'^I^ive^fie/f, Baoki TWO LETTERS O F Sir ISAAC NEWTON T O Mr. L E C L E R C, Late Divinity ProfefTor of the Remonstrants m HOLLAND. FIRST LETTER: CONTAINING, A DISSERTATION upon the follow ing Paffage in the First Epistle of St. John. CHAP. V. Ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. Verfe 6. OZros Wa 0 t?\.^m A' uJotToj xotj a.i(/,i^ros, 'I>)ffoi/5 0 XpiTos' ou3t h ra v^ouTt ftovoy, k,A\' h t£ yJctTi Jtetj t5 stijUfitTi* X.CCJ "nJ 'Trv&jfii eTi T^ fioL^v^oZvf on r^ -jf veufta Ifiv ^ etA«9e»a.* Verfe 7. "Ot< TgeTj eJo-jy et /naglogouiJIes EN Ta OTPANQ, O nATHP, o Aoros, KAI TO AFION nNETMA- KAI OT- TOI 01 TPE12 EN ElSr. Verfe 8. KAI TPEIS EISIN Ol MAP- TTPOYNTES EN TH TH, t5 -^rvey^*^ xan TO xiS'ap, x.cti ro kifitv Jtai ot TgeTj ei's ri 'h eiViK. Verfe 9. Ei tV (Mprvpim rav AvS^a-Ttat B English ( = ) English Version. L Epist. John, CHAP. V. Verfes 6, 7, 8, 9. Verfe 6. " Thi^ is he that came by Wa- " ter and Blood, even Jefus Chrill; not by " Water only ; but Water and Blood; and " it is the Spirit that beareth witnefs, becaufe " the Spirit is truth. Verfe 7. " For there are Three that bear " record in Heaven, the Father, the " Word, and the Holy Ghost : and " these Three are One. Verfe 8. " And there are Three " that bear witness in Earth, the " Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood ; " and thefe Three agree in One. Verfe 9. " If we receive the witnefs of " men, the witnefs of God is greater ; &c!' SIR, ( 3 ) SIR, O W it has come to pafs, that all the printed Greek, as well as Latin editions of the New Teftament in ufe, fhould agree in giving us the prefent reading of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Verfes of the Fifth Chapter of the Firfl Epiftle of Saint John, will be matter of furprife to, and raife the curiofity of every perfon, who is much converfant in' the Antiquities ofthe Chriftian Church. For all the late printed Greek and Latin Books do now conftantly B 2 read. C 4 ) read. " It is the Spirit, that beareth wit- " nefs, becaufe the Spirit is truth. For " there are Three, that bear record in " Heaven ; the Father, the Word, " AND the: Holy Ghost : and these " Three are One, And there are " Three, that bear witness in Earth j *' the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood : «^ and thefe -Three agree in One." Where as 'aiPthe'-' Greek- Manufcripts of the New Teftament-, -and all the ancient Verftons, that have been made of if into any Lan- guage whatever, (if we except the vulgar Latin, and it can be fully proved, that this did alfo a " who denies Chriji to be God: if bf the " Boly Ghoji, fince the Three are One, how " can the Holy Ghoji be reconciled to himj " who is an enemy to either the Father or " the Son ?" But here it is to be neted, that Cyprian does not fay in either of thefe places, " the Father, Word and Holy Ghoft" ; as the text now has it ; but in the former paCage,"theFather,SonandHoly Ghoft ",and in the latter, " the Creator, Chrift and Holy " Ghoft"; and in neither place cites anything more of the text than thefe words, " and " thefe.Three are One". The whole difficulty then, refts here, how Cyprian came to fay, " It is written ofthe Father, Son and Holy " J'Quaero cujus Dei? S'l Creatoris, non potuit, qui " in .eum non credit ; Si Chrijii, nee hujus fieri poteft " templum, qui ftegat Deum Chrijium; SI Spiritus " SanSi, cumTresUnumftnt, quomodo Spiritus Sanilus " placatusefle ei poteft, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus *' eft V'-^Cyprlatit Epijl, «d Jubaianum, p. 20.3. Edit. Pearfcn. ' ¦ "¦ ¦ ' -¦¦ ¦ " Ghoft; ( 9 ) " Ghoft; and thefe Three are One" : and of this 1 am now to give an Account. It will then be found, that both the Latins and the Greeks did foon after generally interpret thefe words, "^'^ the Spirit, the Water " and the Blood", to denote, in theip miftical fenfe," the Father, Son andHoly Ghoft". And if fo J it will be no hard thing to fuppofe Cyprian to do the fame. St. Auftin' (eoMra Maximinum) after chaUenging his antagonift to produce one inftance,. either in the Old Of New Teftaftient, where two or more things of different natures or fubftiances are con joined J that is, where it is faid of them, Undm sunt, (they are one) to guard againft an obvious objedion, thus goes on. |) " I " II Sane falli te nolo in epiftola Johannis apoftoli, " ubi ait|, Tres funt Tejie!, Spiritus, Aqua et Sanguis : " et Tres Unum funt. Propter hoc udmonui, ne falla- " ris. Hsc enim facramenta funt, in quibus, non " quid fint, fed quid oftendant, femper attendituf; " quoniam figna funt rerum ; aliud exiflentia, etaliud " fignificantia. Si ergo ilia, quae his fignificjintur, " intelliguntur, ipfainveniuntur unius efle fubftantiag. — " De quibus (nempe Patre, Filfo &an£faque Spiritu) " veriffime dici poteft, Tres funt. Tefles, et Tres Unum "funt; ut nomine Spiritus fignificatum accipiamus, " Deum Pair em, — ^Nomine autem Sanguinis, Filium, — " Et nonjine Aquce, Spiritum San^um," — Augujlin^ contra Maximin. Lib. IIL cap. 22. " would ( IO ) *' would not have you be deceived by the " Epiftleof St. John, where he fays, T'/^^r^ '' are Three Witneft'es, the Spirit, the Water " and the Blood: and the Three are One. *' For thefe are mifterious words, in which " we are always to mind, not what they " ufually import, but what they ftand for ; " for they are fymbols of things and dif- " ferent in fignification from their nature. " If then thofe things, which are fignified " by thefe words, are rightly comprehended, " thefe will be found to be of one fubftance. " — Of which (namely, the Father, Son and' " Holy Ghofi) it may be truly faid, They are " Three Witneffes, and the Three are 07ie ; " fo that by The Spirit we fl;ould un- " derftand God ihe Father ;— alfo by the " word Blood, The Son ;~2iu6. by the JVater, " The Holy Ghofi." Thus did St. Auftin manifeftly interpret " the Spirit, Water " and Blood", miftically to denote, " the " Father, Son and Holy Ghoft"; and neither in this, nor any other part of his writings, does he make the leaft mention of the " threewitneflesinHeaven", any other than as fignified in the mifterious fenfe of the words, " Spirit, Water and Blood". And whenever he names them, it is not fo, as we find it in ( II ) in our prefent book?, " the Father, Word and " HolyGhoft". Nor indeed is it to beimagin'd that St. Auftin, or any other Father, who gave fuch an interpretation, could have read in his books, the teftimony of " the Three in " Heaven".— InlikemarinerEupherius, Bifliop. of Lyons, in his queftions upon this very Epiftle of St. Jqhn, informs us, that " the " Spirit, Water and Blood", was generally in terpreted in this fqifiucal way, though in a manner fomewhat different froni St. Auftin. His words are, § '' ^sft. John in his epiftle " lays down ; There are Three tbings that " bear record, the Water, the Blood and " the Spirit ; What is meant by this ? " Anfii^er. Some expound differently, but " mpft perfons underftand it of the Trinity " itfelf by a miftical interpretation-- — " by the Water, pointing out the Father ; " bythe Blood, (hewing Chrift ; and by the " ^Interrog. In Epiftola Johannes ponit, Tria funt " qua: tejlimonium pirhihent. Aqua, Sanguis et Spiritus. " Q^iid in hoc indicatur ? Refp. Quidam ex hoc dif- " putant, &c. plures tamen hie ipfam interpretatione " myftica intelligunt Trlnitatem. — Aqua indicans " Patrem ; Sanguine, Chriflum demonftrans ¦; Spiritu^ " SanSium Spiritum manifeftans." — Eucherius Lttgdunen- fis de ^cejiionibus i'a Epijidam 'Johannis, ' ' " Sf^iri* ( 12 ) " Spirit, manifefting the Holy Ghoft." ¦ We may alfo determine, that the Biftiop cotild not have in his copy the teftirflony of " the Three in Heaven"; as, I think, he ihuft theii have formed his queftion ; upon the Whofe,''^ not a part of the paffage; and bidedufe tie has omitted th"e words in terra, t^hicfi is hefver done by thofe, who cite this t^iiiony; -"* ""¦'-'^^-" ^ --^•^ '-^J - •- '^^M6ti6'^tt "a paffage 'in Facundus, an Afritan 'Biftiop, about ^the middle of the fixth Ce)itui-y,'v^rll both tonfirm tHis interpre tation of St. John, and make it probable, that Cy^riah is to be fo underftood alfo.'^ In his defence of the council of Chalcedon, acldreffed to the emperori Juftiriian, he qtiotes the paffage thus : * " 'For St. John " the Apoftle, in his 'c|)iftle, fays thus of the " Father, and Son, and Holy Ghoft : TyS^r^ *' ' ^re 'Three' that bear 'kiiiinefs in Barth, the "^Spirit, Water and Blo(M; and thefe Three j, -'' ' ' "- ^»f -^^- . ¦'-^¦. - : .ilJ :j _ " * Nam et Johannes Apoftolus in epiftola fua de " Patre,"ctFnio,et Spiritu Sanfto, fi(r>dmt:'-Trcsfitnt " qui tejlimonium dant . in .. terra, Spiritus^ Aqua et " Sanpiis^ et UTns JJnumfunt. ^ In Spiritu ii^\&zan^. " Patrem ; >r^\n Aqua vero Spiritupi Sanijum fignjficans ;. <« i_Jn Sanguine vero Filium S^g^^^^riSi" ~—i[acund. cap, 1. phg.ifs. Ex EditioneSir/mndi Parifiis, 1629. ( 13 ) '' are On^ : by the Spirit denpting the Fa- '' ther ;^hy the Water, fignifying the Holy ^' Ghofi-' m^ by the Bkod, fignifying the " Son." — Thus Facundus, pot only give;s us the miftjc Interpretation ofthe " Spirit, Wa- *¦' t^r and Blood"; bjit introduces it in the very mannei- of Cyprian, and exprefly tells us, that he underftood Cyprian to be of the fame opinion. Moreover Facundus can hardly be thought toJcnowany thfiigpf the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven", fince h£, makes no ufe of it, wher^it would liave been far more to his purpofe.! "' "The argU:- ment he was upon, was tp prove the Unity of •' the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft"; andhere, after the example of many before him,^ he imploys the miftical interpretation of the *-' Spirit, Water and Bipod", for this purpofe; and becaufe St. John, fays of. them; ,'' ^nd '' thefe Three are One' V, and this ^xpofition, fuppofing them Symbols of the Three Per- fons^f the Trinity, he makes ufe of it -j- in ¦¦iiL'^: .V' . ¦-'.-¦- I -.!-:•. .snnsrio, J3 ra£-.'' f The Editor muft' inform the reader, that thus far is h06 Sir Isaac's ; tht Copy tranfmitted to him fairly aclfOoWledges it, and adds^ that the four firft paragraphs of fhe-Manufcript are^loft; and that as^iere were no hopes ftf^r^feovering^theiny they wepe fupplied^ > not ( 14 ) , ,. in order to prove them One God. X Thefe paffages in Cyprian may receive further light by a like paffage in Tertullian, from whence Cyprian feems to have bor rowed them. For it is well known, that Cyprian was a great admirer of Tertullian's writings, and read them'frequently, caUing Tertullian his mafter. The paffage is this,^ not -out of vanity, but merely to lay before the reader thofe paffages, vi^hich the letter itfelf plainly fhews had been made ufe of by tbe * author himfelf; and to the purpofes, as is apprehended, they are here fubfervient to; and an affui ance is alfo given, that all which follows the words " He makes ufe of it" are Sir Isaac's own without alteration. " X Unum efle dicuntur, poflunt Spiritus, aut Aquae, " aut Sanguines dici? Quod tamen Johannis Apoftoli " teftimonium 13. Cyprianus Carthaginienfis Antiftes *' et Martyr, in epiftola, five libro, quem de Trinitate " (ithmo de Unitat6 ecclefiae) fcripfit, de Patre, Filio "• et Spiritu Sanfto diftum intelligit. Ait enim, Dicit *' Dominus, Ego et Pater Unum Jumus ; et iterum de " Patre, Filio, ct Spiritu SanBo fcriptumeji ; et hi Ires " Unum funt, — Facundus, cap. I. pag. i6. ibidem. *' ^ Connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto " tres efficit cohserentes, alterum ex altero, ^i " Tres Unum funt, (non Unus) quomodo diftum eft. " Ego et Pater Unum' Junius ; ad fubftantias Unitatem, " non ad numeri fmgularitatem." — TertuUian advers. Pra'w. c. 25. " The ( 15 ) " The connection ofthe 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 " perfon) as it is faid, I and the Father are " One, denoting the Unity of fubftance, not " the fingularity of number". Here, you fee, Tertullian fays not; " the Father, Word " and Holy Ghoft", as the text now has it, " but the Father, Son and Paraclete"; nor cites any thing more of the text, than thefe words; " which Three are One". Thefe he interprets ofthe Trinity, and inforces the in terpretation by that other text; " I and the " Father are^One"; as if the phrafc was of the fame importance in both places. So then, ithis interpretation feems to have been invented by the Montanifts for giving countenance to their Trinity. For Tertul lian. was a Montanift, when he wrote this ; and it is moft likely that fo corrupt and forced an interpretation had its rife among a fed: of men, accuftomed to make bold with the fcriptures. Cyprian being accuftomed to it in his mafter's writings, it feems from thence to have dropt into bis, as rnay be gathered by the likenefs between their citations. And by the difciples of thefe "two great men, it feems to have been propa gated ( 16 ) gated among thofe many Latins, who (as Eucherius tells us) received it in the next age, underftanding the Trinity by the " Spirit, «' W^ter and Blood". For how, without the countenance of '. fome fuch authority, an interpretation fo corrupt and ftrained, ftiould come to be received in that age fo generally, I do not underftand. And what is faid of the teftimony of Cypri an, may be much more faid of that in the ifeigned difputation of Athanafius with Arius at Nice, For there, the words cited are only, *^' x,flt» 01 rpiis To 'iv imv"; and " thefe Three ** are Oile"; and they are taken out ofthe eighth y«rfe, without naming the perfons of the Trinity before them. For the Greeks interpreted " the Spirit, Water and Blood", of the Trinity, as well as the Latins ; as is manifeft from the annotations they made on this text in the margin of fome of their manufcripts. For Father Simon (Critical Hiftory of the Ne-w Teft. chap. 1 8 j informs us, that in one cf the MSS in the Library of the King of France, marked Num. 2247, over againft thefe words; " oti rgtii eiVjv oi/tioilugavles ev t? *' "y^ (fiifpjcor, h rn yM,nonextare in MS) To " -Ttm^ jitti ro xj%p jtcti rq aift*". '« for there " are ( 17 ) " are Three' that bear record inearth, the " Spirit, theWater and the Blood"; there is this remark; " T-^TeV' to Tri/eu.Ma, to ayiov x,ai o " -TTATJig xai o-Oto^ ea-iJiS"; thatis, " the Holy " Ghoft>,and the Father, and He of Himfelf'^. — And in the fame Copy over againft thefe words, " y.cLf ol T^iii ei5 TO 'iv iia-", " and thefg " Three are One" ; this note is added," " ra- " TeVi ,«i^^ lOaoTJjs eTs Btoi'. That is, " One'-f3eity, " One God". This MS is about 500 yeai-'s- old^ Alfo in the margin of one of the MsS in Monfieur Colbert's Lrbraryj'^Num.'R/i. Father Simon tells us, there is a like reniafk^, For, befides thefe words, " ets S-^os ittk^eot-ijs", " One Gad, One Godhead",' there-are added," " jtcetgTOgiii Ty'5e5 T» 'Xcr.r^o^- v.df Ta ctyla " -Tirnv^BLros' . " The T'eftiii^ony' of God " the Either, and of-the FIoIyGhoft"'. '' sThefe marginal notes fufftciently fhew' how the Greeks -ufed' to "apply this text to the Trinity, and by confequence,'iiowthe' author of that difputation Is to be underftood.. But I ftiould tell you' alfo, that that difpu^^ tation Was not wrote by Athanafius, 'but by a later author, and- therefore as a Ipurious piece '^ ufes not tobe much infifted on. ^ " , .. ,, Now "this miftical application ' of " ' the '* Spirit, Water and Blood"," to figriify the C Trinitv, ( i8 ) Trinity, feems to me to have given occafion to fome body, either fraudulendy to infcrt the teftimony of "the Three in Heaven", in exprefs words into the text, for proving the Trinity ; or elf^ to note it in the margin of hfs book, by way ef interpretation. Whence it might afterwards creep into the text in tranf- cribing. ,. And the firft upon record, that inferted it, is Jerome; if the preface * to the canonical * Thewhole preface runs thus: " Ihcipit prologus in epi'ftolas canon'icas. Non ita ejl ordo apudGnecos, qui integre fapiunt, fidernque reSlam feSiantur, epifdlarurtL feptem, qua canonic^ nuncupantur, ftcut in Latinis lodicibm invenitur : Ut quia Petrus eji primus in ordine. Apojiolorum, prima ftnt etiam ejus epijlola in ordine ceterarum. Sed ficut Evangelijlas dudum ad veritat'ts Unea'm correximus, ita has propria ordini, Deo juvdnte, reddidimus. EJI enim una eariim prima Jacobi, dux Petri, tres Johannis, ei Juda u:i:i. ^la ft ficut ab eii digejla funt, ita quoque ab interpreiibus fideliter In Latih'ltm •verterentur eloquium, nee ambignitatem legentibus facerikt, nee fermonum fefe varietates inipugnaretlt, illo pracipii loco ubi de Unitate Trimtatis in prima Johannis epijiald, pjituin leg!?nus. In qud etienn ab infidelibus tranfatoribus, multum erratum ejfe d fidei vcritdte contperimus, triiim tantummodo vocahula, hoc eft, Aqux, Sanguinis et Spiri tu.";, inipfa .fnd editiotre ponentibus ; et Pairis, Verbique, ac Spiritus tejlimonium 'omittentibus : in quo maxim} et fides catholica vjboratur, et Patris, ac Filii, et Spiritus itna divinitaiis fubjlat.tia 'ccmprobatur. In cateris vero epifo lis, ( 19 ) canonical epiftles, which goes under his name, be His. For whilft he compdfed not a new tranflation ofthe New Teftament ; but only correfted the ancienft vulgar Latin (as learned men think) and among his Emendations (written perhaps at firft in the margin of his book) he inferted this tefti mony ; he complains in the faid preface, how he was thereupon accufed by fome of the Latins, for falfifying Scripture, and makes anfwer, that former Latin tranfiators had much erred from the faith, inputting only, " the Spirit, Water and Blood" in their edition, and omitting the teftimony of " the " Three in Heaven", whereby the Catholic Faith is eftabliihed. In this defence he feems to fay, that he corre(fted the vulgar Latin tranflation by the original Greek; and this, is the great teftimony the text relies upon. epijiolis, ti}uantum. d nojlrd, aliorum dijlet editio, leiioris judicip ,derelinquo. Sed tu, virgo Chrijii Eijlochium, dum a jae impenfius fcriptura veritatem inquiris, meam quodammedo feneilutem inv.idorum dentibus corrodendam : expanis, . qui, ; me fqlfariuhi, ¦ corruptoremque SanSlarum pronunciant Scrjpturarum, . Sed ego in tali opere, nee , amuhrum meorum invidiam pertimefco, nee SanSia Scrip • tures veritatem pofcentibus denegabo", C 2 But ( 20 ) • But, whilft he confeffes it was not in the Latin before, and accufes former tranflators of falfifying the fcriptures in omitting it, he fatisfies us, that it has crept into the Latin fir.ce his time, and fo cuts oft all the authority of the prefent vulgar Latin for juftifying it. And whilft he was accufed by his cotemporaries of falfifying the Scriptures in inferting it, this accufation alfo confirms, that he altered the publick reading. For had the reading l^een dubious before ha made it fo, no man would have charged him with falfifica- tion for foUov/ing either part. Alfo, whilft upon this accufation he recommends the alteration by its ufefulnefs for , eftablifliing the Catholick Faith, this renders it the more fufped:ed by difco- vering ^both the , defign of his making it, and the ground of his hoping for fuccefs. However, feeing he was thus accufed by his cotemporaries, it gives us juft reafon to .examine the bufinefs between liim and his accufers. And fo, he being called to the bar, v/e are not to lay ftrefs upon his own teftimony for himfelf (for no man is a witnefs in his own caufe) but laying afide all prejudice, we ought, according to the ordi nary rules of juftice, to examine the bufi nefs ( 21 ) nefs between him and his accufers by other witneffes. They, that have been converfant in his writings, obferve a ftrange liberty, which he takes in afferting things. Many notable inftances of this he has left us in compofln^, thofe very fabulous lives of Paul and Hila- rian, not to mention what he has' written upon other occafions. Whence Erafmus faid of him, that he was in affirming things, •f- "frequently violentand impudent,and often " contrary to himfelf". But I accufdhim not. It is poffible, that he might be fometimes impofed upon, or, through inadvertency, commit a miftake, Yet fince His cotempo raries accufed him, it is but juft, that we fhould lay afide the prejudice of his great name, and hear the caufe impartially be tween them. Now the witneffes between them are partly the ancient tranflators of the fcrip tures into the various languages, partly the writers of his own age, and of the ages " t Saepe nunjero violentus, parumque pudens, faepe " varius, parumque fibi conftans." Erafmi Annotation, in Johan. v. 7, Vide etiam, quae Erafmus contra Leum in hunc locam de Hieronimo fufius dixit. C 3 next ( 22 ) next before, and after him, and partly the fcribes who have copied out the Greek manufcripts of the fcriptures 'in all ages. And all thefe are againft him> For by the unanimous evidence of all thef?, it will appear that the teftimony of " the Three' in " Heavea" was wanting in the Greek manu fcripts, from whence Jerome, or whoever was the author of that preface to the cano nical epiftles, pretends tO' have bprrpwed'^ it. - The anciej:it interpreters, which I cite,. as witneffes againft him, are chiefly the authors of the ancient vulgar Latin, of the Syriac ' and the JEthiofic verfions. For as he tell-s us, that the Latins omitted the tefti mony of " the Three in Heaven" in their verfion before His time, fo in the Syriac and ^thiopic verfions (both which, from Bifliop Walton's account of them, are much an- cienter, than JerpiBe's time, being the verfions which the Orienta-l' and iEthiopic nations received from the beginning, and, generally ufed, as. the Latins did the vulgar Latin) that fame teftimony is wanting, to this day; and the authors oi thQ^e Three moft ancient, moft famoiis, and moft re- c6h*cd verfions by on'iitting i! are concurrent witneffes. ( 23 ) witneffes, that they fpund it wanting in the original Greek manufcripts of their own times. It is wanting alfo in other ancient verfionsj as in the M^yptian Arabick, publifhed in Walton's Polyglot Bible ; in the Armenian verfion, \ ufed, ever fince Chryfoftom's age, by the Armenian Ngtio^s ; and in the Illyri- can fH of Cyrillns, ufed in Rafcia, Bulgaria, lyioldavia, Ruffia, Mufcovy, and other countries,- v/hich ufe the Sclavpnic Tongue. In a copy pf this yerfion, % printed at Oftrobe (Oftrow) in Volhinia, in the Year icSi, I have feen it .wantino-, and oiip Camillus § relates, the farne thing put % " Codex Arpiepiacus ant? 400 aniios exar^tus, " qpemvidi apud Epifcopum Ecclefiae ./^rmeniacE, quae " Amftellodami colligitur, locum ilium non legit". — Sandius Append. Interpret. Paradsx. in h. 1; % The printed Sclavonic yerfiqn runs thus. " ^ia " Tres funt, qui tejiificantur, Spiritus, et Aqua, et San- " gifts-, et-Tres in Unum funt. Si tejlhnonmfn, ISc," " § Teftirnonium trium in Ccelo non eft in antiquifli- " mis niyricorum et Ruthenorum codicibus, qu'6ri4m " unum exemplar a fexcentis fere annis manufcriptu'm, " jampridem i^pud iUuiitriJimum Qabrielem iChineurn, " tJ^UTS. Baftrica^ Doipinum vidi, et legi : alterum '' manibus nbftris teritur, fideet antiquitate fuanobile. — Camillus de Antichrijio. Lib. li. cap. 1. Pag. 156. C 4 of ( 24 ) of ancient ManufcriDts of this verfion (een X by him.^iq : > , <• ^ ' .yNor do I know of any verfion, wherein it is estant, except the modern^ vulgar hatin, and fuch modern "jeffiop.s of . the Weftern Nations, as have been influenced by it. So then, by the unanimous confent of all the ancient and faitlxful interpreters, which we have, .hi ther to inett with (who doubtlefs made ufe pfrthe: beft Manufcripts they could get) the Teftimony of " the Three in Heaven" was not anciently in the Greek. And that it was neither In the ancient verfions, nor, in the Greek; but was wholly unknown to the firft Churches, is moA certain by an argument hinted above, name ly, -that in all that vehement, univerfal, and lafting Controverfy about the Trinity in Jerome's time, and both before, and Ipng 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 bufinefs, and would affuredly have been ^o too with^theii:i, had it. been in their books. And yet it is not once to be met with in all the difputes, epiftles, orations, and other writings of thp Greeks and Latihs (Alexander of Alexan dria, ( 25 ) dria, Athanafius, the cOBncH' of Sardica, Bafil, Nazienzen, Nyffen, Epipharilus, Chryfoftom, ' Cyril, Theodoret, Hilary, Ambrofe, Auftin, Vidtorinus Afer, Philaf- tru.is Brixienfis, PhSebedius Agennenfi$, Gregorius Bsticus, Faxiftinus Diacorius, Pafchafius, Arnobius Junior, Cereahs, and others) in the times of thofe controy^rfies ; no, not in Jerome himfelf; if his verfion and preface to the Canonical Epiftles be excepted.' The writings of thofe tiiiies v/ere very many, arid copious; . and there is ho Argu ment, or Text of Scripture, which they do not urge again and again. That of St. John's Gofpel, "I, and the. Father, am " One"j^ is every where inculcated, .but this of " the Three .^n Heaven, and their " being One", is no where to be met with, . 'till at length, when the ignorant ages came pn, it began by. degrees to creep into the Latin copies out of Jerome's verfion. So far are they from citing the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven", that, on the contrary, as. often as they have occafion to mention the place, they omit it, and that too, ^S well after Jerome's age, as in, and be fore ( 26 ) fore it. For Hefychiu,s (ia Levit. Lib. ii. cap 8. poft med.) cites the place thus. '•' Audi Johannem dicentem, Tria funt, '-* qui tef^irp,onivi,n^ prasbenl;, ct Tres Unum " font, Spiritus, et Sanguis et Aqua". The w.pxds, i^terr^; tie omits, which is never done,, but in Copies, wfeere ^' the Three ''' in Heavci^" is -^z^Xm^. Cafifiodorus, or whoever was the Awthor of t^^ La;tin ver- fi.(^n 'pfthe p.ifcpyrfe pf Cl^xnpns Ale3fa,n- dririus on thefe Epiftles of St. John reads itthusi' ^' (^ia Tres funt, qui tef^ificantur, "Spiritus, et Aqua, et Sanguis, et hi Tres " 'Unuhi funt". (N. B, |t is called fo in Bib- lkthrS.^'-pdttum[ Edit. Paris. 1 589) Bede in ' his Commi^nt^,ry or^ the place reads it thus. " %X. Spiritus eft, qui tefti- " ficatur, quoni^m'Chriftuseft vpritas. Quo- " niam Tres funt, qui teftimonium dant in " terri, Spiritus^ Aqua, et Sanguis, et Tres " Unum funt. Si teftimonitirri, &c." But here the words, in ternd, fo far as I can gather from his Commentary on this text have been inferted' by fome later Hand. —The Author of the firft Epiftle; afcribed to Pope Eufebius, reads it, 4s Bede does, omitting only the words, ii'h terra. -And if ( 27 ). if the Authority of Popes be valuable.. Pope Leo, the Great, in his tenth Epiftle, thiis cites the place. " Et Spiritus efl;, qui " teftificatur, quoniam Spiritus eft. Veritas > " quia Tres funt, qui teftimonium dant, Spi- " i;itus,_ et Aqua, et Sanguis;, et hi T^ve^ " Unumfunt". . |., .,, St. Ambrofe, in the, fixth chap.ter , of his firft Book„ de SjxirituSanBo, difpxjiLmg for the. Unity of the Three P-erfbns,, {zy^ " Hi Tres Unum^ funt, jfohameif diwt,. ^' Aqua, Saagijie et Spirituis;. Ununa in " mafteriQ; noia in natura". This ia ^aJl hre couM' .find of the, ,te!xt, while he vf^wdif- ptitiijg abput the Trinity,, a^nd therefore h® proves the Unity of the P.e?fqfis %,the miftkal Unity of the Spirit, Water ancj Blaodi, iatejjpfctJHg thefe of the Trinity wiuh.Cypri^ ,and others.. Yea, in the eleventh chapter of his third book,^- he fiid'iy recites the tejst thua. "Fer Aquam " et Sanguinem venit Chriftua Jefus, non ": folym in Aqui, fed :in Aqviaet Sapguine ; " et Spiritus teftiujonium, dat, quoniam Spi- " ritus eft ;veri,t?ts.. Quia Tres funt Teftes, " Spiritus, Aqt^a, et Sanguis; et hi Tres f UnujBo fu»t in Chrifto Jefu". See alfo Ambrofe ( 28 ) Ambrofe in Luc. xxii. lo. and in his book, Ue iis qui mifieriis initiantitr, cap. iv. The like reading of Facundus, Euche rius, and St. Auftin you have in the places cited, above. Thefe are Latins, as late, or' lateri than Jerome. For Jerome did not previil with the Churches of his own time to receive the teftimony of " the Thre^ in *,V Heaven". An,d for them to know his vfrfion,' ;-arid not receive his teftimony was in effeft tp. condemn it.. ,!• And as for the Greeks, Cyril of Alexan dria readg the text without this teftimoAy in the xivth book of his Thefaurus, cap. 5, and> again in his firft book de fide ad 'Regikas, a little after the middle. And fo does Oecumenius, a later Greek, in his Commen tary on this place of ;St. John's Epiftle. Alfo Didimus Alexandrihus, in his Com mentary on the fame paffage, reads " the " Spirit, Water and Blood", without men^ tioningi ". the Three in Heaven"; and fo he does in his book of the Holy Ghoft, where he feems to ornit nothing, that he could -find for his purpofe; and fo -does Gregory Nazienzen in his xxxviith Oration concerningthe Holy Gh«ft; and- alfo, Ni- cetus ( 29 ) cetus in his Commentary on Gregory Na- zienzen's xlivth Oration. And here it is farther obfervable, that, as the Eufebians had contended, that " the " Father, Son and Holy Ghoft" were riot t6 be connumerated, becaufe they Were thinfe of a different kind, Nazienzen and Nidettis . anfwer, that they might be connumerated, becaufe St.' Tohn connumerates three thines not confubftantial, namely, " the Spirit, the " Water, and the Blood ". By the objedliSn ofthe Eufebians, it then appears, that' the Teftimony of " the Three in Heaven " Was not in their books, and by the anfwer bf the Catholicks it is as evident, that it was not in theirs. For while they'anfwer by inftancing in " the Spirit, Water and Blood' ",-^ they could not have miffed of, " thfe Father, the "Word, and the Holy Ghoft "; h'adthfcy been connumerated, and called one in the vvords iihmediately befoi^e ; " and to anfwer, by inftancing in thep, would have been far more to their purpofe," becaufe it was the very thing in queftion. In. like tnanrier the Euiiomians, in difpu ting kgainft the Catholicks, had objedled, that the Holy Ghoftis no where in Scripture cor^oined •( 3=> ) conjoined v/ith the Father and the Son, ex cept in the form of Baptifm : which is as much as to lay, 'thatthe Teftimony of "'the " Threein Heavefn " was ndt in th^ir'books : and yet'St. Bafil (lib. V. ad-verfus Ewionmim Jlibfinem) whilft'he is' very diligent in re- "tuniing an anfwer to them, and perplexes 'himfelf in citing places, which are nothing to the purpofe, does nPt produce this text of " the Three in Heaven", though it be the moft obvious, and the only proper paf fage, had it been then in the Scriptures ; and therefore, he knew riothing pf it. The objediion of the'Eunomi^ns, and the anfwer df the Catholicks, fufficiently 'fhew; that it ivas in. the- books of neither party. Befidesall this, the tenth Epiftle of Pope Leo, mentioned above, was that very fa mous Epiftle to Flavian, Patriarch' of Con-. ftantinople againft -Eutiches, v?hich^ went about through all the Churches both Eaftem and Weftern, being tranflated into Greek, and fent about in the Eaft by Flavian. It was generaUy applauded in the' Weft, and read-iathe council of Chalcedon, -and there .fol«nnly-fipproved.and fubferibed- by all the Bifliops; and in this Epiftle' the text was thus ( p ) thus cited)» " Et Spiritus eft, qui teftinca- " 'tur, quPriiarri Chriftus eft Veritas : quia " Trds fiiri't, qui Yeftiriionium dant, Spiritus, " Aqua, et Sanguis; et hi Tres Unum fynt". And by .putting '7evivf^<^ (according to. the Greek reading) for Chrifius, v^hich isftill the vulgar Latin, it was thus tranflated- " x,«.i TO TTveujita. e5"iv To . y.a(.£v(^ovy l-TriiSyi To " 'Trnvfzai ij'iy n iXnoeia* Tgeis ycLgiiaiv.oi/xA^- " Iv^owks ro 'TtnMp.a,, Jtai rovdctip, ^cLi.T;o-a,i(i li is probable, that by that abufed authority of Cyprian it began firft in Africk, in the dif putes with the ignorant Vandals, to get fome credit ; and thence at length crept into ufe. It occurs alfo frequently in Vigilius Tapfenfis, another African bifhop, cotem- porary to Fulgentius. In its defence fome alledge earlier writers ; namely, the firft epiftle of pope Hyginus, the firft epiftle of pope John II. the book of Idacius Clarus againft Varimadus ; and the book, De unit a Dei tate Trinitatis, af cribed to Athanafius. But Chiffletius, who pubUfhed the works of Vidlor Vitenfis, and Vigilius Tapfenfis, fufficiently proves the book againll Varimadus to be this Vigilius's, and erroneoufly afcribed to Idacius. To the fame Vigilius he afferts alfo the book, D 4 De ( 4^ ) De unitd Deitate Trinitatis. Certainly Atha nafius was not its author. All the epiftles of Hyginus, except the beginning, and the end ; and the firft part of the epiftle of pope John, wherein the teftimony of " the Three " in Heaven" is cited, are nothing elfe than fragments of the book agairift Varimadus, defcrib'ed word for word by fome forger of decretal, epiftles, as may appear by compar ring them ; fo then Eugenius is the firft upon record, that quotes it. But though he fet it on foot among the Africans; yet I cannot find, that it became of authority in Europe, before the revival of learning, iri the twelfth and thirteenth Centuries. In thofe ages. Saint Barnard, the Schoolmen, Joachim, and the Lateran council fpread it abroad, and fcribes began generally to infert it into the text : but in fuch Latin Man ufcr ipts and European writers, as are ancienter than thofe times, it is fcarce to be met with. Now that it was inferted into the vulgar Latin out of Jerome's verfion is manifeft by tiie manner, how the vulgar Latin, and that verfion came to be mixed. For it is agreed, that the Latins, after Jerome's verfion began to ( 41 ) to be of ufe, noted out of it his corredlions of the vulgar Latin in the margin of their books. And thefe the tranfcribers after wards inferted into the text. By this means, the old Latin has been fo generally corrcKft- ed, that it is no where to be found fince. It is Jerome's, that we now read, and not the old vulgar Latin ; and what wonder, if in Jerome we read the teftimony of " the f Three in Heaven" ? For who, that in ferted the reft of Jerome's corredtions into the text, would leave out fuch a paffage for the Trinity, as this hath been taken to be ? But to put the queftion out of difpute, there are footfteps of the infertion ftill re maining. For in fome old Manufcripts, it has been found noted in the margin ; in others to be various readings ; and when it is found inferted into the text, it is plainly fuch as ought to arife by tranfcribing it out of the margin into the text. I" fhall only mention the three following varieties. Of the Manufcripts, which have not the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven". Some have the words in terra, inthe eighth verfe, but the moft want it ; which feems to pro ceed from hence, that fome, before they allowed C 42 ) allowed fo great an addition to the text, as the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven" noted only in terra, in the margin of their books. Of the Manufcripts, which have the tefti mony of " the Three in Heaven", fome in the eighth verfe have " Hi Tres Unum funt". Others not. The reafon of this feems to be, that of thofe, who noted this teftimony in the 'margin, fome blotted out, " Et hi " Tres Unum funt" in the eighth verfe, ac cording to Jerome ; and others did not. And laftly ; the teftimony of " the Three " in Heaven" is in moft books fet before the teftimony of " theThree in Earth"; in fome, it is fet after. So Erafmus notes two old books, in which it * is fet after ; Lucas Bru genfis a third ; and Heffelius (if I mifre- member not) a fourth; and fo Vigilius Tap fenfis *fetsit after : which feems to proceed from hence, that it was fometimes fo noted in the margin, that the reader, or tranfcri- ber knew not, whether it were to come be fore, or after. Now thefe difcords in the Latin Manufcripts, as they.detradt from the * Vigilius libr. adverf. Varimadum. cap. 5. autho- ( 43 ) authority ofthe Manufcripts ; fa they cPn- firm to us, that. the old vulgar Latin has in thefe things been tampered with, and cor- redied by Jerome's verfion. In the next place, I am to fhew how, and when, the teftimony of "theThree in Hea- " ven" crept out ofthe Latin into the Greek. — Thofe, who printed the Greek Teftament, did generally in following their Manufcripts omit the teftimony of " the Three in Hea- " ven", except in Spain. For it was omit ted in the firft and fecond edition of Erafmus, Anno Chrifti, ^516 and 151 9. — Inth6..edi- tion of Francis Afulan, printed at Venice by Aldus, Anno Chrifti, 1 5 1 8 ;— In that of Ni cholas Gerbelius, printed at Haganau, Anno' Chrifti, 1 52 1 ; And a little after, in that of Wolfius Cephalius^ printed at Strafbourg, Anno Chrifti, 1524; and again in 1526, in the Badian edition, as Erafmus notes; and in that of Simon Colinaeus at Paris, Anno Chrifti, 1534 *. Atthe fame time it was * " In editis exemplaribus nonnullis non legi : ut in " Aldina et Badiana editione. Addo, nee in Grsco " Teftamento Gerbelii Haganoae, 11521; nee in Co- " linaei, Parifiis editione". Vide etiam Gomarum in h, locum, omitted ( 44 ) omitted in fome editions ofthe other Weftern languages, as in the Saxon and German edi tions of Luther ; and in the Latin Tugurine editions of Peter Chojnjs, Anno Chrifti, ^¦543,;a"^ 1544- , - The firfi edition in Greek, which has the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven " was that pf cardinal Xipienes, printed at Com- plutum in Spain, in 15 15; but not pub- liflied before the year i C2i. The cardinal in his edition nfed the affiftance of feveral divines, which he called together to Com^ plutum, there founding an univerfity. Anno Chrifti, 1 5 17, or a little before. Two of thefe divines were Antonius -Nebifenfis and Stunipa. Fpr Stunica then refided at Com- plutum ; and in the preface * to a treatifc, * "Cum prasfertiriv, fi quifquam alius ; et nosguo- " que his de rebus, jioftro qupdam jure, judicium ferre " poflimus. Quippe qui non paycos annos in :ian£lis •' Scripturis veteris etNoviTeftamenti,Hebraice,Gfaece, " et Latine per legendis eonfumpCsrimiisV ac Hebraica, " Graecaque ipfe divmarum literarum cxenaf4»ria " cum antiquiflimis Latinorum, codicibus diligentiffime " contulerimus. Lohga igitur ledione, ac experientia "jampridem edofli, quantum trilatiohi hUfc ecclefiaftice ".Novi Teftamenti deferurjdum -fit, nifi fallar, optlme "' novi ". 'Hac Stunica in prelogojibri fu:. which , ( 45 ) which he wrote againft Erafmus, gives this teftimony of himfelf ; V That he had fpent " fomse years in reading the Holy Scriptures " in Hebrew, Greek and Latin ; and had " diligently collated the Hebrew and Greek *' exemplars with the Latin copies ". This book, difpleafing the cardinal, was,riot printed till after his death; and then it came forth- 8t Complutum, Anno Chrifti, 1-520. -The year before, one Lee, an Englifhmari, writ alfo againft Erafmus, arid both Stunica and hee, amongft other things, reprehended him for omitting the teftimony of " the Three " in Heaven ". .^ Afterwards Erafmus, finding the Spaniards, and fome others ofthe Romifh church in a heat againft him, printed this teftimony in his third edition, ATino"Chfrfti,' 1522; re- prefenting, " That in his former editions he " had printed the text, as hefound itin his " Manufcripts ; but now there being found " in England one Man.ufcript, which had " the teftimony of the Three in Heaven, he ^' had inferted it, according to that Manu- '' fcript ; for avoiding the calumnies raifed " againft; him "¦ And fo it continued in his two following editions. And ( 46 ) And, at length, Robert Stephens, Anno Chrifti, 1550; reprinted Erafmtis's edition, with fome few alterations, and various ledlions, taken outof the Complutenfiaii edition, arid fifteen Greek Manufcripts, which ke named after the numeral Greek Letters, a, £, y, ^, e, &c. putting * for the Complutenfian edition, and C, y, J', «, &c. for the Manufcripts in their order ; and noting in the mar-gin, that the teftimony of " tbe Three in Heavcri" was wanting in the feven Manufcripts, ^, t, {, 9, «, i:i, jy. When Bezra -f tells us, that he had read it in the reft. His v/ordsar& " Legit Hie- " ronimus, iegit Erafriius in Britannico " codice, et in Complutenfi editione. Le- " gimus et in nonnullis Roberti noftri vete- " ribus libris". And this is the original arfd authority of the printed editions. For thefe are the editions ever fince followed by all the Weft; and of late years propagated by the Venetian preffes into Greece; and nothing further, that I know of, has been difcovered in any Manufcripts in favour of thefe editions. t Beza in hunc locum. Now ( 47 ) Now to pull off the vizard, I cannot but, in the firft place, extreamly complain of Beza's want of modefty and caution in exprefiing himfelf. - * In the preface to his annotations, defcribing what helps he had in compofing his firft edition, he tells us, " That he had the annotations of Valla, " Stapulenfis and Erafmus, and the writings " of the ancients and moderns collated by " himfelf; and out qf Stephens's library " the exempla,r, y^rhich Stephens had colla- " ted, with about twenty-five Manufcripts, " almoft all ;pf yvhich were prijited". He fhould have faid.fevcnteen ; for that number he puts in other places, and in his annota tions cites no more. So then, Jhp had the collations of two more Manqfcripts, than Stephens has given us in print. And this was all his furniture. . * ""Non defunt tamfen, qui Bezam nitnis audacem " fuifle juflicant, dum a recepta lecftione fsepius fine V neceffitate recedit; et unius, interdum nullius codicis " auttioritate fretus, Praetoriain exercet poteftatem ex " ce)nje(Sturis mutando, et interpolando textum facrum " pro libitu".— — -^Walton Prolegomen. IV. Se'ft. 15. in Bibl Polyghtt. - - The ( 48 ) The original Manufcripts he does not here pretend to have; nor could he have 'them. For they were not Stephens's Manufcripts; but belonged to feveral libraries in France and Italy: The Manufcript, Q, Stephens himfelf never faw; but had only various ledtionr. collated out of it by his Friends in Italy. The Manufcripts y, (J"; e, r, {, n, t, it, were riot Stephens's; but belonged to the librdry of the king of France, to whom Stephens was printer. The other fix books," ^, to., i€, (y, iS, ii; Beza faith, " Hsee ( 49 ) " Hasc pcriodus in omnibus exemplaribus " Grascis legijur, exceptis fecundo et odlavo". 'In the Adts xiii. 33. becaufe Stephens had noted no various ledtions, . Beza affirms of the Greek text ; " Ita fcriptum invenimus "in omnibus vetuftis codicibus". -In I John iv. 3 . where Stephens is filent, Beza fpeaks ; " Sic legitur in omnibus Grsecis ex- " emplaribus, quae quidem mihi infpicere " licuit". — In James i. 22. , where Stephens is again filent, Beza tells us of the word' IXOV01,. " Ego in omnibus noftris vetuftis libris" " inveni". And.fp, where Stephens- iir the margin had noted the teftimony of "„the " Three in Heaven", to be wanting in feven' Manufcripts, bethinks, that, in readingithe text of Stephens's collated book, heread&it in the reft; and fo tells us, '' Legimus et " nos in nonnullis Roberti Stephani codici- " bus". -—" Thus he did in the firft e^ditioa of his annotations. ._ , .^ja > .- Aftjerwards, when he had got two. real Manufcripts, the Clarompntan, and that, whij;h at length he preferited to -the univer fity of Cambridge ; (in. both which the ca nonical epiftles are wanting) in the epiftle to his fourth edition, in reckoning up the E books ( so ) books, he then ufed, he puts only thefe two,' and the feventeen of Stephens ; and, in his fifth edition, he writes fummarily, that he ufed nineteen Manufcripts, joining with thofe two real ones, the collations of Stephens, as if in thofe he had feventeen others ; which fufficiently explains his way of fpeaking in his annotations. But whilft he had not the Manufcripts themfelves to read with his own eyes, it was too hard and unwarrantable a way of fpeaking to tell us. " Legimus et " nos in nonnullis Roberti Stephani codici- "bus"; and therefore, in his late editions>- he corredls himfelf, and tells us only, that the reading doth " Extare in nonnullis Ste- " phani veteribus libris"^. Thus Beza argues from Stephens's book of collations ; and the fame inference has been made by Lucas Brugenfis, and others, ever fince from Stephens's forementioned edition of his book. For, they fay, " Ste- " phens had fifteen Manufcripts in all, and " found the teftimony of the Three in Hea-uen " wanting, but in feven ; and therefore, it " was in the other eight ; and fo being " found in the greater part of his Manu- " fcripts, has the authority of manufcripts " on ( 51 ') " on its fide. Thus they argue ; and this is the great argument, by which the printed Greek has hitherto been juftified. But if they plainly confider the bufinefs a little better", they will find themfelves very much miftaken. For though Stephens had fifteen Manufcripts in all ; yet all of them did not contain all the Greek Teftament. Four of them, noted 7, may be gathered from the conformity of this reading to all the ancient verfions. It may be feen by what has hitherto been faid, that this teftimony is not to be found in the Greek Manufcripts. Epa- F 2 northotes, ( 68 ) northotes, X whom Lucas Brugenfis de- fcribes to be an ancient, accurate, full, and induftrious collater of Manufcripts, found it wanting inall thofe he met with. " Epa- " northotes, faith Lucas, deeffe haec eadem " Graecis libris, et antiquis Latinis anno- " tat". • Nor have other Collate rs made a further difcovery to this day. Lee, Stunica, and the reft- in England,. Spain, Flanders, Prance and Italy, who confpired againft t " Habuimus ab Hunnaeo id quod maximi facimus " MS. Bibl. corredlorium ab incerto audiore, quenv " Epanorthotem, aut correflorem fere vocamus magn^ " diligentia, ac rfide contextum, feculo uti oportet " antlquos noftrx editiflnis codices, eofque cum Hae- " brae. Grsec. et vetcrum patrum commentariis fedulo '" collates: qui liber ad Genefin, viii. 7. latius a nobis " defcriptus eft", Ha;c Lucas; qui ad Genefin, viii. y^ dixit, " .Hunc librum multis annis fcriptum, et " pluribus forte conopofitum". Dein loco ex eo citato pergit. " Ad quas dici poffit ? An quod libro " fidendum non fit? Non hoc dicet, qui evolverit " quas namque ,a noftri feculi fcriptoribus ex MSS " codicibus colleiStae fiint varia: leftiones omnes prope- " modum in eo comperimus; et ad fentes fideliter " examinatas deprehendimus".- Scripftt hac Lucas Annoi579: undefequiturcorredlorium ante difputationes Erafmicas de Tejlibus in Ccelo elaboratum efle. Erafmus, ( 69 ) Erafmus, could find nothing in the Manu fcripts of thofe parts againft him; if that Phcenix be excepted, which once appeared to fomebody fomewhere in England; but could never fince be feen. Heffelius, * about the year 1565, profeffor of divinity at Lovain, in his commentary on this place> ingenuOufly confeffes it wanting in all the "Greek Manufcripts then known, except twO; the one in Spain, the other in England, meaning thofe, by which the Compluten fian divines, and Erafmus printed it. Vv^hich two we have fhewn to be none at all: unlefs fome Annius dug up one in Eng land. Since that time nothing further has been produced, befides the imaginary books of dreaming Beza. * " Heflelius in hunc locum ait. " Manufcripti .f ' Graeci fere omnes fie fe habent. ^oniam Tres funt, " qui tejiimanium dant in terra, Spiritus, Aqua et San* *' guis, tt Hi Tres Unum funt, nulla, faft^ mentione " triplicis teftimonii de Coelo, Patris, Verbi et Spiritus " _ SanSii". Dein codices aliter legentes defcribendo fie pergit. " Noftro tempore dUo Graeci codices Manu- " fcripti reperti- .Xunt, unus in Anglia et alter in Hif- " pania: quorum uterque hoc loco teftimonimnhabet '¦^'Patris, i^erbi ti Spiritus Sanlii" . ' ' ' ¦ F 3' ' 'And ( 7° ) And yet I will not fay, but that it may hereafter be found in fome Greek copies. For in the Times of the holy war, the Latins had much to do in the Eaft. They were long united to the Greek Church. They made Latin Patriarchs of Jerufalem and Antioch. They reigned at Conftan- tinople over the Greeks from the year, 1 204, for. abov6 fifty years together: and during this their kingdom, in the year 1215, v^as affembled the Lateran council, confifting. of four hundred and fifteen Bifhops; Greeks and Latins, together; and therein, the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven" was quoted put of fome of the Latin Manu fcripts, as we told you above. All which might occafion fome Greeks, as well as Latins, to note it in the margins of their books; and thence infert it into the text in tranfcribing. For this is moft certain; that fome Greek Manufcripts havie been corrcdted by the Latin ones. Su'cji a book Erafmus -j- fells us. t " Hie obiter illud incidit admonendum efle Grse- " corum quofdam Novi Teftamenti codices ad Latina " exemplaria C 71 ) us, that he " Once met with; and that there " was fuch another in the Pope's hbrary". He fufpedted alfo, that the book in England, out of which he printed the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven", was of the fame kind; though, I rather think, it was none at all ; unlefs any body were at the pains to tranfcribe one or two of St. Paul's Epiftles. Such another book was one of thofe, out of which Valefius coUedled his various leBions. Whence Mariana, into whofe hands the Manufcript book of thofe leSiions fell, tells us, that for that reafon, in his annotations on the New Teftament, he ufed thofe ledlions but fparingly and cautioufly. And that Valefius did meet with fuch a " exemplaria emendatos. Id faflum eft in foedere " Graecorum cum Romana ecclefd: Quod fcedus " teftatur Bulla, quae dicitur aurea, Vifum eft enim " et hoc ad firmandam concordiam pertinere. Et nos " dim in hujufmodi codicem incidimus ; et talis adhuc " dicitur adfervari in Bibliotheca Pontif. Verumex " his corrigere noftros eft'Left)iam, ut aiunt, admovere " regulam". Erafmus ad Lelforem. Editio ^ta Novi Teftamenti. F 4 corredled C 72 ) cprredled Manufcript appears by the ledlions therrifelves. '" , ,. For in. the Apocalypfe xviii.: 17. where the Greek reads'"^'" eTriTiVo/'; and, the Latin tranflates in locum, and by the error of one ItttSc in lacum; as the books now have it; fome Grecian has here corredled this "book by the Latin, and written " e-^i " Kvlinv" ;' aS it is in the ledtions of Valefius, taken *6ut of this.— — Again in the Apoca lypfe ix. II. where the Latin Tranflation, in expounding ' the names, Abaddon et A- pollyi^^' 2.^^^, "'Et Latine habens nomen *' exterminans"; Valefius notes the reading in Hi^'^Gredk copy to" be, " pajWaVT-' e^'*"' " 'ovoia'dr s^TSP^ivixi';" ; which ^certainly is a tranflation '61" the Latin. -— — A^aln, in the Apocalypfe x!xi. 12. where the Greek has *.• ayA'Aas" ; and foirie, ancient. Latin copies, angehs; but the far greater part of the La tin cppies at prefent have ^;^^a/o.f. Valefius, in his Manufcript,, reads " ymla.^" .--, So, in the Apocalypfe xix. 6. where the, Greek is " oyXys -JToXAs"; the Latin turbc? magna; and in the later copies, tubce magnce,. Vale fius, in his Manufcript, reads '" o-aA-riy/o? f? |.Klyix^^f' .— — In Hebrevv^sxiil. 2. For ' " eAa9o»", ( 73 ) " 'gAaflo'i'" latuerunt; and in later copies, placuerunt, Valefius reads " ^'pso-a/', and in I. Peter iii. 8. For" tb Je TeW, in fine; and by an error in fide, Valefius reads, " h t^ " '7c\ i H ) ^*.^ xn jjo ' :, .ij ¦¦•J ¦)! i''i'"'''V .'-' ",:; F?n^i3ii)r' .¦/¦)^ ¦ -: SIR, -¦'¦¦^^' - HAT the Latins have done to the Text of the Firft Epiftle of Saint John, v. 7. the Greeks have done to that of St. Paul's Firft Epiftle to Timothy, iii. 16. For by changing 0 into ©C, the Abbreviation of ©eo?, they now read, " Great is the " Miftery of Godlinefs : GOD was mani- "' feft in the Flefti'V Whereas., all the Churches for the ifirft four or five Hundred years; and the authors of all the ancient verfions, Jerome, as well as the reft, read, " Great ( 85 ) " Great is the Miftery of Godlinefs, which " was manifefted in the Flefh". For this is the common reading of the Ethiopic, Syriac, and Latin Verfions to this' day -, Jerome's Manufcripts having giv en him no occafion to corredl the old vul gar Latin in this Place. Grotius adds the Arabic ; but the Egyptian Arabic Verfion has 0eo5; and fo has the abovementioned Sclavonian Verfion of Cyrillus. For thefe two Verfions were made long after the fixth Century, wherein the Corruption be gan. With the ancienter verfions agree the writers of the firft five Centuries, a both Greeks and Latins. For they, in all their difcourfes to prove the Deity of the Son, never "< alledge this text, (as I can find) as they would rail hatvc done; (and fome 'of them frequently,) had they read " C5,O0 was " man ifeft in the Flefh'^ and therefbre they read o. ' Tertullian (advirft^s Praxf am J, and Cyprian (ddverfus fudeos) , induftrioufly cite all the places, where Ch^iisT is .failed', Godj but have nothing of this.-r->-f Alexander of Alexiandria,: Athanafius^ the l^fhpps of.the Council of Sardicai I Epiphanius, .. BafiJ, j'.\ . i- \J t. -G 3 ¦¦fl '•),;-: Gregory ( 8^ ) Gregory Nazienzen, Gregory Nyfien, Chry foftom, Cyrjl pf Jerufalem, Cyril of A- lexaridria; and amongft theL-atins, Hilary, Lucifer, Jerome, Ambrofe, .Auftin, Pha- bedius, Vidlorinus Afer, Fauftinus Diaco- nus, Pope Leo the Great, Arnobius junior, Ccrcalis, Vigilius Tapfenfis, Fulgentius^ wrote all of them in the fourth and fifth Centuries for the Deity of the Son, and incarnation of God; and fome of them . largely, and in feveral tradls,; and yet I can not find, that they ever alledge this text to prPve it. , : In all the times of the hot and lafling Arian controverfy, it never came into play ; though now, that thofe difputes are over, they, that read " God was manifeft in the Flefti", think it one ef the moft obvious, and pertinent texts for the bufinefs. The Churches therefore of thofe ages were abiolute ftrangers to this reading. For, on the contrary, their writbrs, as often as they have occafion to cite the readlag then in ufe, difcovec that it was o. For though they cite it not to prove the Deity of th© Son; yet in their gomftmntaries, and fome times in their other difcourfes they produce it. I ^7 ) it. Arid particularly Ambrofe, or whoever of his Cotemporaries was the author of the commentary on the epiftles, reads o; and fo doth St. Auftin in Genefin ad literam. Lib. V. And Bede in his commentary on this text, where he cites tbe reading of St. Auftin, and the author of tliq commentary on the epiftles afcribed to Jerome. So alfo do Primafius and SeduUus in their commentaries on this text; and Vidlorinus Afer, Libro prima adverfus Arium ; and Ida cius Clarus, or rather Vigilius, Tapfenfis, Libro ter tio, adverfus_ Farimadum, c^pite 12. «-And fo did Pope Leo the Great, FpifL XX. ad Flavianum; and Pope Gregory the Great, Libro xxxiv. Moral, cap. y. alias /^. Thefe ancient Latins all cite the text after this manner, " Great is the Miftery of " Godlinefs, which was manifeft in the " Flefh"; as the Latin Manufcriptis of St. Paul's Epiftles generally have it to thi^ day: And therefore, it cannot be doubted, but that this hath been the 'conftant publick reading of the Latin Churches frem the be ginning. So alfo one of the Arians in a homily, printed InFulgentius's works, reads 0, and G 4 interprets ( 88 ) . flu.) U '- ,. 1 mtferprets it of the Sori of God, who was born ^ of the Father ante fecula; and of the virgin, ,?W novifiiino tempore: and Fulgentius, in.ijbis anfwer to this hbinljy, found rib faiilt with the. Citation; but, on the cPntrary, in his fir4. bpok. tp 'Trafimundus, chap. 6,^ feems tor have, read,, and iindef ftodd the text aftci* the fame manner, with tJie other Latins. ^ 'Now for -the Greets, I find Indeed, that they , have chai^ged the ancient reading of th^itex^, not oply in the IVIanufcripts of St. Paul's Epiftles; hut , alfo in other authors ; and. yet there ,ar? ftill remaining fufficient Inftances among them of what the readihg was, at firft. ,„.,,. ; ' '^''^ ThuS).' in Chryfoftom's commentary on this Epiftle, they have now gotten ©eos into the text; and yet by confidering the com mentary by itfelf, I am fatisfi.ed, that he read 0. For he neitiier in his conimientary, nor any where elfe infers the Deity of Chrift from this text; nor expounds it, as they do," who read ©ecj; jDut with the Latins, who read o, underftands by it Chrift incarnate; or as he expreffes it, " Man made God, ahd " God made Man"; and fo leaves it at liber- ( ty tobe taken for either God or Man. '^ ' ' ' And C 89 ) Andaccprdingly in one place of his com mentary, he faith. " 'EspivjpaSvj e»' ffctgx.1 0 " ifif^ibrpyoV'. -. — — — In another' 'pla'ce;' " Av,^gi; but jttuT'^gio;', ©e-ij, r^artfi 'Kpi/i«r^r^f, to the Words of lyiberattas ; and written, ut appareret, ut effet Deus, He. Bat the words, ut appareret, not being in Libe- Tatus muft be ftruck out, and fupplied by fetting the comma after, ut effet, to part thefe words from the fa- pred text. to ( io8 ) to the facred text; and then the interpolator writing Ui for ut. Whereas, they fhould have referred, ut effet, to the words of Llbe- ratus, thus diftinguifhed from the facred text. " Id eft, ut effet, Deus apparuit per " carnem' ¦ I had rather, therefore, wave the con jedlure of this interpolator, and fill up the Lacunae by the authority of an ancient author, Hincmarus, who above eight hun dred years ago * related the fa(9: out of Liberatus, after this manner. " Quidam " nimirum ipfas fcrlpturas verbis inlicitis " impofturaverunt; ficut Macedonius ** Conftantinopolitanus Epifcopus, qui ab " Anaftafio Imperatore, ideo a civitate ex- " pulfus legitur, quoniam falfavit evangelia; *¦ et ilium Apoftoli locum, S^uod apparuit in " carne, juftificatum eft in Spiritu; per cog- '' nationem Grsecarum literarum O et © hoc " modo mutando falfavit. Ubi enim ha- " huit, ^i, hoc eft OC, monofyllabum " Graecum, litera mutata O in ©, vertit, " et fecit ,©C, id eft, ut effet, Deusappa- " ruit per carnem, quapropter tanquam Hincmari opufcul. Artie, xxxiii. cap. i8. " Neftorianus ( 109 ) " Neftorianus fuit expulfus". —He was banifhed therefore for changing the ancient reading (which was not OC, as thefe au thors have it by miftake ; but o) into ©C. But whereas, he is reprefented a Neftorian, for doing this, the meaning is, that he was banifhed for corrupting the text in fevour of the dodlrine of two Natures in Chrift^ vvhich his enemies accounted Neftorianifm ; though it was not really fo. Neftorius held only a human Nature in Chrift ; and that Gbd^ the word, dwelt in this Nature ; as the S|}irit in a holy man ; and therefore interpreted o of the httman Nature. This dodlrine Macel donius. anathematifed, and maintained two Natures in Chrift, and, for proving this, cor rupted the text ; and made it God, who was manifeft in the Flefti. — ^--This diftinguifhing Chrift into two Natures was, by the enemies of Macedonius, accounted Neftorianifm in other language ; and in this refpedl the Hiftorlan faith, that they banifhed him, as a Neftorian for corrupting the text; though he was nof really ofthe opinion. But whilft they tell us, that he was ba- nlftied, as a Neftorian for this, without ex plaining what is here meant by a Neftorian ; ( IIO ) it looks Kke a trickifh way of fpeaking, ufed by his friends to ridicule the proceedings againft him, as inconfiftent ; perhaps to in vert the crime of falfation ; as If a Neftorian would rather change ©C into O. For they, that read hiftory with judgment, will too often meet with fuch trickifh re ports ; and even in the very ftory of Mace donius, I meet with fome other reports of the fame kind. For Macedonius, having in his keeping the original adls of the Council of Chalcedon, figned by that Emperor, un der whom it was called ; and refufipg to de liver up this book to the Emperor Anaftafius, fome, to make this Emperor perjured, dif- torted the ftory, as if at his coming to the crown, he had pronoifed under his hand apd oath, that he would not adl againft the Coun cil of Chalcedqn, and reprefented his fub feribed promife to he the book, which Ma cedonius refufed to deliver back tp him. Macedonius had got his bifhoprick by be ing againft the Council of Chalcedon, and had fubferibed the Henoticum ^ of the Em- * Vide Annotationes Valefii in Evagrii, &c. Lib. iii. Capk. 31. peror ( MI.) peror Zeno, in which that Council was ana thematifed ; and this being objedted againft him, his fri,end.s, to ftifle. the accufation, make a contrary ftory of the Emperor, as if, ' when he came to the crpwn^ he had done as much as that in behalf pf the Council. Another report was f , " That the people. " of Alexandria, and of all Egypt, great and " fmall, bond and free, priefts and monks, " excepting only ftrangers, became about •1 this time poffeffed with evil fpirits, and " being deprived of human fpeech, barked " day and night, like dogs ; fo that they *f were afterwards bound with irop chains, " and drawn to the Church, that they might " recover their health. For they all eat up " their hands and arms. And then ap Angel '.' appeared to fome of the people, faying, '* that this happened to them, becaufe they " anathematifed the Council of Chalcedon, " and threatned, that they fliould do fo no " more." Again, we are told in hiftory, f " That " the adverfaries of Macedonius produced . f Viflor Tununenfis in Chronico. * Eyagrius, Lib. lii. Cap. 32. - ' ¦ " certain (112) "certain boys in judgment, to accufe b©th " him, and themfelves of fodomy , but that " when they found his genitals were cut off, " they betook themfelves to other arts for the " depofing of him". Now, if you can be lieve, that a eunuch had the beard and voice of another man ; and that in a folemn Coun cil, the great Patriarch of the Eaft was thus accufed, and thus acquitted, and yet after all depofed ; you muft acknowledge, that there were many Bifhops among the Greeks, who would not ftick at, as ill and fhamelefs things, as corrupting the Scriptures. But if all this be a fham, invented to difcredit the Council ; the need of fuch fhams adds credit to their proceedings in condemning him for a falfary. This Council (if I miftake not) fat firft at Conftantinople, being that Council, which Theodorus calls, " a company of mercenary " Wretches" : and Nicephorus ; " a conven- " tion of hereticks, affembled againft Mace- " donius". Upon their adding to the * " thrice holy" the words, " who art cruci- * Theodor. Lib. ii. Nicephor. Lib. xvi. Cap. 26. Evagri. Lib. iii. Cap. 44. "fied ( 113 ) " fied for us" ; the people fell into a tumult ; and afterwards, when Macedonius came to be accufed, they fell into a greater tumult. Crying out, " The time of perfecutiori is at " hand. Let no man defcrt the Father", meaning Macedonius. In this tumult (which was faid to be ftir- red up by the Clergy of Conftantinople) many parts of the city were burnt, andtheNobles and Emperor brought into the greateft dan ger ; infomuch, that the Emperor was forced to proffer the refignation of his empire, be fore he could quiet the multitude. Then feeing, that if Macedonius were judged, the people would defend him, he caufed him to be carried by force in the night to Chalce don ; and thence into banifhment, as The odorus writes. Whence I gather, that fhe Council removed alfo to Chalcedon, to avoid the tumult, and finifti their proceedings there. For the ftory of his being accufed in judg ment by boys, Nicephorus places after this tumult; and all agree, that he was con demned J and- the Monks of Paleftine, in an Epiftle, recorded by Evagrius, fay,- that I Xenaias ( "4 ) Xenaias and Diofcorus, joined with many Bifhops, baniftied him. When his con demnation was^fent him, figned by the Emperor, he afl<;ed, whether they, that h^d condemned him, received the Council of Chalcedon; and wKen they, that brought him the fentence, denied it, he replied. " If " Arians and Macedonians had fent. me a "book of condempatiop, could I receive " It"? So that, it feems, he ftood upon the illegality ofthe Council.^. Tl?e next day, one Timothy was made Bifhop of Conftantinople ; and he fent about the condemnation of Macedonius to all the abfent Bifhops to be fubferibed *.— Whence, I think, it will be eafily granted, that he vyas condemned, as a falfary, by the greateft part of the Eaftern empire ; and by confe quence, that the gepuine reading was till then, by the Churches of that Empire, ac counted 0. For had not the publick read ing, then been o, there could have been no colour for pretending, that he changcfl it into ©C. *.Theophanes, pag. 135. About ( 115 ) About fix years after, Anaftafius the Em peror died ; and his Succeffors Juftin and Juftinian fet up the authority of the Council of Chalcedon again, together with that of the Pope over the Eaftern Churches, as uni verfal Bifhop; and from that tirrie, the friends of Macedonius prevailing, it is pro bable, that in oppofitlon to the hereticks, which condemned him ; and for promotipg and eilablifhing the dodlrine of two Natures in Chrift, they received and fpread abroad the reading ©C. But as for the authority of the Pope, that fell agairi with Rome in the Gothick wars ; and flept, till Phocas re vived it again. I told you of feveral fhams put about by the friends of Macedonius to difcredit the proceedings of the Council' againft him. There is one, which notably confirms what hag hitherto been faid, and" makes it plain, that his friends received his: corruptions, as genuine Scripture. For whereas Macedo nius was baniftied for corrupting the New Teftament, his friends retorted the crime upon the Council, as if they had taken upon them,' under colour of purging the Gofpels I 2 fiom ( ii6 ) from the corruptions of Macedonius tb cor- fedl in them, whatever they thought fh©^ Appftles, as unfliilful' men and idiots, had written amifs. ,;,.,/ ' ., For this I gather from an ironical report ofi, thi$ kipd, put about in the Weft, apd thus recorded by Vidlor Tununenfis* V^Meffala. V.,C, Confulibus, Conftantinp- ',,Vpoli, jubente Anaftafio Imperatore, fandta %', -evangelia, tanquam ab idiotis compofita re- ** prehenduntpr) et emendantur", that is, " In the Confulfhip of Meffala the holy Gof- 't pels, by the command of the Emperor '.' Anaftafius, were cpnfured and corredled " at Conftantinople ; las if written by evan- " gelifts, that were idiots ".- Here Vidlor errs in the year. Fpr JMeffala was Conful, Anno Chrifti ^506 ; that is, fix years before the banifhment of Macedonius. But Vidlor is very uncertain in dates pf the years. For he places the banifhment of Macedonius in the Confulfhip of Arlenus, Anno Chrifti 502; and the above-mentioned tumult about the Trlfaglum, , in the Confulfhip of Probus, Anno.Chrifli 513 ; whereas all thefe things happened in the fame yeai". For ( "7 ) For it is plain by this chron'cle, that the Scriptures were examined and corredied about this time by a Council at Cottftilriti- nople by the order of Anaftafius j and I meet with no other Council, to which this charadler can agree ; befides that which de pofed Macedonius. Now, that they fhould cenfure and corred; the Gofpels, as if writ ten by ideots, js too plainly ironical, to be truly hiftory ; and therefore it muft be an abufive report put abolit to difcredit the Council. So then the falfation was fet on foot in the beginning of the fifth Century, and is now of about twelve hundred years ftand ing ; and therefore, fince it lay but in a let ter ; and fo was more eafily fpread abroad in the Greek Manufcripts, then the teftimony of " the Three in Heaven", in the Latin ones, we need riot wonder, if the old read ing be fcarce to be met with, in any Greek Manufcripts, now extant ; and yet it is in fome. For though Beza tells us, that all the Greek Manufcripts read ©«o5; yet, I muft tell Beza's readers, that all his Manufcripts read o. For he had no other Manufcripts on ( ii8 ) on the Epiftles, ¦ befides .the Claromontan ; and in thia Manufcript, as Morinus by ocu lar infpedlion has fince informed us, the ancient reading was o, * but yet, in another hand; and.with other Ink, the letter 0 has been written o.ut ofthe line ; and the letter O (omicron) thickened to make aC (a figma) appears : v/hich inftance fhews fufficiently, by whom the ancient reading has been changed. Valefius alfo reads o" in one of the Spanifli Manufcripts *f- ; and fo did the authors of the * " Alia manu, et atramento extra lineze feriem ad- " dita eft litera ©, et ambesa paululum O, ut appareret *' fjgma. Sed praspoftera erheiidatio facile confpicitur". Hac Morinus in exercitationibus BiblicfS. Lib. i. Exercitat. ii. cap. A. At Beza nobis aliq.uqd invidit, ut ex ejus epiftola adAcademlam Cantabrigienfem a Waltono editam liquet, ubi variantes aliquas lefliones celandas efle ad- monet. f Thefe Spanifh Manufcripts, that have been feveral times mentioned in thefe letters, and which Sir Isaac (as well as many others) apprehended to be Greek ones, collated by Valefius, were really Latin ones. The Marquefs collated no other ; but then he tranflated the various readings into Greek, which impofed upon many of the learned ; but it is much to be wondered, tbat it flioul J efcape the,.p£netration of this great man. Oxford ( 119 ) Oxford edidon of the New Teftament, Anno Chrifti, 1675, read it in the Manufcript of Lincoln College Library, which is tLc oldeft ofthe Oxford Manufcripts. So then, there are fome of the ancient Greek Manufcripts, which read 0 ; but I do not hear of any Latin ones, either ancient or modern, v/hich read GiOS. And befides, to read ©e:^ makes the fenfe obfcure and difiicult. For how could it properly be faid, " that God was juftified by " the Spirit" ? But to read 0, and Interpret it of Chrift, as the ancient Chriftians did; without reftraining it to his divinity, makes the fenfe very eafy. For the promifed and long expedled Meffias, the hope of Ifrael, is to us, "the great Miftery of Godlinefs". And this miftery was at length manifefted to the Jews from the time of his Baptifm, and juftified to be the perfon, , whom they expedled. I have now given you an account of the corruption of ADVER- ^if * -* E R RATA. Page 71, Line 9. For Paul's, rezdyehn's. P. 77, 1. 4. for Religin, read J^eHgion. ( 121 ) ADVERTISEMENT OF the; EDITOR. « 'T^HE Manuscript is defedlive in the <' -^ endof the Second Letter; neither " can it be abfolutely determined, how much "of it has been loft. However, it is moft « probable, that very little of it is wanting ; " and though the Reader will be forry to find " himfelf deprived even of a few lines, that <' have dropt from the pen of fo great a Man,