-Jsm

LETTERS

TO

EDWARD GIBBON, Esq,

AUTHOR OP THE

HISTORY

I> E C L IN E ANB FALL.

ROMAN EMPIRE.

By GEORGE TRAVIS, A.M»
AIICHDEACON OF CHES,TCRa

THE THIRD EDITION',
eoRllECTEDi .AND. CONSIDiRABLV EKtARQIB.

1 O N D O N :
PB-IMTEB FOR THE AUTHOK„
And fold by MelT. Rivingtons, J. Stockpale, and Q. Sael..

PREFACE.

I'U.' I' ,^'J»irWi— MIIIMti—

^^ffM firft I'jf ^^? folh^ing %ettm is ifftrnduBofj to th^
general fubJeB : ivMch is-frA vino'ication of th?
AVTHENTICITY of the verse, I JOHN V. 7. (£l)
The feppnsJ -emfs^s §H the positive efidence, mhich
fk^ author has adduced diredly i^ 'p.rQofetf (he^t (mtheMttcitjf^
Mmy other pr^gfi are firge^ thereto incjiredly, as -it t/aer^f
«r coltatepAily, in the ikre^ fik/eq^mf Lepers, (b)
fhe third Jfatu, and replies to the gbj emails, which Dr^
Benson has brmght aggi^fi fk? arigimUty^ of this i^tefi^
papge. (c) -
The foufdi Is mploy?4 in cqnjde.rl^g p^ ^hj$^iatis of Sir
Uaa& J^ewton, M, QRigfigA9.Ii? mi M^- i69wy|;R,
(ii Tht

]p R E F A C f,
The fifth attends to the three principal ohje^ions
ivhich are, or may be, alledged againjl this dlfputed text :
and fums up the whole argument, applying it particularly
to Mr. Gibbon. ,
In the ihree Letters lajl mentioned, many allegations
¦againjl this verfe are occafionally anfwered, which have
been -.brought hy -M. Simon, Emlyn, Michaelis,
Wetstein^ La Crozej andL-z Long.
This edition is built, generally, on the hajis of that which
immediately preceded it. But many parts of the fuperjlruc.
iure are enlarged, by the ufe of nezv, and (as it feemsj va
luable maier'ia'ls.
' A mijlake in the fir ft edition of thefe Letters^ as to the time
•of the publication vf Valla'j Commentary by Erafmus, was
mentioned) in the Preface to the fecond edition, to have
been then reSiifed and corretled ih the body of the work. For
this cofreSlion the author of thefe pages was indebted to the
ohliging communications, and the critical abilities of the pre-
fe-iit- very learned Bijhop of Durham,
So'me errors of the fecond, are reBified in the prefent, edi
tion. As the pajfages occur in the pages of the Letters, the
necejfary correBions are in general marked by a marginal note.
But the fubjlitution ofthe feventh, in the place ofthe eighth,
verfe in the argument as to Valla'* MSS, and the ajfumption
that the Latiri MSS'\ead in unumiunt in the concluding
a , clauftik

PREFACE.
tlaufule of the eighth verfe — were errors in that editioXf
which call for, and they now receive, an open and dijlincl ac-
knowledgement. My opinion, however, Jlill remains firm,
'(and it will hot be eafily Jhewn to be an unreafonable opinion)
that the final claufule of the eighth verfe was originally writ
ten '{iig 10 fy) IN ununi J a'nd that the prefent reading of the
Latin MSS owes its commencement to the carelejnefs of fame
hafiy copyifi, or tranjlator.
There are few fubje8s in the walks of philology, or criti-
cifm, in which one fimple quefiion, as it appears on a, difiant
view, expands it f elf, on a nearer approach, into fo many
co-mpUcated branches, and covers fo large a field ofhiftorical
and theological difquifition, as the objed of the prefent in
quiry. In the perplexities offuch afituation, where vigilance
tannot prevent mifinformation, or integrity exempt itfelf
from mifconception, it is impojjible that error can be en
tirely exclude'd or avoided. It is mofi fortunate, however,
that thefe mifinformations, and mifunderfiandings, do not ma-
rially ajfeSl the great quefiion difcujfed in thefe Letters,
It is not to be underfiood, that a difiinB a-nfwer is meant
io be given, in the following pages, to every firiBure which
has been made on the former editions of thej^ Letters. Fezv
¦of them, which I have fe en, can claim the credit of originality.
Are-ply to Simon, Emiyn, or Wetftein, pves to this clafs of
writers their ozvn confutation. Still fewer are entitled to
the praife of candor and liberality. Cum talibus nequc
amjcitias habere volo, neque inimicitias. The argument, in

t^ It E F A C ?.
in every' fuch ht/lanee, may he attmc^dfo; but (hf man ?f»//
certainly be overlooked.
The author ofthe following pages once hopti to have been
.able to offer them to the public in the year 1 79 1 • JSut ^qther
¦employment, difi'mnt in its kind, yet important in its nature
and confequences, ha^ made the mofi importunate demand^
upon his , time and attention, Jince his return fr^m Paris i^
that year. Ihey who know him will not need, and th^ to
whom he is unknown will not r^qmre^ any further informa
tion on this fubJeSl.
The charges, originally preferred againjl Mr. Gibbon an4
Dr. Benfon, are retained in this edition, not merely becaufp
they have fallen into error, but hecaufe it too evidently ap
pears, that they have attenipt.ed to miflead others, by faerie
ficing the faithfulnefs offaBs io their own predileSiions. For'
thefe charges no apology will be required, when the nature of
the ejfencefiiall bi cgnjdered which has excited them.

TO
THE RIGHT REVEREND
E I L B ^,
LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,
THE FOLLOWING
LETTERS ARE MOST HUMBLY
INSCRIBED AND DEDICATED:
AS SOME TESTIMONV,
HOWEVER SMALL,
OF REVERENCE FOR HIS VIRTUES,
AND AS SOME TOKEN,
HOWEVER INSIGNIFICANT,
OF GRATITUDE FOR HIS FAVORS
BY THE
AUTHOR.

4 LETTER I.
" crotchet ; and the deliberate falfehood, or ftrange
" rtiifapprehenfion of Theodore Beza." [a)
The verfe of St. John, here alluded to, fiands
thus in our common Teftaments—
*' For there are Three that bear record in Heaven ;
" the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoji : and
" thefe Three are one."
As the charges, wrhich you have thus brought
againft the Complutenfian Editors, againft Robert
Stephens, and Theodore Beza {^Erafmus being rather
praifed, than cenfured by you, for a reafon which
may hereafter appear) feem to be expreffed. in
terms purpofely obfcure, — it appears neceffary, in
the firft place, briefly to enquire wrhether any part
of their conduCt will juftify thefe feveral accufa-
tions ; making, however, fome previous mention
of Erafmus. I. Erafmus
(a) There is a deficiency in this fentence which ought to be fup-
plied. St. John fpeaks, in two fuccelTive verfes of the chapter in quef-
tion, of ^.» Witneffes : thrk in heaven, and three on earth. Mr. Gibbon
has no quarrel with the three Witneffes on earth. His Note is level
led againft the three heavenly Witneffes only. Jt feemed neceffary
to ilate this diftinftion here, and to keep it eonftantly in view in the
following Diffcrtation.

LETTER I. 5
I. Erafmus publifhed \\isfrf edition of the Greek
Teftament at Bafl, A. D. 1 5 1 6, in lefs than a cen
tury after the invention of the art of printing. It
was the firft Greek Teftament which the world re
ceived from the prefs. He publifhed a fecond edi
tion of the fame work, at the fame place, in A. D.
1 5 1 9. In thefe two editions this verfe [ i John
V : 7] was not inferted ; which omiffion frfi (3)
caft the imputation of impofturc upon it. Being
publicly reprehended for this omifllon by our
countryman Edward Lee (ox Ley) and by Lopez
Stunica (or Aftuniga, as it is fometimes written) a
learned Spaniard, Erafmus afterwards, in A. D.
1522, publifhed his third edition, in which he re-
ftored this text of the three [heavenly] Witneffes :
declaring, as his apology for having left it out of
his two former editions, that he had not found it
in five Greek MSS which he had then confult.ed ;
but that he had now replaced \repofuimus\ the
verfe, becaufe he found that it did exift in an an
cient Greek MS in England, [c]
B 3 IL The
(/5) " Prsefatio Hieronymi Intepretes quofdam ob omijjionem ejus**
[this Verfe] " culpat; infertio vero ejus non, ante Efafmi statem,
" utfraudfs plena damnata efi." {Wolf. ur. Philol, Edit. Hamb. Vol.
V. pa. 306.)
(f) Appendix No.^ I.

Missing Page

Missing Page

8 L E T T E R I.
obelus in his edition of A. D. 1550, and ^fernl-
parenthefts at the end of them : thereby denoting
to the reader, that thofe three words were wanting
in the particular MSS referred to in the margin.
And this, Sir, you call " the typographical fraud
or error of Robert Stephens."
IV. Theodore Beza (whofe erudition and piety
did honor to the age in which he lived) was born
atVezflai, in or about A. D. 15 19, and died in
A, D. 1605. He publifhed an edition of the
New Teftament, with annotations, at Geneva in
A. D. 1556. He was urged to this work by Ro~
bert Stephens, who, on Bezds compliance with his
folicitations, permitted to him the free ufe of all
his Greek MSS. In his notes on this paflage of
St. John he fays (/) " This verfe does not occur
" in the Syriac verfion," &c. " but it is found in
" the Englifh MS, in the Complutenfian edition,
" and in fome ancient MSS of Stephens. In the
" Englifh MS the words Father, Word, and Spirit,
" are written without their articles ; but they are
'* read with their articles in our [g) MSS. The
Englifh
{/) Appendix No. III.
{g) Bexa, throughout his annotations, calls thc MSS of Stephens
" Hojtri codices" — our MSS.
The notes juft referred to fupply, in a very fmall compafs, two in-
ftances of this appellation. Many others will be added hereafter.

LETTER I. 9
*' Englifh MS has, fimply, the word Spirit, with-
" out adding to it the epithet Holy ; in ours they
" are joined, and we read Holy Spirit. As to the
" words, in Heaven, they are wanting in feven an-
*' cient MSS." And he further ufes thefe remark
able expreffions^^'* I am entirely fatisjied that we
*' ought to retain this verfe,"
This is the plain truth, briefly ftated, of the pro
ceedings of Erafmus., Robert Stephens, Theodoj-e
Beza, and the editors of Complutiim, relative to the
verfe in queftion. To this fhort ftatement permit
me to add the following obfervations,
I, You feem. Sir, not to be more happy in your
indiretSil: commendation oi Erafmus in this matter,
than we fhall hereafter find you to have been in your
dire£t cenfures of the other editors. In whatever
light we view the condu£t of Erafmus, it betrays
great weaknefs. If he were really poffeffed oifve
ancient MSS in which this verfe had no place, and
had thought it his duty to expel it accordingly from
his two former editions, he ought not to have re-
ftored it in his third edition upon the bare autho
rity of a fingle MS. It feems impoffible to ac
count

IO L E T T E R I.
count for the behaviour of Erafmus, in this mat
ter, taking the whole of it into contemplation at
once, but upon one of thefe fuppofitions. Either
he could not produce the five MSS, in which he
had alledged the verfe to be omitted ; or he had
other authorities, much fuperior to the teftimony
of a fingle MS, for re-placing the verfe, which he
was not however ingenuous enough to acknow
ledge. And this Gonclufion will not perhaps feem
altogether unwarrantable, when the teftimonie:S,
which I mean to produce in my next letter in fa
vor of the originality of this verfe, fhall have
been fully weighed ; and when it fhall be further
confidered that Erafmus was fecretly inclined iff)
tb Arianifm : a circumftance, which rendered him
by no means an indifferent editor of this fifth
chapter of St. John. Upon the face of his own
apology, then, the condu£t of Erafmus in this in-
ftance was mean. Upon the fuppofition of his
having kept back from the world his true motives
of action, it was grofy difingenuous and unworthy.
And yet for a proceeding which muft fall under
one of thefe inevitable alternatives ; you, Sir, it
feems, cannot find a more fevere ftridure than
" the
[h) lv,X..,z\.—Chamb. Cyclopaed. {'Reei) Tit. " Jrianifm :" Ct Beza;
Jcones, Appendix IV.

LETTER I. II
" the prudence of Erafmus .'" If Erafmus had not
poffeffed the merit of cafting xhcfrjl public impu
tation of impofture on this verfe, which others
have fince been irtduftrious to prove ; — his fubfe-
quent recantation, his " repofuimus" would hardly
have met with fo mild a rebuke from Mr. Gibbon.
II. The admiffion of the text in queftion into
the feveral editions of Robert Stephens'?, Greek
Teftament, was not owing to a typographical error
of that editor. You, Sir, I prefume, would fay
that Robert Stephens meant to have placed his obe
lus and femi-pdrenthefis fo as to have denoted the
whole of the verfe l John v : 7 (inftead of the
three words «" tw z^avw) to have been wanting in
feven of his MSS ; and that his not doing fo was
a miftake. Without requiring your authority for
fo arbitrary an affumption, \ve may fatisfy our-
felves from the beft authority poffible, the internal
evidence of the volume itfelf, that the whole of
fuch a fuppofition muft be groundlefs. To this
edition of A. D. 1550 Robert Stephens has an
nexed a lift of Errata, or " typographical errors,"
wherein he has been fo affiduoufly corredi, as anxi-
oufly to point out to the reader one comma forgot
ten, and another mifplaced, in that laborious vo
lume : but there is no reference in the Errata to
this

12 LETTER I.
this verfe of St. John. If an argument like this
could want fupport, it might be further remarked
that John Crifpin an advocate of the parliament of
Paris, who had retired to Geneva for the fake of
the free exercife ofthe reformed religion, publifhed
a new edition of the Greek Teftament at Geneva,
in A. D. 1553 ; wherein the obelus dcaAfemi-paren-
thefis, or crotchet, retain the fame place in regard
to this verfe, that they poffeffed in the edition of
Robert Stephens : which is a proof that Stephens,
who was then a. fellow-citizen with Crifpin, having
been compelled to ^ feek the fame refuge for the
fame reafon (i) fuperadded to a ferious care for
his perfonal fafety, never found out (what you.
Sir, it feems, have now found out for him) any
" typographical error in the placing his crotchet"
Nor, III. Was this text inferted in Bezds Greek Tef
tament through the " f range rtiifapprehenfion" or
through any mifapprehenfion at all, of Theodore
Beza. The contentions of Erafmus with Ley and
Stunica had awakened the attention of Ghiiftians
in general to this fubje£t, upwards of twenty years
before Theodore Beza began his commentary. As
a principal member of the reformed church, as a
man
(/) Thefe circumftances will be ftated more at large hereafter.

LE TT ER I. 13
man famed for, erudition and integrity, the eyes of
all Europe were fixed on Bezds expeded publica
tion. Indeed he feems to have felt himfelf called
to the tafk : and accordingly his own words, be
fore quoted in this letter, fhew that he gave the
matter a full confideration ; that he contrafted the
Syriac verfion &c. with his own authorities, and
compared them together fo attentively as even to
note in which of them a fingle article, or epithet
was wanting ; that he had, in fhort, fully weighed
the reafons on both fides, and found thofe for the
authenticity of the text fo greatly to preponderate,
as to enable him to fpeak his ferious convidion in
the moft decided language : — " / am entirely fatis-
Jied that we ought to retain this verfe." Such mo
tives for caution, and fuch marks of diligence, in
fuch a man, leave no room for the idea of mifap
prehenfion. Thus acquitted of " error and mifapprehenfion,"
it remains for you, Sir, to fubftantiatc the other
parts of your charge againft Robert Stephens, and
Theodore Beza ; namely of " fraud" and " de
liberate falfehood." It will become one who wifhes
to live to pofterity as a hiftorian, to confider well
how he can juftify himfelf either in literary can
dor, or Chriftian charity, for accufing men fo evi
dently

14 LETTER!.
dently confcientious, — men whofe charafters havc
hitherto been not unfullied only, but iiluftrious, —
of the complicated crime of a deliberate falfifica-
tion of Scripture !
IV. Nor are the Complutenfian editors, as It
feems, juftly chargeable with bigotry (either honeft
or difhoneji) for the part which they took in this
tranfadion. They were affembled to collate the
MSS of the original language of the Scriptures,
and to perpetuate their contents to pofterity by
means unknown to former ages. And what was
the conduit which they purfued, as far as we, at
this diftance of time, are enabled to trace it out ?
It appears in general, from their Preface, {f) that
thefe Editors had been favored with feveral Greek
MSS from the Vatican at Rome^ for the ufe of their
Edition. It appears in particular, from the tefti
mony of Stunica himfelf (/) that they had pro
cured another moft valuable Greek MS from the
Ifle of Rhodes (which, from that circumftance, is
ufually ftiled the Codex Rhodienfts) for their affift-
ftance in this undertaking. Poffeffed of fuch trea-
fures it cannot be fuppofed, with reafon, that thefe
Editors would negledt them. Led by fuch guides it
[li] Appendix No. V.
(/) Contra Era/mum, paffim.

LETTER!. 1^
it is not to be prefumed, without thc moft clear
and unequivocal proof, that they would wilfully
refufe to follow them. They did no more then in
this tranfa£tion, as it, feems from this general view
,of the fubje£t, than infert in their Polygott a verfe
which, we have reafon to conclude, [m) was found
in all thefe MSS thus confulted by them. And
are you then. Sir, ferioufly offended that thefe Edi-
'tors, as far as their conduit can thus be traced out,
did not abufe the confidence repofed in them ? Are
they bigots, becaufe they would not falfify the text
which they were convened to afcertain ? Bigotry
may be defined to be a perverfe adherence to any
opinion of any kind, without giving to the evidence
on the contrary part an open hearing, and a candid
judgment. Surely, then, it is bigotry in IN-Ir. Gib
bon (leaving him at liberty to chufe his own epithet
for it) to exprefs what might, by any mode of in
ference, be conftrued into a wifti that thefe Editors
had, in favor of the opinion to which he adheres,
mutilated thofe records which they were urged, by
every principle that ought to govern the human
mind, to deliver down to future ages unabridged
and unperverted. I would not. Sir, willingly re
mind you of the reproaches of your learned op
ponents
(m) The objeilions to this conclufion will be corifidered hereafter.

l6 LETTER!.
ponents («) refpeiting the quotations and authdrl*
ties by which you attempted to fupport the pofi-
tions, affumed in the two well-known chapters of
of the firft volume of your hiftory. I fhould ftill
more unwillingly permit myfelf to draw any fpecial
inference from your prefent indignation againft the
Editors of Complutum. But, I truft, I may be al
lowed to fay, that if thofe Editors had a£ted as you
feem to wifh that they had done, they would, for
aught that appears to the contrary, have merited
the appellation of difhoneji bigots — would have
proved themfelves unworthy betrayers of their
truft, and unfaithful ftewards of the oracles of
GOD! I now beg leave, Sir, to fubmit the queftion to
yourfelf, how far thefe three Editors have deferved
the charges of error and mifapprehenfion, on the
one hand, or of bigotry, fraud and deliberate falfe
hood on the other, which you have thus urged
againft them. And I requeft your permiffion to
endeavour to eftablifh, in a future letter, the au
thenticity of 'the text in difpute by proofs, all of
them, antecedent to the days of Robert Stephens.^
"Theodore Beza, or the Editors of Complutum.
I am, Sir, &c. LETTER
(n) Dr. Watfon, Dr. Chelfum, Mr. liavm, and others.

[ K ]
LETTER

n.

SIR,

TN my formef letter, 1 truft It is at leaft rendered
-¦" highly probable, if not fully proved, that the
charge which. you have brought ^u^d^xA Theodore
Beza,' Rober-t Stephens and the Complutenfan Edi
tors, relative to the Verfe i. Johnv. j, is not
warranted by f9.£t, and cannot be fuppoi'ted in ar
gument. I mean now to proceed, as was at firft
propofed, to eftablifh the authenticity of the verfe
itfelf by teftimohies of different kinds, all ante
cedent in point of time to the days of any of
the Editors here mentioned : by proofs commenc
ing with the age next preceding that of Erafmus^
and afcending from thence to that of the Apoftles.
Andf/ii^r— FROM THE WRITINGS OE INDIVIDUALS.
I. Laurentius Valla,, an Italian nobleman of
great erudition, was the firft perfon (as M. 5'/-
C mon

iS LETTER ir.
mon (a) obferves) who fet himfelf to colleiffc the
Greek MSS of the New Teftament, He flourifhed
nearly a century before Erafmus. (b) By aflidu-
ous enquiries he poffeffed himfelf of feven Greek
MSS ; a number which will appear very confider-
able when we refle<9:, that, through the general
ignorance of thofe ages, the Greek language was
then become almoft a dead letter, and its MSS
were in danger of perifhing with it. This paf-
iage of St. John, containing the fix witnefles,
three in Heaven and three in earth, feems to have
been found (c) in all thefe MSS ; and a part of
it is commented upon by Valla, in his Notes on
this Epiftle. He died in A. D. 1465.
2. In the end of the foiwteenth and the begin ning
(a) Hift. Crit. du Texte, C. xxix, des Verjans, C. xii. Du Fin.
Body, De Bibliorum Textibus originalibus. Edit. Oxon. A. D. 170c,
p.' 441. The learned Dr. Mi/l feems to have fallen into feveral mif-
takes, in his Prolegomena, refpeding the MSS of Falla. See Bengtlius
(Introd. in Crifin) p. 437.
(b) 'Erafmus has paid a deferved tribnte of praife to Valla's Anno
tations. In his Epiftle to Fifcher he fays, " Si quibus non vacat to-
'tam Grascorum linguam perdifcere, ii tamen ValU ftudio non medio-
critcr adjuvabuntur,' qui [collatis aliquot vetuftis atque emendatis
Grxcorum exemplaribus] mira fagacitate Novum omne Teftamentura
excuffit." (c) Opera i. ValU, Edit. Bafil. A. D. 1543, p. 892. The ob-
jeftions to this conclufion will be confidered ' .,-eafter.

LETTER • n. 19
timg of the fifteenth centufy lived Jofephus Bry
ennius, a Monk of the Greek Church, who cites
both thefe verfes of St. John in the following
manner. " And it is the Spirit which beareth
" witnefs, bedaufe Ghrift is the truth. For there
are three that bear tvitncfs in Heatien ; the Fa-
" ther, the Wofd [0 Aoyoi] and the Holy Ghof ; ' and
*' thefe three are one. And there are three that
bear witnefs in earth ; the fpirit, the water, and
*' the blood, [d)
Eugenius, Archbifhop of Cherfon, firft publifhed
this work of Bryennius from an original MS, or
MSS. And when C. F. Matthai, Profeffor of the
Univerfity of Mofcow, applied to the Archbifhop
for information whether he had inferted thefe
verfes from ' Greek MSS, or from the modern
printed editions of the New Teftament, his reply
Was — Tou may affure yourfelf beyond all doubt, th'at
I found this paffage in the MS of Bryennius as it
appears in my printed edition. I had not dared
otherwife to have inferted it in my book. I confider^,
and always have confidered, it as a facred obligation
iipon me, in every thing to prefer the truth, [e)
C 2 3, Emanuel
(d) Griejhach. Nov, Teft. Ed. Eala, A. D. 1777, p- 2:8.
(e) C. F, Matthiei prefat. in fept. Epif. Cathol. p. lvi.

20 L E T T E R II.
3. Emanuel (fometimes written Manuel) Calecas
lived in the middle of the fourteenth century. He
was alfo a Monk of the Greek Church. He thus
quotes I. John, v : 7. " And the Evangelift St.
*' John, There are three that bear witnefs, the Fa-
" ther, the Word \_o Aoyo<;~\ and the Holy Ghof"
He purfues the quotation no further, but almoft.
immediately turns afide to cite the Gofpel of St.
John, XV : 26. (y)
4, In the fame century Nicholas de Lyra wrote
a Commentary upon the Scriptures, which is ufu
ally ftiled his Pofilla. In his text both the verfes
of this paffage of St. John are inferted ; and his
commentary upon them is as follows. After hav
ing ftated the teftimony of the three heavenly wit
neffes, he adds, " one in effence, and therefore over
all one glorious God." And after the teftimony
of the three witneffes in earth, he fubjoins, " be
caufe they agree in the ajfertion of one truth." He
held the profefforfhip of Divinity at Paris, with
great reputation.
5. About a century before this laft-mentioned
time appeared the Commentary of St. Thomas (as he
(f) Comlef p. 219. Bihl. Max Pair. Tom. xxvi. p. 383.

LETTER II. 21
he Is commonly called) on this Epiftle ; in which
this paffage of St. John is not only admitted, but
commented upon, without any infinuations of any
fuppofed interpolation. He has alfo frequently
quoted it in his Sermones fefivi, in his Treatife con
tra errores Gracorum, and in his famous work enti
tled Summa totius Theologice. He died in A. D.
1274. {Jo)
6. The great antagonlft of Aquinas, Johannes
Duns Scotus, did not long furvive him, dying in
A. D. 1308. He agrees, however, with Aquinas
in admitting the teftimony of the heavenly wit
neffes. In his quotation he firft refers to the bap-
tifmal ordinance given in the laft chapter of St.
Matthew, and then proceeds thus. " In like man-
" ner St. John fpeaks in the fifth chapter of his
*' firft canonical Epiftle, There are three that bear
" witnefs in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the
" Holy Ghof." (i) C 3 7. The
(h) Summ. tot, Theol, pars i. qu. 30, art. 2 Scc.—Serm. Feft, SanSl.
frin. — Contra Err. Grac. C. xii. qu. 9. art. 9.
«' S. Thomas Aquinas — Scholafticorum, ut vocant, Theologorum
princeps, et Dodlor cognomento Angelicus, a Gregorio x. ad con
cilium Lugdunenfe evocatusj in itjnere in morbum incidit, atque — •
piiffime moritur quinquagenarius." \_Auberti M'lrcei Chron. Edit. .</«/-
nuerp. A. D. 1608.]
(i) Appendix, No. vii.— «' Johannes Dunfius Scotus, Doflor Sub- tiiis

1% LETTER II.
7. The celebiated Durandus, Bifhop of Mende
in Languedoc, about the middle of the thirteenth
century, adduces the teftimony of the fix wit
neffes, three in Heaven and three in earth, in his
Rationale of Divine Offices,
His words may be thus tranflated. " We are:
" inftru£led in the faith by that [part of the]
" Epiftle of St, John, which begins thus : What-r,
" fever is born of God, overcometh the ivorld. He
" fliews what our faith ought to be by teftimony in
" Heaven, in earth, and in our own confciences.
*' In earth, vfhen he fays, There are three that bear
" witnefs in earth, the Spirit, the water, and the
" blood; becaufe our Lord cried with a loud voice
" when he gave up the ghoft, and becaufe, when
" dead, there came out [of his pierced fide] blood
^' and water, which were proofs of his having
taken our. flefh upon him. And thefe three are
one ; that is, they agree in thc fame teftimony.
And there are three that bear witnefs in Hea
ven : the Father in his voice [from Heaven,
This is my beloved Son] the Son [by his own
declarations of him.felf] whilft in the flefh ;
" and the Holy Ghof, in [or by its defcent as] a
Dove,
f'lis cognomento, ordinis Francifcani, moritur Colonia: viii. NovfRj-
brjs, A. D. 1 308." [Id. Chron, fup. citat.]

4<

^<¦

LETTER Hi 23
*' Dove. And thefe three are one. And the tef
timony of confcience. follows in the [fame]
Epiftle : He who believes in the Son of God hath
*' the witnefs in himfelf" (k)

8. In the fame century flourifhed Hugo Cha-
renfis. He died in A. D. 1262, a Cardinal, and
high in reputation. He has not only quoted, but
commented upon, both the verfes i John v : 7
and 8. But his commentary will not be eafily
abbreviated : and it is too long and diffufe to be
ftated here at large. A fhort extract from it fhall,
howeVer, be fubjoined.
Upon that part of the words of this text, that
hear witnefs in Heaven, his annotation is, " Namely,
" that Chrifl is really God." And upon that part
of the eighth verfe — There are three that bear
Witnefs in earth, it adds, " that Chrifl is really
" man" (I)
9. Lombard, who was Bifhop of Paris in the
twelfth century, appeals to the teftimony of the
three [heavenly] witneffes in the firft book of his
Sentences, The general title, which he makes ufe of
(k) Appendix,' No. viii, Moreri Tom, I. p. 388, Ed. 1724,
(I) Appendix, No. ix. Mortri, Art. Hugues dt St, Cher.

44 L E T T E R II.
of in this part of his treatife, is — De Myferh
Trlnilatis et Unitatis. The particular fubdivifion
of his fubjed, in which he cites the paffage in
queftion, is entitled, De Tefimoniis Novi Tefa-
menti. And he introduces his quotation in the
following manner. " He [Jefus Chrift] fays, I
" and my Father are one. He ufes the words
*' unum — scndfumus — that ye may know that they
" are one not by confufion of perfon, but by unity
*' of nature. And [St.] John alfo fays in his
*' canonical epiftle, There are three which bear re-
" cord in Heaven, the Father, the Word [Verbum]
" and the Holy Ghof ; and thefe three are one.
" And he alfo fays in the beginning of his Gofpel,
" In the beginning voas the Word, and the Word was
" with God, and the Word was Ged. (m)
IO. This paffage of St, John is quoted in the
fame century by Rupert, Abbot of Duyts in Ger
many. " Hence John the Evangelift fays. There are
three that bear witnefs in Heaven, the Father and
the F/ord [Verbum J and the Holy Ghof. The per
fon of the Father by the voice which came from
Heaven &c. And there are three that hear
ipitnefs in the baptifm of Chrift, the fpirit, the
water, and the blood" (n) II. In
(m) Appendix, No. x,
(n) Appendix, No. xi.

L E T T E R II. i^
II. In the fame, and in part of the eleventh
century lived St. Bernard (as he is ufually filled)
who was the firft Abbot of Clairvaux, or Cler-
valle, in Burgundy. This paffage is frequently
cited in his works, and particularly in his fermons
on the Odave of Eafter, and in the fixteenth of
his Parvi Sermones.
His firft Sermon on the Odave of Eafter com
ments largely on«the fx witneffes, beginning with
the three in earth, and then proceeding to the
three \_Jilius^ in Heaven. And his fecond opens
thus. " A Leffon has been this day recited to
" us out of the Epiftle of St. John, in which
" we learn that a triple teftimony has been given
*' to us in . Heaven, and a triple teftimopy in
« earth." [o) '
12. One more writer only of this age fhall be
here particularly -fpecified, namely Hugo ViBorinus,
who was Abbot of the Monaftery of St. Vi£lor in
Paris. He thus quotes the teftimony of iht fxt
witneffes, three in Heaven, and three in earth, [p)

u

Thera
(e) Appendix, No. xii,
(p) Appendix, No. xiii. For other writers of this age, vid.
Dor/chei (Calov. BibI ) Differt. de Spir. aqua et fang. — Calo'v. de pu-
Titate fontium.

J|6^ LETTER II.

u

*' There are three that bear witnefs in Heaven.
Three [witneffes] in heaven, three in earth, [in
each] three teftimonies. The firft teftimony as
to Heaven is the Deity. In him his power,
his wifdom and his goodnefs give proof of full
*' and abfolute perfedion : the Father, the Son,.
*' [fiiius] and the Holy Ghof, and thefe ihree pro-
*' perly and from the beginning are one : from
*' which, in which, and by which, are all things.
¦ — ^" In this l^earthl the fpirit, the water and tht
" blood bear witnefs of remiffion. For without
" blood there is no remifhon [of fins.] And thefe
" three are one."
13. Euthymius Zygabenus lived at Confantinople
in the eleventh century, in the reign of Alexis Com-
nenus. He compiled a work which is commonly
called the Panoplia Dogmatica, of which he gives
the following account (here abbreviated) in his
preface, or introdudion. " Our King and Maf-
*' ter, Alexis, having caufed the declarations of the
holy Fathers, the fupporters of the true faith, to
be coUeded together in one treatife, by wife and
^ learned men of the prefent age, deputed to me
** the office of placing the fentences of thofe Fa-
" thers

cc

LETTER II, If
** thers in order, and diftributing them aptly in
" their proper ftations.
He then ptoceeds to feled feveral paffages from
the antient Greek Fathers by name, in fupport of
the orthodox faith, until he arrives at one part of
his work, which he entitles, " Of the divine Af
fumption of the human nature," And then adds—x
" From other Fathers" — without naming them.
Under this head two fentences copied by him
may be thus tranflated. " The expreffion one
*' [in the neuter gender] Is ufed in things of
" which the nature is the fame and the perfons
*' different ; as [in] this [paffage of Scripture] and
" THE THREE ARE ONE. And It Is alfo ufed in
*' things in which there Is a famenefs of perfon,
" but a difference in nature ; as [in] this [other
" paffage, who hath made the'\ BOTH one, not by
** nature but by conjundion." {q)
As Euthymius has given no clear indication front
which of the Greek Fathers the preceding citation
was copied, it may for the prefent be referred to
his
(q) See Objeftion xx. of Dr. Benfon, in which the queftion as tQ
^uthjmiui will' be refumed.

28 L E T T E R II.
his own age, the eleventh century, although it may
hereafter appear to have had a much earlier date.
Yet. further. In an edition of the works of
Euthymius, printed at Tergobyfo, the teftimony of
the fix witneffes is read, without any expreffed
doubt or diftruft as to the authenticity of the three
in Heaven. It was publiflied in folio, by Metro-
phanes [Hieromonachus] in A, D. 1710. (r)
14. The Glojfa Ordinaria, the work of Walafrid
Strabo {s) was compofed in the ninth century.
This performance has been diftinguifhed by the
higheft approbation of the learned, in every age
fmce its appearance in the world. (/) In this
work the text in queftion is not only found in the
Epiftle
(r) Maith^si in Epif Cathol. p. 141-3.
(s) His name is frequently written Strains, and particularly by Dr.
Ca-ve. Bat the following authorities, among others, induce me to pre
fer the other appellative. " Straeo— II niourut vers I'an 849. Les
divers ouvra.ges qu' il compofa font un tcmoignage de fa pietc et ds fon
favoir. Ceu.'C qui nous reftcnt font (i. ii. &c.) vi. G/oj/h ordinaria
in Sacram Scripturam." [Moreri, Art. Strabo.']
" Sic et H'afidus Strabo de S. Paulo Apoftolo" &c. [Max.
Bibl. Fatr. Vol. xxvii : p. 81.]
(t) M. Simon fpeaks of this Commentary in the following terms,
tlo-us n avons aucun Comment aire ftf- I' Ecriture qui ait eu tant a' autorile
que cette Glofe, depuis le mwvteme f.cck, quelle commen^a a paroiire jufq' a
(es derr.zers terns.

i-ETTER II. 29
tlplftle of St. John, but is commented upon In the
Notes, with admirable force and perfpicuity.
In his Preface to this valuable Commentary Wa^
lafrid Strabo lays down the following rules, as means
whereby to difcover and corred any errors that
might fubfift in the tranfcripts of his times, either
of the Old or of the New Teftament, " Let it be
" noted (fays he, fpeaking to his readers) that
*' where any errors are difcovered in the Tran-
*' fcripts of the Old Teftament, we muft have re-
*' courfe to the Hebrew Original, becaufe the Old
*' Teftament was originally written In the Hebre'W.
*' tongue. But where any fuch errors fhall be
" difcovered in our Tranfcripts of the New Tef-
" tament, we muft look back to the Greek
*' MSS, becaufe the New Teftament was originaUy
" written in the Greek language, except the Gof-
" pel of St, Matthew, and the Epiftle of St. Paul
*' to the Hebrews." [y)
If, Sir, it fliall be allowed that this celebrated
Commentator followed, in his own pradice, the
rules which he has thus prefcribed to others (which
will hardly be doubted) the Greek MSS, which di-
reded
^1;/ Appendix, No. xiv.

5(5 L E T T E R ir,
teded him to Infert this Verfe in his Text afid
Commentary, muft In all probability have been
more antient than any now known to exift. He
flourifhed about A, D. 840. Some, at leaft, of
the Greek MSS which were ufed by him, cannot
well be fuppofed to have been lefs than 300, or
400 [w] years old ; the latter of which dates car
ries them up to A. D. 440. But the mof ancient
Greek MS of the New Teftament, which is now
known to exift, is the Alexandrian ; for which,
however, Wetfein, who feems to have confidered
the queftion with great attention, claims no higher %;
an antiquity than the clofe of the fifth century, or
about A. D, 490. [x] If this mode of reafcnlng,
then, be not (and it feems that it is not) fallaciousy
the text and commentary of Walafrid Strabo ftand
upon the foundation of Greek MSS, which are
-more ancient in point of time, and therefore which
ought to be more refpeded in point of teftimbny,
than any poffeffed by the prefent age. 15. In
(1x1) This fuppofition is not immoderate. There are MSS now in
this kingdom (exclufive of the Alexandrian Teftament) which are
more than double the age here affumed. This point will be difcuffed
more at large hereafter, under the teftimonies of Tertullian.
(x) Mill. Prol. 1338. Dr. Woide, who has publiflied a Facfm'ile
of the Alexandrian MS, agrees upon the whole, as to its age, with
MilUndi Wetfiein. Appendix, No. xv.

LETTER II. 51

1 j*. In the middle of the eighth century Am-
hrofe Anfbert, Abbot of St. Vincenf% in Italy, wrote
a commentary upon the Apocalypfe ; wherein this
verfe of St. John& Epiftle is thus applied in ex
planation of the fifth Verfe of the firft Chapter of
his Revelation.
" By that rule of fpeaking which is above pre-
*' mifed, the e'K.-'^xt&.on oi faithful laitnefs, found
*' herein, refers to the Son ilone ; although both
the Father and the Holy Ghoft at the fame time
give a faithful witnefs of themfelve<5, as it is
written, There are three that bear record in Hea
ven, the Father, the Word ]^ Ver bum] and iht
Holy Ghof, and thefe three are one." (j)

{CC

f(

16. In the fame century lived Elipandus, Arch
bifhop of Toledo in Spain, who maintained that
Jefus Chrif had no exiftence antecedently to his;
coming Into the world, and that he was the Son of
God by adoption only, and not by any co-effen-
tiality in nature. Thefe opinions of Elipandus
were ftrenuoufly oppofed by Etherius Bifhop of
Uxame, a Suffragan to Elipandus, and by Beatus a
Prieft in the Afurias. In the Treatife which they
publifhed againft Elipandus on this fubjed, they
. quoted
(y) Appendix, No. xvi.

3a LETTER II.
quoted feveral paffages of this Epiftle of St. John ;
and this teftimony of the fx witneffes in particu
lar, three in earth and three [Verbuml in Hea
ven, {z)
1 7, In the middle of the feventh century lived
Maximus, a Greek writer, frequently ftiled Maxi
mus the Confeffor. He was of a noble family in
Confantinople, was for fome time high in office
under the Emperor HeracUus, and was afterwards
made Abbot of the Monaftery of Chryfopolis. He
vifited Africa for a fhort time about A. D. 641,
then proceeded to Rome, returned to Confantinople
about A. D. 654, and died eight years afterwards.
Many learned men contend that he was the au*-
thor of that Dialogue in the Greek language,
which is generally printed in the works of Athanar,..
fus, and in which Athanafius and Arius are the
affumed interlocutors, [a] A part of this Dia
logue may be thus tranflated. " Is not that lively
*' and faving baptifm, whereby we receive remif-
" fion of fins, adminiftered in the thrice-bleffed " name
fz) Appendix, No xvii.
(a) The internal evidence of this Dialogue feems to affign to it a
higher date. It was accordingly afcribed to the fourth century, in
the former editions of thefe Letters. It is now degraded more by a
dcfire of conciliation, than by conviftion.

t, e; T T E R II. 33
*' name" of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
" Ghofl ? And St. John fays moreover, And thefe
" three are one."
i 8. In the beginning of this century Johannes
Damafcenus, a Greek Monk of Jerufalem, wrote
many dodrlnal works ; among which his four
books On the Orthodox Faith hold a diftinguifhed
place. In the firft book of this .Treatife he thus
fpeaks. " For their effence is. one,f their goodnefs
" one^ their power one, their will one, their
" energy one, their authority one,- — one and the
*' fame, not three like to each other, but one and the
" fame exertion of the three perfons [of the God-
" head.] For each of them, [thefe perfons] com-
" munlcates with each other no lefs than with
" himfelf. Hence it is that the Father, the
" Son, AND the Holy Ghost, are one in
" all things, except the ingeneratlon [of the Fa-
" ther] and the generation [of the Son] and the
" proceffion [of the Holy Ghoft.]" {b)
. D Although
[b) Appendix, No. xviii. Trithemius places Damafcenus much nearer
to the age of the Apoftles. " Apud Conftantinopolim Praelatus Mona-
" chorum coliftitutus — claruit {\ihTheodoJio devotiflimo principe A. D.
" 390."

34 LETTER It
Although this quotation does not refer to St.
John by name, yet It feems clearly to allude to the
verfe i John v : 7.
i 9. CaJJiodorius lived in Italy, In the middle of
the fixth century. Among other works he wrote
a Commentary on the Epiftles of the New Tefta-'
ment, the Ads of the Apoftles, and the Apoca-
lypfe, which he entitled Complexiones. This work
had lain long in obfcurity in the great library at
Verona, where It would, probably, have ftill re
mained unnoticed and unknown, had not the late
very learned Maffeius found it there in fome of
his various refearches, and caufed it to be printed
at Florence in A, D. 172I. In his Annotations oft
this chapter Cajfiodorins refers to the fx witneffes
in thefe words : " Three myfteries bear witnefs in
** earth, the Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, which
" are, we read, fulfilled in the paffion of our Lord ;
*' and in Heaven, the Father, and the Son, andthe
" Holy Ghof, and thefe three are one God." [c]
And he then proceeds to the ninth verfe of this
chapter, and comments upon it, and upon the reft
of the Epiftle In order. The
(c) Appendix, No. xix.

L E T T E R II. 35
The teftimony of this writer is of the greateft
Weight, becaufe it appears from his own work, as
well as from the teftimonies of Bengelius and Wol-
fus^ [d) that he was exceedingly attentive to the
true readings of fuch works as he conimented
upon, particularly the Scriptures ; and becaUfe he
lived antecedently to the revifal of the New Tef
tament by Alcu'mus and others, under Charlemagne,
which will be mentioned hereafter.
, 2o, In the beginning of the fixth century fiou-«-
rifhed Fulgentius, Bifhop of Rufpe in Africa,^ In
that age the tenets of Arius were efpoufed by at
leaft two African kings, Thrafirhond and Huneric.
Fulgentius oppofed the Arians (although fupported
at that time by the former of thefe kings) with
zeal and fortitude. And in his works we find this
verfe, among other paffages of Scripture, thus
cited and infifted upon as being conclufive againft
the tenets of Arius, " In the Father, therefore,
" and the Son \_filio'\ and the Holy Ghoft \_fpiritu
D 2 '"¦ fan£lo-'\
[d) Bengelius Edit. TuUnga, A. D. 1734, p. 75 J. Body De Bib],
Text. Grig. p. 399. Wolfii Cur. Philolog. Index tit. Cajjiodorius,
and parfici»larly Vol. V: p. 297 and 306. Cajjiodorius' own acfccunt
of the means which he had provided for this work, and of his methqd
of' proceeding in it, deferves attention. " ^os ego cUfiSlos novem co
dices auaori talis d'l-vina (ut fenex potui) fub collation e prijcarum codicum,
amicii ante me legentibus, J'edula ledione tranfivi.'

^6 LETTER II.
" fanBo"] we acknowledge the unity of effence,
*' but dare not confound the [diftlndion of] per-
" fons. For the bleffed Apoftle St. John teftifies,
" that there are three which bear record in Heaven.^
" the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and thefe
" three are One. Which also the moft holy Mar-
" tyx Cyprian declares in his ^yiMcDe Unitate
" Ecclef^B ; wherein, to demonftrate that there
" ought to he an unity in the Church as there is
" in the Godhead, he has brought the follow-
" ING PROOFS diredly from Scripture ; The
*' Lord (Jefus) fays, / and my Father are One j
*' and again it is written of the Father, Son, and
" Holy Spirit, And thefe Three are One." {e)
Fulgentius alfo thus quotes this verfe in his Trea'-
fife on the Trinity, dedicated to Felix. " I and my
" Father, fays St. John, are One \unum fumus'\ j
*' thereby teaching us to apply the word unum to
*' their nature, fumus to their perfons. So in
*' the following words, There are three that bear
" witnefs in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and
*' the Sfirit, and thefe three are oner {e\
In another part of his works Fulgentius thus al
ludes to this text. " By this natural union the
" Father
{e) Appendix, No. xx.

L E T T E R II. 37
** Father is wholly in the Son and In the Holy
'* Ghoft ; the Son is wholly in the Father and in
" the Holy Ghoft ; and the Holy Ghoft Is wholly
" in the Father and in the Son. — For this reafon
" the THREE ONE ^tres unumi we rightly believe
*' and affirm to be God." (/)
In one of the laft editions of the works of this
Bifhop two Trads are inferted under his name,
which Du Pin affirms to be the work of Fulgen
tius, although fome refpedable Critics of modern
times have rather wifhed (and, as it feems, with
more juftice) to afcribe them to fome other Writer
of that age. They were addreffed to two Arian
Controverfialifts then living, Pinta and Fabianus,
jn oppofj-tion to the tenets which they maintained.
In the former of thefe Trads the verfe in quef
tion is thus quoted. " In Pfalm d^. [67.] — God,
*' our God, fhall give us his bleffing ; God fhall
*' blefs us, and the ends of the world fhall fear
" him. I hear the Pfalmift pronouncing God
" thrice, and fpeaking of one who is to be feared.
" In the Epiftle of St, John — There are Three in
^' Heaven which bear record, the Father, the Word
D 3 [Verbum]
{/) Appendix, No. xx.

jS L E T T E R II.
" [Verbum] and the Spirit ; and thefe three are

" one,

" {g)

The title of the Trad (or rather fragments' of
a Trad) againft Fabianus, is, " The Trinity in
Perfons, and the Unity InEffehce \oi the God- '
head] proved from the Holy Scripture." The man^
ner in which this verfe of St. J obit \^ cited in one
of thefe Fragments is' as follows. " This alfo the
" holy Apoftle [St. Paul"^ confirms : Who, ii4
" refped to the diftlndion of perfons [In the God-
*' head] fays, One God the Father, of whom are all
*' things, and we in him ; and one • Lord Jefus
" Chrif, by whom are all things, and we by him )
*' and that the faithful are built together for a ha-
" bitation of God through the Spirit. ¦ Shewing alfe
" that the one God is a Trinity, he adds, 0 the
" depth of the riches ef the v/ifdom and of the
" knowledge of God ! And a little afterwards,
" For of him, and through him, and in him, are
*' all things : to him be glory for ever. But the
" holy Apoftle St.- John [proceeds further, for he]
plainly fays, And the three are one ; which text
" concerning the Father, the Son [Filio] and the
Holy , Ghof we alledge, as we did before
" when
ii) Appendix, No. xx.

letter ii. 39
*' when ye required a reafon from us [of our
*^ belief]'' [h]
It feems to be of little moment in this difquifi
tion, whether we conclude thefe Trads, or Frag
ments, to have been the works of Fulgentius, or
of fome contemporary Writer. They prove, un
der either fuppofition (In corroboration of other
authorities here adduced) both thofe points by
which the prefent queftion is affeded ; namely,
that this verfe was. qvioted in the Arian contro-
verfy, and was there appeflled to as indubitably pro-»
ceeding from the pen, of St, Johit*
21. A few years before Fulgentius lived Vigilius.,
who was Bifhop of Tapfum, fituated in the fame
province and kingdom with Rufpe. He thus urges
the teftimony of this Verfe in oppofitlon to the
errors of Arius, in the firft book of his Trea^^^
tife on the Trinity. " Although, therefore, in the
" former proofs brought from Scripture, the names
" of the perfons [in the Godhead] are not men^^
^' tioned, and yet the name of the united Divinity
" is manifefted to you in all of them : fo in this
" [following] proof from Holy Writ, in which
., - ¦ ' - „ ^^^^
(i) Appendix, No. xx.

40 LETTER II.

<(

the nam6s of the perfons are openly fet forth,
the name of the united Divinity is [only] co»
vertly declared, John the Evangelift faying in
his Epiftle, There are three which bear record in
Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,
and in Chrift Jefus thefe are one." [i)

And again in the fame Book, and in the next
fucceeding page — " Ye have already heard the
" Evangelift St. John teftifying fo abfolutely in
" his Epiftle, There are three that bear "witnefs it^
" Heaven, the Father, the Word [Verbum] and
*' the Holy Ghof, and in Chrift Jefus thefe are one.
*' So that without doubt the divine Trinity Is in
" the names of the perfons, thrpe, but [in its
*' effence] altogether one." if)
And again, in a fubfequent book of the fam^
Treatife — " But the Holy Ghoft abides in the Fa-
" ther, and in the Son [i^^7^o] and in himfelf; as
" the Evangelift St, John fo abfolutely teftifies in
*'¦ his Epiftle : And the three are one. But how,
'.'ye heretics, are the three one, if their fubftance
" be divided or cut afunder ? Or how are they^
" pNE, if they be placed one before another ?
"¦^Or how are the three ONE, if the Divinity be
" different;
(i) Appendix, No. xxi.

letter II. 41
*' different In each' ? How aie they one, if there
*' refide not in them the united eternal plenitvide
*' of the Godhead ?" (>§)

«c

And again- — " To what purpofe Is it that ye
read in John the Evangelift, Thefe Three are
" One, if ye ftill perfift that there are different
" natures in their perfons ? I afk in what man-
"** ner are the "Three One, if the nature of their
divinity is different in each ?" {li)

f'

In the tenth Book he repeats the argument
herein before cited from the firft Book, with iitT-
tie variation.
And laftly, in his conteft with Varimadus the
Arian, he quotes the teftimony of the fx witneffes
in the following manner. " And John the Evan-
" gelift fays, In the. beginning was the Word, and
f ' the Word was with God, and the Word was Godk
" Alfo in his Epiftle to the Parthians — There are
" Three that bear witnefs in Earth, the Water, the
?' Blood, and the Flefh ; et hi tres in nobis funt :
" and there are Three that bear witnefs in Heaven,
" the Father, the Word [Verbum] and the Spirit,
V and thefe three are one," [k) 22. A
{k\ Appendix, No. xxi.

42 L E T T E R II.
2 2, A fittle before the days of Vigilius flourifhed
in the Weft the good Eucherius. He was confe-
crated Bifhop of Lyons about A. D. 434. There
was not a Bifhop, in the weftern world, more re
vered for learning and piety. (/) Among other
works he was the author of two Treatifes, the
Formula and the i^ucefiones. His defign in the
former of thefe was to give to fcriptural names, and
nmnhers a fcriptural application. His eleventh
chapter opens in the following manner.
¦ ¦ Thefe names being at length finifhcd, let us
*; alfo briefly treat on liumbers.

" I. This number Is referred to the unity of
*' the Godhead : In thc Pentateuch, Hear, 0 ifraell
" The Lord thy God is ONE. And the Apoftle^
'^ One God, one faith, one baptifm. And the Ark of
*^ Noah, by which the holy Church is defigned,
*' is finifbed in one cubit : for in the contemplation
" of one God is eternal happinefs.

*' II. This number is referred to the two Tefta-^
ments of the divine Law : In Kings, And be
made in Dabir two Cherubim of ten cubits in
" height,,
{1} Appendix, No. xxii.

«*

LETTER II. 43
^'' .height. Two precepts of love, of God and of
*' our neighbour. Two in the field, 'two in the
mill, and two in one bed, we read in the Holy
Gofpel. " •• , ' ¦ ¦

*' III. [This number is referred] to the Trinity :
I'd Sx.. ¦ John % Epiftle, There are three that
bear witnefs in Heaven, the Father, the Word.
[Verbum] and the Holy Ghof ; and there are
three that bear witnefs in earth, the fpirit, the
water, aiid the blood. And in Genefis, The three
of whom the ¦whole earth was overfpread.

%x

It.

, *' IV. [This number to] the four Evangelifts"
^cci {m) ¦' ' ' '•
23. When the pious and very learned Jerome
(who died in A. D'. 421) had compleated that
' great work of correding the Latin verfion of the
Old, and fettling' the text of the New Teftament,
which he undertook at the requeft of Pope Da-
inafus, he clofed' the arduous tafk with a folemn
proteftation («) that, in reyifing the New Tefta-
iheint, he had adhered entirely to the Greek MSS :
*' Novum Tef amentum fidei Grceccs reddidi" And in
^m). Appendix, No. xxii.
(a) Catal. Ecelef. Scriptor. ad linem.

44 LETTER II.
in Jerome's, Teftament this verfe of St. John has
been always read (o) as appears by the general
tenor of the Latin authorities already adduced in
defence of this paffage, and from the MSS of his
verfion which are ftill in exiftence.
Nor Is the infertion of this verfe in his Tefta-^
ment) in obedience to his Greek MSS, the only
teftimony which Jerome hath given to its authen
ticity. He has alfo quoted (or rather referred to)
it in the folemn Confeffion of his Faith, infcribed
tp Pope Damafus before mentioned.

<»

** And as, in oppofitlon to Arius, we affirm that
the Trinity is of one and the fame effence, and
confefs in three perfons one God : fo, fhunning
the herefy of Sabellius, we difHnguifh thofe three
perfons by their feveral properties. The Fathee
is always the Father ; the Son Is always the Son;
and the Holy Ghoft is always the Holy Ghoft,
In effence, therefore, thefe [three] are one [unum
funt.] They are diftind in perfon [only] and

" in names."

It

(o) This obfervation is not incant to include all the Latin authori
ties, or all the Latin MSS. Some of thofe authorities are taken from
the old Italic verjion ; and fome few Latin MSS omit the verfe, ¦ Sec
objeftions xlv. and m. of Dr. Benfon hereafter ftated.

LETTER II. 4^
It has been doubted whether this Confeffion of
Faith was the work of Jerome, or of fome other
Writer of that (or nearly that) age. But the tef
timony of the Venerable Bede, which will be
hereafter adduced to this point, ought to prevail
againft every doubt of this kind. (^)
Jerome has alfo given his fandion to this paf^
fage of St. John in the moft decided terms, if the
Prologue to the Seven Canonical Epiftles be (and It
feems to be) of his compofition. This arduous
queftion will be ^ifcuffed at large hereafter, (y)
24. Augufine was contemporary with Jerome,
and correfponded with him on many Biblical fub-
jeds. In his Commentary upon the firft Epiftle
of St. John, and upon this very Chapter of that
Epiftle, Augufine ufes thefe expreffions. " And
*' why is Chrift the end of the commandment ?
" Becaufe Chrift is God ; and the end of the
" commandment Is love ; and God is Love. For
" the Father, and the Son [Fiiius] and the Holy
" Ghof [unum sunt] are one"
Again, in his Treatife againft Maximinus the
Arian
{p) Objeflion xxiv. of Dr. Benfon,
(y) Objection xiii. to xxiv. inclufive of Dr. Btnfen.

46 t E T t E R It.
Arian he expreffes himfelf in thefe remarkibf^
terms. " For there are three perfons [in the
. *' Godhead] tbe Father, the Son [Fiiius] and the
" Holy Ghof: AND THESE THREE (becaufe they
" are ofthe fame' gflence) are one. \^Hi tres unurn
*' funt.~\ And they are completely one \_unum funt] ¦
" there being no diverfity either in their natures,
" or in their wflls. These three, therefore, ti^i^o
" ARE ONE \hi tr&s qui unumfunt\ through the iri-
" effable unity of the Godhead in which they
" are incomprehenfibly joined together, are om
" God." (r)
The ftriking reiteration, In thefe paffages, of the
fame expreffions, Unum funt — -Hi tres unum funt
• — Unum funt, and Hi tres qui unum funt,- feems to
befpeak their derivation from the Verfe, now in
debate, too clearly to require any comment.
25. In the expofitlon of the Faith written to
Cyrillus, by Marcus Celedenfs an African, the
writer thus expreffes himfelf: " To us there Is
" one Father, and one Son, who is truly God,
*' and one Holy Spirit, who is alfo truly God ;
and
[r) Appendix, No. xxiv.

L E T T E R 11. 47
*'^ and thefe Three are One :" (j) — the precife vTords
of the verfe in queftion.

26, Phahadiui Was Bifhop of Agen In France,
in the fourth century. He thus cites this verfe
in his Book againft the Arians: " That rule,
therefore, is to be kept which declares '\_conf-
tetur] the Soii to be in the Father, and the Fa
ther in the Son, which prSferving one effence in
tw^o perfdns acknowledges this difpofition of the
Deity, Theii-efore the Father is God and the
Son is God, becaufe the Son is God in God his
Father. If this fhall give offence to any one,
let him be informed by us that the Spirit is alfo
of the Deity ; becaufe to him to whom the Son
is the fecond perfon, the Holy Ghoft is the
third. And in fine the Lord fays, I will afk of
my Father, and he foall give you another com
forter. Thus is the Spirit different from the
SoU; as the Son Is from the Father. Thus thc
Spirit Is the Third perfon, as the Son is the Se
cond, yet they all conftitute but one Got), be
caufe {thefe^ Three are One. This we believe,
this we hold, becaufe we have received it from
the prophets : this the Gofpels have fpoken to
" us,
(j1 Bengelius, p. 753. This expofuion was, in the fecond edition
of thefe Letters, attributed by miftake to Jerome.

4^ LETTER il
" US, this the Apoftles have delivered to us, afl^
*' to this Martyrs have borne wirnefs in their fuf-
" ferlngs." — Quia tres unum funt [f) are the words
of Phcebadius, which are alfo a literal quotation
from St. John.
Jerome gives the moft honourable teftimony tcf
this author, in his Catalogue of Ecelef afical Writers i
" Phcebadius (fays he) Bifhop of Agen in France,
publifhed a Book againft the Arians. It is fald
that he has been the author of other works alfo,
but thofe I have not yet read. He is alive at this
day in a very advanced age."
27. In the fame century with Phcebadius lived
Gregory Nazianzen. He was Bifhop of Nazianzum
in Cappadocia, and died in or about A. D. 389, at
the advanced age of 90 years and upwards. His
learning and piety will confecrate his name to the
lateft times.
One paffage of his Oration on the Holy Lights
may be thus tranflated. " Let it not be a matter
*' of furprize to any one, if this difcourfe fhall
*' contain any repetition of arguments which I
" have
(/) Appendix, No. xxv.

L E T T E R li. 49
" have heretofore urged. For I not only ufe the
fame expreffions, but apply them to the fame
things ; being indeed impreffed with a fearful
awe, which affeds my voice, my conceptions
and underftanding, whenever I fpeak [ipeeyyujita.J
" of God : and I pray that the fame laudable and
bleffed fenfations may alfo be produced In you..
And when I pronounce the name of God, may
*' ye be illuminated around [^Trs^ioif^oc^hnJ by the
one light and the three : three indeed, as to
proprieties, or hypoftafes, if that word be more
" fatisfadory to any one, or perfons (for we will
not contend [^^vyoij.oix'^a-oiji.si/'} about words, fo long
as any fyllables fhall carry us to the fame mean-
" ing) and one as to their effence, or their di-
" vinity. For the Godhead Is diftinguifhed [into
" perfons] without being divided, as I may fo
" fpeak : and its perfons fo diftinguifhed are united
" together in one effence. For in the three is the
'' one deity, and the three are one, thofe
" [three, t^;*] in whom the Deity is, or, to fpeak
" with greater propriety, which is [as -i 8fOT-/is] the
" Deity. We avoid redundancies and defeds, not
" producing confufion from union, or feparation
" from diftlndion. Let us place at an equal dif-
" tance from us the contradion of Sabellius and
" the divlfion of Arius : errors diametrically op-
E " pofite

<(

5<5 letter il.
" pofite to each other [in kind] but equal In im^a
*' piety. For why ought we either to unite [the
" perfons of] the Deity confufedly, or to divide
" its effence unequally ? For to us there is one Goa
" the Father from whom are all things, and one
" Lord Jefus Chrif by "whom are all things, and
one Holy Ghof in whom are all things : Which
[expreffions] from whom, by whom, and in
whom, are not expreffions of thofe who divide;
the nature — but of thofe who diftinguifli the
perfons of one and the fame unconfufed effence;
And this is manlfeft, becaufe they are again
[waAiv] colleded into one [«? «] if we read not
negligently the same Apostle : Of him, and
through him, and in hhn^ are all things ; to him
be glory everlafing,
" The Father is the Father, and without a be
ginning ; for he is of none, ' The Son is the
Son, but not without beginning ; for he is of
the Father. But if ye compute his beginning
as to time, he alfo was without beginning. For
he who made time cannot be fubjed to it. The,
Holy Ghoft is truly the Holy Ghoft, coming
indeed from the Father, but not by filiation, or
• generation, but by proceffion. For it may be
' aUowed [in fubjeds like thefe] to frame new
" exoreffions

LETTER ll. 51
*' ejtpreffions for the fake of perfpicuity. Nor
*' does the Father ceafe to be unbegotten, becaufe
" he begat ; nor does the Son ceafe to be begotten,
" becaufe he is from an unbegotten Father (for
" how could that be ?) nor is the [Holy] Spirit
" abforbed in the Father, Or In the Son, becaufe
" he proceeds, and Is God, although not acknow-
" ledged by ungodly men. — There is therefore
" one God In three [perfons] and thefe three are
" one, as we have faid." {u)
28. Contemporary with Gregory Nazianzen, but
dying a few years,, more early, lived Athanafius.
Among his works Is a Synopfis of this epiftle of
St. John : a part of which may be thus traiiflated.
" He [St. John"] finally points out what Spirit is
" of God, and what Spirit is of deceitfulnefs ;
*' and when we are known to be children of God,
" and when of the Devil. Alfo for what fin we
" ought to pray. And that he who loves not his bro-
'' ther is not worthy of his vocation, and belongs
*' not to Chrift. Alfo he Jhews the unity of the
" Son with the Father : and that he who denies the
" Son, neither has he the Father. He points out
E 2 alfo

(u) El? Tfl! y.yta, tpurcc Aoyog—Oratio 39. Appendix No. -^xvj.
This fubjeft will be tefumcd in Objeftion xx. of Dr. Benfon.

52 LETTER 11. t
** atfo in this epiftle the perfon of Antichrift,'* (*/
29. Cyprian [w) was made Bifhop oi Carthage in
A. D, 248. In his treatife De Unitate Ecckfue,
written againft Novatus, he ufes thefe words.-
*' Our Lord declares / and my Father are One \
*' and again it is written of the Father, the Son,
" and the Holy Spirit, And thefe Three: are Oner
Et hi tres unum funt are the exad words of this
holy Martyr. Here Cyprian manifeftly makes two
quotations from the Scriptures ; the former from
the Gofpel of St. John x : 30 ; the latter from i*- ,
John v: 7, the Verfe in queftion. It is writ
ten, fays he ; but in what part of Scripture is it fo^
written, in thofe particular terms, fave in i. John
V : 7 ? In that Verfe alone, throughout the whole
of thofe facred pages, is the 'precife phrafe Et hi
tres unum funt, applied to the Trinity of perfons in
the Godhead. This quotation, then, was made,'
and was meant tp be made, [x\ from this Verfe of
the Epiftle of St. John. In
(y) Appendix, No. xxvi. and Objedion xx. of Dr. Benfon here
after ftated.
{iu) Jerome's chitaSier o^ Cyprian is given in his ufual, nervous
manner. " Cyprianus Afer — Hujus ingenii fuperfluum eft indicem
texere, cum Sole clariora fint ejus opera."
{x) The words of Fulgentius, herein before ftated,. feem to render
kU argument on this head fuperfluous. Eut as exceptions have been
taken

L E T T E R II, 53
In his Epiftle to Jubaiamu Cyprian again urges
this teftimony of the three (heavenly) Witneffes,
by a reference to the fame Verfe ; "" Ciim bi tres
*' unum funt." (j)
30. Tertullian was bom about the time of St.
Jobn% death, if fome Chronologifts may be (js)
credited. But other computations, which indeed
feem to be much more accurate, place his birth about
A. D. 1 40. In either cafe it will be no incredible
thing to fuppofe that TertuIUan had converfed with
Chriftians of his own times, who had adually fat
under St. John^ minlftration of the Gofpel. In
thofe days arofe In Afa the heretic Praxeas, who
maintained that there was no plurality of perfons
in the Godhead, and that the Father fuffered on
the crofs. Againft the opinions of this man Ter
tullian wrote a treatife, in the twenty-fifth chapter
of which he thus alledges this paffage of St. John.
E 3 " But

taken to this teftimony, the queftion will be refumed in ObjedlloBS
iii — xii. of Dr. Benfon.
[y] Appendix, No. xxviij.
(z) Eufebius, in his Chronica, p. 165, fays that St. John was alive in
A. D. lOi. And Tertullian died (in A. D. 196, according to Dr.
Blair% Chronology, but according to Dr. PlayfairJ about A. D. 234,
in a very advanced age. " Fertur 'vixijfe ufqne ad decrepilam atatem
are the words o^ Jerome, who was born in A. D. 331, or fomcwhat
lefs than a century after the death of Tertullian,

54 LETTER II,
" But he fhall take of mine [fays the Son] as I of
" the Father." Thus the cpnnedion of the Father
" in the Son, and pf the Son in the Floly Spirit,
" makes an unity of thefe three [perfons] ojie
" with another, which Three are One." The
Latin is, Qm tres unum funt [a) a literal quotation
of the Verfe in queftion. And the teftimony of
Tertullian feems to carry the, ftrongeft convidion
witl^ it to every unprejudiced mind, not only from
its proximity tp the age pf the Apoftles, but be
caufe he teftifies that, in his times, their authentic
Epif les vt>ere adually read to the Churches, not
through the medium of the Latin, or of any other
tranflation, but in the original Greek ; to which
originals Tertullian himfelf diredly appeals in the
eleventh chapter of his Monogamia. " Sciaijius.
" plane" (fays he, fpeakiAg of fomp erroneous
opinions which were then attempted to be proved
by Scripture) " nonfc effe in autbenticg Grai;o."
To the evidence thus furnifhed by Individual/,
all of v^hpm lived antecedently to the days of Eraf
mus, I now beg leave to fubjoin — the testi
mony of COUNCIL?, AND other COLLECTIVE BODIES OF
[a] Appendix No. xxix.— And fee Obiedtion ii. of Dr. Benfon here
after ftated.

L E T T E R ll» ^^
pF MEN — in fupport of the originality of the Verfe
in queftion.
31. The Lateran Council was held at Rome
under Innocent III. A.D. 12 15. Of all the af-
femblies of this kind, which the Cliriftian world
ever faw, this was the moft numerous. It was
compofed of more than 400 if) bifhops, of about
800 abbots and priors, and of an ^ual number of
deputies fpom prelates, colleges and chapters, who
could not attend in perfon. Among others the
Greek patriarchs of Confantinople and Jerufalem
were prefent ; and the feveral patriarchs of An
tioch an(J Ah^andria fent each a bifhop and a dea
con as their reprefentatives. This council was
chiefly convened for the examination of certain
opinions of the famous Italiai%, Father Joachim,
founder of the congregation of Flori?.. Thefe opi
nions were accufed of Arianifm_, and were unanl-
moufly condemned by the council : in v/hofe ad
pr decretal, containing the reafons of fuch con
demnation, we find the verfe now in queftion,
iamong other paffages of Scripture, thus particu
larly fet forth, (c) " It is read in the Canonical
E 4 " Epiftle
{f) Du PJn, Bibl. Ecelef. vol. x. p. 103.
(c) CoUeftion of Councils by Labbe and Cojfart, Edit. Paris, A. D.
1671, vol. xi. p. 144.

^6 L E T T E R II.
" Epiftle of John, There are Three that bear wit-
" nefs in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
*' Holy Spirit, and thefe Three are One."
It may be permitted to me perhaps juft to re-^
mark, that the univerfal deference yielded to the
known learning and integrity of the members of
this council, caufed its decrees, in matters even of
a fecular nature, to be received as law, not only in
{if) England, but through the reft of the Chrif ian,
world. 32. About the clofe of the eighth century the
Emperor Charlemagne called together the learned
of that age, and placed Alcuinus, an EngUfhman of
great erudition, at their head ; [e) inftruding them
to revlfe the MSS of the Bible then in ufe, to fettle
the text, and to redlfy the errors which had crept
into it through the hafte or the ignorance of tran-
fcrlbers. To effed this great purpofe, he furnifhed
thefe commiffioners with every MS that could be
procured throughout his very extenfive dominions.
In their Cqrre£iorium, the refiilt of their united la--
bors,
[d] Bacon^s Abridgment, vol. v. title Tithes.
(e) Le Long, Eibl. Sacra, vol. i. c. iv. feft. 2. Edit Paris, A. D,
1723, p. Z35. M. Simon, Hift. Crit. des Vers. c. ix. Hody, p. 409,
Du Pin, vol. vi. p. 122.

L E T T E R II. 57
bors, which was prefented In public to the Em
peror by Alcuinus, the tefimony of the three (hea
venly) Witneffes is read, without the fmalleft im
peachment of its authenticity. This very volume
Cardinal Baronius affirms to have been extant at
Rome, in his life-time, in the library of the Abbey
pf Vaux-Celles ; ar^d he ftiles it " a treqfure qf
inefimable value"
It cannot be fuppofed that thefe Divines, thus
affembled under the aufplces of a learned prince,
would attempt to fettle the text of the New Tefta
ment without referring to the Greek Original, by
which alone that text could be afcertained ; or that
they would in that arduous inveftlgatlon coUate
MSS only of a modern date, juft wet, as it were,
from the pen of the copyift. Candor requires us
to admit that their refearches muft have extended
many centuries upwards — in all probability even
to the age of the Apoftles. (/")
^T^. In A. D. 484. an affembly of ./^ir«« Bi
fhops was convened at Carthage by King Huneric,
the Vandal and the Arian. The ftyle of the edid,
iffued by Huneric on this pccafion, feems worthy of
(/) This jEra coincides with that of Walafrid Strabo. The fame
argument (p. 30) applies to both. See alfo objedlion ii, of Dr.
.Benfon hereafter ftated.

^$ L E T T E R Ii.
©f notice. He therein requires the orthodox Bt-?
fliops of his dominions to attend the council thu§
convened, there " to defend by the Scriptures thp
ppnfubftan tiality of the Son with the Father,"
ag£|.inft certain Arian opponents. At the time ap-^
pointed nearly four hundred bifhpps attended this
council, from the various provinces of Africa, and
from the ifles of the Mediterranean Sea ; at thq
head of whom flood the venerable Eugenius, bi
fhop of Carthage. The public profeffions of Hu-^
neric promifed a fair and candid difcuffion of the
divinity of Jefus Chrif ; but it foon appeared that
his private intentions were to compel, by force,
the vindicators of that belief to fubmit to the
tenets of Aricinifm. For when Eugenius, with his
Anti-Arian prelates, entered the room of confulta-^l
tion, (^) they found Cyrila, their chief antagonlft,
feated on a kind of throne, attended by his Arian
co-adjutprs, and furrounded by armed men ; who
quickly, inftead of waiting to hear the reafonlngs
of their opponents, offered violence to their per
fons. Convinced by this application of force that
no deference would be paid to argument, EugeniuA-
and his prelates withdrew from the council-room ;
but;
[g] ViBor Vitenfs, who was then an African bifliop, and prefent at
this council, has Itft us a circumftantial account of the whole tranfaCf
tioH. Appendix, No. xxx.

LETTER 11. 59
but not without leaving behind them a proteft, in
which (among • other paffages of Scripture) this
Verfe of St. John is thus efpecially infifted upon,
in vindication of the belief to which they adhered.
" That it may appear more clear than the light
*' that the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the
*' Holy Spirit is one, fee it proved by the Evan-
*' gelift St. John, who writes thus : There are three
" which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the
"¦ Word, and the Holy Spirit.^ and thefe Three ar^
'* One."
This remarkable fad appears to be, alone, amply
decifive as to the originality of the Verfe in quef
tion, The manner in which it happened feems to
c^rry irrefiftible convidion with it. It was not a
thing done in a corner, a tranfadion of folltude or
obfcurity. It paffed in the metropoHs of the king
dom, in the court of the reigning prince, in the
face of opponents exafperated by controverfy and
proud of royal fupport, and In the prefence of the
whole congregated African church. Nor is the
time, when this tranfadion happened, lefs power
fully convincing than its manner. Not much more
than three centuries had elapfed from the death of
St. John, v^hen this folemn appeal was thus made
to ,the authority of this Verfe. Had the Verfe been

Go- L E T T E R II.
been forged by Eugenius and his bifhops, all Chriflr
tian Africa would have exclaimed at once againfl \
them. Had it even been confidered as of doubtful
original, their adyerfaries the Arians, thus publicly
attacked by this proteft, would have loudly chal
lenged the authenticity of the Verfe, and would-
have refufed to be in any refped concluded by its
evidence. But nothing of this kind intervened.
-Cyrila and his aflbciates received its teftimony in
fullen filence ; and by that filence admitted it tQ
liave proceeded firom the pen of St. John,
To the aaithority of thefe councils, and of the '
revifion of Charlemagne, let me now fubjoin the
inoft facred fandion which any colledivc body of
Chriftians can give to the truth of a paffage of
Scripture ;. namely, the admiffion of it into the pub-^
lie rituals, or fervice-books of their churches. Fof
34. This Verfe of St. John was inferted in the
ancient fervice-books of the Latin Church. It was
read in them as part of the office for Trinity Sun
day, and (as it now is in the church of England)
for the oSiave of Eafter. It appears from the Ra
tionale of Durandus, already mentioned in this
letter, {h) that this paffage alfo formed a part of
the
{J}) Page 22.

IetTer ii. €i
the office for the minlftration of baptifm in thofe
ancient liturgies^ purfuant to the regulations of ihe
Ordo Romanus, or The Roman Order of Offices to
be ufed throughout the year. The precife time of
the eftablifliment of this ritual in the Latin churches
is not clearly known : its antiquity has, in fome
degree, thrown a veil over it,- But that it was in
thofe churches the eftablifhed diredory of public
worftiip, and confequently that this verfe was re
ceived by them as part of the infpired vmtings,
long before the revifal of the Scriptures in the
reign of Charlemagne (already ftated in this letter)
we are certified from very refpedable authority. (/)
35. This Verfe of St. John Is found in the Con-
fejjion of faith of the Greek Church. The words
of this confeffion, where it refers to the paffage m
queftion, are thefe : " The Father, the Son, and
" the Holy Spirit are all of the fame effence ; as
" St. John teftifies — There are Three that bear re-
*' cord in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
" Holy Spirit, and thefe Three are One." (/§) The
time
(;') For the antiquity of the Ordo Romanus fee Vjhei^s works — Ca-ve.,
Appendix ad Hift. Lit. — and Selden de Synedriis, vol, ii. p. 1250.
(i) " AXka, iA,ey &c. — Deus autem eft natura verus, et .stemuj,
" et omnium conditor, vifibilium et invifibijium : talis exia.m eft Fi-
" Jius, et Spiritus Sanftus, Sunt etiam ejufdem inter fe cflentize, " juxta

Si LETTER n.
time when this public confeffion' of faith v/as firfj
compiled by the Greek church, does n6t now ap-i
pear. But the arguments which were urged on
another occafion, and for another purpofe, by one!
of the moft zealous antagonifts (/) of this Verfe^
might be here applied to prove, that this confeffion
was drawn up in an age very remote from our own
times. Its exad date, however, Hke that of the
proof laft alledged from the Latin church, is loft
in Its great antiquity.
^6. This Verfe is alfo found In the liturgy, or
public fervice-books, of the Greek church. Among
thefe one in particular, entitled AiroroA©^ {m) bears
a diftlngulflhied place, being a colledion of the Epif
tles of the New Teftament, taken feparately from
the Gofpels : feled parts of which are appointed,'
Hke thofe which ftand in the Communion-fervice
of the Church of England, to be read in fuc-
cefliion, in the proper offices for particular. days.
Among other portions of Scripture this Verfe of
St.
" juxta doftrinam Joannis Evangeliftse qui dicit,— T'?-^ fwit qui tefti.
" monium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Set mo et Spiritus fanSus: et hi tres
" unum funt" "Dr. Thomas Smith's Mifcellanea, p. 155, Edit. Zu»/,
A. D. 1686.
(/) M. Simon, Hift. Crit. c. ix.
{m) Smith''s Mifcellanea, p. 155. " In ilia collectione Eptstq-
I ARUM NoviTeftamenti Sec. Alfo Martins La Verife, p. 2. c. v.

lEtTer It. i5j
St. John is direded, by the Greek rituals, to be
read in its courfe, in the thirty-fifth week of the
year. As to the antiquity of this Attoj-oa©^, we
have the moft pofitive proofs («) that it was ufed
in the Greek church in the fifth century. How
long it might have been eftablifhed there before
that sera, is known only to Him " in whofe fight d
ihoufand years are but as yeferday"
If there can be, at this time, an unerring method
of demonftrating that any particular paffage of
Scripture was confidered, by the primitive Chriftian
ehurchj as authentic, as bearing upon it the feal
of divine infpiration, it muft be by fhewing fuch
paffage placed in its public creeds or confeffions of
faith, and appointed to be read in the folemn!-^
ties of its religious worfhip. By the former the
Church fpeaks to men ; by the latter it intercedes
with God : and in both with fincerity, becaufe all
human principles of adion concur to forbid even
an attempt to deceive, in either. Of both thefe
pre-eminent fandlons the Verfe in queftion can
fortunately
t«) Caw, Vol. ii. Diff. 2. Edit. Oxon. A. D. 1743 p. 23. 5'/?/-
den is Synedriis, Vol. ii. p. 1250 &c. Mill. Prol. 1054. Fabricius
Biblioth. Gr^c. Vol. v. DilT. i. p. 34 Edit. Hamb. A. D. 1712,
Cotelerius,Ecch Grac. Monum. Tom. iii. p. 222 — 351, Edit. Faw.
A. D. i6j6.

64 LETTER IL
fortunately avail itfelf. It can plead both of them'
in its favor. While numberlefs other teftimonlals
of its originality have, without doubt, perifhed by
negled or by accident ; Have been deftroyed by the
hoftlle invafions .of rude and unlettered barba
rians, or have been crumbled into duft under the
deleterious hand of time, in the long lapfe oi fe-
•benteen hundred years : thefe have happily efcaped
all thofe perils, and have furvived to the prefent
age. And when we can trace (as we are enabled
to do in the inftance now before us) fuch confef-^
fions and liturgies back into ages fo remote as the
fourth or fifth century after Chrift, without being
able even there to difcover the adual time of their
cftablifhment in the Chriftian Church ; — we are
then, by all the rules of right reafoning, well war
ranted to conclude, that fuch creeds or confeffions of
faith, fuch rituals and formularies of devotion, muft
have been nearly coeval with Chriftianity itfelf*
But the infertion of this Verfe in the Confeffion
of Faith of the Greek Church, and in the public
Liturgies of both the Greek and Latin Churches^.
joined to the authority of the Councils, and of the
Revifion of Charlemagne — which have been juft
ftated — are not the only teftimonies ' (however
ftrong and convincing they may feem) which have been

L E T T E R ii* 6^
been given, by colledlve bodies of Chriftians, to
the authenticity of this verfe; Let it be here
finally obferved, that the New Teftaments, which
were anciently read in the Churches of far the
greateft number of thofe nations who made an
early profeffion of the Chriftian faith, either in
the original Greek, or in the ancient Verfion s of
that original into the language of thofe nations, {o)
furnlfh the ffioft powerful proofs of the truth of
this dlfputed paffage of St. John. For
37. The ancient Verfion, or Tranflation of the
New Teftament into the Armenian language, hath
always contained this verfe. It is affirmed, by the
moft refpedable opponent of the authenticity of
this dlfputed paffage, that this Verfion hath been
ufed by the Armenian nations ever fince the" age
of Chryfofom ; who died in A. D- 407. The real
date of this ancient Verfion, however, cannot per
haps be carried higher than about A. D. 435*
But even in this cafe, the original MS or MSS,
F fronj
(0) The Syriac and the Coptic Verlions, with their Tranfcripts, are
the only exceptions to this general propofition. And thofe verfions
were adopted by a very few nations indeed, when compared with the
Latin, Greek, and Armenian Ciiriftiafis, who comprifed three parts out
of /ffar at leaft, of the then Chriftian world.— See the objeftions of
Dr. Benfon, xlv to xlix inclufive,— and objeftion xxviii of the late Sir
Ifaoc Ne'wton, herein after Hated.

66 LE T T E R iii
from which this Verfion muft have been thtisf
made in the fifth century, cannot reafonably be
fuppofed to have had a much later date than the
age of the Apoftles^
38. The aTrofoAo?^ whlch hath been already men
tioned, was a Tranfcrlpt or Colledion ofthe Epiftles
of the New Tefament in the original Greek. It
was read publicly in the Greek Churches as eaily
as, perhaps much earlier than, the fifth century ;
and the fair prefumption is that it hath always
contained the verfe in queftion.
39. The Verfion^ or Tranflation of the New
Teftament by Jerome from the original Greek into
the Latin tongue, was made [p] in or about A. D,
384. It hath been already obferved, that this dlf
puted paffage hath eonftantly ftood in this Verfioiu
40. Nor' hath the. verfe in queftion been thus ,
found in the Armenian Verfion only, in the Greek
uTTos-oXogj and in the Latin Tranflation of Jerome^
The mqfl ancient of all the Verfions of the Books
of the New Teftament from the languages In
which they were originally written, i^ the Old
Italic
ip) See page 43, and objcftion xix of Dr. Benfon ; alfo Mi-
thaelis, Seft. 65.

L E T T E R II. 67
t
*' '..
italic, or Itala Vetus. This Verfion was made in
ih.e firft {q) century, and therefore whilst St.
John was yet aliv^ '; aiid vvas ufed by aU the
Latin Churches 6i Europe, Afa [f] and Africa,
for many centuries after his death. And thus the
origin of the verfe ih c[ueftion is at length car
ried Up not by inferences or impllcatiohs alone,
hov^ever fair and obvious, but by plain and
POSITIVE EVIDENCE, to the age of St. John
himfelf. For this mofi valuable, as well as rnof an
cient Verfion hath (j) confiaUtly exhibited the
Verffe, I John v : 7.
I have now. Sir, gone through all the pofitive
teftimony, which I propofed diredly to adduce in
F 2 fupport
(j) The words of Michaelis on this fubjeft, which are the more to
be relied upon becaufe they are the words of a very learned adverfary
are, that " The Old Latin (or Itala Vet'us) is the mofi aitcient and beft of
all European Verfions" — ikiX. it is " of uncommon antiquity" — and that
no man of learning denies that this Verfion ivas done in the first century,
except only Dr. Mill, ivho argues from this, that in the firft century most
ofthe Chriftians at Bome utiderftood Gireek. But honu •will he proHje [zon.-
imnes Michaelis ) that there nuere not many of thefe Chriftians (particu
larly, let me add, in the remoter pro'uinces, and among the lo'wer claffes
of the people) luho underfiood no more than their mother tongue" (Seft.
61—63.)
if) The Chriftians r\es.T Jerufalem, and in many parts oi Syria, were
of_the Latin church.
(j) See objeiftion xlv. of Dr. Benfon, where, it is truftcd, this point
is proved at large.

6^ L E T T E R II.
fupport of the authenticity of the Verfe In quel-*
tion. But the fubjed is too Important to be thus
difmlffed. The objections, which have been
brought againft the originality of this Verfe, re
main yet to be difcuffed ; and demand from me,
what they fhall certainly receive, an attentive and
ferious inveftlgatlon. In this propofed difquifition
many other proofs of the authenticity of this Verfe
are intended to be urged indireBly, and by implica
tion. Such proofs, when produced, will not, it is
trufted, lofe any thing of their real weight, by the
accidental circumftance of the place in which they
may be found. It is even poffible that a fpecu-
lative mind may experience a peculiar fatisfadion
in feleding them, hereafter, from thofe ftations,
where the neceffity of anfwering thofe objedlons,
and a defire of avoiding repetitions compel them
now to ftand ; and In adapting them to other fitu-
ations where, if no fuch neceffity had exifted, they
might perhaps wdth more propriety have been ar
ranged. And it feems, moreover, that I fhould
be deficient to my own future views, as well as
unjuft to the evidence which has been already
ftated, if I did not fubjoin, to an examination of
thofe objedlons, a few obfervations which force
themfelves upon the mind on an attentive con
templation of the whole fubjed. For thefe pur-
pofes

L E T T E R II. 69
pofes you will perhaps, Sir, permit me to intrude
yet more upon your leifure at fome future oppor-
Jiinity. I am. Sir, .&c. <S?c.

F 3 LETTER

[ 70 ]
LETTER

IIL

SIR,
T Have taken the liberty herein, as well as in the
-*- preceding letters, of addreffing myfelf diredly
to you, inftead pf ufing as my means of JtpproacH
any fiditipus name, or any artificial addrefs. t
have, in fo doing, fubmitted to the juftice of the
rule which you have prefcribed to your opponents;
in your Vindication ; [a) namely, t'hat the author of,
a work " vvho boldly gives his name and his la
bours to the world, impofes on his adverfaries thc '
fair and honourable obligation of encountering him
in open day-light, and of fupporting the weight of
their affertions by th^ credit of their names." And
yet the rule applies only in part, on the prefent
occafion. The credit of a name, little known toi
the world, wall not fupport thc iveight of many
affertions. But I am not much difcomforted in
this
(a) A Vindication of fome paffages in the 15th and i6th Chapters
of the Hiftory &c. by 'Mr. Gibbon, Edit, 2. p. 135. ¦ ¦"

DR. BENSON. 7I
this refped, becaufe I purpofe to load It with very
few : one found , argument, one folld inference,
being of more worth than a whole Chapter of af
fertions. '
I will now therefore proceed to examine, as
was before propofed, the moft material objedlons
which have been urged againft the originality of
this Verfe ; and will beg leave to fuperadd to fuch
examination fome refledions, which feem to arife
from an attentive confideration of the whole fub
jed. In this difquifition it may, perhaps, be the moft
fatisfadory method to ftate the objedlons of the
chief opponents of this Verfe fingly, and to fub
join to each its diftind and feparate reply. Of
thefe Sandius, (3) M. Simon, (f) and Mr. Emlyn {d)
among its more early opponents ; and Dr. Ben
fon, ((?) Sir Jfaac Newton, {f) M. Grieffach, l^g)
F 4 and
(^) Nucl. Eccl. Hift. p. 376, Scc.—InttrpK. Paradox.
[c) Hift. Crit^. dli Texte kc.
{d) Full Inquiry &c. See Ernlyns Works, 2 Vols. Lond, Edit. A. D,
1746. («) Paraphrafe on the Catholic. Epiftles, Vol. ii. Edit. A. D. 1756.
(/) Hiftory of fwo Texts (Vol. v. of Neixjtons Works, by Dr. Horf-
ley.) (g) Notj. Teftam. Grac. Vol, ii, p. 225, "EdXu Hales, A. D. 1777.

7^ D R. B E N S O N,
and Mr. Bowyer, {h) among its more modern ad-*
verfaries — feem to have been the moft diffufe In
the variety of their remarks, and the moft deter
mined in their oppofitlon. But as the four laft^
mentioned writers have colleded into one point
of view sXi, or nearly all, the objedlons that have
at any time been urged againft the originality of the
Verfe in queftion ; Jtnd as their writings are more
generally known than thofe of Sandius, Simon or
Emlyn, I will confider them as fpeaking the fenfe
of their fellow-advocates, and will ftate their owu
objedlons In their own words.
And firft, as to Dr. Benfon.
I. " Three of the Latin fathers have beett.
deferred to, as having borne teftimony to this
dlfputed text : namely Tertullian, Cyprian, and
Jerome."
From this Introdudory obfervation a candid
reader muft at firft prefume, that Dr. Benfon really
meant to confine to the age of Jerome his obferva-^
tions on thofe Latin Fathers, whofe works might
be made ufe of in argument refpeding this Verfe ;
and not to travel below the fifth century for au
thorities-
{/.») Conjeilures on the N. Teft. Edit. Lond, A. D. 1782,

D R. B E N S O N. 73
thorities on either fide of the queftion. Yet under
this prefumption Dr. Benfon ought at leaft to
have made his enumeiatlon of thofe Fathers, who
have borne teftimony to this Verfe compleat, by
adding to this Lift [i) Marcus Celedenfs, Phceba
dius, Eucherius, Augufine and Vigilius ; who lived
and wrote in the fame century with Jerome, and
have, as well as Jerome, given their teftimony to
the truth of the Verfe in queftion.
But Dr. Benfon does not fuffer his readers long
to retain this firft prefumption. They fee him,
it is true, in the progrefs of his Diffcrtation, pofi-
tively refufing to admit the teftirriony of ViStor Vi
tenfs in FAVOR of this Verfe, who lived in the
fame century, and was probably alive at the fame
hour with Jerome, But they foon afterwards
find him travelling down for authorities (i) which
oppofe (or rather for omiffions which seem to op-
pofe) the authenticity of this Verfe, fo low as to
Bede of the eighth, and to Oecumenius of the ele
venth century.
If then. Sir, we follow Dr. Benfon to the age
of Jerome only, the references to Latin Fathers in
favor
(i) See pages 39, 48, of thefe Letters,
(i) Paraphrafe ^.6i^t^.

f 4 D R. B E N S O N.
favor of this Verfe, commencing with the age of
the Apoftles, will be not to three only, but at leaft
to eigbt.^ viz. to Tertullian, Cyprian, Marcus Cet
ledensis, Phjebadius, Jerome, Augustine,
Eucherius, and Vigilius. But if we purfue
him to the age of Oecumenius, this Lift, already ,
more than doubled, will receive an almoft incredi
ble increafe ; among whom the following Latin
Fathers feem worthy of being efpecially referred
to, namely (/) Fulgentius, Caffiodorius, Ambrofe Anf
bert, Etherius and Beatus, Walafrid Strabo, Hugo
ViEtorinus, and St. Bernard : the fpur hundred Afri
can Bifhops, who attended the public difputation
propofed by Huneric ; and the Divines of the reign
of Charlemagne, who, under the prefiding care of
Alcuinus, revifed the Bible of that age. Tb whom
muft be added laftly, and above aU, the common
confent of the whole Latin Church, which, before
the reign of Charlemagne, had given the moft fo
lemn atteftatlon to the originality of this text, by
inferting it in its public Rituals of divine worfhip.
To this mighty Phalanx, and within this limit as
to time, might be added other witneffes to the au
thenticity of this Verfe, as unexceptionable in point
of evidence, and as decided in their teftimony, as
any
(/) See pages 25—39 of 'He preceding Letters.

D R. B E N S O N. 75
«
any of thofe whofe fuffrages have been already
thus particularly colleded and fet forth.
II. " // is plain he [Tertullian] has not
quoted the paffage" [viz. becaufe he does not
exprefsly declare his words to be a quotation.]
This objedion Is ill:-founded and inconclufive.
It has been the pradice of writers, in all ages, to
infert quotations from well-known authors without
exprefsly declaring them to be quotations, or intro
ducing them as quotations in any refped. A few
inftances of this kind will be fufficlent to fhew the
weaknefs of the argument, here ufed by Dr. Ben
fon. And firft from Irenaus, who lived in the fecond
Century after Chrif.
" Our bodies, being [firft] nourlfhed by the
*' earth, [tiben] depofited in the earth, and [laftly]
" refolved into earth, fhall arife in his time ; the
t' fon of God granting them a refurredion to the
t' glory of the Father : for the flrength of God is
V made perfed in weaknefs." {m) In
[m) Irenesi adverfus Hxrcfes, Lib. v. Cap. ii. Edit. Oxdn. A. D.
J702 p, 40a.' ¦ "

y6 D R. B E N S O N.
In like manner, from Clemens Alexandrinus, wHq
lived in the fame age with Irenceus..
" But that which is holy, is dear to that from
*' whence it becomes holy ; which is properly
*' calPed light : for ye were {n) fometimes dark-
*' nefs, but now are ye light in the Lord."
Again, frpm Origen, who flouriflied in the third
Century, *' But let the faithful Chriftian, more wife as^
*' well as more firm, follow reafon and the word
*' of God ; and from thence let him learn to diCi
*' tinguifh between truth and falfehood : even as
*' they delivered them unto us, who from the be-
'^ ginning were eyeTwItnelfes, and minifters of the;
" word." (o)
Again, from Cyril, who was Archbifhop of
Alexandria in the fifth Century. «
" As the Lord and Saviour of all, who could
" have appeared' in, the form of the Father, and
" altogether
{«) Clement. Alexandr, Psdag. Lib. i. Cap. yi. p. 41, Edit, Comixel, -
A. D. 1592.
{0) Origenis Opzta, Hom. i. Edit. Panf. A.D, 1619,

ti

Cc

D R. B E N S O N. 77
altogether equal to him, and could have exhi
bited his Majefty on the throne of the divinity ;
thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
but made himfelf of no reputation, and took
upon him the form of a Servant." {p)

The concluding words of all the preceding fen
tences are quotations from Scripture ; the firft from
2. Corinthians xii: 9, the fecond irom Ephef \ :
8, the third from Luke 1:2, and the laft from Phi-
lipp. ii : 6, 7 ; although they are all thus intro
duced, like the example now in debate from Ter
tullian, without any previous expreffions denoting
them to be quotations,
Inftances of a fimllar kind will fcarcely be re
quired from the Latin Fathers, as they abound in
almoft every page of their writings. One exam
ple, however, may juft be produced (to which a
thoufand others fhall be added if required) from
Jerome, in the fourth Century.
*' As long as we are entangled in the affairs of
" the world, and our minds are engroffed by our
" earthly poffeffions, it is impoffible for us to give
" up
(/>) Cyrillus contra Julianum, Lib. vi, p. 195, Edit. Lipfia: A.H.
1696,

78 D R. B E N S O ^.
*' up our thoughts chearfully to God : For wlial
" fellowflbip hath righteoufnefs with unrighteouf-
" nefs, and what communion hath light with
" darknefs ? what concord hath Chrif with Be-
*' Hal ? or what part hath he that believeth witK
« an [cf] infidel ?"
The laft words of the foregoing fentence are
cited literally from 2 Cor. vi : 14, 15 ; although,
without any previous note of introdudion, de
noting them to be a quotation.
If more modern inftances fhall be required, they
are here fubjoined.
" The man, who proceeds in it with fteadlnefs
*' and refolution, wiU, in a little time, find that
*' all her ways are pleafantnefs, and all her paths
are peace. Addifon. (r)
" To graft In his heart the firft principles of
" charity ; a virtue which fome people ought not
" by
(51) Hieron. Epif. ad Lucin. Edit. Erafmi, Paris. A. D. 1546, Vol.
i. p. (71, as erroneoully marked in that Edition, but properly page)
66. ((-) Spea. No. 447,

D R. B E N S O N, 7g
" Iiy any means wholly to renounce, becaufe it
" covereth a multitude of fins." Dr. Swift. ¦ [s)
The former of thefe quotations is from Prov.
iii : 1 7, the latter from i Pet. iv : 8 ; and both
without any previous expreffions of citation.
But Mr, Gibbon will, perhaps, be more fatisfac-
torily convinced that quotations of this nature are
not infrequent among good writers even of the
prefent times, by the following inftances.
" Here, too, we may fay of Longinus, his own
' example ftrengthens all his laws."
" It never can become a Chrif ian to be afraid
" of being afked a reafon of the faith that is in
" him ; or the Church of England to abandon that
*' moderation, by which fhe permits every indivi-
*' dual et fentire qu^e velit, et quae fentiat dicere."
The Scriptural quotation, contained in the latter
of thefe fentences, is from i Pet. iii : 15. I will
not offend Mr. Gibbon by pointing out the others. It
{s) Preface to Bifhop of Sarum'i Introdudion.

8o D R. B E N S O N*
It Is fo far, therefore, from being plain that Ter^
tulliari has not quoted this verfe, becaufe he has not
exprefsly declared his words to be a quotation from
St. John ; that, from a candid confideration of the
paffage, under all its circumftances, the very oppo-
fite inference may be fairly deduced. The ftrik
ing peculiarity of the words themfelves, the literal
order in which they ftand in Tertullian, and the
conftant pradice of writers, ancient and modern,
feem to compel the conclufion, that thefe words,
when written by Tertullian, muft have been a di-*
red intentional citation of the verfe in queftion.
Thus far then. Sir, for the imbecility of thig
objedion. Let us now turn to the Treatife againft Praxeas^
and compare Tertullian with himfelf. Perhaps we
may obtain new light by the comparifon. Fie
begins this treatife with the following exordium.
Various are the methods by which Satan fhews
his hatred to the truth. He fometimes affeds
to defend, that he may the more effedually de-
ftroy it. He afferts one Lord the omnipotent
Creator of the world, that even out of this
unity he may eftablifh herefy. [For] he affirms,
that the Father himfelf overffadowed the Virgin
" {Mary\

DR. BENSON. 8l
" [Mary"] that he was born of her, that he fuf-
" fered [on the crofs] and in fine, that he is Jefus
*' Chrift."
He afterwards propofes his thefs in the follow
ing terms. " Seeing therefore that thefe heretics
" are defirous that the Father and the Son fhall
" be confidered as one [perfon] it behoves us to
" confider the -whole quefiion as to the Son, whe-
" THER he IS, and who he is, and how he is."

He then purfues his fubjed generally (that the
Father and the Son are difiind perfons) much at
large and with great ability ; and then proceeds to
make the following remark. " Hence their er
ror is manifeft. For they, being ignorant that
the whole order of the divine difpenfation had
paffed through the Son, believe that the Father
himfelf was both feen and converfed with, and
laboured, and fuffered hunger and thirft (in con-
tradidion to the prophet, who fays that the
everlafting God neither thirfts nor hungers, how
much more that he neither dies nor is burled ?)
and therefore they hold, that one God in perfon,
that is, the Father, always performed thofe
things which [in truth] were done by the Son.
G And

82 D R. B E N S O N.
" And as to the epithets or defcrlptlve appellations
" of the Father, The Almighty God, The Moft High,
" The Lord' of Glory, The King of Ifrael, what ob-
*' jedion can arife from them ? As far as the fcrip-
" tures thus teach, v^t affirm that thefe are com-
" petent to the Son alfo, that he came into the
*' woild invefted with them, that he always aded
" in poffeffion of them, and that be fo manifefted
" himfelf to mankind. All, he fays, that the Fa-
*' ther hath [omnia Patri s] are mine."
Tef tullian then proceeds to bring the queftion
within a narrower corhpafs. " But our endea- ,
" vours muft be ftill further exerted to repel their
" arguments, where they colled exceptions out of
** the Scriptures in favor of their tenets, pafEng
" over thofe things which preferve the general rule
*' inviolate, and even confiftently with the unity
" and abfolute foverelgnty of the Godhead. For
" as in the Old Teftament they infift upon no paf-
" fage but this, / am God^ and befide me there is
" no God ; fo in the Gofpel they adduce [only]
" our Lord's reply to Philip, I and my Father are
" one ; (/) and. He who bath feen me fees the Fa-
" ther alfo ; and, / in the Father, and the Father in
[1] The firft of thefe three texfsftands in John x : 30, in our Bibles.
The difcourfe with Philip begins, in them, with John xiv : 8.

.D R. B EN SON. 83
" in me. To thefe three texts they wifh the nsihole
" Bible to fubmit, although [according to all right
" reafoning] oporteat fecundum plufa intelligi pau-
" ciora^ But this is the way of all heretics."
Fie next applies himfelf to the particular confi
deration of thofe three texts v.'hlch the Patripaf-
fians (as he had before remarked) had fpecially in
fifted upon, and to which they wifhed the reft of
the Bible to fubmit,
A part of his argument as to the firft of them
\fJohn:s.\ 30] is as foflows. " And being quef-
" tioned by the Jews if he were the Chrif,
" (namely of God, for even to this day the Jews
" exped the Chrift of God, not the Father him-
" felf, for Chrift the Father has never been men-
" tioned in ;the Scriptures as he that ff ould come)
" he replies,. / fpeak to you, but ye believe not.
" The vaorks'-fwhich I do in the Father s name, they
" bear witnefs. of me. And what is their witnefs ?
" that he is the perfon concerning whom the
" Jews enquired, that is, the Chrift of God. And
" of his fheep he further fays that none ffall
" pluck "them out of his hands. For my Father
" which gave them to me is greater than all : And /
G 2 and

84 D R. B E N S O N.
" and my Father (unum fumus) are one. At this
" text, therefore, a ftand is wifhed to be made by
" thefe abfurd, nay even blind heretics, who fee
*' not that the firft words of this fentence, / and
" my Father, denote two [perfons] that its laft
" word, fumus, cannot refer to one [perfon] be-
*' caufe it is of the plural number : and moreover
" that [the unity fpoken of in this text is an unity
*' of effence, for] its expreffions are (unum fumus)
*' We are one [Being] not (unus) one perfon. For
" if his words had been. We are one perfon \imus
" fumus'\ they would have countenanced this
" herefy. — By the phrafe, therefore. We are one
" [Being] / and my Father, he fhews that there
" are two perfons whom he joins together in one
" effence."
Tertullian then proceeds to combat the argument
which Praxeas had brought from the fecond of
thofe texts. " It may now appear in what man-
" ner it is faid. He who fees me fees my Father alfo^
" namely in the fame manner {u) as in the pre-
" ceding text, I and my Father are one. Why?
" becaufe
(») " Apparere jam poteft quomodo dictum sit, ^i me videt
" -videt et Patrem: Scilicet qvo et supra. Ego et Pater unum fumus".
The learned reader is requefted to take the trouble of comparing
the conftruftion of this fentence with that of the paffage now in de
bate. Chap. xxv. See Note at the Foot of p. 87.

D R, B E N S O N. 85
*¦' becaufe [he further fays] / came forth from the
*' Father, and am come into the world. Again, /
'' am the way : no one comes to the Father, but by
' me : And No one comes to me unlefs the Father
*' , brings him. Again, The Father has delivered all
" things to me. Again, As the Father gives life,
" fo likewife the Son. And again, If ye had known
" me, ye voould have known the Father alfo. In
" thefe expreffions, therefore, he exhibits himfelf
" as the Reprefentative pf his Father, through
" whom the Father might be both feen in works
" and heard in words, and might be known in the
" Son [fo] exhibiting the words and works of his
" Father ; forafmuch as the Father is Invifible,
" which Philip had not only learned in the law,
" but ought to have remembered : No one ffall fee
" God and live"
After this difcuffion of the fecond text relied
upon by the Patripafians, Tertullian proceeds to
the third and laft of thera. " Laftly, if he \_Jefus
" Chriff\ had been defirous to be underfiood to
" affert that the Father and the Son were the fame
" [in perfon] by faying He who fees me fees the
" Father, why does he add, Believe ye not that T
" am in the Father, and the Father in me ? Fie
" ought [in that cafe] rather to have added, Be-
G ^ " Ueve

86 D R. B E N S O N,
" Believe ye not that I am the Father t He there-
" fore plainly fhews an union of two perfons." (v)'
With thefe helps thus previoufly acquired, let
us proceed to analyfe the paffage itfelf of the
twenty-fifth chapter pf the Treatife ggainft Prax
eas, now in deb9.te.
" Jefus Chrift fays, The Holy Ghoft ffall take of
" mini, as be himftlf [took] of the Father"'
Whatever fort of unity, therefore, there is of
himfelf with the Father, the fame Is alfo the unity of
himfelf with the Holy Ghoft. But the unity of
himfelf with the Father is a full and compleat in
tercommunication of the powers and attributes, as
v.'cU as of the effence, of the Godhead ; for. he
himfelf declares \_John xvi: 15] that he takes
\omnia\ all things which ^re (Patris) of the
Father. The Holy Ghoft, therefore, takes of tht
Son [John xvi: 14J the fa,me iutercommunlcatioh
and plenitude, which the Son takes of the Father.
" In this manner the irjfercommunication of the
" Father in [or with] itbe Son, and of the Son in
*' [or with] the Holy fibof., produces a. compleat uifion
('v) The Quotations before cited, are tajten from Chapters, i. v.
xvii XX. xxiii. and xxiv. fuceffively.

D R. B E N S O N. 87
" union of the three, one out of [or with] another /
" which THREE ARE ONE (tres unum funt, 1.
"'^^Jobn V : 7, one Being) in the same manner as it
" is faid, I and my Father are ome ; as to the unity of
' ¦ effence, not as to the difiindion of perfons" [vf]
From this detail it feems that we may now, at
length, draw the following conclufions.
I. That the declared objed of Tertullian, in his
Treatife againft Praxeas, was to prove that the Fa
ther aijd the Son were not the fame perfofl.
2. That on this account he took pains to fhew
that the unum sumus of the Gofpel of St. John,
which the Patripaffans did infift upon in proof
that the Father and the Son were one and the fame
perfon, was wrongfully perverted by them from
its genuine meaning,
3.. That he alfo exerted a precautionary care to
fhew (although that was not his declared objed,
pj? a part of his th£fis) that the ^jnijm sunt of
G 4 the
(ta.) " Cxterum de meo fumel, inquit, ficut ipfe de Patris. Jta
connexus Patris in FiMo, et Filii in Fa>-acleto, tres ofEcit pohaerentes
akerum ex altero ; qui tbes unum sunt, non unus, (vuomodo
diaum eft Ego et Pater unum fumus, ad fnbftantise unitatem, non ad
num.eri iingulaiitatem."

88 D R. B E N S O N.
the Epiftle of St. Jobn, if the Patripaffans fhould
thereafter run fo lengthened a race In folly as to
wifli to comprefs the three perfons of the adorable
Trinity into one perfon {x) was to be interpreted
in the SAME MANNER as the unum sumus of his
G ofpel ; and therefore in a manner clearly oppofite
to the error of Praxeas,
4. That the de Patris of the paffage in de^
bate has juft as much relation to the inquit, and
is juft as much a quotation from the fifteenth
verfe of the fixteenth chapter of the Gofpel of
St. John, as the de meo is from iht fourteenth verfe
of the fame chapter. And
5. That the Ita, the qui tres, and the quomodo
dldum. eft, in the latter part of that paffage (and
more particularly when explained by the fimllar
inftance in C. xxiv.) fhew the unum funt to be as
much a legitimate portion of Scripture as the unum
fumus of the fame paffage.
The conclufion, then, from the whole (reverting
to the fubjed of thefe letters) feems to be, — that
TertuIUan
(at) It feems that the Mintanifts (and probably the Patripafjians
alfo) did afterwards proceed thus far in abfurdity. For Jerome, fpeak
ing of them and the Sabeliians, in the fourth century, ufes thefe expref.
fijns : " Trinitattm 'in unius perfonx anguftias cogunt."

D R. B E N S O N. 89
Tertullian has quoted intentionally the verfe in quef
tion, namely the feventh verfe of the fifth chapter
of the firft Epiftle of St. John.
The teftimony of TertuIUan to the authenticity
of this paffage having been thus ftated, it now be
comes neceffary to confider an incidental part of
the fubjed, before [y) propofed : namely. Whether
the original Epiftles of the Apoftles were, or were
not, extant in the days of Tertullian. Let us at
tend to fome of his expreffions.
" All herefies being thus challenged by us and
" confuted, whether fubfequent to or coeval with
*' the ApoftoHc age,^ — ^let the favorers of thefe he-
" refies prefume, if they dare, to fet up any pre-
" fcriptions againft this our dlfcipline and correc-
" tion. For if they deny its. truth, it will be in-
" cumbent upon them not only to prove that it is
*' alfo a herefy, and to confute in the fame man-
" ner as their herefies now ftand confuted : but to
" fhew at the fame time where the truth is to be
" enquired for, which is already demonftrated not
" to be on their fide. Our arguments are not
" drawn from fubfequent authority, but from that
" which is antecedent" \i. e. not from any Latin
Tranflation
0) Page 54.

9P D R. B E N S O N,
Tranflation then in ufe in Africa, but from ' the
Creek Copies, rendered by himfelf] " which is
" teftimony that they are deduced from that [ori-
" ginal] verity, which always holds the firft place
*' in evidence. Our opinions are not condemned,!
" but .ev^n fupported by the Apoftles : which is a
proof of their propriety. For thofe opinions
which are not condemned by the Apoftles, who
have condemned every errpneous tenet, are in-r
deed accepted by them as their own, and are cpiir
fequently even defended by thena,"

(C

(C

Again, in his Treatife againft Marcion, he thus
argues againft his corrupt and vitiated New Tefta
ment. " I fay that my copy is true, he fays the
*' fame of his own. I affirm his copy to be adul-
" terated, he affirms the fame thing of mine.
•' What fhall decide between us but the confidera-;
*' tion of time, afcribing authority to that [copy]
" which is the more ancient, and prefuppofing a
" vitiation in that [copy, if they be contradidory
" to each pther] which is proved to be more mo-
" dcrn" If it be Urged that thefe expreffions, and many
fimllar ones of Tertullian, refer only to Greek au
thority in general, and that their applications to
the

D R. B E N S O N, 91
the Qreek Copies alone of the New Teftament will
be a fufficlently adequate explanation of them,
the argument will be granted in all its parts.
For as many Greek copies of the New Tefta
ment muft have been made before its transfufion
into the Latin language by the Itala Vetus, or Old
Italic, and as the Greek language was fo familiar
to Tertullian s countrymen, that he wrote one pf
his Treatifes [De Virginibus velandis^ originally in
that language,, — thefe circumftances make it very
far from an improbable fuppofition that Greek co
pies of the whole Bible were familiar to the Afri
can Chriftians of that age. Tb^y were familiar to
Tertullian himfelf, if (jz) the accounts given of him
may be credited. Fle frequently refers to thofe
Greek copies even in this Treatife againft Marcimj
as in the following examples. " He then is the
Chrift of Ifaiah, the remedy for our weaknefs.
" He (fays the prophet) bears our griefs and car-
" ries our forrows. But the Greeks ufe the word
*' carrying in the fame fenfe as taking away. And
¦' again, Bleffed are the poor (for fo the word re-
" quires
(z) " In Novo vero Teftamento pon tam Latinis tranflatis quam
Grtecis veteribus codicibus ufuin Auftorem Gr.^ir^doftiiliraum, ex ver-
fione ejas peculiari ab aliis omnibus raultiim fubinde diverfa, mani.
feftum fit ; quam adeo difcrep.4ntiam in gratiam Profefforum facrarum
literarum ubique adnotavimus." [PameJ. in \'na. Tertull. A. D. 197.]

92 D R. B E N S O N. •
" quires to be interpreted which is in the original
" Greek) for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."
Thefe feled inftances (more might be adduced)
are fufficlent evidence that the Greek Copies of the
Scriptures were familiar to TertuIUan. It may not
be amifs to ftate one proof that they were not un
known to Marcion, his antagonlft, (a) although he
might wifh to keep them a little out of fight, be-i
caufe the Teftament which he had fabricated for
himfelf was a corruption .of the Old Italic
It is then admitted, that on common occafion^
TertuUian'' s, ufual mode of argument applied Itfelf
to the authority of the Greek Copies of the Scrlp-s
tures, which were in ufe in his times. This was
his ordinary appeal. But there was ftill another,
much more important than this, which was fome
times made by him, an appeal which was extraor
dinary, and invocated with a more folemn voice.
A ftrong inftance of this kind occurs immediately;
after the former of the two quotations juft taken
fr'om his works. After having there pleaded, as
we
(a) Sed quoniam attentius argumentatur [foil. Marcion'] apud
ilium. fuura nefcio quern crui'ToiAAainrwf 01/ et itvia^hto\]u:.ivov in le-
proil purgationem, non pigebit ei occurere---Itaque Dominus vohns
altius intelligi legem,- --tetigit leprofum;a quo etll homo inquinari
potuifiet, Deus utique non iiiquinaretur, incontaminabilis fcilicet.

DR. BENSON.

91

we have feen, on his own behalf, the Greek Copies
then In general ufe, he fuddenly breaks forth into
this fublime Apofrophe. —
" But go ye, who are defirous to carry your
*' enquiries to a more laudable extent [curio-,
^^ fit at em melius exercere^ in the bufinefs of your
*' falvation, purfue your courfe to the Churches
" [themfelves] of the Apoftles, in which the chairs
" (cathedrcs) of thofe Apoftles ftill prefide in their
" . ftations, in which their very original Epiftles are
" recited (ipf:s authenticce liter ce eorum recitantur)
*' reprefenting to the mind the found of the voice
" and the form of the countenance of each pf
*' them. [And ye may perhaps carry your en-
" quiries to this more laudable, extent without
" much trouble, for] Is ^^^^^^^ next to you? T^
" may go to Corinth. If ye be not far diftant
" from Macedonia, ye may proceeed to Philippi, je
" may pa/s to -Theffalonica. If it be convenient
" for you to take your courfe into Afa, there you
" will find Ephefus. And if your fituatlon be not
" remote from Italy, ye may go to Rome : where
*' indeed v/e [aU] may readily confult [one portion
" of original] authority." [b) It
(b) Appendix, No. xxxii. Tertullian again reforts to this extraor
dinary appeal in the following paffage.

'.a

94 ^^- BENSON.
It feems moft evident, from the difpofition and
tendency of this whole argument, that Tertullian'
here meant to refer to the original epif les themfelves
of the Apoftles. To reduce the queftion, hojv-
ever, within a narrow compafs, and to bring it to.
a fpeedy decifion, it fhall be argued under the
following dilemma. Tertullian, in thefe laft cited
expreffions, referred either to the original epiftles
of the Apoftles, or to the Greek Copies of theifl,
then extant In Africa. But he did not there refer
to thofe Copies ; becaufe, having referred to them
before, and frequently, his words melius exercert\
in the prefent inftance, would have been not only
empty and vapid, but abfurd. He did not refer to
thofe Copies ; becaufe there was neither wifdom nor
courtefy in fending his readers to Corinth, to perufe
a Copy of St. Pauls Epiftles to the Corinthians.^ to
Philippi, to examine a Copy, oi his Epiftle to the
Philippians; to Theffalonica, for a Copy of his
Epiftles to the Tbeffalonians ; to Ephefus, for U
Copy of his Epiftle to the Ephefians ; or to Rome,- for
" Infumma, fi conftat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab inititi,
id ab initio quod ab Apostolis ; pariter utique conftabit, id effe ab
Apoftolis traditum quod apud ecclefias Apoftolorum fuerit facrofanftnni.
Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauferint ; ad quam regulam Ga-
]atsE fint RECORRECTI ; quid legant Philippenfes, Theffalonicenfes,
Ephefii : quid etiam Romani de proximo finent , quibus e'vangelium et Pe
trus et Paulus fauguine qitoque fiio fignatum reliquerunt." — [Adv. Marcion.
Lib. iv.]

* R. B E N s o\^r. 9^
for a Copy of his Epiftle to the Romans ; when
thofe Copies were, at that time, in the hands not
only of Tertullian but of his adverfaries, particu
larly Marcion. He did not refer to thofe Copies ;
becaufe, being thus confeffedly in the hands of
Tertullian and Marcion, and appealed to in their
writings, it is probable at leaft that thofe Greek
Copies of the New Teftament were in the hands of
their readers alfo, and familiar to the Chriftians of
Africa in general : who therefore would have con
cluded that Tertullian was not in his right fenfes in
exhorting them to take a long journey to Infped
what was then in their own keeping, and perhaps
lay at that very moment expanded before their
eyes. The confequence from whence is that Ter
tullian, in thofe expreffions hereln-before laft cited
from his works, referred (and recommended his
readers to apply, not to Copies, but) to the ori
ginal Epiftles themfelves of the Apoftles.
«
If It fhall be contended that the pofition has been
too haftily advanced, which affumes that the Greek
Copies were familiar at that time to Tertullian s
countrymen, and that it ought to be abandoned,
let it be confidered what appearance the argument
would take under this new afped. Admitting,
then, for the fake of debate alone, although con
trary

96 D R. B E N S O N.
trary to every fair and reafonable probability, that
thofe Greek Copies were not, at that time, in the
hands of the Chriftians of Africa in general, yet
ftill it remains undeniably certain that they were
then in Tertullian % own hands, and moft probably
in thofe of Marcion, TertuIUan % addrefs, there
fore, to his readers, even on this fuppofition, muft
have been very different from its prefent tenpr.
He muft, in fuch a cafe, have fpoken to them In
a language fomewhat like this : — My Chriftian
brethren, go not to Corinth — go not to Philippi — go
not /o Theffalonica— -^0 not to Ephefus — go not /o
Rome — for the Greek Copies of St. Paul'x Epiftles
to the primitive Chrif ians of thofe refpedive places-
Lo ! I have them all here, and my antagoriifi Mar
cion has them alfo. Go to him — at leaft come to me,
and I ivillffew you thofe Copies. But Tertulliant
argument is diredly oppofite to this mode of ad
drefs, and therefore produces the very oppofite
conclufion ; namely, that he meant, in thofe exhor
tations, to recommend an application to the origi
nal EPISTLES of the Apoftles : which would,
neverthelefs, have been an abfurd recommendation
upon the face of it, if both he and his readers had
not, at the fame time, fully believed that those
Originals then exifted, and were then accef-
fible, at the places to which they were originally
addreffed) j

/
DR. BENSON. 97
addreffed, provided that the neceffary pains fhould
be taken in order to approach them.
If this conftrudion [c) of the words of 'Tertullian
be in other refpeds juft, no vaHd exception can be
taken againft it from the length of time which had
elapfed between the date of the autographs of the
Epiftles of the New Teftament, and the days of
Tertullian. When the expreffions, now in debate,
were written by him, the moft ancient of thofe
autographs had not been much more than one cen
tury in exiftence. But we have many original In-
H quifitiones

(f) If it be objected that Tertullian^i expreffions on fubjefts of this
kind are not .always to be taken in a literal fenle, becaufe in his
Treatife again ft Hermogtnes he fpeaks of the originale infirumentum
Moyfi, let it be anfwered that there is a difference in the two cafes,
I . In their nature : And
2. In TertuHian'j manner cf mentioning them,
1 . He lived very near to the times when the Epiftles of the New
Teftament were written 5 fo that there is nothing in the nature of the
cafe to refift the affumption that thofe originals might then exift. And
2. He points out to his readers the places ixhere thofe originals nuere
to be found: which he has not done in his mention of the books of
Mofes, So that there is not only a diftlndion, but Tertullian has
marked the diftinftion, between the two cafes.
There is no difficulty in fuppofing thefe originals to have furvived
to, and beyond the age of Tertullian. But there would be a great
difficulty in concluding them to have been kept with fo little atten
tion, as to have been loft in lefs than a century after they were writ
ten.

98 D R. B E N S O N.
quifitiqnes pof mortem, fome Ledger Books, Grants
and SluietcE clamatidnes of ancient Monafteries, now
exifting in this kingdom in complete prefervatlon,
and ftill more In a condition not very imperfed,
which exhibit beyoftd. all contradidion dates of
four hundred years and upwards. We know that
the age of the Valor of Pope Nicholas, kept in the
Towpr of London, is more than five hundred, and
of the Domefday more than feven hundred years.
And we have good reafon to believe that the Alex
andrian MS of the New Teftament is now nearly
thirteen hundred years old, and that the Cambridge
MS is of the fame {d) or nearly the fame antiquity.
AVhen thefe things are duly confidered, the age,
which has been herein before affumed for the
MSS of /llcuinus and Walafrid Strabo, will not ap
pear immoderate ; and it wUl, in particular, feem
very far from an improbability, that MSS of fuch
efpeclal importance as the original Epiftles of the
New Teftament, fhould fubfift one (or much more
than pne) hundred years, III. " In
[d] Pages 30 and 56. The mention of any MSS, which are not
now in our o\*'n country, has been here purpofely avoided.
, The prefervatlon of many of thefe MSS is not to be attributed to any
cxtraordmary c^re of their keepers. Beza tells us that he found the
Cambridge MS at Lyons, pojlquam ibi in puliiere diu jacuijfet. , It ha?
been rny lot, qn yafious occafions, to find many records in this kingr
dom in the fame fjtuarion.

D R. B E N S O N. 99
III. " In his Book concerning the Unity of
the Church, Cyprian is fuppofed to have quoted
. this paffage. His words are — Of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, Thefe three
are one"
The quotation, as above ftated, contains a part
only of the words of Cyprian ; fome expreffions,
very material to the argument, being unfairly
paffed by and omitted. The whole fentence taken
together ftands thus : {e) " Our Lord declares, /
*' and my Father are one. And again it is voritten
" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, And thefe
" three are one,"
Let this fentence be alfo analyfed. — " Our Lord
declares, I and my Father are one" Where does
he make that declaration ? In Scripture, becaufe
that facred book is the record of the words of our
Lord, as well as of his adions, whilft on earth.
And in what part of Scripture is that declaration
made ? It is in the thirtieth Verfe of the tenth
Chapter of the Gofpel of ^X., John ; and the quo
tation is literal. Let us now proceed. *' And
again // is written of the Father, Son, and Holy
H 2 Spirit,
[e] Appendix, No. xxix.

IOO D R, BENSON,
Spirit, And thefe three are one." — ^Again // is
written !  ^When an author thus fpeaks of a
fecond ad of any kind, he muft be confidered as
referring to a. former ad, of a fimllar nature with,
or fimilarly circumftanced to, that which refers to
it. And what, in the prefent cafe, was this former
ad ? It was a dired citdtion by Cyprian oi a paf
fage' in Scripture. What then was the latter ad ?
 The inference needs not be mentioned. It
follows too clofely to be miftaken, or evaded.
Thus the conclufion — that Cyprian did mean to
quote this paffage, in his Book concerning the
Unity of the Church — feems to be inevitable, when
we take the whole of his words into contemplation
at once, and place them in the fame point of view.
But if we even receive their teftimony In the muti-* '
lated condition in which Dr. Benfon thought fit
to ftate it, the fame inference feems fairly deduci--
ble from them. For as the volume of the Sacred
Writings is, emphatically, caUed the Book : fo the
phrafe, // is varitten, when employed by writers on
facred fubjeds, emphatically and abfolutely, without
any other particulars of defcrlption, denotes (in
general at leaft) the expreffions which follow to be
quotations from Scripture, , It might be tedious to
produce many examples from many books. A
few

D R, BENSON* 101
few from that book alone, , which was ijvritten for
our learning, may be fufficlent.
" It is written, Man fhall [or doth] not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God." [Matt, iv : 4.]
" For it is written, I will fmlte the Shepherd,
and the flieep fhall be fcattered." [Mark xiv : 27, J
" For // is written. Thou fhalt not fpeak evil
of [or curfe] the ruler of thy people." [Ads
xxiii : 5,]
" For // is written. Vengeance Is mine." [i?o-
mans xii : 19.]
" And fo // is Written, Adam was made [or be
came] a living foul." [Cor. xv : 45.]
In thefe inftances, Deuteronomy viii : 3, Zecha-
riah xiii : 7, Exodus icxii : 28, Deuteron. xxxii : 35,
and Genefis ii : 7 are literally cited, although with
out any other previous introdudion than the phrafe
. here ufed by Cyprian, viz. // is written. The ob
jedion, therefore, that Cyprian can only he fuppofed
to have quoted this pkffage, becaufe he has not
H 3 ufed

I02 BR. BENSON.
ufed introdudory words fufficlently ftrong (as is
alledged) to imply a fucceeding quotation from
Scripture, eome^ fomewhat unfeafonably, when It
appears that he has adopted thofe very words, to
introduce his quotation, which are made ufe of by
Jefus Chrift, and by his Apoftle St. Paul, to pre
face theirs ; — ^the identical expreffions employed in
Scripture itfelf to denote a quotation from Scrip
ture, IV. " The query is, whether Cyprian de
figned to quote the feventh verfe, or ta give
a myflical interpretation of the eighth verfe,
namely, that by the water, the blood, and the
fpirit, we are to underftand the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit."
There feems to be no query in the cafe. Flad
Cyprian defigned to give a myftical interpretation
only, he would not (as hath been juft obferved)
after having literally quoted one paffage of Scrip
ture, have inftantly followed that quotation with
the words " And again /'/ is written." The af-
fertion would have been utterly falfe, at the very
hour of its being made by Cyprian, had not the
feventh Verfe exifted at that time. The words,
And thefe three are one, were never written of
the

to R. BENSON. ID3
the Trinity of perfons in the Godhead, in any
part of Scripture, fave in i. John v : 7 ; which is
the verfe in queftion.
Let it be further remarked on this head, that had
Cyprian defigned a myftical interpretation only, he
would not have written Scriptum eft, et hi tres
unum funt ; but Scriptum eft bos tres unum effe : as
he does write in another place, where he only de-
figns to allude, not quote, " Scriptum {f) eft juftum
fide vivere^ Taking the fentence In queftion as a
glofs, comment, or interpretation of Cyprian, the
conjundion [et'\ is a moft abfurd and a moft un-
grammatlcal Expletive. But as a quotation it ftands
perfedly right. " It is written of the Father, Son^
and Holy Spirit" — What is written of them ?
Thefe words, Et hi tres unum funt — " And theft
three are one" The conjundion [et'\ thus viewed,
is fo far from being inconfiftent with grammar and
common fenfe, that it ftands with peculiar pro
priety in its fituation ; not only proving the claufe,
at the head of which it fo ftands, to be a quotation,
but marking out the bounds of that quotation moft
precifely. H 4 V. « The
(/) De Mortalitate, p. 157, alluding to /Jaraaw i: 17.

1 04 D R. B E N S O N.
V. " The loofe manner, in which the fathefs
fometimes quoted, might create afifpicion. But
there is more, in the prefent cafe, than this ge- ,,
neral fufpicion :" [viz. Th.2ii Cyprian did not,
mean to quote the feventh, but to give a
myftical interpretation of the eighth Verfe,]
*' For Eucherius (de ^ceft. diffcil. in loca V.
et N. T.) about the year 434, having cited
thefe words. There are three which bear tefti
mony, the water, the blood, and the fpirit ;
fays, if it be affed what is the meaning of thefe
•words P I anfwer, many think the Trinity is
here meant."
If Dr. Benfon did not know that Eucherius has
adually quoted this Verfe {g) in another part of
his works, he has, in this objedion, betrayed a
moft blameable ignorance of his fubjed. If he did
know and yet fuppreffed the quotation, he has
proved himfelf guilty of a moft difingenuous conceal
ment of the truth.
Both alternatives are thus offered to the reader.
But he will, perhaps, foon perceive on which of
them he ought to fix. For Mr. Emlyn, an Eng-
Uftdman
{g\ Letter ii. p. 42, where the quotation, here referred to, is ftated
in the words of Eucherius.

DR. BENSON. 105
iff man and a Diffenter (a very ftrenuous opponent
of this Verfe) in the difpute refpeding its authen
ticity which arofe in the beginning of the prefent
Century, between him and Mr. Martin, Paftor of
the French Church' at Utrecht in Holland, thus in-
genuoufly confefles the embarraflment into which
this teftimony of Eucherius had thrown him.
*' The paffage Mr. Martin brings out of Eucherius
*' (of which indeed I was not aware before) will
*' need more confideration ; for though it only
*' concerns the fifth Century, in which I did allow
*' that poffibly the words might become text ia
" fome books, yet it will carry it half a century
*' higher than the Confeffion oi ihe. African Bifhops
" in Vidor Vitenfs : and I confefs, if the paflage be
*' genuine, it is more to the purpofe than any, yea
" than all the other teftimonies before or after £23?-
*' cherius, for fome hundreds of years : becaufe
*' here we find both the feventh and eighth verfes
" together, at once to fhew us all ihe fix wltneffe;s :
" and there was Father, Word, and Spirit, befide
" what was faid of the water, blood, and fpirit ;
" whereas only Father, Word, and Spirit might
" have been the fame things myftically interpreted,
*' after the prevailing cuftom of that time. So
*' that I cannot deny but Mr. Martin had fome
" ground to fay, this is decifive, I. e. as to its being
*' acknowledged

I05 DR. BENSON.
" aqknowledged by Eucherius, in the fifth Gen-
" tury." {h)
Dr. Benfon could not be Ignorant of this quota
tion of the Verfe in queftion, thus made by £«-
cherius, or of Mr. Emlyns diftrefs on the fubjed.
For Dr. Benfon had read, before he began his
critical labors on this text, not only Mr. Martina
Differtatlon which contains this quotation froni '
Eucherius, but Mr. Emlyn s reply to it. He con-
feffes BOTH, in the outfet of his own {i) difquifi-
tions ; although he was not then, perhaps, aware '
of the confequence. After this confeffion. which
condemns himfelf, the plea of ignorance, oi not
having feen the quotation, can no longer avail him ;
and, that being once taken away, there can be no
doubt as to the charge which muft be fubftituted'j
in its place. VL " Facundus,^
(/&) The queftion,' whether this paffage in Eucherius is genuine or
not, will be taken up hereafter under Objeiflion viii. of M. Griejbach.
(?) " I have read Dr. Mr7/'.t /"/-o/egorafwa— -But above all, I have
read Mr. Mnrtiris Critical D'ljfertat'ian on this text ; Mr. Emlyh's.
Full Inquiry, &c. and the Letters of M. La Croze, and F. Le
long, publifhed by Mr. Emlyn." (Dr. Benfon's Paraphrafe, zd Edit.
p. 631.)— He cannot be fuppofed, moreover, to have been ignorant oi
the evidence furnifhed hyMarcus Celedenfis and Phcebadius ; for he has
referred to Bengelius in p. 620, by whom their teftimony is particularly
fet forth.

DR. BENSON.

107

Vl. " Facundus, who flouriffed in the fifth
century, and was of the, fame African Church,
did not only, himfelf, interpret the words of the
eighth verfe, in that myftical manner : but has
acquainted us that Cyprian the Martyr did ft
underftand them"
What Facundus and Cyprian underftood, or in
terpreted concerning the eighth verfe, is immaterial
to the prefent enquiry, — if arguments can be ad
duced of fufficlent force to fhew that they read the
feventh verfe in their Bibles. This fad, it is
trufted, hath been already fatisfadorlly proved as
to Cyprian. The cafe of Facundus will require
fome confideration.
The expreffions of Facundus, on this fubjed,
are as follows. " The Apoftle, John, in his epif-
*' tie thus fpeaks of the Father, the Son [i^^7/o]
" and the Holy Ghoft : There are three that hear
*' ivitnefs on earth, the fpirit, the nvater, and the
" blood ; and thefe three are one : fignlfylng, by the
" \Joxdi fpirit the Father, by the blood the Son, and
" by the water the Holy Ghoft. {k) And
[k] He in this part of his argument proceeds thus. " Si forfitaa
ipfi qui de verbo contendunt.in eo quod dixit : Tres funt qui teftifican- tur

lo8 DR. BENSON.
And a little afterwards—" Which teftimony of
*' St. John the bleffed Martyr Cyprian, Bifhop of
*' Carthage, in an epiftle, or book, which he
'* wtote on the Trinity, underftands to have beea-
" fpoken of the Father, the Son, and the Holy;
" Ghoft. For he fays : The Lord declares, I and,)
*' my Father are one : And again it is written of
*' the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, And
*' thefe three are one."
Let it be firft remarked, as to this teftimony of
Facundus, that he probably never faw the Treatife ':
of Cyprian to which he thus refers. He feems
to have been utterly at a lofs even how to defcribe,
or clafs it : for he calls it an epiftle, or « booh
And he has indubitably given to it a title which is
not its own. " In Epiftola five libro — de Trini
tate,
tur in terra ; fpiritus aqua et fanguis, et hi tres unum funt, Trinitateiil,
qui unus Deus eft, nolunt intelligi fecundum ipfa verba quse pofuit
pro Apoftolo Joanne refpondeant. Nunquid hi tres qui in terra tefti.
ficari, et qui unum efle dicuntur, poffunt fpiritus aut aqux aut fan-
guines dici ?" — And in another paffage: " Nam fie ecclefia Chrifti,
ctiam cum necdum ad diftinftionem Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sanfli
uteretur nomine perfonae, tres credidit et prEsdicavit, Patrem, Filium,
et Spiritum Sanftum, ficut teftimonio Joannis fupra docuimus, quo
diflum eft, Tres funt qui teftimonimn dant in terra, fpiritus aqua et fan
guis, et hi tres unum funt ."
Thefe quotations have been lengthened, in order to fhew that the
words, in terra, moft certainly flood in Facundus' s Bible,

DR. BENSON. I09
tate, fays Facundus, inftead pf de Unitate ecclefice, (/)
which is its real title. Either of thefe circum
ftances fingly taken raife a fufpicion, combined
they amount nearly to proof, that Facundus had
not read the work which he thus ventured to
quote, but had trufted to the information of fome
perfon who had miftakenly, or intentionally mif-
led him by imputing to the eighth verfe pf i . John
V. a comment or declaration. It is written, which
could have been uttered by Cyprian only of th^
feventh. Let it be ftill further obferved, that the very ex
preffions, ufed by Facundus, prove that the feventh
verfe was read by him as well as the eighth.
Wherever the words in terra [on earth] are found
in any recital of, or reference to the eighth, they
neceffarily imply the exiftence of the feventh verfe,
having the words in ccelo [in Heaven] expreffed
or underftood in contrapofition to them. And Fa^
fundus ufes this phrafe, in terra, no lefs than thrice
\a the fhort extrads which have been juft copied from

(/) Jt is fometimes ftiled, De Simplicitate Pralatornm, The fcribe,
Vvho wrote the Verona MS, mentioned by Maffeius, wifhed to cover
the error of Facundus, by correBing it in his oion copy. He reads de
Jfnitate ; but, as it might well be expefted, he feems to be Angular in
that reading.

IIQ DR. B E NS O N.
from him. {m) It is remarkable that Fulgentius con»,
ftantly cites the feventh verfe, with the words in
ccelo, and that he never applies the eighth verfe to
the Trinity, unlefs perhaps in the Fragments^
againft Fabianus before quoted : which, neverthe
lefs, without any great violence («) are capable of
another conftrudion. Facundus, on the othef.
hand, continually relies on a myftical interpretation
of the eighth, negleding the feventh verfe, al
though he proves to us that it was in his poffef-;.!
Hon by his mode of quoting the eighth verfe»
But this, although a diftlndion, is almoft (with re-
^d to the great queftion of the authenticity of
this paffage) a diftlndion without a difference.
For wherever, in any author thus referring to this
chapter of St. Jobn, either of thefe claufules, in
cash, or in terra,, is read, fuch reading infers the
laher to have ftood (o) In the Bible of that author ;
or if there omitted at all, to have been fo omitted
ty the mere negligence of the copyift. The
(m) Pro defenfione trium Capit.
(fl) Page 38 of thefe Letters.
{o\ Thiols one of thofe few points in which the opponents of this
verfe agree with its advocates. Sir Ifaac Neivton, Hift. p. 505^
J-welis, p. 12, ,j,o lie. -Bengelius, ad iin. differtat.— G/,V^«^, p,
^'^d—Mattheei, p. 140.

DR. BENSON. Ill
The only difficulty which preffes upon the
mind in the cafe of Facundus, and of others of
the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers who had
both the verfes in their Bibles, and yet chofe to in
terpret the eighth verfe as a fymbol of the Trinity,
while they paffed over the feventh in filence, — is
to affign, in any adequate degree, a caufe for
fuch preference, and a motive for fuch preterition.
Matth-cei {p) puts the queftion forcibly. The fol
lowing obfervations, ^fuggefted in^eply to it, may
•merit confideration.
The unity, ftated in the laft claufe of the fe
venth verfe, is either an unity of nature, or an unity
of teftimony. If Facundus (taking him as an ex
ample for the others) believed it to be the latter
only, to him it would be no proof of a Trinity in
the divine nature : becaufe to him the claufe would
not fpeak of nature, but of tefimony merely. His
expofitlon ofthe verfe would run thus. For there
are three that bear witnefs in Heaven, affirming to
VIS (y) the divinity of the Son of God, — the Fa
ther,
[p) " ^omodo enim ffVii^oXx dixijit, fi KVOiVTt^^nras airoSn^ct;
ante oculos hahuiffet in illius "verbis o trxTfi^, o Xoyoq, Jtat TO ayiov
Tri/sviAO. ?" P- '40-
{q} This mode of expofuion will be ftated more at large in the
fifth of thefe letters.

Ill D R, B E N S O N,
ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft : And the tefti
mony of thefe three is one and the fame, and proves
the point precifely. Interpreting the verfe in this
mianner, he would recoiled the teftimony of other.
witneffes in Heaven, who had likewife declared to
mankind the divinity pf Jefus Chrift ; the tefti-
m;ony of him, namely, who was fent from God,
nnto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, ivhofaid to
Mary, The Holy Ghoft ffall come upon thee, and the
power of the Higheft ffall overffadow thee : there
fore that holy thing, ivhicb ffall be born of thee,
ffall be called, the Son of God : — of him, who came
wpom fhe ffepherda abiding in the field, and keeping
watch over their flock by night, and proclaimed to
their aftonifhed minds good tidings of great joy
which fhould be to all people, the birth, on that day,
tn the city of David, of q. Saviour, Chrift the Lord :
•and laftly, of that multitude of the heavenly hoft,
'which was fuddenly with the angel, and joined in
the feraphic ode. Glory to God in the higheft, and on
^arth peace, good-will towards men. {f) Conceiv
ing St. Johii ^ argument to relate to teftimony pnly,
he would feel that it could not be true, as a sene-
-ral propofition, that the ad of bearing witnefs in
Heaven made the witneffes, neceffarily, component part^
{r') Luke'i; 26 — 39,-- ii: 8—15.

D R. B E N S O N, 1 1 3
Jiarts (if the phrafe may be allowed) of the triune
and ineffable Godhead : and, as to the particular
words before him, he would not confider himfelf
at liberty to educe conclufions from them beyond
what, in his appreheiifion, St. Jobn himfelf had
predicated. A writer, and that writer a Chriftian
Bifhop, thus privately interpreting the final claufe
bi the feventh verfe^ and confcious probably at the
fame time that he fo interpreted it againft the ge-
tieral fenfe of the Chriftian world,- would certainly
wifh. to pafs over the whole of that verfe in filence,
whenever he fhould be called upon to difcufs the
queftion of three perfons and one God; And yet
holding facred the belief of a Trinity (/) and
anxious to elicit from fome part of this paffage
fome elucidation of that momentous article of the
Chriftian faith, he would naturally bend his at-*
tention to the eighth vdrfe. He would feel him
felf there difencumbered froni the burthen ^ vO'hich,
in his apprebenfion, lay heavy upon him ill look
ing for a proof of the Trinity in the other verfe.
The ftrongeft incentive to feek Is an eafneft hope
pf finding. Hc would enter upon the t^fk, which
he had impofed upon himfelf, with chearfulnefs,
I He
(/) This reraarlc is true not only oi Facundui, but of aiU the Fathers
who have employed the eighth verfe in illuftration of the doilrine of
the Trinity,

114 D R. B E N S O ]tf.
He would contemplate the fubjed in various points
of view. He would try to fhape a fymbol, where
he could not found a demonftration. The ener
gies of a mind thus ftimulated, and ading upon
itfelf, would naturally purfue the courfe which we
obferve Facundus to have taken. Such an one
would firft, by intenfe and repeated refledlon,
work himfelf into a perfuafion that the fpirit, the
blood, and the water, were fignificative, or fymbolical
of the three perfons in the ever bleffed Trinity, he
would next endeavour to anfwer objedlons [f) and
would finally bring forth in triumph, the words of
fo iiluftrious a man as Cyprian; who, as he had
been given to underfiand (although erroneoufly)
had interpreted the eighth verfe in the fame myf^
tical manner with himfelf.
Thefe obfervations, which thus affign a reafon
able, perhaps an adequate caufe why Facundus, and
other authors in his fituation, would pafs over the
feventh, and comment upon the eighth verfe, are
not founded merely on a gratuitous fuppofition.
They are moft ftrongly corroborated by what we
knoiv of Eucherius. His real words and true
meaning fhall firft be ftated, both of which are
mifreprefented by Dr. Benfon. An
(/) " At fiforfitan ipfi, qui de verbo contendunt,-r-Trinitatem, qui unus
Dtus eft, nolunt intelligi' isV.

D R. B E N S O N, 115
An extra d from the Formulas of Eucherius has
been already given [li) in which he quotes both
thefe verfes of St. John together. In another paf
fage of the fame treatife his fubjed leads him to
take the eighth verfe feparately, which he cites in
the following manner, [v] " John the Evangelift
" fays, There are three that bear witnefs on earth,
" the fpirit, the water, and the blood."
And again, in the work which Dr. Benfon has
cited, the ^cefiiones, Eucherius thus mentions the
eighth verfe.
" Question. Alfo St. John writes in his eplf-
*¦ tie : There are three that bear vuitnefs, the voater,
" the blood, and the fpirit : What is fignified hereby ?

" Answer. This paffage feems to me to be
fimllar to that part of St. John\ gofpel where
he fpeaks of the fufferlngs of Chrift ; faying.
One of the foldiers with a fpear pierced his fide,
and forthwith came there out blood and water :
and be that faw it bare record. In the fame gof
pel he had before faid of Jefus, He bowed bis
head and gave up the ghoft. Some perfons there-
I 2 fore

<(

(«) ^ 42-
b) p- 227.

1 16 D R. B E N S O Nv
*' fore thus argue refpeding this paffage : ttii
" water fignlfies baptifm, the blood feems to in-
" timate martyrdom, and the fpirit is thaf
*' which through martyrdom paffes to the Lord,
" But more (plures) by a myftical interpreta-
" tion here underftand the Trinity itfelf, becaufe-
" [as they alledge] it wholly bears teftimony to
" Chrift : the water fignifying the Father, be-
" caufe he fays of himfelf. The living waters have
*' forfaken me their fountain ;. the blood fhewing,
*^' Chrift, as by the blood of his paffion ; and the
" [expreffion] fpirit manifefting the Holy Spl*-
*' rit." {w)
Thefe are the words of Eucherius in the ^cef-
t^ones, which are very different from thofe of Dr.
Benfon. It is hardly needful to add that their true
meaning is — Some perfons interpret the eighth verfe
of baptifm, martyrdom, and the foul or life ; more
[or a greater number of perfons] of the Trinity
myftically ; but I myfelf interpret it as a proof that
Chrift had affumed our human nature, ivhen he died
upon the crofs.
If we now at length apply to Fasundus the fads
which have been afcertained of Eucherius, the
following
(w) EucHERH ^afti-ones, Ed. Froben, A.D. 1531, p. 281,

C R. BENSON. 117
following dedudlons will refult from the com
parifon. I. It was proved that Facundus read the eighth
verfe with the claufule, in terra, and it was in
ferred from thence that his bible muft contain
the feventh verfe likewife ;— -It is now proved that
Eucherius alfo read the eighth verfe with the fame
claufule, in terra, and that his bible did contain
the feventh verfe,
2. If the eleventh fedlon of the Formulce had
perifhed in any part of that long feries of thirteen
hundred years, which has faithfully conveyed it
down to "us, Eucherius would have now ftood be
fore us in a fituation exadly fimllar to that of
Facundus. That part of Eucherius' works fo loft,
we fhould have been at liberty to imagine, but
not enabled to prove, that he had ever adually
quoted the feventh verfe. The inference is allow
able, at leaft, that we might find a like quotation
of the feventh verfe by Facundus, if we were in
poffeffion of thofe parts of his works which are
now loft.
For thefe reafons, and for others which will be
Immediately fubjoined, Facundus, even if it fhould
I 3 be

Il8 DR. BENSON.
be granted that he has not quoted this verfe (which
is- more than ought to be granted unlefs we were
in poffeffion of all his works) could not be igno-l
rant of its exiftence in this Epiftle of St. John.
The public appeal to its teftimony, which was
made in the country of Facundus, by nearly four
hundred Bifhops at once, in the famous [x] Con
vention oi Huneric ; made at Carthage, the Metro
polis of that country ; made in oppofitlon to the
Arians of that age, who were fupported by the
reigning Prince of that country ; made in the life
time, in the manhood of Facundus (for it hap
pened but a few years before his advancement
to the BIfhoprIc oif Hermiane) — all thefe circum
ftances render it impoffible to fuppofe that this
Verfe was not found in the Bible of Facundus,
as well as in that of Cyprian : although he per
haps may not, like Cyprian, have particulaiifed it
by a dired quotation.
VII. " Fulgentius, who was contemporary
, with Facundus, has been thought to repre fent
Cyprian as quoting the words from St. John."
Thefe, which follow, are the words of Fulgen
tius, where he fpeaks of Cyprian and this Verfe con
jointly.
(a-) See pages 57—60 of thefe Letters.

DR. BENSON. IIQ
jointly. " The bleffed Apoftle St. Jo/^'w teftifies,
that there are three which bear record in Heaven,
" the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and thefe
" three are one. Which alfo the moft holy Mar-
" tyr, Cyprian, declares in his Epiftle De Unitate
" Ecclefice; wherein, to demonftrate that there
** ought to be an unity in the Church as there is
" in the Godhead, he has brought the follow-
" ING PROOFS diredly from Scripture : The
" Lord fays, I and my Father are one ; and again
" it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy
*' Spirit, And thefe three are one" (_y)
Thus Fulgentius has not only been thought to
reprefent, but has moft clearly reprefented, Cyprian
as quoting the Verfe in queftion. And, not con
tented with this, he has done more ; — he has quoted
the Verfe himfelf, in the moft explicit and unmyf-
tical terms.
But this, it feems, cannot be ; becaufe Ful
gentius ufes the word [confitetur'\ confeffes. For,
I 4 as
(j)) This quotation has been before ftated in page 36 of thefe Let
ters. The repetition of it in this place, however, will be pardoned.
It cannot be doubted that Fulgentius read this verfe in the Greek
MSS, as well as in his own Bible; becaufe he was much praftifed,
and eminently Ikilled in the Greek language. Du Pin, Lond. Edit.
A. D. 1693, vol. iv. p. 13.

12a DR. BENSON.
as Dr. Benfon further argues concerning Fulgen^

tius-

VITt. " He fays [fo Cyprian confeffes'] Coin.
feffes, what f That thefe very words were in
the epiftle of St. John ? What a mighty mat
ter was that ; to confefs what he found in the
writings of an Apoftle I But to confefs, or ac
knowledge, that by the water, the blood, and
the fpirit, were meant the Father, the Son,
and the 'Holy Spirit, was a very remarkable
confeffion) ¦ And what thofe who held the fame
opinion, would be glad to find fo eminent a fa
ther and martyr conf effing"
If this piece of verbal Critlcifm (fuch as It is)
were juft, it would prove nothing. But it is not
either claffically, or theologically juft. In the for
mer fenfe the verb, confiteor, may be rendered to
declare, to ffew,, to profefs, as well as to confefs.
And it has been thus applied by good writers.
And theologicafiy. It is the technical expreffion for
a full and folemn declaration of Chriftian belief:
from whence we have adopted the common phrafe,
in our own language, of a Confeffion of faith. A
few inftances will fuffice to prove the truth of this
obfervation. And

DR. BENSON, 121
And firft, from Facundus, the contemporary of
Fulgentius.
" We declare our belief [cQnfftemurl ^"^ °^^^ Lor4
*' Jefus Chrift, the only-begotten Son of God."
" The confeffion of your faith [confeffionem\
*' agreeing with the definitions of the council of
" Chalchedon, I have always approved and de-
" fended agaluft the objedlons of many."
'¦ We declare our belief [confitemur'\ oi thq
" Father as a compleat [or diftind] perfon, and
" in like manner pf the Son, and pf the Holy
« Ghofi." (2)
Next ixQxsx Fulgentius himfelf.

" Adhering to the rule of the ApoftoHc faith,
we declare our belief [fatemur] in the perfed
co-eternal Son of the perfed and eternal Father,
begotten without a beginning, equal in nature,
and not inferior in power. And we alfo declare
our belief [fatemur] in the Holy Ghoft that he
is no Qther than God." « The
(k;) Bibl. Max. Patr. Vol. x. paffiip.

122 D R. B E N S ON.
*' The Trinity itfelf,, which is the one . gracious
" and true God, hath likewife taught us by Ifaiah
*' the prophet, that we ought thus to believe and
" declare our belief \credere et conffteri] the Se-
" raphim crying to each other thrice, Holy, Holy,
" Holy, and yet once [only] fubjoining Lord God
" of Hofts." (a)
Again, from the four hundred Bifhops who at
tended the Convention of Huneric.
^ That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft
*^ fubfift each in his owh proper and diftind per-
** fan, we declare to be our belief by this faithful
** confefliion of it [fideli confeffone futeamur.']

Another example, from Phcebadius, fhall con
clude thefe extrads,
" That rule is therefore to be maintained which
" declares [confitetur'] the Son to be in the Father,
** and the Father in the Son." (^) IX. " X'es
{a) Eibl. Max. Patr. Vol. ix, p. 41, and Appendix No. xx.
[b] Appendix, No. xxxi', and xxvi.

DR. BENSON.

123

IX. " X'es (you will fay) but interpreting
is one thing ; and faying. So it is written, is
quite a dfferent thing"
It has been already not only faid but, as I
truft, PROVED, that faying So it is written, is^
in ferious truth, quite a different thing from in-^
terpreting ; and was meant fo to be by Cyprian
himfelf in the cafe now before us. And the argu
ment will, perhaps, acquire additional ftrength by
fhewing that Cyprian has, in other paffages of his
works, frequently quoted Scripture without ufing
any other prefatory words, to introduce fuch quo
tations, than the phrafe [It is written] which is
now under confideration.
*' Becaufe it is written. He who endureth to
the end fhall be faved." [c) [De babitu Virginum,
P- 93-J
" Since it is written, - All things are lawful,
but all things are not {d) expedient." [Ibid.
p. 96.]

« Since

(c) A Hteral quotation from Matthew x ; 22,
((/) I Cor. vi : 12.

124 DR. BENSON.
" Since // is written. Remember from whence
thou art faUen, and (^) repent." [De Lapfis, p;
129.] " As it is written, A man's heart devlfeth his
way, but the Lord diredeth h|s fteps." (y) [De
zelo, p. 228.] «
" As it is written, am I a God at hand, and not
a God afar off? If a man fhall bide himfelf in
fecret places, fhall not I fee him ? Do not I fill
heaven and [g) earth ? — And again : The eyes
of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil
and the [f] good." [De ^Oratione Dominica, p,
14c.] " Since it is written. The Lord will not fuffer
the foul of the righteous (i) to famlfti. And
again : I have been young, and now am old ;
yet have I not feen the righteous forfaken, nor hig
feed begging [k) bread." [73/^. p. 148.] The.
(e) Rev. ii : 5.
[f] Pro'v. xvi ; 9.
(^) Jerem. xx'i'ii : 23, 24.
(j6) Pro-v. XV : 3.
(/¦) Pro-v. X : 3.
{i) Pfalm xxxv'ii : 25. (Bible Tranflation.)

D R. B E N S O N. I 2_5
The number of thefe examples might, If necef
fary, be much Increafed. The two laft are pecu
liarly appofite ; being inftances of two fucceffive
quotations, coupled together by the very fame link
[And again] which joins the two quotations in the
paffage now under confideration.
X. " Cyprian has, in other inftances, quoted
Scripture tnore by his fenfe of it, than by re
peating the "words of the text. Thus inftead
of. Lead us not into temptation, be quotes it.
Suffer us not to be led into temptation. And
Rev. xix. lo. Worffip thou the Lord Jefus,
inftead of Worffip thou God. — Which were not
different readings y but Cyprians own interpre
tations"
There is reafon to believe, that the former of
thefe inftances did not faU from the pen of Cyp
rian. It certainly is not the only, and it may
not be the genuine, reading of this paffage.—
L£ad us not into temptation, are the words of the
Arundelian MS, of thofe from Pembroke College
Cambridge, from York, from Lincoln College Ox
ford, of one belonging to the famous Voffius, and
of two others from the Bodleian Library ; and the
fentence

126 D R. B E N S O N.
fentence 'ftands thus alfo in the CoUations of the
Monaftery of St. Vidor at Paris.
As to the latter inftance, it is moft probably a
different reading. The old Italic Verfion was the
Bible of Cyprian, and the public Bible of the age
in which he lived. The Verfion of Jerome was
not made until nearly tyv^o hundred years after the
death of Cyprian ; and it was at leaft (/) four hun
dred years after his death, before that Verfion took
place of the Italic, in the public Churches as well
as in the Libraries of the learned : which indeed
it has done fo compleatly, that there is not a fingle
MS of the old Italic Verfion now certainly known
(;«) to exift in the world.
What then, Sir, fhall hinder us from concluding
that the Verfion, from whence Cyprian drew his
quotations,
(/) This part of the fubjeft will be confidered more at large in ob-
jedlion xlv. of Dr. Benfon.
[m) Michaelis feems to wifli the learned to believe that the text of
the O/i^/ira/if is annexed to the Boerneriati, zx\di Claromantane MSS:
and that Mnrtianay has already publiflied the Gofpel of St. Mattheiu,
and the Epiftle of St. James from thut Verfion. But his own expref
fions — " A Latin Verfion, mjhich is THOUGHT to be the Italic — a niery
ancient Latin Verfion— luhich Martianay caufed to be printed from fwo
•very ancient MSS"— are the uncertain language of a perfon wavering,
and diftruftful of his own conclufions, (Introd. Lea, Seft. 24, 26.
and 61.)

D^, BENSON, 127
quotations, was the old Italic, and that it read the
words now in queftion as Cyprian has quoted
them ? It has not been fufficiently attended to by
Dr. Benfon, and by other writers of modern times,
who have, fometimes at leaft, too haftily accufed
Cyprian, and other very ancient Latin Fathers, of
quoting loofely, and of giving interpretations in
ftead of citations ; that thofe fathers did not quote
from the prefent Vulgate of the New Teftament,
or from any other Exemplar of it which is now
known to be extant ; but from a Verfion, which
is now (the quotations which have been made from
it, and preferred in other books, only excepted)
probably loft, (n)
XI. " Why might not he [Cyprian] give
the fenfe [of the eighth verfe] in bis own
words ; and fay. Of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit it is written, Thefe three are one ?"
Becaufe
(«) The learned will not be difpleafed to have the following paf
fages brought to their recolleftion,
" Mirum unde Cyprianus hie legat. Sic currite ut omnes occupetis.
^anquam reae occupat qui ajjequitur et ante'vertit.
Cyprianus, de Simplicitate prslatorum, traaatu tertio, pro omnia
fuffert legit omnia diligit. Unde conjicere licet illius codicem habuijfe
trxvra:. iipyu, addita Utterula "verbo gsyii.
[Erasmi Annoc, in i. Cor. ix : 24, et xiii : 7, Editl Ludg.]

12$ DR. BENSON.
Becaufe tie would, in fuch a cafe, hsixe faid the
thing which was not. It is not written of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Thefe three are one^
in any part of the eighth verfe of this chapter.
To fuppofe that Cyprian would have affirmed a
thing to be written, which never voas written, is
to fuppofe that he would have been guilty of ut
tering an intentional falfehood ; a fuppofition alto
gether monftrous and abominable !
XII. " For my own part^ I make no doubt
but that was the fad."
Indeed I
XIII. " The reafon, why Jerome has been.
appealed to in this point, is, that there is, in
feveral Latin Bibles, a preface fo the Catholic
Epiftles, which goes under his name"
This affertion is true in part ; but it does not
contain the whole truth. The appeal to the tefti
mony of Jerome, In favour of this verfe, is not
founded on this preface only; but partly on this
preface, and partly on his having been the Author
of that Tranflation of the Bible which is now
called

D R, B E N S O N. 1 29
called the Vulgar Latin, or the Vulgate : in which
Tranflation this verfe has always had a place.
XIV. " But feveral learned men, and even
fome ivho plead for the genuinenefs of this text,
have given up that preface, as fpurious. Their
reafons for rejeding it, are fuch as thefe —
// is not in Jerome'j catalogue of prefaces"
Jerome wrote, in the fourteenth year (0) of
Theodoftus, A. D. 392, a Catalogue of the works
which he had then compofed. He lived twenty-
eight years longer, or until A. D. 420 : in which
latter part of his life he compofed not only this
preface to the Canonical Epiftles, but alfo feveral
other fimllar prefaces, particularly to the grea
ter Prophets, as they are commonly caUed {p)
Ifaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah ; to the leffer Pro
phets Zechariah, Malachi, Hofea, Joel, Amos and
Jonah ; to the Ads of the Apoftles alfo, as it feems,
and to the Epiftles of St. Paul,
It Is true, then, that this preface is not inferted
in Jerome's, Catalogue : but it is not true that It is
K therefore
(0) See 'the Catalogue, Hieronymi Opera per Martianay, vol, iv.
Edit. Parlf A. D. 1706.
(?) Hooy, de Bibl. Text, Orig. p, 378.

130 , D R, B E N S O N,
therefore fpurious. The preface has no place In
the Catalogue, not becaufe it was not written by
Jerome, but becaufe it was written by him after
that Catalogue was compofed.
XV. " // [this preface] is often found in Latin
MSS, without his [Jerome' j-] name."
It Is found without his name In fome Latin MSS.
But that omiifion does not prove its fpurioufnefs.
Jeronie\ preface to the Books of the Chronicles is '
not mentioned as his work, even in his own Apo
logy ; although written by him long before the
date of that Apology, {qf His Preface to the
Plalms is without his name in feveral- ancient MSS,
particularly In that of Carcaffonne (r) : yet that
preface is confeffedly his work, Jerome ?, preface
to the book of Efdras is alfo without his name,
in one of the moft ancient MSS in the Royal Li
brary at Paris : Yet this Preface is now allowed,
by all learned men, to be the work oi Jerome, [s]
Oraiflions
(?) ^<^'"h p. 374-
[r) Hieronymi O'^cr^, vol. ii. p. 546.
(s) It may not be improper to fubjoin here an extraS from Marti
anay on this fubjeft.
" Codex Mo/iajhtii noflri Montis Mnjoris «/>»</ Arelatc-m ; Codex emi-~
nent'iffmi Card/nalis de Yjouta, qui extat in ejus bibliothecal>i7ii\ioiieVi^l-T
Cajtor. liebraicce I'eritatis, Carcaflbniierifis ecclefia ; Codex denique Mo-
naftr'n .

DR. BENSON. I3I
Omiffions of this kind prove nothing — but the
negligence of hafty tranfcribers.
XVI, " // [the preface] makes ufe of ihe
words canonical epiftles: whereas Jerome'.?
title for them was The Catholic Epiftles,"
.-, Jerome's title for them was not the Catholic, but
the Canonical Epiftles, which he gave to them
in other parts of his works, as well as ¦ in the pre
face now in queftion. In his Catalogue of Ecclefiafti-
cal Writers [t) Jeromes Latin is Canonicce, when
he. fpeaks of thefe epiftles, Erafmus indeed was
offended with Jeromes epithet, and attempted to
fubftitute the word. Catholic, in its place. " In-
K 2 ffead

his ex-

nafte-rii noftri^. Maris; Deauratas d;5ai/ Tolofates : In omnibus his
emplarihus omilTum eft quodcunque nomen aufloris in pnefatianitm in.
fcriptione, atque iti hoc modo legitur ; Incipit prasfatio de libro Jofue,
Incipit prologus in libris Regum, Incipit Pra;.'"at!o in Job [Incipit] pro-
logus in lib/is Efdrcs, et ita de ceteris. Nee J'olum illi, fed et Codices
Regii, Colbertini ac San-Germanenfes nomen Hieronymi omittunt paf
fim. Regius 1564 y?(r Danielis prologum infcrihit, Incipit Prologus in
Daniele propheta. Colbtrtinas antiquifjimus No. 61, Incipit prsefatio
Jefu Nave et Judicam. Ei in librum Jeremias, Incipit prologus Hie-
remise prophetos. San-Germanenlis«o/7f?', No. 15, zW//o Paralipomenon
ita legit: Ipcipit liber Dabrejamim. Incipit prologus. Si feptuaginta.
Et codex Bibliorum San-Germzmnfis, Na. 164, defcriptas retinet pi a-
fatianes fanai Hieronymi abfque ulla epigraphe feu infcriptione" — [Opera
Hie RON. Benedia. Edit. Paris, A. D. 1693. J
(/) HiER-QN Op. ^zxErafm, vol. I. p, 103. Ed. Paris, A D. 1546.

J 32 D R, B E N S O N.
ftead of Canonical (fays he in his Scholia on this
Catalogue) is to be read Catholic, as appears from
the tranffation o/'Sophronius," Again, fpeaking of
St, James's. Epiftle, " Catholic (he fays) ought to be
read inftead of Canonical, by the authority of So-
¦bhronius" And in the fame Scholia, when he comes
to the Epiftle of St, Jude, he fays — " Again inftead
oi Catholic Is written Canonical" And by whom? By
Jerome himfelf. Such at leaft muft have been the
teftimony of the MSS of Jeromes works, which
Erafmus employed in framing his edition. He
would have haftened with the information to his
readers, had they fpoken another language, {^li)
Sophronius wrote in Greek, and as fuch could
not properly tranflate the Canonicce of Jerome other-
wife than by the Greek word KaSoAixai. A Tranf-
lator has a right to ufe fuch phrafes as he judges to
be the moft appofite to explain, in his own language,
the meaning of his Author. But a right to interpret
the words of an original is not a right to take them.
' away. And yet Erafmus had nothing to urge for
himfelf beyond this fallacious defence : of which how
ever, he foon became fo diffident, perhaps afhamed, that.
{tl) Ut liquet ex SophroTitn, are the words of Erafmus. Ut liquet ex
MSS would have, been his expreffions, If, his MSS would have
jullificd him" -in ufing the.ii.

D R, BENSON. I33
that he gave up the very hope of maintaining it by
applying, himfelf, the epithet of Canonical to thefe
Epiftles. [v)
In another work he admits this fad without re-
ferve. Thefe are his words. " Concerning this
*' fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, it has been difputed
" by whom it was written. Jerome afcertains this
" point in his Catalogue of illufrious Writers in
" thefe v/ords. He [St. Peter] has written two Epif-
" ties, which are ftiled Canonical [Canonicce
" NOMrNANTUR]but the latter is denied by moft
" people to be of his cnmpofttion, becaufe ofthediffonance
*' of its file from that of his former Epiftle" [ff)
And again, ftill more clearly In the fecond page
next following the preceding extrad — " St. Jerome
(fays he) in his preface TO THE Canonical
'^.^iSTL'E.i fufpeds this paffage to • have been cor
rupted." [x)
Augufine, the contemporary and correfpondent
of Jerome, thus recognizes the fame expreffion.
" We cannot deny that Enoch, the feventh from
K 3 " Adam
{-v) 2 Joann. Canonica— 3 Joami. ejusdem.
[10) Annot. ErasMI in No'V- Tell. A. D. 1522, p. 614.
tx^  p. 616. " Divus Hieronymus pp..ffiL0QUEN§
IM EPISTOLAS CANONICAs" &C. >

134 D R. B E N S O N.
" Adam, has written fomething divine, becaufe the
" K^oiAe Jude has affirmed it in his canonical epif-k
" tie" ()')
Vigilius alfo, -who lived In the fame age, ufes
the following expreffions in his treatife againft Vari-
adus the Arian. " It is written In the Canoni
cal Epiftles, My Uttle children, this is the laft
time" And the quotation is made from the firft
Epiftle of St. John.
If It fhall be attempted here to. take a diftlndion,
that, as the authority of fome of thefe Epiftles was
anciently lefs generally admitted than that of the
reft, the epithet of Canonical might be applied with
propriety to a fingle Epiftle of the feven, whether
doubted or undoubted, — let it be replied that,
whatever may be thought of the quotation fromy^z;-
^/£/?/;2^,there can be no difficultyas to the expreffions
of Vigilius and Erafmus. The latter particularly
gives the epithet in queftion to three of thofe Epif
tles, the authority of which has been the moft
doubted, namely to the fecond Epiftle of St, Peter,
and to the fecond, and third of St. John, And
Vigilius,
iy] De Cit'ltate Dei, Lib. xv. cap. 23. <• Scripfifle qiiidem non.
nulla divina Enoch, ilium feptimum ab Adam, negare non pofl'umus
cum hoc in Epistola canonica Judas Apoftolus dicat." (Awufl,
Opera, Edit. Paris, A. D. 1680, vol. vii. p. 408.)

I I

DR. BENSON. I35
y.igilius afcribes that epithet to the whole of thefe
.epiftles, .although he quotes only from one of them.
For had he intended -to have made any diftinc^
tion, he would have prefaced his quotation with
words like thefe—// is written in the Canonical
Epiftle of St. John : meaning to diftinguifh his firft
Epiftle, which was never doubted, from the other
two which were not received at firft vv^ithout fome
hefitation. This argument will derive additional ftrength
from an appeal to the authority of Juiii-
Uus and Caffiodorius, who Hved very near to the
age of Jerome. Junilius ftiles the whole of thefe
Epiftles Canonical, without explanation or apology,
as an appeUation well known, and long applied to
them: Which are ffiled (fays he) the Canonical
Epiftles of the Apoftles. (2)
Caffiodorius, who lived in the fame age with
Junilius, applies the fame epithet to them In
the firft, and ftill more decidedly in the eighth Book
of his Inftitutes. " But when much thought upon the
remaining Canonical Epiftles lay heavy upon me,
fuddenly there c(nne to my affftance, by the bleffing
K4 ./
(z) De Partibus divins Legis, Cap. vi.

136 DR. BENSON.
of Providence, a Greek MS of Didymus written
in explanation of the SEVEN Canonical Epis
tles," {a)
Nor was this epithet of Canonical applied
to thefe Epiftles at that time by Jerome,
Vigilius, Augufine, Caffiodorius, and Junilius alone,
but by the whole Latin Church ; which is proved
by the beft teftimony poffible — the acknowledge
ment of an adverfary. " The Greeks (fays M,
Simon) have ftiled the feven Epiftles, Catholic, be
caufe they were not in general written to particular ¦
churches: but the Weftern Churches feem (ft)
especially to have affeded to give to them the
epithet of Canonical: Parce qu on a doute de
quelques unes, ft elles devoient etre mifes au nombre
de^ livres, Canoniqiies."
XVII. " That preface is prefixed to fome
Latin copies ofthe Catholic epifiles : in which
the difputed text is not inferted"
The fame adverfary, whom we have already
quoted in reply to the laft, fhall fingly anfwer this
objedion. " This is the fault of tranfcribers (fay^
(a) Caffiod. Inftit. Lib. viii,
(i) M, Simon, Hift, Crit. du Texte, C, xvK,

D R. :^ E N S O N. 137
(fays M. Simon, fpeaking on this fubjed) who
being only juft equal to the tafk of copying the
MSS, did not confider the difagreement which
there was between the text pf theif copies, and
this preface." {c)
XVIII. " The preface is not found in fome
of the beft and moft ancifnt ^SS of Jerdme'x
Verfoii."
For the better elucidation of this part of the ar-
gpment a Lifl is fubjoined of fome Latin MSS [d\
jcontaining the feven Canonical Epiftles, which are
not generally known. You will obferve, Sir, on
an attentive perufal of that part of the Lift which
relates to the MSS of the Royal Library at Paris^
that twelve of the moft ancient of them are of the
ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries,- out of whicH
ten contain the Prologue now in queftion ; — that
ojat of fpurteen fuch MSS in the Palatine Library
at Vienna, thirteen, and out of ten in the Library oi
\c) M. Simon, Hill. Crit. des Vers. C. ix.
{d) Appendix, No. xxxiii.
For the corredlnefs of the Lift of the MSS at Paris I am refponft.
ble. They were examined by me in the month ol July, 1791.
For the aceount of thofe from Vienna I am indebted to the friendly
attentions of M. F. C. Alter, a Profeffor in the Univerfity there; whom
I ftiall have occafion to mention again with gratitude, in fome of the
fujjfe^uent pages of this work.

J 38 D R, BENSON.
pf Trinity College, Dublin, nine exhibit the Pro
logue ; — and In fine, that it is omitted by eighteen
only out of one hundred and fxty-two MSS of
the Canonical Epiftles, which were kept in thofe
three Libraries In the year 1791.
XIX. *' // [the Preface] infinuates one falfey
hood — that all the -Greek copies of the New
Teftament had this verfe. Whereas none of
them had it. And Jerome, above all men, who
was fo converfant in the Greek copies of the
New Teftament, muft needs have known this to
have been q dired falfehood.''
It is aftonlfhing to fee fuch afff:rcions advanced
in dired oppofitlon to Jerome's own teftimony,
and to the plain and obvious truth of the cafe.
This Verfe ftands in Jcrovics Teftament. Jerome
folemnly affures us that he fettled the text of that
Teftament by the Greek copies. " Novum Tefta-
mentum [ft) fidei Graecse reddidit Jerome,
therefore, is fo far from knowing that this Verfe was,
{d) Page 43 of thefe Letters.
In his s8th EpilU'e (to Lucini:is) Jercms again makes tl^e fame dc-
rliir.ition. " Septuaginta Interprctum editionem et te habere non.
4i\bito, et ante annos plurimos diligentidime emcndatam, ftudiofis tr^-
didi ; AW.w/2 Gr.'jcx reddidi aU'Thr:t:i!l" Edit. Erafm. Paris. A. D.

DR. BENSON. I39
was In none of the Greek MSS, that he has, upon
the authority of thofe very MSS, inferted the
Verfe in his own Tranflation.
XX. Nor has any of the. genuine works
of the Greek fathers once mentioned it" — [viz.
the Verfe l John v : 7.]
If this affertion were true, It would not be con
clufive againft the originality of this preface. But It
is not true ; as hath been already fhewn by feveral
[e) inftances, taken from fuch parts of tne works or
thofe fathers, as have furvived to the prefent times. *
It will he neceffary here to combat certain
objedlons which have been brought againft.
the admiffibllity of fome, and the authenti
city of fome other, portions of the Greek evi
dence.
1546, Vol. i. p. {71, as errroneoufly marked in the volume, but really
page) 66.
And again, " Sicut autem in Novo Teftamento, fi quando apud
Latinos quxftio exoritur, et eft inter exemplaria varietas, recurrimus ad
fantem Grieci fermonis, quo nowum fcriptum eft infirumentum: ita in
Veteri Teftamento, li quando inter Greecos Lat'mafque diverfitas eft, ad
Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem. (Hieron. Suniie et Fretela;, vol.
iii. p. 26.)
{e) Pages 19, 20, 26—28, 32, 33, 48 — 52, 55 (to which may
be added without any great impropriety) 61 — 6'^, and 66.

14° D R. B E N S O N.
dence herein before adduced to this part of the
fubjed. 1, As to Euthymius Zygabenus, it has been af
fumed, in a preceding (/) letter, that thefe expref
fions, which follow, are a quotation from the paf
fage of St, John now in difpute, And [thefe]
THREE ARE ONE [nai ra Tfia iv,] It Is admitted
by the opponents of this Verfe, that if this be a
quotation from Scripture, it is taken from i John
v ..; 7, jBut it is further contended, that Euthymius
has clofely eonneded this phrafe with another,
" And BOTH ONE," and that as the latter of thefe
phrafes is not taken from Scripture, fo neither is
the former, I admit that the two expreffions
ftand in two fentences, one of which follows the
other ; but I deny that the connedlon between
them is fuch, that if the latter of them is not a
fcriptural phrafe, fo neither of neceffity is the for
mer. The difcourfe from whence they are taken
is, in the portion of it at leaft extraded by Euthy-
rnius, purely didadlc. And he who teaches is not
tied down to draw his materials for teaching from
one fource alone. Accordingly we find our pre
fent inftrudoy calling in to his aid the words not
only

(/) Letter II. pages 26—2?.

dr. BENSON. 141
only of St. John, an Apoftle of Chrift, but of
Gregory Nazianzen, a Chriftian Bifhop, and of
Ariftotle, a Heathen Phllofopher. For thus he
proceeds In his inftrudlons. " As [the word]
" ONE is of the number of thofe which are va-
" rioufly applied (for we fay one either in num-
" ber, as for inftance Peter : or in fpecies, as man ".
" or in genus, as animal) fo likewife is [the word]
*' two. For we fay two in number, as Peter and
*' Paul : in fpecies, as man and horfe : and in ge-
" nus, as effence and color. When therefore we
*' fpeak of two in Chrift, we mean not two in
" number, becaufe in perfon he is one only, but
" two in fpecies, that Is In nature, which in him
" is dual. For Gregory the Divine fays that both
" are one, not by nature but by conjundion.
" And Ariftotle affirms that matter and form are
" one in number, but tv/o in fpecies. This argu-
" ment of duality ought to be ufed againft thofe
" who grant that many Individuals may be found
" of one fpecies : but contend that two fpecies can
*' neither be found, nor [properly] fpoken of in
" one individual."
It may be infifted upon, with much more rea
fon, that the firft of thefe quotations is from Lu
cian,

142 D R. B E N S O N.
cian (g) becaufe It is followed by one from Arifto
tle, than that it is not a quotation from St. John
becaufe it is fucceeded by another from Gregory
Nazianzen. With refped to the Tergobyfo Edition of Euthy
mius, which fets forth the teftimony of the ftx wit
neffes, Matthcei [h) wifhes to detrad from the force
of its teftimony, by remarking that Its editor, Me-
irophanes, has not mentioned from what MS [or
MSS] he prepared his edition. Matthcei ought not
to have laid much ftrefs on this objedion, recoUed-
ing the anfwer which he had before received from
Eugenius (i) on a fimllar and groundlefs fufpicion :
" You may affure yourfelf beyond all doubt that I
found this paffage in the MS.'^
2. As to the dialogue afcribed to Athanafius, [k)
in which he and Arius are the affumed interlocu
tors, the time when, as well as the perfon by
whom,
[g] Philopatr. — £1/ £)£ TPiav,—s^ iiio; rpio,' x, t. A. There
Rre not fufficlent grounds for the pretence than this dialogue was not
written by Lucian. And Eugenius, in particular, whofe name has been
made ufe of for this purpofe, gives no fupport to it. Matthai Prefat.
p. Iviii.
[h] Matthcsi, p. 143.
(/¦) Page 19 of thcfc letters.
(k) Page 32.

DR. BENSON. I43
whom it was written, have long been matters of
debate among the lealrned. Bengelius (among
other critics) wifhes to fix both thefe difputed
points by imputing this dialogue to Maximus in
the feventh century : whofe judgment has been
already received with refped (/) although not
without hefitation. The internal evidence of the
treatife itfelf, indeed, feems to juftify Bengelius In
refufing to afcribe it to Athanafius. But the fame
internal evidence (were the queftion worth the
trouble of debating it) goes very far to give to
this dialogue a higher antiquity than the feventh
century, and confequently another author than
Maximus.
It has been urged, In aj:ifwer to the evidence
furnifhed by this treatife, that its author has ufed
fcriptural arguments, in favor of the dodrlne of the
Trinity, which do not prove the point for which
he contends. The affertion, Sir, will not be dif
puted. The great queftion which is at iffue in
thefe

(/) Page 32 : The exaft words of the paffage here fubjoiced. —
Tl Si Kxi ro Tr)!' aipfiTfw; ruv oifA/xpnav TrapjjcTiKsi/, kch ^wo*
TTOioi/ y.s'-i ccyicifiKOV Aurgou, a X.'^f '^ 'sSsig ovJ/ETat ry,]/ EcsfiAsiav
TWi< soa.i/Ci)v, a>c iv rn Tpii/xaxajia ovoij.o'.ina. Siaorcci 701? Trirojg ;,
jTiSo; Si TiiTOK TTfiitrii/, IiJa;s'^5)J (pxij;i?i xxi ot Tja? ft ncrit/.
[At HAN. Op. Ed. Paris. A, D. i-6gS, Vol. ii. p. 229 J

144 ^ ^' B E N S O ISf.
thefe Letters is not whether certain ancient authors
have taken their quotations from Scripture judi-
cloufly or injudicioufly in general, but whether
they have at all cited this verfe of St. John in par
ticular. The author of this dialogue has quoted
this verfe ; and he has moreover quoted it moft
appofitely and judicioufly, by caufing it to follow,.
in his argument, a reference to the baptifmal Infti-
tution. Is not baptfm — adminiftered — in the thrice-
bleffed name [of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghoft] ?¦ To which he immediately adds, And
St. John SAYS moreover. And these three are
ONE. But it has been alfo afferted that the quotation, Is
now under confideration, does not fet forth the
exad words of the feventh verfe. The learned-
reader will obferve that the word aroi is left out be
fore o\. r^eti, and therefore that the tranflation of
this paffige ought, in ftridnefs, to run thus. And
the [inftead of thefe] three are one. But this Is a
trilling difference, and ought to be placed to the
error of the copyift.
It has been ftill further affirmed, that the words
of this quotation m.uch more nearly referable the
eighth, than the feventh verfe ; the alledged reafon for

DR. Benson. 145
for which is, that the propofition «j was abforbed
by the preceding letters, and loft out of the Greek
MSS from which the Latin Verfion was made.
It is difficult to annex any clear meaning to the
latter part of this objedion. But it is eafy to
fhew that the paffage in the Dialogue, and the final
claufule of the eighth verfe, have not the refem-
blance which is affumed, by the objedion. For
the Greek MSS of the New Teftament univerfally
[m) thus read that claufule of the eighth verfe,
OJ rgfti a? ro IV eta-iv. But the words of the Dialogue
are 01 tj «? iv {not «? ro m) eta-tv, which are precifely the
expreffions of the feventh verfe in the Greek MSS
of Robert Stephens, in the Dublin MS, in the Co
dex Britannicus, in the MSS of the Greek Fathers
who attended the Lateran Council ; and, in fhort,
in all the Greek MSS of the New Teftament,
which exhibit the paffage, except the MS of Ber
lin, and the MS (or MSS) preferred by the Complu
tenfan Editors. And if thefe laft-mentioned MSS
fhould be allowed to have any weight In the deter
mination of this queftion, they would fpeak ftill
more decidedly againft the objedion. For they
L would

[m) Two MSS at Vienna (for the MS at the Royal Library at Paris,
No. 60, herein after mentioned, errs through the fault of the copyift)
are the only known exceptions to this general rule.

146 DR. BENSON.
would turn it againft the objedor, the words of
ihe feventh verfe being, in them, 01 rjaf «? to iv aa-ii/.
It is true, indeed, that the MS now marked No.
60 in the Royal Library («) at Paris reads the
final claufule of the eighth verfe oi Tf«? to ev «(rii',
thus abforbing, by the miftake of the copyift, the
prepofitlon aj in the adjedive Tf«f which immedi
ately precedes it. But it is not true that the words
of this MS are the precife words quoted in this
Dialogue. For the MS leaves the article to unah-
forbed, reading the claufule thus — >£ai o« tj^s TO £»
fto-tv. And even this is a fingle, folitary miftake*
It is not gregarious. It cannot find a companion
even in Wetfein, Grieffach, or Matthai. The
Alexandrine MS will not affociate with it. The
Royal Library at Paris did not produce anothei
inftance in 1791.
Thus the Greek MSS of the New Teftament
will not confefs this alledged refemblance. Nor
do the printed Editions of the works of Athanafius
feem to be in any refped more compliant. The
Paris Edition of A. D. 1627 reads ei t^ei; « eio-i*
as ftubbornly as its compeer the Benedidine Edi tion
(k) This MS was formerly Boiftall. 871 — and afterwards Pegim
1886, It does not pretend to have been one of Robert Stephens's MSS.

D R. B E N S O N. I47
tion of A. D. 1698 already cited. So that If there
be a fingle (0) Edition of the works of this Father
in which this paffage of the Dialogue is read o(
TfEif TO £v Eio-iK (which, after all, would not eftablifh
the objedion, or the fuppofed dodrlne of abforp-
tlon on which it profeffes to ftand) it may be cer
tainly pronounced beforehand not to have been
framed from a number of MSS collated together,
like the Benedidine Edition which has juft been
quoted, but from fome one hafty copy of fome
one hafty and erroneous fcribe : fuch as we have
had occafion, in other inftances, frequently to note
in the courfe of this work.
Let it be briefly added, on this head, that If the
author of this Dialogue had intended to refer to
the eighth verfe of this paffage, he would not have
ufed this expreffion, 0 iwan-nf tpoio-mt, St. John says ;
becaufe (as hath been already [p) remarked as to
Cyprian) St. Jobn hath not SAID fo in the eighth
verfe. La To

(0) I have not feen the Edition fAug. Vindo.) of A. D. 160 1,
The negligence of tyril, or rather of his copyifts, has been very
great in the quotation of this claufule. Griefbach does not wifh to
miflead by general expreffions, but honefily confeffes—" tv Cyr. a/i-
cuhi—ro IV Cyr. alibi— Ced habet etiam fij to iv." [N. Teft. p. 236.]
(/) Pag«s 103, and 128.

I4B DR. BENSON.
III. To avoid the force ofthe conclufion drawn
from the Synopfis of the firft Epiftle of St. Jobn,
the adverfaries of this verfe have argued the quef
tion in three ways :
1. That this Synopfts hasi no method or con-
fiftency in It, fo that the place of any doubtful text
in the Synopfis will not determine its correfpondlng,
fituation in the Epiftle.
2. That the verfe 1 John v : 7 is not referred
to In that part of this Synopfis which is fuppofed to
relate to it, but another paffage of that Epiftle,
viz. I John ii : 22, and 23. And
3. That this Synopfis was not written by Atha"
nafius, 1. As to the firft of thefe objedlons, — it Is not
neceffary that a work like this fhould follow its
original fervllely, or even ftridly verfe by verfe.
The objedion therefore. If true in itfelf, would
prove nothing. But it is not true. The Synopfis
hath done its duty, it hath method and confiftency
enough, if it have given a compendious fummary
of the fcope and fubjed of the work to which it
refers, without materially difturbing the arrange ment

DR. BENSON. I49
ment of its parts. And this office hath been well
difcharged by the breviate now in queftion. The
fkllful and the candid will perceive this on an at
tentive inveftlgatlon of the whole of this Synopfis,
iff) feparating thofe portions of it which are plainly
referential, from thofe which are merely explana
tory, or commentarious.
2, The fecond of thefe objedlons wiU not re
quire much difcuffion. The words of the Synopfis
in this difputed paffage are — He [St, John] alfo
teaches the unity {ivornra) of the Son with the Fa
ther. But what are the words of r John ii : 22
and 23, the verfes which are thus placed in com
petition with I John v : 7 ? " He is Antichrifi who
denieth the Father and the Son : Whofoever denieth
the Son, jhe fame hath not ihe Father" Undoubt
edly, whofoever denieth the words of God, as fet
forth in the oracles of his will, whether as to the
pre-exiftence or divinity of the Son, or as to any
L 3 other
[q) Appendix, No xxxiv. where this Synopfis, as to the Epiftle of
St. John, is ftated at large.
The whole Synopfis is a breviate or fummary of the whole Epiftle
of St. John, as that part of it which has been before cited (p. 5 i of
thefe letters) is a fummary or breviate of that part of the Epiftle,
which is notu portioned out in the fourth and fifth chapters. The
learned reader knows tliat the prefent diviflon of chapters took place
long after the age oi Athanafius, The diftinftion of iierfes was intro
duced in the fixteenth century by Robert Stephens,

150 ¦ D R. B E N S O N.
OTHER article of revealed truth, the fame [perfon,
this impugner, and denier] hath not th^ Father, In
any fpiritual fenfe, becaufe he refifts his words and
rejeds his teftimony, and therefore is as Antichrifi,
denying both the Father and the Son, the Father as
to his teftimony, and the Son as to his divinity.
For this is the record which God hath given of his
Son. But where fhall we find the unity, the
ivorrtToi, of the Son with the Father in this paffage ?
No where. We may, with perhaps equal wifdom,
feek for it in the laft verfe. Little children, keep
yourfelves from idols : and with nearly the fame pro
priety in any other (it fcarcely rnatters what) part
of the Epifile. Whatever may be conjedured as
to the omiffion of the Holy Ghoft in this paffage
of our prefent copy of this Synopfis, whether it .
was originally written uai mv ivomra Se rx mg [xa* ra
'rrvi\)^xr@^ ayis] it^^ rov woi,ri^a, J'axnJirj-— and the fub-
fequent copyift chanced to drop the words inclofed
within the brackets, being mifled in his rapid
glances by fimilar endings, (r) or whether the ori
ginal writer thought fit to ftate the unity of the
Son
[r) Faffing over others, M. F. C. Alter has pointed out, in the Notes
on his New Teftament, many inftances of paffages in his MSS, where
copyifts have been thus miiled by fimilar endings, [faria Leaicnes,
paffim ]
This part of the fubjeft will foon be refumed in our confideration
of Gieg. Nazianxen,

DR. BENSON. I5I
Son only with the Father, becaufe that unity was
the chief fubjed of contention in the days of
Arius, it is not in our power to determine. But
this we may determine, — -that the words of the
Synopfis, now under confideration, where the Apo
ftle is declared to teach the unity of the Son with
the Father, muft be taken to refer to the verfe
1 John V : 7, becaufe that unity is not taught in
any other part of that Epiftle,
3. The third of thefe objedlons infifts that this
Synopfis was not written by Athanafius. Dr. Mill,
it muft be acknowledged, thinks it to have been
the work of Euthalius ; and M. Grieffach takes it
from both Athanafius and Euthalius, and gives it
to Elias Cretenfis, although he ftates no authority
either for the gift or the abreption. Hody [s) is
more candid than Grieffach, faying of the author
of this Synopfis — Ifi he were not Athanafius, he
was at leafi a very ancient writer. And Dr. Cave
[f) fpeaks to the fame purpofe. But Du Pin [ti)
and, what Is ftUl more convincing, two of the moft
learned adverfaries of this verfe, Simon {y) and
L 4 Wetftein
(j) De Bibl. Text, Originifl, p. 309, " ^i,fi non fuit Athanafius,
'Vetufiifjimus tamen fuit.
(/) Hift. Lit. Edit. A. D, 16.88, p. 146.
(a) Artie. Athanafius.
[¦v] Int. al. Hifi, Crit. du Texte, C. xiii, xiv et xvii.

152 DR. BENSON.
Wetftein [w) admit, without referve, this Synopfts
to have been the work of Athanafius.
We might fafely reft the caufe on thefe two ad-
mlffions, could we not adduce to this point ftill
better evidence than the fuffrages even of Simon
and Wetfiein, which is — the authority of Athanafius
himfelf. In his Apology to the Emperor Confian-
tius he thus replies to one of the accufatlons which
his enemies had brought againft him, the charge
of having held a fecret correfpondence with the Em
peror Confians, the late brother and rival of Conftan-^,
tius. " I did not write to your brother [fays he J
" except at the time when the Eufebians accufed
" me before him, and I found myfelf under thq,
" neceflSty of tranfmitting my defence to him.
from Alexandria, where I then was : and [ex-.
" cept orf another occafion] when having received
his commands to compofe little tables [7ru>cTi«J of
" the Scriptures, I finifhed, and fent them to
" him." [x) That
(if) In Apocalypfin, N. T. Vol. rr. p. 744, et al. paffim,
[x\ Tw ooSiAipa era ouit Ey^atJ/iat, n fAovov ore 01 irept Evas^itov,.
ty^oc.il/av Oivroi xxr' e/ji-s, koci ocvocyxriv I'Xfv in uv tv rn AAe^-,
avSpna. coTvoXoyridocg-^on' >40st ot£ TruxTia TWi/ Seiwi/ ypa^uv xeAeu-
(Txvrl^ ocvTH ^jLoi >ioc.ra(riiivo!.(rai, roi'jra. Tromoaj OiTrsfiiAoo, Xpn
yx^ XTroMyHi/.ivov f*£ OL\r\^i\ii\v rn cn ^totn^noi. [y^o/. Athan.
ad Imp. Canftantium, Edit. Parisj. A-.JJ. 1698.]

D R. B E N S O N, I p-j
That the tablets of the Scriptures, thus men
tioned by Athanafius, formed the Synopfis now
under confideration, there can be little reafon to
doubt. A fad of this nature, over which tlm^e
:has rolled its darkening tide for more than fifteen
Jiundred years, fweeping away fome of its proofs
and.obfcuring the reft, is rarely to be fhewn with
evidence fo clear as this.
It muft not, however, be concealed that Cardi
nal Perron, the Benedidine Editors of Athanafius,
and others of the Romffj Church have, for a rea
fon which win hereafter appear, ftrenuoufly en
deavoured to invalidate this conclufion. Their ar
guments are as follows.
They contend. In the firft place, that the rm
him y^oc(puv mean the "whole Bible, and that by ttuxtias
is to be underftood its being bound, or made up,
into many fmall volumes : and that this was the
commlffion in which the Emperor had employed
Athanafius. But what reafonable ground of pro-.
babllity can there be for fuppofing Confians to have
employed Athanafius In this manner ? If he only
required (and the argument refts on that fingle
point) a new Bible to be copied out for his ufe in
fmall parcels, or divided into fmall rolls pr tablets, for

154 D R. E E N S O N.
for convenience, it is moft natural to fuppofe that
he would have given orders to his librarian, or to
his fecretary for that purpofe, and not to Athana
fius, An imperial command \j.iXiva-oi.vr(^] to Athana
fius to WRITE a book, or books, and efpecially on
the Scriptures, is confonant to probability, and to
the common courfe of human proceedings. It Is
more efpecially probable that Confians would make.j
fuch a requifitlon to Athanafius, becaufe he had
then been for a long feafon deftitute of his perfonal '
inftrudlons. A Bible, compaded together In more
or fewer volumes, Confians, at that time, could
have procured In almoft any part of Italy, or
the V/eftern- Empire : but a Synopfis, tablets of the
Scripture, of the compofition of Athanafius, he
could obtain from no one but Athanafius himfelf.'
Any other conftrudion of this paffage of the
Apology is incompatible with belief, becaufe It is
inconfiftent with common fenfe.
The Benedidine Editors further alledge that the
word TTUHTia fignlfies volumes. And they bring
feveral examples from Gregory Nazianzen in (j)
fupport of the allegation. But it by no means fol
lows that all thefe were (what they muft be to
give
( v) Epf. ad Philagr, Vol 1. p. 827, ad Theod. Thyanens. p. 843—"
ati Adamant, p. 896.

DR. BENSON. 155
give any fupport to the argument) whole and en
tire works. A part of them evidently look the
other way. But granting, for the fake of argu
ment, that Gregory Nazianzen, nay even that
Athanafius himfelf, ufed the word 7ru>tTia in thc
fenfe of books in general, without regard to their
fize, their nature, or their contents, — yet ftlU the
ffujcTia of this paffage may neverthelefs mean the
'.Synopfis. The two affumptions are very reconcile-
able with each other ; and the fair prefumption,
the probability, the reafon of the cafe is ftill as
ftrong againft thefe Editors as before.
The plain truth Is, that thefe Benedidine Editors,
together with all other zealous adherents to the
Church of Rome, have wifhed this Synopfts to hc
imputed to almoft any other author than Athanafius.
The Council of Trent decreed the books of ToMt,,
Judith, Wifdom, Ecclefiafiicus, and Baruch (2) to be
canonical: and the Bull of Pope Pius IV. (A. D..
1564) anathematifed all thofe who did not receive
that decree without hefitation. Whereas on the
contrary, the Church of England, and other re
formed Churches, have properly placed thofe books
among
(2:) The Council did not lofe much time in making nice diftinc-
tions. It decreed libros ipfos integrcs cum omnihus fuis partibus to he
canonical.

15^ D R. B E N S O N.
arjiong the Apocryphal writings ; and In fo doing
they are moft ftrongly fupported by the author of
this Synopfis. For, after having enumerated the
Canonical Books, he thus proceeds. " Befide ^
thefe, there yet remain other books of the Old Tefta
ment [which are] not Canonical — namely the Wif
dom of Solomon, the Wifdom of Jefus the fon of
Sirach, the books of Efther, Judith, and Tobit." [a)
This circumftance greatly embarraffed the Romijh
Church in its fubfequent difputes with the Proteft-i '
ants, who well knew how to derive advantage
from the name of Athanafius. The Popifh writers
found themfelves in a vexatious dilemma. To be
preffed with the authority of Athanafius was griev
ous. To abandon the decree of the Council and
the anathema of the Pope, was impoffible. There
was no method left but to attempt to elude an
enemy
{a) ExTog Sl r-dlm eicri ttxAiv irepx (3iSai«, rn? a,\jrn; -rra-
^ciict; Stoo^nxnt, or KANONIZOMENA [j,sv, avay ii/utDcopsKX
pf f/^ovov roig jiCt,rYtyjif/,ivOi<; rocvla,,
I^O<I>IA 20A0MIIN02, a n app^i ayocTrns'oi.re Sixaiotyvnv
H. r. A.
200IA IHSOT TIOT SIPAX, a n cc^X^- woKyx <ro<piot. x. t.A.
ES0HP, a n oc^'xj'i' £t8? Si^tpa k. r. A,
IOTAH0, 8 n af%''i' im; SaSmoor-i k, r. A,
TOBIT, a n afX"" l^'^Ao? Aoyuv TwEit x, t. A,
Tofsxvxoi xoK ra, ^n aavovi^o^ivoi, k. r. A,
[AthanaS. Synopf. Sfript,"]

DR. BENSON. I57
enemy by ftratagem, who could not be vanquifhed
by open force. And the ftratagem contrived was
' — to place the Synbpfis among the dubia of Athana
fius (in which they have been unwarily followed
by fome Proteftant writers) ' and to bend the word
wuxTia from its natural and obvious meaning. Thus
have thefe learned men done, what fome men of
learning are prone to do when they have fome
fmifter purpofe to anfwer by it ; — they have en
deavoured (although iri the prefent cafe certainly
in vain) " to throw the dufi of literature in our faces,
if) to blind the eyes of our difcernment."
IV. I have purpofely deferred to this place, al
though a little out of the order of chronology, the
obfervations which it feems neceffary to make as
to Gregory Nazianzen.
In addition to the teftimony already produced
from (c) this very ancient, as well as very refpeda
ble author, let the following extrads be fubjoined
from his works, " And
(^) the Origin of Arianifm difclcfed, p. 309, by Mr. Whitakee,
(whom I am happy to call my friend)— a work which exhibits the
erudition of a fcholar, with the judgment of a found critic, and the
piety of a Chriftian Divine.
(f) Pages 48 — 51.

cc

cc

cc

cc

158 DR. BENSON.
" And I wifh that none may perifh, but that we
"¦ may alt continue in one fpirit, laboring toge-;
•^ ther with one foul for the faith of the Gofpel-^'*'
*' guarding that precious depofit, which we have
*' received from thofe who have gone before us,
" the adoration of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghoft ; acknowledging the Father in
" [union with] the Son, and the Son in [a like '
'' union with] the Holy Ghoft ; to whom we
* have been baptifed, in whom we have believed,
under whofe banner we are enrolled, dividing
them [in perfon] before we conjoin them [in
¦effence] and joining them [in effence] before ^
we divide them [in perfon]. We take not the ^
three perfons as one perfon [outs t« r^nx wf £>»]— |
but [we believe] that these three are one
Qi/] not in perfon but in deity, and that the di
vine unity being worfhipped In the Trinity, and
the Trinity colleded together In the unity, the
whole is to be adored, the whole is fovereign,
poffeffing the fame throne, the fame glory, fu
perior to the world, prior to time, uncreated,
invifible, not to be approached unto, and incom-
prehenfible." {d)

An^
[d] Greg. Nazianz. Op. Edit. Paris. A.D. 1630, Vol. i. p.
204.

D R, BENSON. 159
And again. " From thefe expreffions of not
*' being begotten, of being begotten, and of pro-
" ceeding, the diftlndion is declared between the
" Father, the Son and the Holy Ghoft ; chat fo
" the unconfufed difcrimination of the three per-
" fons may be preferved in the one nature and
" majefty of the Deity. For the Son is not the
" Father (for the Father is one) but that which is
" the Father. Nor is the Holy Ghoft the Son
" becaufe he is of God (for there is one only-be-
" gotten) but that which is the Son: these
'' three being one, if you look to their divinity,
" and the one being three, if you confider their
"perfons, fo that the word one gives no counte-
" nance to Sabellius, or the word three to that
*' impious divlfion which now prevails." {e)
It feems too plain to be denied, that thefe two
paffages contain additional references, by Gregory
Nazianzen, to the verfe 1 Johnw; 7.
. The weight of this teftimony has been attempted
to be taken away, by afferting that Gregory Nazi
anzen has quoted another paffage as Scripture, and
applied it to the Trinity, which paffage in fad Is
not Scripture, and therefore that he is not to be
credited
{e) Idem, p. 598,

l6o DR. BENSON.
credited in any other fimilar application. Thefe
are the words of Nazianzen, againft which this
affertion is direded. " To us there is one God the
Father [of, or] from whom are all things, and
one Lord Jefus Chrift by whom are all things, and
one Holy Ghofi in whom are all things : which ex
preffions, from whom, by whom, and in whom, are
not expreffions of thofe who divide the nature,' — ¦
but of thofe who diftinguifh the perfons of one
and the fame unconfufed effence."
Nazianzen here undoubtedly quotes the verfe, ',
I Cor. viii : 6 ; which, in our ^r^«/ Teftaments, ;
contains thefe words alone : To us there is one God
the Father, of "whom are all things, — and one Lord,
Jefus Chrift, by whom are all things. The quef-
tion, therefore, now to be difcuffed, is — whether;!
that claufe of Nazianzen % quotation which adds the
Holy Ghoft to the other two divine perfons of the
Godhead, was, or was not, a component part of
St. PauVs firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, in fome
of the MSS at leaft of that Epiftle which exifted ^
in and before the days of Gregory Nazianzen. I
incline, Sir, to adopt the affirmative of this pro
pofition for the following reafons : I. Bafd

fi -R. ^BE'WS OSNv l6l
i. Linus, in his hiftory of the' ijiartyrdom of
St. Peter and St^ Paul, makes the fame quotation.
"' Becaufe there is one God from whom are all things,
nnd one Lord Jefus Chrif by ' whom are all things,
and ¦ one Holy Ghofi in whom confft [or are] all
things^ He was Bifhop of Rome, and died in-
A. D. 70, according to Sixtus Senenfis. But if we
follow Irenceus, Epiphanius , TiSxiS. flufebius (and they
are better guides than Sixtus Senenfis) the time of
his death wiU be fix:ed to the year 78. In either
cafe he wrote nearly thirtyyears' before the deceafe
of St. >&«. (/)
*¦' M 2. Ignatius,
(/) Max, Bibl. Pair. Tqit). i. p. 74, Ed. CoL A^r. A. D. 1618.
Some writers have doubte'Sj" whether this difcourfe, or hiftory, was
the work of Linus, principally bgcaiiife it was originally 'written in the
Greek language. But this is no very ferious objeftion. Tertullian 'la
the fecond century, although a Latin, wrote one of his treatifes (as
hath been before remarked) in^Greek, that which is now ftiled De
Virginibus wlandis. And Br.-Mill very truly afSrms, although on
another fubjecl, that in the firft century moft of the Chriftians cf Rome
underftood Greek, There was a fingular propriety in ufing the Greek
language, at that time, as.the vehicle of this hiftory. It: opened the
narrative to the Chriftians''of v^a, ' v^liere Chriftianity then greatly
prevailed, whilft it did not Hide it from thofe of Riime, This ground
of objeftion, therefore, is not. tenable, And, as to the reft, although
Voffius fays that it was barbart'cujufdam ac prifci Monachi opus, yet Six
tus Senenfis, Sigebert, and ''Ghifflet, among others, are decided in their
judgment that it iv«j written by Imw. . .. ..^

l62 D R, B E N S O N.
2. Ignatius, who received the crown of martyr
dom in A, D, 11 o, refers to this paffage in the fol
lowing manner. " St. Paul Inftruding us fays,
There is one God of all, the Father of Chrift, from
vohom are all things, and one Lord [our Lord] Jefus
Chrif, the only-begotten Son of God, the ruler of
all, by whom are all things, and one Holy Ghofi, who
wrought in Mofes, and the Prophets and Apof
tles." {g)
3. Bafil the Great quotes this paffage of this
Epiftle in the fame manner with Linus in his fourth
Oration againft Eunomius. " One God from whom ,
are all things, one Lord Jefus Chrift by whom are
all things, and one Holy Ghofi in whom are all
things." He was the friend and correfpondent of,
and confequently contemporary with, Gregory Na^
zianzen.
^fr''
4. Epiphanius, who died in A. D. 402, quotes
this text, 1. Cor.Yui: 6, without the claufe re
fpeding the Holy Ghoft. And he even proceeds
fo far as to affign [h) a reafon' why there was no
f:' ' ' need
{g) Epif. ad Philippi ens. Ei.Cler. vol. ii. p. 153. N;
{h) Hieref. AnoTH. Edit. P«m. A. D. 1622. '
When Epiphanius wrote his account of this herefy, that Copy of this
Epiftle of St. Pak/,. which he then made ufe of, had loft this clairfe.- When

DR. BENS ON. 1 63
need that the Apoftle fhould add the Holy Ghoft,
in this paffage, to the other facred perfons of the
Trinity. But in another part of his works, be
tween the compofition of which and of the firft_
. mentioned Treatife many years had probably Inter
vened, he cites this text of St Paul in the fame
full and unequivocal manner as Linus, Bafil and
Nazianzen had before quoted it. " See ye not
" that the whole matter is clearly and perfpicu-
" oufly explained ? For no other God is per-
" mitted to us either in Heaven, or on earth, or
*' in any other place, except one God from whom
" are all things, and one Lord Jefus Chrif by whom
" are all things, and one Holy Ghofi in whom are all
" things : three in perfons eternally exifting, one
" in deity, admitting no addition and fubmitting
" to no diminution." (/)
Thefe are quotations from authors who were
anterior in point of time to Nazianzen, or coeval
M 2 with

When he compofed his ftridlurcs on the Manichean herefy, he was
pofTeffed of a more correft MS, which did contain it. Of the man
ner in which this lofs originally happened, a probable explanation will
be given hereafter.
(z) Ejufd. Manichai Haref.
The curious reader will confult the Index of Epiphanius in vain for
any of thefe quotations. He wil! be equally at a lofs if he fliall feek in

1 64 D R, B E N S O N.
with him. I beg leave now to fubjoin a feW fub«
fequent authorities.
5. Eucherius tefers to this paffage in the follow-*
ing expreffions. " The Father from whom are
all things, the Son by whom are all things, and the
Holy Ghofi in whom are all things, as the [fame] '
Apoftle alfo fays, For of him, and through him,
and in him are all things : To him be glory for

ever"

6. Johannes Damafcenus frequently cites this
paffage in the fame manner (with refped to the
Holy Ghoft) as Linus, Bafil, Nazianzen, and Eu
cherius. It may not be improper to produce the
following extrad as an example. " And we imi-
" tate the bleffed Apoftle, who fays — T)o us there
*' is one God the Father from whom are all things
*' and we from him, and one Lord Jefus Chrift by
" whom are all things and ive by him, and one
*' Holy Ghoft in whom are all things. Thefe ex-
" preffions, from whom, by whom, and in
" whom, divide not their natures, nor alter the pre-
" cedency,
in the Index o( Nazianzen for the paffage juft cited from his works.
[Letters, p. 48—50 and Appendix, No. xxvii.] To frame compleat
and correft Indexes to the ancient (efpecially the Greek) Fathers wouJd
be a laudable, but at the fame time alaberious, undertaking.

PR. BENSON, 165
*' cedency, or the order of their names ; but fet
" forth the [three] perfons of the one indlvifible
*' nature. And this conclufion may be drawn
*' from the circumftance of their being again re-
*' ferred to the divine unity, as will appear to any
*' one who attentively reads the fame Ejilftle : Of
*' him, and through him, and in him; — To it be-
*' glory for ever. Amen. For that this Trfagion
" is not fpoken of the Son alone, but of the bleffed
" Trinity itfelf is teftified by Athanafius, by Bafil
*' and Gregory, and by all the holy Fathers," {f)
In another part (/) of thefe Letters, as well as
in the quotation juft produced from^ Eucherius, the
words «uTw So%n are rendered, *' to him be glory"
in conformity to the fenfe in which the tranflators
of our prefent Verfion of the New Teftament un
derftood the word auTw. They are here neceffarily
tranflated " To \T be glory " becaufe it is moft
manifeft that Damafcenus applied them to the Tri-,
nity, and that he confidered the Fathers in general,
^.nd Athanafius, Bafil and Gregory Nazianzen in
M 3 particular,
[k) Damafien, Cap. Ixxiv. It has been remarked before that Tri-
thetnius has erroneoufly placed Damafcenus at the end of the fourth, in
ftead of the beginning of thc feventh, century.
\l) Page SQ.

1 66 D R. B E N S O N.
particular, as agreeing with him in that interpreta
tion. 7. Nicetas, who wrote a commentary, in the
thirteenth century, on the works of Nazianzen,
thus quotes the paffage in queftion. " And again'
the Apoftle [fays] One God of whom are all things,^
and one Lord Jefus Chrift by whom are all things,
and one Holy Ghoft in whom are all things. Behold
how the Spirit is here joined to, and reckoned with,
the Father and the Son. For the [whole] Trinity
would not have been here [fet forth] without this
connumeration." He places this paffage in a ftill ftronger light In
another part of his commentary. " For to us, ac
cording to the holy Apoftle, there is one God the
Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jefus. :.
Chrift by whom are all things, and one Holy Ghofi f
in whom are all things. Thefe three expreffions,
of "whom, by whom, and in whom, divide not their
effence or nature, as is the idle pretence of he
retics." {rn) 8. This
(tn) Matthffii Praf. in Epif. Cathol. p. 18. Matthiei infinu
ates, from the latter part of the former of thefe quotations, BeboU hona

D R. B E Ts^ S O N. I 67
8. This paffage, i. Cor. vuI : 6, ftands thus alfo
in the eariieft editions pf the Sclavonian verfion,
and (what is much more Important) in the early
Sclavonian MSS. Its final claufe is thus read in
thofe MSS : " And one Holy Ghoft in [or through]
whom are all things, and we in him" of which the
learned Profeffor M. Alter certifies us from his ex
amination of the Sclavonian MSS at Vienna. («)
9. This final claufe, as to the Holy Ghoft, pof-
feffes its place alfo in the ancient Oftrovicenfian Bi
ble, of A. D. 1581, and in the Moficow Bible of
A. D. 1 664. The Mofcow Bible, indeed, inclofes it
in brackets; becaufe it had been loft out ofthe Greek
and Latin Teftaments long before the date of that
impreffion. The more ancient, the Ofirovicenfian,
M 4 ' Bible
ho^ the Spirit kc. a fufpicion that this claufe refpefling the Holy
Ghoft was not found in the MSS of thofe days. The expreffions do
not feem to juftify the infinuation. And the latter quotation com
pleatly removes it. For if this had been the cafe, thofe heretics would
have denied it to be Scripture, inftead of endeavouring to explain it
away by idle pretences.
(») Nov. Teft. Grsc, vol. ii. p. 1001, The firft edition of the
Sclavonian verfion was publifhed in A.D. 1519.
The following declaration of Maltha (Pnefat. in Epif. Cathol. p.
J 4) applies to this part of the fubjedl in more refpefls than one. —
" Nam Oftrovicenfis editio, quam in nonnullis loci sconfului, et codices anti-
qui Sclavonici 5^^. xii. cum 'vetuftioribus, fi qui eperiuntur, et recentiorin
ius, non dubium eft quin ex codicibus Grsecis aianarint."

1 60 I>R.> 'BEN'S ON.
Bible fets forth rfils claufe without any (o) marks '
of fuggefted interpolation,
Thefe, Sir, are teftimonies not feW, nor Unim-i
portant, I admit that Athanafius has not cited this
final claufe of i. Cor. viii: 6, if we except on^
part of his works (/) where he feems to refer to
it. I acknowledge the fair prefumption to be, that
it does not ftand in a fingle Greek MS now ex-.
idling. I allow' alfo (although greatly aware that
the conceffi^ may be too liberal) that none of the
Fathers artiecedent to Damafcenus have cited thi^
claufe ill thofe parts of their works which have
defcended to the prefent age, they alone excepted
v\fho have already been called in evidence to this
point. •And- yfeC' I«^ think myfelf ftiU entitled to
coiitend, that the verfel i . 6'or, viii : 6 was origi-t
nally wiritten by the Apoftle with the words quoted
by Nazianzen ; and that they have been, fince that
time, lofi out of the facred page. A ftrong ground of
(o) M, ^//^;- direfts oar attention to two accents, or points; dotte(|
over, the firft word of this claufe, which, in this Bible, he fays, may
poffibly be intended as marks' of interpolation. But the obfervation is
not to be admitted. Marks of tllgt kitid are always carried on along
the wbole of the fufpefted paffage, or have fame correfponding' doti
at the'clofe of it, to denote how far the': fuppofed interpolation e,t^
tends : neither of which things is done in the prefent cafe.
(f) Ad Epifcopum Perfanum, Ei.;' BenediS; Paris, vol, ii. p. 716..

DR., BENSON* 169
of beHef has been already laid for the former of
thefe propofitions. The argument will be com-i
pleat in its conftrudion, if I fhall be able to ftate
a fair and reafonable probability refpeding the
caufe and manner of its fubfequent lofs and de
falcation. And here. Sir, I beg leave to fuggeft an idea
that this paffage, 1 . Cor. viii : 6 was originally
written by the Apoftle in the following manner ;
A^a' ti/AfV «? ©£©^ 0 n«Tiij £^ a roo troivro!, Koti «f Kv^t(^
loiTiJf Xpirl^ Si' n rx TTOivroCi [_i£a( cv UvivJAX Ayiov iv u rat
tdivrd] oiXiC 9U)t ?c, T, A, (ff) The fhort claufules, kw
j)ji*«f «f mrov, and >cai 5i/-i«j Si Kvrs, whlch ftand In our
prefent Greek Teftaments, and the fimilar claufule,
jtflii ?);!»«? ev auru, which Is found in the Sclavonian
MSS, I conceive to have formed no part of the
original text, but to have appeared at firft in the
fhape of gloffes only, which afterwards by degrees
crept into the text firom the margin. If this af
fumption fliall not (and perhaps it may not) be
deemed unreafonable, every difficulty is removed
at once. At fome period antecedent to the date
pf th? eariieft of our prefent Greek copies of the
New
(o) " But to us there is one God the Father, ef ixihom are all things-,
find one Lord Jefus Chrifi, by luhvm are all things ; and' one Holy Ghofi,
in whom lire all things,'*

1 70 D R. B E N S O N.
New Teftament (the Alexandrian) fome heedlefs
fcribe, having compleated his tranfcrlpt down to
the fecond roc uoarx of this paffage inclufive. In
raifing his eye from his copy caught the third ra
tsxvrx, and being contented to find thofe words
there, and believing himfelf therefore to be cor
red in his tranfcription, proceeded onwards in his
taflc, leaving out the words which are inclofed
above in brackets, and which continue to be omit
ted in our prefent Teftaments. This is fo very
obvious a miftake, and has been, in its kind, com
mitted fo very frequently in copying (r) that it
cannot be fuppofed that only one early fcribe was
guilty of it. And each of thefe erroneous copies
would generate its own likenefs with a mifchievous fecundity,
{;-) Many thoufands of times undoubtedly.. Mr. Profeffor Alter
mentions the following inftances of errors of this kind committed by
the tranfcriber of one of his Vienna MSS, in tliis very Epiftle.
I. Cor. vii ; 38. ,nOIEI [wf£ jcat c jjcyajMi^wn xoiAtdf roiti]
0 Si—
—— xii : 6. ©EOS [^>tai Sicctpecrfii ivtpynit-OLrtav i\<nv 0 Ss
auT©J Cfl a ©£0^] 0 cvtpyiav——
 — 16. SilMATOS [|ou Traf as touto oux tfiv tv ts
(rujM.aT(^] «— ,
' xiv : 24. nANTXlN '^xvay.pivtroi.i viro ¦rrxvruv'] xai.—
In the firft of thefe inftances the copyift wrote only issoiet 0 St, his
eye glancing from the former ttoiei to the latter in copying, and pafl-
ing over the words inclofed within the brackets. The fame remark
applies to 6f©-', <rw^/,aT©J and wavrMv jn the three following ex
amples. Many others 'will be added in the fifth of thefe letters.

DR. BENSON. I7I
fecundity, until at length they would be able to
bear down, by the weight of numbers, the few
worn-out copies which would remain to exhibit
the genuine reading. And whilft the verity of
this paffage feems to have been thus gradually in
jured through the lofs, by degrees, of one of its com
ponent claufes, the marginal gloffes appear to have
intruded themfelves in the fame manner into the
body of the text by regular fteps. The defalcation
had become very prevalent in the fourth century,
as we may infer from Epiphanius, although the
claufe was not even at that time totally loft out of
the Epiftle. And two of thefe gloffes were In fome
degree added and received as text In the fame cen
tury, as appears from the Alexandrian MS : al
though they feem not to have been known to Li
nus, Ignatius, Bafil, Nazianzen, Epiphanius , or Eu
cherius. And Cyril quotes the former part of the
verfe thus, ssoom^ — 'aca «//.«? t^ oovm, which further
fupports this idea of a marginal glofs.
When thefe premifes {s) fhall have been fully
and candidly confidered, Nazianzen will certainly ftand
(j) This argument refts not folely and abfolutely on the notion
that the koci hjoiek £if avrov, the ho;; n^/.tii; Si" avrs and x»i
JiMEiJ tv autu were marginal glofles only, at the time of the firft de
falcation, from the text of St. Paul, of this final claufe refpeaing the
Holy Ghoft. It feems indeed to be a juft notion, and therefore has been
ftated

172 DR. BENSON,
fland acquitted of the charge of a wilful mlfquota-
tion of the paffage 1. Cor. viii : 6 ; and, being fo
acquitted, will admittedly become an unexception
able witnefs to the authenticity of the verfe i,
John V : 7,
We will now at length return to the remaining
objedlons of Dr. Benfon to the Preface, or Pro-t
{ogue of Jerome,
XXI, " // [the Preface] afferts two other
dired and notorious falfehoods [viz. firft] that
the Latin tranfiators were unfaithful, in leav-i
ing out the tefimony of the Father, the Word^
&nd the Spirit"
The words of the Preface are-^" In qua etiam
eb infidelibus tranfiatoribus multum erratum effe a
lidei veritate comperimus." Jerome, does not fay
that
ftated much at large. But if this idea fhall neverthelefs be rejefled^
and the paffage be confidered as ftanding originally thus : AAA' n^m
fif ©£©^ 0 IlaTUp £^ 8 roo ¦Kot.vroi. noci n^fij £if otvrov xoti tit
Kuei@^ I«o-8; Xf ir©^ Si^ a roo irocvrx nai »f/*£i? Si xvrn [>t«i tvi
JlviVfJi-x Ay lov IV (itrx -Kxvrx nai »lf*£(? tv auroij «AA' oujc h. t. A,
ftill, even on this fuppofition, a hafty fcribe might alrooft as eafily be
wifled by the affinity of the words auT» and x-oru, as by the iden-.
tity of the words rx Ttxvrx, to pafs over the claufe here inclofed in
brackets, and thereby omit in like manner the cojinumeration of tha
Koly Ghoft.

D Jt, BENSON. 173
that the Latin tranflators, coUedively taken, were
linfaithfvd ; but that a great error had been fallen
into by unfaithful tranfiators, by fome, it might be
even by a few, of them refpeding this Verfe.
XXII. The other " dired and notorious
falfehood which this Preface afferts is — that he
[Jerome] bad reftored this Verfe"
The Preface afferts (/) no fuch thing. Its words
are — " The firft of thefe Epiftles is one of
James ; then two of Peter ; three of John ; and
one of Jude : which, if they had been faithfully
tranflated into the Latin language AS they were
WRITTEN BY THESE APOSTLES, WOuld nOt have
offered ambiguities to their readers, nor would va
riations ofthe text have thwarted each other; par
ticularly in that paffage of the firft Epiftle of St.
John, where we find the unity of the Trinity fet
forth." The obvious misaning of the Preface is — that
the exiftence of this paffage of St. Jobn In fome,
and its non-exiftence in others of thofe Tranfla-
tions, had caufed certain ambiguities and variations
cf the text, which are here complained of. Had the
Verfe
{t) Appendix, No. xxxv.

174 DR. BENSON.
Verfe been omitted in all of them, no fuch ambi*
guity could have been offered to the reader, be
caufe there would have been no variation to caufe
or produce it. The Preface therefore does not
fuppofe any reftoration of the Verfe by Jerome,
becaufe it does not fuppofe the Verfe ever to have
been loft. It goes no further than fimply to com
plain that vthe Verfe had been left out of certain
tranflatlons : which we may even conclude to have
been few in number, in comparifon with the reft
which retained the text, with as much reafon as
any one can have to conjedure the contrary.
XXIII. " Auguftine, who was intimate with
Jerome, kept a correfpondence with him, read
his works, and more efpecially his Latin Verfton
of the New Teftament, has never once, in all
his voluminous works, mentioned the difputed
It hath been already fhewn [u) as it Is trufted,
that Augufine hath referred to this dlfputed text.
But he feems, like Facundus, to have occafionally
entertained doubts as to its true confirudion : which
induced him to pafs, in his commentary on this
chapter, from the fourth to the fourteenth verfe,
without
.(«) Page 4S-

D R. B E N S O N. 1 75
without taking any notice of the intermediate
verfes. Like Facundus alfo, he has exalted the
eighth verfe into a fymbol of the Trinity : from
whence it may be argued, with fome fliew of rea
fon, that the latter of, the quotations juft alluded
to had reference to the eighth verfe. But Auguf
tine (and' this is all which is pofitively contended
for refpeding him) knew of the feventh verfe,
and appears not to have doubted of its having been
¦written by St. John, becaufe he has expreffed the
higheft approbation of Jeromes Verfion of the
New Teftament ; which hath always exhibited this
verfe. " We heartily thank God (fays Augufine,
writing to Jerome) for your translation©/' the
Neva Tefament ; becaufe there is fcarcely any thing
in it which offends us [y) when we compare it with
the original Greek." XXIV. " What
(ll) " Proinde non parlias Deo gratias agimus de opere tua, quod E'van
gelium ex Greeco interpretatus es : quia pene in omnibus nulla offenfio
tfi, cum Scripturam Grtecam contulerimus ." To which Jerome replies —
" Si me, ut dicis, in ^Q\iTi.srhyiEfiT\ emendatiane fufcipis" &c. —
(Hieronymi Opera, Ed. Erafm. A. D. 1546, vol. ii. p. iii — 114.)
Erafmus fpeaks of this intercourfc between Auguftine and Jerome, in
the following terms,
" Porro divHs Augnftinus, quoniam ne Greece quidem ad plenum
fciebat, non probat Hieronymi ftudium, qui Novum Teftamentum ex
GR.ffiCORVM FONTIBUS litl nerterit, -vel eme'ndarit. Quanquam hoc
utcunque

17^ DR. B£NS oM.
XXIV. " What may put the matter [the
fpurioufnefs of the Preface] out of all difpute
is, Jerome himfelf, in his genuine voluminous
•works, hath never .quoted this difputed paf
fage"
If thefe premifes fhould be admitted, the con
clufion drawn from them does not, neceffarily,.'
follow. Jerome may not have quoted this verfe
in his other works, and yet the Preface may be
genuine. It is not allowable for any one to pro
nounce, that an Author has not written a Pre
face, in which a particular paffage of Scripture If
quoted, merely becaufe he has written other worksj
in which that paffage is not quoted.
But the premifes themfelves are not to be ad
mitted, for the following reafons.
I. In his Confeffion of Faith, herein before
cited [w) Jerome feems evidently to refer to this
verfe.
utcunque tolerandum putat, pfopterea quod gollatis cODiciBt;s de*
prehendiffet Hieronymianam in ea re fidem." — (Erafm, Annot. in,
Nov. Teft. Edit. A.D. 1522, p. 74.)
(w) Page 44. Jerome frequently refers to Tertullian and Cyprian,.
who have cited this verfe in their writings. {Hieron. Op. per Erafm; :
A. D. 1546, vol. i. p. 8, 36, 96, 98 5 vol. ii. p. 37, 49 : et Mi
paffim.'\

i) R. B £ N S 6 N. 177
Veirfe. The ftlle of this Confeffion is not diffo-
nant from that of Jerome. And although Eraf
mus ftrives to rejed it from his page, yet it ftands
in the front of the eariieft iff) edition of Jerome?,
Epiftles : which is no mean proof of its being the
work of Jerome. But the fad of its having been
quoted by the Venerable Bede, in the eighth cen-
• tury, and declared by him to be the compofition
of Jerome, feems to place the matter out of the
reach of doubt or difputation. (jj')
2. Jerome not only expreffes to Marcus Cele
denfis, who was his friend and correfpondent, the
warmeft approbation of that Expofition of the Faith
which Marcus had written to Cyrillus, but at the
fame time declares that he had compofed a fimilar
Confeffion of his own faith, which v/as {z) pro-
N bably
{x) Ed. Venet. A. D. I488.
(_)i) " In hoc quod dicit unus confutat Arrium, Vigilantium, eorum,-
que fequaces, quos omnes aperte redarguit Hieronymus dicens in epiftola
de explanatione fidei ad Damafum Papam, Confundentes Arrium ' kc—
[Edit. Bpfil. A. D. 1563, p. 1104.]
(e) " De fide autem quod dignatus es fcribere fan3o Cyrillo, dedi
CQnfcriptam fidem.'' [Vol. ii. p. 104.] Erafmus oppofcs to this con
clufion the words of the next fentence, viz. " But I haiie thy ears iijit.
neffes of my faith, and thofe of thy holy brother Zenobius {or rather Coe-
nobius] tuho has our moft friendly falutations.'" But furely it is not
vzt-y abfurd to fuppofe Jerome to have fent a creed, or nvritien declara
tion of his faith, to one perfon, Damafus, and to have con-verfed about
that creed with two other perfons, Marcus and Coenobius.

178 D R. BE N S O N.
bably the confeffion now in debate. And of thlg
expofition of Marcus Celedenfis, and of his own
confcfipta fides, Jerome further fpeaks in thefe glow
ing terms ; " Slf^i fc non credit, alienus a Chrifto
efi." Jeroirie then, as it feem.s, hath referred to the
Verfe i. John v : 7. But this reference, it muft
be confeffed, is cautious and diftant. It was made
in the earlier part of his Hfe [a) and whilft he, like
Augufiine, was probably doubtful as to the interpre
tation of the final claufule of this paffage. After
wards, as he advanced in years, and became more
decided in his judgment that it ought to be inter
preted of an unity of nature in thofe heavenly wit
neffes, he alfo became more offended with thofe La
tin Copyifts who had omitted the verfe in their co
pies, and made his reprehenfions public by writing
the Preface, or Prologue now in queftion. If we
fuppofe it to have been one of the lateft perform
ances which fell from his pen, fome difficulties will
be avoided, and many objedions difabled. And this
eafy affumption, which is in itfelf reafonable, is not
embarraffed,

[a] Ante annos plurimos, cum in chartis ecclefiafticis~juvarem Dama
fum Romance urbi's epifcopum. [_Hieron. Epift. ad Agerufiam.]

D R. fi E N s o N, 179
embarraffed, but rather fupported, by the circum
ftance of this Prologue having been addreffed to Eu-
Jlochium : for fhe died only one year before Jerome.
But In another fenfe ^ifro?;^^ hath done much more
than refer to this paffage, by inferting it in his Ver
fion of the New Teftament ; the moft laborious,
the moft Important of all his works. By this infer
tion indeed Jerome may be faid moft truly to have
*' put the matter out of all difpute ;" but in a very
different manner from the predeftinated fentence
of Dr. Benfon. The Preface of Jerome throws
light upon his Verfion ; and his Verfion refleds
ftrength to the Preface : and in both, thus mutually
illuminating and corroborating each other, Jerome
has fixed his own feal to the authenticity of the
Verfe in queftion ; — " a feal which will continue
many days"
This, Sir, Is the laft of the eleven proofs (as
he has thought proper to ftile them) which are
produced by Dr. Benfon, to fhew the fpurioufnefs
of this Preface. They have been, I truft, fairly
weighed in the ballance, and found wanting.
Some of thefe pretended proofs are moft blame-
ably untrue. The reft, even where not falfe, are
yet, without a fingle exception, vague and in-
N 2 conclufive.

s8o D R, B E N S O N.
conclufive. They are fo far from inducing a fober
convidion of its fpurioufnefs, that they do not,
when combined together, feem to amount to a mere
probability of it. Indeed the afperfions, which
have been caft upon this Preface, are but the dream
of the prefent age. The moft difturbed imagina-'
tion did not harbour any fuch chimeras, until the
times of Martianay and Simon, [b) Former ages
would not have liftened to them for a moment.
The fingle teftimony of Walafrid Strabo, who af
cribes it to Jerome at fo early a period as the ninth
century, outweighs them all. Let prejudice, then^
give way to moderation. Let candor pronounce
her judgment ; and let the Preface be what it af
firms itfelf to be, what even Erafmus and [c] Soci-^
nus confefs it to be, the work of Jerome.
We may, Sir, I prefume, now quit this Preface,
allowing it to have been written by Jerome, and .
proceed to the reft of Dr. Benfoii?, objedions to
the originality of the Verfe i. John v : 7.
XXV. " As

(b) Sand'ius was contemporary wifh Simon,
(c) Smith's Vindicia;, Edit. Lond. A. D. l6S6, p. 1 36. See alfo
Calmet—" Mais Erafme, et apres lui Socin, M. Le Clerc &c. fout'ien-
fient que le Piologue, dont on mient de parler, eft wraiment de Saint Je-*
lOEle." (Dili". Vol, iii. Edit. Paris, A.D. 1720, p, 561.)

D R. B E N S O N, iSl
XXV. " As to what Vidor Vitenfs has faid,
towards the conclufion of the fifth century ; or
others in later ages, it cannot be of much mo
ment. And, therefore, I ffall fay nothing to
fuch late tefiimonies"' — (viz. in favor of the
Verfe in queftion.)
This objedion Is fo extraordinary, that it feems
to call for a very particular examination in all its
parts. Firft, as to the objector, — It feems, on a pri
mary view, peculiarly ftrange that Dr. Benfon
fhould thus rejed the evidence of Vidor Vitenfs,
who wrote (about A. D. 488 or) in the fifth cen
tury, as late tefimony ; when he foon afterwards
cites to the fame queftion Bede of the eighth, and
Oecumenius of the eleventh century. But this mode
of feleding his evidence, ftrange as it feems, may
perhaps be accounted for. The fuffrage of Vidor
Vitenfs SUPPORTS the authenticity of this verfe.
Thofe of Bede and Oecumenius are, In fome fenfe,
adverse to It, It feems but too plain, that thefe
circumftances alone have prevailed with Dr. Ben
fon tourge the latter teftimony, and to rejed the
fornier, N 3 ¦ This

l82 D R, B E N S O N,
This primary prefumption feems, further, to be
come abfolute certainty, when applied compara
tively to the NATURE of the feveral teftimonies
here rejeded or retained hy Dr. Benfon.. For
what is the nature of the proof which is drawn
from Bede and Oecumenius, as to this verfe ? It
amounts only to this, — that they have not quoted
it in their works. The whole of the evidence,
then, which can be drawn from them, is barely
negative. It is only an omiffion in a Commen
tator ; and as fuch affords matter of conjedure
merely, and no more. But the evidence of Vidor
Vitenfs is positive, clear, and pointed. He has
related a plain hiftory of plain fads. He has
given ah unadorned account of what he faiu, and
heard, and experienced, when furrounded by the,
armed bands cf the defpotic Huneric. His narra-:
tive was compofed whilft Arianifm fat triumphant
on the throne, and therefore muft be circumfped^
It was written in the face of exafperated enemies,
[d.) and therefore muft be accurate. It was pub
lifhed whilft the parties, of whom it treated, were
living ; and therefore muft be faithful. It re
corded a tranfadion known through all the domi-.
nions of Huneric, and therefore muft be true : be
caufe
{d) Pages 57—60 of thefe letters.

D R. B E N S O N. 183
caufe the fmalleft deviation from truth would have
been followed by inftant detedion. Thus both
the contending parties, the Orthodox and the Ari
ans, bear teftimony to the originality of this verfe :
the former in argument, the latter by acquiefcence.
If the Arians had been able to have difcredlted
this quotation, Fulgentius would not have dared to
have brought it forward again in the fame century,
and for the fame purpofe, in lefs than thirty years
after this Convention, and in a reign equally hof
tlle to the Orthodox party with that of Huneric :
which, neverthelefs, we know that he did in va
rious paffages if) of his works. This narrative of
Vidor Vitenfs, then, is an argument in favor of
this verfe, which needs only to be read in order to
compel convidion. It is in its nature fuperior to
all fophifms, and inexpugnable by any cavils :  •
and yet this is the teftimony, which Dr. Benfon
has thought fit to put afide as having nothing to
do with, as being utterly unconcerned in, the de
cifion of the authenticity of the verfe i. John
7:7! Nor Is this the only abfurdity into which Dr.
'benfon has here betrayed himfelf. His pretence
N 4 about
{e) Pages 35 — 39 of thefe letters.

184 DR. BENSON.
about the time in which Vidor Vitenfs lived,
which he hath affigned as his reafon for rejeding
ViSiors teftimony, is as futile, as his real intentions
in rejeding it feem to have been blameable. For
in the outfet of his Differtatlon he admits the tef
timony of Jerome, in favor of this verfe, as valid
in point of time ; for he fets himfelf ferioufly to
do away its effed, if poffible, by laboring to prove
(as we have already feen) that the Preface to the
Canonical Epiftles is not the work of Jerome.
Novy/' Jerome lived in the fame century with Vidor
Vitenfs ; nay It is poffible that they might both be
alive at the fame hour : for Jerome furvived until
A, D. 420, and Vidor was a Biff of in (perhapas
long before) A, D„ 484, and was prefent with Eu^
genius, _ and his Co-prelates, in that year at the
Council of Carthage. Dr, Benfon, therefore, ak
lows the evidence of Jerome in the beginning of
the fifth century, to be early enough ; and yet re-.
jeds that of Vidor, and his Brethren the Bifhopa
of Africa, " towards the conclufion of that cen-i
tury," 2& late tefimony — as inadmlffible becaufe MO-n
DERN : for that Is the only impeachment which he
ventures to caft upon it. But if the former be
early enough, why is the latter too late ? By what
rule is a teftimony of A, D, 414, for inftance, to
be admitted by a Critic of the eighteenth Century, by

D R. B E N S O N. 1 85
by an author who writes nearly one thoufand thre6
hundred years afterwards, as in time (the anti
quity of the evidence being the fole point In quef
tion) and another of A. D, 484, to be rejeded as
OUT OF time : nay, fo much out of time as to be
out of all claim to notice, — fo very late as that no
thing is to be faid to it f Will any one who con
tends for the fpurioufnefs of this verfe — wiU Mr.
Gibbon — attempt to juftify Dr. Benfon in this re-
jedlon ? If fo, Sir, you will perhaps condefcend to
inform the world what members, ' what fradional
parts of the fame Century (the fifth, for inftance)
are to conftitute ancient, and what fradions or parts
thereof modern teftimony. But you will not ha
zard the attempt.
XXVI. " In fettling the text of the New
Tefament, R. Stephens made ufe of fifteen an
cient MSS."
Some of the expreffions, which R. Stephens ufes
in his Preface {f) feem to indicate that he had the
affiftance oi fixteen Greek MSS, in framing his
Greek Teftament, be;fide the Complutenfian Bible
which was a printed book. And Theodore Beza,
moreover,
(/) " Sedecim fcriptis exemplaribus," [Appendix, No. ii.]

1 86 DR. BENSON.
moreover, acknowledges himfelf indebted to the
friendfhip of R. Stephens for the ufe of feventeeii
{g) of his Copies ; taking into the number, as It
might feem, the Complutenfian Bible, which R.
Stephens had ufed in his own Editions.
On the other hand, a fucceeding part of the
fame Preface feems to denote the Complutenfian
Bible to have been confidered by R. Stephens as
one of the fixteen MSS. And as his margin con
tains no reference to any fixteenth MS, it is pof-
ble at leaft that he had only fifteen. The whole
difficulty lies in the feptemdecim [h) of Beza.
This part of the queftion is in itfelf, however, a
matter of fmall moment ; and I am willing, in
order to prevent unneceffary debate, to accept Dr,
Jl:enfon^ numeration.
XXVII, " // is very certain that he [R^
Stephens] did not fcruple varying from his
M-SS, and has varied from them all, and
froim
\£\ " Hos Ncvi Foederis libros non modo cum njariis sfptemdecim,
Griscorum codicum a Roberto Stephano, bcatee memorice •viro, citatorum
leQionibus Turfam confulimus, fed etiam cum Syra interpretatione."
[Bezjb Prjefat. in Nov. Teft. Ed. Genev. A. D. 1582.]
{h) See Beza's Note on John vii : 53, in page ig6 of thefe Letters,

D R. B E N S O N. 187
from the complutenfe and vulgate too, in ff-,
venty places at leaf"
R. Stephens, in his Greek Teftament, adopted
the laft Edition of Erafmus as the foundation of
his text ; which he has followed chiefly, but not
fervllely. His plan was — to take all thofe fen^
tences, or words, to be original in which all hisi
authorities concurred, and to place them In the text
generally, without any marginal notes, or refe-.
reUces whatfoever. But where his authorities va-.
ried from each other, although by a fingle letter
only, he adopted that fentence or word, alone,
which feemed to be the genuine reading of the
paffage, Inferting It in the body of the page, and
noting in the margin the principal variations of
his other authorities. (/) If
(?) He has not tranfplanted into his margin e'uery variation of the
Complutenfian Edition from his text. In this point his conduft is fully
juflifiable. But he has not always taken the pains to note thofe varia
tions, which he has inferted in his margin, with precife and minute
exaftnefs. A few unimportant inftances of this kind of inattention
ipay be found in his margin as to the Apocalypfi : for which this apo
logy at leaft may be offered, — that R. Stephens did not feel himfelf fo
ftrongly urged to an anxious minutenefs of reference, in refpeft to a
printed book, by copfulting which his readers might perceive at once
and remedy any error into which he might fall j as in refpeft to Iiis
MSS, where they would not fo eafily be able to reftify an inadvertency
<<? corred a miftake, if he ftiould fuffer any to be committed.

l88 DR. BENSON.
If, then, the objedion fhall only mean that R.
Stephens has fometimes varied from fome of his
MSS in preference to others ; fometimes from all
or moft of them, in favor of the Complutenfian or
the Vulgate ; and at other times from them alfo, in
obedience to his MSS, in proportion as any of
thefe guides feemed to fupply the moft corred
information : — it defcribes R. Stephens as a moft
affiduous Inveftigator of truth, as an accurate and
judicious critic : a defcrlption In which the whole
literary world wiU concur, But if the objedor
meant to infinuate (and the plain conftrudion of
his words diredly Infers the Infinuation) that R,
Stephens has in feventy, or in any number of
places varied from the "whole tenor of his authorl-!
ties, and interpofed an arbitrary unfupported lec
tion of his own, in contravention of them all, — >
the infinuation Is illiberal ; and, being unwarranted
by any proof, it ought to be rejeded with dif-t
dain, {f) You
[f) In Mafthe-w n: Xl R. Stephens follows Erafmus in writing vjoon
inftead of kJ'ov ; ihey found, inftead of /^fy _/aiw, the child. Ana
this circumftance has been amplified it^to a defertion of his plan, as
well as of his IVISS. Bat the charge is ill founded. His plan was to ac
cept, by whatever hand it might b= offered, that which appeared to him
to. be the genuine reading of Scripture. And he accorded with Eraf mus

D R. B E N S O N. 189
You will exped me. Sir, before I quit the ob
jed now under confideration, to allow that it was
not originally urged by Dr. Benfon, but copied by
him from the writer of the Memoirs of the late Dr.
Waterland. That Dr, Benfon was but a copyift
in this objedion, as well as in many others which
are urged in his Differtatlon, I do moft readily ad
mit. But he has fo copied them as to make them
his own. On feeing a charge of this reproachful
nature brought againft a man of fo fair a fame as
R. Stephens, one who is acknowledged, even by
Dr, Benfon, to be " a learned, worthy man — a
man of extenfive learning, indefatigable diligence,
and zeal to promote ufeful learning, and particu
larly that of the Scriptures," without the fhadow
of a ¦ proof to fupport the charge, beyond the
empty affirmation of the affeitor; — a commentator
without prejudice, without any fecret partiality to
either fide of the queftion, would at once have
challenged the imputation, and have refufed to ad
mit it againft fo truly refpedable a charader, with
out the moft unequivocal demonftration of its
truth.
nus in preferring vopov probably becaufe (both words affording nearly
the fame fenfe) the fame verb, iMpnrt, occurs before in the eighth
verfe. In afling thus, therefore, he deferted not his plan, but fol
lowed it. Nor did he in any culpable fenfe defert his MSS : for he
tells us frankly, snSov tv irx(ri—All my MSS read etSoy,

tgo DR. BENSON;
truth. Fid would have called for a fpeclficatloh of*
thefe feventy places : which not being complied
with, he would have condemned the whole as a
groundlefs allegation. But inftead of this, Dr.
Benfon haftens to admit the charge ; and, to pre
ferve the appearance at leaft of candor, affeds to
make this apology for It ; viz. " As to his varying
from his copies, it feems plain from his Preface,
that he had not an opportunity to collate all the;
copies himfelf." An apology which, unfortunately,
is as falfe as it is frigid ; — for the preface of R.
Stephens, fo far from making it plain, does not
even afford foundation for a conjedure, that hg
did not collate all the copies himfelf.
XXVIII. " The fum of the matter is, R,
Stephens was a learned worthy man. And
therefore one wrould not 'willingly fufped that
be' placed the latter > femi-circle "wrong, on pur
pofe. Howiever, in his famous Greek Tefta-*
ment 1550, it is wrong placed^
It is true, that R. Stephens could only place the
femi-clrcles wrong, as to the verfe in queftion
(provided he did place them wrong at all, which
is denied) in his famous Greek Teftament of A. D.
1550 ; becaufe that was the only Edition in which u

DR. BENSON. igi
he made ufe of thofe femi-circles. But the whole
truth Is, — that R. Stephens has borne teftimony to
the originality of this Verfe in all the Editions of
the Greek Teftament ever publifhed by him ; which
are no lefs than four in number. In hjs Editions-
of A. D, 1546 and 1549, in which the femi-cir
cles (or the Obelus and Semi-parenthefis ) are not
ufed, the Verfe is read entire in the text, as
well as in the Edition of A, D. 1550, in which
they are made ufe of. To this third fucceeded a
fourth Edition, publifhed by R. Stephens In A. D,
1 551; wherein the Verfe is ftlU continued, ftill
maintained In its place, without the leaft note of
diftruft, without the fmaUeft impeachment of its
authenticity. Thefe fads being premifed, the whole queftion,
as to this part of R. Stephens'^ condud, will be
reduced to this fingle dilemma. Either R. Ste
phens placed the latter femi-circle, as we now find
it in his Edition of A. D, 1550, on purpofe ; or by
mifiake. Now he placed it there, not by mifiake ;
becaufe he had printed the Verfe entire, in his two
former Editions, and he exprefsly informs us that
this Edition had been collated with the fajne MSS,
from whence the foregoing Editions were made.
Not by mifiake ; becaufe he would, in that cafe, have caft

tCjl BR. BENSON.
caft out of his fubfequent Edition of A. D. t^^i,SL
paffage which he had intended to repudiate (for fo
the objedion fuppofes) by the femi-circle of the'
preceding year. Not by mifiake ; becaufe a man,
who had been fo painfully accurate (/) in revifing
this work as even to point out, in the Errata fub-'
joined to it, the mifplacing of one Comma in the
body of the text, and the omiffion of another,
cannot reafonably be fuppofed to have fuffered a
whole Verfe to have efcaped his notice : a Verfe,
moreover, which had been for fome time an objed
of concern and enquiry among Chriftians, and par
ticularly among learned Chriftians, in confequence
of the then recent difpute between Erafmus, Ley,
and Stunica, and therefore [in) muft have engaged his

(/) It is not meant to affirm, by thefe or any other general com.
mendations, that R. Stephens has committed na typographical miftakes
in this edition. But it is meant to fay that he has not committed (be
caufe, morally fpeaking, ,he could not commit) any fuch miftakes in it
as to this verfe. He has am'itted indeed to record any of the variations
of the Complutenfian Edition, as to this paffage, one alone excepted. He
might think that the other three would overcharge his margin. At any
rate he knew that^the omiffion could not bring with it any hurtful con-
fequences, as the Edition of Complutum had then been many years ia
the hands of the public. An omiffion of this kind is an exercife of
private judgraent merely, not a typographical miftake,
{m) The difpute was not confined to the three perfons here liamed.
It engaged the minds and employed the pens of Lupfet, Nes.enus, Dor- plus.

DR. BENSON. I93
Ills folicltous attention. Not by miftake ; becaufe
the Verfe in queftion is inferted in the Greek Tef
tament of Johh Crifpin, whofe publication bears
date at Geneva {ii) three years fubfequent to this
of R. Stephens, who was, at the time of his pub
lication, the friend and fellow-citizen of R. Ste
phens, who muft be concluded therefore to have
publifhed with his privity and affiftance, and in
whofe Edition the obelus and femi-parenthefis hold
exadly the fame fituation as in this Edition of R.
Stephens. Not by mifiake ; becaufe the Verfe is
found (0) In the New Teftament of Theodore Beza ;
who, like Crifpin, publifhed at Geneva whilft R.
Stephens was living there, who mentions him fre
quently in terms of the moft affedlonate refped,
O who
plus, Pifher, Zafius, Bedda, Amorbachius, Beatus Rhenamts., Sir Tlomat
More, and Bugenhagius, with many other learned men of that age.
Even Luther took part in it, by leaving this verfe out of his printed
Teftament; affigning, however, for fuch omiffion no very fapient apo
logy. In ccelo non eft teftimonium, fed clara njifio. RecoUedling the power
which the obfcure name of Chatterton has found to put the learned
of the prefent age in motion, it will not be beliaved that R. Stephens
could flumber over the iiluftrious memories of Erafmus and Luiher.
(») See p. I z of thefe letters.
Crifpin % Teftament is in i zmo. His mode of dating his publication
il rather fingular. Hxpx lii)xvvn ru K^kt-ttivu' tnt xtto rn? tvxv-
6pt07r5ifl-£wj T2 (Furn^^ ni^uv x, (p. v. y. t\x(pv(ioMuv^ [ayiv©*
tySon. lo) It is found in all the Editions of Beza, although his firft Edi
tion alone, of A, D. 1556, is here particularly ftated.

194 D R. B E N S O N.
who had In his poffeffion (/>) by the perfonal fa
vor of i?. Stephens, the identical MSS ufed by him

in

[p] To this fafl: Bezas own teftimony is plain and pointed.
" Kf aTai/T(^ Sl TB laflsi/T©^ PC^As. Sic conftanter legitur in
omnibus Grascis ro^;a^»j quos inspeximus." [In .^iS. .<^/io/5. iii ;
n]
" Veteres omnes Graeci codices, quos vidimus, fcriptum habebant
irpokiyHOKSfAivov." [Annot. in y^iff. iii : 20.]
" R^So^j-naovrx TTivn, Sic legitur in omnibus codicibus quos in
speximus." [In^iS. vii: 14.J
" El/ TU -^xXfAU roi Sivnpu. Ita fcriptum invenimus in om-
bu5 «5//m vetuilis cWzV/^aj." [In A(^i. xil'i : 33.]
" El? a?. Sic conftanter legimus in omnibus codicibus." [In
AS. xxvi : 1 7 ]
" Servavi tamen id vocabulum quod in omnibus Grascis exemplari
bus iti-vzvi." [In y^i?. xxvii : 14.]
" Tju.1i/ Sl, Sic fcriptum legimus in omnibus vetuftis codicibus"
[In I. Cor. ii : 10 ]
" iSix. Sic LEG! in omnibus naftris Gracis codicibus." [In i.
Cor. .\ii : 11. J  [N.B. Bengelius, p. 747, miftakenly afiirms that
Beza never ufes the tvord legi,. nvhen fpeaking of R. Stephent'j MSS.
Ti'jo other inftances of this fort, LEGO and LEGI, are fated in the next
fucceeding page,'\
" Atto ^jAittttwc. Sic fcriptum inveni in omnibus Graccis ro-
dicihus." [i Cor. xvi : ad fin.']
O i/ofAofinTuc. In quatuor veteribus libris additum invenimus
xxi Kpirni." [In' Jac. iv: 12.]
'' K.XTX iJ.tv avrni, Legitur in omnibus Gracls nostris codicibus."
[In I. Pet. iv : 14.]
" Sic legitur in omnibus Grscis exemplaribus, qvjz quidem mihi
INSPICERE LicuiT." [Ia I. Joann, iv : 3.]

Ij R. BENSON. 19^
In this Edition of A. D. 1550, and who folemnly
O 2 declares,
" T|U.af, Ita LEbo ex Veteris Interpretis et quatuor veterum co-
idicum authoritate." [In Jud. 24.]
The preceding references are affirmative. - A few negations Ihall here
be added, which neverthelefs fpeak pafiti-vely to the purpofe of this note,
" Quam leftionem neque in ullis codicibus Gr^cis invenio, neque
poffum approbate." [In AS. ix : 29.]
" Oti ao-JiAfisf. Vulg. Quare introifti ? ita videlicet ut on
pro Siori intelligatur. Ego vero in nullis codidbus adfcriptam INVE-
Kio interrogationis notam. [la ASi . 'x.i : 3.]
" E9ofu(3!jf. Quod in nullis quidem Grscis codicibus inveni. ,
[In Aa. xxiv 18.]
" Vulgata legit [AafAjSai/STs] fumitis, contra nostrorum j)«!«»«»»
COD icvM fidem." [In Jac. 'mi 1.]
I ftiall now beg leave briefly to ftate a third clafs of Beza*s re
ferences, which will fpeak to the purpofe of this Differtatlon in more
refpefls than one.
" Otj 0 xaif©-' <rvvirx'X[s.tv@' ro Aoittoi/ tfiv. Sic lego et
BISTINGUO hunc locum ex 6E.decim wetuftarum Stephani codicum,
itemque ex Gracorum Scholiorum, Bafilii denique fide." [In i.'
Cor. vii : 29.]
" ttttp rciiv vticpuv. In dijodecim MSS codicibus, itemque in
Coa!*/a'«»^ fiditione et Graecis Scholiis fcriptum inveneriMus: uttsj
tcuruv auteniin tribus duntSiXiit exemplaribus." [In 1. Car. xv : 29]
" 'Ek \'tta&is Stephani nostris codicibus sePtemdeCim a«r« dun-
taxat illam non habebat j in reliquis fcripta quidem. erat." [In Joann.
vii: 53.]
' The preceding references are all taken from Beaat firft Edition of
A. D. I iI^S. The reader is requefted to keep in mind the three laft
of them, until we ftiall have an opportunity to difcufs, with JVI. Grief.
bach, the number of Greek MSS which R. Stephens had in his poffef
fion for the ufe of the difterent parts of his great work.

19,6 DR. BENS-ON^
declares {q) that this Verfe did adually exift, iii
the very manner In which R. Stephens has ftated
it to have exifted, in thofe MSS. Not by mifiaki;
becaufe this New Teftament of Theodore Beza was
not only publifhed at the fpecial inftance (r) and
requeft of R. Stephens, but was alfo (an indubita
ble mark of his approbation of the work and of
its author) printed by R. Stephens (j) at his own
prefs : who, if he could for a fingle moment be
fupp'ofed
(q) " Hie verficulus extat — in nonnullis Stephani nieteribus libris.
In cielo — deefl in feptem vetuftis codicibus." [Appendix, No. iii.]
{;-) The following are Beza^s words. " Sed quum me partim Ro-
BBRTUS Stephanos noster, homo juvandse ecclefiae Dei natuj,
INCITARAT : partim vero alii permulti — Panii igitur illorum confiliis,
prsefertim eximii illius fervi Dei, ac optimi mei in Cht'i&o parentis Jo
hannis Calvini authoritate adduftus : qui hac noftra, pro fingular!
fua in ecclefiam Dei pietate, non modo LEGissET,yf</ etiam expen-
DISSET." '
[Beza's Pref. to his firft Edit. 1556, as it is commonly
called, although not in faft finifhed until A. D. 1557.]
The judgment of Calvin on thc authenticity of 1. John v : 7 is
worth tranfcribing in this place.
" Tres funt in ccelo. HOc totum in quibufdam omiffum fuit. Hiero
nymus exiftimat malitia potius quam errors id fuiffe faftum : et qui
dem a Latinis duntaxat. Sed quum ne Grscl quidem codices inter
fe confentiant, vix quicquam aflerere audeo. Quia tamen optime fluit
contcxtus fi hoc membrum addatur, et yiiDl.o in optimis ac prabat'if-
fimes fidei codicibus ai\'Bmi, ego quoque libenter ampleftor." [Cal-
VlNi Comm. in Epif, Canon. Ed. Genev. p. 74. J
{s) ExcuDEBAT Rob. Stephanus in sua OFFICINA ANN*
MDLVii. CALEND, MARTii." [Advertifcmcnt to the reader, fob-
Joined to this Edition.]

DR. BENSON. I97
fuppofed to have overlooked, on this occafion, the
Verfe itfelf, could not poffibly have overlooked that
long commentary of Beza upon it, which he printed
and revifed, as well as the Verfe to which it re
ferred, and which even mentions R. Stephens and
the authority of his MSS as inducements, among
others, which led to this definitive conclufion of
Beza, before quoted (/) " / atn entirely fatisfied
that we ought to retain this Verfe."
If R. Stephens, then, did not place the latter
femi-circle in the fituation where we now find it,
by mifiake (as he moft affuredly did not) the confe
quence is inevitable : — He placed it there on pur
pose. It remains, therefore, that we now en
quire whether any over-ruling evil motive can be
affigned, which may appear fufficlent to have In
duced a man like R. Stephens to have aded in this
matter with a. fraudulent purpofe. And If no fuch
motive can be found in pride, prejudice, or fear,
we will venture. Sir, to fet him free even from
fufpicion. Solventur tabula, ille miffus abibit.
And firft his pride, as an author, cannot be
affigned as the caufe of this fuppofed fraud. ¦ For
if from this motive he fhall be conjedured to have
O 3 falfified
{/) Page 9 of thefe Letters.

198 D R. 3 E N S O N.
falfified the evidence of his Greek MSS, as to this
Verfe, there is every reafon to prefume that he
'would have reprefented them to have fet forth this
paffage in the fame manner as he had before de
clared his Latin MSS to have read it ; which he
has not done.
2. He did not fo falfify the evidence of his
Greek MSS through any prejudice in favor of
Popery, or its dodrines. For the Popifh Dodors'
of the Sorbonne had perfecuted him with an unre
lenting hatred for nearly twenty years fucceffively
before the publication of his firft edition of the
Greek Teftament, alledgiiig that his interpre
tations of Scripture favored the caufe of the re
formed religion, and pronouncing his dodrines to,
be even worfe than thofe of Luther {11) until at
length they compelled him, in the year 1552
(about feven years before his death) to become an
unwilling
(a) " ^oties me in Synagogam fuam evocarunt — claniantes ptjorem illic-
doSirinam cotitineri quam Lutherus unquam protuhffet " [Refpons. ad
cenfuras — A. D. 1552, p.-io]
" XJtraque annotalia efi haretica et plane Lutherana.'" [Refpons.^. 48.]
" Hmc itaque Biblia a ^aw fl'/VTo R. Stephano, 1528, 1532, 1534*
1540, 154J,— e/ \';ifi, fuis typis enjulgata, fupprimenda funt. Partim
quod in its multa — crronea, fcandalum inducentia, impia, Lutheranis fa-
tventia, heerefibufque jam olim damnalis canfpirantia — infpcrguntur." [Thfi:
Conclufum of the Sorbonne, ig. Oii. 1547. Refpons. p.. 106. J

DR. BENSON. 199
unwining exile from his native land, abandoning
with his country the lucrative as well as honor
able office which the favor of his royal Mafter
had conferred upon him. His prejudices, there
fore (if he had any on thts fubjed) would not in
cline to Popery, or to Its dodrines, as fuch. Eraf
mus difliked Popery ; one of the diftinguiftiing
tenets of which perfuafion has always been a faith
in the ever-bleffed Trinity. Hence his averfion
to the paffage 1 . John v : 7 ; which he confidered,
although he occafionally affeded to argue other-
wife, as a fupport to that dodrlne. He receded
too far and fell into Arianifm. [y) The prejudices
of R. Stephens lay the fame way, as a Reformer.
They were moreover exafperated by perfecution.
And Luther had declared againft the verfe, before
the publication of R. Stephens's, firft edition of the
Greek Teftament. If R. Stephens then had been
bafe enough to have falfified the evidence of his
MSS at all, it Is moft probable, from his indigna-
O 4 tion

(<!>) It is well worth our attention to' mark the addrefs with whiclv
Erafmus condufted himfelf in the difficult fituation in which he ftood.
" Nan patrocinor in prafentia Arrianis, qui toto peliore fequor quod
deiinivit ecclefia," [Erafmi Rfpons. ad Lsam, p. 272.!
" Ego ob hoc POTissiMUM credo Filium effeejtildem effentias cum
Patre, quod sic interpretatur ecclefia: .ffiQUE credituros etiamft,
hie locus fecus haberct apud nos quam habet." [Ibid. p. 278.]

200 DR. BENSON.
tion againft his Poplfli perfecutors, from his par
tiality to Erafmus, and his approbation of the doc
trines of Luther, that he would have reprefented
his MSS as agreeing with the five (alledged) MSS
of Erafmus, and with the opinion of Luther. But
he did not fuffer his prejudices, or his refentments,
to warp his integrity. Thus tempted to ad other-
wife, R. Stephens'?, infertion of this verfe in his
Greek Teftament can be confidered in no other
light than as an offering to truth.
3. Nor can it be admitted that he falfified thc
evidence of his Greek MSS through any fecret
prejudice in favor of the verfe itfelf. For if he
had once permitted himfelf to over-ftep the
bounds of truth from this motive, he certainly
would have concealed at the fame time the
unpleafing circumftance, that feven of his MSS
mangled the paffage by an omiffion of the words
tv ru.ovpxvu,
4, Nor, laftly, can R. Stephens he fuppofed to
have falfified the evidence of his Greek MSS
through any fear of the Romlfti power. For he
publifhed his firft Greek Teftament in A. D. 1546.
And his apprehenfions as to his perfonal fafety, al
though

DR. BENSON. 20I
though occafionally ftrong {w) were not powerful
enough, even in A, D. 1550, to prevent him from
expofing his New Teftament of that year to pub
lic fale in Paris, and in the midft of thofe men
who had become his determined foes on account
of his publications of the New Teftament, (x)
'Tis true that when he was afterwards led ferioufly
to contemplate his real fituation, he found it to be
unfafe, as well as unpleafant ; and therefore re
folved to {y) forfake it for ever. But this refolu
tion was not taken definitively until five years, at

[w) Murmur fuboritur, quod ftat'im in folitos clamores erumptt (viz. on
the publication of his New Teftament of A. D. 1541) ut aliquandiu
lertia jam 'vice latere cogerer." [Refpons.^. 13.]
" Eadem et Caftellano refero [viz. in A. D. 1549] illumque pofire-
mum valere jubea, quod njiderem mihi patria cedendum effe — Caftellanus
multis verbis Regi \ndicat abeundum mihi effe, natali que folo migrandum.
— Refpondet Rex non propterea mihi effe migrandum.^Ubi hac renun-
tiatafunt, confifto." [Refpons. p. 31.]
[x] " Ubi ex Aula reverfumvident (ecure 'Novum illadTeHameiitaia
exponere, audaciam pri<vati hominis et typogra^hi mirantur contra decre-
tum Theologicum." [Refpons.^. 40.]
{y) His grounds for this final refojution are thus fenfibly and af-
feftingly ftated by him.
" De Regis quidem prafidio cur difiiderem, caufa non fuit, Sed quia
mihi certamen erat cum tam ni'irulentis belkiis, nihil cenfui effe melius quam
cbftinatte malitiee cedere. Impune en'im illudere Regi poterant, ejufque im-
peria cantemnere : impune falfis et putidis delationibus imbuere principum
aures : impune quidvis fer fas et nefas in me machinari, I^tc tnedus ullus
/u'ffet." [Refpons./. 41.]

2C2 DR. B E-N S O N.
at leaft, had elapfed after the publication of his
two Teftaments of A, D. 1546.
Thus acquitted from the fufpicion of having
aded from the improper fuggeftibns of pride, pre
judice, or fear, it feems that we ought to con
clude that i?, Stephens ftated the evidence of his
Greek MSS ingenuoufly and corredly. Of which
there Is this additional important proof: namely,
that in his -Latin Teftament of A, D. 1545 he
gave Information to the learned world, that fome
of his Greek MSS did omit the words iv ru ov^oiva
{z) in the very fame manner in which he ftated
that omiffion more fuUy, five years fubfequent to
this information, in the margin of his Greek Tef-
. tament of A. D. 1550, now in queftion.
The fads being thus clearly afcertained. It re
mains that unlefs we are now, at length, to fup-
^pofe that R. Stephens firft advanced an intentional
falfehood in the fiice of the whole Chriftian world, as
{z) The verfes i, John v : 7 and 8 are thus printed in this edition,
p. 115.
J^:S\IS^Zttt:IS!^ 7 Quoniam tres funt qui teftimonium
&^s?cT;r,^.SU^SS'„"! dant,* fpiritus, et aqua, et fanguis ; Et lii
ria Grueca. (omitting conloqutntly the ^ a r ^ c ¦ o
Grssk v/ords en to uurano.) trCS "unUm lunt. 01 «C
8. In unum funt— ^c quiedam ex
emplaria Grteca. i. ummi el idem
iejlantur.

DR. BENSON. 203
as to the exiftence of this verfe in his MSS, and
that afterwards Theodore Beza, who had thofe [a)
MSS put into his hands which enabled him to de-
ted the falfehood, did,^ inftead of betraying, abet and
fupport him in it ; unlefs we are now to defpoil
them both of thofe charaders of learning and
\yorth, of probity and honor, with which their
memories have been fo long adorned and confe-
crated, and to conclude that they confpired to ad,
in concert, the infamous (and in the prefent cafe
impious) part of cheats and impoftors : Unlefs we
are now become defperately determined to fpeak,
and ad, in contradidion to the voice of all Europe,^
in defiance to the teftimony of ages paft and pre
fent, as well as in utter fubverfion of every prin
ciple of literary candor, and Chriftian charity ;
we muft feel ourfelves of neceffity compelled t9
acknowledge, that what R. Stephens thus did inten
tionally, he alfo did confcientiouffy ; that he, and
T'heodore Beza, have a right to command our full
affent, when they only affirm a plain fad which
lay within their own knowledge, and which there
fore they were compleatly competent to afcertain ;
that R. Stephens did not place the latter femi-circle wrong,
[a] This affumption will be further fupported in the anfwer to the
next fucceeding obje6l;on of Dr. Benfon.

204 DR. BENSON.
w^rong, either by miftake, or on purpofe ; — and
that when It is affeded to teach us either by Dr«
Benfon, or by Mr. Gibbon, of the typographical
fraud, or error of R.' Stephens, in the prefent in
ftance at leaft ; or of the deliberate falfehood, or
ftrange mifapprehenfion of Theodore Beza ; — fuch
teaching is in vain !
Thefe confiderations feem to determine thc
whole debate, as to the MSS of R. Stephens. No
thing can weigh againft them, but the adual pro-
dudion of the MSS themfelves, accompanied by
indubitable proof that they do not contain the verfe
in queftion. And lo ! the required Defideratum
ftands before us. — For Dr. Benfon thus proceeds :
' XXIX. " And his [R. Stephens'^] MSS
are, upon the firidefi examination, found tQ
want this difputed paffage,'*
As the decifion of this point wiU materially af
fed the whole queftion refpeding the originality
of this Verfe,— -you will. Sir, pardon me perhaps,
if I trefpafs fomewhat longer than ufual upon your
patience, in examining the foundation of this affer
tion, and fhewing its falfehood at large.

In

D R. B E N S O N. - 20

:>

In the courfe of the controverfy (already m.en-
tlqned in [b) this letter) which arofe in the begin
ning of the prefent century, between Mr. Martin
and Mr, Emlyn, as to the originality of this Verfe ;
the propriety of the obelus or femi-circle, as placed
in R. Stephens's Greek Teftament of A. D. 1550,
was warmly denied by Mr, Emlyn, and ftrenuoufly
defended by his antagonlft. During the pen
dency, and indeed in the very height of this dif
pute, Father Le Long, a Prieft of the Oratory at
Paris, publifhed In the Journal des Savans, A. D.
1720, a letter, in which he affirms, that there were-
eleven Greek MSS then in the Royal Library at
Paris, which had been kept there in the time of
King Henry II. that they ftill bore the ufual mark
of the MSS of that Prince,' namely a Crown fur-
mounted by a coronetted H ; that eight of thefe
had various readings correfpondlng with thofe
noted on the inner margin of R. Stephens, and
therefore were doubtlefs the MSS marked with the
Greek numerals, mentioned by him in his Preface ;
that only four of thefe, S. t, ^, i. (numbered 2871,
3445, 2242 and 2878) contained the Canonical
Epiftles ; that the MS ^ in particular had only one
(namely the firft) of St. John's Epiftles ; that he
had
(b) Page 105.

2o6 DR. BENSON.
had examined the MSS himfelf, and was perfedly
fatisfied of their identity, {c)
This is the teftimony of Le Long ; which, if it
had been true, might have merited the commenda
tion which Dr. Benfon has been pleafed to beftow
upon It. But, unfortunately for this mifplaced
eulogium, the account, thus given by Le Long, is
a total mifapprehenfion, or mifreprefentation of
the cafe.
As Le Long has fubjoined to this letter a Lift,
which he ftiles " A Table of the MSS made ufe of
by R. Stephens in his folio edition of the New Tef
tament, 1550," it feems expedient, for the better
elucidation of the fubjed, to bring the contents of
that Table into one point of view, and to annex
it to the charges of Wetfiein and Griff ach, who
are alfo, with Le Long, accufers of R. Stephens.

S. Slephens's Their contents. Their contents Tlieir contents
Greek MSS, according to according to according to
as numficred Le Long. Wetftein. Griefbach.
by liimfelf. ,
a Complutenfian Ed. con- Complutenfian Ed. Complutenfian Ed.
tainingall the N. T.
(3 Gofpels, Afts. Gofpels, A£ts. Gofpels, Afts.
y Gofp. (Royal MS. 2867) Gofp. {R. MS.-2i6^) Gofp. (R. MS. 2867
Jiunc 84.)
(c) £»)^'«'s Reply, vol. ii. Load, Edit. 1746, p. ^72.

DR. BENSON.

207

R. ^tephens^s- Their Smtonts &:c.
&c.

Tbe'ir contents &c.

S' N. T. except Apoc. N. T. except Apoc.

r

N. T. except Apoc.
{R. MS. 3445) (rf)
Gofpels.Gofpels, The Epiftles of Pau),
James,Peter,I John (oiilv)
(R. MS. l^4,^.)

n Gofpels. {R. MS. 1861.)
0 N. T. except Apoc,
1 A£l:s,Epiftles of Apoftles.
(TJ. MS. 2878.) (/)
IK Adls,
Epif. of Apoftles.

N. T. except Apoc.
(R, MS. 3425.)
Golpels. •{R, MS. 2866.)
Gofpels. (R. MS. 2242, Prol.
I : 46.)
Atts, (Acta a Stephano
coll at a non funt.)
(TS.M. 2241, Prol.
ii: ii.) (r)

The'ir contents &c.
N. T. except Apoc.
[R,MS.-i%Tinuncioe.) N. T. except Apoc.
[R. MS. 3425 nunc 112.)
Gofpels. (R.MS ii&66nuncT2.)
Gofpels(TJ.M5. 2242,
nunc 4g, ui midetur,
aut (tium 47.)
Atts (if. MS. 2241,
nunc 47 : Semel a
Stephano citatur in
Attis
Epiftles of Paul,
(R. MS. 2241, nunc,
lit videtur, 47.)
Canon. Epif.
(R MS. 2ij^i, nuncifj.)
Gofpels. (R.MS.2&6i,nunc62.)
Stephani 6 ut opinatuT
Wetttenius.
Afts, Epif. of Apoftles,
[R. MS. 2%'jonunc 102.}
Ads,Epif. of Apoflles.

1/3 Gofpels.

ly Aifls, Epif. of Apoftles, ex
cept 3 John and Jude.
tS Three Gofpels, Four Gofpels.
Matthew, Luke, and {R. MS. 2865.)
John.
IS Seven Epif. of Paul, Aas,
beginning with i. Epif. of Apoftles,
Cor. Apocalypfe.
(R MS. no number (R.MS. 2869.)
mentioned. ) s
If Gofp. Luke and John. Apocalypfe.

Gofpels. [R. MS. 2861.)
M. T. except Apoc,
(Coif. 200.)
Adls, Epii. ot Apoftles.
(R, MS. 287c.)
Atls,Epif. of Apofl:Ies.
(Deduobus 10!, et ly,
cum nondum reper-
ti fiiit, mbil definire
pojfe. Vol. ii. p. 724.)
Gofpels. Golpels.
(R.MS. 2S62,) (R.MS.2%62nuticti.'i
Afts, A6fs,
Epif. of Apoftles. Epif. of Apoftles,

Three Gofpels,
Matt. Luke, & John.
(MS, St, Vidor, 774.)
Afts, '
Epif. of Apoftles,
Apocalvpie. (R, MS. 2869 nunc
237-)
Apocalypfe.

The
t,i) Poffibly an error of the prefs for 341J:
(1) In the fame ¦volume, p. 7i4, Wetftein correfts this No. 2Z41 into 124Z, by which he puts Mmfelf
Jlill more -wrong. For No. 2242, moft certainly, contains the Oo/jiill only.
(/) Poffibly an error of the prefs for iiJyo.

2o8 DR. BENSON*
The charge againft R. Stephens, thus brought hy
Le Long (which Wetfiein and Grieffach endeavoui^
to fupport) is- — that the identical MSS, which R.
Stephens ufed in his Edition of A. D. 1550, were
lately in the Royal Library at Paris, and are there
now (for G'rieffach^s teftimony comes down nearly
to the prefent time) and therefore that be collated
them unfaithfully ; or, in other words, that he was
guilty of a deliberate falfificatlon of Scripture.
For it has been already fhewn that miftake, or
error, is out of this cafe, and therefore that no
medium can be adopted in this conteft.
We will then, Sir, attend to thefe accufers of
R, Stephens, and endeavour to calculate the weight
of their teftimony.
I. Le Long, then, we may at once obferve from
the preceding ftatement, contradids himfelf. He
affirms, in his Letter, that he found, in the Royal
Library, eight Greek MSS, having various read
ings correfpondlng with thofe noted on the inner
margin, of R. Stephens^ Edition; and yet in his
Lft he is not able, as will be evidently feen on re
verting to it, to fpecify more than fix. He In
deed makes a faint attempt to add another, n, to
the Lift : but, as he appropriates no number, or
particular

B R» B E N S O N. 209
|)articular defcrlption to it, fo vague an afl!ertion
will not be received as tefiimony.
1. Le Long is alfo contradlded by his co-ac-
cufers, the other two wltneflTes.
Le Long fays that there are in the Royal Library
fix MSS only {g) which were ufed by R. Stephens
in his Edition of 1550. Whereas Grieffach af
firms that their number is nine, and Wetfiein aug
ments it to ten.
Le Long fays that no more than four of thofe
MSS contain the Canonical Epiftles at all, viz.
S. £. ^. J, and that the MS ^. contained only a part
of them. But Wetfiein and Grieffach affirm that
' the Canonical Epiftles are contained in five oi
thofe MSS, and are found entire in all of them.
Le Long fays that R. Stephens had but one MS
marked ^ ; and fo indeed fays R. Stephens himfelf.
But Wetfiein and Grieffach both affirm that he had
two MSS fo marked, P Le Long
(?) In his Lift, fix, with an effort at a fewenth. In his Letter, eight.
He is erroneous in almoft every part of his account. Of the eight
MSS which, hc fays, bear the coronetted H. three have it not. This
is but a trifling inaccuracy j yet it creates diftruft.

210 DR. BENSON.
Le Long fays that R. Stephens'' s MS ^ was
marked No. 2242 in the Royal Library, and that
it contained the Gofpels, the Epiftles of St Paul,
St, James, St, Peter, and the firft Epiftle of St.
John. Wetfiein affirms that No. 2242 contains
the Gofpels only ; and that his newly difcovered
^ extends to the Ads {h) the Canonical Epiftles,
and thofe of St Paul. Whilft Grieffach prefumes
not to lay down the latitude of this new difcovery
from any obfervations of his own. (/) Stephani
^ Regius 2242, nunc 49, ut videtur, aut etiam 47 i
— 2241 nunc, ut videtur 47 — are all that he ven
tures to put to the hazard on the fubjed.
Le Long (as hath been in part obferved before)
fays that this MS ^ does not contain the Ads of
the Apoftles. Wetfiein contradids Le Long, af
firming that it does contain the Ads, but that R.
Stephens

(h) It may be thought, perljaps, that Le Long and Wetfiein might be
reconciled by joining both thefe MSS, to form one p. But neither
fo luill their txiitnefs agree together. United they comprife more than
the y of Le Long by three Epiftles (2, and 3. John, and Jude) and
the Ads of the Apoftles.
(;') The truth is that Griejbach had vifited the Royal Library, and
had found that neither 2241 nor 2242 would anfwer to Wetfteitii
juftification. His expreffions are therefore ftudioully obfcure. He
would not fay too much for Wetfte'iiii fake. He could not be totally
filent for his own.

£) R. B E N S O N. 411
Stephens {k) did not collate that part of the MS.
In which laft afl^ertion he is contradlded in his
turn by Grieffach, who admits that R. Stephens
has once (/) ched it to the Ads.
Le Long fays that the MS iS contains the three
Gofpels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John.
Wetfiein affirms that it contains the four Gofpels,
that it Is one of the Royal MSS, and Is marked
No. 2865. I'^ 2.11 which aflTertlons he is [again]
contradlded by Gruff ach ; whofe teftimony is that
iS is a MS of St. Vidor s Library, is there marked
774, and contains the Gofpels of St. Matthew.^
St. Luke and St. John only. (???)
Pa Le Long

(?) R, Stephens collated his onun ? to the Afts. Wetfiein i ? he
Jirobably never faw. It was not purchafed into the Royal Library
until more than a century after the death of R, Stephens !
(I) R, Stephens has cited his MS P no lefs than fifteen times to
the A£ls> once feparately, and fourteen times incluiively in his letter
of reference tt. On his own principles Griefbach ought to ha-ve ad
mitted thefe fifteen quotations. The paffages are— Afts iii: 3, 2o,
v: 23, 36, ix : 5, xiii: 41, xvii: 5 [feparately) xix: 34J xx : 8,
xxi ! 3, xxii : 12 [tiuice) xxiv : g, 20, and xxv : 7.
(z«) Grieffach, without perceiving perhaps the full extent of his re
proach (for his partiality to him iS apparent) has caft a very ferious
imputation upon Wetftein in the following remark as to the MS iS.
«' It appears to me that the Excerpta nuh'ich Wetftein gives as felec-
tions from this MS, ha've been taken out of two or more MSS."

212 DR. BENSON,
Le Long fays that the MS n contains feven
Epiftles only of St. Paul, beginning with the firft
to the Corinthians. But Wetfiein and Grieffach
both affirm that it contains all the Epiftles of St.
Paul, together with the Ads, the Canonical Epif
tles, and the Apocalypfe.
And laftly, Le Long fays that the MS tr con
tains the Gofpels of St. Luke and St. John. But
Wetfiein and Grieffach both affirm that it contains
the Apocalypfe only.
Such, Sir, is the fhameful debUity of (what may
be termed) the external evidence againft R. Ste
phens. We will now proceed to examine the inter
nal evidence deducible from the MSS themfelves.
Let It be then obferved, in general, with refpedt
to this internal evidence,
I. That there is no MS, in the Catalogue of
Le Long, which contains the Apocalypfe ; whereas
the Apocalypfe Is found in no lefs than four MSS
of R. Stephens, viz. in t. la. is and »r : two of
which, £ and u, he had received from the Royal
Library, 3. That

DR. BENSON. 2I3
2. That the MSS of Le Long's Catalogue,
which refer to the Gofpels, are fewer by three
than thofe which refer to the fame Gofpels in the
Edition of R. Stephens.
3. That in, the Lift of Le Long there are only
feven MSS which refer to the Ads of the Apof
tles ; whereas ten MSS are cited thereto in the
margin of R. Stephens's Edition.
4. That there are three fewer, MSS in the Cata
logue of Le Long, which refer to the Epiftles to
the' Romans and Corinthians, than are found in the
margin of the work of R. Stephens, And
Laftly, That in the Lift of Le Long there is
not a fingle MSS («) which contains the words
tv rn yn, of the eighth verfe of the chapter in quef
tion. But thefe words were found in all the MSS
of R. Stephens. (0)
Thus it is manifeft that the MSS of Le Long
P 3 taken
(«) Le Long's Letter, Emlyn, p. 273.
[o) The note, which Theodore Beza has left upon this part of the
eighth verfe, is beyond all queftion decifive. " Thefe words are not
in the Syriac Verfion, nor in feveral very ancient Greek copies ; but
they are in our Greek MSS, and in the latirt Verfion." [Appendix,
No. iii.]

214 D R. BE N S O N.
taken aggregately, or as a whole, have no parity or
agreement with thofe of R. Stephens. Let it be
ftill further obferved that the argument, as to this
internal evidence, acquires frefh ftrength from the
examination of particular MSS. For
I. The MS, marked |3 in the Lift of Le Longs,
contains the Gofpels and the Ads of the Apoftles,
only. But the MS of R. Stephens, which bore
that mark, contained alfo the Epiftle to the Ro
mans ; for It is cited by him, in the margin of his
work, upon Romans iii: lo feparately, and con
jointly in his letter of reference tc, on ii : ^, xiv ;
9, 21, 23, and xv : 2,
The MS, marked % in the Catalogue of Le
Long, does not comprife the Apocalypfe : whereas
the MS of R. Stephens, which was thus marked,
did contain the Apocalypfe ; becaufe he has referred
to this MS in ill; 18, and xix : 14. (^) The
[p) Dr. M7/ imagines thefe two references to be miftakes of i for if,
in which he has been followed hy Wetftein. And the reference of
tot, hereafter mentioned has been conjetSured in like manner to be a
millake for oc. And, as a confequence, it has been pofitively afferted
that R. Stephens had no more than two MSS to the ApocalypfSi
j£ and ir, and the Complutenfian Edition. Let it be replied,
I. That conjeftures ought to be very fparingly indulged againft the
knowi;

DR. BEl>rsON. 215
The two MSS, marked C and n In the Lift of
Le Long, do not contain the Ads of the Apoftles.
But both the MSS, which' R. Stephens diftinguiflied
by the fame letters, did contain the Ads ; for the
latter is referred to by him feparately in xxiv : '
7 and 8, xxv: 14, xxvii: i, and xxviii: 11 ;
and the former, as hath been already remarked
{q) no lefs than fifteen times, feparately and con
jointly. The MS, marked with the letter i In the Lift
of Le Long, contains only the Ads and the Epif
tles. But the MS, which is denoted by this
letter in the Edition of R. Stephens, comprifed
alfo the Gofpels of St.' Luke and St. John. A
various reading is quoted by R. Stephens from
P 4 this

known general accuracy of R. Stephens. I beg leave to affign this
reafon, once for all, as the foundation of my general fubmiffion to his
margin, in preference to an adoption of imaginations which may be,
and for aught that certainly appears to the contrary are, utterly
groundlefs. And let it be further afked,
2, Why, if he had no other MSS to the Apocalypfe than cc, te
and If (as is aflumed in the objeftion) does he take the trouble of fo
frequently ftating them at full length in his margin, when his com
pendium TT. would more eafily, and as compleatly, have anfwered his
purpofe ? On this idea he has given himfelf this fupervacaneous labor
in no lefs than fifty-two inftances ; which is an inadmiffible fuppofi-
tion. (q) Page '21 1, Note (/),

2l6 DR. BENSON.
this MS (r) in St. Luke v: 19, and another (j) Ii^
St. John ii : 17. Again
The MS, marked <« in Le Ljong's Catalogue
comprehends, like the laft-mentioned MS, no
more than the Ads and the Epiftles. But the
MS of R. Stephens, which bore this mark, con
tained, moreover, the Gofpels of St. Mattheii>
and St. John, together with the Apocalypfe. The
citations of this MS in the margin of R. Stephens'^ '
Edition, which prove this afl!ertIon, are — St. Mat
thew x: 8, 10, xn : 32, St. John ii: 17 {t) and
the Apocalypfe xiii : 4. iu) Again The

.(r) It is alfo referred to by him, conjointly with the reft of his
MSS, in Luke iv : 7, vi : 23, 26 [tivice) vii : 31, viii : 43, x: 20»
xi : 8, 33, xii : 59, xiii : 8, xiv : 15, xviii : g, 14, xxi-.36, xxii:
30, and xxiii : 54.
(s) Conjointly alfo in John I : 28, 40, ii : 22, iii : 25, iv : 35,
vi : 15, 24, 28, vii : 33, viii : g, xiv : 22, 30, and xvii : 11, 20.
(/) Conjointly alfo in all the verfes mentioned in the laft preceding
note. (k) The marginal reference to Apoc. xii : 2 is a, if, (£. The for«
mer if, of thefe two, ought probably to have been lot : which, if ad
mitted, will make two feparate references to the MS, loc, by R, Ste
phens. As there is evidently a miftake here in R. Stephens's margin, it is
not abfurd, or perverfe to try to guefs at the proper corredlion. The
abfurdity and perverfenefs lie where the cafe is quite diffimilar to this,
namely, where the firft guefs muft affeft that there is a miftake, in
order to make room for the fecond, the premeditated correftion.

DR. BENSON, 217
The MS, marked iP in the Lift of Le Long,,
comprifes the Gofpels only. But the MS of R.
Stephens, which was denoted by this mark, com
prehended alfo the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians ;
for he has referred to it in the margin of 1. Cor.
XV : 44. {v) Again
The MS, marked ly in Le Long's Catalogue
contains no more than the Ads and a part of the
Epiftles. But in that of R. Stephens, which car
ried this mark, were comprehended alfo the Gof
pels of St. Matthew-and St. Jobn. Various read
ings are copied by him from thence, in the mar
gins of St. Matthew xxvii : 64 [w) and of St.
John ii : 17. {x) Again
The MS, marked iS among thofe of Le Long,
comprehends only the three Gofpels of St. Mat
thew, St. Luke, and St. John. But the MS, de
noted by thefe letters in the Edition of R, Ste
phens, comprifed likewife the Ads of the Apoftles, and
( u) Conjointly alfo in i : 29, vi : 5, 7, vii : 29, and ix : 27,
(iv) Conjointly alfo in ii : 11, iii : 8, v: 44, 47, vi : 18, vii : 14,
viii: 5, ix : 5, 17, 33, x : 28, xii 16, xii : 6, 8, 21, 35, xiii, 33,
40, xiv: ig, xvii: 14, xviii: 6, 19, 28, xix: g, xxi: i, 3, xxii:
7, xxiii : 36, xxiv : 17, xxvi : 55, 74, xxvii : 3;, 42, and xxviii : ig.
(x) Conjointly alfo in Johni: 28, 40, ii : 22, iii: 25, iv : 35,
vi : 15, 24, 28, vii ; 33, viii ; 9, xiv ; zz, 30, and xvii : n, 26.

2l8 DR. BENSON.
and the fecond Epiftle of St, Peter. It is cited by
R. Stephens in the margin of Ads xiii : 15 (j) and
of 2. Peter 1 : 4. (%) Again
The MS of Le Long, marked u, contains no
• part of the New Teftament except feven of the
¦ Epiftles of St, Paul. But the MS of R. Stephens,
which bore this mark, comprehended alfo the
Apocalypfe, The references to this MS, in that
part of his work, are too numerous to be here par-
ticularifed. They abound in ^Imoft every page.
Finally The MS of Le Long, which Is marked ir, con
tains only the Gofpels of the two Evangelifts St.
Luke and St. John. But the MS of R. Stephens,
which was thus marked, did certainly further com
prife the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians at leaft,
the firft Epiftle to Timothy, and the Apocalypfe ;
becaufe this MS is referred to, by R. Stephens, in
2. Cor, xii : 11 feparately, and in v : 4, viii ; 19,
24, and xi : 22 conjointly; and in 1. Tim. in : 3
feparately,
()>) Conjointly alfo in Afts iii : 3, 20, v : 23, 36, ix : 5, xiii ; 41,
xix : 34, XX : 8, xxi : 3, xxii : 12 [fwice) xxiv : g, 20, and xxv : 7.
Dr. Mill miftakenly affirms {Prol. 117) that this MS contained no
Chapter but the tenth, or rather a part of the tenth, of the Afts of
the Apoftles.
(k) Conjointly alfo 2. Bet, ii : 14.

DR. BENSON. 219
feparately, and vi : 5 conjointly. The references
to this MS are too many to be here fpecified at
large. And now. Sir, will you contend with Le Long
that you are fatisfied of the identity of thefe
MSS ? Or will you fay, with Dr. Benfon, that
thefe are the MSS of R. Stephens, and that, on
the ftrldeft examination, they are found to want
this difputed paflage ? You will not venture to
do either. The MSS In queftion have fcarcely
any thing in common with each other. They do
not agree in the general refemblance. They differ
in almoft every feparate feature. Accufations thus
incoherent and inconfiftent, thus variant and con-
tradidory, ought not to have the leaft weight [a")
againft a man fo truly refpedable as R. Stephens,
even if they could not be met by a dired con
futation. But the MSS in the Royal Library at
Paris, thus imputed to R. Stephens, have been lately
examined ;
(a) This conclufion was drawn in the two former editions of thefe
Letters. And, as far as argument 3\o'a& cqM prevail, it feemed to
ftand upon the moft fatisfadlory foundation. But an aftual compari
fon of thofe MSS with the margin of R. Stephens, made \by me at
Paris in A. D. I7gi, has furniflied evidence, in fupport of that ar
gument, which feems to be unanfwerably convincing. A brief de
fcrlption of the Greek MSS of the N. T. in the Royal Library at
Paris in 1791 may be found in Appendix No. xxxvi,

220 DR. BENSON.
examined ; the refult of which examination is— «
that Le Long, Wetfiein and Grieffach are falfe ac
cufers, and that their MSS are not the MSS of
R. Stephens. A few proofs of the truth of this
oblervation fliall here be ftated, as to each of thefe
MSS. And
I. The MS in the Royal Library at Paris, No.
84,, is not the MS y of R. Stephens. For
That MS reads toi? Bi.^ya.\oii; in Matt, v : 27 ;
which words were not read in the MS y of R.
Stephens, That MS reads 0% ot.v uTroXvirn In Matt, v : 32 ;
but the MS y oi R, Stephens read 7r«j q xttokwv in
this verfe.
That MS reads koh ya^ rx hvvx^ik only In Matt.
XV : 27; whereas R. Stephens's y (ashehas^^-
cially informed us) read koh y«j xai t» wva^ix in
this paflTage.
That MS reads tr^oa-i^nv xtto rm ^u/ah? In Matt.
xvi : 1 1 ; but R. Stephens's y read Tr^otrip^^nit. ir^om-
j^ETE Si oono rn; ^u/a?ij in this paflTage, That

DR. BENSON. 221
That MS reads «yy£A©» ya^ xxra, v.xi^ov In John
V : 4 ; but R. Stephens's y read the paffage thus-^
»yyiXl^ yoi^ Kufia xoirx Koct^ov.
That MS reads o Jna-si;, n re ^tJiXoiixa-oi In John vi :
1 7 ; but R. Stephens's y read o Ijio-aj a? to ttAoio^* « t6
6«A«a-(r« in this paflTage.
That MS reads ^af ow o aitawi/ in ^oi^?/ vi : 45 ;
whereas i?. Stephens affirms that his MS y did not
read oDtswc in that verfe.
That MS reads syw akAw uj!*i» in ' J^o/'« vi : 6^^
but i?. Stephens's y read syw /.£A«A»))t« Ujwii/,
That MS reads «f tjii/ ynv, w? <?£ in yoi';? viii : 6 j
but R. Stephens's y read «j mv ynv i^n Tr^oa-ttoisiAiv^,
Wi Si in this paffage.
That MS reads tw? rwv grx^acrav in John viii : 9 ;
of which R. Stephens has informed us that his y
did not contain a fingle word.
Thus it appears evident that the MS 84 is not
the MS y of R. Stephens. Let it be now fur
ther fhewn that it is not any of his MSS. For That

222 DR. BENSON.
That MS, 84, reads tu moi.rovroc^x/'' i^ Matt^ viii t
13; but R. Stephens affirms that ALL his MSS
read snxrovroc^^n In that paflTage.
That MS reads xai svi ru ovo^xn in Matt, xii :
21; mv yvvoiixa oivrs 7tO!.PSx.T^ Xoys ¦ssopveixi, tsyoin ociirnv
[Aoi^ev^nvoii' Kcci 0 oi,-t^oXiX\jyivnv in Matt, xix : 9 ; £V£j3(i-
Ktoiv et; rx zrXoix In fohn vI : 24 ; B^nrisv ow xvrov zs'ia.trxi
XXI i^nXiiv £Jt TJi; y^wf ac aurc^v' x.xi ovS^i in fohti vII : 30~~*
And all /i*^ readings are in contradidion to the
text, ^j -zc;^// flj ^ ALL ^y5^ MSS of R. Stephens,
II. The MS In the Royal Library at Paris, No.
106, is not the MS, <5~, of R. Stephens. For
That MS reads xai ya^ £yw a^G^wTr^ a/>ii in Ads
X : 26 ; but the S of jR. Stephens read £yu «ut(^ ai'-
e^coTT©^ in this paflTage.
That MS reads In^sa-xXnfj. ov xai xvuxov in Ads x :
39 ; but the paflTage was thus read by the 0 of R,
Stephens  If^^oAufAOj? ov xxi xvetXxv,
That MS reads tv tw ovoi^xn inan X^ira In Ads x :
48 ; but R. Stephens's S read the verfe ev ru ovofAxn
T8 Kufl la I»i<ra Xpij-a.
' That

DR. BENSON. 221
1 liat Mb reads wx^xx.Xn<ria<; iv m^w, tt^I^ rov Xxov Xe-
T£T£ in Ads xiii : 15 ; but the S of R. Stephens
read only 7r«ja>£A-/io-£Wf, w^^ rov Xxov Xsyere in thls
paffage. Ihat MS reads £7riTj£7r£Ta;i o-oi VTn^ (TtoiMris Xeynv' in
Ads xxvi : 1 ; but the S of R. Stephens read this
pallage thus  eTrirer^xwrxi <roi Xey^v ttspi crexuris,
1 hat MS reads aTravTa? i/.erxXx(Seiv roofn? Ouly, In
Ads xxvii : 33 ; but i?. Stephens aflSrms that his
M5 S read this paflTage with the addition of t»i,@j
thus  XTTXvrx? [xErxXx(i»v riv©-' -r^ocpn;.
That MS reads xtto m? ^i^iJ-m e^ix^nirx in Ads
xxviii : 3 ; whereas R. Stephens's S read Sn^ixh(ra,
as he has fpecially noted, in this paflage.
Proceeding now to the firft Epiftle of St. John,
let it be remarked that
The MS, No, 106, reads nfji^m ow xyxiria{ji.ev ot» in
I, Jobn iv: 19 ; but the' S of R. Stephens read
jiju,£if ow xyxiruiAev auTOK on in the correfpondlug paf
fage. That MS reads y^x(pu vfAiv Trxre^e? in i, John ii :
I3J

224 D R. B E N S O N.
1 3 ; but this paffage was written ly^x^'^ uji*ii» trxr^tt
in the S of R. Stephens.
Thefe examples feem fufficlent to prove that the
Greek MS, No. io6, of the Royal Library at
Paris, Is not the MS S oi R. Stephens. Let it be
now further fhewn that it is not any of his MSS,
For '
The MS, 1 06, reads £i;^£i/ n^nvnv oixoJ'o/as/^ehi mi
vo^evo[Aevn In Ads Ix : 31, in contradidion to a//
the MSS of R. Stephens.
That MS reads «AAi» vo^evei^»i exxrov Elf rx tSix' Sur*
ei(iovrtt3v Se xuriiiv xxi SiSxinovruiv, after «iiTO(f in AdS
xiv : 1 8.
That MS reads xxi SixXeyofAtvuv xvrm 7rx^^n(rix, tTtei'
cxv T8S op^Aa; xTtortivxi xtt' xvrav, Xeyovrcg oTt ovSev aAJioff
AEysirii' xXXx tsxvrx -i^ixtSovrxA' after hiSxioi in Ads XIV t
19 ; of both which additions, juft mentioned, nei
ther the text, nor the margin of R. Stephens ex
hibits a fingle word.
That MS reads auTwv t« oiXn^e^x Aior^e^n? in 3«
John g.
That

D R; B £ N S O Ni ^2£
That MS reads TroAAa ttp^oi/ yf«tJ/«» croi* xXX' s SeAw
S-ix •ft.eXxv©' XXI xxXxfAH eoi 'y^xip»v, In 3. John, 135
both readings difagreeing with the text, as well
as with the MSS of R. Stephens,
ill. The MS in the Royal Library at Paris^
inarked Noi 1 12, is «o; the MSj e, of R. Stephens*
For That MS reads os xxoXs^l^a-xvrei fjt,oi ev m TtxXiyyevetriat,
oTflsi/ in Matt, xix : 28 ; but the MS, e, of' R. Ste
phens read 01 xxoXa^ncxvre; [aoi Sixs-oXnv Ep^ao-i orxv In the
correfpondlng paffage.
That MS reads ou>t a^xecrn in Matt, xxv : 9 j
¦whereas R. Stephens has fpecially informed us that
his MS, £, read oux. x^xea-et in that verfe.
That Ms reads XTrb rM fiuf^f za! exxhro (without
the words ns y.vny^^x) in Matt, xxviii : 2 ; but i?»
Stephens's MS, e, added thofe -words to this paflage,
reading it «7ro tds fiug«; ts fAvni^e-t^ xXi exx^nro.
That MS reads ttoaaoi xxiiovreg, m Mark vi : 2 ;
whereas R. Stephens has fpecially remarked that his
MS, £, read ttoaaoi xxsrxvres in that verfe.
Q^ That

226 DR. BENSON.
That MS reads o-ufaipoii/istJio-cra tm ysvet in Mark
vii : 26 ; but R. Stephens affirms that his MS, £,
read ff-up^otna-a-a in this paffage.
That MS reads Kxi (/.n x^mre in Luke vi : 37;
whereas R. Stephens has fpecially remarked that
^.is MS, £, did not read ««» in this verfe.
That MS reads iSuv rov Sixxoyitry-ov in Luke ix ;
47 ;. but R. Stephens's MS, e, read «(5Wf (and not
jJ'wx) in this paffage.
That MS reads xyxtrno'xvT©' ni/.x;, vetr£t<r[jt,xt In
Rom. viii : 37 ; but R. Stephens has particularly
remarked that his MS, e, read here the word Xjifa
alfo, thus— «y«7r)io-avT^ ni^xi X^ifs' intreicty.xi.
Thefe inftances feem abundant enough to fhew
that the MS No. 112, in the Royal Library at
Paris, is not the MS, e, of R. Stephens. A few
variations fhall be here added to prove that it is
not any of his MSS. For this MS r^ads
EirOiB XXI trivet in Matt, xxlv : 49,
:-. K«i 0 e^H «f fijKTETfljf xtt' xxtris' 0 eyuu urx xxsuv, xxBifia
in Matt, xxv: 29,
Tm »iToi/*«(r^£pw TW SixSoXu in Matt, xxv : 41, EAsyj^ETS

DR. BENSON. 227
EAtyp^ETE Sixx^ivo(t.evoi' ou? Si jw^ete, ex ttv^^ apirx^ovre!
ov; Se eXexre ev po|3w* jwijai/TEf in Jude 22, 23,
in contradidion to the text, as well as to the mar
gin of R. Stephens. Further
R. Stephens affirms that all his MSS read x<pe-
uvrxi Qs in Matt, ix : 2. But the MS, No. 1 1 2
now in queftion, reads xtpnavrxi Qoi in this paf
fage. R. Stephens affirms that all his MSS had a note
of interrogation after the words avxxx^etv (*£ in
Matt, xxvi : ^s. But the MS, 112, has no note
of interrogation after thefe words.
R. Stephens affirms that all his MSS read x'^?'^'^^
in Luke vi : 23. But the MS, 112, reads x'>^^'^<^ere
in that verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that all his MSS read x^wmv
in Luke xi : ;7,^. But the MS, 112, reads E>i>t^un-To»
in that paflTage.
R. Stephens aflSrms that all his MSS read E^'-ia-fi'
in Rom. xlv : 9. But the MS, 112, reads e(n;^e in
that verfe. 0^2 IV. The

228 DR. BENSON.
IV. The MS in the Royal Library at Parisj^
marked No. 72, is not the MS, r, ofi?. Stephens. For
That MS rieads oj ustro^euoiAevoi Si' xvm; in Matt.
vii : 13; whereas R. Stephens particularly affirms
that his MS, r, read lO'^oiAivoi in that verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, r, read wav oui;
SivS^ov in Matt, vii : 19. But the MS 72 does mi
read ow in that paflTage,
R. Stephens declares that his MS, r, read irxvre; oi
e^yoclo^ivoi In Matt. vII : 23. But the MS, 72,
does not read the word trxvre; in that verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, r, read xxi eiM^xi;
0 h;is; in Matt, ix: 1, But the MS, 72, doeswo^
read 0 Iwa; in that paffage,
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, r, read wfwt
evvvx,x In Mark i : 2i5- But the MS, 72, reads v^ni
tvvwov in that verfe,
R. Stephens declares that his MS, r, omitted
the word xxi before ovSen in Mark ii: 21. But
the MS, 72, does not omit xxi in that paffagei
R, Stephen^

DR. BENSON. 22g
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, r, read |t*ji>t£rt
Svva;^at In Mark iii : 20. But the MS, 72, reads
fi-n Svvx;^o!,i only in that verfe.
R. Stephens declares that his MS, r, added the
words rov Xoyov after xvron; in Mark iv : 34. But
the MS, 72, does not exhibit this addition,
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, r, read xxxa Se
TcXoix In Mark iv : 2)^. But the MS, 72, reads
^Xoix^ix In that paffage,
Thefe variations are fufficlent to prove that the
MS, No. 72, in the Royal Library at Paris is not
the MS, r, of R. Stephens. A few others fhall be
fubjoined to fhew that it is not any of his MSS.
For All the MSS of R. Stephens read xaAwj -n-oietre
•rois (!*i?»f»' "!<*«? in Matt. V : 44 ; of which claufe
the MS, No. 72, has not one word. It omits
moreover the claufe evXoyein ts? xxrx^o>i/,ev!ig VfAx;, and
reads 7rfof£uv£j§£ vTtep ruv SiioxovTOJv vfA-x;' in difleufion
(as it feems) with all the authorities of R. Stephens.
The MS, 72, reads x;TTx;n;^e, ra? xSeXtpa; in Matt.
V : 47. But R. Stephens affirms that all his MSS read

230 DR. BENSON.
read ra; ipiXH; In this paffage. It alfo reads oi e^vtxoi
r&ro TToisfiv in the fame verfe, in oppofitlon both to
the text and the margin of R. Stephens.
That MS reads exxrovrx^-)(oo in Matt, viii : 13.
But ALL the MSS of R. Stephens read exxrovr»^'x;n
jn this paffage,
That MS reads xtfiemrxi <roi in Matt, ix : 2. But
R. Stephens affirms that ALL his MSS read x(peuvrUt
VH In this verfe.
That MS reads ci^x"" ^<^^^^^i' ¦rr^oifexwei in Matt.
ix ; 18 ; and flris-au^a m; -AxpSix; xvns £>£(3aAA« xya^a in
Matt, xii : 2^. And both thefe cafes are contra-,
didlons to the margin, ^.s well as to the text of
R, Stephens.
V, The MS in the Royal Library at Paris,
marked No, 47, Is not the INdS, ^, of R, Stephens,
Fpr R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ^, read Trar-of
v[/.iov 0 ov^xvi^. in Matt. V : 48. But the MS, 47,
reads vrxm^ m^uv 0 ev roi;'ov^xv6is in thls vetfe. R. Stephens

D R. B E N S O N. 231
R. Stephens declares that his MS, ^, read ro> i^n-
^a[/,l/.ivnv e^ovri mv %ei^x in Matt, xli : 13; of which
the MS, 47, does not exhibit a fingle word.
R. Stephens remarks that his MS, ^, read xxi^m
8 fl-uKiETE In Matt, xvi : 3. But the MS, 47, reads
v.xi^tav s Swx(rh in that paffage.
R. Stephens declares that his MS, ^, read ^xtp^S©'
tmxiiiv in Matt, xix : 24. But the MS, 47, reads
^x^iS^ Siexhiv in that verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ^, read SixroXnv
fjCKo-i in Matt, xix: 28, neither of which words
are found in that paffage in the MS 47.
/
R. Stephens remarks that his MS, ^, read » fAn
ec^xitrn In Matt. XXV : 9. But the MS, 47, reads
fAnTtore ux xpxes-n m that verie.
R. Stephens declares that his MS, ^, read xxi ev-
P(^flsfir?i?ai? in Matt, xxvi : 26. But the MS, 47,
reads xxi evXoyngx; in that verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ^, read xvx^iu;,^
TB Kufia ivo^©^ In 1. Cor. xi : 27. But the MS,
47, reads xvx^ims, evo^©^ only in that paflTage. R. Stephens

232 DR. BENSON*
R. Stephens remarks that his MS, {, read x^oi
XXI ro xn^vyiAx In I. Cor. XV : 14. But the MS, 47^
reads x^x to xn^vyi^x only in that paflTage.
R. Stephens declares that his MS, ^, read ra Sovn
in I. Cor. xv : 57, But the MS, 47, reads tw SiSof^rt
in that verfe. '
A few examples fhall now be adduced to fhew
that the MS, 47, is not any of R. Stephens's MSS.
That MS reads exxrovrx^-xf) in Matt.'vni''. 13*
But all the MSS of R. Stephens read exxrovru^'xin in
this paffage.
That MS reads AEyovTEf oTt uSevore in Matt, ix :
^^. But all the MSS of R. Stephens read A£yo»T£s
uSetrore Only In this verfe.
That MS reads vTra-nnx^oi in i. Cor. ix : 27. But
all the MSS of R. Stephens read vtrotrix^u in this
paflage. Nor has the MS No. 49, in the fame Library,
a better title to be diftinguifhed by the name of
R. Stephens than its rival, No. 47. For R. Stephens

DR. BENSON. 233
R. Stephens declares that his MS, ^, read 'n-xm^
vfA.tov 0 ov^xvi©' in Matt, v : 48. But the MS 49
reads •n-xm^ v[auv 0 ev Tojj oujavoij in this verfe.
jR. Stephens affirms that his MS, ^, read SixroXnv
txniy^ in Matt, xix: 28. But the MS 49 has
neither of thofe words in this paflTage.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ^, read u; xoxxov
rimTTEwj in Mark iv : 31. But the MS 49 reads
Wf xoxxu crivxireu; In that paffage.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ^, read auTw ivx
xxi Swx[/.n; — yii/mrxi in Mark vI : 2, But the MS
49 reads xvru xxi Swxi^es; (only) followed by yivov-
rxi in this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ^, read cv^x
fomQo-x in Mark vii : 26. But the MS 49 reads
fl-vja- cpotvixiQa-x In this paffage.
A few examples fhall be fubjoined to fhew
that the MS 49 is not any of the MSS of R.
Stephens. For
The MS 49 reads u^emrxi coi «» «iAx^rixi in
R Matt.

234 I' R* BENSON.
Matt, ix : 2. But all R. Stephens's MSS read x<pe^_
livrxi o-a in this paffage.
That MS reads ymn evex^v^iv In Matt, xiii : t^'T,.
But all R. Stephens's MSS read i-x^v^iv in this verfe.
That MS reads iru ow n Xeyn; TTffi osuTS In John
viii : 5, in contradidion to the margin, as well as
to the text of R. Stephens.
VI. The MS in the Royal Library at Paris^
marked No, 62, is not the MS, n, of R. Stephens.
For R. Stephens declares that his MS, n, read mxyi
(Txrxvx OTTifl-u [Aov, yey^xTcrxi in Matt. IV : I O. But
the MS, No. 62, reads vrrxye axrxvx, (only) in this
paffage, followed by yey^xicm inftead of yeyp^xTtrxi.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, n, read rr; xk^-
Six; ex(ixxxet in Matt, xil : T,^. But the MS 62
reads rn; xxgSia; xvm ix^xxx^ In this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, n, read xvxrrxn-
faTai n TT^ocpnrsix (ouly) in Matt, xiii : 14. But the
JMo 02 reads xvxTrXn^HTxi ev toi? n Tt^otpnretx in this
paflage. R. Stephens;

DR. B E N S ONi 23^
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, n, read w; ye-
yjaTTTai ev Htrxix in Mark 1 : 2. But the MS 62
reads xx^ta; yey^xtrrxi ev ra Itrxix in that VerfCk
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, n, read x(A(p\^xx-
xovrx; xyqii^xng-^x In Mark I: 16. But the MS 62
has not the word x^tpi^xn^^x in that paffage.
Nor is this MS, 62, ANY of R. Stephens'^
MSS. For
The MS 62 reads xx^trs; a^iaj in Matt. Ill : 8.
But R. Stephens affirms that all his MSS read xx^-
irov x^iov In this verfe,
That MS reads «o-£aOoi/ti Se tw liia-a in Matt, viii :
5. But the "Words tm liio-a were not read in any of
the MSS of R. Stephens.
That MS reads f*«^«^ in Matt, xii : 6, But a//
the MSS of R. Stephens read jwei^oj/ in this paffage.
That MS reads xxi •trxoxyav wxpx mv ^xXxQcxv rn;
yaAiAaifl!? iSev trii^ccvx xxi xvS^eav rov xSeXtpov o-ijoiui/^^ in
Mark i : 16, in dired contradidion to the text, as
well as to all the MSS of R. Stephens,
R 2 VII. The

236 "DR. BENSON.
VII. The MS in the Royal Library at Paris ^
marked No. 102, is not the MS, 1, of R. Stephens,
For R. Stephens affirms that his MS, 1, read o-iti* tv
ttiyvTtria In Ads vil : 12. But the MS 102 reads
o-tToi In this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, 1, read oitii-ej mv
escri in Ads xiii: 31. But the MS 102 reads 01.
rtve; (omitting s-Ji-) followed by ainv in this paffage.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, 1, read ex^ovm
Se In Ads xvi : 7. But the MS 102 does not read
Ss in this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, 1, read irwiii/ xtu
rx itxvrx in Ads xvii : 25. But the MS 102 reads
itvonv xxTx TTxvrx in this paffage.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ;, read xai (rn[j.i.
xmix XXI xirxXXxQ(reavxi xit xvrav rx; vo(Tis;—rtve; xxi xico
in Ads xix: 12, 13. But the MS 102 reads xxi
ffn[Aixiv^ix XXI EXTTOfEUEsflat rx; voo-aj— t(1/£j xtto in thls paf
fage. R. Stephens

D R, BENSON. 237
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, i, read tive? mv
jiAafljiTwii in Ads xxi : 16. But the MS 102 does
not read tji/e? in this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, 1, read tr^cors
fAx^Tv^©^ in Ads xxii: 20. But the MS 102
reads 7rfWToji*«jTUf©j in this paffage.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, 1, read txiretTta^ev
in Ads xxvii : 29. But the MS 102 reads extrttru.
Qiv in this verfe,
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, i, read yE^so-EWf
¦nis-m in James iii : 6. But the MS 102 does not
read n^s-oiv in this verfe,
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, i, read nn; Qo-
p(^ Kxi fTririjMwi/, Set^xna (only) in Jame s Hi: 13.
But the MS 102 adds the words ev v^iv after etn^n-
l*wv in this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, 1, read ¦n-xxvn^-u
ttno rm oSa m; xXnhix;, fuperaddlng the words oS>i mi
to his text in James v : 19. But the MS 102
does uot exhibit this (or any other) addition to the
text of R, Stephens in this paffage. R. Stephens

238 DR. BENSON.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ;, read ¦n-e^i
ay.apriav Jif-tac xtre^xve only in I, 1 et. ui : I o. But
the MS 102 adds utte^ in this paffage, reading it
ft-f«i xi^xpriuv v-Kt^ ny-m x-wt^xve.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, », read v^«,g
c!.SiX<poi in 2. Pet. ii : 8, But the MS 102 reads
vy.x; xyoc-usnroi In this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS^ 1, read Si vSxl@'
XXI zTvevfAxr©' xxi xi/jt.ar©' In I. John V : 6, But the'
MS 102 reads Si' vSxr©' xxi xwxr^f only in this
paffage^ Thefe inftances are more than abundantly fuf
ficlent to prove that the MS, No. 102, in the
Royal Library at Paris, is not the MS, 1, of i?.
Stephens. A very few examples fhall be fubjoined
to fhew that it is not ANY of the MSS of R. Ste
phens.
The MS 102 I'eads a«j3hv after eXeni/.^^vunv In • '
Ads iii : 3. But R. Stephens affirms that none of
his MSS read xx^etv in this verfe< The

DR. BENSON. i?39
The MS i,o2 reads
Ev^ov xvSpx Til/a yxyov in Ads XUl : O,
'LusTxr^©' ssv^a ^s^ooiai©' In Ads XX : 4, and
MosAAovTi TS-Xiiv e-ig rn; xxrx In Ads XXvIi : 2 
And all thefe readings are in abfolute contradidion.
to the margin, as well as to the text of R. Ste-.
<ens. And laftly,

VIII. The MS in the Royal Library at Paris,
' marked No. 237, is not the MS, le, oi R. Ste
phens. For
JR. Stephens affirms that his MS, n, read xn^vy[/,xin
1. Cor. i : 6. But the MS No. 237 reads ^a^rv^iov,
and not xn^vyy.a, in that verfe. This, although
fingle, is fo ftrong a proof, that It might almoft
fuperfede the neceffity of adducing any further
evidence to this point, But let it be further re
marked that
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ie, read ^xQi-
Xetxv XXI le^it; In Apoc. 1 : 6, But the MS 237
reads (ixQixuxv le^ei; only in this verfe,
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, if, read eSiSx^e
rov (ixxxx in Apoc, Ii : 14, But the MS 237 reads
iSiSx^iv rov ^xxxxx In thls paffage. R. Stephens

240 DR. BENSON.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, it, read (^x^Siu.
In Apoc. iv : 3. But the MS 237 reads Qx^Sii»
in this verfe.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, le, read ev xa6'
tv xvrov eyov In Apoc. Iv : 8. But the MS 237
reads IV )ta8' iv eyov only in this paffage.
R. Stephens affirms that his MS, ȣ, read auTa Ta
¦tS6Xi[t,nQxi xxrx ns S^xxovr©^ in Apoc xli : 7. But
the MS 237 reads xvns ¦uroXeiJt.nQxi [not ns) (t,erx {not
KXTx) rs S^xxovr©' In thls vcrfe,
Thefe inftances feem fufficlent to fhew that the
MS 237 is not the MS a of R. Stephens. Others
fhall now be cited to prove that it is not ANY of
the MSS which were ufed by him,
The MS, 237, reads
O Se yxjAnQx; lAepifjivx ra rs Kujia ww? x^etrei rn ywxixi ^{-
j!*£firaf. XXI n ywn in I. Csr. vu : 33, 34,
T(f vy.x; tvexo^ev In Galat. V : 7,
Eyio^iQiv yoi In p.phef. iii : 3,
o 6£(^ iv Xfiru e-xx^iQxro nyiv In Ephef. iv : 32,
El Tl! (^-srXxyxvx In Philippi ii : 1,
^xaSixiix' XXI oQoi ov^ eo^xxxQv in Coloff. ii ; I, Tuf

DR. BENSON. 24!
Tne (rajH^J Ti^wji a-wi^uoTroins'ev nyx; (tw xvru In Coloff,
ii: 13,
EuajEfoi' ev Ku^iw in Coloff. iii : 20,
,AApa XXI ro D. Xey» xv^i©^ 0 Se^^ in ApoC. I : 8,
IlfjiAil'"'' '"''"? ETTTa exxXno'ixi; £15 E(f!croi/ in Apoc. I ; II,
Kxrx Qu' ori—Tr^o<pnri in Apoc. il : 20,
KoAAu^iov ivx eyx^iQn in Apoc. HI : I 8,
Ex^x^xv <pav'/iv yeyxXnv in ApoC. vI : I O,
Kai 'iXivxxvxv ev ru xiyxri Ta xpvis' in ApOC, VlI : I4 ;
ALL which readings are in contradidion to the
text and margin of R. Stephens^
Let it be juft briefly remarked, that the MS
237 reads E,Qfaioi eiQi, xayu' iQpx-riXiTxi «(^i, xxyu'
C,Tci^lJ.x A^^xay eiQi, xxyu' In 2, Cor. xI : 22, with
out any note of interrogation fubjoined to any of
the three claufes of which this verfe is compofed;
But R. Stephens fpecially affirms that all his MSS
fubjoined notes of interrogation to all thefe claufes :
And further, and laSily, that
The MS 237 reads i(3 x'^ixSe; eQ(p^xyi<ryevxi in
Apoc, vii : 8, But R. Stephens dedares that nons
oi his MSS read thefe words in this paflage.
** S Thefe

242 DR. BENSON. ,s
Thefe are fome of the contrarieties, the irrecon- T
clleable difl"enfions, which interpofe themfelves be
tween the MSS now in debate and the margin cff
R, Stephens. They are few in comparifon with
the (^b) number which might be adduced. They
have been feleded rather to fhew the nature of the
variations which decide the fate of this great quef
tion, than their number. If a general and remark
able fimilarity had prevailed between thefe MSS
and the margin of R. Stephens, and thefe recited
variations had been very few and unimportant,
had attached themfelves to his text only (and there
fore had been fuch as R. Stephens might poffibly
have overlooked in his collation) and not to his
margin : all thefe confpiring circumftances might
have left the queftion ftifl at iffue between the ac
cufers and the advocates of R. Stephens. But the
conclufion from the whole of the examination thus
[f) The difcordances herein before ftated are about one hufidred and
thirty only in number, out of more than nineteen hundred which I noted
, from thefe ^zji/ MSS in i7gi. And yet I did not collate the whole of
any of thefe MSS ; being anxious only to coUedl juft fo much evidence
of their identity, or non-identity, as might be compleatly fatisfadory
and convincing. My attention was fpecially turned to the MS No.
106, becaufe it is declared to be R, Stephens's S, not only by Weftein
and Griefbach, but in the printed Index of the Library; naf defifting
from the examination of that MS until more than 700 variations had
been coUefted from it, of which nearly aoo are of a '^ttv decifive
kind.

DR. BENSON. 243
thus made, is, that there exifts no fuch general and
remarkable fimilarity. And the particular varia
tions juft ftated exhibit many inftances, not only
of paflTages where thefe MSS refufe to coalefce
either with the text or with the margin of R. Ste
phens — not only where they fet forth readings ut
terly difconfonant from thofe in which R, Stephens
declares that all his MSS agreed — ^but (which is
the, ftrongeft of all proofs in a cafe like this) where
particular paffages of given MSS had been parti
cularly examined by R. Stephens, where the re
fult of that examination had been fpeclfically
noted by him in his margin, and yet where the MSS
now imputed to him differ totaUy from the par
ticular readings fo fpeclfically noted and recorded.
¦ It feems now expedient to attend to fome diffi
culties which have arifen from a too hafty Inter
pretation of certain expreffions of R. Stephens on
the fubjed of his MSS. And thefe are —
" Refpondeo \effe\ quindeclm relata in bibUotbe-i.
Cam Regiam." (f) And S 2 *' Sunt
(0 In juftice to R. Stephens this defcriptiori Ihall here be ftated
tiiore at large.
'J Tandem eo cupidias in eorum confpelium veniens quo tli'ihi pofiremurti id

244 D R. B E N S O N.
*' Sunt autem cum alia, tum ea omnia qua in Re^^
gis Gallorum bibliotheca extant." {d)
The former of thefe. quotations has been inter
preted into an affirmation, on the part of R. Ste
phens, that he had delivered up the whole of his
Greek MSS into the Royal Library, there to re
main in abfolute property : from whence it has
been argued that, having been thus delivered into
that Library, they muft ftill remain there. But
the former part of this objedion will be removed
at once, by attending to a circumftance in this
cafe, of which the accufers of R. Stephens were
ignorant, or diffembled their knowledge, A few
months antecedent to R. Stephens's, laft appearance^i before
id facere 'videbar, in Concla'vi apud Mathurlnos iwpreffum a me illui
No-vum Teftamentum [fcil. A.D. 1550] offero t pr^fidentibus Gove-
ano et Ruffo inimicifjimis mihi-—Fident Grceca effe, eaque impreffai
confilio nullum fupireffe locum aiitnt. Pofiulant afferri <vetus exemplar, ,
fcilicet in quo legerent. Refpondeo non pofe fieri, quod non unum effet, fed
quindecim relata in bibliothecam Regiam, quE mihi precario data
fuerant  Jubeor fecedere. Renjocor.—Iterum fecedo : iterum et revO'
cor  -Indico, me Regi qu^e dixiffent, relaturum. Poftridie igtiur pro-
ficifcor in Aulatn : 'Novum Teftamentum pro more Regi offero, tar.quam fri-
tnitias, coram Cardinaliius et principibus. Caftellanus — quum iiii red-
tafem quinque articulos, in quorum reprehenfione fe plufquam infulfos fro.ii-
derant, narrat Regi quid facrd ilia Facultas decrenjijfet de tam facro opere.
Mirus rifus fubortus." [Refponf /. 37— 40.]
{d) R. Stephens i Note fubjoined to Bexa's N. Teft. of A. D.
1556-

DR. BENSON. 245
before the Dodors of the Sorbonne, in A, D, 1550
at which time he ufed the expreffions now under
confideration, the King had ordained that aU dif
putes between them, as to his editions of the New
Teftament, fhould be heard and determined by (e)
himfelf in Council, For this purpofe it was re-
quifite that the MSS, from which R. Stephens had
framed his editions, fhould be placed in fome re-
pofitory under the King's immediate controul, in
order that fuch perfons as he fhould fpecially ap
point for their examination, might have conftant
and free accefs to them. Flence, not the eight
alone, ¦which R. Stephens had originally received
from the Royal Library, but the whole fifteen
Greek MSS (/") including the feven which had
been borrowed from different friends, and in dif
ferent places, were properly depofited in the Royal
Library \_quindecim relata in bibliothecam Regiam^
that they might be in readlnefs for fuch examina
tion, R. Stephens would chearfully fend the whole
of his MSS to the Royal Library for that purpofe,
in compliance with the royal command. And the
King would not require him to fend thither, for
guy other purpofe, the feven MSS which did not
S 3 belong
{e) Refponf. ^.35.
(/) Exclufive of the Complutenfian Bible, which was a printed
book.

24^ D R. BENSON.
belong to him. Thus this interpretation of thq
quindecim relata, has not only an eftablifhed fad
for its bafis, as to the royal ordonnance, but com
pleatly concords with the probability of the cafe,
and with the known probity of R. Stephens. For
he, having borrowed eight MSS only from the
Royal Library, would not have returned fifteen
thither, in abfolute donation with refped to the
feven, as the former part of this objedion fuppofes,
and alfo have related that donation to his accufers
with a concomitant confeffion of his own crimi
nality as to thofe MSS {qua mihi precario data
fuerant) In having made fuch return — for no other.
purpofe, as It fhould feem, than to abufe the con
fidence of thofe friends who had lent to him the
feven MSS, and to deprive them of their property,
And, as to the latter part of this objedion, the
collation which has juft been made of thefe MSS
enables me to retort on the objedors their own ar
gument. When thofe MSS were thus delivered
into the Royal Library by R. Stephens, they were
not meant to remain there, nor at any other fubfe
quent time have they ever .been returned thither
with that intention: FOR thofe MSS are not now
in that Library, [g) With
l^g) If a further objeftion fhall be attempted to be raifed on the
word relata, it may be anfwered, that—

DR. BENSON

247

With refped to the latter of thefe quotations,
it feems neceflTary, previous to its difcuifion, to
ftate the whole of R. Stephens's expreflions on
this fubjed. " As to the ancient Greek MSS
[fays be, addreffing himfelf to the readers of Beza'.f
.Greek Tefament) which are very frequently cited
in thefe Annotations, as well thofe which are part
of the French King's Library, as others, — -on this
point the author wifhed you to be informed by me,
that although in the beginning of his work he had
accuftomed himfelf to particularife thefe MSS, by
diftlnguilhing one of them as his firft, another as
his fecond MS, and fo of the reft : yet that he
aifterwards, this mode of denomination being la
borious to himfelf and ufelefs to you, laid it afide,
contenting himfelf with mentioning the number
only of his MSS." [If) There
I. As the Royal MSS compofed a majority of thofe which were
then fent to the Royal Library for the purpofe of this examination,
R. Stephens might, not very improperly, apply an expreffion to the fif
teen, for the fake of brevity, which in ftridnefs belonged only to the
tight. Or
2. As he had undergone one preceding trial and examination, viz.
about the clofe of the year 1547, and therefore after the publication
of his firft Greek Teftament [Refponf. p. 23.] his expreffions ought
perhaps to be thus underftood ; The fifteen Greek MSS are not novj in
my poffeffion. They have been fent to the Royal Library a fecond time
for the purpofe of a fecond examination.
(fi) " Sed quod ad -Vetera Novi Teftamenti Gneci exemplaria attinei, quorum

248 DR. BENSON.
There feems to have been no reafon in the na-<f
ture of the cafe itfelf, why Theodore Beza fhould
not particularife thefe MSS in his New Teftament'.,
of A. D. 1556, as R. Stephens had before done in
his New Teftament of A, D. 1550. (i) But upon ';
the ground of the prefent argument there -was a
reafon in the circuinflances of the cafe which, in
fome fort forbade it, R. Stephens was as ready to
return the Royal MSS to the Royal Library in
1556 as in 1550, if they had been then demanded^
firom hiin. But he undoubtedly wifhed to retain
them, at both thefe periods, as long as he could
confiftently with truth and probity. He feems
therefore to have prevailed with Bc'za to be cons-
tented with the occafional mention of the number
of his MSS \tribus, quatuor, duodecim, feptemdecim,
e. g, ] inftead of defcribing them in detail. And
yet, as he was incapable of a bafe adion, he took
care t® ackno'wled^e plainly enough to thofe who
wer§

quorum fides ei authoriias in his annotationibus fcspiffime citatur (funt
aiitsm cum alia, tum ea omnia qu^ in Regis Gallorum bibliotheca extant)
de hoc te commonefaciendum-piT mz putavit illarum author, fe nimirum,
qu-iim initio ea citare nominatim foleret vocando hoc primum, illud
fecundum, et ita deinceps : poftea ob fuum in ea re cum nulla tua utili'
tate conjunSum tad'tum, iilorum denom'inatione fuperfediffe, enumeration!)
contentum " [R. Stephens^ Note to Beza'j N. Teft. of A, D. 1556.]
(/') He had made a fimilar particularifation in his Latin Teftament
of A. D. i53g— 40,

DR. BENSON. 249
were concerned to reclaim thefe eight MSS, al
though covertly to the world in general, that thofe
MSS ¦were then in his keeping : " ^lum initio ea
[exemplaria] citare nominatim foleret,"
On this ground there appears tb be a fingular
propriety in Beta's requefting this information to
be communicated to his readers by R. Stephens,,
jrather than by himfelf. In any other point of
view it certainly ought to have been given by th^
(luthor of the work, and not by the printer.
From thefe premifes then, Sir, the probability (I
had almoft faid the certainty) of the cafe as to this
depofit of the fifteen MSS in the Royal Library,
and R. Stephens's expreffions concerning them,
feems to ftand thus : — ^That they were fo depOT
fited there for a temporary purpofe — that on fuch
temporary purpofe being fulfilled (in A. D.
1550) the whole fifteen were re-delivered to R.
Stephens, under an engagement to return the
eight Royal MSS when demanded — that no fuch
demand being made, R. Stephens carried the whole
fifteen with him to Geneva in A. D. 1552, but
being ftill mindful of his engagement, and ex-
peding it day by day to be enforced upon him,
he fpoke of thofe MSS in A. D. 1556, not only as

250 DR. BENSON.
as belonging to, but as being then adual com
ponent parts of \_extant in"] the Royal Library;
and that, in fine, the important [k) political affairs
in which France was then engaged, leaving her
rulers but little leifure, and perhaps lefs inclination,
to think of matters comparatively fo infignificant,
no requifitlon was ever made to R. Stephens of
thefe eight MSS, which therefore remained in his
poffeffion until his death in A. D. 1559, and after
wards in the cuftody of his fon Henry, or as it
fliould rather feem, of his friend Theodore Beza,
Thefe confiderations founded chiefly on the
folid bafis oi fads adduced (the affumptions incor
porated with them being few, and thofe obvioufly
arifing out of the fads themfelves) have led*' to,
and they feem abundantly to juftify the conclufion
which has been formed in the preceding pages (/) of

[k) The expulfion of the Englifh powers from France, by the cap
ture of Havre de Grace and Calais, the marriage of Mary Queen of
Scots with the Dauphin, the probable confequences of the marriage
of Philip of Spain with Mary of England, and of the refignation of
Charles the Fifth, would fully engage the minds of the Guifes (whofe
paffion was — not MSS) during the remaining years of i?. Stephens,
And the fudden death of Francis II. together with the turbulent and
bloody fcenes, the mafTacres and civil wars of the two following
reigns, would prevent all future enquiry after thefe MSS,
(/) P. 8, ig4 and 203.

DR. BENSON. 25I
of thefe Letters ; namely, that R. Stephens com
municated his fifteen MSS themfelves to Theodore
Beza. It ftands on very firm foundations. It
holds forth the only plan which can reconcile the
feeming (for with the information which has been
juft ftated they are but feeming) Inconfiftencies
between the declarations of R. Stephens and Beza
relative to thefe MSS. It gives, by fuch reconcili
ation, to the affirmations of Beza their full and
undiminifhed effed. It will not be overturned fo
long as his edition of A. D. 1556, and the Re^
fponfio of R. Stephens, fhall fubfift.
It has been urged, indeed, by Emlyn and Wet
fiein, who have been followed by Grieffach and
others, that Beza acknowledges to have received
a book of Collations of the different readings of
about twenty-five MSS, including thofe of R. Ste
phens ; from whence it is inferred that he never
faw the MSS themfelves. To this argument it
will be fufficlent to anfwer, that the poffeffion of
a book of this kind does not therefore imply the
abfence, or deftltution of the MSS from which that
book had been framed. It was neceffary that a
book of this kind fhould be prepared, not only left
the MSS fhould be fuddenly reclaimed, but for the
f3.ke of eafe and expedition in printing. Tfie MSS muft

S52 DR. BENSON.
muft have been in the cuftody of the collater {R.
Stephens for inftance) when he compofed the (ra)
book of collations from them : and it is not in
cumbent upon us to fuppofe that they vanifhed
out of his hands as foon as he had finlflied his tafk»
Mf Stephens theveiore might, and moft probably did,
deliver to Beza both the MSS themfelves, and the
book of collations taken from them, at the fame time.
But ic Is further afferted by Wetfiein and Griefs
iach, that thefe MSS were not collated by R, Ste
phens, but by Henry, his fon, a boy pf eighteen
years of age, The determination of the perfon,
or perfons by whom thefe MSS wer^ originally
collated, has fo little concern with the great quef
tion in this debate (viz. how long they remained in
fhe- hands of R, Stephens) that this affertion fhould
have been paffed over in filence did not the confi
dence, with which it Is advanced, provoke animad-
yerfion. For if it fhould be admitted that thefe
MSS were originally collated by Henry alone, it
will not follow that they were not afterwards de
livered over to Beza. But the affertion will not
he admitted for the following reafons, I. The
(m) It will foon appear by what perfons thefe collations were pro
bably made.

DR. BENSON. 25 J
1. The ftrongeft claim which Henry lays to the
merit of this fole collation is contained, as Wetffin
not only allows but contends, in the following ex
preffions. " My father printed the New Tefa
ment in Greek collated by my assistance [opera
mea collatum] zvilh many ancient MSS," [n) The
affiftance of Henry in this collation is admitted.
And

'(») " Novum ita Teftamentum Gra:cum cum multis vetuftis ex
emplaribus opera mea collatum, primo quidem mittutioribus typis et
parvo voluminc (ut typographicis utar vocabulis) mox autem grandi-
bus charafleribus et magno volumine, adhibita quanta poterat maxima
typographic magnificentia, excudiffet : quum tandem Bibliorum Con-
cordantlas, non quales prius erant, nee multis duntaxat locis auftis, fed
(ut plane novum opu5 daret) ex ipfis bibliis multorum fcribarum manu
per annuum fpatium edidiffet." [Hen. Steph, Pra2fat, ad Aug. Mar-
lorat. Cathol. Expof. in Genefin, A. D. 1562.]
Another example nvill place this confiruSion of the -words of H. Ste
phens beyond the reach of cavil or contradiiiion.
" Ego autem interea dum (illud vero meum juvenile o-EjWi/oAo-
yniJ-x, leftor, in bonam partem interpretare : et laudem Patris in ore
filii feito ncquaquam pofTe fordefcere) pro eo ac debeo meam ei
OPE RAM una cum aliis multis, in heroico illo ac plane Herculeo opere
navo : libellum hunc paucis horis quasex penfo meo, plerumque etiam
exfomno, fuffurabar." [Hen. Steph. Cieeron. Lex. Introd. Ed. Paris.
a;d. 1557, p. z]
The Herculean =vjork f^opcre] in^ -which H. Stephens lent his affiftance
foperam] to his father, -who had at that time (as it -will foon be con
tended that he had in the prefent cafe like-wfe) the concurrent affiftance of
many other [aliis multis] learned men, -was R. Stephens'.; Greek Thefau-
rus: concerning i^hich Henry ufes thefe further expreffions—''' jam a
multij

254 ^ ^* BENSON*
And he himfelf, qui in fuis fcriptis frequentius fud
laudi fiudet (o) claims no more*
2, That this collation of twenty fivS, or nearly
twenty five Greek MSS of the New Teftament
could be folely made by a boy of the age of
eighteen years, as a fuppofition merely is alto*
gether inadmiffible. There are Greek MSS now
in the Royal Library at Paris (particularly that
marked
multis arinis, fumptibus prope infnitis, ex prJeftantlfKmis linguae GrEecse
authoribus — congeftus et coacervatus."
Nor is this the only inftance in -which the honors of R. Stephens have
been invidioufiy, or erroneoufly, given to Henry, as the folio-wing inftance
'ivill demonftrate. " Rob. Stephanus, qui edidit Diiflionarium feu La-
tinas Linguas Thefaurum— fiiius Henricus patre digniffimus ausit id
ingenti acceffione atque emendavit. Ita ornatum in lucem edicunt
fuit 1542." [Hifi. Crit. Latin, linguee per J, G. Walchium, Ed. Lipf.
I72g.] Henry Stephens, born in 1528, -was only io^tltfci yeats of age'va.
1542. In juftice to Henry it mnft be added, that he does not even claim any
part of the merit o/" /&'j Thefaurus. " Elaboratum a Patre et
edita opera quorum editiones cupio renovare, funt hac duo potiffimum,
Thefaurus Lingues Lat'inee et Diiiionarium Latino Graco Gallicum."
[Hen. Steph. de Typogr. ftatu.] -
{0) Mattaire, p. 485. It is aftonifhing to fee a man of Wetftein^
underftanding infift on fuch a proof as this, and vehemently pronounce
it to be " luce meridiana darius." [Prol, 144 ]— It is furprifing to fee
any underftanding capable of adopting, and repeating the argument.
The other quotations fet forth by Wetftein prove no more than that
which has been juft ftated.

DR. BENSON. 25^
marked No. 102) which would employ any youth
of , this age more than one whole year in their col
lation. And although the MSS, 102, is not one
oi R. Stephens's MSS, yet fome of them at leaft,
it may be believed, would have impofed an equally
arduous tafk on the collater. It appears undoubt
edly, from various informations, that H, Stephens,
under the tuition of his father, acquired very
early a compleat knowledge of the Greek language.
Thus capacitated for t^ie employment, it is no
wonder that the father required, or that the fon
afforded, his afffiance in thefe laborious collations.
But when we are required to fuppofe that Henry
had collated, in his eighteenth year, no lefs than
fifteen Greek MSS of the New Teftament (ex
clufive of the Complutenfian Edition) fome indubi
tably lefs, fome perhaps even more intradable than
the MS juft mentioned, — that R. Stephens's MSS
were not collated by R. Stephens at afl, but that
the tafk of collation was devolved on Henry his
fon, fingly and exclufively, — the requifitlon is not
to be fubmitted to for a moment ; becaufe there is
no valid pretence for the fuppofij:ion, and becaufe
reafon, propriety, and probability are uniformly
againft it. Henry

256 DR. BENSON.
Henry Stephens being thus unequal to the great
work of this collation, it is neceffary to bring for-'
ward fome other moving power which may bd
adequate to the effed. And this power fhall be
furnifhed from Henry s own words, {p)
Over thefe ten learned mien, with the addltioti
of Henry his fon, R. Stephens prefided ; and whilft
fome of thefe eleven affiftants probably difcharged
the duties of Scribes, noting down the variations
which the others didated from the MSS, R. Ste
phens's
{p) Fuit tempus quum [7?o^. 5/^/^aKa/] DECEMVIR,^TUM quendam
literarium domi haberet, cumque ut Trxvroe^vn ita etiam TrxyyXo]!--^
crov. DECEM HI partim literati, partim literatiffmi viri quoriim quidam
correSorio munere fungebantur (iique prsefertim qui epigrammata pof-
tremE ejus editioni Thefauri Latini prsefixcrunt) quum ficut ex di-
verfis oriundi erant gentibus, fic etiam diverfum fermonem vernaculnm
haberent, lingua Latina tanquam communi interprete inter fe utcban-
tur. [Epf. Hen. Steph. praefixa Aul. Gell. Ed. Paris. K.'D, 1585,
p. 13.]
The names of fome of this literary Decemvirate may yet be col-
lefted, viz. Theodoricus Bellovacus, Gulielmus Budisus, Andreas Tiraquel-
lus, .^gidiiis Perrinus, Jacobus Gouplius, La'X.arus Bayfius and Jacobus
Tifanus. And although it cannot be fuppofed that they would
(in faft they did not) all remain with R. Stephens until his voluntary
exile from France in 1552, yet the multorum fcribarum manu, the
al'ns multis, and the fumptibus prope infinitis (paffing over other fimilar
expreffions which might have been cited) of the preceding quotati^
ons, fhew that R. Stephens v/as eonftantly attended by many learned
affiftants.

DR. BENSON, g^y
phens's own pervading eye would fuperlntend, di-
X@Q., and regulate the whole proceeding.
Thi|s it appears that the original collation of his
father'^ Greek MSS of the New Teftament was
effeded by the afffiance only, not the fingle and
exclufive labor, of H. Stephens. There feems, how
ever, to have been a fecond collation of thofe MSS,
and of others, which was alfo reduced into a book,
and is mentioned by Beza In the following terms, [q)
*' In addition to the refi of my materials I bad the
ufe of a printed Copy [exemplar] out ofthe Library
o/* OUR Stephens [the ^ndgaring appellation of
Stephani nofiri mocks the powers of tranflation]
nphich had been very carefully collated with about
twenty-five MSS, and vi;ith almofi all the [other]
printed Editions,"
This printed book was moft probably one of
the Copies of R. Stephens's grand edition of A. D.
1550, interleaved for the purpofe of thefe colla
tions : of which, as Beza has afcribed them to him
in his fecond edition, H. Stephens feems to have
T .had
{q) " Ad haec omnia acceffit exjemplar ex Stephani nqstri biblio
theca, cum viginti quinque plus minus MSS codicibus, et omnibus
pene impreflis, diligentiffime collatum. Qheb res una prae cseteriS
magnopere me fublevavit — " [Piasfat. ad Nov. Teft. A. D. 1556.]

258 DR. BENSON.
had the chief (but not the whole) labor, and the
principal (but not the entire) merit. For although.
Beza arrogates no commendation to himfelf from
this collation, yet his Annotations (r) evince him
to have been feduloufly attentive to it. In this
book, between the time of his return (j-) from his
travels in A. D. 1549 and A. D. 1556, Henry,
with the affiftance of Beza at leaft if not of others,
had not only by degrees ingrafted the various
readings of thofe eight or nine additional MSS
which he had found opportunities of collating in
that interval, and of many of the printed editions,
but had alfo proceeded to gather into the fame ftore-
houfe the gleanings of the original (/) fifteen MSS
of R. Stephens ; with the fond hope of being able,
at fome future period, to prove himfelf worthy of
fuch a father, perhaps with the fecret wifh even to
eclipfe his glory : on the former of -w^hlch fubjeds
he thus fpeaks to Sir Philip Sidney,— r-^'' Pudebat me.

(>¦) " Sic legi^fie invent— fic lego fic difiinguo in omnibus noftris
Grs^cu cov)ic.i^vi— quas vidimus — quos infpeximus &c. — P. 194-5 of
thefe Letters.
(j) The editions of Beza fet forth various readings from R. Ste
phens's 'MSS, which are not noted in his margin. This circumftance,
in itfelf a prefumption, coupled with the expreffions oi Beza (p. 194)
and, ftrengthened by the preceding remarks, becomes a proof, that
the MSS themfelves, and not the collations only of them, were in
the poffeffion of Be»ia, and confequently of H. Stephens.

DR. BENSON- 25q
me, quum Pater meus toties operam etfiudium navaf
fit variis Tefiamenti Novi Graci editionibus, ab illo
ffideri degenerare." And on the latter he makes
this ingenuous confeffion — " Nihilo magis me tam
praclara Patris mei opera, quam olim Themiftoclera
Miltiadis trophceum, finunt requiefcere." (/)
If it fhall be enquired, laftly, what Is become
of thefe fifteen Greek MSS thus left in the hands
, of Beza fingly, or of Beza jointly with Henry
Stephens, the following anecdotes will, perhaps,
furnlfh a competent anfwer to the enquiry. By
the former of them we learn that Beza fold his
Library in his old age to G. S. de Ztffriffel, a Mo
ravian Nobleman then refident at Geneva — that it
was feized on its paffage into Moravia by fome of
thofe marauding parties which infefted Germany
in the war theh fubfifti^— that this fale and
felzure included the MSS of Beza as well as his
printed books, for thefe plunderers afterwards fold,
or perhaps threw afide with negled, a part at leaft
of their pillage, whereby the Fratres Puteani
had an opportunity of recovering Beza's Claro-
montane MS, which they prefented to the Royal
T a Library
(/) Cieeron. Lexicon, Introd. p. I.

^6g) DR. BENSON.
Library at Paris, where it now remains, {u) And
by the latter that H. Stephens, becoming unfor^
tunately deranged in his intelleds towards the clofe
of his days, deftroyed many of his MSS. Thefe
anecdotes fupply a probable account (and more
will not be expeded) of the manner in which the
MSS of R. Stephens yvexje loft, whether they are
fuppofed to have devolved, after his deceafe, to
Henry his fon, or to his friend Theodqre Beza, [v)
I wifli

(a) This anecdote •will perhaps he heft related in the -words of M.
Senebier, (he prefent learned Librarian at Geneva. *' Voici une
anecdote affez curieufe fur la bibliotheque de Be%e. George Sigifmond
de Zafiriffel, Seigneur Morave, etant en penfion chez Theodore de Beze
f ' apperjut que les infirmites de ce vieillard I'empechoient de profiler
de ces livres, il refolut de les acheter, et il en paya fix cent ecus d'or.
II eft tres-vraifemblable que cette bibliotheque fut pillee dans fon
tranfport en Moravie pendant Igs guprres qui defolerent ^ AUemagne ;
et c'eft fans-doute cet pvenement qui a placd dans la bibliotheque da
Due de Saxe Gotha la colleftion de; lettres de Beze & de Calvin qu'on
y trouve : c'eft peut-etre encore ainfi que le fameuxMS du Nouveai?
Teftament, portant le nom de Claromontanum, fut achete en Allemagnf
par les Du Puy ic tranfportc en France."
{v) " II i'eroit a fouhaiterque jes deus MSS, dont nous avons parle
---euflent ete confervez. Henri Etienne, par malheur etant tombe dans
une efpece d'alienation d'efprit fur la fin de fes jours, les lailTa perir
avec beaucoup d'autres, qu'il ne communiquoit a perfonne, pas meme
a fon Gendre Cafaubon." [Bayle, Art. Anacreon, Ed. Rotterd. 1702,
Note L.] I am indebted for this quotation to the ^ev. Joha
Moore.

DR. BeNson, 261
I wifh riow. Sir, to clofe this long, but not uri-
importajit, difquifition concerning the Greek MSS
of R. Stephens; in which, I truft, it is proved
(among other things) beyond the fear of a fe
rious contradidion, that the MSS of Le Long,
Wetfiein, and Grieffach, are not the MSS of R,
Stephens. Independent of the ineffedive imbecility
of the ejiternal evidence againft R. Stephens, the
difcordances before fpecified alone (even if there
were no Others to fupport them) in number more
than competent, in nature decifive, render it an
abfolute impoffibility to belie'Ve that thefe were
the MSS which R. Stephens made ufe of in his New
Teftament of A. D. 1550. They are Counter
feits, on whofe; unrefifting {)ages fome biify and
difhoneft Librarianj or fome other perfon equally
forward and difhoneft, has infcribed forged and
falfe marks of R. Stephens from fome Undue and
improper moti^v'e, moft probably to advance their
reputation by the credit of his iiluftrious name;
but they are Not the MSS of R. Stephens.
It is matter of regret that the clouds,' which
have thus thrown a temporary obfcuration over"
the fair fame of R. Stephens, could not be difli-
pated and difperfed without injury to fome of the
moft valuable editions of the New Teftament now
T 3 fubfifting.

262 DR. BENSON.
fubfiftlng. The depreciation of thofe of Wetfiein
and Griff ach, indeed, is the lefs to be lamented,
becaufe It has been, on their parts, incurred perti-
nacioufly [w) or at leaft by a very great and a very
blameable negligence. But thefe regrets are abun
dantly compromlfed and compenfated to every in
genuous mind by the pleafing refledlon, that
through this inveftlgatlon probity traduced has
been vindicated, and calumniated integrity has
been juftified. The memory of R. Stephens will
now be redeemed to its ancient honors. His name
will be now renovated, and will remain facred to
all pofterity. The hand, which has effeded this
renovation, exults, to record it, and pledges itfelf
to fuftain and to fupport it. And this confcious
fatisfadion Is not leffened by perceiving that the re
fult of this inveftigation, — whilft it reftores R. Ste
phens to the full enjoyment of the approbation and
efteem of thofe who had been taught to hefitate
in their judgement, and almoft to withdraw from
him their good opinion, whilft it afcertains a fad
important to the literary world, whflft it decides, a
queftion highly momentous to all futujre editors
of the New Teftament, — advances at the fame
time,

{iv) They, both, afHrm that they have collated many of thefe
SS ia the R oy al L ibrary.

DR. BENSON 263
time, with almoft equal fteps, toward the efta-
bllfliment of the authenticity of that paffage of
St. John, which is now in debate in thefe Letters,
by difabling the chief impeachment, the only im
portant objedion which is, or can be, brought
againft it ; the alledged njoant, namely, of the tefii
mony of Greek MSS in its fupport*
XXX. " Tet it is infifled upon, that Eraf
mus fpeaks of a Britiff cOpy, which had the
difputed text : and that upon the authority of
that MS, he inferted it in his third and fol
lowing editions ; though he had left it out in
his firfi and fecond editions. But it does not
appear that Erafmus ever faw any fuch thing
himfelf"
M. Simon [x) acknowledges that Erafmus DID
fee the Britifij MS in England. And Wetfiein alfo
admits the fad (affirming, however, the identity
of the Codex Britannicus and Montfortius) adding
that he faw it before he publifhed his firft edition.
(_)') And thefe admiffions might have been pre-
T 4 fumed
{,x) Hift. Crit. du N. T. Ed. Rotterd, A.D. 1689, p. 205.
(j) Prol. p. I 20. Erafmus was in England in the latter part of the
year 1515, and in the month of Auguft in 1516. He alfo declared
his intention of revifiting this country in the Spring of 1 5 1 8. [Eraf
mi Op. Edit. Lugd, 'Vol. iii, p. 149, 197, and Epif ad Hem. Bavar.
4 Nov. 1517.]

^^4 D ft. BENSON.
fumed to have contained the truth, without much
enquiry, becaufe they are the confeffions of ene*
mies, becaufe Erafmus fpent much time in this
country, and becaufe he has quoted this MS in
many other parts of his works. But we need not
leave any thing, even here, to prefumption. Eraf
mus declares that he collated this MS himfelf.
" 'fhe MS WHICH I COLLATED IN ENGLAND,"
(z) are his words when difcourfing on this Britiff
Copy* Indeed if no fuch proof as this could have
been produced, the fame conclufion muft have
been adopted on this fubjed. For to imagine that
Erafmus would ever introduce to the world a MS
which not only thwarted his own private predi-
ledions, but vitiated his two former Editions of
the New Teftament, without being firft indubitably
fatisfied of its exiftence, — is a fuppofition alto
gether

4 Nov. I 517-] See alfo the following qtlotation. " Narravi itli
[fcil. Leo] in familiari colloquio me, cum efle m in Aitglia, tum primum
ac recens editio Novo Teftamento, reperiffe" — [Refp, ad Leum, p,
160.] (z) " In codice, unde contuli in Ar\^i3., fuife fcriptum, ny-x^ro[*lv
pro rtfJi.xP'tov^^'* [viz, in Rom. v : 12.]
Collationis negotium peregeram in Anglia, et in Brabantia. Eraf-
¦mi Op. vol. ix, p. 986,
" ^tedam annotaram in Britannia — "[In Luc. xiii : 34.]
" At ego illi Rhodienfi oppono tot vetufta exemplaria qute nos vidimus
fartim in Anglia, pcartim in Brabatitia~~"[ln 2, Cor. ii : 3.]

DR. BENSON. 26^
gether InadmiflSble ; becaufe it violates every ruld
of probability, and is repugnant to common fenfe.
XXXI. " It appears that he [Erafmus]
had a bad opinion of it — [the Britiff MS] For
he fays, I fufped that copy to have been cor-
j7=' reded by ours ; that is, from the latin copies'*
The words of Erafmus are' — "' ^tanquam et
hunc fufpicor cdf Latinorum codices fuiffe cafiigatum"
The evidence however, as far as it can be now col
leded, fs diredly adverfe to Erafmus in this matter.
The Latin MSS univerfally read Spiritus fandus^
the Holy Spirit, in this Verfe : but the Britiff MS
of Erafmus read therein -jsviv^kx, the Spirit, only,
without the diftinguifhing epithet of (ayioi/) Holy,
This difference, although of a fingle word aloncj
is too ftrongly marked to permit any fuppofition
of one of thefe authorities having been correded
by the other.
But even if no proof could have been brought
in oppofitlon to it, furely to advance a charge of
this kind, unfupported by any evidence, or by any
thing like evidence, (a) favoured more of pre
tence
ia) Erafmi Op. vol, X. p. 352, [Appendix, No. i.]

266 D R. B E N S O N.
tence than fincerity; and was unworthy of a
writer much Inferior to Erafmus. It is incum
bent upon all authors, in all fuch cafes, openly to
relate their fufpicions (if they have any) and can
didly to affign their reafons for entertaining them ;
that the reader may judge for himfelf, as to the
degree of credit which they ought to receive from
him. It was efpecially incumbent upon Erafmus
to have done thus in the prefent Inftance, becaufe
he was then in the ad of retrading that imputa
tion of impofture, which his condud had firft
caufed to be thrown upon this Verfe. At fuch an
hour as that, for Erafmus to hint fufpicions with
out proof, and to hefitate diflikes without expla
nation, gives his readers but too much reafon to
confider him as determined to caft fome imputa
tion upon the MS, whicji hadfo mortified him ; al--
tho' impotent of the means to cenfure it with effed.
Attempts of this nature often prejudice the caufe
which they were meant to ferve. The prefent
may at leaft convince us of the reality of the exift-
ience of this MS at that time ; and of its contain
ing the Verfe in queftion. Had there been the
fmalleft room to doubt either, the fentence, juft
quoted from Erafmus, would have fpoken a very
different language. xxxii.

DR. BENSON. 267
XXXII. " And he [Erafmus] plainly ac-^
I yknovoledges , that what induced him to infert the
. .f'' difputed text, wias, ne fit anfa calumniandi,
'that be might not give a handle to any to call
him an Arian, or fufped him of herefy''
I have, Sir, in a former [b) letter, given my
fentiments, with fome freedom, on the condud of
Erafmus, refpeding this Verfe. It was there ob
ferved that " if he were really poffeffed of five
ancient MSS In which this verfe had no place, and
had thought it his duty to expel it accordingly
from his two former editions, he ought not {c) to
have reftored it in his third edition upon the bare
authority of a fingle MS :" and that It feemed
" impollible to account for the behaviour of Eraf
mus, in this matter, taking the whole of it into
contemplation at once, but upon one of thefe fup-
. pofitions : Either he could not produce the ivre MSS
{d) in which he had alledged the verfe to be omit ted;
[h) Page g,
. (f) I am not fingular in this opinion. " Non refte fecit quod es
illo uno codice Grseco quern corruptura fufpicatur, corrupit ilia addi-
tione Grascos alios codices, quos integros et incorruptos invcnerat,
fiquidem addidit Gnecis illam editionem," [Bugenhagius in expof. Jonte.
Ed. W'itteb. A.D. I sso]
{d) It is remarkable that Erafmus never fpeaks out on the fubjeift of
his Greek MSS. His determined referve in thij matter fometimes throws

t6B D R, BENSON.
ted; or he had other authorities, much fuperiof to tfid
teftimony of a fingle MS, for replacing the verfe,
which he was not, ho^Wever, ingenuous enough to
acknowledge." Now how far it might have been
in his power to fulfil the former of thefe alterna^l
fives, is not, perhaps, for the prefent age to de-;
termine. But this may fortunately be now deter
mined ; namely, that Erafmus had Other authori
ties, much fuperior to the teftimony of a fingle
MS, for replacing the verfe, and that he was not
ingenuous enough to aeknowledge them. For, in
dependently of^-the authority of Jerome, who de
clares his Tranflation to have been made according
to the Greek MSS, who accufes certain Latin Tran
flators of unfalthfulnefs for having left this verfe
out of their copies (for Erafimus believed the pre- .
face, which contains this complaint,* to have been '
the genuine work of Jerome) — independently of at
leaft fome part of the authorities, which have
been ftated in the preceding pages (for Erafmi\ was
throws him into fituations whimfically abfurd, as in the follovving
inftance. " ^orum [viz. Greek MSS] nonnulla [how many ?] Car*
dinalis quidam [who \\ Roma fecum adduxerat, cum illic effet Synodus
[what ?] et in itinere moriens [where ?] legavit totam bibliothecam, que
Greeca erat, Monafterio Cartufienfium [at what place ?] ac deprehenii
quofdam Greecas codices [which, and how many ?] ad noftros effe cafti-
gatos, quo de numero fufpicor [why, and on what grounds ?] effe Rhodi-
titfem ilium." [Erafm. in 8. Cor. ii : p. 333.]

DR. BENSON. 269
was a learned man, and could not be ignorant [e)
of them all) — independently of thefe, Erafmus lay
under an obligation almoft peculiar to himfelf, ari-
fing from the authority pf the MSS of L. Valla,
to re-place the verfe in queftion. He had, juft
eighteen ye^rs before the publication of this Edi
tion of A. D. 1522, obtained poffeffi.on of the then
unpublifhed Commentary of Z. Valla. The Greek
MSS, on which it was founded, were no lefs Aar;
feven in niimber ; and this verfe feems tohavepof^
feffed its place in them all. In the exultation of
his mind, arifing from this acquifition, Erafmus
firft communicated his difcovery to his learned
friend and correfpopdent, Fifcher ; and then in the
fame year, A. D. l$o$, publifhed this Commen
tary, or permitted it to be publifhed, froir^ the
prefs of Jodocus Bcidius at Paris.
As the two affirmations juft made — that Valla
had feven Greek MSS of this Epiftle of St. John,^
jind that this verfe was found in them all — are in
Jhenjfelves difput.able, ^nd withpu^ explanation doubtful,
{,«) Erafmus was not ignorant of them all ; fof he has quoted thq
works of Cyprian, Walafrid Strabo, Hugo Charenfis, Lyranus and Aqui
nas, by whom this verfe (as hath been before proved) is cited as an
authentic part pf the facred Canon. [See his N. Teft. of A. D,
J1522, paffim.l

270 DR. BENSON.
doubtful, It is requifite to beftow fome attentlp^
upon them before any furtlier progrefs be attempted
in the argument. Let it then be remarked
1. Th&i Valla did poffefs feven Greek MSS as
the leaft. He affirms the fad in his annotations
on John vii : 29, 30, And as the expreffions,
which he ufes in another part of his commentary,
are general [f) he might have accefs occafionally
to a ftiU greater number. Without contending,
however, for any greater number, it is not only
poffible, but probable that thefe feven MSS did all '
contain this Epiftle of St. John. For w^hen prefTed
by Ley with the authority of Valla's feven MSS in
fupport of this verfe, Erafmus tried to bear down
the argument by affirming (^) that his MSS were
more than feven which did not fet forth the paffage.-,,
The weight of the argument would have borne |
lefs heavily upon Erafmus, if he could have light-'?
encd it by objeding that any of thofe feven MSS of

{f) Tres codices Latinos et totidem Grsecos habeo cum hsec com-
pono j et nonnunquam alios codices confulo" [In Matt, xxvii : 22.]
(g) " Oh']\dt Leus Vallam, qui vir alioqui diligens, hujus rei' non
meminerit, hand dubium quin admoniturus fi quid comperiflet difli-
dere. Non hie refpondebo Laurentium hominem fuiffe, ac fieri potu-
iffe ut ilium aliquid fuffugerit : tantum illud dicam, mihi diverfis
temporibus plura fuiffe exemplaria quam fiptem, nee in ullo horum re-
pcrtuin quod in noftris legitur." [Erafm, contra Leum, p. 275 -J

DR. BENSON. 271
of Valla did not contain the Epifile. But he does
not even breathe an infinuation of that kind. Ha
bituated as he was to defenfive argument, and maf
ter of all its arts, it is not to be fuppofed that he
did not fee this advantage. And it is not to be be
lieved that he would not have made ufe of it, if
he could have done fo with truth. From whence
it is not unfair to infer that he, who was the Edito r
of Valla's MS, had found fome notes prefatory or
annexed to the work, fignifying that thefe feven
MSS did contain the firft Epiftle of St. Jobn. And
let it be obferved
2. That the MSS of Valla, whatever their num
ber might be, did certainly exhibit this verfe.
Vallds plan, as Erafmus allows {h) was to mark
in his Annotations thofe paffages in which the
Vulgate, then received, differed from the Greek,
The Vulgate of Valla's age did, and indeed very
long {i) before his age had, fet forth both the fe
venth
(h) " Laurentius— vertit ea loca qua; damnat ut male reddita a
Latino interprete." ^Apol. adv. Debacch. Sut. p. 753.] With thi«
honeft acknowledgement he ought not to have faid in another place,
•' .^/i^ Laurentius legerit, non fatis liquet."
{i) " Pour ce qui eft de I'auteur du Correllorium de Sorbonne, il
n'eft pas furprenant qu'il I'ait lue dans fon edition Latine avec le paf
fage dont il eft queftion [Jeromes Preface, and the verfe I. John
V : 7] puis qu'il ne pent avoir compile fon ouvrage que vers le dixi- eme

37* DR. BENSON*.
venth and eighth verfes of this Epiftle of St,
John. Erafmus admits [f) this to have been at
that time the Bible of the Churches and ofthe
Schools, of the learned and of the unlearned :
which is further proved (if it fhould need any
further proof) by the Moguntine Edition, the firft
printed Bible w^hich the world ever faw, which
was publifhed at Mentz in A, D. 1450, and there^
fore fifteen years before Valla's deceafe, and which
contains both thefe verfes. And Valla's annotation
compleatly concords with every part qf this argu
ment. It ftands thus ; " Grace efi ei? ro ev iktiv" in
unum funt. His annotation is on the final claur
fule of the eightl\ -verfe, in which the GreeV
MSS vary from the Vulgate, which reads unum
funt only. He correded the Latin of the eighth
verfe by the Greek. That of the feventh verf^
required, and therefore received, rio corredion.
Thefe premifes, then, being admitted (and it
feems that they cannot with propriety be denied) w
cme ficcle. Or il eft certain qu'cn ce temps-la il y avoit peu d'exem^
plaires Latins du Nouveau Teftament ou la Preface^et ce paflage ne
fe trouvaflent, puis qu'on les y avoit inferes des le temps de Cparle-
MAGNE." [Simon, Hift. Crit. des Yc^ons, C. ix,]
{k) " Cum altera tranflatio locum habeat Templls, in Scholis, qi)<
^eri potuit ut non hanc maxime formulis fuis propagent typographi J".
— [Erafm. contra Leum, p. 280.]

DR. BENSON. 273
it will follow that Erafmus had the authority of
EIGHT Greek MSS, inftead of one (which alone
he held forth) for reftoring the verfe. For he had
in his own Apology, in A. D, 15 16, mentioned
the number of Vallds Greek MSS to be feven, al
though he was at that time fecretly meditating the
expulfion of this verfe from the- text of St. John,,
in dired contradidion to them all.
Nor Is this the only inftartce of dlfirigenuouf-
nefs, which is difcoverable in the condud of Eraf
mus refpeding this verfe. He omitted It, as hath
been before ftated, in his Edition of the New Tef
tament of A. D. 1516; and, as it appears but too
plainly, upon the authority of one MS alone. (/)
In A. D. 15 1 8, he publiflied his Treatife, entitled
Ratio vera Theologia, which he dedicated to Car
dinal Chryfogoni : wherein he eites in ferious ar
gument, and as a legitimate portion of Scripture,
U this
(/) Siquidera in epiftolis Apoftolicis, cum primum ederetur Novum
Teftamentum, unicum, mihi aderat exemplar sed venerandse anti-
quitatis mireque caftigatum, quod cum frequenter a me citatur in An-
notati9nibas, demiror cur hie Stunica meam defiderat diligentiam.'*
[Erafm. contra Stunicam, p. 323 ]
" In prima Siquidem Novi Teftamenti editione, qua; prodiit anno
1516, tantum haec annotaram in hunc locum : In Grmco codice tan.'
tum hoc reperio de teftimonio triplici, ^ioniam tres funt qui tfiificantur
fpiritus, aqua et fanguis Sec, nec prasferens Grscam leftionem, nec
noftram taxans." [Apol. Adv. Monachos, p. 1031.]

274 I> R« BENSON.
this {m) Identical verfe which, only two years be-«
fore, he had expelled from the very text of the
New Teftament ! Nor is this all. For in the
next fucceeding year he condemned the verfe again,
by leaving it out of his New Teftament of that
year. And yet he continued but a fhort time even
in that refolution : — for he not only wrote an ani
mated paraphrafe on this verfe (n) in A. D. 1521,
but reftored it, finally, to its place in his next Edi
tion of the New Teftament, in A. D. 1522.
The fads then being thus clear, there feems but
one confiftent method of accounting for this in
congruity of condud in Erafmus; which is, to
fuppofe that he became a profelyte to Arianifm,
not before A. D. 1505, but in fome part of the
interval betvv^een that year and A.D. 1516. In
A. D. 1505 then, not having at that, time Imbibed
the tenets of Arianifm, Erafmus gave to the world,
in the commentary of L. Valla, the teftimony of
feven Greek MSS in favor of the authenticitv of
this verfe. In A. D. 151 6, having fuffered that
leaven to enter into, and to ferment within his'
mind,
(m) Appendix, No. xxxvii.
(k) " Quoniam et Spiritus Veritas eft, quemadmodum Pater et Fiiius ;
una eft omnium Veritas, quemadmodum una eft omnium natura. Tres
funt enim in ccelo qui teftimonium praibent Chiifto, Pater, Sernio et
Spiritus ; atque horum trium fummus eft confenfus."

DR. B E N S O Ni 275
mind, in a long interval of eleven years ; he ex
pelled this verfe from the text of his New Tefta
ment. But he ventured on this expulfion, as it
, feems, under a fecret fear of a fevere attack, on its
account, from the Chriftian world in general ; for
which the commentary of L. Valla itfelf would
furnlfh no inconfiderable weapons : which fear ap
parently induced him to provide fome means of
retreat, in cafe of neceffity, by bringing this verfe
forward again in A.D, 151 8, in his Ratio vera
Theologia. In A, D. 1 5 1 9 he hazarded a fecond
expulfion : but ftill fearful, as it feems, of the ar
gument deducible from Valla s MSS, he gave up
the whole conteft formally and finally, but ftill in
a moft unchearful and difingenuous manner, in
A. D. 1J22.
Thus then. Sir, may the whole condud of
Erafmus in this matter (which you have attempted
to dignify by the appeUation of prudence) be ac
counted for at leaft, and explained : — that mean-
nefs of which, upon the face of his own apology,
he was guilty ; that departure from truth with
which, when the fads are fully confidered, he
feems to be juftly chargeable ; his hafty expulfion
of the verfe, and his fullen re~admiffion of it ; his
confeffion of one MS alone in favor of this verfe,
TJ 2 when

276 DR. BENSON.
when, as it feems, he ought to have acknowledged
eight ; and his impotent attempt to depreciate even
that one, by charging it with having been correded
by the Latin copies, although he did not attempt
to produce a fingle inftance of fuch corredion, ia
proof of the charge fo alledged.
This condud of Erafmus feems, in fome re
fpeds, to have been the caufe, and in others the
confequence, of his having been feduced, by pre
conceived prejudices, to affign an incompetent,'
and apparently an untrue, motive for his reftora
tion of this verfe in A. D. 1522. And this con
dud feems to juftify the cenfure caft upon him by
Wetfiein, which is the more fevere becaufe it falls
from a friend, and fellow-advocate. " // is an al-
mofi intolerable thing (fays he) in Erafmus, that he
•will frequently try to ffelter himfelf (0) under ex-
cufes, which are even idle, and difhoneft, rather
than make an ingenuous confeffion of a fault ^^ or a,
viifiake." XXXIII. " A MS has been referred to,
which is now lodged in the Library belonging a
tQ
(0) Illud denique in Emtmo minime ferendum eft, quod fcepe excufati-
enib-js parum idoneis nec fatis hon f tis uti, quam erroris calpam fimpUcitSf '
fateri, msluerit," [Wetfiein, Proleg. p. 124.J

DR. BENSON. 277
io the Univerfity of Dublin. And Wetfiein
reckons that MS to be what Erafmus calls Co
dex Britannicus''
The Dublin MS is not the Codex Britannicus of
Erafmus ; — becaufe (as Dr. Benfon confeffes in ano
ther {p) place) the latter reads nvevfAx only, the for
mer xyiov Trvivfji.x, 111 the fevcuth verfe, and becaufe,
in the eighth verfe, the article ol is placed before
{/.x^rvpuvre; in the MS of Dublin ; but the fame ar
ticle is not found at all in the Codex Britannicus.
It is impoffible that the fame MS fhould, In the fame
given paffage, differ from itfelf ; or, in other words,
be thefiame, and yet not thefiame MS.
XXXIV. " The learned author of The Me
moirs of the Ufe and writings of Dr. Water-
land (p. 79) gives this account of it. The
Dublin MS now has it [that is, the difputed
text f\ voritten (as I am told, by one who has
feen it) in a differeift hand (as all the Epifiles
are) from the refi of the MS.
J have been favored by the learned Dr. Wilfion, of
{p) Note on page 640. See alfo Appendi.x No. i : and let the fol
lowing words of Erafmus be repeated. " hi codice'unde contuli in Ang-
Vu fuiffe fcriptum n^x^rofAev pro nf^x^rov." But the Dublin MS reads
ni^xprovf and not n[Ji-xproi/,ev, in this paffage.

278 DR. BENSON.
of the Univerfity of Dublin, with the following
account of this MS : which diredly contradids
the affertion, thus brought from the writer of the
Memoirs of Dr. Waterland.
" The Dublin MS, as exadly as I can form an
opinion, is written by the same hand. In
the Gofpel of St. Matthew the letters are fmaller,
and the lines more flender, than in the other parts
of the MS. In the reft of the whole volume
the letters are uniformly larger, but io fimilar as to
indicate the same Scribe. It abounds in con-
tradions. There are no rasures,
" The Scribe, when he had immediately difco
vered an erroneous letter or fyflable, drew a line
acrofs the miftake, and ftraightway fubjoined the
word corredly written. When the error was not
obferved until the paragraph, or page, was con
cluded, the corredion is exhibited in the margin ;
the faulty word croffed, yet ftill legible. But fome
of thefe corredions, thus noted in the margin,
feem to have been made when the whole work
was concluded ; becaufe, in them, the ink is much
blacker than in the text, having acquired, by ftand
ing longer, a deeper tinge.

DR. BENSON. 279
" It Is written with accents, and fpirlts. The
Ads are placed after the Epiftles of St.'"Paul.
" 2. The contested verse is, indifputably,
WRITTEN BY THE SAME PERSON who wrote the
rest of THE PAGE, and the rest of the epis
tle. This, on infpedion, will appear felf-evi-
dent and inconteftible.
" 3. As to the antiquity of the MS, I am In
capable of giving a decided opinion, further than
as follows. That it preceded the sera of Printing
feems very clear, from its having many readings not
found in any edition prior to Stephens ; therefore
not a tranfcrlpt from any of them. But I do not
think that it can be carried higher than a century,
or two at the- utmoft, before the invention of
Printing. For it is certainly written on thick, po-
lllhed paper, which Tcard miftook for parchment.
Now no paper records have been difcovered ante
rior to the clofe of the twelfth century, as I find
in the Ada Leipfienfia. It was, therefore, a tranf
crlpt from fome MS now perhaps loft ; and on
that account claims the authority of an original.
Whether correded, and compleated according to a
l^atin copy, is more than I know."
U 4 I havs

aSo DR. BENSON.
Before fuch authority as this, the telling of Dr.
Benfon, who is told by the Author of certain Me
moirs, who is told by one who has no name, that
this text is written in a different hand from the reft
of the ilC,— vanifhes into nothing.

I have hitherto tranfcribed the account given to
me by Dr. Wilfon : and from a perfonal examina
tion of the MS, taken fince the clofe of my cor
refpondence wkh him, I am enabled to declare the
very great corrednefs of the preceding ftatement,
fave as to the obfervation about contradions ; which
it exhibits, but not abundantly. I make myfelf
refponfible for the few additions which are about
to be made to Dr. V/ilfon's defcrlption, and for the
reafonlngs upon them.
It is certainly written upon paper, and not upon
vellum, becaufe the marks of the wires of the
molds, upon which paper is made, are plainly dif-
cernible in it. (^)
The whole of the MS is evidently written by
the fame perfon. Taking every circumftance into
confideration, this copy feems to have been made in
(y) 'M.x, Richard Nun, a' very intelligent manufafturer of Paper in
Dublin, was called in to determine this faft.

D R. B E N S O N. 28 1
jn the fourteenth century. But it Is not to be
Ughtly efteemed on that account. Every MS of
the New Teftament now fubfifting is moft pro
bably a copy from fome anterior copy. The auto
graphs of the Evangelifts or Apoftles, and they
alone, ean be termed originals ; and they have aft
perifhed by the effeds of time and accident. The
copy, then, from whence the Dublin MS was
taken, might have been as ancient as any Greek
MS now fubfifting. There is good reafon to be
Ueve that It was very ancient, becaufe the vowels »
and u are written throughout the MS, with double
points placed over them : which method of point
ing, by the teftimony of Montfaucon (r) the moft
competent of all men to decide a queftion of this
nature, fhews a MS to be more than a thoufand
years old. This is a ftrong prefumption in favor
of the antiquity of that copy, from which this Dub
lin MS was taken. From what fiill more ancient
copy that antecedent copy was framed, or whether
it was taken in part at leaft, from the autographs
of the Evangelifts and Apoftles themfelves, is uot
to be determined by the prefent age, any more than
it can decide the fame queftions as to the Alexan^
drine, or the Cambridge MS. I have the fame
right. Sir, to contend on one fide of the queftion
as any perfon can have on the other : and I ara
not
(a-) PalaograpBa Gneca, Ed, Paris. A, D. 1708, Lib, i. p. 33.

282 D R. B E N S O N
not fearful of encountering any ferious rebuke,
when the^ fubjed fhall have been fully confidered,
for this ftatement of this part of the argument.
The controverted paffage is exadly reprefented
by the oppofite Facffmile,
XXXV. " It appears thence probable, that
that part of the MS has been added fince the
time of Archbffop Uffer. In whofe collations
it [the verfe in queftion] Is not found"
The premifes, from whence the former part of
this objedion Is drawn, having been juft difproved,
the former part of this conclufion muft confe
quently fall to the ground. And, as to the latter
part of it, — the verfe i, John, v : 7 does not ap
pear, It is true, in the collations which Archbifhop
Uffer made of this MS, becaufe he did not live to
carry thofe collations beyond the firft chapter of
the Epiftle to the Romans.
This circumftance Is evident from the Proleg
omena [s) of Dr, Mill : which, however, Dr, Ben fon
(j) Mr'//. Proleg. ig7g-8o. This circumftance is further afnrmed
by a Memorandum of Dean Tcard, prefixed to this MS : *' The read
ings of this MS were not gathered, but to the 22d of the AEts of the
Holy Apoftles, and thofe of the firft chapter of the Epiftle to ihsRomans."
[See alfo Wetfieitis Proleg. p. 52, and Ernlyns Reply, C. v. p. 269.]

1/ \ I r s 1 1
KOA "ro TTVd- <t5T TVJ-cZip //
TV/Oooo ow'' 0 )^f sepf rf AH&ifa ¦ oW Tf^is clexy ot W-pio '
jOotM/r i\t Tip (JO^fov'TH/a, A<?for, )<jW Trf* ctl'Of .»
>^ "T C ^ i:/ > v..-! --> 7 ' C
^J'- y^ n }y <tn }^'> ^
fi/zLuA' tv TM yu I TTVrt.^ Vd*<<y0i l<itl (XXXMX i

D R, BENSON. 2^^
fon has endeavoured to conceal from his readers.
He did not chufe to communicate to them that
part of Dr. Mill's account of this MS, which fup
ported its reputation and charader ; although he
ufes all hafte (as will appear in the next fucceeding
extrad) to ftate thofe parts of his Prolegomena at
length, which tended to depreciate the verfe.
XXXVI. " Dr. Mill fays. It is written in
ei modern and carelefs hand ; with fome things
blotted out, and others interpolated"
It feems moft probable that Dr. Mill, and Mr.
Caffy, had never feen this MS. Dean Tcard'%
account, who had feen It formerly, and Dr. Wil-
fon's defcrlption, who has lately infpeded It (to
which I beg leave to add my own teftimony) ad
mit the blottings out and interpolations, but ex
plain them in a manner the moft honorable to the
Copyift. " The Writer (fays Dean Ycard) has
not taken plains to make fair writing. He has
often greatly negleded his hand; and, what is
very dlfagreeable to the eye, but is neverthelefs the
mark of integrity in a Tranfcriber, is, that when in
copying he perceived any word, or words, to have
been omitted by him, he erafed thofe which he
had written [fubfequent to the omiffion] and re
placed

2% DR. BENSON
placed them In the body of the work, after he hacj
inferted therein what he had before omitted." {w)
Blots and interpolations may be marks of haftg
in the Copyift ; but they are not certain proofs of
inaccuracy in the MS Itfelf, It is morally impoffi
ble, that the tranfcriber of fo large a book as the
New Teftament fhould travel through his tafk
without falling into errors, without committing
miftakes. And if upon revifion he fhould decline
to blot or to interpolate, left he fhould be faid not
to have " taken pains to make fair writing," the
outward fairnefs of his work would Ul atone fo?
^ts internal errors and defeds.
Thus far as to this charge of blots and interpor
lations, in general. Let it be finally remarked, as
to this verfe in particular, that it is neither blotted
nor interpolated ; but Is written in the body of the
page, and In the fame fair uniform hand with the
reft of the MS.
XXXVII. " Mr. Caffy calls it a modern
MS, probably tranfiated, or correded, frorn
the Latin Vulgate" That
(w) Martins La Verite, Partii. C. J 2.

DR. BENSON. 28^
That this Copy is probably not four hundred
years old, has been already admitted ; although it
has been contended at the fame time that fuch ad
miffion, abftradedly confidered, detrads not from
its authority.
As to the fuppofed corredion or tranflation from
the Latin Vulgate, if the charge were meant to be
brought againft this MS generally, it is the lan
guage of mere conjedure, and therefore deferves
no attention. But if it were intended to charac-
terlfe the paffage i. John v : 7, 8 In particular, the
-obfervation is not juft. For the Dublin IVIS does
not contain the final claufule of the eighth verfe,
which the quotations herein before brought from
Durandus, Hugo Charenfis and St. Bernard fhew
to have anciently ftood in the Vulgate of Jerome :
and the words of Facundus prove the fame point
as to the old Italic Verfion. [x)
XXXVIII. " / would have truth take
place, on which fide fqever it falls"
If Dr. Benfon, inftead of raking together every
thing that hath been faid, however miftakenly, by
Mill
[^x) Page 22 — 5, and 107 of thefe Letters, and Appendix No.
viii, ix, and xii.

lS6. DR. B E N S O Ni
Mill and Cafiey, in prejudice of the MS In qiifef-
tion, and preffing that fide of the argument alone^
had thought fit at the fame time to have given to
the world -What Martin and Tcard had urged In
favor of its antiquity and authority ; his pradice!
would have done as much honor to this declara
tion, as it now refleds difgrace upon iu
XXXIX. " Again ; we have been referred
to another MS, isohich is in the King of
Pruffds Library, at Berlin. That MS has^
indeed, the difputed text. But then it is ac
knowledged to be a late tranfcrlpt from a
printed Greek Tefament, and, particularly,
from the Complutenfiap. edition ; which the ig--
norant tranfcriber bas^ followed fo clofely, as
to copy exadly and without variation, even the
very errors of the Printer."
This MS was purchafed upwards of a century
ago, at a high price, by Frederic WiUiam the Great,
Eledor of Brandenburgh, and was believed to be
very ancient, not only by the learned of that age
in general (as by the Librarian Hendreichius,, by
Saubertus, Profeflbr of Divinity at Helmfiadt, by
ToUius, and by the great Orlentalift Jablonffi, at
Bcrl'iii) bat by the famous Spanheim. On

DR. BENSON, aSj
On the other hand M. V. La Cro^e, the Royal
Librarian at Berlin in the beginning of the prefent
century, in a letter written A. D, 1720, and pub
lifhed by Mr, Emlyn in his conteft with Mr, Mar
tin, affirms this MS to be a late tranfcrlpt from the
Complutenfan Edition. " I wonder, ffys he, that
our MS, a book of no authority, fhould be al
ledged in confirmation of a dubious reading, after
I have already made it manifeft to many learned
men, and to Mr, Martin himfelf, that this book,
although fold by au artful impoftor for an ancient
MS, and boafted of accordingly. Is only a late
tranfcrlpt from the Complutenfian Edition : and this
I PERCEIVED AT ONCE, when I formerly viewed
this Library as a ftranger, and before I had any in
tentions of fettling at Berlin ; and I made this de
claration openly to Hendreichius, now dead ; and
ever fince this Library has been entrufted to my
care, I have candidly declared the fame to all per
fons, nor is Mr. Martin ignorant of It." — In an
other part of the fame letter La Croze fays, " He
who has feen the Complutenfian Edition, has alfo
feen our MS, without excepting even the very
errors of the Printer, which the ignorant tran
fcriber has followed fo clofely, as to make it abfo
lutely certain that fome illiterate copyifi was em
ployed

288 DR. BENSON.
ployed by fome learned cheat, in order to accoiri*
plifh this impofture."
In another le'tter, much anterior In point of datfi
to this which has juft been abftraded, the fame La
Croze fays (with a forwardnefs which indicates
that he had taken his fide, and that the fate of the
verfe in queftion was not indifferent to him) among
other things : (j/)
" I read yesterday Dr. Mill's Differtatlon
tipon the paffage of St John ; and found there
ALMOST aU that I had thought upon the fame
fubjed. All the ancient Greek and Latin MSS,
in reckoning up the three [three !] Witneffes,
mention only the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood.
There is no account to be made of our Greek MS
of the New Teftament ; it is a work v/hich, al
though it has deceived many, I never thought
above eighty years old. In the year 1696, upon
coming to Berlin this MS was fhewn to me as be
ing a thoufand years old. After having examined
it a moment, I maintained that it was modern, and
copied fi-om the edition of the Bible of Cardinal
Ximenes. I convinced the late Mr. Spanheim, and
the then Librarian, by a comparifon of paffages, the
(j) Emlyrh Reply, p. 286.

DR. BENSON. 289
the refemblance of charaders, and other fenfible
proofs. The paffage of the Three Witneffes is
there word for word as in the Bible of Alcala,
and it could not be there otherwife. The ancient
Fathers have [z) never made ufe of fo re-
' markable a paffage. The Ledlonary, entitled
Aitas-oK©', in my opinion is of no great authority
in this cafe. I do not dOubt its antiquity ; but
thefe ecclefiaftlcal Books are more fubjed to al
terations than others."
Such teftimony as this (to fay nothing of that
air of felf-fufficiency, which appears in almoft
every line of it) carries fufpicion in its counte
nance. There can be but fmall doubt of the then
Eledor having taken the opinions of the moft
learned men of his Court and Country, as to the
antiquity of this MS, antecedently to his purchafe
of it ; and of their having given their fentiments
in its favor, after having tried it by the beft exa
mination in their power. There can be no doubt
of this MS being well known to Hendreichius, be-
X caufe,
(z) M. La Croze, it feems, had heVer confulted the authorities
ftated in the former part of thefe letters, which direftly deftroy this
aflertion } or he would never have made it. He was certainly a
very learned man. But the manner in which he conduced himfelf,
as to this verfe, merits the fcvereft reprehenfion.

^9° i)R. BENSON,
caufe, as the Eledoral Librarian, he had it undet
his care many years ; to Saubertus, becaufe he has
fet forth nearly two hundred various readings from ,
it in his commentaiy on the Gofpel of St, Mat
thew ; to Tollius, becaufe he is cited in relation to
it by Le Long ; to JaUonfki, becaufe he was con
fulted by Kettnef on the fubjed, previoufly to his
publication ; and to Spanheim, for La Croze affirms
that he convinced Spanheim of its being an im
pofture. It is furely then, on the very face of this
account, a moft ftrange, an almoft incredible thing,
that La Croze fhould* perceive at once, at a fingle
glance as it were, and in a moment, that it was only
eighty years old, and a tranfcrlpt from the Complu
tenfian edition, when fo many learned men, upon
a long acquaintance with, and a clofe examination
of the MS, could not perceive that either of thefe
affertions were likely to be the truth. Such a n,ar-
ration as thisj having no fupport beyond the bare
affirmation of the reporter, would deferve litde
credit, even if no pofitive proof could be brought
to deftroy it. But
1. As to La Croze's affertion, that he had
made it manifeft to Mr. Martin that the MS In
queftion was a late tranfcrlpt from the Compluten
fian

DR. BENSON. 201
•
fidn Edition, — it turns out, by [a) Mr. Martin's
ov>m account, which ¦ was addreffed to La Croze,
which it was highly incumbent upon him to have
contradlded if he could, but which ftands to the
prefent hour even uncontroverted,---that he had
made to Mr. Martin no fuch manifeftation at all.
Nor was it indeed poffible that La Croze could
make manifeft his affertion, for
2. This MS is NOT a tranfcript from the Com
plutenfian Bible : as will evidently appear by the
following obfervations. {b)
In the Gofpel of St, Matthew, ii : 13, the MS
of Berlin reads xwox-reivxi ; but the reading of the
X 2 Bible

(a) Martin'i La VeHle, Part ii. C. 7, ta Croze attempted indedd
to apologife to Wetftein on this fnbjefl, by faying, that he had not de
fended himfelf, becaufe, he was unwilling to off'end Mr. Martin
or to treat him harftily. (Proleg. p. 59.) But this was a mere pre
tence. Whilft he thought himfelf able to fiipjjort his own affump
tions, he made no fcruple of treating Mr. Martin difrefpeftfully
fenough. (b) The variations, which were noted in the former editions of
thefe Letters, were taken from Smibertus. Thefe, vi/hich follow, are
copied from Geo. fheoph. Pappelbaum\ account of this MS publifhed
at Berlin in A. D. 178;, a few months after the date of the Letter
tAppend. No. xxxviii.J with which I had been obliged and ho
nored by M. Zoellner. Several particulars, from M. Pappelbaum's de
fcrlption of this MS, are given in Appendix No. xxxix.

292 DR. BENSON.
Bible of Complutum is xito'Ke<xxi in the correfpondlng
part of that verfe.
In ii : 17 the Berlin MS has v-tto «uf is ^ix le^efMs ;
but the Complutenfion Edition reads in the fame
paffage vn-o h^et/i.iHrii7r^o!pnris.
In V : 24 the Berlin MS has xxrxx^^xyn^i ru x^eK-
m. But the Complutenfian edition reads in the
fame paffage (JiaAAayjifij,
In V : 32 the Berlin MS reads on ttxz 0 xtniXvut.
But the reading of the Complutenfian edition is on
OS XV xnoXviT'n. I
In V : 2,6 the Berlin MS has xevKnv troina-xi (/.eXm-
vKv, But the Complutenfian edition Aevxnv n i*,eXxivoiv
iToin<txi in the correfpondlng paffage.
In V : 48 the Berlin MS has 0 ov^xvi(^=. But the
Complutenfian edition reads in this paffage 0 ev tou
Ovpxvok;, In vi : 13 the Complutenfian edition has the DoX-
ology compleat — " For thine is the kingdom, the
power, and the glory for ever and ever :" of which the

DR. BENSON.

293

the margin of the Berlin MS has not a fingle
word.
In vu : 18 the Berlin MS has xh ttxMv Sev^^ov.
But the Complutenlian Edition has only nh SevS^ov.
In vii : 19 the Berlin MS has irxv av SevS^ov. But
the Complutenfian edition does not read the word
a> in this paffage.
In vii : 24 the Berlin MS reads oi>.oM^n<rerxi. But
the Complutenfian edition only o/j^oiua-u.
In viii : 13 the Berlin MS has enxlovrx^x.'^. But
the Complutenfian edition reads e^ixlovrx^x'^ in this
Verfe. In Ix : 1 9 the Berlin MS has ?i>toA89« xvlu. But
the Complutenfian edition reads ev.<iiK^^n<iiv in this
paffage. In Ix : 30 the MS of Berlin reads xvea-)(^n(Txv vx.
^xx^^niJ.x ot otp^xT^i^oi. But the Complutenfian edition
does not exhibit the word trx^x-x^^ni^x in that paf
fage. In xi : 21 the Berlin MS has o-tto^u y.xUif^evxi [/.s-
X 3 revonn'xv

2>94 I^ R« BENSON.
r(von(rxv. But the Complutenfian edition does not
read K«6>i//-£i/ai in this verfe.
In xiii : 4 the Berlin MS has rx ¦nermx m ov^xvs.
But the Complutenfian edition reads in this paffage
rx Ttersivx Ouly.
In xiii : 2 2 the Berlin MS has rov Xoyov r^ov'
But the Complutenfian edition does not read the
word Tsrov in this paffage.
In xiii : 47 the Berlin MS has yevs? vuvay^en.
But the Complutenfian edition reads a-wxyxysa-n in
in this verfe.
In XV : 22 the MS of Berlin reads ex^x^ev ottiaia
aula. But the Complutenfian edition has in the
fame paffage eY.^xvyxiTev xvru.
In xvi : 26 the Berlin MS has u(peXn^n(Terxi »i/Ofw-»
7r{^. But the Complutenfian edition reads ufexetlat
in the fame paffage.
In xvii : 2 the Berlin MS has w? Xiuv. But the
Complutenfian edition reads «? ro tpu? in the parallel ''
paffage.

In

DR. BENSON. 295
In xviii : ^^ the Berlin MS has tJa ow xxi o-f.
But the Complutenfian edition does not read ow in
this verfe.
In xix : 24 the Berlin MS has japnJ©^ etcexQ^v.
But the Complutenfiidn edition reads JiEAOai/ in this
paffage. In XX : 23 the Berlin MS has e^i-ov rSo hvai. But
the Complutenfian edition does not read r-Jlo in this
verfe. In xxiii : 8 the Berlin MS has SiSxtrxxX©'. But
the Complutenfian edition reads nxhynln; (inftead of
StSxa-Kxx©^) In this paffage.
In xxiii : 9 the Berlin MS has vfjLuv ov^xvii^. But
the Complutenfian edition reads ev to*? ov^xvoig in this
verfe. In xxiv : 24 the Berlin MS has ure trXxvnhvxi.
But the Complutenfian edition reads vxxvwxi in this
paffage. In xxiv : 43 the Berlin MS has rov 01x01/ aura.
But the Complutenfian edition reads rnv omxv in this
verfe. X 4 In

296 DR. BENSON,
In xxv : 16 the Berlin MS has iv.i^h(yev xXXx trevle.
But the Complutenfian edition reads ettoi^aev in this
paffage. In xxvi : 20 the Berlin MS has Suhv.x [/.x^nruv.
But the Complutenfian edition does not read fj-xhlm
in this verfe.
In xxvii : 1 the Berlin MS has etroinTxi ttxvtis.
But the Complutenfian edition reads eXx(iov in that
paffage. In xxvii : 29 the MS of Berlin reads ev m Se^ix.
But the edition of Complutum hath in the parallel
paffage «'f' ¦^i" ^e^ixv.
In James ii : 25 the Berlin MS has vvoh'^x[j.tvn rm
ii.xrxc.wnov(i. But the .Complutenfian edition reads
xyyeXov, (not xxrxixo-novi) in that verfe.
In Iv : 12 the Berlin MS has voy.ohrn'; xxi -A^irn;.
But the Complutenfian edition does not fet forth
the words xa* xfirjij in this verfe.
In V : 7 the Berlin MS has o-ov x^extpoi jwou. But
the Complutenfian edition does not read the word
fAou in this paffage, ^ In

D R, BENSON. 297
In V : 19 the Berlin MS has xSeXqioi y-ev exv. But
the Complutenfian edition omits the word f*ou, as in
the laft preceding inftance.
In 1 Peter ii : 3 the Berlin MS has Xjtr©^ 0
«ufi©^. But the Complutenfian edition reads 'x^nf<^
in this paffage.
In ii : 1 1 the Berlin MS has xhxipoi ¦ttx^xv.xXu.
But the Complutenfian edition reads xyxirnroi, an4
not xSeXipoi, in this verfe.
In V : 14 the Berlin MS has ev piXni^xn ayiv. But
the Complutenfian edition reads ev <pixni*xri xyxitm in
this paffage.
In 2. Pet. 1 : 11 the Berlin MS has xu^ lou h^mk
Y.XI rwTJif Of, But the Complutenfian edition does not
read the words xxi a-um^og in this verfe.
In i : 12 the Berlin MS has iJi' 0 ov y-exxncu upas
«H. But the Complutenfian edition reads ^10 -tm
-uy.ihn(Tta xei u/aosj In this paffage.
In ill : 7 the Berlin MS has ru xvru xoyu. But
the Complutenfian edition reads tw xvrov xoyu in this
verfe. In

?9S DR. BENSON.
In ill : 13 the Berlin MS has xxrx rx eTrayyiXfJtxrcs
ecvrov, But the Complutenfian edition reads xxrx m
ecvrov eirxyyeXfAxin this paffage.
In 1. John V : ro the Berlin MS has virevuv m
mu. But the Complutenfian edition reads ru Sew (and
not ru viu) in this verfe.
In 3, John 10 the Berlin MS has rovg eiriSe^oixevovi
xnhvei. But the Complutenfian edition reads tou?
|3eiiAo/xEi-ouj in this paffage.
In Jude 22 the Berlin MS has eXeyy^ere hx^^m^e.
tour. But the Complutenfian edition reads eAeeit?
iixx^ivopievoi in this verfe.
In the Apocalypfe iii : 5 the Berlin MS has
tvToii 7rffij3aA£iTai, But the Complutenfian edition
reads ovrog tre^ifixxxeirxi In thIs paffage.
In ill : 7 the Berlin MS has e^uv mv xXuSx. But
the Complutenfian edition reads xXetv (Inftead oixxn^x)
in this verfe.
In Iv : 9 the Berlin MS has orxv Sui7i, But the
Complutenfiian edition reads orxv Swh in this paf*-
fage. In

D R, BENSON. 299
In vi : 7 the Berlin MS has gtp^xyiSx mv rerx^mv — »
i^syaa-xv, e^'yov xxi .Qaette, But the Complutenfian edi
tion reads rfrx^mv gp^xyiSxXeyovrog e^p^^ov (only) In this
verfe. In vi : 8 the Berlin MS has o ^xvxroi—^moxov^si xvru.
But the Complutenfian edition adds the words
XXI eiSov, omits the article o, and further reads
xKohov^a /*et' xvrov in this paffage.
In vii : 1 1 the Berlin MS has rov ^ovov xvrov ttn
v^oiUTTov xvruv. But the Complutenfian edition reads
Ten fijoKOU ETTi rx Ts^ogu-stx xvrm in thls paffage.
In xi : 9 the Berlin MS reads tj a? xxi ni/i.i<rv. But
the Complutenfian edition does not read the word
XXI in this part of the verfe. And laftly.
In xiv : 8 the Berlin MS has n ¦aroAt?, n [xeyxx-n.
But the Complutenfian edition omits n tssoXn;, read
ing n (JieyaXn only in this paffage.
Before we try to compute the: effed of thefe va
riations it may be proper briefly to confider the
arguments which M. Pappelbaum has advanced to
fupport La Croze in his affertion that this MS is a
tranfcript from the Complutenfian edition, I. At

JOO D R, BENSON.
I. At the clofe of his collation of the Apoca
lypfe he fays {c) " Since our MS agrees fo clofely
with the Complutenfian edition, that there are no
more than tw^elve deviations to be found in It, that
twenty typographical errors and twenty nine pe
culiar variations, and fix remarkable divifions of
the letters of the words are likewife to be met
with in our MS, to which the Copyift through
careleffnefs and ignorance has added twenty two
miftakes : I need not apprehend the reproach of
partiality or unreafonablenefs when I allow La
Croze to be right in the main point, and maintain
with him that our MS at leafi in this book, is a
copy of the Complutenfian edition, and that the
Copyift muft have been ignorant."
Again, at the end of his collation of the firft
epiftle of St. John — " The Berlin MS agrees
throughout In this epiftle with the Complutenfian
edition (the word vm, v : i o, excepted) and has
thirteen peculiar variations of that edition, includ
ing three typographical errors, to which the Co
pyift
{e) P. 6R. He collated the Apocalypfe, the Canonical Epiftles,
and the Gofpel of St. Matthe-w, in the order in which they are here
mentioned.

DR. BENSON. 30I
pylft has added fix additional miftakes, and omit
ted a whole line." {d)
At the clofe of his collation of St, Matthew'^
Gofpel, he thus fpeaks.
" Had I begun my enquiry with this book, I
fliould not then have the lefs affented to La Croze,
which I muft acknowledge I can now do with
greater confidence, having met with fo many de
cifive paffages in the Ayocalypfe and the Catholic
epiftles. And pray what are forty or even fifty
deviations in this book of twenty eight chapters,
in comparifon with the general agreement of the
whole book ?
" Or fuppofe I was to publifli the text of
Matthew's Gofpel, which would differ only in
forty, fixty, or eighty inftances from the Complu
tenfian edition, but in the reft would fo accurately
agree with it as to contain its twenty nine pecu
liar variations and thirteen of its fifteen typogra
phical errors, not to mention the fingular divifions of
(d\ This omiflion was evidently caufed by fimilar endings. This
part of the epiftle ftands thus, xog^ov \_xxi xvrn eriv n vixv] n
t/ixn^xgx rov xogfji.ov'J v : 4. The eye of the Copyift glanced
from one xogu.ov to the other in tranfcribing. See Apjiendix, No,

xxxix.

302 DR. BENSON.
of the letters of words : could any man belie-^re iri
ipite of my aflurance that I had copied this text
without the help of the Complutenfian edition ?"
Thefe particular coincidences certainly form a
ftrong prefumption, tending to the conclufion here
drawn by IVl. Pappelbaum ; — but no more. That
the tranfcriber of the Berlin MS was ignorant of
the Greek language will not be denied. And if
there had been no deviations in his copy, except
fuch as might have been accounted for on the fcore
of ignorance or miftake, the argument would have
been irrefiftible. But thefe deviations, many of
which have been juft ftated, are not the ¦wander
ings of ignorance, or the cafualties of miftake.
Without a fingle exception they agree with MSS
of good repute, in many inftances with fome of
thofe of the Royal, and the Colbertine, Libraries
at Paris ; with the MSS of R, Stephens, Saubertui,
and Cafaubon ; with the Codex Montfortius at Dub
lin ; the celebrated MS of Cambridge, and the ftill
more celebrated MS of Alexandria. They con-
Cord too abfolutely with the readings of other
MSS to be mere errors of the tranfcriber. They
are too corred in their language, and too pointed
in their meaning, to be the errors of an ignorant
tranfcriber. And they differ too widely, are in
every

DR. BENSON. ^O^
eveiT- refped too difcordant from the text of the
Complutenfian edition, to warrant a poffibllity that
that the' MS of Berlin can have been a tranfcrlpt
from that edition. ,
If it fhall be urged that, although this Ignorant
tranfcriber could not have had accefs to thefe MSS
to copy thefe variations from them, yet that the
learned cheat, whom La Croze fuppofes to have
been the author of this impofture, might have
contrived means to approach to them, or to fome
of the MSS which contained fome of them, and
to the printed Greek editions of the New Tefta
ment which fet forth the reft, and that he didated
to his illiterate copyifi thefe particular deviations,
the better to conceal his premeditated fraud y — it
feems fufficlent to reply, that a learned cheat of
this kind would firft have didated to his copyift
the proper corredions of the typographical errors
of the Complutenfiian edition itfelf, as the prime
means of warding off detedion ; and that after
wards, having the materials (as the objedion fup
pofes) in his power, he would not have contented
himfelf with didating to him twelve variations
alone in the Apocalypfe, for inftance, but would
have augmented them at leaft ten-fold ; which
might have been effeded with the utmoft eafe at
the

304 IJ R. BENSON.
the period when La Croze believed this fraud to
have been accomplifhed. In particular we may
teft fully aflured that no learned cheat, of' any cen
tury fince the publication Qf the Complutenfian
edition, ading upon thefe Imputed motives, would
have equipped the firft epiftle of St. John with
only one deviation from that edition, after having
inferted in it from that very edition (for fo the ob
jedion contends) this important and much contefted
paffage. Upon the whole it feems to be morally certam
that La Croze, who gave to the Berlin MS a date
of eighty years only, and his learned contempora
ries who afcribed to it an antiquity of one thou
fand years, were equally miftaken in their judge-r^
ment. It is not yet, probably, four hundred years
old. But, whatever its age may be, it certainly is ,
not a tranfcript from the Complutenfian edition. It
feems to be a copy from fome MS, or rather MSS j
{e) which thofe editors principally foflowed, — and
to have been made by a fcribe, ignorant but ho
neft. It is poffible that it might have been com piled
[e) The Catholic (or Canonical) Epiftles and the Apocalypfe from
the Codex Rhod'tenfis perhaps. The Gofpel of St. Mattheiv from fome
other MS. M. Pappelbaum has not collated the Berlin MS to the reft
of the New Teftament.

\^CS--Oty^fffCcl-olf.Ci^'lMC<)'.
OTI to IDpevr^toC £6TlO FL ocXh
C7£i(X* OTt iP£i5^ £i6"iy» Ol n.ocprvpovyT€S
cy \w ovpocycAJ o xjjoctHp Koct o Ao
yvs Hdci lo ocytoy TDyz\nxoc Koci oi
TO£i5 £15 lo ey ei<5i Koct \oexs exexy
o\ jjj^TxjpoyjyTes em Ihs vhs lo
XDUEVIAOC Koci lo V^Co-p' KOCI lo OCUAJX
S\ Ihv uocprvPicxy i

DR. BENSON. 305
piled even at Complutum, by one of thofe patient
drudges who muft have been employed by thefe
editors in the mechanical part of their labors.
This fingle fuppofition, in itfelf eafy and obvious,
feems to folve every doubt, to meet every opinion,
and to remove every difficulty : and therefore is,
probably, not far from the truth.
With refped to the Information which M. La
Croze has further condefcended to give us, —
namely, that the Ato-os-oa©^ is of no great authority
becaufe it is a Ledionary, and becaufe Ledionaries
are more fubjed to alterations than other ecclefi
aftlcal Books, — it might be afked, whether in any
Ledionary of any Church, any text would, at any
time, be inferted which that Church did not
accept as genuine ? But queftions of this kind
need not be propofed, or multiplied in the prefent
cafe. For the At?-oroA(^ is not a Ledionary, in
any other fenfe than as the Bible itfelf may be
called a Ledionary, namely, from being read in the
Church. The A^roroA©^ is a " Colledion [fi) of the
Epiftles of the New Teftament written feparately ;"
that is, feparately from the Gofpels, The AworoA©^,
y then,
(/) "Dr. Ihomas Smith's Mifcellanea, Lond. Edit, A.D. 16S6, p.
155, Martin's La Ferite, p, ii. C. 5,

3o6

DR. BENSON.

then, is the very volume of the Epiftles themr
felves, comprifing among the reft this Epiftle of
St. John. And the opinion of La Croze, founded
on fuppofed alterations in Ledionaries, can have
no place in the prefent queftion.
XLI. " And finally as to the Complutenfian,
from whence mofi probably, he [R. Stephens]
took this difputed paffage, and inferted it into
the fiacred text" —
r
If Dr. Benfon had ftopped to compare the text
of this difputed paffage, as it ftands in the Com
plutenfian, with that of the Edition of R. Ste
phens, he moft probably would not have hazarded
this obfervation.

The Greek Text of R.
Stephens's Edition of
I John V : 7, 8,

7'
eisiv

Oti T^Ei?
01 [JiXplvp-

^. t, C,, ^.lovvlig ev ru n^x-
i, IX. ly Ji'Vj', 0 -srocln^, o
Aoy©-", XXI ro
xyiov ¦stvevjji.x, kxi
* eU ro X. aroi oi roeis * ev
ei<ri.

The Greek Text of the
Complutenfian Edition
of the fame Verfes.
7. Ort Tp£i{ EKTit/ 01 jwaplu-
poui/TEf ev ru nfixvu, o 'stalti^
XXI 0 Xoyoq XXI ro xymy
•mvev^x, XXI oi rpeig eis to et
sia"i.

8. K«i

D R, BENSON. 307

8. Kai TfEi; et(riv ot f/.xp-
Iv^ovvlei em TJif yn? ro irvev^x
XXI ro vSup XXI TO XlfAX,

8, K«i Tpsi?
ciariv 01 fjLxflvp-
cvvle; ev rn yn,
ro ¦srvevf/.x, xxi
ro viup, XXI ro
Cii[/,x, XXI 01 rpeii
£;s TO ev eicri.

In the fieventh verfe of this Epiftle, then, the
edition of R. Stephens reads xxt sloi oilpn? : — That
of Complutum xxi 01 t^eis only. The edition of R.
Stephens alfo reads £1^ tio-i : whilft that of Complutum
conveys not only different words, but in forhe re
fpeds a different meaning from that of R. Ste
vens, by reading eiq ro ev eia-i.

In the eighth verfe, the edition of R. Stephens
reads ev m yn ; but that of Complutum esri m? yn?, a
different prepofitlon, governing in the following fub-
ftantive a different cafe. In the edition of R. Ste
phens the laft claufe of this verfe, xxi 01 rpei; en ro ev eia-t,
is read entire ; but there is not one word of It found
in the eighth verfe of the edition of Complutum,
Befide thefe palpable difcordances (and others
might be added) which render the pretence of one of
thefe editions having been a tranfcript of the other,
improbable beyond all feeming ; a little attention
to the method in which R. Stephens proceeded
Y 2 throughout

3o8 DR. BENSON.
throughout his edition of A. D. 1550, wUl prove
the abfolute impradicability of this fuppofition.
When any particular word, or words, were
found in fome of his authorities, which did not
exift in the reft of them, R. Stephens, on inferting
fuch word, or words in the text of his work, eon
ftantly pointed out in .his margin, by the help of
his Inftruments the obelus and the femi-parenthefts,
the MS, or MSS in which fuch word or word? '
were wanting. And when, upon placing his obe
lus d^nd femi-parenthefis in the text, the paffage, of
the word, to which they were made to refer, was
found in one only of his MSS, it was his Invarl- '
able cuftopa to fignify this deficiency, in the mar
gin, by the following defcriptlop — ev, 7r«o-» (or trxvroiS
TrXnv TS (3 (for inftance) viz. This ivord, or paffage,
is wanting in all my authorities, except the MS
marked (3 : or, for the fake of brevity, by the fingle
initial ^ (inftead of ev vxtn or irxvrx) followed hy
the reft of the reference, Thus in St. Matthe^}
xii : 'TfS') ^^ obelus send femi-parenthefis are placed
over the words mi xx^hx? : ^nd in the margin is
written £1- Trao-i trXnv ev ru n, OX Thefe words are want
ing in all my authorities except the MS n. In St,
Mark viii : 2 the marks of reference are placed
over the w^ord ¦nf/.e^x?, and the correfpondlng mar
ginal Note is, -Kxvrx TtXnv ns y, or Wanting in all ex
cept

.DR. BENSON. 309
tept the MS marked y. And laftly In St, John ill :
25 the references are annexed to the word IsSxmv :
and in the margin is found the Note w. -asxnv m x,
or, wanting in all except the Copy x, which is the
¦ ' Complutenfian Edition,
Now, what is the Note, of defcrlption of R,
Stephens in the margin of this difputed verfe, con
fidered in relation to the Complutenfian Edition ?
Not ev zTxci, or ntx-Hx ¦srxzv ra x (or abbreviated, zr.
¦stXnv T8 x) which is the conftant cuftom of R. Ste
phens, where one only of his authorities fupports a
particular reading : Not " Wanting in all my copies,
except the Complutenfian" — which certainly would
have been the cafe, if the fuppofition, advanced
by Dr. Benfon and now under confideration, were
juft. But this Note and reference are to this
effed, and may be thus fairly paraphrafed. The
words ev T8 H^xvu in this verfe, are wanting in feven
of my MSS. The Complutenfian Copy, and others
of my authorities have the whole verfe at full length,
fave that the Complutenfian has, at the clofe of the
verfe a reading peculiar to itfelf, viz. eig ro ev, which
does not belong to any of the refi. If R. Stephens^
whilft living, had even entertained fome latent
fears left a fuppofition of the kind now under con
fideration, however prepofterous, might at fomc
future time attempt to obtrude itfelf upon the
Y 3 world J

3I<3 DR. BENSON.
world ; it feems that he could hot have employed
thofe marginal Notes and references, which he-
had adopted, more appofitely than he thus has
done, to meet it with a fiat negation. It was not
well within his power to have done more for our
fatisfadion herein, unlefs he. had been uneafy
enough to have detailed thofe fears at large to the
world by anticipation ; and had bufied himfelf, in
much circumlocution, to caution his readers be
forehand, not to pay any heed to fuch an impofi-
tion, if it fhould be attempted to be paffed upon
them. '
Thefe impediments. Sir, being thus remoyed, '
I am enabled to fum up this argument, in both its
parts, in a few words. Had R. Stephens taken '
this dlfputed paffage from the Complutenfian edi
tion, he would have inferted it in his own book
as it ftood in that edition. And he would not ha-\^e
remarked, as a circumftance peculiar to that edi
tion, that it read ei? to ev, in a part of the verfe in
queftion, if the whole verfe had been peculiar to
it, and had not been found in any of his other au
thorities. But he has not inferted the difputed paf
fage, as it ftood In the text of the Complutenfian,^^
And he has remarked the ek to ev, as a circumftance
peculiar to a part of the verfe, in the Compluten- ¦
lian copy. The confequence is peremptory ; It will not

DR. BENSON. 311
not be evaded, and it cannot be repefled : namely,
that R. Stephens did not take this difputed paf
fage from the Complutetfian edition.
XLII. " The Editors [of the Complutenfian
Edition] fiay, in general, that they followed
the befi and mofi ancient MSS ofi the Vatican. — r
But Mr, Wetftein {g) renders it dubious whe
ther they bad any Vatican MSS,-— not only,,
-from their varying, info many places, from the
befi Vatican copy, but becaufe Leo X. did not
come to the Popedom, time enough to have fur-
niffed them, in Spain, with fuch MSS before
they undertook that work. For he (being then
fick) was chofien Pope not a year before that
Edition was publiffed. And they are fuppofed
to have been about fifteen years in preparing
and publiffing it''
The Editors of Complutum pofitively, and In the
ftrongeft terms, declare that they had the ufe of
feveral Vatican MSS, which were fent from Rome
to Cardinal Ximenes for that purpofe.
" Let it be known (fay they in their preface) to
the reader, that we have had, for the benefit of
Y 4 this
{g) Proleg. p. 1 1 6k

312 D R. B E N S O N.
this work, the ufe of feveral MSS, of fuch very
great antiquity and corrednefs, that it feems a kind
of impiety to doubt their truth : which the moft
holy Father Leo X. defirous to favour our under
taking, fent from the ApoftoHc Library to the mofl; ,
reverend the Cardinal of Spain ; under whofe au
thority, and by whofe commands, we have com
mitted this work to the prefs."
The world furely owes to thefe ifluftrlous Edi
tors fo much refped at leaft, as to credit a declar
ation made with fuch folemnity, unlefs there fhall t
appear, from circumftances, a moral impoffibilit^
of its truth. But the objedions, here culled out
of Wetfiein, are far from importing any fuch im- ,
poffibllity^ It by no means follows that thefe Edi->''
tors had no Vatican MSS, becaufe they varied in
many places from the beft (b) Vatican Copy. It
would be juft as found a conclufion to affirm, that
R. Stephens h'&.d not the Complutenfiian Bible, be
caufe
[h) The words of the objeflion are here adopted for the faite of ar
gument alone. For as the Vatican MSS which were ufed by the Com
plutenfian Editors have been long loft to the world, it was not poffible
for Wetftein to afi'ert, with any color of propriety, that they were not
the beft Vatican copies. The fair prefumption is that thofe MSS
which were fent (exemplaria quee Leo eduBa mifit) to the Complutenfian
editors on this great occafion, were the beft which the Vatican Library
could produce. And on occafiSns like thefe — Stabitur prafumptioni
donee probetur in contrarium.

D R. B E N S O N, 313
Caufe he has varied in many places from that Edi
tion, And, as to there not being a Leo X. at
Rome, " time enough to have furnifhed them in
Spain with fuch MSS, before they undertook that
work ;" it may be anfwered, that there was a Car
dinal (i) de Medicis there, time enough to furnlfh
thofe MSS to his brother Cardinal, Ximenes, for
his affiftance in this undertaking. And becaufe, in
that long feries of fifteen years, which faw thefe
learned Editors fecluded from the world, and anxi-
oufly intent on their great work, their original be-
nefador had been exalted to the Papal throne, and
had affumed the new name of Leo X ; they would
not, in their Preface, mention him by his former,
lefs honorable, appeflation, but by the auguft and
pre-eminent title which diftinguifhed him in A. D.
1514, when their Polyglott came forth from the
Prefs. As men, this leffer kind of Metonymy would
be natural. As Papifts, it would be inevitable.
XLIII. " Since that. Pope Urban, having
recommended thofe MSS in the Vatican to be
examined, it was found that all of them, which
have the Epifile of St. John, want this feventh
verfe of the fifth Chapter" Dr.
{)) He was created Cardinal, by Innocent 'VIII, at 14 years of age.

314 DR. BENSON.
Dr. Benfon has not been fo juft to his readers^
[li) as to inform them on what authority this af
fertion is founded.
But admitting for the prefent, and for the fake
cf argument alone, that the MSS now in the Va
tican have not the text In queftion, — does it fol-'
low from thence, that there were no MSS in that
Library before the time of Cardinal Ximenes,
which had the Verfe ? Dr. Benfon indeed is for
ward enough to tell us that thofe MSS, thofe iden- .
tical exemplars which were ufed by the Editors of
Complutum, were examined, and that " all of them,'
which have the Epiftle, want the verfe." Will
he prove it to us ? He does not attempt it. He
trufts to find readers as full of zeal as himfelf; and
then — no proof will be required.
The truth Is, the MSS which were fent (not lent
— for there is a great difference in the two words,
and the expreffion in the original is mifit) to Xi
menes, for the ufe of the Complutenfian Editors,*'
were not ordered, as far as we know, to be re
turned, nor are we certified that they ever were
returned, to the Library of the Vatican. We know that
(k) The fearch, alledged to have been made by Caryopbilus, is fup
pofed to be here alluded to. But even Wetftein pays little or no credit
to it. [Prol, p. 6i.) But fee the preface to Birch's Gofpels.

DR. BENSON. ^le
that the MSS, which were borrowed by R. Ste
phens from the Royal Library at Paris, have never
found their way back thither (/) and that they are
not now in that Library : for the MSS, mentioned
hj Le Long, have been already proved (?;?) not
to be thofe which had been ufed by R. Stephens.
And the fame conclufion may, with far more pro-
babflity, for many obvious reafons, be formed as
¦to the Vatican MSS ufed by the Editors of Com-
Kplutum. XLIV, " And Father Simon has obferved
very jufily. That, when the publiffers ofi the
Complutenfian edition publiffed this difputed
text, they followed the reading of the Latin
copies here"
This objedion fuppofes that Ximenes, and his
congregated [n) Divines, not finding the text of
the
(/) Unlefs for a temporary purpofe. See p. 24.9.
(ot) Objeft. xxix of Dr. Benfon, p. 204.
(a) They were no lefs than 42 in number, as hath been before ob
ferved ; and the expences of Ximenes, in the whole of this publica
tion, are affirmed to be Ducatorum fexcenties Millena millia. The
Writer of the Appendix to the Hift. Lit. of Ca^ve, fays, ^inquaginta
millia aureorum.
The delighted mind of Ximenes is faid, by Gomez, in his life of
this Cardinal, to have expreffed the happinefs which it poffeffed, on
/ feeing

5l6 DR. BENSON*
the heavenly Witneffes in any Greek MSS, coiir'
federated to forge this new text, in order to make
their Greek correfpond with the Latin Copies;
nay, it pofitively affirms that they did fo. >
Thus ftands the liberality of this objedion. LeV
us now enquire into its truth.
The text of the Latin Copies is ". Et hi tresf
unum funt," — And thefe three are one. But what '
is the text of the Complutenfian edition in the) pa
rallel paffage ? Not outoj oi Tf«f ev eta-i, which would*^
have been exadly confonant to the Latin, text,
the/e three are one ; but oi r^sf «? to ev eta-i, thefe three
agree in one. Can any perfon be fo much a Bes-
otian as to -imagine, that if thefe Editors had meant
to forge a Greek text, " to follow the reading of
the Latin Copies," they would not have forged one
which would have followed (o) thc \* Copies ex
adly ? Is it poffible to believe, , that if thefe F.di-
tors had intended to frame in the Greek language -
a tranflation of the Latin text, they would have
produced
feeing this great work compleated, in thefe animated words—" Grates
tibi ago, fumme Chrifte, quod rem magnopere a me curatam, ad optatam
finem perduxeris." [Hody, De Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 462.]
(0) If they had forged at all, it would not have been «; to ev in
the feventh vcrfe.

DR. ,B E N S O N. 317
produced fomething fo utterly diffonant from it J
--^that fo many men of learning, who had fpent
fifteen years in collating Greek MSS in order to
, compile a Greek Teftament, were yet fo utterly
ignorant of the Greek language as to bring forth
a grofs miftranflation, and withal one fo foreign
to their purpofe ? — The truth is that M. Simon^
and Dr. Benfon, would not have argued thus ab^
furdly in any other cafe. There is, upon a fair
ftatement of the proofs, every reafon to believe,
(as hath been remarked in a former letter) that
the verfe ftood, in thofe MSS which the Complu-r
tenfian Editors confulted, exadly as they have de-r
livered it to us ; and that they did not think them?
felves at liberty to vary from their MSS, either to
¦' follow the reading of the Latin Copies," or of
any other copies whatfoever,
Between this objedion herein laft ftated, and
that to which I now proceed, feveral mifcellaneous
obfervations intervene, whl^h Dr. Benfion ftiles
*' incidental and internal marks which may render
der It [the authenticity of the verfe] fufpeded."
Some of thefe obfervations are too frivolous to re:-
qulre any animadverfion. Thofe, which feem to
deferve it, wall receive their anfwer hereafter, XLV.

3l8 DR. BENSON.
XLV. " This difputed text was not in the
Italic, or old Latin Verfion, before the time of
Jerome.
The old Italic Verfion, or the Itala Vetus, made
in the firft century, and therefore the moft an
cient of all Verfions, was received and read as the
eftablifhed Bible of the Latin Church until it was
compelled to give way to the Tranflation of Je
rome. But Jerome's tranflation obtained its afcen*-
dancy by flow degrees, and by the tacit confent
and approbation of the Church in general, rather
than by any public authoritative fandion of Popes
or Councils. It had not fully excluded the Old •
Italic even in the age of Gregory the great, who
died very early in the feventh century. For he ;
informs us, in his epiftle to Leander, (p) that as to
any point of dodrine, be fometimes ufed the New
\that of Jerome] and fometimes the Old Tranfla
tion \the Itala Vetus\ by way of proof: in order that
the labor of his fiudies might be affified by both thefe
tranfiations,
(p) " Novam Tranflationem differo ; fed cum probationis caufa
exigit, nunc' Novam nunc 'Veterem per teftimonia affumo, ut quia
fedes Apoftolica (cui, auftore Deo, praeiideo) utraque utitur, mei
quoque labor ftudii ex utraque fidciatur," [Ed. Benedift. 'Vol.i. ,
page 6 ]
He became Pope in or about A. D. 590, and was fucceeded by Sa-
liiiianm A. D, 604. Chrift, Hel'vic. p. 107-8,

D R. B E N S O N. 319
tranfiations, feeing that both of them were made ufe
of by the ApoftoHc Church over vphich, by the
favor of God, he prefiided." But he declared, at
the fame time, that the Verfion of Jerome had
the preference in his efteem, becaufe it was more
accurate, and therefore more worthy of general
, acceptation. After this avowed preference, and very proba
bly in confequence of it in fome degree, the Old
Italic Verfion became compleatly fuperfeded, as to
general ufe, by the tranflation of Jerome, about the
end of the feventh century, or about three hun
dred years after Jerome's death. For as M. Simon
obferves, who is a very fafe guide in queftions of
this nature, " Remigius, Bede, Rabanus — and finally
all other ecclefiaftical writers for more than nine
"hundred years paft, have adhered fo clofely to the
•New \Jerome's\ Edition, that all other Verfions
have been utterly loft, at leaft as to their ufe."
Let it be here added that the tenor of the au
thorities from the Latin Fathers, who were prior
to, and coeval with, and from fome who were fub
fequent to, the age of Jerome, which have been
already fet forth, confirms the preceding obferva tions

320 DR. BENSON,
tions. For it may be fafely affirmed that the re
ferences to, and the quotations of this verfe, which
were made by TertuUian, by Cyprian, by Phceba
dius and Marcus Celedenfis, — by Eucherius, Vigi- [^
lius, Fulgentius and Caffodorius, — and which have.;
been already produced, were not, in any inftance*.^
taken from Jerome's Verfion. For the three firft \
named of thefe writers lived before Jerome's Ver
sion was made. The two next in order were fo
nearly the contemporaries of Jerome, that they
can hardly be fuppofed even to have feen his Ver
fion. It feems moreover certain, from an examina
tion of their works, as well as from the affirmation '
of Wetfiein iff) that Vigilius and Fulgentius did not
quote from the Verfion of Jerome. And the very
learned Maffeius (r) affirms the fame thing of Caf
fiodorius In the moft pofitive terms. Thefe re
ferences and quotations, then, having been made
whilft the old Italic Tranflation was in general ufe
in the Latin Church, and not having been taken
from that of Jerome, feem to befpeak their own
derivation in the cleareft manner, and to prove the
very
(y) Proleg, p. 81. He admits that all thefe authors, here mea.
tioned, ufed the old Italic 'Verfion in their quotations.
(r) " E'videnter enim patet, ex quamplurimis harum Complexionum
lacis, Cafiiodorium alia 'verfione « Hieronymiana ufum effi'' — are ths
words of Maffeius, Appendix No. xijf.

DR. BENSON. %lt
tety oppofite conclufion to that which is advanced
in the objedion : namely, that this difputed text
was in the Italic, or old Latin Verfion, not only
before the time of Jerome, but from the firft hour
of that Verfion being delivered to the Chriftian
trorld. XLVl. " It [the verfe in queftion] is not
m any of the oriental Verfions, as the Syriac"
There were two ancient Syriac Verfions. The
latter of them was made in the time of Xenayas
(who was Bifhop of Hierapolis, and died in A. D.
520) and confequently in the end of the fifth, or
in the beginning of the fixth century. Concern
ing the age of the former of thefe Verfions there
hath been a great diverfity of opinion. To pafs
over the fentiments of more ancient critics, the
learned Michaelis [s) wifhes to carry its date up to
the third century at leaft ; while Wetfiein (/) de
grades It to the feventh century. Truth is, gene
rally, a medium between two extremes ; and it feems
to be peculiarly fo in the prefent cafe. For from
Z the
(s) Introd. LeBures, Seft. 49, Ed. Lond. 1 761.
{/) Proleg, Tom. I. p. 109. In page 113 he forgets himfelf fo
far as to fay that the latter (or fecond)- Syriac 'Verfion was made in
A.D. 506; — thus making, by his own account, l\is offspring older
than the parent.

322 DR. B E N S O N.
the teftlinony of Bar Hebrceus, in his Horreum
myfieriorum, that a more accurate Tranflation of
the New Teftament into the Syriac language was
made in or about the beginning of the fixth cen
tury, in the time of Xenayas ; it feems evident that
one more ancient, although lefs accurate, fubfifted
before that time. Whilft, on the other hand, it
feems equally certain that this more ancient Syriac
Verfion was made fubfequent to the age of Chry
fofom, who died in A. D. 407 ; becaufe it is divided
according to the Canons of Eufebius, and contains
his letter to Carpianus, {u)
The more ancient Syriac Verfion, then, is pofle-
rior in point of time to the Italic Tranflation, and
to the Verfion of Jerome ; both of which, it has
been already fhewn, have eonftantly exhibited the
verfe in queftion. The Syriac is, moreover, faulty
and incorred almoft beyond belief. Not words,
or fentences only, but even whole verfes, are left
out or paffed over by the tranflator in various
parts of his Verfion (befide the paffage now in
difpute)
(a) It fets forth the Doxology alfo. Matt, vi : 13; which feems to
have been originally the Refponfe of the Choir, or Congregation, after
the ufe of the Lord's Prayer in the fervice. Placed originally in the
margin of fome MSS, it appears to have crept into the text in the age
of Chryfoftom,

DR. BENSON. 323
difpute) as will abundantly appear on confulting
the Annotations of Beza. {v)
Inftances of omlflSons, In copies In general,
when brought to prove that the words fo omitted
did not exift in the original, are but fufpicions evi
dence. Inftances of omiffions, in a copy fo full
of omiffions as this, will fcarcely amount to evi
dence at aU. [w)
XLVII, *' Nor is it in the Arabic^ Mthi-
opic, or Perfic,"
Thefe Verfions Were copied from {x) the Syriac,
and therefore muft have adopted its faults, increafed
moft probably by others of their own.
Z 2 XLVIIL
\'v) Bezas Annotations, paffim. Martinis Differt. Part II. C. i.
[1x1) In the former edition of thefe letters fome omiffions of paf
fages in this 'Verfion were particularifed at large. They are here
omitted, partly becaufe Mr, Martin had milled me as to fome of them,
but principally for the fake of brevity. This note applies alfo to the
Coptic 'Verfion.
(x) M.Simon, Hift. des 'Verfions, G. 17 and 18, and Book ii,
C. 15 of his Hift. of the Verf. of the Old Teftament : and Du Pin,
Differt, Prelim, p. 82.
Wetftein however, Proleg. no, afferts thatthe Ethiopic Verfion pro
ceeded from the Coptic, And Michaelis affirms (Seft. 54) that fome
of the Arabic Verfions alfo were rendered from the Coptic, It is of
fmall importance to the prefent difquifition, whether Wetftein and
Michaelis are right or not in thefe conclufions.

324 D R, BENSON.
XLVIIL " Nor in the Coptic"
The Verfion is even more faulty and incorred
than the Syriac, The fame remark appHes to both.
XLIX. " No, nor in the ancient Copies of
the Armenian Verfion,"
The Armenians were not compleatly converted
to the Chriftian faith until the third century; at
which time Chriftianity became the eftablifhed re
ligion of all Armenia under Tiridates, who was
then the King of that country. Until this sera
the Armenians had poffeffed no alphabet of their ,
own ; but had made ufe of Perfian or Greek cha
raders in writing. Not very long after the intro
dudion of Chriftianity into that country, the fa
mous Miefirob (or Mefirop) who flourifhed in the
end of the fourth, and in the beginning of the
fifth century, invented the charaders which have
ever fince been ufed by the Armenians. To this
¦wonderful man Armenia owes the Verfion of the
Scriptures alfo, which it now poffeffes, as well as
its alphabet ; which Verfion was finifhed {y) early
in the fifth century, viz. about A. D, 435. This,
[y) Michaelis, Seft. 57, fays that this 'Verfion was finifhed in A. D,
^ Sif

DR. B E N S O N. 325
This, however, was not the firft, but the third
Tranflation of the Scriptures into the Armenian
language, which had then been made by this ex
traordinary man, affifted by Ifaac, the great Patri
arch of Armenia. The two former Verfions had
been rendered from the Syriac ; becaufe Meruzan,
¦vvho was at that time the Perfian Governor of
Armenia, and an enemy to Chriftianity, had de
ftroyed all the Greek MSS in the land : and had
even prohibited the Greeks, who lived in part of
Armenia, from ufing {z) any other than the Syriac
language. But in a few years afterwards the Ar-
menians, being delivered from all fear of Meruzan,
and being anxious to know whether their fecond
Verfion, having been then rendered from the
Syriac alone, contained the true words of life, fent
deputies to the Greek Council, which was held at
Ephefus in A, D, 43 1 . Thefe deputies, being re
turned from Ephefus (fays Mofes Chorenenfis) deli
vered to Ifaac and to Miefrob the letters and decrees
Z 3 «/
Sir Ifaac Neiuton (Obj. xxviii. hereafter ftated) affirms that it hath
been ufed by the Armenians ever fince fhe age of Chryfoftom, who died
in A. D. 407. Thefe accounts differ but very little in their sras, and
may be reconciled by a very eafy fuppofition : but it will foon be feen
that they cannot apply to this third Verfion, and therefore that they
have, ftridlly fpeaking, no concern with the prefent difcuffion,
(z) Hift, Mosis Chorenensis, Edit, Whifton. Lib. iii. C, 54,
p. 300.

326 D R, BENSON.
of that Affembly, together with a copy of the Scrip
tures moft carefully written. When Ifaac ana
Miefrob had received this copy, they chearfully took
upon , them the labor of tranffating again that facred
volume, which they had tranffated twice before.
But finding themfelves fomewhat deficient in know
ledge [of the Greek tongue] they fient us to the
famous School at Alexandria, there to learn com
pleatly that excellent language." [a) Such was the
great induftry which the Armenians of the fifth
century ufed in order to obtain an accurate Verfion
of the Scriptures ; rendering them twice from the
Syriac Verfion, and the third time from the Greek
MSS. This third Verfion (which has in fad fuperfeded
and deftroyed the former two) was not known In
any printed Copy untfl the laft century ; when it
was committed to the prefs, by order of an Arme
nian Council held in A, D. 1662. Ufcan {b) an
Armenian Bifhop, was deputed by that Council to
fuperlntend in Europe an impreffion of their Bi
ble, and of fome other MSS which were fcarce and
(a) " Accuratifffmum SS. exemplar iradideri'' are the words of the
Hiftorian, as tranflated by the Whiftons, p. 313,
(b) Perhaps better written Ofican.

D R, BENSON. 327
and valuable, {c) He acccompliflied that part of
his commlffion which related to the Bible in A. D.
1669 at Amfierdam: and this inapreffion contains,
without any mark of doubt or fufpicion annexed
to it, the Verfe i. John v : 7.
Thus far, Sir, I have the good fortune to con
cur with Michaelis ; who feems to have given by
much the beft hlftory^^^ this Verfion, that has
yet appeared. I am trmy concerned to feel myfelf
compelled to diffent from him in every other
part (which fhall hereafter be ftated) of his rea
fonlngs in refped to this exceUent Verfion. For
I. Michaelis affirms, on the authority of San
dius, that " he \Ufcan\ did not find the paffage I.
John V : 7 in his MS, although it ftands in his
edition,"

But

(f) " Pro hac igitur infita regia magnificentia, potentiffime rex,
fnfcipe ferena fronte hoc devotiffima; voluntatis meje monumentum,
ac fum'mas obfervantise munus quoddam, quo gratiffimse benignitatis
favore exftimulatus alia pmclara MSS Armenica facrae tU2e Regise Ma-
jeftati ad nunquam interiturum honorem refervata, pro virili in lucem
edere valeam." {Ofian's Dedicat. to Louis xiv. Amftel. zi. May
1669.] The two verfes are in p. 693,

328 DR. BENSON,
But the account, fo given by Sandius, was evi
dently (to fay the leaft -of it) a miftake. For M.
Simon was acquainted at Paris with Ufcan, whilft
he was ettiployed in executing his important com
mlffion. And M. Simon (who was not only a very
learned, but on the whole a candid opponent of
this verfe) admits that Ufcan's impreffion could not
but be very accurate. " / had fiome conferences at
Paris in 1670 with Ufcai*l"#f Armenian Biffop-^-
As to the refi, bis editioWof the New Tefament,
and indeed of the whole Bible, mufi he exad, becaufe
the Biff op, who was a dificreet and judicious man^
brought 'with him very good MSS, which he faith
fully followed." [d)
There is no difficulty in determining whether
the preference, in point of Credit, is to be given to
Sandius, or to M. Simon in the prefent cafe. If
all other circumftances were equal between thefe
two witneffes (which M. Simon's great fund of
learning forbids us to fuppofe) the fad of M. Si
mons being a ftrenuous opponent of the authen
ticity of this verfe, decides the queftion entirely In
favor of his teftimony. The account of Sandius
is the attack of a zealot fupporting his own par
tialities
[d) Hift. Crit, des Verfions, C. 17, Millii Proleg. p. 742.

DR. BENSON. 329
tlalltles. The teftimony of M. Simon is the con
feffion of an adverfary, overthrowing his own pre-
poffeffions. The baflance of evidence cannot, for
a moment, hefitate in incUnIng to the latter.
2. Michaelis argues, that *' as this verfe was not
in the oldeft Armenian MSS, Haitho (King of Ar
menia, from A. D. 1224 to 1270) ¦w-ho underftood
Latin, feems to have added it from the Vulgate."
This is begging the queftion. It does not ap
pear, by any kind of proof, that this verfe vvas
not in the oldeft Armenian MSS.
There is moreover good reafon to infer that
Ufcan s edition was not correded by the Vulgate.
For the Vulgate reads Luke xxii : 44 thus — And
his fweat voas as drops of blood falling to the ground^
But Ufcan's edition on the contrary reads, in this
paffage, &pofjt.(ioi 6jojt*(3oj ex^v^evre^ eiri rnv ynv. \e)
This example has been here particularly feleded,
becaufe it differs not only from the Vulgate, but
from the fragments of the Armenian MSS which
remain
(e) La Croze epif. ad Bengel, p. 68-9. In the latter of thefe pages
it feems that La Croze ought to have faid " iifque [non] ufus eft Uf-
canu! in editione fua." Bengel, Adpar. Crit. p. 548.

S^O DR. BENSON.
remain in the Royal Library at Paris: thus fhew
ing that Ufcan had MSS of his own which he fol
lowed, without turning afide either to the Vulgate,
or to thofe fragments.
3, But Michaelis further infifts, that Haitho was
" a fuperftitious Prince, that he tranflated all Je
romes prefaces, and turned Friar before his death." *
And fo he might. To fay that he was fuperfti
tious (if there be any meaning in that epithet In
the prefent inftance) that he tranflated Jerome,
and turned Friar, does not prove that this verfe
was not in the MSS of his nation long before he
¦was born.
Indeed the exiftence of this paffage in the an
cient MSS of Armenia feems clearly to appear from
the circumftance of this verfe having been quoted
within a few years after Hfitho's death in the ads
of a Council held in Armenia, and in other, (/)
Armeman
{/) Obfervandum eft verfum i.^o, v: 7 jampridem extare in co.
dicibus Armtnorum. Nam in epiftola Gregorii Patriarchse, et in Aftis
Conciliorum Sinenfis et Adanenfis, quae Armenice extant apud Galanum,
par. i. cap. z8, hie verfus ter legitur, p. 436, 461 et 478. A£la vero
horum Conciliorum et epiftola Gregorii Patriarchae authentica funt, ee-
lebrata 14 fseculo incunte, annis 1306 et 1307." [£«€«««¦, p. 68,
Bengel. Adp, Crit. p, 760,]

D R. B E N S O N, 33 1
Armenian records. Now this quotation by the
Council fo early after the death of Haitho, and
without any remark or comment upon it, is a very
ftrong argument in favor of this verfe. Had it
not exifted in the Armenian Bibles before the time
of Haitho, the members of that Council would
certainly have annexed to their quotation of It fome
notice to the reader, to inform him that it had
been once loft out of their MSS ; or fome mark of
acknowledgement to the memory of Haitho, for
having (as they would in that cafe have expreffed
themfelves) refiored this verfe.
4. Michaelis laftly urges that " Ufcan acknow
ledges in his Preface, that he had altered fome
things from the Vulgate."
tt
But this obfervation proves nothing as to the
prefent queftion. For Ufcan makes no acknow
ledgement of that kind refpeding this paffage of
St. John,
And this fad, that Ufcan had made no alteration
as to this verfe, feems to be further eftablifhed by
M. Simon: — who relates that (^) an Armenian, named
\£\ Lettres Choifies, Ep. 24. (Bibl. Critique, Tom. iv.) The frag
ments which remain of Niton's writings are fet forth in Max, Bibl.
Patr.

532 DR. BENSON,
named Nicon, publifhed a treatife on this fubjed,
wherein he accufed his countrymen of having in-
tei'polated feveral pafiages in their Bibles. And
he alledges the paffage of St. Luke, juft mentioned,
as a particular inftance of fuch interpolation. But
he has brought no charge of this kind againft the
verfe now in debate : — which is a further proof
that It anciently was, as it now is, found in that
Verfion. Thus then, Sir, I have produced the dired au
thority of M. Simon to the exiftence of this paf
fage in the ancient Armenian Verfion. I have fur
ther enforced that dired teftimony, by circum
ftantial proof. In fo doing I have, as I truft, not
not only colleded a body of evidence to this point
which will not be controverted, or if controverted
will not be fet afide : — but have moreover adduced
a frefh inftance of Greek authorityy the authority of
a Council, in favor of the originality of the text
I Jobn, V :' 7.
I fhould now. Sir, beg leave to difmlfs this ob
jedion,
Patr. 'Vol. XXV. p. 328, but more at large, and more corredlly, in
the MS No. 1818 in the Royal Ubrary at Paris.
If 'Nicon lived (and there is authority that he did live) in the 13th
century, the argument, to which this Note refers, is valid. If at an
earlier period, it proves nothing.

DR. BENSON. %T,\
jedion, did it not feem requifite previoufly to take
a fhort general review of the conclufions, at which
we feem to have arrived, on this fubjed of the an
cient Verfions of the New Teftament.
' The ancient Verfions, then, of the New Tef
tament into various languages are — arranging them
in order of time — the Old Italic (or Itala Fetus)
the Version of Jerome, the Syriac, the Ar
menian, and the Coptic. Thefe were all made
in, or before the fixth century. Of the reft, fome
are too modern, as the French, the Ruffian^ and
the Sclavonic (which, however, will be mentioned
in the next fucceeding objedions) to deferve the
appellation of ancient Verfions, And others, as
the Arabic, Perfian, and Ethiopic, are merely tranf^
cripts from fome of thofe which have juft been
mentioned, and therefore are not entitled to a fpe
cial enumeration. The Frankiff, erroneoufly ftiled
the Gothic [h) by fome of the learned, is out of
the prefent queftion ; for it contains the Gofpels
xjnly. The five, then, herein firft mentioned, are
all the ancient Verfions of the Epiftles of the New
Teftament from their original Greek, which affed
the prefent debate. And here — although Dr. Ben
fion.
\h) Muhaelis, Sedt. 70, 71.
" Continet ifte codex quatuor Evongelia, fied mut'ilaP [Wetftein,
Proleg, p. 114.]

334 ^ ^' BENSON.
fin has thought proper, in the outfet of (/) his ob*
fervYitions on this part of the fubjed, to affirm,
that " the ancient verfions have not this difiputed
text" yet — it feems, from what has been premifed^
undeniably certain, that three out of the whole f^
five of thefe ancient verfions, and two out of the , ,
three moft ancient of them all, have uniformly ex
hibited the verfe now in queftion.
L. " It is not in the Ruffian''*
The modern Ruffian is a younger branch of the '
ancient Greek Church. The Ruffans were con
verted to Chriftianity, by the Greeks, about the
clofe of the tenth century. From the Greeks they
received not only the Scriptures, but their ecclefi
aftical dlfcipline ; and they acknowledged the Greek
Patriarch at Confiantinople as the head of their
Church, until the fixteenth Century, when they
eleded a Patriarch of their own country (k) but j
ftill without caufing, or wifhing to caufe, thereby
any abfolute feparation from their Mother-Church.
It has been already proved,, that the ancient
Greek Church (as it may be ftiled for the fake of
diftlndion)
(/) Page 643.
\k) 'Jan. 25. A. D, is88,- Coxe^s Travels, Vol, i. p. 313.

DR. BENSON. ;^^S
diftlndion) has given the moft decided judgment
in favor of the authenticity of this verfe, by in
ferting it in its public Confeffion of Faith, and by
reading it in its public fervice. The ufe in that
Church of the Airogox©', oi which this verfe formed
a part, has been traced up to the fourth, or fifth
century after Chrift, without finding even there the
time when It began to be fo ufed : from whence, as
hath been before remarked, the thinking mind feels
itfelf compelled to carry up the commencement of
that ufe almoft to, if not entirely as far as, the age
of the Apoftles.
Thus then the cafe ftands with the ancient
Greek Church. It might have been prefumed,
without feeking for proofs, that the Ruffian, or
modern Greek Church, thus deriving its rudi
ments of Chriftianity from the ancient one, would,
with its Mother-Church, acknowledge this verfe to
be genuine. Accordingly it is found that the verfe
in quefdon poffeffes its place In all the Ruffian New
Teftaments ; and is, moreover, cited in the Cate-
chifm of the Ruffian Church, in the following
manner :
" What the. Father Is according to his nature,
the fame is the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. Now as

33<5 DR. BENSON*
as the Father is in his nature true and eternal
God, and Creator of all things vifible and invifi
ble, fuch is the Son, and fuch the Holy Ghoft, be
ing confubftantial one with Another ; according to
what the Evangelift St. John teaches when he
fays. There are three which bear record in Heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghod, andthefi
three are one''
This Confeffion (/) or Catechifm, was drawii
up by the Ruffans, and approved by Parthenius, •
Patriarch of Confiantinople in A. D. 1643, ^^^
printed in Greek and Latin at Leipfic in A. D.
1695, and at Moficow in A. D. 1709.
The Sclavonian Bible of A. D. 1663 has the
feventh verfe printed in its margin only. But it
reads the eighth verfe thus — There are three that
•witnefs on earth, the fpirit, &c. It has been be
fore [ni) remarked, that wherever this claufule oc
curs in the eighth verfe, it neceffarily implies the
exiftence of the feventh verfe, having the words,
in Heaven, expreffed or underftood in contrapofi
tion to them, {n) LI.
(/) Martinis La Verite, Part ii. C, lO.
(«) Page IC9 of thefe letters,
(«) It has been objefted that the OftrOiu (or Ofiromcenfian) edition Of

D R» B E N S O N. •> 337
LI. " Nor in the old French Verfion''
There was no ancient French Verfion of any
part of the New Teftament, except the Frankiff,
which was formerly called the Gothic through mif
take. And that Verfion does not, as was obferved
before, affed the prefent queftion. That which
was made by the Waldenfes on their feparation
from the Church of Rome, about A. D. 1 1 60,
feems to have been (/) the next, in point of time,
to the Frankifh herein before mentioned. But
this Verfion of the Waldenfes, and the Tranflation
of Guiart des Moulins in A. D. i'.i94, and of
others in ftill later times, have no claim to the ap
pellation of ancient Verfions.
LII. " And there is even a great number of
A a MS
of A. D. 158 1, which the above edition of 1663 profeffes to follow,
does not exhibit the feventh verfe. But if it ftiall read (for I have
not been able to procure it) the eighth verfe with the words, on earth,
no refpeft is to be paid to the objeflion. Nay even if this edition
of 1581 ftiall, like that of 1663, place the feventh verfe in its margin
in compliance with the MS from which it was framed, yet if in that
MS the <Wiarginal addition fhould appear to have been made by the
fame fcribe who wrote the reft of the MS, there would remain no dif"
ficulty in looking upon margin and text, in this, and in every other
fimilar cafe', as one and the fame thing,
M. F, C. Alter informs me, that the Sclavonian MSS of the Pala
tine Library at Vienna do not read this verfe.
(/) KoRTHOLT, de iiariis Scriptur, Edit, page 311 ,

33^ I> R' BENSON.
MS copies ofthe vulgar latin, in various parts
of Europe, in which this text is not found,"
Arid there is a ftill greater number beyond all
comparifon, in which this text IS found. («) Dr.
Benfon, if living, would not confent to have the
caufe decided by the greater number of thefe Latin
MSS. The argument therefore was merely ad cap-
tandum ; and proves nothing either to the advan
tage, or to the credit, of the propofer.
LIII. " It [the verfe in queftion] is not
once quoted in the genuine works of any of the
Greek Fathers. For infiance ; It is not found
in Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ig
natius, Juflin Martyr, Irenceus, Clemens Alex
andrinus, Eufebius, Athanafius, Epiphanius,
Didymus of Alexandria, Bafil the Great, Gre
gory Nazianzene, Gregory Nyffene, Chryfofiorne,
Cyril of Alexandria'' {y)
Before
(a) It is fonnd in 126 out of 136 Latin MSS now in the Royal
Library at Paris, in all thofe which arc contained in the Palatine Li
brary at Vienna, in all thofe of the Libraries of SanSee Cfiuc'is and
the B. M. Virginis ad Scotos, in and near Vienna : and in all thofe ten
(five of them read the Sth verfe before the 7th, and one has the 7th
verfe in its margin) which are now kept in the Library at Dublin.
{•v) Several others arc here mentioned by Dr. Benfon ; but it feem?
unneceffary to tranfcribe their names. '

Dr. BENSON. 339
Before we enter oh this -wide field of vacuity —
this region of night and nothing — let the two fol
lowing general rule^ be laid down, as guides to
lead us through it with fafety and difpatch.
¦ I. That where a part only (perhaps but a fmall
part) of the works of any ancient Father has de
fcended to us, -Wd are not at Uberty to conclude
that a particular paffage of Scripture has not been
quoted at all by fuch ancient Father, merely be
caufe it is not found in that part of his works
which hath come down to the prefent age. And
1. That where fuch ancient Fathers have not
cited, in thofe parts of their works which remain
to our times, other texts confeffedly genuine, which
would ha-ve been as applicable to the fubjed then
in difcuffion as this paffage of St. Jobn, — ^no con
clufive argument is to be drawn, from fuch filence,
againft the Driginality of the text in queftion.
Thefe two general rules being premifed, let us
now proceed to particulars. And firft —
" It is not found in Clemens Alexandrinus"
A a 3 A part

34^ DR. BENSON.
A part only of his works hath come down td
the prefent age. In that part he occafionally treats
of the Trinity ; but he has not, on that fubjed,
cited the text ofthe baptifmal inftitution [w) which
would have been as applicable to his defign as this
paffage of St. John. By both the preceding rules,
therefore, no conclufive argument is to he drawn
from his filence againft the originality of the verfe
in queftion.
" Nor In Alexander, Bifhop of Alexandria, Eu
febius, or Epiphanius''
Nor has the firft of thefe, in his Epiftle agalnffe.
Arius, the fecond, in his Trad againft the Sabel
iians, or the third, in- his defence of the Trinity
againft Noetus, cited the words of the baptifmal
inftitution. [x) The fecond of the preceding ge
neral rules applies itfelf to all thefe Fathers.
" Nor in Athanafius, or Gregory Nazianzene^' Whether
(<w) " Go ye, therefore, and teach [or, make difciples a/^] all nation.',
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghoft." St. MaUheiu xxviii : 19.
{x) Martfn'i Diflertation, Part ii : C. j.

DR. BENSON. 34I
Whether the Dialogue between Athanafius and
Arius belongs to this Author, or not, the Synopfis
( j) herein before mentioned may with certainty be
s^ttributed to him : the writer of which has plainly
referred to the text in queftion. And the quota
tions, which have^ been already ftated from Gre
gory Nazianzen, enable us to form the fame con
clufion as to him alfo.
As to the reft of tbe Greek Fathers, recited in
the objedion, they faU under the former of the
foregoing rules. Their works have not defcended
to us compleat. And it feems that we are not at
liberty (as is there obferved) abfolutely and en
tirely to conclude that this verfe has never been
quoted by them, merely becaufe it is not found in
tha.t part of their works which hath furvived to
the prefent times.
¦ LIV. " They quoted this firfi epifile of St.
John, the fifth chapter, and even the fixth and
eighth verfes"
By the unlverfallty of thefe expreffions, it fhould
feem that Dr. Benfon believed, or wifhed his readers
A a 3 to
[J) Pages 48— 52, 148—172.

342 DR. BENSON.
to believe, that all the Greek Fathers herein before
named, had quoted the fixth and eighth verfes
(omitting the feventh verfe) of this chapter. But
this is a miftake, or a mifreprefentation ; for only
two of thefe Fathers feem to ftand in this predica
ment, namely Clemens Alexandrinus, and Cyril of
Alexandria. As to the former of thefe, no part of his com*
mentary (if indeed it be his) on this Epiftle hath
defcended to the prefent age (ss) except a few fcat
tered fragments. Thefe fragments make no men
tion of the five firft verfes of this chapter ; they
juft touch upon the fixth, giving only the firft
words of it. They then pafs from the eighth to
the end of the eleventh verfe ; then omitting the
two next following verfes, and part of the four
teenth, they end with the laft claufe of the nine
teenth verfe. From fuch disjointed members of a
commentary, even if allowed to be the work of
Clemens Alexandrinus, nothing conclufive can be
inferred. With
(z) Dr. Cave does not believe thefe fragments to have been the
work of Cletnens Alexandrinus. (Hift. Lit. Loucl. Edit. A. D. 1688,
p. s6-)Thefe fragments may be found (fuch as they are) in Ma;t. Bibl.
Patrum, Vol. iii, p. 232.

DR. BENSON. 343
With refped to Cyril, he feems to fall under the
objedion oi^omffions in general, which will be
confidered hereafter.
LV. " As to the Latin Fathers, The author
of the Treatife about the baptifm of heretics,
fuppofed to be cotemporary voith St. Cyprian,
hath quoted the fixth and eighth verfies ; but
taken no notice of the feventh : Which, as it
ffews he knew nothing of the feventh verfe,
affords a very firong and cogent argument for
the fuppofition, that neither had Cyprian this
text in his copies,"
Whether this treatife be ancient or modern {a)
the conclufion, here drawn by Dr. Benfon, is un
warranted and groundlefs. The writer of this
treatife, in the paffage referred to fpeaks, as was
ufual with the Divines of that age, of three forts
of Baptifm ; namely, by the water, by the fpirit,
and by the blood. On this topic he properly
quotes the fixth and eighth verfes of this chapter
of St. John. The words of the feventh verfe did
not relate to his fubjed. A a 4 LVI.
(a) Du Pin, Vol. i. p. 15;.
Cyprian.s Works. Ed. Pearfotf (int, op. fal f.) p. 21.

344 ^^' BENSON.
LVI. " Didymus of Alexandria, in the
fourth ; Bede, in the eighth ; and Oecumenius,
in the eleventh century, vorotc, each of them,
a commentary upon this firfi epifile of St. John,
But fio far "were they from explaining this dif
puted text, that they have not fo much as men
tioned it. Which ffews, that they either knew
nothing of it, or did not believe it to he genuine''
Didymus did not write a regular commentary,
but fome loofe and defultory Notes on this Epiftle
of St. John. In thefe Notes all the verfes, from
the fifth to the fourteenth of this chapter, are
wanting. The inference, then, that Didymus
*' knew nothing of this text, or did not believe it
to be genuine," becaufe he has not made fpecial
mention of it in his commentary, will apply juft
as forcibly to all the other verfes thus omitted, as
to the feventh. If the argument prove any thing,
it concludes equally againft all thefe verfes. But it
proves too much ; and of courfe proves no
thing, [b)
As to Bede, who comments on the fixth and
eighth, but paffes over the feventh verfe, his filence
affords
\Jb) Wolfius, Cur. Philol. Vol, v. p. 301,

D R, BENSON. 345
affords ground for a flight fufpicion that he did
not know this text, or that he did not believe it to
be genuine. But the fufpicion feems to vanifh, on
a due confideration of the following obfervations.
I, Bede was not ignorant of the exiftence of
this text. He had read the works of Cyprian and
Fulgentius ; and he virtually admits the teftimony
of the four hundred African Bifhops, recorded by
Vidor Vitenfs : for he has cited all thefe Authors in
bis works. But what feems decifive as to Bede's
knowledge of the verfe, is, that the Verfion of
Jerome, in which this text has always poffeffed its
place, had not only been adopted by the learned,
but publicly read in the churches, for more than a
century before Bede began his commentary. Evi
dence hath been already [c) given to this point.
One part of it, however, as it refers to Bede by
name, fhall be here repeated. " Remigius, Bed A,
Rabanus, Haimo, Anfelmus, and finally all other
ecclefiaftical writers for more than nine hundred
years paft, have adhered fo clofely to the New
\fJerome's\ Edition, that all other Verfions have
been utterly loft, at leaft as to their ufe." Nor
(f) Page 313,

34^ DR. BENSON.
Nor does this obfervation depend folely upon
the teftimony of others. It ftands upon the moft
-folid foundation, the authority of Bede himfelf 5
who very frequently refers to Jerome's Verfion,
entitling it nostram editionem and nostros co-
dke-s; and defcribing Jerome hj the' affedlonate
appellation of Interpres nofier. {d) The fuppofi
tion, then, that Bede knew nothing of this text,
camiot be maintained even for a fingle moment,
2. Nor does the other fuppofition founded alfo
en the filence of Bede, namely, that he did " not
believe this text to be genuine," feem more defen-:
fible than that which preceded it. For Bede pof
feffed no fmall fhare of the learning of thofe days,
particularly as to the Greek language ; and it was
his pradice, in other parts of his commentary, eon
ftantly to advertife his readers, whenever any paf
fage occurred in the -vulgar copies which was not
found in the Greek MSS. But he has fixed no
imputation of this kind on the verfe in queftion.
He ha^ paffed it over in filence. And how is that
filence to be accounted for ? He either found this
verfe
[d) See hb works, paffim.
Bede was, alfo, the preceptor of Alcuinus, of whofe CorreSloriunt
{which contained this verfe) mention is made in page 56 of thefe.
kt:er!.

DR. BENSON. 347
jverfe in his Greek copies, or he did not. If he
-did not find it there, it muft be prefumed that he
.would have apprifed his readers of the deficiency
.in this, as he did in other inftances. His filence
a.lone, in fuch a cafe, would not have been fuffi
clent. Where it is a duty to fpeak, to be filent is
to be criminal. We cannot prefume thus of the
Venerable Bede, without having more fubftantial
grounds for the prefumption than mere conjec
ture, [e]
The conclufion, then, feems to be, that Bede
DID find this verfe in his Greek Copies. His
pradice in other cafes warrants, the fandity of his
charader even hallows, this conclufion. Standing
fingly thefe circumftances form, each, a probable proof —
{e) The point in ^ifiue, as to Bede, is— Was the 'uerfe i. John v: 7
in Bcde'.f Bible, or not ? On the negative fide is alledged his com-
pientary on the 6th and 8th, and his omiffion of the 7th, verfe. This
is a fair prefumption, but no more. And it may be repelled by thefe
arguments : viz. l. He has omitted other paffages admiitedly genuine—
Z. His bible was Jerome's Verfion— and 3. He read Cyprian, Vidor
Yitenfis and Fulgentius. The two laft arguments are, in faft, proofs.
The firft is prefumption only. It was accordingly omitted in the fe
cond edition of thefe Letters. But as that omiflion has been blamed
by the opponents of this verfe as a fault, it is replaced in this
Note. They had better have fuffered the argument to have reniained.
as it was, This prefumption on one fide is juft as good as the'irs on
the other. And the two proofs, juft alluded to, thus ftand agajoft
jhem without any counterpoife or oppofiiion.

34^ DR. BENSON.
proof — united they prefs convidion home upon
the mind — that Bede believed this verfie to be genii^
ine ; and that, from whatever other motive his
filence in regard to it may be conjedured to have
proceeded, he had no fcruples to commuhicate re
fpeding its authenticity, and its truth.
As to Oecumenius, who lived fo late as the ele
venth century, no inference can be drawn from,
any omiffion on his part, which can impeach the
originality of this verfe. It has beeft ' already
^i^wnhj a cloud of witneffes, by proofs too nu
merous to be here repeated, that this text did be
yond all difpute exift, in his times, in the Epiftle
of St. John,

Thus far. Sir, for thofe objedions of Dr. 5f«w
fon, which appropriate themfelves to particular ob-
jeds, and may be met by particular anfwers. And
thus I beg leave to difmlfs, for the prefent at leaft,
his Differtatlon : which for intrepidity of affertion,
difingenuoufnefs of quotation, and defedivenefs of
conclufion, has no equal — ftands aloof beyond all
parallel — as far as my reading extends, either in
ancient or in modern times. I am. Sir, «Scc.

-¦!><>;>:>.:»<>.

LETTER

IV.

SIR,
T Now proceed to a confideration of the objec-
•*- tions, which have been urged againft the au
thenticity of the verfe i . John, v : 7 by the late
Sir Isaac Newton." *.xj^
The learned Dr. Horffey has given thefe objec
tions to the public, in the fifth volume of his edi
tion of the works of this truly great man ; to which
he has prefixed the following advertifement.
" A. VERY imperfed copy of this trad, 'wanting
both the beginning and the end, and erroneous in
many places, "was publiffed at London, in the year
1754, under the title of Two Letters from Sir Ifaac
Newton to Mr. Le Clerk. But in the Author's MS
the whole is one continued difcourfe ; which, although it

^^O N E W T O N.
it is conceived in thS epifiolary form, is not addreffed
to any particular perfon.
" It is now firfi publifioed entirt from a MS in
the Author's hand-writing, in the poffeffion of the
Rev. Dr. Ekens, Dean of Carlifle." (/')
The ob^dlons, urged by this moft refpedable
antagonlft of the verfe in queftiortj are, principally,
as foflows. t. " The arguitents alledged for the tefii
mony of the Three in Heaven, are the autho
rities of Cyprian, Athanafius, and Jerome, and
of many Greek MSS, and alntofi all the Latin

ones."

This ehumeration Is Candid, and has no fault
but that of not being compleat. Befide thefe au
thorities, and within the limit, as to time, of the
century in which Jerome lived, the reading of this
verfe in the A-no^ox^, the dired references to, ob
exprefs citations of it, by Tertullian, Phcebadius,
Marcus Celedenfis, Augufiine, Eucherius, and Vi
gilius,
(/) Dr. llorfiey has obligingly informed me, that he finds nothing|f
in the MS to afcertain the time when this traft was compofed,
'¦¦'.v.

NEWTON. .351
gilus, and its exiftence in the Armenian, and Old
Italic, Verfions are concurrent teftimonies of its
authenticity : all of which, neverthelefs, are here
totally paffed by and omitted.
II. *' Cyprian s words run thus : The Lord
faith, I and my Father are One. And again
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft it is
written ; And thefe Three are One. The
Socinians here deal too injuriouffy with Cyprian,
while they would have this place ^corrupted :
for Cyprian in another place [Epif. ad Jubai-
anum] repeats the fame thing. Thefe places
of Cyprian, being in my opinion genuine, feem
fo appofite to prove the tefiimony of the Three
in Heaven, that" —
This extrad contains another pleafing Inftance
of candor in this iiluftrious objedor. Thefe paf
fages in Cyprian are as undoubtedly genuine, as they
are clearly " appofite to prove the teftimony of
the Three in Heaven'' (^) IIL

(^) The candor 0^ Erafmus and Newton may, perhaps, be beft com
pared together, and greatly to the honor of the latter, by remarking
that Erafmus did not think fit to infert thefe words, cum tres unum funt,
in his edition of Cypriani epiftle to Juhaianu:, [Bengel, p. 752.]

352 . NEWTON.
III. " Iff ould never have fufpeded a mifiah
in it [viz. the teftimony of the Three in
Heaven, as fet forth by Cyprian^ could I but
have reconciled it with the ignorance I meet
with of this reading in the next age, amongfi:
the Latins of both Africa, and Europe,, as
well as among the Greeks."
Cyprian fuffered martyrdom in the latter part of
the third century. The next age, therefore, to
that^bf Cyprian is the fourth century. And In
that century Phcebadius among the Latins of Eu
rope, Jerome among thofe of Afa, and Marcus
Celedenfis and Augufiine among thofe of Africa,
have quoted, or referred to this teftimony of the
Three in Heaven. The fame century alfo holds
forth to us the Synopfis of St. John's Epiftle, the
Orations of Gregory Nazianzen, and the ufe of the
Arrof oA(^, among the Greeks : {h) all of which ex
hibit the fame teftimony.
Sir Ifaac Newton's argument, then, is this.
*' There is an ignorance of this verfe in the next
age to Cyprian, among both Latins and Greeks.
Had it not been fo. Iff ould not even have fufpeded
a mifiake in Cyprian's quotation." The anfwer to
which is — The next age to Cyprian was not igno rant
[h) Pages 48—52, 62, i48»— 172,

NEWTON.

2>5Z

rant of this verfe, as Sir Ifaac Newton imagined.
The quotation of it therefore by Cyprian, was not a
miftake, as he fufpeded," — The fuppofed ignorance,
upon which Sir Ifaac Newton here buflds his fuf
picion of a miftake in Cyprian's quotation, not
exifting, the fufpicion itfelf falls to the ground.
And thus, by Sir Ifaac's own argument, the con
teft is already decided in favor of the authenticity
of the verfe in queftion.
It appears evident, from thefe confiderations,
that had Sir Ifaac Newton been acquainted with the
whole of the evidence which tends to fupport the
authenticity of .this verfe (many parts of which
feem to have been entirely unknown to him) he
would not have written this treatife, now under
confideration, which ftrives to Overthrow it. The
plain import of his own argument warrants the
former conclufion. His • known candor Infers the
latter. " IV. For had it been in Cyprian's Bible,
the Latins ofi the next age, when all the world
was engaged in difputing about the Trinity, and
all arguments that could be thought of, vuere
diUgently fought out, and daily brought upon the
' fiage, could never have been ignorant of a text,
B b which,,

354 NEWTON.
vohich, in our age, now tbe difpute is over, is
chiefiy infified upon."
Sir Ifaac Newton, in this objedion, ftill preffes
the former argument of a fuppofed ignorance of
this verfe in the fourth century, and during the
Arian controverfy. The fuppofition of fuch an
ignorance hath been already refuted. The argu
ment, as to the Arian controverfy, will be more
properly confidered hereafter, (i)
V. /// reconciling this difficulty, I confider,
therefore, that the only words of the text quoted
by Cyprian in both places, are. And thefe three
are one : which words may belong to the eighth
verfe as wiell as the feventh. For Eucherius,
Biff op of Lion in France, and contemporary to
St. Aifiin, reading tbe text -without thc feventh
•verfe, tells us, that many then underfiood the
Spirit, ihe Water, and tbe Blood, to fignify tht
Trinity"

Cyprians words are (as hath been before ftated)
Of ihe Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi, it is writ ten,

«i

(i) See objeflion *sxi, of ilt Ifnai Navtoni — vilxtxt this qu?ftior.
is conHdered.

NEWTON. 355
ten, {k) And thefe three are one" Thefe words
cannot be underftood to have been taken by Cyprian
from the eighth verfe ; becaufe it is not fo written
in the eighth verfe.
And as to Eucherius, the argument here infifted
upon overthrows itfelf. For Eucherius has, in ano
ther part of his works (/) diredly cited the feventh
verfe. VI. " And St. Aufiin is one of thofe many,
as you may fee in his third book againfi Maxi
mus, where he tells us, that the Spirit is the
Father, for God is a Spirit ; the Water the
Holy Ghofi, for he is the Water, which Chrifi
gives to them that thirfi ; and the Blood the
Son ; for the word was madefieff"
Augufiine may be one of thofe, who have wiflied
to underftand the eighth verfe as being typical of
the Trinity. And this paffage from the third book
of this treatife againft Maximinus (not Maximus)
the Arian, may be a proof of it. But it is no
proof that he did not read the feventh verfe in his
bible. B b 2 VII. " Now
(i) Pages 52, 99 and 123.
(/) Pages 42, 104 — >i8, and objeftion viii. of M. Griefi'ach,

35^ NEWTON.
VII, " Now if it was tbe opinion of
many, in the Weftern Churches of thofe times,
that the Spirit, the voater, and the blood, fig
nified the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft,
it is plain, that the teftimony of tbe Three in
Heaven was not crept into their books."
It might have been the opinion of both Euche
rius and Augufiine, as hath been already obferved,
that the fpirit, water, and blood in the eighth verfe,
did fignify (typically) the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghoft, And yet it is plain, that the tefti
mony of the Three in Heaven in the feventh verfe
had, neverthelefs, then crept into their books. For
they not only tell us very plainly that they found
that teftimony in their books ; but they give us
this information without any marks either of fur-
prife, or of indignation : which fhews that they
had no doubts either of Its antiquity, or of its au
thenticity. VIII. " Even without tbis tefiimony, it was
obvious for Cyprian, or any man elfie of that
opinion, to fay of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghofl, It is written, And thefe three are one."

It

NEWTON. 357
It Is obvious that Cyprian, or any other Writer
might, and perhaps would, expound the eighth
verfe as being typically expreffive of the Trinity,
if he really thought fo. But he would not fay at
the fame time, "It is written in the eighth
verfe, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi, And
THESE THREE ARE ONE," — If he paid any regard
to truth : becaufe it never was fo written in any
part of the eighth verfe.
IX. " So then this interpretation fieems to
have been invented by the Mantanifis for giving
countenance to their Trinity. For Tertullian
voas a Montanifi, when he wrote this"
This objedion feems to abound In miftakes.
It is, in the firft place, far from being clear that
TertuIUan was a Montanifi, when he wrote his
Treatife againft Praxeas. In the life of Tertullian,
prefixed to the Edition of his works by Rigaltius
(???) this treatife is afiirmed to have been written,
B b 3 before
{m) Edit. Paris. A.D. 1675. Alfo—" Verifimile eft Tertullianum
fcripfiflie A. D. ccxx. librum adverfus Praxeam. Contigifli'e cenle-
mus hoc fere anno [A. D. ccxxi.] ad Montani dogma delapfum," {f'lta
Tertull. per Pamel.)

2^S NEWTON.
before the opinions of Montanus were adopted by
Tertullian.

But admitting, for the fake of argument alone,
that Tertullian was a follower of Montanus when
he wrote his treatife againft , Praxeas — what was
the Trinity of the Montanifis ? Epiphanius affirms
that the Montanifis [n) held the fame opinion, as
to the Trinity, which was entertained by the ca
tholic Church In general. While Jerome pofitively
afferts that the Montanifis (o) thought like Sabel
lius in that refped, — Trinitatem in unius perfoncs
angufiias cogentes.
And now. Sir, whether of thefe interpretations.
of the Trinity of the Montanifis wfll afford any
fupport to the preceding objedion ? If the
defcrlption of Epiphanius he juft — the Montanifis
•wanted no countenance to be given to their Tri nity
(») Ilffi (Je Ttar^os Sec. De Patre enim, et Filio, et Spiritu
fanfto fimiliter cum ecclefia catholica fentiunt.
Epiph. ad-v. Hisr. Lib. ii. Tom. i. Edit. Paris. A. D. 1622, p.
402. (0) Nos Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum fanflum in fua unumquem-
que perfona ponimus. Illi (viz. Montaniftee) dogma Sabelli feftantes,
Trinitatem in unius perfonas anguftias cogunt.
Hieron, adverfus Monianum, \o\, ii, p. 44 A, (Ed. Erafm, A. D.
546.)

NEWTON. 359
nity In particular, becaufe it was the fame with
that of the Chriftian Church in general. And if
that of Jerome, — the Montanifis had no Trinity to
which they could give countenance ; becaufe, being
Sabeliians, they did not hold the dodrlne of a Tri
nity at all.
Upon the whole however, it feems that Jerome's
account of the Montanifis Is the true one. For
Jerome lived in the vicinity of the ancient Phryr-
gia, where the errors of Montanus were almoft
unlverfafly followed : from which circumftance the
appellation of Cataphryges is frequently applied to
the Montanifis by ancient writers. And if fo,
Tertullian was not a Montanifi (at leaft as to the ar
ticle of the Trinity) when he wrote the treatife
againft Praxeas ; but a believer, with Jerome, in
the catholic dodrine of three perfons and one God,
[p) as then, and now taught by the catholic [or
univerfal] Church of Chrift.
X. " What isfiaid of the teftimony of Ter
tullian, and Cyprian [viz, that their words
were only a forced interpretation of the eighth
verfe] may be much more faid of that in the
B b 4 feigned
[p) " Conpexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto — qui tres unum
funt" are expreffions ufed by Tertullian in this treatife.

360 NEWTON.
feigned difputation of Athanafius with Arius at
Nice. For there tbe voords cited are only Thefe
three are one, without naming the perfons of
the Trinity before them."
The expreffions of this Dialogue, or Difputation
(as hath been before ftated) are [q) " Is not that
lively and faving baptifm, whereby we receive re-
miff on of fins, adminifiered in the thrice bleffed name
\_ofi the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofi .^] Arid
moreover St. John fiays. And thefe three are one."
The words thus cited, then, are not Thefie three
are one, without naming, for they do name (or ufe
expreffions equivalent to the naming) the perfons
of tbe Trinity before (and immediately before) them.
XI. " They [alfo] are  xon 01 r^ei; ro ev na-iv
— and they are taken out of the eighth verfef
The premifes here ftated are not juft. The
words of the dialogue are — 'aoi.i 01 Tf«? ev eia-iv. But
even If juft, they would warrant the very contrary
dedudion, viz. that the words, cited in this dia
logue, are not taken from the eighth verfe. For
the claufule here referred to, wherever it ftands in
the
(?) Page 32.

NEWTON. 361
the eighth verfe in the Greek MSS, is (not to ev
only, but) «? ro iv univerfally. (r)
XII. " Tbe Greeks interpreted the Spirit*
Water, and Blood, of the Trinity, as well
as the Latins ; as is manifefi firom the an
notations they made on this text in the margin
of fome of their MSS. For in the margin
of one MS in the Library of the King of
France (about 500 years old) over againfi the
former claufe of the eighth Verfe are , written
[s) The Holy Ghoft, and the Father, and he
of Himfelf — and over againfi the latter claufe.
One Deity, one God. And the margin of
the fame verfe, in another in M. Colbert's Li
brary, thefe words. One God, one Godhead
— The teftimony of God the Father, and of
the Holy Ghoft."
Some of the Latins did, we know, interpret the
expreffions of the eighth verfe in tfiis manner.
And fome of the Greeks might do the fame. But
it will not follaw from thence that they had not
the feventh verfe in their MSS. Eucherius for in
ftance, Augufiine, and Facundus have adopted this
myftical
{r) Pages 142 — 147,
(/) This MS is now in the Royal Library at Paris, and marked
No, 60,

362 NEWTON.
myftical interpretion of the eighth Verfe. And
yet it is moft certain that Eucherius did read the
feventh verfe in his Bible. The quotations, which
have been before referred to from Augufiine, will
hardly permit a ferious doubt as to its being found
in his Bible likewife. And the fame conclufion
has been already drawn (/) in refped to the Bible
of Facundus ; and ftands, as it feems, upon the
moft folid foundations,
XIII. " Thefie marginal notes fufficiently
ffew bow the Greeks ufed to apply this text
[the eighth verfe] to the Trinity, and by con
fequence, how the author of that difputation is
to be underfiood,"
This conclufion is defedive in all its parts. If
the two marginal notes In queftion fhall be admitted
to fhew that the two refpedive poffeffors, or copy
ifts, of thofe two particular MSS applied the eighth
verfe to the Trinity ; they will be ftill very far from
proving the fame thing of the Greeks in general.
But even if both thefe propofitions fhould be granted,
the confequence, juft alledged, will be as remote
as ever from the premifes. For the author of this
Difputation is not to be underftood as applying the

eighth

{j) Pages 107 — 118.

NEWTON. 363
eighth verfe to the Trinity in this paffage ; becaufe,
as hath been before obferved, he has not cited in
this paffage the words of the eighth verfe.
XIV, " But I ff ould tell you alfo, that that
Difputation was not written by Athanafius, but
by a later author ; and therefore, as a fpurious
piece, ufes not to be much infified on"
The queftion whether this Difputation is fpuri
ous, or in other words whether it was written by
Athanafius or not, — has been much debated, but
does not feem to be as yet determined. The time
when it was written, is of much more importance
in the prefent enquiry. And that being admittedly
of high antiquity, the additional circumftances of
its being written in the Greek language, and of ita
referring to St. John by name, will always give a
moft powerful influence to the teftimony of this
dialogue, or difputation, in favor of the authenti
city of the verfe i. John v : 7.
XV. " The firfi upon record, that inferted
it, is Jerome, if the Preface to the Canonical
Epifiles be his," The

364 NEWTON.
The preface fo the canonical epiftles, it Is trufted,
hath been already proved {u) to be the work of
Jerome. And yet he is not the firft upon record
that inferted the verfe. It was received by the La
tin Church long before Jerome's Tranflation •n^as
made, and indeed long before Jerome himfelf was
born ; becaufe it hath always ftood in the old Italic
Verfion, which was made in the firft century.
This matter hath been already ftated at large.
XVI. " He [Jerome] compofed not a new
tranfiation of the New Tefament, but only cor
reded the ancient vulgar Latin"
He compofed a new Tranflation of the New
Teftament from the Greek. Augufiine calls it fo,
who was Jerome's contemporary and correfpon
dent. " We heartily thank God for your Trans-
l.,ATiON." Nay Jerome himfelf calls it fo, in effed.
His expreffion upon this fubjed is not correxi, or
cafiigavi, but reddidi [v) repeatedly, XVII.
, (a) Pages t 28 — 180.
(c) Pages 43, 138 and 175.
'Jerome, it is true,- upon one occafion ufes the word emendations,
when fpeaking of his own New Teftament. And the learned Hody,
p. 351, has argued from that expreffion, that Jerome did not make a
aef-xu Tranflation, but onlv corredled the old one. And indeed, had
Jerome

NEWTON. ^5^
XVII. " He [Jerome] complains, in the
fame Preface, how he was thereupon accufed
by fome of the Latins, for falfify ing Scrip
ture,"
Permit me. Sir, to take this objedion In detail.
It may affift us perhaps in coming to an early, as
wefl as to a fatisfadory conclufion.
Jerome, then, in his Preface to the Canonical
Epiftles complains of the malicious accufations of
his enemies. They pronounce me (fays he) a falfi-
fier of Scripture — " me falfarium pronunciant^
But have they fpecified their accufations, and men
tioned the particular parts of Scripture which they
affirm to have been falfified by him?— They have
fpecified them. As to the Old Teftament, they
have accufed him of having attempted to Introduce
Judaifm into the Church by altering the Scriptures,
They have afferted that he brought forward his
own tranflation with a fecret defign to difcredit the
Septuagint. They have cenfured him for ufing the
word bcedera inftead of cucurbit a in the Book of
Jonah ; and they have condemned his objedions as
Jerome never ufed any other expreflion refpefting his work, Hodys ar-
gument would have been as ftrong and valid, as it now feems weak
and unfatisfadory.

366 NEWTON.
as to the prophet Daniel. And as to the New
Teftament, among other charges, they have ac
cufed him of wilfully leaving out of his text the
words without a caufe In St. Matthew, of mifre-
prefenting the difpute between St. Peter and St.
Paul, and of following the tenets of Origen in his
commentary on St. Paul's Epiftle to the Ephefians.
They have objeded to his notions concerning pre-
deftination — his interpretation of No man ever yet
bated his own fieff — his expofition of From whom
the whole body fitly framed together — his opinioil
concerning the remiffion of fins by baptifm — his
conjedures as to the condition and office of angels,
' — and his explanation of the refurredion of the
body. — But have they faid any thing againft his
retention of the verfe i. John v : 7 in his Tranfla
tion ? Not a fingle fyllable. How then do thefe
accufations prove that the accufers of Jerome were
offended with his infertion (or, to fpeak more pro
perly, his retention) of this verfe in his Teftament ?
They do not prove it at all in any manner, or in
any refped whatfoever !
Nor have we, further, any reafon even to fufped
that thefe, or any other accufations were brought
againft Jerome, on account of any part of his
tranflation

NEWTON. 367
tranflation of the firft Epiftle of St, John. Thofe
accufations are thus recorded by Jerome himfelf.
" But now becaufe, according to our Saviour's
precept, I am defirous to labor for the meat which
perifheth not, and to clear the primitive paths of
the Scriptures from thorns and brambles, an accu-
cufation doubly injurious is brought againft me-
Anxious to corred the falfifications of others, I
am myfelf called a falfifier of Scripture ; and am
charged with fowing errors, inftead of plucking
them up." [w)
" Inafmuch as I am called a falfary, I am con
tented to deny, without retorting the accufa-
tion. [x)
I will beg leave. Sir, to ftate the reft of Jeromes
complaints of this kind in his own language. My
own may not do him juftice. (j) Thefe
(ou) " Nunc autem, ^uia juxta fententiam Salvatoris, iiolo cperari
<ihum qui non perit, et antiquam di<vinorum moluminurn •viam fentihus 'vir-
gultifique purgare, error mihi geminus infligitur, CorreSior 'uitiorum, FAt-
s ARIUS dicor, et errores non auferre fed ferere" (Prxf, alt. in Lib.
Job.) \x) Ad Pammach, vol. ii. Edit. Eraf. A. D. 1546, p. 123, B.
[y) «< Sed et vos, faraulas Chrifti, rogo, quse Domini difcumbentie preciofiffima

368 NEWTON.
Thefe accufations then of Jerome, as z. falfary,
were brought againft him before he publifhed either
his tranflation of the canonical epiftles themfelves,
or his Preface to them, which is now under con
fideration. And they were not increafed, or even
repeated (as far as is known) after his publication
of thofe Epiftles. Jerome therefore was not there
upon (that is, upon the publication of this Preface,
or upon the retention of the verfe i. John, v: 7
in his New Teftament) accufed of falfifying Scrip
ture ; as is afferted in the above objedion. The^
tranfient mention of his accufers, in 'this Preface,
is merely the retrofpedion of a feeling mind ftill
finartlngs^
preciofiffima fidei myrrha ungkis caput, qus nequaquam Salvatorem
quasritis in fepulchro, quibus jam ad Patrem Chriftus afcendit : ut
contra latrantes canes qui ad'uerfum me rabido ore deftxviunt, - orationum
veftrarum clypeos opponatis." \Pmf. in Lib. P.eg.'\
" Obtreaatoribus meis — qui canino dente rae rodunt." \?raf. in
Lib. Paralip.']
" Cogor -PER siNGULOs ScRiPTURiE DiviN.ffi: LIBROS advetfafi-
orum refpondere malediiSis." [Prof, in Lib. Job.]
Quanto plus amatis [Chriftum] O Paula et Euftochium, tanto magis
ab eo petite, ut pro obtredatione priefenti qua me indefinenter iemuli la-
niant, ipfe mihi mercedem reftituat in futuro : qui fcit me ob hoc in
peregrinsE linguse eruditione fudafle, ne Judai defal/itate'(ctipt\iti'
rum ecclefiis ejus diutius infultarent." [Prtpf. in Efaiam.]
" Quis enim doftus pariter vel indoftus, cum in manus volumen
affumpferit, et a faliva quam femel imbibit, viderit difcrepare quod
leititat, non ftatim erumpat in vocem, me falfarium, me clamitans
eflie facrilegum, qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere, mu
tate, corrigere." {Prief. in Erjangelia-']

NEWTON. 369
fmarting under a fenfe of former injuries; and
bears no reference whatfoever to his tranflation of
any part of the firft Epiftle of St. John,
XVII. '' In this defence he \]exon\e\ feems
to fay, that he correded the Vulgar Latin 'Tranfi-
lation by the original Greek ; and this is the
great tefiimony the text relies upon''
Jerome not only feems to fay, but does pofitively
fay, not in this defence only, but in other parts of
his works, that he made his tranflation from the
original Greek. Several proofs have already {z)
been produced to this point. To thofe let the fol
lowing paffage be fubjoined from his Epiftle to
Marcella, *' Latinorum codicum vitiofitatem, qua
ex diverfitate Ubrorum omnium comprobatur, ad Gras-
cam origlnem, unde et ipfi tranfiata non denegant,
voluiffe revocare," XIX. " But whilft he [Jerome] confeffes it
[the verfe l John v : 7.] voas not in the Latin
before, — hefatisfies us that it has crept into the .
Latin fmce his time" C c Jeromt
-{z) Pages 4S, 138, 14;.

37° NEWTON.
Jerome makes no fuch cotifeffion. The prfi.*
mifes are not true ; and muft therefore produce an
unfound conclufion.
XX. *' Afid whilft he was accufied. by his
contemporaries of falfifying tbe Scriptures in
infierting it, this accufiation alfo confirms, that
he altered the public reading"
The premifes, here laid down, are not more
true than thofe affumed in the former objec
tion. For Jerome never was accufed, by any of.
his contemporaries, of falfifying the Scriptures in
inferting this verfe. On the contrary Augufiine,
who doubted as to fome of Jerome's corredions of
the Old Teftament, expreffes the higheft (I had
almoft faid the moft devout) approbation of Je
romes New Teftament. {a) Nor was fuch a charge
ever brought againft Jerome by any perfon whom-
foever, for more than twelve hundred years after
his death. I appeal to all antiquity for the truth
of this obfervation. XXI. XXII. " For bad the reading been
dubious before be made it fio, no man would have
(a) Page 1 75 ; where Augu0ine^& words are ftated at large.

NE'WTON. 371
hdve charged him with falfification for- follow
ing either part"
No man ever did charge Jerome, In the fenfe
here meant, with falfificatlon for following either
part. Jerome therefore did not make the reading
dubious. Nor moreover does he even declare it
to have been made dubious at all in his times, ex
cept through the error of certain unfaithful tranf
lators ;. who (he fays) had not rendered the cano
nical Epiftles into the Latin language as they were
written by the Apofiles : which unfalthfulnefs had
produced ambiguities and variations of the text,
" particularly in that paffage of the firfi Epifile of St.
John, where tbe Unity of the Trinity is fet forth"
It was the fault of thofe unfaithful tranflators,
then, whom Jerome reprehends, and not of Je
rome himfelf, that the reading of thi« verfe was
ever rendered in the fmalleft degree dubious in the
Latin Church either In his age, or in any part of
the Chriftian sera which preceded him.
XXIII. " They that have been converfant
in his [ Jerome'j] writings, obferve a firange
liberty, which he takes in afferting things.
Many notable infiances of this he has left us
C c 2 in

372 NEWTON*
in compofing thofie ve^y fabulous lives of Paul,
and Hilarian [Hilarion] not to mention what
he has voritten upon other occafions. Whence
Erafmus"—-
What Erafmus fays of the compofitions here
cenfured is only — that Jerome feems to have amufed
himfelf with writing fiuch trifles, merely for the fake
cf exercifing his genius, {b) He wrote them as
Apologues, or ftories contrived to teach fome moral
or fpiritual duty ; and not as ftrid details of pofi
tive fads. They were therefore fabulous, and
were meant by Jerome to be fabulous : as appears
even by the teftimony of Erafmus. And fo were
the Fables of Pilpay, the Apologues of JEfop, the
two magnificent Epics of Homer, and Jotham's.
parable of the trees ; {c) which laft is much more
ancient than any other example of this fpecies of
compofition, which is now extant.
Thefe prolufions of Jerome then, were, like the
other inftances juft mentioned, feigned narrations defigned
{b) " Depijixit [H\eron'y mns] folitarium (meaning this Paul, the
Hermit) depinxit celebrem (meaning Hilarion) depingit hie (meaning
Malchus) capti-vum et agitatum, Lufit et in hoc argumento, ingenii exet-
citandi gratia." [Vol. i. p. 80 and 87. 1
[t). Judges ix, 7 — zo.

NEWTON. 373
defigned to Inform, to encourage, to reprove, or
to corred. They are — inftrudion difguifed under
the allegory of an adion. The machinery of thefe
ftories is romantic, and in fome paffages almoft
abfurd. But there is a moral in them, which
fliews that they were meant to affert what is ftrange
and unufual, in order ta inculcate what is ufeful
and good. ,
XXIV. " Whence Erafmus faid of him [Je
rome] that he voas in affirming things, fre
quently violent and impudent, and often con
trary to himfelf,"
Erafmus has fpoken thus of Jerome ; but not on
account of the lives of Paul and Hilarion, He
applied thefe expreffions to Jerome from another
motive, and for another and a far different pur
pofe. {d) Erafmus, when he ufed thefe words,
was agitated by a difpute which ruffled his temper,
and has added no honors to his name. When his
mind was more at eafe, he gave a very different
defcrlption of the i2cme'Jerome ; as the fubjoined
pidure (which, however, is drawn by the hand of
a mafter) will abundantly teftify, {e)
C c 3 XXV.
[d) Annot. in I. John v: 7, Edit. 1522.
(?) " Caterum in Optimo theologiis genere primas [fcil, lauaes] tenet
Di'vut

374 NEWTON.
XXV, " Tet fince his [ Jerome' j] contempo
raries accufed him, it is but jufi that we lay
afide the prejudice of his great name, and hear the
Di'vut Hieronymus, de Latinis loquor : et ita primas tenet ut omneis poft
fe longo relinquat inter'vallo. Inter tam innumeraliles Theologos, 'vix quea-
qUam habeat et ipfa do3a Gracia qui noftruma^uet H'liroBytaum, fi
modo non unam aliquam laudem, fed uninierfas ejus dotes fimul expendas',%
lantam uno in homine reperias feculariuM, ut niocant, literarum cognition-
em, tantam omnis antiquitatis peritiam, tot linguarum abfolutam fcientiaiXj'^
tam admirandam locorum et hifioriarum omnium notitiatn, tam non <vul-.
garem myfiicorum nioluminum eruditionem, tantum inimit abilis eloquentia,
tam exaiftum ubique judicium, tam fiacrum afflati pectoris ardorem, re
rum adeo di'uerfiarum tam digefiam ac preefentem memoriami tam falicsm
juxta et diniitem mixturam ; denique, tanto lepore conditam fi'veritattm, ut
quemadmodum per fe facundi, fi cum Cicerone conferantur, protinus 'Vidtn-
tur obmutefcere : ita c<eteri doBores, quos citra collationem fufpicimus, cum
Hieronymo contpofiti, 'vix fapere, 'vix loqui, 'vix 'vi'vere, 'videanturl^
[Preface to Jeromis works, by Erafmus; Vol. iv. Ed. Paris.']
Again. " S>u.is docet apertius? ^is deleBat urbanius? ^is moutt
effcacius ? ^is laudat candidius ? ^is fiuadet gra'vius ? ^is hortatur
/irdentius ? ^is recenfit fiiblimius ? ^is inftituit fianBius ? ^is cum
amicis fabulatur humanius ? Nullum eft enim argumenti genus in quo ille
tioK luferit : nufquam fui diffimilis." [Vita Hieronymi per Erafm\
Vol. i. Ed. Paris J
And again — " Multis dfuit linguarum peritia, nonnullis fidei fincer'i-
tas, quibufdam 'vit-e integritas : — Hieronymus, et unus Hieronymus, ^c
omnia praftitit, ut fi non non ad unam aliquam 'virtutem, fed ad omnium
concentMxa et fiimmam refficias: dicam audaBer fed 'vere, nihil haheat
<vel ipfa Graecia quod noftre opponat Hieronymo."
It would not be credited perhSps, if the faft were not thus efta-
bliftied, that the exaBum ubique judicium, the nufiquam fiui diffimilis, and
the omnium concentus •virtutum, of one of thefe charafters ; and tht ft^pe-
ttumero 'violentus, f/^pe 'varius, parumque fibi confians, of the other,—
were written of the fame Jerome, and by the fatne Erafmus I

NEWTON. 375
the caufe impartially. Now the witneffes be
tween them, are partly the ancient Tranfiators
of the Scriptures into the various languages,
partly the writers of his own age, and of the
ages next before and after him, and partly the
Scribes, who copied out the Greek MSS of the
Scriptures in all ages. And all thefe are againfi
him. For by the unanimous evidence of all
thefe, it will appear, that the tefiimony of the
Three in Heaven was wanting in the Greek
MSS from whence Jerome, or whoever was
the Author of that preface to the canonical
epifiles, pretends to have borrowed it."
It hath been before obferved, that Jerome's con
temporaries have not accufed him, as is here al
ledged. The perfons therefore, mentioned in the
objedion, are not wanted- aj- witneffes, becaufe. there
are no accufers v>rho require their teftimony. But
they fhall, neverthelefs, be examined in relation
to Jerome, in like manner as if fuch an accufation
had . been aduaUy brought : not only for the fake
of the very refpedable author of this objedion,
but for the fake of truth ; which generally appears
to the greateft advantage when put the moft fe-
yerely to the trial. C c 4 Firft

376 NEWTON.
Firft, then, it is afledged — -(to ftate this objec
tion in parts) — that " // appears by the unanimous
evidence of all tbe ancient Tranflators of the
Scriptures into the various languages, that the
tefiimony of tbe Three in Heaven, was want
ing in the Greek MSS, from whence Jerome
pretends to have borrowed it"
The evidence of thefe ancient tranflators of the
Scriptures into the various languages is fo far from
being unanimous, that tbe tefiimony of the Three in
Heaven was wanting in thofe ancient Greek MSS,
from which even their own refpedive Verfions
were derived ; that, on the contrary, three [f)
out of the whole five (as hath been already proved)
and two of thofe the moft ancient of them, have
uniformly contained the teftimony of thefe heavenly
witneffes. And the two [g) of thofe five ancient
Verfions which have not exhibited this difputed
text, if we admit their evidence to the utmoft, do
not eftablifh any part of the propofition advanced
in the objedion. Thofe two Verfions may give
room for prefumptions as to the readings of the
particular MSS, from whence they themfelves were

(/) The Italic, that of Jerome, and the Armenian.
\g) The Syriac, and Coptic,

NEWTON.

377

were derived. But they prove nothing as to the
MSS which Jerome ufed in his tranflation ; and
from which he not only pretends to have borrowed,
but undoubtedly did borrow, the verfe in queftion.
2. " Thefiame appears alfo by the unanimous
evidence of all the -writers of Jerome's own
age, and of tbe ages next before, and after
him."
There is not one Writer in all thofe ages, who
, wfll juftify this affertion. Some of them, indeed,
have not mentioned this verfe (as hath been before
remarked) in fuch parts of their writings as have
defcended to the prefent times. But other writers
of the fame ages have cited it in the moft pointed
terms. The mere filence of the former, as to this
Verfe, will not prove that it voas wanting even in
their own Greek MSS. Far lefs wfll fuch filence
prove that this verfe was wanting in thofe MSS,
by which Jerome regulated his tranflation.
3. " The fame appears by the unanimous evi
dence of all the Scribes, voho have copied out
the Greek MSS of the Scriptures in all ages." How

37^ N E WTO N.
How a Scribe, who copied out a Greek MS at
Paris or at Rome, in the tenth century for in
ftance, In which the teftimony of the Three in
Heaven was admittedly wanting, can be a proof
that the Greek MSS, which Jerome ufed in Pa-
lefiine in the fourth century, did not contain that
teftimony, — is utterly inconceivable. Such affer
tions (for they are not arguments) are too extra
vagant for a ferious confutation.
If it fhall be afked what Is become of Jerome'^
MSS, — let it be confidered, that he executed his
tranflation of the New Teftament in a Monaftery
at Bethlehem, near Jerufalem ; where he alfo died.
When we recoiled, how foon after Jerome's death
the Saracens invaded the Holy Land, and kept
its territory under their iron rule for nearly five
hundred years, until their ftrong holds were re
taken by ftorm from them, by the foldiers of the
Croifade, under the command of Robert Duke of
Normandy, in the laft year of the eleventh century ;
we need not be very doubtful as to the fate which,
befel the MSS of Jerome.
XXVI, " The ancient Interpreters which I
/ cite as witneffes Qf^ainfi him, are chiefiy the au
thors

NEWTON, 379
thors of the ancient vulgar Latin, of the Sy
riac, and the Ethiopic Verfions."
Thefe. three witneffes are, in the firft place, only
two. For the Ethiopic is no more than a tran
fcript from the Syriac; which reduces them to a
fingle teftimony. Of thefe three, thus reduced to
two witneffes, the ancient vulgar Latin, the moft
ancient Verfion in the world, is a witnefs on the
other fide of the queftion. For it hath already
been proved, that this Verfion hath uniformly
contaiiied the paffage i . John v : 7.
XXVIII. " For as he [Jerome] tells us,
that the Latins omitted the tefiimony of theThree
in, Heaven in their Verfion before his time''
Jerome tells us no fuch thing. He complains
indeed of certain unfaithful tranflators, who had
omitted this paffage of St. John ; but who might
be, and (if we may judge by the vaft majority of
La,tin MSS which read the verfe at this day) were
few in number, compared with thofe which re
tained it. He makes no complaints of this kind
againft the Latin Verfions in general ; or againft
the public Verfion of that age, the Old Latin, in
particular, [h) xxvin.
[h) Page 173.

580 NEWTON.
XXVIIL " // [i.Jobny.y.] is want^
ing alfo in other ancient Verfions; as in the
Egyptian Arabic [and] in. the Armenian Ver
fion, ufied ever fince Chryfofiom's age, by the
Armenian nations''
Tills objedion is true of the Coptic, here called
the Egyptian Arabic. But it is not true of the
Armenian : for that Verfion feems to have always
read this verfe, {i)
XXIX. " And that it [the verfe in quef
tion] voas not voritten in the ancient Verfions—'
Nor in the Greek" [viz. original of this
Epiftle,]
Every ancient Verfion which contained this
verfe, every ancient Church which received it,
and
(j) The only objeftion to this conclufion, which I am able to ftate
in addition to the former difcuflion of this queftion, is contained in
the following extrad of a letter which I have lately received from
F. C, Jlter. " Plurimum Rev. Bibliothecarius Meghitarenfium in
infula S , Lazari Venetiis P , Johari'nes Zorab Armenus, Viennse 1790
negotia agens, mihi afiirma^vit k 'm naWo codice MS Armeno N, T,
quos tamen multos et varios in Conventus bibliothecae habent, 1. Joh,
V : 7 reperiffe, illumque in nuUo adhuc codice Armeno MS' repertum
fuiffe." This teftimony, a: far as it goes, is an impeachment of Ofians in
tegrity, and of my argument, which ftsnds on that fuppofed integrity
39 its ftrongeft foundation.

NEWTON. 381
and every individual writer (of ancient times at
leaft) who quoted it, is a gofitive proof againft
this objedion. To ftate them here at large would
be to recapitulate the whole of the preceding pages.
The evidence (or rather the prefumption) to the
contrary is merely conjedural, arifing from omiffi
ons. The difference in degree, between thefe two
¦kinds of evidence, fhall be appreciated hereafter.
XXX. " But was wholly unknown to the
firfi Churches"
It was not unknown to the firft Latin Churches.
For their public Verfions, the Itala Vetus and that
of Jerome, have eonftantly exhibited this paffage
of St. John, from the firft hour of the exiftence
of that Church to the prefent moment.
It was not unknown to the firft Armenian
Church. For it hath been proved that its public
verfion hath moft probably, if not certainly, con
tained this verfe, from its final adjuftment at the
council oiEphefius, foon after the age of Chryfiofiom,
to the prefent times.
It was not unkpown to the Greek church. For
it hath been proved by the ufe of the Am^oKoi;, that this

3S2 NEWTON.
this paffage was read in that church even in the
eariieft ages of Chrifljanity.
Nor was it, laftly, unknown to the African
church. The citation of it fo early as. A, D, 484,
ty no lefs than (nearly) four hundred Bifhops ;
the reliance upon its evidence by thofe Bifhops, in
oppofitlon both to the fraud and force of Huneric
and Cyrila ; and the utter inability of the Tyrant,
and his mock-patriarch, to repel its teftimony but
by violence and perfecution ; — prove that this paf-'
fage was known, read, and received in that church,'
even from the eariieft aera of its converfion to the
Chriftian faith.
The plain truth therefore is, that this verfe was
unknown to none of the firft churches of Chrif
tians ; except, perhaps, to the Syriac and the Cop
tic, with their few and comparatively unimportant
derivatives. XXXI. " In all that vehement, univerfal,
and lafiing, controverfy, about the Trinity in
Jerome'j time, and both before and long enough
after it, this text of the T'hree in Heaven was
never once thought of." This

NEWTON. 3^3
This objedion is inaccurate in its form (but
it is not worth the time to ftop for inaccuracies
only) and untrue in its fubftance. The text of
the Three in Heaven was not only thought of but
adually quoted and' infifted upon, not only a lit
tle; after the age of Jerome, by Fulgentius and
Vigilius ; and in the fame century with Jerome, by
Eucherius, and Augufiine, and by the African Bi
fhops under Huneric ; but alfo before Jerome s
time, by Tertullian, Cyprian, Phcebadius, and as it
feems, by Marcus Celedenfis. And all thefe quota
tions of this verfe (thofe by Tertullian and Cyprian
alone excepted) were exprefsly made in the con
troverfy about the Trinity, and in open and avowed
oppofitlon to the Arians of thofe ages,
XXXII. " And therefore if tbis reading
voere once out [viz. in Jerome's age] we are
bound in jufiice to believe, that- it voas out from
the beginning ; unlefs tbe razing of it out can
be proved by fome better argument, than that of
pretence and clamour.'
It was out of fome copies In Jerome's age, and
in others ; as Jerome himfelf informs us. And
this fingle circumftance does more than confute
the objedion, — by turning it againft its author. For

384 NEWTON.
For (to ufe this iiluftrious objedor's own fFfle) if
this reading were once IN [viz. in Jeromes age,—
which Cyprian's Bible as well as Jerome's informa
tion affure us of] we are bound in jufiice to believe-
that it was in from the beginning ; — unlefs'-
the putting of it in, at fome later period, can be
proved by fiome better argument, than unfair and
violent confirudions. [k)
XXXIII. " 'itbe Greeks received it not
[viz. Jerome's reading of i. Jobn v : 7.] till
this prefient age, when the Venetians fent it
amongfi them in printed books,'
Was the octroqoXoi, then, not known to the Greeks
untfl this prefent age ? Was the aTrosoAos a printed
book ? Did Euthymius Zygabenus live only in
this prefent age ? Was the treatife containing the
debate (whether real or feigned) between Arius
and Athanafius, the Synopfis of the latter, and the
confeffion of faith of the Greek Church, written
in this prefent age ? Were any of thefe works

{k) 'Whenever Mr. Gihlon fliall find himfelf difpofed to attempt a
refutation of thefe ftriftures, the preceding one is particularly recom
mended to his notice. It will require his moft ferious attention.
I fpeak thus of it without dreading the imputation of vanity. For
it is not roy own ; it was fuggefted to me hy Dr, Horsley !

ilsr E W T o N. 385
$rfi known to the Greeks in printed books ? It is
irkfOme to fee fuch affertions brought forward ; and
to lie under the neceffity of repeUing them.
XXXIV. " It [the verfe in queftion] is
wanting in MSS of all languages but the
Latin"
It was perhaps wanting in thOfe particular Greek
MSS, from whence the Syriac and Coptic Verfions
were tranflated. But even that is not certain ; be
caufe the omiffion of this paffage in thofe ancient
Verfions might have been, and probably was, the
fault of the tranflator or tranfcriber : who have, or
one of them hath, been guUty of much greater
miftakes and omiffions than this, in thofe refped
ive Verfions.
This is all that can be granted to this objedion.
For the Arabic, Pcrfian, and Ethiopic Verfions are
(as hath been before remarked) tranfcripts only
from the Syriac and the Coptic, And the Greek
and Armenian MSS (as well as the Latin) both
deny the truth of the objedion, as applied to
them, D d The

386 NEWTON.
The queftion of omiffions, in , general, wfll be
confidered hereafter,
XXXV. Tbe 'L2itexa.n Council A. D. 1215,
mentions Joachim quoting the text in thefe
voords : ^oniam in canonica Johannis epifiola ;
Quia Tres funt, qui teftimonium dant in ccelo,
Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus ; et hi tres
unum funt ; fiatimque fubjungitur, Et tres funt
qui teftimonium dant in terra, fpiritus, aqua,
et fanguis, et tres unum funt ; ficut in codici
bus quibufdam invenitur. Therefore this read
ing [i, John V : 7] was then got but into feme
' books. For the words Sicut in codicibus qui
bufdam invenitur, refer as well to the firfi
voords of Joachim [about the three heavenly
¦witneffes] as to the fecond part [about the three
witneffes on earth.]
Joachim'inteT^xeted the final claufe of the feventh
verfe Iff res unumfunt'\ to fignifiy an unity of con-
fent only, in thofe heavenly witneffes. And he
attempted to juftifiy that interpretation, by alledg-
ihg that the fame words \ftres unumfiunt^ ftood in
fome copies \_ficut in codicibus quibufdam inveniturj
in the eighth verfe, as well as in the feventh ; —
that being there appUed to the fpirit, water, and
blood.

NEWTON. 387
blood, they could import an unity of confent alone ,
in that verfe ; and that, being fo interpreted in the
eighth, he had a right to give the fame interpreta
tion to them in the feventh ,verfe likewife.
This, Sir, was the argument of Joachim : — in
which by the expreffions, Sicut in codicibus quibuf
dam invenitur, he referred not to the three hea
venly witneffes, but to the three witneffes on earth,
fingly and exclufively. And I am hippy in being
able further to alledge the moft refpedable autho
rity againft Sir Ifaac Newton on this head, which
is the teftimony of Sir Ifaac Newton\\\mi€ii : who
has, in another part of this treatife (/) given to the
words of Joachim a fimilar interpretation.
XXXVI. " Eugenius, Biff of of Carthage,
in the feventh year of Huneric, anno Chrifi
484, in the fummary of his faith exhibited to
the King, cited it the firfi of any man, fo far
as I can find"
I have no objedion to this remark, fave that the
fummary of faith, here fpoken of, is defcrlbed as
the Creed of Eugenius alone : — and that he is faid
D d 2 to
(/) Page 521,

388 NEWTON,
to have been the firft who cited this text. It doea
not appear to have been the Creed of Eugenius
alone, in any fenfe ; for although prefented by him
to Huneric, it does not carry his fignature, but
{m) that of four othei: African Bifhops : who were
moft probably, from that circumftance, the perfons
deputed by their brethren to compofe, and prepare
it. And Eugenius, or the perfon or perfons who
drew up this fummary, was not (or rather were
not) the firft who cited this text ; becaufe the ci-
tationsan d references of Tertullian, Cyprian, Phce
badius, Marcus Celedenfis, Augufiine and Eucherius ;
the ufe of the aTroroA®^ in the Greek Church, the
Synopfis attributed to Athanafius, together with the
Old Italic and Armenian Verfions, as well as the
Verfion of Jerome (all of which have recognife4
this dlfputed text) were all antecedent to the yeai;''
484. XXXVII. " Of the MSS which have not
the tefiimony of the Three in Heaven, feme-
have the words in terra in the eighth verfe,^
but the mofi want it. Of thofe which have the
tefiimony of the Three in Heaven, feme in the
eighth verfie have hi tres unum funt. Others not
Xm) Pages 57—60, i8i — 5,

NEWTON, 389
^ot. And that tefiimony is in mofi books fet
before the tefiimony of the Three in earth ; in
fome it is fit after. So Erafmus notes two old
books, in which it is fet after ; Lucas Bru-
genfis a third; and Heffelius a fourth ; and
fo Vigflius Tapfenfis (adverfi Varlm. Cap. v.)
fets it after : which fieems to prhceed from
hence, that it was fometimes fio noted in . the
margin, that the reader or tranfcriber knew not
fwhether it voere to come before or after. Now
thefe dificords, as they detrad from the authority
qf tbe Latin MSS, fo they confirm to us, that
the old vulgar Latin has in thefe things been
tampered with, and correded by Jerome'j
Yerfion,"
The difcords, which are here complained of,
feem to have been entirely owing to the ofcitanpy
and negligence of tranfcribers. Had they origi
nated, in the tranfcribers of thefe MSS, from a de-
fire of correding them by Jerome's Verfion, it
feems very difficult to affign a reafon why thefe
fuppofed tamperers ceafed from tampering, until
|;hey had rendered their MSS exad copies, in this
paffage. at leaft (which ex confeffo they are not) of
the Verfion of Jeroirie, But,

390 NEWTON.
But, takli^g the objedion as granted for the
prefent, and for the fake of argument, — let It be
obferved that, before it can be imputed as a fault
to any Latin MS that it has been correded by
Jerome's Verfion, — it muft be proved that the
Verfion of J.erome is, in itfelf, erroneous and of no
authority. This ifluftrlous objedor has indeed
endeavoured to difparage this Verfion, as we have
already feen, — by affirming that Jerome was ac
cufed by his contemporaries of having altered the
public reading, in refped to the paffage in quef
tion, — that he wrote the fabulous lives of Paul
and Hilarion, and that Erafmus called him impu
dent. But it hath been already proved that thefe
intended difparagements of that Verfion have no
folid foundation ; and cannot, therefore, fupport
the inference which is thus attempted to be buil^
upon them. XXXVIII. " The original MSS [of R.
Stephens'] he \^Beza'\ does not here [in the
preface to his annotations] pretend to have ;
nor could he have them, for they were not Ste-
phens'j MSS ; but belonged to feveral libraries
in France, and It^Aj." Beza

N E WT ON. 3gi
Beza has expreffed himfelf with fo little pre-
cifion in this preface, on the fubjed ofi?. Stephens's
original MSS, that it might be doubted whether
he had, or had not, the ufe of thofe MSS, did he
not, in other parts of his works, clear up thofe
doubts in the moft fatisfadory manner {n) by ex
preffions which are fo plain as to need no comment.
Nor does the fad of Beza's poffeffing thefe ori
ginal MSS depend on his own affertion alone,
however truly refpedable that may be. Fori?.
Stephens has in effed given us the fame informa
tion (as hath been already remarked) in his poft-
fcript, or advertifement fubjoined to Beza's edition
of A, D, 1556, (0)
XL, " Four of them [R. Stephens's MSS]
noted y, r, </3, iS, had each of them the four
Gofpels only.

»»

This affertion is not juft. The MS, noted i|3,
contained the firft epiftle to the Corinthians.. And
that marked tJ contained alfo the Ads of the
Apoftles, and the fecond epiftle of St. Peter.

XLL

(«) Page 1 94— S of thefe Letters.
{0) Page S47.

39^ Newton*
XLL " Two noted (3j r, Contained Only tht
Gofpels and the Ads, One, noted ir, contained
the Apocalypfe only. The MS, I, contained
the Epifiles and Gofipels ; i, ««, ly, the Epifiles
and Ads;, and S, e, 6, the Ep files, Gofpels,
and Ads."
This enumeration abounds with miftakes. Befide
the particulars here mentioned the MS of R.
Stephens, marked j3, contained the Epiftle to the
Romans ; — is; the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians,
the firft Epiftle to Timothy, and the Apocalypfe ;— •
I, the Ads ; — i, the Gofpels of St. Luke and St*
John ; — («, the Gofpels of St. Matthew and St.
John, and the Apocalypfe ; — -ly, the Gofpels of
St. Matthew and St. John ; — and £, the Apo
calypfe, XLII, " For in the various ledions of the
canonical epifiles, and thofe to the Tbeffalonians,
Timothy, Titus, and the Hebrews, are found
thefe feven MSS, §, t, ^, 6, ., la, ly, every
where cited, and no more than thefe"
This obfervation is incorred, like the former.
The -MSS i^ and »r are cited by R, Stephens to
thefe,

:n E w T o N. 393„
thefe enumerated parts of ,the facred Canon, as
Well as the MSS mentioned in the objedion,
XLIII. " And this any one may gather, by
noting what MSS the various ledions are cited
out of, in every book of the New Tefament"
He certainly rnay. It is the very method which
1 have purfued; and which has enabled me to
corred all the preceding miftakes.
XLIV, " Stephens, therefore, did colleB
various ledions of the epfiles out of only thefe
feven MSS, S, i, ^,6, ., i«, »y. And in all
thefe feven be found the tefiimony of tbe Three
\n Heaven to be 110 anting ; as you may fee noted
in the margin of his edition."
The former claufe of this objedion hath been
juft difproved. And the latter is utterly ground
lefs. The margin of R. Stephens's edition denotes
that the particular words, tv ru n^oim, were wanting
in the feven MSS there referred to : — but no more.
XLV. " And fo here, where the teftimony
of the Three in Heaven is generally vi)anting
in the Greek copies, they [the, Complutenfian
E e Editors]

394 NEWTON.
Editors] make a marginal note, to fecure them
felves from being blamed for printing it. — •
And that note being fet in the margin of the
Greek text, ffews that its main defign is to
juHify the Greek, by the Latin thus redified and
confirmed. But to us Aquinas is no Apoftle"
The marginal note, here referred to, w^as evi
dently defigned to juftify the omiffion of sjoi ot
Tf a; «j TO iv £ifl-» in the eighth verfe ; and for no
other purpofe. A fingle impartial perufal of the
(/>) note itfelf will amply juftify this obfervation.
XLVI. " A third reafon why I conceive the
Complutenfian Greek to have been in this
place a tranfiation from the Latin, is becaufe
Stunica, when in his objedions he comes to
this text, cites not one Greek MS for it againfi
Erafmus, but argues wholly from the authority
of the Latin.
I am ready. Sir, to acknowledge the truth of this
objedion. And as far as the condud of Stunica
can affed the authenticity of the verfe in queftion,
1 own myfelf unable fatisfadorlly to account for it.
But
\p) Appendix, No, xl.

NEWTON. 395
But /o ?^j Stunica (as Sir Ifaac properly obferves
of Aquinas) is no Apofile. Whether the reft of
Stunica's writings, if they had furvived tO the pre
fent times, would have diffipated thefe doubts or
not, — cannot now be determined. But this may
be now, and indeed has {q) been already deter
mined, and in truth it is the chief point which re
quires determination in the prefent difquifition :
viz. that the Complutenfian Greek was 'HOT a tranf
lation from the Latin, as is affumed in the pre
ceding objedion, XLVII. " So then the Complutenfian Di
vines did fometimes corred the Greek by the
Latin, without the authority of any Greek MS;
as appears by their pradice in Matthew vi ;
The marginal note, in Matthew vi : 13 contains
an account, given by the Complutenfian Editors, of
their having omitted the Doxology in that verfe.
And the reafon which they affign for the omiffion
does them infinite honor, as it fhews them to
E e 2 havc
(q) Pages 290 — 305.
Thefe Editors pofitively affirm that they had [hoiu many they do not
mention) Greek MSS from the Vatican. And we are certified by va
rious authorities, that they had another Greek MS from Rhodes, com
monly called the Codex Jihodienfis.

396 NEWTON.
have been confcientioufly fcrupulous in not admit*
ting any thing to ftand in the facred canon, which
had not, in their judgment, an indubitable claim
to originality. Had they entertained any doubts
of its authenticity, it muft be prefumed that they
would have aded in the fame manner with the
verfe i John v : 7.
XLVIII, " Nor has all the zeal for this text
been able fince to difcover one [viz. Greek MS
which contained the verfe 1 John y : 7.]
cither in Spain, or any where elfe"
Two Greek MSS have been difcovered fmce tha
date of the Complutenfian edition, which contain
the verfe i Johtt v : 7, and are ftill extant (r)
namely, the MSS of Dublin and Berlin. A third,
unwillingly acknowledged by Erafmus, the Codex
Britannicus, muft be added to thefe, together with
the Codex Rhodienfis, both now probably loft. As
l^eza affirms that the whole of R,. Stephens's fix^
teen,

(r) Mifled by the ambiguity of Wetfiein^s exprefiions, it was afl'un)e4
by mc, in the fecond edition of thefe Letters, p. 283, and 32Z, thai
he admitted three other Greeic MSS to contain this difputed paflage,
This affumption was an error, and it is now withdrawn.

NEWTON. 397
teen (j-) MSS contained the firft epiftle to the Co->
rinthians, it feems probable, efpecially when the
general belief of that age (/) is taken into the ac
count, that all the fixteen might have alfo exhi
bited the Canonical Epiftles. And Valla's MSS
have been already [u) computed to be feven.
On the other hand all the reft of the Greek
MSS of the Canonical Epiftles, which have been
collated or examined fince the publication of the
Complutenfian edition, amounting to one hundred
and nineteen in number (as I compute them) in
cluding the twenty three [y) which are now in the
Royal
[s) Page 195. It is evident from this declaration, admitting ('aw;/
wjho 'vuill deny ? ) its truth, that R. Stephens had in his poffeffion the
MS j3, ^"aA Tiot 'various leBions coUeBed out of it by his friends in Italy,
as Sir Ifaac Neivton argues in p 516. This point is ftill further efta
blifhed by R. Stephens % declaration to the Sorbonne — Refpondeo'- effe quin-
jdecim relata in bibliothecam regiam : the latter number being exclufive
©f the Complutenfian edition. The words of R, Stephens, then, in his
Preface, exemplar 'vetuftiffmum in Italia ab amicis collatum, muft im
port that the exemplar, the book itfelf was procured (and not the lec-
tjons out of it colleBed) for R. Stephens by his friends in Italy,
(/) Anfwer to Objeftion i. of M. Griejbach, hereafter ftated.
(a) Pages 269 — 271,
('v) There are 26-Greek MSS in the Royal Library at Paris wjiich
jcontain a part at leaft of the firft epiftle of St. John: 23 of which
fet forth the 5 th Chapter, but do ko/ exhibit the 7th verfe. And they
all, except thofe numbered 58 and 60 (if my collations be, as I think
they are, correft) read tig to iv in the Sth verfe. Out of three of
the 26 (yiz. No. io6o, 103 and 105) thc leaf, or 3 part of it, is
torn

398 NEWTON.
Royal Library at Paris, do not exhibit the feventh
verfe. The Parifian MSS are not to be wholly
added to Grieffach' s lift, becaufe many of them are
already numbered in it,
Upon this mode of calculation, if juft. It ap
pears that more than one Greek MS out of five
of this epiftle, now known by any fpecial defcripr
tion to have exifted fince, or about the time of
the compflation of the Complutenfian edition, — did,
or dp now, exhibit the verfe i. John v : 7,
XLIX. " The differences [of terms, in thefe
two verfes, in different MSS] are too great to
fpriiig from the bare errors of Scribes, and
arife rather from the various tranfiations of the
place, out of Latin into Greek, by dfferent
perfons.
This objedion confines itfelf to the readings of
the Codex Britannicus and the Complutenfian Poly^
glott. But in order to give all poffible force to the
objedion, all the different readings which have
been mentioned in this treatife, fhall be here com
bined together in one view. The
torn which contained that part of St, John'j epiftle. In No. 1060 this
appears to be the only page of the whole book, which has fuffered lace-
Tation ! It feems certain that this violence was not inflifted upon
them, becaufe they did not contain the 7th verfe .'

NEWTON.

O

1)
4-1
rt

O

u
•o a ou
.a

o<1— (
pq X wQ o
U

CO

¦Si

oo
< Pi
w <

K l-

5>i s

<

... ^^.^
«£ t —
Ovi .^ S3
V- 3 _

O

1-

?- 3
¦< 3
Qyi 00

C 8 ?>.
3 §
« 8
s 5
so 3
I" i
° ,M
w 8
IT §-
tw Ul
W ?-
I-
^ s.
^ 8
CLn 8
UJ _ ^3
I- o *o
b
5 -
.- 8Q./I
O
8
8
3.
3
b
S
3
5 b
Krt *M
«T.
399
" h
tj.
E ,
3
«^
^ 3
so
_,
o
' ¦
Q.rt O
O
W
t-
CO
8
:3
-«
1=5
8 S
8
3,
?5
I— <
O ^-'*
1-
_
8
oi
5C
fe t=
1-
w
fe:
b
=k
pq
Ul
o
Kj*
6
o S
e
^ 8
6 =" 3
A
I"
^ 8
o5
8
S 3
b
»:
«J
i- s
a -*
o>
Z\
_
Ul ts
UJ
Ul
s fe
br "
Qvi
Ol
l-
u«
f^
^ 5
O
o
1"^
8 •<
O Q-n ST
8
.« Ul
CO
s ^
8
a
8*^ S"
t"
1-
b **i
l-s
fi
Ul
g 5
p s
Q-n «
Q./1
O
^ 1
:\
V-
? 8"
r" 3-
ps!
C 1
?*
b
8
O ><>
a
OJ
^
?- 8
3
o
s o
I-
h
WJ
t- I.
I-
H O
O
Ph ?-I
o
U
s «
8
l3 8
\~- 3
» 3
8 _
3. 8
o =»
3
8 !;
8
8
^ 8
ST O
400 NEWTON;
Upon the face of this coUedion 6f the Gree^
readings of this contefted paffage, com^pared with
the Latin copies, the following obfervations offer
themfelves to the mind.
r. The Latin copies univerfally read Spiritu^
Sandiis [the Holy Spirit] in the feventh verfe •
which epithet is not found in the Codex Britan
nicus, 2. The fame Latin copies univerfally read Tres
ttnum fiunt [Three are one"] in the conclufion of
the feventh verfe. But the Complutenfian Polyglott
and the Berlin MS read r^m eu to w eio-i, which is
equivalent to Tres in unum fiunt, or Thefie three
agree in one,
3. The Latin copies have univerfally the condud*
ing claufe of the eighth verfe, with fo few excep
tions as not to merit any notice, (ic) But the Dub"
Un MS, the Codex Britannicus, the Edition of Com
plutum, and the Berlin MS, do not contain this
concluding claufe under any terms, or mode of
expreffion whatfoever. Now
(w) There are but feven exceptions, if I have not mifreckoned
them, in the great number of Latin MSS now in the Royal Library
Paris.

N E W T O N. 461
Now thefe differences, from their nature. Cannot
be imputed to any tranflators with any reafonable
degree of probability* For if thefe expreffions
(nay whole claufes) were loft by any tranflatorsj
they muft have fo loft them by incapacity, or by
inadvertence. Now no tranflator can be fujppofed
tb have been fo incapable, as not to knoW how to
render thefe omitted expreffions and claufes^ from
the Latin into the Greek language. And the
omifliions feem to be too large, and to contain too
many words, to permit a well-grounded idea of
their having been loft through inadvertence by a
tranflator ; whofe office, verbum de verbo reddere^
requires him to yield an inceffant attention to his
original, and to give to his tranflation frequent and
painful revifals, left he fliould injure or betray the
meaning of his author*
It appears therefore to be almoft an Impoffibl-^
llty, that thefe aberrations fhould have arifen from
any [fuppofed,— iox there is no proof that there
ever were any fuch) tranflators. From whence It
feems to follow, that they have arifen from the
other caufe, ftated in the objedion, — namely, the
bare errors of tranfcribers, whofe objed hath al-^
ways been to hurry through their tafk as faft as
F f poffible,

4<^2 NEWTON.
pofliible, without much regard to any thing, be
yond the reward expeded at the clofe of it.
L. " Erafmus tells us, that he never faw it
[the verfe i. John v : 7] in any Greek MS ;
and, by confequence, not in that correded one .
[the Codex Britannicus^ which fell into his
bands"
Erafmus did, in the earlier part of his contro
verfy on this fubjed, affirm, that he had, at that
time, never feen any Greek MS which contained
this difputed paffage. But he admits, in another
place, that he did afterwards find this verfe In the
Codex Britannicus ; which HE collated in Eng
land, [ff) LI. " He that ffall hereafter meet with it
[this difputed text] in any [Greek^ book, ought
firft, before he infift upon the authority of that
book, to examine, whether it has not been cor
reded by the Latin, and whether it be ancienter
than the Lateran Council ; for if it be liable to
either of thefe two exceptions, it can fignify no
thing to produce it. ' This
{x) Page 264,

NEWTON. 403
This conclufion, although in general juft, is Ua-
ble to many exceptions. One of them at leaft,
ought here to be mentioned : which is, — that
where any Greek MS now exifts, which was pro
bably, or even confeffedly, copied or written fince
the thirteenth century (the asra of the Lateran
Council) — ^fuch MS is not to take its eftimatlon
ftridly from the time when it was fo copied ; but
from fome higher sera, which gave date to that
Copy from which it was fo tranfcribed.
But, Sir, I am contented to take the conclufion
in its ftrldeft terms, as to feveral parts of the evi
dence herein before adduced to the originality of
this verfe. For I find myfelf, even in that fitua
tion, at liberty to affirpa that the Attotox©', the Sy
nopfis of Athanafius, the Orations of Gregory Na
zianzen, the Confeflion of Faith of th^e Greek
Church, the Difputation herein before afcribed to
Maximus, the Greek MSS of Walafrid Strabo and
of Jerome, the quotation of Euthymius Zygabenus,
— and the authority of the Council of Ephefus,
upon which the Armenian Verfion was framed and
adjufted, form an accumulation of Greek tefti
monies, the authority of which cannot be denied
even upon the terms of the objedion itfelf. For
there is no color of reafon to affert that any of
F f 2 them

404 NEWTON.
them -have been correded by the Latin. And there
is no ground to fuppofe that they are not all more
ancient, in point of date, than the Lateran Council,
This moft refpedable objedor, laftly, ftates his
own paraphrafe of this paffage, in order to fhew
that the fenfe of St. Jobn, without the teftimony
of the Three in Heaven, is (to ufe his own words)
plain and firong; but if you infert that tefiimony ^
you fpoil it.
This fenfe, or internal evidence of the paffage,
wfll be confidered hereafter : in which confiderai
tion, I truft, the very oppofite conclufion will ap^.
pear. At the fame time I moft freely admit, in
common with this iiluftrious objedor [y) that I
*' have that honor for St. John, as to believe that
he wrote good fenfe ; and therefore do moft impli-.
citly take that fenfe to be his which is [or which
at leaft appears tp me to be] the befi."
And here. Sir, I wifh to take my leave of the
objedions urged by this great ornament of human
nature, this ''''firfi and chief efi of tbe race of men :"
from whom it wfll detrad little that he cherlfhed
^n erroneous opinion as to this difputed paffage ;
his
0') Page 530,

NEWTON.

405

his errors being more than redeemed by his can
dor, his miftakes by his unaffeded magnanimity.
His own declaration, ftated in the outfet of thefe
obfervations, affords the falreft reafon, the moft
available pretenfions to conclude, that if Sir Ifaac
Newton had been apprifed of all the pofitive evi
dence, which has been alledged in the preceding
pages on behalf of the authenticity of this text
(a great part of which was utterly unknown to
him) he would not have caft the weight of his
name into that fcale, which (as it feems he would
then have confeffed) ought not to preponderate in
the prefent queftion,

It feems neceffary now to attend to M. Grief
bach, and Mr. Bowyer, according to the plan here
tofore laid down. But as the objedions, infifted
upon by thefe writers, ftand on foundations very
fimilar to thofe of Dr. Benfon and Sir Ifaac New
ton, which have been already difcuffed ; they wfll
fortunately require no more than a very brief con
fideration. And, firft, for M. Grieffach, I. " R.

4o6 griesbach.
I. *' R. Stephens confulted indeed feme
[Greek] MSS, but they were few : viz, in
the Go/pels ten ; in the Ads and EpiUles eight;
and two in the Apocalypfe. (z)
This Is but an Indifferent fpecimen of the accu
racy of M. Grieffach. In the Gofpels R. Stephens
confulted fourteen MSS at leaft (exclufive of the
Complutenfian edition) inftead of ten, as here al
ledged ; in the Ads ten at leaft, inftead of eight ;
in the Epiftles twelve at leaft, inftead of eight ;
p,nd in the Apocalypfe four at leaft, inftead of two.
The margins of R. Stephens's edition prove [a]
thefe allegations beyond all contradidion. And
there is no room to conclude, either from R. Ste
phens's preface, or from any mode of found argu
mentation, that thefe particular MSS thus cited
were all the MSS of R. Stephens, which contained
thofe feveral portions of Scripture. Fourteen MSS
only are ^iredly cited by him to the Gofpels ; but
that
¦ (z) "Vol. ii. Preface, page 25. 1
(a) To the Gofpels R, Stephens has cited the MSS /3, y, S, £, ^,
71, 9, i, r, la, ij3, ty, i^, and -Hf.
To the Adls, j3, S, i, (^, r, 6, 1, la, ty, and jJ".
To the Epiftles, |3, S, i, ^, 6, (, la, i^, ty, tS, if, and tf.
And to the Apocalypfe, i, toe, tt, and if.

GRIESBACH. 407
that circumftance does not prove that the whole
fixteen did not contain thc Gofpels. Twelve MSS
only are diredly cited to the Epiftles ; but that
circumftance does not prove that the Epiftles were
not exhibited in all the fixteen MSS poffeffed by
R. Stephens. It is certain from the teftimony of
Beza [b) that one of thefe Epiftles, the firft to the
Corinthians, was exhibited by all the fixteen. And
the Divines of the Univerfity of Louvaine, who
were contemporaries with R. Stephens, in their
Bible of A. D. 1574, affirm the fame thing of the
Epiftle of St. John, and, by inference, of {c) this
difputed paffage alfo. This teftimony at leaft proves
that fuch was the general belief, and reputation of
that age and time.
II. III. IV. " And thefe MSS {d) were not
collated by R. Stephens himfelf, but by Henry his
Son, a boy of eighteen years of age : There are

(b) Page 195.
{c) Inter omnes Stephani ne unus efi qui diffideat, niji quad feptem
duntaxat to in ccelo confodiunt, fi tamen femicirculus leBionis defignans ter-
minum fuo loco fit collocatus," It has been already fliewn (p. 190 —
204) that thefe femicircles could not, morally fpeaking, be placed im
properly in refpeft to this paflage.
(d ) Ic is fuppofed that M. Griefbach here alludes to the MSS now in
the Royal Library at Paris ; not to thc gleanings of H, Stephens and
Besict.

4o8 6 R I E S B A C II.
are very many good and valuable readings iH
R. Stephens's MSS (<?) which are not inferted
in the margin of his book. His bo afi s as to
bis very great care and diligence in collating
his MSS, and his faithfulnefs in fiettling his
text, are empty and fialfie."
When M. Grieffach ftiall be able to produce
thefe original MSS, he may be at liberty perhaps
to bring thefe accufations againft R. Stephens.
They are, at prefent, as groundlefs and improbable,
as they are uncandid and injurious.
Thus far for M. Grieffach' s preface to his fe
cond volume.
In his differtatlon (y) upon this contefted text,
he affirms that it exifts in no Greek MS except
that of Dublin, which, he fays, is the Codex Bri"
tannicus of Erafmus — that Valla's Latin, as weU as
his Greek MSS did not contain this verfe — that it
firft appeared, in Greek, in the Ads of the La
teran CouncU — that it was not read in the ancient
Armenian Verfion (which he afferts on the bare
authority of Sandius) — that the preface to the ca
nonical
[e) This opinion is controverted in page 252— 7 of thefe Letter?.
(/) Pages 225 — 6.

GRIESBACH. 409
tlonlcal Epiftles is not Jerome's — that Jerome and
Augufiine have not quoted the verfe — that Fulgen
tius ufes the word confitetur — that the confeffion cf
faith of Eugenius, and the African Bifliops under
Huneric, has no fubfcriptlon or fignature (whereas
it is figned by no lefs than yo«r Bifliops) and that
Vigilius was the firft who explicitly quoted this
difputed paffage. It is fufficlent to have barely
mentioned thefe objedlons : not only becaufe they
are, in general, brought forward without even the
decency of an attempt to fupport them ; but be
caufe they have been already replied to, and, as it
is trufted, overthrown in the preceding pages.
The objedions, which foflow, feem to require
a more particular confideration.
V. " // IS now beyond a doubt, that R. Ste
phens had no more MSS of the catholic Epifiles
than feven ; and that none of thefe contained
any part of this difputed paffage"
It is truly aftonifliing to fee fo many men of
learning. La Croze, Le Long, Emlyn, Sir Ifaac
Newton, Dr. Benfon, and M. Grieffach (not to
mention any other modern Writers in Germany)
follow each other fo implicidy in fo grofs an error.
G g Thofe

410 GRIESBACH.
Thofe Greek MSS, which now fubfift in the Royal
Library at Paris, have been already proved [g] not
to be thofe of R. Stephens. And yet this is the
fuppofition upon which this ch^ge is founded.
In addition to thefe adverfaries, the learned
tranflator of Michaelis {h) has lately informed the
world, that the MS, diftinguiflied by the letters 7
R. Stephens, is now in the Library of the Univer
fity of Cambridge, is there marked Kk, 6,4, and
that it contains the epiftle of St. John, but not
the verfe i. John v : 7. His argument on this
fubjed may be reduced to the following heads.
I. The readings which R. Stephens has pro
duced from' the MS ty alone, throughout the ca
tholic epiftles, amount to twenty.
2. Thefe fingular readings are all found " with
out any exception and without the leaft variation"
in his MS Kk.
3, Several of thefe fingular readings have been
difcovered

{g) Pages 204—263.
[f}) Introd; to the Ne'W Teft, tranflated by the Rev. Mr. Marfh, St,
John's Coll, Camb. Vol, ii, part 2, p, 789,

GRIESBACH. 411
difcovered in no MS whatever fince the days of
R. Stephens.
4. This extraordinary coincidence, united with
the circumftance that the MS Kk has the name of
' a contemporary, and a friend of R. Stephens in it,
affords the ftrongeft proof that the MS now in
queftion, and the MS ly of R. Stephens, are one
and the fame book : And therefore
5. The femicircle of R. Stephens is mifplaced.
The obfervations on this argument, founded on
an examination of the catholic epiftles in this MS
Kk, fhall foflow the order in which the feveral
parts of that argument are here arranged.
I. On referring to the margin of R, Stephens,
-it wifl appear that he has quoted his MS ty folely,
not merely in twenty, but in twenty-five places.
2. One of thefe fingular readings, which is not
found in the MS Kk, Is in James v : 7, in which
paffage this Copy reads £w? ;^«Pi xoc^^ov Tr^utfAov xat
o^ty.ov. But the MS ty read the paffage thus, so^,
av Xa.^n ¦n-^oitfJ.ov xxt oiJ/./xo., wIthout xx^ttov OV aUy
other fubftantive. This may perhaps be one of
G g 2 Ihofe

412 GRIESBACH.
thofe five paffages which Mr. Marff did not
reckon. It renders his whole argument ineffedive,
although the other twenty four fingular readings
fhould be (as on examination they appear to be)
in the MS Kk.
3. As to the affertion that feveral of thefe fin
gular readings have been difcovered in no MS
whatever finte the days of R. Stephens, it will ap
pear, on confulting the various readings colleded
by Mill, Wetftein and Grieffach, that the cafe ftands
thus, oi: nearly thus. Of the twenty four fingular
readings, in which the MSS ty and Kk agree,
twelve have been difcovered in other Greek MSS^
fix more have been found in fome of the oldeft
Verfions, and one more in Cyril of Alexandria ,•
fo that there are only five fingular readings, which
have not yet been found any where, except In th^
MSS Kk and <y. :
4, Mr, Marff infers from this extraordinary co
incidence (a coincidence of twelve readings) and
from the word Vatablus being written in the MS
Kk, that it muft be the MS ty oi R. Stephens.
It wifl Inftantly appear how infignificant the latter
circumftance is. And with regard to the former,
if its be: a juft inference that two MSS are the
fame

GRIESBACH. 4I3,
fame becaufe they agree in a certain number of
paffages, where they deviate from all other copies ;
it is furely reafonable to conclude, that if one of
two given MSS fhall difagree, not only with the
other, but alfo with the reft of the MSS which
have hitherto been collated, in a far greater num
ber of paffages, they muft be two different MSS.
In the MS Kk there are in all 135 deviations
from the text of R. Stephens, each of them not
lefs important than thofe which he has produced
from his MS ty. In his margin the MS ty Is
quoted only 60 times. There are in the MS Kk,
therefore, 75 more various readings than R. Ste
phens has produced from the MS ty.
Among the 135 readings, juft mentioned, there
are 42 which are not to be met with either in the
margin of R. Stephens, or in the various readings
of Mill, oi Wetfiein, or of Grieffach : that is,
there are 42 paffages wherein the MS Kk differs
not only from the MS ty (as the fair prefumption
is) but from every other known MS. But there
are twelve places alone in which the MS ty is
known to difagree with the MS Kk and to differ
from every other Copy. From all which fads
and circumftances taken together it appears moft
probable

414 GRIESBACH.
probable that the Copies now in queftion are two
different MSS : And therefore that
5. Mr. Marff's argument does not fhew that
the fetnicircle of R. Stephens is mifplaced.
It wifl not be too ftrong an obfervation to re
mark, that fuch accufations tarnifh not his well-
earned honors. They prove nothing — but the pre
cipitancy of his accufers.
VI. " The obelus, vohich is rightly fixed in
R. Stephens's Latin editions, is found out of
its proper place in his Greek."
In printing his Latin edition of A. D. 1539,
for inftance, in the compflation of which R. Ste
phens made ufe of feventeen MSS containing the
canonical epiftles, and three printed bibles, he
'firft placed this paffage (i) entire in the text ; he
then fixed his indexes fo as to compreheijd within
them all the words of this difputed paffage, from
in ccelo to in terra inclufively. And laftly, he in^
ferted in his interior margin the infignia of four
only
(/) If we enquire his reafon for fo doing, it is thus given, in his
own words. " Ea tranllatio, qua noftras ecclefiae paffim utuntur dum
facros libros aut recitant aut decantant, ne <verho quidem uno mutato,
typis cxprimeretur."

O RI E S B A C II. 415
only of his Latin MS : thus fignifying to his
readers that the words, fo included within his in
dexes, were not indeed contained in thofe four
MSS — but that they were for that very reafon [k)
contained in all the reft.
Let R. Stephens then by his Latin Teftament of
A. D. 1539, for inftance, determine the difpute
about his Greek Teftament of A. D. 1550. His
fentence, in refped of thefe tw^o Teftaments, will
ftand thus :

In all thofe Latin MSS, by the help of which
I compiled my Latin edition of the firfi epifiU
of St. John in A. D. 1539, the whole of the
difputed paffage i. John v : 7, 8 is read, except
in four MSS only ; in which four the words
from in ccelo to in terra [inclufive) alone are

le

isoanting : —

In all thofie Greek MSS, by the help of which
I compiled my Greek edition of the fame epifile
in A.D. 1550, the whole of the fame difputed
paffage is alfo read, except in feven only ; in
which
{k) Exceptio probat regulam in non exceptis.

4l6 GRIESBACH.
vohich feven the words, tv toi n^xvoi, alone art
•wanting.
This is the plain language of R. Stephens's re
ferences both in his Latin and his Greek Tefta
ments. And this is alfo, as to the Greek, what
hath been uniformly contended for throughout the
preceding pages, ' The collation and comparifon
of R. Stephens's Latin edition with his Greek one
feem only to prove that his condud hath been
uniformly fincere in both. His admitted integrity
as to the Latin Teftament is a warranty, a pledge
for the like integrity in his Greek Teftament.
^ And the defenders of the authenticity of this
verfe of St. John ought not to v/ilh for a more
favorable arbitration, in the debate as to the inten
tions of R. Stephens in placing his indexes, than
this expofition of them by Stephens himfelf.
VII. " Tbis verfe was not read [or quoted]
at the Council of Nice :' — and is, therefore,
fpurious.
This hath been often faid : but, as it feems,
without fufficlent grounds. For how is this af
fumption to be proved ? Not by the Ads of this
Council.

GRiESBACHi 417
CoUncfl. For they are decrees only arid ordinan
ces, and fet forth no texts of Scripture whatfoever
refpeding the nature, the attributes {k) or even
the exiftence of the Deity, Nor can it be proved
by the (Nicene) Creed of this Coundil. For
. that, although Infifting ftrongly on the divinity of
Jefus Chrifi, does not contain a 'fingle citation
from Scriptures Nor is this affumption to be
proved from thofe pretended difputes of Bifliops,
and others, at that Council. For thefe are mere
fables compofed by Gelafius Cyzicenfis (/) fome
centuries after that CouncU was held, as Is now
univerfally admitted. The Nicene Fathers, there
fore, are filent as to this contefted verfe in their
Ads, and Greed ; but that filence Is a thing the
moft remote in nature from a proof that it did
not then fubfift in their Greek MSS ; or that it
was not even quoted at the councU of Nice,
Whenever it fliall be affirmed, then, that the
Ads and Creed of the Nicene Fathers have not
mentioned the verfe i. John v : 7, and that it Is
therefore fpurious : it would, as it feems, be
no very unapt corollary to fuch a propofition, to
H h fay—
{k) The only texts, cited in them, refer to Eunuchs and ufury.
Harduin, in loco,
(/) Du Pin, Art. Gelafius,

41 8 GRIESBACH.
fay- — Nor have they mentiontd thebaptifimal infiitU-^
tion, — therefore that is fpurious : Nor that paffage
in St. John' J- Gofpel, I and my father are one,—'
therefore that is fpurious : Nor any part either of
that Gofpel, or of bis, Epifiles,-*— thereiove they are
fpurious : Nor yet any one paffage, from any one
•bart of the Bible, refpeding the nature of the God
head,- — therefore, in fine, thofe paffages are all
fpurious!. The inference is either valid in all
its parts, or it is valid in none. But in truth
it is utterly invalid. It has no foundnefs in it.
It proves too much, and therefore proves no^
thing* VIII. " Eucherius has not quoted the verfe
I John V : 7, — -for Flacius has .publiffed an edi
tion ofi the Formulce in vohich he left out this
paffage, and Brafficanus interpolated it in his
edition''
j. A. Brafficanus was Librarian of the Royal
Library at Vienna. He publiflied his edition of
Eucherius in the clofe of the year 153,0, or the
beginning of 1531 ; for his dedication of it to
Janus a Suolla bears date in the month of Decem
ber in the former of thefe years. In this dedlca- tioa

GRIESBACH, 4I9
tion {m) he complains in ftrOng terms of a former
(which was indeed the firft) edition of Eucherius as.
being extremely mutUated and full of miftakes,
and of the exceffive labor which he had found it
neceffary to undergo in reftoring thofe mutilations,
and correding thofe miftakes. From whence it is
argued by M. Grieffach and others, that this firft
edition, by whomfoever it might be publifhed,
had not the paffage i John v : 7, and that this was
one of the pretended mutilations which Brafficanus
(for this paffage ftands in his edition) had taken
upon htm to refiore, as he termed it, without any
authority from his MSS,
The anfwer to this accufation is — >
I. The edition of Eucherius, of which Braffi
canus thus complains, was that of Johannes Si-
cbardus. And fo remote is this ftory of mutila-
H h 2 tion

- (;») " Oculatus ipfe mihi teftis es, amiciflime mi Jane, quantum mihi
laboris exhauriendum, imo, ut verius dicam, quantum tasdii exfor-
bendum fuerit in reftituendis ac repurgandis ^a^y^m/ fpiritalibus .iilis.
Formulis. Nam exemplum recens editum non tantum mutilum,
verum etiam eximie mendofura fuit. — Nos autem exemplo et integro
et egregie fincero ufi — primum id quod deerat adjecimus, et qus de-
pravata fuerunt religiofe c3.&\giL\'mMS,"—[Viennes ex Collegio Reg.
A.D. 1530, menfe Decembris.]

42a GRIESBACH,
tion from the truth, that even this firft edition of
Eucherius exhibits the verfe i, John v : 7. [ti)
2. Brafficanus did not interpolate this verfe in
his edition without any autht)rity from his MSS ;
of which the moft fatisfadory proof may be given
from the following circumftance. In that Library
at Vienna, over w^hich Brafficanus prefided, there
yet remain two (0) MSS of Eucherius : both of
vohich contain the paffage, in quefiion. I am in-
debted for this information to M. Profeffor Alter,
to whom I have before acknowledged, in other
refpeds, my obligations. It is to be prefumed
that one of thefe was the exemplum Hartmannenfe,
which Brafficanus profeffes chiefly to have fol
lowed in his edition. If not, Brafficanus was
poffeffed of three MSS at leaft of Eucherius con-.
taining the verfe i. John v : 7. (/) IX. " %
(k) See the book itfelf, p. 33. One copy of it is in the Library
at Dublin, DD. vi. 19. See alio Max. Bibl. Patr. Tom. vi. p. 822.
The dedication of this edition to Cardinal Albert, Abp. of Magde-,
hurgh, bears date at Bafil, in March 1530.
(ff) Thefe MSS are numbered Ixiv and cxix.
Erafmus correfponded with, but did not relifli, Brafficanus, He
might have regarded him more perhaps, if he had not publiflied this
edition of Eucherius, [Erafmi epif. ad V. Zuichem. Phryfium,' 1533-]
[p) As to Eucherius, in general, confult Claud. Ecdic, Mamertus de
ftatu animac, Ed. Melch, Gopner, A. D. 1655, p. 140, l, Sidonius,
Lib. iX; Epift, \\.—Jo, Fran, Bernardi Difl'ert, Venet. 1762, p. i— 91

GRIESBACH. 42 1
IX. " The preface of Jerome is not found
in any MS, voritten before the time of Charles
the Bald, in the ninth century"
If this allegation were true (which hbwever
[f) is not the cafe) it would not prove that this
preface was not written by Jerome. A confidera-
^le fpace of time muft elapfe, after the writing of
this preface in Afa, before the Latins of Europe
in general could know (by the flow and expenfive
method of propagating books then in ufe) that
fuch a preface even exifted. And when the fad
became in fome meafure known, the MSS which
were written prior to that time could not receive it j
for it was too large a piece of compofition to be in
terlined, or written in the margins of MSS. As it
was no part of the facred Canon, many would refufe
to infert it even in the MSS written after the know
ledge of it became general. Thofe Chriftians who
favored the Arian, Seml-Arian, Sabellian, or even
the Eunomian, and Eutychian fyftems, would cer
tainly deny it a place in their books. And thus it
is poffible that fome few MSS (for they cannot be
fj^any) written before the ninth century, may now be
iq) M. Simon, B'ft, Du Texte. p. 208. Hift. des Verfiions, p. 105.—
Martianay, Proleg, Vol. i. Op, Hieron. Dr. Burnet, Letter 1.

422 BOWYER.
be produced, in which this preface Ts not found.
But this circumftance (as before obferved) is far
from proving the preface to be fpurious : — efpe..
ciafly when it is further confidered that, in the
ninth century, this preface was publickly admitted ;'
to be the work of Jerome ; as appears by the Gloffd
Ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo, which hath been al
ready called (r) in evidence to this point, in the
preceding pages.

And now. Sir, I beg to be difmlffed from M,
Griesbach, in order that I may, laftly, attend to
Mr. Bo'vvyER, as was originally propofed. — An4
his objedtlons are, chiefly, thefe w^hich foflow.
I. " St. Cyprian does not quote the verfie
totidem verbis, as the text is now read, though
Biff op Pearfon [Fell] (Not. ad Cyprian, de
Unitate Ecclefia, p. 1 09) rather too firongly
afferts Cyprianum citaffe ante Hieronymi tem
pora. The voords of Cyprian are — Et hi tres
IN unUm funt."
Cyprian does quote the verfe totidem verbis (as
fer
(r) Page 180. Bengelius, p. 763.

BOWYER, 423
far as his words are meant to be a quotation) and
the Bifhop's affertion is not too ftrong. Cyprian's
words are not Et hi tres in unum funt, but " Et
hi tres [s) unum funt" an exad tranfcript of thc
Latin text of St. John,
II. " And in another place, Cyprian ' (Epif
ad p. Julianum, p. 223, Ed. Pearfon) Quse-
ro cujus Dei Sffc. — Cum tres unum funt. It
is certain St. Cyprian does not 'cite it in terms
from the text, nor yet in both places agreeably
to himfelf"
The Epiftle here referred to is ad Jubaianum, not
julianum. In the former inftance,, which has been
confidered under the laft preceding objedion, Cy
prian, cites the claufe in dired terms from the text
of St. John. The latter inftance is rather an allu-
fion, or a reference, than a dired quotation.
III. " He docs not fay in either, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghofi : but in the for
mer, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi ; and in
the latter, the Creator, Chrifi, and the Holy
Ghofi." ¦ Cyprian
(i) Pages 52, 53, 99—128.

4^4 fi o w Y E li.
Cyprian only meant to quote, diredly, the cOri-»
eluding claufe of the verfe, Et hi tres unum funt'..
And this he has literafly done in the former of
thefe examples. IV. " The Montanifis, foon after this fmt^
generally interpreted the Spirit, Water, and
the Blood, in the eighth verfe, to denote, in
their myfiical fenfe, the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghofi. And if fo, it will be no hard thing to
fuppofe Cyprian to do the fiame."
The Herefy of Montanus began long before (not
after) the time of Cyprian. What the Montanifis :
interpreted of the eighth verfe is of no confe
quence, unlefs it could be proved that the feventh
verfe did not exift in the times of the Montanifis.
V. " It [the verfe in queftion] firfi ap
peared to the public in Greek, in the Compluten
fian Edition, upon the authority of Thomas
Aquinas, whofe note is printed in tbe margin
cf the Greek."
If Mr. Bowyer here meant that the Compluten
lian editors firft exhibited this verfe to the public In

fi d v<r V E ft. 4^5
In a printed Greek Teftament, the affertion may
be juft. But the verfe in queftion did not appeat
in the Greek of the Complutenfian Edition, upon
the authority of Aquinas, in atiy refped ; the mar
ginal note, here (/) mentioned by Mr. Bowyer,
having no fuch import, and being capable bf no
fuch conftrudion.
\ And here, Sir, I take niy leave bf Mr. Bowyer :
, who has indeed urged feveral Other objedions
againft the originality of this verfe; But they
have been already confidered in fdnie part, or
parts, of the preceding pages*
I am, Sir, &c*
{t) Appendix, No. xl.

I i LETTER

:" !!h !t! lli'i:";'-^;:'".:; ^.ij

LETTER

V.

sir,

I Have now replied to afl thofe objedions, which
it feemed neceffary for me to examine in de-
tafl. And I am encouraged to hope, that (in hav
ing been thus enabled to detach thofe incumorances
from it) the whole queftion, as to the authenticity
of this contefted paffage, may be henceforth dif
cuffed in a lefs defultory manner. The fubjed ap
pears to be now compreffed within a fmall com
pafs ; and may therefore, as it feems, be quickly
determined by a difcerning judgement.
Upon a full consideration, then, of
the whole queftion (fetting afide thofe objedlons
which have been already refuted) the only afledged
impeachments of this, verfe which claim the ferious
I i 2 deliberation

428 LETTER V.
deliberation of ah unprejudiced mind, feem to hc.
comprifed in thefe three following particulars ;
namely, I. Its not being found in thofe parts of the
works of many Greek, and of fome few Latin Fa
thers which have defcended to the prefent age :
2. Its not being found (as afledged) in any of
the Greek MSS of the Scriptures which are now
extant : And
3. The (fuppofed) injury done to the context of
the Apoftle, by the admiffion of the text in (juef-
tion. As to the firft of thefe objedions— it undoubt
edly feems, on a primary view, a ftrange circum
ftance that this verfe fhould not be found in thofe
parts of the works of certain ancient Chriftian
Fathers, which have remained to the prefent age.
And this circumftance appears the more peculiarly,
ftrange, when it is confidered that many of thefe
Fathers wrote upon fubjeds which feemed to call
for a citation of this verfe, as the Divinity of
Jefus Chrifi, and of the Holy Spirit ; and on that
ftwful

LETTER V. 429
awful fubjed which involves them both in itfelf,
the Trinity of perfons in the Godhead.
But, in anfwer to this objedion, it ought to be
obferved in the firft place, that, at leaft fome of
thefe Fathers, perhaps afl, of them, conceived the
words of this verfe to indicate an untiy of tefiimony
only, and not an unity of nature, in thefe three
heavenly Witneffes. We believe that Jerome in
the earlier part of his life, Augufiine and Facundus
probably throughout the whole courfe of their lives,
Durandus and Walafrid Strabo interpreted the verfe
in this manner. And we know that many learned
men have given this expofition to it in more mo-*
dern times ; for their works, particularly thofe of
Calvin and Beza, prove it to us. Upon this hypo.,
thefis (and it feems very far from- being a forced,
or an extravagant idea) every difiiculty vanifhes at
once. Thofe pious Chriftian Fathers, whofe cita
tions of this verfe have fortunately furvived to the
prefent age, have quoted it in affirmation of the
divinity of the fecond and third Perlons in the
Holy Trinity ; becaufe they interpreted the verfe
as holding forth a proof of fuch divinity. Thofe
ancient Fathers, equally pious perhaps, and equally
fincere, whofe private judgement reftrided their
interpretation of this text to an unity of tefiimony alonej

43° LETTER V.
alone, would not cite It in their treatifes upon thofe
myfterious fubjeds : becaufe, in their apprehen-
fion, it did not eftablifli the dodrines for which
they, with other arguments and on other grounds,
contended. The former clafs of thefe Fathers,
Would fpeak ; becaufe they had no doubts as to
the expofitlon of the verfe, but were convinced.
The latter would be filent ; becaufe they had their
doubts as to its Interpretation, and were perplexed.
But had not the verfe exified at all in their Bibles,
it cannot even be imagined that thefe laft-men
tioned Fathers would have contented themfelves
with fiilence only. They would certainly have
enquired of thofe who thus quoted the verfe,—
Why do you impofe fuch words upon us as parts of
Holy Wfit ? They do not exifi in our Bibles. Shew
to us whence they are derived I But they have
urged no fuch queftions, have expreffed no fuch
doubts, at any time In any part of their writings.
The fad, that fome of thefe ancient Fathers
have, and that others have not quoted this verfo
is undoubtedly true. It is admitted by all. And
this method of accounting for the ambiguity is at
leaft obvious and eafy, as well as candid. It does
not fuppofe men wflfully to betray the truth,
which Dr. Benfon more than fuppofes Robert
Stephens,

LETTER V. 43 1
Stephens, Theodore Beza, and the Complutenfian
editors to have done. It only prefumes men for
merly to have been, as they now are, of different
opinions in difputable matters. It involves itfelf
in no painful perplexities. It offers no violence to
the plain dl'dates of common fenfe : and is there
fore moft likely to be the truth.
When this argument fhall be ftifl further extended
to the opponents of thofe dodrines, in fupport of
which this verfe hath been thus alledged, it feems
to become infuperable. Throughout the vaft feries
of one thoufand four hundred years, which inter
vened between the days of Praxeas and the age of
Erafmus, not a fingle Author, whether Patripaffian,
Cerinthian, Ebionite, Arian, Macedonian or Sa
bellian, whether of the Greek or Latin, whether
of the Eaftern or Weftern Church, — whether in
Afia, Africa, or Europe, — hath ever taxed the va
rious quotations of this verfe, which have been
fet forth in the preceding pages, with interpolation
or forgery. Such filence_^i?^ij-, moft emphatically
fpeaks, in favor of the verfe. Had It in any of
thefe ages been even fufpeded as fuppofitions,
thofe adverfaries (efpecially the Arians) would not
have been filent only. — They would have ex
claimed aloud, vehemently and without ceafing. They

432 LETTER V.
They would have filled the Chriftian world with
their invedives againft thofe who quoted it. They
would have charged them with abfolute falfehood,
with impiety, with blafphemy.
Thus it feems that the circumftance of this verfe
not having been quoted by fome ancient Fathers (as
it has been by others) may be candidly and fatis
fadorlly accounted for ; without fuffering any im
peachment to reft upon the authenticity of the
verfe, and without feeking any refuge for it in
fuch parts of the works of thofe Fathers as are
now loft. But fuppofing for a moment, and for
the fake of argument, that no rational account
could be given of thefe omifl!ions j what would
their weight be in the fcale of found judgement ?
All thefe omiffons could amount only to a fort of
negative evidence. They might perplex the mind,
and lay it under difficulties ; but they could do no
more. If there were no pofitive evidence, that
other Writers of thofe ages had quoted the verfe,
thefe omiffions, indeed, ought to turn the baflance
againft the authenticity of this text. But there IS
fuch evidence. It is ample, it is various, it is par
ticular ; and It has been particularly ftated, Thefe
omiffions, therefore, cannot make what is in itfelf,
and in its own nature only a difficulty, or a tiega^
tive

LETTER V. 433
live prefumption, become .a pofitive proof to deftroy
a fad wefl eftabliftied. It is impoffible for Writ-
iers of this age pofitively to pronounce on what
grounds, or for what reafons, certain Greek or
Latin Authors who Wrote • more than a thoufand
years agOj have omitted to quote this text. This*
however^ may be fald, — that fuch omiffions are, at
the moft, only negative evidence. But negative
evidence, although multiplied infinitely, will ftill
be no more than negative. And the flighteft po
fitive teftimony (which, however, is in the prefent
cafe not flight, but moft powerful and moft con
vincing) will at all times, and on all occafions, to-»
tally overballance and deftroy iU
The SECOND of thefe objedions is. That the
verfe in queftion is not found in any of the Greek
MSS of the Scriptures, which are now extant.
But to this objedion let it be anfwered,
Firft, that the affertion is not ftridly true. Ap
parent rari nantes in gurgite vafio. The MSS of
Dublin, and Berlin, at leaft yet remain to juftify
this obfervation.
But if it fhould be granted for the prefent, that
the verfe in queftion is found in none of the very
Kk few

434 LETTER V,
few Greek MSS, which are now extant, does it
thence foflow that it was not found in many which
formerly did exift, but have now perifhed ? What
may have been an omiffion in one MS, is no proof
of interpolation in another. Such a conclufion, at
all times weak In itfelf, is in the prefent cafe over
thrown by irrefiftible evidence. Robert Stephens
points to this verfe in his MSS ; Theodore Beza
confirms his teftimony : and the [u) mifreprefen-
tations of Le Long, Wetfiein, and Grieffach on this
great queftion have been, in the preceding part
of thefe letters, compleatly refuted. Laurentius
Valla had feven Greek MSS for the ufe of his com
mentary, [x) Erafmus confeffes one fuch MS,*
although in truth he ought to have acknowledged
eight. Walafrid Strabo direds his readers, in all
cafes
(u) Pages 204 — 263.
(x) The remark about the divines'of Lowvaine, fet forth before from
Martin, is here omitted, as his argument about the word "vpow,
applied to the age of the Dublin MS, had been before relinquilhed in
the fecond edition of thefe Letters. They both ftand on debateable
ground. But Martin's conftruftion of the word •ypovoi; is not fo
ridiculous as Wetfiein aftefts to term it. Erafmus might have told
him — " Eft autem proprie p^f oj/oy, quoties de genere feu modo fpati-
ove temporis agitur, veluti s.fficuLUM, annus, menfis, dies, hora." [Eraf
in Aa. Apoft. I : 7.) And Cafaubon, on the fame paffage, remarks —
" 'XjS"^'"' gsneraliter omne tempus dicitur." I wifli not to urge anv
evidence in favor of this verfe, againft which any objedlions may be
brought, which can with any fteadinefs bear the teft of examination.

LETTER v.. 43j
eafes of difficulty, to refort to the Greek copies ;
which implies that to have been his own pradice .
and this contefted paffage hath always ftood in his
Gloffa ordinaria. The ancient Armenian Verfion
• was rendered from the^ Greek MSS of the Council
of Ephefus ; and that Verfion, as it feems, hath
conftandy exhibited this difputed text. Jerome
declares that the Greek MSS of his times read the
verfe ; for he makes his appeal, In behalf cf his
Verfion, to the authority of the Greek text : and
this paffage hath always exifted in his Verfion.
The xTTos-oAos contained the Epiftles themfelves in
the original Greek, read in the Greek Churches
as early as (perhaps much earlier than) the fourth,
or fifth century : and this xmroxoi has always exhi
bited this verfe. And Tertullian, who quotes this
verfe in the fecond century, appeals to the authen
tica Grtxco, the ipfoe literce Apofiolorum, the auto
graphs, the very originals written by the Apoftles
themfelves, which were extant in his times. Above
all the old Italic Verfion, which is believed to have
been made in the firft century, and was read pub
licly among the affemblies of Chriftians for fe
veral centuries afterwards, has always had this
paffage. Now the compflers of this very ancient
Verfion muft either have furreptitioufly Introduced
this verfe into their tranflation ; or they muft have
K. k 2 found

436 LETTER V.
found It in the Greek Original from whence they
tranflated. But the former alternative feems Im-i
poffible to be adopted. For if it fliall even be
granted that this Verfion was not made untfl the
fecond century ; it feems to be decifively certam,
from the authority of Tertullian ( r) that the ori
ginal Epifiles of the Apoftles were then extant, to
deted the daring impiety of inferting a forged, a
falfe text in the facred volumes, if any fuch had
been committed, But if this Verfion were exe
cuted in the firfi century, which we have every
reafon to believe, St. John himfelf was then allvej,
to ftrike the bold impoftors dead (as St. Peter (z)
and St. John had before puniftied Ananias and
Sapphira) for " agreeing together to tempt the Spirit
cf tbe I^ord, and lying unto the Holy Ghofi" — The
former alternative, therefore, being inadrniffible,
the latter is a,t once fubftantiated ; namely, that thq
tranflators of the old Italic Verfion found this verfe
in the original Greek ; and therefore that this Italic
-Verfion Isolds the place, not of a Greek Copy only^ but;
{y) Pa. 89 — 98. Pei^r, Biftiop of Alexandria, or whoever elfe was
the author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum in the fourth century, affirms
ytx axj;p« pipAia kutots to iStoyjtpov rov evxyytAt^ov)-^.
that the original of St. John's Gofpel was then preferved at Ephefus,
See alfo Ignatius to the Philadelphians, c. viii,
(iz) A£ls of the Apoftles, y , i— u.

LETTER V. 43'^
|)ut of the very autograph itfelf, the original Epiftl^
written by the pen of St. John.
Let it be further obferved, on this head, that
fome tolerably fatisfa£tory account may yet be
given (although none can reafonably be required)
why fome of thefe ancient Greek MSS, now in,
debate, would probably (I . had almoft faid necef
farily) he loft to the prefent times. The MSS of
Laurentius Valla ; thofe which were fent into Spain
fi:om the Vatican Library, and from the Ifle of
Rhodes, for the ufe of the Complutenfian editors ;
the Codex Britannicus, and thofe which were in
the poffeffion of R. Stephens and Theodore Beza >
fxifted at a time when the Art of Printing, then
recently invented, was beginning to extend itfelf
to the Greek Teftament. Efteemed as thtie writ
ten Copies, or MSS, muft be before the invention
of Printing, the books, multiplied by that invalu
able art, were fo much more compendloufly cor
reded (a fingle revifion ferving for a thoufand co
pies) were fo, much lefs expenfive, fo much more
eafy to be obtained, and fo much more convenient
for ufe, that the value, at that time, of MSS muft
be fo exceedingly depreciated at once, as almoft to
fink into nothing. All thefe early editors, when
^heir MSS had ferved the purpofe of fettUng the
text

438 LETTER V.
text of their refpedive editions, would confider
them as defund in fome degree {a) and negled
them accordingly. This muft be the cafe, in ge
neral, for a long feafon after the printed copies
began to fpread themfelves over the Chriftian
world. It was not untfl more modern times, when
a tafte for critical enquiries of this kind arofe, that
thefe MSS (or rather the remnants of them) have
been fo much fought for, and fo highly valued.
In this Interx'al of negled the MSS of L. Valla*
and of the Complutenfian Editors ; the MSS which
Erafmus ufed as to the Apocalypfe, and his Codex
Britannicus ; and the MSS of [fi) R. Stephens : — ¦
have perifhed. Had it not been for a fortunate [c)
adventure of Erafmus, the MS commentary of L.
Valla had, in all probability, been utterly loft. Had
it not been for Maffius, it can hardly be imagined
that the Complexiones of Caffodorius would ever
have feen the light. But we need not travel Into
Italy for inftances to ifluftrate this argument. Our
own country exhibits an example fufficiendy con-r
elufive,
{a) R. Stephens, and lienry his Son, feem to have been rnqre careful as
to the prefervatlon of their MSS. than any other editors of thole times.
But they were printers by profeffion, as well as editors.
{b) Accident feems to have had its fhare in the deftruiSion of thef?
J^SS. (p. 259,)
(c) " Forte in caffes meos ingidit prseda." — {Erafm. epif, ad
Tifiber,)

LETTER v. 439
dufive. There was not a Cathedral, a Parifli-
Church, a Monaftery, Nunnery or Chantry (not
to bring private families into the account) within
this kingdom, which may not be fuppofed to have
poffeffed, at the a;ra of the invention of Printing,
one MS copy of the Scriptures, in the Latin lan
guage at leaft. And yet, where are thofe MSS
now? — Out ofthe many thousands which then
exifted, it may be doubted whether there is a
fingle hundred which can now be produced, [d)
Let us hear, then, no more of the improbability
of loft MSS, or of queftions framed on the idea
of fuch an Improbability. If the MSS of Dublin,
and Berlin had been annihilated fome centuries
fince, and if it could be now fatisfadorlly proved
that there did not fubfift, at this hour, a fingle
Greek MS which exhibited the verfe in queftion :
yet ftfll the teftimonies of its former exiftence,
which have been already produced, would greatly
over-ballance any prefumption which might arife
from fuch a circumftance ; would controul, would
fubdue, would govern every unprejudiced mind. Thefe
[d) One of Dr. Mill's MSS has been loft fince the beginning of
the orefent century. And Chr. Theoph, Heyne thus fpeaks of one of
the MSS of Virgil. " Adfervabatur ille olim in bibliotheca 'Vaticana,
in qua tamen fruftra earn quarebat Bottarius, prsef, ad fragm, 'Vatic.
p. V." [Ed, Lips. 1767, vol, I. p. 29.]

440 LETTER V.
Thefe refledions on the lofs of thofe ancleril
Greek MSS, which contained this verfe, will de
rive additional ftrength perhaps ffom a recolledlon
of fimilar deftrudions which have befaflen other
monuments of ecclefiaftical, as Well as profane
learning ; for which no adequate account can be
given. If the demand be made, Whdt is become
of thofe ancient Greek MSS which contained this
verfe ; and -why are they in general lofi, rather than
thofe which did not contain it ? It may, in return,
be afked, what Is become of the loft books of
Livy ? What of the reft of the Hiftory of Poly-^
bins ? Why hath the whole of Claudian's Poem
on the Gildonic War periflied, the firft book only
excepted ? Why of Cyril's commentaries on the
four great Prophets is that on Ifaiah alone pre
ferved, while we are left to regret the want of the
other three ? Why hath Origen's confutation of
Celfius furvived to our times ; although the work
itfelf is loft which Origen fo confuted ? Why have
we a part only of the Chronicon of Eufiebius ; and
that fcarcely the hundredth part, if Jofeph Scaliger
may be credited?' Why have we Tacitus only in
part ? And why have these particular MSS,
or PARTS of afl thefe MSS, been loft, rather
THAN THE OTHERS whlch have come down to
our hands ? Such queftions as thefe may be infi
nitely

LETTER V. 441
nltely multiplied, whether they relate to the records
of things facred or profane in general, or to thofe,
now loft, Greek MSS of the New Teftament in
pardcular, which contained this verfe of St. John'.
but they wfll prove nothing, and therefore wifl
deferve no attention. Whether thefe particular
MSS laft mentioned have perifhed by the flowly,
yet furely, deftrudive efforts of Time ; or by ac
cident, negligence, or fraud : it matters not to en
quire. Although " dead," they " yet fpeak" to us
in thofe faithful tranfcripts and quotations, which
are ftated in the preceding Letters. And their tef
timony will be rejeded only by prejudice ; becaufe
it cannot be fo rejeded, but by a violation of all
thofe rules of reafoning, and ading, by which
men govern themfelves on all other occafions.
The THIRD, and laft, of thefe objedion^ is —
the fuppofed injury done to the context ofthe Apofile,
by the admiffion of the verfe in quefiion.
But this objedion feems to have ftill lefs foun
dation than either of thofe which preceded it. Be
fore this Epiftle was written, the two oppofite He
refies of the Cerinthians, and the Doceta, had arifen,
to the great annoyance of the Chriftian Church.
The Doceta denied the incarnation of Chrift ;
L 1 refufing.

442 L E T T E R V.
refufing to admit that he was ever cloathed with
human flefh, or ever took our nature upon him.
The Cerinthians, on the contrary, denied his di
vinity ; affirming that Jefus Chrifi had no other
nature than the human. Againft fuch errors as
thefe it was highly needful to proteft, and to con
tend for the faith once delivered to the Saints : and
St. John alone probably then remained, of the fa
cred College of Apoftles, to undertake the work
with the authority of an infpired writer. In a few
of the firft verfes of his Gofpel he afferts the God
head of the Word, the Almighty and Eternal
Word, in confutation of the errors of Cerinthus,
" In the beginning was the Word, and the- Word
was with God, and the Word was God. Thefiame
voas in the beginning voith God. All things were
made by him ; and in him fwas life'' And in a fuc
ceeding verfe he ftops to affirm the incarnation of
Chrifi, with a plalnnefs and precifion equally fatal
to the oppofite error of the Docetce. " And the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"
He condemns the Doceta alfo in his fecond epiftle.
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confefs not [e) that Jefus Chrift is come in the flefti.
This is a deceiver and an Antichrifi" He repeats
this
(e) Ireneeus adv. Haer. lib. iii. c. i8. Tertullian, de prsfeript
Hser. c. xxxiii.

LETTER V. 443
this condemnation in the exordium of this Epiftle,
That which voas firom the beginning, which we
have heard, which we have seen with our
EYES, and our hands have handled of the
Word of life : declare we unto you'' He con
founds the Cerinthians in the clofe of it. ," And
we know that the Son of God is come, and hath
given us an underfianding that we may know him
that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in
.his Son Jefus Chrifi: This is the true God, and
eternal life."
Thefe feparate condemnations are found united
together, and are urged in conjundion, in that
paffage of this Epiftle which is the objed of this
prefent difquifition, and in a few words antece
dent, and fubfequent to it. The paffage ftands,
literally, thus :
" This is the vidory that overcometh the world ;
even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the
world, but he that believeth that Jefus is the Son of
God .? This is he that came by water and blood,
even Jefus Chrifi, not by water only, but by wa
ter and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth
witnefs, becaufe the Spirit is truth. For there are
three that bear record in Heaven ; the Father, the
Word, and tbe Holy Ghofi : , and thefe three are
L 1 2 one.

444 letter v.
one. And there are three that bear witnefis in
earth ; the fpirit, the water, and the blood : and
thefe three agree in one. . If we receive the witnefs
of men, the voitnefs of God is greater ; for this is
the voitnefs of God, which he bath teftified of his
Son." And thefe words may, in the fenfe juft ftated,
be thus paraphrafed.
*' It is this convidion, which giveth us that
vidory vohich overcometh tbe voorld, which rifes
fuperior to its terrors, as well as to its temptations,
even our faith that Jefus is the Son of, a partaker
of the fame nature with, God. But this Jefus is
not a partaker of the divine nature only ; for,
when he came on earth, he took our human na
ture alfo upon him, as appeared by the water
and blood which flowed from his fide, when pierced .
by the fpear upon the Crofs. To thefe two truths,
overthrowing both your errors, ye Cerinthians
and ye Docetce, it is the Spirit that beareth wit
nefs In the Scriptures, thofe words which the
Holy Ghoft teacheth, becaufe the Spirit is truth.
For thofe Scriptures fhew that there are three in
Heaven, that bear record to mankind of the divine
nature of Chrift : namely, the Father, who de
clared by his own voice from Heaven, This is my
beloved

LETTER V. 445
beloved Son, in whom I am wefl pleafed ; the
Word \fKoyi^'\ who continually affirmed of himfelf
that he was the predided Meffiah, that he had
exifted before Abraham, that he was the true Chrift,
the Son of God ; and the Holy Ghofi, who defcend
ed, in bodily prefence like a Dove, upon his head
at his baptifm, and fat in cloven tongues, like as
of fire, upon the heads of his Apoftles after his
refurredion. And thefe three are one in nature, or
at leaft in unity of teftimony, proving againft you,
ye Cerinthians, the divinity of Jefus Chrifl".
And the fame Scriptures moreover fhew that there
are three vohich bear witnefs on earth, againft you,
ye Doceta ; and thefe three agree in one, as to the
reality of Chrlft's taking our human nature upon
him : namely, the fpirit (/) or life (fpiritus hu-
manus)
(/¦) The laft words of the firft Martyr, St. Stephen, were Kujis
Inra, ^i^xt to tcvim^i.x ju.a. Which are rendered, in our Tranllad_n,
as to the word tti/sv^x, by the fame expreffion, fpirit, as in this paf
fage, and in the fame fenfe : " Lord Jefus, receive my fpirit." (Adls
vii: 59.)
To which the following examples may not improperly be added.
r HeyielJed up [the ghoft.
Matt, xxvii : ^o—x(pmt ro irvivixx — | ^^-j ^.^ sfikit.
SHe borwed his head, and
ga've up [the ghoft,
orj 431S SPIRIT.
Luke xxiii : 46 — «s %«?«'? ""^ Traj a6»io-of/.ai J I^to thy hands I com-
¦to TTvevf/.x iJi.il — t find my spirit.
^  viii; 5J_K«l tTTirpi^/t TO 7rl/£b7*« J ^«'^'^*'" SPIRIT f«».-f
^jUT'dS— t again, and fhe arofe.

44^ LETTER v.
manus) which he breathed forth upon the crofs
when he gave up the ghoft ; and the water and
the blood, which flowed from his fide (as was be
fore obferved) when they looked on him whom
they pierced. Thefe, ye Cerinthians, thefe, ye
Docetcs, are the teftimonies which overthrow both
your eirors ; proving Jefus Chrifi to have a di
vine, as wefl as a human nature ; to be God
as well as man. If y^ receive the witnefs of Men^
fhe witnefs of God is greater : for this is the wit
nefs of God, which he hath tefiified of his Son"
If this comment and paraphrafe be juft, the
context of the Apoftle is fo far from receiving any
injury by the retention of the verfe in queftion ;
that it would lofe all its genuine fpirit, would be
come unapt and feeble in its application, and
therefore could hardly be faid to fubfift, without
it. Indeed the exiftence of the feventh verfe appears
to be effential to the context under any interpre
tation whatfoever which may be annexed to this
part of the Epiftle of St. John. In whatever point
of view we place thefe fix fucceffive verfes, the
expreffions, Witnefs of God, In the ninth verie, can
find no due antecedent in any of them, can in
deed

letter v. 447
deed bear no proper reference to any preceding
paffage of the whole chapter, fave to the feventh
verfe. {g) So that if this verfe ffiould be ex
punged from the Epiftle, it feems that the other
muft neceffarily be involved in the like profcrip-
tion. In corroboration of thefe arguments drawn from
the internal fenfe of the paffage, and its congrulty
with the context, let it be next obferved that the
terms, the expreffions which St. John ufes in the
eighth prefuppofe, and In grammatical conftrudion
demand, the precedency of the feventh verfe now
in queftion. If St. Jobn had written the fixth
and eighth verfes alone (as is contended by the ad
verfaries of the feventh verfe) this part of his
epiftle would have ftood thus :
Kai TO TrvrufACt Efi to jjLX^TVoav oti 'to irviiiy-a trtv ji aArjSsia'
OTI Tp£i? iiatv 01 iJ,xpTvp-dvri; to Tr^fu^a xxt to moco^ xxt to
xtjAX' xxt Ot r^zi; tt; to tv Et(rtv. But

{g) " 9. Et TTW y,xpTVptxv. Argumentum a comparatis fump-
tum. Refertur autem hoc ad verficulum feptimum." IBeza, in loc.]'
" Cum enim ita fibi utraque refpondeat, tamque arete junfta fint
ambse inferiori contextui, ut feries, ubi alterutra defideretur, manca
omnino fit atque hiulca, minime poiu'n"—[Vallarfius, in loc] Heinfius.
An oppofite opinion is advanced (but feebly fupported) in the Com-
mentaries and Effays of (or about) the year 1786.

448 letter V.
But it is not poffible to fuppofe that St. John, after
his introdudion of one of the witneffes of whom
he meant to fpeak, irvt'jy.x, in the neuter gender, and
an immediate addition to that witnefs of two others
ixTu^ and a)jM,a (as the opponents of the feventh verfe
affirm) both of them of the neuter gender likewife,,
would have placed, as well before as after thefe three
neutral nouns, articles, adjedives and participles of
the mafculine gender, t^eis ot pajTUfou>T£s— -and ot t^ei;
Ei? TO tv Eiff-iv. But- when we replace the feventh
verfe in its proper and precedent ftation, the dif
ficulty ceafes to fubfift. The t^ei? ot f^x^Tv^owTi, and
the fucceeding outoi ot T^ttq are applied with ftrid
grammatical propriety by St. Jobn [h) to the wit
neffes of the feventh verfe. And, having been
once ufed by him in that paffage, we are prepared to
meet a repetition of them in the foflowing fen
tence, in conformity with his ufual ftfle and mode of
{h) " Illud torquebit Grammaticos, quomodo de fpiritu, aqua, et fan-
guine dicitur tres funt qui, et hi [tres] unum funt : priefertim quum
fpiritus aqua et fanguis apud Gracos fiunt neutrius generis'' [Moft cer
tainly, on the fuppofition that St. John wrote the fixth and eighth
verfes alone.] " Verum Apoftolus magis refpexit fenfum quam iierba, fro
tribus teftibus, quafi trihus' perfionis, fuppofuit tres res, fpiritum aquam tt
fanguinem." The previous admiffion orthe feventh verfe into the text
of St. John converts the latter part of this argument into good fenfe:
which it is not without that verfe. Erafm, in loc, Ed. Lugd, Bat,
A. D. 1705.

LETTER V. 449
of writing : who frequently recurs to paft expref- .
fions, and fuddenly recalls ideas and argunients
which feemed to have been before difmlffed, with
a pleafing and dignified, but fometimes unexpeded,
reduplication. If, Sir, it ftiall be further required that fome
probable account be given of the abfence of the
text, now in debate, from fome of the ancient MSS
of this Epiftle of St, Jdhn, — I feel no repugnance
in believing, I fee no abfurdity - in concluding,
that this verfe was thus, partially, loft in fome
period of that interval which elapfed between the
death of St. Jobn in A. D. loi, and the revifion
of the New Teftament by Jerome about A. D.
384. Whether this defalcation happened by ac
cident, or fraud : Whether fome hafty and heed
lefs Scribe, having juft inferted the ot [Axplupsvln of
the feventh [i) verfe in his copy, fuffered his eye
Mm in
[i) The only objeftion to this argument is — that fuch erroneous
copy would have read the eighth verfe thus : xxt t^ a? eta-tv- ot (ax^-
IuphvIej IV Tn yn -no Trvtvi^x — which is not the cafe with any Greek
MS now extant. Bengelius, at the clofe of his diJfertation on this paf
fage, admits that this argument alone (if cleared from this objeftion)
would be decifive of the whole queftion as to the authenticity of this
Verfe. The objeflion may be removed by an eafy fuppofition ; which
i«, that the words iv th yn fitood in the margin of that MS from
whence this firft erroneous copy was made, and therefote were not
attended

450 LETTER v.
in Its next glance from his tranfcript to the origi
nal, to fix itfelf on the fame words, ot [Axfu^svlig,
which alfo occur in the eighth verfe ; and, being
fatisfied with the identity of the expreffion, tra
velled onwards through his tafk without perceiving
the error into which he had fallen ; or, whether,
in the violent coUtefts which arofe within this pe
riod between the opponents of Arius and his
abettors, the Arian writers purpofely left out of
their own tranfcripts the words which ftood, in
the original, between thofe two Greek participles
(together with the fubfequent claufule tv rr, yn) and
which are the very words now in difpute, hoping
i that

attended to' by this precipitate copyift. It is even poffible that the
MS might not read the words tv toi boxvu in the feventh verfe, as
.was the cafe with feven MSS of R. Stephens ; which would contribute
ftill more to the deception of a hafty fcribe. But this latter fuppofi-
tion is not neceffary to the argument. The former alone is fufficlent.
And this moderate and very probable affumption will not only remove
the difficulty under which Bengelius lay, but every other doubt as to
Greek evidence : and thofe are the only real difficulties which embar-
rafs the prefent difcuffion. For from an erroneous copy like this, or
from its tranfcripts, it is pofiible at leaft that the Syriac and the Coptic
. yerfions of this Epiftle might have proceeded, together with all the
Greek MSS (about one hundred) which are known to have remained
to the prefent times.
i- The Appendix, No. xli. fupplies various inftances of omiffions of
this kind by hafty copyifts. See alfo the works of Bifliop Bull, by
Grabe, A.D. 1703, p. 138-9: and Delany'% Difcourfes, Lond, Ed,
1766, p. 69—80.

L E T T E R -v. 45 I
that their copies might In time be followed as ori
ginals, and divide at leaft, if not govern, the
Chriftian world : — is not now very important to
^enquire, becaufe it is not poffible to determine the
fad with precifion at this diftance of time. But
as Arianifm, during a confiderable part of this in
terval, fat upon the throne of the Cafars ; as the
Emperors Confiantius and Valens, in particular, had
their Arian Archbifbops and Bifhops, who for a
long time poffeffed the fupreme ecclefiaftical power,
and banilhed their opponents : it is perhaps not
utterly impoffible to conceive, that fome of the
wairmeft of the followers of Arius fliould confpire,
at that time, to devife fome fubdolous means of ba-
niffilng this obnoxious verfe [fi) along with its
fupporters. Far be it, however, from the prefent
age abfolutely to affirm that this latter was the real
truth of the cafe. Either caufe is equal to the
effed ; and each is at leaft poffible. For as one,
fingle, miftaken copy might, with perfed purity
of intention in the feveral fucceffive copyifts, gene-
M m 2 rate

[k) It has been faid that, as the final claufule of the feventh verfe
may be interpreted into unity of teftimony alone, the oppofition, which
the Socinians of this and the laft century have given to the reception
of this verfe, muft not be imputed to their tenets, as Socinians. Some
credit might be due to this apology, if that (co them moft diftreffmg)
word -Koy^ did not form a part of this verfe.

452 LETTER V.
rate all the erroneous MSS of this kind which
have ever yet been produced : So the Arians, on
the other hand, are not fo free (/) from imputations
of the oppofite nature as to be entitled to demand,
from an impartial Hiftorian, a certification of their
innocence. And when a fingle erroneous tran
fcript of this kind had been once made, whether
through intention or inadvertence, within any
part of the interval herein before mentioned ; it
would certainly propagate Its own errors for fome
time unchecked, and uncorreded, on account of
the various and continued perfecutions of the
Chriftians, which prevafled through the greateft
part of that period ; and oftentimes prevented them
from meeting together but by ftealth, ante lucem,
and In too much terror and trepidation to think,
at fuch meetings, of comparing their MSS with
each other. But when the rage of perfecution
began [ni) to abate, and when the different affem blies
(/) The Arians are exprefsly accufed of having mutilated the Scrip
tures during this, their reign. (Ambrofe, De Fide, Lib. ii. C. 15, p,
494 : — And Lib. v. C. xvi, p. 586. — Alfo Epf. Claffis i. pa. 795.)
And Socrates (Hifi. Eccl. vii, 32 — and Tripart. xii, 4.) direftly
charges them with having garbled this very Epiftle of St. 'John, for
the purpofe of detaching, if poffible, the Di-vinity of Chrift from his
human nature. See alfo Witfius [Vol. iii : Exercitat. De Sermone Deo,
pa, 113 — Edit. Herbor, Naficfv, A.D. 1712.]
(ot) Thefe impediments were not compleatly removed, until the
fixth century ; for Arianifim was net con^pleatly fubdued until that time.

LETTER V. 453
biles of Chriftians had leifure to communicate to
gether, and to^ confult in fecurity their originals,
or fuch authentic tranfcripts thereof as held with
them the place of originals — then the abfence of
this verfe was difcovered, and the omiffions of it
were In fome degree redified. Private perfons
correded their erroneous MSS in the moft com
pendious, as well as leaft expenfive method :
namely, by interlining the omitted verfe in the
text, or by adding it in the margin («). cf
their copies of this Epiftle, The public Bibles,
the- old Italic (and afterwards the Vulgate of
Jerome) of the Latins, are proved — the Ver
fion of the Armenians, and the x-no^o7^(^' of the
Greeks, are believed — to have needed no corredion
as to the text In^ queftion, and confequently to
have received none. And this verfe hath ever
fince maintained its place in every ancient public
Verfion
{n) The adverfaries of this verfe have founded, on thi^ latter cir
cumftance, their idea of a marginal glofs, or comment. But ftireJy,
nothing can be more affefted or abfurd. When the poffeffor of a
MS of this Epiftle had difcovered the omiffion of this verfe in his
copy, how is it to be fuppofed that he would aft ? He would not
re-copy his MS, beginning with' this omiffion ; for that expedient would
be too troublefome, or too expenfive He muft, of neceffity, correft
his erroneous MS, either by an interlineation (which however would
be imprafticable 'm fome MSS) or by inferting the omiffion in its mar
gin. And this feems to be the true, the obvious, and the only rea
fon why fome MSS have interliped, and others have exhibited in their
margins, this verfe of St. John,

454 LETTER V.
Verfion of this Epiftle, wherefoever the name of
Chrfi hath been profeffed, except in the Syriac
(o) and the Coptic : both of which, however, may
be fuppofed, with great probability, to have been
framed from MSS erroneous and incorred as to
this verfe ; and moreover omit fo many other
verfes, as to render their omiffion of this paffage
not even a matter of furprife.
Thus, Sir, I have travelled through the taflc,
which I at firft prefcribed to myfelf, of ftating, and
replying to, the chief objedions which have been
urged againft the originality of the verfe i. John
V : 7. The undertaking hath been, occafionally,
rendered arduous by adual difficulties caft in its
way by the adverfaries of this verfe. But it hath
been much more frequently made difguftfulj by
their fophiftical (as it feems) perverfions of the
truth. The labor and adivity, which were found
requifite to encounter the former, have borne no
comparifon with the patience and forbearance,
which became neceffary to endure the latter. But
whether originating in truth or fallacy, whether
holding forth real or feigned perplexities, thofe ob
jedions
(0) The Arabic, Ethiopic, and Perfic, are no more than copies of
thefe Verfions ; and therefore not entitled to a fpecial enumeration in
his place.

LETTER V. 455
jedions have been (fuch of them at leaft as ap
peared deferving of notice) all fairly ftated, and
fully confidered. I have not fuppreffed, I have
not flirunk back from, even one of them. And
now, Sir, let me intreat you to eftimate for me,
for yourfelf, for the public, the real value of fuch
objedions, when compared with the anfwers
which they have received. Left, however, you
fliould through modefty (our language will not
convey the full import of the Latin word, pudor)
decline the unpleafing office — I muft of neceffity
take it upon myfelf. The employment may, in
fome fenfe, be affumed improperl;'^ ; but it IhaU ,
be difcharged impartially.
The refult, then, from the whole is, — that the
VERSE in queftion seems, beyond all degree
of serious doubt, to have stood in this
epistle, when it originally proceeded
FROM THEJPEN OF St. John. In the Latin, or
Weftern Church, the fuffrages of Tertullian and
Cyprian, oi Marcus Celedenfis and Phabadius, in
its favor, aided by the early, the folemn, the pub
lic appeal to its authority by the African [p) Bi
fhops
(4) The authority of Viaor Vitenfis, as a hiftorian, will not be re-
> , fifted

45& letter v.
Ihops under Huneric ; the Preface, Bible, and cOH"
fcripta fides of Jerome ; the frequent, and dired
citations of the verfe by Eucherius, Fulgentius, Vi
gilius and Caffiodorius :-— thefe, fupported as to the
Greek, or Eaftern Churches by the dialogue im
puted to Arius and Athanafius, as well as by the
Synopfis of this Epiftle : by the Armenian Verfion,
which was framed from Greek MSS ; by the very
early, and conftant ufe of the xiro^oxt^ in the fame
Greek Church (an ufage which feems to be dedu
cible even from the Apoftles [q] themfelves) and
by Its public Confeffion of Faith : — All thefe evi
dences, arifing within the limit of the fixth cen
tury (to pafs over the Immenfe accumulation of
teftimony which has' been produced fubfequent to
that aera) offering themfelves to the teft of the
judgement, combined in one point of view, tin-
checked
fifted by Mr. Gibbon, when he turns to pages 337, 342, 343, 348,
393, and 442, of the third Volume of his own Hiftory.
It is remarkable that thefe African Bifliops, in their public Con
feffion of Faith, ftile the diibelief of a Trinity of perfons in the God
head, quandam no'uitatem, a new opikion j and that this defcrlption
was given in A.D. 484, [Appendix, No.xxxi.]
(17) Fabricius, treating" of this a7roroA@J, affirms — " Epiftolartim
hiijufmodi led'ionem non effe No'uatorum innjentum, fed ab Apoftolis ipfis
ed nos tranfmifam." — And he quotes on this fubjeft, Clement. Conftit.
Lib. ii. Cap. 57 — Jacobus in Liturgia — and Juftini Mart, Apolog. 2.
\_Fabricius, Bibl. Grac. vol, V, Diff. I . p. 36— Edit.
Hamb. A, D. 171 2,]

LETTER V. 457
checked by a fingle negation, unrebuked by
any pofitive contradidion, unrefifted by any the
fmalleft dired impeachment (r) of the authenti
city of the verfe, throughout all the annals of afl
antiquity: — all these circumstances feize
the mind as it were by violence, and compel it to
acknowledge the verity, the original exiftence of
the verfe in queftion. For although it undoubt
edly appears ftrange, on a firft confideration of the
fubjed, that feveral ancient Greek, and Latin Fa
thers have not quoted, or commented upon this
verfe, in thofe parts of their works which have
defcended to the prefent age ; although it appears,
on a primary view, ftifl more ftrange, that thofe
numerous Greek MSS (not Latin, for a vaft ma
jority of thefe have always read the verfe) which
formerly exhibited this paffage of St. John, fhould
be now in general (not totally) loft, rather than
thofe few which did not contain it : Yet both thefe
objedlons, when aggravated to the utmoft, are but
prefumptions, amount to no more than negative
evidence ; and they have been already, as it fliould
N n feem,
(r) Omifjions of the verfe in ancient MSS, or by ancient writers,
are tie.\l\\tr pofiti've contradiaions to, nor direB impeachments of, its au
thenticity. They are /o«ii//oriro»;'f<S'«)'^; and no more. But conjec
ture has no weight whatfoever in any cafe, or under any circumftance,
when put into the ballance againft the evidence of pofitive fafts.

458 letter v.
feem, compleatly and fatisfadorlly explained and
avoided, — or accounted for and defeated. And
/rom whetherfoever of the fources, which have
been heretofore affigned, the partial occultatlon of
this verfe antecedent to the times of Jerome pro
ceeded, that temporary obfcuration was difperfed
at once, and the verfe was fummoned forth to ffiine
in its proper fphere, by his Preface and Verfion ;
which are confirmed and eftablifhed (if they could
be faid to need any confirmation or eftabllffiment)
by the revifion of Alcuinus under the diredion of
•Charlemagne, And this verfe hath ever since
(If we may now defcend to modern times) not
only maintained its place in every public Ver
fion, which hath been in ufe fince the days of Je
rome ; [s) but it hath alfo been ever fince uni
formly quoted, and referred to, by individual
Writers, of the firft eminence for learning and in
tegrity, in Afia, and in Africa, as well as In Eu
rope, without the leaft queftion, without the fmalleft
interruption; except the invafion of Erafmus,
which, however, was foon repelled, and of which
he frequently repented and was afhamed (/) unlefs
his own Paraphrafe on this verfe, and his Ratio vera
{s) The exceptions of the Syriac and the Coptic, with their tran
fcripts, have already been made, and accounted for.
(') Pa. 273-4.

LETTER V. 459
vera Theologia, be the compleateft pieces of literary
hypocrify now fpbfifting ; — and except the af-
faults of fome more modern objedors, which ne-*
verthelefs, it is hoped and trufted, have been re-
pulfed in the preceding Differtatlon, in a manner
(although unequal to the fubjed yet) fufficlently
adequate to the ferious convidion of every unpre
judiced enquirer after truth. o
I beg leave to clofe thefe refledions with a quo
tation from a work, which, by its peculiar felicity
in combining metaphyfical learning with the Scrip
tural fcheme of Revelation, has ennobled the one»
whilft it has illuftrated the other'; [u) which ad-
monlfhes, " That in quefiions of diff culty, or fuch
as are thought fo, where more fatisfadory evidence
cannot be had, or is not feen ; if the refult of exa
mination be, that there appears upon the vohole, any,
the lowefi, prefumption on one fide, and none on the
other, or a greater prefumption on one fide, although
in the lowefi degree greater ; this determines the quefi-
tion EVEN IN MATTERS OF SPECULATION : and
in matters of pradice, will lay us under an abfolute
and formal obligation, in point of prudence and of
interefi, to ad upon that prefiumption, or low proba-
N n 2 bility,
{«) 5»//fr's Analogy, Introdudlion, adinit.

460 LETTER V.
bility, although it be fio low, as to leave the mind in
very great doubt which is the truth." At the fame
time, however, I do not mean to feek any fhelter
for the authenticity of this verfe under the ftrid
terms of this quotation, but will venture to claim
a much higher protedion for it than the literaf^x-
preffions of the quotation will fupport ; by affirm
ing jthat the refiult of examination in the prefent
difquifition is, that a very strong positive
PROOF appears on one fide, and nothing but a
very low prefumption on the other ; and there
fore, that the queftion is determined, even when
viewed as a matter of speculation. But
when confidered as a matter of practice
(and furely there is no fpeculatlon as to the
nature of the Deity, which will not, in fome de
gree at leaft, influence our pradice) we fliafl find
ourfelves laid under an absolute and formal
OBLIGATION, IN POINT OF PRUDENCE AND OF
INTEREST, to ad upon fuch a fpeculation : and
the more emphatically fo, becaufe the evidence in
the prefent cafe does not appear to be so low,
AS TO LEAVE THE MIND IN ANY (reafonable)
DOUBT, WHICH IS THE TRUTH.
Having now, Sir, difcuffed the general queftion
as to the originality of this verfe, I fhould beg to
take

LETTER V. 461
take my leave of you, did it not feem, in fome
refpeds, requifite that this intercourfe fliould be
x:ontinued yet a few moments longer.
, And firft, let me fubmit to your confideration a
few remarks on the general defign of your feveral
publications, as far as they difclofe it to your read
ers. But as this is not the dired objed of this
Differtatlon, — I will be brief, yet plain.
.You have. Sir, throughout the whole of your
publications, feemed to fnatch with avidity, at
every occafion, apt or unapt, of leffening the power
of Chriftianity over the human mind. You have
not, indeed, attempted to produce this effed by
open impeachments of the external evidences of
its truth (for thofe would have been fpeedlly con
futed) or by dired charges againft the internal pu
rity of its dodrines (for thofe would have con
futed themfelves) : but you have endeavoured to
effeduate your purpofe by indired machinations.
You have, artfully enough, fuggefted ambiguous
infinuations, where you durft not hazard a pofitive
accufation. You have labored to raife a fneer,
where you durft not rifk an argument. When
fuch paffages, as thefe, occur to your readers —
" Rome

462 LETTER V.
" Rome fubmitted to the Toke of the Gof.
pel—" [v) •
" Some advocates would difgrace Chriftianity,
if Chrifiianity could be difgraced'' [w)
" ApoUonius, of Tyana, was born about the fame
time as Jefus Chrifi. His life (that of the former)
is related in fo fabulous a manner by his fanatic
Difciples, that we are at a lofs to difcover vvhether
he was a Sage, or an Impoftor." [x)
*' If I had defigned to inveftigate the Jewifii
Antiquities, reafon, as well as faith, muft have di
reded n)iy enquiries to the facred Books, which,
eyen as human produdions, would deferve to be
lludied as one" (I cannot help Mr. Gibbon's
bad Engliff) " of the moft curious, and original,
Monunients of the Eaft." (j/) ^' This
(ij) Hiftory, vol. iii, p. 77.
(w) Vindication, ad init.
{x) The regular confufion of this fentence befpeaks defign. " Mai?
j' ai <l'aj5ord vu <ju' il en vouloit a Jefus Chrifit, fous le charaftere
de Mahomet,'^ [Lord Chefterfield to Crebillon, refpeding Voltaire's Tra
gedy of Mahomet.'}
( y) Vindication, p. 29.
The Parenthefis, in this quotation, will find its precedent in Mr,
Gibbon's Vindication,

LETTER v. 46;^
" This prohibitory Law" (viz. of Theodoftus^
when he aboliflied the fanguinary, as well as idola
trous worfhip of the Greek and Roman pagans)
** was expreffed in the moft abfolute, and compre-
henfive terms. // is our will and pleafure (fays the
.Emperor) that none of our fubjeds ffall prefume ^^ in
any city^ or in any place, to voorfhip an inanimate
Idol by the facrifice of a guiltlefs Vidim. The Ad
¦ offacr ficing, and the pradice of divination by the
entrails of the Vidim, are declared High Treafon
againft the State. The rites of Pagan fuperftition,
which might feem lefs bloody and atrocious, are
^boliflied, as highly injurious to the truth, and ho
nor of religion ; and the harmless claims of
the domeftic Genius, of the houfehold Gods, are
included in this rigorous proficription. Such was
the perfecuting Spirit of the laws of Theodofiusy
which were repeatedly enforced by his Sons, and
Grandfons, with the loud and unanimous applaufe
of the Chriftian world." [z)
" Neither the violence of Antlochus, nor the
arts of Herod, nor the example of the circumja
cent nations, could ever perfuade the Jews to af
fociate,
(«) Hift. Vol. iii. p. ?9.

4^4 LETTER V.
fociate with the infiitutions of Mofes, the elegant
Mythology of the Greeks." [a)
When fuch paffages as thefe occur to your read
ers, the interpretation, which was moft intended,
although leaft expreffed, cannot lie hid even from
the dulleft apprehenfion.
But, Sir, paffing over other enquiries. Why are
you not confifl^nt with yourfelf ? After having In
in the former part of thefe extrads, thus endea
voured, however vainly, to overturn the Syftem
of Revelation by ridicule, by indecent farcafms le
velled at it and- its divine Author; after having
thus attempted, however feebly, to fupport the
caufe of Deifm ; — why do you, in the latter part
of them, at once carry over your faithlefs colors
to the Hofts of Heathenifm, and Idolatry ? What
was the principal inftitution of Mofes (if you fliould
be refolved to attribute thofe inftitutions to Mofes
alone) upon which afl the reft depended ? It was—
Hear, 0 Ifrael, the Lord thy God is one God.
Thou ff alt have none other Gods but Him, Him only
ffoalt thou worfijip, and Him only ffalt thou ferve."
But what was the elegant Mythology of the
Greeks ? It was — Gods many, and Lords many. And
[a) Hiftory, C. xv, p. 451.

L £ T T E R V. 465
And do you then. Sir, really wlfti to cenfure the
Jews, becaufe they would not affociate with the
worfliip of the God of Abraham, .of the great I
AM, " Him, befide whom there is no God; the
Lord, who is God in Heaven above, and in the earth
beneath, — and there is none elfie; the Lord, who
prepared the light, and the fiun, — who fet all the
borders of the earth, who made fummer and winter ;
before vobom the nations are as the drop of a bucket,
and are counted as the fmall dufi of the ballance ;
who holdeth the fea in the palm of bis hand, and
taketh up the ifies as a very little thing :" — Do you
ferioufly condemn the Jews, becaufe they would
not, in the days of Antiochus and Herod (for be
fore that time they had but too often, and too
fatally tried the experiment) defile the adoration of
this fole God of the Univerfe with the worffiip of
the adulterous, and inceftuous Jupiter, — the paf-
fionate, and revengeful Juno, — Venus the ftrumpec,
and Mercury the pickpocket ? I forbear to pur
fue you through the inferior Codlings, the Pan and
Priapus, the [b) Laverna and Cloacina, of this
elegant Mythology. Nothing exhibits human rea
fon in a more humfliating light [c) than to take a
O o view
[d)  " Pukhra La'verna
" Da mihi fallere." Hor.
(<¦) " Ab jpfo exordiar Homero veftro— qui divinam majeftatem hu-
mana

466 L E T T E R V.
view of Its mythological Reveries, 'W'hen unaided
by divine Revelation. If the moft inventive mind
fhould ftudy for abfurdity, what could it devife
more ludicrous on the one hand, or more abom>
nable on the other, than the worffiip of Calves and
Serpents, — ^Monkies, and Onions I It may be
granted that part, at leaft, of thefe ADORABLE
EXISTENCES belong properly to the elegant My
thology of the Egyptians. But are the Serpents,
and the Monkies of the Borderers upon the Nile,
more prepofterous, as objeds of worffiip, than
Gods and Goddeffes [d) in Hell— 'than Dog-Gods,
Horfe-Gods, Fiff-Gods, and Goat-Gods f And yet
this hideous hoft, this beaftly herd, this contemp
tible [e) " crew, debafed with every human weak
nefs, and pofluted with every human vice," are in
your opinion, it feems, fit compeers, as objeds of
worffiip, with the felf-exiftent, omnipotent and
eternal God : and the Jews are, as you inform us,
guilty
manaconditione traftavit, cafibus et paffionib'us humanis deos imbuens,
qui de illis favore diverfis gladiatoria quodammodo paria commifit,
Venerem fauciat fagitta humana, Martem tredecim menfibus in vinculis
detinet fortaffe periturum, eadem Jo'vem pene perpeffum a caelituin
plebe traducit, aut lacrymas ejus fuper Sarpedonem excutit, aut luxuri-
antem cum ya»o»£ fsediffime inducit, commendato libidinis defiderio
per commemorationem amicarum." \flertull, ad Nationes, Lib. i.]
yd) Pluto, Proferpine, Cerberus, Pegafus, Triton, Pan,' and the Sa
tyrs &c.
(e) Sermons by the prefent Biihop of London, Ed„ the 6th.

LETTER V. 467
guflty of Inexcufable obftinacy, in refufing to place
on the throne of Heaven, this elegant Mythology,
and to yield to both a like adoration !
This then. Sir, it feems, is your fyftem (if any
thing fo mutable, now Deiftical now Pagan, can
merit the name of a fyftem) of Theology. And
your plan of morality is the amiable offspring (/)
of fo engaging a parent. It expofes itfelf to your
readers occafionally, and as it were in momentary
glances, in the preceding parts of your Hiftory ;
but it feems to look out at full upon them in the
following paffage. [g)
The Sifter of Valentlnian was educated in the
Palace at Ravenna ; and as her marriage might be
produdive of fome danger to the State, ffie was
raifed, by the title of Augufta, above the hopes
of the moft prefumptuous fubjed. But the fair
Honoria had no fooner attained the fixteenth year
of her age, than ffie detefted the importunate
greatnefs, which muft forever [h) exclude her
O o 2 from

(/) O Matre pukhra Tilia pulchrior i HoR.
(^) Hiftory, Vol. iii. pa. 404.
{h) Why forever ? She was only raifed, by the title of Augufla,
above the " honorable love" of fubjefts. Foreign Princes of any
country might (as indeed Attila afterwards did) alk her in marriage.

468 LETTER v.
from the comforts of honorable love : in the midft
of vain and unfatisfadory pomp, Honoria fighed,
yielded to the impulfe of nature, and threw her-
felf into the arms of her Chamberlain, Eugenius.
Her guilt, and ffiame (fuch is the abfurd language
of imperious man) were foon betrayed by the ap
pearances of pregnancy : but the difgrace of the
royal family was publiffied to the world by the im
prudence of the Emprefs Placidia ; who difmiffed
her daughter, after a ftrid, and ffiameful confine^
ment, to a remote exile at Confiantinople."
To the condud of Honoria, then, in thus fore
going every confideration that was due to her rank
and ftation ; in thus betraying her own perfonal
honor, and, at fo early an age, breaking through
all the baffiful reftraints of virgin modefty; in
thus equally difregarding the laws of God and
man, and proftituting herfelf to one of her do-
meftics, merely becaufe the dignity of her tide
(the only poor apology held out for her) placed
her above the fubjeds of her Brother, the Empe
ror : to fuch a condud neither guilt, nor ffiame is,
in your opinion, to be imputed ; for fuch impu
tation, in fuch a cafe, you affirm to be abfurd lan
guage. It is even proper, In your judgement, that
other Honorias of diftinguiffied birth and high
race.

LETTER V. 469
race, of the prefent and future ages, ffiould be in-
ftruded to ad, or at leaft to reafon, in this man
ner : for, if they ffiould become your readers, they
are here told, that to apply the expreffions of guilt
and ffiame to fuch a condud, would be only the
abfurd language of imperious man. It is, it feems,
a fufficlent juftification for thofe prefent, or future
Honorias, when they have thus played the ftrumpet
with (pardon, Sir, the inadvertency — " when they
have thus yielded to the impulfe of nature, and throvon
themfelves into the arms of'^) their Footmen, or their
Chamberlains, to fay, that they were in their fix
teenth year, and that they fighed. — And the indig
nation, and afflidlon of a Royal parent, anxious
to interrupt fo offenfive a commerce, by feparating
her daughter from the objed of her libidinous, and
criminal attachment, — ought, it feems, to be re
probated as afirid and ffameful confinement, end
ing in a remote exile ! Surely, Sir, the honeft bluffi
of ingenuous ffiame hath long fince ' forfaken your
cheek. Are thefe the grave inftrudlons of the
hlftoric matron, combining truth with majefty ; or
are they the meretricious artifices of an abandoned
Procurefs, pleading, in her choiceft terms, the
caufe of proftltutlon ? I intreat your aid, Sir, to
affift me in folving the difficulties which you have
thus thrown around me. If left to my own guid-
¦ ance.

470 LETTER v.
f
ance, J can find but one way of extricating my_
felf from them : which is — to fuppofe that, in Mr.
Gibbon, the School-boy is not yet loft in the Man ;
that, although when he was a child, it was allow
able for him (even by the fuffrage of an Apoftle)
to think as a child, and to fpeak as a child, yet that
when he became a man, he could not put away
childiff things, but even now underfiands as a child,
and beheves in the fenfelefs, and idolatrous Poly-
theifm of the ancients. In this point of view, Mr.
Gibbon is, indeed, entitled to claim one merit, that
of being confiftent with himfelf. Beyond all
doubt, a writer teaches fuch morals as thefe with
the moft perfed confiftency, who announces his
partiality for a Theology, which reprefents them
as the pradice of its Deities ; who openly declares,
that the claims of feme of thefe Deities are harm-
lefs at leaft (although they are claims of divinity In
themfelves, and of worffip from men) and who
feems to lament, in terms not very ambiguous or
obfcure, that the elegant mythology, which contains
them, is no longer the eftabUffied religion of the
world !
If, Sir, this delineation, the outlines of which
have been fketched by your own hand, be a juft
reprefentation of your mind, your Creed is already
known :

LETTER v. 471
known : and the prefent age may, future ages moft
certainly wifl, be at no lofs to form their judgment
of you accordingly. If it be not juft, if either
your own text, or my comment have wronged
you, — do juftice to yourfelf. You have the re
medy in your own power. Favor the public with
your fyftems of Theology and Morals. Delineate
them at full length. Defcribe them at large. Stand
forth in the open field. The world is weary of
feeing you fight fo long in ambuffi. Walk no
more forth with your ftiletto in the twflight. Seek
your adverfary honorably, with your naked fword,
in the face of day. Afpire to the credit of Toland
and Tindal, — of Chubb and Morgan, — oiVanini and
Spinoza, by a dired attempt to break this yoke of
the Gofpel. Take to yourfelf the honors of Rouf-
feau at leaft, and give us the Creed of your Sa
voyard Curate alfo. Affume the diftlndion of
Voltaire, and favor us with your Didionnaire Phi-
lofophique Portatif. DIftlnguIffi the grounds of
your oppofition to Chrifiianity with plalnnefs and
perfpicuity. Leave your readers no longer at li
berty to confound, in you, modern Deifm with
ancient Polythelfm, or either of them with Athe-
ifm. If auy of thefe Baals be God with you, —
tell us which of them you worffiip. Your friends
exped from you fome plan of unbelief, which may

47^ L E T T £ R ti
may at leaft appear to be tolerably regular and cori-i
fiftent, or they will foon defpair (i) of being able
in any degree, to enter upon your defence. The
impartial public demand it from you ; or the per-
fuafion, already entertained by many, will foon be
come univerfal, that you conceived a certain modi-^
cum of infidelity, no matter how prepared, to be ne
ceffary to give faffiion to a work, pompous yet not
fubftantial, — fpecious yet not fatisfadory, — labored
yet not accurate. And Chriftianity calls you to
the teft, dares you to the onfet ; it being her fu
preme wiffi, her only prayer, where ffie hath any
enemies, that ffie may, like the Grecian Warrior
fo well defcrlbed by the Grecian Bard, be per
mitted to confront her adverfaries in open day. She
[i) One of the moft (perhaps the mofi) truly refpeftable of them
feems already to have loft the very hope of your defence, in defpair,
'I'hink not my verfe means blindly to engage
In rafli defence of thy profaner page !
Though keen her fpirit, her attachment fond,
Bafe fervice cannot fuit with Friendlhip's bond ;
Too firm from duty's facred path to turn,
She breathes an honeft Cgh of deep concern.
And pities Genius, when his wild career
Gives faith a wound, or innocence a tear.
Humility herfelf, divinely mild.
Sublime Religion's meek and modeft child.
Like the dumb fon of Crafus, in the ftrife.
When force affailcd his Father's facred life.
Breaks filence, and, with filial duty warm.
Bids thee revere his Parent's hallow'd form.
H.wley's Effay on Hiftory, Epift. iii. ad f mul.

LETTER V. 473
She chaflenges your ftrldeft fcrutiny. She loveth
not darknefs rather than light, becaufe her deeds are
evil; ffie hateth not the iight, lefi her works ffould
be reproved : but ffie doeth the truth, and therefore
wiffieth to come to the light, that her deeds may be
made manifefi that they are wrought in God ! [fi)
But, Sir, your Hiftory, In general, is not my
principal concern. I leave that fubjed to the im
partial tribunal of future times, which wfll do it
ample juftice, A particular part, only, of your
work is my proper objed. Let me then ceafe
from purfuing this digreffion any longer. Let me
return for a few moments to my original defign,
and then conclude this long, perhaps to you tedi
ous, addrefs.
In addition to the Note (/) which has caufed
you the trouble of thefe letters, you declare, in the
body of the correfpondent pages and in their Notes,
with Dr. Benfion, that this text, which afferts the
unity of the three in Heaven, is condemned by the
univerfal filence of the orthodox fathers, ancient
verfions, and ancient MSS ; and that tbe two MSS,
of Dublin and Berlin, are unworthy to form an
P p exception.
{k) John iii: 19—21.
[I) Vol. iii. p. 545-

474 LETTER v.
exception. You then refer to Mr. Emlyn s works,
and infinuate rather than affirm (for your expref
fions are conftrained and obfcure) that this text
owes its prefent exiftence to an allegorical inter
pretation, in the form perhaps of a marginal Note,
invading the text of the Latin Bibles, which were
renewed and correded in a dark period of ten centu-
turies. You affirm, with Sir Ifaac Newton, that
this verfe voas firft alledged by the Catholic Biff ops,
ixibom Huneric fummoned to the conference of Car
thage. And from your own treafures you pro
duce a confident affertion, that Gennadius, Patriarch
of Confiantinople, was fo much amazed at the ex
traordinary compofition (the Creed of Athanafius,
commonly fo called) that he frankly pronounced it
to be the voork of a drunken man : in fupport ef
which remark you refer to the Dogmata Theologiccn
oi Petavius.
Thefe, Slr,^ are your affertions. And It feems
that they ought not to pafs without fome (but they
ffiafl be brief) animadverfions.
In the firft place, then, let it be obferved, that by
having thus adopted the objedions juft ftated, you
are now become refponfible for them as your own.
If this adoption were, originally, no more than the
refult

LETTER V. 475
refult of a curfory and imperfed examination of
the fubjed, and if any part of the preceding let
ters (in which, I truft, thofe objedions have been
proved to be in general falfe, and univerfally in
conclufive) ffiall have been fortunate enough to con
vince you of your error ; you will without doubt,
as the beft reparation in your power, haften to ef
face the ftigma with which you have endeavoured
to brand this text, by cancelling thofe pages which
contain it. Such a proceeding would do juftice to
the text, and honor to yourfelf. But if upon a
patient, and attentive review of the fubjed you
fliall fee no reafon to reverfe your former fentence,
lhall ftill pronounce the verfe in queftion to be
fpurious ; — it wfll be highly incumbent upon you
to demonftrate to the world the incompetency of
the fads ftated, and the infufficiency of the argu
ments urged in the preceding letters in fupport of
its authenticity.- Attempt this confutation, then
without delay. Silence will be a proof of con
fcious impotence. And attempt it with candor and
ferioufnefs. Tinfelled phrafes and empty farcafms
will have no effed, but to double the load which
now lies heavy upon you. I prefs not, however^
this caution through private, or perfonal confider
ations. It is a matter of no fmall indifference to
the Writer of thefe pages, whether (to ufe your
.. P p 2 own

476 LETTER V.
own language) you falute him [rn) voith gentle
courtefy, or fiern defiance. Your fads, if you ffiall
produce any to explain the queftion, ffiall be re
ceived -with complacence. Your arguments, if
you ffiall urge any to flluminate the fubjed, ffiall
be weighed with, candor and coolnefs. But your
' cavils, if you ffiall pradlfe any, ffiall be checked
with fteadinefs ; and your infolence, if you ffiall
affed any, ffiall be repelled with difdaln.
Let me in the next place. Sir, but ftill more
briefly, remark on thefe extrads, that they convey
no very favorable idea of your impartiality as a
Hiftorian. You have in them brought forward
Mr. Emlyn on the fubjed of this verfe, becaufe he
is your fellow-advocate. And you have configned
even the name of Mr. Martin, his refpedable an
tagonlft, to deep filence — no friendly Note to tell
vohere his work lies — becaufe his opinions were di
redly adverfe to yours, and becaufe he has over
thrown many of Emlyn s mifreprefentations. But,
Sir, is this the part of an impartial Hiftorian ? To
ftate authorities, and to urge arguments, on one fide
of a queftion alone, is but barely tolerable in a
hired advocate. A Hiftorian who ads in this
manner
(in) Vindication— Edit, A. D. 1779,

LETTER v. 477
manner is  but his defcrlption wifl be beft given
in your own words. " Whatever fubjed he has
chofen, whatever perfons he introduces, he owes ta
himfelf, to the prefent age, and to pofierity, a jufi
and perfied delineation of all that may be praifed^
of all that may be excufed, and of all that mufi be
cenfured. If he fails in the difcharge of his im
portant office, he partially violates the sacred
obligations of truth." [ll)
But, Sir, this is not all. Let me In the third,
and laft place remark, that the extrads In queftion
fupply the moft palpable proof of your partiality
and prejudice, in refped to the great queftion of
, the authenticity of this verfe of St, John. They
ffiew you to be capable even oi forging authorities
in a matter which bears no more than a collateral,
or rather an implied relation to it. You have wil
fully (for your reference is too exad to allow you
ffielter under any fuppofed inadvertence) mifre
prefented both Petavius and Gennadius, in the laft
of thofe extrads. Your own words have beea
already fet forth. The words of Petavius may be
thus tranflated.
" It is certain that the Creed, which paffes under the
(b) Vindication— Edit. 1779, p. i39-

478 letter v.
the name of Athanafius, was not Only read, but
had in great authority, by the Greek as well as by
the Latin Church. In this Creed are thefe expref
fions, as is known to all : The Holy Ghofi is of the
Father, and of the Son, neither made, nor created,
nor begotten, but proceeding. Which plain and
weighty teftimony was fo offenfive to the Greeks,
that they carried up their frantic and fooliffi rage
even to Athanafius himfelf ; which Gennadius re
lates and laments. They fear not (fays he) to affirm
that Athanafius was a drunkard, and that he was
drunk when he wrote this paffage: a senseless
and RIDICULOUS calumny, which merits filent
contempt rather than a ferious confutation." (0) May

\p) " Symbolum dico quod vulgo Athanafii dicitur — Certe fub
Athanafiii nomine, non modo ab noftris, fed a Graecis etiam et legitur,
et in magnam auftoritatem alTumitur. Eft autem in eo ita fcriptum,
quod ignorat nemo : Spiritus fan£ius a Patre, et Filio, non f alius, nec
creatus, nec genitus, fed procedens . Quod tam grave ac difertum tefti
monium Greeculos fic oiFendit, ut in Athanafium ipfum ftolide debac-
chati fint : quod refert ac deplorat Gennadius. lion "verentur,
inquit, dicere fanSlum Athanafium ebriofum fuiffe, et cum ifita ficriberet 'uino
plenum. Stulta et inepta calumnia, rifque potius et contemptu quam
feria expoftulatione digna."
\_Peta<v. Dogm. Theol. vol. ii. lib. vii. c. 8. p. 687. j
For the words of Gennadius himfelf, to which Petwuius here refers,
fee Appendix No, xli.

BETTER V. 479
May it not be fufpeded. Sir, from this quota
tion, that, by fondly ftudying Dr. Benfon, you
have imbibed no fmall portion of his fpirit ? You
have, in your Hiftory, confidently placed this af
fertion, as to the expreffions of Gennadius, among
certain truths which you affirm to be now univer
fally acknowledged. Let me befeech you to com
pare the real expreffions of Gennadius with your
own account of them, and then to inform the
world, whether you mean to repeat the affertion.
Is it not pradicable for you to utter truth, even
whilft you have its facred name in your mouth ?
Surely, Sir, " this feemeth to argue a bad caufe,
or a bad confcience, or (^) both." Is there any
phyfical, or moral impoffibility for thofe who deny
the authenticity of this verfe to quote fairly, to
argue candidly, and to fpeak truly ? Is there any
reafon in nature for fuch hard hearts ? Thofe
reafons, fuch as they are, can only be found (but
they may be there plentifufly found) in pride and
prejudice. If a falfe tenet, or opinion is to be de
fended at all events, to what auxfliaries muft it
look for affiftance ? Not to truth ;— for ffie is all
fair and artlefs, uniform and confiftent, fimple and
fincere. It muft feek the treacherous aid of cavils and
(p) The Tranflators' Preface to the Bible of James i :— a per
formance which feems not to be fo generally known as it deferves.

4S0 LETTER V.
and equivocations ; it muft pradlfe the foul [q)
arts of fophlftry and deceit, of fimulation and dif-
fimulatlon : by feleding a part only, and ftating
them as the whole of an Author's words, by af
cribing to him expreffions which he never uttered,
and meanings which he never meant ; by fup-
preffing what is known to- be true, and by infinu-
ating, if not afferting, what is known to be falfe.
This defcrlption feems to apply with afl its energy
to Dr. Benfon, It is very far. Sir, from being
inapplicable to yourfelf.
In FINE—The defence of this text ofthe three
(heavenly) Witneffes, which you affirm to have
tieen profanely introduced into the fcriptures by
raff und facrilegious hands, hath been thus at
tempted with, at leaft, upright intentions, and a
ferious perfuafion of its originality, the refult of
much patient, and, as I believe, impartial inveftl
gatlon. This defence, fixing its foundation upon
the impeachments afledged againft the text in a
part of your hiftory, hath, almoft neceffarily, pro
duced a counter-charge againft yourfelf. This
general defence on the one hand, and this particu
lar accufation- on the other, are now both laid be-
, fore
(f) 'Rien n'eft beau que le -vrai, le iirai feul eft aimable. BoileaU.

L E T T E R v; 48 1
fore the tribunal of an impartial and difcerning
Public. You are called upon to traverfe or to ac
knowledge — to refift, or to fubmit. If you refufe
io plead, the charge will be taken as confeffed.
And the definitive judgement may in fuch a cafe,
perhaps with no very great impropriety, be framed
out of fome part, at leaft, of thefe your own (r)
words — *
" If I Cim indeed incapable of underftanding what
I read, / can no 'longer claim a place among thofe
Writers voho merit the efieem, and the confidence of
the Public. If I am capable of wilfully perverting
what I underftand, / no longer deferve to live in tbe
fociety of thofe men, who confider a fir id and invio
lable adherence jfo TRUTH, ^j the foundation of every
thing that is virtuous or honorable in human

I am, Sir, &c.
(r) Gililion'i VindicaticMi— Edit. A. D. 1779, p. f,.

APPENDIX,

N° I.

-17ERUNTAMEN, ne quid diffimdem, repertus eft
' apud Anglos Grcecus codex unus, in, quo habetur
quod in vulgatis deeft. Scriptum eft enim hunc ad
jnodum, Or* rpEtj no-tv ot [J.xpT\ipOVVTti f!/ TU SPXVOl UxTJlip,
Aoyo;, •A.xi ITi'SUjU.*, «.ai ovvot oi jpet^ tv -itiri-y. Kaj rpn?
it(Ttv (/.xprvpovvrt; tv rn yn, ¦trvvjfJi.x, vica^, xxt «i^«' ei r-rw
(M,^fTUfiai; Tcav xv^^cottuv &c. — Quanguam baud fcio an
cafu fadum fit, ut hoc loco non repetatur quod eft in
Graecis nofiris xxt oi t/iek £if to tv tta-tv. Ex hoc igitur
codice Britannico rjpofuimus quod in noftris dicebatur
deeffe : ne cui fit caufa calumniandl. Quanquam &
hunc fufpicor ad Latihorum codices fuiffe caftigatum.
{Erasmi Op. Ed, Lugd. Batay. A.D. 170,5,
Vol, X. p. ^53.) N° II.
Robertus Stephanus Typographus Regius Sacrarum liUreb-
rumjiudiofis S.
Superioribus diebus Chriftiane ledor, Novum Domini
noftri Jefu Chrifti Teftamentum, qua, didante Spiritu
fando, fcriptum fuit lingua, cum vetuftiflimis fedecim
A fcriptis

#

S APPENDIX, NO. II,
fcriptis exemplaribus quanta maxima potulmus cura et
diligentia collatum^,, minore forma minutioribufque Re-
glis charaderibus tibi excudimus. Idem npnc, iterum
et tertio cum iifdem collatum, majoiibus vero etiaii}
Regiis typis excufura tibi offerimus : iis prsefixis, (ne-
quid defyderes) infertifve, aut in cake pofitis, quae
ufquam in fcriptis aut excufis leguntur codicibus ; qua
omnia, augufta alterius forma capere non potuerat. Ad
hsc, in margine interior! varias codicum lediones ad-
didimus : quarum unlcuique, numeri Grasci nota fub^
junda eft, qus nomen exemplaris, unde fumpta eft,
indicet : aut exepiplarium noniina, quum plures funt
numeri. Hs nanque placuit, primo, fecundo, ad fextumdeci-
mum ufque, riomina imponere f ut primo, Compluten-
fem editionem intelligas, quas olim ad antiquiffima ex;
emplaria fuit excufa : cui certe cum noftris mirus erat
in plurimis confenfus. Secundo, exemplar vetuftif-
Hmum, in Italia ab amicis collatum. Tertio, quarto,
quinto, fexto, feptimo, odavo, decimo & quintp-deci-
ano, ea quse ex bibliotheca Regis habuimus. Cetera
lunt ea qute undique corrogare licuit. Cujus quidein
\etuftiorum codicum collationis, doftiflimos Hebrffio-
rum authores habemus : quos poft redudum e Babylonia
populum Dei, quum facros veteris Teftamenti libros
difcrepare verbis aliquando, aut apicibus etiam com-
periffent, diverfam in margine ledionem adnotaffe tef-
tantur hodie libri ad exemplaria fcripta excufi, Capi-
tum pr^terea juxta Grsecos divifionem, in interiori
margine

APPENDIX, No, II. 3
itiargine numeris Gr^cis .notavimus, quibus refpondent
in Evangeliis xicpx^xix in fuperiore & inferiore pagina-
rum parte : in Epiftolis vero, ipfa xiJ^xtpxix fingulls
Epiftolis prasfi2ia. Latinorum autem capita numeris &
ipfa Grsecis in margine exterior! fignificavimus : ip-
fofque Latinos fequuti, breviora capita in quatuor, lon-
giora in feptem partes diftribuimus : literis alphabeticis
majufculis partes illas in eodem margine fignantes, Ubi
etiam, et Latinorum more notavimus locum vel ex
Evangelifta aliquo, vel ex Apoftolicis fcriptis qui cum
prffifenti loco aut idem fit pforfus, aut non parum ab-
fimilis : aut qui certe cum ipfo collatus, lucem aliquam
afferre poffe videatur : adjeda litera majufcula quse ca
pitis earn partem indicet in qua quseri locus ille debeat.
Locos ex Veteri teftamento aut ad verbum, aut eodem
fenfu citatos, magna cura fignavimus, Nec tamen
omifimus Eufebii Casfarienfis canones, fed iis quoque
in Interiori margine locum dedimus, ut Graecis etiara,
fatisfieret, Sed ne numefum quidem ;t^uv, prefertim
quum is in noftris prope omnibus codicibus inveniretur,
in calce cujufque Evangelll & Epiftolas. quam rati-
onem recenfendi rtx,oug, et apud nonnullos prophanos
fcriptores videre eft, Haec vero omnia, ut te alacrio-
rem ad facrofandi Novi Teftamenti Servatoris noftri
Dei ledionem redderemus, nobis effe fufcepta exifti--
mato, Noftris igitur utere et fruere laboribus, dum
ad tandiu defyderata Juftini Philofophi et Martyris ac-
cingimur opera. Vale.
* A 2 No.

N° III.
7, Nam ires funt^ &c, otj Tpsi?, Hie verficulus on^j'
nino mihi retinendus videtur, Explicat enim manifeft:©',
quod de fex teftibus dixerat, tres feorfim gceIo, tres
terrae tribuens, Non legit tamen .Syrus, nec Vetus La-'
iinus interpres, nec Nazianzenus (oratione 5, de Theo^
logia) nec Athanafius, nec Didymus, nec Chryfiofiomus^
nec HUarius, nec Cyrillus, nec Augufiinus, nec Beda ;
fed legit Hieronymus, legit Erafmus in Britannico codice^
& exftat in Complutenfe editione, & in nonnullis Stephani
veteribus libris. Non convenit tamen in omnibus inter
iftos codices. Nam Britannicus legit fine articulis Tsanp,
Xoyoq, xxt^Trvi\Ji/.x, In NOSTRIS vero leguntur articuli;
& propterea etiam additum erat fundi epithet on Spiri-
tui ut ab eo diftinguatur cujus fit mentio in fequenti
verficulo, quique in terra collocatur. ^ In cale n
ru npxvto. Hoc deeft in feptem vetuftis codicibus, fed
tamen omnino videtur retihendum ut tribus in terra
teftibus ifta ex adverfo refpondeant. ^ Sermo 0 \oy©'.
Cur fiflus Dei dicatur Aoy^, expofuimus yoan. i, i.-
At enim dices, Nemo in fua caufa idoneus eft teftis,
Hunc nodum ifte Chriftus explicat Joan, viu : 13, &
deinceps : q\ii locus iftum mire ilkiftrat, ut et alii muki
apud hunc noftrum Evangeliftam, in quibus fspe fit
iftius teftificationis mentio, ^ Et bi tres unum funt
xxt HTot ot Tf£(f tv £10-1. Id cft, Ita proffus confentiunfi
ac fl unus teftis effent, utl revere unum funt li ao-ia*
fpedes. Sed de Ilia (ut mihi quidem videtur) non agi--
tur hoc in loco : quod et Gloffa ipfa interlinearis, quam
vocant.

tocant, agnofcit. Sed & Complutenfis editio legit ttt to
IV fio-i, ad unum fiunt ; id ^ft, irt unum canveniunt, uti
legitur in fequenti membro.
8. In terra ecti'th? y^?. Syrus interpres, & pturimi
ex vetuftioribus, tum Gracis tum Latinis, iftud noii
habent : quod tamen in Gracis nostris codicibus, &
I apud veterem Latinum interpretera legitur ; & fane vi
detur retinendum, nifi proxime antecedens verficulus
expungatur. ^ Et hi tres in unum confentiunt xxt o»
TfEi; «f TO IV Eio-iv. Complutenfis editio haec non legit hoc
in loco, qiiae tamen mihi videntur prorfus retinenda, ut
intelllgamus hsec omnia teftimonia penitus confentire ;
& ad unum et eundem ilium fcopum tendere.
9. El T»,v [Aoi^Tv^txv. Argumentum a eoniparatis fump-
tum. Refertur autem hoc ad verficulum feptimum,^
OTI xvTYi £f (1/ fl jjtx^rv^tx. Mcrlto (inquit Apoftolus) Ita
Colligo : nam illud teftimonium quod dixi in coelo per-
hiberi, a Deo manat filium fuuni ornante.
io. O TttTivm — Sicut fuperior verficultis cum feptlmoy
ita ifte cum odavo, cohaeret. Trium, inquit, illorunnt
teftimonium quod dixi in terra effe, unum eft teftlmo-
alum quod penes fe atque adeo intus habet unufquifque'
qui credit : itaque mutuo inter fe confentiunt coeli et
terrse teftes.
[Nov, Teft. Theod. Bezje, Comment, in i.
Joann. v: 7 — ic] No.

N° IV.
Defiderium Erafmum RoierodamUm, quamvis ineit-'
haufta ingenii ubertas, pari dicendi facultate, ad fum-
mae glorias faftigium noftra memoria evexerit, mihi
tamen quaedam religio fuit vel in hujus facraril Hmine
collocare, ut qui fuum quodd^iri, ut in plerifque, ita
in religionis etiam negotio judicium fequutus et fuper^
ftitlones ridendo carpere contentus, res ipfas ufque adeo,
vel per fe vel ab aliis difcere recufarit, ut peffimee quoque
caufa patrocinium fiufceperit. Quum tamen illi tantum
bonse Hterse renafcentes, quantum alii eetatis Alius ne-
mini debeant, age, locus etiam flfl in hoc veftibulo, et
quidem hoc addito elogio, tribuatur.
[Bez.^ Icones, Ed. Geneva, A.D. 1580.]
N° V.
THE PREFACE
TO THE
BIBLE OF COMPLUTUM.
AD LECTOREM.
Ne mirerls aut vltio vertas o ftudlofe ledor quod in
hac novi teftamenti greca editione aliter quam in veteri
nude tantum littere fine ullis aut fplrituum aut tonorum
notis impreffe publicentur : opere precium vifum eft
hujus tibi rei rationem affignare. Ea enim hujufmodi
eft. Antiquiflimos grecos abfque hifce faftigiis littera- rum

APPEKmx, NO. V. 7
rum fcriptitaffe notius eft : quam ut fit multis argumen-
tis comprobandum, Docent enim id aperte antiqua
non pauca exemplaria : ut Callimachi poemata : nec
non et Sibyllina carmina : ac preterea etiam marmorea
monumenta vetuftiffima que rome adhuc vifuntur nudis
folum charaderibus Incifa, Ut Hquido conftet hujuf
modi virgularum apicumque fuprafcriptiones non in ilia
primeva grece lingue origine fuiffe excogitatas : nec ad
ejus integritatem ufqueqUaque pertinuiffe. Cum igitur
univerfum novum teftamentum preter Evangelium Mat-^
thei et epiftolam ad Hebreos grece primum ficut a fpi
ritu fando didatum eft : fcriptum effe conftet : vifum
eft prifcam in eo Hngue iflius vetuftatem majeftatemque
intadam retinere : ac opus ipfum pretermiffis etiam
ipfis quibufvis minimis appendiculis excuffum ad imagi-
nem antiquarum fcripturarum publicare. Ne rei tam
fande authoritati ac venerande majeftati adjeditiis novi-
tiifque rebus detrlmentum afferri videretur. Accedit
quod fi verum fateri volumus : hie fpirituum tonorum-
que defedus nullum prorfus impedimentum ad redam
intelligentiam afferre valet his qui aliquantum in greca
eruditione promoverunt, Ceterum ne alicui dubium
aliquod poffit occurrere in qua videlicet fyllaba accen-
tum oporteat coflocari : fimplex tantum apex in poly-
fyflabis didionibus adjedus eft : et is quidem non tan
quam grecus accentus : fed tanquam notula fignumque
quo dirigi pofTit ledor ne in prolatione modulationeve
didionum aliquando labatur. In veteris autem tefta
menti editione greca cum ea folum tranflatio fit non
originafls textus : non fuit confilium quicquam ex vul-
gari

garl fcribendi modo tollere aut immutare, Et quia noij
dodis folum : fed omnibus in univerfum facrarum lit-
terarum ftudiofis hoc opere confulendum eft : appofite
funt didioni cuique lltterule latine ordine alphabet! in-
dicantes que didio didioni e regione refpondeat : ne
fit novitlls et nondum adhuc in grecis litteris provedis
errand! locus. Rurfus cum nonnuHe didiones greci
multiplices five equlvocas aut alias ambiguas fignifica^
dones aliquando nabere videantur : libuit hoc etiam aur
notare pundo fuppofito litterule latine fupra didionem
grecam collocate. Et ut prefatiuncule tandem huic
modus Imponatur: illud ledorem non lateat: non que-
¦vis. exemplaria impreffioni huic archetypa fuiffe ; fed
antiquiffima emendatlffimaque : ac tante preterea vetufr
tatis : ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur. Que fanc-
riffimus in chrifto pater' et dominus nofter Leo decimus
pontifex maximus huic Inftituto favere cupiens ex apof
tolica bibliotheca eduda mifit ad Reverendiffimum
dominum cardinalem hifpanie ; de cujus authoritate et
mandate hoc opus imprimr feclmus. Vos autem litr
terarum ftudiofi hoc divlnum opus noviter excuffum
alacri animo fufc!pite : et fi chrift! Opt. Max. fedatores
videri yultis et effe : nil jam reftat quod caufemini quo»
minus facram fcripturam adeatis. Non mendofa ex
emplaria : non fufpede tranflationes : non inopia textus
originafls : folum animus et propenfio veftra expedatur,
<^e fi non defuerit : fiet proculdubio ut lltterarum di
vinarum fuavitatem deguftantes reliqua ftudia omnia
contemnatis. Valete et omnia boni confulite.

No.

APPENDIX, NO. VI, VII, VIII, 9
N' VI,
Pofiilla Lyrani in loco.
In effenfia, et fic unus Deus fuper omnia gloriofus.
N° VII.
Joannes Duns. Scotus, Ed. Venet. A. D, 1597.
Primo quia Salvator exprimens Matth. ulti, totam
terltatem fidei qu^ de Tri, tenenda eft nominat tres
perfonas nominibus relativis. In nomine, inquit, Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sandi. Similiter Jo. in Canonica fua
prima Cap, 5, Tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant in coeloy
Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sandus. (P. 249.)
NO VIII.
Ik
tJuRANDus, Rationale Di-v. Oftic. Edit. Lugd. A. D»
1551, Lib, vi. Cap. xcvi! : p. 238.
In Epiftola Vero in fide inftruimur qUse incipit, Omne
quod natum efi ex Deo vincit mundum &c. 1 Joan, v, c.
Oftendit fidem per teftimonium in coelo, et In terra, et
in confcientia. In terra cum dicit, Tres fiunt qui tefii
monium perhibent in terra, fpiritus, aqua et fanguis : quia
enim clamore magno Dominus emifit fpiritum : et quod
ex eo jam mortuo exivit fanguis et aqua indicium fuit
, humanltatis : Et hi tres unum funt, id eft unum fignifi-
* B cant.

IO APPENDIX, NO. IX,
cant. Tres perhibent tefiimonium in ccelo : Pater, m
voce : Verbum, in carne : Spiritus, in columba : et hi
tres unum fiunt. De teftimonio confcientias fequitur in
epiftola : .^i credit in filium Dei, jam in fie tefiimonium
Dei habet. Id eft, hoc didat in confcle&tia.
K° IX.
Hugo de S. Charo [vel Charenfs~\ Bibl, Edit.
Colon. Agripp. A. D. 1621, fob 35'5.'
^oniAm tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant. in ccelo, pater",
verbum et fpiritus fandUs, et hi tres unum fiunt. Et
tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant in terra^ fpiritus, aqm
et fanguis-, et tres unum fiunt.
^oniam tres fiunt. '\ Qui tres ? Refpondet Aug. Tres
res quibus fruendum eft, tres fell, perfonae, J%/ tefii¦^'i^
mmium] Quod" Chriftus verus eft Deus. — Et hi] Yets
et uniformiter fine omni contaradidlone idem deponunt,B
Unde dicit Interfln, Unus Deus de una re teftantes,-- - *
Et tres fiunt'] — quod Chriftus eft verus homo, — Unde in
hoc fignificatum eft quod In ipfo erat divlnitas, et etiara
probatur ipfum fuiffe et verum Deum et verum homi
nem, quod et etiam anima feparata a carne non halt di-
vinitas ab ea feparata.

Ko.

APPENDIX, NO, X, XI. II
N° X.
I^o^MBARD. Sentent. Edit. Paris. A. D, 1538, Lib, i,
p, 10,
De Tefiimoniis Novi Tefiamenti.
Ipfe [Chriftus] etiam ait Ego et Pater unum fiumus :
unum dixit, ut Arnbrofius in eodem, ne fiat difcretio po-
teftatis naturae : et -adtiii^xt fiumus , ut Patrem Ffliumque
cognofcas : fcilicet ut perfedus Pater Filium perfedum
genuiffe credatur : et quod Pater et Fiiius ijnum fint
\Junt'\ non confufione perfon^ fed unitate naturae, ^o-
annes quoq,ue in epiftola canonica ait, Tres fiunt qi^i tefii
monium peMbent in ccelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanc-
tus : et hi tres unum fiunt. Ipfe etiam in initio Eyangelii
|ui ait, In. principio erat Verbum.
N" XL
RuPERTi Opera, Ed, A. D. 1602. Vol, ii. p, 26,
216, 304.
Hine Joannes Evangelifta dicit, Et tres fiunt qui tefii
monium dant in ccek. Pater, ct Verbum et Spiritus Sane-
tus. Perfona Patris ex voce quae de coelo venit &c.
Tres^ quippe fiunt qui tefiimonium dant In baptifmo
Chrifti, fipiritus, aqua et fanguis. [And in the margin
thus : I Joan. 5.3 * B 3 No.

r^ APPENDIX, NO. XII.
N*' xn.
S. Bernardi Serm, i, et ii. In Odava Paficha — Ed.
Paris. A. D, 17 19, Vol, iii, p, 915,
Horum trium teftimonium verum certumque eft, et
felix anima quae meretur illud accipere, Tres enim
funt qui tefiimonium dant in terra, fipiritus, aqua et fan
guis. In aqua quidem baptifmum intellige, in fangiiine
martyrium et in fpiritu charltatem,— Veruntamen licet
maneat poft aquam et fanguinem fpiritus (aqua quippq
et fanguis regnum Dei non poflidebunt) interim tamen
aut vix aut nullo modo invenire eft fpiritum fine illis,
quoniam hi tres, inquit, unum funt : ut qudHbet ex his,
tribus deficiente, adeffe caetera non prsefumas, Simul .
vero junda teftimonia ifta credibilla fada funt nimis,
nec poterit cui In terris fuppetunt haec, carere teftimoniQi
vel in coelis, Confitetur Dei filium coram hominibus non \
verbo neque lingua, fed opere et veritate : et fiiius quo
que confitetur eum coram angelis Dei, An vero ei de
effe poterit in teftimonio pater, cui filium videat atfef-
tantem ? Sine dubio confitebitur et ipfe quod viderit in
abfcondito, Sed neque fpiritus quidem a patre filio-
que diffentiet, quippe qui patris filiique fit fpiritus,
Denique quonam modo careat teftimonio ejus, in coelo,
qui habere illud meruit et in terra ? Tres ergo fwni
qui tefiimonium dant in ccelo, pater, et fiiius, et fpiritus
fundus. Et (ne quam forte diffonantiam fufpiceris) hi
tres unum fiunt. Magnum perfedo hablturl funt tefti
monium

^3
monium quos In coelo pater fufceperit tanquam filios et
haeredes, fiiius adfciverit tanquam fratres et cohaeredes,
fpiritus fandus adherentes Deo unum fpiritum faciat
effe cum eo.
Ex epiftola beati Joa.nnes hodie nobis eft ledlo re-
citata, in qua difcimus teftimonium dari triplex in coelo,
triplex in terra.
Ejufdem Parvor, Sermon, decimus fextus, (Edit, An
twerp. A, D, 15765 p, 121,)
Tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant in calo, pater et films et
fpiritus fandus . Tres in terra, fipiritus, aqua et fianguis.
Similiter in inferno, ut in Efiaia legimus : Vermis eo
rum non morietur, et ignis eorum non extlnguetur.
Duo mala funt vermis et ignis : altero roditur confcien
tia, altero cremantur corpora, Tertlum additur defper-
atio, quse In eo utique intelligitur quod dicitur, non
morietur, et non extlnguetur. His qui in coelo funt,
datur teftimonium beatitudinis : his qui in terra, jufti-
ficationis ': his qui in inferno funt, damnationis, Pri
mum teftimonium eft glorlze, fecundum gratias, tertium
irae. • N«' XIII.
Hugo Victorinus, Ed. Mogunt. A.D. 1617, Tom.
iii. p. 163.
Tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant in ca^lo. Tres funt coeli,
tres terrse, tria teftimonia. Primum coelum Deus, In
hoc

14 APPENDIX, NO. XIV. XV,
hoc plenss et fummae perfedionis teftimonium dant po,
tentia, fapientia, benignitas : Pater, Fiiius et Spiritus
Sandus, et hi tres proprie et principallter unum fiunt y
ex quo omnia, in quo omnia, et per quem omnia. —
Prima terra eft populus poenitens, terra fanda. In
hac tefiimonium remiffionis dant fipiritus, aqua, et fianguis.
Sine fanguine enim non fit remiffio. Et hi tres unum,
(And again, fame Vol, p, 174.)
N» XIV,
Nota, quod ubicunque in libris Veteris. Teftamenti
mendofitas reperitur, currendum eft ad volumina He-
braorum ; quia vetus Teftamentum primo in lingua He-
braica fcriptum eft. Si vero in libris Novi Teftamenti,
revertendum eft ad volumina Gracorum ; quia Novum
Teftamentum primo in lingua Grozca fcriptum eft, prze-
ter Evangelium Matthai, et Epiftolam Pauli ad Be-
hraos. [Walafridus Strabo.'] N<' XV.
Si itaque Ledores et formas literarum codicis noftri,
dementis Romani epiftolas, et Pfalmos Salomonis, Eu?
thalii Sedionis et T^ta-xyiov, quae defunt, — fi csetera ar
gumenta fumraam ejus antlqultatem confirmantia con-
fideratiflime perpenderint : omnia confpirare videbunt ut

APPENDIX, NO, XVI. XVII. jfj
«t Codicem Alexandrinum intra medium et finem feculi
quarti fcriptum effe ipfis perfuadeant. [WoiDE, Preef. p,i xviii,]
N, B, The date, here ajfumed, is about 60 or 70 years
more ancient than that of "Wetftein.
NO XVI.
Ea locutlonis regula, quam fupra praemifimus, folus
hoc loco fiiius teftis vocatur fidells, cum et Pater et
Spiritus Sandus fimul teftimonium fidele perhibeant de
ipfis, ficut fcriptum eft. Tres fiunt qua [a miftake of
the printer for qui, as appears by the latter part of this
quotation] tefiimonium dant in ccelo Pater, Verbum et
Spiritus Sandus : et hi tres urtum fiunt. Sciendum au
tem, quia ficut hi tres unum fiunt, fic horum teftimoniurar
unum effe cognofeitur, quanquam alterius teftimonio'
alter infinuetur. [Ambrosii Ansberti in Apoc. Lib. i.J,
NO XVIL
HIc eft qui venit per aquam et fanguinem Jefus
Chriftus : non in aqua folum, fed in aqua et fanguine
et carne. Et Spiritus eft qui feftificatur, quoniarn
Chriftus eft Veritas. Quia tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant
in terris, aqua -et fanguis et caro. Et tria hac unum funt.
Et tres funt qui tefiimonium dant in coelo. Pater, Verbum et

i6 APPENDIX, NO. XVIII. XIX;
et Spiritus : Et hac tria unum fiunt in Chrifto Jefii. Si
teftimonium &c.
[Ether, et Beatus contra Elipand. Muxi
Bibh Patri Tom. xjii. p. 360.^
NO XVIII;
M»« yxB ov<riXj [Atx ayx^orrii;^ jmios SiivxfAti, (/.ix fifAiiinf,'
jtnias ivtpyt-tx, ^tx i^ovo'tx^ ^tx xxt t xvrm^ oxi T«a? ofiotxt xX-
AtiAubij, xXXx [itx xxt ri xvtt] xivriiri; rwv rptuv VTro^xcrtav. tii
yx^ ixx^ov xuTMV t^H tr^oi ro trtpov ov^ trrov tn ttpoi; txvrov'
TouTEriK on xxrx ttxvtx EN EIZIN O HATHP KAI O
TIOS KAI TO AnON DNETMA, irXnv TJif xytvvn(7tat, xxt
T»j yEvrntTEWf, xxt tjj? txtro^tva-tugi
[Joann, DamAScen. Defide orthodoxa. Lib. ij
Cap. ii.J
NO XIX.
Extracts from the Introdudion of MAFFEitJs to
the Complexiones of Cassiodorius.
Membraneus Liber, in quo irfigne hoc antiquitatis monu
mentum unice perennavit, eximia ac veneranda vetufiatis
notas pra fiefert omnes, adeo ut videri poffit ab ipfims Caf-
fiodorii atate non ita multum abejfe. Ejus titulus — Caf-
fiodorii Senatoris Complexiones in Epiftolas, et Ada
Apoftolorum, et Apocalypfim. Qiii

17-
Qui Vufgata, feu Hieronymiana Verfioni eam irt^iKOTr?,v
[i John, V : 7.] dim intrufam putant, deditionem
tandem faciant, atque arma fubmittant neceffe eft, Evi-
denter enim patet ex quamplurimis harum Compkxionum
locis, Cafiiodorium alia Verfione a Hieronymiana ufum
dfe ; et nihilominus eam ni^ixoTrnv legit, [p, 42,]
Extrad from the Preface of Caffiodorius.
Sed quamvis omnis Scriptura divina fuperna luce
refplendeat, et in ea virtus Spiritus fandi evidenter ir-
radiet ; in Pfalterio tamen, et Prophetis, et Epiftolis
Apoftolorum ftudium maximum laboris Impendi, quo-
niam mihi vifi funt profundiores abyffos commovere,
et quafi arcem totius Scripturae dlvinse atque altitudi-
nem gloriofiffimam continere, Quos ego cundos no
vem CODICES audoritatis divinae (ut fenex potui) fub
collatione priscorum codicum, amicis ante me
¦ legentibus, fedula ledione tranfivi, Ubi me multum
laboraffe, Domino adjuvante, profiteor ; quatenus nec
doquentiee modificatae deeffem, nec libros facros teme-
raria prcefumptione lacerarem.
The "Words of Caffodorius, in loco.
Sic autem diligim.us eum cum mandata ejus facimus,
quae juftis mentibus gravia non videntur, fed potius
vincunt fseculum, quando in ilium credunt qui condidit
mundum. Cui rei teftificantur In terra tria myfteria,
C * aqua.

iS' a'ppendix, no. xX.
aqua, fanguis, et fipiritus, quse in paffiorie Domini \t^
guntur impleta : in coelo, autum. Pater, et Fi-^
LIUS ET Spiritus Sanctus, et hi t-res unus est
Deus. NO XX.
In Patre ergo, et Filio et Spiritu y^wc^c unltatem fub-'
ftantis accipimus, perfonas confundere non audemus,
Beatus enim Joannes Apoftolus teftatur, dicens, Tres
fiunt qui tefiimonium perhibent in coelo, pater, Verburd
et Spiritus : et tres unum fiunt. Quod etiam beatiffimus'
Martyr C'fprianus in epiftola De Unitate Ecclefise confi
tetur ; dicens. Qui pacem Chrifti etconcordiam rum^
pit, adverfus Chriftum facit : qui alibi prseter ecclefiam
eolligit, Chrifti ecclefiam fpargit. Atque ut unam eo-
clefiam unius Dei effe monftraret, h^c confeftim tes-
tiMoNiA DE scripturis inferuit : Dicit Dominus Eg9
et Pater imum fiumus : Et iterum de Patre, Filio et Spi
ritu- fando fcriptum eft : et hi tres unum fiunt. Non-
ergo- ex tribus partibus unum colimus Deum, fed
Apoftolicse fidei regulam retinentes, perfedum con-'
fempiternum Filium de perfedo et fempiterno Patre,
fine initio genltum, et poteftate non imparem, et
tiatnra fiatemur equalem, Sandum quoque Spiritum. non
aliud fatemur effe quam Deum ; nec a Filio, nec a Patre
diverfum, nec in Fflio nec in Patre confufum.
[Fulgent, centra Arianos — Max. Bibl. Patr.
Tom. ix, p, 41, Ed. Lugd. A. D. 1677.] Ea

\ i

A'PPENDIX, NO, XX, I9
En babes in brevi alium effe patrem, alium Filium,
i^lium Spiritum fiandum ; alium et alium in perfona,
^lon aliud et aliud in natura : et idcirco Ego, inquit, et
Pater unum fiumus. Unum ad naturam referre nos do-
.cent, fumus ad perfonas. Similiter et illud : Tres fiunt,
inquit, qui tefiimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, Verbum
et Spiritus, et hi tres unum fiunt. Audiat Sabelliusyzwzz^j,
audiat tres, et credat effe tres perfonas, Audiat fcili
cet et Arrius unum, et non differentis Filium dicat effe
paturae ; cum, natura diverfa, unum dici nequeat,
[FuLG, de Tr'in. Cap, iii. — Ibid, p, 60,]
Per hanc unltatem naturalem totus Pater in Filio et
¦Spiritu Sando eft, totus Fiiius in Patre et Spiritu
fando eft, totus quoque Spiritus fandus in Patre et
Filio, Ob hoc ergo tre^ unum rede credimus et di-
cimus Deum.
In Pfalm. 66 Benedieat nos Deus, Deus nofier, benedi-
cat nos Deus, etmetuent eum omnes fines terra. Ter
audio Deum, et unum praedicat metuendum. In Epif
tola Joannis Tres fiunt in coelo qui tefiimonium red-
dunt. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus : et hi tres unum fiunt.'
[Adv. Pint am. Ibid. p. 272.]
Ita nos credere et confiteri debere per Efaiam quoque
prophetam ipfa Trinitas, qui eft unus verus et bonus
Deus edocuit Seraphin ad invicem tertio clamanti-
bus, Sandus, Sandus, Sandus ; et semel fubinferenti-
bus Dominus Deus Sabaoth : plena ejl omnis terra gloria
C 2 * ejus.

20 APPENDIX, NO. XX. XXI.
ejus. Ex hac igitur poteftatem prsedicatione cseleftiurrt
agnofce fandum Patrem, fandum Filium, fanQum ¦
Paraclitum Spiritum ; et crede unum Deum effe Pa-..
trem et Filium et Spiritum Sandum. Audi ter
tio Sandus, Sandus, Sandus, ut tres effe perfonas
agnofcas ; audi semel, Dominus Deus Sabaoth, ut
uniTatem divinitatis intelligas. Hoc etiam beatus
Apoftolus firmat, qui ad 'difcretionem perfonarum ait, ,
Unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipfo ; et unus
Dominus Jefius Chriftus, per quem omnia et nos per ip
fum. Et fideles dixit cosdificari In habitaculum Dei in
Spiritu. Oftendens autem unum Deum effe Trinitatem,
ait, 0 altitudo divitiarum fapientia et ficientia Dei I et
paulo poft, ^oniam ex ipfo, et per ipfum, et in ipfo fiunt
omnia, ipfi gloria in fiacula. 'Rtatus \e.xo Joannes A^oU
tolus evidenter ait, Et tres unum fiunt ; quod de Patre,
et Filio, et Spiritu Sando didum, ficut fuperius cum ra-t
tionem flagitares, oftendimus.
[Fragmenta contra Fabianum, Ibid. p. 287,]
NO XXL
Ergo quamvis in fuperloribus exemplis Scripturarum
tacita fint nomina perfonarum, tamen unitum nomen
divinitatis per omnia tibi eft jn his demonftratum ; ficut
ct in hoc exemplo veritatis, in quo nomina perfonarunx
evidenter funt oftenfa, et unitum nomen divinitatis
claufe eft declaratum, Dicente Joarme Evangelifta in
epiftola fua Tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dicunt in cah. Pater,
tt Verbum, et Spiritus, et in Jefu Chrifto unum fiunt; non

APPENDIX, NO, XXl, 21
tion tamen unus eft, quia non eft in his una perfona,
Sicut in charitate Evangelicas Scripturas de Spiritu Pa-
raclito Fiiius teftatur, dicens, De Patre procedit : Et
fic profecutus eft, Et de meo accipiet. Et ideo ubi
perfonas requiruntur, propria nomina per hsec diftin-
guuntur : ubi autem Deltas pofcitur unitum nomen in-
dicatur : quoniam fiumus ad nomina perfonarum plura-
liter didum demonftratur, Ac per hoc in deitate divi
nitatis unita unum fiunt, et In nominibus perfonarum tres
funt ; unde tres unum fiunt, five unum tres funt,
\yigdius. Lib, I, Max. Bibl, Patr, Tom. viii.
Jam audifti fuperius Evangeliftam Joannem in Epif
tola fua tam abfolute teftantem, Tres funt qui tefiimonium
dant in calo, Paier, Verbum, et Spiritus fiandus, et in
Chrifto Jefu unburn fiunt. Utique fine dubio in Trinitate
divinitatis per omnia unum funt, & in nominibus per
fonarum tres funt, XJigil. Lib, primus, ad calceni,
p, 'f]6.]
Sed et Spiritus Sandus In Patre, et in Filio, et in
fe confiftens eft ; ficut Joannes Evangelifta In epiftola
fua tam abfolute teftatur, Et ires unum futit. Porro ut
quid unum dicitur, fi aliquid de eo In partes dividitur ?
Et ut quid unum dicitur, fi diverfe quid fentitur de eo ?
Et quomodo, 6 hasretici, tres unum fiunt, fi divifa vel
excifa In his fubftantia eft ? Aut quomodo unum fiunt,
fi non eft in his unita fempiterna plenitudo divinitatis ?
[Id, Lib, A^ p. 786,] Cur

22 Cur Tres unum fiunt Joannem Evangeliftam dixiffg
legitls, fi diverfas naturas in perfonis effe accipitis ?
(And a little afterwards J Rogo quomodo tres unum
fiunt, fi diverfa in utrifque eft natura divinitatis ? [Lib,
vii. p, 789.3
Unde et Joannes in Epiftola fua ait, Tres fiunt qui
tefiimonium dicunt in calo. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus : et
in Chrifto Jefu unum fiunt ; non tamen unus eft, quiz^
non eft eorum una perfona, [Lib, x, p, 793.3

Et Joannes Evangelifta alt, In principio erat Verbum,
et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Item
ipfe ad Parthos : Tres fiunt (Inquit) qui tefiimonium per
hibent in terra, aqua, fanguis et caro, et hi tres in nobis
funt : Et tres funt qui tefiimonium perhibent in calo^ Pater ^
Verbum et Spiritus, et hi tres unum fiunt.
\yigilius (fub nomine Idacii Clari') adv. Vari-
madum — Ma^?. Bibl, Patr. Tom. v. p. 729,3
NO xxn,
Sane tandem his nominibus abfolutis, numeros quoque
breviter digeramus, quos myftica exemplorum ratio
inter facros celebriores fecit,
L Hie numerus ad unltatem Deitatis refertur : In
pentateucho, Audi Ifrael, Dominus Deus tuus unus efi.
Et Apoftolus, Unus Deus, una fides, unum baptifima. Et
area

23
area Noe, qua fanda ecclefia defignatur, in uno cubitu
Confummatur : quia In unius Dei contemplatione re-
quies seterna perficitur.
II, Ad duo teftamenta divlnse legis referantur : hi
Regnorum, Et fecit in Dabir duo Cherubim decem cubi-
t'orum magnitudine. Duo praecepta charitatis, amoris
', Videlicet Dei et proximi. Duo in agro, duo in molen-
, ., dino, duo in ledo leguntur, in fando Evangelio.
,!., Ill, Ad Trinitatem : In Joannis Epiftola, Tres fiunt
^ui tefiimonium dant in ccelo. Pater, Verbum et Spi
ritus fiandus : et tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant in ter
ra, Spiritus, aqua et fianguis. Et In Gen. Tres propa-
gines.
^''*, IV, Ad quatuor Evangelia &c.
[Eue HER. Formul. Spirit, per Joan. Alex. Brafi-
ficianum. Edit. Bafil, ex OfEcin, Froben. C.
xi. Sed. 3. p. 246,3
NO XXIIL
AiC[iie ut, confundentes Arium, unam eamdemque
didmus Trinltatis effe fubftantiam, et unam in tilbus
pa-fonis fatemur Deum : ita Impletatem Sabellii decli-
nantes, tres perfonas expreffas fub proprietate diftingui-
mus. Pater femper Pater eft, Fiiius femper Fiiius eft,
Spiritus fandus femper Spuitus Sandus eft. Itaque
fubftantia

24 APPNEDIX, NO. XXIII, XXIV, SXV.
fubftantia unum sunt j Perfonis ac nominibus diftin*
guuntur. [Hieron. Opera, per Erafmum (Edit. Paris^
vol. Iv. A, D, 1546, p, 42, D,3
NO XXIVv
Et quid eft finis Chrifius? Quia Chriftus Deus, et
finis prgecepti carltas, et Deus carltas ; quia Pater, tt
Fiiius, et Spiritus fiandus unum sunt,
[August, in Epifi. Johan. Cap, v,3
Tres enim perfonae funt Pater, et Fiiius, et Spiritus
fandus : et hi tres (quia unius fubftantlae funt) unum
SUNT. Et fumme unum sunt, ubi nulla naturarum,_
nulla eft diverfitas voluntatum. Hi ergo tres qui
unum sunt propter ineffabilem conjundlonem Deita
tis, qua ineffabillter copulantur, unus Deus eft.
[Id. contra Maximin. Arian. Lib. 11,3
m XXV.
Nobis igitur unus Pater, et unus FiUus verus Deus,
et unus Spiritus fandus verus Deus : Et hi tres
unum sunt, una dlvinltas, et potentia, et regnum.
Sunt autem tres perfona, non dux, non una.
ExpLANATio Fidei — Ad Cyrillum (Edit.
Erasmi, vol, iv. p. 43, K.) NO XXVL

appendix, no.; XXVI; xxvii. 2_5
NO XXVI.
Tenenda eft igitur, ut dixrmus, regula quae Filium in
Patre, Patrem in Filio confitetur, quSe unam in duabus
perfonis fubftantiam fervans, difpofitlonera divinitatis
agnofcit, Igitur Pater Deus, et Fiiius Deus"^, quia In
Patre Deo Fiiius Deus, Hoc fi cui fcandalum facit,
audiat a nobis Spiritum effe de Deo, quia ifli cui eft in
Filio fecunda perfona, eft et tertia In Spiritu Sando.
,Denique Dominus : Petam, Inquit, a Patre meo, et alium
advocatum dabit vobis. Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, ficut
alius a Patre Fiiius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut In Filio
fecunda perfona : unus tamen Deus omnia quia tres
UNUM SUNT. Hoc crcdlmus, hoc tenemus, quia hoc
accepimus a prophetis : hoc nobis evangefla locuta funt,
hoc Apoftoli tradiderunt, hoc martyres in paffione con-
feffi funt.
[Phoebadius cont. Arianos.]
NO XXVII.
0£ou Si orxv etTTU, tvt (part ¦n-t^iar^x.tp^nTe xxt r^iirt. t^is-j
[xtv XXTX TXC tStorr.TXi;, nynv VTforxtretg « rtvt (pt\ov xxXhv,
fiTt TTpoa-UTTX (^ovSiv yx^ Tti^t rm ovoy-xriav l^-jyo^.x^-iKTOy-iv £wf
XV Tsrp ^ rnv xvrw tvvotxv xt (7uAA«;(3oii (pi^oia-iv^ tvt h, xxrx rov
T)K ao-ia? Xoyov, etr sv Geotut©'. Stxt^arxt yx^ xStxt^trui;,
tv israg enrco, xxt avvx-Trrtrxt Sfn^niAivug, tv yx^ tv r^ta-tv ?i
hoT-n; KAI TA TPIA EN, rx tv otg % Seot-^?. rj to yt xx^t-
^icioov etTTSiv, X 7, horri;. Tac St utts^^oKx; xxt tXXH^a-ei';
* D t?-.Xlt\]'0<xiv'

26 APPENDIX, NO. XXVIH.
tX\»i]/o[ji,tv' arc rmv ivuctv o'vy^vqtv tpyx^ofAivoi. Bre rviv Stxf
^tiTtv, xXXorptbia-tv. txtttfu yxp nfAuv t^ iffou xxt >) Xx^tXXtou
ffvvxt^Krti, xxt ri AfHou Stxtets-ti, rx ix StxfAtr^ov xxxx, xxt
ciAortfAK rw Cice^etxv, rt yxp Set Qeov ?i (TuvxXeifeiv xxxta;, ti
x«ST«T£jM.v«i; Bt; xvttrortrx ; V[Atti Se £ij fiio; o •trxrrto, i^ om rx
ttxvrx, xxt Elf xv^t(^ ln<r.isg ^fis"©* St' a r» irxvrx, xxt tv trvtv-
fAX xyiov, tv u rx Ttxvrx, rov i^ », xxt St a, xxt tv u pji pu*
ffttg refjLvovTCiiv, sSe yxp xv ^ertvitcroii oti irpo&Kret;, ¦n xi rx^-
tt; rciiv ovoitxrm, ocXXx ^xpxxrnpi^ovrcov iMxg xxt ao-uy^uTou
tpvs-eiat iSiormxi. xxi raro SnXoVf i^ ut tt( tv (rvvxyovrxt Ta-
Xtv. etroi lAfi rrxpepyia; exeiko xvxytvu&xerxi irapx roi avria xtto-
foXu' ro E^ auTou, xxi Jj «utou, xxt £if avrov rx ttxvrx, xvrta
« So^x tt; Ta; xtuvxf, eifjt.'nv. vxrv^ o trxrn^, xxt xtfx^^t^' n
yx^ exrtv^, ui©J o ui©^ xxt otut xva^^^. tx rov trxr^l^ ya^,
tt Se rtfiV xtto p^f oi/ou Xa/AjSosfoi; x^y(yi»-, xxt xvoifiy^. ITomTJ)? yxp
yj^ovm, OMX uiro ^POVBV. TTveviAtu otytov 06\li9wf TO TrvtviAX, itpoioi)
l^iv ex TOU irocr^oi o\jx \Jtxug Se' ouSe yx^ yevvnru;, ccXX' extto-
fEUTWf. £1 ^£j TJ XXI xxivoToj/.no'xi TTtpt TX ovoi^XTx (rxfnvttu;
ivexev, OUTE tou jtostjos tx^cuiro; tjij xyevvni^tx;, Sto rt ytyiv-
vnxev, STE tou mou rm yevv-no'tu^y ort tx tou ayEi^niTou (^ttu;
yx^ ;) 8TE TOU ¦TTvevj/.XT^, n ttj trxre^x (AtTXTrtTrrovr©^, n E15
mOK OTI £)t7!r£W0f£UT«l, XXt 0T( h^, XXV [Jl.-n SoXfl TOlf OlOEOlf— "
tt( ai/ &{©,» tv Tfiffi, KAI TA TPIA EN, ois-sri^ t(paaiv,
[Greg. Nazianz. Orat 39.}
NO XXVIII.
K«j Xofuov Stoa^et Ts-otov ^tv 'srviVfAx ex tou Oeou sft, -orotov St
Tflf -nrXxvYi;, xxt -store [/,tv ytva^xo/At^jn rtxvx Seou, td-ote Se Sia-
GoAou. Kdh ¦CTEgj uoton x^x^rioif o^itXo^iv tup^ffSsw, K«i oti

APPENDIX, NO. XXIX. if
e fw) xyxzruv rov ¦srXnuov ovx e;tv x^t^ tjij xAtijEw? sSt Swx-
rxt Xtyti^xt TOU Xjij-ou. xxt rnv tvorrrx Se rov uiou tstj©* tok
tirxTs^x Setxvvu' xxt otj o «fvoUji*£i/©J to» vtov sSe tov ¦araTtga
£;)^Ei, Stxx^titi Ss ev rti eutroXn TauTJi Xiym xxt ro tSiov tou
«i/Tij^j(rou. [Athan, SyKojJ. S^T^r. Scrip."]

NO XXIX.
Dicit Dominus ; Ego et Pater unum fiumus. Et ite
rum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu fando fcriptum eft :
Et hi tres unum fiunt. Et quifquam credit hanc unita
tem de divina firmltate venlentem, facramentis ccelefti-
bus cohasrentem, fclndi In Ecclefia poffe, et volunta-
,.tum collidentium divortio feparari ? Hanc unitatem qui
non tenet, Dei legem non tenet j non tenet Patris et
Filll fidem ; et veritatem non tenet ad falutem.
[Cyprianus De Unitate Ecclefia, Edit. Oxon,
p. 109.3
SI peccatoruni reralffam confecutus eft, et fandifica-
tus eft, et templum Dei fadus eft, quaefo cujus Dei ?
fi Creatoris, non potuit qui In eum non credidit: fi
Chrifii, nec hujus fieri poteft templum, qui negat Deum
Chriftum : fi Spiritus fiandi, cum tres unum fiunt, quo
modo Spiritus fandus placatus effe ei poteft, qui aut
Patris, aut Fflii inlmicus eft ?
VCyprian. Epifi. ad Jubianum IxxIII. p. 203..3
• D 2 NO XXX.

sS APPENDIX, NO. XXX. XXXI.
NO XXX.
Cseterum de meo fiumet, inquit, ficut Ipfe de Patris.
Ita connexus Patris in FiUo, et Filii in Paracleto, tres
efficit coharentes alterUm ex altero ; qui tres unum
SUNT, non unus, quomodo didum efi. Ego et Pater
unum fiumus ; ad fubftantlse unltatem, non ad numeri
fingularitatem. [Tertull. adv, Praxeam. Cap, xxv, adinit',]
The verfies of St. John'j Gofipel, alluded to in tbe former
part of this Extrad.
Ille [Paracletus3 me glorificablt, quia de meo accipiet
\_fumet] quod, renunciabit vobis.
Omnia quse habet Pater [I, e. omnia Patris] mea
funt : propterea dixi^ ilium de meo accepturum quod re-
nunciablt vobis. [St. John, xvi: 14, 15,3
N° XXXL
EXTRACTS FROM VICTOR VITENSIS,,

De Persecutione Vandalica,

{Note. This Hiftory Is comprifed in three Books, con
taining fifty-three pages in folio.) The

( i

APPENDIX, NO. XXXT. ^9
The Edid of Huneric mentioned in page 24,
Rex Hunericus Vandalorum h Alanornm, unlverfis
Epifcopis Omoufianis.
Non femel, fed fsepius, conftat effe prohibitum, ut in
fortibus Vandalorum facerdotes veftri conventus mini
me celebrarent, ne fua fedudione animas fubverterent
Chriftlanas, Quam rem fpernentes, plurimi reperti funt
contra Interdidum Miffas In fortibus Vandalorum egiffe,
' afferentes fe Integrara regulam Chriftianse fidei tenere.
Et quia In Provinciis a Deo nobis conceffis fcandalum
^ effe nolumus, ideo Dei providentia cUm confenfu fanc-
torum Epifcoporum noftrorum hoc nos ftatuiffe cognof-
cite, ut ad diem Kalendarum Februariarum proxime fu-
, turarum, amiffa omni excufatione formidinis, omnes
Carthaginem venlatis, ut de ratione fidei cum noftris ve*
nerabilibus Epifcopis. poffitis inire conflidum, et de fidei
Omousianorum, qWixm defenditis, de divinis scrip
turis proprie approbetis, quo poffit agnofcl fi integram
fidem teneatis, Hujus autem Edidi tenorem, unlverfis
Epifcopis tuls per unlverfam Africam conftltutis dl-
reximus. Data fub die xiii Kal, Jun. Anno vii Hunericl.
Approplnquabat jam futurus dies ille calumnlofus
Kalendarum Februariarum, ab eodem ftatutus, Con-
veniunt non folum umverfis Africas, verum etiam infu-
larum multarum Epifcopi, afflldlone et moerore con-
fedi. Fit filentium diebus multis, quoufque peritos
quofque

3Q APPENDIX, NO, XXXI,
quofque et dodiffimos viros exinde fepararet calumnlis
appofitis enecandos. Nam unum ex ipfo choro Dodo*.
rum, nomine LjETum, ftrenuum atque dodiffimura
vIrum, poft diuturnos carceris fqualores incendio con-
cremavit, ^ftimans tali exemplo timoriem incutiens re-
liquos elifurum. Tandem venitur ad difputatlonis con
flidum, ad locum fcilicet quem delegerant adverfarli.
Evitantes igitur noftri vociferationis tumultus, ne forte
poftmodura ArlanI dicerent quod eos noftrorum op-
¦ preflerit multitudo, eligunt de fe noftri qui pro omni
bus refponderent decem. Collocat fibi Cyrila cum fuis
fatellitibus in loco excelfo fuperbiffimum thronum, aftan-
tibus noftris. Dixeruntque noftri epifcopi : Ilia eft
femper grata collatio, ubi fuperba non 'domlnatur
elatio; fed ex confenfu communi venitur, ut cogni-
toribus decernentibus, partibus agentibus, quod verum
eft agnofcatur. Nunc autem qui erit cognitor, qui
examinator, vel libra juftltias aut bene prolata con-
firmet, aut prave affumpta refellat*? Et cum talia et alia
dicerentur, notarius regis refpondit : Patriarcba Cyrila,
dixit, legatur nobis. Quo concedente Iftud fibi nomen
Cyrila affumpfit. Et exinde ftrepltum concltantes, ca-
lumnjari adverfarli coeperunt. Et quia hoc noftri petl-
erant, ut faltem fi examlnare non llcebat, prudenti mul-
titudini vel expedare liceret, jubentur univerfi filii ca-
thollcae ecclefiae, qui aderant, centenis fuftibus tundi.
Tunc clamare ccepit beatus Eugenius : Videat Deus
vim quam patimur, cognofcat alflldionem perfecutionum
quam a, perfecutorlbus fuftinemus, Converfique noftri
Cyrflae diserunt : Propone quod difponls. Cyrila dixit :

3*
dixit : Nefcio latine. Noftri epifcopi dixerunt : Sem
per te latine effe locutum manifefto iiovimus, modo ex-
cufare non debes, praefertim quia tu hujus rei incendi-
um fufcitaftl. Et videns catholicos epifcopos ad con
flidum magis fiiiffe paratos, omnino audlentlam diverfis
cavillationlbus declinavit. Quod ante noftri providen-
tes Hbellum de fide confcripferant, fatis decenter fuf-
ficienterque confcriptum, dicentes : Si noftram fidem
cognofcere defideratis, hsec eft Veritas quam tenemus.
PrOFESSIO F1D5I CATHOLICiE.
Regall imperio, fidei cathoHcas quam tenemus
praecipimur reddere rationem : ideoque aggredlmur,
pro noftrarum virlum mediocritate, divino fulti adjuto-
rlo, quod credimus & prsedicamus breviter Intimare.
Primum igitur de unitate fubftantiae Patris & Filii,
quod Graeci ofAao-ioi/ dicunt, exponendum nobis effg
cognofcimus. Patrem ergo, & Filium, & Spiritum
fandum Ita in unitate deitatis profitemur, ut & Patrem
in fuas proprietate perfonae fubfiftere, & Filium nihilo
minus In propria extare perfona, atque Spiritum fandum
perfonae fu^ proprietatem retinere, fideli confeffione
fateamur : non eumdem afferentes Patrem quem Filium,
neque Filium confitentes qui Pater fit, aut Spiritus
fandus : neque ita Spiritum fandum accipimus, ut aut
Pater fit, aut Fiiius : fed ingenitum Patrem, & de Patre
genltum Filium, & de Patre et Filio procedentem fpiri
tum fandum, unius credimus effe fubftantiae vel effentise :
quia ingeniti Patris, et geniti Filii, & procedentis Spi
ritus

32 APPENDIX, NO. XXXI.
ritus fandi una eft deltas, tres vero perfonarum prcj*
prietates. Et quia contra hanc catholicam, vel apof-
tolicam fidem exorta haerefis novitatem quamdam
induxerat, afferent Ffllum non de Patris fubftantia
genitum, fed ex nullis extantibus, id eft ex nihilo,
fubftitiffe : ad hanc impietatis profeffionem, quas contra
fidem emerferat, refellendam & penitus abolendam,
o/*s?iou fermo Grascus pofitus eft, quod interpretatur
unius fubftantlas, vel effentis, fignlficans Filium non
ex nullis extantibus, nec ex alia fubftantia, fed de Patre
natum effe. Qui ergo putat omoufion auferendum, ex
nihilo vult aflerere Filium extltiffe. Sed fi ex nihilo '
non eft, ex Patre fine dubio eft, & rede omoufios,'\d^''
eft, unius cum Patre fubftantiae, Fiiius eft. Ex Patre
autem effe, Id, eft, unius cum Patre fubftantiae, his
teftlmonis approbatur, Apoftolo dicente : Qui cum fit
fplendor glorias, & figura fubftantise ejus, gerens. quoque
omnia verbo virtutis fus. Et ipfe iterum Deus Pater,
incredulorum perfidlam objurgans, qui prasdicantis per
Prophetas Filll vocem in fua fubftantia maneiitem audire
noluerunt, dixit : Non audierunt vocem fubftantiae.
Quam vocem fubftantife cum tam teriiblll Inteftatlone
increpans, ad eumdem Prophetam loquitur, dicens :
Super rhontes accipe plandum, & fuper femitas deferti
ludum, quia defecerunt eo quod non fint homines :
non audierunt vocem fubftantiae a volatibus ccell ufque
ad pecora. Et rurfum eos, qui a profeffione unius fub-
ftantl^E decHnantes, in eadem fidei fubftantia ftare no
luerunt, increpat, dicens : Si ftetiffent in fubftantia
mea, avertiffem utique eos a via fua mala, & a peffimis
cogitatlonlbus

appendix, no. XXXI. 2^
cogitatlonlbus fuis. Et iterum non extra fubftantiam
Patris Filium cbnfitendum, fed eadem fideflter mentis
oculis contuendum, apertiffime declaratur dum dicit
Propheta : Quis ftetit in fubftantia' Domini, & vidit
verbum ejus ? Patris ergo .fubftantiam Filium effe Pro-
pheticis jam olim defignatum eft oraculis, dicente Salo-
mone : Subftantiam enim & dulcedlnem tuam, quam
in filios habes, oftendebas, quam in figura & imagine
panis coeleftis, populo Ifrael coelitiis apparet profluxiffe :
Quod ipfe Dominus In Evangelio expofuit, dicens :
Non Moyfes dedit vobis panem de coelo, fed Pater
meus dat vobis panem de ccelo : fe utique panem effe
defignans, cum dicit. Ego fum panis vivus,'' qui de
coelo defcehdi : de quo etiam Propheta David dicit :
'Panem Angdorum rtiandiicavit homo. Namq'ue^ ut
'^adhuc evidentius Patris & Filii fubftantise unitas", &
divinitatis sequalitas oftendatur, Ipfe in evangelio dicIt :
¦ Ego & Pater unum fumus. Quod non ad Unitatem
tantummodo voluntatis, fed ad unam refertur eamdem
que fubftantiam, quia non dixit. Ego & Pater uiiiim
"volumus, fed ununi fumus. Ex eo enim ' qiiod, funt,
non ex eo tantum quod volunt paternae Unitatis declara-
tiir affertio. Iteiti Joannes Ev'angelifta dicit ;" Propte
rea quserebatit euro Judsei interficere, ; quia non folqm
folvebat fabbktum, 'fed' & Patrem fuum dicebat peum,
Kqualem fe faciens Deo. Quod utique x\6h ad Judajos
eft penitus referendum, quia Evangelifta vefaclter dixit
de Filio, quia sequalem fe faciebat Deo. Item in Evan
gelio fcriptum eft ; Qucecunque Pater facit, eadem &
Fiiius tiicit, fimiliter & ficut Pater fufcitat mortuos &
* E yiyific^l.

34 ^APPENDIX, NO, XXXI.
vivificat, ita Sc Fflius quos vult vivlficat.- Item : ut 'ho.*
mines honorlficent Fflium, ficut honorlficant Patrem,
JEqualls enim honor nan nifi sequaiibus exhibetuf.
Item ibi Fiiius ad Patrem dicit, Omnia mea tua funt,
et tua mea. Item : Philippe, qui me videt, videt &
Patrem: Quomodo tu dicis, Oftende nobis Patrem.?
Hoc non dixiffet nifi Patri per omnia fulffet asqualis.
Item Ipfe Dominus dixit : Creditis in Deum, & in ipe
credlte. Et adhuc ut unltatem sequalltatis demonftra-
Vet, ait : Nemo novk Filium nifi Pater, neque Patrem
quis novit nifi Fiiius, ^, cui voluerit Fiiius revelafe :
Et ficut Fiiius cui viilt revelat Patrem, ita et Pater re-
velat FiHum : ficut ipfe Petro alt confitentl eum Chrift
um Filium Del vivl : Beatus es, Inquit, Simon Barjona,
quia ca,ro et fanguis non revetavit tibi, fed Pater meus
qui in ccelis eft, Et Iterum Fiiius dici« : Nemo venit
ad Patrem nifi per me, & nemo venit ad me nifi Pater,
qui mifiti me, attraxerit eum. Unde daret aequallta-
tem Patris & Filii ad fe invicem credentes adducere.
Item dicit : SI cognovlffftis me et Patrem meum utique
Gognovlffetis & a moiJo nosils eum & vidiftrs eum. Ve
rum quia duas In Filio profitemur effe naturas, id eft,
Deum verum, $c hominem verum corpus & animam ha-
bentem, quicquid ergo excellent! fviblimltatis potentia
de eo referunt fcripturae, admlranSae ejus divinitati tri-
buendum fentrmus : & quicquid infra honorenl coelef
tis potentiae de eodem humlllus enarratur, non Verbo
Dei, fed homini reputamus affumpto. Secundum

Ai'PENoiX, Nto-. xJxkik" 35
Secundum divinitatem ergo eft quod fuperius dixi-
mus, ubi ait : Ego & Pater unum fUmus, ' Et : Qui vi
det me, videt & Patrem-, Et ; Omnia qufficunque Pater
facit, eadem Filiiis fimiliter ¦; yel castera quae fuperius
continentur. Ilk vero quas d'e eo fecundum hominem
referentur, ifta funt : Pater major me eft, Et : Non
veni facere voluntatem meam, fed voluntatem ejus qui
nilfit me, Et : Pater, fi fieri poteft, tranfeat a me calix
ifte : vel cum de cruce dicit : Deus, Deus meus, quare
pie dereflquifti ? Et iterum ex perfona Filii Propheta
dicit : De ventre matrls meas Deus meus es tu : Vel
cum minor aiigelis indicatur, & quam plura his fimllia
quae ftudio brevltatis non inferuimus, Fiiius ergo Dei,
nullis conditionem necefEtatibus obftridus, fed libera
divinitatis potentia, Ita qu^ noftra funt mirabili pietate
affumpfit, ut a fuis, quas diyina fu.nt, ommno non defti-
tent : quia divinit^s nec aygmentum admittit nec pati-
tur dettiraentum, Unde gratias agimus Domino noftro
Jefu Chrifto, qui propter nos & propter noftram falU"
tem, de ccelo defcendit, fua paffione nos redemit, fua
niorte vivificavlt, fua afcentione glorificavit : Qui fedens,
ad dexteram Patris venturys eft judicare vivos et mor
tuos : juftis asternjE vitae prcemium largiturus, impiis
atque incredylis merita fupplicia redditurus,
Profitemur itaque Patrem de feipfo, hoc eft de eo
quod ipfe eft, fempitern.e atque ineffabiliter Filium ge
nuiffe, non extrinfecus, non ex nihilo, non ex alia ge
nuiffe materia, fed ex Deo natum effe : et qui de Deo
natus eft, non aliud eft quam id quod Pater eft, et id-
* E 2 circo

3^ APPENDIX) NO. xxxr,
circo unius fubftantiae eft, quia Veritas nativitatis divcr-
fitatem , non admittit generis. Nam fi alterius a Patre ,
fubftantise eft, aut verus Fiflus non eft, aut (quod nefas
eft dicere) degener natus eft. Eft enim verus Filiusj
ficut Joannes alt : Ut fimus in vero Filio ejus. Non eft
etiam degener, quia Deus verus de Deo natus eft vero ,
ficut idem Joannes Evangelifta exequitur, dicens : Hie
eft verus Deus, & vita aeternai Et ipfe Dominus in
Evangelio : Ego fum, Inquit, vita,. Veritas, & vita;
Ergo fi aliunde fubftantiam non habetj, de Patre habet,
SI de Patre habet, unius fubftantise cum Patre eft, Sed
fi unius fubftantise non eft, ergo non de Patre, fed ali
unde eft : quoniam unde eft, Inde fubftantiam habeat,
neceffe eft> Omnia enim ex nihilo, Fiiius vero de Pa
tre, De duobus eligat quifque quod velit : aut det ei
fubftantiam de Patre^ aut fateatur ex nihilo fubftitiffe;
Sed Propheticium forfitan obijcitur teftimonium : Gls-
nerationem ejus quis enarrabit ? Cum ego non dixeriiii> ;
Enarra mihi mod urn vel qyalitatem dlvins!? generatipniS;^ '
et tanti fecreti archanum humanis verbis enuntia, quo
niam unde natus fit, non quem ad modura natus fit^
requifivi. Divjna enim generatio inenarrabilis eft, non ,
ignorabilis. Nam ufque adeo non eft ignorabilis, id,
ef non ignorat ur unde fit, ut & Pater de ipfo genuiffe^
& Fiiius de Patre fe natum fsepiffime proteftetur. Quod
nullus omnino ambigit Chrlftianus, ficut in Evangelio
demonftratur, ipfo Filio dicente : Qui auteni non credit
jam judicatus eft, quia non credidit in nomine unigenid.
Filii Dei. Item Toannes Evaneelifta dicit : Et.vidimBS
.J o
gloriam ejus, gloriam quafi unlgeniti a Patre-. Ergo

APPENDIX, NO. XXXI. 3)r
Ergo profeffionem noftram brevi fermone concludi-
mus. Si vere de' Patfe natus eft, unius fubftantiae eft,
& verus Fiiius eft, Sed fi unius fubftantia non eft,
nec verus Fiiius eft : Et fi verus FiUus non eft, nec
verus Deus eft : aut fi verus Deus eft, & tamen de pa
tris fubftantise non eft, ingenitus ergo & ipfe eft, Sed
quia ingenitus non eft, fadura ergo eft ut putatur all.
unde fubfiftens, fi de Patris fubftantias non eft, Sed
abfit hoc ita credere, Nos enim unius fubftantise cum
Patre filium profitemur, deteftantes Sabellianam hsere-
, fim, quas Ita Sandam Trinitatem confundit, ut eum
dem dicat effe Patrem quem Filium, eumdemque credat
effe Spiritum fandum, non fervans. tres in unitate per-
- fonaSi
, ' Sed forfitan obijtitur, cum ingenitus Pater fit, .geni
tus Fiiius, non fieri poffe unam eamdetnque effe fub
ftantiam geniti atque ingeniti ; cum utique, fi ficut in
genitus Pater eft, ingenitus effet & Fiiius, tunc magis
diverfa poffet effe fubftantia, quia unufquifque a feipfo-
fubfiftenft communem fubftantiam cum altero non ha
beret. Cum vero ingenitus Pater de feipfo-, id eft, de
eo quod ipfe eft, fi quid illud eft aut dici poteft (immo
quia ut eft dici omnino non poteft) Filium generavit,
"^ajjparet unarn effe gignentis genitique fubftantiam : quia
Deum de Deb, lumen de lurnine, Filium efle veraciter
profitemur. Nam lucem effe Patrem Joannes apoftolus
teftis eft, dicens : Quia Deus lux eft, & tenebrae in eo
Hon funt ullae. Item de FiUo ait : Et vita erat lux ho-
minum^ & lux in tenebris lucet, & tenebrae eam noil
comprehenderunt.

38 Appendix, no. xxXi.
comprehenderunt, Et infra : Erat lumen verum, qUod
ll|unilnat omnem hominem venlentem In hunc mun
dum, Unde apparet Patrem & Filium unius effe fub
ftantias, dum lucis & luminis diverfa non poteft effe fub
ftantia, ejus fcilicet quas de fe gignit, &c quae de gig-
nente exiftlti
Denique ne aliquls Inter Patrem, & FiHum, dlverfi-
tatem naturaUs luminis introducat, Ideo apoftolus de
eodem FIHq dicit : Qui cum fit fplendor glorisj &
figura fubftantiae ejus. In quo evidentius & coseternus
Patri, & infeparabilis a Patre, & unius cum eo effe fub-
ftsmtias perdoCetur : , dum lucl fplendor eft femper co-
jeterniis, dum fplendor a luce nunquam feparatus eft,
dmn fplendor a luce, natura fubftantise, nunquam poteft
effe diverfus. Qu,i enim fplendor lucis eft, idem & Dei
Fatris virtus eft : S.empitef nus ergo propter virtutis
a;ternita.tem,. infeparabilis propter claritiidlnls unitatem,
Et hoc eft q.uo4 nos fideliter profitemur, Filium de Pa
tris fubftantia natuiil ; ficut ipfe Pater Deus apertiffi-
ffluin perhibet teftira.onium.. Qui ut de fua ineffabiUs
naturae fubftantia proprium Filium genuiffe monftraret,
ad inftruendam fragilitatis noftras imperitiam,, ut nos ex
vifibilibus ad invifibilia erigeret, tefrenss nativitatis vo
cabulum ad divina; generjtionis iraxit exemplum, di
cens t Ex utero ante luciferum geniii te. Quid clarius,
quid luculentius effari divinitas dignaretur ? Quibus
indiciis,, quibus exiftentium rerum exempHs proprieta
tem getier-ationis potuit intimare, quam ut, per uteri
appeltationenl, proprietatem genitricis oftenderet ? Non quia

APPENDIX, NO, XXXI. 39
quia corporeis compofitus eft membris, aut aliquibus
artuum lineamentls diftindus ; fed quia nos aliter veri_
tateili divinse generatianis auditu mentis percipere non
poffemus, nifi humani uteri provocaremur vocabulo, ut
ambigi ultra non poffet de Dei fubftantia natum effe,
quem conftat ex Patris utero exftitiffe, Credentes ergo
Deum Patrem de fua fubftantia impaffibiliter Filium
generaffe, no.n dicimus ipfam fubftantiam aut divifani
effe in FiUo, aut dimihutionem pertuflffe in Patre : et
per hoc paffionis potuifle vi'cio fubjacere, Abfit enim a
nobis ut talia vel opinemur, vel cogltemus de Deo :
quia nos perfedum Patrem, perfedum Filium, fine fui
dimlnutione, fine aliqua derivatione, fine omni omnino
paffionis Infirmitate, genuiffe fideliter profitemur. Nam
qui abljcit Deo, quod fi de feipfo genuit divifionis vi-
elura pertullt : poteft dicere, quia et laborem fenfit
quando umverfa condidit, et ob hoc die feptima ah
omni fuo opeFe requievit, Sed nec In* generando de
feipfo paffionem, vel dimlnutioneqi aliquam fenfit, nec '
in condendo. unlverfa fatigationem, aliquam pertuUt.
Namque ut evidentius nobis divine, generationis impaf-
fibllitas Infinuaretur, Deum ex Deo, himen ex lumine,
fiUum profitendum accepimus. Si ergo In efficientia
vlfibilis ac mundani luminis tale aliquid invenitur, ut
lumine ex lumine fumpta, et per quamdam generationis
natlvitatem exorto, Ipfa luminis origo, qus ex fe lumeR
aUud dedIt, nec minul nec ullum omnino detrimentuni
miniftrati ex fe luminis perpeti contlngat : quanto rec-
tlus et melius de divini et IneffabiUs luminis natura cre-
dcQdum eft, qu^ ex felpfa lumen generans, minul om
nino

4® APPENDIX, NO, XXXI,
nino non potuit ? Unde sequalis eft Patri FiUus, non
natus ex tempore, fed gignenti coasternus : ficut fplen-
dor, ab Igne genitus, gignenti manifeftatur aequalis,
Haec de Patris et FIIU aequalltate, Vel de fubftantifs
unitate (quantum brevitatis ratib finit) dixiffe fufficiat i
fupereft ut de Spiritu fando, quem Patri ac Filio con-
fubftantlvum credimus, coaequalem et coseternum dica^
mus, et teftlmonils approbemusi Licet enim hsec ve
neranda Trinitas perfonis ac nominibus diftinda fit,
non tamen ob hoc a fe^ atque a fiia Kternitate, difcres-
pare credenda eft, fed manens atite fascula divinitas ifi
Patre et Filio et Spiritu fando, vere ac proprie credl-
tur, nec dividi noftris interpretationibus poteft, ttec rur
fus verfa in Unam perfonam Trinitas ipfa confundi,
Hsec fides plena, hsec noftra credulitas eft. IdCirco
Deos nec aeftlmari patimur nec vocari, fed unum Deum
in praedidls p6rfonIs ac nominibus confitemiir. Inenar-
rablUs enim divinitas, non ut concllidi aut apprehend!
velut vocabulis pofltet. Intra noniina perfonafque fe pras-
ftltlt : fed ut Id qUod erat effe nofceretur, intelligen
tiam fui ex parte quam cdpere humanae mentis auguftise
prsvalebant credentibus dedit, Propheta dicente : Nifi
crediderltis, non Intefllgetis, Una eft ergo Trinltatis
deltas, et in hujus vocabuli appellatione fignificatio eft
tinius fubftantise, non -unius perfons. Ad quani rem
fidelibus comprobandam In teftimonium fui divinitas
Ipfa multis et creberrlmis conteftatlonibus femper affuiti
LIceat ergo ob brevitatis compendia, ex multis pauca
proferre, quoniam vers probatlo majeftatis," tametfi

41
habet plurarltatem teftlmoniorum, pluralltate tamen
non Indiget, quoniam credenti pauca fufficiunt.
Primum igitur de Veteris teftamenti libris, poft etiam
novi, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum fandum unius do-
cebimus effe fubftantise, libro' Genefis fic inchoante:
In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Terra autem
erat Invltibllis et incompofita, et tenebrse erant fuper
abyffum, et fpiritus Del ferebatur fuper aquas^ Ille
princlpium, qui Judaeis quis effet Interrogantibus dixit :
Princlpium qui et loquor vobis. Superferebatur fpiritus
Del fuper aquas, ucpote creator virtute potentiae fuse
contlnens creaturam, ut ex his viva omnia produdurus,
ipfe rudlbus dementis ignis proprii fomenta praftaret,
et jam tunc myfterlo emicante baptifmatis, virtutem
fandlficatlonis liquorls • natura perciperet, primaque ad
vitam corpora animata produceret : David pro inde
afplrante : Verbo Domini ccell firmati funt, et fpiritu
oris ejus omnis virtus eorum. Vide quam plena fit
brevltas, et quatn dare In facramentum unitatis re-
currlt. Patrem In Domino, In verbl fignlficatlone Fi
lium ponens, Spiritum fandum altlffimi ex ore nuncu-
pavlt. Et ne vpcis editio acclperetur in Verbo, coelos
per eum afferit feffe firmatos. Ne autem flatus in Spi
ritu reputetur, coeleftis in eo virtutis plenitudinem de-
monftravlt. Nam ubi virtus, ibi neceffe eft perfona
fubfiftens. Ubi omnis non ablata a Patre et Filio, fed
confummata fignlficatur In Spiritu fando, non ut folus
habeat quod I|i Patre et FiUo eft, fed ut totum habeat
cum utroque. Et Iterum cum de vocatlone gentium
Dominus loqueretur, intra unum divinitatis nomen
* F Spiritum

42 APPENDIX, No. XXXt.
Spiritum fandum prasdicans, ait : Euntes docete omnes
gentes, bapti,zantes eos in nomine Patris et FiUi et Spi
ritus fandi. Et iterum coeleftia Corlnthlis precatus
Apoftolus (hasc fubdidit: Gratia Domini noftri Jefu
Chrifti, et charltas Dei, et communicatio fandi Spiritus,
cum omnibus vobis. Et ut apertius In hac Trinitate
unitatem fubftantias fateamur, illud etiam nobis eft in-
tuendumy quomodo Deus, cum- de mundi et hominis
ereatlone difponeret, facramentum Trinltatis oftenderet,
dicens : Faciamus hominem ad Imaginem et fimilitudi-
nem noftram. Cum dicit noftram, ©ftendit utique non
miius. Cum vero Imaginem et fimllltudinem profert,
asqualitatem diftlndionis perfonarum Infinuat, ut iu
eodem opere Trinltatis fit aperta cognltio, in quo nec
pluralltas caffa eft, nec fimflltudo diffentiens, dum tt
confequentia fic loquuntur : Ef dixit Deus, et fecit, et
benedixit Deus. Et neceffe eft ut creati©nis totius
audor Deus unus fit. Quam fidei rationem antiqua
denique per Mofen benedldio pandit et comprobat, qua
benedkere populum facramento trinse invocationis ju-
betur« Ait enim Deus ad Mofen : Sic benedlces pe-
pulum meum et ego benedlcam illos. Benedieat tc
Dominus, et cuftodiat te. riluinlnet Dominus faclem
fuam fuper te, et mifereatur tui. Attoflat Dominus
faclem fuam fuper te, et det tibi pacem. Quod hoc
ipfum Propheta David affirmat, dicens : Benedieat nos
Deys, Deus nofter, benedieat nos Deus, et metuant
eum omnes fines terras. Quam Trinltatis unitatem fu-
pernae Angelorum virtutes hymno venerantur, et ter
numero, Sandus, Sandus, Sandus Dominus Deus Sa
baoth

APPENDIX, NO. XXXI. 43
baoth, Indefinenti canentes ore, In unius faftigium do^
minatlonis gloriam ejus exaltant. Qiiod ut adhuc aper,
tius fideUum fenfibus inculcetur, coeleftium myfteriorum
confcium producimus Paulum. Ait enim : Divifiones
autem donationum funt, idem autem Spiritus ; et divi-
vlfiones miniftrationum funt, idem autem Dominus :
et divifiones operationum funt, idem vero Deus qui
operatur omnia In omnibus, Et certe has divifionum
differentias pro quaUtate ac merito partlclpatitlum, Spi
ritum fandum docuit operarl, cum Ipfarum gratiarum
differentias partiretur, in ultimis Intulit, dicens : Haec
autem omnia operatur unus atque Idem Spiritus, divi-
dens propria unlcuIqUe prout vult. Unde nulUus am-
biguitatl rellnqultur locus, quin clareat Spiritum fanc-
tum et Deum effe, et fuse voluntatis adorem, qui cunc-
ta operarl, et fecundum proprise voluntatis arbitrium
divinae difpenfatlonis dona largiri apertiffime demonftra
tur. Quia ubi voluntaria diftributio prsdicatur, non
poteft videri conditio fervitutis. In. creatura enim fer-
vitus intelllgenda eft, in Trinitate. vero dominatio ac
libertas, Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius di
vinitatis ESSE CUM Patre et Filio Spiritum
sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelists tes-
timonio comprobatur, ait namqxie : Tres sunt
QUI testimonium perhibent in coelo. Pater,
Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres un
um SUNT, Numquid ait tres in differentiae quaUtate
fejundi, aut quibuflibet diverfitatum gradibus longo fe-
parationis intervaflo divifi ? Sed tres, inquit, unum
funt, Ut autem magis magifque fandi Spiritus cum
? F 2 Patre,

44 appendix, no, xxxi.
Patre, et Fflio, una divinitas in creandls rebus omnibus
demonftraretur, habes creatorem Spiritum fandum in
libro Job primo: Spiritus, inquit, divlnus eft' qui fecit
me, et Spiritus omnipotentis qui docet me. Et David
dicit : Emitte Spiritum tuum et creabuntur, et reno-
vabis faclem terras. Si renovatio et creatio per Spirit
um erit, fine dubio et principlum creatlonis fine fpiritu
non fuit. Poft creationem igitur oftendamus, quia vi
vlficat etiam Spiritus fandus ficut Pater et FiUus. Equi-
dem de perfona Patris refert Apoftolus : Teftor In con-
fpedu Dei qui vivificat omnia. Vitam vero dat Chrif
tus : Oves, Inquit, meae vocem meam audlunt, et ego
vitam seternam do Illis, VIvificamur vero a Spiritu
fando, ipfo dicente Domino : Spiritus eft qui vivificat.
Ecce una vivificatio Patris, et FiUi, et Spiritus fanfti
aperte monftrata eft. Praefcientiam rerum omnium in
Domino effe et occultorum cognitionem fleet nemo
Chriftanus Ignoret, tamen ex DanieUs libro monftran-
dum eft. Deus, inquit, qui occultorum cognitor es,
qui prsefclus omnium antequam nafcantur. Hsc eadem
prasfcientia In Chrifto eft, ficut refert Evangelifta : Ab
initio autem fciebat Jefus quis effet eum tradlturus, vel
qui effent non credentes in eum. Quod fit autem oc
cultorum cognitor, ex hoc manlfeftum eft, cum obfcura
confilia Judaeorum traducens dicebat : Quid cogitatis
nequam In cordibus veftris ? Similiter prsefcire omnia
Spiritum fandum Ipfe manlfeftavit dicens ad apoftolos :
Cum venerit Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnia &
Ventura annunciabit vobis. Qui ventura nuntiare per-
hibetur, prasfcire omnia non dubitatur, quia Ipfe fcru-
tatur

appendix, no. XXXI, 45
tatur etiam altltudines Del, & novit omnia quae in Deo
funt : ficut memorat Paulus dicens : Spiritus enim om
nia fcrutatur etiam altitudines Dei. Item in eodem
loco : Sicut nemo fcit hominum quae funt hominis nifi
fpiritus ejus qui in ipfo eft : ita nem.o fcit qus funt
Dei nifi Spiritus Dei.
Ad Inrelligendam vero potentlam Spiritus fandi,
pauca de terribilibus proferamus. Vendiderat poffeffio-
nem, ut fcriptum eft in Adibus Apoftolorum, fuppreffa
parte pecuniae dolofus difcipulus, reUquum pro toto
antfe pedes ponens Apoftolorum. Offendit Spiritum
fandum quem putabat latere, Sed quid ad eum dixit
contlnuo beatus Petrus : Anania, quare fatanas replevit
cor tuum, ut mentlrerls Splritui Sando .'* & infra : non
es mentitus hominibus, fed Deo, Atque ita percuffus
virtute ejus cui mentiri voluerat, expiravit. Quid hic
vult beatus Petrus intelligi Spiritum Sandum ? Uti
que clarum eft, cum dicit : Non es mentitus hominibus,
fed Deo. Manlfeftum eft ergo, quoniam qui mentitur
Splritui fando, Deo mentitur : & qui credit in Spiritum
fandum, credit in Deum. Tale aliquid, Imo fortius
quiddam, dominus in Evangelio oftendit : omnepecca-
tum & blafphemia remittitur hominibus : qui autem
blafphemat In Spiritum fandum, non remittetur el ne
que in hoc feculo neque In futuro. Ecce terrlblli fen-
tentia Irremiffibile dicit effe peccatum ei qui in Spiritum
fandum blafphemaverit. Compara huic fententi^ flIud
quod fcriptum eft In libro Regum : Si peccando pecca-
verit vir In vIrum, orabunt pro eo : fi autem In Domi
num

46num peccaverit, quis orabit pro eo ? SI ergo blafphe-
mare in Spiritum fandum, & peccare in Deum fimile,
id eft inexpiabfle crimen eft, jam quantus fit Spiritus
fandus unufquifque cognofcit. Deus, quod ubique fit
prasfens, impleat omnia, ore difcimus Efaias : Ego, in-
quit, Deus approximans, & non de longlnquo ? Si
abfconditus fuerit homo In abfconditis, ergo ego non
videbo eum ? nonne ccelum & terram ego impleo ?
Quod autem Deus fit ubique, falvator in evangqlio :
Ubicunque, ait, fuerint duo vel tres coUedi in nomine
meo, ibi & ego fum In medio eorupi, De fpiritu adse-
que fando, quod ad fit ubique, dicit Propheta ex per
fona Dei : Ego in vobis, & fpiritus meus.ftat in medio
veftrum. Et Salomon ait : Spiritus domini replevit
orbem terrarum, & hoc, quod continet omnia, fcien^
tiam habet vocis. Item David dicit : Qiio Ibo a Spiritu^
tuo, & a facie tua quo fugiam ? fi afcendero in coelum,
tu illic es ; fi defcendero in Infernum, ades : Si fump-
fero pennas meas In diredum, et habitavero in extremi?
marls : Etenim iUic manus tua deducet me, & contine-
bit me dextera tua. Habitat Deus in fandis fuis fecun
dum promiffionem, quia dixerat : Habitabo in iUis,
Quod vero dominus Jefus dicit in evangelio : Manete
in me, & ego in vobis : probat hoc Paulus dicens : An
nefcitis quia Jefus Chriftus eft in vobis ? Hoc autem
tatiim in Spiritus habitatione adimpletur, ficut memo-
rat Joannes : Ex hoc, inquit, fcimus quia In nobis eft,
quia de Spiritu fuo dedit nobis. Similiter & Paulus :
Nefcitis quia templum Dei eftis, & Spiritus Dei habitat ,
in vobl-s ? Et iterum dicit : Glorlficate et portate Deum Il\

APPENDIX, NO, XXXI. 47
In corpore veftro. Quem Deum? Utique Spiritum
fandum, cujus templum effe videmur. Nam quod ar-
guat Pater, arguat Fiiius, arguat Spiritus fandus, ita
probatum eft. In Pfalmo quadragefimo nono legitur :
Peccatori autem dicit Deus, Et infra : Arguam te, et
ftatuam contra faciem luam. David fimiliter orans di
cit ad Chriftum : Domine, ne In ira tua arguas me,
quia ipfe venturus eft arguere omnem carnem. Quod
vero de Spiritu fando falvator in evangelio : cum vene
rit Inquit, ParacUtus, Ille arguet mundum de peccato,
et de juftitia, et de judicio. Hoc providens David cla-
mabat Dominum : Quo Ibo a Spiritu tuo, et a facie tua
quo fugiam ? Nam et quod bonus fit Pater, bonus Fiiius,
bonus Spiritus fandus, fic probatur. Dicit Propheta :
Bonus es tu, Domine, et in bonitate tua doee me juftifi-
cationes tuas* De fe autem ipfe unigenitus : Ego fum
paftor bonus. De Spiritu seque fando David in pfalmo
dicit : Spiritus tuus bonus deducet me in terram redam.
Quis autem illam dignitatem Spiritus fandi poffit
tacere ? AntlquI enim Prophetas clamabant : Hasc
dicit Dominus. Hanc vocem Chriftus adveniens in
fuam perfonam revocavit dicens : Ego autem dico vobis.
Novi autem Prophetas quid clamabant ? fic Agabus
Propheta In Adibus apoftolorum : Hasc dicit Spiritus
fandus. Et Paulus ad Timotheum : Spiritus, inquit,
manlfefte dicit. Quae vox omnino demonftrat indiffe-
rentlam Trinltatis. Dicit fe Paulus a Deo Patre &
Chrifto vocatum fuiffe et miffum. Paulus, inquit,
Apoftolus non ab hominibus, neque per hominem, fed
per Jefuni Chriftum et Dominum patrem. In adibus autem'

4^ APPENDIX, NO, xxxr.
autem apoftolorum legitur quod a Spiritu fando fit
fegregatus et miffus. Sic enim fcriptum eft : Haec <iicit
Spiritus fandus : Segregate mihi Barnabam et Saulum,
in opus quo vocavl eos, Et paulo poft : Ipfi, inquit,
miffi ab Spiritu fando defcenderunt Seleueiam, Item
m eodem libro : attendite vobis et univerfo gregi, in
quo vos Spiritus fandus conftltuit epifcopos, Ne quis
autem Spiritum fandum, quia ParacUtus didus eft,
contemptlblle aliquid aeftimet, ParacUtus enim advo
catus eft, vel pofitus confolator, fecundum Latinam
Enguam. Quae appellatio etiam FiUo Dei communis
eft, ficut dicit Joannes : H^c, Inquit, fcribo vobis ne
peccetis, Sed fi quis peccaverit, ParacUtum habemus
apud Patrem, Jefum Chriftum, Nam et ipfe Dominus,
cum dicit ad Apoftolos, Alterum Paraclitum mittet vo
bis Pater : fine dubio cum dicit alterum Paraclitum, fe
quoque Paraclitum manlfeftat, Sed neque a Patre hoc
nomen ParaclitI allenum eft, Beneficentlae enim nomen
eft, non naturse, Denique ad Corlnthios Paulus Ita
fcrlbit : Benedidus Deus, et Pater Domini noftri Jefu
' Chrifti, pater miferlcbrdlarum, et Deus totius confola-
tionis, qui nos confolatur, Et ciim confolator dicitur
Pater, confolator dicitur Fiiius, confolator etiam Spiri
tus fandus, una tamen nobis confolatio a Trinitate
prasftatur, ficut et una remiffio peccatorum, Apoftolo
affirmante : Abluti, inquit, eftis et juftificati, et fanftl-
ficatl eftis In nomine Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti, et in
Spiritu Dei noftri, Poffemus plura adhuc de divinis
fcripturls proferre teftimonia, qus juxta baptifml facra
mentum Trinitatem unius glorias, operationis, ac po-
tentlss

APPENDIX, NO. XXXI. 49
tentise manifeftant. Sed quia ex his plenus eft fapien-
tlbus Intelledus, multa prseterivimus ftudio bre
vitatis, Faciamus ergo recapitulationem didorum noftrorum.
Si de Patre procedit Spiritus fandus, fi liberat, fi Do
minus eft & fandificat ; fi creat cum Patre & Fflio
et fi vivificat, fi prasfcientiam habet cum Patre et
Filio, fi ubique eft & implet omnia, fi habitat in eledis,
fi argult mundum, fi judlcat, fi bonus & redus eft, fi
de eo clamatur, H^c dicit Spiritus fandus, fi Prophetas
conftitult, fi Apoftolos mittit, fi Epifcopos prasficit, fi
confolator eft, fi cunda difpenfat prout vult, fi abluit
& juftlficat, fi tentatores fuos interficit, fi is qui eum
blafphemaverit non habet remiffionem neque in hoc
feculo neque In futuro, quod utique Deo proprium eft :
Hsec cum Ita fint, cur de eo dubitatur quod Deus non
fit, cura operum magnitudine quod eft ipfe manifeftet ?
Non utique alienum effe a Patris et FiUi majeftate, qui
non eft ab opere virtutum alienus. Fruftra illi nomen
divinitatis negatur, cujus poteftas non poteft abnegari.
Fruftra prohibebor eum cum Patre et FiUo venerari,
quem exigor cum Patre et FiUo confiteri. Si ille mihi,
cum Patre et Filio, confert remiffionem peccatorum,
confert fandificationem et vitam perpetuam, ingratus
fum nimis et impius fi ei cum Patre et FiUo non refero
gloriam. Aut fi non cum Patre et Filio coleiidus, ergo
nec confitendus in baptifmo eft. Si autem omnimodo
confitendus eft fecundum didum Domini et traditionem
Apoftolorum, ne feraiplena fit fides, quis me poterit-ab
* G ejus

so APPENDIX, NO. XXXI.
ejus cultu prohibere ? In quem enim credere jubeor, ei
etiam deinde fupplicabo. Adorabo ergo Patrem, ado
rabo et Filium, adorabo et Spiritum fandum una
eademque veneratione. Quod fi quis durum hoc putat,
audiat quomodo David ad culturam Dei fideles hortatur.
Adorate, inquit, fcabellum pedum ejus. Si religionis
eft adorare fcabellum pedum ejus, quanto magis religio-
fum fi ejus Spiritus adoratur ? Ille utique Spiritus quem
beatus Petrus in tanta fublimltate praedicavit, dicens ;
Spiritu fando miffo de ccelis, in quem concupifcunt An-
geli profpicere. SI Angell eum cupiunt afpicere, quanto
magis nos homines mortales defpicere non debemus, ne
forte et nobis dicatur ficut didum eft ad Judges : Vos
femper Splritui fando reftitiftis, ficut et patres veftri." ;
Quod fi hsec tanta et taUa non Incllnant animum ad
venerandum Spiritum fandum, accipe adhuc aliquid
fortius. Sic enim Paulus Inftrult Prophetas ecclefias in
quibus utique et per quos Spiritus fandus loquebatur.
Si, inquit, omnes prophetaverint, intret autem aUquis
infidelis aut idiota, convincitur ab omnibus, examina-
tur ab omnibus, occulta quoque cordis ejus manifefta
funt : et tunc cadens In faciem adorabit Deum, pronun-
tians quia vere Deus in vobis eft, Et utique in eis Spi
ritus fandus eft qui prophetant. Si ergo infideles ca-
dunt in faclem, et adorant Spiritum fandum perterriti,
et confitentur Inviti, quanto magis fidelibus expedit ut
voluntarie et ex affedu adorent Spiritum fandum .? Ado
ratur autem Spiritus fandus non quafi feparatim, more
gentilium, ficut nec FiUus feparatim adoratur, quia in
dextera

APPENDIX, NO, XXXI. 5I
dextera Patris eft : fed cum adoramus Patrem, credi
mus nos et Filium et Spiritum fandum adorare : quia
et cum Filium invocamus Patrem nos credimus invocare,
et cum Patrem rogamus a FiUo nos exaudiri confidimus,
ficut ipfe Dominus dixit: Quicquid petieiitis Patrem in
nomine meo ego faciam, ut honorincetur Pater in Filio,
Et fi Spiritus fandus adoratur, ille utique adoratur cujus
eft Spiritus, Illud autem nullus Ignorat, quia divine
majeftati nec addi quicquam nec minui humanLs fup-
plicationibus poteft, fed unufquifque fecundum propofi-
tum voluntatis fuse, aut gloriam fibi acquirit fideliter
venerando, aut confufionem perpetuam pertinaciter re-
fiftendo, Certum eft enim, quia contentio et fuperbia
damnat : honorificentia vero frudum devotionis ex-
peftat, Quare autem fideles non honorlficent Integre
Trinitatem, ad quam fe pertinere confidunt, cujus no
mine fe renatos, cujus fervos fe nomlnari gloriantur ?
Nam ficut ad nomen Dei patris homines Dei appellantur,
ut Helias homo Dei diftus eft, ut Mofes homo Dei ap-
peUatus eft : fic a Chrifto Chriftiani nuncupamur, fic
etiam ab Spiritu fpirifales appeUamur. Si igitur vocetur
quis homo Dei, et non fit Chriftisnus, nihil eft. Qui
fi Chrlftianus vocetur, et non fuerit fpiritalis, nec fibi
fatis de falute confidat.
Sit er"-o nobis, fecundum falutaris baptifml confeffio-
nem, fides Integra Trinltatis, nt una devotio pietatis,
nec more gentiUum poteftatum diverfitates opinemur,
aut creaturam quantum ad deitatem in Trinitate fufpi-
cemur fed nec Juda;orum fcandalo movearaur qui filium
* G 2 Dei

52 APPENDIX, NO, XXXII,
Del negant, qui Spiritum fandum non adorant : fe
potius perfedam Trinitatem adorantes et magnificante
ficut in myfterlis ore noftro dicimus, Ita confcientia t^
neamus : Sandus, Sandus, Sandus Dominus Dei
Sabaoth. Ter dicentes Sandus unam omnipotentlai
confitemur, quia una eft religio, una glorlficatio Tr
nitatis, ut audiamus ab Apoftolo ficut audierunt Corii
thii : Gratia Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti, et dileftio De
et communicatio Spiritus fandi, cum omnibus vobis.
Hasc eft fides noftra Evangellcis et Apoftolicis trad
tionlbus, et omnium quse in hoc mundo funt cathoUc;
rum ecclefiarum focletate fundata, In qua nos, per gr;
tiam Dei omnipotentis, permanere ufque ad finem vit
hujus confidimus et fperamus,
Direda xii kalendarum Majarum, per Januariui
Zattarenfem, Villaticum a Cafis medianis, epIfcoposNi
midlas ; Bonifacio Foratianenfi, Bonifacio Gatianenf
epifcopis Byzacenis. N° XXXIL,
Hi? definitionibus provocatse a nobis & revidas ha
refes omne?, five quse pofterse, five quas coaetane;
Apoftolorum, dummodo diverfa : five generaliter, fiA
fpecialiter notatse ab eis, dummodo prasdamnatas ; ai
deat refpondere, & ipfas aliquas ejufmodi prsefcriptiont
adverfus noftram difciplinarn, SI enim negant verit;
tem ejus, debent probare illam quoque hserefin effe, e;
del

5i
dem forma revidam, qua ipfs revincuntur ; & often-
dere fimul ubInam quarenda fit Veritas, quam apud
illas non effe jam conftat, Pofterlor noftra res non eft,
Immo omnibus prior eft : hoc erit teftimonium veritatis,
ubique occupantis principatum, ab ApoftoUs utique non
damnatur, immo defenditur : hoc erit indicium proprl-
etatis, Quam enim non damnant, qui extraneam
quamque damnawerunt, fuam often-dunt, ideoque & de-
fendunt. Age jam qui voles curiofitatem melius exer-
cere In negotio falutis tuas, percurre Ecclefias Apoftoli-
cas, apud quas Ipfs adhuc cathedrae Apoftolorum fuis
locis prsefident, apud quas ipfs authentlcas litterae eo
rum recitantur, fonantes vocem, & reprsfentantes fa
clem unlufcujufque, Proxima eft tibi Achai'a ? habes
Corlnthum, SI non longe es a Macedonia, habes Phi-
¦lippos, habes Theffalonicenfes, Si potes in Afiam ten
dere, habes Ephefum, Si autem Italic adjaces, Ro
mani, unde nobis quoque authorltas prsefto eft,
[Tertull. de Praficript. Haret. C, xxv, xxvLJ
NO XXXIIL
Latin MSS of the Bible, ivhich contain the feven canonical Epiftles,
in the Royal Library at Paris.
ITS SHTPOSED THE TRETACE
ACE. OR PROLOGUE
OF JEROME,

THE NUMBER

THE CONTENTS

OF THE MSS

OF EACIi MS.

.^5 MARKED

IN THE LI-

ERwVRy.

No. I3

The -whole Bible.
The -whole Bible.

9 Century. Has tlie Prol. {a")
9 Century. Has the Prologue.
3 (2 Vols.)
(a) This Bible has the folbwinj infciiption. "A.D. Sjo Carolo Caho oStotoa»J VivijmK Comes
c! Petni's Meteolis. dum Tnroni. mrjaretur."

54

APPENDIX, NO. XXXIII.

T'r.G' NtimBcr &e.

I?
14
17

18

.19 (a Vols.)
1%

=427

29 30
513a .¦?3.14' 3S
37JS .T9
40 4r 43

47

The Contents of each MS.
5 The -whole, except part o''?
i the Gofpels. J
5 The -whole, except part of J
i the Old Teftament. i
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
— except the Apocalypfe.
Part of the Old Teftament-1
and all the new except the >
Apocalypfe. J
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
r Part of the Old and the 1
i whole of the New Tefta- >
[ ment. J
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.

The -n-hole Bible.

The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
1-he whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole BiWe.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
'J-he whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible. ,
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
—except a part of Genefis.
— except the Pfalms.
5 — except a part of St. Paul's
I Epiftles.
— pages occafionally loft.

Its fuppofed age. The Preface 8cc.

9 Century.
13 Century.
10 Century.
II Century.
II Century.
II Century.
I,-? Century.
13 Century.

Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has not the Pro
logue, (i)
Has the Prologue,
Has the Prologue.

13 Century. Has the Prolog-ae.
I. i Century. Has the Prologue.
13 Century. Has the Prologue.
13 Century. Has the Prologue.
13 Century. Has the Prologue.
13 Century. Has the Prologue.
Bihlia Pap/e^
vocata (fcil. |
pjavii.) A. >I^=«''^'=P'"<''°S"|'^
D. 1378 ad I :*M
1394- J
14 Century. Has the Prologue.,
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prol.iguc.
14 Century. Plas the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.,
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologu?.,
14 Century. Has the Prologver
14 Century. Has the Prologiiel
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.

14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
II Centui-y.

Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue. 80 Part

(b) rrfnv ihe 'Prologue -waj not found hi its ufual flofion, viz. hnmed'iately before the Epijtle of St,
J^mjs, it ivas prefumed, without further examination, that the MS did not contain it.

APPENDIX, NO. XXXIII.

55

Tae Namber Ste.
JMo.

93

The Contents of each MS.

It! fuppofed age. The Preface &tu

104
III Il6

J3S

m

140

IJO

156
161 i6z
163164 165166
167168169170171172
173174175176177178179180 181
i8j

{Part only of the Old Tefta-")
ment & the A&&, the feven /
Canonical Epiftles, the Splf- > la
tie to the Romans and the 1
Apocalypfe. J
r Imperfecft — the i. Epiftle of -^
< St. John is mutilated in par- >
I ticular. j
5 Part of the Old and all the /
J New Teftament. J
Part of Old, all New Teft.
Part of Old, all New Teft.
r Part of the Old, and all theT
i New Teftament, except the C
I Gofpels. 3
SPart of the Old, and all theT
New Teftament, except the (
Gofpel of St. Matiheti) and f
the A<fts of the Apoftles. J
f Part of the Old, and ¦ the 7
J whole of tlie New Tefta- >
/ ment. j
rPart of the Old, and theT
J AiSls, the Canonical Epiftles, (
"land the Apocalypfe of the C
LNew Teftament. J
r Part of the Old, and the"]
i whole of the ^ew Tefta- >
l_ ment. J
The whole Bible. 13
The whole Bible. . 13
The whole Bible. 10
The whole Bible. 13
The whole Bible. 13
The whole Bible. 13
The whole Bible. li
The whole Bible. 14
The whole Bible. 14
The whole Bible. 14
The whole Bible. "^4
The whole Bible. 14
The whole Bible. 14

Century, Has the Prologue.

9 Century. Has not the PrcL

Century.Century.
Century.

Has the Prdbgae.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.

I a Century. Has the Prologue.
13 Century. Has the Prologue.
15 Century. Has the Prologac
13 Century. Has the Prologue,
14 Century. Has the Prologue.

Century.
Century.Century.Century.Century.
Century. Century. Century.Century.
Century.Century.Century.Century.

The whole Bible. 14 Cent.
The whole Bible, 14 Century.
The whole Bible. 14 Century.
The whole Bible. 14 Century.
The whole Bible. 14 Century
The whole Bible. 14 Century.
— ^:-ccpt -1 ¦ Pfalms. 14 Century.
rPart of the Old, and tlif-^
^ whole ofthe New 'icfta-V 14 Century.
^ment. J
The whole Bible, except Apoc. 14 Century.

Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has not the ProL
Has the Prologue,
Has the Prologue,
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has not the ProL
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
C ^he leaf lofi ivhere
< the Prologue is ufu-
C aly inferted.
Has die Prologue,
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
C'Tivo leaves lofi
< -where the Prol. is
(_iijua'ly inferted.
Hasthe Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue. 198 The

56

The Number &c.
No,
198 199200
201201
203 204205
206
207 2o8
209 210211
212aij214
SI .5
2.16 (a Vols.)
217
siS
219 220
331 22Z
223
224
425326 227328229330 33133a 333 233 A.
234 242

247

Thc Contents of each MS.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible,
The whole Bi'Dle,
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible.
The whole Bible,
The whole BiJ)le,
rPart of the Old Te.fc?.ment,-^
.^the Epiftle to the Romans >¦
tand the Canonical Epiftles.J
rPart of the Old, and thei
-< whole of the New Tefta- >
traent. j

Its fuppofed age. The Preface Sc.

10 Century.
10 Century,
13 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century.
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century.
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Centur /.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Centuiy.
14 Century.
14 Century.
14 Century,
1,'- Century,
15 Cer.tury.
14 Century.

Hasthe Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue,
Has the Prologue.
Hasthe Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Hasthe Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
His the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue,
Has the Prologue.
Has not the Pro.
Has the Prologue.
Hus the Prologue.'',!
Has the Prologue.',
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue. V
Has the Prologue, '
Has the Prologue.
Has not the Pro.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Pi-ologus.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.

13 Century. Has not the Pro.

14 Century. Has the Prologue

3.50 351252253
254 255

305

5 The whole of the New 7
J Teftament. J
The whole New Teft.
The whole New Teft.
Part of Old, all New Teft.
All Ne-w Teft. except Apoc.
f The whole of the New Tef- 7
/ tament. ^
f The Aifts, the Canonical E-^
J piftles, the Epiftles of St.^
l^Paut, and the Apocalypfe.}

9 Century,
13 Century,
13 Century,
13 Century,
13 Century,
IJ Century,

Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue,
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.
Has the Prologue.'
Has the Prologue.

12 Century. Has the Prologue. 306 Tht

Appendix, no. xxxiii.

57

The Kumber &c.

The Contents of each MS. J

f The Adls, the Apoci.lypfe,"

o5

•<the Canonical Epiftles and •

( the four Gofpels.

f The Aas, an,d thc Canons- )

307

i cal Epiftles with the Gloffa >

(_ Ordinaria. )
i ¦ Aas, Canonical Epiftles, A--^
308
. ' pocalypfe with the Glofl'a V
1 Ordinaria. 3
"St. Paul's Epiftles, Afls,"
309
. Canonical Epiftles, Apoca- ¦
Llypfe.
rCanonical Epiftles, Afts,"
315
i Apocalypfe, Epiftle to Ro- ¦
j_mans.
316
Canonical Epiftles.
319
The whole New Teftament.
320
The whole Bible.
321
The whole Bible.
322
The whole Bible.
338
Catholic Epiftles.
339
Catholic Epiftles.
3;ll 343 344
j88 4328
Its fuppofed age. The Preface &c,
12 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has not the Prol.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
12 Century. Has the Prologus.
12 Century, Has not the Prol,
The whole New Teftament,
The whole Bible,
The whole Bible,
fSt. Paul's Epift;les, Canoni- 7
ical Epiftles. J
AApocalypfe, CathoUc Epif--?
itks. 5
Canonical Epiftles.
14 Century.
14 Century,
14 Century,
14 Century;
A. D. 1422.
12 Century,
14 Century,
UN.B. This
Ifour.d in the
13 Century,
14 Century.
15 Century.
Has the Prologue.
Has not the Prol.
Has not the Prol.
Has not the Prol.
Has the Prologue.
Has not the Prol.
Has the Prologue.
Book could not he
Summer of 1791../
Has not the Prol.
Has the Prologue.
Hasthe Prologue.
13 Century. Has not the Prol.
5 Century. Has not the Prol.
The Number 8tc.
I
1723
50
51 6364
81 83
93 ^
457687
In the Palatine Library at Vienna.
its fuppofed age. The Preface 8tc.
13 Century. Has thc Prologue.
A. D. 1333. Has the Prologue.
15 Century. Has the Prologi-e.
9 Century. Has not the Prol.,
14 Century. Has the Prologue,
14 Century. Has the Prologue;
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
13 Century; Has the Prr-logue;
14 Century. Has the Pr logue;
14 Century. Has the Prologue.
12 Century. Has the Prologue;
14 Century. His the Prologue;
A.D. 1247. Has the Prologue.
k. u, «u
ci
Ih^^
N. B. There are ten Latin MSS of this kind in the Library of
iia, of -which nine antain the Prologue.
Trinity College Dub-
* H
No, XXXIV.
58 APPENDIX, NO, XXXIV.
N" -XXXIV,
N, B, 277^ introdudory, and conneding (or com
mentarious) parts of this Synopfis are here included,
within brackets.
INTROD. [^TauT)]!/ auT(^ 0 loioivvti; 0 ro cvoiyycXtov yoait'
(ra; nrts-eXhet, VTro^t^vnTVMv tbj r]Sr\ TrtfivirotvTtXi
«f TOI/ Kufiiov" xai TrpuTov ^f-iv cainrep ev tw EVocyliXiu,
1 : I. s]w nott tv TaJJn tTTiroAr) OEoAoya Trtpt T8 Xoyoij,
— a, J. fi!7ro(5'£ix!/i)c'] a,VTOV «« ai/ai £V tw ©fw, nasi StSatrnav
rov TTOirepoi ipw? ai/«i rii/os )t«i ktwj yvoi[jt,£v rov Xo-
COMMENT. yov Wf oc7rx-iiya.irfj.ot, t^ ccvrs mat, ^toAoyuv St t^Ji-
yHTXi] (/.Yi vttiiTtpov ai/ai ro xa6' «|IA«j (/.Vfripiov,
II : 7. aXX £0 oiP^rii [x,iv xoct otBt r\)y^a.vnv avro, vuv St
— 8. -TTttpCCVlpiOIT^at tv TW Kupiw []of Tt? ffl ^wj] aiwn®*
jcai ©£(^ «A5i6ti'^. xat to odltov Si rr,; risls troi-
III; S. ^aQtoii -iioct iitttpocvttocq aura Tifirxri^ Afywi/ fii/ai ts]*
£771 tw KoIaAuo-ai Ta £C'yfl; tb Stoi^oXs Fxai Jijuaf
£A£u6£fw9»i^at aTTO rs flati/aTa, xat yii/wo-Jtfii' iijt*a;
rov ttot.rtpoo noct ocvjov rov vtov rov Kvptov niAtav lr,(T»v
Xpirov,] ypoctpet ow 7rf©»' trairoiv riXtxia,v, Tr^©^
II: 12—15. ttaiSta, ttp©^ Vfantrxs?, ttp^ ytpovloc;, [_olt 0 [tttv
©£©-• iyvo](T^r], 71 Se StocQoXmn tvepyeioi Aoittoii vevt-
xrirat xoilccpyn^evl©^ rn flavala, arot XotTtov St oXrt(
rri; £9rtroA»)j TTfei ayaTrJij StSoiiTKet, ^eXuv TfAot,; «A-
AnAa; ot,yoi,Tro!,v, tTre-tSn >£ai 0 Xf ij-^ 5iya7r»i(r£i' ))/*«?,
i^r\yetlxt o\jv Tttpt Sioi,cpopocg poSa )cai ayaTrri?, Jtai
T£Ki'Wi' ©£a x«i TSKVwv J'i«6oAaj x«j TttPt ajixajliaf
OccifKltxt!;

APPENDIX, NO, XXXV. 59
V-xvaltx.rii; y.oct [/.n Savati>c)i?, rnxt wspt Stotcpo^x; ttviv-
f^ocldjv,] xoit XotTTov Stoitskt TTOtov [Atv 7rvevfA.a, ex ts
©£a £,ri, -rotov Sl THS w-Aamf, jtai zrore [/.ev ytvu<rico-iv: 2,3,6,7.
l^t^oe. renvoi. ©£a, ¦i:roT£ St rs tfiaSoAa, Jtai tsspt -srotu;
ec[*ot.^ltoc; otptiXofAtv ev^etr^xi u-srEj TWf aiAOiplavovrccv, v; 16,
)c«i wff t -zirofas a tJfi £uj^£a-8a(. x«i ot( 0 juji ayansruv
TWi/ ¦srAnffioi' oiDt ertv ot.'^t(^ rn; xAjia-fw?. ovSt Smvx-Vi-. -2.0.
root Kiyta-^xi rs X^ira, xxt thc tvulrila, St rs vis
70'^©' rov TTXre^x Setxvva-t, xxt ort 0 xpvsfAiv^ to> v: 7,9,10.
Diov, o\jSe rov Ttrocltpx t^tt, VSixxptvii Ss ev rri fuyt;-o-
Xr\ rxvlri, Xtyuv xxt rsjo tStov xxt rs xvli^Pifs] tt- — 10,
vxt ro Xeyetv fi,ti\ ttvxt to> uiov x-o\ov rov Xpt^ov In-
csv, tvx SiXov olt co; [j.-^ ov1(^ exstvs, txujov efsrri tt
vxt 0 ^JtVfri;. VTSfxpxtvet St St'oXr,; rn; fsrtroX?,; ttT) — 10.
K^v[^etv rs; ¦srtftvovjx; roi Kufiw, et fj.ta'svlxt ev rot
Koo-jiAW' xXXx [jtxXXov yjaipetv, ort ro |U.iir@J Ta xoir[/.s
Sttxvvtrt rs; TStftvovrx; iJ,tTxQeQnxivxt xsr xvls Ta
Xoir[Jt,s, xxt ttvxt XoiTXtov thj ovpavisTSTOAtritx;.] v.xt
fv fw teAei St rn; fsttfoXn; ¦mxXtv VT^oiMtjj.v?i(Txei, Xe-
ywv ort 0 rs ©£a ui©^ cwi xtuvt(^ srt, xxt u; xXt,  20.
hvov, xxt tvx rsioi SsXtuaiAev xxt ip\jXxTlaf/,tv ixvrs; — 21.
Kwo ruv ttSciiXoiv,
N° XXXV. '
Non idem ordo eft apud Grsecos, qui integre fapiunt
et fidem reftam feftantur, epiftolarum feptem quas Ca-
nonicEE nuncupantur, qui in Latinis codicibus invenitur,
Ut quia Petrus primus eft in numero Apoftolorum,
priraEC fiilt etiam ejus epiftolse in ordine cssterarum,
* H 2 Sed

6o APPENDIX, NO, xxxv.
Bed ficut Evangeliftas dudum ad veritatis lineam cor-
reximus, ita has proprio ordini, Deo nos ju-vante, red-
didimus. , Eft enim prima earum una Jacobi ; Petri
duEe ; Johannis tres ; et Juda una : Quas fi ut ab eis di,
geftse funt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in La
tinum verterentur eloquium, nec ambiguitatem legehti,
bus facerent, nec fermonum fefe varietas impugnaret ;
illo prascique loco ubi de unitate Trinltatis in prim^
Johannis epiftola pofitum legimus. In qua etiam ah
infidelibus tranfiatoribus multum erratum effe a fidei ve,
ritate comperimus ; trium, tantum vocabula, hoc eft,
^quae, fanguinis, et fpiritus in fua editione ponentibus,
et Patris Verbique ac Spiritus teftimonium omittenti-
bus (f) in quo maxime et fideS Catholica roboratur, et
Patris ac Filii ac Spiritus Sanfti una divinitatis fubftan
tia comprobatur. In cEcteris vero Epiftolis, quantum ^
noftra aliorura diftet editio, ieftoris prudentige dere-
linquo. Sed tu virgo Chrifti, Eufiochium, dura a me impenfius
Scripturas veritatem inquiris, meam quodammodo fe-;
neftutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis,
qui me falfarium corruptoremque facrarum fcripturarum
pronunciant, Sed ego in tali opere,, nec semulorum
meorura invidentiam pertimefco, nec fanCtas fcriptuias
yeritatem pofcentibus denegabo.
No, XXXVL
((?) V^llcitfus reads omi(Untes and fonenlfs.

APPENDIX, NO. XXXVI. (6l
N°. XXXVI.
Note. The Greek MSS, now in the Royal Li
brary at Paris, which have been attributed to R,
Stephens by Le Long, Wetftein and Griefbach,
have tables of contents, or indexes, written on paper,
annexed to them. Thefie paper-indexes are generally
fxed with pafie, or wafers, to the infide of the cover
of each MS. It is not now known who compofed
them : but they are, modern.
They do not afiirm the MSS to have belonged to
R. Stephens ; but fome fubfequent fcribe has fuper
added that affertion (for the hand-writing is palpia-
hly different J to fiome of them.
If a conjedure may be hazarded on the fubjed,
thefe paper-indexes feem to have been made about the
middle of the lafi, and the fuperadditions at the be
ginning of the prefent, century.
Thefie obfiervations being premifed, a very brief ac
count lhall now he fubjoined of all thofie Greek MSS
in t^jis Library, which are (erroneoully J imputed te
JI, Stephens, MS NO. 84
Is a thick quarto, formerly marked 1508, and under
another

62 APPENDIX, NO. XXXVI;
another numeration 2867. It contains the four Gof
pels. It was once marked cioccclxxx, and number 118
has been -written on its firft page. It carries the coro
netted F and the fieur de lis.
The paper-jndex was made whilft the MS was inark-
ed 1508, for it bears that number at its head.
It is of the eleventh century. There is no Memo
randum, Note, or indorfement upon or within thi?
MS, affirming it to have belonged to R. Stephens,
MS NO, 106
Is a very thick quarto, and contains the whole of
the New Teftament, the Apocalypfe excepted. It was
formerly marked 1523 and 2871.
It carries the H, but not coronetted. The writer of
the pafted paper-index attributes it to the twelfth cen.-
tury, " Is codex olim Monachi cujufdam, Rhacendyta
nomine, quartufque ex eorum numero quos R.^St(pha-!
nus exhibuit." MS NO, 112
Is a thick o(3avo, formerly marked 2205 and 34^5. It

APPENDIX, NO. XXXVI. 63
It contains the four Gofpels, the A£ls, and all the Epif
tles, and carries the coronetted H.
It has few abbreviations. The ink is very pale in
the Gofpel of St. Matthew, but becomes ftronger to
wards the end of the volume, as is the cafe with the
Dublin MS. It refembles that MS in another inftance,
namely in having double dots over its i and ii.
It Is of the eleventh century, and the writer of the
paper-index fays it is the e of R. Stephens. !
MS NO. 72
Is a thick quarto, formerly belonging to the Colber
tine Library, and there marked 2467. It was after
wards numbered in the Royal Library 2244.
It contains the four Gofpels ; but that of St. Mat
thew is defeftive, beginning at the words zrx^xSta 0 xv\t-
Stx©^ in the fifth chapter.
It has not the pundulum fiubjedum, but writes twj
deut, rut x^rint &c. and is of the eleventh century.
It has not the coronetted H or F, or the fieur de lis.
Nor is there any note or indorfement upon or within
it, affirming it to have belonged to R, Stephens.

MS

64

MS NO, 47

Is a very thick, but fhort folio, formerly marked
2241. It contains the Acts, all the Epiftles, and the
Apocalypfe. It has not the coronetted H or F, or the fieur de Us.
Nor is there any note or indorfement upon or within
it, affirming it to have belonged to R. Stephens.
At the clofe of the book the fcribe declares himfelf
to be Nicephorus Cannavius, and that he finifhed his
work at Confiantinople in A, M. 6872, according to the
Grecian computation,' or in A. D, 1364.
It came into the Royal Library by purchafe in A, D.
1687. MS NO. 49
Is a thin folio, formerly marked 734 and 2242. It
contains the four Gofpels, and has not the coronetted H.
The writer of the pafted paper-index fays — " in lu
cem protuUt R. Stephanus ;" but he ventures no further.
A more modern hand writes on this index, that this
MS is of the eleventh century. Ic Is certainly of a
later date. MS

.APPENDIX, NO. XXXVK- 6^
MS NO. 62,
Is a thick quarto, formerly marked 1558 and 2861,
and has the coronetted H and the fieur de lis.
It contains the four Gofpels, with a few defalcafldlig'.
It is written in uncial letters-, and thefe not inclined,
and feems to be of the eighth century. The manus
rficenfior hys, " Roberto Stephano rt." '.7i,
MS NO. 102.
Is a quarto volume, formerly marked 1641 and 2 8 70.'
It has the coronetted H.
^ The writer of the pafted paper-index fays — " Rob^
Stephano t."
It feems to be' of the eleventh century, and contains-
the whole New' Teftament, except the Gofpels and the
Apocalypfe. MS NO. 237.
- Is a quarto volume, formerly marked 607', aiid
2869, and has the coronetted H.
* I It

66 A-pvi-^nlx, NO. xxxvii.
It contains the A£ls, all the Epiftles, and the Apo-
calypfe ; with Scholia, evidently by a more modera
hand. It is written in uncials Inclined, has few contrafli-
ons, and feems to be of the tenth century.

N^ XXXVII.
Ratio vera Theologia, per Erafmum. (Edit, Le Clerc, i
1704, vol. V. p. 74 — ii5>)
(^od apud Joannem capite duodecimo Pharifim def.
tinant & Lazarum interficere : typum habet, quod im-
probi non folum oderunt Chrifium ipfum, fed eos quo
que per quos Chrijii nomen illuftratur. Adnotandus
eft apud eumdem circulus in quo fere fe volvit, ubique
& focietatem & fcedus Chrifiianum commendans : prse'
fertim capite duodecimo, & decimo tertio, fe declarat
idem effe cum Patre : adeo ut qui Filium norit, norlt
& patrem : qui Filium fpernat, fpernat h Patrem : nec
feparatur ab hac communlone Spiritus Sandtus, Sic
enim legis in Epiftola : Tres fiunt qui tefiimonium dant
in calo. Pater, Sermo, $5° Spiritus : atque hi tres unum
funt. In idem confortium trahit fuos, quos palmites
appellat : obfecrans, ut quemadmodum ipfe idem erat
cum Patre, ita & illi idem effent fecum. > Impertit iif
dem communem Patris fuuraque Spiritum, omnia con..
qliantem. No. XXXVIII.

APPENDIXj NO* XXXVHI. 6"]
N" XXXVIIL
\_After a fhort introdudion, and defcrlption of the MS,
both here omitted, M. Zoellner thus proceeds.]
Per longum temporis fpatium, multi (ne dicam om
nes) Critici inter Germanos et Bqtavos, La Crozii fen-
tentia freti, flocci fecere codicem noftrum ; nec Wet-^
Jienius eum dignum exiftimavit qui valeret ad confirm-
andam leftionem aliquam variantem. Nec effe vlde-
batur cur La Crozio diffiderent. Bibfiothecae enim
Regise prseerat ; habebat igityir coplam, pro lubltu,
fcrutandi ; — vir erat eruditiffimus, fidei Nicana addic-
tus. Non defuere tamen qui La Crozio afTentire dubi-
tarent, id potiffimum urgentes, eum nullo argumento
fententiam fuam confirmaffe, nec unicum unquam in
medium protullffe fphalma typographicum, quod e Po-
lyglottis Compl. in codicem Ravianum irrepferit. Nec de-
crant rationes quibus exornabant viri eruditiffimi contrarium. Lon-
gior effem fi vel potiflimorum argumentorum mentionem facere vellem
quibus nituntur Michaelis (in Enleitung &c.) /, M. Gneze, Paftor Ham-
hurg (in Vertheidigting &c.) et pluribus aliis fcriptis quee contra Sem-
hrum. Prof. Eaknfem edidit. Qua: fufius repetens ne tibi moleftus
lim, fummam tantum eorum tibi ob oculos ponam eaque addam
quae ipfe codicem diligenter volvendo inveni,
Novitas externa negarl omnino non poteft, Mem-
brana admodum alba eft ; et el adhuc calx, five creta,
adhsret. Verum enim vero vix, ac ne vix quidem,
exinde fraudem evinci poffe, exiftimo. Creta enim,
* I 2 quse

68 APPENDIX, NO. XXXVIII.
quae adhuc in membrana cernltur, faltem a tempore,
quo Ravius exemplar vendidit, ufque ad noftram set^-
tem fupereft. C)uid ni quod per fseculum unum faftuni
eft, per dud aut tria, ante haec, fi^ri potuifTet ? Et dix-
erit forfan codicis Raviani fautor : ante Ravium ilium
non adeo multorum manibus effe verfatum, id quod
fufficat ad fplendorem novitatis ei fervandam. Sunt in
bibliotheca Regis alii MSS (v. c. Suetonii, 1472 fcriptl)
qui majorem etiam prs fe ferunt novitatis fpeciem.
Atraraehtum, quod a La Crozio albicans vocatur, jam.
non nifi ienuatum eft, et vetuftatis fpeciem habet. Mag
num quidem apparet difcrimen inter atramentum quod
natura albicat, et quod vetuftatis vi evanuit ; fed quis
noftrum hodie dignofeere poteft, utrum atramentum
codicis noftri, quod nunc ferie annorum palluiffe vi
detur, tempore La Crozii eandem indolem habuerit,
an nunc demum contraxerit ? Literas Codicis Raviani
non eongruunt MSS antlquiorlbus ; contra fimilfim^
funt typis in Polyglottis Campluienfibus. Illud ftatirat
apparet : hoc vero in dubium vocari poflet. Magna
omnino deprehenditur fimilltudo inter figuram litera
rum Codicis Raviani, et Polyglottorum Complutenftunt
(fi ab indole calanio piftarum et typis imprefforum dif-
celTeris) nec tamen tanta, ut dici queat ad harum Iml-
tatlonem illas effe exprefias. Quid ? quod typi, qui
Alcaics a Cardinal! Ximenio parabantur, procul dubio ad
exemplar MSS Gracorum (prasclpue forfitan Rhodii)
fufi funt. Quod fl itaque Cod. Ravianus congruat
typis Complutenfiibus, nil probaret hsec fimilltudo; cur
pt I'n. xiQTx refpondeat figura literarum unius MS Graeci Uteris

.APPENDIX, NO.. XXXVIII. i6g
Jiteris alterius ; et cur igitur non congruat Ravianus
Codex Rhodio, vel alio archetypo, ad cujus fimilitudi-
nen typi Complutenfies fufi effe poffunt ? Id tamen manl
feftum eft, du£lum literarum Codicis Raviani non
attingere fascula ante xv ; nec id filentio prastereundum
puto, primas paginas magis anxie effe delineatas. In fe-
quentibus vero agiliorem, expeditioremque manum ap
parere : ex quo forfan colligi poffet opus effe hominis
ducendarum literarum aon adeo gnari.
Quod La Crozius fimpllclter dicet, fcribam indo£tum
etiam mendas typographicas expreffifle, ut omnino con
ftet &fc. — id quidem nimis feftinanter ab illo didum eft.
Codex Ravianus a textu Cemplutenfium innumeris lo
cis dllcrepat. Non ego omnes locos qui in libris jam laudatis
recenfentur evolvi propter temporis anguftias, imprimi? cum Stofchiusi
qui jam cum Bieftero bi.bliothccje Regis prseeft, , a Goezio rogatus di-
ligentiflime codicem noftrum p.erluftraverit. In folo Evangelio
Jfdatthtsi, praiter ea qu^ abfque dubio lapfus fcribentis
funt, 50 lediones variantes inveniuntur, quibus Codex
Ravianus ab editione Complutenfi difcedit, quarum no-
tatu dignifliraas funt: Matt, ij : 13, Editio Complutenfis
legit xTtoXetTxt Ravianus contra x7rox\e-ivxt, xv. 22 Com
plutenfis tx^xvyxo-ev .X'jlta Ravianus ex^x^ev oTTio-w aura xvi :
2,6 Complutenfis utpeXetrxi, Ravianus oiiptXr,h<relat — xvii:
2 Complutenfis ws to tpa; Ravianus a; yjm xxiii : 8
Complutenfis xxhyn%; Ravianus StSa;KxX(^ — ix : 30
Ravianus poft xvaax^tirxv xvtcov addit Tra^x^oniAx — xi :
21 poft i-TToSoo addit Ravianus xx^ni^evxt — xiii : 4 poft
rx TstTiivx Ravianus addit ts ov^xvs. — i, Joan, v: lo
Complutenfis le^it 6fw Ravianus uiw — Juda 22 Com
plutenfis

7fi> APPENDIX, NO. XXXVIII.
flutenfis eXttirt Sixx^ivii[jt.evoi, Ravianus tXiy^ilt Stax^titofiA
ts;, Sufficiant hasc : fatis enim fuperque demonfttant
fcribam non literarum Gracarum rudem fuiffe.
Nec id flocci faciendum eft^ omnes iftos variantes
lediones uno vel altero MS confirmari, id quod noftris
temporibus poft Milii, Wetfienii, afiorumque recenfiones
textus Graci nihil probaret, fed ante centum, et quod
excurrit, annos baud facile a falfario quovis perfici
poterat. Attamen qui omnem lapidem movere vellet, ei omnes
loci, quibus codex Ravianus a Complutenfi difcedit, dilij.
genter colligendi effent, ut inde perfpiceret an Variantes
lediones ex editionibus principibus,, quorum vix forte
conferendi copia fuiffet falfario, hauriri potuerint. Qui
fententlas La Crozii favent, id inter afia potiffimum ur
gent, I. Joan. V : 4, in codici Raviani deeffe verba xxt.
auln — "rov xo;^ov qUas in Polygl. Complutenfi integram, et
quidem unicam lineam complent. " En (ait audor
quidam in Colledionibus Halenfbus ad promovendam eru
ditionem theologicam, quas Semlerus edidit) " fcriba trail-
fiKit lineam ; neceffe igitur eft, ut depinxerit textum Cont-
plutenfem. Qui enim alias faftum efl'et ut riec plura, neC pail-
ciora omitteret, quam quas in una llneola comprehend-
untur?" — Fateor mihi ipfi hoc argumentum vaUdiffi-
mum vifum fuiffe. Ex quo vero curiofius textum ex-
aminavi, ftatim deprehendi oi^otoltxivlx induxiffe fcribam.
Bis enim in eodem commate occurrit KOfjtxoi/ et cafu
fadum elfe poteft, ut quse a xo?^oi/ priori ad xof/*ov fe
cundum

APPENDIX, NO. XXXVIII. 71'
cundum fequuntur, in editione Complutenfi llneolara.
compleant. Et in epiftola Juda 15, omifit fcriba co
dicis Raviani fex verba (tte^i 7txv\tav twv t^yuv x;i^eiaz
xvloiv) quas In textu Complutenfi non una lineola com-
prehenduntur, fed aperte homoioteleutis fedudus omifit
qu£e duo ifta «k1w!/ interirent.
¦ Lediones, qua; fingulares vocantur, codici Raviana
cum Polyglottis Complutenfiibus communes effe innume-
ras, vix eft quod memorem. Nihil vero exinde colfi-
gendum effe mihi quidem videtur, nifi quod codex
nofter eidem familias fit annuraerandus, cui is, ex quo
Complutenfies .editotes potiffimum textum fuum fiauferint.
Majus faciunt momentum raendag typographorum, qu^e
in Polyglottis Compluten/ibus leguntur, quaeque fufpican-
tur ex his in codicem noftrum effe tranfcriptas. Ita
videlicet in Raviano, agque ac In editione Complutetifi,
exaratum eft : Matt, xxii ; 19, Tt^ovnveyxxv — Galat, iii:
19, Stoclxyettrx  Ad, XXV : 19, SvartiSxtiJ.ovtxt; — I, Joan<r.
i : 6. i|.'£UiJwj<*£6«— -I, Joan, ii : 27, n^io-jwa StSxtyxn — Cap,
Ui : 2, o/Aioi — A^ocal. ii : 17, xeioy &c.
Quid ? quod in rebus minutiffimis nonnunquam mi-
rabilis confenfus fervatur inter MS noftrum, et edi
tionem imprefTam ; amho, exempfi gratia, i, Joan, il ;
?2, «/*»! — Cap, iii : Stxlslo-t—Apocal. ii ; 2, ou/xfi jundim
exhibent — Ad. viij 20, 22, 29, feq. ubi Complutenfis
Mwo-nc, et Msuo-Jif, le^endo alternant, et Codex Ravianus
iifdem vicibus ponit, et omittit to v, et quas ejufmodi
funt reUqua, Nec tamen hic elabendi riraa codicis Ra
viani

7'2
tiiani defenfofibus deeft. Dicere enim poflent : fine
dubio editores Complutenfis quendam MS (fortaffe i?/^o-i
diuni) fideliter defcrjbendara curarunt, et poft variantes*
. lediones e MSS aliis colledas, quas e re fua arbitra-
bantur, inferuerunt, parum attenti ad lapfus fibrarlir
quos, fcriba^ quo utebantur, non felum repetierat, fed*
et hic illic incurlus auxerat, (ex. Millius in Proleg. §
1091 feqq.) Id fakera manlfeftum eft, perverfarmn
ledionum, quas plerumque fphalmata typograiphica noin.^
cupantur, nonnullas editorum potius, five incurrae, fiver
imperitlas, quam typographo effe tribxiendas, qUum
easdem In Lexico repetantur ; fic circa x((iitSri;xv, Rom,-
iv. (pro quo Codex Ravianus exhibet xftbniav^ i. Cor.
iv : II, yoi/.vt]e\jo[ji.tv (quod et codex i?<2w<2;«MJ legit) ia
lexico quoque chorda* oberrant eadem»
Quse cum ita fint, haud^ abfonura' foret,- fi cui places
ret, codicem nofirum apographum effij non e Complutenfis
bus, fied ex alio MS, quem editores Gomplutenfes pofifi-
finimi fiecuti fint, concinnatum,
Qaod fi concefleris, non mirandum foret codicem noffrum ubivla
cfiafent-ire cum editione imprefla, exceptis tantuiii variaiitibiis'leftioni-
bus, quas editores, ut critici, quam fufceperant, perfonse fatisfacerent,
hic illic fpaferunt ; nec quae re vera fphlamata typographorum funt,
exprimere : — videlicet— Afl. v; 21, ComflutenfisXt, Ra-vianmoe,-^
eodem cap.- v : 31, Complutenfis 7rptvp,x> Ramatifts itvtviAOO — i. Cor,
viii : 8, 7rtotQ;£VojfAiv, Fa-viamis -ttiPtQiivoiXiv—^t. Cor, 'ix: 23, Qv-'
noivuv^, Ratjianus Qjyxotv,-—i, Cor, xi : 9^ — £K6({9»ij Rwuianttf
ixlis^nt — &c.

appendix, no, XXXVIII. 73
Omnia hsec accuratius perpendenti mihi quidem videtur, Codicem
Ma'vianum adhuc non fatis certo pro apographo Polyglottorum haberi ;
multo minus Ra-vium de tali fraude rite accufari pofle. Hoc an probari
poffit eo magis dubito, quum, teftimoniis hiftoricis deftituti, nunquam
certe fcire poflimus, deceptorne an deceptus fuerit Raiiius. Illud qui
defendere vellet, diligentius, quam nunc faftum eft, non folum ambo
conferre, fed et ad fontes, e quibus lediones variantes hauriri potuer
int, .ftadiose attendere deberet. Quumque magnus confenfus inter co
dicem Rwvianum, et Laudianutn ii. appareat, hic quoque (quamdiu
fcilicet Rhodius latet) confulendus foret. Conftitueram apud animum
Apocalypfim, quae a Laudiano ii non exhihetur, conferre ; eumque in
finem duo priora capita (in quibus codex Ravianus omnino congruum
cum Complutenfi inveni, nifi quod codex Ramianus Cap. ii : 5 legit
y-tElfla/oiitraf) perfcrutatus fum : fed, occupationibus diftridus, dettiti
de ccepto, ne lofTgius differretur refponfum meum.
Extra omnem dubitationis aleam, i\ nihil aliud, id quidem pofi
tum eft, Codicem -Ravianum, in re critica, vix ullius momenti efle,
non tam quod non vana fufpicione .prematur, fed quod valde recens fit,
Stafchio alijfquc judicibus certe poft annum 1453 fcriptus (ex Blan-
chini evangeliar. quadrupl.) [b]
Cupidlffimus fum literas Tuas ad Gibbonem legend!,
et me tibi devindiffimum reddes nov^ editlonis exem
plar mecum communicando, Poft Wefienium enim in
Germania tot Critici, praeclpue Semlerus, Michaelis, et
MosqujE Matthei (qui decem omnino codices primum
examlnavit) allique yvnctolnlx ledionis i, Joann. v: 7
oppugnarunt, — ut jam ftatione deceffiffe videantur didi
illius propugnatores. Vale* Scrlbo Berolini, xxv Martii, mdcclxxxv.
K J. F. ZOELLNER.

*

(b) The arguments, to iDhlcb M. Zoellner here alludes, do not prove that
tie MS ivas luritten afer the middle of the fifteenth century. It luas mofi
frobahly 'wr'ttten in the beginning oJ that century.

74 . APPENDIX, NO. XXXIX.
JV. B. The paffages, here printed in a different
type, were omitted in the fecond edition of the Letters,
the firfi, fiecond, and lafi paffages intentionally, the
others by the error of the Printer. They are here
added, becaufe Michaelis, in his Review of A. D.
ly^S fiays, that M. Zoellner complained of the omif
fion ; although their infertion fieems to produce little
or no effed, beyond the enlargement of this Appendix.
NO XXXIX.
Geo. Theoph, Pappelbaum's defcrlption of the Ma-
nufcrlpt of Berlin.
It is well known to contain all the books of the N, T,
In two volumes. Its fize is fmall folio or large quarto.
The leaves are of thick and ftrong parchment, above
I of inches long and above 7 inches broad.
In the firft volume are contained the four Gofpels
and the Epiftle to the Romans. In the fecond, are
the remaining books of the N. T. in the fame order as
in the Complutenfiian edition. The leaves are folded up
in fuch a manner as to make half quaternions. But
neither the fheets, nor the leaves or pages are marked
with letters, figures, or in any other manner.
The letters are charaders of moderate fize, which
may be fuppofed even from this circumftance, that in
both volumes together there are 584 leaves, which
however

APPENDIX, NO. XXXIX. 75
however contain only the text of the N. T. However
they are not, as Saubertus afferts, properly fpeaking
large, but letters of common fize, and thofe are quite
fimilar to the letters of the Complutenfian edition, as is
evident qn infpedion.
In the beginning the letters in our MS. are fmaller,
and increafe by degrees even in the firft volume ; but
in the fecond their fize is ftill more increafed, as we
approach' towards the end.
*
It is likewife remarkable that each letter of our MS.
although the charader is fmall, ftands feparate, and
not eonneded by ftrokes, as is the general pradice In
Manufcrlpts written in fmall charaders ; which although
one might have had no opportunity of feeing Greek
manufcrlpts, may be learned from Montfaucon's Pala-
ographia Graeca, and thofe fpecimens which Matthaei
has added to his eight volumes of the N. T. from the
manufcrlpts of the Moficovian Library.
There is nothing in the whole MS. to be met with,
but barely letters. Not only the Accents and Spirits,
with the iota fubfcribed, but even the punduation and
the punda diaerefieos are left out : which indeed make
a fingular contraft with the fmall letters.
The firft letter and the title of each book are in text;
which title ferves for the whole book, there being no
running title. But thefe text-letters (unciales fiterae)
* K 3 are

y6 APPENDIX, NO. XXXIX.
are not fquare, but tall and flender, which likewife
betrays their recent date.
The rules, which the tranfcriber obferved in point
of letters are the following : Tau is in the beginning of
words long (1) as in the Complutetfian edition. Sigma
as in the Complutenfian, is written with two letters (?t)
Sigma is in the beginning and in the middle of words,
even where for want of room the Scribe has divided a
word at the end of a line, long (o-) as In the Complu^
ierfian edition ; at the end of a wordjt is fhort (?,) In
this refped this MS is more accurate than the Complu
tenfian edition, which frequently has a long Sigma at the
end of a word, I have but once found in this MS a
long Sigma at the end of a word, which v^as either in
the Apocalypfe or in fome of the Catholic Epiftles, and
afterwards again in the fecond o; in Matt, xii : 32, In
fignificant as this obfervation may appear, It Is however
ufeful in many cafes, e, gr. to a certain and accurate
critic of the variant Matt, ix : 18, concerning which
Michaelis has treated in his edition of his introdudion.
For in that paffage our MS does not read, in one word,
ii?£A9wi/, but as in the Complutenfiian edition et; tx^uv with
a fhort Sigma and the ufual diftance.

The books are without any divifion Into chapters,
fedlons, paragraphs periods, or members. No where
do we find a great diftance, or prominent large letter,
pr mark of a new period, or figures or marks at the
bottom. The letters are only direded by fome dif-
tances.

NO, XXXIJ?. 77
tances, which agree with the numeral words of the
Complutenfian edition fo accurately, that the critique of
La Croze, concerning our MS, acquires by this cir
cumftance an additional weight.
If any perfon would take the trouble to examine tfie
whole N. T. he would have a plenteous gleaning in this
way. In my enquiry Into more remarkable paffages I
met with many inftances of this kind which I did not
think worth adducing, as it abounded in more decifive
evidences. All letters, even the uncials, are written with black
ink, without the leaft embellifhments, and in the whole
MS there is not one ftroke to be feen in any other co
lour. Generally fpeaking the copyift had no view to
beauty and ornament — for though he began every book
with a new page, and left at the top and end thereof a
tolerably large margin, yet it was no where marked ;
hence even the foremoft margin, though not in the be
ginning, yet generally and in the fecond volume efpe
cially, is as crooked and unequal as the margin of a let
ter written in a carelefs manner. Moreover the lines
are not always written at the fame diftance, nor is a
certain number always contained in one page. At firft
generally there are twenty-four lines in one page, but
in fubfequent leaves the number fo decreafes, that
are generally no more than twenty-two or twenty-one
lines and fometimes lefs. There are likewife contained
in the firft pages more letters than in the fubfequent ones.

78 APPENDIX, NO. XXXIX.
ones, owing to the letters in the latter pages being of
larger fize, and at greater diftance than in the former
ones. Upon the whole the nearer we approach to the end
of the MS, the more we perceive the difpatch and care
leffnefs of the writer by the dafhing and airinefs of the
ftrokes. I dI4 not obferve any abbreviations though I reviewed,
with this defign, every page even of thofe books which
I have not collated. Which indeed is very extraor
dinary, confidering that in MSS written in fquare and
other letters, abbreviations are very frequently to be
met -with. However, the Complutenfian edition has
none, The number of faults proves that our MS is not care
fully reviewed and correded. For what fort of a cor-
redor would have fuffered them to have efcaped his ob
fervation ? Certainly no man will look upon the few
emendations as proofs of a later review, or done by
another hand, efpecially when it is confidered, that the
emendations were made with ink, that agreed in fhade
with that of the page wherein they were made.
The titles of the books do not always perfedly agree
\vlth the Complutenfian edition. At times they are
Ihorter, generally the fame words arranged in a dif
ferent

APPENDIX, NO, XXXIJf. 79
ferent order. The Apocalypfe Is the only book, wherein
tfie fame words follow each other in the fame order.
The fubfcriptions or conclufions of the books are,
throughout, omitted ; a deficiency which our MS has
in common with the Complutenfian edition, with this
difference only — that in the Complutenfiian edition the
end of each book is always marked, which in our MS
is done only in the Apocalypfe, and herein again the
words are placed in the fame order as in the Compluten
fian edition.
There is not the leaft trace in our MS concerning the
place, the time, or the perfon by whom it was written
and firft poffeffed.
The pages in both volumes are ftiU fo clean, that,
notwithftanding the palenefs of the ink, one may read
the words clearly and without the leaft difficulty, two
pages in the fecond volume excepted, which are a little
foiled. In one of thefe pages is the famous paffage
, I. John V : 7. The eighth verfe is in the oppofite page :
So that when the book is (hut the two pages meet each
other. However, all the letters in thefe pages may be
difcerned. Might not thefe pages have been foiled,
either before they were bound or afterwards, by the
frequent handfing of perfons, who, in viewing the Royal
Library, generally turned to thefe pages, becaufe on
one of them is the notable paffage i. John v : 7 con-
taified ? Or might not this volume h^ve been lying open

So APPENDIX, NO, XL,
open juft in thefe leaves, on which, as well as many
others, the chalk being ftill vifible, duft might eafily
ftick ? La Croze is right when he affirms, that the ink
upon the whole is very pale. It is rather yellowifh,
which indeed it was fixteen years ago, when I faw it
the firft time. But who can decide whether the ink
was chofen with or without defign to impofe upon man
kind, or whether it was occafioned by the chalk on the
parchment ? If La Croze had carefully looked over
both volumes, he might have perceived that the ink in
fome places (^. g. in the Epiftle to Philemon) is black
in comparifon with that in the Gofpel of St, Matthew
and many other books of the New Teftament.
N° XL.
Note, in the margin of the Complutenfian Edi
tion of the New Tefiament, referring to the fifth
Chapter of the firfi Epifile of St. John, verfies 7,
and 8.
Sandus Thomas in expofitione fecunde decretafis de
fumma trinitate et fide catholica tradans iftum paffum
contra abbatem Joachim viz. Tres funt qui teftimo
nium dant in celo : Pater : Verbum ; Et Spiritus Sanc
tus : dicit ad fitteram verba fequentia. " Et ad infinu-
" andam unitatem trium perfonarum fubditur : Et hu
" tres unum funt. Quod quidem dicitur propter ef-
" fentie unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverfe trafiere
*' volens ad unitatem charitatis et confenfus inducebat
" confequentem

APPENDIX, NO, XLI, 8 I

" confequentem audoritatem. Nam fubditur ibidem :
" tres funt qui teftimonium dant in terra Spiritus :
" Aqua : et Sanguis, Et in quibufdam libris additur :
" Et hi tres unum funt. Sed hoc In veris exemplari-
" bus non habetur : fed dicitur effe appofitura ab here-
" ticis Arrianis ad pervertendum intelledum fanum
" audoritatis premiffe de unitate effentie trium per
fonarum." Hee beatus Thomas ubi fupra.
N" XLl.
Vitiil per o[jt.oto!tXi\jlx Codicum Cafiareorum
ad quos expreffa efi Editio Vindobonenfis
F. C. A.LTER.
©EON \xxt ix^xct; tXx(iev XTtxvJx;, xxt eSo^- Lucay. 36.
CiPov rov ^eov] xxt —
ATTn Fa f*»i St^'ntrn «? rov atoivx' xXXx ro Joan, iv : 14.
uSwp 0 Scctsoi xvlco] yivntstloit—
AnESTEIAAS \^xxi tyoi ri\v So^xv nv StSu- — xvn : 22, 2^.
xx; ii.ot SiSoixx xvlot;' tvx lottiv ev, xa^oi; xxt nf^-et;
sv eo-i^ev. Eyoi tv xuloi; xxt (ru tv e^ot, tvx utyt
reltXeiooiAtvot «j tv, xxt tvx ytvwaxn 0 xoty^^ oii
o-u jlA£ fli7r£r«A«f3 xxt-—
lOTAAinN Vrsiov o\)v rov rtlxov itoXXoi xny- — xix: 30,
vtiiiTxv rMV loiiSxtoiv] o\t— * L

82 APPENDIX, NO, XLI.
Luca v : 26. ©EON (rurfius ut in primo exemplo.)
— xvii: 4. HMEPAZ \j\^x^n h; (re, xxt tTtlxxt; rn; ni*e-
^ix-;] STttfpe^n——
Matt, vii: 17. IIOIEI ^ro Se (rxirpov SevSpov xxptth; ttovnpss
vot&t'] s——
XOIPflN ^Kxt et7rtv aJjoi?, \J7rxye\i' ot St e^-
-- viii: 32. tX^ovIe; xirnX^ov et; rnv xyeXnv ruv ^oi^uv] x«i—
i- ix: 21, ATTOY ^£A£y£ yx^ tv txvln, txv ^ovov a^"*-
jM«( TS tfjtiOilts xvls] o'w^nirofji.xt'—
— xii ; 47, AAAIJ^AI [^£i7r£ Se rt; ctvjco, tSov n f^nrnp rs
XXI 01 xSiX(pQt ffa £0w i^r,xx<st inlsvli; (rot XaXn'
cxt] 0 St—
Matci vi ; 48, ©AAA22HZ ^xxt t^eXt . irxptX^Hv xvls;, ot
Se tSovJt; xvlov wt^tTtoiisvlx tin rn; ^xXxQan;]
iSot,XV—' ES0IOY2I yx^oHsvlt; rriv trxpxSotrtv ruv jtpe;-
— vii: 3, ^vle^m. xxt xtto xyo^x;, exv ^n ^xitlttioivlxt, sx
e;^ts<rt] xxt xXXx—
Jean, v : 36, IlEPI EMOT ^ojt 0 irocln^ y.t xTtt^xXxev. xxt
0 W£/Ai]/«f ^£ 7r«7if , xvji^ (jtefrx^lu^nxev tre^i t[ji.s]
ovli—

APPENDIX, NO. XLI. 8j
MOT LasAriSw; ss'tv (i^uirt;, xxt ro xtfAx [ji,s] Joan.vi: 55.
etXn^u; — -
TMflN ^exv yx^ y,n Trtrtvirnle tilt tyia £i/^i, — viii: 24,
U'T0Vxv6i;^t ev rxt; xiJ,ot,^txi; v[ji.ttiv] tXtyov —
TOT IC02M0T '^ovx s^oolta tvx xpn; auraf tx — xvii: 14.
T8 xoiyfAs, xXX tvx mpntfn; xvls; tx ts Trovnps'
tx TS xo<r[/,s ovx estrt, xx^u; lyu tx ts xo;[Jt.s]
ovx etfAt—
THArfi ^vfjtet; Ss ovx otSxls Tto^ev ep^ojAXt, Joan.\'m: 14.
xxt Its VTTxya] vf/,ei;—
MOI \j7rx^x iTiStfiv. olt rx pn^i.ocltx, <% StSuxx; — xvii: 7.
jnoij StSuxx—
TII Am , (^rurfus ui in primo exemplo.) — viii : 14,
AAAflN FAnSSH \_ovx xv^^utsot; XxXti, xX- i. Cor, xiv : i.
Xx TW 6£w. ovSet; yx^ xxsei, 7rvtu[jt,oilt St XxXtt
fjiirr^ptx. O Ss TT^otp'nlevuv xv^^onrot; outaJo^w/
xxt trx^xxXntrtv xxt Ttx^xfAV^txv. O XxXu*
yXutytyn] sxvlov—
KATEPrAZETAI [ri Se ns xotTfjt-n Xvjrn 9«- a. Cor. vii; 10,
voilov xoilt^yx^tlxt] iSs —
TSTEPHMA ^tvx xxt ro txetvcov Tre^ta';ev[/,x 2, Cor, viii : 13,
yevnlxt et; ro vy,uv vre^ni/.x] Q7tu;~~
?La

$4 APPENDIX, NO, XLI.
Philip, iv: i, TAYTA l^Xoyt^tcr^t' A xai e[ji.x^tlt,.xxt ttxps-
Xti,(iele, xxt nxsiTOilt, xxt etStle ev tuot, rxvlx]
ir^xtraili —
i.Joan.iv: 2, IH'IZ.TMA \_e oj/.oXoyei InTsv Xptfov tv trxoxt
tXnXvi^oJx ex rs ^ts tff xxt 7rxv Ttvev^x] o/An—

6, HMi2N [of ovx t;-tv tx rs ^es ovx xxset ni*uv'\

t. Cor. ix : 20 NOMON ^a; vtto vo[jt.ov, tvx rs; vtto vofAov]
xe^Snou—
Calat. ii ; S. HEPITOMHS [^0 yxp evepynfOi; Uel^u et; xvO'>
s'oXnv rn; 7rt^t1ofji.n;] tvn^ynfe—
Apoc, i: 19 EIAE2 \_xxt X ettrtv. xxt x fitXXet ytvetr^xi
y.ilx rxvlx, ro [AVfn^tov ruv'tytlx arifWK uv eiSe;]

— vn: I. tvx-

FHS [x^oilsvlx; Tsj retssx^x; xve^s; rn; yn'f\

"— ix : 7. ATTflN I^MJ TT^OtTUTTX xv^puTtm, xxt ftJ^W
r^f^x; u; Tfi;)^i5i? yvvxtxuv, xxt ot oSovle; xvlm]
bi; Xeovluv~~
^foc, xi : 16. ATTilN \jTn<!-xv irrt rx Tr^oa-uirx xvjvv'J

APPENDIX, NO. XLI. 8^
AK.A0APTOT \jixt (pvXxxn ttxvI©' o^vts xxx- — xviii : a.
^x^ls] xxt 
TMIN L)t«i ovx u^^na-xifQt' t^^nvncrxiJi,tv vfjitv] Matt.xi: 17.
xxt— . SIIAPEIS [0 St tTTi rx TTtl^uSn _ (nrx^et;] — xiii : 20,

KAHPON \_tvx TrXn^u^n to ^n^ev vtto ts ttoo —xxvii: 35.
(pjfjs. AtefjLsptffxvlo rx t^ocltx f/.s exvrot;, xxt tTvt
rov t/ji,oilitrfj!,ov 1/.S t^xXov xXn^ov] xxt-—
2BENNTTAI \_xat exv 0 tts; trs crxxvSxXt^n ATar. ix: 45,45.
<r£, XTTOxo^ov xvlov' xxXov £r* croi «<r£AO«^ et; rnv
?(anv xuXov, n rs; Svo ttoSx; t^ovlx (iXn^nvxt et; rnv
yeevvxv, et; ro trvp ro xtr^e^ov '. otts 0 (tkwAji^ xv-
liav s reXtvlx, xxt ro ttv^ s iT(itvvvTxi] xxt —
ATTXl \ru xxt^u xjrxyUxXovle; xvlu] Tire^t — Luc. xiii : i.
TA AIATAX0ENTA [aula ; a Soxu. ovlu xxt — xvii : 19,
vp,et;. olxv TTOtnt-nlt ttxvIx rx Stxlx^^^evlx] vy.tv —
OYPANON \^et; mv vtt ov.^xvov] Xxy.7rei —  24,
MNAS [^ex,ov1t Kxt ettiov aviu, Kiifi£, £%« — xix: 24.
Stxx [/.vx;] Xeyu —
ATEXN02 [Kflft tXxfitv 0 Ssvlt^©' mv yv- Luc xx : 30,
mtxx, xxt ovl^ x-nstUnv d^xv^'] xxt-—

8$ APPENDIX, NO, XLI,
xxiii: 7, ATTON [^37^®^ HpuSnv, ovlx xxt eivlov"]

tv-

— x^iv : 4?. IHFOTSAAHM \_v\i.et; Ss e^t [ax^Iv^s; rsluv,
Kai tSs eyu x-srortXXu rnv tTSxyytXtxv ts Oa-
Iff^ |U.s £?i' unAo;?' Ujwa; J'£ xx^ttro^le ey rn ttoXh
In^scrxXnifl tu;—n!
Jotf)i,v: 21. ZXlOnOIEI [_ov1u xxt 0 vt^ ov; ^iXef ^uo^
¦sj-otei] ovSs—
— xiii : 15. TMIN [ii/a xx^u; eyu etsrotniTx v^tv] xxt—-
.sh, viii : 36. TAflP \xxt ipn(rtv 0 evvs^^, tSs vSa^] rt-—
— xxvii: 25. OPFTIAS \^stxo(Tt' |3fa%u Se Stxrncxvlt;, xxi
•s^xXiv ^oXttrx'vli; tvpov o^yvta;] Stxx'stivit—
]R.em.m: 31. IIISTEfiS ^vojjtov ow xxlxpysfASv J»ias T)]f ¦ari-.
S-euc] fAn —
— ix:33. nP02KOMMAT02 [>ca6w? yey^xsflxt, tSa
TiSjljOU tv "ZtUV AtfloK 7!t^0a-X0[JI,fJl.0tl<^] xxt —
— 3ti : 6. EPrXlN [£7:r£i n %af if ovx lit ytverxi %af tf'
£( St t^ £tfyWl'J ovx~~
— xiv: 6. <&PONEI [)c«i 0 jun (p^omli rnv ni^t^oiv, K,uft*»
S tp^OVtt] 0 £0"Sl«V  '

APPENDIX, NO, XLI. 87
IIOIEI \_Ufs xxt 0 £xyxy.t^m, xxXdi; zrotet] i. Cor. vii : 32.
e St—

©EOS [Kai Stxt^etrtt; evt^yni^tAuv etirtv, 0 Se — xii: 6.
itvl^ Sft 0 9£©^3 0 ivt^yuv —
SriMATOS La wx^x rslo ovx ss'tv tx rs tru- . 16.
f*«J(^] tl —
IIANTXiN \_xvxx^tvelxi vsro -syxvluv] xxt — xiv: 24.
AIAKONI A [ts 7s-vtviAx1(^ t^xi sv So^n ; 2. Cor, iii : S,
El yx^ f) Stxxovta] rn;—
A0HH2 [Et yx^ ro xoclx^ysi^tvov Six So^n;]  n,
OToAAw— '
KATEPFAZETAI [n St rs xoory.s Xvz^n 6«- — vii: 10.
»fls]ov xoclepyx^elxt] tSs—
nEPITOMHS [O yx^ evt^yno-x; Tlel^u it; Galat, i'l-.s,
unforoXnv rn; 7z-e^iloiJ,n;] evn^yno-e —
THS [_yvvxtx®-', u; xxt 0 X^tr©-' xetpxXn Ephef. v : 23.
rn;] exxXntrtx; —
IIAPArrEAAOMEN [_Ss vf^tv, xSi-A(pot,-evovo-z.Th.'i'n:6—i3
f/txlt rs Kvpts nfJ.'i'V Intfs Xfirs, r£AA£(r9ai VfAX;
XTHO Tsxvl©' xSeXfs oilxxju; 7rt^tT:s-a1svl(^, xxt y.n
xxlxmv "STXpaSoiTiv nv ttrx^eXxps -stx^ nMiv, Av-

88
lot yx^ otSoilevta; Set jM.ijU,£Kr9ai JijW.«f olt ovx nlax^
In'Txy.tv tv v^tv, OvSt Supexv xplov etpxyofAtv
ZTX^a^ Tl^©J, aAA' tv xowu xxt jiAop^Ow vvxlx xxt
n(/,e^xv e^yxl^oiJt,t»pt', -Bj-f (^ to f/,n e'tfft^x^nTxt rtvx
v^uv. Ovx olt ovx ep^o[ji,ev e^strtxv, xXX tvx exv-
rs; rvTsov Su^ev v[ji,tv tt; ro fAty,etir^Ki nf^-ot.;. Kxv
yx^ tils ny-ev ts'p^ v^x;, rslo t!Sxpnyyt7.Xo^tv
vjj.tv, olt tt Ttf s QeXet t^yx^ttr^xt, [jinSt ttr^telu.
AxsofjLiv yxp rtvx; zre^ttsoilsvlx; ev vy.tv xjxxlu;,
[AnSev e^yx^oyevs;, xX'ax' 7!Te^ie^yxl^oy.evs;. Tot;
St roislot; 7ffxpxyytXXoy.ev] xxt —
Heb, ii : i6, EIIIAAM^ANETAI [aAAa! in^rt^iiOil©' A|3f «-
«/* eTs-iXxy^xvelxt] o^ev —
— v. 12. XPEIAN L£p^£l£ TS StSxtfxttv vy,x;, rivxrx^'ot-
^etx rn; oc^^n; ruv Xoytuv rs 9es' xxt yeyovo!l&
X^eixv] e-)(ovle; —
I. Joan, V : 15. OIAAMEN '[_olt xxstt ny-uv, 0 xv xtluye^x,
otSxyev] olt —
Apocal,yM.; I, KE^AAAS \_e7slx xxt xs^oC[x Sixx' xxt ntrt
'rx; xt(fxXx;] xvls—

No, XLII,

APPENDIX.

No. XLII.
pENNADii Patriarchs Gonstantinop. Ex*
poftio pro Concilia Florent. Cap, i.
Accedat igitur veritatis praeco, et confeffor mag
nus, Celebris Athattafius, ut mecum eadem teftifi-
cetur. Hic eniin in confeffione fuse fidei, cujus
principium, " Quicunque vult falvus effe, ante
omnia opus eft ut teneat Catholicam fidem," fic
inquit: Spiritus fanSius, a Patre et Filio, non
fa£lus, nec creatus, nec genitus, fed procedens—
Cum in hunc locum pervenerim, fubiit n^ihi ve-
hementer flere, et in vocem prorumpere cum la»
crymis et ejulatu, et eos deplorare, qui fponte fua
adverfus lucem oculos occludunt et veritati oppug-
nant j nec folum veritati contradicunt, verum etiam
fandiQS ecclefiae dodlores afpernantur ; neque af-
pernantur folum, fed etiam injuria afliciunt.
Quamnam defenfionem, vel commiferationem in-
venient, qui hsec faciunt ? O tuam patientiam,
Christp Rex : quomodo blafphemantium ora
non comburuntur IAthanasium dicere non ve-
rentur ebrium fuiffe ^ & vino appletum, quando hac
fcripft.

APPENDIX. -'
fcfipft. Vere plenus erat fpiritualis poculi, fa-
picntiae, et gratiae ex Spiritus fandti fonte fcaturi-
entis, non ut hi, miferabiles, dicunt. Propitius
fit illis Dominus, ac nobis. Tollatur ab eis haec
imprudentia j nobifque contingat fub Athanafi»
pedibus confiftere I
{Max. Bibl. Patr. Ed, hu^d, 1667, vol.xxvt„
.;..- /. 566,]

INDEX.

ALCUINUS, his MSS and CorreHorium, pages 56, 98
Alter, F, C. profeflbr at Vienna, his communications,
137, 150, 168, 170,337, 380
Anfbert, Ambrofe, 3 1
AmVoXos — what,. 62, 305, 456
Apoftles, original epiftles of, 89-98, 436
Aijuinas, ao, 394
Arian controverfy, this text cited in, 35-42? 47, 382, 452
Avians., accufed of mutilating the Scriptures, 452
Athanafius — dialogue attributed to him, 32, 142-147, 360-363
'  his Synopfis, 51, 1 48- 157, 341 > 403.
Augufiine,. 45, 174, 3SS» 370
Baftl, i62f
Betie, 177, 319, 344
Bengelius, 35, i43> 329» 449» ^c.
Benfon (Dr.)—\as objedions confidered, 70-34S
Bernard (St.) 25
Beza, Theodore, 8, 12 „ „ , „ -
 his connexion with K. Stephens, 185-202
 his firft Greek Teftament printed by R, Stephens^ 196,.

INDEX.
Beza had R. Stephens^ s Greek MSS in pofleffion, 194, '2,^Q->
260
 ^ defended againft Sir Ifaac Newton, 390
Bowyer, Mr, his objeftions confidered, 422
Brafjicanus, his edition of Eucherius, 418
Britannicus Codex, collated by Erajmus himfelf, 263
¦  —  is not the Dublin MS 277
Bryennius., Jofephus, 19
Bugenhagius, 193, 267

Calecas, Emanuel, aO
Calvin, his judgement on the verfe, 196
Canonical Epiftles, Jerome's title, 131
Caryoph'ilus, 314
Cafftodorus, 34, 135
Celedenfis, Marcus, 46, 177
Cerinthians, herefy of, 441
Charenfis, Hugo, 23
Complutenfian Editors, 6, 14
 u-  defended againft Dr; Benfan, 286-305
 — .  ^ —  —,  Sir /. Newton, 393-39^
 Mr. Bowyer, 424
Confitetur, 120
I. Corinth, viii. 6. — how (probably) originally written, 160-173
Cri/5>iV.5 Greek Teftament, 12, 193
Cyprian, 52
 — defended againft Dr. Benfon, 99-128
—  —  Sir I, Newton, 350-355 •
 M.T. Bowyer, 422

D

Damafcenus, 33, J64
Didymus, 344
Doceta, herefy of, 441
Duns Scotus, 21
Durandus, 22, ^O

E Eli-

INDEX. E
Mlipandus, 31
Emlyn, Mr. referred to, 104. i^ alibi paffim
Epiphanius, 162, 358
Erafmus, cenfured, 9, 265-276
• —  his accufation of y^rowze repelled, 372
 his infinuations againft the Codex Britannicus anfwered,
265
'  admits ^(?rfl»ze's preface, 133, 180,268
 quotes this difputed text, 273
 had but one Greek MS when he rejefted this text,
273 . ,
- his tears, as to his pretended Greek MSS, 267
 ¦- was in England in 1516, 263
 collated the Codex Britannicus, 264
Etherius, 31
Eucherius, 42> I04'ii8, 164, 418

Facundus, 107-I18
Fulgentius, 35-9,118-122

Grammatical argument for the authenticity of the paflTage, 447
Gibbon, Mr. — ^general tendency of his publications in refpeiSb
to Chriftianity, 461
Greek Church---\ts Coi\h^\on oi Faith, 61
Gregory the Great, his judgement of Jerome's tranflation, 318
Griejbach — his objedlions anfwered, 406-422

H

Hody, 18, 364 '
Horfley (Dr.) 350, 384
Huneric, 35, 57, 74

J>

INDEX.

Jerome — ^his Tranflation from the Greek text, 43, 138, 174)
364. 369
 — quotes this difputed paflage, 44, 176-179
 defended againft Dr. Benfon, 129-180
 ¦ — '  — Sir /. Newton, 363-380
—  Erafmus, 371
 Griefbach, 421
Ignatius, 162
 internal fenfe of the paffage, 441
Joachim, Abbot, 55, 386

Lateran, Council, 55, 386
Linus, 161
Le Long — confuted, 205-219
Lombard, 23
Louvaine, Divines of, 407
Luther, 193, 198
Lyranus, 20 M
Maffeius, 34
Marcion, 90-96'
Martianay, I30, 1 80
Matthiei, 19, 28, 142, 166
Martin, his controverfy with Emlyn, 105
 his application of the word xpo^s not ridiculous, 434
Marginal interlineation of this text in fome MSS. accounted
for, 342
Maximus, 32, 143
Michaelis, his account of the Armenian verfion difputed, 327-
Montanus, herefy of, 357, 424
MSS Greek— viz.
Dublin, Fac-Simile of, 282
—  defcrlbed, and defended, 277-286
" not the Cadex Britannicus oi Erafmus, 277
MSS

I N D E 3£.
MSS Berlin, Fac-Simile of, 304
 defcrlbed by M, Pappelbaum, 291
 defended, 286-305
in the Royal Library at Paris NOT thofe ufed by R.
Stephens, 204-263
one, in that library (marked No, 60) 361
MS K k at Cambridge, -not the MS »y of R. Stephens,
410
MSS in general neglefled, when they had ferved to
fettle the firfi edition ofthe N. Teft. 437
how many now known to have been extant at ot fince
the date of the Complutenfian edition, 396.
MSS in particular of R. Stephens, how probably loft, 259
compared as to the dialogue afcribed to Athanafius, 145
Latin, viz.
in the Royal Library at Paris, containing the Prologue
oi Jerome, 137 ,
in the fame Library, containing the verfe, 338
in the Libraries at Vienna, containing the Prologue of Je
rome, 137
in the fame Libraries, containing the verfe, 338
in the Library at Dublin, containing the Prologue of Je
rome, 138
in the fame Library, containing the verfe, 338
N
Naaianzen, Gregory — 48, 157-172, 340
Newton, Sir Ifaac,— his objedions confidered, 349-405
Nice, Council of, 416
Nicetas, 166
Nicon, the Armenian, 331 O
Oecumenius, 181, 344
Objeilions, the three principal ones difcuflfed, 426-460
Ordo Romanus, 61 P
Pappelbaum, G. T. his coUeaion of the' Berlin MS 291-305
Perron, Cardinal, 153 Fhoebs'

1 N D E S.
Phcebadius, 47
Preface to the Canonical Epiftles, written hy Jerome, 45, 129-*
180, 421 R
Readings, various, of this text, pkced in one view, 399
Rupert, Abbot, 24 S
Saubertus, 2 90
Sichardus, Johannes, 419
Similar endings in MSS 170, 449
Simon,M,: quoted or referred to, 28, 56, 62, 71, 136, 137, 180,
 contrafted with Sandius, as to the Armenian Verfion,
328
Sorbonne, Dodors of, 198, 201, 243'
Stephens, Robert, 3, 6, 11
' defended againft Dr, Benfon, 1 85-263
 Sir /, Newton, 390
 ;  M. Griefbach, 406-416
 ^  —  Mr. Marfh, 409
I  his MSS fhewn not to be thofe now in the Royal Li
brary at Paris, 206-263
 their (probably) final lofs, 259
' his i«/z« edition of 1549 compared with his Gr^«^ of
1550. 414
Stephens, Henry, 252-260
Strabo, Walafrid, 28, 98, 422
Stunica, 5, 14, 394

7>r/«//;rt«, 53, 75-98,357 V
Valla, Laurentius, 17,267-276,437
Verfions (or Tranflatlons)
Old Italic, 66, 318, 436
Jerome's, 43, 66, 138, 31S
Syriac, 321, 450, {note')
• jVerJiont

INDEX*
Vnjiotis Arnienidn, -65,' 324-332^ 386
Coptic, 324, 380, 450, (note)
Arabic, Ethiopic, Perfic, 323, 385, 454
Frank'tfh, French, 337
Ruffian, Sclavonic, 167, 334
¦' All compared together, as to this difputed text, 333J
435
Viiior Vitenfis, 58, 73, 181-185, 345, 455 (note)
'Vigilius, 39, 409
Ufcan, (or Ofkan) his Armenian Bible, 326
W
Wetfiein, 206, 3 II — his cenfure oi Erafmus, 276
Welfius, 5, 35 X
Ximenes, Cardinal) 6, 311-315 Y
Tcard (Dean) 279, 282, {note) a.83
Z
Zafiriffel, Geo. Sig, de, 260
Zygabenus, Euthymius, 26, 1,40
Zo'ellner, his account of the MS. of Berlin, 291, (note)

SRRATA

ERRATA.

Page Line For •
36 g he
— 14 Holy Spirit
48 note /, xxv

74 4 pHjEbadius
92 note a, occurere
153 84 A new Bible to be copied
out
i6q — I. Bafil
186 note b. 196
194 note p. 1. 20. and
V0f.to9nT«;
200 6 prejudices
S03 6 learning
205 5 or
207 25 ?//^// definire
209 g ten
213 14 MSS
217 note X, 26
222 16 lupouo-aXnju., ov xa> anEtXoii
Io Ispoq•o^U|AOiff* ov ita* wvFtXay
223 JO M5
226 3 a-vpa.'Poii/ta-a-K,
227 6 ix : 2
228 17 EVVUMV
230 7 a
234 I 2
238 6 ii
240 5 auTo«
22 AciotfixeWi
262 »o/e "a;. SS
2^4 no.'e y. editio
267 »o/? c. editionem
296 7 ETojnaai
299 9 <)mo\i
301 9 Ayocalypfe
314 note k, 1. 2. But
369 4 xvii
395 note q, 29O7305
ifO-] note d, MSS now in the Royal '
Library at Far'is
413 23 difagreq

Rtad
be Spirit
xxvi .^a^ increafe the numerals
of reference to the Appendix
by units, in like manner to
XXX, ^, 54,
PHOEBADIUS occu'rrere
I A Bible to be copied ou{-'
I anew
I. Linus
19s
inftead of
»(!JU.oOETtJ3 partialities integrity
and
nihil 4efin,iri
eleven MS 20
lEf^(rciXt;jii.oi;' ov xa» avsiXaj
lEpovo-aXti^, ov xa» MVEtXov
MS
<n<pa $oiv(o-ira
ix: 5
EVVU;;^o»
s s.
Ill auraiv
AaoJjxEiwMSS
edito additioneirv,E9roit1(7a» 3povou
ApocalypfeYet
xviii
315-317 MSS themfelves
agree 43 »

ERRATA,

Page Line
431 23
433 3
43 S »4
438 3
439 note d,
440 19
448 12
466 note

For
fuppofitioU3pofitivelyhad be eam
Celfius

//.afTvimrt
. cael'tutnfaadillime
478 note 0. rifque

Read
fuppoiititious abfolutely
contained Iwve been
eum Celfus
jtiapiopavTEs
ccelitumfcediffiitie rifuque

APPENDIX.
3 3 KAapaia jts^a^aw
59 7 vi (margin) iv
09 27 otVEaJ;^9E(7av avES3y9»)o-«y
72 23 fpaferunt — fphlamata fparferunt-
76 5 after figma add tau
77 25 after that add >i&fr^

-fphalmata

65 note

D E L E N D A,

"the late

225231 233
240
241
310

8 to II
10 12
4 6
19 20
12 19J
3.4-

'inclufive

than he has thus done

33
207215

•2 26

216 note

ADDENDA,
Place a bracket before " one," and another after " Ghoft,"
under Wetfiein — 2871, qui Stephano quartus eft. [ii. p.724.]
after 1 1 ; and conjointly in iii : 3, 20 — v ; 23, 36, — ix : 5
— xiii : 41 — xix : 34 — xx : 8 — xxi : 3 — xxii :
(tivice) — xxiv: 9,20 — and xxv ; 7,
r, 1, 3 XV : 26
s. 2 xvi : 3
/. I after the words, Conjointly alfo-^in Matt, ii :
iii: 8 — v: 44, 47 — vi : 18 — vii: 14 — viii: 5,
ix : 5, 17, 33 — x: 28 — xi : 16 — xii: 6,8,21,35 —
xiii: 33, 40 — xiv: 19 — xvii: 14 — xviii: 6,19,28 —
xix: 9 — xxi: 1,3 — xxii: 7 — xxiii: 36 — xxiv: 17—
xxvi; 55,74 — xxvii: 35,4a — and xxviii ; 19; and 916

12-

II-13-

ad'D«:nda.
ii6 note -tx}, I, 2 after viii ; .5^-13
4 after 35 — ^41
2ig 2 after MS--in his margin of che Apocrflypie
277 note p, after t)/«;pTov — p. 264, note a.
292 18 after 13 — the margin of
308 27 after all — ['for they all read n^nEpai)
309 4 after all — ffor they all read laJaia)
410 7 a iter ly — by
449 4 after fometimes — an

.e^

Hirciiiom to ihe Binder.

Place the Facfimile of the DvMin MS at page iii
• ' ' ' I !¦ Berlin - 304

p^n

'it'.

-•5' ^ *

«>