omnia, fi
habitat In eledls, fi argult mundum, fi judicat, fi
bonus & redus eft, fi de eo clamatur, Hase dicit
Spiritus fandus, fi Prophetas conftituit, fi Apof.
tolos mittit, fi Epifcopos praeficit, fi confolator
eft, fi cunda difpenfat prout vult, fi ablult & juf-
tificat, fi tentatores fuos interficit, fi is qui eum
blafphcmaverit, non habet remiffionem, neque In
hoc feculo, neque In futuro, quod utique Deo
proprium eft : H«c cum ita fint, cur de eo dubi
tatur quod Deus non fit, cum operum magnitudine
quod eft ipfe manifeftet ? Non utique alienum effe
a Patris et Filii majeftate, qui non eft ab opere
virtutum alienus. Fruftra illi nomen divinitatis
negatur, cujus poteftas non poteft abnegarl. Fruf
tra prohlbebor eum cum Patre et Filio venerari,
quem exigor cum Patre et Filio confiteri. Si ilk
mihi, cum Patre et Filio, confert remiffionem pcc-
catprum, confert fandificationem, et vitam per
petuam, ingratus fum nimis et Impius, fi ei cum
Patre et Filio, non refero gloriam. Aut fi non
cum Patre et Filio colendus, ergo nee confitendus
in baptifmo eft. Si autem omnimodo confitendus
eft fecundum didum Domini, et traditionem Apof
tolorum, ne femipkna fit fides, quis me poterit ab
ejus cultu prohibere ? In quem enim credere jubeor, ei

APPENDIX. sg
ei etiam deinde fupplkabo. Adorabo ergo Patrem,
adorabo et Fillum.adorabo etSpiritum fandum, una
eademque veneratione. Quod fi quis durum hoc pu
tat, audiat quomodo David ad culturam Dei fideles
hortatur. Adorate, Inquit, fcabellum pedum ejus.
Si religionis eft adorare fcabellum pedum ejus,
quanto magis religiofum fi ejus Spiritus adoratur ?
ilk utique Spiritus, quem bsatus Petrus in tanta
fublimitate praedicavit, dicens : Spiritu fando
miffo de ccelis, in quem concupifcunt Angeli pro-
fpicere. Si Angeli eum cuplunt afpicere, quanto
magis nos homines mortaks defpicere non dcbs-
mus, ne forte et nobis dicatur, ficut didum eft ad
Judaeos : Vos femper Spiritui fando reftitiftis,
ficut et patres veftri.
Quod fi hsec tanta et talia non inclinant animum
ad venerandum Spiritum fandum, accipe adhuc
aliquid fortius. Sic enim Paulus inftruit Prophe
tas ecckfiae In quibus utique, et per quos, Spiritus
fandus loquebatur. Si inquit, omnes prophera-
veriht, intret autem aliquis infidelis, aut idiota,
convincitur ab omnibus, examinatur ab omnibus,
occulta quoque cordis ejus manifefta funt: et
tunc cadens In faciem adorabit Deum, pronunti-
ans quia vere Deus in vobis eft, Et utique in eis
Spiritus fandus eft qui prophetant. Si erg 3 infi-
deles cadunt In faciem, et adorant Spiritum fanc-
tum perterriti, etconfiteptur inviti, quanto magis
C 4 fiddibu.s

40 APPENDIX.
fidelibus expedit, ut voluntarle, et ex affedu, ado-
rent Spiritum fandum? Adoratur autem Spiritus
fandus, non quafi feparatim, more gentilium, ficut
nee Filius feparatim adoratur, quia in dextera Pa
tris eft : fed cum adoramus Patrem, credimus nos
et Filium, et Spiritum fandum adorare : quia et
cum Filium invocamus, Patrem nos credimus in-
vocare, et cum Patrem rogamus, a Filio nos ex-
audiri confidimus, ficut Ipfe Dominus dixit:
Quicquid petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, ego
faciam, ut honorlficetur Pater In Filio, Et fi Spi
ritus fandus adoratur, ilk utique adoratur cujus
eft Spiritus. Illud autem nullus Ignorat, quia
divinae majeftati nee addi quicquam, nee minuij
humanis fupplicationibus poteft, fed unufquifque
, fecundum propofitum voluntatis fuae, aut gloriam
fibi acquirit, fideliter venerando, aut confufionem
perpetuam, pertlnaclter refiftendo, Certum eft
enim, quia contentio et fuperbia damnat ; honori-
ficentia Vero frudum devoponis expedat. Qiiare
autem fideles non honorificent integre Trinitatem,
ad quam fe pertinere confidunt, cujus nomine fe
renatos, cujus fervos fe nominari, glorlantur ?.
Nam ficut ad nomen Dei patris homines Dei ap-
pellantur, ut Helias hompDel appellatus eft : fig
a Chrifto Chriftlani nuncupamur, fie etiam ab Spi
ritu fpirltaks appellamur. Si Igitur vccetur quis
homo Dei, et non fit Chriftianus, nihil eft. Qui
fi Chriftianus vocetur, et non fuerit fpiritalis, nee
fibi fatis de falute confidat. Sic

APPENDIX. 41
Sit ergo nobis, fecundum falutaris baptifmi
confeffionem, fides Integra Trinitatis, fit una de-
votio pietatis, nee more gentilium, poteftatum
diverfitates opinemur, aut creaturam quantum ad
dcitatem In Trinitatem fufpicemur, fed nee Ju-
diEorum fcandalo moveamur, qui filium Dei ne-
gant, qui Spiritum fandum non adorant : fed po
tius perfedam Trinitatem adorantes, et magnifi-
cantes, ficut in myfteriis ore noftro dicimus, ita
confcientia teneamus : Sandus, Sandus, Sandus,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth, Ter dicentes Sandus,
unam omnipotentiam confitemur, quia una eft re
ligio, una glorificatio Trinitatis, ut audlamus ab
Apoftolo, ficut audierunt Corinthii : Gratia Do
mini noftri Jefu Chrifti, et dikdio Dei, et commu
nicatio Spiritus fandi, cum omnibus vobis.
Hsc eft fides noftra, Evangelicis, et Apofto
licis, traditionibus, et omnium quas in hoc mun-
do funt cathollcarum ecckfiarum focietatefundata,
in qua nos, per gratiam Dei omnipotentis, per-
manere ufque ad finem vit£ hujus confidimus, et
fperamus. Direda xll kakndarum Majarum, per Ja-
nuarium Zattarenfem, ViUaticum a Cafis medi-
anis, epifcopos Numidis ; Bonifacio Foradanenfi.
Bonifacio Gatianenfi, epifcopis Byzacenis.
No. XV.

42 APPENDIX,' No. XV.
Extrads from Erafmus" s Letter to Fifcher^
Chriftophoro Fifchero, Protonotario Apoftolico,
Erafmus Roterodamus S. D.
iEftate fuperiore, quum in pervetufta quapiam
bibliotheca venarer, (nullis enim in faltibus vena-
tus jucundior) forte incaffes meos incidit prsda
neutiquam vulgaris, Laurentii Valla in Novum
Teftamentum Annotationes. &c.
Quod fl quibus non vacat totam Gracorum lin*
suam perdifcere, hi tamen Valla ftudio non medi
ocriter adjuvabuntur, qui mira fagacitate Novum
omne Teftamentum excuffit, non pauca obiter an-
notans, et ex Pfalmis, quorum ufitata editio a
Gracis fiuxit, non Hebrais. Plurimum itaque ftu-
diofidebebunt Laurentio, Laurentius tibi, per quem
publicum accepit, cujufque et judicio bonis In-
o-enils erit commendatior, et patrocinio contra
makdicos inftrudior.
Pariftis, Anno 1505. YALE.

APPENDIX. ;j|.
No. XVI,
The Preface to the Bible of COMPLUTUM.
Ad Lectorem.
Ne mireris aut vitio vertas o ftudlofe ledor et
in hac novi teftamenti Greca edidone aliter quam
in veteri nude tantum littere fine ullis aut fpirituum
aut tonorum notis impreffe publicentur: opere-
precium vlfum eft hujus tibi rei rationem affignare.
Ea enim hujufmodi eft. Andquiffimos grecos
abfque hifce faftlgiis litterarum fcrlpdtaffe notius
eft : quod ut fit multis argumends comproban-
dum. Docent enim id aperte antiqua non pauca
exemplaria : ut Callimachi poemata : nee non et
Sibyllina carmina : ac preterea etiam marmorea
monumenta vetuftifllma que rome adhuc vlfuntu?
nudis folum charaderibus Incifa. Ut liquido con-
ftet hujufmodi virgularum apicumque fupra-
fcriptlones non In ilia primevagrecelingue origine
fuiffe excogitatas : nee ad ejus integritatem ufque-
quaque pertinuiffe. Ciim Igitur univerfum novum
teftamentum (preter Evangelium Mxwij^', & epif
tolas ad Hebreos) grece primum ficut a fpiritu
fando didatum eft fcriptum. effe conftet: vifum
eft prifcam In eo lingue illius vetuftatem majefta-
temque intadam retinere : ac opus ipfum pre-
termiffis etiam Ipfis quibufvis minimis appendi- culis

14 A P P E N D I X.
culis excuffum ad Imaginem antiquarum fcriptura
rum publicare. Ne rei tam fande authoritati ac
venerande majeftati adjeditiis novitiifque rebus
detrimentum afferri videretur : accedit quod (fi ve
rum fateri volumus) hic fpirituum tonorumque
defedus nullum prorfus Impedimentum ad redam
intelligendam afferre valet his qui aliquantum In
Greca eruditione promoverunt. Ceterum ne ali
cui dubium aliquod poffit occurrere In qua vide
licet fyllaba accentum oporteat coUocari : fimplex
tantum apex in polyfyllabis didionibus adjedus
eft : et is quidem non tanquam grecus accentus :
fed tanquam notula fignumque quo dirigi poffit
ledor ne inprolatione rncdulatloneve didionum ali
quando labatur. In veteris autem teftamenti edi
tione Greca cum ea folum tranflatio fit non origi-
nalis textus : non fuit confilium quicquid ex vul
gar! fcribendi modo tollere aut immutarc, Et
quod non dodis folum fed omnibus in univerfum
facrarum litterarum ftudiofis hoc opere confukn-
dtim eft : appofite funt diftlonl cuique litterule La-
tine ordine alphabeti indicantes que didio didioni c
regione rcfpondeat : ne fit novitiis et nondum adhuc
in grecis litteris provedis errand! locus. Rurfus cum
nonnulk didiones grece multipilces five equivocas
aut alias ambiguas fignificationes aliquo habere
vldeantur : libuit hoc edam annotate pundo fup-
pofito litterule latine fupra didionem giecam col-
locare. Et ut prefatluncuk tandem huic modus
imponatur : illud kdorera non lateat : non quevis
exemplaria

A P P IE N D I X. 45
exemplaria impreffioni huic archetypa fuiffe fed
antiquiffima emendatiffimaque ac tante preterea
vetuftatis ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur.
Qiie fandiffimus In Chrifto Pater et Dominus nof-
ter Leo decitnus Pondfex m.aximus huic inftituto
favere cupiens apoftolica Bibliotheca eduda mifit
ad Reverendiffimum Dominum Cardinakm Hif-
panie : de cujus authoritate et mandato hoc opus
imprlmi fecimus. Vos autem litterarum ftudl-
ofi hoc divinum opus novitcr excuffum alacri
animo fufciplte : et fi Chrifti Opt. Max. fedatores
videri vultis et effe : nil jam reftat quod caufemini
quominus facram fcripturam adeatis. Non men-
dofa exemplaria : non fufpede tranflatlones : non
inopia textus originalis : folium animus et pro-
penfio veftra expedatur. Que fi non defuerit :
fiet prccul dubio ut litterarum divinarum fuavl-
tatem degiiftantes reliqua ftudia omnia contemna-
tis. Vakte et omnia boni confulite.
No, XVIL
Et quoniam videmur omne baptifma fpiritak
trifariam divififfe, veniamus etiam ad probationem
narratlonis propofits, ne videam.ur proprio fenfu,
ct temere hoc fcciffe. Ait enim Joannes de Do
mino noftro in Epiftola fua nos docens, Hic eft^
qui venit per aquam et fanguinem Jefus Chrifius.
Non in aqua tantum, kd in aqua et fanguine. Et
Spiritus

46 APPENDIX.
Spiritus eft qui teftlmonium perhibet, quia Spi
ritus eft Veritas. Quia tres teftlmonium perhi
bent, fpiritus, et aqua, et fanguis. Et ifti tres in u-
num funt. Ut ex Illis collIgamus,et aquam prasftare
fplritum folitum, et fanguinem proprium homini
bus prasftare Spiritum folltum, et Ipfum quoque
Spiritum prseftare Spiritum folitum. Nam cum
effundatur aqua ficuti et fanguis, Spiritus etiam
effufus fit a Domino fuper omnes qui crediderunt,
utique et aqua, et proprio nihilominus fanguine,
tunc deinde et Spiritu fando, poffunt homines bap-
tizari. (Towards the end of the Treatife) Ex quibus uni-
verfis oftenditur, — Spiritu ablui -animas. Porro
per aquam lavacrl, corpora. Sanguine, quoque,
feftlnantius perveniri, per compendium, ad falutis
praemia. (Tradatus ignoti Audoris, inter Cypriani
Opera, falfo illi afcripta, p. 21, Edit.
Oxon.)
No. XVIII.
Note, in the margin of the Complutenfian Edition
cf tbe New Tefiament, referring to the fifth ChaP'
ter of the firfi Epiftle of St. John, verfes 7, and 8.
fandus Thomas in expofitione fecunde decretalis '
de

APPENDIX. ,47
de fumma trinitate ct fide catholica tradans
iftum paffum contra abbatem Joachim viz. Tres
funt qui teftimonium dant in celo : Pater: Verbum :
Et fpiritus fandus : dicit ad litteram verba fequen-
tia, " Et ad infinuandam unitatem trium per-
** fonarum fubditur : Et hii tres unum funt. Quod
" quidem dicitur propter effentic unitatem. Sed
" hoc Joachim perverfe trahere vokns ad unita-
" tem charitads et confenfus Inducebat confe-
" quentem audorltatem. Nam fubditur ibidem :
*' tres funt qui teftimonium dant In terra Spiritus :
*' aqua: et fanguis, Et In quibufdam libris ad-
*' ditur : Et hi tres unum funt, Sed hoc in veris
*' exemplaribus non habetur : fed dicitur effe ap^
*' pofitum ab heretlcis Arrianis ad pervertendum
*' intelkdum fanum audorltatis premiffe de unl-
*' tate effentie trium perfonarum." Hec beatus
Thomas ubi fupra.
No, XIX.
A Table of the MSS (according to the account of
F, Le Long) made ufe of by Robert Stephens
in his folio edition of the New Teftam.ent. 1550,
Pi  The, Alcala or Complutenfian edition ; con
taining all the New Teftament,
^  The four Gofpels, and Ads of the Apof=-
tks, y — — The

48 APPENDIX.
y -^r— The four Gofpels, the King's MS No. 2867.
i  The New Teftament, excepting the Reve
lation, the King's MS. No. 2871.
I  The Nev/ Teftament, excepting the Reve
lation, the King's MS. No. 3425.
r  The four Gofpels.
^ '  The four Gofpels, the Epiftles of St. Paul,
St. James, St. Peter, and the firft of St.
John,the King's MS. No. 2242.
n  The four Gofpels, the King's MS, No.
2361.
fl  The New Teftamenr, excepting the Reve
lation.
1  The Ads and the Epiftles ofthe Apoftles,
.the King?s MS. No, 2878.
la  The Ads and the Epiftles of the Apoftles.
i|3  The four Gofpels.
,y  The Ads and the Epiftles of the Apof
tles, except the third of St. John and that
. of St.. Jude.
t$  The Gofpels of St. Matthew, St, Luke,
and St. John.
it — — Seven Epiftles of St. Paul, beginning with
the firft to the Corinthians, the King's
MS.
n:  The Gofpelg of St, Luke and St^ John.
\Emlyn'% Works, vol. ii, Iw/i. edit. A. D. 1745,
p. 283— 4.]
' No. XX,

APPENDIX 49
No. XX.
Extract from the words of ^^asmvs, where he
fpeaks of the Codex Britannicus ; vol. X, p.
353- — Ed. Lugd. Batav. A.D. 1706.
Veruntamen, ne quid diffimukm, repertus eft
apud Anglos Gracus codex unus, in quo habetur
quod In vulgatis deeft. Scriptum eft enim hunc
ad modum, Or* rpEi? ntnv 01 [ji.aprZjio\jiim cv Tta spctvta
IloiTnp, Xoyo(;, y,oci Ilvi\jf/.oc,, xai outo; oi t/),£k iv suriv,
Kat rptif £j<rii/ /AapTupouvTEf tv th yn, 'jrvevfj.a., uSap, xat
ai[Aoc,' £t TW jt*«fTujiav rav «^6flW7^Ml/ 8cc. — Quan
quam haud fclo an cafu fadum fit, ut hoc loco
non repetatur, quod eft in Graecis noftris, ««i
«» Tpttf £if TO £11 fio-iv. Ex hoc igitur codice Britan
nico repofuimus, quod in noftris dicebatur deeffc :
ne cui fit caufa calumniandi.— Quanquam &
hunc fufpicor ad Latinorum codices fuiffe cafti-
gatum. Ko. XXI.
Ratiu vera Theologia, per Erafmum. — (Edit. Le
Clere, 1704, vol. v. p. 74 — 115.)
Quqd apud Joannem capite duodecimo Pharifai
^eftinant & Lazarum interficere: typum habet,
D qupd

'5D A-P:f-;E N-D I X.
quQd.;impr;^i ncn fpRm o^deruat -Chri/ium jpfym,^
fed eos quoque per c^\o%-ChrifH nonien iliuftratur.
Adnotandus eft apud eumdem circulus. In quo fere
fe:Vplvit, ubique &fociet^cem & ioedu5,Chrifiiailtm
cominendans : praskrtim capite duqdecimo, &
decimo tertio, fe declarax,.idemefk_cum Patre : adeo
ut qui Filium norit, jiorit.& Patrem: quUilium
fpernat, fpernat & Patrem : nee feparatur ab hag
Gommunrone Spiritus fandus. Sic enim legis in
Epiftola : Tres funt _qui tfftimanium dant in calo,
'Pater, Sermo, i^ Spiritus : atque hi tres unum funt.
In idera confortium- trahit fuos, quos palml'tcs
appellat : obfccrans, yt quemadmodum ipfe ident
erat cum Patre, ita;& ilH, idem effent fecum. . Im-
pertit Iifdem communem Patris fuumque Spiri
tum, dmniaeonciliantem. v'. • -- '.;•."¦•:-•,
XXII.
HiERON. Opera, per iLrafnmn, Edit. Paris. VoL
iv, A. D.' 1546, p. 42, D.' " ¦
' -Atque ut, confundentes Arium, unam fiamdtm-
, - . - t.
que d«cimus ^'rinitatrs cfk fubftantiam,-^ unam
in tribu.s 'perfonis- fatemur Deum.: ita irapietateijl
Sabellii dtclinantes^-trcs perfonas exprcflas fub pror
prietate diftinguimus, — Pater femper Pater eft,
Filius femper Filiu-s.eJI,'^Spintus fandus femper
Spiritus fandus eft, Itaque fubftantia unum funt ^
PMtinis", . ac ji'omijTihirs .'difti ngauatiir* i i : - / ^
->¦:? - :: ExptA-

A P IP E N D I X. 51
•ExPLAt^ATio Fidei,— Ad Cyrillum: Edit. Erasmi,
"^fo/. iv, p. 43, K.
Nobis, igitur, unus Pater, et unus Filius verus
Deus, er unus Spiritus fandus verus Deus : Et hi
TRES UNUM stTMT, una divinitas, et potentia, ct
regnum. Sunt aiitem tres perfona, non dus, non
Una.
Augufi. in Epift. Johan. Cap. 5. Vol. 3. Edit. Paris.
--.¦¦- - ;A:D. 1680, p. 896.
' Et quid eft finis Chrifius ? Quia Chriftus Deus,
et finis ipFseccpti caritas, et Deus caritasj quia
Fater, et Filius, et Spiritus fmSlus, unum funt,
AuctJSTiNus contra Maximimm, Ariamm, Lib. 2.
(Vol. viii. p. 698.)
^ Tres, enim perfons funt Pater, et Filius, et
Spiritus fandus : et hi tres (quia unius fubftan
tias funt) UNUM SUNT. Et fumme unum funt,
tibi nulla nacurarum, nulla jeft diverfitas yoiun-
tatum. — Hi, ergo, tres qui unum sunt propter
ineffabikm cojijundioaem Deitatis, qua in?ff*bi-
liter copnlantur, unus Deas eft.
>./.^.v : No. XXIII.
GnATissiMtTM fane mihi fuiflct, vir plur. fevcr-
p 2 cnde.

52 APPENDIX.
cnde, fi literas Tuas ad Qisbonem legerj: pot^iflejji,
quo n.elius ea Tecum, communicarem, qux prs-
cipue fcire Tua intercft. Libris autem Anglicanis,
pkrumque ferfl ad nos.. ven ien tibus, banc quoque
difcutti-JTm eruciitam, Berolini fruiira.quaefivi.
Sbd ut niiiuoraiaus Tibi officium, meuifi probem ;
qua; ad lucem difquifitionibus Tuis affundendajii
valere opinor, brevlter ea commemorabo.
Locum I. Jean. v. 7, diligentiffime delineavi,
sta ut literas literis, lineae lineis, accuratlflime
refpondeant •, cumque- infra, de fimiiitudine inter
Codlcem Ravidnum et editionem Complutenfem fermo
fit faciendus, et ex hac eundem locum depiduni
cernis in fchedula hifce literis adjeda. Quod,
quidem, ad antiquitatem Codicis Raviant attinet,
vereor ut fufficiat, fi rneam • tantiim fententiam
Tecum communlcare velim. Sunt enim tam
miilta In Germania recentiffimis temporibus, .Kac
de re, aviris erudidffimisdifputata, utmeum non
fit inter critieos tantos tafttas componere iites.
Maio igitur notatu digniflima, quantum in Epifto
la, qux in libri molem excrefcere non debet, fieri
poteft, afferre, et tum penes Te arbitrium efto. '%tl
Codex Ravianus duobus conftat voluminibus,
in membrana nitidlflime confcrlptls. Nee fcribje,
nee patria;, nee srje, ufpiam fit mentio. A caoite
ad cakem cujufvis libri bibiici (five evangelii five
epiftobe) linea lineam excipit, nulla adjeda nota
capitum

APPENDIX. 53
capitum, aut commatum ilyyv, fupcfcTcac, &c. — •
Nullus invenltur accentus, fpiritus, &c. — Fai-
BERicus GuiLELMus, Ekdor Brand, emit codkem
dueentis imperialibus a Chriftiana Ravio^ qui per ali-
quod tempus in oriente vitam degerat, ct poft pro-
fefforis munere Upfalia, & dcmqi-is.Frmcofnrti,. cis
Uiadrum fundus eft. i^^'ym affirmat, k hunc-
ec codlcem, multis cum aliis (qui cum hoc bibli-
othecam Regis ornant) ex Oriente fecbm afpor-
taffe ; et non defuere, qui ei vetuftatem quinque,
imo decern, kcubrum tribuerent. La Creze pri
mus fuit, inter omnes, qui A.D. 1696, Berolimm
profedus, codice infpedo palam affeveravit ;
" falf arii cujufdam fraude fro antiqua vendiixm effe,
*' manu verb recenti ex- Editicpe poi.yglo'ita Com-
" PtuTENSi fuifie def crip tum. , .^az, titt^ ledicem
*' f/^//«af Complutenfem wW«V, is vidit ei msnufcrip-
** tam Cedicem naftrum, m demtis quidem mendis ty-
" pBgrapharum -, quas faiba indoBus ita fideliter ex-
prejfit^, ¦ut omnino conftet, hominem illiteratum ab eru
dite alique nebuhneei fruudi perfici enda fuiffe pr^e-
feSum.''^ Et in hac quidem fententia pcrmanfic
La Crozius, ex quo ipfe; bibliotheca Regis credita
eft, id quod e Thefauro epiftoL La, Crozii (Tom, i.
p, 63. Tom. iii, I. feqq.) fatis conftat.
Per longum temporis fpatium, multi (ne dicam
omnes) Critic! inter Germajios, et Batavos, La
Crozii fententia freti, flocci fecere codicem nof-
D 3 itrum.j

14 APPENDIX.
trum ; nee Wetftenius eum dignum exiftimavit qiui
vakret ad confirmandam ledionem aliquam vari-
antem. Nee effe videbatur, cur Ztf Cwzs? diffide-*
rent. Bibllothecas enim Regias prseerat ; habebat.
igitur copiam, pro lubitu, fcrutandi •, — vir erat.
cruditlffimus, fidcl Nicana addidus. Non de-'
fuere, tamen, qui La Crozio affentire dubitarent,
id potiffimum urgentcs, eum nulla argumento
fententiam fuam confirmaffe, nee unicum unquam
in meJiim protu tiffefphalma typograpbicum,
quod e Polyglottis Cempl. in codlcem Raiiiamim ir-:
repfarit. Novltas externa negari omnino non poteft.
Membrana admodum alba eft ; et ei adhuc calx,-
five'creta, adherer. Verum enim vero vix, ac ne
vix quidem, ex' -:de fraudem tvinc'i poffe,- exiftimo.
Crcta, enim, quae adhuc in membrana cernitur,-
faftm a tempore, quo Ravius exemplar ven-
didit, uftjue ad noftram £Etatem fupereft. Qiiid ni
qviod per feculum unum fadum eft, per duo, aut
tria, ante haec, fieri potuiffet ? Et dixerit fcrfaij
codlcis Raviani fautor : ante Ravium ilium non
adeo multorum manibus effe verfatum, id quod
fufficiat ad fpkndorem novitatl^ ei fervindam.
Sun' in bibliotheca Regis alii MSS;(v, c. Suetonih,,
1472 fcripti) qui majorem etiam pras feferunt
novitatis fpeckm, Atramentum,^uod a £<? Cra^

a~p:p E'N Drx.^ . 55
¦2/0 :albican&.v.Qcatur,. jam non. nifi tenmtum eft, et
vetuftatis; fpeckm habet. Magnum, qiiidem ap
paret dikrimen winter atameutum, qjiod naturj
albicat, .ef quod .vetuftatis , vi givanuit ; fed quis
noftrura hodie dignofcere poteft,~utrum atramen-
tum codicis noftri,- quod nunc krie annorum pal-
luiffe videtur, tempore Z,<j Crosn. eandem indokm;
habuerit,- an- nunc dernum contraxerit? Litera
Codicis Raviani nan congnjunt, MSS antiquiori-
bus ; contra .JimlUimfe lunt ty.pis in Polyglottis
Complutenfibm. Illud ftatim apparet : hoc vero in
dubium vocari poffet. Magna omnino depre-
henditur fimlHtudo inter figuram iiteraru-m Codicis
Raviani, et Polyglottorum Complutenfiupi '{G: ;ab
indole, caiamo pidarum et ty.pis. irnpi-effarum dif--
cefferis); nee tamen tanta, Ut dici.queat ad haru.m
imitatlonem' illas effe expreffas,, :Quid ? quod
typi, qui .^V^/^j-aC^rdinali Xijnenio parabantuf,
procul- dubio ad.exeniplar MSS Grac-orum (prse-
cipue forfitan Rhodi.i)-3 iuCi funt. Quod fi itaque
Cod, Ravianifs. cong-fuat typis CompMenfibus, nil
prbbaret hase funHltudo ; cur .enim.-non rcfpon
deat figura literarum unius MS :&v«' literis al
terius ; ct cur igitur, hon congruat i?^'fM«Kj- Co
dex Rbsdia, vel alio archety-pd, ad cujus fimilitn-
.dinem 'ty^r. Complutenfes fufi effe poffunt ? Id. ta-
¦men manifeftum eft, duduBi literarum Codicis
Raviani non .atpngene fecula ante xv ; necid fi-
kntio praecereundum puto, primas paginas magis anxie

S6 APPENDIX.
anxie effe delineatas, in fequeatibus vero agilio*
rem, expeditioremque manum apparere : ex quo
forfan coUigl poffet opus efle hominis ducen-
darum literarum non adeognari.
Quod La Crozius flmpliciter dicit, fcribam in-r
dodum etiam mendas typograhicas exprefliffe, ut
omnino conftet, &c.— id quidem nimis feftinanter
ab Illo didum eft. Codex Ravianus a textu
Complutenfium innumeris locis difcrepat. In folo
Evangelio Matthai, praster ea quce abfque dubio
lapfus fcribentis funt, 50 kdiones variantes In-
veniuncur, quibus Codex Ravianus ab editione
Complutenfi diicedit, quarum notatu digniffimas
funt :, Matth. Ii : 13, Editio Complutenfis legit an-o-
Aeo-ai Ravianus contrs. a-Troxlstvon. xv. 22 Compluten
fis in^civycitrBv cn'Slci) Ravianus fxeagji/ offio-w aurs xvi :
Complutenps utpiAnrcci, Ravianus w^EAJiS-no-frai.-TT-xvii ;
2, Complutenfis wr to tpui; Ravianus ia<; ;^iuv xxiii : 8,
Complutenfis naTnynTi/ii Ravianus SiSootraoiAog — Cap,
ix : 30, Ravianus poft oLviu^^yitrocv aurtav addit iroc-.
C^X.?"/*'^ — xi : 21, poft fTToi^w addit Ravianus x.a.-
6y)jj.ivxi — xiii : 4, poft t* tmuvoi. Ravianus addit tk
ss^ocvis. — I. Joan, v: 10, Complutenfis legit S-£w Ra-^
vianus uiu — Juda, 22, Complutenfis lAiem iiocxeivo-
fAEvoi, Ravianus cXiymri (Jiax^ii/0jiA£!/3?, SufEciant
hsc : fatis, enim, fuperque, demonftrant fcribam
non literarum Gracarum rudem fuiffe.
Nee id flocci faciendum eft, omnes iftos va-
D 4 variantes

APPENDIX. ^7
tiantcs kdiones uno vel altero MS confirniari, id
quod noftris temporibus poft Millii, Wetfienii., ali-
orumque recenfiones textuj Graci, n'hil probaret,
led ante centum, et quod excu-rn, annos haud fa
cile a falfarlo quovis perfici poterat,
Attamen qui omnem lapidem movere vellet, ei
omnes loci, quibus codex Ravianus a Complutmfi
difcedit, diligenter colligendi effent, ut indc i.cjf-
piceretan variantes kdiones ex 'editicr ihus pi:id-
pibus, quarum xix forte' conferendi copia fuiffrt
falfarlo, hauriri potuerint. Qui lente.ua; La
Cruzii tavent, id inter alia potiffimum urgen:, i.
Joan. V. 4, in codice Raviani deelk verba xc.i cvjt-^
— tov Kotr^ov, quse in Polygl. Complutenfi integram,
et quidem unicam lineam c mpknt. " En" (ait
audor quidam in Colleiiionibus Halenfibus adpromo-
vendam'^erudifionem theologicam, quas Semlerustnii.Xx^^
*' fcrlba tranfililt lineam-, neceffe igitur eft, uc
*' nee plura, nee pauciora, omitteret, quam qu2e
" in una llneola comprehenduntur ?"— Fateor
mihi ipfi hoc argumentum validiffimum vifum
fuiffe. Ex quo vero curiofius textum examinavi,
ftatim deprehendi oii-oioriKimx induxiffe" fcribam.
Bis enim in eodem commate occurrit >io<rtj.ov ; et
cafu fadum effe poteft, ut quse a xo^/aov priori ad
Koa-fAov fecundum lequuntur, in editione Cojnphttenft
lineolam compkant. Et in epiftola Juda, v. 15,
omifit fcriba qodicis Raviani -kx verba (hri'^i irxyrav
ruv tpym a^Bft^'oc; xvruv) quas in textu Complutenfi non

58 APP-ENDIX.-
non una lineola comprehenduntur,- fed aperte hO'
moiotekutis fedudus, -omifit quas duo ifta auTwi/ in-
teriarent. Ledlones, quse fingulares vocantur, codiri Ra-
viano cum Polyglottis Complutenfibus communes
effe innumeras, vix eft quod memorem. Nihil
vero exinde colligendum effe mihi quidem videtur^'
nifi quod codex nofter eidem familicB fit annume-
randus, cui is, ex quo Complutenfes editores potif--
fimum textum fuum haufcrint. Majus faciunt
raomiPntum mendse typographorum, quse in Poly*
glottis Complutenfibus leguntur, quasque fufpican-
tur, ex his in codicenl noftrum effe tranfcriptas-.
Ita, videlicet, in Ramdno, sque kc in cditionc
Complut^enfi, e'x&r&tum €&.: ^Matt.'x.'xW: 19, -ir^ovv-
veyyiOiv — Galat. Hi -: ^ 19, S'lxr a,yzi-(roc, — -ASi. XXV : 19,"
^uo-£i(raij«.on«f — I. Joan, i : 6, v}>£uJ'ii)/>c£Sai — i, Joan,
ii : - 27, K^itriJ-oi SiSoin-KTi-^—C&p. iii : 2, o^foi — Apocal.
il : 17, xfi/oi/, &c. '1- ~
Quid .'' quod in rebus minutiflimis nonnun---
quam mirabilis confenfus fervatu? inter MS - nof
trum, et editionem impreffam ; ambo, exempli gra
tia, I.Joan. Ii : 22, ei/aji — Cap. iii : ^laTouro — >
Apocal. II : 2, 8|U.)i jundim exhi bent :—yf<3. vii:
20, 22, 29, feq. uhi Complutenfia Mw(r«?, et Mous-Jif,
legendo alternant, et Codex Ravianus iifdem vici
bus ponit, et omittit, TO u, et quae ejufmodi -funt
reliqua!

A P P E N D I X, _ 55
teliqua 1— Nee tamen hic elabendi rima codicis
Raviani defenforibus deeft. Dicere enim poffent :
fine d\ih\oQd\tore% Complutenfes quendam MS (for-
laffe Rhodium) fideliter defctlbendam curarunt, et
poft variantes kdiones e MSS aliis colkdas, quas
e re fua arbitrabantur, inferuerunt, parum attenti
ad lapfus librarii, quo utebantur, non folum repe -
tierat, fedet hic illic incurlus auxerat. {ex.Millius
ia, -proleg. §1091 feqq.) Id faltem manifeftum
eft, perverfarum kdionum, quse pkrumque fphal-
mata typographica nuncupantur, nonnullas edito-
rum potius, five incurias, five imperitis, quam ty-
pographo effe tribuendas, quumesedem in Lexlco
repetantur ; fie circa KpiSn<Ta,v, Rom. iv. Cprp quo
Codex Ravianus exhibet aipffino-av) i.Cor. iv. 11,
yo^virimi/.iv (quod et codex Ravianus \eg\t.) in
kxico quoque chorda oberrant eadem.
Qii.i; cum ita fint, haud, abfonum foret, fi cui
placeret, codicem noftrum apographum effe, non e
Complutenfibus, fed ex alio MS, quem editores Com
plutenfes potiffitwum fecuti fiint, concinnatum.
Cupidiffimus fum literas Tuas ad Gibbonem Ic-
gendi, etme tibi devindiffimum reddes, novas edi-
tlonls exemplar mecum communicando. Poft
Wetftenium, enim, in Germania tot Critici, prs-
cipue Semlerus, Michaelis, et Mosqv/e Matlhei (qui.
decem omnino codices primum exarainavit) afii^
que.

6o A P F E N D I X.
q\3e,'ytr,<rtornTx ledlonls i.Joann.y. 7, opptsg-
harunt, — ut jam ftatione deceffiffe vldeantur did!
illius prcpugnatores. Vale, Scribo Berolini, xxv Martii,
MDCCLXXXV, J, F. ZOELLNER.
No. XXIV.
GfENNADii Patriarcha Constantino?. Expofitip
pro Concilio Florent. Cap. i. SeB. v. (Vide
Max. Bibl. Patr. Edit. LvGDvm, A.D. 1677.
VoL xxvi, p. §66.)
Accedat, igitur, veritatis prasco, et confeffor
magnus, cekoris Athanafius, ut mecum eadem tef-
tificetur. Hil, enirn, in conteffione fu£ fidei,
cujus principium, " Quicunque vult falvus effe,
*' ante omnia opus eft, ut teneai Catholicam fi-
" dem," fie inquit : Spiritus janSius, a Patre, et
P'ilio, non fa£ius, nee creatus. nse genitus, fed pro
cedens  Cum in hunc kcum pervenerim, fu-
biit mihi vehemencer Acre, et in vocem pro-
rumpere cum lacrymis, et ejularu, et eos deplo-
rare, qui fponte fua adverfus lucem oculos occlu-
dunt, et veritati oppugnant •, nee folum veritati
contradicunt, verum etiam fandos ecckfise doc-
tores afpernantur j neque afpernantur folum, fed
etiam injuria afficiunt, Qiiamnam defenfione m,
vei

APPENDIX. 6i
vei commikrationem invenient, qui haec faciunt ?
O tuam patientiam, Christe Rex : qujmodo blaf-
phemantlum ora non comburuntur ' Athana-
SWM. dicere non verentur ehiu.a fuiffe.. ti vino op-
pletum, quando hac fcriffit, Vere plenus evat
fpiritualis poculi, fapientis, et gratis ex Spiritus
fandi fonte fcaturkntis, non ut hi miferabiks,
dicunt. Propltius fit Illis Dominus, ac nobis.
Tollatur ab eis hsec Imprudentia ; nobifque con
tingat fub Athanafii pedibus confiftere !

FINIS.

ERRATA.
For " MSS" page 9, line 4, Read MS
— " corrcft" _ ,8 — 8  to/M
— « litde -more" — 38 — ^^  /'"''ftfJ'
_ u them" — 180 — 28  t&o/e MSS
— " prophane" — 329 — ^5  f'!"""-

Afte

r " parts"

— 55

" to"

— 94

" Remigius"

— 218

" 337"

— 240

« from''

-263

" and"

— 296

«• verfe"



— 30 Add of
 8 ¦  fome, at leaft, of
 17  Bede
Be that, howje'ver,
23 — — ^^ ^.^ may, tbe
 10 ¦ nearly
— IQ . ivherz

21  ihey
_ . =_ IQ — Q Dele //.
In page 'y ^

INDEX.

Pages

ALCUINUS— exhibited this difptt*! text in 1 , 2— 4A
his Corre^orium - - J 4 44
Ansbert, Ambrofe - - • 24
ATToroAof—what - - 49
contains this text - 54
— — — — — wjefended againfl ia Croz* - 163 — i6g
A^yjiNAS - - » 19 279 313
Arian contro-verjy, this text cited in - 265
Arians, accufed of mutilating the Scriptures 341
Athanasius — dialogue attributed to hitn loi 236 240
Augustine - . - 34 106
B
Bede . - - - rn 216—221
Benson (Z)r.) — his objeflions confidered - 61 — 221
Berlin MS. defcribed - - 3°4— 3°^
— — — defended againft Dr. Benfon, and La \ ^  j. ^
Croze - - i
¦  . Griefbach - 3°4
Bernard (St.) - - - '-^ '
Beza, Theodore 6 11 13
 his conneaion with /?. 5/f/>/^«?/ - 122—127 130
— — defended against Sir Ifaac Netxrton 274
 Emlyn - » 24
Bowyer, Mr. — liis objeflions confidered S'° — 3 '4
BRiTANNictjs, Codex, collated by Erafmus, himfelf I39
 - isnot the D«M»' MS - H9

CaryOphilus Cassiodorius

1S2
z6 97

Celedensis, Mareut ®- 35 io»
Cerinthians,

u INDEX,
CiRtNTHiAvs, herefy of - - 331
Compi.uti:nsian Editors - - 4 13 16
i,  ¦  defended asraind Dr. Benfott 177 — 18S
¦^  Sir /. NeiMton 278 — sSr
.^  ..  M I . Boivyer 3 1 3
Cyprian - - - 37
— ..  defended againft Dr. Benfon - 73 — 9?
.  ^  Sit 1 Nevston - 224 — 235
..  Mr. Bowyer - 3 10 — 313
D
DiDTKCI? - - - 217
DocETjT, herefy of - - 331
BtJBLiN MS, dcfciibed - \ - 150 — 153
 defended - - 153 — 139
DCRANDUS - - - - 20 48
E
Emlyn, jIfr.— referred to - - 80 124, Sec.
EsAaMu.s, cenfured ... 8 142 — 149
ilis accufttion of ferome repelled 251 — 254

his infinuations againft the Codex Bri-\ c, 
tannicui anfwered - J
admits y^rowf's preface - li»
quotes this difputed text • 145
his paraphrafe thereon - 336

Ethesius - - » 25
EtjcHERtus •» - - 33-79 — 82 299

FACtlNDCS ^ - . 82  84
FcLGENTIUS - - » 27. — 30 84—86

¦J351— 3(5S

G
Gibbon, il/;-.^— general tendency of his publica.
tions, in refpeft tg Chrifiianity ¦»
Greek Church — its ConfeJTion of Faith . 49
Griesbach — his objedions anfwered • 235— 3 IB
H
Hody i ^ . J42, J-j,
H0RS1.EY (Dr.) - - • 366
I
Jerome — his Tranflation from the Greek text 32 99 106 24^
(quotes this difputed pafl'age * -.. 33 io8 241
^ defeodcd

IN D EX,
¦ defended againft Dr. .B«»;S« ;. q»— Bl(>
— — ^— '— Sir /. Netutan 240— 26 1
• Eta/mut . 250 — 255
Griefiath, « 308 — 31

¦" Kint/btuir, . 3 05 — 310
Joachim, Abbot - - - 41 26^
L
Lateran, Council of - - 41 26S
Le Long— confuted - - ; 127 — 138
Lombard • - -20
LouvAiNE, Divlnes-of > • 296 323
M
Maffeius - - - 26 188
MARtiiN^ — hb controverfy with Emlyn - 8a
Marginal interlineation, of this text, in fome MSS, 1
accounted for - - 3 ^'*
Mich AfiLis — his account of the Armenian Verfion I ,„_ „^ .
.difputed - - - I '99-204
Montanus, heiefy of . - t^Z — 236
N
Newton^ Sir Isaac,. — his objcflions conGdered 223 — 294
Nice, Council of - - - 306—308
O
Oecumenius - - - '¦ "'
Objections, the /;Jr«' principal ones difcoflird 316 — 344
Ordo Romanus ... 48
P
PH.ffiBADlUS - . - . ' , , 3"
Preface, to the Canonical Epiftles, written by 7 92— no,
Jerome - " ' 3 309-
R
Readings, various, of this text, placed ia one 7 ^gg^^
view - * ' •*
Rupert, Abbot . - - 2 164—168
Saubertus - " \ j t
SmON  cortiralled with Sandtiu, as taihe Ar- J j^ — ^04
SrEPHENS, Robert'^ - - ' 4 <> "^ » '
, defended againft Dr, B«> - I'T-i^^

m I N D E XJf

 ¦<! '— '1} Sir /. NeioUft a^ J — syS-- -
I ¦".'¦' I M. Griefiatk « *9S"— 3»J- •
¦ ¦ his Latin Edition of f'j49» compwed 1  -
. with his-<rrw^ of 1550 - - ^^ 3°' 353 . .
Stephsbn*. -Henry - » - - . , 4^7
Strabo, tValafrid - ^ - 81 — 24 31C
Stunica . - ' - . 3 '4 280
t'
Tertullian — - - - - 38 — 40
Til I I a defewdtd againft Dr. Benfon - - 61 — 73
' Sit /, ih^iMtoH 233 — 236
¦:r. y
Valla, Laurentim - - - iS 144
Versions (or Tranflation^
Old Italic - - - 54 186
Jf^me'i ' - „ - 32 205
¦Syriac - .- - 18S— 192
.Armenian - . - 53 196
Cof tic - - - - *93 205
jirabic J
• £^';A^ {.¦ . - , ,193 343 '
rirfic J
Frankijh - .^ _ 205
French - . ^09
¦ HuJJian- 7 c
5c/fl^«»/<r f - - 206—209 .

• All compared together, ar (o this > ~ '
difputed text - J 204—206
Victor Vitensis - - - 45 ill 945
Vigilius . - - . -.. ao  ^2
"VV
Wetstein— his cenfure of £">•«/!»(«/ - 148
 — — his account of Greek MSS, confidered 282 — 285
WiLSOii, Dr. — his account of tW Dublin MS i^o — 153 '
X
Ximenes, Cardinal .... j^S — JS4
Y
Ycard— (Dean) ' - - . ,^2 — 159
Z
./.ycabtnus,- Euthymlus i. • - - \oa 267
2?o«LLNER— -his account of the MS of Berlin 304—3^

3 9002 01497 8366