¦I

li

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

-m^

A f?yz -"^
COLLECTION
OF ,•:
ESSAYS AND TRACES
IN
THEOLOGY.
BY JARED SPARKS.
No. in.

JULY, 1823.

CONTENTS.
DR WHITBY, - - .... . . 1
BlOGRAFHipAL NOTICE, - - - - -il. 3
Whitby's last thoughts, - - - - ijl^ - 37
BISHOP HARE,  .; . 121
BlOGRAFHicAL NOTICE, ... . . 123
On the difficulties and discocbagements which
attend the study of the scriptures. - - 143

BOSTON :
PUBLISHED BY O. Ef BI«ETT, NO. 13 CORNHILL.
i CAMBKIDGE :
VoiTenity ]Press  Hilliard & Metcal£
1823.

dk

¦np

Sp i(p
I

WHITBY'S

LAST THOUGHTS.

WHITBY.

Although Whitby's life was lengthened to nearly
a century, yet very few facts concerning him are
found recorded, except such as may be gleaned from
his own writings. And these exhibit little more, so
far as he is personally concerned, than a history of his
opinions. Biographers have too often been com
pelled to repeat the remark, that the life of a scholar
is seldom fruitful of incidents ; but rarely, in the
annals of Uterature, has the truth of this remark
been more evident, than in the instance of Whitby.
Thirty years before his death, Anthony Wood, in
the Athense Oxonienses, wrote a brief account of his
life and .writings up to that period ; and this has
served as the basis, and sometimes has furnished the
materials of the entire structure, for succeeding biog
raphers. To the second edition of Whitby's Last
Thoughts, printed after his death, Dr Sykes prefixed
a short notice of the author, which contained little
else, than a repetition of Wood's account, and the
titles and dates of all Whitby's works. The same

WHITBY.

was again repeated without any essential addition in
the Biographia Britannica. The supplement to
Moreri's Dictionary comprises a few other particu
lars, collected from notices of some of Whitby's pub
lications, as inserted from time to time in Le Clerc's
Bibliotheque. The French compiler of the article
in Moreri seems not to have been over-curious to
know much of Whitby, but contented himself with
expressing his amazement and horror at his heret
ical and antipapistical opinions. In Chauffepie's
Continuation of Bayle, the article on Whitby in
the Biographia Britannica is translated, but without
any thing new, except a few remarks on his writings.
From all these sources, and from some others of
minor consequence, it is not possible to collect
materials, which can be put together in the shape of
a memoir, or connected narrative. A short analysis
of some of the author's principal works is aU that wiU
be attempted.
Daniel Whitby was born at Rushden, North
amptonshire, 1638. His father was a clergyman of
that place, and a man of some eminence as a scholar
and divine. Under his guidance the son made rapid
progress in his early studies, and at the age of fifteen
was admitted a commoner of Trinity College, Ox
ford. He took the degree of Master of Arts in
1660, and four years after was elected fellow of the
same college. He was appointed chaplain to Dr
Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, and in 1668 was raade

WHITBY. b
prebendary of Yatesbury. In 1672 he took the
degree of Doctor of Divinity, was admitted chantor
of the Cathedral Church in his bishop's diocess,
and raised to the rectofship of St Edmund's
church, Salisbury. He was appointed prebendary
of Taunton Regis in 1696, and to the duties of some
or all of these stations he seems to have been devoted
during the remainder of his life.
While Whitby was at the university, the popish
controversy ran high in England, and his early pub-
hcations were on that subject. As an author he first
came before the public about the time, that he was
advanced to his fellowship ; and during the fifteen
years following, he published six different treatises,
chiefly in confutation of some of the peculiarities of
the Romish church, or in reply to opponents. He
also found leisure to write concerning the laws, both
ecclesiastical and civil, which ignorance, or power, or
prejudice, or bigotry, had made in difierent ages of
the church against heretics ; and he exposed in
their true colours the wickedness and folly of perse
cution. One of his most celebrated works, the Protestant
Reconciler, was published in 1683. The title is a
significant indication of the author's design. His
project was to bring all protestants together, and
especially the protestants of England, in the bonds of
Christian union and love. He first pleads for con
descension on the part of the established church
1*

WHITBY.

towards dissenters, in things indifFerent and unneces
sary ; and among these he reckons some of the cer
emonies of the church, to which the dissenters had
always been strenuously, and no doubt conscien
tiously, opposed. He took the ground, that what
ever is indifierent, or whatever may be changed
without violating the laws of God, ought not to be
imposed by superiors as absolute terms of commun
ion. By relaxing the rigour of estabhshed forms on
these points, and admitting all persons to church
fellowship, whose faith and conduct rendered them
worthy, he flattered himself that the barriers of
separation might be demohshed, and a method pro
vided for reconciliation and peace.
But the sequel proved, that he little knew in what
dreams he was indulging. A host of adversaries
instantly sprung up, like the harvest from the drag
on's teeth sown by Cadmus, and attacked the author
without moderation or mercy, accusing him of treas
onable purposes, and of being a secret instigator of
what was then called the Presbyterian Plot. Be
cause he had modestly expressed his opinion, that
the surphce, the sign of the cross in baptism, and the
kneeling posture at the communion, which were so
offensive and shocking in the eyes of the dissenters,
might be safely dispensed with for the sake of peace
and charity, he was assailed as one, who aimed at
nothing less, than the overthrow of the church, and
the ruin of its governors. The press was immedi-

WHITBY. /
ately put in motion to unburden many a labouring
mind of the indignation, which weighed it down, and
a multitude of pamphlets were sent abroad in quick
succession. If, in that day, abuse were a good sub
stitute for argument, and ribaldry for sense, some of
these authors might have boasted of a signal tri
umph. But these were trifling evils compared with others
of a different kind, which awaited the author. His
work was condemned by a formal decree of the
University of Oxford, as containing doctrines false,
impious, and seditious ; and, as Wood affirms, it
was forthwith burnt by the hands of the University
Marshal in the Quadrangle of the Schools. This
was no doubt an excellent thing for the bookseller,
as nobody would fail to buy and read a book, which
had been judged worthy of such a distinction by the
grave convocation of a university.
To the offending author it brought no such happy
presage. He was more fortunate than Servetus, it
is true, in not being tied to his own book when it
was committed to the devouring element ; but even
this lucky escape did not place him beyond the
reach of the long arm of power, nor out of the influ
ence of the relentless spirit of intolerance. He was
arraigned before Bishop Ward, in whose diocess he
held his offices in the church, and was compelled to
make a formal Retractation. This is so curious a
specimen of hierarchical despotisra, practised in a

WHITBY.

protestant country in the boasted days of protestant
liberty, that it is believed the readers of this article
will be gratified to see it entire. It not only relates
to a remarkable incident in the hfe of Whitby, but
is a prominent feature in the history of the age. The
instrument is dated October 9th, 1683, about three
months after the burning at Oxford, and is clothed
in the foUowing language.
" I, Daniel Whitby, doctor of divinity, chantor of
the church of Sarum, and rector of the parish church
of St Edmund's in the city and diocess of Sarum, hav
ing been the author of a book called the Protestant
Reconciler, which, through want of prudence, and
deference to authority, I have caused to be printed
and published, am truly and heartily sorry for the
same, and for any evil influence it hath had upon the
dissenters from the church of England estabUshed by
law, or others. And, whereas it containeth several
passages, which I am convinced in my conscience
are obnoxious to the canons, and do reflect upon the
governors of the said church, I do hereby openly
revoke and renounce all irreverent and unmeet ex
pressions contained therein, by which I have justly
incurred the censure or displeasure of my superi
ors. And, furthermore, whereas these two propo
sitions have been deduced and concluded from die
same book, namely ; first, that it is not lawful for
superiors to impose any thing in the worship of
God, that is not antecedently necessaiy ; and,

WHITBY. y
secondly, that the duty of not offending a Weak
brother is inconsistent with all human authority of
making laws concerning indifferent things ; — I do
hereby openly renounce both the said propositions,
being false, erroneous, and schismatical, and do re
voke and disclaim all tenets, positions, and assertions
contained in the said book, from whence these posi
tions can be inferred ; and, whereinsoever I have
offended therein, I do heartily beg pardon of God,
and the church, for the same."
This carries back our thoughts at once to the
dark ages. It was the tragical farce of the inquisi
tion acted over in miniature ; and was equally a dis
grace to Ward, and an outrage on reUgious liberty
and the rights of humanity. It flowed from the same
spirit of persecution, which condemned and impris
oned Galileo, without the apology of the same degree
of ignorance on the part of the persecutors.*
* When Galileo taught the Copernican system of the revolu
tions of the planets, and the earth's motion, about hfty years before
Whitby's book was burnt, he was summoned before seven cardi
nals, by whom he was condemned, and made to retract his opin
ions. The case is so nearly parallel to that of Whitby and Ward,
that they may very properly be mentioned together. The cardi
nals, like the bishop, found two propositions among Galileo's
doctrines, which they held to be worthy of ecclesiastical con
demnation. " 1. That the sun is the centre of the world, and immoveable,
is a proposition absurd, false in philosophy, and heretical, because
it is expressly contrary to Scripture.
" 2. That the earth is aot the centre ofthe world, nor immove-

10 WHITBY.
We ought not, however, to judge of the temper of
the whole EngUsh church at that time by the con
duct of Bishop Ward. If report speaks truly, as we
have reason to think it does from this example, his
character was not one, which the enUghtened would
praise, or the virtuous envy. As a professor of
astronomy at Oxford, and for his mathematical
attainments, he was justly eminent ; but Anthony
Wood, who speaks from personal knowledge, teUs us
of his shuffling for popular favour, and of his " cow
ardly wavering for lucre and honour sake, his put
ting in and out, and occupying other men's places
for several years." That such a man should be a
able, but has a diurnal motion, is also a proposition absurd, false
in philosophy, and, theologically considered, not less erroneons in
faith." These were the heresies of Galileo, and he waa obliged to ab
jure them by subscribing the formula here annexed.
" From a sincere heart, and faith unfeigned, I abjure, execrate,
and detest the above errors and heresies, and, generally, whatso
ever other en-or or opinion, that is contrary to the Holy Church ;
and with an oath I declare, that I will not any more say or assert,
either by speech or writing, any thing from which it may be pos
sible for a similar suspicion to be entertained of me, — So help me
God, and his holy Gospels, which I now touch with my own
hands." Corde sincero et fide non ficta, abjuro, maledico, et detestor
supradictos errores et hrereses, et generaliter quemcunque alium
errorem et sectam contrariam supradictse Sanctse Ecclesia?; et jure
me in posterum nunquam amplius dicturum aut asserturum, voce
aut scripto, quidquam propter quod possit haberi de me similis
suspicio, — Sic me Deus adjuvet, et saucta ipsius Evangelia, qua
tango propriis manibus.

WHITBY. 11
tyrant, is not so strange, as that a whole church should
have looked on without indignation.
If the conduct of Ward was reprehensible in the
highest degree, the humiUating submission of Whitby
is by no means to be commended. He had written
what he beUeved to be truth, and with the best
motives) he had yielded to the impulse of his con
science, and ventured to say what he thought. His
independence should not have forsaken him at the
moment, when it was most needed to maintain the
honesty of his inteations, and the stability of his
character, and thereby to give weight to his writings.
The cause in which he had engaged either did not
deserve the labour, which he had bestowed, or
it was worthy of the noble sacrifice, which he
was called to make, of all worldly considerations
when brought in competition with truth and right.
It was some apology, perhaps, that he had then
pubUshed only half of his work, and that what
remained was calculated to wear off the rough
aspect of his remarks on church authority. Had his
enemies been patient, they would have had less occa-
-sion for violence. It was his object to bring church
men and dissenters together by mutual concessions,
and his plea was, that each party should yield to the
other in things indifferent. As yet he had alluded
chiefly to the concessions, which it became the
church to make. The afironted dignity and eager
malice of his adversaries found it not convenient to

12 WHITBY.
wait, tiU the whole subject should be fairly presented
before them.
Shortly after his mortifying retractation, the author
pubUshed the second part of the Protestant Recon
ciler. This was especially designed for the dissenters,
showing reasons why they might join conscientiously
with the church of England, and answering the ob
jections of nonconformists against the lawfulness of
submission to that church. It has been insinuated,
that he wrote this part under the influence of author
ity, with the purpose of counteracting the tendency
of the first. This was no other, than an ilUberal
surmise ; for the work must have been far advanced
in printing before his retractation, and is evidently in
unison with his original scheme.
Dr WilUam Sherlock undertook to confute the
whole work, two years after the second part was
pubUshed. In his Dedicatory Episde to the arch
bishop of Canterbury, he affects to consider the
Protestant Reconciler's arguments as verj' weak and
inconclusive ; but he condescends to aUow, " that he
had managed the cause to as much advantage as a
popular and insinuating rhetoric could give it." Sher
lock is not the only man, who has written a great
book to confute what he has at the beginning sneer-
ingly caUed weak arguments ; and, from the labour
to vvhich he has submitted in the present instance,
most persons would be apt to conclude, that he fouud
the logic of his opponent quite as good as liis rhet
oric.

WHITBY. 13
Sherlock makes it his strong point to convict
Whitby of inconsistency, and to destroy the force of
his arguments by making it out, that they confute
one another. He charges him with accounting it
sinful for the church to impose laws to which he
confesses it innocent and advisable for dissenters to
submit J and this he calls a contradiction. In reaUty^
however, no such consequence follows. If the
church had usurped the authority to impose things
indifferent as conditions of fellowship, there certainly
could be no crime in yielding to these indifferent
things ; and, if such a concession would promote
peace and love, it would rather be commendable
than worthy of censure. In addition to this subject,
Sherlock went into a full and formal defence of all
the rights and ceremonies of the church, and plainly
gave his readers to understand, that, if concessions
were to be made any where, they could be only on
one side. Whitby made no reply to Sherlock, nor
to any other person, who wrote against him in this
controversy. On the whole, it may be doubted whether this
method of reconciling protestants was likely to be of
much practical utility. Very important preliminaries
must first be settled. What shall be called things
indifferent ? This must be debated on by both
parties, before they can start in the work of recon
ciUation, And next, which party shaU yield first,
and in the greatest number of particulars.'' Till
2

14 WHITBY.
these preliminaries are adjusted, nothing can be
done ; and it is idle to suppose, that they ever can
be adjusted by a mutual compact. Time and reflec
tion, the dominion of reason, and the progress of
moral improvement, guided by the light and precepts
of the Gospel, are the only effectual reconcilers of
christians. Whitby continued to write occasionally against the
church of Rome, and employed much learning in
discussing the authority of general councils, the
claims of the pope to infallibility, and various other
matters, then subjects of high debate between the
EngUsh and Catholic churches. Among his best
writings in this controversy, is a Treatise on Tradi
tions. His enquiries are first made to bear on the
Scriptures ; and he satisfies himself, that we have
sufficient evidence from tradition, that they are what
they profess to be, the word of God, and that genu
ine and authentic copies have been preserved. In
prosecuting these inquiries further he maintained,
that the church of Rome placed too much confidence
in traditions ; that many things, which have passed
for traditions, are novelties ; and that the heathens
used the same argument of traditionary authority in
favour of their rites, which has been used by many
christians in support of ceremonies and customs not
prescribed in the Scriptures.
The work, which, more than any other, has raised
Whitby's fame, is his Paraphrase and Commentanj

WHITBY. 15
on the New Testament, first pubUshed in 1703, in
two voluraes foUo. The tenth edition appeared,
1807, in quarto. The author informs us in the
preface, that this work cost him the labour of fifteen
years' study, and it is truly a noble monument of his
learning and industry. No Coraraentary in the
EngUsh language has been so generally consulted,
and so universally coraraended by all denorainations
of christians. This is proof enough of the fairness
and impartiality of the author, whatever may have
been his theological opinions. Nor is it a subject of
reproach, that he saw reasons afterwards for chang
ing some of his sentiments. It was not the nature of
Whitby's raind to reraain stationary while truth was
to be found. He loved inquiry because he loved
truth, and it was not surprising he should detect
errors in his former impressions, as he gained more
knowledge and experience.
It will hardly be questioned, that Whitby's Com
mentary vf'a.5 more judicious and accurate, than any
similar work, which had appeared in the English
language at the time of its publication. The author's
method is clumsy, and his annotations sometimes
run into an exuberance of learning not required by
the occasion. These are not glaring faults, and they
are vastly raore than balanced by the clearness of
his expressions, the vivacity of his manner, and his
happy talent at giving a substance and a raeaning to
many things, which most divines before him had

16 WHITBY.
contrived to shut up in the dark. He had no fond
ness for mystical senses in the Scriptures, but be
Ueved, that what God had revealed, must be capa
ble of being understood. He seldom engages in phi
lological discussions, nor ventures on that depart
ment of interpretation, which, in more recent times,
has been denorainated biblical criticism.
It is true, nevertheless, that Whitby's Commentary
constitutes an era in the advancement of a rational
mode of explaining the Scriptures. He improved on
Hammond, as much as Hammond had done on the
scholastic divines. Both of these great commen
tators confined themselves too much to words, and
detached phrases, and isolated texts, especiaUy in
the Epistles. The meaning of words is essential,
and must first be learnt, but it is possible for the
meaning of every word to be known, and, after
all, the sense of the author be lost. This was too
often the case with the old coraraentators ; they
wasted their strength on words ; confounded them
selves and their readers with useless leaming and
idle conjectures ; and at last left the sacred text so
clogged and embarrassed with their officious addi
tions, as to exclude all hope of arriving at a rational,
connected sense in the language of the Apostles.
It was the merit of Locke to originate a method
of interpretation, which develops the meaning of the
sacred writers in its true force and compass. Locke
regarded each Epistle as a whole, which had a unity

WHITBY. 17
in its parts, and in each part he sought for a sense cor
responding to the general design. By this natural
and easy process a thousand difficulties, which had
perplexed the learned, and confounded the plain
inquirer, were cleared away. Peirce, Hallet, Ben
son, and Chandler, pursued successfully the plan of
Locke, and their works together forra a raost valua
ble commentary on the epistolary parts of the New
Testaraent. ¦
Another of Whitby's most popular works is that
on the Five Points of Calvinism, in which he con
futes those doctrines. In his address to the reader,
at the commencement of this work, he says, " They,
who have known my education, may remember, that
I was bred up seven years in the University under
men of the Calvinistical persuasion, and so could hear
no otlier doctrine, or receive no other instructions
frora the men of those times, and therefore had once
firmly entertained all their doctrines. Now that
which first moved me to search into the foundation
of these doctrines, namely, the imputation of Adam's
sin to all his posterity, was the strange consequences
of it." He adds, that after sorae years' attention to
the subject, he fell in with a deist, who grounded his
unbelief in th^ Scriptures chiefly on the doctrine of
original sin, which had been taught him as a part of
the christian reUgion. He alleged, that this doctrine
alone was enough in his mind to invaUdate all the
3*

18 WHITBY.
testimony, that could be brought in favour of the
divine origin of the Scriptures.
By this incident, Whitby was led to think it his
duty to review the subject ; and he declares the
result to have been, that he could discover no proof
of such a doctrine in the word of God. He next
resorted to antiquity, but was not more successful.
Vossius had deceived him, by asserting that it was
always the judgment of the church. After having
perused all the writings of antiquity till the time of
Austin, he was satisfied, that the assertion of Vos
sius rested on his own authority. As far as appear
ed, the doctrine originated with Austin.
By a similar occurrence he was induced to ex
amine the doctrine of election. A friend, who had
been educated in the belief of the Calvinistic dogma
of divine decrees, doubted the truth of the Scrip
tures, since they contained a doctrine so repugnant
to the goodness of God, and so opposite to the under
standing of man. The absurdity of this doctrine he
thought much greater, than a disbeUef in the Scrip
tures, with all the evidence that could be collected
in their support. Whitby again went through the
Bible, and the writings of the ancients, with reference
to this point ; and, as in the former ca^e, he detected
no footsteps of the doctrine of election, till he found
himself in the company of Austin.
Such were the causes in which originated the Dis
course on the Five Points. It contains a learned

WHITBY. 19
and able refutation of these dogmas, and a defence of
the Arminian side of the question.
In the year 1718, Whitby published his Disquisi-
tiones Modesta, being a reply to BuU's defence of
the Nicene Creed. It was BuU's theory, that the
Antenicene fathers entertained what is now called
the orthodox faith, respecting the person of Christ,
and his equaUty with the Father. Whitby corabated
this theory, and airaed to estabUsh the fact, that it
was the prevailing faith of the three first centuries,
that Christ was derived from the Father, and subor
dinate to him. This was not a novel subject with
Whitby, for he had already touched on it in defend
ing Dr Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity ;
and he seems to have adopted sentiments similar to
those of that distinguished philosopher and divine.
The work under notice is writtien in Latin, and is
the result of a long, patient, and laborious investiga
tion of the writings of the early Fathers. The
author commences with a prefatory dedication to
Dr Clarke, in which he complains, that Bull had
made a show of fortifying himself with many quota
tions not weU authenticated, being either allowed by
all the learned to be interpolations, or selected from
works known to be spurious. These he conceives
ought not to have been brought into the question,
as they can have no weight on either side.
Whitby starts with two positions ; first, that noth
ing can be regarded as a revelation, or justly pro-

20 WHITBT.
posed as an article of faith, which is not intelligible
to the human mind ; because faith is an act of the
understanding, by which it yields assent to a proposed
article, and the mind cannot assent to a thing, which
it does not understand ; secondly, the sacred Scrip
tures are the only rule by which to judge of the
truth of any article of faith ; because a reUgious faith
is an assent to the testimony of God, and this testi
mony is to be found in the Scriptures.* These
principles, which he holds to be of the first im
portance, he charges Bull with having disregarded,
both in his speculative and practical fondness for
mystery, and in laying down certain fundamental
propositions, which it is impossible to prove from the
Scriptures. He -quotes several examples in which
Bull speaks in such mystical language, and this too
in some of his raost important statements, as to baffle
* Non posse illud homini cuiquam revelari, aut pro sirticulo
fidei debito proponi, quod mens humana inteUigere non potest.
Est enim fides actus intellectfts, quo assensum exhibet articulo
proposito ; assensum vero rei, quam non intelligit, mens sana non
potest adhibere. Res ergo nondum intellecta, est eam non intel-
ligenti nondum revelata; et id quod mens humana iutelligere non
valet, eidem non potest revelari. Disq. Modest. Praef. xix.
Sacram Scripturam unicam esse regulam, ex qu& de veritate
articuli fidei cujuscunque judicium fieri debet; est enim fides
divina assensus testimonio Dei. Ille autem in Scripturis loqui
tur; ejusque solius testimonio certa fides adhibenda est, cui ob
infinitam ejus sapientiam nihil potest latere, et qui ob summam
ejus vcracitatem nihil quod falsumest enuntiare potest. Ibid. xxiv.

WHITBY. 21
every attempt to gain a distinct conception of his
meaning.* As these faults are at the basis of Bull's great
work, the system, which it engages to defend, is
radically defective. It encourages a false interpre
tation of the Fathers, by converting all their mystery,
and confusion, and jargon, to the aid of an assumed
theory. After pointing out the erroneous positions,
which are at the bottom of Bull's hypothesis, Whitby
proceeds to a detailed examination of the authorities
by which they are supported. In this process he
proves, as he thinks, that Bull, and his learned
editor, Grabe, were raistaken in regard to the pre-
vaiUng opinions of the Antenicene Fathers, and that
these Fathers had no knowledge of the present
orthodox doctrine of the trinity, but believed in the
subordinate nature of Jesus Christ.
Waterland wrote against the Disquisitiones Mo-
destse on the side of Bull, and Whitby replied at
considerable length in two separate answers.
ReUgious Uberty was never without a zealous ad
vocate in Whitby when occasion demanded one, and
* Sectio quarta, quse agit de Filii et Spiritfls Sancti subordina-
tione ad Patrem, et in qu4 de Sanctas Trinitatis doctrin^ expli-
caodei, et, in quibus rectae rationi adversari vicleatur, vindieandi
operam suam PrsBsul, [BuUus,] mystica plane sit, spissis, imma
Cimmeriis tenebris involuta, mentibus omnium mortalium crucem
figat, eaque pro fidei Nicajnae adeoque Christianae fundamentis
proponat, quorura idea nulla menti perspicacissimse observari
potest. Ibid. xix.

22 WHITBY.
it was natural that he should be enUsted as an able
supporter of Hoadly in the Bangorian Controversy.
He wrote an answer to Dr Snape's Second Letter
to the Bishop of Bangor, and defended in a separate
treatise the principles contained in Hoadly's famous
sermon on the church, or kingdom, of Christ.
The work, which closed the long and distinguish
ed labours of Whitby as an author, was his Last
Thoughts. It was first pubUshed in 1727, the year
after his death ; and, although it was a posthumous
work, it was by his own hand entirely prepared for
pubUcation. It was designed to correct several mis
takes in his Commentary, into which mistakes his
further reflections and progress in theological knowl
edge convinced him that he had fallen, while com
posing that iraportant work.
His language respecting the change of his opinions
is noble and ingenuous ; it is worthy of his frank and
liberal raind ; and clairas the admiration of every
lover of truth and sincerity. After freely acknowl
edging a conviction of his former errors, he says,
"I cannot but think it the most gross hypocrisy,
after such conviction, to persist in a mistake;" and
adds, " This my retractation, or change of opinion,
after all my former endeavours to assert and estab
lish a« contrary doctrine, deserves the more to be
considered, because it proceeds, and indeed can
proceed, from me for no other reason but purely
from the strong and irresistible convictions, which

WHITBY. 23
are now upon me, that I was mistaken." He
furthermore inforras us, that his change of senti
ments had been gradual, brought about by calra,
deliberate inquiry, into the sense both of Scripture
and of antiquity, uninfluenced by any other motive
than an earnest desire for the success of truth and
pure religion.
A second edition of the Last Thoughts was pub
lished the next year after the first, and to this was
prefixed a short account of the author, by Dr Sykes.
This edition is considered the best, and is the one
from which the tract is reprinted in the present
Collection. It is now for the first time divided into
sections with distinct heads. It was thought, that
such a division would render the scope of the
author's meaning more perspicuous, and more easily
apprehended by the generality of readers. A short
table of scripture phrases, which was added by the
author, has been omitted, as having no essential
connexion with the work itself.
Five Discourses were appended to the original
edition, which are able and learned, and contain a
further proof and illustration of the sentiments ad
vanced in the Last Thoughts. In connexion with
these, however, their value is not very great, as
there is a close resemblance between the two, and
some parts of the Last Thoughts are Uteral tran
scripts from the Discourses.

24 WHITBY.
Besides the publications already raentioned, Whitby
was the author of many others, especially on practical
and polemical divinity. He pubUshed two volumes
of Sermons on the attributes of God, and three or
four volumes more on various subjects ; a work on
the necessity and usefulness of the christian revela
tion ; a dissertation in Latin on the interpretation of
the Scriptures ; a confutation of SabelUanism ; and
reflections on Dodwell's whirasical notion of the nat
ural mortality of the soul. He, moreover, wrote tracts
on politics, was a warm friend of the revolution, and
approved and defended the oath of allegiance requir
ed on the accession of king WiUiam.
He had Utde to do, however, with politics ; his
long and useful Ufe was devoted almost exclusively
to the interests of religion. He died in the year
1726, at the age of eighty eight. His healfii was
good, and he was able to be abroad, tiU the day
before his death. His meraory was uncommonly
tenacious, and never forsook him ; he was devoted
to his studies to the last ; his eyesight failed near
the end of his Ufe, and he was obliged to employ an
araanuensis. His learning in theology was very
great, more particularly in the history and technics of
polemical divinity ; and no man, probably, in raod
ern times, has been so well read in tlte writings of
christian antiquity.
He is represented as having been amiable and
cheerful in social Ufe, rigorously- attentive to his duties,

WHITBY. 25
without suspicion, and without guile. Of the world
he knew nothing, although he lived in it so long, and
took so active a part in many of its concerns. Wood
said of him, many years before his death, " he hath
been aU along so wholly devoted to his severer stud
ies, that he hath scarce ever allowed himself leisure
to mind any of those mean and trifling worldly con
cerns, which minister matter of gain, pleasure, reach,
and cunning. Also, he hath not been in the least
tainted with those too much now-a-days practised
arts of fraud, cousenage and deceit." Dr Sykes,
after his death, added, " he was ever strangely
ignorant of worldly affairs, even to a degree, that is
scarce to be conceived. He was easy, affable, pious,
devout, and charitable." These traits of character
are in harmony with his writings, which, at the same
time that they bear testimony to his uncommon tal
ents and learning, prove hira to have had the higher
merit of being a good man, and a sincere christian.
3

WHITBY'S LAST THOUGHTS.

PREFACE.
It is rightly and truly observed by Justin Martyr,*
in the beginning of his exhortation to the Greeks,
" That an exact scrutiny into things doth often pro- '
•duce conviction ; that those things, which we once
judged to be right, are, after a more diUgent inquiry
into truth, found to be far otherwise."
And truly I am not ashamed to say, this is my
very case. For, when I wrote ray Commentaries on
the New Testament, I went on, too hastily I own,
in the common beaten road of other reputed ortho
dox divines ; conceiving, first, that the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, in one complex notion, were one
and the same God, by virtue of the same individual
essence communicated frora the Father. This con
fused notion I am now fully convinced by the argu
ments I have offered here, and in the second part of
my Reply to Dr Waterland, to be a thing impossi
ble, and full of gross absurdities and contradictions.
And then, as a natural consequence from this doc-
* Orat. Cohort, ad Graecos, p. 1.

28 whitby's last thoughts.
trine, I, secondly, concluded that those divine per
sons differed only Iv r^iiroi vTrap^euf, in the manner of
their existence. And yet what that can signify in the
Son, according to this doctrine^ it wiU not, I thinkj
be very easy intelUgibly to declare.
That the difference can be only modal, even Dr
South hath fully demonstrated ; and that this was
the opinion generally received frora the fourth cen
tury, may be seen in the close of my first part to Dr
Waterland. And yet the right reverend bishop
Bull* positively affirms, that this is rank SabelUan
ism, in these words ; " A person cannot be conceived
without essence, unless you make a person in divine
matters to be nothing else but a mere raode of ex
istence, which is raanifest SabelUanism." And the
judicious Dr Cudworthf tells us, " That the ortho
dox Anti- Arian fathers did all of them zealously con
demn SabelUanism, the doctrine whereof is no other
but this. That there is but one hypostasis, or single
individual essence of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost ; and consequentiy that they were indeed but
three names, or notions, or modes, of one and the
self same thing. Whence such absurdities as these
vvould follow, that the Father's begetting the Son
was nothing but a narae, notion, or mode of one
* Addo ego, personam sine «ssentiJ concipi non posse, nisi statu-
eris personam in divinis nihil aliud esse quam merum rfiret irifhvs,
quod plane Sabellianum. L. 4. p. 439.
t Cud. System, eh. 4. p. 605.

whitby's last thoughts. 29
Deity begetting another ; or else the same Deity
under one notion begetting itself under another notion.
And when again the Son, or Word, is said to be
incarnate, and to have suffered death for us upon
the cross, that it was nothing but a mere logical
notion, or mode of the Deity under one particular
notion or mode only."
That the doctrine of the Sabellians was exactly
the same with that of those who style themselves the
orthodox, asserting that the Father and tbe Son
are numerically one and the same God, is evident
from the words of Athanasius* and Epiphanius ;f
both testifying, that to say tbe Father and the Son
were //.ovtiniii or TcivToiFioi, of one and the same
substance, was Sabellianism. And surely, of conse
quence, to contend that this is the doctrine of the
Church of England, is to dishonour our church, and
in effect to charge her with that heresy, which was
exploded with scorn by the whole church of Christ,
from the third to this present century.
In a word, all other notions of the word person,
besides the plain and obvious one, signifying a real
and intelligent agent, have been already so excel
lently baffled and learnedly confuted, J that I own I
* 'Ouri yu^ viofran^x tp^avoufctn, uf ot ^«^X^j0i, fic»o4trjov. Espos.
Fidei, p. 241.
-[¦ Koci av ^eyofASv rauros^iev, Iva fih Si Xt^tg vra^a rtirt }.iyou,ivn "%«-.
{s}i.>ilifi i^iiKxri^. AnomtBorum HcBresis, 76, N. 7.
\ See Dr Clarke, Mr Jaekson, and oifeerjs.
3*

30 whitBy's last thoughts.
am not able to resist the shining evidence of truth j
nor am 1 ashamed to confess my former raistakes
and errcfbs in these raatters after such strong and ir
resistible conviction, seeing, humanum est errare, "all
men are liable to error." And as, upon this principle,
I cannot but think it the most gross Jiypocrisy, after
such conviction, to persist in a mistake ; so, without
question, it is the greatest abuse of humility and Iree
thinking, to attribute such open and ingenuous
acknowledgments to a wavering judgment, or levity
of mind.
Neither are there wanting examples of good and
great raen amongst the ancients to bear me out ia
this matter. St Cyprian* frankly confesses, in his
Epistle to Antonianys, that he was formerly in the
rigid opinion of Tertullian, tbat the peace of the
church was never to be given to adulterers, to mur
derers, and idolaters ; and, having changed his opin
ion, he apologizes for it by saying, " Mea apud te
et persona et causa purganda est, ne me aliquis exis-
timet a proposito meo leviter decessisse ; et, cura
evangelicum vigorem primo et inter inrtia defende-
rira, postraodum videar aniraum raeum a disciplina
et censura priore flexisse." And this honest pro
cedure which he practised himself, he also approved
in others, saying,f " Non, quia semel errratum est,
ideo semper errandum esse ; cum magis sapientibus
• Epist. 5S.
t Epist. 73. Edit. Oxon. p. 208.

whitby's last thoughts. 31
et Deum timentibus congruat, patefactee veritati Uben-
ter et incunctanter obsequi, quam pertinaciter atque
obstinate reluctari;" "that a man's having once erred,
is not a reason why he should continue to do so ; for
that it becomes wise men, and such as fear God, to
yield freely and readily to truth, whenever made
known to thera, rather than to persist obstinately in
rejecting it."
St Austin was not more renowned for any of his
works, than for his two books of Retractations, in
which he confesseth all the errors he had committed
in all his other writings.
And this my retractation, or change of my opinion,
after all my former endeavours to assert and estab
lish a contrary doctrine, deserves the more to be
considered, because it proceeds, and indeed can
proceed, from me for no other reason, but purely
frora the strong and irresistible convictions, which
are now upon me, that I was mistaken.
Nothing, I say, but the love of truth can be sup
posed to extort such a retractation from me, who, hav
ing already lived so long beyond the common period
of Ufe, can have nothing else to do but to prepare
for my great change ; and, in order thereunto, to
make my peace with God, and my own conscience,
before I die. To this purpose I solemnly appeal to
to the Searcher of hearts, and call God to witness,
whether I have hastily, or rashly, departed from the
common opinion ; or rather, whether I have not

32 whitby's last thoughts.
deliberately and calmly weighed the arguments o»
both sides drawn from scripture and antiquity .-
As I have no views for this world, so it cannot be
imagined, that the motives drawn from interest, am
bition, or secular glory, can have any place with me.
Or if I had, neither can it be imagined tbat I would
choose to dissent from the received opinion, the
maintainers whereof are they who grasp honours and
preferments, and think they have the best title to
those advantages.
So that upon the whole, if I have erred in chang
ing my opinion, I desire it may be observed, that my
error hath npither prejudice, nor secular views to
support it ; and that my raistake, if such it will be
reputed, hath been all along attended with constant
prayers to the throne of grace, and what hath always
appeared to me to be the strongest reason, and most
undeniable evidence.
And even yet, if any will be so kind, as, in the
spirit of meekness, to answer die arguments I have
produced to justify my change, if it please God to
give me the same degree of health and soundness
of raind, which, by his blessing and goodness, I now
enjoy, I promise sincerely to consider them, and to
act suitably to the strength of the argument ; but, if
any such answer is attempted with angry invectives,
and haughty sophistry, aiming to be wise above what
is written, I must say, ft-evufuv Jia-^tf tV^tv, tiiat is, /
must remain in my present sentiments; having in

whitby*s last thoughts; 33
this short treatise seriously considered all that I had
said in ray coraraentary to the contrary, and fully
answered the raost considerable places I had then
produced for confirraation of the doctrines I there
too hastily endeavoured to establish.
I conclude with those words of St Austin, errare
possum, hcereticus esse nolo, that is, " I raay err, but
I will not be a heretic ;" as yet I must be in St
Paul's sense,* if I would act against the dictates
and strong convictions of my conscience. He hav
ing expressly said that a heretic is one who is ivrtKec-
T<ix.fiiro(, condemned in kis oivn conscience for what
he doth assert. Now, that the God of truth would
give to me, and all others, a right understanding in
all things, is the prayer of
Your friend and
humble servant,
Daniel Whitby.

SECTION I.
Proofs from Scripture, that the Nature and Powers
of Christ were derived from the Father.
It is observable from Scripture, and from the
Fathers of the first three centuries, that whatsoever
our blessed Lord is said to have, as to his nature,
or his attributes, he is said to have by the donation,
of the Father, or as received from the Father.
* Titus iii. 10, U.

84 whitby's last thoughts*
First, He has his Ufe from the Father ; for, as
he himself saith, " As the living Father hath sent
me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me
shall live by me," John vi. 57 ; which cannot be
understood of his resurrection, since it was spoken
in the present tense ; for he doth not say, I shall
Uve, but, I live. He hath his power to raise the
dead from him. For our Lord proves, " that the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and
Uve," because, " as the Father hath Ufe in himself;
so hath he given to the Son to have Ufe in himself."
John V. 25, 26. And he hath also given him power
to judge those whom he should thus raise ; for, saith
he, " the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
all judgment to the Son, sent by him." John v. 22.
24. " He hath given him power over aU flesh, to
give to them, whom God hath given him, eternal
life." John xvii. 2.- " He gave him all power in
heaven and in earth." Matth. xxviu. 18.
Our Saviour also saith, " all that the Father hath,
is mine." John xv. 16. " Because the Father lov
eth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."
John ui. 35. " He is Lord of aU." Acts x. 36.
" Because God made him both Lord and Christ."
Acts ii. 36. As St Peter infers frora God's raising
hira frora the dead. " Him," saith St Paul, " hath
God appointed heir of aU things ;" Heb. i. 2. " and
hath given him to be head over aU things to the
church." Eph. i. 22. and Phil. n. 9. " He hath

whitby's last thoughts. 35
exalted him, and given him a name which is above
every narae ;" according to these words of the
Psalraist, " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou
on my right hand, until I make thine eneraies thy
footstool." Psalra ex. 1. "In him dwelleth ah the
fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col. ii. 9. " Be
cause it pleased the Father, that in him aU fulness
should dweU." Col. i. 19. Agreeably to these
Scriptures, the primitive Fathers give us an account
of Christ's power and dominion, as derived from the
supreme God and Father of all things ; as you may
see hereafter in the agreement of the Fathers with
these sentiments.
Secondly, All his offices are plainly dependent
on, relating to, or received from the Father. The
very nature of his prophetic office requires this ; a
prophet being one, who is sent from God, and
speaketh in his narne. Whence he declares, during
the execution of that office, that, " he spake not of
himself; but, as the Father that sent bim had given
him a comraand, so he spoke " John xii. 49.
His priestly office doth also necessarily imply a
relation to him, whom he was to atone and reconcile
by the merits of his sufferings ; which sufferings, say
the Scriptures, were undergone to reconcile us to God;
" we being reconciled by the death of his son." Rom.
v. 9. Which, by the way, shows, tbat it is unreason
able and absurd to say it was the same individual
godhead, that made satisfaction to the offended per-

36 whitby's last thoughts.
son ; for then, both being the same individual God,
he must make satisfaction to himself ; whereas, the
Scripture doth inform us, " that there is one Medi
ator between God and man." From whence Euse
bius infers that he is of a middle nature between God
and man.*
As for his regal off,ce, the Scripture plainly testi
fies, that God hath " given him authority to execute
judgment, because he is the son of man." John v.
26. And the Apostle teUs us, " that God shall judge
the world by Jesus Christ." Rom. U. 16. His power
to confound aU his eneraies, and those of the church,
is frora that God, who said unto him, " Sit thou on
my right hand, tiU I make thine enemies thy foot
stool." His power to give eternal Ufe to his faithful
servants at the last day, is given him of his Father.
John xvii. 2. And when he hath thus crowned his
servants, and put his eneraies under his feet, then is
he to give up the kingdom " to God the Father, that
God may be all in aU." 1 Cor. xv. 28. The mighty
works he did, were done by the Father, as the Bap
tist testifies in these words. " For he, whom God
hath sent, speaketh the words of God ; for God
giveth not the spirit by measure unto him. The
Father loveth the Son, and hath given aU things into
his hand." John in. 34. He healed the sick, that
came unto him, " because tiie power of God was
• L. I . Cont. Marc. p. 8.

37
present to heal them." Luke v. 17. He himself
saith, " that the works which my Father hath given
me [power] to do, bear witness of rae, that the
Father hath sent rae."^John v. 36. He also con
fesseth that he cast dut devils " by the finger of
God ;" Luke xi. 20. that he did these works " by
the spirit of God." Matth. xn, 18. And, again,
" The Father," saith he, " that dwelleth in rae, he
doth the works." John xiv. 10. That he hath all
his attributes also derived from the Father, is gener
ally acknowledged, even by those who style them
selves the orthodox. And of necessity it must be
so, since all properties flow frora the essence, and
in reaUty are only the essence partially considered,
•or with relation to such powers. So that, when the
individual essence is one and the same, the actions
and powers flowing frora that essence, must be the
same. And hence they constantly assert, that the
will, power, and vvisdom, of the whole trinity, is one
and the same ; and that what one wiUs, does, and
knows, they all wiU, do, and know, by virtue' of this
unity of essence.*
The primitive Fathers of the first three centuries
do also generaUy agree, that the Son received his
power from the Father, as it hath been observed
already. And particularly HippoUtus, "that his
* Dr Waterland, p. 337.
4

38 whitby's last thoughts.
knowledge was given him by the Father ;"* to
which the orthodox are forced to say, that he received
this power, this dominion, and these attributes, by
receiving the same individual essence with the
Father ; which yet is a thing impossible in itself;
since an individual essence cannot be comraunicated,
for that very reason, because it is an individual, that
is, one, and no more. Nor can three essences be
one and no more, by being connexe et conjwncte, as
TertuUian's Thecla, or the Spirit of Montanus taught
him, but only three essences joined and connected
to one another.
Moreover, hence it must foUow, that the same
numerical essence must be self-existent, and not self-
existent ; communicated, and yet incommunicable, as
a self-existing essence must necessarily be ; gen
erated, and ungenerated ; derived, and underived;
it being certain, that the Father's essence is self-
existing, uncomraunicated, and underived ; and that
the essence of the Son is not so. So that it must
be an express contradiction to predicate these oppo
site and contradictory assertions of the same numer
ical essence. And hence it wiU follow, that this
God must be Deus de Deo, and yet Deus de A''vno;
or, which is the same thing, a self-existing being, as
he necessarily is in the Father, and yet he must
* XleEO'av Tn* l^'iffT^/tt}^ ^a^« Ttv ^str^es XteCuv. Contra JVo^/WWt.
,p. 9.

whitby's last thoughts. 39
communicate himself to another ; who yet only is
another by having that essence coramunicated to him ;
and he must communicate himself unto another, by
continuing invariably the same that he was before.
To omit many other like absurdities. Accordingly,
a learned author very weU observes, " that, as this
doctrine would deprive both the Son' and Holy
Ghost of any proper essence and attributes of their
own, so would it follow that they are only naraes."^
For the same reason, neither can an individual power
be communicated, as the same author proves in these
words ; " the reason why the individual knowledge
or power of God cannot be communicated, any more
than his individual existence, is, because they are
individual, and nothing that is individual can ever be
comraunicated from one thing to another."f

SECTION II.
The Scriptures teach, that Christ is a distinct Being
from the Father, and subordinate to him.
The essence of the Father being essentially an
intelligent and active essence, and so a personal
essence, it is evident, it cannot be coraraunicated,
* Modest Plea continued. Answer to Query 23, p. SO.
•f Answer to Bemarks, &c. p. 230.

40 whitby's last thoughts.
unless a personal essence be communicated ; and
then the person to whom it is communicated must be
two persons. Frora bence arise these corollaries ;
That the Son is a real and distinct person from
the Supreme God ; and, also.
That he is not of one and the sarae individual
essence with him.
First, He is a real person distinguished from
him. For Christ every where declares himself not
to be the Father, but to come forth from him, to
speak by his authority and commission, to do noth
ing of himself, but every thing by the power of the
Father ; nothing to his own, but every thing to his
Father's glory.
And yet he speaks these things of himself, consid
ered as coming down from heaven ; and with pro
nouns personal ; and sometiraes in opposition to the
whole person of the Father, as when he saith, " He
that believeth in me, beUeveth not in me, but in him
that sent me." John xii. 44.
Secondly, That he is not of the same individual
or numerical essence ivith God the Father, is evident
from these considerations.
That, where the numerical essence is one and the
same, the wiU and actions of that essence must be
one and the same. And where the wiU and actions
are numerically distinct and diverse, there the indi
vidual essence must also be distinct and different.

whitby's last thoughts. 41
And this Damascen declares to be the doctrine of
the holy Fathers.*
Hence it demonstratively follows, that, if the
essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be
numerically one and the same, the will, and all the
other actions of these three, must be numerically one
and the same ; so that what the Father wiUs, and
does, the Son and Holy Ghost raust wiU, and do,
also. Now to show the inconsistency of this with the
plain declarations of holy Scripture, let it be con
sidered, - ;
First, that, if the essence of the Son, for instance,
is one and the same with that of God the Father,
his wiU must of necessity be one and the same with
that of God the Father. And what the Father wiUs,
the Son raust of necessity wiU also ; that is, the will
of the Father raust of necessity be his wiU too. But
this is directly inconsistent with these words of Christ,
" I seek not raine own wiU, but the wiU of the
Father which sent rae."f John v. 20. And "I carae
down frora heaven, not that I raight do mine own will,
* "Oi TLuri^es oi otytai %(patrav, av fi sturia fiia, vourMv xal vi Wi^yua,
flta, xa) Sv ata^a^os n oiiffia, rouraiv ^iti^o^es Ka'i n ivipyua. c. 13. de
Orthod. Fide, L. 3. p. 232, and c. 19. p. 255.
f Nee suam, sed Patris perfedt voluntatem, TepuU. adv. Prax. c. 8.
''Erg^flv SKurov rod Tlar^os ^I'tKvurat ha rov ow ^»tru ro ^tXTifia ro
\liav, uX^a TO B-iXij/ia rou ^i/A-^avros jws, »ai l« rov ovpavov xareXviXt/.
^i^vxi ovx. 'tva ^ait^if9t ro BiXyi[Aoo \xvrov aXXa rov vrifA-4'avro$ otiiroy.
Euseb. Eccles, T)ieol. L. 2. c. 7. p. 110.
4*

42 whitby's last thoughts.
but the wiU of him that sent me." John vi. 38. And
" My meat is, that I may do the wiU of him that sent
me ; and that I may finish his work." John iv. 34.
For can the numerical essence send itself, and be
sent by itself, and become his own legate .'' Neither
can he, that hath the same nuraerical will with the
Father, corae down from heaven not to do his own
will. And here note, that all this is spoken of the
will of him, that came down from heaven, and tiiere-
fore of the divine wiU of the Son.
Secondly, where the individual essence is one and
the same, the actions of that essence must be one
and the same ; so that what is done by the Father,
must of necessity be done by the same individual
essence of the Son, provided both have one essence.
And yet this also is plainly inconsistent with the
words of Christ, and with the declarations of holy
Scripture. As when Christ saith, " My doctrine is
not mine, but his that sent rae." John vii. 16. Again,
" The Father which sent me, he gave me a com
mandment what I should say, and what I should
speak ; as the Father hath given me a coraraand
ment, so I speak." John xn. 49, 50.
Now, can the sarae individual essence send, and
command itself .'' Or could our Lord absolutely deny
that ¦ doctrine to be his, which proceeded from his
own numerical essence .-' If I and the Father are
one, signify one in essence, it must signify one in
action also ; and so what one sends, the other must

whitby's last thoughts. 43
send ; what one coraraands, the other must also cora
raand ; and the doctrine which one teacheth, must
be taught by the other also.*
Again, " The works," saith he, " which I do in
my Father's name," that is, by his authority, " and
the works which my Father hath given rae [power]
to do, they bear witness of rae." John v. 36. But
how can one of the sarae individual essence with the
Father act in his narae, and not in his own also ?
Again, " As the Father hath taught me, so I speak."f
John viu. 28. And, " The Father hath not left me
alone, for I do always the things that are most pleas
ing to him." Now, can one of the sarae nuraerical
essence with the Father be taught by another, and
not by himself? Or can he do those things, which
are pleasing to another, and not to himself.'' In a
word, if the essence of the Father and Son be one
and the same, and consequently the actions flowing
from that essence be one and the sarae in both ;
hence it demonstratively follows, that if to beget
and to communicate an essence, be to act, the Son
must as truly beget and coraraunicate his essence to
*. Alium dicam oportet, ex necessitate senses, eum qui jubet, et eum
qui facit. Nam nee juberet, si ipse faceret, dum juberet fieri per eum.
Tamen jubebat, haud sibi jussurus si unus esset ; aut sine jussu factu-
rus, quia non expectasset ut sibi juberet. TertvM. adv. Prax. c. 12.
et 9. Bonum placitum patris filius perfecit ; mittit enim Paler, mittitur
autem et venit FUius. Iren. L. 4. c. 1 4. it\ hnXXiftivos iri^cJ ivrixXsrin
rtvi. Cons. Antioch. Sex Epis. Condi. Tom. 1 . Ed. Lab. p. 84^'
t Vide Euseb. de Eccles. Theol. L. 1 . i;. 20. p. 90.

44 whitby's last thoughts.
himself, as the Father doth, and so must be botb
Father and Son to hiraself.
Thirdly, one individual essence can give nothing
to, and receive nothing from itself, because it can give
nothing but what it hath already, and therefore can
not receive by way of gift. And this in an all-
perfect and self-sufficient being is the more certain,
because it is incapable of any accession to its abso
lute perfection.
If, then, God the Son hath the same numerical
essence, which the Father hath, he could not properly
and truly say, " AU things are delivered to me by
my Father."* Matth. xi. 17. For could the Father
either give or reveal any thing to his own essence,
which it had not, or knew not, before ? And again,
" All power is given to me in heaven and earth ;"
Matth. xxviu, 18. seeing the same essence must
have always the same power. " The Father," saith
Christ, " loveth the Son, and hath given all things into
his hands," John iii. 35. even into the hands of that
Son, who came down from Heaven, hath he given
all things ; not by communication of his own numer
ical essence to him, but from that affection, which
he bore to him. So again, " Jesus knowing that the
• To ya^ B-otj ETSfOO Xx/iSdvov rl, irtfov traga rov %iiovra voiirat.
Euseb. Eccles. Theol. L. 3. c. 4. p. 169. ¦rUsTii.xiiiti'ros £v rov^m
iavrou 'Utytv amtmixtai. Ibid. L. l.c. 20. p. 90. et plenius, L. 2. t.
7. p. 110. Nam nee qui accipit unus est cum dante, nee qui traditum
accipit aequalis est ei qui tradidit. Ojrus imperf. in Math. p. 97.

45
Father had given all things into his hands, and that
he carae down from Heaven, washed the Disciples'
feet." John xui. 3. And yet, if he that came down
from Heaven had the same numerical essence with
the Father, he must give all things into his own
hands, or give it to him who always bad it. Again,
" The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
aU judgment to the Son," John v. 22. even to that
Son which " he had sent down frora Heaven." V.
23. and therefore to hira, who had a divine nature,
by which alone he could be enabled to execute
that judgment. And, " Thou (Father) hast given
him (thy Son) power over all flesh, that he raay
give etemal Ufe to aU that thou hast given hira."
Chap. xvii. 2. An earthly parent raay give the power
to his Son to give gratuities to his servants coraraitted
to hira, because he is, in essence, numerically distinct
from him ; but were they numerically one in essence,
the power of both must be one ; and what was given,
must be given by both.
Christ answers thus to the sons of Zebedee, " To
sit on ray right hand, and on ray left, is not raine to
give, but it shaU be given to them for whom it is
prepared of my Father."* Matth. xx, 25. And yet,
where the essence is one and the same, tbe gift
must proceed frora one and the same essence in
* Inter cujus ngn est, et inter cujus est, nee persona una est, neo
eequalis potestas. Si Fater et Filius unus est, certe aut potest Filius,
aut non potest Pater. Opus imperf, in Math, Ho, S3, p. 128.

46 whitby's last thoughts.
both, and be prepared for them, to whom it is given
by both.
Fourthly, the sarae nuraerical essence cannot send
itself ; or be sent from, and return to itself. And
yet how frequently doth our Lord inform us that
" the Father had sent him into the world," and that
"he came forth from the Father;" and "came into
the world V To select a few of his sayings ; " He
that receiveth you, receiveth rae ; and he that re
ceiveth me, receiveth him that sent rae." Matth. x.
40. John xiii. 20. " He that despiseth you, despiseth
me ; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that
sent me." In which words there seems to be a
plain gradation from the lesser to the greater. " He
that receiveth rae, receiveth not me, but him that
sent me." Mar. ix. 37. " He that beUeveth in me,
beUeveth not in me, but in him that sent me."
John xii. 14.
Could this negation be truely spoken by one and
the same God with him that sent him .'' Is not the
import of these words plainly this .'' He receiveth,
or believeth, not only in me his messenger, speaking
in his name, but in that God who sent me on his
message .'' Is not this his own interpretation, when
he saith, " the word which you hear, is not mine,
but the Father's which sent me." John xiv. 24.
And is not this the import of the like phrases used
both in the Old and New Testament .'' As when it
is said, " Your murmurings are not against us, but

whitby's last thoughts. 47
against the Lord." Exod. xvi. 8. And, " they have
not rejected thee, but they have rejected rae."
1 Sam. viu. 7. " He that despiseth our command
ment, despiseth not man, but God." Thess. iv. 8.
Again, chap. vin. 17, 18. Christ speaketh thus; "In
your law it is written, the testimony of two men is
true ; I ara one that bear witness of rayself, and the
Father that sent rae, beareth witness of rae." Where
observe, that the doctrine of the nuraerical unity of
the Father and the Son in essence and in actions,
destroys Christ's arguraent, and turns it into a paral
ogism ; for upon this supposition the Pharisees might
have answered, that the testimony of two men might
well be deemed the testimony of two witnesses, be
cause they were as to nature numerically different,
and their testimony contained two different actions,
the testimony of one being not the testimony of the
other ; whereas, the testimony of the Father and
Son, were only the same numerical action of them
both ; and so could not properly be said to be
two testimonies.
And " Say you of him whom the Father hath sanc
tified, and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest,
because I said, I am the Son of God .^"* John x.
* Sanctificatum se a Patre proponit; dum ergo sanctificalionem accipit
a Patre, minor Patre est, minor autem Patre consequenter, sed Filius.
Pater enim si fuisset, sanctificationem dedisset, non accepisset; nunc
autem protitendo se accipere Sanctificationem a Patre, hoc ipso, quo
Patre se minorem accipiendo ab ipso sanctiticationem probat, Filium se
esse, non Patrem monstravit. Novat. c. 22.

48 whitby's last thoughts.
37. Froni this answer it is evident, first, that they
accused our Lord of blasphemy, not for saying " I
and the Father are one," V. 30. but for styling God
his Father, and so in effect saying, he was the Son
of God. For this is the reason of that accusation,
which our Lord here speaks of. Secondly, our
Lord here proves himself to be the Son of God,
because the " Father had sanctified him, and sent
him into the world," whereas he, who hath one
numerical essence with the Father, must do the
same action, which the Father doth, and so raust
sanctify himself, and send himself into the world.
Thirdly, he proves hiraself to be the Son of God,
because he did the works of his Father ; for so it
immediately follows, " If I do not the works of my
Father, beUeve me not to be his Son." V. 38. Now
these works, saith he, I do Iv itlfiMn toS 3-«rf 04, in my
Father^s name, that is, not by my own, but by his
authority and power ; whereas he, who is numeri
cally one in essence with the Father, must do his
works by one and the sarae authority and power.
Fifthly, no numerical essence can do an action by
another ; for, where the essence is the same, the
action must proceed from the same essence, and so
not be done by another. And yet it is expressly
said, that " God created aU things by Jesus Christ."
Ephes. ui. 9. That " by him he made the worlds."
Heb. i. 2. That " God wiU judge tiie secrets of
raen by Jesus Christ." Rora. n. 15. " He tiiat

whitby's last thoughts. 49
raised up the Lord Jesus Christ, shaU raise us up
also by Jesus." 1 Cor. iv. 14. " It pleased the
Father by hira to reconcile all things to hiraself."
Col. i. 19, 20. " Likewise reckon ye also your
selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God
through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. vi. 11. and,
verse 23. " For the wages of sin is death, but the
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord." And, " I thank God, through Jesus Christ
our Lord." Chap. vu. 25. And again, " Unto him
be glory in the church by Christ Jesus." Eph. iu.
21. And, " My God shaU supply all your needs,
according to his riches in glory, by Christ Jesus."
Phil. iv. 19.
For the sarae reason, we could not, upon this
supposition, properly be said to have things from
God, or to do things to God by Christ ; to have
"peace with God hit by, or through, our Lord Jesus
Christ." Rom. v. 1. 11. "To the only wise God
be glory, ha by our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. xvi.
'27. " Thanks be to God who hath given us the
victory, ha by our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. xv.
57. "Such hope have we to God, by Christ."
2 Cor. iii. 4. " We are fiUed with the fruits of
righteousness, which' are by Jesus Christ to the
glory of God the Father. Phil. i. 11. "We give
thanks, &em Ket] n«rf<, to God, even the Father, by
him." Colos. in. 17. "We offer up spiritual sacri
fices, acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ."
5

50 whitby's last thoughts.
1 Pet. ii. 5. " That God in aU things raay be
glorified, through Jesus Christ." Chap. iv. 11. Now,
if Christ be the sarae only wise God, acting by the
sarae individual essence, can glory be given to hira
by our Lord, and not by hiraself.'' Can our sacrifices
be acceptable to God by him, and not also to him .''
Or can God in all things be glorified by himself?
" By him," saith St Paul, " let us offer up our
sacrifices of praise to God always." Heb. xiii. 15.
And, if he be the sarae individual essence, must they
not be offered also to him, as well as by him .''
In fine, it is observable, that, though our modern
writers do endeavour to prove from the miracles our
Saviour did, that he was the same supreme God
with the Father, yet Christ himself doth only use
them to prove, that he was sent by the Father, and
had commission from hira to deliver this message to
the world. As is evident from these words, " But
I have greater witness than that of John ; for the
works which the Father hath given me to finish, the
same works that I do, bear witness of rae, that the
Father hath sent rae." John v. 36. And, when he
raised up Lazarus frora the dead, be speaks thus to
his Father, " Father, I know that thou hearest me
always ; but this I said, that they [the Jews] might
beUeve that thou hast sent me." John xi. 42.
Hence it is certain, that there can be no communi
cation, internal production, or necessary emanation
of the individual essence of the Father to the Son.

whitby's last thoughts. 51
First, because, as I have already proved, an
individual essence cannot be communicated ; and
also because a particular essence, subsisting by
itself, in intelligent beings, as the essence of the
Father is, is the same as a person ; and therefore
cannot be communicated without the coraraunica
tion of the person. And yet, it is on all hands
granted, that the person of the Father, as a self-
existing being, was not, and cannot be communi
cated to the Son.
Secondly, internal production, that is, production in
the essence of the Father, is indeed no production
at aU. For, since this internal production is said to
give to the Son no distinct existence of its own, it
is manifest it is a production of nothing, that is, no
production at aU ; for that which hath no existence
of its own, is not produced. Nor,
Thirdly, can the Son's essence be produced by
necessary eraanation. Because such eraanation,
and the essence frora which it eraanateth, would
both be as equally self-existent, as it is equally
necessary for God to be an inteUigent being, and
to be at all. For whatever necessarily and essen
tially belongs to that which is self-existent, is itself
self-existent, as being indeed only the very same
thing apprehended under a partial consideration.
And, again, it is the general doctrine of the Ante
nicene Fathers, that the Son was produced by the
wiU of the Father. This is expressly taught by

52 whitby's last thoughts.
Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Novatian.
And, saith Eusebius, it is that doctrine, which ii «•«-
(paTaTsi TUV nctrigav iv riiii cixeio'i trvvray^iriv aTTi^tavTc,
the wisest of the Fathers declared in their genuine
works.* And the same Father puts this difference
between the emanation of light frora the sun, and
the generation of the Son of God ; that the first
results necessarily from the nature of the sun, it
being of necessity that aU luminous bodies should
send forth rays of Ught; but that the Son was the
iraage of the Father, xara yvafiJiv x.oi] Tgoxigent avToi,
according to his counsel and choice.\
A necessary eraanation from the Father by the
will and power of the Father, is an express con
tradiction ; because necessity, in its very notion,
excludes all operation of will and power, though
it may be consistent with approbation. See all
this fully proved, in the Agreement of the Fathers,
Sect. 4. and in ray answer to Dr Waterland, part
2, p. 19-22.
It is observable that, in Irenaeus's time, the way
of expressing the proceeding of the Son from the
Father, seems not to have been determined by any
decision of the church, but only by the Valentinian
heretics, as seemeth plain from the words of Ire-
najus. " The Valentinians," saith he, " are irraiion-
" Eccles. Theol. L. 1 . p. 20.
t Demon. Evang. L. 4. i. 3. p. 147, 148.

WHITBY S LAST THOUGHTS. OO
ahiliter inflati, unreasonably puffed up, by pretending
to know the unspeakable mysteries of the generation
of Christ ; and if any raan asks," saith he, Quo
m,odo Filius a Patre prolatus est ? JVemo novit,
dicemus ei, nisi solus qui generavit Pater, et qui
natus est Filius.* " How the Son proceeds from
the Father ; whether by prolation, or generation,
or by declaration, or by whatsoever narae it be cal
led .'' We answer. No one knows but the Father
who begat, and the Son who was begotten of hira."

SECTION III.
In what Sense Christ may be called God.
Hence it follows, that Christ must be truly God,
because he hath dominion over aU flesh, and all
power in Heaven, and in earth, imparted to him.
For this dominion is the ground of divine worship
and authority ; according to that aphorism, Deus
est qui dominium habet, summus summum, verus ve
rum, falsus falsum, " He is God who has dominion ;
he is the supreme God, who has the highest and
underived dominion ; a true God, who has trij^e
dominion over aU things ; a false God, who falsely
pretends to that dominion which he has no right to
* L. 2. 0. 48. p. 176. Ed. Grab.
5*

54 whitby's last thoughts.
exercise." And to this we may refer those words,
o ^e Kctrei.rK.svoiii-eiii ra iruvra i ©£05, He that governs all
things is God. Heb. in. 3, 4. See the note there.*
Our blessed Lord, therefore, having a true do
minion over all things in heaven and earth, must be
truly God. And that this dominion is given and
committed to hira by the Father, doth not render
hira less truly God ; because the word, God, being
a relative terra, it is not the metaphysical nature^ but
the exercise of dominion, that constitutes him a God
to us. And this dominion he ascribeth to himself
in these words, " The Father judgeth no man, but
hath committed all judgment unto the Son ;" and
hence infers, that " all men should honour the Son,
even as they honour the Father that sent him ;" and
adds, " he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not
the Father that sent him." Accordingly, Origen
saith, the heathens can shew no coraraand for
worshipping Antinous, or any of their other Gods ;
whereas the christians have an express coraraand,
from the most high God, to worship Christ, namely,
those words, that " all men should honour the Son,"
Stc.f And, again, the maker of the world com
mended Jesus Christ to the breasts of all christians,
to be honoured with divine honour, not for his unity
* Whitby's Paraphrase, Heb. iii. 4.
f 'AcroSej'|o/i£v ert aro Qiov ii^9teu «r(/T« to rtfiaff$m, Cfn^<l Ceh-
um, h, 8. p. 384-.

55
of essence with hira, but for the efficacy of his
wonderful doctrine. Novatian saith, " That God
the Father is justly styled the God over aU, and the-
original, even of the Son hiraself, whom he begat.
Lord of aU ; and also, that the Son is the God of
all other things subject to him."* Accordingly St
Paul teacheth us, "that God hath highly exalted
him, and given him a name above every name ;
that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow,
of tilings in Heaven, things in earth, and things
under the earth, and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father." Phil. n. 9, 10, 11. And, accord
ingly, Irenaeus saith in the forecited passages, that
Christ is vere Deus et Dominus, " truly God and
Lord," though he owned he received his dominion
over all creatures from the Father. -j-
Hence it is evident, that Jesus Christ must have
received, as the foundation of this dominion, all
power necessary to the exercise thereof, since it
is unreasonable to conceive, that an all-wise God
should have given that power to him, which he had
not enabled hira to execute ; and, therefore, that
his providence raust reach to the governraent and
direction of all creatures, " aU things being made
subject unto him ;" and that he must have the largest
power, " for he hath put all things under his feet.'*
* L. 31. p. 730. t !'• 3. e. 6.

56 whitby's last thoughts.
1 Cor. XV. 27, 28, 29. For from this power given
by the Father " to have Ufe in himself," he infers,
" that the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God, and live." John v. 25, 26. And hence St
Paul informs us, " that he shall change our vile
bodies into the Ukeness of his glorious body, ac
cording to the mighty power, whereby he is able
to subdue aU things to himself." Phil. iii. 21. He,
being appointed to be the judge of quick and dead,
must have the knowledge of the hearts of those
whora he is to judge, that so he may judge of all
men according to their works. And, therefore, this
knowledge he ascribes to himself in these words,
" All the churches shall know that I am he, who
searcheth the reins and the hearts, and will give to
every one according to bis works. Rev. u. 23.
Now, to him, who hath the knowledge of the hearts
of all them who pray unto him, who hath dominion
over all things in heaven and earth, who is able to
raise the dead with glorious bodies, who hath power
over all flesh, to give eternal life to them that believe
in him, and to punish all who obey not his gospel,
and to reward every man according to his works,
doubtless we have sufficient ground to pray to, as
well as to believe, hope, and trust in him, and to
depend upon hira for all the blessings we can want,
and he is able to confer upon us. Thus, therefore,
we are to honour the Son, Uke as we honour the
Father that sent him, and hath given aU power mto
his hands.

whitby's last thoughts. 57
Now, frora what hath been thus discoursed, we
learn two reasons, why our blessed Lord may be
truly styled God.
First, by reason of his divine excellencies, he
having derived from the Father the like excellencies
to those by which the Father himself doth govern
the world, and exerciseth his divine power over all
things, naraely, a providence ruling over all things,
a right to judge all raen, and a knowledge of the
secrets of the hearts of thera whom he is to judge.
And hence most of the Ante-nicene Fathers say,
that he is, «(x»» t^s naT^mrji GiornTci, x»< ha TtuTC 0£Of,
the image of the Father's deity, and therefore God.
Secondly, because he hath dominion over all things
in heaven and earth, and God hath put all things
under his feet. For, seeing God hath given that '
very dominion, which he himself exerciseth, into the
hands of the Son, he must have thereby constituted
him truly God and Lord over us. And, though he
was qualified for this dominion before by his divine
excellencies, he could not have them given hira
before there was a heaven and an earth, over
which he should have dominion.*
* [The word God, is used in various significations by the sacred
writers, both in the Old and New Testament.
1. It denotes the Supreme Being, the Creator and Governor o{
all things.
2. It is applied to angels, or celestial beings. " For though there
be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be goda

58 whitby's last thoughts.
Hence, even of God the Father, Tertullian saith,
though he was always God, he was not always Lord,
nam ex quo esse caperunt in quce potestas domini
ageret, ex illo per accessionem potestatis, et factus,
et dictus est dominus ; and again. Sic et dominum
non ante ea quorum dominus existeret, sed dominus
tantum futurus quandoque — per ea quce sibi servitura
fecisset,* " He was not Lord, nor to be called so,
till he had made thosd creatures, over which he was
to have dorainion."
many and lords many ; but to us there is but one God, the Father,"
1 Cor. viii. 5.
3. Moses is called by this name. " And the Lord said unto Moses,
I have made thee a god to Pharaoh.'' Exod. vii. 1.
4. Magistrates, judges, and kings are called gods. " Thou shalt
not revile the gods, nor curse the rulers of the people." Exod. xxii. 28.
" God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among
the gods.— I have said, ye are gods." Psalms Ixxxii. 1. 6.
5. It is used to denote the images of heathen deities. *' Make us
gods to go before us. " Acts vii. 40. And also to express those deities
themselves. " The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.*'
Acts xiv. 11.
From these different uses of the word, it appears, that it does not
relate to the nature or esscTice of the being or object to wbich it is ap
plied ; but rather to their superiority, either in power, or goodness, or
both. It has not, therefore, a uniform and definite meaning. It is a
relative term, and implies degrees. Such is the scriptural application
of the term, and in this manner was it also employed by the ancient
heathen writers, and the early christian fathers.

' CotUra Hermog. c. 3. p. 234.

whitby's last thoughts. 69
Hence it follows, that the Son of God must be
truly inferior to God the Father, and the Father
truly superior to him, since he who receiveth all his
power and excellencies from the Father, and hath
them all derived from him in whom they are self-
existent and underived ; he who is sent by, and
is obedient to his Father's will, must be inferior to
him who sent him.* And hence it follows, that
the worship due unto him, though it be divine, is
inferior worship, as being the worship of one, to
The Greeks and Romans, says Le Clerc, had no knowledge of a
being, who had existed without beginning, or who was possessed of all
perfections ; nor did the Hebrews embrace these perfections in the idea
which they attached to the word 0''n'7X, God. Some of the philoso
phers among the gentiles, and particularly the Platonists, had a notion
of the Deity, very nearly resembling that of Christians, but it was not
in the power of philosophers to correct the use of language among the
common people. The poets had a much greater influence, and they
represented the gods as coming into existence after the heavens and the
earth ; and their Chaos had an origin still anterior to these.
The early Christians seem to have been much influenced in many
respects by the opinions prevalent among the heathens, and especially
in the use of the term God. They did not confine it, as is the practice
at present, to the Supreme Being, but applied it to Christ, even when
they aUowed him to be subordinate to the Most High. Hence we find
Novatian saying, that the " Father is God over all," and the " Son is
God over all other things subject to him." And Eusebius tells us,
that the " Son is God, because he is the image of the Father's deity."
It is true, this was only giving the same name to the Son as to the
'* To 7«^ vxaxovetv rov 5e r^ Se, ivsiv yivoir av f^offa^m ra^aa'raTiKov. -
Eus. Ecc. Theol. L. 1. c. 20. p. 94,

60 whitby's last thoughts.
whom the Father hath given all' dominion both in
heaven and earth. In Heaven; " For when God
brought forth his first begotten into the world, he
said, let aU the angels of God worship him." Heb.
i. 6. And St Peter informs us, " That angels,
authorities, and powers, are made subject unto him."
1 Pet. in. 22. In earth ; '^For the Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the
Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as
they honour the Father ; he tbat honoureth not the
Son, honoureth not the Father that sent hira." John
V. 22, 23.
Now, hence it is plain, that because Christ was
the Son of man, therefore the Father gave him
authority to execute judgment, or committed aU
judgment to him. And, because God gave him
authority to execute judgment, therefore all men
should honour him even as they honour the Father;
that is, in other words, Christ's honour and worship
are founded upon the Father's gift ; and the reason
Father, without altering the nature of either ; but names do thdr office
very poorly, when they confound, rather than distinguish things. At
that time, for reasons above stated, this use of language wa5 more al
lowable, than at present. Among Christians the word God, seems
now to be exclusively appropriated to the Almighty ; and it must be
considered as an improper use of the terra to apply it to the Son, unless
he is believed to be the Supreme Being.
For an extended view of this subject, see Clerici Art. Crit. P. II.
S. I. c. II. Reg. 2. — Also, Schleusner in verb. Qiis.—HaUef's N'otes
and Discourses, Vol. II. p. 214. Editok.]

whitby's last thoughts. 61
of the Father's giving it, was his becoming the Son
of man. Surely then the most high God raust be
superior to the Son of man ; and he that gave this
honour to him, must be superior to him, who re
ceived it from him as his gift.
Hence, St Paul informs us, " that God hath
highly exaltted him, and given bim a narae, that is
above every name, that at the name of Jesus, every
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth ; and that every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father." Phil. u. 9, 10, 11.
Now he, who is made Lord, to the glory of God the
Father, cannot be the same Lord with God the
Father ; since, then, he must be Lord, and God to
his' own glory. All that Dr Waterland offers, to
evade the force of this text, is fully considered, and
confuted by the ingenious author of The unity of God,
in his answer to the Dr's remarks, page 38. But
against this, Dr Waterland objects these words of
Irenaeus, Qui super se habet aliquem superiorem, et
sub alterius potestate, est hie neque Deus, neque
magnus rex dici potest ;* that is, " he that hath
another superior to him, and is under the power
of another, cannot be caUed God, or a great king."
Not considering, or rather unduly concealing, that
these words were spoken against the heresies of the
* L. 1. c, 29. p. 104.

62 whitby's last thoughts.
Valentinians, and Mareionites, who not only held
that there was another superior to that God, who
made the world, but that the God, who gave the law
was only just, hut not good ; and that this superior
God sent Jesus to annul what he had done.
Irenaeus saith, they caUed him moreover, malorum
fabricatorem,* " The maker of evil things." And
that Jesus was sent by that Father, qui est super
mundi fabricatorem Deum, " who was superior to
God, the maker of the world, to dissolve the law
and the prophets," et omnia opera ejus Dei qui
mundum fecit,\ " and all the works of that God
who made the world." And well might Irenseus
say, that he that hath thus a superior, and is so
far under the power of another, as to destroy aU
that he had done, and pronounces him a wicked
being, can neither be truly God, nor a great king.
But yet this hinders not, but that he who hath a
power over all things committed to hira from the
Father, who acts by his authority, and always
agreeably to his wiU, may be truly God ; he being,
as Eusebius truly saith, £j««v -nn ¦rargnciji ^sirtirti, mti
ha nvTa ^ei(. The image of the Father's deity, and
therefore God.
* L. 4. c. 5. p. ,278.
¦|- L. 1. c. 29. p. 104. Cont. Marcel, L. 2. c. 23. p. 141.
L> I. c. 2. p. 61,62.

whitby's last thoughts. 63

SECTION IV.
On the Faith necessary for Salvation.
Moreover, the fundamental principle of the
protestant religion is this. That the holy Scriptures
contain a sufficient clearness in all things necessary
to be believed, or done in order to salvation.
Whence it clearly follows, that what is not with
sufficient clearness contained in the Scripture, can
not be truly deemed a necessary article of christian
faith, or a doctrine necessary to be beUeved unto
salvation. Hence, therefore, I think it may rationally be
inquired. First, Where hath the Scripture said, That the
individual essence of the Father, hath been com
municated to the Son, and Holy Ghost, or that
they derive the same individual essence 1% ooTini mS
n«Tf 05, from the essence of the Father, or have the
same individual essence with him, and so are the
same one God 9
Secondly, Where hath the Scripture said. That
the Son proceedeth from the Father hy necessary
emanation'? Or,
Thirdly, By an internal production within the
essence of the Father; though that seems plainly
necessary to be asserted by those, who call them-

64 whitby's last thoughts.
selves orthodox ; since, if he be produced extra
essentiam Patris, " without the essence of the
Father," he must have another essence from that
which is the Father's.
Fourthly, Where hath it any where spoken
any thing of the wonderful emperichoresis of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the Post-nicene
Fathers speak of with so much confidence and
assurance ?
Fifthly, Where hath the Scripture plainly spoken
any thing of the etatrif iTroa-raTiKn, or hypostatical
union, broached first by Cyril of Alexandria, and
by Theodoret pronounced to be a thing unknown to
the Fathers that Uved before him .''*  .i
Sixthly, Where hath it said, T%at the Holy
Ghost essentially proceeded from the Father and
the Son ?
Seventhly, Where hath it declared. That all,
or any of these things are necessary to he believed
in order to salvation, as the Pseudo-Athanasian
creed doth .'' Or by what authority do raen come
after hira, and declare that necessary, which God
hath never raade so .'' This being plainly to add
unto God^s word, and to usurp the authority of that
one Legislator and Judge, " who is able to save,
* Tilv Sfi xaff ii'Totrratfiv tveiifftv vebvratravtv ayvoH/iiv is |sy*l>s xou
aXKo^vkov ro/v ^iiatv y^aipm, xai ruv ravTois h^fAtivivxorotv ilart^eiv.
Reprehen. tom. iv. p. 709.

65
and to destroy." James iv. 12. What is this, but
without divine authority, rashly to exclude men from
heaven, and sentence thera to hell ; and to usurp
the authority of that God, whom we are only to call
Father upon 'earth, and of that Jesus, who is our
only guide, and teacher, in opposition to all other
teachers .''
Eighthly, Where doth the Scripture say, That
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have only one,
and the same iridividual will, or thai all three in one
complex notion, do one and the same individual
action ? The falsehood of wbich assertion, I have
elsewhere proved. And,
Ninthly, Where doth the Scripture say. That
three persons can subsist in one numerical essence ?
This being in effect to say, as Dr. Waterland doth
not blush to do, " that three inteUigent agents may
be one intelUgent agent, and no more."* Had all
these things been necessary to have been believed,
surely they would have been, either in express
words, or plain consequence, contained in the Holy
Scripture. And if tiiey cannot be found there, it
must be granted, at least by aU protestants, that
they are not necessary to be beUeved, as not being
contained in their rule of faith.
In our discourses with the doctors of the Roman
communion, we distinguish between such articles as
* Defence, p. 350.
6*

66 whitby's last thoughts.
we caU positive, or affirmative, or which we do
assert to be delivered in that Scripture which is our
rule of faith; (and that these are contained in
Scripture we own ourselves obUged to prove) and
those, which we call negative, or such as we deny
to be contained in our rule of faith ; as that the
Pope is Christ's vicar upon earth ; that the host is
transubstatitiated into the real body and blood of
phi-ist, united to his divinity, and therefore is to be
woi-shipped with Latria, that is, with worship only
due to the great God of heaven; that it is to be
offexed as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of- the
Uving, or the dead ; that saints, and angels are to
be worshipped by raental, or oral prayers ; that we
are to how down to, or worship images or crucifixes ;
that the sacraments of the New Testament are seven ;
that prayers are to be offered for the dead, to free
them from the pains of purgatory ; that prayers are
to be adrainistered in Latin, though it be an unknown
tongue to the people ; and lastly, that general councils
are infallible ; and that priests do forraally forgive
sins, and not declaratively only.
Now, as to these negative propositions, we declare
we are not obUged to prove from Scripture, that it
doth expressly deny them, but think it sufficient, that
we do not find them contained in our rule of faith ;
because, whatsoever is of divine revelation, must
be contained in these Scriptures, in which alone we
have the mind of God revealed to us. From whence

whitby's last thoughts. 67
it follows, that if we would act agreeably to our funda
mental principle, we also must reject aU other pretend
ed articles of christian faith, which cannot be sufficient
ly proved to be contained in tbe holy Scriptures;
It is a true and excellent saying of one of-the
ancients, that Deus non ducit ad calum per difficilia,
"God brings not men to heaven by difficult matters."
And seeing "God would have aU men to be saved,
and come to the knowledge of the truth," necessary
to that end, 1 Tim. ii. 4 ; and since the gospel was
indited for the salvation of all men in general,
Greeks, and barbarians, wise, and unwise ; and
seeing St Paul declares, that in preaching of it,
they used " great plainness of speech," 2 Cor^ iii.
12 ; seeing lastly, our excellent homUy on this
subject, teacheth us, " That there is nothing spoken
in dark mysteries in one place of Scripture, but the
same thing is more familiarly and plainly taiight in
another, to the capacity both of the learned, and
unlearned ; and those things which are plain to
understand, and necessary for salvation, every
man's duty is to learn them."* And seeing also,
all the ancient fathers expressly and frequently
say the same thing, as I have proved elsewhere ;f
hence it is very evident, that not only the niceties,
contained in the Pseudo-Athanasian creed, cannot
be necessary to be beUeved unto salvation, as the
* ffom, 1st, t Defence of Bishop Bangor's Prop. p. 36, 47, 38.

68 whitby's last thoughts.
author of that creed thrice asserts, because some
of the unlearned laity cannot understand them ; but,
also, that the propositions mentioned by me, as not
clearly contained in Scripture, cannot be necessary
to be believed in order to that end ; since by ex
perience we find, that even learned clerks are so
exceedingly divided, and so eagerly dispute con
cerning the truth, or falsehood of thera. Some
saying, that they are not only true, but also neces
sary to be believed ; and others, as sincerely honest,
and upright in their inquiries after truth, asserting,
not only that they are false, but that they are ob
noxious to many contradictions, and absurdities ;
which is a certain deraonstration, that they ai'e not
delivered in holy Scripture, with that clearness of
speech, which St Paul mentions ; and much less,
without great difficulties, surmounting the capacity
of the unlearned.
Again, it seems to rae very considerable, that the
wisdom of our blessed Lord, of the Holy Ghost, and
of the sacred writers, should be so full, copious, and
frequently express in things necessary to be done in
order to salvation ; and yet, be so sparing, or rather
alent, as to the articles pretended to be as necessary
to be beUeved unto salvation. Since all wise agents,
truly desirous of the salvation of them, whom they
instruct, will be as rauch concerned, that they should
know what is necessary to be believed, as what is
necessary to be done in order to salvation.

whitby's last thoughts. 69
Nor can salvation be obtained by our obedience
to what is necessary to be done in order to salva
tion, without the knowledge of what is necessary to
be beUeved to the same end.
And yet, it seemeth ; evident, tbat the holy
Scriptures, and inspired penmen of them, who have
so fully taught us aU things necessary to be done
in order to salivation, have been comparatively silent,
in reference to these articles, pretended to be as neces
sary to be beUeved to the same end. For instafice.
Our blessed Saviour, in his exceUent sermon on
the Mount, concludes with these words, " Therefore
whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doth
them, I will liken him to a man which built his
house upon a rock."
Whence it is evident, that they who did those
sayings, must be wise unto salvation. In the very
beginning of that sermon, he pronounceth " the
pure in heart blessed, for they shall see God; the
poor in ' spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ;
they that mourn, for they shall be comforted ; the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy ; the peace
makers, for they shall be caUed the children of God ;
they who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven ;" though in all
that whole sermon he taught them nothing of these
propositions. Now, either it must be said, that no
man can be poor in spirit ; pure in heart, ; truly
merciful ; true mourners ; true peace-makers ; or

70 whitby's last thoughts.
truly sufferers for righteousness sake ; unless they
do assent to those propositions, (and then wonderful
is it, that he who said those things to the Jews,
"that they might be saved," should in this long
discourse speak nothing of them ;) or else it must
be certain from our Saviour's words, that they may
be blessed, who do not believe them. In the same
sermon he saith also, " Not every one that saith unto
me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but he that doth the wiU of my Father
which is in heaven."
Now, sure, it would be very hard to say, that no
man could sincerely do the wiU of God, who does
not firmly beUeve all the foreraentioned propositions,
of which our Saviour speaketh not one word ; and
yet, more hard, to think that he should not only
know them to be as necessary to be believed, as any
one thing he had taught, was to be done, and yet
say nothing of them ; but also say unto his Father,
" This is Ufe eternal, to know thee to be the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
Our Saviour says, " Ye are my friends, if ye do
whatsoever I command you." John xv. 14. And
proraised, that " if we keep his commandments, we
shall abide in his love ; and that he wiU give to them
that hear his voice, eternal life." V. 10. Since he
hath said, that diey who know his precepts, shaH be
happy if they do them ; that " he who bath his com
mandments, and keepeth them, is one that loVfeth

whitby's last thoughts. 71
hira ; that if any one loveth me, he wiU keep my
sayings, and the Father wiU love him, and we will
corae unto him, and make our abode with him,"
John Xiv. 23. It must be certain, that they, who
yield sincere obedience to his laws, shall be forever
happy. Now, what can be conceived necessary to the
performance of tbis obedience, besides sufficient
power to do what is commanded, and the most strong
and powerful inducements to engage us so to do .''
Seeing the first must raake us able, the second must
be sufficient to make us willing, to do what is require
ed of us. Since, therefore, it is certain, that a just,
and gracious lawgiver cannot require us, on pain of
his severe displeasure to do what he will not enable
us to perform ; and since it is as certain, that the
promise of eternal life, that is, the proraise of the
greatest and most lasting blessing that we can enjoy,
must be sufficient to make us willing to do what we
are able ; it must be also certain, that the divine
assistance, which God wiU certainly afford to aU that
do sincerely ask it, that they may strengthened in
the inward man to do his will, and that a firra assur
ance of that eternal life, which he hath promised to
them that do so, must be all that is necessary to the
performance of that obedience, to which Christ hath
annexed the promise of eternal happiness.
St John concludeth the- history of his gospel in
these words ; " There are many otiier things which

72 whitby's last thoughts.
Jesus did, which are not written in this book ; but
these things are written, that ye might beUeve, that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that be
Ueving, ye might have Ufe through his name ;"
plainly declaring, that eternal Ufe may be obtained
by a plain behef that Jesus is the Christ, and a Ufe
suitable to that faith. Where, by the way, we are
to observe, that he spoke this of the belief, not of the
Godhead of Jesus Christ ; but of the deeds done by
him, whicb, as he himself saith, bear witness that the
Father hath sent him, and therefore that he was the
Christ. Agreeably to tbis, saith the apostle Paul, " This
is the word , of faith which we preach, that if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth, that Jesus Christ is
Lord ; and shalt beUeve in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,"
Rom. X. 8, 9. Because, by owning him as our
lord, we own our obligation to yield obedience to
his commands ; for why, saith he, " caU ye me.
Lord, Lord, and do not the things whicb I say .""'
And the beUef of his. resurrection affords the highest
motives to perform it, " we being," saith St Peter,
" begotten by his resurrection from the dead, to a
lively hope of an inheritance incorruptible, and un
defiled, that fadeth not away, reserved in the heavens
for us." 1 Eph. i. 3.
Now, from this principle, that a rule prescribed
by an all-wise God, to teach the most simple,, rude,

whitby's last thoughts. 73
¦and ignorant, as well as the wise and prudent, what
is necessary for them to beUeve, and do, in order
to salvation, must be plain; and easy to be under
stood, by the most simple and iUiterate, it follows,
First, That it is repugnant to the wisdom of
God, to require any thing as necessary to be beUev
ed, which is dubious, and obscure in Scripture ;
since that would be to propound that as a means
for obtaining an end, which he knew to be insuffi
cient to obtain it ; it being certain, that what is
dubious and obscure in Scripture, cannot afford us
a certain knowledge of our duty.
Secondly, It also seems repugnstnt to the good
ness of God, to perplex and confound weak rainds
with such subtilties, for the knowledge of which he
has not given thera suitable quaUfications. Seeing,
as St Paul observes, " God accepteth, according to
that a man hath, and not according to that he hath
not." 2 Cor. viii. 12. Now it is evident, from the
continual clashings of our most learned divines about
these subtilties, that the illiterate can have no certain
knowledge of the truth or falsehood of them.
Thirdly, It seemeth inconsistent with the justice
and righteousness of God, to require any man to believe
what he does not, and cannot, understand ; for no man
can be said to believe, that is, assent to, what he does
not understand ; because assent is an act of the un
derstanding, and we must understand the meaning of
every term in a proposition, before we can assent to
7

74 whitby's last thoughts;
iti or dissent from it ; for words of which we do not
understand the meaning, are the same to us, as if
they had no signification at alL A righteous God puts
upon no rnat) the Egyptian task, " of making brick
without straw," nor requires any thing of us in order
to our salvation, which we cannot perform ; that be^
ing in effect to require impossible conditions of
salvation from us.
Belief, or disbelief, can neither be a virtue, nor a
crime, in any one who uses the best means in his
power of being informed. If a proposition is
evident, we cannot avoid beUeving of it ; and
where is the merit or piety of a necessary assent.''
If it is not evident, we cannot help rejecting it,- or
doubting of it ; and where is the crime of not
performing irapossibUities, or not beUeving what
does not appear to us to be true ? If I have done
ray best endeavour to know the mind of God re
vealed in Scripture, I have done aU I could, and;
therefore, all that God requires of me in order to
that end. Can then a good and gracious God be
angry with me, or condemn rae for my unwiUing
inistakes, when I have done aU that was in my
power to avoid them .''
In fine, it is observable tbat the very nature of a
prophet requires this, that he should be a person sent
from God, and not speaking in his own, but God's
name. Hence, concerning the false prophets, God
speaks thus, " I have not sent tiiem, yet they run ;

whitby's last thoughts. 75
I have not spoken unto them, yet they prophesy."
Jer. xxin. 21. And again, "Then the Lord said
unto me. The prophets prophesy Ues in my name ;
I sent them not, neither have I commanded them,
neither spake I unto them ; they prophesy unto you
a false vision." Chap. xiv. 14.
Hence our blessed Lord having said, '¦¦' My doc-.
trine is not mine, but his that sent me." He also adds,
" If any man will do his wiU, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak
of myself; John vii. 17. that is, whether I be a
true, or a false prophet. This being the estabUshed
notion of a prophet ; and our Saviour being that
Prophet, which Moses told them should come after
him, and whicb was promised to the Jews, he must
perform that office, as other prophets did, by speak
ing not in his own name, but in the name of him
that sent him.
Accordingly, during his prophetic office here on
earth, he says, that " he spake not of himself, but as
the Father that had sent him had given hira a com
mandment, so he spake." Johnxu. 49. And, "The
word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's
which sent me." Chap. xiv. 24. Again, '^ As the
Father gave - rae a commandment, even so I do."
V. 31.
And lastly, the prophetical revelations made to
St John, in the Apocalypse, are styled " the Revela
tion of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to

76 whitby's last thoughts.
.shew unto his servants things which must shortly
come to pass."
Now, hence, it follows, that the accusations of the
Jews must be false, malicious, and scandalous accu
sations, seeing he who came into the world, as a
prophet sent from God, one speaking not in his
own, but in his Father's name, and declaring that
his doctrine was not his, but his that sent him, could
never say at the same tirae, that he was the very
God that sent hira, that he spake not in his own, but
in tbe name of God, and delivered not his own
doctrine, but that of him that sent him. It being
certain that the supreme God could not be the
person sending, and yet the person sent. He
could not speak in the name of another, nor say
his doctrine was not his.
Hence it is remarkable, that in aU those places,
in which the Jews accused him of blasphemy, and
making himself God, or equal with God, or ascribing
to himself what properly belonged to the great God
alone, he never directly answers, that he was God,
or equal to him, although if he were sent to preach
that doctrine to the world, it is reasonable to expect
upon these occasions, he would have done it, but he
ever speaks as one who waved that assertion.
For when the scribes inquire, "Why doth tbis man
speak blasphemy ? Who can forgive sins but one,
that is, God .'"' Mark ii. 7. He doth not answer,
as others do for hun, that this proved him to be

whitby's last thoughts.

77

God ; but only saitii, " The Son of man hath power
upon earth to forgive [tiie temporal punishment of]
sin." Ascribing to himself that power, not as he was
the Son of God, much less as being God of the same
essence with the Father ; but only as he was the
Son of man. Again, from these words, " My Father
worked! hitiierto," works of providential care, good
ness, and mercy ; and these charitable actions, " I
work also." From these words, I say, of his eaUing
God his Father in so pecuUar a manner, (as be did,
and bad just cause to do, had he been only miracu
lously conceived, and upon that account " the Son
of God," Luke i. 25. "The Son of the most
High," V. 32.) they invidiously infer, V. 18. that
he caUed God, narffas 'Ihov, that is, his Father, in
such a proper sense, as made hira equal to God, as
a son is to his father.
Now to this, Christ doth not answer, as it might
have been expected from one who was sent into the
world to confirm that doctrine, to wit, that he had
reason thus to caU God his Father, as being of the
same individual essence with him ; but his answer
contains many things wholly inconsistent with that
doctrine. For his reply is, " That he could do nothing of
himself." V. 19, 20. That " the Father judgeth
no man ; but hath given aU judgment to the Son."
V. 22 ; and that "because he was the Son of man."
v. 27. " That he sought not his own will, but the
17*

78 whitby's last thoughts.
win of the Father that sent him." V. 30. " That
the Father which sent him," he was the person
that " bore witness of bim." V. 37. And that " he
carae not in his own, but in his Father's narae."
V. 43. And lastly, " the works which his Father
had given him [power] to do, bore witness of him,
that the Father had sent him. V. 36. All which
sayings are plainly inconsistent with an identity of
essence, will, and actions, in God the Father, and
the Son. In the 10th Chap, they accuse him of
blasphemy, not for saying " J and my Father are
one," V. 30. but as Christ hiraself declares, because
he said, " I ara the Son of God." V. 36. And yet,
he being accused of blasphemy, " because he being
a raan raade himself God," had reason to reply, had
it been true, that being of the sarae essence with the
Father, by representing himself as God, he only told
them the truth ; whereas he proves himself to be
only the Son of God, first, because the Father had
" sanctified, and sent him into the world,"* and yet
it is absurd to say, he either sanctified, or sent into
the world his own numerical essence. And, again,
because " he did the works of his Father," V. 37.
namely, by virtue of that power which the Fatiier
had given him. John v. 36; and by the spirit of
* Dum ergo accipit sanctificationem a Patre, minor Patre est; minor
autem Patre consequenter est, sed Filius : Pater enim si fuisset, sanctif-
Scationem dedisset, non accepisset. Novatianus de Trinitate, c. 22.

whitby's last thoughts. 79
his Father dwelling in hira ; for " he did them by,
the spirit of God." Matth. xii. 28. " By the finger
of God." Luke xi. 20. " By the Father in him,
as he was in the Apostles." John xiv. 20. " And
who were in the Father, and Son, as the Father
was in the Son, and the Son in the Father." John
xvu. 22, 23.
Farther, it is reraarkable that the Scriptures, both
of the Old and New Testament, seera plainly to
speak of one, who is called God, and Lord, in
Scripture, and yet is inferior to, and derives his
power from another.
First, to omit Gen. xix. 24, which by the Ante
nicene Fathers is generally interpreted of God the
Father and the Son, this seems expressly to be coii-
tained in these words, " Thy seat, O God, endureth
forever, the sceptre of thy kingdora is a right sceptre :
Thou hast loved righteouuess, and bated iniquity ;
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy feUows." Psal.
xlv. 7, 8. Now that these words, are applied to
Christ we learn frora St Paul, saying, " But to the
Son he saith. Thy throne, O God, is forever and
ever. A sceptre of righteousness is tiie sceptre of
thy kingdom." Heb. i. 8. And again, " This God
hath another God who is styled his God, and who
hath anointed him with the oU of gladness above his
fellows. For, saith the Baptist, " God gave not
the Spirit by measure unto him," John iii. 34. as

80 whitby's last thoughts.
he did unto the other Prophets. A Uke instance we
have of two Lords in these words, " The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I
make thine eneraies thy footstool."* Psal. ex. 1.
For these words, my Lord, our blessed Saviour him
self declares were spoken of Christ. Matth. xxii. 49.
And the Apostle represents him as a Lord, who had
all things put under him by a superior Lord, by say
ing, " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on ray
right hand, until I have made thy foes thy footstool.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have
crucified, both Lord and Christ." Acts ii. 36. And
the Apostle represents hira as a Lord, who had all
tBings put under him by a superior Lord, by saying ;
" When he saith, AU things are put under him, it is
manifest he is excepted, which did put all things
under him, that God may be aU in aU." 1 Cor. xv.
27, 28. From which words, Irenaeus,f TertuUian,
and Novatian prove that Christ, at the end of the
world, is to give up his kingdom, or bis dominion
received from hira, unto God the Father.
Secondly, Another evidence of the superiority of
God the Father, to our Lord Jesus Christ, ariseth
• Ju^. M. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 277 and 357. And £t4S«i. Prop.
Evan. L. 7. c. 12. p. 322, and L. 11. c. 14. p. 532. haec habet,
rev ftiv avoitrdrot 0sav ^ta roS ir^iirov xupUv, riv ii rourcif iswi^ov cite
rris %tvri^a.i avoprtvas <r^oftiyo^ias .
f Vide Interp. Fatnun in locum^

whitby's last thoughts. 81
from these words of St Paul, " We know there is no
other God but one ; for though there be that are called
Gods, whether in heaven, or in earth, as tbere be Gods
many, and Lords raany, yet to us [Christians,] there
is but one God, the Father, of whora are aU things,
and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Cor. viii.
4, 5, 6. Where it is plainly said ; first, that all
Christians know, that there is but one God ;
secondly, that that one God is God the Father ;
thirdly, that this God the Father is distinguished
from our Lord Jesus Christ by this character, that
he is God, l| ou, from whom are all things; but our
Lord is only he, <J< oS, hy whom are all things ; and
that God the Father is the Christians' one God,
Christ their one Lord.
It is scarcely possible to say this more fully, or
more plainly than the Apostle doth. And seeing
here the Apostie speaks of the Father in person,
styhng him the Christians' one God ; he must style
him that one person, who hath emphatically, or by
way of superiority, the divine nature. But of this
1 have given a fuUer proof, in my Reply to Dr Wa
terland, to which he hath yet returned no answer.*
Thirdly, This also is evident, from those places
which say, that such a thing was done by Jesus
Christ, or such honour was conferred upon hira " to
» Sect. 4, from p. 93 io 100.

82 whitby's last thoughts.
the glory of God the Father. We are filled with
the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ
to the glory and praise of God." Phil. i. 11. And
that " God had exalted hira, who being in the form
God took upon him the form of a servant, and given
him a name above every name, that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue
should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
gloryof God the Father." Chap. n. 9, 10, 11.
And, surely, he who is Lord to the glOry of God
the Father, " who works in us the fruits of righteous
ness, to the glory of God the Father," must be
inferior to him, whose glory is the end, both of his
exaltation to be Lord, and of that righteousness he
worketh in us. So when St Peter saith, " If a man
minister, let him do it, as of the ability which God
giveth, that God in all things raay be glorified,
through Jesus Christ." For seeing actions flow
from the essences of them, whose actions they are ;
where the singular essence is one and the same, tbe
action must be one and the same ; and when an action
is done by one to this end, that another may be glo
rified, he, to whose glory it is done, must be superior
to him, for whose glory it is done ; the end being still
more noble than the means by which it is accomplished.
Fourthly, This still more visibly appears from
that plain distinction, which is put between God the
Father, and the Son, by way of gradation, as in
these words, " All are yours, for you are of Christ,

WHITBY S LAST THOUGHTS.

8*

[or are Christ's] and Christ is of God." Now we
are Christ's, as being merabers of that body, of
which he is the head ; but yet with great inferiority
to him. And, therefore, it seems reasonable to con
ceive, that these words, " Christ is of God," should
signify, that he is inferior, and subordinate to him ;
especially; if we add to thera the Uke words in this
Epistle, chap. xi. 3. " The head of the woman, is
the man ; the head of the man, is Christ ; the head
of Christ, is God." For the ground of these grada
tions, is plainly the superiority ahd dorainion, which
the one hath over the other.
Fifthly, This is evident from those places iri
which they are put in opposition ; as in these words,
" This is Ufe eternal, that they may know thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent." John xvu. 3. And, " Ye have turned froni
idols to serve the living and true God ; and to wait
for his Son from heaven, whora he raised from the'
dead, even Jesus which delivered us frora the wrath
to corae," 1 Thess. i. 9, 10. Frora which words it is
evident, that God the Father must be in some more
exceUent sense, the only true God, the true and
living God, than his Son Jesus Christ, whom he sent
into the world.*
* Ecclesia Dei non praedicat duos Deos, »5 ya^ tvo aysvvnra, ovh
Stia eiva^^a, a}^y.a fAiav a^^m xat &sov Vtvat, rov avrov Tlariaa tt'Sairxevtfa
livai rov ftovoytvovs xai aywrvirov viov, fiovov aXviSivev ©g^w, Jaovov tfo^ov,
0 fiovos %x^' o'lavariav, Quibus epithetis Deuin, Patrem a Deo Filio dis-
Hnguit. Euseb. de Eccles, T/ieol, L. 2. c. 23. p. 141.

84 whitby's last thoughts.
The same distinction, and opposition appeareth
from these words, " To the only wise God be glory,
through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. xvi. 27.
And, " I command thee before God who quickeneth
aU things, that thou keep this commandment unspot
ted, till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which in its proper season he shall shew, who is the
only potentate, who only hath immortality." 1 Tim.
vi. 13, 14, 15, 16. Where the God, who quick
eneth all things, is not only distinguished from our
Lord Jesus Christ, but is styled the only potentate,
who only hath immortality ; that is, by a description,
which in some eminent sense must agree to him
alone. Sixthly, This may be argued from those epi
thets, which are peculiar to God the Father, and are
never in Scripture applied to the Son. As,
1. That he is ©eos bi^/o-tos, God most high, or the
most high God. Gen. xiv. 18, 19, 20. So also he
is called in the New Testament, Acts xvi. 17. Heb.
vii. 1. Whereas the Son is only called wos ^oS bi^iVtoj;,
The Son of the most high. Mark v. 7. Luke i. 32.
vi. 35. vni. 28. Acts xvi. IT.
2. The word n«wTOKf«T«i^, 2 Cor. vi. 18, which
signifies, omnipotens Deus, qui omnibus imperat,
" the omnipotent God who commands over aU," in
Scripture is the epithet of God the Father only.
He is also styled, " The only true God." John
xvii. 3. « The only good God." Mattii. xix. 17.

whitby's last thoughts. 85
" The only wise God." Rora. xvi. 27. " To God
only wise, be glory, through Jesus Christ for ever.
Amen." See also 1 Tim. i. 17. and Jude 25.
All which epithets show, that these exceUencies do
most eminently, originally, and properly, belong to
God the Father, and derivatively, and consequen
tially, to the Son, to whom they never are ascribed
in the sacred writings.

SECTION V.
Strange Consequences of the Doctrine, that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the
same Being.
In fine, this doctrine, that the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost are of one and thei same individual
and numerical essence, seems to burlesque the holy
Scriptures, or to give thera an uncouth and absurd
sense, frora the beginning of the Gospel, to the end
ofthe Epistles.
To select some few instances of this nature.
First, When St Matthew saith, that, at the baptism
of our Saviour, the " Holy Ghost descended upon
him in the shape of a dove ; and a voice was heard
from heaven, saying. This is my beloved. Son, in
whom I am weU pleased ;" these words, according
to this doctrine, must signify, that the supreme God
8

86 whitby's last thoughts.
descended upon the supreme God, and the voice of
the supreme God said from heaven. This is the
supreme God in whom I, the sarae supreme God,
ara weU pleased.
Secondly, When it is often said, " He that re
ceiveth you, receiveth rae ; and he tbat receiveth
me, receiveth him that sent me." Matth. x. 40.
Luke X. 16. John xiu. 20. the meaning of these
words must be this ; He that receiveth you, re
ceiveth the supreme God ; and he that receiveth the
suprerae God, receiveth him that sent the supreme
God. So that the supreme God must both send,
and be sent by hiraself.
Thirdly, " My doctrine is not mine, but his that
sent me." John. vii. 16. That is, according to this
exposition ; My doctrine is not the doctrine of the
suprerae God, but it is the doctrine of the supreme
God that sent me. And,
Fourthly, When it is said, " Whosoever receiveth
me, receiveth not rae, but him that sent me." Mark
ix. 37. and " He that beUeveth on me, believeth
not on rae, but on him that sent rae." John xii. 44.
the meaning must be this ; He that receiveth the
supreme God, receiveth not the supreme God, but the
supreme God that sent hira. And he that beUeveth
on me the supreme God, believeth not on me the
supreme God, but on the suprerae God that sent rae.
Fifthly, Our Lord saith, " Father, I tiiank tiiee that
'thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest

whitby's last thoughts. 87
me always ; but because of the people which stand
by, I said it, that they may believe that thou hast
sent me." John xi. 41, 42. that is, I thank thee,
O supreme God, that thou hast heard me the
supreme God, and I knew that thou, the suprerae
God, hearest me the same supreme God always ;
but this I said, that they raight know that thou, the
suprerae God, hast sent rae the same supreme God.
Sixthly, " I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another Comforter, that he may abide with you
for ever, even the Spirit of truth." John xiv. 16. that
is, I, the suprerae God, wiU pray the suprerae God,
and he shall send you the supreme God.*
Seventhly, " But, when the Comforter is come,"
saith Christ, " whom I wiU send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
frora the Father, he shall testify of me." Chap. xv.
26. Where we have, first, I, the Father, and He,
that is, three persons of the sarae nuraerical essence,
one of which is sent, by the sarae supreme God,
from the same suprerae God, and is i !T«f«'»/«Tos,
one who is an advocate with the sarae supreme
God. Eighthly, Christ, in his prayer to the Father, saith,
" This is life eternal, to know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou," the only true
* 'Ttos fiiv 0 ^a^axakm, II«T«^ Se a cfa^axaXovfitvos, ^et^axKnTos
Xs imnnXKiitivis. Basil, Contra Sabellianos, tom. 1 . p. 521 . Vide
leliqua.

88 whitby's last thoughts.
God, "hast sent," John xvii. 3. which, according to
tbis exposition, raakes the only true God to send the
same only true God with himself.
JVinthly, When St Paul saith, " To the only wise
God be glory through Jesus Christ our Lord," Rora.
xvi. 27. the raeaning must be this ; To the only wise
God be glory through the same only wise God.
Tenthly, We have these words, " Then cometh
the end, when he shall have put .down aU rule,
and all authority, and power. For he must reign
until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The
last eneray that shall be destroyed, is death ; for he
hath put ah things under his feet. But, when he
saith all things are put under hira, it is manifest, that
he is excepted, which did put aU things under him.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also be subject to him that put all
things under him, that God may be aU in aU." 1 Cor.
XV. 24 — 28. Where we are plainly taught to put
a clear and full distinction between that God who is
the Father, and him who is here styled the Son. For,
1 . He, (that is, that Son, who is here said to reign
and have a kingdom, and in the prophet Daniel, to
be styled " one like the Son of man, who comes to
the Ancient of days, and hath dominion, and glory,
and a kingdom given him, that aU people, nations,
and languages should serve him,") he is here said
to deliver up his kingdom, at the close of the world,
to the Father.

whitby's last thoughts. 89
2. God the Father, or Jehovah, is he that is said
to put aU things under his feet, with plain relation to
these words, " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy
footstool. Psal. ex. 1. Whence the Apostie here
saith, that he must reign until he, that is, God, hath
put all enemies under his feet.
3. The Aposde adds, that when it is said, that he
hath put all things under him, it is raanifest, that he,
that is, God, is excepted, which did put all things
under hira. .
4. He farther saith, that when all things are put
under him by God, then shall the Son himself he
subject to him, that did put all things under him.
And, 5. He adds, that this is to be done, that God,
even the Father to whora he is to deliver up this
kingdora, may he all in all.
Now it is the highest absurdity to say that both
these persons, this Father and this Son, have both
one and the same numerical essence ; this being in
effect to say.
That this Son must deliver up this kingdom from,
and to hiraself.
That he raust sit at his own right hand, and that
this Lord raust say unto hiraself. Sit thou on my
right hand.
That the one supreme God must be excepted
from the one supreme God.
8*

90 whitby's last thoughts.
That he must be subject to himself.
And, that all this must be done, that God the
Father may be all in all. All which seem palpable
absurdities and contradictions.
Eleventhly, " Through him we botb have an ac
cess by one Spirit unto the Father." Eph. u. 18.
That is, by the supreme God, through the supreme
God, we have an access to the same supreme
God. Twelfthly, " There is one Spirit, one Lord, one
God and Father of aU." Eiph. iv. 4. That is, there
is one supreme God, one supreme God, and one
suprerae God.
Thirteenthly, The Apostle teUs the Philippians,
chap. i. 11. " Tbat they are filled with tbe fruits of
righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the
glory and praise of God ;" that is, of himself. And
chap. ii. " Tbat Christ being in the form of God,"
that is, being the supreme God, " thought it no rob
bery to be equal with" the sarae suprerae " God ;"
that is, with hiraself; and that the suprerae " God had
exalted hira, and given hira a name," and requires
all persons to confess, " that Jesus was the Lord,"
that is, the supreme God, " to the glory of God the
Father," that is, of the same supreme God. Phil.
U. 6, 9.
Faurteenthly, " Christ sitteth at the right hand of
God." Col. iii. 4. That is, the supreme God sitteth
at his own right hand.

whitby's last thoughts. 91
Fifteenthly, "Ye turned to God from idols, to
serve the living and true God, and to wait for his
Son from heaven, whora he raised from the dead,
even Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to
come." Thess. i. 9j 10. that is, to serve the Uving
and true God, and to wait for the same suprerae
God, raised up from the dead.
Sixteenthly, " How shall we escape, if we neglect
so great salvation, which at the first began to be
spoken by the Lord — God also bearing witness to
it." Heb. ii. 3. that is, the one supreme God bear
ing witness to the word spoken by the sarae supreme
God. Seventeenthly, " By Christ we beUeve in God ;"
that is, by the supreme God we beUeve in the sarae
suprerae God, " that our faith and hope might be
in" the same " God." 1 Pet. i. 21.
Eighteenthly, "If we sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he
is the propitiation for our sins." 1 John ii. 2. that
is, with the sarae suprerae God ; and he, the same
supreme God, is the propitiation for our sins.
JVineteenthly, " Denying the only Lord God, and
our Lord Jesus Christ," Jude 4. that is denying
the only Lord God, and the sarae only Lord God.
Twentiethly, " The Revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave unto hira." Rev. i. 1. That is, the
revelation of the one suprerae God, which the one
supreme God gave unto him. See also V. 5. and

92 whitby's last thoughts.
Chap. iu. 12. " Him that overcoraeth will I make
a piUar in the temple of my God ; and I wiU write
upon hira the narae of ray God ;" that is, Hira that
overcometh, I, the one supreme God, wiU make a
piUar in the house of me the same God, and wUl
write upon him the narae of me the same God, and
the name of the city of me the same God. And,
V. 21. " To him that overcometh wiU I grant to
sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and
ara set down with ray Father in his throne." Now,
surely the sarae supreme God must have the same
throne with him who is the same supreme God;
unless it can be said, that the same essence has one
throne, and the person of the sarae essence has
another. This will be still raore evident from a reflection
upon the third person of the sacred trinity, who,
according to this doctrine, is of the same individual
essence with God the Father, and the Son. For, as
hence it necessarily follows, that the Spirit of God
is the same with the God of God ; and to receive
this Spirit, is to receive that God who gives the
Spirit ; so it is manifestly inconsistent with many
passages of the holy Scripture which speak of him.
For instance, our Saviour saith, " When the Spirit
of truth is come, he wiU guide you into all truth ;
for he shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show
you things to come. He shall glorify me ; for he

whitby's last THOtTGHTS. 93
shall receive of mine, and show it unto you." John
xvi. 13. Now it is self-evident, that the supreme
God must speak of, and from himself, and not what
he heareth frora another ; and that he can take
nothing from another to show to us. So " The
Spirit helpeth our infirmities" in prayer to God,
" and raaketh intercession to him for us." Rom. viii.
26. that is, he maketh intercession to himself. And,
again, " The Spirit maketh intercession for us ac
cording to the will of God, V. 27. that is, according
to his own will. And, " But God hath revealed the
things that he hath prepared for them that love hira,
to us by his Spirit." 1 Cor. n. 10. that is, by him
self. And, " The things of God knoweth auh)g,
none, but tbe Spirit of God," V. 11. that is, God
hiraself. And, " Now we have received the Spirit
of God," that is, the supreme God, " that we might
know the things that are freely given to us of
God." V. 12. that is, of the same God. And,
" Know ye not that ye are the temple of God ;
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you .?"
1 Cor. in. 16. that is, the same God dwelleth in
you i" And, " What ! know ye not that your body
is the temple of the Holy Ghost ;" that is, of God,
which is in you, " and which is given you of" the
same "God.?" Chap. vi. 19. And, "You are
builded together for an habitation of God through
the Spirit." Eph. u. 22. that is, through the sarae
God. With many other sayings of the Uke iraport.

94 whitby's LAST THdUGHTS.
SECTION VI.
Explanation of certain Texts in the Gospel, which
have been supposed to prove the Identity of the
Father and Son.
I proceed now to expound some passages of
Scripture, which seem to have been misunderstood
by most raodern expositors, and sometimes also by
myself. As,
First, Those words of Christ, " No man know
eth who the Son is, but the Father, and who the
Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son
wiU reveal him." Luke x. 22. "No raan hath
seen God at any tirae ; tbe only begotten Son,
which is in the bosora of the Father," that is, who
is intiraately acquainted with his mind and will, " he
hath declared hira." John i. 18.
That these words cannot concern the metaphysical
nature of the Father and the Son, is evident, because
our Saviour hath raade no such declaration, or reve
lation, of that nature, to us, or his disciples. Tbey,
therefore, only can concern the dispensation of the
New Testaraent, and salvation by Jesus Christ, and
the knowledge of the will of the Father, and the way
by which he would be worshipped, deUvered to us
by his Son.
Hence when St Peter had declared, that " Jesus
was the Christ, the Son of the Uving God," (or as it

whitby's last thoughts. 95
is, Mark viii. 29. " Thou art the Christ,") Christ
said unto hira, " Flesh and blood have not revealed
this unto thee ; but my Father which is in heaven."
Matth. xvi. 17. And Christ also saith, "I have
manifested thy narae unto the raen which thou
gavest me, and they have known that ah things
whatsoever thou hast given rae are of thee, and
have known surely, that thou hast sent me." John
xvii. 6.
From which two places it appears, that God the
Father, by reveaUng to St Peter, that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of the living God, revealed the Son
to him ; and that Christ hiraself, by raanifesting unto
his disciples, that he carae from God, and that he
had sent him, manifested his Father's narae td them.
And, John xvi. 25. he proraised hereafter to show
thera plainly of the Father ; and yet he did this,
not by giving them any instructions concerning the
metaphysical nature of the Father, or any declara
tions of that nature, but only by giving them a clear
insight into the tenor of the gospel dispensation, and
into the counsel of his wiU.
Secondly, To proceed to those words, " I and
my Father are one." John x. 30.
The great question here is, whether these words
are to be understood of the unity of the Father and
Son, as to their same monadical essence, or (as many
of the Ante-nicene Fathers did interpret them) of an
Unity in wiU, design, affection and concord .''

96 whitby's last thoughts.
That they could not be intended to declare an
unity of their individual essence, seeras highly prob
able both from the context, from the like expres
sions in the Scripture, and from the very nature of
the thing.
Frora the context ; for there our Saviour saith,
" The works that I do in my Father's narae," that
js, by his authority and power iraparted to me, " bear
witness of me." John x. 25. Which words are
evidently repugnant to a numerical unity of essence
in them both. Since, where the essence is one, the
actions must be one, and done by the same authority
and power.
To which add, that the words, I and my Father,
are words plainly iraporting two persons. For the
word. Father, is personal, and the word, /, is a
pronoun personal ; so that, if these two are one and
the same God by virtue of this text, they must be
one in person as well as essence.
Moreover, " My Father which gave them me," saith
Christ, "is greater than aU." V. 29. Which again
destroys the nuraerical unity of essence between
both ; since no one essence can give any thing to
itself, and rauch less a divine and all-perfect essence.
Nor can one essence be greater than itself. Whereas
our Lord expressly saith, " My Father is greater
than I." John xiv. 28.
This will be farther evident from the parallel ex
pressions used by our Lord, in the same Gospel,

97
where he prays that his disciples " may be one, as
thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they might
be made perfect in one ;" and yet, doubtiess, he
could not pray that his disciples might be one in
essence with the Father and Son, but only that they
might be one by having the spirit of the Father and
Son dwelUng in them. In which sense Athenagoras
says, the Father and Son are one, namely, fniTtin tob
ir»eu/M.i6Tos, hy unity ofthe spirit.*
Thus Origen interprets this verse. f For having
cited these words, / and my Father are one ; " if any
one," saith be, " is disturbed at these expressions, as
if we favoured the opinion of the Noetians, who deny
the Father and the Son to be itto iiroTTorsii, two
singular existences ; let hira consider this text, ' All
that believed were of one heart, and one soul,' Acts
iv. 34. and then he will understand this, ' I and
my Father are one thing.' We serve therefore, <»s
kitohhax.aii.6f, as We formerly explained it, one God,
the Father and the Son ; we worship the Father of
the truth, and also the Son who is the truth, bemg
indeed two things in subsistence, but in agreement
and consent, and sameness of will, they are one."
Here, indeed, he only saith we worship the
Father of the truth, and the Son who is the truth and
wisdom ; but in his Comment on John, p. 70, he adds,
that the Father is ich,ilm xm //.el^av a^i^hia, a fuller
* Page 10. f Contra. Celswn, p. 386.
9

98
and greater truth, and, being the Father of wisdom^
is greater and raore excellent, as he is wisdom, than
the Son. Then he proceeds, p. 387, to show, that
among the multitude of heUevers, some, differing from
the rest, rashly affirmed, as the Noetians did, that
our Saviour was the God over aU ; " which," saith
he, " we Christians, or we of the church, do not be
lieve ; as giving credit to the same Saviour, who said,
" My Father is greater than I." And he saith, p.
388, " We Christians manifestly teach, that the Son
is not stronger than the Father, who is the Creator of
the world, «aa' ivohitrre^ti, hut inferior in power to
hira." Which words afford the clearest deraonstra
tion, that the church of that age did not believe tbat
our Saviour was i eV) Travrm B-eoi, the supreme God,
or one of the same numerical essence with the
Father ; and therefore could not interpret those
words of such an unity, but only of an unity of
concord, mind, and will. Hence, in his Coraraent
upon St John, p. 227, he saith, that this unity of
will is the cause why Christ said, / and my Father
are one. And his next page adds, that the will which is
in Christ is the iraage of the first will ; and the divinity
which is in Christ is the iraage of the true divinity.
Novatian is, if possible, stiU raore express in this
interpretation. For, in answer to the objection of the
SabeUians from this place, he saith, that "Unum, being
here put in the neuter gender, denotes not an unity
of person, but a concord of society between them ;

whitby's last thoughts. 99
they being deservedly styled one, by reason of their
concord and love, and because whatsoever the Son
is, he is frora the Father." " The Apostle," saith he,
" knew this unity of concord with the distinction of
persons, by writing to tiie Corinthians thus ; ' I have
planted, Apollos nratered, but God gave the in
crease.' For who understands not that Paul is one
person, and ApoUos another i* And that they had
diverse offices, one to plant, and another to water i
And yet the Apostle Paul saith of these two, 'ii elin,
they are one, though as to the distinction of persons
tbey are two ;"* with other things of like nature.
And here it is to be observed, that ParaeUus'
note upon these words, is this ; Nempe in hoc loco
non satis accurate scribere JVovatianum, quod nullam
essentia Patris et Filii communicationem adferat,
sed exemplum ah Apostolo unitati essentice veluti
contrarium ; in quo certe hallucinatum fuisse aucto-
rem non vereor dicere, quum postea ecclesia in diversis
conciliis diversum definiverit. That is, " Novatian
did not write accurately in this place, as raaking no
mention of the communion bf the essence between
the Father and the Son, but introducing an example
from the Apostie, as it were contrary to it ; in which
thing I doubt not to pronounce him erroneous, seeing
the church afterwards in diverse councils defined
tbe contrary." * De Trinitate, c, 27.

100 whitby's last thoughts.
And yet it is certain, that many of the Ante
nicene Fathers in effect said the same thing. For
Justin pronounces the Son to be '^rejos row ?r«Tf«5
apifMf, OB ymy.^,* another from the Father in number,
but not in consent. And bis reason follows thus,
because he never would do any thing but what
0 rov notr/nav iroftjirai, i/xe^ on aAAos oax 'irri ^eif, ^iQavXfiTO)
x.a't ?r^a^ai xa) o^uiXriTai, the maker of the world, above
whom there is no other God, would have him do and
speak. Where, first, this God the Father is plamly
styled another in nuraber frora him that made the
world ; and, secondly, the Son is represented as
one not doing his own wiU, but being in all things
subservient to, and delivering the words of that
God, from whom he is thus distinguished.
Lactantius saith, that the Father and Son are one,
quia unanimes incolunt mundum,^\ " because they
unanimously dwell in the world."
Eusebius pronounces the Father and Son to be
one, OB x,a6' iTritrratrrt, aX?M Kara tJ» x.oiiatlat t^s ioi,li,X
not as to tke essence, but as to communion qf glory.
And, lastly, the council of Antioch pronounceth the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be »{/« //.h iictarairei,
7ri Se a-vii/puna ev, that is, three in subsistence, hut one
only in consent, or concord. Tertullian declares, in
answer to this objection of the SabeUians, that these
words, " I and the Father," duorum esse significatio-
* Dial, cum Tryph. p. 276. t L. 4. fi. 39. t -Eccfe. I<. 3. «. 19.

whitby's last thoughts. 101
nem, "signify two;" and then adds, that, unum, neutrali
verbo, non pertinet ad singularitatem, sed ad unitatem,
ad similitudinem, ad conjunctionem ; ad dilectionem
Patris qui Filiwm diligit, et ad obsequium Filii qui
voluntati Patris obsequitur ;* tbat is, " The word
unum, being in the neuter gender, does not denote
nuraerical unity, but union, resemblance, connexion ;
the love of the Father towards the Son, and the
obedience of the Son towards the Father." Wbich
last words show, that it is impossible, that this
text should be interpreted of the numerical essence,
or unity of the Father and Son ; seeing one and the
sarae essence cannot be obsequious or obedient to
itself. And yet there is nothing more coramon
aflfcng the Ante-nicene Fathers, than to say with
Novatian, who having affirmed that the Son, ohedierit
Patri, et obediat, "always did, and always doth obey
the Father," thence makes this inference ; Quid tam
evidens esse potest hunc non Patrem esse, sed Filium,
quam quod ohediens Patri Deo proponitur ?f
"What more evidently shews, that Christ is not
the Father, but the Son, than this, that Christ is
obedient to the Father i " And again, Filius
nihil ex arbitrio suo gerit, nee ex consilio suo facit,
nee a se venit; sed imperiis paternis omnibus et
preceptis obedit, ut quamvis probet ilium nativitas
Filium, tamen morigera obedientia asserat ilium
* Adverse Fraxeam, c. 22. p. 575. f De Trinitate, c. 26,
9*

102 whitby's last thoughts.
paterncR voluntatis, ex quo est, ministrum. Ita,
se Patri in omnibus obtemperantem reddit, quamvis
sit et Deus, unum tamen Deum Patrem de obedientia
sua ostendit, ex quo et originem traocit;* that is, in
short, " Tbe Son of God by his dutiful obedience
to all his Father's comraands, and to his wiU, (he
doing nothing by his own will and counsel,) by this
demonstrated, that, though he was God, yet the
Father, from whom he came forth, and whom he
obeyed, was the one God," even that one God, of
whom he saith, JVos scimus et legimus et credimus
et tenemus, unum esse Deum, qui fecit ccelum pariter
ac terram ; quoniam nee alterum novimus, aut noscere
(cum nullus sit) aliquando poterimits;'\ that is, "We
Christians know, believe, and hold, that there is #ae
only God, the creator of heaven and earth ; nor know
we, nor can we know any other, because there is no
other." And again, God the Father is, unus Deus,
cujus neque magnitudini, neque majestati, neque virtuti
quicquam non dixerim preeferri, sed nee comparari
potest ;% that is, "That one God, to whose greatness,
majesty, and power, nothing can be compared."
And, indeed, aU the Greek Fathers, from Justin
to Eusebius inclusively, do frequently inform us that
the Son did ixiigersTi tv S-tft^futn ToS iiar^of, obey the
•mil of the Father, that he did btooj >•«», SiaKticIt, 6m-
fiTtTt, minister, and was s'ubservient to him.
» c. 31. fc. SO. ^C. 31.

whitby's last thoughts. 103
And all that writ in Latin, from TertuUian to
Lactantius inclusively, inform us that he did, Patris
voluntati administrare, " adrainister to the wiU of the
Father;" that he did obedire in omnibus Patri, "obey
the Father in all things ;" that the Son, voluntati
Patris fideliter paret, nee unquam faciat aut fecerit,
nisi quod Pater aut voluit aut jussit, " faithfuUy
obeys the wiU of bis Father, and never doth, or
would do any thing, but what the Father wiUed, or
ordered hira to do."*
It being therefore certain, that one and the sarae
essence can have but one and the sarae wiU, and
that one singular and nuraerical essence cannot
adrainister to the will, obey, and be subservient to
the will and comraands of another ; hence it is
deraonstratively evident, that he who does so, can
not have the sarae nuraerical essence and will with
the Father.
Thirdly, " Jesus saith unto hira. Have I been
so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known
me, Philip ? He that hath seen rae, hath seen the
Father, and how sayest thou then. Show us the
Father ? BeUevest thou not that I ara in the
Father, and the Father in me ? The words that
I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doth the works."
John xiv. 9, 10. * Lactant, L, 4. c. 29.

104 whitby's last thoughts.
Where, as to those words, *' I dweU in the
Father, and the Father in me," they are so far
from proving that he is of the same individual es
sence with the Father, that the same Apostle, in
his general Epistle, ascribes the same to aU good
Christians ; saying, " He that keepeth his com
mandraents dweUeth in God, and God in hira."
1 John iu. And, " No raan hath seen God at any
tirae. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us,
and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we
that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he
hath given us of his Spirit. Whosoever shaU con
fess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dweUeth
in him, and he in God. And we have known,
and beUeved the love that God bath to us. God
is love, and he that dweUeth in love dweUeth in
God, and God in him." Chap. iv. 12 — 14. And
St Paul saith, that " Christ dweUeth in a Christian's
heart by faith." Eph. in. 17. Yea, in this very
Gospel of St John, it is said of all true beUevers,
" He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh ray blood,
dweUeth in me, and I in him ;" and of his disciples,
" that the Spirit of God dweUeth with thera, and
shaU be in thera ;" and of aU true beUevers, " that
the Spirit of God dweUeth in them." Rora. vin. 11.
2 Tim. i. 14. And by so doing renders them the
temple of God. And yet it is certain, that by this
inhabitation they are not rendered one in essence
with God the Father.

Whitby's last thoughts. 105
And even our communion service saith, that if
we are worthy communicants, we dwell in Christ and
Christ in us ; and we pray that we may ever dwell
in him, and he in us. And this is said agreeably to
those words of Christ, " If a man love me, he wiU
keep my words, and my Father will love him, and
we will come unto him, and make our abode with
him." John xiv. 23. And yet, surely, it cannot be
affirmed frora these texts, that God the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost are so united to aU true believers,
as to render them of one and the same individual
essence with them.
Moreover, Christ here saith, " The Father that
dwelleth in rae, he doth ths works ;" whereas,
where the essence is one and the same, the action
done by that essence raust be one and the same 5
and so could not be truly said to be done by another.
As for these words, " I am in the Father and
the Father in me." John xiv. 10. and these, "That
ye may believe that the Father is in me, and I in
him ;" Chap. x. 38. that they cannot refer to the
unity of essence of the Father and Son, is evident
from Christ's saying and promising the sarae thing
to his disciples. It being certain, he could nehher
promise, nor pray the Father, that they should be
one in essence with hira. And yet he proraiseth
this in these words, " At that day ye shall know
that I ara in ray Father, and you in me, and I in
you." John xiv. 20. He prays fof this in these

106 whitby's last thoughts.
words, " That they all may be one, as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, th;it they may be one, even
as we are one ; I in them, and thou in me, that they
may be made perfect in one, and that the world may
know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them,
as thou hast loved me." John xvu. 21. And so these
words are interpreted by Origen and Eusebius.
Nor, fourthly, can this be inferred from those
words of Christ to Thomas and PhiUp, chap. xiv. 9.
" Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen
me, hath seen the Father, and . how sayest thou
then. Show us the Father ?" For there our Saviour
plainly shows, that they might have known and seen
hira, by reason of his presence with them, and his
discourses to them ; and that by these things he had
showed them the Father. And yet it is certain,
that neither by his long abodes with tbem, nor his
discourses to thera, had he shown them the essence
of the Father ; but only had acquainted them with
the will and dispensations of the Father. Of these
things he by his long continuance with them fuUy
had acquainted thera ; but bad not said one word
of his identity in essence with the Father.
So Christ saith to tbe Pharisees, "Ye neither
know rae, nor my Father ; for if ye had known rae,
ye would have known my Father also." John viii.
19. And to his disciples in this very chapter,
V, 7, " Frora henceforth ye know him, and have

whitby's last thoughts. 107
seen him." And yet it is certain they neither knew,
nor could see the essence of him who is invisible.
Yea, Christ saith of the unbelieving Jews, " Now
have they both seen and hated both rae, and my
Father." .John xv. 24. That is, they frora those
miracles I have wrought araongst them, have had
sufficient means to see and know, both that I
carae from God, and ara a revealer of his will,
though they, through their prejudice and perverse
ness, neither truly knew, that is, acknowledged, me
nor my Father.
Nor, EiFTHLY, can this be inferred from these
words, " All things that the Father hath are mine."
John XV. 16. For surely he might say this, what
soever was his nature, " who knew that the Father
had given aU things into his hand." John xiii. 3.
And that be did this as the effect of his love to him ;
for, saith the Baptist, " the Father loveth the Son,
and hath given aU things into his hand." John iii.
35. And, then, this is so far from being a proof of
tbe identity of the essence of the Father and Son,
that it is a demonstration to the contrary ; seeing
one individual essence can give nothing to, nor
receive any thing from itself, because it can give
nothing but what it hath already, and therefore
cannot receive by way of gift.
And this, in an all-perfect and self-existent being,
is the more certain, because it is incapable of any
accession to its absolute perfection. If then God

108 whitby's LAST THOUGHTS.
the Son hath the same numerical essence, which
God the Father hath, it could not properly and
truly be said, " That the Father loveth the Son,
and hath given aU things into his band." Or that
" Jesus knew that the Father had given all things
into his hand." John xiii. 3.
Our Saviour adds, " That the Spirit shaU take of
mine, and show it unto you." And yet the Spirit
did not show to thera any thing concerning the
metaphysical essence of the Father and the Son.
Nor doth he say, aU the excellencies and perfect
tions of the Father are raine ; but only, iraira, all
things relating to the gospel dispensation, they
being aU taught him by the Father. And hence
he saith to the Jews, marveUing how he should be
able to teach what they thought he never learned,
" My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me ;"
that is, as the foUowing words show, " It is not
spoken by me from myself, but from God."
Nor, SIXTHLY, wiU tbis follow from the mi^ty
works Christ did ; because be himself promises to
his disciples, John xiv. " Verily, verily, I say unto
you, he that beUeveth on me, the works that I do
shall he do also, and greater works than these
shaU he do, because I go unto my Father," who is
greater than I, and so can enable you to do greater
works. Henoe saith he to them, " If ye loved me,
ye would rejoice because I said, I go to my Father,
for my Father is greater than I." John xiv. 28.

WHITBY^ LAST THOUGHTS. 109
Seventhly, Nor wiH this follow from Christ's
coraraand to baptize all nations in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For to be baptized
in the name of tbe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
is to be baptized into the profession of our belief in
one God the Father Almighty, in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God sent by his
Father to reveal fais wiU ; and in the Holy Spirit of
God, by whose assistance the holy Scriptures were
indited. So that this profession is absolutely neces
sary to our being worshippers of the true God, who
made heaven and earth ; to our being Christians,
or owners of the Son of God, as the true Messiah,
and of the holy Scripture, as indited by the Spirit
of God. And therefore it was absolutely necessary,
that the Heathens, who owned none of these things
whilst they continued infidels, should be baptized
into this profession, in order to their erabracing the
christian faith.
Eighthly, Nor can this be inferred from these
words of St Thomas, " My Lord and my God ;" as
wiU appear from this consideration, that the faith of
St Thomas was only this, that Jesus was really risen
from the dead. For, when the Aposties had told
him, they had seen the Lord ; he answers, that
" Except I shaU see in his hands the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe"
it. Then Christ, coming a second time, saith unto
him, " Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
10

no whitby's last thoughts.
hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it
into my side, and be not faithless but beUeving,"
to wit, " that I am risen."
Again, our Saviour saith, " Thomas, because thou
hast seen me, thou hast beUeved ;" which shows that
he could beheve only what he had seen, to wit, that
the same body was raised, which had been cruci
fied ; neither had he seen, nor could he see with
his bodily eyes, that he who was thus raised, was
his Lord and his God. These words therefore,
" My Lord and my God," may have this import ;
" My Lord and my God have done this ;" and so
they exactly agree with the faith of the Aposdes,
saying, " The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus,
whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree." Acts v. 20.
See Acts ii. 24. iii. 15. iv. 10. xiu. 30. Or thus,
My Lord and my God ! How great is thy power !"
for, saidi St Paul, " God exerted the greatness of
his power, and the activity of his raight, in raising
our Lord Jesus from the dead." Eph. i. 19, 20.
But whether this be the true import of St Thomias'
words or no, certain it is, that it cannot be proYed*
that he did intend by them to signify that he owned
Jesus Christ as his Lord and his God ;
Because he was bred up in the Jewish faith,
which taught him that the Lord his God, the God
of Israel, was one Lord, and that there was no
other than he ; and.

whitby's last thoughts. Ill
Because it would have contradicted the faith of
Christ hiraself, who after his resurrection spekks fo
his Disciples thus ; " I ascend to my Father and
to your Father, and to my God and your God."
John XX. 17.
And again, " Him that overcometh, wiU I make
a piUar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no
more out ; and I wiU write upon him the narae of
my God, and the name of the city of my God, which
is in Jerusalera, which cometh down out of heaven
from ray God ; and I wiU write upon hira my new
narae." Rev. in. 12.
Now, hence we learn how weak are tbe chief
arguments of Athanasius, St Ambrose, and Cyril of
Alexandria, and other ancients, to confirm this unity af
essence between the Father and the Son, they being
taken from these words of John, which, as I have show
ed, afford no firm proof or evidence of this matter.
Ninthly, Nor will tbis follow from these words
of St John, " The word was God." For, if that
impUes that he is the same numerical God With
God the Father, it plaihly is repugnant to all the
passages following, cited in the foregoing arguments
from this EvangeUst, and also to the text itself,
where of this word, which he styles God, he twice
says, " That he was with' "God." But to say that
he was the sarae God, with whom he was, is a con
tradiction in terras J though indeed it was the ancient
heresy of Sabellius.

112 whitby's last thoughts.
Moreover, of this word, which is bere styled Gfod,
the Apostie saith, " He carae to his own, and bis
own received him not." Which cannot be true of
God the Father, whom the Jews always owned to
be their God ; but only of tbat Jesus, who is here
said to be witfi God, and to be God.

SECTION VII.
Texts in the Epistles considered.
Thus have I considered all the arguments for this
identity of the Father and Son, produced from the
Evangelists. I come next to consider those, wbich are offered
to the same purpose frora the Epistles.
First, Rora. ix. 5. Where iri our translation we
read thus. Of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, i «» eVi
iTitvTaf @Eos EvAoyvros eti i-obs aiSiccf.
Now to this arguraent, 1 have returned one answer
in my Reply to Dr Waterland, by approving tbe
ingenious conjecture of a learned critic, that these
words are to be read thus, »» o lr) 5r«»T«» ©eos, and
are to be referred to God the Father's being the
God of the Jews. And then the whole verse wiU
run thus, «» ii rariget, xat e| av a Xf /e^os, whose are
the fathers, and qf whom is Christ according to the

whitby's last thoughts. 113
flesh ; ai, of whom, or whose, is ihe God over all,
blessed for ever ; he being peculiarly known to them,
and related to thera as their God in covenant. And
this exposition is the more probable, because tbis
phrase is by the same Apostle, in this Epistle, and in
another, plainly referred to God the Father; "as when
he says, "The Heathens worshipped the creature
more than the creator," os ifth IvXoytirii eii tous alSiai,
who is blessed for ever. Rora. i. 25. And, "The
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 05 eVtiv
luAoyjiros £<s tob; a'tSmi, who is hlessed forever more,
knoweth that I Ue not."* 2 Cor. xi. 31.
* [The conjecture here alluded to ori^nated with Schlichtingius. His
words are as follows.
Venire etiam alicui in mentem posset in Apostoli verba levem et
facilem vocum istarum i av transposiiionem irrepsisse, cum ci Paulo
scriptum esset uv o, quorum, nenvpe Judaeorum inteUige, est ille super
omnia Deus benedictus in secula. " One might suppose it possible,
that a slight transposition has crept into the words of the Apostle, and
that instead of 0 Sv, Paul wrote av 0, of whom, that is, of the Jews, is
the God over all blessed for ever.
The author further observes, that this rendering is consistent mth
the remaining parts of the sentence, and goes an to show its suitableness.
The Apostle is enumerating here the particular privileges, of the Jews,
to whom, he says, " pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the
promises." And by introducing the above conjectural emendation, the
sentence will continue as follows, alluding still to the Jews, " luhose are
the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, whose is the
God over all blessed forever." The learned John Taylor prefers this
reading, because, |he says, it malces the sense much more perfect ; and,
in enumerating the peculiar privileges of the Jews, it was certainly n<ttU'>
10*

114 whitby's last thoughts.
But the words, read according to our translation,
are interpreted by Hippolytus, thus ; " That Christ
is God over aU, because God the Father had
delivered aU things into his hand ;" and, as the
Aposde saith, " had made bim head over aU things
to the church." Eph. i. 22. His words are these ;
" In these words of the Apostie he plainly sets forth
the mystery of truth. He that is over all is God,
for so he dares to say. All things are delivered to
me of my Father."* And again, "he rightly calls bim
omnipotent ; for this Christ testifies, by saying, ' AU
things are deUvered to me of my Father ;' and he
ral that their greatest privilege should be mentioned, which was, that
the supreme God was their God, in whom they had gloried, and had
reason to glory.
It is a little remarkable, that although Schlichtingius was the first,
who proposed this emendation, and pointed out its harmony with the
general sense of the passage, yet he did not believe it was correct. He
proposes two objections to it ; first, that it is supported by no manu
scripts; and, secondly, that the phraseology, God over aB, is never
applied in the Scriptures to the Supreme Being. He says, Christo
rectius hie titulus convenerit, ut intelligeretur Cliristum rum super quie-
dam tantum, sed super omnia Dominum ac Deum effectum esse.
" This title applies more properly to Christ, that it may be understood^

* K^Xaff imyttrai xai Xa^v^av ro riis aXn^tias /Au^rn^tov. ot^ros o iv
liTf ^ravratv &eos iffriv Xiytt yot^ curoi /ttra Tafptifftas, Tlavra ftot va^a-
%'iiorat ttvo rov Ilar^s;. Et rursus, XaXw; tt^ttv xavrox^aro^a "X.^iffror
rovro yotQ bTtsv xa} ivru fia^ru^nnt o X^io'Ta; . Mae^rv^vy ya^ 'K^ro!
if^fl, Tldvra /lot ^a^aii'Sorai ii*o rod Xlartog. »»< Tavran x^arii' xavr^
*(iTu( trafU Harfif xctrtfriin X^fro;. Contra Noet. p. 10.

whitby's last thoughts. 115
hath a dominion over aU things, and so is made
omnipotent by the Father." And it is worthy of
observation, that this interpretation of these words
is given by Hippolytus, in answer to Noetus, who
used them in confirmation of his Sabellian doctrine.
And, whereas it is said by some, that the Apostie
having said in the immediate preceding words,
" That Christ came from the Father, xara a-a^xa.
according to the flesh" or, as to his human nature,
it is reasonable to conceive he should proceed to say
what he was according to his divine nature ; that
this is not necessary, appears from Clemens Rom
anus,* where, speaking of the dignity of Abraham,
he saith, " That from him descended the Lord Jesus,
that he faas been made Lord and God, not over a certain number c^
things only, bnt over all things." Accordingly, in his explanation of
the text, he takes it in tbe same sense as it bears in our common veidon,
and considers it as referring to Christ.
This mode of interpretation firom Schlichtingius is accounted for, by
knowing that, although he and tlie other Socinians of his time did not be
Ueve in the pre..existence of Christ, yet they considered him as entitled to
the name of God by virtue of his exaltation, and his power over all things,
granted to him by the Father. In this respect their opinions seem to have
differed little from those of Whitby, and the early Arians, as explained
ia the third section above. Vide Schlicht. Comment, in Epistolam PauU
ad 12ot». ix, 5. Also Sacovian Cateclnsm. Sect iii. Chap. I.— For a
condse and ingenious exposition of the above text, consult Professor
Norton's Statement of Seasons, p. 51 . Eoitok,]

* Epist. ad Corinthios, Sect. 32.

116
xara irigxa according to the flesh;" but saith not
one word concerning his spiritual descent.
Secondly, Nor doth this follow from these words
of the Apostie, " When ye knew not God, ye wor
shipped them, who by nature were no Gods." Gal.
iv. 8. Christ being by nature truly God, as having
by that nature which he derives from the Father
true divine power and dominion over aU things both
in heaven and earth, in subordination to him who
alone is absolutely i B-«»ro»f<»r»^, of himself supreme
over all.
Again, These words may be fairly rendered thus,
" Ye worshipped gods, reTi /tt» tpiirei, which had no
heing or existence in nature." For such were many
of their fictitious gods, Venus, Diana, Minerva, &c.
or gods made with hands, for of such gods the
Apostle saith, " we know that an idol is nothing."
And Demetrius, the silversmith, complains that St
Paul taught, " That they were no gods that were
made witb hands." Acts xix. 26. And the Psalmist
saith, " The gods of the heathens are the works of
of men's hands." Psalm cxv. 5. and in this sense this
text cannot at all concern our blessed Lord.
Thirdly, Nor will this follow from those pas
sages, which say, " AU things were made by him,
and by hira were all things created ;" it being
expressly said in the sarae Scriptures, that " God
created all things by Jesus Christ." Eph. in. 9. and
that " by hira, he," tbat is, God the Father, " made

whitby's last THOUGHtS. 117
the worlds."* Heb. i. 2. Now he, by whom God
the Father made aU things, cannot be the same God
with him who made all things by him.
Fourthly, Nor doth this follow from these words
of the Apostie, " in hira dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead bodily." Col. ii. 9. For, in the first
place, this fulness refers not to the divine nature,
but to the fulness of his " divine wisdom and
knowledge," V. 3. by which he is completely
enabled to manifest to us both the wiU and perfec
tions of God.
And, whereas against this it is objected, that
TO ©e7o» and ©£o't« do never signify the doctrine
of the Gospel ; and that the will of God cannot be
said to dwell bodily in any person ; to this I answer,
that, though the words, to ©tio» xai ©eotw, absolutely
put, do never signify the doctrine of the Gospel ; yet
itXri^aiAM T)j4 ©eoTuTos may signify tbe complete ability
of that divine person who is God. And in tiiis
sense the church is said to be, or have the fulness
of that God who is all in all, by having his whole
will revealed to them. And again, if all the treas'
ures of wisdom and knowledge may he said to he
hid in Christ, Col. ii. 3. why may they not also be
said to dweU in him .''
* TXavra otot rov Koyov iyiviro, w% ysro roii }.oyov, aXX' usro x^tirrovos
xxi /MiZovos mgoi riv i^yov rig S" av £AXii; oSlrof rvy^^ivri »i o Ilarv( i
Orig. Com. in Johan. p. 56. Et 'TsrBjiTos nv infuivgyti yno/ttiss i
Xoyos rev x'offftov xanrxivaffi. p. 61.

118 whitby's last thoughts;
Thus St John the Baptist saith of Christ, Chap.
i. 16, 17. " That he was fuU of grace aud truth,
and of his fulness have we aU received ;" not
meaning, that we had received of the fulness of
his Godhead, but only a fuU knowledge of tbe grace
and truth, which he was sent to reveal to tbe world.
And St Paul prays, that the " Ephesians might com
prehend with ah saints, what is the breadth, and
length, and depth, and height ; and to know the love
of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be
fiUed witb all the fulness of God." Eph. iii. 18, 19.
Where, certainly, he doth not pray, that aU saints
may be filled with the divine nature of God, but
Only, that they might have a sufficient knowledge of
the love of (Jod, ia sending his beloved Son to
acquaint them \*ith the riches of his love to them
in Christ Jesus, this fulness being to be obtained by
Christ dwelling in their hearts hy faith. V. 17.
Again, whatever this fulness of the Godhead
means, it was conferred on him by the good pleasure
of the Father. For, saith the same Aposde, Col.
i. 19. " It pleased the Father, that in him should
aU fulness dweU ;" that is, it pleased the Fathef
thus to invest hira with the fulness of divine power
and wisdom, for the creation of all things, and for
the redemption and government and preservation
of his whole church. For, had he been one and
the same aU-perfect God with the Father, it could
not have been truly said, that " it pleased tbe

119
Fatiier, that in him should aU fulness dweU ;" for
then he must have had it from the perfeetion of
his own nature, and Dot from the pleasure of his
Fatiier. And, moreover, this will farther appear from the
connexion of these words with the foregoing, where
the Aposllit cautions the Colossians against- the phi
losophy and vain deceit of the heathen moraUsts,
taught after the rudiments of tbe world, and not
after Christ. For, saith he, " In him dweUeth all
the fulness of the Godhead bodily ;" which seems to
be a plain dehortation firom attending to the knowl
edge taught by these heathen philosophers, because
of the fulness of the knowledge which was in Christ ;
and adds, tbat " we are complete in him," not surely
by having the same Godhead with hira, but by re
ceiving a fuU and sufficient knowledge of the whole
will of God revealed to us.
Fifthly, Nor wiU this foUow from these words
of the Apostle, "Looking for that blessed hope, and
glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour
Jesus Christ." Tit. ii. 13. For that the great God
there signifies God the Father, is fuUy proved by
Dr Clarke, in his comment upon that text.
Sixthly, That tbe true God, mentioned 1 John
V. 20. is not the Son of God, but the Father, who
by our Saviour is styled the only true God, is
proved fi-om the ancient reading of these words
thus, " The Son of God is come, and hath given us

120 whitby's last thoughts.
an understanding, ha Yii»irxi>/t,ei rii a>i^6iiii ©cov, that
we may know the true God, xa) it/mi I» t? e/ody^ vl^
avToi 'Ijjo-oS Xgie-T^, and We are in his true Son Jesns
Christ." This God, of whom the Son of God hath
given us this knowledge, as our Lord hath told us,
is the true God, and the knowledge of him is eternal
life. John xvii. 3. Thus the disciple afcords weU
with his master, and only teacheth what he had
learned from him.

BISHOP HARE
ON THE
DIFFICULTIES AND DISCOURAGEMENTS,
WmCH ATTEND THE
STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES
IN THE WAT OP
PRIVATE JUDGMENT.
A LETTER TO A YOUNG CLERGYMAN.

HARE.

No particulars can now be collected respecting
the early Ufe of Francis Har^.! The time and
place of his birth are equally unknown. We first
hear of him at Eton school, where he received the
rudiments of education preparatory to the University.
In due tirae he was entered at King's, college,
Cambridge, and became a fellow of that foundation.
While in this capacity he was entrusted with the
tuition of the Marquis of Blanford, fhe only son of
the Duke of Marlborough, and, by the duke, was
appointed chaplain general to the army. In regular
course be took the degree of doctor of divinity.
By reason of his connexion with the array his
thoughts were turned into the channel of poUtics ;
and he first appeared, as an author, in defending the
war, and the raeasures of the Whig administration.
His writings on these subjects were chiefly pubUshed
before the year 1712. He wrote the "Barrier
Treaty Vindicated," and also a treatise in four
parts, entitled "The Allies and the late Ministry,

124

HARE.

defended against France and the present Friends
of France." These tracts are said to have been
much aUered and araended by Maynwaring, and
printed under the eye of Oldraixon.* They were
serviceable to the war interest, in opposition to the
strictures of Swift, and the efforts of the Tory party.
Tindal often refers to them, in bis continuation of
Rapin, as valuable historical documents respecting
tbat period.
In the discha5ge,of bis official duties. Hare fol
lowed the arm^|||(lg|i. Flanders ; but how long he
remained there, or when he resigned his station as
chaplain general, does not appear. Soon after the
publication of his political pieces we find him
advanced to the deanery of Worcester, and en
gaged with great warmth as the coadjutor of
Sherlock, Potter, Snape, and others, in the famous
Bangoriaa controversy.
About four years after Hoadly preached his ser
mon on the Kingdom of Christ, when tiie controversy
to wbich it gave rise had already raged to an extraor
dinary height. Hare pubUshed an elaborate discourse,
in the form of a sermon, on Church Authority. In
this discourse Hoadly saw, or fancied he saw, many
artful though indirect attacks on his serraon, and
its whole tenour was opposite to the principles,
which he had avowed and defended. Nothing
' Rentlcmnn's Magazine, Vol. jlix. p. 441.

HARE.

125

more was wanting to rouse the spirit of Hoadly,
who was ever ready for action, where truth was
to be proraoted, or his own sentiraents vindi
cated. Notwithstanding the numerous contests
then on his hands with sorae of the greatest men
of his tirae, be hesitated not to encounter this new
opponent with the weapons of controversial war
fare, in tbe use of which no one had acquired
greater confidence, or been raore successful. He
replied to the discourse on church authority, with
his usual abiUty, and perhaps with raore than his
usual acrimony.
Hare contented himself at first with a few stric
tures on Hoadly's reply, in a Postscript to a suc
ceeding edition of his discourse, in which argument
abounds less than wit, and dignity less than satire.
He felt keenly the shafts of his adversary, and
endeavoured to destroy their force at one time by
ridicule, and at another by personal reflections,
neither of which comported with the gravity of tbe
subject, or tbe character of an honourable disputant.
His wit has more point than delicacy, and his ani
madversions more severity than justice.
The Postscript coraraences with a hint, which
was no doubt intelUgible to Hoadly, who had now
been Bishop of Bangor nearly four years without
once visiting his diocess. It is presuraed he had
reasons for this neglect satisfactory to hiraself; but
the world did not choose to understand thera, nor
11*

r36

HARE.

to admit tiiem as an apology. Hare was not
reluctant to faU in with pubUc opinion, and to
make the most of it. " I was apprehensive," he
observes, " that the publication of tbis sermon might
give the lord Bishop of Bangor some littie trouble,
and for that reason, among others, was against it,
as thinking it a mean and ungenerous part to add
to the number of bis adversaries, when he had
already so raany on his hands ; especially at a
time when I had good reason to believe bis
lordship's thoughts were whoUy taken up with
business of another nature ; I raean .Abe primary
visitation of his diocess, whither I concluded he
was gone or going soon ; though I find since, I
was raistaken."* This was a seasonable hint, but
it was lost on the Bishop of Bangor, who never
visited his diocess tiU he was transferred to another
bishopric. Hare next wonders, that the Bishop
should waste his moments on a discourse hastily
drawn up in two days' time, without premeditation,
and published witb reluctance at the earnest so-
Ucitation of friends. Whoever reads the discourse,
perceives it to be a work elaborated with great
care, running back into antiquhy, and ranging
widely in the fields of modern learning, and must
acknowledge this to be a piece of aflectation,
which might have been spared.
* Hares Works, Vol. i. p. 161.

HARE. 127
Hoadly had ventured to prophesy something,
in which the author's theological learning was con
cerned. " His lordship's skill in prophecy," says
Hare, " I dispute not, but am ready to allow tiiat
he knows as much of things to corae, as of those
that are past."* Hoadly expressed himself occa
sionally in high coraraendation of his opponent's
general acquisitions and talents as a scholar ; but
Hare would not take him at his word, alleging that
his corapliraents were intended only to give a keener
edge to his satire. "Whatever the raeaning of thena
be," he adds, "as I have no right to one, so I
greatiy despise the other, and ara wiUing they
should be set against and extinguish each otber, and
so all pass for nothing ; which is the only way to
make these parts of his lordship's answer of a piecp
with the rest of his performance ; of which and his
other writings in this controversy, it must be allowed
his lordship judges very truly, when he says they
are faint resemblances of Mr Chillingworth's."f
Such was the spirit of Hare's first remarks, but
these were intended only as a feint to draw the
pubUc attention away from the arguments of Hoadly,
tiU he should have tirae to prepare a more formal
answer. This was in readiness and published about a year
afterwards, entitled Scripture vindicated from thf
* Hare's Works, Vol. i. p. 163. t Ibid. p. 168.

128 HAttH.
Misinterpretations of the Lord Bishop of Bain^oi'.
J'ormidable for its learning and its length, this
answer was not wanting in candour and soberness,
excepting, perhaps, some parts of the preface, in
which the reader is too often rerainded of the
Postscript. Witty the author raust be at times;
but he has a dull, pragmatical way of criticising
words and phrases, which soon becomes tiresome ;
and what is stiU worse, the point of his argument
is lost amidst the barren discussions about words
and syUables through wbich he forces his reader.
Whoever wiU reason must talk rather of things,
than of words. Hare knew more of Latin and
Greek, than of theology; and, in vindicating thc
Scriptures, he sometimes forgot that be was not
writing notes on the classics.
In the Bangorian controversy our author sent
out another piece, caUed a JVew Defence of the
Lord Bishop of Bangor's Sermon. Tbe title is
ironical, and such is the general tum of the produc
tion itself. The writer feigns a deep conpern fc*
the fate of Hoadly's sermon, and is surprised, that
neither he nor his friends have bit on a mode of
defending it, which he kindly suggests, and which
is no other, than to prove froth its nuraerous defects,
tbat it was composed in great haste, and given to
the pubUc without revision. In establishing this
proof, the style first coraes under notice, and bere
the author finds a favourable opportunity for indulging

-HARE. 129
himself in his grammatical propensities ; he runs intb
all the extreraes of hypercriticisra in weighing the
Bishop's periods, raeasuring the force of his adverbs,
and displaying the extravagance of his metaphors.
The argumentative part is next examined, and
discovered to be full of contradictions, on which
no man in his senses could have deliberately
blundered. Tbe inquiry at length leads to the con
clusion, that " his lordship has only raised a thick
dust, but proved nothing ; — rana xim xai rama TO
funhiP This New Defence bas specimens of pungent
satire ; it is sometimes trifling, but its irony is weU
sustained ; it makes no pretence to serious argu
ment, and it contains none ; it leaves impressions,
however, which it requires the strength of argument
to remove. And so the Bishop of Bangor evidently
thought, for his reply, entitled " Tbe Dean of Wor^
cester always the same," is one of the most spirited,
severe, and powerful of all his perforraances.
In the year 1727, Dr Hare was advanced to the
bishopric of St Asaph, having been previously re
moved frora the deanery of Worcester to that of St
Paul's. He was translated to the See of Chichester
in 1731, whicb, togetber with the deanery of St
Paul's, he retained tiU his death.
During his residence at the Univeraty, and for
some tirae afterwards, a warra friendship subsisted
between hira and the great writer and classical
scholar, Dr Bentiey ; and, when he went int(a

130

Hari:.

HoUand as chaplain general of the army, Bentley
put into his hands a copy of his notes and emen
dations to Menander and Philemon, to be deUvered
to Burraan, the celebrated professor at Leyden.
Bentiey also dedicated to Hare his " Remarks on
the Essay of Freethinking," which essay was sup
posed to have been written by ColUns, formerly
Hare's pupil. With this dedication he was much
gratified, and returned a flattering letter of thanks
to the author.
Unluckily this friendship was not destined to be
of long continuance. It was interrupted and finaUy
broken ofi" for reasons not weU known, but, as Dr
Salter insinuates, not very creditable to either
party. They were both critifes, both addicted to
similar studies, and tbe world has been iUnatured
enough to spy out the seeds of their growing dis
affection in tbe jealousy of rivalship. As their evil
stars would have it, they feU on the design of writing
notes to the same authors. Hare bad pubUshed an
edition of Terence, and was preparing his favourite
Phaedrus for tbe press, when be was surprised by
the intelUgence, that his friend Bentiey was engaged
with both of these authors, and would shortiy bring
thera out together. What real grounds of dissatis
faction existed on either side, or where the greatest
blarae belongs, cannot now be ascertained. No
more can be said, than that an irreconcileable
enraity followed.

HARE. 131
Bentiey left out the dedication in the second
edition of his Reraarks, and mentions not Hare's
narae in bis Terence. In looking about for tiie
reasons of tbe first coldness between these distin
guished scholars, suspicion has fastened on an early
cause. By some unaccountable accident the papers,
which Hare took in charge for Burraan, missed of
him, and found tbeir way into the hands of Toland,
then at Amsterdam. Bentiey is imagined to have
suspected soraething more than involuntary raistake.
in this affair, which, it is thought, raay be gathered
from a passage in the introduction to his Remarks,
containing a shrewd corapliraent to Hare for the
manner in which he had executed his coraraission.
This is no better than conjecture. The papers
reached Burraan at last, and he wrote a preface,
reraarkable for little else than abuse of Le Clerc,
which Bentley was wise enough to orait in the
Cambridge edition.
Hare did not faU behind his antagonist in the
violence of his dislike, nor in his pains to make
it public. His Epistola Critica, addressed to Dr
Bland, is a professed attack on Bentley's Phaedrus,
although, in addition to some trifling, and much
profound criticism on that work, it is made a
vehicle of spleen and personal censure. He boasts
of convicting Bentley of ignorance, plagiarism, and
all the sins fo which an author can be tempted ;
and, not satisfied with achievements Uke these, he

132 BARE.
proceeds to assert and prove, that the world had
been egregiously raistaken in its estimate of the
editor's scholarship and critical sagacity.
He is surprised beyond raeasure, that any thing
so imperfect as Bentiey's Phaedrus, should come
from a raan of such reputed erudition. Many
passages needing emendation are left untouched ;
with others, quite sound and unadulterated, the
editor meddles to their injury ; almost every thing
of seeraing value is pUfered from some preceding
writer, and frequently without acknowledgment.
And even in this there is much that is spurious ;
trifling conjectures neither necessary, nor supported
by the authority of manuscripts ; and some things
manifestly false and absurd.*
The only branch of knowledge, in wbich he
aUows Bentiey to excel, is thaf of the Greek metres,
and the mysteries of Greek verse. Here he per
mits him to sit in the chair of pre-eminence. He
takes care, however, to deduct as much as he ean
from the value of this concession, first, by charging
" Multa enim affecta loca et manum medicam poscentia, intacta
Teliquit ; plura quae sana atque Integra erant, tentando insigniter cor-
rupit ; pleraque vero omnia, quae aliquam veri speciem habent, non sua
ipsius sunt, sed ab aliis desumpta, nee raro tacitis eorum nominibus unde
sttbl^erit. Inque his ipsis, mnlta sunt mali commatis, conjectnrse
leves, nequaquam certe necessarias, nee nlla codicum auctoritate sufflil-
tae; nee pauca manif^to falsa et in^a. Vide Epist. Crit. Hare's
Works, Vol. n. p. 287.

HARE. ^^^
Bentiey with the foUy of holding the learning of all
other raen in contempt, who do not consider this
kind of knowledge as the greatest human attainment;
and, secondly, by going to the other extreme, and
pretending, that it is comparatively worth nothing.
He says, and perhaps truly,, that it will make no
man a better citizen, nor a better christian ; and
adds, that a single point of theology, or a chapter
of the sacred Scriptures, or a question in history
and chronology, to say nothing of the sciences and
of jurisprudence, frequently deraands more time and
study than are requisite to pursue the whole doctrine
of trimeters and tetrameters from its first elements to
the bottom of its deepest mysteries.*
The spirit of these remarks is intended to apply
only to the extrerae case of Bentley ; and it wouldi
be unjust to represent this spirit as in accordance
with Hare's general sentiraents. No raan was a
greater friend to learning in aU its departraents, as
his exaraple testifies, and also his beautiful eulogy'
on' learning contained in the preface to " Scripture
Vindicated." Bentley knew the prodigious extent
of his own learning, and was fully sensible to the
admiration, which it drew on hira ; but he seeras not
* Unus certe theologiae locus, unum Sacrae Scripturae caput, una in
historicis aut chronologicls quaestio, ut de scientiis vel de juris prudent)^
nihil dicam, plus sibi temporis et studii ssepe postulat, quam tota de
trimetris et tetrametris doctrina, ut a primis usque eleraentis in abditis-
sima ejus mysteria penetres. Hare's Workf, Vol. ir. p. 471.
12

13* BARE.
to have been aware, that its relative value was very
much diminished by its being so feraote from common
Ufe, and that, had all men been as learned as himselfj
the affairs of the world must have stopped. A raaa
may spend his days in counting pebbles on the sea
shore, and become profoiindly learned in their
sliape, colour, dimensions, and weight ; another
may labour for years to write a poem in whicb
every word shaU begin with the sarae letter ; a
third raay enumerate the syUables and letters in aU
the works of Aristotle and Aqumas, and tell th©
very page and line in wbich every one is found ;
and a fourth raay do any other feat, which shaU be
an equal test of his industry, raeraory, or persever
ance ; but society would reoeive neither wisdom nor
profit from their futile labours.
Utility is doubtless the proper end of all attain-.
ments. JVisi utile est quod facimus, stulta est gloria.
But it must not be forgotten, that utiUty has its
degrees, and that there are many ways of coming
to the same end. It is a common weakness with.
men to clothe the objects in which they excel with a
factitious importance ; they do not know the power
of inteUect and the appUcation required to arrive at
high attainments in other branches, because they
have not made the experiment; they judge by a
false standard, and judge wTong. This prejudice
can be corrected only by a general acquaintance with
human pursuits ; it will then be seen, that eminence

HARE. 13 J
is never attained without industry and talents;" and
that every man is to be valued and respected in
proportion as he appUes these with wisdora and to
good purposes. Bentley was not to be censured
because he was raore fond of scanning the verses
of Sophocles and Aristophanes, than of pondering
on the categories of Aristotle, reading the stars,
penetrating the subtilties of metaphysics, launching
on the ocean of politics, expatiating in the fields of
modem literatnre, or foUowing the Ught of modern
science into the recesses of nature ; it was his
weakness, that he could not see and allow, that
the world was full of men devoted to soine of tiiese
objects, who were as great and as wise as him
self, and many of them destmed to render higher
benefits to society, and to contribute infinitely
more to the progress of human improvement, al
though they might never read the shortest fragment
of Menander, nor be able to resolve a single line
of a Greek comedy into its metrical elements.
We shall hardly be disposed to charge Hare with
undervaluing Bentiey's pecuUar attainments, when
we know, that he laboured with equal assiduity in
a kindred, but still more unpromising region. A
work on which he bestowed more pains than on any
other, perhaps, was his system of metres in Hebrew
poetry, first pubUshed in connexion with the Hebrew
Psalms, divided in coiifonnity witii his notion of
their nveasure.

13G

HARE.

Josephus, and Philo maintained that tbe poetry (?f
tbe Hebrews had metres similar to those of the
classical poetry of other nations, and in this opinion
they were followed by others among the ancients,
particularly Origen and Jerom. The, opinion raade
its way sUently araong the learned tiU the tirae of
Joseph ScaUger, who set himself in earnest to con
fute it, aUeging at the same time, that it had never
been proved, tbat it rested on assertion, and only
held its ground because it had never been opposed.
His discussion awakened curiosity, and opened a
new theatre on which were to be displayed the
skill and talents of the orientaUsts. Many theories
were started, and as raany exploded; some critics
found every imaginable perfection of art and taste
in the poetical nurabers of the Hebrews ; others
raet with no success in this search, and zealously
maintained, that tbe poets of Israel did not raodel
their corapositions after any principles Uke those of
the classic raetres, but were guided by such rules
only as the judgraent and taste of each writer might
suggest. The raagic of their poetry consists in
subUmity of thought, beauty of imagery, force of sen
timent, and accurate delineation of nature, rather than
in regularity of measure, and harraony of numbers.
Gomar was one of the most successful metri- ,
cal adventurers. He discovered both metre and '
rhyme; Buxtorf and Heinsius approved his work.
Cappel and Pfeiffer wrote against it, and gave equa^-

HARE. 137
satisfaction to the opposite party. Le Clerc was
for rhyrae without metre, a scherae raore untenable,
in the opinion of Bishop Lowth, than any other.
He had sorae followers, but was opposed by Calmel
and Dacier.*
In England , Bishop Hare was tbe first who
entered deeply into tbis subject ; and after having
exarained it to the bottora, he proposed a new
theory of Hebrew metres. Which he fondly imagined
Would reconcUe all differences, and restore the
poetry of the Bible to its pristine dignity and per
fection. When he published his Psalter, however,
with a fuU exposition of his scheme, he bad the
raortification to find, that it was coldly received by
the pubUc. In Psalraanazar's Meraoirs it is said,
that five hundred copies only were printed. Two
hundred and fifty of these were distribiited by the
author araong his friends, and the reraaining copies
slowly deserted the shelves of the booksellers.f
Tbe work has not been republished in a separate
forra, although it is contained in tbe thirty-first
volume of UgoUrii's Thesaurus. It was reprinted
in this country with selected notes, but without the
scheme of metres.
Notwithstanding the little attention which Hare's
hypothesis attracted at first, it was regarded with
great respect by the learned, as is-^manifest from
* Jebb's Sacred Literature, Sect. 1. t Ibid.
12*

138

HARE.

the. testimony of Bishop Lowth, who deeraed it
worthy of a laboured confutation. " The arguments
advanced in its favour," says Lowth, " appeared so
conclusive to some persons of great erudition, as to
persuade them, that the learned prelate had for
tunately revived the knowledge of the true Hebrew
versification, after an oblivion of more than two
thousand years ; and that he had established his
opinion by such irresistible proofs, as to place it
beyond the utmost efforts of controversy."* Lowth
undertook to prove this a delusion, and to overthrow
the scherae itself. Public sentiraent has for tbe
raost part acquiesced in his arguraents and decisions.
Hare's hypothesis found a strenuous advocate in
Dr Edwards, who wrote a Latin treatise in its
defence, to which Lowth repUed in what he caUed
his Larger Confutation.
Dr Hare's most celebrated performance is a
treatise entitied, " The Difficulties and Discourage
ments, which attend the Study of the Scriptures,
in the Way of Private Judgment." This was
pubUshed without his narae soon after his return
from. HoUand, and took so weU with the public,
that it speedily ran through several editions. It
was accounted the finest specimen of irony in the
language ; and, if we except Hoadly's Dedication
• See A Brief Confutation of Bishop Hare's System of Hebrew
liletres, appended to Lowth's Lectures.

HARE. 139
to the Pope, which came out shortly after, no piece
in its way has probably since appeared, whicb would
not suffer by a comparison. Some persons affected
not to understatid hira ; tbey were disposed to take his
irony in earnest, and forward to whisper suspicions'
and discontent in the ears of the convocation. It
is not known, that any evils ensued to the author ;
he .had clearly stated it to be his object, by showing'
the discouragements attending the study of the
Scriptures, to irapress on individuals and religious
societies the iraportant duty of reraoving these dis
couragements. His concluding reraarks abundantly
evince his sincerity, and are uttered in a tone of
seriousness, and with a concem for the interests
of reUgious knowledge, which it would seera ira
possible to raisapprehend.
In the notice here given of Bishop Hare and his*
works, I have said nothing of his raanner of life, his
habits, or his pecuUarities, wbich usuaUy add so rauch
interest to the delineation of a character. Con
cerning these I do not find that any thing has been
transmitted. His writings seldora reveal a personal
incident ; they never betray his designs, nor ac
quaint you with his pursuits ; you may converse
witb his mind, grow famiUar with his thoughts, and
trace his opinions ; there you must stop ; the man
is invisible, and not to be approached. He died
1740; and his works were coUected by Owen, the
printer, and pubUshed 1746, in four volumes octavo.

t40 HARE.
He that shaU judge Bishop Hare by his writings
wiU heartily respond to the eulogy of Blackwall,
who calls him a " sound critic, consummate scholar,
and bright ornament of the church and nation."* It,
is presumed there have been few better classical
scholars, although he may have towered to the
height of his gigantic rival, Dr Bentiey. His
latinity claims the praise of elegance and purity,
and if his Epistola Critica were not so muck
disfigured with hostile attacks and undignified per
sonalities on his great antagonist, it would be a
most honourable monuraent of his erudition and
critical skill. His political tracts bear raarks of a
vigorous intellect, and an acuteness in some of tbe
deeper principles of government. In controversy we
have seen that he is less successful ; we are oftener
fatigued than convinced ; verbal disquisitions come
upon us in the guise of a,rguraents ; learning is ex
pended to show the extent of learning ; materials
abound, knowledge, mental energy, force of lan
guage, but they are awkwardly appUed.
Whiston intimates that Hare was skeptical, but
seemingly without proper foundation. He speaks
of his treating the Scriptures with levity, talking in
a trifling raanner about the fulfilment of prophecy,
and manifesting a wiUingness to conceal, that he
was the author of the " Difficulties and Discourage-
* Sacred Classics, Vol. a. p. 76.

HARfi. 141
ments," when he found this circumstance was likely
to be a bar in his way to preferment.* Whoever
reads Hare's sermons, and his other theological
writings, wiU not Usten to the charge of skepticism
from any quarter, if he regards bis understanding
and sense of justice. Whiston was the last man
to report a thing, which he did not beUeve ; but,
like many other good men, it was his foible, in the
honesty, frankness, and simplicity of his heart, to tell
aU he had thought or heard, and, what was still more
unfortunate, to beUeve it all. In the present instance,
as in some others, it is fair to conclude that he was
mistaken. Hare was a professed friend of toleration and
reUgious freedom in the protestant sense of the
terms ; but in defending the church he occasion
ally ran counter to bis own principles. Silence and
subraission were essential requisites in his notion
of religious liberty ; that is. Christians are free to
believe truth, but not to oppose error, free to Uve
without raolestation under a church estabUshment,
but not to meditate any change merely because
they are dissatisfied. Hoadly drove hira from this
ground ; and it is not surprising, that he should be
erabarrassed in atterapting to reconcUe the powers
and iraraunities of a church established by law with
an unrestrained liberty of opinion, and the sirapUoity
of scriptural order and discipline.
• Whiston's Memoirs, Vol. i. p. 110—114,

ON THE
DIFFICULTIES AND DISCOURAGEMENTS,
WHICH ATTEND THE
STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Sir,
I DO not wonder at the surprise with which you
received, when we were last together, the advice L
ventured to give you in relation to the study of the.
Scriptures. For one, who is a clergyman hiraself,,
to seera to dissuade those of his own order from a,
study that has so many arguments to recoraraend it;
and which, in the opinion of all good raen, ought to-
be their chief business, has, I confess, the appear
ance of a strange paradox, and that of the worst
sort. It looks like popery and priestcraft; and
therefore young and tender rainds may easily be
forgiven, if they startle at the first proposal of it ;
those, especially, who have a just sense of the ex
cellency and inspiration of the Scriptures, and are
eagerly bent on the pursuit of such tmths, as more
immediately tend to the advancement of virtue and
religion. As you are of that number, and went into

144 btudy of the scriptures.
orders with no other view, but that you might the
better study the Scriptures yourself, and advance
the knowledge of thera in the world ; h was not to
be expected you should presentiy come into other
sentiments. Which I ara so far from taking amiss,
that I think it to your commendation, that neither
the affection nor esteem you so often express
for an old friend, could prevail with you to act a
part that might have the appearance of levity in
a matter of so much consequence. Nor is it less
for your credit, that you can retain your opinion,
without losing your temper, or showing a backward
ness to hear what is to be said against it. Most
terapers run into extremes ; they are either too
volatile to be fixed, or else so fixed, that no force
of arguraent can move them. But it is your hap
piness, that you can adhere without obstinacy, and
change without levity ; and therefore I shall think
it no trouble to resume the subject, and lay before
you, in the best manner I can, the reasons that seem
to make against the study of the Scriptures in the
way of private judgment; which I hope will not,
upon cooler thoughts, appear so strange to you.
You wiU consider they come from one, who is not
more a friend to you, than he is to the church;
and, if exaraples be of any weight, I can assure
you this side of the question is by no means desti
tute of proselytes ; and that, when you come to
know the world raore, you will find this stud)-

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 145
neglected to a degree you little iraagined ; but it
is reasons, not exaraples, will determine you. To
come therefore to them ;
I. Let me, in the first place, observe to you, that
the study of tbe Scriptures, such a thorough study of
them I raean, as you aira at, is extreraely difficult,
and not to be successfully pursued, without a very
great and constant application, and a previous knowl
edge of raany other parts of useful learning. The
New Testaraent cannot be understood without the
Old ; the truths, revealed in one, are grounded on
the prophecies contained in the other ; which makes
the study of the whole Scriptures necessary to hira,
that would understand thoroughly a part of thera.
Nor can the Apocryphal books, how rauch soever
they are generally slighted, be safely neglected;
there being a great chasm of five hundred years
between the end of the Prophets and the beginning
of the Gospel ; whicb period is of the greatest tfll
for the understanding of the New Testaraent, and
yet is the least known. But now, if the Old Testa
ment must be weU studied, a good knowledge of
the oriental tongues is absolutely necessary. No
raan can be ignorant, who knows any thing of let
ters, that no versions of old books can be thoroughly
depended on ; the raistakes are so raany, and sorae
tiraes of great raoment ; especially the versions of
books writ in a language little understood^ and many
parts of it in a style extremely figurative, and
13

146 STUDY or THE SCRIPTURES.
those figures such as these parts of the world are
alraost wholly strangers to. But, put the case
these difficulties were less than they are, it is no
easy raatter to add to Greek and Latin the knowl
edge of so many other languages. Do not they two
alone find work enough for most scholars .'' What
pains then raust a man take, if he wiU study so many
others besides .' And, if the knowledge of the Old
Testament could be dispensed with, give rae leave
to teU you, that the language even of the New
Testament is not to bte understood with so little
pains, as is comraonly iraagined. It is learned
indeed in schools, and from hence thought to be
the easiest Greek tbat can be read ; but they, who
have read it in another manner than school boys,
know it to be quite otherwise. Not to mention the
difficulties peculiar to St Paul, whose Episties are
Aj'very great part of the New Testament ; Plato
Hid Demosthenes are in many respects not so hard,
as even the easier books. The style indeed, in the
historical books, is plain and simple ; but, for aU
that, even those parts have theff difficulty ; and the
whole is writ in a language pecuUar to the Jews ;
the idiora is Hebrew or Syriac, though the words
be Greek ; which makes some knowledge of those
languages stiU necessary.
Again, though it were not necessary to read die
Old Testament in the original, yet tiie Greek
version of it must be read, and that carefuUy ; it

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 147
being often times tiie best, if not the only help, to
explain the language of the New ; besides that, all
citations in the New are generaUy made from it.
But now, how laborious a thing raust it be, to study
an ill version of a very hard book, which we cannot
read in the original .P I call it an iU version ; for
though it be indeed a very good one, considering
the tirae it was writ in, yet, as a version, it raust
be aUowed by those who can judge of it, td be far
fi'om being exact or true. A raan need, only
consult it on sorae hard places in the Pentateuch,
as weU as in the poetic or prophetic books, to
be convinced of this. It was certainly far from
perfect at first, and is raade much worse by the
corruptions it has suffered in handing down to us ;
so tbat I may venture to affirm, that, should any
body now a days make a version so imperfect,
instead of admiration and esteem, his work would
be rauch despised by raost of our raodern critics.
I might to these add many other difficulties, that
attend a serious study of the New Testament. It
requires a good knowledge of the Jewish state at
the time of our Saviour's coraing ; a knowledge of
their governraent, sanhedrira, synagogues, customs,
traditions, opinions, sects ; the kinds of learning
received among them; what they borrowed from
the Greeks ; when the raystical and aUegorical
manner of expounding tbe Scriptures began, and
on what grounds ; what their particular ex;pectations

148 STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.
were in relation to the Messiah, and what they
taught, and on what grounds, in relation to angels,
demons, possessions, oracles, miracles, &c.
But it is in vain, you say, to tell you of difficulties ;
you are resolved not to be deterred ; you have time
before you, good eyes, a strong constitution, a mind
prepared for fatigue, a reasonable degree of skill
m the languages, and are furnished with a competent
knowledge in all the parts of useful learning, tbat
are preparatory to this study; so that difficulties
animate rather than dishearten you ; and I ara not
unwUling so far to agree witii you, tiiat were there
no objection against this study, but the difficulty,
this alone should not deter one who is so weU
prepared for it. But, if you are able to go through
so laborious a study, I presume you are not fond
of difficulties for difficulties'^ sake. You cannot think
it reasonable to take so much pains, unless it will
turn to some good account.
II. I shall therefore, in the second place, take
leave to ask, Cui bono ? What good can come of so
much pains .'' For it may seem that a free, serious,
impartial, and laborious study of the Scriptures will
be of no great service, for the foUowing reasons ;
First, Because it is plain the orthodox faitii is
not founded on a nice and critical knowledge of
the Scriptures. Many of the ancient Christians,
it will be allowed, were not great. critics, but argued
very much in a mystical way. Origen in particular,

STUDY or THE SCRIPTURES. 149
who was the greatest scholar Christianity had bred to
that tirae, perpetually turns the letter of Scripture
into aUegory. Frora whence we may reasonably
conclude, that the knowledge of the bare Uteral
sense was, in the judgraent of many even in those
tiraes, thought to be of littie use.
Secondly, But it is certain that the original lan
guage of the Old Testaraent was known to very
few for the first six centuries, in which those
general councils were held, wherein all the articles
of the orthodox faith were settled. They governed
themselves, and determined aU their controverted
points by the Greek version ; and those who knew
Hebrew best, whether they took to the mystical or
literal way, had the raisfortune to be least orthodox.
So it was with Origen, who knew the Scriptures so
weU, that he had them aU by heart. And Eusebius
and others, who studied and understood the literal
sense of the Scriptures best in the next ages, suc
ceeded little better ; so that this study seems to
have been of little use to the establishment of the
orthodox faith. Now, if an exact and critical
knowledge of the Scriptures was not necessary to
the settling of the faith, it cannot be necessary to
the understanding of it, or to the understanding
those who have writ best in tbe explication and
defence of it. On the contrary, such a knowledge
tends to lessen our esteem for the Fathers of the
church, by discovering their mistakes ; and may
13*

150

Study op the scriptures.

weaken our rtegard to the decisions of councils, by
exposing the falseness of the ground they seem to
be built on. A man, well skilled in the literal
sense of the Scriptures, wiU often find, in the
Fathers and councUs, texts of Scripture urged very
insufficiently ; and great stress laid upon passages,
which, when critically explained, prove nothing, or
perhaps make against them. Which suggests to
me a third reason, why it may seem that such a
study can do no good.
Thirdly, And that is, because the orthodox faith
does not depend upon the Scriptures considered
absolutely in themselves, but as explamed by cath
olic tradition. The faith was preserved in creeds,
and handed down frora one orthodox- bishop to
another, whose business it was to keep this sacred
depositum pure and undefiled, and to deUver it to
his successor entire as he received it. It was by
this tradition the main articles of faith were pre
served in the church, and not from any particular
study of the Scriptures. The ground therefore of
these articles must carefully be distinguished from
the Scriptures tbat have been brought in proof of
them; these proofs may be weak and inconclusive,
but the truth stands independent of them. It is
the faith they have received ; and, if at any tirae
they argue weakly for it from the Scriptures, it is
an argument indeed against their learning, but none
Against their orthodoxy.

study op the scriptures. 151
This therefore may seem another good argument
to prove, that an exact and careful study of the
Scriptures is not a safe and profitable study. It
is a much safer, as weU as a raore compendious
way to raake a man orthodox, to study tbe traditioa
of the church.
But you will say, that to send you frora Scripture
to tradition is to turn you out of paradise, the garden
of God, into a vast, confused, bewildered wood ; and
that this is so far frora mending the matter, that it is
ten tiraes raore laborious than the study I woidd
dissuade you frora ; and so, I confess, it is, if aU the
ecclesiastical writers were to be carefully read, in
order to know the catholic tradition. But that is
not my meaning ; the substance of catholic tradi<-
tion Ues in much less corapass ; the established
church, you will aUow, is orthodox in all necessary
points. If therefore you know the sense of the
established church, you have in epitome tbe church
catholic ; and therefore you need only study her
opinions to make you orthodox ; and this the raost
IUiterate raan raay find in the liturgy and articles.
This, I trust you will allow, is as short a way, as
could be wished of knowing all tbat is necessary to
be known. A very little tirae will serve a raan to
read, in his mother tongue, things which all together
would not fill a moderate volume ; and he will be
orthodox enough, and have a great deal of time to
spare for other studies, that wiU turn to raore

152

STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES

account. Besides that, it is of great advantage to
go in a way that is safe as weU as short ; and will
lead you into the knowledge of all useful truths,
without the hazard of faUing into any dangerous
opinion. Fourthly, But if you wiU insist that it is Scripture
and not tradition, that the faith is founded on ; there
is one thing farther I must put you in mind of,
which may seem to prove, that a profound and
laborious study of the Scriptures will not make you
at aU more orthodox. It is a fundamental principle
among protestants, that whatever is necessary to
be believed, is plainly and clearly revealed in the
Scriptures ; and consequently what is not plainly
and clearly revealed in them, cannot be necessaiy.
Now if what is plain and clear in Scripture is the
only part that is necessary to be known, then a
laborious search into the. obscurer parts may seem
unnecessary to the obtaining a true orthodox faith.
You will say perhaps, that, notwithstanding this
declaration of protestants, it raay aud has been
urged against them by their adversaries, that they
do believe, and maintain as necessary, articles that
cannot be proved by plain and clear passages of
Scripture. This, I confess, has been urged, and
may possibly be true of all parties of them, except
the established church ; but, if it be, it proves only
that they are not true to their principle ; not that
the principle is not in itself true and good. And

STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES. 153
he surely raust be allowed to be the best protestant,
who adheres best to the principle on which the
Reforraation was founded.
Fifthly, Once raore ; supposing the study of the
Scriptures as necessary as you please ; in the last
place, I say, and I ara sure the world will say it
with rae, that they have been sufficiently studied
already. And, if any parts remain still obscure, who
can hope to clear up passages that have puzzled so
many great men.'' Or will presurae in disputable
points to set up his private judgraent, against theni
that were raen of raore learning, of abler parts, of
greater appUcation, and better acquainted with the
tradition of the church, than any one will now be
allowed to be ? And (which is the best guide in
knowledge of religion) they were moreover men
of raost exeraplary piety, devotion, and humility ;
virtues, of which very Uttle footsteps are to be
found in the learned men of our times.
Must not now a man have a strong bent of raind
indeed, who cannot, by all these reasons, be dis
suaded frora giving hiraself up to a study, tbat may
by many be thought as unprofitable as it is laborious.''
but will go on, in defiance of aU that has been said
to convince hira that he wastes himself in vain, and
that there will be no fruits of aU his labour, but to
know he knows nothing .'' I caU that nothing, which
will turn to no account..

154 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
But, to show you I am disposed to make aU pos
sible concessions, I wiU grant that even this objection
might be got over, were this the worst of it ; but I
have one argimient stiU in reserve, that I am per
suaded wiU be decisive.
III. My third argument then is this ; that a painful,
exact, impartial study of the Scriptures will by some
be thought not only 'to do no good, but also a great
deal of hurt, both to the public, and to yourself.
First, It wiU do hurt to the pubhc. It wiU disturb
the peace of the church, and that cannot but have a
maUgnant influence on the state.
It is certain that disputes in the church disturb the
peace of it ; and it is as certain these disputes have
been generally raised by men pretending to a supe
rior knowledge of the Scriptures, and to discoveries
that have escaped others. The Scriptures have
always been made this use of by the heretics of
old ; and it is the character of tbe great heretics
of this and the last age, who have set up for a fi:ee
and impartial search into the Uteral sense of the
Scriptures above the rest of the christian world.
But witii what success ? They have purchased
their pretended knowledge of the Scriptures at the
expense of their reputation, and their study has
destroyed their ortiiodoxy. And were not tiieir
books and opinions carefully suppressed, and tiieir
persons rendered odious to tiie people, who knows
what disturbances they might have created to the

STUDY OF THE SCHIPTCBES. 155
church .'' On the other hand, the peace the church
has enjoyed for many years, among its own mem
bers, seems to be owing to no one ifaii^ more, than
to a general neglect of this study ; and die dangers,
that at present threaten its tranquillity, come wliaDy
fiom men, who have endeavoured to revive a stud^
that has so often proved pemicioas to its peace.
Nor can it well be otherwise ; ibr •what securilj
has a man that sets oot in this way : that attempts
to study die Scriptures iu a free and impanial
manner, laying asde aD pc^ossesicns and jpevioas
notions, resolving to see with his own eyes, and
judge for faimself, and to believe nodung tiat fae
is not upon fais own search convineed is deaifef
contained in tfaem f What security faas soch a
man, diat he shaU not fall iido sime c^inkms that
faave been alrrady ccmdemned as erroDeous and
faeretical, or wfaicfa may interfere widi diose diat
are commwdy received ; wlddi, if ifaey do not
immediately ^rike at any fundamental point, yet
wUl be tfaou^t to do so ; and may Im.ve a tsid^icy
to pat scruples into weak minds, and to disturb die
peace of tfae cfaurcfa, fay raiang doidHs abont ifae
meaning or trutfa of some articles, or by asertiiig
that an explicit belief of tfaem is not necesary f
It is so natural for curious and inqmabre minds to
deviate from tfae coinmon raad, and tbe example
are so many, tfaat it is odds but you do so too,
unless you had more lead in your consltfutioD, at

156 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
a more refined understanding, than any curious mari
ever had yet ; otherwise you cannot be sure, that
you shall not study yourself into doubts at least, if
not into opposite opinions concerning some received
notions. You wiU doubt perhaps of the authority
or author of some canonical book, and think perhaps
that some passages are interpolated, or that some cele
brated texts are not genuine, or should be otherwise
read, or have not been rightly understood, or do not
prove the point they are commonly brought for.
You may fall into notions that will be thought tend
ing to Arianism, or the like ; you may reject
arguments brought frora the Old Testaraent, to
prove the trinity, as trifling, and proving nothing
but the ignorance of those that make use of them.
You may think a prophecy has a literal meaning,
where comraonly the mystical is thought the only
one. You may think that many texts in the New
Testament, which are strong against the Socinians,
do not prove against tbe Arian notion. That the
titie. Son of God, has not always one uniform mean
ing in the Gospel; andthat tiiat single expression,
of itself, is no proof of any thing in God analogous
to generation in men. That the identical consub-
stantiality of the Son, the eternal procession of the
Spirit, and many other notions relating to the trinity,
though they may be true in themselves, are not so
in virtue of the texts aUeged for them. These
notions learned men have faUen into; and from

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. ^ 15/
theijce it is to be presumed, you wiU not easily keep
clear of thera. I choose to instance chiefly in matters
relating to the trinity, because it is the controversy
now on foot; but the Uke may be said on many
other articles ; in each of which the truth is but one,
but the errors infinite ; and there is hardly any
notion, with respect to any of thera, which sorae
learned man, by foUowing his own private judgraent,
instead of taking the doctrine of the church for his
guide, bas not faUen into.
Now, if you should study yourself into any new
opinions, or into old ones that have been conderaned,
what wiU you do P WiU you keep them to yourself,
or pubUsh thera? Or shaU I rather say, it is no
question. The authors of new notions are apt to
be very fond of thera ; .they think it barbarous and
cruel, to stifle the infant in its birth. Tbere is a
secret pleasure in singularity ; to differ frora the
vulgar is, in appearance, to be above thera ; and to
be distinguished from the herd, is too great a terap
tation to be easily resisted. But, had you prudence
enough to govern your arabition, conscience raay
come in here, and make you do what ambition could
not. The truths, you think you have discovered,
either are, or will be thought by you, of too much
importance to the honour of God and the good of
reUgion, to be concealed. You wiU look on them
as the blessings of God on your studies ; and think
it a capital crime to extinguish the light, and sup-
14

158 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURESC
press the knowledge he has imparted to you.. In
short, you wiU think yourself under the highest
obUgation not to dissemble in religious matters, and
conceal, frora the church of God, opinions which
you are convinced are not only true, but of great
service to it. Let me then conclude, that the novel
or revived opinions, which your study leads you into,
wiU be published to the world ; what now wiU be
the consequence .¦* Certain mischief, but no certain
good at all. No good, I say ; for possibly your
notions may be wrong, or not of consequence ; and,
whether they are or not, the presumption against
you will, be so strong, that your notions wUl not be
received, and perhaps not exammed ; they wiU be
condemned as novel notions, or as exploded ones ;
and, whatever you advance, it will be thought a
certain proof of its being of no consequence, that
in so many ages it has never been received. There
is no room therefore to expect, tbat what you
advance should be received, or do any good. But
the mischief is sure and certain ; it wiU raise scruples
in weak, unstable minds, sap the foundations of the
orthodox faith, and give a handle to skeptical men ;
who, because some things are caUed into doubt
(though incidental raatters only, and of Utde con
sequence), wiU think tiiey have a right from thence
to question every thmg. Thus the church and
estabUshed faith wiU suffer by tiie scruples put into
its friends, and the handle given to its enemies.

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

159

And, when reUgious disputes are begun, designing
men know how to interraix affairs of state with
thera ; and then nobody knows where they wiU
end, or what mischiefs they raay not do. Whereas,
if you can be content to go in the beaten road; if
you will iinpUcitly subrait to the received notions,
and humbly think the judgraent of the churchy
where it is not the sarae, better than your own,
you wdl be out of harm's way, and neither hurt
the church, nor yourself.
Secondly, I add yourself, as another raotive that
ought to have great weight with you in this question ;
for you cannot disturb the peace, of the church, with
out being greatly a sufferer yourself. If you reaUy
do not disturb its peace, it is aU one, you wUl be
interpreted to do it, and that will bring on you more
evUs than I would wish to my greatest eneray. In
a word, you will be thought a heretic; a terra,
which there is a strange magic in, though it has no
determinate raeaning in the mouth of the people,
nor any iU meaning in itself. It is supposed to
include in it every thing that is bad ; it makes
every thing appear odious and deforraed ; it dis
solves all friendships, extinguishes all forraer kind
sentiraents, however just and well deserved ; and,
frora the tirae a raan ; is deeraed a heretic, it is
charity to act against all rules of charity ; and, the
more they violate the laws of God in deaUng with him,
it is, in their opinioni,»diing God the greater service.

160

STUDY OP THE SCRIPTUSflS*

That you may not think this is said at random,
purely to frighten you into a coropUance with me ;
let me desire you to consider seriously the natural
consequences of being under the imputation d[
heresy. And the first I would observe is, that,
from the moment your people have this opinion (rf
you, you are incapacitated from working much
good upon them ; and that, I am sure, so good
a man as you are, must think to be a great eviJ.
While they think you orthodox, your virtuous and
inoffensive behaviour, your strict sobrie^ and
temperance, your affable and familiar manner (rf
conversing with them, your generous and charita
ble regard to those who are siek oc 'm distress ;
these good qualities, joined to your plain and easy,
but affectionate and moving manner of instructing
them, have a mighty influence, and you may lead
them as you jdease ; tbey admire and endeavour
to imitate your good exaraple; your virtuous con
duct is a constant, though tacit, reproof when tiiey
do amiss ; the very sight of you is a lecture of
virtue to them ; and the influence you have already
had, in the httle time you have been among them,
is too visible to be denied. But, from the tirae
you are called heretic, much of die good, you
could have done, is at an end. Those, who
before bad a secret veneration of you, think it
their duty to defame and injure you ; your virtue
they caU hypocrisy, your humihty spiritual pride;

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 161
they look on you as an abandoned wretch ; that
God has withdrawn his grace, and that the Devil
is at the bottom of all you have been doing ; that
nothing can better testify their orthodoxy, than to
throw off aU regard both to your doctrine and
example ; and, for fear they should seem to be
infected witii your errors, tbey wiU return to the
vices you had persuaded them to leave ; and, for
the future, wUl take effectual care not to be the
better for you.
Nobody can do much good, whom the people do
not think a good man ; and that cannot be expected,
when: so much reproach and infaray will, right or
wrong, be heaped on you, if you do not continue
orthodox. And this you cannot doubt, if you wiU
but reflect on what passes under your own eyes;
and therefore it is in vain to fancy your virtue
will protect you. No, the raost conspicuous virtue
wiU not be beUeved. If you are guilty of no open
vices, secret ones wiU be iraputed to you ; your
inquiries will be caUed vain, curious, and forbidden
studies. Pride and arabition wiU be said to be the
secret springs of thera ; a search after truth wiU be
caUed a love of novelty ; tiie doubting of a single
text wiU be skepticisra ; the denial of an arguraent,
a renouncing of the faith. To say what the Scrip
tures have said, and in the very sarae words too, if not
explained in the comraon way, will be blasphemy ;
and the most sincere concern for the lionour of
14*

162 STUDY op THE SCRIPTUragS.
Almighty God, you cannot be sure, will not be
interpreted downright atheism. Every thing you
say, or do, wiU have a wrong turn given it. A slip
of raeraory shaU be raade wilful prevarication ; a
raistake in a citation shaU be forgery and corruption ;
an error, in an incidental point of learning, shall be
a good proof that you know nothing. Every inac
curate expression shaU be pressed into a crime ;
any little warmth of teraper shall be aggravated into
pride and positiveness, into a contempt of authority
and iU manners. In short, aU the indiscretions of
a raan's former life shaU be ripped up ; and nothing
forgiven, that can be reraerabered or strained to his
disadvantage. And where is die man that can be
fond of such usage ? For my part, I am free to
declare, I am afraid I should not have virtue or
courage enough to undergo such a fiery trial.
Now all tills a man wiU draw upon himself,
that brings hiraself under the imputation of heresy.
Whereas the ortiiodox man lives quiet and at ease,
unmolested and unenvied. His faults (and who has
not some ?) shaH be extenuated or excused, if not
quite buried in oblivion ; his want of temper shaU
be a commendable zeal ; his indiscretion, good
nature ; his mistakes shaU be iraputed to haste or
inadvertency ; and, when tiiey cannot be defended,
it wiU be argued in his favour, tiiat the greatest
men sometimes err, and tiie writers of die first
rank are not always in tiie right ; or perhaps

STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES. 163
a mistake shaU turn to his advantage ; it wiU be
shown to be an error on the right side, and that a
good cause drew bim into it. His learning, on the
other hand, shaU be magnified beyond measure ;
every body wiU be full of his good qualities, and
his virtues shall be set in the best light to show
themselves and cover his faults. In a word, ortho
doxy atones for all vices, and heresy extinguishes
all virtues. That this is nothing but the bare
truth, I appeal to what you every day hear and
see yourself.
There are, you know, two clergymen* of the
town, who have studied themselves into heresy, or
at least into a suspicion of it ; both of them, men
of fair, unbleraisbed characters ; onef has all his
Ufe been cultivating piety, and virtue, and good
learning. Rigidly constant himself in the pubUc
and private duties of reUgion ; and always promoting
in others virtue and such learning as he thought
would conduce raost to the honour of God, by
manifesting the greatness and wisdom of his works.
He has given the world sufficient proofs that he
has not misspent his time, by very useful works of
philosphy and mathematics ; he has appUed one
to the explication of the other, and endeavoured
by both to display the glory of the great creator.
And to his study of nature, he early joined ' the
study of the Scriptures ; and his atterapts, whatever
the success be, were at least well raeant ; and,
» Dr Samuel Clarke and Professor Whiston. t Whiston.

164 STUDY OP THE SCMP'T'tJHli^. .
considering the difficulty of the . subjects he has
engaged in, it must.be allowed tiiat in tbe main
they are well aimed ; and, if he has not succeeded
no more have others who have meddled with the
same subjects. Nor is he more to be blamed than
tiiey. To be blamed, did I say.? I should have
said, not less to be commended. For sure it is a
commendable design, to explain scripture difficulties^
and to remove the objections of profane men, by
showing there is nothing in the sacred writings, but
what is true and rational.
But what does a Ufe, thus spent, avaU .' To what
purpose so many watchful nights, and weary days .''
So much piety and devotion .'' So much mortification
and self-denial .'' Such a zeal to do good, and to be
useful to the world ."* So many noble specimens of
a great genius, and of a fine imagination .'' It is tbe
poor man's misfortune (for poor he is, and like to
be, not having the least preferment) to have a warm
head, and be very zealous in what he thinks tbe
cause of God. He thinks prudence the worldly
wisdom conderaned by Christ and his Apostles, and
tiiat it is gross prevarication and hypocrisy to con
ceal the discoveries he conceives he has raade.
This heat of teraper betrays him into some indiscreet
expressions and hasty assertions ; designing to hurt
nobody, he fancies nobody designs to hurt him ; and
is simple enough to expect the same favourable
aUowances wiU be made to him, that he sees made

STtfDY OP THE SCRIPTURES. 165
to those who write against hira. As to his learning,
it is his raisfortune that he is not skilled enough in
the learned languages to be a great critic in thera,
and yet seems not to be sensible of his deficiency
in this respect. And what advantage is taken of
this, that he has not less heat and more criticism .''
His learning is treated in that manner, that you
would think he did uot know tile first elements of
Greek ; though, even in that, he is njuch superior
to raost of those who raake so free with hira ; and
you every day hear his perforraances run down as
whimsies and chimeras, by raen who never read
thera, and, if they did, could not understand them.
Nor does his warmth of temper corae off better ; it
is all over obstinacy, pride, and heretical pravity ;
a want of raodesty and due deference to just au
thority ; they, that speak raost favourably, look upon
hira as crazed, and littie better than a raadman.
This is the poor man's character ; and, low as he
is, they cannot be content to leave him quiet in
in his poverty ; whereas, had he not been early
possessed with a passionate love for the Scripture
and phUosophy ; had he not thought it his duty above
aU things to promote the glory of God, and been
persuaded that could no way be so weU done as
by the study of his word and works ; it is raore
than probable he had, at this tirae, been orthodox ;
and then, instead of his present treatment, his faults
would have been overlooked ; th^ learning, he

166

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTtftlS: *

excels in, would have been extoUed, and no defect
would have been found in other parts of it. He
would, have been cried up as an ornament of the
age, and no preferment would have been denied or
envied him.
This you know to be the case with one of the now
heretics; the other* is so prudent in his conduct,
that he comes under but a suspicion of favouring the
same notions.. How now is he treated f Prudence
m hira is as great a crirae as the want of it in the
other. The imprudent man is treated as a madman,
and a rank Arian ; the prudent one is less a heretic,
but more dangerous ; sobrius accessit ad evertendam
ecclesiam ; and therefore the greater alarm must be
raised against him. And what has be done .'' Why,
he has, with a great deal of pains, brought together,
in the best raanner he could, aU the passages in
the New Testament relating to the doctrine of the
trinity. And so far his work is what those, who
differ from hira, should be pleased with, since he
has brought the raaterials together to enable men
to forra a right judgraent of the question in dispute ;
and has put into their hands, if he be in the wrong,
the best weapons against himself. But he has
interpreted some texts in a manner that is not
Uked ; it is true, he has so ; but not once, that I
remember, has be given an interpretation that is
purely of his own head. He-brings great vouchers,
and, if he errs, it is always in good company. This
* Dr Samuel Clarke.

STtTDT OF THE SCRIPTURES. l67
is his offence ; he has mamtained, with many others,
particularly the late dean of St Paul's, in oppositioa
to SabelUanism, that the three persons of the trinity
are three real distinct beings ; and the beUef of three
really distinct beings perfectly equal he maintains
with Dr South to be tritheism ; and, that there
must therefore be a subordination. Now whether
this notion be right, or not ; if he cannot escape iU
treatraent, give me leave to say, that, if your study
should lead you into any opinions contrary to what
is generaUy received, you can with no reason expect
better quarter. He is< a raan, who has all the good
qualities that can raeet together to recoraraend him ;
he is possessed of all the parts of leaming that are
valuable in a clergyman, in a degree that few possess
any single one ; he has joined to a good skiU in tbe
three learned languages a great compass of the best
philosophy and raatheraatics ; as appears by his
Latin works ; and his English ones are such a proof
of his own piety, and of his knowledge in divinity,
and have done so much service to reUgion, as would
make any other man, that was not under the sus
picion of heresy, secure the friendship and esteem
of aU good churchmen, especially of the clergy.
And to all this piety and learning, and the good
use tbat has been raade of it, is added' a teraper
happy beyond expression ; a sweet, easy, modest,
inoffensive, obUging behaviour adorns all his actions-;
and no passion, vanity, insolence, or ostentation,

IOS STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.
appear either in what he writes or says ; and yet
these faults are often incident to the best men, in
the freedora of conversation, and in writing against
irapertinent and unreasonable adversaries, especially
such as strike at die foundations of virtue and
religion. This is the learning, this the teraper of
the man, whose study of the Scriptures has betrayed
him into a suspicion of some heretical opinions;
and, because it has, he must be blacked and de
famed ; he must be worried out of tbe great and
clear reputation he is possessed of; and he, that
has so raany shining qualities, must be insulted by
every worthless wretch, as if he had as littie learning
and virtue as the lowest of tbose who are against
him. What protection now can you promise your
self from your virtue, when a man of such a char
acter cannot be safe in his good narae ? Whatever
therefore you do, be orthodox ; orthodoxy wiU cover
a multitude of sins, but a cloud of virtues cannot
cover the want of the minutest particle of orthodoxy.
It is expected, no matter how unreasonably, that
a man should always adhere to the party he has
once taken. It is the opinion of tiie world, that he
is all his life bound by the subscriptions he made
in his first years ; as if a man were as wise at
twenty-four, and knew as much of the Scripture
and antiquity, and could judge as weU of them, as
he can at fifty. And yet, if a raan will be studying
these things, he cannot be sure he shaU continue

STUDY or THE SCRIPTURES. 169
a year together in the sarae sentiments ; and, if he
should not, he raust either stifle his persuasion,
against the dictates of his conscience, or be exposed
to the worst treatment, to be caUed a renegade, a
false brother, a heretic, or any thing that maUce can
.suggest. But I have not yet done. This is not the worst
of it. This perhaps you raay pretend to despise,
and not care what the worid says of you, so long
as your conscience cannot reproacb you. WeU,
let then all concern for reputation go. Can you
be proof against one farther consequence of lying
under the imputation of heresy .'' Can you bear to
see yourself, your wife, and children, ruined and
undone .'' This, I see, starties you. But you ask,
What danger can there be of that.'' An Englishman,
you say, is out of the reach of persecution or an
inquisition ; that spirit, God be thanked, is. banished
the land ; and even convict heretics are protected
frora the flames. Very true, the spirit of persecu
tion is either gone, or is disarmed ; and that I look
on as one of the invaluable blessings of the revolu
tion. But can you be sure it will not return ? And
suppose it will not ; are you therefore secure, that
an iraputation of heresy will not end in the ruin of
yourself and family .'' You and your children will
not be burnt indeed ; but you may be as effectually
ruined, as if you were. You may be excommuni
cated ; and in virtue of that be thrown into a jail,
15

170 STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.
to rot therfe, whUe your family are starving. And
(which cannot be too weU considered), when once
you come into those circumstances, what is there
can deliver you .'' Your punishment wiU last and
be 'the sarae, as long as you continue in the sarae
mind. A rule of punishraent, peculiar to the ec
clesiastic state. In civil cases, the offender, if his
crirae be not capital, suffers a temporary punish
ment, proportioned to the fault he has coraraitted ;
and, when he has undergone that, nothing further
is required of hira, except in sorae cases to find
security for his good behaviour for the future.
But in cases of heresy, there is no regard to the
degree of the offence, in the punishment inflicted.
Nor is there any end of it. It-is not enough to have
suffered the severest punishraent, though for the
smaUest offence ; it is not enough to give security
of not offending for the future. The innocent
offender must declare, what it is oftentimes im
possible he should declare, that he bas changed
his sentiments, and is become orthodox ; and this,
•though perhaps no raethods of conviction have been
used, except tbat of punishment be one. This is
the miserable condition of a convict heretic ; the
punishment, which feU on hira for expressing
thoughts heretical, be raust continue to endure for
barely thinking ; which is a tiling not in his own
power, but depends on tiie evidence tiiat appears
to hira. He must forever, (cruel justice !) forever

STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES. 171
suffer for his private thoughts (though they go not
beyond his own heart) the punishinent which sorae
overt act has once drawn upon hira. To punish
toties quoties, as often as these overt acts are re
peated, will not satisfy the holy office. Nor can a
forbearance of such acts avaU any thing, or a
proraise of silence for the future ; which yet is
aU that is in a raan's power. No, he raust recant,
whether he can or not ; and generally it is required
to be done in words drawn up for hira. So that,
if he do uot see reason to change his opinion ; and
will not say he has changed, when he has not ; he is
in for Ufe, and his punishment can only end with it.
Indeed, on every supposition, a raan excommuni
cated for heresy has a sad tirae of it. For, if he
does not recant, he is, as I have said, in prison for
Ufe, and his faraily must starve ; and, if he does
recant, what does he get by it f His liberty indeed,
but what else .'' WiU people beUeve he is sincere .''
WiU they not think his recantation loosely drawn in
favour of hira, to raake it a recantation in appear
ance only.? Or, if it be in the strongest words,
will he not, if he subrait to it, be suspected to
equivocate ? Will they not expect the reasons of
his change ? WiU they not ask (if he says no raore
for the orthodox side than has been said before)
why, if these reasons are convincing now, he did
not think them so before.? Will they not conclude,
that to him tiiey are inconclusive still, unless he

172 STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.
can find better reasons than the best that had been
offered him ? Which I take to be a contradiction.
And will it not be argued from thence, that he is
not changed ? that it is the punishment only, and
not his opinions, he would leave ? So that, if he
continues in his opinions, he wiU Ue under aU the
infaray and punishraent of heresy ; and, if he does
not, yet it will be supposed he does. He is pun
ished for acting according to his conscience ; and,
if he would leave the heresy imputed to him, he
will be said to act against his conscience ; and
perhaps be reputed a worse man than he was
before. This in all events ; once a heretic, and
always raiserable. The reputation (cbange, or not,)
is never to be retrieved ; no preferraent or era
ployraent to be hoped for. He will always be
suspected of heresy, who is once guilty ; and bis
wife and children raust see hira the perpetual
subject of reproach and obloquy ; and feel it too ;
feel it in their character, feel it in their raain
tenance ; as if the children of a heretic were a
brood of raonsters, a nuisance to tbe coramonwealth,
and infected the very air they breathe in.
These misfortunes a man of tbe most unblemished
life may draw upon himself and family, if he wiU be
meddling with so dangerous a study, and cannot in
conscience dissemble the result of it. Misfortunes,
which the vilest, lewdest, raost imraoral wretch
tvpon earth is in no danger of. The greatest

STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES. 173
immoraUties, nay, a long course of them, shall
oftentimes escape unpunished ; especially if a man
be very orthodox. But, if they do not, the punish
ment extends only to the person of the offender.
It derives no infamy on himself if he reforms, nor
on his children if he do not. They are rather pitied
for having such a father, and every body is wiUing
to be kind to them. Who now, after this, can be
fond of a study that may bring on him, let him be
ever so innocent, such a load of misery and infamy,
a load without raeasure and without end ? And if
this will be the consequence of excoraraunication,
teU me how rauch better it is than persecution.
But you will say, that it is possible a man's
studies may not lead him into any heretical opinion ;
and if they should, yet it is not very easy to convict
a heretic, or to say what is heresy. To the first,
I have already said enough ; as to the other, I
confess it is not very easy to convict a man of
heresy. The law seems to be deficient in this
point ; but who knows how soon this defect raay
b,e supplied by a new law .? And, in the mean
time, it may be difficult indeed to convict a man of
heresy; but perhaps it may be foun?l not to be
impossible. And if it should, it is hut changipg the
word, and the offender raay he come upon easy
enough. If, through a defect in the laws, he cannot
be convicted of heresy, he may however be con
victed of writing or speaking against the established:
15*

i*4 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
doctrine of the church ; and that wiU draw on bim
all the same consequences, that heresy would do.
For heresy is the opposing the doctrine of tbe
catholic church ; but the doctrine of the established
church wUl readily be supposed to be the doctrine
of the catholic church ; and therefore to oppose the
doctrine of one is in effect to oppose both. So that
a man shaU be deemed a heretic to aU intents and
purposes, and sentenced to the same punishraent;
though in the sentence itself, for his comfort, the
word heresy raay be left out.
But you are wilUng to think the temper of the
English clergy raore moderate, and the generaUty of
them averse to every thing that looks like the spirit
of popery ; as the ruining of a good man, merely
for matters of opinion, raust be allowed to do. I
wish you raay find it so, if ever tbere should be
occasion. I confess there has appeared a good
spirit, a very huraane and christian temper, in some
late writings, where perhaps it was not much
expected ; but, for aU that, I raust beg leave to
differ from you. If indeed no one would judge
in a cause he did not understand ; if no one were
aUowed to understand a cause of heresy, but who
was a good judge of the sense of Scripture and of
priraitive antiquity ; if no one were esteemed to
know Scripture and antiquity, but those who had
studied them well, who had read them carefully
with their own eyes, and did not take the sense of

SfUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES. 175
them upon trust frora modern writers ; if the argu
ments for his opinion were to be examined, before
his opinion were condemned ; if a man, before he
gave his vote, were to lay his hand upon his heart,
and declare himself thus qualified to judge ; that he
had considered the matter, and would speak nothing
but what he thought ; on these suppositions, I ara
apt to think a nuraber of jodges would not very
easUy be found ; and when they were, it raay
reasonably be presuraed, that they would not be
very forward to condemn. They would be sensible
there was room for honest minds to be misled, from
what they had read and observed themselves ; they
would know that there is more to be said on the
other side, than the generality at aU dream of; they
would be careful how they discouraged learning,
by discouraging the inquiries of learned raen. They
would be very unwiUing a raan should suffer by
their sentence, whose life they are sure is innocent
and virtuous, but whose opinions they cannot be so
sure are false and dangerous. They know discour
ageraents in learning and virtue to be of such ill
consequence, that a raan's opinions raust be very
bad indeed, to make it necessary to come to such
extremities. But give rae leave to say, you have
no reason to expect such judges, or such a back
wardness to judge. It is always supposed, that the
doctrine of the church you are of, is right; that
it is the doctrine of Scripture and antiquity. And

176 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
this, every body thinks- he understands. So that
little learning or reading is necessary, to raake
any clergyraan a judge over the leamedest man
alive. Another thing I take leave to teU you, is, that
most men think they can do conscientiously what
ever they can do legally. Men of refined an4
exalted understandings, who have a large compass
of thought, and have looked into th^ principles of
things, know that written laws are but deductions of
the law of nature, which is prior to aU human
institutions ; that these sometiraes deviate from that
unwritten law ; and, when they do, are of no real
intrinsic authority. They know that a thing is not
just and reasonable, because it is enacted ; but, in
good governments, is enacted, because it is just and
reasonable. They know that laws are sometimes
obtained by surprise or corruption, by party man
ageraent, by craft or superstition. They know
that penal laws, in matters of reUgion, are seldom
advisable. They would not easily contribute to
tbe making them ; and, when they are made, would
be glad to have thera generaUy Ue dorraant. They
know that no authority of man can alter the nature
of things, or justify a cruel or unjust sentence in
the sight of God. They are sure, that, if to punish
men for their opinions be not very, right, there is
no medium, it must be very wrong. It is pubUc
robbery or murder, to deprive a man of his Ufe or

STUDY 01? THE SCRlPTUftfiS. 17'?
goods for his religion ; if it be not just in itself to
do so, as well as legal.
Sorae perhaps raay think in this manner ; but
these raust be men of refined and exalted under
standings ; and therefore must be very few. The
generality think tbey raay do justly, whatever they
can do legally. And it is, no doubt, for thera, a
good rule. They cannot judge of the nature of
things for themselves ; and therefore the law is the
most proper guide and direction they can have-
As long therefore as there are laws to punish the
asserters of heretical opinions, or such as oppose
the estabUshed doctrines ; you may depend on it,
they wiU not be suffered to Ue dormant. There
will never be wanting great nurabers, who will
call aloud to have thera put in execution ; and
they wiU think their zeal, in this raatter, the best
service they can do the church.
This is huraan nature ; thus it has been in all
times. And no experience of the mischief done
to Christianity by a forwardness to pronounce
anathemas on those, who dissent from the received
opinions, will make us wiser. It may, 1 doubt not,
be demonstrated with the greatest evidence, that
all christian churches have suffered raore by their
zeal for orthodoxy, and by the violent methods
taken to promote it, than frOra the utraost efforts
of their greatest enemies. But, for all that, the
world will still think the same methods necessary.

178 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
The sarae zeal wiU prompt to the same persecutions
or prosecutions (call them which you wiU), without
considering the same matter must necessarily pro
duce, at long run, the sarae fatal consequences.
Let me therefore intreat you, not to fancy the
world is altered in this point. Do not think your
opinions cannot ruin you, because it is not reasonable
they should. Do not flatter yourself^ that temper,
pi-udence, and moderation can, in religious contro
versies, get the better of indiscreet zeal, bigotry, and
sujierstition. In short, be not hasty in espousing
opinions, which can have no other effect, but to lay
the best raen at the raercy of the worst. Every
mean person, who bas nothing to recoraraend him
but his orthodoxy, and owes that perhaps wholly to
his ignorance, will think he has a right to trample
on you with contempt; to asperse your character
with virulent reflections ; to run down your writings
as mean and pitiful perforraances, and give hard
naraes to opinions he does not understand ; which
you raust bear, without the least hopes of being
beard a word in your defence.
Let me observe one thing more, that it is the
misfortune of a clergyman that he is confined to
one profession. Other men, if they cannot Uve in
one way, are at liberty to try another ; but a raan,
who has once the indelible character, must live by
the one profession he has made his choice. If
therefore that UveUhood be taken from hira, it is

^TUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 179
in vain he has learning, parts, industry, and applica
tion. He wUl not be allowed to take any other
course to repair the loss he suffers by his opinions
as a clergyraan. His tirae, and fortune, and
studies have been spent to raake hira useful in
that one profession ; and, if he had abilities to
maintain hiraself in any other, it is too late; he
has made his choice, and raust abide by it. This
then is the unhappy dilemma a reputed heretic <is
reduced to ; he wiU neither be suffered to keep the
profession, nor to leave it; he shall neither live in
it, nor out of it. So that, notwithstanding his
learning, parts, virtue, and industry ; though he
could make a good lawyer, physician, merchant,
or raechanic ; if he be not orthodox, all possibilities
of living corafortably, at least, and reputably, are
taken from him. Go now, and think, if you can,
that the advice I give you is not the advice of- a
friend. It is the advice of one who loves virtue
and learning, who is a friend to all- good raen, and
is in particular greatly concerned for your success
and advanceraent in the world. It is advice
seconded by the examples of the greatest men ;
for name me any one of the men most famed
for learning in this or the last age, who has
seriously turned hiraself to the study of the
Scriptures. I raight name to you the most eminent
men down frora ScaUger and Casaubon to the
present tirae. . CapeUus, indeed, and the excellent

180 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
Grotius, are exceptions; but they met with such
usage, that one has little encouragement from their
examples. But not to go beyond our own country ;
who are the raen that have exceUed most (excepting
always Sir Isaac Newton) in philosophy, astronoray,
and mathematics.'' Have they, not been clergymen.?
And was not their skiU, in these sciences, the effect
of their great and constant application to them .?
W^as not that time spent in these studies, that you
think should have been applied to the study of the
Scriptures .? On the other hand, take out two or
three from so great a body, and where is there a
clergyraan of a great genius, and that has made a
chief figure in the learned world, that has written
upon the Scriptures, at least with any masterly skill
in criticism .?
And what is it that aU this can be imputed to.?
Did these learned men decUne this study, because
they wanted the abilities proper for it .? Surely
that wiU not be said of raen of tbeir confessed
learning. Or was there want of incUnation and
good will to it .? No, they were raen of virtue,
and good protestants, as well as scholars and raen
of letters. What then .? Did they, who have taken
so rauch pains upon other books, and with so rauch
success, think the Scriptures the only ones that
needed not their help .? Neither can that be pre
tended. They saw the sacred books, through the
injury of time and the ignorance of scribes, had

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 181
suffered as weU as others ; and much more by false
and absurd interpretations. To be plain ; the one
thing, that turned thera from so noble and necessary
a study, was the want of liberty, which, in this study
only^s denied men. They found it was dangerous
to exaraine impartially, and speak freely ; that they
must write without liberty, or with no safety ; that
it would be expected of thera, to strain all their wit
and learning, to patronise and palUate gross errors,
instead of exposing or raending thera ; and to sup
port the received interpretations, however absurd,
instead of such as reason and learning convinced
thera were the only true ones. But this was a task,
which men of ingenuous minds, whose integrity and
love of truth v^ere equal to their penetration and
great abiUties, could not subrait to. For men to
have eyes, and understandings of their own, and
yet not see or understand, but as they were bid,
and that by raen who could not see or imderstand
theraselves; ai a^ya)i.Ui r^ayiAa\ To make such a
blind use of their learning and abiUties was, they
thought, to pervert the very end of them, and really
to dishonour God, whose service they were given for.
Since therefore they could not bear the thoughts of
studying the Scriptures on these terms, no part
was left men who could not be idle, but to turn to
some other study, in which, without fear of danger
or offence, they might freely go whither truth and
reason led. The consequence of which, besides
16

182 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
the improvements made in arts and sciences, has
been, that many of them have separately made
more good emendations, and happily explained
more difficulties in the smaUest pagan writer, than
they have done, take them aU together, i^ tw6
hundred years, upon the whole body of the
Scriptures. What then I would advise you is, to follow such
exaraples. Turn yourself to the study of the
heathen historians, poets, orators, and philosophers.
Spend ten or twelve years upon Horace or Terence.
To Ulustrate a biUet-doux, or a drunken catch ; to
explain an obscene jest ; to make a happy emenda
tion on a passage, that a raodest raan would blush
at, wiU do you raore credit, and be of greater
service to you, than the most useful employment
of your time upon the Scriptures, unless you can
resolve to conceal your sentiraents, and speak
always with the vulgar. You see a present ex
ample in the great Bentiey ; what a reputation has
he acquired by the noble edition he has given us
of Horace ? How are his abilities confessed and
adraired by aU .? But had the same genius, the
same sagacity and labour, been appUed to the
study of the Scriptures, to settie the texts in
doubtful places, to mend corrupted ones, explain
hard ones, fix the raeaning of obscure ones, and
to trace out the literal sense where it can be done ;
should he, I say, have atterapted a work of tiiis

STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES. 183
kind ; instead of thanks and applause, it is more
than probable he would have been treated as a rash
man, of no judgraent, of Uttle learning, and less
reUgion ; and, if his works had been sentenced to
the flaraes, a raajority would have been for throwing
hira in after thera.
Consider weU, therefore, how you engage where
there is no retreat, no repentance, no roora for
pardon, if you once offend. You have two ways
before youi One wiU enable you to be useful in
the world, without great trouble to yourself ; it will
crown your labours with success ; it will bring you
to reputation and esteera ; it will put you into a
way of raaking a decent provision for your faraily,
and giving a good education to those two fine
chUdren God has blessed you with, and you raay
have raany more. Tbe other wiU itself fatigue you
with many difficulties, and expose you to the most
fatal (Consequences ; it will draw on you an insup
portable load of infamy, as a disturber of the church,
and an enemy to the orthodox faith, and, in all
probability, end in the extrerae poverty and ruin
of yourself and faraily. Which God forbid should
ever be the case of one, who has no other views
but to dedicate his Ufe to God's service,
I ara. Sir,
Your faithful humble servant.

1 84 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.

CONCLUSION.

After all that has been said in this long letter,.
I ara persuaded that raany readers will still think
what is here advanced, a strange paradox ; or
perhaps be scandalized at it, as a very wicked one ;
and wUl on no terms allow, that clergyraen should
lay aside what ought to be tbeir chief study. And,
to be ingenuous, I will confess I ara entirely of the
sarae raind. I ara as unwiUing as tbey can be, to
adrait the conclusion, that the study of the Scrip
tures should be deserted ; and yet cannot deny,
but, huraanly speaking, this must be the consequence
from these preraises. If therefore we will not allow
the conclusion, we raust show the premises to be
untrue, and that this study wiU not be attended
with so mueh danger. But this we in vain
attempt, if we do not our parts at least, that
these may not be the consequences. For, as long
as they are, the study of the Scriptures wiU certainly
continue to be neglected, as it now is ; and aU men,
who contribute to these consequences in any degree,
do so far discourage the study of the Scriptures,
whatever they pretend.
In truth, there is nothing more absurd, than to
say the glorious things we do daily of tiie Scriptures ;
and, at the sarae tirae, make the study of them, to
men of sincere and hone,st ' minds, so extremely

STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.. 185
hazardous and inconvenient. If then we would not
be guilty of discouraging a study which we acknowl
edge to be the great duty of the clergy, as we are
Christians ; if we would be true to the fundamental
principles of tbe reformation, as protestants, that
the Scriptures are the only rule of faith ; let us use
our best endeavours to remove tbe great obstacles
that lie against the study of them ; let us do what
we can, that learned men may have full Uberty to
study the Scriptures freely and iropartiaUy; good
encourageraent given them to go through the labour
and difficulties of sueh a study, not slightiy and
superficiaUy, but with such appUcation and dUigence
as the nature of the thing requires ; and have leave
to speak their sense with aU manner of safety ; that
their opinions may be examined fairly, aad with
temper ; that their names be not unjustly loaded
witb calumny and slander ; that their words and
actions raay be interpreted with the sarae candour,
as is shown to those that differ from them ; that, if
what they advance be right, it may be received ; if
wrong, their errors may be refuted, as the mistakes
of learned men on other subjects ; if doubtful, and
the Scriptures say so little, or speak so obscurely,
that nothing can certainly be decided either way ;
that then nobody may be obUged to take either side
as necessary ; that, whether their notions be right or
wrong, their persons may, in aU events, be safe, and
their maintenance not affected by it ; that, as long
16*

186 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
as they . live virtuously, and write with aU due
modesty and good raanners, and advance nothing
that breaks in upon moraUty and government, they
may be treated in all respects as tbose are or ought
to be, who employ theraselves in any other part of
useful learning.
I must add, let them be never so rauch in the
wrong, I can apprehend no danger from it to the
church ; or that the errors of a few raen can have
considerable influence in opposition to a great body
of a vigilant and learned clergy, who wiU be always
able and ready to-'.defend the received notions, if
they can be defended ; and, if they cannot, it raust
be allowed they ought not. But, if sorae incon
veniences would arise from the Uberty I contend
for, they are nothing in comparison of those that
must follow frora the want of it.
TiU there is such a Uberty allowed to clergyraen ;
tiU there is such a security for their reputations,
fortunes, and persons ; I feai- I raust add, tiU so
difficult a study raeets with proportionable encour
ageraent ; it is impossible a sincere, impartial, and
laborious appUcation to it should generaUy prevaU ;
and, tiU it does, it is as irapossible tbe Scriptures
should be weU understood ; and, tiU they are, they
are a rule of faith in name cmly. For it is not the
words of Scripture, but the sense, which is tiie rule;
and, so far as that is not understood, so far the
Scriptures are not our rule, whatever we pretend ;

STUDY OP THE SCaiPTORES. 137
but the sense tbat men have put on them ; men
faOible as ourselves, and wfao were by no means so
well fumisbed, as tfae learned at present are, with
die proper faelps to find out the true meaning of
Scripture. And whUe we take the sense of the
Scriptures in this manner upon content, and see
not witfa our own eyes, we insensibly relapse into
the principles of popery, and give up the only
ground on which we can justify our separation boia
the churcJi of Rome. It was a right to study and
judge of tfae Scriptures for themselves, that our first
reformers asserted with so g(M>d efiect ; and their
su(M^ssors can defend their adherence to tfaem, on
no otfaer prin(Mple.
If tfaen we are concemed for tbe study of tfae
Scriptures, farther than in words ; if we in earnest
tfaink tfaem die only rule of faith ; let ns act as if
we thought so ; let us heartily encourage a free and
impardal study of them ; let us lay aside that malig
nant, arbitrary, perseeotiDg, popish spirit ; let us put
no fetters on men's imderstandiags, nor any otfaer
bounds to their inquiries, but what God and truth
have set. Let us, if we would not give up the
protestant jmnciple, that tfae Scriptures are plain
and clear in the necessary articles, declare nothing
to be necessary, but what is clearly revealed in
tfaem. Tfaen may we hope to see the study of these
divine books so happily cultivated by tbe united

188 STUDY OP THE SCRIPTURES.
labours of the learned, when under no (fiscourage-
ments, that all may, in the main, agree in the true
meaning of thera. Places, that can be understood,
they will agree in understanding alike ; such at
least as are of consequence to the faith. And, for
such as are too obscure to be cleared up with any
certainty, those likewise they wUl agree about and
unanimously confess they are such as no article of
faith can be grounded upon, or proved from. Next
to the understanding a text of Scripture, is to know
it cannot be certainly understood. When the clear
and dark parts of Scripture are thus distinguished,
an unity raay then reasonably be hoped for araong
protestants in necessary points ; and a difference of
opinion, in such as are not necessary, can have no
raanner of iU consequence, nor any way disturb the
peace of the church ; since there will tiien be noth
ing left in its doctrines, to inflarae raen's passions,
or feed their corrupt interests, when we are all
agreed about what is essential to reUgion ; and what
is not essential is looked on as indifferent, so that a
raan raay take one side, or the other, or neither,
or raay change, as he sees reason, without offence.
Upon the whole, a free and irapartial study of
the Scriptures either ought to be encouraged, or it
ought not. There is no raediura ; and therefore
those who are against one side, which ever it be,
are necessarily espousers of the other. Those,
who think it ought not to be encouraged, wiU, I

STU'DY or THE SCRIPTURES. 189
hope, think it no injury to be thought to defend their
opinion upon such reasons as have been here brought
for it, tiU they give better. On the other hand,
those who think these reasons inconclusive, and
cannot find better, will find theraselves obliged to
confess, that such a study ought to be encouraged ;
and consequently must take care how they are ac
cessory to such practices, as in their natural con
sequence cannot but tend to its discouragement ;
lest they come into the condemnation of those who
love darkness rather than light, and, for their pun
ishraent, be finally adjudged to it ; there is, in this
case, no other raediura between encouraging and
discouraging, but what tbere is between Ught and
darkness. Every degree of darkness is a want of
so much light ; and all want of Ught is a certain
degree of darkness. To refuse then a greater
degree of light, where it can be had, is, in truth,
to prefer darkness ; which, in my humble opinion,
can never be reasonable or excusable. Those, who
are of another mind, plainly distrust themselves or
their cause. Which if it can bear the light, why
should it not be shown in it .? But, if it cannot, it
is not the cauae of God, or of the Son of God ; for
God is light, and in him is no darkness ; and the
Son of God is the true Ught, which lighteth every
man that cometh into the world.

POBTLAHD,

PoKTSMOVEH, idSHCOKD,iE£N£,

ag*:nts

CEIVING SCBSCHIPTIONS TO
THIS COLLECTION

ESSiAYS AND TRACTS IN THEOLOGY.

OF I, r

Samuel Johnson

tJEW HAMPSHIRE

J. W: Foster *
J. B. MooUe £,
J. Prentiss S^^i
MASSACHpSJpTTS;'"''
W*'WEnRTPORT ^f**""'" ff^hipple
TWEWBURYFORT, ^^..^„rf„„,
5 Qt^hingkJIppleion

-Ca:

IMERlI^E (WCES'i'ER,
SEENrrEI.1),
NtJRTHAMPTON,Springfield,

J-y Whipple
Ham Billiard
G. 'A. TrtitnbuU
Charles Williams
Sl Butler
A. G. Tanmtt „^
RHODE ISLAND. "*
PRoviBlliycE, Oegrge Dana
i .w. / ¦ ,
CONJSftCTICUT.
New Haver, "^Howe k, Spalding

NEW YORK.

New Yore,
Albawi, CAirAkii»A.t«uA,0TIOA,

J. Eastbura ^ Co.
E. F. BadcHs
J. p. Bemis & Co.
William fViltiama

NEW JERSEY.
tbmtooh, e. mM':.

PENNSYLVANIA.
Pl^LASELPHIA, A. Small
..¦' MARYLAND.
DISTRICT OF^^COLDMBIA. "
Washis^qs, p. Thom^n
Georgetown, Jamat Thotnas
VIRGINIA.
Norfolk, ChriHapher BM
R«:piipiH», J. B. Jfask,
MRTH CAROLINA.
Newbern, Sahiioa HuU
Raleigh, Joseph Gaiet
Fayetteville, /. M'Rea
SOUTH CAROLINA.
CHARLESTOtr, John MiU
CoLOUBiA, J. W. Arthur
GEORGIA.
Satasnab, W. T. WUliamt ¦
AirocsTA, E. U H. Ely ¦*
Milledgeville, CUnn h Cwlit ,
KENTUOrr.
Leiikc.tok, WUUam G. Bunt
Louisville, J. Collins, jr. ^
ALABAMA.
Mobile, Litllefistd, DavenportjhCo^
CANADA.
Montreal, H. B. Cunnin^utm

COLLJEctlON i^V

OF

ESSAYS AND TRACTS

THEOLOGY.

:h.

4f '. BY JARED SPARKS.^ 4/

.No. I^.^*

OCTOBER, 1823.

#*,' CONTENTS.
lj|8lR ISAAC NEWTON, - r - - ;;, - - ^'^1
<^*»., Biograph»cai'notice, - • - " " », ''M ', '^
\3to; History OF^wo CORRCF.TIOKS or SCRIPTVI^ '.If 236
'"'OTARLES BUT^SaS, •- . . ... 1* 321
Historical 017TLIKE of tbe coNTROfHi^w' kespecting
the text of the Three HEAVE^rL^WiTiirESSES, 323

i ',' r |||- BOSTON:
.*i^^ PUBLISHED BY O. EVERETT, NO. 13 CORMftilL.
it ' CA^IBRIDGE :
TToiTeBtr Press  Hilliard & MeteaK
'^- '" 4 1823. ^ ^'

SIR ISAAC JVEWTON'S
fflSTORY /
OP
TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

NEWTON^.

In the annals of the human race are recorded the
naraes of a few raen, who have shone as the orna
ment and the boast of their species, whose wisdom
has multiplied the triumphs and hastened the progress
of intellect, and whose genius has thrown a splendor
over the world. Of this fortunate number Newton
stands at the head. To give a fuH account of this
extraordinary man, of his life and character, his dis
coveries and their influence, would be to analyze all
that is wonderful in the human mind, to reveal the
deep things of nature, unfold the mechanisra of the
universe, and enumerate the achievements of science
during the last century. No such arduous and ven
turesome task will here be undertaken, nor any thing
more than the outlines of a subject, whose compass
is so vast, and whose objects are so elevated.
Sir Isaac Newton was born at Woolsthorpe, near
Grantham, Lincolnshire, on the 25th of Deceraber,
1642. In his early infancy he was extreraely feeble,
and little hope of his Ufe was entertained. His

194 NEWTON.
father died three raonths before he was born, and
accordingly the charge of the son devolved wholly
on the mother. She spared no pains with his edu
cation, and kept him under her own eye tiU he was
twelve years old, when she sent hira to the pubUc
school at Grantham. He was boarded in the house
of an apothecary, whose brother was usher of the
school. It was here that he first began to display the pecu
Uar bent of his genius, and to give a presage of what
its future versatility and power would accoraplish.
It is recorded of hira, while at this school, that
his thoughts ran raore on practical mechanics, than
on his regular exercises, and that during the hours of
recreation, which the other boys devoted to play, he
was busy with hammers, saws, and hatchets, construct
ing miniature models and machines of wood. Among
his first efibrts was a wooden clock, kept in motion
by water, and teUing the hours on a dial-plate at
the top. He made kites, to which were attached
paper lanterns, and one of his favourite amusements
was flying them in the night, to the consternation of
the neighbouring inhabitants. He fabricated tables
and other articles of furniture for his schoolfellows,
and is said to have invented and executed a vehicle
with four wheels, on which he could transport himself
frora one place to another by turning a windlass.
The raotions of the heavenly bodies did not escape
his notice even at this period ; for he formed a dial

NEWTON. 195
of a curious construction, by fastening pegs in the
walls of the house, which indicated the hours and
half hours of the day. At first his fondness for these
occupations caused hira to neglect his regular studies;
but he had too rauch spirit quietly to look on while
other boys were gaining places above hira, and he at
length maintained not only a reputable, but a distin
guished standing in the school.
In the mean tirae his mother's second husband
died, and as she needed the assistance of her son,
she took him home to raanage the afiairs of the farra.
To this business he was devoted for a year or two,
but with so little interest in the pursuit, that his raoth
er soon found her agricultural concerns were not like
ly to flourish in his hands. It was one part of his
business to go to Grantham raarket and dispose of
the produce of the farra, but in executing this charge
he is neither to be applauded for his dUigence, nor
adraired for a love of his duties. The iraportant
task of finding a purchaser and making a bargain, he
usuaUy entrusted to the enterprise of a servant, and
his own time was passed in his early haunts at
the apothecary's house, reading books, or planning
machines, till it was announced that the tirae of his
return had arrived. At horae, the farra itself was
managed much in the same way as the sale of its
produce at the market. It was neglected, or left to
the care of others, while the mind of its nominal
superintendent was invoking tbc genius of invention^
17*

196 NEWTON.
roaming the fields of philosophy, or exploring the
regions of hidden nature.
So unpromising were the prospects of raaking hira
a farraer, that his mother resolved to yield to his
propensities, and put him in the way of being a
scholar. To this end he was again sent to Grantham
school. At Grantham he resided nine raonths, and
was then entered at Trinity CoUege, Carabridge, on
the Sth of June, 1660, in the eighteenth year of his
age. In this situation, so favourable for drawing out
and improving his pecuUar talents, his success was
equal to his advantages. It was not among the least
fortunate circumstances to Newton, that Dr Barrow
was at that tirae fellow of Trinity CoUege. With
mathematical powers of the highest order, and a
strong predilection for the natural sciences, this great
man would not be long in discovering so bright a
genius as that which then began to dawn in his col
lege ; and, with a modesty and good temper equal to
his greatness, he would not be slow to encourage tlie
ardour with which the young student was animated,
nor to lend assistance where it could advance his at
tainments. Barrow became not only his adviser and
teacher, but his sincere friend ; and few were the
raen of his tirae, who were better able to teach, or
whose' friendship was raore to be desired.
Newton's mind soon turned into the channel of his
favourite studies, and he read with avidity die works
of the modern geometers then in vogue, especially

NEWTON. 19'?
Kepler, Descartes, Saunderson, and WaUis. It is
reraarked of him, that he gave no time to the more
elementary books usually put into the hands of be
ginners. EucUd himself he studied but partially, for
by a glance of the eye at the enunciation and dia
gram, he saw at once the process and result of the
demonstration. The wide distance, which others are
forced to traverse with slow and painful steps, in their
entrance to the profound sciences of nurabers and
geometry, he passed over at a single stride. Propo
sitions, which required elaborate demonstrations to
bring them out of the mists of doubt, and raake them
evident to other minds, were to him self-evident truths.
With these endowments from nature, and with the
aids in his reach, we ought not to be surprised, that
his progress in mathematical attainments was un
exampled ; but with aU these on his side, we can
hardly realize the fact, that whUe yet an undergradu
ate at the university he should conceive one of the
subUmest inventions of huraan genius. It was during
the last year of this period that he first detected the
principles of the Fluxional Analysis, of which more
will hereafter be said.
He took the degree of bachelor of arts in the year
1664, at which tirae, and for sorae raonths after, he
appears to have been engaged in optical researches.
His attention was particularly occupied in attempting
to devise some method of improving telescopes ; and it
is known, that at this time he had purchased a prism

198 NEWTON.
with the design of making experiraents to try Descar
tes' theory of colours. The next year after he was
graduated, these inquiries were interrupted, and he was
corapelled to leave Carabridge on account of the
plague, and take refuge at his own home in the
country. In this retirement he spent nearly two years, and it
is natural to suppose, that a mind like his, with the
world of unexplored nature before hira, would not be
idle. It was during this season of seclusion, that he
caught the dawning hints of his great discovery of
gravitation, the origin of which is among the most
striking illustrations of the force of accident in de
veloping the genius, and swaying the opinions of men.
Newton was one day passing a soUtary hour in a
garden, occupied in philosophical musings, when an
apple feU from a tree near hira. Trifling as was this
incident, it quickened the inquiring spirit of Newton,
and iraraediately caUed out his raind to search for the
cause. Why should an apple faU to the earth .''
Why should any other body fall .'' By what power is
it irapelled, by what laws directed .'' These were the
questions, which he asked hiraself; and, although he
could not answer thera, he was led into a train of re
flections, which ultiraately carried hira to the highest
of huraan attainments.
The fact had been well estabUshed, that on every
part of the earth's surface tiiere is a tendency in
bodies to fall to its centre, and that this tendency is

NEWTON. 199
not perceptibly dirainished by ascending to difierent
elevations, as the tops of lofty buildings, and the
suramhs of high raountains. Why then should not
the power, which causes this gravitating tendency,
reach beyond the reraotest points of the earth's sur
face .'' Why not to the moon, and the other celestial
bodies .'' And if so, why raay not their raotions be in
some way influenced by this power, as weU as the rao
tions of bodies less distant from the centre of the
earth .'' Not that it is necessary, that the tendency, or
force, should everywhere be the same ; for although it
is not sensibly dirainished on any part ofthe earth's sur
face, yet at a point so far distant as the raoon, it raay pos
sibly become weaker. Pursuing this train of thought,
he instituted a calculation. By comparing the periods
of the planets, with their several distances from the
sun, he ascertained, that if they were actually held
in their orbits by a power Uke that of gravitation on
the earth's surface, this power must act by a fixed law,
and decrease in proportion as the squares of the dis
tances of the gravitating bodies increase.
It only remained to determine, whether a power,
acting by such a law, would keep the moon in its
orbit, and produce its several raotions. He went
through a rigorous computation, but it was unsuccess
ful ; the results did not correispond with observation ;
it did not appear that the moon was actuated by such a
power ; and he was not encouraged to prosecute his
labours. Hereafter it wiU be seen, however, that he

200 NEWTON.
was deceived, and that he had already discovered the
great law of the universe.
In the year 1667 Newton took his degree of mas
ter of arts, and was elected fellow of his college.
About the same time he returned to Cambridge. For
two years he had been raore or less engaged in his
optical experiraents, although only at intervals during
his retireraent. His priraary object was to iraprove
the telescope ; and to accorapUsh this, he eraployed
hiraself in grinding lenses of eUiptical and parabolic
al forms, hoping thus to correct the indistinctness of
figure produced by the aberration of rays in passing
through a spherical lens. His attempts proved abor
tive, for, whatever figure he gave to his lens, the
image was still defective. Wearied with iU success,
he desisted from the labour of grinding lenses, and be
took hiraself to experiraents with his prisra. In these
experiments he was struck with the oblong forra of
the spectrura, and the brilUancy of the colours which
it exhibited. He took for granted, that the rays of
light, in passing through the prism, were equally re
fracted, in which case the spectrum ought to be circu
lar. It was, nevertheless, invariably oblong. He
observed, moreover, that the colours were regularly
arranged, the red uniforraly appearing at one end,
and the violet at the other. From these appearances
he drew the conclusion, that the rays in passing tiirough
the prism are not equally refracted, but those com
posing each colour are refracted hi a difierent angle

NEWTON. 201
from those of any other colour, and are thus separat
ed. It hence foUowed, that light is composed of
rays of as many different colours, as there are distinct
colours in the spectrura, and that the rays of each
colour are refracted in a certain uniforra angle. This
is called the refrangibility of light.
Newton soon perceived this great discovery to be
susceptible of the most extensive appUcation, since
it is intiraately concerned with all the phenomena of
Ught and colours. He discovered the mistake under
which he had laboured respecting the cause of the
imperfection of telescopes ; for he found by compu
tation, that the dififerent refrangibiUty of Ught contrib
uted several hundred tiraes raore to produce this efiect,
than refraction through a spherical lens. Hence, if a
figure could be so formed as to correct the errors of
refraction, the difi'erent refrangibiUty would stUl re
main, and the image would scarcely be more distinct.
He despaired of conquering this double difficulty,
and resorted for the raost convenient reraedy to the
principle of reflection. He appUed hiraself to forra
ing and poUshing raetalUc concave mirrors with his
own hands, and finally constructed two telescopes of
this description, the first of which is now in the pos
session of the Royal Society. This kind of instru-
,. ment received the name of the Newtonian telescope,
and was the foundation of all the great iraprovements
whichhave since been raade. In aletter to Oldenburg,
a plan of a refracting telescope was suggested by

202 NEWTON.
Newton, in which the errors of refrangibility might be
corrected by passing the rays of Ught through sub
stances possessing different dispersive powers, so that
the refraction of one should be counteracted by the
opposite refraction of another. But there is no evi
dence, that he carried this plan into execution. The
hint was not lost ; it has been so far iraproved, that
refracting telescopes have been made perfectly achro
matic. One of the raost remarkable results of Newton's
discovery in light, was his explanation of the phenora
ena of colours. He analyzed the rainbow. He
laid open, in a most ingenious manner, the causes of
various colours in all natural objects. By a series of
curious experiments and philosophical deductions,
he was led to the conclusion, that there is a thin,
transparent covering on the surfaces of bodies, in
which light is both refracted and reflected, produc
ing by this process difierent colours. One colour
prevails over another, because the configuration of
the particles on which light falls is such, as to absorb
nearly all the rays except of one kind. In almost aU
the fixed colours of opaque bodies, the three principal
properties of Ught, refraction, reflection, and inflec
tion, are concerned. There is no colour where there
is no light, and this shows that colour is an accident,
and not a property inherent in matter. Newton has
explained its cause and its nature. In the language
of a poet, he " untwisted aU the shining robe of day,"

NEWTON. 203
and in the words of a philosopher, who happily pur
sued the figure so beautifully started, " he made
known the texture of the magic garment, which na
ture has so kindly spread over the surface of the
visible world."* In short, the science of optics was
so completely renovated by Newton, and estabUshed
on the principles of truth and reason, that he raay
be considered as having been its author.
While thus successfully going forward in the march
of discovery, his patron, Dr Barrow, had been ap
pointed professor of mathematics at Cambridge. But
in 1669, he concluded to resign his professorship,
as he wished to devote himself more exclusively to
theology. By his desire Newton was made his suc
cessor. The duties of his new office encroached so
much on his leisure, that he was forced to relax in
some degree the intenseness with which he had pros
ecuted his researches. That he might, however,
coraplete what he had so successfully begun, he caus
ed his optical inquiries to be the chief subject of his
lectures during the first three years after he was
raised to the professor's chair, and thus gradually
matured his new discoveries into a system.
Newton was elected a member of the Royal Soci
ety in 1672, and, at the time he was chosen, a teles
cope sent by him was exhibited for the inspection
of the society. So highly was it approved, that a
resolution was passed to forward a description of it
* Playfair's Second DissertatioD, Part II. sect. 3.
18

204 NEWTON.
to Huygens, the celebrated philosopher and optician,
that the invention might be secured to its true author.
In a letter read by Oldenburg shortly after to the
Society, Newton gave intiraations of discoveries to
which he had been conducted in optics, and which
he proposed to subrait to the consideration of that
learned body. These proved to be no other, than
his new theory of light and colours, which he had
never as yet raade public. At the earnest solicitation
of the Royal Society, his papers on these subjects
were immediately printed in their Transactions. New
ton was now more than thirty years old, and had been
employed for nearly ten years in developing the
profoundest mysteries of nature, but this was the
first occasion on which he had appeared before the
public as a writer.
His theory raet with a chiUing opposition from
almost every quarter, and he was so much disturbed
at the petulance and peevishness with which he was
assailed by ignorance in the garb of pretended
knowledge, he was so much vexed by the narrow
ness and jealousy of some, and the bitterness of oth
ers, that he soraetiraes repented of having jeopard
ized his peace by an unavaUing atterapt to enUghten
the world with truths, which it was so averse to
receive, and which had cost hira tlie patient labour
of years to elicit and mature. He was first attack
ed by Hooke, and then by Pardies, Gascoigne, Lu
cas, and other writers on the continent. Berag once

NEWTON. 205
enUsted, it did not accord with his spirit to shrink
from the contest, and he replied proraptly to every
aniraadversion frora a respectable source, which was
published against hira. He was at last triuraphant
over all opposition, and settled his theory on a basis
which h^as never been moved.
So foreign were such controversies from his dis
position and feeUngs, that he absolutely refused to
publish his Optical Lectures, which were then ready
for the press ; nor did they see the light tiU raore
than thirty years afterwards. In alluding to this
controversy, he says, " I blamed my ovvn imprudence
for parting with so real a blessing as my quiet, to
run after a shadow." This remark sufficiently indi
cates the reluctance with which he forced himself to
combat prejudice and passion. It may justly cora
raand our applause as the evidence of a pacific and
unassuraing teraper, but we can hardly be required
to descend to the level of his modesty in thinking
the splendid reaUty of which he was in pursuit to he
no more than a shadow. He was conscious of no
other motives than love of truth, and zeal for
science ; and notwithstanding his chagrin at the out
set, he had the satisfaction of witnessing the gradual
reception of his theory by those raost enlightened, and
best qualified to understand it, till at length it gave
a new aspect to the science of optics.
Twelve years had passed away since the apple in
the garden had carried up his thoughts to the cause

206 NEWTON.
of the celestial motions, when he was again induced
to resume that subject. He received a letter from
Dr Hooke concerning the kind of curve described by
a falling body, subjected to the double influence of
the diurnal motion of the earth, and the power of
gravitation. This letter put Newton on new inquiries
into the nature of this description of curves, and
orompted him to retrace the steps of his former
calculations in regard to the raoon's motion. The
truth is, he had been deceived by the old measureraent
of the earth, which was essentiaUy false ; making a
degree to consist of sixty EngUsh miles, whereas, by
the late and more accurate measureraent of Picard, a
degree was ascertained to be sixty-nine railes and a
half. As Newton reckohed the raoon's distance in
seraidiaraeters of the earth, and as the length of a
seraidiameter depended on the length of a degree,
this difference gave rise to an enormous error, and
was the cause ofhis failure and discouragement.
By a new calculation with corrected data, his most
sanguine hopes were more than reaUzed. He proved
with deraonstrative accuracy, tiiat the deflection of
the moon towards the earth is precisely what it ought
to be on the supposition, that it is actuated by a force
operating inversely as the squares of tiie distances.
He then brought the other planets witiiin his calcula
tion, and found the same law to hold in them all.
Thus was accorapUshed a discovery raore subUme in
its nature, more profound in its details, more difficult

NEWTON. 207
in its demonsti-ation, and more important in its results,
than any which has ever yielded to the force of indus
try, or the light of genius. The law which governs the
heavens and tiie eartii, tiie uniting principle of the
universe, tiie cement of nature, was detected, and its
rules of action developed and made appUcable to die
highest purposes of science. .•
We ai-e not to understand, that Nevvton was the
first, who iraagined tiie existence of such a power as
atU'action between natural bodies. This was conjec
tured long before, but no one had been able to prove
tlie fact. It is not certain that tiie ancients had any
distinct notions of a power like that of gravity. Lu
cretius, in his romantic account of die origin and for
mation of the world, has some fanciful allusions to a
kind of principle, which keeps tiie eaitii self-balanced
in the centre of tiie universe, and operates in some
inexpUcable manner in producing tiie motions of the
stars. But it is doubtful, after aU, whether be sup
poses tiiese effects to be produced by an internal
power of attraction, or an external pressure.* Lu
cretius is mentioned, because he may be allowed to
have spoken die sense of the large and flourishing
sect of the Epicureans, whose philosophy he defend
ed with an ingenuity and eloquence worthy of a better
subject. Copernicus had some obscure notions of a gravi
tating principle in tiie earth, which he supposed to
* De Remm Vatara, Lib. V.
IS*

208 NEWTON.
exist also in the stars and planets, and preserve tiiem
in their spherical forms. He calls it a kind of nat
ural appetency.* Kepler went one step farther, and
supposed that an attracting power not only existed in
thp eartii, but that it might reach to the moon and
other planets, and that they might reciprocally attract
each other. To such extravagant lengths did his
fancy lead him, that he even assigned to the planets
a sort of animating, self-directmg principle, by which
they were endowed with a syrapathy for one auother
and enabled to raake theur way through the regions
of space. Dr Hooke found out, that if such a power
as gravity exists, it raust act in proportion to the
distance ofthe body, and the quantity of matter.
Frora this brief sketch, it appears, that the ancients
had no conception of a gravitating power ; that Co
pernicus supposed it to extend not beyond the body
of each planet ; that Kepler assigned to it a recip
rocal influence araong the several planets, but knew
nothing of its nature or laws of action, and that Dr
Hooke advanced farther, but in estabUshing the ex
istence of such a power, he went not beyond the
confines of probability. Newton's discovery embraces
two essential particulars; first, the fact, that an
attracting principle pervades aU matter ; secondly,
the law by wbich this principle acts. Take these
away, and no conjectures about atti-action could ever
*Equidem existimo gravitatem non aliud esse quam appeten-
tiam quandam naturalem. J3e Bevol. C<sl. Orb. Lib. I. Cap. 9.

NEWTON. 209
be converted to a single practical use. But now
they are setded on the immovable basis of demon
stration, they put in our hands the great key of
nature. Newton undoubtedly profited as far as he
could by what others had done ; but, compared with
bis discoveries, they had Uterally done nothing.
They were tapers guiding the meridian sun in the
career of his glory.
With this law at command, Newton constructed
a new system of the world. He solved the most
difficidt problems pertaining to tbe motions of the
heavenly bodies, and explained the celestial phenom
ena in a manner at once simple and satisfactory.
In all bis inquiries on these subjects, as weU as on
every otber, he rigidly pursued the mode of phUoso-
phizing recommended by Lord Bacon ; or rather
his own mode, as he made it pecuUarly his own
by being tbe first, who reduced it to practice, and
gave it a prevalence in the world. With him it was
a fundamental axiom, that nothing is to be assumed
as a principle, wbicb does not rest on observation or
experiment, and that no hypothesis is to be admitted
as establishing a fact.*
This axiom he never deserted, and hence the
profound investigations into which his subUme geom-
* Quicquid enim ex phsenomenis non deducitur, hypothesis vo-
canda est ; et hypotheses seu metaphysicae,sen physicae, seu qual-
itatum occultarum, sea mecbanicae, in pbilosophia experimenta-
li locum non habent. Principia, Lib. III. Schol. General.

210 NEWTON.
etry carried hira, were clothed with the same certain
ty, as the results of humble and obvious calculations.
He walked araong the planets, and took their diraen
sions, and measured their periods, and ascertained
their raotions and influence on each other, with as
much security as the mariner traverses the ocean
with his compass ; and he went forward with equal
assurance, that he should not be deceived nor misled.
He explained the lunar irregularities, which had
baffled all forraer astronoraers, he suggested and
deraonstrated the true figure of the earth, solved the
perplexing problem of the precession of the equinox
es, illustrated the causes of the tides, and extended
his researches with briUiant success to the eccentric
orbits and erratic motions of the comets.*
The first pubUc intimation, which Newton gave of
these discoveries, was in 1683, when be sent a
short paper to the Royal Society containing a dozen
propositions relating to the planetary motions. Tliis
paper attracted the attention of Dr HaUey, who visit
ed Newton at Carabridge the year following, and
became fully acquainted with his novel and astonishing
attainments in these high departments of astronomy.
No man was better qualified to understand and es
tiraate thera, and he extorted a promise from Newton,
that he would make farther coraraunications to the
* Lorsque la comfete de 1680 parut, le vaste gfenie de Newton
embrassoit I'univers entier. Comitogrnphie, par Pingr^, Tom. I.
p. 148.

NEWTON. 211
Royal Society. Accordingly at a subsequent meet
ing, Dr Halley and Mr Paget were appointed to cor
respond with Newton, and remind him of his prom-
be. The consequence was, that he immediately
began to arrange his materials into a methodical
form, and on the 18th of April, 1686, he presented
to the Society the manuscript of the Philosophue
JVaturalis Principia Mathematica. It was put to
press by order of the Royal Society under the super
intendence of Dr HaUey.
This great work, although it ranks among the high
est effiirts of human genius, was not at first greeted
witb so much applause as it deserved, and as it was
destined to receive. Its originality and profoundness
were no doubt obstacles to its success. It is hard
to make the world beUeve what it does not under
stand, especiaUy when such a faith is met by preju
dice on the one hand, and a spirit of jealousy on the
other. Theory and observation harmonized so per
fectiy in tbis system, that the more impartial were
constrained to faU in with the author's conclusions,
although they could not go with him to the depths of
his geometry. But the power of old opinions was
too strong to suffer the scales to drop from the eyes
of the multitude. Many there were in the higher
walks of science, who would see and confess nothing;
it was tbeir pride to be sceptics as to the new phi
losophy. They had ranged themselves under the
popular standard of Aristotle and Descartes ; they

0]^2 NEWTON.
dwelt in a fairy land, and could not descend from the
region of dreams to the hurable sphere of deraonstra
tion and fact. So strong did the current set against
Newton's philosophy, that Voltaire spoke truth, in
the opinion of Playfair, when he said that the Prin
cipia had not twenty advocates out of England at the
time of the author's death, notwithstanding it had
been nearly forty years before the public. And even
in England, the Newtonian philosophy was not for
mally introduced into the universities at an earUer
period. It made its way slowly, but surely.
The schools astonished stood, but found it vain
To combat still with demonstration strong,
And, unawakened, dream beneath the blaze
Of truth.
When the new philosophy had once gained a foot
ing abroad, its progress was as rapid as it had been
tardy in the outset. It fortunately passed through
the hands of a succession of men eminentiy quaUfied,
both by intellectual ascendency and madiematical
skill, to illustrate its deepest principles. The flux
ional analysis opened an untrodden field ; it was a
magic wand in the grasp of the mathferaatician. Arra
ed with this potent instruraent, he interrogated nature
with an authority and success before unknown. It
let in a flood of Ught upon all that was dark or diffi
cult in the philosophy of Newton. The prodigious
achieveraents of Euler, Clairaut, D'Alembert, La
Grange, and La Place, conspire to give lustre to

NEWTON. 213
Newton's farae, and certainly to his discoveries. La
Place, in particular, has gone up with the transcen
dental calculus to the surarait of the Newtonian
system, and all his labours have tended to fix it on a
firmer foundation. After having proved throughout
his great work, that a law Uke that of gravitation,
explains with rigid precision all the irregularities of
the celestial raotions, he concludes, that frora this
circurastance, and the extrerae simplicity of such a
law, we are authorized to believe it the law of
nature.* Newton's discovery did not end bere. It created
the science of physical astronomy, but itwas not limit
ed to the corapass of the heavens. The principle of
attraction pervades all things, the smaUest as well as
the largest. It lets us into the mystery of chemical
affinities, and tells us all that we know of the corapo
sition of bodies, their texture, internal relations, and
other properties. In this sphere of its influence, it
is caUed contiguous attraction, and although it does
not ostensibly observe the sarae laws of action as in
the case of rpraote bodies, yet there is reason to sup
pose, that this deviation is caused by the figure, posi
tion, and other accidents of the particles brought in con
tact. Newton made many experiments with chemical
agents to try his theory, and he is aUowed to have
discovered the principle on which the operations of
* M^chanique Celeste, Tom. I. Liv. 3. chap. 1.

214 NEWTON,
cheraistry depend.* We thus find him applying his
discovery not only to explain the machinery of the
universe, but to detect the method of penetrating the
inmost recesses of nature, and bringing to light the
hidden properties of things.
Serious objections were at first off'ered to this theo
ry, by Euler and sorae others, frora the circumstance
of its not accounting for the cause of attraction. They
said it was the scholastic notion of an occult quaUty,
and that the whole system was no more than a revi
val of the old, exploded philosophy. To this objec
tion it was only repUed on Newton's part, that he did
not pretend to have discovered the cause of gravity ;
and, moreover, that if such a discovery were made, it
would add nothing towards confirraing the truth of
his theory.f He was concerned with eff'ects ; the
uniforraity of these he called a law ; while this uni
forraity continues, the law will remain the same. The
law is investigated in its operations, and while these
are subject to a fixed rule, nothing wiU be gained
or lost by knowing the cause. And here, it may be
observed, is exemphfied the pecuUar character of the
Newtonian philosophy, in which the causes of physic-
* Murray's Chemistry, Introduction, p. 20.
t Rationem vero harum gravitatis proprietatum ex phsenome-
nis nondum potui deducere, et hypotheses non fingo. Princip.
Lib.BJ. Schol. Gen. And, after his discussion on contiguous at
traction, he says, " I scruple not to propose the principles of mo
tion above mentioned, they being of very general extent, and
leave the causes to be found out." Optics, Qtterj/ 31.

NEWTON. 215
al events do not corae under consideration, till the
phenomena and laws of effects are explained and
understood. We now come to speak of the fluxional analysis.
It was remarked above, that the first conception of
this invention occurred to Newton in 1663, a short
time before he received his bachelor's degree. At
this period, however, he attained to nothing more
than sUght improvements of Dr WalUs's treatise on
infinities. It was two years afterwards, as he tells
us, that he arrived at the method of fluxions ; and
even then he pubUshed nothing on the subject, but
contented himself with using the instrument, which
he had invented, solely as a means of advancing his
studies in raatheraatics and phUosophy.
Before this invention, the mixed matheraaties
laboured under great difficulties. Problems were
perpetually occurring, especially on the properties of
curves and the phenomena of raotion, which involv
ed intricacies, that would yield to no powers of
calculation then known. It was frequently impossi
ble so far to simpUfy the data, as to subject them
either to a geometrical or algebraical process, and no
more than an indefinite approximation to truth could
be obtained. The method of fluxions is free from
the raost of these sources of difficulty, and easily
accomraodates itself to the conditions of abstruse prob
leras. It erabraces aU the relations of numbers and
quantity, and raay be applied with equal advantage
19

216 NEWTON.
throughout the whole circle of the sciences. It is a
powerful aid to the researches of the phUosopher,
and introduces hira to those higher departraents of
knowledge, to which he could never ascend without
its assistance.
The first pubUc notice, which Newton gave of this
invention, was in the Principia, twenty-four years
after its origin. This dilatoriness in raaking it known
was the cause of a long and sharp controversy. Leib
nitz, in Germany, had aheady pubUshed several
papers in which the principles of fluxions were clear
ly laid down, and the matheraaticians of the conti
nent clairaed for hira the honour of the invention.
The contest was carried on with warrath between
the partizans of these two illustrious philosophers,
tiU at length the Royal Society appointed a comrait
tee to investigate the subject to the bottora. In tbeir
report it was decided in the raost conclusive manner
that Newton was the original inventor, and the only
question was, whether Leibnitz had seen any of
of Newton's papers, which might unfold to bim the
mystery. This question bas never been completely
answered. That Leibnitz had seen in London sorae
of Newton's raathematical papers in manuscript, is
certain ; but there ig no good evidence of his having
derived any hints from thera on this subject, nor any
positive proof to the contrary. FonteneUe consider
ed Newton as unquestionably the first inventor, and
the French Academy of Sciences confessed tiie

NEWTON. 217
same.* Playfair, and other EngUsh mathematicians
have conceded, that Leibnitz was the second inven
tor, although many years after Newton.
This concession, whether well founded or not,detracts
in no degree from Newton's glory, for nothing is raore
certain, than that he invented and employed the calcu
lus long before it was known to any other person. It is
among the fortunate events connected with the prog
ress of Science, that the same mind, which detected
the law of gravitation, should invent the only instru
ment by which this law could be demonstrated, and
its influence traced in the motions of the universe.
To this task the old geometry was not adequate. In
the Principia, however, the author never uses direct
ly the fluxional analysis.f Many of his theorems
* In the preface to the Elements of the Geometry of Infinities,
published by the Academy at Paris, 1727, it was stated that, " M.
Newton trouva Ie premier ce marveilleux calcul ; M. Leibneitz
Ie publia le premier."
t The principles of fluxions are explained in the Second Lem
ma of tbe Second Book, but tbey do not enter into the demon
strations in the body of the work.
Newton was charged with having preferred the old geometry
to his own new analysis. The truth seems to be, however, that
he preferred each in its proper place. Castiglione said of him, —
saepius se reprehendebat, quod res mere geometricas algebraicis
rationibus tractavisset, et quod libro suo de algebra Arithmeticae
Universalis titulum posuisset, melius asserens Cartesium suum de
re eadem volumen dixisse Geometriam, ut sic ostenderet has com-
putationes subsidia tantum esse geometriae ad inveniendum. Dr
Winthrop, Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University, wrote
a tract to show that this representation is erroneous, and found
ed on a misrepresentation of a remark by Dr Pemberton in the

218 NEWTON.
and propositions were discovered, and their truth
estabUshed by this analysis ; but in coraraunicating
these truths, he gives a decided preference to the
synthetical mode. It is not so much his purpose to
describe the process by which he coraes to certain
results, as to raake these results obvious to others ;
and it will at least admit a question, whether the
profound researches of the French mathematicians
might not have done more to enlarge the bounds of
science, if they had taken a littie more pains to sim
plify and elucidate the achieveraents of their wonder
working analysis, by the aids of the old geometry.
We have now briefly touched on Newton's three
great discoveries, the law of gravitation, the refran
gibility of light, and the fluxional analysis. These
constituted the brightest era in the progress of huraan
knowledge; they were destined to work an entire
revolution in the received system of things, and to
raise a majestic and imperishable monuraent to the
fame of their author. The study of the creation was
commenced on new principles, and prosecuted with
new success. Truth was called down from heaven
to earth ; it beamed on the inquirer's path, and
encouraged him to persevere in the enterprize of
discovery. The hiding places of nature, and many
of the mysterious workings of omnipotence, becarae
farailiar to raortals.
preface to his View of Newton's philosophy, Gent. Magazine,
ro/. 44, for 1774, p. 531.

NEWTON. 219
Our philosopher Uved a retured Ufe at Cambridge,
devoted to the duties of his professorship, and absorb
ed in his favourite studies. Scai'cely a single inci
dent is knovm of him, unconnected with his imme
diate pursuits and discoveries, during tiie space of
thirty years. It is mentioned as greatly to his credit
and as an instance of his firmness of character, that
when king James sent a mandamus to the university
to confer the degree of master of arts on father
Francis, an ignorant Benedictine monk, Newton was
at tbe head of those who strenuously resisted what
was deemed an encroachment on the privileges of
the university. He was among the delegates appoint
ed to remonstrate to the high commission court, and
such was the earnestness with whicb their charge
was executed, that the king thought it expedient not
to enforce his demand. In 1688 Newton was cho
sen by the university a member of the convention
parUament, iu which he held a seat tiU that body was
dissolved. Mr Montague, at that time chanceUor of the ex
chequer, and afterwards earl of HaUfax, was educat
ed at the same coUege with Newton, and contracted
for him a warm and sincere friendship. The great
work of a recoinage of money was about to take
place, and Montague wished to profit by the distin
guished talents of his friend, as well as to elevate
him to an office of dignity and emolument. At the
soUcitation of the chanceUor, the king appointed
19*

220 NEWTON.
hira warden of tbe raint in 1696, and three years
afterwards he was raised to the responsible post of
master of the mint. This place yielded him an
annual income of nearly fifteen hundred pounds, and
he retained it during the remainder of his Ufe. Hia
services were of high value in this important station,.
and at all times gave the fullest satisfaction.
When appointed to his office in the mint, he made
Mr Whiston his deputy hi the professorship of math
ematics, and allowed him the whole salary. In 1703
he resigned all his duties at Cambridge, and through
his influence Whiston was elected bis successor. In
the same year Newton was chosen president of the
Royal Society, and two years afterwards the order
of knighthood was conferred on him by Queen
Anne in consideration of his extraordinary merit.
It was not probable, that a mind like Newton's
would suffer the labours of his new station to
drive him entirely from philosophical pursuits ; yet
we do not learn, that he did any thing raore in this
way, than to prepare for the press his work on Optics,
and his Method of Fluxions, which had been nearly
in readiness for many years. The book on Optics
was pubUshed in 1704, and is more diUgentiy elab
orated perhaps, than the Principia itself. The author
seeras to have set a pecuUar value on his discoveries in
optics, being fully aware of their originality and im
portance. His work exhibits a masterly example
of tiie experimental philosophy, and testifies to the

NEWTON. 221
splendid success, which raay crown the efforts of
genius when aided by persevering industry. It was
translated into Latin, with the approbation of the
author, by Dr Samuel Clarke.
The Queries appended to the treatise on optics
have been admired for the deep and original thoughts
by which they are marked, and for the sagacity of
their author in suggestuig many probable results in
philosophy, which experiment and observation have
suice verified. Some of them no doubt he had prov
ed, but his apprehension, that they might not be
acceptable to a public not yet prepared for their
reception, induced him to employ this cautious raeth
od of raaking them known. He bad been taught
by the discipline of experience, that truth is no wel
come guest when it comes in the garb of innovation,
and that ignorance is easily dazzled to blindness by
the too sudden Ught of knowledge.
From the tirae of pubhshing his Method of Flux
ions, Newton gave hiraself but Uttle to the study of
mathematics, unless for occasional arauseraent. He
used to say, that " no old man loved mathematics
except Dr WaUis." It was after this period that the
controversy with Leibnitz occurred, but in tbis he
was not personally engaged. It was carried on by
Dr KeiU, and other EngUsh mathematicians. The
facility with which he solved the famous problem sent
by Leibnitz in the year 1715, as a chaUenge to the
English nation, is a proof that neither tbe quickness of

222 NEWTON.
his genius, nor his matheraatical skill, was irapair
ed by neglect. At four o'clock in the afternoon he
received the problera, as he was returning fatigued
from his labours in the raint. Before he went to bed
the solution was corapleted.
We may now speak of the success with whicb the
capacious and grasping mind of Newton sought out
other treasures of knowledge. As his early years
were spent in reading the book of nature with the
scrutinizing eye of a philosopher, so his declining
days carried him onward in the stUl nobler pursuit of
unfolding the science of the raoral world, and con
teraplating the ways of God to raan. The ardour
with which he measured the physical and visible
heavens, was not more fervent than that with which
he inquired for the truths of the spiritual and invisi
ble. He read the scriptures, pondered their mean
ing, illustrated many of their darker parts, and settled
down into a firm belief of their divine origin and holy
iraport. In raany respects he stood as high in the
rank of theologians as of philosophers. The sarae
power of inteUect was appUed with equal energy in
both characters ; and had not his briUiant discoveries
in the forraer engrossed all the adrairation of which
the raind of raan is capable, his achievements in the
latter would have elevated him to a comraanding
station among the most able and erudite divines. A
person of eminence in the church, said of hira in his
Ufetime, that " he was the best divine and commen-

NEWTON. 223
tator on the Bible he had ever met with." And it is
a remark of Dr Chalraers, tbat " we see in the the
ology of Newton, the very spirit and principle which
gave aU its stability, and aU its sureness, to the phi
losophy of Newton." He was deeply versed in
sacred history, and had made hiraself master of all
the external means of understanding the Scriptures.
His great work on Chronology had for one of itsi
main objects the verification of the writings of the Old
Testaraent. This work cost hira the labour of many
years, and was not published entire tiU after his death.
It is drawn from an iraraense fund of classical and
ancient learning, and shows in the author an intimate
acquaintance with the poets, historians, and critics of
forraer tiraes. He begins with a historical sketch
of chronological science from its origin, and proves
that the chronology of ancient kingdoms is involved
in the utmost uncertainty. All profane history
runs back to tradition, and then soon loses itself in
utter darkness. The Europeans had no chronology
before the estabUshment of the Persian erapire, and
the Greek antiquities are so full of fable, that no
reliance can be placed on thera in fixing dates. The
first Greek chronologists were addicted to fiction, and
instituted inaccurate modes of reckoning. It has been
the foible of nations to refer their origin to as remote
a period as possible, and this vanity has usually shown
itself in proportion to the obscurity, whicb hung about
their early history. It was so in Greece, and the

224 NEWTON.
Grecian writers have been guides to all future chro
nologists. The Roraans depended on the Greeks for
the chronology ofthe East, while in the history of their
own nation, the accounts of dates and times are not
worthy of credit, tiU the age of Alexander. And as
for western Europe in general, it had no chronology
tiU the third and fourth centuries, and in sorae parts
much later.
Out of this chaos, Newton undertook to bring light
and certainty. He has made it appear that the
Greek mode of reckoning was erroneous, and as
signed to the Greek nation too high an antiquity.
On a series of arguraents estabUshed by astronomical
calculations, in addition to various historical testimony,
he builds a system of chronology, widely diff'erent
from any, which learned moderns have deduced from
ancient writers. The diff'erence of time araounts in
general to about three hundred years, and in some
iraportant events to much more. The same cautious
and rigid raode of reasoning prevails throughout his
chronological treatise, as in his philosophical resear
ches; the same exactnessof logic, fertiUty of invention,
and sagacity in detecting and combining the forcible
points of an arguraent.
On the Grecian mythology he throws much Ught,
and with learned ingenuity traces the gods and minor
deities of Greece and Rome to the deified heroes of
Eg3rpt. He finds their origin at a much later period
than most writers, and discovers that various names

NEWTON. 225
have been multipUed fi-om the same original. The
work closes with a curious discussion concerning
the first peopUng of the earth, the commencement
of towns, of agriculture, the arts and sciences, idol
atrous worship, and numerous other circurastances
and institutions, which have grown out of the social
corapact. Tbe value which the author set upon this
treatise, may be estiraated fi-om the fact, that the
first chapter, which constitutes more than haK of the
whole work, he copied out eighteen times with his
own hand. He observes, that he commenced the
study of chronology and history while at Cambridge,
as a relaxation from bis severer pursuits.
With aU his horror of controversy he was again
driven into it in the latter years of his Ufe. Queen
CaroUne, renowned for her love of knowledge and
her civUities to raen of Uterature and science, was
fond of conversing witb Newton, and often expressed
her satisfaction, that it was her fortune to Uve in the
same age and country with such a man. She had
caught glimpses of bis new views of chronology, and
desired him to favour her with an abstract of his
system At her request, also, a copy was given
to Abbe Conti, a Venetian nobleman, on condition
of its being kept secret. But the treacherous Vene
tian betrayed his trust after he arrived in Paris.
He procured the abstract to be translated into French
and pubUshed without the author's consent or knowl
edge. To this translation notes were affixed confut-

226 NEWTON.
ing its positions. Newton was so indignant at tbis
unworthy conduct of Conti, as well as the perfidy of
the translator, who pretended to have asked consent
to pubUsh the abstract, that he wrote a reply in the
Philosophical Transactions, although now in his eigh
ty-third year, which was equally remarkable for the
power of its arguraent, and the keenness of its rebuke.
The controversy was continued by Souciet on one
side, and Dr HaUey on tbe other, and was not brought
to a close tiU about the time of Newton's death.
Whiston wrote against the Chronology, and boasted
many years afterwards, that his objections were never
answered. Another posthumous work of our author, was the
Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel, and the
Apocalypse of St John. These were left unfinished.
The remarks on Daniel are more matured than those
on the Apocalypse ; but on both they exhibit traces
of the sarae depth of learning and patience of inves
tigation, which characterize the Chronology. He
starts witb an inquiry into the origin of the books of
the Old Testament, and advances the theory, so
much enlarged on of late, that the historical parts
are compiled from various written documents now
lost. This he thinks particularly demonstrable of
Genesis, and the books of the Kings. The present
number and arrangement of the Jewish scriptures
were not settled till after the Roman captivity, when
the Jews added the points, and committed their

NEWTON. 227
oral traditions to writing in the Talmud. No vari
ous readings were preserved, and whatever errors had
crept into the text before this period cannot now be
repaired, except firom the version of the Seventy.
Newton places Daniel at the head of the prophet
ic writers, and considers his prophecies as a key to
the interpretation of the others, and the foundation of
the christian religion. The periods foretold by Dan
iel accord so exactiy with the tiraes of the ministry
and death of our Saviour, as to present the clearest
possible evidence, that the prophet spoke the dictates
of divine inspiration. The book of Daniel was
written by diff'erent persons ; the six first chapters
are a coUection of papers of a historical character ;
the six last only were written by Daniel, and these
at various times.
After a series of preUminary observations to this
eff'ect, the author traces each of the prophe
cies of Daniel to its verification in succeeding
events. The vision of the Four Beasts, and the
Ten Horns ofthe fourth beast, he explains with par
ticularity and immense erudition. The prophecy of
the Seventy Weeks he translates anew, and, contrary
to the usual mode of interpretation, refers one clause
of it to the second coraing of Christ. His acquain
tance whh chronology enabled him to apply the sev
eral parts of this remarkable prophecy with great
exactness to the principal events relating to the Mes
siah, to the tirae of his birth, his death, the duration
20

228 NEWTON.
of his ministry, the wars of the Jews, and the ruin of
the Jewish nation. His deductions from civil and
and scriptural history he fortifies by astsonomical
calculations. In regard to tbe Apocalypse, it has been the pre-
vaiUng opinion of learned men, that this book was
written later, than any other part of the Scrip
tures ; but Newton assigns to it an earUer origin. He
would seem to hint that it was written before John's
Gospel, and at aU events before the general Epistles
of Peter, and that to the Hebrews, as he supposes
it to be alluded to in those Episties. After a few
remarks on the authenticity of the Apocalypse, he
proceeds to explain some of its dark prophecies,
which, as he considers thera to bear an intimate rela
tion to the prophecies of Daniel, he interprets on
simUar principles. Daniel and John in certaip points
predict the same events, many of which have aheady
taken place. In pursuing the parallel which con
ducts hira to this opinion, he dweUs on tne origin
and progress of the papal hierarchy. All his dis
courses on the prophecies are confined to those pre
dictions which he believes to have been fulfilled ;
he hazards no conjectures beyond the limits of evi
dence ; hence some parts of the Apocalypse he does
not touch, but leaves them to be unfolded in the order
of providence.A tract by Newton, entitled a History of Two
JVotable Corruptions of Scripture, was first publish-

NEWTON.

229

ed in 1754. A copy was obtained from Holland,
which was among the papers formerly belonging to
Le Ckrc, and deposited after his death in the Re
monstrants' Library at Arasterdara. So early as
1708, Le Clerc raentioned this tract in his preface
to Kuster's edition of MiU's Testaraent ; but he was
ignorant of its author, as it came to bim frora Locke
m his own handwriting. Sorae years afterwards
Wetstein ascertained, that it was written by Newton,
and as the copy in Holland was mutilated at the
beginning and end, he applied to the heirs of New
ton to be favoured with a perfect transcript from the
original.* From motives never explained, this request
was not granted, and the piece found its way to the
public in the imperfect state in which it was left by
Le Cl§rc. When Horsley published an edition of
Newtpn's works, however, this tract was printed fiuMa
a copy of the original manuscript then in the possess
ion of Dr Ekens.
It is the author's purpose in this treatise to prove
the famous text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses in
John to be an interpolation, and to defend the Vul
gate reading of the disputed passage in Tiraothy. f
Considering the early stage at which he took up
this subject, and the coraparatively unexplored region
through which he was corapelled to pass, he has
managed bis arguraent with remarkable ability and
* Wetstenii Prolegomena, p. 185.
t IJohn v. 7; 1 Tim, iii, 16.

230 NEWTON.
success. His knowledge of the Greek and Latin
Fathers, the theologians of the raiddle ages, and
the history of sacred learning, as displayed in this
work, irapresses the reader with amazeraent at the
universaUty of his powers and attainraents. Notwith
standing the length to which the controversy on the
text in John has since been carried, and the eminent
talents it has called into action, very few weighty
particulars have been added to those first collected
by Newton ; and it would have been no disparage
ment to the champions of the cause he sustained, if
they had manifested more wiUingness, than they have
done, to acknowledge their obligation for the aids
they have received from so illustrious a source.
Newton left many writings on theological subjects,
which have not been published. Whiston mentions
a-teact on the Rule of Faith, and one on the Domin
ion of the Clergy. In the catalogue of Newton's
manuscripts, arranged by order of his executors, we
find noticed an article on Corruptions of Scripture,
and another entitled Paradoxical Questions concem
ing Athwriasius. Several pieces are designated by
the general title of Church Matters. No reason has
been assigned by the persons into whose hands these
papers have faUen, why they should be withheld
frora the public. Horsley examined tiiem, but intro
duced them not into his edition of tiie author's works.
It bas been supposed, and no doubt rightiy, that the
opinions they express on certain doctrines in theolo-

NEWTON. 231
Ogy are not such as squared with the orthodox stan
dard of Horsley. Whatever may have been the
cause, every fair mind must seriously regret, that the
recorded thoughts of such a man as Newton, on the
important subjects of religious truth and scriptural
interpretation, should be withheld from the world.
Some of his pecuUar theological sentiments raay
be discovered frora his writings, and the testiraony
of his friends. Whiston teUs us of his profound
knowledge of church history during the three first
centuries of the christian era, and of his having been
convinced by his study of this history, that the doc
trine of the trinity was introduced into the christian
scheme many years after the time of the Apostles.*
The tenour of Newton's writings is in accordance
with this declaration, nor do they exhibit any- evi
dence, that their author ever believed in a trinity.
The charge against Horsley of having suppressed
his papers because they were adverse to this doctrine,
has never been contradicted.
It was also the faith of Newton, that in early times
christian preachers were first chosen by the people,
and then ordained by bishops, and that no person
could be ordained to the pastoral office over any
?The Present State ofthe Republic of Letters, vol. III. p. 282.
In the same work may be seen several other particulars concern
ing the theological opinions of Newton. See also An Inquiry in
to the comparative Moral Tendency of Unitarian and Trinitarian
Doctrines, p. 367.
20*

232 NEWTON.
congregation, tiU be had been elected by the people,
whom he was to teach.* In tbis respect his views
of church governraent seera to have approached
nearly to those of the Independents. He did not
hold to the baptisra of infants, but beUeved that all
the subjects of this cereraony should be sufficiently
advanced in age and understanding to receive reli
gious instruction.f
To theology and ecclesiastical history the leisure
hours of this great philosopher were devoted during
the last thirty years of his life. The duties of his of
fice in the mint were arduous, but his habits of close
application to study, early formed and long continued,
enabled him to penetrate deeply into those branches
of sacred knowledge, to which he at first appUed for
relaxation and arauseraent.
TiU his eightieth year his health was usually good.
He was then afflicted with a severe iUness, frora which
he never entirely recovered, although be went punc
tually through the labours of his office till within a
year of his death.
It has been said, that his mind became so much
impaired in his advanced age, that he could not un
derstand his own works ; but this is a raistake, as is
testified by Peraberton. In his last illness, and for
sorae tirae previously, Newton was attended by Dr
Mead, with whora he held such conversations as
?Republic of Letters, vol. HI, p. 281.
t Ibid. p. 280.

NEWTON.

233

proved him to have full possession of his faculties.
He died onthe 20th of March, 1727, in the eighty-
fifth year of his age, and his remains were deposited
in Westrainster Abbey.
Plato thought, and others as wise as Plato
have indulged the dreara, that there is a chain
of intelUgences descending by a regular gradation
frora the highest to the lowest. If vrisdora deceive
not her children, and the vision of Plato be indeed
a reality, who will deny to Newton the first rank in
that portion of the scale, which the huraan race is
destined to occupy ? Other philosophers have been
renowned for genius, acuteness, and power of intel
lect ; they have been quick to invent, and sagacious
to discover the raore hidden phenoraena of nature,
and the deeper reasons of things. Other philoso
phers have shone as stars of the first raagnitude in
the firraaraent of science ; in one happy discovery
they raay have gone before tbe rest of raankind ; in
one endowment of nature they may have stood with
out an equal. Such there have been, and they have
reflected glory on the world ; but in the blaze of
Newton's effixlgence they are ecUpsed and lost. All
the rare qualities, which singly raeasured the great
ness of others, were corabined in hira, and contribut
ed their respective shares to raise him to the emi
nence he held, and sustain him there. To no being
whose destiny has been fixed among raortals, can be
more justly applied the words of the sweetest poet

234 NEWTON.
that ever invoked the philosophic rause. Of New
ton it raay truly be said, that he was one.
Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit, et omnes
Prsestinxit, Stellas exortus uti setherius Sol.*
In private life he was mild and aff"able, peaceful
in his temper, gentle in his manners, and a lover of
tranquiUity and "retireraent. Although he went out
little into the world, he was social in his feelings, and
ready in conversation. Huraility and raodesty were
araong his most striking virtues. He was without
arrogance or pretension, putting himself on a level
with other men, and ascribing whatever progress he
bad made in knowledge whoUy to his untiring industry
and patience. As he was a stranger to pride, so he
was free from any afifected singularities. He was gen
erous in his benefactions, and a patron of true worth
wherever it was found. His reUgious faith was settled
on the foundation of reason and the Scriptures ; his
piety was steady and strong ; he was a christian in
beUef and in practice. In short, tbe balance of prin
ciples and powers which marked the rare structure
of his mind, together with the unison in his phUoso
phy, raorals, and reUgion, formed a perfect and won
derful harraony in aU the parts of his character.
?Lucret. de Remm Nat. Lib. III. v. 1056.

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND.

SECTION I.
On the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses.
I. Since the discourses of some late writers have
raised in you a curiosity of knowing the truth of that
text of scripture concerning the testiraony of the
Three in Heaven, 1 John v. 7, I have here sent you
an account of what the reading has been in all ages,
and by what steps it has been changed, so far as I
can hitherto deterraine by records. And I have
done it the more freely, because to you, who under
stand the many abuses which they of the Roman
church have put upon the world, it will scarce be
ungrateful to be convinced of one more than is cora
raonly believed. For although the raore learned
and quick-sighted raen, as Luther, Erasmus, BuUinr

236 SIR ISAAC newton's history op
ger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble
their knowledge, yet the generaUty are fond of the
place for its raaking against heresy. But whilst we
exclaira against the pious frauds ofthe Roman church,
and make it a part of our religion to detect and re
nounce all things of that kind, we raust acknowledge
it a greater crirae in us to favour such practices,
than in the Papists we so much blame on that ac
count ; for they act according to their religion, but
we contrary to ours. In the eastern nations, and for
a long time in the westem, the faith subsisted without
this text ; and it is rather a danger to reUgion, than
an advantage, to make it now lean upon a bruised
reed. There cannot be better service done to the
truth, than to purge it of things spurious; and, there
fore, knowing your prudence, and calmness of temper,
I am confident I shall not off'end you by teUing you
my mind plainly ; especially since it is no article of
faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism
concerning a text of scripture which I am going to
write about.
II. The history of the corruption, in short, is this.
First, sorae of tiie Latins interpreted tbe spirit, wa
ter, and blood, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
to prove them one. Then Jerome, for the same end,
inserted the Trinity in express words into his version.
Out of him the Africans began to aUege it against
the Vandals, about sixty-four years after liis death.
Afterwards the Latins noted his variations in the mar-

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 237
gins of their books ; and thence it began at lengtii to
creep into the text in transcribing, and that chiefly in
tiie twelfth and foUowing centuries, when disputing
was revived by the schoolmen. And wben printing
came up, it crept out of the Latin into the printed
Greek, against the authority of aU the Greek MSS.
and ancient versions ; and from the Venetian presses
it went soon after into Greece. Now the truth of
tiiis history wiU appear by considering the arguments
on both sides.
ni. The arguraents aUeged for the testiraony of
the Three in Heaven, are the authorities of Cyprian,
Athanasius, and Jerome, and of raany Greek manu
scripts, and alraost aU the Latin ones.
IV. Cyprian's words run thus,* — " the Lord saith,
' I and the Father are one.' And again of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written, ' And
these Three are One.' " The Socinians here deal
too injuriously with Cyprian, while they would have
this place corrupted ; for Cyprian in another place
repeats almost the same thing.f "If," saith he,
[" one baptized among heretics] be made the temple
of God, teU rae, I pray, of what God ? K of the
* Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus ; et iterum de Patre
et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, £t tres unum sunt. Cypr.
de Unit. Eccles.
f Si templum Dei factus est, quasso cujus Dei .' Si Spiritus
Sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus ei
esse potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est. Cypr. Epist. 73,
ad Jubaiamim.

2^8 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORY OF
Holy Ghost, since these Three are One, how can
the Holy Ghost be reconciled to him who is the
eneray of either the Father or the Son ?" These
places of Cyprian being, in my opinion, genuine,
seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the Three
in Heaven, that I should never have suspected a rais
take in it, could I but have reconciled it with the
ignorance I raeet with of this reading in tbe next
age, amongst the Latins of both Africa and Europe,
as well as among the Greeks. For had it been in
Cyprian's Bible, the Latins of the next age, when
all the world was engaged in disputing about the
Trinity, and all arguments that could be thought of
were diUgently sought out, and daily brought upon
the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text,
which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly
insisted upon. In reconciUng this difficulty, I consid
er, therefore, that the only words -of the text quoted
by Cyprian in both places are, " And these Three
are One ;" which words may belong to the eighth
verse as weU as to the seventh. For Eucherius,*
bishop of Lion in France, and contemporary to St
?Eucherius reads the text thus -. Tria sunt quse testimonium per-
hibent ; aqua, sanguis, et spiritus. And then adds this interpre
tation, Plures hie ipsam, interpretatione mystica, intelligunt Trin-
itatem ; eo quod perfecta ipsa perbibeat testimonium Christo ;
aqua, Patrem indicans ; quia ipse de se dicit, me dereliquerunt
fontem aquse vivae ; sanguine, Christum demonstrans, utique per
passionis cruorem ; spiritu vero Sanctum Spiritum manifestans.
Euclier. de Quest. JV. Test.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 239
Austin, reading the text without the seventh verse,
teUs us, that many then understood the spirit, the
water, and the blood, to signify the Trinity. And
St Austin* is one of those many; as you raay see in
bis third book against Maxirainus, where he teUs us,
that " the spirit is the Father, for God is a spirit ;
the water the Holy Ghost, for he is the water which
Christ gives to them that thirst ; and the blood the
Son, for the word was made flesh." Now if it was
the opinion of many in the western churches of those
tiraes, that the spirit, the water, and the blood, sig
nified the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;
it is plain that the testimony of Three in Heaven, in
express words, was not yet crept into their books ;
and even without this testimony, it was obvious for
Cyprian, or any man else of that opinion, to say of
• Sane falli te nolo in epistola Joannis Apostoli, ubi ait, " tres
sunt testes, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et tres unum sunt ;" ne forte
dicas, spiritum et aquam et sanguinem diversas esse substantias,
et tamen dictum esse, tres unum sunt. Propter hoc admonui te,
ne fallaris ; base enim sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid osten-
dant, semper attenditur. Si vero ea, quse his significata sunt, veli
mus inquirere ; non absurde occurrit ipsa Trinitas, quae unus, so
lus, summus est Deus, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus ; de
quibus verissime dici potuit, tres sunt testes, et tres unum sunt ;
ut nomine spiritfts significatum accipiamus Deum Patrem, (de Deo
ipso quippe adorando loquebatur Dominus, ubi ait, "spiritus est De
us); nomine autem sanguinis, Filium; quia verbum caro factum est;
nomine autem aquas, Spiritum Sanctum. Cum enim deaqu^loque-
retur Jesus, quam daturus erat /sitientibus, ait evangelista; " hoc
autem dicit de Spiritu, quem accepturi erant credentes in eum."
D. Augustin. cont. Maximinum. Ub. iii. cap, xxii.
21

240 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, " it is written,
'And these Three are One.' " And that this was Cyp
rian's meaning, Facundus;* an African bishop in the
sixth century, is my author ; for he tells us expressly,
that Cyprian, in the above mentioned place, under
stood it so, interpreting the spirit, water, and blood,
to be the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and thence
affirming, that John said of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, " These Three are One." This at least may be
gathered frora this passage of Facundus, that some in
those early ages interpreted Cyprian after this manner.
Nor do I understand how any of those many who
?Facundus, in the beginning of bis book to the Emperor Jus
tinian, pro Defensione trium Capitulorum Concilii Chalcedonensis,
first recites the text after the raanner of Cyprian, but more dis
tinctly in these words ; Nam Joannes Apostolus, in epistoU sua,
de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto sic dicit, "Tres sunt, qui tes
timonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ; et hi tres unum
sunt;" in spiritu significans Patrem, fee. Joan. iv. 21. in aquS
Spiritum Sanctum, Joan. vii. 37, in sanguine vero Filium. And a
little after he thus confirms this interpretation by Cyprian's au
thority, saying, Aut si forsan ipsi, qui de verbo contendunt, in eo
quod dixit, " tres sunt qui testificantur in terra, spiritus, aqua, et
sanguis, ct hi tres unum sunt," Trinitatem nolunt intelligi ; secun
dum ipsa verba quse posuit, pro Apostolo Joanne respondeant.
Numquid hi tres, qui in terr^ testificari, et qui unum esse dicun-
: tur, possunt spiritus et aquffi et sanguines dici ? Quod tamen Jo
annis ApostoU testimonium B. Cyprianus Carthaginensis, antistes
et martyr, in epistold sive libro quem de Trinitate, immo de Uni
tate Ecclesia! scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto dictum
intelligit; ait enim, " dicit Dominus, 'ego et Pater unum sumus ;' ct
iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, 'et hi
tres unum sunt.' " Faamd. Lib. i. p. 16 ; ex edit. Sirmondi, Paris
iis, 1629.

TWO CORRUPTIOKS OP SCRIPTURE. 241
took the spirit,, water, and blood, for a type of the
Trinity ; or any man else, who was ignorant of the
testiraony of the Three in Heaven, as the churches
in the times of the Arian controversy generally were ;
eould understand him otherwise. And even Cypri
an's own words do plainly make for the interpreta
tion. For he does not say, " the Father^ the Word,
and the Holy Ghost," as it is now in the seventh verse ;
but " the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost," as it is
in baptisra ; the place frora which they tried at first
to derive the Trinity. If it be pretended, that the
words cited by Cyprian are taken out of the seventh
verse, rather than out of the eighth, because he
reads not. Hi Tres in Unum sunt, but Hi Tres
Unum sunt; I answer, that the Latins generally read.
Hi Tres Unum sunt, as well in the eighth verse, as in
¦ the seventh ; as you may see in the newly cited. places
of St Austin and Facundus, and tbose of Arabrose,
Pope Leo, Beda, and Cassiodorus^ which foUow, and
in the present vulgar Latin. So then the testiraony
of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least is as appU
cable to that verse as to the seventh, and therefore is
of no force for proving the truth of the seventh ; but,
on the contrary, for disproving it we have here the
testiraony of Facundus, St Austin, Eucherius, and
those raany others, whora Eucherius raentions. For
if those of that age had raet with it in their books,
they would never have understood the spirit, the
water, and the blood, to be the three persons ofthe
Trinity, in order to prove them one God. .

242 SIR ISAAC newton's history gf
V. These passages in Cyprian raay receive further
light by a like passage in Tertullian, frora whence
Cyprian seems to have borrowed them ; for it is weU
known that Cyprian was a great admirer of Tertul-
lian's writings, and read them frequently, calling
TertuUian his master. The passage is this ;* " The
connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son
in the Paraclete, makes three coherent ones from
one another, which Three are One, (one thing, not
one person,) as itis said, 'I and the Father are One ;'
denoting, the unity of substance, not the smguiarity
of number." Here, you see, Tertullian says not,
" the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost," as the text
now has it, but " the Father, Son, and Paraclete ;"
nor cites any thing more of the text than these words,
" which Three are One." Though this treatise against
St Praxeas be wholly spent in discoursing about the
Trinity, and ail texts of scripture are cited to prove it,
and this text of St John, as we now read it, would have
been one of the raost obvious and apposite to have been
cited at large, yet Tertullian could find no raore obvious
words in it for his purpose than " these Three are
One." These, therefore, he interprets of the Trini
ty, and enforces the interpretation by that other text,
" I and the Father are One ;" as if the phrase was
of the sarae iraportance in both places.
? Connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paraclete, tres efficit co-
haerentes, alterum ex altero, " qui Tres Unum sunt," (non Unus)
quomodo dictum est, " Ego et Pater Unum sumus ;" ad substan-
tise unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. Tertullian. adrers,
Prax. c. 25.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 243
VI. So then this interpretation seeras to have been
invented by the Montanists for giving countenance to
their Trinity. For TertuUian was a Montanist when
he wrote this ; and it is rnost Ukely that so corrupt
and forced an interpretation had its rise araong a
sect of raen accustoraed to make bold with the Scrip
tures. Cyprian bemg used to itin his master's writings,
it seems from thence to have dropt into his ; for this
may be gathered frora the Ukeness between their
citations. And by the disciples of these two great
men, it seeras to have been propagated araong those
many Latins, who, as Eucherius tells us, received it
in the next age, understanding the Trinity by the
" spirit, water, and blood." For how, without the
countenance of some such authority, an interpreta
tion so corrupt and strained should corae to be re
ceived in that age so generally, I do not under
stand. VII. And what is said of the testiraony of Tertul
lian and Cyprian, raay be rauch raore said of that in
the feigned disputation of Athanasius with Arius at
Nice. For there the words cited are only xa) ni
Tf £(5 TO h eitrtv, and these Three are One ; and they
are taken out of the seventh verse, without naraing
the persons of the Trinity before thera. For the
Greeks interpreted " tiie spirit, water, and blood," of
the Trinity, as well as the Latins ; as is raanifest
frora the annotations they made on this text in the
margin of some of their manuscripts. For Father Si-
21*

244 SIR ISAAC NEWTON'S HISTORY OF
mon* informs us that in one of the MSS in the library
of tbe king of France, raarked nuraber 2247, over
against these words, oti rgeTi ela-n it jk«jtsijo»v.t£s I» tJ
yjjt ro jriiofia xai ro uS'ag xai to ai/ia-,for there are
Three that bear record [in earth,"] the spirit, the wa
ter, and the blood ; there is this reraark, tutUi to
vteofia TO ayiti, xai i IlaTiig, xai avroi eavToS, that is,
the Holy Ghost, and the Father, and He of Him
self. And in the sarae copy over against these
words, xai tl rgeii elf to et ihi, and these Three are
One ; this note is added, TUTeorri fti'a S^eirin, eii S^eJi,
that is. One Deity, One God. This MS is
about 500 years old.
VIII. Also in the raargin of one of the MSS, in
Monsieur Colbert's library, number 871, father Si
mon tells us there is a Uke reraark. For besides
these words, "s ^"s, ft-la ^lir^i. One God, One God
head; tbere are added, ftM^rv^ia roZ B-eoZ toZ ¦x-argii xai
Tiv ay lis Trnuftaroi, the testimony of God, the Fath
er, and the Holy Ghost. These marginal notes
sufficiently show how the Greeks used to apply this
text to the Trinity ; and by consequence how the
author of that disputation is to be understood. But
I should tell you also, that that disputation was not
writ by Athanasius, but by a later author, and there
fore, as a spurious piece, uses not to be much insist
ed upon. * Critical History ofthe New Testament, chap. 18.
•j- Suspicor verba h tj yy non extare in MS.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 245
IX. Now this mystical application of " the spirit,
water, and blood," to signify the Trinity, seeras to
me to have given occasion to soraebody, either frau
dulently to insert the testiraony of " the Three in
Heaven" in express words into the text, for proving
the Trinity ; or else to note it in the margin of bis
book, by way of interpretation ; whence it might
afterwards creep into the text in transcribing. And
the first upon record that inserted it, is Jerome ; if
the preface* to the canonical epistles, which goes
* The whole preface runs thus; Incipit prologus in epistolas
canonicas. Non ita est ordo apud Grsecos, qui integre sapiunt,
fidemque reclam seotantur, epistolarum septem, quse canonicse
nuncupantur, sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur ; ut quia Petrus
est primus in ordine apostolorum, primae sint etiam ejus episto-
Ise in ordine ceterarum. Sed sicut evangelistas dudum ad
veritatis lineam correximus, ita has proprio ordini, Deo juvante,
reddidimus. Est enim una earum prima Jacobi, duse Petri, tres
Johannis, et Judae una. Quae si ^ut ab eis digestae sunt, ita quo
que ab interpretibus fideliter iirLatinum verterentur eloquium,
nee ambiguitatem legentibus facerent, nee sermonum sese varie-
tales impugnarent, illo prsecipue loco ubi de Unitate Trinitatis in
primal Johannis epistola, positum legimus. In qu& etiam ab infide-
libns translatoribus multum erratum esse a fidei veritate comperimus,
trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est, aquse, sanguinis, et spiritfls,
in ips& su^ editione ponentibus ; et Patris, Verbique, ac Spiritfls tes
timonium omittentibus ; in quo maxime et fides catholica robora-
tur, et Patris ac Filii et Spiritfls una divinitatis substantia com
probatur. In caeteris vero epistolis, quantum a nostri aliorum
distet editio, lectoris judicio derelinquo. Sed tu, virgo Christi
Eustochium, dum a me impensius scripture veritatem inquiris,
meam quodammodo senectutem invidorum dentibus corroden-
dam exponis, qui me falsarium, corruptoremque Sanctarum pro-
nunciant Scripturarum. Sed ego, in tali opere, nee aemulorum
meorum invidiam pertimesco, nee Sanctse Scripturae veritatem
poscentibus denegabo.

246 SIR ISAAC newton's history of
under his narae, be his. For whUst he coraposed
not a new translation of the New Testament, but
only corrected the ancient vulgar Latm, as learned
men think, and among his emendations, written per
haps at first in the raargin of his book, he inserted
this testiraony; he complains in the said preface,
how he was thereupon accused by sorae of the Lat
ins for falsifying scripture ; and raakes answer, that
forraer Latin translators had rauch erred from the
faith, in putting only " the spirit, water, and blood,"
in their edition, and omitting the testimony of " the
Three in Heaven," whereby the CathoUc faith is
estabUshed. In this defence he seems to say, that
he corrected the vulgar Latin translation by the
original Greek ; and this is the great testimony the
text reUes upon.
X. But whilst he con^sses it was not in the Latin
before, and accuses former translators of falsifying
the Scriptures in omitting it, he satifies us tbat it has
crept into the Latin since his time, and so cuts off' aU
the authority of the present vulgar Latin for justifying
it. And whUst he was accused by his contemporaries
of falsifying the Scriptures in inserting it, tbis accu
sation also confirras that he altered the public reading.
For had the reading been dubious before he made it so,
no man would have charged hira with falsification for
following either part. Also whilst, upon this accusa
tion, he recommends the alteration by its usefulness
for establishing the CathoUc faith, this renders it the

TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. 247
more suspected ; by discovering both the design of
his raaking it, and the ground of his hoping for suc
cess. However, seeing he was thus accused by his
contemporaries, it gives us just reason to examine
the business between him and his accusers. And so
he beuig called to the bar, we are not to lay stress
upon his own testiraony for hiraself (for no man is a
witness in his own cause), but laying aside aU preju
dice, we ought, according to the ordinary rules of
justice, to examine the business between him and
his accusers by other witnesses.
XI. They that have been conversant in his writ
ings, observe a strange liberty which he takes in as
serting things. Many notable instances of this he has
left us in composing those very fabulous lives of
Paul and Hilarion, not to raention what he has writ
ten upon other occasions. Whence Erasraus said of
hira, that he was in affirraing things, " frequently
violent and irapudent, and often contrary to hira
self."* But I accuse hira not. It is possible that he
raight be soraetiraes iraposed upon, or, through inad
vertency, commit a mistake. Yet since his contem
poraries accused hira, it is but just that we should
lay aside the prejudice of his great name, and hear
the cause impartially between them.
* Saepe numero violentas, parumque pudens, saepe varius, pa-
rumque sibi constans. Erasmi Annotation, in Johan. v. 7.
Vide etiam quae Erasmus contra Leum in hunc locum de Hier-
onvmo fusius dixit.

248 SIR ISAAC newton's history of
XII. Now the witnesses between them are partly
the ancient translators of the Scriptures into the va
rious languages ; partly the writers of his own age,
and of the ages next before and after hira ; and part
ly the scribes who have copied out the Greek manu
scripts of the Scriptures in all ages. And all these
are against him. For by the unanimous evidence
of all these, it wiU appear that the testimony of " the
Three in Heaven" was wanting in the Greek manu
scripts, from whence Jerorae, or whoever was the
author of that preface to the canonical episdes, pre
tends to have borrowed it.
XIII. The ancient interpreters which I cite as
witnesses against hira, are chiefly the authors of the
ancient vulgar Latin, of the Syriac, and the jEthiop-
ic versions. For as he teUs us, that the Latins orait
ted the testiraony of " the Three in Heaven" in their
version before his tirae, so in the Syriac and .Sthiop-
ic versions, (both which, frora bishop Walton's ac
count of thera, are rauch ancienter than Jerome's
time, being the versions which the oriental .Sthiopic
nations received from the beginning, and generally
used, as the Latins did the vulgar Latin) that same
testimony is wanting to this day ; and the authors of
these three most ancient, raost faraous, and raost receiv
ed versions, by oraitting it, are concurrent witnesses, that
they found it wanting in the original Greek raanuscripts
of their own tiraes. It is wanting also in other an
cient versions ; as in the Egyptian Arabic, pubUshed

two coaaoPTioss of scrhpture.

249

in Walton's Polyglot; in the Armenian verarai,*
used, ever since Chrysostom's age, by the Armenian
nations ; and in the Blyrican of C^Tillus, used in
Rascia, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Russia, Muscovy, and
other countries, which use the Sclavonic tongue.
In a copy of this version,! printed at Ostrobe (Os-
trow) in Volhinia, in tbe year 1581, I have seen it
wanting ; and one CamiUiisj; relates the same thing
out of ancient manuscripts ofthis version seen by him.
Father Simon notes it wanting also in a certain ver
sion of the French church, which, saith he, is at
least 1000 years old, and which was published by
father MabUlon, a Benedictine monk. Nor do I
know of any version wherein it is estant, except the
modem vulgar Latin, and such modern versions, of
lhe westem nations, as have been influenced by it.
So then, by the unanimous consent of all the ancient
and faithftil interpreters which we have hitherto met
with, who doubtiess made use of the best manuscripts
* Codes Armeniacus ante 400 annos exaiatns, qnem vidi apud
Episcopum Ecclesiae Armeniacs, quae Amstelodami eolligitnr, lo
cum ilium noD legit Sandius. Append. Interpret. Paradox. inh. I.
t The printed Sclavonic version runs thus ; " Quia Tres sunt
qui testificantur, sjiiritos, et aqna, et sangab ; et Tres in Unam
sont Si testimonium, he."
J Testimonioni Trinn* '¦* ^.ttio i.on («1 Id «uific|ai^^umiE Dlyrieo-
rum et Kutbenomm codicibus : qaomm nnum exemplar, a sex
centis fere annis manuscriptnm, jampridem apud illastrissimom
Gabrielem Chiaenm, terra Bactrics Dominnm vidi, et le»i ; alle-
mm manibas nostris teritur, fide et antiqaitate soi nobile. CamU-
Ita de .intichriato, Ub. ii. cap. 2. pag. 156.

250 SIR ISAAC newton's uxstgrt op
they could get, the testiraony of " the Three in Heav
en" was not anciently in the Greek.
XIV. And that it was neither in the ancient ver
sions nor in the Greek, but was wholly unknown to
the first churches, is most certain by an argument
hinted above ; namely, that in aU that veheraent,
universal, and lasting controversy about the Trinity.
in Jerome's time, and both before and long enough
after it, this text of " the Three in Heaven" was
never once thought of. It is now in every body's
mouth, and accounted the main text for the business,
and would assuredly have been so too with them,
had it been in their books. And yet it is not once
to be met with in aU the disputes, epistles, orations,
and other writings of the Greeks and Latins (Alex-
der of Alexandria, Athanasius, the councU of Sardica,
Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom,
Cyril, Theodoret, Hilary, Ambrose, Austin, Victori
nus Afer, Pbilastrius Brixiensis, Phaebedius Agen-
nensis, Gregorius Baeticus, Faustinus Diaconus, Pas
chasius, Arnobius Junior, Cerealis, and others) in the
times of those controversies ; no, not in Jerorae hira
self, if his version and preface _|0- -the. canonical
epistles be excepted. The writings of those tiraes
were very raany, and copiou<!l: and there is no ar
gument, or text of scripture, which they do noi lugw
again and again. That of St John's Gospel, "land
the Father are One," is every where inculcatea; '
but this of " the Three ra Heaven" and their being

two CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. 251
" One," is no where to be raet with, till at length, when
the ignorant ages came on, it began by degrees to
creep into the Latin copies out of Jerome's version.
So far are they from citing the testimony of " tbe
Three in Heaven," that, on the contrary, as often as
they have occasion to mention the place, they omit
it, and that too, as weU after Jerome's age, as in,
and before it. For Hesychius* cites the place thus ;
Audi Johannem dicentem, Tria sunt qui testimoni
um prcebent, et Tres Unum sunt, spiritus, et san
guis, et aqua. The words in terra he omits,
which is never done, but in copies where " the Three
in Heaven" is wanting. Cassiodorus, or whoever
was the author of the Latin version of the discourse
of Clemens Alexandrinus on these epistles of St John,
reads it thus ; Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur,
spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis,, et ki Tres Unum sunt.\
Beda, in his coraraentary on the jilace, reads it thus ;
Et spiritus est qui testijicatur, quoniam Ckristus est
Veritas. Quoniam Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in
terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et Tres Unum sunt.
Si testimonium, Sfc. But here the words in terra, so
far as I can gather from his coramentary on this
text, have been inserted by some later hand. The
author of the first epistle, ascribed to Pope Eusebius,
reads it, as l^eda doth, oraitting only the words in
terra. And if the authority of popes be valuable,
* Hesych. in Levit. Lib, ii. c. 8. post med.
t Cassiodor. in Bibl. S. Patr. edit. Paris. 1589.
22

252 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
Pope Leo the Great, in his tenth epistle, thus cites
the place ; Et spiritus est qui testificatur, quoniam
spiritus est Veritas ; quia Tres sunt qui testimonium
dant, spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis ; et ki Tres Unum
sunt. St Arabrose, in the sixth chapter of his first
book De Spiritu Sancto, disputing for the unity of
the Three Persons, says. Hi Tres Unum sunt, Johan
nes dixit, aqua, sanguis, et spiritus ; Unum in mys
terio, non in natura. This is aU he could find of the
text, whUe he was disputing about the Trinity, and
therefore he proves the unity of the persons by
the mystical unity of the spirit, water, and blood ;
interpreting those of the Trinity with Cyprian
and others. Yea, in the eleventh chapter of his
third book, he fully recites the text thus ; Per aquam
et sanguinem venit Christus Jesus, non solum in aqua,
sed in aqua et sanguine ; et spiritus testimonium dat,
quoniam spiritus est Veritas. Quia Tres sunt testes,
spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ; et hi Tres Unum sunt in
Christo Jesu.* The like readmg of Facundus, Euche
rius, and St Austin, you have in the places cited above.
These are Latins as late, or later than Jerome; for Je
rome did not prevaU with the churches of his own time
to receive the testiraony of " the Three in Heaven."
And for thera to know his version, and not receive
his testimony, was in effijct to condemn it.
XV. And as for the Greeks, Cyril of Alexandria
reads the text without tiiis testimony in the xivth
* See also Ambrose in Luc. xxii. 10, and in his book De iis qui
mysteriis initiantur, cap. 4.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 253
book of his Thesaurus, cap. 5 ; and again in bis first
book De Fide ad Reginas, a little after the raiddle ;
and so does CEcumenius, a later Greek, in his com
mentary on this place of St John's epistie. Also,
Didymus Alexandrinus, in his commentary on the
same passage, reads, " the spirit, water, and blood,"
without mentioning " the Three in Heaven ;" and so
he doth in his book of the Holy Ghost, where he
seems to omit nothing that he could find for his pur
pose ; and so doth Gregory Nazianzen in his xxxviith
oration concerning the Holy Ghost ; and also Nice
tas in his commentary on Gregory Nazianzen's xUvtii
oration. And here it is farther observable, that, as
the Eusebians had contended that " the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost," were not to be connumerated,
because they were" tlitn^STjT a "ditterent kindptfjc—
zianzen and Nicetas answer, that ihey may be connu
merated, because St John connuraerates three things
not consubstantial, namely, " the spirit, the water, and
the blood." By the objection of the Eusebians, it
then appears that the testimony of " the Three in
Heaven" was not in their books ; and by the answer
of the Catholics it is as evident, that it was not in
theirs ; for whUe they answer by instancing " the
spirit, water, and blood," they could not have missed
of " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,"
had they been connumerated, and caUed one in the
words immediately before ; and to answer by instan
cing in these, would have been far raore to their pur-

254 SIR ISAAC newton's history of
pose, because it was the very thing in question. In
like raanner the Eunoraians, in disputing against the
Catholics, had objected, that' the Holy Ghost is no
where in scripture conjoined with the Father and
the Son, except in the form of baptism ; which is as
rauch as to say, that the testiraony of " the Three in
Heaven" was not in their books ; and yet St Basil,*
whilst he is very diligent in returning an answer to
thera, and perplexes himself in citing places, which
are nothing to the purpose, does not produce this
text of " the Three in Heaven," though it be the
most obvious, and the only proper passage, had it
been then in the Scriptures ; and therefore he knew
nothing of it. The objection of the Eunoraians, and
the answer of the CathoUcs,^ufficiently show that it
was in the books of neither party. Besides aU this,
the tenth epistle of Pope Leo, raentioned above, was
that very faraous epistle to Fl-avian, patriarch of
Constantinople, against Eutyches, which went about
through all the churches, both eastern and western,
being translated into Greek, and sent about in the
east by Flavian. It was generaUy applauded in the
west, and read in the council of Chalcedon, and
there soleranly approved and subscribed by all the
bishops ; and in this episde the text was thus cited ;
Et spiritus est qui testificatur, quoniam Ckristus est
Veritas ; quia Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiri
tus, et aqua, et sanguis ; et ki Tres Unum sunt. And
" Lib. v., adversus Eunomium, sub finem.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 255
by putting 'Tvsuna, according to the Greek reading,
for Christus, which is stiU the vulgar Latin, it was
thus translated by the Greeks : xai to Trieu/*.* lo-r/v ri
fi.agrvpe'vi' tTretSii t'o •xieuft.a Iittii ^ aXiieia- Tpeii yap etirii
ti fiMfTvft'UvTeif TO jrieu/ta, xai ro ul'ap, xai to at/*,*, xai oi
Tfeii TO ei eio-i. So then we have the reading, quot
ed by the Pope, owned in the west, and solemnly
subscribed in the east by the fourth general council,
and therefore it continued the pubhc received read
ing in both the east and west, till after the age of
that council.
XVI. So then the testimony of "the Three in
Heaven," which, in the tiraes of these controversies,
would have been in every body's raouth, had it
been in their books, was wholly unknown to the
churches of those ages. AU that they could find in
their books was the testiraony of " the water, the spirit,
and the blood." Will you now say that the testimo
ny of "the Three in Heaven" was razed out of
their books by the prevaUing Arians.'' Yes, truly,
those Arians were crafty knaves, that could conspire
so cunningly and slily all the world over at once (as
at the word of a Mithridates) in the latter end of
the reign of the Emperor Constantius, to get
aU raen's books in their hands, and correct them
without being perceived ; ay, and conjurors too, to do
it without leaving any blot or chasm in their books,
whereby the knavery raight be suspected and discov
ered ; and to wipe away the memory of it out of aU
22*

256 SIB ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
men's brains, so that neither Athanasius, nor any
body else, could afterwards reraeraber that they had
ever seen it in their books before ; and out of their
own books too, so that when they turned to the
consubstantial faith, as they generally did in the
west, soon after the death of Constantius, they could
then remember no more of it than any body else.
WeU, then, it was out of their books in Jerome's age,
when he pretended it was in ; which is the point we
are to prove ; and when any body can show, that it
was in their books before, it may be pertment to
consider that point also ; but tiU then we are only to
inquire how, since it was out, it carae into the cop
ies that are now extant. For they that, without
proof, accuse the heretics of corruptrag books, and
upon that pretence correct thera at their pleasure
without the authority of ancient raanuscripts, as sorae
learned men of the fourth and fifth centuries used to
do, are falsaries by their own confession, and certain
ly need no other confutation. And therefore if this
reading was once out, we are bound in justice to
believe, that it was out from the beginning ; unless
the razing of it out can be proved by sorae better
arguraent than that of pretence and claraour.
XVII. Will you now say, tiiat Jerorae foUowed
some copy difierent frora any which the Greeks
were acquainted with .'' This is to overthrow the
authority of his version by raaking hira depart from
tbe received Greek ; and besides, it is contrary to

TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. 25t
what he himself seems to represent ; for in his blam
ing' not the vulgar Greek copies, but tbe Latin inter
preters only, which were before his time, as if they
had varied frora the received Greek, he represents
that he hiraself foUowed it. He does not excuse
and justify hiraself for reading difi'erently frora the
received Greek, to foUow a private copy, but accuses
forraer interpreters, as if, in leaving out the testiraony
of " the Three, in Heaven," they had not foUowed
the received Greek, as he did. And therefore, since
the Greeks knew nothing of this testiraony, the au
thority of his version sinks ; and that the rather,
because he was then accused of corrupting the
text, and could not persuade either the Greeks or
the Latins of those tiraes to receive his reading ; for
the Latins received it not tiU raany years after his
death ; and the Greeks not tiU this present age, when
the Venetians sent it araongst them in printed books ;
and their not receiving it was plainly to approve the
accusation. XVIII. The authority of this version being thus
far discussed, it reraains, that we consider the author
ity of the raanuscripts, wherein we now read the
testiraony of "the Three in Heaven." And by
the best inquiry that I have been able to make, it is
wanting in the manuscripts of all languages but the
Latin. For, as we have shown, that the jEthiopic,
Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Sclavonian versions,
stUl in use in the several eastern nations, Ethiopia,

258 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
Egypt, Syria, Mesopotaraia, Armenia, Muscovy, and
some others, are strangers to this reading, and that
it was anciently wanting also in the French ; so I
ara told by those who have been in Turkey, that it
is wanting to this day in the Greek raanuscripts,
which have been brought frora those parts into the
west ; and that the Greeks, now that they have got it
in print frora the Venetians, when their raanuscripts
are objected against it, pretend that the Arians razed
it out. A reading to be found in no raanuscripts
but the Latin, and not in the Latin before Jerome's
age, as Jerome himself confesses, can be but of Uttle
authority ; and tbis authority sinks, because we have
already proved the reading spurious, by showing
that it was heretofore unknown, both to the westem
and the eastern churches, in the times of the great
controversy about the Trinity. But, however, for
further satisfaction, we shall now gi^ you an account
of the Latin and Greek manuscripts ; and show, fij-st,
how, in the dark ages, it crept into the Latin raan
uscripts out of Jerome's version ; and then how it late
ly crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek with
out the authority of MSS ; those who first pubUshed
it in Greek, having never yet so mucb as seen it in
any Greek manuscript.
XIX. That the vulgar Latin, now in use, is a
mixture of the old vulgar Latin, and Jerorae's ver
sion together, is the received opinion. Few of these
manuscripts are above four or five hundred years

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 259
old. The latest generaUy have the testimony of
" the Three in Heaven ;" the oldest of aU usuaUy
want it, which shows that it has crept in by degrees.
Erasmus notes it to be wanting in three very ancient
ones, one of which was in tbe Pope's hbrary at Rorae,
the other two were at Bruges ; and he adds, that in
another manuscript belonging to tbe Ubrary of the
Minorites in Antwerp, the testimony of " the Three
ia Heaven" was noted in the margin in a newer
hand. Peter ChoUnus notes in the margin of his
Latin edition of tbe Scriptures, printed anno Christi
1 543 and 1544, that it was wanting in the most ancient
manuscript of the Tugurine hbrary. Dr GUbert
Burnet has lately, in the first letter of his travels,
noted it wanting in five other ones kept at Strasburg,
Zurich, and BasU ; one of which MSS. he reckons
about 1000 years old, and the otber four about 800.
Father Simon has noted it wanting in five others in the
Ubraries of the king of France, ISIons. Colbert, and
tbe Benedictines of the abbey of St Germain's. An
ancient and dUigent coUator of manuscripts, cited by
Lucas Brugensis by the narae of Epanortbotes, notes
in general, that it was wanting in the ancient Latin
manuscripts. Lucas himself, coUating many Latin
ones, notes it to be wanting in only five, tbat is, ia
the few old ones he had, bis manuscripts being
almost aU of them new ones. For he praises* the
Codex Lobiensis written anno Christi 1084, ahd the
?Lucas Bru". in csdce annot.

260 SIR ISAAC NEWTON S HISTORT OP
Codex Tornacensis written anno Christi 1105, as
most ancient and venerable for their antiquity ; and
used others rauch raore new, of wbich a great num
ber was easily had ; such as was the Codex BusUdi-
anus, written anno Christi 1432, that is, but eight
years before the invention of printing. The Lateran
councU, collected under Innocent the Third, anno
Christi 1215, canon 2, raentions Joachira, the abbot,
quoting the text in these words ; Quoniam in canonica
Johannis epistola legitur. Quia Tres sunt qui testimoni
um dant in ccelo. Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus, et ki
Tres Unum sunt ; statimque suhjungitur — Et Tres
sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et
sanguis, et Tres Unum sunt : sicut in codicibus qui
busdam invenitur. This was written by Joachira*
in the papacy of Alexander the Third, that is, in
or before the year 1180, and therefore this reading
was then got but into some books^; for the words
sicut in codicibus quibusdam invenitur refer as weU
to the first words of Joachim, quoniam in canonica
Jokannis epistola legitur, as to the next statimque
suhjungitur; and more to the first than the next,
because the first part of the citation was then but in
some books, as appears by ancient manuscripts;
but the second part was in almost aU ; tiie words
Tres Unum sunt being in aU the books which
wanted the testimony of " the Three in Heaven,"
and in most of those which had it ; tiiough afterwards
* Vide Math. Faris Histor. Angl. A. D. 1179.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTUTIE. 261
left out in many, when branded by the schoolmen
for Arian.
XX. But to go to the original of the corruption.
Gregory the Great* writes, that Jerome's version was
in use in his time, and therefore no wonder if the
testimony of " the Three in Heaven" began to be
cited out of it before. Eugenius, bishop of Carthage,
in the seventh year of Hunneric, king of the Van
dals, anno Christi' 484, in the summary of his faith
exhibited to the king, cited it the first of any man, so
far as I can find. A whUe after, Fulgentius, another
Afiican bishop, disputing against the same Vandals,
cited it again, and backed it with tbe forementioned
place of Cyprian, appUed to tbe testimony of " the
Three in Heaven." And so it is probable, tbat by
tbat abused authority of Cyprian it began first in
Afric, in the disputes with the ignorant Vandals, to
get some credit ; and thence at length crept into use.
It occurs also frequently in VigiUus Tapsensis, anoth
er African bishop, contemporary to Fulgentius. In
its defence, some aUege earUer writers; namely,
the first epistie of Pope Hyginus, the epistie of
Pope John II. the book of Idacius Clarus
against Varimadus; and the book De unita
Deitate Trinitatis, ascribed to Athanasius. But
Chiffletius, who pubUshed the works of Victor Viten
sis and VigiUus Tapsensis, sufficiendy proves the
book against Variraadus to be this VigiUus's, and er-
* Vide Walton's Prolegomena, x. 5.

•262 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF TWO
roneously ascribed to Idacius. To the sarae VigiUus
he asserts also the book De unita Deitate Trinitatis.
Certainly Athanasius was not its author. AU the
episties of Hyginus, except the beginning and the
end, and the first part of the epistie of Pope John,
wherein the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" is
cited, are nothing else than the fragments of the
book against Varimadus, described word by word by
some forger of decretal epistles, as may appear by
comparing them. So then Eugenius is the first upon
record that quotes it.
XXI. But though he set it on foot araong the Af
ricans, yet I cannot find that it became of authority
in Europe before the revival of learning in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries. In those ages St Barnard,
the Schoolmen, Joachim, and the Lateran council,
spread it abroad, and scribes began generaUy to in
sert it into the text ; but in such Latin manuscripts
and European writers, as are ancienter than those
times, it is scarce to be met witii.
XXII. Now that it vvas inserted into the vulgar
Latin out of Jerome's version, is manifest by the
manner how the vulgar Latin and that version carae
to be raixed. For it is agreed that the Latins, after
Jerorae's version began to be of use, noted out of it
his corrections of the vulgar Latin in the margin of
their books ; and these the transcribers afterwards
inserted into the text. By this raeans, the old Latin
has been so generally corrected, that it is nowhere

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE,

263

to be found sincere. It is Jerome that we now read,
and not the old vulgar Latin ; and what wonder, if
in Jerorae we read the testimony of " the Three in
Heaven ?" For who that inserted the rest of Jerorae
into the text, would leave out such a passage for the
Trinity, as this hath been taken to be .''
XXIII. But to put the question out of dispute,
there are footsteps ofc,the insertion stiU reraaining.
For in sorae old manuscripts, it has been found noted
in the raargin ; in others, the various readings are
such as ought to arise, by transcribing it out of the
margin into the text. I shaU only mention the three
foUowing varieties. Of the manuscripts which have
not the testiraony of " the Three in Heaven," sorae
have the words in terra, in the eighth verse, but the
most want it ; whicb seems to proceed from hence,
that sorae, before they allowed so great an addition
to the text, as the testimony of " the Three in Heav
en," noted only in terra in the raargin of their books,
to be inserted into the testiraony of the spirit, water,
and blood. Of the manuscripts which have the
testimony of "the Three in Heaven," sorae-iu the
eighth verse have Hi Tres Unum sunt; others not.
The reason of this seeras to be, that of those who
noted this testimony in the raargin, some blotted out
Et ki Tres Unum sunt in the eighth verse according
to Jerome ; and others did not.g^^ And, lastly, the
testimony of " the Three in Heaven" is m most
books set before the testimony of "the Three in
23

264 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
earth;" in some, it is set after; so Erasmus notes two
old books, in which it is set after ; Lucas Brugensis a
third ; and Hesselius (if I raisreraeraber not) a fourth;
and so VigiUus Tapsensis* sets it after ; which seems
to proceed from hence, that it was sometimes so
noted in the raargin, that the reader or transcriber
knew not whether it were to come before or after.
Now these discords in the Latin manuscripts, as they
detract frora the authority of the raanuscripts, so they
confirra to us, that the old vulgar Latin has in these
things been tarapered with, and corrected by Jerome's
version. XXIV. In the next place, I am to show how, and
when, the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" crept
out of the Latin into the Greek. Those who first
printed the Greek testament, did generaUy, in follow
ing their manuscripts, omit the testiraony of " the
Three in Heaven," except in Spain ; for it was orait
ted in the first and second edition of Erasraus, anno
Christi 1516 and 1519 ; in the edition of Francis
Asulan, printed at Venice by Aldus, anno Christi
1518 ; in that of Nicholas Gerbelius, printed at Hag-
anau, anno Christi 1521 ; and a little after, in that
of Wolfius Cephalius, printed at Strasburg, anno
Christi 1 524 ; and again in 1 526, in the Badian
edition, as Erasraus notes ; and in that of Simon
CoUnaeus at Paris, anno Christi 1534.f At the
* Vigilius, libr. advers. Varimadum, cap. 5.
t In editis exemplaribus nonnullis non legi ; ut in Aldina et
PadianA editione. Addo, nee in GrsecO Testamento Gerbelii, Ha-
ganoic, 1521 ; nee in Colinsei Parisiis edito. Gomariisin h. I.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

265

same time it was omitted in some editions of o*her
western languages, as in the Saxon and German
editions of Luther; and in the Latin Tugurine
editions of Peter ChoUnus, anno Christi 1543 and
1544. The first edition in Greek, which has the
testimony of " the Three in Heaven," was that of
Cardinal Xiraenes, printed at Complutura in Spain,
in 1515; but not pubUshed before the year 1521.
The cardinal, in his edition, used the assistance of
several divines, which he called together to Coraplu-
tum, there founding an university, anno Christi 1517,
or a little before. Two of those divines were Anto
nius Nebrissensis and Stunica. For Stunica then
resided at Complutura, and in the preface* to a
treatise he wrote against Erasmus, gives this testimo
ny of himself; "that he had spent some years in
reading the holy Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin ; and had diUgently coUated the Hebrew and
Greek exemplars with the Latin copies." This
book, displeasing the cardinal, was not printed tiU
after his death ; and then it came forth at Complu
tura, anno Christi 1520. The year before, one Lee,
* Cum praeseitim, si quisquam alius, et nos quoque his de rebus,
n ostro quodam jure, judicium ferre possumus. f_Quippe3 qui non
paucos annos in Sanctis scripturis Veteris et Novi Testamenti, He-
braice, Graece, et Latine perlegendis consumpserimus ; ac Hebrai-
ca Grajcaque ipsa divinarum literal um exemplaria cum Latinis
codicibus diligentissime contulerimus. Longd igitur lectione ac
experientia jampridem edocti, quantum tralationi huic ecclesias.
ticae Novi Testamenti deferendum sit, ni fjiUor, optime novi, Htec
Sl'unicn in proem, libri sui.

266 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
an *EngUshman, wrbte also against Erasmus ; and
both Stunica and Lee, araongst other things, repre
hended him for omitting the testiraony of " the Three
in Heaven." Afterwards Erasraus, finding the
Spaniards, and sorae others of the Roman Church,
in a heat against hira, printed this testiraony inhis
third edition, anno Christi 1 522, representing, " that
in his former editions he had printed the text as he
found it in his manuscripts ; but now there being
found in England one manuscript which had the tes
tiraony of " the Three in Heaven," he had inserted it,
according to that raanuscript ; for avoiding the calum
nies raised against hira," And so it continued in his
two foUowing editions. And at length, Robert Ste
phens, anno Christi 1550, reprinted Erasraus's edi
tion, with some few aUerations and vai-ious lections,
taken out of the Complutensian edhion, and fifteen
Greek raanuscripts, which he named after the numeral
letters, «, ^, y, S, «¦, Sec putting « for the Complutensi
an edition, and f, y, S, e, &;c. for the manuscripts in
order ; and noting in the margin, that the testimony
of " the Three in Heaven" was wanting in the seven
raanuscripts, S, e, Z, i, i, la, ly. Whence Beza* tells
us, that he had read it in the rest. His words are.
Legit Hieronymus, legit Erasmus in Britannica codice
et in Camplutensi editione. Legimus et nos in non-'
nuilis Roberti nostri veterihus libris. And this is tiie
original and authority of the printed editions. Fqr
* Beza in banc locum.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 267
these are the editions ever since followed by aU the
West ; and of late years propagated by the Venetian
presses into Greece ; and nothing further, that I
know of, has been discovered in any raanuscripts in
favour of these editions.
XXV. Now to pull off' the vizard, I cannot but,
in the first place, extreraely complain of Beza's want
of modesty and caution in expressing himself.* In
the preface to his annotations, describing what helps
he had in composing his first edition, he teUs us,
" that he had the annotations of VaUa, Stapulensis,
and Erasmus, and the writings of the ancients and
moderns coUated by himself ; and out of Stephens's
library, the exemplar which Stephens had collated
with about twenty-five raanuscripts, alraost all of
which were printed." He should have said seven
teen ; for that nuraber he puts in other places, and
in his annotations cites no raore. So then he had
the collations of two raore manuscripts than Stephens
h»s given us in print. And this was all his furniture.
The original raanuscripts he does not here pretend
to have ; nor could he have thera ; for they were not
Stephens's raanuscripts, but belonged to several
libraries in France and Jtaly. The manuscript S
' Non desunt, qui Bezam nimis audacem fuisse judicant, dum
a receptd lectione saepius sine necessitate recedit; ct unius, inter
dum nullius, codicis authoritate fretus, praetoriam exercet potesta
tem, ex conjecturis mutando et interpolando textum sacrum pro
libito. Walton. Prolegom. iv. sect. 15. in Bibl. Polyglotl.
23*

268 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
Stephens himself never saw; but had only various
lections collected out of it by his friends in Italy.
The manuscripts y, S, e, r, £;, «, ., le, were not Ste
phens's, but belonged to the library of the king of
France, to whom Stephens was printer. The other
six books, e, la, iS, ly, iS, IS-, Stephens had not out of
his own library, but borrowed thera for a tune from
several places to collate, his friends studying to pro
mote the design of his edition. And yet Beza in
bis annotations, when he would favour any text, cites
the coUations of Stephens in such a manner, as if he
had the very original manuscripts at Geneva before his
eyes. And where Stephens does not cite various
lections, there he reckons, that in the text of Ste
phens's coUated books he read aU the manuscripts.
So in Mark vi. 11. where Stephens notes a certain
period to be wanting in the manuscript copies » and
r,, Beza saith, Hcecperiodus in omnibus exemplaribus
GrcBcis legitur, exceptis secundo et octavo. In the
Acts xui 33. because Stephens had noted no variojfs
lections, Beza affirms of the Greek text, Ita scrip-
turn invenimus in omnibus vetustis codicibus. In 1
John iv. 3. where Stephens is sUent, Beza speaks ;
Sic legitur in omnibus Grcecis exemplaribus, qua
quidem mihi inspicere licuit. In Jaraes i.-22. where
Stephens is again silent, Beza tells us of the word
fiovtv, Eo-0 in Omnibus nostris vetustis lihris inveni.
And so, where Stephens in the margin bad noted
the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" to be want-

TWO- CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 269
ing in seven manuscripts, he thinks that, in reading
the text of Stephen's coUated book, he reads it in
the rest ; and so teUs us, Legimus et nos in nonnul
lis Roberti Stephani codicibus. This he did in the
first edition of his annotations. Afterwards, when
he had got two real raanuscripts, the Claromontan,
and that which at length he presented to the Univer
sity of Cambridge (in both which the canonical epis
tles are wanting ;) in the epistle to his fourth edition,
in reckoning up the books he then used, he put only
these two, and the seventeen of Stephens; and in
his fifth edition he writes suraraarily, that he used
nineteen raanuscripts, joining with those two real ones
the collations of Stephens, as if in those he had sev
enteen others ; which sufficiently explains his way
of speaking in his annotations. But whilst he had
not the manuscripts themselves to read with his own
eyes, it was too hard and unwarrantable a way of speak
ing to teUs us, Legimus et nos in nonnullis Roberti
Stephani codicibus; and therefore, in his later editions,
he corrects himself, and teUs us only, that the reading
doth extare in nonnullis Stephani veteribus lihris.
Thus Beza argues from Stephens's book of collations ;
and the same inference has been made by Lucas
Brugensis and others, ever since, from Stephens's
foreraentioned edition of that book. " For," say
they, " Stephens bad fifteen raanuscripts in aU, and
found the testiraony of ' the Three in Heaven' want
ing but in seven ; and therefore it was in the other

270 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
eight ; and so being found 'm. the greater part of his
manusCTipts, has the authority of manuscripts on ils
side." Thus they argue ; and this is the great ar
gument by which the prmted Greek has hitherto been
justified. XXVI. But if they please to consider the busi
ness a little better, they wUl find themselves very
much mistaken. For though Stephens had fifteen
manuscripts in aU, yet aU of thera did not contain all
the Greek testaraent. Four of thera, noted y. r, iS, iS;
had each of them the four Gospels only. Two, noted
C, «, contained only the Gospels and tbe Acts of the
Aposties. One, noted (r, contained the Apocalypse
only. One, noted <£, had only the Apocalypse, with
St Paul's Episdes to the Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. The other
seven, noted S; t. ^ *< '. "». 'V^ contained both St
Paul's Epistles and the canonical ones, besides sorae
other books ; naraely, the raanuscript C contained the
Episdes and Gospels ; the raanuscripts i, <«, ly, the
Epistles and Acts of the Aposties ; and the manu
scripts i, E. *, the Episdes, Gospels, and Acts. And
this any one may gather, by noting what manuscripts
the various lections are cited out of, m every book of
the New Testament. For in the various lections of die
canonical episties, and those to the Romans, Cormthi-
ans, Galatians, Ephesians, Phihppians, and Colossians,
are found these seven manuscripts, ^, «, C? *' '> <*> '^i
every where cited, and no more than these. The same

Two CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. 271
also, and no more, are cited in the Episdes to the
Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and the Hebrews ;
one numeral error, whether of the scribe or typo
grapher excepted. Stephens therefore did coUect
various lections of the Episties out of only these seven
raanuscripts, S; ^, 2;, e, i, la, ly ; and in all these seven
he found the testiraony of " the Three in Heaven" to
be wanting ; as you may see noted in the margin of
bis edition.
XXVII. And that this testimony was wanting in aU
Stephens's manuscripts, is apparent also by its being
generaUy wanting in the manuscripts which are now
extant in France. For father Simon* teUs us, " that
after a diUgent search in the library of the king ot
France, and in that also of Monsieur Colbert, he
could not find it in any one manuscript ; though he
consulted seven manuscripts in the king's library, and
one in Colbert's." And because Stephens had some
of his various lections from Italy, I will add, that a
gentleman, who, in his travels, had consulted twelve
MSS in several libraries in Italy, assured me that
he found it wanting in them all. One ofthe twelve
was that most ancient and most famous MS in the
Pope's Ubrary, written in capital letters.
XXVIII, So then the authority of the printed
books rests only upon the authority of the editions of
Erasmus and Cardinal Xiraenes. But seeing that
Erasmus oraitted it in his two first editions, and in-
" Simon's Critical History of tlie New Test. chap, xviii.

¦272 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
sorted it unwiUingly, against the authority of his man
uscripts, in his three last ; the authority of these three
can be none at all. Wben Lee, upon Erasmus's
putting forth his second edition, feU foul upon him
for leaving out the testiraony of " the Three in Heav
en," Erasraus* answered, " that he had consuked
raore than seven Greek manuscripts, and found h
wanting in them all; and that if he could have found
it in any one manuscript, he would have foUoWed that
in favour of the Latin." Hence notice was sent to
Erasmus out of England, that it was in a manuscript
there, and thereupon to avoidf their calumnies, as
he saith, he printed it in his foUowing editions ; not-
vmnstanding that he suspected that manuscript to
be a new one, corrected by the Latin. But since,
upon inquiry, I cannot learn that they in England
ever heard of any such raanuscript, but frora Eras
mus ; and since he was only told of such a manu
script, in the time of the controversy between him
* Dicam mihi diversis temporibus plura fuisse exemplaria quara
septem fscilicet Graeca3 ; nee in ullo horum repertum, quod in
nostris [scilicet Latinis] legitur. Quod si contigisset unum exem
plar, in quo fuisset, quod nos legimus, nimirum illinc adjecissem,
4]uod iu caeteris aberat. Id quia non contigit, quod solum licuit,
feci ; indicavi quid in Gfaicis codicibus miuus esset. fliec £raj-
mus contra Leum, in hunc locum.
t Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico reposuimus, quod in nostris
dicebatur deesse ; ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Quanquam et
hunc suspicor, ad Latinorum codices, fuisse castigatum. Postea-
quam enim concordiam inierunt cum ecclesii RomanS, studue-
runt et hSc in parte cum Romanis consentire. Erasmi Annotn-
tion. in hunc locum; editio tertia, et sejiien.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 27S
and Lee, and never saw it himself; I cannot forbear
to suspect, that it was nothing but a trick put npon
him by the Popish clergy, to try if he would make
good what he had off'ered, the printing of the testi
raony of " the Three in Heaven" by the authority of
one Greek copy, and thereby to get it into his edition.*
Greek raanuscripts ofthe Scripture are things of val
ue, and do not use to be thrown away ; and such a
raanuscript for the testiraony of "the Three in
Heaven," would have raade a greater noise than the
rest have done against it. Let those who have such
a manuscript, at length tell us where it is.
XXIX. So also let them who insist upon the
edition of cardinal Xiraenes, tell us by what raanu
script he printed tbis testiraony ; or, at least, where
any such raanuscript of good note is to be seen ; for
tiU then I raust take the Uberty to believe, that he
printed nothing else than a translation out of the
Latin, and that for these reasons.
First ; because in the preface to his edition of the
New Testaraent we are told, that this testaraent was
printed after the, raanuscripts taken out of the Pope's
library ; and these the cardinal only borrowedf
* Versiculus 1 Joan. v. 7. in SyriacS, ut et vetustissimis Graecis
exemplaribus, nostro Alexandrino, aliis manuscriptis Graecis, quos
contulimus, non reperitur. JJ'alton. Prolegomena, sa. 23, in Bibl,
Polyglolt. tAocivite Vaticand Romae Bibliotbec^, bond cura Leonis X.
pontificis maximi venfd. As Gaspar Bellerus, in his epistle prefix
ed to the Quinquagena of Antonius Nabrissensis, expresses it.

274 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
thence, and therefore retumed them back so soon as
his edition was finished. And Caryophilus some
tirae after, by the Pope's coraraand, collating the
Vatican raanuscripts, found the testiraony of "the
Three in Heaven" wanting in thera aU. I do not
say but that the Cardinal had other manuscripts ; but
these were the chief, and the only ones he thought
worth while to tell his reader of.
Secondly ; I startie at the marginal note in this
place of the Cardmal's edition. For it is beside the
use of this edition, to put notes in the margin of the
Greek text. I have not found it done above thrice
in aU this edition of the New Testaraent ; and there
fore there must be something extraordinary ; and
that, in respect of the Greek, because it is in the
margin of this text. In 1 Corinth, xv. there is
noted in this margin a notable variation in the
Greek reading. In Matthew vi. 13. where they,
in their edition, recede frora the Greek copies
and correct it by the Latin, they make a raarginal
note, to justify their doing so ; and so here, where
the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" is general
ly wanting in the Greek copies, they make a third
marginal note, to secure tiiemselves frora being
blamed for printing it. Now in such a case as this,
there is no question but they would make the best
defence they could ; and yet they do not tell of the
various lections in the Greek raanuscripts, nor pro
duce any one Greek raanuscript on their side, but

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURfc. 275
run to the authority of Thoraas Aquinas.* The
Greek manuscripts have the text thus, " For there
are Three that bear record, the spirit, the water, and
the blood ; and these Three are One." In many of
the Latin raanuscripts, the words, " these Three are
One," are here omitted, and put only at the end
of the testimony of " the Three in Heaven," before
that of "the spirit, water, and blood;" in others,
they are put after both testimonies. In the Com
plutensian edition, they follow the former copies, and
justify their doing so, by the authority of Thomas
Aquinas. " Thomas," say they, " in treating of the
Three which bear witness in Heaven, teaches, that
the words ' these Three are One' are subjoined for
insinuating the unity of the essence of the Three
Persons. And whereas one Joachim interpreted
this unity to be only in love and consent, it being thus
* The marginal note is this; Sanctus Thomas, in expositione
secundse decretalisde summS Trinitate et Fide CatholioS, tractans
istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim, viz. "Tres sunt qui tes
timonium dant in cffilo, Fater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus," dicit
ad llteram verba sequentia. " Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium
personarum subdilur, et ' hi Tres Unum sunt ;' quod quidem dicitur
propter essentise unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse trahere
volens ad unitatem charilatis et consensus, inducebat conscquen-
tem auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem, ' Et Tres sunt, qui tes
timonium dant in terrd, sanctus spiritus, aqua, et sanguis;' et
in quibusdam libris additur, ' et hi Tres Unum sunt.' Sed hoc
in veris exemplaribus non habetur; sed dicitur esse appositum ab
Haireticis Arianis ad pervertendura intellectum sanum auctorita-
tis pra;raissse de unitate essentia? Trium Personarum." Ukc Beo
tus Thomas, ubi snpra.
24

•276 »IR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
said of the spirit, water, and blood, in sorae copies,
' these Three are One ;' Thomas repUed, tiiat this
last clause is not extant in the true copies, but was
added by the Arians for perverting the sense."
Thus far this annotation. Now this plainly respects
the Latin copies, for Thomas understood not Greek,
and therefore part of the design of this annotation is
to set right the Latin readmg. But this is not the
raain design. For so the annotation should have
been set in the raargin of the Latin version. Its
being inserted in the margin of the Greek text shows,
that its main design is to justify the Greek by the
Latin thus rectified and confirraed. Now to raake
Thomas thus, in a few words, do all the work, was
very artificial ; and in Spain, where Thomas is of
apostolic authority, raight pass for a very judicious
and substantial defence of the printed Greek. But
to us, Thomas Aquinas is no Apostle. We are
seeking for the authority of Greek manuscripts.
A third reason why I conceive the Compluten
sian Greek to have been in this place a transla
tion from the Latin, is, because Stunica (who, as I
told you, was one of the divines eraployed by the
Cardinal in this edition, and at that tirae wrote against
Erasraus) when, in his objections, he coraes to this
text of the testimony of " the Three in Heaven,"
he cites not one Greek raanuscript for it against
J!lrasraus ; but argues wholly frora the'authority of
the Latin. On the contrary, he sets down, by way

TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. 27f
of concession, the coramon reading of the Greek
manuscripts, as well as bis own, and that of others,
in these words, 'ori r^eit eiTit ti i^-rvpeZvrei, Tt TTveliuM,
xai ro u^i/p, x*) to aifta- xai ei rpeii eii ''o £> eio-i ; and
then condemns them altogether without exception ;
and justifies the Latin against them by the authority
of Jerome. " Know," saith he, " that in this place
the Greek manuscripts are most evidentiy corrupted ;
but ours (tbat is, the Latin ones) contain the trutii
itself, as they are translated from the first original ;
which is manifest by lhe prologue of St Jerome upon
the Epistles, &c."* And this prologue, which he
goes on to cite at length, and of wliich we gave you
an account above, is all he argues in favour of the
testimony of "the Three in Heaven." In other
places of scripture, where he had Greek manuscripts
on his side, he produces thera readily. So 1 Thes
salonians ii. 7. Iia quidem legitur, says Jie, in Grce
cis codicibus, quos ego viderim. In Jaraes i. 11. he
saith. Sciendum in omnibus Grcecis codicibus -irtpe-ati
hie legi per ei diphtkongum. In 1 Thessalonians v. 23.
he saith. Cumin Grcecis exemplaribus quotquot sunt,
oXoxhTioti, et in Latinis integer hie legatur, nemine
discrepante, nescio cur Erasmus dixerit, S/-e. In
* Sciendum est, boc loco codices apertissime esse corruptos ;
nostros vero veritatem ipsam, ut a primd origine traducti sunt
continere ; quod ex prologo B. Hieronymi super epistolas mani
feste apparet. Ait enim, " Quae si sicut ab eis digests sunt ; ita
quoque ab inleqiretibus fideliter in Latinum verterentur eloquium,"
tc. BiEc Stunica in h. locum. Ejus Liber exslat in Criticor. vol. ix.

278 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
PhUipp. iv. 9. Si quidem in omnibus, saith he, Gra-
ais codicibus, ravra Myt^eo-3-e hic legitur; neque
Greed sunt libri, qui Tpan-o-ire koc loco, neque Latini,
qui agite ; nisi mendosos utriusque lingua codices,
cum hcec commentaretur Erasmus, perlegit. After
this raanner does Stunica produce the manuscripts
used in the Complutensian edition, when they raake
for hira ; and here he produces thera too, but it is
for Erasraus against himself. " Know," saith he,
" that in this place the Greek raanuscripts are most
evidently corrupted." In other places, if he hath but
one manuscript on his side, he produces it magificent-
ly enough ; as the Codex Rhodiensis in his discourses
upon 2 Corinthians ii. 3. James i. 22. 2 Peter u. 2.
and other texts. Here he produces all the manu
scripts against himself, without excepting so much as
one. And hence Erasmus, in his answer to Stunica,
gloried in the consent of the Spanish manuscripts
with his own ; and Sanctius Caranza, another of the
Complutensian divines, in his defence of Stunica,
written presently after, had nothing to reply in this
point. Neither could Sepulveda, or the Spanish
monks who next undertook the controversy, find one
Greek manuscript, which here made against Eras
mus. Neither had Marchio Valesius better success,
though on that occasion he collated sixteen Greek
manuscripts, eight whereof belonged to the king of
Spain's library, and tiie other eight to other Ubraries
of Spain ; and he did it on purpose to collect out of

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

279

thera whatever he could meet with in favour of the
present vulgar Latin. Neither did the reprinting
of the Complutensian Bible by Arias Montanus pro
duce the notice of any such raanuscript ; though, on
that occasion, raany manuscripts, as weU Greek as
Latin, fetched frora Complutura afid other places,
were coUated by Arias, Lucas Brugensis, Canter,
and others.
XXX. So then, to sum up the arguraent, the
Coraplutensian divines did soraetiraes correct the
Greek by the Latin, without the authority of any
Greek raanuscript, as appears by their practice in
Matthew vi. 13. and therefore their printing the
testimony of " the Three in Heaven" is no evidence
that they did it by a manuscript, but on the contrary,
for want of one, they contented themselves with the
authority of Tliomas Aquinas ; and Stunica confess
ed that they had none. Nor has all the zeal for this
text been able since to discover one either in Spain,
or any where else.
XXXI. And now you may understand whence it
is, that the Complutensian edition, and the reading of
the pretended EngUsh manuscript, set down by Eras
mus in his annotations, diff'er so much from one anoth
er; for the Complutensian edition has the text thus; on
Tge'ii eio-iv 01 fuciTv^ouuTei iv rZ oupav^ i jrarig, xai i Pijyoj,
xai TO ayiov ^rvevfta' xai ei rptti s/'j ro 'ev eitri. xai rpsii eitrisei
lixprvpoZirei 'Iti t^s y^j, ro ¦TrnZi^.a, xai to 'v^ap, xai to aifia.
The pretended English manuscript thus ; oV/ T,)ffe
24*

280 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
eio-iv ei lA-aprv^euiTii h r^ eupat^, ¦rraritp, Ao'yo?, xai meufuf
xai OUTOI o< Tptii ei elo-ii. xai rmi' fiapTvpouvTei ii ry yw,
itieufta xai oSap, xai liftM. The diff'erences are too great
to spring from the bare errors of scribes, and arise
rather from the various translations of the place, out
of Latm into Greek, by two several persons.
XXXII. But whUst these two readings, by their
discord, confute one another, the readmgs of the
real Greek raanuscripts by their agreement confirm
one another as much. For CaryophUus, who, by
the coramand of Pope Urban the Eighth, coUated
the Vatican and other manuscripts, borrowed out of.
the principal libraries in Rorae, found one coramon
reading in thera aU, without the testiraony of " the
Three in Heaven ;" as you may see in those his
coUations, printed in 1673 by Peter Possinus, in
the end of his Catena of the Greek Fathers upon
Mark. He met with eight manuscripts in aU upon
the Epistles, and notes their reading thus ; 1 Joan.
v. 7. Manuscripti octo (omnes nerape) legunt, "ori
rpeii eifriv ot /AapTvpovtrei, ro 7rievfA.a^ xai ro ooap, xai ro
aina. x«i ei rpeXi eii ri U eicri. Porro totus septimus
versus hujus capitis desideratur in octo manuscriptis
codicibus Greeds, Sfc. Thus Caryophilus.
XXXIII. The very sarae reading Erasmus, in his
.annotations on this place, gives us of aU his manu
scripts, which were more than seven ; and so doth
Stephens of all his seven, without noting any various
lections in them. Only the comraa, which in Ste-

TWO CORRPUTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 281
phens's edition is, surely by raistake, set after eipaiif,
is to be put in its right place. The very same read
ing does Stunica also, in his book against Erasmus, note
out ofthe manuscript he had seen in Spain, as was seen
above. Nor does Valesius, in his collection oftbe six
teen Spanish manuscripts, note any various lections in
this text. The same reading exactly have also the
raanuscripts in England ; naraely, that raost ancient
and famous one in the king's Ubrary, which was con
veyed thither frora Egypt through Greece, and pub
lished in Walton's Polyglott Bible ; and the four
at Oxford, viz. that in New College, and that in
Magdalen College, both very old, and two in Lincoln
College ; and four or five other ancient ones lately
collated at Oxford, in order to a new impression of
the Greek testaraent, as I ara informed. The very
same reading have also the three manuscripts of Mon
sieur Petavius Gachon, a senator of Paris, whose
various lections, coUected by his son John Gachon,
were printed in the Oxford edition of the New Tes
tament, anno Christi 1675. The same readmg,
without any variation, is published by Francis Asulan
in bis edition, printed anno Christi 1518, by Aldus at
Venice, out of the manuscripts of those parts. The
same reading CEcumenius, six hundred years ago,
found in the manuscripts of Gteece ; as you may
see in the text of bis commentary on tbis epistle of St
John. The sarae reading also Cyril of Alexandria
jnet with in the manuscripts of Egypt, above eleven

282 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
hundred years ago ; as yOu may see in his citations
of tbe text ; both in his Thesaurus, lib. xiv. cap. 5.
and in his first book De Fide ad Reginas; excepting
that in tbe latter of these two citations, the particle ih
is omitted ; and /ixprvpovo-i written for ti futprvpeinei.
And that the very same reading was also in tiie
manuscripts of the first ages, may be gathered from
the conformity of this reading to aU the ancient
versions. XXXIV. Itmay be seen by what has been hitherto
said, that this testimony is not to be found in the Greek
manuscripts. Epanortbotes,* whora Lucas Brugensis
describes to be an ancient, accurate, fuU, and indus
trious collator of raanuscripts, found it wanting in aU
those he raet with. Epanortkotes, saith Lucas, deesse
hcec eadem Grcecis libris, et antiquis Latinis annotat.
Nor have other coUators made a further discovery
* Habuimus ab Hunnaso, id quod maximi facimus, MS Bibl.
correctorium ab incerto auctore, quem Epanorthotem, aut cor-
rectorem fere vocamus, magnS diligentib ac fide contextum, se-
Cuto uti oportet antiques nostras editionis codices, eosque cum
Hasbraeis, Gnecis, et veterum Patrum commentariis sedulo colla-
tos ; qui liber ad Genesin viii. 7. latins a nobis descriptus est.
BcEC Lucas; qui ad Genesin viii. 7. rfi'jil hunc librum, multis an
nis scriptum, et pluribus forte compotum. Dein, loco ex eo &itato,
pergit. Ad quae dici quid possit.' An quod libro fidcndum
non sit ? Non hoc dicet, qui evolverit ; quae namque a nostri
seculi scriptoribus ex MSS codicibus collectse sunt variae lectio
nes, omnes propemodum in eo comperimus ; et ad fontes fideliter
examinatas deprehendimus. Scripsit liac Lucas, anno \o'79; un
de sequitur correcloriumanle dispulationes Erasmicas de testibus in
ealo elaboratum esse.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

283

to this day. Lee, Stunica, and the rest in England,
Spain, Flanders, France, and Italy, who conspired
against Erasmus, could find nothing in the raanu-
stripts of those parts against him ; if that Phoenix be
excepted, which once appeared to soraebody sorae
where in England, but could never since be seen.
HesseUus,* about the year 1565, professor of divini
ty at Louvain, in his coramentary on this place, ingen
uously confesses it wanting in all the Greek manu
scripts then known, except two, the one in Spain,
the other in England ; meaning those by which
the Complutensian divines and Erasmus printed it.
Which two we have shown to be none at aU ; unless
one Annius dug up one in England. Since that tirae
nothing further has been produced, besides the iraag
inary books of drearaing Beza. And yet I will not
say, but that it may hereafter be found in some
Greek copies. For in the times of the holy war,
the Latins had rauch to do in the East. They were
long united to the Greek church ; they raade Latin
patriarchs of Jerusalera and Antioch ; they reigned
at Constantinople over the Greeks from the year
"Hesselius in hunc locum ail; Manuscripti Grseci fere omnes
sic se habent ; " Quoniam Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in ter-
i-a, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi Tres Unum sunt;" nulli factd
mentione triplicis testimonii de coelo " Patris, Verbi, et Spiritus
Sancti." Dein codices aliter legentes describendo sic pergit ; Nostro
tempore duo Graeci codices manuscripti reperti sunt; unus in
AngliA, et alter in HispaniS ; quorum uterque hoc loco testimoni
um habet "Patris, Verbi, et Spiritus Sancti."

284 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
1204, for above fifty years together ; and during
this their kingdora, in the year 1215, was assembled
the Lateran council, consisting of four hundred and
fifteen bishops, Greeks and Latins together; and
therein the testimony of " the Three in Heaven"
was quoted out of some of the Latin manuscripts, as
we told you above. AU which might occasion some
Greeks, as weU as Latins, to note it in the margins of
their books ; and hence insert it into the text in
transcribing. For this is raost certain, that some
Greek raanuscripts have been corrected by the
Latin ones. Such a book Erasraus* teUs us, that he
"once met with, and that there was such anoth
er in the Pope's library." He suspected also that
book in England, out of which he printed the testi
mony of " the Three in Heaven," to be of the same
kind ; though I rather think it was none at all ; un
less some falsary of that age were at the pains to
transcribe one or two of St Paul's Epistles. Such
another book was one of those, out of which Valesius
coUected his various lections. Whence Mariana,
*Hic obiter illud incidit admonendum esse Graecorum quos
dam Novi Testamenti codices ad Latina exemplaria emendates.
Id factum est in fcedere Grsecorum cum Romana ecclesia ; quod
foedus testatur Bulla, quse dicitur Aurea ; visum est enim et hoc
ad firmandam concordiam pertinere. Et nos olim in hujusmodi
codicem incidimus ; et talis adhuc dicitur aJsen'ari in BibliothecA
Pontif. Verum ex bis corrigere nostros est Lesbiam, ut aiunt, ad-
movere regulam. Erasmus ad Lectorem. Edilio tia Hovi- Testa
menti.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 285
"into whose hands the raanuscript book of those lec
tions feU, tells us, that for that reason, in his annota
tions on the New Testaraent, he used those lections
but sparingly and cautiously. And that Valesius
did meet with such a corrected raanuscript, appears
by the lections themselves. For in the Apocalypse
xviu. 17. where the Greek reads eV< toVoh ; and the
Latin translates in locum, and by the error of one
letter in lacum, as the books now have it; some
Grecian has here corrected this book by the Latin,
and written eV« Mi^vhii ; as it is in the lections of Vale
sius, taken out of this. Again in the Apocalypse ix.
11. where the Latin translation, in expounding the
names Abaddon et Apollyon, adds, Et Latine kahens
nomen exterminans ; Valesius notes the reading in
his Greek copy to be pai^a'i^i 'ex"'> owf* e^repi^navi ;
which certainly is a translation of the Latin. Again, in
the Apocalypse xxi. 12. where the Greek has ayyexm,
and sorae ancient Latin copies, angelos, but the
far greater part of the Latin copies at present have
angulos; Valesius, in his manuscript, reads yavUi.
So in the Apocalypse xix. 6. where the Greek is
i';KA4f 3-oAAou ; the Latin, turhce magna, and in the
later copies, tuba magna ; Valesius, in his manu
script, reads o-«A3-;yyo4 iAeya>\.r,i. In Hebrews xiii. 2.
for e^aSei, latucrunt ; and in later copies, placuerunt,
Valesius reads ij^eo-av ; and in 1 Peter iU. 8. for ri Se
te'Aos in Jine, and by an error injide, Valesius reads
l» Tjf a-iVsf (Te. These, and such like instances, put

286 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
the thing out of dispute. Now, though Valesius
found not the testimony of "the Three in Heaven"
in this raanuscript ; and Erasraus tells us, that he
never saw it in any Greek raanuscript ; and, by con
sequence, not in that corrected one which fell into
his hands ; yet h may have crept out of the Latin
into some other books, not yet taken notice of ; and
even in some raanuscripts, which, in otiier places,
have not been corrected by the Latin, it may
possibly have been inserted by some of the Greek
bishops of the Lateran council, wbere the testiraony
of " the Three in Heaven" was read. And there
fore he that shall hereafter raeet with it in any book,
ought first, before he insist upon the authority of that
book, to examine whether it has not been corrected
by the Latin; and whether it be ancienter than the
Lateran councU, and erapire of the Latins in Greece ;
for, if it be Uable to either of these two exceptions, it
can signify nothing to produce it.
XXXV. Having given you the history'of the con
troversy, I shaU now confirra aU that I have said frora
the sense of the text itself. For, without the testimony
of " the Three in Heaven," the sense is good and
easy, as you raay see by the foUowing paraphrase
inserted in the text in a diff'erent character.
" Who is HE THAT OVERCOMETH THE WOELD,
BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH THAT JESL S IS THE SON
OF GOD, that Son spoken of in the Psalras, where
lie saith, ' Thou art my Son ; this day have I begot-

two corruptions of scripture. 287
ten thee.' 'This is he that, after the Jews had
long expected him, came, first in a mortal body, bt
baptism of water, and then in an iramortal one by
shedding his blood upon the cross, and rising again
frora the dead ; not bt water onlt, but bt water
and blood ; being the Son of God, as weU by his
resurrection frora the dead. Acts xiu.- 33. as by his
supernatural birth of the Virgin, Luke i, 35. And it
is the Spirit also that, together with the water
and blood, beareth witness of the truth of his
coming ; because the spirit is truth ; and so a
fit and unexceptionable witness. For there are
Three that bear record of his coming ; the
Spirit, which he promised to send, and which was
shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and
in various gifts ; the baptism of water, wherein
God testified, ' This is ray beloved Son ; and the
shedding of his blood, accorapanied with his resur
rection, whereby he becarae the raost faithful martyr
or witness of this truth. And these Three, the
spirit, the baptisra, and passion of Christ, agree in
witnessing One and the same thing, namely, that the
Son of God is corae, and, therefore, their evidence
is strong ; for the law requires but two consenting
witnesses, and here we have three. And if we
RECEIVE the witness OP MEN, THE threefold WIT
NESS OP GOD, which he bare ofhis Son, by declar
ing at his baptisra, ' This is ray beloved Son ;' by
raising hira frora the dead, and by pouring out his

288 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
spirit on us, is greater ; and therefore ought to be
more readily received."
XXXVI. Thus is the sense plain and natural, and
the argument full and strong ; but, if you insert the
testimony of " the Three in heaven," you interrupt
and spoil it. For the whole design of the apostle
being here to prove to men by witness the truth of
Christ's coraing, I would ask how the testiraony of
" the Three in heaven" raakes to this purpose. If
tbeir testiraony be not given to raen, how does it
prove to thera the truth of Christ's coraing .'' If it
be, how is the testiraony in heaven distinguished
frora that on earth.'' It is the sarae spirit which
witnesses in heaven and in earth. If in both cases
it witnesses to us men, wherein lies the diff'erence
between its witnessing in heaven, and its witnessing
in earth .'' If, in the first case, it does not witness
to men, to whom doth it witness ? And to what
purpose ? And how does its witnessing make to the
design of St John's discourse ? Let thera make
good sense of it, who are able. For my part, I can
make none. If it be said that we ai-e not to deter
mine what is scripture, and what not, by our private
judgraents ; I confess it in places not controverted ;
but in disputable places, I love to take up with what
I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot
and superstitious part of mankind, in matters of reU
gion, ever to be fond of mysteries ; and for tiiat
reason, to Uke best what they understand least.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 289
Such men raay use the apostle John as they please ;
but I have that honour for hira, as to believe that he
wrote good sense ; and therefore take that sense to
be his, which is the best ; especially since I am de
fended in it by so great authority. For I have on
ray side the authority of the Fourth General Council,
and, so far as I know, of all the churches in aU
ages, except the modern Latin, and such others as
have lately been influenced by them ; and that also
of all the old versions, and Greek manuscripts, and
ancient Latin ones ; and nothing against me, but the
authority of Jerome, and the credulity and heat of
his followers.
For to teU us of other manuscripts, without ever
letting us know in what libraries they were to be
seen ; to pretend manuscripts, which, since their
first discovery, could never be heard of ; nor were
then seen by persons whose names and credit we
know ; is plainly to impose on the learned world,
and ought not to pass any longer for plain dealing..
The Spaniards tell us plainly that they followed the
Latin, and by the authority of Thomas left out the
clause, " And these Three are One," in the eighth
verse, as inserted by the Arians. And yet St Am
brose, St Austin, Eucherius, and other Latins, in the
Arian age, gathered the unity of the Deity frora
this clause ; and the omission of it is novv, by printing
it, acknowledged to be an erroneous correction.
The manu,script in England wanted the sarae clause.

290 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
and therefore, if there was any such MS, itwas a correct
ed one, like the Spanish edition, and the raanuscript
of Valesius. Erasmus, who printed the triple testi
mony in heaven by that English manuscript, never
saw it ; teUs us it was a new one ; suspected its
sincerity ; and accused it pubUcly in his writings on
several occasions, for several years together ; and
yet his adversaries in England never answered his
accusation ; never endeavoured to satisfy him and
the world about it ; did not so rauch as let us know,
where the record might be consulted for confuting
him ; but, on the contrary, when they had got the
Trinity into his edition, threw by their raanuscript,
if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And
can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men f
Let manuscripts at length be produced, and freely
exposed to the sight of the learned world ; but let
such raanuscripts be produced as are of authority ;
or else let it be confessed, that whilst Jerome pre
tended to correct the Latin by the Greek, the Latins
have corrected both the Latin and the Greek by the
sole authority of Jerome.

TVVO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 291

SECTION n.
On the Text concerning tke Mystery of Godliness
manifest in tke Flesh.
1. What the Latins have done to the foregoing,
the Greeks have done to that of St Paul, 1 Tiraothy
iii. 16. For by changing e into ©c, the abbrevia
tion of ©£"5, they now read, " Great is the mystery
of godUness; GOD manifested in the flesh." Where
as all the churches for the first four or five hundred
years, and the authors of all the ancient versions,
Jerome, as well as the rest, read, " Great is the
mystery of godUness, which was raanifested in the
flesh." For this is the common reading of the
Ethiopic, Syriac, and Latin versions to this day ;
Jerome's manuscripts having given him no occasion
to correct the old vulgar Latin in this place. Grotius
adds the Arabic, but the Egyptian Arabic version has
©£05 ; and so has the above mentioned Sclavonian
version of Cyrillus ; for these two versions were
made long after the sixth century, wherein the cor
ruption began. With the ancienter versions agree
the writers of the first five centuries, both Greeks
and Latins. For they, in all their discourses to
prove the Deity of the Son, never allege this text,
that I can find, as they would aU have done, and
some of thera frequently, had they read " God raan
ifested in the flesh;" and therefore they read o. Ter-
25*

292 SIB ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
tullian adversus Praxeam, and Cyprian adversus
Judceos, industriously cite all the places where Christ
is called God, but have nothing of this. Alexander
of Alexandria, Athanasius, the bishops of the council
of Sardica, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen,
Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostora, Cyril of Jerusalera,
Cyril of Alexandria, Cassian, also Hilary, Lucifer,
Jerorae, Arabrose, Austin, Phcebadius, Victorinus
Afer, Faustinus Diaconus, Pope Leo the Great,
Arnobius Junior, CereaUs, VigiUus Tapsensis, Ful
gentius, wrote aU of them in the fourth and fifth
centuries, for the deity of the Son, and incarnation
of God ; and some of them largely, and in several
tracts ; and yet I cannot find tbat they ever allege
this text to prove it, excepting that Gregory Nyssen
once urges it,* if the passage crept not into him out
of some marginal annotation. In aU the times ofthe
hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came
into play ; though now those disputes are over,
they that read " God manifested in the flesh," think
it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the
business. II. The churches, therefore, of those ages were
absolute strangers to this reading. For, on the
contrary, their writers, as often as they have any
occasion to cite the reading then in use, discover
that it was i'. For though they cite it not to prove
¦•Orat. xi. contra Eunom.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 29S
the deity of the Son, yet in their coraraentaries, and
sometimes in other discourses, they produce it. And
particularly Hilary, Ub. 2. de Trinitate, and Ara
brose, or whoever of his conteraporaries was the
author of the coraraentary on the Epistles, reads i' ;
and so doth St Austin in Genesin ad literam, Ub. 5 ;
and Beda in his coraraentary on this text, where he
cites the reading of St Austin, and the author of the
commentary on the Epistles, ascribed to Jerome.
So also do Primasius and Sedulius in their commen
taries on this text; and Victo.inus Afer, lib. 1.
adversus Arium ; and Idacius Clarus, or rather Vi
gilius Tapsensis, lib. 3. adversus Varimadum, cap.
12 ; and Fulgentius, c. 2. de Incarnatione ; and so
did Pope Leo the Great, epist. 20. ad Flavianum;
and Pope Gregory the Great, lib. 34. Moral, cap. 7.
These ancient Latins all cite the text after this man
ner, " Great is the raystery of Godliness, which was
raanifested in- the flesh;" as tiie Latin raanuscripts
of St Paul's Epistles generally have it to this day ;
and therefore it cannot be doubted, but that this hath
been the constant pubhc reading of the Latin church
es from the beginning. So also one of the Arians
in a homily, printed in Fulgentius's works, reads o,
and interprets it of tbe Son of God, who was borri
of the Father ante secula ; and of the Virgin, in
novissimo tempore. And Fulgentius, in his answer
to this homily, found no fault with the citation ; but on
the contrary, in his first book ad Trasimundum, cap.

294 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
6. seems to have read and understood the text after
the same raanner with other Latins.
III. Now, for the Greeks, I find indeed that they
have changed the ancient reading of the text, not
only in the raanuscripts of St Paul's Epistles, but
also in other authors ; and yet there are still reraain
ing sufiicient instances among them of what the
reading was at first. So in Chrysostom's coramen
tary on this epistle, they have now gotten ©£«« into
the text ; and yet by considering the commentary
itself, I ara satisfied that he read 'd. For he neither
in this commentary, nor any where else, infers the
deity of Christ from this text; nor expounds it, as
they do who read ©£«! : but with the Latins, who
read 'd, understands by it Christ incarnate ; or, as he
expresses it, "Man made God, and God made
Man ;" and so leaves it at liberty to be taken for
either God or man. And accordingly in one place
of his commentary he saith, 'Eipanpaeii iv o-apxi i Satanp-
yo'«. In another place ; "A»fie»nro5 af^S-j; «v«jM,«f tiito?,
avSpuTCOi ava}ai<p6ri: exrip'ox,67i ev Koo-fta, fciiP iit,ciiv eiSev avrei
oi 'ayysMi. Man appeared without sin ; Man was
received up ; Man was preached in the world ; was
seen amongst us hy angels. Instead of « e^ampdtn
tv irapx'i,UiKaia6ii h'7neijpi,aTi,Si,c.'iiescLith,Manappeared
without sin ; raaking Man the nominative case to these
and all the verbs which follow ; which certainly he
would not have done, had ©eos been their nominative
case expressly in the text. He might properly put mail

TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. 295
for 'j, but not for ©e«5. Neither could he have put
aiafiaprnToi for ehxaia^n^ if he had read in his text
©eos Ihxaialri. For what man of comraon sense would
say, that God was raade sinless in and through the
spii it .'' But what I have said of Chrysostora will be
more evident, when I shall have shown you how
afterwards, in the time of the Nestorian controversy,
all parties read i' or is, without any dispute raised about
the reading ; and how the Greeks have since cor
rupted the text in Cyril's writings, and changed 'o and
i's into ©"4, as they have done in Chrysostom's.
IV. And, first, that the Nestorians read 'd is evi
dent by some fragments of the orations or homiUes
of Nestorius, sent by him to the Pope, and cited by
Arnobius Junior, in the second book of his conflict
with Serapion. For there, in order to show what
was the opinion of Nestorius, and how be defended
it, he cites two of his orations in these words ; JVon
peperit sanctissima Maria Deitatem ; nam quod na-
tum est de came, caro est. JVon peperit creatura
Creatorem ; sed peperit hominem Deitatis ministrum.
JVon cedificavit Deum, Verbum, Spiritus Sanctus; quod
ex ipsa natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est. Deo ita
que virgo templum ex virgine adijicavit. Et paulo
post ; Qui per se natus est Deus in utero (scilicet ante
Ludphorum) Deus est. Et paulo post ; ©itroKH for/-
mam in Deo konoramus. Et in alia praedicatione ;
Spiritum divina separat natura, qui humanitatem ejus
eireavit. Quicquid ex Maria natum est, de Spiritu

296 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
Sancto est, qui et secundum justitiam replevit, quod
creatum est ; hoc quod manifestatum est in carne,jus-
tijicatum est in Spiritu. Which last words in the
language wherein Nestorius wrote those homilies,
are, e i<pavepai67i iv vapxi. iS'ixaidi'ii iv Triio/iari,
V. Here you see that Nestorius reads « expressly;
not only so, but absolutely excludes God from being
understood by it ; arguing, that the Virgin was not
^eerixei because that thing which was manifested in
the flesh, was justified in the spirit; or, as he ex
pounds it, replenished by the spirit in righteousness,
and caUing that thing which was manifested in the
flesh, a creature ; Spiritus, saith he, secundum justi
tiam replevit [hoc] quod creatum est; [nempe] koc
quod manifestatum est in came, justificatum est in
Spiritu. VI. And now, whilst he read the text after this
manner, and urged it thus against the deity of Christ,
one vvould suspect, that -if this had not been the re
ceived public reading in the Greek churches, his
adversaries would have fallen foul upon him, and
exclairaed against hira for falsifying the text, and
blasphemously saying it was a created thing, which
the Scripture calls " God manifested in the flesh."
And such an accusation as this would surely have
made as great a noise as any thing else in the con
troversy ; and yet I raeet with nothing of this kind
in history. His adversaries do not so much as tell
hira, that ©«o5 was in the text. They were so far

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTITRE. 297
frora raising any controversy about the reading, that
they do not in the least correct hira for it ; but
on the contrary they theraselves, in their answers to
his writings, read e, as he did ; and only laboured
by various disputations to put another sense upon the
text, as I find by Cassian and Cyril, the two princi
pal who at that tirae wrote against hira.
VII. John Cassian was Chrysostom's scholar,
and his deacon and legate to the Pope ; and after
the banishment of Chrysostom, retired from Con
stantinople into Syria and Egypt, where he lived a
monkish life for some time, and then ended his days
in France. At that time, therefore, when Nestorius,
who was patriarch of Constantinople, broached his
opinion, and Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria,
opposed him ; Nestorius sent a legacy to Rome with
copies of his orations, to let the Pope understand
the controversy ; and thereupon Leo the Great, who
was then archdeacon of the Church of Rome, and
afterwards Pope, put Cassian, then in France, upon
writing this book, De Incarnatione Domini, against
Nestorius. He wrote it therefore, in the year 430,
as Baronius also reckons. For he wrote it before
the condemnation of Nestorius in the council of Eph
esus, as appears by the book itself. This book is
now extant only in Latin ; but, considering that his
design in writing was to stir up the Greek church
against Nestorius, and that for the making great
impression upon them, he quotes Greek Fathers at

298 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
the end of his book, and concludes with an exhorta
tion to the citizens of Constantinople, telling them,
that what he wrote he had received from his
master Chrysostora ; I am satisfied that he wrote it
originaUy in Greek. His other books were in both
languages. For Photius saw them in eloquent
Greek ; and it is more likely that they had their
author's eloquent language from their author, and the
Latin frora one of the Latins where he lived ; than
that the contrary should he true. Now in this trea
tise,* when he coraes to consider the passage of Nes
torius about this text, of which we gave you an ac
count above out of Arnobius, he retums this answer
to it ; Jam primum enim koc quod ais, JVestori, quia
justitia repleverit, quod creatum est ; et koc apostolica
vis testimonio comprabare, quad dicat, apparuit in
came ; justificatus est in Spiritu ; utrumque falso
sensu et furioso Spiritu loqeris. Quia et koc, quod
a Spiritu vis eum repletum esse justitia, ideo ponis,
ut ostendas ejus vacuitatem, cui prastitam esse asseras
justitia adimpletionem. Et koc, quod super kac re
apostolica testimonio uteris, divini testimonii ordinem
rationemque furaris. JVon enim ita ah apostolo posi
tum est, ut tu id truncatum vitiatumque posuisti.
Quid enim apostolus ait 9 Et raanifeste magnum
est pietatis sacraraentura, quod raanifestatura est in
came, justificatum est in Spiritu. Vides ergo, quod
mysterium pietatis, vel sacramentum justificatum apos-
* Libro septimo, cap. 18.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 299
talus preedicavit. Thus far Cassian is not only read
ing 't, but confuting Nestorius by tbat reading. For
whereas Nestorius said it was a creature which was
justified, Cassian teUs him, that if he bad read tbe
whole text, be would have found tbat it was - tbe
mystery of godliness." Vides ergo, saith he, quod
mysterium pietatis justificatum apostolus prcedicavit.
He does not say, Deum justificatum apostolus pradi-
cavit (as he certainly would have done, bad that
been in bis Bible,) but mysterium; and so makes
mysterium, or, whicb is aU one, its relative quod,
the nominative case to tbe verbs which foUow. In
another part of this treatise, lib. 5. cap. 12. Cassian
cites and interprets the text as foUows ; Et manifes
te magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifes
tatum est in came, fyc. Quod ergo magnum est
illud sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in came ?
De'us scilicet natus in came, Deus risus in corpore,
qui utique sicut palam est manifestatus in carne,
ita palam est assumptus in gloria. So you see
Nestorius and Cassian agree in reading 'd, but dif
fer in interpreting it ; the one restraining it to a
creature, by reason of its being justified ; the other
restraining it to God, by reason of its being a great
mystery, and assumed in glory.
"VTII. In like manner Cyril, the grand adversa
ry of Nestorius, in bis three books De Fide ad Im
peratorem et Reginas, written against bim in tiie
beginning of tbat controversy, did not reprehend
26

300 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
him, as if he had cited the text falsely, but only
complained of his misinterpreting it; telling him,
that he did not understand the great mystery of
godUness, and that it was not a created thing, as he
thought, but the Word or Son of God ; and arguing
for this interpretation frora the circumstances of the
text. And, first, in bis book De Fide ad Imperato
rem, sect. 7. he has this passage ; nA«v«e-tf£, fii, eiSirei
ross ypa<pai- fi^re ptei to fi.iya t^s eitre^eiai /iv^piei, rhre-
i-i Kpirev, Oi ipaispa67i li a-apxi, ehxaiaSti ei Trve-jftxTi, &c.
Ye err, saith he, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the
great mystery of godliness, that is Christ ; who was
manifested in the flesk, justified in tke spirit. By
this citation it is plain that he read di, using one of
these MSS which, by understanding X/xs-ov for fivi-ijptti,
turned « into i's; and, by way of interpretation, insert
ing tsteVi Xpirii, which in those MSS was to be
understood ; unless you will say that he turns ©"«
in ei, which is very hard. For had ©eos been in this
text, he would not have said /iv^ipiti, rarUi Xpirii, 'di
e^aiepalti ; but /ivriipioi, ©£«4, tstss-i X^/r«s e^ate^aSr, put
ting X/)(s-o5, not for li.vrifiei, but for ©eos. Fpr x^;s-os, and
©£«5 are more plainly equipollent than Xf iris and i^-vripiei.
And making Xpnei and ff^pioi equipollent, he raakes
fivrii'ti the norainative case to if>aiepd6ii ; and therefore
read them joined in this text by the article o. Had he
read ©eos, he would never have left out that authen
tic and demonstrative word, and by vvay of interpre
tation for nvripiot ©eoj, vvritten x^/s-o» i's. For tiiis

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 301
was not to argue against Nestorius, but to spoil the
argument which lay before hira. Neither v/ould he
have gone on, as he does, witiiin a few lines, to
recite the sarae text, putting Ao'y«5 by way of inter
pretation for ft,v?->!^iev • and after to propound it as
his bare opinion, that the Word or the Son of God
was here to be understood by this mystery, and to
dispute for this his opinion, as needing proof out of
other texts of scripture, as he does after this man
ner ;* Moreover, saith he, in my opinion, that mys
tery of godliness is nothing else than he who came to
us from God tke Father ; the Word, who ivas
manifested in theflesh. For in taking the form of a
servant, he was horn of the holy God-hearing Virgin,
&fc. And then after many other things he at length
in sect. 23 and 24, concludes, that " this divine mys
tery is above our understanding ; and that the only-
begotten, who is God, and, according to the Scrip
tures, the Lord of all things, appeared to us, was
seen on earth, and became a man." This he raakes
not the text itself, but the interpretation thereof ; and
from the preceding disputation, concludes it to be
genuine, IX. Again, in the first of his two treatises, De
Fide ad Reginas, near the end, he cites the text,
and argues thus against the interpretation of Nesto-
* "Ef57 ya^ av ov^ sTfigov otftoii. rt ro r^s ivifiZiiets fivifr^ptov, w aiirog
vtfuv 0 iji &eav var^og \oyoi, os Ifavt^uS-n Iv ffa^Kt. Viyivnrixt ya^ h&
rtis ayias Tra^Szvoo ku) ^eoroxov, fio^^v SovXov \a^uv. CyrH. de Fide
ad Imperatorem, Sect, 8.

302
rius. " Who is he," saith he, " that is manifested
in the flesh ? Is it not fully evident, that it is no
other than the Word of God the Father ? For so
will that be a great mystery of godliness (which
was* manifested in the flesh) ; he was seen of an
gels, ascending into heaven ; he was preached to
the Gentiles by the holy Apostles ; he was beUeved
on in the world ; but this not as a mere man ; but
as God born in the flesh, and after om- manner."
X. So also in his second book, De Fide ad Regi-
!ias,f he cites the place again ; and then argues
upon it against the opinion of Nestorius after this
manner ; " If the word, being God, is said to become
a man, and yet continue what he was before, without
losing his deity, the mystery of godUness is without
doubt a very great one ; but if Christ be a mere
man, joined with God only in the parity of dignity
and power, (for this is raantained by sorae unlearned
men,) how is he raanifested in the flesh ? Is it not
plain, that every man is in the flesh, and cannot
otherwise be seen by any body ; how then was he
said to be seen of the holy angels .'' For do they
not also see us .'' What was there therefore new or
extraordinary in Christ, if the angels saw hira such
a man as we are, and nothing raore, &tc." Thus
Cyril goes on to give his reasons why that which
was raanifested in the flesh, was not a mere created
* Codex Grsecus hoc loco jam legit 0C pro os sensu perturbato,
i Section 33.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 303
man, as Nestorious interpreted, but the eternal
Word, or Son of God ; all which would have
been very superfluous and irapertinent, if God had
then been expressly in the text.
XI. Seeing therefore Nestorius alleged the text
to prove, that it was a created thing which was raan
ifested in the flesh ; and CyrU, in confuting him, did
not answer that it was God expressly in the text, nor
raise any debate about the reading, but only put
another interpretation upon the text than Nestorius
had done ; arguing with Cassian, that in the text it
was not a mere raan, as Nestorius contended, but a
great mystery of godUness ; and by consequence
Christ, or God the Son, which was manifested in
the flesh ; and labouring by divers other arguraents
to prove this interpretation, it is evident beyond all
cavil, that Cyril was a stranger to ©eos, now got into
the text ; and read i's or e, as Nestorius andCassian did.
XII. And all this is further confirmed by Photius,
who, in his coraraentary on the Episties not yet
published, relates that Cyril, in the 12th chapter of
his Scholiuras, read i's etpaiepaSn, Jic. and consonant
to this reading is CyrU's coramentary upon the text
in his explanation of the second of the twelve
Anathematisms, where he puts the question. Quid
est igitur quod dicit, Apparuit in carne ? And ex
plains it by saying, Hoc est, Dei patris verbum caro
factum est, and concludes, that it is hence that we caU
him God and Man. Whereas had ©eo? been in the
26*

'304 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
text, it would have needed no interpretation ; nor
would he have put A/yos for ©eos, in order to prove
that God was raanifested in the flesh. And yet in his
books ad Reginas, and in other writings, wherever he
quotes this text, the Greeks have since corrected it by
their corrected raanuscripts of St Paul's Epistles, and
written ©eos instead of d ; whence, if you would truly
understand the Nestorian history, you must read «
or 0^ for ©eo? in all CyrU's citations of tbis text.
XIII. Now, whilst Cyril read ;' or i's, and hi the
explanation of the twelve chapters, or articles, quot
ed this text in the second article ; and this explana
tion was recited by him in the council of Ephesus,
and approved by the council,* with an anathema at
the end of every article ; it is manifest tbat this
council allowed the reading i's or d ; and by conse
quence that i's or d was the authentic and public uncon
troverted reading till after the tiraes of this council.
For if Nestorius and Cyril, the patriarchs of Con
stantinople and Alexandria, and the heads of the two
parties in this controversy, read i's or i ; and their
writings went about amongst the eastern churches, and
were canvassed by the bishops and clergy without any
dispute raised about tiie reading ; and if CyrU read
i's by the approbation of the council itself; I think
that the conclusion we make of its being then
the general uncontroverted reading, raust needs
be granted us. And if the authority of one of the,
* Concil. Ephes. par. iii. sub initio.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. 303
first four general councils raake any thing for the
truth of the reading, we have that into the bargain.
XIV. Yet whilst the Nestorian controversy
brought the text iuto play, and the two parties ran
the interpretation into extreraes, the one disputing
that d or i's was a creature ; the other that it was
the Word of God ; the prevalence of the latter party
made it pass for the orthodox opinion, that d or i's
was God ; and so gave occasion to the Greeks
henceforward to change the language of Christ into
that of God; and say, in their expositions of the
text, that God was raanifested in the flesh, as I find
Thodoret doth, and at length to write God in the
text itself; the easy change of O or Oc into ©c,
inviting thera to do it ; and, if this was becorae the
orthodox authentic reading, to set right the text in
Chrysostom, CyrU, Theodoret, and wherever else
they found it, in their opinion, corrupted by heretics.
XV. And the man that first began thus to alter
the sacred text, was Macedonius, the patriarch of
Constantinople, in the beginning of the sixth century.
For the Eraperor Anastasius banished hira for cor
rupting it. At that tirae, the Greek church had been
long divided about the council of Chalcedon. Many
who allowed the conderanation of Eutyches, reject
ed the council ; by reason of its decreeing, by the
influence of the bishop of Rorae's letter against Eu
tyches, that Christ subsisted not only ex duabus na
turis, which Eutyches allowed, but also in duabus

306 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTOKT OP
naturis ; which language was new to the Greeks,
and by a great part of that church taken for Nestori
anism. For they understood, that as the body and
soul made the nature of man, so God and man made
the nature of Christ ; assigning the nature to the
person of Christ, as well as to all other things, and
not considering that in all compounds the several
parts have also their several natures. Hence each
party endeavoured to render the other suspected of
heresy ; as if they that were for tbe council secretly
favoured the Nestorians, and they that were against
it, the Eutychians. For one party, in raaintaining
two distinct natures in Christ, were thought to deny
the nature of one person with Nestorius ; and the
other party, in opposing two distinct natures in him,
were thought to deny the truth of one of the natures
with Eutyches. Both parties, therefore, to clear
theraselves of those iraputations, anathematised both
those heresies ; and therefore whilst they thus difi'er
ed in tiieir raodes of speaking, they agreed in tbeir
sense, as Evagrius well observes. But the bishops
of Rorae and Alexandria being engaged against one
another, and for a long tirae disti-acting the East
by these disputes ; at length the Emperor Zeno,
to quiet his empire, and perhaps to secure it
frora the encroachment of the bishop of Rome,
who, by tills verbal contest,* aspired to the name
and authority of universal bishop, sent about an
"Vide Baronium, anno 451; sect. 149, 150, 151.

TWO fcORRITP-riONS OF SCRIPTURE. 307
henoticum, or pacificatory decree ; wherein he an-
thematised both Nestorius and Eutyches with their
followers on the one hand, and abrogated the Pope's
letter and the council on the other ; and his succes
sor, Anastasius, for the sarae end, laboured to have
this decree signed by aU the bishops. And Mace
donius at first subscribed it ; but afterwards heading
those who stood up for the council,* was, for corrupt
ing the Scriptures in favour of his opinion, and such
other things as were laid to his charge, deposed and
banished, ann. C. 512. f But his own party, which
at length prevaUed, defended him, as if oppressed
by calumnies ; and so received that reading for gen
uine, which he had put about among them. For how
ready are all parties to receive what they reckon on
their side, Jerome weU knew, when he recoraraended
tbe testimony of " the Three in Heaven" by its
usefulness ; and we have a notable instance of it in
the last age, when the churches, both eastern and wes
tern, received this testimony in a moraent into their
Greek testaments, and stiU continue with great zeal
and passion to defend it for the ancient reading,
against the authority of aU the Greek manuscripts.
XVI. But now I have told you the original of the
'•'Evagrius, lib. iii. cap. xxi. 44. — Theodorus Lector, lib. ii. and
Marcellini Chronicon.
t Flavian was banished io the year of Antioch 561, as Eva
grius notes ; and Macedonius was banished tbe same year, or the
year before.

308 SIB ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
corruption, I must tell you my author; and he is
Liberatus, archdeacon of the church of Carthage,
who lived in that very age. For in his Breviary,
which he wrote in the year 535, or soon after, and
collected, as . he saith in his preface, out of Greek
records, he delivers it in these words ;* Hac tempore
Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus ah impe-
ratore Anastasia dicitur expulsus, tanquam evangelia
falsaret ; et maxime illud apostoli dictum. Quia ap
paruit in carne, justificatum in spiritu. Hunc enim
mutasse, ubi habet qui  hoc est  monasyllabum
Grcecum, litera mutatd in  vertisse et fecisse  id
est, ut esset Deus, apparuit per carnem. Tanquam
JVestorianus ergo culpatus expellitur per severum
Monackum.^ The Greek letters here omitted
are, in the second edition of Sunius, and in those of
the councils, thus inserted ; Ubi kahet ei, hoc est qui,
monasyllabum Grcecum, litera mutatd o {n a, vertisse
et fecisse ai ; id est, ut esset, Deus apparuit per car
nem. But this interpolation was surely made by
conjecture ; for if ©eos was in the sacred text before
the corruption, then i's or d was not in, and so could
not be changed into ai ; but if ©"s was not in, it could
not be brought in by this change. The interpola
tion therefore is inconsistent and spurious, and seems
to have been occasioned by straining to make out
Nestorianism here ; the scribes for that end,| refer-
* Liberati Brev. cap. xix. t Vide Baronii Annal. 510. sect. 9.
i N. B. In Hincmari opusc. xxxiii. cap. 22. tbe words ut esset

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 309
ring the words ut esset to the sacred text ; and then
the interpolator writing «s for ut. Whereas they
should have referred ut esset to the words of Libera
tus, thus distinguished from the sacred text; Id est^
ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem. I had rather,
therefore, wave the conjecture of this interpolator,
and fill up the lacuna by the authority of an ancient
author, Hincraarus ; who above eight hundred years
ago* related the fact out of Liberatus after this
manner ; Quidarri-jpsas Scripturas verbis illicitis im-
posturaverunt ; simt Macedonius Constantinopolita
nus episcopus, qui ah Anastasia Imperatare, ideo a
civitate expulsus legitur, quoniam falsavit evangelia;
et ilium apostoli locum, quod apparuit in carne, jus
tificatum est in spiritu ; per cognationem Grcecarum
literarum O et & koc modo mutando falsavit. Ubi enim
habuit, qui, hoc est oc, monasyllabum Gracum, litera
mutatd o in ©, mutavit, et fecit ©c, id est, ut esset,
Deus apparuit per carnem; quapropter tanquam JVes
torianus fuit expulsus. He was banished therefore
for changing the ancient reading (which in sorae
MSS was oc, as these authors have it, and in others
o) into ©c. But whereas he is here represented
are in like manner referred to the sacred text ; and somebody, to
raake out the sense, has in their stead added ut appareret to the
words of Liberatus, and written ut appareret, ut essel Deus, &c.
But the words ut appareret not being in Liberatus, must be struck
out, and supplied by setting the comma after ut esset, to part these
words from the sacred text.
* Hincmari opuscul. artic, xxxiii. cap. 18.

310 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OP
a Nestorian^ for doing this, the meaning is, that he
was banished for corrupting the text in favour of the
doctrine of two natures in Christ ; which his enemies
accounted Nestorianism, though it was not really so.
Nestorius held only a human nature in Christ ; and
that God, the Ward, dwelt in this nature, as the
spirit in a holy man ; and therefore interpreted d of
the human nature. This doctrine Macedonius
antheraatised, and raaintained two natures in Christ ;
and, for proving this, corrupted, the text, and raade
it God manifested in ihe flesh. This distinguishing
Christ into two natures was, by the enemies of Ma
cedonius, accounted Nestorianism in another lan
guage ; and in this respect the historian saith, that
they banished him as a Nestorian for corruptuig
the text, though he was not really of that opinion.
XVII. But whilst he is said to be banished as a
Nestorian for this, without explaining what is here
meant by a Nestorian, it looks like a trickish way of
speaking, used by his friends to ridicule the proceed
ings against him as inconsistent ; perhaps to invert
the crirae of falsation ; as if a Nestorian would
radier change ©c into o. For they that read histo
ry vvith judgraent, wiU too often raeet witii such
trickish reports ; and even in the very story of
Macedonius, I meet with some other reports of tiie
same kind. For Macedonius having in his keeping
the original acts of the council of Chalcedon, signed
by tbat emperor under whom it was caUed, and

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 311
refusing to deliver up tiiis book to the emperor
Anastasius ; some, to make this eraperor perjured,
distorted tiie story ; as if, at his coramg to the crown,
he had promised under bis hand and oatii, that he
would not act against the councU of Chalcedon;
and represented bis subscribed promise to be the
book, which Macedonius refused to deUver back to
hira. Macedonius had got his bishopric by being
against the council of Chalcedon, and had subscribed
the henoticum* of Zeno, in which tbat councU was
anathematised ; and this being objected against him,
bis friends, to stifle the accusation, raake a contrary
story of the eraperor ; as if, when he came to the
crown, he had done as much as that m behalf of tbe
council. Another report was,f " That the people
of Alexandria and all Egypt, great and smaU, bond
and free, priests and monks, excepting only stransers.
became about this tirae possessed with evU spirits,
and being deprived of huraan speech, barked day
and night Uke dogs ; so that they were afterwards
'bound with iron chains, and drawn to the church,
that they might recover their health. For they aU
ate their hands and arras. And then an angel
appeared to sorae of the people, saying, tbat this
happened to thera because they anathematised the
council of Chalcedon, and threatened, tbat tbey
should do so no more." Again, we are told in his-
? Vide Annotationes Valesii in Evagr. &c. lib. iii. cap. 31.
t Victor Tununensis in Chronico.
27

312 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
tory,* " That the adversaries of Macedonius pro
duced certain boys in judgraent to accuse both him
and themselves of sodomy; but that when they
found that his genitals were cut off', they betook them
selves to other arts for deposing him." Now if you
can beUeve that a eunuch had the beard and voice of
another man ; and that in a solemn council the great
patriarch of the East was thus accused and thus
acquitted, and yet deposed ; you must acknowledge,
that there were many bishops among the Greeks
who would not stick at as ill and shameless things,
as corrupting the Scriptures. But if all this be a
a sham invented to discredit the council, the need of
such shams, adds credit to their proceedings in con
deraning him for a falsary.
XVIII. This councU, if I mistake not, sat first at
Constantinople, being that council which Theodorus
calls " a company of mercenary wretches ;" and
Nicephorus, " a convention of heretics, assembled
against Macedonius." Upon their adding to thef
" thrice holy" these words, " who art crucified for us"
the people fell into a turault ; and afterwards, when
Macedonius carae to be accused, they feU into a
greater tumult, crying out, " The time of persecu
tion is at hand ; let no raan desert the father;" raean
ing Macedonius. In this tumult, which was said
• Evagrius, lib. iii. cap. 32.
t Theodor. lib. ii, — Nicephor. lib. xvi. cap. 26 — Evagr. lib. iii.
cap. 44.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 313
to be Stirred up by the clergy of Constantinople,
many parts of the city were burnt, and the nobles
and eraperor brought into the greatest danger ; in
sorauch that the emperor was forced to proffer the
resignation of his empire, before he could quiet the
raultitude. Then seeing that, if Macedonius were
judged, the people would defend him, he caused him
to be carried by force in the night to Chalcedon ;
and thence into banishment, as Theodorus writes.
Whence I gather, that the council reraoved also to
Chalcedon to avoid the turault, and finish their pro
ceedings there. For the story of his being accused
in judgment by boys, Nicephorus places after this
turault ; and all agree that he was conderaned ; and
the raonks of Palestine, in an epistle recorded by
Evagrius, say that Xenaias and Dioscorus, joined
with raany. bishops, banished him. When his con
demnation was sent him, signed by the emperor, he
asked, whether they that had condemned him, re
ceived the council of Chalcedon; and when tbey
that brought him the sentence denied it, he repUed,
" If Arians and Macedonians had sent me a book of
condemnation, could I receive it ?" So that it seems
he stood upon the illegality of the council. The
next day one Timothy was raade bishop of Constan
tinople, and he sent about the coHdemnation of
Macedonius to all the absent bishops to be subscrib
ed.* Whence I think it wiU easily be granted, tbat he
* Theophanes, p. 135.

314 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
was condemned as a falsary by the greatest part of
the eastern empire ; and by consequence, that the
genuine reading was tiU then, by the churches of tbat
empire, accoiinted d. For had not the pubUc reading
then been i', there could have been no colour for
pretending that he changed it into ®c.
XIX. About six years after, Anastasius died, and
his successors, Justin and Justinian, set up the author
ity of the councU of Chalcedon again, together with
that of the Pope over the eastern churches, as uni
versal bishop ; and frora that tirae the friends of
Macedonius prevailing, it is probable, that in opposi
tion to the heretics, which condemned him, and for
promoting and estabUshing the doctrine of two natures
in Christ, they received and spread abroad the
reading ©c. But as for the authority of the Pope,
that feU again with Rome in the Gothic wars, and
slept tiU Phocas revived it.
XX. I told you of several shams put about by the
friends of Macedonius, to discredit the proceedings
of the council against him. There is one which
notably confirms vvhat has hitherto been said, and
raakes it plain that his friends received his corrup
tions as genuine scripture. For whereas Macedonius
was banished for corrupting the New Testament, his
friends retorted the crime upon the council, as if they had
taken upon them, under colour of purging the Scrip
tures from the corruptions of Macedonius, to correct
in thera whatever they thought the Apostles, as un-

two corruptions OP SCRIPTURE. 315
skUful men and idiots, had written amiss. For this
I gather from an ironical report of this kind put
about in the West, and thus recorded by Victor
Tununensis. Messald V. C. consulihus, Constanti-
nopoli, jubente Anastasia Imperatare, sancta Evange
lia, tanquam ah idiotis composita, reprekenduntur et
emandantur ; that is, " In the consulship of Messala,
the holy Gospels, by the coraraand of the eraperor
Anastasius, were censured and corrected at Constan
tinople ; as if written by EvangeUsts that were idiots.''
Here Victor errs in the year. For Messala was
consul anno Christi 506, that is, six years before the
banishraent of Macedonius. But Victor is very-
uncertain in dates of the years; for he places
the banishraent of Macedonius in the consulship of
Avienus 502 ; and the aboveraentioned tumult
about the Trisagium in the consulship of Probus,
anno Christi 513 ; whereas all these things hap
pened in the sarae year. For it is plain by this
chronicle, that the Scriptures were exarained and
corrected about this tirae by a council at Constanti
nople, by the order of Anastasius ; and I meet with
no other council to which this character can agree,
besides that whicb deposed Macedonius. Now that
they should censure and correct the Gospels, as if
written by idiots, is too plainly ironical to be true
history ; and therefore it must be an abusive report,
invented and put about to ridicule and sharae the
council, and to propagate the corruptions of Mace-
27*

316 SIR ISAAC newton's HISTORT OF
«
donius as the genuine apostolic reading of the Scrip
tures, which the councU had rashly corrected.
XXI. So then the falsation was set on foot in
the beginning of the fiftb century, and is now of
about twelve hundred years standing ; and therefore
since it lay but in a letter, and so was more easily
spread abroad in the Greek manuscripts than the
testimony of " the Three in Heaven" in the Latin
ones ; we need not wonder if the old reading be
scarce to be raet with in any Greek raanuscripts
now extant ; and yet it is in some.
XXII. For though Beza teUs us, that all the
Greek manuscripts read ©eos ; yet I must teU Beza's
readers, that all his manuscripts read i'. For he had
no other manuscripts of the Epistles besides the
Claromontan ; and in this manuscript, as Morinus
by ocular inspection has since informed us, the
ancient reading was i';* but yet in another hand,
and with other ink, the letter © has been written
out of the line ; and the letter o, thickenedf to raake
* AliS manu et atramento, extra lineaB seriem , addita est litera
0, et ambesa paululum 0, ut appareret sigma. Sed praepostera
emendatio facile conspicitur. Hmc Morinus in Exercitationibus
Biblicis, Lib. i. Exerdtat. ii. cap. 4. — At Beza nobis aliqua invidit,
ut ex ejus epistolS ad Academiam Caiitabrigiensem a VValtono
editfi liquet ; ubi variantes aliquas lectiones ctlandas esse admonet.
fj^" Thickened." Sucb is the reading in the defective edition
of 1754, as well as in the late edition of the entire essay from
which the present is reprinted ; but tbe sense of the passage im
plies, what is expressed by " ambesa paululum" in the preceding
note, a partial erasement of the letter O. En.]

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. 317
a C, appears ; which instance shows sufficiently by
whora the ancient reading has been changed. Va
lesius also read d in one oftbe Spanish raanuscripts;
and so did the author of the Oxford edition of the
New Testaraent, anno Christi 1675, in the raanu
script of Lincoln College Library, which is the
oldest of the Oxford raanuscripts. The Alexandrian
MS* and one of Colbert's, and Cyril, c. 12. Scholi-
orum, (teste Photio MS cora. in Epist.) read Oc.
So then there are sorae ancient Greek raanuscripts
which read i', and others i's ; but I do not hear of
any Latin ones, either ancient or raodern, wbich
read ©eo'j.
XXIU. And besides to read ©eos raakes the sense
obscure and difficult. For how can it properly be
said, " that God was justified in the spirit .'"' But
* Alio atramento jam ducta cernitur tam lineola per medium
litene 0, quam virgiila superna ; ut jam legatur 0C. Putat au
tem Millius, lineolas illas olim tenues fuisse et prope evanidas, et
novo dein atramento incrassatas fuisse ; eo quod perlustrato atten-
tiusloco, Uneolae per medium 0 ductae, quae primam aciem fuge-
rat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendere visus es.
set ; praisertim ad partem sinistram, quae peripheriam literae per-
tingit ; luculentiora multo habiturus nisi obstante liturSi quam dixit
hodierna lineolae ipsi superinduct^. Verum si lineola antiquitus
tam conspicua esset, ut usque nunc per medium lineae crassioris,
alio atramento superinductae, cerni possit ; quid opus esset, ut a
lineiL ilid superinductd incrassaretur. Sin olim tam evanida esset,
ut cerni vix posset; mirum est, quod ejus ductus et vestigia satis
certa, per medium literae illius superinductae, etiamnum appareant.
Doceant verba evanida aliis in locis atramento novo iDcrassata
fuisse, vel fateantur 00 hie mutatum in 00.

318 SIR ISAAC Newton's history op
to read d, and interpret it of Christ, as the ancient
Christians did, without restraining it to his divinity,
makes the sense very easy. For the proraised and
long expected Messias, the hope of Israel, is to us
" the great mystery of godliness." And this mystery
was at length manifested to the Jews from the time
of his baptisra, and justified to be the person whom
they expected.
XXIV. I have now given you an account of the
corruption of the text, the sura of which is this ; the
diff'erence between the Greek and the ancient ver
sions puts it past dispute, that either the Greeks
have corrupted their MSS, or the Latins, Syrians,
and Ethiopians, their versions ; and it is raore reason
able to lay the fault upon the Greeks than upon the
other three, for these considerations. It was easier
for one nation to do it than for three to conspire.
It was easier to change a letter or tvvo in tbe Greek,
than six words in tbe Latin. In the Greek, the
sense is obscure ; in the versions, clear. It was
agreeable to the interest of the Greeks, to raake tbe
change, but against the interest of other nations
to do it ; and men are never false to their interest.
The Greek reading was unknown in the times of the
Arian controversy ; but that of the versions then in
use amongst both Greeks and Latins. Some Greek
MSS render the Greek reading dubious; but tiiose
of the versions hitherto collated agree. There are
no signs of corruption in the versions, hitherto dis-

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

319

covered ; but in the Greek vve have shewed you
particularly when, on what occasion, and by whom,
the text was corrupted.
XXV. I know not whether it be worth the whUe
to tell you, that in the printed works of Athanasius,
there is an epistle De incarnatione verbi, which
reads ©eo's. For this epistle relates to the Nestorian
heresy, and so was written by a rauch later author
than Athanasius, and raay also possibly have been
since corrected, like the works of Chrysostora and
Cyril, by the corrected texts of St John's Episties.
I have had so short a time to run my eye over au
thors, that I cannot tell whether, upon further search,
more passages about this falsation may not hereafter
occur pertinent to the argument. But if there
should, I presume it wiU not be difficult, now the
falsation is thus far l^id open, to know what construc
tion to put upon them, and how to apply thera.
XXVI. You see what freedora I have used in this
discourse, and I hope you wiU interpret it candidly.
For if the ancient churches, in debating and deciding
the greatest mysteries of reUgion, knew nothing of
these two texts, I understand not, why we should be
so fond of them now the debates are over. And
whUst it is the character of an honest man to be
pleased, and of a raan of interest to be troubled at
the detection of frauds, and of both to run raost into
those passions when the detection is made plainest ;

320 TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
I hope this letter wiU, to one of your integrity, profe
so much the more acceptable, as it makes a further
discovery than you have hitherto met with in com
mentators.

BUTLER'S

HISTORICAL OUTLINE.

HISTORICAL OUTLINE
OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE TEXT
OP THE
THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES.
BY CHARLES BUTLER OF LINCOLN'S INN.

[The following coraparative view of the arguments,
which have been advanced on both sides in discuss
ing the genuineness of 1 John, v. 7. is taken frora
the Appendix to Butier's HorcB Biblicce. As coraing
from a Roman Catholic and a Trinitarian, this article
must be supposed to be free frora any bias on the
part of the writer against the genuineness of the
text. He seems, indeed, to have reviewed the sub
ject with great irapartiaUty, and to have given as
accurate an outline of the controversy through the
several stages of its progress, as the Umhs he pres
cribed to himself would admit. If in some instances
he is too brief for perspicuity, he has on the whole
contrived to embrace the most important points of
the discussion within a smaUer corapass than any
other writer.]
The genuineness ofthe verse ofthe Three Heav
enly Witnesses, or 1 John v. 7. has engaged rauch of
28

324 butler's HISTORICAL OUTLINE.
the attention of the learned during the three last
centuries ; so that, as Mr. Herbert Marsh observes,
" there is hardly a library in aU Europe, from the
Vatican to the Bodleian, from Madrid to Moscow, in
which the manuscripts of the Greek Testament have
not been examined, in order to determine, whether
it really proceeded from the pen of St John ;" and,
as Mr Travis observes, " there are few subjects, in
the walks of philology or criticism, in whicb, one
simple question, as it appears on a distant view, ex
pands itself, on a nearer approach, into so many
compUcated branches, and covers so large a field of
historical and theological criticism."
The following sheets may be found to contain,
I. Some account of the state of the question ; II. Of
the history of the general admission of The Verse in
to the printed text ; III. And of the principal dis
putes to which it has given rise ; IV. An inquiry
whether the general sense of the text is aff'ected by
the omission of The Verse ; V. Some account of
the argument in favour of its autiienticity from pre
scription ; VI. Some account of the arguments
against it from its absence from the Greek manu
scripts ; VII. Of the answers to those arguments,
frora its supposed existence in tiie manuscripts of
VaUa ; VIII. From its supposed existence in the
manuscripts of the Complutensian editors ; IX. And
from its supposed existence in the manuscripts used
by Robert Stephens ; X. Some observations on the

butler's HISTORICAL OUTLINE. 325
argument arising on its not being inserted in the
Apostolos or CoUection of Episties read in the Greek
Church ; XI. On its not being inserted in the orien
tal versions ; XII. On its not being inserted in the
most ancient Latin manuscripts ; XIII. On the si
lence of all the Greek Fathers respecting it ; XIV.
On the silence of the most ancient of the Latin Fath
ers respecting it ; XV. Some account will then
be given of what has been written respecting its
first introduction into the Greek and Latin manu
scripts. There are many other iraportant topics for and
against the authenticity of The Verse ; and several
of those which have been raentioned, lead to facts
and subjects vvhich are not noticed in these sheets ; —
but, what is noticed, wiU, perhaps, be found sufficient
to shew the general turn and bearings of the contro
versy. I. Tjhe st.\te of the question is as follows : —
In the Textus Receptus, or received Greek text of
the 1st Epistie of St John, the 7th and Sth verses of
ths fifth chapter are expressed in these words :
Seventh Verse.
"Or; rpeTi (i-rii ei fiaprvpovirei ii t^ ovpa\S, e Ttaiiip, i
X'oyti, x«/ Ti ayiei Tris'Siia' xai eirei ei tpeli ei eiirii.
Eighth Verse.
Kai Tf i'i £<V/v ei pLa^rv^tvirei t» tJ yJ, i't Tievfta, xai 10
hios, r.ai to a'.u.a- k«( ti Tp:7i iii rs 'ei ciirit.

326 butler's historical outline.
In the vulgate, the verses are thus translated :
7th.
Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in ccelo ;
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum
sunt. Sth.
Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra ; spiri
tus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres in unum sunt.
The question is, whether the whole of the 7th
verse, — or, to speak with greater accuracy, whether
the words, ii riea^xvi, e TTariip, o Xoyoi, xai re ayiev Trievftx'
XXI ooTti ti rpeTi 'ei uni^ in the 7th verse, and the words,
xai rpeii eirii ei fiaprvptZiref l» ry yy, in the 8th verse, are
genuine or spurious. If the passage in question be
genuine, the text stands properly, as it is now ex
pressed : if it be spurious, it should stand ; "Or/ rpeTi
ei-ii ei fixpTvpouirei, rt ^rieZfi,*, xxi re aSup, xai re aifiet"
»«i ei T^eTi eii t'o 'ei eirii, in the Greek ; — and in the
Latin, " (iuoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant ;
spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres in unum sunt."
II. With respect to the history of the general
ADMISSION of the VERSE INTO THE PRINTED TEXT :
1. The first event, which deserves attention, is the
insertion of it in the Latin Vulgate : — what should
be understood by the Vulgate, in this place, wiU be
mentioned aftervvards.
2. The second is Er(umus''s insertion of The
Verse, in his three last editions of the Greek Testa
ment.

butler's HISTORICAL OUTLINE. 327
Erasraus had the honour of being the person who
published the first printed edition of the Greek New
Testaraent. He pubUshed five editions, in 1516,
1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535. The Coraplutensian
Polyglott was printed in 1517, and published in 1522.
In his edition of 1 522, and in his two subsequent edi
tions, Erasraus is supposed to have conforraed his
text, in diff'erent places, to the Coraplutensian edition ;
this raakes his edition of 1519 the raost esteeraed of
aU he pubUshed. In his editions of 1516 and 1519,
he did not insert The Verse of the Heavenly Wit
nesses. This gave rise to a dispute between hira and
Lee, an Englishraan, and to a dispute between him
and the Spanish divin^^s eraployed on the Compluten
sian Polyglott. He promised to restore The Verse,
if it could be found in a single Greek manuscript.
Such a raanuscript was found, — the raanuscript now
in Trinity College, Dublin, then caUed the Codex Brit-
annicus, since called the Codex Montfortianus ; and,
in consequence of this discovery, Erasmus inserted
The Verse in his edition of 1522, and retained it in
his two subsequent editions.
3. The third of these events, is the insertion of
The Verse in the Complutensian Polyglott. That
noble work was begun in 1502, corapleted in 1517,
and pubUshed in 1522.
4. The fourth of these events, is the insertion of
The Verse by Robert Stephens, in his celebrated edi
tion of the New Testament, in 1550 ;- the text of it,
28*

328. butler's HISTORICAL OUTLINE.
with a very few variations, is siraUar to that of the
fifth edition of Erasraus.
5. The fifth of these events, is tbe insertion of
The Verse in Beza's editions ofthe Greek Testament.
The first of his editions was pubUshed in 1 565 ; he
principally follows in it, the third edition of Robert
Stephens. He printed other editions in 1576, 1582,
1589, and 1598 ; they do not contain every where the
same text, but in aU of thera. The Verse is inserted.
6. The sixth of these events, is the insertion of
The Verse in the Elzevir edition of the Greek New
Testament. Five several printers of the narae and faraily of
Elzevir, are immortalized by the successful labours
of their presses. Lewis, the eldest of them, was a
printer of distinction in 15.05; Daniel, the last of
them, died in 1680.
Their edition of the Greek Testament was first
printed, at Leyden, in 1624 ; itwas printed from the
third edition of Robert Stephens : where it varies
from that edition, it follows, generally, the edition of
Beza ; and, like each of those editions, contains The
Verse. By this edition, the text, which had fluctuat
ed, in the preceding editions, acquired a consistency.
It was followed, in all subsequent editions, and, on
that account, it deservedly acquired the appeUation
of Editio Recepta : the editors of it are unknown.
7. The seventh of these events, is the insertion of
The Verse in the modern edition of Lutherus transla-

butler's historical OUTLINE. 329
tion of the JVew Testament. Frora the translations
pubUshed by himself, he uniformly rejected it. The
last edition, which was in the press, while he was
Uving, but was not quite finished till after his death,
was thatof 1546. In that, as in all his former edi
tions, it is wholly absent. Luther concludes his
preface to that edition, with what may be termed his
dying request, that, upon no account, his translation
sliould be altered, in the sUghtest instance. The
Verse, however, was inserted in the Frankfort edi
tion of 1574 ; and, for a time, inserted in some, and
rejected in other editions : but, since the beginning of
the 17th century, with the exception of the Witten
berg edition of 1607, the insertion of it, in the edi
tions of Luther's translation, has been general,
8. It should be added, that the principal printed
editions of the Greek New Testament since the Elze
vir, are those of Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, and Gries-
bach. The Verse is found in the text of them all : —
it is deterrained by the two first, to be genuine ; by
the two last, to be spurious. To the credit of all the
editors, it should be observed, that, notwithstanding
their particular sentiments, they state, with equal
candour and fairness, the arguments for and the ar
guments against The Verse.
III. With respect to the principal disputes to
which it has given rise :
1. The fi.rst, is ihe dispute between Erasmus and
Lee, and between Erasmus and tke Editors of tke
Complutensian Polyglott.

330 butler's historical outline.
It has been mentioned that Erasraus published
five editions of the Greek New Testaraent. He
did not insert The Verse in the two editions of 1516
and 1519. For this, he was reprehended, in the
severest terras, by Lee or Ley, an EngUsh divine
of sorae note, afterwards advanced, by Henry the
Eighth, to the archbishopric of York ; and by Stuni
ca, a Spanish divine, eraployed on the Compluten
sian Polyglott. In answer to tbem, he declared his
readiness to insert The Verse, if a single manuscript
should be found to contain it. As The Verse was
inserted in the Complutensian Polyglott, and ought
not to have been inserted in it, without the authority
of one or raore raanuscripts, Stunica was boirad, in
honour, to produce such a manuscript ; but he pro
duced none. (For the controversy between Eras
mus and Lee, see Burigni, Vie d'Erasme, 2 vol. Svo.
Paris, 1757, 1 vol. 372-381 ; — for the controversy
between Erasmus and Stunica, see the sarae work,
2 vol. 163-175 ; and for Stunica's attack and Eras
mus's defence, see the Crit. Sac. Tom. vu.p. 1229.)
At length, the Codex jNlontfortianus, then called tiie
Codex Britannicus, now in the library of Trinity
College, Dublin, was found to contain The Verse.
In perforraance of his promise, Erasmus inserted
The Verse in his edition of 1522; and retained it
in his editions of 1527 and 1535.
2. The second dispute, respecting the authenticity
of The Verse, may be considered to have begun

butler's historical outline. 331
with Sandius the Arian, and to have continued, tiU
the note respecting it, m Mr Gibbon's History, pro
voked a fresh dispute.
By Sandius, it was pointedly attacked in his JVu-
eleus Historice Ecclesiasticce, CosmopoU, 1669, Svo.
Col. 1676. 4to. and his Interpretationes Paradoxes in
Johannem. Its authenticity is defended hy Mr Selden. In his
treatise de Synedriis Ehraorum, L. 2. C. 4. S. 4.
he suras up the arguments on each side of the ques
tion, and pronounces in favour of The Verse.
A regular and able attack on it was raade by Fath
er Simon, in his Histoire critique du Texte du JVou-
veau Testament, Rot. 1680. 4to. Part I. ch. 18.
Part II. cb. 9. and in several other parts of his writ
ings. It found a zealous advocate in Martin, the Pastor
of the church of Utrecht. In support of it, he pub
lished the following works.
Deux Dissertations Critiques, la premiere sur le
verset 7 du ch. v. de la premiere Epistre de St Jean,
" II y a trots au Ciel,'" ^c. dans laquelle on prouve
V authentidte de ce texte. La seconde sur le passage
di Joseph tauckant Jesus Ckrist, au I' an fait voir que
ce passage n'' est point suppose. Utreckt, 1717, Svo.
Examen de la response de Monsieur Emlyn a la
Dissertation Critique sur le verset 7 du ch. v. de la 1
Epistre de St Jean. Londres, 1719, Svo.

332 butler's historical outline.
La verite du Texte de la premiere Epistre de St
Jean, v. 7. demontree par des preuves qui sont au des-
sus de toute exception, prises du temoignage de VEg
lise Latine, et de VEglise Grecque, et en particulier
d'un manuscript du JVouveau Testament, trouve en
Irlande. Par David Martin, Pasteur de VEglise a
Utrecht. Utrecht, 1721.
The Verse found an able adversary ia Mr Thomas
Emiyn, an erainent presbyterian divine, whose suf
ferings for his religious principles, all true christians
must lament and reprobate ; he attacked it in the
foUowing works.
A full inquiry into tke original authority aftkat
text, 1 John, v. 7. London, 1815, Svo. reprinted in
1719, 1757.
An answer ta Mr Martin's critical dissertation on
1 Jokn, V. 7. London, 1709, Svo.
Reply ta Mr Martin's examination ofthe answer.
Landon, 1720.
Martin also raet with an able, adversary in Ccesar
de Missy, a native of BerUn, French preacher in the
Savoy, and French chaplain at St Jaraes's, the author
of Four Letters against tke genuineness of tke verse,
inserted in the 8th and 9th volumes of tke Journal
Britannique. The Bible de Vence, published at Paris, about the
middle of the last century, Tom. xui. p. 5. contains
a candid, learned, and sensible dissertation in favour
of The Verse. The author cites in it, Keineri Dis-

butler's historical outline. 333
seriatio kujus laci, Dissertatio singularis ; Roger,
Dissertatio Critica- Tkeologica, in kunc locum, Paris,
1713. A regular attack upon The Verse was made by
Dr Benson, a presbyterian divine, in his Paraphrase
of the Gospels, 2 vol. 4to. 1756.
Sir Isaac JVewtan is the author of a treatise against
the genuineness of The Verse. It made its appear
ance, under the title of Two Letters from Sir Isaac
JVewtan to Mr Le Clerc, 1754, reprinted from a
manuscript in the possession of Dr Ekins, dean of
CarUsIe, in the fifth volume of Dr Horsley's late edi
tion of Sir Isaac Newton's works.
They are written with the force, candour, and
perspicuity, which might be expected frora Sir Isaac
Newton. The English opposition to The Verse, in this stage
of the controversy, is respectably closed by Mr Bow
yer, the learned printer's Conjectures on tke JVew
Testament, Landon, 4to. 1781.
In the mean tirae. The Verse had been the subject
of rauch controversy in Germany. Some mention of
the principal works which there have made their ap
pearance on this subject, may be found in the note
on St John's first Epistle, in Schmidius's Historia
Antiqua et Vindicatio canonis sacri veteris novique
Testamenti, Lipsia, 8vo. 1774. an exceUent publica
tion of the high Lutheran school ; in BengeVs Gno
mon, 2 vol. Aio. TubingcE, 1773; and in Michaelis' s

334
Introduction to tke JVew Testament, translated by Mr
Herbert Marsh, vol. 4. ch. 21. — Michaelis had, at
first, declared himself an advocate for The Verse, in
his Vindicice plurium lectionum codids Greed JVavi
Testamenti adversus fVhistonum et ab eo latas leges
criticas, Halce, 1751 ; but, afterwards, became one
of its most powerful opposers, in his Historical and
Critical Collections, relative to what are called tke
proof passages, in dogmatic theology,
3. This leads to tke third stage of tke controversy.
In the 119th Note to the 37th Chapter of his History
of tke Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (3
vol. p. 545, 4to.) Mr Gibbon asserts, that " The
Three Witnesses have been estabUshed, m our Greek
Testament, by the prudence of Erasmus ; the honest
bigotry of the Complutensian editors, the typographic
al fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens, in the placing
a crotchet ; or the deliberate falsehood or strange mis
apprehension of Theodore Beza."
This note was attacked by Mr Travis, Archdea
con of Chester, in three letters, in the Gentieman's
Magazine of 1782. He printed thera, with two
others, in a separate pubUcation, in quarto, m 1784,
and reprinted the five, with considerable furtiier ad
ditions, in octavo, in 1786. To titiese, Mr Professor
Porson replied in several letters, published in tiie
Gentieman's Magazine of 1788, 1789. Li the Mag
azine for January 1790, another letter, on tiie sub
ject, appeared from Sir Travis. Mr Porson replied

butler's historical outline. 335
to it, in tbe Magazine of the following month, and
soon afterwards, aU Mr Person's Letters, with addi
tions, wbich increased their number to twelve, were
pubUshed in one octavo volume, — an eternal monu
ment of his uncommon erudition, critical sagacity,
and wit. In 1794, Mr Travis repubUshed his letters,
with considerable additions ; he took no particular
notice in them, of Mr Person's letters to him, but
professes to answer, one after another, the arguments
of other distinguished opponents of The Verse. In
1795, Mr Herbert Marsh published a series of let
ters to Mr Travis, entitied Letters to Mr Archdeacon
Travis, in vindication of one of the Translator's
notes to Michaelis's Introduction, and in confirmation
of the opinion, that a Greek Manuscript now preserv
ed in the public library of the University of Cam
bridge, is one of tke seven, wkick are quoted by Rob
ert Stephens, at 1 Jokn v. 7. vnth an Appendix, con
taining a review of Mr Travis's Collation of the
Greek MSS which ke examined at Paris ; an extract
jrom Mr Pappelhaum's Treatise on tke Berlin MS ;
and an Essay on tke Origin and Ohject of the Vele-
sian readings. By tke Translator of Mickaelis ;
Leipsig and London, 1795.
The prmcipal object of Mr Marsh's letters was, as
the tide expresses it, to vindicate his assertion, in one
of bis notes to his translation of MichaeUs's Introduc
tion, that tbe Greek manuscript referred to in the
titie of his book, is one of the seven, whicb are quot-
29

336 butler's historical outline.
ed by Robert Stephens, at 1 John, v. 7 ; but his let
ters abound with most learned, ingenious, and pro
found remarks on almost every point, which comes
into consideration, in the discussion of the genuine
ness of The Verse.
Mr Clarke has lately circulated among bis friends,
an interesting pamphlet on the subject of The Verse,
with this title. Observations on tke Text of tke Tkree
Divine Witnesses, accompanied with a Plate, contain
ing twa very exact Fac-Similes of 1 Jokn, Ckap. v.
verse 7, 8, and 9, as tkey stand in tke first Edition af
tke JVew Testament, printed at Camplutum, 1514, and
in the Codex Montfortii, a Manuscript marked C.
97, in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. By
A. Clarke, Manchester, 1805. It is to be hoped he
will put it into public circulation.
Such have been tbe principal stages of this con
troversy. The following may be found to contain a
distinct view of the principal arguments used by the
combatants in support of their opinions.
IV. The first object of the inquiry is to ascertain
whether the general sense or import of the
text, is assisted or injured, by the insertion
OR OMISSION OF The Verse. The ascertainment
of this fact, will establish a strong arguraent for or
against the internal evidence of the text. This is
an inquiry of sorae nicety ; the v^erse is obscure,- is
susceptible of raore than one construction, and tiie
partisans of each opinion, have atterapted to fix that
sense on it, which best suits their cause.

butler's historical outline. 337
This much must be granted, that The Verse is
not absolutely necessary to the sense of the text.
Without it, the text wiU stand as foUows. " Who
is he tiiat overcometh the world, but he, vvho believ
eth that Jesus is the son of God .'' This is he, who
carae by water and blood, even Jesus the Christ ;
not, by the water only, but by the water and tiie
blood. And it is the Spirit who witnessed ; because
tbe spirit is truth. Thus there are three who bear
witness, tiie Spirit, and the water, and the blood;
and the three agree in one."
Whatever be its right construction, the sentence
is complete and perfect in itself. Jesus, tiie Christ,
is the person to whora testiraony is borne ; the spirit,
the water, and the blood, are the witnesses bearing
testiraony to him. Thus without further aid, the
construction and meaning of the sentence are com
plete. The Verse therefore is not essentiaUy neces
sary to the text.
V. 1. Erasmus has been stated to have raade
the first attack on The Verse. At that tirae, from
its general insertion in the manuscript and printed
copies of the Latin text, the universal opinion of the
Latin church was in its favour. The text of these
copies had been adopted by the spiritual and tempo
ral courts, appealed to in disputes, taught in the
schools, and praised and commented on by the
learned men of every state, within the Latin pale.
Prescription therefore, if prescription be pleadable
Ln these cases, was in its favour.

338 butler's historical outline.
2. If we believe the opposers of The Verse, the-
introduction of The Verse, was first owing to tiie
spirituaUzation of the Sth verse by the African fath
ers, which became comraon in the 4th century ; The
Verse gained littie ground till the Sth ; and was
universally received for genuine in the 12th. It is
reraarkable, that not the slightest vestige of oppo
sition to it is discoverable in the works of those
times, which have reached us ; nothing, which inti
mates, that even a suspicion had been entertained of
the genuineness of The Verse.
3. Here the communicant with the see of Rome
takes a higher ground. The council of Trent,
Session 4, declared Anatheraa to all, " who should
pot receive for holy and canonical, all and every
part of the books of the Old and New Testaraent,
as they had been accustomably read in the Catholic
Church, and as they stood in the old vulgate edi
tion ;" and in tbe sixth session, declared " the
Vulgate to be aiithentic, and that no one should, on
any pretence, dare or presurae to reject it."
Now, when the councU of Trent raade this de
cree. The Verse had long been accustoraably read
in the cathohc church, and long made a part in the
old vulgate edition ; those, therefore, in comraunion
with the see of Rorae, who now reject The Verse, faU
within the council's Anatheraa.
To these objections the adversaries of The Verse
reply ;

butler s historicjvl outline.

339

1st. That in the times of which we are now
speaking, there was littie of biblical criticisra, and
that no works of those tiraes have reached us, in
wbich such an objection either would be made, or
-would be noticed.
2dly. That, before too great a stress is laid on its
insertion in the Vulgate, an accurate notion should
be formed of the edition denoted, in these cases, by
¦the appeUation of the Latin Vulgate. It does not
denote the edition, anterior to St Jerome, which,
from its superior celebrity, was called the Ancient
Italic ; it does not denote the edition pubUshed by
St Jerorae ; it merely denotes that edition, vvhich,
at the time of the council of Trent, was generally
in use ; and afterwards served as the groundwork
of the editions pubUshed, first by Sixtus Quintus,
aftervvards by Cleraent the Eighth, and which last
edition is the archetype of the raodern Vulgate ; that
this edition partook more of the modern, than of
ancient versions ; and, that standing by itself, it is,
in a matter of criticism, of no authority.
3dly. To suppose, that the council of Trent
pronounced the Vulgate to be wholly free from error,
and that no one was at liberty to vary from it, in
translation or exposition, is going to an extreme. In
declaring it to be authentic, the council did not de
clare the Vulgate to be inspired or infallible ; the
council only pronounced it to be inerrant, where tbe
dogmata of faith or raorals are concerned. In this
29*

340 butler's historical outline.
decision, every Roraan Catholic must acquiesce, as
he receives the scripture frora the church, under ha-
authority, and with her interpretation ; but further
than this, the council leaves the Vulgate in mere
matters of criticisra, to the private judgraent of every
individual. To this eff'ect, father Salraeron, who
was one of the ten first disciples of St Ignatius, and
who assisted at the council of Trent in the character
of one of the pope's theologians, is cited by the
Abbe de Vence, to have expressed himself in tbe
third of his prolegomena.
In this stage of the arguraent, Bossuet takes very
high ground, in one of his letters to Leibnitz, publish^
ed by Mr Dutens, in his edition of Leibnitz's works ;
as, in that letter, Bossuet seeras to place the general
acquiescence of the Roraan Catholic church, in the
authenticity of The Verse, araong tbe traditions
which the church receives, and the faithful are there
fore bound to adopt. — As every thing which has
fallen from the pen of that great man, is important,
and tbe passage in question is little known, it is here
transcribed at length.
" J'avoue au reste. Monsieur, ce que vous dites des
anciens exemplaires Grecs sur le passage, Tres Sunt,
8fc. mais vous s^avez aussi bien que moi, que Parti
cle contenu dans ce passage ne doit pas etre pour
cela revoque en doute, etant d'aiUeurs etabU, non
seulement par la Tradition des Eglises, mais encore
par I'Ecriture tres evidemraent. Vous S9avez aussi

bittler's historical outline. 341
sans doute, que ce passage se trouve re§u dans tout
I'Occident; ce qui paroit manifeste, sans meme
remonter plus haut, par la production qu'en fait S.
Fulgence dans ses Ecrits, et raeme dans une excel-
lente Confession de foi presentee unanimement au
au Roi Huneric par toute I'Eglise d'Afrique. Ce
temoignage produit par un aussi grand Theologien,
et par cette sgavante Eglise, n'ayant point ete re-
proche par les beretiques, et au contraire etant con-
firrae par le sang de tant de raartyrs, et encore par
tant de miracles, dont cette Confession de foi fut
suivie, est une demonstration de la Tradition, du
moins de toute I'EgUse d'Afrique, I'une des plus illus
tres du monde. On trouve raerae dans S. Cyprien
une allusion raanifeste a ce passage, qui a passe natu-
relleraent dans notre Vulgate ; et confirrae la Tradi
tion de tout I'Occident. Je suis, &c.
" J. Benigne, Eveque de Meaux."
Such is the state of the arguraent, so far as the
authenticity of The Verse depends on the general
prepossession, in its favour, before the impression of
the Greek original.
It certamly imposes on the adversaries of The
Verse, the obUgation of attack. The following are
their principal arguments against its authenticity, and
the principal an wers to them.
VI. They say, that there is hardly a library in
Europe, in which the Manuscripts of the Greek Tes
tament have not been exammed, in order to deter-

342 butler's historical outline.
mine whether The Verse really proceeded from the
pen of St John ; and that the result of this long and
laborious exaraination is, that of aU the Greek manu
scripts of the Catholic Episties, now extant, of which
more than a hundred have been quoted by name,
independently of those which have been quoted in
tbe aggregate, (as where Dr Griesbach, Professor
Birch, or Professor Alter speak, at large, of all the
manuscripts they have seen), the passage has been
discovered in one manuscript only, — the Codex Mont
fortianus, which is neither of sufficient antiquity nor
of sufficient integrity, to be entitled to a voice in a
question of sacred criticism.
This, the advocates of The Verse generally ad
mit ; — but reply that, though no such manuscript be
now extant, there existed forraeriy Greek manuscripts,
which contained The Verse, — for which they cite
those, which were in the possession of VaUa, the
Complutensian editors, and Robert Stephens.
VII. With respect to the manuscripts of Valla ; —
the advocates of The Verse assert, that Valla had
seven Greek raanuscripts of the 1st Epistie of St
John, and that all his raanuscripts exhibited The
Verse. They observe, that it was his plan to mark,
in his annotations, those passages, in which the Vul
gate receded from the Greek ; that he takes no
notice, in his annotations, of the omission of The
Verse, in any of his raanuscripts ; frora which they
infer, that it was contained in thera all.

sutler's historical outline. 343
^he adversaries of The Verse reply, — that we are
ignorant of the nuraber of raanuscripts which Valla
used, and of his plan of annotation ; that, though it
be probable he had seven Greek raanuscripts. Which
exhibited St John's Gospel, ch. vii. v. 29. where
he expressly mentions that number of raanuscripts,
it does not appear, and it is highly iraprobable, he
should have the Uke nuraber of Greek manuscripts
of the 1st Epistie of St John ; that The Verse
might have been wanting in the Latin text, with
which he made his coUation ; that he might studi
ously have avoided a reraark, wbich, in the country
and the tiraes in which he lived, raight have ex
posed hira to persecution ; that it is highly probable
that sorae or other of his raanuscripts have been
quoted under diff'erent titles; that no manuscript
contains The Verse, and that, of course, there is the
same probability of none of his manuscripts having
contained it, as there is that we are now in possess-f
ion of some or other of his manuscripts. From
these circurastances, the adversaries of The Verse
infer, that nothing near to a conclusion in its favour
can be drawn frora his silence respecting the passage
in his raanuscripts.
It is observable that Mr Archdeacon Travis objects
heavily to Erasraus, tbat, when he was pressed by
Lee, with the contents of Valla's raanuscripts, he
atterapted to bear him down by otber arguments,
but did not deny that The Verse was to be found in

344
the manuscripts of VaUa, whicb manuscripts the
archdeacon asserts, were in Erasmus's possession.
But the archdeacon appears to have been mistaken
in this supposition ; Erasmus was the editor of Val
la's commentary ; but it no where appears that he
was in possession of Valla's manuscripts, and he him
self asserts the contrary. — Such are the obUgations
of literature to Erasmus, that men of letters should
eagerly rise in his defence, whenever they think he
is imjustly accused.
VIII. Witii respect to the manuscripts used
BY THE Complutensian editors ; — The Polyglott
Bible, printed at Alcala or Complutura, under the
patronage, and at tiie expense of Cardinal Xiraenes,
was begun in 1502 ; the whole impression of it was
finished in 1517, and pubUshed in 1522. It is cer
tain that the cardinal spared no expense in procuring
raanuscripts ; but, whether he had any tbat were
truly valuable, has been much doubted. The Verse
has its place in this edition ; from w'jich its advo
cates infer, that it was exhibited by all, or at least
tbe greatest part of the manuscripts used by the
Complutensian editors. This inference is denied by
the adversaries of The Verse. They contend, that,
from the deference, which die Complutensian editors
had for tbe Vulgate, they were honestiy persuaded,
that The Verse was genuine, and tiierefore inserted,
and thought theraselves warranted in inserting in
their text, a translation of it from tiie Latin. This,

butler's HISTORICAL OUTLINE. 345
tiiey say, appears clearly from the dispute between
Stunica and Erasmus ; — the former in the bitterest
terms, reproached the latter with the omission of
The Verse, in his printed edition ; Erasmus, with
equal vehemence, chaUenged Stunica to produce a
single Greek manuscript in support of The Verse ;
Stunica did not cite a single manuscript, but per
sisted in urging tbe authority of the Latin. — ^This,
Mr Archdeacon Travis owns hiraself unable to account
for satisfactorily.
IX. With respect to Robert Stephens's manu
scripts ; — To explain this part of the case, to per
sons unacquainted with Stephens's celebrated edition
of tbe Greek Testaraent, which gives rise to die
present question, ahd which was the edition pubUsh
ed by hira in 1550, — it is necessary to observe that
the text of it is a re-impression of tbe fifth edition of
Erasmus, witb a few, alterations. In the margin,
Stephens quotes various readings from the Complu
tensian edition, and from fifteen Greek manuscripts,
eight of which were borrowed frora the King's Ubra
ry, six were procured from vai-ious quarters, and
one was coUated in Italy. The Coraplutensian text
and the fifteen copies he denoted, when he cited
various readings frora them, by the Greek numerals
«» .6'. y\ as far as fifteen. Tbe copy «, be quotes
throughout the whole New Testament, because, like
other printed editions, the Complutensian edition,
which it denotes, contains the whole. Of his fifteen

346 butler's historical outline.
manuscripts, he quotes some in one part, some in
another ; but none throughout the whole New Testa
ment. In tbe CathoUc Epistles, Stephens has quoted
only seven manuscripts, which he denotes by the
numerals i', «> C> ^> h '*> 'y'> of which tbe four marked
I', e, 4', /, were from the King's Ubrary, and the other
three I'. <«» iV, were among the six which be had
procured elsewhere. At the 1 John v. 7, the disput
ed passage stands thus in Stephens's text, li tS eipav^,
. r t./ \ \ ,1 M. \ r • -.»/
t icarnp, a Aeys;. xai rt ayiev viev.'*,a, xai tuTti tl rpeii et
tirr xai rpeTi eirii ti fiMprvpolliTef ei ry yy.
In the margin, Stephens bas quoted the seven
manuscripts just mentioned, with an obelus prefixed.
Now, according to his plan of annotation, when any
word or number of words is omitted in the quoted
manuscript, he expresses it by placing in bis text, an
obelus before the first word, and a little crotchet in
the shape of a semicircle, and of the size of a com
ma, after the last word. At tbe place in question,
the obelus is set before ", wbicb precedes rS tipai^,
and the seraicircle iramediately after tipai^ • so that
by this notation the words " T9 oipai^, and not the
whole passage, are represented as absent from these
seven manuscripts. But, as compositors are not in
fallible, and raarks of reference are frequentiy placed
wrong, through various accidents in printing, this
edition of Robert Stephens had not been pubUshed
many years, when Lucas Brugensis suspected, that
Stephens's corapositor had here raade a raistake, and

butler's historical outline. 347
that he ought to have set the crotchet, not after
eupai^, but after yy, that is, after the last word of the
controverted passage, and not after the third ; for,
even in the sixteenth century it was well known, that
the Greek raanuscripts, in general, oraitted the whole
passage ; but no one, either before or since the
time of Robert Stephens, has ever seen a Greek
raanuscript which omitted the three first words only.
This, however, was not adraitted by the advocates
of The Verse, who stiU quoted these seven manu
scripts, as authority, not indeed for the whole pas
sage, but, what is of some importance in a case of
necessity, for at least three quarters of it. About a
hundred years after the tirae of Lucas Brugensis,
Simon examined all the Greek manuscripts in the
library of the king of France, and found that not
only " »-9 tipai^, but that all the following words, as
far as h tJ yy were absent frora thera all ; and, as
four out of the seven, which Stephens has quoted at
1 John V. 7. had been borrowed frora this library,
though Simon did not attempt to deterraine what
particular four, he concluded, that Stephens's rep
resentation at that passage was inaccurate. To
evade this argument, the patrons of Stephens's serai
circle had recourse to the hypothesis, that the eight
manuscripts, which, in the time of Robert Stephens,
belonged to the king's library, were no longer there,
and even that they were no longer in existence; a
position, which, though wholly incapable of defence,
30

348 butler's historical outline.
is indispensably necessary for those, who raaintain,
that the seraicircle is set right, because the raanu
scripts which StiU exist, both in Paris and in other
places, decide against tliera. Frora this untenable
post, they were driven, a few years afterwards, by
Le Long, who, in 1720, undertook to determine the
particular eight manuscripts, m the royal library,
which had been used by Robert Stephens, and con
sequently four out of the seven, which are quoted at
1 John V. 7. The eight manuscripts be iraperfectly
described in the Journal des S^avans for June 1720;
but he gave a more complete and accurate account
of them in the edition of his Bibliotheca Sacra, which
was published in 1723, soon after the death of the
author. From this time, the accuracy of Stephens's serai
circle appeared to be given up, and bis raanuscripts,
as evidence for the authenticity of The Verse, ap
peared to be wholly abandoned. But, in 1791, Mr
Archdeacon Travis took a journey to Paris, in order
to corapare Stephens's quotations from the eight
manuscripts, whicb he bad borrowed from the royal
library, with the readings of those on which Le Long
had fixed, as the eight, which were used by Ste
phens. In tins comparison, be found, according to
his own account, that the quotations made by R.
Stephens diflfered, so frequentiy, from the readings
in Le Long's manuscripts, as to warrant the infer
ence, that these were not the eight, wbich Stephens

butler's historical outline. 349
used. The groimds of his opimon, he mentions at
length, in the sixth edition of his letters to Mr Gib
bon; — ^they have been attacked by Mr Marsh. —
Previously to the pubUcation of Mr Travis's last
edition of his letters to Mr Gibbon, Mr Marsh in one
of his notes to MichaeUs, (Vol. H. p. 789), had in
formed the world, that he had found a Greek manu
script, marked K «. 6. 4. in the pubhc library of
the University of Carabridge, which he had discov
ered to be the raanuscript which Stephens bad quoted
by the mark, ly, and consequently, one of the seven
manuscripts which are quoted in Stephens's edition
of 1550, at 1 John v. 7 ; and at the same time,
assigned the reasons, which induced bim to beUeve,
that the manuscript in question had been at Paris,
and that it was no other than the raanuscript which
Stephens called ly. Now, this manuscript omits
not only " t« tipai^, but all the following words,
including " tj yy ; — and, since Stephens quotes aU
his seven manuscripts of the CathoUc Epistles for the
same omission, it foUows, that, as one of them omit
ted the whole passage, the others did the same. Of
the truth of this inference, Mr Travis was weU aware ;
and, in his last edition of bis letters to Mr Gibbon,
attacked Mr Marsh's arguments in support of tbe
identity of the manuscript K ». 6. 4. and Stephens's
ly. To this Mr Herbert Marsh answered, by "Ais Let
ters to Mr Archdeacon Travis, published in 1795."

350 butler's historical outline.
In this pubUcation, Mr Marsh states the several
steps which led to the discovery of the identity of the
two manuscripts. He estabUshes it by various proofs ;
and, by an application of an algebraical theorem to
the documents produced by him, he shows, that the
probability in favour of the identity of the raanuscripts
is to the probability of the contrary, as two nonilUons
to a unity. This is one of the raost curious instances
whicb have appeared, of the application of mathe
raatical calculation to a critical inquiry. — One of the
points, principally discussed by Mr Marsh, is, how
far the inference, deduced frora a general and re
markable similarity, in favour of the identity of manu
scripts, is counteracted by a certain nuraber of dis
cordances ; a consideration of the utraost iraportance,
in all collations of raanuscripts ; but Mr Marsh's
treatise abounds with other curious and iraportant
reraarks, and is a raine of recondite and useful bib
lical erudition.
The nature of this inquiry does not adrait of raore
than this general outiine of that part of the controver
sy, which arises frora the subject of Robert Ste
phens's manuscripts. Persons to whom the subject
is new, would be surprised, in their investigation of
it, to find that it erabraces so wide a field of inquiry.
Perhaps, nothing has contributed so rauch to the
accurate knowledge, which seems now to be obtain
ed of the Greek text of the New Testament, as the
discussions to which The Verse has given rise.

butler's historical outline. 351
X. The adversaries of Tbe Verse continue the
attack ; — they observe that there are many Greek
manuscripts of the Apostolos, or the collection
of lessons, read in the Greek churches, from the
Epistles, and which they call the Apostolos, to dis
tinguish it from the Lectionarium, which contains
the lessons frora the Gospels. Now, they observe,
that no one has been able to discover The Verse in
a single raanuscript apostolos.
The advocates of The Verse observe, that it is to
be found in the first printed edition of the apostolos,
which appeared at Venice in 1602 ; but the adver
saries of The Verse contend, that this does not aff'ord
the sUghtest arguraent in favour of the authenticity
of The Verse, as, in all probability, the lessons were
printed frora the raodern Greek text, into which it
had long found its way.
XI. The adversaries of The Verse further contend,
— that it is wholly unknown to any of the
Oriental Versions which were made from the
TEXT, while it was in its original purity. It is totally
unknown to the manuscripts of the old Syriac ver
sion ; it is wanting in the new Syriac or Philoxenian
version, which was raade in the beginning of the
sixth century, and collated with Greek raanuscripts
at Alexandria, in the beginning of the seventh ; it is
wanting also in the Arabic manuscripts, as well of the
version printed in the Polyglott, as in that published
30*

352 butler's historical outline.
by Erpenius; it is wanting in the Ethiopic, the
Cophtic, the Sahidic, and the Armenian versions.
To this, the advocates of The Verse reply, that
aU those versions, except the Armenian, were raade
frora the Syriac, whicb, tbey say, is faulty beyond
description. That we know Uttie of tbe Arraenian
version ; but that The Verse is contained in the first
edition of that version, pubUshed at Amsterdam, in
1666 ; frora which they infer, that The Verse was
contained in the raanuscript or raanuscripts, frora
which that edition was printed. We certainly know
little of tbe Arraenian version ; but no one bas actu
ally pretended to have seen The Verse in any Ar
raenian raanuscript ; and Professor Alter, in tbe
second volurae of his edhion of the Iliad, page 85,
mentions his havdng been informed by " Pater Zoh-
rab Arraenus, Bibliothecarius Megbitarensiura in
insula S. Lazari VenetUs," that having exarained
raany Arraenian raanuscripts, in the library of his
convent, he had not found The Verse in any one of
thera. xn. The adversaries of The Verse contend that
— it is wanting in forty of the most ancient
manuscripts of the Latin version. This, they
say, equipoises, if it do not overbalance the authority
of those Latin raanuscripts in which it is contained.
In 1743, Sabatier published, at Rheims, his "Bib-
liorum sacrorum Latinse versiones antiquae, seu vetus
ItaUca, et ceteras quaecunque in codicibus Manuscrip-

butler's historical outline. 353
tis reperiri potuerunt, quae cum vulgata Latina et
cum textu Greco comparantur." The object of the
work is to restore the text of the ancient Italic, by
putting together the quotations of the Bible, in the
works of the ancient Fathers ; where none can be
found, Sabatier suppUes tbe chasm from the Vulgate.
He was so fortunate as to find, in diff"ereut parts of
the works of St Augustin, a sufficient nurnber of quo
tations, to forra the whole of the four first chapters,
and likewise the beginning of the fifth. But, vvhen
he coraes to the seventh verse, this very volurainous
Father, who wrote not less than ten treatises on the
epistle in question, suddenly deserts bim, though
immediately after this critical place, he comes again
to his assistance. This chasm, therefore, Sabatier
fiUs up, by a quotation from Vigilius Tapsensis, who
wrote at the end of the fifth century.
XIII. The adversaries of The Verse urge, — that
the Greek Fathers have never quoted it, in
their warraest disputes about the Trinity, which they
certainly would have done, if the passage had been
known to thera ; and this, they observe, is the raore
reraarkable, as they often quote and dwell upon the
sixth and eighth verses in succession, without once
mentioning or even slightly alluding to the seventh
verse. This is one of the strongest parts of the
cause of the adversaries of The Verse. Its advo
cates have little to reply to it, except that it proves
no raore, 3l?ian that The Verse did not exist in the

354 butler's historical outline.
copies, which those Fathers used ; that many works
written by those Fathers, and many other works
written at the same time, have not come down to us ;
and that The Verse might have been mentioned in
aU or sorae or one of these.
XIV. The adversaries of The Verse urge the
sarae argument from the silence of the Latin
Fathers till the fourth century. — ^Here, they
are met by tbe advocates of Tbe Verse, who contend
that, though The Verse is not quoted, it is expressly
referred to by several of the earUest Latin Fathers ;
particularly TertuUian and St Cyprian. — ^The adver
saries of the Verse reply, tbat none of these passages
refer to tbe seventh verse, but refer to tbe eighth
verse, by mysticaUy interpreting the Spirit, the blood,
Mid the water, mentioned in that verse, of tbe Fath
er, the Son, and tbe Holy Ghost. They dwell much
on a passage of St Augustin, in which he expressly
says, that " tbe Spirit, tbe blood, and tbe water, may
be understood, witkout any absurdity, of tbe Father,
the Son, and tbe Holy Ghost," an expression, which,
most assuredly, St Augustin would never have used,
if he had been aware of the seventh verse.
It is certain that The Verse is mentioned in St
Jerome's Preface to the Canonical Episties ; but the
authenticity of these prefaces, first suspected by
Erasmus, is given up by Dom Martianay, tbe Bene
dictine monk, and almost all raodern writers.

BCTLEB's HISTORICAL OUTLIjnS. 35-5
XV. Tbe adversaries of Tlie Verse thus account
fer THE IJrXEBPOLATIOjr OF IT IKTO THE TEXT OF
THE MASDSCBiPTB. — ^Tbe mystical interpreutioa of
tbe Ml verse, which sorne of the bxbers adopted,
wag, as tbey allege, frequently inserted in tbeir com
mentaries, and sometimes in the margin of their
eofiet ; by degrees it slid from the vaztpa into tbe
ttrxt ; ifisermbly it came to be caomdered as part of
it ; at first, it appeared sometimes in one form, and
sometimes in another, and was inserted sometimes
before, and sometimes after the eighth verse; at
length the dimity of the subject gave it a precedence
over the eightli verse ; and thus it came to be con
sidered a» the seventh verse of the chapter. Proba^
bty it faad gained a place in no manuscript, as part
of the text, till some time after the deatb of St Au-
gnslni ; and the eighth century may be considered
as the era of its final settlement in the Latin text.
From the Latin text it was transplanted into the
Greek. At the general fx)uncil of Lateran, held in
1215, Tbe Verse was qu'jted from tbe Greek. Tlie
acts of the council, with the quoution of the Vul
gate, were translated into the Greek and sent
to thc Greek churches. About a century after
this period, the Creeks began to quote The Verse ;
tA« fir»t Greek writers who have quoted it, are
Marmd Calleeas, who lived in the fourteenth,
and liryetmitu, who Uved in th*, fifteenth century ;
and it is observable, tbat, when tfae passage first

356 butler's historical outline.
appeared in Greek, it presented itself under as
many dififerent shapes, as when it first raade its ap
pearance in Latin.
XVI. This, perhaps, raay be considered an out
line of the history of the controversy respecting this
celebrated Verse. It has the merit of having ren
dered invaluable services to the biblical criticisra of
the sacred text. It has led to a minute discus
sion of several curious and interesting topics of Ute
rary history, particularly the rules for judging of the
age of raanuscripts, the nature of manuscript coUa
tions, the diff'erent merits of the principal editions of
the Old and New Testament, the early versions of
them, and the characters of the diff'erent persons,
by whora they were edited or published. A fuU and
coraplete history of the controversy, which should
enter, at large, into aU its particulars, would be an
invaluable acquisition to literature.
Considering Mr Archdeacon Travds was a mere
novice in biblical criticism, wben he first engaged in
the controversy, he performed wonders ; but it was
his misfortune to corabat with giants.
The principal arguraent in its favour, which appears
not to be satisfactorily answered, is its having a
place in the confession of faith presented by the
African bishops to Huneric. Mr Porson has treated
this argument with abundance of wit ; but it seems
to deserve a more serious treatment. It is not neces
sary to suppose, as Mr Porson humourously says.

BUTLEB S HISTORICAL OUTLINE. 357
that each of the four hundred bishops bad a Bible
in his pocket, and the useful place doubled down. —
If tbere were sucb a nuraber of copies exhibiting
The Verse, as induced tbe bishops to adopt it into
the confession of faith, this fact would affiird strong
ground to contend, that it was inserted in the copies
then generaUy in use.
This circurastance, therefore, may be thought to
deserve further investigation ; — and a more complete
examination of the manuscripts in the royal Ubrary
at Paris, is much to be desired ; ui other respects
the topics of arguraent respecting the authenticity of
this celebrated Verse, appear to have been exhausted.

END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

CAMBRIDGE :
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, BV HILLIARD AND METCALF.
1823.

A
COLLECTION

ESSAYS ANU TRACTS

THEOLOGY. VOL. II.

COLLECTION OF
ESSAYS AND TRACTS
IN
THEOLOGY,
FROM VARIOUS AUTHORS,
WITH
BIOGRAPHICAIi AND CRITICAL NOTICES.

BY JARED SPARKS.

VOL. II.

BOSTON,
PUBLISHED BY OLIVER EVERETT, 13 CORNHILL.
PRINTED BY HILLIARD AND METCALF,
UNITEKSITV PRESS, CAMBRIDGE.
1823.

CONTENTS

THE SECOND VOLUME.
DANIEL WHITBY.
Biographical notice. . - - 3
• ' LAST THOUGHTS.
Preface ... - - - 27
SECT. L
Proofs from Scripture, thaf the Nature and Potssers of
Christ tliere derived from the Father - - 33
SECT. n.
The Scriptures teach that Christ is a distinct Being
from the Father, and subordinate to him • 39
SECT. III.
/n ¦sihtt Sense Christ may be called God - - 53
SECT. IV.
Oft the Faith necessary for Salvation - - 63

VI CONTENTS. 1
SECT. V. I
Strange Consequences of the Doctrine that the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same Being 85
SECT. VI.
Explanation of certain Texts in the Gospel, which
have been supposed to prove the Identity of the
Father and Son - - - - 94
SECT. VII.
Texts in the Epistles considered - - - 112

FRANCIS HARE.
Biographical notice - - - 123
on the difficulties and discouragements
which attend the study of the scrip
TURES - - - - 143

SIR ISAAC NEWTON.
Biographical notice - - - 193
an historical account of two corruptions
of scripture.
SECT. I.
Onthe Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses - 235

contents. vu
SECT. IL
On the Text conceming the Mystery of Godliness
manifest in ihe Flesh - - - - 291

CHALRES BUTLER.
HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF THE CONTROVERSY
EESPECTING THE TEXT OF THE THREE
HEAVENLY WITNESSES ... 323

AQENTS
for receiving SUBSClUXraiONS FOR

k'

THIS COLLECTION

ESSAYS AND TRACTS IN THEOLOGY.

^

Portland,

MAINE.
Si0kel Jotmson

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Portsmouth,Concord,
Keene,

J. m Foster
J. B. Moore
J. Prentiss

¦ MASSACHUSETTS.
NEWBUKYPeRT,

CAHBRIDOXr,
Worcester,Greenfield, Northampton,Springfveld,

Chiles JVhipph
Xmidrews
Q.,„„ .<>' 5 CusfanghJIppletori
&ALEM, -,j^ ^ jj^^ Whipple
WiUiam Hilliard
C. Harris
Charlea Williians
S. Bittler
.a. a. Tannatt
RHODE ISLAND.
ProvidencEjl George Daria
3|. ' coMecticut.
New Haven, Howe k Spaiding.

NEW YORK.
York, J. Easlbum fy ffo.
Albany, E. F. Backus
Cawandaigua, j. D. Bemis fy Co.
IJtioa, William Williams
NEW JERsfe.
Trentos, D. Fenloti

PENNSYLVANIA.
PaiLADELPRiA, Jl. Small
J -^ MARYLAND:
Wi^oRE, s--^^tf;
district OF COLUMBIA.
Washington, P. Thompwn,
James Thomas

GEC^JIgE'n^WN,Norfolk,Richmond,

IGINIA. *
Christopher Hail
J. H. Jfask

NORTH CAROLINA.
Newbern, Sabnon Hall
Raleigh, , JgKph Gales
Fayetteville, /. M'Rea
SOUTH CAROLINA.
Charleston, John Mill
CoLO«Bl%, , J. W. Mrtliur
*» GEORGIA.
Savannah, W. T. William^
AnoqsTA, E.fyH. Elt/^ ¦'
Milledgeville, Ginn fy Curiis.
KENTUCKY!
Lexington, William G. £601^^
Louisville, J. CoUins, jr.
jjTi^LABAMA.
MoBiLS^^Iipi^efi), Davenport,fy Co.
tANADA.
Montreal, .<.H. H- Cunnijigliam
''"4A'." ? -:, ¦

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03738 8593